ML20126A832

Response by CA Energy Commission to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Re G Hursh & R Castro Contentions. Contention Closely Relates to ASLB Questions.Motion Should Be Denied to Avoid Confusion

ML20126A832
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	02/04/1980
From:	Ellison C, Lanpher L CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20126A836	List: ML20126A832 ML20126A837 ML20126A839 ML20126A844
References
NUDOCS 8002260401
Download: ML20126A832 (2)

Text

-

3 ,

s - +

..9. \ 1 I U'iITED STATES OF AMERICA Y a ,y' A NUCLEAR REC-ULATORY CO:O'IS5:0N

'..x

/s// ,c X '- x U , 9,f; A Y 91 -

y ,<,3.- m c " ,gs .

,m Before the Atomic Sato ry an d Licenc ing Bor"N44

,~f

.c :

su, ., c,

% \ <'h *; ,' *,,/f In the Mattar of: ) V JW .. i

) s% .

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY )

D: STRICT ) Dockit ';o . I :-312 (3F '

)

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating )

S ta tion) )

)

CALIFORNI A ENERGY COM'CSSION F.ISPONSE TO LICE: 32E'S MOTION FOR SU:CIARY DISPOSITIO;; OF THE JNTENT :NS OF GARY HURSH AND RICHARD CASTRO.

Pursuant to 10 CPR section 2. 7 49, the Cal;fornia Inergy Cerr.ission

( " C EC " ) files this response to the Licensee 's Motion f:r Summa y Disposition of the Content.h7qs of Gar- Hursh and Rich;;d Castr:.

As an interested state participant in this pr :eeding, the CEC has no position on the merit of these contentions prior te the hearings.

Nor does the CEC know what evidence intervenor:- Hursh and Castro l can present in support of their contentions. We file this response l

to point out, however, that many of the subjec: conten: ions are closely related to the Board's questions. For this reason, we submit that the subjects of these contentions are properly within i

the scope of the hearing irrespective of the merit of the Licensee's motion.

Hursh and Castro Contentions No. 2 and 26 for exa ple, are each related to Board Question No. 3. Both pertain to prirary sensitivities resulting from small steam generator volume. Fimilarly, Contentions 8002200 0

1 'O. E, :?, 21, a : ,i 24 each pertain t void fomation an; its effect 6

l rn utur:1 circu_ation coolin';, a subject also addressou by Board lues:ione ::o . CEC-1-2 anc. CEC-1-10. Con ten tions '!o . 8, 16, 22, 23, I

and 32 are rLlated to Scard Cu2stions !!c. CEC-1-7 and 5-3(a) in

~ ~t ': . a

• mar: gererally pertains to the daaquacy of the prcCSdures, training, and instrumentation available to operators at Rancho

Seco. Contentions No. 4 and 16 address the reliability of the t

integrated control system, a matter related to the reliability of emergenc-; feedwater, the subject of Board Question No. C E 7 .

Lastly, Contention No. 21 pertains in part to quench tank size ar.d is therefore related to Board Question No. CEC-1-4, 'thich .

addresses the possible consequences of safety and relief valve failurcs.

Inasmagh as these contr.W. ions do clcsely relata tq the Board's q.:estions, the CEC believes confusion could result from the granting of the Licensee's motion with respect to any of them. Accordingly, we urge the Board to make clear that the scope of its questions

_s not diminished by the summary disposition of any of the conten-tions discussed herein.

Cated: February 4, 1980 Respectfully submitted,

. I4 _ O CHR?STOPHER ELLISON

]$W) E ^

W '

V LANRENCE C. IC\.NP H E R Attorneys for thJ Califcraia Energy Commission r

i I