ML20092K902

Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20092K902
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/24/1992
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#192-12606 OLA-3, NUDOCS 9202260061
Download: ML20092K902 (8)

Text

_ _ _ _ _

/i?(p01G l

• I Ot k[11 p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA uwac NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE THE COMMISSION P6'O l'; E a m

}

y ';i r,.m4 In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-3 2 2-OLA-3 " '

)

14HG ISIAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

) (Application for (shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) License Transfer)

Unit 1) )

)

PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO LETTER REOUEST TOR DISMISSAL OF PAGES Petitioners Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District") and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE2 ") hereby oppose the " request" by the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0") and the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(" Commission" or "NRC") to dismiss "pages" Pctitioners' comments on SECY-92-041 which were furnished to the Commission and the parties by hand or telecopy on February 20, 1992 for the reasonn stated herein.I' Since most of Petitioners comments focus on issues raised by SECY-92-043 and attachments which were not at an earlier point in this proceeding, it is disingenuous of LILCO and LIPA argue that those comments "could and should have been argued earlier." LILCO/LIPA Letter at 1 (February 21, 1992).

1/ Petitioners are somewhat confused by the LILCO and LIPA use of pejorative language to describe Petitioners' rgsponsive filings with the Commission in proper form, while LILCO and LIPA feel free to bombard the Commission with letters.

9202260061 920224 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR O

]>50 3

i 1

The LIPA and LILCO suggestion that Petitioners' February 20 comments were inappropriate is misfounded. With respect to SECY-91-129 (May 13, 1991) containing the Staff's recommendation to approve the possession only license amendment, the Commission wroto: "The Staff served a copy of that paper on all interested parties, including Petitioners. Egg 10 C.F.R. E 2.781(a) (2) . The Petitioners have had an opportunity to file l comments in response to the Staff's recommendation." lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoraham Huclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-8, 33 NRC 4 61, 471 (June 12, 1991). In the instant matter also, the Chief of the NRC Docketing and Service Branch served a copy of SECY-92-041 on the Atomic Safety and " Licensing Board and the parties to this proceeding" by memorandum of February 12, 1992.

In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Petitioners to consider that the' furnishing of the SECY Paper was also to give them "an opportunity to file comments in response to the Staff's >

recommendation." Those comments were filed in a timely manner.

Additionally, Petitioners point to a icy of the errors and repr; entations made by LILCO and LIPA in their " Response of LILCO and LIPA to Petitioners' opposition to NRC Staff ,

Recommendation for License Transfer Approval" (February 21, 1992)

(" Response").M 2/ Petitioners note that this LILCO/LIPA document was served on Petitioners by telecopy about 9:00 p.m. on a Friday evening, without prior or subsequent notice to Petitioners' counsel which would have allowed for a quicker response.

i First, LILCO and LIPA stato that "potitioners do not even dispute that LIPA's funding for decommissioning activities would be adequate." Response at 5. This is not the caso.

Petitioners have pointed strongly to circumstancos indicating that LIPA vill not have adequate funds to support an adequato management organization, and circumstancos indicating that reliance on a letter from the New York Public Service Commission General Counsel does not give adequato assurance especially in view of the fact that Mr. Richard Kessel, as Executive Director of the New York Consumer Protection Doard and as Chairman of LIPA, continuously attacks the rato increases sought by LILCO for decommissioning expenses among other things. Petitioners Opposition at 13-16.

Second, LIPA and LILCo mischaracterized Petitioners' argument by saying that " Petitioners have announced they do not themselves intend to commence" a proceeding to prove that LIPA had ceased exist by operation of law. Responso at 7 & n.10.

That simply is not true. The referenced source states the opposite, namely, "[t]he School District's New York State counsel currently has such an action under advisement . . . . " Egg ResDonse at 7 n.10.

Third, in trying to avoid the significance of the fact that LIPA is not a "ycing concern," LILCO and LIPA argue that since "that language does not appear in Section 2828 itself, (it) obviously was not contemplated as a term of art. . . . Besconsq at 7 n.11. This is an attempt to reject the whole concept of

4

" legislative history." For example, specific reference to the

,ncept of " going concern" was made by state officials ret smending approval of current i 2828 by the Governor. Eta attached Letter from state comptroller to the Governor (April 17, 1957).

Fourth, as to Petitioners' arguments on the ,

insufficiency of the Environmental Assessment ("EA") , LILc0 and LIPA state that "the regulations upon which they rely simply do i not support their argument." Resconse at 8. This argument is as conclusory and unsupported as the EA itself. LILCO and LIPA offer not A Aingis citation to regulation, judicial decision or other authority for their conclusion.

Fif th, contrary to LILCO and LIPA assertion, Petitioners do not argue that "a draft FONSI would be required for every proposed license amendment. . . .

" Resconse at 10 (emphasis in original). ]tearinas are not renuested for every license amendment and, therefore, no draft FONSI would be required for such license amendments.

And sixth, Petitioners are not aware that LILCO has .

furnished the NRC with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission required order approving the transfer of Shoreham. Egg 16 U.S.C.

$ 824b(a) (1988) . The NRC should not aut' rize transfer without assurance of the prior approval of the Federal-Energy Regulatory Commission.

CONCLUSION For those reasons and the reasons previously submitted, Petitioners suggest that transfer of the Shoreham licenso to LIPA is inappropriato, at least at this tino.

Roopectfully submittod, February 24, 1992 _t A= > 1 Janos P. McGranarys/Or.

DOW, 14HNES & ALBERTSON Suite 500 1255 Twenty-Third Stroo:, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for the Petitioners Shorehan-Wading River Contral School District and Scientists and Engiriors for securo Enorgy, Inc.

.,,- h

'} 4 ., .

Ml% .

8 j

A1y e,.,J.._,e..

oteanfutNT or avo7 aNo coyvnot l

• L* m Q L-  %

3.{

< ........., a

? April 17, 1957 i; l ,I.I..

/ i .

Averell Harriman HisExcellenekeStateofNewYork Governor of t J  :

i

,d Executive Chamber . *t.}M7,

/J Altany, New York .

Sirs Rei SenatetillInt.24N,Pr.2566,4068 ITA y Py Mr. Huit e

].)

{)

This remorandum has been prepared at the request of your Counsel. pp ^

Under the terus of this bill the life of every public authority, c

f hereafter created, is to terminate at the e,nd of five years from 1.

the date of its creation 4y B .! other than moneys advancNprovided it has no outstanding listilitiesby the State or  ;%g any political su 4i ~ thereof. This bill has been recommended by the Tenporary Commission pjg

(  ; on- Coordination of State Activities. .g j h+ This bill seems aimed at those authorities that do not commente I[ {

2 * *d operations within a reasonable time af ter their creation. The five 3-NNO year period set forth in the statute seems reasonable and should (pL  !

/ stimulate the authority to tecome a foing concern. ,,d

g w

{ "

The bill could have one reeult. net intended by its sponsors. P .

It may encourate the creation of trial authorities on the theory h" i that they will come to an automatic end if not pmductive. 4g2

{ '

This bill would take effect immediately.

, j!

f This Department recommends that the bill be approved.

V 9

g.')j Very truly yours, .

g '

U~ ARTH11A 12VITT ,

af[

' k State Comptroller j .

4 - -

g. .

py I

• k n

& . id . f[ h Altre W. Haight

.. J z

io

^

Counsel to the Comptroller i b A-

,h ... .

- .. G . 4

. :;, e , ,

g4 M8Th7yhhhk f3,k 5kf'[Nhb N$

i l

'O

, Ant 'l D 0 UNC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ;

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO)g g y p3 37 l

BEFORE Tile COMMISdION '

Eut 1W

f.,n gtg{pa lit;G % '4 WTI ]

p: Man

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OLA-3

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

) (Application for (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) License Transfer)

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Petitioners' Opposition to Letter Request for Dismissal of Pages in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by hand, telecopy, or first-class mail, postage prepaid (as indicated below) on this 24th day of February, 1992 Chairman Ivan Selin Commissioner Forrest J. Remick U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint North one White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Hand) (Hand)

CommiMioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner James R. Curtiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Hand) (Hand)

Commissioner E. Gail de Planque Thomas S. Moore, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge One White Flint North Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, D.C. 20555 (Hand) (Mail)

Jerry R. Kline George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 5307 Al Jones Drive (Mail) Shady Side, Maryland 20764 (Mail)

\

l i

Edwin J. Reis, Esq. W. Taylor Revoley, III, Esq.

Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Riverfront Plaza, East Tower One White Flint North 951 East Byrd Street 11555 Rockville Pike Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 Rockville, Maryland 20052 (Telecopy)

(Hand)

Samuel A. Cherniak, Esq. Carl R. Schenker, Jr. , Esq.

NYS Department of Iaw O'Melveny & Myers Bureau of Consumer Frauds 555 13th Street, N.W.

and Protection Washington, D.C. 20004 120 Broadway (Telecopy)

New York, New York 10271 (Telecopy)

Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.

David A. Repka, Esq. Executive Director &

Winston & Strawn General Counsel 1400 L Stroet, N.W. Long Island Power Authority Washington, D.C. 20005 200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 201 (Talecopy) Garden City, New York 11530 (Mail)

Charles E. Mullins, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 (Hand) l oHm f h m:x p q,.

1 .,

ge.

James Co6nsel P.for McGranary[itioners the Pet Shoreham-Wading River central l School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

,_