ML20052G882
| ML20052G882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1982 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205190115 | |
| Download: ML20052G882 (9) | |
Text
-
i l
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
=
HOUSTON LIGHTING AtlD POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-498 ET AL.
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMMISSION ORDER OF 11AY 6, 1982 Edwin J. Reis Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel May 18, 1982 DESIGNATED ORIGINAL d/
Certified By j
SERSi38cd'o!$881a bc)2
~
W
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
CEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of I
o HOUSTON LIGHTING AtlD POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-498
- 51. AL.
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
L i
1 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR EXTENSION i
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMMISSION ORDER OF MAY 6, 1982 Edwin J. Reis 4
Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel May 18, 1982
'd
.~.
UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-498
_ET _AL.
50-499
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMMISSION ORDER OF MAY 6, 1982 1.
INTRODUCTION On May 9, 1982, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Safety (CCANP) filed a " Motion For Extension of Time To Respond To Commission Order Of May 6,1982" seeking to extend its time to file briefs. The Commission Order stated that the Commission would review "on an expedited basis" the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board removal of Judge Ernest Hill and requires that briefs of the parties be in the hands of the Commission within 15 days of the date of the May 6,1982 Order, and reply briefs in the hands of the Commission within 25 days of the date of the Order, or May 21, 1982 and June 1,1982,3/ respectively. CCANP by its motion seeks
~
to extend its time to file its original and reply briefs until May 28, and June 7, 1982. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the NRC Staff opposes this motion.
1/
May 31, 1982, is a Federal Holiday.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.710.
t II. DISCUSSION The Commission in its May 6,1982 Order provided tha't the parties should brief this matter relating to the disqualification of Judge Hill "on an expedited basis." The Commission in Houston Lighting and Power Co.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI-80-32,12 NRC 284, 291-292 (1980),
provided that issues in this proceeding relating to Applicants' competence and character should be accorded " expeditious treatment" and should be the subjects of an "early" and separate decision in this operating license proceeding.
It stated that:
We believe that the above issues relating to technical competence and to character permeate the pleadings filed by Citizens. They do deserve a full adjudicatory hearing, as they will no doubt get in the operating license proceeding, and they do deserve expeditious treatment because they could prove disqualifying. Accordingly, we agree that the Licensing Board in the operating license pro-ceeding should proceed with its expedited hearing on the quality control-related issues (including the allegations of false statements in the FSAR).
As the Board has already determined to proceed in this manner, no formal order is necessary. However, we expect the Board to look at the broader ramifi-cations of these charges in order to determine whether, if proved, they should result in denial of the operating license application.
For this reason, we are ordering the Board to issue an early and separate decision on this aspect of the operating license proceeding.
[ Footnote omitted]
12 NRC at 291-292.
These issues have been subject to the hearing process since that time.
The Licensing Board had tentatively scheduled hearings to conclude this expedited phase of the South Texas operating license proceedings for the weeks of June 2,15 and 21, and July 6,1982. The Licensing Board has
i further indicated that it will not hold these hearings if Judge Hill's statusisnotdeterminedbythosedates.U In view of the presently es-tablished briefing schedule before the Comission, t'he Licensing Board h' as already cancelled the hearings that were to take place the week of June 2, 1982. See Order, May 14, 1982. Granting CCANP's motion to delay
' the f.iling of briefs might well affect the hearings scheduled forthe weeks of June 15 and June 21, 1982 as well.
Such delay would be incon-sistent with the Comission's previous position that the first phase of the South Texas operating license proceeding be concluded on an expedited basis.
12NRCat295-292.
The standard for granting an extension of time is " good cause."
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.711(a); Louisiana Power & Licht Co., (Waterford
~
Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-117, 6 AEC 261, 262 (1973).
No good cause appears'here. CCANP's reason for wishing an extension of the briefing schedule is that its representative, Lanny Sinkin, has law school examinations scheduled through May 13, 1982. Th'is still leaves over a week in which to meet the established deadline. Moreover, many persons appearing before the Comission have conflicts in schedules.
Whether these conflicts be the demands of other proceedings, of other occupations, of the cares of running a home and raising children, or of going to school makes no difference. When one elects to take part in a Commission proceeding, one takes on the duties and responsibilities of meeting the times set in Comission orders. As stated in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuciear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, 748 (1978):
2/
See Order (Cancelling Hearings), May 14, 1982.
/
The orderly functioning of the administrative process scarcely would be furthered were we to allow parties to our proceedings simply to ignore prescribed time limits whenever it suited their convenience to do so. We therefore must insist that those limits be honored. This is true even if, as here, the party happens to be represented by a nonlawyer.
In some respects, we do relax our rules to accommodate the fact that a party may not have the benefit of counsel. See Detroit Edison a
Com)any (Enrico Fermi t.tomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
ALA3-469, 7 NRC 470, 471 (April 26, 1978), and cases there cited.
But no good reason exists why a double standard should obtain insofar as observance of deadlines is concerned. A nonlawyer has no less capability than does a member of the Bar to ap-prehend when a document is due for filing (particularly if he has been expressly so inforned) and then to act accordingly. [ Footnote omitted]
Although CCANP has not here defaulted as the Intervenor in the cited case, the fcct tiiat CCANP's representative may be engaged in other activities during a portion of time set for the preparation of briefs does not in the circumstances here existing provide a ground to extend CCANP's time to file such briefs. Cf. NRC " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings," 46 Fed. Reg. 28533, 28534, 13 NRC 452, 454 (1981).
't e
j l
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons CCANP's motion for an. extension of time to replytotheCommissionorderofMay6,1982,shouldbedenied.$/
Respectfully submitted, Edwin J. R s Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of May, 1982.
3/
The Applicants in their reply to this motion have suggested that should the Commission grant the extension sought by Intervenor, the Commission should also direct the Licensing Board to proceed with the hearings herein on a quorum basis while the matter of Judge Hill's status is determined. The Staff would have no objection to such a direction.
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY IOMMISSION BEFORE THE CON 11SSION In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY,)
Docket Nos. 50-498
_ET _AL.
)
50-499
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCANP MOTIO.N FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMMISSION ORDER OF MAY 6, 1982" 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 18th day of May, 1982:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Mr. Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Appeal Board University of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 808, L-123 Washington, DC 20555 Livermore, CA 94550 Dr. John H. Buck, Member
- Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker and Botts Appeal Board One Shell Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, TX 77002 Washington, DC 20555 Christine N. Kohl
- Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Atomic Safety and Licensing Executive Director Appeal Board Citizens for Equitable Utilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inc.
Washington, DC 20555 Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, TX 77422 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Brian Berwick, Esq.
Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
~
Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C.- Lamb III Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514
1 2-Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Samuel J. Chilk
- Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Secretary of the Comission Axelrad & Toll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Barbara A. Miller Board Panel
- Pat Coy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Washington, DC 20555 Power 5106 Casa Oro Atomic Safety and Licensing San Antonio, TX 78233 Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Docketing and Service Section*
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Mr. Lanny Sinkin Suite 506 Citizens Concerned About Washington, D.C.
20006 Nuclear Power 2207 D. Nueces Austin, TX 78705 N
Edwin J. Reji Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel 9
e
.