ML20211B931
| ML20211B931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1986 |
| From: | Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1131 CPA, NUDOCS 8610210225 | |
| Download: ML20211B931 (20) | |
Text
<
g3/
00CKETED C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~86 0CT 17 Pl2:30 BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6FF T' a 00Co ; : ., : ci In the Matter of ) .:-
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et _al.
)
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CASE'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF AMENDED CONTENTION I. INTRODUCTION On September 30, 1986, Consolidated Intervenors CASE and Meddle Gregory filed a " Motion to Admit Amended Contentions or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration of Certain Previously Denied Contentions" (" Motion"). Consolidated Intervenors ask that they be permitted to modify the one consolidated contention that was admitted by the Licensing Board. Attached to their Motion are " Amended Contentions" 1 and 2. In the alternative, Consolidated Intervenors move that the Board reconsider the denial of CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Meddie Gregory Contention 2. Motion , pp . 1-2. The NRC Staff (" Staff") opposes Consolidated Intervenors' Motion in its entirety.
! II. BACKGROUND On May 2, 1986, the Licensing Board issued a Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order ("Prehearing Order")
i 8610210225 861015 l PDR ADOCK 05000440 O PDR i
a admitting CASE and Meddie Gregory as Consolidated Intervenors in this proceeding, and admitting a single contention derived from CASE Contention 6 and the virtually identical Gregory Contention 1.
Both the Applicants and the Staff appealed the Licensing Board's Prehearing Order. After the filing of briefs and oral argument, the Appeal Board certified the following question to the Commission:
Is the admitted CASE /Meddie Gregory contention
. . . foreclose d as a matter of law by Washington Public Power St.pply System (WPPSS Nuclear Power Project Nos. la2), CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221, 1230-31 (1982).
On September 19, 1986, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order, CLI-86-15, in which the Commission provided its answer and additional guidance regarding the question certified to it by the Appeal Board. Both Applicants and the Staff have filed briefs 1
. providing comments on the Commision decision, pursuant to the opportunity provided to them by the Appeal Board. See Texas Utilities Electric Co. , et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1) (September 22,1986) (unpublished order).
III. DISCUSSION A. Consolidated Intervenors Have Not Met the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1)
The Licensing Board may permit amendment of Consolidated Intervenors' contention only if balancing of the five factors of
-1/
Permittees' Memorandum in Response to the Appeal Board Order of September 22, . 1986 (September 26, 1986); NRC Staff Comments on CLI-86-15 (September 30, 1986).
I
. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) favors amendment. U See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(3); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LB P-85-11, 21 NRC 609, 627 (1985),
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-806, 21 NRC 1183, 1190 (1985). In the Staff's judgement, balancing of the five factors weighs against the amendment of Consolidated Intervenors' contention.
- i. Good Cause for Amendment of Contention The Staff does not contest Consolidated Intervenors' view that good cause exists for the filing of amended contentions. However, the Staff disagrees entirely with Consolidated Intervenors' discussion of CLI-86-15. In addition, Consolidated Intervenors' explanation of the reason for the wording of their originally-filed contentions appears to be a post hoc construction. The Staff's discussion of CLI-80-15 is set forth below in the Staff's analysis of the amended contentions.
2,/ Consolidated Intervenors argue that the Licensing Board has broad discretion to decide whether to permit late amendment of a contention. See Motion , p. 3. Ilowever, Consolidated Intervenors cite only one case in support of this proposition -
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-808, 21 NRC 1183, 1190 (1985). In fact , the Appeal Board in Limerick stated that Licensing Boards are to be given broad discretion in balancing the five factors of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) . Id. Moreover, the Commission has emphasized that licensing boards are expected to demand compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a).
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-5,13 NRC 361, 364 (1981).
11 . Availability of Other Means by which Petitioner's Interest win be Protected As will be argued in Section B. below , Consolidated Intervenors' amended contentions are not admissible, since they in essence are merely a reworded challenge to the adequacy of the Applicants' corrective action program. Moreover, the issues which are raised in Consolidated Intervenors' amended contentions are currently the very focus of the ongoing operating license proceeding. Indeed, CASE has indicated that it intends to challenge the adequacy of the CPRT Program- Plan in the ongoing operating license proceeding by questioning, inter alia, the independence of the CPRT organization, the conceptual adequacy of a sampling approach to obtaining reasonable assurance, and the failure of the CPRT trending and root cause determination processes to adequately identify the true scope of found problems. See, eg, CASE's Proposed Schedule for IIcarings (June 30,1986), pp. 15-17. What is i
l crucial is that these issues which CASE intends to pursue in the i
operating license proceeding are also the subject of Consolidated l
Intervenors' amended contentions. For example, Section C.2.a. of l the basis provided for Amended Contention 2 asserts that the CPRT "is not sufficiently independent of TUEC . ..;" Section C.2.b contends that trending, documentation and verification of the work is impossible. A casual examination of Sections C. and D. of the statement of basis for Amended Contention 2 reveals that the issues which Consolidated Intervenors seek to raise in this construction
I permit extension proceeding are substantially identical to those already in the operating license proceeding. It incluctably follows that Consolidated Intervenors' interests are being protected in another forum (indeed the proper forum) in which one of the Consolidated Intervenors is participating - namely , the CPSES operating license proceeding. The Staff concludes that this factor balances against the Consolidated Intervenors.
iii. Extent to Which Petitioner's Participation may be Reasonably Expected to Assist in Developing a Sound Record l The Staff does not disagree with Consolidated Intervenors' observation that Intervenor CASE has actively participated in the ongoing CPSES operating license proceeding. However, it is the Staff's observation that, with the exception of design issues, CASE's participation there has been more in the manner of raising questions, rather than in the affirmative presentation of technical evidence. The Staff is cognizant of NRC decisions where Intervenors were permitted to take a more " passive" litigational stance, e.g. by relying. on cross-examination . Ilowever, the Staff suggests that in the context of determining whether to permit late amendment of a defective contention, the Licensing Board should consider whether the Consolidated Intervenors will take an active part in developing a l
1
-3/
See, e. ., Tennessee Valley Authority (llartsville Nuclear Miint, n ts I A, 2A, IB, and 2B), ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341, 356 (1978), Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 389 (1974).
record, as opposed to merely shaping the direction the litigation will proceed by the interposition of issues by individuals who do not i have the appropriate technical qualifications to evaluate and criticize the matters which they address. O When Consolidated Intervenors' capability to assist in developing the record is assessed with that consideration in mind , the Staff submits that this factor weighs against them.
iv. Extent to Which Petitioner's Interests will be Protected by Existing Parties The Staff agrees with Consolidated Intervenors that there are no other parties in this proceeding that can represent Consolidated Intervenors' interest.
- v. Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation Will
- Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding This factor weighs against Consolidated Intervenors. But for the single contention admitted by the Licensing Board, there would be no construction permit extension proceeding before this 4/ Any rejoinder on' this point by Consolidated Intervenors should be ignored by the Licensing Board. As the Appeal Board has said, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that it has. the capability to contribute meaningfully to the development of the record, by " set [ ting] out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony. Vague assertions regarding petitioner's ability . . . are insufficient."
Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, i Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982). Consoli-dated Intervenors simply failed to make an adequate showing in their Motion.
l l
i
Licensing Board. The Staff has argued in its brief on appeal that this contention was improperly admitted 5 , and has further expressed its view to the Appeal Board that the Commission's decision in CLI-86-15 compels the exclusion of that contention. EI If the Appeal Board reverses the Licensing Board's decision admitting the single contention, this proceeding would terminate. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b). Allowing the Consolidated Intervenors to submit an amended contention that would be admissible would clearly result in continuation of this proceeding.
B. Consolidated Intervenors' Amended Contentions 1 and 2 are Inadmissible
- i. Amended Contention 1 Amended Contention 1 simply argues that:
Applicants have not alleged or established that they have discarded and repudiated the policies that caused the delay in completion of construction of Unit 1.
This contention is inadmissible because it does not allege with supporting basis either: (1) that the Applicants' policies claimed to be responsible for the delay in completion of Unit I would not be considered to be " good cause," see Public Service Company of New llampshire (Seabrook Station , Unit 2), CLI-84-6, 19 NRC 975, 978
~5/
See NRC Sta ff's Notice of Appeal from Atomic Safety and LTe~ensing Board Memorandum and Order Concerning Parties and Contentions and Supporting Brief (May 12, 1986).
6/ See NRC Staff Comments on CLI-86-15 (September 30, 1986).
l
. (1984), or (2) that Applicants adopted a deliberate policy to con-struct Unit 1 in violation of NRC requirements, see CLI-86-15, slip op. at 6,9. Under the Commission's analysis in WPPSS and Seabrook, Amended Contention 1 would be inadmissible; nothing in CLI-86-15 disturbs the vitality of the WPPSS and Seabrook decisions.
We begin with the uncontroverted: under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act and the NR C's implementing regulation, 10 C.F.R. I 50.55(b), construction permits may be extended upon a showing of " good cause". See CLI-86-15, g s og at 4-5. Good cause will be found if the permittee demonstrates that there was good cause for the past delay. WPPSS, 16 NRC at 1229-30, Seabrook, 19 NRC at 978, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project, Unit 2), ALAB-722, 17 NRC 546, 551 (1983). The Commission reiterated these points in CLI-86-15. Id.,
po s g at 5.
Examination of Amended Contention 1 in this light shows that it is fatally flawed because, as was the contention at issue in Seabrook, it "do[es] not attack the sufficiency of applicant's asserted reasons for the delay. " Seabrook, 19 NRC at 978; cited with approval in CLI-86-15, slip og at 5. The Amended Contention merely contends that Applicants have not " discarded and repudia'ted" the policies which Consolidated Intervenors contend caused delay in completion of . Unit 1. There is no allegation that the policies were improper, dilatory or otherwise of such nature as to not constitute good cause. The Staff therefore concludes that Amended Conten-tion 1 is not admissible.
-g-Apart from this , the Amended Contention is inadmissible because it fails to identify with specificity exactly what policies the Consolidated Intervenors contend are responsible for the delay. It is well-established in NRC case law that contentions must give opposing parties fair notice of what they are to lefend against.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station ,
Unit 1), LB P-84-1, 19 NRC 29, 34 (1984), Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station , Units 1 and 2), LD P-85-20, 21 NRC 1732, 1742 (1985). Neither the contention nor the accompanying statement of basis identify, describe, or explain the policies which Consolidated Intervenors contend led to delay in construction of Unit 1. The Staff submits that because Amended Contention 1 does not identify or describe the content of the policies which it contends were responsible for construction delay, the contention is inadmissible.
Finally, the Staff asserts that the Amended Contention is inadmissible because Consolidated Intervenors failed to provide any basis for the claims that Applicants' policies were responsible for construction delays for Unit 1, and that the policies (whatever they may be) have not now been repudiated by Applicants. Consolidated Intervenors present three statements as the basis for the Amended Contention: A. the Applicants' reinspection and corrective action effort is the result of the TRT findings; B. the need to complete that effort is the reason for the need for an extension; and C. Applicants' reinspection effort will identify root causes for only
i l
1 i
those problems considered to have " safety significance".1I None of 0
these assertions, even if true , provide any support for the Amended Contention's assertion that a policy resulting in construction delay existed, or that such policy has not yet been repudiated by Applicants. 9/
7/ The Staff notes that the term, " safety significant ," has a definition in the CPRT Program Plan , the formal document controlling the Applicants' corrective action program. See CPRT Program Plan, Appendix E. The Staff also takes issue with note 1 to the statement of basis for Amended Contention 1.
Contrary 'to Consolidated Intervenors' assertion in that note,
" deviations ," " design observations ," and " deficiencies" are terms with separate meanings under Appendix E of the CPRT Program Plan. See also SSER 13, Section 1.5, pp.1-5 to 6.
-8/ In fact, note 1 of the statement of basis to Amended Conten-tion 1 itself contains the refutation to the assertion in the Amended Contention that only those problems which are considered to possess safety significance will be subject to root cause analysis. To quote from note 1, which itself an extraction from the CPRT Program Plan, root cause determination "will be investigated and determined where possible for all adverse trends or deviations and/or design observations and for all deficiencies. . ." Under Appendix E of the CPRT Program Plan, deficiencies are defined as a subset of deviations , viz. deviations which have safety significance.
Yet , as Consolidated Intervenors' note I reveals, not only deficiencies, but deviations, adverse trends and design observations will be subject to root cause analysis. It must follow that Consolidated Intervenors' assertion in their statement of basis that only safety significant problems will be root cause analyzed is truly without any basis in fact.
-9/ As the Staff argues in Section B .li below, the Applicants' development and implementation of a corrective action program for design, construction, testing, and QA/QC - an effort which involves the use of third parties , thereby providing some measure of independence from Applicants - is a compelling indication that Applicants have embarked on a new course of conduct , and represents a de facto repudiation of past management practices.
In summary, the Licensing Board should not admit Amended Contention 1, since it falls to specify the crucial legal element - lack of good cause - which is nececsary under Commission precedent, and because there is no basis for the Amended Contention.
11 . Amended Contention 2 Amended Contention 2 asserts:
The delay in the construction of Unit I was caused by Applicants' intentional conduct, which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants.
A four-part statement of basis is provided in support of this contention. The first part of the statement of basis is simply a
~
reiteratfon of the basis originally provided for CASE Contention 6 and Gregory Contention 1, which Consolidated Intervenors now rely upon to show the existence of a corporate policy. Part B of the statement of basis argues that Applicants never repudiated the policy based upon the " absence of any statements of repudiation and of any stated intent to discard any corporate policy." Finally, Parts C and D of the statement are a a word-for-word restatement of CASE Contentions 3-6 and 7, and Gregory Contention 2. These contentions set forth specific reasons why the Applicants' corrective action program was inadequate. Consolidated Intervenors have metamorphosed those earlier objections to 'the adequacy of the Applicants' CPRT into an assertion that the only way Applicants may show repudiation of previous policies is to implement a program that satisfies Consolidated Intervenors' enumerated objections.
The Staff submits that Amended Contention 2 is inadmissible for the same reason that the consolidated CASE Contention 6/ Gregory Contention 1 is inadmissible - there is no basis provided for the claim that Applicants' conduct resulted from policies E which had no valid purpose. The ostensible basis provided by Consolidated Intervenors on this element is exactly the same as in the original petitions for intervention; therefore, the Staff's arguments before the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board in its briefs and at oral argument are equally applicable to this Amended Contention and need not be repeated here. But even more significantly in the context of Amended Contention 2, Consolidated Intervenors present no basis for the assertion that Applicants have not repudiated the alleged policies causing the delay, other than that there is no explicit statement of repudiation. Intervenors apparently contend that an explicit statement of repudiation by Applicants is necessary. The Staff disagrees. Rejection or repudiation of past policies or courses of
-10/ Consolidated CASE Contention 6/ Gregory Contention 1, as originally admitted by the Licensing Board, did not explicitly contend the existence of a corporate policy (a defect which the Staff asserted on appeal compelled the dismissal of the consolidated contention. See NRC Staff Notice of Appeal and Supporting Drief, pp. 8-10, and transcript of oral argument before the Appeal Board, Tr. 29-37). Subsequently, Consolidated Intervenors declared that they had intended to raise the issue. See CASE and Meddie Gregory Opposition to Appeal of TUEC and NRC Staff (May 27, 1986), pp . 10-11
("What Consolidated Intervenors allege occurred is that TUEC had a policy that it would not obey the procedures for building Unit 1 properly where following those procedures would result in an immediate substantial delay in completing construction.");
see also argument of Consolidated Intervenors' couhsel in transcript of oral argument before the Appeal Board.
conduct by permittees may be evidenced in a variety of ways. While an explicit statement of repudiation can be evidence of a change in conduct and policy, the Staff.strongly believes that the proof of the pudding is whether the Applicants are now undertaking actions to appropriately identify and resolve concerns with the design ,
construction and testing at CPSES. What is most important is that the permittee actually demonstrate, in its day-to-day activities, that:
(1) it is committed to, .and is in fact complying with , the Commission's requirements; and (2) it is dedicated to identifying all problems that were attributable to the old course of conduct or policy.
As Applicants indicate in their Response to Consolidated Inter-venors' Motion to Admit Amended Contention or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration of Certain Previously Denied Contentions (October 15, 1986) (" Applicants' Opposition"), Applicants have made major personnel changes in the Applicants' senior management who are responsible for setting policies governing the construction and operation of CPSES. Bioreover, as Consolidated Intervenors acknowledge in their Motion, Applicants have voluntarily undertaken-to develop and implement a broad-based program for reinspection, reevaluation and rework at CPSES -- the CPRT. The scope of the program has been significantly expanded since its development and the inception of implementation, and now requires requalification of all HVAC, cable tray and conduit supports. These actions, co'n sidered together , are inconsistent with the notion that it
! is " business as u sual" (to use a term favored by Consolidated l
l
Intervenors) at CPSES. Consolidated Intervenors would like to believe that Applicants' efforts can be entirely discounted by the simple assertion of a negative - that absent an explicit statement.of repudiation, one cannot conclude that Applicants have changed their course of business. The Staff believes, aiong with Applicants, see Applicants' Response, p. 19, that the old adage, " actions speak louder than words," is more telling, and that Consolidated Intervenors simply have no basis in fact for their Amended Contention.
Finally , Amended Contention 2 must be rejected to the extent that it attempts to draw into this controversy the adequacy of the Applicants' corrective action program. In reality, Parts C and D of the statement of basis for the contention simply represents a reiteration of CASE Contentions 3-6 and 7, and Meddie Gregory 2.
The Licensing Board correctly ruled that they were inadmissible, and Consolidated Intervenors present no algument for. reversal of that ruling. Instead, Consolidated Intervenors imply on the basis of a few phrases drawn from out of context from the Commission's decision in CLI-86-15, that the Commission approved the admission of contentions challenging the adequacy of corrective action programs by broadening the focus to include "the Applicant's present, as well I
l as past, behavior and policies." Motion, pp. 2, 9-10. Consolidated Intervbnors' understanding of CLI-86-15 is erroneous. The Commission's words dealing with present and future conduct come at the point in the decision where the Commission was discussing the second way that a permittee may show good cause. After discussing l
l l
that good cause may be shown by demonstrating that there was a valid reason for the past delay b , the Commission went on to say:
[ A] permittee may also demonstrate good cause for a CP extension not by showing there was good cause for the past delay, but that there is now good cause for the NRC to allow goo'd tilife for plant _ completion. Unlike the first way to show good cause, which focuses on the permittees past actions ,' the second option focuses upon the permittee's current and future actions. WPPSS addressed efforts to correct safety deficiencies in relation to this second method to show good cause.
CLI-86-15, slip op. at 5-6 (emphasis in original). It is clear that when talking about "present and future conduct," the Commission was distinguishing between the two ways of showing good cause.
And, as the Commission ultimately held , if it is contended that there was a corporate policy to speed construction by violating NRC requirements, but that policy was " discarded and repudiated by the permittee , [then] any delays arising from the need to take corrective action would be delays for good cause." Id. at 9.
Nowhere in CLI-86-15 does the Commission suggest that contentions challenging the adequacy of the corrective action program may be admitted in a construction permit proceeding. To the extent that Consolidated Intervenors attempt to challenge the CPRT Program's adequacy by so contending in Amended Contention 2, the Staff submits that the Commission's decision in V.'PPSS clearly rules out
-11/ See the Staff's discussion regarding this portion of the Commission's decision in Section B.il above.
such challenges in a Construction permit extension proceeding and that CLI-86-15 does not disturb that conclusion.
C. Consolidated Intervenors Present No Argument In Support of Reconsideration of the Licensing Board's Exclusion of CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Gregory Contention 2 Consolidated Intervenors take some time to explain why a request for reconsideration of the Licensing Board's decision rejecting CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Gregory Contention 2 was not filed earlier. See Motion, pp. 8-9. Assuming for the moment that Consolidated Intervenors are correct on this matter, the fact is that Consolidated Intervenors present no explanation in their Motion as to why they believe that the Licensing Board's Prehearing Order rejecting the disputed contentions was incorrect. Nor do Consolidated Intervenors attempt to show that the Commission's decision in CLI-86-15 rendered invalid the Licensing Board's rationale excluding the contentions. Indeed, it is the St aff's -
position that the Licensing Board's Prehearing Order excluding the contentions was correct, and that CLI-86-15 implicitly affirms the I
Licensing Board's decision.
l CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Meddie Gregory Contention 2 l question the adequacy of the Applicants' ongoing corrective action program. The Licensing Board decided that these issues are i
excluded , citing, passim , Applicants' " Answer to Petitions to Intervene of Citizens Association for Sound Energy and Meddie Gregory" ( April 17,1986) (" Applicants' Answer") . Applicants' l
I
Answer points put that the Commission's decision in WPPSS, Washington Public Power Supply System- (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. I and 2), CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221 (1982) precludes the admission of such contentions. As the Commission stated in WPPSS, "the avenue afforded for the expression of health, safety and environmental concerns in any pending operating license proceeding, or, in the absence of such a proceeding, in a petition under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, [is] exclusive despite the pendency of a construction permit extension request. " Id. at 1229. The Commission therefore excluded those contentions which challenged the technical, financial and management capability of WPPSS to complete construction of the facility. Id. at 1230. CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Meddie Gregory 2 are no different in' substance than the contentions excluded in WPPSS; indeed, CASE conceded in its 1
Petition to Intervene ( April 7, 1986) that its contentions are t inadmissible under existing NRC law. Petition to Intervene, pp. 2,
- 4. Consolidated Intervenors' Motion presents no argument as to why the Licensing Board's exclusion of their contentions on the basis of CLI-82-29 was incorrect. I2/ -
-12/ Consolidated Intervenors also failed to raise this argument in their response to the Staff's and Applicants' appeals of the Prehearing Order. Both the Staff and Applicants argued on appeal that if the admitted contention was excluded by the Appeal Board, then the proceeding should be terminated since the Licensing Board correctly excluded CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Gregory 2. The issue having been raised by the l Staff and the Applicants, the Consolidated Intervenors failed (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l l
l - _
Moreover, Consolidated Intervenors do not argue that the Commission's latest pronouncc;rient in CLI-86-15 regarding the scope of construction permit extension proceedings overturns WPPSS and now compels a different result from that reached by the Licensing Board. Indeed, no such argument can be made because the Commission reaffirmcd the holding of the WPPSS decision. See CLI-86-15, slip op, at 4-7.
In conclusion, Consolidated Intervenors have failed to make any showing that the Licensing Board's exclusion of CASE Contentions 3-5 and 7, and Gregory 2, is incorrect.
IV. CONCLUSION The Licensing Board should deny CASE's Motion.
Respectfully submitted, G ary S. lizuno O -
Couns o NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October,1986 (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) to avail themselves of the opportunity to respond, since an unfavorable decision by the Appeal Board on this matter would preclude any opportunity for Consolidated Intervenors to take up its own appeal of the Prehearing Order. Cf. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station , Unit No. 1), ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135,141 (1986).
l l
DOLMETED C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'86 E 17 Pl2:30 GFFICE Gr a pr In the Matter of DOCKET t[ ' r evic;.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )' Docket Nos. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et al. )-
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION l
TO CASE'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF AMENDED CONTENTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been' served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of October,1986:
Peter B. Bloch, Esq. , Chairman
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom William A. Iforin, Esq.
Administrative Judge Bishop, Liberman, Cook, 1107 West Knapp Purcell & Reynolds Stillwater, OK 74075 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Roy P. Lessy, Jr. , Esq.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Wright & Talisman, P.C.
P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Suite 600 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1050 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5566 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge Mr. W. G. Counsil 881 W. Outer Drive . Executive Vice President Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Texas Utilities Generating Company 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Billie Pirner Garde Dallas, TX 75201 Citizens Clinic Director Government Accountability Project i 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20000 l
9 Robert D. Martin William L. Brown, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Arlington, TX 76011 Robert A.~ Wooldridge, Esq. Mr. James E. Cummins Worsham, Forsythe, Samples Resident inspector / Comanche Peak
& Wooldridge Steam Electric Station 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75201 P.O. Box 38 Clen Rose. TX 76043 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
2000 P Street, N.W. , Suite 611 Ropes & Gray Washington, DC 20036 225 Franlin Street Boston, MA 02110 William H. Burchette, Esq.
Mark D. Nozette, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal lieron, Burchette, Ruckert Board Panel
- a Rothwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Panel
- Uashington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-4798 A -
Gfar S , Mizuno u Co nsel for NRC Staff i
l l
l t