ML20054L953
| ML20054L953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1982 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207090098 | |
| Download: ML20054L953 (3) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'82,
?1 50 Before Administrative Juoges:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman :-
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon BERVED JUL 81982 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-155-0LA (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant)
July 8, 1982 MEMORANDUM (Staff Motion to Reconsider Schedule for Findings)
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing conducted in early June, the Board adopted a schedule for the filing of findings of f act.
Staff has asked us to reconsider the schedule, which alters the ordinary regulatory schedule for filing findings of fact, in which applicant has 30 days after the record is closed, intervenors have 40 days and the staff has 50 days, followed by five days for applicant to reply.
10 CFR s2.754(a).
Since the hearing concluded on June 12 and the record was closed on issues fully considered at the hearing, the schuedule we are asked to recon-sider permits us to begin writing findings well before the customary 55 days elapse.
One reason for the expedition is that staff's traditional 10 days of grace is deleted. The adopted schedule follows:
Contention Findings Replies Emergency planning pamphlet 6/25/82 7/08/82 EIA 7/16/82 8/05/82 Cask Drop 7/16/82 8/05/82 Administrative Controls (Crane) 7/30/82 8/19/82 Other Emergency Planning Issues 7/30/82 8/19/82 TMI Issues 8/16/82 9/07/82 8207090098 920709 DR ADOCK 05000
}g g
Reconsideration: 2 Staff's principal reason for opposing the schedule is that it calls for simultaneous findings of fact, contrary to a position taken in a portion of the statement of considerations for 2.754(a).
37 Fed. Reg.15127 (July 18, 1972).
That statement of considerations supports the decision in the rule to permit staff to consider the position of other parties before fina-lizing its position.
Although Christa-Maria et al. have supported staff's position, we are not convinced of its merit.
We accept applicant's view that 2.754 permits the Board to vary its regularly provided procedures.
Our reasons for vary-ing the procedure were stated on the record, and include concern for expedi-tion and the desirability of obtaining an independent statement of staff views.
Tr. 2605-2608.
Furthermore, the schedule for replies provides the staff the oppcrtunity to review other parties' filings and revise its views, if necessary.
We believe that the phased schedule for simultaneous filings will expedite our decision and that it establishes a fair schedule that allows each party an equal opportunity to influence the outcome.
See Tr. 2605-08.
There is no persuasive reason to disturb the adopted schedule, which we laboriously crafted, and to construct a new schedule.
Instead, it will be fair and efficient for us to adhere to the course we adopted.
ORDER l
For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 8th day of July,1982, ORDERED The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's Motion for Reconsideration l
l of Order Concerning Schedule for Filing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed on June 28, 1982, is denied.
m-
Reconsideration:
3 FOR THE ATOMIC FETY AND LICENSING BOARD g,
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland i