ML20207N619
| ML20207N619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1987 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207N622 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2158 OL, NUDOCS 8701140320 | |
| Download: ML20207N619 (5) | |
Text
.
- = _ - --
T/Sf s,.
-l 01/05/87
/
9
- i4,
4 e
'v,
UNITED STATES OF AP! ERICA N
h
.JAN 091987N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
[.-
acmma a BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR NFdy" P
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SFRVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSiiIRE, et al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
i NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 23, 1986 INTRODUCTION
^
The NRC Staff respectfully moves this Board for reconsideration of its Memorandum and Order of December 23, 1986.
In that Order, the 1
Board provided that the parties to this proceeding may file responses to Applicants' December 19, 1986 Petition under 10 C.F.R. I 2.758 and 10
~
C.F.R.
I 50.47(c), which seeks an exception or waiver to regulations providing for a 10 mile emergency planning zone (EPZ), by January 27, l
1987.
This motion for reconsMeration is premised on the fact that due to the complex nature of the many substantive technical issues raised by Applicants' Motion and the underlying technical materials on whic}i it is l
based, the Staff cannot be adequately prepared to. take a position on whether Applicants' petition presents a prima fg showing for granting the requested exception or waiver to the regulations by January 27, 1987.
The Staff asks, as it did in its Response to Applicants' Petition dated December 22, 1983, that the Board solicit the views of the parties as to when they can respond to the Applicants' petition and upon consideration of those views set a time for response to the subject petition.
8701140320 870105
-)50i gDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR
I 1 DACKGROUND On December 19, 1986, the Applicants filed a petition under 10 C.F.R. II 2.786(b) and '50.47(c) for an exception or waiver to certain regulations of the Commission which would " require these Applicants to engage in planning for a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (PEPZ) in excess of one mile in radius for Seabrook Station."
Petition at 2.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.758(b), "any party may file a response..., by counter-affidavit or otherwise," to such a petition.
The Licensing Board is then to determine on the basis of the petition and the affidavits or other responses to the petition whether the petitioning party has made a prima fag showing that the application of the specific Cor. mission rule or regulation to a particular aspect of a proceeding would or would not " serve the purpose for which the rule or regulation was adopted" and whether the " application of the rule or regulation should be waived or an exception granted."
See 10 C.F.R. I 2.758(c) and (d). If the Board determines that no prima facie showing has been made it "may not further consider the matter."
10 C.F.R. I 2.758(c).
If the Board believes a prima facie showing has been made for an exception or a waiver it is to " certify directbr to the Commission for determination [of]
i the matter of whether... the Commission rule or regulation... should be l
l waived or an exception made."
10 C.F.R. I 2.758(d).
The Commission upon certification to it of the matter "may direct such further proceedings l
as it deems appropriate to aid its determination." Id.
On December 23, 1986, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order, providing that parties to this proceeding may file responses to the Applicants' petition by January 27, 1987.
l l
t
O
~
DISCUSSION The Staff seeks reconsideration of the subject December 23, 1986 Order because the Staff c'a'nnot, by January 27, 1987, adequately evaluate the complex technical materials on which Applicants Petition is based and take a position on whether the Applicants' petition makes a prima facie showing that an exception or waiver to the rules and regulations should be granted to permit a PEPZ of one mile.
As set out in the attached affidavit of Scott Newberry, the issues presented by the request that th-2 regulations not be complied with in this particular case are very complex.
The Staff is currently assessing the nature and degree of the technical effort involved in such evaluation and is in the process of preparing a schedule for carrying out the required technical assessment.
The Staff cannot even set out a schedule for when it will be able to complete its technical review which would enable it to take an informed position on whether the petition makes a prima facie case for an exception or a waiver of the regulations.
As indicated in the Staff's December 22, 1986 Response to Applicants Petition, the Staff believes that by January 20, l
1987, it would have had sufficient time to study the petition and could indicate to the Board when it would technically be prepared to'.repprt to -
the Board the NRC's Staff's nosition on whether the petition makes a i
prima facio showing that an exception or waiver to the Commission regulations should be granted.
Among the complex issues the Staff may have to examine in order to review the subject petition are:
i
- - - - - ~ -
4-Strength and failure modes of containment (including penetrations);
Containment isolation' failure; Containment bypass sequences; LOCA sequences outside containment (including event V);
Severe accident phenomena (including direct containment heating and induced steam generator tube rupture);
Core damage sequences while in shutdown modes; Effects of operator actions during accidents; Scrubbing of submerged releases; Consequences modeHng; Potential for further risk reduction by changes in design and operating procedures.
Newberry Affidavit, f 2.
The importance of Staff review and input into Licensing Board l
determinations has been pointed out a number of times by the Appeal Board.
In Louisiana Power and Light Co.
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812, 22 NRC 5, 56 (1985); it was stated:
This is not to say, however, that the staff's review -
i and, necessarily, its adequacy - play no role at all in a licensing proceeding.
They do indeed,....
We would be less than candid were we to deny that the adjudicatory boards have traditionally found it useful and desirable to rely on the staff's expertise for an.,
evaluation of contested issues, especially technical ones.
- See, e.g.,
Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-553,10 NRC 12, 14 n.7 (1979). See also South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-663,14 NRC 1140,1156 (1981), review declined, CLI-82-10,15 NRC 1377 (1982).
Cf. 10 C.F.R.
I 2.743(g); see also Offshore Power Systenis (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 198, 206-07 (1978).
The Petition before the Board uniquely involves a substantial number of complex technical issues.
The Staff's technical input will be of crucial
. _,. ~
--.m._.
importance to a proper determination by the Licensing Board and by the Commission of the important issues raised by the Petition. The Licensing Board should provide' sufficient time so that the Staff may bring its expertise to bear on the question of whether the Applicants' petition and the technical materials on which it is based make the required showing.
CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons the subject order should be reconsidered and the Staff and the other parties should be granted until January 20, 1987, to propose a schedule to reply to applicants' petition.
Respectfully submitted, Edwin J.f,eis
, Deputy Assistant General
~.s Counsel Dated at Pcthesda, Maryland this 5th day of January,1987 b
iis
_.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _