ML20087P078
| ML20087P078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1984 |
| From: | Palomino F NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8404060019 | |
| Download: ML20087P078 (10) | |
Text
.
., h 00f; METED u:1..n
'84 APR -5 A9:27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- f c;_.: y
.3,,,g CCt.EI::u 1. SEF /
B RI..*CH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
{}[,h ut ER ~
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
._________________________________)
PRELIMINARY VIEWS OF GOVERNOR CUOMO, REPRESEFTING THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REGARDING LILCO'S SO CALLED " SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR A LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE 1.
RESPONSE TO LILCO'S INTRODUCTION s
The State of New York takes seriously its p'articipation in this proceeding.
For this reason it is constrained, in the interests of accuracy, to express it's views. thereon to the extent of taking issue with the reasons set forth in LILCO's' introduction as supporting this motion hud for urging that only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself can decide-it.
8404060019 840328 PDR ADOCK 05000322
-O PDit u
~-
In support of'this new motion for a low power license and to refer it promptly to the Commission for decision LILCO assigns the following reasons:
"The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station represents huge ccmmitmenh' of economic resources and Long both a
- Island's only power plant not dependent on foreign oil.
Thus, there are compelling reasons for the station's early operation.
Instead of being free to begin necessary and beneficial low power testing and training, however,'Shoreham faces r_x co nine months of delay rooted in litigation concerning diesel generators.
This delay is unnecessary to assure the public health and safety for the activities authorized by'a low power' license."
"As a practical matter, LILCO believes that whether Shoreham is entitled to such a license is a question that only the - Nuclear ' Regulatory Commission _ itself can decide.
The intensely political environment that, now envelops-'Shoreham makes= virtually certain that the NRC's highest tribunal must act before the plant will be allowed to conduct any operations, even loading fuel."
t These reasons are not accurate or valid predicates for eitherLrequest.
The fact that the plant is not dependent O
4
i 4
2 upon f oreign oil. is irrelev' ant to the grant of a' low power license.
No savings on foreign oil will take place unless and until the plant goes into full power commercial operation.
That could not occur for several years, if ever.
Both Suf folk County and New York State, neither of which is participating in the LILCO offsite emergency evacuation plan and both of whom are opposing the licensing of Shoreham plant, have filed suits in New York State Courts to declare that'the implementation of the offsite emergency evacuation plan by LILCO elaployees would be illegal because it requires an unlawful usurpation of powers vested solely in State and local officials.
Those suits will not'be definitely determined for several years.
- Indeed, though LILCO insistently urges expeditious determinations of all contested
-issues in NRC proceedings it promptly obtained an adjournment of an additional one and one-half the time allowed to interpose its answers to the complaints in those State suits.
l The commitment of economic resources to the l
Shoreham Nucl. ear Power Station is not a compelling reason for
- that station's early operation.
The electricity it will generate _will not be needed for at least a decade or more (Marberger Commission Report, p. 37
).
Rather than being beneficial that electricity would wreak economic havoc at this time.*
- It would be the most costly electricity produced.
If that cost was added to the current-LILCO ratepayers rate, which is reputed-to be the highest in the nation, it would drive businesses out of state,_ lead t_o great unemployment and place-un undue burden.upon the households it did not impoverish.
Insof ar as the motion seeks a low power license for-the purported purposes of training, it is unfounded.
The law and the regulations do not contemplate such a license.
They authorize licenses only for low power or_ full power operation, not for trainlng.
The open ended nature of the subject motion -- that is, without limit as to time -- makes it' clear that LILCO would obtain a usual low power license and not one-limited for purposes of training.
As it.has previously informed this Board, it would use the same backup
_ generating system until the first tuel outage after full power-operation.
The issuance of the low power license sought would permit that to happen.
Under those circumstances, the use of the Rube Goldberg lashup of unqualified generators and other r$eans proposed by LILCO for
. emergency backup power would not provide reasonable assurance
- that health and safety of the public would be protected.
To issue a low power license for the-training
' purposes proposed would be improper.
The purpose of training is to' educate ~ personnel in the use of equipment they will be using'in full" power operation.
Since LILCO personnel will be.
using Colt diesels for backup in full power.
operation
- training on the hodge-podge of generators and other equipment proposed lwould not' accomplish that objective.
9 G
Furthermore,- in view of the lack of qualified s
LILCO personnel to operate the Shoreham plant, it is egregious to grant a low power license for testing purposes.
The bald, conclusory assertion that the " intensely political environment that now envelops Shoreham" does not provide a basis referring the subject motion to the Commission for decision, as requested by LILCO.
There is no
" political environment" enveloping Shoreham, intense or otherwise.
The only change that has occurred in this proceeding is that the State of New York has entered these proceedings as an interested State and has refused to participate in the of f s-ite emergency evacuation. plan, has opposed the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
-on all levels and has filed a suit in State court, as aforesaid.
In taking these actions, the State of New York is pursuing -its f'ull legal rights and fulfilling its responsibility protecting the health, welfare and safety of its inhabitants and in seeing that its laws are not unlawfully ursurped by LILCO.
The pursuit remedies is a solemn sovereign right and responsibility under the circumstances.
To imply that it is political is, to say the least, unseeming.
The reason urged for referring the motion to the Commiss' ion is f actually inaccurate and legally inadequate.
Accordingly,'this-Board should reject that request.
.5'
II.
THE MOTION-SHOULD BE SUMMARILY REJECTED s
Applicants and licensees must comply with the Commission's regulations (NUREG-0386, NRC Practice and Procedure Digest 15.1) or, seek a waiver theref rom (10 C.F.R.
s 2.758).
LILCO states that its motion complies with GDC 17.
However, LILCO's motion pape rs f ail to assert that it
- complies with many other pertinent regulations including GDC 2,
4, 5,
18, and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B (See e.
g.
' Standard Review Plan s 8.3.1, which identifies all the foregoing as pertinent to the review of onsite AC power
- sys te ms).
As neither the four mobile diesels nor the gas turbines proposed by LILCO are seismically or otherwise qualified for nuclear service, LILCO has failed to comply with GDC's 4,-5, 17, 18 and 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B.
The LILCO motion fails to comply with the aforesaid pertinent-regulations and does not seek a waiver j ^
therefrom.
Accordingly, it is facialy insuficient to be entertained by-this Board.
Therefore, neither this Board nor the. parties should be. compelled to devote time or resources r
to responding to it on the merits and it should be summarily rejected.
- 1 0
P s
.-%,._v-m.,,,,,
m,
-, - - -, -. ~,, -,..,
1 III..
IF THE MOTION IS NOT REJECTED SUt1MARILY, THE BOARD SHOULD HOLD A CONFERENCE TO CONSIDER ALL PROCEDURAL MATTERS The State of New York fully agrees with and adopts Suffolk County's position that if the motion is not summarily rejected by this Board, the normal ten-day period for a response is inadequate and that because of the lack of detailed information in the motion, the legal issues raised, the time presently involved in the issues raised by. the EDG contentions, the number of threshhold issues to be addressed F
and time required for Staff review, this Board shouldl convene a conference to consider all of the procedural matters involved and in advance thereof should announce a tentative agenda of matters to be addressed.
The State wiwll not belabor the Board by setting forth detailed reasons therefor, but ref ers the Board to suffolk County's response dated-March 26, 1984.
submitted,.
Respectfully / i -
1Iab p*
w%
1 FABIAN G. PALOMINO Special Counsel to the Governor of New York State Executive. Chamber - Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for MARIO M.
CUOMO Governor of the State of New York March 28, 1984 m
00t '< 7 7.m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atonic Safety and Licensina Board U '27
_______________________________}
yt Or g In the Matter of
)
jkjffch
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
Unit 1)
)
_______________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of PRELIMINARY VIEWS OF GOVERNOR CUOMO REPRESENTING THE STATE OF MEW YORK, REGARDING LILCO'S SO CALLED " SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR A LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE, dated March 28, 1984, have been served to the following this 28th day of March 1984 by U.
S.
- Mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Lawrence J. Brer.ner, Esq.##
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. George A.
Ferguson ##
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, New York 11801 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. seter A. Morris ##
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 1535 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkelberger G2neral Counsel New York State' Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 250 Old Country Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, New York 11501 Albany, New York 12223
......a J
~'
LRobert E.
Smith, Esq.
James B. Dougherty,.Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermye,r.
3045 Porter Street, N. W.
-80 Pine Street.
Washington, D.
C. 20008 Naw York, New York 10005 s
-Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long; Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea
--Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 398 l
P. O. Box 618 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead,- New York 11901 i
.Wcding River, New York 11792 s
Joel Blau, Esq.
Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Naw Ycrk Public Service Commission Energy Research Group, Inc.
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller 400-1 Totten Pond Road Building Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
' Empire State Plaza
-Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
WHB Technical Associates Suffolk County Attorney 1723 Hamilton Avenue H.-Lee Dennison Building Suite K
'Voterans Memorial' Highway San Jose, California 95125 Hcppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
Hon. Peter F.
Cohalan U..S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.Suffolk County Executive
. Washington, D. C. 20555-i H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Happauge, New York 11788 Docketing and Service Section Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
Office of.the-Secretary
'Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill
~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Christopher &'Phillips
-1717 H. Street, N. W.
1900 M Street, N.W.
iWashington, D. C. 20555..-
. Washington, D. C. 20036 l
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.#4
. Atomic Safety and Licensing R lph'Caruso Appeal Board
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.'C.
20555 Commission Washington,-D. C. 20555 Mr. Stuart Diamond Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq..
Environment / Energy Writer Staff Counsel
'NEWSDAY New York State Public Long Island, New York 11747 Service Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 m
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Faderal Emergency Management Agency-26 Federal Plaza Naw York, New York 10278 bm%- ;M 6b.g cb FABIAN G. PALOMINO Special Counsel to the i
Governor of New York State
^
Executive Chamber - Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for MARIO M. CUOMO' Governor of the State of New York
- 4 By Telecopier DATE:
March 28, 1984 4
Y e
3
- -