ML19347D917: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_
{{#Wiki_filter:_
    '
      '
S
S
'
                                                                       /      's 1                        4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                        rc0rm                          4 e
  ,
                                                                       /      's 1                        4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                        rc0rm                          4
                                                                                                -
e
                                                                                                                      '
:
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA a -~.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA a -~.
APR 101981              ~mrj $
APR 101981              ~mrj $
Line 39: Line 31:
The basic grounds for support for its position are:          (1) unavailability of transcripts;      (2) personal obligations of the Intervenor and Counsel. Applicant submits that these grounds are totally lacking and thus the motion should be denied.
The basic grounds for support for its position are:          (1) unavailability of transcripts;      (2) personal obligations of the Intervenor and Counsel. Applicant submits that these grounds are totally lacking and thus the motion should be denied.
At the outset Applicant maintains that the instant motion is yet another attempt of the Intervenor to delay the timely licensing of McGuire. The need for the timely issuance of a license is well known to the Board.      It is with this in mind that the Applicant urged the Board to impose an expedited pro-posed findings schedule. Tr. 5234-40. The Board in its dis-cretion c4 conducting the proceeding determined that such                                    o expedited schedule was warranted. Tr. 5256. Intervenor        r sTM now                            ?\>
At the outset Applicant maintains that the instant motion is yet another attempt of the Intervenor to delay the timely licensing of McGuire. The need for the timely issuance of a license is well known to the Board.      It is with this in mind that the Applicant urged the Board to impose an expedited pro-posed findings schedule. Tr. 5234-40. The Board in its dis-cretion c4 conducting the proceeding determined that such                                    o expedited schedule was warranted. Tr. 5256. Intervenor        r sTM now                            ?\>
                                                                                                                &
attempt to circumvent the Board's ruling on the basis o:k/        IU.flll!/.ch/V sq is,'
                                                                                                    '.
attempt to circumvent the Board's ruling on the basis o:k/        IU.flll!/.ch/V sq
                                                                                    ,
is,'
                                                                                                  '
                                                                                                      . , . _
hC "k !
hC "k !
extraneous matter.                                                                            * *31 m .
extraneous matter.                                                                            * *31 m .
3\iv.s.,,[5:ff[  =i            pron 1:
3\iv.s.,,[5:ff[  =i            pron 1:
With respect to availability of the transcripts,
With respect to availability of the transcripts, the(i '                                  f@
                                                                              -
the(i '                                  f@
fs /
fs /
Staff at the hearing informed the Board that it would provide' ' '.~.~                      :-
Staff at the hearing informed the Board that it would provide' ' '.~.~                      :-
[g M0.414 0 L-]3                                                                g
[g M0.414 0 L-]3                                                                g
                                                                                                   <> e        t
                                                                                                   <> e        t
_ _ - __


  .
W such to the Intervenor so as to enable it to file timely findings. Tr. 5255. Applicant, cognizant of the fact that the vagaries of the mail might result in a delay.of receipt of the transcripts, and anticipating that Intervenor would raise the precise issue raised in this motion, personally contacted Mr. Riley on the 20th of March, 1981 (the day after the hearing was completed) and informed him that he could use Applicant's transcripts until he had received the Staff trans-cripts. Applicant made this fact known to the Board and parties during the conference call of March 25, 1981. There-fore, there is absolutely no basis to Intervenor's claim in this regard.
W such to the Intervenor so as to enable it to file timely findings. Tr. 5255. Applicant, cognizant of the fact that the vagaries of the mail might result in a delay.of receipt of the transcripts, and anticipating that Intervenor would raise the precise issue raised in this motion, personally contacted Mr. Riley on the 20th of March, 1981 (the day after the hearing was completed) and informed him that he could use Applicant's transcripts until he had received the Staff trans-cripts. Applicant made this fact known to the Board and parties during the conference call of March 25, 1981. There-fore, there is absolutely no basis to Intervenor's claim in this regard.
Intervenor makes much of the various responsibilities of both its president and its counsel. The short answer to this position is that Intervenor has responsibility to this proceed-ing as well. As the Appeal Board noted "any individual under-taking to play an active role in several proceedings which are moving forward  simultaneously is apt to find it necessary from time to time to expend extra effort to meet the prescribed schedule in each."    Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-566, 10 NRC 527, 530 (1979). So it is in the instant case.
Intervenor makes much of the various responsibilities of both its president and its counsel. The short answer to this position is that Intervenor has responsibility to this proceed-ing as well. As the Appeal Board noted "any individual under-taking to play an active role in several proceedings which are moving forward  simultaneously is apt to find it necessary from time to time to expend extra effort to meet the prescribed schedule in each."    Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-566, 10 NRC 527, 530 (1979). So it is in the instant case.
10 CFR S2.754 (a) (2) provides that, absent a Board order to the contrary, Intervenor's will be provided 30 days to file proposed findings;  the Board's ruling gives them 25 days. Considering that this is a reopened proceeding, given that Intervenor is
10 CFR S2.754 (a) (2) provides that, absent a Board order to the contrary, Intervenor's will be provided 30 days to file proposed findings;  the Board's ruling gives them 25 days. Considering that this is a reopened proceeding, given that Intervenor is


  - .
a experienced, given that Intervenor was represented by exper-ienced counsel and given the need for the timely receipt of a license it was proper for the Board to so rule. Inasmuch as 30 days is considered a reasonable amount of time in the normal instance, and given that the above factors render 25 days a reasonable amount of time, there is no basis for extending the April 13, 1981 filing date for Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1/
a experienced, given that Intervenor was represented by exper-ienced counsel and given the need for the timely receipt of a license it was proper for the Board to so rule. Inasmuch as 30 days is considered a reasonable amount of time in the normal instance, and given that the above factors render 25 days a reasonable amount of time, there is no basis for extending the April 13, 1981 filing date for Intervenor's Proposed Findings
              '
of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1/
Respectfully submitted,
Respectfully submitted,
                                            .,  '
                                                       + e  O<!
                                                       + e  O<!
                                           %/.LiN*~
                                           %/.LiN*~
Line 78: Line 56:
Failure to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law or briefs when directed to do so may be deemed a default, and an order or initial decision may be entered accordingly. (emphasis supplied).
Failure to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law or briefs when directed to do so may be deemed a default, and an order or initial decision may be entered accordingly. (emphasis supplied).


                                                                            -. -.
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                )
l
  ,.
,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                )
                                       )
                                       )
DUKE POWER COMPANY              )      Docket Nos. 50-369
DUKE POWER COMPANY              )      Docket Nos. 50-369
Line 95: Line 69:
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207      Washington, D.C. 20036
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207      Washington, D.C. 20036
* Designates those hand delivered.
* Designates those hand delivered.
                                                      .


_                ._    .
              -
          ...
Chairman, Atomic Safety                  Shelly Blum, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety                  Shelly Blum, Esq.
and Licensing Appeal Board          1402 Vickers Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                  Durham, North Carolina 27707 Commission Washington, D.C.      20555              Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Dr. John M. Barry                        Office of the Secretary Department of Environmental              U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Health                                Commission Mecklenburg County                        Washington, D.C.            20555 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
and Licensing Appeal Board          1402 Vickers Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                  Durham, North Carolina 27707 Commission Washington, D.C.      20555              Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Dr. John M. Barry                        Office of the Secretary Department of Environmental              U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Health                                Commission Mecklenburg County                        Washington, D.C.            20555 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
                                                                                  .
                                                                                         /
                                                                                         /
l  #
l  #
Line 111: Line 80:
                                                                                       ,e s    /.4< fw'/<
                                                                                       ,e s    /.4< fw'/<
* ex.sA*.cr J. Michael McGarry,,III
* ex.sA*.cr J. Michael McGarry,,III
,
   -_ _ _ _        s___    -                      -    -                                      ..}}
   -_ _ _ _        s___    -                      -    -                                      ..}}

Latest revision as of 02:13, 31 January 2020

Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810406 Request for Extension to File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Applicant Transcripts Available to Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19347D917
Person / Time
Site: Mcguire, McGuire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/09/1981
From: Mcgarry J
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8104140473
Download: ML19347D917 (5)
v • d • e


Text

_

S

/ 's 1 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rc0rm 4 e

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA a -~.

APR 101981 ~mrj $

  • {

'r.^ -

In the Matter of ) ( ,

"p

) s>., N DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-369 - -

) 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO CESG MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On April 6, 1981, Intervenor filed a Motion for an Exten-sion of Time to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

The basic grounds for support for its position are: (1) unavailability of transcripts; (2) personal obligations of the Intervenor and Counsel. Applicant submits that these grounds are totally lacking and thus the motion should be denied.

At the outset Applicant maintains that the instant motion is yet another attempt of the Intervenor to delay the timely licensing of McGuire. The need for the timely issuance of a license is well known to the Board. It is with this in mind that the Applicant urged the Board to impose an expedited pro-posed findings schedule. Tr. 5234-40. The Board in its dis-cretion c4 conducting the proceeding determined that such o expedited schedule was warranted. Tr. 5256. Intervenor r sTM now  ?\>

attempt to circumvent the Board's ruling on the basis o:k/ IU.flll!/.ch/V sq is,'

hC "k !

extraneous matter. * *31 m .

3\iv.s.,,[5:ff[ =i pron 1:

With respect to availability of the transcripts, the(i ' f@

fs /

Staff at the hearing informed the Board that it would provide' ' '.~.~  :-

[g M0.414 0 L-]3 g

<> e t

W such to the Intervenor so as to enable it to file timely findings. Tr. 5255. Applicant, cognizant of the fact that the vagaries of the mail might result in a delay.of receipt of the transcripts, and anticipating that Intervenor would raise the precise issue raised in this motion, personally contacted Mr. Riley on the 20th of March, 1981 (the day after the hearing was completed) and informed him that he could use Applicant's transcripts until he had received the Staff trans-cripts. Applicant made this fact known to the Board and parties during the conference call of March 25, 1981. There-fore, there is absolutely no basis to Intervenor's claim in this regard.

Intervenor makes much of the various responsibilities of both its president and its counsel. The short answer to this position is that Intervenor has responsibility to this proceed-ing as well. As the Appeal Board noted "any individual under-taking to play an active role in several proceedings which are moving forward simultaneously is apt to find it necessary from time to time to expend extra effort to meet the prescribed schedule in each." Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-566, 10 NRC 527, 530 (1979). So it is in the instant case.

10 CFR S2.754 (a) (2) provides that, absent a Board order to the contrary, Intervenor's will be provided 30 days to file proposed findings; the Board's ruling gives them 25 days. Considering that this is a reopened proceeding, given that Intervenor is

a experienced, given that Intervenor was represented by exper-ienced counsel and given the need for the timely receipt of a license it was proper for the Board to so rule. Inasmuch as 30 days is considered a reasonable amount of time in the normal instance, and given that the above factors render 25 days a reasonable amount of time, there is no basis for extending the April 13, 1981 filing date for Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1/

Respectfully submitted,

+ e O<!

%/.LiN*~

J,.

Shz Michael McGarry, III DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Of Counsel William L. Porter Associate General Counsel DUKE POWER COMPANY April 9, 1981

-1/ Applicant notes that failure to file proposed findings as directed may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions.

Indeed, 10 CFR S2.754(b) provides:

Failure to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law or briefs when directed to do so may be deemed a default, and an order or initial decision may be entered accordingly. (emphasis supplied).

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-369

) 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Opposition to CESG Motion For an Extension of Time to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" dated April 9, 1981 in the cap-tioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 9th day of April, 1981.

  • Robert M. Lazo, Esq. Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Counsel for NRC Regulatory Licensing Board Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • Dr . Emmeth A. Luebke Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William L. Porter, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Associate General Counsel Commission Duke Power Company Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

  • Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Chairman U.S. Nuc' lear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jesse L. Riley Diane B. Cohn President William B. Schultz Carolina Environmental Public Citizen Litigation Group Study Group Suite 700 854 Henley Place 2000 P Street, N.W.

Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Washington, D.C. 20036

  • Designates those hand delivered.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Shelly Blum, Esq.

and Licensing Appeal Board 1402 Vickers Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Durham, North Carolina 27707 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Dr. John M. Barry Office of the Secretary Department of Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Health Commission Mecklenburg County Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

/

l #

/

l .

  • f

., f g ee r m'

,e s /.4< fw'/<

  • ex.sA*.cr J. Michael McGarry,,III

-_ _ _ _ s___ - - - ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19347D917&oldid=2346542"