ML18017A829

Motion for Mod of ALAB-577 Affirming ASLB Supplemental Decision LBP-79-19.Requests Deletion of Hearing Requirement at OL Stage Re Licensee Mgt Capability & Technical Qualifications.Mod Will Minimize OL Delay

ML18017A829
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/11/1980
From:	Trowbridge G CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ALAB-577, NUDOCS 8002250174
Download: ML18017A829 (9)

Text

<<I I

f j

ll, 1980 If

< +Y g

I',

management capability and technical qualifications at the operating license ("OL") stage. The Staff had challenged the Board's authority to impose such a condition to the construc-tion permits. In deleting the condition the Appeal Board directed the Staff to deviate from the Commission's regulations at least with respect to the order and timing of certain prescribed actions in the Staff's treatment of Applicant's OL application for the Shearon Harris facility.

The Appeal Board's directions to the Staff provide:

[T]he Staff is hereby directed to insure that no notice of opportunity for hearing under 10 CFR 2.105 is issued in connection with any application which may be filed for operating licenses for the Shearon Harris facility unless and until:

3 The Board's condition provided:

(ix) At an appropriate time during the review of the application for the operating license of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the Staff shall implement the necessary actions to enable the Secretary to issue a notice of hearing on said application to be published in the Federal Receister re0uired under 10 CFR 2.104.

In addition to the other requirements of Section 2.104, the notice of hearing shall state that the presiding officer will consider (in addition to any other matter which may be in controversy) whether the Applicant has the management capability and is technically qualified to engage in the activities to be authorized by the operating license in accordance with the regulations of 10 CFR Chapter 1. (10 NRC at 98) 4 Applicant agreed wi'th the Staff in principle and so informed the Appeal'Board by letter dated October 9, 1979. However, for practical reasons i.e. Applicant anticipates a hearing at the OL stage in any event Applicant elected not to contest the condition.

5 ALAB-577 at 35-36.

(1) The Staff has con'ducted, on the basis of the content of the operating license applica-tion and supporting documentation (together with any other pertinent information then at its disposal), a preliminary evaluation of the applicant's capability to manage the operation of the facility in conformity .with all regulatory requirements which have or may be imposed in the interest of the protection of the public health and safety; and (2) The findings and conclusions reached upon that evaluation have been (a) made publicly available in written form; and (b) brought specifically to the attention of the Commission with an accompanying reference to both the Licensing Board's supplemental initial decision and our decision today. It is further directed that, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.105(b)(2), the notice of opportunity for .

hearing (if one is issued) set forth the manner in which a copy of that analysis may obtained or examined.

'e Applicant is concerned that this requirement may un-necessarily delay other unrelated activities necessary to obtaining an OL. Therefore, Applicant hereby petitions the Appeal Board to modify its order to avoid any unnecessary delay in Applicant's OL proceeding for the Shearon Harris facility as it pertains to issues other than management capability.

Applicant proposes that the Appeal Board modify its instructions to the Staff such that the notice of opportunity for hearing would be published as soon as practicable after the OL application is docketed as required by 52.105(a)(4).

6 The Commission's regulations provide that the notice of opportunity for hearing "shall be issued as soon as practicable after the [operating license] application has been docketed."

10 C.F.R. 2.105(a)(4). Thus an applicant for an OL would (continued next page)

.However, to accomplish the Appeal Board's objective, the notice of opportunity for hearing would state additionally (1) that the Staff had been instructed to perform an evaluation of Applicant's management capability, (2) that a noti,ce will be published in the Federal Receister upon completion of the Staff's evaluation; (3) that the notice will set forth the manner in which a copy of the Staff's evaluation may be obtained or examined; (4) that the public will then have an additional thirty days in which to petition to intervene and request a hearing in the Harris OL proceeding on the sole issue of Applicant's management capability and technical qualifica-tions; and (5) that any petitioner already admitted as a party to the Harris OL proceeding, and who has not already estab-lished a contention on management capability, will then have thirty days in which to petition to expand his contentions to include a contention on Applicant's management capability or technical qualifications.

Applicant is already concerned about a lengthy proceeding for obtaining an OL for the Shearon Harris facility. Harris Unit 1 is scheduled for initial core fuel loading in June, 1983, and Applicant plans to use the spent fuel storage pool at the Harris facility to provide spent fuel storage for its three (continued) normally expect the notice for opportunity for hearing to be published in the Federal Receister within a few days of docket-ing and certainly wW~wrn a parred of weeks.

operating nuclear units, Robinson Unit 2 and Brunswick Units 1 and 2. Spent fuel storage at those plants will be exhausted in 1983 and storage of excess spent fuel at the Harris facility is necessary to avoid the potential shutdown of presently-operating, essential generating capacity.

Applicant recently held a meeting with the Staff to discuss the schedule for tendering its OL application for the F

Harris facility and to urge upon the Staff the importance of timely review for spent fuel storage. At that meeting, Applicant reiterated its intention to file its Final Safety Analysis Report in June, 1980. 7 Since many portions of the Staff review of the FSAR and many aspects of any necessary OL hearing on other issues will be totally independent of the management capability issue, it would seem that there is no need to depart from normal procedures as to those issues.

7 See NRR Memorandum re Summary of Meeting held on January 10, 1980, to Discuss Tendering of Operating License Application for Shearon Harris, dated January 16, 1980. (Exhibit A attached hereto). Thirty-six months lead-time is considered prudent in the present circumstances. Prior to Three Mile Island, the Staff estimated thirty months for completion of the OL review process, which included time for a limited hearing, if quired. This was prior to the imposition of numerous additional re-licensing requirements as a result of the post-Three Mile Island evaluations and prior to the severe back-log of casework facing the Staff. Furthermore, Applicant anticipates a lengthy, contested OL proceeding. At the end of this process, it is not now clear when the OL will become effective due to the reevaluations of the "immediate effective-ness" rule. Thus Applicant is very much concerned about the possibility of any delays.

Applicant believes that the proposed modification to the Appeal Board's instructions to the Staff will minimize the risk of delay in obtaining an OL by commencing the proceeding at the earliest practicable date. The process of establishing the standing of petitioners, identifying parties, defining the contentions and beginning any discovery could move forward while the Staff's evaluation of Applicant's management capabil-ity was being conducted. However, since the public would be able to request, or the Commission could direct, a hearing on the one remaining issue of management capability within thirty days of the issuance of the Staff's findings and conclusions following its evaluation, the proposed modified procedure would serve the Appeal Board's objective of providing the public with additional information on Applicant's management capability in order to make a more informed decision on whether or not to petition for a hearing on that one issue.

Applicant therefore requests that the Appeal Board modify its instructions to the Staff in ALAB-577 as outlined above.

Respectfully submitted, Shaw, Pittman, Potts a Trowbridge org . Trowbridge John H. O'eill, Jr.

Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 331-4100 Dated: February ll, 1980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400

) 50-401 (Shearon.Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) ) 50-403

'CERTIFICATE 'OF 'SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Applicant's Motion For Modification Of The Appeal Board's Order in ALAB-577," dated February 11, 1980, were served upon" those persons on the attached Service List either by hand or by deposit in the United States mail postage prepaid, this 11th day of February, 1980.

Joh H. O'Nezll, Jr.

Dated: February 11, 1980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE 'ATOMIC 'SAFETY 'AND L'I'CENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400

) 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) ) 50-403

'SERVICE LI'ST Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Chairman Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Director Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.

Dr. John H. Buck P. O. Box 928 Atomic Safety and Licensing 115 West Morgan Street Appeal Board Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .Dennis P. Myers, Esq.

Associate Attorney General Michael C. Farrar, Esq. State of North Carolina Atomic Safety and Licensing P. O. Box 629 Appeal Board Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman 3 Route 1 Box 183 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Durham, North Carolina 27705 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kudzu Alliance U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Box 3036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chapel Hill,. North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr.

10807 Atwell Drive Houston, Texas 77096