ML20032B787
| ML20032B787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1981 |
| From: | Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111060321 | |
| Download: ML20032B787 (6) | |
Text
_____ _ ___ _ ___ _
' I M*'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8,\\
00tKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION US F l[
'y-Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa'd L
T i
T1 NOV -3 P3:01 f;.110VO 5198; $
... ~Wl%)rM
~
\\^h
}
CFYRE b [ Mat,ter of
)
QOchETi!,lG 4 SEP! L
)
h WISCON' SIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266 p
)
50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
) (OL Amendment)
Units 1 and 2)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO DECADE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I.
Introduction
" Decade's Request For Reconsideration of [the] Board's October 13, 1981 Memorandum and Order" was filed October 26, 1981, and received by counsel for Licensee on the morning of October 27, 1981.
By that motion, Decade seeks reconsideration of the Board's ruling rejecting Decade's proposed Contention 6.
Licensee opposes Decade's motion as late and without merit.
l l
II.
Discussion l
The Board's October 13, 1981 " Memorandum and Order Concerning l
The Admission of A Party and Its Contentions"
(" Memorandum and Order")
expressly provided that any requests for reconsideration of that order were to be filed within five days after service of the order, except that the Staff was permitted to make its filing within ten days after service.
Even assuming that Decade was served with the Board's October 13, 1981 order via first class mail, Decade's motion for reconsideration was due -- at the latest -- on October 23, 1981.
Decade did not, to Licensee's knowledge, r6 quest an extension of time to file its motion.
Nor has Decade even attempted to make any show-ing of good cause for failure to timely file its motion.
In fact, 8111060321 811102 p%ppl.\\
PDR ADOCK 05000266 G
. i Decade has yet to acknowledge that its request far reconsideration was filed out of time.
Accordingly, the Board should decline to l
reconsider its ruling on Decade's proposed Contention 6.
However, even if the Board should determine to reconsider i
its ruling, Decade's motion should be rejected as meritless.
1 Decade's proposed Contention 6 asserted that sleeving wculd " reduce l
the flow of primary core cooling water and the cooling capacity of the core under various accident scenarios to an extent not bounded i
i in previous safety analyses."
In ruling that proposed Contention 6 is inadmissible in this proceeding, the Board wrote:
First, we note that WE is already permitted to plug degraded sleeves.
The safety of plugging is not open to question in this amendment proceeding because it is already permitted.
Since WE is merely asking to sleeve tubes which it could already plug, the amendment does not permit it to restrict cooling capacity.'
In addition, as WE points out, it is not permitted to reduce coolant flow below the minimum level provided in its Technical Specification.
Consequently, the sleeving program does not waive en: otherwise reduce cooling flow requirements i
and this contention is not admissible as an issue because it fails to be relevant to the pending amendment.
Memorandum and Order, at 6.
Decade's motion mischaracterizes and oversimplifies the Board's ruling.
First, Decade erroneously asserts that the Board, in rejecting I
Decade's proposed Contention 6, assumed that "only those tubes which
)
would otherwise be plugged will be sleeved."
The Board made no such assumption.
The Board simply observed that a license amendment is necessary only to operate with tubes sleeved which would otherwise be required to be plugged; i.e., for example, that no amendment is I
.-~,.,,.._.-_.,,,._,_.-.._-,_..--___-,._,..m_,m,
,, -. ~ - ~,,. -
_.,,,_m.mv.,-.-_.-
. required to authorize operation with the up to six tubes which have not reached the " plugging limit" but which are nonetheless being sleeved as a part of the sleeving demonstration program.
Second, Decade, in its motion, has failed to address the linchpin of the Board's ruling -- its observation ' hat the pending amendment will not permit Licensee to reduce coolant flow below the minimum level currently specified in its Technical Specifications.
Thus, while the concern which Decade expressed in its proposed Contention 6 might be litigable at some point in the future, should Licensee seek to modify its Technical Specifications to decrease the specified thermal design flow, the concern is -- as the Board ruled -- irrelevant to the operating
- /
license amendment pending before this Board 7 Therefore, even if the Board should reconsider the merits of'its ruling on proposed Contention 6, its ruling should not be altered.
III.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Licensee opposes reconsidera-tion of the Board's ru:.ing on proposed Contention 6.
However, even if the Board shou'ld reconsider the merits of its ruling, Contention 6
- /
- Unlike the San Onofre case which Decade cites in its motion, Licensee has not requested permission to decrease core coolant flow bayond the limits currently specified in the Point Beach Technical Specifications.
~
., w 1 1 was properly rejected as irrelevant to the instant proceeding.
j Accordingly,." Decade's Request For Reconsideration of [ thel Board's October 13, 1981 Memorandum and Ord'er" should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, l
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE t
4 s
B Mruce hWEurchill -
Delissa A. Ridgway l
Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
- Washington, D.C.
.20036 (202) 822-1000 3
Dated:
November 2, 1981
'I l
4 e
i i
i e
4 e
pe-t'sw-*rmww,.-,.,-w.---
y.%-.wme,,--u-,-,,,.caremm,e wr. - w,.w we,---c-,yv-,
...yg..,s-sp.,%-,-p...,ygsyg-ww,--,,-,.ewy y y c, -- c -,, v -
m or y-wr yw~ e-,,rwr,
r' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY ".CMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266
)
50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
) (OL Amendment)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
l I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response To Decade Motion For Reconsideration" dated November 2, 1981, were served upon those persons on'the attached service list, by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 2nd day of November, 1981.
011h2L f_
'DolissaA(Ridpad
(
Dated:
November 2, 1981
V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
WISCONSIN -ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-266
)
50-301
.(Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
(OL Amendment)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Charles A.
Berth, Esquire v
Peter B.
Bloch, Chairman Office of the Executive
" Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Commission Washington, D."C."
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Kathleen M. Falk, Esquire-Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Wisconsin's Environmental 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Decade ll4. North Carroll Street' Suite 208-Dr. Jerry R. Kline-Madison, Wisconsin 5 37 v.5 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Stuart A. Treby, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Com:hission Legal D.trector Washington,.D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic. Safety and Licensing Wa g
D.C.
20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel O'. S. Nuc2 ear Regulatory Co:mnission Washington, D.C..
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary,
U'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission Washington, D.C.
20555
.