ML20065H720
| ML20065H720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1982 |
| From: | West A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210050230 | |
| Download: ML20065H720 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
[
[
September 28, 1982 0hNRC ETEO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 12 m -4 P145 CFFICE OF SECREigny
)
00CXETING & SERvics BRANCH
'IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL (MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2))
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO STAMIRIS ADDENDUM TO 8/24/82 COST / BENEFIT CONTENTION Applicant, Consumers Power Company, hereby responds to the "Stamiris Addendum to 8/24/82 Cost Benefit Contention",
filed September 13, 1982.
The Stamiris proposed contention alleges:
The cost / benefit balance to the public of operating the Midland plant cannot be valid without taking account of the projected operation and maintenance costs of the permanent dewatering system.
There is no mention of dewatering cost con-siderations in the DES or FES analyses.
The anticipated deterioration, possible repair and or replacement of wells must be projected in addition to routine operating expenses.
This unique aspect of Midland's operation is a significant factor in the cost / benefit analysis which warrants con-sideration and explanation.
(If already included in operating expenses, these dewatering costs should be delineated.)
Applicant objects to Ms. Stamiris' newest proposed contention because she has failed to demonstrate good cause for its late filing.
O
1~
-2 b
Ms. Stamiris' newest proposed contention is
.L r
apparently an attempt'to. interject'one more contention into the OL proceedings under the guidelines established by the y
Licensing Board in its " Memorandum and Order (Telephone Conference Call of September 1, 1982)", dated September 2, t
~1982 ' (" September 2 Order").
The Board noted in the Septem-ber 2 Order that the deadline for timely filing of contentions based on new information in the FES had passed. :They recognized j
L however, that the order setting that deadline might have
- contained ambiguities regarding dates; accordingly, they i
granted Mary Sinclair's motion to extend the deadline for filing FES contentions to September 13, 1982.
(September 2
-l Order, at pp. 1-2).
In doing so, the Board " emphasized that the contentions.in question must be based on new information l
l in the FES; information set forth in the DES and merely reiterated in the FES would not quallry."
(September 2 Order, at p. 2).
Under this standard, Ms. Stamiris' newest proposed contention clearly does not qualify for admission.
The standard established by the Board requires that late filed j
contentions be based on something new or different in the FES.
i l
This proposed contention ~however is manifestly not based'on anyth'ing new or different in the FES.
In fact,-the very core of Ms. Stamiris' complaint in this contention is'that=
1 u
the FES, analysis of operation and maintenance costs is
[
virtually. identical to that in the DES.
e -
c-..
This contention could have been written and sub-mitted months ago.when the DES was first issued.
Its sole complaint concerns an analysis " set forth in the DES and merely reiterated in the FES".
The delay in submitting this contention might be excusable had Ms. Stamiris submitted a comment on the DES alleging that the calculation of operation and maintanance costs had not taken costs of dewatering into account.
Waiting until the issuance of the FES might then have been justified, since Ms. Stamiris would have been waiting for the NRC Staff to supply specifically requested new information in the FES.
However, Ms. Stamirls' extensive comments on the DES raised no concern regarding this aspect of the
)
i Midland cost benefit aunalysis. (See FES at pp. A-95 to
.i A-101).
There is no justification, therefore, for waiting until the issuance of the FES for the submission of this contention.
Ms. Stamiris' newest proposed contention clearly does not qualify for admission under the standard promulgated j
by this Board.
Respectfully submitted, Cmbb One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company j
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312)~ 558-7500 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CHETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD oc 007 -4 at :15 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. S h h fE
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-33HolCH
)
50-329-OL (Midland ~ Plant, Units 1 and 2))
50-330-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Anne E.
West, one of the attorneys for-Con-sumers Power Company, hereby certify that a copy of "Appli-cant's Response to Stamiris Addendum to 8/24/82 Cost / Benefit Contention" v=-
2erved upon all persons'shown in the attached
{
service liss oy deposit in the United States mail, first.
class, this 28th day of September, 1982.
J C
i du 2.6sx l
' Anne E.
West
' SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO i
before me this 28th day of September, 1982.
i
/;I
/
/. /
G O // fn i
A h)
N07ARY PUBLIC
' ~
My Comission Expires, September 10, 1984.
l l
Dse
4
. SERVICE LIST s,
Frank J. Kelley.
Esq.
Steve Gadler
. Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg,.Esq.
Assistant Attorney General-Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection-Div.
Appeal Panel
-720. Law Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.'
Lansing, Michigan 48913 Washington, D.C.
20555 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Mr.
C.
R..Stephens One IBM Plaza Chief, Docketing & Services Suite 4501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coram.
Chicago, Illinois 60611 office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall 4625 South Saginaw Road Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing William D.
Paton, Esq.
Board Panel Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Atomic Safety & Licensing.
6152 N. Verde Trail Board Panel Apt. B-125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Washington, D.C.
20555 Admin. Judge Ralph S. Decker Barbara Stamiris Route No. 4, Box 190D 5795 North River Road Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Route 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr.
D.
F. Judd Bacock & Wilcox Jerry Harbour
(
P.O. Box 1260 Atomic Safety & Licensing.
l Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
James E. Brunner, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Consuners Power Company l
212 West Michigan Avenue Lee L. Bishop Jackscn, Michigan-49201 Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, NW #506 Washington, D.C.
20006.
l
-