ML20010B299

Response in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Partial Initial Decision Re Issue of Sliding & Tilting of Proposed Spent Fuel Racks During Seismic Events.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20010B299
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	08/06/1981
From:	Marc-Anthony Murray ILLINOIS, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8108140335
Download: ML20010B299 (4)

Text

?

a

~

@ .b 1 pC $

V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g .y d }'h..a [,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 03 psgp - p

/ \

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O> oh In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-237-SP COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) . 50- >

) (Spent Fue O (Dresden Stations, Units 2&3) )

Modific .

~ t'lon)P}

N g ;4

]

p&i LjJ s INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO .- -8 APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR A i ,,,1 O I987 A C PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (f *' *8- Q'*j[grear .gj Although the Poard has reached a deci.sion on the 'kkup Q,>,yl;ticN have been litigated so far in this case, the issue of the sliding and tilting of the proposed spent fuel racks during seismic events-I has not yet been resolved. The Staff estimates that is may take four weeks or more to complete their review (assuming the

'gr.licant promptly provides the information' requested by the Staff) ,

but Applicant believes that the Staff's estimate is optimistic and it may take two months or more to resolve this issue.

The Board has invited comments and suggestions as to.what i

should be done in this proceeding.

I As of the date this Response was filed, Intervenor had only received the summary by Paul O'Connor of the June 30, 1981 meeting in Bethesda Maryland and the attached list of additional information requested by'the NRC. Thus, Intervenor does not have adequate knowledge of the relevant facts so as to be-able to comment at this 3

time on the sliding and tipping issue..

()(lou 8108140335 810806 PDR ADOCK 05000237

, o PDR7

s ..

s *

'Intervenor objects to Applicants Motion for a artial Initial Decision in this proceeding. There is no specific provision in NRC Rules and Regualtions for this type of a decision, and it certainly has not been the practice of Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards to issue partial decisions.

In Federal Courts, Applicant's Motion would be analagous to a Motion for Summary Judgment or a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (cee Rule 56 c', Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) . In either cc.ae, on the facts in this instance, such a motion would be denied, because for summary judgment to be granted, there must be "no genuine issue as to any material fact." (Emphasis supplied) .

That is clearly not the case in this proceeding; although as stated above, Intervenor has no specific knowledge of what the sliding and tipping issues are, there clearly are issues which have yet to be reviewed and resolved. _1/

Intervenor proposes that after

1) the Staff issues a supplenental safety evaluation;

2) Intervenor comments on that evaluation; and

3) the Board makes its determination whether this is a matter of " major significance to plant safety" requiring further hearings, the Board's Initial Decision shou'_ be issued. This procedure would be proper, and would not prejudice any party.

Intervenor appreciates Applicant's desire to know the results and contents of the Initial Decision as soon as possible,but the detriment.s of taking such a novel, unprecedented and unacceptable shor. cut far outweigh the benefits of knowing what the Board has decided so far.

1/ See Applicant's Motion for Partial Initial Decision, p. 2.

4 L Finally, Intervenor would again point out that as of the date of the first hearing, November 19, 1980, it was assumed that Applicant would be ready to proceed with the entire hearing and have ready for submittal all necessary documents associated therewith. It is clear that Applicant was in no such position, and even as of this date, does not have all proper analyses completed.

Applicant obviously was not ready to proceed with the hearing on the proposed spent fuel pool modification in November, and is still completing the steps necessary to be granted a license. Until all the evidence is submitted, the Board should not issue any type of Initial Decision.

Respectfully submitted, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TYRONE C. FAHNER Attorney General State of Illinois i

l BY: d F C'50'

i MUM WY' h '

Assi tant a dtorney Gene 2 1 Environmental Control Division s/

188 West Randolph Street V Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 793-2491 DATED: August 6, 1981

sg- .

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter Of Docket Nos. 50-237-SP

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-249-SP (S ent Fuel (Dresden Stations, Units 2 & 3) Modification) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenor's Response To Applicant's Motion For A TPertial Initial Decision in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by depositing in the United States mail, first class, postage pre-paid: -

John R. Wolf, Chairman Richard Coddard, Esq.

3409 Shepherd Street Office of the General Counsel Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Board U.S. NRC Dr. Forrest J. Remick Washington, D.C. 20555 305 E. Hamilton Avenue State College, Pa. 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board' Panel Phillip P. Steptoe, Esq. U.S. NRC Isham, Lincoln and Beale Washington, D.C. 20555 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Docketing and Service Section U.S. NRC Washington,! D.C. 20555 I l a lbh MAR 1 JO M : @\Y AlLUM V

Na DATED: August 6, 1981