ML20023D451
| ML20023D451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1983 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| 79-421-07-OL, 79-421-7-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, LBP-83-26, NUDOCS 8305200511 | |
| Download: ML20023D451 (5) | |
Text
.-.
LBP-83-26 00CKETEn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ur NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 583 RIY 19 A10:28 Before Administrative Judges Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. James C. Lamb Mr. Ernest E. Hill g;
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
STN 50-499 OL (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2)
May 18,1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Attorney General of Texas' Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlide) l By motion dated April 21, 1983, the Attorney General of Texas l
l requests a 90-day extension for the State of Texas of the discovery period for Phase II of this operating license proceeding.
In their response dated May 3,1983, the Applicants offer no objection to such an l
extension. The NRC Staff, by response dated May 6, 1983, opposes Texas' l
request.
For the reasons which follow, we believe that Texas should be afforded additional di-scovery time for Phase II issues and that its l
motion should be granted.
Texas was admitted to this proceeding as an interested State pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.715(c) by our Prehearing Conference Order dated April 3, 1979, LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439.
It did not actively participate in Pnase I of this proceeding. At the close of Phase I, we determined that i
1 8305200511 830518 i
l PDR ADOCK 05000498 ggp l
C PDR E..
. l t
discovery for Phase II would extend for 90 days, commencing with the I
receipt by parties of the NRC Staff's review of the Quadrex Report.
See Memorandum dated June 24, 1982 (unpublished). That review was served on the parties on January 17, 1983; taking into account service time, the ninety-day discovery period expired on April 25, 1983.
Texas indicates that it wishes to participate " effectively and comprehensively" in Phase II but that, as a result of a change in administration in Texas in January,1983, and the transition activities i
related thereto, it has been unable thus far to review the voluminous material bearing upon the Quadrex Report (one of the subjects to be considered in Phase II).
It recognizes that a delay in the commencement i
of the Phase II hearings could possibly result from our granting its request. But it asks us to recognize the " unique circumstances created by the electoral process in the State of Texas and the heavy burden placed on a new office holder in a statewide position," and to grant its i
imotion "as a matter of comity and in the interest of developing a complete record."
It adds that the delay would have no impact either on the extended operating date for this facility or on the Commission's mandate for an early decision on Phase I issues.
The Applicants acknowledge 't'he " unique circumstances" referred to by Texas, but they note (correctly in our view) that those particular circumstances only apply to the State.
They would have the 90-day extension run from the expiration date of the original Phase II
~ dis 6very period.
E l
L..
, _._. ~ _ _. - -_
. On the other hand, the NRC Staff, in opposing Texas' request, refuses to give any weight to the " unique circumstances" referenced by the State of Texas.
Indeed, it barely refers to the change of administrations on which Texas is relying.
Nor does it discuss the relationship of the request to the timeliness of various licensing activities.
Instead, it bases its opposition on the fact that the only Quadrex-related document which has not been available to Texas for substantially more than three months is the Staff review of the Quadrex Report (I&E Report 82-12, NUREG-0948); and on the circumstance that, in June 1982, when we established the Phase II schedule, Texcs sought no additional time for discovery.
We recognize, as the Staff observes, that an interested State, once admitted to a proceeding, "must observe the procedural requirements applicable to other participants." Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768 (1977).
Every party, however, may seek modification for " good cause" of time ' limits previously set by a Board.
10 CFR 5 2.711(a). Moreover, " good cause,"
by its very nature, must be an a_d hoc determination based on the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular determination.
Although an interested State must observe applicable procedural requirements, including time limits, the facts and circumstances which would constitute " good cause" for extending the time available to a' State may not be co-extensive with those warranting that action for another party.
States need not, although they may, take a position with e
respect to an issue in order to participate in the resolution of that issue.
See 10 CFR 6 2.715(c). Reflecting political changes which uniquely bear upon bodies such as States, a State's position on an issue (and the degree of its participation with respect to that issue) might understand' ably change during the course of a Board's consideration of t
the issue. The Coninission itself has recognized such factors, and it has permitted States to participate even where contrary to a procedural requirement which might bar another party's participation.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
In doing so, it observed that "the participation of an interested sovereign state in our licensing process, as a full party or otherwise, is always desirable * * *" (id. at 537).
These considerations compel us to reject the Staff's view and grant Texas an extension of time for Phase II discovery.
Such action will not, in our view, unduly delay this proceeding or adversely affect any party.
(The Staff has not claimed to the contrary.) Moreover, effective participation by Texas in the resolution of the Quadrex Report issues--as well as the hurricane issue which is also to be heard in Phase II--warrants granting Texas additional time for discovery.
Because Texas likely could not justify assigning personnel to l
Phase II discovery in the absence of a favorable ruling on its request, we will grant Texas 90 days from the service of this Memorandum and Order to complete its discovery on Phase II issues.
See 10 CFR 6 2.710.
This time limit governs Texas' discovery on both the Quadrox Report issues and on Contention 4 (hurricanes).
. Therefore, it is, this 18th day of May,1983 ORDERED i
That the State of Texas' Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline is granted, under the terms set forth above.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
$/ c?t li,y b c A / 4 b u Charles Bechhoefer, Chairmyn ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE