ML20031B364

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Plans & Schedules for Implementing NEPA W/Respect to CP Application Extension
ML20031B364
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 09/24/1981
From: Latham S
TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20031B363 List:
References
NUDOCS 8110010280
Download: ML20031B364 (2)


Text

~

~

~ -}

I..

H 3)

.T' 7 4

'D* 4CY, NATHAM & SCHMIT' l.$

i ATTORWCTS AT LAW Y

2 n

33 WEST SCCOND STatt?

M

(

aivtewsAn St v. eloot

.hj

't. t

, (),

Sl4 737*Bl80 fi TMouAs A TWOMtY, eh.

10 edAIN ETmEt?

y STEPHEM s.LATMAM EAST HAMPTOst M Y.

I9937 Qd/

C mi..an.ify. -

w j

9 mo cwe a rius fj awnsToenta a scau.sv a

=m

.= =v..eu.

4, "O

September 24, 1981

]&

accene s

Usn e

~

?:

SEP2 8Iggg. 3 i

+-

C ome,,ra,

')

D der;q g 3,,

r h

N Harold R. Denton 9

p J

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.l, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M

Washington, D.C.

20555 2

Re:

NEPA Review of LILCO's Apolication

)

For An Extension To The Shoreham Construction Permit 2

Dear Mr. Denton On November 26, 1980 the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") requested that the Nuclear Regulator'y Commission ("NRC") grant an extension to the latest I

completion date in its permit for the constuction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit S

]

'J

.The decision by the NRC on.LILCO's application is h:-

-subject to the requirements of the National 1

' Environmental Policy Act, -42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et. seq.

l

.,,&("NEPA"),. which. supplements -the NRC's of her statutory

^^,,

' ' obligations.*

Pursuat,? to the regulations of the t

Council on Environmental Quality governing the i

procedural implementation of NEPA, aqencies must i

l implement the NEPA review process an early as possible l

in the course of decisionmaking.

Hearings on LILCO's application for an extension to the construction permit ("CP") are about to b? gin, yet

'The NRC conducted a NEPA review in connection with LILCO's prior request for an extencion of the Shoreham CP, dated December 18, 1978.

l 1

8110010280 910925 l

PDR ADOCK 05000322 O

PDR l=

no NEPA document has been circulated in connection with this action.

SOC urges you to fulfill your responsibilities under 10 CFR Section 51.50 without u

further delay.*

J:]

Scope of the NEPA Review 4

")

Without an extension to the CP, LILCO will forfeit

'h

'3,

all rights under the permit to complete construction of N@

t the reactor.

[

SOC believes that an extension of the Shoreham CP 3'

would constitute a major federal action necessitating

?)

the compliance with NEPA's requirement fcr the

'3 preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS")

J which fully considers all factors including relevant y,

new developments'and information.

See 40 CFR Section

]

1502.9(c).

The Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ")

r.

has previously interpreted NEPA to recuire an EIS for

'}.

such 'an NRC decision.

Copies of the opinion of CEQ's S.

General Council and letter to the Attorney General of J

the State of Illinois, dated August 12, 1980, are 1

attached.- At a minimum, SOC believes that the EIS

?

supplement must address such issues as the safety and

'i{

environmental impacts.of Class 9 accidents; the impact:

c N

'of releases to the liquid pathway; reevaluation of the A

suitability of the Shoreham site; and alternatives to N

the proposed action, among others.

A

?

Many months have already been lost since last k

November, when LILCO applied for the CP extension.

Y Further delay in implementing NEPA for this action will 3

in turn delay the other proceedings on LILCO's extension application and could affect as well commencement of if proceedings on LILCO's application for'an operating

-7}!

license.

2 SOC will take whatever steps are necessary to

'5

.D l'nsure 'eaningful and timely compliance with NEPA's M

m i.-

p'rocedural requirements.

However, the Coalition wishes to avoid initiating unnecessary action, if possible.

We

"would, therefore, appreciate a response from you within

  • two weeks indicating what plans and schedule, if any, you have for implementing NEPA in connection with the CP extension application.

Sincerely, Stephen B.

Latham 5L:jo

  • SOC raised the NEPA compliance issue in connection with LILCO's application for a CP extension in its petition, dated January 23, 1981.

However, the matter has.never been addressed by your

!fice.

.~.