ML20072L301
| ML20072L301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1983 |
| From: | Brown H KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Harold Denton NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303310224 | |
| Download: ML20072L301 (3) | |
Text
.
1 KIRKPATRICE,14}CKHART, HILL, Caraisrornza sWDd/
A Pamnrummarra Inexxr,swo' A Paorsesionat Consonano [
C; 9
C3 1900 M STREET, N. W.
% 30 19333 $)
WAsn.txoTox, D. C. 20o06
<.o.>... r
~r u
^ * * * " ' E' =
c'*"
ecuxm C,
rzm +.o wrra n March 28, 1983
= y = 5*
w.m.. so.cr mir. m mx van an.
y (202)452-7000
~
Mr. Harold R.
Denton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cordmission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-404 Beth'esda, Maryland 20814 Re:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Construction Permit No. CPPR-95; NRC Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Denton:
On behalf of our client, Suffolk County, we are responding to the March 22 letter of Mr. W. Taylor Reveley, III, which disputes the need for the.NRC immediately to rule that LILCO's Construction Permit for the Shoreham plant cannot lawfully be extended.
il 1.
Fir. Reveley's letter overlooks the basic legal issue
' raised in our March 15 opposition to LILCO's request to extend the subject construction permit ("CP") -- whether " good cause" for extension of the CP can be shown where no operating license for the plant can be' issued.
Contrary to Mr. Reveley's assertion, LILCO has no legal -
"right" to an extension under 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.55(b).
Ecth that regulation and Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act provide that the CP "shall expire" by the construction completion date utiless LILCO can show " good cause. "
The question, therefore, is.
whether there is " good cause" on the present facts for the NRC to take the extraordinary action of permitting further construction work on the now inherently inoperable Shoreham plant.
The County
-contends that there is.not.
Indeed, LILCO cannot meet its burden of showing that there is such good cause.
As stated in our letter of March 15, the fact that Shoreham cannot be licensed makes.its cont',inwei3 construction a mere exercise in futility.
'Congre s s
~
clearly did not intend to sanction Federal support for such a futile endeavor and thus specified CP termination unless the requisite good cause is shown.
8303310224 830328
{DRADOCK 0500032]
i w
' - - ~ ~
o EIRE *ATRICK, LOCMMART, H11.L, CHRIOTOPHER Sr PHIstrP2
'Mr. Har,old R.
Denton March 28, 1983-Page Two 2.
Mr Reveley's letter mischaracterizes Suffolk County's and responding to what-Mr. Reveley calls pos,ition by fashioning'of a" prerogative to veto Shoreham."
the County's ftheory";/ pursuing a mere " theory" as to whether 1
Suffolk County is not
- Instead, Shoreham can' lawfully *be issued an operating license.
the County has placed the weight of its argument on the NRC's regulations, and those regulations explicitly provide that Shoreham cannot operate under the present circumstances.
Therefore, the, County is asking for a ruling from the NRC that. recognizes Shoreham will not operate and that brings'its costly construction to a stop.
As s,tated in our March 15 letter, these two issues are closely related and can best be dealt with by the Commission, preferably under an expedited Cecisionmaking schedule that takes cognizance of the need to~end the current statefof uncertainty over Shoreham's future.
3.
Mr. Reveley's letter mischaracterizes the nature and effect of Suffolk County's determination (in County Resolution No. 111-1983). that the County will not adopt or implement a local radiological emergency response plan.
The County took this action, e
as the' Resolution explicitly provides, so as to avoid misleading
the public into believing that they were.being p'otected when in r
fact they,were not.
It is.thus not, as Mr. Reveley states, a
'k matter'of'the County "saying it won't cooperate in emergency preparedness."
Rather, it is a matter of the County taking the only~ resp'onsible action it could take under its constitutional obligation to protec,t the health, safety, and welfare of-its own citizens.
Were the. County to do otherwise, it.would, as the Couhty Executive has repeate'dly stated, betray the public trust
~
of those whose safety the government of Suffolk County was l
established to protect.
The March 15 opposition of Suffolk County to an extension
- of'LILCO's CP for Shoreham is viewed by the County as a most serious matter.
Officials of Suffolk County are prepared to meet with you and your colleagues in order to set the record straight as to what actually has happened at the local level and what must now be done by all other affected parties.
Mr. Reveley's
~
letter portrays on LILCO's behalf a self-serving and inaccurate charac'terization of Suffolk County's governmental acti'vities.
This is unfortunate, because it might tend to mislead the ' Staff l
inf6 not appreciating the hard work and good faith of the government of Suffolk County.
The fact is that Suffolk County has acted to l
l I
9
,,..~.,-.w_.-
v,---
.-..-.m.----
.,.----wm3-,
,.m.,, - - -, -,
,v-.
v
ErmurAraIcx, LOCEuART, Hit.x., CuntsTrruza '& Pan.I.IPs Mr. Harold R. Denton March 28, 1983 Page Three effectuate its legal obligations and it has done so with vigor and spirit befitting public officials who were elected to protect the public wel' fare.
,. 6 Sincerely yours, I' %
Herbert H. Brown Counsel for Suffolk County cc:
NRC Commissioners Service List 4
a 4
4 0
g 9-e l
l
'S
/
- y w-y emy-
,s,m
.v--
-$,,re-
-a-
-