ML19289F105
| ML19289F105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1979 |
| From: | Milhollin G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906020052 | |
| Download: ML19289F105 (4) | |
Text
i NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT RCOM n,
s p
d Q'.A.
C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 7 40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
fi' E.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinz Board R st _
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-237
)
50-249 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
50-254
)
50-265 (Dresden Station, Units 2 & 3,)
Amendn.ents to FOL Quad Cities Station,
)
Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, Units 1 & 2)
)
DPR-29, DPR-30 ORDER On May 4, 1979, the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed a motion for reconsideration of this Board's decision of April 19, 1979 admitting Contention 6 as an issue in controversy in the above-captioned proceeding.
The Staff would have us substitute for Contention 6 the language of a similar contention admitted in Duke Power Company (Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Stations), Docket No.
70-2623.
The Staff argues that the language of Contention 6, as presently written, specifies threats which exceed the performance criteria of 10 CFR S 73.55(a).
The Staff does not oppose consideration of a contention addressing sabotage provided the language of the contention is broad enough not to contravene 5 73.55(a).
2236 216 7906020052
(
r,.
2 The Licensee has also filed a motion to reconsider.
The Licensee makes several requests.
First, the Licensee asks that the Board dismiss Contentions 6 and 11; second, that the Board clarity its ruling on Contention 6 by deleting references to threats which exceed the requirements of 5 73.55(a); third, that the Board certify the admissibility of Contention 6 directly to the Commission under 10 CFR S 2.758, or, in the alternative, that the Board refer its ruling on Contention 6 to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board under 10 CFR S 2.730(f).
Upon reconsideration, the Board has concluded that Contention 6 indeed contains language specifying threats which exceed those required to be guarded against by 5 73.55(a).
The Staff has suggested alternative language which is broad enough to permit proof of facts which are appropriate to the issue of sabotage or its consequences, and at the same time avoids conflict with 5 73.55(a).
This language, taken from Oconee-McGuire, above, reads as follows-
" Shipment of spent fuel... [as set out in the application]
... will be vulnerable to sabotage or other malevolent acts and this represents a serious risk."
The Board believes the Ofi 2236 217
i (4
3 I
I proposed alternative language gives the proponents of Contention 6 every reasonable opportunity to litigate the question of sabotage.
Therefore, the Board hereby substi-tutes this language for Contention 6 as presently written.
The Staff's motion is aranted.
The Licensee substantially repeats the argument pre-viously made in its briefs, to the effect that Contentions 6 and 11 are a challenge to Part 73 of the Commission's regulations.
The Board does not see any reason to change its view that these Contentions do not challenge Eart 73.
Since the Contentions do not challenge the regulations, there is no reason to employ the certification device pro-vided in S 2.758.
In the alternative, the Licensee asks that our ruling on this question be referred to the Appeal Board under 5 2.730(f).
As the Licensee points out, the criteria for such a referral are (1) that the ruling have a serious and irreparable i= pact which could not be alleviated by a later appeal, or (2) that the ruling affect the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.
Public Service Cocoanv of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1191 (1977).
We do not find that either of these criteria 2236 218
- i3
hI, 4
has been met with respect to our ruling on Contention 6.
Insofar as the Licensee's request for clarification is concerned, our decision to grant the Staff's motion sub-stantially approves that request.
The Licensee's motion is therefore denied.
It should be pointed out that the Board's decision to admit the various contentions now present in this case has been limited to making a decision on the pleadings.
The parties should realize that the Board intends to insure that the language of these contentions is sharpened and refined considerably before the hearing in this case begins.
The Board will expect the parties to be prepared at the prehear-ing conference to discuss substantial revisions in the wording and scope of these contentions.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f
, Y2'W ?,$4
/
Gary L'.
Milhollin, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland This 16 th day of May 1979.
2236
,219 v1,
.