ML19249F281
| ML19249F281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1979 |
| From: | Ellison C CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110209 | |
| Download: ML19249F281 (7) | |
Text
T/C U7ITED STATES OF MERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/' <
'*i
.. ).
?..
3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
s..
- /
)
In the }beter of.
)
~
)
SACRMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILI~T DISTRICT )
Docket No. 50-312
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
)
)
Motion of the California Energy Commission for Leave to Reply to the " Response of Sacramento Municipal Utility District to Revised Statement of Issues of Concern to the California Energy Cocmission" The California Energy Cocaission has received the August 17, 1979 Response of the Sacracento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD") to the Revised Statement of Issues of Concerr filed by the California Energy Commission, and respectfully coves for leave to file the following reply to SMUD's response.
We seek this leave to clarify certain issues and to respond to
_/
certain assertions made in the SMUD filing.
Issues 1 and 2.
SMUD obj ects to these issues on the ground of lack of specificity.
These issues raise the question whether the short-term and long-term teasures identified in the May 7, 1979 NRC Order are sufficient to ensure that the facility can respond safely to feedwater transients.
The
- /
We will not reply at length to SMUD's apparent assertion that the California Energy Cocsission, as an interested state, must file " contentions."
That clearly is incorrect under 10 C.F.R. 32.715(c) and Appeal Board decisiens.
- See, e.g., Gulf States Utilities Co., 6 NRC 760 (1977).
1077 239 h
_ 2_
.aergy Commission has identified a number of additional ceasures which
=1ght also have been required for the Rancho Seco facility, thus giving participants specitic information regarding areas of inquiry into the suf ficiency of the short-term and long-term solutions already adopted by SMUD.
These measures are directly related to safe operation of the Rancho Seco facility since each deals with problems associated with Babcock and Wilcox nuclear generating plants.
We submit that Issues 1 and 2 clearly are adequate to apprise all parties with sufficient specificity to per=it
-./
adj udication.
Issue 3.
SMUD agrees that this issue is proper for adjudication except for the last four words:
"and other unexpected events."
The Energy Commission agrees to deletion of those words but reserves the right to acend this issue if subsequent information (particularly related to Three Mile Island) reveals other events within the scope of this proceeding which should be addressed.
SMUD also obj ects on various grounds to the fif th through seventh subissues listed under Issue 3.
With respect to subissues 5 and 6, SMUD objects because we allegedly assume f acts regarding f acility design without alleging facts to support the assumptiens.
We believe that the investigations and recedial measures taken since Three Mile Island adequately supy ort these
" a s s u=p tion s." It will be appropriate to introduce evidence on these matters, however.
With respect to subissue 7, the references to SUREG-0560 and :IREG-0578 are adequately specific since those references clearly relate to a 3abcock and Wilcox reactor of similar design to Rancho Seco.
- /
On August 24, 1979, tba Energy Concission and the NRC staff met and agraed to hold discussions t.. the near future regarding these and other issues.
These discussions, which we hope SMUD and other parties will attend, should clarify any items which S::UD allges it does not fully understand.
1077 240
. Issue 4.
This issue concerns the facility's emergency response plans in the evs.t of an accident triggered by a feedwater transient.
SMUD objects to this issue only as being outside of the scopes of the Board's j urisdiction.
We address that issue in our separate brief on the Board's j urisdiction.
Issue 5.
This i, sue concerns additional mitigation measures t.hich might be required so that the facility will respond safely to accidents triggered by a feedwater transient.
To the extent that SMUD alleges this issue is outside the scope of the Board's jurisdiction, our response is the race as to Issue 4.
With respect to the alleged lack of specf.ficity, we note that this is merely a bald assertion by SMUD which fails, in any way, to identify what information it lacks in order to litigate this issue.
Finally, an interested state is not required to allege that these specific hazards which were present at Three Mile Island also exist at Rancho Seco.
This proceeding is a proper forum to inquire into that issue.
Issue 6.
This issue questions wheth;r the facility should be required to operate at less than full rated capacity, a ceasure which would in cre ase response time in the event of feedwater transients.
To the extent SMUD alleges that this issue is outside the scope of this Board's jurisdic-tion, our response is the same as to Issue 4.
With respect to specificity, SMUD's argu=ent is not that the issue is vague or that SMUD is confused over the meaning of this issue.
Instead, SMUD urges this Board to reject this legitimate issue because the Energy Co==ission has not expressed a position on it, together with facts upporting our position.
Section 2.713(c) makes 1077 241
. clear that an interested state is not required to take a position on issues, much less present supporting evidence before such issues can be accepted by the Board.
Moreover, SMUD also urges this Board not to consider this issue "until and unless it.etermines that the plant cannot be operated safely at its design rating."
3y asking the Board to make this determination, SMUD asks it to consider Issue 6.
The Energy Commission does not suggest that the Board should impose " remedies" without determining whether they are neces-sary.
Issue 6 addresses the question of whether such a remedy is required.
In sum, Issue 6 is specific and SMUD is fully aware of the matters requiring adj udication.
Issue 7.
This issue questions whether safety devices required on new facilities should be required on Rancho Seco.
SMUD's objection to this issue is that we failed to list the specific devices which might be required.
SMUD acknowledges that it knows what those devices are and states that we could have asked them about the devices.
Neverthelese, SMUD objects to this issue.
The Energy Coc=ission has not been able to prepare a complete list of those devices at this time.
We hope to have such a list in the near future and will submit it to the 30ard as soon as it is available.
In the meantice, however, SMUD clearly has not been prejudiced by an alleged lack of specificity since it acknowledges that it knows what these devices are.
Issues S-10.
The California Energy Co==ission agrees to with-draw these issues at this time, reserving the right to seek acendment at 1077 242
. a later date if subsequent information indicates that i=portant issues in these areas should be addressed.
J
{
A)
Christoptier Ellison Attorney for the California Energy Ccnunission 1077 243
UNITED STATES OF AMER'CA NUCLnR REGULCORY CCMMISSION 3EFORE THE ATCMIC SAFE Y AND LICENSING 30A"D 4
)
)
In :he Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILI~T DISTRICT
)
Docket No.30-312
)
(Ranch 3eco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
')
)
)
CcR_..-
A.: 0: a ed, s..C:
t: 2u t
I, Lawrence Coe Lanpher, hereby certify that copies of the Motion of the California Energy Cot =ission for Leave to Reply to the
" Response of Sacra = ento Municipal Utility District to Revised State =ent of Issues of Concern to the California Energy Cc= mission have been served on the following by deposi: in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, (or by hand delivery where =arked by an as te risk), en this 27:h day of August, 1979:
Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Chai r:an, At:=ic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel, Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C==issica 1150 17th Street,
N.W., Suite 1007 1717 E Street, N.W.
Washing::n, D.C.
20036 Washing n, D.C.
20006 Dr. Richard F. Cole Mr. Stephen H. Lewis Acc=ic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Lawrence 3renner Panel Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regula:Ory C ::ission Eco= 450, West 3uilding Roo= 10109 4350 East-West Highway 7735 Old Georgetcwn Road Washington, D.C.
Bethesda, Maryland Mr. Frederick J. Shon Ti=och.
7.
A.
Dillon, Esquire A enic Safety and Licensing 30ard ?2nel 1350 K Street, 5.4., Suite 350 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccenission Washing: n, D.C.
20006 Rec = 150, Wes: Suilding i350 East-West Highway Gary Eursh, Isquire Washington, D.C.
320 Capi::1 Mall, Sui:e 700 Sacranen:c, California 9551-4 t
.... Mr. Richard'D. Castro 2231 K Street Sacra = ento, California 95816 Mr. Mark Vandervelden
- 26. Jean Reiss Mr. Rocer: Christopherson Friends of :he Earth California Legislative Office 717 K Street, Suite 208 Sacramento, Califo rnia 95814 Michael H. Re=y, Esquire Reed, Sa=uel & Remy 717 K Street, Sui:e 405 Sacra = ento, Califo rnia 95814 Atomic Safety r:d Licensing Soard ?anel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=nission
.vashington, D. C.
_40500 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 3 card Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con =ission Washington, D.C.
20535 David S. Kaplan, Esquire Secretary and General Counsel Sacra = ento Municipal C ilities Distri :
6201 S Street Sacra ento, California 95813
,4
,l v f' 7:'&t:m c:2 -fz t w?jh Lawrence Coe Lanpher Hill, Christopher and ?hillips, ?.C.
1900 M Street, N.J.
Washing:en, D.C.
20036 202/452-7C00 I a= and was at the time of the service of the attached paper over the age of 13 years and not a par:y :o :he proceeding involved.
I declare under penal:7 of perjury tha: he foregoing is true snd correc:.
f d
~ a,,,. n R 2.4
? c. &.c/
s lawrence Cce _angner 1077 245