ML19344A399

Response in Opposition to Tx Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 800804 Motion Requesting Submittal of Briefs on CLI-80-21 Effects.Objects to Untimely Amend to Contention 11.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344A399
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/14/1980
From:	Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CLI-80-21, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8008200176
Download: ML19344A399 (7)

Text

e August 14, 1980

, < ~5 r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

} r 0 ggt?.C 9

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ANO LICENSING SOAR. ug r0e 7 F AOB 1e,p1 ,

a In the Matter of ) O C Ow

) W0 @

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-COMPANY, et al.

) 50-44 s w.

CD

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

APPLICANTS' ANS* DER TO ACORN'S MOTION TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF SUBMIT BRIEFS ON THE EFFECT OF C' ' ON THIS PROCEEDING; AND TO ACORN'S RT ,

.: TAT CONTENTION 11 3E AMENDED Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.730(c), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (" Applicants") , hereby submit Applicants' Answer to the Texas Association of community Organizations for Reform Now (" ACORN") Motion, filed August 4, 1980, requesting that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Board") order the Applicants and the NRC Staff to submit briefs regarding the "effect" on the captioned preceeding of the Commission's Memorandum and Order, in the matter of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Petition for Emercency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21 (May 27, 1980) ("CLI-80-21").

Applicants also respond to ACORN's request to amend Contention

11. For the reasons set forch below, Applicants request that the Scard deny ACORN's Motion and request to amend.

Briefs On CLI-80-21 Are Not Necessary or Appropriate ACORN's request that the Board order the Applicants or the Staff to submit briefs en CLI-80-21 is highly unusual.

d. %812017g .

993 3 ,,

. _ _. =,- . _ - - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i There is no regulatory requirement in the NRC Rules of Practice i

requiring the Applicants or the NRC Staff to do so. Nor is there any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. SS2011, et sec., or the Administrative Pro-cedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 55551, et sec., which requires that such briefs be filed.

Further, there is no policy or public interest considera-tion that would warrant having the Board grant ACORN's Motion by requiring briefs on CLI-80-21. The Commission clearly set forth in CLI-80-21 the requirements for environmental qualification of Class IE equipment, pending completion of I the rulemaking proceeding which the Commission ordered on environmental qualifications issues. The Commission's order is self-explanatory and requires ao further exposition by Applicants or Staff. There is no legal or practical basis for requiring the Applicants or the Staff to provide ACORN with what in effect would be an advisory opinion on the meaning and significance of CLI-80-21, and the Board should refrain from doing so.

ACORN Has Not Demonstrated Good Cause For Raising New Issues Or Amendina Contention 11 Nontimely requests to, amend contentions or raise new issues in NRC licensing proceedings may not be granted absent a showing of good cause and a favorable balancing of the fac-tors in 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 (a) (1) . In its Motion, ACORN seeks to raise new issues by moving that Applicants and Staff address

_ . _ . _ . - - -_ _._-._-- - _ . - . _ - . - _ - _ - . - - . - - . _ _ _-_~

i l '

unspecified "other issues" contained in CLI-60-21 (ACORN I Motion at 3). ACORN seeks to amend Contention 11 by requesting l 1

that it now be read to include " testing" of Class IE equipment 1

or environmental qualification and compliance of electrical equipment with environmental qualification standards (ACORN r i Motion at 2). ACORN has not, however, made any demonstration 1

as to why the Board should permit it to amend Contention 11 i

! or require Applicants or the Staff to address issues not before this Board.

Further, ACORN's arguments that Contention 11 should be ,

amended to encompass a concern for compliance with the environ- .

mental qualification standards established by the Commission in CLI-80-21 is a clear attempt to untimely amend Contention 11,

! in contravention of 10 C.F.R. 52. 714 (a) (1) . ACORN has not shown that good cause exists for including that issue in Contention 11.

In fact, ACORN could have timely raised the issue of compliance, but did not do so. CLI-80-21 does not justify this untimely j attempt to raise an issue (compliance) which ACORN apparently simply overlooked. In addition, ACORN has no special exper-tise in this area that would assist in developing a sound record on the topic. Also, adjudication of this topic in this proceeding would unnecessarily broaden the scope of the pro-ceeding. For the above reascns, Applicants urge that the Scard l

not permit ACORN to amend Contention 11.

As Applicants noted in their July 1, 1980 Statement i

of Cbjections to the Prehearing Conference Order (see pages 12-13) , Contention 11 involves only the lack of a reliable i__._. - _ _ , . _ . _ . _ _ .-__ _ ____ ,.-._.,._. _ _ _. - _ _ . _ _ _

e methedolcqy for demonstrating compliance with General Design Criteria 4, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A. The Commission's Memorandum and Order resolved precisely that concern. Conten-tion 11 should, therefore, be deleted in its entirety.

Finally, ACORN suggests that the Staff's judgment con-cerning environmental qualifications be open for examination by the public, apparently by raising the issue in this pro-ceeding. Ecwever, ACORN fails to recognize that the Staff's judgment on environmental qualifications of Class IE equipment, as endorsed by the Commission in CLI-80-21, is about to beccme the subject of rulemaking (CLI-80-21, at p. 7) and is thus precluded from consideration in individual licensing pro-ceedings. See Potomac Electric Power Company (Ocuglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-218, 3 AEC 79, 85 (1974). Accordingly, ACORN's request that the Staff's judgment cencerning environmental qualifications be examined in this preceeding should be denied.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Applicants urge that the Board deny ACCRN's Motion that the Board direct the Applicants and Staff to submit briefs en CLI-SO-21, not permit ACORN to untimely amend Contentien 11, and instead delete Centention 11 1

t" - - ~ ~ -ew e ,,-,,-o- , w _

3 6

from the Prehearing Conference order.

Respectfull* submitted, I .

NicholapS. Reynolds u

William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants August 14, 1980 i

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ;

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENEPATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.

) 50-446 l )

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Cperating License)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer To ACORN's Motion To Have The Applicants And NRC Staff Submit Briefs On The Effect Of CLI-80-21 On This Proceeding; And To ACCRN's Request That Contention 11 Be Amended," in the captioned matter were served upon the folicwing persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 14th day of August, 1980:

}

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and 1

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j

1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission

! Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Scard Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission i

Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq.

Board Assistant Attorney General

, U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection '

Commission Division washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 1254G Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010

i Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mt. Chase R. Stephens i 4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street

Dallas, Texas 75224 l

l I

' i f-William A. Horin O.hw i

i cc: Homer C. Schmidt

Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

1

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - . . . . _ . . . _ . - ,- . . , _ _ . - , - _ - . . _ - . , - - , - , , - . ,