ML20097E657

Responds to Requesting Whether There Is Provision in Agreement Restricting Ability of Any Person to Communicate W/Nrc Re Safety Concerns of Facility Decommissioning

ML20097E657
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/08/1992
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#292-12999 DCOM, NUDOCS 9206120277
Download: ML20097E657 (2)

Text

SENT BY:00W LOHNES & ALBEMTSON! 6- B-92 1 17:01 1 2026590059- 301 504 21623# 3 DOCKET NUMBER PROD.& (mL cAC M'8 M'NM DOW LOHNES& ALBERTSON ATTORNEY 5 AT LAW [ . ".

• l I l U 8258 TW E N TY*T H I R D STMCET WASHINGTON. D. C. Roo37

'92 JLN -9 All:57 tetu, o=s teosi su asco pg t,ttsp,o g g oni ass.seco boc6 C .ta,r. 9 =tikw e suse . ucemenv sn. Jae 8, 1992 W NCh'am a m**

1 m e,u. ,

i . . . . . . ,

j VTA FAX Josspa F. Scinto, Esq.

Deputy General Counsel

[ office of the General Counsel

{ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 i

Doar Mr. Scintos I have received your letter of June 5, 1992, asking whethor there is any provision that would restrict the ability of

! any person to communicate with the PRC at any time with respect to any safety concerns that such person may have about decommissioning or about any other espect of Shoreham nuclear facility safety in the Agreements which you referenced.

I As counsel to, and signatory for, Scientists and Engineers forlSocure Energy, Inc. ("SEr") to the Settlement Agreemant among the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA"), the Shorcham-Wading River Central School District (" School District")

! and SE , it may be unclear whether SE s commitment in Paragraph may have in the l

I 2 of tbat future, to bringAgreement any . . .

"to waive anyact administrative righ't (SE2] ion which see j or will have the e; 'ect of proventing or delaying LIPA's l

deco missioning of Shoreham including but not limited to LIPA's disposition of low-level radioactive waste and spent fuel" could be interpreted to constitute such a restriction. This same commitment is also restated in Paragraph 5 of the Agreement among the four municipalities.

l l Purther, it is, possible that such a communication with

! the NRC with respect to any safety concerns about decommissioning i or any other aspect of Shoreham nuclear facility safety could be interpreted to,be "the institution of any action before the NRC" allowing another party or parties to make claims, counterclaims or bring other; actions against an entity making such a communication to the NRC pursuant to the second proviso of Paragraph 6 ofi the settlement Agreement. Otherwise, I see no provision in those Agreements which could be interpreted to

!- constitute such a restriction on the types of communications with l the imC to which you refer.

! I t

' \

9206120277 920600 9 PDR G

ADOCK 05000322 PDR y) 0

2026590059a 301 506 2152; 3 SENT

• BY:00t3 LOHNES & ALBERT 50Ni 5- B-92 i 17:02 :

I 1

i l

l Joseph P. scinto, Esq.

} June 8, 1992 l Page 2 I have consulted with Michael J. Englert, Esq., counsel to, and signatory for, the School Distriot as to both Agreements.

After reviewing your letter and my proposed response, Mr. Englert has authorized me to stata his concurrcnce with the proceding two paragraphs on behalf of the School District with respect to the School District's commitments..

While the language of the Agreenents may not ba l and the School District are willing to perfectly commit to theclear, followSE,ing clarificationt Neither SEa nor the

school District would consider any party to be barred from such communications (including Section 2.206 Requests) by paragraph 2 i of the Settlement Agreement or paragraph 5 of the Agreement or i that such communications would constitute "the institution of any i action before the NRC" pursuant to the second proviso of i Paragraph 6 of,the Settlement Agreement.

However, since these are issues of interpretation by

all the partios, a definitive reopense to your inquiry from, or

{ on behalf of, each party to each Agreement may be appropriate to remove doubt.

In accordance with the principlus of mutual respect expressed in the Settlement Agreement, the submission of this response was delayed at the request of Carl R. Schenker, Jr.,

Esq., LIPA's counsel, to allow LIPA additional time to consider its independent response to your letter. We considered this

! brief dolay tejbo an appropriate balancing of our duty to respect l LIPA's conductlof its responsibilities and our duty to the i Commission, and under the Settlement Agreement, to file this j lotter promptly. We hope the foregoing adequately takes account l for LIPA's interests and will expedite the Commission's consideration of the pending motions.

, I hope the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry.

si cerely, ames P. McGranery, r.

JPM:jmb cci Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq.

Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

l l Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.

Richard P. Bonnifield, Esq.

l l .-__

.