ML17252A545
| ML17252A545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1981 |
| From: | Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8102030616 | |
| Download: ML17252A545 (9) | |
Text
- ,*.
\\
UNITED *STATES OF Ar1ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
John F. Wo 1 f, Chairman Dr. Linda W. Little Dr. Forrest J. Remick
./4~
In the Matter of:
)
)
)
)
.,.,, 411 Docket Nos. 50-237-0LA 19...
- .z 50-249-0LA COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
_( _nr_e_s_d_e_n _s_t..,...a_t_i o_n_s_,_un_i_t_s_2_&_3_) __...)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Spent*Fuel Pool
- Modification)
January 26~ 1981 Commonwealth Edi son Company ("Applicant") filed a mo.ti on.'
dated December 1, 1980, to strike the cross-examination by the
- State of Illinois (
11 Intervenor11
) of NRC Staff Witness, Millard*L.
Wohl (Tr. 674-684).
Applicant contends that II Intervenor's cross-examination has no relevance to Inter~enor's Cont~~t{on
~
. 'l*
or* to any other matter in controversy in this proceeding." /
\\
In a response dated December 19, 1980, tl)e NRC Staff(Ot.v flf [lo/to
.*stated the reasons for its' support of Applicant Is,mo ti on a strike. They include but are not.limited to the
- *The staff contends that. in.a spent* fuel pool modification ca
- the b~afd'~ jLl~isdic~ian is limited by the conte~tions pl~ce~
in.issue bi th~ parties; that "due to the li~ited scope 6f such*
. proceedings" Intervenor.must* show the relevance of a particular unresolved generic safety issue or task action plan to* the proposed
- -*~'** ~
~
. -* -~..... -.. -*.,.
. modification* at.issue;. t.hat Intervenor, through cross-exa:minatiOn
.. *... : o~.
. j),$.. y;*.
- . 5 IJ I.
\\
- and a~gument, has attempted to expand Contention 6 to encompass the question of the unresolved generic safety item of systems interaction; that the plain reading of Contention 6 does not lend itself to a demonstration* of the relevance of the question of.
unresolved generic safety items to* the proposed pool modification.
In its response of December 10, 1980 to the Applicant's Motion to Strike, Intervenorl/ argues that its Contenticin 6 requires that systems interaction and multiple failure analysis should have been taken into account in the SER.
Int.ervenor' s Contention 6 reads as fa 11 ows:
The Application inadequately addresses the increased conse-quences of accidents conside~ed. in the FSAR, SER~ and FES associated with the operating 1 icense review of Dresden Units 2 and 3 du~ to the increased number of spent fuel assemblies and additional amount of defective fuel to be stored in the spent fuel poo1 as a result bf the modifitati~n.
In support *of the cross-examination of Witness Wohl (Tr. 674- *
- 684) teg~rding i~su~s raised by Contention 6, Intervenor argues that th~ safety analysis*forthe proposed modified spent fu~l pool at Dresden, based on a single failure criterion te~t, is not iuffici~nt in ~iew of the increas~d ~onseque~ces of*
- 1/ The*State of 111.inois was admitted to these* proceedings.
- und~r 10 CFR§§ 2.714 and 2.715 as an.intervehor a~d
- .interested. state~
~... '*.;,..-,
.' c:.,
~
- accidents due to the increased number of assemblies to be stored in the spent.fuel.pool.* Intervenor, therefore, argues that the safety evaluation must be based on multiple-failure.
criteria. Intervenor states that its purpose, in the cross-
- examination, was to show that multiple-failure analysis had not.been considered in the Staff's SER.
The Intervenor relies on the Appeal Boardis holding in Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), 6 NRC 760, 775 (1977) ("River Bend") that:
."The SER is,.of course, the principal document before the licensing board which reflects the.content and outcome of the Staff's review.... in our view, each SER should contain*a summary description of those generic problems under continuing study which have both relevance to faciljties of the type under review and potentially significant publicsafety implications."
NUREG-0510 and NUREG-0660 state that systems iriteraction ts an unresolved genericsafety issue.
The Intervenor argues
. _ that the cross-examination in question. showed that, of the significant unresolved generic safety questions, none is reviewed or evaluated in the SER (cf~R{~er Ben~, supra, 6 NRC
- at 775)~
- The :NRC Staff argues that the role of the Atomic. Safety and Li.~ensi ng.. _Boar:d in. a l ~ c.ens.~ _:a!llen.9~~~~.Pro..<;e~.~jng, i '. *e.,, *
'a spent fuel pool modificatfon, "is _quite limited by ~he scope
~*
- ~.
- of contentions placed in issue by the parties.
11 However, in the River Bend case, supra, 6 NRC at 774, the Appeal Board pointed out that:
The responsibilities of a licensing board in the radiological health and safety sphere are not con-fined to the consideration and disposition of those issues which may be presented to it by a party or an "interested state" with the required degree of specificity.
To the contrary, irrespective *of what matters may or may not have been praperly placed in.controversy prior to authorizing the* issuance of a construction.permit the board must make the finding~ inter alia, that there is "reasonable assurance 0 that the "proposed facility can be con-structed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public~" 10 CFR 50.35(a). lo be sure, in the absence of a contest on a particular safety matter, the board need not duplicate the Staff's review~ Nonetheless as previo~sly noted (s~pra, p. 766) to disch~rge its function properly it must pass judgment upon whether that review "has been adequate."
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A,~sectiOn V(f)(2}; Consumers Power Com an (Midland P1ant., (Units l *and 2 ALAB 123, 6 AEC 331, 335 (1973) reversed on other grounds, sub nom.
Aeschliman v. NRC, supra.
Of necessity, this deter-mination will entail an inquiry into.whether the staff review satisfactorily has come to grips with.
ariy unresolvedgenerie safety problems which might ha~e an impact upon operation of the nuclear facility under consideration.
While the ruling s~t forth in the River Bend decision,
~upra (6 *~RC at 774), involved a ccms:truc:ti onpetrrii t case,..
the Appeal *Bo.ard has held that it applies equally. to a case involving ~n,operating 1 i cerise.*. Virginia.El ectdc Power
- ... ---::***--**.,*~~camp.any: *(Ncirth Arin( *s-t'iitfon iJriits rand -2}*~ *J\\'LAB;:491~
- a*~NRc-~ :..
- ..
- 245.. 248,.(1978}...*.
.....,.......... '....... ~. -.*..
~-
. ' '.... : ~. ' *,:
~ 5 -
The instant case involves issuance of amendments to the operating license.
The Regulations provide fn 10 CFR § 50.91 that:
11 In determining whether an amendment to a license or construction permit will be issued to the applicant, the Commission will be guided by the considerations which govern the issu~nce of initial licenses or construction permits to the extent applicable and appropriate."
The licensing board~*s responsibility in the radiological health and safety sphere is present in construction and ope~ation type cases and its authority to require the NRC Staff to provide the outcome of said Staff's review of the impact upon the operation of the nuclear facility of any unresolved generic safety pro bl ems in each of these types.of cases is undoubted.
River Bend case, supra 6 NRC at 775, footnote 28_.
Intervenor's Contention 6 is.. quite specific in that it addresses consequences_of accidents consi~ered in the FSAR, SER, and FES associated with the oper~ting license review of
-. Dresden Uni ts 2 and 3 due _to th~ increase-number of spent fuel assemblies and additional amounts of defective f~el to be stored
- in_ the spent fuel pool as a result Of the modification.
No_**
mention _or.hint appears of<systems interact_iorf or multiple* -
failure analysis in the contention *as stated;
- . '-rh-e-'lntervenor-has*-a*ttempted' through. cro~s--ex-ami nation -.. :.. -~.
and s~b~equent argument, t6 expand.*a~ this late date.the
\\.'
~..
.... ~..
. *=-****
t...*
l
- stated Contention 6 to encompass the question of systems inter~ction. The Intervenor has shown no nexus or relevance
. between such a generic item and the proposed license modification.
However, Intervenor's cross-examination does cause the Board to question t~e relationship to the proposed license modification of any identified generic unresolved safety issues, including~ but not limited to the issue of systems interaction. The evidence in the record, including the Staff's SER, does not address this question. Accordinsly, a
. Board question to be responded to by the parties is stated.
below.
- Upon consideration of the facts and arguments contained in the Applicant's motion to strike Intervenor's cross-examination of M. L. Wohl (Tr. 674-684), as well as in. the*
respon~es of the Intervenor and the NRC Staff ~ it is this.
26th day of January 1981 OROERED.**.
That the Applicant's motion to*str~ke *i~ granted and that the parties will respond to the following Board question 2,
. Based on* if review and analysis of the 'various generic.*
- . unresolved safety issues under con ti nui ng study, what * *
' /.
- relevance is there, if any, to the proposed spent fuel pool modification? Further, what is the potential health and safety implication of any relevant issues remaining unresolved?-*
Responses will be due at the same time that the written testimony associated with the fuel channel bowing issue is submitted, prior to the hearing on that issue.. A date for that hearing has not yet been set.
.... ~. --*- ---* -.
.. *. *..... ~..
- ~
..- *. ; ~
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AMO LICENSING BOARD
. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
~
-....... )>., _ _, ____ *
~~-*
~ *. '
~*
, r.*. ~ -. '*' -**-*-*
In the Matter of UNITED STATES. OF AMERicA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH EDISON. COMPANY
.)
)
.)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket* No. (s)
(Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF. SERVICE 50-237 50-249 I hereby certify that I have this day served the f()regoing document(s)*
upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the.Qffice of the Secretary of the Commission*in this proceeding in
.accordance with the-requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 Cf'.R Part 2 -
Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this zf7~
day of 9<l1'-
- 19f8L*
- Office~;~. S~he Comnission
- ~.... *----~"***-
-~. *.
~. ;
~- *
~-
. '~:
~::::::::.
~=~-::::*.:::
- i::::::::':*
~.J,
- I
~-..,1*.-1..* A
../
U!l""ITED STATES OF AMERICA
!~cu:..:;.., R:::~"'L..t..TO?.": CO!-!!*fIS s:ox
!::i the Hatter of CONMONWEALTR EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units Z and 3)
)
)
. )
)
)
)
)
)
SuVICE LIST John.F. Wolfe,. Esq.
3409 Shepherd.Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Linda W. Little 500 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina
- 27612 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 East ~ilton Avenue State College, Pennsylvania
- counsel for NRC Staff 16801 Office of the Executive. Legal_Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D *. C.
- 20555 Commonwealth. Edison Company ATTN: _Mr. Cordell Reed*
Assistant ViCe President P~(). *Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
- ~-.
.,.... '1.-:::.;:.!*.,,,_.......... : :--~ -
..... - *. *--."....~.... {:
- .. '. ~.
- .'~..
>:~ *.: '.
Docke:: Xo ~ (s) 50-237 50-249 John w.
Rowe~ Esq.
David M. Stahl, Esq.
Isham, lincolri & Beale
.One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Isham, Lincoln and Beale 1050 17th Street,* N.W., 7th Floor 1*:'ashington, D. C.
20036 Susan N* Sekuler, Esq.
Assistant Attorney" General Environmental Control Division
.188 Hest Randolph Street, Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601
. -*..., --~* -
.**'j. ;**..*.,.
~
.. -..,.