ML17174A608

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response in Support of Applicant 801201 Request to Strike State of Il Crossexamination of ML Wohl.Role of ASLB in License Amend Proceeding Is Limited by Scope of Contentions. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML17174A608
Person / Time
Site: Dresden  
Issue date: 12/19/1980
From: Goddard R
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8012290213
Download: ML17174A608 (7)
v • d • e


Text

,*

'.r T.*..

!'"~..

  • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

NUCLEAR REGULAtORY COMMISSION

  • BEFORI THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 12/19/80

)

)

)

)

  • (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)

(Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3)

NRC STAFF Is REPLY -TO APPLICANT IS,

. MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS EXAMINATION BY INTERVENOR STATE OF ILLINOIS. *

  • .. *.:*** I *. INTRODUCTION Outing the ~~identiary.hearing in the captioned proceeding, ~pplicant Commonwealth Edison Company moved to strike_ the cross examination.by the

. Sf ate of Ill inoi's (Int:erv.en6r).of. Staff: Witnes*s Wohl -(Tr. *6l.4~6B4). -This:*

motlon.to s.tr.ike. the testi"mony,. which w~s'made *at the hearing~ is: now*

renewed by Applicant and supported by their *sr1ef in Support of M6tion to Strike, dated* December i~ 1980.

  • Intervenor opposes the motion~ For
  • the reasons set f6rth below, NRC*Staff,supports the motion of:Appli~ant.

IL

  • DISCUSSiON *.*

Intervenor's Cdnten~ion 6 r~ads as follows:

6 *. The appl i catiori_" inadequately' addres*ses the. increased. *.

consequences *of accidents~considered iri the. FSAR, SER,.**

  • an_d FES associated with the operating license revievJ
  • of Dr~sden Units 2 and 3 due to the ihcreased number of spent fueT-assemblies and. additional amounts of defective fuel to be stored in.the spent fuel pool as a result-of the modification.*

/~~

~.

  • ~ '.

.:~*

.*~-*

' -,2 NRC*Staff.and Applicant eachsLibmitted'prepared testimony on this content fon, and presented witnesses to support such testimony.

Intervenor submitted no testimonyof its own,*seekingto e.stablish its case_throuqh cross-examinatipn. *In *its opening statement, Intervenor attacked the

. accidentanalyses. inthe SERan.d then' the pre-filed testimonyof NRC

  • Staff a~d Appi icant for.inadequacy, in that they were based upon the* single
  • failure. criterion te'st for accident credibility.

Intervenor argued that

.* multiple failure-accidents must.be considered*.for Dresden *2 ~nd3~not- *

  • withstanding the single failure criterion of the Commission's regufat.ions.

(T~: 87, 659:62.)

. : Counsel for Intervenor proceeded to inquire into. the consequences of

-*system, interactions; and su_bsequently !irguedto the *Licens.ing Board -that,

. ~..

i~ r~iat-ion *to Contention 6,:_there should, have.been a reference to; systems* < * *._...,,.

inte~ac.t i~n.Jn: the* a~~-iderit: afralysi ~ :a~d in' Co~t~nt:fon 6i.:. (Tr." 6$2~ 68Lss.*) *'

I

'l

~ *..

' ~. '

Intervenor re_lies. ~pon the cases of Gulf States Uti litie~ Company(R~ver: *.

Bend Station:, Units land 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC,760 (19l7} and virgini-a.Electric and Power Company (North Anna Pow~r Station_, Units 1 *and 2)°~ ALAB-49i, 8 NRC 245 (1978), insofar as they. deal with lh'e. applicability of Staff analysi.s.

'.of generic unresolved safety issues, in safety evaluation_ reports at the

--cc:i~structi.onperniit.and _operatinglicens'e. stages, respectively.* It is the***

positionof N~C 'St,aff~ that the role of the Atomic 'Safety and 'Licensing ~~~rd

~

~

. in ~ l.icense ~mendm~nt proceeding sur;h as the one in question,: a sp.ent fuel

.i:>ool modification~ -;~ qu.ite limited by the scope* of content.ions placed in _*

.... *.,.

  • issu~' by the. p~rti~s~: Inde~d_, the ~th Anna: case,.~~*~ ied up:ci~ by In.ter~- :.'
.*. i:.

..... :~

'I; venOr, recognizes,the'distfoction betwee11:the_Jimited scop~*of the Licen_sing-<.

.. ~...

' ~ '

~ **

  • J **
~ *..
  • ~

~...

. ;~. '

..e Board's inquiries.in operating license proceedings, as distinguished from construction permit proceedings,* where uncontested matters are concerned.

8 NRC at247. Indeed, subsequent to both the River Bend and North Anna decisions~ upon:which Inter~enor apparently relies asa basis for demanding

  • co~sider~tion. of generic He~s within the scope of the captione.d proceeding,

.. the Atomic Safety arid Licensing Boards an.d Afomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

  • Boards have. had numerous occasions to. deal with the issues present.ed by.

proposals.to modify spent fu~l pools to provide.more dense.fuel stotage.

~. : ****..

  • .In none of these cases have generic items been examined in a 11wholesa lt:" ~
  • or. across-the-bo.ard 'manner. *. Rathe~,. due. tb the limited* scope of* such pro.-
  • ceedings, it: is encumb,ent upon intervenqrs.to show :the r~levance. of a parti"'.

. cular generic *unresolveci"'.safety_ iSSL!e or~task,attiol") *plan t'o.the propos~d.

. *._,... ~

.. :-~.--*

__.. **-:*-~>-~._.:*...

<<:modif.ii:.ation*'underadJudication.*.

The. Staff s.ubmits that the 'rationale* for dealing with the*s*o-talled unresolved generic safety )ssues in a construction permit proceeding or even

  • :an operating 1 kense' proceeding *is. not translatable to a proceeding of li.niited

,*/

/

~cope such 'as a spent fuel pool modification. *The so-called gene~ic items *

  • or task ~ction plans are app,licable to.. *nuclear reactors,- or at/least to.. a
  • .large number *Of them~ and their routine operations, in. a general way, and ar'e the subject of ongoing attempts to find a ~~iversa)ly appl_icab le solution **

..fo the.event \\hese i~sues are *unresol~ed at tHe* construct{ori. permtt' stage, an applicant* is faced with the necessity to justify construction, while' lea.ving the analysi$ of the issue toawait<<operatiOn.'. :If the resolut.ion "

-:...-.i:*. '.

of s~ch*.*an' item h'as not occ~r~ed at the,*time,~f the' qperating.*li~ense*.

~-*.

~ - :

(

,.., 4

  • proceeding~ oth~r justificat~oris'for permitting the plant to operate.may exist; there.maybe a solution which is satisfactory in the case of the*

pa~ticular facility under examination, or a restriction on.the level or nature of oper~tio~ adequate to eliminate such problem may be imposed~ or.

  • .. the.*safety issue in quest1on may.be one which does not arise until the later*

years of :plant o~eratio~~

in'th~caseof a spentfuelpool modification; however, the myriad

  • ..,of.is_sues dealing with general reactor construction and operation has.alr~ady

. **been tak.en u~*cier review, and resolved*, at the original licen~*ing stage.* In.

fact, the p 1 ant has usuai lydemo~~trated its abil ityto operate at iength,

. prior to the n~ed for spent ~uel *pool expansion~ Accordingly, ii is not; unreasonable to, demand. a strict:.showing o(relevance>of a generic::issue or'

.. *~

  • t~s*k: ~c ti on. p 1 a*n.:\\o.: the: proposecl*m~d*.i f.ica ffon 'in. qu es ti on*, whfch. *comp~ i se * :* *,

_ **..* 1. __ :. :-:

    • * *a.{e~y *:small portfo~ -of the :totality.of act.ions which comprise._.r*eactor *.*

. ~

. operation~ *. Thus' the Staff submits.:that the nexus requirement of River

    • Bend should be* stringently* enforced by a Licensing. Board in the context of a proceeding ()f li~ited s~ope.

/"

  • . ;. In the instant. case,. Intervenor has *attempted, through cross:;.examfoa,..
tion and subs~quent argument, to: expand its stated Contention. 6 to encompass *
  • th~ qu.estion of systems int_eraciion.. * *.*.**

. _.. ~

. rd *the *exte'1t that. Interveno~:d~sires to.;exami.ne the question-of. system

int~ractfon, a g~neric task.action plan, within ttie context of Contention 6, no nexus.betweensuch a generic item and thisproposed*m~difi~afion has been.a'sserted*~ ** lnde~, Interven.cir would appe~r to~ have :simply selected one *

. ~.,

.**.1--

1*..

. -~*.

l,.

~-.

-~---.

' (

. < -~.

' ~ '*.

.'*r

. / of many task action plans for litigation without proposing a scenario.or

.. otherwise attempting to demonstrate its re.levance to this modification.

More baste considerations, however, should*be dispositive of this issue.

Simply, the p)ain reading.of Contention 6 certainly does not lend itself to such an interpretation **

  • A fair reading of Contention 6 would indicate that Intervenor sought to examine into potential increased consequences. of thos.e accidents considered at the operating license.stage for Dresden Units 2 and 3 which might be brought.. about by increasing the number of spent fue 1 assem_b 1 ies to be stored

.. in the* sp.ent fuel, poo 1 s 'at: those facilities. Witnesses for.. NRC *Staff and Applicant, accordingly;.presented~te~timony directly a~dressing the expli~it

".concerns. of Intervenor regarding this. issue, each arri~irig *at the conclusion

.* ~.

.. ttiat the. proposed*modificafion' and* densiffoatfon of fuel s'torage would. no.t I

result i.n significantly~ focreased consequences of the design.'basis accidents.

  • .Accordingly, the cross~examiriation of ~hese witnesses,. in* an attempt. to develop* alleged inadequac*y in* their evaluations by failure to consider
  • . m~ltiple failures or sys.terns 1nteraction, as might be rele~ant. to the pr;posed modification, should not.*be heard at. this time. This intervenor,. the State.**
  • of Illinois, arid the particu1ar'co~nsel who coriducted ihe challenged ~ross-

.. examination *and.who, iii *fatt:,. ~as participated in. thi~ proceeding.sin~e its*

  • .. incept'ion, are freq~ent:* participants in nuclear licensing actions, and should be *extended little_ lee\\tiay'when seeking to modify or-expand'sucn an eXplicit.
  • ' contention at' sue~ a l~te ~tage in the proceeding~. Accord_ingly, the NRC Staff*

would supper~ Applicanf*'s mQtion tci strike the challe.nged' Cf'.OSS~~aminatiori~.

and would:oppos~. ~Iii further *attempt to m'od.i.fy 1 the contention, or submit a new, expanded cont_e.ntiori, a~ this time~>.

. **~.:..

~.*

~-0 e-

.e

- 6.,..

III.

CONCLUSION

  • For the reasons set forth above, the NRC Staff supports the Applicant's
  • motio~ t6 strike Int~rveno~'s cross~examination as indicated~

Respectfully s~bmitted,

. ~'-'"---"* ~~~"--r7":~---.:

Richard Counsel Dated at Bethe~da, Maryland.

this 19th day of December, 1980

.. ~ *..

'~*.. ;.

~

~...

. ~...

/*

.\\:

'.. ~..

. '.. ~

~ > *

  • UNITED STATES OF~MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.

In the Matter of *

. tOMMONWEAL TH EDISON COMPANY

.. (Dresden Station~ Units 2 and. 3)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-237

)

50-249

). * (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S REPLY TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE* CROSS EXAMINATION BY 'INTERVENOR STATE OF ILLINOIS" in the above-

. captioned proteeding h~ve been se~ved on the following by deposit in the

  • United States mail, first class, or as.indicated by an aste~jsk, through deposit in the.NuClear*Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 19th day of December, 1980: *
  • John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman.

..3409 Shepherd Stre.et

  • Dr~* Linda w. *L it~le.

SOOIT~ermitage Drive*

  • . ~aJeigh, North Carblina 2Z612 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 L Hamilton Avel'lue.
  • State. College, Pa.. 16801
  • Philip' P.* Stept~e, Esq *.

Isham, Lincoln and Beale

  • One First National Plaza*
    • . Chi ca go, Ill. 60603

. ca a

Susan N. Sekul~r~ Esq.

. Ass is tant Atforney 'Genera J

. EnVironmentar.tontrcH Oiyision *,

  • :1aawest Randolph Stre¢t, Suite 2315.

Chicago, Ill*' 60601. * *

  • Atomic Safety andlicensing Board Panel
  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, D.. c~ 20555

  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal,,
  • Board Panel
  • .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corfmission.

. *Docketing, and Service Section.

  • .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555.. **
  • -~-.:.....- *;. ----~ -** *-*

'.,:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17174A608&oldid=5133577"