ML20062F452

Motion for Restraining Order & Other Relief by petitioner- Intervenors Shorham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.*

ML20062F452
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/09/1990
From:	Mcgranery J SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#490-11031 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, CLI-90-08, CLI-90-8, OLA, NUDOCS 9011270274
Download: ML20062F452 (15)

Text

..

lg.jlf00 l L:o g

.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

Das 9,

NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION

.1 m;

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARb1 NOV -!' 590 F.

j Q

DOCKETWO &

- J' SERVICE BRANCH I ' '-

Before Administrative Judges Morton B. Margulies, Chairman George A. Ferguson il N

l Jerry R. Kline_

i l

)

l In the Matter-of

)

(

)

Docket No. 50-322-OLA

-LONG-ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

)

i

.(Shoreham Nuclear-Power Station,

)

Unit'1)

)

ASLTf? No. 91-621-01-OLA.

1

)

h MOTION FOR. RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF BY PETITIONER-INTERVENORS SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND l

INC.

l r-SCIENTISTS'AND ENGINEERS-FOR SECURE ENERGY.

t Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

5-2.730 (1990), Petitioner-Intervenors Shoreham-Wading River Central School District'and-

]

' Scientists: and: Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. - (jointly -

s

" Petitioners").hereby move that the Honorable Morton B.

.i

'.Margulies, Chairman >of.the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Board") established inithe abova-captioned matter with Board-4 g

L Members, the; Honorable : George A~.

Ferguson'and the' Honorable Jerry.

3 R.

Kline,. issue an.immediately effective order pursuant to 10

.I t'

C.F;R.45,2.7as?(1) restraining ~the Long Island Lighting Company

' ~("LILCO")-and associated interested persons including the Long Island Power-Authority'-("LIPA") and the New York Power Authority' K

-("NYPA") and all LILCO, LIPA and NYPA' directors, trustees, a

9011270274 901109 PDR ADOCK 05000322 4 3

0 PDR gj t

6

.. i' e I

Q.,0 s

I officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors (jointly and savarally, "the restrained persons") from any and all meetings and any and all direct.or indirect, oral or written communication (s) (except these specified as permissible) with any and all Commission adjudicatory employees (as defined in 10 C.F.R.

I 2.4), (2) further restraining the restrained persons from allowing any visit (s) by any Commission adjudicatory employee (s) to the Ghoreham Nuclear Power Station site and/or other specified facilities, (3) further requiring the restrained persons to submit memoranda under oath or affirmation describing I

any or all contacts (other than formal pleadings served on Petitioners) which they have had with Commission adjudicatory.

L employee (s) relating to U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-322 since July 14, 1989, and (4) further requiring the restrained persons to serve Petitioners (a) with copies _of certain papers submitted to E

L the U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") after July 14, 1989, relating to the proposal to decommission the Shoreham facility and (b) with notice not less than fourteen (14) days in l-advance of any meeting to be held between those persons and any

-NRC personnel relating to Docket No. 50-322 including a specific 00scription of the subject matter (s) of the meeting,'the time and place of the meeting (s), and an invitation to attend such meeting (s), with all aspects of this order to remain in force

-pending further order of this Board.

e

_ _. Petitioners submit that such an immediately effective order is necessary and appropriate, not only to secure adherence to (a) the commission's 3X parte rules and (b) the Government in the Sunshine Act, but also (c) to protect Petitioners' due process rights under the constitution and to (d) avoid the appearance of giving preferential treatment to any person, losing-complete independence or impartiality, making a government i

l=

decision outside official channels and/or affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity.of the government.

53 Fed. Reg.'10365 (March 31, 1988) (Final EX Parte Rules); 51 Fed.

Reg. 10393 (March 26, 1986) (Proposed Eg Parte Rules); Government in the Sunshine Act, Publ.94-409, 54, 9 Stat. 1241 (September

.13,-1976); gag, Sanaamon Vallev Television coro. y, United States,-269-F.2d 221 (D.C. Cir.-1959); 10 C.F.R.

$ 0.735-49a(b),

p (d) (e) & (f) (1990).

Petitioners also submit that parts-1 and 2 of such an order are urgently required, even on an ax parte basis, due to an impending violation of the ax parte rules on November 13, 1990.

I.

EVIDENCE'OF THE'NEED FOR THE ORDER On October 24, 1990, the Executive LegalLAssistant to Commissioner Curtiss wrote a memorandum to the Petitioners, Respondents, and othsrs in the'above-captioned matter (memorandum and ' service list attached) which reads:

I

,1 l

4-This is to inform you that Commissioner James R. Curtiss will visit the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on Tuesday, November 13, 1990 during the visit, Commissioner Curtiss will tour the Shoreham facility and meet with LILCO management and operating personnel to review the general status:of activities at 4

the facility.

Also attached is'a-letter from Chief Reactor Project

Branch No. 2 Division of Reactor Projects in NRC' Region.I to the Long Island-Lighting. company dated September 21, 1990 enclosing a

-I

memorandum entitled " Drop-In Visit from LILCO Vice-President".

AsEdiscussed below, Petitioners submit that this letter and its

enclosures may violate'the ax parte prohibitions and, in any event, do constitute a blatant-circumvention of the.NRC Staff' open'meetlng policies.

.II'.

THE DUE PROCESS. CLAUSE, THE APA, AND NRC REGUIATION AND POLICY FORBID THE PRACTICES IDENTIFIED ABOVE W

.It:has long been recognized'that:

Interested-attempts 'to influence any.

=

member of the commission *** except by the recognized'and.public processes' goto the.

very core ofcthe Commission's quasi-judicial powers' ***'.

Sanaamon Vallev Television Coro. v. United States, -269 F.2d 221,

224 (D.C. Cir.'1959) (citation omitted).

In the context of.that rulemaking procedurim;, ine-court held "that whatever the

- m

=

i proceeding may be called.

. basic fairness requires such a proceeding to be carried on in the open."

Id.

The NRC itself has long recognized in its regulations

- that 3X parte communications are impermissible.

Eigt, 27 Fed.

- Reg. 377 (1962); 31 Fed. Reg. 12774 (1966); 37 Fed. Reg. 15127 (1972).

l In the. Government in the Sunshine ActM, Congress i

enacted certain restrictions on ax parte communications'in formal L

agency adjudication proceedings and provided remedies for the L

violation of 3X parte rules.F The amendments took the form of a definition of "3X parte communications" added to 5 U.S.C.

I 551(14) and the addition of new subsections (d) to 5 U.S.C.

I 556

~

& 557.

Egg note 1 3MEIA.

1/

Government in the Sunshine Act, Publ. No.94-409, 54, 90 L

Stat. 1241, 1246-47-(1976).

All citations herein to the legislative history of'that Act include parallel citation to the

" Source Book" compiled by the Senate and House Government

- operations-Comr i. tees.

Senate Comm. nn Government Operations &

- House Comm. on Government Operations, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.,

Government in the Sunshine Act - S.5 (Public Law 94-409), Source Book: Legislative History, Text, and other Documents (Comm. Print December 1976)

(" Source Book").

2/

LThe legislative history makes it clear that Congress did D21 0

intend this legislation to reduce the scope of agency concepts p

of,,or restrictions on, 3X parte communications:

"The ex parte

- rules established by this section do not repeal or modify the ex parte rules' agencies have'aiready adopted by regulation, except i

to the' extent.the regulations are-inconsistent with this section.

If an agency already has more stringent restrictions against ex l

parte contacts,.this section will supplement those provisions.

l-S. Rep. No.94-354, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 35 (1975) (Source Book L

at 230).

T w

s M

, I An RX parte communication was defined as "an oral or j

written communication not on the public record with respect to

(

which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but it i

L shall-not includa request for status reports on any matter or proceeding covered by this subchapter."

5 U.S.C. 5 551(14).

The

' legislative history makes clear that a communication is net RX carte if either the person making it placed it on the public record at the same time it was made er all parties to the proceeding had reasonable advance notice.

S. Rep No.94-354, 94th j

Cong., 1st Sess. tt 38 (1994) (Source Book at 233).

Howes.

. tat

• isaative-history also defines L

" reasonable prior notice" to be notice which is " adequate to l

l permit other parties to prepare a possible response and to be present when the communication is made."

Id. (emphasis added).

hit is clear that the Memorandum from commissioner Curtiss' Executive Legal Assistant complies with neither of these j

two escential' qualities of " reasonable prior notice".

Not only does it not permit the Petitioners (or their representatives)-to be present, butLits reference to the subject of the meeting with "LILCO Management and operating Personnel" as being "to review i

the-general status of activities at the facility" is so overly broad and vague that it cannot possibly be deemed " adequate to permit other parties to prepare a possible. response".

And the Memorandum's use of the phrase " general status of activities" does not fall within the exception for " request L

1

e-

.a J

.- for status reports"..

The legislative history makes it clear that the " status report" exclusion applies only to " procedural inquires" and " general background discussions about an entire industry which:do not directly relate to specific agency adjudication involving a member of that industry, or to formal l

rulemaking involving the industry as whole."

S. Rep No.94-354, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 36-37 (1975) (Source Book at 231-32).

This visit pertains to a particular plant.

Also, the restrictions on ex carte communications apply in this proceeding at this time.

The Act states that the

" prohibitions of this subsection shall apply beginning at such time as,the agency may designate, but in no case shall they begin to apply.later than the time at which a proceeding is noticed for hearing unless the person responsible for the communication has j

knowledge that it will be noticed, in which case-the prohibitiens p

chall apply beginning.at the time of his acquisition of such l

knowledge."

5 U.S.C. I 557 (d) (1) (E).

l The instant proceeding is a classic APA " licensing" proceeding (5 U.S.C. 5 551(9)) requiring " adjudication" (5 U.S.C.

o 5.551(7)).

Since the commission has issued an order in partial disposition of this licensing matter (5 U.S.C.

I 551(6)), the NRC must be presumed to have conducted a hearing and tc have-given prior notice of that agency hearing on this natter before the

/

w s 9 L l

i issuance of CLI-90-08 (October 17, 1990).F Egg 5 U.S.C.

I 554.

L 1/

In adopting regulations to implement Section 4 of the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Commission determined that the prohibitions would apply when a notice of hearing "or other comparable order" is issued in accordance with any one of six specific subsections of Part 2, or whenever "the interested person or commission adjudicatory employee responsible for the communication has knowledge that a notice of hearing or other

' comparable order will be issued" pursuant to one of those subsections.

10 C.F.R. 5 2.780(e).

In proposing subsection (e),

the Commission said that since the new statutory language " speaks only in terms of the issuance of a notice of hearing, the existing rule's application of ex parte prohibitions when a hearing request is received appears overbroad and is not retained."

51 Fed. Reg. 10393, 10396 col. 3 (March 26, 1986).

In order.to preserve the validity of the commission's regulations in these circumstances, (1232, after the Commission has issued an order partially disposing of the matter and an i

order has issued establishing an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this matter), the Board may rely on 10 C.F.R. I 2.780 (e) (ii) for the proposition that all interested persons and commission adjudicatory employees have " knowledge that a notice of hearing-or other comparable order will be issued".

An alternative basis for holding that the ax narte prohibitione currently apply would be that a partial " hearing" has been granted and therefore notice of hearing must be presumed in a situation not contemplated by the regulations.

If-one of the two foregoing approaches are not taken, the question then becomes one of whether the subsection (e) is L

invalid.

There-would be two bases for such a. finding:

First, it is' clear from the legislative history that the Act was not i

intended to; allow-the Commission to reduce the scope of its existing RX parte rules.

Ema note 2 suora.

And second, the Commission's implied definition'of " hearing" is-not consistent with the purpose of the' regulation or Section 4 of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

The purpose of the statutory amendment was "to ensure that agency decisions required to.be made on public record'are not influenced by a private, off-the-record communications from'those' personally interested in the outcome."

I H;R. Rep. No.94-880, 94th'Cong. 2nd Sess., Part 1 at 2 (1976)

(Source' Book at'513). ~It would-be totally inconsistent with this purpose to find that although an order partially disposing the-

. matter has already been issued by the commission itself, there is not yet a " notice of hearing".

It may also be that the Commission's specification of various hearings is impermissibly crabbed definition of hearing under the APA.

The Supreme Court has determined that the term (continued...)

---l---

.---e

~en

-w-~e-

-ww~-

mw

a k.l. d - e; 9-

~

Otherwise CLI-90-08 would be a nullity, i;

Since the gg parte prohibitions do apply to this proceeding at this time, and the Memorandum from Commissioner Curtiss' Executive Legal Assistant does not provide " reasonable prior notice", Petitioners urge the Presiding Officer to exercise

'his power to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants to issue an immediate effective order in the form attached in order to protect the integrity of the process for the reasons given herein.

Saa 10 C.F.R. $ 2.718.

'III.

FURTHER ORDERS ARE ALSO NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO ASSURE A FAIR HEARING In order to assure that Petitioners he 1 fair access to the record in this matter and to the NRC deOisionmaking process, 2/

(... continued)

" hearing" in the APA "does not-necessarily embrace either the right to present evidence orally and-to cross-examine opposing witnesses, or the.right.to.present oral argument to the agency's decisionmaker."

United states v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.,

'410 U.S. 224, 240, 93 S.Ct. 810, 818, 35 L.Ed.2d 223 (1973).

Petitionersisuggest that the foregoing is not in violation of 10 C.F.R. I 2.758'because the instant proceeding is not an adjudicatory proceeding " involving initial;1icensing".-

ut Alternatively, Petitioners move the Board to treat this argument-as'a petition that 10 C.F.R. I 2.780(e).be waived or an exception made fortthis particular-proceeding-due to the special

. circumstances,sincluding the existence of CLI-90-08.

Petitioners also note that it would be at lsaat incongruous e

3

'to recognize that~the Commission's regulations state both that a

" contested proceeding" now, exists (aga 10 C.F.R. l'2.4) and that a proceeding is deemed to have commenced in this matter (10

-C.F.R. 5 2.717(a)), while countenancing such a restrictive reading' of 9 '2.780(e). to indicate that the ax carte prohibitions do not yet apply.

_r

'b,w

=&%

- - - -. -. ~ -.

i

-,.c I

P additional orders pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

I 2.718 are necessary and appropriate.-

Turning to the Region I letter trarsmitting a memorandum of a-September 11, 1990 meeting between Region I and LILCO, Petitioners note that the characterization of the visit as

'a " drop-in visit" which was'made "on short. notice" cannot pass the " red-face" test.

First, except in exigent circumstances, it is NRC policy not to conduct meetings with the licensees on "short notice" so that interested persons may attend much y

l' meetings which are supposed to be open to the public.

And as for the alleged " drop-in" character of the visit, Petitioners find it difficult to believe that, for example, officers of the Long Island Lighting Company just happened to be passing khrough King L

of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Insofar as the memorandum was: intended to comply with the requirement of placing on the'public record memoranda.

[

" stating the substance of all such oral communications", it g

L L

totally fails.

5_U.S.C. 5. 557 (d) (1) (c) (ii) & (iii).

That memorandum does little more than provide an agenda item list of the inbjects discussed by LILCO and the NRC,.and provides absolutely.no insight into the NRC's discussion of those items, or whether the NRC explicitly refused to take a position as to the allowability of any.of LILCO's " plans".

Petitioners-suggest that the brief tentence at the end lof the memo ("No technical, i

c - -.

- $se

,, licensing or unresolved items were discussed substantively") is at least suspect given the agenda list provided.

Petitioners also note that although copies of the letter and nemorandum were provided to an extensive list of persons and entities, De copy was furnished to Petitioners or

'their counsel.

Petitioners respectfully suggest that, given NRC Region I awareness of the various actions that the Petitioners are pursuing'with respect to the Shoreham natter, the failure to at least furnish them a copy of the letter, even if it does not violate the gg parte prohibitions, does create the appearance of given preferential treatment to a person, losing complete independence or imparticality and making government decisions outside official channels, as well as affecting adversely the confidence of the public and the integrity of the government.

10 C.F.R..l 0.735-49a.

Also LILCO, LIPA and NYPA should be required to serve copies of all written communications to the NRC with respect to a..y cud all aspects of the overall proposal'to decommission the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Petitioners' counsel.

To date, LILCO'has orplicitly refused to furnish'auch copies.

The result is that the Petitioners have only haphazards and untimely access to communications-with the NRC depending upon whether a-particular. communication is placed in the NRC Public Document Room,(*PDR") and when it is placed there..

Of course, the process of communications between LILCO and NRC Region I are virtually l

o D.

. unaccessible, except in those rare cases when a copy is also furnished to NRC Headquarters for the PDR.

In any event, the timeliness of such access is delayed by 2 to 4 weeks.

For these reasons, Petitioners submit that a fair hearing requires an order that LILCO, LIPA and NYPA furnish all written communications to

'and from the NRC respecting Docket No. 50-322, directly to the Petitioners' counsel by firrat class mail.

It also may be helpful if a comparable order was furnished to NRC Region I (NRC Headquarters has included Petitioners' counsel on a list to receive correspondence from NRC Headquarters to LILCO with reference to this docket).

f i'

Petitioners have chosen the date of effectiveness for l

service of such papers and other orders as July 14, 1989, the date when they submitted their original Section 2.206' request in

~this matter.

CONCLUSION

' WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reascns, the Petitioners respectfully urge the' Chairman to issue an order in the form s

attached.

Respectfully submitted

>M9 JgpesP.McGranary,[g/.'

m Ceunsel to the Petly2oners Shoreham-Wading River Central 3

School District and-Scientists &

~!

Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

j

~ il <,;

k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

{

I Before Administrative Judges h

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman L

George A. Ferguson Jerry R. K1;.no L

)

p

' In the Matter of-

)

)

Docket No. 50-322-OLA L

m h

. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA I-i D

i U

l ORDER Upon' consideration of the Motion for Restraining Order-and Other. Relief'by Petitioner-Intervenors Shereham-Wading River y

I h

. Centra 1LSchool District and-Scientists and: Engineers for Secure g

l Energy,.Inc., (responses.thereto), and the1 Chairman's power and.

7 s

f.

responsibility. to assure at fair hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R.u f

. 2.718, itlis p

' ORDERED that the Long Island Lighting Company k!

~ ("LJIro"), as the licensee' in.the above-captioned proceeding, and i

h the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") and the~ Power. Authority o

ofithe State of New York ("NYPA"),-as interested persons in tne above-captioned docket, and all' of. their. joint and several I

directors, trustees, officers, employees, agents, contractors and-i attorneys (jointly and severally, the " restrained persons") are-

- hereby restrained.from any and L: 1 meetings and any and all-I l

[

-D.

. direct and indirect, oral and written communication (s) respecting directly or indirectly Docket No. 50-322 with any and all U.S.

Nuclear Pegulatory Commission adjudicatory employees, except for such communications as consist of the filing of formal pleadings and/or the conduct of prehearing conferences and/or on the record 1

y

, hearings before Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards of the commission and/or before the Commission itself.

It is FURfRER ORDERED that the restrained persons are further restrained from allowing any visit (s) by any and all Commission Adjudicatory employee (s) to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station site and/or other facilities under the exclusive control of one or more the restrained persons.

It is FURTERR ORDERED that the restrained persons submit memoranda.under oath or affirmation describing the substance of any and all contacts (including copies of written communications) which they have had -with Commission adjudicatory employee (s) relating-to U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-322 since July 14, 1989 ot'.1 r than contacts in the nature of formal pleadings in a proceeding and oral participation in conference (s) and/or hearings which are part of the formal process pursuant to Part 2 of the Commission's regulations.

It is FURTEBR ORDERED that the restrained persons shall serve Petitioners' counsel with copies of all papers submitted to the Commission, or any element thereof, relat'ng thereto Docket No.

50-322.which papers relate directly or indirectly to the proposal to decommission the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on or after July

'.)

e

t. ]

14, 1989 to the extent that such papers have not previously been i

served on. Petitioners' counsel.

It is FURTIER ORDERED that the restrained persons shall provide Petitioners' counsel with notice not less than fourteen l

(14) days in advance of any meeting proposed to be held between the restrained persons or any of them and any NRC personnel relating to Docket No. 50-322 including a specific description of the subject matter (s) of the proposed meeting, the time and place l

[

of the meeting (s), and an invitation to attend such meeting (s).

l^

l-l FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD o

L i.

L L

Morton B. Margulies l

Chairman November __, 1990 i

e w

-wwe

[.l~

- - -- - - - -- - - - - - ' ~ ~~

~ ' '

• 4 klL-

8~

UNIYt D STATE 8 f~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISbl0N j-l$j I' g

wAswiwof ow,om.tosos k *"#* /

october 24, 1990 w c 24 P2:14 oPPICE t '

C06edelB83:i:ye81 NheG I

i)C c.mes '

~ MEMORANDUM 09 TME PPTITIONERS AND RESPONDENis IN:

8ERVED 0CT 241990 IDNG IMD iff4WTIRCRCONPANY E

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)

Docket Igg. gp2pgj i

This is to' inform you that commissioner James R. Curtiss will visit the'Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on Tuesday, Aovember.13, 1990.

During the visit, Commissioner Curt.,ss will tour the Shoreham facility and meet with.LILCO management and operating personnel.to review the general status of activities at

the facility.

i J

p

. G ay o

cu ive/ Leg Assis ant to ommissi er Cu iss

.I i

f r

e i

k

(

~

leN

@l; ~.

UN11ED STA188 0F Ah:41CA

/

NUCLEAR RE8ULATORY COMh:8810N

.: In the Matter of I

LONS ISLAND L18HTINS COMPANY I

Decket No.(s) 50 322-OLA' l

(8herehas Nuclear Peaer Station) i 1

i CERTIFICATE-OF BERVICE

.'l~hereby certify that toples et the foregoing SRAY MEMO TO PETITIONERS...

- have been served upon the.4011eming persons by U.S. eall,<41rst eless, escopt

as otheraise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Atoatt Safety and Licensing Appeal Adelnistrative Judge Board Morten 8. Margulies, Chatraan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cassission Ateelt Safety and Licensing Board Nashington -DC~ 20855 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coseissten

~

~

Nashington, DC 20585 Administrative-Judge-Administrative. Judge

--Jerry R. Kline:

8eerge A. Ferguson Atealt Safety and' Licensing-Beard A8L8P.

10.8. Nuclear Regulatory.Coseission

$307 Al-Jones Drive Nashington. DC: 20585 Coluabia Beach, MD 20764 Sherwin E. Turk -toe.

Senald P. train Esq.

=d; Office-cd the Seneral CouAsel

.Hunten 6 Williams U.S.fNuclear Regulatory Caesission P.O. Seu 1838 Washington, DC '20555 Riaheend,:VA= 23212' 9

. James P.-Mt8ranery, Jr., Esq.

Michael R. Deland, theirean Dem'LLehnes-6 Albertson Council en Environmental gua11ty 1255 tard St. lW.W., Suite 500 Esecutive Office of the President Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC 30500 Stephen A. Wakefield.

Carl R. Schneker..ar.. Reg.

Seneral Counsel.

Counsel, L. 3. Power Autherty Department :f Energy

.0'Melveny & Myers Washington,-.3C 30805 855 13th Street, N.W.

=

Washington, SC 20004' l

1

,i

y ibi Decket No.(elS0 322 k A 4AAY MEMO 70.Ptf!TIONERS...

' Dated at Rockville. Md..this 24 day ~of October 1990 J

JobEM Of fice of the Secretary of the Coastesten l:

.i l

k 8

'- 0.;

, ee '

~l I'

i l

1

<i -

i

?

i.

9 i

I

. 7 l

1 s. ',. -

ir t

SEP 311990 N.

l Docket No.

50 322 3

Long Island Lighting Company ATTN:

Mr. John D. Leonard, Jr.

Vice President Offices of Corporate Services and Nuclear Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 618. North Couftry Road Wading River, New York 11792 Gentlemen:

We appreciate the brief remarks on status and schedules you provided to my staff and me during your drop,in visit at the Region I office of the NRC on September 11, 1990. Enclosed is a summary of our discussion; please contact me promptly if you note any errors in this summary.

l Sincerely, G 4 % SIC:<.u ur A. Randolph Blough, Chief Reactor Projects Branch No. 2 Division of Reactor Projcets j

Enclosure:

. as stated

- ec w/cncl:

3 L. Calone; i'lant Manager J. Wynne. Operations Division Manager

k. Gutmann, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support R. Kascasak, Manager, Nuclear Engineering V. Staffieri, General Counsel W. Maloney, Manager. QA Department Director, Power Division -

State of New York Department of Law Shoreha'm Hearing Service List l'uhlic Document Room (l'DR) thal Public Document Room (1.PDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

~

NRC Resident inspector State of New York f.

i t i. " n.

..a.

.. e'.'

g, OFF1ClAL RECORD COPY ggo/

• I s

.t

.u.j;.

I a

becw/

1: '.

SEP 211990 i

Region Docket Room (with coneunences)

.Managehnt Assistant, DRMA (w/o encli R. Bellamy, DRSS-M. Knapp, DRSS W. Hodges, DRS L. Doernein. DRP B. Norris, DRP -

- J. Nakoski, DRP M.

oung, OGC -

K.

braham, PAO (2)-

J Idwell, EDO 2,. Weiss, NRR' STBrown, NRR.

Y,A.,ll.3focc, t.

l L

p i

1 h

I l

}ti I

.8 LL, i\\-.

N h*.

\\

. nf

?{t ld ERI:DRP- (

RI:DRP MNU.Rl:DRP BNorris -

1.Doeracin WrC. ABlough 09/,1/90 C1/j/h' 09/t /90 I

09/g/90, t

0FFICIAle. RECORD COPY 0,

t 4.,

L

,i,"-

(

m.;

.g

a

. ; g.

o..

ENCLOSURE I

~

pron in Visit from LILCO Vice President On September 11, 1990, Mr. John D. Leonard, Jr., (Vice President, Offices of Corporate

' Services and Nuclear) from LILCo visited 'he NRC Region I offices on short notice. He met with Mr. A. R. Blough, Reactor Projects Bt'nch Chief. Mr. L. T. Doerflein, Reactor Projects Section Chief, and Mr. B. S. Norris, Projects Inspector (Shoreham), from 9:00 a.m. until 9:45 a.m. Mr. Leonard had requested the visit to ensure that the region is kept current with respect '

to the activities at Shoreham. Mr. Leonard discussed status of the following areas:

- License transfer request - LILCo's opery'ing costs will be reduced once the license is transferred to the long Island Power Au; Mty.

Financial plan for decommissioning - LILCo is considering revising their previous submittal.

Decontamination of plant systems LILCo has decided to do a pilot decontamination of the Reactor. Water Clean Up (RWCU) system using the " regenerative decontamination" method.

L Quality Assurance (QA) LILCo is considering requesting a change to the USAR which will allow the Corporate QA and site Nuclear QA groups to be combined.

NUMARC Mr. Imnard provided to the NRC Region I, copics of two NUMARC letters L

that had been sent to NRC Headquarters. The subjects of the letters are: (1) Nuclear Plant Closure Activities that may be Prepared in Advance of Approved Decommissioning Plan (April 3,1990), and (2) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as it reintes to decommissioning (April 6,1990).

Shipping of components LILCo is pursuing options for shipping of the IRMs and SRMs, the control rod blades, and the fuel suppon pieces.

EP News Center the Emergency Plan News Center is being returned to Haupauge to be closer to the site.

No technical, licensing or unresolved items w;ere discussed substantively. -

OfflCIAL RECORD COPY e

'l j I

i

-. +

+$ O#

B

////p 4*q.

% f v* k#\\ h

\\<>

(g /

4 IMAGE EVALUATION 4'@ #

f,g% <[s[, k h

TEST TARGET (MT-3)

Q f

p v >+

%+

f 4

l I.0 if 2 E I

glljRE

m HE i'i i

1.8 I-

' l.25 1.4 i.6 4__

150mm 4

4 6"

44 4%4 gj g,

[Ds 4

"N2.

.1<.;.

[

4 1

I

e..

l SHOREHAM SERVICE LIST t

Gerald C. Crotty, Esquire James 8. Dougherty, Esyire Ben Wiles, Esquire 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

i Counsel to the Governor Washin0 ton, D.C.

20008 Executive Chamber State C6pitol.

Albany, New York Fabian G. Palomino, Esquire Paul Sabatino, 11 Attorne,y at L W Suffolk County Attorney Counsel to Legislature State.Capttol Legislative Building Executive Chamber Veteran's Memorial Highway.

Albany, New York 17224 Hauppauge. New York 11788 Mr.~ Jay Dunkleberger Honorable Patrick Halpin L

New York State. Energy Office Suffolk County Executive L

Agency Building 2 County Executive / Legislative Bldg.

Empire. State Plaza Veteran's Memorial Highway

, Albany, New York -12223 Hauppaug2, New York 11788 Estergy Research Group, Inc.

MHB Technical Assoc,iates 400 1 lotten Pond Road 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K

.. altham, Hassachusetts 02154 San Jose. California 95125 l

W W. Taylor Reveley,111, Esquire-Martin Bradley Ashare. Esquire l

-Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Attornef Post Office Box 1535 H. Lee Dennison Building l

Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 1178f, 5tspl en.Latham. Esquire Karla J. Letsche Esquire

)

. John F. Shea, fsquire Kirkpatrick, Lockhart~, Hill, I 'l

, 11toney, Latham & Shea Christopher and Phillips

Post Office Box 398-1800 M Street N.W.

l

-l i

3' rvst Second Street Suite 900. South Lobby R erhead, New York 11901 Washington, D.C.

20036-5891 E

Jonathan D.,Feinberg,~Esquira Prookhaven Town Attorney Neu York State 3233 Route 112 Department ofJFublic Service Nedford, New York 11763 i

Three Empire State Plaza Albany. New York 12223 P

i 6

I y

,s,

-n.-.

--,..,,-,..._.-_.,,-c.w

..,---.,,wr v,~. - +

'.;o-l 6-st.

I g

~

p Sho/ehamServiceList 2

I l

Ezra 1. Bialik, Esquire Francis of Gluchowski, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Assistant' Town Attorney Environmental Protection Bureau T w n of Brookhaven New York State Department'of Law Department of Law 120 Broadway 3233 Route 112 New York, New Yort-10271 Medford, New York 11763 Herbert H. Browa, Esquire Adjud4catory File Lawrence Coe' Lanpher Esquire AtomihSafetyandLicensingBoard Kirkpatrirk, Lockhart Hill, Panel Docket Christopher & khillips U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Suite.900, South Lobby Washington, D.C.

20036 Department of Public Service

.l Richard M. Kessel i

i Chairman'and Executive Director Director, Power Livision New York State Consumer Protection Board Three Empire State Plaza Room 1725 Albany, New York 12223 250 Broadway.

New York,'New York.10007 v

Alan S. Rosenthal Esquire-Gary J. Edles. Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal

~ Appeal Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissinn Washington,.D.C. 20555 Wishington, D.C.

20555 l

[

Howard-A. Wilbur, Esquire Robert Abrams, Esquire

. Atomic: Safety 8-Licensing, Peter Bienstock, Esquire L

• ppea l-Panel Department of Law L

0d Nuclear Regulatory Commission State-of New York p

Washington,'D.C. 20555 120 Broadway J

~

New York, New York 10271

[

' Joseph 1. Lieberman,. Attorney General i

E

. State of Connecticut.

30 Trinity Street

. Hartford, Ccnnecticut 06106-l i.

t.

l M

.c.

7 4..aa

[h!/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vf'

.4 O

MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

oo:gcTeo m

~

~~

NOV - 91990 In the Matter of f.L senvi5e"BEICH

)

Docket No. 50 322,OLKiECY.NRC IDNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

)

)

El 0

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Motion for Restraining Order by Petitioner.

Intervenors' have been served upon the following persons both by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid and, as indicated below, by either telecopy or by overnight courier semce, m accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.712:

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and IJeensing Board Telecopy (301) 492 7285 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 L

Administrative Judge-Telecopy (301) 492 7285 Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George A. Ferguson Washington, D.C. 20555 ASLBP Telecopy (301) 492-7285 5307 Al Jones Drive Columbia Beach, Maryland 20764 The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk (Federal Express - Saturday Delivery)

The Secretary of the Commission Office of the Secretary Michael R. Deland, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Council on Environmental Quality Washington, D.C. 20555 Executive Office of the President Telecopy (301) 492-1672 Washington, D.C. 20500 Telecopy (202) 395 3744 Sherwin E. Turk, E q.

L Office of the Gene;al Counsel Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel, I.ong Island Power Authority l

Washington, D.C. 20555 O'Melveny & Myers L

' Telecopy (301) 443-7725 55513th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Telecopy (202) 383-5414

s; c

' J ;...,

i r

2 Stephen A. Wakefield, Esq.

Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

General Counsel Hunton & Williams U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 1535

- Washington, D.C. 20585 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Telecopy (202) 586-7583 Telecopy (804) 788-8218 or 19 t

l-Charles M. Pratt, Esq.

Senior Vice President and General Counsel

'22nd Floor Power Authority of State of New York 3

1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 o

Telecopy (212) 468-6206 l

November 9,1990

1. 4

+ cs A.

i unsel for Petitioner InteWe//

es P. McGranery, Jr. //

nors Shoreham Wading River Central School l

District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.-

p H

ll 1

,