ML20054D867
| ML20054D867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1982 |
| From: | Brenner L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204230460 | |
| Download: ML20054D867 (12) | |
Text
,
Em:Tirn F
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y2 I" 21 A 7 F' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- f. <:
['7'Qc,9/
Before Administrative Judges:
sf oggg, N Lawrence Brenner, Chairman Dr. James H. Carpenter G ENv I
$2 Dr. Peter A. Morris
~
? e 9a,03
.x9 f'
TS ';:.jys* '
o jp {.s
/
\\
v In the Matter of
)
d
)
/im LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-0L
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
April 20, 1982 Unit 1)
)
)
PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER This order recites the actions taken at the prehearing conference held on April 14, 1982, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.752.
Hearing Schedule As previously established, the evidentiary hearing will commence on May 4,1982, at 10:30 AM. Af ter May 7, the hearing will recess until May 25, at 10:30 AM.
Thereafter, the hearing will continue, generally on a Tuesday
~ hrough Friday schedule. A notice of the precise hearing locations is being t
issued separately.
Suffolk County requested that the recess currently scheduled for August 6 through 16 be extended to the end of August.
Tr. 822.
The Board has determined to grant the request in part.
The recess will be extended one more week through August 23, 1982.
g6 820423oyGd:-
o t
In addition, the Board has reconsidered the arguments by 50C that a one week recess in the middle of the scheduled eleven weeks of hearing between May 25 and August 5 would assist the quality of the record by allowing for additional preparation. Tr. 817-20.
We agree.
It now appears to the Board that the week of June 28 would be the most productive week to take such a recess since it will occur precisely in the middle of the eleven weeks and will also permit more time for preparation of cross-examination of the testimony which will be received on June 22.
The Board is not presently inclined to schedule a recess earlier than June 22 because it would not likely serve the purpose of allowing the Board and the parties to keep up with hearing preparation based on the filed testimony as well as a recess near or at the end of June would.
We believe that SOC's other purpose of suggesting an earlier recess to permit more time for the preparation of the direct testimony to be filed on June 22 has been met by the several Board decisions which have stretched out t,he schedule for the filing of that testimony, from mid-April, 1982'to June 22, 1982.
In light of the above observations, the parties should attempt to agree on which week the recess should be taken, and inform the Board of their views by June 8,1982.
Testimony Schedule Pursuant to prior orders and agreement among the parties (Tr. 703), the sequence of hearing contentions on which testimony was filed by April 14, 1982, commencing on May 4,1982, will be as follows:
1
s.
SC/ SOC 78 - Methodology for Systems Interaction and Safety 1.
Classification (SC/ SOC testimony only) 2.
SC 17 - Fire Protection 3.
50C 19(j) - Turbine Orientation 4.
SC 11 - Passive Mechanical Valve Failure 5.
SC 10 - ECCS Core Spray 6.
SC 5 - Loose Parts Monitoring 7.
SC 2 - Diesel Generator Relays 8.
SC 4 - Water Hammer 9.
SC 9 - ECCS Pump Blockage Pursuant to Suffolk County's request, the County, LILC0 and the NRC Staff are permitted to supplement their testimony on contention SC 4 based on any new information in the recently provided draft "Quadrex Report" prepared for the NRC Staff.
The revised testimony must be received by the Board and the affected parties by April 21, 1982.
Tr. 654-55.
The sequence for hearing contentions on which testimony will be received on May 4, must be jointly provided by the parties on May 4.
Tr. 656.
Pursuant to the request of the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC), some of the testimony now due on May 25 may be deferred until June 22. The parties will agree which such testimony can be deferred and inform the Board
.by April 27.
The decision on how much testimony can be deferred until June 22 shall be based on the need to assure that there will not be a time gap between completion of the litigation on earlier filed testimony and July 6.
July 6 would normally be the earliest date for commencement of litigation of
]
testimony filed two weeks earlier on June 22. Tr. 819-20.
l 4
s.
The NRC Staff estimates that it will issue its completed analysis of the remote shutdown panel, which is the subject of contention SC 1, by the end of April, 1982. The parties shall arrange for expedited delivery of the Staff's analysis to counsel and experts. The parties shall file any discovery requests based on any new information in the Staff's completed analysis so that the requests are received not later than seven (7) days after the Staff's analysis is received.
Objections shall be received not later than seven (7) days after receipt of the discovery requests.
Motions to compel shall be received not later than three (3) days after receipt of the objections, unless good cause is shown. for some additional time. The motion to compel may be made orally on the record if we are in hearing at the time.
Responses to discovery requests shall be received not later than 14 days after receipt of the discovery requests.
Testimony on SC 1 shall be received 40 days after receipt of the Staff's completed analysis, or June 22, 1982, whichever is later. The above sched,ule shall be adjusted to the next business day where an action wo61d otherwise be required on a non-business day. Tr. 674-76.
The NRC Staff further estimates that it will issue its' completed analyses of environmental qualification of equipment (related to contentions SC 8 and.S0C 19(h)) in June,1982, and containment isolation (related to contention SC 23) by September,1982. The above discovery schedule, but not necessarily the testimony filing schedule, applicable to new information in the Staff's analysis of the remote shutdown panel will also apply to new information in the Staff's completed analyses of the other two subjects when
they are received. The NRC Staff promptly shall advise the Board of any changes in the estimated schedule for completion of its analyses.
Cross-Examination Plans The Memorandum and Order of March 19, 1982, which set forth the requirements for cross-examination plans, is modified with respect to SOC and Suffolk County, pursuant to the request of 50C.
The middle full paragraph on page 4 of that order directed to the coordination of Staff and LILCO cross-examination plans shall also apply to SOC and the County, in place of the requirement that a single cross-examination plan (absent special circumstances) be filed by S0C and the County. As part of the coordination required, 50C and the County shall still be required to determine the order in which they will cross-examine, and so indicate on the cross-examination p1ans.
Tr. 658-70.
Cross-examination plans for all testimony received on April 14 (and any supplemental testimony on SC 4 received by April 21) must be received by the Board by April 27.
Depending on the progress of the evidentiary hearing during the week of May 4, cross-examination plans on some of the testimony to be received on May 4 will have to be received by the Board by Thursday,.May 13.
The precise testimony on which plans will be due will be determined at the hearing on May 7.
Cross-examination plans on the remainder of the testimony to be filed by May 4 will have to be received by the Board by May
- 25. Tr. 657.
Security Contentions Suffolk County has filed twelve security plan contentions, consisting of contentions 1-7 and an addendum of additional contentions 1-5.
In the absence of objection by the Staff or LILCO, those contentions are admitted as phrased in their protected form. A non-protected formulation of the contentions has also been helpfully provided by the County.
It has been filed publicly and formally in the proceeding.
The contentions shall hereafter be referred to as "Secur1+y Contention
, to distinguish them from other numbered contentions in the proceeding.
The addendum contentions 1 through 5 shall hereafter be referred to as security contentions 7 through 12, respectively.
The County was given leave to file an additional security contention based on the EASI analysis so that it is received by the Staff by April 28.
The filing shall include whether the Staff or LILC0 object to its admissibility.
The Staff will deliver the filing by protected means to the Board and LILC0 by April 30. An agreed upon non-protected version of the contention shall, also be filed as soon as practicable with the Board.
If we agree it need not be protected, we will direct that it be filed formally as part of a refiled listing of non-protected security contentions 1 through 12, plus additional number (s) for the April 28 EASI contentions. Tr. 721-23.
Discovery on the security contentions shall be completed by June 22, 1982. Absent special circumstances, discovery will be limited to direct exchanges of information and review of documents.
The Board will permit
depositions if they are necessary.
Interrogatories will be permitted only upon the extraordinary unanticipated showing that there are no other reasonable means to obtain the information sought. Tr. 737.
The written direct testimony on security contentions shall be received by July 20, 1982. Prior to that time, the parties shall jointly propose the detailed in camera procedures needed to govern the future course of the litigation'of the security contentions.
The Board expects that these contentions will be heard in the NRC's Bethesda hearing room. Tr. 7 36.
Emergency P1anning Contentions Emergency planning contentions based on LILC0's emergency plan must be E' amples of subjects which would be received by June 22, 1982.
Tr. 802.
x included in this category, if parties wish to advance contentions on them, are:
1.
Notification by LILC0 of State and local response organizations 2.
Communications between LILC0 and State and local response organizations 3.
Arrangements for assistance resources needed onsite, such as medical services.
4.
The Emergency Operations Facility (E0F), including arrangements to accommodate representatives of response organizations.
5.
Methods and equipment for LILC0 to assess and monitor actual or potential onsite and offsite radiological releases and doses.
l 6.
The siren notification system in the approximate 10 mile plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) proposed by LILCO.
(This does not preclude a possible later determination that the EPZ, and therefore the siren system, must be expanded or otherwise modified due to the effect of persons outside and to the east of the proposed EPZ choosing to evacuate through the EPZ.)
Parties filing emergency pl&nning contentions shall do so in a consolidated filing as noted at Tr. 802-3. The contentions shall be discussed with the NRC Staff and LILC0 prior to filing so that their positions on admissibility can also be received on June 22. Tr. 804.
All discovery of existing documents related to emergency planning should be completed as soon as possible, and no later than June 22. A schedule for other forms of discovery will be established by June 22.
Informal discovery meetings among counsel and experts should be utilized fully, starting now, to avoid the later need for extensive interrogatories and depositions.
The schedule for the filing of testimony of those contentions filed on June 22 which are admitted will be established later.
The schedule will depend in part upon the completion of the NRC Staff's analysis of the onsite emergency exercise which is not scheduled until the end of July,1982. Tr. 804-5.
The NRC Staff shall advise promptly if t,his estimated schedule changes.
As, discussed in our Confirmatory Order Regarding Emergency Planning Issues, dated April 5,1982, the schedule estimated by Suffolk County for completion, review and approval of its emergency plan will not likely permit a decision by this Board on affected issues until the Spring of 1983. The beginning point for this estimate is the submission of a draft plan for review by the County Executive, now scheduled to occur by October 1,1982.
Suffolk County shall inform the Board promptly if this estimated schedule changes.
Proposed Findings Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.754,. all parties are required to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues in which they have participated or have an interest.
Failure to do so shall be deemed a def'ault on the particular issue. The particular format for proposed findings will be discussed in the course of the proceeding. Proposed findings which are complete, accurate, balanced and supported by the evidentiary record clearly have the best chance of being relied upon by the Board.
Even where not directly adopted, such findings should be a valuable guide to the evidentiary record, since the Board's memories, hearing notes and record research cannot generally be the equivalent of the record research conducted by the interested litigating parties on matters in controversy.
The Board contemplates that proposed findings will be required pursuant to the schedule of s2.754 aft.er completion of litigation of issues other than security or emergency planning (except possibly for the two issues on which the NRC Staff review may still be open -- environmental qualification and containment isolation).
Security issues will be litigated after the completion of the other non-emergency planning issues.
The parties should be prepared for the hearing to continue on security issues during the period for preparation of proposed findings on other issues.
10 -
i Pursuant to 10 CFR s2.752, objections to this order may be filed with the Board by a party within five days of service of the order, except that the NRC Staff may file objections within ten days of service.
Any objections which would affect the first week of the hearing shall be received as soon as possible, and not later than the morning of April 30, 1982.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A
, Chairman Lawrence Brenner ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland April 20, 1982 4
4 I
l
(
1 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 solely as 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 memorandtsn of this date to the persons designated on the attached Courtesy Notification List.
&$)LY4v a4/h Glpnda P.,Totnerville-Campbell /
Secretary, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Apri1 20, 1982
[
l l
l COURTESY NOTIFICATION LIST l
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 Commissi.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
^
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor a
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 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 State Public Service Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
.