ML20053A472
| ML20053A472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Copeland V, Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053A471 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8205260130 | |
| Download: ML20053A472 (7) | |
Text
5/20/82 E Cn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'0? h -i 21 D12 :18 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD v
In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
MOTION TO MODIFY AND CORRECT MEMORANDUM Consumers Power Company (" Licensee") moves that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the " Board") enter an Order that modifies and corrects a statement in the Board's Memoran-dum of May 17, 1982.
This statement, as shown below, directly contradicts the Board's ruling of May 6, 1982, and should therefore be corrected to conform to the Board's original ruling.
In support of this motion, Licensee states:
1.
The NRC Staff filed a motion on May 3,
- 1982, which, among other things, requested an extension of time until June 25, 1982, for the filing of testimony on O'Neill Contention IIC as rewritten by the Board.
The motion was predicated upon a perceived problem concerning the soil conditions at the Big Rock Point site and the related appli-cation of the NRC's site-specific spectrum.
Tne Staff's request was opposed by Licensee on the dual grounds that (i) 820526o13 0
c the NRC Staff had not shown good cause to warrant granting the
- motion, i.e.,
no credible showing had been made that either a safety problem existed with respect to the site-specific spectrum and the soil conditions at Big Rock Point, or that the concern, if determined to be valid, was material to the O'Neill Contention IIC; and (ii) significant prejudice could accrue to Licensee if the motion were granted.
2.
The Board heard oral argument on May 6,
- 1982, and it agreed with Licensee's position.
Specifically, the Board ruled:
Staff's extension of time for the purpose of filing this testimony [with respect to possible anomalies at the Big Rock Point plant site] is granted.
However, we notice that Staff did not request that that issue [O'Neill Contention IIC] be excluded from the hearing schedule to begin on June 7.
We expect to proceed with that issue and with the other two issues on June 7 because we have not seen any reason that would stop us from making a meaningful considera-tion of those issues subject to possible reopening of our record when the Staff's study is completed.
l (Tr. 439, emphasis added.)
Thus, the Staff was permitted by l
the Board's ruling to file additional information on the soil anomalies and site-specific spectrum issues, but only in the i
i
+
context of a motion to reopen the hearing record.
The Board stated that, upon completion of the Staff's re-evaluation of its site-specific spectrum it could be determined "whether there is reason based upon that completed study to reopen the hearing" (emphasis added).
3.
The Board's ruling necessarily means that the NRC Staff must submit testimony on O'Neill Contention IIC based on the information furnished by Licensee and the assump-tion that the Regulatory Guide 1.60 and NRC site-specific spectra are correct.
After all parties have had the oppor-tunity to present evidence on O'Neill Contention IIC and to conduct cross-examination thereon, the issue will be ripe for decision, with the only cloud being the possibility that the Staff may wish to move to reopen the hearing record at some i
subsequent date.*
4.
The Board's Memorandum of May 17, 1982, page 1, contradicts its May 6, 1982, ruling where it states:
1 t
The Staff, of course, is free to file, at any time, a proper motion requesting this Board to inquire into the l
adcquacy of its site-specific spectrum as applied to Big Rock Point.
If such a request were made after the hearing record is closed, the NRC Staff must then meet I
I the established case law criteria for reopening hearing l
records.
i l
l 1
In addition, the seismic qualifi-cation of the containment crane should be the last issue heard because the extension granted to Staff prevents the entire issue from being tried and less would be lost by putting this issue over, if necessary, than any other issue.
(Emphasis added.)
This statement suggests that the record on O'Neill Contention IIC will not be closed at the conclusion of the hearings commencing June 7, but rather will be left open for an i
indefinite period of time until the Staff is heard from on the site-specific spectrum issue.
This means the record cannot be closed, the filing of findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be completed, and no decision can be issued on the pending license amendment application until some undefined future date.
Clearly, the statement in the May 17 Memorandum contradicts the Board's May 6 Order, and it cannot be allowed to stand.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board's Memorandum of May 17, 1982, should be modified and corrected, consistent with the discussion in Paragraphs 1 and 3, supra, to conform to the Board's ruling of May 6, 1982.
Ligensee suggests that the offending statement be stricken from the Memorandum.
Licensee requests that the Board expedite its correction of
the May 17, 1982, Memorandum in view of the May 21 filing i
deadline established by the Board for testimony on O'Neill Contention IIC, A delay might impair the preparation of evidence on this issue.
Respectfully submitted, Q
h Jo h Gdllo K w~ A.t% L Ma4 Victor-G. Copelafnd
/#
Two of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20035 (202) 833-9730 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE f
Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7484 Dated:
May 20, 1932 i
i
w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87.' ;i 21 Pi2 :20 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
[C?i In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MOTION TO MODIFY AND CORRECT MEMORANDUM were hand-delivered to Judge Bloch, Judge Paris, Judge Shon, and Messrs. Bachmann, Goddard, and Semmel i
on May 20, 1982, and were served on the other persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-class post-age prepaid, this 20th day of May, 1982.
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board P'nel Commission a
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Dr. Oscar H.
Paris U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.
C.
20L35 Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
Richard J.
Goddard, Esquire Judd Bacon, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Consumers Power Company U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory 212 West Michigan Avenue Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Christa-Maria Richard G.
Bachmann, Esquire Route 2, Box 108C Counsel for NRC Staff Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jim Mills Washington, D.
C.
20555 Route 2, Box 108 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Herbert Semmel, Esquire Urban Law Institute Ms. JoAnne Bier Antioch School of Law 204 Clinton 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664 Y4 p65ep7 Gall 6 l
l l
I
_-