ML20150C594
| ML20150C594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1988 |
| From: | Bright G, Cole R, Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5869 88-560-01-LA, 88-560-1-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8803210106 | |
| Download: ML20150C594 (3) | |
Text
}'5flo 9 000KEiE0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
[0CN[l.'NM' '6 BRANCe B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Richard F. Cole SERVED MAR 1 7.1988
)
In the Matter of:
)
Docket No. 50-335-0LA
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CCMPANY
)
(ASLBP No. 88-560-01-LA)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.1)
)
March 16, 1988
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Ir. a Motion dated March 7 and received by the Board on March 15, 1988, Petitioner Campbell Rich requested a postponement of hearing and oral argument on the admissibility of Petitioner's contentions.
The proceeding is scheduled to take place on March 29, 1988 pursuant to this Board's February 18, 1988 Memorandum and Order. As grounds for its motion, Petitioner alleges that Pe has not had time to prepare for the oral argument because of inadequate advance notice of the hearing date and because the Public Document Room hours are too restrictive to allow Petitioner adequate time to examine documents.
Accordingly, Petitioner has requested an extension for 90 days.
Licensee opposes the request for lack of adequate grounds and argues that Petitioner cannot ask that the proceeding be rescheduled simply for his convenience.
Licensee contends that such proceedings 8803210106 800316 PDR ADOCK 0S000335 G
PDR Ly 4S
- s. cannot be conducted on a part-time basis simply because Petitioner is employed in a full-time position, notes that Licensee "has devoted considerable resources to preparing for the March 29 prehearing conference" and refers the Board to the Commission's Statement of Policy on the Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 13 NRC 452 (CLI-81-f;, 1981) which emphasizes the obligation of each participant to meet the requirements of applicable law in our adjudicatory p:-aceedings.
Licensee also reports that it is informed that the Public Document Room in question is open from 7:45 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 7:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday.
In a telephone conversation with the Chairman of this Board on March 9,1988 Petitioner, who is not an attorney, indicated that he thoucht che proceeding would require the presentation of witnesses ano evidence.
The Chairman assured him that was not the case but rather that it was simply an opportunity for the partias to state their viev,s on the contentions tnat petitioner seeks to have admitted to this proceeding.
l In view of the nature of the oral argument described above and the five weeks given the parties to prepare for it by our order of February 18, 1988, we find no grounds in Petitioner's request to grant the extension. We find fairness to the parties and the need to proceed in an orderly fashion compelling. While we are sympathetic to Petitioner's f
position as a layman otherwise employed, that in itself is not 1
i l
l
/
. sufficient to warrant an additional three-month delay in deciding what issues, if any, are to be litigated in this proceeding.
ORDER Upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 16th day of March, 1988 ORDERED That Petitioner's request for a postponement of hearing and oral argument for an additional 90 days shall be, and it hereby is, denied.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND ICENSING BOARD i
87Faul Cotter, p./, Chairman ADMIf11STRATIVE J00GE Sm f
uAf Clenn 0.' Bright
-~d ADM NISTRATIVE JUDGE Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l