ML20030B887
| ML20030B887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8108250107 | |
| Download: ML20030B887 (2) | |
Text
- - - -
I 9
DEBEVolSE & LIBERM AN 1200 S EvCNTCENTM $1R EET, N w WASHINGTON. O C 20036 s
s m..o =.
- J ' C t =
s.=rse ues.w.=
,tos st?-seco m..co6m = e=,ues.s.
pesos.cnt na. 6s eos==.s.g....s.
sosten s==ovvo s.
g&
August 21, 1981
.,u.
....o..
.=m.....=.-
s
/[,g L, y7
..=..o
.....=
^.
...... u,, m
......... =
7
.o.m........
.o.....
c....u.=......
3 2
AUL 2 41981 *
' * " E "' " * "
tuom.s = ocesvoest m.cno6.s a.sv=o60s necm..oe e.o
=g gg,,qjeggag 6
}
A g
co s..
CO*Watilpe p
/p-es==evaa asisas scot? = oi.coer
- /'
't
- '"'"l..e
\\(,
..,,,,, ;..., o,..
oom.<= _..=.- -
f, y
....o s.o...
g, 1
....... g a 3 1 cn AU3 2 41981 :. p i-I Herbert Grossman, Esq.
q g;3.<
Administrative Law Judge
(;;c.. ;
[
Chairman, Atomic Safety and L2 '
N Licencing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash 2.ngton, D.C.
20555 i
In the Matter of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, et al (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station)
Docket No. 50-395-OL
Dear Judge Grossman:
Ar we reviewed the transcript in the course of preparing our prcposed findings, we were struck by an observation that you made at Tr. 1691.
Your passing remark was to the effect that, in the instance then being discussed, the Board did not feel it necessary to " stretch" in order to be sure that all parties could have a witness on each contention.
The impli-cation of your observatier. was, of course, that there were or t
might be other instances where the Board would feel it neces-sary to so " stretch".
The purpose of this letter is to inquire whether the Board, in pursuing its present course regarding the retention of its own witnesses on seismicity matters,is in any respect
" stretching" in order that there will be some evidence on the intervenor's " side", as it were, on his expanded seismic con-i tention (testimony and exhibits on behalf of Applicants and Staff being uncontroverted as the record stands).
We raise this question because we have a potentially relevant document which afstedates our first inkling of the i
h [l 0108250107 810822 PDR ADOCK 05000395 i
G PDR l
4 I
M i
I
(
Judge Herbert Grossman August 21, 1981 Page Two i
]
course the Board is now pursuing.
The document ):as not been brought to the Board's attention heretofore becr. 3e it-l appeared irrelevant and unnecessary, given the Board's orders of December 30, 1980 (at paragraph 1) and March 9, 1981 (at p.3), and given also that portion of the Board's May 13, 1981 i
order (at p. 6) barring direct evidence on the seismic con-tention by Mr. Bursey in view of his failure to comply with i
discovery and the Board's orders pertaining thereto.
i If, however, you advise us that in some measure the l
retention of independent consultants / witnesses on seismic matters is intended in the same vein as your earlier obser-I vation referred to above, we would like the opportunity to file the document for your consideration of the question whether j
such " stretching" is equitable or warranted in all of the i
circumstances.
i
)
In concluding, we are of course aware (Order of May 13, 1981 at 4-6 and Tr. 380-406) that in large measure the seismic contention has become the Board's sua sponte issue and recog-nize the distinct possibility that the present ingtdry will f
not in any event lead to reconsideration of the Board's plan j
to call its own witnesses.
However, in the circumstances, i
i we feel obliged to leave no stone unturned.
i Sincerely, i
I i
Joseph B.
Knotts, Jr.
I Attorney for Applicants cc:
Service list.
j 4
l i
a
.-