ML19340D106
| ML19340D106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1980 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ILLINOIS, STATE OF, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INDIANA DIV. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8012290089 | |
| Download: ML19340D106 (7) | |
Text
-.
\\
s,-
,s r
e
'.U[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'?
odb
<& g *o
.n.
- [-
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Q4 7' w
/
n c/
d" 2 Before Administrative Judges:
Q K,3 U
h Herbert Crossman, Chairman V yN kl % i \\ '
Glenn O. Bright Richard F. Cole M 'qo R,
DEC gg In tne Matter of
)
~
)
Docket No. 50-367 CPA NORTHERN INDIANA PU3LIC SERVICE )
COMPANY
)
(Contruction Per=it Extension)
)
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
December 24, 1980 Nuclear 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying (1) Newly-Filed Contentions r
and (2) The Short Pilinzs !ssue)
MEMORANDlBi (1) Newly-Filed Contentions In their supplemental petitions, the State of Illinois (opening para.) and the Porter County Chapter Intervenors (PCCI Contention 12) incorporated by reference unspecified issues that l
had been raised in documents filed with the-N.R.C. during 1979 l
l in support of requests for hearings not involving the requested 1
1/
l extension.
Pursuant to this Board's provisional and final-orders following the special prehearing conference, intervenors were permitted to submit as ti=ely-filed specifically worded contentions in place of their allusions to matters contained in the referenced documents.
i 1/
Our final order, LBP-80-22, dated August 7,'1980, is found at 12 N.R.C. 191.
pb f89 4oi j
80122$0
[y-1
. PCCI submitted these " newly-filed" contentions, numbered "R-I [ Reworded-Incorporated] 1" to."R-I 15", in : heir response to the Board's Provisional Order Following-:he Special Prehearing Conference.
These contentions were simultaneously adopted in toto-by :he State of Illinois in its response to our provisional order.
Except for Contentions R-I 10-12, 14 and 15, relating to the alleged need for a new environmental impact statement or supple-ment to the final environmental statement, the newly-filed con-ten: ions are no: directly related to the requested construction per=it extension.
They raise generic safety issues involving post-TMI considerations, Mark I! containment design, post-accident nonitoring, ATWS, etc., and site-specific safety issues that i
either had been resolved a: the construction permit proceeding or i
are ordinarily deferred until the operating ~ license stage.
- Most, I
(
if no all, of the issu,'
were previously raised by these or other j
intervenors and rej ected in prior orders on the grounds that no l
prima facie case has been =ade by the intervenors that these were compelling safety matters that could no: abide the operating license proceeding.
PCCI and the State of Illinois have made no further showing that these matters cannot tcide the operating license stage and request (PCCI Arguments in Support of the Newly-Filed contentions, dated ~ August 25,1980, p. 2) merely that they "be allowed sufficient discovery to enable thes :o establish a 1
l
1 prima facie showing" to that effect.
On that basis alone -- that the burden is on the petitioners in the first instance, without discovery, to make that required prima facie showing -- this Board would have been inclined te rej ect the contentions as not falling within the scope of the proceeding as delineated in our Order Following Special Prehearing Conference.
However, because of the i==inence of the Appeal
(
Board's ruling on the petitions by the Gary Petitioners and Dr.
Schultz, which was expected to shed further light on its decision in Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALA3-129, 6 A.E.C. 414 (1973), we deferred ruling on these contentions.
i On November 20, 1980, the Appeal Board issued Northern Indiana Public Service Comoanv (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-619, 12 N.R.C.
affirming this Board's rejection of the petitions of the Gary Petitioners and Dr. Schultz.
As anticipated, it discussed its prior decision in Cook in a manner which offers further guidance to this Board.
It read into l
the Cook decision a determination (Op. 17) that had previously escaped this Board, that an intervenor in an extension proceeding could "only" litigate issues that (1) arose from the reasons assigned to the requested extension and (2) could not abide the' operating license proceeding.
Considering that the newly-filed
. contentions, with the possible exception of those relating to the environmental statements, are unrelated to the reasons assigned for the requested construction per=it extension (the first pre-requisite), this Board has no choice but to rej ect the contentions, wi:hout reaching the question of whether the issues can abide the operating license proceeding (the second prerequisite).
We make no rulings with regard to the environmental con-tentions pending the receipt of the Satff's determination of the type of environmental analysis to be made.
Neverti. ele 1s, upon reviewing those contentions we do feel constrained to offer our opinion, that the National Envirorenental Policy Act of 1969 requires only incre= ental analyses and no: those duplicative of prior analyses.
See reneralle, Consurers Power comoany (Big Rock i
Point Nuclear Power Plan ) L3?-80-25, 12 N.R.C.
(Sept. 12, j
1980), and the cases cited therein.
(2) Short Pilines Issue i
The Board also deferred ruling on the short pilings issue--2/
--2/
NIPSCO's consultant had testified at the construction permit hearing that the company anticipated driving the foundation l
pilings to bedrock or glacial till.
After the construction l
permit had issued, NIPSCO ce=municated to the NRC Staff its intention to install pilings extending only to the glacial lacustrine deposits.
In Northern Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1) CLP-79-ll, 10 N.R.C. 733 (1979),
the Co==ission denied petitions to determine that the proposed chanze in desien constituted a construction cerait Emendment
~
l involving significant hazards considerations hat required a hearing.
In our Order Following Special Prehearing Conference, L3P-80-22, suora, 12 N.R.C. at 195-204, we discussed the issues raisec by intervenors concerning the merits of the short pilings proposal, and posed four questions to the parties.
I t
1
I :
1 to await the Appeal Board's decision on the City of Gary's and Dr. Schult ' petitions.
Unfortunately, Bailly, ALAB-619, suora, is not quite as informative with regard to issues arising from the reasons assigned for the consr uction permit extension as 1
with matters unrelated to the dt_ay in construction, except to reaffir= that related =a:ters might be heard if they could not i
appropriately abide the operating license proceeding.
- However, 4
since ALA3-619 did not broaden the scope of Cook, supra, we need not look beyond the answers to the cuestions we posed to the
-3/
parties on the short pilings issue - to decide not to hear that i
issue in this proceeding.
1 To begin with, it is clear that, had the shor pilings design proposal been in the present posture at the time of the construc-tion per=i: hearings, the matter would have been considered by j
the Licensing Board.
Despite Per=ittee's insistence that it is l
the option of an applicant to defer the operating license pro-ceeding the considera ion of design features such as the short pilings proposal (NIPSCO's Objections to Provisional Order, dated June 30, 1980, p. 9; NIPSCO's Response to Board Questions, dated Augus: 25, 1980, pp. 2-4), it is inconceivable that a known design feature of this significance would not have been brought up
--3/
See, fn. 2, supra.
The questions are found at 12 N.R.C.,
- p. 203.
i 1
i i 4 by the Staff and heard by the board, even if. the applican: had
)
sough: to defer it.
It is also clear to us that only a prelici-nary, end not a dispositive, review could have been made by a s
i l
construction permit board.
Certainly, considering the uncertain-ties attendant to the actual place =ent of the pilings, a board I
could not now be in a position to offer a final verdict on that 1
design feature.
PCCI ad=it as =uch when they state (D.esponse to Soard's Question on the Shor: Pilings Issue, p. 4) that "an evalu-azion of pilings requires consideration of essentially an unknown quantity -
i.e.,
the subsoil cenposizion."
In fact, the review of PCCI's and Illinois' submissions with regard to short pilings discloses no substantial reason for a board to deny the design change.
Intervenors appear to asser: =erely that short pilings are a somewhat innovative design for nuclear facilities, which require close scrutiny by a licensing board or the N.R.C.
Co==issioners.
It is clear from reviewing the parties' responses to the i
d Board's questions that the most dras:ic remedy that conceivably could result from a hearing on the short pilings design in its present posture would merely be the inple=entation of 10 C.F.R.
I 5 50.35(a) to this design feature, under which a research and develop =en: program would be required to resolve any safety 4
questions associated with it.
Whether any such program sanctioned i
4 t
-,-,y.e
.p,.%i.e.--
-c,,,-,,w,
-._n,.
,,..,r-,--,,,e,-.,.,,,,,,,..,,e e,,,.y.,yw.--,w-w.,,,..,,,..,,m,.i..y-.
,-,_,m.
g...... wop,yv.,m..,q---,,...~.,,,
. by the Board would agree in every particular with the extensive program already adopted by the Formi::ee and Staff, as s"- ariaed in the Staff's Response to the Board Ouestions (Lynch Affidavit, pr. e-8), is no: critical in deciding whe:her a hearing on that issue should be held a: this juncture.
No:hing submitted to the Board suggests that there exists any material insufficiency in the program already adopted to test the short pilings design in its site-specific application to the Bailly facility.
Consecuently, we have no basis for finding that the absence of a board's approval of that specific testing progran constitutes a compelling reason for deternining that a hearing should be held now, rather than a: the operating license stage.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is this 24th day of Dece=ber 1980 ORDERED Tha: the newly-filed Contentions numbered R-I 1-9 and 13 are denied; and i
That all contentions raised bv Intervenors with regard to I
l the nerits of the short eilings proposal are denied.
I i
i FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND r
i LICENSING BOARD t
l
- h(Wl,;ym, O'.2v% Mm ADMINISTRATIVE KDGE
--