ML20099L308
| ML20099L308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1984 |
| From: | Brown H, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099L278 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8412010082 | |
| Download: ML20099L308 (12) | |
Text
.. _.
?,.
e-
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COL 4ETED Before the Commission
'84 U"! 30 NO :45
)
In the Matter of
)
7 r " ~ ' ^ 5 E 'E
)
x
V' LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Low Power)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
NEW YORK STATE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS By Order issued. November 19, 1984, the Commission denied the joint request of New York State and Suffolk County to present oral arguments on the Licensing Board's October 29 decision which in effect recommended a low power license for Shoreham.
For the reasons set forth below, the State and County request that the Commission reconsider such denial and schedule oral arguments on the subjecP matter.
If ever a case required oral arguments and a full and open engagement of the issues, Shoreham is the one.
First, no other case has presented such potential for a spectacular confrontation between the federal government and State and local governments.
Indeed, the NRC's issuance of a low power license here, in the face of the reasonable positions taken by the State and County, would be tantamount to an act of federal regulatory belligerency.
Surely, a case with such far-reaching implications deserves the 8412010082 841129 PDR ADOCK 05000322 9
PDR I
' g inquiry and open presentation of views that oral arguments would
~
l provide..
(Attached; hereto is a Resolution of the Suffolk County Legislature, dated November. 27, 1984, reiterating the County's opposition to NRC issuance of a low power license for Shoreham.)
Second,ithe President of the United States has written, as set.forth in the attached letter, "this Administration does not-favor the: imposition of federal government authority over the objections of state and local governments."
The issuance of a low power license to LILCO would do precisely what the-Administra-tion's policy does not favor.
Shoreham thus presents the extraor-dinary case where an applicant is asking the. Commission to take action which contravenes Administration policy.
Oral arguments would permit the Commission to flesh this out.
Third, the Commission's consideration of a low power license for Shoreham is not business-as-usual for the NRC.
In ordinary cases, the Commission has considered a low power license only when there have been no outstanding-issues which could.bar-issuance of a full power license.
Here, by contrast, the situation is precisely the opposite:
There are determinative issues concerning LILCO's emergency plan and its legal authority to implement that plan that are before the New York State Supreme Court.
Pending lthe resolution of those issues, it would be unreasonable per se-for the Commission to authorize any action by LILCO which would contaminate Shoreham and c. sate a contingent liability for LILCO, its creditors, the ratepayers, or some combination of those.
The Commission should bear in mind that when it creates cost 1
1
iw i
consequences in this proceeding, it is blindly creating financial and' regulatory / economic issues for the very State and local governments whose interests and constituents are being represented here.
Finally, the Commission's refusal to hold.open oral arguments in this case would suggest to the public that the Commission.is seeking to dodge public scrutiny and to decide the extraordinary Shoreham issues in shadows and silence.
But, this is no time for peek-a-boo; it is time only for a full and frank meeting open to the public's eye..
Indeed, it did not slip public attention that the Commission chose to issue LILCO a Phase I and II license on the eve of Thanksgiving Day, the start of an extended holiday weekend when media attention was at a low.
Shoreham is too important a case for the NRC to give the people of Suffolk' County and New York State anything less than the fullest and fairest opportunities to present their case.
And, it is also too important for the Commission to settle for anything less than seeking to gain all the information it can.
The Atomic Energy Act in Section 274 and the NRC's regulations in Section 2.715(c) specifically provide that the Commission shall afford State and County governments the opportunity "to advise the Commission" on matters affecting their interests.
Those interests here require a full airing by oral arguments and the comity and
" cooperation" which Congress mandated the Commission to exhibit toward the States in Section 274.
It defies imagination to find good reason for the Commission to dony the State and County an opportunity to be heard.at oral
. =
arguments, much less a reason 1o suggest that-such a denial serves
~
the public interest.
There is no time-pressure:
LILCO itself
. admits that electricity equivalent to Shcreham's output will not be needed for a decade.
And, there are no logistic or administra-tive hurdles which could stand in the way of meaningful oral arguments.
At the hurt of this case is the public interest, and it is on that very point that the Commission in the past has said that the views of State governments must be given " great weight."
Thus, in the NRC's "Brief in Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay," filed on November 10, 1983, in the U.S. Court of Appeals case concerning Diablo Canyon, the Commission stated:
" Finally, the Supreme Court has noted that the debate over nuclear power is one in which the States have a vital stake.
(Citing Vermont Yankee.]
In this case the Governor of California, as representative of the people and the public interest, has indicated in hearings before the NRC Appeal Board that he does not oppose this action.
[ Citation omitted.]
The views of the chief elected representative of the people of California should be accorded great weight in fixing where the public interest lies."
NRC Brief, page 34.
Here, in the Shoreham case, the chief elected representative of the people of New York and the elected government of the people of Suffolk County oppose issuance of a low power license.
It is time for the commission to take their views seriously and to give them meaningful " great weight," just as the Commission rested its position on the views of California's government.
Surely, it was with conviction and not convenience in mind that the Commission spoke to the Court.
m _. _..- _
l.
With-the strong words of the Commission's Diablo brief in mind, it is worth noting that in its Phase.I and II Order the Commission gave no weight, let alone'the " great weight" it-
' celebrated in Diablo, to the-public interest views of the-State and County.
.This was an error.
The Commission can now mitigate the damage by--scheduling open and objective oral arguments'in this case. f-Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11786 7
KIRKPATRICK &.LOCKHART 4
i d
1 Herbert H. Brown ~
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche j
1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 1
)
Attorneys for Suffolk County i
i i
- / Contrary to LILCO's November 9 " Comments," the issues before i
the Commission here are not merely conventional " stay motion" issues involving the four-part test for a stay.-
Here, Section j
50.12 makes the Commission responsible for the final substan-tive decision on an exemption request, and the Commission's May 16 Order and.caselaw (e. c., San Onofre) underscore that responsibility.
This proceeding thus does not call for a cursory or cosmetic review of the merits.
It requires the Commission's meaningful and substantive engagement.
i-l I
t i
r
o *
- n L a G. Pdo-,:, M G Fabian G. Palomino Special' Counsel to the Governor of New York State Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Robert Abrams Attorney General of the State of New York Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo November 29, 1984 Governor of the State of New York 1
f intr 00UCGQ Dy I.egiblCLur\\S/ DICSS, fu ley, Lapu3, rruspuCL A
t SENSE OF THE LEGISLATURE RESQLUTION REITERATIfHi SI EAl5EG.
SUFFULK COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO LILCD'S SHDREMAM NUCLEAR P.OWER PLANT WHEREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Comerfssion.ia ensidering L11co's request to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant at lower power levels up to 553 and WHEREA5. Suffolk County has determined to Resolution 111-1955 that in recognition of i
tha impossibility of evacuating or otherwise protecting the health, welfare, and safcty of the citizens of 5uffolk County in the event of a. serious nuclear accident at the Shoreham plant, the County will not adopt or impleent a radiological emergency plan for Shorehens and i
WHEREA5, the Governor acting on behalf of the State of Nas York has determined not to impose a radiological amorpency plan on Suffolk County or otherwise to act in a manner inconsistent with the detervrination of Suffolk Countys and WHEREAS, Suffb1k County and New York 5 tate has asserted to the Nuclear Regulatory ConmHssion in the pending licensing proceedings that both goverrsients oppose the l
licensing of Shoreham, including operation of Shoreham at low powert and i
I WHEREA5, the low power operation of Shoreham would t.cntaminate the plant while there j
is no reasonable basis on which to believe the plant should ever operate at commercial power levelss and WHEREA5, the cost of cleaning up such contamination of the 5horeham plant following Tower power operation would be well in eacess of $100 millions and i
I WHEREA5, the quantity of, electricity which Shoreham represents will not be needed fbr 1
at least a decade and, therefore, there is no reason for the Nuclear Regulatory Cocynission to make a precipitous decision concerning low power operation at Shorehamt j
and.
l WHEREA5, the Fresident of the United states wrote on October 11. 1964, that "...this Administration does not. favor the imposition of federal governoont authority over the objections of state and local goverments in matters rwgarding the adequacy of an I
emergency avacuation plan for a nuclear power plant such as 5% rehem;" and WHEREA5, any action by the Nuclear Regulatory Counission to license 5homham to operate at low power levels would mnstitute the inusition of federal goverment authority over the objections of Suffolk County and tW State of New York; and WHEREA5, such action by the Nucleet' Regulatory Connission would be in deregation of tha condty and cooperation the federal goverment should show with respect to this issue, which is a matter of particular 'ocal and state concern; now, therefore, be it w^*w- ~ M
,M__
_T""*,
' ^ ~ * * *
- r M
o* RESOLVED. that Suffolk County hereby reiterates its opposition to the operation of p'
the Shoreham plant at any and all power levels; and be it further RE50LVG, that suffb1k County heretw urges the Nuclear Rejplatory Coundssion to deny Lilco's pending request to operate Shoreham at low power evals up to 55; and be it further RISDLV5. that the cleet, of the County Legisisture promptly tra'nsmit a copy of this resolution to the Chairnen and Commissioners of the Nucleast R5gu14tery Courission and to other officiels of the feders) admintstration and Coppens as appropriate.
r//dygy DATm:
6 G
e
.6 9
9 6
e e
G
6 0
THE WHITE HOL $E
~
wwinwnns October II, 1984
Dear hi.1:
I want :cu to knew o.' m) apprei.tr.t ion f or your continuire ecritribution;s to and support. -tor my Adv.iniat: i.t i on.
Your leadership
- end,cdurage hs.ve hvit beer. Cvisymin:r.q f.'.etcrs ir the progrese W.
made in the 1ert few years.
On a n.atter of particolar concern to you and the I wish to repeat people cf resterr. Lcrg Island, Secretary Mede.I'c assurance to you thrt. this
- Administration does not favor the impos.itier. of Federal Government authority over the objections ci state and lecal goverturents in matters regarding the adec.uacy of are emergency evi.r;uatier.
plan for a r.uclear power plant such as Shoreham.
Your ccncern fer the safety ci the people of Lor.g
- Islard is parancurs and shared by the Secretary ar.d me.
I 1cck forut.rd Thank ycu e.gair, for your support.
to kcrkir.g witt.;cu 1,n th* years ahead.
1 Sincerv..y, Q
am_
3
/
The Honcrat.le Willism Corney House ci kep:crentativou Washingten, D.C.
20515 L.
C:
b
.i UNITED STATE'S OF AMERICA
~@yy[
,i3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission
,84 Ci 33 A10 :45
)
In the Matter of
)
$N;I.[p/(j j~jlf'",,"
)
w !cg.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
)
Low Power (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK QpMMENTS CONCERNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF LILCO'S EXEMPTION REQUESTS,- SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT, and NEW YORK STATE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS, all dated November 29, 1984, have been served on the following this 29th day of November 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Judge Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Long Island Lighting Company.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 250 Old Country Road Washington, D.C.
20555 Mineola, New York 11501 Judge Glenn O. Bright Honorable Peter Cohalan #
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suffolk County Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission H. Lee Dennison Building Washington, D.C.
20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq. #
P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 Special Counsel to the Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol' Albany, New York 12224
- /
Attachments 3-7 to the Comments are already available to the parties and thus are being served only on the individual Com-missioners.
u
l r'
S
- Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.#
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq. **
Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Officelof Exec. Legal Director 707 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Martin Suubert
' James Dougherty, Esq.
c/o Cong. William Carney 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
1113 Longworth House Office' Washington, D.C.
20008 Building Washington, D.C.
20515 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company-Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta.
Suffolk County Attorney P.O.
Box 618 1
H. Lee Dennison Building North Country Road Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.
Docketing and Service Branch New York State Energy Office Office of the Secretary Agency Building 2 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223 Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman **
Comm. Frederick M. Bernthal**
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1114 Room 1156 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Lando W.
- Zech, Jr.**
Comm. Thomas M. Roberts **
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1113 Room 1103 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner James K. Asselstine**
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
U.3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John F. Shea, Esq.
Room 1136 Twomey, Latham and Shea 1717 H Street, N.W.
33 West Second Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Riverhead, New York 11901 i
i Herzal Plaine, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10th Floor 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 s
4
- 6
. i l
a-o_f y
_.,,, J, Lawrence Coe.Lanphet KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART-lj' -
-Washington, D.C.
20036-1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 r
DATE:
November 29, 1984
,i.
U-
~ By Hand
'By Federal Express t
,. )
h t
+
---TP b$
m
_I
'