ML19320C564

Motion to Defer Briefs Re Commission 800620 Policy Statement,In Response to ASLB 800626 Order,Until 801031. Process Re Particularization of Contentions,Should Continue Prior to Writing Briefs.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19320C564
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/11/1980
From:	Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007170384
Download: ML19320C564 (7)

Text

7/11/50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO:

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ) <

• 40 00CR m o APPLICANT'S MOTION TO lb 1 DEFER BRIEFS ON THE 5 E I 419% p. -

COMMISSION'S_ JUNE 20 STATEMENT f 4 I w

I. WI Page 2 of the Board Order of June 26, 1980, indicates in pertinent part:

On June 20, the Commission published a

" Statement of Policy" (43 Fed. Reg. 41733) which states guidelines for operating license cases. It is stated on page 4, "On May 15, 1980, . . . the Commission approved a list of

' Requirements for New Operating Licenses', now contained in NUREG-0694 . . . ." (A]ll part-ies are now requested to brief the impact of the new Commission policy on the contentions or pro-posed contentions in the Shoreham proceeding.

The briefs should be served not later than thirty . . . days after receipt of this order.

As the Board makes clear, it is essential that the Commission's June 20 (or TMI-2) policy statement be taken into account in this proceeding. We believe, however, that it may be more 8007170 3 2 9 509 30/

productive to brief the impact of that policy on contentions in this proceeding several months from now. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that briefs be deferred until October 31, 1980. Our reasons follow.

II.

For present purposes, the more significant portions of the Commission's June 20 statement seem to be these:

Based upon its extensive review and consideration of the issues arising as a result of the Three Mile Island accident, the Commis-sion has concluded that the . . . list of TMI-related requirements for new operating licenses found in NUREG-0694 is necessary and sufficient for responding to the TMI-2 accident. The Com-mission has decided that current operating license applications should be measured against the regulations, as augmented by these require-ments.

45 Fed. Reg. 41739 (1980).

The TMI-related " Requirements For New Operating Licenses" adopted herein can, in terms of their relationship to existing Com-mission regulations, be put in two categories:

(1) those that interpret, refine or quantify the general language of existing regulations, and (2) those that supplement the existing regula-tions by imposing requirements in addition to specific ones already contained therein. Inso-far as the first category--refinement of existing regulations--is concerned, the parties may chal-lenge the new requirements as unnecessary cn the one hand or insufficient on the other. The Atomic Safety and Licensing and Appeal Boards' present authority [to] raise issues sua sconte under 10 CFR 2.760a extends to this II?st category.

Insofar as the second category--supple-mentation of existing regulations--is concerned, boards are to apply the new requirements unless they are challenged, but they may be litigated only to a limited extent. Specifically, the boards may entertain contentions asserting that the supplementation is unnecessary (in full or in part) and they may entertain contentions that one or more of the supplementary require-ments are not being complied with; they may not entertain contentions asserting that additional supplementation is required. . . ,

In order to focus litigation of TMI-related issues, the Commission instructs its staff to utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, the Commission's existing summary disposition pro-cedures in responding to TMI-related contentions.

The Commission believes that where the time for filing contentions has expired in a given case, no new TMI-related contentions should be accepted absent a showing of good cause and balancing of the factors in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) .

The Commission expects strict adherence to its regulations in this regard.

Id. at 41740.

Against this background, each Shoreham contention can be reviewed in light of the Commission's June 20 statement and NUREG-06941I to determine (1) whether the contention is TMI-related; (2) if so, into which of the Commission's two categories, defined above, the TMI-talated requirement (s) relevant to the contention fall:

(3) what implications for the justiciability of the contention should be drawn from the category into which the relevant require-ment (s) fall; (4) if the contention is justiciable, whether prompt resort to su= mary disposition procedures is appropriate; (5) if 17 The Applicant has so far teceived only a draft of this document.

prompt resort to these. procedures is appropriate, whether the allegation should in fact be summarily resolved; and (6) whether

-good cause exists to raise TMI-related contentions not previously raised in the proceeding.

III.

It is virtually certain that different parties will have different answers to these questions -- if indeed they even agree on the questions. The ensuing disputes are likely to be sharp and time-consuming.

Such disputes could easily divert the parties from their present efforts to particularine the Shoreham contentions via in-formal discovery, negotiation and stipulation. Since these efforts have made significant progress as to Suffolk County's concerns, and may yet do so as to SOC's,$/ we believe that it would be productive to let the process continue undisturbed for a time, with the ex-pectation that it will provide the parties and Board alike with a more clearly focused set of contentions, which can then be reviewed

~

in light of the Commission's June 20 statement and NUREG-0694.2/

If this expectation is realized, as we believe it will be, the

-2/By one ceans or another, such particularization seemt essential before other parties can effectively review certain of a0C's pro-posed contentions in light of;che Commission's June 20 statement and NUREG-0694 For instance, SOC's proposed " revised contention 7(a)(ii) ," though squarely tied to TMI, is so lacking in concrete detail as to prevent its analysis by people not privy to what SCC has in mind.

1 The! Commission's. post-TMI' requirements in areas such as emergency planning, moreover, should become more cl~ ear in the

.near ruture, as pertinent'NRC'rulemakings are concluded.

prehearing stage of this proceeding should not be delayed by deferral of the TMI briefs for several months.

IV.

4 For these reasons, the Applicant does request that the briefing deadline set in the Board's June 26, 1980 Order be deferred until October 31 of this year.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY lha/

U.JaflrReveley,III W. Taylor Reveluy, III

, Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l

Dated: July 11, 1980 n , - we- m T'T *'"*

l 1

i '*

ODBERD A In the Matter of spec LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (g C (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) -

Julf14 580 > -c Docket No. 50-322 Geodessanter; C'

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE g, A

I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Motion to Defer Briefs on the Commission's June 20 Statement were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on July 11, 1980.

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing New York State Energy Office Board Panel Swan Street Building, Core 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D. C. 20555 Albany, New York 12223 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing New York State Energy Office Board Panel Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D. C. 20555 Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 217 Newbridge Road Board. Panel Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

Secretary of the Commission 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D. C. 20555 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Attn: Fatricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

Appeal Board Panel County Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suffolk County Department Washington, D. C. 20555 of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Atomic Safety and Licensing hauppauge, New York 11787 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Irving Like, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard C. Hand, Esq.

Reillv and Like

~

Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. 200 West Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Babylca, New York 11702 Washington, D. C. 20555

Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith MHB Technical Associates Energy Research Group, Inc. 1723 Hamilton Avenue 400-1 Totten Pond Road Suite K Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 San Jose, California 95125 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Schmitt

. 33 West Second Street P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 2

n W. Taylor / Reveley , III Hunton & Villiams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l

l i

Dated: July 11, 1980

_ - - _ _ _.