ML20041C083
| ML20041C083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1982 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202260143 | |
| Download: ML20041C083 (3) | |
Text
,
W/~
jm
-MV TW 7 MBI g;
g[7_.
(Y I y
p u.
v._ _
a u
Go d31 3
February 23, 1982 p
g RECEIVED t
FEB 2 51gggw 10 Note to:
Harold R. Denton, Director man Naucr M j
6
//
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation From:
Guy H. Cunningham, III
.\\ 4 4
Executive Legal Director
Subject:
HUMBOLDT BAY PROCEEDING: LICENSING BOARD DECISION SETTING DEADLINE FOR UTILITY TO COMMIT TO RESUME OPERATION OR COMMIT TO SUBMIT DECOMMISSIONING PLAN On February 16, 1982 the Licensing Board in the Humboldt Bay proceeding issued a Memorandum and Order which established a time table for the utility to decide whether it would resume operation of the plant or decommission it.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company must inform the Licensing Board within 6 months after the Commission reaches a final decision on the adoption of a reactor safety policy statement and its associated goals and guidelines, that it is then either ready to take actions to resume operation or. commit to submit to the Commission a plan to decommission the plant. Order at 5.
The Board also ordered PG&E to file detailed status reports with the Board beginning on April 1.1982 and each three months thereafter until the matter is resolved.
-Id. at 6.
The Board based its decision, in part, on the NRC Staff response to the Board's October 20, 1981 Memorandum and Order to the effect that the present condition of the plant posed no risk to the public and on the proposed safety goals for all plants which the Applicant suggested would influence its position on whether ever to seek the resumption of plant operation.
This proceeding arose from a 1977 license amendment application requesting removal of a restriction on power operation imposed by a 1976 NRC Order because of seismic problems. The proceeding has virtual'y been held in abeyance since its commencement following several motions for continuance by the Applicant grounded upon the incompleteness of its seismic investigation program. These motions were vigorously opposed by the Intervenor.
In 1981, the Applicant moved to withdraw the amendment application and terminate the proceeding without prejudice. The Intervenor took the position that the proceeding should be terminated with prejudice and decommissioning immediately ordered. The Staff did not oppose the motion arguing, in part, that, even if the motion were granted with prejudice it would merely restore the status quo.
In connection with its consideration of the motion to terminate, the Board solicited certain information from the Staff about the current safety of the plant and status of compliance with present regulations. The other parties were invited to, and did, comment on the Staff response. The Board factored these filings into its current decision.
NJD 0rb u
.g f CURNMEf
"'"*"""""j"
~ " " ' " " " " " "
8202260143 820223~
"E ).
gDRADOCK05000g
.m es2n2 uncronu m no,coinscuouc verlCIAL RECORD COPY
., - :)..
f.. -
f g
'g.
~
6 6?W A
17 7
.6 W g.Wf 1
y.-
fc-.
=
w There are a number of questions as to precisely what the import of the Licensing Board's February 16,-1982 Order is and as to whether the Board has the authority to order decommissioning of the facility, if, in fact, the Board's Order can be read to require decommissioning. OELD is currently reviewing the Order and researching the matter in order to formulate e recommendation on whether to appeal the Order or seek clarification and reconsideration of it. Within a few days, we will inform you of the results of this research and provide a recommendation.
Ori$nsidgned by av H.cunnInsham, lit.
-Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal' Director cc: W. Dircks DISTRIBUTION:
Young (2)
Gray C/M/C ESC File OELD Reading NRC Central SEE PREVIOUSLCONCURRENCE SHEET.
- =>. o Eto.........
... 0.E,L 9.......... 0 ELD..jp cumar>7 0.u..n. g.:. p.l......... 4 g r..a.y............E. C.h..r. i.s..t.e..h..b.u..r.7
..G. Cunni ngh a..m cur) 2
.... /.23/82 2
.../.2) /82 2/.22 /82........2/.22/82 Nuc ronu aie nesso> wacu e24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- um '*eo-aan24
ry j.3 ym em g_
m y
uW h~g 41 4.-
g sc and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to order decommission' In connection with its consideration of the motion to termina
, the Board solicited certain information from the Staff about the rrent safety of the plant and status of compliance with present regul ions. The other parties were invited to, and did, comment on the S ff response. The Board factored these filings into its current d sion.
There are a number of questions as to preci ly what the import of the Licensing Board's February 16, 1982 Orde is and as to whether the Board has the authority to order decommissionin of the facility, if, in fact, the Board's Order can be read to requir decommissioning. OELD is currently reviewing the Order and research'ng the matter in order to formulate a 3
recommendation on whether to appeal the Order or seek clarification and of this research and provide)fi a few days, we will inform you of the results reconsideration of it. With a recommendation.
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director W. Dirc,k cc:
/
.0ELDg.
ILO..
...QELD..
. 0 ELD...
"'c'>
" ' " ' > Y.0..3.:R.......
ay,,,,,,
ECl,1ri,s te,nbury GCunning, ham wr >
. 2. / /J/8. 2.....
. 2../.J..-/.8. 2 2./...../. 82
. 2/./.82 NRC FORM J18 tiesHO) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
""'+3"