ML20088A376

Motion for 90-day Extension to File Appeal Brief Responsive to ASLB 840314 Partial Initial Decision 79-421-07 Re OL, Phase I

ML20088A376
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/06/1984
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20088A377	List: ML20088A376 ML20088A382
References
79-421-07-OL, 79-421-7-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8404110498
Download: ML20088A376 (5)

Text

, -*6.M .- - -+=

%.'h .

~~

U O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P/2:45 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDg/ SELEc-

. a 3 7, v ., . '

L I?A ,Q s, ' '

• In the Matter of (

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND (

POWER COMPANY, ET AL. )

Docket Nos. 50-498 OL 50-499 OL

(

(South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) (

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, INC. (CCANP) 3 dQIlON EQB 6091Il000L IldE 3

,n I. Introduction On March 14, 3 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in  !

this proceeding S i ssued' i ts Parti al Initial Decision (Operating D g

License) (Phase I), ASLBP NO. 79-421-07 OL Chereinafter "PID"J.  ?]

ye On March 23, ' 1984, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. t Section 2.762(a), [

L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. (CCANP), Intervenor,

{

y .. filed its notice of appeal from said pdtial initial decision.

~7 under 10 C.F.R. g Section 2.762(b), CCANP is permitted thirty E y_

(30) days after the (i1ing of notice of brief.-

nl . appeal to fi1e its appeal I

• CCANP hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board g

to grant an additional ninety (90) days f or the filing of lT

=

CCANP's appeal brief. '?

a s

II. Discussion ~'

=

A. .The and unique. central issue in this proceeding is very important $s

-- y-Character is El one of the qualifications for an NRC license S_

specifically  :--

established by the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C.

f.E Section 2232(a). As noted by the ASLB, all parti es in this E

P proceeding E agree character is a " fundamental" requirement for a 8404110498 840406 fk 5

]p)

/

DR ADOCK 05000 9 r' r,

< v5 1 -

t

~;

• g.

license applicant, PID at 8, and one of the central foci of this entire proceeding, PID at 7.

- But this proceeding is the first in NRC history to directly c.

i

'7dy '- l address the statutory issue of character - the definition of

't character, the measurement of character, and the standard of character to be adopted by the NRC. PID at 12, note 13.

Before even beginning the hearings, the ASLB requested briefsifrom the parties on the concept a character. PID at 8, n.

6.

kn its Partial Initial Decision, the Board devoted a

n separate section to the legal standards for determining character. Sgg PID at 7-25.

The decision in this case will have far reaching effect in

, setting forth for applicants, license holders, and the general y

public'Just what chatactet means to the NRC and how that meaning

.will manifest itself. in regulatory decisions.

,.s %y

.v , " . -=.

1~ -Given the importance of .the character issue and the unique g# E u _

,- nature of the inquiry, 'CCANP seeks more than thirty (30) days to i Vs.yi . -

fA analyze and respond to the ASLB's handl-ing of this issue.

,AL5s .NB.Y The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Citizens fl, Concerned About Nuclear Power appear to have a significant divergence in the treatment of the character issue.

' fiik{ , -

2 bin  :(In f its findings of fact and conclusions of law, CCANP put a

9. e.,

J1;s . great 15 deal of effort into defining character and applying that l 44M' _ '

i ffl definition to the record in this proceeding. The.ASLB found that l CCANP's definition provided traits - " generally relevant to l

character" and " closely trackted] the definition of character which we found appropriate." PID at 18. l l

But the ASLB then immediately dismissed CCANP's labors as 2

u . . .-. . .

\

i offering "little assistance in providing answers to the questions r

raised" 'i n this case by the Commission. M.

CCANP' thus faces the task of determining what definition, a,ts.;n . _  :

$[@

.g.

measurement, and standard of character the ASLB does in fact r . :.

7 ~ 5. adopt *and comparing the Board's exploration of character in the

. ;2 Y record. with CCANP's to determine where CCANP disagrees with the

' Board.

,- . .r a~ -Given the importance of this unique inquiry as to character

' , , and the task set for CCANP by the ASLB's rejection of CCANP*s

- anal y'ti cal framework for the character concept, CCANP needs more E sc than' thirty (30). days to respond to the Partial Initial Decision.

y-a ..

S C. The ASLB in this proceeding produced an opinion distorted jy.- by the bias of the Board toward the Applicants.

4 As the Appeal Board is well aware, a member of - the ASLB in

, mr this- proceeding was removed at one time by a unanimous vote of

, 95.@ -

[jh' the Appeal Board but later restored to his position by a 3-2 O '. . .

'.F

- Q"Q l; vote'ofithe . f Commissioners. In this appeal, CCANP does not intend ,

9 ., ' , o IT ~ to' relitigate that ' removal as;1CCANP's remedies within the

.i 2*M..

t  ; . :-

Af Commission on this matter are exhausted.

f $f' ;m...

-- mw ,

L .r - Nevertheless, CCANP. believes the record of this proceeding

% g y. nw. .

y

• rn and 'th's Partial Initial Decision itself clearly reflect a bias-IMlA favorihg the. Applicants. CCANP contends and will ' argue on appeal me m.

%[e , . e G.L. . n {

jg=y that ' nits rights to a f air administrative hearing, ' including'its M;

n S:

n, ,

rights'.to a decisiori on the issues as litigated, were. violated.

This analysis will require research on what: constitutes due

. m.m

.N.y 1 y Y ,-

-, g process in administrative hearings.and careful scrutiny of both the. record and the reasoning behind~the Partiai Initial Decision.

.-To carry out this analysis in addition:to the other matters to be 5

e ,ql.$ w# .

3

n n. .

d l

,4 ,

explored on appeal, CCANP seeks more than the thirty (30) days provided for an appeal brief by 10 C.F.R. Section 2.762(b) .

. ..vr D. The opinion, record, and pleadings in this proceeding are 721.t ~ very lengthy.

yr '; ;s .

=

.The Partial Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and i' Licensing Board is 287 pages long. This decision is based on a record composed of a transcript containing more than 10,000 pages with . roughly 300 exhibits. - The pleadirIgs by the parties are voluminous. The parties filed findings of fact and conclusions of law running to hundreds of pages. To adequately review the proceeding in the light of the ASLB's opinion and respond to the w x . .,

opinion itself require more than thirty (30) days.

E. Intervenor must prepare for the next - phase of the

.- licensing proceeding.

..g -

. .Since Phase I has not yet resulted in license denial, CCANP

.a and :its representative must - also prepare f or Phase II litigation.

.-..$2d.'- xp;r: - -.. Phase d L will examine the substance of a consultant's report a w& .

of ~

. i ~f p  ? q.:;m_.

more; than 500 pages containing more than 300 deficiencies in the y ;;; ;> -5tV -

g %. design;7and engineering a.t th.is plant. Applicants and their new n .:

contractors have responded to this ' consultant's report with

$$$ dr;An ,

- " hundreds of pages of additional documentation.

4 The NRC has also

, .1 produced a lengthy study to-be submitted as part of the Phase II 1

[. ,M: ^^%'yt:"

,jg{ inquirp i CCANP-is awaiting daily the issuance of an NRC brief on y y7 dd; one"of the central issues in Phase II which CCANP will then have r

p; v, _ ,

30 dayslto reply to'.

} Fuhthermore, in. its Partial Initial - Decisi on ', the ASLB-

~

l _

expanded the nature of the Phase'II proceeding prompting CCANP to l file ;a; request for further discovery in order to -prepare .for

• Phase II.-Sgg Attachment.1 hereto.

1 .

t .x

.4

.z .

--- _ _ _ _ 2..

.. 7 F. Intervenor resources are limited.

Throughout this proceeding, CCANP relied primarily on one

'((.f _

OX.Ei;: j.? '

While some help is

- person to represent CCANP's position.

available to CCANP on this appeal, the burden of the appeal still rests primarily on the same individual. Preparing for and part'icipating in Phase II is also the responsibility of this one individual.

III. Conclusion l

Given the demands of this appeal and Phase II preparation,

~.

the Intervenor seeks relief in the form of additional time to prepare tne appeal from the Partial Initial Decision.

For the above and foregoing reasons, Citizens Concerned About. Nuclear Power, Inc. hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing

~

Appeal Board to grant CCANP an additional'ninety (90)

.,a X . C. ,

34Qssy- -days .to prepare its appeal from the Partial Initial ' Decision

'@2P .= .

'~i (Operating License) (Phase I), ASLBP No. 79-421-07 OL.

$k zd[b Respectfully submitted, uww

..n.

n_w. '^

h(

Lanny Sinkin Representative for Intervenor Citizens Concerned About

, 9.g Nuc1 car Power, Inc.

E

..wdi-

' J s. _t.% '

114 W. 71!h , - Suite 220 Ac ' <-

4

! .f  :,(( . Austin, Texas 78701 G. (512) 478-7197 e $ ", Dated: April =6, 1984 l

i' y a.