ML19350B056
| ML19350B056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1981 |
| From: | Rooney M GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., MAYER, BROWN & PLATT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103190409 | |
| Download: ML19350B056 (7) | |
Text
r-Dated:
March 10, 1981 0%
5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SOCKETED s
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
MAR 1ggggyy 3 C"<e of the Secretary I
In the Matter of
)
exkgy g,s g e,
)
Bruch E
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
~ 1
)
Docket No. 70-1308 p A,'
Consideration of Renewal of
)
' Material License No. SNM-1265 )
2 3
Issued to GE Morris Operation )
Spent Fuel Storage Instal.lation) 2
\\SgN.#
$9 7[ [,M RESPONSE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY g
CONTENTIONS OF 1NTERVENORS ROREM ET AL.
c F3 This constitutes the response of applicant General Electric Company. (" General Electric") to the additionally-proposed and the originally-admitted contentions propounded by Rorem et al.
The former proposed-additional contentions are contained in a submittal dated March 1, 1981.
PROPOSED-ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF ROREM ET AL..
j General Ob ections General-Electric' objects to each proposed contention A t rough D inclusive, on the ground that each should be-h stricken:for failure to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) because each contention lacks specificity and fails toDset forth an adequate basis.
t
~
h
-8108190
4 Further, General Electric objects to the lateness of filing of these proposed contentions.
By its order entered December 8, 1980, this Board required all additional contentions
-to be filed by February 26, 1981.
The additional contentions
' of Rorem, et al. are dated March 1981, and were not received by counsel for General Electric until March 3, 1981.
More importantly, General Electric objects in the strongest possible terms to the manner by which Rorem, et al. have endeavored to cure the lateness of their filing--an ex parte request to Chairman Goodhope for an extension of time,
. confirmed by a letter.
Ex parte communications by parties to Board members are regulated by 10 C.F.R.
S2.780, and the Sunshine-Act amendments to the-Administrative Procedure Act. /
The conduct of Rorem, et al. violates not only the rules but
- their.-spirit as well.
Rorem et al. are. surely aware that it is improper for a party to! communicate with the Board in this manner in which Intervenor Rorem did.
General Electric would have gladly participated in a conference call to the Board regarding the requested extension ~.
Counsel for General Electric would have arranged the call, were this beyond.the capability of the
- f 10 C.F.R. 52.780 prohibits ex parte communications "regarding any substantive matter at issue" by parties
'to N.R.C. personnel.
5 U.S C.
5557 (d} (1). prohibi ts ex parte communications " relevant'to the merits cf the
~ proceeding" by interested persons to agency personnel. 1
intervenors.
At a minimum, Rorem et al. should have contacted General Electric's counsel before communicating with the Board.
It is time that Rorem et al. realize that all the parties to this proceeding must play by the rules--not just the applicant.
Specific Objections Proposed-Additional Contention A states:
"The CSAR fails to fully evaluate potential impact on the environment of spent fuel being transported into the area, such evaluation being required by 10 CFR 72.70.
" Citizens of Illinois, or other states, who live along transportation routes for spent fuel, have a right to be protected from harm caused by a nuclear transportation accident.
The Emergency Services and Disaster Agency (ESDA) of Illinois does not even pretend that it is now able to cope with a transportation accident:
'It will probably be a couple of years before we get around to developing a specific plan for nuclear transportation accidents.'
(ESDA information officer Chuck Jones, as quoted by Star Newspapers, 9 October 1980)."
-This contention is an impermissible attack upon existing regulations, in that it attempts to aruge Part 72 should regulate the transportation of spent fuel.
Accordingly, it should be-stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.758.
Alternatively, as it is phrased, the contention departs
'from~any evaluation of the Morris operation and thus from the subject of this proceeding.
Nevertheless, the CSAR analyzes allcpast_'and present man-made facilities, activities,-and events that_might endanger the Morris Operation, including transportation
.of -spent fuel to :and' from the Morris Operation.,
n
i Proposed-Additional Contention B states:
"The CSAR does not adequately describe decontamination and decommissioning procedures,-as required by 10 CFR 72.18, so as to provide reasonable assurance for A.
Health and safety of the public.
B.
Financial ability to carry out such procedures."
This contention is an impermissible attack upon the validity.of existing regulations, accordingly, it'should be stricken pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758.
Section 72.18 does not
' require that the decommissioning plan describe decontamination and. decommissioning procedures.
Furthermore, General Electric's
-application' meets:the requirements of 572.18; Rorem et al. have
)
notfdemonstrate'd any inadequacies in General Electric's
~
submission.
L
-Proposed-Additional' Contention C-states:
'"The CSAR does not~ adequately describe or evaluate such man-induced. events as~may be precipitated by.the
~
7 lt'ransportation-and sturage of damaged spent nuclear fuel.-
L "Specifically,Ointervenors;are concerned that licensing
~
of; the GE Morris. Operation under.10. CFR 72 does not
- preclude-the storage.there~of damaged. nuclear fuel-such
+
as.tAat in the core of Three Mile Island 2."
The' contention ~should,be: stricken,. pursuant to 10 C.E.R.
i-52.758, as'an impermissible-attack on-existing regulations.
There is absolutely ' no : regulatory? requirement l prohibiting
[
.' storage.'of' damaged spent fuel.' Moreover,-the CSAR discusses the handling;of potentially; damaged fuel at-the point 1of-
< ~
a'
- receips,iand this? contention doesLnot demonstrate that1those proceduresiare[ inadequate.
5 4
~
_4_
N.ll u-~
.m
Proposed-Additional Contention D states:
" License to receive, handle, store and transfer spent nuclear fuel should be granted to the GE Morris Operation only 'or such time as it operates with its present storage capacity.
"Intervenors feel that if a license to expand is sought by General Electric, the whole facility should undergo a new licensing procedure, inasmuch as conditions presented in the CSAR will no longer be applicable."
This contention should be stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.758, as totally irrelevant to the instant proceeding and a blatant attack on existing regulations.
General Electric has not suggested that this proceeding embrace any change, however minute, in the capacity or mode of storage at Morris.
Notwithstanding that this proceeding has no relation whatever to changes in the capacity of the Morris pool, Rorem, et al.
attempt by their contention to provide an additional procedure by which ISFSI capacity changes shall be scrutinized.
This Board previously determined that "the scope of the proceeding before the board is whether the license of G.E.
to operate the Morris facility should be renewed."
The Board also concluded that matters that "have nothing to do with whether the current license should be renewed at this time" have no place in this proceeding.
(See Order Ruling O. Contentions Of The Parties, Ruling on Rorem Contention 7, June 4, 1980)
(Emphasis added.) This proposed contention is frivolous and should be stricken.
ORIGINAL CONTENTIONS OF ROREM ET AL.
General Electric has reviewed each contention, previously admitted.by this Board, which was originally proposed by _
.. = _ - _.
Rorem, et al. (1(b), 2, and 6).
Each should now be stricken frcm this proceeding, in view of the promulgation of 10 C.F.R.,
Part 72.
Despite the attempt by Rorem, et al. to continue to assert the referenced contentions, each in no way relates to regulatory requirements under Part 72-, which now govern this proceeding.
Accordingly, they are now irrelevant.
Moreover, to the extent that each contention is an attack on existing regulations each should be stricken, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758, as beyond the scope of the proceeding.
The burden to restate previously admitted contentions, if it were even possible, so as to relate them to this proceeding under Part 72 was incumbent upon Rorem, et al.
They have failed to do so.
Indeed, their refusal to do so must be construed as a tacit admission that they could not discharge their duty to the Board and the other parties to this proceeding.
All previously admitted contentions should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY By:
UN Ronald W.
S wajkowski Matthew A. Rooney Its Attorneys OF COUNSEL:
MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 231 South LaSalle Street
~
Chicago,' Illinois.60604 (312) 782-0600
-%'u
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-1308 Consideration of Renewal of
)
Materials License No. SNW-1265)
Issued to GE Morris Operation )
Fuel Storage Installation
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a copy of RESPONSE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY TO CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENORS ROREM ET AL, in the above-captioned proceeding on the following persons by causing the said copies to be deposited in the United States mail at 231 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, in plainly addressed and sealed envelopes with proper first class postage attached before 5:00 P.M.
on March 10, 1981:
Andrew C.
Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Susan N.
Sekuler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George William Wolff, Esq.
3320 Estelle Terrace Office of the Attorney General Wheaton, Maryland 20906 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Dr. Linda W.
Little Chicago, Illinois 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5000 Hermitage Drive Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.Dr. Forrest J. Remick Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 305 East Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Commission Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Bridget L. Rorem U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
-Essex, Illinois 60935 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555-Everett J. Quigley R.R.
1, Box 378-
)
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
/
g g Matthew A..Ro6ney