ML19294B535

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response by CA Energy Commission in Opposition to Licensee Objection to ASLB Prehearing Conference Order,Part Ii.Urges Denial of Alternative Request Seeking Postponement of Testimony,Due to Agreed Upon Schedule.W/Certificate of Svc
ML19294B535
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 02/21/1980
From: Ellison C, Lampher L
CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003050048
Download: ML19294B535 (5)


Text

__

q, Y

,f

/,n, February 21, 198 f.

1 Lp',s,q

-4 f~l{,pe

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,3.

BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICI'NSING BOARD Y'

i_a--

)

In the Matter of

)

)

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL U"'ILITY DISTRICT

)

Docket No. 50-312(SP)

)

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

Station)

)

)

)

RESPONSE OF Tile CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION TO LICENSEE'S OBJECTION OF PART II OF THE BOARD'S PREllEARING CONFERENCE ORDER OR, IN Tile ALTERNATIVE, TO DEFER Tile FILING OF LICENSEE AND NRC STAFF TESTIMONY ON ISSUE CEC 5-2 The California Energy Commission opposes Licensee's efforts on the eve of the hearing to relitigate the denial of summary dis-position of Issue CEC 5-2 or to obtain a deferral of Licensee and NRC Staff testimony on this issue.

In briefs filed on this issue and in oral argument presented February 6, 1980, all parti-cipants had a full opportunity to litigate the issue.

The Board has made clear its holding that this issue is not barred as a challenge to an NRC rr. la tion.

Thus the Board ruled at the Prehearing Conferenc(

We are going to deny the motion for summary disposition.

We do not see that this particular matter is one that is be-yond either the scope of this hearing or a challenge to the Commission's regula-tions.

We note that even the Applicant 3cososo D f8

. agrees that sequences up and including Three Mile Island are certainly valid.

And it is not at all clear to us in view of the 30 pound spike or so they had there., that had matters been a little different, had the hydrogen even burnt a little dif ferent way, one would not

[ sic] have needed something very like this anyhow.

It seems clearly within the scope of the hearing and clearly not a challenge to the regulations to us.

We will hear evidence on it and we will hear exactly whether or not this kind of system is designable and whether it is desirable; that is, whether it would really improve safety.

Licensee's latest motion offers no new reasons for the grant of summary disposition.

Accordingly, we perceive no need to address the matter further and urge the Board forthwith to affirm its earlier ruling.

The California Energy Commission also opposes Licensee's suggestion that its testimony and that of the NRC Staff on Issue CEC 5-2 be delayed but that the Energy Commission's testimony filed on February 26.

This completely contradicts the earlier agreement among the parties that all testimony relating to Issue CEC 5-2 would be filed on February 26, 1980.

Further, such delay could prolong the hearing schedule in the event the Board -- as it indicated at the Prehearing Conference -- decides to hear testimony from all parties.

Finally, we see no benefit to be derived from such delay since all parties certainly should have nearly completed their testimony by this date.

The interest in compiling as complete a record as possible clearly favors sub-mittal of testimony by all parties.

For all these reasons, we

e strongly oppose the suggested delay in filing of testimony.

We intend to adhere to the agreed-upon schedule unless otherwise directed by this Board.

We see no reason why Licensee should not likewise be required to adhere to that schedule.*/

For the foregoing reasons, we urge that Licensee's motion be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION b

h f

5 y

Christopher Ellison f

v 4

2 wr cu 9 /

w aLawrence Coe Lanpher

~*/

The Energy Commission understands that the NRC Staff is re-questing a one-week delay in the filing of testimony on Issue CEC 5-2 for all parties.

The Energy Commission does not oppose this short delay so long as simultaneous filing of testimony is preserved.

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(SP)

)

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

Station)

)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Response of the California Energy Commission to Licensee's Objection to and Motion for Reconsideration of Part II of the Board's Pre-hearing Conference Order or, in the Alternative, to Defer the Filing of Licensee and NRC Staff Testimony on Issue CEC 5-2" were served this 21st day of February, 1980 by hand delivery upon those identified with an asterisk and by deposit in the U.S. mail, firs'c class, postage prepaid, to the other parties identified on the attached Service List.

v,/

n~ w n,L Lawrence Coe Lanph'er

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(SP)

)

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

Station)

)

)

)

SERVICE LIST

  • Elizabeth S.

Bowers, Esquire James S.

Reed, Esquire Chairman Michael H.

Remy, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Reed, Samuel & Remy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 717 K Street, Suite 405 Washington, D.C.

20555 Sacramento, California 95814

  • Dr.

Richard F.

Cole

  • Thomas A.

Baxter, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lex K.

Larson, Esquire Panel Martias F.

Travieso-Diaz, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Washington, D.C.

20555 Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

David S.

Kaplan, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20036 Secretary and General Counsel Sacramento Municipal Utility District Docketing and Service Section P.O. Box 15830 office of the Secretary Sacramento, California 95813 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire Nashington, D.C.

20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director

  • M r. Frederick J.

Shon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.

20555 Board U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555,

.