ML20054L554
| ML20054L554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1982 |
| From: | Semmel H ANTIOCH SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON, DC, BIER, MILLS, CHRISTA-MARIA, ET AL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207080235 | |
| Download: ML20054L554 (12) | |
Text
,
W
~
/
4
'8/
22 JUL 61982 P dI 6-otticeoteeS T'/
DocketIDE EE s
Branch BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
s mdV my In the matter of Docket No. 50-155-OLA Consumers Power Company (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD REQUEST FOR MOTION REGARDING REBUTTAL WITNESS ON CRITI-CALITY CONTENTION Intervenors submit that they have the same right as other parties to present rebuttal witnesses at the end of the hearing.
Accordingly, no motion for leave to present reb'uttal witnesses should be required of Intervenors.
However, if the Board imposes such a requirement, this response also constitutes such a motion on behalf of Intervenors.
The necessity for rebuttal testimony on the issue of criticality is apparent from the record in the hearing.
In l
both the applications filed by Licensee in 1979 and the affidavit of Dr. Kim on summary disposition, Dr. Kim's 1
calculation came to the maximum pc:" esible value of 0-95.
In each of the calculations,.-;. Kim used on a conservative basis the value of 0.0044 for steam void.
This figure assumed steam void along the full length of the fuel rods.
Throughout
/
this period (1979-81) Dr. Kim knew that Dr. Prelewicz calculated B2070B0235 B20701 PDR ADOCK 05000155 7
l PDR
&3<[7 C
q
4
' actual steam void only at the top 0.276 inches of the rods.
It was only when this Board's order in February 1982 made it clear that the criticality computation would exceed 0.95 if increased to take into account a higher boiling temperature that the value for steam void was recomputed and determined to be negligible.
Dr. Kim's May 1982 testimony claims that his earlier use of the full length of the rods in the steam void calculation was " overly conservative."
It is apparent that rebuttal testimony is needed to a full exploration of the issue and to determine whether the last minute change to a calculation based on steam void only at the very top of the fuel rods is actually a conservative assumption.
Rebuttal testimony is also needed regarding the assumption on which all of Dr. Prelewicz's calculations are based, namely that water entering the bottom of the fuel cans will not exceed 212*.
This assumption is based on Dr. Gay's simulated computer model which, by his own admission, has not been verified and is experimental.
In this regard, it should be noted that the Board permitted Dr. Gay to testify at the hearing for Licensee even though he did not pre-file any written testimony.
Rebuttal testimony is also required concerning the proper boiling temperature to be used in computing criticality.
The Board's order of February 1982 indicated'247 F was a proper temperature but Licensee ignored this in its calculations.
Dr. Prelewicz claimed the maximun temperature was 237'F.
He then averaged that temperature against his assumed water entry temperature of 212*F.
Dr.'Kim then used the
" average" of 224.5*F in his calculations.
These issues virtually demand additional testimony..
The Board should bear in mind that it was Intervenors who first pointed out the errors in the calculations which the Board recognized in its February 1982 order.
To stiffle rebuttal testimony may cover up other such errors.
The stipulation between the parties concerning the presentation of witnesses, approved by this Board, clearly allows rebuttal testimony at the close of testimony on all issues.
The fact that the hearing was bi-furcated, over the objection of Intervenors who moved to postpone the hearing, should not deprive Intervenors of this right to present rebuttal testimony.
The bi-furcated hearings were the direct result of Licensee going over the head of members of Staff assigned to the Big Rock Point Plant to prevent them from requesting a postponement of the hearing.
Intervenors are seeking an expert who would be willing to testify without fee.
As soon as one is found, Intervenors intended to file written rebuttal testimony, even though written rebuttal testimony is not required.
Intervenors are willing to agree that the written testimony will be filed at j
least twenty days prior to the resumption of the hearings, provided other parties are also required to do so.
8
l CONCLUSION For the reasons seE forth above, Intervenors are entitled to present rebuttal testimony on criticality when the hearings
- resume, i
Respectfully Submitted, Herbert Semmel Attorney for Intervenors Christa-Maria, Mills and Bier Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 265-9500 b
e t
o
~
r i
1
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was served on the attached list on the 1st of July, 1982 by delivery to the Office listed thereon or by U.S.
Mail, first class, postage prepaid.
r
?
Herbert Semmel i
i l
i t
i 1
.. - - + -.., - -
- - - ~ - - - -
9 Y
(
y
~
Ate.ic Safety and Licensing JerspF Ca'~n, Esquire
-5:ard Panel Ishe, Lintn3n and Beale 3
U.S. Nucle a r Regulatory 1120 Cohnecticutt' Ave, N.W.
C orr.. s s i e n Suisc 325 Wa s..ing te n,
D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 i
Peter B..Bloch. -
Esq., Chairman I
Atomic Safety and Licensing
'h' '
, }?
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- 9-
' ' N; Commission i
Washington D.C.
20555 l
if.
1
.c Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing
{
~
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Decketing and Service Section Commission of fice of the secretary Washington D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulato:y corr.ission Mr. Fredrick J. Shon Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing John O'Neill, II Bohrd Panel Routs 2, Box 44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Haple City, MI 49664 Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Richard Good C ouns e l f o r b,qqd S t a.j,
n.
U.S. Nucle a r Re gulatorf Corr.i s s i.o n nashington, D.C.
20555
.,u, j
y-tu,, W.,.n.,M N;-..@. N 3 N
(.
u
~
I t
g i.
e S.
s.<
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND L'ICENSING BOARD In the matter of Docket No. 50-155-OLA Consumers Power Company (Spent Fuel Pool Modification) l (Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD REQUEST FOR MOTION REGARDING REBUTTAL WITNESS ON CRITI-CALITY CONTENTION Intervenors submit that they have the same right as other, parties to present rebuttal witnesses at the end of the hearing.
Accordingly, no motion for leave to present reb'uttal witnesses should be required of Intervenors.
However, if the Board imposes such a requirement, this response also constitutes such a motion on behalf of Intervenors.
The necessity for rebuttal testimony on the issue of criticality is apparent from the record in the hearing.
In both the applications filed by Licensee in 1979 and the affidavit of Dr. Kim on summary disposition, Dr. Kim's calculation came to the maximum permissible value of 0-95.
In each of the calculations, Dr. Kim used on a conservative basis the value of 0.0044 for steam void.
This figure assumed steam void along the full length of the fuel rods.
Throughout this period (1979-81) Dr. Kim knew that Dr. Prelewicz calculated I
actual steam void only at the top 0.276 inches of the rods.
It was only when this Board's order in February 1982 made it clear that the criticality computation would exceed 0.95 if increased to take into account a higher boiling temperature that the value for steam void.was recomputed and determined to be negligible.
Dr. Kim's May 1982 testimony claims that his earlier use of the full length of the rods in the steam void calculation was " overly conservative."
It is apparent that rebuttal testimony is needed to a full exploration of the issue and to determine whether the last minute change to a calculation based on steam void only at the very top of the fuel rods is actually a conservative assumption.
Rebuttal testimony is also needed regarding the assumption on which all of Dr. Prelewicz's calculations are based, namely that water entering the bottom of the fuel cans will not exceed 212*.
This assumption is based on Dr. Gay's simulated computer model which, by his own admission, has not been verified and is experimental.
In this regard, it should be noted that the Board permitted Dr. Gay to testify at the hearing for Licensee even though he did not pre-file any written testimony.
Rebuttal testimony is also required concerning the proper boiling temperature to be used in computing criticality.
The Board's order of February 1982 indicated *247*F was a proper temperature but Licensee ignored this in its calculations.
Dr. Prelewicz claimed the maximun temperature was 237*F.
He then averaged that temperature against his assumed water entry temperature of 212 F.
Dr. Kim then used the
~
J
" average" of 224.5*F in his calculations.
These issues virtually demand additional testimony.
The Board should bear in mind that it was Intervenors who first pointed out the errors in the calculations which the Board recognized in its February 1982 order.
To stiffle rebuttal testimony may cover up other such errors.
The stipulation between the parties concerning the presentation of witnesses, approved by this Board, clearly allows rebuttal testimony at the close of testimony on all issues.
The fact that the hearing was bi-furcated, over the objection of Intervenors who moved to postpone the hearing, should not deprive Intervenors of this right to present rebuttal testimony.
The bi-furcated hearings were the direct result of Licensee going over the head of members of Staff assigned to the Big Rock Point Plant to prevent them from requesting a postponement of the hearing.
Intervenors are seeking an expert who would be willing to testify without fee.
As soon as one is found, Intervenors intended to file written rebuttal testimony, even though written rebuttal testimony is not required.
Intervenors are willing to agree that the written testimony will be filed at least twenty days prior to the resumption of the hearings, provided other parties are also required to do so.
8
+
_4 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Intervenors are entitled to present rebuttal testimony on criticality when the hearings resume.
Respectfully Submitted, z..n He'rbert Semmel Attorney for Intervenors Christa-Maria, Mills and Bier Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 265-9500
1
- CERTIFICATE-OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was served on the attached list on the 1st of July, 1982 by delivery to the Office listed thereon or by U.S.
Mail, first class, postage prepaid.
- -.. = - -
Herbert Semmel i
i i
i a
~
w r
(
At
.ic Saf ety and Licensing Jersph Co Ir., T.nqui re
.Ecard Panel Ishe, Lintn3n and Beale 3
U.S. Nu: lea r Re gulatory 112 0 Cor.r.ecticutt' Ave, N.W.
Cor=:ssien Suisc 325 Washingte.., D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20036
~
Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman l
Atomic Safecy and Licensing y.
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j
j, 7, Washington D.C.
20555
{
?,4 37.,
Commission
..lgl J.
1 Dr. Oscar H. Paris f
i.
- t. -
Atomic Safety and Licensing
}
Board Panel
[
U.S* Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section Commission office of the secretary Washington D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission Mr. Fredrick J. Shon Washingten, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing John.O'Neill, II Bohrd Panel Box 44 Route 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Haple City, MI 49664 Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Richard Godd
~
C ouns e l f o r h,qqd S t a.j,
n.
U.S. Nucicar Regulatorf Cornissi.on Washington, D.C.
20555 s.,:.... -..
- ,s*..I*'***
3f
(*
s
.,4$. ),..t..P :.,...
t j
t g
i.
en i
l i
.