ML20032E674
| ML20032E674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1981 |
| From: | Grossman P, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | BIER, MILLS, CHRISTA-MARIA, ET AL |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8111200798 | |
| Download: ML20032E674 (5) | |
Text
i
\\;
3 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ^
Before Administrative Judges:
ObhMYifIGjCgTAg'r S
Herbert Grossman, Chairman BRANCH Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon S b
,8
)
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-155-0LA 3
)
(S "t
el Pool
~
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY E3 NOV191981*
a
)
m esse r**
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
)
October 28, 1981 g
,d MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
,cp (Denying Intervenors' Motion To Require Staff To Answer Interrogatories 59 and 61)
On September 11, 1981, Intervenors' Christa-Maria, Mills and Bier filed their " Motion to Require Staff to Answer. Interrogatories" (Intervenors' Motion) in which they asked this Board to require, pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(f)(1), 6 2.740b, and 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii), that the NRC Staff answer interrogatories numbered 59 and 61 in a list of 64 interrogator les previously filed.
Intervenors also requested that we defer ruling on the other interrogatories on that list until after they file a motion aimed at obtaining the same information from the Licensee. They have since done so, and the other parties have replied.
We here deny the Intervenors' Motion to the extent that it deals with interrogatories 59 and 61. We will treat the other interrogatories in a separate order.
41 Y
9 t,0Q 8111200798 811028
{DRADOCK 05000155 PDR
'log i -
The Staff answered Intervenors' Motion on October 1, 1981. On September 25, 1981, Licensee filed " Consumer Power Company's Reply to Motion 'to Require Staff to Answer Interrogatories"; that Reply, however, dealt in essence only with the portion of Intervenors' Motion which we do not address here, viz, the portion concerning interrogatories to Licensee.
Interrogatory 59 This interrogatory reads as follows:
- 59. To what extent did the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affect the spent fuel pool there?
a.
If there had been an explosion or meltdown on TMI, what would the effect on the spent fuel pool have been?
b.
What would the effects of such an accident have been on a spent fuel pool containing the number of fuel assemblies proposed by Licensee for Big Rock Point?
Intervenors assert (Intervenors' Motion at 3) that this in-terrogatory relates to their Contention 8, which reads:
I "The occurrence of an accident similar to TMI-2 which l
would prevent ingress to the containment building for an extended period of time would render it impossible to maintain the expanded spent fuel pool in a safe con-dition and would result in a significantly greater risk to the public health and safety than would be the case if the increased storage were not allowed."
The regulations state that, in order for us to require the Staff to answer interrogatories, we must find that:
1.
Such answers are necessary to a proper decision and 2.
The answers are not reasonably obtainable from any other source (n 2.721(2)(ii)).
l
1%
These requirements are, of course, in addition to the general relevancy requirements of f 2.740(b)(1).
Staff argues that Interrogatory 59 satisfies neither condition of the two-pronged test above. As to the first condition the Staff notes that the effect of the THI accident (or a more extensive hypothetical accident in the TMI reactor) on the TMI pool has no bearing on the matter of ingress here, since the TMI pool is not in the containment building, as this pool is. Nor does the effect at TMI for a pool containing the I
number of elements proposed for Big Rock Point have a bearing on this case. We agree.
Indeed, it may be that the interrogatory does not satisfy even the much less rigid relevance requirements of s 2.740. The Intervenors' Motion did not even address this first requirement.
Having failed to meet the first condition, Interrogatory 59 need not even be tested against the second, but we note that.here, too,-the Staff's argument seems convincing. Staff even cites material in NRC Issuances where much of the information may be obtained.
i Interrogatory 61 Interrogatory 61 reads as follows:
1
- 61. Following TMI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) promulgated certain "backfit" requirements designed to reduce the potential cf TMI-type events. Which of these "backfit" requirements apply to Big Rock Point and the operation of the spent fuel pools?
a.
What changes in the operation, maintenance and construction of the reactor, the spent fuel pool or their component parts and the reactor control room at Big Rock Point are required in order for Consumers Power Company to comply with these requirements?
b.
How long will it take to make these changes?
is c.
Does a schedule for these modifications exist, and if so, what is it?
d.
Explain in detail what each of the changes applicable to Big Rcck Point are designed to accomplish.
e.
What effect would -failure to make the required changes have on the potential for a TMI-type accident occuring at Big Rock and the level of radiation released during such an event?
f.
Will failure to make such changes increase the possibility of such an event occurring at Big Rock?
g.
Is Consumers Power exempt from any or all_of these changes or modifications? If so, which ones and why?
h.
What is the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRE)[-sic]? '
- i. When will the review of the PRE [ sic] be completed?
- j. Has the NRC waived any of the backfit requirements basedonthePRE[ sic]?
k.
Have the projections in the PRE [~ sic] been approved or substantiated by the NRC:
Explain.
1.
Has the NRC relied in any way on the PRE [ sic] in reviewing the Consumers Power Company license amendment to expand the spent fuel pool at Big Rock Point, or in the preparation of any environmental documents on the amendment?
Intervenors assert that this interrogatory also pertains to Contention 8, and to O'Neill Contention VI, a general safety con-tention withdrawn under an agreement that would permit its re-assertion with greater specificity after discovery.
Staff points out that the interrogatory seeks information only on post-TMI requirements, and on the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA),
without showing how either of these matters relate to Contention 8. As with Interrogatory 59, above,'we see no nexus to ingress after an accident.
As to O'Neill Contention VI,- that contention relates to exemptions from
\\
s, - regulatory requirements and, since the matters in Interrogatory 61 are not regulations, the interrogatory could not bear upon that contention.
Staff also notes that much of the information sought is available from-other sources, citing NUREG-0737 and the PRA produced by Licensee as sources.
We again must agree with the Staff. The interrogatory'.s relevance to the cited contentions is at best peripheral.
The information is ap-parently available through other sources. We will not require answers.
We wish, however, to express one caveat:
If the case against Con-tention 8, as finally developed by the Staff, hinges in major part upon the notion that a TMI-type accident has been made so improbable that its consequences for the expanded fuel pool can be. ignored, we may later need to permit some discovery along the lines of Interrogatory 61.
For all of the foregoing reasons.and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 28th day of October, 1981 ORDERED That the motion of Intervenors Christa-Maria, Mills and Bier to require Staff to answer Interrogatories 59 and 61 is denied.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
M(
Oscar H. Paris ADMIN ATIVE J1JD
/ /
luC '4,W FrederiG Js o'n~
ADMINISTRATf,E JUDGE
/
Herbert Grossman Chairman ADMINISTRATIVEJ0DGE Bethesda, Maryland October 28, 1981