ML20203C820

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Supports Granting Util 860410 & Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton 860415 Petitions for Review of ALAB-832 & Reconsideration of Previously Granted Petition for Review of ALAB-818 Re Emergency Planning Issues
ML20203C820
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 04/17/1986
From: Reis E
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#286-829 ALAB-818, ALAB-832, OL-3, NUDOCS 8604210244
Download: ML20203C820 (1)


Text

p .auru 8 j$, UNITED STATES

-J 8 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g  ; WASHINGTON o. C. 20555

~s...../ w-En

~

April 17, 1986

  • 6 acy q V :I In Mr. Samuel J. Chilk og ,

Secretary I T%g *e/ C h r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 84dic[ ~VICf.

Washington, DC 20555

"., In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On April 10, 1985, the Long Island Lighting Co. filed a petition for review of .

ALAB-832, involving emergency planning for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. On April 15, 1986, Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton also filed a petition for review of ALAB-832. The Commission pre flously granted a petition for review of ALAB-818, which involved Shoreham emergency planning issues. The Commission, however, deferred consideration of ALAB-818 until the Appeal Board passed upon the issues considered in ALAB-832.

While not agreeing with all of the arguments set forth by the petitioners or that each of the issues raised in the petitions " involves an important matter" meriting Commission review (see 10 C.F.R. I 2.786(b)(4)(i)), the NRC Staff believes it appropriate for the Commission to consider these petitions together with the Shoreham emergency planning issues it formerly accepted for review in the interests of administrative efficiency. The Staff thus supports the granting of the present petitions. As the Commission's Rules of Practice provide that "[n]o answer in support of a petition for review . . . will be entertained" (10 C.F.R. I 2.786(b)(3)), the Staff will not file a formal answer to the petitions for review of ALAB-832.

- Sincerely, 86042102g ADO

% h. 22 PDR PDR Edwin J Reis G Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel cc: Service List

? - - -

. . 20 ~7