ML20054C690
| ML20054C690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1982 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Hand C, Linenberger G, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204210508 | |
| Download: ML20054C690 (3) | |
Text
April 16, 1982 Marshall Miller, Esq., Chairman Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Administrati',e Judge Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California s
P.O. Box 247 o
no Bodega Bay, California 94923 6'
5.
,, - ' N,S
.gf Y
@I In the Matter of C
United States Department of Energy D
p[q 3ecMM9 Project Manager Corporation Tennessee Valley Authority q,
S W T' I
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)
N Docket No. 50-537
Dear Administrative Judges:
The purpose of this letter is to inform the Board of the Staff's position regarding the applicability of aspects of NRDC, et al. Contentions 1, 2, and 3 to LWA hearings, as opposed to construction permit (CP) hearings.
The Staff wishes to affirm to the Board that the position on this matter which the Staff will advocate during the April 20, 1982 Prehearing Conference is essentially the same position taken by Staff counsel during the April 6, 1982 Prehearing Conference, at Tr. 442-43 and 445-49.
That is, the Staff believes that NRDC, et al. Contentions 1. a), 2. a) through c), 2 e), and 3 b) and c) are suitable for litigation in the LWA hearing for CRBR.
Contentions 1 b), 3. a) and d) are CP matters and should be postponed until the radiological health and safety hearing for the CP application.
The only modification to the Staff's earlier stated position relates to NRDC, et al. Contentions 2. d) and f) through g). Although the Staff had earlier stated that these subparts of Contention 2 are appropriate only for the CP hearing, the Staff upon further reflection submits that there are very limited aspects of these subnarts which would be appropriate for consideration at the LWA hearing.
Subpart d) deals with the design of the containment for the CRBR, which the Staff still submits is a matter suitable for consideration at a CP hearing.
However, the Staff in developing an assessment of its accident analysis for the environmental and site suita-bility reviews applies a leak rate assumption for the containment of CRBR.
This assumed leak rate is not site-specific, and is not keyed to a specific design. The Staff would agree that although the specifics of the CRBR proposed containment design are not appropriate for consideration at an LWA pso7 s
G204210508 020416 PDR ADOCK 05000537
/D G
.. hearing, it would be appropriate to litigate the reasonableness of the Staff's assumption; i.e. whether there is reasonable assurance that the state-of-the-art technology permits the design of a containment for a facility of the general size and type as the proposed CRBR which will have the leak rate design characteristic which the Staff assumes in its accident analysis. To this limited extent, subpart 2. d) is appropriate for con-sideration at the LWA hearing.
Similarly, subparts 2. f), g) and h) deal with design analysis which is for the most part inappropriate for consideration at the LWA stage. These subparts deal with the use of computer models and codes, and their input data and assumptions.
For its part, the Staff does not rely on any Applicant computer codes or models in deriving its environmental or site suitability source terms, nor do these models or codes enter into the Staff's accident analyses utili7ing these source terms. However, the Staff does utilize a computer code (e.g. the CRAC code), in assessing the health effects of an accident, utilizing population distribution, meteorology, and source terms specified for the CRBR. The use of this code and the input parameters (which are addressed specifically by other LWA contentions) would be appropriate for consideration at the LWA hearing.
The consideration of all other computer codes and models, which are used for the more site-specific design analyses, would be more appropriate for the CP stage.
The Staff has reviewed " Applicants' Statement of Position In Regard To NRDC Contention 1, 2, and 3,"
dated April 15, 1982, and considers the Applicants' clarification and specification of its position as to the categorization of issues 1, 2, and 3 to be consistent with the position as modified by this letter, taken by the Staff at the April 5-6, 1982 Prehearing Conference.
In other words, Contentions 1. a), 2. a) - c), and e), and 3. b) and c) are suitable for litigation at the LWA hearings, subject to the limitation that where design assumptions are made, the proper inquiry at the LWA stage is l
limited to whether the assumption is a reasonable one based on the state of technology, and whether a satisfactory design would add significantly to the environmental cost of the CRBR. This approach is similar to that which the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board took during the River Bend LWA hearings with respect to the consideration of radiological impact in light of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix 1.
Gulf States Utility Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-75-50, 2 NRC 419, 442 (1975).
Subparts 2. d) and f) through h) would be considered at the LWA stage to the limited extent specified above and in Applicants' Statement of Position at pages 17 and 18, 19.
Sincerely, Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff l
cc:
See Page 3
e
.,, cc: Alan Rosenthal, Esq.
Dr. John H. Buck William M. Leech, Jr.
William B. Hubbard Lee Breckenridge Oak Ridge Public Library William E. Lantrip, Esq.
Lawson McGhee Public Library Warren E. Bergholz, Jr.
Leon Silverstrom George L. Edgar, Esq.
Frank K. Peterson, Esq.
Gregg A. Day, Esq.
Thomas A. Schmutz, Esq.
Irvin A. Shapell, Esq.
Project Management Corporation Ellyn R. Weiss Dr. Thomas B. Cochran i
Barbara A. Finamore S. Jacob Scherr Mr. Godwin Williams, Jr.
Mr. Lochlin W. Coffey Eldon V. C. Greenberg Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Mr. Joe H. Walker DISTRIBUTION:
DTSwanson BWJones SETurk GSMizuno SATreby MSweeney MKarman Cunningham/Murray Christenbury/Scinto ELD FF (2) i Pleech RStark CThemas i
DMB-PDR/LPDR Chron mum
_ys why s ru C W.
.0FC
- 0 ELD
- 0 ELD l_____.___y-r_g___.____________.____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
NAME :Swarson/dkw :Treby ',
If 2
- 04/~l/82
'DATE :04/
/8 pSd 7
..