ML19274D796

Applicant'S Request for Summary Disposition of Suffolk County Contentions 4a(ii),(iii) & (xvii),12a(ii),17a(i)- (II) & 20a(i)-(ii) for Lack of Raising a Genuine Issue to Be Heard

ML19274D796
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/05/1979
From:	Whittemore F HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:
Shared Package
ML19274D797	List: ML19274D796 ML19274D803 ML19274D806 ML19274D809 ML19274D811
References
NUDOCS 7902260162
Download: ML19274D796 (4)

Text

-

' p, ,

~CC Pl'I.:

. M EG.0M In the Matter of 7 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY .f .

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 l'

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of:

J (1) Applicant's Request for Summary Disposition of Suffolk County's Contentions 4a(ii), (iii)

& (xvii), 12a(ii) , 17a(i)-(ii) , anc 20a(i)-(ii)

(2) Motion for Summary Disposition of SC Conten-tions 4a(ii), (iit) & (xvii) with three attached Affidavits of David J. Robare (3) Motion for Summary Disposition of SC Conten-tion 12a(ii) with attached Affidavit of Ronald E. Engel (4) Motion for Summnry Disposition of SC Conten-tions 17a(i)-(ii) with attached Affidavits of Wayne E. Kilker and Forochar Boorboor (5) Motion for Su= mary Disposition of SC Conten-tions 20a(i)-(ii) with two attached Affidavits of Forochar Boorboor were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on February 5, 1979.

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Secretary of the Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Frederick J. Shon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board

".S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Dr. Oscar H. Paris 2shincton, D.C. 20555

~

Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.BoardPaneb Richard K. Heefling, Esc, auclear xeculatory Commis s io: ,,uc, lear Regu atorv -

.. , n. . a washington, u. C.- c, C a a s_ - ~ ~

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 99 0#09

, Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

New York State Energy Office Cammer & Shapiro Swan Street Building - Core 1 9 East 40th Street

~hpire State Plaza New " -> New York 10016 Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group, Inc.

Howard L. Blau, Esq. 400 Totten Pond Road 217 Newbridge Road Waltham, Massachusetts, 02154 Ilicksville , New York 11801 Irving Like, Esq.

Reilly, Like, & Schneider 200 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702

/& n n - ..

d. Si // st Tamrtu F. Case Whittemore Hunton & Williaus P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 5, 1979

. 2/5/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Eefore the Atomic Safety and Licensinz Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR SUFDIARY DISPOSITION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTIONS 4a(ii), (iii) & (xvii),

12a(ii). 17a(i)-(ii), and 20a(i)-(ii)

A. Introduction On December 18, 1978 the Applicant filed a recuest for summary disposition of certain Suffolk County (SC) contentions (Applicant's First Request). Page 9 of the Applicant's First Request indicated that LILCO would be filing motions for summary disposition of other SC contentions that are " ripe" for resolu-tion. The Applicant's motions for summary disposition of a second group of contentions are enclosed. See Part C below.

B. The Need for Early Summary Discosition Persists The Applicant's First Request analyzed the time required to complete the Shoreham operating license proceeding, including detailed schedules of the pre- and post-hearing phases. This analysis showed that if hearings are required on cost, if not all, of SC's pending contentions, the operating license proceed-ing may very well not be completed by the time the plant is ready to load fuel. Applicant's First Request at 5-9 The Applicant invited any other parties to this proceeding who did not share

our sense of urgency to explain why not in meaningful detail.

Id. at 1, 9.

After establishing the likelihood of scheduling diffi-culties if each of SC's pending contentions had to pass seria-tim through the discovery, particularization, and su= mary dis-position pre-hearing steps, the Applicant proposed a parallel process for treating the more well defined (or " ripe") conten-tions. Id. at 9-11. This process involves using summary dis-position under 10 CFR S 2.749 to start immediately to either resolve or particularize in one step as many of SC's contentions as possible. As a result, only the remainder of the contentions will have to go through the more time-consuming seriatim process.

The Staff's January 12, 1979 answer to Applicant's First Request (Staff's Answer) did not provide a detailed response to the Applicant's schedule analysis. The Staff just suggested that hearings of shorter duration than indicated in the Applicant's analysis were possible if most of SC's contentions were disposed of prior to hearings. We share the Staff's desire to resolve as many contentions as possible before hearings. We think that it is imprudent, however, not to plan to complete the prehearing phase sufficiently early so that adequate time remains to conduct hearings on the great bulk of the County's contentions, if neces-sary, without running the risk of delaying the fuel load date.

Accordingly, the Applicant is pursuing the one-step summary disposition process discussed above.

~

In order to maximize the benefits cf the one-step pro-cess, the Applicant has not limited its summary dieposition fil-

t ings to just those contentions that have been accepted without qualification. Instead, it has included some of the more well defined contentions that have been accepted only for purposes of discovery. Contrary to the position taken on pages 3-4 of the Staff's Answer, the Board should allow the summary disposi-tion process co go forward in order to relieve the schedule difficulties discussed above. Moreover, even though the Staff technical personnel are fully occupied completing the Shoreham SER, a decision by the Board on Applicant's summary disposition motions need not await any further response by the Staff. This is because it is solely incumbent upon the County to indicate for each contention that its concerns have been resolved or to demonstrate why a genuine issue of fact remains to be litigated.

C. Second Group of Summarv Discosition Motions The following documents constitute the Applicant's second group of motions for summary disposition, filed pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.749:

a. Motion for Summary Disposition of SC Conten-tions 4a(ii), (iii) & (xvii) with three attached Affidavits of David J. Robare,

b. Motion for Summary Disposition of SC Conten-tion 12a(ii) with attached Affidavit of Ronald E. Engel,

c. Motion for Summary Disposition of SC Conten-tions 17a(i)-(ii) with attached Affidavits of Wayne E. Kilker and Forochar Boorboor, and

d. Motion for Summary Disposition of SC Conten-tions 20a(i)-(ii) with two attached Affi-davits of Foroohar Boorboor-For the reasons stated in the foregoing materials, the Appli-

cant requests that SC contet tions 4a(ii), (iii) & (xvii), 12a (ii), 17a(i)-(ii), and 20a(i)-(ii) be dismissed because, as to each, "there is no genuine issue to be heard." 10 CFR S 2.749(a).

In the alternative, if the Board finds summary disposi-tion inappropriate as to any affected contention (in whole or part), the Applicant requests that the Board, after receiving the enclosed materials and SC's reply, (1) state the exact issue (s) to be litigated from among the contention (s) in ques-tion and (2) schedule hearings on these issue (s) to begin promptly and in conjunction with hearings on any issue from the Applicant's First Request.

Respectfully submi:ted, LONG ISIJ2TD LIGHTING COMPANY

-/ st F. Case '4hittemore W. Taylcr Reveley, III John B. Vinson, Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 5, 1979