ML19274D697
| ML19274D697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1979 |
| From: | Cowan B, Dougherty T, Kenrick J OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (SUBS. OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRI |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902220201 | |
| Download: ML19274D697 (7) | |
Text
.
1
~
.,:-2g
~.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD p
-w-In the Matter of
)
)
0FFSHORE PCWER SYSTEMS
)
Docket No. STN 50-437
)
(Manufacturing License for Floating )
Nuclear Power Plants)
)
APPLICANT'S REPORT TO THE BOARD RESPECTING THE STATUS OF HEARINGS AND APPLICANT'S MOTION (#9) TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE By Order of this Board dated August 1,1978 (Board Order) issued subsequent to a Prehearing Conference conducted by this Board on July 27, 1978, certain times for filings and other actions were prescribed.
Off-shore Power Systems, the Applicant, hereby reports to the Board the status of the prescribed filings and other actions and hereby respectfully moves the Board to establish a hearing schedule.
I.
The Status of Filings and Other Actions This report will address, as appropriate, each of the numbered paragraphs of the Board Order of August 1,1978.
1.
Paragraph 1 of the Board Order dealt with the disposition of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) contention that the Environmental Impact Statement will not be a programmatic impact statement i.
790222o&ol p
required by NEPA.
NROC was to have filed its motion for summary disposi-tion by January 29, 1979 since the Final Environmental Statement, Part III (FES-III) was issued by the Staff on December 29, 1973.
Since NROC has failed to either perfect the filing prescribed by Board Order or otherwise advise the Board of its intentions, the Applicant, by seoarate filing, has moved the Board for dismissal of the NRDC contention.
2.
Paragr!phs 2 through 4 of the Board Order do not require further reporting since they were final determinations of the Board.
3.
Paragraph 5 of the Board Order set forth the time in which amended or expanded contentions directly bearing on new matters in the Final Addendum to Part II of the FES should have been filed.
The date for such filir.g (fourteen days after July 28,1978) was August 11, 1978.
By filing dated August 9,1978, NRDC moved to amend contentions.l/
No other such amended or expanded contentions were filed by any other party and the time for such filing has long since expired.
4.
Paragraph 6 of the Board Order dealt with the filing of amended or expanded contentions respecting the Revised Draft Environmental Statement, Part III (RDES-III).
Such contentions were to have been filed thirty days after July 28, 1978 or by Augus t 27, 1978.
No such contentions were filed by any party and the time for such filing has long since expired.
5.
Paragraph 7 of the Board Order addressed the filing of amended By Order dated September 11, 1978, this Board denied NROC's Motion and by Order dated November 9,1978, this Board denied NRDC's Motion for reconsideration or in tne alternative, for certification.
By Memorandum and Order, dated January 4,1979 (ALAB-517), the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board affirmed the two denials of the Li-censing Board below.
2.
or expanded contentions directly bearing on new matters in the FES-III.
Such filing was to have occurred fourteen days af ter the receipt of the FES-III.
The FES-III was issued by the Regulatory Staff on December 29, 1978, and was mailed to all parties on that date.
Pursuant to Commission regulation Section 2.710, five days is added to other prescribed filing times if service is by mail and the Board Order required response "af ter receipt of said document".
Therefore, the date for any such filing was January 17, 1979. tio filing of any amended or expanded contentions on FES-III has occurred and the time for such filing has expired.
6.
Paragraph 8 of the Board Order addressed the filing of amended or expanded contenticos respecting Supplement 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) prepared by the Regulatory Staff.
Supplement 3 has not yet been issued by the Staff.
However, the SER will not contain new environ-mental matters that have not previously been addressed in the Staff environ-mental documents already issued in this proceeding.
As a consequence, the Applicant does not believe that the remaining environmental contentions, which have been pending in this proceeding since 1974 and are addressed below, should be delayed further.
7.
Paragraph 9 of the Board Order dealt with tne contents of proposed amended or expanded contentions, none of which are pending.
Therefore, no status report is appropriate.
3.
Paragraph 10 of the Board Crder dealt with the Applicant's filing of a Statement of a Matter in Controversy.
Such filing was under-taken by the Applicant in a Motion dated September 5,1978.
Subsecuent status reports on the progress of discussions between the Applicant and 3.
Regulatory Staff were filed with the Board and served on all carties.
The latest such filing, a letter from the Applicant to the Board, was dated February 2,1979 and withdrew the Acclicant's pleading of Septem-ber 5,1978 advising the Board that the Applicant no longer requests that the Statement of a Matter in Controversy be placed in issue.
9.
Paragraph 11 of the Board Crder addressed future hearing schedule af ter the procedures prescribed in those rulings in paragraphs 5 through 8 of the Order of August 1,1978 had been concluded.
The only action pending in paragraphs 5 through 8 of the Board Order is that of paragraph 8 respecting the forwarding by the Regulatory Staff of Supple-ment 3 to the SER.
The Applicant addresses such pendency below.
II. Acolicant's Motion (49) to Establish Hearing Schedule 10.
By pleading dated July 19, 1978, captioned " Applicant's Statement Concerning Future Hearing Schedule", the Board was advised at Paragraph II on page 3 that the only remaining contentions in this pro-ceeding, other than the NRDC contention addressed in paragraph 1 of Section I above, are the ACCCE contentions 3a and 3c.2/ These contentions 2/
XII.
EFFECT ON BIOTA ACCCE Contention 3a ACCCE Contention 3a was admitted as an issue in controversy in tne Second Prehearing Conference Order dated May 21, 1974 at page 5 as follows:
"Suboart 3a contends that the Apolicant has not given adequate consideration to adverse effects 4
have been pending since the Board Order of May 21, 1974 and are environ-mental in content and have been treated as such by the Board and the parties for some time.
Since no other environmental contentions can be raised, the time for doing so now having expired, the scheduling of tnese two contentions for public hearing will effectively complete the environ-mental record in this proceeding after a long cendency.
11.
While Supplement 3 to the SER is pending issuance by the Regulatory Staff, notably, it will deal in matters of radiological health and safety for which there are no contentions currently pending.
12.
The Applicant believes that there is merit in the Board's scheduling and addressing the only two remaining environmental contentions in this proceeding without awaiting publication of Supplement 3 to the SER.
2/ cont'd.
on the aquatic biota from the thermal plume, from radioactive liquid discharges, and from entrain-ment and impingement."
XIV.
FOCD CHAIN ACCCE Contention 3c ACCCE Contention 3c was admitted as an issue in controversy in the Second Prehearing Confererce Order dated May 21, 1974 at pages 5-6 as follows:
"Subpart 3c asserts that the Applicant has not given adequate consideration to the cumulative effects of radioactive substances injested (sic) along the food chain from plankton through humans."
(See " Applicant's Motion (16) to Establish Schedule dated March 17, 1977, Attachment No.1, page 1. )
5.
13.
By an Addendum to this Motion to establish schedule, Applicant recommends certain schedule dates that will result in the resumotion of hearings on March 19, 1979, or sooner, for conclusion of the environmental record in this proceeding.
WHEREFCRE, Applicant respectfully moves this Board to resume hearings in accordance with the scnedule recorrrended in the Addendum.
Respectfully submitted, w
Thomas M. Daugnerty
(/
g A~t~2 % /2h4 Barton Z. Cowan
/
MY h
John R. Kenrick
/
Counsel for Offshore Power Systems DATED:
February 6,1979 6.
ADDENDUM PROPOSED SCHEDULE February 6,1979 Applicant files Motion (49) to Establish Hearing Schedule.
February 21, 1979 All parties respond to the Applicant's Motion except the Staff.
February 26, 1979 The NRC Regulatory Staff resconds to Acolicant's Motion */.
March 2, 1979 Board Order resuming hearings on the two remaining environmental contentions (ACCCE 3a and 3c).
March 9,1979 All parties file identification of the evidence they expect to present including witnesses and supplemental testimony, if any.
March 19,1979 Hearing commences at 9:30 A.M. at the place designated in the Soard Order and runs continuously for the disposition of the two remaining environmental contentions.
1/ ould the Regulatory Staff elect to waive its additional five Sh days for filing, each date could be advanced such that the Board Order could be issued February 26 in lieu of March 2, the identification of the evidence of the parties could occur on March 2 in lieu of March 9 and the hearings could commence on March 12, in lieu of March 19, 1979.