ML20032B341
| ML20032B341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Black R, Copeland J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111050450 | |
| Download: ML20032B341 (9) | |
Text
-_
I 2
j-Oct6ber in DOCKETED USNRC g
- )! ~
\\
jli kW -2 P2:39 UNITzD STATES Or AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E;
NOV0 41981-9).
OFFCE OF S{gifp'd5E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING
- Q m*8 DOCKEUNG DRANCH fyh In the Matter of S
s
\\p, S
n
. HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-S (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S
Station, Unit No. 1)
S JOINT MOTION OF APPLICANT AND STAFF TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In its Order of September 22, 1981, the Board has scheduled evidentiary hearings in.this proceeding for the weeks of October 26-30, November 16-20 and December 7-11.
After these hearings are concluded, it is anticipated that the record in this proceeding will be closed.
In order to give the parties ample notice of a schedule for filing proposed findings of fact ~and conclusions of law under 10 CFR Section 2.754, Applicant and Staff submit this joint motion which requests the Board to establish a post-hearing briefing schedule.
I.
Applicant and Staff believe that it is extremely important for the Board to establish'a post-hearing briefing schedule at this time rather than waiting until the close of 3
1[)SO the evidentiary hearings to decide this matter.
We urge that y
all parties be put on notice now that subsequent to the close e i of the evidentiary hearings, they will be required within a specific time period to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues which have been tried in this 8111050450 811030 gDRADOCK 05000466 PDR
. proceeding.
By establishing the schedule now, the parties will know when their findings are due and can plan according to that schedule.
In the past, intervening parties in this proceeding have requested extensions of time within which to complete certain filings.
Accordingly, if a' briefing schedule other than that provided for in 10 CFR S 2.754 is established by the Board, it is imperative that such schedule be established at this time so that future dates can be strictly adhered to by all the parties.
In addition, the evidentiary hearings in this proceed-ing have lasted approximately one year and any unnecessary delay in reaching a final decision due to an extended post hearing briefing schedule would not be in accordance with either Commission policy or the public interest.
Indeed, the Board has recognized that it must proceed as expeditiously as possible towards reaching an initial decision ~in this case, taking into account the rights as well as the responsibilities imposed upon the parties by the Commission's rules and regulations.
This course of action is consistent with the provisions of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 2, as well as the Commission's recent Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings
~
(46 Fed. Reg. 28533, May 27, 1981) wherein the Commission stated that " Individual adjudicatory boards are encouraged to expedite the hearing process by using those management methods s
already contained in Part 2 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations."
46 Fed. Reg. at 28534.
II.-
ThefCommission has recently' amended'10 CFR S 2.754 which. sets-forth the time periods for filing proposed findings 4
of fact and conclusions of law (see: 46 Fed. Reg. 30328,
- June 8, 1981).
Prior'to'these'recent amendments, the' time periods allowed by 5 2.754, were as[follows:
(1)
Within-20 days of the close of the record, Applicant ~would file proposed findings; (2)
Within 30 days after the close of the record, 1
other parties would file'porposed' findings; (3)
Within 40 days of the.close of the record, the NRC Staff would file its proposed findings.
The June-8 amendments to this rule extended the time' periods.
to give Applicant 30 days, intervening parties 40 days, and the NRC Staff 50 days,' after the close of the record to file proposed findings.
The Commission felt that these time periods were "more realistic."
(46 Fed. Reg. at 30330.)
However, the Commission stated that:
Although boards are authorized to deviate from this suggested schedule, it is expected that absent special circumstances, including considerations of fairndss, the boards will not authoize use of a more 1
extended filing schedule.
i
'46 Fed. Reg. at 30330.
In order to facilitate review of the record by the Board, and thereby to expedite the time for reaching an j.
initial decision, Applicant and Staff will attempt to
.. - -,.. -, _.. ~.
. coordinate their efforts in filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on both environmental and health and safety issues.
Such coordination will avoid duplicative findings on those issues which the Staff and the Applicant have no disagreement.
In this regard, the Applicant intends to adopt, to the extent possible, the Staff's proposed findings on environmental matters.
LiPewise, the Staff intends to adopt, to the extent possible, the Applicant's proposed findings on health and safety matters.
Thus, in preparing its initial decision, the Board will have essentially one document from the Applicant and the Staff to review which will contain their proposed findings on all of the issues in the case.
Accordingly, we request that 30 days after the close of the record in this proceeding, Applicant be required to file its proposed health and safety findings and the Staff be required to file its proposed environmental findings.
Within 15 days after these filings (45 days after the close of the record), the Applicant will file its environmental findings which will adopt the Staff's environmental findings, with any appropriate additions deemed necessary. On this same date, the Staff will file its health and safety findings which will adopt the Applicant's health and safety findings, with any appropriate changes deemed necessary..These time periods, with one exception, are within the time periods allowed by S 2.754 (a).
That exception involves Applicant's environmental findings; however, as noted above, these findings will for the most part simply adopt the Staff's environmental findings.
L
. Applicant.and Staff anticipate that intervening parties will request additional time to file their proposed findings beyond the 40 days now allowed by S 2.754 (a) (2).
Rather than argue at this time whether "special circumstances" exist in this case which would warrant an extension.of time, Applicant and Staff would have no objection to the Board setting a schedule of 65 days from the close of the record for intervening parties to file their proposed findings in light of the extensive record in this proceeding.
Applicant and Staff believe that a 65 day time period is more than sufficient time for intervenors'to file their proposed findings.
First of all, intervenors will have the Staff's environmental and health and safety findings (as mentioned above, the latter ones will adopt Applicant's findings to the greatest extent practical) some 30 and 15 days, respectively, prior to the time that they are required to file their proposed findings.
This can only benefit intervenors by giving them the opportunity to rebut the Staff's findings, an opportunity which they would not otherwise have.
Secondly, as the Board is well aware, not all of the intervenors have participated in this proceeding, and indeed, many of the intervenors have not even attended the hearing in which their own contentions were being tried.
Accordingly, not every intervenor will need or even want to brief every issue in this case.
As to these intervenors, 65 days.is far more than adequate since they will need substantially less time to complete their proposed findings i
. than an intervenor who has participated in the hearings on all of the issues.
As provided in S 2.754 (a) (3), Applicant would have the right to file reply findings within five days after intervenors have filed their proposed findings.
The Staff requests that it be allowed to file reply findings within 10 days after intervenors have filed their proposed findings.
Under the time periods in 5 2.754 (a), the Staff would normally have intervenors proposed findings in hand 10 days before its findings were due, thus affording the Staff the opportunity to rebut intervenors' findings.
The Staff wishes to retain this opportunity.
III.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant and Staff respectfully move the Board to issue an order requiring (1) the Applicant to submit its health and safety findings, and the Staff to submit its environmental findings within 30 days after the close of the record in this proceeding; (2) the Scaff to submit its health and safety findings, and the l
Applicant to submit its environmental findings, within 45 days after the close of the record; (3) intervening parties
.to submit their findings within 65 days after the close of the record; (4) Applicant to submit reply findings within 5 days after the submittal of intervenors' findings; and (5) i Staff to submit reply findings within 10 days after the submittal of intervenors' -findings.
\\
.. Respectfully submitted, A
. Gr y
pel,aind ~
ttor Applicant Houston Lig ing & Power Co.
Richard I! Vlack Attdrney for the NRC Staff k'
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S
S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S
Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S
Station, Unit 1)
S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Appli-cant's Reply to Doherty Motion for Additional Evidence on TexPirg Additional Contention No. 31 in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 36//.
day of & Jo, 1981.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Hon. Charles J. Dusek Atomic Safety and Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O. Box 312 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
20555 Hon. Leroy H. Grebe Dr.
E. Leonard Cheatum County Judge, Austin County Route 3, Box 350A P. O. Box 99 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licencing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Susan Plettman Richard Black David Preister Staff Counsel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D. C.
20555 i
]
.i
\\
=
\\
Bryan L. Baker Brenda McCorkle 1118 Montrose 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77019 Houston, Texas 77074 J. Morgan Bishop W. Matthew Perrenod 11418 Oak Spring 4070 Merrick-Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77025 Stephen A. Doggett Wayne E. Rentfro P. O.
Box 592 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 John F. Doherty William Schuessler 4327 Alconbury 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77021 Houston, Texas 77074 Carro Hinderstein James M. Scott 609 Fannin, Suite 521 13935 Ivy Mount Houston, Texas 77002 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 A MJ/
. Gr ppfand
,. _ _... __