ML19318B489
| ML19318B489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1980 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | BIER, MILLS, CHRISTA-MARIA, ET AL, CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006260259 | |
| Download: ML19318B489 (5) | |
Text
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
" \\\\*
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cccleTro Atomic Safety'and Lic'ensing Board essgo
(.,\\
Herbert Grossman, Chairman g
yUN 2 41980
- c !
Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member f"o :f theg Frederick J. Shon, Member
$auchg a cenice g,
5 In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMER POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155 OLA
)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
)
(Spent Fuel Fool Expansion)
ORDER PERMITTING ENTRY ON-SITE By an Emergency Request Fcr An Immediate Order Requiring Licensee to Permit Entry Upon the~ Big Rock Point Site, dated June 20, 1980, Intervenor Christa-Maria requested that the Board issue an immediate order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS 2.740(f)(1) and 2.741(a)(2) requiring Licensee to allow a representative of Intervenor access to the Big Rock Point site and other areas under Licensee's control on Tuesday, June 24, 1980 for the purpose of observing the proposed testing of emergency plan for the Big Rock reactor.
The Board received the emergency $equest and Licensee's response in opposition to the request, dated June 22, 1980, on the morning of June 23, 1980.
In Intervenor's request, counsel for the Intervenor indi-cated that he had been informed by his clients on Thursday, June 19, 1980, that the Licensee would undertake a test of emergency plans on June 24, and that he and his clients had orally requested of the Michigan State Police, counsel for the NRC, and counsel for the 01 Ye, scoesso 259 g,
_2_
Licensee, to have a representative present as an observer, but had been refused.
Intervenor could not identify the location where the test would be undertaken, directed, or monitored, but requested that access be given to the location from which the representative can best observe and understand the test.
Intervenor further pro-posed that the matter be addressed and resolved in a conference call on June 23, 1980.
In its response, Licensee ~ identified four locations under the control of the Licensee to be used in the test.
It opposed Intervenor's request on the grounds that the discovery rules did not contemplate entry upon a party's property for discovery of intangible matters, the request was burdensome because the presence of additional persons in an already cramped space could seriously hamper the proper execution of the drill, and the presence of adverse parties might seriously inhibit company personnel from un-constrained conduct of their duties and candid, on-the-spot evalua-tions.
Licensee also requested that, should the Board rule against it, the Board refer the ruling to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(f).
The Board arranged a conference call for 1:30 p.m. on June 23, 1980 to discuss the emergency request and rule on it.
At the conclusion of the conference call, which disclosed little that had not already been covered in the respective submissions of
. Intervenor and Licensee, the Board ruled orally in favor of Intervenor's request (including in the ~ oral ruling the highlights of this Order, including the limiting conditions on Intervenor's representatives), permitting Licensee to Lcrediately exercise its appeal rights, to be followed by this written order.
Discussion and Order The Board does not agree with Licensee that the request is not within the purview of 10 C.F.R. f 2.741(a) (2) which per-mits an entry for the purpose, inter 'alla, of inspecting a desig-
~ ~
nated " operation".
The Board agrees with Intervenor (p. 3) that the test will be a unique opportunity to gather first-hand informa-tion concerning emergency planning, relating to Intervenor's Contention 9 admitted for discovery purposes.
The presence of a representative of Intervenor at the appropriate locations would appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is well within the scope of discovery in general.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b) (1).
We have a greater problem with Licensee's argument (pp.11-12) that permitting the presence of a representative at the Onsite Technical Support Center would create a burden because of the relatively small space which Licensee indicates would nor-cally accommodate fewer than ten persons and because the presence of adverse parties might seriously inhibit company personnel from unconstrained conduct of their duties and on-the-spot evaluations.
l
.. l 1
With regard to the cramped quarters, we can only make the reasoned judgment that the benefits to be gained by first-hand observation of the operation more than compensates for the crowding, provided that Intervenor's representative adheres strictly to the limita-tions imposed by this Order with regard to each of the sites to which entry is permitted, to wit, that the representative refrain from interfering in any way with the operation by moving about, 1
asking questions or making comments while the operation is pro-ceeding, except where appropriate at the media site.
We cannot accept Licensee's argument that the mere presence of adverse parties would seriously inhibit company personnel in their conduct or evaluations, since they would be subject to discovery in any event, whether or not directly observed during this operation, in which they would be bound to divulge their conduct and evaluations fully and truthfully.
It is Ordered that Licensee permit a representative of Inrervenor entry to each of the four sites controlled by Licensee identified in its June 22, 1980 response, to be accompanied by and subject to the reasonable control of a company employee.
The Intervenor representative is to be given a reasonable vantage point at the periphery of the operation at each location and is to refrain from any interference in the operation through moving about, asking questions, or making comments, except as noted above.
... We further ~ deny Licensee's request that we refer this interlocutory ruling to the Appeal Board, because it does not appear to us to affect Licensee with immediate or irreparable i= pact, or the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.
Dr. Paris and Mr. Shon join in this Order.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Herbert Grossman, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of June, 1980.
.-