ML20054K651

Response Supporting Applicant 820616 Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Notice of Hearing.Aslb Should Render Final Decision on Basis of Supplemental SER & ASLB Former Findings.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054K651
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	07/01/1982
From:	Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8207060020
Download: ML20054K651 (5)

Text

e 07/01/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3) 1 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF NOTICE OF HEARING .

I. INTRODUCTION On June 8, 1982 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") gave notice of a hearing in the captioned proceeding to be held on July 13, 1982 in Bethesda, Maryland. Pr.eties were instructed to present evidence on the issue of the spent fuel pool floors' ability during an earthquake to withstand the impact of thirty-three new high density storage racks.

On June 16, 1982, Comonwealth Edi:on Company (" Applicant") served upon the parties in this case a " Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Notice of Hearing" (" Applicant's Motion"). Applicant's position is that all litigated issues involved in its application of May,1978 were resolved by the Board in its " Partial Initial Decision" of September 24, 1981, and that the record in this proceeding is therefore closed and cannot be reopened absent the Board's exercise of its sua sponte authority under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.760a. Applicant's Motion at 3. Applicant further DESIGNATED ORIGINAL s,

B207060020 820701

. Certified 37 &)  %

DRADOCK05000g gg,7

contends that unless and until the Board makes a finding "that a serious safety . . . matter exists," as required under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.760a, no evidentiary session regarding this matter will be proper. M.at3-4.

Applicant requests that the Board render its final decision in this pro-ceeding without a hearing, or, in the alternative, that it give guidance -

to the parties as to which issues it would like to hear addressed, and the nature of the evidentiary presentation it desires. M. at 4.

II. DISCUSSION Applicant applied in May,1978 for pemission to install thirty-three high density storage racks in its spent fuel pools at Dresden Units 2 & 3. Hearings were concluded on all issues in controversy and pro-posed findings of fact were filed. Thereafter, the NRC Staff notified the Board that during its Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) review an issue had arisen requiring further evaluation concerning the ability of the spent fuel pool floor to withstand possible impacts from the thirty-three proposed spent fuel storage racks in the event of an earthquake. The Applicant then sought permission to install five new high density racks pending resolution of the structural issues in regard to the thirty-three racks. The Staff concurred that structural problems would not arise from the installation of five racks. (StaffAffidavitofAugust 13,1981).

On September 24, 1981, the Board issued a " Partial Initial Decision,"

14 NRC 708 (1981), in which it resolved all issues in controversy and further determined that the installation of five of the new racks would

pose no safety problem. It thereupon authorized installation of five of the thirty-three racks, with final action on the application to be taken upon completion of the Staff's analysis of the pool floor's capacity to withstand a seismic event with thirty-three racks.

The results of the Staff's analysis are contained in the Supplementary Safety Evaluation Report ("SSER"), copies of w ich were served upon all parties by mail on May 28, 1982. The SSER was based on an independent analysis of the pool structure (copies of which analysis were mailed to all parties on June 21,1982), on infomation submitted by the Applicant, and on an analysis performed for a similar plant, and concluded that the spent fuel pool, modified as proposed, is acceptable and satisfies regulatory requirements. SSER at 3.

The Staff's position, therefore, is that the SSER and the former findings of the Board on the issues in controversy provide sufficient bases for a final decision by the Board upon the application to amend the operating license to permit the installation of thirty-three new spent fuel racks, in the absence of any party establishing the need for further proceedings.

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff joins the Applicant in requesting that the Licensing Board render its final decision on the basis of the SSER and the Board's former findings. In the event that the Board decides to proceed with the scheduled hearing, the Staff requests

.