ML20055B935
| ML20055B935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B932 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207230602 | |
| Download: ML20055B935 (6) | |
Text
a 7/20/82 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS PCWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO CALL REBUTTAL WITNESSES Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al ("Inte rvenors" )
first requested the right to call rebuttal witnesses on O'Neill Contention II.E.3. concerning certain criticality issues on June 12, 1982.1/
This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") reserved its ruling on the motion pending the receipt of a written motion.SI Intervenors filed such a motion on July 1, 1982.
The NRC Staff responded to the motion on July 12, and they offered no objection.
Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") files this response in opposition to the pending motion.
Intervenors state that they intend, if permitted to do so, to file written rebuttal testimony, and that it will be filed at least twenty days prior to the resumption of the hearings.1/
This request contravenes the express provisions 1/
TR. 2367-69.
2/
TR. 2369.
3/
Motion, p.
3.
9207230602 820720 PDR ADOCK 05000155 O
0
. of the scheduling stipulation, which based on the agreement of all parties, including Intervenors, was approved by the Licensing Board.A Specifically, it provides that:
[w]ritten rebuttal [ testimony] will be filed no later than the com issuetowhichitpertains.gpetionofthe O'Neill Contention II.E.3. was fully litigated during the course of the evidentiary hearings held on June 9-12.5I No written rebuttal testimony was filed by Intervenors during this four-day period and Intervenors have not offeted any reason or explanation why they failed to do so.
They simply justify their position on the fact that resumed hearings will be scheduled later in the year.
A better basis must be provided before Intervenors should be permitted to abrogate the Stipulation.
Intervenors' motion suffers from two other infirmi-ties.
First, Intervenors have not identified their witness or witnesses.1/
They merely wish to embark upon a general witness search which should not be permitted given the com-pleted state of the litigation on O'Neill Contention II.E.3.
4/
Stipulation Among the Parties Concerning the Scheduling of Issues and Witnesses, dated June 1, 1982, and approved by the Licensing Board on June 7, 1982 (Tr. 560).
5/
Paragraph 13 of Exhibit A of the Stipulation.
6/
Tr. 1391-1692, 1748-2002, 2006-2009, 2092-2094 and 2383-2384.
7/
Motion, p.
3.
l
. I second, Intervenors wish to provide direct testimony rather than rebuttal testimony.
They seek to provide testimony (i) disputing Licensee's position that the temperature at the bottom of the spent fuel racks is 212'F under pool boiling conditions, and (ii) justifying the use of 247'F in the criticality analysis rather than the temperature used by Dr. Kim.E!
These issues were plainly articulated in the Licensing Board's Order and Memorandum, dated February 5, 1982, and they should have been addressed in direct testimony by the Intervenors.
Having passed the first opportunity, they now are attempting to gain "a second bite at the apple".
Intervenors also attempt to justify their need for rebuttal testimony on the alleged inconsistency between the testimony of Drs. Prelewicz and Kim.E!
In essence, Inter-venors are questioning the credibility of these witnesses, and it is not " apparent" as suggested by Intervenors just how rebuttal testimony can advance this inquiry.
The Licensing Board permitted Intervenors wide latitude in the conduct of their cross-examination into this matter, and they must now be 8/
Motion, p.
2.
Although Int 6rvenors refer to Dr. Gay's testimony, they do not offer to rebut his testimony.
Moreover, Intervenors mischaracterize the Licensing Board's February 5 Order.
The Licensing Board merely suggested that 247 F might be an appropriate temperature to use in the Big Rock criticality analysis; it did not, as suggested by Intervenors, conclude that 247 F was a
" proper" temperature.
9/
Motion, pp.
1-2.
O satisfied with the results of that inquiry.
In sum, Inter-venors have not identified any issue which is properly the subject of rebuttal testimony.
Finally, Licensee could potentially be prejudiced by a delay in a decision on this issue.
The Licensing Board appeared to be troubled about one or more aspects of the testimony presented in this matter, e.g.,
the testimony of Mr. Lantz and its responsiveness to the Board's February 5 Order.
Thus, its is extremely desirable to obtain a decision on O'Neill Contention II.E.3. as soon as possible to ascertain whether any residual issue remains to be heard.
If the decision is delayed to hear further rebuttal testimony, the time needed to deal with any residual issue might adversely impact operation of Big Rock Point.
For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
% L hJL p/ J[seph Ga..lo l
One of the Attorneys for CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 840 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Date:
July 20, 1982
o
,o,
9 UNICED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE OUT OF TIME, and CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO CALL REBUTTAL WITNESSES were served on Judges Bloch, Paris and Shon by hand-delivery and on other persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage pre-paid, this 21st day of July, 1982.
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel i
Dr. Oscar H.
Paris U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 l
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 l
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
,2,
. 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 La
- A Toni H.' Hanp?
-,