ML20049K095
| ML20049K095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049K091 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203290402 | |
| Download: ML20049K095 (6) | |
Text
6 the rulemaking is whether to require automatic initiation of the SLSC for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs).
We agree with Applicant's application of the Douglas Point and Rancho SecoE ases only to a limited extent. Where a generic matter c
is in rulemaking and will have little if any effect in the interim on the licensing of the individual plant, then there is no harm in issuing a license even if the rulemaking is not resolved.
However, where a generic issue has a direct bearing on the safe operation of the individual plant and the ability of that plant to meet present regulations, the issue cannot be put aside for resolution after the issuance of the license simply because it is the subject of an uncompleted generic rulemaking proceeding.
To do so would permit blanket exemptions from the regulation without underlying supporting findings for all plants which could fortuitously be licensed while a rulemaking proceeding is pending.
However, an individual Licensing Board must have a sensitive regard, consistent with the regulations, for the relationship of the rulemaking proceeding to the individual proceeding. Therefore, it may of ten be. prudent to defer consideration of an issue so long as it appears that the rulemaking may be completed before the individual plant licensing decision will be reached. That is not the case here. We expect to complete the hearing this 18/ otomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, P
B AEC 79, 83-85 (1974).
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco), ALAB-655,14 NRC 799, 816-17 (1981).
8203290402 820325 DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR y
i
8 subject matter) and on all of SOC's contentions on which the County wishes to take a position through the filing of direct testimony. The coordination shall to the extent practicable, be pursued in good faith, without unduly burdening either S0C or SC, but also without unduly burdening the proceeding with duplicative testimony.
Where practicable, S0C and SC are encouraged to co-sponsor joint written testimony, and shall where possible co-sponsor panel presentations of similar written testimonies. Similarly, where their positions
~
are similar, the Staff and LILCO shall co-sponsor joint panel presentations of their written testimonies.
In view of the coordination we are now seeking, and our confidence that the parties will pursue this in good faith with the result of much more efficient hearing, the Board can be more flexible on the schedule for the filing of testimony than was indicated at the hearing. We discuss this below.
EmergencyPlanningContentionsEI SOC Contentions 1 and 2, as framed by the filings of SOC in response to the motions for summary disposition by LILC0 and the Staff, and SOC's response to the Board's Order of February 8,1982, and the discussion at the conference (Tr. 346-385), were dismissed as a challenge to the Comission's emergency planning regulations.
10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Our reasons were outlined at the Conference.
(Tr. 388-92).
E! SOC Contention 12 (Part 2),.regarding downcomer supports was withdrawn (Tr. 325).
l
I scheduled in advance of off-site emergency planning.
(Tr. 450-52.)
If the OHILI/NSC intervenor group wishes to participate, it must contact the parties.E!
The Board also directed the respective parties to file by March 29 the documentation in their possession, along with whatever explanations or caveats they wish to make as to e.g.,
the incomplete draft nature of the material, its lack of usefulness or applicability for emergency planning issues, the fact that the further final documents will be forthcoming (and when), etc. The NRC Staff shall file its existing computer run of the CRAC code for Shoreham.
LILC0 shall file its accident consequence study.
Suffolk County shall file its draft emergency (including evacuation) plan.
(Tr. 397.)
In addition by March 29, the County will file its schedule for completion of its emergency plan, including interim milestones if possible and a description of what remains to be done. The Staff will provide a status and schedule for all other pertinent emergency plans and the FEMA review. Counsel for the New York State Energy Office and Public Service Commission will provide further detail with respect to the status of the State plan.
(Tr.
397-99.)EI EIThe broad NSC/0 HILI contention 7(j) will be dismissed if it is not particularized on the schedule to be established for on-site and off-site emergency planning contentions.
(Tr.400.)
EIAlthough not tied to emergency planning, we confirm here that, also by March 29, the Staff will file a status report detailing the schedule of the remaining Staff review, focusing on matters related to contentions in the proceeding.
(Tr. 436-37.).
In addition, the Staff and LILC0 will each file by March 29 their estimates, or range of estimates, for the completion of construction of Shoreham, with explanation of the uncertainties.
(Tr.
449-50).
l,
tne rulemaking is whether to require automatic initiation of the SLSC for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs).
We agree with Applicant's application of the Douglas Point and rlancno SecM cases only to a limited extent.
Where a generic matter is in rulemaking and will have little if any effect in the interim on the licensing of the individual plant, then there is no harm in issuing a license even if the rulemaking is not resolved.
However,"where a generic issue has a direct bearing on the safe operation of the individual plant. and the_ ability of that plant to meet present regulations, the issue cannot be put aside for resolution after the issuance of the license simply because it is the subject of an uncompleted generic rulemaking proceeding.
To do so would permit blanket exemptions from the regulation without underlying supporting findings for all plants whicn could fortuitously be licensed while a rulemaking proceeding is pending.
However, an individual Licensing Board must have a sensitive regard, consistent with the regulations, for the relationship of the rulemaking proceeding to the individual proceeding.
Therefore, it may often be prudent to defer consideration of an issue so long as it appears that the rulemaking chttision
[may be completed before the individual plant licensing ddga will be reached.
That is not the case here.
We expect to complete the hearing this
$ Potomac' Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 6 AEC 79, 83-85 (1974).
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancno
~ ~~
Seco), ALAB-655,14 NRC 799, 816-17 (1981).
4
=
M 24 -
D s # subject matter) and on all of SOC's contentions which the County wishes to take b / a position -ek~through the filing of direct testimony.
The coordination shall to the extent practicable, pursued in good faith, witnout unduly bLrdening v
eitner SOC or SC, but also without unduly burdening the proceeding with duplicative testimony.
Where practicable, S0C and SC are encouraged to co-sponsor joint written testimony, and shall where possible co-sponsor panel presentations of similar written testimonies.
Similarly, where their positions are similar, tne Staff and LILC0 shall co-sponsor joint panel presentations of tneir written testimonies.
In view of the coordination we are now seeking, and out. confidence that the parties will pursue this in good faith with the result of much more efficient hearing, the Board can be more flexible on the schedule for the filing of testimony than was indicated at the hearing.
We discuss this Delow.
EmergencyPlanningContentions}/
2 SOC Contentions 1 and 2, as framed by the filings of S0C in response to the motions for summary disposition by LILC0 and the Staff, and SOC's response to the Board's Order of February 8,1982, and the discussion at the conference 1
(Tr. 345-385), were dismissed 'as a challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
10 CFR s 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, Our reasons were outlined at the Conference.
(Tr. 388-92).
h we.o # r V
2!/ SOC Contention 12 (Part 2), regarding dcun temm$k supports was withdrawn (Tr. 325).
Q n
wem e
o e
4 1
J.
scheduled in advance of off-site emergency planning.
(Tr. 450-52.)
If the f
as OHILI/NSC intervenor group wish to participate, it must contact the parties.EI The Board also directed the respective parties to file by Marcn 29 the documentation in their possession, along with whatever explanations or caveats they wish to make as to e.g., the incomplete draft nature of the material, its lack of usefulness or applicability for emergency planning issues, the fact that the further final documents will be forthcoming (and wnen), etc. Tne NRC Staff shall file its existing computer run of the CRAC code for Shoreham.
LILCO shall file its accident consequence study.
Suffolk County shall file its draf t emergency (including evacuation) plan.
(Tr. 397.)
In addition by March 29, the hounty will file its schedule for completion of its emergency plan including interim milestones if possible and a description of what remains to be done.
The Staff will provide a status and l
schedule for all other pertinent emergency plans and the FEMA review.
Counsel M
V for'New York State Energy Office and Public Service Commission wil.1 provide further detail with respect to,the status of the State plan.
(Tr.
397-99.)El EITne broad NSC/0 HILI contention 7(j) will be dismissed if it is not particularized on the senedule to be established for on-site and off-site emergency planning contentions.
(Tr. 400. )
EIAltho' ugh not tied to emergency planning, we confirm here that, also by March 29, the Staff will file _a_ status report detailing the schedule of the remaining Staff. review, focusing on matters related to contentions in the proceeding.
(Tr.
436-37.).
In addition, the Staff and LILC0 will each file by March 29 tneir estimates, or range of estimates, for the empletion of construction of Shoreham, with explanation of the uncertainties.
(Tr.
449-50).
-.