ML19211C617
| ML19211C617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1979 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211C615 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001140060 | |
| Download: ML19211C617 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC &
)
Docket No. 50-395 8 I191 GAS COMPANY
)
4
)
(Virgil C. Su=mer Nuclear
)
g*d' Station)
)
k g \\%iS 1;
deb zyg il APPLICANT'S MOTION TO SCHEDULE A EEARING DATE OF JANUARY 22, 1980 na t,
Introduction South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
(" Applicant") moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard ("Scard") to set a hearing date of January 22, 1980, for the pending issues in 1/
this proceeding-in order to dispose of these remaining issues 1/
No hearing would be required, of course, if the Board grants the Applicant's Motion for Dismissal of Intervenor Brett Bursey and Intervenor's Contentions, served on November 29, 1979.
In addition to the authorities cited at page 8, footnote 11 of that motion, we received the Licensing Board decision in Georcia Power Co. (Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Order Dismissing Proceeding (November 16, 1979).
While it happened to involve an instance of the voluntary withdrawal of the intervenor, p
principles generally applicable:the Board stated the legal The withdrawal of the only petitioner r=-
moves both the need and the occasion for evidentiary hearings in this proceeding.
There are no longer any matters which the parties wish to resolve in this proceeding i
and, consequently, there is no issue to be heard by the Board.
Dismissal of this proceeding is consis-tent with the Commission's requirements which do not centemplate a hearing on an application for an operating license, or an
=
amendment thereto, in the absence of any matters in controversy or any requests for 1743 320 hearing by interested persons, 10 C.F.R.
S2.104, 2.105, 2. 714, 5 0. 5 8 (b), and 50.91, and is consistent with the general powers of (Footnote 1/ continued on next page)
~
8001140 0
promptly and efficiently.
The relief sought is based upon this Board's Memorandum and Order, dated August 6, 1979, directing the parties to advise the Board as to any recommendations or plans to proceed with a deliberate and timely consideration of the issues.
Background and Arcument In its Memorandum and Order of August 6, 1979, the Board noted that "(o] rdinarily, the time for the hearing would not be set until the Staff's safety review has been completed."
In addition to the possibility of motions for summa.m.f disposition on some issues, however, the Board asked the parties "to con-sider the possibility of identifying issues that can be heard before the Staff's Final Environmental Statement or Safety Evaluation Report as the case may be. "
The Board then directed each party to report to the Board within 30 days of "any recommendations or plans it has to proceed with a deliberate and tinely consideration of issues amenable to early disposition."
By memorandum dated September 6, 1979, the Staff responded that it did not believe that the last remaining environmental contention, A-10 (Health Effects), is amenable to summary dis-position, and that the Staff was not yet in a position to state 1/
(Continued) the presiding of ficer in 10 C.F.R. 52.718.
1743 321 Moreover, dismissal of a proceeding pursu-ant to agreement of the parties is consis-tent with the general policy of admini-strative law favoring harmonious settlemen-of contested issues, and with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.759, which specifically en-courages the fair and reasonable settlement of NRC licensing proceedings.
whether the safety contentions, except for A-9 (Quality Control), is amenable to si a y disposition at this t -a.
By i
memorandum dated September 11, 1979, the Applicant also re-sponded to the Board's order, expressing the belief that "the Staff has exalted form above substance in stating that it may not present its case until its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) has be2n issued."
The Applicant suggested that a hearing date of November 13, 1979 could be set for the safety issues in Contentions A-2 (Financial Qualifications / Decommissioning Costs), A-4 (Seismicity) and A-9 (Quality Control).
The Applicant also noted that the issue of health effects (Contention A-10) was well understccd, having been adjudicated 2/
As to Contention A-3 (Anticipated Transients Without Scram), the Applicant noted that during the approximately seven years the ATWS review has been pending, many operating licenses have been issued by the Commission.
Since the Applicant is committed to adopt the Commission's ATWS "fix," there is no need to forestall a hearing until the Staf; completes its safety review.
In Northern States Power Co. (Monticello Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-253 Order Dis =issing Proceeding (October 25, 1979) (copy attached), the Licensing Board dealt with ATWS in authorizing continued operation.
Based on the responses frem the Staff and Licensee, the Board concluded that the Licensee had com-mitted itself to implement Staff recc=mendations in the areas of emergency procedures and operating training in order to reduce the ATWS risk until the Commission issues an ATWS rule binding en all licensees.
The same resolution should be made for St -.er.
1743 322
in a number of hearings, and urged that the Staff present its position on the issues as soon as possible.
With regard to issue A-8 (Emergency Planning), we believe that developments in the last three months will now enable this matter to be resolved in January with a bit more concentrated effort by the parties.
The Applicant has continued to follow the various NRC documentation of the basic changes which may be required, particularly the proposed rule approved by the Commissioners on December 5, 1979 and issued by the Secretary on December 13, 1979.
The review teams for the Co= mission have now completed reviews of many facilities and have given the basic questions to the applicants.
Most of the latter are now in the process of providing replies.
While a review team has not yet visited Summer, in our view, the learning curve has now reached the point where the parties can present their positions
+
on the capability of Summer to meet any necessary basic new l
5i requirements.
South Carolina has a State emergency plan already
=
[
approved by the Federal Government, except for additional new re-
~
quirements.
Pursuant to the Board's earlier directive to state plans or recommendations for a deliberate and timely consideration of the issues, the Applicant believes that the resolution of the issues could best be accomplished by means of a prompt evidentiary hearing rather than su==ary disposition.
We suggest the hearing 7
m.
i.
j..
1743 323 s
be scheduled to commence January 22, 1980 or shortly there-after, with testimony to be filed at least ten days in advance or as the Board directs.
The Applicant's basic position on the safety issues is already a matter of record in its FSAR.
It should not matter to the Staff whether its evidence is proferred by way of affidavits or prehearing testimony.
Further, if the Board sets a hearing date for January 22, 1980, Mr. Bursey would also be re-quired to present any testimony in advance.
Mr. Bursey's un-willingness or inability to make known his witnesses and their anticipated testimony known to the Applicant by way of discove.7 requests and orders has been an obstacle to the prompt and orderly disposition of the pending issues up to this point.
At a minimum, the Board should set a firm, early hearing date for contentions or in the alternative for as many of the pending contentions as possible and grant Applicant leave to file motions for summary disposition on the remaining conten-tions.
As noted in Applicant's earlier responses, it exalts form over substance to say that none of the remaining safety contentions (except Contention A-9) may be decided at an evidentiary hearing or by su=ma-7 disposition until the formal 4/
completion of the Staff's safety review.~
4/
Alternatively, if the Board should determine that Conten-
~
tion A-9 may not proceed to a hearing prior to the filing of the Staff's Final Environmental Statement, 10 C.F.R. 551.52, the Applicant seeks an exemption from the Commission on the FES requirement in order to avoid delay in the hearing.
1743 324 a
w
~
. Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MOORE & CORBER
}.
Tro onner, Jr.
Counsel for the Applicant December 17, 1979 i
I
- i i-i 1-
- 9 t
E:=r i+
+=
t-2:.
e g.
El 1743 325
- am eeDep--
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
"',.s,' QN SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC &
)
Docket No. 50 '
o x
GAS COMPANY, et al.
)
%?#
)
E
$ 7 L (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
)
L h y; j I
Station)
)
O Q&
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j
I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion to Schedule a Hearing Date of January 22,.1979," dated December 17, 1979, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 17th day of December, 1979:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
George Fischer, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Vice President and General Licensing Board Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory South Carolina Electric & Gas Commission Company Washington, D. C.
20555 Post Office Box 764 Dr. Frank F. Hooper Columbia, South Carolina 29202 School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Commission Member, Atomic Safety and Washington, D. C.
20555 Licensing Board Panel U. S. h. ~1 ear Regulatory Mr. Brett Allen Bursey Commission i
Route 1, Box 93-C Washington, D.
C.
20555 Little Mountain, South Carolina l
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Mr. Chase R.
Stephens U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Washington, D.
C.
20555 F
Licensing Board Panel E
Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
[.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General I
Commission S.C. Attorney General's Office Washington, D. C.
20555 P.O. Box 11549 l
- Columbia, S.
C.
29211
[-
1743 326 3
L
%Gv7 h
- A?.
b-Troy B.' Conner, Jr.
L/
g