ML20003D222
| ML20003D222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1981 |
| From: | Goodhope A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Rorem AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103190623 | |
| Download: ML20003D222 (2) | |
Text
g k
s 9
ecc#$
J h
us*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MAR 17 N6l # I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.I D
s-A) %< dca5:c7 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- %ca3c
.. y
~ ~ ~
Before Administrative Judges:
's e Andrew C. Goodhope, Chaiman G
Dr. Linda W. Little Dr. Ferrest J. Remick s
'C.I!![g,?&
7s..
n In the Matter of:
)
W,7
)
c 7
m GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY p
]
S
<?g, j':q/p'/f (GE Morris Operation Spent d
Fuel Storage Facility)
March 16, 1981 v,,
4,,f y
)
S,:
d ;g (*
M G
7, g
'k4,
O ORDER RULING ON ADDITIONAL p
CONTENTIONS REQUESTED BY THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS AND ROREM, ET AL 4
I On June 4,1980 this Board entered an Order Ruling on Contentions of the parties. Thereafter new Part 72 to 10 C.F.R. became effective and as a result the Bcard pemitted the filing of amended or additional contentions by the intervenors. This orde_r rules upon such contentions.
State Additional Contention 1
{'
This contention is admitted as edited as State Contention 4(e).
This contention is admitted only to the extent that Part 72 requires such infomation to be provided in the CSAR.
State Additional Contention 2 This contention is rejected. Part 72.31(c) specifically provides that this type of site evaluation is unnecessary for a prior Licensee unless new infomation makes such re-evaluation necessary. No such infomation has been provided.
h.
pS6 k) eld s: g % y2 ss 64/
G 8108190ta%S
N..
State Additional Contention 3 This contention is accepted and numbered State Contention 8.
State Additional Contention 4 This contention is accepted and numbered State Contention 9.
State Additional Contention 5.
This cor.tention is accepted and numbered State Contention 10.
Rorem, et al Additional Contention A through D All these contentions are rejected. Additional Contentions A and B are so vague and lacking in specificity as to provide no basis for litigation. Part 72.31(c) specific' ally provides that the evaluation sought in A and C are unnecessary unless new information is discovered which could alter the original suite evaluation. No such information has been presented.
Additional Contentions B and C are already the subject of contentions to the extent permissible.
Additional Contention D, as pointed out by the Staff, is limited to determining whether the license of the General Electric Company to operate GE Morris Inspection with its present storage capacity should l'
be renewed. The Storage expansion is beyond the scope of this pro-4 ceeding.
I
]
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
s J --
Andrew C. Goodhope, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of March, 1981
..