ML20032B050
| ML20032B050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B051 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111040330 | |
| Download: ML20032B050 (6) | |
Text
.
11/2/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY p D LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-445 9
50-446
//
D\\ !,;,r ggg\\" '\\
kV r"
(Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
a c(-
o.5-@v,
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' AND j
CASE'S MOTIONS TO POSTP0NE HEARING J
N / /,,,, (as-On October 27, 1981, Applicants filed a " Motion To Postpone Hearing" (as part of a "liotion for Reconsideration" and " Report on Changes In Schedule")M (hereaf ter " Applicants' Motion").
In this motion, Appli-cants move that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereafter
" Licensing Board") postpone the hearing scheduled to begin on December 2, 1981, until April or May 1982 ( Applicants' Motion, at 5).
In support of this requested postponement, Applicants cite (1) the new information revising the estimated construction completion aild fuel load dates for y
The Staff is not filing an answer to Applicants' " Motion for Reconsideration" and " Report on Changes in Schedule", since on October 28, 1981, the Staff filed its own " Motion for Reconsider-ation of fiemorandum and Order dated October 23, 1981 Concerning Conteotions 22 and 25" (hereafter " Staff's Motion for Reconsider-ation"), in which the Staff also reported on the information it has received regarding changes in the Applicants' estimated dates for completion of Comanche Peak construction.
'~*
w.6...
8111040330 811102 u
gDRADOCK 05000445 PDR osos,4
Cocanche Peak;2.f (2) CASE's withdrawal of Contention 24; (3) the requested deferral of Contentions 22 and 25,3_/ and (4) the pending nego-tiations between Applicants and CFUR (and the Staff) on a stipulation regarding Contention 9.
On October 26, 1981, CASE filed a " Motion For Postponement of Hearing" (hereafter " CASE's Motion"), which is also based on the new information regarding completion of Comanche Peak construction and the support by Applicants, CASE and the Staff for deferral of Contentions 22 and 25. According to CASE, "there is no remaining urgent need to proceed with the 12/2/81 hearings prematurely" (" CASE's Motion, at 1), since "to do so... will actually serve to delay the proceedings because of the-cut-off of discovery on issues yet to be fully explored... especially y
Applicants had previously estimated the date for completion of Comanche Peak Unit 1 construction to be June 1982 (See Attachment 2 to Staff's Motion for Reconsideration). Although Applicants have now stated that revised completion date for Unit 1 is 1984-(See Applicant's Motion at 7, fn. 4; Attachment 5 to CASE's Motion and to Staff's Motion for Reconsideration), according to Applicants, the 1984 date is an "overall completion date" (opera-tion date) (Applicant's Motion at 7) which " accounts for the need to load fuel and perform testing before commencing operation."
(Id.). As stated in a letter dated October 29, 1981 from H.C.
Schmidt, Manager, Nuclear Services (TUGCO) to Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director of NRC's Division of Licensing, "the revised estimated fuel load date for Comanche Peak Unit 1 is now June, 1983."
(A copy of that letter is included as Attachment 1 to this document). We would also note for the Licensing Board's information, that the Applicants have filed an application for an dae/ldQent to the Comanche Peak construction permits to extend the latest construction completion dates.
(See Attachment 2).
y The Staff position supporting deferral of Contentions 22 and 25 is set forth in,the Staff's Motion for Reconsideration.
~
regarding Contentions 22 and 5."O (Id.)
Instead of starting the hearing on December 2,1981, CASE urges that the Licensing Board
" schedule a prehearing conference for 12/1/81 and 12/2/81 to ascertain the exact reasons for the projected two-year delay in the completion date."
(Id., at 3, emphasis in original).
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff opposes Applicants' and CASE's motions to postpone the hearing, although, consistent with its Motion for Reconsideration, the Staff believes that Contentions 22 and 25 should not be incit:ded at the hearing scheduled to start on December 2, 1981.
In addition, the Staff believes that the prehearing conference scheduled for December 1,1981 should take place as planned, however, as stated below, the Staff does not agree with CASE that the y
CASE has apparently mistakenly assumed that discovery on Conten-tion 5 has been cut-off.
First, Contention 5 is not one of the issues to be considered at the hearing scheduled to start Decem-ber 2, 1981.
See the Licensing Board's " Scheduling Order" of July 23, 1981.
In that Order, the Board established October 23, 1981 as the deadline for completing "FES-related discovery." Con-tention 5 concerns Applicants' alleged failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions of the ccastruction permits and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B.
Since Contention 5 does not concern the environmental impacts of Comanche Pe:ik operation, it is not covered in the FES. Although the Licensina Board stated in its " Scheduling Order" that "the parties shall cor. duct seasonably and conclude discovery on the remaining SER-related 1, sues" (Scheduling Order, at 2), it is not correct that disc)very has been cut-off on Contention 5.
Contention 22 concerns the adequacy of emergency plan 91ng. Although Contention 22 is not "FES-related," the Staff has interpreted the October 23, 1981 deadline for completing discovery established in the toArd's Scheduling Order to apply not only to "FES-related" discovery but to discovery on all contentions currently scheduled to be considered at the hearing starting December 2,1981, including Contention 22.
In the event that Contention 22 is deferred, the Staff believes that the better course would be to treat discovery on that contention as "open", along with discovery on the other contentions not now scheduled for hearing.
4_
purpose of such a conference should be to " ascertain the'" exact reasons" (CASE's Motion, at 3) for the delay in completion of. Comanche Peak
~ construction.
DISCUSSION Applicants argue that in' view of the new information on the esti-mated dates for cocpletion of Comanche Peak construction "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."
(Applicants' Motion, at 8).
Similarly, CASE asserts that there is now "no remaining urgent need to proceed with the 12/2/81 hear-ings prematurely."
(CASE's Motion, at 11 While the revised construction completion dates appear to have eliminated the slippage which has been cited by the Licensing Board as a factor in its scheduling actions 5/ and the Applicants, CASE and the NRC Staff support deferral of Contentions 22 and 25, all the parties do not, as Applicants imply, support deferral of tne hearing.
In this regard,-
only Applicants and CASE have sought to postpone the hearing. None of the other parties.(the NRC Staff, CFUR, and-the State of Texas, which is participating as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715(c))
have suggested that the Licensing Board postpone the hearing.
~.
5/
See Licensing Board's Order of October 20, 1981, at 2.
A favorable ruling by the Licensing Board on the other pending motions _/ may result in the deferral of Contentions 22 and 25 or summary 6
disposition of Contentions 9 and 25. However, the Staff does not agree that the hearing scheduled to start on December 2,1981 is, as CASE suggests
" premature" or, as Applicants suggest, that "it would not be a productive use of the time and resources of the Board and parties to engage in a hearing involving only Contention 9 and Board Question 2."U (Applicant's Motionat9).
Even if the hearing scheduled to start on December 2, 1981 considers fewer contentions than originally contemplated, the Staff agrees with the Licensing Board that:
"It is high time that this proceeding advance beyond the discovery and motion stage to at least commencement of an evidentiary hearing." See " Memorandum and Order," October 23,1981(at6).
The Staff would not object, however, if the " final evidentiary hearing" mentioned by the Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order, supra, (at 6) is scheduled for April or May 1982 (the date suggested by the Applicants for commencing the evidentiary hearing)8_/ rather than mid-February 1982, as suggested by the Licensing Board.
6f In addition to the pending motions for reconsideration filed by Applicants and the Staff, on October 28, 1981, the Applicants filed a " Motion for Summary Disposition of CFUR's Contention 9" and on the same date, the Staff filed a " Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25 (Financial Qualifications)." Also, as previously noted, Applicants, Intervenor CFUR and the NRC Staff are presently engaged in negotiations on a stipulation on Contention 9.
7/
Applic' ants appear to assume that Contention 22 is deferred and that Contention 25 is either deferred or dismissed upon summary disposition.
8/
According to, Applicants, a " hearing in April or May 198/, at which all contentions and Board Questions could be addressed," (Applicants' Motion at 5) "would be a reasonable and realistic schedule" (Id.).
6-In view of the divergent positions of the parties and the Licensing Board regarding the schedule to govern this proceeding, the Staff believes that a prehearing conference on December 1,1981 should take place as scheduled, to allow the Licensing Board to, among oter things, consider the positions of the parties before adopting a further schedule to govern this proceeding.
However, the Staff does not support CASE's suggestion that a prehearing conference on that date (and uecember 2, 1981) is necessary "to ascertain the exact reasons" (CASE's Motion, at
- 3) foi the delay in completion of Comanche Peak construction.
Contrary to the implication in CASE's Motion (at 3), the parties and the Licensing Board have been fully informed of this development in the Applicants' press release of October 26, 1981, (which has been served ontheLicensingBoardandtheparties)U and Applicants' " Report on Changes In Schedule," supra.
CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, the Staff does not support Appli-cants' and CASE's motions to postpone the hearing scheduled to start on December 2, 1981, although the Staff continues to believe that Conten-tions 22 and 25 should not be included at that hearing.
Respectfully submitted, lid n LL-iloM1d Marjorie U. Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at liethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of November, 1981.
o
._9/
See footnote 2, supra.
me p--'--t y
-T---
g-9yy e
a een-g t-lv--
e+Mc r=-
-t-e
++e---
g
--w---
p v