ML20065J167

Motion for Clarification of Portions of ASLB 820910 Memorandum & Order Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition of Certain Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20065J167
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	09/28/1982
From:	Bielawski A COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210050391
Download: ML20065J167 (6)

Text

.

e amxten r.omni.SPONDEND Dateg. /28/82 U3NRC UNITED STATES 01 'MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k g q 4 12 FF OF SECRETW, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING G & SERVrcr ANCH In The Matter of )

)

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL

) 50-455 OL

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 & 2) )

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF PORTIONS OF THE BOARD'S " MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF DAARE/ SAFE CONTENTIONS" __

On September 10, 1982, this Board issued an Order granting, in part, Commonwealth Edison Company's (Edison) and the NRC Staff's Motions for Summary Disposition of DAARE/ SAFE contentions. In its Order the Board discussed the presentations made by the parties during the course of the summary disposition process and gave reasons for its decision to deny the motions with respect to Contentions 9(a) and 9(c). In so doing, the Board identified the spe-cific matters as to which there existed genuine contested issues of material fact. However, the Board's Order does not expressly limit the contentions to require evidentiary presentations, at the hearings, solely on these outstanding issues. Although we believe that this result is implicit

+ . .

~'

8210050391 820928 PDR ADOCK 05000454 0 _PDR Dso3 _

t

, in the Board's Order, because of the obvious significance of these matters on the hearing preparation process, Edison respectfully requests that the Board issue a clarifying order restricting the scope of DAARE/ SAFE's Contentions 9 (a) and 9(c).

DISCUSSION The Section 10 CFR S 2.749 summary disposition-procedures provide an efficacious means of avoiding un-necessary and time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insub-stantial issues.

Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allen Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 550 (1980). When a licensing board determines that it

't cannot sunmarily dispose of an entire contention, it is appropriate to.specify that aspect of the contention which raises contested factual issues and which must be litigated at the hearings. Absent such specification, trial of the contention might require the parties to present evidence on many material facts as to which there are no genuine issues.

Such litigation would defeat the purpose of the summary disposition procedure.

As discussed below, the Board's decision indicates that Contentions 9(a) and 9(c) raise limited contested issues not adequately resolved by the parties' summary disposition presentation.

Contention 9 (a) refers broadly to the possibility of bubble collapse water hammer events in feed water lines,

, and'specifically addresses events that occurred at Edison's Zion Station. In its discussion of Contention 9 (a), the Board found that the differences between the Zion and Byron steam generators are such that the Byron plant is not sus-ceptible to the type of water hammer events experienced at the Zion plant. The only question acknowledged by the Board as remaining open concerns the possibility of bubble col-lapse water hammer events in the feedwater bypass system similar to the type of event believed to have occurred at the KRSKO plant in Yugoslavia. Therefore, the only factual l

l issue which presently remains unresolved is whether the design of and operating procedures associated with the feedwater bypass system at Byron provide adequate assurance f

of safety.

Contention 9(c) raises broad issues concerning I steam generator tube degredation caused by corrosion,

- cracking, denting and fatigue cracks and the safety implica-l tions of such degredation during both routine operation and under accident conditions. In its Order, the Board deter-mined that there was insufficient information concerning possible tube degradation resulting from the type of flow induced vibration recently observed at Westinghouse designed steam generators, and analyses of postulated tube failure concurrent with other design basis accidents to grant summary disposition of this Contention. Other aspects of the Contention were determined not to raise contested issues of material fact.

e q- ,

__-_______-._....____s-- ---

In light of these findings, it seems clear that the Board intended to limit the scope of the contentions to raise only the outstanding issues identified in its Order.

Therefore, Edison respectfully requests that the Board issue a clarifying order reflecting this intent.

DATED: September 28, 1982 Respectfully , itted,

/f f. /

-4 DV L One df the %ttorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company Michael I. Miller Alan P. Bielawski ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 I

s

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company, certifies that on this date he filed two copies (plus the original) of the attached pleading with r

the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served a copy of the same on each of the persons at the addresses shown on the attached service list in the manner indicated.

Date: September 28, 1982 [ [

/

kl j&s ~

Algn ,P f' Bielawski

SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 ccMorton B. Margulies, Esq.

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge and Chairman Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Secretary Attn: Chief, Docketing and ccDr. Richard F. Cole Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 *Ms. Betty Johnson 1907 Stratford Lane C *

• Myron M . Cherry, Esq. Rockford, Illinois 61107 Cherry & Flynn Three First Na';ional Plaza ** Ms. Diane Chavez Suite 3700 SAFE Chicago, Illinois 60602 608 Rome Ave.

Rockford, Illinois 61107

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel *Dr. Bruce von Zellen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Biological Sciences Washington, D.C. 20555 Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115

• Chief Hearing Counsel Office of the Executive

• Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Legal Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20555 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 CDr. A Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation

• Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

P.O. Box Y Jane Whicher Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 BPI Suite 1300

• • Mr. Steven C. Goldberg 109 N. Dearborn Ms. Mitzi A. Young Chicago, IL 60602 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Via U.S. Mail l

• • Via Express Mail C** Via Messenger

%d