ML20050C113
| ML20050C113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204080150 | |
| Download: ML20050C113 (3) | |
Text
-t
{'
~
j.
g
'g s
\\
l.j s
i
?
~'
5)
^
UNITED ~3TATP.S OF AMERICA s
.'s NUCLEAR REUULYaORY COMMISSION
('
ATOMIC SAFETY AND L CENSING APPEAL B D
~
t Administrative Judges:
'f U
n.
'^ ' '
j Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Dr. John 11. Buck e,-
3ary J.
Edles
\\
~
\\
)
In the Matter of
)
\\
)
CLEVEL.\\ND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 OL COMPi.NY, ET AL..
)
50-44
)
c)
R 3
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units.'
O 5
)
1 and 2)
)
(t
)
RECE!VED s
APR 7 1982e b
--ORDER e amorme ema.
I EXX11 >W; siM M April 2, 19.82 rec
,N g\\
h'e received yesterday a letter from counsel for
/
' in'tervenors Sunflower Alliance, Inc., et al., informing us that "(p]er an agreement with.
Counsel for Applicant, the undersigned has been granted until April 16, 1982 to respond to Applicant's Motion for Directed Certification."
Under the NRC's Rules of Practice, however, it is the Commission or its surrogates (in this instance, the Appeal Board) -- not the parties -- that grant or deny extension requests.
10 CFR 2.711 (a), 2.785 (b) (1).
The accepted vehicle for such a request is a motion that (1) specifies the grounds for-the extension sought, (2) states whether each of the other parties to the appeal objects or consents to the motion, and (3) contains a proof of service on all parties.
8204000150 820402 PDR ADOCK 05000440
$f G
(
C.
1 2
See 10 CFR 2.730 (b),
- 2. 712 (e).
A stipulation among all.
parties may also be submitted for Commission or board approval.
On the other hand, a letter
~
addressed to the " Gentlemen" of the Appeal Board and providing no reason whatsoever for the extension will not suffice.
Board action on extension requests is not a meaning-less formality.
While it is our practice to encourage the parties to confer on such matters and reach some unanimous agreement before seeking our approval, we have no intent to relinquish our control over 'che course and pace of a pro-cceding pending before us.
Further, no party should ever assume that the agreement of the othe parties, by itself, will guarantee our approval.
The nature of the matter on appeal and the state of our own docket are matters we weigh in making all procedural rulings.$-!
1 /
For example, the matter at hand is applicant's motion for directed certification, which, by its
~~~
very nature, arises in the midst of an ongoing licensing proceeding.
Thus, there is a premium on its expeditious disposition.
?.
't 3
'As for the particular letter in question, we construe it as a motion for a nine-day extension.S ! Because it lacks any explanation about the need for the additional time, we would ordinarily deny it.
But because the extension apparently will not unduly delay either the matter before us or the proceedings below,2 / we will grant the request.
Although intervenor does not appear to have consulted the NRC staff for its view, we shall extend the date for the staff's filing until April 16 as well.
Intervenor's letter-request for an extension of time until April 16, 1982, in which to respond to applicant's motion for directed certification is granted.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 0.
% $=,;=W C. JQn Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board Dr. Buck-did not participate in this order.
--2/
We trust that intervenor's future filings will conform to the requirements of the Rules of Practice.
3/
Our records show that no hearings before the Licensing
~~'
Board are' scheduled at this time, although discovery is under way.
l