ML19276H518
| ML19276H518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276H519 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911290045 | |
| Download: ML19276H518 (5) | |
Text
, qu :
4;
- Q'
<1 i
NRC PUBLIC DOCDIENT R001f h
A A
,eU -~
r'q/..f,.
Q
.T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 11/1/79 i
f.~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f + '/, r r
.'A T
g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-133
)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant,
)
Unit No. 3)
)
NRC STAFF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO ANSWER APPLICANT'S MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE
Background
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 to and including October 1,1980 in order to gather additional seismic and geologic information about the site. A previous motion-1/ to hold this proceeding in abeyance until October 1,1979 in order to conduct certain seismic and geo-logic studies was granted by this Ccard on May 7,1979 on the condition that the Applicant submit 60-day status reports on the progress of its investi-gation.
It is explained in the instant motion that the work has not pro-gressed on the originally contemplated schedule and that, during the investi-gations, it became apparent that additional work was necessary. The scope of the additional work and the time-frame for its completion are outlined 1/ This particular motion was itself preceded by a similar motion before the " intervention" Board which directed the Applicant to renew such motion before the designated " hearing' Board if desired.
1424 548 G
7911290 b-
. in an accompanying report, dated September 1,1979, prepared by the Appli-cant's consultant. On October 9, the Intervenors filed an answer in opposi-tion to the motiori. Their memorandum in support of that answer, dated October 16, was received on October 22.
In accordance with the Board's Order of October 17, which granted a Staff motion for extension of time to respond to the initial motion until receipt of the Intervenors' memorandum, the Staff's answer to the motion is due on November 1.
However, for good cause herein-after shown, the Staff, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.711, respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time, or until December 31, 1979, within which to file its answer herein.
This matter arose upon the Applicant's filing of an application for amendment of the Humboldt Bay operating license on May 20, 1977 to permit the facility to resume operation following an NRC Order for Modification of License dated May 21,1976, conditionally terminating operation. A Notice of Hearing in connection with this application was published in the Federal Register on June 23,1977 (42 F.R. 31847).
Several intervention petitions were filed and subsequently granted by Board Order of May 16, 1978. The Order for Modification required the satisfactory completion of a specific seismic design upgrading program and resolution of specified geologic and seismic concerns prior to power operation following the 1976 refueling outage.
Discussion A central tenet of NRC practice is that licensing proceedings be concluded as expeditiously as possible in a manner consistent with due orocess of law.
See 10 C.F.R. 552.718 and 2.757; Appendix 4 to 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
Licensing 1424 349
, boards possess the authority to " regulate the course of [a] hearing." 10 C.F.R. 52.718(e); Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 53 (1975). The foremost scheduling consideration is the public interest which is normally best served by as' prompt a decision one way or the other as possible consistent with the liti-gants' opportunity to be heard. Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facility), ALAB-296, 2 NRC 671, 684-85 (1976);
Douglas Point, suora.
In this regard, the Appeal Board has observed:
If (a particular] plant is safe and environmentally sound, then there is every reason to have the facility approved promptly.
If, on the other hand, the plant fails to pass muster, the public interest will be served if this fact is known sooner rather than later. For, in that event, there will be a need either to initiate corrective action to bring the facility into compliance (if possible) or to develop some alternative solution.
2 NRC at 684-85.
The foregoing principles commend a timely resumption of hearing activity in this proceeding.
It should be stressed that the seismic and geologic matters which form the sibject of this proceeding are not of recent vintage.
Updated analyses and evaluation of pertinent data have been underway prior to and following issuance of an operating license for Humboldt Bay in January,1969. To date, the NRC Staff has not been provided with any information which would demon-strate satisfactory compliance with the operative provisions of the May 21, 1976 Order for Modification and, thus, demonstrate that the present license amendment application should be granted.
See attached Staff affidavit of Anthony Thomas Cardone.
1424 (50 The 60-day status reports submitted under the May 7,1979 Board Order have not provided much insight into the substantive findings of the Applicant's current investigation.
See Cardone affidavit. Moreover, the instant motion fails to explain why these investigations have not progressed further and the date by which the additional work outlined in the September 1,1979 consultant's report will be ;ompleted.
In light of the above, it is questionable whether the granting of the Appli-cant's motion will lead to a resumption of the hearing process in the fore-seeable future.
In general, the Staff does not believe that the public interest is well served by an unduly protracted proceeding.
C_f_. Barnwell Facility, supra. Nonetheless, the Staff requests a 60-day extension of time within which to answer the instant motion in order to consider the preliminary results of the ongoing investigation, which will include a site visit and a meeting with the Applicant, and to fully ascertain the precise status of the current developments in this proceeding. This additional time period should permit the Staff to determine whether there is good cause for the requested relief. The Staff does not believe that the granting of this motion would result in any undue prejudice to any party to this proceeding since the appli-cation is effectively in suspension at this time and the plant is out of ser-vice. Nor is it expected that allowance of this time extension will pose any radiological risk to the public.
See Staff affidavit of Richard L. Emch, Jr.
1424 551
. Accordingly, for good. ;ase shown, the Staff requests the Board to allow it until December 31, 1979 to file its answer to the Applicant's motion.
Respectfully submitted, N
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel fcr NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of Movecber,1979.
1424 (52
.