ML17193B435
| ML17193B435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106040413 | |
| Download: ML17193B435 (5) | |
Text
Cf~
- _t
~
~'
- ~
- . ~~
~-:. ! ::..
- ~*-... _
- ~.
~**. l
"'I!~-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THEfiTOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
)
)
)
)
(Spent Fuel NRC STAFF'S REPONSE TO INTERVENOR STATE OF ILLINOIS' MOTION FOR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ORDER DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW UNRESOLVED GENERIC ISSUES BACKGROUND On January 27, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the captioned proceeding, sua sponte, propounded Board Question 2, which states:
Based on a review and analysis of the various generic unresolved safety issues under continuing study, what relevance is there, if any, to the proposed spent fuel modification? Further, what is the potential health and safety implication of any relevant issues remaining unresolved?
Subsequently, the Board clarified its intention in propounding this qu~stion to the parties. *In a conference call on April 1, 1981, the Board identified the "unresolved safety issues" with which it was con~erned as being those issues reported to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and which are discussed in NUREG-0606.
At that time, the Board
- specifically disavowed its interest in other "unresolved" or "generic"
/
items within the possible scope of Board Question 2, in response to a question posed by counsel for Intervenor.
- On May 14, 1981, after all parties had submitted affidavits and other material responsive to Board Question 2, and more than six weeks 8 10 6
- '0. 4 0 '-// $
- ~.
after the conference call in whi~h the precise scope of that Question was delineated, Intervenor moved the Board to compel Staff to address numerous generic items* outside the defined scope of Board Question 2.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes the instant motion.
'DISCUSSION First, the Staff submits that intervenor's motion should be denied out of hand for untimeliness. *.A_ssuming arguendo that such motion has any substance to commend it, Intervenor could clearly have filed it shortly after the conference call-of April 1, 1981, prior to resumption of the evidentiary hearings, and prior to the filing of affidavits on this Question by all parties.
Th*e instant motion should be considered, in the opinion of the Staff, to.be either~ motion for reconsideration (of the Board's conference call~~xplanati6n of the Question) or an attempt to inject additional-topics into the hearing process which is akin to a late-filed contention~ If the former, it is submitted that a time frame exceeding six weeks between the decision complained of by Intervenor and a motion for reconsideration of that decision is patently excessive.
This is especiall1 true ~here, as here, the case is in the later stages of the hearing proces,s, where admission of such issues could easily delay the closing 'of *the evidentiary record.
If the motion is viewed as essentially an untfo~_ely: contention of the Intervenor, albeit differing in format, the::s-~aff would submit that none of the tests of 10 C.F.R. §2.714(a)(l)"have been satisfied by Intervenor, nor has there been any apparent at~empt to do so.
3 ~
- , Indeed., the items which Intervenor now seeks to 1 iti gate are not n_ewly-dis:cc;>'.iered matters.
Given the fact that this intervenor is Second, th~ operating license cases cited by Intervenor are distinguishable s'olely. upon the scope of issues involved in licensing a nuclear reactor as opposed to a specific application for a license amendment which.would authorize a spent fu~l pool modification.
While lnter~enor might
- desire a full-a*nd detailed analysfs of every topic relating to nuclear
. -~'
reactors, the Board, in the sua sponte exercise of its discretion, ordered the Staff to consider each Category A_*generic issue for its relevance to the proposed spent fuel pool modifjcation.
Indeed, in the Yellow Creek initial decision relied. upon by Intervenor*, the license to operate was granted despite the Staff's lack of detailed analysis of numerous tasks beyond the Category A
~1assification, which are those generic issues with "potentially significant
.,,.publi-c safety i~plication(s)".
To-require*the Staff to analyze each of the Staff counsel is not aware of any spent fuel pool modification proceediri~~ or other proceeding deriving from a pro~osed amendment to a facility:* operating license, wherein the safety evaluation therefor has con_ta.ined a full review of uriresol ved safety issues., even one 1 imi ted
- tq_*~UREG-0636 Category A tasks.
- .. 4....
issues Intervenor seeks to.. a.ir in this proceeding would in effect require the
'~:*r* ~
presentation of a Task Actib-~ Plan where none presently exists. Y Further reason to terminate *additional inquiry at this time may be derived from the material submitted by Intervenor in response to Board Question 2.
Intervenor's affidavit does not demonstrate the alleged relevance to the proposed.~bdi_fication of the generic items sought to be analyzed.ll River B~nd ma~clates such a showing before I ntervenors 1
~~~s;***. -
generic concerns could be ~~~~idered.
~t~*~::~_- CONCLUSION Given the late stages.a{ the proceeding, the fact that the issues involved are not of recent ~fi~in, and the failure of Intervenors to
. *.. ~-*-*
address the River Bend cri~eri~ and the late-filed contention standards, the motion should be denied~.:..
~.,.-*.,,*~-
- ~
-~*-;-~*.:-"
- Dated at Bethesda, Maryl an ct
~*
this 3rd day of June, 198L'<_ -
-~:;<._::.
- Respectfully submitted,
. Richard Counsel See Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-39, 8 N~C 602, 633 {1978) *
. -j,,_"":
As stated by an Atomic'Safety. and Licensing Appeal Board in Gulf States Utilities Compa*ny (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (.1~}7),upon which Intervenor relies, 11The failure of the State t~*have asserted the requisite nexus between, on the one hand; the River Bend facility and, on the other, the TSAR items and the newli *issued regulatory guides in question is thus dispositive of th-~' complaint respecting the Licensing Board 1s treatment of the attempt to raise issues on the basis of those items and guides.
11 6~NRC ~t 774 *
.. _:~
.. ~..
- -:.:.:~:..:,* *.
~*:7:.
- ~:* ::-~:....
~-*.... ~-
'; ~~** *~
UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
- (Dr~sden Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
- I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR STATE OF ILLINOIS' MOTION FOR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ORDER DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW UNRESOLVED GENERIC ISSUES in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail
~ystem, this 3rd day of June, 1981.
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015*
Dr. Linda w. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carblina 27612 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 E. Hamilton Avenue State Co 11 ege, Pa. 16801 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln and Beale One First National Plaza Chi ca go, I 11. 60603 Gary N. Wright Illinois Department of Nuclear
- Safety 10~5 Outer Park Drive, 5th Flo6r Springfield, Illinois 62704 Mary Jo Murray, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph.Street, Suite 2315 Chi ca go, I 11. 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
- Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D. C. 20555 *
~~~-~
iCha rd ~Locidard Counsel for NRC Staff