ML20032D852
| ML20032D852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-FTOL, NUDOCS 8111180142 | |
| Download: ML20032D852 (4) | |
Text
_
j.o 00f.KETED-USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'81 NOV 16 M1:46 I
@~ S ;O{ F
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'j
~-
[*
C ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h?;[gfsihlN N NOV171984 $
DRANCH
\\d
">5 Na anwcu Before Administrative Judges:
~
'O g/)
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman SERVEDh0V s/ A Dr. George C. Anderson 161981
' S/
Ralph S. Decker
)
Docket No. 50-409 FTOL In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409 SC
)
Prov. Op. Lic. DPR-45 (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor,
)
Full-Term Operating License
)
and Show Cause
)
November 13, 1981
)
MEMORANDUM (Concerning Telephone Conference Call)
On Thursday, November 12, 1981, the Licensing Board initiated a telephone conference call to discuss several procedural matters with the parties.
Participating were all Board members, Mr. O. S. Hiestand for the Applicant and Ms. Colleen Woodhead for the NRC Staff.
The Board attempted, but was unable, to reach any of the representatives of CREC (Intervenor) but, because the matters under discussion were procedural inquiries directed at obtaining further information from the Applicant and Staff, in part regarding a Board-raised issue (see item 2 below), we determined we would complete the telephone call and thereafter record the information.
1.
In its October 5,1981 response (corrected on October 7) to the NRC i
Staff's amended motion for summary disposition, the Applicant had stated that it was preparing to file its own motion. We informed the parties that Ogo2 8111180142 811113
$0(
PDR ADOCK 05000409 g
.f.
~
we were in the process of considering the Staff's motion; but we inquired p
whether, and if so when, the Applicant planned to' file its motion. The Applicant advised that it was in the process of preparing affidavits for its motion and that the motion would be filed in the near future.
The Board stated that it would' await the filing of that motion, and. responses. of other parties to the Applicant's motion, before ruling on either the Staff's or Applicant's motion.
2.
In its Partial Initial Decision of February 24, 1981, LBP-81-7, 13 NRC 257, the Board had ruled that liquefaction was not a problem given a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) producing ground acceleration of up to 0.12g at the site. We had left open the question of whether an SSE producing ground acceleration greater than 0.12g was appropriate for the LACBWR site.
(and, hence, whether the potential for liquefaction resulting from such a higher earthquake must be taken into account at LACBWR).
Because of the low likelihood of occurrence of an earthquake producing greater than 0.129 ground acceleration (even if the SSE were ultimately deemed to be of sufficient magnitude to produce such acceleration), we permitted the reactor to continue operating for. a year or two until the remaining SEP issue could be resolved.
The Board's consolidation order of August 19,1981 (LBP-81-31, 14 NRC
) had required the NRC Staff to submit quarterly reports on the progress of the SEP seismic evaluation. We inquired whether the Staff had L
forwarded the quarterly report due October 1, 1981.
The Staff indicated that it had not done so but believed that its August 28, 1981 letter had 1
answered all of the questions which the Board desired answered through the r
I
6 j
_ e quarterly report.
The Staff also indicated that the SEP report referred to in that letter (which had been ' issued in June,1981) answered all the Board's questions concerning the magnitude of the SSE. That report had fixed the SSE as one producing ground acceleration of 0.11.
The Board, 9
however, had been expecting further Staff review of the SSE, inasmuch as the Staff's motion for consolidation (filed June 16,1981) had referred to a report on that subject to be filed by September 1,1981. The Board also indicated to the parties that the June,1981 Staff report referred to in the August 28, 1981 letter was not formally part of the record in this proceeding, that it merely represented the Staff's position and that, if we were to use it to resolve any of the liquefaction matters still open, the report would have to be either introduced into evidence or at least supplied under affidavit.
The Board called the parties' attention to testimony presented in another proceeding which might perhaps be pertinent in resolving the outstanding SSE question (and the effect of the SSE on liquefaction) in this proceeding.
That testimony divided the Central Stable Region into a number of smaller tectonic provinces.
If that were done, the relationship of the Tyrone SSE to La Crosse might be explained and the reason for the Board's t
raising the SSE question might no longer be extant.
The Board acknowledged that the outstanding SSE question might perhaps be resolved e~ither through this type of testimony or through the SEP report which had been referred to in the Staff's August 28 letter.
The Board further indicated, however, that if the SEP approach were to be used, we would require additional information concerning the regulatory acceptability of.using the probabilistic SEP
6
/
_ 4_
s pproach for resolving the oustanding SSE question.
In other words, has the Commission ever approved ure of probabilistic techniques alone to establish
~
an SSE? (As we understan'd it, the SEP seismic rev~iew is based solely on such probabilistic techniques.).
Finally, the Board ' stated that if the Staff were to adopt either of these approaches and supply the information under affidavit, all parties would be given a chance to respond, even though the outstanding seismic question concerning the size of the SSE and its effect upon liquefaction'had been raised independently by the Board. After receipt by the Board of any affidavits and responses, we will determine whether or not an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the outstanding SSE question.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h/&
h2Abw CharlesBechhoefer,Chpman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 13th day of November,1981.
i D
.-,,--y--wy
..yy.-,,7 e,
,,,mm,
,,,,,