ML19208B425
| ML19208B425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1979 |
| From: | Davis L, Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909200264 | |
| Download: ML19208B425 (10) | |
Text
.--.
August 28, 1979 C
h7tC P(IB JC O T ROOy
~~
~ '.
4 y,
6- 'if UNITED STAYES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. f'., '!
O b, c e
\\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SACRAMENTG MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312 (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF GARY HURSH AND RICHARD D. CASTRO I.
Background
Follo' wing submission of a request for hearing dated May 25, 1979, as supple-mented and amended by their " Declarations" and their " Contentions in Support of Request for Hearing" dated July 23, 1979 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its Prehearing Conference Order of August 3,1979, admitted, inter alia, Messrs. Gary Hursh and Richard D. Castro as Intervenors in this proceeding. Subsequently, pursuant to the Prehearing Conference Order, Intervenors filed a revised set of contentions on August 17, 1979.
The followino is a discussion of the admissibility of these revised contentions under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714.
849 310 M
t-f' ')
Q
,a s
T-
.) b J 7909200 % {
e-=-eeso,-a-b
,wom.-
D
,2 -
II.
Discussion 1.
Standards For Accept 3bility of Contentions Contentions aust fall within the scoPa of the Commission's notice and be set forth with basis and specificity in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.71.4(b) and applicable Commission caselaw.
See_, e.g., Duquesne Light Co.
(Beaver Valley, Unit 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243 (1973); Northern States Power _
{
Company (Prairie Island, Unit Nos. I and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973),
aff'd; CLI 73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973); aff'd; BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F: 2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974). A major reason for requiring the articu-lation of specificity and basis is to help assure that other parties are put on sufficient notice of what they will have to defend against and to ensure that the hearing process is invoked solely for the resolution of concrete issues.E This is especially true in a proceeding such as this one for which a hearing is not mandatory.
(Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (Zimmer Nuclear Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976); Gulf States Utilities (River Bend Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 n.10 (1974).
2.
Admissible Contentions The NRC Staff believes that while in general most of Intervenors' conten-tions do not contain as much specificity as would be preferred in tems of the reasoning behind and technical bases for each, the following contentions y
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20, 21 (1974); CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173,174 (1973).
117' q%
+4 m
ma 849.2ll o~
3-do contain the minimal amount of information needed to be admissible in this proceeding under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714:
Contention Subject 9
Adequate Hard Wire Trip 10 Adequacy of Small Break Analysis and Procedures 21 Capacity of Pressurizer and Quench Tanks 22 Water Level Indicators 2/
Operator Qualifications 32 2/
As pointed out in the Staff Response of August 20, 1979 at 7, the issue of management competence could be placed in issue in this case, but only upon a showing of a specific basis for such a contention which is not present here.
For this reason, the Staff believes that Contention 32 raises an admissible issue of operator qualifications, but not of management competence. Cf para.1 at page 2 of the Commission's Davis-Besse Order on contentions dated July 5,1979.
op
- ?
849 312 844 455 e.-m-
..w_..
,,e,
.~O b
..e,,
e =
-4 3.
Contentions Outside Scoce of Hearing As stated in the' August 27, 1979 Staff Srief on the Scope of Hearing, the Staff believes that the only proper subjects for hearing in this case are those relating to or set forth in the Comission's June 21, 1979 Order. As set forth in our Brief at page 6, the subjects set forth in that Order (by reference to the Comission's May 7,1979 Order) are all concerned with Rancho Seco's ability to respond to feedwater transients initiated on the secondary side and with the mitigating measures needed (including operator training) prior to core damage if there were such an occurrence.
The following contentions, dealing with the topics indicated, are concerned with matters beyond the scope of this hearing. They are, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board and, for this reason, should be rejected.
Contention Subject 11 Emergency Plan Upgrade 12 Emergency Operation Center 13 Upgraded Offsite Radiation Monitoring 14 State / Local Emergency Plans 15 Waste Management Capabilities U
17 Emergency Plan Instrumentation y
We have interpreted this contention as being related to offsite radio-logical emergency response plans, a subject we view as beyond the scope of this proceeding.
If it refers to something else, it might be admissible if stated with adequate specificity.
~
d 4
O i i o 849 313 8m m
~
,5 -
Contention Subject 18 Ten-Mile Emergency Evacuation Capability 19 Evacuation Plan Adequacy 20 Hydrogen Recombiner 23 Emergency Notification Procedures 33 Adequacy of NRC Assistan:e 0
Adequacy of Unlicensed Operators 34 4.
Relevant But Vague Contentions The following contentions are statements of such (.n unspecific nature that the NRC Staff is unable to determine precisely what issue is sought to be raised or what proof, evidence or testimony is required to meet the issue.E The Staff suggests that.these contentions appear, however, to be within the scope of the hearing and that the Board might wish to afford the Intervenors the opportunity to amend them with specific allegatier.s of, for instance, which particular mechanisms are thought to fail.
In addition, the ramifica-tions of the particular hazard of equipment failure referred to above should be specified and explained. The contentions in this category are:
~
y The Comission's Order applies only to Licensed Operators, unless the Intervenors maintain that unlicensed operators are manning safety grade equipment.
5/
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977).
D
- /
849 314 aoo 4.7__
o~
Contention Subject 5/
Sensitivity of B & W Reactors 1
2 Secondary Side Liquid Volume 4
Steam Generator Elevation 7
Reliability of Feedwater System 16 Analysis of ICS 24 Control / Avoidance of Bubbles 26 Once Through Steam Generator Susceptibility 27 Separation of Operation of Feedwater and Auxiliary feedwater.
28 Offsite Pnwer 29 Instrumentation 30 Automated / Manual Equipment 31 Control Room Configuration f/
This wording, taken directly from the Coinmission's Order, appears to the Staff not to be a cc7tentica but prefactory remarks only.
ii"
/
849 315-e6433f313
,7 -
5.
Contentions Concerning Items Modified by Short Term Actions
- - " The fourth category of contentions are those for which short-tenn modifica-tions were made persuant to the Commission's Order of May 7,1979, I & E Bulletin 79-05-B, or reflect plant configurations already in existence.
These contentions are generally objectionable as phrased because Intervencrs have failed to specify whether (1) the plant is unsafe in its prior configuration or (2) inadequate in that they are now asserting that it i unsafe in its now modified condition.
In addition, these contentions, like the ones listed above, do not specifically designate what particular systems or compo-nents are defective and the potential results thereof. Howe'ver, because these contentions are within the scope of the hearing, the Staff believes that-the Board might wish to afford Intervenors an opportunity to amend these contentions. The objectionable contentions are as follows:
Contention Subject 3
Directly Initiated Reactor Trip 5
PORY Actuaton Before Reactor Trip 8
Operating Procedures Independent of ICS 25 Auxiliary Feedwater Instrunientation III. Conclusion For the reasons listed above, the NRC Staff believes that contentions fall-ing into category 1 are admissible in their present form, that those falling
+w
-e-b
_m.
O
~
,8 -
into category 2 a,re outside the scope of the hearing and should be rejected,
~ and that contentions falling into categories 3 and 4 are potentially relevant to the proceedings but are ambiguous and therefore should be amended by Intervenors or dismissed.
Respectfully submitted, M-L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff b
/%*
Stephen H. Lewis f
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28t!' day of August,1979.
1131
'] ?
~
~
849 317
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
..In the Matter of SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Occket No. 50-312 DISTRICT Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I bereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF GARY HURSH AND RICHARD D. CASTR0" dated August 28, 1979, in the above-captioned proceeding, have baen served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 28th day of August,1979.
Michael L. Glaser, Esq., Chairman Gary Hursh, Esq.
1150 17th Street, N.W.
520 Capitol Mall Washington, D.C.
20036 Suita 700 Sacramento, California 95814
- 0r. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard D. Castro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 2231 K Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Sacramento, California 95816
- Mr. Frederick J. Shan James S. Reed, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael H. Remy, Esq.
U.S. Nuclaar Regulatory Commission Reed, Samuel & Remy Washington, D.C.
20555 717 K Street, Suite 405 Sacramento,_ California 95814 David S. Kaplan, Esq.
~
General Counsel Christo)herEllison,Esq.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Dian Gruencich, Esq.
P. O.
Box 15830 California Energy Commission Sacramento, California 95813 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825.
Timothy V. A. Dillon, Esq.
Suite 380 1850 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 g 'f 849 318
..-.----...-*M we,-
M e
1 l
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. I:uclear Regulatory Commissicn Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing ~
Appeal Board Panel U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Secticn Office of the Secretary U.S. fluclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 W
W L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff 1i sF 9l BA9 319 gg 36-2~~
_.