ML19210B787
| ML19210B787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120372 | |
| Download: ML19210B787 (4) | |
Text
[
~
U s
LlITED STATES OF AMERICA N 4 Y*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 4 QC N 6iS73 J F
-3 THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1,
s ~ :.%, $
DW 1
Sheldon J. Wolfe, E:; quire, Chairman q,
Dr. Paul W. Purdmi, Mamber Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member N
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA,
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 CP ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,
)
STN 50-557 CP AND
)
WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
(Black fox Station, Units 1 and !)
)
ORDER (Octcber 25,1979) 1.
On August 11, 1979, Applicants submitted a Request for Hearing and Motion to Establish Hearing Schedule.
Therein, in substance, Applicants requested that we reopen the record-that had been closed on February 28, 1978, and estab-lish a schedule for, hearings to "be held for the purpose of generally exploring those aspects of the TMI-2 accident that are pertinent to this proceeding".
Expecting that Supplement No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report wo"'d be is.;ued in the week of August 13, 1979, Applicants asserted that TMI-2 and emergency preparedness issues pertinent to the Black Fox proceeding (as identified in NUREG-0578, in IE Bulletin No. 79-08 and in SECY-79-450, an information paper) would then be ripe for hearing.
In Responses dated August 27, 1979, while indicating that they did not oppose a reopening Of the recore: the Intervenors and the State of Oklahoma opposed the establishment of a hearing schedule until after the issuances of the Long Term Recommendations of the TMI-2 Lesscos Learned Task Force and of 7 911120 37A
. the final repnrts of the Kemeny Commission and of the Rogovin Special Inquiry
- Group, In its Answer submitted on October 9,1979, the Staff stated that, con-sistent with the directive in the Commission's Statement of Policy dated October 4, 1979, it would send, in the near future, a generic letter to this Board and to the parties setting forth the requirements to be met post TMI-2 by Construction Permit Applicants.
The Staff suggested that we order that certain procedures be followed.
Applicants' Request for Hearing and Motion To Establish H;aring Schedule 1/
has been mooted by the Commission's Statement of Policy, and thus is denied.
Staff's suggestior in the main are well taken. Accordingly, we direct that, after reviewing the Staff's generic letter dated October 10, 1979 and Applicants'
-2/
response thereto, the parties shall confer in an effort to agree upon the scope of the reopened hearings, and to agree upon a schedule for such proceedings to 1/ In our Order of June 13, 1979, we had deferred ruling upon portions of the State of Oklahoma's Motion For An Indefinite Stay In The Issuance Of An Initial Decision filed on April 19, 1979 and upon the Intervenors' Response filed or.
April 27,1979, wherein it was requested that, only after certain reports snd recommendations had been issued, the record should be reopened on matters relat-ing to TMI-2, emergency evacuation and p st-accident monitoring plans. These unruled upon requests have also been mooted by the Comission's Statement of Policy dated October 4, 1979 and thus 're denied.
2] Applicants' response of October 15, 1979, captioned Suggestion of Hearing Schedule, suggested that a prehearing conference be held in Tulsa duririg the week of October 29, 1979 to discuss a specific schedule set forth therein.
This suggestion is denied, because we believe that such matters are best explored informally by the parties.
Disagreements can be resolved thereafter by the Board.
This procedure will ; educe time, effort and expenditures.
1313
?70
. be keyed to the isruance of Supplement 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report.
This agreament shall be submitted to the Board for its approval.
In the event the parties disagree, the matter (s).shall be presented to the Board for resolu-tion.
2.
In reviewing the record, we believe that clarification is needed concern-ing the generic matter, " Station Blackout", which was upgraded from Task B-57 to Task A-44.
The testimony of Staff's witnesses, Aycock, et. al. (fol. Tr.
8300) states (at p. TAP-41) the present Staff view that:
... a loss of all AC power does not have a significant safety impact on plants such as the Black Fox Station.
A careful review of the context of that statement, however, (at pp. TAP-40 and 41) suggests that the conclusion may be based upon quantitative probability analyses of a.similar plant in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400).
In the course of any reopened hearings, the Board requests that the Staff respond to the following questions:
a.
Was the conclusion as cited based upon probability considerations from the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400)?
b.
If not, on what was it based?
c.
If so, how does the Staff justify this basis in view of the Commission's warning (Policy Statement of January 18, 1979 at p. 3) that, with regard to accident probabilities, "...
absolute values of the risks presented by WASH-1400 should not be used uncritically... in the regulatory process..
."?
13i3
'71
_4-IT IS SO ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIiiG BOARD NbYh
/
Sheldon J. Wife, Esquire Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of October,1979.}3 N o}}