ML20237E512
| ML20237E512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1987 |
| From: | Gleason J, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#487-5119 88-561-02-OLR, 88-561-2-OLR, OL-3, NUDOCS 8712290038 | |
| Download: ML20237E512 (6) | |
Text
__
6(19 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'8 DEC 22 Pl2:20 Before Administrative Judges:
OFrer g mgr,
DOCXEi!NG t Ekvg;f' James P. Gleason, Chairman WHG Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon ECRVED DEC 221987 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-0L-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(ASLBPNo. 88-561-02-OLR)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
December 21, 1987
)
l l
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on A)plicant's Motion of November 6,1987 for Summary )isposition of the WALK Radio Issue)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, LILCO filed a motion to summarily dispose of the reopened WALK radio issue alleging that since no genuine issue of material fact exists, Applicant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In this Order, the Board denies the motion and provides an opportunity to submit new contentions on a limited basis.
Background
On November 10, 1987, Interveners moved the Commission, inter alia, to reopen the record of this proceeding on grounds of a deficiency existing as the primary emergency broadcast system (EBS) station, WALK Radio, had withdrawn from participating in Shoreham's emergency plan.
The Licensing Board had previously refused to consider Interveners' motion, having completed hearings and issued decisions on emergency plan
$22Jgo f0 p
4 2
l issues; hence this filing with the Comission. Neither the Applicant nor the Staff substantially opposed the motion and having met the l
Comission's reopening criterion of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734, Interveners' i
motion was granted. See CLI-87-05, 24 NRC (1987).
In its Order, the Comission stated the admission of contentions that were also submitted with Interveners' motion was premature and consideration of any contention should await LILCO's providing updated information on emergency public notification procedures. The Comission also directed the Board to condition the admission of new contentions on the extent they assisted in focusing the litigation of earlier-admitted issues.
Id. at 4, 10.
In the present sumary disposition motion, LILCO provides its new updated public notification plan:
this reflects the substitution in Shoreham's EBS of radio station WPLR (FM) of New Haven, Connecticut in place of WALK as a trigger station and stations WICC (AM) and WELI (AM) in place of four second-tier stations that also withdrew from the plan.
The substituted stations are located in Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut, respectively.
In its summary disposition request, LILC0 submits that differences from the prior plan exist only in WPLR being an FM station (WALK broadcast on both AM and FM) and in two fewer stations being involved in its new arrangements. Submitting with its motion ostensible agreements with the new radio outlets, engineering reports, survey research polls and affidavits, LILC0 also filed a statement of material facts concerning which it contends no genuine issue exists to
3 be litigated. On this foundation, it concludes the motion for summary disposition should be granted.
The Interveners, in opposition, call ~ for the rejection of LILC0's motion as being, in the main, contrary to the Commission's reopening instructions and as premature, in the absence of Interveners being provided a fair opportunity to analyze and review LILC0's new arrangements and submit additional contentions. The Staff supports the prematurity conclusion, as, in fact, does this Board.
j J
Discussion Our review of the motion evidences, on Applicant's part, documentation of member radio station agreements to perform their responsibilities in LILC0's EBS as well as evidence of their ability to provide coverage within the 10-mile EPZ. Although submitting information on the extent of coverage in the plan, LILC0 contends that issue was not properly before the Board as not being among the " earlier admitted issues" remanded by the Commission.
(See Applicant's Summary Disposition Motion, N. 11.) The Board believes that no purpose is to be served here by an extended assessment of LILCO's supporting information since the arguments submitted by Interveners and Staff weigh so convincingly toward the rejection of Applicant's summary disposition motion. As Interveners point out, LILCO has been in the process of formulating its new EBS plan since June 1987 and only communicated its contents to the parties in the instant sunnary motion of November 6, 1987.
It can hardly be considered as acceptable procedure that LILCO's i
i
4 plan revisions, unreviewed by other parties and FEMA, with new radio stations forming significant links in its emergency broadcast responsibilities, could be the subject of a sumary disposition-resolution.
Such a request for a final resolution of the issue also ignores the plain expectation of the Commission's remand that contentions might be filed after the receipt of LILCO's updated information" on the plan's public notification procedures.
It barely j
needs expression that sumary disposition motions assume other parties in a proceeding have had an opportunity to detennine and respond to matters potentially in controversy: that opportunity has been lacking here. The Comission Rules of Practice provide for such issues of fairness and proper procedure in 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c) and applicability of that provision, urged by Interveners, is apparent in the case in hand.
Accordingly, LILCO's motion for sumary disposition of the reopened WALK radio issue is denied.
Another word must be communicated however in regard to LILC0's new arrangements on the emergency plan's public notification procedures.
I Both LILC0 and Interveners have varying views on the scope of the 3
Comission's directive of confining new contentions to those focusing the litigation of earlier admitted issues. See LILC0 Motion at 7 n. 11 and Interveners' Response, 19-20. The Board will be guided by several considerations in ruling on any forthcoming contentions: namely, the responsibility of the Board under 10 C.F.R. l 2.718 and 2.757 to avoid delays and regulate the course of hearings and the Comission's remand instructions on the admission of new contentions. The issues concerning
5 public notification procedures that were previously litigated in this proceeding concerned the adequacy of the emergency plan's provision for radio transmission of EBS messages and activation of tone alert radios.
Any new contentions must focus on these issues as they are impacted by LILCO's: new arrangements for conducting emergency notifications.
The Board directs that any new contentions concerning LILCO's changes in its emergency broadcast system should be submitted within a 20-day period of receipt of this Order and responses of other parties are to be filed within 10 days thereafter.
ORDER Based upon the foregoing, the Board hereby ORDERS:
1.
LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the WALK Radio Issue is denied.
2.
New contentions submitted on LILCO's changes in its emergency broadcast notification system are to be filed within a 20-day period of 4
)
l I.
l
6 receipt of this Order and responses thereto to be filed within 10 days thereafter.
l FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
I j fames P. Gleason, Chairman
/ ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.i/A m
]ArryR.Kline ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE c
Frederick J. Shof ADMINISTRATIVE /UDGE f
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of December, 1987.
--