ML19308B298
| ML19308B298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912280310 | |
| Download: ML19308B298 (3) | |
Text
~,.
LNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCIEAR REGMATUIN CONISSICE o
THE ATOEC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD
- g 4
=.2-Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Cbaiman ig O
Dr. Richard F. Cole, Maier Dr. Martin J. Steindler, Menber iI&
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON (XEPANY, et al.
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
(EPICOR-II)
Unit 2)
)
ORDER DENYING JOINI M7 RICE TO POSTPONE SPECIAL PREHEARDC CWFERENCE (Novsber 29, 1979)
The Staff filed a Joint Motion to Postpone Special Prehearing Confermee on Novmber 28, 1979.
It stated that t.he Staff was authorized to move on behalf of I
all parties for "the indefinite postponenent of the scheduled special prehearing l
ccnference," which is set for Deceber 6,1979, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The notion further stated that " efforts are underway to reach an agreenent which would result in withdrawal of the Susquehanna Valley Alliance's request for a hearing and petition to intervene. Although these efforts have not yet been coupleted, a favorable resolution is expected in the very near future (possibly, early next week)."
A telegraphic notice of the denial of this motion was sent by the Board to all parties cn November 29, 1979.
Although a motion of this type would not be unusual:in an ordinary case, this is not an ordinary proceeding and it will not be treated as such. The Caumission has recognized the unusual nature of the surrounding ciretznstances in its Statenent of Policy and Notice of Intent to Prepare a Prcigr~anmatic Envircrrnental
~
~
49122809 @
s
, Inpact Statenent, dated Novenber 21, 1979, which stated at page 1 "in light of the extraordinary nature of this action and the expressed interest of the r
President's Cotiteil on Envimm=:ntal Quality in the 'IMI-2 clean-up...."
As we noted in our Notice of Special Prehearing Conference dated November 15, 1979, the Comission has directed this Board to bear in udnd that the process of operating EPICOR-II may take as little as two months, and accordingly "the hearing shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible" (Comission's Menorandun and Order, dated October 16, 1979, p. 16). Since the EPIOOR process has been under way for several weeks, it is manifest that any requested hearing nust be conducted very expeditiously if it is to be meaningful to the parties.
The Board is prepared to ccanence an evidentiary hearing alnost inmediately after the special prehearing conference, provided that the Intervenor SVA files a supplement to its petition setting forth with reasonable specificity at least one viable contention and the bases therefor (10 CFR S2.714(b)). We would also be prepared to consider forthwith, if shown to be appropriate, the Camdasion's statement that "the Board is authorized to inmediately stay the effectiveness of all or part of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Order should it determine, based upon affidavits or such other sumary stay procedures it deans appropriate, that this is required in crder to protect public health and safety" (I_d,., at p.16).
d It is evident frcun the very unusual nature of the Connd.ssion's Order and the procedures established by it that time is of the essence in tenderi,..g this opportunity for a hearing while the EPICOR process is underway. If the Intervenor SVA desires a hearing, it will be accorded cne very promptly.
If, on the other hand, it wishes to withdraw its request for hetr. g and petiticn to intervene, it i
. need only file an appropriate notion and leave will be granted. However, we do not believe that the public. interest will be served by an indefinite postponement of a hearing already scheduled and publicized, upon some rather vague hope by the Staff that an indefinite delay may possibly result in same agreement in the mspecified future. A request for an NBC hearing under the prevailing circumstances is not to be treated lightly as some kind of tactical maneuver by any of the parties.E We assme rather that the Intervenor SVA desires to proceed prmptly with an expeditious hearing, as does the Board. Accordingly, the notion to postpone is denied.
(
It is so ordered.
FtR T1E ATCMIC SAFETI AND l
LICENSING BOARD A
l e
Marshall E. Millel, Chihwi Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of Novmber 1979.
l l
1 N e note that SVA at page 2 of its Petition stated that it was filed to protect l
W whatever rights it might have to proceed before the NRC, but it did so without prejudice to pursuing its pending litigation in the courts,... "and further states that resort to the NRC under the above referenced Orders are futile aul constitutes an adninistrative reedy which need not be exhausted by petitioners."