ML20092D293
| ML20092D293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1992 |
| From: | Holum J O'MELVENY & MYERS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092D290 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9202130061 | |
| Download: ML20092D293 (26) | |
Text
..
~
.e.
< y.
LIPA February 6, 1992-
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOd Before the Commir,sion i-
)
)
-In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docirt N'.s.
50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Decommissioning)
Unit 1).
)
)
t ANSWER 0F THE LONG' ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY TO INTERVENTION PETITION 8 CONCERNING SHORF; TAM DECOMMISSIONING PLAN On June 28, 1990, the Long Island Lighting Company
.-(%ILCO")- and-' the Long Island Power Authority '("LIPA") jointly
-requested'an' amendment authorizing transfer to LIPA of License No. NPF-82 for-the.Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station, Unit 1
("Shoreh'am").. That application is pending.
In December 1990, LIPA-submitted _a plan to the Nuclear Regulator Commission
("NRC" or " Commission"); for the decommissioning of Shoreham
- (" Decommissioning - Plan" or " Plan").
On January 2, 19 91~,
LILCO-requested-that the-Plan be reviewed'and. acted upon.1 On December;23,-1'991,'the NRC published notice-in the Federal Register that it was considering issuance:of an order which would i
Sgg Letter from John D.
Leonard, Jr.,
LILCO, Vice President,_ Office of Carporate Services, and Vice President, Office-of Nuclear, to NRC (Document Control Desk) (Jan.
2, 1991)
(SNRC-1781).
- 9202130061-920206
- PDR ADOCK 05000322-
- O PDR1 e
e e
= - - -. +, -
f allow decommissioning of Shoreham in accordance with LIPA's Decommissioning Plan.
San'56 Fed. Reg. 66,459 (1991).
On January 22, 1992, the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District ("SWRCSD") and the Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE2") (collectively, the " petitioners") each filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Prior Hearing in response to the Commission's notice.2 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(c), LIPA submits this answer and urges the Commission to deny both petitions.
- First, almost all of petitioners' arguments are beyond the scope of this proceeding and have been previously considered and rejected by the Commission.
(Eng Parts I and II below.)
Second, petitioners
-lack standing to raise the very few issues that are conceivably within the scope of this proceeding and not previously decided.
(Eng Part II below.). Thus, both petitions are fundamentally irrelevant and constitute merely the latest abusive maneuver in petitioners' campaign to compel operation of Shoreham (or delay its.tran,for and decommissioning) to preserve SWRCSD's tax base and promote SE2's pro-nuclear philosophy.
2 Egg SWRCSD Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Prior Hearing (dated Jan. 22, 1992) ("SWRCSD Petition") ; SE2 Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Prior Hearing (dated Jan. 22,-1992) ("SE2 Petition").
2
e i
8 4
I.
ALMOST ALL OF PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT 8 ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PROCEEDING AND ALREADY RAVE BEEN CEJlpgEED AND REJ_ICTED BY THE COMMIESION.
This proceeding is about whether LIPA's Decommissioning Plan (proposing to utilize the DECON method to decommission Shoreham) should be approved, not about whether Shoreham should be operated as a nuclear power plant.
Egg 56 Fed. Reg. 66,459 (1991).
Notwithstanding that unmistakable message in the Commission's Federal Register notice, petitioners have burdened the Commission with 68 pages of argument, virtually indistin-guishable from the petitions they have filed as to other proposed licensing actions and going almost entirely to the proposition that Shoreham should be preserved "as an operating plant."
(T.o., SWRCSD Petition, p. 9.)
All of these arguments are plainly outside the scope of a proceeding to determine the appropriate method of decommissioning Shoreham and should be dismissed.
In NRC proceedings, "the hearing notice published by the Commission.
. defines the scope of the proceeding and binds the licensing board."
ERA Lpna Island Liahtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-1, 33 NRC 15, 20 (1991) ("LBP-91-1"); Inna Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7, 33 NRC 179, 182 (1991)
("LBP-91-7").
Not only do petitioners raise page after page of instes clearly beyond the scope of this proceeding, but in doing so they also grossly abuse the Commission's processes.
These very 3
1 l
e
~
- arguments have long since been considered and rejected by the Commission, but are repeated here despite the Licensing Board's admonition-that petitioners must refrain from " repeating arguments that have been ruled upon."
Lona Island Lichtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), LBP-91-26, 34 NRC 537, 545 n.3 (1991).
In CLI-90-8, the Commission expressly ruled that the question whether to abandon Shoreham as a nuclear plant was a private' decision left entirely in the hands of the licensee, LILCO.
ERR Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-90-8, 32 NRC 201, 207-08 (1991)
("CLI-90-8"), petition for reconsideration denied, CLI-91-2, 33 NRC 61, 70-71 (1991) ("CLI-91-2").
The Commission further ruled that the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C.
5-4321 et sea., did Dgt require consideration of the alternatives to, or the effects of, LILCO's non-federal decision never to operate Shoreham.
Egg CLI-90-8, 32 NRC at 208-09; CLI-91-2, 33 NRC at 71-72.
With respect to decommissioning, the Commission has previously explained that it will only consider the " method for decommissioning," n21 "the decision whether to-decommission a
- facility."
CLI-90-8, 32 NRC at 207 (emphasis in original); CLI-91-2, 33 NRC at 70.
These rulings dispose conclusively of the great bulk of-the instant petitions.
l l
I 4
The frivolous and specious naturc cf these petitions is underscored by their lengthy arguments cor.cerning impermissible segmentation of NEPA review.
(Egg SWRCSD Petition, pp.
3, 7,
11, 13-15, 18-27, 29-30; SE2. Petition, pp.
3, 7,
12, 16, 28, 20-26, 28-29.)
For-two years, petitioners have raised this argument, claiming that the NEPA review of earlier licensing actions --
e.a.,
the March 1990 Confirmatory Order -- was impermissibly concluded in advance of NEPA review of a decommissioning proposal.
Petitioners simply regurgitate the segmentation arguments without seeming to notice that LIPA's decommissioning proposal is now before the Commission and without even attempting to v. net the requirements estab'ished vi the Commission for an impermissible-segmentation argument in Lona Island Liahtina Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-4, 33 NRC 233 (1991) ("CLI-91-4").
F,r all of the foregoing reasons, these are not legitimate petitions to intervene.
They_are merely rear guard actions in a war of attrition, conducted by word processor.
These petitions, coming over a year after the Commission settled the question of future operation in CLI-90-8 and CL1-91-2, simply do not warrant the Commission's serious attention or the expenditure of Commission resources.
The petitions should be dismissed summarily, and the way cleared at last for prompt t.
decommissioning of Shor.bam.
Egg Statement of Policy on Conduct 5
9 pf Licensinc Proceedincs. CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 454 (1981).3 Indeed, the NRC Staff also has asked the commission to dismiss the petitions because they raise issues already decided and
. beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Egg NRC Staff's Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions (dated Feb.
5, 1992).'
II.
NONE OF THE ISSUES ARGUABLY F. ELATED TO THIS PROCEEDING PROVIDES A BASIS FOR IETIRYJETION.
It is possible to glean from petitioners' blizzard of words a very few assertions appearing to bear at least some tenuous relationship to the issue before the Commission --
whether LIPA's Decommissioning Plan should be approved.
- However, none of these matters presents a basis for intervention.
Each of these arguments, as well, is either beyond the scope of this proceeding, fails because petitioners lack standing to make it, or both.
Petitioners' recycled AEA and NEPA arguments already decided-or beyond the scope of this proceeding should be dismissed for the additional, independent rosson that petitioners lack standing to raise all of these arguments.
LIPA has previously shown that petitioners lack standing to raise these same arguments in its Answer to Intervention Petitions Concerning License 7,mendment to Authorize Transfer of Shoreham and Response Concerning No Significant Harards Consideration (dated May 6,
- 1991), pp. 14-33.
Especially relevant are the discussions contained in Part III.A, pp. 19-22 (Effects on Tax Base and Local Services), Part III.B, pp. 22-24 (Economic Interest in Energy Supplies), Part III.C, pp. 24-31 (Environmental and NEPA-Related Effects), and Part III.F, pp. 33-43 (Health and Safety Considerations).
LIPA supports generally the Staff's motion and reserves its right under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730 to file a response within the allotted time.
6
s-The rules for determining whether asserted issues are within the scope of a particular proceeding have been summarized in Part I.
The applicable rules on standing are well-known to the Commission, and relevant portions need only be summarized here.
It is settled that in an NRC proceeding a petitioner should allege-an_ injury that is within the' zone of interests protected by the AEA or the NEPA.
Niacara Mohawk Power Coro.
~
(Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), LDP 83-45, 18 NRC 213,
- 2151(1983).
A1 petitioner must also establish (1) that it
_ personall'/ has suffered,-or will suffer, a distinct and palpable i
harm that constitutes injury in fnct; (2) that the injury can be traced.to the challenged action; and (3) that the injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable ~ decision granting the relief sought.
Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971-(D.C. Cir. 1988).
- Standing for an organization requires a showing of injury to an organization's interests or to the interest of members who have authorized it to act for them.
LBP-91-1, 33 NRC at-22.
If the
- organization's asserted standing.is representational, the petition must identify at-least one member who will_be' injured, describe the nature -of _that injory,- and include an _ authorization for the organization to represent that individual in the proceeding.
Id.
As demonstrated-below, petitioners have failed to establish standing to assert any issue that is within the
- scope of this proceeding.
7 w
c-4
-s e
r-w s-a u sw e
e m
r t-e+e-
=++
+u-f v
~ _ - _
_.m
. ~. _ __. _ _ - -
A.
Petitioners Lack Standing To complain Of LIPA's Choice Of The DECON Alternative, And Their Arguagnt Is Frivoloup._.In Anv Event.
The first'potentially relevant issue tucked away in the petitions-relates to the health-and-safety consequences of LIPA's selection of-the DECON method for decommissioning, as opposed to the SAFSTOR or ENTOMB method.
Petitioners contend that the proposal to use the DECON approach to decommissioning as: opposed to SAFSTOR ar ENTOMB will cause additional unnecessary, and therefore impermissible, radioactiva exposures to those whom (petitioners) represent [] and therefore, their interests under the Atomic Energy Act would be harmed by approval of the DECON alternative and: protected by'a choice of another alternative or denial'of the application fo* a decommissioning order.
.(SWRCSD Petition, p.
17; SE2 Petition, p. 16.)
Petitioners' generalized and unsupported assertion fails utterly to~ address the ctandards articulated by the Commission for standing predicated on alleged radiological issues.
In such casen the appropriate question is whether the
- proposed action "can result in_ harm," taking into account Shoreham's status as a "defueled. plant that has never been in
-commercial-operation."
LBP-91-1, 33 NRC at 34; LBP-91-7, 33 NRC:
at 192.-
There'is H2 presumption of standing for individuals residing within 50 miles of the facility in the case of proposed
-actions, such as that here, which lack "gbvious potential for offsite consequences."- Florida Power-& Licht Co. (St. Lucie 8
~*
9 Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 330 (1989) (emphasis added).
Instead, a would-be intervenor must show that a " particularized injury in fact" results from the proposed action; "[m]erely making bare allegations of radio-logical harm.
is legally insufficient to establish standing."
LDP-91-7, 33 NRC at 193.
Despite such explicit guidance, petitioners ', ave not Lothered specifically even to assert, let alone to demonstrate, any threatened harm to anyone (much less to petitioneis or those they claim to represent) if DECON is implemented instead of SAFSTOR or ENTOMB.
Thus, petitioners lack standing to make this claim.
Moreover, even if they had standing, petitioners would be unable to craft any admissible contention favoring SAFSTOR or ENTOMB over DECON because DECON is precisely the right method for decommissioning Shoreham.
As indicated-in the Commission's Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning
("GEIS"), NUREG-0506 (dated Aug. 1988), DECON should be considered where the facility in question has not been " highly contaminated" or where there are not "large amounts of activation products."
GEIS, p.
2-10.-
Shoreham clearly presents such a case.5 Thus, LIPA's proposal of DECON is fully consistent with 5
Shoreham received a license to load fuel on Decembe.-
7, 1984, and it achieved initial criticality on February 15, 1985.
LILCO was issued a low-power (128 megawatts. or 5% thernal power)
(cont' md.
l 9
the GEIS and with relevant health-and-safoty considerations under the Atomic Energy Act, and petitioners mh,a no effort whatever to show the contrary.
In fact, the contention that SAFSTOR or ENTOMB should have been chosen in lieu of DECON serves only to illustrate vividly the utter bankruptcy of the petitions.
Petitioners' counsel -- James P. McGranery, Jr. -- also represents the Environmental Conservation Organization ("ECO") before the Commission with respect to proceedings involving the closure of Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (" Rancho Seco").
In those proceedings, Mr. McGranery has taken precisely the opposite tack of arguing.that DECON should be preferred over SAFSTOR.
In a pleading filed June 10, 1991, Mr. McGranery argued as follows:
The-NRC should not approve the decommissioning plan proposed by (the Sacramento Municipal Utility District) allowing for SAFSTOR oefore DECON since this proposal increases th3 costs of decommissioning and unnecessarily defors decommissioning, thus maintaining tha radiological hazard for longer than necessary v'thout any bencfit tinder the Atomic Energy Act, and
'. Oh a greater environmental impact and an increase (d)
Lorden on the resources of HRC and all concerned.
8(... continued) license for Shoreham on July 3, 1985, and low-power testing was conducted at the plant on three different occasions for a total of 137 days.
.LILCO has calculated that this history of. low-power operation is the equivalent of approximately two days of full-power-operation.
The lact time Shoreham operated at any power level was June 6, 1987.
10
w n.
.(Egg Petitioner's Further Amendment and Supplement to Petition-to Intervene,. Docket No. 50-312-OLA (dated June 10, 1991), p. 5.)
If Rancho seco -- with a long operating history -- should be subject to-immediate DECON,Lthe' result follows even more clearly withLrespect to Shereham.
The SWRCSD and SE2 petitions assert the contrary not by way of legitimate argument, but simply as a
- pretext to obtain a hearing and thereby to further delay decommissioning.
iB.
Petitioners Fall To Demonstrate Standing As To LIPA's capacity To Implomant Decommissioningz_
t Petitioners also' contend "that the Commission does not have adequate assurance of'the financing of the activities under the decommissioning order or of the capability of the organiza-tion proposed to conduct the decommissioning order."
(SWRCSD Petition, p.
17; SE2 Petition, p. 16.)
Further, they assert this.
supposed lack of assurance would ~_" endanger the interests of those represented under.the Atomic Energy Act."
(Id.)
The foregoing constitutes the entirety of. petitioners'-submission on this
~ point.
Clearly, petitioners have-failed their threshold obligation to show a particularized injury in fact; once again, they rely on "[m]erely making bare allegations of radiological harm."
LBP-91-7,-33 NRC at:193.
As already shown, such-naked allegations.are legally insufficient to establish standing.
11
___.__.-._____._._.___.__..____.m__._
Petitioners' reticence on these-issues simply underscores the' frivolous nature of their petit. ions to intervene, which are directed entirely at the goal of promoting operation of Shoreham and do not meaningfully seek-to challenge anything within the four corners of LIPA's Decommissioning Plan.
LIPA has made detailed submissions to the Commission both with regard to the financing of decommissioning activities and with regard to
~
the capabilities of the decommissioning organization.
- Sma, e.c.,
Joint _ Application of LILCO and LIPA For -License Amendment to Authorize-Trans'fer of Shoreham (dated June 28, 1990).
Petitioners have had ample time to investigate the sufficiency of LIPA's-financing and organizational capability.
Their failure to specify supposed deficiencies, much less to show how the supposed deficiencies could cause-radiological harm to petitioners or thoseithey. seek to represent, manifests a clear disinterest in the subiect matter of this proceeding and defeats their claim of l-standing.
i; C.
Petitioners' Comand For An EA Is A Non-IAAys.
Petitioners also complain that an EA has not been 1 prepared by the NRC Staff in connection with the Decommissioning.
[
~ Plan.
(Sag SWRCSD Petition, pp. 23-27, 30; SE2 Petition, pp.
23-26,L29e)'
This argument provides no basis for: intervention.
'First, it-is clear from petitioners' discussion that they seek an EA' principally, if not solely, to analyze the 12
.= -, -.. _
.. a,
4 possibility of operation of Shoreham as a nuclear power plant.
But the Commission has already ruled that consideration of possible operation falls outside the scope of NEPA review of a decommissioning plan.
And, within the context of this proceeding, petitioners fail to specify any environmental harm that would befall them or those they seek to represent.
- Thus, petitioners can point to no injury resulting from the alleged omission of an EA and sufficing to confer standing in this proceeding.
Second, given the status of this proceedina, petitioners' objection is premature.
The relevant regulations provide that the appropriate NRC staff director is to determine
"(b]efore taking a proposed action" whether an EIS or an EA should be prepared or whether a tategorical exclusion applies.
4 Egg 10 C.F.R. 5.51.25.
No timetable for such a determination is specified.
The relevant determination therefore may be made.at any time prior to issuance of the licensed action.
If the staff director; determines, based on 10 C.F.R. 55 51.21 and 51.22(c) and (d), that an EA should be prepared, there is no reason why that cannot be accomplished prior to action on the amendment.
Followir.g an EA, the staff director determines whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 51.31.
If there is a finding of no significant impact, absent circumstances not present here, no further proceedings are required except for publication under 10 C.F.R. 5 51.35.
13 1
4 Nor have petitioners established any possible basis here on which an EA might lead to-preparation of a full EIS.
As the Commission is well aware, it has already determined that an EA ordinarily will suffice in reviewing decommissioning plans.
The Commission stated that its primary reason for eliminating a mandatory EIS for deccmmissioning is that the impacts have been considered generically in a GEIS.
The GE!S shows that the difference in imoacts amona the basic alternatives for decommissionina is small, whatever alternative is chosen in u
comparison with the impact accepted from 40 years of licensed operation.
53 Fed. Reg. 24,039 (1988) (emphasis added).'
D.
Petitioners' Complaints about the Environmental Report Are Either Beyond The Scope of This Proceedinc Or Insufficient To Confer Standing 3_
Finally, petitioners complain that the Environmental Report "provides a totally inadequate basis for consideration of the decommissioning of Shoreham," citing a number of supposed deficiencies.
(SWRCSD Petition, pp. 27-29; SE2 Petition, pp.
25-28.)
However, none of the supposed deficiencies provides a basis for petitioners' intervention in this proceeding.
In addition, the GEIS confirms that "it is not txpected that any significant environmental impacts will result from the choice of alternatives" as to decommissioning methods.
- GEIS, 1 15.1.5.
Further, the GEIS concludes that "[djecommissioning of a nuclear facility generally has a positive environmental impact."
(GEIS, p. xi.)
14
First, most of petitioners' complaints about the j
l i
Environmental Report are beyond the scope of the proceeding because they involve the question whether Shorcham should be
)
operated as a nuclear power plant.
(Id.)
Thus, for example, j
petitioners complain that the Report does not address the effect of non-operation of Shoreham on such matters as tax revenues,
" loss of employment" for Shoreham's " operating staff," and
" electric energy" supplies.
(SWRCSD Petition, pp. 27-28; SE2 Petition, pp. 25-28.)
For the reasons shown in Part I above, none of these matters is implicated in the decommissioning order.
Moreover, to the extent petitioners raise supposed NEPA issues not implicated by the proposed order, they fail to establish standing because no conceivable outcomo can redress their complaint.
Egg Dellums v.
NRC, 863 F.2d at 971 (no standing unless injury " fairly can be traced to the challenged action" and is "likely to be redressed by a favorable decision") (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kv. Welfare Richts Org., 426 U.S.
26, 38, 41 (1976)).
i Perhaps inadvertently, petitioners do mention two points regarding the Environmental Report that are related to the Decommissioning Plan.
First, they assert that (t]here is no discussion of the impacts of the hauling and disposal of construction debris, or their effects on local i
air, traffic, noise and other considerations.
Egg Section 4.1.2.2.
15 l
s (SWRCSD Petition, pp. 27-28; SE2 Petition, p. 26.)
However, any failing is not in the Environmental Report, but in petitioners' inattention to its contents.
Those subjects are considered in ample detail in Sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, 4.1.2.6, 4.2.2, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Environmental Report.
Second, petitioners assert conclusorily that the Environmental Report is insufficiently detailed in analyzing the "radioective and non-radioactive environmental impacts of the various [ decommissioning) alternatives."
(SWRCSD Petition, p.
28; SE2 Petition, p. 27.)
As already shown, however, such conclusory assertions are wholly insufficient to establish a basis for standing.
Moreover, the Commission has already detoimined in the GEIS that "it is not expected that any significant ::aacts will result from the choice of alternatives" as to decommissioning alternatives.
GEIS, 1 15.1.5.
Petitioners could not possibly show the contrary as to this minimally contaminated facility.
1 1
E.
Petitioners Have Not Shown Any Basis For Repres3ntatigD31 Standing, For the foregoing substantive reasons, there is no standing to intervene in this proceeding on the part of SWRCSD, SE2, nor any person sought to be represented by either l
l petitioner.
Fetitioners are further precluded from intervention because they have failed to meet an explicit Commission 16 l
(
requirement for representational standing -- affidavits from individuals authorizing such representation.
Egg LBP-91-1, 33 NRC at 22, 34; LBP-91-7, 33 NRC at 192-93.
No such affidavits have been proffered, even though petitioners previously have been admonished by the Board of the requirement for affidavits.
III. THE PROPOSED DECOMMISSIONING ORDER MAY BE MADE IMMEDIATELY_ EFFECTIVE.
Although the NRC Staff has not yet proposed to do so, petitioners argue that a decommissioning order cannot be made immediately effective.
(Eng SWRCSD Petition, pp. 1-2; SE2 Petition, pp. 1-2.)
This is not an appropriate occasion to brief this question in detail, but petitioners are plainly wrong.
First, petitioners argue that the Commission's Sholly procedures apply only to license Amendm+20s, and the 7
Commission's notice proposes an 2Idgr.
Out of an abundance of caution, LIPA, with the support of LILCO, has proposed a license amendment as an alternate veh. le for the approval of decommissioning that would, it approvea, render petitioners' argument moot.
On January 13, 1992, LIPA requested a conforming amendment to the Shoreham licence to reflect the NRC's approval Eee Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
5 2239(A)(2); 10 C.F.h.
is 50.90-50.92.
17 l
of the Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.e If the Commission deems the amendment the appropriate route and acts accordingly, then petitioners' argument is moot.
But even if the Commission proceeds by way of an order, the Sholly provisions still apply.
Any NRC action that allows a licensee to do something not previously authorized -- whether denominated an order or amendment -- effectively amends the license and is subject to Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act and the Shclly procedures. '
Moreover, there is no reason why the Commission may not apply the Sholly procedures to an order in the exercise of its inherent authority efficiently to conduct the business before it.
Petitioners also contend that Sholly is inapplicable because the Shoreham license is now a possession-only license
(" POL") and Sholly supposedly applies only to operating licenses.
(SWRCSD Petition, p. 2; SE2 Petition, p. 2.)
That contention, however, is untenable, as LIPA and the NRC Staff have previously a.
E22 Letter from L.M. Hill, LIPA, Resident Manager, Shoreham to NRC (Document Control Desk) (Jan. 13, 1992).
(LSNRC-1883) ; Letter from L.M. Hill, LIPA, Resident Manager, Shoreham to NRC (Document Control Desk) (Jan. 22, 1992)
(LSNRC-1899).
Seg Sholly v.
NRC, 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (order regarding releasing radioactive gas an amendment) ; see San Luis Obispo Mothers l'or Peace v.
NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1314-15 (D.C.
.Cir. 1984)'(lifting of a suspension not an amendment; extension of license term an amendment); Southern California Edison Co.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) CLI-85-10, 21 NRC 1569, 1573-75 (1985) (to same effect).
18
t 4
explained.1' The NRC has frequently followed Sholly procedures when making amendments to POLS, and petitioners show no error in that practice."
Petitioners' theory, if correct, would mean that approval of a decommissioning plan could be made immediately effective for a plant still subject to an operating license but not for one subject to a POL.
This theory makes no sense given that the July 1991 downgrading of the Shoreham license to POL status reduced (rather than increased) the relevant health-and-safety considerations, thus making further reliance on Sholly all the more appropriate.
l-f Hgg Opposition of LIPA to Motion for Stay of License 18 l
Transfer and Suggestion of Mootness (dated Dec. 30, 1991), pp.
9-l 11 & nn. 8-10; NRC Staff Response to Petitioners' Motion for Stay and Suggestion of Mootness (dated Jan.
6, 1992), pp. 6-8 & nn.
11-17.
- Egg, e.a., Philadelohia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1), 54 Fed. Reg. 41,886 (1989)
(proposed amendment to POL); NASA (Plum Brook Station), 54 Fed.
Reg. 38,759, 38,765 (1989) (same),
19
f J
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petitions for Leave to Intervene and Requests for Prior Hearing should be denied in their entirety.
These petitions do not even attempt to demonstrate standing (or to frame cognizable issues) with respect to LIPA's Decommissioning Plan because petitioners have no real concern as to whether Shoreham is decommissioned by DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
The petitions simply reflect petitionerr.'
obstinate insistence on further litigating the question of possible operation of Shoreham.
Petitioners' quixotic campaign for delay should not be indulged.
R epectfully submitted, W
Of Counsel:
W lliam T.' Coleman, Jr.
C r1 R. Schenker, Jr.
Stanley B. Klimberg John D. Holum President of Shoreham Project John A. Rogovin and General Counsel O'MELVENY & MYERS Richard P. Bonnifield-555 13th Street, N.W.
Deputy General Counsel W.aahington, D.C.
20004 LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (202) 383-5360 200 Garden City Plaza Carden City, N.Y.
11530 Nicholas S. Reynolds (516) 742-2200 David A.
Repka WINSTON & STRAWN 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
(?O2) 371-5726 Counsel for the Long Island Power Authority Dated: February 6, 1992 20
-.- ~..,
_. -. -. +. -.
, - ~
m 4
4' A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y
NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION-
)
)
In-the-Matter.of
)
Docket No. 50-322
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Decommissioning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Ste. tion,
)
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. 5 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
LName:
- William T. Coleman, Jr.
Address:-
- O'Melveny & Myers 555 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004-1109 tTelephone' Number:
- (202)-383-5325 Admission:
- U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.
Circuit U.S.-District Court, District of Columbia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Name'of: Party:
- The Long Island Power Authority Respectfully submitted, William T.
Coleban, Jr.
O'MELVENY & MYERS 555 13th Street,-N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004-1109
-(202) 383-5325 February 6, 1992
.-... ~.. - - - -. -. - -
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUrLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
)
1 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Decommissioning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
l NOTICE OF APPEARANQJ Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name:
- Carl R.
Schenker, Jr.
Address:
- O'Melveny & Myers 555 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004-1109 Telephone Number:
-(202) 383-5360 Admission:
- U.S.
Supreme Court U.S.
Court of Appeals, D.C.
Circuit U.S.
District Court, District of Columbia District of Columbia Courtaof Appeals Name of Party:
- The Long Island Power Authority Res ectfully submitted, b
12 4~
D'arl R.
Schenker, Jr.
O'MELVENY & MYERS 555 13th Street, N.
Washington, D.C.
20004-1109 (202) 383-5360 February 6, 1992
b
' '4
~;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter-of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Decommissioning)
(shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
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.
$ 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
)
Name:
- John D. Holum Address:
- O'Melveny &_Myers 555 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
~20004-1109 Telephone Number:
(202) 383-5319 Admission:
- U.S. Court of Appeals,- D.C.
CircuitL U.S.-District-Court,: District of Columbia-District of-Columbia Court of Appeals Name of Party::
- The Long Island _ Power. Authority spectfully submitted, John D. Hol'm~
L%
^~
4,
~
4-u O'MELVENY & MYERS 555 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004-1109 (202) 383-5319 February 6, 1992 f
-w,-m,
,e-,w+ eon m,--,,,:,---evn.--w,nnw,--._,new.+mm--,-ww+,+s
O; y- - - - - - - - - - - - - ;------------------
^
y: g __
- lX!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ce
' NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION
- p.
I
)
'In the Matter of'
)-
)
Docket-No. 50-322 r
tLONG ISIAND LIGHT 1NG= COMPANY
)-
)
(Decommissioning)
'(Shoreham Nuclear Power _ Station,
)
' Unit 1)
)
l
)
t y'
NOTICE OF APPEARAME Notice?is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an-eppearance in the above-captioned matter.
In
'accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.713(b), the following information
~
is providad;.
Name:-
- John'A. Rogovin
. Address:
- O'Melveny & Myers 555 13th Street, N.W-Washington, D.C.
20004-1109 Telephhre Number:
(202) 383-5358 Admission ~:-
- U.S.
Court of Appeals, D.C.
Circuic U.S.
District. Court,. District of--
Columbia
.Dictrict of Columbia _ Court of Appeals Name.of Party:
-_The Long Island-Power Authority
(, '
Respectfully submitted, JL A. B, R John. A. RogcNin O'MELVENY & MYERS
- 555 13th; Street, N.W.
L
=
Washington,'D.C.
200^4-1109 i
(202) 383-5358 l
February -- 6, _1992 p
L' L
i:
CIRTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to the service requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.712 (1991), I heraby certify that on February 6,
- 1992, I served a-copy of te Answer of the Lc ng Island Power Authority To Intervention Petit ions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan, Notices of Appearan e, and transmittal letter via Courier upon the following parties, except where otherwise indicated:
Commissioner Ivan Selin Stephen A.
Wakefield, Esq.
Chairman General Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Department of Energy one White Flint North Building Forrestal Building 11555 Rockville Pike 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, D.C.
20585 (First Class Mail)
Commissioner Kenneth C.
Rogers Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Samuel J.
Chilk One White Flint North Building The Secretary of the Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland 20852 One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Pike Commissioner James R.
Curtiss Rockville, Maryland 20852 Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building Administrative Judge 11555 Rockville Pike Thomas S.
Moore, Chairman Rockville, Maryland 20852 Administrative Judge
( _
Commissioner Forrest J. Remick Washington, D.C.
20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission (First Class Mail)
One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Pike Administrative Judge i
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Jerry R.
Kline Atomic Safety Commissioner E.
Gail de Planque and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building Washington, D.C.
20555 l
11555 Rockville Pike (First Class Mail)
Rockville, Maryland 20852 l
l t
Administrative Judge Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
George A. Ferguson Counsel, Long-Island 5307 Al Jones Drive Lighting Company Columbia-Beach,-!!aryland 20764 Hunton & Williams (First-Class Mail) 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
(Via Federal Express) i Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licensing Gerald C.
Goldstein, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel l
One White-Flint North Building Power Authority of 11555 Rockville Pike State of New York Rockville, Maryland 20852 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq.
(Via Federal Express)
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson 1255 23rd Street, N.W.
Samuel A.
Cherniak, Esq.
Suite 500 NYS Department of Law l
Washington, D.C.
20037 Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection Regulatory Publications Branch 120 Broadway Division of Freedom of New York, New York 10271 Information & Publications (Via Federal Express)
Services E
Office-of: Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,_ D.C.
20555 l
(First Class Mail) pw John 'D.
Holum O'Melveny & Myers L
555 13th Street, N.W.
l-Washington, D.C.
20004 Dated:
February 6, 1992 l
l
..