ML19331E396
| ML19331E396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1980 |
| From: | Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Dykes V AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| 800824, NUDOCS 8009100103 | |
| Download: ML19331E396 (2) | |
Text
o neg yO ' M
((
g UNITED STATES
.c ; g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
[#c
.,,\\
August 20, 1980 Ms. Virginia B. Dykes 207 Stone Ridge Road Greer, South Carolina 29651 Dear Ms. Dykes Your letter dated July 29, 1980 to the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, received on August 4, 1980, has been referred to
""! for response.
Your letter requests that a public hearing be held on whether the McGuire contain-ment building will rupture if a TMI-2 type accident occurs.
Your letter also requests that this hearing be held before an operating license is granted to operate the William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
Notice of opportunity for a hearing on the Duke Power Company application for an operating license for the William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 was published in the Federal Register on June 14, 1974 (39 Fed. Reg. 20833).
A copy of that notice is enclosed. Under the terms of the notice, petitions for leave to intervene were to be filed by July 14, 1974. The notice also stated that a petition for leave to intervene which was not timely tiled would not be granted unless it was determined that the petitioner had made a substantial showing of good cause for failure to file on time, and after consideration of the factors specified in 10 CFR 52.714(a)(1)-(4) and (d), of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
On October 1,1974, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Licensino Board")
granted the Carolina Environmental Study Group's (CESG) petition to intervene in the proceeding.
Public evidentiary hearings were held in Charlotte, North Carolina, on March 28-31, April 1, and April 19-22, 1977, and on August 22-24, 30-31, 1978. An Initial Decision in the proceeding was issued by the Licensing Board on April 18, 1979. A copy of the Initial Decision is enclosed.
In the Initial Decision, the Licensing Board, on the basis of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law ordered that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, upon making the' requisite findings with respect to uncontested matters not embodied in the Initial Decision, was authorized to issue an operating license for the McGuire facility. However, the Board stayed the effectiveness of the Initial Decision "until further order by the Board following the issuance of a supplement to the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report ("SER") addressina the significance of any unresolved safety issues."
In May 1980, the NRC Staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report Supplement No. 3 (SER, Supp. 3) addressing the significance of the unresolved generic safety issues as they relate to the McGuire facilities.
Based on issuance of SER, Supp. 3, on May 30, 1980 Duke Power Company filed a motion requesting the Licensing Board to terminate its stay of the Initial Decision.
In addition, CESG, the Intervenor in this proceeding, on August 15, 1980 filed a motion to reopen the McGuire proceedings with respect to matters involvino hydrogen generation and the potential for breach of contain-ment. These motions are pending before the Licensing Board for resolution.
8009100 M
Ms. Virginia B. Dykes In regard to the matter of contaiment rupture in the event of a TMI-2 type of accident,I have enclosed a copy of "Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses, Statement of Policy", (45 Fed. Reg. 41738; June 20, 1980). (" Policy Statement"). As explained in the Policy Statement with respect to TMI-2 issues:
"[t]he Commission believes that where the time for filing contentions has expired in a given case, no new TMI-related contentions should be accepted absent a showing of good cause and balancing of the factors in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1). The Commission expects strict adherence to its regulations in this regard."
I an enclosing a,opy of the Commission's Rules of Practice contained in 10 CFR Part 2, for yaur use in the event you desire to formally petition to intervene in the proceeding before the Licensing Board and request a hearing.
These procedures also explain the good cause showing requirement and the other criteria that must be met before a late petition to intervene will be granted.
I recommend that you also read Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 2 for a general under-standing of the practice and procedure governing Comission proceedings.
If you have further questions regarding this matter, you may contact the undersigned at (301) 492-7502.
Sincerely, h
6b Us Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure as stated cc (w/o encl.):
Robert M. Lazo, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Cadet.. Hand, Jr.
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
William Larry Porter, Esq.
Mr. Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Secretary e
.