ML19343C020
| ML19343C020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1981 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102180505 | |
| Download: ML19343C020 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AffERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10fl BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPAl4Y
)
Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Plant)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modification) i l
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICEllSEE'S MOTION TO STRIKE i
l i
l Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff 4
'O February 17, 1981 g
e c
2 7
Q FEB131999,, }
b "*?47,@ran 6
t a
n 6
82022 80g
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ftMISSION BEFORE THE AT0'11C SAFETY AllD LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the flatter of
)
C0flSU*iEP.S POWER C0!!PA!1Y Docket No. 50-155 (Big Rock Point Plant)
(Spent Fuel Pool fiodification)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO STRIKE On January 27, 1981, the Licensee filed a motion to strike froin the record portions of a letter brief, dated January 19, 1981, from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to the Appeal Board on the grounds that they consist of supplemental arguments.
Alternatively, the Licensee requests the opportunity to address the new matters raised in the CEQ letter brief while, at the same time, expressing the opinion that all participants in the oral argument in this proceeding had ample opportunity to present their positions and that further briefs should have proved unnecessary.
The Staff agrees and supports the present motion.
The Council on Environmental Quality's letter brief is accompanied by three letters from its Chainnan. Two such letters, dated March 20 and August 14, 1980, were sent to Chainnan Ahearne and the other, dated August 12, 1980, was sent to the Illinois Attorney General.
Each of these letters, in turn, is accompanied by a memorandum of law prepared by counsel for CEQ.
The letters to Chaiman Ahearne represent the position of CEQ on the obliga-tion to consider Class 9 accidents in NRC environmental impact statements.
t
\\ The letter to the Illinois Attorney General represents the position of CEQ on the necessity to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement in connection with a particular application to extend a construction permit completion date.
The Licensee's notion seeks to strike those portions of the CEQ's January 19, 1981 letter brief whici, contain additional argunents in reliance on the three referenced letters and attachments.
Presumably, the notion to strike extends to those documents as well.
The motion is well taken.
The Appeal Board has previously held that supplementary submissions addressed to issues before the Appeal Board will not be accepted unless:
(1) the Appeal Board has requested such submissions or (2) the submission is accompanied by a motion for leave to file it which sets forth good reasons why the substance of the submission cannot be fur-nished to the Appeal Board in a more timely fashion. Consumers Power Co.
(Midland *)lant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-115, 6 AEC 257 (1973).
This decision is persuasite here since it involved a letter submitted by a participant after the oral argument had already taken place.
The letters submitted along with CEQ's letter brief are unrelated to the matters at issue before the Appeal Board and serve to unnecessarily burden and confuse the record.
CEQ's letter is not equivalent to a notion for leave to file pleadings out of time, and does not state the reasons why the attached materials could not have been submitted to the Appeal Board in a more timely fashion. Therefore, in light of the Midland decision these materials should be stricken.
The other portion of the letter brief which the Licensee seeks to strike consists of legal argument regarding the applicability of CEQ guide-lines upon independent regulatory agencies. Like the three accompanying t-
( !
J letters the legal authority cited in support of the CEQ position in this regard is presented for the first time in the letter brief.
In any event, the Appeal Board should not consider an issue on appeal on the basis of the views of one party alone without affording the other parties an opportunity to express their views. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-75-14, 4 NRC 163,167 n.3 (1976); Alabama i
Power Co. (Joseph fi. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203, 204 n.3 (1974).
Therefore, if the present motion to strike is not granted, the Staff joins in the Licensee's request to brief the natters i
raised in the CEQ letter brief as necessary.
The Staff agrees with the 1
Licensee that this portion of CEQ's letter brief should also be stricken.
In light of the foregoing, the Staff supports the Licensee's motion to i
strike the designated portions of the CEQ letter brief of January 19, 1981.
l Respectfully submitted,
[ Q.lt 0 W-..
Janice floore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland this 17th of February,1981.
\\
UillTED SLATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM:ilSSION BEFORE_THE ATO:11C SAfLT_Y AND_LICEf; SING APPEAL BOARD In the ihtier of
)
)
t0*iSUMLRS P0!ER COMPANY
)
Docket flo. 50-155
)
(rig Rock Point Plant)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO STRIKE 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 fluclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 17th day of February,1981.
Thomas S. floore, Chairman
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Ato.aic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. ?!uclear Regulatory Commission U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission
!!ashington, D. C.
20555
!!ashington, D. C.
20555
- Dr. John H. Buck Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Appeal Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First f;ational Plaza 1:ashington, D. C.
20555 Suite 4200 g
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Christine N. Kohl A:0nic Safety and Licensing Joseph Gallo, Esq.
A,ipcal Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale 11.5. ::uclear Regulatory Commission 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W., #325
!!.:>hington, D. C.
20555
!!ashington, D. C.
20036
:crbert Grosstun, Esq., Chaircun John A. Leithauser A:c.iic Safety and Licensing b
Leithauser and Leithauser, P.C. '
Nard Opal Plaza, Suite 212 ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Contnission 18301 Eight Mile Road
!!ishington, D. C.
20555 East Detroit, MI 48021
'Pr. Oscar H. Paris John O'Neill, II A:< aic Safety and Licensing Route 2, Box 44 Deard l'aple City, Michigan 49664 18.5. Nuc1 car Regulatory Contnission D * *
}D #}D
~ 9]@'
!?ashington, D. C.
20555 oJu.SUklfb_,
o w Ju
I Chris ta -Itaria C. Foster Knight, fsq.
P. note 2, Box 103c Acting General Counsel Charlevoix, MI 49/20 Council on Environmental Qua11ty its. JoAnne Bier 722 Jackson Place, N.W.
i 201 Clinton 1.'a sh ington, O. C.
20006 Cl.arlevoix, MI 49/20 j
Mr. Gordon liowie
- Atomic Safety and Licensing 4'l Pine Appeal Coard Panel Boyne City, MI 49712 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission thshington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Jim Mills Route 2, Box 108
- Atemic Safety and Licensing Charlevoix, MI 49/20 Board Panel ti.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James Olson, Esq.
~
Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 561 Traverse City, Michigan 49684
- Dacketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Herbert Semmel, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Urban Law Institute of The Antioch School of Law lir. Thonas Dantnann 1624 Crescent Place, N.W.
i i
Route 3, Box 241 Washington, D. C.
20009 i
Charlevoix, MI 49720 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
j Consumers Pot.cr Co.
212 West Michigan Ave.
Ja ckson,111 49201 T 0LLL52.L MPCR O -
Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff s
I i
5 s
[
D [
- B lD 0 %)U XL Tf fp w M e MUJ l
..