ML20248D035
| ML20248D035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1989 |
| From: | Patricia Jehle NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9230 OLA-4, NUDOCS 8910040103 | |
| Download: ML20248D035 (5) | |
Text
jb RW:,T:
a ge,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '89 SEP 28 A8 :45 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DCcr.
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-250-OLA-4 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 50-251-OLA-4 I
COMPANY
)
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4)
(P/TLimits)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION TO REVISE HEARING SCHEDULE I.
INTRODUCTION On September 23, 1989, the Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette Lorion (Ir.cervenors) filed their Motion for an Extension of Time and a Motion to Revise the Hearing Schedule. This schedule was agreed to by the parties as noted in Mr. Steven Frantz' letter of March 13, 1989, and was incorporated by reference into the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of June 8,1989. The Interveners request two additional weeks to prepare their response to the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition filed on September 11, 1989. The Interveners also request a two-month extension of the hearing schedule.
For the reasons set forth below, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff (Staff) does not oppose the i
motion for extension of time tu file; however, the Staff opposes the motion to revise the hearing schedule.
II. DISCUSSION The Interveners state that professional and avocational responsibilities have made it difficult to meet the schedules set up for this proceeding. While the Staff understands the constraints on the j
8910040103 890926 PDR ADDCK 05000250 05$
4 0
7 Interveners' time and resources, the Staff objects to any undue delay of this proceeding. Both the Comission and the Appeal Board have made it clear that the fact that a party may possess fewer resources than others to devote to a proceeding does not relieve that party of its hearing obligations. See Statement on Policy of Conducting Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13NRC452,454(1981); WisconsinElectricPowerCo.(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, ALAB-696, 16 NRC 1245, 1261 n. 29 (1982).
The Staff does not oppose the Interveners request for an extension of time to respond to the Licensee's motion for summary disposition, provided the Staff is granted the same time to file its response, because the extension will not significantly delay this proceeding. The Staff is prepared to meet the current filing date; however, if the Interveners are granted an extension the Staff wants an opportunity to file its response simultaneously.
The Staff opposes a revision of the hearing schedule because it is unnecessary at this time.
In addition, a two-month extension of the hearing date would unduly delay the resolution of this proceeding. Once the Licensing Board issues its decision on the sumary disposition motion, then the Board and the parties may reexamine the hearing schedule and, if necessary, revise the schedule to ensure an expeditious. hearing.
r
4 III. CONCLUSIONS In view of the foregoing, the Staff does not oppose the Interveners' motion for an extension of time, however, the Staff opposes the Interveners' Motion to revise the hearing schedule.
Respectfully. submitted, g2t R Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of September, 1989.
I l
{
k f
8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 ~ SEP 28 A8 :4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- cri, Dub
,,.I p,.a g.
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-4 50-251 OLA-4 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4)
(P/TLimits)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION TO REVISE HEARING SCHEDULE" in 1
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 Comission's internal mail system, this 26th day of September,1989:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman
- Richard J. Goddard, Esq.*
Administrative Judge Regional Counsel t
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comission 101 Marietta St., N.W., Suite 2900 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atlanta, GA 30303 Glenn O. Bright
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge Panel (1)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Jerry Harbour
- Appeal Panel (5)*
Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary Steven P. Frantz, Esq.
16-G-15 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Attn: Docketing and Service Section Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L. Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Joette Lorion Washington, D.C.
20036 7269 SW 54th Avenue Miami, FL 33143 John T. Butler, Esq.
Steel, Hector & Davis Center for Nuclear Responsibility 4000 Southeast Financial Center 7210 Red Road #217 Miami, FL. 33131-2398 Miami, FL 33141
r)
- b,..
- 2..
}
Adjudicatory File (2)*
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
'I U n WL Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff l
I
_u_
______m.______.__-.__
-_._.m.m_.._ _ _._._