ML20032E413
| ML20032E413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1981 |
| From: | Latham S SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111200532 | |
| Download: ML20032E413 (10) | |
Text
~
(,,
DOCKETED USNRC oh 11 01T 2 P254 q ' 0.,np p*)
3 g
J Y ' '.
0FFICE OF CRETAR':"
[
00CKETING & SERVICE NOV19198]>
BRANCH
}
u.s.
m b
t3 4
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND -LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,)
Unit 1)
)
RESPONSE OF SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION TO APPLICANT'S MOTION THAT A HEARING SCHEDULE BE SET l'
TWOMEY, LATHAM & SCHMITT Attorneys for Shoreham Opponents Coalition 33 West Second Street Riverhead, N.Y.
11901 h
D$r i 8111200532 811021 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
PDR gF"'
~
RESPONSE OF SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION TO APPLICANT'S MOTION THAT A HEARING SCHEDULE BE SET
', i :3 On October 6, 1981, Applicant submitted a Motion to set a hearing schedule for the Shoreham OL proceedings.
Applicant's schedule calls for the parties to file their final " positions" on contentions by November 4, 1981 and after a series of pre-hearing matters, Applicant asks that hearings be scheduled to begin on February 23, 1982.
For the reasons set forth below, SOC believes that Applicant's schedule is significantly unrealistic, particularly with regard to the suggested commencement of the formal pre-hearing schedule (i.e., the November 4, 1981 date).
A critical f actor which will determine the nature, scope and length of the OL proceedings is the proposed
" Sixth Stipulation" between Applicant and Suffolk County.
If the stipulation is approved by Applicant's Board of Directors and the Suffolk County Legislature, the County proposas to drop all but three of its contentions vnich have ei ther been admitted to the proceeding or admitted subject to further particularization.
Final approval (or disapproval) by the County and Applicant is essential before the parties, particularly SOC, can reasonably define their final contentions for
- submission and decision by the Board.
Obviously, if the County /LILCO settlement is not approved, the County will have a large number of contentions to particularize.
According to SOC's understanding of the present schedule, the earliest that action is contemplated by the legislature is November 10, 1981 with action ny LILCO's Board of Directors to follow shortly thereaf ter.
Should the, settlement be approved, the terms of that settlement could have a significant effect on the scope and nature of the final contentions submitted by SOC.
For example, a number of issues contained in SOC's proposed TMI Contention (which is currently being reviewed by the Applicant) may be ef fectively resolved by the County /LILCO settlement and some admitted SOC contentions (such as SOC Contention 6(a)i on QA/QC) may be similarly affected.
Neither SOC, the County or LILCO will know the precise nature of the settlement until after it has been reviewed and voted on by the legislature.
Should the Sixth Sripulation be approved by the County and Applicant, its ultimate effect is subject to approval by the Board af ter review and comment by the parties.
In view of the large number of contentions which the County proposes to drop from the proceeding, the nature of the actions which Applicant proposes to undertake in exchange for the County dropping.those j
contentions, and the effect and reviewability of those l
actions by the Board and the parties to this proceeding, SOC will undoubtedly comment in' detail upon the Sixth Stipulation before it is ruled upon by the Board.
As a consequence, any " final" list of contentions to be submitted to the Board must in fact await the Board's decision on the Sixth Stipulation.
To do otherwise will hopelessly fragment the Board's decisions on the contentions of the various parties and would likely render futile _any attempt to have a " final" pre-hearing schedule.
Obviously, the Applicant's proposal to begin that phase one week before the earlient contemplated legislative action is unrealistic.
Aside from the major impact of the County /LILCO settlement on the Shoreham OL proceeding, a great deal of progress can and undoubtedly will be made during the next 2-4 weeks.
SOC and Applicant are near agreement on defining and particularizing SOC's contentions on all issues with the exception of TMI issues.
During the next 2-3 weeks, SOC expects that a Stipulation will be submitted to the Board covering at least the non-TMI contentions in a manner consistent with the objectives j
set forth in the Applicant's November 4 deadline in its October 6 Motion.
SOC also hopes that the TMI issues
l can be largely resolved within that timeframe, subject to the ultimate impact of the Sixth Stipulation.
- Thus, much progress can and will be made short of starting the clock running on the final pre-hearing phase.
Applicant has frequently issued the warning that unless a prompt hearing schedule (such as that contained-in its October 6 Motion) is set by the Board, there is a likelihood (or at least risk) that the plant will be ready for fuel load before a Board decision can be rende red.-
Applicant's " official" fuel load date currently stands as September, 1982, but SOC believes even a cursory examination by the parties and the Board of the status of construction at Shoreham will reveal that the plant is nowhere close to eleven months from fuel load.*
It is not surprising that LILCO has not recently revised the September 1982 date since any such revision may affect LILCO's hard fought priority in the NRC licensing review process as well as its projected plant cost and need for rate relief.
However, the Company's unrealistic fuel load date should not inspire the Board
- LILCO produces monthly status reports for the Shoreham project which set forth the nature of the delays and remaining work to be accomplished which suggest th at a delay of several months beyond the September 1982 date is likely..
to set an unnecessary and overly expedited hearing schedule.
It is therefore SOC's posit ion that no final schedule of the sott suggested in Applicant's October 6 Motion should be set until the Board has ruled on the Sixth Stipulation.
The parties should be gi ren a minimum of three, weeks after,that ruling to file their final position on contentions.
SOC proposes that the Board's ruling on those contentions coincide with a prehearing conference at which the balance of the preharing sche 5ple will be established.
SOC has also reviewed Applicant's proposed timing of final discovery, particularization and pre-filing ~of testimony.
Without trying to suggest to the Board a precise alternative, we note the following:
a)
A minimum of three weeks (rather than the one allowed by Applicant) is needed for receipt of the Board's Order on Contentions, discussion between consultants and attorneys on discovery, preparation and i
filing of final discovery requests.
b)
A minimum of 30 days will be required to analyze and answer discovery requests.
A longer period may be needed if the number of contentions is large~and the discovery requests are lengthy; I
i.
c)
We assume that Applicant intends to review the discovery produced before it submits any Summary Disposition Motions; d) 30 days for the pre-filing of testimony will not be adequate if the number of contentions is large; e)
A minimum of 30 days will be needed to prepare cross-examination.
As a final note, SOC notes that Applicant has cited a Commission " policy" of having Boards complete, where possible, their initial decisions within 300 days of the issuance of the final SER supplement.
Shoreham may well J
be a case wh'ere that policy objective, to the extent it
~
even applies to the Shoreham proceetling, cannot be met.
The Board should consider that to the extent " delays" beyond Applicant's proposed November 4 date are incurred due to the County /LILCO settlement, that settlement should lead to substantial savings in the overall hearing schedule.
SOC further disagrees with Applicant that Shoreham's SER Supplement No. 1 triggered any deadlines.
That supplement still contains 19 open items which is about on a par with the number contained in initial SER's.
SOC would expect that at least one further supplement will be issued by Staff prior to the OL proceedings.
i.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, SOC urges the Board to deny the prehearing schedule advocated by Applicant in its October 6 Motion and to adopt the prehearing procedures set forth by SOC in this reply.
9 Respectfully submi ed,
()
m
- }
n
~
~
_,Steph$1 B.
Latham TWOMEY, LATH'AM & SCHMITT Attorneys for Shoreham Opponents Coalition Dated:
October 21, 1981
~'a t>s-
-e
+-p.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCKETEC NE In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket qq. ggpp 2 P254
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,)
Unit 11)
)
0FFICE OF SECRETAs7 00CKETlHG & SERVICE BRANCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Response of Shoreham Opponents Coalition to Applicant's Motion That A Hearing Schedule Be Set",
dated October 21, 1981, submitted by the Shoreham Opponents Coalition, in the above captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 21st day of October, 196.:
Louis J.
Carter, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro 23 Wiltshire Road No. 9 East 40th Street Philadelphia, Pa.
19151 New York, N.Y.
10016 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon, Member W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
P.O.
Box 1535 Washington, D.C.
20555 Richmond, Va.
23212 Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Deputy Commissioner & Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Bldg. 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
- Albany, N.Y.
12223 General Counsel Long Island Lighting Co.
Atomic Safety & Licensing 250 Old Country Road Appeal Board r..neola, N.Y.
11501 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary Cashington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Station U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, N.Y.
11801 9
David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
J.P.
Novarro Suffolk County Attorney Project Manager, LILCO Suffolk Co. Dept. of Law P.O.
Box 618 Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, N.Y.
11792 Hauppauge, N.Y.
11787 t pg 1.g
- 3 Energy Research Group, Inc.
- .y, Patricia Dempsey, Esq.
400-1 Totten Pond Road Asst. County Attorney Waltham, Mass.
02154 Suffolk,Co.-; Dept. o f Law Veterans Meniorial Highway Bernard M.
Bordenick Hauppsug e, N.Y.
11787 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
MHB Technical Associates Washington, D.C.
20555 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Nora Bredes San Jose, Ca.
95125 SOC Coordinator 195 E. Main St_reet Jeffrey L.
Futter Smithtown, N.Y.
11787 Long Island Lighting Co.
250 Old Country Road
- Mineola, N.Y.
11501 e
3
/.
'4$_
A /,. W fT\\'
Stephep/B. Lathaffi
-*--m y--?
9 r
-v
-p gy=
r y
,am, e
+-