ML19343A283
| ML19343A283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1980 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8009170167 | |
| Download: ML19343A283 (21) | |
Text
~^
~
.z.---.-~-.
.-. -.. ~... - -
O t
t
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the. Matter of
)
3 7
\\
)
)./
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC
)
Docket No. 50-367 SERVICE COMPANY
)
(Construction Permit Extension) e,;o
)
y (Bailly Generating Station,
)
J Nuclear-1)
)
V i:.:
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SEPARAT; F
APPEALS BY THE CITY OF GARY, ET AL. AND DR. GEORGE SCHULTZ FROM LICENSING BOARD p
ORDER FOLLOWING SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE y~-
.uuc.y.
L -
.s
\\% -
s.:~.
s
)
m b
. e
./,-s r
yn s
s#
=
et*
rY4 PLh r
n4;;i6t;;Q?;- ~ ff;ff~a w' a;;c:: m;vey
~y yv ?
,v n.,
Steven C. Goldberg g cc ;c;c;cy.
7-Counsel for NRC Staff 1'
.. 5. 5,.
w 1-p September h_;.
15,1980 j.
( v '
- e 4.
~
.'. N..h
$ 5:?q :~i'
..M.,u._.
, xmxur;ct;r. :n u,;t ;.O:n ;,m.,80 091 '10 ~;. $ f' n
~
- c..
p;y.
~.ngg2.
-"%2+9mMer5W515M~ -
m n :
i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
Introduction........................
1 11.
Background.........................
2 III.
Statement of the Case 3
IV.
Issue Presented on Appeal.................
5 V.
Argument..........................
5 The Licensing Board correctly found that the proposed contention of the Gary Petitioners and Petitioner Schultz regarding emergency evacuation.~ ell outside the scope of this permit extension proceeding e
(i) Scope of the Proceeding...............
5 (ii) Emergency Evacuation Contention...........
10 VI.
Conclusion.....
15 l
l l
i l
{
l i
I I
11 TABLE OF CITATIONS Page CASES BPI v. Atomic Enerav Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
5 Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1979)..............
3, 9 P_orter County Chapter of Izaak Walton_ League of o
America, Inc., et al. v. NRC, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.1976); cert, denied, 429 U.S. 945 (1976)....
2 Porter County Chapter of Izaak Wal_ ton League of America, Inc., et al. v. NRC, 515 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.
T9T5); rev'd and remanded, 423 U.S.12 (1975) 2 NRC CASES Indiana _and Michigan Electric Co. (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-129, 6 AEC 414 (1973).....................
6, 7, 8, 10 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-79-11, 10 NRC 733 (1979),
p_etition for review filed, No. 80-1163 (D.C. Cir,
Feb. 8, 1980) 3, 8, 9, 13 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), LBP-74-19, 7 AEC 557 (1974);
ALAB-224, 8 AEC 244 (1974)................
2, 10 Northern Indiana Publ_ic Service Co. (Bailly Generating Statio1, Nuclear-1), LBP-74-85, 8 AEC 901 (1974);
LBP-75-3,1 NRC 61 (1975); ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858 (1975)...
2 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438 (1980)...
6 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-457, 7 NRC 179, 202 (1976).
6 h
iii TABLE Or CITATIONd ' Cont.)
Page REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202....................
9 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206....................
3, 9 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714....................
5 10 C.F.R. 1 2.714a 1
10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1).................
10 10 C.F.R. s 50.45(s) 11 10 C.F.R. s 50.55(b) 5, 6, 10 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section II........
10 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section III 10 OTHER Public Law 96-295....................
11 44 Fed. Reg. 69061 4
45 Fed. Reg. 40101 12 45 Fed. Reg. 50350 12 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 10 v
r---
r y y -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC
)
Docket No. 50-367 SERVICE COMPANY
)
(Construction Permit Extension)
)
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
Nuclea r-1)
)
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SEPARATE APPEALS BY THE CITY OF GARY, ET AL. AND DR. GEORGE SCHULTZ FROM LICENSING BOARD ORDER FOLLOWING SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE I.
INTRODUCTION On August 26 and August 27, 1980, intervention petitioner Dr. George Schultz and intervention petitioners City of Gary, Local 6787 of the United Steel-workers of America, the Bailly Alliance, Save the Dunes Council, and the Critical Mass Energy Project (Gary Petitioners), respectively, entered an appeal from the Licensing Board's " Order Following Special Prehearing Con-ference," dated August 7,1980,E pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.714a.
That Order, as relevant to the instant appeals, denied the subject petitions on the grounds that the contentions advanced therein fell outside the scope of this construction permit extension proceeding.
These petitioners argue on appeal that their contentions were improperly rejected.
1/
This Order was supplemented on August 25, 1980.
._ The NRC Staf f believes that the Board properly ruled that these petitioners' sole contention, regarding emergency planning r.od evacuation, is outside the scope of this proceeding as prescribed by Cor< mission regulation and inter-pretative case law. Given the close similarity between the rejected con-tentions of both petitioners, the Staff has decided to treat their separate appeals together..
J II.
BACKGROUND The _ construction permit application for the Bailly facility was submitted in Au gus t, 1970.
The application was the sr.bject of 65 days of evidentiary hearing.
The Commission authorized issuance of the construction permit in May, 1974.
LBP-74-19, 7 AEC 557; ALAB-224, 8 AEC 244.
At the :irection of the Commission, the record was reopened for hearings on the use of a " slurry wall" to keep the construction excavation dry and the construction permit was amended to add certain conditions for the protection of the environment.
LBP-74-85, 8 AEC 901-(1974); LBP-75-3,1 NRC 61; ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858 (1975).
Following the imposition of a stay of construction by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October,1974, and later vacation of the construction permit, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the Commission's final decision on the issuance of the construction permit in July,1976.2/ The Seventh Circuit resolved the remaining issues in favor of the Commission in November,1976.5/
2 1
2/
Porter County Chapter of Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al. v.
NRC, 515 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.1975); rev'd and remanded, 423 U.S.12 (1975).
3/
Porter County Chapter of Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., et al. v.
NRC, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.1976); cert. denied, 429 U.S. 945 (1976).
l
t
- s 1
In November,1976, several petitions were filed before the Commission, under the authority of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, seeking suspension and revocation of the construction permit on the basis of certain developments which were alleged l
to have arisen since issuance of the construction permit.
The Commission's denial of that petition was upheld by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton Leacue v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Ci r.1979).
On December 12, 1979, the Commission denied a November,1978 petition by these same petitioners to institute hearings in connection with the Applicant's plans for installation of foundation piles for the facility.
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-79-11, 10 NRC 733 (1979), petition for review filed, No. 80-1163 (D.C. Cir., Feb. 8,1980).
On February 7,1979, as supplemented on August 31, 1979, the Applicant sub-mitted an application for extension of time within which to complete con-I struction of the Bailly facility.
Among the reasons cited as " good cause" for the requested extension were the over two-year suspension of construction occasioned by the ruling of the Seventh Circuit, installation of the slurry wall, and the work stoppage since September,1977 pending the outcome of the Staff's review of its pile installation plans.
III.
STATEf1ENT OF CASE This proceeding was initiated upon publication of a " Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on Construction Permit Extension" in the Federal Register on I
+
r,w-t
-*g
r 1 :.ovember 30, 1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 69061).
In response to the Notice, the Board received seven petitions to intervene.
Three of the seven petitions were granted.
As relevant to these appeals, petitions for leave to intervene were filed by the Gary Petitioners and Dr. George Schultz.
In a filing on February 26, 1980, the Gary Petitioners advanced the following as their sole contention in this matter:
"Whether realistic evacuation and emergency plans can be implemented to adequately protect the populations surrounding the pecposed site of the Bailly [ facility] in the event of a nuclear sccident." The central issue raised in Petitioner Schultz' amended petition, dated Febru-ary 25,1980, is essentially identical.4/ A special prehearing conference was held on March 12-13, 1980 to ccasider the intervention petitions.
On May 30, 1980, the Board issued a " Provisional Order Following Special Pre-hearing Conference" which, inter alia, ruled on the intervention petitions.
The Board denied the petitions of the Gary Petitioners and Dr. Schultz.
The Board provided an opportunity for the conference participants to file objections to the provisional order before entry of a final order.
Objec-tions thereto were filed by the rary Petitioners and Dr. Schultz, among others, on June 24 and 25, 1980, respectively.
The Board entered its present j
order on August 7,1980 in which its denial of the Gary, et al,. and Dr. Schultz petition was confirmed.
Order at 40-41.
4/.
Petitioner's express concern is over the alleged absence of a safe, workable evacuation plan for the inmate population of the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana, where he is employed as a clinical psychologist. Amended petition at 2.
1 i
i '
IV.
ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL 2
l Whether the Licensing Board correctly rejected the proposed contention of the Gary Petitioners and Petitioner Schultz because it fell outside the scope of this permit extension proceeding.
V.
ARGUMENT The Licensing Board correctly found that the proposed con-3 tention of the Gary Petitioners and Petitioner Schultz regarding emergency evacuation fell outside the scope of this permit extension proceeding.
r i
(i) Scope of ti.e Proceedir.a As a general precept, contentions must fall within the scope of the particu-lar licensing action and be set forth with basis and particularity per the requirements of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714(b) and applicable case law.
See, e.g.,
BPI v. Atomic Eneray Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. fir.1974).
The scope of a construction permit extension proceeding is prescribed by 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(b) which provides that a construction permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time for good cause shown.
Section s 50.55(b) identifies those types of matters that could provide the basis for an extension.E/ This strongly suggests that the requisite showing is 5/
These are:
"among other things, developmental problems attributable to the -experimental nature of -the 'facili ty or fire, flood, explosion, strike, sabotage, domestic violence, enemy action, an act of the ele-ments, and other acts beyono-the centrol of the permit holder...."
1
+'~
5 e
< <... +
v
,,-...,y v.
r 7
...r~
,=,. -,
- C
"?
T *' ~ ' - -'"
_.one of good cause for the delay in construction. The parameters of the "gooc cause" showing under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(b) have been established by the Appeal Board. Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. (Donald C. Cook !;uclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-129, 6 AEC 414 (1973).
The practical effect of a construction permit extension action is to extend the time to complete previously authorized construction where there has been
" good cause shown" for the delay.
10 C.F.R. 6 50.55(b); See Cook, supra.
An extension prmeeding does not authorize commencement of construction or plant operation. Those authorizations evolve from separate and distinct lit 4 sing proceedings which carry with them the opportunity for evide.tiary hearings. A person's interest in a construction penait extension proceeding is not necessarily co-extensive with his or her interest in a construction-pennit or operating license proceeding.
Similarly, since the " fundamental purpose" of an extension proceeding is not to assess the safety of the plant in question,6_/ and operational safety issues are not otherwise litigable within the scope of this proceeding, an interest in safe plant operation can neither be fully protectad nor redressed in such proceeding.7_/
6/
Cook, supra, 6 AEC at 420.
_7f Cf. Public Service Co. of Indiana (flarble Hill Generating Station, Uiiits 1 and 2), CLI-80-10,11 flRC 438 (1980).- While the Staff recog-nizes that the Board found petitioners to have standing in this pro-ceeding those arguments rejected below can be pressed alternatively on appeal.
See Public Service of Indiana (Marble Hill), ALAB-457, 7 f1RC 179, 202 (1976).
c Patently, a construction pennit extension proceeding is not the Forum for re-litigating the: grant of a construction permit nor " pre"-litigating any eventual operating license application. As a matter of " common sense," such a proceeding need not " embrace every safety or environnental issue which the need for the extension might possibly suggest." 6 AEC at 420.
The Appeal Board recognized in Cook that the " fundamental purpose" of an extension hearing is "not to determine the safety or environmental aspects of the reactor in question." _Iji.
The Appeal Board concluded therein, however, that it could not always rule out consideration of possible safety and environmental issues associated l
with the asserted reasons for the delay in construction in such a proceeding.
The Appeal Board indicated that the question to be answered in ascertaining whether " good cause" exists is broadly "whether the reasons assigned for the extension give rise to health and' safety or environmental issues which cannot appropriately abide the event of the [ facility operating license hearing].
Put another way, we must decide whether the present consideration of any such issue or issues is.necessary in order to protect the interest of intervenors or the public interest."
lj!. at 420.
In Cook, proposed plant design changes constitutec one of the reasons as-
. signed for the construction delays.
The Appeal Board ruled that deferring consideration of operational safety problems associated with these design s;,
changes for. the operating license hearing would not prejudice the inter-1 venors.
Id.
.It' recognized that design changes in the course of a faci'.ity e
1 s
\\
construction were common if not " inevitable."
Id.
It explained, however, that under the prescribed regulatory scheme the safety implications of such design changes do not receive immediate Licensing Board scrutiny.
The Appeal Board expressed difficulty in rationalizing why a different result should obtain simply because of the " fortuitous circumstance?" that certain events required the Applicants to seek an extension of construction.
Based on the circumstances of that case, the Appeal Board concluded that the scope of the " good cause" inquiry was properly limited to the reasons assigned by the Applicant for the need for an extension, leaving adjudicatory con-sideration of safety and environmental issues to the operating license hearing. H. at 422.
The viability of the Cor. mission's bifurcated licensing process (construction permit and operating license) has received Commission sanction ir connection with its consideration of petitions to initiate separate hearings respecting this same facility.
Bailly, supra, 10 NRC 733.
The petitions involved the Applicant's proposal, under active Staff review, to use shorter foundation pilings than originally contemplated at the time it received its construction permit in May,1974 Petitioners therein argued that the pile installation proposal constituted an ame.dment to the construct 1r.n permit and involved a matter incapable of resolution af ter constructior was completed.
In denying the petitions, the Commission observed that the Atomic Energy Act favors the two-stage licensing process.
The Commission noted that unre alved issues left outstanding at the construction permit stage or issues that arose
_. subsequent thereto are resolved at the operating stage.
Id. at 742.
The Commission found nothing in the record to recommend the injection of an
" interim" public hearing at this time.
Id The Commission observed that possession of a construction permit does not guarantee receipt of an i
operating license and that the risk that a plant will be denied a license, i
=
for any aspect of construction, is borne by the licensee.
In this regard, the Commission cited approvingly from the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in yet another case involving this facility and "most of the same principles."
Id. at 743.
The Court stated therein:
"It is not the public, but the utility, that must bear the risk that the safety i
i questions it projects will be resolved in good time, may eventually prove intractable and lead to the denial of the operating license." Porter County, supra, 606 F.2d at 1370.
i The Commission stressed that its decision did not "in any sense whatsoever create a risk to the public health and safety," since unresolved safety
[
q.iestions must be considered in any hearing held on an operating license f
appdcation and that reasonable assurance of safety must be affirmatively found as a precondition to the grant of an operating license, j]!.
The Commission observed that the NRC Staff had the foundation pile matter under review and that should it determine at any time, either on its own initiative i
or in response to a request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.206, that substantial health and safety issues had been raised with respect to the activities authorized by the construction permit, it could initiate proceedings under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.202 or order the suspension of construction. Jjl.
f g-4 s-g-+r-v-
-- +
m&--
f 1-
=e
--w-e wer-- y w
.,---*-)wwv+w, e
y<-'a-w.-
-er*
--ye'+g+w-
J '
b (ii) Emergency Evacuation Contention The Gary Petitioners and Dr. Schultz seek to intervene in this proceeding solely with respect to the evacuability of the Bailly site in the event of i
an emergency.
8 The subject of emergency planning on a " preliminary" basis _/ was litigated in the Bailly construction permit proceedin[ and will be thoroughly con-sidered by the Staff on a " final" basisE in connection with the eventual i
operating license application for the facility.
The subject of emergency p
planning is one that does not fall within the limited scope of the required
" good cause" finding under 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(b), is unrelated to any of the j
reasons assigned for the extension so as to be cognizable under Cook, supra, and is a matter that can, and should, abide litigation at the eventual operating stage.
1 Support for this latter position can be found in the final rule regarding 1
. upgraded emergency planning requirements published by the Commission in the l
Federal Register on August 19,1980(45 Fed. Reg. 55402). b The rule will l
(
8/
See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section II.
_9]
- See, e.a.,
Bailly, supra, 7 AEC at 568.
10f See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section III.
lif Significantly, the new regulations provide that:
"no operating license for a' nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made
.by the NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(a)(1).
1 '
take effect on November 3,1980.
Apart from the establishment of new emer-I gency planning requirements for operating license applicants, the final regulations provide that licensed nuclear power plants are required to submit their er.ergency plans, together with the emergency response plans of state and local governments, to the Commission to review their adequacy
~
along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
10 C.F.R. 9 50.54(s).
T:ie new regulations do not contain a comparable requirement for plants which possess a construction permit.
No such requirement should be imported by pennitting the litigation of the present adequacy of the Bailly emergency plans. At the operating license stage, Bailly will have to meet the new l
emergency planning requirements.
Had the Commission intended its new regulations to be applied at a pre-operating license stage, it would have so indicated.
It is evident in the new regulations that this is not its intent.
To the extent that the Gary Petitioners and Petitioner Schultz sought to place the suitability of the Bailly site in issue, the Board found that present consideration of such issue was barred by a combinatien of Congres-sional and Commission actions.
Order at 24-32.
The Congressional action took the'fonn of the 1980 NRC Appropri.ation Authorization Bill.E! Speci-fically, section 108 of the bill provides that regulations establishing demographic requirements for nuclear power plant siting shall not apply to any facility for which opplication for a construction pennit was filed on or before October 1, 1979.
Bailly obviously falls within this categorical exclusion.
The parallel Commission action took the fonn of an advanced g /
P.L.96-295 (June 30, 1980).
l
- notice of rulemaking regarding revisions in the reactor siting criteria published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 50350).
^
The Notice provides that, in compliance with section 108 of the cited legislation, the rulemaking applies to facilities for which an application for construction permit is filed after October 1,1979.J3/ The Notice went on to provide that the Commission had directed the Staff "to review existing I
sites in order to examine whether additional modifications in operating procedures, design, or equipment might be necessary.'b The Notice explained that, for plants that have construction permits (or operating licenses), this review would take the form of a report to the Commission for its considera-tiononacase-by-casebasis.b The Staff has not yet submitted the requested report nor identified those plants which warrant the additional consideration speci fied.
Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear that the Commission has prescribed the manner in which site characteristics of plants under construc-tion are to be examined and reserved to itself the responsibility for deter-mining what, if any, further action is necessary with respect to certain identified plants.
Therefore, not only does the issue of site suitability lie outside the scope of this proceeding under any reasonable construction thereof but, to the extent additional consideration of this matter is warranted, it rests within the province of the Commission, not the Licensing F
Board.
_1_3f The immediate extension application was filed on February 7,1979.
_14f 45 Fed. Reg. at 50351.
This directive is contained in the Comr.ission's
" Statement of Interim Policy" regarding accident considerations pub-i lished in the. Federal Register on June 13, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 40101, 40103).
15/ M.
The Staff position on the litigability of the emergency planning issue in this proceeding should not be construed as signalling a lack of appreciation for its significance or the legitimacy of the petitioners' concerns.
Its position is based solely upon its interpretation of the proper effect to be accorded a construction pennit extension proceeding within the context of the Commission's two-stage licensing process.E The Staff is also mindful of the special circumstances described in the appeal brief of the Gary Petitioners which obtain here (including the small amount of construction completed to date).
Nonetheless, the Staff cannot conceive of a legal basis for the present litigation of emergency planning and/or site suitability which (coupled with the array of safety issues sought to be introduced by other parties) would not inevitably result in the conduct of a de novo construction pennit hearing.
Whatever the ultimate merits of the issues advanced here, the Staff does not understand this to be the intended purpose of the construction pennit extens'on regulations.
In any event, emergency planning considerations at Bailly have and will continue to receive attention by the Staff.
As reflected in the attached letter from Harold R. Denton, Director, Nuclear Regulation (Director), to Diane B. Cohn, counsel for Gary Petitioners, dated August 25, 1980, the City of Gary, et al. have been invited to narticipate in the consideration of emergency planning at Bailly.
This letter was in response to a request from the Gary Petitioners to join in the State of Illinois' request to suspend or M / g. Bailly, CLI-79-11, supra.
, revoke the Bailly construction pemit on the grounds that adequate emergency and evacuation plans cannot be developed for the population surrounding the pla nt.b This matter is being handled as a request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206.
The Director's decision under this section is reviewable by the Commission on its own motion.
The Staff believes that this represents a
the appropriate avenue for Commission consideration of the issues underlying the instant appeals in which the Gary Petitioners (as well as Dr. Schultz, if he so desires) may participate.
In addition, as noted in the August 25, 1980 letter, Bailly is among those plants being given prominent consideration for the performance of a risk assessment study in furtherance of the Commission directive in both the advance notice of rulemaking regarding siting and Statement of Interim Policy regarding accident considerations referred to above.
This would provide an additional vehicle for consideration of the safety of the Bailly
. facility for which public involvement may be provided in advance of the operating stage without unnecessarily expanding the permissible scope of this proceeding, JJJ A copy of a letter from H. Denton to D. Hansell, Illinois Assistant o
. Attorney General, dated June 31, 1980, regarding the Staff response to the latter's request for action is attached to the Gary Petitioners' appeal brief.
Also attached is a letter from J. Speth, Chairman of the R
Council on Environmental Quality, to T. Fahner, Illinois Attorney General, dated August 12, 1980, recommending the preparation of an environmental impact statement or supplemental statement in this matter.
That issue will be joined before the Licensing Board after the Staff's detennination thereon is made.
See "NRC Staff Response to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' Motion Concerning Environmental Impact Statement and State of Illinois' Motion to Compel Staff Detemination,"
dated September 9, 1980.
The issue is not-relevant to the present appeals.
VI.
CONCLUSION In light of the above, the Staff opposes the present appeals and urges that the Licensing Board's denial of the intervention petitions of the City of Gary, et al. and Dr. Schultz be upheld.
~
Respectfully submitted, L. >
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15thday of September,1980.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM:ISS10N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL _B_0ARD In the Matter of
)
I:0RTHERN INDIAf!A PUBLIC Docket I:o. 50-367 SERVICE COMPANY (Construction Permit Extension)
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
i:uclear-1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SEPARATE APPEALS BY THE CITY OF GARY, ET AL. AND DR. GEOR3E SCHULTZ FROM LICENSING BOARD ORDER FOLLOWING SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE" 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's internal mail system, this 15th day of Septem-ber, 1980.
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
- Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. John H. Buck Kathleen H. Shea, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Appeal Board Panel and Toll U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036
- Mr. Thomas S. Moore Robert J. Vollen, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o BPI Appeal Board Panel 109 North Dearborn Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60602 Washington, D.C.
20555 Edciard W. Osann, Jr., Esq.
- Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Suite 4600 Atomic Safety and Licensing One IBM Plaza Board Panel Chicago, Illinois 60611 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtoa, D. C.
20555
'~
Robert L. Graham, Esq.
- Atoaic Safety and Licensing One IBM Plaza Board Panel 44th Floor U. S. f!uclc ar Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60611 Washington,. D.C.
20555 George and Anna Grabouski
- Atomic fety and Licensing 7413 W. 136th Lane Appeal Board Panel Cedar Lake, Indiana 46303 U. S. fluclear Regulatory Coianission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George Schultz 110 California Street
- Docketing and Service Section Michigan City, Indiana 4G360 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission John Van Vranken, Esq., Chief Washington, D.C.
20,555 f;orthern Region Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 Clifford Mc/o, Acting President Local 1010 United Steelworkers of America 3703 Euclid Avenue East Chicago, Indiana 46312 William H. Eichhorn, Esq.
Eichhorn, Morrow & Eichhorn 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 Diane B. Cchn, Esq.
Suite 700 2000 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (Lv Steven C. Goldberg U
Counsel for NRC Staff
k AUG 2 5 M Ns. Diane 8.'Cdhn Public Citizen Litigation Croup Suite 700 2000 P Street, '!.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20035
Dear Ms. Cohn:
g This letter is sent to acknowledgIyour letter dated June 5,1930, on behalf of the City of Gery, Indiana, United Stecluorkers of Ar' erica Local 6787, the Dailly Alliance, Save the Dunes Council and the Critical Mass Energy Project in which these organizations request to join in the State of Illinois' request for action to suspend or revoke the construction permit for the Bailly facility.
is based on your view that consideration should be given to whether the popula-Your requ tion in the vicinity of Bailly can be evacuated within a reasonable period of tiac in the event of a nuclear accident at this facility.
The State of Illinois' original letter on this matter dated Noverr.ber 13, 1979, is being treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.205 of the Comission's regulations.
have recently suggested to Illinois (Enclosure) that we delay for a nuirber We of months, our response to its petition punding the outcome of a risk assessment study we may request Northern Indiana Public Service Company (N,IPSCO) to perforn.
He will contact you regarding a meeting uith my staff on this matter as you request following the formal issuance of the Federal Cuergency r:anagement Agency's report on the evacuation feasibility study within a ten. nile radius of the Bailly facility.
This report has been issued to the appropriate states and local governments for coment and we anticipate that it will be officially published in a few months.
Sincerely, gght !! rtd M
- n. p.. Mdo'a Harold R. Denten, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
!l Enclosure-ttr dtd 7/31/80 fm H. R. Denton
~
8 to D. Hansell
)
~
cc:
Mr. William D. Schultz
'I Public Citizen Litigation Group 2000 P Street, H.M.
Washington,_E.C. 20036 e
h 9009090W i