ML19351C812: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 14: Line 14:
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO NRC
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO NRC
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:-
{{#Wiki_filter:-
.        i a
i a
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
                                                    ?%
?%
4 QF DAVID J. GILMARTIN COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
4QF DAVID J. GILMARTIN COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
                                                                                                - \YM 00CKU tid 7JBER   y                                             *                    '
- \\YM 00CKU tid 7JBER y
                                                                                                                  \
\\
PF0F05ED BULE               dJ                                         '          '
PF0F05ED BULE dJ M F A 4 6 1o ()
M F A 4 6 1o ()                                                   ....                  2 Secretary of the Commission                                         .i           k OD D
2 k OD D Secretary of the Commission
                                                                                                                    }
.i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission V'!h
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                           V'!h Washington, D.C. 20555                                                             I Swc ,
}
Attention: Docketing & Service Branch                                                         7
Washington, D.C. 20555 I Sw,
                                                                                              */., n. . ,A Re: Proposed Annex to Appendix D of 10CFR Part 50
c 7
Attention: Docketing & Service Branch
*/., n..,A Re:
Proposed Annex to Appendix D of 10CFR Part 50


==Dear Sir:==
==Dear Sir:==
On behalf of the County of Suffolk, a neutral intervenor in the NRC Nuclear Licensing Proceedings for the LILCO nuclear facility at Shoreham, Case 50-322, I would like to address the following comn. ants to the proposed Rule:
On behalf of the County of Suffolk, a neutral intervenor in the NRC Nuclear Licensing Proceedings for the LILCO nuclear facility at Shoreham, Case 50-322, I would like to address the following comn. ants to the proposed Rule:
: 1)   The distinction between construction permit and operating license applications contained in the proposed regu-lation is superfluous for purposes of determining the NEPA deties that attach to an agency at a given time.           If the analysis concerning the possible environmental impact related to Class 9 accidents needs to be done, there should be no time limit attached thereto. It is the County's contention, therefore, that the Rule change should not automatically exempt applications in the OL stage.
1)
: 2)   Should the distinction continue, each individual case should be considered. Consequently, in the case of Shoreham, the status of the applicant should not be placed technically in the OL exempt stage because the SER has yet to be issued, and the operation date is almost 3 years away.         In fact, both dates for said events are not yet firm.                                                        .
The distinction between construction permit and operating license applications contained in the proposed regu-lation is superfluous for purposes of determining the NEPA deties that attach to an agency at a given time.
i
If the analysis concerning the possible environmental impact related to Class 9 accidents needs to be done, there should be no time limit attached thereto.
: 3)   There are significant factors relating to the Shoreham                                     .i nuclear power plant that qualify it for consideration of Class 9 Accidents, including the following:
It is the County's contention, therefore, that the Rule change should not automatically exempt applications in the OL stage.
                                                                                                                /
2)
g{[I 1
Should the distinction continue, each individual case should be considered. Consequently, in the case of Shoreham, the status of the applicant should not be placed technically in the OL exempt stage because the SER has yet to be issued, and the operation date is almost 3 years away.
Ackncwiedge.d by card? }. . ./..M. .a .n. .a.y) u      ..
In fact, both dates for said events are not yet firm.
8.eloosolM v;TER ANS MEMORI AL HGHW AY           W           HAUPPAUGE.NEW YORK 11787               e                 (5163979-2485
i 3)
There are significant factors relating to the Shoreham
.i g{[I nuclear power plant that qualify it for consideration of Class 9 Accidents, including the following:
/
1'''
}.../..M..a.n..a.y)
Ackncwiedge.d by card?
u 8.eloosolM v;TER ANS MEMORI AL HGHW AY W
HAUPPAUGE.NEW YORK 11787 e
(5163979-2485


f
f f
  ,    f
. o i
          . o i     ,    o
o s
!  s i
i l
l Secretary of the Commission                   August 14, 1980 a)   The age of the Shoreham NSSS and plant design; b)   The failure of the plant to be designed for a Class 9 Accident; c)   Groundwater problems; d)   Emergency Planning problems relating to.the plant's
Secretary of the Commission August 14, 1980 a)
!                        siting on the east end of an island; e}   The failure to account for the unique meteorology of the coastal site; f)   The possible detrimental impact of an accident on the local economy, specifically agriculture and tourism, and the economic and sociological impact of the clean-up of the disabled plant.
The age of the Shoreham NSSS and plant design; b)
The failure of the plant to be designed for a Class 9 Accident; c)
Groundwater problems; d)
Emergency Planning problems relating to.the plant's siting on the east end of an island; e}
The failure to account for the unique meteorology of the coastal site; f)
The possible detrimental impact of an accident on the local economy, specifically agriculture and tourism, and the economic and sociological impact of the clean-up of the disabled plant.
Since the proposed Rule change is now based on a recommendation that Class 9 Accidents are possible, for all of the foregoing reasons, Shoreham is an appropriate plant for consideration of the possible consequences of a Class 9 Accident in the context of its Environmental Impact Statement.
Since the proposed Rule change is now based on a recommendation that Class 9 Accidents are possible, for all of the foregoing reasons, Shoreham is an appropriate plant for consideration of the possible consequences of a Class 9 Accident in the context of its Environmental Impact Statement.
l Very truly yours, NE           -
l Very truly yours, NE l
l                                                    PATRICIA A. DEMPSEY l                                                   Assistant County Attorney PAD:ek l
PATRICIA A. DEMPSEY l
l l
Assistant County Attorney PAD:ek l
1 l
1
                                                                                ,}}
,}}

Latest revision as of 18:35, 23 December 2024

Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 51:if Analysis Re Possible Environ Impact of Class 9 Accidents Is Required, Time Limit Should Be Attached.Rule Change Should Not Automatically Exempt Applications in OL Stage
ML19351C812
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 08/14/1980
From: Dempsey P
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-45FR40101, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 45FR40101-9, NUDOCS 8010080121
Download: ML19351C812 (2)
v • d • e


Text

-

i a

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

?%

4QF DAVID J. GILMARTIN COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW

- \\YM 00CKU tid 7JBER y

\\

PF0F05ED BULE dJ M F A 4 6 1o ()

2 k OD D Secretary of the Commission

.i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission V'!h

}

Washington, D.C. 20555 I Sw,

c 7

Attention: Docketing & Service Branch

  • /., n..,A Re:

Proposed Annex to Appendix D of 10CFR Part 50

Dear Sir:

On behalf of the County of Suffolk, a neutral intervenor in the NRC Nuclear Licensing Proceedings for the LILCO nuclear facility at Shoreham, Case 50-322, I would like to address the following comn. ants to the proposed Rule:

1)

The distinction between construction permit and operating license applications contained in the proposed regu-lation is superfluous for purposes of determining the NEPA deties that attach to an agency at a given time.

If the analysis concerning the possible environmental impact related to Class 9 accidents needs to be done, there should be no time limit attached thereto.

It is the County's contention, therefore, that the Rule change should not automatically exempt applications in the OL stage.

2)

Should the distinction continue, each individual case should be considered. Consequently, in the case of Shoreham, the status of the applicant should not be placed technically in the OL exempt stage because the SER has yet to be issued, and the operation date is almost 3 years away.

In fact, both dates for said events are not yet firm.

i 3)

There are significant factors relating to the Shoreham

.i g{[I nuclear power plant that qualify it for consideration of Class 9 Accidents, including the following:

/

1

}.../..M..a.n..a.y)

Ackncwiedge.d by card?

u 8.eloosolM v;TER ANS MEMORI AL HGHW AY W

HAUPPAUGE.NEW YORK 11787 e

(5163979-2485

f f

. o i

o s

i l

Secretary of the Commission August 14, 1980 a)

The age of the Shoreham NSSS and plant design; b)

The failure of the plant to be designed for a Class 9 Accident; c)

Groundwater problems; d)

Emergency Planning problems relating to.the plant's siting on the east end of an island; e}

The failure to account for the unique meteorology of the coastal site; f)

The possible detrimental impact of an accident on the local economy, specifically agriculture and tourism, and the economic and sociological impact of the clean-up of the disabled plant.

Since the proposed Rule change is now based on a recommendation that Class 9 Accidents are possible, for all of the foregoing reasons, Shoreham is an appropriate plant for consideration of the possible consequences of a Class 9 Accident in the context of its Environmental Impact Statement.

l Very truly yours, NE l

PATRICIA A. DEMPSEY l

Assistant County Attorney PAD:ek l

1

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19351C812&oldid=4693485"