ML20049K025

Requests Witness Be Made Available for Deposition on Question of Impact of Drop of Overhead Crane on Spent Fuel Pool

ML20049K025
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	03/10/1982
From:	Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML20049K018	List: ML20049K017 ML20049K025
References
NUDOCS 8203290328
Download: ML20049K025 (3)

Text

.

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE

~

COUNSELCRS AT LAW i

1120 CCNNECTICUT Av(NUE. N W.. SGTI 840 WA$mh4TCN. O C 20034 CH3CAGC CFFICI (DwA80 5. :SMAM.

'4't #s02 202 8 4 9730 CNE FtRST NA*lONAL *LAZ4 RC8847 T LNCOLN 1872J489 CHtCAGO. ILUNCES 40eC3 WIWAM G B(alt. '845 1923 March 10, 1982 TtLt*~oNim msm TELfx 2.S2ss Janice Moore, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

Dear Janice:

The Licensing Board established a 30-day discovery period by its Order of March 1, 1982.

Specifically, discovery is permitted on the following " genuine issues of fact:"

Is the spent fuel pool safe from a rupture which might be caused by a drop of a spent fuel transfer cask or of the overhead crane?

As explained below, I wish to depose representatives of the NRC Staff on the question of the impact of a drop of the overhead crane on the Big Rock spent fuel pool.

It is my understanding that Consumers Power Company is, as a part of the seismic review under the SEP program, conducting an analysis using a site-specific response spectra with a zero period of acceleration of.11g to determine the effect of this excitation on the overhead crane.

This evalua-tion shculd be complete by the end of the month.

We, of intend to use the results of the analysis for develop-

course, ing testimony in responsc to the newly form' lated contention.

u We can expect that the Intervenors and the Licensing Board will challenge the selection of the "g" value.

The Inter-venors will assert it is inadequate.

The Licensing Board will require some support for its validity.

In the usual case, the utility establishes the "g" value for the site and then submits the evaluation and justi-fication therefor to the NRC Staff for its review and approv-al.

However, it is my understanding that this is not the-f [ h 05000 %

0 u

4 Janice Moore, Esquire March 10, 1982 Page 2 case for Big Rock.

Rather, the Staff, based on a report developed by its consultant, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, has established a "g" value of.llg for the midwestern region of the United States.

In this circumstance, my client has only very limited hearsay knowledge of the derivation, etc.,

of the Staff's "g" value being used at Big Rock.

Consequently, it is imperative, and I hereby re-quest, that the Staff "make available one or more witnesses designated by the Executive Director for Operations for.

deposition" regarding this matter.

I recognize that the EDO under section 2.720 has the discretion to select the witnes-ses; however, I suggest that a NRC Staff witness knowledgeable with respect to the LLL report be made available, as well as a similar person from LLL.

This~ approach should avoid the need for further depositions from named NRC witnesses because the proffered witnesses were unable to answer the questions ade-quately.

It is my opinion that the Staff has an obligation under the first sentence of subsection 2. 720 (h) (i) to make witnesses available pursuant to this request without the need to make the further showing required by the second sentence of s

the subsection.

Hence, I feel confident that the Staff will abide by the regulations without for.cing me to file a motion to compel with the Licensing Board.

Moreover, I am extremely interested in avoiding a squabble over this matter because the 30-day discovery period simply will not accommodate the delay attendant to such a dispute, I would also appreciate the EDO making a knowledge-i able witness available on the subject of the probability of i

light aircraft from Charlevoix Airport crashing into the Big Rock Point plant.

This analysis was performed by the Staff, and it is set forth in a safety evaluation (see pages 6-8 of SEP Topic II-1.C which is attached to Mr. Crutchfield's letter dated May 13, 1981, to Mr. Hoffman).

I recognize that tech-nically the Board did not allcw further discovery on the B-52 i

contention; however, if necessary, I believe I can persuade the Board to do so based on its expansion of the contention to i

include, for the first time, potential threats from light aircraft.

I am attaching a Notice of Deposition with this I

letter in order to satisfy the procedural niceties of Part 2.

s e

Janice Moore, Esgni're March 10, 1982 Page 3 m

However, i'f there are any problems, we can change the time,.

place, etc., for the deposition on a mutually convenient basis.

Thanks for your help.

' 5;incerely,

Joseph Gallo Enclosure JG/pm 4

-