ML20079F345
| ML20079F345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Waterford |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F227 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-363, TASK-AII, TASK-SE SECY-82-160, NUDOCS 8204220376 | |
| Download: ML20079F345 (80) | |
Text
'
t
.g
'.o k#"IGO 833e S
k $[.y
~$
%;..v.../
l ADJUDICATORY ISSUE April 15, 1982 (InfOrmation)
For:
The Commissioners l
From:
Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel Forrest J.
Remick, Director, OPE
Subject:
WATERFORD 3 SUA SPONTE ISSUE
Purpose:
For information.
~
Oiscussion:
We have previously provided each of your offices with copies of a March 18, 1982 Memorandum and Order issued by the Licensing Board presiding over the Waterford Unit 3 operating license proceeding.
The Memorandum and Order indicated the Licensing Board's intentiori to raise sua sponte the issue whether, on the basis of reliability estimates for the plant's emergency feedwater system (EFWS), additional primary system depressurization capability should be added to the plant's design.
The Applicant moved the Board to reconsider its decision on March 26, 1982.
The Staff supports the Applicant's motion.
The Board is expected to respond on Friday.
Under 10 CFR 2.760a the Licensing Board
)
has sua sponte authority to put matters into controversy where the presiding officer " determines that a serious
Contact:
Martha A. Torgow, GC X-41465 QS Been ent
?) O '/2-z o L 7 k,
,-Le 1
~
2 I
safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists."
Last fall in its review of the Licensing Board's exercise of its sua sponte authority in Comanche Peak, the Commission established that the Board must
" describe.
. particular factors beyond the mere pendency of staff review upon which it bases its determination of the existence of
'a serious safety,.
environmental, or common defense and security matter.'"
CLI-81-24, 14 NRC 614, September 22, 1981. 1/
In this proceeding, the EFWS/ Feed and Bleed Capability issue was apparently first raised in the ACRS review of the Palo Verde plant which, like' Waterford 3, is a Combustion Engineering (CE) PWR with no capacity for rapid
-1/
In the only two recent cases where the Licensing Boards have raised issues sua sponte, the Commis'sion has reversed the Board, but for rea~ons that do not apply s
here.
In Comanche Peak, the Commission found that the Board's retention of contentions originally raised by-an intervenor who then dropped out of the proceeding, without establishing a basis for a finding "that a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists" was improper.
Comanche Peak, CLI-81-36, December 29, 1981, 14 NRC In the San Onofre case, the Commission directed the Board not to address the sua sponte emergency planning and earthquake issue because NRC's current regulations do not require that emergency plans include consideration of the impact on offsite emergency planning from severe natural disasters causing or occurring during a substantial radioactive release.
CLI-81-33, December 8, 1981, 14 NRC In addition, the Commission directed the staff to consider revising the NRC requirements for emergency response plans.
Staff requirements memo Chilk to Dircks, March 1, 1982.
k 1
l
"^6'
~
~
i 3
I depressurization following shutdown.
The issue is discussed in more detail in Board Notification 81-12, in the transcript of the March 16, 1982 meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee that is reviewing, on a generic basis, current CE reactor designs, and in the April 5, 1982 ACRS letter on " Reliability of the Shutdown Heat Removal System on the System 80 Design."
The issue was also discussed during the August 5, 1981 and March 3, 1982 ACRS Subcommittee meetings on Waterford 3.
The Staff and Applicant were directed by the Board to file testimony on the sua sponte issue by April.20, 1982.
The issue is to be taken up at the second session of the hearings which are scheduled to begin May 3, 1982.
The Applicant's estimated fuel load date is November 1982.
We believe that the issue being raised by the Board meets the requirement of 10
- CFP 2.706a that.the issue be a " serious" one and that the Board has sufficiently described the factors establishing the existence of a serious safety matter to meet the Comanche Peak standard.
We believe that the. Board should be left to consider the issue sua sponte in the course of the Waterford Unit 3 licensing proceeding unless the Commission decides
4 i
I to take up the issue and to resolve it generically as it did in San Onofre.
Here, unlike San Onofre, the issue
-2/
appears to be within the Commission's regulations.
This does not mean the Commission cannot take up the issue, but l
the Commission would have to reach-at i
least some preliminary resolution of the j
probles prior to issuing the OL for Waterford.
The Board appears to have i
met the. requirements for sua sponte review of an issue, and we see no reason to distinguish the issue raised here so as to warrant Commission action.
, Recccmendation:
That the Commission not overturn the Licensing Board's March 18, 1982 Order.
" It ~.
1.
i
!~C L&i^ -
-7.,L Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel j
-,.?
y...
,Forr J. Remick
'Dirdctor, OPE 2/
Boards do not currently have authority to issue generic decisions on generic safety issues; they may only i
address whether a generic issue relevant to a-particular plant under review has been sufficiently resolved as to that plant so that the license application meetc the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE SECY OIA 2
, _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _.