ML20062C286
| ML20062C286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1990 |
| From: | Chan E, Reis E, Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#490-10962 OL, NUDOCS 9010300279 | |
| Download: ML20062C286 (50) | |
Text
. _ .
pfV !
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . E0 00dkdc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'90 DCT 24 P7 05 BEFORE THE COMMISSION t
.: t t e r :: Srcnr u.c v ,
c.,: . . .c . q 9 In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 '
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession Only License)
Unit 1) ) ;
)
b k
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO SHOREHAM WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY INC.
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON t PROPOSED " POSSESSION-ONLY" LICENSE AMENDMENT 6
Edwin J. Reis
[ Mitzi A. Young Elaine 1. Chan John T. Hull ,
Counsel for NRC Staff October 24, 1990 78A 288R 08s88saa 0 PDR ')(1
f a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :
1 BEFORE THE COMMISSION
- In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50 322
) '
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession Only Ucense)
Unit 1) )
)
I NRC STAFFS RESPONEE TO SHOREHAM WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY INC.
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED
- POSSESSION-ONLY" LICENSE AMENDMENT l
l l'
l 6- Edwin J. Reis L Mitzi A. Young Elaine I. Chan John T. Hull Counsel for NRC Staff October 24, 1990 i
i
-i- !
t TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 g BACKGROUND ............................................ 3 DISCUSSION .............................................. 7 I. NRC Staff's Response To The Commission's Inquiries of October 3, 1990. ........................................... 7 II. NRC Staff Response To Petitions To Intervene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Petitioners Lack Standing To Intervene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3
- 1. Legal Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
- 2. Petitioners' Stated Interests .................. 16
- 3. Lack of Adverse Impact .................... 19 B. Petitioners Seek Consideration of hiatters Beyond the Scope l of the Proce eding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 L hiatters concerning the safety of full power operation are not germane to this proceeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -21 l 2. hiatters concerning whether Shoreham should resume I operation are not germane to this proceeding. .... 23 i
l 3. Alternatives invoMng the operation of Shoreham are L
, not germane to this proceeding and need not be co nsid e re d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 t 4 Issues relevant to whether a decommissioning order should issue are not germane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 C. A POL Amendment hiay Issue Prior to Finalization of a Decommissioning Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .......... 25
PAGE D. No Issue is Raised Regarding the Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Which Requires A H e aring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .
. E. Petitioners Do Not Raise Valid Issues Regarding the Need for Emironmental Review of the POL Application ......... 32
-c CONCLUSION ............................................ 35
(
(
e b
i 3
k
f
- iii - i i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i
, COURT CASES i
Abcrdeen & Rockfish R. v. SCRAP 422 U.S. 289 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 '
Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir.1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 -
Friends of the Earth v. Coleman, 513 F.2d 295 (9th Cir.1975) ............. 34 Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 33, 34 i
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,199 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986) . . . . . 26 c
Sierra Cheb v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 982 (5th Cir.1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI 8216, 16 NRC 44, (1982) .....................................22 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 NRC 18 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 376, 5 N R C 4 26 ( 19 7 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Duke Powcr Co., (An,endment of SMN 1773), ALAB-651, 14 NRC 307 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 33 Florida Power & Light Co., (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, CLI.89 21, 30 NRC 325 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Houston Lighting & Power Co., (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, g Unit 1), ALAB 535, 9 NRC 377 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Houston Lighting & Power Co., (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-7910, 9 NRC 439 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NR C 122 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 90-08, 32 NRC (Oct. 17, 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
r .
t s
. jy .
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84 9,
.19 NRC 1323 (1984) ................................... 4,33 ;
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83 25, 18 NRC 327 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Nonhern Indiana Public Sen' ice Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1),
ALAB 619,12 NRC 558 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23 ,
Nonhern States Power Co. (Pathfinder Atomic Plant), LBP 89-30,30 NRC 311, 315 (1989) ........................................... 18 Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield, Illinois, low level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,18 ,
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and' 2), .
CLI 86 12, 24 NRC 1, 4 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 29 ;
Philadelphia Electn'c Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI 89 17, 30 NRC 105 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI 89 15, 30 NRC 96 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI 89-10, 30 NRC 1 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
- Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
! ALAB 789, 20 NRC 1443 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 i Ponland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
l CLI 76 27, 4 NRC 610 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.
!'* Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),-
l ALAB 333, 3 NRC 804 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 18 U
Public Sen' ice Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2, CLI 84 6, 19 NRC 975 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 19 Public Sen' ice Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-7717, 5 NRC 657 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82 26,15 NRC 742 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
.y. .
Rochester Electric & Gas Corp. (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LBP-83 73, 18 NRC 1231 (1983) ....................................31 Tcnnessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,2, and 3),
ALAB 664, 15 NRC 1 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ,
o Tennessec Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plan, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 18 U.S. Depanment of Energy (Clinch River Breedet Reactor Plant), CLI 82 23, t
16 NRC 412 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 It'ashington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), ALAB 771, 19 NRC 1183 (1984) ....................................17 II'isconsin Electric (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 739, 18 NR C 355 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23 STATUTES -
Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. f 2239 ........................... 14,26 Public law 97-415 f 12,96 Stat. 2073 (1983) ....................... 26 27 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, t 102,42 U.S.C. 4332 . . . . . 11, 32,33 REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. !! 2.105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10 C.F.R f 2.105(a)(4)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,27,28 10 C.F.R. ! 2.714 .............................................2 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim 10 C.F.R. f 2.714 (d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10 C.F.R. ff 2.758(a) ........................................ 26 10 C.F.R. E 50.54(bb) ........................................ 10 10 C.F.R. ! 50.58(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 9,26,27,28 10 C.F.R. E 50.75(f) .................................... 10,13,25,36
[
. y1 10 C.F R. i 5 0.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim .
10 C.F.F 6 5 0.82(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 25 10 C.F.R. G 5 0.82(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 s, 10 C.F.R. f 50.91 .......................................... 27 10 C.F.R. i 5 0.91 (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
- 10 C.F.R. f 5 0.92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2,6,27,3 6 -
10 C.F.R. 5 51.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
, 10 C.F.R.' s 51.22(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,3 6 l
10 C.F.R. G 51.101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m 10 C.F.R. G 51.101(a) ......................................... 11 :
P 40 C.F.R. 51500,8(k) ........................................12 40 C.F.R. I 1506.1 .......................................... 34-40 C.F.R. 51508.4 ..........................................12 MISCELLANEOUS 48 Fed. Reg. 14 873, 14 876 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27, 28 51 Fed. Reg. 7744, 774 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 '
51 Fed. Reg. 7 74 4, 775 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 53 Fed. Reg. 24018,24024 ................................... passim 55 Fed. Reg. 12758 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim s
55 Fed. Reg. 12759 ........................................... 5 55 Fed. Reg. 24018 .......................................... 10 55 Fed, Reg. 24039 .......................................... 33 55 Fed. Reg. 25386 ........................................... 6 k
Vi
. ylj .
55 Fed Reg. 31914 ...........................................6 55 Fed. Reg. 34098 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim 55 Fed. Reg. 34099 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim l-I
)
h i
0 E
P l
l . ' %s I
l l'
i-
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
BEFORE THE COMMISSION i
- ' In the Matter of ) '
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
) '
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession-Only License)
Unit 1) )
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO SHOREHAM WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL l
~
DISTRICT AND SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC.
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE' AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ' POSSESSION ONLY" LICENSE AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION l On September 20,1990, Petitioners, Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy,-
Inc. ("SE2") and the Shoreham Wading River Central School District (" District"),2 filed comments on the "no significant hazard determination," and petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing regarding the January 5,1990, application of the Long Island i! Lighting Company ("LILCO" or the'" Licensee") for a license amendment providing (1) that p :
T its authority to operate its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Ehoreham") be removed from the license and (2) that its current full power operatir.g license be amended to
-4
'"Shoreham Wading River Central School District's Comment on Proposed No l
Significant Hazards Consideration and Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for L Prior Hearing," dated September 20,1990 (" District Petition"); " Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.'s Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Prior Hearing,"
dated September 20,1990 ("SE2 Petition"). The two petitions appear to be largely identical, except insofar as they describe the identity of each Petitioner and the impacts l each would allegedly experience as a result of the proposed amendment.
p l --
i
2-i become a "defueled operating license."2 Notice of receipt of the Application was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 34098).
In considering the Application, the NRC Staff made a proposed determination that ,
the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration. 55 Fed.
l Reg. 34098, 34099. Accordingly, the Notice afforded the Licensee an opportunity to .
request a hearing, and provided that "any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding" must file a written l petition for leave to intervene in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714.
Id. at 34100 01. The petitions were required to " set forth with particularity the interest ;
of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding," to address the factors listed in 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(d), and to identify the aspects of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wished to intervene. Id.
In their comments and petitions for leave to Mtervene, the Petitioners principally ,
argued not that a proposed no significant hazards determination is wrong under the i
L standards of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92(c), but that it is " inappropriate" because issuance of the l
l possession only license amendment or any portion thereof on an immediately effective 2
j 1n a letter dated July 13,1990, Licensee advised the NRC Staff that its Application could be treated as a request for a " possession-only license." The amendment would change the words in Paragraph 2.B.(1) from "and operate" to "but not operate" and delete i, license conditions related to operation to reflect the possession only status of the facility.
Changes would be made to Paragraph 2.C, D and E of the license, and Appendices thereto. For example, Paragraph 2.C.(1), Maximum Power Level, would be replaced with, "The licensee is not authorized to operate the facility at any core power level." License Conditions 2.C.(4) through (13) regarding the Flux Monitor, Instrumentations and Controls Systems Required for Safe Shutdown, Steam Condensing Mode of RHR, Emergency Diesel Generator, Fission Gas Release and Ballooning and Rupture, Strike Shutdown, '
Hurricane Shutdown, County Liaison, Brentwood Staffing, and Quarterly Drills would be deleted.
3-basis would violate both the Commission's own decommissioning regulation (10 C.F.R. 6 50.82) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. District Petition at 3; SE2 Petition at 3.
By order of October 3,1990, the Commission asked the licensee, LILCO, and the NRC Staff to address Petitioners' arguments "(1) that a proposed 'defueled operating license' actually constitutes a ' possession only license' (' POL') and (2) that under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.82, LILCO must submit and the NRC Staff must approve a decommissioning plan prior to the submission of an application for a POL" Order at 2.
In this pleading, the Staff first responds to the Commission's request of October 3, 1990. As detailed herein, (1) the proposed *defueled operating license" is a POL, and (2) 10 C.F.R. 6 50.82 does not require the submission and approval of the decommissioning plan required by that regulation before the issuance of a POL in addition, the Staff opposes the petitions to intervene on the grounds that the Petitioners have not shown that they would suffer an " injury in fact" by the grant of LILCO's application for a POL or that they raise issues entitling them to a hearing.
BACKGROUND The full power operating license for Shoreham was issued to LILCO on April 21, 1989. The facility had been operated before June 8,1987, under a low power (5 percent) license, for an equivalent of approximately two full reactor days for reactor testing and was not thereafter operated 3 8
See Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Shoreham Exemption and Amendment No. 6, July 31,1990, at 2.
1
4 4
Pursuant to an agreement of February 28,1989 with New York State, the Licensee agreed not to operate Shoreham, but to cooperate with New York State and have the
.. plant transferred to an agency of the State in order for it to be decommissioned. This ,
agreement was ratified by the Ucensee's shareholders on June 28, 1989. Confinnatory !
Order Mcxlifying License, 55 Fed. Reg.12758 (April 5,1990). (A more complete statement of the Agreements between LILCO and the State appears in Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 90-08, 32 NRC (slip op. Oct.17, 1990).)
. Consistent with the terms of the settlement, defueling activities at Shoreham began on that day and defueling of the reactor was completed on August 9, 1989. 55 Fed. Reg. 12758. During this period, LILCO reduced its operating and support staff below that necessary to operate the reactor, but maintained enough staff for the facility's defueled condition. Id.
On January 5,1990, LILCO submitted the application, which is the subject of this f proceeding, to change the status of the Shoreham operating license to a Defueled .
t Operating License. Sec 55 Fed. Reg. 34098 (August 21, 1990). In essence, the requested- <
amendment would provide that LILCO might possess but not operate the Shoreham l .
facility, would remove authorization to operate the facility, would provide that LILCO may not place fuel in the reactor vessel, and would amend other provisions of the license not pertinent to a nonoperating plant. Id. at 34099.
On January 12, 1990, LILCO informed the NRC it would not place fuel back into .
the Shoreham reactor without prior NRC approval. 55 Fed. Reg.12758. On March 29, 1990, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately),
i
l ordering that "[t]he licensee is prohibited from placing any nuclear fuel in the Shoreham reactor vessel without prior approval from the NRC." 55 Fed. Reg. 12758, 12759. The issuance of this order was determined to be necessary because of (1) the reduction of the
.. plant's staff below that necessary for plant operations and (2) the absence of NRC I approved procedures for returning many of the plants' systems and equipment to operational status. 55 Fed. Reg.12758. The order further provided that LILCO was not '
relieved from the terms and conditions of its operating license or its commitments to continue to maintain structures, systems and components for the facility in a defueled
. condition, as outlined in a letter of September 19, 1989. 55 Fed. Reg.12759. ;
1 Thereafter, amendments relieving the Licensee from certa.in physical security and emergency preparedness requirements were made to the Shoreham license and two exemptions were issued to LILCO, which reflected the defueled status of the facility.' ,
The instant Petitioners had petitioned to intervene in regard to those amendments and
-in regard the issuance of the Confirmatory Order Modifying License 8 Based upon a final determination that the amendments involved a "no significant hazards consideration"
' Amendment No. 4 June 14,1990 (changing portions of the Physical Security Plan
- 1. for the facility in a defueled condition); Amendment No. 6 and Exemption, July 31,1990 i (changing the license relative to certain emergency response requirements while the -
i reactor is in a defueled condition; Exemption, August 21,1990 (exempting LILCO from
" Fitness for Duty" (chemical testing) requirements for employees who do not have unescorted access to spent fuel).
8 Petitions dated April 18 and April 30,1990, were filed separately by SE2 and the District.
6-in view of the reactor's defueled condition, the amendments were issued.' See 10 C.F.R.
I 50.92.
With the concurrence of the Licensee, the NRC determined to treat the January
- 5,1990 Application for a Defueled Operating License as one for a " possession only license" (" POL"), and published a Federal Register notice on August 21,1990, of the proposed amendment and a notice of a proposed "no significant hazards consideration" l determination under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.92,in regard to the amendment. 55 Fed. Reg. 34098.
Notice was given of a right to comment on that proposed determination and of an opportunity to intervene and petition for a hearing on the amendment. Id. at 34100.
Pursuant thereto, the subject comments and petitions to intervene were filed on September 20,1990.
Thereafter, on October 17, 1990, the Commission in a Memorandum and Order, CLI 90-08, 32 NRC , ruled on certain aspects of the Petitions concerning the amendments relating to emergency preparedness and the physical security plan, and the Confirmatory Order, It there stated (slip op. at 12):
After due consideration, we have determined that the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA) and the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA")
of 1954, as amended, do not require the NRC to consider " resumed operation" as an alternative, at least under the facts of this situation.
- Accordingly, we find that at least one specific remedy sought by petitioners publication of an Emironmental Impact Statement including an evaluation of resumed operation as an alternative to decommissioning -
chould not be granted. We hereby forward these petitions to the Atomic Scfety and Licensing Board with directions to review and resolve all other aspects of these hearing requests in a manner consistent with this oplaion.
6 55 Fed. Reg. 25386 (June 21,1990); 55 Fed Reg. 31914 (August 6,1990).
7 i
DISCUSSION
. I. NRC Staffs Response To The Commission's Inquiries of October 3.1990.
By Order of October 3,1990 (at 2), the Commission asked LILCO and the NRC Staff to address the following arguments of the Petitioners:
- 1) That a "defueled operating license" constitutes a " possession only license" (" POL").
- 2) That under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.8e, LILCO must submit and the NRC Staff must approve a decommissioning plan prior to the submission of an application for a POL A. The Proposed "Defueled Operating License" Constitutes a " Possession Oniv" License.
The proposed defueled operating license amendment would modify the existing operating license to (1) permit LILCO to possess, but not to operate the facility, (2) prohibit the placement of fuel in the reactor vessel, and (3) delete provisions which are not pertinent to a situation where fuel may not be put in the reactor vessel. 55. Fed.
I' Reg. 34099. This has essentially the same characteristics as those described for a possession only license, in the Supplementary Information accompanying the decommissioning rule:
Normally, an amended Part 50 license authorizing possession only will be >
issued prict to the decommissioning order to confirm the nonoperating status of the plant and to reduce some requirements which are important
., only for operation prior to finalization of decommissioning plans.
The Staff cannot identify any difference between what may be done under the ,
proposed defueled operating license and a possession only license. For all practical
F
.8-purposes, the Staff cannot distinguish the proposed defueled operating license from a possession only license.
^
B. . Issuance of a Possession Only License Does Not Require the Submission and NRC Approval of a Decommissioning Plan.
10 C.F.R. 5 50.82 does not require the submission and approval of a decommissioning plan prior to the submission of an application for a POL The language of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.82(a), as amended in 1988, only provides, in essence, that an application to surrender a license and to voluntarily decommission a facility shall be made within two '
years following the permanent cessation of operations. This appucation is to be preceded by or accompanied by a decommissioning plan upon which a decommissioning order is to be based. See 10 C.F.R. 6 50.82 (a) and (e). A POL is not mentioned in the regulation.
However, the Statement of Consideration accompanying the amendment to the regulation recognized that a POL would normally be issued prior to the decommissioning order. Comments on 10 C.F.R. 5 50.82, as proposed, asked about "the restrictions and requirements that apply to a ' possession only license' under the proposal." 53 Fed. Reg. 24018,24024 (June 27,1988). The Commission replied that application for termination of a license occurs many years before decommissioning starts and that: "Normally, an amended Part 50 license authorizing possession -only will be: issued prior to the decommissioning order. . . [and] prior to finalization of decommissioning plans." Irt those
. words, the Commission stated that a modified Part 50 license authorizing " possession only" would ordinarily be issued prior to the Snalization and approval of a decommissioning plan. The Commission stated that the authorization to possess nuclear materials would be under such a modified Part 50 license which authorizes " possession only" and that the Commission would subsequently follow its regular Rules of Practice "in amending Part 50 a
m- ;
.- 1 e 3 9
licenses to implement the decommissioning process." Id. The Commission recognized that the amended " possession only" Part 50 licenses previously had covered periods of safe
.- storage and entombment as well as initial decommissioning, with a " dismantling order" issued to cover only the actual dismantlement and disposal of the facility. Id; see 1
10 C.F.R. 5 50.58(b) (1988 ed.). The Commission concluded that except for a change in l
nomenclature, "there has been no change from past practice," and that the change in nomenclature from requiring a "(ismantling order" to requiring a " decommissioning order" +
is made 1 :
because, according to the amendments, the overall approach.
to decommissioning must now be approved shortly after the i
end of operation rather than an amended " possession only" l Part 50 license being issued without plans for ultimate i disposition, q
. . Id. Thus, under the scheme of the amended regulation, a decommissioning plan is to be a
submitted shortly after (i.e., within two years) the end of operations, but the past practice of issuing possession only licenses "to reduce some requirements which are important only-for operation prior to the finalization.of a decommissioning plan" was to continue. There - ?!
q is no basis in 10 C.F.R. 50.82 or the Statement of Considerations for the argument that submission of an application for a_ POL may not precede the submission and approval of 1
- a decommissioning plan required by 10 C.F.R. f 50.82.
The Staff, however, recognizes that an indication of the course a licensee intends
^
to follow in decommissioning, and the source of funds for decommissioning, is required
-l
.before the issuance of a POL The Statement of Consideration, in stating that POL might
! issue before decommissioning plans are " finalized," indicates that some preliminary
decommissioning information is needed for the issuance of a POL See 55 Fed. Reg. ,
24024.
. The nature of this preliminary decommissioning information might be determined through analogy by examining the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.75(f) which provides that 1
in the more usual case, the " submission of a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up to date assessment of the m-jor technical factors that could affect planning for decommissioning," shall be made about the years before the projected end of a plant's operation.7 This is prior to the time a POL wotJd issue. While literal application of 65 50.75(f), is as a practical matter, impossible in the case of Shoreham, which has already ended operations (see CLI-90-08, slip op. at 4 6,8, 10), it is possible to realize, at least in part, the intent of the regulations by having i information analogous to that which would have been provided in a " preliminary 8
decommissioning plan", submitted before the issuance of a POL >
7 Similarly, although not a decommissioning activity (see 55 Fed. Reg. 24018),
10 C.F,R. 50.54(bb) provides that a licensee shall submit, five years before an operating
' license expires, a program indicating how the licensee intends to manage, and provide funding for the management of, irradiated fuel after the expiration of its license.
8 Section 50.75(f) provides that the following factors be considered in submitting a preliminary decommissioning plan to include:
1,.
(1) The decommissioning alternative anticipated to be used. The requirements of 50.82(b)(1) must be considered >
- at this time; (2) . Major technical actions necessary to carry out decommissioning safely; L
(3) The current situation with regard to disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive waste; l
[ (continued...)
L 1
1 i
1 Moreover, generally the request for POL is an initial stage in the process by which
, the plant is permanently removed from service. In the case of Shoreham, this is very clear; the POL is an initial step in LILCO's plan to transfer the facility to the State of New York for decommissioning. Thus, while neither the entire plan, nor each of its steps (POL, license transfet, decommissioning approval) has yet been submitted for NRC review l f
and approval, the Staff believes that the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 51.101 would be applicable to a decision to issue a POL;i.e., the NRC must determine whether the action .
L would have an adverse impact on the' environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. Under 10 C.F.R. ! 51.101(a), the NRC can take no action which would have i
an adverse environmentalimpact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives in advance l of the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment.' ,
i See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, f 202 (2)(e),42 U.S.C. ! 4332(2)(C) ~ <
Here, the NRC,' in acting on the proposed POL license amendment, must examine the-proposal to see if it would cause some adverse environmental impact, of itself, or if it .i
[' falls within a " categorical. exclusion" for which no environmental statement or assessment B
is needed. See 10 C.F.R. 51.22(c)? In addition, the NRC must also determine that the
]
l j
f ' 8(... continued) .
?*' (4) Residual radioactivity criteria; L
q '(5) Other site specific factors which could affect c' decommissioning planning and cost, w
(
l %e POL amendment sought, which provides that the Licensee may possess but !
not use the Shoreham reactor, appears, on its face, to be encompassed within the categorical exclusions in the Conunission's regulations, for which neither an environmental assessment nor an erwironmental impact statement is required.10 C.F.R. 51.22(b) and (c)(9). Under those provisions, no assessment or statement is needed for the issuance (continued...)
l i
c 12 -
l grant of a license amendment does not limit the choice of reasonable alternatives in connection with a future action which may require NRC approval, in order to avoid the s segmentation of what might later be a major Federal action.28
. As the Commission recognized in CLI 90-08, slip op, at 8 n.3, in approving steps .,
which could lead to the decommissioning of Shoreham, the Commission has an obligation to ensure that the Licensee " refrains from taking any actions that would materially and
' demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning or that would
'(... continued) '
of an amendment to a 10 C.F.R. Part 50 license which involves equipment in a restricted area, involves no significant hazards consideration, does not cause any change in the type L of effluent released, and does not cause any increase in radiological exposure.10 C.F.R.
! 51.22(c)(9). The proposed amendment, which provides that the Licensee may possess but not use the reactor, meets each of these tests. The amendment by its terms only =
affects the use of onsite equipment. Similarly, the Staff has determined preliminarily that
~
the amendment providing for the non-use of the reactor will not cause any significant hazard Nor is any change in effluent or any increase in radiological exposure stemming
. from the amendment alleged. Thus, under the regulations governing this Commission, l
neither'an environmental assessment nor an impact statement appears to be needed.
L Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality themselves provide for " categorical l
exclusions." See 40 C.F.R. I 1500.5(k),1508.4.
However, the Staff recognizes it must consider whether the POL amendment request forecloses or substantially influences a decommissioning option which will be subject.to later emironmental review upon the consideration of a decommissioning plan. 1
- See CLI 90 08, at 8 n.3.
'O -!
In CLI-90-08, the Commission determined that the renewed operation of Shoreham is not a matter .for Commission determination and is not a " reasonable alternative" in ,
view of the positions of the State of New York and LILCO. Slip op. at 8-11. It further determined that a determination of whether to operate Shoreham was not a " Federal action," in contrast to the NRC approval of a method of decommissioning Shoreham which would be a " Federal action." Slip op, at 9, n.4.
e
4 P
substantially Increase the costs of decommissioning, prior to the submission and approval- U of a decommissioning plan."" ;
l
- 0. ' In order to make the section 51.101 finding that a POL would not limit the choice -!
of reasonable decommissioning alternatives, the Staff would need some preliminary decommissioning information in order to assess the effect of activities to be carried out-
. under the POL on the reasonable options available for decommissioning. For facilities covered by section 50.75(f), much of this information would be available in the preliminary decommissioning plan. For facilities not covered by section 50.75(f) analogous
'information would be needed in order for the Staff to make the required section 51.101 L findings.-
y ,
- Thus, the guidance of the Supplementary Information published on the adoption ,
of the- Decommissioning Regulations and the requirements of NEPA and 10 C.F.R.
[ -
~
L f 51.101 lead to the conclusion that the licensee must submit decommissioning
'information, analogous in character to that called for by 10 C.F.R. si 50.75(f), before the a
"In U.S. Department of Encigy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CL182-23, 16 NRC 412, 424 (1982), the Commission ruled that site preparation activities may be considered separately from the breeder reactor project where she preparation impacts are b redressable and would not lead to an irreversible of commitment of resources to the project as a.whole. In Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2),-
.- CLI 8910, 30 NRC 1, 4 9 (1989), the Commission concluded that a low power license may be issued before erwironmental consideration of design alternatives as the grant of
'the low power license would not substantially affect the weighing of design alternatives relevant to the grant of a full power license. See also Limerick, CLI 89-15,30 NRC 96, 99-(1989); Limerick, CLI 8917, 30 NRC 105,108,116-117 (1989). In Duke Power Co.
(Amendment of SMN 1773), ALAB-651,14 NRC 307,' 313 (1981), it was concluded that an entire scheme for the transfer of spent fuel between reactors need not be examined, if the approval of the part of the project before the Commission had independent utility and would not prejudice the consideration of the entire scheme when it should come before the Commission. See also Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S 390, 414 (1976), (an environmental impact statement is not needed on all related projects before similar individual projects may be approved).
a s
s, i
NRC may issue a POL This information must be sufficient to enable the Staff to reach the required safety and environmental conclusions, including the findings of 10 C.F.R.
.: 5 51.101.12- However,10 C.F.R. f 50.82 does not require thatfinal decommissioning plans .
be submitted and approved before the submission of a POL application.
II. NRC Staff Resnonse To Petitions To Intervene A. Petitioners I2ck Standing To Intervene ;
An evaluation of the Petitions under the legal standards governing petitions to intervene in Commission adjudicatory proceedings shows that the Petitioners have failed 4
to demonstrate they possess interests which may be adversely affected by a proceeding on 1
- the subject Application.
- 1. Legal Standards Section 189(a)(1),42 U.S.C. s2239(a)(1), of the Atomic Energy Act provides, in [ .
pertinent part, that:
In any proceeding under this chapter, for the granting, ,
suspending, revoking, or- amending of any license or '
construction permit, or application to transfer control, . . . the-Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to the proceedmg.
[ emphasis .added). Under 10 C.F.R.. 2.714(a)(1), "any person whose interest may be 1:
affected by a' proceeding and who desires to participate as a_ party shall file a written
!. petition for leave to intervene." Such petition must satisfy the following requirements:
l 3 1
12 10 C.F.R. ! 50.75(f) does not require NRC approval of a preliminary decommissioning plan. As a discrete matter,10 C.F.R S 50.54(bb) calls for NRC " review and preliminary approval" of the irradiated fuel maintenance program.
i
r .-'
r
~
The petition shall ' set forth with particidarity the interest of the-petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may ' be affected -
by the results of the proceeding, -including the reasons why; l l- petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular
- . reference to the factors in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,-
and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the -
proceeding as to.which petitioner wishes to intervene.
1 L 10 C.F.R. f 2.714(a)(2) (emphasis added).28 i '
The Commission has long held that judicial concepts of standing will be applied-l
,; in determining whether a petitioner has sufficient interest in a proceeding to be entitled L
to intervene as a matter _of right under Section 189 of the Act. See, e.g., Metmpolitan 1 i
Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 8.3 25, .18 NRC 327, 332 j
, (1983); Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
u .,
CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976). The Commission has held that these judicial concepts' require a showing (a) that the action will euse " injury in fact," and (b) that the injury is
" arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the statutes governing the proceeding. ,
o' TMI,18 NRC at 332; Pebble Springs, 4 NRC at 613. Further, in order to establish l
~
1i standing, the petitioner must show (1) that he has personally suffered a distinct and
- i. palpable harm that constitutes injury-in fact; (2) that the injury fairly can be traced to the !
23
-.' 10 C.F.R. 2.714(d)(1) provides that, in considering petitions for leave to intervene,
~
the Commission or presiding officer shall consider, among other matters, the following factors: >
(i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
(ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
l (iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
l-
7 t
- c hallenged action; and (3) that the injury is likely-to be redressed by a favorable decision i in the proceeding. Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C.~ Cir.1988). Cf Nuclear
., Engineering Co. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site),
ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,743 (1978) (there must be a concrete demonstration that harm could flow from the result of a proceeding). !
An application of the above principles to the instant Petitions demonstrates that the Petitions should be denied.
- 2. Petitioners' Stated Interests ,
i The Petitioners assert that "the issuance of a possession-only license which would remove almost all of the license conditions and effect a drastic relaxation of the Technical l b Specifications, would also unacceptably increase the risk of radiological injury should the
_ plant be returned to operation." District Petition at 15; SE2 Petition at 15.
The District asserts that intervention is required in order to protect the interests !
'of its students its employees and their property from both the possible radiological .
impacts of the proposed amendment and the adverse health and other environmental l consequences of non-operation of Shoreham- such'as would be caused by fossil: fuel ,
replacement plants. District Petition at 18-19. The District.further asserts.it has an ,
economic interest in preserving Shoreham's value as an operating plant, in that it allegedly provides "approximately ninety percent of the School District's tax base" and in preserving the quality of the educational, employment and recreational environment for its students and employees. Id. at 20.
SE2 similarly alleges that the organization and its members have an " interest in the radiologically safe and environmentally benign operation of Shoreham to provide them
a
-i with reliable' electricity and'to avoid the substitution of fossil fuel plants," which would: ;
pose adverse effects on the environment, the trade deficit, and the nation's~ energy
" i security. SE2 Petition at 19,21. - SE2 further asserts that it has.an interest in opposing
+ agency actions which interfere with that organization's " informational purposes," due to the .
Staff's purported refusal to conduct. an environmental impact: study, which allegedly deprives SE2 of its ability to comment upon a draft Environmental Impact Statement !
r (EIS), to advise its members of the environmental risks of alternative actions ~ considered, and to report the findings to its members and to political leaders. SE2 Petition at 2122.
Both Petitioners assert they rely on LILCO to meet their energy needs, and that they have an " interest in ensuring that an adequate and reliable supply of electricity will be available to meet their needs and that the electricity provided is available at reasonable rates" -- an interest that would be adversely affected by "[a]ctions to dismantle the facility and build substitute oil or gas burning plants." SE2 Petition at 20-21; District-Petition at 19-20.
lt is well established that a petitioner must have a "real stake" in the outcome to
-establish the requisite " injury-in fact" for standing. See generally Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP 79-10,9 NRC 439,447-448 (1979),
o L. and cases there cited. General economic concerns such as a facility's impact on utility .j rates or the local economy fail to provide an adequate basis for intervenor standing; such o economic concerns should more appropriately be raised before state economic regulatory ,
g agencies. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CL1-84 6, 19 NRC 975,978 (1984); Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), ALAB 771,19 NRC 1183,1190 (1984); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick E
. 4
=
4
. Generating Station, Units 1- and 2), ALAB 789, 20 NRC 1443,1447 (1984). Impact on
- a-ratepayer's economic interest is insufficient to support standing to intervene because - .
concern about rates is not within the scope of interests intended to be protected by the
,; AEA. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),' ALAB-424,
~ 6 NRC 122,128 (1977); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1420-21 (1977); Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 376, 5 NRC 426 (1977); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Nuclear Power Station,, Units 1 and 2), LBP-7717,5 NRC 657 (1977). Nor is this economic interest of a ratepayer within the zone of interests protected by NEPA.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-333,
- 3. NRC 804 (1976).
L By the same token, a taxpayer's economic interest is not within the zone of interests sought to be protected by either the AEA or NEPA. Tennessee Valley Authority L (Watts Bar Nuclear Plan,' Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977); Northern u
States Power Co. (Pathfinder Atomic Plant), LBP-89-30,30 NRC 311,315 (1989).
Concerns of SE2 regarding the national trade deficit and national energy security do not fall within the ambit of the AEA or NEPA, nor are these concerns relevant to the
.. issuance of a POL See SE2 Petition at 19. A mere academic interest or an organizational interest in a problem does not confer standing. See Nuclear Engineering Co.,
7 NRC at 741-43. Some injury that has or will occur from the action taken as a result ,
of 't he proceeding must be alleged. See Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit/Hanford i Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP 82-26,- 15 NRC 742,743 (1982).
o y;
r Further, interests of Petitioners are outside the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). See, Seabrook,
! ._ 19 NRC at 978. As the Commission stated in CLI-90-08, slip op. at 8-11, matters l
l concerning the resumed operation of Shoreham are not for Commission consideration, as. l l.
I it is wholly in the province of a licensee to determine whether a licensed plant should be operated. _ j i
- 3. Lack of Adverse Imnact l As set forth above, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2), a petition must " set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner . . . and how that interest may be affected )
i j
by the results of the proceeding." The instant Petitions generally fail to satisfy this requirement, in that they fail to identify how the proposed amendment would have a-direct and adverse impact on their cognizable interests. Most of the impacts which are j alleged to affect Petitioners' interests relate not to the proposed license amendment, a -
L l possession only license, but to the abandonment of Shoreham which Petitioners contend q may be returned to power operation at some future date. E.g., District Petition at 19 25; l
SE2 Petition at 19 21, 24 29. However, as the Commission emphasized in CLI-90-08, +
these are not matters for Commission consideration. Slip op. at 8-11. These are matters solely within the purview of the Licensee. Id. The Petitioners' statements make clear _
that the Petitioners do not contend that the public health and safety would be endangered- 1 by granting the instant amendment - which would remove the plant's operating authority .
and related license requirements. On the contrary, the Petitioners make the speculative claim that the amendment would cause undue deterioration of the facility and result in
- increased costs, if the -Licensee should seek to commence full power operation at some i
s
.n 1
unknown, future date. Accordingly, the Petitioners have altogether failed to set forth "with particularity" how the proposed amendment, itself, could adversely affect their interests.
) !
,: ~ Petitioners claim that granting the Application, would increase the costs' of .;
L returning to full power operation, would preclude an adequate, reliable and inexpensive '
a supply of electricity to Long Island's ratepayers, and result in a the loss of tax revenues.
District Petition, 19 21, 25; SE2 Petition,19 21. The allegations do not establish the y requisite harm to show standing.
Petitioners' bare allegation of hdverse imp' acts is simply insufficient to demonstrate a potential adverse effect upon their interests, and does not confer standing to participate in a proceeding on this Application.- See Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear I
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL189 21,30 NRC 325,329 30 (1989)."
1 l- In sum, Petitioners have failed to show that the proposed amendment may l reasonably be found to have some adverse impact, i.e., some " injury in fact", upon any interest they have identified; and they have failed to show that such injury can fairly be t 4 l traced to the challenged action or that such injury could be redressed by a favorable .'
l decision in-this proceeding (i.e., by denial of the Application).
1 l
l ,?
l P
l.
L "SE2's attempt to gain standing as an organization should be rejected. The i I organization's " informational" interest is not within the zone of interests protected by l
statute. An organization could achieve standing, if it can allege a cognizable injury to itself or its members that results from issuance of the POL Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB 535,9 NRC 377,393-97 (1979). Both SE2 and the District fail to do so.
L 1
N/t
- 21 ,
i B. Petitioners Seek Consideration of Matters Beyond the . Scope of the. 1 Proceedinc.
- 1. Matters concerning the safety of full power operation are not j
-cermane to this nroceedine. .
The Petitions herein seek to raise matters beyond the scope of this proceeding. i NRC proceedings are limited to the matters encompassed in the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing published in the FederalRegister. See 10 C.F.R. il 2.105,2.714(a). One may not litigate issues not germane to the permission or license amendment sought.- See, e.g.,
Aferropolitan- Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 83 25, ,
- 18 NRC 327, 331-32 -(1983) (qualification of a Commissioner not germane to facility. , ,
restart proceeding); Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station,-
Nuclear 1), ALAB-619,12 NRC 558, 565 (1980) -(notice' of application to extend
- construction permit does not allow litigation of health and safety issues generally); -f Commonwealth Edison .Co. (Carroll County Site), ALAB 601,12 NRC 18, 24 (1980)
. (notice of application for early site review does not allow litigation of issues not germane 4 to that review). In Wisconsin Electric Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),.
ALAB 739,18 NRC 335, 339 (1983), the Appeal Board emphasized that a: Licensing 3 L Board considering a license amendment only has jurisdiction to consider matters germane j I .
to the license' amendment and may not consider other matters which petitioners might !
a wish'to raise. It stated:
? \
l -In a license amendment proceeding, a licensing board has only limited "
P jurisdiction. The board may admit a party's issues for hearing only insofar as those issues are within the scope of matters outlined in the Commission's
. notice of hearing on the license action. Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB 534, 9 NRC 287, 289 n.6 (1979); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,170-171 (1976). See Commonwealth Edison l<
[
m ,
j K- q l
U
- - 22 .
Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616,12 NRC 419, 426 (1980).
[ footnote omitted]~
- -In Point Beach, the proposed amendment provided for the repair of steam gen
- rator tubes v,
by sleeving and the' operation of the facility with sleeved tubes. Contentions relating to f- general adequacy of the steam generator tubes and the public health and safety were held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board absent a basis to believe that the proposed repair alone would cause untoward safety consequences that would not otherwise be present.25 1 L -Here, the amendment proposed is limited'to modifying the Shoreham full power j l
operating license essentially to (1) permit LILCO to possess, but not operate the facility, ;
(2) prohibit the placement of fuel in the reactor vessel, and (3) delete provisions which . I L
L are not pertinent to a situation where fuel may not be put in the reactor vessel and the
- reactor may not be operated.26 . 55 Fed. Reg. 34099. [
The Petitioners seek to raise issues concerning safe operation of Shoreham at full a power and the conclusion that full power operation-would not be safe if certain parts of the amendment request were granted and full. power operation permitted. S ee, e.g.,
District Petition at 22-27; SE2 Petition at 24-29. ' However, the license sought is not one
' 25 '
...- Similarly, one may not intervene in an enforcement action without showing its l- interests would be adversely affected by the action. . 'The scope of the action initiated ;
o by the Commission may be limited and defined by the Commission." Boston Edison Co. '.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-16,16 NRC 44, 45 (1982), affinned sub nom.
Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir.1983). There, the Commission limited the .
issues to whether the facts in the enforcement order were true and whether the remedy ,
was supported by those facts. Other concerns and the need for stronger action were viewed as beyond the scope of the proceeding. Id. at 46.
16 By virtue of the Commission Order of Merch 29,1990, LILCO is prohibited from putting fuel in the reactor vessel and operating the reactor. 55 Fed. Reg.12758.
F
yn '
v i' ..
k,
_f
,3 3 3
-po g l J
1 >
^ for permission to operate at full power, but one for a POL, and the purported concerns .l 1
- related to full power operation are not germane and need not be considered. See, e.g., 1 f Point Beach, supra; Bailly, supra.
nf'
.W -
( 4
- 2. Matters concerning whether Shoreham should resume operation are ;
not germane to this proceeding.
- V
'H Petitioners seek to raise issues concerning whether Shoreham should operate. See, p
e.g.,' SE2 Petition at 24-26; District Petition at 24, 27, 31-32. The Commission stated in L,
CLI-90-08:
L LILCO is legally entitled under the Atomic Energy Act and our regulations 1 e to make, without any NRC approval, an irrevocable decision not to operate i Shoreham. The alternative of " resumed operation".- or other methods of generating electricity - are alternatives to the decision not -to operate -
Shoreham and thus are beyond Commission consideration.
l . . .
In summary, the broadest NRC action related to Shoreham decommissioning l
will 'be approval of the decision of how that. decommissioning will be accomplished. Thus, it follows that NRC need be concerned at present under NEPA only with whether the three actions which are the subject of h the hearing requests will prejudice that action. Clearly they do not, because 1 they have no prejudicial effect on how decommissioning willbe ;
accomplished. Therefore, because decommissioning actions are directed ;
.g solely at assuring safe and environmentally sound decommissioning, it
? follows that alternatives to the decision not to operate the plant are beyond
~
the scope of our review and need not be considered under NEPA. See
Slip op. at 8-10 (footnote omitted). Under the Commission's reasoning, matters pertaining to whether Shoreham should be put back into service are not germane to this proceeding, and should not be considered.
c j
- j i
11
- 3. . Alternatives involving the operation of Shoreham are not germane to this proceeding and need not be considered.
The Commission's decision in CLI-90-08 would also appear to support. the conclusion that resumed power operation is not germane to this POL proceeding. In CLI 09 08 the Commission further stated:
Taken together, these facts appear to us to indicate ,
that " resumed operation" of Shoreham as a nuclear facility-would: require "significant changes in governmental policy or legislation," NRDC v. Callaway, supra, or the " overhaul of basic legislation," NRDC v. Morton, supra, which the courts have ruled place an alternative outside the scope of what the
" rule of reason" requires an agency to consider as a part of an EIS. Accordingly, we find that " resumed operation" of Shoreham as a nuclear facility is not a " reasonable alternative" L under the " rule of reason" established by the courts in L interpreting NEPA.
i Slip op, at 10-1L As the' Commission indicated in CLI-90-08, the determination whether i
to operate Shoreham rests solely with LILCO. The NRCs authority is not over whether
( !
[ to decommission, but on how decommissioning will be accomplished. Slip op. at 9.- j
- l. .j
! Consideration of environmental alternatives in relation to the POL license amendment !
l- i l- sought is thus limited- to determining that the amendment does not foreclose or substantially increase the costs of decommissioning methods or options which may later be proposed in a ~ decommissioning plan prior to the approval of a plan and a i
~
consideration of its environmental effects. See id. at 8 n.3. ;
Thus, although environmental matters must be considered in relation to the POL
! license amendment sought, they are only relevant to the extent which they might foreclose or substantially affect decommissioning determinations.
-I
- 4.'-- Issues relevant to whether a decommissioning order should issue are not germane.
The amendment here sought would change the license from a full power operating license to.a possession only license, prohibit the placement of fuel in the reactor vessel, and delete license provisions not pertinent to situations where there is no fuel in the.
reactor vessel and the reactor may not operate. 55 Fed. Reg. 34099.- As: we ' have
- indicated above in answer to the Commission's questions, a POL may be sought before a decommissioning order is issued or a decommissioning plan is finalized, although preliminary decommissioning information analogous to that required ' by .
10 C.F.R. ! 50.75(f) should be submitted before the POL amendment is sought.' i A licensee, although required- to file a decommissioning plan and apply .for -a - ,
decommissioning order, has until two years after a cessation of operations to perform this act. See 10 C.F.R. 50.82(a). The Petitioners recognize that this requires a ~
decommissioning plan to be filed by July 1991. SE2 Petition at 5; District Petition at 5.
Thus matters relevant to a decommissioning plan are now premature and are not relevant to the POL' amendment sought."
C. A POL Amendment May Issue Prior to Finalization of a Decommissioning-Plan ,
As we have stated in Point . I, although preliminary decommissioning plan !
information must be submitted before a POL is sought, a POL may issue.before a final.
decommissioning plan is finalized or approved. j
- "It is again emphasized that no action may be taken here before an environmental
- review is conducted;to see that' the amendment would not foreclose or substantially ,
influence. future agency decisions regarding the methods of decommissioning. See !
CLI 90-08, at 8 n.3. ;
w w
f i
~
D. No . Issue is Raised Regarding the Proposed No Significant . Hazards' Consideration Determination Which Requires A Hearing Petitioners also apparently seek to litigate the Staffs no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination. Such litigation or even a Licensing Board ruling
.- - on the Staffs NSHC determination would constitute a challenge to the Commission's ;
regulations and thus involve an issue that is inappropriate for consideration in a licensing -r
^
proceeding.28 10 C.F.R. 56 2.758(a), 50.58(b)(6); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo J Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 8612,24 NRC 1,4 (1986), reversed in ,
part on other grounds, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.
1986).
Public Law 97 415 12, 96 Stat. 2073 (1983), amended section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. ! 2239, to provide: &
i (2)(A) The Commission.may issue and make immediately effective any . amendment to an operating license, upon a determination by the Commission , that such amendment. involves no significant hazards ;
^
consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person, Such amendment may be issued t and made immediately effective in advance of the holding and completion of any required-hearing. In determining under this section whether such -
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the. Commission shall consult with the State in which the facility involved is located. In all
-other respects such amendment shall meet the requirements of this Act.
(B) The Commission shall periodically (but not less frequently -than
. once every thirty days) publish notice of any amendments-issued, or proposed to be issued, as provided in subparagraph (A). Each such notice 28"The Commission wishes to state in this regard that any question about [the] staffs determinations on the issue of significant versus no significant hazards consideration that may be raised in any hearings on the amendment will not stay the effective date of the amendment." Statements of Consideration on Notice and State Consultation [regarding the Commissions' regulations and procedures on prior notice and issuance of operating license amendments). 48 Fed. Reg. 14873,14876, April 6,1983; see 10 C.F.R. 2.105(a)(4)(i).
= ,,
I 4@ shall include all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, since the date of publication of the last such periodic notice. Such notice shall..with !
respect to each amendment or proposed amendment (i) identify the facility involved; and (ii) provide a brief description of such amendment. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to delay the effective date of any l amendment.
p i ~ (C) The Commission shall, during the ninety day period following the effective-date of this paragraph, promulgate regulations establishing (i) standards for determining whether any amendment to an operating license <
involves no significant hazards consideration; (ii) criteria for providing or, )
in emergency situations, dispensing with prior -notice and reasonable L 'i opportunity for public comment on any such determination, which criteria' j shall take into account the exigency of the need for the amendment !
involved; and (iii) procedures for consultation on any such determination j m ;with the State.in which the facility involved is located. !
Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Commission adopted 10 C.F.R. Il 50.91, ]
c 50.92,50.58(b)(6) and 2.105(a)(4)(i) under which license amendments might be granted which involve NSHCs and limited review of such determinations. . Notice and State h Consultation,48 Fed. Reg.14873 (April 6,1983); Final Procedures and Hazards on No o q L Significant Hazards Consideration, 51 Fed.- Reg. 7744 (March 6,1986). Under these i L. regulations, where it is determined that a license amendment request involves NSHC, the L .- l NRC will issue a notice which describes the requested amendment, sets forth the proposed l p NSHC finding, requests comments on that proposed finding, and gives notice of an ;
L opportunity for hearing. If requests for hearing are filed pursuant to such notice, the p NRC will make a final determination on whether the amendment involves a significant j
, hazards consideration. If the final determination is that the proposed amendment involves NSHC, the NRC may (upon making the requisite health and safety findings) issue the requested amendment despite the pendency of a hearing request. Any hearing on the
. amendment would be held after the amendment was issued and effective.
3
(
n p
4 The regulation adopted pursuant to section 12 of Public Law 97-415 further i explicitly provides that one may not petition to have a NRC Staffs NSHC determination
.- reviewed. 10 C.F.R. ! 50.58(b)(6) provides: !
(6) No petition or other request for review of or hearing on the :
Staffs significant hazards consideration determination will be entertained !
by the Commission. The Staffs determination is final, subject only to the -e Commission's discretion, on its own initiative, to review the determination.
i See also 10 C.F.R. f 2.105(a)(4)(i). j In promulgating its regulations concerning license amendments which do not involve significant hazards considerations, the Commission specifically noted that, though the substance of public comments on the Staffs proposed NSHC determination might be litigated in' any hearing ultimately held, neither the Commission nor its adjudicatory boards will entertain hearing requests on Commission actions with regard to such comments.
48 Fed. Reg. 14873, 14876; 51 Fed. Reg. 7744, 7759. The Commission specifically noted in promulgating the final rule that the: i New f 50.91 also permits the Commission to make an amendment immediately effective in advance of the conduct and completion of any required hearing where there has .been a no significant hazards consideration determination. To buttress this point, the Commission has
- modified f 50.58(b)(6) to state that only it on its own initiative may review the Staffs final no.significant hazards consideration determination.
Id. As' the Commission further stated in issuing the final rule:
[T]here is no intrinsic safety significance to the "no significant hazards consideration" standard. Neither as a notice standard nor as-a standard
- about when a hearing may be held does it have a substantive safety significance. Whether or not an' action requires prior notice or a prior- #
hearing, no license and no amendment may be issued unless the - -
Commission concludes that it provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered and that the action will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. . . . In short, the "no significant hazards consideration" standard
, m -
Y is a procedural standard which governs whether an opportunity for a prior hearing must be provided before action is taken by the Commission . . . . -
51 Fed. Reg. 7744, 7746.'
However, as recognized in the Diablo Canyon case,-24 NRC at 4-5, the absence 1+- -
_ 1 of any right to appeal a "no significant hazard consideration" finding once it is made, "does not divest the Commission of its inherent discretionary supervisory authority to stay the Staff's action"in regard to such a finding. Such a finding has not been made and it would be premature for the Commission to act on this matter before the Staff has considered the matter and issued a final determination.
Moreover, the Petitioners have given no reason for the Commission to step in now in regard-to a proposed no significant hazards finding. The only reasons set out involve the legal question of whether a POL may be issued before a decommissioning plan is '
approved and, essentially, whether the Commission may issue a notice of the pendency of a proposed detennination that the POL amendment sought involves no significant hazards ;
consideration. See SE2 Petition at 34-37;- District Petition at 32-35. As we stated in Point I, the Commission's regulation, as reflected in the Statement of Consideration on L the amendment of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.82, looks to the issuance of a POL "to confirm the nonoperational status of the plant and to reduce some requirements which are important only for operation. prior- to the finalization of decommissioning plans." 55 Fed. Reg. ,
24024. Therefore, possible issuance of a POL prior to finalization and approval of a
. decommissioning plan under 10 C.F.R. 50.82 would.not be contrary to Commission K regulation.
As to the second matter Petitioners raise, the Petitioners do not detail any health and safety concern. See District. Petition at 32-35; SE2 Petition at 34-37. Under the !
7 l
! .. I 30 -
Commission's regulations, the Staff is not to reach a final determination on whether the ;
- amendment involves a significant hazards consideration before publishing notice of its proposed ' action. -In fact, the regulations call for publication of notice of a proposed l l., determination regarding a proposed action.10 C.F.R. I 50.91(a). Licensee seeks a POL amendment, and the Petitioners have not indicated in any way how the non operation of I the plant and relief from the licensing conditions. listed in the notice could lead to any significant hazards consideration or safety problem. Without this detail, there would be l
- no basis for the Commission to disturb the Staffs "no significant hazards consideration" L - determination.
e ,
In their supplemental comments filed October 10,'1990,' Petitioners allege that the l Staff's initial NSHC determination is invalid because (1) there are statements in the notice that indicate the technical review of the entire . application is not complete and 1
(2) subsequent submittals dated August 21 and 30,- 1990 have nullified the initial-determination and show that "a prior hearing is needed."" Petitioners argue that the I
submittals made after the January 5,1990 Application, include a change in one of 22
. . . . 1 proposed changes, and that this invalidates the notice of the proposed. amendment. ;
Petitioners further argue that LILCO's August 21,1990 request to delete the Independent
.: Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) and its administrative controls from the' Technical- 4 1
i
" Scientists' and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. Supplement to Comments on Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination, Petition to Intervene, and Request for.
Hearing, . October 10,1990 (SE2 Supplement), at 12; Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Supplement to Comments on Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination, Petition to Intervene, and Request for Hearing," October 10, 1990
. (" District Supplement"), at 1-2.
. = .
( Specifications also invalidates the Staff's proposed determination. SE2 and District
' Supplements at 2-5.
. The validity of the published notice does not turn on whether there were any post notice submittals. The issue of whether the action warrants renoticing, in whole or part, hinges upon whether the latter submittals substantially alter the action proposed to the extent that the action falls outside the scope of the notice and the information set forth therein. Cf. Rochester Electric & Gas Corp. (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1),
.LBP 83 73,18 NRC 1231,1233 36 (1983). Nothing in the Petitioners' Supplements indicate that the action proposed falls outside the scope of the proposed amendment. All that is indicated is that one of twenty-two areas of proposed changes was affected and that a review group was proposed to be eliminated. See SE2 and District Supplements at 2-7.
The idea that an absolutely final proposal as it will be approved by the Staff must be published in the Federcel Register has no foundation in law, and would lead to inhibiting licensees and the Staff from improving license amendment whiittals within the scope of a Federal Register notice, after such notice.
The Petitioners' concerns regarding the proposed NSHC determination is not that the facility will pose a threat to the public health and safety once the authority to operate is removed. Instead, they assert that the proposed action will result in the deterioration of needed safety systems that would be required for future operation. Such assertions are beyond the scope of the Commission's consideration (see CLI-90-08, slip op. at 8-11),'and do not identify aspects within the scope of the proceeding - amendment of the license to a possession only license. Petitioners also fail to identify in their Supplements aspects of the proceeding that could form the basis of an admissible issue in the proceeding.
l I
- -- _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ -.________.___..-__.____._____._.______.__.___.__.__._._______m_._m______ __
-t 7
32 ~-
The issue is whether there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the i
' public health and safety under the proposed possession only license amendment, not',
f whether there are significant hazards considerations. The latter issue is irrelevant in this
. proceeding since its only purpose is to determine the timing of a hearing (before or after an amendment).20 -
E. Petitioners Do Not Raise Valid Issues Regarding the Need for Emironmental Review of the POL Application In CLI 90-08, the Commission stated, "Once a licensee seeks NRC approval of a L plan to decommission a facility, our_ function is to review the plan to assure that it-L provides for safe and environmentally. sound decommissioning." Slip op, at 9. The ,
1 Commission further stated that at a predecommissioning stage of the proceeding, after a l licensee has ceased operations, the Commission's obligations include seeing that the licensee complies with license condition and regulatory requirements applicable to the mode or condition of the plant, and to refrain from taking any action which would affect methods, options or costs of decommissioning. Id. at 8 n.3. The Commission noted that -
in the consideration of license amendments, the Commission only need be concerned with l whether that action would prejudice any decision of how decommissioning would be
.- accomplished. Id. at 9. After concluding that any NRC review need not consider
" resumed operations" of Shoreham as an alternative under NEPA, the Commission stated: ,
"We make no other conclusions either regarding the need for an EIS in decommissioning 2%e Staff will determine whether the August submittals materially alter either the action proposed or the initial NSHC determination in the August Federal Register notice.
If it is determined that renoticing is warranted, a further opportunity for hearing will be published in the Federal Register to address this deficiency.
j
. 33 -
1 situations in general or with respect to Shoreham in particular- or regarding what alternatives such an EA or EIS must consider." Id. at 11.2i
- The Petitioners predicate their arguments on the theory that approval of a POL i - amendment would be a segmentation of a decommissioning proposal which requires the
-t preparation of an EIS that examines not only- decommissioning alternatives, but the-alternative of the resumed operation of Shoreham. See District Petition at 35-40; SE2 Petition at 34 42. Such arguments were rejected by the Commission in CLI 90-08. Slip. j i
op. at 8-11. The Commission stated that Shoreham's resumed operation, "or other method -
of generating electricity are alternatives to the decision not to operate Shoreham and are thus beyond . Commission consideration." Id. at 8. The " Federal action" under consideration 'is the proposed grant of a POL to LILCO, and not the decision whether to decommission the facility. Id. at 9 n.4.22 Thus, the Commission emphasized that the method of decommissioning (in contrast to whether the plant should be decommissioned)- ,
i is the decision which requires NRC review and approval and is the only matter subject to review under NEPA. Id.23 2
It is noted that a generic environmental impact statement was prepared by the
' Commission on decommissioning (NUREG 0586, August 1988), and an emironmental statement was prepared on the operation of Shoreham. See 55 Fed. Reg. 24039; Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-9,19 NRC 1323, c 1326(1984), motion for stay denied sub nom. Cuomo v. NRC 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C.
Cir.1985). 1
/. a 22 It is only on a proposal for Federal action that a Federal environmental impact !
statemem need be prepared. See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. at 399; Aberdeen &
Rock /is : R. v. SCRAP, 422 U.S. 289, 320-21 (1975).
23As indicated in Duke Power Co.,14 NRC at 313, the NRC may approve a portion of. a plan as long as that portion has independent utility and would not affect future action on the remainder of the plan.
r
a 6 $ i' l
i-Even if this action is characterized as preparatory to a future decision approving.
LIILO's. decommissioning plan,; it would' be an improper segmentation of . the
- u. decommissioning plan only if it had prejudicial effect on decommissioning options, f methods or costs. Id. at 8 n.3; See, also, Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear !
r .
Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB 664,15 NRC 1, 7 (1982).24 The Petitioners offer no .
arguments or discussion as to how decommissioning would be adversely affected by issuing l
'a POL to LILCO. Indeed, Petitioners arguments are all predicated on the grounds that alternatives concerning the resumed operation of Shoreham must be considered. The Commission rejects that position in CLI 90-08, and Petitioners' arguments accordingly fail. 1 The Petitioners have thus not raised an em'ironmental issue that the NRC need consider ,
in determining whether to issue the subject POL amendment.25 -
24 Further, in Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. at 407_08,410 n.20,414, the Court ruled that where the proposed action has a separate utility it may be considered alone, even if the agency is aware of several related actions which might be pending. Unless approval of a proposed action would commit an agency to approve related actions, there is no requirement' to prepare an impact statement covering all proposed actions. Thus 1 individual mining permits might be' considered and approved without preparing an EIS for mining throughout the region. In Friends of the Earth v. Coleman, 513 F.2d~295, 299-300 (9th Cir.1975), the agency was permitted to approve excavation of gravel sources for a highway without considering that the excavation sites were proposed to be used for L a canal.- In Sierra Club v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 982,987 (5th Cir.1974), a particular project could- be considered without.considering overall plans for the waterway. Hence this l., , agency;may consider whether the grant of a POL would be useful in reducing costs .
L where a utility and the State have determined not to use the license, regardless of L
whether the plant is decommissioned or the method of pommissioning chosen. See
!* 10 C.F.R.' 51.101; see also 40 C.F.R. 5 '1506.1.
l l <
25 l1 However, while Petitioners have failed to raise environmental issues within the L authority of the Commission might affect a choice of decommissioning ~ methods for Shoreham, the Staff will have to make a determination of whether the proposed POL amendment might affect the methods, options or costs of various decommissioning L alternatives which are still open to environmental review regardless of whether the (continued...)
l 1
1 i
k-35 -
CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, the Commission should resolve the questions in its' order of October 3,1990, in this proceeding,' as follows:
.-- a. A "defueled operating license" is a possession only license; and
- b. 10 C.F.R. s 50.82 does not require the submittal and approval of a decommissioning plan prior to the submission of a POL application.
In CLI 90-08, the Commission, after determining that the alternative of resumed operation of Shoreham need not be considered by this agency and that the amendments there sought would not affect decommissioning options, referred the petitions to intervene and for a hearing to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for appropriate action. Slip .
op, at 11. In that proceeding the licensing amendments had been issued. In - this proceeding the Petitioners wish to intervene concerning a POL amendment which has not yet issued. -Although the Commission could rule on the Petitions to intervene, based on the filings before it, the Staff believes, consistent with the ' Commission's action in CLI 90 08 and the instructions therein, the Commission should refer the petitions to an
"(... continued) amendment may fall under the " categorical exclusion" for the preparation of environmental statements and assessments in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.22(c)(9). See slip op, at 8 n.3.
n
I~
r l .
l 36 -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with directions to resolve the issues raised in a manner consistent with CLI 90-08 and the regulations of the Commission."
Respectfully submitted, .
Edwin J. is Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licensing fit A.Yo Seni Supervisory Trial Attorney Elaine I. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff i
ohn T. Hull -
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, niaryland this 24th day of October,1990 6
l "In parallel with the Licensing Board's consideration of the petitions, the Staff shall proceed with its consideration of the POL application under the regulations of the
! Commission, including those dealing with NSHC determinations, decommissioning and l environmental reviews. See c.g.,10 C.F.R. El 50.75(f), 50.82, 50.92, 51.20, 51.22 and l' 51.101.
l l
POLKETED UNITED STA'I13S OF AMERICA um NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 90 00T 24 P7 :06 ,
BEFORE THE COMMISSION 'yhY[I:.;om.m il,$:[ '!
o In the Matter of )
eo ) .
- LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPAh"/ ) Docket No. 50 322 i
) r (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession Only License)
Unit 1) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE -
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.713(b), the following information is provided: -
Name: Edwin J. Reis t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Address: Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555
- (301) 492 1578 l Telephone Number:
l U.S. Supreme Court, Courts of Record, Admission: State of New York, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- l. Name of Party: NRC Staff Respectfully submitted, f
Edwin J eis Dep sistant General Counsel fo Reactor Licensing Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of October,1990
00LhETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA unc ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W DCT 24 P7 :06 e
BEFORE THE COMMISSION QbSYl?N[$[
ut&
In the Matter of ) '
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
) ,
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession Only License) l Unit 1) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ,
Notich is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name: Mitzi A. Young Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone Number: - (301) 492-1523 ,
Admission: U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court, District of Columbia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Name of Party: - NRC Staff o
, Respectfully submitted,
- h
- Miitzi'A. Ydung V f Senior supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of October,1990
l DOCKEILD' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'90 DCT 24 P7 :06 n ter N Etcia ItJY krocKrim>,<!rvici.
BEFORE THE COMMISSION et.at.
In the Matter of )
+ )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession Only License)
Unit 1) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
, Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the i above captioned matter. In - accordance with 10 C.F.R. f 2.713(b), the following information is prosided:
Name: Elaine I. Chan Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 1
Telephone Number: - (301) 492 1583 Admission: - District of Columbia Court of Appeals I
Name of Party: - NRC Staff l Respectfully submitted, 1
2.. .
Elaine 1. Chan L Counsel for NRC Staff 1
Dated at Rockville, Maryland j this 24th day of October,1990 -
-I l 1 l
l- l l
l1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9[bc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION '90 DCT 24 P7 :06
.:.rnci. or rcriitaf in the Matter of ) iW (T..,Qi/ '*
)
r LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50 322 o )
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession-Only License)
Unit 1) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.713(b), the following i information is provided:
Name: John T. Hull Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone Number: 301-492 1573 Admissions: Court of Appeals of Maryland Name of Party: NRC Staff j l
1 -
i I Respectfully submitted, L
- o
'~
[
7p)ti T. Hull' '
b Grfunsel for NRC Staff ~!
i Dated at Rockville, Maryland l this 24th day of October,1990 !
l I I
l
7, l
r i0LhEiED !
USNRC :
F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .90 DCT 24 P7 :06 BEFORE THE COMMISSION (rs!N of stcat iu# :
vocKimc A slavir:l:
3 !!k MK.H I,
,. In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50 322 :
) i (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Possession Only License) L Unit 1) )
!~
t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED OFFSITE ,
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS LICENSE CONDITION AMENDMENT, FILED BY - ;
SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC. AND BY SHOREHAM WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT" and " NOTICES OF '
APPEARANCE" for-Mitzi A. Young, Elaine 1. Chan, and John T. Hull 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, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of October,1990:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman' George A. Ferguso1 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge ;
Atomic Safety and Licensing 5307 Al Jones Drive l Board Panel Columbia Beach, MD 20764 I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- a Steven A. Wakefield, Esq.
[.
Jerry R. Kline*
- Administrative Judge Department of Energy Office of General Counsel i
Atomic Safety and Licensing 825 North Capitol St.
Board Panel Room 2000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20426 Washington, DC 20555
2-James P. hicGranery, Jr., Esq. W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Hunton & Williams
- 707 East hiain Street Suite 500
- s Washington, D.C. 20037 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
Office of the Secretary (16)' Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq. -
Attn: Docketing and Service O'hielveny & hiyers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 55513th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20004 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel (1)' Appeal Panel (6)'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 c
L Y ]b<wf hiitziW Y6un~g '
f Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney-t
'O O
- O.
!