ML20057B577
| ML20057B577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1983 |
| From: | Plaine H NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A457 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-83-124A, NUDOCS 9309220256 | |
| Download: ML20057B577 (7) | |
Text
l ' :w*m s F19 X M 41am e:nE'Xk %3 @l? EiifETs7ff E % 'Ovt-i w f*- n 7
tr.,
=
f * "%,
l%
's Wu "I April 5, 1983 g, %.i g SECY-83.124A ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Commission Meeting)
For:
The Commission From:
Herzel H. E. Plaine, General Counsel
Subject:
LEGAL ISSUES AND CURRENT OPTIONS IN SHOREHAM EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTROVER:b Discussion:
As was indicated in GECY-83-124, we are providing the attached discussion of legal issues and options to facilitate Commission discussion of what, if any, action should be taken regarding the Shoreham emergency planning controversy.
As is d piussed more fully herein, at present/ we recommend that r
J $-
V V*
I.
Discussion of Legal Issues Raised By Pleadings (A)
Requirement of a County Plan.
Suffolk County and its supporters argue that NRC regulations expressly require the subinission of a County plan as a precondition of any license at Shoreham, citing 10 CFR SS 50.33(g) and 50.47 (a).
1 In the absence of a county plan, they argue, NRC is prohibited by its own l
Contacts:
Martin G. Malsch, GC, X-41465 l
Mark E. Chopko, GC, X-41493 i
Paul Bollwerk, GC,.X-43224 SECY NOTE:
This.:is identical to advance copies distributed to commissioner offices on Monday evening, April 4, 1983.
i l
Informatica ia this secord rces deMed 9309220256 930428 d
in 2000rdance with the f ecdom Of Information
'll I
O$1N
'-436 PDR Act, extraptions
{l IOIA' Y S Y]k_._
i
l 2
regulations from considering the Shoreham applicati n and must terminate G\\r the proceeding.
It is our view that
.)
h I
?,nj 1
j
/
s
(.,
J i
t i
l t
l l
k i
i i
l l
~ ~ ~.
i i
I r
3 l
l i
i
?
i k
/
i t
b,-
~ ~ -
~ _ _ _ _ _ _.__..
(B)
Effect of the 1982-83 Authorization Act The County argues that section 5 of the 1982-83 Authorization Act does not I
supersede the NRC requirement that there he a County plan.
f
'L
'/.
C a
~-.
h i
i
5 c
i
(
(C)
Preemption Both the applicant and the NRC staff urge the Board to find the actions of Suffolk County are preempted because the County is attempting to "second-guess" the agency on a question of the acceptability of the radiological risks associated with operation.
It appears the County's consultants prepared a plan with a twenty-mile zone and, in turn, the County concluded that because a twenty-mile zone is needed, no plan is workable to protect the public,.
given the County's population, r
demography, traffic patterns, etc. / This i
- view, may amount E6 w.
Y A
II.
Options r
n
( b-i i
i l
9 4
6
\\
4 I
l 1
n,
)
a t
It n
- 2See, e.g.,
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361 (1981); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire - (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503 (1977).
i s
g M-9,
'e r
t 8
r
^
- I 9
b 4
l t
1 b
i M.
+
... i.
+
-i e
i i
i t
e
- r l
i i
9
.d
-- i t
i i
- I Recommendation:
1 I
l I
~~
m.
l I
i
+
?
..4,-
9 J
fi L9 N.
1 m.
/
i
-~,
i Herzel H.
E. Plaine General Counsel This paper is scheduled for discussion at a closed Meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 1983.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE OIA SECY 4
4.
-