ML20058J449
| ML20058J449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1982 |
| From: | Bachmann R, Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bloch P, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208090264 | |
| Download: ML20058J449 (2) | |
Text
._
g DESIGNATED ORIGINAD August 6,1982 Certified By_ g J MQ Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant)
Docket No. 50-155 (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)
Dear Administrative Judges:
This letter contains the Staff memorandum of pertinent provisions of the conference call among the Board and parties conducted on August 4, 1982.
The conference call was requested by NRC Staff counsel as a result of possible ambiguities in Intervenor's motion (undated) for clarification of the issues regarding seismic qualification of the semi.-gantry crane in the captioned proceeding. As the parties were unable to reach informal agreement with regard to the scope of inquiry which would be afforded at such time as the contention dealing with this issue is litigated, each of the parties stated their_ position on the record. The point of conflict concerned the necessity, or appropriateness, of litigating the seismic spectra to be used in the evaluation of the seismic qualification of the crane. Counsel for Intervenors Christa Maria et al. took the position that the seismic spectra for the Big Rock Point sitTiTa proper subject for litigation, and sought to cross-examine Staff witness Leon Reiter, when the hearings resume, with regard to the adequacy of the existing spectra for Big Rock Point. Staff counsel took the position that the site specific spectra for Big Rock Point were not placed in issue in this proceeding, and that the structural adequacy of the crane during a seismic event could be determined through a traditional structural engineering approach, incorporating the accepted existing site specific spectra for Big Rock Point, in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.60.
The Staff had no intention of calling Dr. Reiter as a witness as part of its case in chief, but indicated that they have no objection to a Board ordered deposition of Dr. Reiter to be taken prior to the hearing. Counsel for Licensee conceded the relevance of the appropriate spectra, but indicated that he would be prejudiced by Intervenor's use of cross-examination of 8208090264 820806 PDR ADOCh 050001SS G
2
- Dr. Reiter as a discovery tool. He stated that, in his opinion, the Reiter affidavit (filed July 2, was an information document filed with the Board to resolve a Staff generated issue which was subsequently determined to be nonmeritorious. The Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ordered the deposition of Dr. Reiter to be taken as a Board deposition, to be taken at the convenience of the parties, which as stated by attorney for Intervenors would be August 23, 1982.
(The Staff did not oppose this date, but has subsequently been informed by Dr. Reiter that he will not be available until the first week in September.)
The Chairman also stated that the Intervenors would be expected to file direct testimony on this issue 15 days prior to the resumption of the hearings. The Intervenors would also need to call Dr. Reiter as a hostile witness if they wished to cross-examine him.
No schedule was determined for further evidentiary hearings.
With regard to the issue of criticality in the spent fuel pool, as modified, i
the Board ordered the record closed effective August 4, 1982. While the Board wished to further expedite findings on this issue, in the event that it appears necessary that the record on this issue be reopened, the date of September 10, 1982 was set for the simultaneous filing of findings of fact by concurrence of the parties, with replies to be filed 20 days thereafter.
Attorney for Applicant also indicated there are two issues of fact still unresolved pending ongoing analyses. These issues involve the structural concrete analysis, and further analysis of the seismic stability of the overhead crane.
Sincerely, Richard J. Goddard Counsel for NRC Staff 1
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff cc: See page 3 ed, s
OFC :0 ELD
/__ ::.___________:____________:___ _______:______.____::..______
NAME :RGod d:ed :
DATE :8/6/82
- -