ML20052F230

Requests ASLB Consider 820429 Findings of Fact Even Though Findings Late.Due Date Misconstrued.Striking Findings Would Be Significant Penalty for Minor Infraction

ML20052F230
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/05/1982
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Cheatum E, Linenberger G, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8205120256
Download: ML20052F230 (1)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

g..*

May 5, 1982 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Route 3, Box 350A-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Uatkinsville, Ga. 30677 Commission C Washington D. C. 20555 .n2 HliY 10 P1 :23 Gustave A. Linenberger "

Administrative Judge -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'iashington D. C. 20555

. :nc m nu m a _ g{'

1903.L UT!i P " ..e . ...-===

Re: Houston Lighting & Power Co. O a Allens Creek Huclear Generating ,

Station, Unit 1 6 g p&gAg Occhet No. 50 a66 b N Y$ -9 1

Dear Members of the Board,

[

Counsel Copeland, of Applicant, in a letter which ke E[ '

a non-renly to this Intervenor's Findings of Fact and v I h O clusions of Law from the most recent nearings,has pointe ' Y out these findings were filed on April 29, 1982, instead g of April 28, 1982, a date set -(Tr. 22,024) at the close of the third day of hearings in Houston, and urges the Board not to Ei ve consideration to them for that reason.

First, I must confess that I carried away from the hearings that 14 days after receiving the transcript would be the due date, which was discussed, (Tr. 22,020 - 20,022) and satisfactory to Applicant's counsel, (Tr. 22,022, lines 7 - 8). I apologize for this misconcention and to anyone inconvenienced by the delay.

Second, I would urge that the Board nat follow Mr.

Copeland's suggestion, but not only because of Counsel:New-man's statement. Instead, I would respectfully point out the board appointed this party lead party for the Suonle-mental Part of TerPIRG Additional Contention 31, and that without consideration of the findings of fact of the only Intervenor to file Findings of Fact, would be to leave out a significant statement for a relatively minor infrac-tion. That is on balancing the irritation of the lateness against the prejudice to other parties it is far better D$D to fully air the findings than to punish that infraction. s This Intervenor has filed many papers against deadlines in this proceeding in the last four years. Hot even /O Counsel's letter to the Board of May 3,1982, which arrived today urges that this Intervenor is an huoitual late filer.

Instead, the transcript at Tr. 22,023, Lines 21, may reveal that I should have requested more time to begin with.

Therefore, this Intervenor urges the Board to consider his Findings of Fact, of April 29, 1932, and not reject them -

for inadvertent one-day latenc33.

Jt -

nesnectfu11y7' ,: i 8205120256 820505 lj PDR ADOCK 05000466 G PDR

_. _