ML20005B164

Motion for Summary Decision of Intervenor Bursey Contention A3 Re Atws.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact to Be Heard

ML20005B164
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/07/1981
From:	Knotts J SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20005B165	List: ML20005B164 ML20005B168 ML20005B174 ML20005B178
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107060396
Download: ML20005B164 (3)

Text

.

s ,

fD  %

. Date: May 7, 198

2, -

%CKQ ~$

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

- yAE, vsyge -

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "

0///

Sgggf. > '

em T In the Matter of: \ 8 Ri C SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND )

GAS COMPANY, _et al.

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

Station, Unit 1) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DECISION OF INTERVENOR BRETT A. BURSEY'S CONTENTION A3 REGARDING ATWS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.749, South Carolina Electric &

Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority

("Applicantc") hereby mov.s the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for a summary decision in favor of Appli-cants with regard to intervenor Bursey's contention A3 regarding ATWS, on the grounds that there is no genuine.

issue of material fact to be heard and Applicants are entitled to judgment.

There is annexed hereto a concise statement of material facts as to which Applicants contend that there is no genuine issue to be heard. Also annexed hereto are the l

l affidavits of Robert W. Steitler and O.S. Bradham, and a

! Memorandum of Points and Authorities, in support of the motion. Y hI Respectfully submitted, O i

Q T & Lh Joseph B. Knotts , Jr.

Courisel for Applicants 8107060396 810507 PDR ADOCK 05000395 0

$ PDR

l 7 .

Date: May 7, 1981 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) )

APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT GENUINELY IN ISSUE

1. Applicants and their NSSS supplier, Westinghouse, have addressed ATWS in the FSAR and correspondence and references therein as well as in the reports and analy-ses referenced in the affidavits submitted herewith.

2. The attached affidavits and the references therein tend to show that the Summer design, operating proce-dures and training render full power operation accept-able in satisfaction of NRC ATWS requirements pending further rulemaking action, and that identified modific-ations can be readily made if required by such rulemaking.

3. The NRC Staff has analyzed the generic safety issue of ATWS for Westinghouse plants ac reported in NUREG 0460 and SECY-80-409, noting that the Westinghouse design has inherent ATWS mitigation capability, and concluded that while additional features might be required as a matter of prudence, that this be made the subject of rulemaking and that operation and issuance of new licenses could

i continue, subject to recommended and approved training and procedures, pending initiation, conduct, and comple-tion of rulemaking, which is not scheduled to begin until mid-1981. See NUREG 0717 $15.3.5 and NUREG 0717 Supp.1, Appendix C.

4. The NRC Staff has analyzed the ATWS issue for Summer and concluded that with procedures and training which it has required and approved, the Summer plant meets existing NRC ATWS requirements and can be licensed for l

full power operation pending the ATWS rulemaking, and I

further that Applicant will be required to meet such requirements as emerge therefrom. -NUREG 0717 {15.3.5 and NUREG 0717 Supplement 1, Appendix C.

5. Contention A3 states:

"The Applicant has not met the requirements of the NRC Staff to assure that the probability of occurrence of an ATWS event is acceptably small."

6. Intervenor Bursey was under a Board order of December 30, 1980 to reveal any direct evidence in support of, inter alia, his contention A3 regarding ATWS by January 31, 1980.

7. The only proposed evidence identified by intervenor Bursey in regard to his ATWS contention is a portion of the statement he distributed on April 7, 1981 's being a summary of the testimony of one Michio Kaku.

I l

8. The summary of Dr. Kaku's testimony consists of a very brief and general statement of possible ATWS conse-quences and does not reveal that he has conducted any analysis of ATWS for Summer, or for that matter, of Westinghouse PWR's of the Summer type.

9. The summary of Dr. Kaku's testimony does not address the probability or risk of ATWS for Summer nor show that NRC requirements are not met nor, in any event, contradict any of the matters covered in statements 1-4 abcve.

l I

L l

t l

l

'm