ML20057D102

Eco Answer in Opposition to Smud Motion for Summary Disposition of Eco Original Loop Contention.* Urges Board Either to Deny Motion or to Defer Consideration of Smud Motion to Conclusion of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20057D102
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	09/27/1993
From:	Mcgranery J ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCES CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION, MCGRANERY, J.P., JR.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20057D103	List: ML20057D102 ML20057D135
References
CON-#493-14339 92-663-02-DCOM, 92-663-2-DCOM, DCOM, NUDOCS 9310010106
Download: ML20057D102 (4)

Text

LCCriTLD F : \\DC2\\TX\\B FM\\JPM\\10417\\SUMMD I SP. PLD SeptembeE2hjiO993 4:28pm

'93 SEP 28 P A Z5 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safety And Licensina'B'oard' l

l

) Docket No. 50-312-DCOM l

In the Matter of

)

) (Decommissioning Order) l Sacramento Municipal Utility District )

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

) ASLBP No. 92-663-02-DCOM Station)

)

)

ECO'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION l

TO SMUD'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF ECO'S ORIGINAL LOOP CONTENTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

f 2.749 (a) (1993), Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization ("ECO") hereby answers the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's ("SMUD") motion for summary disposition of ECO's contention on the loss of offsite power (" LOOP") to the extent admitted by the Commission in its March 3, 1993 memorandum and order.

ECO's answer opposes the granting of that motion on the basis that there are genuine issues of material fact and/or genuine mixed issues fo fact and law to be heard, that ECO's discovery and hearing with respect to a LOOP contention has not yet begun much less been completed, that the true significance of that ECO contention can only be judged in the light of ECO's amended contentions, and that SMUD has shown no benefit that 9310010106 930927

}]

PDR ADDCK 05000312 G

PD8

--. ~.

I i

i would be served by foreclosing further exploration of that 1

contention at this time.

l 3

The fact that SMUD has provided some of the bases for i

its original conclusion regarding the frequency of LOOP should i

not terminate ECO's right to explore the context of the documents e

j provided by interrogatory (ies) and/or deposition (s) as to prior, contemporaneous and subsequent SMUD documentation of its conclusion as to the frequency of LOOP.

It is only after such i'

discovery and then a hearing is allowed that there can be any independent assurance whether there is no longer any justiciable l

or material dispute concerning the identification of the sources and the calculation on which the District has relied and the i

significance of LOOP probability in the context of the amended contentions.

l i

~

SMUD also misinterprets the Commission's direction in l

CLI-93-3 that "[i]f ECO does not file an amended or new i

{

contention within the time permitted by our order, the Licensing Board shall dismiss ECO's petition".

Sacramento Municioal j

Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-

)

93-3, 37 NRC 135, 155 (1993).

That language does not necessarily mean that the Commission " contemplated that the provision by the District of the bases for its LOOP frequency calculation would moot ECO's original LOOP contention."

SMUD Motion at 6.

That language may rather be interpreted to mean that the consideration of LOOP frequency in the abstract would not be material; that is, h

s

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

4 that the frequency of LOOP is material only in the context of a simultaneous consideration with the consequences and mitigation measures of LOOP, as ECO argued in the pre-hearing conference.

Contrary to the SMUD's assertion, the evaluation and consideration of ECO's amended contentions is not " wholly separate from the evaluation of the original LOOP contention" but a

rather is intimately bound up with those considerations.

SMUD l

Motion at 7.

Moreover, SMUD has shown no good cause, or benefit to the proceeding, that would be served by dismissing ECO's original contention at this time.

Finally, to the extent that the Licensing Board considers that there is any question as to the Commission's intention in this respect and that there would be a current i

significant benefit to having the issue resolved before the end of the instant proceeding before this Licensing Board, ECO respectfully urges the Licensing Board to certify the issue to the Commission for resolution in accordance with the Commission's direction in Sacramento Municinal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-19 (at 2-3), 37 NRC (1993).

If the Licensing Board does not find that there would be any significant current benefit to having the issue resolved l

before the end of the proceeding, ECO suggests that such f

certification would not be necessary at this time.

• 1 i

t j

l s

v CONCLUSION Wherefore ECO urges the Licensing Board either~to deny that motion, to defer consideration of SMUD's motion to the j

conclusion of this proceeding, or to certify the issue to the Commission as the Licensing Board deems appropriate in the 1

interest of justice.

r Respectfully submitted,

]

1. 4- -

September 27, 1993 x

u-x mes P. McGraner[

r.

uite 500 1255 Twenty-Third St.,

N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization

_4_

y w

rw'1r-1

,ee,aw-p-m9

=rwarp

't

-ogi g

+w'y'eyp '