ML20235W160

Memorandum to Parties.* Requests Parties to Express Views on What Matters to Be Heard & Decided Under Commission Remand in CLI-86-13,24 NRC 22 & Submit Proposed Procedural Schedule for Proceeding.Served on 871013

ML20235W160
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/08/1987
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#487-4594 86-540-08-OL, 86-540-8-OL, ALAB-818, CLI-86-13, LBP-85-12, OL-3, NUDOCS 8710160028
Download: ML20235W160 (4)

Text

_--__-_-_-__-_____ __________

f MS'r y $16V1Q OCf 1 } an i SERVED OCT 131981 '

50CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 05NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '87 (ET 13 40 d5 Before Administrative Judges: 4FFicE cf SEcnt%y 88CKEifNL&"3f R VICE Morton B. Margulies. Chairman BRANCH Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBP No. 86-540-08-OL)

(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1)- October 8, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO THE PARTIES This Memorandum requests the parties to express their views on what are the matters to be heard and decided under the Commission's remand in CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 and to submit a proposed procedural schedule for the proceeding. l In CLI-86-13 the Commission reviewed the Appeal Board's decision in j ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651, holding inadequate as a matter of law LILCO's j emergency plan for Shoreham. The Appeal Board , as did the Licensing Board in LBP-85-12, based its decision largely on the refusal of New York State and Suffolk County to participate in the planning and on LILCO's lack of legal authority to implement certain features of its plan. The Commission reversed and remanded for further evidentiary 8710160028 B71008 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR 1501

i

-6:

2 1

hearings issues raised by LILCO's realism and immau ,ality arguments and for the purpose of enabling the Licensing Board to measure the LILC0 plan against a standard that would require protective measures that are ,

generally comparable to what might be accomplished with governmental cooperation.

As part of its conclusion, the Commission stated:

In sum, we conclude that LILC0's plan should be measured against a standard that would require  ;

protective measures that are generally comparable to what might be accomplished with governmental cooperation.

We also conclude that more information is needed

-in order to decide how the LILCO plan measures up to this standard. In applying additional information to the analysis of the LILCO plan, the Board should assume that the State and County would in fact respond to an accident at Shoreham on a best-effort basis that would use the LILCO plan as the only available comprehensive compendium of emergency planning and options.

24 NRC at 32, 33.

The Comission was unwilling to assume that the best-effort government response would necessarily be adequate to overcome LILC0's legal inability to implement the emergency plan. It posed as open 1 Simply stated, the realism argument made is based on premises that even if LILCO lacked the legal authority as set forth in Contentions 1-10, the State and County would respond in a real emergency either by implementing the plan themselves or by deputizing LILCO personnel and cooperating with them in implementing the plan. The immateriality argument is that some of the functions set forth in the legal authority contentions are not i I

required by the regulations, thereby making it immaterial that LILCO lacks authority to implement them.

2 i

y t

i 3 i

L questions the matter of the familiarity of State and County officials with the local plan, about how much delay can be expected in alerting the public and in making decisions and recommendations on protective _

actions, or in making decisions and recommendations on recovery and -

l reentry, ard in achieving effective access controls. The Comission also had questions on how important is the time delay where an evacuation without traffic controls would be delayed from 11 to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and for which scenarios, if any, would such a delay eliminate evacuation as a viable protective action.

To answer the questions, the Commission stated that more information is needed about the shortcomings of the LILC0 plan in terms

- of possible lesser dose savings and foreclosed protective actions, assuming a best-effort State and County response using the LILCO plan as the source for basic emergency planning information and options.

As to the immateriality argument, the Commission found that it presents issues that are primarily factual rather than legal. It concluded that the factual issues are subsumed within the scope of factual issues presented by LILCO's realism argument and can be considered by the Licensing Board in the remanded proceeding on realism.

In discussing the realism argument the Commission oirected that the Board should use the existing evidentiary record to the maximum extent possible, but should take additional evidence where necessary.

The remand by the Commission does not fully delineate the scope of the further inquiry that must be made, including the questions that are i to be answered, the extent to which the existing record can be relied

-__.-_-.___._.____.__c_- -

l, 4

l l

upon and where additional evidence need be taken. The Licensing Board seeks the views of the parties on these matters so that it can more precisely frame and focus the issues to be considered and facilitate the handling of the remand. The parties should submit for the Licensing j Board's consideration a proposed procedural schedule for the prehearing and hearing process. The proposed schedule should be by milestone showing the particular number of intervening days rather than by specific date. This is because of the number of matters that are yet to be heard by this Licensing Board whose order for handling has not been determined.2 The parties should submit the requested views and proposed schedules to the Licensing Board on or before October 30, 1987.

Responses may be filed by the parties by November 9,1987.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M'orton B. M&rgulies, pairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUJGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of October, 1987.

2 This Memorandum was prepared prior to receipt on October 8,1987 of "LILC0's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO THE COMMISSION (REALISM ISSUE)", in which Applicant seeks as part of the relief the setting of a schedule for further proceedings. This Memorandum is not in response to that filing.

- - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _