ML19309D711
| ML19309D711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1980 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004110153 | |
| Download: ML19309D711 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station
)
MOTION TO DENY CESG'S INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE ON THE CASK DROP ISSUE On March 5, 1980, the Board and parties condacted a conference call.
Therein the Carolina Environmental Study Group ("CESG") announced its desire to introduce further evidence on the~ cask drop issue, viz., the results of an alleged scale-model test of a cask tipping incident.
On March 24, 1980, CESG provided a demonstration of its model, 1/
which according to CESG President, Mr. Jesse L.
- Riley, was designed and constructed by him. 2/
Notwithstanding 1/
Pursuant to arrangements by the NRC Staff, the NRC Staff and Duke met at the home of Mr. Jesse L.
- Riley, 854 Henley Place, Charlotte, North Carolina on March 24, 1980 at 1:00 p.m.
to view a model constructed by Mr.
Riley.
2/
The cask mocel developed by Mr. Riley was a solid 16-inch long, 2 1/2-inch diameter steel cylinder with a small 5/16-inch diameter hole through its length.
To each end of this cylinder 3/4-inch thick pieces of pine were bolted as representations of the cask's impact limiters.
The cask pit was represented by a box-like angle iron structure approximately 1 cubic foot in volume..
Mr. Riley's model of the cask pit area was placed on the end of his porch with no connectors and the cask model placed vertically on one edge of the cask pit and allowed to tip towards the other edge.
The cask model struck the.other edge of the pit, rebounded, and slid over the outer portion of the pit model and off the porch.
l soo411ol M c
questions as to Mr. Riley's qualifications with regard to design and construction of such models, 3/ and the viability of the test itself, 4/ Applicant contends that such evidence is repetitive of evidence previously submitted, would result in undue delay, and is clearly a " pyramiding" of evidence on this issue contrary to the Board instructions.
On September 4, 1979, over one year after petitions to intervene were to have been filed, CESG raised the cask drop issue as a potential contention (Tr. 4091).
Over the Staff's and Applicant's objections, the Board exercised its discretion to grant CESG's request to amend its Contention No. 2 to incorporate the cask drop issue (Tr. 4182).
During the course of the hearing, however, the B'oard cautioned CESG that:
3/
Mr. Riley's statement of Professional Qualifications (CESG Exhibit 4) shows no evidence of crucial areas of expertise required to conduct such tests (e.g.,
construction and modeling).
Further, prior to this hearing, Mr. Riley had never performed any analysis 1
regarding a cask drop incident.
(Tr. 4465).
4/
The validity of the results of the test itself is questionable due to, inter alia, gross dif ferences in the response characteristics of the cask and pit materials and the materials used in the models, and significant differences in environmental conditions.
For example, there would be a significantly greater amount of energy absorbed by deformation if a hollow, steel-lined lead cylinder with a surrounding water jacket impacted a concrete pit wall, as would be the actual case, than if a hollow st, eel rod impacted a piece of steel angle iron, as was the case in the test.
Mr. Riley is being given lenience in not asserting a contention in a timely fashion, though he has been spared the necessity of showing the five points of tardy filing which, to be technical, we could probably require.
We don't wish to be technical.
Having according him that right, we're not going to keep dragging [ resolutions of the cask drop issue] on.
I made that statement yesterday and today.
(Tr. 4354).
CESG presented evidence which consisted of an explana-tion of an engineering analysis of the cask drop issue (CESG Exhibit 13) and the results of a scale-model test of a cask tipping incident (Tr. 4505). 5/
Applicant and Staff provided testimony on the issue.
During CESG's cross examination of Applicant witnesses, CESG sought to reserve the right to recall such witnesses after reviewing the, transcript of CESG's initial cross-examination.
The Board, noting CESG's attempts to delay resolution of this issue by " pyramiding" evidence, stated:
Well I don't think we can enter into bargains for piecemeal presentations.
If the opportunity presents itself and you have some matter you wish to go into, but I don't think we can keep on pyramiding the re-appearance of witnesses who are testifying.
(Tr. 4349).
5/
Specifically, Mr. Riley testified that to analyze the cask drop situation he had constructed a scale-model cask made of " dense wood" and a corresponding model of the " rest of the pit and fuel pool wall."
In each of the several tests he conducted with the models "the cask model continued to gyrate and fell into the hypothetical s
fuel pool."
(Tr. 4505).
We're tired of the pyramiding.
We think it's inefficient.
We think it's getting to the point of unfairness.
So we're not going to do any more pyramiding for the information, supplying of data or witnesses.
However, we will permit it this one instance because of the unusual circumstances that appear to prevail now.
(Tr. 4358).
At the conclusion of Applicant's and Staff's evidence in this regard, CESG sought to present rebuttal evidence discussing, inter alia, "the role of models" as an approach to analyzing the cask drop issue.
The Board rejected such attempt and stated:
Now, this is what I think I was appre-hensive about.
You're interminably dragging this out.
Each thing leads to another.
I've indicated that this is finite.
Now, in the first lace, your description s,eems to me to encompass matters that should have been included in your original direct testimony.
We're not going to keep chewing these things over, and then taking witnesses and going through it with them, and then seeking to rebut what we've led them into.
(Tr. 4498).
Now, CESG is again attempting to supplement the record with "information" which is in essence simply a further discussion of that already presented, viz., the test of a refined model produced exactly the same result as indicated in previous testimony (Tr. 4505). 6/
Applicant submits that-CESG is attempting to impermissibly bolster its evidence previously introduced.
Applicant maintains that intro-duction of such evidence would be unduly repetitive, s
6/
See fn. 5 supra.
and result in unwarranted delay from another cycle of
" pyramiding" examination and cross-examination.
- Further, receipt of this model would introduce collateral issues which question the appropriateness of the model.
- Thus, Applicant contends that admission of such evidence is inconsistent with the Commission regulations governing orderly hearings (e.g.,
10 CFR S2.718, S2.743, and S2.757),
previous rulings of the Board and judicial precepts (see Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence). 7/
I Due to the protracted nature of this proceeding, it is in the best interests of all concerned that the Board rule on this issue now, rather than at the hearing.
l 7/
See Slogen v. Dow Chemical Co. 375 F.2d 692 (8th Cir.
1967), wherein the Court in affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiff's request to recall one witness and introduce a new witness at the close of its case in chief noted that the issues were known to the plaintiffs and should have been offered when they presented their case in chief.
Thus the court stated:
The trial must end at some point, and, as with rebuttal testimony the trial judge has a positive duty to see that evidence is presented in an orderly manner, causing as little confusion as possible...the additional testimony would have probably introduced new and collateral issues, not only confusing the jury but no doubt, prompting defendants to respond with additional refuting evidence.
375 F.2d at 706.
See also Smith v. Conley 594 F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1978);
and Ilanrahan v. St. Vincent Ilospital 516 F.2d 300, 302 (8th Cir. 1975).
i i
In this regard, Applicant requests that the Board deny CESG's introduction of such evidence.
t Respectfully submitted, f
. Michael McGa y,'III DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Wachington, D.C.
20036 (292) 857-9800 April 1, 1980 Of Counsel W.
L.
Porter Associate General Counsel DUKE POWER COMPANY 4
5 3
u k
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
) Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Motion To Deny CESG's Introduction Of Further Evidence On The Cask Drop Issue,"
dated April 1,1980 in the above captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 1st day of April, 1980.
Marshall I.
Miller, Esq.
Mr. Jesse L.
Riley Chairman, Atomic Safety and President Licensing Board Carolina Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Study Group Commission 854 Henley Place Washington, D.C.
20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Regulatory Board Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal Commission Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Cadet H.
Hand, Jr.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Director Bodega Marine Laboratory William L.
Porter, Esq.
of California Associate General Counsel Post Office Box 247 Duke Power Company Bodega Bay, California 94923 Post Of fice Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 s
l l
l
.. Richard P. Wilson Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolina 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 David S.
Fleischaker, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Chairman, Atomic Safety and Council Licensing Board Panel 1735 Eye Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 709 Washington, D.C.
20006 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Docketing and Service Section Office of the Socretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 C/
l
.MichaelMcGarp,III
~
,