ML13303A466
| ML13303A466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1981 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105190070 | |
| Download: ML13303A466 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, )
)
50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO INTERVENOR FOE ET AL.'S SUPPLEMENT TO CONTENTIONS 1 AND 3 AND RESPONSE THERETO On May 12, 1981, the Staff received "Supplements to Applicants' Contentions 1 and 3 Submitted by Intervenors FOE et al. (Supplement)".
This document is apparently intended by FOE to propose an alternative to Applicants' contention no. 1 and as supplementation of Applicants' contention no. 3, ostensibly as "ordered" by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
I.
In its Prehearing Conference Order dated May 8, 1981, the Licensing Board, among other things, conditionally admitted Applicants' proposed contention no. 3 and gave FOE an opportunity to identify any additional geologic features which it wished to have considered as part of that contention or those it wished to delete therefrom. These determinations were to be served by May 11, 1981.
The Licensing Board
~. 810519o0 70
-2 otherwise admitted contentions nos. 1 and 2 without modification (or leave to propose any) and contention no. 4 with a minor modification.
(Prehearing Conference Order at 4-6.)
Although the Licensing Board did not, in the above Order give leave to the other parties to respond to such submission as may be made by FOE, the Staff believes that the views of the other parties should be considered by the Licensing Board prior to ruling on FOE's Supplement, consistent with agency practice regarding responses to proposed contentions.
Indeed, responses to such supplement seem to have been contemplated in establishing the schedule for its submission at the prehearing conference (see Tr. 325-328). Accordingly, the Staff asks leave of the Licensing Board to file the following response.
II.
With respect to FOE's proposed alternative to contention no. 1, the Staff believes that it should be rejected out of hand.
First, the Licensing Board has already admitted contention no. 1 without modification or condition (Prehearing Conference Order at 4-5).
FOE did not seek and was not granted leave to file such proposed alternative.
Morevoer, FOE has not otherwise satisfied the requirements for such a late-filed contention. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(1) and (b).
- Finally, FOE provides -no basis for its proposed, substantial expansion of the contention which was admitted.
10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b).
Thus, FOE's proposed alternative to contention no. 1 is patently defective and should be rejected.
-3 Regarding FOE's proposed supplement to contention no. 3, the Staff believes that it too should be rejected. Although leave was given to file a supplement of this nature, the Staff believes that such supplement must satisfy the fundamental requirements for contentions as set forth in the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b), namely, that its bases be provided with reasonable specificty. FOE's supplement to contention no. 3 is conspicuously devoid of such bases.
While the Staff was and continues to be agreeable to litigating as part of this contention, those features identified in (1) and (2), a basis for considering those additional features identified in (3) through (17) miust be provided. While not attempting to address each of these, it is worth noting as examples that the feature identifed in 5, the Verona fault, is a structure located near the General Electric Test Reactor at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center.
This facility is near Pleasanton, California, about 30 miles east of Oakland and over 400 miles from the San Onofre site. The Las Positas fault, item 6, is located immediately adjacent to the Verona fault.
Just what significance these features might have in this proceeding is anything but clear. Although the other features may not suffer from the same obvious irrelevance as the foregoing, FOE has not sustained its burden in that no basis has been provided to warrant their consideration.
Accordingly, the Staff believes that FOE's supplement is defective and should be rejected.
-4 III.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff urges that the Licensing Board reject FOE's proposed alternative to contention no. 1 and its supplement to contention no. 3.
Respectfully submitted, L wrence J. Chandler Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of May, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
) Docket Nos. 50-361 OL ET AL.
)
50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO INTERVENOR FOE ET AL.'S SUPPLEMENT TO CONTENTIONS 1 AND 3 AND RESPONSE THERETO" dated May 15, 1981, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by a double asterisk by Express Mail, this 15th day of May, 1981:
- James L. Kelley, Chairman,
- David R. Pigott Administrative Judge Samuel B. Casey Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John A. Mendez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Washington, U.C.
20555 A Professional Corporation 600 Montgomery Street Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,
San Francisco, California 94111 Administrative Judge c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory Alan R. Watts, Esq.
University of California Rourke & Woodruff P. 0. Box 247 10555 North Main Street Bodega Bay, California 94923 Suite 1020 Santa Ana, California 92701 Ars. Elizabeth B. Johnson, Administrative Judge
- Vichard J. Wharton, Esq.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory University of San Diego School P. 0. Box X, Building 3500 San Diego, California 92110 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Ors.
Lyn Harris Hicks J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
GUARD Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
3908 Calle Ariana California Public Utilities Commission San Clemente, California 92672 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
-2 Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
A. S. Carstens James A. Beoletto, Esq.
2071 Caminito Circulo Norte Southern California Edison Company Mt. La Jolla, California 92037 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel David W. Gilman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Lacy Washington, D.C.
20555 San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Diego, California 92112 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1695 West Crescent Avenue Suite 222
- Secretary Anaheim, California 92701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Lawrence J. Chandler Deouty Assistant Chief Hearino Counsel