ML20033F143
| ML20033F143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1990 |
| From: | Saporito T NUCLEAR ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10012 90-602-01-OLA-5, 90-602-1-OLA-5, OLA-5, NUDOCS 9003160122 | |
| Download: ML20033F143 (7) | |
Text
/DD 19-i i
I
'I i
CDCKC1tb UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 30 tmR -5 P5:52 l
I Before Administrative Judgea QFOCE OF SECeETARY i
Peter B. Bloch, Chair v0Ch[1pr, A quver; Dr. George C. Anderson eb2CH
{
Elizabeth B. Johnson
.In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-5 l
)
50-251-OLA-5 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
)
COMPANY
)
Technical Specifications Turkey Point Plant
)
Replacement (Unit Nos. 3 and 4)
)
)
ASLBP No. 90-602-01-OLA-5 Facility Operating
)
Licenses Nos. DPR-31 DPR-41 )
l
)
i OBJECTION TO ORDER i
COMES NOW, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., ano the Nuclear Energy i
Accountability Project (NEAP), hereinafter (" Petitioners"), and file this objection to the method of filing, on the part of Petitioners, as required by the Order of the Board.
On February 26,
- 1990, Petitioners took receipt of a
i February 21, 1990 Order from the ASLB authorized to preside over I
the above-styled proceedings.
This Order was the result of an agreement reached between the parties involved in this l
proceeding, at the request of the Petitioners, for an extension 1
of time to file their amended petition and contentions relevant to these proceedings.
As previously noted in other pleadings, Petitioners are not represented by counsel and are litigating these matters Pro se.
After a careful reading of the aforementioned Order, Petitioners I
J 9003160122 900227 gDR ADDCK 050 O
cp3
t i,
5 observed a
footnote at page one of the Order which made the requirement upon the Petitioners to have their filing in the hands of the Board and parties on the date of March 5, 1990.
Petitioners profusely object to this unf air and unequitable treatment which was not extended to all parties.
Only Petitioners were required by this Order to have their filings received by the Board and the parties on the deadline date specified in the Order as applicable to all parties' filings.
Petitioners had contacted the other parties and established an agreement that Petitioners' filings would be reauired to be expressed mailed on March 5, 1990 and not received by the Board and the parties on March 5, 1990.
Petitioners' reason for the filing time extension was for Petitioners to be provided the weekend of March 3rd and 4th and this fact was made known to the parties and agreed to by the parties.
Petitioners note here that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714 (b),
not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the special prehearing conference pursuant to 2.751a, or where no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference, the petitioner shall file a supplement to his petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which petitioner-seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity...
Petitioners assert here that in accordance with the regulations delineated
- above, Petitioners should have been permitted until March 8,
1990 to submit their filings in this proceeding.
2
In the Board's Memorandum and Order dated February 5,
- 1990, at page '2 the Board stated:
"The filing deadline diverges from that contained in the regulations for operating license cases.
This divergence is a
long-established practice of licensing boards, which have found that the ordinary regulatory schedule results-in unproductive "special" prehearing conferences because the Applicant's response is due within five days of the "Special" Prehearing Conference.
Since a
purpose of the conference is to permit petitioners to rebut the arguments filed against
- them, this does not provide adequate time within which they (and the Board) may study the arguments and prepare for the Prehearing.
Sam 10 CFR 2.711(a); Houston Lichtina and Power (Allens Creek)
ALAB-564, 10 NRC 451 (1979); General Electric Co.
(GETR Vallecitios).
LBP-83-19, 17 NRC 573, 578 (1983).
Petitioners assert here that the majority of historical NRC Administrative Proceedings follow the regulations as set out in-10 C.F.R. 2.174 (b).
It is niether Congressional nor Commission policy to exclude parties because the niceties of pleadings were imperfectly observed.
See South Texas. ALAB-549. suora. 9 NRC at 650.
This Board would have Petitioners believe that the Board took an exception to the regulations for consideration of the hearing scheduling time frames.
The Board should have intially l
3 l
established the hearing schedule in accordance with the regulations which would have provided Petitioners (15) days prior to the Spocial Prehearing Conference in which to file their amended paYition and contentions.
Nonetheless, this Board chose te first establish a
hearing schedule and then set a deadline for which Petitioners were denied ample time to prepare their. filing pursuant to the regulatioris.
On February 8,
- 1990, Petitioners filed a
Motion for Extension of Time until March 20, 1990.
The Board granted Petitoners a time extension but only uniti March 1, 1990 stating reasons to keep with the current hearing schedule.
The Board's Order,.
in a footnote at 2, also stated that Petitioners had not indicated any effort tc. approach Applicant about their need for an extension of time.
Petitioners would again state that they are not represented by counsel and were guided solely by the rules delineated in 10 C.F.R.
and these rules do not indicate such contact is required or necessary.
Nonetheless, Petitioners did contact the r
Applicant after reading the Board's Order, and requested an additional time extension which the Applicant would not agree to for any reason.
Subsequently, Petitioners contacted the Honorable Judge Bloch and apprised him of Petitioners concerns and that Petitioners would attempt to meet the March 1, 1990 filing date but really needed more time.
At the suggestion of the Honorable Judge
- Bloch, Petitioners contacted the Applicant and NRC Staff and reached an agreement for a
time extension up to and including March 5,
1990 at which time Petitioners would be 4
)
L
-t l
required to file their amended petition and contentions.
On February 21,
- 1990, Pet 1tioners filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of Time Extension.
This motion was based on the agreement reached between the parties and provided for the i
keeping of the current hearing dates.
- Finally, Petitioners note here that they identified the term
" filing" on the February 21, 1990 motion as meaning "that the document must be in the hands of the Board and the-parties on the date specified, or_that the document is placed in the hands
'of an overnight delivery service.
This very same definition of
" filing" was noted in the Applicant's letters to the Board dated February 12, 1990 and February 20, 1990.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.710, in computing any period of
- time, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not included.
The last day of the period so computed is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday at the place where the action or event is to occur, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor holiday...
This Order by the Board extremely and adversely affects Petitioners ability to properly and effectively file their amended petition and contentions.
Additionally, this Order by the Board will provide for Petitioners to incur additional expenses as they will now have to express mail their filings on March 3,
- 1990, to ensure a March 5, 1990 delivery, and this Saturday pick-up will cost Petitioners extra monies in addition to the standard express mailing costs.
Petitioners have little 5
7
r l
l resources being a non-profit organization funded solely through i
L public donations and these additional costs adversely affect Petitioners.
Petitioners are simply shocked and dismayed with the Board's apparent lack of sensitivity and concern regarding this matter and it would appear that this Board's comments at page 1 f
of their February 5, 1990 Memorandum and Order stating, "We urge the participants to join us in this spirit of respect, both for l
k
[
one - another and for the Board.",
were not' written with the sincerety that Petitioners had once believed.
I Because Petitioners simply are now without time to pursue any resolution to this matter in a
favorable manner to I
Petitioners, Petitioners will attempt to comply with the Board's l
latest Order and meet the filing deadline of March 5, 1990 meaning that the Petitioners filings must be in the hands of the Board and the parties on that date.
4 e
4
~
Respectfully submitt r
~
s i
f
- ^ ?
\\
j*
s.
l Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr.
i Executive Director, NEAP j
cc: Service Sheet Dated this 27th day of February, 1990 in Jupiter, Florida.
l 6
i
00thEIED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V5NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 10 nm -5 P5 53 Before Administrative Judges Peter B. Bloch, Chair qrricf 0F !ECRl:IARY Dr. George C. Anderson uGCKEltHG A M itVILL DRANG Elizabeth B. Johnson In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-5
)
50-251-OLA-5 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
)
COMPANY
)
Technical Specifications Turkey Point Plant
)
Replacement (Unit Nos. 3 and 4)
)
)
ASLBP No. 90-602-01-OLA-5 Facility Operating
)
Licenses Nos. OPR-31, DPR-41 )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
hereby certify that copies of Petitioners' "OBJETION TO ORDER" in the above captioned proceeding, were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below.
Honorable Peter B. Bloch, Chair Janica E. Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Patricia A. Jehle, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Honorable Dr. George C. Anderson John T. Butler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Steel, Hector & Davis 450 Vista Chino, Apt. 2015 4000 Southeast Fin. Center Palm Springs, CA 92262 Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Elizabeth B. Johnson Steven P. Frantz, Esq.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
P.O. Box 2008 1615 L Street, N.W.
Bethel Valley Road, Bldg. 3500 Suite 1000 Mail Stop 6010 Washington, D.C. 20036 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety / Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Original plus two copies.
.1 Dated this 27th day of February, Thomas Jf' Sap &rito,#"Jr 1990 at Jupiter, Florida.
Executive Director, NEAP l
1