ML19249F273
| ML19249F273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Kaplan D SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110196 | |
| Download: ML19249F273 (10) | |
Text
<
2s>g e
at UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
A sta w
In the Matter of:
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docke t No. 50-312
)
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating S tation )
)
STATEMENT OF SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ON REVISED CON-TENTIONS PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF SACRAMENTO, AND ORIGINAL SMUD RATEPAYERS AS SOCI ATIO N.
As directed by the Board, the parties met among themselves on the af ternoon of the prehearing conference and endeavored to reach agreement on a stipulation relating to the issues.
Af ter extensive discussion it appeared (A) tha t there was a basic disagreement among the parties as to whether the revised contentions filed on behalf of Friends o f the Earth, Environmental Council of Sacramento, and Original SMUD Ratepayers Association set forth appropriate issues, and (3) that bo th petitioner Hursh and the California Energy Commission wished to amend their previous filings.
It was therefore agreed that petitioner Hursh and the Cali-fornia Energy Commission would prepare their amended filings as quickly as practical and that the staf f and the licensee would file s tatements advising the Board which of the con-tentions tendered by petitioners and the Commission they will stipulate are proper and which contentions they believe 1077 203 17 91 (311 C '96 are improperly framed or are outside the Board's jurisdiction.
As time is short, and as the amended filings which petitioner Hursh and the Energy Commission are preparing are not yet available to us, we are filing this statement to se t forth our position on each of the revised contentions of Friends of the Earth, the Enviro:imental Council of Sacramento, and Original SMUD Ratepayers Association.
We will file simi-lar s tatements relating to the contentions of petitioners Hursh and the Energy Comuission as soon as those revised con-tentions are made available to us.
Contention No. I:
The fundamental purpose of this proceed-ing and of this Board is a determination of whether the terms and conditions of the various orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rela ting to the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating S tation are suf ficient to reasonably assure the safe operation of that facility and the safety of the public generally.
SMUD's position on Contention I:
The s tatement made by petitioners does not satisfy the requirement in Section
- 2. 714 (b) of the rules of practice taa t " the basis for each contention (be ] set forth with reasonable specificity."
It does not even specify what " orders" of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission petitioners have in mind.
"It-is conclusional and fails to provide the necessary speci-ficity and factual basis as required by Section 2.714."
1077 204 In the Matter of Offshore Power Systems, 6 NRC 249,250 (1977); Tennessee valley Au thority, 3 NRC 209, 212 (1976).
It is less specific than any of the three issues set forth in the Commission's June 21 Order, whereas the purpose of the Board's July 3 Order was obviously to require petitioners to set forth, with specificity, contentions lying within the scope of those three broad issues.
SMUD does not agree tha t Contention I is a proper con tentio n.
Contention No. II:
In order to determine whether the actions required by subparagraphs (a) through (e) of Section IV of the Order of May 7, 1979 are necessary and sufficient to assure public safety, the Board mus t consider (1) technically f easible actions known to but no t taken by the Commission, including a shut-down order until the long term modifications are accomplished; (2) informa-tion made available subsequent to the May 7 Order as a result of the TMI-2 inves tiga tion, including but not limited to all possible safety measures identifiad in NU REG-0 0 and NU REG-0578 but not specified in the May 7 Order; (3) the items specified in part III, s ub-paragraphs (a) through (e), inclusive, hereof.
SMUD 's posi tion on Contention II:
Ia form, this is neither a contention nor a proposed issue; instead it is a list 1077 205 of items which petitioners wish the Board to consider, presumably as evidence.
Moreover, the s tatement tha t the Board must consider " technically feasible actions known to but not taken by the Commission" lacks the specificity required by Section 2.714.
The same is true of the statement that the Board must consider "all possible safety measures identified in NUREG-0560 and NUREG-0578."
In In the Matter of Gulf States Utilities Company, 6 NRC 770, 772 (1977), it was held that "in order to introduce a new issue into a proceeding, a party... must do more than present wha t amounts to a check 11st of items contained in the TS AR or in regu-latory guides" and that the licensing board properly imposed a nexus requirement.
While the NUREGs to which petitioners refer are not precisely the same type of document as those referred to in the Gulf States de-cision, we think it reasonable that petitioners be required to identify each " safety measure" to which they refer and to allege facts to indicate that each such safety measure would be appropriate for the par-ticular facility involved in this proceeding.
We point out that some of the recommendations in NUREG-057 8 relate to boiling water reactors (Section 2.1. 5 (b) )
and that others relate to Wes tinghouse and Combus tion Engineering designs.
(S ection 2.1. 7).
SMUD does not agree that Contention II is a proper contention.
1077 206 Con tention No. III(a):
The NRC orders fail to evaluate or comment upon the acceptability of 27 feedwater tran-sients over the past year in nine Babcock and Wilcox reac to rs, a frequency which is 50 percent greater than the corresponding rate for other pressurized reactors.
SMUD's position on Contention III(a) :
In form, this is neither a contention nor an issue.
It is merely a s tateme nt that the NRC orders of May 7, 1979, and June 21, 1979, fail to evaluate or comment upon certain data.
It tenders no issue for this Board to decide.
SMUD does no t agree that Contention III(a) is a proper contention.
Contention No. III(b) :
The Order of June 21, 19 79 estab-lishing this Board and giving it the function of determining the adequacy from a safe ty s tandpoint of the various provisions in the May 7 Order is an implicit recognition of possible safety problems; there fo re, the two Orders, taken toge the r, are deficient, or, in the al terna tive, the jurisdiction of this Board is unduly limited, in that no consideration is given to emergency response and evacuation planning.
SMUD's position on Contention III(b) :
This is neither a contention nor an issue.
I t is an allegation that the two NRC Orders, taken toge ther, are deficient or that the jurisdiction of this Board is unduly limited.
It 10/7 20/
_s_
tenders no issue for this Board to decide.
SMUD does not agree tha t this is a proper contention.
Contention No. III (c) :
There is no reasonable time table for implementation of the long-term modifications es tablished in the orders for subsequently identified long-term modifications.
SMUD's position on Contention III(c) :
To the extent that this is a contention that a reasonable time table should be es tablished for implementation of the long-term modi-fications specified in the Commission's May 7 Order, it appears to be virtually identical to Issue 2 in the Commission's June 21 Order.
We will s tipulate tha t the following is a proper contention:
Pe ti tione rs contend that a reasonable time table should be established for implementation of the long-term modifications seecified in the Commission's May 7 Order.
We do not unders tand the reference to " subsequently identified long-term modifications."
It has occurred to us that there may be a typing error in the contention and that petitioners may have intended the final phrase to read "or for subsequent'v identified long-term modi-fica tions, "
If so, our comment is that we should think the Board would be reluctant to issue an order relating to the implementation of modifications which have not ye t been identified.
We believe a contentic.i tha t the 10//
- JLo, 3
Board issue such an order would be " barren and unfocused" and would not have the " factual bases required by Section 2.714.'"
In the Matter of Of fshore Power Systems, 6 NRC 249, 250-251 (1977).
If petitioners seek to contend that the Board should issue an order relating to as yet unidentified long-term modifica tions, SMUD does not agree that this is a proper contention.
Contention No. III(d):
No procedures have been taken to assure f acility management competence.
SMUD's position on Contention III(d) :
The discussion at the public meeting of the Commission on July 11 shows tha t the Commission did not intend to oreclude the Board from consider.ng this issue.
However, the discussion also shows tha t there is nothing presently before the Com-mission to indicate that management competence and control is a problem at Rancho Seco.
Under the circum-stances, we suggest that the Board ask the petitioners to set forth with specificity f acts showing that there is a problem before deciding whether to consider this as an iss2e.
Contentions which are 'conclusional, unspecific, and are not supported by factual bases" are inadmiss ible.
In the Matter of offshore Power Systems, 6 NRC 249, 256 (1977).
SMUD does not agree that Contention III (d ) is a proper contention in its present form.
l i) /?7
?ll IV LU/
Contention No. III (e) :
No procedures for the determination of the adequacy of operator competence.
SMUD's cosition on Contention III(e) :
It is obvious tha t the s tatement made by petitioners is incorrect since SMUD's operators must be licensed by the Commission and the licensing process constitutes a " procedure for the de-termination of operatcr competence."
If pe titioners believe that the operators at Rancho Seco are not competent, they should make such an allegation with the specificity required by Section 2.714 of the rules of practice and support that conclusionary allegation with
" factual bases", as required by the Board in In the Matter of Offshore Power Systems, 6 NRC 249, 256 (1977).
SMUD does not agree that Contention III(e) is a proper contention in its present form.
Dated:
Augrst 16, 1979 Respectfully submitted, DAVID S. KAPLAN JAN E.
SCHO RI by ifAA Da'[id S.
Kaplaf
~
Atto rneys for Sapramento Municipal Utility Dis trict
? O Box 15830 Sacramento CA 95813 Telephone (916) 452-3211 1077 c10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
)
DISTRICT
)
)
Docket No. 50-312
-Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating )
S ta tion
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the following document:
Statement of Sacramento Municipal Utility District on Revised Contentions Presented by Petitioners Friends of the Earth, Environmental Council of Sacramento, and Original SMUD Ratepayers Association.
in the above captioned proceeding have b en served on the follow-ing by deposit in the United S tates mail, first class, on this 16th day of August 19 79 Michael L.
Glaser, Esq., Chairman Mr. Mark Vandervelden L15 0 17th S treet, N.W.
Ms. Joan Reiss Jashington DC 20036 Mr. Robert Chris topherson Friends of,the Earth Dr. Richard F.
Cole California Legislative Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 717 K Street, #208 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento CA 95 814 Washington DC 20555 Reed, Samuel & Remy Mr. Frederick J.
Shon 717 K S tree t, Suite 4 05 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Sacramento CA 95814 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Ms. Dian Greuneich California Energy Commission Timo thy V.
A.
Dillon, Esq.
1111 Howe Avenue 185 0 K S tree t N.W., Suite 380 Sacramento CA 95825 Washington DC 20006 Gary Hursh, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 520 Capitol Mall, Suite 700 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento CA 95814 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard D.
Castro Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 2231 K S treet Panel Sacramento CA 95816 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 1077 eii
_1_
Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington DC 20555 Mr. Stephen H.
Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington DC 20555 i
IL,8LI m
DA7id S.
Kapl-Cbunsel for S CRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTImITY DISTRICT 1077 212