|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20081L4831991-06-21021 June 1991 Petitioner Amend & Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.* Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearings & File Joint Suppl to Petitions to Intervene,Including List of Contentions Amended.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4441991-06-21021 June 1991 Petitioner Amend & Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.* Amends Petition to Intervene & Requests for Hearings.Files Joint Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.W/Certificate of Svc ML20073A4921991-04-0808 April 1991 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petitioner Renews Request for Remedies Noted in Original Petition ML20073A4241991-04-0808 April 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petitioner Renews Request for Remedies Noted in Original Petition ML20066H1961991-02-14014 February 1991 Petitioners Joint Response to Lilco Motion to Dismiss as Moot Petitioners Request for Stay of LBP-91-01.* Urges Board to Deny Lilco Motion to Dismiss & Grant Petitioners Motion to for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H0311991-02-11011 February 1991 Joint Supplemental Comments on Proposed NSHC Determination.* Urges Staff Not to Issue Final NSHC Determination. W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2851991-02-11011 February 1991 Petitioners Joint Notice of Intent to Petition for Review & Request for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Stay Issuance of License for 15 Working Days After Fr Publication.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066G9331991-02-0707 February 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Appeal from LBP-91-1.* Petition Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons. W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C6971991-02-0606 February 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C9421991-02-0606 February 1991 Scientist & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Amends Petition to Intervene by Providing Encl Affidavits ML20066G9001991-02-0505 February 1991 Lilco Motion to Dismiss as Moot Petitioners Request for Stay of LBP-91-1.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C3021991-02-0404 February 1991 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* ML20067C7781991-02-0404 February 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petition to Intervene in Proceeding Re Emergency Preparedness Amend ML20067C8231991-02-0404 February 1991 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc. Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petitioner Renews Request in Original Petition,Contending That Injuries Will Be Remedied by Decision Granting Relief Sought ML20067C8351991-02-0404 February 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Requests That Action Be Set Down for Hearing After Prehearing Conference & Appropriate Discovery ML20062H5951990-11-21021 November 1990 Reply of Mm Cuomo,Governor of State of Ny,As Friend of Commission in Opposition to Joint Petition for Reconsideration & to Comments of DOE & Ceq.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062C2861990-10-24024 October 1990 NRC Staff Response to Shoreman-Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Proposed possession-only License Amend.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20028H3021990-10-12012 October 1990 Comments of Long Island Power Authority in Response to Commission 901003 Order.* Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc Petitions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028H2981990-10-12012 October 1990 Lilco Opposition to Intervention Petitions & Request for Hearing on 900105 Request to Remove Operating Authority for Shoreham.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0921990-05-21021 May 1990 NRC Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Proposed Offsite Emergency Preparedness License Condition Amend,Filed by Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc & by Shoreham-Wading....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0861990-05-15015 May 1990 Lilco Opposition to Intervention Petitions & Requests for Hearing on Amend to Emergency Preparedness License Conditions.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0851990-05-10010 May 1990 NRC Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Proposed Amend to Licensee Physical Security Plan Filed by Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc & by Shoreham-Wading River Central....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0831990-05-0808 May 1990 NRC Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Confirmatory Order,Filed by Scientists & Engineers,Inc & by Shoreham-Wading River Central School District.* Petitions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0711990-05-0303 May 1990 Lilco Opposition to Intervention Petitions & Requests for Hearing on Confirmatory Order & on Amend to Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Will Not Suffer Injury in Fact & Petitions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0631990-04-30030 April 1990 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Application for New License Condition Negating Several Existing License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0511990-04-30030 April 1990 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Application for New License Condition Negating Several Existing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0411990-04-20020 April 1990 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Changes to Plant Physical Security Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062C0261990-04-20020 April 1990 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Application for Amend Changing Plant Physical Security Plan.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0121990-04-17017 April 1990 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re NRC 900329 Confirmatory Order Modifying License. W/Certificate of Svc ML20062B9881990-04-17017 April 1990 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Order Vacating Confirmatory Order Pendente Lite & Consolidation of Petition W/Other Intervenors.W/Certificate of Svc ML20196F6891988-11-29029 November 1988 Amended Emergency Planning Contentions Re 880607-09 Shoreham Exercise.* ML20206C2071988-11-0808 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Proffered Contentions Re Emergency Planning Exercise Held on 880607-09.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5081988-11-0303 November 1988 Lilco Response to 1988 Exercise Contentions.* Intervenors 20 Exercise Contentions Should Not Be Admitted Due to Lack of Basis & Sepcificity.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0931988-10-24024 October 1988 Emergency Planning Contentions Relating to 880607-09 Shoreham Exercise.* Contentions Demonstrate,Exercise Results Again Reveal Fundamental Flaws in Lilco Plan & Exercise. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151S0561988-08-0909 August 1988 Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton Response to Lilco Renewed Opposition to Govts Proposed Contention on Emergency Medical Svcs for Contaminated Injured Individuals & Suggestion of Mootness.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N5481988-07-28028 July 1988 Lilco Renewed Opposition to Intervenor Proposed Contention on Emergency Medical Svcs for Contaminated Injured Individuals & Suggestion of Mootness.* Moves Commission to Dismiss Intervenor Proposed Contention of 870225 ML20154B4811988-05-10010 May 1988 Govts Objections to Lilco First Set of Requests for Admissions Re Contentions 1-2,4-8 & 10 to Suffolk County & Ny State.* Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20154B5941988-05-0202 May 1988 Govt Response to Lilco 880422 Request for Dismissal of Legal Authority Contentions.* ASLB Should Deny Lilco Request That Legal Authority Contentions Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20149D8021988-02-0505 February 1988 Govt Response to Staff & Lilco Objections to Emergency Planning Contention Re Lilco New Emergency Broadcast Proposal.* Govt Emergency Broadcast Proposal Should Be Admitted in Entirety.W/Certificate of Svc ML20148U5951988-01-27027 January 1988 NRC Staff Response to Proferred Intervenor Contention on Adequacy of Emergency Plan Provisions for Radio Transmission of Emergency Broadcast Sys Messages.* Contention Should Be Denied Due to Lack of Basis.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20147B9821988-01-12012 January 1988 Emergency Planning Contention Re Lilco New Emergency Broadcast Sys Proposal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235R3921987-10-0505 October 1987 Response Supporting Lilco Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 92.Applicant Entitled to Decision as Matter of Law & 870911 Motion Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215L0881987-05-0404 May 1987 Contention Ex 40 -- Calculation of Change in Total Population Dose as Result of Mobilization Delays.* Description & Results of Util Calculations & CA Daverio & Eb Liebermen Affidavits Encl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212K4421987-03-0202 March 1987 Emergency Planning Contentions Re 860213 Exercise.* ML20215B1421986-12-0909 December 1986 Revised Emergency Planning Contentions Re 860213 Exercise. Util Lack of Legal Authority & Govt Lack of Participation Discussed ML20214P4121986-11-24024 November 1986 Response to Util Submission of Revised Std Version of Intervenor 860801 Exercise Contentions.Lilco Submission Should Be Modified to Conform to ASLB 861003 Prehearing Conference Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214J6391986-11-24024 November 1986 Response to Util Submission of Revised Std Version of Intervenors Exercise Contentions,Per Board 861113 Order. Submission Seriously Distorts Margulies Board 861003 Rulings & Must Be Rejected.Related Info Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20215N6371986-11-0303 November 1986 Response to Intervenor 861103 Pleading Re Objections to 861003 Prehearing Order Concerning Contentions 15,16 & 19 Re Emergency Plan Exercise.Ambiguity Re Unacceptable Contentions Should Be Resolved.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7511986-08-25025 August 1986 Response Opposing Util & NRC 860815 Objections to 860801 Emergency Planning Contentions Re 860213 Exercise.Objections W/O Merit.Contentions Should Be Admitted as Drafted 1992-02-06
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20081L4831991-06-21021 June 1991 Petitioner Amend & Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.* Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearings & File Joint Suppl to Petitions to Intervene,Including List of Contentions Amended.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4441991-06-21021 June 1991 Petitioner Amend & Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.* Amends Petition to Intervene & Requests for Hearings.Files Joint Suppl to Petitions to Intervene.W/Certificate of Svc ML20073A4921991-04-0808 April 1991 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petitioner Renews Request for Remedies Noted in Original Petition ML20073A4241991-04-0808 April 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petitioner Renews Request for Remedies Noted in Original Petition ML20066H1961991-02-14014 February 1991 Petitioners Joint Response to Lilco Motion to Dismiss as Moot Petitioners Request for Stay of LBP-91-01.* Urges Board to Deny Lilco Motion to Dismiss & Grant Petitioners Motion to for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H0311991-02-11011 February 1991 Joint Supplemental Comments on Proposed NSHC Determination.* Urges Staff Not to Issue Final NSHC Determination. W/Certificate of Svc ML20066H2851991-02-11011 February 1991 Petitioners Joint Notice of Intent to Petition for Review & Request for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Stay Issuance of License for 15 Working Days After Fr Publication.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066G9331991-02-0707 February 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Appeal from LBP-91-1.* Petition Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons. W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C6971991-02-0606 February 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C9421991-02-0606 February 1991 Scientist & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Amends Petition to Intervene by Providing Encl Affidavits ML20066G9001991-02-0505 February 1991 Lilco Motion to Dismiss as Moot Petitioners Request for Stay of LBP-91-1.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20067C3021991-02-0404 February 1991 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* ML20067C7781991-02-0404 February 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petition to Intervene in Proceeding Re Emergency Preparedness Amend ML20067C8231991-02-0404 February 1991 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc. Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petitioner Renews Request in Original Petition,Contending That Injuries Will Be Remedied by Decision Granting Relief Sought ML20067C8351991-02-0404 February 1991 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Requests That Action Be Set Down for Hearing After Prehearing Conference & Appropriate Discovery ML20062H5951990-11-21021 November 1990 Reply of Mm Cuomo,Governor of State of Ny,As Friend of Commission in Opposition to Joint Petition for Reconsideration & to Comments of DOE & Ceq.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062C2861990-10-24024 October 1990 NRC Staff Response to Shoreman-Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Proposed possession-only License Amend.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20028H3021990-10-12012 October 1990 Comments of Long Island Power Authority in Response to Commission 901003 Order.* Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc Petitions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028H2981990-10-12012 October 1990 Lilco Opposition to Intervention Petitions & Request for Hearing on 900105 Request to Remove Operating Authority for Shoreham.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0921990-05-21021 May 1990 NRC Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Proposed Offsite Emergency Preparedness License Condition Amend,Filed by Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc & by Shoreham-Wading....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0861990-05-15015 May 1990 Lilco Opposition to Intervention Petitions & Requests for Hearing on Amend to Emergency Preparedness License Conditions.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0851990-05-10010 May 1990 NRC Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Proposed Amend to Licensee Physical Security Plan Filed by Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc & by Shoreham-Wading River Central....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0831990-05-0808 May 1990 NRC Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene & Requests for Hearing on Confirmatory Order,Filed by Scientists & Engineers,Inc & by Shoreham-Wading River Central School District.* Petitions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0711990-05-0303 May 1990 Lilco Opposition to Intervention Petitions & Requests for Hearing on Confirmatory Order & on Amend to Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Will Not Suffer Injury in Fact & Petitions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0631990-04-30030 April 1990 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Application for New License Condition Negating Several Existing License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0511990-04-30030 April 1990 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Application for New License Condition Negating Several Existing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0411990-04-20020 April 1990 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Changes to Plant Physical Security Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062C0261990-04-20020 April 1990 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re Lilco Application for Amend Changing Plant Physical Security Plan.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062C0121990-04-17017 April 1990 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Hearing Re NRC 900329 Confirmatory Order Modifying License. W/Certificate of Svc ML20062B9881990-04-17017 April 1990 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Requests Order Vacating Confirmatory Order Pendente Lite & Consolidation of Petition W/Other Intervenors.W/Certificate of Svc ML20196F6891988-11-29029 November 1988 Amended Emergency Planning Contentions Re 880607-09 Shoreham Exercise.* ML20206C2071988-11-0808 November 1988 NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Proffered Contentions Re Emergency Planning Exercise Held on 880607-09.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205R5081988-11-0303 November 1988 Lilco Response to 1988 Exercise Contentions.* Intervenors 20 Exercise Contentions Should Not Be Admitted Due to Lack of Basis & Sepcificity.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205E0931988-10-24024 October 1988 Emergency Planning Contentions Relating to 880607-09 Shoreham Exercise.* Contentions Demonstrate,Exercise Results Again Reveal Fundamental Flaws in Lilco Plan & Exercise. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151S0561988-08-0909 August 1988 Suffolk County,State of Ny & Town of Southampton Response to Lilco Renewed Opposition to Govts Proposed Contention on Emergency Medical Svcs for Contaminated Injured Individuals & Suggestion of Mootness.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151N5481988-07-28028 July 1988 Lilco Renewed Opposition to Intervenor Proposed Contention on Emergency Medical Svcs for Contaminated Injured Individuals & Suggestion of Mootness.* Moves Commission to Dismiss Intervenor Proposed Contention of 870225 ML20154B4811988-05-10010 May 1988 Govts Objections to Lilco First Set of Requests for Admissions Re Contentions 1-2,4-8 & 10 to Suffolk County & Ny State.* Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20154B5941988-05-0202 May 1988 Govt Response to Lilco 880422 Request for Dismissal of Legal Authority Contentions.* ASLB Should Deny Lilco Request That Legal Authority Contentions Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20149D8021988-02-0505 February 1988 Govt Response to Staff & Lilco Objections to Emergency Planning Contention Re Lilco New Emergency Broadcast Proposal.* Govt Emergency Broadcast Proposal Should Be Admitted in Entirety.W/Certificate of Svc ML20148U5951988-01-27027 January 1988 NRC Staff Response to Proferred Intervenor Contention on Adequacy of Emergency Plan Provisions for Radio Transmission of Emergency Broadcast Sys Messages.* Contention Should Be Denied Due to Lack of Basis.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20147B9821988-01-12012 January 1988 Emergency Planning Contention Re Lilco New Emergency Broadcast Sys Proposal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235R3921987-10-0505 October 1987 Response Supporting Lilco Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 92.Applicant Entitled to Decision as Matter of Law & 870911 Motion Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215L0881987-05-0404 May 1987 Contention Ex 40 -- Calculation of Change in Total Population Dose as Result of Mobilization Delays.* Description & Results of Util Calculations & CA Daverio & Eb Liebermen Affidavits Encl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212K4421987-03-0202 March 1987 Emergency Planning Contentions Re 860213 Exercise.* ML20215B1421986-12-0909 December 1986 Revised Emergency Planning Contentions Re 860213 Exercise. Util Lack of Legal Authority & Govt Lack of Participation Discussed ML20214P4121986-11-24024 November 1986 Response to Util Submission of Revised Std Version of Intervenor 860801 Exercise Contentions.Lilco Submission Should Be Modified to Conform to ASLB 861003 Prehearing Conference Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214J6391986-11-24024 November 1986 Response to Util Submission of Revised Std Version of Intervenors Exercise Contentions,Per Board 861113 Order. Submission Seriously Distorts Margulies Board 861003 Rulings & Must Be Rejected.Related Info Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20215N6371986-11-0303 November 1986 Response to Intervenor 861103 Pleading Re Objections to 861003 Prehearing Order Concerning Contentions 15,16 & 19 Re Emergency Plan Exercise.Ambiguity Re Unacceptable Contentions Should Be Resolved.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7511986-08-25025 August 1986 Response Opposing Util & NRC 860815 Objections to 860801 Emergency Planning Contentions Re 860213 Exercise.Objections W/O Merit.Contentions Should Be Admitted as Drafted 1992-02-06
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20093G4541995-10-18018 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning Procedures for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20058E0151993-11-14014 November 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants Prematurely Shut Down ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057F2191993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) Eliminating Licensee Requirement to Follow & Maintain in Effect Emergency Plans ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095H5611992-04-28028 April 1992 Affidavit of Lm Hill.* Affidavit of Lm Hill Supporting Util Position That Circumstances Exist Warranting Prompt NRC Action on NRC Recommendation That Immediately Effective Order Be Issued Approving Decommissioning Plan ML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* 1995-10-18
[Table view] |
Text
1.
, 9/oW . .
t, a 6.
'b . .k h E gg@
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. .
\\D ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-- # l b
BEFORE THE COMMISSION li h. i
X In the Matter of
- ' Docket No. 50-322 Long Island Lighting Company.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, t 1
Unit 1)-
X.
q .
REPLY'OF !
=MARIO M. CUOMO,_-GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, '
AS FRIEND OF THE-COMMISSION- M
, IN OPPOSITION TO >
j THE JOINT PETITION FOR' RECONSIDERATION c AND TO THE' COMMENTS-OF THE DEPARTMENT OF R ENERGY AND' THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTRODUCTION--
Ji
, , - o Pursuant'to the Commissi'on's Order of'NovemberJ15,_1990
_ j q
in this proceeding, Mario M.' Cuomo,l Governor of New York, by Robert
.. c
]
Abrams, Attorney General lof NewL 1 York, submits;;this reply in: M q
opposition to the Joint - Petition" for_ Reconsideration 1(!' Petition") ]
filed on October 29, 1990' by Sh'oreham-Wading-River'. Central ~ School !
-District and Sc'ientists ' and! EngineersK-'for ' Secure E n e r g y y .'I n c .
3
(" petitioners") and to the. comments / filed ='on November 9, ~ 1990:by, j
[ the United States Department' of Energy. . ( DOE"); and, by (the LCouncil-on Environmental' Quality:("CEQ"). .j The ' Order ' that '. the7 Petition ' seeks - to Lhave z reconsidered -
w
- held thati the -Commission Staff "need:;not file'_ an- EAl[ Environmental.
(n
'1
.. Assessment] Dor:an EIS-(Environmental' Impact State' ment)1 reviewing j =j m
9012050142 901121 %
PDR ADOCK0500g2 )
o
. p@
- y i
.L. ; s +
x w ,
.s
~
E ]
i i
and analyzing ' resumed operation'1 of Shoreham.as a nuclear-power l plant under NEPA. "2 As shown below, petitioners' argument for j reconsideration and' DOE's Comments rest entirely on an erroneous !
characterization of the federal action at issue here. Moreover, ;
because petitioners and DOE misconstrue the Long Island Lighting l Company's ("LILCO") obligation not to operate Shoreham as a nuclear j
generating plant pursuant to an agreement ("Settlemont") entered i
into by New York Stato and LILCO , they erroneously claim. that, oneration of Shoreham is a reasonable alternative that , must be .j considered in any Shoreham-related EA or EIS. Finally, DOE-and CEQ erroneously claim-that a proposal to decommission Shoreham would not be covered by the Commission's generic EIS on decommissioning l and that, accordingly, a now and Shoreham-specific EIS is required.
ARGUMENT POINT'I PETITIONERS M10?HARATERIZE'THE~ PRO' POSED FEDERAL ACTION The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP4") , 42 U.S.C. i l' 4321 el seg. , requires . that _ prior _ to undertakin7 any " major i
Federal actions significantly affecting ~ the quality t.f the human
\
environment," the responsible Federal ' agency prepare a detailed j statement on "(1) the' environmental- impact of. the proposed -action j I
" Resumed operation"' is petitioners.' phrase. In f fact, -,
Shoreham has never been-operatedocommercially at full power.
2
]!
. The Commission -drew no other conclusions '"regarding the need for:an EIS in decommissioning:situat' ions in general or with g respect to-Shoreham in-particular:or-regarding;what= alternatives
. such an EA or EIS'must consider."
2 i
- t> 4 q
{
... (and) (iii) alternatives to the, proposed action." 42 U'S.C. .
5 4332(C).
Petitioners acknowledge that the Commission need only :
consider reasonable alternatives to a proposed federal action and'- +
need not consider alternatives of- " speculative feasibility."
Petition at.7-8. Petitioners claim,'however, that the Commission is taking too crabbed a' view of the-proposed federal. action ~here. ?
and, accordingly, is failing to consider all = reasonable alternatives thereto.. Specifically,: petitioners claim thati"the l t
proposed ' action consists. of -all element's of- the .so-called-i including n the' replacement .ofi the : power i
' Settlement Agreement'
. otherwise to be generated from Shoreham by the' construction of.new fossil fuel facilities." - Petition'at: 8 n.2. '"When the proposed <
action is so' defined," petitioners continue, "it is easy'-to see- ;
that resumed . operation f of ShorehamI is- an alternative: toe 'the -
construction (of) such'new fossil.fuelTfacilities1..'..": ld.-at' 8' .
n.2. Petitioners, - however, . beg- the question by ' improperly defining; ,
q the " proposed. action."-
y L Petitioners'- description .of the-~ " proposed action"
, =
~
I incorrectly' attributes ~to the Commission decisions taken byiNew' {
a York
- State officials and by LILCO,.- ' a :l private Lentity. The' :
i 1
L; Settlement that was executed by: Governor Cuomo and'.LILCO on ,
l 1
4 o
~
p February 28,- 1989 and that; became effective on-June 128). 1989,.
p .
i- Lwhen it'was approved lby LILCO's shareholders, provides) in ; brief,:
sthat: (1) LILCo' will not. operate Shoreham ~ ass'a nuclear power: ,
]
j
\< . .
L . plant; (2) LILCO will' sell the nuclear portion;of=the plant,to the, l '
.3-
, , e
'5
- s +
4 i , , , ; , y . , ! $ 8
v
. t i
Long Island Powe Authority ( ."LI PA" ) , a'public authority of the a
k; and (3) LIPA will contract with' the Power i State of Now i
~!
l Authority of the State of New York ("PASHY") for assistance in i
decommissioning Shoreham. ,
i The Commission has been asked to approve.the transfer of-Shoroham's license from LILCO to LIPA, and it will'.be asked'to approvo a decommissioning plan that~will be presented by LIPA..
e LILCO's agreement not to operate Shoreham as a nuclear power. plant-does not require NRC approval, and no such - approval has boon
sought. Moreover, contrary to petitioners' '(Petition at 8 n.2 )- <
and DOE's (DOE Comments at 17) arguments, the Settlement provides
, that LILCo's covenant not to operate Shoreham as-a nuclear, facility ,
is independent of the Commission's . action.' with respect to ,
transferring ownership of Shoreham to'LIPA or,to approving aLplan?
to decommission the facility. -Indeed, that- specifically enforceable covenant ;would survive-.even! . termination of: .the; <
agreement pursuant to which LILCO is to sell the nuclear' portion - d of Shoreham to LIPA. S,qn- Asset Transfer Aareement,111 5.l(a), I 9.1, and 10.5. Exhibit A,: attached.' i Accordingly,: Commission action'is neither a legal nor..a-practical prerequisite to .the- non-operationi. of IShoreham . as , a - >
nuclear facility, and-the. decision.not to-operahe"Shoreham cannot I
- i bo attributed to the' Commission. .gf. - Greene ' County ' PIann'ina Bd'.
- v. FPC,.455'F.2d-412 (2d Cir. ~ 1972) ,: .q_qrt. den ied ,- ~:4 09 U. S . . 8 4 9 ;
f (1972).- The Commission 1 is J thus :orrect: lin . stating; that'o '.'the- j q
broadest NRC action related: toCShoreh .m decommissioning"iwill be i 4 E
4 0
Ji
'1
h I
tr e action the Commission takes when a specific.i ecommissioning d &
plan is presented to it. Order at 9. Because LILCO's binding sgreement not to operate Shoreham - is not a direct: or indirect consequence of any action the Commission has taken-or will take, the operation of Shoreham as a nuclear faci 2.ity is : not an alternative, reasonable or.not, to any planned Commission action.
EQ_q FRDC v. EPA,_822 P.2d 104,. 131 n. 27.(D.C. Cir.L1987).
As DOE notes, "NEPA applies only. to the. actions of EpApral agene.ies'. ;
and the resultina outcomes." Doe Comments __ati18-(first'emphasisL in original; second, supplied). DOE's comments concerning what itE considers possible indirect ef fects of decommissioning,: L_% the:
, possible need at some . time for some amount cof some form of j
3 Petitioners': characterization of the action'at issue here J
is incorrect- even as a descriptionf of the' Settlementil = Scientists.-
and Engineers for Secure JEnergy - ("SE8 ") one iof the? petitioners' here, argued in the l courts t .of New 1 York ' that c Governor: ' Cuomo's r
execution of the' Settlement and:the:various agency; approvals'of the - 1 Settlement ; violated' the State i Environmental . QualityJ Review l Act' H
("SEQRA") ~ inasmuch as no EIS was L prepared prior:LtohtheTexecution- 1 and approvals. ' SE8 . argued, as'they do here,:that theEsettlement provided for a ~ " swap" -- fossil-~ fuelE energy for c nuclearfenergy.
But the possible provision of alternative sources ofielectric power proposed in the Memorandum of, Understanding-between,LILCOf and~ PASNY
-is contingent, and,'indeed, even at-this time.. speculative. [It is- 4 complet31y unknown:whetheryany construction ofcfossiltfuel~ plants. ,
will-be cocessary and,..~if,so, how much. Under,the1 guidance of:the l New York Public Service Commission,'.LILCO is currently, implementing _ '
large-scale projects'to: increase.theTefficiency.ofLits customers _s use of electricity',f as wellias to shift the. demand for electricity
~
from peak to off-peak times. . 1As4the' Appellate Division ofnthe'Newu
-York State Supreme Court i held -in. rejecting . SE8 'si claims, "thei memorandum of. ' understanding. .concerning- PASNY's. possible construction.of ~ alternative generating facilities contains 'so many.
significantlindependent . conditions > [ including;. _at eneed, forL such
. facilities]' thatLPASNY's~ cundertaking; -in ? this regard Cis Lat most 1 contingent.and provisional'. "' Citizens for -an orderly Enerav ' Policy,a gLal. v. Cuomo, 559, N.Y.S. L 2d '381', 3921( App. Div. 1990,)? motioniqI
, ly to apo._ denied, -A.D.2di ' (Oct. 10~,11990)'.
St l
'i
's
, kl+, '
of additional power in LILCO's service area * , (DOE Comment _ at, =i L_gt, 3, 5-6, 11-12 17), are simply ' irrelevant because,_ as LIPA has ]
correctly argued, any such noodi could not result - from- an NRC-approved decornmissioning of Shoreham but only' from the irrevocable !
i decision by non-federal parties that the plant not operate.4
.I POINT II OPERATION OF SHOREHAM AS A 1 NUCLEAR FACILITY.IS NOT ;
A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR' Li PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ~ACT; When implomonting.NEPA. procedures,_an agency need
~
j ovaluate only reasonable alternatives to its proposed action.
40 CFR 5 1502.14 (a) . Even 'if there were a ' federal action such that ~
operation of Shoreham as a nuclear facility were an alternative to-l such that action, operation.,would- not- be- a, " reasonable- 1
, alternative." Accordingly, .the Commission would notl,need to l i
consider it in any EA or'EIS. The purpose of>NEPA's-requirement-i that prior to undertaking - major _ actions,- agencies Lanalyze .the {
likely environmental consequences- 'o'f ' ' those " actions and of l
reasonable alternatives -is :"not. to generate paperwork 1. . . but ,to .
2 o
4 DOE cites Limerick Eco10cv Action. Inc. v.;NRC, 869 F;2dl 719 . (3d Ciri _'1989) ,: for the proposition thath. compliance >withithe '
l' Atomic Energy Act does"not exempt theJCommissionifrom compliance-with the procedural requirements of.NEPA. DOE-Comments at 14-151 ;
Nothing.in'the! Commission's~ Order is;to_the: contrary. The=. basis )
-of' the. Commission's ' decision that'- operation ' of1 'ShorehamE as - a ..
j nuclear facility'not be' considered:in any.EA or EISiis thatisuchL .i
, , operation'is inot an alternative'to anyT federal action, not'that the.- 1 Cc: emission' lacks -power' to ; order!.such operation. Eg.g-OrderLat 8. i The Commission's discussion-of its/ lack of power to' order operation :
- is meralyipart of theccommission'.s Jexplanation!of why the decision.
not'to-operste wasinot affederal. action.
~i LI g b
. y l3 e
i foster excellent action. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences." 10 CFR 1500.1(c). The point is not to prepare abstract scenarios but to aid in substantive decisions, Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768-F.2d 1051, 1056-(9th !
Cir. 1985), and to permit intelligent choice, N.R.D.C. v. City of N.Y., 672 F.2d 292, 297 (2nd Cir.1982) , cert. dismissed, 456_U.S. f 920 (1982).
Petitioners' suggestion that an EIS.that considered;the' operation of Shoreham as an: alternative "could . persuade Congress ,
of the -need 'to take L a single.-' discrete action -(a ' declaration - of national emergency or other legislation -to preserve Shoreham),"
]
Petition at 9, shows how completely tinreasonable such consideration !
would be. On petitionerst reasoning,. any party could require:an-agency to consider tha party's- pet; project: as _ an alternative. to a
, ja planned ' agency action' on; the ground that ' Congress might on_- the j
basis of an EIS prepared :by the agency! enact legislation' dir'ecting q
operation of that' project. It is nothing short of. incredible-that' i
DOE subscribes to this argument ~ of- petitioners,- apparently suggesting that " Congress . (might); determinei that. ' an . emergency-
[
exists,.by reasonnof the Middle Eastisituation or otherwise," in. ,
part on- the basis of an:EIS concerning the disposition of Shoreham, j DOE Comments at 20. '
l In support of. its argument, DOE cites NRDC'v. ' Morton,' 458 -i
, F.2d- 827' (D.C. . -Cir. 1972) , t .a: case in3 whi hc, in' responseito a- _
i directive in a ' Presidential: . Message, the' U.S. - Department ~of
-i 7
1
-mm___.__________mmm_ _______._m.__.____.m...m __ __ ._ _ _ _
(
i Interior proposed a large-scale sale of offshore-acreage leases. l The EIS prepared by the Department did not discuss the alternative of eliminating oil import quotas because such a decision was '
outside the Department's power. The court noted-that the proposed.
project was far broader than most federal actions discusava in-impact statements and that it was ." an- integral part of a I '
coordinated plan to deal with a broad (national) problem." NRDC ]
1 YA JiRrt2D, 458 F.2d at 834-835. The- court also noted that the l President's Message had acknowledged the - severe environmental damages that attended drilling in the outor= Continental Shelf._ In.
that context, the court held, the Department should have considered I i
, the alternative of eliminating oil import; quotas for the guidance ,
of Congress and the President. The reaso'ning ofLMorton is' plainly inapplicable here, where the broadest-federal: action will be the 1
-Commission's decision on a decommissioning; plan for 'one generating. a facility.6 l Petitioners next suggest thatca " proper EIS' would also 1
inform the New York State Legislature of the need> tio change' . . . two- !
i discrete sections" of the LIPA Act, Public Authorities Law, 5-1020- 1 at steg. (" PAL") ,> the legislation that created lLIPA.; The i " discrete sections",- 5 5 '1020-h(9) and 1020 (t) , : respectively require LIPA J to ' -(
" forthwith close and decommission the Shoreham; plant" -"as soon as
. practicable" once LIPA .is in control of Shoreham "and' prohibit LIPA '
t t
5
, In:the alternative, DOE may:be arguing that" I Congress may: ;
declare a national emergency independently'of what the Commission
~
l does here and that1the Commission should maintain.the status auo !
pending . such speculative - Congressional action.
~
1Nothing in NEPA. *
, supports this positioni i e i
~
8
.#l.
i, ,f._
, . j '
m
'l
j i
. from " construct (ing) or operating a nuclear powerLfacility in the .
service area." As the Appellate Division statediin: sustaining the i
Settlement against the challenges brought by the parties who are 1 petitioners here (and by DOE, which intervened.in the= state court case), "[t]he legislative debates concerning the (LIPA) Act.
~
manifest the inalterable oppositionito the. operation of Shoreham by the Act's proponents." citizens for-an-orderly Enerav Policy et al. v. cuomQ ("COEPH ) , 559 N. Y. S . 2d 3 81, 388 (App. Div. 1990),.
t motion for lv to anp. denied, A.D.2d (Oct.10,.
1990) The LIPA Act. manifests: the implacable ... . . legislative opposition 'to the placing of Shoreham in full operation." COEP, 559.N.Y.S.2d at 390. 1 Moreover, - the -. legislatureJ excluded 1 -both LIPA's-and :LIPA's acquisition of Shoreham subsequent closing and 7 decommissioning of the plant - from SEQRA . : Sag - PAL' $ ~ .102 0-h ( 9) . 4 (imposing-ministerial duty-to close.Shoreham;'m'inisterial' actions J exempt from SEQRA)'; 5 1020-S(2) . A'sjthe' Appellate ' Division; stated, ' l S
I in rejecting petitioners' claim that the Settlement violated SEQRA,.
"the legislature preempted the policy decision making.and balancing of ecological / social / economic / costs- and : Ibenefits .of the ' SEQRA - }
process as to o the fundamentaledecisions to ' acquire andL close 1 559, N.Y S.2d'at "
'Shoreham." COEP, 3 9 2 ~. -- In'-view._ of ;the legislature's exemption o'f the' acquisition and closing of Shoreham -
from the SEQRA process, .it_ i's patently. unreasonable to suggest that an EIS that included operation:of'Shoreham'as an alternative would 1 lead the legislature to abandon ' .its:" implacable opposition to such -
. ,(
9' t.
! } ..
I operation. Indeed, to say that operation of Shoreh'am as a nuclear facility "would require significant changes in' governmental policy ,
or legislation, HRDC v. Callaway, (524 F.2d 79,--92 (2d Cir.1975) )"
prder at 10, is an understatement.6 POINT III THE COMMISSIONeS ORDER DOES I NOT VIOLATE THE COMMISSION'S SCOPING REGULATIONS. j The Commission has not yet determined w'hether and, if so,_
when it-will'need to prepare an EIS in connection with a Shoreham-;
related proposed action. Accordingly, the' Commission-has not filed
~
a notice of intent . pursuant to 10 - CFR 5' > 51. 26 - and the scoping- ,
.t process provided for in 10 CFR 55: 51.28 a'nd: 51.29 has / not- begun...
~
1
.\
Petitioners, however,-in advance of anylsuch process requested:
(a]n order finding that-there exists a proposal? !
for the decommissioning of Shoreham, ' which is; aL major l federal action.... and, therefore, ordering the licensee to propose an EnvironmentaltReport on the scopecof.that ;
proposal (including, interi. glia, the- ' alternatives ,
relating to full power operation.
l Scientists and Encineers for Secure Enerav; - Inc. 's ' Petition'~ for Leave to Intervene and-Request'for'Hearina at'L42. The Commiss'on 4
denied. this specific request. or relief $- : Petitioners -cannot be i
~
I heard now to object . that for the l Commission to.. haven actedion a
6 ~
DOE may'be. correct intstating that in some circumstances- ]
the , opposition - of non-federal > parties l ."do'es ' not constitute a
~
i limitation on- the Commission's- ability .to lact,"j DOE' Comments at: 18, i
-but it isJabsurd to suggest,'as: DOE does that, opposition to the -4
, ' operation of- u nuclear facility both byf aTstate: and by. the . licensee > ;
coupled,with.a1 binding. obligation on-the:licenseeEnot to operate = -i
, the. facility, does not make such operation" ani unreasonable alternative for. purposes of NEPA~'
10 5
1 ?
7 I
j.- 7 m
. ._ _ __ _. _ __ _ _ ~ . _ .. ._ _ _ . _. _. . _ _ _
t i
. petitioners' specific request Eford relief violates Commission ;
regulations that only come into play when the Commission determines ,
4 to prepare an EIS, a determination the' Commission has not mado.-
t
-POINT IV i
THE COMMISSION NEED NOT' PREPARE A SHOREHAM-RELATED 4
. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: STATEMENT .,
-t In 1988 the Commissio.. developed'a-generic'EIS ("GEIS"); q to cover each of the three available methods'of decommissioningfa.
nuclear facility. The Commission stated,T h owever, that it retained! l discretion to require a- new EIS- if .a ' licensee l proposed "significantly different" methods.of decommissioning.150 FR15600, , .
5610.- As DOE acknowledges, it was "the ~ clear intent (of. , the; .
commission) ... to reduce the NEPA requirement for? decommissioning- (
from an EIS to an EA in virtuallyi all - foreseableEcases," DQE i commenta at 7, 1.e., those decommissionings whichLpropose-to-use !
, one of the methods covered:by the GEIS.' .
DOE now argues that in the c'ase of Shoreham anb EIS is required even if the licensee-proposes /toidecommission the plantt i by one of the methods. . covered in - the GEIS.7 DOE = claims ' thatL '
Shoreham " differs fundamentally" from> the f typical; plant to be: 1 decommissioned in that the latter is at the'.end of;its luseful, life,;
whereas Shoreham is a new, unused plant. .This ispa distinction.
without' a difference. In the case of;Shoreham,. as.in the " typical"i case,; .w hat ,is required is a means to . reduce .thef residual ,
f 7
CEQ'sf Comments take no . cognizance of! the .GEIS' but -simply -.
assume that'an;EIS will be: required. prior.to decommissioning.
11- '
l j
,s t
-t: ,
, i., .l
e 11
. radioactivity so that the property can be safely released for' )
general use. S22 NUREG 0586 p. viii. Indeed, given the fact that, I
as DOE acknowledges, "there'is'relatively minor contamination of ;
the Shoreham facility," DOE Commenta at 23, the direct f i environmental impacts of decommissioning Shoreham will be far less' ,
than in the " typical" situation foreseen in the GEIS.
DOE 's . main point, however, bears on what DOE asserts l would be the " indirect impacts" of decommissioning shoreham,.la.,
the purported need for alternative sources of power. DOE's. argument l
is vitiated by the fact that, as,shown in Point I above, any such h need for power will result not from 'any federal = action but from the ;
non-federal decision- that Shoreham not operate as a nuclear.
facility. Thus the putative need . for " alternative" sources of >
l power to replace Shoreham's does not belong in a Shoreham-related:
}
l EIS. Acccrdingly, if LIPA proposes to decommission Shoreham'by a ,
method that is not "significantly . dif ferent" from' one of -the - -
methods covered by the GEIS, LIPA's;' proposal will-beicovered1by the GEIS and no EIS will be required. ,
r ;
j l .
.12 1
.. ! ,t e)l, c i,1
t
. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the-Commission should deny the Petition and reject DOE's and CEQ's advice regarding a Shoreham- ;
i related EIS.
Dated: New York, New York ;(
November 21, 1990
Respectfullyasubmitted, ROBERT ABRAMS. 1 Attorney General 1of.the !
Statn of New Y !
By:- -
o4 Samuel A.,Cherniak / si 1 Assistant Attorney GeneA l'
. Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor?of New York i 120' Broadway- l New' York, New York -.10271_
, :(212) 341-2350-JOHN W. CORWIN '
Assistant Attorney General In Charge i Bureau of Consumer Frauds' ;
And Protection' CHARLIE DONALDSON =i
'. Assistant Attorney General .
In Charge- '. l Energy and Utilities Section '
i yl
'I 13'-
i j
.i' ;.
-f kE
( ARTICLE V q AGREEMENTS OF LILCO AND LIPA
'h :
5.1 Conduct of Business by LILCO. (a) Prior to April 15, L t
3939, LILCO will (1) maintain Shoreham-in compliance with all <
f regulatory requirements and (ii) not operate shoreham above 5%
1 power. On and after April 15, 1989i if all approvals required by j 4
g, g,: Settlement Agreement, except shareholder approval, have been received, -LILCO will not operate Shoreham pursuant to any. autho- !
L
+ e rization to operate Shoreham that may or has been granted by the w NRC, unless the Settlement _ is disapproved by LILCO's share-b holders. After the Settlement Effective Dat'e, LILCO will not
. p" '
operate Shoreham pursuant to any authorization-to operate it that ;
may be or has been granted by.thi NRC.
'n h St (b) Promptly after the Settlement Effective Date, LILCO will (1), unless previously accomplished, remove the fuel 2{}; from Shoreham's reactor and deposit:the fuel in the,Shoreham- 3 d$ spent fuel pool, (11) withdraw LILCO's pendingfapp1'ications to the NRC.for 25% and 100%. power operating licenses and cease all, h steps to prosecute these applications, .(iii) apply to the-NRC for P
8 l t a " possession only" license and/or other. license amendments as jj are necessary to facilitate the Lice.nse Transfer, (iv) cooperate w a l o with representatives of the Power Authorities on transition ~and
~
"$j : personnel planning and report matters of' significance' concerning j 2
the status:of Shoreham, and (v) notify the Power Authoritles of s t
-any emergency or other change in~the. normal status'of-Shoreham' L .s
[ -
1 4
s u - - . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ ,_ . _ . . . - , , . . , m_y.,.,. ..b,.._,.. ...,',m',,I.. , . , . _ , ,
'N ,
ARTICLE IX
. k TERMINATION ,
9,1 Termination.
This Agreement may be terminated, and the
- gsset Transfer abandoned, at any time prior to the Closing Date
/ (a) by the mutual consent of the Board of Directors of e
s tg',ILCO and the Board of Trustees of LIPA; L . 1 r
(b) by either LILCO or LIPA if, without fault of the A
fterminatingparty,theAssetTransferhasno'tbeenconsummatedon '
3 or before December 31, 1990; '
i V
i . (c) by either LILCO or LIPA if any court of competent P $
,I
- m. I' jurisdiction has issued a final decision, not subject to appeal ,
Sh prohibiting the consummation of the transections contemplated by g;; this Agreement; or '
l ;,; t>
(d) by either LILCO or LIPA if the PSC does not
^'
i ?( approve, without modification, the Settlement Agreement..and- this L y )g, Agreement; or 4
%g .
~
(e) by either LILCO'or~LIPA if-LILCO's shareholders i i c disapprove the Settlement. Agreement or th'is Agreement.-
t ; 4 a
.e ffk Notwithstanding the tisrminatlon.of this-Agreement,,ifi the
$ Iw ,
g f Settlement Effective'Date~has' occurred, (a)-the provisions of-
.1 4 -c 1 .
Article VIII of this Agreement 1willscontir.de in full' force and
,. , P
- .j , .; effect and (b) the convenants contained in
- Section 5.1 of.- this Agreement will survive and continue to beifully enforceable,
' [~ . hfd
-. J '
$p e pe r
1
}: ..
r
[- wi"a( y such other address as is furnished in writing.by such party, 4 'nd any such notice or communication' will be deemed to have ~ been A j 'gyen as of the date so mailed. -
I '
h 10.5 Specific Performancer Remedies Not Exclusive. LIPA- !
-i >
nd LILc0 acknowledge that the other will.not have an adequate
. remedy at law for money damages in the event that the terms and i Jprovisions of this Agreement are not performed and therefore
.. agree that the Parties will be entitled to specific' enforcement
. j.in addition to any other remedy to which they may be entitled..
i j 3 Q-f^j- 10.6 Counterparts _. This Agreement may be executed in-two' -
w ' or more counterparts all of which will be considered one and the-(
%,! same agreement and each of which will be deemed an original 1
i 3.t C 10.7 Governino Law. ,
a .
This-~ Agreement will be governed by'the. ;
[
s.
77 w laws of the-State of New York (regardless of-the*1aws that might
{ .' ,;
be applicable under principlesL of conflicts' of law); as. to alll q matters,includingbutnotlimitedtomattersof[ validity,,' con- I g struction, effect and performance. .
10.8 Severability.
Ifcany: aspect:of this Agreement is held
.by a court ofLeompeten* jurisdiction or other? authority to'be -;
2 A invalid, void, unenforceable or against:it's regulatory policy,..
4 O
% the rast of the' Agreement will. remain 'in. full force end effect. i 9 and will in no way be adversely;affactedi ;
(
3 g M
't t
Jt %
\
Id hdl llIIll II ,
M II M I E
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - " - - - - ' - ~ ' - ^ ' ' ^ ^ ^ ~ ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- 1 I hereby cortify that one copy of the foregoing Reply. in Opposition to Joint Petition for Reconsideration was.= served by d first-class mail, postage prepaid upon-the following-on this 21st day of November 1990. '
t
-i Lawrence J. Chandler,.Esq. 1 Office of the GeneralLCounsel d U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission ( j Washington, D.C. 20555- 1 S 4 j
James - McGranery,. Jr. , Esq. ,a Dow, Lohnes & Albertson tv L.
Suite 500
-$N*' /
s 1255 Twenty Third Street, N.W. . Is '
Washington, D.C. :20037_ "
- vd> 1 Donald P. Irwin,1Esq. 1
(> .
Jb ;
Hunton &-Williams c;; l, '
l
. 707 East Main Street ;
P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 ,
Carl R. Schenker, Jr. , Esq. i O'Melveny1& Meyers= .
- }
Counsel 1for.Long: Island' Power Authority _
555 13th Street, N .16 k i5 -
Washington,.D.C. -20004, p
S Michael R. Deland,: Chairman J
Council on Environmental' Quality; ni Dgg" a - !.
Executive. Office:of the President-' '
~~
Q ~
Washington,1D.C. 20500- ~ .)\DY Io ]l-i Honorable James D. Watkins- !
D Secretary of Energy Washington, D.C.- 20585
$ i fg $ .,._
1 Steven A.'Wakefield,;Esq. 3 DepartmentLof' Energy: ,
e Office of General 1 Counsel = d Room 2000 ..
i 825 North Capitol-Street Washington, D.C.- 20426:
.. l
-I 'l-fj
'i uH
- q
i Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board' Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission
, Washington, D.C.. 20555 w , f Samuel A. Cherniak f.
Assistant Attorney' General' ' ] '
Attorney for.
Mario M. Cuomo, c.overnor of New York si q
.i l
l 9
-Is 4
-.I 1 7
)
2 i
j 4
r j
')
e >
1, 8 '
.1 i ts .;, ;
.)r .
- f ;j
- 1!
<:p ; ' .'-i, , ;,, >,,;
, Y ?
^
S, ' l j\
~ . . . .
_n