ML20052F525
| ML20052F525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1982 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205130145 | |
| Download: ML20052F525 (6) | |
Text
.
r o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
g p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 W.Y -7 Pa :7?
ftEC IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ED,
?
NM.Z g 7008A -
ore Administrative Judges:
E rbert Grossman, Chairman A%,p
/
Robert L. Holton q,,
J. Venn Leeds
+
SERVED MAY 71982 s
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-367
)
(Construction Permit NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE
)
Extension)
COMPANY
)
)
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
May 6,1982 Nuclear-1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminating Proceeding Under Specified Conditions)
MEMORANDUM On April 12, 1982, the Licensing Board issued a proposed order that would terminate the proceeding. The parties were given 12 days from service of the Memorandum and Order to file objections and/or requested modifications. The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) indicated it would not file objections or requested modifications.
NRC Staff and Porter County Chapter Intervenors (PCCIs) filed objections and requests for modifications, which the Board has considered.
For the reasons stated below, we are issuing a modified order adopting Staff's requested modifications and many of those proposed by PCCIs.
Staff requested modifications that would place it more in the role of an independent reviewer of NIPSCO's implementation of the site restoration plan than envisaged under our proposed order. Staff would require that NIPSCO first report to Staff on the progress of the site restoration and h
8205130145 920506 l
PDR ADOCK 05000367 0
?
y 2
possible non-completion by the specified completion date before Staff issues its reports, and that all modifications to the site restoration plan
.be subject to the approval of Staff.
We agree that our proposed order was not reflective enough of the Staff's role of independent reviewer, and that all of the moaifications proposed by Staff are desirable.
PCCIs' major objection to our proposed order is that it would terminate the proceeding at this juncture, rather than require NIPSCO to restore the site before the proceeding is terrr!nated.
We see nothing in PCCIs' submittal that had not been previously considered or adequately addressed in our prior order, or would require a reversal of our, decision to terminate at this juncture. We reaffirm our decision to' terminate.
PCCIs requested modifications that would require more detail in the periodic reports required of NIPSCO and Staff, permit more frequent inspections, permit the presence of experts at inspections, and permit testing activity at inspections.
We agree that more detail in the periodic reports would be desirable but do not agree that it should extend to a disclosure of contracts or purchase orders entered into or to be let by NIPSCO. We would add an l
inspection at an approximate mid-point of site restoration.
In order to avoid a winter inspection that would most likely be unprofitable, our choice was limited to the late fall of 1982 or the spring of 1983. We have chosen the latter.
We agree that the presence of experts and reasonable testing activities at the inspections are desirable.
9 y
ORDER
~
For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 6th day of May 1982 ORDERED 1.
That NIPSCO's motion to terminate proceeding is granted and its application for extension of construction permit is deemed withdrawn on the conditions set forth in the following paragraphs; 2.
That Construction Permit No. CPPR-104 is. deemed to have expired without further opportunity to NIPSCO to revive such permit; 3.
That neither the expiration of Construction Permit ko. CPPR-104, nor the termination of this proceeding (or any matters that have transpired during this proceeding), shall preclude NIPSCO from applying for a new construction permit in the future with regard to the Bailly site; 4.
That NIPSCO must implement the revised site restoration plan agreed to by NIPSCO, NRC Staff, and PCCIs, and approved by the Board by Order dated January 29, 1982; 5.
That HIPSCO must begin implementation of that plan no later than August 1, 1982; 6.
That NIPSCO must complete the implementation of that plan no later than September 1, 1983; 7.a.
That NIPSCO shall send a report to.each of the individuals and organizations currently on the service list, on June 1, 1982 and the first day of each third month thereafter, and on the completion date of the site restoration (but no later than September 1, 1983, if not completed),
reporting on the progress of the site restoration, to include a detailed i
r i description of all site work done; a detailed description of all site work renaining to be done; an estimate of the percentage of completion of site restoration, together with the basis for the estimate; and, an estimated completion date for site restoration.
b.
That the Staff send a report presenting its review of the items addressed in NIPSCO's report to each of the individuals and organizations on the service list within 20 days after service of NIPSCO's report.
8.
That, on April 15, 1983 and at the completion of the site restoration (but no later than September 1,1983, if not completea), NIPSCO is to give notice of, and arrange for, an inspection of the site (under reasonable conditions) between 10 and 20 days thereafter, at which eacn party, if an individual, or one representative from each organizational party (even if intervening jointly with other organizations), along with one expert for each such party (if the party so desires), may be present; 9.
Each party participating in the site inspections may conduct reasonable inspection and testing activities which do not interfere with ongoing site restoration.
If the parties cannot agree on wnat inspection or testing activity is reasonable, the NRC Staff will make the final decision;
- 10. That, in the event that NIPSCO has not completed its site restoration by September 1,1983, NIPSCO shall file'a complete report with the NRC Staff, with copies to individuals and organizations currently on the service list, describing the status of the site restoration, giving the reasons why the site restoration has not yet been completed, and indicating what steps it plans to take to complete the site restoration. Within 30 days thereafter, the NRC Staff shall file a report with tne Commission
\\
)
y indicating the status of site restoration and reco.nmending such future action as may be necessary to compel the completion of site restoration;
- 11. That there be no modifications to the site restoration plan or the other conditions herein imposed upon NIPSCO with regard to site restoration without the approval of the NRC Staff and a representative of the Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPPI), which shall be deemed to have succeeded to the interests of PCCIs upon termination of this proceeding (or a representative for PCCIs if the proceeding has not yet been terminated);
- 12. That the conditions imposed by this termination order be considered as an obligation assumed by NIPSCO in consideration of the Commission's terminating this proceeding prior to the restoration of the site, enforceable by the Commission and the courts; and
- 13. That, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. ss 2.760, 2.762, 2.785 and 2.786, this Memorandum and Order shall be effective immediately upon issuance and shall constitute the final action of the Commission on the l
matters considered herein thirty (30) days af ter issuance, subject to any review pursuant to the above-cited Rules of Practice.
Exceptions to this Memorandum and Order may be filed i,y any party within ten (10) days after service. A brief in support of the exception shall be filed within thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff).
Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of the appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff), any other p' arty may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.
y
. Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of the appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the NRC Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Gk
/fi[-c.9 ~ ~
Herberf. Gr ssman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _