ML19257D217
| ML19257D217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Baxter T, Traviesodiaz, Traviexodiaz SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257D218 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002010538 | |
| Download: ML19257D217 (20) | |
Text
,
January 24, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
LICENSEE'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS BY INTERVENORS GARY HURSH AND RICHARD CASTRO I.
It4TRODUCTION This Brief is submitted by Licensee in support of the accompanying Motion under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749 for summary disposition of all the contentions advanced by intervenors Gary Hursh and Richard Castro ("Intervenors").
As will be seen, Intervenors have admitted that there is no factual basis for their contentions in their response to discovery requests by Licensee and by the Commission Staff ("the Staff").
- Moreover, several of Intervenors' contentions (Nos.
3, 5,
8, 9,
22 and
- 25) allege that the Rancho Seco facility is lacking in certain safety features, procedures and/or instrumentation, whereas it is indisputable that the items in question exist at Rancho 1857 065 8 0 0 2 010 5 3 Y
Seco.
Finally, with respect to other contentions (Nos. 20 and 21), the alleged shortcomings in the plant do not exist or are irrelevant to the plant's ability to withstand safely a feedwater transient.
Therefore, for all those reasons, Intervenors' contentions should be excluded from the upcoming evidentiary hearing.
II. STANDARDS GOVERNING
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS A.
Policies Underlying Summary Disposition.
Summary disposition was introduced in Commission proceedings to avoid unnecessary evidentiary hearings on contentions presenting no genuine issue of material fact.
Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-191, 7 AEC 417, 418 (1974). The summary disposition rule is intended to " provide a safeguard against an applicant or the regulatory staff being required to expend time and effort at a hearing on any contention advanced by an intervenor which is manifestly unworthy of exploration."
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), A LAB -18 3, 7 AEC 222, 228 (1974).
In establishing a summary disposition procedure, the Commission was acting on its concern for avoiding unnecessary litigation.
As the Commission explained in issuing the summary disposition rule and other amendments to 1857 066
its Rules of Practice, it "is concerned not only with its obligation to the segment of the public participating in licensing proceedings but also with its responsibility to the general public -- a responsibility to arrive at sound deci-sions, whether favorable or unfavorable to any party, in a timely fashion.
The Commission expressly recognizes the positive necessity for expediting the decisionmaking process and avoiding undue delays."
Statement of considerations, Restructuring of Facility License Application Review and Hearing Processes, 37 Fed. Reg. 15127 (1972); see also, 37 Fed.
Reg. 9331, 9333 (1972).
Such a concern to avoid unnecessary litigation is particularly important in proceedings, such as the instant one, where the hearing is not required by law and in which several parties have asserted a multitude of complex technical conten-tions.
Faced with what may well be a lengthy hearing, the parties and the Board have the obligation to flush out any non-meritorious contentions to keep the hearing within manage-able proportions.
B.
Legal Standards.
The standards for granting summary disposition of contentions in Comission proceedings are well known and need not be repeated in detail.1 Basically, on a motion for summary 1
The Appeal Board has held that the summary disposition (continued next page) 1857 067 disposition pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749, "the single que ion is whether the filings and other papers in the proceeding 'show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.'" Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-554, 10 NRC 15, 20 n.17, quoting 10 C.F.R. 3 2.749(d).
Such a motion enables the Board to go beyond the pleadings and determine, on the basis of extrinsic matter such as affidavits submitted by the movant or other parties, whether there is warrant for an evidentiary hearing with respect to the contentions at issue, i.e., whether there is "a genuine issue as to eny material fact" bearing upon the contentions as to which summary resolution is sought.
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
Once a motion for summary disposicion has been made showing that there are no genuine issues of fact to be litigated, the party opposing the motion must establish (or the (continued) procedure provided by 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749 is very similar to that under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the filing of a motion for summary judgment as to any claim or part thereof asserted in the action.
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2),
ALAB -18 2, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974);
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), A LAB -5 5 4,
10 NRC 15, 20, n. 17 (1979).
Therefore, the extensive body of law which has developed in connection with Rule 56 motions is generally applicable to S2.749 summary disposition motions.
i857 068 Board must perceive from the record)2 that there does exist a genuine issue of material fact with respect to each contention so attacked.
At that stage, mere allegations in the pleadings are not sufficient to establish the existence of issues of material fact.
The opposing party must present in proper form material, substantial facts, not guesses or suspicions, and cannot rest on the hope that something may turn up at the hearing.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.749(b); Gulf States Utilities Co.
(Rive: Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 NRC 246, 248 (1975).
If no such response is filed, the summary disposition motion must be granted.3 2
It is, of course, incumbent upon the moving party to demonstrate (by affidavits, discovery responses, or otherwise) to the Board 's satisf action that no genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the challenged contention.
If the moving party does not carry this burden, the motion must be denied whether or not the party opposing summary disposition files an adequate response to it.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 and 757,
- n. 51 (1977).
3 Intervenors' discovery responses suggest a belief on their part that the acceptance of some of their contentions by the Board as admissible in this proceeding automatically guarantees that those contentions will be litigated at the hearing.
For instance, at p. 1 of their December 5, 1979 response to the First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories, Intervenors state:
Interrogatory 2 through Interrogatory 21 are objected to as requesting information which is not the responsibility or obligation of these Petitioners to provide.
Petitioners have stated the areas of concern, the Board has defined the scope of the hearing, it is now incumbent upon the Licensee and NRC staf f to demonstrate convincingly that each and every contention is (continued next page) 1857 069 The discussion that follows and the affidavits filed by the Licensee in suppcot of its motion demonstrate that there (continued) without merit and that Rancho Seco can operate safely (emphasis added).
Intervenors take the same position in their responses to the Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories (see p.
1 of Intervenors' response, filed on January 7, 1980) and to the Staff's Second Set of Inter-rogatories (see p.
1 of Intervenors' response, filed on January 14, 1980).
Intervenors' position, however, has been rejected by the Board in granting the Staff's motion to compel discovery on its First Set of Interrogatories to In-tervenors.
See, Order Relative to the NRC Staff's Motion to Compel Intervenors Gary Hursh and Richard Castro, dated January 21, 1980, at p.
2.
Intervenors misapprehend the effect of admitting contentions in a Commission proceeding.
As the Appeal Board has explained in numerous occasions, the ascassment by a Licensing Board that a contention is acceptable as a basis for granting intervention does not involve an appraical of the merits of any of the assertions contained therein Alabama Powet Company (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216 (1974); Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-150, 6 AEC 811, 812 (1973);
Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
All that a Licensing Board does in allcwing contentions at a preliminary stage in a proceeding is to determine that the contentions meet the criteria of specificity, asserted basis and relevance set forth in 10 C.F.R S 2.714(a).
The question of the contention's substance is for later resolution --
such as by summary disposition prior to the hearing if the contention is shown not to present a genuine issue of fact to be heard.
Joseph M.
Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 217; Catawba, supra, 6 AEC at 812; Grand Gulf, supra, 6 AEC at 426 & n.4; Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241, 242 (1973), affirmed on other grounds sub nom. BPI v.
AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Ci.. 1974).
Therefore, the intervenors may not defeat a well grounded motion for summary disposition merely by resting on the fact that their contentions were once found admissible by the Licensing Board at the onset of the proceeding.
1857 070 at..lo remaining issues of fact with respect to Intervenors' contentions.
Therefore, Intervenors must offer competent evidence that issues of material fact remain unresolved with respect to their contentions, or summary disposition of the contentions must be granted.
III.
INTERVENORS CONCEDE HAVING NO BASIS FOR THEIR CONTENTIONS More than half of the contentions filed by the intervenors in this proceeding are taken, wholesale and almost verbatim, from the Order and Notice of Hearing issued by the Commission on August 9, 1979 in the TMI-l restart proceeding, Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289.4 Most of the remaining contentions are taken, also wholesale and almost verbatim, from an Attachment entitled " Generic Problems with Babcock & Wilcox 4
Compare, the first paragraph on p.
3 of the Order with Intervenor's Contentions 1 through 6; paragraphs 1(a) through (d) on p.
5 of the Order with Intervenors' Contentions 7 through 10; paragraphs 3(a) through (d) on p.
6 of the Order with Intervenors' Contentions 11 through 14; paragraph 5 on p.
6 of the Order with Intervenors' Contention 15; paragraph 1 on page 7 of the Order with Intervenors' Conten* ion 16; and paragraphs 4(a) and (b) on page 8 of the Order with Intervenors' Contentions 17 and 18.
And see, Intervet'rs' response of December 5, 1979 to Interrogatories 2-10 of the First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro.
1857 071 PWR's" to a letter dated May 15, 1979 from intervenor Friends of the Earth to the Commission.5 A contention cannot be automatically discarded just because it repeats a contention advanced at another proceeding or suggested by another party; however,
"a carry-over conten-tion must be subjected to especially careful scrutiny by the board at the prehearing stage.
The board must satisfy itself not only that the contention applies to the facility at bar but, as well, that there has been sufficient foundation assigned for it to warrant its further exploration."
Duquesne Light Co. et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1),
A LAB -10 9, 6 AEC 243-246 (1973).
Measured by this standard, every contention asserted by Intervenors is totally lacking in foundation and should therefore be rejected by the Board.6 5
Compare, paragraph 2 on p.
2 of the Attachment with Intervenors' Contention 21; paragraph 4 on p.
3-5 of the Attachment with Intervenors' Contention 24; paragraphs A and B on p. 7 of the Attachment with Intervenors' Contentions 26 and 22; paragraph D and E on p.
8 of the Attachment with Intervenors' Contentions 27, 28 and 25; and paragraohs F.1 and F.2 on p. 9 of the Attachment with Intervenors '
Contentions 29 and 23.
And see, Intervenors' response of December 5, 1979 to Interrogatories 13-19 of the First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro.
6 The Board may also decide sua sponte to reject any of the contentions by the other parties, even if not formally chal-lenged by a summary disposition motion.
For, before a con-cention is allowed to be litigated at a hearing, the Board must be satisfied that a genuine issue of fact exists.
Any contention whi._a does not survive the application of this standard must be excluded from consideration at the evidentiary hearing.
Duquesne Light Co. et al (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit (continued next page) 1857 072
Both the Staff and the Licensee attempted during discovery to learn the bases for Intervenors' contentions.
Intervenors admitted there were none.
Thus, in the First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro, the Staff asked Inte;venors to provide the reasons for the allegations in Contentions 2 (Interrogatory 2), 3 (Interrogatory 3), 4 (Interrogatory 4), 5 (Interrogatory 5), 6 (Interrogatory 6), 7 (Interrogatory 7), 8 (Interrogatory 8), 9 (Interrogatory 9), 10 (Interrogatory 10), 16 (Interrogatory 11), 20 (Interrogatory 12), 21 (Interrogatory 13), 22 (Interrogatory 14), 24 (Interrogatory 15), 25 (Interrogatory 16), 26 (Interrogatory 17), 29 (Interrogatory 18), 31 (Interrogatory 19), 32 (Interrogatory 20), and 34 (Interrogatory 21).
The following responses were filed by Intervenors on December 5, 1979:
Interrogatory No. 2 Without waiving our objection as previously statrd, we don't know.
However, we do know that in the fMI-l " Order and Notice of Hearing" it is stated
[quctation].
In addition, there is the question as to whether the actions taken by the Licensee, as reflected in its letter of April 27, 1979, are sufficient and adequate for the safe operation of Rancho Seco.
(continued)
No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Duke Power Co.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-150, 6 AEC 811, 812 (1973); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), A LAB -10 7, 6 AEC 188, 194, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241, 242 (1973), affirmed on other grounds sub nom. BPI v.
AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
1857 073 Interrogatory No. 3 See answer to Interrogatory No.
2.
Interrogatory No. 4 See answer to Interrogatory No.
2.
Interrogatory No. 5 See answer to Interrogatory No.
2.
Interrogatory No. 6 See answer to Interrogatory No.
2.
Interrogatory No. 7 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know.
However, it is an item where modifications have been required in light of the accident at TMI-2 and questions still remain as to the sufficiency and adequacy of such modifications.
See TMI-l Order.
Interrogatory No. 8 See answer to Interrogatory No.
7.
Interrogatory No. 9
...[S]ee answer to Interrogatory No.
7.
Interrogatory No. 10 See answer to Interrogatory No.
7.
Interrogatory No, 11 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know Interrogatory No. 12 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know Interrogatory No. 13 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know 1857 074 Interrogatory No. 14 See answer to Interrogatory No. 13.
Interrogatory No. 15 See answer to Interrogatory No. 13.
Interrogatory No. 16 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know Interrogatory No. 17 See answer to Interrogatory No. 13.
Interrogatory No. 18 See answer to Interrogatory No 13.
Interrogatory Nc. 19 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know Interrogatory No. 20 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know Interrogatory No. 21, Without waiving our objection as previously sta ted, we don ' t know (emphasis added).
The Staff filed follow-up interrogatories ("Second Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro"), seeking to obtain clarification of Intervenors' answers.
Included were the following questions:
Interrogatory No. 22 Provide the reasons for the Castro-Hursh allegation that "there is a question as to whether 1857 075 the actions taken by the Licensee as reflected in its letter of April 27, 1979, are sufficient and adequate for the safe operation of Rancho Seco." Provide this same information for each Interrogatory response where your response to Interrogatory No. 2 is referenced, i.e.,
Nos.
3, 4,
5 and 6.
Interrogatory No. 23 Provide the reasons for the Castro-Hursh allegation that questions still remain as to the sufficiency and adequacy of such modifications."
Provide this same information for each Interrogatory response where your response to Interrogatory No. 7 is referenced, i.e.,
Nos.
8, 9 and 10.
On January 14, 1980, Intervenors responded to these questions in the following manner:
Interrogatory No. 22 However, without waiving said objection, Intervenors cannot offer any specific reasons.
Interrogatory No. 23 See answer to interrogatory 22.
(emphasis added).
The same responses were elicited by Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories.
There, Licensee asked Intervenors to explain why they claim that operators do not have sufficient data available in the control room on the water level in the pressurizer (Interrogatory No. 3); why they consider it necessary for control room operators to have direct data on water level in the reactor vessel (Interrogatory No. 4); why they consider there to be a problem of inadequate control room instrumentation indicating auxiliary feedwater valve position 1857 076
(Interrogatory No. 5); what analyses Intervenors feel should be done which are necessary for safety (Interrogatory No. 6); why there has not been adequate testing and evaluation as to personnel responses to loss of feedwater transients (Interrogatory No. 8); and what actions would be required of unlicensed operators in the event of a loss of feedwater transient and for which Intervenors claim adequate ' raining has not been given (Interrogatory No. 9).
To each of these questions Intervenors answered in the same manner in their January 7, 1980 responses:
Interrogatory No. 3 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know.
But, there is certainly a question as to the adequacy of the modification.
Interrogatory No. 4 See answer to Interrogatory No.
3.
Interrogatory No. 5 See answer to Interrogatory No.
3.
Interrogatory No. 6 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know.
However, it is common knowledge that during the accident at TMI-2, a contributing factor was the inability to operate certain equipment automatically instead of manually.
Interrogatory No. 8 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know.
But, there certainly is a 1857 077 question as to the adequacy of the testing and training.
Interrogatory No. 9 Without waiving our objection as previously stated, we don't know.
(emphasis added).
Intervenors' discovery responses leave no room for doubt as to the shallowness of their participation in this proceeding.
Their contentions are mere " cutting and pasting" of allegations and concerns raised by others, many in the context of a different hearing.
They " don't know" or refuse to 7
divulge the basis, if any, for a single one of their conten-tions, apparently have no witnesses or other testimony to offer in support of them, and claim no personal expertise in any of the areas covered in the contentions.
It is clear, therefore, that there is no foundation for any of Intervenors' contentions and the Board should summarily reject them, for "[i] f it appears to the board that the intervenor has no basis for offering the contention other than that it was advanced in some 7
With respect to Contentions 32 (inadequate testing and evaluation of competence of Rancho Seco personnel and management) and 34 (inadequate training of unlicensed operators) Intervenors claimed, in response to the Staff's First Set of Interrogatories, that the contentions were based on " unsolicited conversations" Mr. Hursh had with plant employees.
On further questioning by the Staff, Intervenors refused to disclose the identity of the employees the substance of the conversations on the grounds that the or information had been given "in confidence."
Needless to say, no probative value attaches to such unsupported allegations.
1857 078 earlier proceeding, summary disposition of it will be man-dated."
Beaver Valley, supra, 6 AEC at 246.
IV.
CONTENTIONS 3, 5,
8, 9,
20, 21, 22 AND 25 ARE CCNTRARY TO ESTABLISHED FACTS Eight of the contentions for which Licensee is moving for summary cisposition have an additional infirmity beyond the lack of basis that, as explained above, generally afflicts all of Intervenors' contentions.
These contentions (Nos.
3, 5,
8, 9,
20, 21, 22 and 25) are contrary to well established facts and should-therefore be dismissed as wholly lacking in merit.
Thus, Contention 3 claims that Rancho Seco "has a lack of direct initiation of reactor trip upon the occurrence of of f-normal conditions in the feedwater system," whereas it is indisputable that control-grade hard-wire direct reactor trips upon loss of feedwater and turbine trip have been in place at Rancho Seco since May, 1979.
See, Affidavit of Robert A.
Dieterich ("Dieterich") at para.
2.
The other contentions are equally without merit.
Contention 5 claims that Rancho Seco "has an actuation before trip of a pilot operated relief valve on the primary system pressurizer." However, on April 22, 1979, Licensee modified the setpoints of the high primary pressure reactor trip and the pilot operated relief valve ("PORV") so as to ensure that the reactor trip occurs before PORV actuation.
Dieterich, para.
3.
1857 079 Contention 8 alleges that Rancho Seco "does not have operating prccedures for initiating and controlling the emergency feedwater system independent of the integrated system control." In fact, such procedures have been in effect since mid-1979 and have been reviewed and approved by the Staff.
See, Affidavit of R.
J.
Rodriguez
(" Rodriguez") at para.
2, and S 7.7 at pp. A51-12a and -12b of Exhibit "C"
and p.
8 of Exhibit "D" to the Affidavit.
Contention 9 alleges that Pancho Seco "has not installed adequate hard-wire control grade reactor trip on loss of main feedwa ter and/or turbine trip."
Yet, as noted in connection with Contention 3, hard-wire control-grade reactor trips on loss of feedwater and turbine trip were installed in Ma;>, 1979, and the circuitry for these functions has proved itself adequate by operating successfully on two loss of feedwater trips, two turbine trips, and numerous monthly tests at Rancho Seco.
Dieterich, paras.
4, 5.
Contention 20 decries the lack of a hydrogen recom-biner at Rancho Seco "which may be necessary in the event of a loss of feedwater transient." However, as the Dieterich affidavit shows (para. 6), Rancho Seco is designed so that any hydrogen accumulation in the containment building resulting from an accident is disposed of by purging, not recombining, so a hydrogen recombiner is not necessary.
Moreover, Licensee has a contractual arrangement with another utility to obtain a 857 080 recombiner on loan in the event one is ever needed.
Since it takes several days from the initiation of an accident before hydrogen accumulates to the point of requiring use of a recombiner, Licensee's loan agreement is practically equivalent to ownership of a recombiner.
Dieterich, para.
7.
With respect to Contention 21, which alleges that the Rancho Seco pressurizer tank and quench tank are "of inadequate size to accommodate the volume of gas or liquid that may be required to be stored in the event of a loss of feedwater transient," the Affidavit of Bruce A. Karrasch ("Karrasch")
shows that (a) the pressurizer tank will not be filled (or emptied) in the event of a loss of feedwa te r transient (Karrasch, paras. 4,5); (b) no pressurizer discharge to the quench tank will occur during a loss of feedwater transient (Karrasch, para. 6); (c) the quench tank is designed to accommodate the steam discharged through the PORV and the pressurizer safety valves in a transient (Karrasch, paras.
6,7); and (d) even if the capacity of the quench tank is exceeded, the containment building is designed to isolate any discharges that escape all other safety boundaries.
- Karrasch, para.
6.
Contention 22 alleges that Rancho Seco "does not provide control room operators with sufficient data on the water level in the
.ressurizer and vessel because the operators must interpret information on temperature and pressure in the 1857 081
primary loop and extrapolate water level." However, as long as reactor coolant temperature and pressure are maintained in a subcooled condition, pressurizer level, available to the operators in the control room, is a direct and adequate indication of system water level.
And any need to interpret temperature and pressure data will be eliminated during the current outage, when a subcooling indicator will be installed at Rancho Seco.
Rodriguez, para.
3.
Finally, Contention 25 asserts that Rancho Seco "does not have control room instrumentation which would indicate if the auxiliary feedwater or pressurizer relief valves are open or closed or the instrumentation to open or close such valves automatically." In reality, auxiliary feedwa ter flow instrumen-tation indicating, in the control room, valve position and whether pumps are running, was installed by Licensee in May, 1979 and was approved by the Staff shortly thereafter.
Rodriguez, para.
4.
Similarly, instrumentation is being installed to indicate in the control room the position of the PORV, and such instrumentation will be operational in June, 1980.
Rodriguez, para.
5.
Regarding the automated operation of the PORV and AFW valves, the PORV opens and closes automatically on pressure and the AFW valves either open automatically or are locked open so no automatic operation is required.
Rod r ig ue z, para.
- 6. i857 082
In summary, every one of the above contentions expresses a concern thay may (at best) have been reasonable at one point in time but which, under prerent circumstances, has no basis in fact.
Therefore, each of the contentions should be rejected by the Board and excluded from the evidentiary hearing.
CCNCLUSION
"[T]here must come a time in this case when the question has te be faced by the parties and the Board as to whether [Intervenors'] contentions do, in fact, raise genuine issues of fact to be tried, or whether the contention formally admitted at the intervention stage was merely a sham and not bona fide because there is no demonstrated factual basis for it to go to evidentiary hearing." Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2),
LBP-75-42, 2 NRC 159,162 (1975), footnote omitted.
Licensee submits that the time has now come, just before the evidentiary hearing, for the unmeritorious contentions of Intervenors to be i857 083 summarily rejected by the Board and excluded from further consideration.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRICGE O
A,d k 4$
Thomas A.
Baxter
/
Lex K.
Larson Matias F.
Travieso-Diaz Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 331-4100 1857 084