ML19343C501
| ML19343C501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000376 |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1981 |
| From: | Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103240389 | |
| Download: ML19343C501 (7) | |
Text
-
March 23, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e (i
6 LULL L
In the Matter of
)
IMS 2
)
v.s.togM# kg)
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER Docket No.S0-AUTHORITY
)
(North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1))
NRC RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TC INTERVENORS' PETITION /0R RECONSIDERATION I.
INTRODUCTION On September 11, 1980, the Applicant filed a document entitled
" Motion for Termination of Proceeding" accompanied by a document entitled " Withdrawal of Application."
In response to the Applicant's motion, Intervenors Gonzalos.Fernos and Citizens for the Conservation of National Resources, Inc. (hereinafter referred.to as the Intervenors) filed with the Commission on September 18, 1980, a document entitled
" Motion for Direct Certification to Request Application be Dismissed with Prejudice" and on the same day filed with the Licensing Board a document entitled " Motion for a Stay of Proceedings."
In their motion to the Commission, the-Intervenors sought either a direct ruling from the Commission dismissing.the application with prejudice, or, in the alternative, an evidentiary hearing to detennine the Applicant's intent 81032.403N
. to construct the plant, "to enable the Licensing Board to know the full facts why the dismissal cannot be less than with prejudice."M By an order dated October 17, 1980, the Commission declined to grant direct certification on the issues presented and transferred the Intervenors' motion to the Licensing Board to detennine whether the application for a construction pennit should be pennitted to be withdrawn without prejudice. The Staff previously briefed both issues presented by the Intervenors' motion to the Commission and took the position that the Intervenors failed to demonstrate why the application should be dismissed with prejudice and further failed to set forth any factual issues warranting an evidentiary hearing concerning the Applicant's intent to complete construction of the North Coast Nuclear Facility.E By an order dated December 16, 1980, the Licensing Board, after reviewing a reply brief filed by the Intervenors on December 3,1980, granted the Staff and the Applicant until December 31, 1980, to respond to a "new" argument raised by the Intervenors.
In their reply brief, the Int-venors essentially alleged it would be in the public interest to dismiss the application with prejudice.E In its December 31 filing, the Staff took-the position that the public interest would be best
-1/
"Intervenors' Motion for Direct Certification to Request Application' Be Dismissed with Prejudice," p. 2 (September 18,1980)
(emphasis in original).
y See, NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Motion for Nrected Certification, (October _8,1980).
- 3/
Intervenors Reply to Applicant's and NRC Staff's Contention that North. Coast Nuclear Plant's~ Withdrawn Application Should Not be Dismissed with Prejudice (December 3,1980).
, served-by the Board granting the Applicant's Motion for Temination of Proceedings and Withdrawal of Application for a Construction Pemit, without prejudice and that an evidentiary hearing on these issues was neither required nor desirable.
By an order dated February 18, 1981, the Board granted the Applicant's Motions to both terminate the proceeding and withdraw its application, without prejudice.
On fiarch 3,1981, apparently, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.771, the Intervenors filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Board's Memorandum and Order of February 18, 1981.
For the reasons set forth in previous filings and those stated hereinbelow, the Staff opposes the Intervenors' Petition for Reconsideration.
II. DISCUSSION As a procedural matter, Intervenors filed their petition for reconsideration beyond the ten (10) days permitted by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.771. The relief requested should thus be denied as untimely. The orderly functioning of the administrative process scarcely would be furthered if boards were to allow parties to proceedings to simply ignore prescribed time limits whenever it suited their convenience.
Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, 748 (1978). Although the Staff acknowledges that rules at times are relaxed to accommodate the fact that a party may not have benefit of counsel, see Detroit Edison Company
-(Enrico Fenni Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-469, 7 NRC 470, 471
. (1978), no reason exists why a double standard should be applied insofar as observance of deadlines is concerned. A nonlawyer has no less capability than does a member of the bar to apprehend when a document is due.
7 NRC at 748.
Apart from the procedural deficiences, the Intervenors' !!otion fails to set forth any new grounds or assign any Board error which has not been fully addressed by the Staff in prior briefs.
Accordingly, the Staff relies upon "NRC Staff flemorandun in Response to Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Order of December 16, 1980" filed December 31, 1980, in opposition to the substantive aspects of Intervenors' Petition for Reconsideration and attaches a copy of that brief to this pleading for the convenience of the Board.4l 4j
- g. Philadelphia Electric-Company (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-463-CP,-50-464-CP (February 27, 1981), where the Licensing Board dismissed an application, with prejudice, concluding that the Applicant abused the Early Site Review process for the purpose of preventing tennination of the proceeding, rather than expediting the matter.
Intervenors representing land owners of the proposal site had argued that use of the site from 1975 to 1981 had worked.a hardship upon them, causing personal anxieties and preventing optimum use of the land in the interim.
In contrast, this Board has never found that Puerto Rico ElectrP Power Authority has abused the regulatory process nor that the Intervenors have or would suffer any hardship, but for the prospect of future litigation.
Lastly, in contrast to.this Board, the
- Fulton Board did not address the relevant legal authority and policy considerations set out in those opinions in deciding whether to permit withdrawal of an application, with or without prejudice.
See Jones v. Securities and' Exchange Commission 298 U.S.1,19 TIV36); Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station),
LBP-74-62, 8 AEC 324, 327 (1974); and _"NRC Staff Memorandum in Response to Atomic Safety and 8 icensing Board Order of December 16, 1980," attached to this pleading.
. III.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons as well as the reasons developed by the Staff in "NRC Staff Memorandun in Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order of December 16, 1980," the Staff opposes the instant petition for reconsideration of this Board's Memorandum and Order dated February 18, 1981.
Respectfully submitted, e p
,f, /.
t P /gc~mg; s
jay it. Gutierrez Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, flaryland,
' this 23rd day of tiarch,1981.
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ftt1ISSION BEFORE THE AT0tilC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the flatter of
)
)
PUERTO RIC0 ELECTRIC POWER
)
Docket No. 50-376 AUTHORITY
)
)
(North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1))
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-I hereby certify that copies of "NRC RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVEN0RS' PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION" 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 deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 23rd day of March,1981:
Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esq., Chairman
- Alberto Bruno Vega, Assistant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Director, Planning U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Engineering Washington, DC 20555
. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Dr. Richard F. Cole
- G.P.O.. Box 4267
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Juan, PR 00936 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Gonzalo Fernos, Chairman Citizens for the Conservation ftr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
of. Natural Resources, Inc.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Buard 503 Barbe Street-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Santurce, PR 00912 Washington, DC 20555 Esq. Geman A. Gonzalez Maurice Axelrad,.Esq.
Attorney _ for !!ision Industrial, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Inc.
Axelrad Mision Industrial De Puerto Rico 1025 Connecticut Avenue,-N.W.
G.P.O. Box 20434 Washington, DC 20036 Rio Piedras, PR 00925
'Esq. Jose F. Irizarry Gonzalez fir..Mario Roche Velazquez
. General Counsel Executive Director, Puerto Rico Electric Power :
111sion Industrial, Inc.
Authority.
Mision Industrial De Puerto Rico G.P.0.1 Box 4267 G.P.O.-Box 20434 San ~ Juan, PR 00936 Rio Piedras, PR 00925 Eng. Francisco Jimenez Docketing and Service Section*
Box 1317 Office of the Secretary itayaguez, PR 00708 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Atanic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Appeal Board
- Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, DC 20555 3., 'j i
(
2._. #
_v.d Jay it. Gutierrez Counsel for NRC Staff
t December 31, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tililSSION
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUERTO RICO UATER RESOURCES
)
Docket No. 50-376 AUTHORITY
)
)
(North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF.MEMORA!!Duti IN RESPONSE TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF DECE:1BER 16,1980 I.
INTRODUCTION A detailed procedural history of this case is set forth in a menorandum, dated October 8,1980, entitled,"NRC Staff Response to Intervenor's !1otion for Directed Certification."S However, this elaborate procedural history need not be reviewed before deciding the Applicant's motion since the pro-cedural issue which the Licensing Board is currently asked to decide is a narrow one. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.107(a), the Board must decide whether to permit the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) to withdraw its application 2l without prejudice.
1/ This Memorandum was served upon all parties on October 8,1980. See, section entitled " Background" at p. 2.
_2/ An application was filed for a construction pennit for a pressurized water nuclear reactor, designated as the North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, to be located on the north central coast of Puerto Rico. This application was noticed in the Federal Reaister on February 14, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 6835).
V-N r
0 00:'
=. nasa
2-On September 11, 1980, the Applicant filed a document entitled " Motion for Termination of Proceeding" accompanied by a document entitled " Withdrawal of Application." In response to the Applicant's motion, Intervenors Gonzalos Fernos and Citizens for the Conservation of flational Resources, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Intervenors) filed with the Commission on Septenber 18, 1980, a document entitled " Motion for Direct Certification to Request Application be Dismissed with Prejudice" and on the same day filed with the Licensing Board a document entitled " Motion for a Stay of Proceedings." In their motion to the Commission, the Intervenors sought either a direct ruking from the Commission dismissing the application with prejudice, or, in the alternative, an evidentiary hearing to determine the Applicant's intent to construct the plant, "to enable the Licensing Board to know the full facts why the dismissal cannot belessthanwithprejudice."2/
By an order dated October 17, 1980, the Commission declined to grant direct certification on the issues presented and transferred the Intervenor:' motion to the Licensing Board to determine whether the application for a construction permit should be permitted to be withdrawn without prejudice. The Staff
.previously briefed both issues presented by the Intervenors' motion to the Commission and took the position that the Intervenors failed to demonstrate why the application should be dismissed with prejudice and further failed to set forth any factual issues warranting an evidentiary hearing concerning the
_ / 9ntervenors' Motion for Direct Certification to Request Application Be 3
Dismissed with Prejudice," p. 2 (September 18,1980) (emphasis in original).
4
. Applicant's intent to complete construction of the North Coast Nuclear Facility.
By an order dated December 16, 1980, the Licensing Board, 'fter reviewing a reply brief filed by the Intervenors on December 3,1980, granted tne Staff and the Applicant until December 31, 1980, to respond to a "new" argunent raised by the Intervenors. In their reply brief, the Intervenors essentially alleged it would be in the public interest to dismiss the application with prejudice.d/ It is the position of the NRC Staff that the Applicant's Motion for Termination of Proceedings and Withdrawal of Application for a Construction Permit should be granted, without prejudice and that an evi-dentiary hearing on this issue is neither required nor desirable for the reasons set forth in the Staff's October 8,1980 memorandum and hereinbelow.
II. DISCUSSION A.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BEST BE SERVED BY PERMITTING THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW ITS APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE The Comission regulation governing withdrawal of an application is 10 C.F.R. I 2.107(a), which provides:
The Commission may pemit an applicant to withdraw an application prior to the issuance of a notice of hearing on such tems and conditions as it may prescribe, or may, on receiving a request for withdrawal of an application, deny the application or dismiss it with prejudice. Withdrawal of an application after the issuance of a notice of hearing shall be on such terms as the presiding officer may prescribe.
_4_f See, NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Motion for Directed Certification, (October 8,1980).
5/ Intervenors' Reply to Applicant's and NRC Staff's Contention that North Coast Nuclear Plant's Withdrawn Application Should Not be Dismissed with Prejudice (December 3,1980).
. Admittedly,10 C.F.R.12.107(a) does not set forth the standard a Licensing Board should apply in determir'99 what teres and conditions should accompany an application withdrawal; however, case law very clearly outlines the standard both courts and regulatory agencies should apply, absent statutory guidance, in deciding whether to grant dismissal without prejudice.
It is generally held that permitting withdrawal of an application without prejudice is the proper procedure unless it is demonstrated that an opposing party, or the public in the context of regulated industry, would be unduly prejudiced by such a dismissal in some way other than the mere prospect of. future litigation. 6/
As previously discussed in the NRC Staff's October 8,1980 memorandum,1/
the Supreme Court case of Jones v. Security and Exchange Commission, 298 U.S.1, 19 (1936) traces the historical development of a party's right to a voluntary dismissal.
It was therein noted that at common law a party had a right to dismiss a complaint without prejudice, upon payment of costs and on condition that the opposing party would not be prejudice in some way other than the mere prospect of future litigation.
Id. The Jones Court then went on to state.
. - that Federal tribunals have adopted this unqualified right to a voluntary dismissal unless some plain legal prejudice would result, other than the mere
~~~6/ See Jones v. Securitics and Exchange Commission 298 U.S. 1, 19 (1936);
. Boston Edison Co. _ (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station) LBP-74-62, 8 AEC
~
324, 327 (1974).
_2/ NRC Staff Response To Intervenor's Motion For Directed Certification,
- p. 9-12 (October 8,1980).
- geh, 6
l l
, prospect of a second litigation. H. l The Court in Jones then applied the general principles governing voluntary dismissal in the civil courts to a request to withdraw a license application within the context of a regulated industry. The Jones applicant was seekinc to withdraw its registration of securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission, apparently to avoid an investigation into alleged misconduct. The applicable regulations empowered the Security and Exchange Comission to consent to a with-drawal after due regard to the public interest. M. at 22.
The essence of the Jones test in ' granting dismissal without prejudice in the context of a regulated industry is the absence or presence of prejudice to the public. M. Thus, in the instant case, the central question this Board must address is whether it is in the public interest to pennit the application for a construction permit to be withdrawn without prejudice.
The Jones standard was adopted and applied in the context of nuclear regulation in Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station), LBP 76, 8 AEC 324, 327-(1974).
In Boston Edison, as in the instant case, an J This rule continues in the Federal courts and is embodied in Rule 41(a)(1) l of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
_9f In light of this standard it is interesting to. note the Jones Court stated at 23:
The conclusion seems inevitable that an abandonment of the application was of no concern to anyone except the registrant. The possibility of any other interest in the matter is so shadowy, indefinite, and eaufvocal that it must be put out of consideration as a?together unreal.
Under these circumstances, the right of the registrant to withdraw his application would seem to be as absolute as the right of any person to withdraw an ungranted l~
application for any other fonn of privilege in respect of which he is at the time alone concerned.
_10/ See also Potomac Electric Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539, 551-552 (1975) wherein it was stated, i
in the context of discussing convenience to litigants in scheduling early hearings on site related matters that the paramount consideration is where the' broader public interest lies. H.
t
. Applicant filed a motion to withdraw its application, setting forth as grounds for that application load forecasts and financial conditions.
Id. at 324.
In that case, an intervenor, Massachusetts Wildlife Federation, asserted that the applicant's motion should be granted "with prejudice" with the condition applicant should not be permitted to refile for a license within a prescribed period of time.
Id_. at 326.
In granting the applicant's rotion to withdraw, the Licensing Board unequivocally rejected the intervenor's suggestion at 327:
Moreover, it seems to the Board that it would be infeasible for this Board even to attempt to impose a condition on a public utility that it be prohibited from filing an application for the construction of a power plant before a certain date, such as is apparently requested by the Wildlife Federation and now the Commonwealth of Mcssachusetts.
It must be presumed that it is the Dub _1_iA's need for power which is one of the underlyino reasons for construction of a power plant. This statutory orinciple- "oublic convenience and necessity"--
is the basis which underlies the authorization granted by other concerned federal and state regulatory agenices before any construction can be commenced by the utility.
and requires a finding of public need.
It such finding is made, based upon a proper showing by the utility, it would be unreasonable in the extreme to deprive the public of a needed utility service because of alleged
" inconvenience or burden" to potential intervenors.
(Emphasis Supplied).
In accord with the authorities set forth hereinabove, it is the position of the NRC Staff that the Board should grant the Applicant's motions for I
termination of proceedings and withdrawal of its application without prejudice.
i i
. The public interest will best be served by pemitting the Applicant to withdraw from the licensing process without prejudice, thereby freeing him to refile if changed conditions warrant.
For example, if the Applicant's financial condition improves, or if the public's energy needs increase, or if the subject facility becomes technically more feasible to construct, the public would best be served by leaving open to the Applicant the nuclear option at a future time.b B.
INTERVENORS HAVE NOT SET FORTH ANY PATTER WARPANTING A HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE In their reply brief, the Intervenors request as alternative relief to a direct dismissal with prejudice "a fact finding proceeding [be] instituted in which applicant would be ordered to answer pertinent questions with regard to the acquisition and disposal of the nuclear plant site land..."IS The hearing requested by Intervenors is irrelevant to the motion upon which the Licensing Board is presently asked to rule. The narrow issue before the Board is simply whether it is in the public's interest to allow the Applicant to withdraw its application for a construction pemit without lif It is important to note at this time that the Intervenor's Motion is built upon the assumption that if the application is dismissed with prejudice this would prevent a refiling at a future time. The Staff does not grant this assumption and is of the position that prior administrative deteminations are not controlling upon further appli-cations where facts or law might have changed. See the cases cited in support of this position, Section B., infra.
12/ Intervenors' Reply to Applicant's and NRC Staff's Contentions That North Coast Nuclear Plant's Withdrawn Application Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice, p. 9 (December 3, 1980).
. prejudice.
In contrast. the Intervenors are attempting to broaden the current Board inquiry to encompass issues which may be relevant if the Applicant decides to refile an application for a construction permit at the North Coast site in the future. The issues t'he Intervenors request the Board to confront' deal with such diverse matters as alleged Applicant mis-representations to the Comission concerning its intent to build the North Coast facility,E the suitability of the site, and possible sabotage and labor unrest (see Intervenors' reply, pages 4-8). Although each of these issues may possibly be relevant in the future should the Aoplicant refile for a construction pemit, these same issues are not relevant to the instant detemination of whether the Aoplicant may withdraw its aoplication without prejudice.
Not one of the issues submitted by the Intervenors goes to how the public may be hurt by allowing withdrawal of the application without prejudice.
All of the Intervenors' issues address whether a pemit should be granted.
Contrary to the Intervenors' supposition on page 6 (Intervenors' Reply, December 3,1980), no matter will be decided or foreclosed from future l_3_f It should be stressed that, to date, the Intervenors have merely alleged deceitful conduct on the Applicant's part in regard to conveying land which previously had been condemned for the North Coast facility.
As Intervenors recognize this reconveyance of land was done through the Puerto Rican Courts. See Intervenors' Reply Brief, p. 5 (December 3, 1980). As early as 1975, by letters dated December 3 and Decerber 5, 1975, the Applicant infomed all parties of its decision to postpone indefinitely the proposed project due to financial considerations.
It is important to note that even when there are allegations of improper conduct, the public's need for the service at the time it is needed must be weighed against the character of the Applicant in determining whether a license should be granted. See Cosmopolitan Broadcasting Co.
- v. Federal Communications Comission, EBT F.2d 917, 928 (D.C. Cir.1978);
Armored Carrier Coro. v. U.S., 260 F. Supp. 612, 615 (E.D.N.Y.1966),
affimed 386 U.S. 778 (1937T; see_ also Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957).
y w
+g w
r*-v-
-m
P
-g-inquiry by allowing the dismissal of the application without prejudice. All issues material to the grant of a pemit are open for consideration should another application be filed. The Supreme Court has held that where no findings have been made, a dismissal is not dispositive on any issue in a subsequent proceeding. See Lawlor v. National Screen Service Coro., 349 U.S.
322, 326 (1955); Wilwording v. Swenson, 502 F.2d 844, 848 (8th Cir.1974);
see also Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 18.05 (1958). Thus, since no findings.have been made in the instant case the Intervenors have failed to demonstrate in what way the public will be injured by a dismissal without prejudice.
Intervenors seek to make much in their reply of the fact that they want discovery or hearings on matters which they say forecloses the granting of a license (Intervenors' Reply, December 3,1980, p. 8-9). However, again, these matters go to the issue of whether a license should be issued and not whether the Applicant should be permitted to withdraw its application without prejudice.
I Moreover, even if each of these matters were decided in the Intervenors' favor--
this would not prevent the Applicant from reapplying should facts or law change.
For as held by the Supreme Court, the dismissal of an administrative proceeding does not prevent relitigation of similar issues in the future should facts and law change.
See Federal Comunications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcastino Co.,'309 U.S. 134, 145 (1940); Federal Trade Comission v. Raladam Co., 316 U.S.
149, 150-151 (1942). See also Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, Section 18.04
. (1958). ' Quite apart from changed factual or legal circumstances, it has been
- recognized that res judicata and collateral estoppel principles would not neces,
. sarily be invoked where there are competing public policy factors which outweigh the application of those doctrines. Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
~
._~
. Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), 7 AEC 210, 213-215 (1974).
In the instant case, the public's energy needs, technology or other factors nay so change as to allcw a new application to be granted, even if matters currently soucht to be litigated were determined in Intervenors' favor.
In effect, as we have emphasized, the Intervenors have disregarded the A;:plicant's withdrawal of its application and request an inquisition for all time on the Applicant's suitability for a license. All issues raised by the Intervenors' request for an evidentiary hearing on the Appli-cant's conduct and other issues will be relevant and more properly framed during a licensing hearing in the event of a future refiling. Presently, all issues Intervenors seek to raise, including the character of the Appli-cant, are moot issues by reason of the Applicant's motion to teminate the proceedings and withdraw its application.
In addition, it would be an ineffective and wasteful use of administrative resources to grant the Intervenors an evidentiary hearing upon allegations of Applicant's misconduct, since in the event the Applicant exercises its option to apply for-a construction pemit in the future, all issues currently raised by the Intervenor would again be open to relitigation. Administrative economy thus mitigates against considering the issues the Intervenors wish to explore at this time.
In sum, Intervenors have failed to raise any issue involving the public interest which would foreclose the Applicant from withdrawing its application without prejudice and there are no matters upon which a hearing should be conducted in this proceeding at inu, time. Accordingly, the Staff submits
. i the Intervenors' alternative request for an evidentiary hearing is without merit and the Licensing Board should rule on the Applicant's motion to terminate the proceedings and withdraw its application without any further hearings.
III. CONCLUSI0S For the reasons set forth hereinabove, it is the position of the NRC Staff that the Applicant's motion for termination of proceedings and withdrawal of application for construction permit should be granted, with-r/
out prejudice and that no further evidentiary hearings be held in this matter.
Respectfully submitted.
..!..J.'. 4 mL.h
.1 u,<~
4./.
dayM.Gutierrez Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 31st day of December,1980.
e-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUERTO RICO WATER RESOURCES
)
Docket No. 50-376 AUTHORITY
)
)
(North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter. In accordan'ce with 52.713,10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name
- Jay M. Gutierrez Address
- Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Telephone Number
- Area Code 301-492-7991 Admissions
- Supreme Court for the State of West Virginia District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia Name of Party
- NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. L20555 C
ll [.;
a n
.n ~.,
2 A. vw Jay M. Gutierrez
- Counsel for NRC-Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
. this.31st day of December,1980.-
-=
UNilED STATES OF A"EFICA NUCLEAP. REGULATORf CO:'O'iSST4 1:ETCRC THE ATGIC SAFETY A!!D LICD..i D.J'D In the Matter of
)
PUFETO RICO CLECTRIC PO'cER D,:ket io. 50-376 AUiMCRITY
)
)
(!!0cth Coast fluclear Plant. Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF RERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MEMO:tANDUM IN RESP 0 HSE TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 1980" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" of Jay M. Gutierrez, 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, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 31st day of December,1980:
Sheldon J. - Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Alberto Bruno Vega, Assistant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Director, Planning and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Er.;ineering Washington, DC 20555 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority G.P.O. Box 4267 Dr. Richard F. - Cole
- San Jusn, PR 00936 Ato.ic Fafety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission Mr. Gonzalo Fernos, Chairman Washington, DC 20555 Citizer.s for the Censervation of Matt.ral P,0 sources, Inc.
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
503 Earbe Street Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Santurce, PR 00912 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Esq. German A. Gonzalez Attorney for Mision Industrial, Inc.
Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Mision Industrial Da Puerto Rico Leuenstein, Newman,-Reis,
'G.P.O. Box 20434 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Rio Piedras PR 00925
- shington, DC 20036 Mr. Mario Roche Velazquez Esq. Jose F. Irizarry Gonzalez-Executive Director, General Counsel
.Mision Industrial, Inc.
' arto Rico Electric Power Mision Iri strial Ca Puctto Rico Authority G.P.O. Box 2C434
- C..P.O. Ecs 4267 Rio Piedras, PR C.925 San Juan,'PT 00936
2
'ng. Francisco Jir:nez C::k.tiaa od !.vice f.ctica (7)*
.'ox 1317 Cffice of the Secretary Payaguez, PR 00708 U.S. :acicar P.2 elatory Cc.re,;issicn 1:sshington, DC 2C:55 Atomic Safety and Licensina Ecard Panel
- 11.5. Nuclear Regulatory Cc=ission
't.shingt:n, DC 20555 lto.mic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
' S. *;uclear P. gulatory Cermissica
- ashingten, DC 20555 f]
f'O
~
,0 >- ' (
i-'. WM,
Jay M. Gutierrez v Counsel for NRC Staff m.