|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20093G4541995-10-18018 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning Procedures for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20058E0151993-11-14014 November 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants Prematurely Shut Down ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057F2191993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) Eliminating Licensee Requirement to Follow & Maintain in Effect Emergency Plans ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095H5611992-04-28028 April 1992 Affidavit of Lm Hill.* Affidavit of Lm Hill Supporting Util Position That Circumstances Exist Warranting Prompt NRC Action on NRC Recommendation That Immediately Effective Order Be Issued Approving Decommissioning Plan ML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc 1995-10-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* ML20082G8971991-08-0909 August 1991 Lilco Responses to Petitioner Filings of 910805 & 06.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8441991-08-0707 August 1991 Motion for Offical Notice to Correct Representation.* Moves Board to Take Official Notice of Encl NRC Records to Correct Representation Made at Prehearing Conference. W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8571991-08-0707 August 1991 Petitioners Response to Lilco Re Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Suggest That Util post-hearing Filing Does Not Dispose of Any Issue as to Util Compliance W/Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0721991-07-22022 July 1991 Petitioners First Emergency Motion for Stay.* Movants Urge Commission,In Interest of Justice,To Enjoin Lilco from Taking Any Actions Under possession-only License Which Might Moot Renewed Application for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D1541991-07-22022 July 1991 Lilco Response to Petitioner Emergency Motions.* Believes Petitioner Emergency Motions Should Be Denied to End Frivolous Pleadings & Burdens of Time & Resources of Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0841991-07-21021 July 1991 Petitioners Second Emergency Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission,Ex Parte,To Enjoin Lilco,From Any & All Acts W/Respect to Shoreham Which Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Representation in Court.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D2071991-07-15015 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (Swrcsd) Appeal from LBP-91-26.* Appeal Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4051991-07-12012 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE-2s Contentions on Possession Only License Amend.* Concludes That Contentions Should Be Rejected & Request for Hearing on Possession Only License Amend Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4001991-07-12012 July 1991 Movant-intervenors Motion for Change of Venue of Prehearing Conference.* Intervenors Request Change of Venue of 910730 Prehearing Conference from Hauppauge,Ny to Washington DC Area.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D3891991-07-10010 July 1991 Lilco Support of NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration of LBP-91-26.* for Reasons Listed,Nrc 910625 Motion Should Be Granted & Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene in Amend Proceeding Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4311991-07-0303 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Contentions on Confirmatory Order,Physical Security Plan & Emergency Preparedeness License Amends.* Petitioner Contentions Should Be Rejected & License Amends Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B3531991-07-0202 July 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Informs That Filing & Svc Requirements Presents No Obstacle to Filing W/Aslb or Svc Upon Any Parties.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 910702.Granted for Licensing Board on 910702 ML20082B2461991-06-28028 June 1991 Movant-Intervenor Brief in Support Accompany Notice of Appeal.* School District Urges Commission to Reverse & Remand Dismissal Order W/Appropriate Guidance.W/Ceritifcate of Svc ML20082B2571991-06-28028 June 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Petitioners Urge ASLB to Grant Variance in Svc Procedures Requested to Allow Svc of Judge Ferguson.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-10-08
[Table view] |
Text
2/5/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Be fore the Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docke t No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF SC CONTENTIONS 17a( i)-( ii)
- 1. Suf folk County (SC or County) contentions 17a( i)-
(ii) were accepted by the Board only for purposes of discovery because they were insufficiently particularized. See Board Order of March 8, 1978 at 4. These contentibns read as fol-lows:
17a. Intervenors contend that the Applicant and the Regulatory Staf f did not adequately review the site for Shoreham for comcliance with 10 CFR, Part 50, Acce nd ix II A, Criteri[on 2]Ill and 10 CFR, Part 100 with regard to:
- i. Physical characteristics of the site including G-value selected for the Safe Shutdown Earth-quake and Operating Basis Earthquake.
ii. Determination of exclusion area, low popula-tion zone, and population center distance.
1/ The introducti- . SC contentions 17a( i)-( ii) reads
" Append ix A, Cr itx. ia I . " However, there is no such cri-terion in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. It appears that the County meant to refer t: Appendix A, Criterion 2 ( de s ig n bases for protection against natur al phenomena) .
990z260n1
- . SC's Amended Petition to Intervene at 21 (Sept. 16, 1977).
- 2. Further understanding of the meaning of these contentions was provided in certain SC pleadings filed after its Amended Petition to Intervene. The main allegations in these contentions are that (a) the design ground acceleration (or "G") values are inadequate ( too low) and, if so, that (b) the low population zone (LPZ), exclusion area, aid population center distance are improperly determined. See, e.a., SC's Particularized Contentions at 17-2 to 17-3 (Nov. 30, 1978). To substantiate the first allegation, SC listed seven items on pages 14-15 of its November 10, 1977 Amended Contentions and Legal Arguments Submitted in Compliance with the Hearing Board's Request of October 11, 1977. SC admitted that the first four of its seven items were irrelevant when it reiterat-ed only the last three items on pages 17-18 of its Objections to Hearing Board's January 27, 1978 Memorandum and Order (Feb.
17, 1978). SC then reasserted that those three items support these contentions. SC's Particularized Contentions at 17-2 to 17-3.
- 3. SC contentions 17a( i)-(ii) , amplified as indicated in 9 2 above, raise no genuine issues of fact for the reasons set out in 99 4-6 below.
- 4. The common thread running through these contentions and the County's subsequent filings mentioned in c 2 above is the allegation that Shoreham's design ground acceleration
values for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and Operating Ba-sis Earthquake (CBS) are not conserva tive in view of some un-certainties regarding seismicity in the eastern United States.
Notwithstanding SC's allegation, Shoreham's design g round ac-coleration values are conservative and they comply with the ap-plicable NRC regulations. Af fidavit of Wayne E. Kilker at 'I 2.
Moreover, Shoreham's design ground acceleration values were re-viewed and approved at the construction permit stage. See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Powe r Station) , LBP-73-13, 6 AEC 2 71, 2 76, a f f' d, ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 857 (1973).
- 5. Although SC alleged that the G-values for Shoreham are too low, none of the three items discussed in its Particu-larized Contentions, see 5 2 above, suggests using values high-er than those used in Shoreham's design.
- a. The first of the three items is an NRC letter frcm B. Rusche to the ACFS, dated January 31, 1977. It reques-ted a clarification of a recommendation by consultants to the ACRS that:
in view of the uncertainties of knowledge concerning the sources of earthquakes in the Eastern United States, a minimum safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) of 0.29 acceleration should be utilized for new plants for which construction permit applications are sub-mitted in the future.
ACRS Report on North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Jan. 17, 1977). This quotation indicates concern about plants designed with a SSE of less than 0.2g acceleration. Sh o r e ham is not one of those plants because its SSE value was set at 0.2g lonc
, before this recommendation was published.
- b. The second item refers to an article in the April 23, 1973 issue of Science, entitled " Earthquakes, Faults, and Nuclear Power Plants in Southern New York-Northern New Jersey," by Yash P. E.ggarwal and Lynn R. Sykes. SC claims that this article reported new information concerning the seismicity of the New England, New York, and New Jersey coastal areas.
Actually, the article focused primarily on the Ramapo f ault, which at its closest approach is approximately 60 miles west-northwest of the Shoreham site. See FSAR Fig. 2.5.1-5. Most of the information reported in the article had been introduced by the authors in the NRC proceeding on Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3. There the Appeal Board concluded that the Ramapo fault was not " capable," as defined in 10 CFR Part 10 0, Append ix A, S III(g). Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-436, 6 NRC 547, 624 (1977); see cenerally id. at 587-624. The new data obtained by Agcarwal and Sykes did not lead them to conclude that the Ramapo fault was capable. Thus, there is no basis for considering the Ramapo fault in the seismic analysis for Shoreham.
- c. SC's third item refers to an NRC letter from K.
Kniel to the Applicant dated September 1, 1977, which the Coun-ty characterited as:
addressing the open items of seismic qualification of mecnanical equipment at Shoreham, electrical equip.nent, and load combinations, including effect on concrete containment structures.
, , SC's Particularized Contentions at 17-2 to 17-3; see SC's Ob-jections to Hearing Board's January 27, 1978 Memorandum and Order at 18 (Feb. 17, 1978). The County incorrectly perceives Mr. Kniel's letter as taking issue with Shoreham's design ground acceleration values. Actually, none of the items con-tained in Mr. Kniel's letter, which SC correctly summarized in the above quotation, pertains to the design ground acceleration values. Rather, these items concern the methods used to verify that certain structures and equipment will withstand seismic loads up to the design ground acceleration values.
- 6. Paragraphs 4-5 above demonstrate that Shoreham's design ground acceleration values are conservative and comply with the applicable regulations. SC has cited no evidence to refute these conclusions. Therefore, SC contention 17a(ii) raises no genuine issue of fact because there is no basis for its underlying assumption -- that Shoreham's design ground ac-celeration values are inadequate. See 4 2 above; SC's Particu-larized Contentions at 17-3. Moreover, Shoreham's LP2, exclu-sion area, and population center distance meet the applicable NRC regulations. See Lona Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nucle-ar Power Station), LBP-73-13, 6 A EC 2 71, 278, aff'd, ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 857 (1973); Af fidavit of Forochar Boorboor on 17(a)(ii).
- 7. For the above reasons, SC contentions 17a(i)-(ii) raise no genuine issues of f act. Accordingly, under 10 CFF S 2.749, they are ripe for summary disposition in f avor of the Applicant. We request that disposition.
Re spectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY
/
F. Case Whittemore W. Taylor Reveley, III Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 5, 1979
SC 17a )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atcmic Saf ety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LCNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
AFFIDA7IT OF WAYNE E. KILKER Wayne E. Kilker , being duly sworn, states as follows:
- 1. I am Lead Geotechnical Engineer for the Shoreham Project. A statement of my professional qualifications is at-tached.
- 2. Shoreham's design ground acceleration values for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and Operating Basis Earth-quake (OBE) comply with all applicable NRC regulations for the following reasons:
- a. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 2, all historically reported earthquakes in the Northeast were analyzed to determine the maximur. intensity ex-perienced at the Shoreham site due to any of these seismic events. The maximum intensity is estimated tc have been IV-V (MM). FS AR S 2. 5. 2.5.7. This corresponds, based rn Neumann's intensity-acceleratien relationship, to a ground atte.eration
of approximately 0. 02 -0 . 0 3 g . Id. at F ic . 2.5.2-5. This range is considerably less than Shoreham's Saf e Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) value of 0.2g, which corresponds to an intensity greater than VII (MM). Id. at S 2.5.2.9, Fig. 2.5.2-5.
- b. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, the maximum intensity of potential earthquakes that might af-fect Shoreham was determined. This analysis was based on ex-tensive geologic and seismic scudies. The conclusion of these studies was that the maximum intensity of potential earthquakes at Shoreham is intensity VII (MM). Id. at 5 2.5.2.9; see gen-erally id . at SS 2.5.1 .3. This corresponds to a peak ground acceleration of 0.13g, based on the intensity-acceleration re-lationship mentioned in 1 2.a above. In order to ensure that Shoreham's design is conservative, a higher SSE value of 0.2g was chosen. Id. at S 2.5.2.9. In accordance sith 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, S V(a)(2), che CBE value was established as 0.lg, which is one-half of the SSE value. Id . at S 2.5.2.11.
/
Wayne E. Kilker Subsc r ibed and sworn',to be f ore me th is 0/ day of G m W , 1979.
/
/
8' ?!
Notary fuolic
-s My commission expires: /uyxe., / f /.Se-
/
QUALIFICATIONS OF WACIE E. KILKER My name is Wayne E. Kilker. My business adress is Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 245 Su==er Street, Boston, Massachusetts. I am currently Lead Geotechnical Engi-neer on both the Shoreha= and Ja=esport proj ects . As such,
=y duties have included responsibility for all geotechnical related design and site activities.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engi-neering fro = the University of Minnesota in 1964. I worked as an Assistant Engineer for the Aritona Highway Department fro = 1965 to 1966 and served as an Engineering Laboratory Teacher in the Peace Corps fro = 1966 to 1968. In 1970 I received a Master of Science degree in Soil Mechanics frc=
Arizona State University. Then I was e= ployed by Twin Cities Testing & Engineering Laboratories as a Geotechical Engineer, There I gained experience in establishing geotechnical design criteria, performing site investigations, inspecting construc-tion operations, and testing engineering =aterials.
In 1974 I joined Scene & Webster Engineering Corpora-tion as an engineer in the Geotechnical Division and worked on several nuclear power plant projects. I assisted in plan-ning site investigations, prepared geotechnical sections of Safety Analysis Reports, made engineering calculations, and proposed construction specifications. I became Lead Geotechnical Engineer of the Shoreha= project in March of 1976. As such I have directed stability and licuefaction analyses on soil sub-
jected to seismic induced stresses and have been responsible for coordination and verification of the in-situ soil densi-fication program. In 1977 I also became Lead Geotechnical En-gineer for the Jamesport proj ect and have been responsible for preparation of geotechnical design criteria, construction speci-fications, and groundwater studies.
I as a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'4ISSION 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) )
AFFIDAVIT OF FOROOHAR bOORBOOR ON 17a (ii)
Forochar (Jeff) Boorboor, being duly sworn, states as follows:
- 1. I am Lead Radiation Protection Engineer in the Licensing Division of the Nuclear Engineering Department of Long Island Lighting Company. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
- 2. The criteria th'at govern the exclusion area, low population zone, and population center distance are set out in 10 CFR SS 100.3, 100.11. The exclusion area for the Shore-ham site is the area enclosed by a circle with a 1000-foot radius centered on the reactor vessel. This area is owned and controlled by LILCO, which gives it the authority to ex-clude or remove personnel and property as required by 10 CFR S 100. 3 (a) . FSAR S 2.1.2. The doses that would be received by a person standing at the exclusion area boundary for the two hours immediately following the maximum credible accident at Shoreham are well within the limits set out in 10 CFR
S 100.00 (a) (1) . See FSAR 15.1.34.5.2, Table 15.1.34-3.
- 3. The Shoreham low population zone is that area out-side the exclusion area but within a circle having a two-mile radius and centered on the reactor vessel. LILCO has studied this area in detail and concluded that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures can be taken on behalf of the residents in the event of a serious accident as required by 10 CFR S 100.3(b). See FSAR SS 2.1.3.4, 13.3.1.1.
The doses that would be received by an individual located on
.the outer circumference of the low population zone that could result from the maximum credible accident at Shoreham are well within the limits set out in 10 CFR S 100.ll(a) (2) . See FSAR 15.1.34.5.2, Table 15.1.34-3.
- 4. The population center distance is defined as the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center containing more than about 25,000 residents.
10 CPR S 100. 3 (c) . The nearest and most likely area to have 25,000 residents by the year 2020 is the unincorporated area known as Yaphank. This area is 8.8 miles SSW of the site.
That distance is more than 1-1/3 times the 2-mile radius of the Shoreham low population zone, as required by 10 CFR S lus.ll(a) (3) .
See FSAR at 2.1-14.
l' /
/.
Forochar Bocrboor ,
Subscribed and sworn to before me ,
this Jmj_ day of February, 1979. -
k1 w %rY2h Notary fu)lfc My commission expires: _
MMY JO TIFRILLlCN T4: tar / NL:.: S:2:e cf N w York tio. ;04002327 Qua.. :d a Nass.'u County C:mm.:s:en c.xpires Mar. 20, 19 84
QUALIFICATIONS OF FOR00HAR B00R300R My na e is Forochar (Jeff) 3corbcor. My business address is Lcng Island Lighting Company, 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York. I an the Cccpany's Lead Radia:icn Protection Engineer and report to the Manager of the Licensing Division in the Nuclear Engineering Department.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear en-gineering and science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1970, and a Master of Science degree in nuclear engineering and science from Rensselaer in 1971. I itave ce=pleted training courses in nuclear power plant design, and I have certificates of ccmpletion from the Co-op Program of Rensselaer, the Advance Reactor Division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the Mass-achusetts Office of E=ergency Preparedness, as well as Harvard University's Radiarien Protection and E=ergency Planning Programs.
From 1971 to 1974, I was e= ployed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as Lead Nuclear Engineer in the radia-tion protection group. I was with General A ccic Corpora:icn as a Senior Safety Analyst in the Safety and Reliabili y 3 ranch frca 1974 to 1975. Since 1975 I have been ecolcyed by :he Long Island Lighting Ccepany.
I an a licensed professional engineer and a member of the American Nuclear Society (including S:andard Cc==i::ee 13.1 en
" Radioactive Source Terms, Radicactive Effluenes, and Radia:icn
2 Monitors for Light Water Reactors"), the Health Physics Society, the Operating Recctor Health Physicists Group, and the EZI Health Physics Task Force.