ML20080T350
| ML20080T350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1983 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, LBP-83-57, NUDOCS 8310200262 | |
| Download: ML20080T350 (9) | |
Text
.
October 18, 1983 DOCKETED RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 ET 19 A11:37 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board CFFICE OF SECF Lv DCO Lind;A SEs BR 'SC!i In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND FOR PERMISSION TO EXCEED SECTION 2.762 (e) PAGE LIMITATION Suffolk County yesterday filed exceptions to the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision ("PID"), LBP-83-57.
See Suffolk County Exceptions to Partial Initial Decision, October 17, 1983.
Under the NRC's rules, 10 C.F.R. S 2.762(a) and (e), the County must file a brief in support of these exceptions within 30 days, i.e., by November 16, 1983, and the brief must not exceed 70 pages.
For reasons set forth below, the County requests:
(1) that the time for filing the County's brief be extended from 30 days to 90 days (i.e.,
to January 16, 1984); and (2) that the page limit for briefs be extended from 70 pages to 200 pages.
The County needs to know the Board's decision on this matter as soon as possible.
The County therefore respectfully requests the Appeal Board to expedite consideration of this Motion.
The County on October 17, 1983 orally advised LILCO and r310200262 831018 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
~.
, _ _. _,.. ~ _ _
-2 1
the NRC Staff of its intention to file this Motion and generally described the bases for it.
The County is serving LILCO and-the Staff with the. Motion by hand or via telecopier on October.18.
LILCO and the Staff did not agree to the grant
~
of the Motion
/but did agree to file responses within 5 1
j working days of receipt of the Motion.
I.
Extension of Time to File Brief The primary reason for the County's request for an extension of time to file its brief is the size of the PID and the accompanying record and the large number and complexity of the issues which will need to be addressed an appeal.
- First, I
the PID and the underlying record are massive, with the PID itself comprising 1,400 pages and the underlying record con-i i
taining more than'20,000 pages of transcript, thousands of pages of prefiled testimony, hundreds of exhibits, numerous pleadings and Licensing Board orders, and thousands of pages of proposed findings by the parties.
To review this record with care in the preparation of an appellate brief will be exceedingly time consuming.
The Appeal Board, in the County's view, was correct when it stated that it "would border on the impossible" to prepare exceptions on the PID within l'0 days.
See Appeal Board Order, September 21, 1983.
The same basic comment applies to the substantive brief as well:
it would also border on the impossible to prepare a cogent brief on the 1/ LILCO and the Staff stated they needed to review the County's exceptions and this Motion before making a final decision on whether to oppose or support the Motion in whole or in part.
_3_
numerous PID issues in the time normally permitted under the NRC rules.
The difficulty in preparing a brief within the Section 2.762(a) time limits does not rest only on the size of the PID and the underlying record.
While that clearly is an important factor, the complexity and number of issues which must be addressed on appeal is a further reason that a time extension is required.
It is not possible to attempt to list in this Motion each of the PID issues which need to be addressed in the County's brief on appeal.
They are set forth in the exceptions which the County has filed.
Suffice it to say, however, that in addition to the County's disagreement with the Licensing Board on basically factual issues and on how the Licensing Board weighed the evidence, there also are serious policy and legal issues which are presented, including:
-- Whether an applicant can be found to comply with GDC 1 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A when there is no documented QA/QC program for items important to safety but not safety-related (Exceptions at 44, 46-47, 48, 50, 53, 54-56, 58, 72);
-- Whether LILCO's misinterpretation (as found by the Licensing Board) of the term "important to safety" creates a substantive problem or whether matters such as an applicant's design philosophy and adherence to the Standard Review Plan can compensate for such mis-interpretation (E.g.,
id.. at 5, 36, 38, 42, 43-44, 47, 49, 52);
-- Whether in assessing overall compliance with the NRC's QA/QC requirements, deficiencies in a QA/QC program should be analyzed for substantive impact (actual or potential) on plant design, construction or operation or 1
,,,,--.c,
.r, w
. ~, -
+--,
- whether the appropriate inquiry in a QA/QC context is on whether there has been rigorous implementation of all aspects of the QA/QC program (E.g.,
id. at 57, 59, 63, 76-77);
-- Whether the Licensing Board had authority to compel parties to proceed via so-called
" evidentiary depositions" during the liti-gation of Phase I emergency planning issues (id. at 81);
-- Whether the Licensing Board was correct in finding substantial compliance by LILCO with the NRC's revised environmental qualification requirements despite the fact that LILCO has compiled no list of important to safety equipment which must be qualified under 10 C.F.R.
S 50.49 (b) (2) (id. at 5-6);
-- Whether the Licensing Board improperly narrowed the scope of issues which needed to be decided on the ATWS contention (ii.
at 19);
-- Whether the NRC's QA/QC requirements in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 require an audit / inspection program whsch permits statistically valid extrapolation of in-spection/ audit results from the sample looked at to the larger population of items within the plant.
(ii. at 69-70, 74, 75, 76); and
-- Whether there must be further NEPA analyses performed for Shoreham prior to authorization to load fuel and operate at low power (ii. at 83-84).
The foregoing lir.t is by no means exhaustive.
To address these issues and the others which also could be enumerated --
and to properly relate these issues to the large record compiled below -- will require substantial time, well in excess of the 30 days provided for in the rules.
The 90-day briefing period -- constituting a 60-day extension -- is the County's best estimate of the time required
.- ~
. to address the diverse issues raised in the PID.
This briefing period is impacted by an additional factor:
during the time Suffolk County is preparing its brief, many of the same counsel who must work on that brief also will be working on the offsite emergency planning phase of this case.
Under the Licensing Board's current emergency planning schedule, that work includes:
filing and responding to summary disposition motions by October 26 and November 16, respectively; filing reports with the Licensing Board and attending a further conference of counsel on November 2 and 9, respectively; filing testimony on November 18; filing preliminary (pretrial) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and motions to strike testimony on November 28; and starting trial on December 5.
Under all of the circumstances -- the size of the PID and its accompanying record, the number and complexity of issues which must be addressed, and the press of ongoing emergency planning work -- the County respectfully submits that it has established good cause for a 60-day extension of time.
The County will, of course, agree to a similar extension for LILCO and the Staff to file their briefs, if they believe such time is needed.
II.
Page Extension The County seeks an extension of the page limitation for briefs from 70 pages to 200 pages.
This request is based upon the large number and complexity of the issues which are presented on appeal.
The discussion set forth in Section I of
- this Motion sets forth the bases for the County's view that a page extension is appropriate and thus will not be repeated here.
The County will only add the observation that more than a dozen major subject areas, as outlined in the County's exc<cptions, will need to be addressed on appeal and many of the subject areas (such as those concerning OA/QC and safety classification / systems interaction) present a number of distinct issues.
Logic indicates that when the Licensing Board requires 1,400 pages to render its decision on the diverse issues which are presented, a 70-page limitation for briefs challenging that decision is not appropriate.
Accordingly, the County respectfully requests the Board to permit the filing of briefs up to 200 pages in length.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Q4etteurs of Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, l
CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 October 18, 1983 Attorneys for Suffolk County
~
~-ai UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND FOR PERMISSION TO EXCEED SECTION 2.762(e) PAGE LIMITATION, dated October 18, 1983, have been served to the following this 18th day of October 1983 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Lawrence J.
Brenner, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George A.
Ferguson Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, New York 11801 School of Engineering Howard University W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*
2300 6th Street, N.W.
Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C.
20059 P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Dr. Peter A.
Morris Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Building 2 l
Empire State Plaza l
Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 l
General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
250 Old Country Road 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
1 l
Mineola, New York 11501 Washington, D.C.
20008 l
l i
. Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham a Shea 175 East Old Country Road P.O.
Box 398 Hicksville, New York 11801 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Jeff Smith Marc W. Goldsmith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Energy Research Group, Inc.
P.O.
Box 618 400-1 Totten Pond Road North Country Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
H.
Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H.
Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Washington, D.C.
20555 Bureau New York State Department Docketing and Service Section of Law Office of the Secretary 2 World Trade Center U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10047 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Appeal Board Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.**
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory David A. Repka, Esq.
Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Stuart Diamond Staff Counsel Environment / Energy Writer New York State Public NEWSDAY Service Commission Long Island, New York 11747 3 Rockefeller Plaza l
Albany, New York 12223
F
. Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman **
Gary J. Edles **
Howard A. Wilber *
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
%-P"f
^j Lawrence Coe Lanph6r KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
October 18, 1983 By telecopy and Federal Express
- By Hand **
w w- - -
, - ~ -
-,,,n
,---v-
,--me
,--,n-
,-n-e
- - -,.