ML20003E229
| ML20003E229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8104020566 | |
| Download: ML20003E229 (5) | |
Text
.
q e
k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ggo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UWE MAR 311981 >
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
' Officsofit:e recetur Before Administrative Judges:
P4Wat ikm 3'""
Herbert Grossman, Chainnan Dr., Robert L.'Holton, Member
/
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Member iPEj)'N9 ;) 7
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-367 CPA
' IS87
)
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY
)
(ConstructionPermitExtension)
)
\\ 9I fA
/
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
March 30, 1981 Nuclear 1) 1 $
)
?-
E MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting Contention 13, in Part, and Denying Contention 1 88 D '
.t
%)
/
\\/
MEMORANDUM
'iG Contention 13 By pleadings dated January 27, 1981 and February 26, 1981, Porter County Chapter Intervenors (PCCIs) have brought before the Board pro-posed Contention 13 which challenges NIPSCO's letter request dated November 26, 1980, to further extend the completion date of the Bailly construction until December 1,1989, on the main grounds that the requested extension is for an unreastnable length of time and is not justified by the assertions set forth in the letter request. PCCIs seek to litigate each of the factors stated in the letter and the reasonableness of the date. Proposed Contention 13 further challenges a portion of the letter request as being ambiguous in purportedly g
G siero,0 *Ws
4 <
conditioning the date of the requested extension on the future event of a resolution of the pile-driving suspension by January 1,1981.
Finally, the 1:st sentence of proposed Contention 13 asserts that the
-letter fails to establish the good cause required by the Atomic Energy Act for the extension of the completion date and requests that 4
the further extension be denied.
By response dated February 11, 1981, NIPSCO does not object to the admission of the first paragraph of Contention 13, but opposes the remainder of the proposed contention on the grounds (1) that NIPSCO has requested the further extension to the specific date of December 1, 1989, and was merely using the resolution date for the pile-driving suspension of January 1,1981 as a means of calculating the completion date, and (2) that the challenge to " good cause" in the final sentence of the proposed contention is repetitious of the first paragraph.
By response dated February 9,1981 the Staff opposes the admis-sion of proposed Contention 13 on the grounds that PCCIs have failed to address the factors contained in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a) relative to-late-filed contentions and that the newly proposed contention is unnecessarily duplicative of previously admitted Contentions 1 and 3 which opposed the prior estimated completion date for the same reasons now asserted in the first paragraph of proposed Contention 13, to wit,
. that the reasons for the delay are other than offered by NIPSCO, that the actual reasons do not constitute good cause for the extension,
. and that the length of the requested extension is unreasonable.
We do not view the first paragraph of proposed Contention 13 as a late-filed contention concerning which 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a) is applicable, but merely as a desirable supplemen*. to PCCIs' Contentions 1 and 3 that were already admitted by the Board.
If NIPSCO is permitted to amend its request for extension of the Bailly completion date to accommodate subsequent events,U then intervenors should be permitted to supplement their contentions'to respond to the amendment.
The Board will admit the first paragraph of Contention 13 as a timely-filed supplement to PCCIs' Contentions 1 and 3.
On the under-standing that NIPSCO's requested construction completion extension is to the specific date of December 1,1989 and that the matters covered in tha last sentence of the second paragraph of Contention 13 are included in the first paragraph, the Board will not admit the second paragraph of that contention.
Contention 14 l
On March _6,1981 PCCIs moved for the admission of Contention 14 l
based upon internal memoranda of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
dated January 8 and 10,1981. These memoranda reflect the J None of the parties. has questioned this Board's jurisdiction over NIPSCO's latest completion'date extension request, presumably on the understanding that it represents merely an amendment of the prior completion date extension request over which the Board already has jurisdiction and that the Board must necessarily con-sider all modifications to the prior requests for exteesion. We L
view the latest requested completion date extension in this manner, rather than as a separate request for extension of' completion date that might require a further notice of proposed action and a sub-sequent referral to a Licensing Board.
. recommendations of certain Directors (and presumably their offices and staff) that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation broaden the scope of this proceeding to include issues involving the Mark II BWR 5 design, upgrading of the Quality Assurance Organization and Programs, and the overall competence of the utility to construct and operate the Bailly facility. Proposed Contention 14 raises these three issues.
As far as we know, and as confirmed by the N.R.C. Staff (Response, 3/26/81), no official action has been taken by the N.R.C. to broaden the scope of this proceeding. On previous occasions, the Board has ruled on the issues contained in proposed Contention 14.' They were
~
raised in other contentions that the Board ruled inadmissible because they went beyond the scope of this proceeding. The issues are not related to the request 2d extension and are matters that either should e
have been resolved at the construction permit hearing or should abide the operating license stage unless the N.R.C. officially broadens the scope of this_ proceeding or grants a hearing on these issues under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202. For these reasons, we decline to grant-PCCIs' motion to admit Contention 14 which is,-in effect, a motion to reconsider our prior denial of these issues that were contained in similar contentions that we had previously ruled inadmissible.
ORDER For all of these foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire -record in thi[ matter, it is this 30th day of March,1981 S
i 5-ORDERED That the first paragraph of PCCIs' Contention 13 is admitted, That the second paragraph of Contention 13 is denied, and That PCCIs' Contention 14 is denied.
FOR THEsAT6 HIC-SAFETY' AND LICENSING BOARD Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
=
8 s
i f
i l'
g t.
I p
f-V
......, - -