ML19294B717
| ML19294B717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1980 |
| From: | Davis L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ALAB-573, NUDOCS 8003050400 | |
| Download: ML19294B717 (7) | |
Text
.
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
)
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 AND
)
STN 50-557 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
)
INC.
)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA 1.
Introduction and Background Joint Intervenors I/ raised for the first time during the course of the appeal of the Partial Initial Decision on Environmental and Site Suitability Matters in this case (PID) 2/ the allegation that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) recently issued policy statement (".. Policy Statement on Reactor Safety Study and Review by Lewis Panel") had withdrawn the rationale for refus-ing to consider Class 9 events in individual licensing proceedings.
For this reason, the Intervenors concluded that the PID under appeal was defective and l/ Citizens Action for Safe Energy, Ilene Younghein, and Lawrence Burrell.
S Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2),
DTP-78-26, 8 NRC 102 as modified at 8 NRC 281 (July 24,1978).
Environ-mental hearings in this case were heard during several sessions in 1977 and 1978. Safety hearings were held during several sessions in 1978 and 1979 and are now complete with the exception of an outstanding motion to reopen the record as to TMI matters.
8003050 that the environnental effects of Class 9 accidents should be considered in this case.3/ In their subsequent decision on the Intervenors' appeal, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) addressed the Inter-venors' Class 9 assertion, and specifically directed the Staff to advise the Commission within 30 days of its position on whether the " consequences of Class 9 accidents should or should not be considered in [the Black Fox] case."
Id. The Appeal Board further invited the "other parties to the proceeding to d
submit their views on the matter to the Commission."_ /
Pursuant to this directive, the Staff submitted its views to the Commission concluding that it saw no special circumstances which would warrant the con-sideration of Class 9 accidents in this case.
The State of Oklahona (State) responded to the Staff's pleading urging the Commission to require the Licensing Board to hold hearings on the environmental consecuences of a Class 9 accident at Black Fox.-7/
-8/
Thereafter, on February 11, 1980, the Applicants moved to 3/
Intervenors' Motion to File a Supplemental Brief dated March 7,1979 and accompanying Supplemental Brief dated March 6,1979.
3/ Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC (Slip Op. dated December 7,1979 at 32).
S Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC (Slip Op. dated December 7,1979 at 32). This opinion affirmed the decision of the Licensing Board in all issues with the exception of the radon issue over which jurisdiction was retained.
Staff Statement on Position on Need to Consider Class 9 Events Pursuant to Direction on ALAB-573 dated January 7,1980 at 5.
7/
State of Oklahoma's Response to Staff Statement of Position on Need to Consider Class 9 Events Pursuant to Direction in ALAB-573 and Request for Time to Discovery Basis for Facts Asserted by Staff and Opportunity to Reply dated February 7, 1980.
In that document, the State of Oklahoma requested leave to respond to the technical basis for the Staff's January 7,1980 submission following receipt of discovery of the technical bases for the Staff pleading.
- 8/ Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Western Farmers Cooperative, Inc.
. strike the State's Response upon the grounds that the State had only been admitted to the proceeding in the last day of the radiological health and safety hearings, S and that since the State had not participated in the environmental and site suitability hearings in this case or the subsequent appeal of the PID which had formed the basis for the Appeal Board Decision in ALAB-573,E/ the State lacked standing to comment on this matter.
For the reasons discussed below, the Staff opposes the Applicants' Motion to Strike.
II.
Discussion In the present proceeding, the Appeal Board directed the Staff to advise the Commission of the reasons why it believed the consequences of Class 9 accidents should or should not be considered in this case, and further stated that "other parties may submit their own views on the question to the Conmission."b/
In reading this latter provision directed to the "other parties", the Applicants conclude that it was the intent of the Appeal Board to permit only the partici-pants in the environmental hearings below to provice the Commission with their view on this subject, and not to permit those participants who were admitted subsequent to this hearing to address this question. We cannot agree with this reading of the Appeal Board's order.
3/ Licensing Board Order dated March 8,1979; Tr. 8485-89.
El Applicant's Motion to Strike dated February 11, 1980 at 3, 4.
E/ Black Fox, ALAB-573, suora, Slip Op. at 32.
While the Appeal Board's order does pemit the interpretation Applicants seek to apply, we nonetheless do not believe this to be the intent of the Appeal Board. Rather, given the concern expressed by the Appeal Board on this subject, and the importance of this question generally, we can only presume that it was the intent of the Appeal Board in directing this issue tc the Commission to also pemit the Commission to have the full benefit of the views and knowledge of all of the participants to the proceeding - irrespective of when they were admitted.
The present motion need not, however, turn upon this question. For here, the State of Oklahoma is not a party to this proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.714, but rather, is participating as an interested State under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 62.715(c). Thus, under the specificlanguage of this latter regulation, the State is pemitted to " advise the Commission" on issues arising in the proceeding, including, we believe, the question of the possible consequences of a
Class 9 accident at Black Fox. Moreover, as the Commission observed in Seabrook in modifying an earlier Order to permit the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to participate in its review proceeding, "the participation of an interested sovereign state in our licensing process, as a full party or otherwise, is always desirable...." Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-25, 6 NRC 535, 537 (1977).
Thus, under the express provisions of the Comission's regulations, the State of Oklahoma should be permitted to advise the Comission on the possible con-sequences of Class 9 accidents at Black Fox and the Applicants' Motion seeking to bar such participation should be denied.-12/
-T27 Moreover, any possible prejudice to a party from merely having the opinion of the State presented would be small when weighed against the potential benefit which would inure to the Commission by having the views of the State, like that of an amicus curiae, before it.
III.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the NRC Staff believes that the State of Oklahoma, under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c), should be permitted to submit its views to the Commission on the pending Class 9 accident issue.
Respectfully submitted,
.[
44 %
L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of March,1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA,
)
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 AND
)
STN 50-557 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
)
IkC.
)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA" and "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS 9 ACCIDENT IN0VIRY" in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail systen, this 3rd day of March,1980:
- John F. Ahearne, Chairman
- Dr. W. Reed Johnson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D. C.
20555 Boa rd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Dr. Victor Gilinsky Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Mr. Richard T. Kennedy Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie
- Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Peter A. Bradford U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Richard S. Salznan, Chairman Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Dr. Paul W. Purdon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Environmental Studies Group Washington, D, C.
20555 Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Street Richard B. Hubbard Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125
. Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Isham, Lincoln & Beale Public Service Company of Oklahoma 1050 17th Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 201 Washington, D. C.
20036 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Joseph R. Farris, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale John R. Woodard III, Esq.
One 1st National Plaza Feldman, Hall, Franden, Reed Suite 2400 and Woodard Chicago, Illinois 60606 816 Enterprise Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citizens Action for Safe Engery, Inc.
Alan P. Bielawski P.O. Box 924 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Claremore, Oklahoma 74107 One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Jan Eric Cartwright, Esq. &
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Charles S. Rogers Attorney General Mr. Gerald F. Diddle State of Oklahoma General Manager 112 State Capitol Building Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 P. O. Box 754 Springfield, Missouri 65801 Mr. Clyde Wisner NRC Region 4 Mr. Maynard Human Public Affairs Officer General Manager 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Western Farmers Coop., Inc.
Suite 1000 P.O. Box 429 Arlington, Texas 76011 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 Andrew T. Dalton, Jr., Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attorney at Law U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1437 South Main Street, Rm. 302 Washington, D. C.
20555 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3900 Cashion Place Washington, D. C.
20555 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
- Docketing and Service Section Martha E. Gibbs, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First National Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Dr. M. J. Robinson Black & Veatch Lawrence Burrell P. O. Box 8405 Route 1, Box 197 Kansas City, Missouri 64114 Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 Mr. T. N. Ewing Acting Director
($.J 6^2) \\ ciert, j
Black Fox Station Nuclear Project Public Service Company of Oklahoma L.'Dow Davis P.O. Box 201 Counsel for NRC Staff Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102