ML19346A031
| ML19346A031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1981 |
| From: | Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106040401 | |
| Download: ML19346A031 (3) | |
Text
'
i May 21, 1981
\\ @! l I co 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4e.f.
NUCLEAR REGUIJ. TORY COMMISSION ne s
g bl4y26 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board fg
?$h-In the Matter af
)
5
)
l' LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
, $ q / q.
Unit 1)
)
q f 's.
'/t
.?
,y
- 19 h
i.;J 1 i A W'g\\
- 1.
STATUS REPORT
,1 "u.'; O 3 5 3I
- Y, u.s.g.ga;77cu (j It has long been the Applicant's understanding,' dis-f;/
f cussed often with the other parties, that (1) informal' G -%.( /
so-discovery in this proceeding would largely stop once the Shoreham Safety Evaluation Report appeared, and (2) the proceeding would then move to formal, final resolution of the remaining issues.
The SER was issued on April 17, 1981.
Its appearance was noticed in the Federal Register on April 27, 1981 (46 Fed. R3 23575).
Shortly before the SER's appearance, LILCO entered into settlement discussions with both Suffolk County and the Shoreham Opponents Coalition.
Serious settlement negoti-ations are now underway with the County, and a realistic prospect exists that its concerns can be resolved by various agreements between the County and the Company.
Recent develop-ments suggsst, however, that there is no realistic prospect QoS Y
b c'(
,8106o4o W g
c e.
. of resolving the issues raised by SOC without further litigation.
Over three years ago the Board ruled that:
The discovery period for the SER will be as follows:
(1) 30 days after its issuance, discovery requests must be filed, (2) 20 days thereafter responses must be filed, and (3) 20 days thereafter particularized contentions must be filed.
ASLB Order of March 8, 1978, at 5.
This order is indicative of the Board's intent that the prehearing stages of the Shoreham OL proceeding end briskly once the SER was issued.
Such expedition is all the more compelling today because this proceeding has now been underway for more than five years; it had been in progress for only two years when the March 1978 order was issued.
Little additional work needs to be done to prepare SOC's contentions for resolution by summary disposition or hearings.
Only numbers 7(a)(ii) (TMI), 12 (part 3)
(hydrogen generation) and 19 (regulatory guides) remain to be finalized by action of SOC and/or the Board.1/
1/
A proposed particularized version of contention 7(a)(ii) was agreed to by the NRC Staff and SOC on June 6, 1980.
The Board declined to admit that version of 7(a)(ii) and, instead, asked for briefs on the Commission's policy statement concerning litigation of TMI issues.
Board Order of June 26, 1980, at 2.
For various reasons, the requested briefing was postponed indefinitely.
See Board Orders of July 18, 1980 and October 31, 1980.
SOC has yet to attempt again to adequately particularize conten-tion 7(a)(ii).
If and when SOC attempts to do so, the NRC's proposed TMI rule will have to be taken into account.
See 46 Fed. Reg. 26491 (May 13,1981).
(footnote continued on next page)
To-determine what factual basis, if any, SOC has developed for its justiciable contentions (initially raised 16 months ago) and to spur the final particulari-zation of those claims still ambiguous, LILCO is today serving on SOC a set of written interrogatories, pur-suant to 10 CFR 5 2.740b.
A copy is attached.
Once the deadline for answers has passed, it is probable that the Company will seek summary disposition of all or some of SOC's contentions.
Any issues remaining after the summary disposition process has run its course should then be ripe for hearings.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAM 9 LIGHTING COMPANY
/<
2-W.TaylfdReveley, j[
III Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Va.
23212 Dated:
May 21,1981 1/ (footnote cont.)
Contention 12 (part three) was admitted by the Board's Order of July 2, 1980 "within the guide-lines established by the Commission's Order [in the TMI-l proceeding]."
A version of contention 12 (part 3) conforming to the Commission's guidance in the TMI-l proceeding (CLI-80-16) has yet to be submitted by SOC.
On March 19, 1981, SOC proposed a sweeping version of contention 19.
Both the Applicant and the Staff filed objections to the bulk of the con-tention.
The parties are awaiting the Board's decision.
__