ML20009G940
| ML20009G940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1981 |
| From: | Mark Miller, Wenner S, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8108050280 | |
| Download: ML20009G940 (3) | |
Text
_..
a P
G
'\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L
h 0 \\lilk NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8;
JUL 301981 p j 7
3
$l(([*jlf[
N. IJ, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' "G 0 41981 > [e Before Administrative Judges:
,[
' ' **g.""** / e,
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman
/ //3) O a.
Sheldon J. Wolfe
~~
s.'-
g-Seymour Wenner sf
$fRVEg gg 00198) t In the Matter of
. Docket No. 564-A
)
i PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
)
July 30, 1981 Unit 1)
)
)
OP. DER DENYING MOTION Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has filed a motion for a
" protective order" against further discovery "pending final disposition" of the joint motion by PG8E and the Commission's Staff (Staff) to' suspend discovery in this proceedir.g. The State of California Department of Water Resources has filed an Atiswer urging that the motion be denied.
The Staff by letter dated July 27,1981',-indicated that it does not intend to file a pleading setting forth a position on the discovery issues raised by PG&E's Motion for a Protective Order.
In our Orders of June 9,1981, denying the joint motion, and July 13, 1981, denying PG&E's request for certification, we concluded that:
given PG&E's unequivocal representation that it intends to build the Stanislaus nuclear plant, the dispersal of the litigation teams and-the disruption of the litigation process resulting from the suspension 6
9
_ff$8f&BO810730 g/
i.564A p
i
. would entail greater detriment, burden and expense to the parties and the public than continuation of the ongoing proceeding.1/
PG&F has given no new reason why it should be " protected" against the prior agreements of the parties and the orders of the Board, and, accordingly, the motion for a protective order is denied.
PG&E's inotion speaks of " staying discovery pending final disposition" of the joint motion in order to preserve the " status quo", which sounds like an application for a stay under $2.788.
In the interests of judicial economy, we will treat the motion as an alternative request for a stay. Considering the four factors referred to in 52.788(e) for evaluating a request for a stay, we find on the basis of this and the previous motions, our prior orders, and the entire record in this complex and voluminous proceeding, that:
(1) PG&E has not made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) Continuation of discovery absent a stay will not irreparably injure PG&E; (3) The granting of a stay would harm the parties by disrupting the litigation teams and the discovery process; and (4) The balance of the public interest favors continua-tion of the discovery process without interruption.
1/ so as we noted, Staff's urgent licensing responsibilities can be met Al by reducing its participation in this case, and Staff seems to have accepted this suggestion.
a
. We further note that the' status quo, the piesent situation which PG&E seeks to praerve, is that PG&E has not complied with our previous orders. We see no reason to prolong this situation by granting a stay.
4 ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and en consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 30th day af July,1981 ORDERED That the motion of PG&E for suspension of' discovery be denied; and That discovery by the parties be resumed promptly in accordance with their prior agreements and the Board's orders and dircctives.
'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
)
Sheldon b Wolfe I
'A,DMINISTRATIVE JUDGE h
Seymo/rWenner ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
[,
Marshall E. Miller, Cilairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
~
_, ~.
-