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 April 5, 1983 Wu g, %.i g "I 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 r present/ we recommend that V
J $-,._
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 i
to commissioner offices on Monday evening, April 4, 1983. ;
l Informatica ia this secord rces deMed ;
9309220256 930428 d .
in 2000rdance with the f ecdom Of Information 'll I O$1N Act, extraptions
'-436 PDR {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 l
~ ~ ~. .
l 1
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
'/.
aC ~-. _ , , . . .
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 view, may i
, amount E6 w.
Y A
II. Options .,
1 r n
( b-i i
' i
. l l
9 4
6 l
\ !
4 I
l 1 ,
n,
)
a
- t I
t _ _ -
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
.I 1
b i ,
M .
+
+
. .. i . -i e
i i
i t e
-r i
. l 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_. _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _