ML20059A894

Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Requests That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 900813 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Appeal Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20059A894
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/16/1990
From:	Reis H FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#390-10742 90-602-01-OLA-5, 90-602-1-OLA-5, OLA-5, NUDOCS 9008240101
Download: ML20059A894 (5)

Text

-. - - - - - .. . .. -

2E

/%h t.-

DOCKETED

% USNRC <

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 30 - ME 17 A9:51 a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-APPEAL BOARD nFnCE Of SECRt1AF-t August 16,-1990 DocKL DNG A tPvin iiRANCu In the Matter of ) ~

) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-5 j

FLORIDA POWER AND. LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-5

) 4 (Turkey Point Plant, Urvits 3 ) (Technical Specifications and 4) ,

) Replacement) -t

)

Facility Operating Licenses ) ASLBP No. 90-602-01-OLA-5 DPR-31'and DPR-41) )

)

/

OPPOSITION TO MOTION;FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL On July 25, 1990, the Nuclear Energy Accountability Project

(" NEAP") filed a Notice of Appeal in this proceeding. On August

'13, 1990,. NEAP filed a " Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal"

(" Motion"), requesting fiftnen. additional days time in which to 'i file its appellate brief. Flcrida Power & Light Company.("FPL")~ i hereby files this answer in opposition to the Motion.

NEAP.stccem 'he following in support of its Motions-The ' brie:. in this appeal is due August 22, 1990. .;

Unfortunettely pre-trial discovery and trial preparation as well is the press of other business, has interfered with Couasel's abilitysto prepare the brief in support of the notice of appeal.

Motion at p. 2. Also in support of the Motion, NEAP states: I Counsel for NEAP was also away from her office forLthe last two weeks attending a professional education 1 seminar and convention, and taking several days of vacation. No other attorney in the office has experience in front of the NRC.

Motion at p. 2, fn. 2.

9008240101 900816 ,

ADOCK 050 01 gDR

)

li, .  !

n Y

o While an extension of time may be granted for good cause (10 CFR.S 2.711), motions to extend. time for briefing are not favored.- Loulmiana Power and' Light Co. (Waterford Steau. Electric.

i Station, Unit 3), ALAB-117, 6 AEC 261 (1973). Further, "[i)t is l

well= settled that'a. participant in an NRC proceeding should i anticipate having to manipulate its resources, however limited, to meet its obligations." Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach-Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-719, 17 NRC 387, 394 (1983);

footnote omitted. A person who invokes the right to participate -

in an NRC proceeding also voluntarily accepts the obligations attendant upon such participation.- Duke Power Co. (Catawba (

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19,'17 NRC 1041, 1048 (1983). "[T]he fact that a party may have personal or other.

obligations or possess f*4er resources than others to devote to

-the proceeding does not rea. i eve that party of its hearing obligations." Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensina '

Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC-452,-454 (1981).

The notice setting the " trial" to which the Motion (p. 2).

. refers was issued on June 22, 1990. J.' NEAP filed its Notice of Appeal in-this proceeding on July 25, 1990, expressly stating it to be pursuant-to 10 CFR S 2.762 which clearly specifies the I time when-briefs are to be filed. Consequently, counsel for NEAP f knew precisely what her obligations were when she made the l conflicting plans which now furnish the basis-for the requested 1/ .That " trial" is a Department of Labor hearing in Cases Nos.

90-ERA-0027 and 90-ERA-0047.

l!\

.t-3

,' delay. Therefore, viewed against the governing principles, NEAP has not demonstrated good cause for the request.

NEAP contends (Motion at 2) that, because Staff has already issued a finding of "no significant hazards" 2/ and because the Licensing Board's request for Staff and FPL to address the question whether any contentions should be considered ana aponte is pending, neither would suffer prejudice from a delay. These considerations are wholly unrelated to the public interest and the interest of the parties in the efficient and expeditious completion of administrative proceedings, including this one. As

- such, they do not mitigate the 'surden and prejudice that weuld be caused by the unjustifiable delay of the appellate proceeding.

11 addition, it is obviously important to FPL that there be no e' outetanding question regarding any of the technical specifications

.nich are the rubject of this proceeding - an uncertainty that would prevail during the pendency of any appeal.

Accordingly, FPL submits that the Motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, y

Ha'rold F. Reis James Vigil, Jr.

Newman & Foltzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

August 16, 1990 Washington, D.C. 20036 2/ That statement is erroneous. On May 9, 1990, the NRC Staff issued a proposed no sigaificant hazards consideration determination. (55 Fed. Reg. 20128, Ma" 15, 1990). As of this date, no final determination has issued.

in 00Lht!f D UbNkC UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  % ALE 17 A9:51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING AP L.

a fBOARD w m.st.iAsy L OCK[TihG A L{ i,viL[,

fir A NCH

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-5

) 50-251 OLA-5

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY l

)

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 ) (Technical Specifications and 4) ) Replacement) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached

" Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal" in the above-captioned proceeding were rerved on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage paid, on the date shown below i Administrative Judge

• Administrative Judge Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge

• Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing 7719 Ridge Drive. M.E. =,

Appeal Board Seattle, WA ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge

• Administrative Judge G. Paul .Tollwerk, III Elizabeth B. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge National '

Appeal L ard Laboratory U.S. Nuclea' Rege2atory P.O. Box 2008

, Commission Bethel Valley Road, Bldg. 3500 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mail Stop 6010 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

I I

l

-2 1

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing -

Board Panel Appeal Board Panel '

Adjudicatory File Adjudicatory File U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 (two copies) .

(three copies)

Office of the Secretary Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.**

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Hardy, Milutin & Jones Commission 500 Two Houston Center Washington, D.C. 20555 909 Fannin ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Houston, TX 77010 Service Section (Original plus two copies)

Janice Moore, Esg,* Richard Goddard, Esq.

Patricia A. Jehle, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 101 Marietta St., N.W. #2900 Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Washington, D.C. 20555 Joh: 4 T. Butler, Esq.

Steel Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33113 Aup-+ 16, 1990 Harold F'. Reis i

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L St., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 l

l Additional service by messenger Additional service by Federal Express i

-- - - - -