ML19282B217
| ML19282B217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1979 |
| From: | Pesonen D GARRY, DREYFUS, MCTERNAN, BROTSKY, HERNDON & PESONEN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903090382 | |
| Download: ML19282B217 (8) | |
Text
" Z C ECOM i
DAVID E. PESONEN, ESQ.
GARRY, DREYFUS, MCTERNAN, BROTSKY, HERNDON & PESONEN, INC.
1256 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102
- =,=YDN Telephone
(415) 864-3131 A
LINDA J.
BROWN, ESQ.
DONOHOE, JONES, BROWN & CLIFFORD 100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone:
(415) 431-5310 MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD, ESQ.
SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
311 California Street, Suite 311 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone:
(415) 398-1411 Attorneys for Intervenors UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-133
)
License No. DPR-7 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3))
)
INTERVENORS' ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.730(c), all intervenors submit the within answer in opposition to the Motion of licensee Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") to Hold Proceedings Il in Abeyance, dated January 26, 1979.
1] This answer is filed on behalf of intervenors Thomas A.
Collins, Dr. Elmont Honea, Frederick P.
Cranston, Wesly Chesbro, Demetrios L. Mitsanas, Six Rivers Branch of the Friends of the Earth and The Sierra Club.
79030903 D
BACKGROUND OF THE MOTION This is PG&E's second motion to hold proceedings in abeyance.
The first, dated March 24, 1978, assured the Licens-ing Board, without qualification, that at the conclusion of the nine-month period applied for, "PGandE will be in a position to proceed in this matter."
The present unverified motion is somewhat less emphatic, going only so far as to say that "PGandE anticipates that at the conclusion of that period (nine months, through October 1, 1979] it will be in a position to proceed in this matter."
By letter of April 17, 1978 intervenors advised Chair-man Luton that they did not oppose the licensee's first motion, but only on condition that the staff and intervenors be furnished progress reports on the further geologic and seismic investiga-tion which PG&E alleged was the reason it sought more time.
The staff had also indicated its lack of opposition to the first motion, but also on the condition that PG&E furnish periodic progress reports.
The Board's order of May 16, 1978 acknowledged both the staff's and the intervenor's positions respecting periodic reporting of progress on the licensee's proposed " geological and other work," but did not specifically rule on the motion on the grounds that the issue should be submitted to another licensing board.
The present Board's order of January 12, 1979 incor-rectly states that the licensee's earlier motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance "was denied."
The practical effect of the Board's order of May 16, 1978 was to grant the motion -
without imposing the conditions urged by the staff and the in-tervenors.
THE MOTION REVEALS A DILATOnY APPROACH TO THE PROCEEDINGS BY PG&E AND DISCLOSES NO GOOD CAUSE FOR FURTHER DELAY The March 24th 1978 motion, like the present motion, was unverified and was not supported by affidavit or other evi-dence as required by 10 C.F.R. S 2.730(b).
10 C.F.R. 5 2.711(a), under which PG&E makes its pre-sent motion, provides that the extension of time sought by the current motion must be supported by a showing of good cause.
The unverified motion, unsupported by affidavit or other evi-dentiary matter, and framed in wholly conclusory terms, cannot meet any test of good cause.
Furthermore, the intervenors have been furnished no communications from PG&E, although PG&E's current motion indi-cates that it has communicated with the NRC staff, at least with respect to the scheduling of certain seismic and geologic tests.
It is inconceivable to intervenors that PG&E has not received progress reports from Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Earth Science Associates.
PG&E must certainly have received a report justifying the current attempts to undertake further trenching operations on land for which the owner has not yet granted permission, as alleged in PG&E's current motion at page 3.
The staff and intervenors are entitled to know on what basis PG&E now asserts that it anticipates being in a position to proceed in this matter by October 1, 1979.
But PG&E has submitted nothing in support of its motion except the conclusory assertions of counsel which duplicate the prior, unfulfilled assertions of PG&E's indeterminate hopes and aspirations.
This is not good cause.
FURTHER DELAY WOULD HAVE LONG-TSRM ADVERSE IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY SUPPLY PLANNING IN CALIFORNIA AND WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE-TO INTERVENORS AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA The individual intervenors, with the exception of Thomas K.
Collins (who resides in Washington), and the members of the organizational intervenors are both ratepayers in California and are interested in sound energy supply planning.
PG&E is a party to proceedings pending before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California ("PUC" ), on ap-plications numbered 57284 and 56285.
In those proceedings, the PUC, by Decision No. 89316 on September 6, 1978 ordered, inter alia, the following:
"PG&E shall, by April 15, 1979, prepare and submit a twenty-year electric supply plan reflecting energy conservation and all cost-effective alternative sources of energy.
Complete information should be pro-vided on loads and resources, estimated capital and operating costs and financial and rate impacts for each year of the twenty-year period."
On the same date, the PUC issued its Order Instituting Investigation (O. I. I. ), No. 26, indicating that the twenty-year plan required to be produced under Decision No. 89316, would be subject to public hearings within 30 days after PG&E's filing of the report and again after final reports are submitted.
Furthermore, O.I.I.-26 indicated the PUC's intention to --
" explore the relative merits and cost-effectiveness of the entire range of options available to PG&E and its customers for providing energy services whether through energy conservation or through traditional or alternative supply technologies.
Finally, The California Energy Resources and Conservation Commission is required by statute to issue biennial energy supply planning reports in odd numbered years.
Such reports become the basis for energy supply planning decisions by the Commission during subsequent years.
~
Accordingly, a prompt determination as to whether the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 will remain in the rate base and in the electric energy supply base will have far-reach-ing implications for major energy supply planning decisions now under way in California.
Additionally, California has shown considerable interest in development of alternative forms of energy, with particular emphasis on renewable energy resources.
This Commission may take judicial notice that the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant is situated in one of the major forest products regions of the State, in which substantial amounts of wood waste may be avail-able for electric power generation, if economic conditions jus-
-tify development of such facilities.
Uncertainty over whether the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Unit will or will not be in the local energy supply base may have a chilling effect on development by other entrpreneurs of wood waste burning facilities for electric power generation.
Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, intervenors -
and others whose interests are represented by intervenors in this proceeding - will be substantially prejudiced by further delay.
CONCLUSION PG&E has shown no good cause for further delay and has failed to lawfully support its application.
Further delay will cause substnatial prejudice to intervenors.
Intervenors oppose the present motion to hold proceedings in abeyance.
If the Commission is nevertheless inclined to grant the motion, intervenors request that the condition of periodic re-porting, urged at the time of the first motion, at 60-day inter-vals, including reference to all reports, memoranda, and similar documents, including a brief summary of their contents, be im-
. posed on the licensee as a condition of the granting of such motion.
If the Board is inclined to deny the motion, intervenors do not oppose a short extension from the February 2, 1979 dead-line, within which the parties may specify issues and take other steps preparatory to a formal hearing.
DATED:
Respectfully submitted, D A VI D I..: E S O ?. Z.s DAVID E. PESONEN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document:
INTERVENORS' ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE has been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Richard F.
Locke, Esq.
Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94106 Barry Smith, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Section Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel-U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. David R.
Schink Department of Oceanography Texas A & M University College Station, Texas 77840 Dated:
February 5, 1979 DAVID E. PESONEN David E.
Pesonen