IA-85-562, Responds to 850129 Request to Review Pending OL Cases to Determine Impact by Impending Mandate in Ucs Vs NRC Re Exclusion of Results of Emergency Preparedness Exercises from Hearings.Seabrook & Shoreham Will Be Impacted

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 850129 Request to Review Pending OL Cases to Determine Impact by Impending Mandate in Ucs Vs NRC Re Exclusion of Results of Emergency Preparedness Exercises from Hearings.Seabrook & Shoreham Will Be Impacted
ML20134P653
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 02/20/1985
From: Cunningham G
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To: Briggs W
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20134P651 List:
References
FOIA-85-562 NUDOCS 8509090003
Download: ML20134P653 (3)
v • d • e


Text

. . . . . . .

l ? "* .AP UNITED STATES

\e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

^ WASHWGTON. D. C. 20S$5 9

/

February 20, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William H. Briggs, Jr.

Solicitor FROM: Guy H. Cunningham, III . .

f Executive Legal Director l I

SUBJECT:

U05 v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir 1984) (THE ATOMIC INERGY XET DOES NOT PERMIT THE COMMISSION TO EXCLUDE BY VOTE THE RESULTS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES '

FROMOLHEARINGS)

~

This is in ~responsi to your memorandum of Januafy 29, 1985, subject as above, requesting that OELD "wMew al.1 pending OL cases (particularly very near-term cas.es such as Waterfor11) to detennine which, if any, may be impacted by the impeaing mandate [in UCS v. NRC] an'd may therefore require some action before 'Conadssion review.as a result of this UCS decision". <

Pursuant b you5 reque t we have again reviewed each of the pending operating license proceedings to etennine if they will be impacted by the court of appeals' decision. The results of our review are set forth in the attached ,

table. As a review of this table indicates, we have concluded that there are i only two facilities which hold a potential for being impacted by the decision

- Seabrook and Shoreham. We have identified Seabrook only because our experience to date has shown that all hearings in this case tend to be very protracted. Except for this consideration, the time between the Juhe 1985 exercise at Seabrook and the April 1986 construction completion date would appear to be sufficient to conduct any necessary hearings based on the exercise results. The Shoreham facility was identified for obvious reasons; this facility involves the first utility run off-site emergency plan, no j exercise has yet been scheduled, serious legal objections to such an exercise have been raised, and the intervenors have indicated their desire to litigate the results of any exercise if such is conducted.

While we do not now anticipate that the other operating license proceedings

. will be impacted by the court of appeals decision, we will, of course,

  • continue to monitor these cases and promptly advise you if this assessment should change.

I 8509090003 e50904 uy H. Cunningham d _

BE 562 PDR Executive Legal Director Attachment .

~

NOTICED EMERGENCY EP EIERCISE MOST PRIOR / PLANNING CONTENTIONS RECENT ON ~

AFTER CONTENTI0M5 REJECTED SCHEDULE / PROPOSED APPL JULY 13 FILED OR BASED STATUS OF EP EXERCISE CONSY CASE IIAME 1982 ADMITTED ON RULE EP HEARINGS DATE COMP REMARKS Beaver Valley 2 After Uncontested N/A N/A 9/1/85 8/86 No impact anticipated: all Proposed contentions, including one on EP.

rejected by Licensing Board Bell;fonte Prfor Uncontested N/A N/A Not scheduled 10/87 No tapact anticipated Braldwood 1.2 Prfor Yes* No 10/85 11/13/85 4/86 No impact anticipated: any new contentions raised as a result of the g November exercise could be litigated before need to go above SS C1l: ton Prior Yes No Not scheduled 9/4/85 ,, 1/86 No tapact enticf sted: e settlement of all cententions as been approved by the Licensteg Board Comanche Peak Prior Yes No Complete- 11/14/84 1/85 No fspect anticipated: EP contention dis-altsed based on failure of f atervenor to  :

file findings of fact Blabla Canyon 2 Prior Yes No Complete 10/30/84 3/d5 No tapact anticipated 3 earlier EP exercise litigated in OL hearing Feral 2 Prior Yes* No Complete 6/26/84 2/85 No tspect anticipated Hope Creek After No No M/A 10/23/84 1/86 No tapact anticipated settlement of all

  • contentions is espected Limerick Prior Yes No in progress 7/25/84 Complete . No fspect anticipated based on Court of

" Appeals dectston: Itcer. sing is currently impacted by 3 months awafting Licensing Board dectsfon Midland Prior Yes No Not scheduled Not scheduled Not scheduled No topset anticipated After Uncontested N/A 10/12/84 11/85 No impact anticipated Mllistone 3 N/A nine Mlle 2

~

After Uncontested N/A N/A 10/31/84 2/B5 No tapact anticipated Pal] V;rde 1.2.3 Prior No No N/A 9/26/84 Casplete No tapact enticipated

  • Contention does not erpressly raise issues twisted to EP esercise .

~

6 Il0TICEO EMENGENCY EP EXEllCISE M0$Y PRIOR / PLAN 1tIIIG C0llTEllT101ts RECENT OR AFTER CollTENTIOI15 REJECTED SCEDULE/ PROPOSED APPt.

. . JULY 13 FILED OR SA5ED STATUS OF EP EXERCISE Coll 5T i CASE IUIE 1982 ADMITTED 011 RULE EP HEARIIIG5 0 ATE COMP REMAltK5 PJrry 1.2 Prior Yes* No 4/9/85 11/28/84 6/85 No fspect anticipated River Send 1.2 Prior Yes* No N/A 1/16/05 4/85 lie fspect anticipated: settlement of all contentions appreved by the Licensing Board Seabrook 1.1 Prior Yes* Ile Not scheduled 6/1/85 4/86 Peter.tf al for fopect Shearon Harris 1 Prfor Yes IIe 6/18/85 5/17/85 3/86 No tapact anticipated Shoreham Prfor Yes Me la progress flot scheduled Complete Potential for fspect ,

South Texas Prior No N/A N/A liet scheduled 12/86 he impact entfcipated Vogtla After Yes No Not scheduled flot scheduled 9/06 Ils fspect anticipated IMIP-3 After Yes llo llot scheduled Not scheduled llot scheduled llo 1spect anticipated t'aterford 3 ~ Prior Yes Yes Cos*plete 2/8/84 Complete IIe lopect anticipated exercise results favorabia

. Watts Bar 'rfor Uncontested II/A II/A . 9/12/84 3/85 No tapact anticipated j volf Cre.k Prior Yes* No Complete 11/7/84 2/85 No tapact anticipated: exercise results favorable

  • Contention does not expressly raise issues related to EP exercise ,

l e

i /

J

=

G

- ~ _ _ - - _ - . - - - - --- -_ ___.__ _ a ,- :-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IA-85-562,_Responds_to_850129_Request_to_Review_Pending_OL_Cases_to_Determine_Impact_by_Impending_Mandate_in_Ucs_Vs_NRC_Re_Exclusion_of_Results_of_Emergency_Preparedness_Exercises_from_Hearings.Seabrook_%26_Shoreham_Will_Be_Impacted&oldid=2939105"