ML20041B482
| ML20041B482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202240106 | |
| Download: ML20041B482 (5) | |
Text
.
2/22/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0r'!11SSION sn (o
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN5ING BOARD 3
g OS L
%g ~n*/V N
In the flatter of
)
8
- O g
)
\\
S HOUSTON LIGHTIl1G AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-46
)
Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
\\ /
\\
Station, Unit 1)
)
R MI NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO TEXPIRG'S liOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE PROPOSED FTilDIflGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSI0flS OF LAW On February 9, 1982, TexPirg filed a motion requesting an additional thirty (30) days to file its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
As indicated in TexPirg's motion, NRC Staff counsel would not orally agree to this extension of time when requested previously by telephone from Mr. James Morgan Scott, Jr., counsel for TexPirg. After reviewing the instant motion and the TexPirg submissions of February 12, 1982, purported to be findings of fact and conclusions of law, we still object to any extension of the originally scheduled filing date and, accordingly, submit that the Board should deny this motion for the reascns set forth below.
First, it is abundantly clear that TexPirg as well as all other intervenors were given ample time to submit proposed findings pursuant to the schedule adopted by the Board (Tr.19875). This schedule was originally proposed jointly by the Applicant and Staff on October 30, 1981 with full recognition that this record has been lengthy and that all DESIGMIED ORICIML8202240106 820222 Certificq ry j-fi M [ h 7'_.
goaanocxosooog 7
. parties should be given sufficient time to file findings.
See " Joint Motion of Applicant and Staff to Establish a Schedule to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law", dated October 30, 1981~.
Accordingly, it was proposed to give intervenors 65 days from the close of the record with which to file their findings instead of the 40 ' days allowed by 10 C.F.R. s 2.754(6)(2). Additionally, the proposed schedule gave intervenors the option of responding to specific Applicant and Staff findings instead of filing original findings of fact on each issue. This option, which is also a deviation from the findings' schedule set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.754(a), was intended to substantially lessen the work load of intervenors in writino their findings in light of the extensive record of the proceeding. Thus, the adopted filing schedule has already been extended in consideration of the length of this hearing record and with due regard to fairness to all parties.
Mr. Scott also alludes to the fact that 65 days from the close of' the record is not sufficient time to review over 20,000 pages of hearing record. This observation, however, ignores the substantial time available during the course of the proceeding to review the record as it developed and draft proposed findings as each issue was completed.
In addition, such an argument implies that TexPirg plans to submit proposed findings on all issues placed in controversy as opposed to those issues sponsored by TexPirg and actively pursued during litigation.
Finally, Mr. Scott has not set forth sufficient good cause to grant the additional 30 days requested. A general allegation that 65 days are not " sufficient" in light of the lengthy record is insufficient to extend
, the filing period when viewed in the context of the considerations of fairness that went into the originally adopted filing schedule.
[1r. Scott made no argument at the time the schedule was adopted that 65 days would be insufficient and he points to no new development which could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the Board adopted the schedule. That filing schedule has given the intervenors 25 more days to' file proposed findings than that allowed by the Commission's current regulations.
Mr. Scott was placed on notice three months ago what the filing schedule was and he should have used his best efforts throughout this period to meet it. Mr. Scott's effort to seek additional time reflects his continued disorganization in this proceeding and a disregard 4
of established filing schedules.
In addition, this belated attempt to delay the orderly conclusion n# this proceeding is unfair to the other intervenors who have made every effort to meet established schedules and, finally, is against the public interest to ensure an orderly, efficient, and expeditious licensing process.
For these very strong reasons, this motion must be denied.
Respectfully submitted, b
L, Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of February, 1982.
E
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10fl BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1
HOUSTON LIGHTING AllD POWER COMPAN) )
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPCNSE IN OPPOSITION TO TEXPIRG'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 22nd day of February,1982.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Susan Plettman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor i
Route 3, Box 350A City of Wallis, TX 77485 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Hon. John R. Mikeska Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Austin County Judge l
Administrative Judge P.O. Box 310 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Bellville, TX 77418 l
Board Panel l_
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John F. Doherty i
4327 Alconbury Street J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Houston, TX 77021 i
Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza Mr. William J. Schuessler Houston, TX 77002 5810 Darnell Houston, TX 77074 e
.-. - - _..,. ~
4 i
Jack Newman, Esq.
D. Marrack Lowenstein, Reis, Newman &
420 flulberry Lane Axelrad Bellaire, TX 77401 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A. McCorkle c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
6140 Darnell 13935 Ivymount Houston, TX 77074 Sugarland, TX 77478 11r. Wayne Rentfro Rosemary N. Lemer P.O. Box 1335 11423 Oak Spring Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Leotis Johnston Carro Hinderstein 1407 Scenic Ridge Houston Bar Center Houston, TX 77043 723 Main Suite 500 Houston, TX 77002 fiargaret Bishop U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission J. Morgan Bishop Region IV, I&E 11418 Oak Spring 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77043 Arlington, TX 76011 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Bryan L. Baker Pollan, Nicholson & Doggett 1923 Hawthorne P.O. Box 592 Houston, TX 77098 Rosenberg, TX 77471 Robin Griffith Carolina Conn 1034 Sally Ann 1414 Scenic Ridge Rosenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Mr. Willian Perrenad Atomic Safety and Licensing 4070 Merrick Board Panel
- Houston, TX 77025 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 t214 Ri :hard L.iilylac <
Counsel foV NRC Staff
_J