ML19249F282
| ML19249F282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1979 |
| From: | Kaplan D SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110210 | |
| Download: ML19249F282 (13) | |
Text
_.
y
,,\\
, i. ]
.A
[.
,.Qs.o,a.Ei,3d
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
%. $$ RJ/
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p/
\\b
. 59 w..e In the Matter of:
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312
)
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station )
)
RESPONSE OF S ACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO REVISED STATE-MENT OF ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THE CALIFORNI A ENERGY COMMISSION The Board's August 3 Order
" directed that all parties, including the California Energy Commission, meet and confer regarding possible stipulation of contentions in this proceeding, and submit to the Board no later than Augtu t 20, 1979, a proposed stipulation conceraing agreed-upon contentions, and a statement of contentions on which agree-ment cannot be reached;"
(emphasis added)
The foiagoing directive had, of course, been issued orally at the prehearing conference on the morning of August 1, and the parties met that af ternoon to discuss the situation.
Counsel for the Energy Commission stated during that meeting that she would probably wish to amend her previous filing, and we s tated, on behalf of the Dis tric t, that upon receipt of the amended filing we would file a response in which we would advise the Board which of the contentions in the amended filing we 1/b 1077 246 7910110 @
would stipulate were proper contentions and which contentions we would contend were improper.
The " revised statement" which the Energy Commission has now filed is not a list of contentions.
It contains ten items which are characterized as " major issues which the California Energy Commission has identified as requiring examination in this proceeding."
It also lis ts " areas" which certain of these issues "will require inquiry into."
- And, in addition, it sets forth several pages of quotations from NUREG 0560 and 0578.
The Energy Commission's procedural position, and its justification for disregarding the Board's directive that it submit a s tipulation relating to contentions, appears on the firs t page of its revised statement and in the second of the two footno tes on that page.
The Energy Commission there s ta tes that it is participating as the representative of an i:lterested s tate pursuant to S ec tio n 2. 715 ( c) of the Rules of Practice and indicates, at least if our reading is correct, that under Section 2. 715 (c) it is obligated only to identify the issues it intends to address and that it need not assert contentions.
In considering the Energy Commissic.1's position, the most helpful recent decision appears to be In the Matter of Gulf States Utilities Companv, 6 NRC 760 (1977).
The Appeal Board there s tated, at pages 768-769:
1077 247 "The S tate sought admittance to the proceed-ing as an 'interes ted s tate. '
LBP-76-32, supra, 4 NRC at 296.
It accordingly was not required to set forth contentions as a precondition to its participation.
10 CFR S 2.715 (c) ; ALAB-317, supra, 3 NRC at 179 (1976).
Once let in, however, an 'interes ted s tate ' must observe the procedural requirements applicable to other participants.
S ee ALAB-317, 3 NRC a t 18 0, n.7.
It may - as they may - raise particular issues of interest or con-cern to it.
Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 392-93 (1976).
-The Board is entitled to insist, however, that any new issue raised be framed with sufficient detail and preciseness.
Cf. 10 CFR S2. 714 (a).
A hearing participant
'must be specific as to the focus of the desired hearing.'
BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C.Cir. 1974).
And contentions
( 3r their equivalent in the case of an ' interested s tate ' ) serve the purpose of defining the ' concrete issues which are appropriate for adjudication in the proceeding.'
Northern S tates Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 191, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973), af firmed sub. nom. BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, supra."
Later in the decision, at page 771, the Appeal Daard s Immarized the rulings of the Licensing Board in the following language:
"Early in the ensuing hearing, after exten-sive oral argument, the Licensing Board ruled that the mere notation of TSAR and SER items and of regulatory guides was insufficient (Tr. 1657-59).
Such nota tions, standing alone, were thought by the Board not to provide
'a fair op-portunity to other parties to know precisely what the limited issues (are], exactly what proof, evidence or testimony is required to meet that issue and exactly what rupport the S tate intends to adduce for its allegations' (Tr.1658; 4 NRC at 298).
What was required in addition were allega-tions establishing, with respect to each item or guide, a relationship to the River Bend application (4 NRC at 312-13)...."
1077 248 In the Gulf S tates case, the State had generally identified its ques tions "as those described in GESSAR-238
[the General Electric Safety Analysis Report for the type of reactor the facility was to employ], in the s taf f's safety evaluation of GESSAR-238, and in the s taf f 's TS AR. (6 NRC 770).
The Appeal Board held that given the generalized nature of these documents, "it was not erroneous for the Licensing Board to have imposed its nexus requirement."
6 NRC 773.
~
The conclusions to be drawn from the Gulf S tates decision are that the Board is entitled to ask (1) that any issue raised by the Energy Commission be framed with sufficient detail. and preciseness, and (2) that as to each such issue the Energy Commission make allegations establishing a rela-tionship between the issue and the Rancho Seco facility.
Against this background, we now consider the " major issues" identified by the Energy Commission.
Issue No. 1 In its proposed Issue No. 1 the Energy Commission has simply restated the first of the subjects referred to in the Commission's June 21 Order.
The proposed issue reads as follows:
Whether the short-term modifications and actions described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) of Section -IV of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis sion 's
(" NRC" ) May 7, 1979 Order are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility will respond safely
'.o feedwater transien ts, pending completion of the long-term modifications set forth in Section II of the May / Order.
1077 249
_4_
Our understanding of the Board's July 3 order, and of its August 3 Order, is tha t the parties were directed to set forth with reasonable specificity contentions (or issues, if the Energy Commission is correct in its view that it may not be required to assert contentions) lying within the scope of the broad, general subjects idantified by the Commission in its June 21 Order.
As we have shown, the Gulf States case is authority for the proposition that the Board may require the Energy Commission to frame its issues with such specificity.
As proposed Issue No. 1 does no t satis fy wha t we un'ders tand to be the Board's request that particular issues, narrower than the three broad " subjects" specified by the Commission, be identified by the parties, we will not s tipulate that it is a proper issue.
We appreciate that Issue No. 1 is followed in the revised statement by several pages of quotations from NUREG-0560 and NUREG-0578.
Those quotations do not supply the missing specificity.
They are abstract statements which do not relate to the Rancho Seco facility.
Issue No. 2 In its proposed Issue No. 2 the Energy Commission has simply restated the third of the subjects referred to in the Commission's June 21 Order.
The proposed issue reads as follows :
1077 250
_3_
Whether the long-term modifications described in the NRC's May 7 Order are sufficient to provide continued reasonable assurance '. hat the facility will respond safely to feadwater transients.
Our position on proposed Issue No. 2 is identical to our position on proposed Issue No. 1 Issue No. 3 Proposed Issue No. 3 reads as follows:
Whethe r facility operators and associated personnel have adequate training and experience to respond safely and responsibly to feedwater transients and other unexpected events.
SMUD will stipulate that Issue No. 3 is a proper issue save and except for the las t four words.
We believe the phrase "other unexpected events" lacks the specificity required by the Board's orders.
Proposed Issue No. 3 is followed by seven subissues which we will not here set forth.
We believe the fif th of these is improperly framed because it assumes that design changes are needed in the control room without alleging facts to support that assumption.
We believe the sixth is improperly framed because it assumes that the plant has less than its originally intended design margins without alleging facts to support that assumption.
We appreciate that the draf tsman of this sentence had in mind mhe statement in NUREG-0578 that the frequency with which some safety systems are called upon to function may exceed their previously accepted design basis, but the two statements are not precisely the same.
In any case, the sixth subissue adds nothing to the basic issue.
The seventh subissue lacks the specificity required by the Board's orders.
107/. 251 Issue No. 4 Proposed Issue No. 4 reads as follows:
Whether, no twiths tanding measures taken and contemplated to deal with feedwater transient problems, the facility should be required to revise emergency planning procedures so tha t, in the event of future problems, persons in the immediate reactor area and in the facility's reasonable impact area will not be exposed to danger.
The Energy Commission's discussion of this proposed issue indicates that it wishes to litigate not only the facil-ity's emergy plans but also "the S tate and local plans associ-ated therewith. "
We do not think it reasonable to read the Commission's June 21 Order as extending to subjects of this sort.
Therefore, we will not stipulate that Issue No. 4 is a proper issue.
Issue No. 5 Proposed Issue No. 5 reads as follows:
Whether, no twi ths tanding measures taken and contemplated to deal with feedwater transient problems, the facility should be required '
revise its accident responses and mitigati measures so that, in the event of future -
- ems, the risk of hazardous consequences will P
.uced.
As worded, this proposed issue lacks the specificity required by the Boards orders.
The issue is followed by a listing of three sub-issues, the last of which is followed by a list of five " hazards" which consis t of quo tations from NUREG-0578.
The Energy Commission does not allege that these
" hazards" exist at Rancho Seco, and some of them do not, since arrangements for containment isolation at Rancho Seco are quite dif ferent from those at Three Mile Island.
1077 252 Overall, our position on Proposed Issue No. 5 is (a) that it lacks the necessary specificity, (b) that it is not supported by allegations that the hazards described exist at Rancho Seco, and (c) that it is directed at miti-gating the consequences of a serious accident whereas a reasonable reading of the Commission's Jun 21 Order is tha t it deals with measures necessary to ensure that the facility can be operated in such a manner that a serious accident will not occur.
Issue No. 6 Proposed Issue No. 6 reads as follows:
Whether, no twithstanding the sho2;t-term and long-term modifica tiens described in the May 7 Order, the facility should be required to oper-ate at less than full rated capacity in order to produce an additional margin of safety to respond to feedwater and o ther transients, pending a complete analysis and unders tanding of the ramifications of the Three Mile Island accident.
We believe this issue lacks the necessary specificity.
If the Energy Commission believes the facility cannot be safely operated at its full rated capacity, it should allege, with specificity, the facts which lead it to that conclusion.
We point out also that the proposed issue might be looked on as falling within the area of " remedy. "
We assume the Board will not consider " remedies" such as directing operation at less than full capacity until and unless it determines tha t the plant cannot be operated safely at its design rating.
Wha t the parties and the Board are now attempting to do is to identify the issues that must be considered in order to enable the Board to make that determination.
Consideration of remedies at this point would be putting the cart before the horse.
Issue No. 7 Proposed Issue No. 7 reads as follows:
Whether the facility should be required to retrofit as promptly as practicable in order to have the same or better safety devices to respond to feedwater transients as are required on new plants which are currently being licensed.
As worded, this proposed issue lacks the necessary specificity.
We note that the Energy Commission recognizes this and has alleged in a footnote that it is unable to lis t at this time the specific devices which are required at new plants but which are not in place at Rancho Seco.
We do not see why the Energy Commission could not have obtained this information through informal inquiries to the s taff and to District personnel.
In any case, the proposed issue is de-fective in its present form.
Issue No. 8 Proposed Issue No. 8 reads as follows :
Whether the Three Mile Island events and subsequent inquiries and analyses have iden-tified areas in addition to transien ts originated by failures in the feedwater systems where current design margins are inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that the facility will respond safely if a problem should arise.
This proposed issue lacks the necessary specificity.
The Energy Commission has available to it the reports tha t have been issued by the Commission staff and others as the 1077 254
_9
result of Three Mile Island.
If it believes that those reports have identified problem areas which exist at Rancho Seco, it should specify the problem areas with which it is concerned and allege f acts supporting its belief that such problems exist at Rancho Seco.
Issue No. 9 Proposed Issue No. 9 reads as follows:
Whether the procedures and criteria used by the NRC and SMUD for determining when to require corrective action or to shut down the facility are sufficient to provide reasonable assurances tha t the f acility will be operated safely.
This is far less specific than the three general
" subjects" listed in the Commission's June 21 Order.
We recognize that it is followed by a reference to two specific communications - a January 1978 letter from a then-member of the TVA staff and a recent letter from SMUD's Assis bant General Manager and Chief Engineer.
However, neither of these refer-ences is framed as an issue.
Issue No. 10 This proposed issue reads as follows:
Whether the procedures and criteria used by SMUD and the JRC for determining the actions necessary prior to restart of the facility af ter either a forced outage or shutdown required by the NRC, are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility will be operated safely.
If the Energy Commission believes that the procedures and criteria used by SMUD prior to res tart pose a threat to 1C/7 255 the public, it should allege, with specificity, the f acts which have led it to that belief.
CONCLUSION The Energy Commission has taken the position that it need not stipulate on contentions and that under Section 2. 715 (c) of the Rules of Practice it is required only to identify issues.
Assuming tha t position is correct, the teaching of the Gulf States case is that the Board is entitled to insist that such issues be framed with detail and preciseness and that a nexus be shown between each proposed issue and the Rancho Seco facil-i ty.
We respectfully submit that the cocument the Energy Com-mission has filed does not satisfy t.'.ose requirements.
Dated: Augus t 17, 1979 Very respectfully submitted, DAVID S. KAPLAN JAN E.
SCHORI Sy / L1J l, /
Dajid'S. Kapl@
Attorneys for Sdcramento Municipal Utility District P O Box 15830 Sacramento CA 95813 Telephone (916) 452-3211 1077 256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
)
DISTRICT
)
)
Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating )
S tation
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the following document:
Response of Sacramento Municipal Utility District to Revised Statement of Issues of Concern to the California Energy Commission.
in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the follow-ing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, on this 17th day of August 19 79 Michael L.
Glaser, Esq., Chairman Mr. Mark Vandervelden 115 0 17 th S treet, N.W.
Ms. Joan Reiss Washington 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, #108 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento CA 95814 Washington DC 20555 Reed, S amuel & Remy Mr. Frederick J.
Shon 717 K S treet, 2 405 c
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Sacramento CA >5814 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 2S7
_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
! rs/
M Dpvid S.
Kapl.
Q unsel for S CRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTI ITY DISTRICT 1077 258