ML19253B431
| ML19253B431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910150666 | |
| Download: ML19253B431 (5) | |
Text
LIC DOCUMENT Roey g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9/6/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
In the Matter of
)
[
)
,/ O SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC &
)
Docket No. 50-395 p"
/
GAS COMPANY
)
[l{!
~
)
t.
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
)
\\M, f[,'
Station, Unit 1)
)
\\{ ',
~
NRC STAFF COMMENTS UPON BOARD MEMCRANDUM AND ORDER OF AUGUST 6, 1979 By Memorandum and Order, dated August 6,1979, the Board solicited the views of the parties on whether any of the contentions at issue in this proceeding could be handled by way of summary disposition in advance of issuance of the NRC Staff Final Environmental Statement (FES) or Safety Evaluation Report (SER).-*/
The following contentions remain in issue in this proceeding: A2 (financial qualifications / decommissioning costs), A5l TWS), A4 (seismicity),
A8 (emergency plans), A9 (quality control), and A10 (health effects.
Contention A10 is the sole "envirormental" contention remaining in issue.
The Staff believes that this contention is not amenable to sumary disposition and would be prepared to litigate that matter following issuance of the FES.
-*/ For the general information of the Board, the Staff would note that the Staff's nominal estimate of the completion date for construction of the Summer plant (10/80), as given in the July 6,1979 Status Summary Report referred to in the Board's Order, differs from the Applicant's projected fuel load date (7/80).
It is conceivable that either of these projections could change over time.
Thus, the time-frame within which hearings in this matter should be commenced cannot be firmly fixed at this time.
-1151 010 7 910150 b C
. The Dalance of the contentions relate to " safety" matters. Within that cate-gory, the Staff is of the present belief that contention A9 is amenable to sum-mary disposition and should be prepared to offer a position thereon in late October, 1979.
The Staff's technical review of contentions A2, A3, A4, and A8 has not pro-gressed to the stage where it can state with a certainty whether these sub-jects are apprcpriate for summary disposition or necessitate adjudication.
Review of the contentions A2 and A4 should have progressed to such a stage by late November or early December, 1979.
Review of contentions A3 and A8 should progress to such a stage in early spring,1980.
With regard to the Board's further inquiry as to "the possibility of iden-tifying issues that can be heard before the issuance'of the Staff's Final Environmental Statement or Safety Evaluation Report.
" (Order at 2),
the Staff does not believe that such a hearing would be approp riate. As the Appeal Board observed in Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Pcwer Plants),
ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 197 (1978):
Commission regulations require the stcff to complete this (environmental] evaluation and prepare a final environmental impact statement before taking any position on environmental issues at the licensing board hearing on the proposal.
10 CFR Sl.52(a).
Moreover,10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A(V)(d)(2) states, in part:
The staff's position is reflected primarily in the safety evaluation and final detailed environmental statement.
Consequently, the staff will not present its case until these documents are available.
~
li51 011
However, the Staff is currently considering the feasibility of issuing a partial SER on contention A9 or other contentions which the' Board suggests may be possible. At the same time, there is nothing to prevent either the Appli-cant or Intervenor from presenting their direct cases on any or all of the contentions before the Staff is prepared to go forward with ite direct case if such a course would be prow _t
.ve.
See 10 CFR 551.52(a).
The Staff is prepared.to accommodate any plans deviseo to expedite the hearing process herein consistent with the above.
Respectfully submitted,
,L tw 4a}
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff
._ s..
Dated.at.Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of September, 19'>.
I15l 012 6
P00RORE L UNITED STATES OF AhiEPICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION BEFORE THE ATO.\\11C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the hiatter of
)
)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 50-395 C O hit >A N Y
)
)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "flRC STAFF COMMEtiTS UP0fl BOARD MEMORAf10UM AfiD ORDER OF AUGUST 6, 1979", 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 fiuclear Regulatory,
Commission's internal mail system, this 6th day of September,1979:
\\
s.
m Ivan W. Smith, Esq.*
Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:r nission S. C. Attorney General's Office Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Dr Frank F. Hoccer School of t!atural Resources Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
University of eichigan Cenaer, Nicore & Corber Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 hIr Gustave A. Linenberger*
Atomic Safety and Licen.nn;; Board Brett Allen Bursey U. S. Nucleac Regulatory Co:micsion.
Route 1, Box 93-C Washington, D. C.
20555 Little hiountain, South Carolina 29076 George Fischer, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Vice President and General Couna el Board Panel" Suuta Carmina ::5_ct. x a;.J Cr._
I'. S
"--1 P ;nb t -
C-8 ic" Company Washing ton, D. C. 20555 Post Office Bo:. 764 Columbia, deuth Carolina 2 N 2.'
l151 01.5
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section (3)*
Office of the Secretat y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Washington, D. C. 20555
/ U.-
,6 LLL/
Steven C. Goldberg
Counsel for f1RC Staff e
d 1151 014
.