ML20058G390
| ML20058G390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208030306 | |
| Download: ML20058G390 (9) | |
Text
,
c.-
- MKKETED USNRC P
s-2 NN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gFFIC{0F SEC ICE ygg)
OCK In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool,
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
1 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION By letter postmarked July 14, 1982, Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al. ("Intervenors") filed several motions.
One of the motions seeks clarification of the procedures to be employed on the contention regarding seismic qualification of the crane.
Specifically, Intervenors request that the NRC Staff's " June 25 testimony" be the subject of evidentiary hearings rather than first being pursued through the deposition process established by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board").
Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") files this reply in opposition to Intervenors' position.
I.
Background
O'Neill Contention II.C.,
inter alia, questions the
~tructural capability of the overhead crane, which is located s
8208030306 820729
_)()}g
{DRADOCK05000 f
. F inside the Big Rock Point containment building, to withstand the effects of earthquakes.
On April 14, 1982, Licensee submitted a seismic analysis of the overhead crane to the Licensing Board and the parties.
This analysis was prepared by Licensee's consultant, EQE Corp. (hereinafter referred to as the "EQE report").-1/
As explained in the EQE reports the adequacy of the structural design of the crane was determined by using two alternative levels of earthquake motion.
One level of earthquake motion was a zero period horizontal ground acceleration equal to 0.12g conforming to the spectral shape requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60.
The other level of earthquake motion was the site specific response spectra with a zero period horizontal ground acceleration of 0.119 The " Reg. Guide 1.60" spectra, which were developed by Licensee, have been used to evaluate the adequacy of various plant structures and components and these evaluations have been or are being reviewed by the NRC Staff under the Systematic Evaluation Program ("SEP").
This review of the Big Rock Point Plant is ongoing and the more recently established site specific spectra-2/ are also being used for seismic evaluations of plant components and systems.
1/
See " Seismic Analysis of the 75-Ton Containment Crane,"
[
dated April 14, 1982.
-2/
The site specific spectra for Big Rock Point were established by the NRC Staff in 1981.
See deposition of Dr. Leon Reiter of the NRC Staff attached as Exhibit B of Licensee's May 4, 1982 Reply to Motion for Extension of Time, pp. 8-10, and the citations therein to the Reiter deposition.
- 9 On May 3, 1982, as part of its motion for various extensions of time to file testimony, it was asserted that the site specific spectra promulgated by the NRC Staff might be inadequate because, in the words of Mr. Emch of the NRC Staff, "the Staff discovered that no assessment was made previously as to whether the site conditions at Big Rock Point are sufficiently anomalous to require modification of the generalized soil site specific seismic spectra."
Therefore, it was concluded that the matter required re-examination, and the NRC Staff sought an extension of time for this purpose, to June 25.
The Staff's motion was opposed by Licensee.
After hearing oral argument on May 6, the Licensing Board granted the Staff's motion subject to two very important limitations.
First, the hearings on O'Neill Contention II.C. were to proceed as scheduled.
In essence, the parties were to present testimony on the structural adequacy of the overhead crane on the assumption the site spectra for Big Rock Point were adequate.
Second, the Licensing Board ruled that upon receipt of the Staff's report on the spectra, the hearing record would he reopened only, if after the taking of depositions, the moving party could establish a genuine issue of fact for litigation.-3/
Hearings were conducted on June 7 through Jtne 12; however, O'Neill Contention II.C., as it relates to the 3/
Tr. 439, and 526-28.
-4_
P overhead crane, was not heard.
Thereafter, on July 2, 1982, the NRC Staff filed the affidavit of Dr. Leon Reiter.
This affidavit presented the results of the Staff's reassessment of their site specific spectra.
Dr. Reiter concluded that the spectra, as originally developed in 1981, are appropriate for use at Big Rock Point without any need for revision.
II.
Argument Intervenors suggest that the deposition process established by the Licensing Board is no longer needed since further hearings are now necessary in this case.
Thus, they conclude that their inquiry into the spectra matter can be accomplished by cross-examination following the proffer of Dr. Reiter as a witness at the resumed hearings.
The logic of Intervenors' position is deceptively appealing, and the Licensing Board should not be lulled into accepting it.
Implicit in Intervenors' position is the falacious notion that the broad question of the adequacy of the seismic criteria used to evaluate the Big Rock Point Plant under the SEP has been established as a genuine issue of fact in this case.
Neither the NRC nor Intervenors has established the existence of a litigible issue in this regard.
It is true the NRC Staff declared, on May 3, that a potential problem existed with respect to the site specific spectra.
But the Staff neither explained the basis for their belief that a problem could exist (aside from the conclusory
4 I statement of Mr. Emch) nor substantiated their position through the testimony of a credible and qualified expert witness.
The statements of Staff counsel and non-expert of 4/
opinion of Mr. Emch are entitled to no weight.
Dr. Reiter,
~
the only identified expert in the field of interest, was never presented as a witness to support the notion that possibly the site specific spectra were inadequate.
Dr. Reiter's July 2 affidavit also fails to sub-stantiate that there was reason to re-examine the spectra.
Indeed, Dr. Reiter cites Mr. Emch as his authority for the possible existence of anomalous site conditions at Big Rock Point.~5/ Thus, the record indicates that Dr. Reiter's re-examination of his spectra was prompted by the non-expert view of Mr. Emch.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Dr.
Reiter disposed of this " straw man" issue by concluding that his original spectra were satisfactory.
These bazarre machinations of the NRC Staff cannot serve to cause an inquiry in this proceeding of the seismic design criteria used for the comprehensive seismic evaluation of Big Rock Point under the Staff's Systematic Evaluation Program.
The NRC Staff has the same burden as all other parties to establish the existence of litigible issues.
In this instance, an affidavit from a qualified witness was needed to establish a prima facia basis for the Staff's asserted concern.
The record is lacking in this regard
~4/
See Licensee's Reply to Motion for Extension of Time, p.
8, second footnote.
5,/
See Reiter affidavit, p. 1.
and the scope of this proceeding should not be expanded in the absence of such a showing.
Intervenors' pursuit of this issue must first follow the path of the deposition procedures previously established by the Licensing Board, albeit for a slightly different purpose.-6/
Clearly if Dr. Reiter is called as a witness, Intervenors' initial cross-examination will be in the nature of discovery in order to establish the entire background and to identify the Staff participants in this matter.
This line of inquiry should be addressed through an early deposition; not at the resumed hearings where newly developed information could serve as a basis for a continuance.
Moreover, the deposition process should be used to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact warranting consideration at an evidentiary hearing.
The issue as presently formulated would permit Intervenors, through cross-examination, to embark on a broad and general.nquiry into the seismology and geology of the Big Rock Point site and the SEP review process as it relates to the seismic re-evaluation of SEP plants.
The inquiry necessarily would also involve Licensee's analysis of the appropriate response spectrum for the Big Rock Point site since Dr. Reiter relied on this analysis in his July 2 affidavit.-7/
The issue must be narrowed if 6/
Licensee continues to reserve its right to deposed
~
appropriate Staff witnesses in this matter.
Tr. 532-33.
-7/
See " Site Specific Response Spectrum Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant," Weston Geophysical Corporation, May 1982.
l
Q t the Licensee, the party having the burden of proof in this case, is to have a fair opportunity to present effectively whatever testimony is needed to meet Intervenors' challenge.
Thus, Intervenors should be required, through the deposition i
process, to establish if they can, the existence of a genuine issue of fact that should be heard at the resumed hearings in this case.
III. Conclusion Intervenors' motion for clarification should be denied.
Intervenors should be given until September 15 to complete the deposition process and to file any appropriate motion with the Licensing Board.
Other parties should be given the opportunity to reply within 10 days of receipt of Intervenors' motion.
Respectfully Submitted, f/
/ Joseph Gallo l
One of the Attorneys for CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
I Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 833-9730 Date:
July 29, 1982 i
(
e' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION were served on all persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-clacs postage prepaid, this 29th day of July,1982.
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Dr. Oscar H. Paris U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555 Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Richard J. Goddard, Esquire Judd Bacon, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Consumers Power Company U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 212 West Michigan Avenue Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Washington, D.
C. 20555 Ms. Christa-Maria Richard G. Bachmann, Esquire Route 2, Box 108C Counsel for NRC Staff Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jim Mills Washington, D.
C. 20555 Route 2, Box 108 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Herbert Semmel, Esquire Urban Law Institute Ms. JoAnne Bier Antioch School of Law 204 Clinton 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Washington, D.
C. 20555 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664 O---b-Y g
/Josepft Gallo
.