ML20237E489
| ML20237E489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1987 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-5113 OL-3, NUDOCS 8712290026 | |
| Download: ML20237E489 (7) | |
Text
..
TZ~_.li g
wh 12/15/87 DOCKETED USNRC 17 DEC 18 P3:19 0FFICE Cf H CrfiA,4 s 00CXti Na a Sg;,y cp' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRANL4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEE 0BE IBE AIOMIC SAEEIY AND LICENSlHG BOAED In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 Unit 1)
)
(Emergency Planning)
NRC STAFF REPLY TO OTHER PARTY VIEWS ON BOARD QUESTIONS CONCERNING LILCO MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE AT 25% POWER I.
INTRODUCTION In an Order issued December 11, 1987, the Licensing Board requested the Staff to reply to LILCO's Brief on 25%
Power Questions ("LILCO Brief") and the Views of Faffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton in Response to Licensing Board's October 6, 1987 Memorandum Concerning LILCO's Request to Operate at 25% Power
(" Interveners' Views"), both filed November 6, 1987.
l Replies to party views on the questions set out in the Board's October 6, 1987 Memorandum to the Parties were permitted to be filed by November 16, 1987.
Order, October 27, 1987.
The Staff elected not to file a reply brief. The Board has specifically requested a Staff reply to the November 6, 1987 submissions of the other parties.
j h
I Therefore, the Staff sets out its reply below.
{yh 8712290026 871215 PDR ADOCK 05000322 l
C PDR
II. DISCUSSION In the NRC Staff Response to Board Memorandum Requesting Parties' Views on Questions Raised by LILCO 25%'
Power Authorization Motion, dated November 6, 1987 (" Staff Response"), the Staff replied in full to the Board's Questions of October 6, 1987.
As set forth therein, the Staff found not that a motion for a 25% power license should be denied on its merits, but rather that LILCO had failed to present its request for relief in accordance with the procedures contained in 10 C. F. R. Section 50.57.
Een Staff Response at 5 et seg.
As a result, it was unclear what aspects of the requirements in Section 50.57(a) and (c)
Applicant was attempting address. Ege id. at 9-11.
Nothing contained in either the LILCO Brief or Interveners' Views has shown the Staff's position to be incurrect.
For example, LILCO concedes that Sectiori 50.57 "is essentially a procedural provision.
(LILCO Brief at 4 ), but does not attempt to directly address the procedural issue of relevance. Id. at 9. Rather, LILCO is 1
content to rely on its July 14, 1987 motion, id. at 9, and its earlier argument that the issues relevant to its 25%
j motion "are different than those remaining in the emergency planning portion of LILCO's applicant for a full power license."
Id. at 15.
LILCO's own framing of the issues raised by the 25%
j t
power application illustrates the weakness of its position, ld.
In trying to demonstrate that the issues presented by
its 25% motion are discrete and different from those presented in the OL-3 and OL-5 proceedings, LILCO relies on "the presence of a utility-organized and trained response organization" as well as "the NRC's recent inclusion of the realism doctrine in its regulations."
Id.
However, the issues of whether the LILCO offsite emergency response organization (LERO) is sufficiently trained to implement the LILCO Plan, and whether the realism-postulated best effort government response following the LILCO Plan will be adequate are open issues in the OL-5 and OL-3 hearings, respectively.
As conceded by LILCO, these issues are relevant to consideration of the 25% power motion and would necessarily be opsn to litigation on the OL-6 docket.
Thus LILCO's position that the issues in its 25% power motion are separate from those in the two other pending proceedings is inconsistent on its face.
Moreover, it must be noted that LILCO has indicated in its November 16, 1987 reply brief that it does not wish the Licensing Board to proceed with its 25% power application if the Board does not agree to assignment of the 25% power request to a separate Licensing Board.
LILCO Reply Brief on 25% Power Questions at 2-3, 14.
As shown in the Staff Response, at 18-20, and in the above paragraph, at least some of the pending emergency planning contentions are relevant to the 25% power motion.
Litigation of at least some aspects of the adequacy of emergency planning pursuant to that motion is unavoidable, and ought not to be assigned i
4
-4_
to a Licensing Board unfamiliar with those issues. Given LILCO's most recent statement that it does not wish adjudication to proceed on its application for a 25% licen e absent the appointment of a new board to consider that application,.a determination adverse to LILCO on the question of appointment of a new board is essentially dispositive of the entire motion.
Further, in considering LILCO's arguments, the Board should consider the impact of the Partial Initial Decision issued on December 7, 1987 by the Licensing Board sitting in the OL-5 emergency exercise proceeding.
With respect to Interveners Views, the similarities and differences in position between the Staff Response and Interveners' Views are readily apparent without further elucidation. For example, where Interveners would require findings on each of the Section 50.57(a) criteria for licensing (Interveners' Views at 7), the Staff views the controversy to relate principally to Section 50.57(a)(3).
See Staff Response at 10, 13-14.
Where Interveners seek summary denial of the 25% power motion (Interveners' Views at 2, 4 ), the Staff would have afforded LILCO an opportunity to cure the procedural deficiencies. Staff Response at 9, 11, and 18.
Given that the Staff's views were, except as stated l
l herein, fully presented to the Board in its November 6, 1987 r
Response, and the readily apparent nature of the parties' l
._,-._-_-__..._mm,,____
d' i
.D' differences on the Board's questions, the Staff believes l
further substantive reply would be redundant.
III. CONCLUSION The Board should adopt the Staff positions on LILCO's 25% power request as set out in the Staff's Response of November 6, 1987 and in this reply.
Respectfully submitted,
/
i.
N George E. John on Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of December, 1987
a-
,- ~ [f: j-l22f;.M.WW DCLKCTED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'87 E 18 P3 '19 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE G Sm7y, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO$gi g C In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No.
50-322-OL-6
)
(25% Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF REPLY TO OTHER PARTY VIEWS ON BOARD QUESTIONS CONCERNING LILCO MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE AT 25% POWER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's' internal mail system, this 15th day of December 1987.
i James P. Gleason, 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 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Jerry R. Kline*
Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor l
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.
New York State Department of Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223 Philip McIntire W. Taylor Reveley ill, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
l Hunton S Williams Agency 707 East Main Street 4
26 Federal Plaza P.O. Box 1535 Room 1349 New York, NY 10278 Richmond, VA 23212
/
Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall t
Oyster Bay, New York 11771
., Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Twoney, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick 5 Lockhart 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 Blenstock, Esq.
Department of Law Ms. Nora Bredes State of New York Shoreham Opponents Coalition Two World Trade Center 195 East Main Street Room 46-14 Smithtown, NY 11787 New York, NY 10047 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*
l Living Office of the Secretary I
P.O. Box 1355 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Massapequa, NY 11758 Washington, DC 20555 Mary M, Cundrum, Esq.
Barbara Newman i
New York State Department of Law Director, Environmental Health 120 Broadway Coalition for Safe Living 3rd Floor, Room 3-116 Box 944 New York, NY 10271 Huntington, New York 11743 s<
'GeorgeE.bohnson Counsel for NRC Staff
)
___