ML19336A389
| ML19336A389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1980 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010220694 | |
| Download: ML19336A389 (6) | |
Text
.,
i s-
~
s
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 10/21/80 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of p
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nc,. 50-133
)
.(Humboldt Bay Power Plant,
)
Unit No. 3) i j
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABCYANCE i
i INTRODUCTIO_N_-
On October 6,1980, the Applicant filed a motion,-pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.711(c), to hold the captioned proceeding in abeyance until December 31, 1980 on the grounds that additional studies are required to resolve the technical issues relating to geology and seismology and that additional time is-needed to assess the economic costs of returning the plant to opera-tion. The motion is accompanied by ailetter, dated October 6,1980, to the Licensing Board Chairman enclosing a report prepared for the Applicant by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, entitled " Evaluation of the Potential for Resolving the Geologic and Seismic Issues at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3," dated _ October-1,1980. The October 6 letter identifies the cost of complying with the Comission's requirements stenning from the Three Mile Island accident ~ a's among the ' economic factors-it must assess. On the
' strength'of the representations made in the present motion and the accom-panying consultants' report, the Staff interposes no objection to the re-
_ quested continuance until December 31, 1980.
s 80.10.220 f
~
H.g.
' r DISCUSSION-The present motion.is the fourth motion'for continuance to be filed in this proceedin9-1/The-Staff interposed no-objection to the last motion to hold the proceedina in abeyance until October 1,1980 while, at the same time, expressing the expectation'that that would have been. the last such request
-2/
necessary.
That has not proved to be the case.
According to the Applicant's letter of October 6,1980, the October 1 report of its consultants concludes that the technical issues relating to geology 4
and seismology seem capable of resolution but that additional studies would be. required to do so. Separate and apart from this consideration, the Ap-
[
plicant states that the cost of otherwise returninn the plant to operation could prove orohibitive.
It asserts that it needs until December 31, 1980 to make such.an assessment. Judoing from this representation, even assuming l
a successful resolution of the geologic and seismic issues, it may not re-turn the plant to operation.
In a parallel matter, it has been brought'to the attention of the Staff that the Applicant has been ordered by the Cali-r fornia Public Utilities-Commission-(PUC) to conduct a thorounh review of the future commercial potential of the Humboldt facility and to report its 3/
findings to that agency by December'31, 1980.-
. 1/ Earlier such motions were filed on March 24, 1978, January 26 and-Seo-tember 27, 1979.
~
2/ - See NRC -Staff response to Applicant's September 27, 1979 motion for continuance, dated December 26, 1979.
-3/ See Intervenors' answer in opposition to the present notion, dated Dciober 17, 1930.
^
t
o s
--3 The Staff expresses no opinion on whether the material aeoloaic and seismic issues.are capable of successful resolution as the October 1 report of the Applicant's consultants ' concludes.
Nonetheless, it is reluctant to deny the Applicant the opoortunity' to perform the additional studies assertedly needed to achieve such resolution in light of tanaible evidence thev are
~
striving to resolve these issues in a timely manner. At the same time, the Applicant's introduction of economic factors into the decisional process cannot-be ignored. The Staff acknowledaar that the Applicant is under order I
from the : California PUC to report to it upon the economic viability of poten-tional future plant operation. Given this development, and the protracted history of this proceeding generally, the Staff t'elieves that the Board and carties are similarly entitled to an express commitment from the Apolicant on the record by December 31, 1980 that, assuming a favorable resolution of the pertinent geoloaic and seismic issues, it intends to operate this plant 4]
l again.
As a further consideration, pursuant to the Board's June 17, 1930 Order, the
)
p Intervenors are required to file amended contentions by mid-December,1980 on the basis of the lloodward-Ciyde Consultants' report of October 1, 1980.
Presumably, the Staff is expected to file a responsibe statement of position
. on the admissibility of the contentions within some-reasonable period of time.
4/ ~ In its decision in North Coast, the Aopeal Board concluded that, where a
~ construction. permit applicant has clearly abandoned any intention to build-the sub. ject facility, a l_icensing board may properly-dismiss the applica-1 tion in question as moot. Puerto Rico Electric Power Co. (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-6Cu, 11 NRC (Auaust 11,1980).
J
=
g r,.
- 4'-
4
['
Given'the continued -uncertainty surrounding the Applicant's :nlans-to pro-y ceed to. hearina'on its. application,.the requirement to frame contentions for litigation imposes an unnecessary, and potentially fruitless, burden on al_1 parties. concerned.
Therefore, the Staff recommends that the Board-defer any 'oblication.to formulate contentions until the pplicantL hasloffi-c'ially advised the Board of itsllitigative position in this matter.
[
CONCLUSION In light of the.above, the Staff interposes no ob.iection to the Applicant's U.
motion to hold the proceeding in abeyance until December 31, 1930.
Respec'tfully submitted,
,b w
' N-
[
Steven C. Goldbero Counsel for NRC Staff I
V B'
IL Dated at Bethesda,flaryland E
this 21st day of October,-1980
- ff W
}
V f
r,$-"
9 p-'<
t-
(
DE D'fP)DN~'Y(a W u'u Qfdd j 1
. UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY C0FJ4ISSION
.BEFORE THE AT0f4IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ~
In th'e Matter of I
- PACIFIC' GAS'AND ELECTRIC
)
C0F.PANY Docket No. 50-133 (Humboldt Bay Povier Plant,.
Unit No.~3)
)
CERTI.:ICATE OF SERVICE 3
I hereby certify that copies of NRC--STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE" in the above-cactioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, throuah deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comnis-sion's internal mail' system, this 21st day-of October, 1980.
- Robert M. Lazo, Eso., Chairman Linda J. Brown, Esq.
Atonic Safety and Licensing Board
'Donohoe, Jones, Brocen & Clifford U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 100 Van fless Avance,19th Floor L'ashington, D.C.
20555 San Francisco, California 94102
- fir. Gustave A. Linenberger Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Co=1ission k'ashington,- D.C. ' 20555 Dr. David R. Schink
- Atomic Safet; and Licensing Department of Oceanography Board Panel Texas A &-M University
- U.S. Nucleac Regulatory Ccmissicn College Station, Texas 77840 h'ashington. 0.C.
20555 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Pacific. Gas and Electric Company.
Appeal Board.
77 Beale Street - Roca=3127 ~~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
' San Francisco, California 94106 L'ashington, D.C.
20555 Friends.of the Earth flichael R. Sherwood, Esq.
Attn: Andrew Baldwin L a Df se Fund, Inc.
124 Spear; Street' San Francisco,3 California 94105 311 California Street, Suite 311 San Francisco, California 94104 f
a i
+
~',
n :c4 ;
..,s si 4
2-
. Docketing and Service-Section:
Bruce Norton, Esq.
Office of the-Secretaryz.
3216 N. Third Street, Suite 202
'U.S Nuclear ' Regulatory Comission Phoenix, Arizona 85012
- Washington, D.C. :-20555:
1 i-4
' 1, A.Llkl Steven C. Go m berai)-
1 Counsel for NRC Staff
.x r
p..
~
s
)
.m-2
?
l t-4 e
4 y,
.w
-r m
k i.
_]
)
L c--
a f
~
.Eu-
.n n
--