ML20028B216
| ML20028B216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1982 |
| From: | Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211300176 | |
| Download: ML20028B216 (7) | |
Text
.... - -.. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lWISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155 (BigRockPointPlant) 1 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTICN FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL FROM INITIAL DECISION CONCFRNING CRITICALITY l
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff l
November 29, 1982 l
g E3IGnTD onIcInI, Ccrtified D7 SO SY 8211300176 821129 PDR ADOCK 05000155 C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-155 (Big Rock Point Plant)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL FROM IM:TIAL DECISION CONCFRNING CRITICALITY Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff November 29, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORtISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155 (Big Rock Point Plant)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TG LICENSEE'S F0 TION FOR IM EDIATE APPEAL FROM INITIAL DECISION CONCERNING CRITICALITY I.
INTRODUCTION On November 16, 1982, Consumers Power Company (Licensee) filed a
" Motion of Consumers Power Company for Immediate Appeal from Initial DecisionConcerningCriticality"(Motion). The Motion requested that the Appeal Board now entertain the Licensee's appeal from the " Initial Decision (Concerning Neutron Multiplication Factor)" (Decision) entered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on October 29, 1982, even though the Appeal Board by Order of October 4,1982, had tolled the time for filing exceptions to the Licensing Board's initial decisions until service of the last such decision in this proceeding.
For the reasons discussed below, the Staff supports the Licensee's request for an immediate appeal of the Licensing Board's Decision.
II. DISCUSSION l'
In its Decision, the Licensing Board found that the Licensee had not derronstrated that the neutron multiplication factor (k,7f) in the
' spent fuel pool will not exceed 0.95, under any conditions, including extremely low densities of water. Decision at 23. This was based on the Board's conclusion that it had not been established that there would always be water in the pool because of possible boil-off, as assumed in the calculations of k,ff by the Licensee.
Id. at 22-24. The Licensing Board ordered the Licensee, "within 60 days, to amend its petition so that the k,ff in its spent fuel pool will not exceed 0.95 under any conditions including extreme inw densities of water", and that the Staff review this amendment.
Id. at 24.
The Licensee maintains that the Licensing Board erred in issuing the subiect order in that it failed to consider a Commission-mandated remotely activated safety engineered makeup line to the fuel pool which would prevent a lack of water in the pool. Motion at 2-3.
The Licensee further maintains that its failure to comply with the Licensing Board's order in the October 29 Decision would probably lead to a denial of its license application without a detemination of the remaining issues in this pro-ceeding and to a subsequent appeal.
I_d. at 3.
The Licensee says that it is thus placed in a dilemma of undertaking what it views as a legally unnecessary, lengthy and expensive study to amend its application to show 0.95 k,ff would not be exceeded under any conditions or that it endure months of litigation delay upon probable denial of its license application should it fail to amend its application in accordance with the Licensing Board's order in its Decision.
_Id. at 4.
~
While the Staff takes no position at this time as to the merit of I
the Licensee's allegation of an error of law by the Licensing Board, the j
Staff does believe that the Licensee should have an opportunity to be heard l
by the Appeal Board at this time. The Licensee has shown a potential i
, i injury from the Licensing Board Decistor that it amend its application within60 days.1/ The reasoning in the Appeal Board Order of October 4, tolling the time for filing exceptions herein until the service of the last decision in this proceeding in order to avoid a " plethora" of appeals, would thus not seem germane.2/ The Appeal Board should permit the Licensee to now file its exceptions to the Licensing Board's Decision as the Licensing Board's decision threatens immediate injury.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Staff supports the Licensee's Motion for an immediate appeal of the Licensing Board's Decision.
Respectfully submitted, g
m RiddG. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff 5
y L
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of November,1982
~1/
The Licensee maintains that it wculd be injured by an extension of the next refueling outage at which time it is to off-load the full core in order to conduct a 10 year inspection of the reactor vessel.
2/
It is noted 61 litigation of the adequacy of the safety engineered t
makeup lir; to J.e fuel pool is scheduled to be litigated later in this p v h.itie The Order that the Licensee amend its application i,1 not be exceeded "under any conditions" seems to so thu. $h Lter proceedings and the possible affect of the line ignorean$
l Order, at 2.
-Cf. Appeal Board October 4 on the need for the ordered amendment.
l l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-155 (Big Rock Point Plant) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certity that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL FROM INITIAL DECISION CONCERNING CRITICALITY in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 29th day of November, 1982.
Thomas S. Moore, Esq.*
Dr. John H. Buck
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Christine N. Kohl, Esq.*
Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Administrative Judge Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale Appeal Board Panel Three Firs.t National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, D.C.
20555 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
- Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- John O'Neill, II Administrative Judge Route 2, Box 44 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Maple City, Michigan 49664 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Christa-Maria Route 2, Box 108c Charlevoix, MI 49720
2 Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. JoAnne Bier U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 204 Clinton Washington, D.C.
20555 Charlevoix, MI 49720 Atomic Safety and Licensing Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Board Panel
- Consumers Power Co.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 212 West Michigan Avenue o
Washington, D.C.
20555 Jackson, MI 49201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Jim Mills Appeal Board Panel
- Route 2, Box 108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Charlevoix, MI 48720 Washington, D.C.
20555 Herbert Semel, Esq.
Urban Law Institute of The Antioch School of Law 2633 - 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009
/
=
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff e