ML20076F055

Contends That ALAB-581 Misapplied in Petitioner Attempts to Provide Support for Consideration of Basis Advanced at Oral Argument Supporting Proposed Contention 11

ML20076F055
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	08/23/1983
From:	Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Foster R, Margulies M, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8308250220
Download: ML20076F055 (3)

Text

e 9

uw orr cc, or KEiE0 00j3ypc DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN f 200 SEVENTCENTH S T R E E T, N W

....,N,,,o 83 AUG 23 P2:46 ___

o c.2co,.

TELE pwoNE (20218 57- 9800 CFFicE OF SELR D" 00CKETmG & SERVM>

BRANCH z

August 23, 1983 Morton Margulies, Esq. Adm. Judge Frederick J. Shon Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission

. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Adm. Judge Richard F. Foster Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Re: Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3)

Docket No. 50-508 Gentlemen:

During the Special Prehearing Conference in the cap-tioned proceeding, petitioner for the first time cited Carolina Power & Light (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), ALAB-581, 11 NRC 233 (1980),

in support of its claim that the Licensing Board should consider matters raised by petitioner concerning construction of Applicant's other nuclear projects when ruling on the admissibility of proposed contention eleven (Transcript of August 17, 1983 Special Prehearing Conference ("Tr.") at 65). Proposed contention eleven states, as follows:

Petitioner contends that the Applicant is not technically qualified nor has it exhibited the management capability necessary to operate WNP-3 as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b) and that opera-tion will therefore endanger the public health and safety. Applicant's construction of WNP-3 has revealed the 8308250220 830823 PDR ADOCK 05000508

__ ___ ___ 1

'i systematic lack of manacement respon- .

sibhlity required by Criterion I of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.

More specifically, based on ALAB-581 petitioner'apparently seeks to have proposed contention elgven admitted based on Applicant's past construction activities at'WNP.2.

Because petitioner ; failed to cite ALAB-581 [n. ,ite supplemental petition to intervene or otherwise advice the - +

s parties and Board of its reliance on thqt decision, the Board pcymitted Applicant to submit this letter setding forth its response to petitioner's ardament (Tr. at(70).

That response is set forth below.

In Shearon Harris, the Licensing Board imposed a condition on the construction peritit requiring the Staff,

, upon the' filing of an application for operating licenses, to trigg'er an evidentiary hearing in order to explore ,

further the Applicant's capability to manage plant ,

operation. Questions as to management capability with s respect to plant operation had arisen in large measure as y a result of the Applicant's past operating record at another one of its facilities. LBP-79-19, 10 NRC 37, 74-98.

On appeal, the condition was set aside because it exceeded the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board. '

However, the Appeal Board did not disagree with the Licensing Board that the management of applicant's plants then operating "had lef t much to be desired. "

Accordingly, in lieu of the construction permit condition imposed by the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board directed the Staff to insure that no notice of opportunity for hearing in connection with any-operating licenses for Shearon Harris was issued until the Staff conducted a preliminary evaluation of the' Applicant's management capability to operate the facility and that such evaluation was made publicly available in written form.

ALAB-577, 11 NRC 18 (1980). In ALAD-581, the Applicant requested that these instructions be modified so that a notice of opportunity could be issued in the absence of such an evaluation (ALAB-581, supra, 11 NRC at 236), a request which was rejected by the Appeal Board (Id. at 236-38).

[]T~

t --

)

r A

9 s

1 3-To the extent that ALAB-581 is relevant to this proceeding, it teaches that the bases set forth by petitioner in support of proposed contention eleven should not be considered by the Board. The management record under scrutiny in Shearon Harris involved another facility which that applicant was then operating. Thus, the Licensing and Appeal Boards found that applicant's operating history at one facility was probative of whether e the same applicant had the management capability to operate another facility. In short, the same type of activity at two different sites involving the same applicant was being analyzed. See ALAB-581, supra, 11 NRC at 234; ALAB-577, supra, 11 NRC at 35-36; LBP-79-19, supra, 10 NRC at 74-95.

In stark contrast, petitioner in this proceeding is attempting to use the Applicant's construction history at

, WNP-2 in support of a proposed contention governing go e, rating management capability at WNP-3. Therefore, unlike Shearon Harris, the petitioner is attempting to compare different types of activity at Applicant's different nuclear projects. Shearon Harris does not

, support the proposition that management capability to

- construct one power reactor bears on the ability to operate another. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the petitioner has misapplied ALAB-581 and that such decision provides no legal support for consideration of the basis advanced at oral argument in support of roposed contention eleven. (

Respec ful y u mitted, e

II I l e Nicho1{slS Reynolds Counse f Lo Applicant i J cc: Service List

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _