ML20126H295

Response Opposing Fairfield United Action,Inc 810323 Petition to Intervene.Petition Is Extremely Untimely & No Good Cause Shown for Lateness.Chronology of Notices, Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20126H295
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	04/03/1981
From:	Knotts J SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104080415
Download: ML20126H295 (61)

Text

_ - . . -. -

y gj l

'c g>

• I?.y 8 g I C00 g g C 4 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ 0 IS$f

=

CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4- $3! s .

g# #NN y

,, , s ..x, In e.he Matter of:

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND )

GAS COMPANY, ~-et al. )

-) Docket No. 50-395 OL (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station, Unit 1) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO UNTIMELY PETITION TO INTERVENE OF FAIRFIELD UNITED ACTION, INC.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.714(c), Applicants South Carolina Electric & Gas Company ("SCE&G") and South Carolina Public Service Authority (" Authority") (collectively " Applicants")

submit this answer to the March 23, 1981 Pvtition to Intervene of Fairfield United Action, Inc. ("FUA" or " Petitioner").

I. INTRCDUCTION AND

SUMMARY

The notice of opportunity for hearing in this operating license proceeding was published nearly four years ago. (42 Fed.

Rec. 20203, April 18, 1977). The notice provided a thirty-day opportunity to intervene and request a hearing. The petition of l

FDA is thus some forty-six raenths late.

In such a circumstance, the s5.owing of good cause must be compelling and the burden of prevailing on a balancing of the other fac*. ors pertinent to consideration of untimely petitions I listed in 10 C.F.R. 52.714 ( a ) (1) (1)-( v) becomes enormously heavy.

i l

ps*S G a1o4 8*915. '

s'/

1

. . y F

]

- )

Puget Sound Powe Q Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power ~ Project, '!

Units ,1 and 2 ), ALAB 559, .10 NRC 162-, 172-73 (1979) vacated'as moot CLI-80-34,. 12 NRC (October 9,.1980.). 1/ Moreover,'n'the i

case of extremely late petitions such as this one, the most l

important of the remaining factors in the overall balance is 'l the delay facter. Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center,,  !

Units 2..and 3)-, ALAB 476, 7 NRC~759, 761-62 :(1978). Given these

. standards, we take up in Section II below the matter of whether

. good cause has been shown, and conclude, having discussed  !

t Petitioner's various arguments and .the applicable precedents, that t it has not. Next, in Section III, we examine the delay factcr t under the guidance of the prior decisions, and conclude that it l weighs heavily against granting the intervention. Then, in .i i

Section IV, we consider the remaining factors applicable to <

1 ate intervention and conclude that they do not outweigh the i absence of good cause and the impact of likely delay. In i

Section V, we briefly discuss contentions,;and in Section VI discuss the discretionary intervention doctrine. In Section VII, we turn to the matter of the Board's jurisdicticn to 1/ The Commission order of October 9, 1980 made no ruling

.on the merits, not even on the narrow question, not relevant here, before it. Its previous (unpublished)

Order of January 16, 1980 confined Commission review to the narrow issue whether the fact that the late petitioners were American Indian tribes gave them special status. ' In the January.16, 1980 Order, the Commission denied the -

tribes' petition fcr review of the majority opinion in ALAB-559 in the respects in which we rely on the reasoning of that decision, and characterized the majority opinion as " balanced, measured and thoughtful".

A A ---* ~ S

. . l l

1

_3_ l entertain antitrust matters.2/, and conclude that i

such jurisdiction is lacking under the applicable authority. '

Finally, in Section VIII, we give our overall conclusion.

II. Fairfield United Action'has not met its Heavy Burden of Establishing Good ,

Cause for Late Filing FUA makes several arguments to explain their late filing in numbered paragraphs 3 (page 3) and 5 (pages 3-5) of their petition. We respond to each argument below.

A. That "Some of Petitioners' members have only recently moved to Fairfield County" (page 3)

The cases which have addressed this argument conclude that recent acquisition of standing is not, in itself, good cause.

Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allen's Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582, 11 NRC 239, 241 (1980); Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4),

ALAB-526, 9 NRC 122 (1979). In Shearon Harris, the Appeal Board said:

"It may well be that, as has been asserted, Eindividual petitioner] has not long resided in the general vicinity of the Shearon Harris

. facility and that the Corganizational petitioner]

is of recent origin. We agree with the Licensing Board , however, that this explanation for the ,

tardy filing cannot carry the day. If newly

-2/ Our opposition to the petition does not otherwise turn on factors applicable to timely petitions: the personal interest of at least one member of the organization and the statement of at least one well-pleaded contention. We do not, however, concede either that (a) Fairfield United Action can be taken as representing anyone other than itself and its members who have authorized the petition; or (b) that any basis for standing recited by petitioners other than residence of one or more members.in close proximity to the nuclear unit is relevant or valid, such as energy use or preference. customer status, or shareholder status. See, generally, Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs, Units 2 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 $RC 610, 613-14 ( 1976 ') . Our main point is that petitioners have not diligently pursued and timely asserted their interest, and no longer have the ,

right to be a party that they might well have had earlier..

acquired standing-(or organizational. existence)  !

were sufficient of-itself to justify permitting-belated intervention, the necessary consequence  ;

J would be.that~the parties to-the proceeding-

.would~never be determined with certainty until the - final _ curtain fell . Assuredly, no adjudicatory process could be conducted in an orderly and expeditious manner if subjected to such a handicap." ,

{9 NRC 122, at 124). .

t The argument here is not persuasive in.any event, since.the

- members who have more recen.y moved in have voluntarily associated

~

themselves with persons who hcVe lived in the area for many years.

B.- That Petitioner Relied =on SCE&G and Others for Information No Longer Believed on Design, Construction, and Operational Effects (page 3)

Petitioners cite no particulars for_the startling and serious allegation that they were affirmatively misled by SCEEG or others acting on its behalf. The mere allegation of unspecified fraud cannot be given credence. (see Skagit, infra ,l 10 NRC 162 at 165-67.) Perhaps what petitioners mean to argue is that they have been shaken in their . confidence in SCE&G and its centractors by unspecified statements by others regarding. the

" probable" effects of plant operation. At least in the absence of a recital of specific very recent material facts rather than undocumented opinions to which petitioners' members have been " educated", there is-no showing to respond to, much less a persuasive one. Moreover, as the materials in Attachment A tend to show, FUA has long opposed the Summer plant and criticized emergency plans. How they can say they were " relying" on SCE&G is far from clear.

F

_ ._, -..-.--..... ..m ., , . - . . . ~ . _ _ . . ..,__.-_._,,--,..m.--_. - _ , , _ - , - . _ - . . . - . , , , _ , - - . . - _ _ . , , , . . _ , . _ . ~ . , . . . - , , . . _ . ~ . .

.- . . . .- . - . - . . . . - - - - . ~ . . . . .

- 5-C. That Petitioner Lacked Knowledge of Rights, ,

Remedies and Notice of Hearing ]

Petitioner contends.that its members were unaware in l

. l 1977 of their interests, their.lege3 rights, or.the Notice of- l l

i opportunity for Hearing (page 3) and that, until recently, they were informed and believed lthey.had no right 'to , participate as a party because ' the deadline had passed in .1977.' It is a familiar-principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one . The. Appeal Board has held that nearby residents will not be allowed to escape the obligation to make diligent inquiry regarding the preconditions for intervention.on the ground that they do not read the Federal J

Register. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allen's Creek'Nucir,nr Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-574, 11 NRC 7 (1980). "ndawd,

-the Federal Register Act provides:

"A notice of hearing or of opportunicy to be-heard, required or . authorized. t.n ce given by an Act of Congress, or which uay otherwise-properly be given, shall b,e' deemed to have been given to all persons residing within the States of the Union and the District of Columbia,c [vith exceptions not here relevant]".

44 U.S.C. $1300 (emphasis added)

The Appeal Board did not reach the legal effect of -

a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for hearing-in ALAB- j 574, supra, but thtt act must be given effect and petitioner-deemed to have received notice of the opportunity to be hoard.

Likewise, petitioner must be considered to be on notice ms to the requirements for intervention in 30 C.F.R. $2.714. See 44 USC $1507.

e-, ,mr -

..a.,r,w--,.re...,er--, .,----s-y..,,m-,..--..~.-.%- .wm..-,.*.,..-m - --..-.~,.m. _ . . . . , . - . -

-- -.--.~e-..- .

J J

It is worth emphasizing that would-be petit'ioners .l

- to intervene are held to the obligation, irrespective of 1 actual notice.of preconditions for late intervention, to.

make diligent' inquiry when it is shown that they. live nearby. It must be presumed that they have been well aware i of the nuclear project from. their own petition .(page 3) as.

well as from the publicity (see Attachment A)' the plant, the NRC proceedings, and FUA's opposition have received. .

i ALAB-594, supra, 11 NRC at 10-12. Since 1977,there have been at least ninety-nine articles prominently featured in the two newspapers of largest circulation in the four-county are surrounding the plant. (See Attachment A). The observa- i tions of the Appeal Board in Skagit, infra, 7-8, regarding l the integrity of the adjudicatory process if inexcusably late petitions were to be granted, are also pertinent-to the l

claim that petitioners were unaware of their remedies. A i

diligent person would, of course, have identified and tested  ;

tne available remedies, including those under 10 C.F.R. ,

$2.714(a)(1).

D. That Petitioner Believed Until Recently that its Interests were Being Represented by the Existing Intervenor r FUA's next argument (page 4) is that it relied on the existing intervenor, but only recently learned that his participation was potentially quite limited (which, we would add, is because of the imposition of sanctions:for I l

failure to comply with Board orders, against a background o*

l 4

l l

1

-.,-,,.~,-r,...,-,,. . . , . . . . , - . . , . . _ _ . . . - , , _ - - . . , , _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . ~ , -

.-,_._.,_ _ ..-.-_ _..._ --_--._ ,,J

a d similar disregard for discovery requirements dating back to 1978 - Memorandum and Order, July 13, 1978, p. 3; Memorandum and Order, October 2, 1978, also p. 3). The existing intervenor, however, disclaimed representation of others (Deposition of Brett A. Bursey, January 13, 1978, Tr. 16).

What the Appeal Board said in Skagit, page 2 supra, in affirming the rejection of an extremely late petition (not as late as the instant one, and not even at the more delay-sensitive operating license state, however) is worth quoting in full:

". . . we once again must record our belief that the promiscuous grant of intervention petitions inexcusably filed long after the prescribed deadline would pose a clear and unacceptable threat to the integrity of the entire adjudicatory process. See ALAB-552, supra, 10 NRC at 6-7, quoting from Duke Power Company. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-440, 6 NRC 642, 644 (1977).

More specifically, persons potentially affected by the licensing action under scrutiny would be encouraged simply to sit back and observe the course of the proceeding from the sidelines unless and until they became

, persuaded that their interest was not being

! adequately represented by the existing parties and thus that their own active (if belated) involvement was required. No judicial tribunal would or could sanction such an approach and it is equally plain to us that it is wholly foreign l to the contemplation of the hearing provisions i

of both the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations. Although Section 2.714(a) of the Rules of Practice may not shut the door firmly against unjustifiably late petitions, it assuredly does reflect the expectation that, absent demon-strable good cause for not doing so, an individual interested in the outcome of a particular proceeding will act to protect his interest within the - established ti:ne limits. " (10 NRC 172-73 (footnotes omitted)).

d d

- 9 .- ,

E. That Petitioner is Informed That Significant -

Regulatory Changes Since the TMI Accident Expand the Remedies Available and as to those Matters

' Constitute Good Cause (page 4)

Petitioners claim that new regulatory requirements- [

expand its remedies is general and not specific. lit suggests i that all it need do'is invoke the incantation, "TMI", and- ,

that good cause will be found. But. petitioner must show-what it was that it wished to raise but could not have .i raised before new substantive requirements were adopted, .

that such relate to this proceeding, when the new requirements were adopted, and if there is a substantial intervening period, furnish a compelling explanation for failure to act since the time of adoption. ' Compare'the decision.of the Licensing Board in Cincinnati Gas ti Elaetric'Co., , eg .@

(Wm. E. Zimmer Nuclear Station) LBP-80-14, 11 NRC 570 (June.

1980). 3_/ There the Licensing Board was persuaded by [

petitioners'~ reliance on-two' sets of requirements each of-which was the subject of major substantive regulatory developments during the previous month, culminating a flurry of activity in the isunediately preceding months. (11LNRC 570, 573-74). Here, petitiener has not articulated a reasonable basis for good cause based on specific, -very

-3/ That decision has not been the subject of appellate review on the merits (11.WRC B60, 862 a.4,-866 n.17) and we do not i

necessarily consider it correctly decided. ;2t:.is not bindtng on this Board. In any event, it is tiistinguished in t.he text.

1

_ - - _ . . _ m. _ . . . _ . _. . .. _ _ . _ _. __ . _

s- 4' i

n recent, applicable requirements, diligently and timely asserted, which for; the first time permit pursuit of significant a

matters previously foreclosed to. petitioner. Another factor which '

evidently led the Zimmer Board to tip the balance in favor of the petitioner there was the delay factor, discussed infra in .

i Section III. Suffice.it to say that there, the hearing. sessions on the matters relied on as good cause by the petitioner were not scheduled.to begin until about eight months later'and the'overall delay effect was taken to-be about a week.- -(11 NRC 570 at 577-78).

Here, as will be discussed below, the-entire hearing is scheduled to commence June'22-and to be completed by July 2, 1981 and much more than a mere week is at stake.

F. That' Petitioners were Hampered by Absence of a_

Fairfield County Local Public Document Room and that they are Informed Richland County Document Room is Inadequate (pages 4-5)

}

The matter of the. change in the location of the Commission's Local Public Document-Room-from the Fairfield County Library

-to the Richland County Library has been previously raised and addressed in this proceeding. Board Order of July 18, 1977 i

and NRC Staff letter to Board of July 20, 1977. In the' Staff's July 20, 1977 letter, it was pointed out that the Notice of Opper-tunity for Hearing expressly reflected that the Richland County 9

Library was the ' Local Public Document Room' (42 Fed.1 Reg. 20203, 20204, April 18, 1977), and theaStaff went on to explain'the reasons for the tfnange. i Our~ reading of the charges regarding the Richland County I.ibrary -is that Petitioners do not allege they even attempted to =use' the : facilities, but they are informed F

f

,,-- , , . . . - - . -_ . ~ , , _ , , . . . . _ . . . , - . _ , . , - . , _ , , . , . _ . . - . . . . . . . , ,._ , , .... , . ,,... _ , _ ._....--... ._ .._ _._. ._. _ . _ _.-_. . ._,

r .  ;

4

-- 1,0-that there are.various inadequacies. These described' inadequacies.

are exaggerated .according ' to the' personal observations of SCE&G staff. (Attachment B).

. Insofar. as they 1 taply that NRC - (with ,

cooperation..from the Library and SCE&G) have not made a good j faith and reasonably successful effort to keep 1the materials ,

regarding this application current,. complete, and accessible, we. ,

do not believe the allegations to be true. Ever, if it were true that petitioners really attempted to use the-facility and experienced some difficulty, it does not explain four years of  ;

delay and a failure to raise the matter with NRC .(or even'SCE&G) much earlier.

III. 'The Dalay Factor In cases of very late. intervention, the fifth factor.

specified in 10 - C .F-.R. $2.'714 (a) (1) , i.e., the extent to which participation by the late petitioner as a. party will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding, becomes very important.

Greenwood, supra,~7 NRC~761-62. Petitioner asserts (Page 6) that some of .its contentions are .no broader than issues raised .by the existing intervenor. 'It may be true that several of the cententions relate to the same matters as addressed by Mr.

Bursey*s contentions, but Petitioner's are broader in scope in most cases and broaden the issues. Petitioner asserts both additional contentions and contentions which greatly expand on the existing ones. .As the racerd now stands,'.it

- appears that very substantial-delays would be encountered in

- commencing and concluding.the proceeding if one assumes that

-..-..;_ , ,,, .._ .. . ._..u,-_._._.._-._..._. .. _ ._.._ _ _ _ ._ _ . _. _ .. _ _ ..

Petitioner would be allowed to put on a direct ' case on its twenty-seven contentions or even some of them. Another source of delay could be Petitioner's discovery, although a late IWtitioner must take the case as it finds it and is not entitled to discovery not available to other parties.

Petitioner may recognize this and not assert any claim for discovery, consistent with' their offer (page 7) to cooperate in measures to expedite the proceeding and minimize delay.

But if Petitioner were to be allowed to put en a direct case, how are Applicants and Staff to be apprised of what they must meet and to prepare for trial? These parties are surely not to be held to an election between discovery with associated delay (and diversion of resources) and a trial by surprise. Moreover, the Board and the existing parties have been able to schedule a two-week hearing in June., with the possibility of perhaps another week in July, but as we understand the schedule of the Board members, they mould not take up further hearing sessions until Autumn.

As to hearing time, Petitioners, again, list more than twenty-seven et,atentions (leaving aside antitrust contentions stated in the body of the Petition which are outside thi.s Board's jurisdiction). We have no way of knowing how many of these would be accepted for hearing, but it is safe to say that this is not a case where the late petitioner has a si=gle witmess en a single, limited issue. The Board's own experience must. reveal, as does that of the undersigned

1 l

l I

counsel, that we are looking at a petition, which, if granted, would add several months to tne overall process.

Petitioners also claim that, as to the scope of the proceeding, they would not broaden it much beyond the questions raised by the NRC Staff and the ACRS. Petitioners misapprehend the nature of an operating license proceeding.

Unlike a const.. action permit proceeding, where the Board has to make all of the findings celled for by the Commission's regulations and has all matters before it, an operating license teard has only to resolve the issues raised by the parties or those which it feels compelled to raise on its own. 10 C.F.R. $2.760a; Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y., Inc. (Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-319, 3 NRC 188, 19U (1976). Therefcre, the questions asked or issues addressed by the NRC Staff or the ACRS are no proper measure of the scope of this proceeding without Petitioner. We do note that many, if not all, of the points raised by Petitioner have been, or will be, addressed and resolved by the NRC Staff consistent with 10 C.F.R. $2.760a.

Finally, Petitioner admits that some delay would inevitably be caused by its belated participation, but submits that, on balance, the delay will not be significant as compared to the benefits to be gained through the development of a sound record and a =cre " thorough" review. (Pages 6 -

7). We will Lddress t'e matter of whether Petitioners have made a strong showing of their ability to contribute to the

. -- .= .-

record below in Section IV. The question-of publicly airing issues addressed in the principal documents of record takes us back to the proper scope of an operating license public hearing. The purpose of the presentation of evidence at hedring and the rendering of a decision on contested issues is not to describe and discuss the entire review, but to resolve contested issues timely raised. If ventilation and discussion of concerns is what is sought, the raising of those concerns in statements or lists of questions under 52.715 and the custom of requesting the parties to respond suffices to that end.

Petitioners do not address the matter of the consequential

. coats of delay except to imply that such are outweighed by the benefits they see in expanding the hearing. However, the costs against which any benefits are to be measured are indeed significant. As shown in the recent letter from SCE&G to the NRC Staff, (Attachment C), SCELG is working toward plant completion in August of this year. The NRC Staff, based on industry average experience, has not agreed that the plant will be ready to load fuel in August, and has indicated that October is a more likely date. To be con-servative and to avoid controversy for this purpose, let us use the October date. If the hearing commences and concludes as presently scheduled (June 22 - July 2, 1981), the last proposed findings will be due fifty days later (unless expedited as we have proposed, and subject to reduction

. . l

\

to forty days if the proposed amendments to Part 2 deleting

$2.754(c), issued for comment on March 13, 1981, are-adopted).

10 C.F.R. 52.754. Thereaf ter, the Board would be expected to issue its decision in thirty-five days (10 C.F.R. .Part 2, Appendix A, IVI(d)), which is not unreasonable for the few issues presently before the Board. Under the current rule, the license would not issue until about.eighty days later, assuming no stays. (10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix B, Amendment of which is also under consideration according to a March 31, 1981 notice of proposed rulemaking) . Completion of the hearing, post-hearing matters, and the decisional review processes are already on the critical path. Under current rules and guidelines, we are talking about 165 days from ,

the close of the record to license issuance. If the record is closed July 2, and no expedition of the post-hearing schedule comes about by rule or order, it would be about January 2, 1982 before the license issues as against the October date for readiness te lead fuel which we have conservatively assumed. With the pending rule changes, and expedited post-hearing, decision, and review schedules, we believe that licensing by late October should be attainable.

But if Petitioners take up all of the gains in schedule which would be achieved by hard work by the Board and the parties and through recognition by the Commission that its rules must be applied to avoid or minimize licensing impacts on completed plants, we will be back in January 1982 or even later.

m 15 -

As pointed out in Appendix C, the delay costs to SCELG and the Authority are $20,744,667 per month. It must be borne in mind that even an optimistic schedule between fuel loading and commercial operation is six months. Therefore, SCE&G and the Authority would be hard pressed to have the plant available for the heavy demands of the late Spring and Summer months of 1982 unless the licensing process an be completed by the mid to late Fall of 1981.

In short, the " insignificant" delay foreseen by FUA would cost the ratepayers of SCE&G and the Authority over

$40 million, even if that delay were as little as two months, which we consider optimistic, and could easily reach

$124,468,000 for six months.

IV. The Ability to Contribute to a Sound Record, the Availability of Other Means to Protect Interests, and the Extent to Which Existing Parties Will Represent Interests The three remaining factors are not as significant in the case of very late intervention as they might otherwise be. Skagit, supra, 10 NRC 162, 169, n.10. Even if one were to conclude that Petitioners do not have other forums available for all of their concerns, that existing parties are not likely to fully represent their interests, and that the possibility that they may have some ability to contribute to the record cannot be excluded, the balance does not swing in their favor unless they have made a compelling showing of 1

_ ._ .__ ~ .._ - _ _ ._ .

P good cause and unless the delay. factor is relatively insigni-ficant. See Skacit, supra 10 NRC 162, 172. We have shown '

above that these crucial factors weigh heavily against this late intervention. We now briefly consider the remainig i factors.

A. Ability to Contribute Apart from the misplaced, non-jurisdictional antitrust contentions in the petition itself, the Supplement to the  ;

petition setting forth contentions reflects that Petitioner has had available to it one or more members or other persons who has read at least some of the FSAR, NRC Stait and ACRS materials with understanding and some discernment and who can write clearly and concisely.

But the relative quality of the Supplement does not answer the questian whether Petitioner has members, or can produce other persons, who can (1) give first hand factual evidence of a relevant and material nature, (2) present qualified expert opinion  :

evidence on relevant and material .

matters, and .

(3) pursue a line of relevant questioning 5 in a skilled manner and thereby '

develop a record, none of which would be before the Board unless Petitioner is granted full party status..

More specifically, Petitioners make four general claims (page 6) ,

l

. ___ . ~ .._ _ .._. . _ _ _ _ .

. u e

(1) unique working knowledge as to local conditions and circumstances pertinent to emergency planning (2). . unique knowledge of the organization and management of SCE&G gained through participation'in other proceedings: ,

(3) specialized training. of raembers in -

enumerated general areas

. (4) probable access to expert assistance :in 4

-support.of contentions and in preparing cross e

~

As to the first general" claim, Petitioners may or may not have knowledge, but we doubt that it is,* unique" and -

doubt very much that there.is no way for the:NRC, or'even the Board to get the same or comparabls information, if such  ;

is material and relevant, unless Petitioner becomes a full  ;

party. f As to the second claim, the Board has already indicated ,

.t its intention to inquire into the organization and management area in the context of quality and safety. Here again, we doubt that Petitioner has unique knowledge and doubt further that the only way any relevant and material.information it possesses'can be considered-is via full party status.

i As to the third.and-fourth claims, generalized assertions i

l will not do. Greenwood, supra, 7 NRC'759 at 764, teaches ,

t that where special expertise is . relied on, a Jetailed l.

l " bill of particulars" must be furnished. Petitioner has not l l l

even spelled out the disciplines of outside-experts and -;

l l does not.show how.its members' training-is relevant er 1

• r -

t4 - T- , w s-- .- -m .. -.v.rm, www v.,. . -y e. , r-.wier-~..,w4~.mv.-e-~.~-w -,m.w --,+,,,,,m ,-..-.e- -. .,-er

i

. a j I

l 1

l I

helpful. We would reiterate that at this late date, and given the lack of good cause and the delay factor, it would not matter if this Petitioner had included a list of real experts in relevant disciplines and affidavits as to their willingness to testify. There is therefore no need to afford Petitioner an opportunity to supplement the petition with such.a bill of particulars and affidavits.

Even if the Board were to conclude that this factor weighed slightly in favor of Petitioner, the showing is not strong and does not make the overall balance even close in favor of Petitioner.

B. Other Means As is usually the case, there is no other forum in which all of Petitioner's interests and concerns can be litigated. ~While some interests can be and have been pursued before the South Carolina Public Service Commission by some of Petitioner's members, and Petitioner has met with county officials on emergency plans and evidently participated in other meetings with NRC (see Attachment A), the only proper forum for most matters of radiological health and safety is the NRC. Petitioner, however, made its choice about how and where to expend its resources. It is not the NRC's fault and not the Applicants' fault that Petitioner has Slept on its rights and failed to approach this' forum when it could reasongbly have done so. 'In any event,'many of Petitioner's interests and concerns 'can or will be aired

because of the existing Intervenor,-limited appearances and responses, and Board questions.

This'facter.does not weigh for Petitioner'given all b

of the circumstances.. l C. Representation by Existing Parties i

It is true'that Petitioner's concerns cannot be directly represented by the State of. South Carolina or the NRC Staff and that not all of them will likely be fully represented by the existing Intervenor. But here'again it is Petitioner-who' failed to protect its interests, who relied in part on >

an intervenor whose participation was first' limited in 1978 (Memorandum and Order of October 2, 1978) because of failure to comply with Board orders, and it'has no one to blame but itself for failure to approach the. Board (or the NRC Steff) much earlier.

This f actor, too, does not weigh for Intervenor given . .

[

all of the circumstances.  :

?

In summary, the " middle" three factors in 10 C.F.R.

Section12.714)a)(1) de'not weigh for Petitioner, the first and last factors, . good cause and delay, weigh heavily against it, and the overall balance requires denial.

V. Contentions Tor purposes of this answer, we need not and do not

.take.up the question whether.all of the contentions stated in the Supplement to the Petition ~" raise questions which

t

- I i

are both susceptible of litigation in an opezating. license .

proceeding and adequately framed by Petitioner". Tennessee  !

Valley Authority'(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and~2),  !

F ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1423, n.6 (1977). As: pointed out in '

n. 2, supra, we do-not. dispute the statement of one well- l pleaded contention which would have been sufficient for-timely intervention. If the Board please, we will address contentions if that matter is ever reached, orally or in writing, and will be _ prepared to - do so at. the April 7, 1961, Prehearing Conference.

VI. Discretionary Intervention t Perhaps in an abundance of caution, we briefly address discretionary intervention. A discretionary analysis per Pebble Springs, supra, (4 NRC 610) should have no place in i

~

dealing with a petitiener who is extremely late but who j could have intervened as of right at a substantially earlier ,

time. Compare Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2),.ALAB-363, 4 NRC-631 (1976) [S.omewhat tardy intervenor who would not have qualified under judicial l '

l standing concepts accorded discretionary intervention] and (Black Fox Station Units Public Service Company of Oklahoma I and 2), 5 NRC 1143 (1977) [ hree interveriors late but inside zone of interests under one notice and timely but outside sone of interests under late notice; discretionary

. intervention upheld as to one, apparently under-later notice, and reversed as'to other two, all on grounds of .

F,, - - ws+-w er v-- , = - + = wy +-*-.m.n,,. w,, wr-, , ,, ..vm, - e e--- r -- -,-% - +*y + --- r- , .~ s

. . i 1

21-demonstrated ability to contribute, vel non.1 with skagit, l suprk, 10'NRC 162 (no discussion of discretionary intervention -

" pure" 10 C.F.R.'52.714(a) " lateness". Analysis.] >

[

our best reading of these cases is that a " discretionary"  !

analysis is not called for as to petitioners who would have judicial standing but are extremely late and that such l r

an analysis would not be consistant with the intent.of the i rules. Even if such an analysis were made; it would emphasize the inquiry into demonstrated' ability to contribute l

and give weight to that factor, but such would still not=tip  ;

the 10 C.F. R. ~ 52. 714 (a) (1) (1)- (v) balance in petitioner's favor because of the lack of compelling good cause and the -

strong probability of extensive and expensive delay.

VII. This Board does not have Jurisdiction '

over Antitrust Matters and Cannot Entertain That Much of Petition Which Seeks to Raise Them TUA attempts to assert antitrust matters (Petition, page 1 and paragraph 9 on pages 7-8). Such must be rejected l because this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which has been constituted to hear health and safety and environmental matters, does not have jurisdiction to hear antitrust '

f I

i

'**tw7ie *d p y' ger 1 Pvpe se * % f e -g-= wg -rr~ g. te w ';t-*tr'W,gp-r-

c

. 4

~?

• l 1

t t

. matters. -4_/ Public Service company of Indiana (Marble Hill  !

Nuclear.~ Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC q 167 and authorities discussed. See: 10 C.F.R. 12.104(d) ,10  :

C . F. R. Part.2, Appendix A, IX(e). . See also the Notice of . l opportunity for hearing herein 42 Fed. Reg. 20203-(April 18, 1977) and the Notice.of Hearing, 43 Fed. Reg. 6347 (February-14, 1978)..

CONCLUSION ]

, i 4 For all of the: foregoing reasons, the extremely  ;

untimely petition for leave to intervene of FUA should.be. -

i denied. At a time when the Commission has recognized the need to recover lost time on impacted plants, it would be a travesty to admit such a late petitioner.  !

Respectfully submitted,

. s- i P

Joseph B. Knotts, Jr. .

Counsel for Applicants ,

Date:

A i

4/

~

Because the Board must first determine its own jurisdic- l tion and will find it lacking, it need not reach the  ;

question of Petitioner's standing to raise antitrust ,

. matters, which is also-patently lacking, as is compliance l f

with the pleading requirements for antitrust pets.tions.

See: Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LSP-78-13, '7 NRC 583 )1978), aff*d.  !

ALAB-475, 7 NRC 752 (1978'); and Kansas Gas & Electric Q. -(Wolf Creek Unit 1), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559 (1915).  ;

i t

.y--_.....--.,,, m..,.-.--., . ..,.. , - -._ ,,. .. -...,~ ..,..-.._- - __, ,_-,,. _ . ..-_ -- -

A e k

W ATTACHMENT A,

.- -- - - - . . - , , , ,,,- v. - - e e--- - , ,

. . I 1

I i

l ATTACHMENT A-1 Chronoloff of Notices

SELECTED PUBLIC NOTICES REGARDING VIRGIL C. SUMMER PROCEEDING-1972- -

1980' Date Description September.27, 1972 Notice of hearing.on application for construction permit, published in Federal Register (37 Fed. Reg. 20190)

No intervention.

January 29, 30, 1973 Public Hearings at Winns, boro, N.C.

May 22, 1973 Notice of availability of Atomic Safet/ and Licensing Board.and Atomic.

Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decisions approving construction permits.

April 18, 1977 Notice of receipt of applicatior availability of environmental rg :rt; consideration of issuance of operating license and opportunity to intervene and demand a hearing. Published in Federal R ister y (42 ' Fed. Reg. 20203).

February 3, 1973 3 rett A. Bursey admitted as intervenor f

February 8, 1978 Notice of-hearing issued. Published in i Federal Register February 14, 1978 ,

(43 Fed. Reg. e 6347).

March 10, 1978 .

Notice of time and place of March.30, 1978 first prehearing conference.

Published in Federal Register (47 Fed.

Reg. 9893).

July 13, 1978 Notice of August 2, 1978 second pre-hearing conference. .

July 10, 1979 Notice of availability of Draft Environ- i mental Statement, published in Federal Register (44 Fed. Reg. 40460).

October 31 and November 10, 1980 Notice of orders scheduling and re-scheduling third prehearing conference of November 25, 1990.

-e,-e -wr ~ ,v g n 4 ,N < ,-- , ..,e-.-,,N--w-.

--,.p,-, , n,as ..w, ,-,w..> , - - , -. , - , . - , , - ,r,-m n,,e,. --

, , . ,- -~ , --

^

r.

Date Description November 14, 1980 Notice of supplement to Draft Environ-mental Statement. Published in Federal Register (.45 Fed. Reg. 75399).

December 30, 1980 Board order setting deadline for TMI contentions, contentions arising out of Supplemental Draft Environmental Statements on Class e accidents, and requiring intervenor to furnish discovery information by Janua'ty 31, 1981.

M

~

i l

l ATTACHMENT A-2 Summary of Newspaper Coverage l

l l

. . -i r

l i

SUMMARY

OF. NEWSPAPER COVERAGE  ;

OFJV. C. SUMMER NUCLIAR STATION i CONSTRUCTION AND LICENSING ACTIVITIES 1 JANUARY, 197'7 - 21 MARCH,;1981-Tha two. largest-papers in thel Columbia area are The' l State and'The Record.. .Both hava circulation in the E  :

ounty area surrounding.theJV. C. Summer-Nuclear Station.

~ '

- A review of.those papers since 1977.shows that at-least.99 l articlass concerning the planning for, the construction and i

. licensing of the V. C. Summer Kuclear Station have appeared '

A flurry of newspaper coverage i prominently in-those papers.

i occurred in the . first. quatter' of 1977 as a rasult of. South Carolira Public . Service Commission hearings on an SCEEG rate  :

requesst nade in 1976. Weeks of testimony were given on the subject of the Susuner Nuclear Station. . Subjects such as.the .. .!

cost of tha station, the alleged inefficiencies in construction i practicar, poor workmanship, etc. were the subject of j testimony ~and newspaper articles covering the) proceedings.'  ;

Thrs primary protagonists in the attack.on the nuclear  ;

ut,ation were Senator Tom Turnipseed, wherappeared with Dr. 1 JQn Ruoff on television during Dr. Ruoff's' press conference-announcing his Petition to Intervene, and Mr. Robert GuiM, attorney for the Midlands Welfare Rights Organization at  ;

named expert-witness for.'3 rett Bursey on.the subject of  !

decommissioning. The same persons pursued the same subject  !

i matters during DSC hearings in the first quarter of'1980. 'Here they delved a little more heavily into QC and QA matters. The  ;

j l transcript in the 1978. hearings consisted of.approximately.15,000 pages, of which approximately 1,000 relate to testimony.concerning i I

the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station and concerned topics such as workmanship and emergency planning.  ;

Dr. John Ruoff was an intervenor in the 1990 proceedings and f participated in cross-examination of Virgil ~ Summer., Oscar'Wooten, T. C. Nichols, Harold Babb, and others. The primarv topic of Dr. Ruoff's cross-emnf nation of these individuale we.s the nuclear plant, i.e., tonstruction quality, emergency planning, etc. While Dr. Ruo F himself did not question extensively,.between Dr..Ruoff '

I and his colleagues, they questioned'Ed Crews and Harold Babb concerning nuclear pinnt construction and nuclear operations for  ;

nearly 800 pages. Tha primary subject of questiening of Mr. - Crews t Harold Babb responded primarily to questions con-  ;

-was QA/QC.

earning nuclear operations-in general and emergency planning as  ;

well as a lengthy examination concerning decommissioning, parti-cularly the current status-of the CVNPR. {SCE&G attributes the  ;

unusually -prclongod PSC proceedings

• Tten weekis, .14S'. volumes of [

- transcript,=and hundreds of.aschihits)~1argely to Mr. Ruoff'and  ;

his. colleagues.] i

)

I h

--..._._-.-.......-_,_-,.,_,.m

_.._,...__..----_,_~_._.-,,-,._,._..,--c--~j

ATTACHMENT A-3 Press Cli; pings b

k

-ne - n

\, i.

To a

• s, - . - a

.'.41eanng on '

.5.CE&G plan.-

- . ; scheduled . .... - -

~ e . . . .i . . ,

c,'~. ' ' TheiederalNucleahReg-

- % tory Commission will

- *f conduct a public hearing.

'next week on South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.'s plan to,

'. deal with possible emer- .

' * 'geneies at the V.C. Summer '

. , 7.* nuclear plant. - ' .A f.@CN2 .,will review Officials from the NRC the utility's plan

" *for evacuating area resiJ

'l' dents if a nuclear accident

." accured at the plant, which

• is in Jenkinsville about *5 "rmiles north of Columbia. .

• :. The federal officials will

• tour the plant Tuesday, ex$

• plain the plan at sa 8:30 a.m.'I

• -meeting and then hear pub-lic comments at a 7:30 p.th.

' ametings. Both meetings

• tarill be at St. Barnabas,

,,, Episcopal Church on S.C. 213; '

- in Jenkinsville. . J

% Car pools will be leaving the offices of the anti-nucM 5"ar organization. Palmetto' ry' Alilance at' 5:30 p.m. for',

?..'those wishing to attend the e4:30 p.m. meeting. -.!

' Tor informatson. call

. ':54-8132. - ,- -1 C%t99teeG YnDen

1. APEst b 3. Ma_

eem e*h AG9A Es &

DAT: 9r 7(90 mer' ae 9

vn i

Inspection team

. tours nuclear plant ,

~

A team from' the U.S. Nuclear 't

. Regulatory Commission.todey toured

-South Carolina, Electric and Gas Co.'s '

'Jf Virgil Summer. Nuclear Plant.W , *

.pmpared for a punk hearing tomer- ;

row as the. plant',s emergency pre,, .

,. redness. N yr. . C *- C- _

h inspection team was escorted  !

through ti.e 900-megawatt plant and planned to meet with local govern-

. meat !and compiinny ' officials to evalsate evacuation plans for the sita. ,

7 At 8::e a.m. tomorrow, the utility's emergency plan will be, explained at j a public meeting in the gymnasium of ;

St. Barnubus Episcopal Church an S.C. ., i 213 four miles northeast,of,the. power .

,iant. ..._....... . .. .i

. ..The.puwie la invited ~to comment i ais the plan at a hearmg tomorrow at , -

7:30 p.m. at the same bestion. ' -

.~.., The plant, scheduled for comple : ,

13eu in late 1980, is located near , .

miles northwest ,  ;

-Jamidasville ef Columbia:,,,, 3;,,,. about II,ig,,,;.ci, m.- ,

l l

l l'

curwswo room w O su ~ u ,

o e <A ameness T

e.vs M f 92190 we... v.

s .

• L.-

4 +

Of._f.icials are. vie.w._ ,._: d_,. .

,.e t

emergency plan 2 j

..t,.

• A 2 . .% .

.12.. -

By BUNNY S. RICHARDSON  : i for adelear'operadons, asked if the Raeord Staff Writer .- NRC would prefer the utility verify

• Cfuciais .from the. Nuclear Re- * * "

• E **

'" $# ~ -  !

gulatory . Commission and Secth ~' The NRC and SCE&G ofScials then Carolina Electric & Gas Co. today agreed to eliminate a time limit and; began a page4y pnge review of the , reword the section involving notificsJ

'stility's proposed emergency plan to Jaon.,j ,,.. m ,3. :f.,. : ,, , 3 be usad in case of an accidem at the This morning's meeting is part of

~~ V. C. Summer Nuclear P! ant. a tMay NRC visit to the Summer About a dozen spectators looked on plant to review the utility's on site as 11 officials - six from SCELG and emergency plan. ~ " ~~

l five from the NRC -spent the morn- i ' Tonight, citi: ens will be given the

~~ J - ing in St. Barnabas Episcopal Cnurch opport::nity to comment on the refintag the word:cg of the 150-page emergency plan. -

U. '

plan. .s r9- --

The hearing will be held at 7:.10 The Larnmer plant. off S. C. :!$. is p.m. at -St. Barnabas Episcopal located :3 rniles cortheast of Ctanbia Church off S. C. 213 in Jenkmsville.

at JenMasvDe. . . . ..

~

. Ibe utility's emergency plan is one At one point the NRC questioned of seven plans that will be in effect:

a waitmg period the utility had set when Sammer begms operadon in'

-- Inore activatmg emergency pro . June 1961. In addition to the SCE&G cedures.

plan, there will be plans developed by Ken Saale. the ctility's emergency the state Department of Health and coordinator for nuclear operations, Environmental Control, the state Dis.

esp!ained the one hour and 15 mmute ' aster Preparedness Agency and -

waiting period was incinded to maks Richland, Lexington. Fairfield and

'sure the alarm was valid. -

Newberry-counties - the four coun.

Dave Duncan, a special consultant ties nearest the Sumuser plant. -

to the NRC, said the federal re- The state and county plans have:

guistory agency prefers that no time not teen completed. -

• i mterval be set. He said when utility - NRC has said that no ut111ty witt officiais are convinced the instra- receive a full-powtr operating license rnents are reportmg a true reaceg. for a nuclear plant until the state in they must do somethsng. which that plant is located has an HaroAd Babb, the utihty's manager ' emergency evacuation plan. j cue ***o Pnow Papes UN 4 haud eu gg $ Yk

E .

U.S. 'o. fficialsci

,o

~ . to. rev.iew "=.w... ..

' .. I f '. n uclear . ... p. ... .n. ..:la. , .,; .

Asseelsted Press ""*[ I , -  : Nbk Federal officiah wxt month will '

• ',handling review South as accM Care'ina's.

at ,a , nuclear plans for p y generatang plant', , . ;,4 . c,

• The revised state plan will be reviewed by officiah of the Federal

.- Emergency Mwsmat Agency. D

.J which was orgar.ized by President d Carter following the accident at the .g yN

,,'llarse Mlle Island , reactor in Pen- JMyi["5^^:;

. . anystania. : ' .:.: 2 ": *

" Federal officiair. will be check'ng pg . gg *  !

i

• , to see if the document meets siew w:2 ~ & .f,

'Regulatory criteriaAgene,y.

established by the Nuclear "fgy g

. . _ , . p A ost As Two separate- reviews 'of the .- Palmem Altlemee .

• " South Carolina.' pian have' found .

several weaknesses. The govern-

^

ment says the faillags included poor 1

< communication and coordination, a m .1

.

• lack'of law enforcement and public

• I education at the local level and inadequate warning systens. .

• i i d '*

~

1 r

Harris Pope, the chairman of the

• FEMA's Advisory C>semattee says changes have beer: made so South h*_e.- F-a+

3

' . Carolma's good shape."plaa is now la " pretty

, ms" 6-@j  !

."Up until the Tirtee Mlle Island ,

I accident we ' were talkmg about '~

evacuating people within s three to {@ % i

' -Q.' {  !

seven-mile radiscp'-4  :( ai plant. Thel L( [yg(.

new outer limit is 10 miles. Also, ,

there is to be a fie-mile food ingestion Y -

asse, in which all food processing %e"N "c h"f'Myg, will cease." he sam.

. f upe said that after the agency g W

@g *

'h- 4 56 4 has passed on the pan, a drill will he held. He said there would be no ' g;n ~ P ,_

w r' "

h l I a

• movement of people le everything M; . POLLY PARKER would be teeted to make sure the Jenkinsville resident .

a* .

, siste is ready to deel with a nuclear. .

accident. ,

Officials of the Nucinar Re- -

gulatory Commissio.1 ar.t ic. South D r^ ' ""

Carolina for a raview of Soult -

M '" E .MM.

Carolias E;actric ad Oas Co.'s plan -

for dealing with a nuclert accident G-p.gg4 g:4 at the J.V. Summer nuc!ese statier: m ct. P m **e Pa oen la Jenkinsville. That plant is ex.

pcted to begia operation rtxt year.

.~f3 4

.R

, Abest se people were ca: Asad

_1 ==aan 9 - fh; sa,sa bLWr..

• last night for a public hearing m % i

. document .

,.4..

- i gfNg

The SCE&C plan calls for a 10 adle radius evacuation in the eveat p' ' u

$p e of a nuclear accident. But some - { C*~j{- [

4eoness fusidents said that's not far enough. ,g .

A citisens group. Fairfield Unstad g:X k* M*s***' ., .

~

f.,

~

Actaen has asked for a 15-minute notificatson time for residents within

• [d's* * '-

I earit 7M The comoany plan sets' a 15-

WM** Au,h[$ . + ... ..

minute notification of county civil l

. defense directors, but the method for TRAY 15 BIANCXI  !

. motifying residents is uncieer. Cedar Creek res6 dent ' I i

. W^ '- - -

~ T4 ? u.

Evacuatiosddricerri a

r. -, . :. .Q . .: ,, dg

. .y. ;

~- , ~

f . ,"'# :& =T:. ' ?.;f:

- .MD:d'

.~ . f .,%? ., e n?w g rww&.

. ~ j .m. . ,

"D.t.s wee O'No

~ ' ~~ #

. Wednesday'hvening ' July 23, 250 Ilan Gitles"St Winnsbore#U l

. area residents gathered in the gymna i that . "thiMatest danger in whati slum i2I'St. Barnabas Episcopal Church . ' you're doing'is that you don't believe

. in Jenk'in'sjille to let representatives of ithat what you're regulating can .

.9

' the Nuclear . Regulatory Commission - happen." .,,.,

know that they were c'oncerned about . . Worried that planning '.wo'uld be '

planning for evacuation in case of an inadequate fot an emergency, Elouise accident at the nearby V. C. Summer y Davis of Jenkinsville caHed for a real j Nuclear Station.' wia;;;n.c,-4./.,.g test of the evacuation plan with ,

Maryam Shareef, of Fairfield United f.residentshing notifled and asked to -

Action, presented a . list c of ..eight r leave their homes. Sears told Davis and i demands which members of the com , GFUA' member Doug Rogers ~of s.?

munity organization wanted incor . p..$the Bethel Community that the NRC porated thto any plan Shareef told the ;;! would not require a test of that sort.j

,, representatives, "You, represent our :.r:".Such tests prove nothing,"he argued. j government and our govern nent 1MI% . Audience members expressed con ;

should do what the people uk them to.;.; cern that In the event of an accident j do." The . FUA demands called for s 1SCE&G will not have to pay' fully for extension of SCE&G*s proposed ten .. damage to residents' pr.operty because; mile evacuation planning area to 00 of a federal law, the Price, Anderson, mues to inclub Winnsboro and Kelly Act. limiting liability to SS0?;nution ini Miller. School and the Creenbrier Head ,the event of a nuclear accide'liit. Kathy' Start Center which are not now Rogers.FUA membe from the Bethel eevered.

Community, told the NRC that SCE&G Travis Blanchi of the Cedar Creek should have to tell community mem.

Community lives beyond the 10 mile bers of that in advance of an accident.'

planning zone, but he can see the Some audience members said that, reactor building from his back yard. "If they were not opposed to the nuclear I can see it,it can get me," Bianchi told plant being in the community, but the~y the NRC staff members. Columbia were very concerned .that adequate residents expressed fears titat they planning for evacuation was not taking

,. were being excluded from the planning place. " Training is the most 'unpo: tant g . ,2- -

area even though ~their drinking water thing," one Jenkinsvine resident told supply, the Broad River, would !Ikely , Sears. But many community members,.

Q. be contammated in the event of a ' left the meeting feeling that they had' radioactive spill into the' Monticello not really found out how they would be'

'able to evacuate in case of an accident'

• Reservoir. -

John Sears, the NRC staffer in, *

• Much of the SCE&G pian is incomj g j charge of the meeting, told the com- plete where state and county officials; l

l

'f4 -

munity members that the 10 mil,e,;:guQave yet to complete planning for their1 woold prgbab,ly not be extended be,..,,, roles'in a evaeustica. I.yn Nieholsos 4 k cause it was based on studies on Columbia eng neer. representing Pal.1 i

~

%** "oM nuclear accidents. Further audieno ~ metto AIIIance.Finforme'd' the NRC questioning revealed that the study ' ~staffers of deficiencies in .the state's

• ~ 4 was the Rassmummen Report which has evacuation plans found recently by the

.' .M l 't been daseredited .by the 'NRC, 'It's Legislative Audit'Counc3. The NRC .

~ 4'( original sponsor. ,

Sears drew murmers from the crowd representatives vsre unaware of that stucy. * " - ~ . ,

, N. when he sasured the,"1 doubt seriously

• In response .to a request that l whether anyone wiu ever die as a " additional copios of the SCE&G plan be I

- " result of a reactor seeident." A retired made available, Edward McPeak of the .

l <

~,,k k  : Army First Sergeant from Jenkinsvine told the NRC representatives that he MC angered community members I when he told the audience that com. !

had trained people in radiological munity residents wouldn't understand

-F. warfarein the Army and that be knew, the plan anyway.

d*epite NRC attempts to calm people's Robert Guild, a Columbia attorney, e l r . . _ . . . . . .. .. . . . ..

- . _ _ . _ _ . ~ . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ , _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ , _ , _ , _ . . . . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . . , _ _ . _ . _ _ .

. nm, F.~

- W FA W_ a .

LLw -

E.'k C -

l'

..,1...~. . . . .. .

a. . . ~ . ..

-'was "a'c c' Etot5ed to being sworn arid!l is95g a record kept at hearings whe ei ?

.gn,hlic.insti:dasdakin' seriously. But.i

('1.

. . .d.on'.t s.ee a. cou.

. - r.t re. porter and,yo.u).,

,,'~' , , , , , . . . . . [ haven't even, been : Jing notes on what . ,

Wiibx'xl people hive Nen sayingG Sears assured Guild that all tf:e?

' , , g ,.. ,. ~ . . . .

. comments were listened to,and takE

~

into considera.d.o...b..ef.o.re.

any. plan.

.,1..

~ , ,

.approviS.,3; ,

.i ., . ., . ,

,. Sears told Wednesday night's. I]

audience that the NRC committee had:

let SCE&G know at a technical revie,"wh session that morning that their current.:i plan is "n'ot acceptable" and would ha veil rw . . . . . -. .to be changed. Sears said he .wi.s!:

especially coneemed that SCE&G h:d.:'.

made no pr,ovisions to Imate and assistij i handienpped persons living in led. -

~

evacuation area. . , , . ' , . . , . , , ,

SCE&G will be required to revi' e? s t

l their plan according to company oC*i! *

., cials. Meanwhile, county and - state:

p plans are in preparation. Representajl tives of Fairfield United ' Action said-l 5

+. that the community orgs,inHon would i

.'ta I

continue to press for quicker notifi s j:

tion, a larger planning zone, transpor-]

tadon assistance for those in need. .a ,

real test of the evacuation plan, and.' ~

l $ cumpmc mow SCE,&G's paying for the estra costs toj l

l the county.

1

(" ..  ?.

l r

1!

ee x s . s

?

t

[O } -

c

'*n su +..- st I

n.

~ ~_

I 3

'"t~.2/30 /90 t

E

w.

- ,,F mpeld .

n. L ,.,ied. mp . ..m ,3.e Action resents", -- - - --

.% ,..r -

emands.to coun. c- 'ii j.

.. , s.

lewing demands en radiolegmal emer. Uto' pay aE costs to Fair 5

^ ^.by Carole Garntees , ,, , Wplanning, testing, being ready for, or Ar t ;. .c,g ,gg, , ,gg,,. m r.c- ' # gency 'r'esponse "planningE IJ County earryms out say raddagical' e==-

r syMtjf.y Camen 'arreeh%t % apidf;& any # gency regesses benanne of th evacuation plas for b .V. C. Summer

'A* gmup"'Ef"agroximatel) twenty anos of the V. C. Summer Nuclear l a

people appur'ed t afore County Councu Nue!e.'r Station unless it heludes : a.) Station h Fair 5 eld County. S.) County -

Tuneday'alterson'n' stating they wwe O' N pisdch[aM nSt!CeistfenEning  ;

system'Some for evacuauc!.'~shAit'ering. } Councu agrees notto adept any Rad.aiogical Emergemey Response ;

membersof refeJd United Action er other protective arebas incl;.de the and as repr'eseigtstives of many resi. Plan for Fair $ eld County until that :

F dents of Fairfielil,' County theyfo'r appeared becaide'of their' con 5 trea'wsthin N.. ..p[ ant"'llTh notifte,stion a tww.ty syste '[mustmile radiusevacuation evoluntary of the of. :3. ,,'-vplan residents f be capable of notifying all persons

..the health and sh(ety of the people o ' earried out in the 20 mile hWP-*:-a within that 20 mGe sone within 15 the 'communityI'should .' there be a 'W county'inust identify. Land planning sene itself any decision so $

suelear accident /t &#'V. C. Summer ,, .ninusM,

Nuclear plant in Jenkinsv& -~ * ~ ' hl! person's within'the 20 ndleioE4 who' - reserves Spokesperson 'r$r. the group. Mrs. cannot Mrt th ir.'sNs a~ad make Emergoney Beeposee Plea for FairSald

• i Cora Jackman stated. "r,o meure that . ,,, provision to transportthemto"s safet7

, case of,aa accident. 2.) County.Councu Cosaty." n JM',.,,gQin'.,^i.y besith fand safeti .for, as and our -..-..a assep l ado.

.~ - .

pts -

a.n.ordm.ance ._

requir,ing SCE&G . ~ Council

.fa_m.ilies, we pre..se.nt to you h fo .

~ - 4 ' ~ L .a ., j,; .

information but took exception to the them to be watchful Counci Chairman

' word "de**.cds" stathg that Ralph Casper reiterstod th t as pian' had yet been W 'for their*

" requests" would be preferrabig. Ny explamed t's the croup that they had approval, so.the seemeR would aseept

!the danaids only asinformation'" at this t

act 'yet beeni advised'of any emer. ~

~Y / '

l time. . l gency plan.' C5ue:y Adaunistrator f Donald Reed stated that a fourounty Cecac2 @s reesisties Wy '

endersmg the stastreetion of a seeler.

l plan would be submitted to the State.

and then a State plan would be citieen's facuit[Ja Fairdsid Ceauty.'

. submitted to the Federal Emergen'ey '" 'Dnis project,w to', be at Cno expense or, .,

i Management Annoristaon, which would .'abligar.iee ta4be County. 1 j - in turn held public hearmgs in M.is area Reed reed' s~ leecer ~from L. 3.4 Car.non. Dlserset Engmeer for the e Mating any unwgency plan to cue,mc mow SCE&G. h hearings are anticipated State HiswaMDeparasset stating! ,

, in this are fa March, he said, that the State'estild . set errect .*eed

~0m membeFof the group'taldSund . eiras in'thestAs W[eneslse area butj l

i  !

• • • ea.@.gmt that SCE&G is attemptinga to pull the .vweed persatt the temmer es de' as.l west eew the! ey. and petiuened 1: N.. . ~. =e=8 == *se= 7 f

M -

.:.- r -

-w ar._.2 4i

%st a_

t *.

D

~ S.l.Q m l

i l

w , . .

N cy.7%.,y

- - - - - _ _ 'E'""*W'*t' rw g-at---+,e.my, *""""'"**f-g-

s 1

i j C- .i p.

a 3 . ... :.. e P.., , , , . . . ,. , m,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,, .g,,,,,, . . . . , , .d-e:prf9 Cettlaued

' . P.c's.E,. ,'.la h[-*.**. *** f Y.if ,f , - N **f

?~ *, t ' ** U T. , ,

Since no funds have been budgeted for . Council to voice ,eemplaint .in. b OfSen. She was beesd' but Chairunsa this. Cound agreed to tab the letter , admin *stion of & Recreation Asso. Cooper esplained ConseG had Jie. .

as information :td tin bring the matter elation. ? Murphy contends there is jurl=AW ever the hiring an sp in next year's budget ansking mismanagement and ,that' ne board of any employes of that'ef5ee. Tide

process. ~ .We

- l

, Administrator Reed reported that M'.4 .W sneetings are held in compliance with ,matterI

, charter,and by. laws. Counehman . ;',~. .g.rst reading sesaideraties of an .

. ,,, Ithe Bureau of Census had made some' Marion.Stevensen responded by la. trdinance'to,establia edjustments spwards in b County's forming Murphy b was as. ezef5cie Comity CouneB ea' Aging' wee held and '

population igures but that the Anal rnember of that board and that regular it was doculed to keep that heard at 15 .

15gures would not be out until Oct.1.

meetings were held with proper elee. membe~rs . as in the paa. The Cease 0 iEven after these Anal figures are . ties of ' of5cers. ~ He , advloed > that .has seen'M ander b - . *J received, the Ceanty wn! be given b Marphy pressat his grieramees to that Regional Ceemail of Central MWand.

eppomunity to respond, he said. j Q. Beard. Coeneil concurred sating the . but Reed stosed it% adeleshie ,e i Second reading of a franchise or-i Recreataan Association. did not'eeese j estakkah the erdsmanes. ]si.- 6 --j dinance for Great Fans Cable T.V. was neder their jurisdiction'and that the ,CommeG esearmed the appoistassat '

held. % - 1 . ,vg i s s@

i Counca agreed to meet Toseday,4 Aamoeintaen .had domeda ?"tremendour of. .lasse .,Vanderhan with Flerse ijob"in b past. Murphy stated h felt . Sher. as alternate te repreenot b hieptember 16,. In as extra session to] public. anonies 'were gives. to1the poor of FaarSeid Ceanty es

leeeive the actual tax millage rates Association and that' Council should of the Midlands Roman Resourese which are new being processed.' in have a voice in their une or' that the Deveisposest f'---- '

= ! '.1 '  ;

a l Ader to get tax bins sent out as seen 's - fundag he withdrawn. Stevenson 7$ Coenell turn pensible., Wq

') A, set.of  !$!.i.

r ' ales genrnsag thi~ETatated he*qld request that a hSdCeinessman a re end ^mieting.be 'enlled to' hear Murphy's se a leen to provide a seef jer the:

Rescue Squad A.nhailan as was adoptedp speen$e ceanplainta.

• fW;!W,'?.# speculatlee heBding partiaDy eso. j, in order to samre its propu usage by 9,Mrs. Gloris llamey appeared before pieted is order to attrast lad.:stry to methorised agencies.'

(Caumellto voice her srievance ever her the' area.They agveM to abide by the

' Edward Murphy appeared before disma

_._...m. .

nnel,Jrom the Clark, of. Court's - Flamming Camionesion's deshmen.

]  :

C lPPlMC FROM .

g Aeemass U W +. >

U'. m -W m DATE Df bO

.,,-.m-s-yw..w,.. , w n e , w w ,- , - .y ,w,-,-re,-

Nuclear Evacu,ation PlanTriticized:

-d .if. L w: . i M.',0(., T.. J. ; 4: . ;:

- By MERS FRAZTJR . /, ,p g , f n===, am=

WINNSBORO

- A,.member of an anti , nest .few

. ' ' But for now," Itis being handled admin-j

'! a nselear County Camen coalition membersrecently charged with not under. . FairSeld , Jense director and standing its role in the preparataan of an ,'Ased said. .. . __  ; ./,0. j emergency evacuation plan for the V.C. The group wants a proposed 18-rnile '

, Sanuner Nuclear Station. -

- ~ ' evacuaties ares arsued the plaat doubled .

"They know so little about the evac- and a 15 rainute met Scation of all people . !

untion plaannag process that it is hard to living la the asas, the TUA spehasman said.

talk to them about it,"..said a rpokesman . They aise was transportatma provided for a group called Fairfield United Action. for persons without automotulos and a " full -

"The countyhasthe hastenspansibility : scale test af the plan" to include the for tieveloping a radiological emergency voluntary evacuataan of the area before it .

-response plan, and they seem to have no is approved. . .. .. . . . 1-notion of that.** said the sP=a, who And they want council do reserve tha, asked not to be named. .

right to snake the final decision en the plan,; '

About a dosen FUA members Tuesday. rather than passag the responsibility on to ,

gave council six demands and asked that an ad== eater er another agency.. . ;{ ,

council use its influence to have them . ~Their last.1stpiest, .asking council te: i included la >the plan to rnove people from pass as ordinance requiring 3CEasG to pay parts of four Midland counties if there is for the cost of developmg the plan, la' ,

a serious accident at the 900-megswatt already required by ?tdars! law, Reed said. ~

- plant near Jenkscaille. -

Council received the request as la-The counties laelude Newberry, Fair.. Isrmatsoa, he said. n . S*i Seid, Lexington and Elchland. In July, an NRC ; ' == told TUA The demands are.similar to the 'ones. and others it is the Federal Energy Man-mada in July when Nuclear Regulatory age =aat Agency's responsibility to review ,'

Agency officials met with JenWmville resi- and recommend that county and state evac- l dents to discuss an en site eresgency re- sation plans he approemd. .-<-.1 '

.spons6 plan for the South Carohna Electne .. Before LEMA affiehls teach a de-and Gas Co. facility. .

ciaisa, public hearmgs will be held perhaps.

Fairfield Caer.ty Administrater Danald in April, after the plan is *=W"ad by Jan., -

Reed said Tuesday, **They weren't sattaced 15. Reed said.

with the responses they got (in July), and Central Midlands Regsenal Fian Mw dey ham tan'Ded to a local goverttIAg Co@cil is .samishetTdisaster preparedness hady." .. - - ~' m .

seiciais in the foer counties with putting )

> Cauncil is espected b hecome involved the evacuation plan tosether.

• ... r I

I +

C' lmMG froes s*A M A T &h <

r h

Ate 4Sas SATE fN I

i

. esFe30 1. ,

,,- gy v. - 4w p- y-#- -pm--.a ..y--g.y+,.- e- we

s.

. g.,.

• a~ s fl rw i tSi .m

{@

%~ ew

s. *

• 5 '  % I A. , - / ! * .

. ...- **'? -

'ja / ?- . d.* ,, ' .

1 NUCL1 EAR EMERGENCY.

.[ t n

1. 3PUANNbiG 2 ML

. , . . .. . - ..,,.w v \

..' ;.' .4...,....,- ., . .u r .  :...',.

w. .x, s ...:. . . >. -., ;7.1.~ I

- yG...y.~ .y,- . e4,'.

= '

. . .: > - i. .; .n

-. . '~ u t ~:*f.*- .

' . .oy;.:'

) . .

't.. . .

.u.. -y,q,

. :4 . . ,e

.%. z ...*.:;e.;* .. . >

j e. At Three MDe Island, officia}s scrambled to write evacuation plans for 's 20 mue ' .

i Jedius while deadlyiadsde.'~m7as escaping the plant. f .4.g *g .gg.gi.d: ..

l M..*N. $. , ,,ik. , h. .h.. k.,NL,,: T.( ' -..,. .

w.k$.'[j[sf.}.$[$.3b.e eN

.w. . ..

I . ' . SCE&G's proposed'1D nue evacuatfoe notification radius .will leave Winnsboro,

{.

. Kelly M! Der School, and Ridgeway unprotected ta case of nocEs hesideal at tiie I

. Y.C. Some;er Nuclear Plant. ..

. ?t'-@'rf y.

, . .}; . - -

, ' : '" , ' *R.;. , .c;

The NoelearlF.egulatory Commission's Special Coc

mission on Three Mae Island

.'says

.. . that 10 miles .. is ", inadequate as an arbitrary cut off." gL

.... .r. . .

. .,: .. u.!. .  :.:. . ..

.-... .;J%;/

. . c.p-iW$;,~,.:p q. ; . m Formore inforniation on Nudear Emergency Plannleg and how you can~ join your  !

,n,eighbors in seeking adequate pInns to pret.ect your famDy's safety, clip s.nl mail i

'.the attached coupon: , . . . - * ~- . ... '

~- . . J% ..fg 7,7. .

, <^' . .; %

:. 4 . ..

.' l )#., , i * '(*.

. 't'"* :'  ; .. u.'!*

. ; . M,  : M.*.,'..U. .'

..'/- * .

, t .

.,..e.~. .s ,.r...

___________________________.l

_ _ _ =

.. gm . . < w p. 3 .. .

l 2

. N. UCLEAR EMERGENCY PLANNING .-

l , ';.* :. ':. ' - . . .* . . .

W:

. .= --

NME  ;.N'0'

, .; s f : 4 i. ' , .

'3 -

.'9'"-

" * ~

' : ADDRESS

... .s... . ,

TELEPHOME ' -

,I i

.FAIRFIELD UNITED ACTION . 2, -

cu-c me= ..

c. -

, p,o, g x 9, 6 41.. .. . . , .. . J\. .1.

s.

.: 0 f o

~~ .

s .

. . . .. .. Jenkinsvine, SC 29065 .I -~ Ss.'-f. ~/ ' . E.

PAPER } -

. . ....i

_ ,,%. ,*[.**. ,.

A994Ss&

r,ryc .y a re - - - y n; y-+-r _v .-y..,- -, .,4-<em** -#'--er+i*-t----.-+-ww. *e-e--m'-.+=u+--e4v.a-+i---er -'-

ee+_--. ++-+-+-e,e-wr-+--v--- =' wet- e-++e-- r*'e4*y. - -

. To .

3" & QQ w  :- e.cn

~T% W= kmm-v SC3%

• ~ -;n = ~ - ~ . - - ~ ~

. , ... , e . . , _ . . . , .

Nuclear heariina set for Nov. 25 lg.?  ?.*.] *:

.f\~C :

• *f b. . '

.L* V ,i p*1. 5

'~L.. *.

v?

~

• .s*

' ,W :.'>, *e-AT*

.=: 1. 3 * *~t . (l

. ~ . .. . ) %

• 4..

. . A. .* ,'s. . . * ,., {. .. . . " , '

. :. ~

2. . ~b

• i..: .

• s.',s' .  ;' ? ' < *,. ..

.,R.**'* alt. .* ,.{ .*1. .

N 'presifag AM Safety and . 'idethwed of Coluribia. South Carolini '..'jA.Unenberger, techical membes, and j Ucecing Board has scheduled a pre- Public Service Aa thority is a 'cwwner Herbert Grossman.Esq., a lawyer who harmgesr! amice November 25 in ~~~ o f the pioject *' 'f *M """is Chai. man of the Board.Dr.Hooperis ,

. Columbia, South CaroUna, in th h conie ence m'1 kgir, st'9:30 anaccated with the School of Natural,,

Nuclear ' Regulatory Comanssion a.m. on Tuesday, November. 25. In Resources at the University of Michi..

Econsing p'.Mg'on the appheatka , Courtroom 2.A. Richland ' County 2- gas la Ann. Arbor. Mr. Linenberger!

submitted by South Carchna Deeme J Courthouse. PM1=ad County ' Judicial. ' and Mr. . Grossman are . full time! -

and Gas Compacy' for a le=== .ta *'. Center,1701' Mala Street, Cobm ht..* members of the NRC Atomic Safety operate the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear ~ h purpose of the conference is to ..and IM: Board Panel. ,

Stat:en, Unit i under construction in discuss pending matters and further ' h pub:ic is invited to attend theq Fairfield Cocnty South Carolina. The scheduling in the proceedmg. eonference but no limited appearance.

station is located about one mue east of Memoers of the Ucensing Boa.4 are statements by members of the pubEc!

the Broad River near Parr and 26 miles Dr. ~Irank F. Hooper and Mr. Gustave will h received at this conferece. .{

. = , _ 4 c.seme.a vece .

een M,* -s k ,

%n&

ADD #Ess

_Y .*% %'cmf C nAtr I\I NNO

. . _ __ __ _~ . . _ , . . , , _ _

,o S .

k

. . . 3

-r-~ ~ . , . .

-~~~~  :.. .-g~ .,

NRC. to d . .iscuss satety issues '

~plant. 4 u ["I4'2s miles'northwe'st n of Co'-

. The Nuc!eet Regulatory  %- The hearing w in be held .SCE&G lumbia near hopes to SummerJe. tinsville.

Wasion's Atomic Safe- 30 a.m. In Courtroom 2 iu begin operating <;. '

next l

.y and Licensing Board win at 9: summer. . s.

sold a conference tomorrow A in the Richland Judicial Center at 1701 Main .

The -publicCountyiswinvited to l.

to tseuss which issues wiD attend the conference, but j be, presented during the ' St...The board also wiH dis, no statements from the pub 1

.beensing.hearug of South 4. Gas" cuss the licensing schedule t,.l Carolina DectneCo.'s V.C. Scmmer unclea

~~-. *- .

- -......n.~. . conference.

. . : ~^

CLIPPIN G P9 TOM .

Pe M9t

• M. ...r._ _

7- im e ASS #Es s MTE $1u D.bO

i 7

I o

,.J.

f -

V j ~

g -

1 3  :

~

-~

plan for evacuating each izanty' in - . . . _ . .

.t a* i August sad that the nuclear plant win ,'

' case of a nuetear ace: dent.

.: f "The counties are unprepr. red to do begm operation by the end of 1981. [

' .this." Barsey said.c . 4 J / ' . .W Hothhs said SCE&G should pay all i Ernergency plans forstbe utuity, the cor,ts .essociated with emergency v, planning and that au persons within  ; { ,

5,c . , approved before the NRC/wiu grantthe ct.tsstles and the state m -

b- ,

an operating permit. .// * '- >r.' port themselves shouls be identified. {

r He also suggested that no emer. ' ,

adequacyof the evacuation pMs the.-Bursey has-raised theissuet 3 propoed decomissiochg costs, the been successfully tested. SCEkG es. .

l

[ possibinty of earthquakes in the area, pects to test the proposed plan in a '

g mock the health effects of radiation andMarch. the exercise " scheduled for -late.

e i

[ -tguahty of safety.relaled construction. ,

• Unta these giestions are re. Hot!!r.s a' Iso said that " full and .

' solved I do not think the plant should truthful information' about the ef. l be allowed to operate," he said. lects of a nue! ear accident should be i

. . UtElty officials hope Deensing pcsted in public places, placed in l hearings wili be; held .in Wren or telephone books and distributed by the j E April, that fuel: wil! ,be_toq,ded..in ,b.ilh. company in a separate mailing from ;

._'f,,,,.. . I

)

N Y

i t

l l

• l g a

cumpu.c enoes

• aata P. - t _ w .< ,

l t

bti.60 D sooness O ,a s +-

om \\ \%%O l

l i

. ._ ,__.._,._ ._. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - " * ~ " " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ *'~"' ' " ~

r

=.

t ,

. . .. .._.,,._._m .

Licensing Hearings Include ~*F.irsts' 1 .

. ,T _*a ,....v. . ~.

~

(Continued From 15) evacuation of more than ' 10.000 "The company only sees their re ,

~~

citizens who live within a 10-mile sponsibility as going to the plant' set is that emergency plans are still radius of the facility. boundaries. Beyond that, evacuation.

being formna!vd and revised. The . The 10-mile zons includes areas in is the responsibinty of local town and, NRC hzs been monitoring changes in Lexington, Rh+1m-d, Newberry and i:nunty officials. There are a lot of.

SCE&G's plans and the Federal Emer- Fairfield counties. *' factors involved, but they are just not gency Management Agency has been i Fairfield United Action group met ,. prepared to deal with them." .-d Alden Richardson, coordinator of' working with the state on.its new with Fairfield County Counci1 Tuesday . the Richland County Comm procedures-Final state plans and Ing febral ap .iasking Dec.11 that council to give residents in theholdNuclear a public Safmeet-eguards, added; "We tried,'

preval are expected by Febasary or area the chance to discuss the plan. to prevent the plant; but we couldn't,!

carly March, but that approval is not ^ However, council denied the re- so we are trying to ensure there is %

foregone. quest and instead agreed to meet with safe way to evacuate people in case

' Weaknesses in . state emergency 15 citizens Dec. 8. of an accident. .

, f preparedeness plans 'have been the. Council turned down the public~ "We need more help fram the lack of training, personnel and equip- meeting idea because a council.spon- utility and from government to make ment on the part of the counties, as sored meeting would onit/ be a dupli- sure there is ample notification and well as a generallack of coordination cation of a planned public meeting to ample time for people to be moved,"

and communication between local and be held next year by federal cificials, he said. ..

state government in case of a nuclear a county spokesman said.

.{

The hearings will be res'tricted to-disaster. 2 ' The citizens group has suggested s!x issues ** ' 1 A drill to test the effectiveness of some additions to the plan, but many 5 county, state and SCE&G emergency of the requests are already required v Effects on health of the radl-plans will be conducted during the last by federal regulations to te included ation generated by the reactor and the week in March. The evacuation test, in the county's plan for ale.rting and complete fuel cycle, including which wi!! not actually move people, movin'g its citizens, the spokes: nan uranium mining.

will be monitored by the NRC and said. . v Costs to decommission the{

FE.\1A. However, a request to exter.d the - plant. , l zone to include all of Fairfield County 7 Emergency preparedness plans.

. MEANWi!ILE, opponents to the will not be included "because there is v Quality control, including per ,

nuclear plant are saying that without no need to plan out further than 10 sonnel training and plant construction.;

more meaningful citizen involvement miles," an SCE&G spokesman said. v Anticipated trouble with the ;

and input into the evacuation pro- Brett Bursey, the only intervenor system not serious enough to cause a '

shutdown of the plant.

! cedures, effective. They theycall arefor not likely a full. to be day,"

scale in the licensit.g Evacuation hearings, plans are one of the Tues-v The likelihood of an earthquake said ,

i dress rehearsal, including the actual biggest issues. In the vicinity of the plant. , _., t C1.t P Pt M G FROM PAmem d et AOppes s M+-

Dave \ ' \ hC Y;

e . . . . . _ _ - . . . _ _ - .. .

._ s_

s.

as W, -* ** I Y " '

S. .,.uelear Plawa'=nt'si.. $n r.ha-

...sy,ats;&.v..Q.

V. .

" License'Henin 71

. ;' $ 4 ., s , ; . -

Mr L' s - pe.g .')

Inclu.de.- s ' Firs la]tsk N

'By MIKE LM*INGSTON Before Three Mlle Island, because w Am= s=" . - of studies .especially the far.mus Two " firsts" will occur next spring .Rasmessen Report - that discounted in the licensLg hearings for the V.C. : the possibility of a core meltdown. the Summer nuclear ' ~ power plant near . NRC did not include in hearings an Columbia. ~ *

-evaluation of what would happen in ,

They will be the !!rst to consider ' case of a nuclear plant disaster.Since

' ' - full power licensing sinci the Three ithen. however, that attitude has

' Mile Island accident and the first ever changed. .M. e i.+.in.V to evaluate the scenario !or a " worst -. ,"This willbe the firstnuclearp; ant case" accident - the core meltdown.

The Atonne Safety and Licensing Class In the h2 story 9 accident of the as part world of its safetyto-have a ,

Board. .which reports to the Nucisar review." Whitaker said. "The NRC Reg !atory Commission, was in town 3 for. the first time wi!! take a com Tuesday to settle utich issues will be prehensive look at an evalustasc of a considered in the hearings. Althougn meltdows.

a no date has been set the hearsngs "This a a hooll piant for 'them to likely wn!1 take place in two parts in pick becaust!!'s out in the woods and March and Aprti. ,

away from people. Plants which ,

At issue is whether the 900 mega- should be cr.a M are those in urban -

watt Summer plant, constructed by areas. The NRC factors in population.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and if they dec:de it s too dangerous near .lenkinsville in Fairfield County. they can deny a license." he said.

should be granted a license to operate. The Sommer plant is also behind]

The plant already a year behind is its schedule and considerahty over its now scheduled to begin produe:ng intitial cost estarcates. I

, power- in Decerr.ber 1951. , The' "ballpark" estimate is 1970 ;

, ...- - for the pr'oject was about $160 million. *

• THE REARINGS will represent a " That figure has scared to upwa.-ds of '

quickening of the pace of such pro- 81 billion and essetly how much it mall cedures since the March 1979 Three cost as roothball the piart, at decom-Mile Island accident in that all licens- mission it, at the end of its 30-no 3 Ing hearmes since then have been aniy year' lifetime is argued on all tege 3 for " tow power" operation. latory fronts. .

~

• • When.Three Mile Island went up, the NRC suspended licensing for a CDMf'ANY OFFICIAL 5 cite regu.

year and tim 4aty moved forward, re- latory delays, which cause backfitimg suming licensing in the spr:ng of this year." said Mark B. Whitaker Jr and reevnstruction, as reasons for cost ,

escalation. Also blamed are very SCE1G's group manager for nuclear strict rules regarding building materi-engmeering and licensing. als, which cause much equiptreet and ,

ca.s** tac mo"

• • They. m.ide everycee Afour material to be junked. i plantsI go through low power tscensing . Tuesday. SCE&G was writsag a ' "

• • • • " g ,g.: '~-k a., to prevent further delays for plants letter to the NRC asking for an ex-alaady built. The NRC allowed h teassen of its construction permit te go ahead with constructica meut throughJune tSc.The permit empires '

instalhng the TMI recommendah at the end of this year.The company and told those wno got new pose lest the tame because of the NRC Anoats s es they M catch them inner. enoratorism on licens.ng permits and hecomme of modafications mandated af NRC **What ts gettacgis sew backhere to fullis power that now the a aasd.

Whataker result of h Male Jaland. ')

licensing hke 5t was before."* he said. One reason the date for the Sum i

• • "gg Q A9h- -Surnmer will be the Izrst full. blown. mer heensing hearings has not been full power bearing on every issue since Three Mile,,Islandf* ,.

, _ _,.. .. JSee 12CEN51NG. 5.E. Col.11 ,. .

.E.

,W '"KI . }- . .

t*

,,*.C. y i q. . - .. og

> p .

Evacuation : Plan 1 s1 ? Ready- For Council

?

i a test of the evacuation procedure is . to radioactive lodine. been psoposed as the primary shciter

'

• F By JtERSama FRAllElt[' *I 'The group also wants SCELG to for an estended evacuation, said

• =6=r -'

' frequired. Public meetings also are Tentative plans for alertlEg, mov ~ p. required be held to give residents the - Issue " full and truthful" info mationpreparedness.

of disaster Georgo Douglass, Fahtielfs ing, housing and feeding some 3,000 opportunity to discuss the plan. ' aboad the effects of radiation.

. Fairfield County officials recently The While Oak site is mny }han .

persons in western Fairfield County in 4. The procedures will be tested in a the event of a nuclear accident will. mock evacuation ha March, ollicials turned down a request to hold public 20 miles I am the facihty anJ it has,,

be reviewed by county council Dec. 9.m.said. ' meetings to discuss the plan because been recommended that families .bd #

The plans center on what to do la L - The Federal Faergy Management a council-sponsored meeting would moved 15 to 20 ndles away il there is the event of a serious, accident -and k Agency will review the plans and duplicate one scheduled by federal a large release of radioactive isotopes, release of radiation from the V.C.' 'rewmmend whether the county and officials next year. he added.

Ilowever, council has agreed to Winnsboro's junior and scalor high Summer # Nuclear

• Station at ; ,3 tate evacuation plans shuld be ap .

• meet with 15 citizens Dec. 8, the day schools and the county's recreation Jenkinsville. The plant is expected to " proved by the NitC. .

open in 1982.

The plan outlines the responsi. before it will consider the plan as the bulkling are secondary locations,.

The evacuation plan. which has not 7 bilities of the county's law enforce . . county's method for handling a radio . Doeglass f. f.

A Efe-mile radius around the plant yet received federal approval, wn!! be.; *- ment, rescue, hea!!h care, emergency logical emergency.

similar to action taken in ' parts' of. 4 welfare and - vounteer fire depart- To complete the plan, officials say will be the zone teams ulli esamine.

Michtand, .Lexington and Newberry c ments and how their actions would be they need to know how rnany people to detect the levels of radiallon re-counties, ollicials said. The four coun.; i coordinated with state agencies. In the county would be afIected and leased.

. Fairfield United Action, a coalition compile a directory of the names of 7 TilANSPOllTATION: The coun '

ty plans will be attached to a. state ty's fleet of 84 school tmses, vehicles ,

emergency radiologicairesponseplan. 'of community groups, has opposed eklerly, handicapped and sick persons it is.cstimated that some 10,000 to . some parts of the plan and has called who would need transportation rul o! from other county agencies and volun-

~

teer fire departments will be used to .

11.000 persons living in a 10-mile radi- g for additions to it which-are not part . the area.

us around the 900 megawatt facility of' federal safety regulations. ,,

A draft of the plan hasn't been move those persons who don't have i would be affected following a serious

• T The coalition has proposed extend- ' released. Ilowever, ollicials say it automobiles,

• ing the 10 Tr,ile evacuation area to details the method of alerting, notify - e HOUTES: There will tse three ,

mishap. .

pre determined evacuation routes Before the South Carolina Electric include all of Fairfield County, and I ing, moving and housing citizens.

and Gas Company's facility receives v.has suggested that potassium Iodide v SilELTERS: The S.C. flpptist away from the westem edgelof the ,

Convention Center at White Oak, o!! . fi n '

its commercial power license from [; be issued to esch household to protect of U.S. 321 south of Diackstock, has - ISee FAIRFIELD, 2 H, Co[*.h 4 '

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, findividuals from 'he possible exposure . . , or ..

, $: r E I $

O W i 2: T E

S l l i

d l

E l J

[

- %dkidu.sS0\$Kh?b]RI

l "new.anz g

. O g .

1

'~ - r ~

Nowbsrry *- n gi c~ MN, ik"--"' "m.' Fairfl:Id + . 4 1

&.#WeBlair%*Salemicrossroads u.,u. e%,mg " $. , . ' .. .' ,

q Glymphville%;tm.%m s .

. . .,y

, 1 bhhi bd hzj $$$5h$e .

.n. .

a ,

ThMeMonticello .g mg i "k

fu$$Ehen% N Hope,te.5pggey.,f .

Nem "

' ^

A'

. WWWQhi(&a,4**hQ%wE w n-

.r% vm@w/WWallaceville , '" ~ g,,# -

y .-/

V , @ - -

% $ % % >.dmas ~

$CedW -

~

Saluda %QL% g ,W. Or

%W

- - - a

4-g yW'Ab '

, Columbia n

Emergency Zone ' A.5 j ' M".'

4 10 Mile Radius

' ~

l ".'-

s [ ., y Qy .b- ? '

.9. .. ~ L c,y .,

, . s .

.m,.\'

. . ..../

~

Lexington : .- ,

notification for some people. .

not be the signal to evacuate the area. '

(Castinued From 1 B) . By law, the governor has the au-An SCE&G spokesman said it county. which win lead citizens to U.S. would coft about SL15 million to in- 'thority to order an evaciistion, based 121. All of the shelter areas are along s2 the siren system. according to a on a recommendation from the De 1 the highway. . . proposal from Federal Signal Corp. of partment of Health and'Environrnen-V ALERT: A series of sirens At!snta. The utlHty, wisch wi:: pay the tal Control's Bureas.% Radiological '

placeiin the 10 mile radius in the four cost of instauing the system is wait. Health. .6 f '. '"" # v I counties will signal that an accident ing for an estimats from another firm. v MOCK EVACUATION: Before 1 has occurred. - McCoreyd.iston elementary and the plan is approved federal regu- l If the alert is ismuod, residents high schools are the only schools lations require a mock evacuation to -

should go inside, close their doors and within the evacuation zone. test the effectiveness of the plan.

If.an accident occurs during school ' The exeresse is planned for March windows and tune to telension or radio broadcasts for further instruc- hours, plans call for students to be and it will lavolve several hundred . -

tions. moved to one of the secondary shelters Persons without electricity will be where they can meet their parent.: emergency ty officials whopersonnel win mas anincluding emer- coun advised to go to a shelter where there and, if necessary, be moved to the gency operations center at the county a is a radio or television. There also primary shelter at White Oak.

Douglass said the siren alert would Jan.

, During.the esercise citizens won't

".f may be the need for a door-to<loor

> l

' tie required to leave the area.

-- r: - m . -- - - . - . ,

d A 1975 study by the American Fairfield United Action spokesman Physical Society suggests a 37-mile said. in each househend la.the area. Gesle I

f. John Rouff said his group would like evacuation zone around nuclear power g.k state W said thy MH not I

to see the plan tested by moving plants, assuming that the worst pos-individuals. Having an early "vait sible accident had occurred. issue petasamra iodide because of the I

. t.hrougn of the plan, he said,it would  %., g gggg, ,,,, egg ,;g g lessen the pame during a real emer. a ng e substance, Beek asE

^

4" sency. ~

Ken Beale. SCE&G's emergency  ;

. planning -coordmator. asM.

• There is i However, the movement of cfLizens a:moistely no need to plan out further - Personnel entenng a ame mik sane

• euld be an inconvenience. take on the than a 10-mile radius.*' based'he onsaed. con- around the plant will recove the dr

@ ..," . Maecessary 33 - ***L risks of accidents and% be too costly  % , utility county win k mailing officials *run.-*l hypo r

s sommer. Fairfield United Ac.

dents a bmchcre explamsag hou radi-i i

- *- ., w

[8'*** sed that the eraase g 10Potassium mile iodide. wtich would m. ation aIIects the bodv and it may radius the reaistance of the body s incande a telepnene number. cituens /

e,,p*m.but now me sro thyroid gtand agamst absonhng raw can dial se race,ve mformamm acut f w .%

p** *ai

• me m,e com.up .ty be is active isom,es a me. has 'heen

- evacuataon zone. rejected as a sshstance to be placed Reale - said. ~ 1 hey shee fai.~.,n art.,

• M *

.., 1

' ' \ . .,; g }

/ T * '.. -S 4

t.1 W ee' m' euw.?c-+-i=t-ge.-*1+r 'y-+ yf+-t-.Twev'e*me-ety-'y*wuy**F W we esyFts---.1=*-d*' e .*w$=Fv==9'*y-MeM-*7e-fitN"3.1-gr w-'T - F vg'*- y y '94 r43 eu.le f -1 "-M fr $"iM WW 9-t 9 'T**f + F

, a ,

s ..

ve t' ^' _-

-f- E%

9- m m_ gen h o L-c h M FCs KA.to msetMd2EotndlHM6E55Rif

. , . .-.. - . s< .*-.%

.p;. %.: n. -. f... w.= s#. y ~ .

.. +After' an=... discussion."& 'sousea fk.Margie more.~of FE5eid. United, M

-->n>&>. c.

~.? .

cw ow c., m g.*

r 3.--

, ..At the November 25 moeung of b

~ .. Action. -

r"~'e-we. - that'

-Fairfield County

' was presented with ardition of shnost.

Council, h councu ' agreed to hold sa'open meeting,in thievening.en wG1 give as a fab hearmg and we will; 500 signatures of interested perenas la mere thna 25 members of Fairfield . .be prepared with'scienttBe &

Fairfield County who were concerned United

• Astien preser their argo. . i

.thatsays the ev= ==H- area should be ahoot evacuation plans for & area meats for c 'I' '="--- in &

around the V.C. Sunumer ' nuclear ' emergency r.., s&- plan now ' 37 miles.We wiB show them that an '

facGity in case & factity should have a i being~formolated for & V.C. Summer .

[.We espect.a lang and . full dhee==ea '

- - 2..aS ,.- .

m. *~~~

nuclear accident. .. s,4! y;.... U, , , .=.

- ". /. -. plant. - s,J ,,/. s.r.

-.. .sm

, {r s .

,- .s ?Fairfield County . Civil Defense -['

The petition sas r. - w by ~ director Geerye Dooglass wf!! presor.t Fairfield Ceanty's plans to h state on a FairfieldUnited Action,ansati ,i ,

group. , ..;.. .f_w.; ? g/;.LM 9. thejlay_sy th,e,,beerms. ,,

CLIPPIM4 FROld PAPER h%

h.w .

Aoomg35 t

1 O N\%@

SavE b w e -- ,.4. e , v, .c ---m..- ,- ,-,-.e. - . -

.ww.---,,,,--,.--..,,,---r-,.-v,- ,, . , , - - - . , + .,--e ,, . .

l go_.

Fairfield'Cou.c nty[mgn; y

._~

A;ayyplfger.% -

lCitizs. .iihG .. r 6i@ .

5 .~. .. .-QNrh)[C'.7,*.",' I ' ' hhd.e .. .

sny uggsyts "

'FoFEvacuationi r

' - v,y .i +@ *e s.% , . 1 % . ~.

. HERB FRAZIER*-% *> -. r.$(.i

... -..r*.

( -

gy/. M.=e-n s- .:

WINNSBORO a Before adopting an evacuation plan, Fairfield County ' officials say they will consider 3 list of

'" serious proposals".a group of citizens want included in j an emergency response plan for the V.C. Summer ._,

Nuclear .I Station near Jenkinsvi!!e.

~ But it is unlikely the suggestions will have an impact !

on council's decision because the county leaders don't;

.inteed to become astumbling block in the licensing process' of the facility, owned by South Carolina Electric and Cas:

)

Co. . ..y,. ..

" We dds,~'t' intend to get b the way of any legitimate M aass in tnepunty, not just SCE&G." County Adminis-tamor Donald }hd said in an interview prior to a Monday.

4 me9 ting with members of Fairfield United Action.

Council didn't repond to FUA's suggestions dunng a 40-minute session. but is expected to issue a wntien

" statement toda?before reviewing the plan. offic:als said, 4 "in my opdion. FUA wants us to put some unneces, sary and unreasonabie conditions in the plan to delay at 4

, , prevent the plant from being bcensed ** Reed said.

• • They are asking us to ignore all the federal guidelines and stadies and take a'l of their information

- ~ - -

' on~ face value

. 1

to develop the plan." he scid. -

"From our persoective liansing is the responsibilty pl

' of the federal government. And we have no ladependeet.

j information, se it would be foolish for us to put ourselveg

'.;

• in that role. But we will seriously check out all the requesu, 0

<* . - l ..

2- TUA~ presented." . ..

. . FUA's suggestions include:

.* .(

1.

+r Eanending a 10 mile evacuatisa area around thf I

plant to include a!! of Fairfield County.

• " Requinng a mock evacitation to test the effective-t ness of the plan and determine how long it would take ~

C'8**8mc room ta evacuate the entire county, if necessary.

r

- v 1muing potassium iodide to each household tc

...protxtliiniividuals from possible exposure to radioactive-

• • • • a h_@g mdhne.'

~ ..

• Megaursag that "fu!! and truthful" information stout the ettects or radiation be prep. ired by an indepefHl=

ent group and approved by a committee of Fairfield . - -*

County*

g physicians.

ta s_ v Conductag a door.to door survey to determine i

' whuh sick and e4derly persons need transportation and '

( procuhne 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> stand by transponation for those people.

.

• Rsquinng :5CE&G to pay sti costs of planrung. .

I 1. man,. and , iemenung an, res.onse yo.

% 4% DMO L'-

- * ,m---

=r .-vuy -

d. *

• q .- ,. . . .. . . .

- There was not an SCELG representattve at Monday's

• l ' m,eeting. . . . . . . - y '. , ' .

• r *

• ~~f

.{ 7t. Doug Rogers, one '.ol. ;'several persons td address I council, said officials aren't bound to follow the 10-mile !*

' tadius in deciding how much of the county will be affecteo .

. during an evacuation. p.2 ,n. i .

'.. : j ,, l

' .?Let's have a plan to go beyond the 10-mile. zone

}'because

it is not' a magical number and it is inadequate i as an arbitrary cutoff." he said. '

1 3

. The 10-mile sune also. includes portions of Lexington. '

{Newberry and Richland counties. . s ;.

+ c FUA also suggested that the plan, when tested in ,

blarch involvs. the actual movement of citizens to dc.'

3termine how long it will take to evacuate the county. {

t . . Asked if the esercise should include everyone living '

'in Fairfield County, one FUA member replied. **I would

,think so. .. .. o. , 4. c: .r i

. "It is not absurd to evacuate the entire county. The unly way to know how long it will take to move the people

.as to actually do it." ha said. .*

• j

Potassium iodide, which increases the thyroid gland's .

- resistance to absorbing radioactive isotopes of idodine, has sbeen rejected as a substance to be placed in each house *

• sa the area'by state health officials.

. . But Dr. Janet Greenhut, a local physician, told council .

.the cost of providing the substance would be '.*much less '

than the treatment of thyroid esacer " 4 - . .

As SCEkG spokesman has said the utility'is in the process of preparing a brorhure'to inform tesidents of the cffects of radiaten. But FUA members say they questian the qualifications of the employee 'who is preparmg the

( material. -

Also. SCE&C officials have said the utility is paying ~

for a door-toer survey to identify those persons wim need transporaison. . . . -

CL.fPP,seC FROce , ,j _ , . . .*

.s . #4%Cd" W , ' A .. J a ,4 hPeft -

' Nm .

I am gg Safe .

)

r.se ,.ss

,o .

u_w . . m _ 4** l **)

' ~

, * 'Md ** ~ ' * ' ' * '

e u.A m- l Citizens' group

, .m , '. e + . . . 3 . . n a, , $-..y

%%.m rt i es t o ri n fl uence sec. ._r.

_ . , , j . , , ,

. EVOCUCI;!on y...

.. .. . c ..

!Cn

.r SFINNSBORO - A Tair '

• FUA's 1suggestions in-field County citizens group clude: -rs .

. i ,.: ; . -

which yesterday presented a ' ..' EsNing"a'hild o proposah anmning evacuation area around the an foremergency the area around responsea plan pant to Muk aH,of Fak-Jenkinsvine nuclear plant field County. '. * , _ ,

may not meet with much

• Requiring a mock eval.li success <. Anation to test the effective.! * ~

' ' Fairfield United Action ness of :the plan and ded termine how long it would i presented the proposalsyes take e esacuate the entire tarday to Fairfield Coun:y .

1 Council in an attempt to county, y necessary. . . . ,,

influence the evacuation . - .

f. issuing .-

' plan for the V.C. Summer potassium

~

Nuclear Station. cwned by lodide to each household to

. S.C.' Electric & Gas Co.

protect .. individuals from Council did not respond t'a . p ssMe exposure to radio.

FUA's suggestions during active iodine. .

the 40 minute session, but 4 * * -

was expected to issue a writ. . Retuiring that " fun

' ten statement today before and truthful' .infonnation reviewing the plan, officials about the effec:s of radi-

-said. - - -

i ation be srepared by an in.

l 'istrator Donald Reed said proved by' Fairfield a comnuttee of County A the proposals ask for "un. Fa,irfieldCounty physicians.

mecessary and unreasonable .. .

• Conducting a door-to.

lay or prevent the pconditions in the plan to de dw sum t 'from being licensod . lant which sicl and elderly per. .

'**We don't intend to get in sons need transparation and

'# the way of any legitimate providing *4-hour stand by .*

business in the county, not transportalon for those peo-just SCE&G." Reed said ple. 3[4, , , , . ,

before the session Mth .. -.

-

• Requring SCE&G to

'FUA.

They are asking us 'to pay au costs of planning,.

' ignore all the federal testing ant implementing.

guidelines and studies and any respon.e plan. A take all of their information There was not an SCE&G ,

on face value to develop the representatue at Monday's -

c:t.spetwo rmo" plan.** he said. g _ i

• • From our persrective. lmeetmg.

Iicensing is the responsi. .

papen bk enHA bihty wf the federal govern .

ment. And we have no inde- '

3p, a pendent information, so it j would be foolish for12s to put -

earselves in that role. But

• • • • u s . we will seriously check out ,

c all the requests FUA pres. '

ented,** ,,

vc C \% M D s ww se v.,

't . t

. ,o t

s a

i

-e...e a TRC Sets Meeting On "m

"""'a.: 4'

,otendal rnoogicai h.. .

~  ;

V.. r. C. S6rnmer . - m

- Plant We"I'#"

• "da'

-meso.winich is o,en tee; so me .

. A .subcomittee of the - public, . wiu begin at' tk.30.,

Nuclear Regulatory W in Com3pohey environmental a.m. forIn qensideration Room 1046,1717 H. of N. :

mission's Advisory Commit- statem=ain to incl.ide com W. The meeting mise willin-

. tee en iteector se q ueds enderationof c;_ Mcan i ciude a discussion of the wiBhelda tschnical==^f vironmental impacts at NRC's reactor r2fety en Dec.12 in .Weshaston tributable to accident so research program and D. C., to discuss possunl* quences thatiendtoreleases radiation standards for '

generic brpheations of a of radiation and/or radiose workers.Representadm of:

- c e to the Draft En- Eve snatorials, including so the ..NRC st&ff will Par ,

'Mtal. Statement for quences that can14ultinin ccipate la the meeting. t the Virgil C. Summer adequate coolirs of reactor other aspects of the, Nasient Staties Unit 1 in fuele.nd melting of the reac . meeting, including opper-  ;

' genth Carolina. tor com.

tunity for the public to com ,

la June of this year the The supplement to the ment, are described in a.

r'ammmion, in a Statement DES related to South Notice of Meeting published, oflaterim Pohey, revised its Carshns Electric and Gas in the Federal Register

~ ' * * *

• Company'.s application, for November 28. .

CLtPPtteG FROed Depea 1 'b Mb

,  ?

r ameness k

l l

, .-y.- -,--w-,-4+w.ee,., 4., or.,,,,m. 4r,--,--,,-,,,,.-..w- e- va-r.-----ww-wwe-eww-w-~-- -wa-vewe-+*'*-e -aw=--ww---we==r---*--vn-e

.. t ATTACHMENT C-2 Costs of Delay

, 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of:

SOUTH CAROLINA' ELECTRIC AND )

GAS COMPANY, et al. )

) DOCKET No. 50-;95 OL (virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station, Unit 1) )

I y

I, Thomas C. Nichols, Jr., am Vice President and Group i Executive for Nuclear Operations for South Carolina Electric

& Gas Company (SCE&G). Until July, 1980 I served as Vice President and Group Executive, Power Production and System Operations. In that capacity I became familiar with the processes of projecting cost penalties and savings associated with plant operations depending upon plant availability. SCE&G and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (PSA) have jointly prepared estimates of addi-tional costs associated with a six months delay in licensing I of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Unit beyond an anticipated license date of October-December, 1981. These estimates are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. These estimates equal S20,744,667 per month. I am authorized to certify these estimate on behalf of SCE&G and the PSA to the .5SLB in NRC Docket No.

50-395 OL.

I certify under the penalties of perjury that the fore-going is correct. Executed this 2nd day of April, 1981.

l MM- 4 .

l THOMAS C. NICHOLS , JR. r I

I i

)

i i

l 1

-I I

n

.--. =- - -- - - . . - _ .

Additional Cost to South Carolina Electric & Gr.s Company and the South Carolina Public Service Authority Associated with a

. Six Months Delay in the Licensing of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Unit.

SCPSA Replacement Cost of Capacity = $ 2,500,000 SCPSA Replacement Cost of Erargy = 13,000,000 SCE&G Replacement Cost of Energy = 53,768,00_0_

Subtotal S 69,268,000 Combined Costs to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority Increase in Interest on Capital for 6 months S 25,200,000 Increase in Capital Cost of Operations for 6 months 30,000,000 Subtotal S 55,200,000 Total Additional Cost S 124,468,000 i

l

-e, - -+ = r, -

,s- ,.re ,,.wa,-,- ,-m, ,w-------- --r , , - -,.y s c--,, a .w e v -wg -.. ,w w , ,,p,e-- m-,-w ( .- 3

.- o 1

ATTACHMENT C i

)

l l

4 (

=

F l

ATTACHMENT C-1 Construction Schedule

., ...-._. = - - . . . -

SOUTH CAROLINA EttcTaic a gas CoMPAuf

, ae.es ,

coe.v 4, souta camou.4 soais

. j '*,"* j e 6 March 24, 1981 Mr. Barold R. Denton, Dirsetor Office of Nuclear Ertetor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50/395 Status of Construction -

Dear Mr. Denton:

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company acting for itself rad as agent -

for the South Caro'!.ina Public Sarrice Authority hareby reports that the Virgil C. Susmner Nuclear Station construction project is' 98% completa.

We project faal load date as August 1981. -

Very truly yours, T. C. Nichols, Jr.

NEC:TCN:rh cc: V. C. Summer G. H. Fischer T. C. Nichols, Jr.

C. A. Price D. A. ' Narnnan ,

W. A. Willimma, Jr.

L N. Cyrus IL. 3. Clary A. R. Koon A. A.. Smith J. 5. Knotra,.Jr.~

J. L. Skolds L A. Sursey O. S. Bradham

'ISEG 7F.S 5tCT Tile

- .- _ ,. .. . _ . _.__. ~ . _ . . .. .

t

j. 't i t

(

i i

t r

[

t t

. I, f

4 b

p \1 01 6 6% '

/

t.%p .

'\

1. - ,1 ATTACHMENT B  ; E.

IR 0 ISMI e j

+

~'

Local Public Document

.,t,' .u..@.

N i*.h i,4@

P P

l s

3 L

t I

s

?

I e

f 1

i 4-4 i

B-t E

F i.

. . . , - n--e,,,- -. ,n..,,.,,n,,a..w.,-,. -.,,,,l,,-,,, m . ,,n.,-cn.,, , , . . , ,,, , ,, , , ,, . , , , , . , , , , , ,.m.,,,,,n,.,, .,e,.,.--, ..,,,,,,rm ,,..n.,, -

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of:

SOUTH CAROLINA. ELECTRIC AND ) '

GAS COMPANY, ~et'~~~ al. ) '

) Docket No. 50-395 OL (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear .)

Station, Unit 1) )

I am Jeffrey B. Archie,,.1113' Crossroads Apartments, Columbia, South Carolina < I am a.part-time student assis-tant with South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. I have occupied that position since June 12, 1978. Part of my duties with South Carolina Electric s' Gas company have been to make periodic examinations of the Public Documents Room in the Richland County Library in Columbia, South Carolina to determine the availability of materials in that.Public Documents Room related to this Docket and to assure that the documents are as up-to-date as practicable. The documents relating to NRC Docket No. 50-395 OL have been posted adequately in the Public Documents Room and have~been reasonably up-to-data continually since 1978. . On occasions the posting of new documents or addendums to old documents has not kept pace with their arrival. Shelf space is limited, but materials are visible and marked. 'With a little effort, anyone desiring to do so can locate materials.

I certify -under the penalties of perjury that the fore-going is correct. Executed this 2nd day of April, 1981.

JL 2 al J2FFREY/7/ MtCHIE i

, _ -. - . . . . _ ._ . . _ , _ . , , , , . . _ . ~ . . . - _ , _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . , ,_ _.

e a, ,

e i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' )

ItUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  :

9 In the Matter of:

Dockst'No. 50-395.04 SOUTE cannT.ruA ELECTRIC & ')

GAS COMPANY and ) ,

) i SOUTN canntTwA PUBLIC SER7 ICE )-  :

AUTHORITY ) -!

)

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear ) ,

Station) . ) .

JERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies.of." Applicants' Answer to Untimely Petition to. Intervene of Fairfield United Action, Inc." in the i above captiomad matter were served upon the following persons by '

deposit.in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid.

or by hand delivery as indicated by an asterisk, this 3rd day of April, 1981: .

• Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic' Safety and l Chaiman, Atomic Safety and ' Licensing Board Panel r

, Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Crwmni ssion i Washington, D.C. 20555 comenission .

Nashington, D.C. 20555-George Fischer, Esq.  ;

Dr. Frank F. Ecoper Vice President and Group  :

School of Natural Resources Executive- Legal Affairs j

University of Michigan South Carolina Ilectric &

Ann Arbor,' Michigan 48109 Gas Company l

l

' Post Office' Box 764  ;

i *Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Columbia, South Carolina- i Member, AtemLic Safety and 29202 -

Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Steven C. Goldberg, Esq. t Commission' Office of the Executive

. Washington,.D.C. .20555 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission

Licensing Appeal Board Panel Washingcon, D.C. 20555 .

D.S.! Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Mr.'Brett Allen Bursey Washington, D.C. 20555 Route 1,1 Box 93-C [

.Little Mountain, South l

l-Carolina 29075  ;

i l

l L -. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . , - _ _ . _ . _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ , _ , _ , _ _ , , .

- J

.2- .

1 i

Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing.and Service section Mr.. John C. Ruoff Office of the' Secretary Post Office Box 96  !

Jenkinsville, S.C. 29065 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C. 205S5 Jtichard P. . Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General South Carolina Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211

^

Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.

I' e

ig

\

i l

l ,.. . - . . _ ... -