ML19341D459
| ML19341D459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1981 |
| From: | Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103050627 | |
| Download: ML19341D459 (7) | |
Text
- _ _ _.
1 g
I I
Q i
UNITED STATES OF Af1 ERICA I
/,
-t g
0.f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf1ISSION a
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD er nQ g&
In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-454 50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
O.1.
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION BACKGROUND i
On February 14, 1981, the Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsider-ation of this Board's " Memorandum and Ordc.' (Amendment of Revised Conten-tions of Intervenor League of Women Voters)", dated December 19, 1980.
The Applicant's Petition was received by the Staff on February 17, 1981.
The chronological events leading to the Board's Memorandum are essen-tially as stated in Applicant's Petition.
DISCUSSION The Applicant's Petition takes issue with the Board's rulings on three levels relating to contentions admitted into this proceeding.
1.
Late Filed Contentions 1
1 2.
Unresolved Generic Safuty Issues 3.
Regulatory Guide Matters l
C l
T 81gBUSo m
)
D 2-Late Filed Contentions:
In its Answer to the revised contentions of the Rockford League of Women Voters, dated April 25, 1980, the Staff enumerated several conten-tions, which in addition to other infinnities appeared to have been late filed contentions which must be examined in connection with the good cause provisions of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714.
The Board admitted some of the contentions which the Staff had objected to on the basis of timeliness, namely Contentions 17, 40, 78, 87, 100, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 146.
It is understandable that the Board took a liberal approach in its rulings on timeliness because the intervenor was not represented by Counsel at the inception of this proceeding, however the negotiations sessions which took place between the Staff, Applicant and Intervenor commencing some time prior to the special prehearing conference and subsequent thereto were for the purpose of clarifying and sharpening those contentions which had already been submitted. When on March 10, 1980, the " Revised" Contentions of the Intervenor were submitted, it was apparent that many of such contentions were new and not merely clarification of previous contentions.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1) clearly establishes the procedure, based on five factors, wherein a Board can grant relief for a non-timely filing.
The Staff is of the opinion that the Board has not as yet made the good cause finding required under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1) and should reexamine the enumerated contentions anew to detennine whether good cause has been shown for their late submission. O y
Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 374.
4 P
O
' Unresolved Generic Safety Issues The Staff, in responding to the intervenor's " Revised Contentions" on April 25, 1980, opposed the admission of contentions related to the unresolved generic safety issues in this proceeding, absent the intervenor demonstrating any nexus between the issue and particular deficiencies in the facility license application.
The Staff cited Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1976) as authority for its position.
2 The Board, in admitting the contentions relative to unresolved generic safety issues, namely contentions 20-49, 68, 69, 73-75, 77, 80, 86 and 106, took the position that a reading of River Bend, North Anna U and Monticello M ead to the conclusion that in an operating license l
proceeding such as Byron an intervenor "is entitled to put in issue by its pleadings the adequacy of the Staff's treatment of unresolved generic safety issues." The Board also stated that the specificity and nexus contemplated by River Bend supra, cannot be expected until the Staff's SER has been filed.
The Staff does not agree with this interpretation. The ongoing review of generic safety issues is well known and the specific items are well identified.
To allow an intervenor to wait until the SER issues before particularizing a contention is to open the door to unwarranted second-guessing.
Sufficient infomation is avilable to require specific contentions on particular issues.
2]
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, i
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245, 1978.
-3/
Northern States Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-620, 12 NRC Slip Opinion (November 24, 1980).
. The Staff wishes to emphasize the tremendous amount of time and resources that would be required to cope with a vigorous d?scovery on contentions as vague and ur. oecific as the unresolved generic safety issues prior to issuance of the SER. As indicated by the Applicant, the Staff documents, when issued, may raise matters specifically directed to the Byron plant which could lead to the admission of late contentions on those matters if it can be shown such information was not reasonably available in the documents now of record.
Regulatory Guide Matters The Staff, in its previous filing on the " Revised Contentions" indicated that the contentions related to Regulatory Guide compliance, namely contentions 66, 70, 72 and 105, was not specifically relevant to Byron and under the River Bend principle would not be acceptable. The general design criteria of the regulations are intended to provide engineering goals rather than precise tests by which reactor safety can be measured.
Petition For Emergency and Remedial Action; CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400, 406-07 (1978).
1
t CONCLUSION The Staff agrees with the Applicant and urges the Board to recon-sider its ruling on the admissibility of the contentions relative to unresolved generic safety issues and compliance with Regulatory Guides.
In addition, the Staff requests the Board to reexamine those late filed contentions to see whether good cause has been shown under 10 C.F.R. i 4
2.714 for such late submission.
3 l
Respectfully sut,mitted,
~
[A1Myron Kaman
/
Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of March 1981 l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Patter of COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-454 50-455 (Byron Station, Units I and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 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 intern &l mail system, this 3rd day of March,1981.
- Marshall E. Miller Esq., Chairman Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing 1907 Stratford Lane Board Panel Rockford, Illinois 61107 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Axel Meyer Department of Physics Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Northern Illinois University Union Carbide Corporation DeKalb, Illinois 60115 P. O. Box &
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Richard F. Cole U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza
- Docketing and Service Section Chicago, Illinois 60603 Office of the Secretary of the Commission Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cherry, Flynn & Kanter Washington, D. C.
20555 One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 Chicag.o, Illinois 60611 e
=_-
. l, Kenneth F.. Levin Esq.
P.egion III Beatty, Levin, Holland, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Basofin & Sarsany Office of Inspection & Enforcement 11 South LaSalle Street 799 Roosevelt Road Suite 2200 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Chicago, Illinois 60603 i
l Gary N. Wright Illinois Department of Nuclear l
Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 i
l i
i NK
.gDQ Myron Karma Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel I
i l
I i
i f
}
i m._,.
~,-,
w, e,,
.-.,,-n,--ew
,y,
.y-v---,,.-e.---,,
e.w,
,