ML20024B624
| ML20024B624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1983 |
| From: | Repka D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8307110042 | |
| Download: ML20024B624 (8) | |
Text
-
. ol July 7, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY.
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF THE CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY, INC.
I.
INTRODUCTION On June 23, 1983, the Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc.
(" Citizens, Inc.") filed draft contentions in support of the offsite emergency.planforShoreham("LILCOTransitionPlan")submittedbytheLong Island Lighting Co. ("LILC0" or " Applicant"). The NRC Staff provided a pre-liminary response to those draft contentions in its June 29, 1983 response l.
to Citizens Inc.'s petition to intervene in this proceeding. See "NRC f
Staff Response to Petition of the Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, 1
Inc. to Intervene in the Emergency Planning Hearing," June 29, 1983, at 13, fn.3. The petition to intervene has not yet been ruled upon.
In this pleading the Staff provides a further response to the draft contentions.
II. DISCUSSION As stated in its previous response, the NRC staff has concluded that intervenors in support of a license application need not satisfy DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Certified By
/
4>
1 l
8307110042 830707 i
PDR ADOCK 05000322 d8o 7 0
//
i
~
the "one admissible contention" rule of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b) to be granted party status in a proceeding.
Instead, the contention requirement is fulfilled merely by initially asserting that the application is meritorious and should be granted. See Nuclear Engineering Company. Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal' Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737,743atfn.5(1978). The petitioners in this case, however, have submitted five contentions to support their intervention petition. The 4
. Staff opposes admission of these five contentions as issues distinct from any admitted contentions of the other intervenors in this proceeding. If Citizens. Inc. is admitted to this proceeding it should present its evidence and make argument in opposition to those admitted contentions as is deemed appropriate. Furthermore, the Staff sets out below additional specific objections to the admissibility of the contentions of Citizens, Inc.
Contention 1 1(a)
This contention asserts that there are "no unique geographical, meteorological, or population density features on Long Island" which preclude effectiveness of the LILCO emergency plan. This is exactly the
. type of broad issue in support of an application which illustrates the appropriateness of the Sheffield rule. Litigation of such an issue would necessarily be unfocused and would unduly delay the proceeding.
Intervenors opposing the plan must assert with specificity those " unique features" which are believed to make the LILCO Plan deficient. Citizens, Inc. can then oppose those specific contentions. Otherwise, this contention must not be admitted for lack of adequate specificity.
~
....-...._m..m,.,._
1(b)
This contention seeks to litigate the adequacy of a 10 mile EPZ. This contention seeks to raise a generic issue which was resolved in the rulemaking for 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c). The issue is similar to Suffolk County Contention 2 and is likewise inadmissible in this proceeding. See_ Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-128, 6 AEC 399, 400-401 (1973); Detroit Edison Co.,
et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 584-85(1978); see also 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758.
Contention 2 This contention alleges conservatisms in the dose consequences assumed for the emergency planning regulations. This issue is similar to Contention 1(b)andtoSuffolkCountyContention2. It is inadmissible in an individual licensing proceeding. The dose assumptions underlying the emergency planning regulations were considered as a generic matter in the rulemaking for 10 C.F.R. I 50.47 and the preparation of NUREG-0654,
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,"
November 1980. Reevaluation of those assumptions in this proceeding would improperly revisit the generic undertakings.
1 Contention 3 This contention asserts the adequacy of the Suffolk County civil defense plan.
If the contention seeks to litigate the adequacy of that plan, the contention is beyond the scope of this proceeding and should not be admitted. See " Order Limiting Scope of Submissions," (unpublished),
.. ~.
__..__s
s 9
4-Junej0,1983. If the contention merely seeks to demonstrate the-
" feasibility" cf emergency planning'for Suffolk County by offering the civil defense plan as evidence, the contention lacks specificity and basis and should not be admitted.1 Contentions placing into issue the broad question of the possibility or impos'sibility of'~ emergency planning on Long Island are too broad for this. proceeding. See Philadelphia v
Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atocic ~ Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
- ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974). Furthemore, the contention asserts no basis for alleging the relevance of a civil defense plan to the LILCO Transition Plan.
Contention 4-Ths first sentence of this contention asserts the adequacy of training of emergency volunteer forces. The issue is similar to Suffolk County Contention 11._ The proposed contention lacks specificity and basis and cannot be admitted. The second portion of the contention refers to available resources which ' Mould be trained, drilled, and' mobilized in the avent of a radiological emergency." (Emphasisadded.) This portion l
of the contention is speculative and fails to adequately illustrate i
relevance to the LILCO Transition Plan. The issue should not be admitted; t
Centention 5 The contention asserts the " unique advantage" of Shoreham for
?. v emergency planning due to the presence of the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). This contention also should not be admitted for lack of specificity and basis. The i.ILCO Transition Plan does make specific p
\\
^
1 C
- 'O+
- D
- - - +
- O e=_g,
N---e
-gh#
provision for utilization of BNL employees. However, this contention is i
broadly stated and fails to focus on those specific provisions.
III. CONCLUSION _
For the reasons stated above, the NRC staff concludes that the pro-posed contentions of Citizens, Inc. should not be admitted in this proceeding. However, the Staff continues to believe that contentions are not required in order to grant the intervention petition of a party in support of a license application'. Therefore, if Citizens. Inc. is found to meet the other requirements for intervention, the lack of admissible contentions should not prevent their participation in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, k
David A. Repka Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this 7th day of July, 1983 4
4 9
e-%
m 6
~
- ?
E 5 * - A
.~
--[5"5'bf*'#*'*~~""
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ttilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CONTENTIONS OF THE CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY, INC." in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail service, or, as indicated by a double asterisk, by hand delivery, or as indicated by a triple asterisk, by Express Mail, this 7th day of July,1983:
James A. Laurenson, Chainnan**
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.***
Administrative Judge Camer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission New York, NY 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline**
Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Comission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. M. Stanley Livingston***
W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.***
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams 1005 Calle Largo P.O. Box 1535 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Richmond, VA 23212 l
Cherif Sedkey, Esq.
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson New York State Department of
& Hutchison Public Service 1500 Oliver Building Three Empire State Plaza Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Albany, NY 12223 l
l
4 2-Stephen B. Latham, Esq.***
John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown. Esq.**
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart. Hill.
33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M' Street, N.W.
8th Floor Washington,D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Eleanor L. Frucci Esq.*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attorney Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 James B. Dougherty Esq.**
3045 Porter Street, H.W.
Docketing and Service Section*
Washington, D.C.
20008 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Stewart M. Glass Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Regional Counsel Federal Emergen::y Management Spence Perry, Esq.
Agency Associate General Counsel 26 Federal Plaza 4
Federal Emergency Management Agency Room 1349 Room 840 New York, NY 10278 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 Lucinde Low Swartz, Esq.
Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W.
Suite 550 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 o-Ld k David A. Repka I'
d Counsel for NRC Staff L
og w.d..-
e -
P r
I
. COURTESY COPY LIST Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Jef~f Smith General Counsel Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 250 Old County Road North Co~untry Road Mineola NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 Mr. Brian McCaffrey MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old Country Road Suite K Hicksville, New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc.
Suffolk County Executivo 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Waltham, MA 02154 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
New York State Energy Office Veteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Ken Robinson, Esq.
N.Y. State Dept. of Law Ms. Nora Bredes 2 World Trade Center Shoreham Opponents Coalition Room 4615 195 East Main Street New York, NY 10047 Smithtown, NY 11787 p _ _-. -. __
-....