ML19296D596
| ML19296D596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1980 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003070027 | |
| Download: ML19296D596 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ,s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s8 f n' NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION pf C cccxE33 utsN j. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g Herbert Grossman, Chairman g 41980 m -{ MAR Glenn O. Bright, Member pf gec ol tM SSM f D0ddglj # g Dr. Richard F. Cole Member / In the Matter of ) N ) NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE ) Docket No. 50-367 ) (Bailly Generating Station, ) (Construction Permit Extension) Nuclear 1) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIOM OF DENIAL OF CONTINUANCE On February 19, 1980, the Licensing Board received a motion filed by the State of Illinois for a continuance of the special prehearing conference, which the Board denied on February 20, 1980. Although not joining in that Motion for Con-tinuance, a group of petitioners who refer to themselves as " Joint Intervenors" now move for reconsideration of the Board's denial of the continuance. Foremost in their motion r the allegation that there were unfair and improper g parte comunications between the Board Chairman and the NRC staff attorney prior to the denial of the Motion for Continuance, and between the Board Chairman and a State of Illinois attorney, in which the Board Chairman informed the attorney of the denial of the motion. Joint Intervenors' allegations are based upon misunder-standings of fact and the Commission's regulations. Although it is alleged throughout the motion for reconsideration and the statement of Robert J. Vollen in support of the motion that the 8003070 O2}
, position of the NRC staff with regard to the Motion for Continuance was communicated to the Chairman of the Board in the telephone con-versation before issuance of the denial order, that was not the case; the staff's views were neither solicited nor presented. Because the movant for continuance, the State of Illinois, had not consulted with the other parties for acceptable alternative dates for the conference, the Board Chairman called the staff attorney to request that he perform the ministerial task of calling each of the parties and determining whether they would all be available for a conference on March 26 and 27, 1980, the only period within the next month in which the Board members and the hearing room would be available. When the staff attorney indicated that he would be unavailable, that resolved the issue, with no further' discussion taking place. Even if a discussion had been held on a procedural matter such as the motion before the Board, the Com-mission's ex parte rules contained in 10 CFR SS2.719(b) and 2.780(a) would not apply, since 52.719(b) prohibits ex parte communications regarding "any fact in issue" and $2.780 prohibits ex parte communi-cations regarding a " substantive matter at issue". What the Joint Intervenors' complain about in the sub-sequent conversation of,the Board Chairman with the State of Illino s' attorney in which he informed her thac the motion had been denied, in unclear. The purpose and substance of the tele-pone conversation were to inform her as quickly as possible that
. the supplemental petition should be prepared on schedule. In addition to requesting a reconsideration of the Board's ruling on the State of Illinois' motion, Joint Intervenors now request a continuance to have more time to prepare their supplements. That request should have been made eson after the Board issued its February 7, 1980 order scheduling the conference, not on February 20, 1980 after the Board had already ruled against another participant's motion for continuance. Joint Intervenors have had since November 30, 1979, when the notice of opportunity for hearing was published in the Federal Register and since January 2, 1980, when they served their Petition for Leave to Intervene, to supplement their petitions, as well as the period succeeding the Board's February, 1980 order. Whatever may have occurred in prior proceedings, the Board does not intend to conduct this proceeding at a "rather leisurely pace", as suggested by Joint Intervenors (Motion for Consideration, p. 1). Joint Intervenors' motion for reconsideration and con-tinuance is denied. Furthermore, in the future, all parties moving for continuances should consult with the other parties with regard to acceptable alternative dates and inform the Board in the motion of available alternatives.
._ 4 _ 3Y ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEI! SING BOARD ', t bblSh,0 1.% s~m - -- Herbert'Grossman, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of c' arch, 1980 'M; .}}