ML19270F294
| ML19270F294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902060140 | |
| Download: ML19270F294 (6) | |
Text
-
Se o
4 1
s g gf [d C
NRC PUBLIC DOCUVF' f met q
2 D
UT;ITED STATES OF AT: ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS:0f1 9
f
}
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/*
W In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CONTENTIONS On December 18, 1978, the Applicant, pursuant to 10 CFR s2.749 filed motions for summary disposition of certain " contentions" put forth by the County of Suffolk in this proceeding.
Specifically, the Applicant sought to summarily dispose of County Contentions 4a(vii), 4a(x),
7a(ii), 7a(iii), 7a(vi), 7a(vii), 12a(viii), and 14a.
Only two of these contentions, namely County Contentions 7a(vi) and 7a(vii), have been admitted as issues for litigation in this proceeding.
The remaining " contentions" have been admitted for discovery purposes only, with the requirement that the County particularize those contentions at the close of discovery or have them dismissed.E ll Only) County Contentions 5b; Sc(i), (iii), and (iv); 7a(vi) and(vii ; 9a; 10a; 15a(ii contentions for litigation in this proceeding at this time.
The remainder of the County's Contentions have either been dismissed outright or placed in a category of requiring further specification.
Failing such further specification, those contentions must also be dismissed outright.
This latter category consists of County Contentions 3a, 4a(i) through (xvii), Sa, Sc(ii), 6a, 6b, 7a(i) through (v), 8a, 9b,10b, lla,12a,13a,13b,13c,14a, 17a(i) and (ii),18a(ii),18 a(v),18a(vi),18a(vii),18a(ix),
and 18a(xi).
790206O/'(o
l' rp, c :n; i n o ; a t r"
.r.
jus ti fy the extraordinary action: of seei:ing s tou ry rfisposi tion regarding contentions not yet admitted and prior to the issuance of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
Discussion The Applicant's motions for sumnary disposition as well as its concerns over schedule appear to disregard the disparate nature of the two groups of contentions with which the parties are presently dealing.
One group of contentions stands admitted.
The group is relatively modest in number and the contentions are sufficiently particularized that they can be treated either by motions for summary disposition or at a less protracted hearing than the Applicant envisions.
The much larger category of contentions do not yet stand admitted.
This distinction bears emphasis.
For the fundamental fact is that few issues have been unconditionally admitted to this proceeding.
It may be true that, if the County's remaining unparticularized contentions are accepted as presently framed, a long and chaotic hearing is possible.
However, there is no reason to doubt that the Board will insist on particularized contentions which can be reasonably addressed in an adjudicatory hearing, and would dismiss unrefined contentions.
Given this course of the proceeding, the Applicant's schedular concerns may not materialize.
Turning to the Applicant's motions, the Staff has categorized those motions as dealing with either admissible or presently inadmissible contentions and deals separately with each category.
The l i csen ti v maa.i w.ule Cont h.u...
With respt.ct to the motions directed to the presently inadmissible contentions the Staff believes they are premature.
Until the Licensing Board admits acceptable contentions, it appears wasteful of the time and efforts of the parties to undertake the effort necessary to respond to such motions.
In our view, the Licensing Board should either deny these motions without prejudice to their being resubmitted at such time as they may be relevant to acceptable contentions or simply hold them in abeyance pending the development of acceptable contentions upon the completion of discovery.
We are also of the view, with regard to the presently inadmissible contentions, that the granting of the motions at this time would under-mine the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714(a) which requires that issues to be litigated be framed with specificity and precision.S The motions for summary disposition are directed toward issues which do not meet the requirements of the regulation.
To grant these motions at this time would undermine the efficient progress of this proceeding.
-2/ These motions deal with County Contentions 4a(vii), 4a(x), 7z(ii),
7a(iii), 12a(viii) and 14a.
_3]
It should be noted that the Applicant's filing should not be taken as evidence that the presently inadmissible contentions are adequately particularized. Applicant's motions either respond to general subject matter which should not be issues in this proceeding, e.g., Contentions 12a(viii) and 14a ot the Applicant attempts to construct issues for subsequent argument.
See Motion re Contentions 4a(vii) and 7a(ii), page 2, where Applicant acknowledges that it only " appears" that certain issues are raised.
See also Motion re Contention 4a(x) where Applicant dismisses the County's Contention because the Staff had considered the issue satis-factorily resolved in NUREG-0513.
It could be that the County questions that resolution.
Absent specification, the issue is unknown and hardly a subject for summary disposition.
Inc c.issible Cuauaions With respect to these motions, the iiRC Staff finds itself in a difficult position.
The members of the NRC technical Staff assigned to this application are fully engaged on a priority basis in completing the Safety Evaluation Report.
To divert resources to responding to these motions will delay the issuance of the SER.
Such a delay could impact adversly on the hearing schedule. A delay in responding to the motions would not necessarily have that result. Accordingly, the NRC Staff proposes that its response time to the motions be held in abeyance pending the completion of the SER. Thereafter, the NRC Staff will be prepared to respond in detail to the motions or propose summary disposition motions of its own with respect to these contentions.
Conclusion With regard to the Applicant's motions dealing with the presently inadmissible contentions, the Board should either deny the motions without prejudice to renew at such time as they may be relevant to acceptable contentions or simply hold them in abeyance pending the development of acceptable contentions.
With regard to the motions dealing with the presently admissible contentions, the Staff proposes that its response time be held in abeyance, pending completion of the SER.
Res ctf ly subm tted, j
(4 1
R ard K. Hoefli ig Counsel for NRC Staff j Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of January,1979.
-. ~ ^
u:,: iLL
~.i :
,,ZLL T ' ~'"..l t
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY '.ND LICENSING C0ARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF AriSWER TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITI0il 0F CERTAIN CONTENTIONS" and "NRC STAFF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS" dated January 12, 1979 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served en the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 12th day of January,1979.
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Canner and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission No. 9 East 40th Street Washington, D. C.
20555 tiew York, flew York 10016 Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member Howard L. Blau Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217Newbridaedoad U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D. C.
20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D. C.
20555 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Deputy Commissioner and Counsel General Counsel New iork State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Buildina 2 250 Old County Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, New York 11501 Albany, New York 12223 Edward J. Walsh, Esq.
Irving Like, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Reilly, Like and Schneider 250 Old County Road 200 West Main Street Mineola, New York 11501 Babylon, New York 11702 m
2_
Atonic Safety and Licensina Board Mr. J. P. Novarro, Project Manager U.S. fluclear Regulatory Cormission Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
!iashington, D. C.
20555 P. ^ Box 618,'iorth Country Road Wading River, tiew York 11792 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Energy Research Group, Inc.
Board 400-1 Totten Pond Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
'1 fl c
2 Counsel for IIRC Staff -
[/
Richard K. Hoefling
/