ML20091D660
| ML20091D660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1984 |
| From: | Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8405310414 | |
| Download: ML20091D660 (8) | |
Text
____ -___ _
A uYNC 5/29/84 UNITED STATES OF AMENDDAgg 3) N0:11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.- - r rn " ~
Before the Atomic Safety and Lic'ensin'(Board q
- s ~
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR STAY OF EMERGENCY PLANNING HEARINGS Suffolk County learned on May 23, 1984 that LILCO intends to issue a new version of the LILCO Transition Plan -- Revision 4 --
sometime in the near future.1/
Among other things, this Revision is apparently intended to address the 32 deficiencies identified in the FEMA RAC Report (other than LILCO's lack of legal author-ity to implement the Plan, which was also identified by FEMA).
Based on the speculation and predictions contained both in LILCO's prefiled written testimony,and oral testimony on cross examination to date, it is clear that Revision 4*of the LILCO Plan likely will also contain many other substantive changes, additions, deletions, and modifications.
As the Board is aware, the hearing that is currently in progress is based upon prefiled testimony -- and contentions --
that deal with the proposals contained in Revision 3 of the LILCO 1/
There has been no precise date announced, but according to a statement by LILCO counsel Mr. Irwin on May 23, Revision 4 will be issued "within a few weeks."
&&fn
,,o sw u
4 2
Plan.
In adoition, the FEMA RAC Report, upon which the FEMA testimony and FEMA findings to be used by the Board under 10 t
C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(2) are based, is also based upon Revision 3 of the LILCO Plan.
Under the current schedule, the Board and parties are about to continuo hearings on Revision 3.
When LILCO issues Revision 4 and if this Board decides to consider that document in this pro-coeding, the hearings potentially will be pointless, or, at a l
minimum, will be in need of supplementation.
These hearings will 1
I be dealing with a document -- Revision 3 -- that is about to be withdrawn by LILCO, and that contains proposals that are about to l
be changods LILCO's action in revising its Plan will, in fact, rendor obsolete, inaccurate, and/or incomplete many of the con-tentions upon which this entiro prococding is promised.
Clearly, contentions as well as testimony will have to be revised, supplemented, and modified following the appearance of LILCO's changed Plan.
And, after Revision 4 appears, the issues that already have been heard concerning the Revision 3 version of l
the Plan may have to be reopened, and now hoarings may have to be conducted upon revised and supplemental testimony, in order for the record to reflect the facts as they portain to the proposals l
in Revision 4, rather than those in either Revision 3 or the speculation contained in LILCO's testimony.
Under the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations, if the Board intends to base its licensing decision on Revision 4 of the LILCO Plan, Intervenors are entitled to a hearing on its ade-4 e
O 3
l quacy, with an opportunity to submit and challenge evidence on 7
that subject.
See Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, No. 82-2053, May 25, 1984, (D.C. Cir.) (gl[g op.).
In the County's view, the Board has only two options.
On the one hand, it can decide now that it will not consider either LILCO's new version of its Plan (Revision 4), or any FEMA review j
of that Revision, but instead will base its licensing decision on I
Revision 3.2/
If such a determination were made, the hearings could continue since the profiled testimony and admitted conten-l tions addressed in that testimony all deal with Revision 3.
On the other hand, the Board could determine that it will i
accept Revision 4 of the Plan when submitted by LILCO, and will consider that' Revision in its licensing decision.
Presumably, 7
such a determination would also mean that the Board would con-sider PEMA findings relating to Revision 4 rather than, or in addition to, those relating to Revision 3.
If the Board deter-l mines to consider Revision 4, then the proceedings should be stayed.
Suf folk County requests that if the Board determines that it will consider the forthcoming Revision 4, it should immediately stay the hearings-on LILCO's Plan, pending-(1) the issuance by LILCO of its Revision 4, and (2) the setting of an appropriate schedule for the submission of revised contentions and testimony, 2/
Such a decision would be inconsistent with the Board's rulings on suffolk County's motions to strike LILCO testimony that purported to address unidentified " future revisions" or other speculation about Plan additions or modifications that may
.e be made to change Revision 3.
4
~
o e'
.4-es
/
\\
\\\\
,e as,appropiiate, given the contents of Revision 4.
In addition, intheCounty'sview,j
, c rih Board must raako the determination as to 6
whI*.hnr Y t,intendu, to consider Revision 4 now.
It would be an
,~
excaise in futility >to,procco,d! blindly with the scheduled
?
hearing; on a document that is about to be withdrawn by the k
Applicant, in the face of LILCO s stated intention to submit in the near future a W w and different version of its Plan to FEMA for revis i and to the NRC and this Board for licensing.
There are no;prwisions in the NRC regulations for the conduct of e
hearings on an emergency pi d chat is not part of the license 1.-
applicat1 7.
F/. rthermore, a continuation of the hearings would 9
,e be a useless waste of the partica' resourcos, and would only
\\
result iry more, issues that would have to be reopened lator.
4
,i SuffolkCountypouldbesbm!.olyprejudicedifitwatrorequired to ' expend its S aburces and those of its consultants twice, rasMr than once.
Accordingly, the County submits that the current he,arings should be atopped -- until such timo as LILCO's t
.,\\
Revision 4 has baan made available to overyono, and contentions and testimon)
.he,boonmodifiedorsupplomontedasnecessary.
Suffolk County submits that an immediato stay of the pro-credinge is the only ap/ l ropriate responuo to LILCO's announced
/
f.
5 intention to submit'4 nbw vorsion of its Plan to this Docrd and e
to FEMA.
f' t
e
/
l f.,.
r' y
j r
y I
gf
,kf I
=
<4 f*,
/
\\
f,
,4
(
+
~
\\
- 4 -
/
Respectfully _ submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare
' Suffolk-County' Department of Law
- Veterans Memorial.' Highway Hauppauge,- New York 11788
, k Lawr# ripe _ Coe Lanphe Karla J. Letsche
-Michael S.
Miller Christopher'M..McMurray KIRKPATRICK,.LOCKHART, HILL,
' CHRISTOPHER =& PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County DATED:
May 29, 1984 3
4 J
e S
7 l _.
O
~
=
T c
,=
+
v "s, '/,'
O E
- ~
g q
"t g
- 3_
~
h V
T F-b y[
e-bT T-T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCPY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safety And Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SEPVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County Motion for Stay of Emergency Planning Hearings have been served on the following this 29th day of May 1984, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic. Safety'and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline
- W.
Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Willaims U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 1535 Washington, D.C.
20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 1
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon 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 Empire-St:te Plaza Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel l
Long Island Lighting Company l
250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 By Hand By Telecopier-
r o
Mr.. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O.
Box 398 P.O.
Box 618 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition 1717 H Street, N.W.
195 East Main Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Marc W.
Goldsmith Hon. Peter F.
Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc.
Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road H.
Lee Dennison Building Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Joel Blau, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
New York Public Service Commission Suffolk County Attorney The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller H.
Lee Dennison Building Building Veterans Memorial Highway Empire State Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear-Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear' Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Edwin J.
Beis, Esq.
Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York State U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany,- New York 12223 Stuart Diamond
- Stewar t. M.
Glass, Esq.
Business /Financiel Regional Counsel NEW YORK TIMES Federal Emergency Management l
229 W.
43rd Street
_ 26 Federal Plaza Agency New York, New York 10036 l
--2 i
l
o
-Spence _ Perry, Esq.
James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
Associate General, Counsel 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20008 Washington, D.C.
20471
- Fabian Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 I~
,y y
e
Kar l.a J. Letsoftd KIRKPATRICK,A.OCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE: May 29, 1984
- l 9
4 I
l-
--/
/
.].i../
e j
.