ML19350C732
| ML19350C732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8104060641 | |
| Download: ML19350C732 (4) | |
Text
a
\\ St
\\
k,4\\
'T
'h
'N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f,3 Ef(J M
-d NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t411SS10ii
/9 I
f [h,C::\\
/Y
' 00':! ~-i M
7
/ g g.7
'J_]. }
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gy{
g k "*"d'gg.~.wa, jl Before Administrative Judges:
M
.,e g ":r M ( /
c#. '
Herbert G ossman, Chairman V, g.r; e r,
U##
.y
^!
Dr. Robert L. Holton, Member Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Member Y
'CCQ,,,:
)
er In the Matter of
)
2/cgI
) D0cket No. 50-367 CPA NORTHERN INDI!.NA PUBLIC SERVICE
)
COMPANY
)
(Bailly Generatino Station, Nuclear 1)
)
April 1, 1981
)
MEMORANDIAi AND ORDER (Denying Motion to Suspend Litigation Proceedings)
ME'ORANDUM d
On November 13, 1980, Porter County Chapter Intervenors (PCCIs) moved to suspend litigation proceedings on a number of grounds, including: that NIPSCO had stated that it may discontinue constructing the Bailly plant; that NIPSCO had yet to submit a prospective amendment of the completion date extension request to a later date; that the Staff had not yet determined whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required; that the Staff had not yet completed its' review of the short-pilings proposal; and that the scope of the hearing had not yet been finally determined because the Board had not yet ruled on the admissibility of the short-pilings and " newly-filed" contentions. According to PCCIs, until these matters have been resolved, pursuing prehearing litigation activity would-be wasteful of the parties' resources because much of the dis-covery might have to be redone when the full scope of the '-" ring becomes 9y 1
6 854060 (oW g
, more definite. The State of Illinois (Response, November 26,1980) supported the motion; NIPSCO (Respense, November 25,1980) and the NRC Staff (Response, December 2,1980) opposed it.
Many of the matters relied upon by PCCIs to support the proposition that the scope of the proceeding is too, indefinite to justify continuing discovery at this time have been overtaken by events. NIPSCO has submitted its further amendment of the ccnstruction completion date extension; the Board has admitted PCCIs' contention with regard to that amendment; the Staff has completed its review of the short-pilings proposal and, in any event, the merits of the short-pilings issue have been ruled inadmissible as contentions in this pro-ceeding; and the " newly-filed" contentions have been ruled upon. The only significant matters not yet resolved concern the possibility of NIPSCO's deciding to discontinue the Bailly plant and the Staff's position on whether a new Environmental Impact Statement is required.
We do not read the NRC Rules of Practice as pemitting us to suspend these proceedings because of the possibility that NIPSCO may decide to discontinue constructing'the Bailly plant.
10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(b) provides, in pertinent part, "That upon good cause shown the Commission will extend the [ construction]
completion date for a reasonable period of time." NIPSCO represents that it is l
-willing and able to show good cause for.the extension and, until it notifies us to the contrary, it is entitled to a hearing under the Rules to prove the good cause.. Although the Board has the power to regulate the course of the
- 'i proceedings, it cannot arbitrarily suspend the right to a hearing of a party that has complied with all of the procedural prerequisites to a hearing.
Cf,. Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539 (1975).
Nor do we consider the prospect of an indefinite delay in the issuance of the Staff's environmental assessment as justifying a suspension of
.prehearing litigation activities on the issues already in contention. Considering the seemingly interminable delays already encountered in this and prior pro-ceedings involving the Bailly facility, due in large measure to the internecine warfare between the parties, we would seem better advised to~ allow the greatest period of discovery (with some risk of duplication and added expense) than to attempt to eliminate a period of discovery in order to cons.erve the parties'
-resources. Were the Board to grant the requested suspension, it might well find that the period of suspension would be added on again to the length of the proceeding after discovery resumes. Considering that the bulk of the con-tentions so far admitted relatesto the reasons for the delay in completion, and that the issues involving the latest requested extension of completion date have already been-joined, we also foresee little chance of duplicated effort when.the environmental area ripens for discovery with the issuance of the Staff's
-environmental assessment and'the Board's consideration of environmental contentions.
l
4_
ORDER For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 1st day of April,1981 ORDERED That the motion of PCCIs to suspend the litigation proceedings is' denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 4
._1,
-