ML20059C444

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co Objection to Ocre Interrogatory).* Licensee Input Into Model within Scope of Hearing & 900829 Objection Overruled.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 900830

ML20059C444
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/29/1990
From:	Frye J, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
References
CON-#390-10782 90-605-02-OLA, 90-605-2-OLA, LBP-90-25, OLA-2, NUDOCS 9009050052
Download: ML20059C444 (4)

Text

~r

< ot*- o O )

1 DDLhEILD l USNRC  !

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  % ALG 29 P4 :30  ;

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD rrlCE OF SECRETtJY OCKlilNG k M UVICI d Before Administrative Judges fiRANLH John H Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline 1 Frederick J. Shon i h AU6 30 L990 1 1

In the Matter of s Docket No. 50-440-OLA-2 i The Cleveland Electric i Illuminating Company, et al ASLBP No. 90-605-02-OLA (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, -

Unit No. 1)  !

August 29, 1990 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on CEI's objection to OCRE's Interrogatory)

In a telephone conference call of August 29, 1990, in which all parties participated, CEI objected to OCRE's interrogatory number 7. That interrogatory requests:

i For each analytical methodology identified in your answer to Interrogatory #4, identify all input variables and user-controlled'or -determined options, and any limits on the range of values of these variables and options.

CEI objects that this interrogatory requests information which is beyond the scope of the hearing as defined in LDP-90-25, 32 NRC (July 23, 1990). CEI reads LBP-90-25 as excluding any inquiry into the information which is the input into the model used to calculate the cycle-specific parameter limits. In CEI's 9009050052 900B29 . ' '

PDR O

ADOCK 05000440 PDRe 0 g

• 9

r r

. . . o-

.;c view, the only relevant inquiry concerns whether that model L F affords it any discretion in calculating the cycle-specific parameter limits.1 Staff believes that the interrogatory asks for information outside the scope of the license amendment because it focusses on calculations which are unaffected by the amendment. OCRE believes that the interrogatory goes to the heart of the question regarding the existence of discretion on CEI's part.

In LBP-90-25, we emphasized that the only factual issue which we wish to hear concerns the amount of discretion which the license amendment would vest in CEI. One way in which such discretion could be conferred on CEI is by v providing it with the ability to control the input into the model. While de do not question Staff's statement that the license amendment does not change the data used as input, -

the criti.:a1 difference is that the amendment eliminates the Staff's responsibility to check the results of the l calculations and, consequently, the input into those ,

calculations before the new core operating limits are put into effect. Therefore, CEI's input into the model is l .

I In answer to the Board's inquiry, CEI indicated that a response to the interrogatory would not be burdensome.

l L_- . - - -

x

.o- o

. I f'

l 1

within the scope of the hearing as definned in LBP-90-25, and l CEI's objection is overruled.2 l It is so ORDERED.  :

r

' e Atomic ty and Licensing Board 1A r- -

Frederick J. Shon ADMINISTRATIVE J DGE

/

/h C Dg. Jerry /R.' kline ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -

J n 11 F(ya, III, Chairman ,

A N STh RIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland .

August 29, 1990 '

4 I 2

This ruling was orally conveyed to counsel for CEI shortly following the conclusion of the conference call with a request that he pass it on to the other parties.

UN11ED $1 A1El 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMllll0N 3 I

in the Matter of I t I  !

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING l Docket No.(s) 50 440-OLA-2 COMPANY, ET AL. 1 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) I i

i i

CER11FICATE OF BERVICE i i

I hereby certif y that copies of the f oregoing L8 M&O (RULINS ON CE!'s ...) '

have been served upon the f ollowing persons by U.S. esil, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge  :

Board John H. Frye, 111, Chairman >

U.S. Nuclear heoulatory Consission Atomic Safety and Licensing board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Aceinnstrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Jay E. Gilberg Office of the 6eneral Counse! Shaw, Pittman, P0tts & Trowbridge U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission 2300 N Street, N.W. l l Washington, DC 205!5 Washington, DC 20037 l l

Susan Hiatt Carol O'Claire

! Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Technical Hazards tranch 8275 Munson Road Ohio Esergency Management Agency Mentori OH 44060 2825 West Granville Road Columbus, OH 43235 I

Dated at Rockville, Md. this 30 day of August 1990

..9d4hMDv..............

Office of the Secretary of the Commission

. - - - . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. . - . _ . , . _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . , . _ . - _ - . . _ . , . . . . _ . .