ML19347F732
| ML19347F732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105260152 | |
| Download: ML19347F732 (6) | |
Text
e 05/22/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of.
)'
- )
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 395 g
COMPANY
)
~
, s Vr 1 C. Summer Nuclear Station g
e.
.mY 2 21981w
'l, %g :/
.~
)
0F LICENSING BOARD ORDER FOLLOWING
.{^
NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO REMAINDER FOURTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE-
\\
7 INTRODUCTION On May 13, 1981, the Licensing Board issued its " Remainder of Order Following Fourth Prehearing Conference." This Order, inter alia, ruled on the ability of Intervenor Bursey to adduce affirmative testimony based on his proposed summaries of testimony supplied at the April 7-8, 1981 prehearing conference and that late In'.ervenor Fairfield. United Action '
(FUA) could cross-examine on Intervenor Bursey's contentions.. ithout W
waiving any of the arguments advanced at the prehearing conference and rejected by the Board in its Order, the Staff hereby files its objections to two specific rulings contained in the Order. The first is the Board's acceptance of..the prospective testimony of Michio KakuE (Order at C-7).
The second is permitting Intervenor FUA to conduct cross-examination on l
all of Intervenor Bursey's contentions.
(Orderat11).
(
y Intervenor Bursey's April 7,1981 summary of testimony. l,ttachment 1.
l 8 losseo/SA 6
9-
<g--
g wey
-ic g
.y,.e 7 -.
gr
>-t,
+
q y
., d.
DISCUSSION-The Commission's emergency planning regulations provide for the establishment of a ten mile plume exposure. pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for nuclear power plants-within which a range of protective actions, including' evacuation, must be developed.
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, SIV. The exact size and configuration of the EPZ for an individual facility is determined by regard to " local emergency needs and capabilities as they' are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and juris-dictional boundaries." 10 C.F.R. 550.47(c)(2). The prospective testimony of Dr. Kaku on contention A8, in its entirety, patently constitutes a challenge to the Commission's emergency planning requirements relative to-the establishment of a ten mile plume exposure pathway EPZ.
Dr. Kaku does not state a position on the precise size and configuration of the ten mile EPZ for Summer.
Rather, Dr. Kaku states that, as a generic matter, a ten mile EPZ is inadequate. The purpose of Dr. Kaku's testinony is expressly stated as follows:
"To show that substantial scientific objections. can be raised contesting this ten mile limit." The. proposed testimony con-tinues:
"A logical, compelling case can be made that a ten mile evacua-
[
i tion radius does not take into account the full impact of a class'9-accident at the plant." Proposed Kaku testimony at 1.
The proposed 1
testimony proceeds with a discussion of certain generic class 9 accident l
studies and certain alleged power plant incidents to support his theory l
that a ten mile evacuation limit-is inadequate. The proposed testimony I
contains no site-specific discussion of local conditions relevant to j
emergency planning, such as denegraphy, topography, land characteristics, l
i
access routes, and jurisdictional' boundaries. Nor does the proposed testimony discuss the Applicant's emergency plans themselves and-is-further objectionable on relevancy grounds.. Contention A8 alleges that
'"the Applicant has made inadequate preparations for the. implementation -
of [its] emergency plan in those areas where the assistance'and cooper-ation of state and local agencies are required." This contention is nowhere addressed in Dr. Kaku's proposed testimony which displays no familiarity at all with the actual emergency plans for Summer.
If Dr. Kaku actually presents his statement as direct testimony, the Staff-will~ file a motion that it be stricken on the above grounds. The neces-sity for such a motion can be avoided by the Board's reconsideration.of the ruling in question.
The second ruling to which the Staff-specifically objects is-the decision to permit late Intervenor FUA.to conduct cross-examination on the contentions admitted on behalf of Intervenor Bursey.
Intervenor Bursey's contentions are as follows:
contention A2 (financial quali-fications/ decommissioning costs), A3 (ATWS), A4 (seismicity), A8 (emergency planning), A9 (quality control), and A10 (health effects The late intervention petition of FUA advanced proposed contentions i
I identical to four of Intervenor Bursey's six contentions. These were L
proposed contention 3 (financial qualifications / decommissioning costs).-
18 (ATWS),15 (quality control), and 23 (health effects).. Proposed FUA contentions 5 and 6 related to site seismicity.
In-its April 30,- 1981 Partial Order Following Prehearing Conference which granted. the late petition of FUA, the Board ruled that FUA had not adequately justified l
l l
.~
. ~
7 its late intervention with respect to the above-referenced contentions.2_/
In arriving at this result, the Board concluded: "We can only contrast.
petitioner's familiarity with the substance of [the ~ admitted issues] with its lack of prior involvement or expertise in the other areas it raised.
On those other issues, it named few or no witnesses committed to testify on its behalf but sought mainly the opportunity to search for such wit-nesses.
In view of the late date, we see no reason to afford that oppor-tuni ty. " Order at 10.
The Staff wholeheartedly agrees.
If FUA lacked the ability to contribute to the record on the subject contentions as their own, it similarly lacks the ability to. contribute to the record on those same contentions of another party. The effect of the Board's-ruling pemitting cross-examination is to abrogate its ruling on late intervention and introduce further unwarranted delay and uncertainty into the proceeding. The length of the proceeding already seems to grow l
incrementally. The original parties to the proceeding _ had agreed, as did the Board,3_/ that the proceeding could be concluded in a two-week l
hearing session from June 22-July 2, 1981.
At the April 7-8, 1981 pre-hearing conference, the Board indicated that a second session would be held July 13-24, if necessary, flow, in the present Order, the Board states that, if the hearing is not concluded by July 24, it will schedule a further session. This gradual enlargement of the hearing l
l.
2_/
The Board did admit seven contentions concerning " emergency planning".
i 3/
February 27, 1981 conference call.
l l
l e
,...,p.--
.,n....,e,.,
.a-,
,e
,..,..s
-. +
,,.o
5 5-V process is unfair to the' initial litigants. The Board's ruling on cross-examination further " rewards" the 1 ate. intervention of FUA, at
~
the expense of the other parties.
CONCLUSION In light of the above, the Staff objects to the Board's ruling
. accepting the proposed -testimony of Dr.~ Kaku on contention A8 and allowing FUA to cross-examine on Intervenor Bursey's contentions.
Respectfully submitted,.
b[w N i
y Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of May,1981, l
i 1
I l
l
,m_.
. ~ ~ - -.
_,.,,__s
_r,_,,,_,m,..
1 a
-UNITED STATES 0F'MERICA i
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the iiatter SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket No. 50-395 COMPANY Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO REMAINDER OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER FOLLOWING. FOURTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE in the above-captioned pro-ceeding 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this.22nd day of May,1981.
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Brett Allen Bursey
~;
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Route 1, Box 93-C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Little Mountain, South Carolina 29076 Washington, D.C.
2.0555
- Joseph B. Kn9tts, Jr.
Dr. Frank F. Hooper Debevoise & Liberman School of Natural Resources 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
University of Michigan Washington, D.C.
20036 t
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Randolph R. Mahan,'Esq.
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger S.C. Electric & Gas Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P.O. Box 764 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia, S.C.
29218 Uashington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George Fischer, Esq.
Panel Vice President and General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Carolina Electric and Gas Washington, D.C.
20555
- Company P.O. Box 764 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal l
Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Assistant Attorney General S.C. Attorney General's Office Docketing and Service Section P.O. Box 11549 Office of the Secretary Columbia, South Carolina 29211 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 *
"r. John Ruoff P.O. Gox 96 Jenkinsville, S.C.
29065
/
Q AMy Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff L