ML19351E951
| ML19351E951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Barth C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012190586 | |
| Download: ML19351E951 (5) | |
Text
. -
G
+
.n
~
IS
- ! j A
s=
~%
O-3 C_.3 i
g' vim UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 12/9780 3
[sh l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0",!!ISSION g
qg a
g 2
BEFORE THE ATO,' TIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In :
Matter of
)
)
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No.50-35S COMPANY, et al.
)
- ~~
)
i (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
i Station, Unit No.1)
)
NRC STAFF OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO REOUIRE JUSTIFICATION By-Memorandum dated September 17, 1980, this Board requested the NRC l
Staff to inform the Board whether the Staff could produce a supplement to the SER on financial qualifications at a time which would permit the holding of hearings in the fall or winter of 1980.
In a. letter. to the Board on October 17, 1980, the Staff indicated that it was unable to predict a meaningful schedule at that time but committed separately 1to_ address finan-cial qualifications and to propose a schedule as soon as possible.
j On November 19, 1980, the Applicant filed a ~ " Motion to Require Staff to Provide Justification of. Its Inability to. Proceed" alleging.that the l
Staff's response was " entirely unacceptable." The Applicant moves that the' Staff be' ordered to submit a detailed explanation of why_ it is unable
' to proceed expeditiously.in' this matter or even determine a schedule for proceeding.
i By separate letter to this Board, the Staff-is providing.the additional in-formation-promised in its-October 17, 1980 letter.
It is now apparent that 38012190 %
=
v w,,
---,,s,,,,,~..a,
-n-
- -...,v..
n
, a e...
q y
v.
9
the Staff's review of financial qualifications should be completed by the end of January 1931 and the Board can thereafter schedule a hearing on that' limited issue if it so decides. The published schedules for Staff reviews of unresolved generic issues show two additional supplements to the SER to be issued in March and May 1981.
Information concerning which issues will be treated in which supplement is not now available.
The Applicant places heavy reliance upon Offshore Power Systems to support-
)
its theory that the Staff can be directed to adopt a schedule by a licensing boa rd.~1/
Of course, that decision involved a case where the predicted com-pletion date for a staff document had slipped more than two years. Here the Applicant complains of a period of two months elapsing after the Board had in-
{
quired about the possibility of a fall or winter 1930 schedule. The Staff I
was unable to provide a meaningful schedule within that time frame. There is nothing unreasonable about the Staff's position nor would it have been l'
unreasonable to sugaest that hearings should not commence until all matters
~2/
necessary to a complete hearing were complete.
The Staff.did not and does not suggest such a course. Rather the Staff is proceeding with reasonable dispatch to attend to its licensing review functions.
In this case, the j
Staff plans to complete its review of financial qualifications so that early I
e' 1_/ Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194 (1978).
2/ Applicant has no inherent right to bifurcated hearings on issue after issue merely because no further information -is anticipated 'before the i
Staff's total review is scheduled for completion.
In this case, Appli-cant has yet to fulfill all requirements for an operating license (e.,a_.,
emergency planning and technical qualifications.to operate the faciTity) and hearings on the' application cannot yet be completed even if early f
consideration were had on financial qualifications issues.
t
.,.a
_....,m.m
-...__-_...w,_._,.-._.--
hearings can be held on it.
This approach is reasonable and certainly does not involve a situation analogous to what existed in the cases cited by Applicant.
In view of the fact that the Staff has indicated its review schedule, there is no need to coment further on Applicant's motion except to note that its attempt to distinguish on environmental versus safety grounds the Apoeal Board 's recognition in Of fshore Power that the Staff is a necessary party whose dismissal would penalize the Applicant, is simply an error.
The Staff's safety review is at the core of the Commission's licensing pro-cess.
If the Staff is a necessary party to environmental hearings, it perforce is a necessary party to the Comission's safety hearings.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant's motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Bar & /
4l: &
th Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of December,1980 l
l
O UNITED STATES CF A'4i_RICA j
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCF.:4ISS10N
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A';D LICENSING BOARD s
In the Matter of
)
)
CI.NCIt";ATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-358 CO'7A'iY, e t al.
)
)
+
(W. H. Zimer Nuclear Power
)
i Station, Unit No.1)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC' STAFF OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S MOTION j
TO REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served or. the folloWing by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as.
indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory _ Coninis-sion's internal mail system, this 9th day of December,1980.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- James H. Feldman, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 216 East 9th Street Board Panel Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Peter Heile, Esg.
Assistant. City Solicitor Dr. Frank F. Hooper Room 214, City Hall School of Natural Resources Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Timothy S. Hogan, Jr., Chairnan-t Board of Commissioners l
Mr. Glenn 0. Sright*
50 Market Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Clern,ont County Board Panel Batavia, Ohio 45103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John D. Woliver, Esq.
Legal-Aid Society Troy B. Conner, Esq.
P. O. Box #47
-. Conner, Moore and Corber 550 Kilgore Street 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Batavia,.0hio 45103 t
. ashington, D.C.
20006 W
9
(
' Willian J. floran, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensir,q General Counsel Anpeal Board
- Cincinnati Gas & Electric Cort,any U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box 960 l'ashinnton, D. C.
2n555 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 P S:Letina and Service 50ction*
Aton:ic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary T, card Panel
- U.S. f?uclear Regulatory Cc
.;sion U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Cortrission 1lashington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
David !43rtin, Esq.
200 isain Street Office of the Attacncy General Eatavia, Ohio 45103 209 St. Clair Street first Floor Robert A. Jones, Esq.
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio firs. fiary Reder 154 "ain Street Box 270, Rt. 2 Batavia, Ohio 45103 California, Kentucky 41007
}
b/ d- !/kW Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff O