ML19332A906
| ML19332A906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1980 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bayless J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009180556 | |
| Download: ML19332A906 (2) | |
Text
-
. = -. -.. --
~. --
Qf.d ?0 U
^%
UNITED STATES f
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y }-
g
$(
.: f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
/
s SEP 10 GSO Mr. John Bayless 8925 Indian Boundary Gary, Indiana 46403
Dear Mr. Bayless:
In our letter, dated April 16, 1980, in which we responded to your two previous letters expressing your concerns about the Bailly facility, we felt that we had indeed responded to your concerns. Our letter to you was carefully worded since Bailly is the subject of litigation both before the U. S. Court of Appeals and within the agency. Noaetheless, we offer the following auditional comments regarding your most recent letter of April 21, 1980.
In your latest letter, you express your basic concern about the Bailly facility in the form cf e question asking, "... why a billion-dollar plant should be completed before NRC can decide whether it should be permitted to operate?"
Basically, the answer is that the NRC staff reviewed NIPSCO's applicstion between 1970 and 1972 and did conclude that the facility could be built and operated in a safe manner. This favorable assessment was summarized in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report issued in February 1972.
Issuance of the Bailly construction permit was preceded by lengthy public hearings and upheld on appeal of certain issues up to and including the U. S. Supreme Court.
I believe that your basic objection in all three of your letters on this matter is that the NRC has taken the position before the Licensing Board that a hearing on certain issues is not necessary at this time. For your understanding of our position, our point was that the scope of a construction permit extension proceeding is limited by regulation (10 CFR 50.55(b)). This proceeding is not the forum to relitigate issues previously considered nor to litigate safety issues properly considered at the later operating license stage. This position is explained in our June 24, 1980, comments (Enclosure 1) on the Licensing Board's provisional order issued on May 30, 1980. Subsequently, the Board issued an Order on August 7, 1980, which: (1) concluded that a hearing will be held on the requested extension of the Bailly construction permit; (2) admitted certain parties as Intervenors in this hearing; and (3) admitted some contentions and established some latitude on other contentions which might be litigated. The result is that certain public health and safety issues may be heard. A copy of. the August 7,1980, order is attached, (Enclosure 2).
It should be noted, however, that the staff does not believe that further consideration of important safety questions should be deferred until the operating license stage.
If there is any new, substantive infonnation which could demonstrate that the facility cannot' be safely constructed and operated at Bailly, our regulations permit any person to submit this information requesting a hearing on the matter under Section 2.206 of the Commission's regulations, if desired.
If the new information; warrants, a hearing can be ordered.
If not, a separate opportunity to litigate all issues relevent to operational safety will be afforded at the operating stage of the
.-_.____n Mr. John Bayless SEP 101980 I do not believe that the public interest would be served by prior process.
periodic hearings on the same or related technical issues.
Our review and evaluation which led to our original decision at the construction The NRC permit stage does not end with the issuance of a construction permit.
staff follows, on a continuing basis throughout the construction phase, all r<
.rs If this con-that could affect the construction and safe operation of the plant.
tinuing review indicates that changes in the design are required to enhance safety, we order these changes to be incorporated into the facility under construction.
With respect to your comment regarding the use of maps which might not indicate political subdivisions (i.e., Portage) or individual subdivisions (i.e., Ogden Dunes), you should be aware that the staff's concerns are the actual number of people and their physical location with respect to a proposed nuclear power plant.
~
In reviewing the Bailly application, we assessed the proposed facility on this basis in accordance with our regulations and not on the basis of the identifi-cation of individual boundary lines of abdivisions.
Your frustration as a layman with the " legalistic" procedures followed in the Prehearing Conference is understandable. However, this is a legal process involving a multitude of parties and a number of complex issues. The primary purpose of this Prehearing Conference was to determine: (1) whether the hearing requested by the Petitioners should be held; (2) if so, who would be admitted as an Intervenor; and (3) what issues would be litigated. The two individuals, Anna and George Grabowski, who were permitted to speak were allowed to do so since they had formally petitioned to be admitted as Intervenors. You are quite right that this Prehearing Conference was not a public hearing at which the public could speak freely; it was never intended to be as discussed above. Your opportunity to speak will.come when the anticipated public hearing is held. At that time, you may request permission to make an oral presentation and/or submit a written statement into the record by mailing your request to the Secretary of the Commission, You should also U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
be aware that all information pertaining to the Bailly facility is available for inspection at the local Public Document Room maintained at the West Chester Township Public Library, 125 Scuth Second Street, Chesterton, Indiana 46304.
I trust that I have' responded to your fundamental concerns. Nevertheless, I have requested the Bailly Project Managar, Mr. Lynch, to follow up this letter with an informal discussion by telephone to determine whether you want further clarification or more infonnation in this matter.
- Sinceryy,
)
[L% G B.
oungbl od, Chief Li ensing Br nch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Licensing Board Order, dated 8/7/C0 2.
Staff's Comments on Provisional Boanj Order, dated 6/24/80 -
+
8925 Indian Boundary D""D
- I)
T }Sli b Gery, Ind. 46403
~ a o A, o j
. J]
April 21, 1980 Eurolc' R. DEnton, Director Office of nuclear itEuctor dECulution NuclEur dEculutory CouaiSSion D
'M"
..aShingtoh, D.C. 20555 o o,
. o. M I,:r. DEnton:
I havE rEcEiTEd your letter of April 16 rESpondin$ to my letter of FEb.1 to President Carter und ny lEttE'r of FEb. 20 to SEn.
Birch Bayh concErning thE prop 0 sed d8 illy I nuclear CEntrating plunt.
For what rEcSon I know not, you huYE chosen to ignore thE Specific question I addressed to thE FrESidEnt and TEpE3tEd in U7 letter to 3En. Bayh. I.'Sy I quote it at:uin:
...(120) Stuff Says thE SufEty ISSUES cannot 'oE considered until an opErOting license is applied for, CftEr thE plant is completed at a cost of 31.1 billion that the utility will thEn EXPECT to collect froa itS custoacrS, including aE.
"Can "ou or anyonE El.E tEll aE wh" a billion-doller ulant Should bE ccaplEttd bEforE I2C can decide whEthEr it Should bE f]Er:4ittEd to operate?"
I don't givE a hoot about.our rEculations.
Regulations can bE chanced, and thEy cErtainly should bE chLEgEd whEn thEy fly in thE face of connon SENSE.
ThE Staff references to court decisions upholding thE Sitina of Bailly I do not disclose thct the originul AEC issuance of thE construction pcruit was bused on an incorrect map Submitted by LIPSCO thut completely ignored the Existence of OgdEn DurES, Dune acres, Porta;;E (now a city of norE than 20,000) und Indiana dunes Statt rark, all within 10 ai1ES of thE Bailly Site, and that put thE Eastern Edge of Gary bartly within thE 10 uilE limit, whErEaS thE I.iillEr SEchion of Gary bhETE 1 liYE is lESS than Six uilES froC thE Site.
I attended the prEhEarinc conference in ValpareiSo that you refer to und only two individuals WETE pEruittEd to speak. THE TEST of thE hEuriS; consisted of latr/ErS for Staff, HIPSCO, and thE intE r7Enorsj includini Bailly Alliance and thE City of Gary, discussing p3CES EC, purugraphs 127, or 2.8071 of docuaEntS thEy and. thE hEarirC officers had, but which WErE not aYailablE to thE many indi7iduals listening to,
thE-lEdulistic go'OblEdEdock.
InE prEhEaring WSS a V;ustE of tine for I 3 8004280 N
{
g D
all prEsEnt Except thE ld'/lyErs u nt ins in no //Sy a public hEuring.
!ir. DEnton, all I un us' ing for is un anct:Er to thE cuEstion n
I uda,rtssEd to thE President and to 3En. Eayh and not; to you. 'Can you unsviEr it, and if not, viill you p1EcsE tEll aE that it is unansr/ErablE within your rE;;ulations?
Thank you 7
,6Y
"'.. J dV fJohnEcy1 Esp Copies to:
President Carter SEn. Birch Ecyh SEn. Richard Lucar rep. Adau BEnjauin Jr.
rep. Floyd Fithian O