ML20050C132
| ML20050C132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1982 |
| From: | Brenner L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204080177 | |
| Download: ML20050C132 (6) | |
Text
os.
- y tu r E' g2 [5 -6 FDI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Be,' ore Administrative Judges
SERVED APR 6 1982 Lawrenc'e Brenner, Chairma_n Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Peter A. Morris
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-0L
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
April 5, 1982 GI s
b,~
Unit 1)
)
\\
)
\\
~ i%, 7:,,
CONFIRMATORY ORDER REGARDING 9]
.h[ 19S25 $
EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES
+ '! ) {g, y 4
?
.During a conference call on April 2,1982, the Board directed intervenors and participants to file a written outline reasonably specifying the subjects they contemplate addressing in emergency planning contentions.
The outline shall be received if possible or April 13, 1982 at the site visit or limited appearance session, but in any event no later than e
commencement of the April 14 prehearing conference. The particpants seeking to raise emergency planning issues shall coordinate, and where practicable, consolidate their filings.
~
=.
3
.y
- The purpose of the filing is to provide a basis for an informed discussion at the prehearing conference to determine whether there are emergency planning issues which can and should be litigated in advance of the finalization of the incomplete draft Suffolk County emergency plan. The subjects listed must therefore be sufficiently precise to serve this purpose rather than just being broad subject areas, e.g., " communications, warning, staffing, etc."
However, the subjects listed need not be in the specific 1
form and language with accompanying basis which would be required of contentions or issues raised by governmertal participants.
The Board requested that the NRC Staff attempt to arrange for FEMA I
personnel f amiliar with the final and draft emergency plans pertinent to this case to atter.d the prehearing conference.
We expect to solicit FEMA's advice as to which portions of the existing plans could productively be reviewed by FEMA and thereafter this Board before the County's plan is completed.
, Suffolk County's, most recent estimate is that its completed plan will not be submitted to the County Executive before September 15, 1982.
It will thereafter have to L2 reviewed by him, considered by the County Legislature, reviewed by FEMA, and be the subject of contentions and preparation of testimony in this proceeding and then litigated before us.
These procedures will not likely permit a decision by this Board on affected issues before a year from now, in the Spring of 1983. The Board has the responsibility to make an informed decisir 1 whether any emergency pl~anning issues can be the subject of contentions and testimony.in advance of completion of the e
-9_--
) County's emergency plan, rather than just assuming in the abstract that all emergency planning issues will be so inherently affected by later developments as to make it impractical to proceed.
Indeed, as outlined in the conference call, the Board believes it may be feasible and practicable to litigate various aspects of emergency planning prior to completion of the County's plan, without delving very much if at al.1 into areas of the plan which the County has indicated it is still working on.
If the Board does rule that there are aspects of emergency planning which are ripe for litigation now, we preliminarily anticipate setting a schedule for such issues as outlined during the conference call. That schedule contemplates the filing of contentions, with agreements or disagreements as to admissibility, by May 25, 1982; the completion of discovery by the end of June; the filing of testimony on July 20; and the hearing of the testimony comencing in August,1982.
T'he above proposed schedule for the hearing of these issues in August of course depends on whether the hearing comencing in May on issues other than emergency planning is completed by the end of July, 1982. Such an estimated completion date is consistent.with the generally accepted estimate of one hearing day per contention. However, at this time the Board has no basis to know whether the general estimate will prove correct.
Our purpose is to
-avoid precluding by inaction.the possibility of beginning to hear evidence on emergency planning issues as early as August,1982.
As stated during the conference call, the Board's time during the two month period in
-8
) which the parties are preparing proposed findings on the non-emergency planning issues can be effectively engaged in hearing evidence on emergency planning issues which are ripe for litigation.
As noted during the conference call, the parties may have to prepare for the hearing to continue on emergency planning issues during the period for preparation of proposed findings, on other iss es.
This could entail specialization among the multiple intervenors with similar issues and among multiple counsel for the same party.
The schedule proposed will be discussed further at the prehearing conference on April 14, 1982.
The Board also informed the parties that due to the courtesy of Suffolk County, which the Board greatly appreciates, the hbaring room for most of the first phase of the hearing will be the Suffolk County Legislature's hearing chambers in Riverhead, New York. The evidentiary hearing will convene there on May ', 1982, at 10:30 AM. The parties are reminded that the hearing will generally be in session from Tuesday through Friday, and that there will be recesses the week of May 17 and again on August 6 through the following week of August 9-13.
It is also likely that the hearing will t. in recess the week of May 10, but this is not yet certain.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIMi BOARD a
i M
, Chairman Lawrence Brenner ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Mar")and April 5, 1982
f
?
Docket No. 50-322 OL COURTESY NOTIFICATION As circumstances warrant from time to time, the Board will mail one copy of its orders and memoranda directly to each party, petitioner or other interested participant. This is intended solelyuas a courtesy and convenience to those served to provide extra time. Official service will be separate from the courtesy notification and will continue to be made by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission.
Unless otherwise stated, time periods will be computed from the official service.
I hereby certify that I have today mailed the Board's memorandum of this date to the persons designated on the attached Courtesy Notification List.
GDenda P. 5dmerville-Campbell F Secretary, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board April 5, 1982 9
?
COURTESY NOTIFICATION LIST W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton and Williams 700 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 1
i Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 i
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York Stpte Public Servic,e Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i
,