ML19343A765

Statement Re Matters for Consideration at Third Prehearing Conference.Licensee Will Move for Expedited Schedule Leading to Initial Decision in Advance of Fuel Loading.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19343A765
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	11/19/1980
From:	Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19343A764	List: ML19343A763 ML19343A765
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8011210285
Download: ML19343A765 (9)

Text

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

In the Matter of

SOUTH CAROLINA EI"CidIC AND GAS )

COMPANY, et al.

Docket No. 50-395 OL (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station, Unit 1 )

APPLICANTS' STATEMENT REGARDING MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIRD PREHEARING CONFERENCE 1/

The Board has issued notices that a third prehearing conference will be convened in the captioned matter to consider

" ail pending matters and further scheduling in the proceeding."

The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the Applicants' views with-regard to the status of the proceeding and with regard to the scheduling of further proceedings.

As a-practical matter, scheduling of the hearing sessions in this proceeding has turned on the status of NRC Staff review and the projected dates for completion of Staff review docu-ments with respect to the issues in the proceeding.

The' issues in this proceeding, as set forth in the Board's order admitting contentions (April 24, 1978), and as modified by the Board's order granting summary decision on certain -

conditions (April 9, 1979) , are six. There are:

1/ Dated October 31, 1980 and November 10, 1980. The Third Prehearing Conference is to be held November 25, 1980 at 9:30 a.m. in Columbia, South Carolina.

8011s1o 24 5

- a. Financial qualifications (including cost of decommissioning) (Contention A-2)

.b. Whether Applicant has-met Staff requirements as to probability of Anticipated Transients Without Scram (Contention A-3)

c. Description of seismic activity in area and monitoring of seismicity S!(Contention A-4) .

d. Applicants' emergency planning preparations in areas where state and local assistance and cooperation are required. (Contention A-8).

e. Quality control - conformance to NRC standards (Contention A-9) .

f. Health effects of reactor operation and uranium fuel cycle. (Contention A-10) .

~

The NRC Staff has recently advised the Applicants '(and we understand also, the intervenor, Mr. Bursey), that its Safety Evaluation Report is expected to be issued soon (now expected in early January, 1981). As to the contested issues, this report is expected to cover matters pertaining to ATWS and seismic considerations (including the description of the area seismic activity which is the subject matter of one of the admitted contentions). The Applicants understand that the Office of Inspection and Enforcement will perform the 2/ Monitoring of seismicity after reservoir filling has been accomplished, fulfilling the relief sought by, and thus mooting,this aspect of the contention.

1 staff review relative to the quality control contentian and could be prepared to issue an appropriate staff revieu

document on this matter in January, 1981. The Applicants further understand that a supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report regarding financitsl qualifications could be issued in February, 1981. The Applicants are apprised that the Staff cannot accurately predict when it will complete its review of emergency planning considerations. According to the Staff, this review,. consistent with the Commission's new emergency planning requirements, cannot be completed until the Federal Emergency Management Agency has reached a favorable finding and determination that the state and local government emergency response plans are adequate and capable of being implemented.

In other words, four of the five safety-related issues are expected to be covered in staff review documents and supplements in the period January - February 1981 and emergency plans as soon as practicable thereafter.

As to the environmental issue, i.e., health effects of operation and the fuel cycle, these matters are expected to be covered in the Final Environmental Statement which should be published in mid-February 1981. A supplement to the Draft Environmental Statement with regard to accidents, now required to be discussed in environmental statements (10 C.F.R. S51.23, i

3/ We are advised that it is the Staff's practice, in cases where financial qualifications are a contested issue, to sequence the final financial review as late as possible in the review schedule in order to reflect the most current available information.

as amended 45 Fed. Rcg. 40101, June 13, 1980) has recently been issued for comment by December 29, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg.

75 399 November 14, 1980).

Accordingly, the Staff advises that, assuming a favor-able ACRS letter on contested issues, it could be ready to proceed to hearing on all issues other than emergency planning in mid to late March, 1981. Th 7plicant will also, of course, be prepared to go to hearing on the issues in the proceeding by that date. This will require the submission of prefiled testimony on the part of Staff, Applicants and the Intervenor in early to mid-March, 1981 (i.e., at least 15 days in advance of the session of the hearing at which such testimony is to be presented, as contemplated by 10 C.F.R.

52. 743 (b) ) .

As the Board knows, Applicants would have preferred an earlier schedule for commencement of proceedings and would have been prepared to proceed to hearing on the Applicants' and Intervenors' case and then recess pending completion of Staff reviews. However, the Board's order of January 18, 1980 pre-cluded such a bifurcated approach to the presentation of evidence.

It appears that March is the earliest date acceptable tc the j l

Staff, although it would of course be possible to go to hearing on ATWS, seismic and QC matters in February, leaving financial and health effects for March, and emergency plans perhaps in April. However, the Staff is unwilling to agree to that schedule, on the theory that prolonged hearings will not be l required and that it would be more efficient to consider the majority of the contentions in one continuous session.

The Applica'nts are presently on a construction comple~ tion and pre-operational testing schedule which should have the plant ready for fuel loading about June, 1981. It is our understanding that the NRC Staff believes that, the earliest date for fuel loading is August, 1981. Obviously, given the normal time for the conduct of proceedings, for post-hearing pleadings, and the initial decision, the schedule is a very tight one. We believe it is incumbent upon us to apprise the Board and Parties now that we expect to move for the estab-lishment of an expedited schedule leading to an initial decision in adynnce of scheduled fuel loading.

Accordingly, we believe it will be important for the Parties to be prepared to advise the Board at the upcoming prehearing conference or in any event well before any bearing) who their witnesses will be, how long any direct oral presentation is expected to take, what exhibits will be offered, 4

about how long will be required for cross examination of adverse witnesses, what documents will be used for cross, and whether they will commit (and if not, why not) to expedited schedules for the hearing and for post-hearing briefs, such as would permit the Board the time it needs to render an initial decision.

-4/ In its Memorandum and Order dated October 2, 1978, the Licensing Board ordered that the list of witnesses theretofore furnished by the intervenor was final, and also limited Mr. Bursey (for purposes of his affirmative case and cross-examination as well) to those documents produced and identified in discovery subject to the exceptions therein provided. (Memorandum and Order at 3) .

s We also believe it is incumbent upon us to apprise the

~ Board, the Parties, the Appeal Board and the Commission now that we intend to move for appropriate relief to truncate the post-decisional schedule for exceptions, supporting briefs, and requests for and consideration of stays.

We believe that there is ample basis for adopting expedited schedules in this proceeding inasmuch as only a few issues are in controversy, the Applicants offered to go to hearing in early 1980, and the facility is needed on schedule to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and to serve the power and energy needs of the Applicants, their customers and indeed the entire region.

In its order of August 6, 1979, the Board invited the Parties to identify issues which were capable of being handled by summary deci,sion. In its response of September 6, 1979, the NRC Staff advised that its review had not progressed far enough for it to know which matters of the six remaining contentions might be appropriate for summary decision. Taking into account the status-of NRC Staff's review, it appears to us at this time that the ATWS and Quality Control contentions may be appropriate for summary decision. In our view (although not necessarily the NRC Staff's), any of the other issues may become ripe for summary decision, depending largely on the ability of the Staff to complete related written reviews and the schedule for hearings on those issues.

~ Should the Board desire further information or documentation l of any of the matters adverted to herein (by affidavit or i l

-y-otherwise), the Applicants would be happy to provide it. It may be added that we have not filed motions for particular schedules at.this time but rather have given notice of our intention to do so and tile general terms thereof with the thought that it is premature to attempt to set a precise schedule until the Parties are heard and because we do not wish to presume to ask the Board to commit to a particular schedule for rendering a decision before it has been apprised by the Parties of the likely breadth, depth and complexity

, of the evidentiary presentations contemplated.

We believe it would be helpful to orderly discussion at the upcoming prehearing conference to invite or direct the other parties to comment on the foregoing.

Respectfully submitted, A_

s . t

- ~(,pblobb{#j Josep B. Knotts, Jr.

DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9831 Attorney for South Carolina Gas &

2te: November 19, 1980 Electric Company OF COUNSEL:

Randolph Mahan South Carolina Electric &

Gas Company Post Office Box 764 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 (803) 748-3538 i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & ) Docket No. 50-395 OL GAS COMPANY and )

)

SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE )

79THORITY )

)

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station) )

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Statement Regarding Matters for Consideration at Third Prehearing Con-ference" i.n the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid or by hand delivery as indicated by an asterisk this 19th day of November, 1980.

• Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Lf. censing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

-Washington, D.C. 20555 l George Fischer, Esq.

Dr. Frank F. Hooper (Exp. Mail) Vice President and School of Natural Resources General Counsel University of Michigan South Carolina Electric &

Ann Ar.Sor, Michigan 48109 Gas Company Post Office Box 764

• Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Columbia, South Carolina Member, Atomic Safety and 29202 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.

Commission Office of the Executive Washington, D.C. 20555 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Brett Allen Bursey (Exp. Mail)

Fashington, D.C. 20555 Route 1, Box 93-C Little Mountain, South Carolina 29075

i t . -

l l

2-Mr. Chase R. E phens Docketing and t ivice Section office of the Secretary 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 j Richard P.. Wilson, Esq. (Exp. Mail)

Assistant Attorney General South Carolina Attorney General's.

Office P.O. Box 11549 1 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s

Leonard Bickwit, Esq.

General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

~7 s

$"7lf Knotts, Jr.

(JosephB.

I

)

w ~ ,v er -~ ,+r - - e