ML20093K106
| ML20093K106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093K110 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8407300447 | |
| Download: ML20093K106 (2) | |
Text
n-
~
t,p -
LILCO, July 25, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DClHE TED' UAg Before the Commission
'84 Jbt 27 A11 Z0 In the Matter of
)
)
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-32_2-OL-4
)
(Low Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1-
)
LILCO'S ADDENDUM TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On July 18, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order re-garding the potential admissibility of security issues in the low-power phase of this case.
On July 19, LILCO filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that OEder.
At that time, LILCO was not aware (and did not become aware until-July 23) that the Licensing Bocrd had also issued an Order on July 18, in response to the Commis-sion's Order of the same date, setting a schedule for hearing and decision of low-power security issues.
The Licensing Board's July 18 Order sets out a schedule for litigation of low-power security issues on a separate schedule from other low-po.er issues, leading to the commencement of hear-ings only at the end of October of this year, after completion of formal contention-filing, discovery and testimony-writing phases.
The proposed schedule also contemplates two weeks of hearings on security issues, and submission of proposed findings and conclu-sions by the parties some two weeks later.
Even if the Board is able to adhere to its proposed schedule, the net result will be a 8407300447 840725 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
^
- delay of approximately three months in completion of the parties' efforts in this limited-scope proceeding.
LILCO has today re-quested the Board to reconsider scheduling aspects of its July 18 Order (copy enclosed).
LILCO does not believe that the Commi.sion contemplated that its guidance on those aspects of security issues affected by the physical aspects of low power operation at Shoreham should lead to a proceeding which would nearly double the length of the low-power proceeding, and produce an automatic quarter-of-a-year's delay in that proceeding's completion.1/
For this reason, as well as those advanced in its paper of July 19, LILCO urges the Com'aission to reconsider its July 18 Order.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTI COMPANY W
b6nald P.
Irwin Robert M.
Rolfe Anthony F.
Earley, Jr.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 25, 1984 1/
In a July 23 Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Reconsid-eration, Suffolk County asserts (pg. 3, note 1) that the County "has no intention of seeking a delay" in the scheduled July 30 start of the hearing on all low-power issues other than securi-ty.
Little wonder, in light of the quarter-year delay appar-ently granted to Suffolk County just to litigate low-power se-curity issues!
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'84 J.'!_ 12 92:16' Before Administrative Judges Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Elizabeth B. Johnson
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 4
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
(LowPower)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
July 18, 1984 Unit 1)
)
)
ORDER CONCERNJNG SECURITY CONTENTIONS On July 18, 1984 the Comission entered a Memorandum and Order dealing with the proper scope of this pending exemption proceeding.
Suffolk County and the State of New York had sought to raise issues concerning physical security or sabotage in connection with LILC0's application for a low-power license. The Comission stated that "some Comission guidance is appropriate in order to avoid confusion and delay" (page 2).
The Comission noted that "LILC0's exemption application represents a new development in this proceeding, and it raises some new issues not heretofore considered."
It was not envisioned that the filing of the exemption application would be the occasion for the parties to l
p it t,,, o i v t-
\\W /
Al lkI l
'k relitigate old issues already resolved. Nevertheless, the Comission further stated:
...the parties were to be afforded the opportunity to, raise new contentions, so long as they were responsive to new issues raised by LILCO's exemption request, relevant to the exemption application and decision criteria cited and explained in the May 16, 1984 Order, and reasonably specific and otherwise capable of on-the-record litigation.
The Comission did not envision that the special high thresholds applicable to late contentions and reopening records would apply to such new contentions raised in the initial stages of this exemption proceeding. Therefore, the Comission intends that security issues, if any, may be litigated (1) to the extent they arise from the changes in configuration of the emergency electrical power system and (2) to the extent they are applicable to low power operation.
(Pages 2-3)
Pursuant to the foregoing Comission guidance to the Board and parties, the proposed physical security (sabotage) issues are held to be i
cognizable as a public health and safety concern, constituting under 10 CFR 550.12(a) a concern bearing on whether the requested exemption will
" endanger life or property." These new security contentions will be taken up as discrete issues, and can only be considered by the Board after the conclusion of the resumed evidentiary hearing comencing July 30, 1984.
Such new physical security contentions shall be governed by the following schedule:
August 13, 1984 Intervenors to file proposed new physical l
security contentions complying with the l
Comission's above-quoted criteria.
August 23, 1984 Responses to be filed by other parties.
August 30, 1984 Special prehearing conference to settle contention issues.
1 v
-v-m
't..
Day 1 Order concerning admissibility of security contentions.
Day 2 Discovery comences.
Day 32 Discovery ends.
Day 45 Testimony filed.
Day 55 Hearing begins.
Day 85 Proposed findings and conclusions.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD o
Marshall E. Miller, Chainnan ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of July, 1984.
l r
i
-. -.