ML20197E060
| ML20197E060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1988 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6434 OLA, NUDOCS 8806080064 | |
| Download: ML20197E060 (2) | |
Text
l COLKEILD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UsNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOh MAY 24 P12 :18 Administrative Judges:
OFFICE CF SnWiAr,
00CKEhNG A WPVmi, Thomas S. Moore, Chairman May 24QR@888 Alan S. Rosenthal Howard A. Wilber SERVED MAY 2 41988
)
In the Matter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
)
Docket No. 50-335-OLA COMPANY
)
)
(SFP Expansion)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) )
)
ORDER On May 20, 1988, Mr. Campbell Rich, the petitioner in this spent fuel pool expansion proceeding, requested by telephone an extension of time until June 7, 1988, to file his brief in opposition to the licensee's appeal from the Licensing Board's April 20, 1988 memorandum and order granting Mr. Rich's intervention petition.
The Secretary to the Appeal Board instructed Mr. Rich that his request must be made in a written motion for an extension of time.
On that same date, NRC staff counsel made a similar oral request to the Secretary even though counsel indicated that the staff's brief had been completed.
As in the case of Mr.
Rich, the staff was also informed that it must file a written motion.
The staff's May 23 motion for an extension of time until June 7 to file their brief is denied.
As grounds for l
an extension, the staff merely states that 10 CFR 2.714a jb 5 g Z-8806080064 880524 PDR ADOCK 05000335 l
G PDR
)
2 contemplates simultaneous filings by responding parties so its brief should be due at the same time as the petitioner's brief.
Contrary to the staff's evident belief, section 2.714a does not incorporate, expressly or by implication, any principle of mandatory simultaneous filings of responding briefs.
Rather, each extension of time request must be based on a showing of good cause.
Not only did its motion contain no such showing but, in addition, its counsel's May 23 oral representations to the Secretary of this Board affirmatively demonstrated the lack of any justification for the extension.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THS APPEAL BOARD Q, 0 -_h h
- =& k C. J4 d'. Sh6emaker Secrdiary to the Appeal Board
_ _. _., _. -