ML20032A493
| ML20032A493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1981 |
| From: | Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110300191 | |
| Download: ML20032A493 (12) | |
Text
,
'-Y
^
f
'OctobGr-27, 1981!.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0
T
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hC g
BEFORE THE-ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING BOARD
'51 OCT 28 #052 '
)
In th'e Matter'of
)
[0CgbSfCREg
)
CRANCH
. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
').
Docket.Nos. 50-445 l
4 COMPANY, etal.
')
50-446
)
L (Comanche' Peak Steam Electric )
(Application fo'.
.r Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating L3 censes).,prnyp piiid UJ ]
)
00TZ M 9B P '
APPLICANTS' (1) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIO uoAA " - +
M.
(2) ' REPORT ON CHANGES-IN SCHEDULE; AND
+
(3)" MOTION TO POSTPONE. HEARING
~
. s!$
I.
' INTRODUCTION On October 16 and October 17, 1981,. Intervenor CASE filed i
motions, respectively, to defer consideration of Contention 22
.regarding emergency planning, and.to defer consideration of or.
withdraw Contention 24 regarding cost-benefit analysis.
Further, on October 20, 1981, Applicants and CASE filed a
[-
joint motion *:.o defer Contention 25 regarding financial ~quali-l L
fications..Those Contentions and one other lj are scheduled i
[
for hearing on December 2, 1981.
Scheduling Order. (July 23, 1-
'1981).
If The Board also scheduled Contention 9 regarding radio-active releases for. hearing starting on December 2, as well as Board Question 2 regarding the operating quality, assurance. program 'or Comanche Peak.
See discussit.n in l
Part IV, infra,'regarding Applicants' motion to postpone the hearing.
l-Q)sO3
.s i
I
///
~ 8110300191 811027 i
PDR ADOCK 05000445 I
O PM i.
l.,.-
__-,.,..,.,.......,_..._~._.._._.._._,-.._....-..-....._.,-,L;.-...
By Memorandum and' Order dated October 23, 1981, the Board denied CASE's motions to defer consideration of Contentions 22 and 24, and granted CASE's alternative motion to withdraw Con-tention.24.
The Board 'also denied the joint' motion of Applicants and CASE to defer consideration of Contention 25.
Because it had issued its Memorandum and Order before Applicants and the NRC Staff had answered CASE's motions (see 10 C.F.R..52.730(c)),
the Board noted that it would entertain motions for reconsidera-tion of that Memorandum and Order.
^
II.
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF - MOTIONS.REGARDING CONTENTIONS 22 AND 25 Applicants aereby move the Board to reconsider its denial of CASE's motion to defer consideration of Contention 22, and of the joint motion of Applicants and CASE to defer consideration of Contention 25. 2/
Applicants submit that the orderly adminis-tration of this proceeding would be furthered if those motions were granted.
The Board has demonstrated its desire over the last several months to assure that this proceeding is conducted
.with due diligence and expedition, consistent with the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
The Board's conduct in this regard is commendable.
2he Applicants also desire that this proceeding be concluded as soon as possible, so that
-2/ Applicants' demonstration of good cause in support of this motion for reconsideration is based upon the unavailability of certain necessary information on emergency planning, discussed'in this Part, and upon the significant modifications to the construction schedule for Comanche Peak, discussed in Part III, infra.
,-p
,m__-,,9
,,m.-.
, ~,,,,,, _,, -
,-,,,m, m
m,,
,,e,_.-,
w
.y
__m i
. fuel. loading for' Comanche Peak is ' not delayed by NRC licensing activities.
Tihen the Board issued its Scheduling' Order on July 23, 1981, it.did so sua. sponte :and _without _the input off tho~
parties as.to relevant factors and schedules on the -various
~
contentions.. The Board l designated, inter.alia, Contention 22'-
regarding emergency' planning-for-hearing starting'on. December 2, 1981.
Applicants recognized at that time that final-State of Texas off-site emergency plans would not be_ finalized by December.-
1981.
Nevertheless, because of their-_ desire to have as many
. issues as possible litigated and disposed of at the earliest
- possible time, Applicants sought to maintain the schedule -
prescrih^d'by-the Board.-
In reviewing the issues raised in Contention 22, Appli-cants felt at that time that most, if.not all, could be addressed in December hearings even if the off-site plans were i
not available in final form.
However, that view was based upon the assEmption that rapid progress would be made toward L
finalization of those plans.
As matters have evolved, it.be-r-
came apparent to Applicants that deferral of Contention 22 would be advisabl. if to do so would not impact on the schedule f.
for-operation of Comanche Peak.
Based upon the most recent information'available indicating a one year extension in the f.
construction complet' ion date (see Part III, infra), Applicants l
believe that deferral of Contention 22 until the off-site l
i l
I i.
I
~
-4_
emergency plans are more fully developed (even. if. not - finalized) would not' adversely impact the Comanche Peak schedule.
The State of Texas is in the process of. developing its final off-site emergency plans.
We are advised by.the Texas Department of Health that Lthose plans will beLfinalized in mid-February 1982 and then' forwarded to the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FE!!A") for federal: approval. 3/ That-approval is ' expected to take approximately 5-6. months following receipt'of the State plans.
This schedule would lead to an exerc.se of the plans in September 1982 and perhaps even earlier.
Applicants believe that once the State plans have been finalized and sent to FEMA in February 1982, the issues raised in Conten-tion 22 will be ripe for adjudication.
The NRC Staff in its Safety Evaluation Report ("SER")
issued in July 1981 indicated (in SER 513.3) that the Staff and-Applicants were engaged in efforts to clarify the Comanche Peak emergency plans.
In Supplement No. 1 to the SER ("SSER") ' issued on October 16, 1981, the Staff stated ~(in SSER S13.3) that some open items on emergency planning remained, and that a meeting between Appl.'. cants and the Staff had been scheduled.
The Staff further stated (in SSER S22.2, III.A.2) that it could not com-plete its evaluation on emergeacy planning until the State of.
Texas e.2ergency plans are available.
In short, the Staff has not completed its review of emergency planning for Comanche Peak,
-3/ Telephone conversation between J.D.
Edwards (TUGCO) and A.C.
Tate (Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health), October 27, 1981.
- 5 '. -
and likely would'be. unable to: testify meaningfully:on that subject at the_ hearing. scheduled for December 2', 1981.
Accordingly,Jthe Soard should-defer-consideration of Contention 22.until early 1982',;when the Board.should!.invi'n' input from the parties as 'to lthe Estatus of the -Texas emergency:
cplans, preparations for hearing by lthe parties, and-a reason-Jable'date for_the-hearing.
At present,: Applicants believe
. that :a hearing ' in-April or May 1982,t at which all jontenticas and. Board $ questions:could be addressed, would be a reasonable and realistic schedule.
Applicants submit also-that-the. time.
for filing of summary disposition actions should be extended until early 1982, but that.such motions should not be precluded -
in the interim..
Likewi'se, the Board should reconsider its denial of the.
_ joint motion-of Applicants and CASE to defer consideration'of Contention 25 regarding financial cualifications.
In its Memorandum and Order dated October 23, 1981, denying the-jointL motions, the 1-card reviewed the Conmission's plans for the financial qualifications rulemaking (46 Fed. Reg. 41786-(August 18, 1981)) 'and the teachings of Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79 (1974).
The Board concluded'on the basis of this review that "there'is no need to defer consideration _
of Contention 25" (Memorandum and Order, at 5).
Applicants and CASE recognized in their joint motion that the relief requested involved the discretion of the Board and was not mandated by the financial quali'fications rule-
making and-Douglas Point (Joint Motion, at 6-i).
Applicants remain of the view that efficient utilization of resources would be furthered if consideration of. Contention 25 was deferred until early 1982.
With the construction completion date 'for Comanche Peak being rescheduled for June 1983 (see Part III, infra), such a deferral of Contention 25 will not adversely effect the revised construction schedule.
Thus, although there may be "no need" to defer Contention 25, there likewise is no compelling reason for it to be litigated in December 1981.
In the circumstances,.the better course would be for the Board to grant the motion of Applicants and CASE, as the pri ncipal litigants on CASE's Contention 25, to defer that contention.
s
- III.
REPORT ON CHANGES IN SCHEDULE In its Order dated October 20, 1981, the Board noted that the eleventh NRC Monthly Statur Report to CJngress ("Bevill Report")~ dated Septe.mber 30, 1981, indicated a revision in the estimated construction completion date for Comanche Peak Onit 1 from December 1981 to June 1982.
The Board also noted that the delay due to NRC licensing reflected in this Bevill Report was reduced from 10 months to 4 months.
The Board then requested and directed the Staff and Applicants to inform the Board "promptly and affirmatively of all changes that might have a bearing on scheduled dates" (Order, at 2).
2
4
- This will advise the Board that Applicant's have now completed a review of progress on Comanche Peak construction.
As a result of that review,.the estimated completion date for Comanche Peak' Unit 1 construction was revised from June:1982 to June 1983. 4/
The eleventh Bevill Report listed Comanche Peak Unit 1 as experiencing a 4-month delay based-upon a construction com-pletion date_of June 1982 and a Commission decision date of October 1982.
Obviously that 4-month delay will be eliminated by the revised construction completion date of June 1983, which should be reflected in a forthcoming Bevill Report.
Whether..
or not the revised cc.apletion date has been communicated in time to be included' i, the twelfth Bevill Report remains to
- be seen.
Applicants submit that this revised schedule is signifi-cant new infornation that was unavailable to the Board when
^
it issued its Memorandum and Order, and thus constitutes good cause for the motion for reconsideration.
The revised schedule reflect s that the Commission decision date of October 1982 (see Devill Report) can now be met without causing any delay 4/ A copy of the press release and related infort.ation was attached to " CASE's Motion For Postponement Of Hearings,"
dated October 26, 1981.
Accordingly, Applicants have not attached copiea to the instant pleading.
The press release notes that the estimated overall completion date (operation date) for Unit 1 has been " revised to 1984."
This is not inconsistent with the estimated construction completion date of June 1983 discussed in the text.
Rather, it accounts for the need to load fuel and perform testing before commencing operation.
e
-e---
c
-a e
.g
-.g in'startup for Comanche Peak..The revised. schedule also accommodates the deferral of Contention 22-regarding emergency planning and Contention '25 regarding financial qualifications -
until early 1982, when they will be ripe for adjudication-.
IV.
APPLICANTS' MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING In its Memorandum and Order dated October 23, 1981, the Board granted' CASE's alternative motion to withdraw Contention 24, thus eliminating that contention from adjudication.in this proceeding.
The remaining issues that are' scheduled for
-hearing in December 1981 are Contentions 9, 22,-and 25, and Board Question 2.
As to Contentions 22 and 25, both Applicants and CASE (the sponsor of the contentions) have urged the Beard to defer consideration until early 1982 (see Parts II nnd III, i
supra). We understand that the NRC Staff'also will support deferral of those contentions.
Thus, all pertinent parties will have'strongly urged the Board to defer those contentions.
In view of the newly-revised schedule for Comanche Peak Unit 1 i
(see P. art III, supra), there is no compelling reason for the-Board to conduct a hearing on a schedule based upon old information, particularly where all parties concerned support deferral.
As to Contention 9, Applicants and Intervenor CFUR are presently engaged in negotiations on a stipulation.
If those negotiations are fruitful, Contention 9 also would be removed e
a_,
g.
4 as an issue in this, proceeding.
However, even.if those negotiations failL (and the -forthcoming motion of Applicants for summary disposition.of Contention 9 is denied), it would-not_be-a productive use of the time and resources-of the-Board and the - parties to engage in-a he'aring involving only.
Contention 9 and Board Question.2l.
Applicants-believe;that the most efficient and effective approam.
ould be for the Board to conduct one hearing session i
.in early 1982 (April or May) at which all then-remaining. issues could be addressed and resolved.
Accordingly, Applicants move the Board to postpone the hearing scheduled to start on December 2, 1981.
For their.part, Applicants will scrupulously adhere to the Board's OI der' dated October 20, 1981, to keep the Board informed of developments bearing on schedule.
At some time I
in January or February 1982, the Board could receive the submittals of the parties proposing hearing dates and address-ing other re).avant considerations.
The Board would then be assured that the parties had sufficient information to develop
-a full and complete evidentiary record on all issues in contest. 5/
The revised construction completion schedule has made l
postponement of the December hearing possible.
Applicants urge the Board to grant the-instant motion to postpone so that 5/ In the meantime, the informal discovery arrangement developed by CASE, CFUR and Applicants pursuant to the Board's direction (Memorandum and Order (July'24, 1981))
has worked quite well, and Applicants do not foresee i
a need by any party to involve the Board in discovery through motions to compel or strike.
-.u.
10 _
hsarings-in this matter may be conducted effic5.ently and dispositively'in early 1982, consistent with the revised construction completion schedule.
- Respec f ly
- ubmitted, l
n Nichol Reynolds DEBEVOESE i LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W..
Washington,- D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants 4
October 27, 1981
- (
9
{
i 1.
-,m,.,
m.__-.
__..,__,___,._,y.
=,
UNITED STATES'OF-AMERICA
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
BEFORETHE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI G BOARD In the-Matter of
-)
~
')-
TEXAS-UTILITIES GENERATING
-)
Docket Nos. 50-445
' COMPANY,'et al.
)
50-446'
).
-(Comanche Peak-Steam Electric-)'
(Application for -
Station, Units.l.and.2)
)
' Operating Licensss)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' (1) Motion For Reconsideration; -(2) Report On Changes In Schedule; And (3) Motion TN) Postpone ~ Hearing," in the captioned matter were. served upon the following' persons by hand delivery z
(*), overnight delivery-(**) or by. deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 27th day of October -1981:
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic ~ Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board' Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Commission Washington, D.C.-
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Office of the Executive Dean, Division of Engineering, Legal Director Architecture and Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oklahoma Stat.. University Commission Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P.O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 CL.irman, Atomic Safety and i
Licensing Board
- J. Marshall Gilmore i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1060 W. Pipeline Road Commission Hurst, Texas 76053' 1
l' Washington, D.C.
20555 i
. ** Mr. Richard Fouke Mr. Chase R. Stephens 1668-B Carter Drive Docketing & Service Branch Arlington, Texas 76010~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C.
20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224
\\
{
t n
Nichol Reynolds Lv cc:
Homer C.
Schmidt Spencer C.
Relyea, Esq.
1
(
i a
)
. -.., ~.
,,-.-e.___
.. ~.... ~,. _.
r
-