ML20024A514
| ML20024A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1983 |
| From: | Swartz L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCE-OL-3, NUDOCS 8306170394 | |
| Download: ML20024A514 (23) | |
Text
DOCKET NUMBER '
PROD.a UTIL FAC..pgy% ()[ 3
.r...........e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETED r 'SSC J
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
) (Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )
PETITION OF THE CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY, INC.,
TO INTERVENE IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING HEARING Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (1982), the citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. (Citizens) hereby seeks leave t'o intervene in this special proceeding in support of the emergency plan submitted by the applicant. As discussed below, Citizens and its members are persons whose interests are affected by this proceeding and Citizens desires to participate as a party. Citizens seeks expedited consideration of this petition so that it can develop and file its contentions pursuant to the established schedule.
I l
CITIZENS IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING AS OF RIGHT Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Rules of Practice, one who seeks to intervene in a proceeding must i
" set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d) of this section, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(2).
)
ggen8 ara 88%
G @
~
The " factors in paragraph (d)" are:
"(1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
"(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
"(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. " 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(d).
A. Citizens Has Sufficient Interest To Intervene
- 1. Applicable NRC Case Law Regarding Intervention NRC case law has interpreted the intervention regulations to require the satisfaction of judicial tests of standing in order to demonstrate " interest." See Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC '10, 6 613-14 (1976). Thus, one must show the possibility of actual injury and an interest " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. SS 2011, et seq.).
See Pebble Springs, 4 NRC at 613; see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), and Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975).
In general, a petitioner must show that he has a personal interest in the proceeding and that this interest will be adversely affected. See Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173 (1973).1
- " Interest" may be demonstrated by one's proximity to the plant. Idi .
l 1 While the Peach Bottom case also required the submission of contentions, new regulatTons make it clear that a petitioner need not state his contentions until 15 days prior to 'the first prehearing conference. 10 C.F.R. S2.714(b); see also Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-78-23, 8 NRC 71, 74 (1978).
i l
l .
Interest is typically demonstrated where the petitioner lives or works within 50 miles 7of a nuclear power plant. See, e.g.,
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 n.4 (1977); Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-1, 8 NRC 73 (1979); Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 443-44 (1979); and Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, '
Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-18, 9 NRC 728, 730 (1979); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175, 178 (1981).
In addition, corporate environmental groups have been found to have. standing to represent their members' interest. Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976). In fact, an organization having general concerns in the subject matter could be allowed to participate as long as there is at least one member who can demonstrate " injury _in fact." See Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420 (1973).
Along similar lines, it has been held that a petitioner supporting an application must particularize a specific injury that l it, or its members, would or might sustain should the application be denied. The test is "whether a cognizable interest of the l
l
l l
petitioner might be adversely affected if the proceeding has one outcome rather than another." Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc.
(Sheffield, Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site),
ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978). Citizens meets all these tests for standing to intervene in this proceeding.
- 2. Specification of Citizens' Interest in This Proceeding Citizens is a corporation founded under the laws of New York State in January, 1983. It has approximately 50 dues-paying, non-voting members, most of whom are engineers, physicians, and scientists working on various projects involving nuclear power. Most of the members live within 20 miles 6f the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The organization was formed for several purposes, including the establishment, coordination, and implementation of programs designed to promote the development of a rational. energy policy for Long Island. Citizens favors the issuance of an operating license to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, subject to the fulfillment of all appropriate NRC rules and regulations.
In support of this petition, several members of Citizens j have signed affidavits stating that they live within 20 miles of the station, that they favor the operation of the station, and that they wish Citizens to represent them in the special NRC offsite emergency planning hearing. Their names and addresses are also set forth in I
these affidavits, copies of which are attached to this filing.
Thus, Citizens has met the tests typically required of intervenors: proximity of its members to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, the general interest of the organization in energy issues,.
and the identification of members with the necessary interest who wish to be represented by Citizens.
1As a proponent of LILCO's application for an operating license, Citizens also asserts that its interests and those of its members will be adversely affected if the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is not permitted to operate. These interests are cognizable under the Atomic Energy Act.
Citizens and its members have a strong interest in the availability of clean, safe, efficient energy sources on Long Island, the community in which its members and their families live and work. The uniqueness of Long Island's location makes it difficult to supply electricity to residents. For example, Long Island must t
^
generate 80% of its needed power because of the limited -
interconnection from the New York Power Pool to the island. The i existing generation facilities on Long Island are aging and will I needtbbereplacedinthenearfuture. While LILCO could build coal-fired facilities, new harbors would have to be dredged to accommodate coal barges, or new railway lines would have to be built l
I to accommodate the daily transportation of coal to the facility.
l Coal-fired plants also generate enormous amounts of solid waste
- I L.
products on a daily basis and can contribute to air pollution problems. Thus, a nuclear powered generation facility offers the best alternative for providing needed electrical power on Long Island.
Citizens was specifically founded to promote the development of a rational energy policy for Long Island and is generally supportive of nuclear power as an important energy source. In furtherance of these organizational goals, Citizens now seeks to intervene in this proceeding on behalf of itself and its' members. Citizens desires to protect its interest in the Tvailability of a nuclear power source by supporting the issuance of an operating license for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.'
The availability of nuclear power is a recognizable interest under the Atomic Energy Act. The congressional declaration of policy, findings, and statement of purpose in the Atomic Energy Act make it clear that Congress intended to promote the development of nuclear power as an energy source. See 42 U.S.C. SS 2011-13.2 Thus, by intervening in this proceeding, Citizens hopes to protect l its own interest, and that of its members, in accordance with the l stated intention of Congress to promote nuclear power.
l B. Citizens Wishes To Intervene on the Issue of the Adequacy of LILCO's Emergency Plan In addition to stating a sufficient interest, a petitioner must state on which aspects of the proceeding it seeks to intervene.
10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(2). The special emergency planning hearing 2
The Atomic Energy Act seeks to promote nuclear energy as well as to regulate it. Thus, an interest in the availability of nuclear energy is no less cognizable under the Act than is an interest in health and safety.
scheduled by the Licensing Board in its Order dated April 20, 1983, indicated that only offsite emergency planning concerns would be heard. With this in mind, Citizens wishes to intervene in support of the emergency plan. submitted by LILCO, especially the validity of the assumptions used by the utility in developing its plan.
Citizens will draft its specific contentions and the bases therefor and will submit them in accordance with the Licensing Board's April 20, 1983 Order.
Based on the foregoing, Citizens has met the requisite tests for intervention in this proceeding under 10 C.F.R S 2.714.
Therefore, Citizens requests this Licensing Board to grant its intervention petition.
II ALTERNATIVELY, CITIZENS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE UNDER THE LICENSING BOARD'S DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY While Citizens believes that it is entitled to intervene in this proceeding as of right, in the alternative, Citizens asks this Licensing Board to admit it to this proceeding under the Board's discretionary authority. Although not specifically set forth in the Rules of Practice, an additional method of intervention is with the discretion of the licensing board. See Pebble Springs, 4 NRC at 614-17. In Pebble Springs, the Commission held that even
if a petitioner for intervention could not satisfy the strict judicial standing testi intervention could be allowed as a matter of discretion. Id. at 616.
The factors to be considered by a licensing board in making this determination are: (1) whether the petitioner would make a valuable contribution to the proceeding, (2) whether the petitioner has a property or financial interest which would be greatly affected, (3) whether there are other means available to protect the petitioner's interest, (4) whether the petitioner's interest might be represented by existing parties, and (5) whether intervention would delay or broaden the proceeding. Id. Each of these factors is discussed below.
The petitioner's ability to contribute to the development of a sound record is the principal consideration in determining whether to allow intervention as a matter of discretion. Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473, 475 n.2 (1978). In this particular instance, Citizens would be able to make a valuable contribution to the proceeding.
Most members of Citizens are recognized authorities in the field of nuclear power and could address the adequacy of an emergency plan with respect to specific radiological events which could occur at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Some members of Citizens work professionally in radiological emergency planning, participate in emergency planning drills in the northeastern United States, and/or are members of federal radiological emergency response teams. With
this special expertise, Citizens would be able to make an important contribution to the record regarding the adequacy of LILCO's emergency plan.
Finally, Citizens has no employment or financial ties to LILCO. Citizens' members do, however, have an understandably strong interest in having an adequate emergency plan in place for any 4
possible event which could affect them or their families. These two
. considerations, together with Citizens' position generally supportive of'the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, will allow it to present to this Licensing Board a perspective not currently available -from any
! other party. Citizens also desires to challenge, if necessary, any attempt by Suffolk County to profit in this proceeding by its refusal- to participate with LILCO in emergency planning efforts.
[ With respect to the interests at stake in this proceeding,
) Citizens has a keen interest in the continued availability of a reliable energy source on Long Island, an interest which would be greatly affected if the station were not allowed to operate."-
Citizens' members believe that having an electrical power source such as the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in the area would contribute to the quality of community life. The operation of the station would add to the reliability of electrical service throughout LILCo's service area on Long Island. Having a reliable power source available would attract business and industry to the area, further adding to the tax revenues and to the general welfa're of the community. For example, Brookhaven National Laboratory on
Long Island is the largest employer in Suffolk County, produces a significant amount of revenue for the County, and depends upon a l reliable electrical energy source for its research work. Its new facilities are particularly energy-intensive. Without a reliable i
! source of power, the laboratory could not maintain its international prominence and would not continue to draw highly skilled and i
educated individuals to the community.
j In addition, the utility provides revenues for approximately two-thirds of the Shoreham-Wading River School District budget.
Should the station not operate, those revenues will be lost and the local school system will go from being one of the best in New York State to one of the worst. Having good quality schools for their children is a high priority.for Citizens' members.
. These are some of the property and financial interests which Citizens' members have in the operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.- These interests demonstrate the depth of the
- members' concern for the start-up, at the earliest possible time, of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
j With respect to the factors which would weigh against discretionary intervention, no other party to the proceeding can l
While LILCO and Citizens adequately protect Citizens' interests.
both favor the operation of the facility, the utility does not have the-same interest or perspective as does Citizens. Because its i
members live in the community, Citizens has an interest in seeing ;
- rational energy development on Long Island, such as the Shoreham
Nuclear Power Station, and in having safe, clean energy sources available in the area.5 At the same time, Citizens' members have an interest in protecting their homes and families.
While Suffolk County purports to represent county residents' interests, it is not representing the interests of Citizens or its members in this instance. Rather, by refusing to participate in the emergency planning process, the county is refusing to provide prudent and reasonable services to all residents of'the county, including Citizens and its members. Suffolk County will not be representing Citizens' interests in the special NRC emergency planning hearing.
In addition, no other means exist, at the present time, for Citizens to protect its interests. Because it is this proceeding which will initially decide the fate of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, it is vital that Citizens be able to protect and advance its interests at this early administrative stage.'3 Finally, Citizens' intervention will not broaden o'r delay the proceeding. Citizens does not intend to introduce any concerns outside the scope of the hearing. Moreover, Citizens believes that l the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station should be permitted to begin operation as soon as is feasible, and does not wish to pursue any action which would delay the hearing or the operation of the station.
l l
3 l Citizens must be able to assert its interests now in order to be l able to assert those interests in later administrative or judicial
! proceedings.
On balance, the factors to be weighed for discretionary intervention favor Citizens' participation. Citizens can make a valuable contribution to the proceeding, one which no other party is in a position to make. Citizens' members have significant property and financial interests at stake which cannot be advanced elsewhere and they do not seek to broaden or delay the proceeding by means of their intervention. For these reasons, Citizens asks that this Licensing Board, in its discretion, grant Citizens' petition.
III CITIZEN'S PETITION TO INTERVENE IS TIMELY A. This Proceeding Was Only Recently Convened Although the operating license proceeding for the Shoreham Nuclear-Power Station has been going on for quite some time, this petition is not untimely. Rather, the events leading up to this special emergency planning proceeding have only recently occurred and the threat that the station may never be allowed to operate, because of Suffolk County's stance on emergency planning, has only recently come to light.
Moreover, the schedule established by the Licensing Board indicates that this emergency planning hearing is, in fact, a new hearing. This schedule calls for the filing of contentions, t provides for discovery, and states that a prehearing conference will l
be held. See Memorandum and Order Denying Suffolk County's Motion l
to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding, at 60-65 (April 20, 1983). These are all the markings of a newly-convened hearing. Because Citizens is filing this petition well in advance of the date on which contentions are due and has stated its willingness to meet the established schedule, Citizens believes this petition is timely filed.
B. In the Alternative, This Petition Meets the Requirements for Late Filings Even if this petition is considered as a late filed request, Citizens meets the tests for the acceptance of such a petition as stated in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v). This regulation allows a licensing board to balance five factors to determine whether to grant a late filed petition: (1) good cause 5or failure to file on time; (2) the availability of other means to protect the petitioner's interests; (3) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may assist in developing the record; (4) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by other parties; and (5) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the proceeding.
Citizens has addressed its position with respect to four of these five factors in its discussion of discretionary intervention at Page Nos. 8-12 supra. There, Citizens asserts and explains that its participation will assist in developing the record, that its interest cannot be protected by other parties, that no other means exist to protect its interest, and that its participation will not broaden or delay the proceeding.
With respect to the good cause requirement, as noted above the events leading up to this proceeding have only recently occurred. Suffolk County in February of this year passed its resolution denying the adequacy of any emergency plan and shortly thereafter filed its motion to terminate the licensing proceeding.
The Licensing Board on April 20, 1983, filed its Order denying that motion and establishing a schedule for this new hearing on the adequacy of LILCO's plan. LILCO, on May 26, 1983, filed its interim emergency plans on which intervenors are to prepare contentions.
Thus, Citizens could not have acted any more quickly to prepare its petition to intervene in this proceeding. Citizens has shown good cause for not filing its petition at an earlier time.4 ,
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Citizens requests that this Licensing Board grant its petition to intervene in the special offsite emergency planning hearing. Because this hearing was only recently convened, this petition is timely filed. In the event the Licensing Board determines that Citizens' petition is late', Citizens 4
Many NRC cases have held that satisfaction of the good cause requirement reduces a petitioner's burden with respect to the other four factors. See,e.g., Florida Power and Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-420, 6 NRC 8, 22 (1977);
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-78-24, 8 NRC 78, 83 (1978). Citizens, however, has more than amply satisfied the other factors set out in 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714(a)(1), as well as the good cause requirement.
. / I asserts that it meets the standards for the acceptance of a late filed intervention petition. In addition, Citizens asks for expedited consideration of its petition in order that it may submit its contentions in accordance with the schedule established by the Licensing Board.
i DATED: June 14, 1983.
Respectfully submitted, RONALD A. ZUMBRUN SAM KAZMAN LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 550 Washington, D.C. - 20036 By .,
' 'LUCIN A: LOW SWARTZ Attorneys for t'ne Citizens for an Orderly Energy. Policy,'Inc.
h s
e
% gr % g
's , ) ,' 1 9 ., ( ,
\
r.' c '. 's i \ w.
m :,b V
f g' -
7 g ,-; , . ' , ' .
,s
\
c ... .
h .15, .e ,
s ,n, .., , , ,g; 4
,. , .e .- . . i l " '" .\-. ..' N. % ,,
N (
( i; r
\ y.
.z.
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION D Before the Atcanic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of 4
) .g3 gl % A9 49
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322.(OL)
)(Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ,s Unit 1))-)
7, g AFFIDAVIT OF VANCE t. SAILOR Under penalty of perjury, I, Vance L. Sailor , do hereby state and affirma as fcilows:
- 1. I am a member of t!.e Citizens for an orderly Energy 1
Policy, Inc. (Citizens).
- 2. One of the purposes fcr which Citizens was founded was' to establish, coordinate, and impicment programs designed to promote the development!of a rational energy policy for Long Island.
- 3. As a membersoi Citizens and 'a resident of Suffolk County, I have a sincere and long-standing interest in the availa-
> .bility of safe, clean, efficient energy sources for long Island such as the Shorehr.m Nuclear Power Station.
- 4. -I live within h miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. My home address is 100 Durhee Lane. E. Patchoeve. NY 11772 k
- 5. My business / profession is nuclear physicist
-: s ' ~
j, C. I favor, the 'cperation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power v
4
./.- '. Station, in accordance with all appropriate Nuclear Regulatory s Commission tules and regulations.
' 7. 1 authorize Citizens to represent my interests 'in l[ x
_ the special N9C offsite emergency planning hearing.
- w 3 ,N .,
g $ -
~ ~
y -
gww _Eubscribed and sworn before me y ,1
"]
this /L day of June, > 1983.
r.
w ~
It w
j'f '
n n
,~ \thjyy . f '
!' tary Public f'
J, My Commission expires _ fo//[
~ '- . u r.+. a u . m g..
',-. b. . Jaf*O h 12-1'44% Putur, t S..suer fuTse.n 3 n a, y/ '
e "7 = E4.* xma A ug, g he: -a,h "~
- s jg, t-i
. s y f ,
g . . ,
-p;y c - N .
E s _.
- . . . m, k
i f
x i 5
gc l
\ .
\
'UWITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10tI~
, s s / C03[fE0 De fore the_] topic Lafety end Licensino acasif" In the Matter of . ~-
g gg LC 4G ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) -
3 )(offsite Deergency Planning) >
k
, (shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)() ,
p-
- % , s
' t,
, Arr_IDAV T Or ANDREW P. MUIL Under, penalty of perjury, I, d n d et w @ hII , do
, hereby stat > and affirm as follows:
. .) '
- 7. I am a member of the Citizens for an orderly Energy Policy, Inc. (Citizens ) .
- 2. One of the purposes for which Citizens *:as founded was to establish, coordinate, and implement programs designed to promotethedevelopment'hfaraticr.a1energypolicyforLongIsland.
- 3. As a member of C$tizens and a resident of Suffolk County, I have a sincer's and long-standing interest in the availa-bility of safe, clean, efficient energy sources for Long Island such as the Shoreham Weclear Power Station.
4.
a t' (JA I live m6thtfr galles m8 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. My home address ir. 4 1 tka\'sul Ed . G k_a ret.. ~ f 4 s IM N. ' J .
- 5. My businesd/ profession is N Pa M (el . f_ ir t *[
/ , .
- 6. I favor the operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power station, in accordance with all appropriate Nuclear Regulatory N
' Comunission tules and regulations.
,-7. I authorize citizens to represent my interests in n the special NEC offsite emergency planning tear,ing.
f nGt 2 k k hd4 Cdb P.
~
'9.**t - s d ogto f. -
or bA , r.,,, -
Subscribed and sworn before me / (*.]'%
this M day of June, 1983. ,
/
hr
/ Notary i.
Public -W n L-_ .W/ Le
'f L 3V 21U //
My Commission espires 4/ "?(
3
/
h s
Y
' UNITED STATES Or AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
((
')
4 i nefore the Atomie Safety and Licensino solMUD
/ / ,g p in the Matter of 3
) '83 Jlfl16 N0:11
-I. '
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (CL)
\ )(Offsite anergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1))_) y;ny -
?
. AFFIDAVIT OF eobert P wiltenberger
' \
- Under penalty of perjury, I, k oboth h IW b L* m f do G
hereby state and affirm as follows:
i
- 1. I am a member of the Citizens for an orderly Energy
-. Policy, Inc. (Citizens).
- 2. One of the purposes for which Citizens was founded was'to establish, coordinate, and implement programs designed to promote the development of a rational energy policy for Long Island.
- 3. As a member of citizens and a resident of Suffolk County, I have a sincere and long-standing interest in the availa-bility of safe, clean, efficient energy sources for Long Island such as the Shorehart Nuclear Power Station.
- 4. I live within 1 miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. My home address is 813 Old 6.4Mld RJ R:k a Nw Lk usu .
- 5. My business / profession is M a ld b <,r t a t 3
lLI bezkka m d.dm l b Lbei dt v _
, 6. I favor the operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, in accordance with all appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Comission tules and regulations.
- 7. I authorize Citizens to represent my interests in the special NRC offsite emergency planning hearing.
LYh 0
Subscribed and sworn before me this & day of June, 1983.
Q A. /. 'M p
/"N'lI[2[ ~
My Comission expires .3 f fNh
<. / /
O s, , _ , , - . , . - . -
UNITED S ATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUMTORY C0ftt!SSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board iM*%*kEt I" * * **** *f
'83 1*l16 #0:11 LONG ISMND LIGNTING CottPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (CL)
)(Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1))_)
?
- AFFIDAVIT OF EUGENE V. WEINSTOCK Under penalty of perjury, I, fueene T. Weinstock , do hereby state and affirm as follows:
- 1. I am a member of the Citizens for an orderly Energy Policy, Inc. (Citizens).
- 2. One of the purposes for which Citizens was founded was to establish, coordinate, and implement programs designed to promote the development of a rational energy policy for Long Island.
- 3. As a member of Citizens and a resident of Suffolk County, I have a sincere and long-standing interest in the availa-bility of safe, clean, efficient energy sources for Long Island such as the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
- 4. I live within J2 miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Ny home address is 14 Beaver Brook Drive. Brodhaven. NY 11719
- 5. Ny business / profession is nue w , n*va r m
- 6. I favor the operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power i Station, in accordance with all appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission tulos and regulations.
- 7. I authorise citizens to represent my interests in the special NRC offsite emergency planning hearing.
Y$
NAME:
Subscribed and sworn before me this Ad day of June, 1983.
i M 1s Notar; Public My Commiss var,xa stser rt. ion cn expires
.40!/f" s.,.ut;I ,... u.$$k
.a , i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION CCtwtito Before the Atornie safety and Licensing Be g .W; In the tatter of )
3 .,,
m M. 14 .n, ,11 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY .
) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)))(Offsite Emergency Planning)
_)
AFFIDAVIT OF NO M/4 5 M#rr[5 Under penalty of perjury, I, ((cau 3 /M M Orr'ti, '
do hereby state and affirm as follows:
1.
I am a member of the Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. (Citizens).
2 One of the purposes for which Citizens was founded was to establish, coordinate, and implement programs designed to promote the development of a rational energy policy for Long Islud.
3.
As a member of Citizens and a resident of Suffolk County, I have a sincere and long-standing interest in the availa-bility of safe, clean, efficient energy sources for Long Island such as the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
- 4. I live within miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. My home address is Ms/ a w [04
-e lw m M V //7%6 .
- 5. My business / profession is N1 y s/h / s I
()
6.
I favor the operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, in accordance with all appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission tules and regulations.
7.
I authorize Citizens to represent my interests in the special NRC offsite emergenef- planning hearing. I N 1
' Es I
5 Subscribed and sworn before me this i day of June,1983.
/
/d w Ito tary 'Vublic ()
qg My Commission expires %r.us,. v-a tDgg y,y,pe,,
t.un ma nl' <
00 CIT.T !!UfiDER ' wg. . gd L .-3 TT.0 3. & l'Il! FAC.. . . .P.x . . . . . . ...=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sy.:;p; Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
'03 .~:15 59 53
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
) (Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )
, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE In accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.713(b), the undersigned hereby enters her appearance in the above captioned proceeding on behalf of the Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc., Post Office Box 71, Patchogue, New York, 11772, and provides the following information:
Name: Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq.
Address: Pacific Legal Foundation 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 466-2686 .
i Admitted to Practice: United States Supreme Court District of Columbia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals of Maryland
. Il 0- ~
'LUCINDA LOW SWARTZ DATED: June 14, 1983.
1 - _ _ _ _. . _ . - - . -. . -- - --
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . , .k
.Jgf2 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORgCOM{SSION US.!$C Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ' .] , '!15 j 9 C3
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
) (Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Petition of the Cit'izens For An Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. to Intervene in the Emergency Planning Hearing" and a " Notice of Appearance" were served this day upon the following by first-class mail or, as indicated by an asterisk, by hand delivery, or as indicated by a double asterisk, by overnight delivery service:
- James A. Laurenson, David J. Gilmarti n, Esq, Chairman Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
Atomic Safety and County Attorney Licensing Board Suffolk County Department United States Nuclear of Law Regulatory Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Washington, D.C. 20565 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Licensing Board David A. Repka, Esq.
United States Nuclear United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Dr. M. Stanley Livingston James Dougherty, Esq.
1005 Calle Largo 3045 Porter Street Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Washington, D.C. 20008 Secretary of the Commission ** Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
United States Nucleer Cammer and Chapiro, P.C.
Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016
. \. -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board Panel United States Nuclbar United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- James N. Christman, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Hunton & Williams New York State Energy Office 707 East Main Street Agency Building 2 P.O. Box 1535 Empire State Plaza Richmond, Virginia 23212 Albany, New York 12223 Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Energy Research Group Christopher McMurray, Esq. 4001 Totten Pond Road Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor Howard L. Blau 1900 M Street, N.W. 217 Newbridge Road Washington, D.C. 20036 Hicksville, New York 11801
- Stephen B. Latham, Esq. ** Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea State of New York '
33 West Second Street Department of Public Service P.O. Box 398 Three Empire State Plaza Riverhead, New York 10901 Albany, New York 12223
- Stewart Glass, Esq. Spence Perry, Esq.
Regional Counsel Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Washington, D.C. 20472 New York, New York 10278 MHB Technical Ascociates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jone, California 95125 v --bLIJCINDA LOW SWARTZ June 14, 1983
~}}