ML20206D577

Memorandum & Order Amending ASLB 860530 Order to Allow State of in Sassafras Audubon Soc to File Answer to Applicant Suppl to Motion to Terminate within 10 Days After Svc of Suppl.Encl Served.Served on 860619

ML20206D577
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	06/18/1986
From:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY
References
CON-#286-641 83-487-02-OL, 83-487-2-OL, LBP-86-14A, OL, NUDOCS 8606200087
Download: ML20206D577 (5)

Text

T(Al

. SERVED JUN li 1986 LBP-86-1 m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y c3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCHED Before Administrative Judges: --

QUN191986* 5 Ivan"W. Smith, Chairman poca:mc a Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. V s:nvict taxycn [s Dr. Oscar H. Paris 8EC " "" M m\'

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. Docket Nos. 50-546-OL WABASH VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION, INC. 50-547-OL (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating ASLBP No. 83-487-02 OL Station, Units 1 and 2) )

June 18, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The recent and relevant history of this matter is set out in our May 30, 1986 Memorandum and Order Directing Briefs. LBP-86-14A, 23 NRC There we noted that none of the intervenors in this proceeding had comented on the Applicants' Motion to Terminate Proceeding dated April 4,1985. Consequently, no provision was made for any filing by the intervenors in the schedule for additional briefing required by the order.

By letter dated June 11, 1986 the Indiana Sassafras Audubon Society l requests that the Marble Hill site be restored as completely as possible to farmland, timber land and wildlife habitat. The Audubon Society states that it felt that there was nothing to comment on at the time of the 1985 motion to terminate since the NRC Staff then sought an l

opportunity to review and to approve a site restoration plan. See NRC hDO 00bK 000 46 G PDR

])So2---

1 2-Staff's Response, April 24, 1985. To the extent that the Audubon Society now seeks to address the initial motion to terminate the proceeding, it is late. Any answer by Audubon to the motion to .

terminate was due within ten days after service of the motion. The Staff exercised its prerogative to answer the motion fifteen days after its service. 10CFR62.730(c). Audubon has not demonstrated good cause for failing to address the motion to terminate at the time an answer was due in 1985.

However the Board is not aware of any law or regulation which would per sjt bar the Audubon Society from answering the Applicants' supplement to the motion to terminate which supplement will be filed in obedience to our May 30, 1986 order. Accordingly, the Board amends its May 30, 1986 order as follows:

(1) The Indiana Sassafras Audubon Society and any other intervenor in this proceeding may file an answer to the Applicant's supplement to the motion to terminate within ten days after service of the supplement; (2) Or the Audubon Society may rest on its letter of June 11, 1986 which the Board will consider in light of the entire record,

! provided; (3) That any other party may argue that any intervenors' position on the supplement, on the grounds of tardiness or on other grounds, should not be considered. The Applicants and NRC Staff may address issues relating to intervenors in their S 9 e

a m.- - . - ,

1 respective forthcoming responses to the Board order of May 30, 1986 or they may seek other relief to do so.

The Audubon Society also requests that it be provided with a copy of the Applicants' supplement and the NRC Staff's response to the supplement. A random check of the more recent filings by the Staff and Applicants indicates that the intervenors have been served with documents in this proceeding as provided by regulation. We expect that that will also be the case in the future. On the other hand, the Audubon Society did not provide service of its June 11, 1986 letter to each of the other parties to the proceeding as required by the regulations. The Board calls to ths attention of the Audubon Society the provisions of 10 CFR 9 2.701(b) requiring that documents offered for filing in NRC proceedings be served on all parties or their attorneys and that there be proof of such service accompanying any filed document.

In this instance the Board will cause the Audubon Society's June 11, 1986 letter to be served by attaching it to this order.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/

AYHY -//h

'IVan W. Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland June 18, 1986

\

fff The Indiana Sassafras Audubon S[OT of Lawrence, Greene. Monroe, Brown Morgan & (n Cgego h m June 11, 1986 t

-i v.

UUN191986>:n mo&

A C

sw y m uCH 8

-sh TO: aTQ4IC SAFEIY AND LICENSING B0;v y~\'W g'

/ NUCLEAR REGUL1 TORY CQ24ISSION h) 'A *,

)

FRQ4: THE INDIANA SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIEfY RE: M940RANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING BRIFSS, JUNE 2, 1986 This letter is in refennce to the Vemorandum and Order Directing Briefs issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

June 2,1986, directing the Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. and Wabash Power Association, Inc. to supplement their motion to terminate the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Proceeding within 30 days of service of the order.

In the section of the Memorandum and Order providing background to the matter, it was noted that none of the intervenors had commented on the April 24, 1985 Motion of the Applicants to terminate the Marble Hill Proceeding. Sassafras Audubon felt at the time there was nothing to comment on since the NRC staff deferred ruling on the motion until they had opportunity to myiew and approve a site mstoration clan.

Our pmsent concern is with the NRC Staff position as expressed on March 28, 1986 of supporting the applicants motion to ter= irate the proceeding based on a site stabilization plan that would leave the Marble Hill site, essentially unnstored.

We do not agree with the NRC Staff statement in support of their position that "there will be no significant detrimntal envirorcental impact on or offsite resulting from termination of the proceeding."

In 1981 the Appeal Board supported the action of the Licensing Board requiring f the applicant in the Davis-Besse Proceeding to restore the site as nearly as possible l

to its origiral pm-construction state and to enhance the site's qualities as a j wildlife habitat.

In 1982 the Licensing Board imposed conditions in Bailly requiring substantial but uncontroversial site restoration.

In 1983 the Licensing Board required in Black Fox the dismantling of site im-provements not included in a plan for future use of the Black Fox site, again un-controversial.

Public Service Indiana has not indicated a need nor plans for future use of the Marble Hill site. As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board notes in tFair Memorandum and Order, around 500 acres of the %0 acre site is of pri=e farmland.

The remaining acres have potentially high value for timber and wildlife habitat.

We ask that the site be zestored as completely as possible to these uses.

l

\ n.

'k would appaciate aceipt of the Applicant's supplemnt to their motion tc terminate the Marble Hill Proceeding, and the msponse of the :GC Staff to that Supplement, as well as subsequent communications concerned with msolution of the matter.

Y urs sin z=ly, om r, asident Sassafras Audubon Society (SAS) 6620 E. State Road 45 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 2n.M '&

Mrs. David G. F m y Energy Policy Committee, SAS 2625 S. Smith Road Bloomington, Indiana 47401 cc: Dimetor, NRR l