ML20034G715

Licensee Response to Eco Petition for Reconsideration.* Eco 930305 Petition Should Be Denied in Toto.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20034G715
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	03/09/1993
From:	Doris Lewis SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#193-13695 DCOM, NUDOCS 9303110082
Download: ML20034G715 (6)

Text

..

i

~

l36ff a

i March 9, 1993" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'93 UEE ~9 P 57 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION

+.

3efora the Ccmmission In the Matter of

)

i

)

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY

)

Docket No. 50-312-DCOM DISTRICT

)

• M 3Si ning Plan) 1 (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

Station)

I i

L!CENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ECO'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION l

i The Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("Licensce" or the f

" District") hereby responds in opposition to ECO's Petition for Reconsideration, which ECO submitted to the Commission on March i

5, 1993.

ECO seeks amendment of the Commission's Order, CLI-93-03, dated March 3, 1993.

For the reasons discussed below, CCO's petition is unjustified, dilatory, and should be denied, t

ECO seeks amendment of paragraph 4 of the Order to require the District to provide ECO, in addition to correspondence, "other information" related to decommissioning and decommission-ing funding.

This demand abuses the Commission's generosity, which required the District to provide copies of correspondence l

t despite ECO's lack of any legal entitlement thereto.

ECO now attempts to expand the commission's order in a manner that is tantamount to discovery in advance of admitted contentions and is i

t in any event unduly vague.

9303110082 930309 e

PDR ADOCK 05000312 l

G PDR i

SOS

1 ECO's provides no justification for its demand.

In fact, ECO's cotnsel is on1v t_hree blocks from the NRC's public document q

1 room and so has ready access to documents provided to the NRC.

In light of this access, ECO's insistence on being served docu-f i

ments on a silver platter is unseemly, and the District can think of no basis for ECO's demand other than an attempt to further delay by raising meritless procedural issues.

i j

The lack of justification for ECO's demand aside, the Dis-trict also responds that it has reviewed its files and has not i

identified any "other information" related to decommissioning and decommissioning funding submitted to the NRC Staf f af ter July 14, l

1992.

To the extent there are meetings with the NRC Staff in the f

future, such meetings are publicly announced in advance.

ECO also moves the Commission to amend paragraph 2 of the Order to allow ECO to file an amended contention challenging the adequacy of the decommissioning plan within nineteen days from l

service of the documents discussed above, as opposed to fourteen days from service of the Order.

Although the District has 5

9 i

already informed ECO that there are no documents submitted after July 14, 1992 relating to decommissioning funding,1# ECO suggests i

without any good faith basis whatsoever that this representation i

1/

Letter from T. Baxter to J. McGranery (March 5, 1993).

i

, t 4

}

may be unrelleble.1 ECO further argues that it also needs the information that the District may have submitted on the decommis-sioning plan because "the adequacy of the decommissioning funding i

plan is intimately related to the developments / changes in the scope, content, and scheduling of_the Decommissioning Plan itself."2 I

ECO has made no showing that there has been any change in-the decommissioning plan affecting the validity of the District's.

decommissioning cost estimates and hence its funding plan.

There is therefore no basis for ECO's motion other than delay.

ECO is simply demanding discovery before pleading contentions -- a prac-1 tice that is not allowed under the NRC's Rules of Practice.

ECO does not explain why its counsel is unable to travel three blocks J

to review the documents in the PDR, which is the responsibility of every petitioner in NRC proceedings.

In any event, the District has provided by hand delivery today all documents specified by paragraph 4 of the Order.

ECO still has thirteen days to review these documents before its amended contentions are due.

This is more than ample time.

l 1

2/

See ECO Petition for Reconsideration (March 5, 1993) at 2 n.l.

1/

16. at 2. 1

Accordingly, ECO's Petition should be denied in toto.

,i Respectfully submitted, l

t Thomas A.

Baxter, P.C.

David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20037 (202) 663-8000 Jan Schori General Counsel SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT P.O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 (916) 732-6123 Counsel for Licensee Dated:

March 9, 1993 3320/029dr1.93 I

m e

.Nrt t

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'93 l's -9 P2 :58 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

i Before the Commission I

,e

....p;

.. b :

In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. bO-312-DCOM

[

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY

)

DISTRICT

)

(Decommissioning Plan) l

)

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

ASLBP No. 92-663-02-DCOM i

Station)

)

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE T hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Licencco's Recponse to ECO's Petition for Reconsideration," dated March 9, 3993, were served upon t.he following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an j

acterick by hand delivery, this 9th day of March, 1993.

A copy of this pleading wac alco provided by facsimile to the Office of the Secretary, Att'n Docketing & Service Branch.

l i

Commisaloner Ivan salin, Chairw.an Conniasioner E. Call de Planque U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 washington, p.c. 20555 i

Commissioner Kenneth C.

Rogers Administrative Judge U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Connission Charles sochhoefer, Eng., Chairman Wa:hington, D.C.

20555 Atomic Safety and Lievneing Board U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner James R.

Curtise Washington, D.C.

20555 i

U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Cummissivn t

Washington, n.c.

20555 Administrative Judge Dr. Richard F. Cole Commissioner Torrect J. Remick Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555

)

't y

-r

~

I k

i Administrative Judge Adjudicatory File Mr. Thcmas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board At.omic safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Conanission Washington, D.C.

20555 Wa s hingt.on,

D.C.

205 %

Offica of commienion Appellate Charles A.

Bart.h, Esq.

Adjudication

)

office of_the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatery Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555

[

• James P. McGranary, Jr., Emy.

Jan Schori, Esq.

1255 - 23rd Street, N.W.

I General Councc1 Suits 750 f

Sacramento Municipal utility District Washington, D.C.

20037 j

P.O.

Box 1S830 Sacramento, CA 95813 Offico of the Secretary Attn Docketing and Service Branch i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.C.

20555 i

l t

w

- _ _..)s,\\

N e

David R.

Lewis 012 4 / 0 3;t.at. 9 3 i

a i

~

h

=2

'i