ML20091E316

Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20091E316
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/13/1992
From:	Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#292-12770 DCOM, NUDOCS 9204140093
Download: ML20091E316 (6)

Text

-- ... -_ .. -

f f,

. JLelliD inNiiC 72 FED 14 P2 :36 LILCO, February 13, 1992

,o .

UNIT 5D' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Epfore the Commis112D

)

)

in the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

) (Decommission, igg)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) })C OM Unit 1) )

)

)

LILCO'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'8 MOTION TO DISMISS INTERVENTION PETITIONS ON DECO.MM.ISSIONING PLAH On February 5, 1992, the NRC Staff moved to dismiss intervention petitions filed on January 22, 1992 by the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (SWRCSD) and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy (SE )2 . These petitione concern the Shoreham decommissioning plan proposed by the Long Island Power Authority. In its February 5 motion, the Staff ask.> r dismissal of the petitions on collateral estoppel anu jurisdictional grounds. LILCO supports the Staff motion.

9204*40093 920213 <3 PDR ADDCK 05000322 0 PDR

, _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .- _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ - _ . _ .

2 1.

Nine months ago, LILCO sought the same sort of relief. As LILCO then stated:

In their April 19 requests for a hearing on the Shoreham transfer application, Petitioners pretend as if the Commission never issued CLI-91-02. Indcod, insofar as their NEPA-based argument is concerned, Petitioners' April 19 pleadings are a verbatim rehash of their earlier requests for hearing on LILCo's request for a POL, papers that were filed a month before the Commicsion issued CLI-90-08. Petitioners have not engaged the legal issues here at all.

Rather, they have merely engaged their word-processor to replicate literally (including the same typographical errors) the very arguments that the Commission has already read, considered, and explicitly rejected.

Petitioners' disregard for the Commission's authority should not be tolerated. Their April 19 pleadings should -

be struck. In its Statement _pf Policy on Conduct of Licensina Proceed,inQs, CL1-81-08, 13 NRC 452 (1981), the Commission stated that

"(f]airness to all involved in NRC's adjudicatory procedures requires that every participant fulfill the obligations imposed by and in accordance with applicable law and Commission regulations." 13 NRC 454. When a .

" participant fails to meet its obligations,"

the Commission continued, "the imposition of sanctions against the offending party" shcald be considered. Id. Among the " spectrum" of available sanctions, the Commission said, is the "refus(al) to consider a filing by the offending party." Id.

LILCO's Opposition to Petitioners

• Request for Hearing on Shoreham*s Transfer and LILCO's Response to Comments on Proposed l No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination at 14-15, 17 L (May 6, 1991).

l 1

k 3

LILCO advanced these arguments again two months ago, when SWRCSD and SE 2 continued their total disregard of prior Commission rulings. See LILCO's Opposition to Petitioners

• Contentions on License Transfer Amendment at 3-5 (Dec. 9, 1991).

LILCO then " renew [ed) its request that SWRCSD's and SE 2 '8 requests to intervene in the license transfer amendment proceeding . .

. be struck as a sanction for their repeated, blatant disregard of the Commission's instruction and authority."

14. at 3.

II.

A No federal court would tolerate the contemptuous course of conduct SWRCSD and 2SE have pursued through a series of interlocking NRC proceedings, for more than two years.1/ While experience makes clear that the NRC adjudicatory process is more forgiving than the federal judicial process, the time has long since passed for the NRC to insist that its prior rulings be acknowledged and honored by SWRCSD and SE2 . Judges whose rulings are defied impose whatever sanctions are necessary to protect the integrity of their proceedings. The NRC should do the same, so that its own rulings amount to something more than words on paper that litigants may disregard when they find them inconvenient.

1/

The issue is not whether SWRCSD and SE may disagree with, and challenge on appeal, NRC rulings with whick they dJ sagree. Of course they may. The issue is whether SWRCSD and SE 2 may flatly disregard NRC rulings then binding on the proceedings in which these parties are appearing. Of course they may not. But they have, incessantly. They have simply ignored dispositive NRC rulings with which they disagree. That is contempt pure and simple.

4 III.

In LILCO's view, the present intervention petitions should be struck. Further, the Petitioners should be instructed that they will be dismissed from all ongoing Shoreham proceedir.go if they continue their disregard of Commission rulings.

Respectfully submitted, f

W.

b Taflor/Reveley, III Donald P./Irwin David S. Harlow Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DATED: February 13, 1992

I LILCO, Februyfjl3,1992 UNITED STATES OF AhiERICA '92 FEB 14 P2 :36 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhlhilSSION

,n, Before the Commission Ducri igg,, '

• In the hiatter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COhtPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS INTERVENTION PETITIONS ON DECOMMISSIONING PLAN were served this date upon the following by Federal Express, as indicated by an asterisk, or by first class mail, postage prepaid, Commissioner Ivan Selin, Chairman

• Commissioner E. Gail de Planquc*

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building One White Flint North Building i1555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, h1D 20852 Rockville, hiD 20852 Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers' The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk*

Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Secretary of the Commission One White Flint North Building Office of the Secretary 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, blD 20852 One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Pike Commissioner James R. Curtiss* Rockville, htD 20852 Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building Administrative Judge

• 11555 Rockville Pike Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Rockville MD 20852 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Forrest J. Remick* East-West Towers, Fourth Floor Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway One White Flint North Building Bethesda, MD 20814 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

2 Administative Judge

• Stanley B. KlimberE, Esq. <

Jerry R. Kline Executive Director and General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1.ong Island Power Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 201 East West Towers, Fourth Floor Garden City, NY 11530 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, hiD 20814 Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq

• Counsel, l_ong Island Power Authority Administrative Judge

• O'hielveny & htyers George A. Ferguson 55513th Street, N.W.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20004 5307 Al Jones Drive Shady Side, htD 20764 Gerald C. Goldstein, Esq.

Office of General Counsel James P. hicGranery, Jr., Esq.* New York Power Authority Dow, Lohnes & Albertson 1633 Broadway 1255 23rd Street, N.W., Suite 500 New York, NY 10019 Washington, D.C. 20037 Samuel A. Cherniak, Esq.

hiitzi A. Young, Esq,* New York State Department of 12w Office of the General Counsel Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway One White Flint North New York, NY 10271 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, htD ' 20852 Stephen A. Wakefield, Esquire General Counsel Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. U.S. Department of Energy David A. Repka, Esq. 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Winston & Strawn Washington, D.C. 20585 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 Hunton & Williams h d $./d b

~

Riverfront Plaza, East Tower David S. Harlow 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DA'1TlD: February 13,1992 l

t i

. - - -- - . - . - -