ML20034H844
| ML20034H844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1993 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13719 DCOM, NUDOCS 9303220144 | |
| Download: ML20034H844 (7) | |
Text
e F7M COLKETED U5faC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 tiTI 12 P3:53 BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-312-DCOM SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
)
(
UTILITY DISTRICT
)
(Decommissioning Order)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Facility Operating License No. DRP-54)
)
NRC STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO ECHO'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION FAwin J. Reis Rputy Gernal Counsel for Reactor Licensing March 12,1993 3220144 93031y DESIGNATD ORIGIN}1; '
ADOCK 05000312 PDR Cortifled By'~
~ Q~
March 12,1993 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
_9 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-312-DCOM SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
)
UTILITY DISTRICT
)
(Decommissioning Order)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Facility Operating.
)
License No. DRP-54)
)
NRC STAFF'S OPPOSITION-TO ECO'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION On March 5,1993, Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO) filed "ECO's Petition for Reconsideration," seeking reconsideration of CLI-93-3,
_ NRC _ (March 3,1993). In panicular, ECO seeks reconsideration of Paragraphs 2 and 4 of that Order (Slip op. at 33).
The NRC Staff opposes ECO's petition with respect to reconsideration of Paragraph 2.
EACKGROUND In its Memorandum and Order, CLI-93-03, the Commission decided the appeal of the Licensing Board's denial, LBP-92-23, of ECO's petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding, holding, inter alia, that "2. Within 14 days of service of this order, ECO a
may file an amended contention challenging the adequacy of the decommissioning funding -
plan." Order at 33. The Commission also provided that:
i 4.
Within 14 days of service of this order SMUD shall provide ECO with all; correspondence related to decommissioning and decommissioning funding '
submitted to staff by or on behalf of SMUD after July 14,1992, and SMUD '
shall continue to serve such information on ECO until the agency has issued its final determination in this proceeding.
id.
DISCUSSION ECO argues that the 14-day period allowed by the Commission in Paragraph 2 of its Order is inadequate because the period is " coterminous" with the period specified in Paragraph 4, and, as a result, information which may be needed to file an amended contention will not be available in a timely fashion. Petition at 2. Thus, ECO asks that the period provided by Paragraph 2 be revised to provide that an amended contention may be filed within 19 days qfter SMUD supplies decommissioningfunding plan andfunding plan documents to ECO, instead of 14 days after service of the Commission's Order.
ECO says it "would severely and unfairly disadvantage ECO" in preparing an amended contention if ECO is not first provided with " correspondence and other information" which the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is required to provide to ECO under Paragraph 4 of the same order.
ECO nowhere states that it does not have access to SMUD's decommissioning funding plan, which is explicitly the subject of an amended contention authorized ~by Paragraph 2, or, for that matter, to decommissioning plan information to the extent i
covered by Paragraph 4.
These documents, to the' extent that they are submitted in -
E h
! support of SMUD's request for approval of the decommissioning plan, including the decommissioning funding aspects thereof, are are required to be available to ECU's
[*
counsel in the Commission's Public Document Room in Washington, D.C., as well as in the local Public Document Room in Sacramento, California. Indeed, ECO's counsel indicated he had examined the funding plan before the prehearing conference (Tr.152).
As the Commission held in CLI-93-03, "ECO has an ' ironclad obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material pertaining to the facility in question with sufficient care to enable it to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation i
for a specific contention.'" Order at 18-19; footnote omitted. There is no claim these materials are not available. ECO's failure to examine publicly available information thus undermines its argument that additional time is needed to examine such documents as it may receive from SMUD in response to the Commission's directive in Paragraph 4 of ~
its Order.'
i 2
ECO also seeks to have the word " correspondence" in Paragraph 4 of the Commission's Order expanded, from " correspondence" to " correspondence and other information" such as " face to face meetings." The Staff does not object to broadening
- the word " correspondence" to " documents," but it does not understand how non-recorded material, if any, can be served on the parties.
1 m.
-.. CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons, the Staff opposes recensidering CL1-93-03 to provide ECO more time to file as amended decommissioning funding contention.
Respectively submitted, Edwin. Reis Deputy General Counsel for Reactor Licensing Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of March 1993 n.
I I
ry
+
b.
k dy q
[
[grmD
- UdNitC
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION;3 Ltna 12 P3tS3
.[
BEFORE THE COMMISSION :
krs N MiW"YT tt)cg unu 3.*M
(
In the Matter of
.)
)
' SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
.)
Docket No. 50-312-OLA-UTILITY DISTRICT
_ )..(Decommissioning Order) <
)
c (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
)
Facility Operaing License No. DRP-54)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
^
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO ECHO'S PETITION :
FOR RECONSIDERATION" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the i following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an_ asterisk,y by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this'12th dayj of March 1993:
Charles Bechhoefer, III, Chairman
- James R. McGranery,.Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge.
Dow,:.lehnes & Albertson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
-1255 23rd Street, N.W.-
W
. Mail Stop: EW-439 Suite 500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington,' DC 20037 Washington, DC120555 Environmental Conservation Organization Richard F. Cole
- LSuite 320 Administrative Judge 101 First Street -
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board les' Altos, CA 94022 Mail Stop: EW-439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Jan Schori, General Counsel.-
Washington, DC 20555 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street Tho. mas D. Murphy *
. P.O.; Box 15830 -
Administrative Judge:
Sacramento, CA. 95814 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop:.EW-439?
Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
- r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw,- Pittman, Potts,' & Trowbridge f
Washington, DC 20555 -
- 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. ;: 20037.
t-A
~
t
7_
+
i.
y:
r p.
k k:
- 2-
.j r
[.
h A. David Rossin, President
_ Adjudicatory File * (2);
i Rossin and Associates Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P
- 24129 Hillview Drive" Mail Stop:. EW-439 Los' Altos Hill, CA 94022 U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
.f Washington, DC : 20555-Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
700 H Street, Suite 2450 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel * -
Sacramento, CA 95814 Mail Stop:. EW-439 I
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. S. David Freemen Washington,~ DC : 20555 -
l General Manager Sacramento Municipal Utility District Office of the Secretary * (16)_-
j 6201 S Street Attn: ' Docketing and Service.
P.O. Box 15830
~ Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15.-
4 Sacramento, CA 95852-1830-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205551 Office _ of Commis.sion-Appellate Adjudication * ;
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Mail Stop: OWFN-16/G15.-
Washington, DC 20555 a
~
-j Edwiyf. Reis ;
]
Deputy General Counsel.
for Reactor Licensings l.:
't 1.
t
'(
.i
.; e : ;
(,.(