ML19209C542

Recommendations & Rept in Response to ASLB 790806 Memorandum & Order.Evidence on Most Issues Should Be Completed in Fall.Recommends Proceeding W/Consideration of Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19209C542
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	09/11/1979
From:	Conner T, Wetterhahn M CONNER, MOORE & CORBER, SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7910160109
Download: ML19209C542 (5)

Text

,

.# 4 e

• 7) \

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b h

• L / J In the Matter of )

)  % 7 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & ) Docket No. 50-395 GAS COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station) )-

APPLICANT'S REPORT TO THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN RESPONSE TO ITS AUGUST 6, 1979 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By Memorandum and Order dated August 6, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") in the captioned proceeding requested each of the parties to report on any recommendations or plans to proceed with a timely consideration of issues amenable to early disposition.

On September 6, 1979, "NRC Staff Ccaments Upon Board Memo-randum and Order of August 6, 1979" were submitted. Appli-cant, South Carolina Electric & Gas Ccmpany, hereby submits its report to the Licensing Board and replies to certain matters raised by the Staff in its ccmments.

Applicant believes that every effort should be made to consider, at the earliest practicable time, all remaining contentions in this proceeding. To this end, Applicant asks the Board to use its broad power to avoid delay by instructing 1147 249 7910160I (5

the Staff to use every effort to expeditiously complete its review of the remaining key issues. Moreover, the Staff should be required to report to the Board when any of the dates stated in the Staff pleading advance or slip. If there is any slippage, the Staff should be required to inform the Board of the new date and the reasons for the 1/

delay.-- ,

With regard to the " safety" contentions, A2 (financial qualifications / decommissioning costs) , A3 (Anticipated Tran-sients Without Scram), A4 (seismicity), A8 (emergency plan-ning) and A9 (quality control) , Applicant believes the Staff has exalted form above substance in stating that it may not present its case-until its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) has been issued. Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the only .

support stated for this proposition, is merely a statement of general policy and procedure. In any event, whether the Staff calls it testimony or prefers to call it a partial SER, there appears to be no bar to present consideration of the safety issues prior to its ccmpletion of its review on non-hearing related issues.

Contentions A3 and A8 depend on the ccmpletion of the Staff's review. At this time, it does not appear that resolution of these matters can be considered until the ,

1/ See Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 204-7 (1973).

I147 250

early spring when the Staff states its reviews will be completed. -

-2/

As to all other issues, i.e., A2, A4, A9 and A10, the Applicant would be prepared to begin the evidentiary hearing on November 13, 1979 and continue until the evidence-in-chief of the Applicant and the Intervenor on all these issues have been presented and cross-examination by e.11 parties completed. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.743, all evi-dence for presentation at this session would have to be served by October 20, 1979.

With regard to Contention A9, the Staff has stated that it could offer its position by " late October, 1979." Thus, it appears possible to complete consideration of this con-tention at the November session. Considering the Staff's schedule for Contentions A2 and A4, with a little extra ef-fort by the Staff, there is also no reason why these conten-tions also could not be fully considered at the November hearing.

The only environmental issue is Contention A10 involving consideration of long-term effects of radioactive effluents 3/

from the S tation .-~~ The Staff has taken the position that i147 251-

_2/ In the approximately seven years the ATWS review has been pending, many operating licenses have been issued by the Commission. In the event we learn of any further delays beyond early spring which would affect resolution of the question in this proceeding, we will, of course, seek ap-propriate action by the Board or the Commission to assure that issuance of the license is not delayed.

_3/ This entire matter will be mcoted by the issuance of the Final Environmental Statement which the Staff has advised the Applicant will take place in the first part of November.

Thus, Contention A10 may be amenable to consideration at a November hearinc.

s .

it is not amenable to summary disposition, but states ne reason for its eoncJusion. It also takes the position that it cannot bring evidence on any environmental issue until its total final environmental statement ("FES") has been issued, as provided in 551.52. In our view, this provision can be dispensed with. The overriding policy consideration with the Commission remains that hearings are to be con-ducted without unnecessary delays (Appendix A, Part 2).

This particular issue is well understood, having been the subject of review in several hearings. In our view, the Staff should agree to present its position on this issue as soon as possible. In the unlikely event that it would be of any si;nificance to the environmental balancing in the FES, this point could be considered before the record is closed.

Accordingly, the Applicant's posi.ian is that evidence on all issues, except A3 and A8, can be completed this fall and that there is no basis for waiting. However, if for any reason a hearing on these issues is not set until some time later, motions for su= mary disposition could expedite the proceeding. The Applicant recuests that the Scard authorize the filing of such motions at any time hereafter.

Rrspectfully submitted,

~JNNER, MCORE & CORSE .

S f h" Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant ,

September 11, 1979 1147 252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & ) Docket No. 50-395 GAS COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Report to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Response to its August 6, 1979 Memorandum and Order," dated Leptember 11, 1979, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this lith day of September, 1979:

Ivan W. Smith, Esq. George Fischar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Vice Presidet c and General Licensing Board Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory South Carolina Electric & Gas Commission Company Washington, D. C. 20555 Post Office Box 764 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Dr. Frank F. Hooper School of Natural Resources Steven C. Goldberg, Esc.

University of Michigan Office of the Executive Legal Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Was' ' ngton, D . C. 20555 Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. . Allen Bursey U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ror Box 93-C Ccmmission Lit.1. Mountain, South Carolina Washington, D. C. 20555 29075 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Mr. Chase R. Stephens Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Richard P. Wilsen, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission S.C. Attorney General's Offics Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, S.C. 29211 1147 253

_