ML19347E321
| ML19347E321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1981 |
| From: | Oneill J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104240570 | |
| Download: ML19347E321 (2) | |
Text
_
/
Doc mg3
\\
N
- f. 2.
n.c sm, "T
g; lw kU$
2 08?
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
f,j
'y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gpg 2 S193W e
BEFORE THE COMMISSION F "'#ocd
[
Docket NAberJO-ih'5/
N m
In t e tter of
)
CONSUMERS PCWER COMPANY
)
(Spent FderiPoob Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
)
MOTION FOR FULL COMMISSION' REVIEW l
I, John O'Neill II Intervenor, am petitioning the NRC Board of~ Co:mni'ssi'eners to review the Atomic-Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's decision of March 31, 1981.
The Appeal Board found that the National Environmental Protection Act Section 102(2)(C),
does not require the preparati'on of an Enviromental Impat Study of the continued pl. ant operation that would result from a requested spent fuel pool expansion at Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, a plant never before subjected to NEPA scrutiny.
The Appeal Board decision is faulty for the following reasons:
- 1. Thfis is in no sense a secondary effect of the expansion.
The only reason applicant desires the spent fuel pool expansion is to allow the plant to continue to operate.
This cannot be over-emphasized.
(Appeal Board Decision, March 31,1981, p. 22 and Passim. )
2.
The decision focuses upon the change is innvironmental impacts, rather than more properly upon the cause of these, which in this case would be effected by the proposed C<pansion.
(Decision,
- p. 26 and Passim.)
3 The decision fails to recognize that the status quo here is a plant that must close soon because no storage f6r wastes exists.
The proposed expansion of the pool will change the status quo, and allow the plant to continue operating.
This according to 3
utility documents.
C' <.,
r_.
@3 gto%2+0s70
~
lh 1
2.
4 I objected to the Appeal Board's hearing of January 9, l
r 1981, proceeding, because I was not allowed to speak.
This prevented me from demonstrating that the much-relied upon Prairie Island citation makes no internal sense unless understood as explained.
by intervenors.
(Northern State Power Company, AIAB-455, 7 NRC 41.46 n.h (1978)).
Io other party pointed this out.
The Appeal i
Board in part based its decision upon a misunderstanding of this case.
(Decision, p. 31. )
5 The Appeal Board judged as a matter of law that no amelioration of environmental impacts is possible.
This is a decision that can only be based upon facts not yet introduced.
Thics also prejudices my case, which maintains that the cost-benefit study will weigh in favor of closing Big Rock as the most economical choice.
(Decision, pp. 31, 32. )
6.
The Appeal Board's decision to rule on NEPA Section 102 (2)(C) now, while it refered the applicability of Section 102(2)(E) to the Licensing Board to await release of the Staff's Environmental Impact Assessment, may be inconsistent.
(Decision pp. 39-41. )
I also support those reasons for review advanced by Christa-Maria.
For the above reasons, I MOVE THE NRC BOARD CF COMMISSICNERS TO GRAIC A FULL REVIEW CF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AIO LICENSING APPEAL BOARD DECISIGN OF MARCH 31, 1981.
Dated. April 19, 1981.
Sincerely, John O'Neill II Intervenor Rt. 2 Box 44 All Parties Served.
Maple City, Michigan 49664
.