ML20004B641
| ML20004B641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1981 |
| From: | Knotts J SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105290216 | |
| Download: ML20004B641 (6) | |
Text
May 22, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
@i l m/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
'Cg BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO C30%
\\
l~
USNR*
MAY 2 61981. [l In the Matter of:
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND
)
fI 7
GAS COMPANY, et al.
)
Star:h
)
Docket No. 50-395-OL f/
-~
(Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear
)
4 I ro f Station, Unit 1)
)
APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER On May 14, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board served " Remainder of Order Following Fourth Prehearing Co #
UN In accordance with the terms of the Order and 10 CFR S (g)
'/h I E' Vb d
~
d Applicants file these objections.
g.
8L J.; I LJ
-S f.!AY 2 319816 i "
- E M W 8 T
AFFIRMATIVE BAN ON INTERVENOR BURSEY'S DIRECT CASE A
/
To preserve our exceptions, we object generally to t w
to failure to carry out the sanctions specified in the Board's Order of December 30, 1980 for Mr. Eursey's failure to provide the specified information by January 31, 1981.
Omission of discussion of several contentions in our specific' requests to modify the Order in regard to particular contentions, set forth below, should not be taken as a waiver of our objections to the failure of the Board to impose proper sanctions "across the board."
Contention A4--Seisr.icity We object to the expansion on the basis (page 5) of "the changed situation."
Applicants have been filing reports on i
reservoir-induced seismicity for years. Mr. Bursey has been on 8195200g16 e/
l
notice because he receives copies of all licensing correspondence.
Contrary to the Board's apparent impression, reservoir-induced seismicity was not unexpected:- it was recognized as a distinct possibility and it was monitored and reported upon over the period since the reservoir was filled.
Mr. Bursey had ample opportunity to amend his contention throughout'this period.
That the Board has questions of its own in some areas related to seismicity should not broaden Mr. Bursey's contention.
Applicant intends, incidently, to provide both direct testimony -
and a' panel of witnesses to respond to the Board's questions in this area.
The order should be modified to indicate that the amendment of the contention is not permitted, but that the Board has questions and wishes to interrogate Staff and Applicant witnesses on the enumerated topics.
Contention A8--Emergency Planning We object to the ruling (page 16) permitting Dr. Kaku to testify.
Our objection is based upon prejudice to our discovery rights and trial preparation.
The order should be modified to preclude this direct testimony.
Dr. Kaku shoul'd be treated as the Board treated the designated seismic witness.
HEARSAY RULE At page 4 of the order, the Board indicated that it would (1) generally allow documents admitted in another proceeding to be used in cross examination, without a foundation being laid for the document and (2) would admit such documents as direct
, evidence if certain conditions, salutary as far as they go,
were met, Applicants object to both rulings.
The grounds for our objection are fundamental fairness and potential for unwarranted delay.
We have no problem with expert witnesses relying upon proper scientific and technical references which experts in the field customarily rely on.
We are concerned,-however,.with the potential use or admission of documents without at least such foundation through a qualified witness or some other proper foundation.
We are also concerned,with the use of surprise '
documents not referred to in prefiled direct testimony or.
otherwise designated by any party.
The enormity of the universe of documents admitted in other proceedings could lead to unfair surprise and endless delays.
We urge ti.s Board to modify its guidelines regarding the use of hearsay documents to indicate that for purposes of direct examination or associated exhibits, or cross examination, it will control the use of hearsay documents as required to assure fairness and avoid unwarranted delay.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY FUA l
The Board draws a distinction (p. 10) between discretionary intervenors and late intervenors for purposes of the Prairie Island doctrine.
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island l
Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-75-1, 1 NRC 1 (1975).
But in Pebble Springs, the Commission noted t*1at both i
discretionary and late intervenors were subject to the five facter test and described the two classes as " analogous."
(
. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976).
The Commission then encouraged boards to limit cross by discretionary intervenors to their own contentions.
4 NRC at 617.
Faced with the potential for delay, we think the Board should follow the Commission's guidance.
See also the Policy Statement issued by the Commission on May 20, 1981.
The Board has drawn a fine line between
" discernible interest" and its own previous assessment of FUA's ability to contribute on contentions other than 1, 2, 7-13 and 27.
The Board reasons that because of its lack of confidence in the other intervenor's ability to prepare and conduct its case, it will let FUA examine on their contentions (p. 10).
Yet the Board declined to consolidate Mr. Bursey and FUA (p. 11).
T,he Board of course has recognized all these factors, and has recognized its discretior. to foreclose examination, but has chosen instead to permit such examination, squarely as a matter of discretion (p. 11).
We object to the ruling to the extent it permits FUA to examine on any but its own contentions.
We also object to this ruling not being considered in the assessment of the delay factor in the Board's April 30, 1981 Order.
We believe that the poten-tial for additional delay as a result of this ruling is very great.
If the Board does not modify its order to limit FUA to examination on its own contentions, then this added source of delay should be considered in our pending appeal of the April 30, 1981 Order admitting FUA.
If the Board does not grant the relief
. requested, then, at a minimum, the Board should undertake to closely scrutinize the use of the privilege it is extending to FUA and to cut off unproductive or repetitious examination.
ATTORNEY / WITNESS ROLE The Board may wish to caution Mr. Bursey that the "special circumstances" qualification it added to its ruling '(page 12) regarding testimony by attorneys is not an invitation for him still to rely in any way, or for any purpose, upon potential testimony by the attorney he.previously designated as a witness.
In any event, ve are not sure ourselves what the Board has in mind here and would appreciate clarification.
Respectfully submitted,
/
Joseph B.
Knotts, Jr.
Counsel for Applicants Of Counsel:
Randolph Mahan, Esq.
South Carolina Electric
& Gas Company Dated:
May 22, 1981 h
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONj&
/
T' N
0 0 0-'----
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA p M/.y26jggt. Qi In the Matter of:
."'S'
!!/
/
)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND xd GAS COMPANY, et al.
)
50-395-OL
)
Docket No.
Cvl i LM (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
)
)
Station, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r to I hereby certify that copies of (1)" Applicants' Answe and (2)
Fairfield United Action's Motion for Continuance" A d
deposit in the were served upon the following persons byfirst class postage prepaid, United States mail, 22nd day of May, 1981 Christine N. Kohl Linenberger Member, Atomic _ Safety and Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Mr. Gustave A.
Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission 20555 Cc=nission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulator" Washington, D.C.
Commission 20555 George Fischer, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
Vice President and Group Executive - Legal Affairs School of Natura1 Resources South Carolina Electric and Hoooer Dr. Frank F.
~
Gas Company University of Michigan48109 Post Office Box 764 29202 Ann Arbor, Michigan Columbia, South Carolina l
l Rosenthal, Chairman Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
I Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Alan S.
Appeal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20555 Commission 20555 Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
I Buck n.e.. Allen Bursey Dr. John g.
d Mr. -
Member, Atomic Sa#^tv an7 3 card Panel Roure 1, Box 93-C 29076 S C.
Li::le Mounta:.n,
Lic n eg latory uc ear l
Com ission 70555 D.C.
!