ML20215E743
| ML20215E743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1986 |
| From: | Cumming W Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1945 OL-5, NUDOCS 8612230099 | |
| Download: ML20215E743 (7) | |
Text
/MS DCLKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 86 DEC 19 P12:37 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i./
6FFK T1 2
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardICCM g t
)
-In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
)
)
)
FEMA MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING AND REQUEST EARLY CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION EX 19 t
BACKGROUND The Licensing Board (hereinafter " Board") in its December 11, 1986 Order Docket No. 50-322-OL-5(EP Exercise) determined to admit Intervenor Contentions Ex 15, 16 and 19.
In its Order the Board at page 8 stated that "In our Prehearing Conference Order, we held that contentions which allege that the February 13 exercise failed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, j
Appendix E, IV.F.1 are acceptable. Under this holding, l-we admitted contentions EX 15 and 16.
These contentions allege that the exercise did not include l
demonstrations or evaluations of major portions of the l
plan or or the capabilities of many persons and entities relied upon for implementation."
FEMA, supported by LILCO and Staff sought reversal of this holding.
I Essentially, FEMA argued that CLI-86-1123 NRC 577 (1986) precluded the Board's admission of those contentions. Staff argued that even if proved true, l
Contentions Ex 15 and 16 do not demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the plan.
O oh 3
.-y
l The Board conceded that the Commission directed this proceeding to be limited to the exploration of alleged fundamental flaws in the plan demonstrated by the exercise.
The Board, at page 11 of the Order also conceded that
"[Ilt is also true that the results of the exercise are
' facially distinguishable from the scope of the exercise."
(Emphasis in original).
The Board then recited that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. IV.F.1 set out the requirement for " full participation" exercises under NRC regulations, and indicated that that regulation provides guidance with regard to the scoce of the exercise.
The Board then concluded, among other legal conclusions, that "If it [the exercise) is found not to comply with the Commission's regulations concerning the scope of a full participation exercise, it may constitute '... Ca deficiency] which preclude [s] a finding of reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be
- taken, i.e., [a fundamental flaw) in the plan.'
CLI-86-ll, 23 NRC 577, 581 (1986)."
The Board also concluded at page 14 of the Order that the "1ssues litigable under contentions Ex 15 and 16 are limited to whether the scope of the exercise meets the Commission's regulatory requirements for full participation exercises.
FEMA properly takes no position on that issue" (Emphasis supplied).
The Board also ruled that although Contention Ex 19 (the contention asserts that because FEMA could not make a finding, NRC cannot make a finding) was admitted for the purpose of legal argument only, the disposition of that contention should wait close of the hearing.
The Board then concluded that Contentions EX 15, 16, and 19 should be admitted as it did in its Prehearing Conference Order of October 3, 1986.
ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO BIFURCATION OF THE PROCEEDING AND GIVING EARLY CONSIDERATION TO CONTENTION EX 19 FEMA believes that Contentions EX 15, 16, and 19 may be out-come determinative with respect to the issue of NRC's finding of reasonable
assurance with respect to offsite safety at this point in time.
Since FEMA has been precluded by the Board's Order from being an expert witness with respect to NRC regulations, a conclusion with which FEMA agrees, FEMA is in essence a fact witness with respect to these contentions to the extent that they address the scope of the exercise. Accordingly, FEMA's preparation and designation of witnesses is far different than when a finding of reasonable assurance is being litigated, or even issues concerning the specific day of the exercise.
Since many of the same FEMA officials, employees, and contractors, are involved with issues of offsite safety in FEMA Region II on a day-to-day basis with presently licensed plants, FEMA would be less adversely affected if these out-come determinative issues, namely Contentions EX 15, 16, and 19 could be heard first.
Thus, what promises to be a lengthy and expensive hearing for FEMA, could possibly be made shorter and less expensive.
Thus, for a combination of legal and fiscal reasons, FEMA respectfully requests that consideration be given by the Board to bifurcation, or other scheduling changes that may lessen the burden of FEMA.
FEMA also believes that such bifurcation is likely to have the additional beneficial impact of lessening the likelihood that future exercise litigation by potential intervenors will raise similar questions.
m usu'u
. CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, FEMA respectfully requests the Board to consider bifurcation of Contentions EX 15 and 16 to the extent they concern
- j the scope of the exercise,'and requests prompt consideration of dispostion of Contention Ex 19 instead of waiting until the close of the_ exercise hearing.
Respectfully submitted, k
William R. Cumming Counsel for FEMA Dated this 17th day of December, 1986 Washington, D.C.
l l
l l
l i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dqj'g{iEr' c'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFF R:.
H.
00CMljgjj,;-vil
- 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 " FEMA MOTION TO BIFURCATE PROCEEDING AND REQUEST EARLY CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION EX 19" in the above-captioned p.'oceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or by hand delivery as indicated by double asterisk, this 17th day of December, 1986:
John H. Frye, III, Chairman Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Administrative Judge Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Special Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Chamber Washington, D.C.
20555 State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Oscar H. Paris W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 707 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C.
20555 Richmond, VA 23212 Frederick J. Shon Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Administrative Judge New York State Department of l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service L.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, NY 12223
- Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Herbert H., Brown, Esq.**
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 4
33 West Second Street 1800 M Street, N.W.
v Riverhead, NY 11901 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Joel Blun, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Utility Intervention Washington, D.C.
20555 NY State Consumer Protection Board Suite 1020 Atomic Safety and Licensing 99 Washington Avenue Appeal Board Panel Albany, NY 12210 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Monroe Schneider North Shore Committee P.O. Box 231 Docketing and Service Section Wading River, NY 11792 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Philip H. McIntire Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza Spence Perry, Esq.**
New York, New York 10278 General Counsel, Rm. 840 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 Robert Abrams, Esq.
Attorney General of the State Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
of New York Ben Wiles, Esq.
Attn:
Peter Blenstock, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Department of Law Executive Chamber State of New York State Capitol Two World Trade Center Albany, NY 12224 Room 46-14 New York, NY 10047 Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
MHB Technical Associates General Counsel 1723 Hamilton Avenue Long Island Lighting Company Suite K 250 Old County Road San Jose, CA 95125 Mineola, NY 11501 Hon. Peter Cohalan Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Attorney County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
H. Lee Dennison Building Veteran's Memorial Highway Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Hauppauge, NY 11788
. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Ms. Nora Bredes New York State Energy Office-Shoreham Opponents Coalition Agency Building 2 195 East Main Street Empire State Plaza Smithtown, NY 11787
' Albany, New York 12223 Ellen Blackler Mr. Robert Hoffmnan New York State Assembly Ms. Susan Rosenfeld Energy Committee Ms. Sharlene Sherwin 626 Legislative Office Building P.O. Box 1355 Albany, NY 12248
- Massapequa, NY 11758 Brookhaven Town Attorney Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
475 E. Main Street Maryland National Bank Building Patchogue, NY 11772 Rm. 9604 Washington, DC 20555 ft, x
d4 s-u ++t ay Hilliam R. Cumming
,/' -
Federal Emergency Management Agency I
. ~
.m
,