ML20010B623
| ML20010B623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1981 |
| From: | Grossman H, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8108170351 | |
| Download: ML20010B623 (3) | |
Text
e
~
e s
p tcstTto 9
canc 5
AUG 141981 > $0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[
cmceof theSecetary
~
k
- ckdng & SeniC#
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T
0 g
Brath ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Herbert Grossman, Chairman SERVED Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
AUShj Jgg7 Dr. Frank F. Hooper
)
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-395 OL SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC &
)
GAS COMPANY, ET _AL.
)
)
(Virgil C. Summer. Nuclear
)
August 13,'1981 Station, Unit 1)
)
)
MEMORANDUM (Responding to Appeal Board Order of August 10,1981)
Apparently acting upon the representations made in the NRC Staff motion for directed certification that this Board had failed to adequately explain its reasons for retaining independent con'sultants and had refused to -
...emorialize its decision on this matter, the Appeal Board requested a full explanation of the reasons why this Board believes it necessary to roke the assistance of independent consultants.
Staff's motion does not disclose the reason given for this Board's declining to issue an order memorializing its decision, to wit, that the Board's position had been fully discussed on the record at the July 17,1981 session o# hearing and, consequently, had already been memorialized at transcript pages 3790-3817. We refer those pages to the Appeal Board as our#L0 i
8108170351 810813,
1 PDR ADOCK 05000395l G
PDRJ
4 6
_2_
full explanation. ! Applicant's and Staff's testimony on the seismic issues can be found at Tr. 701-804, 828-1024, 1033-1234 and 3405-3424.
As is evident from Tr. 3790-3817, whatever inadequacies may have been surmised by the Board did not relate to the Staff's testimony but, rather, to the Staff's review as disclosed by the testimony--a matter that does not' lend itself to correction merely by further Staff testimony. The choices before the Board at that point were to close the record ce the evidence already received, to schedule a further hearing involving only the previously-heard witnesses (whose further testimony in all likelihood would be inadequate for a satisfactory record, necessitating a f urther d,elay to retain independent consultants) or to attempt to arrange for independent consultants and further hearings with all deliberate speed.
Far from discouraging further testimony by Staff's witnesses as. suggested in Staff's motion for directed certification, in the subsequent conference call alluded to by Staff the Board indicated that the parties would be given full opportunity to respond to any positions that might be taken by the independent consultants and encouraged the partier to make full use of that opportunity.
The ACRS consultants are not being compelled to testify by subpoena or threat of subpoena.
Nor are they being asked to testify because of any input into ACRS recommendations. They are being retained as additional,
--*/ The discussion on the record is as complete as we feel proper taking into account the intermediate stage of the proceeding and the Board's obligation to maintain a position of impartiality and objectivity.
.m q-4
. independent experts on a voluntary basis to offer further critical analyses on the seismology issues. Their testimony will be given no greater weight than any of the other expert testimony by virtue of their having been retained by the Board.
Prospective witness Fletcher of the U.S.G.S. is not being solicited strictb as an expert (rather than f act) witness.
His stress drop calculations at the Monticello reservoir were the subject of considerable testimony and are a critical element in the Applicant and Staff's position.
Drs. Boore and Joyner (one of whom will be expected; to testify, depending upon Dr. Boore's availability) are outstanding experts in deriving acceleration values ("g" values) from different magnitude ' events and, by virtue of their inimitable experience in the U.S.G.S., should be in a good position to critique the Applicant and Staff's choice of modeling methods and data, about which the Board expressed some concern.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
([
If%_
m _
Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIV DGE r
M bitaveA.Linenberh'r,Jr.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Because of his unavailability, Judge Hooper took no part in this memorandum.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 13th day of August,1981.
k
...