ML20207P722
| ML20207P722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1987 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2118 OL-5, NUDOCS 8701200128 | |
| Download: ML20207P722 (7) | |
Text
-2-//f 01/05/897 COLKETED U94RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'87 JAN -7 All :40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD [rjhkQe
-((I m
Br t.:
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CN*ANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
U dt 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO "FEPIA MOTION TO DIFURCATE PROCEEDING AND REQUEST EARLY CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION EX 19" INTRODUCTION The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on December 17, 1986, requested this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider bifurcation of Contentions EX 15 and 16, to the extent they concern the scope of the February 13, 1986 exercise.
FEMA also. requested prompt consideration of the disposition of Contention EX 19 instead of withholding such consideration until the close of the hearing.
For the reasons set out below, the NRC Staff does not support FEMA's Motion.
BACKGROUND This Board admitted Contentions EX 15, 16 and 19 on October 3, 1984. II In an Order dated December 11, 1986, the Board denied motions 1/
Prehearing Conference Order (unpublished).
N
$0 8701200128 870105
\\
PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
the other contentions admitted in the proceeding, either separately or
" subsumed" under Contentions EX 15 and 16, are to a large extent the same.
Matters in proposed Contentions EX 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, and 37 an either bases of or subsumed in Contention EX 15, and matters in proposed Contentions. 20, 29, 41, 45 and 50 are either bases of or subsumed in Contentions EX 16. O Thus it is clear that the separation of Contentions EX 15 and 16 would not lead to a material shortening of the proceeding or materially reduce the effort required as the evidence hearing on Contentions EX 15 and 16 and many of the other emergency exercise contentions is largely the same.
Indeed attempting to develop a schedule to accommodate hearing on these two contentions before hearing on the related contentions would very likely result in delay in setting hearing dates for these other issues.
With respect to Contention EX 19, the Staff agrees that, since Contention EX 19 raises a legal argument, it could be briefed before commencement of the hearing on the other admitted contentions.
However, the Staff is of the view that the parties arguments on Contention EX 19 might be facilitated and better focused by reference to the record developed on the remaining contentions rather than the broad scope of legal arguments that may be needed to encompass a hypothetical range of potential situations.
In any event, it does not appear to the Staff that briefing the legal isst raised by Contention EX 19 would materially advance completion of these proceedings.
-4/
See further the " Appendix" attached to the "NRC Staff Response to LTECO's Submission of the ' Revised Standard Version' of the Intervenors' Exercise Contentions" dated November 24, 1986
-.. - 4 to reconsider admission of these contentions. EI Contentions EX 15 and 16 allege that the February 13, 1986 exercise of the LILCO Offsite Plan did not include demonstrations or evaluations of major portions of the LTLCO plan or of the espabilities of many persons and entities relied upon for information.
Contention EX 19 asserts that because FEMA could not make a finding of reasonable assurance, the NRC cannot make such a finding.
This latter contention was admitted for the purpose of legal argument only and the Board stated that disposition of the contention should await the close of the hearing. 3,/
ARGUMENT The basis for FEMA's motion is its belief that Contentions EX 15,16 and 19 may be "out-come determinative" with respect to the NRC's finding of reasonable assurance and that to address these issues early may minimize expenditure of FEMA resources.
While the NRC Staff supports any reasonable effort in this proceeding to accommodate FEMA, and to I
minimize a call on FEP!A resources in the hearing, the Staff does not share FEMA's view that bifurcation of the proceeding will in fact accomplish this end.
First, it is not clear that Contentions EX 15 and 16 I
would lend themselves to summary disposition since they appear to involve einments of judg, ment, which are often difficult to sustain summarily.
More importantly, the evidence related to Contentions EX 15 and 16, and
-2/
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on FEPfA's Motion for Reconsideration of and Intervenors' Objections to October 3, 1986 Prehearing Conference Order).
3/
See December 11, 1986 Order at 14.
= _ -
the other contentions admitted -in the proceeding, either separately or
" subsumed" under Contentions EX 15 and 16, are to a large extent the same.
Matters in proposed Contentions EX 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, and 37 are either bases of or subsumed in Contention EX 15, and matters i
in proposed Contentions 20, 29, 41, 45 and 50 are either bases of or subsumed in Contentions EX 16. O Thus it is clear that the separation of Contentions EX 15 and 16 would not lead to a material shortening of the proceeding or materially reduce the effort required as the evidence hearing on Contentions EX 15 and 16 and many of the other emergency exercise contentions is largely the same.
Indeed attempting to develop a schedule to accommodate hearing on these two contentions before hearing
}
on the related contentions would very likely result in delay in setting i
hearing dates for these other issues.
With respect to Contention EX 19, the Staff agrees that, since Contention EX 19 raises a legal argument, it could be briefed before commencement of the hearing on the other admitted contentions.
However, the Staff is of the view that the parties arguments on Contention EX 19 might be facilitated and better focused by reference to the record developed on the remaining contentions rather than the broad scope of legal arguments that may be needed to encompass a hypothetical i
range of potential situations.
In any event, it does not appear to the Staff that briefing the legal issues raised by Contention EX 19 would materially advance completion of these proceedings.
4/
See further the " Appendix" attached to the "NRC Staff Response to LTECO's Submission of the ' Revised Standard Version' of the
~
Intervenors' Exercise Contentions" dated November 24, 1986.
r 4
9 CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, the NRC Staff does not support FEMA's request for bifurcation of Contentions EX 15 and 16 or prompt consideration of Contention EX 19 (i.e., briefing before commencement of evidentiary hearings).
Respectfully submitted, Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of January,1987 t
I f
00LKETLD UiNRL:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 JAN -7 All:40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFit.. P
- r BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 19DMigjj P M1 In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ' FEMA MOTION TO DIFURCATE PROCEEDING AND REQUEST EARLY CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION EX 19'" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first clars or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by double asterisks, hand delivery, or as indicated by triple asterisks, by telecopy and first class mail, this 5th day of January,1987.
John H. Frye III, Chairman **
Joel Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge Director, Utility Intervention Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 1020 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 99 Washington Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12210 Oscar H. Paris **
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.***
Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12224 Frederick J. Shon**
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Administrative Judge New York State Department of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza l_
Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223 Philip McIntire W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Doneld P. Irwin, Esq.***
Agency Hunton & Williams 26 Federal Plaza 707 East Main Street Room 1349 P.O. Box 1535 l
l New York, NY 10278 Richmond, VA 23212 l
l e
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.***
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick & Hockhart Riverhead, NY 11901 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, NW Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20036-5891 Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay Dunkleberger Washington, DC 20555 New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Appeal Board Panel
- Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, NY 12223 Washington, DC 20555 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
General Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H. Lee Dennison Building Agency Veteran's Memorial Highway 500 C Street, SW Hauppauge, NY 11788 Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Monroe Schneider Robert Abrams, Esq.
North Shore Committee Attorney General of the State P.O. Box 231 of New York Wading River, NY 11792 Attn: Peter Bienstock, Esq.
i Department of Law Ms. Nora Bredes State of New York l
Shoreham Opponents Coalition Two World Trade Center i
195 East Main Street Room 46-14 Smithtown, NY 11787' New York, NY 10047 i
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
William R. Cumming, Esq.
General Counsel Office of General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company Federal Emergency Management 175 East Old Country Road Agency Hicksville, NY 11801 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Robert Hoffman Long Island Coalition for Safe Docketing and Service Section*
Living Office of the Secretary P.O. Box 1355 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Massapequa, NY 11758 Washington, DC 20555 l
Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
New York State Department of Law 120 Broadway 3rd Floor, Room 3-116 New York, NY 10271 4
b Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff
=
- --