ML20126D947

Further Response to FOIA Request for Info Re Issues Discussed in Commission 840516 Order CLI-84-8 Re Exemption Requirements in OL Proceeding.App F Documents Partially & App G Documents Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)

ML20126D947
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak, 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date:	03/19/1985
From:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Belair R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
Shared Package
ML20126D950	List: IA-84-942, Forwards Rev to Proposed Draft Order in SECY-84-393A Based Upon Commissioner Comments.Additions to Draft Order Underlined,Deletions Lined Out.W/O Encl ML20126D947 ML20126D998 ML20126E023 ML20126E050 ML20126E062 ML20126E065 ML20126E068
References
FOIA-84-942, FOIA-85-A-5, REF-10CFR9.7 CLI-84-08, CLI-84-8, NUDOCS 8506150251
Download: ML20126D947 (8)

Text

9 f *C G y

1. k UNITED STATES 8 o - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

)

• E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 To

\.....J Robert R. Belair, Esquire MAR 191985 Kirkpatrick and Lockhart  !

1900 M Street, NW IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F01A-84-942 and 85-A-5(F01A-84-942)

Dear Mr. Belair:

U

' This is in further response to your letter dated December 21, 1984, in which

! you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), copies of i documents related to the issues discussed in the May 16, 1984, Comission order (CLI-84-3)intheShorehamproceeding.

The documents identified on enclosed Appendix D are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, in file folder F01A-84-942 in your name. The documents identified on enclosed Appendix E are already available in the PDR. The file location is indicated beside each document description.

I h The documents identified on enclosed Appendix F are being withheld in part.

Portions of documents 1 and 3 on Appendix F contain the predecisional legal analyses, opinions and recomendations of the Office of the General Counsel l

(OGC) for the Commissioners' consideration of the removal of an Atomic Safety I and Licensing Board member from the hearing and revisions to a draft order in I the Shoreham proceeding. Portions of Document 2 contain the predecisional opinions and recommendations of the Commissioners from a May 11, 1984, closed meeting on the review of the Shoreham order. Because portions of the documents on Appendix F reflect the predecisional process between 0GC and the Connissioners, and among the Comissioners, the documents are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 5552(b)(5),

L. and the Comission's regulations,10 CFR 59.5(a)(5). Release of the documents would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process. The nonexempt portions are being placed in the PDR.

L The documents identified on enclosed Appendix G are being withheld in their entirety. Documents 3 and 4 contain the predecisional legal analyses, opinions and recomendations of OGC for the Commissioners' consideration of low-power j operation at the Shoreham facility. Additionally, documents 3 and 4 were pre-1 pared for the Comission to decide issues in an adjudicatory proceeding and j represent confidential communications prepared as part of the attorney-client j' relationship and are, therefore, protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Documents 8, 26 and 27 on Appendix G contain the predecisional legal analyses, l

opinions and reconnendations of OGC for the Comissioners' consideration of L Suffolk County's request to clarify the Commission's order of May 16, 1984, a concerning low-power operation at the Shoreham facility. Documents 12 and I 16-18 on Appendix G contain OGC's updates on the development for the Shorenam

! facility. The monitoring reports inform the Comission on the status of the

(; adjudicatory proceeding. Furthermore, Documents 12, and 16-18 on Appendix G i:

I B506150N51 850319 PDR FO1A BELAIR85-A-5 PDR t -+y- ~ - - - * - - - - - , , ---_,_._r,.__ , _ , _ . _ _ , _ _ _ , , , _ _

, i b

Mr. Belair reflect the predecisional process between OGC and the Commissioners. Document 5 on Appendix G contains predecisional advice, recommendations and analysis of ,

the Director, Office of Policy Evaluation-(OPE), to the Commission concerning l the Shoreham proceeding. This document reflects the predecisional process i

, between OPE and the Commission. Documents 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, and 19-25 l

,. on Appendix G contain the predecisional advice,-opinions and recommendations among the Commissioners, and between the Comissioners and their staffs on

, issues in the Shoreham proceeding. These documents reflect the predecisional process among the Commissioners and their staff. The documents on Appendix G are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 5552(b)(5), and the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR $9.5(a)(5). Re-lease of the documents would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process. There are no reasonably seg-regable factual portions in these documents.

4 Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.15 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure and that

. its production or disclosure is contrary to_the public interest. The person responsible for the denial of Documents 1 and 3 on Appendix F, and Documents 3, 4, 8,12,16-18, and 26-27 on Appendix G is James A. Fitzgerald, Assistant General Counsel. . The person responsible for the denial of Document 5 on Appendix G is John E. Zerbe, Director, Office of Policy Evaluation. The person responsible for the denial of Document 2 on Appendix F, and Documents 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, and 19-25 on Appendix G is John C. Hoyle, Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

These denials may be appealed to the Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it

is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

On February 19, 1985, we received _your letter dated February 5,1985, appealing our lack of response to this request. On January 16, 1985, and February 4,1985, this office provided you with partial responses of the information requested. Since you were given appeal rights in my February 4, i

1985, letter and in this letter, no further action will be taken on your February 5,-1985, letter.

1 Si erely,

(

. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration t

i

Enclosures:

As stated i

I e

-- u -

3 T-e *-, ,-~w ---. --.e.. --w ,_,.,-.,--,,.-,.,-m, .., ,,,.-- m- - . . - - . , - - , _ , -

,- _,--.,--__._,e._-,_.-..-_.-_m.,-- _ --

Re: F01A-84-942 APPENDIX D Documents Being Placed in the PDR

't

1. 04/04/84 Memo to Comissioners from Nunzio Palladino Re: Shoreham, w/ enclosures-Working Paper and ASLBP Draft Order (11 pages) -

2. 04/05/84 Memo to Comissioners from Nunzio Palladino Re: Shoreham LowPowerProceeding(1page)

3. 05/03/84 Memo to Chairman Palladino from Martin Malsch Re: March 16, -

1985 Meeting on Licensing Delays (1 page)

}

4. 05/16/84 Memo for the Record from Samuel Chilk Re: Staff Requirements Oral Argument on Shoreham (2 pages)

5. 05/18/84 Memo for the Record from Samuel Cnilk Re: Staff Requirements Affirmation / Discussion and Vote (1 page)

J

6. 05/18/84 Memo for the Record from Samuel Chilk Re: Staff Re Continuation of Review of Shoreham Order (1 page) quirements

[

7. 06/06/84 Affirmation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Comissioner -

Asselstine Re: SECY-84-218 Shoreham (1 page)

8. 07/25/84 Opening Remarks Exemptions Policy (2 pages) _

9. 07/26/84 Affirmation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Commissioner  :

Asselstine Re: SECY-84-296 - Shoreham: LILC0's Motion for Reconsideration of Comission's July 18 Memorandum and '

Order (1page)

10. 07/27/84 Memo to William Dircks from Samuel Chilk Re: Staff Requirements - Discussion of;the Need and Standards for Exemptions (1 page) -

11. 07/30/84 Memo to William Dircks from James Asselstine Re: Guidance -

to Staff on the Applicability of the Comission's Shoreham  :

Decision to Other Cases (2 pages)  :

12. 08/08/84 Affirmation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Commissioner $

Asselstine Re: SECV-84-296A Shoreham - LILCO's Motion for  ;

3 Reconsideration of Comission's July 18 Memorandum and

Order (1 page) 2

, 13. 08/23/84 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from Barton Cowan Re: SECY-84-290

( (5 pages) j i ,  ;

h

4 Re: FOIA-84-942 14.- 09/10/84 Letter to Nunzio Palladino from J. Michael McGarry Re:

ShorehamProceeding(7pages)

15. 09/21/84 Notation Vote Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Commissioner Asselstine Re: SECY-84-144 Review of ALAB-777.

andALAB-779(1page)

16. 10/03/84 Opening' Remarks Exemption Policy Meeting (2 pages)

17. 12/05/84 Note to D. Eisenhut and R. Bernero fr'om Joe Scinto Re:

Staff Position on Systems Relevant to Safety During Fuel Loading and Precritical Testing (Comanche Peak) (1 pages)

18. Undated Additional Views of Commissioner Asselstine (3 pages) l J

s l-1 y

n

.l:

I l

i I

Re: F01A-84-942 APPENDIX E Documents Already in the PDR l' . 05/07/84 Commission Meeting Transcript entitled, " Commission Meeting Oral Argument on Shoreham" Acc. No. 8405180159 {

(165pages). i

2. 05/21/84 Enclosure 1, Attachment.1 to SECY-84-218 Motion from Brown, etc. Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher and Phillips to the Commission, entitled " Request for Clarification of Commission's Order of May 16, 1984". Available in PDR h Docket No. 50-322-0L-4 (3 pages)

3. 05/22/84 Enc'osure 1, Attachment 2 to SECY-84-218, Motion from Palomino State of New York to the Commission, entitled " Request by the State of New York for Clarification of Commission's Order of May 16, 1984". Available in PDR Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (2 pages)

4. -09/10/84 LetterifromMcGarryLawOfficesofBishop,Liberman, Cook,

[- Purcell-and Reynolds to Palladino, Acc. No. 8409120173 (7pages) l' l

n i

i .. . .

O' ,

Re: F01A-84-942 APPENDIX F Documents Being Partially Released

1. .05/15/84 Memo from H. Plaine to the Comission Re: Removal of ASLB Member from Hearing (5 pages) t

2. 05/16/84 Memo from S. Chilk to the Record Re: Staff Requirements -

Review of Shoreham Order 11:30 a.m., Friday, May 11, 198a, Commissioners'ConferenceRoom,D.C. Office (Closed--Ex.10)

I 3. 11/19/84 Memo from Michael Blume to Comissioner Assistants Re:

Revisions to Draft Order in SECY-84-393A (Shoreham)

(1 page) i L

1 s

i i

4

!: l k

1 p- I k.

t l

l~

l i

Re: F01A-84-942 APPENDIX G Documents Being Withheld in Their Entirety

1. 04/11/84 Memo from Comissioner Roberts to Chainnan Palladino Re:

Shoreham Hearing on Low Power License (1 page)

2. 04/27/84 Memo from Comissioner Bernthal to Comm. Re: Policy Issues Attendant to Shoreham Board Proceeding (2 pages)

3. 04/30/84 Memo from H. Plaine to Comm. Re: Draft Order in Shoreham w/ attached Draft Order (3 pages)

4. 05/09/84 Memo from H. Plaine to Com. Re: Issues for Decision in Shoreham (12 pages)

5. 05/09/84 Memo from J. Zerbe to Com. Re: Technical Analysis of Safety Issues Surrounding Operation of Shoreham at Low Power Without Onsite Qualified Emergency Diesel Generators (5 pages)

6. 05/10/84 Memo from Comissioner Bernthal to Com. Re: Proposed Shoreham Order (2 pages)

7. 05/11/84 Memo from H. Plaine to Com. Re: Shoreham Draft Orders w/ handwritten Notes of P. Davis

8. 05/30/84 SECY-84-218, Memo from Malsch, Deputy General Counsel, to the Comission Re: Shoreham - Suffolk County Motion to Clarify CLI-84-8 (2 pages)

9. 07/24/84 Note from C. W. Reamer to Chainnan Palladino Re:

Exemptions Policy--SECY-84-290 1

10. 07/31/84 Memo from C. W. Reamer to Chairman Palladino attaching 7/30/84 Com. Asselstine to W. Dircks memo Re: Guidance r to Staff on the Applicability of the Comission's Shoreham Proceeding. (1 page) [This 07/30/84 memo is being

released in Appendix E]

4

11. 08/02/84 Memo from W. Dircks to the Commission, the Applicability i of the Comission's Shoreham Decision on Exemptions to Other Cases (5 pages) i 12. 10/24/84 Memo from K. Smith, 0GC to Mike Blume, OGC Re: Shoreham '

I Monitoring Report (1 page);

Attachment:

Draft Monitoring Report for July-September 1984 on Shoreham OL by Karla Smith (5 pages) l

}

}

4 1 Re: F01A-84-942

13. 11/02/84 Briefing Note-from C. W. Reamer to Chairman Palladino Re:~SECY-84-356, " Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR 50.12, Specific Exemptions"

14. 11/05/84 Response Sheet from Chairman Palladino to S. Chilk Re:

SECY-84-356

-15. 11/15/84 . Vote Sheet of Comm. Asselstine's on SECY-84-393A,

" Suggested Revision to Order Proposed in SECY-84-393 Concerning $horeham Low Power License", w/ attached Draft Order (8 pages)

16. 11/19/84 Memo from K. Smith, 0GC to S. Trubatch, 0GC Re: Shoreham Monitoring Report (1 page); attachment: Draft Monitoring Report for July-September on Shoreham OL by Karla Smith (7 pages)

17. Undated Draft Monitoring Report for January-June on Shoreham OL by B. Segal, 0GC (10 pages)

.18. Undated- Draft Monitoring Report for July-September on Shoreham OL by Karla Smith, 0GC (7 pages)

19. Undated Draft Order Responding to Suffolk County's Motion to Clarify CLI-84-8 (3 pages)

20. Undated Draft Memorandum and Order Relating to " Physical Security" Issues in the 5012 Exemption Proceeding (4 pages)

21. Undated' Memo'from P. Davis to Comm. Asselstine on SECY-84-296 di 22. -Undated Memo from P. Davis to Comm. Asselstine, "SECY-84-344--

Shoreham - Disqualification Motions"

23. Undated Draft Commission Order Attached to SECY-84-393 with handwritten notations of P.. Davis

! 24.- Undated Draft CLI-84-8 l'

25. Undated Draft Memo from S. Chilk to W. Dircks " Staff Requirements -

Discussion of the Need and Standards for Exemptions 1 (SECY-84-290/290A), 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, July 25, 1984, Commissioners' Conference Room, DC Office

l

!L ~26. Undated Handwritten notations by.0GC Attorney on May 21, 1984 Motion

' from Brown, etc. Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher

and Phillips to the Canmission, entitled " Request for Clarification of Connission's Order of May 16, 1984 Order (2 pages) 27.. Undated Draft Order by the Commission Re: Clarification of May 16,

]. 1984 Order (2 pages) This document is Enclosure 2 to SECY-84-218 l{

4 4

il

,. ---., -+ --,-,,,. ,n , , - - . - - - . -

j. . . q'c

-=

UNITED STATES

,[# . c.

,a N '!. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOP WASHINGTO N. D. C. 20555 s; *.r.,9,E

• • • • April 4, 1984 CHAIRMAN .

MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM: Nunzio J. P'alladino jf j

SUBJECT:

SHORENAM As you know, in my March 20, 1984 memorandum on licensing

. delays, I asked OGC to prepare a paper for the Commission discussing possible approaches to expediting the remaining j Shoreham hearings on low power. I asked OGC to work with '

other offices within NRC as necessary in preparing this.

paper.

The OGC paper (Limited Distribution) was provided to the I Commission on April 2, 1984. I would like to get Commission l reactions to this paper as'soon as possible, but not later

• ' l than April 9, 1984. SECY please track.

During my status and scheduling meeting with OGC, OPE, the ASLBP Chairman and staff on March 16, 1984, some preliminary i I

ideas regarding expediting the Shoreham hearing were discussed.

These ideas were later articulated in a working paper (enclosed) that was discussed with Judge Cotter by my Legal ~ Assistant.

Judge Cotter provided'his comments in the form of a draft order (enclosed). I asked that this draft order be given to OGC for possible consideration in the above-referenced OGC 4 paper. It was given to OGC on March 27, 1984. Further ,

action on this or any other draft order will depend on the nature of Commissioner comments on OGC's April 2, 1984 memorandum.

Enclosures:

1. Werking Paper

2. ASLBP Draft Order cc: SECY .

OGC OPE ASLBP l

l 4

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

- ieinin o ,Aa.ur a r r.i no g PP.

/ i

,. - . _ - - _ - - - _ _ . , ._- - _ - _ __ _ }

. OF.2ER ,

~

On March 20, 1984, LILCO filed with the Licensing Board a "Supplerental Motion for Low Power Operating License". LILCO has recuested the Board either to refer the motion immediately to the

~

.Combission for decision or to decide the mot on i en an expe dited basis .

and to certify its decision to the Conmission pursuant to 10.C.F.R.

~

52.730,(f)(1983). As discussed below, the Commission has rev,iewed .

~ '

LILCO's motion and has concluded that referral at this time would be .

inappropriate. We agree, however, that a decision on certain issues .

raised by the Applicant should be expedited to the extent possible consistent with the development of a sound record. In the exercise of the Commission's inherent authority over the conduct of our adjudicatory proceedings, we hereby grant that portion of LILCO's motion' t. hat

e. r . .

requests an expedited proceeding. To that end, we direct, the Chief.

Administrative Judge o,f the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel; in ,

consideration of the existing schedule and caseload of the Panel's members, to appoint a'n Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hear and decideJLILCO's supplemental motion in accordance with the procedures and schedule outlined'below.

i I. LILCO's Motion -

. 1

)

LILCO a,sserts that the Shoreham plant is essentially complete and,

'by its motion, seeks authority to conduct four phases of low power activities, namely:

I

)

,-e - ,-.,--.n, . . - - , --,--e-- .,--n- - -- ,,e-

2- ~

Phase I: fuel load and precriticality testing; Phase II: cold criticality testing; ,

Phase Ill: heatup and low power testing to rated

- - pressure / temperature conditions (approximately 1% rated: power); and .

Phase IV: low'poNertesting(1-5%ratedpower).

Despite pending litigation concerning the emergency diesel generators' ,

' reliability, LILCO asserts in its motion: (I)thegeneratorsarenot

. needed to protect the public health and safety for Phases I and.II;

~

(2) the generators have ,been tested and are adeouate to protect the

- public health and safety during Phases III and IV, even though '

'd: . litigation of their reliability has not been completed; and (3)-ample a'1 ternate sources of AC power are available sufficient to assure no, ,,

~

undue risk to 'the public health and safety from low power ~ operation of the plant during Phases III and IV.

II. Background .

Of sore 122' safety contentions originally filed in this proceedi'ng all but three have been resolved (The settlement of a fourth i5 sue has been presented to the Board for approval). The three remaining 5

e 1

i e

/

p w *w..--

. 1 cententions concern the reliability of emergency die'sel generators at

.the. facility.

LILCO's motio'n supplemented a June 3,1983 motion for a low power

' license. After the ,mo, tion was filed, however, additional problems I

developed with the emergency diesel generators, and the hearing.on their .

reliability scheduled to coninence August 29, 1983 was deferred'pending completion of LILCO's assess [nent and the NRC Staff safety evaluation.

. a partial initial decision issued September 21, 1983, the Licensing Board decided a. number of safety issues in favor of operation up to 57, of rated power but declined to authorize fuel load and low power operation until the then pending diesel generator contention was ..

w'~ resolved. The Staff SER is presently scheduled for issuance 'in June, ..

1984, litigation of the three diesel . generator contention's is sc.hed'uled ',

to commence in July 1984, and an. initial decision is projected for issuance in December 1984.

Suffolk County filed four amended contentions on the generators, ,

and on~ February 22, 1984, the Board admitted three of them in a ruling Tr. 21,612 et sec. Althouch the Board'could not find, on the record.

on the state of the record at that time, that the generators could reliably perform their needed function even as to low power, the Board noted that L1LCO was not precluded fromhroposing other methods by which the standards of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) could be met short of litigating the. -

contentions, er seeking a waiver under Section 2.758, or any other

~

>B

rocedure. Tr. 21,616, 21,630-633. Apparently in re'sponse to that ruling LILCO filed its liarch 20, 1954 supplemental motion.

As noted, Applicant has requested that its supplemental motion be referred directly to,.the Comission for decision. The Commission is fully apprised of the c'ontents of that motion and is of the opinion that certai.H issues presented require a factual evaluation that can be accomplished more promptly and efficiently by a licensing board than by,'

the Comission directly. Accordingly, referral to the Comission at .,

this time would be inappropriate. However, the present schedule for litigation of contentions related to the TD1 diesel generators does present the potential for delay inimical to the public interest given

• the apparent physical completion of the Shoreham facility within the /*

meaning of 10 C.F.R. i 50.57(a) (1983) and the enormous financial .

investment involved. If the' alternatives proposed by Applicant in its motion are sufficient,to permit low-power operation and testing with assurance that the public health and safety are adequately protected,

~

that matter ought,to be determined ~ as expeditiously as possible. '

~

The Co=.ission has inherent supervisory authority over the conddct cf its adjudicatory proceedings, including specific authority under its rules to establish reasonable adjudication time tables. See The U.S.

Enercy Research and Development Administration, project Manacement .

Corocratien, Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor plant), CL1-76'13, 4 tiRC 67 (1976), and 10 C.F.R. ! 2.711 (1983).

III. Issues to be Heard ~',

Accordingly . absent settlement, we direct that the following issues-be. adjudicated on hn expedited basis:

1. Whether the w'ork described in Phases I and II of LiLCO's

' motion can be performed without the need for the pre'ently s

installed onsite emergency diesel generators;

2. Whether the alternate sources of AC power available to Shoreham are adequate to protect the public health and safety n '

by performing the function that the presently installed on, site ,,

a emergency diesel generators would have performe'd durin,g_.'ny or [

all of Phase's I, II, III, or IV; .

3. What requirements for testing or other demonstration of the availabi.lity and effectiveness of the Shoreham alternate power .

sources should be required as a precondition to the issuance of any license permitting operation at up to '5% of rated power.

i

4. Whether, in consideration of [he Board's findings on the above issues and assuming all other regulatory requirements have been> satisfied, LILCO should be granted a low power license to

. s. -

perform the work described in any or all of Phases I, II, III, or.IV.

The licensing board constituted pursuant to this order is authorized to 4 conform the statement ,of the above issues to the evidence relevant to ,

~

LILCO's motion and this order. The licensing board shall not consider

- the op,srability and reliability of the TDI diesel generators currently onsite. These matters are . presently the subject of an extensive Staff ,

review and will be fully adjudicated when the results of the Staff's ,

review are available.

IV. Proceeding Schedule P

The Licensing Board constituted pursuant to this order is directed . - .

to certify its Initial" Decision on these questions to th'e Comission 60

. calendar days after the Staff files its SER on the technical aspects of the LILCO motion. To that end, the following expedited schedule is recomended to the Board and the parties: .

Day -7' Commission 0rder ,

Day 1 Staff and parties file response to substantive aspects of LILCO's motion Day 1 Staff files SER on technical aspects of LILCO Supplemental P,otion for Low Power Operating License and serves the SER on the parties .

Day 2 Discovery commences v- r-- rr,- - , - - , - - , - , - - - - - y , . - - ,,..-v,..-v,. , , . ...- - - , ,-,,- .-,m,, - - - , , - - , , , - - - ,, ,-- ,,. . - , - -,,, ,--, - - . _m,,.w,=v-+-- r. - - , -

~- .

Day 3S Discovery is completed'

. Day'25 Testimony is filed Day 30 Hearing comences Day 40 Hearing concludes Board issues decis. ion Day 60 ,,

The Licensing Board constituted pursuant to this. order'is' authorized to adopt, take official notice, or otherwise incorporate any- '

The

- portion of the existing record in this proceeding as it sees fit. "

Board shall closely monitor and assist in the discov'ery process,, limit

-the number of pages in any filing if necessary; alter, revise or modify

- any of the intermediate dates or sequences sei. out above,  ;. and otherwise . . .

+. f acilitate .the expedited completion of the proceeding in the ' full exercise of its authority. See, M ., Statement of Polic'y on Co_nguet of Licensing Proceedings,'13 NRC 452 (CLI-81-8,1981).

Steos Comission issues brief notice to parties suspending

1. 3/26: '

parties response time to LILCO's motion' Comission orders Staff to prepare SER by April 7

2. 3/26:

Comission issues expedited hearing order

3. 3/30: .

s 4 ca. 6/7: Board decision

c .

Y '

Scme Considerations ,

1. Excellent Staff SER is critical to success of,this expedited proceeding: Total systems. analysis required or Boards and Commission will,'1,ook bad

~'

a,.

Sta'f should be forna11y notified to begin work imt.ediately

b. Staff SER issuance en day 1 assumes they have already ,

connenced to prepare it, and this ' order won't issue until March 30 ,

2. Sixty day schedule is brutally tight. . Definitely not recommended -

but possibly, achievable __

3. Very importantto.give Licensing Board flexibility to reformulate issues within overall guidance should evidence shift the nature or emphasis of the issue. .

4 Boards coniitted to hearings or partial or initial decision writing in April and May include Catawba , Comanche Peak, Shearon Harris, Limerick, Midland, Shoreham, and Wolf Creek e

D .

o O .

e

n

.g.

-. !'eed to avoid Corte.ission debate on coar'd membership (cf.

Indian Point)

I

~

5 Phase I and II issue may be resolved by agreement of parties which would make possible PID authorizing that work , ,

THIS DRAFTING SERVICE FURNISHED "AS IS":

NO WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED e #

9 9

e

. ,e .*

.& t .

g g.

s D

• 9 00 l

I l

l

)

~

THE EDO HAS RECENTLY PROVIDED THE COMMISSION AN ASSESSMENT FOR SHOREHAM THAT PROJECTS A NINE-MONTH LICENSING DELAY DUE TO, 1 AM TOLD, THE SHOREHAM LICENSING BOARD'S REQUIREMENT TO LITIGATE THE DIESEL-GENERATOR QUESTION BEFORE ALLOWING

. 0PERATION AT LOW POWER.

THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THIS MATTER LITIGATED ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS WITH A TARGET DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOARD'S DECISION ON THIS MATTER BY MAY 9, 1984. WOULD YOU PLEASE '

LOOK INTO WHAT STEPS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET SUCH A 7 ATE AND INFORM THE COMMISSION ON THESE STEPS AS SOON AS 10SSIBLE, BUT NOT LATER THAN MARCH 30, 1984.

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, YOU COULD ASSUME THE FOLLOWING STEPS:

-- A TWO WEEK STAFF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL BY LILC0;

-- A ONE WEEK DISCOVERY PERIOD; A TWO WEEK PERIOD FOR F.lLIN3 TESTIMONY AND HOLDING A HEARING)

A TWO WEEK PERIOD TO ISSUE THE BOARD'S DECISION

. :=, FINAL COMISSION GUIDANCE ON THE EXPEDITED HEARING ON THIS '

HATTER WOULD BE BASED ON YOUR SUBMITTAL AND FOLLOW UP DISCUSSIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. _

k 4

4 4

6 en,. .- - .r ., .- ,- -- - ,,n, e .. --.-------,---,.,,na --, -- , . - - , _ , n-.

1. o UNITED STATES

-~* ! 4* f' ***1 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f'f .j WASHINGTCN, D. C. 20555

% , ,, , ,

• April 5, 1984 .,

CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilinsky "Coimilissioner Roberts

. Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM:

Nunzio J. Palladino re$'-

/ . .

u

SUBJECT:

- SHOREHAM LOW POWER PROCEEDING I favor an Order along the lines of Option 1 of OGC's .

April 2, 1984 memorandum, using as input the draft Order provided by Judge Cotter.' This approach allows the Board to continue its activities in the immediate near term,.and -

leaves the Board relatively free to conduct the hearing on its own terms after the Order is issued. I prefer the 60-day schedule contained in Judge Cotter's draft Order. .

- In theory, Option 2 is desirable because it could focus the hearing on the emergency power supply issues of , ,. ~

significance for low-power operation. .However our decision specifying the issues likely would come in the midst of the hearing and could create new problems for the Board,and Parties.

~ ' ._

~

Option 4 is a potential option for the Parties before the Board. I would not dictate a summary disposition proce'ss.

.- but rather leave it to the Board and the Parties.

cc: 0GC OPE "

OCA -

SECY ,

i S

l LIMITED DISTRIBUTION )

//A

-t%nsf GL u e i

3 tr unm ..

fin gu- i .5 ggCREi"AT REC 00 l'OP'

. #"s ' ^

UNITED STATES [

21 " n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

'g o 3- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20886 e,

% May 3, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino

'FROM: .Martir$ G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel

SUBJECT:

MARCH 16,1984 MEETING ON LICENSING DELAYS This is in response to your request for my recollection of what transpired relating to Shoreham at the March 16, 1984 meeting on licensing delays attended by the General Counsel and myself, Judge Cotter, Bill Dircks, Harold Denton, and others.

I recall much of the meeting was directed to a discussion of the status of.various licensing cases and pending OI investigations. In the case of Shoreham, there was considerable discussion aimed at gaining a precise understanding of what the Licensing Board had in fact ruled regarding diesel generator contentions and low-power licensing. There was also some discussion regarding the progress in NRC staff safety reviews in the Shoreham case, when a new licensee proposal for low-power operation might be filed, and the time required for staff evaluation of the diesel problem.. Representatives from OGC.-0PE, staff (including OI) and the ASLBP Chairman all participated in these discussions.

There was also some discussion of the possibility of an expedited hearing on a low-power license in Shoreham. The possibility of an expedited

^

hearing was raised by'0GC, and there was some discussion of the general feasibility of this among OGC, the ASLBP Chairman, and you. The principal point nude was that the feasibility of an expedited schedule depended on the complexity of the technical issues in dispute, and this could not be judged until LILCO actually presented its new motion. I do not recall that staff advocated or took any position on the expedited hearing matter during the meeting. Staff was asked whether it was its general policy in other cases to require some onsite power befort issuing low-power licenses, and they replied in 1he affirmative. You also asked OGC to examine the Board's ruling to see if it was consistent with NRC policy and practice, but again staff took no position on this issue.

cc: Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal SECY -

XID d . W .% k UU x

.e5412.8$i35^\?-

e

~'

gf o, UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 3 '

3 ,.7 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO: M840507

? j W ASHINGTON, O C. 20555

• %' .....s May 16, 1984 CFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD )

Secreta d'))

FROM: Samuel J. Chilk,

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - ORAh ARGUMENT ON SHOREHAM, 9:30 A.M., MONpAY, MAY 7, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Commission heard oral argument on the applicability of the General Design Criteria (in particular, GDC 17) to the proposal of the Long Island Lighting Company to operate the Shoreham facility at' low power.

The following parties to the proceeding addressed the Commission:

LILCO - W. Rolfe W. Reveley, III A. Early, Jr.

Suffolk County - L. Lanpher H. Brown New York State - F. Palamino Staff - E. Rein The Commission requested that the NRC staff:

1. comment on the following; if the promise is true that 10 CFR Sec. 50.57(c) was not intended to permit issuance of a low power license without compliance with all General Design Criteria, what would the staff interpret the regulation to mean, i.e. if 10 CFR Sec. 50.57(c) is not applicable in this case, can staff suggest cases where it might, apply; and w

t, "l l . e

$ cg

-8405Ef$ ? 2ffs

2-

2. identify any cases in which the NRC issued a license for a plant that had not met all the General Design Criteria or where a condition was imposed on the licensee to complete and inspect a particular system before going above a specific power level.

The Commission invited the other parties to comment on these, or any other issues addressed at the hearing.

cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commission Staff Offices EDO PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips e

1 l

jM ' ~

45 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE UNITE STATES 8" -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO: M840516B g  ;; w AsHINGTON, D.C. 20566

• • ' May 18, 1984 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY o

MEMORANDUM FOR THE' RECORD

'FROM:

Samuel J. Chilk, Secre a -

1. 0

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS.- AF Il tMATION/ DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 11:55 A.M., CHESDAY, MAY 16, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I.. Shoreham Order The Commission, by a vote of 5-0,* approved an order in which~it (1) determined that 10 CFR 50.57 (c) should not be read.to make General Design Criteria 17 inapplicable to low power operation; (2) vacated the Licensing Board's order of April 6, 1984 to the extent that it is inconsistent with this order; and (3) ordered the Licensing Board to conduct further proceedings in ac;ordance with the Commission's rules.

(OGC)

(Subsequently, on May 16, 1984, the Order was signed by the Secretary with the views of Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Gilinsky, Roberts and Asselstine attached.)

cc 'Cha'irman Palladino commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine 'p .

Commissioner Bernthal r- li l. i ,ii I' Commission Staff' Offices EDO PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips

• Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be

, determined by a " majority vote of the members present." ,

Commissioner Roberts was not present when this item was ,

affirmed. Had Commissioner Roberts been present, he would have approved. Accordingly, the formal vote of the

. Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision.

..w .1. , , a e

• 8/5 T:  ;

. g,,yo'FIY? " d