ML19340E908
| ML19340E908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1981 |
| From: | Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Buck J, Kahl C, Moore T NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101160209 | |
| Download: ML19340E908 (6) | |
Text
.
ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE t
L COUNSELORS AT LAW
$120 CONNECTICUT AVENU C. N.W.
SWITC 32$
WASHINGTON. O. C. 2 CO36 TE LE *MO N E 202*833-9730 CMICAGO OFFICE ONE Flest NATIONA6 e6A1A FORTV-SECOND PLOOm CMsCAGO, sL61NCIS 40603 TELtpMONC J 2-558-7500 TELEX:2-52ee January 12, 1981 tg-Go
'Q;\\
c C
- Thomas, S. Moore, Chairman
-G q
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel I
I ' ig gl, '.'
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0.b, f.g g'"
N-
'> /
Washington, D.C.
20555
,.t.,.
4 y'f Dr. John H. Buck C
D IL Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Christine N. Kohl, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant),
Docket No. 50-155
Dear Board Members:
During the January 9 oral argument in this proceeding, the Appeal Board accepted my offer to peruse the transcript of the prehearing conference held by the Licensing Board on December 5, 1979.
The purpose of t
l this review is to identify specific statements, if any, l
by the parties concerning the scope of the environmental impact appraisal that was expected to be issued by the NRC Staff in this case (Appeal Board Tr. 11-12 and 90-91).
i Mr. O'Neill's contention VIII was the catalyst for the discussion at the prehearing conference concern-ing need-for power and the scope of the proceeding.
This contention stated in pertinent part:
{)So3 5
l
/
l
. slo 24o @9 b
Big Rock produces very little electricity compared to modern nuclear generators, 72 mega-watts at most; the closing of Big Rock would not cause great hardship.
At first Licensee did not believe the quoted paragraph (hereinafter referred to as the "need-for-power paragraph")
was a contention.
(Licensing Board Tr. 217, lines 4 and 5).
However, Mr. O'Neill did not agree.
(LB Tr. 215, lines 14-15 and 21-25; and LB Tr. 216, lines 1-6).
Counsel for the NRC Staff construed the paragraph as part of Contention VIII (LB Tr. 216, lines 23-24).
In opposing the need-for-power paragraph as a contention, counsel for the Licensee referred to his pre-vious argument on Contention VIII (LB Tr. 217, line 5 and LB Tr. 214 lines 16-18), and stated:
[W] hat is being licensed here is not continued plant opera-tion.
Further, I believe the law is that if, as I expect the Staff's environmental im-pact assessment to show, that there are no significant envi-ronmental impacts to continued operation of the Big Rock Point plant with the expanded spent fuel capacity, then the alter-native of shutting down the plant need not be considered.
(LB Tr. 217, lines 5-12).
In opposing the nead-for-power paragraph, counsel for the NRC Staff declined to elaborate her position further and instead referred to her previous statement on Contention VIII, namely that "it's beyond the scope of this proceeding l
to consider relicensing" (Tr. 214, lines 24-25).
This l
' statement summarized the position taken by the NRC Staff with respect to Contention VIII, including the need for power paragraph in its response of November 29, 1979 to the contentions of John O'Neill.
The pertinent pages are attached to facilitate the Appeal Board's review.
l
3-i The foregoing represents the extent of the infor-mation relevant to the Appeal Board's inquiry.
I leave it to the Appeal Board to determine what inferences, if any, should be drasm from above record citations because it would be inappropriate for me to offer additional argu-ment given the posture of the proceeding.
Sincerely, 0--nh.k_b Joseph Gallo cc:
Big Rock Point Service List I
i t
I I
i L
--e.
,w
--w v
w.-e, m
11/29/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!"iISSION
, -,,77 i
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.
C Lj
-_u u,1-g g 5
i r
j In the Ma :er of
)
NUbb
)
CONSUMERS P.0WER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power
)
Station)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF CHRISTA-MARIA AND TO CONTENTIONS OF JOHN P. O'NEILL, II Pursuant to Orders of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued on October 24, 1979 and November 5,1979, the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the restated contentions of Christa-Maria and the the restated contentions of John P. O'Neill,.II, both filed on November 20, 1979.
For the reasons set forth below the Staff believes:
1)
Christa-Maria's Contentions Nos.1 and 8 are inadmissible as contentions in this proceeding as a matter of law and Commission policy; 2)
Christa-Maria's Contentions Nos. 7 and 9 are inadmissible in their present form sine they represent a challenge to Comission regulations and do not meet the showing of special circumstances required by 10 C.F.R.
s2.758(b);
- 3) John P. O'Neill's Contentions Nos. I.B.5, II.B and II.E.3 are admissible as contentions in this proceeding provided the Staff's interpretation is accepted;
- 4) ~ John P. f Nrill's Contentions Nos. II.F and IV are admissible as contentions in this proceeding in their present form; and l
1
- 5) John P. O'Neill's rer.aining contentions except for II.C and II.E are inadmissible for lack of basis, vagueness, because they are beyond the scope s
..y.e4----- - - -. - --
-3 9 g y-w
.-,.c wy.-
- g.,-
-w-
+
t w.-
P.
Contention No. VIII is an Inad:r.issible Contention Since it is Beyond the Scope of the License Amendment Proceeding.
y Contention 50.VIIIstatesasfollows:
T VIII. Granting of the license 1; the only way the plant can operate past the year 1981 as things stand now, and thus allow an extension of plar.t activity that would otherwise be halted.
Hence, it is a tacit approval of such extended operation, and should include a review of general plant safety.
The Kemeny Commission has recomended " periodic relicensing of existing atomic plants on the basis of hearings, inspections and perfonnance criteria."
Big Rock produces very little electricity compared to modern nuclear generators, 72 megawatts at most; the closing of Big Rock would not cause great hardship.
Petitioner contends that since the proposed expansion is the only way in which the Big Rock facility will be able to operate after 1981, a general review of plant safety should be included in this license amendment proceeding. Such a review would coiw'.itute a relicensing of the l
Big Rock facility.
In 1962 Consumers Power Company was granted a provisional operating license, and in 1964 they received a full-term operating license which expires in the year 2000.
Before these operating licenses were issued a safety evaluation was conducted by the NRC Staff.
In addition, Big Rock is subject to ongoing Staff reviews in the form of inspections, safety evaluations' for proposed license amendments, and generic review programs. Any review' of plant safety not directly related to this spent fuel pool modification proposal would be a duplication of effort and eli beyond the scope of this proceeding, as described in the notice of opportunity for a hearing filed in the Federal Recister on July 23,1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 43126-7, petitioner has also established no basis for the prcposition that such a review should be conducted in the
context of a spent fuel pool expansion proceeding. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Contention No. VIII should not be admitted as a
~
F-contentionihthisproceeding.
~
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff believes:
1)
Christa-Maria's Contentions Nos. 1 and 8 are inadmissible as contentions in this proceeding as a matter of law and Commission policy; 2)
Christa-Maria's Contentions Nos. 7 and 9 are inadmissible in their present form since they represent a challenge to commission regulations and do not meet the showing of special circumstances required by 10 C.F.R. 82.758(b);
- 3) John P. O'Neill's Contentions Nos. I.B.5, II.B and II.E.3 are admissible as contentions in this proceeding provided the Staff's interpretation is accepted;
- 4) John P. O'Neill's Contentions Nos. II.F and IV are admissible as contentions in this proceeding in their present form; and
- 5) John P. O'Neill's remaining contentions except for II.C and II.E are inadmissible for lack of basis, vaguaness, because they are beyond the scope of this proceeding, or because they constitute a challenge to the Commission's regulations.
~
Christa-Maria's Contentions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the subjects of a 2'
St.pulation entered into by representatives of Christa-Maria, Consumers Power Company (Consumers) and the NRC Staff on November 26,1979 and previously filed with this Board. The Staff's position regarding these
.-r.