ML20062D214
| ML20062D214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1978 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811210130 | |
| Download: ML20062D214 (3) | |
Text
-.
o 21lIk e
NRC PUBLfC DOCUMENT E003t O'
N i
9
.1 o
UNITED 5 STATES OF AMERICA O
N C
[ $*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S'
k a eQ In the Matte =r of SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC Sc GAS COMPANY Docket No.
0-39
)
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, ef Unit 1)
<// 7 74 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In its memorandum and order of April 24, 1978 the Board f) established a schedule for prehearing actions.
The order required that motions for summary disposition under 10 CFR
$2.749 must be filed on or before October 3, 1978 and that O
answers opposing motions for summary disposition were to be filed on or before October 13, 1978.
Certain events have occurred to cause the Board to reconsider this schedule.
Under the revised Rules of Practice effective May 26, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 17793) motions for summary dispositions now may b.
be filed until at least 45 days before the time fixed for the hearing.
Answers opposing motions for summary disposit' ion may be filed within 20 days of the service of the motion.
This schedule is much more workable than the schedule under the old rules and removes the most important reason why the Board originally departed from the provisions of 92.749 in setting its schedule.
Also to be considered is the fact
.)
~
7 81121013 o - Cr
. that the projected first fuel loading date for Summer has been delayed until July 1, 1980.
Therefore the Board modifies its prehearing activity schedule to provide that the provisions of the revised 92.749, not the October 3 deadline, will apply to future motions for summary dis-position.
In its response dated October 18, 1978 to the Board's memorandum and order denying its motion to dismiss Intervenor Bursey, counsel for Applicant indicated that it intended to
()
file a motion for summary disposition in approximately one month.
Apparently counsel had overlooked th.e Board 's dead-i line of October 3, 1978 or believed that the revision to 92.749 superseded the Board's schedule.
Under today's order, Applicants proposed motion for summary disposition will be timely if it complies with the revised rule.
Also under today 's order, the relief suggested by Applicant be-comes automatic.
The time within which the Intervenor may respond will be controlled by the revised 92.749(a),
i.e.,
20 days after service of the motion for summary disposition.
In the meantime the Staff's motion dated October 3, 1978 for summary disposition with respect to contentions A6 and A7 is pending.
Mr. Bursey dit not file an answer to the motion and the time previously provided for the answer, October 13, has passed.
In view of our order today i
n o
)
the Board believes that it would be equitable to provide an extension of time for any answer to the Staff's motion the Intervenor wishes to file.
Therefore Mr. Bursey may file within 20 days after the service of this order an answer to the Staff's motion for summary disposition dated October 3, 1978.
Mr. Bursey is notified that without an answer from him, the Board favors granting the motion and will do so unless Mr. Bursey files an answer and prevails on the issues pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 92.749.
In addition,
)
the Board will deem a failure to file an answer to the motion for summary disposition as acquiescence to the dis-(
missal of contentions A6 and A7.
M R THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
p
()
~Ivan W. Smith, Chairman l
l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of November, 1978.
~
/
~
w< w r "+< -
e = ee w e e n - e
- w or m. o + s - no s r+
~"~1r w-
<=~-n
~ *~~-
~