ML19257A027
| ML19257A027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257A028 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912310510 | |
| Download: ML19257A027 (5) | |
Text
1
.g-
,s l-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12/26/79 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIG BCARD In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. E0-133
)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant,
)
Unit No. 3)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TC APPLICANT'S MOTICN TO HOLD PRDCEEDIN3 IN ABEYANCE Introduction On September 27, 1979, the Applicant filed a motion, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.711(a), to hold the above-captioned proceeding in abeyance up tt, and including October 1,1980 in order to gather additional seisric and geologic information about the site. On May 7,1979, this Board granted a previous motion ~1/
to hold this proceeding in abeyance until October 1,1979 in order to conduct certain seismic and geologic studies on the ccndition that the Applicant submit 60-day status reports on the progress of its investigation.
The instant motion states that the work has not progressed on the originally contemplated schedule and that, during the investigations, it became apparent that additional work was necessary.
The scope of the additional work and the time-frame for its completion are outlined in an acccmoanying report,
~
cated September 1,1979, prepared by the Applicant's censultant.
On October
-1/ This particular motion was served after the "inte ven-ion" Board declined g
to entertain a similar motion filed before it, g
1664 275 ho' d 7912310 9.h
. 9, 1979,the Intervenors filed an answer in opposition to the motion.
Their memorandum in support of that answer, dated October 16, 1979, was received on October 22, 1979.
Intervenors oppose the motion en the following grounds:
(1) that the Applicant has made an inadequate showing that this proceeding should be continued; (2) that further delay in the proceeding will economi-cally prejudice the Intervenors; and (3) that further delay in the proceeding will result in continued unnecessary radiation exposure of the Applicant's employees. On October 31, 1979, the Applicant filed a recuest for leave to reply to the Intervenors' memorandum and an accompanying reply. The Appli-cant's reply purports to respond to the Intervenors' arouments in opposition to th? motion. No,; ling has been rendered to date on this recuest.
On November 1, 1979, the Staff filed a request for an extension of time, until December 31, 1979, within which to answer the instant motion in order to permit it to consider the preliminary results of the Applicant's ongoing investigations, including a site visit and meeting with the applicant, and to fully ascertain the precise status of the current develoo ents in this y
proceeding.
The request was accompanied by Staff affidavits of Anthony Thomas Cardone and Richard L. Emch, Jr. The extension request was granted by the Board on November 2, 1979.
Resource constraints now prevent the Staff from carrying out this undertaking at any time in the foreseeable future.
See attached Staff affidavit of William Gammill. Accordingly, based on the information of record to date, and for the reasons given below, the Staff has no objection to the Applicant's motion to hold the proceeding in abeyance until October 1, 1980.
2/ The Staff response to the motion was due on November 1 in accordance with the Board's grant of an earlier extension request submitted to permit con-sideration of the Intervenors' memorandum.
1664 276
. Discussion The Staff explained in its November 1 extension request that, consistent with NRC practice, licensing proceedings should be concluded as expeditiously as possible in a manner compatible with due process of law. See Staff ex-tension request at 2-3 and authority cited therein. The Staff also observed that licensing boards are giver considerable discretion in the conduct of a hearing.
The paramount consideration in the area of scheduling is the public interest, wnich ordinarily is best served by as prompt a disposition as possible consistent with the litigants' opportunity to be heard.
I d_.
The Staff expressed the view that these considerations commended a timely resumption of hearing activity in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, under the unique circumstances of this case, the Staff requested an opportunity to con-duct a field examination and preliminary assessment of the Appli. ant's on-going studies before responding to the present motion.
As exclained in the accompanying affidavit of William P. Gammill, the Assistant Director for Operating Reactor Projects, the press of other Staff work, par-ticularly strained in the aftermath of t5e Three Mile Island accident, pre-vents the Staff from conducting this effort. Without the benefit of such an undertaking, and given the status of the record, the Staff has no basis to object to the Applicant's motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance until October 1, 1980. The Staff believes that the Applicant's apparent good faith efforts to develop its direct case, evidenced significantly by the September 1,1979 consultant's report, constitute an adequate showing of good cause for the requested continuance.
These additional investigations outlined 1664 277
. in the September 1, 137.- consultant's reoort, whatever their ultimate merit, dem:nstrate the Appli:a-t's commitment to prosecute its application.
The Staff has already n:ted the principles which encourage the expeditious resolution of licensing proceedings consistent with the parties' opportunity to be heard.
While the Staff recognizes that this proceeding cannot be con-3/
tinued indefinitely consistent with these principles,- the additional time sought is not patently unreasonable.
The plant is, and will remain, shut down during the pendencj cf this proceeding whatever its duration.
The Appli-cant's motion simpiv creserves the status cuo in this regard and, as such, should not prejudice the rights of any parties to this matter.
The Staff be-lieves that the publi: interest would be best served by an ultimate disposition of the case on its substantive merits rather than on " procedural" prounds.
Thus, the Staff interocses no objection to the Applicant's motion to hold tne proceedina in abeya ce until October 1, 1980. At the same time, the Staff believes that a c:ntinuance until October 1,1980 provides Applicant with a generous pericd of time within which to proceed with the presentation of its direct case.
Tha Staff would not be receptive to any further motions of this kind and believes it reasonable to expect the Applicant either to proceed with its application by October 1, 1980, and the prehearing process resumed, or to withdraw its application.
1/ This proceeding has effectively been continued since May 7,1979, the date of the Board's ruling on the Applicant's earlier motion to hol_d the proceeding in ateyance.
1664 278
. Conclusion
.In light of the above, the Staff has no objection to the grant of the Appli-cant's motion to hold the present proceeding in abeyance until October 1, 1930.
Respectfully submitted, fkt.- A45 Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of De:e.:er,1979.
1664 279
.