ML20093F363
| ML20093F363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1984 |
| From: | Mccaffrey B LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093F343 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8407190012 | |
| Download: ML20093F363 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ LILCO, July 16, 1984
)k
^
UNI".ED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1
Inithe Matternof- )
)
cLONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
) (Low Power)
- -(Shoreham-Nuclear Power Station, )-
Unit 1) ) , TESTIMONY OF BRIAN R. McCAFFREY ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Q.1. P, lease state your name and business address. JL ,My name is Brian R. McCaffrey. My business address is
? i Long Island' Lighting Co., Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta-tion, Wading River, New York -
11792 , 9 Q.2. What is your occupation? A. I am employed by LILCO as the Manager, Nuclear Licens-ing and Regulatory Affairs in the Nuclear Operations Support Department Q;3.- What are'your responsibilities as Manager, Nuclear Li- ; censing and Regulatory Affairs? A.-.. As Manager,' Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, I am responsible for the overall management of the compa- , l Hny's. licensing activities of the Shoreham station. My L .5 . k B407190012 840714 PDR ADOCM 09000322 T pm 'y
~ .f3 L~/
organization is the primary contact with the Nuclear C Regulatory Commission and Institute of Nuclear Power Operation'(INPO) and is responsible for receiving and determining the corporate position and response to any regulatory issue affecting the station. As part of my duties, I am required to be familiar with the substance of regulatory issues and LILCO's activities that deal with those issues. I am responsible for all licensing activities leading to an Operating License as well as the conduct of the various ASLB proceedings underway.
.In this capacity, I coordinate LILCO's efforts to re-spond to discovery, LILCO's technical review of conten-() tions submitted by intervenors, the preparation of tes-timony by LILCO witnesses.and support activities during the hearing process. I also play an active role in the procurement of expert assistance for dealing with li-censing issues and testifying in hearings. 'My organi-zation is also responsible-for maintenance of Policies, Programs and Directives for the Office of Nuclear and for the assessment of emerging licensing issues.
Q.4. Please summarize your previous employment and educa-tional experience. A. A copy of my resume (Attachment 1) was previously sub-mitted in the Shoreham operating license proceeding as
-n. '
()
- - . - , - . - - , - - - - - - - - - - - -. -,- - - , ----,--,--.--------,---w _
v -
%)
LILCO Exhibit 35, item 4. Let me summarize'and update that information. I joined LILCO in January 1973, as
- an associate engineer-in the Mechanical and Civil Engi-neering Department. In 1975, . I was named a senior en-I gineerlin the department and appointed as Project l
Coordinator-Gas Turbine Installations. As a senior.en-
- l l
gineer,.I was also assigned as the Lead Mechanical En- ! l
'gineer-for Nuclear Projects. In October 1977, I was transferred'to LILCO's nuclear organization.. Since that timeLI have held various positions relating to the Shoreham~ Nuclear Power Station.. These positions in-clude Senior Licensing Engineer; Project Engineer; As-sistant Project Manager-Engineering-& Licensing; Manag-
{) l er, Project' Engineering; and Manager, Nuclear Compliance and Safety. In May 1984, I was named Manag-er, Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. In many , of these positions, I was involved in and familiar with
~
LILCO's efforts to. license Shoreham. Prior to joining LILCO, I was employed by the Grumman Aerospace Engi-nearing Corporation involved with aerodynamic design and flight test stability and control testing of the F-14A aircraft. Q.5. Mr. McCaffrey,1please describe your educational back-I ground. , I i ([)
.-~.w.ee-.-.----w,,-,..-me-,.m.w.---w. iv.-
r:; w
+%
A. 'I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engi-neering from the University of Notre Dame, a Master of
. Science degree.in Aerospace Engineering from Pennsylvania State University and a Master of Science
. degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Polytechnic In-
- stituteoof New York.
- Q.6. Are you-a member of any professional societies?
A. I am a member of the American Society of Mechanical En-gineers, the Long Island Section of the American Nucle-P ar Society and am a Registered Professional Engineer in New York. O.' D) Q.7. What is the purpose of your testimony?
- A ~. . -The purpose of.this testimony is to address several as-pects of the circumstances surrounding LILCO's applica-tion for an exemption from GDC 17 which justify
. granting LILCO's request. I will describe LILCO's ex-tensive efforts to meet GDC 17's requirements for an onsite power; source, the resources LILCO has been re-quired to devote to the Shoreham licensing proceedings,
~
, and the effect of this proceeding on the perception of the likelihood that Shoreham can ever be licensed. n k). I l
' ~ '
LILCO's Good Faith Efforts Q.8. Why are LILCO's efforts to comply with GDC 17 pertinent to LILCO's application for an exemption from GDC 17? 9 A. The Commission's May 16, 1984 Order indicated that LILCO had to submit a request for an exemption under 10 CFR $ 50.12(a) in order to obtain further consideration I of its low power license application. The Commission noted that LILCO's application should discuss the "exi-gent circumstances" that favor granting the request. One of the considerations the Commission explicitly mentioned was LILCO's good faith in attempting to com-(} ply with GDC 17. This testimony demonstrates that LILCO has made a good faith effort to meet GDC 17. Q.9. How has LILCO made such a good faith effort? A. There are a number of indications of LILCO's good faith efforts: (1) The original design of the Shoreham plant included an onsite power source that was intended to meet the requirements of GDC 17. (2) When problems with the TDI diesel generators were discovered, LILCO undertook extensive efforts to ensure that these diesels would reliably perform the functions required of them by GDC 17.
m g,- . _( 3)'As a contingency, LILCO is installing three addi-tional diesel generators manufactured by Colt Industries to ensure that there will be a qualified
- * -onsite source of emergency power for Shoreham as required by GDC.17.
.(4) As demonstrated in LILCO's other low power testimo-ny,.LILCO has provided significant enhancements of the offsite system to assure that AC power will be
, , available inLthe event offsite power is lost during low power testing.
.Qi10.- Is'it significant that Shoreham's original design.in-cluded qualified diesel. generators?
~
A. Yes. LILCO's request for an exemption is not the re-sult of an attempt-to avoid GDC 17's. requirements for
. qualified diesel: generators at Shoreham. LILCO's orig-inal intent, as reflected.in Section 8.2 of the Shoreham FSAR,'was to provide fully' qualified diesel generators-to comply with-GDC 17._ Importantly, LILCO still' intends to provide' fully qualified diesel genera .
.-x
. tors for Shoreham. LILCO is only requesting an exemp-tion from these requirements as an interim measure to allow fuel load and low power testing of the plant prior to completion of litigation concerning the reliability of the TDI diesels. In fact, two-TDI O
'~'
diesels have completed preoperational testing and a modified integrated electrical test (i.e., demonstrated plant response to a loss of offsite power coincident with LOCA), and are available to perform their intended function. Q.11. Will.you please explain LILCO's efforts to ensure that the TDI. diesel generators will operate reliably and, thereby, meet GDC 17. A. LILCO's efforts to ensure that the TDI. diesel genera-tors operate reliably can be divided into two phases -- (1) efforts prior to the failure of the crankshaft on f] diesel generator 102 in August 1983, and (2) efforts a following that failure. Prior to the crankshaft failure, LILCO included in Shoreham's design three emergency diesel generators in-tended to meet all applicable regulatory requirements for onsite power sources. With these requirements in mind, specifications for these machines were developed by Stone & Webster and LILCO. LILCO purchased three diesel generators from Transamerica Delaval, Inc, requiring that these machines be manufactured in accer-dance with the approved specifications. (~) '
- 's_/
L
?>
i'$ Once the diesels arrived on site and were installed in Lthe plant, LILCO subjected them to a preoperational
. test program which used a building block approach.
This program had been completed except for an integrat-ed electrical test when.the crankshaft failed on diesel generator 102. Q.12. -Could you please explain LILCO's building block ap-proach to testing? A. The TDI diesel generator preoperational test program started with checkout and initial operation (C&IO) tests of individual components such as pumps, air com-pressors, pressure switches and.the like. After these (}_ ' tests, components were tested again as part of a system or subsystem. Through system flushes and specific C&IO
, testing, there was functional demonstration of support i' ' systems such as lube oil, fuel oil starting air,.and others.
+
'The C&IO testing was followed by mechanical, electrical and qualification preoperational tests. The mechanical preoperational test verified the operability of each
[ diesel and its supporting auxiliary systems. Simi-larly, the electrical preoperational test demonstrated the capabilities of the diesel generator electric sys-
' tem'and' included a 24 hour full load run (22 hours at
( C)'-
4 l l (~Y \ The full load, 2 hours at overload) and a 72 hour run. j
. I qualification preoperational test demonstrated the ;
1 I ability of each diesel to perform 23 consecutive starts. -All of these tests had been completed at the time the diesel generator 102 crankshaft failed. In addition, LILCO had planned to perform an integrated electrical test which would have tested the plant's en-tire electrical power supply system and the loads it supplies under simulated loss of coolant accident and loss of offsite power conditions. I should add that pre-crankshaft failure testing-included enhancements LILCO imposed to provide additional measures of their (} reliability above and beyond regulatory norms. Q.13. Did this test program identify any problems with the diesels? A. Yes. As expected, the Shoreham test program identified problem areas that needed correction. Q.14. And what was LILCO's response to these problems? A. In addition to carrecting each individual problem that was identified, LILCO performed a review of the op-erability of the TDI diesels. This Diesel Generator Operational Review Program initiated in March 1983 in-volved a complete review of each problem encountered O l
P - sl - with the Shoreham diesels and resulted in recommenda-
$ ions for improved reliability. LILCO reviewed this program with the NRC Staff on June 30, 1983 and subse-quently submitted a report on it.
Q.15. Following the failure of the crankshaft of diesel gen-erator.102 in August 1983, what steps did LILCO take to ensure that-the TDI diesels could be relied upon to meet the requirements of GDC 17? A. LILCO engaged the services of a nationally known engi-sq neering firm, Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA), with-in two days of the failure to conduct a comprehensive (J investigation into the cause of the failure. FaAA was physically on the job less than four days after the 1 failure. The effort involved: (1) inspection of the crankshaft on DG 101 and 103 for
-indications of similar problems;
.(2) complete metallurgical analysis of the failed crankshaft; (3) strain gauge and torsiograph' testing of one of the remaining original crankshafts to determine actual stresses'on'the shaft; (4) complete disassembly.and inspection of all three diesel engines to replace the original crankshafts-
- l. with crankshaft of an improved design, and to
y . I; Q:- NQ ' ' E b, ~ u. i1 ' L.: w. . , . ~
~
'f~ !
sc, - lN A v' . 1assesa'any damage toIthe engines as a result of the
% ~
crankshaft problems; and 4 S, (5) design analysis using finite element modeling/ modal
. _J ;i. .
isuperposition analysis to ascertain dynamic tor-W'~ b sional response of the original crankshafts. l t e
,h 4
) ,
'IQ.15. . What;resulted from disassembly of the diesels?
r.
. k) .. - - .
1% A. As a result of problems discovered during disassembly, s
.- s
\. LILCO established a team of specialists to review en-gine components. Initially, LII.CO and its consultants
~ 4'..(y ;, .,
investigated each problem identified to determine its
}?, -cause and the appropriate corrective action. After , A) f ,
identifying problems with a number of components, how-
'( ever, LILCO concluded that a comprehensive review of
" the design and quality of the TDI engines was neces-
.% sary.. Thus, at a November 3, 1983 meeting with the NRC
- g. ,
h[ Staff, LILCO announced that it would undertake a com-d , prehsnsive dienel generator recovery program. This { program has four phaser
- e. _e
%,c-
, A. disassembly,. inspection,. repair and reassembly of
.[ each diesel, B. failure analysis of defective components, C. design review and quality revalidation (DRQR) pro-
,a L<g - gram, and
[] i n ~ .
!' a _
D. -expanded qualification testing. The expanded testing included a 100-consecutive-start test on one engine, a seven-day run on all three die-sels that conservatively simulated the load on the die-sels following a LOCA, and.the. accumulation of at least 100 full' power hours on each diesel. These expanded
. tests'are in excess of the pre-crankshaft failure test program which itself had elements above and beyond min-imal regulatory requirements.
Q.17. What is'the DRQR program?
.A. .The DRQR program:is a--detailed review of the design and O'
. quality of_the TDI diesel engines. The program, involving.over.120 people _from LILCO, Stone & Webster, FaAA,, Impell and othersconsultants, resulted in an as-sessment of the design of important components in the diesels. It also verified important quality attributes for the requisite engine components.
Q .18. - 'HowLdoes LILCO's DRQR program relate to the Diesel Gen-erator Owners' Group effort?
'A. As LILCO' discovered and reported problems with its TDI diesel generators, _other. utilities also experienced and reported problems with TDI machines at their own nucle-ar power plants. .In response to'these problems, the
m+
, ~,. .. .x. ,
y - - - - - -~ - - - - --
- p. gg c
_. ;r j .c ' 7 y' l
.o , ,
. 3 _a ,
y
-13 h
. jM ;. & ., ^ f f ,
y*) ] - t - , j)? NRC. Staff indicated that each utility would be required
-y u .
- - . . . ~ , m ho demonstrate the reliability of fits TDI diesels. The
. , W ni "' (, 'p . 4 d " utilities <that ownedlTDI diesels for nuclear service
,. ch '-
", w m , Iformed the TDI Diesel Generator Owners' Group to address m
e m
. .j/ ,
these c 'oncernstabout'the reliability.of the TDI en-
,cw .y W gines. Because LILCO had already instituted its com-
".4 f
/. x .
prehensive'.DRQR program, the utilities looked to LILCO 4 f" 7,~x ._
,,1 for jlend,ership 4n the - Owners Group of fort. According-ly, the Owners Group developed.a DRQR program modeled 7 fon LILCO'a program aiad. appointed LILCO personnel and 7
cLILCO c6ntractors and. consultants to significant lead-g .. ., g +:'T $ nip roles in the Owners Group effort.' For example, m - f' a[f[c.y - 6 7 LILCO's then Director of the Office.of Nuclear, William j , - j >r Mu'seler, was ' appointed' Technical Director of the Owners jMc[%
< !<1 .
" ~ ?..g. f - ,
} .
. Group and Michael Milligan, then LILCO's Shoreham Proj-
- y. y
[W' ~ ' p4, #
- .. M
-o' Met Enginecr,fwas ther Assistant Technical' Director.
p %. y
,o . t.-
,.,.a-. .
' - %b R .Craig Seaman of LILCO was ass'igned as DRQR Program Man-e j- r ,, ,
^
d r fager.2 To-give some idea of the magnitude of owners 1 p Group undertaking, LILCO i s share of the DRQR and i . x. .y ,n. ,
@f g
+ ;/ W -
- i. . f '
Shoreham+specifi_c-activities outside of the original l gf . crankshaft failure has totaled approximately $4 mil-v f : t lion. ' ~' ,~ ~ ~ pp Q.19. ^You stated'that another indication of LILCO's good 1 faith in httiempting to comply with GDC 17 was the in-
.2 : ,
'"< nf. stallation of three a.dditional diesel generators y manufactured by Colt Industries. Please explain. r
'A... - **
)
(~\ (.) A. As already noted, LILCO initiated an extensive review l of the design and quality.of the TDI diesel generators as a result of the failure of the crankshaft on DG 102 and subsequent problems identified during the disassembly and inspection of all three TDI diesels. When these investigations were initiated, LILCO had no guarantee that it could successfully demonstrate the reliability of the TDI diesels. Thus, as a precaution, LILCO' undertook to procure and install three diesel generators manufactured by Colt Industries. These ma-chines are of the type in use at other nuclear power
. plants and are designed to satisfy the requirements of
[) GDC 17. w Q.20. Please describe how much effort is involved in the in-stallation~of the Colt diesel generators. A. LILCO has devoted substantial rescuces to the Colt ef-fort to ensure that Shoreham would have an alternate means of meeting GDC 17. When questions about the i reliability of the TDI diesels arose, LILCO organized a , l task force to.research the availability of nuclear qualified diesels that would meet Shoreham's require-ments. Once potential candidates were identified, LILCO expedited the procurement process. LILCO decided to purchase the Colt engines within two months of the f'_/i N l 1
~
u l
s DG 102 crankshaft failure. At about the same time, Stone & Webster started a substantial engineering ef-
~ fort to design a new building for the Colt diesels, to design support systems, and to analyze how to integrate this new system into the existing plant. The Stone &
Webster engineering effort alone had consumed 216,000 manhoars as of the end of May, 1984. Q.21. Has LILCO aggressively pursued installation of the Colts? A. Yes. As dis' ased above, LILCO created a task force that was dedicated to the Colt diesel project. This task force was charged with moving the project forward l- ( } briskly. Thus, the procurement and engineering activi-ties just described were all conducted on an expedited basis. Construction of site facilities for the ma-chines' started'almost immediately in November, 1983. All three machines have now been manufactured and de-livered to the Shoreham site. Engineering work for the installation of the Colts is essentially complete and construction work is well underway. Underground cable and piping runs are in progress. The main duct bank between the new EDG building and the main plant is es- ! sentially complete. Work on the new diesel building is l in progress. The engines are scheduled to be moved I) v I i
16-into the building by the end of July. In addition, work on auxiliary structures such as the oil storage tank building is in progress. Construction and testing 1 is now scheduled to be complete in May 1985. LILCO currently believes the TDI diesels will be quali-
. fied for nuclear service. Thus, it will not be neces-sary to connect the Colts to the plant immediately.
The Company plans to connect the machines at the first refueling outage. LILCO, however, is committed to completing the Colts as soon as possible to ensure that m' qualified onsite power source is available in the event'the TDI' licensing process is delayed or the TDIs p
"'- are-found not to be reliable.
~Q.22. How much will the Colt diesel generators cost LILCO?-
A. . Over 260 LILCO and Stone & Webster personnel were work-ingffull-time on the Colt project at its peak. The i total cost forIthese machines is now estimated at ap-proximately $93 million.
- Q.23. Have there been other efforta by LILCO to provide AC power in compliance with GDC 17?
A. Yes. LILCO's proposal for low power operation did not ignore tie need to provide a reliable means of emergen-l cy power. LILCO's low power testimony demonstrates the l L 7
- T m-p---- g,-- >-=pt py e-%-- ,,,@w- %e 4 vv 9 -g y --m,g..g W y,g- gy---,3-- ,ww-a- -wwwy9 -mwwy y-.g y y g-y- ---+ ~ t--w=v P't
_17
. /h significant effort-undertaken to provide such power.
This testimony describes, among other things, the GM EMD diesels, the 20 MW gas turbine, LILCO's testing commitments and LILCO's commitments to suspend low power testing, all of which are intended to ensure that the plant can be operated safely. Cost-of the Shoreham Licensing Proceeding
-Q.24. Mr. McCaffrey, how long has the Shoreham licensing pro-ceeding been going on?
A. LILCO filed its application for an operating license when the Final Safety Analysis Report was submitted in , D- ! b- August 1975. The FSAR was officially submitted fer docketing in January, 1976 and the application was pub-
- lically noticed on March 18, 1976. Thus, this licens-f' l
ing proceeding has been underway for over eight years. In February 1977, the New York State Energy Office and l OHILI/ North Shore Comm'ittee were granted intervenor l status. Suffolk County filed its petition to intervene on March 17, 1977, with Shoreham opponents Coalition I filing in January 1980. Over the years, the major in-tervention was conducted by Suffolk County. Recently, v. the. State of New York has been in active opposition to the plant before the various licensing boards. L
l Q.25. Would you please describe generally the licensing ac-tivities. relating to the hearing process for Shoreham during the last eight years? A. A detailed review of the Shoreham licensing process is contained in Appendix A to the Shoreham Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of September 21, 1983 (Attachment 2) and in LILCO's Proposed Opinion, Find-l ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Partial' Initial Decision, Vol. 3, Appendix A (Jan. 17, 1983) (Attachment 3). I will only provide a summary of hearing related activities here. (~ During the 1976 to 1979 time period, LILCO was heavily
^'ub' involved in the prehearing process at the same time we were attempting to complete the NRC Staff review and issue the Safety Evaluation Report. It was clear that the heavy intervention affected the Staff review.
i Often the Staff review would include issues raised in intervenor contentions because the Staff knew it would have to prepare testimony on these issues. LILCO, without technical justification, was consistently held by the Staff to a different standard than other plants. l Th'is does not mean that the Staff's review at other
. plants was deficient. To the contrary, the Staff con-ducts detailed reviews of all plants. Rather, in an p
L
' ' effort to eliminate issues or reduce the burdens of dealing with them in hearings, the Staff would require more of LILCO than had been. judged acceptable for other i
plants. All of this ultimately contributed to delay in , . issuance of the SER.
-The most recent example of this different standard is i
the HRC's'May 22 order issued to Mississippi Power and Light Company (Attachment 4). This-order relates to the low power license for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Sta-tion. Section III of the order notes: As a result of the above [i.e., opera-tional problems], there is a question I
,/~T concerning the. reliability of the TDI
(/ diesel generatora installed at the Grand Gulf facility. Staff analysis (Attach-
-ment 1) indicates that the total loss of diesels at 5% power would not signifi-cantly increase the risk of low-power op-eration. Nevertheless, one of the con--
tributors to that risk is some very low probability environmental events. LILCO,uof courae, has addressed these environmental
~ events by committing to shut down the plant for certain events as noted in testimony of William J. Museler.
The point here is that Grand Gulf was permitted to re-tain their low power license without fully qualified TDI diesels in accordance with GDC 17 and with fewer enhancemer.ts and commitments than LILCO. j i L-I 1
,s 1'~')
'Suffolk County and the other intervenors filed conten-tions on hundreds of issues. LILCO and its consultants were required to respond to numerous document requests and interrogatories concerning these issues. LILCO prepared. responses to the hundreds of contentions to be ready to go forward ss soon as possible with what we knew from experience would be protracted hearings.
LILCO personnel devoted substantial time to developing affidavits and other supporting materials for motions for summary disposition. The period'from 1979 to 1981 was marked by intense ef-forts to settle or narrow issues. The process included
' extensive informal and formal discovery. Five stipula-tions which settled or narrowed many issues in the case
-were consummated. Each of these agreentents resulted from. multiple meetings among the parties and extensive 1 research on the part of LILCO and-its consultants to provide-information responsive to the intervenors'
" concerns." This' period also saw the development of new contentions filed by SOC and SC on matters related to Three Mile Island.
Commencing in the spring of 1981, negotiations with
~Suffolk County-intensified in an-effort to reach a com-prehensive settlement of the large number of issues .p
,-m, 4,) . .
still outstanding. This settlement, termed the Sixth Stipulation of Settlement, was negotiated throughout
-the summer of 1981 with representatives of the Execu-tive and Legislative Branches of the County, along with i
their lawyers and consultants. After intense effort by the parties, Mr. Charles R. Pierce, LILCO's Chairman i and Chief Executive Officer, approved the Stipulation and forwarded it to Mr. Cohalan, Suffolk County Execu-tive with the understanding that the LILCO Board of Di-rectors would formally approve the settlement once Mr. Cohalan did. This settlement would have resolved all but a few issues and significantly shortened the pend-(}. ing heariags. Significantly, the terms of the settle-ment had been approved by Suffolk County's lawyers and consultants, Mr. Cohalan and representatives of the Suffolk County legislature participating in the negoti-ations. The Suffolk County Legislature, however, re-jected the settlement on December 8, 1981. This action led to the lengthy licensing hearings that are still L underway. Prehearing Conferences were held on November 10, 1976, October 11, 1977, March 9-10, 1982, and April 14, 1982. During the first half of 1982, massive formal discovery i efforts were resumed. Despite the almost five years of l i gm informal and formal discovery, Suffolk County once T/ i 1 l l j i l
. ' ~/T
.V again served extensive interrogatories and document re-quests on LILCO. Also, a number of LILCO witnesses were deposed. Indeed, formal discovery has been almost continuous since early 1982. The County has routinely used LILCO's filing of testimony as a pretext for addi-tional document requests. Particularly notable was an .
extensive request for quality assurance documents fol-lowing already massive discovery on the issue. The Board and parties spent a large part of one hearing day (Tr. 9334-9447) dealing with this one request. Emergency planning discovery started in 1982 and still continues. Untold numbers of document requests and in-ry
') terrogatories have been answered in the Phase I (on-site).and Phase II (off-site) emergency planning proceedings. (Phase II alone included over 300 docu- ~
ment' requests-and interrogatories, not counting , subparts.) These proceedings have involved over 65 depositions. t i Diesel generator discovery commenced in June 1983. The proceeding was originally quite limited in scope. But. on the one issue to be litigated prior to fuel load, the County deposed eight individuals from LILCO and its-contractors. The initial diesel discovery effort also involved the production of documents. Following the q ,/
f'i m crankshaft failure, the scope of diesel discovery was greatly expanded. Throughout the second half of 1983,
-LILCO provided SC with information concerning the die-
.sel' effort. After a conference of the parties in February _1984, diesel discovery intensified. To date, LILCO and TDI have produced-more than 50,000 documents in response to County requests. Depositions of 28 LILCO personnel, LILCO consultants and TDI personnel
-have been conducted.
. Finally, LILCO has had to deal with discovery on its low power application. LILCO has produced over eleven
, boxes of documents (on the order of 30,000 pages).
'wd .
LILCO has had to depose 10 County consultants in an ef-fort to determine what opinions they intand_to express because the County had no-documents which wsuld give LILCO information on the opinions of its consultants.
-TheLCounty has deposed eight individuals from LILCO and
' its contractors and consultants.
Q.26. When did_the Shoreham licensing hearings begin? A. Formal ASLB hearings commenced on May 4, 1982. Thirty seven issues (combining identical County and SOC con-
~
P tentions), many with subparts, were set for litigation. Out of'the original 37 issues to be litigated, 26 were l pe$ . settled and the rest litigated. It is worthy of note ' 1 (> ' l-k.
q
- 74 ~'
_. ( n - that.the 11 health and safety contentions decided by
- the'ASLB consumed approximately 29 weeks of evidentiary
" hearings,-over.110 days of hearings with over 21,000 pages of transcript. Over 100 witnesses testified in the proceedings that led to the Licensing Board's September 21, 1983, Partial Initial Decision.
Q.27. 'Would you please describe the resources that LILCO de-voted:to those efforts? A. The OL hearing process of dealing with contentions, an-swering discovery. requests, negotiating settlements,-
-filing testimony and testifying placed a considerable drain'on LILCO and its consultants' resources at a time
[(~)y
~m' 7-the Company was attemping to complete the plant and the NRC Staff. review process. In most cases, to deal with a single contention issue, LILCO used. technical ex-pertise in the areas of design,' construction, startup and' operations. Personnel with first hand knowledge of the systems.or components at issue and associated docu-ments were involved in developing a response to conten-
-tions.- Many times these_were the same people responsi-
'ble for designing and completing the systems, testing them and making them ready for operations. In addi-tion, the settlement process involved numerous meetings and site' tours to discuss technical aspects of e
pq
' Qj .
con'tentions:with the intervenors, their consultants and attorneys. ~Thus, LILCO-Project, Startup, Operations, Quality Assurance, Nuclear Engineering and Engineering personnel,'and General Electric and Stone & Webster personnel had to devote extensive efforts to the ASLB process preceding and following the start of hearings. In addition, the licensing staffs of Stone & Webster, General Electric and LILCO were heavily involved in at-
-tempting to expedite the' process and to coordinate the
<- overall program with LILCO's attorneys. Q.28. 'In addition to the efforts in the hearings on health and safety issues, cn1 what other licensing issues has LILCO had to expend resources?
~
.A. The County,-and to a lesser extent other intervenors, have seized on every possible opportunity to delay the licensing of'Shoreham. Other efforts have included challenges to construction permit extension requests, shipment of new fuel to the site, emergency planning and diesel generators. The first two items just men-tioned are particularly representative of the frivolous nature of many of these challenges. Both construction permit extensions and receipt of new fuel on site are routine matters that any knowledgeable person recog-nizes as having no safety impacts on the public.
- _ -__ .~ _ . -. . -. ..
i
,L In addition, the County has attempted to litigate the safety of Shoreham in other arenas. For example, in
- hearings held by the so-called "Marburger Commission" appointed by Governor Cuomo, the County raised many of the same health and safety issues already litigated in front of the ASLB. Once again, LILCO had to devote significant resources to answering the County's base-less claims.
-Q.29. -Please describe LILCO's efforts in. emergency planning.
A. The emergency planning issues in the hearings were di-vided'into two phases. Phase I essentially covered
;'() .on-site-emergency planning and Phase II covered off-site emergency planning.
As already described, Phase-I emergency-planning in-volved extensive discovery. LILCO prepared and filed thousands of'pages of written testimony to respond to' the County's contentions. .The Licensing Board, which had already experienced the County's proclivity for dragging out the hearing. process, attempted to make the process _more efficient by requiring pre-hearing eviden-
~
.tiary. depositions so as to focus the issues that would have to be heard before the ASLB. The County, after forcing _LILCO to-expend significant resources on
^3 ' pre-hearingfactivities, refused to obey the Board's '
' i(s_/ -
order and declined-to participate in these depositions. Consequently, -the Board dismissed all of the Phase I emergency. planning contentions. Phase II emergency planning also has been a tremendous
-drain on the Ccmpany's resources. Again, the County
- filed hundreds of contentions (counting parts and subparts). Following another massive discovery effort, Phase II-emergency planning hearings started in
- December 1983. These hearings have, to date, consumed
~55 hearing days and generated over 12,000 transcript pages. Over 7,000 pages of prefiled testimony have.
been submitted.
- Q.30. Is there anything particularly burdensome about the Phase II emergency planning effort?
A '. Yes. In 1981, LILCO and the County signed a contract I- in which the County agreed to prepare an offsite emer-gency plan. LILCO agreed to pay the County $245,000 to a cover the cost of developing the plan. After extensive [ - -- cooperation between SC and LILCO personnel which re-sulted in the preparation of a draft plan, the County reneged on its contractual obligations. As a result of the' County's refusal to produce an off-site emergency l D plan and its position that the County will not cooper-
. ate in any way with LILCO on emergency planning
_~
~
l y +,%-.--, , _ , _ , . , . - ,..m , - .... .-.,,,-,_,--. . --., ,,-, ,,,-m.,,_,--,_,,.,--.- . , . , , - , . - , - , _ ,
.p.
- ss/
imatters, LILCO has had to undertake extensive efforts
~
tas develop its own offsite emergency planning organiza-
. ti on . - .This effort-has been both expensive and time consuming. New York State, as well, has done nothing to assist in developing an emergency plan for Shoreham.
- Q.31. With respect to the licensing hearings, will you please 4
summarize the extent of LILCO's efforts? 5 A. As.of June 1984, there have been a total of almost 15,000 pages of written testimony and almost 400 exhib-
.its in these. proceedings. There have been over 180 days of prehearing conferences and hearings with more
~
)-
than 310 witnesses taking the stand. There have been
-{
over 34,000 pageslof transcript. The rulings of vari-l ous Licensing and' Appeal Boards and the Commission have exceeded 2,900 pages. In-addition, over 160 people The drain on LILCO and its consul-
~
-have been-deposed.
tants has been severe. .In excess of 50 LILCO, 20 Gen-E eral Electric,;25 Stone & Webster and 25 consultant F personnel have testified or directly supported the ASLB. - proceedings. -Thus, at a time when LILCO was'attemping tus finish the ' plant, critical personnel were being di-verted tolthe ligitation arenas.
'Q.32. Do.you know how much this effort has cost LILCo?
.- i Cf%^ 1
\,.
)
l
. j-K
..g
.A. In May, 1983, LILCO' estimated that the cost of the ASLB process would end up.in excess of $22 million. This l projection.was made at a time when the hearings were expectedito be " winding down." Subsequent to thi.s, there has been TDI licensing, low power licensing and a
' tremendously. expanded emergency planning proceeding.
-We have not made a new overall projection, but I would judge that the total cost of the Shoreham licensing proceeding to date is more than $33 million.
The cost to'LILCO and its consultants, of course, can-not be limited strictly to financial accounting. Long n .
. . days,~ extended trips away from home, diversion of key v people from performing their normal. duties and a gener-al disruption.of family life has been the norm.
RQ.33. What have been the results of all of these hearings? A. Unfortunately, these proceedings are continuing on 1
-emergency planning, diesel generators.and, most re-l
, cently, the low power proceedings. The Partial Initial
-Decision issued-in September 1983, however, demon-strated that there was essentially no merit to the in-tervenors' contentions. Prior to the health and safety i
I I hearings, all' environmental issues had been resolved by summary disposition. p
1 \'. O The quality assurance issue provides a good example of l.' why the Shoreham litigation has placed an unjustified and unfair burden on LILCO. This issue alone consumed i-l: 52 days of hearings and involved 24 witnesses. After
- s. this searching. inquiry, the Board concluded thai the L intervenors had not supported any of their claims.
-Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta-l l tion, Unit 1), LBP-83-57, 18 NRC 445, 580-81 (1983).
L l L l In. fact, the Board was'very critical of the County and
'i ts use.of the record:
F Once again,.the. Board, in reaching its conclusions on these contentions, is faced with a' massive record, based on 55 o j .- .. .:(']- days of hearing, extensive written testi- i mony-and. exhibits, and voluminous pro- _ posed findings-of fact and opinions by the parties that are disparate, at least. The' difficulty of.our task, trying to be
. objective in consideration of each of the parties' submissions, is further com-
. pounded by-the County's misrepresentation of the complete record -- by omission, L '
selective citations and distortion of recorded testimony.*
*-Our view of the County's performance is strictly our own. 'Our conclusion, howev-er,.is not without independent, if bi -
ased,. corroboration. LILCO, on its own
- - -initiative, took the trouble of analyzing-
~
all 732 proposed. findings of the County. It found 365 (50%) of them inaccurate, L for.439 reasons (157 out of context, 110 with no citation, 105 with unjustified inference and 67 refuted on the' record). [% Id. at 579. The Board made similar comments on j N/
+ _ _ - , .-- , . , . . . , _ _ -. , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ , - - . _ . . - - , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ,. . ._ _ , . _ _ _ , - . . . _ - . . .
b-
.j 9 s
' ' ) Suffolk County's use'of the record in Contention SC/ SOC 7B. [Id.' at 545. In' summary, the Company has had to spend an-inordinate amount of money and resources de-1 fendingLthe plant ~against-allegations which consis-
-tently:have been-demonstrated to be b'aseless.
- Q.34. In addition to th'e human and financial costs, has the f protracted nature of.the Shoreham licensing process had
~
any other adverse impacts on LILCO? t .-
-A. :Yes. The protracted licensing process.has created the perception that.the Shoreham licensing proceeding may never:end. It is possible to reach.this conclusion
. based upon the length and scope of the proceeding.
.Through my dealings with other utilities on genoric li-
; censing issues, I know that the Shoreham licensing pro-
^
iceeding is one_of a handful of exceptionally protracted licensing proceedings. Licensing proceedings for
.n plants similar to Shoreham have'been far less extensive than Shoreham's. After eight years, the proceeding I .-
continues unabated on at least three fronts-(low power, emergency planning,-diesel generators). The stark con-trast between Shoreham and other NRC proceedings has F -
- ledJto the perception that the Shoreham proceeding may 9
continue. indefinitely. L l-L l-
p i >
, j -) .
" G1 Q.35'. Why.are the costs of the Shoreham litigation pertinent
.to LILCO's application for an exemption?
-A. The NRC's May 16 Order indicated that if LILCO's low power proposal did not present a risk to the public health and safety, it was appropriate te weigh the equities involved in determining whether to grant an exemption. The length and cost of Shoreham's licensing proceeding are pertinent because they demonstrate the unusual burdens placed upon LILCO over the years by in-tarvenors' use of the NRC licensing process. LILCO has
-had'to spend an inordinate amount of money and re-sources defending the plant against allegations which
, k-
' f'Ii have~ consistently been demonstrated to be baseless. In addition to the direct costs of litigation previously addressed, the extended hearings have and will continue to delay the plant's fuel load date. The testimony-of Anthony Nozzolillo demonstrates that delay in the op-eration of the plant increases the cost to the ratepayers. ,
With rare exception, when the substantive merits of the issues raised in~1itigation have been engaged, Shoreham
'has been found to be safe. More frequently, the County has fought'to avoid engaging the merits by seeking delay, raising: legal challenges, ignoring the absence u#
' (,.
b
\
4 4 4
.A of any-demonstrable safety concerns, and, in one in- . n* ,
stance, . flatly refusing to participate in hearings. , , Given this protracted licensing history, fairness dic-
;.tates.that if LILCO can demonstrate the safety of its proposal, it should be granted an exemption from the regulations.
I a 4 4 . O 1 t Y J' s L E t 5 10 5 {
-----.-,-..~..-._,--,_.._-__.~.,,,,.n,.
,.,--,,_...,,an. . _ , , _____.r-,,, , _ , , . . _ , --
1 ATTACHMENT 1 [ Item 4
. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Brian R. McCaffrey Manager, Nuclear Compliance Nuclear Operations Support Department Long Island Lighting Company My name is Brian.IU McCaffrey. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York.- I have been employed by Long Island
+ Lighting Company (LILCO) since 1973, and have been Manager, Nuclear Compliance and Safety for LILCO since November 1981,
/~N responsible for managing the Nuclear Compliance and Safety
&; -Division-of.the-Nuclear ~ Operations Support Department. In addition,.I am responsible forLmanaging and coordinating the Company's' efforts in the ASL8 Licensing Proceedings. The JNuclear Compliance and Safety Division will-support the opera-tion of the Shoreham Station in coordination of all NRC' licensing activities,.the Nuclear Review' Board and the management of the Independent Safety Engineering Group.
Izgraduated from:the University of Notre Dame-in 1967 with a Bachelor of-Science. Degree in Aerospace Engineering. I receive'd.a Master.of Science Degree'in Aerospace Engineering in
-1972 f rom the Pennsylvania State University and a Master of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering in 1978 from the jb sm ,/-
m_,-- 2 ,
_n, N ]
' \-< 1 ' Polytechnic Institute of New York. I completed a General Electric BWR Design Orientation Course in 1978.
My professional experience began with my employment with Grumman Aerospace Corporation in 1968. My primary respon-sibilities were in the areas of aircraft aerodynamics and
~ flight test stability and control.
I joined LILCO in 1973. I have held the positions of Associate Engineer and Engineer.in the Power Engineering "De partment (19732 1975), where I was involved with plant engineering.for both fossil and nuclear power stations. I then L became ' Senior. Engineer in the Power Engineering Department y, s (1975-1977), with responsibilities as Project Coordinator _for ('s ') gas' turbine installations and Lead Mechanical Engineer for nuclear projects; Senior Licensing Engineer for Shoreham <
-Nuclear Project'(1977-1978), with responsibility for the licensing activities. leading to an Operating License; and
[ Project Engineer for Shoreham (1979-1980), with responsi-l
~
'bilities that included directing Project Engineering and the l
Architect Engineer in engineering.and procurement for Shoreham.
.I was assigned in 1980 as Assistant Project Manager for' Engineering and Licensing (in July 1981, retitled Manager--Project Engineering) for Shoreham. In that capacity I l
l
, 4-2 c
d V was responsible for the overall eng.ineering and licensing of the Shoreham Station. My organization directed and approved the engineering efforts of the Architect Engineer and Nuclear Steam Supplier, and was responsible for directing the activities leading to an Operating License from the NRC. I became Regulatory Supervisor in November, 1981 (retitled
~ Manager,. Nuclear Compliance and Safety in October 1982).
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York. In addition, I am a member of the American Society of' Mechanical. Engineers and the Long Island Section of the 4 American Nuclear Society.
.(
1 4
.~
W 1 < q,/ . - 3 4-3
i
* # ATTACIIMENT 2 fh N.'
./ -
g
. --.n nm >, -
\' , $,;Y(o$? ?
Ahk s 4, Ti . . ,
\V. ' -
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$5 -
. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.. 3efore Administrative Judges: SERVED SEP 211983
. T;
( i Lawrence Brenner, Chainnan
,- Dr. George A. Ferguson i Dr. Peter A. Morris ,
l h !- )
- In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OL -
I ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY . (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION l UNPUBLISHED APPENDICES A THROUGH F 1' I i ( i -- ...-,.. ._..-._ - - .__
l i 1 APPENDIX ~ J ! l l i I ( t . l . I I Background of the Proceeding l-l 9 I l
yb p, ,f '/ Jig 9. a . k [> i,
~
.L 6 i- nw jsd.
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING e - p
', On April 12, 1973, the Atomic Energy Commission issued a construc-m
,g tion permit to the Long Is{and Lighting Company (LILCO) for its Shoreham y- .
, 1 Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, an 820 MWe boiling water reactor located in Suffolk County, New York.1 The site covers 500 acres on the north
'd-At issue now is the
)h. ', shore of Long Isla'nd, near the village of Shoreham.
~
knt'soperation. [rg '* L:. h; The background of.the Shoreham operating license proceeding, cur-u..; , .8 e . x\rently-in its seventh year,fi: described below in these terms: i .:
's Y% , -N
~
a ,
, g\1. s s The Application
- 2. Staff Review -,
-4 ,- '3. ACRS Review
, s l ~ ( 4. Adjudicatory R3view
\ *
, u.
i (a) Atomic Safaty and Licensing Boards L,' i [_ . . , 1-( _s, (b) ,Intarvenors -' L.
+ 3 y "s -
l - .3 .. , (c) Prehearing Process i !. (d) Discovery L \ x . . . . .- , l '
;v .I See-38 fed. Reg. 14,183 (1973); See also L 3 Island Lighting Q. ;- , s'Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), LBP-73-13, 6 AEC 271 (1973).
Ex 4 T j,- . N
- ~
, \ l
A-2 O
. \~ /
(e) . Summary Disposition (f) Settlements (g) Hearings (h)~ Cross-examination by Means of Public Prehearing Examinations
- 5. Issues (a) Non-Health and Safety Matters (1) Environmental Issues (2) Extension of the Construction Permit
-(3) New Fuel (b) Health and Safety Matters 9
- 6. Findings f
- 7. Motions to Reopen ,
i
- j. 1. THE APPLICATION This proceeding concerns LILCO's application to the Nuclear.
(! Regulatory Commission for a license to operate Shoreham.- LILCO tendered
-the OL application for the plant,-along with its Environmental Report (ER)land Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), on August 28, 1975, pur-suantito Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 2133. The application, ER and FSAR, as amended on January 26, 1976, were docketed thereafter by the NRC Staff, and publicly noticed on March 18, 1976.
. . See 41; Fed. Reg. 11,367.(1976). Another major licensing document, the L Shoreham Design Assessment Report, was initially submitted by LILCO in t-January 1976. -These documents have undergone numerous revisions.
;[
_g,. . , = , 'y% : - -
- w ; s' ,
e ~ j,e -
;t:
- - ~ s ,
,m. . ,,- A-3
;(s)
? m
.- j 2.1 STAFF REVIEW
----s _
The NRC. Staff reviewed the documents just listed, the p' '. itself and othar data as necessary in order to determine whether, in che Staff's
. Judgment,'the facilf ty' Ocsiplied with NRC regulations. Summaries of the
;. 4 f.
]results(oftheStaff'senvironmental'reviewofShorehamwerepublishedin
- 3
~
a Draft Environmental, Statement.on March 24, 1977, and'in a Final Environ-
, , mental Statement (FES) on October 25 of 'th'at year. The aftermath of Three
#2 '1 Mile Island interrupted the Staff's health and safety review. Thus,
~ ..;
_ .y .Shorehari's' Safety Evaluation Report'(SER) did 'not appear until April 17, L a -1981 - .three an'd onehealf years after issuance of the FES. To date, SER j: n , - g Suppl Jnts have been issued in September 1981 (No. 1), February 1982 (No.'2)andFebruary1983[No.3). The Staff's review of some matters p.@ has continued during the hearings. Staps were taken to make the Staff's >m Q;p conclusions available for, purposes of- settling or litigating affected u 9*) -
~
' contentions; prior to formal,_ issuance of SER Supplements. See, & Tr.
' 9145-47 # # ' s -
( 3 7%9 ~
- g. ,
r ~ .. . ' 9 -
,g;l*
.[ ,,
- s. ,
'1- s' af r 3. ACRS REVIEW i ,f ,
Q
;. ~ . , -
' GA[l[.. ,
s 7A G 1' Shoreham was also reviews.d by,the Advisory Committee on Reactor t @n, t Scftguards (ACRS), pursuant.to Section 182(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, fi61 42 U.S.'C. $ 2232(b). .The site was visited by an ACRS subcommittee on
- . , p._
-i > April 30, 1981.',~ Hearingsiwereheld'by-thesubcommitteeinWashington,D.C.
. ;.V ' -
%d on Se'ptember 30 194G .and the full' committee held its hearings on
~
'O } ? i .;
+
t e s j 4 I
' . g-
, , , . . ~ -
...,.t.,..,.. . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . , _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . .,_ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ ,
-A- A-4
~
' October 15. Based on these public and certain private deliberations, the ACRS made its recommendations in a letter to NRC Chairman Palladino, dated October 19, 1981, and concluded:
We believe that if due consideration is given to the recommendations above, and subject to satisfactory completion of construction, staffing, and preopera-tional testing, there is reasonable assurance that Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 can be operated at power levels up to 2436 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of-the public.
'SER Supp. No. 2, at 18-3.
- 4. ADJUDICATORY REVIEW l
(a) Atomic Safety and Licensina Boards
~
.On April 21, 1976, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
-Board Panel, acting pursuant to the authority delegated to him by the Commission,-appointed an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board "to rule on petitions- and/or requests for leave to intervene." 41 Fed. Reg. 17,979
'(1976). With one change'in its' membership, that same Board was designated on February 22,1977 -to hold hearings "at a time and place to be fixed" by i t. . 42 Fed. Reg. 11,294 (1977); see also Tr. 45. The Board was sub-sequently reconstituted six times, ultimately having four-different i
L chairmen and ultimately retaining none of its original members. The reconstitutions were as follows: l.
%J L
i
A-5 Date of Chance ASLB Member Affected February 6, 1978 Replacement of chairman March 2, 1981 Replacement of chairman December 17, 1981 Replacement of environmental member February 8, 1982 Replacement of chairman March 23, 1982 Replacement of health and safety member July 14, 1983 Replacement of environmental member (by a second health and safety member) See 43 Fed. Reg.- 6346 (1978); 46 Fed. Reg. 16,384 & 62,571 (1981); [) '47 Fed. Reg. 6510 & 13,069 (1982); see also " Notice of Reconstitution l %)
-of. Board," 48 Fed. Reg. (Notice dated July 14, 1983). ~
i l-
'On May 27, 1982, pursuant to 10 C.F.R $ 2.722(a)(1) and (b), the Board appointed a member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' Panel to assist it, particularly in the area of safety classification and
. systems interaction. See Confirmatory Order Appointing Administrative l
l Judge Walter H. Jordan.as_ Technical Interrogator and Informal Assistant
"(May 28, 1982). Pursuant to the limitations of Section 2.722, Judge Jordan took no part in this Board's decision.
1 l
. e On August 24, 1982, at the request of the Board, issues involving
- plant security were transferred to a different ASLB, which was
" established . . . to continue to guide ongoing settlement efforts by the parties with' respect to security planning issues and to preside over the proceeding on those issues only in the event that a hearing is required." 'See 47 Fed. Reg. 37,984 (1982). This transfer occurred because, given the demands of other aspects of the Shoreham proceeding, the Board was unable to give the requisite attention to the security issues. See Tr. 9306-07. On December 3, 1982, following approval by the security Board of the parties' extensive and successful settlement
- efforts, the security-proceeding was dismissed. The security doard
,- explained that LILCO and Suffolk County had:
r
.s(
l- ' hald numerous meetings and negotiations concerning i the security' contentions of the County. . Periodic reports were filed by the parties. Finally, on
. November 24, 1982, all parties herein filed the , " Final Security Sett1' ment e Agreement."
i- . l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognizes and encourages-fair.and reasonable settlement of . contested issues . . . We have considered the nine l security contentions of the County, the Agreement L of all parties to resolve those contentions, and L tha' Commission's policy encouraging settlement. p Accordingly, we conclude that the Agreement is fair l1 and reasonable and should be approved. The parties L and their counsel are deserving of a special com-1: - mendation for their outstanding efforts which led l to a resolution of the security contentions in this proceeding. l- . LO I I
$ + e w-+e,se --ee-,e- w-ie-+-.-so- .-,9 g. gno 9 ,w,, ..
9,y -
,p.. .--gw-y..-w-cwp---g. ,- ,mvwg me-.-y-,,.e,e..,w. w-,-- ww* e-m
A A-7 Board Memorandum and Order Cancelling Hearing, Approving Final Settlement
- Agreement, and Terminating Proceeding at 1-2 (Dec. 3, 1982) (unpublished).
The Security Settlement contains safeguards information and thus the terms L , and details of that resolution cannot be further described here.
- 1 On May 11, 1983, approximately one month after the Board had closed the record on all matters other than emergency planning, a separate Atonlic Safety and Licensing Board was established, at the OL Board's request, to preside over the litigation of all remaining emergency planning issues.
See 48 Fed. Reg. 22,235 (May 17, 1983). The OL Board retained jurisdic-tion over the health and safety matters to resolve any outstanding issues {l ; and to render this partial' initial decision. J-l- (b) Intervenors g Notice of opportunity for hearing on the OL application was published on March 18, 1976, with a deadline for filing petitions for intervention l of April 19, 1976. See 41 Fed. Reg. 11,367-68 (1976). Three groups filed l timely petitions to intervene: the New York State Atomic Energy Council,
- now superseded by the New York State Energ9 Office (SED), the Oil Heat
-Institute of Long Island, Inc. (OHILI), and the North Shore Committee Against Nuclear and Thermal Pollution (NSC). Ten months later, on February 22, 1977, the SEO was granted participation under 10 C.F.R
$ 2.715(c) as an interested state, while OHILI an'd NSC were admitted as lUQ-l an-r,-- -n. - - - - ,, , - - ,n..,, , , + , , - - - - - , - - - , - - - , - - - - - - - . - - - . - - -
r A-8 y V
' con'solidated intervenors pursuant to S 2.714. See Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-11, 5 NRC 481
- -(1977).
Subsequently, other parties sought leave to intervene out of time. Suffolk County filed its petition to intervene on March 17, 1977, eleven months after the deadline. The Shoreham Opponents Coalition sought to
. intervene on January 24, 1980, three and three quarter years late. LILCO opposed the intervention of each of these parties as being untimely; the NRC Staff did not oppose these petitions.
l Each of these parties was found by the Board to have met the then (. s appropriate balancing test for late intervention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1). Both were ultimately admitted to the proceeding, the County on October 11, 1977 and SOC on May'1, 1980. S_ee Board Memorandum
~ and' Order (January 27, 1978) (confirming rulings made during the October 11, 1977 prehearing conference) (unpub'lished); Memorandum and Order Relating
'to Response of SOC to Board Order Dated March 5,1980 (May 1,1980)
-(unpublished). However, as the Staff had recommended, SOC's participa-tion in this proceeding was limited to new issues arising subsequent to the T*4I accident. Memorandum and Order Relating to Response of SOC to
- -Board Order Dated March 5,1980 (May 1,1980) (unpublished), slip op. ,
l at 7. t b v i l L- -
a A-9
- v. .
In the spring of 1982, shortly before the hearings began, Suffolk County asked that it be deemed a governmental participant under-Section 2.715(c), as well as an intervenor under Section 2.714. This re-quest was granted. See Board Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Mede at the Conference of Parties, LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601, 617 (1982). On February 23, 1983, the Town of Southampton sought leave to participate in this proceeding as an interested governmental participant
.on matters related to offsite emergency planning. Southampton was so admitted in an order dated March 10, 1983, LBP-83-13, 17 NRC _ .
The SEO took'part in various aspects of the prehearing process, but I O' not in'the hearings themselves. OHILI, has not participated since 1978,
~
although it has not formally withdrawn from the proceeding. On Movember 22, 1978, NSC renounced its link with OHILI, and thereafter limited its interest to mat'ters involving receipt of new fuel at the j ;. site and emergency planning. Accordingly, NSC has rarely appeared at the I hearings to date; At the Board's request, by letter to Counsel for OHILI dated April 26, 1982, Counsel for NSC confirmed that OHILI was not being represented in the proceeding. Once admitted, SOC was quite active until l-l Very shortly after the hearings began. Thereafter, like NSC, it has rarely L
. appeared, either settling its contentions with LILCO before hearings began
' on them, or leaving their prosecution to Suffolk County. The County, LILCO l_
I j and the NRC Staff have been active throughout the proceeding. O l
l 4 A-10 h (c) Prehearing Process The prehearing phase of this preceeding lasted more than six years,
.from March 18, 1977, when notice.of opportunity for hearing was published, to the actual beginning of hearings on May 4, 1082.
i Four prehearing conferences.were held prior to the commencement of evidentary hearings: November 10, 1976 (Tr. 1-42)
-October 11, 1977. (Tr. 43-143)
March 9-10, 1982 (Tr. 144-529) April 14, 1982~ (Tr. 645-831) l^ l< , During the course of the hearings, additional prehearing conferences were held by this Board to discuss emergency planning matters: l' L t l- ~ July 20,.1982 (Tr. 7173-7421) i. L January ~12, 1983 (Tr. 17,819-17,892) February 24,~1983 (Tr. 20,240-79).
- I
- l. There were also numerous informal conferences and other *
[ communications among the parties. p 1: {-' u
;- A-11
- gs *
(d) Discovery During the October 11, 1977 prehearing conference, the Board ordered that discovery begin. Tr. 120-21; see also Order Relative to p Requests for Clarification .and Reconsideration of the Board Order of LJanuary 27, 1978, at 4-5 (March 8, 1978) (unpublished). There ensued and h'as continued to date extensive resort to formal means of discovery -- interrogatories, requests for production, and depositions. Informal sharing of information, principally in the context of-settlement , negotiations, ha:: .been even more extensive. Much of the discovery, p formal and informal has taken place after the hearings began. Thus, of the approximately 40 persons , deposed so far in this proceeding, all but 10 have been deposed since May 1982, in places from California to New York. The other ten deponents testified shortly before the hearings began, on March 31 and April 22, 1982. All told, extremely large ~ amounts of data have been exchanged, both in. writing and orally. . L
~
- (e) . Summary Disposition LILC0 on June 23, 1978, and the NRC Staff on 'une 28, 1978, sought summary disposition of issues raised.under the National Environmental Policy Act. On December.18, 1978 and February 5, 1979, LILCO requested summary disposition of certain issues raised under the Atomic Energy
- l. ,
Act. The motions concerning the environmental issues were granted. See pages A-20 to A-21, infra. t
.- . ..- . ~ . _ _ . _ , . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , _ . . _ , . _ - _ _ . - _ . _ . - - _ _ . . _ _ - . . _ , . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
I l A-12 The cotions concerning health and safety issues were rejected as
" premature since discovery will not close until . . . after the issuance of the SER." Board Order Relative to Applicant's "First Group" of Motions for Summary Disposition at 3 (March 8, 1979) (unpublished); Board Order Relative to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition on the "Second Group" of' Contentions (March 8, 1979) (unpublished). '
After issuance of the SER in April 1981, LILCO filed motions for summary disposition of all or-parts of five SOC contentions. See LILCO Motions for Summary Disposition of SOC Contentions 1, 2, 3, 6(a)(i), and 12 (Part Two) (July 13, 1981). LILCO withdrew its motions concerning
, Contentions 3 and 12 (Part Two) after agreeing with SOC about the
- N- ' ' particularization of the underlying issues. See LILCO's pleading on Matters Pending for Board Decision, at 3, n.1 (December 23, 1981). SOC withdrew its Contention 6(a)(i) "in lieu of responding to LILCO's motion for summary' disposition of that contention." Board Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at the Conference of Parties, LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601, 616 (1982). SOC Contentions 1 and 2 "as framed by the filings of l SOC in response to the motions for summary disposition by LILCO and the l
l' Staff, and SOC's response to the Board's Order of February 8,1982, and H the discussion at the conference (Tr. 346-385), were dismissed as a challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations." M., 15 NRC, ,; at 618. l: l /D ~ r ( 4
%)
i
- .- A-13
'%/
(f) Settlements This proceeding has been characterized by sustained and often successful efforts to resolve issues without the need for further litigation. . Settlement negotiations began in earnest early in 1979. They have continued with infrequent interruption, involving thousands of hours of effort. , During the first two years of negotiations, attention focused on , clarifying, narrowing and/or eliminating contentions. As the Board stated in its June 28, 1979 Order (unpublished) approving the-parties' first stipulation: b The Applicant, NRC Staff, and Suffolk County (SC) entered into a stipulation on June 5,1979, which provides for the withdrawal of several SC contentions and a commitment of the Applicant to
- assume additional responsibilities.
The Board accepts the stipulation and encour-ages the parties to continue their efforts to
. resolve or particularize contentions.
See_ also, g, Order Rel'ative to Stipulation Concerning 10 CFR Part 70 (Oct. 5, 1979) (unpublished); Memorandum Concerning the Second Stipula-tion Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Nov. 16, 1979) (unpub-lished); Order Relative to the Second Stipulation Concerning Suffolk County Contentions (Jan. 7, 1980) (unpublished); Order Accepting Third Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffo?t County Contentions (June 26, 3980) (unpublished); Order Relative to Stipulation by the NRC Staff anc Shoreham
I i _, -Opponents Coalition (June 26,1980) (unpublished); Order Accepting Fourth Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County Cont (ntions (Oct. 27, 1980) ("The Board . . . commends the parties for their continuing efforts to resolve differences and to sharpen the issues") (unpublished); Order Relative to Fifth Stipulation on Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Feb. 17, 1981) (". . . the parties are again to be commended in their continuing efforts") (unpublished); see also comments of the Security Board set out on pages A-6 to A-7 above. i From spring through fall.1981, negotiations became more ambiticus, , involving an intense effort -- ultimately unsuccessful -- to reach a l comprehensive settlement between the County and LILCO. As counsel for l Suffolk County explained to the Board in late October 1981: Since April of this year, the County and the Applicant have been engaged in negotiations regarding the possible settlement of the County's , intervention in the 0.L. proceedings. Since the end of May, the County's negotiation team has ' included members of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the County, along with the County' Attorney and the County's technical consultants. Pursuant to a Suffolk County Resolution-passed in June of this year, it was mandated that ap-proval by the Suffolk County Legislature would
- be needed before the County could enter into any final settlement agreement.
At a meeting in June of 1981, the repre-sentatives of the Applicant and the County agreed upon a final version of. the proposed Sixth Stipu-lation. 'It was understood between the representa-tives at that meeting that upon receipt of a letter from LILC0's Chairman of the. Board, indicating his s approval of the proposed Sixth Stipulation, a l j -resolution would be introduced into the County I'
A-15 L'gislature, e calling for legislative approval of the Sixth Stipulation. On October 13, 1981, , a letter was sent from Charles R. Pierce, Chair-man and Chief Executive Officer of the Applicant, 1 to Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive - indicating that he was prepared to recommend to the Board of Directors of the Company that the Board authorize execution of the Sixth Stipula-tion by the appropriate representatives of the Company once it has finally been approved by Mr. Cohalan and the County Legislature, and executed in. behalf of the County. , At this point, a resolution requesting legis-lative approval'will be introduced to the Suffolk County Legislature at its next legislative session. After legislative deliberation, passage of such a resolution could occur as early as November 10, 1981. Should the County Legislature authorize the County Executive to sign the Sixth Stipulation, - then the agreement would be offered to the'Appli-cant's Board of Directors for its approval. It is l' ['_ at this time that the Sixth Stipulation could be offered to the Board for its review. l Suffolk County's Response to the Applicant's Motion that a Hearing l. Schedule be' Set at 1-2 (Oct. 21,1981). Orr December 8,1981, the County Legislature rejected the settlement.- l \ From the collapse of comprehensive negotiations until the beginning of hearings, there was no settlement activity. It resumed in May 1982 and has since resulted in the resolution of numerous contentions. They I are listed in Appendix 8 below, " sequence of Settlements." c At all times, the Board has encouraged and facilitated the settlement l l process. See, Tr. 3168-73. The present Board, at the request of the parties, has cancelled hearings at times to permit negotiations to go l
A-16 forward undistracted. See, e A , Tr. 9936-42, 9956-59. The Board on other occasions has reduced the length of hearing days to the same end. jee, eA , Tr. 8318, 9327. The transcript evidences many Board-imposed deadlines for reports by the parties on the progress of their negotiations and Board inquiries into what disputes remain and why they remain. See, e d.. Tr. 14,754-75. The Board commends.the parties for their hard work and for their professional approach to these matters, both of which com-bined to make their settlement efforts in this proceeding so successful. (g) Hearinas l .Early in 1978, two years after the start of the Shoreham OL l proceeding, LILCO first began to press for hearings or for some other definitive means of resolving issues that it thought had become ripe for resolution.8~ Five and one half years after the OL proceeding began, on October 6, 1981, LILC0 filed " Applicant's Motion that a Hearing Schedule Be . Set," asking that the Board take concrete steps to end the prehearing 8See, _e.g,.,, Applicant's Request that the Board Set a Schedule for I Eolution of Environmental Issues (Feb. 24, 1978); Applicant's Request for Summary Disposition of OHILI/ Committee Contentions 7a(ii) and (iii) (June 23, 1978); Applicant's Request for Summary Disposition of Suffolk
. County Contentions 4a(vii), (x); 7a(ii)-(iii), (vi)-(vii); 12a (viii);
- and 14a (Dec.18,1978) (with an alternative request for hearings if summary disposition was unavailable); Motions of Long Island Lighting
' Company for summary disposition of SOC Contentions 1-3, 6(a)(1) and 12 O. ' (Part Two): Overview (July 13, 1981) (with an alternative request for
( ,/ hearings if summary disposition was unavailable).
N A-17
'(g) ,
process -- steps beginning on November 4 with "[a]11 parties . . . either-(1) agreeing on a list of particularized issues to be litigated further . . . or (2) stating their disagreements," and ending on February 23, 1982 with the actual start of hearings. The Board denied the motion by telegram, on November 6, 1981. A month later, after the County Legislature had rejected the proposed Sixth Stipulation Settle-ment, LILC0' renewed its request that hearings begin. Hearings began on May 4, 1982. To date, there have ensued 29 weeks of evidentiary sessions during a period of one year, mostly in a concen-trated time frame over the first nine months. More than 7,000 pages of I 7- s written direct testimony and attachments have been filed. The Transcript l
has passed 21,000 pages. Over 200 exhibits have been generated, as well as many motions, briefs, and ASLB orders. More than 100 witnesses have testified.8 For further detail, see Appendices C (" Sequence of Testimony"),
D (" Witnesses in Alphabetical Order"), and E (" Exhibits by Party and Number"). Evidentiary hearings took place on the dates and at the places set out below: I Weeks Dates Transcript Pages Places I' 1 May 4-7, 1982 Tr. 982-1845 Riverhead 81f a particular person has testified on more than one contention, he has been counted anew for each contention on which he has been a witness. ( l .
A-18 Weeks Dates Transcript Pages Places 2 May 25-28 Tr. 1846-2677 Riverhead 3 June 1-4 Tr. 2678-3609 Riverhead 4
'4 June 8-11 Tr. 3610-4321 Hauppauge 5 June 15, 17-18 Tr. 4322-991 Hauppauge 6 June 22-25 Tr. 4992-5700 Riverhead 7
July 6-9 Tr. 5701-6412
- Riverhead 8 July 13-16 Tr. 6413-7168 Riverhead 9 July 20-22 Tr. 7169-904 Riverhead 10 July 27-30 Tr. 7905-8686 Riverhead
(~ 11 Aug. 3-5 , Tr. 8687-9302 Riverhead
. '. . 12 Aug. 24-27 Tr. 9303-10,036 Hauppauge
'v 13 Sept. 14-17 Tr. 10,037-616 Hauppauge 14 Sept. 21-24 Tr. 10,617-11,308 Hauppauge 15 Oct. 12-15 Tr. 11,309-12,021 .Bethesda 16 Oct. 27-29 Tr. 12,022-543 Bethesda 17 Nov. 2-5 Tr. 12,544-13,275 Bethesda 18 Nov. 9-12 .Tr. 13,276-14,025 Bethesda 19 Nov. 16-19 Tr. 14,026-712 Bethesda Nov. 23 Tr. 14,713-749 Hauppauge 20 Nov. 30-Dec. 3 Tr. 14,750-15,476 Bethesda 21 Dec. 7-10 Tr. 15,477-16,190 Bethesda 7
22 Dec. 14-17 Tr. 16,191-17,006 Bethesda 23 Dec. 20-22 Tr. 17,007-533 Bethesda
, 24 Jan. 10-13, 1983 Tr. 17,534-18,129 Hauppauge c
b A-19
\ .)
Weeks Dates Transcript Pages Places 25 Jan. 17-20 Tr. 18,130-796 Hauppauge 26 Jan 24-27 Tr. 18,797-19,541 Hauppauge 27- Jan 31-Feb. 1 Tr. 19,542-733 Hauppauge 28 Feb. 22-24 Tr. 19,734-20,344 Hauppauge 29 April 5-8 Tr. 20,345-21,178 Riverhead With one brief exception, the evidentiary hearings have always been open to the public. Several non-evidentiary argument and discussion sessions were held in camera from May through July 1982, a very small number on the record and the remainder in. chambers, to discuss the security of new fuel onsite. One brief in camera evidentiary session was held in June 1982 in order to protect certain information claimed by General Electric to be proprietary. Furthermore, an in camera prehearing conference was held on September 13, 1982 before the Board charged with the litigation concerning plant security. Limited appearances were made by and received from many indi-viduals on April 13-14, 1982, Tr. 530-644, 832-981. Some additional per-sons took advantage of the publicized opportunity to make limited appear-ances at the end of hearing days in May and June, 1982. Tr. 2475-80, 3123-29, 3813-16. However, public attendance at the hearings, whether conducted on Long Island or in Bethesda, has been extremely sparse. O
A-20 (V3 ^
'(h) Cress-examination by Means of Public Prehearing Examinations On October 29, 1982, the Board "noted that it was considering ordering that the parties conduct cross-examination, redirect and recross examination with respect to the Phase I emergency planning
! cor,tentions initially by means of public prehearing deposition!i." Board Memorandum and Order Ruling on Licensing Board Authority to Direct that Initial Examination of the Pre-Filed Testimony Be Conducted by Means of Prehearing Examinations, LBP-82-107, 16 NRC (Nov. 19, 1982) (slip - op., at 1); see'also.Tr. 12,541-43. After giving all parties ample oppor-tunity-to address the legality and wisdom of the proposed procedure, n . L Memorandum Advising SOC and NSC of Board Proposal to Require Depositions lk l - and of Opportunity to File Views (Nov. 9, 1982) (unpublished), the Board , adopted the procedure. Suffolk County, SOC and NSC refused to either.
' conduct their initial cross-examination in this fashion or to make their witnesses available for such examination. Pursuant to the provisions of
. its earlier. order, L8P-82-107.16 NRC _ (slip op., at 27-28), the Board deemed the intervenors' refusal to participate to be a total abandonment
. of th'eir contentions. Accordingly, on November 23 and 30, 1982, the Board -
- - dismissed, with prejudice, all-Phase I emergency planning contentions.not previously settled. Tr. 14,746-49, 14,753; see cenerally Board Memorandum
, and Order Confirming Ruling on Sanctions for Intervenors' Refusal to Comply with Order to Participate in Prehearing Examinations, LBP-82-115, 16 NRC (Dec. 22, 1982).
- O 8
'e**e-**
- + m-==.. v-w-',-.mww-w_.-e.4-_,,-v...- m m. _.,m,w , .g ,,, _ ,
A-21 V Much the same use of prehearing examinations for initial cross-examination was subsequently made in order to narrow and focus the hearings on an aspect of the QA dispute involving the Torrey, Pines Independent (Construction) Verification of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. See LBP-82-115, 16 NRC , supra (slip op., at 15-16). The County, the only Intervenor active in the quality assurar.ce litigation, participated in these depositions. The NRC Staff did not take part in these depositions. - albeit for reasons unrelated to its general views that such prehearing examinations are legal and useful. See NRC Staff Position on the Board's Proposed Deposition Procedures (November 12, 1982). Accordingly, the NRC Staff did not participate in the evidentiary hearings on the Torrey Pines Report.
- 5. ISSUES (a) Non-Health and Safety Matters In addition to the health and safety contentions heard and/or settled since the beginning of evidentiary hearings, the Phase I emergency planning contentions settled or dismissed, and the security issues settled before a separate licensing board, this Board and the parties have engaged three other sorts of issues to date: (1) environmental matters, (2) extension of Shoreham's construction permit, and (3) new fuel. Offsite (" Phase l
II") emergency planning issues are being considered beyond the time of l o issuance of this decision. ! k l
A-22 O. . (1) Environmental Issues s The Board raised certain environmental questions that were answered to its satisfaction. OHILI/NSC, Suffolk County, and SOC also raised issues under the National Environmental Policy Act. Some of their NEPA contentions were rejected at the pleading stage for a variety of defects; some were dismissed because their proponents failed to respond to discovery concerning them; others did not withstand motior.s for summary disposition.4 On August 4, 1978 the Board ruled that: [T]here are no remaining environmental issues
. '-p)
( to be considered in this case. Therefore an environmental hearing will not be held. Memorandum and Order Relative to Board Concerns Regarding Fish-Return System and Chlorine Discharge at 6 (August 4, 1978) (unpublished). The Shoreham Opponents Coalition failed in its attempt to reverse this ruling when SOC entered the proceeding over a year after the ruling came down.5 4See, Ae. ., Board Memorandum and Order at 17-18 (January 27, 1978) Mpublished);OrderRelativetoNRCStaffMotiontoCompelDiscovery and Impose Sanctions (April 19, 1978) (L.apublished); Order Relative to Motions for Summary Disposition'from Applicant and NRC Staff of Consoli-dated Intervenors (CI) Contentions 7(a)(ii) and (iii) (July 25, 1978) (unpublished); Memorandum and Order Relative to Board Concerns Regarding Fish-Return System and Chlorine Discharge (August 4, 1978) (unpublished). SSee, go.. , Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition at 22-24 (March 5, 1980) (unpublished); Memorandum and Order Relating O to Response of SOC to Board Order dated March 5, 1980, at 8 (May 1, 1980) (unpuM ished). ! Ev '- i
F . l
- A . A-23
~(2) Extension of the Construction Permit On~ December 18, 1978, LILCO requested an extension of Shoreham's construction permit. An extension to December 31, 1980 was granted on
. May 14, 1979. Sees e 44 Fed. Reg. 29,545 (1979). 4
- 0n November 26, 1980, LILCO requested a further extension of the permit, which was opposed by the Shoreham Opponents Coalition. On l January 23, 1981, SOC requested a hearing on the extension application I and moved under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 to have the permit suspended and/or revoked. Six months later, SOC sued the NRC in federal district and circuit courts to the same ends.' The suits were dropped once the NRC O granted SOC'an opportunity for hearing on the CP extension and ruled on 50C's Section 2.206 request.
On July 22, 1981, the Commission is' sued an order stating that it had: s 1: determined that the request (for a CP extension hearing] will be granted, subject to the peti-tioner advancing at least one litigable conten-tion, and that an Atomic Safety and Licensing - Board is to be convened to consider whether 50C's petition raises issues litigable in this construction permit extension proceeding, and, if so, to hear and decide those issues on the merits. NRC Order at 2'(July 22, 1981) (footnote omitted). Five days later, the Board sitting in the Shoreham OL proceeding was also appointed to deal with the CP extension issues. 46 Fed. Reg. 39,516 (1981).
A-24 o - After considering extensive written and oral arguments, the Board found that 50C had failed to raise "at least one litigable contention" and, therefo:e, ordered that no hearing be held on the CP extension application. See Tr. 497-501 (March 10,1982); Board Memor.indum and Order Ruling on SOC's Construction Permit Extension Contentions and Request for Hearing of Shoreham Opponen'ts. Coalition, LBP-82-41, 15 NRC 1295 (1982). SOC did not appeal the denial of its hearing request. On July 15, 1982, the con-struction permit was extended until March 31, 1983. 47 Fed. Reg. 32,502 (1982). SOC's Section 2.206 request for a stay and/or revocation of the CP had been previousdy denied by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Lona Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 00-81-9, 13 NRC 1125 (June 26; 1981). (3) New Fuel . t On September 25, 1978, LILCO applied for a license to receive, possess and store new fuel on site, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 70. On November 3, 1978, the Staff notified the Board and parties of the pendency of the Part 70 application. Almost eight months thereafter, on l July 27, 1979, NSC opposed the application, requested a hearing on it, y and sought a stay of the issuance of any license pending Board action. LILCO and the Staff, in turn, opposed NSC's requests. Negotiations i (G)
A-25 N' ensued, leading tu settlement of the dispute. See Stipulation Regarding Application for a Special Nuclear Material License (Sept. 18, 1979). .The Board thereafter ruled: On September 24, 1979, the Staff transmitted a stipulation dated September 18, 1979, concerning the issuance of materials license pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 70, to permit receipt, possession and storage of unirradiated new fuel assemblies at the site. The stipulation was signed by the North Shore Committee Against Thermal and Nuclear Pollution [ sic], the Staff and the Applicant. The stipulation is accepted by the Board. Order Relative to Stipulation Concerning 10 C.F.R. Part 70 (October 5, 1979). Suffolk County took no part in any aspect of these developments; - SOC was not yet a party to the proceeding. At the time there were no existing security contentions in the OL proceeding. In May 1982, LILCO received a Part 70 license. Immediately thereafter, at the request of Suffolk County, the Board temporarily forbade shipment of new fuel pursuant to the license. See Interim Order Staying Shipment of Fuel (May 20, 1982, corrected, May 24, 1982) (unpublished). LILCO and Suffolk County, with the concurrence of the NRC Staff, then negotiated a resolution of the County's concerns about the security of the new fuel once on site. On June 9, 1982, the Board approved the parties' agreement and removed the stay. See Tr. 4011-32; Confirmatory Order Lifting " Interim Order Staying Shipment of Fuel" O e-,--- -----.n--, -,,--n_, , _ , - _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _
i t A-26 (June 14, 1982). The Board encouraged this negotiated process. By routinely holding almost weekly meetings with these three parties the Board was kept informed of first the negotiations and thereafter the status of implementation of the agreement. Given the subject matter, the cooper-ation of counsel for LILCO and the County, and the coordinatiot f Count. officials and police personnel with LILCO personnel, was most appropriate and commendable. Following implementation of the LILCO/ County agreement, new fuel reached the site in mid-July 1982. (b) Health and Safety Matters l Thirty-seven sets of. health and safety contentions were finally V accepted for hearings by the Board. These contentions emerged from hundreds of p'oposed r issues, years of informal negotiations, stipulations, settlements, and many formal disputes among the parties, plus numerous
-responsive rulings by the Board.s Of these 37 sets of issues, 20 were wholly settled and 2 were partially settled before reaching hearings.
s8eginning with a May 1976 ruling, there have followed to date over 30 l orders concerning'the contentions to be litigated. These rulings include: I
. Memorandum and Order (May 7,1976); Memorandum and Order (February 22,
[' '1977); Memorandum and Order (August 1, 1977); Memorandum and Order (January 27, 1978) (confirming rulings made during the October 11, 1977 ~ prehearing conference); Order Relative to Requests for Clarification and Reconsideration of the Board Order of January 27, 1978 (March 8, 1978); Order Relative to NRC Staff Motion to Compel Discovery and Impose Sanc-tions (April 19, 1978); Memorandum and Order Relative to Board Concerns i Regarding Fish-Return System and Chlorine Discharge (August 4, 1978);
- ~0rder Granting NRC Staff Motion of August 18, 1978 to Impose Sanctions
-(October 27, 1978); Order Approving the June 5, 1979 Stipulation (June 28, 1979); Order Relative to Stipulation Concerning 10 C.F.R. Part 70 l O (October 5, 1979); Memorandum Concerning the Second Stipulation Regarding (footnote cont'd)
, --- .L 2.-.._..-.-, . . - - - .. - - ~. _ - - . . . . - . _ . . - . . - -
i
. A-27 v
One more was fully settled (SC-5) and another one was partially settled
'(SC-13) after hearings were held on them. See Appendix B for details.
' Sixteen fully or partially litigated sets of contentions, organized under 11 subjects _, are the subject of this partial initial decision. See Appen- .
i dix C for details. (Continued) Certain Suffolk County Contentions (November 16, 1979); Order Relative to the Second Stipulation Concerning Suffolk County Contentions (January 7, 1980); Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coali-tion (March 5,- 1980); Certification to the Commission, L8P-80-12, 11 NRC'485 (March 14, 1980); ALA8 Memorandum (March 25, 1980); Memorandum and Order Relating to Response of SOC to Board Order Dated March 5, 1980 (May 1, 1980); ALAB Order (May 20, 1980); Order Accepting Third Stipula-l tion Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (June 26, 1980); Order l.- Relative to Stipulation by the NRC Staff and Shoreham Opponents Coali-
' tion (June 26, 1980); Order Admitting Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC)
Contention 12-3rd Subpart (July 2,1980); Order Accepting " Joint Motion for Acceptance of SOC Contentions 6(a)(1) and for Extension [of Time] to Complete Par'ticularization" (October 27, 1980); Order Accepting Fourth Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (October 27, 1980); Order Relative to Fifth Stipulation on Certain Suffolk County l Contentions (February 17, 1981); Memorandum and ' Order (Ruling on Shoreham l - Opponents Coalition's Motion for Acceptance of Particularized Contention j
- 19) LBP-81-18, 14 NRC 71 (July 7, 1981); Order Approving Stipulation t
(August 10, 1981); Order (August 25, 1981); Memorandum and Order Approv-L ing Stipulations, Deferring Rulings on Summary Judgment Pending Further [. Particularization, Scheduling a Conference of Parties and Setting an i Estimated Schedule for the Filing of Testimony (February 8,'1982); Memo- !- randum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at the Conference of Parties (Regarding Remaining Objections to Admissibility of Contentions and Establishment of Hearing Schedule) (March 15,.1982) (confirming rulings
- during the March 9-10 prehearing conference) L8P-82-19, 15 NRC 601 (1982).
- Prehearing' Conference Order (April 20, 1982); Memorandum and Order L Ruling on SOC's Construction Permit Extension Contentions and Request l for Hearing of Shoreham Opponents Coalition, L8P-82-41, 15 NRC 1295 l
(May 14, 1982); Prehearing Conference Order (Phase I -- Emergency Plan-l ning) (July 27, 1982); Supplemental Prehearing Conference Order (Phase I'-- l Emergency Planning) LBP-82-75, 16 NRC _) (September 7, 1982); Appendix 8 l to September 7,1982 Supplemental Prehearing Conference Order (Phase I -- Emergency Planning) (October 4, 1982) (All unpublished unless otherwise noted).
h 4 4
~'g A-28 Members of the Board have examined witnesses in detail and have from time-to time. requested information on matters both within and i.
beyond the scope of admitted contentions. See, e.g., Tr. 1156-73, 1410-11, 2355-56, 10,043-47, 14,787-88, 14,792-96. The Board has not determined sua sponte, however, that "a serious safety, environmental,
.or common defense and security matter exists" outside of an otherwise
~
admitted contention. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760s. ,
. 6. FINDINGS In order to both facilita'te the parties' abilities to produce findings
- of fact based on the voluminous record of this proceeding and expedite
. [d'<) '
the Board's efforts to complete this partial initial decision on all
. matters other than off-site emergency planning. .the Board announced its intention, prior to the commencement of evidentiary. hearings, to have the parties begin to submit proposed findings on completed contentions while the litigation of other contentions continued. See Prehearing Conference Order, (unpublished), at 9 (April 20, 1982).
t On November 30, 1982, the Board directed the parties to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on all disputed matters litigated before September 14, 1982, on the following schedule: LILCO initially on i January 10, 1982, SC/ SOC /NSC on January 20, the Staff on January 31, and LLILC0 in reply on February 7. Tr. 14,789-92. On January 5,1983, in response to the County's unopposed request, these deadlines were extended i {/') s_ t h
..-.,~-a m,,--n..,,wer , , _mwmmn,w-r-----w,,. w w w m m- r_ v-~_ pem -
m - s 5-- {. ? , E. N
y s.
.x. s A= A-29 Ih-s bygone week.- Tr. 17.539. On January 25, 1983, the Board granted the M
l County a four-day extensfun of time for the filing of findings in order x ;m nk '
.i to's5ve the County from defaulting on its other obligations in this pro-
- s. a p, ceeding gnd in order 1to avoid disruption of the hearing schedule.
7 , s , , Tr. 19,089. . This extension was granted over the objections of LILCO.
, .a.
3Tr.S19,091. Therefore, LILCO's ini,tial round of proposed findings of x ;
; fact were filed on January 17, 1983, the County's on January 31, 1983, e sx
+ 'aikk the NRC Staff's on Feiiruary 11, 1983. By letters to the Board dated
.~. s p . ' January 28 and Apr'il- 17, 1993,'$0C stated its intention to adopt the
< Cour.th'sproposedfindings.7- LILCO',s reply findings were submitted on r
4k Feb'ruary 22, 1983.
\
pp - - 'd ' . On February 24. 1983, th'eBoas'd established a schedule for the
' ' s, '
is- . s , , E submission.of s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to t6e quality assurance /qualityscontrol contentions and the
' environmental qdalification contention litigated between September 14, s
j 1982 'and February 24, 1983: LILC0's proposed findings to be received by [. . s m.
,-the Board and paeties by March 28, 1983, SOC and the Countys findings
- s. ,z ,
- ', p" .
% b 7We do not re4ch the question raised.by Staff Counsel of whether SOC may l file excepti'on's to this. decision based on its adoption of the County's r L 1 s findings. See letters;from Staff Counsel Bernard Bordenick to the Shoreham
, x OL Licensing Board dated February 4,1983 and February 7,1983. We find l ? g sthis matter to be urnecessary to our decision and therefore express no - P s opinion on\the views of Staff Counsel. See Tr. 20,305. We note s that our Aprif 20, 1982 prehearing conference order directed that parties d "t s = not filing findings would be deemed to have defaulted. For purposes of
'; D< M- \( our decision, however, SOC's actions are consistent with the close coordi-
%1- nation among"intervenors which we have required to avoid duplicative filings.
l- .
- % s y \
4 m '* k*
%.9 4 *
*k s
.. k j Y
a A-30 to be filed by April 7, 1983, the findings of the Staff to be submitted by April- 18, 1983 and LILCO's reply findings to be due by April 25, 1983. On April 8, 1983, the Board closed the record on all remaining issues, other than off-site emergency planning, and established an expedited sched- - ule for the submission of supplemental findings on the reopened Conten-tion 78' issues, as follows: LILCO's proposed findings to be received by
! May 2, 1983, the County's-findings due on'May 9, 1983, the Staff's findings to be filed by May 16, 1983, and LILCO's reply findings due on May 23, 1983.
- 7. MOTIONS TO REOPEN On April 7,1983, Suffolk County moved the Board to reopen the record on Contention SC 11, Passive Mechanical Valve Failure, to pe.rmit the introduction into evidence of IE Bulletin 83-03, " Check Valve Failures
^
in Raw Water Cooling Systems of Diesel Generators" (March 10, 1983). As i no party sought a further evidentiary hearing even if the Board were to
-grant the County's motion to reopen the record, the Board determined that.
it would rule on the County's motion to reopen as a part of its initial ! decision on the merits of SC 11. Accordingly, the parties were directed to file supplemental proposed fir. dings of fact on the assumption that the
. record would be reopened to admit IE Bulletin 83-03 and certain related l
I documents agreed to by the parties. M " Memorandum and Order Providing i [ for Further Filings on Suffolk County's Motion to Reopen the Record on l Contention 11" (unpublished) (April 28, 1983). l L
3 _
- j. .
/
= m A-31 -
1 - After the Board's preliminary review of the parties' supplemental
. proposed findings revealed several. potential ambiguities which the Board believed would require clarification should it determine to grant the County's motion to reopen.the record, the Board directed that the parties r respond to several specific questions posed by the. Board. See " Memorandum
~.
and Order Directing Clarification of Certain Matters Related to Contention Responsive affidavits were filed by SC 11" (unpublished) (May 26,'1983). LILCO and the Staff .on June 10, 1983, and by the County on June 20, 1983. l-The Board rules on the County's motion to reopen in this decision.
~
! ' 'On May 2,1983, the County filed a motion to admit a new contention H concerning the emergency diesel generatcrs. After receiving written
+, ,
s
" )
j' responses from LILCO and-the Staff, the Board conducted a one day con- _,. f # eference of parti ~es to discuss thew isws of the parties and their experts.
. ;. t c'
', -; y :On June _22, 1983, the Board. issued a. memorandum and order admitting i , -y .- .- ..
is- portions of' the County's contention relat'ed to excessive vibration and
, i -
i l cylinder head cracking in.the' diesel generators and denying the balance of the' County's motion. See " ra'ndum and Order Ruling on Suffolk , 6pl,2.. ;L ' (y 7 CountyQ; Motion.to, Admit'NewContention,"LBP-83-30,17NRC y . . (June 22, Y 1983). 'C -
.o -
%;u, s 7
~n
'~ gy ., ,
~.,'y
$ 1' ' , l 'l ,
1 y?
;-j yj' 4 -l p.
y . ,r 2'_' l .e .i
.,, 'r
; ??
,s ,
r ' [
'N { ,g.
+ ,
;F. ~, *
,e * ;. !
s I* a
'. k ?,, g. ~
- $l y r r .
, y sa_____,L.
? .s ... . - - . . . .
ATTACHMENT 3 f H UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIG3 TING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) LILCO'S PROPOSED OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION l l L January 17, 1983 'Hunton & Williams P. O.. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 VOLbME THREE OF THREE: APPENDICES i
4/12/73-12/22/82 APPENDIX A:
~ BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING On April 12, 1973, after one of the most extensive hearings in AEC history,1/ the Atomic Energy Commission issued a construction permit to the Long Island Lighting Company for its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. See 38 Fed. Reg.
14,1832 (1973). 'The facility is an 820 MWe boiling water
'*U reactor located in Suffolk County, New York. The site covers 500 acres on the north shore of Long Island, near the village of Shoreham. At issue now is the plant's operation.
The background of the shoreham operating license pro-coeding, currently in its seventh year, is described below in - th.s. 4.rms, ! 1. The Application
- 2. Staff Review I
- 3. ACRS Review l
1/ There were 70. days of AEC hearings, which began on Ieptember ~ 21, 1970 and continued episodically for 2-1/2 years, I until ending on January 19, 1973. Another 22 days of related hearings were conducted in 1971 by the New York State
. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Portions of L the record of the DEC hearings "were received in evidence by the'[ASLB3 . . .'to avoid duplication and to expedite [the AEC]
proceeding." Long Island Lighting Co. (shoreham Nuclear Power Station), LBP-73-13, 6 AEC 271, 274, 288 (1973). l i
+
A-2 O
- 4. Adjudicatory Review (a) Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (b). Intervenors (c) Prehearing Process (d) Discovery (e) Summary Disposition (f) Settlements (g) Public Preheatring Examinations (h), Hearings
- 5. Issues (a) Non-Health and Safety Matters (1)- Environme'ntal Issues (2) Extension of the Construction Permit (3) New Fuel (b) Health and Safety Matters
- 6. Conclusion
- 1. THE APPLICATION
~ ~
This proceeding concerns LILCO's application to the ! Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to operate Shoreham. LILCO tendered the OL applica' tion for the plant, l- along with its Environmental Report and Final Safety Analysis Report, on August 28,.1975, pursuant to f 103 of the Atomic
m A-3 Energy Act,'42 U.S.C. 5 2133. The application, ER and FSAR, as amended on January 26, 1976, were docketed thereafter by the NRC Staff, and publicly noticed on March 18, 1976. See 41 Fed. Reg. 11,367 (1976). Another major licensing document, the Shoreham Design. Assessment Report, was initially submitted by i LILCO in January 1976 and revised in December 1981. The FSAR l t has been revised 27 times since its initial submission.
- 2. STAFF REVIEW The NRC Staff reviewed the documents just listed, the plant itself and other data as necessary in order to determine whether, in the Staff's judgment, the facility complies with ,
NRC regulations. Summaries of the results of tae Staff's envi-ronmental review of Shorcham were published in a Draft Environmental Statement on March 24, 1977, and in a Final Environmental Statement on October 25 of that year. The aftermath of Three Mile Island interrrupted the Staff's health and safety review. Thus, Shoreham's Safety Evaluation Report i L did not appear until April 17, 1981 -- 3-1/2 years after issuance of the FES. To date, SER Supplements have been issued in September 1981 (No. 1), and Februtry 1982 (No. 2). The Staff's review of some matters continued during the hearings. Steps were,taken to make the Staff's conclusions available for r /7 ' U
A-4 i O purposes of settling or litigating affected contentions prior to formal-issuance of SER Supplements. See, e.g., Tr. 9145-47.
- 3. ACRS REVIEW l Shoreham was also reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards pursuant to 5 182(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2233(b). The site was visited by an ACRS subcommittee on April 30, 1981. Hearings were held by the subcommittee in Washington, D.C. on September 30. The full committee held its hearings on October 15. Based on these f
public and certain private deliberations, the.ACRS concluded in a letter to NRC Chairman Palladino, dated October 19, 1981: 1 W believe that if due consideration is
.e given to the recommendations above, and
, subject to satisfactory completion of I construction, staffing, and preoper-l ational testing, there is reasonable l assurance that Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 can be operated at power levels up to 2436 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. SER Supp. No. 2, at 18-3.
- 4. ADJUDICATORY REVIEW l
(a) Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards 1^ On April 29, 1976, the Commission appointed an Atomic l Safety and Licensing Board "to rule on petitions and/or O
A-5 requests for leave to intervene." 41 Fod. Reg. 17,979 (1976). With one change in its membership, that same Board was designated on February 22, 1977 to hold hearings "at a time and place to be fixed" by it. 42 Fed. Reg. 17,294 (1977); see also Tr. 45. The Board was subsequently reconstituted five timec, ultimately having four different chairmen and ultimately retaining none of its original members. The reconstitutions were as follows: Date of Change ASLB Member Affected February 6, 1978 Replacement of chairman March 2, 1981 Replacement of chairman December 17, 1981 Replacement of environmental. member February 8, 1982 Replacement of chairman [ ~ March 23, 1982 Replacement of health and safety member 1 l- See 43 Fed. Reg. 6346 (1978); 46 Fed. Reg. 16,384 & 62,571 (1981); 47 Fed. Reg. 6510 & 13,069 (1982). The Board as s finally constituted in March 1982 concluded the prehearing phase of the case. It has sat throughout all evidentiary ses-sions held to date. On May 27, 1982, the Board appointed a member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to assist it, particu-larly in the area of safe ~ty classification and systems I
- - -----.,,,,.,,,---,-,--,n....,,e.,,-,,..,._-,,,.n-- ,-,,-,-~,nne-n,,,wwnn,,,n,e-,----,--- --,,-------e-,n, -r,,, r,1.~m.,w-,m-,,e,- , y-
A-6 O interaction. See Confirmatory Order Appointing Administrative Judge Walter H. Jordan as Technical Interrogator and Informal Assistant (May 28, 1982). On August 24, 1982, at the request of the Board, issues involving plant security were transferred to a different ASLB, which was " established . . . to continue to guide ongoing settlement efforts by the parties with respect to security planning issues and to preside over the proceeding on those issues only in the event that a hearing is required." See 47 Fed. Reg. 37,984 (1982). This transfer occurred because, given the demands of other aspects of the Shoreham proceeding, the l Board was unable to give the requisite attention to the secu-
) -
rity issues. See Tr. 9306-07. On December 3, 1982, following approval by the security Board of the parties' successful settlement efforts, the security proceeding was dismissed. The. j security Board explained that LILCO and Suffolk County had: held numerous meetings and negotia-tions concerning the security contentions of the County. Periodic i f reports were filed by the parties. Finally, on November 24, 1982, all parties herein filed the " Final Security Settlement Agreement." l . . . . The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognizes and encourages fair and reasonable settlement of contested , issues. . . . We have considered the l' nine security contentions of the County, the Agreement of all parties
;f"%'
U
~
I A-7 8 o to resolve those contentions, and the Commission's policy encouraging settlement. Accordingly, we conclude that the Agreement is fair and reason-able and should be approved. The parties and their counsel are . deserving of a special commendation for their outstanding efforts which led to a resolution of the security contentions in this-proceeding. Board Memorandum and Order Cancelling Hearing, Approving Final Settlement Agreement, and Terminating Proceeding at 1-2 (Dec. 3, 1982).
.(b) Intervenors ,
Notice of opportunity for hearing on the OL application j was. published on March 18, 1976, and the deadline for filing petitions for intervention was set on April 19, 1976. See 41 Fed. Reg. 11367-68 (1976). Three groups filed timely petitions to intervene: the New York State Atomic Energy Council, now
. part of the New York State Energy Office (SEO), the Oil Heat
! Institute of Long Island, Inc. (OHILI), and the North Shore Committee against Thermal and Nuclear Pollution (NSC). Ten months later, on February 22, 1977, the SEO was granted parti-cipation under 10 CFR 5 2.715(c) as an interested state, while OHILI and NSC were admitted as consolidated intervenors pursu-ant to i 2.714. See generally Board Memorandum and Order (Feb. 22, 1977), 5 NRC 481 (1977). O i
.-.- -,. .-._...,._..._..._..-__._.__.-,__,,-.--,.,__..__..,_,,_m. - , - . . - _ . . . - , . , _ _ _ . - - . - .
A-8 J Subsequently, two other parties sought to intervene out of time. As with OHILI/NSC, these parties' petitions were vig-orously contested. Suffolk County filed its petition eleven months after the deadline, on March 17, 1977. The Shoreham Opponents Coalition was 3-3/4 years late in seeking admission; , SOC filed on January 24, 1980. Both parties were admitted under i 2.714, the former on October 11, 1977, and the latter on'May 1, 1980. See Board Memorandum and Order (Jan. 27, 1978) (confirming rulings made during the Oct. 11, 1977 prehearing ~ conference); Memorandum and Order Relating.to Response of SOC to Board Order Dated March 5, 1980 (May 1, 1980). In the
, , spring of 1982, shortly before the hearings began, Suffolk County asked that it be deemed a governmental participant under 5 2.715(c) as well as an intervenor under i 2.714. Its request was granted. See Board Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings L Made at the Conference of Parties at 22-23 (March 15, 1982), 15 l:
NRC~at 617. The SEO took part in.various aspects of the prehearing process, but not in the hearings themselves. OHILI was last heardLfrom in 1978, although it has not formally withdraw from the proceeding. On November 27, 1978, NSC renounced its link with OHILI, and focused thereafter on matters invo'lving new
' fuel and emergency planning. NSC has rarely appeared at the hearings. Once admitted, SOC was quite active until the
~ .
N_s
A-9 ()v hearings began. Thereafcer, like NSC, it has rarely appeared, either settling its contentions with LILCO before hearings began on them or leaving their prosecution to Suffolk County. The County, LILCO and NRC Staff have been active consistently. (c) Prehearing Process The prehearing phase of this proceeding lasted more than six years, from March 18, 1977, when notice of opportunity for hearing was published, to the actual beginning of hearings on May 4, 1982. The intervening six years involved constant, complex activity. () There were four prehearing conferences, held on: November 10, 1976 (Tr.1-42) October 11, 1977 (Tr. 43-143) , March 9-10, 1982 (Tr. 144-529) April 14, 1982 (Tr. 645-831) L There were also numerous informal conferences and other l l communications among the parties.- The more significant of these prehearing exchanges among the parties - "significant" when' measured by the number of participants involved, the j extent of work before, during and after the meetings, and the l amount of information exchanged -- occurred as follows:
,4 -
pp- , , - , , - - - - - , - , - - -
A-10 Meeting Dates Meeting Places March 30, 1979 Bethesda . April 20, 1979 Shoreham May 2, 1979 Boston June 5, 1979 Shoreham
' ~
August 21, 1979 New York City Novem15er 2, 1979 'Shoreham f December 11-12, 1979 Boston June 17, 1980 Shoreham July 17, 1980 Riverhead ' July 29-30, 1980 Boston !~ August 29, 1980 Bethesda t p 3eptember 12, 1980 Bethesda b October 9, 1980 -Boston November 13, 1980 Shoreham j January 21-22, 1981 Shoreham February 24, 1981 Bethesda April 9, 1981 Shoreham May 14, 1981 Boston L May 28, 1981 - Shoreham July 9, 1981 Shoreham September 9, 1981 Mineola In addition to much cooperation among the parties during the prehearing phase, there were also frequent formal O -
, - ,., ,,_r,,,--,w--,,,,,--y-.-,,.,.e,-. -
. , ,w,..,,,-w--,,.,-..7.rm,.,w..., y,,-w---y,,,, -.,--pr. ,ee-
. . . . .= - .
A-11
.W
' disputes, resulting in many Board rulings. Controversy
. centered on intervention, contentions and discovery. See, e.g., Board Orders cited in note 8 below.
' (d) Discovery
.During the October 11, 1977 prehearing conference, the
' Board ordered that discovery begin. Tr. 120-21; see also Order Relative to Requests for Clarification and Reconsideration of the Board Order of January 27, 1978, at 4-5 (March 8, 1978).
J There ensued and has continued to date extensive resort to l
. formal means of discovery -- -interrogatories, requests for production, and depositions. Even more extensively, there has also' occurred the informal sharing of information, principally in.the context of settlement negotiations. Much of the dis-j covery, formal and informal, has.taken place after the hearings began. Thus, of the 37. persons deposed.so far in this pro-l caeding, 27 have been deposed since May.1982, in places from l
' California to New York. The other ten deponents testified l' .
L
' shortly before the hearings began, on March 31 and April 22,
' 1982. . All told, extremitely large amounts of data have been 1 - exchanged, both~in writing and orally, during formal and informal discovery.y l y By March 1980,.the Board agreed that: "As LILCO correctly l points out, formal discovery was set in motion long ago and has (footnote cont'd)
.--, --r r -- ,, ., ---- _,,,,-..e ,,....,,-_,,._m.._ -
., ,,,... . ,.--.,- . - - ,.,.- .- -- . v. ,......-,-.--n,. .-.,.e...
I l A-12 l (e) Summary Disposition I LILCO on June 23, 1978,~ and the NRC Staff on June 28, 1978, sought summary disposition of issues raised under the National Environmental Policy Act. On December 18, 1978 and February 5, 1979, LILCO requested summary disposition of certain issues raised under the Atomic Energy Act. The motions concerning the environmental issues were succo'ssful. See page A-23 below. The. motions concerning health and safety issues were rejected as " premature since discovery will not close
.until . .. after the issuance of the SER." Board Order
! Relative to Applicant's "First Gneup" of Motions for Summary Disposition at 3 (March 8, 1979); Board Order Relative to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition on the "Second
-Group" of Contentions'(March 8, 1979).
over two years after LILCO's initial attempts to obtain summary disposition of certain health and safety issues, the Company filed motions for summary disposition of all or parts (foo'tnote cont'd). followed a tortuous path." Order Ruling on Petition of Shore-ham opponents coalition at 12 (March 5, 1980). But while dis-covery had already "followed a tortuous path" by 1980, in fact
-the process was still in its infancy, as measured against the discovery yet to come.
e
- -- - + - - - -*,w,,n-
A-13 of five SOC contentions. See LILCO Motions for Summary Disposition of SOC Contentions 1, 2, 3, 6(a)(1), and 12 (Part Two) (July 13, 1981). LILCO withdrew its motions concerning Contentions 3 and 12 (Part Two) after agreeing with SOC about the particularization of the underlying issues. S=e LILCO's 1-l pleading on' Matters Pending for Board Decision at 3 n.1 (Dec. 23, 1981). SOC withdrew its Contention 6(a)(i) in lieu of responding to LILC'O's motion for summary disposition of that contention." Board Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at the Conference of Parties at 20 (March 15, 1982), 15 NRC at 616. SOC Contentions 1 and 2, "as-framed by the filing of SOC in response to the motions for summary disposition by
, LILCO 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 Commission's 4 emergency planning regulations." Id. at 24, 15 NRC at 618. No summary disposition phase occurred between the Board's final prehearing ruling on litigable contentions and the beginning of hearings themselves because of the short i. l interlude involved and because of the demands of testimony preparation and discovery. The only summary disposition motion filed during the hearings was withdrawn prior to ASLB ruling. l See Tr. 4983-90, 4995-96. L l i
- e,,
-w- w- p. - - , -
-,q w---- --n-,,-en.-ve-,,--,m. ---,-,---,,m v. waw ,,--ww- m.-~-~*-----eww-w,>e-www~w~w
l A-14 o (f) Settlements This proceeding has been characterized by sustained, often successful efforts to resolve issues without the need for further litigation. Settlement negotiations began in carnest early in 1979. They have continued with infrequent inter-ruption, involving thousands of hours of effort. During the first two years of negotiations, attention-focused on clarifying, narrowing and/or eliminating contentions. As the Board stated in its June 28, 1979 Order approving the parties' first stipula*. ion: l The' Applicant, NRC Staff, and Suffolk ' County (SC) entered into a stipulation on s\ < June 5, 1979, which provides for the withdrawal of several SC contentions and a commitment.of the Applicant to assume l additional responsibilities. i ! The Board accepts the stipulation and encourages the parties to continue their efforts to resolve or particularize contentions. l See also, e.g., Order Relative to-Stipulation Concerning 10 CFR ! Part 70 (Oct. 5, 1979);' Memorandum Concerning the Second Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Nov. 116, 1979); Order Relative to the Second Stipulation Concerning Suffolk County Contentions (Jan. 7, 1980); Order Accepting
' Third Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions
.(June 26, 1980); Order Relative to Stipulation by the NRC Staff
~
O . vv~ -- aw- ,- v--.,-,.m---- ,---a,w-vm-,.-.-,-,,--ms- , a,-,,--,.-v,-,- , - - - ~
-,--w ---e,www,e---nv-
l A-15 l and Shoreham opponents Coalition (June 26, 1980); Order Accepting Fourth Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Oct. 27, 1980) ("The Board . . . commends the parties for their continuing efforts to resolve differences and to sharpen the issues"); Order Relative to Fifth Stipulation on Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Feb. 17, 1981) (". . . the
. parties are again to be commended in their continuing
, efforts" )'; see also comments of the security Board set out on ,
~
pages A-6 to -7 above.
-From spring through fall 1981, negotiations became more ambitious, involving an intense effort -- ultimately unsuc-cessful -- to reach a comprehensive settlement between the County and the Company. As counsel for Suffolk County 1
explair ed .to the Board in late October 1981: Since April of this year, the County and the Applicant have been engaged in negotiaticns regarding the possible ' settlement of the County's intervention
.in the 0.L. proceedings. Since the end of May, the County's negotiation team has
- included members of the Exscutive and i
Legislative Branches of the County, along with the County Attorney and the County's technical consultants. Pursuant to a Suffolk County Resolution passed in June
- of this year, it was mandated that
! approval by the Suffolk County Legis-lature would be needed before the County could enter into any final settlement agreement,
- j. At a' meeting in June of 1981, the .
L representatives of the Applicant and the County agreed upon a final version of the O - 1
s. l' i
- j. A-16 LO proposed Sixth Stipulation. It was understood between the representatives at that meeting that upon receipt of a let-ter from LILCO's Chairman of the Board,
! indicating his approval of the proposed c Sixth Stipulation, a resolution would be L introduced into the County Legislature, i calling for' legislative approval of the Sixth Stipulation. On October 13, 1981, a letter.was sent from Charles R. Pierce, P Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Applicant, to Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive, indicating that he was prepared to recommend to the Board of Directors of the Company that the Board authorize execution'of the Sixth , Stipulation by the. appropriate represen-
'tatives of the Company once it has finally been approved by Mr. Cohalan and the County Legislature, and executed in behalf of the County.
l l . At this point, a resolution l - requesting legislative approval will be
, introduced to the Suffolk County Legislature at its next legislative ses-sion. After legislative deliberation,
. passage or such a resolution could occur as early as November 10, 1981. Should the County Legislature authorize the -
County Executive-to sign the Sixth Stipulation, then the agreement would be offered to the Applicant's Board of Directors for its approval. It is at this time that the Sixth Stipulation could be offered to the Board for its review. Suffolk County's Response to the Applicant's Motion that a
~ '
Hearing Schedule be Set at 1-2 (Oct. 21, 1981). On December 8, . the County Legislature rejected the settlement. From the collapse of comprehensive negotiations in December 1981 until the beginning of.-hearings, there was no
A-17 ! l settlement activity. It resumed in May 1982 and has since resulted in the resolution of numerous contentions. They are
- listed in Appendix B below, " Sequence of Settlements."
At'all times, the Board has encouraged and facilitated the settlement process. The present Board, at the request of the parties, has cancelled hearings at times to permit negotiations to go forward undistracted. See, e.g., Tr. 9936-42, 9956-59. The Board on other occasions has reduced the length of hearing days to the same end. See, e.g., Tr. 8318, 9327. And the Transcript is filled with Board-imposed deadlines for reports by the parties on the progress of their negotiations and with Board inquiries into what disputes remain and why they remain.
- g. Public Prehearing Examinations On October 29, 1982, the Board "noted that it was con-sidering ordering that the parties conduct cross-examination, redirect and recross examination with respect to the Phase I
, emergency planning contentions initially by means of public prehearing depositions." Board Memorandum and Order Ruling on Licensing Board Authority to Direct that Initial Examination of the Pre-Filed Testimony Be. Conducted by Means of Prehearing Examinations at 1 (Nov. 19, 1982); see also Tr. 12,541-43. After giving all parties ample opportunity to address the O
l A-18 legality and wisdom of the proposed pro edure, e.g., Memorandum Advising SOC and NSC of Board Proposal to Require Depositiens and of Opportunity to File Views (Nov. 9, 1982), the Board
- adopted the procedure. Suffolk County, SOC and NSC refused to participate in the depositions so ordered. Accordingly, on l
~
November 23 and 30, 1982, the Board dismissed all Phase I emergency planning contentions not previously settled. Tr.
- 14,746-49, 14,753; see generally Board Memorandum and Order Confirming Ruling on Sanctions for Intervenors' Refusal to -
Comply with Order to Participate in Prehearing Examinations (Dec. 22, 1982). Much the same use'of.prehearing examinations was subse-quantly made in order to narrow and focus the hearings on an
- l. aspect of the QA dispute. See Board Memorandum and Order of 4
-December 22, 1982, above, at 15-16. The County, the only intervenor active in the quality assurance litigation, partici-pated in these depositions.
- h. Hearings Early in 1978, two years after the start of the Shorehca _OL proceeding, LILCO first began to press for hearings or for some other definitive means of resolving issues that the Company-thought had become ripe for resolution.3/
3/ See, e.g., Applicant's Request that the Board Set a Schedule for Resolution of Environmental Issues (Feb. 24, (footnote cont'd)
A-19 f ( Five and one half years after the OL proceeding began, on October 6, 1981, LILCO filed " Applicant's Motion that a Hearing Schedule Be Set," asking that the Board take concrete steps to and the prehearing process -- steps beginning on November 4 with "(a]Il parties . . . either (1) agreeing on a list of particularized issues to be litigated further . . . or
'(2)~ stating their disagreements," and ending on February 23, 1982 with the actual start of hearings. The Board denied the ,
motion by telegram, on November 6, 1981. A month later, LILCO renewed its request that hearings begin, explaining: The Suffolk County Legislature rejected yesterday the Sixth Stipulation and Settlement that had been-negotiated in great detail, and at great length, by representatives of the County, LILCO and the NRC Staff. It has become even more crucial than L before, accordingly, that the Board set a i schedule for the rest of this proceeding, L beginning with a deadline for particu-l larizing contentions. Their particu-l larization has been underway literally for years. t (footnote cont'd) _, 1978); Applicant's Request for Summary Disposition of
.OHILI/ Committee Contentions 7a(ii) and-(iii) (June 23, 1978);
l Applicant's Request for Summary Disposition of Suffolk County
- Contentions 4a(vii), (x); 7a(ii)-(iii), (vi)-(vii); 12a (viii);
and lea (Dec. 18, 1978) (with an alternative request for hear-ings if summary disposition was unavailable); Motions of Long Island Lighting Company for summary disposition of SOC Contentions 1-3, 6(a)(1) and 12 (Part Two): Overview (July 13, 1981) (with an alternative request for hearings if summary dis-position was unavailable). O l
~
A-20 O At the risk of becoming grimly monotonous on the subject, LILCO feels
- j. compelled to stress, once again, the protracted nature of nuclear proceedings on Long Island.
Further LILCO Supplement to the Recent Status Report of the County and Staff (Dec. 9, 1981). Hearings did begin on May 4, 1982. To date, there have ensued 23 weeks of evidentiary sessions spread over eight months. More than 7,000 pages of written direct testimony and attachments have been filed. The Transcript has reached 17,533 pages. Over 170 exhibits have been generated, as well as many motions,-briefs and ASLB orders. Almost 100 witnesses have j' testified.4/ For further detail, see Appendices C (" Sequence of Testimony"), D (" Witnesses in Alphabetical Order"), and E (." Exhibits by Party and Number"). The 1982 evidentiary hearings took place on the dates and at the places set out below: r Weeks Dates Transcript Pages Places 1 May 4-7 Tr. 932-1845 Riverhead. l 2 May 25-28 Tr. 1846-2677 Riverhead i 3 June 1-4 Tr. 2678-3609 Riverhead l-r 4f If a particular person has testified on more than one contention, he has been counted anew for each contention on j which he has been a witness. O U L i. _._...m_. _ _ . , ,%,_,.. . , . . _ _ , _ . _ - _ . , , , , _ . _ . . . . , _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
A-21 O 4 June 8-11 Tr. 3610-4321 Hauppauge 5 _ June 15, 17-18 Tr. 4322-991 Hauppauge 6 June 22-25 Tr. 4992-5700 Riverhead 7 July 6-9 Tr. 5701-6412 Riverhead 8 July 13'-16 Tr. 6413-7168 Riverhead 9 July'20-22 Tr. 7169-904 Riverhead 10 , July 27-30 Tr. 7905-8686 Riverhe,ad 11 Aug. 3-5 Tr. 8687-9302 Riverhead 12 Aug. 24-27 Tr. 9303-10,036 Hauppauge 13 Sept. 14-17 Tr. 10,037-616 Hauppauge 14 Sept. 21-24 Tr. 10,617-11,308 Hauppauge 15 Oct.-12-15 Tr. 11,309-12,021 Bethesda
,NT 16 Oct. 27-29 Tr. 12,022-543 Bethesda
, LI 17 Nov. 2-5 Tr. 12,544-13,275 Bethesda
'18 Nov. 9-12 Tr. 13,276-14,025 Bethesda I 19 Nov. 16-19 Tr. 14,026-712 Bethesda l- '
Nov. 23 Tr. 14,713-749 Hauppauge 20 Nov. 30, Tr. 14,750-15,476 Bethesda Dec. 1-3 21 Dec. 7-10 Tr. 15,477-16,190 Bethesda 22 Dec. 14-17 Tr. 16,191-17,006 Bethesda 23 Dec. 20-22 Tr. 17,007-533 Bethesda l l The hearings have always been open to the public, with l eV i I
s
's A-22 the exception of sessions held in camera from May through July, both on the-record and in chambers, to discuss the security of new fuel on site, and except for a September 13, 1982 prehearing conference before the Board charged with the litiga-tion concerning plant security.
Numerous people made limited appearances, though no members of the public were present during most of the 1982 hearings. Limited appearances were received on April 13-14, May 27, and June 2 and 8, 1982. See Tr. 530-644, 832-981, 2475-80, 3123-29, 3813-16. The Board on November 30, 1982 directed the parties to file findings of. fact and conclusions of law on all disputed () matters litigated before September 14, 1982, on the following schedule: LILCO initially on January 10, 1983, SC/ SOC /NSC on L January 20, the Staff on January 31, and LILCO in reply on February 7. Tr. 14,789-92. On January 5, 1983, in response to the county's-unopposed l request,-these deadlines were extended L by one week. Tr. 17,539.
- 5. ISSUES (a) Non-Health and Safety Issues L In addition to the health and safety contentions heard and/or settled since the beginning of evidentiary hearings, the Board and parties have also engaged three other sorts of
~
issues: those involving (1) environmental matters, (2) (} extension _of.Shoreham's construction permit, and (3) new fuel. c
_ m A-23 fi o (1) Environmental Issues The Board raised certaia environmental questions that were answered to its satisfactica. CHILI /NSC, Suffolk County,
- and SOC also raised issues under uhe National Environmental Policy Act. Some of their NEPA contentions were rejected at the pleading stage for a variety of defects; some were dis-missed because their proponents failed to respond to' discovery concerning them; others did not withstand motions for summary disposition. 5/
On August 4, 1978, the Board ruled that: [T]here are no remaining environmental issues to be considered in this case. f~ Therefore an environmental hearing will ss)- not be held.
- Memorandum and' Order Relative to Board Concerns Regarding Fish-Return System and Chlorine Discharge at 6 (Aug. 4, 1978). The Shoreham Opponents Coalition failed in its attempt to reverse this ruling when SOC antered the proceeding over a year after l_ the ruling came down.s/
l 5/ See, e.g., Board Memorandum and Order at 17-18 (Jan. 27, 1978); Order Relative to NRC Staff Motion to Compel Discovery L and Impose Sanctions (April 19, 1978); Order Relative to l Motions for Summary Disposition from Applicant and NRC Staff of L Consolidated Intervenors (CI) Contentions 7(a)(ii) and (iii) (July 25, 1978); Memorandum and order Relative to Board L Concerns Regarding Fish-Return System and Chlorine Discharge (Aug. 4, 1978).
- s/ See, e.g., Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents l Coalition at 22-24 (March 5, 1980); Memorandum and Order
'N (footnote cont'd) l l
A A-24 2 (2) Extension of the Construction Permit
. On December 18, 1978, LILCO requested an extension of Shoreham's construction permit. An extension to December 31, 1980 was granted on May 14, 1979. See 44 Fed. Reg. 29,545 (1979).
On November 26, 1980, the Company requested a further extension of the permit, which was opposed by the Shoreham
. Opponents Coalition. On January 23, 1981, SOC requested a hearing on the extension application and moved under 10 CFR 524 206 to have the permit suspended and/or revoked. Six
. months later, SOC sued the NRC in federal district and circuit .
l['
; courts to the same ends. The suits were dropped once the NRC granted SOC an opportunity for hearing on the CP extension and iruled 'on SOC's 5 2.206 request.
'e
. O On July 22, 1981, the Commission issued an' order stating that.it-had: - '
L e determined that the request [for a CP j extension hearing] will be granted, sub-l .e ject to the petitioner advancing at least
.. one litigable contention, and that an
.. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is to be convened to consider whether SOC's ,
. . petition raises issues litigable in this L .:. .
construction permit extension proceeding, (footnote cont'd) Relating to Response of SOC to Board Order dated March 5, 1980, at 8 (May 1, 1980). t t 8
- ,-q. .-,....,.e-, r,,-, --,--,r.,, , - - , - , - - - , - . ,-re--- -,,--,,----,.v--,e w,-.- .-w-,----v--n-- -- - - - , < , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7-g,. w ,
=
-V ~ gy, I
- 39. ,
\, .]D' . f.
y y..;;j . '^--s .y s m .s L., ; R. A-25
- g. g w~
dM ' 1 'and, if so, to hear and decide those issues on the merits. '
'\ 'N
$' (July 22, 1981) (footp'ote omitted) . Five days '
; M~\,M[later, jiRC. the Order -Board sit'at ting' 2 la the Ehcreham' OL proceeding was also appointed to' deal with the CP extensions issues.- 46 Fed. Reg.
.6 't After considering exten'sive written and oral y i39,'516:(19819 ' -$ s ,,x arguntents , the 3 card found that SOC @hd' failed to raise "at *
. i. \
least one litigable contention and, gherefore, ordered that no
, N hearing be held'on the CP extension appli. cation. See Tr. 497-h1 s ,,
( $01.(March 30,A 198'?)';.Boagd M'Emorandum and Grder Ruling on
' N -
s u
' SOC' u Construction Permit' J':xten lon Contentions and Request for s.
Q , Hearing of Shoreham Oppononis Coalitions (May'14, 1982), 15 NRC
- g. '.w ,t. m \
' sp 1295~(19G2). SOO did not appeal the denial'.of its hearing , h ,Lreiuest. .t On-Ju '15, 1982, the con truction perztit was i' extended.untiliMarch 31, 1983. 47 Fed. Reg. 32,502 (1982).
- - Q. ' ; s d;in SOC's i 2.206l request for a stay and/or revocation of Q . the CP had been previously denied. Long Isisnd Lighting Co.
r d'
< s s (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), DD -al-9, 13 NRC 1125
- ) _
(June 26, 1981). (3) New Fuel
~ s t
\ L on September 25, 1978,4ILCO applicd fcr a license to
%,, l t .
receive, possess and store new fuel on site, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70 7 On Kovember 3, 1978, the Staff notified the Board and s
.\ s %
t j \. -
.k , 7 ,.
y
. m 4 -
\'
.s ,,- _. m - . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . , . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . -
A-26 O parties of the pendency of the Part 70 application. Almost eight months thereafter, on July 27, 1979, the North Shore
' Committee against Thermal and Nuclear Pollution opposed the application, requested a hearing on it, and sought a stay of the issuance of any license pending Board action.
LILCO and the Staff, in turn, opposed NSC's requests. Negotiations ensued, leading to settlement of the dispute. See Stipulation Regarding Application'for a Special Nuclear Material License (Sept. 18, 1979). The Board thereafter ruled: On September 24, 1979, the Staff transmitted a stipulation dated September - L 18, 1979, concerning the issuance of
- materials license pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
L Part 70, to permit receipt, possession
'N and storage of unirradiated new fuel
;s assemblies at the site. The stipulation was signed by the North Shore Committee Against Thermal and Nuclear Pollution, the Staff and the Applicant.
. The stipulation is accepted by the Board. - r Order ~ Relative to Stipulation Concerning 10 C.F.R. Part 70 t ( (Oct. 5, 1979). Suffolk County took no part in any aspect of l-these developments; SOC was not yet a party to the proceeding. In May 1982, LILCO received a Part 70 license. Immediately thereafter, at the request of Suffolk County, the l Board temporarily forbade shipment of new fuel pursuant to the license. See Interim Order Staying Shipment of Fuel (May 20, i 1982, corrected, May 24, 1982). LILCO and Suffolk County, with L : i (::) - 1 i l __ _ .- - _ - - . _ = . - .. . .
;p;w ;; gy 3;
;. 7 ~
, .j g ,.y -
c,. V- WN ' ' ~ [h , Q L J , .; . ; "! 3/; , g ("o A-27 h_., - 7
- n .
'the. concurrence of the NRCIStaff, then' negotiated a resolution ,
~
, of th's County's concerna about the se'curity of the new fuel
- q. iG x [ :& u ,. , .
- h. R_
- p-
, once ont:fite.-Ton -M ,
Jtine 9, 1982, the Board approved the parties' $_1 m 't % ** Mj WZ~_g_. agreement and removed *the sta). See y . 4031-32; Confirmatory 7 du* [ Order Liftilag'" Interim Order Staying Shipment of Fuel" (June
.c . ., g -
ty
+ + 14,91982). .Followis.g' implementation of the LILCO/ County s,
- y5 x ,
Vg)J[ ' /" ag$eemEnt, nttw - fuelj reeiched the site in mid-July 1982.
~r
.,[g
; Cj s -
M g /; ' [(b)' gehlth and Safet'y Matters yng y y %[f; y->
^
.e- '
~
y N Thirty-isif tets ;7f of health and safety contentions l }7., , . .
. ,_j . t,
. y . f .,A * " '
s'%,v ,y -
.g
bx nr . , 'i t"~ , , .. < ,g j .
X;See the partist in.itiid. decision, ' a bove, at note 3.for the
*+2' . firation of.a " set" of contantions. 'The~syrtem of numbers used*for these contentions had its origins-in the various
[, (]f2;i'ntervenors' . designations of yaeir initial contentions. See, Q , County of Suffolk's Amepded Petition to Intervene (Sept. 19, 1977), which raised numerous proposed-contentions numbered:
- y. 1- 2(a)(i)-(vi) 16(a)
, '"Sp g- 3 ( a).(i)-(iii) , . (b)-(d) l'.1 17(a)(i)_(iv). f.O ' W 4(a)(1)-(xviii),-(b) ;~ 18(a)(i)-(xi)_ l# $
- 5( s)(i)--(xx)," (b)(i) ,(iil), . p 19-(a)(i)-{vi) 0* y,. > '(c)( ; .. / N if 20(a)(i)-(ii) l4 G 6(a((i,1)-(iv).O )-(1 J (b)' ' 4 .,.; ', 21 ", .
L T 7(aT(i)-(vi ) 7~ "r-, , # . v: 22 p J.
.9(a)(1)-(ii) .- ;3 .
E , 4,
- 9 ( a ) (.1)-(lv) , (b)(i)-(iv)- 24
/* a '
10(a)(1)-(v),'(b) 25 (incorporating as conten-L.E '11(a)(i.f-(v), (b) : tions all " critical com-L".v- iv ' 12(a)(1)-(viii) . - ments" on the D~ aft Environ-I " I13(a)(i)-(vi), (4)C(c) mental Statement) i 14(a) t r. .- 26(1)-(111) [ l 15(a)(i)-(ix).[e yn. ,
!. 27 1 'See.also theinumero%us, similarly numbered contentions in Soc's 9 ' Petition tw Suspend. Construction Permit . . .
l:
, and to Renotice Hearings?.l.-., or in'the Altotrnative, to Permit Late Inter-t[. a.
vention of/.; SOC : 4ursuant'to . ".~ .'Section 2.714 (Jan. 24, 1980). l- [ j, j . ,,- aj ,?.e -
'yL
. .s 5 ^<
~
~S
/ ':V y ' T/[c s f _l .' ^
+ e. $
. ). p
, , i + .
A-28 O were-finally accepted for hearings by the Board. These contentions emerged from hundreds of proposed issues, years of
.informalfnegotiations, stipulations, settlements, and many
, formal disputes among the parties, plus numerous responsive rulings by the Board.g/ Of these 36 sets of issues, almost 20 g/ Beginning with a May 1976 ruling, there have followed to date over 30 orders concerning the contentions to be litigated. . These rulings include: Memorandum and Order (May 7, 1976); Memorandum and Order (Feb. 22, 1977); Memorandum and Order (Aug. 1,~1977); Memorandum and Order (Jan. 27, 1978) (con-firming rulings made during the Oct. 11, 1977 prehearing con-forence); Order Relative to Requests for Clarification and , Reconsideration of the Board Order of January 27, 1978 (March ! 8, 19,78); Order Relative to NRC Staff Motion to Compel
. Discovery and Impose Sanctions (April 19,-1978); Memorandum and Order Relative to Board Concerns Regarding Fish-Return System , and Chlorine Discharge (Aug. 4, 1978);~ Order Granting NRC Staff \ Motion of August 18, 1978 to Impose Sanctions (Oct. 27, 1978);
Order Approving the June 5, 1979 Stipulation (June 28, 1979);
-Order Relative to Stipulation Concerning 10 CFR Part 70 (Oct.
5, 1979); Memorandum Concerning the Second Stipulation l Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Nov. 16, 1979); Order Relative to the Second Stipulation.Concerning Suffolk t County Contentions (Jan. 7, 1980); order Ruling on Petition of l- Shoreham Opponents coa 12 tion (March 5, 1980); Certification to l: the Commission (March 14, 1980); ALAB Memorandum (March 25, 1980); Memorandum and Order Relating to Response of' SOC to Board Order Dated March 5, 1980 (May 1, 1980); ALAB Order (May.
.2 0, 1980); order Accepting Third Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County _ Contentions (June 26, 1980); Order Relative to
- Stipulation by the NRC Staff and Shoreham Opponents' Coalition L
(June 26,~1980); Order Admitting Shoreham Opponents coalition (SOC) Contention.12-3rd Subpart (July 2,'1980); order Accepting
" Joint Motion for Acceptance of SOC Contentions 6(a)(1) and for Extension [of Time] to Complete Particularization" (Oct. 27, 1980);-Order Accepting Fourth Stipulation Regarding Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Oct. 27, 1980); Order Relative to t Fifth-Stipulation on Certain Suffolk County Contentions (Feb.
I 17, 1981); Memorandum and. Order (Ruling on Shoreham Opponents l Coalition's Motion for Acceptance of Particularized Contention
- 19) (July 7, 1981); Order Approving Stipulation (Aug. 10,
() . (footnote cont'd) b
A-29 O
- (-) '
have so far been settled before reaching hearings, and one more l has been settled.after hearings were held on it. Nine fully litigated sets of contentions are the subject of this partial !
. initial decision. The rest of the contentions remain either actually in hearings, awriting their beginning, or in settle-ment negotiations.
Members of the Board have examined witnesses in detail and have from time to time requested information on matters both within and beyond the scope of admitted contentions. See, e.g., Tr. 1156-73, 1410-11, 2355-56, 10,043-47, 14,787-88, 14,792-96. The Board has not determined sua sponte, however, that "a serious. safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists." See 10 CFR 5 2.760a. 4 (footnote cont'd) 1981); Order-(Aug. 25, 1981); Memorandum and Order Approving Stipulations, Deferring Rulings on Summary Judgment Pending Further Particularization, Scheduling a Conference of Parties and Setting su Estimated Schedule for the Filing of Testimony l (Feb. 8, 1982); Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at
- j. the Conference of Parties (Regarding Remaining Objections to L Admissibility of Contentions and Establishment of Hearing l . Schedule),(March 15, 1982) (confirming rulings during the March '
i 9-10 prehearing conference); Prehearing Conference Order (April 20, 1982); Memorandum and Order Ruling on SOC's Construction Permit Extension Contenti nc and Raquest for Hearing of j Shoreham Opponents Coalition (May 14, 1982); Prehearing Conference Order (Phase I -- Emergency Planning) (July 27, 1982); Supplemental Prehearing Conference Order (Phase
- j. I -- Emergency Planning) (Sept. 7, 1982); Appendix B to l September 7, 1982 Supplemental Prehearing Conference Order l (Phase I -- Emergency Planning) (Oct. 4, 1982).
lO .
~ - . ,_-.,.-._-.-,,.,_--...,.%....-.--...-,-....m_.._,.__,,__..,,--_,,--e-..- - -
, , . . - - . , ----.,we..m,,,--..-.,- , - w er,,
A-30 4 b/ The course of events, once hearings began, is summa-rized below in terms of the 36 sets of health and safety
, contentions. They are listed in che order in which they have been litigated and/or their settlements have been accepted by the Board:
~
' Contention Hearing and/or Sets Numbers Subjects Settlement Dates 1 .SC/ SOC-7B; Safety classification 5/4-7 SOC 19(b) and Systems Interaction 6/15, 17-18, 22-25 7/6-9, 13-16, 21-22 <
2 SC 2 Dirt in Diesel Generator 5/7 Settled - Relays 3 SC 17- Fire Protection 5/7 Settled ' j 4 SOC 19(j) Turbine Orientation 5/7 Settled ' N_/ 5 SC 4 Water Hammer 5/25-27 10/14 Stipulation on Receipt into Evidence of Sup-plemental Testimony i SC-10 ECCS Core Spray 5/28 - 7 SC 5 Loose Parts' Monitoring 6/1-4 [ 12/7 Settled 8 3H: 11 Valve Failure 6/4, 8-9 9 SOC 19(e) Seismic Design , 6/9-10 10 SOC 16 Clad Swelling and 6/11 Settled *
- Flow Blockage l~
l 11) SC 28(a)(iii)/ Iodine' Monitoring 6/15 Settled SOC 7A(3) o
A-31 l: ( Contention Hearing and/or Sets". Numbers Subjects Settlement Dates . 12 -SC 28(a)(iv)/ SPDS 7/8 Settled SOC 7A(4) 13 .SC/ SOC 22; SRV Tests and 7/27-30; 8/3 m: 28(a)(vi)/ Challenges 10/14 Stipulation SOC 7A(6) on Receipt into Evidence of_Sup-plemental Testimony 14 SOC 9 Notice of Disabled 8/5 Settled
;. Safety System 15 SC 28(a)(i)/ ECCS Cutoff 8/5' Settled, but SOC 7A(1) Needs Supplemental Agreement 16 SC 16 -ATWS 9/3-5 l
l'7 SC-27/ SOC 3 -Post Accident 8/24-25 Monitoring 10/14 Partially
, Settled p 18 SC 9 ECCS Pump Blockage ~8/25 Settled l-
! 19- SC 21~ Mark II 8/26-27 l 20 'SC/ SOC.12; Quality Assurance 9/14-17, 21-24 L SC 13-15 10/12-15, 27-29 11/2-5, 9-12, 16-19, 30 12/1-3, 7-10, 14-17, 20-22 and ongoing I. 21 SC 19 Buman Factors (HF) -- 10/14 Settled Procedures 22 SC 20 HF -- Simulator 10/14 Settled 23 SC 25/ RPV Integrity and 10/14 Settled SOC'19(a) Testing 24 SC 26 ALARA 10/14 Settled O
i A-32 ! ) Contention Hearing and/or Sets Numbers Subjects Settlement Dates 25 SC/ SOC /NSC Phase I Emergency Planning EP l-14 EP 1(A) Effect of Weather on 11/23 Settled' Sirens EP 3 Federal Resources 11/23 Settled' EP 5(C) Notification with 11/23 Settled Emergency Classification EP 6 Training of Offsite 11/23 Settled - Agencies luP 7(A) Emergency Director and 11/23 Settled-Response Manager EP 8 Emergency Operations 11/23 Settled - Facility l EP 9 Radiological Exposure 11/23 Settled. () EP 10(A) Field Monitoring 11/23 Settled - EP ll(D) Redundant Power Supplies 11/23 Settled' EP.ll(E) Communications through 11/23 Settled' Beepers EP 11(F) NAWAS 11/23 Settlal-EP 12(A) Number of Personnel in 11/23 Settled - EOF EP - 1 ( ;B) ' ' Backup Power 11/23 Dismissed - by the Board i because'SC/ SOC /NSC Defaulted on oblig-atory Prehearing Examinations l EP 1(C) Gaps in Siren Coverage 11/23 Dismissed' EP 2(A) 11/23 Dismissed < Adequate Medical Services i i
A-33
. ('s}/ --.
~
Contention Hearing and/or , , Sets' Numbers Subjects Settlement Dates EP'2(B) _ Ground Tr~ansportation 11/23 Dismissed < to Hospital EP.4 Protective Actions 11/23 Dismissed - 11/23 Dismissed-
~
EP 5(A)' Role Conflict E EP 5(B) Traffic , 11/23 Dismissed '
-EP 7(B) Table B-1 11/23 Dismissed -
EP lO(B) Real-time Monitors ll/23. Dismissed <
.EP lO(C) Iodine Monitoring 11/23 Dismissed
EP ll(A) Communications with 11/23 Dismissed ' and (B) Offsite Response Organizations (A) Sabotage, Power . Outage, Overload (B) Vulnerability to Weather
- j. EP 13 Interim SPDS 11/23 Dismissed '
EP 14 Accident and Dose 11/23 Dismissed " Assessment Model
'26 SC Security security Planning 12/3 Settled 1-9 27 SC 18- . HP -- Equipment 12/7 Settled -
28 SC 1 Remote Shutdown Panel 12/21 Settled - 29 SC 3/ SOC 8 Inadequate Core Cooling 12/22 settled -
- 30. SC-31/ SOC 19(g) Electrical Separation 31 SC 24/ SOC 19(c) Cracking of Materials and (d) 32 SC 8/ SOC 19(h) Environmental Qualifications 1
O
A-34 - Contention Hearing and/or Sets Numbers Subjects Settlement Dates 4 33 SOC.19(i) Seismic Qualifications 34 SC 23~ Containment Isolation 35 SC 32/ SOC 19(f) Electrical Penetration 36 'SC/ SOC /NSC Phase II Emergency Plannir.J
- 6. CONCLUSION The Shoreham operating license proceeding has been vig-orously underway for almost seven years. It has occasioned
, ;. discovery far beyond the norm for administrative litigation.
.' ^
It has involved sustained, often successful efforts to narrow - () and focus the-issues for hearings or to settle disputes outright without the'need for hearings. No negotiations of comparable scope and effect have occurred in other NRC litiga-tion. And~the hearings themselves, already approaching 90 days and not yet complete,.will rarely be surpassed in agency b practice. l' d i i I . e u--+wr_ . ..--.- .__
~
', ATTACHMENT'4 , , . ..
. .n e UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA. " - -
(m)- NUCLEAR REGULAT.0RY' COMMISSION- . In the.Metter of . r
. :- , i MI551551PRI POWER A LIGHT COMPANY. D'ocket.No,50-416- -
~ MIDDLE.500TH' ENERGY,.INC.,.AND '
' SOUTH MI5515&IPPI ELECTRIC POWER * .
ASSOCIATION- :. . (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station-) : [ ORDER REQUIRING DIESEC.GEdRATOR..INSPECTIONt (EFFECTIVE IMME I .. l Mitsfss:fppi Power k Light Company, MiddTe S~outh- Energy.. Inc., and- <. .
.,.- [
Stutii Mississiplit ETectrtc Power Kssociation-(the licensees 0, are the- . . . HoldersofFacilityOperating.LicenseNo.NRF-13',hhich. authorizes.the. -
, .t,,, operation of: the Gcand Gulf Nuclear Station,. Unit 1- (the.facilityl .at.- .
steady.-stata reactor. power leve.ls: not in excess of'ISI: megawatts thecmal.. . . The facili.ty consists, of a boiling; water reactor.(BWR/6) with a Merk !!t "' ' ' - containment.loca.ted?in Cia.ihorne County..M5ssissipp.f.. - j Ir.. ; On August 12,.1983;, the main. crankshaf.t. on one of the thrt.a. emergency. ' : I-
.diese1 generators. (EDG'.) s et.the Shoreham Nuclean Power Station, which were -
manufactured by. Transamerica Delaval... Inc. (TDI-), broke into two.p.ieces' during" -
.a load tests During the course of the avaluation of'ths failure, infomation % -
related.to ther operating.histoty of TQI enginer has: been:%ntiffed which. .
' cal.Ts into question the. reliability of' all TDI diese.ls. The operational - -
probTems associated with TDI diesels have rign,1f.icantly reduced the. staff'sc 1hvol. of confidence:in ther reliability of alt.TDr diese.1 generators. :- " l . . g . g
- 2. - -
O
~
IIT.. As a result,sf'the above, there is a question. concerning the reliabil.ity o* the TDI diesel generatorst insta1Ted at.the-Grand Gulf"facil.ityr.- Staf.1' analysis (Attachment.1.). indicates' that the tota 1 Toss: of diesels at.5%.pawr would not significantly. ' increase..the risk of Tow-power opera'tiert, Nuverthelessy one of .the contributors. to .that. risk is.: some very low prohahtiity environmentat , ivents;;. That. risk is reduced it"the reliability. of the T5J disse.1 generator ts - enhanced. Consequently, it.is approgrtate'tc have incresspd assurance.es-ta - :- - reliabre onsite; power. Moreo.ven,.forfell.-poweroperatiun.a.highdeprep<of e
+
-,. reliability;is reqpired fhr the diesel generators. THe mopt.4pproprists.psthed '
b. to.obtain infomation. about.the. specific conditic:is of the dieset genera'tner at - L Grand Gul.f is:.to. disassemble and inspect.the. dieser generator which has 6een ," I operating tho. longest.. T.He publ.tc interest. requires that, that. questions abnut . > > - ther reliabiitty. of the: Grand G'uff. dies *T generatoes hes reso.Tvedi promp.tly. While T ' l e' these questions:are being. resorved, there is a need. to enhance tile availabtitty '- - l - of-other sources of' power supplied to the facility - - Therefore,.'the:. pub.1fc Hesith,. safety and interest. require that, the, diesel . , - generator w.ith the most. hours of~ operation be. inspected.ptior to proceeding . M.. i above 5%; power-and' that.While this dieset is disassembled:,.the licensees provide- .
"additioneT power supplies:and compensatory actions set.fbr,th in this, order: . .-
AttachmNt 4 is the: staff's. safety evalbation for operation undor the present-Tow. power 1ftensa with one diesel generator und'a rgoing. inspection.. 1Y..
. Accordingly-l pursuant to sections: 107,.1611,.161o,.182.and'186 of,the O
Atomic Energy Act.of 1954, at. amended, and the ConsnJssion's regulaE1ons: . - _;.__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . . _ .--
~. .
f
~ .. -
. . . . ;..i in 20 CFR Parts 2 and 50 it is hereby. ordered, effective inmediate.ly, that: .
A. I. The Dfvision 1. TDI. diesei generatar shall be. disassembled foc- - inspecEOnwithinIDdays.of'the:date.ofthis: Order in.acccrdance; <- with Attachment.2 which, describes the components to.be inspectad and . the inspections to be perfonned. -
- 2. - Alt defective parts'found; shel.T be replaced prior to de%1 ering.the- '
. eng.ine operable. The engine. block and' engipe. Base may he;. excepted-if.fndtcatfons. are non-critical. Non-cnitical. indications are defined.: .
as: not causing oil or water Teakage, not propagatfng,. or not adversely - affecting. cylinder liners or stud hoTes. ". *-
- 3. . P~reoperational testing must:be performed.on the inspected engine price . .
to..decTaring it operable. This. phase. ofP testing stia11' include. the' . l namifacturer's preoperational test reconuendhtfons and the fo1 Towing . . .
... eTements, if they. are. not sTready included in the menufacturer's- -
recommendationse,. unless they would. not be recomended by the:menufac. - . turer in order to satisfy operabiTft) requiremerits,
,, 10 modif.ied staris to.405. Toad
- 2 fast starts to 70% Toad.
- 124ahour run at 703; load .
K modified start 1s defined as: a. start incTuding a pre. lube period as.' -
.- recommended by the. manufacturer and a 3. to.S' minute Toading.to tiie - - "
spec.ified load level and run for a miniisum of one hour. The fast. starts * . are "blac[ starts" conducted, from the contro.T room on simul'eti.on',o.f an
-i ESE signar with the engine. on ready standby statusa The eng.ine shall 3-be loaded to 705.and run for 4 hours at.this load on each fast. start: -
m ..
. , - . - . ,,___.m_....._. _ _ . _ __.. _,_ . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ , . _ . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . - - - -
. .;. 4 L
,,, . test.. lhe:24* -hour perfomance run is required to detect:abnormit . -
temperatures. and/cc temperature: excursions thatmi'ght indicat'e - abnormal en~gine behavior Either a modified ot quick start may be a uttlized. - ' Shou 14 these tes.ts not.be perfomed satisfactorili"at the first- ' i-attempti. i.e.,. the 10. mqdiffed starts, shall' Se perfomed successively . i with. no fktlure ..the NRC'sh'alf be: notified:within 24' hours A' faiTure- ' { is defined.as an ihah111ty of'the. eng.ine to. start, or an abnormal. con- ' 3 i 1 dition during the respective. run which would ultimately prt'clude. the . . L i
' enginesfrom continu.ing.to operate. '-
' B, '
~ The licenseeseshalt not operate. the Grand' Gult facility under the tems of- - -
' c License;No,. WPF-23 unless4 such operation is in conformance: with the revised.
-[
L .. interim technical specificat. ions. appended to,thir Order ,. (Attachment l3)* C. The.5fmetor, Division of~ Licensing may teminate. th wri. ting any of the r' ,.
.r -l.
I .
.' preceding conditions for good:.casse- . .
\ .
* . .t. ..
i . .. y, ; -
~
Within 20 days of'thes date;of th.is. Order,. the licensees.may.. request - - a hearing on this Order. Any request for e hearing: an this Order. must lie- - filed withirr 20' days of'the: date of the Order with. the Ofractor, Office of* - I -
~
NucTear* Reactor ReguTation, U.S'...NucTear Reg.uratory Commissiop, WasMagton, - D. C. l' 20555. ;A' copy, of the request shalt al.so be sent. to tg Fugggpys - '~ l Legal Directoe at thessame address.. A request for a hearings pell net. l stay the immediatee effectiveness of Section IV of'this Ordem . l I
.. s.
,s '.. . : ,
. ,5_ .~a, V
, If the.'1Tcensees reques.t. e: Hearing on thfs Order.. the. Gems 193jpp:
w i11" issue en ordec des.ignating..the time and place. of hearjqg, }f y hgpjg. .. . is. heTd, the issUd. to.Be considered.at.such a hearing shall' he whg$her thig- i
~ Order.shouid be sustained. . .- - . FOR THE NOCLEBR.REsdi:ATJ4Y. COW 4MtqV J ,
l ,d Haroid R, Denton, Directoe - ! Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulatibn- - Attachments:- : ( Staff > Analysis - 1,, }[
- Inspectfon Descrip' tion- ' r h. .- - :
.I
'h; ,
d4/. Interiin Technica1 Spedficationt " ! ) Safety-Evaluation- . l Dated at.Bethesda, Har - 1 -
. tfi.fs.22nd day ,of M4y,.{.
984. land.
. y f I l
l I 1 l UG .. l . . l - 1
.. ... .}}