CLI-80-21, Response in Opposition to Tx Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 800804 Motion Seeking Briefs on CLI-80-21 & Admission of Contention 11.Rulemaking on Environ Qualification Addresses Issue.W/Certificate of Svc
| ML19344E235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CLI-80-21, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8008280207 | |
| Download: ML19344E235 (7) | |
Text
o 8/25/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO ACORN'S MOTION TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF SUBMIT BRIEFS ON THE EFFECT OF CLI-80-21 ON THIS PROCEEDING AND TO ACORN'S POSITION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ACORN CONTENTION 11 INTRODUCTION On August 4, 1980, ACORN (Texas Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) filed " ACORN's Reply to NRC Staff's Answer to Applicants' State-ment of Objections to Prehearing Conference Order and Motion for Modification and ACORN's Motion to Have the NRC Staff and the Applicants Provide Detailed Information on the Effect of the Commission's Decision In Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action (UCS), CLI-80-21 (slip. op., May 23,1980) on the Licensing of CPSES."
(Hereafter " ACORN's Reply").
In this do'cument, ACORN disagrees with the Staff's view / that ACORN's proposed contention 11 was improperly admitted by the Licensing Board. ACORN also moves that the Licensing Board crder both the Applicants and the Staff to provide all parties and the
-1/
See "NRC Staff's Answer to Applicants' Statement of Objections to Pre-hearing Conference Order and Motion for Modification," (hereafter " Answer")
July 21, 1980, pp. 13-15.
Applicants, in their Statement of Objections, moved that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Licensing Board) l reconsider its ruling admitting, inter alia, six contentions as issues I
in controversy in this proceeding.
8008280287 h
' Licensing Board with their views on how the Commission's decision in Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action (Union of Concern Scientists (UCS)),
CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707 (May 27, 1980), will affect the further construction, completion and licensing of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
As stated below, the NRC Staff (" Staff") adheres to the views expressed in its Answer regarding the admissibility of ACORN's proposed contention 11 and urges that the Licensing Board deny ACORN's motion concerning briefing of UCS, CLI-80-21, supra.
DISCUSSION I.
Acorn's Proposed Contention 11 Was Improperly Admitted In its pleading, ACORN disagrees with the Staff's position set forth in its Answer regarding the admissibility of ACORN Proposed contention 11.E In its Answer, the Staff responded to the Applicants' objection to the admission of this contention on the grounds that the Commission's decision in UCS, CLI-80-21, supra, resolved this issue by establishing the requirements for satisfying GDC-4. As stated by the Staff in its Answer, "the NRC Staff is of the view that Applicants' Motion presents a proper objection to the admission of this contention and that this contention should be rejected."
2/
Contention 11 reads as follows:
Contention 11.
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has a reliable method for evaluating or insuring that Class IE safety-related equip-ment is designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associated with the most severe postulated accident; thus General Design Criterion 4 has not been satisfied.
(ACORN 3).
)
i ( Answer, at l'3). The Staff further stated that to the $xgnt that this contention asserts that there is no valid standard for (efermining whether 4
i GDC-4 has been satisfied, the Commission's decision in RS,, CLI-80-21, supra, removed the basis for this contention by establishing the require-ments for satisfying GDC-4. The detailed reasoning underlying the Staff's position is stated on pp.13-15 of its Answer and will not be repeated here.
The Staff also noted in its Answer that to the extent that ACORN wishes to modify its contention based upon the UCS decision, the Commission's Rules of Practice provide that it may file an amended contention pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 62.714.
See Answer, at 15, fn. 20. Any request to amend a contention may not be granted absent a showing of good cause and a favorable balancing of the factors in 10 CFR 62.714(a)(1).
In the Staff's view, the UCS decision would constitute good cause for any such amendment.E Of course, in proposing an amendment to contention 11, it would be incumbent upon ACORN to address the other factors in 10 CFR 62.714(a)(1) and demon-strate that the amendment should be pennitted, based upon a balancing of the factors in 10 CFR 62.714(a)(1).
ACORN has not filed an amended contention based on the UCS decision.
In addition, ACORN does not dispute that in UCS, CLI-80-21, supra, the Commis-sion established the requhements for satisfying GDC-4.
ACORN's Reply, at 2.
Rather, in its pleading, ACORN argues that contention 11 encompasses the y
The Commission issued its decision in UCS substantially after the date of the preharing conference, after all pleadings concerning contentions had been filed in this proceeding and just shortly before the Licensing Board issued its Order of June 16, 1980.
~ question as to whether Applicants will meet the standards established for satisfying GDC-4 and whether a " reliable method" will be selected and util-ized in assuring compliance with the standards.
However, that interpreta-tion of contention 11 is contrary to the plain language of the contention, which asserts only that GDC-4 is not satisfied because there is no reliable method for evaluating or insuring that Class IE safety related equipment is designed to accommodate the effects of and be compatible with the environ-mental conditions associated with the most severe postulated accident.
ACORN's argument is without merit and does not alter the Staff's views on the admissibility of contention 11, as stated in its Answer, pp.13-15.
Similarly lacking merit is ACORN's argument that contention 11 remains valid in this proceeding because the Commission, in UCS, CLI-80-21, supra, requires that the Staff's judgment concerning environmental qualification be open for examination by the public. As the Staff noted in its Answer, in UCS, the Commission concluded that a rulemaking on environmental qualification of safety-related equipment is appropriate and that "the GuidelinesM and NUREG-058d/ will state the requirements of GDC-4 until the rulemaking has been completed." Answer at 14-15.
The Commission further held that a written record of the Staff's qualification judgment should be kept for the 4/
Division of Operating Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
" Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors."
(" DOR Guidlines") (Novem-ber1979).
y Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn,ssion,
" Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment" (NUREG-0588) (December 1979).
i l
interim peridd because the licensee and public should be able to examine the basis for the Staff's judgment concerning qualification.
UCS, CLI-80-21, supra, at 712.
Establishment by the Commission of such a requirement for a written record lends no support to ACORN's arguments regarding the validity of contention 11 as an issue in controversy in this proceeding.
II. Acorn's Motion For an Order Requiring The Staff to Brief The Board and Parties On CLI-80-21 Should Be Denied In its pleading, ACORN requests that the Licensing Board order both the Applicants and Staff to provide all parties and the Board with their views on how the Commission's Order in UCS, CLI-80-21, supra, will affect the fur-ther construction, completion and licensing of CPSES. There is no basis for granting this motion. The Commission's decision in UCS is self-explanatory and no further discussion by the Staff of this decision, beyond the discus-sion contained in its Answer (pp.13-15), is warranted. Accordingly, ACORN's motion should be denied.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the NRC Staff adheres to its position that pro-i j
posed ACORN contention 11 was improperly admitted and urges that ACORN's motion seekina further Staff views on UCS be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
01 Ulm 0w%00 Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of August, 1980.
l UNI 1EO STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!NISSION BEFORE THE ATTIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSk'ER TO ACORN'S MOTION TO HAVE THE APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF SUBMIT BRIEFS ON THE EFFECT OF CLI-80-21 ON THIS PROCEEDING AND TO ACORN'S POSITION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ACORN CONTENTION 11" 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 25th day of August, 1980:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chaiman David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Environmental Protection Division Washington, DC 20936 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member
- Arch C. McColl III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 701 Connerce Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 302 Washington, DC 20555 Dallas, TX 75202 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 4021 Prescott Avenue 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Dallas, TX 75219 Washington, DC 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mrs. Juanita Ellis Board Panel
- President, CASE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 1426 South Polk Street Washington, DC 20555 Dallas, TX 75224 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Panel (5)*
West Texas Legal Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
Washington, DC 20555 Fort Worth, TX 76102
l 2-t Docketing'and Service Section (7)*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 N1 g,dt. %s
^ Y ll Marjot'ie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff e
e v
,--.ws
,e
-.-.c
+,.-~e--
e--
,,,,,.--,,-..--,-,,._,,,,,,,w,
,, _ _,... - _,., - -..,.,,.. _...,,, _