ML20215L232

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Opportunity for Attorneys for Suffolk County to Orally Present Arguments Re Low Power License for Plant
ML20215L232
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 12/26/1984
From: Romaine N, Romaine R
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20213F109 List:
References
NUDOCS 8706250610
Download: ML20215L232 (1)
v • d • e


Text

.. , . .- . - .. . ... - ., - -- . - - - - . - .-----~~~a ,

n a -

. ~<

s* ,

a 1 y a .1 261'5 Falcon Avenue Medford, New York 11763 December 26, 1984 l 3I '

All Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners 3!

o. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "9 j Washington, D.C. 20555 yH N .
  • 1 Gentlemen: -

I understand that you will not'be allowing the legal .

representatives for.Suffolk County to argue their case as ,

to why a Low Power License for the Shoreham Nuclear Power .

DH Plant should not be issued. This, in our opinion, is a J travesty of justice. To have a decision made for.the J

.d residents of Long Island without their being able~to pre-

' j, y sent their case in gross 1.y unfair.

We feel that before you consider'a license.for the '

testing of that unsafe plant, you must allow.the citizen. i representatives to.be heard. Our future is in your. hands,; -

not only safety-wise but financially. Oncethe' test is run, the cost of the plant will be added to LILCO's rate-base and we cannot afford the increase in our rates that this will cause. Our electric rates will soar to more than our

' mortgage payments and people who are jus.t getting by,'like

ourselves will be in grave trouble.- '

We have many acquaintences who have been employed to work on the Shoreham Plant. All report'of the waste and mismanagement of LILCO - brand new tools and equipment-being buried, people standing around with no work to do" and being paid (our friends among them) . - We should notthave to pay for such waste.

You must allow attorneys for_Suffolk County to-be heard r in oral argument. . They represent our views completely and I am aghast that our Go.vernment will.not listen but'will do-as IT pleases with no. thought to the' economy and the safety 3 of the people of MY community.

  1. ~

.I would appreciate a reply to this letter. .I have .

written to you on several.occassions relative to-the Shoreham; 1 Plant and have never received the courtesy of a' reply from a any one'of you Commissioners. 't Si cerel  :. .' -

',j i

, wA _p yd  :.l '

Z gg,_ ___ L

. Nancy E.. Romaine-8706250610 B70622 Richard E. Romaine ..

PDR COMMS NRCC .

CORRESPONDENCE PDR i

r- - --

e ,-.

g

, 1

.s oocuT muMern 5 .' '

nton rtmu nc. 2 :} W E L $ .

I .

l s- >

c. .

1 STATc or New YORK ': j

$ EXECUTIVE CHAMsER m h

$3 l ALeANY 12224 1 MARIO M. CUOMO A!0:0 i OOVERNOR b .C

  • 7 *j February 1, 1985 0X [ . - -

L 1

, ., ; . 4, r,,

~ 1 1

y

Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

EE 4 % 3 Through legal pleadings filed by my Special Counsel, 4l ji

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq., the State of.New York has requested ;4 l the opportunit'y to present oral argument before the Commission 'l

, as to why a low power license should not be issued for the j Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The State was joined in that :y i request by the County of Suffolk. To date, the Commission has .  ;)I not responded.

i New York State has within its jurisdiction several operating '

l nuclear power plants. To provide protection for the public's safety, the.2 must be a relationship of openness and cooperation

  • l between the commission and the State. The Shoreham licensing j proceeding is thus a litmus test of that relationship and of how l the Commission views the public's interests and the voice of elected governments. -

The opposition of New York State and Suffolk County to issuance of a low power license for Shoreham is deeply rooted in law, good sense, and compelling logic. I can conceive of no .

, reason that would justify the Commission foreclosing the public's j representatives fr.om presenting their positions through oral. 4 argument, nor any reason the Commission would not seize the opportunity to benefit from personal dialogue at such a session.

Accordingly, given the significance of the Shoreham low power license to the people of New York State, I hereby request -l.

that the opportunity be afforded my Special Counsel to appear personally before your Commission and orally argue in opposition the issuance of such a license. <

Ve y-truly yours,

" 'y Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman and Members 3

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, D. C. 20555 --

&bV'? ypp.

. . - . _ . _ . . . .- - . . . . _ . _ . . _:T i

1 UNITED STATES OF MERICA . ;

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lj j

'l In the Matter of ) i 1

) l LONG ICLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) DocketNo.(s) 50-322-OL-4 )

+

) !l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

-'i )

i Unit 1) ) I

) 1

) -

)

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j]

1i 41 I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing ' document (s)4 ,I t upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the .j

! Office of the Secretary of the Comission in this proceeding in accordance ,  ! ,

with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - Rules of Practice,  !

of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Rules and Regulations.

i J .I Dated at Washington, D.C. this j day of d 4/1 198 f . j

/t]&ll .bl&u?l&MJ Office of/the Secretary of the C6 mission

, i h y 'WW i

1 1

l id Sii

. y

l;

  • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
  • 1 In the Matter of ]~1

~

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OceketNo.(s) 50-3220L-4 I

. 1 (Shoreham, Unit 1) ) (Low Power) ,

) .  ;

) 1

)

i SERVICE LIST I

'i '

Marshall E. Miller, Esq. , Chairman W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.'

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton and Williams Ji j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 .

'.ji d

' {

Mr. Glenn O. Bright Edward M. Barrett, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Long Island Lighting Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission . 250 Old Country Road i

Washington, D.C. 20555 l Mineo15, New York, 11501 j

Ms. Elizabeth B. Johnson - '

Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 .

3 1 , j j Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board  !

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Herbert H. Brown, Esq.  !

Washington, D.C. Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq..

20555 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, I' Gary J. Edles Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C. '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 20036 Wushington., D.C. 20555 Honorable Peter Cohalan i Howard A. Wilber Suffolk County Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board County Executive / Legislative Building-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmdssion Veteran's Memorial Highway j Washington, D.C. Hauppauge, New York' 11788 20555

., j Mr. Martin Suuberg l Counsel for NRC Staff Office of. the Executive Legal Director c/o Congressman William Carney U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission 1113 Longworth House Office Building'  :

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington,'D.C 20515 8 j

. *' .: N[

.s

-. .. . . - . . . D

!i ,

Board and parties - continued 50-3220L-4 i

T.S. Ellis, III, Esq. I I

Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

. Hunton and Williams .

]

i P.O. Box 1535 .

Richmond, Virginia 23212 ,

l Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company -

175 East Olad Country Road Hicksville,, New York 11801 .

e James Dougherty, Esq.

3045 Porter Street, N.W. .

Washington, D.C. 200C8 Fabian Palomino, Esq. l Special Counsel to the Governor , j Executive Chamber, Room 229 5 tate Capitol  ;

j Albany, New York 12224 1 l

Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. '

Suffolk County Attorney i H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway '

Hauppauge, New York 11788 ,

~

Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq. l Atomic Safety and Lice'nsing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i

Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

. Twomey, Latham & Shea .

P.O. Box 398 .

Riverhead, New York 11901 Robert Abrams, Esq.

Attorney General New York Department of Law Two World Trade Center, Room 46-14

'New York, New York 10047

.]

.- @\

2 7,

A.

~

(O'l

' ~ ~ '*

  • 1 : l

%, UNITED STATES .

.S.C. .J.?. A ..

y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.L E -

3 l WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20E55

~

. f

\ .. / )

January 4, 1985.

    • l cn.y . ..

!-- ]

c: .: , u W . .

j di

-ll4 i The Honorable William Carney - - ': i United States House of p s JE.N 7 IE E ~i Representatives '

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Carney:

(

S Thank you for your letter to the Commission.of December 3,

, 1984. You stated your concern that the regulatory process )J regarding the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant should be fair to -;l l all parties. The Commission subscribes to that view; it is essential both that decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory 1 Commission be sound technically, thereby fulfilling its mandate to protect the health and safety of the public, and that its procedures assure fairness to all.,. '

j With regard to the particular substantive issue raised,in your '

letter (i.e., whether low power testing may proceed pending resolution of emergency planning issues), this is an issue in

controversy among the parties to the Shoreham adjudication. ,

You will understand, therefore, that the Commissioners' role as adjudicators in the proceeding means that they are barred from addressing the merits of that issue except in an adjudicatory I context on the record of the proceeding.

5l Sincerely, j4

~

4

l Herzel-H. E..Plaine General Counsel j,

j.'

i i

l g ',

, T-If .

9

- /p. % jo g UNITED STATES l

{

g j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I

l S l gyv<;prjf January 4, 198.5 .~

j

. :26 The Honorable Thomas J. Downey 1 United States House of, , j Representatives :i Washington, D.C. 20515 l

Dear Congressman Downey:

Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1984, which has been

. 11 referred to me for reply. In it, you recommended that the .';

Commission adopt the positions advocated by the State of New York and the County of Suffolk in the Shoreham operating i license proceeding, and also asked that the Commission grant the request of those parties for oral argument before the Commission.

The Commission subscribes to the view that in administering the regulatory process, it must be fa.ir to all parties; and that s

its decisions must be sound technically, thereby fulfilling its

, mandate to protect the health and safety of the public,.

With regard to the substantive issues you raise, these are matters in controversy among the parties to the Shoreham

, adjudication. I trust you will. understand, therefore, that'the Commissioners' role as adjudicators in the proceeding means that they are barred from addressing the merits of those issues

. except in an adjudicatory context on the record of the proceeding.

With respect to the one procedural issue you raised, the-Commission will weigh carefully whether its decisional process would be assisted by oral argument, in addition to the written submissionr of the parties.

Sincerely, ~

1 l

~

Her:el . E. Plaine General Counsel

't

]

, / A lh 3

I _

petoih7@T T - -

c. , .-

9 i

[(g E84  %,

g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 j WAfMINGTON. D. C. 20555

  • January 4,1985

'i :25

'f . u . .

~

H Mr.' John L. Behan I' Member of the Assembly State of New York '

Post Office Drawer R.R.R.

Montauk, New York 11954 d

Dear Assemblyman Behans. . ,

g Thank you for your letters of September 11 and Novemisr 1,  ;

1984, which have been referred to me for reply. In them you

- discuss issues in controversy in the Shoreham operating ,

, license proceeding and urge reversal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decicion authorizing low-power testing..

[ The Commission subscribes to the. view- that in administering

} the regulatory process, it must be fair to all. parties; and -

that its decisi,ons. must be sound technically, thereby. fulfill-ing its mandate to protect the health and safety of the public. . .

1 With regard to the substantive issues your letter discusses, I trust you will understand, therefore, that since these are matters to be resolved in the Shoreham adjudicative proceed-ing, the Commissioners' role as adjudicators in the proceeding means that they are barred from addressing the merits of'those issues except in an adjudicatory context on the record.of the proceeding.

Sincerely, A g ,3 9 Hers . E. Plaine l General Counsel ,

4 6

@W e

..; .. .. . . . . = . . . _ . . - - . -

z  ;

~, %l , ,, ,, _

C TlI 'bu i -1 W 4 THE ASSEMBLY j 1 STATE OF NEW YORK ,

,t ALBANY com urytsga -

j .) O H * ;.. SEMAN vgygmAms AnAsms 1 att Asseus61 DieTmicT ,.

TwtabA2A MAN, KING WINonNT MENsEm

. i P. o. omawest a n. a, ,

eovenwmentas oermAvious MowtAun. N.Y. stese ,

tseet eee-oese < ,. , mammswo m:meerTv mamsen moom 7 e ' tuvimommtwtA6 soweramtion LaeleLAvivt omes sul6cimo

. LOCA6 sovsamuswTo ALSANY, N.Y.13244

'~~ . OA "',% -

C otsTmicT omes November 1, 1984 -

3

~

Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman '

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

^

1 Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Palladino:

I have written to you'before concerning the licensing'of Given yesterday s the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

NRC licensing Board recommendation that the Long Island Lighting Company be given ap. proval to begin low-power '

. testing I must again voice my strongest objections  !

to such NRC approval.

Major questions still remain unresolve'd with respect

to full-power licensing of the Shoreham facility.

t The most important of the unresolved questions concern evacuation planning and the emergency diesel gener,ators.  ;

I As you are well aware, Suffolk County and . the State i of - New York have .d e termined ,- based .upon the .best---

avillable evidence,' teat ~ the ' development 'of" an "'

emergency. response pla'n to assure the safety of Long 2MREAN4EBnd in the event of;a nuclear accident c.t Shoreham' '

iis ~ 4n impossibility. This was not an arbitrary and '

capricious finding, as NR'C actions would suggest, 6 hDV 84 At@ a sincere effort on the part of the governments.

.of Suffolk County ~ and the ' State to serve the ~ public interest by protecting the~public sa_fety.

Icid would be ill-advised :to dismiss the intent or the. ' commitment of the councy and- state with regard t6~ this issue. As Three- Mile Island has proven, '

accidents do and can .. happen. 'It is a real and instant

- th'reat, one which we do not take lightly and neither should the NRC.; , , 3

. ~. .. .

. ., J simply, serious There is, to put it quite s. legal cf question as to the status of an evacuation plan which H

. is neither sanctioned nor participated in by the. county -

I-or state. Both the President' and the Secretary of O

Energy . . have stated, and I quote from a letter . from 7 M /2 % isi N? ~"

~

, 2-Presidetit Reagan that .... this Administration does "

not favor the~ imposition of Federal Government Authority over the objections of state and local governments in matters regarding the adequacy of an emergency evacuacion plan...."

, However, as if the evacuation problen were not enough '

by itself, LILCO has also been unable to show that -

its em 'gency diesel generators can meet NRC safety requirements. In good conscience bow can the NRC license a plant when 'the f acility does not meet safety requirements imposed by the NRC itself.

i I find it abso1~utely mind-boggling that the NRC would - l compromise the physical safety of the people of Long Island for the economic safety of a utility. Public .

safety cannot and must not be compromise,d. , _ . , , . . _ ,

The ramifications involved with licensing S.horeham )

before these questions are resolved could have a o i

. 'profou6d negative impact upon Suffolk County. The
granting of a low-power license will allow ' LILCO to  : 3 load nuclear fuel. begin the nuclear chain and to ' ~).

reaction, with absolutely no assurance that full-power l licensing will be permitted. Or, has that decision been made already? -

i In my as t.imat. ion , the pivotal quasti.on is whather

~

l Shoreham will be granted a low-power license. If  !

so, I'm afraid that we on Long Island will be presented-with a . fait accompli, and a nuclear reactor which i is neither wanted nor needed will' be imposed upon l- us.

It has always been my belief that~ the NRC (formally

. the Atomic Enepgy Commission) was created on behalf of the public s safety and welfare. Instead, the .

NRC has become a' captive of the nuclear industry.

. You have the power and authority to change that.

, I urge you to act in the public interest and . reject the ASLB rei:ommendations of approval for a low-power license for. Shoreham. These vital issues must be addressed ' be'f ore any license is granted,- ob' nse

, and reason dictates no less.

4

, y .-

d, ~ g  !

f Assembly ember ,

e

,- /

l i

JLB:msm

/

Yj 3

e ,

a k

' p0 l

l '

._ . . . , h

? . q -

i OFFICE OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE cou,,n . ,.o , m .. _

i eeune 1 i

  • 4 V5NAC i) 15 J N -2 A11 :17 $ t!
j q WEUAM H. RCOEMS .ad f

'"** - 8AMCH t'i JOYCE P.RoGMC +

SERVED JAN 21985 '

1 l JoHM CHAmust I' envre cosna .]

G d

j a i Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET PR O D. C. UT8flu!90ER L F/.C..*. . . . g. , ' 3..g g- [ g];p l Washington, D. C. 20555 #+ l

":Q;fifj}

Dear Mr. Palladino:

. , ; g;,z t of the Suffolk . , .

5h This Cour.tyis to advise that Legislature heldaton a regular meetins$4, December 11, 19 the follow- 'p.

ing motion on the Sense of the Legislature was taken and i approved by a majority of its members: 'Ok; Sense of the Legislature resolution requesting tha+

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit Suffolk ,

[y!'

County to present oral arguments opposing L11co'n 4}

request for a low power licarea N r * *. "hnr.M- -t Nuclear Power Plant.

'q 3

As Clerk of the Legislature, I have toen re'be>t"d *r ^7.

forward notification of this actior, to y wr ;frice. , y Very truly yours, .I E gf, g

~~

.i

]

i

' 'dil)iam H. Reger: y Clerk d-

~Q

i. l.i .

! 1'

_2001030 iso e501op --

Pb4 ADOCK 0 5000 '3 P, '

PDH

, yp
  • :)-J A $.$

^lf'h 2f.f......~,.,-....._...-,..r..

. .. s.

.v.

y,g j

..,. ,.c .

c % n , ev .

. . . . , . . ,,..m. ... .. . . ...e.,

, m., ,, e . . . ,

. j 1

__ 1

[__

r u mcw q 6,6, n e w s cr agect, ,

t s* 1

'~ '

SENSE OF THE LEGISLATURE RESOLUTION REQUEsitNG THAT THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PE.M[T ,

$UFFOLK COUNTY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS OPPOSING LILCO'S REQUEST FOR A LOW POWER LICENSE

, FOR THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

! l*j <

( d.k j

l WEREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering Lilco's request for a license '

i to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant at. low power levels; and a

-2 l WEREAS, the County Legislature by Resolution dated November 27, 1984, stated the j

( County's opposition to the issuance of such low power license; and Qt:;

I t WEREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied the request of Suffolk County and 4 New York State to present oral arguments to the Commission as to why Shoreham shculd --

U not be issued a low power license; and W3

~

d1 WEREAS, Suffolk County and New York State have formally requested the Nuclear Regulatory:P Commission to reconsider and reverse its denial of such oral arguments; and WHEREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission has previously stated in its own argur.cnts' N to'the U.S. Court of Appeals that the NRC gives " great weight" to the views of elected Ji '

governments in fixing where the "public interest" lies; and J i

WiEREAS, the Governor of New York and the Suffolk County Goverment have determred through extensive analyses and responsible governmental decision making that the.public l interest lies in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's denial of a low power licensd for yl Shoreham; and -

jj l WHEREAS, the Governor of New York and the L ffolk % nty S . e'. o -.t:t . .. l have the NRC give " great weight" to their viev:s on where the "public interest" lies: 9!

and to inform the NRC of such facts through the effective medium of o.al argurer.ts; $

now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Suffolk County Legislature demands that the Nuclear Pegulater 4 Comission provide Suffolk County and New York State with tre occortunity t tr en d oral arguments as to why the NRC should deny Lilco's rewst to c:.cota Pe W -- . -

plant at low power levels; and be it further 1

RESOLVE 0, that counsel appearing for the County in the V- :- o;. e,~-- i Shoreham pr:ccedings promptly transmit a copy of thi; .~*

'r 1 of the Nuclear Regulatory Cor.nission and other appropr- *

. .f

nE .
. .m.,. .., m.  ;

i

,[ t

~

?

1: _

s.

i t_____ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215L232&oldid=3234260"