ML20097G326
| ML20097G326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1984 |
| From: | Glasspiegel H CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8409190381 | |
| Download: ML20097G326 (7) | |
Text
%
CCLMETE USNA0 September 18, 1984
'84 SEP 19 TJ0 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 'iv;, e 2
u o, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440%c ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441gg
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR SPECIFICATION OF.A CREDIBLE ACCIDENT SCENARIO UNDER ISSUE #8 One and one-half years ago, in two related decisions,l/
the Licensing Board ruled that further work on this issue
[ Issue #8] would not be profitable until after the NRC issues its rule on hy-drogen control or until we are informed that issuance of the rule has been deferred and can no longer be expected to be immi-nent. 2/
We now know that the hydrogen rule was deferred.
As far as Ap-plicants can determine, it is not reasonable to assume that the
-1/
Memorandum 'nd Order (Staff's Motion to Establish a Dead-line Concerning a Hydrogen Generation Scenario), dated March 3, 1983; Memorandum and Order (Applicant's Answer to Procedural Motion Concerning Hydrogen Control), dated l
March 31, 1983.
2/
Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 1983, supra, slip op.
at 2-3.
8409190381 840818 gDRADOCK05000pg g g3 n
' O7 o-publication of the rule is any more " imminent"'today than'it was.in March 1983.- Applicants;therefore respectfully move the i
Licensing Board to require Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy
("OCRE") to specify within a~ reasonable time a credible hydro-
. gen generation accident scenario, so that Issue #8 can be fair-ly resolved on a reasonable' schedule.
Applicants supported the NRC Staff's' unsuccessful motion of February 8, 1983, asking the Board to set a reasonable dead-line for OCRE to specify'a credible TMI-2 type scenario.3/
As the Staff noted in its February 1983' motion, the Licensing.
Board ruled in 1982 that'OCRE would need to specify a particu-lar type of credible accident scenario in order to comply with the applicable case law in this area, including Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
-CLI-80-16, 11 N.R.C.
674, 675-76 (1980), and Cleveland Electric 7
Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 N.R.C. 1105, 1114 (1982).1/
However, in
~3/
See NPC Staff Motion for a Deadline by Which OCRE Must Specify the Scenario to be Litigated Under Issue #8, dated February 8, 1983; Applicants' Answer in Support of NRC Staff Motion for a Deadline by Which OCRE Must Specify the Scenario to be Litigated Under Issue #8, dated February 23, 1983.
4/
See Memorandum and Order (Concerning Reconsideration and Dismissal of Hydrogen Control Contention), dated December 13, 1982, slip op. at 2 ("the need to specify a particular type of credible accident scenario in order to litigate meaningfully the adequacy of a hydrogen control mechanism is obviously correct and will be followed by us");
Memorandum and Order (concerning Discovery From Staff on i
Continued next page) i l'
.... -i,... -.
.,m...
,-er.
-.m
.--.,r,...
_,-,m,,._w-.-my-,,v._,.. -.,
m,.,w.,y..-:
]
a response to "OCRE Reply to NRC Staff Motion for a Deadline for the Specification of a Scenario for Issue #8 and Motion for the Rewording of Issue #8 and Specification of Guidelines for Its Litigation," dated February 23, 1983, the Board agreed to post-pone OCRE's obligation to specify a scenario until after the publication of the final hydrogen rule.1/
In March 1983, wh'en the Licensing Board ruled "that fur-ther work on this issue would not now be productive," the Board believed that "a relevant rule [was]
. about to issue."l/
Also at that time, the' parties were preparing for the hearing on the quality assurance issue.
The Board believed that the parties could "use their time most productively in preparing (Continued)
Hydrogen Issues), dated December 23, 1982, slip op. at 2
("The Appeal Board has found that a given hydrogen generating mechanism.
. has relevance [ sic] to the efficacy of a hydrogen control system.").
See also " Notes of Telephone Conference of December 9, 1982" (attached to letter from Staff Counsel to Licensing Board dated December 13, 1982), at 3.
5/
Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 1983, supra, slip op.
'at 2.
Applicants opposed OCRE's February 23, 1983 motion by Answer dated March 14, 1983.
See Applicants' Answer to Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy Motion For the Re-wording of Issue #8 and Specification of Guidelines for its Litigation (March 14, 1983).
In its Memorandum and Order of March 31, 1983, supra, the Licensing Board " con-clude[d] that we need not rule on Applicants' Answer."
Id.,
slip op. at 2.
For the reasons set forth in Appli-cants' Answer, and in the instant motion, Applicants be-lieve that a ruling on OCRE's previous motion is now re-quired.
6/
Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 1983, supra, slip op.
at 2.
l I l
for! hearing."1/
The case is now at a completely different, and more ad-vanced, stage.
The quality assurance hearings have long since ended.
Also, given the continued deliberations and delays in the hydrogen rulemaking, there is no reasonable basis to con-tinue to expect that a hydrogen rule "is about to issue."
It is too late in the proceeding to delay further the litigation of any outstanding issue -- let alone an issue of the potential magnitude of Issue #8.
Applicants currently plan to be ready
.to load fuel in Unit 1 by mid-1985.
With other significant is-sues outstanding in this proceeding, it is essential for the Board-to set a schedule for the consideration of Issue #8 with-out further delay.
At this late stage in the proceeding, the possibility that the Commission might issue a final hydrogen control rule does not provide a reasonable basis for further suspending consideration of Issue #8.
For all of these reasons, Applicants respectfully request that the Licensing Board promptly establish a reasonable dead-line (not more than 30 days) by which OCRE must specify the 7/
Memorandum and Order dated March 3, 1983, supra, slip op.
at 2..
o credible hydrogen generation' accident scenario to be litigated under OCRE's Issue #8.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE MM BY:
Aff8/
~
Jay E.
- lberg, P.C.'
F Harry H Glasspiegel Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated:
September 18, 1984 I
J t.
l 4
}f;{U September 18, 1984 UNITED STATES OF_ AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'fj',;";(jfj.;[q>
('.
~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicants' Motion For Specification Of a Credible Accident Scenario Under Issue #8" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 18th day of September, 1984, to all those on the attached Service List.
arry$h/up4a HARRY H GLASSPIEGEL '
/
Dated:
September 18, 1984 1
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of-
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)-
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY
)
50-441 i
)
l (Perry Nuclear Power ' Plant,
)
1 i
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST _
Pater B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
~
Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Colleen P. Woodhead,, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright l
Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue l
Mentor, Ohio 44060 l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire j
Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake County.id=inistration Center Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Board Panel Jefferson, Ohio 44047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
,,w,,-,..nr-.--.n.-----n-.-,-,-.,,:---,.,-_,_~..ww-_.--,,_-,
---,-,,....-,-_--,-_n_.---a---
-.~,.n.,n.-