ML20005A772
| ML20005A772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A767 | List: |
| References | |
| DD-81-09, DD-81-9, SECY-81-395, NUDOCS 8107010226 | |
| Download: ML20005A772 (3) | |
Text
,
Is
%J June 26,1981 For:
The Commissioners Frcm:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
Disposition of Petition Of The Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) To Institute Proceedings On Whether Good Cause Exists To Extend The Completion Date Of The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Purpose:
This paper:
(1) transmits a Director's decision denying a request made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 to suspend the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I construction permit pending a hearing on Permittee's application +9 extend the latest completion date specified in the construction permit, and (2) rcquests a Commission decision on the S0C request for a hearing.
Issue:
Whether, and if so under what circumstances, SOC's request for a hearing should be granted.
Discussion Long Island Lighting Company is the holder of a and construction permit issued on April 14, 1973, for con-Recommendation:
struction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
This facility is presently under construction (approxi-mately 87% complete) on the north shore of Long Island in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York.
On November 26, 1980, the Applicant timely requested an extension of the latest completion date (from December 31, 1980, to March 31, 1983).
tpplicant asserted that construction has been delayed by the
~
following events beyond its control:
CONTACT:
J. Wilson /B.Bordenick/S. Burns, NRR/0 ELD 28408/28648/27268
~ c- -
8107010226 810629 FER ADOCK-05 COO 322 G
pop j
l The Commissioners, 1.
New regulatory requirements.
2.
Evolving Interpretation of Existing Regulatory Requirements.
3.
Late Delivery of Equipment.
4.
Unexpected Difficulties in Completion of Required Plant Modifications.
On January 23,1981, S0C filed with the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, a 6cument entitled " Petition of the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) to Institute Proceedings on Whether Good Cause Exists to Extend the Completion Date of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1."
(Enclosure 1).
The Petition asks for a hearing on the Applicant's construction permit extension request.
Additionally, it seeks to have "the Shoreham construction permit... suspended" and then " revoked" or "in the alternative re-issue (d)... subject to...
conditions...." Applicant on February 4 and February 27, 1981 responded to the Petition setting forth its opposition to the SOC requests (Enclosure 2).
The staff later determined to hold the petition in abeyance when Applicant and S0C undertook discussions for purpc.es of reaching a settlement of SOC's intervention as to the OL application. These settlement discussions subsequently proved fruitirss.
For the reasons set forth in the Director's Denf al of the suspension or revocation aspects of the petition (Enc'-~. e 3), the petition has been denied as to the 10 c.F.R. 2.206 aspects.
With respect to SOC's request for a hearing on the construction permit extension, the staff recommends that this request be referred to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) which is considering the operating license application to which S0C has been admitted as a late intervenor.
After an opportunity for the Applicant and. the staff to respond to the SOC hearing request, the ASLB should be instructed that, if it finds that the petition meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714, the two proceeoings (on the CP extension and on OL issues) should be consolidated for hearing. The use of this procedure will conserve staff and Licensing Board resources and avoid the
~'
possibility of separate hearings being conducted concurrently.
Schedulino:
On June 17, 1981, SOC filed a " Complaint for Declaratory Relief and for Writ o/ Mandamus" in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and a
t
-The Commissioners "Petitio'n for Extraordinary Injunctive Relief Pendents Lite Pursuant to the All Writs Act" in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Both suits involve the S0C Petition discussed in this paper.
Accordingl, early action is appropriate.
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Petition Of The Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) To Institute Proceedings On Whether Good Cause Exists To Extend The Completion Date Of The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 2.
Permittee's Responses To SOC Pleading Of January 23, 1981 3.
Director's Deci;
, Under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 s
^ ' '
~~
K
--m 9
y,9-a-
---1, w
y-w ewy--
-+
e-w-w w
&=*
-'