ML19344D649
| ML19344D649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1980 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004250398 | |
| Download: ML19344D649 (7) | |
Text
_
- 6.t.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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)
NRC STAFF'S REPLY TO RESPONSE OF S0C TO BOARD ORDER DATED MARCH 5, 1980 On April 3,1980, the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) filed a response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of March 5, 1980.1/ In its response, SOC addresses a number of matters raised in the Licensing Board's Order pertaining to (1) SOC's standing, (2) contentions, (3) the need to renotice this proceeding, (4) the need for a supplemental environmental impact statement, and has, in addition, requested that the Licensing Board schedule a prehearing conference.
This reply addresses SOC's response.
I.
The Board's March 5,1980 Order required that SOC submit affidavits in order to establish standing pursuant to 10 CFR 8 2.714; specifically, it directed 1/ Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition (Order).
800425037f
. that S0C "(1) submit an affidavit from at least one member of an organization which has authorized S0C to represent it, which affidavit shall describe the location of the member's residence, work, or recreational activity in relation to the Shoreham reactor, shall confirm that the member has authorized S0C to represent his or her interest in this proceeding, and shall identify the L
organization to which the member belongs and confirm that S0C is authorized i
to represent the organization; (2) identify by name all of the organizations which it claims to represent and submit documentation from each of them to show that the organization has authorized SOC to represent it in this proceeding."
(Order, p. 4.)
Attachment A to SOC's response consists of the affidavits called for by the Board's Order.
It is the Staff's view that the affidavits submitted by S0C fully comply with the requirements of the Board's Order, and that S0C has now i
satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR H 2.714.
II.
SOC's Response (at page 9-10) also notes the Board's failure to rule on SOC's request for a new Order and Notice of Hearing in this proceeding (See Order,p.2.) SOC's response, if treated as a motion for reconsideration of l
the Board's Order, simply restates the " facts and circumstances" presented by it in its petition. The Staff's position regarding "renoticing" is adequately 1
l
t
. set forth at pages 4-6 of our Answer to the S0C petition (Answer).2f (3,,
particularly footnote 6 on page 5 of our Answer.) For the reasons set forth therein, the Board should not reconsider its Order on this matter.3./
III.
SOC's response, in Part V (pp.11-14), also urges, in effect, that the Board reconsider its Order insofar as dismissal by the Board of certain contentions is concerned. The Staff believes that its position regarding the dismissal of the contentions in question is amply set forth in its answer to the SOC petition (pp.16-29), and that the Board properly dismissed the contentions in question i
for the reasons set forth in the Board's Order (pp.12-24). However, the Staff responds to one additional S0C argument. SOC apparently argues that the Board excluded certain SOC contentions " simply because the same general issue has been raised by another party to the proceeding" (Response, p.11). While the Board, at page 12 of its Order, did allude to duplication of contentions, it is also clear from a reading of the Order (p.12) that the main basis for the Board's exclusion of the contentions in question was that "they properly could have been raised at the onset of the proceeding" (i.e., they were untimely and 2/ The Staff's Answer was filed on February 13, 1980.
l 3/ To the extent SOC's assertions as to "renoticing" may be read as attempting to l
assume a private attorney-general's role on behalf of others, we point out as did an earlier Licensing Board in this proceeding in ruling on a petition to intervene, "There simply is no provision in the Commission's regulations for parties to act as private attorneys-general".
Long Island Lighting Co.,
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-11, 5 NRC 481, 484 (1977);
citing Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs, Units 1 and 2),
I ALAB-333, 3 NRC 804, 808 n. 6 (1976).
. good cause for the lateness had not been established by SOC). SOC's response does not attempt to show how or why the Licensing Board improperly ruled that l
the contentions could have been raised at the onset of the proceeding (in 1978). Accordingly, the Board's Order, insofar as dismissal of S0C contentions is concerned, should not be disturbed.
IV.
SOC's discussion in part VI of iti Response, which goes to its view of the asserted need for a new or supplemental FES, does not raise any matters not already responded to by the Staff in its answer to SOC's peition (See Answer, pp. 26-29). We can only further note the obvious: S0C is free "to submit further briefs on this question after the issuance of Staff's position on the Class 9 question" as it indicates it will do (Response, p.15). The Staff will, of course, respond to any such brief as S0C may file in the future.
V.
Finally, S0C requests, in Part VI of its Response, that the Board convene a prehearing conference "for various reasons such as to identify key issues in the proceeding and to consider matters raised in petitions to intervene" (Response,p.,15).
In the Staff's view, S0C has failed to provide any basis l
to support its conclusion that a prehearing conference is either necessary i
i or advisable now.
In the Staff's view, such a conference is not necessary.
1
. Conclusion The affidavits (Attachment A) filed by S0C comply with the requirements of the Board's Order, and S0C has, we believe, now satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714. With respect to the balance of the S0C Response, which is beyond the scope of what was required or allowed by the Board's Order, to the extent such portions might be construed as a motion for reconsideration, they should be denied.
Respectully submitted, M
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethe.sda, Maryland this 23rd day of April,1980.
l l
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t9tISSION 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)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S REPLY TO RESPONSE OF S0C TO BOARD ORDER DATED MARCH 5, 1980", dated April 23, 1980, 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 23rd day of April, 1980:
i Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Camer and Shapiro j.- l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission No. 9 East 40th Street i
Washington, D. C.
20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D. C.
20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D. C.
20555 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Deputy Commissioner and Counsel General Counsel New York State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 j
250 Old County Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, New York 11501 Albany, New York 12223 Edward J. Walsh, Esq.
Irving Like, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Reilly, Like and Schneider 250 Old County Road 200 West Main Street Mineola, New York 11501 Babylon, New York 11702 i
l r
.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. J. P. Novarro, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 618, North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Energy Research Group, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 400-1 Totten Pond Road Washington, D. C.
20555 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
- Docketing and Service Section Hon. Peter Cohalan Office of the Secretary Suffolk County Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Executive / Legislative B1dg.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Schmitt David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Suffolk County Attorney P.2. Box 398 County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
33 West Second Street Veteran's Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 w w v
~
3ernard M. Bor denick /
Counsel for NRC Staff 1
l l
l l
l
.