ML20133D807

Order Granting 2-day Extension of Time in Which to File Brief in Response to ASLB Third Partial Initial Decision. Filings Not in Substantial Conformance W/Rule Will Be Subj to Summary Rejection.Served on 850806

ML20133D807
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/05/1985
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
CON-#385-109 OL, NUDOCS 8508070469
Download: ML20133D807 (3)

Text

,e.

(09 gEVED AUG-61985 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEUSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges: 00aqirc USNHC Christine N. Kohl, Chairman August 5, 1985 Gary J. Edles Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy '85 AUG -6 A10 :26 rIF!Ci 0: S LCRE TA:.

) 00CSETING & SEPVid.

In the Matter of ) BRAtlCH

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352 OL

) 50-353 OL (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) *

)

ORDER

1. In a motion filed July 31, 1985, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requests a two-day extension of time in which to file its brief in response to the pending appeals from the Licensing Board's third partial initial decision.

a The NRC staff does not object to a grant of the motion, on condition that it receive an equivalent extension. The motion fails to set forth the positions of the other parties to the proceeding.

For good cause shown, the motion is granted; the Ccmmonwealth's brief is due August 8, 1985. The NRC staff's brief, however, remains due on August 16, 1985. No good cause for extending the time for the filing of the staff's The reasons

• brief is apparent. See 10 C.F.R. S 2. 711 (a) .

given by the Commonwealth for its extension request clearly e50Bo70469 e50005 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0 PDR ol

2 do not apply to the staff.1 And, while the Commission's Rules of Practice accord the staff extra time for filing its i

brief as an appellee, that time is computed from the date of filing of the last appellant's brief, not the last appellee's brief. See 10 C.F.R. S 2.762 (c) . In other words, if the staff needs an extension, it is generally obliged, as are other parties, to request one and to justify it.

2. By postcard dated and postmarked July 31, 1985,

'intervenors Robert L. Anthony / Friends of the Earth (Anthony / FOE) appeal the Licensing Board's fourth partial initial decision in this proceeding.2 Despite the substantial nonconformance of Mr. Anthony's postcard to the Commission's Rules of Practice, we will treat the appeal as 1

Thus, this situation is distinguishable from the circumstances that prompted our order of June 27, 1985.

There, we granted the staff's motion for a briefing extension and sua sponte extended the time for filing the briefs of all other appellees because of a conflict with an upcoming Licensing Board hearing in this proceeding that was to involve all of these parties.

2 Although mailed from what appears to be a vacation area, it (unfortunately) is not a picture postcard.

3 10 C.F.R. S 2.708 (b) requires each document filed in an adjudication to "be bound on the left side and typewritten, printed or otherwise reproduced in permanent form on good unglazed paper of letterhead size. Each page shall begin not less than one and one-quarter inches from

~

the top, with side and bottom margins of not less than one and one-quarter inches. Text shall be double-spaced, except (Footnote Continued)

?.

3 properly filed.4 Up to now, we have been quite indulgent of the nonconformances in the pleadings of various parties.

Any future filings from any party that are not in j substantial conformance with the Rules, however, will be subject to summary rejection.

! It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD E AaW=Nd C. Jqn Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board (Fcotnote Continued) -

that quotations neay be single-spaced and indented." The reasons for this rule -- comparable to that of most courts and other agencies -- are fully justified: to facilitate proper docketing in the Commission's formal record of the proceeding, and to facilitate review and disposition by the presiding board.

4 Our acceptance for filing of this notice of appeal does not reflect any judgment on the standing of Anthony / FOE to appeal the decision in question.

.