ML20005C112
| ML20005C112 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1981 |
| From: | Semmel H ANTIOCH SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON, DC, BIER, MILLS, CHRISTA-MARIA, ET AL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8111180405 | |
| Download: ML20005C112 (9) | |
Text
,. _
IIl9l%
DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 81 NOV -9 Pl2:i1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CT!Z CF SECRETMy EhU!U & SERV;Ci.'
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-155-OLA
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY C-(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
[e&Vo x et al:;g3 NOV171981* 2 INTERVENORS CHRISTA-MARIA, MOTION TO AMEND ADMITTED O'NEILL e uoanou 7
-Q,,, w*** Q@
p CONTENTION IID co
%)&.
~
^/
FG Intervenors move to expand on admitted contention, O'Nei Contention IID, to include the dangers from a possible breach of containment by an air crash from all flights in the area, not just from B-52 aircraft, which the current contention addresses.
New information as to continued overflights by aircraft revealed in documents attached to Licensee's motion for summary disposition, filed Oct. 25, 1931, is the basis for this motion.
The documents are attached hereto.
Where an important safety question is raised, contentions relating to the safety question should be entertained.
Chairman Grossman has stated:
"Let me say this:
any time during the proceeding that you discover a safety question that ought to be addressed, you certainly ought to apply to the Board, and I can' t see that we would ever deny a request if there is a legitimate safety question."
(Board at the Special Pre-Heare ing Conference, Tr. 195 - 96) 8111180405 811105 05000155
.....T2 ^.'.~_.... _..'$. y. k _. _ _
,s...
m....
...,_...........,,....;,,,s
Also, in Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. and New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority (West ValleyiRbprocessing Plant),
1 NRC 273 (1975).
The Commission noted that if an important safety issue was presented, no prejudicial delay would occur.
In f
this case, intervention was allowed nine months late even though the Commission found no mdrit in the reasons given for the delay.
Hence, if safety questions are raised, the Board is required by its mandate to protect the health and safety of the public, which, after all, is the ultimate consideration.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.TO CONTENTION IID SATISFIES THE FIVE PART TEST FOR LATE CONTENTIONS Contention IID of Intervenor John O'Neill has been admitted in this proceeding in the following form:
The Licensee has not adequately provided for the public against the increased re-lease of radioactivity from the expanded fuel pool as a result of the breach of the containment due to the crash of a B-52 bomber.
Intervenors move that O'Neill Contention IID be amended to read:
"The Licensee has not adequately provided for the protection of the public against the increased release of radioactivity from the expanded fuel pool as a result of the breach of containment due to the crash of a military, para-military, commer-cial, or private airacraft."
This motion to amend O'Neill Contention IID meets the requirements of the five-part balancing test of 10 C.F.R. E2.714 (a) (1) (1-v).
The five factors, which the Board must weigh, are:
(i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time, (ii)
The availability of other means where by the petitioner's interest will be protected, (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, (iv)
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties, and (v)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Intervenors will discuss each factor separately.
(i)
Good cause for failure to file on time.
Licensee's summary disposition motion and supporting documents filed on October 25, 1981 contain new facts and information not previously know to Intervenors which should be covered within O'Neill Contention IID.
Licensee's summary disposition materials show that aircraft, other than B-52 bombers, have flown over The Big Rock Point Plant during the past few years.
For example, on July 22nd of this year, three Ohio Air National Guard planes made three separate passes over the facility.
These fly-overs were observed by plant employees, and their comments are found in Licensee's summary disposition materials in a memo labeled RMM 81-24, dated
July 23, 1981 (attached hereto).
Intervenors could not possibly have filed this proposed amendment to Contention IID prior to the happening of these fly-overs on July 22, 1981.
Although there are two stamps marked " Received" on the face of the memo, it appears that NRC did not receive this
" Internal Correspondance" until Septmeber 14, 1981.
Futhermore, the Betourne/ Thomas deposition, which addresses the question raised in O'Neill Contention IID in its presently admitted form, was taken on July 13, 1981, nine days prior to the Ohio Air National Guard incident of July 22nd.
In light of the new information contained in Licensee's summary disposition materials filed October 25, 1981, Intervenors have good cause for filing the proposed amendment to Contention IID at this time, slightly over three months i
after the happening of the incident, 1 months after NRC was apparently notified, and one month after the material was available to Intervenors.
The crucial point, which the amendment seeks to address, is that any aircraft flying at low altitude over The Big Rock Point facility presents a safety hazard, such activity being contrary to the health and safety of the public.
(ii)
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be prQtected.
It is the nature of this proceeding that Intervenors' interests are protected through the assertion of contentions.
The interest of petitioner concerning over-flights at Big Rock Point is conveyed by stating a contention to specifically address this issue.
Intervenors 4
~
- ~. - -+
,., 3.
are the proper party to raise this contention as amended, and
. Intervenors.know of no other means whereby this specific interest will be protected.
(iii)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
In light of the new information recently conveyed to Intervenors concerning the continuance of "over-flights" since the L-52 over-flight in 1979, the record would be incomplete if limited to only on analysis of B-52 air routes in the nuclear plant vicinity.
Petitioner's participation in this issue will assist the Board in.
developing a sound and complete record in relation to all aircraft flying over the Big Rock Point nuclear plant, as dictated by the new facts.
(iv)
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
This factor is similar to factor (ii) in that petitioner is in the best position to raise the issue of the dangers inherant in all over-flight incidents-at Big Rock Point.
Neither the NRC Staff nor the only other Intervenor, John O'Neill, has raised the issue of over-flights involving all aircraft over-flights, not just those of B-52 bombers.
.... ~.....
..._...~,.y,.
+
~
~
(v)
The extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
The issue will be broadened only slightly and in a manner directly related to the admitted contention.
It is evident that Licensee understands the relationship between fly-overs involving B-52's and other aircraft fly-overs because Licensee inserted information regarding the fly-over of Ohio Air National Guard planes in its summary disposition materials.
Whether it is a B-52 or some other aircraft which passes over the plant at low altitude, both fly-oveJs present the possibility of a crash which can breach containment.
The proposed amendment will cause no substantial delay.
There are many unresolved matters so that the hearing is at best months away.
To avoid delays, intervenors waive further discovery on this contention if Interrogatory 30, dated August 9, 1981,,is fully answered.
CONCLUSION Intervenors' motion that O'Neill contention IID as currently admitted be re-phrased as proposed herein to address facts not heretofor know to Intervenors should be granted.
itted Resp ctfully s 4%
Matthew Mackie HERBERT SEMMEL Legal Intern Attorney for Christa-Maria, Mills and Bier Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 265-9500 ext. 240 4
g
WQuchman, P-2h-121A RECElVED
'Ta W Hoffnan, P-2h-118A jggl RWSinderman, P-2h-115B
~
RT!aru:ich, P-2h-110 N'y {(A NUCLEAR UCENSING OOSIEi! IU (D
p,qt*m" g"d DATc g"jjjpgjpg July 23, 1981 Ohio Air National Guard-Flyover cf Big Rock Point Plant.
INicRNAL pp con =cseosocNcc
(
\\
d RMM 81-2h SEP 141981 cc n
CRAbM, Big Bock Point Plant j
- 50ULW
'l On Wednesday, July 22, the Ohio Air Natienal Guard conducted three
" fly-overs" of Big Rock Pcint Plant.
"he incident eccurec at e. bout 2:25pm.
Lt Col Robert Rajevski (pronounced Ea-ou-ski) of the l
Bayshore Tracking Station (61st Squadron, telephone (616)3kT-8731) determined that the flyover was conducted by the Ohio Air !!ational i
Guard who vere in training at Camp Grayling.
Captain Hickey of the Ohio Air National Guard (headquartered at Toledo Airport, telephone l
(h19)S66-2036) confirmed that it was their planes.
He said that the first flyover was at lov altitude using the fighter section of the bomber corridor 5 5 miles east of the plant.
The jet fighter sectica is an ares (he didn't mention it's vidth) on either side of the bomber corridor.
The lev flyover used the plant side of the jet area.
The second and third flyovers vere directly over the plant but at an elevation of greater than 6000 feet.
Captsin Hickey believes that both of these corridors are acceptable for his use.
Both he e.nd' i
Lt Cel Bajevski are aware that Big Rock Point Plant is a nuclear power plant and that they should not get close to it.
Both also understand our concern about their flyovers.
Lt Col Rajevski stated that the Air Force now uses a corridor over Lake Michigan (from West of Charlevoix to Beaver Island to Nackinac Island) for their training runs.
This corridor has been used since May, 1980.
Lt Col Rt.jevski does not knew of a publiched tinimum altitude for flyovers over Big Rock Point Plant.
The Big Peck Point Plant etaff said that the planes were ertremcly 1 cud
("they sounded like they were just above the trees").
The plant staf"f who saw the planes out their vindows believed their altitude to be ruch lower than 6000 feet.
Bob Schrader said that it sounded like they were coming through the vindov, and that pecole saw them through their vindows.
He stated that they could not have seen the planes if they were at 6000 feet.
I confronted Captain Hickey with the above statements on Thursday, July 23.
He stated that he was the leader of the three planes'and was in one,of them. They came in over the lake. At about 7 miles from the plant, he cautioned the others to stay away from the plant.
His number two man peeled off and came in at 500 feet, lh milec east of the plant.
The A
othere came in over Charclvoix. They met and went back over the plant
'g at 6000 feet.
Baynhore has no record of the altitude or location of the flyover.
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the above motion was served on those listed on the attached list on the day of November, 1981 by mailing copies first class, postage prepaid.
Herbert _Semmel
.....,,.,y.,.
k k
Ate.ie Safety and Licensing JeespF Cal ~e, Esquire Ecard PancI Inha, Linen 3n and Beale g
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1120 Connecticutt' Ave, N.W.
Cor.nassien Suite 325 washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 2003E Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing of fice of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis sion Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington D.C.
20555 J
o' 11 II Route 2, Box 44 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Maple City, MI 49664 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1:ashington D.C.
20555 Mr. Fredrick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Janice E. Moore, Esq.
Ccunsel fcr NEC Staff l
U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Cor.-ission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
i 1
N
,