ML20049H162
| ML20049H162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A457 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 ALAB-617, SECY-A-80-187, NUDOCS 8110300068 | |
| Download: ML20049H162 (9) | |
Text
r~-~
. -... ~... _. _ _....
> 'r W g.i. y J
a y' UNMED STATES i.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 28, 1980 SECY-A-80-187 INFORMATION REPORT
_n-ADJUDICATORY:
~
For:
The Commissioners From:
James A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel
Subject:
Review of ALAB-617 (Dairyland Power Cooperative)
Facility:
Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor Petitions For Review:
None
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of an Appeal Board deci-sion which, in our opinion, does not merit review.
Review Time Expires:
December 12, 1980 (as extended)
Discussion:
In ALAB-617, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licens-ing Board's decision authorizing issuance of a license amendment permitting expansion of storage capacity of the spent fuel pool at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor.
The Appeal Board found that the Licensing Board had correctly disposed of intervenor's contention's and had adequately resolved its sua'sponte questions on the basis of answers provided by the staff and applicant. 1/
1/
The Licensing Board accepted contentions en the following issues raised by the intervenor Coulee Region Energy Council (CERC) l g l regarding the densified storage of additional spent fuel for j l extended periods of ti=e: long-term integrity of the spent g
fuel pool; accelerated corrosion in stainless steel cladding;
-y]=
monitoring to identify defective fuel elements; encapsulation of defective spent fuel elements; problems in handling spent w lj n
fuel having compromised cladding; increased potential for mUyi I accidents resulting from two-tier racking; difficulty of
?ylif detecting problems in the lower tier of spent fuel racks; ij reduced level of water over the upper level of two-tier racks; Gjj.
increased occupational exposure from maintenance of a densified r
storage pool, increased risk of public hazard from accidental 3 2 8!
cask drop; and increased occupational expcsure from the storage
.0 3 ?l h RE of failed fuel rods.
Staff moved for summary disposition on these issues and provided affidavits by
'erts in the several
- j 6 pj 's 4 areas.
CREC filed no response.
However Licensing Board 7 y ~g g requested the parties to respond to quest sns regarding the contentions and other matters.
The additional issues covered VW %^m
) n - J '. ;
gI 1/
[ Footnote 1 will continue on following page.]
=
cC o CT:
D' ~
)
2 However, the Appeal Board retained jurisdiction
-over a ruling referred to it by the Licensing Board 2/ regarding that Board's jurisdiction to consider need for power in the context of a pro-ceeding on expansion of a spent fuel pool. 3/
The Appeal Board deferred ruling on the issue at this time because it will consider the same issue on an expedited basis in the separate pro-ceeding regarding expansion of the spent fuel pool at Big Rock Point.
In spite of this defer-ral, issuance of the license amendment will not be delayed because the Appeal Board also affirmed the Licesning Board's finding that power generated by Lacrosse will be needed at least until the end of 1982. 4/
I~Uefind As discussed above, v
II (Continued from preceeding page) by the questions were:
relation of containment building isola-tion to off-site dose from a fuel handling accident; water surface level in the transfer canal; and emergency measures to prevent or mitigate the consequences of fuel eelt caused by a loss of integrity of the spent fuel pool.
Applicant and staff filed answers to the Licensing Board's questions: CREC did not.
In addition, at a subsequent prehearing conference, CEEC stated that it had no further f actual information to off er.
The Licensing Board found that for each issue, the unchallenged caterial before it provided an adequate response to CREC's contentions and the Board's questions.
2/
2/
The Licensing Board rested its jurisdictional holding on the fact that Lacrosse has never been the subject of a full environmental review.
SI The Licensing Board conducted an evidentiary hearing on this issue and subsequently determined that CREC's own estimate of decand growth showed a need for power from Lacrosse.
Con-sideration of the need for power beyond 1982 will be explored in the concurrent proceeding on an application for a full-term operating license.
J
r 3
& commendation:
n f
t J aes A. Fitzgerald assistant General Counsel
Attachment:
ALAB-617 DISTRIBUTION Cormissioners Cormission Staff Offices t
Secretariat i
i i
5/
This paper has been issued as an adjudicatory information item because the General Counsel considers this to be a matter of minor significance.
i W
\\ WI i e 1
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA P
(g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION enfp; 01
$ cm$ *4 g %
h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
.7 s
g Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles 4
6 Thomas S. Moore Eq
)
OCr80,SEO In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409 SFP
)
(La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
)
MEMOP.ANDUM AND ORDER October 29, 1980 (ALAB-617) i i
This is a proceeding on the application of the Dairyland i
Power Cooperative for an amendment to its provisional operating license for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor.-1 The sought amendment would per:J.t an expansion of the storage capacity of the facility's spent fuel pool.
In response to the notice of opportunity for hearing on the application, a successful peti-i tion for leave to intervene and request for a hearing was filed by the coulee Region Energy Coalition.
l/
There is also a pending proceeding involving the conver-sion of the provisional operating license to a full-term i
license.
That proceeding is not now before us.
2 9,
0s x
8011040 %
ik g_._
x
?
Over the objection of both the applicant and the NRC staff, the Licensing Board concluded that it had the jurisdiction to determine in this spent fuel pool proceeding whether there was a present need for the power generated by the La Crosse facil-ity.
Accordingly, the Board held an evidentiary hearing with l
respect to the need-for-power question.
On January 10, 1980, the Licensing Board rendered its initial decision, in which it authorized the issuance of the license anend=ent subject te certain conditions.
In the course of the decision, the Board (1) sum-narily resolved (in the applicant.'s favor) each of. the safety and environnental contentions advanced by the Coalition; (2) de-termined ' that there was no need for a hearing on certain safety questions which the Board had raised sua sponte; (3) detailed the foundation for its conclusion that it pcssessed jurisdiction to censidar the need-for-power question; and (4) on the basis of its analysis of the evidentiary record, found that La Crosse-generated power would be needed at least until. the end of 1982.-2/
-2/
3e Board noted that the question of the need for that power after 1982 would be explored in the concurrent full-ter= operating license proceeding (see fn. 1, supra).
11 NRC at 77-78.
i b
4 *
. l r
At the end of the decision, and in accordance with a previ-ous oral commitment to do so, the Licensing Board referred its ruling on the jurisdictional question to us under 10 CFR 2.730 (f).
In addition, in the wake of the decision, the staff filed an l
I exception directed specifically to one of the underpinnings of the Board's determination that it was empowered to consider the need-for-power issue.
The Board's findings on the merits of that issue, however, have not been challenged by any of the i
parties.
Nor have exceptions been filed to any other portion of the initial decision.
1.
Our preliminar( examination of the initial decision gave rise to substantial doubt whether the need existed to re-view the Licensing Board's jurisdictional ruling.
To begin with, that ruling appeared to be quite academic insofar au this proceeding was concerned.
The Board had gone ahead and held the hearing on the present need for La C csse-generated power.
It had then found the pcwer to be needed.
That ultimate find-ing had been seemingly accepted by all of the_ parties; at least none of them had seen fit to except to it.
Beyond that, as the Licensing Board had nade clear, the 1
jurisdictional ruling had rested upon the peculiar circu= stances I
of the case; more particularly, the fact that La Crosse had not I
j previously received a full environmental review either in con-nection with its receipt of a provisional operating license (in July 1967, well before the enactment of the National En-vironmental Policy Act) or otherwise.
See 11 NRC at 65, 67 I
el sec.
This being so, we were uncertain as to the extent to which the ruling might have prospective precedential i=portance.
Before we had the opportunity to come to any definite conclusion in that regard, our attention was brought to the fact that a related question had been raised in another spent fuel pool capacity expansion proceeding, similarly involving a I
reactor which had been licensed for operation many years ago j
1 and thus had not undergone a NEPA review.
In the Matter of f
Consumers Pcwer Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), Docket t
No. 50-155.
Accordingly, we decided to withhold action on the r
referral and exception here to await the Licensing Board's ruling in Big Rock Point.
That ruling was handed down on September 12, 1980.
LBP-80-25, 12 NRC Although perceiving there to be certain factual distinctions between the case before it and this one, the Big Rock Point Board reached a parallel, although broader, result:
it held that the staff must prepare an environ = ental l
impact statement " covering the environr. ental impacts of an 1
)
f
)
S-i expanded spent fuel pool and the additional term of operation of the facility that such expansion would permit".
12 NRC at (slip opinion, pp. 18-19).
In this regard, the Board ad-mitted to the proceeding an intervenor's contention which sought to put in issue, inter alia, the need for the pcwer to be generated by the Big Rock Point facility.
Id. at (slip j
opinion, pp. 1, 19).
In ccmmon with the La Crosse Licensing Board, the Big Rock Point Board referred its ruling to us.
Id. at (slip opinion, p. 19).
Because, unlike the situation in La Crosse, the Big Rock Point ruling had an ir=ediate and significant practical effect, we promptly accepted the referral and established a briefing schedule which extends into early 4
December.
September 12, 19 80 order (unpublished).
2.
Pending the outcoce of our consideration of the re-ferred ruling in Bic Rock Point, it appears prudent to con-tinue to withhold action on the referral and exception at hand 1
in the present case.
But no good reascn exists also to leave for later announcement the fruits of this Board's already com-i pleted review sua sponte of the resolution belcw of the other i
matters addressed in the January 10, 1980 initial decision.
I f
4
i f L 4
l We are persuaded on that review that the Licensing Board's su= mary disposition of the Coalition's contentions was not in-fected by any error requiring corrective measures on our part.
Further, we are satisfied with the Board's analysis and treat-4 cent of the answers provided by the applicant and the staff to the questions which it had raised on its own initiative.
Final-1 ly, assuming (without deciding) that the need-for-power inqui_7
)
was within the Board's. authority, the ultirate finding on that issue is sufficiently supported by the record and therefore should not be disturbed.
For the foregoing reasons, the result reached in the January 10, 1980 initial decision, LBP-80-2, supra, is affir=ed.
This Board will nonetheless retain jurisdiction over the referred ruling, and the staff's exception related thereto, pending our further order.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.
Ad C. JQ n Bishop
\\
Secretary to the Appeal Board j