ML19345G549
| ML19345G549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Knotts J SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO., SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY (SANTEE COOPE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G546 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104070510 | |
| Download: ML19345G549 (11) | |
Text
.
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE
'E LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
South Carolina Elect 4c and
)
Gas Company, et _.
)
Docket No.
)
(Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear
)
50-395 OL Station, Unit 1)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO ORDER SETTING FINAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE In its " Order Setting Final Prehearing Conference" dated March 10, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board requested the parties to file, by March 31, 1981, their suggestions, if any, with regard to the actions to be taken by the Board at the upcoming April 7 prehearing conference pursuant to 10 CFR {2.752.
The Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR $2.752, provide that the matters to be considered at such a " final" prehearing conference are:
1.
Simplification, clarification, and specification of the. issues for hearing; 2.
The necessity or desirability of anending the pleadings; 3.
Stipulations - and admissions of fact and as to the
-contents z.nd authenticity of documents; 4.
Identification of witnesses:
810407061U
1 -
j 5.
Hearing schedule (order and manner of proceeding);
and 6.
Other matters calculated to expedite the pro-P ceeding.
Applicants, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
("SCEG") and Public Service Authority of South Carolina
("the Authority"), submit the following suggestions on the matters to be taker. up at the prehearing conference.
Issues The issues for hearing have already been specified.
They include the six remaining admitte' :.atentions of Intervenor Brett A. Bursey (" Order Admitting Contentions,"
April 24, 1978, as modified by April 9, 1979 Order granting summary decision on two contentions; and by withdrawal of con-tention A5 by Intervenor, August 3, 1978 Prehearing Con-ference, Tr 273) and the two matters identified by the Board at the November 25, 1980 Third Prehearing Conference, i.e.
management attitude (Tr 322) and hydrological interaction of the nuclear unit and the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (Tr 323).
The six admitted contentions reed as follows:
Contention A2 (a) The Applicant lacks the financial qualifications necessary to safety operate and decom-mission the Summer station in compliance with NRC rules and regulations; (b) The sum allocated by the Applicant for the decommissioning of the Summer Plant (less than
$10 million) is grossly inadequate and does not conform to the requirements of 10 CFR $50.33(f)~.
I i
Contention A3 The Applicant has not met the require-ments of the NRC Staff to assure that the probability of occurrence of an ATWS event is acceptably small.
Contention A4 (a) The FSAR is inadequate with respect to the description of seismic activity in the area of the Summer Plant site; (b) The plans for monitoring site seismicity are inadequate in that they do not consider the seismic effect of filling the reservoir.
Site seismicity should be monitored for one year subsequent to filling the reservoir and prior to the granting of an operating license.
e.
Contention A8 The Applicant has made inadequate preparations for the implementation of his emergency plan in those areas where the assistance and coopera-tion of state and local agencies are required.
Contention A9 The quality control of the Summer plant is substantially below NRC standards as evidenced by consistently substandard workmanship, in several aspects, during the construction of the plant.
Contention A10 The following effects - on a long term basis - have been sufficiently underestimated by the Applicant and the Staff so as to compromise the valid-ity of the favorable Benefit-Cost balance struck at the construction permit phase of this proceeding:
a)
The somatic and genetic effect s of radiation releases, during normal operation, to restricted and unrestricted areas, said releases being within the guidelines and/or requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, aind Appendix.I to 10 CFR Part 50; b)
The health effects of the uranium fuel cycle, given the release values of the: existing Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51.
(Should the Commission modify Table S-3 prior to the litigation of this contention, the Board willEentertain motions-from'any of the parties respecting.
modifications to this contention.)
'Under the Board'sJorders'of December 30, 1980 and March 9, 1981,-there is. doubt whether Intervenor BTrsey will present a direct case,'and if so,- what that case would comprise.
l l
4-l At least two of the issues can be simplified, in our view.
First, the financial / decommissioning contention claims that Applicants have underestimated the costs of decommissioning (Contention A2).
The only specific dollar amount given by Intervenor as a plausible estimate of the cost of decommissioning is $26.9 million (March 30, 1978 Prehearing Conference Tr 77; June 13, 1978 Deposition of Brett Allen Bursey, Tr 82-87).
Although the Intervenor indicated this figure to be toward the low end of a spectrum,
.no higher estimate has been documented by Intervenor.
The Applicants' current estimate of up to 570 million (December 30,.1980 Response to Staff financial questions 2 and 3) is manifestly greater than $26.9 million and should render that
~
portion of the contention moot.
Thus, the contention can be simplified by dropping that portion.
Second, the seismic contention claims that seismological monitoring should continue at least one year after the pumped storage reser-voir is filled (Contention A4), and such monitoring has in fact taken place for longer than one year and continues.
As the matter now stands, monitoring will continue until the end of 1982 at-which time an evaluation will be made to determine if it should be continued (January 30, 1981 letter, T.
C.
Nichols to H.
R. Denton), so that this portion of the seismic contention has become moot.
Accordingly, Cne contention should be simplified by dropping the monitoring aspect.
~. _ _
- Plaadines Simplification of two contentions has been discussed above.
Stipulations and Admissions It appears that there is no issue as to the financial qualifications of the Authority.
Accordingly, we would propose that it be stipulated that if a duly qualified financial witness for the Authority were to appear and testify, he would adopt the material applicable to the Authority contained in the application and in responses to staff financial questions, and that any examination of such witness be waived.
We would expect to propose similar treatment as to NRC financial testimony when the relevant supplement to the SER is issued.
As to the contents and authenticity of documents, we would propose to bring copies of the principal documents expected to be offered as Applicants' exhibits to the prehearing so that they can be initialed as authentic and preserved for later introduction.
Witnesses We understand from Staff comments that it will be l-l orepared to identify its' witnesses on April 7.
As to j
Intervenor Bursey, he has no present right to present witnesses, but if that.c.hanges, he should be required to discuss that matter prior to the prehearing.
Applicants' direct witnesses who would discuss the areas covered by Intervenor Bursey's contentions and the two Board questions noted above are; listed below.
Obvicusly, t
t'ne listing cannot f.nclude witnesses who may be produced to respond d, Board questions, based en limited appearance statements or otherwise, nor rebuttal witnesses, if any (in any event we do not know whether there will be any dir ect evidence to rebut). Moreover, summary decision could eliminate the need to produce certain witnesses.
i-I-
Applicar.ts' witnesses by contention or question, are as follows:
Contention A2 Financial Qualifications / Decommissioning Oscar Wooten, SCEG Doug Warner, SCEG Contention A3 ATWS Robert Stitler, Westinghouse Carl Price, SCEG Contention A4 Seismicity Sheldon Alexander Penn State University Contention A8 Emergency Plans Kenneth Beale, SCEG Contention A9 SS Esca. Crews, SCEG Dan Nauman, SCEG Contention A10' Health Effects Leonard Hamilton, M.D.
James
.W.
Reitnauer, Gilbert Associates James Barker, Ph.D., SCEG (as to Board'
. question re:
maintenance and occupational exposures)
1
_7 Management Attitudes & Organizatic'tal Matters Thomas C. Nichols, SCEG Esca H.
Crews, SCEG Hydrology
[
M.
B. Whitaker, SCEG Other Expected Witnesses In connection with Board management / organization f
questions, as well as other matters, we would expect to call Mark Whitaker of SCEG and have available other witnesses including the plant manager, Ollie Bradham.
There may be an additional subsidiary witness (or witnesses) on Contention A10.
As he or they are identified, we shall notify the Board and Parties.
2 Schedule and Order of Procedure The hearing has been scheduled to begin June 22, 1981, and to continue on regular business days not beyond July 2, 1981 by agreement of the parties as previously reported in
-the conference call of February 27, 1981.
Assuming that Mr.
Bursey has no direct case, Applicant would go first and staff second.
Assuming that Mr. Bursey has a direct case on
. one or more matters, he would go first on that matter, Applicant second and Staff last.. For orderly development of i
the record',- it would be best to take the, issues one at a 1 time.and complete the direct and cross of al'l parties on
-'that' issue.'before-proceeding.to another issue.
In most cases,1we would,. in' the-interest ofetime and the development-of.a complete record,Lput.on witnesses on a particular issue-and:make them available-for. cross as a panel.
In some
[
f 4
n 5v t
T m ~+
74 9
- ++<r+=*
w ee t^r=
-*vswe-w=*-e
-=-Mrw+-
-w-rw -a s "e-**<t*e,e--ew+
"9-te+
e$'ee-v-w e-ye #e + -r er--sr+m--
cases, it may be most expeditious to make Staff and Appli-cant panels available for examination simultaneously.
Other Matters We continue to believe that it would be useful to obtain (a) estimates of the time required for oral direct and cross-examination, (b) identification of documents to be used, including those for cross, and (c) an expedited posthearing schedule with simultaneous proposed findings.
Untimely Petition to Intervene If the Board has not already ruled on the late filed petition of Fairfield United Action by April 7, then the matter should be resolved at the prehearing conference.
Staff Comments The NRC Staff has proposed in its comments dated March 20, 1981 that the Board set a final date by which Intervenor Bursey may seek relief from the sanction imposed by the Board (after his repeated noncompliance with Board orders dating back to 1977) in its Orders of December 30, 1980 and March 9, 1981.
We endorse the Staff's proposal for a dead-line, given the March 9, 1981 Order, while taking exception to the allowance of any further additional time for Mr.
Bursey to remedy his default.
We also subscribe to the Staff view that it may be appropriate to invite limited appearances at the evidentiary hearing from persons who might have been witnesses had
~
_9_
information on their testimony been made timely available and who have views which they wish the Board to consider.
Respectfully submitted, r
l
\\
- (-
J<-
Jose'ph C. Knotds, Jr.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN Counct.1 foi. Applicants / Owners Date:
March 30, 1981 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company South Carolina Public Service Authority e
e.- -.
y..
-r4-
,e=.-
r re,
,,y--*-
ev c,.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
SOUTH CAROLINE. ELECTRIC &
)
Docket No. 50-395 OI, GAS COMPANY and
)
)
SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE
)
AUTHORITY
)
~
)
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
)
Station)
)
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I-hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Order Settir.9 Final Prehearing Conference" and a related letter of trans,littal in 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 30th day of March, 1981:
- Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 George Fischer, Esq.
Dr. Frank F. Hooper Vice President and Group School of Natural Resources Executive-Legal Affairs University of Michigan South Carolina Electric &
Ann Arbor,. 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 Washington, D.C.
20555 Route 1, Box 93-C Little Mountain, South Carolina 29075
l Mr. Chase R. Stephens Mr. John C..'uoff Docketing and Service Section Post Office Bc,x 96 Office of the Secretary Jenkinsville, S.C.
29065 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
(-
1 1
Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
l_
Assistant Attorney General l
South Carolina Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 j-l s
l
,, ' [?.,w i
Joseph B.
Knotts, Jr.
I f
l l
l i
i i
l
-,,,