ML19274E265
| ML19274E265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903210425 | |
| Download: ML19274E265 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC" MISSION BEFORE THE AT0ft!C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLA!!D 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 _
Introduction On February 5,1979, the Applicant, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.749 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(ii), 4a(iii),
4a(xvii), 12a(iii), 17a(i), 17a(ii), 20a(i) and 20a(ii). Only two of these contentions, namely County Contentions 20a(i) and 20a(fi),
have been admitted as issues for litigation in this proceeding.
The remining " 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 O nly County Contentions 5b; Sc(i). (iii), and (iv); 7a(vi) and O(vii); 9a; 10a; 15a(ii) through (vi); 16a; and 20a are acceptable 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 cententions must also be dismissed outright.
This latter category censists of County Contentions 3a, 4a(i) tnrough (xvii), 5a, Sc(ii), Ea, 6b, 7a(i) th cugh (v), 8a, 9b,10b, lla,12a,13a,13b,13c,14a,17a(i) and (ii), 18a(ii), 18a(v), 13a(vi), 18a(vii), 18a(ix), and 10a(xi).
79033104 6
. The Applicant filed a similar set of motions on December 18,1978.1!
Discussicn The 3.oplicant's additicnal motions for summary disposition again does not appear to take into consideration the disparate nature of the two groups of contentions with which the parties are presently dealing.
One group of contentions stands admitted and is relatively modest in number.
The Staff will not burden the Board by repeating the substance of its previous Answer, particularly pages 2-4.
The fundamental elements remain unchanged.
With regard to the presently inadmissible contentions, the motions are premature and thus do not serve any useful purpose.
In the Staff's 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.1/
1/ n January 12, 1979, the "NRC Staff Answer to Applicant's Request for O
Summary Disposition of Certain Contentions" (Answer) was filed.
1/ s noted in the Staff's previous Answer at footnote 3, the Apolicant's A
filing should not be taken as evidence that the presently inadmissible contentions are adequately particularized. Applicant's motions respond to general subject matter which should not be issues in this proceeding.
Applicant's motions continually create issues by reference to past discovery. Absent specificaticn by the County, the true issue is unknown and not proper for summary disposition.
. With respect to the motions directed to admissible contentions, the ilRC Staff continues to find itself in a difficult position.
The members of the !{RC 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 notions will delay the issuance of the SER.
Such a delay could irrpact adversely on the hearing schedule. A delay in responding to the motions would not necessarily have that result.
Accordingly, the !!RC Staff proposes that its response time to the motions be held in abeyance pending the completion of the SER.
Thereafter, the flRC 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 tne:n in abeyance pending the development of acceptable contentions.
With regard to the motions dealing with the presently admissible contentions, the Staff proposes that its rasponse time be held in abeyance, pendina completion of the SER.
Respec+ fully submitte,
( t { ct '
'u Richard K. Hoe' fling '
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland Counsel for tiRC Staff this 2nd day of February, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIrlG BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham fluclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANS'lER TO APPLICAtlT'S REQUEST FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CERTAIrl CONTENTI0flS", dated February 2,1979 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 2nd day of biarch,1979:
- Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission No. 9 East 40th Street Washington, D. C.
20555 New York, New York 10016
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road 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 York State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 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
.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. J. P. Novarro, Project Manager U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Cor. mission Shoreham fluclear Power Station Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 613, North Country Road Wading River, f!ew York 11792
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Energy Research Group, Inc.
U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Cor:nission 400-1 Totten Pond Road Washington, D. C.
20555 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
- Cocketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
.' 5 '.2 %
/
Counsel for 11RC Staff [j//
Richard K. Hoefling