ML20003F043
| ML20003F043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104200035 | |
| Download: ML20003F043 (2) | |
Text
.
h *[ 4
[p= uc oq UNITED STATES f i s-q j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s i,
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 21*
L3
-'6' 7
y 5 o3.
D.k p /g/
'% '{ /
APR 6 1931 v.c p
MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL
SUBJECT:
STAFF POSITION REGARDING APPLICANT'S MOTION ON SEISMIC ISSUE IN THE MIDLAND S0ILS MEETING The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of recent developments in the Midland Soils Hearing.
Background
On March 26, 1981 members of NRR and OELD met to discuss the staff position on the relevance of the seismic issue to the instant hearing on the Midland soils settlement. A list of attendees is attached. The seismic issue stems from the staffs concern during the OL review stage as to whether the design basis earthotske approved in 1972, when the CP was issued, remains adequate; since evidence for separation of the Central Tectonic Province into separate provinces (such as the Michigan Basin) has not been adequately supported.
At a second prehearing conference on the Midland soils matter on January 29, 1981, the NRC stated its belief that the establishment of suitable siesmic design input is relevant to the instant hearing (transcript 775-792). The applicants counsel indicated that this was inconsistent with verbal agreements he had achieved with Staff counsel, and argued that the matter was not relevant to the instant hearing. On March 18, 1981 Consumers filed " Applicant's Motion to Defer Consideration of Seismic Issues until the Operating Licensing Proceeding."
Proposed Staff Position with Resoect to Acolicant's Motion i
l At the staff meeting of March 26, 1981, OELD emphasized that the December 6, 1979 Order on which the instant hearing is based is directed to susoension in that it calls for suspension of certain soils related activities pendina issuance of an amendment to the cps (i.e., the issue of suspension does not require consideration of the adequacy of the remedy).
The applicanc apparently wishes to use the instant hearing as a basis for obtaining a ruling on the adequacy of the remedy, presumably from the Board even though the staff states in the Order that it did not receive crite.. ia needed to determine that the safety issues would be resolved by the remedy. Thus the applicant is considering the hearing to be a Modification hearing (i.e., Consumers would have the Board find that the fixes are adequate, or find that the Order is unjustified and therefore dismiss it).
It is only if the adequacy of the fix is to be considered that the seismic issue becomes relevant. The proposed staff position is that if the adequacy of the remedy is not relevant to the instant hearing, then it follows that the seismic issue is also not relevant.
I 8104200D
APR <
3 31 Carrell G. Eisenhut The basis of the proposed staff position recognizes that the staff does not have sufficient information to assess the adequacy of the fix and will not acquire the information to a schedule consistent with the hearing. The poten-tial delay in seismic resolution relative to the hearing schedule is discussed in the applicant's motion to defer, in which the applicant expresses its belief that (1) the staff will not have time to review and approve seismic input reports before a June 1981 hearing, and (2) that the seismic review of affected structures, equipment, piping and electrical systems cannot be com-pleted this year.
For the hearing to address adequacy would require a con-centrated effort which would be particularly acute to the NRC in the seismic area, and would impact higher priority work. Thus, the proposed position would reaffirm the basis for the initial order and limit the hearing to that basis.
The significance of the proposed position is that it in essence says that the hearing is limited to whether the suspension of soils activities should be upheld and that the issue of the adequacy of the remedy is not relevant to the hearing. This position is slightly different from our previous stance in that we had not definitely precluded the possibility of using the instant proceeding as a modification hearing.
By limiting the hearing, the proposed position would not immediately impact staff resources and priorities, in that the matter of the adequacy of the fix is left for a subsecuent staff review associated with issuance of a CP amendment. However, this impact would be felt at a later time during the CP amendment review. Moreover, it is highly probable that this separate process would itself be subject to a separate hearing in connection with issuance of that CP amendment.
We can discuss this matter at your earliest convenience.
ik e q
Ncs w n
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing l
i
APR 3 1931 ATTENDEES March 26, 1981 Meeting Re: Midland Soils Hearings DOE J.
ght R. Jackson L. Heller P. T. Kuo OELD W. Olmstead W. Paton E. Brown ILE E. Gallagher DOL D. Hood F. Miraglia l
l l
i l
l l
l l
l
_