Support for NRC & State of Ny 790427 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearings Submitted by Ecology Action of Oswego. Suggests Mod for Joint Hearings Discovery Process,Memo of Understanding,Schedule & Procedure for Joint MailingsML19225A358 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
New Haven |
---|
Issue date: |
06/11/1979 |
---|
From: |
Caplan B, Daly H ECOLOGY ACTION OF OSWEGO |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7907190083 |
Download: ML19225A358 (9) |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20002A2101980-10-16016 October 1980 Certifies Svc of Motion to Terminate Proceeding on 801016 ML20008E0211980-10-16016 October 1980 Motion to Terminate Proceeding Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility.Attempts to License nuclear-fueled Plants at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites Abandoned ML20008E0291980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting ML20008E0251980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility ML19340B3861980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdraws 781109 CP Application.Cites State of Ny Siting Board 800523 Denial of Motion for Rehearing of 791012 Order, Dismissing Case in Which Applicant Sought Certificate of Environ Compatibility & Public Need,As Prime Motivator ML19323H0361980-05-23023 May 1980 Order by State of Ny Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ,Denying Application for Rehearing.Proceeding Closed Due to Substantial Uncertainty About Facility Ownership. Related Correspondence ML19260C3971979-12-0303 December 1979 Reply in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re Ny State Siting Board Dismissal of Proceeding. Applicants Failed to State New Arguments.No Beneficial Purpose Will Be Served by Rehearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8871979-11-21021 November 1979 Statement in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re ASLB Order Dismissing Application.Applicants Failed to Establish Present Intention to Build Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A2321979-11-20020 November 1979 Notice by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ.Replies to Utils' Application for Rehearing of ASLB Order Dismissing Application for Certificate of Environ Compatibility Will Be Accepted If Filed by 791203 ML19210E7551979-11-12012 November 1979 Requests for Reversal of Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ 791012 Dismissal of Application Or,If Reversal Denied,For Rehearing.Ownership of Proposed Station Did Not Constitute Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal ML19253C1931979-10-29029 October 1979 Motion for Indefinite Delay in Proceeding.Case 80008 Before Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismissed on 791012.Urges Deferral Until Applicants' Motion for Case 80008 Rehearing Decided.Ny State Order Encl ML19250C3801979-10-17017 October 1979 Notice to Parties by State of Ny Board on Electric Generating Siting & State Environ Dept of Public Svc. Contrary to Board 791001 Order Re Discussion of Application, Proceeding Will Continue & PASNY 791016 Argument Considered ML19209D0631979-10-12012 October 1979 Order Dismissing Application by Ny State Electric & Gas Corp & Lilco for Certificate of Environ Compability & Public Need to Construct Plant.Applicants Have Not Demonstrated Statewide Need for Facility ML19260A4261979-10-12012 October 1979 Order by State of Ny Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismissing Ny State Electric & Gas Corp & Lilco Application for Environ Capability Certificate & for Public Need to Construct Facility ML19254E6481979-10-0202 October 1979 Notice Issued by Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ of Ny Dept of Public Svc Re Util Application for Certificate of Environ Compatibility.Public Meeting Will Be Held 791012 in Albany,Ny,Re Termination of Proceeding ML19210B7681979-10-0101 October 1979 Memorandum on Standing of County of Columbia,Town of Stuyvesant,Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy & Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents.Members Reside in Geographic Vicinity & Involved in Specialized Ny Electric Energy Issues ML19259D3941979-10-0101 October 1979 Suppl to Petition to Intervene Submitting Revised Contentions.Includes Allegation That Assessment & Other Related Matters Re Alternative Fuel Sources,Submitted by Applicant to Nrc,Are Inadequate ML19275A5151979-08-16016 August 1979 Opposes Briefs of Intervenors State of Ny Atty General, Public Svc Commission & Ecology Action of Oswego Submittal in Response to Util Brief in Opposition to Interlocutory Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209A9321979-08-0606 August 1979 Response to State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation, Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Comments Re State of Ny Public Svc Commission 790725 Recommendations.W/Certificate of Svc ML19253B2991979-08-0606 August 1979 Answers Util 790725 & Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Responses to Public Svc Commission 790710 Order Re Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego Motion for Dismissal of Application.Urges Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML19209B8591979-08-0303 August 1979 Brief Submitted by Intervenor State of Ny in Response to Util 790725 Brief.Supports Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal Re Dismissal of Util 781122 Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209A5781979-08-0202 August 1979 Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Response Inadequate.Requests ASLB Expand Geographical Area Under Consideration,Based on Radiation Measured During Actual Event ML19209B4381979-08-0202 August 1979 Town of Gardiner,Ny Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re Town of Gardiner 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Recommend Town of Gardiner as Intervenor & Extend Intervention Limit from 50 to 200 Miles ML19208C3741979-07-25025 July 1979 Brief in Opposition to Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego 790426 Interlocutory Appeal Re 790413 Denial of Motion to Dismiss Application.Applicant Should Have Opportunity to Prove Case.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19253B3511979-07-23023 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenor Town of Kinderhook,That Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismiss Util Application.Grounds for Dismissal Thoroughly Stated by Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego ML19209B3751979-07-23023 July 1979 Brief on Behalf of Town of Kinderhook Recommending That Application for OL Be Dismissed for Reasons Stated by Ecology Action of Oswego & Ny State Public Svc Commission ML19208C3701979-07-16016 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,For Extension to File Supplemental Memo & for Investigation Into Applicant Intentions to Pursue Application ML19208C3281979-07-13013 July 1979 Memorandum Submitted by Applicant Re Standing of Intervenors Citizens for Safe Energy,Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Ulster County Environ Mgt Council & Town of Gardiner.Responds to E Mead & Town of Conesville 790619 Petition ML19261E7471979-07-11011 July 1979 Order Certifying Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego 790426 Interlocutory Apppeal to Ny State Board for Electric Siting & Environ W/Recommendation for Dismissal of CP Proceedings. Application Is Premature & Legally Insufficient ML19207B4741979-07-10010 July 1979 Statement of State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Per 16NYCRR70.20.Lists Alternate Sites & Modes of Generation. Fossil Alternative Site Must Be Considered in Conjunction W/Use of refuse-derived Fuel ML19275A0741979-07-0505 July 1979 Notice Per 16NYCRR70.20.Columbia County,Ny,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Will Testify Re Alternate Site,Facilities & Source of Power as Discussed in Draft Eis.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19207B5561979-06-27027 June 1979 Comments by State of Ny Dept of Public Svc on Proposed Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings Before NRC & Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Issue. Identification Should Occur After Issuance of Des ML19276G6081979-06-26026 June 1979 Reaffirms 790611 Comments.Application Is Summary of Util Findings & Conclusions.Nrc & Intervenors Must Develop Record on Which Siting Board Will Make Final Decision ML19247A8531979-06-26026 June 1979 Response to Util 790611 Proposed Joint Protocol & Discovery Rules Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy.Definitions of Issues Violate NRC Rules ML19208C6421979-06-20020 June 1979 Interlocutory Appeal on Denial of 790320 Motion for Dismissal.Case 80008 Should Be Dismissed for Reasons Set by Ecology Action of Oswego ML19225C7461979-06-19019 June 1979 Resolution Authorizing County Legislature Chairman to File W/Nrc Appropriate Petition & Other Documents on Behalf of County,So as to Become party-at-interest Re Ny State Electric & Gas Co Application for Two Nuclear Units ML19241C0051979-06-14014 June 1979 Intervention Statement Offered at 790614 Public Comment Session ML19225A3581979-06-11011 June 1979 Support for NRC & State of Ny 790427 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearings Submitted by Ecology Action of Oswego. Suggests Mod for Joint Hearings Discovery Process,Memo of Understanding,Schedule & Procedure for Joint Mailings ML19225C1051979-06-11011 June 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Reply to Comments Offered by Various Parties at 790523 Prehearing Conference on Proposed Joint Protocol in Case 80008 ML19224D7131979-05-31031 May 1979 Certification That 790319 Petition to Intervene & 790510 Contentions Truly Set Forth Position of Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Inc ML19241B3301979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions Re Site Selection.Util Has Underestimated Multiple Generation Units,Has Not Considered Proximity to Schools & Has Discriminated Against Rural Populace ML19241B3331979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions of Safe Energy for New Haven Re Environ Matters. Util Inadequately Determined Energy Needs,Has Not Performed Sufficient Research on Alternative Sources of Energy & Has Not Assessed Impact of Accident or Kv Lines ML19241B1221979-05-18018 May 1979 Initial Util Answer to Intervenor Contentions.Identifies Contentions Which Can Be Presented Unopposed at 790523 Prehearing Conference.Seeks ASLB Extension for Filing Supplemental Answers.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224B8681979-05-11011 May 1979 Submits 40 Contentions as Suppl to Petition to Intervene Re Need for Addl Power,Consideration of Alternatives,Site Selection Process,Impact on Existing Health Facilities, Financial Capacity & Effect on High Voltage Transmissions ML19242A4251979-05-11011 May 1979 Amend to 790313 Petition to Intervene,Adding New Considerations ML19269E3671979-05-10010 May 1979 Submits Specific Contentions Re Environ & Radiological Concerns.Assessment of Impact on Farmland Is Inadequate Re Estimation of Value & Use of Land & Adverse Impact of Dust, Noise,Litter & Traffic on Area Agriculture ML19242A6381979-05-0909 May 1979 Resolution 112 Objecting to Location of Public Hearings Outside of County ML19224B8141979-05-0707 May 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Response to Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Motion for Dismissal of Application.Recommends Denial of Appeal ML19224B7091979-05-0404 May 1979 Request by Util for Denial of 790313 Petitions to Intervene. Filed by Town of Gardner & Ulster County Environ Mgt Council.Petitions Lack Standing & Fail to Justify Discretionary Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224B7001979-04-27027 April 1979 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearing Before NRC & Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Re Common Issues in Const Applications of Long Island Lighting Co & Ny State Elec & Gas Corp 1980-05-23
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20008E0251980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility ML20008E0211980-10-16016 October 1980 Motion to Terminate Proceeding Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility.Attempts to License nuclear-fueled Plants at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites Abandoned ML20008E0291980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting ML19260C3971979-12-0303 December 1979 Reply in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re Ny State Siting Board Dismissal of Proceeding. Applicants Failed to State New Arguments.No Beneficial Purpose Will Be Served by Rehearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8871979-11-21021 November 1979 Statement in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re ASLB Order Dismissing Application.Applicants Failed to Establish Present Intention to Build Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19210E7551979-11-12012 November 1979 Requests for Reversal of Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ 791012 Dismissal of Application Or,If Reversal Denied,For Rehearing.Ownership of Proposed Station Did Not Constitute Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal ML19253C1931979-10-29029 October 1979 Motion for Indefinite Delay in Proceeding.Case 80008 Before Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismissed on 791012.Urges Deferral Until Applicants' Motion for Case 80008 Rehearing Decided.Ny State Order Encl ML19210B7681979-10-0101 October 1979 Memorandum on Standing of County of Columbia,Town of Stuyvesant,Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy & Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents.Members Reside in Geographic Vicinity & Involved in Specialized Ny Electric Energy Issues ML19259D3941979-10-0101 October 1979 Suppl to Petition to Intervene Submitting Revised Contentions.Includes Allegation That Assessment & Other Related Matters Re Alternative Fuel Sources,Submitted by Applicant to Nrc,Are Inadequate ML19275A5151979-08-16016 August 1979 Opposes Briefs of Intervenors State of Ny Atty General, Public Svc Commission & Ecology Action of Oswego Submittal in Response to Util Brief in Opposition to Interlocutory Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209A9321979-08-0606 August 1979 Response to State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation, Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Comments Re State of Ny Public Svc Commission 790725 Recommendations.W/Certificate of Svc ML19253B2991979-08-0606 August 1979 Answers Util 790725 & Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Responses to Public Svc Commission 790710 Order Re Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego Motion for Dismissal of Application.Urges Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML19209B4381979-08-0202 August 1979 Town of Gardiner,Ny Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re Town of Gardiner 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Recommend Town of Gardiner as Intervenor & Extend Intervention Limit from 50 to 200 Miles ML19209A5781979-08-0202 August 1979 Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Response Inadequate.Requests ASLB Expand Geographical Area Under Consideration,Based on Radiation Measured During Actual Event ML19253B3511979-07-23023 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenor Town of Kinderhook,That Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismiss Util Application.Grounds for Dismissal Thoroughly Stated by Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego ML19208C3701979-07-16016 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,For Extension to File Supplemental Memo & for Investigation Into Applicant Intentions to Pursue Application ML19208C3281979-07-13013 July 1979 Memorandum Submitted by Applicant Re Standing of Intervenors Citizens for Safe Energy,Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Ulster County Environ Mgt Council & Town of Gardiner.Responds to E Mead & Town of Conesville 790619 Petition ML19207B4741979-07-10010 July 1979 Statement of State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Per 16NYCRR70.20.Lists Alternate Sites & Modes of Generation. Fossil Alternative Site Must Be Considered in Conjunction W/Use of refuse-derived Fuel ML19207B5561979-06-27027 June 1979 Comments by State of Ny Dept of Public Svc on Proposed Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings Before NRC & Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Issue. Identification Should Occur After Issuance of Des ML19276G6081979-06-26026 June 1979 Reaffirms 790611 Comments.Application Is Summary of Util Findings & Conclusions.Nrc & Intervenors Must Develop Record on Which Siting Board Will Make Final Decision ML19247A8531979-06-26026 June 1979 Response to Util 790611 Proposed Joint Protocol & Discovery Rules Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy.Definitions of Issues Violate NRC Rules ML19208C6421979-06-20020 June 1979 Interlocutory Appeal on Denial of 790320 Motion for Dismissal.Case 80008 Should Be Dismissed for Reasons Set by Ecology Action of Oswego ML19225C7461979-06-19019 June 1979 Resolution Authorizing County Legislature Chairman to File W/Nrc Appropriate Petition & Other Documents on Behalf of County,So as to Become party-at-interest Re Ny State Electric & Gas Co Application for Two Nuclear Units ML19241C0051979-06-14014 June 1979 Intervention Statement Offered at 790614 Public Comment Session ML19225C1051979-06-11011 June 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Reply to Comments Offered by Various Parties at 790523 Prehearing Conference on Proposed Joint Protocol in Case 80008 ML19225A3581979-06-11011 June 1979 Support for NRC & State of Ny 790427 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearings Submitted by Ecology Action of Oswego. Suggests Mod for Joint Hearings Discovery Process,Memo of Understanding,Schedule & Procedure for Joint Mailings ML19241B3301979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions Re Site Selection.Util Has Underestimated Multiple Generation Units,Has Not Considered Proximity to Schools & Has Discriminated Against Rural Populace ML19241B3331979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions of Safe Energy for New Haven Re Environ Matters. Util Inadequately Determined Energy Needs,Has Not Performed Sufficient Research on Alternative Sources of Energy & Has Not Assessed Impact of Accident or Kv Lines ML19241B1221979-05-18018 May 1979 Initial Util Answer to Intervenor Contentions.Identifies Contentions Which Can Be Presented Unopposed at 790523 Prehearing Conference.Seeks ASLB Extension for Filing Supplemental Answers.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224B8681979-05-11011 May 1979 Submits 40 Contentions as Suppl to Petition to Intervene Re Need for Addl Power,Consideration of Alternatives,Site Selection Process,Impact on Existing Health Facilities, Financial Capacity & Effect on High Voltage Transmissions ML19242A4251979-05-11011 May 1979 Amend to 790313 Petition to Intervene,Adding New Considerations ML19269E3671979-05-10010 May 1979 Submits Specific Contentions Re Environ & Radiological Concerns.Assessment of Impact on Farmland Is Inadequate Re Estimation of Value & Use of Land & Adverse Impact of Dust, Noise,Litter & Traffic on Area Agriculture ML19242A6381979-05-0909 May 1979 Resolution 112 Objecting to Location of Public Hearings Outside of County ML19224B8141979-05-0707 May 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Response to Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Motion for Dismissal of Application.Recommends Denial of Appeal ML19224B7091979-05-0404 May 1979 Request by Util for Denial of 790313 Petitions to Intervene. Filed by Town of Gardner & Ulster County Environ Mgt Council.Petitions Lack Standing & Fail to Justify Discretionary Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A6871979-04-0303 April 1979 Answer Seeking Denial of 790319 Petition to Intervene Filed by Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Inc.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A7021979-03-20020 March 1979 Answer to Intervention Petitions of Various Groups,Including Ny State Energy Ofc,Oswego County Farm Bureau,Ecology Action & Safe Energy for New Haven.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A6771979-03-19019 March 1979 Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents' Petition to Intervene as Full Party Re Alternate Site Considerations,Need for Facility, Financial Qualifications of Applicants & Cost of Proposed Plant ML19224A6981979-03-16016 March 1979 Petitions to Intervene in Proceeding.Asserts Health & Safety Will Be Adversely Affected by Plant ML19224A6831979-03-12012 March 1979 Petition to Intervene,Submitted by Columbia County,Ny,Town of Stuyvesant,Ny & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,Inc ML19224A6851979-03-12012 March 1979 Supports Petition to Intervene Submitted by Columbia County, Ny,Town of Stuyvesant,Ny & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,Inc.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A6991979-03-0808 March 1979 Petitions to Intervene in Proceeding.Asserts Health & Safety Will Be Adversely Affected by Plant ML19224A5971979-03-0505 March 1979 Ny State Energy Ofc'S Petition to Participate as Interested State.Certificate of Svc Encl 1980-10-16
[Table view] |
Text
.State of New York Bosrd on Elcctric Ceneration Siting Case No. 80008 and the Environment nited States of America
.Dockets 50-596-597
.,uclear Regulatory Commission In the Matter of
))E0 PUBLIC DOGUqas 1:0"' '?
i;ew York State Electric & Gas
)and Long Island Lighting Co. -
)New Haven /Stuyvesant, nuclear / coal f generating facility application
))June 11, 1979 COMMENTS BY ECOLOGY ACTION OF OSWEGO 032 ADOPTION OF PROPOSED SCHEDULE, PROPOSED JOINT PROTCCOL TO GOVERN CONDUCT OF HEARINGS, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTA'CDING BETWEEN THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENEPATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, PROPOSED RULES OF DISCOVERY. AND PROCDURE FOR JOINT MAILINGS Eackground.
On April 27, 1979, attorneys for the DPS, DEC, and NRC staf fs circulated a proposed Protocol for the Conduct of Joint Hearings to " avoid unnecessary duplication, thereby expediting the decision-making process and reducing the time, effort, and costs which would otherwise be incurred by the parties were separate proceeding held" (p. 1).
We wholeheartedly agree with these goals, and our suggested modifications for the joint hearin;;s, discovery process, memorandum of understanding, and schedule are aimed at reaching these goals, as well as the goals of establishing an honest, complete, and up-to-date record upon which to make the final cost / benefit analysis and balancing test between need and environmental compatibility.
We agree with the Siting Board in Case 80005: the decision cust be made on the "best available evidence. . . that exists at the time a decision is required" (Jan. 11, 1978, Opinion and Order, p. 25).
Cl) 9%&'b'ocarm//usuc JUN 151979 >
A: t g'e~-Ci 09 A*"-3 sae g p ,*\c.N l9071000S$
'2 I.PROPOSED SCHEDULE A.Current Proposed Schedules 1 2 Safety Review Joint Hearings SER Aug. 29, 1980 DES April 1, 1980 SER suppl.Jan. 23, 1981 FES Aug.1, 1980 Hearings Feb. 24, 1981 Hearings Sept. 1, 1980 Decision July 8, 1981 Decision Oct.1, 1981 3 Utility Dates Target date May, 1992 Capacity Reliability May, 1994 Date Construction 1984 Start (or 1986 to meet capacity reliability date, derived by extrapolation)
B.1994 More Realistic Target Date than 1992: Preposed Decision Date is Premature The capacity reliability date (formerly called delayed construction schedule in the 149-b Reports) has been shown to be closer to the actual date than the target date for other proposed plants.
Thus, we can anticipate construction to begin in 1986 or later.
A decision is not needed, therefore, until
- r. hat time period. An Oct. 1981 decision is five or more years prior to the utilities more realistic proposed construction start.
Even given the utilities' 1984 proposed construction start, the 1981 proposed decision' date is three years early.
C.SER Schedule is Delayed In a June 4, 1979 telephone conversation with Mr. Olin Parr of the NRC, Ecology Action of Oswego learned that the SER schedule is under review due to the 3 Mile Island accident, and that it looks as if at the very minimum a three month celay can be anticipated.
The NRC hopes to have a better idea of the magnitude of
~the slip in about one month.
I Letter of April 24, '979 from Mr. Roger Boyd, NRC, to Mr. Allen Kintigh, NYSEG.
, Letter of Ar.11 2 1979, f rom DPS and DEC staf f to Hearing Examiners and ASLB.
3 SEO 1979 Report (5-112), volume 2.( 1 }';i i..)) .]"
3 D.SER Publication and Decision must be Complete Prior to Publication of
~the DES and Joint Hearings The SER publication and decision cust be completed prior to release of the DES since so many aspects of the DES, FES, and subsequent hearings rest on conclusions in the SER.
For example, how can cost of the plants be determined until all safety requirements have been determined, especially since the 3 Mile Island accident.Since conclusions and recommendations are made in the DES, the SER publication and decision must be made prior to the DES publication.
E.Icplications of Prcrature Joint Hearing Scl.edule A precature SER, DES, FES, discovery, and hearing will result in the developnent of at outdated record at the time the final decision is required.
Th e issues which would need to be reheard are numerous and serious, many which tight ultimately decide acceptance or rejection of the proposed nuclent plants (e . g . , cost, viable alternatives, need, etc.).
The costliness of rehearing issues to update the record is great, especially considering the alternative of not developing the initial record prematurely.
The purpose of the Joint Protocol is to reduce time, effort, and cost - a precature hearing schedule will eliminate the attaincent of these goals.
F.Conclusion Since utility spokespeople have complained about the length fram filing an application to the end of hearings in Article VIII proceedings, and since the utility has slipped construction start and startup of the proposed facility by one year since filing the application, they have placed the Examiners and Siting Board in an untenable position:
If they stay within the 18-24 month ti=cframe they will be accused of caking a final decision on a dated and incomplete record; if they delay the start of hearings in order to have a current record at the time of
'final decision, they will be accused of delay.
The logical conclusion is for the Examiners the Board to ic=ediaticy dismiss the case due to premature filing of the application, given the slip in the schedule by the Applicant since
~. i G' I,"?-Jaa c 4 1 docketing.
Applicant should be told to stop filing prematurely if it wants rapid decisions, and to only rubmit timely applications with applicants who know it is beneficial to participate in the plant (see Interlocutory Appeal by Ecology Action, April 26, 3979).
II.PROPOSED JOINT HEARING PROTOCOL A." separate rulings by each body shall be made thereon" (p. 4)
We find this procedure to be superior to the one proposed at the May 23, 1979 prehearing conference. An active response of agreement rather than a passive nonresponse by the alternate hearing examiners will lead to a superior record.We want to ensure that the alternate hea.ing examiners be given sufficient time to make a decision on each ruling.
We can only be sure that they have come to a decision if it is actively expressed on the record: a nonresponse could either mean agreement or that a decision has not yet been made.
B."Approximately one month af ter NRC issuance of the DES, . . .the parties to the Article VIII proceeding, other than the applicants, shall be required to exchange statements of specific issues believed to be contested." (p. 6)"The presiding Examiner shall atempt to narrow the contested issues prior to the evidentiary hearings and, af ter consultation with the Associate Examiner, shall issue an order listing those issues which may be litigated by parties in the Article VIII proceeding." (p. 6)
The Applicant filed under the old Article VIII law, thus the procedures developed in hearings under the old law should be followed.
All issues to determine need and environmental compatibility must be raised to develop an adequate record so the Board can make the req.; ired balancing test.
Since the old law does not require narrowing of the issues, only the new law does, no party should be restricted in its ability to raise issues.
Section V.B of the proposed joint hearing protocol must be deleted.
.f JoJ c 25 a i 5 C.Conduct of Evidentiary Hearing;"Af ter an adequate pe .iod for full discovery of the Applicant's Direct Case," (p. 10)
It is not clear whether this refers solely to direct testimony filed with the application or whether further direct testimony from the Applicant is to be expected.
This can have significant impact on the schedule and must be clarified.
D.Conduct of Evidentiary Hearings"An evidentiary hearing shall begin for examination of all witnesses presenting testimony and exhibits on that contention issue." (p. 10) filed under the old Article VIII law, thus the procedures The Applican e developed in hearings under the old law should be followed.
The r e f ore , the following procedures should be used:
1.Direct case and testimony of Applicant ecvering all aspects upon which the Board cust make the final balancing test filed first (Appli' ant can identify which parts of the testitony concern NRC contentions) 2.Cross by parties 3.Direct case of parties 4.Cross of parties' direct case 5.All rebuttal testimony filed 6.Cross of rebuttal testimony 7.Briefs 8.Reply briefs E.Cooperation Among Agency Staffs"The staffs (NRC, DPS, DEC) shall consult each other in conducting their analyses and in preparing for, and participating in, the joint hearing." (p. 12)
The FRC, DPS, and DEC staffs were constituted as independent staffs, each with their indepe-lent purposes.
Consultation with regard to analyses will jeopardize the development of an adequate unbiased record.
Each staf f cust be allowed to carry out its analyses unbiased by the opinions of other staf f.
The procedures proposed on page 12 will avoid differences of opinion to be developed on the record which may be genuine.
The Board should know the original positions
.of staff prior to reaching of any compromise position, and the extent of the dif ferences cust be fully disclosed to the other parties and the Board.
We can find no positive purpose in this consultation process - but serious drawbacks in arriving at the truth.,gg_, .. ,[)I,j LUV 6 F.Participation"A party to the NRC proceeding may be represented only in accordance with 10 CFR g 2.713(a)." (p. 11)
We hope that the ASLB will allow other than an attorney or member of intervenor's group to participate.
What we have in mind is that under some circunstances another person, such as an expert witness, might expedite the hearing process by cross examining a witness of the applicant (as was allowed in the Nine Mile f2 hearings).
Such an allowance could only benefit the record.
III.MARCH, 1979, MEMORANT)UM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN NEM YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING Aht THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE DEPARTMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR REG"LaTORY COMMISSION In March, 1979, a Memorandum of Understanding between DPS, DEC, and the NRC was agreed to, setting forth " mutually acceptib' iceels of cooperation between the State of New York and NRC related to providing F.RC with specific technical of the DPS staf f in the preparation of designated sections of the NRC's support DES and FES" (p. 1).
They will provide "servicca involving analysis, evaluation and written caterial. . . to reduce duplication, provide for more ef fective use of resource and percit a more orderly and efficient hearing" (p. 1).
We are disturbed by the fact that all parties have not been of ficially asked to corrent on the Me=orandum of Understanding.
It is our position that this Menorandum of Understanding will prejudice our interests in this proceeding and that we should have had an opportunity to comment on this radical departure froc established procedures.
We are merely raising preliminary concerns at this point.
We expect all parties to be nailed the Memorandum of Understanding, that they and Ecology Action of Cs ego will be given a f ull opportunity to be heard prior to the final adoption
-of the Memorandum of Understanding.
If parties will not be afforded an opportunity to co= ent on the Me=orandum of Understanding, we want to be of ficially notified of this i =ediately.
'as,.' ,-) {,ii-,
7 Ecologi Action of Oswego has serious reservations about the agreement.
Once State 4 'ncies become employees of the Federal government, the citizens of the State Icse the ind pendent voice of their own agencies.
Should dif ferences of opinion
- ccur, the threat of termination of the contract "upon 30 days written notice by any party" (point 13) is a powerful incentive for either the NRC or State to compromise in return for saving the Memorandum of Understanding.
Since all this disagreement would occur "behind closed doors" the intervenors would be unaware of the issues, and they could be successfully suppressed at the hearing level (point 13). Once this compromise is reached, and the NRC does not wish the public to be inforced about what issues were compromised, it apparently has the right to prevent intervenors from subpoenaing DPS and DEC staffs "in their capacity as ccatractors for the NRC" (Proposed Rules of Discovery, clay 28, 19 79, Part II, A, p.
2), and to deny production of DPS and DEC records and documents in their capacity as centractors to the NhC Staff (Proposed Rules of Discovery, May 28, 1979, Part II, G, p.4).Although "nothing in the agreement is intended to restrict. . .the statutory authority of...DPS" (p. 3, point 12), we believe that the agreement is such that ir fact it will be extremely restrictive.
The Applicant filed under the old Article VIII law, and thus the procedures developed in hearings under the old law should be followed.
In these hearings the staf fs of the DPS and DEC do not take a position on issues until after cross of the Applicant's case.
Under the Memorandum of Understanding the same staf f would be writing numerous sections of the DES in which evaluations are cade, and pcsitions and conclusions are reached, these stisf f s would be forced to take a position before commencement of hearin s and the benefit of cross-examination of Applicants by intervenors and statutory parties.
This departure f rom normal
.procedure can only lead to an inferior decision since it is based on less information.
The Memorandum of Understanding only leads to an ef fi cient hearing, not the develepsent of the best record on which to base the decision for balancing need vs.-qLI '95./s><L 8 environmental considerations and cost / benefit analysis.
The fact that the Memorandum of Understanding fails to identify any reason related to a better decision but only a more efficient hearing lies at the very heart of our concerns.
k'e believe that the Memoranduc of Understanding will lead to an inferior record.
IV.PROPOSED RULES OF DISCOVERY As mentioned in the previous section, we do not approve of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Two points under the Proposed Rules of Discovery highlight our concerns of the Memorandum of Understanding:
Subpoenas"The exemption contained in subsection (h) of 10 CFR g 2.720 shall apply to DPS and DEC staffs only in their capacity as contractors for the NRC and only in matter relating solely to the federal proceeding. " (p. 2, May 28 preposal)
Production of NRC Records and Documents"Shall not apply to the Article VIII proceeding, except to the extent that DPS and DEC staffs in their capacity contractors to the NRC staff are requested to produce as a record or document which relates solely to the federal, and not to the Article VIII proceeding." (p. 4, May 28 proposal)
We do not fully understand what it means to be a centractor for the NRC, and all the limitations it places on intervenors to exercise their rights as parties under Article VIII.
If it allows the DPS and DEC staf fs to hide behind their contractor relationship each time intervenors want to subpoena them or request documents, this would jeopardize intervenor's rights in Article VIII proceedings, since staffs do enjoy this protection in state hearings.
Since the issues which DPS and DEC not would aid the NRC in producing the DES are also issues which must be raised under Article VIII and is material which these staffs would be developing for the state record, we do not understand how any record or document produced by DPS and DEC
.can " relate solely to the Federal proceeding" - all will apply to the state hearing also.Intervenors in Article VIII must retain the right to obtain all these documents and to subpoena witnesses if necessary, since they are all related to
- (?), Article VIII issues.
l) b ,]""
-9 E.Informal Rules of Discovery" Parties should first seek discovery on an inf ormal basis." (p. 1. March 19. proposal)
To avoid a subseauent allegation of behind the scenes acreements and collusion, all parties should receive a list of all issties raised at the informal discovery le.ci, as well as the formal discovery interrogatories.
V.PROCEDURE FOR JOINT MAILING OF TESTIMONY, BRIEFS, MOTIONS, ETC. SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES Should the cailing list in the Article VIII proceeding :ontinue to be large (at present over 50 persons), expenses for Applicants, Staffs, and intervenors would be reduced if one central office (perhaps Secretary Madison's office) established which would receive one copy f rca each party, make copies, and were then send one copy of each, in one mailing envelop, to all parties.
VI.CORRESPONDENCE REQUEST L'c reques t receipt of all correspondence between all parties in the case.
This includes all documents sent to the public documents room concerning this application, and answers to all interrogatories.
Respectfully submit ted, s j b/: ks, t~--t Helen Daly, Intervention Coordinator Ecology Acti6h'of Oswego
//' AV/.Rut'h Caplan, Ecology Action
.June 11, 1979 Copies to all Parties