ML20059E863

Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion for Extension of Time.* Util Does Not Agree W/Board Assessment That Mothers for Peace Request Appears to Be Reasonable But Will Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20059E863
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/25/1993
From:	Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#493-14419 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9311040012
Download: ML20059E863 (6)

Text

-

jtu9 Octobet 25i,ii1993 UwRC

'93 DCT 26 P4 :07 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r:

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

) Docket Nos. 50-323-OLA 50-275-OLA_ ~

L

)

) (Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) Recovery)

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME e .

On October 18, 1993, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace ("MFP") filed a Motionl' requesting a two-week extension of its time to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in this proceeding. Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E")

hereby responds to the extension request.

By Order dated August 24, 1993, the Board established its ,

schedule for post-hearing filings by the parties. That schedule, based on discussions among the Board and parties at the hearing, already was premised on the complexity and volume of the record in this case, as well as the resources of MFP. PG&E believes the schedule, as previously adopted by the Board, adequately responded l' " San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," October 18, 1993.

9311040012 931025~ ,

PDR ADOCK 05000275 O PDR .

[L3

to the interests of MFP and allowed sufficient time for MFP to prepare its post-hearing submittal.F Under the Commission's Rules of Practice governing initial licensing proceedings (which presumably involve records far more complex and lengthy than that involved in this -case) , proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are due within 30~

(applicant), 40 (intervenor), and 50 (NRC Staff) days after the record is closed. 10 C.F.R. S 2.754(a). In this case, the Board adopted a significantly more relaxed schedule, allowing 45 (PG&E) ,

73 (MFP), and 94 (NRC Staff) days respectively for initial filings.

Apparently in recognition of MFP's limited means, the schedule was not even proportional to that set out in the Rules of Practice, relaxing the schedule at a greater rate for MFP than for PG&E. The extension requested will allow 87 days for proposed findings by MFP

-- more than twice the time specified in the Commission's rules.

Nevertheless, PG&E recognizes that in its Order - of October 19, 1993, the Board stated that the MFP request appears to be " reasonable" and that the Board is prepared to grant the' request absent a " compelling" reason to the contrary. While PG&E does not agree with the Board's assessment of the request or the implied F The Commission has also provided policy guidance that encompasses this Motion. Egg Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensina Proceedinas, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 454 (1981)

("[T]he fact that a party may have personal or other obligations or possess fewer resources than others to devote to the proceeding does not relieve that party of its hearing-obligations.").

2

• '+w-N -

standard for relief, PG&E will, in light of the Board's Order, not oppose the request. PG&E suggests, however, that MFP's lack of .

familiarity with the' " complex and technical" documents which form  :

its own case should not be accepted by the Board in the future as a justification for extending the schedule.2/

i r

s o

I!

i

?

t I' It is indeed ironic that MFP's request for more time is based on its "need" at this. late date to review the-very documents that form its own case-in-chief,'and to " integrate" those documents with the testimony. An additional.two weeks would  !

seem to be unnecessary and irrelevant for :a task that- ,

presumably should have been accomplished far earlier. It is  ;

not an undue burden to expect a party to formulate a cohesive ,

. theory of the case prior to hearing, to allow the witnesses to  :

respond to that. theory on the record. _Q1.-Tr. 698-99 (Judge Kline).

3

- - - . - - .. , --, . - , , -. , , . - . - - . . ____-_:L-_

In light of the extension requested by MFP, and consistent with the Board's October 19th Order, PG&E requests that its date for reply findings be extended by a concomitant amount.

Respectfully submitted, David A. Repka \

k WINSTON & STRAWN 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502 (202) 371-5726' Christopher J. Warner Richard F. Locke PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Dated in Washington, DC this 25th day o' October, 1993 4

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .) F NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 93 OCT M P 4 08 In the Matter of: ) Jf ? . o i,s v

) Docket Nos. 5 0-2 7 3'-OLA ; , ' ' 4 EI Pacific Gas and Electric Company ) 50-323-OLA"

) (Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Power ) Recapture)

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S "

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk (*), by hand delivery, or, as indicated by two asterisks (**), by Federal Express, this 25th day of October, 1993.

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman

• Frederick J. Shon*

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Acomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jerry R. Kline* Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.**

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555 Section (original + two copies)

Adjudicatory File Peter Arth, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward W. O'Neill Board Panel Peter G. Fairchild U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission California Public Utilities Washington, DC 20555 Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

4 Nancy Culver, President Truman Burns Board of Directors California Public Utilities San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Commission P.O. Box 164 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4103 Pismo Beach, CA 93448 San Francisco, CA 94102 Robert R. Wellington,.Esq. Christopher J. Warner, Esq.

Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Richard F. Locke, Esq.

Committee Pacific Gas & Electric Company 857 Cass Street, Suite D 77 Beale Street Monterey, CA 93940 San Francisco,.CA 94106 Robert Kinosian Jill ZamEk**

California Public Utilities 1123 Flora Road Commission Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mr. Gregory Minor Diane Curran **

MHB Technical Associates c/o IEER 1723 Hamilton Ave., Suite K 6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 204 San Jose, CA 95125 Takoma Park, MD 20912 e l n David A. Repka l\ w Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company l

1 l

. . . _ . - - . i