ML20038C513
| ML20038C513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1981 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112110177 | |
| Download: ML20038C513 (7) | |
Text
(
12/10/81 SA
~
UNITED STATES OF AliERICA
'I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[f
,[ 4 DEc10Iggy,
j C
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD u,3,
'8D8*
4/
\\
\\$
In the Matter of g
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155 (Big Rock Point Plant)
(Spent Fuel Fooi iiodification)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVEN0RS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE RESPONSES TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CERTAIN CONTENTIONS I.
INTRODUCTION On December 4,1981, Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al. (Intervenors) filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file responses to motions for summary disposition.
Intervenors' motion requests what appears to be an indefinite extension of time to respond to pending motions for summary disposition concerning Christa-Maria Contention 2 and O'Neill Contention II.A., and Christa-Maria Contention 8 and O'Neill Contention II.E.2.
The Staff opposes Intervenors' motion on the ground that they have failed to establish good cause fo-the requested extension of time.
II. BACKGROUND On October 21, 1981, the Staff received Intervenors' motion to defer their responses to the pending motions for sucinary disposition filed by the Staff and Licensee until the completion of discovery.
Intervenors asked in the alternative for an extension of time to file those responses DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Certifjed 37 7)tc 0112110177 811210'
{DRADOCK05000
'dC J p
until November 20, 1981
.he Staff interposed no objection to the requested extension until h / ember 20, 1981, but did oppose the request for a deferral.
P"
'taff Response to Intervenors' Motion for Deferral (November 9,1981).1/ The Intervenors renewed their motion to defer on November 18, 1981.
By Order dated November 20, 1981, the Licensing Board denied Intervenors' motion for deferral of their responses to the pending motions for summary disposition, and stated that the responses would be due by December 11, 1981. On December 4,1981, Intervenors filed a document entitled " Motion For Extension of Time For Filing Response To Summary Disposition on Christa-Maria 2 and O'Neill II. A. and 4
Christa-Maria 8 and O'Neill II.E-2" (hereinafter Motion). This document is accompanied by an affidavit entitled " Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Intervenors' Motion to Defer Response to Motion for Summary Disposition" (hereinafter Affidavit). Since the Board has already denied Intervenors' motion for a deferral of their responses to the pending motions for summary disposition, the Staff will treat the present motion as one for an indefinite extension of time despite the title of the above-mentioned affidavit.
4 1/
The ground for the requested deferral was that certain outstanding interrogatories were related to contentions which are the subject of the pending motions for summary disposition filed by the Staff and Licensee. The Staff opposed this motion on the ground that Intervenors had failed to establish good cause for the requested deferral.
. -.. ~..
III. DISCUSSION An extension of time to take any action should only be granted if good cause is shown for the requested extension.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.711(a).
As the Commission has previously stated:
The Commission expects licensing boards to set and adhere to reasonable schedules for proceedings.
The Boards are advised to satisfy themselves that the 10 C.F.R. 2.711 " good cause" standard for adjusting times fixed by the Board or prescribed by Part 2 has actually been met before granting an extension of time....
Statement of Policy en Conduct of Licensing Proceedings,Section III.A..
(46 Fed. Reg. 28533 (1981)).
Intervenors fail to demonstrate that " good cause" actually exists for this additional extension of time.
Intervenors state that they have found two experts who have
" expressed a willingness to examine these contentions, the discovery relating thereto and the material submitted in support of the motions for summary disposition, with the purpose of determining an appropriate response..." Motion at 1.
The motion states that these experts do not expect to be able to complete their work until after the Christmas holidays, "probably about January 15, 1982."
Intervenors do not explain when these experts were first contacted.
These contentions have been admitted as matters in controversy in this proceeding since January of 1980, almost two years ago.
Intervenors have failed to explain why the pertinent experts were not consulted long ago with regard to these contentions.
In addition, the Staff's and Licensee's motions for sumary disposition were filed on October 5,1981, more than two months ago.
Intervenors have failed to explain whether these experts were contacted at that time.
Intervenors do not indicate when in fact the axperts responses will be presented to the Board and, indeed, whether such a response will in fact be presented.
The motion merely states that these potential witnesses will examine all the material "for the purpose of determining an appropriate response." Motion at 1.
The mere possibility that a response will be provided at some future date to the pending motions for summary disposition does not constitute good cause for granting the requested extension.
Intervenors next argue that the proceeding should be postponed with regard to Christa-Maria Contention 2 and O'Neill Contention II. A due to the importance to the health and safety of the public and plant workers.
Motion at 2.
In support of this argument Intervenors make the unsupported allegation that the south wall of the spent fuel pool is made of steel and not of concrete.
Intervenors also assert without support that the risk to the health and safety of the public and plant workers will be enhanced by releases of radiation from the south wall.
Id.
Without further support, these bald assertions cannot constitute good cause for postponing treatment of these contentions any further.
Intervenors have not given the Board any information tending to show the truth of these allegations.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point 1, 2 and 3), CLI-77-2, 5 NRC 13 (1977).
With regard to Christa-Maria Contention 8 and O'Neill Contention II.E.2, Intervenors merely assert without support that in the event of a TMI-2 I
type accident it would be impossible to maintain the expanded spent fuel pool in a safe condition if access to containment is precluded. These assertions do not provide a basis for postponing treatment of this issue to avait a possible response by a potential witness at some future date.
Intervenors argue finally that no one would be prejudiced by some additional delay, "since.it is unlikely that agreement could be reached on the discovery and the responses provided within 45 days..."
Affidavit at 2.
It should be noted, however, that Intervenors have not specifically requested a 45-day extension, and indeed speak of the ability of their experts to provide their statements by January 15 in most indefinite terms.
Therefore, Intervenors cannot demonstrate that this proceeding will not be delayed by the requested extension.
IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Intervenors' request for an extension of time should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, b Ud W Q & DU0 -
Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of December,1981
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Plant)
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE RESPONSES TO MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
r DISPOSITION ON CERTAIN CONTENTIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of December, 1981.
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1120 Connecticut Ave, N.W., #325 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555
- John A. Leithauser Dr. Oscar H. Paris Leithauser and Leithauser, P.C.
Administrative Judge Opal Plaza, Suite 212 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18301 Eight Mile Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East Detroit, MI 48021 Washington, D.C.
20555
- John O'Neill, II Mr. Frederick J. Shon Route 2, Box 44 Administrative Judge Maple City, Michigan 49664 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Couission Christa-Maria Washington, D.C.
20555
- Route 2, Box 108c Charlevoix, MI 49720 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Ms. JoAnne Bier Isham, Lincoln & Beale 204 Clinton One First National Plaza Charlevoix, MI 49720 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Thomas Dammann Appeal Board Panel Route 3, Box 241 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlevoix, MI 49720 Washington, D. C.
20555 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
,~
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Consumers Power Co.
Board Panel 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MI 49201 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Gordon Howie
- Docketing and Service Section 411 Pine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boyne City,151 49712 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Jim Mills Herbert Semmel, Esq.
Route 2, Box 108 Urban Law Institute of Charlevoix, MI 49720 The Antioch School of Law 1624 Crescent Place, N.W.
t Washington, D. C.
20009 D bb b. OdO Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff