ML19332A038

Response in Opposition to State of Mn 800828 Motion to Hold Spent Fuel Pool Mod Proceeding in Abeyance Pending Mn Pollution Control Agency Board 800923 Meeting.Accepting Settlement During Meeting Very Remote.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19332A038
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/04/1980
From:	Bernstein D, Silberg J NORTHERN STATES POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8009100429
Download: ML19332A038 (7)

Text

. .

. S ptember 4, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 NUCTJAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

P- USNRc 6 In the Matter of ) { SEP-g

~

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-50-3 y ag 8mce h .g /

Prairie Island Nuclear )

Generating Plant, Units 1 ) 4 d and 2 )

)

(Spent Fuel Pool )

Modification) )

J.

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO STATE OF MINNESOTA'S MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS OF THE LICENSING BOARD IN ABEYANCE PENDING MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY'S CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT In its August 28, 1980 motion, the State of Minnesota requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hold this proceeding in abeyance pending the Minnesota Pollutdon Control Agency ("MPCA") Board's September 23, 1980 meeting. Northern States Power Company' (" Licensee") strenuously opposes this motion.

At the August 6, 1980 Prehearing Conference, Licensee pro-posed that further action in this case be held in abeyance until the August 26, 1980 meeting of the MPCA Board. Tr. 9. The pur-pose of this deferral was to allow the MPCA Board to consider a proposed stipulation reached by counsel for Licensee, NRC Staff and the State of Minnesota for the termination of this pro-ceeding. While the proposed stipulation was acceptable to Licensee, Tr. 7-8, and the NRC Staff, Tr. 16, counsel for the State indicated that it could not accept the stipulation until the MPCA Board gave its approva'.. Tr. 12.

,p S03

@ 80 00100 qg S# /

At the Prehearing Conference, Licensee further proposed that if the stipulation were not signed because of action by the MPCA Board, action in this proceeding would restart La-mediately. Specifically, Licensee proposed that, if the stipulation were not signed, the State and NRC Staff would file written responses to Licensee's objection to Contention 1 within one week of the August 26 meeting. Counsel for the State ex-plicitly agreed to this proposal.

CHARIMAN LAZO: Counsel for licensee suggested a one-week period in the event that your board does not accept the recommendation, in which time you would respond to the res judicata (-] collateral estoppel questions.

Is that sufficient time?

MRS. SENECHAL: Yes, that would be fine.

j Tr. 20. Counsel for the NRC Staff did not object to this schedule.

4 As set forth in the State's August 28, 1980 Motion, the t

MPCA Board at its August 26 meeting did not accept the proposed i

stipulation. With six of the Board's nine members voting, the Board voted 4-2 to adopt a resolution not to accept the stipula-

. tion. Since the resolution to reject the stipulation did not receive the necessary five votes, the matter is to be carried over to the MPCA Board meeting scheduled for September 23, 1980. As a result, the State requests that actions in the pro-caeding be held in abeyance until after the September 23 meeting.

The sole justification which the State sets forth for its motion

~-..nw, ,,

l is that "there is a possibility that the MPCA Board will ap-prove the proposed settlement." State of Minnesota's Motion,

p. 3 (emphasis added).

Licensee respectfully submits that the State has not adequately justified the relief that it seeks'. Furthermorc; the Motion is at odds with the agreements reached at the August 6 Prehearing Conference, is unfair to Licensee, and increases the risk that NRC authorization for the spent fuel pool expan-sion will not be received in a timely fashion.

Licensee is prepared to start evidentiary hearings in this matter immediately. At the same time, we recognize that a set-tiement of this proceeding without the necessity for hearing would save all concerned considerable time, effort, and money.

Licensee hopes that the MPCA Board will, at its September 23 meeting, choose to accept the stipulation. However, the mere i

" possibility" that this can occur seems a weak foundation for '

not going forward in this proceeding. While we await tre MPCA Board's second consideration of this matter, there is little reason why the State should not reply to Licensee's objections on Contention 1. This would allow the Licensing Board to rule on the matter at the earliest opportunity and allow the pro-caeding to move forward promptly in the event that the MPCA Board votes against the stipulation or does not muster enough votes in favor of it. If the August 26 vote had been 4-2 in favor of the stipulation, Licensee might have b'een willing to risk further delay in this proceeding on the chance that one of

the three absent members would support the stipulation. However, with the August 26 vote 4-2 against, the odds of all three absent members voting to accept the settlement seem too small to justify holding up this procaeding any longer. This is particularly true since all nine members voted unanimously to authorize intervention in this proceeding.

Further delay in this proceeding could have detrimental effects. By the time of the Prairie Island Unit 2 refueling outage in the Spring of 1982, there will be too many spent fuel assemblie.s in the spent fuel pools to allow the reracking of both pools in an empty condition. This will mean that Pool 2 (the largo pool) will have fuel in it when it is reracked. This in turn will enta3 ', added cost, added time, and added occupa-tional radiatic.1 exposure. NSP's schedule calls for reracking the small pool after the Unit 2 refueling outage in the Spring of 1981, cessation of the modification during the Unit I re-

• fueling outage in the Fall of 1981, and modification of the large pool prior tc the Spring 1982 refueling outage of Unit 2.

Thus, further delay in this proceeding increases the likelihood that NRC authorization of the reracking will not be in hand by April, 1981. When this risk is balanced against the only

" burdens" which the State would have to undertake before September 23 -- the filing of a response to Licensee's objections to Contention 1 -- there can be no doubt that the equities de-mand the denial of the State's Motion.

1

- - - - - - - --. , y y -

For these reasons, Licensee respectfully requests that the Licensing Board deny the State's motion and require the

State to promptly file its response to Licensee's objections to Contention 1.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i

By M h

"~

Jay (q. S ilberg DebMah ,L. Bernstein {

Counsel for Northern States Power Company 1800 M Street, N. W.

! Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated: September 4, 1980

.i 6

4 h

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l In the Matter of )

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-282

) 50-306 Prairie Island Nuclear )

Generating Plant, Units 1 )

and 2 )

)

(Spent Fuel Pool )

Modification) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Northern States Power Company's Answer to State of Minnesota's Motion to Hold Proceedings of the Licensing Board in Abeyance Pending Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Consideration of Proposed

- Settlement" were served by deposit in. the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 4th day of September, 1980, tc all parties on the attached Service List.

Dated: September 4, 1980 i

l

/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFE *Y AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-282

) 50-306 (Prairie Island Nuclear )

Generating Plant, , )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

(Spent Fuel Pool Modification) )

SERVICE LIST Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 2055S Dr. David L Hetrick Professor of Nuclear Engineering University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Quentin J. Stober i l Fisheries Research Institute University of Washington 98915 Seattle, Washington l 1

Charles Barth, Esquire i Office of the Executive Legal Director l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission  !

Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Serrice Section (20)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Washington, D. C. 20555 -

l 1

Jocelyn F. Olson, Esquire Minnesota Pollution Control Agency i 1935 West County Road 32 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Joseph D. Bi::ano, Jr.

Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401