ML20023B381

Motion for Revised Schedule Re contentions.Three-wk Time Limit for Submission of Contentions Should Be Deleted. Parties Directed to Meet within 2 Wks of Receipt of Util Revised Plan to Agree on Schedule for Contention Submission

ML20023B381
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/02/1983
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20023B383	List: ML20023B381 ML20023B386
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8305050001
Download: ML20023B381 (7)

Text

.y ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :n n.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 'O .-

-d j'O,je-

)

• In the Mattnr of )

) -

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ,

)

)

~

~ '

SUFFbLK COUNTY MOTION FOR REVISION OF SCHEDULE On April 20, 1983, this Board is, sued its Memorandum and Order Denying Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding. (LBP-83-22). By a separate Memorandum and Order also dated April 20, 1983, portions of LBP-83-22 were referred to the Appeal Board and the low power issue addressed by the ASLB was certified to the C'ommission through the' Appeal Board. See LBP-83-21. By Order dated April 26, 1983, the Appeal Board transferred these matters to the Commission for the latter's consideration.

This motion addresses only part III.A of LBP-33-22, which establishes a schedule for filing of contentions in future s

emergency planning proceedings before the Board. j There

-- (at pp. 60-65) this Board ruled, inter alia, that the County

• / Any filings by the County concerning substantive rulings in LBP-83-21 or -22 will be addressed to the Commission.

8305050001 830502 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR b

and other intervenors must submit initial emergency planning contentions three weeks after receipt of the LILCO revised offsite radiological emergency plan ("LILCO Revised Plan").

For the reasons set forth herein, the County respectfully moves: (I) that the Board delete the three-week time limitation for the filing of contentions; and (2) that, in place of such

- three week limitation, the Board order that within two

~

weeks after receipt of the LILCO Revised Plan, the parties s

meet to attempt to re'hch agreement on the time .

period for submission of initial contentions. Failing agreement of the parties, the Board, after consideration of the parties' views, would establish a schedule for submission of contentions.

In conversations with LILCO's counsel, the County was told that the document which LILCO submitted to the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission as the purported

~

Suffolk County radiological emergency response plan (and which was provided to the ASLB, in Fdanary 19831 will constitute the basic LILCO scheme for offsite planning in Suffolk County. LILCO's counsel has informed the County that LILCO intends to prepare an additional document or supplement in which a nhmber of

" alternative means" to implement the LILCO Revised Plan will .

be proposed, since Suffolk County will not adopt or implement an offsite emergency plan.

LILCO's counsel has previsouly informed the Board that "other governmental entities" will be substituted

._ for the County to implement the LILCO Revised Plan (Tr. 20,990).

However, LILCO's counsel recently informed the County that LILCO may also.use non-governmental entities to implement the plan. LILCO's counsel has declined to identify for the County.

,

• the' individuals and/or entities which LILCO will propose to implement its Revised Plan. A letter to LILCO's counsel

. setting forth our understanding of their representations is attached hereto.'

- - ~

A key issue :bi the forthcoming proceeding will be the ability and legal authority of various entities (still un-identified) to implement the LILCO Revised Plan. Indeed, the Board has already stated that. contentions questioning the ability to implement specific portions of the LILCO Revised Plan are within the scope of Phase II. (LBP-83-22, at 62-63)."

However, until LILCO's " alternative means" for implementation are reviewed, those contentions cannot be framed.

The fact that there will be a number of schemes' proposed by LILCO to implement its Revised Plan will make the County's review more involved and time consuming. Moreover, any proposals in the LILCO Revised Plan for implementation by various private, quasi-governmental or governmental entities

~

within the sphere of jurisdication of the County government will raise legal issues under State, local, and federal law

,, . that may require, lengthy analysis and research. At a minimum, any such proposals will require consultations with law enforcement officials at the County level, and perhaps other 1

levels of government, as well as factual, legal, and policy

determinations by governmental authorities in Suffolk County.

, -- + -

. - - - , . , - , - ~ - -

For the County, therefore, the review of LILCO's plan will be neither a simple nor casual matter, and the County must have sufficient t,ime to assess the _ full implications of LILCO's unprecedented implementation schemes on the laws, policies, and pregrams of the County government and the welfare of its citizens.

In short, under the Board's Order, the County will be required to analyze the technical feasibility and legal validity of a variety of proposals for implementation of the

~

~ LILCO Revised Plan and to prepare draft contentions, all within three weeks. We submit that this short time limit places an unfair, and unmanageable burden upon Suffolk County to deal with complex and unprecedented proposals for implementation of LILCO's version of an offsite emergency ,

plan without participation by the local government. The other intervenors may also have difficulties in complying with the Board's three week limitation, and it would seem appropriate for their views to be considered by the Board. At a minimum, the Board, the County and other parties should have an opportunity to review the LILCO Revised Plan before any schedule

• /

for submission of contentions is established..-

~*/

By letter from LILCO counsel dated April 29, 1983, the Board and parties were informed that the LILCO Revised Plan will not be available until the week of May 16. This delay from early May was occasioned by "the size of the task."

The County can understand such delay, since the task con-fronting LILCO involves the unprecedented attempt to prepare an emergency preparedness implementation program without the involvement of County resources. For the County, the size of the task of reviewing and analyzing LILCO's proposal will also be large, and the County requests that this be considered by the Board.

The County requests, therefore, that the three week time limitation for submission of contentions be deleted and, instead ,

that the parties be~ directed,- after receipt of the LILCO.

Revised Plan, to meet within two weeks for the purpose of

^

reaching agreement on a schedule for the submission of con-tentions. Failing agreement of the parties, the Board would receive the parties', views and make a determination of the

. matter.

Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Haup,6auge, New York' 11788 N

Herbert H. Brown /

Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for suffolk County 1

i 4

May 2, 1983 6

- _ . - , . . _ . . y , , . _ _ - _ . _ , _ _ _

9

Cf.V W Krnurxrrucx, LoCxHAILT, HILL, CruusrorrtEn & P1rrnLirs 3 r a w = .ni , w cix m ,. A raor...so m co. y =f

< w -a r..

1900 M Srn$s,,t, N. W.

. Esitrxarox, D., C,. 20o36 TN FITTSBUEOX TE2.EFNONE (302) 452-7000 Eint?AIRICE.lM1EART,JOncts ^F & BTTCBISON CA81.Et MIPH.I woo ouvz= Scuma mzx==0.mam ..

April 29, 1983 rimmenon.,zumv.Nii asa.

vamin. xmtter mu. xcx.zm * *6s ***

(202)452-7G11 James N. Christman, Esq._

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212

~

Dear Jim:

This is to confirm the telephone conversation on April 28, 1983 involving you, me, and Chris McMurray. This conversation concerned the offsite radiological emergency response plan that LILCO is now developing for submission to the ASLB in the Shoreham proceeding.

We pursued this conversation in an attempt to understand what the LILCO plan will entail. Based upon this conversation, we understand as follows:

1. The LILCO plan previously submitted to the State of New York Disaster Preparedness Commission and to the' ASLB will be utilized as the basic LILCO plan. That previous plan presently co.ntains many references to actions to be taken by Suffolk County personnel. Th,e plan will not be altered to delete these refer-ences. Instead, there will be an additional document or supplement to the LILCO plan which will suggest a number of alternate means for implementation of the LILCO plan without County involvement.

l The revisions / changes contained in the additional document or supplement will be more extensive than merely substitutingHowever, other entities wherever the County's name appears in the plan.

you indicated that the evacuation portion of the existing LILCO -

- plan.will remain essentially unchanged (except, of course, the County Police will not, implement such evacuation portion) .

2. In response to a Board inquiry, LILCO previously indicated ,

that other governmental entities would be substituted Tr. 20,990. for the In County for implementation of the LILCO plan.

letters from Herb Brown to Taylor Reveley dated April 15 and 25, 1983, to which no response has been received, we asked for identi-In our conversation fication of such governmental entities. You declined to identify yesterday, we reiterated this request.

Isinxrarnicx, LOCKIIART, IllLL, CHRISTOPHI:R & Pit:1.Lrps James N. Christman, Esq.

April 29, 1983 Page Two a - -

any.governmen.tal entity which LILCO will suggest for implementing the LILCO plin. You indicated that such identification will not be provided before LILCO. files the plan. Further, you indicated that in addition to governmental entities, there may also be other . entities involved in implementation of the LILCO

. plan. These entities presumably will be identified in the additional or supplemental material to be filed as part of the LILCO plan. Again, you declined to identify any such entities.

3. You mentioned ths't LILCO now expects to serve its plan

- on the ASLB and parties in mid-May (around May 16 or 17) .

l Thank you for the foregoing information.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Lawrence Coe Lanpher O

e

• F e -

b I