ML19330A102
| ML19330A102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1977 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Coufal F, Leeds J, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150868 | |
| Download: ML19330A102 (3) | |
Text
l
~
F April 8, 1977 Frederic J. Coufal, Esq.
Dr. Emeth A. Luebke lE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I=
U. S. lluclear Regulatory Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
?..
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
i.-
10807 Atwell
'r Houston, Texas 77096 p
,l F
In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 Gentlemen:
E One of the issues remanded by the Court of Appeals for the District of F
t Columbia Circuit in Nelson Aeschliman, et al. v. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Nos. 73-1776, 73-1876 (July 21,1976) was clarification of the letter issued on June 18, 1970 by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor b.
Safeguards (ACRS) regarding the Midland facility. The Court at page 20
('
of its opinion laid down the standard for the clarified ACRS letter:
g At a minimum, the ACRS report should have provided a short explanation, understandable to a layman, of the additional matters of concern to the com-j.:
mittee, and a cross-referenc.e to the previous p
reports in which those problems, and the measures L
proposed to solve them, were developed in more p
- detail, b
When the Licensing Board was reconvened in this proceeding, it returned b
l the original ACRS report to the ACRS for clarification in its Memorandum and Order of October 14, 1976.
In response to the Board's Order the ACRS issued a " Supplemental Report on Midland Plant Units 1 and 2" dated November 18, 1976.
Therein, the ACRS identified eleven items which were:
...those items referred to in its paragraph on "other problems related to large water reactors" t
which had been previously " identified by the Regulatory Staff and the ACRS," and which the Comittee considered applicable to the Midland s
Plant.
(Page 1 of the November 18, 1976 letter).
.lv orrec t e l
I o ta >
I e g ar, r.3)) AECM M60
@ u. s oovan=me e mt em= vine op ricts e sta.eas.ies r
8007150 767 g
The November 18 letter then went on to give a short explanation of each item and provided a cross-reference to those ACRS reports where the item was more fully discussed.
In the Staff's view, the November 18 letter complied with the Court of Appeals standard by providing the required clarification.
By letter dated January 28, 1977 to the ACRS, the Licensing Board raised three areas of comment on the November 18, 1976 response to the ACRS.
First, the Board desired further comment on a portion of the minutes of the 106th ACRS meeting dealing with the Midland Plants which had been inadvertently attached to the November 18, 1976 ACRS letter. Second, the Board wished to have a further explanation of some of the eleven issues in the November 18 letter. Third, the Board sought additional clarification of those ACRS letters cross-referenced in the November 18 ACRS letter because it believed that those letters contained ambiguities similar to those disapproved in Aeschliman.
In a March 16, 1977 letter by the ACRS to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the ACRS responded to these further requests of the Licensing Board. With regard to the first item raised by the Board, the ACRS pointed out at page 2 of its response that topics discussed during the ACRS review include many items of interest which do not evolve into matters of concern identified in the final ACRS report.
What we see in the meeting minutes is the deliberative process which leads to identification of items of concern which are then documented by the ACRS in its final report, and it is only this ACRS final report to which Aeschliman is directed. The Staff feels that the ACRS has properly responded to the Board's request in this first area.
Regarding the Board's second area of concern, further elaboration of the items identified in the November 18, 1976 letter, the ACRS is of the view that the November 18 response meets the Aeschliman standard and that any further elaboration sought by the Board should be sought from the Staff.
As noted above, the Staff believes that the November 18 response was legally adequate, and the Staff has r3ught from the first issuance of that letter to provide the record in this proceeding with l
amplification on each of the eleven items. At the November 30, 1976 hearing session at Midland, Michigan, the Staff distributed the testi-mony of itr. L. F. Crocker which addressed each of the eleven items.
Mr. Crocker testified on this subject on February 11 and February 15.
of this year in Chicago and was available for Board questioning. Addi-tionally, the Staff is preparing a supplenent to its Midland Safety Evaluation Report which will further discuss the items raised in the November 18 letter. This supplement will be available for the remand l
hearing.
1 one es
- s
..=.-s*
l Fom AIC..tts Gev. 94)) AECM 0240
%" u. s. oove== = s =v *=enve= 3 or rec ts s era.,as.s ee l
d Y". 7=
V i
With regard to the Board's third area of concern, that the cross-references to other ACRS letters might embrace additional problems L..
related to Midland, the ACRS responds that problems not identified in the llovember 18 letter were not considered applicable to Midland r,s during the ACPS review at the CP stage.
In short, all problems
=
relating to Midland at the CP stage have been identified. The Staff believes that the ACRS has properly responded to the Board's request y
in this third area.
In sur:rnary, the Staff feels that the March 16, 1977 ACRS response answers the first and third concerns raised by the Board. The Board's request for further elaboration of the eleven items identified in the llovember 18, 1976 letter should be realized through the Crocker testi-many and the supplemental SER.
If the Board requires additional information in these areas, the Staff will respond to any questions the Board may have, g.
Sincerely, Richard K. Hoefling e
Counsel for flRC Staff i'
I cc: liyron M. Cherry, Esq.
~
Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
lionorable Curt T. Schneider Ms. Mary Sinclair Harold F. Reis. Esq.
L. F. Nute Esq.
Mr. Steve Gadler F
R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing
[
~
Board Panel l
Atomic Safety and Licensing
~
j Appeal Panel o
Docketing and Service Section i
~:
A l
orPett >
$.09 _
/,,,,p,,r
. =. -. + -
oats **
E.......
Furt AIC.)l3 (Rev,9 93) AECM 0240 W u.s.sovs==estat pas =ve=a orricesso,4.sae.see
-.