ML20041C491
| ML20041C491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1982 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8203020069 | |
| Download: ML20041C491 (2) | |
Text
.
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'82 pgg 23 P2:15 Before Administrative Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman m '.
~
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum
.. ; n
~'
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
SERVED FEB 251982 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466-CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
February 25:, 198 Station, Unit 1)
)
)
b RECEVEQ MAR 011982>
~
(Granting TexPirg Mot o or Additional Time) 8"
'b On February 9,1982, TexPirg filed a Motion For Add g '/
Time To File Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law.
Therein, because of the large record in this case, this Intervenor requests a thirty (30) day extension of time from February 12, 1982 to March 15, 1982 within which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.* TexPirg's counsel advised that he has been unable to contact Applicant's counsel and that Staff's counsel would not agree to the requested extension of time.
~~
We note that on February 12, 1981, TexPirg filed a typewritten submission captioned Additional TexPirg's Proposed Findings of Fact And Conclusions Of Law.
Therein, this Intervenor set forth sixteen proposed findings and the two conclusions of law relating to TexPirg's Contention 1.
For some unexplained reason, TexPirg also submitted a photostatic copy of a document written in ink and captioned TexPirg's Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law.
This latter document cites various hearing dates and transcript pages, identifies witnesses, and summarizes testimonies and the Board's rulings. The last page h
'y0 4 d i e2o3o20069 s2o225 PDR ADOCK 05000466 i
G PDR
.. In responses filed on February 22, 1982, Applicant and Staff respectively opposed the instant Motion.
In allowing all Intervenors sixty-five days from the closing of the record within which to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board believed it was being indeed generous.
While no other Intervenor has requested an extension of time, we do recognize that the record is quite extensive and that TexPirg's counsel has apparently made a good f aith effort to review the record.
While the Board grants the instant Motion, no further extensions of time will be granted.
TexPirg must file its submission by no later than March 15, 1982. Applicant shall have five (5) days after TexPirg has filed its submission within which to file reply findings and the Staff shall have ten (10) days after TexPirg has filed its submission within which-to file reply findings.
IT IS S0 ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M*' \\
k SheldonJ[JIolfe ADMINISTRKTIVE JUDGE e
'[ CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE]
' reflects the inked-in insertion "I need more time - Please!!" If this
~
latter document was submitted in support of its instant Motion to indicate that TexPirg had been able to review the record only through transcript page 12955 and thus that it needs additional time to file more proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, we accept the filing of said document for that purpose.
However, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.709, the Board rejects and does not permit the filing of this document if TexPirg intended that it represent its initial prcposed findings of fact and conclusions of law because it does not comply with the requirements of s 2.708 and 2.754(c), and of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 2.