|
---|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* 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 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 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 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 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 ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning 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 ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition 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 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 ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding 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 ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* 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 1995-10-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20059B0301993-10-22022 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.* ML20082G8971991-08-0909 August 1991 Lilco Responses to Petitioner Filings of 910805 & 06.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8441991-08-0707 August 1991 Motion for Offical Notice to Correct Representation.* Moves Board to Take Official Notice of Encl NRC Records to Correct Representation Made at Prehearing Conference. W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8571991-08-0707 August 1991 Petitioners Response to Lilco Re Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Suggest That Util post-hearing Filing Does Not Dispose of Any Issue as to Util Compliance W/Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0721991-07-22022 July 1991 Petitioners First Emergency Motion for Stay.* Movants Urge Commission,In Interest of Justice,To Enjoin Lilco from Taking Any Actions Under possession-only License Which Might Moot Renewed Application for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D1541991-07-22022 July 1991 Lilco Response to Petitioner Emergency Motions.* Believes Petitioner Emergency Motions Should Be Denied to End Frivolous Pleadings & Burdens of Time & Resources of Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0841991-07-21021 July 1991 Petitioners Second Emergency Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission,Ex Parte,To Enjoin Lilco,From Any & All Acts W/Respect to Shoreham Which Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Representation in Court.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D2071991-07-15015 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (Swrcsd) Appeal from LBP-91-26.* Appeal Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4051991-07-12012 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE-2s Contentions on Possession Only License Amend.* Concludes That Contentions Should Be Rejected & Request for Hearing on Possession Only License Amend Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4001991-07-12012 July 1991 Movant-intervenors Motion for Change of Venue of Prehearing Conference.* Intervenors Request Change of Venue of 910730 Prehearing Conference from Hauppauge,Ny to Washington DC Area.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D3891991-07-10010 July 1991 Lilco Support of NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration of LBP-91-26.* for Reasons Listed,Nrc 910625 Motion Should Be Granted & Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene in Amend Proceeding Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4311991-07-0303 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Contentions on Confirmatory Order,Physical Security Plan & Emergency Preparedeness License Amends.* Petitioner Contentions Should Be Rejected & License Amends Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B3531991-07-0202 July 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Informs That Filing & Svc Requirements Presents No Obstacle to Filing W/Aslb or Svc Upon Any Parties.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 910702.Granted for Licensing Board on 910702 ML20082B2461991-06-28028 June 1991 Movant-Intervenor Brief in Support Accompany Notice of Appeal.* School District Urges Commission to Reverse & Remand Dismissal Order W/Appropriate Guidance.W/Ceritifcate of Svc ML20082B2571991-06-28028 June 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Petitioners Urge ASLB to Grant Variance in Svc Procedures Requested to Allow Svc of Judge Ferguson.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-10-08
[Table view] |
Text
+ .
, a sie d %Y ColKETEP UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA UMOC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Ebbr[b Il l .~
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
) (Low Power)
(Snoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION IN LIMINS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO PUBLIC INTEREST In light of this Board's June 27, 1984 Order Regarding Discovery Rulings (the " June 27 Order"), Suffolk County hereby moves the Board for an in limine determination as to the admis-sibility of evidence, relating to the current financial condition of Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"), that is probative on the issue whether the granting of LILCO's pending Application for Exemption and the issuance of an operating license to LILCO in the near future, is in the public interest.
See 10 CPR 550.12 ( a) which specifies expressly that an exemp-tion ~from a Part 50 requirement, to be granted, must be "other-wise in the public interest."
If, in ruling on this Motion, the Board determines that
- evidence relating to LILCO's current financial condition may be 8407120149 840709 PDR ADOCK 05000322 s JV f-G PDR ,< . (,i
relevant to the public interest issue presented by LILCO's Application for Exemption, Suffolk County further moves that the Board vacate the pertinent portion of its June 27 Order and require LILCO to respond to Suffolk County's discovery requests relating to its financial condition. If, in ruling on this Motion, the Board determines that evidence relating to LILCO's current financial conditic: is not admissible in this proceed-ing, even if such evidence may be probative of and material to whether the granting of the request exemption is in the public interest, Suffolk County moves that the Board refer its ruling to the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR S2.730(f).
The grounds for this Motion are set forth below.
A. Background On June 11, 1984 Suffolk County filed and served upon LILCO a discovery request titled "Second Discovery Request to LILCO Relating to LILCO's Application for Exemption" (tne "Second Discovery Request"), a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit I. .The Second Discovery Request seeks discovery concerning, among other matters, the current financial condition of LILCO, including information relating to the costs of preparing for and conducting the low power test program pro-posed by LILCO, and LILCO's source of funds to pay such costs.
b
j During the discovery conference on June 22, in response to I
LILCO's Motion for-a Protective Order concerning such discov- !
ery, counsel for the County explained that the discovery was j sought as part of the process of developing evidence, to be j
- presented at the hearing by County witnesses, concerning wheth-er it is in the public interest to grant LILCO's exemption re-r quest, which could result in an insolvent or bankrupt company [
t operating a nuclear power plant that does not comply with the 7 NRC's safety regulations. See Transcript of Proceedings, June t
22, 1984, 606.
i On June 22, and confirmed in the June 27 Order, the Board ruled that discovery into matters relating to the financial condition of LILCO "is not relevant to this inquiry." (June 27 l Order at 2). Thus, the Board denied Suffolk County's ability '{
i to obtain the discovery sought in the Second Discovery Request.
For the reasons set forth below, Suffolk County submits that ;
I evidence which is probative of whether it would be in the pub- f lic interest to grant a company which is in precarious finan- ;
cial condition an exemption from otherwise applicable NRC regu- l lations, thereby permitting such a company to operate a nuclear I
facility-is relevant, material, and admissible in this proceed-j ing. In light of the June 27 Order, however, Suffolk County l
- seeks an in limine determination of the admissibility of such ,
j n.- --w,-,~,w.~,--.,~ --,n re,--,,,--nm.mmn- -,,m-, . . - , , -,_
,_nyg.,,,.,-,,.,,,,,,,w,,,,e.--,--,~,,---g--- -m---,,,----,m.-.
evidence in order to avoid the pot.entially unnecessary burden and expense of preparing and submitting testimony on this subject.
At the outset, Suffolk County stresses that-the instant motion is separate and distinct from the question whether the NRC should waive its financial qualifications rule. That is addressed in the separate motion filed July 3, 1984. See Motion of Suffolk County and the State of New York for Leave to File Contention on LILCO's Financial Qualifications to O.perate Shoreham, for an Exception to Commission Rules, and for Cer-tification. Rather, the instant motion seeks a Board ruling regarding financial issues impacting on the Section 50.12(a)
"public interest" requirement.
B. The Section 50.12(a) Requirement of a "Public Interest" Determination in this Proceeding The standards governing the granting of the exemption being sought by LILCO are set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a).
Section 50.12(a) specifically provides that the Commission may
" grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations . . . as it determines . . . are otherwise in the public interest." (emphasis added). In view of that explicit regulatory standard, there can be no legitimate dispute that
evidence pertaining to whether the granting of the exemption being sought by LILCO would be "in the public interest" is ad-missible; it must be because the "public interest" is one of the issues which must be addressed in this proceeding on LILCO's pending Application for Exemption. An exemption may not be granted by the Commission absent an express determina-tion that the public interest favors the granting of the exemp-tion.
Furthermore, LILCO has asserted in its Application for Ex-emption (at 15-16), that the granting of the requested exemp-tion would be in the public interest; Suffolk County and the State of New York believe, and seek to submit evidence to prove, that the granting of the exemption is not in the public interest. Thus, the question of where the public interest lies with respect to the exemption sought by LILCO is a matter in controversy, which can only be decided based upon an evidenti-ary record. The question before this Board is wnether evidence relating to LILCO's current financial condition is relevant and admissible if it is probative of the public interest determina-tion which this Board and the Commission are required to make.
under Section 50.12(a).
C. LILCO's Financial Condition is Relevant to the Public Interest Determination Required by Section 50.12(a)
Relevant evidence has been defined to mean " evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more orobable than it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Ev., Rule 401 (emphasis added). One of the facts "of consequence" in this proceeding on LILCO's Application for Exemption is whether granting the exemption requested by LILCO is "in the public in-terest." 10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a). Thus, evidence which has "any tendency" to make the existence of such a fact either "more ,,
probable" or "less probable," is relevant and should be admit-ted. For the reasons detailed in the following discussion of the testimony which the County seeks to submit, SuffolK County ,
contends that LILCO's current financial crisis makes it not only "less probable" that the granting of the requested exemp-tion is in the public interest, but also makes the granting of the exemption contrary to the public interest. .
Suffolk County has engaged economic and financial experts who are prepared to testify that LILCO is on the brink of fi-nancial collapse. The County proposes to submit evidence that will show that the Company is projected to run out of cash on or before August 31, 1984, that LILCO has $90 million of bonds 6-
maturing on September 1, 1984, and that unless LILCO locates a new source of external financing prior to that date, the Company'has said it will be unable to make tne required pay-ment.
In addition, LILCO has already defaulted on obligations it undertook as a participant in the construction of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, a nuclear generating unit under construction near Oswego, New York. The evidence to be submitted by the County will show that as a result of that default, banks holding in excess of one-third of the $500 million LILCO borrowed for its share of Nine Mile Point construction are entitled to acceler-ate the entire loan with only thirty days notice to LILCO. The County's evidence will also show that, due to cross-default provisions in LILCO's debt instruments, a call on the Nine Mile Point loan could accelerate all or most of LILCO's $1.2 billion of outstanding debt.
Suffolk County witnesses are prepared to testify furtner that LILCO's current financial condition has already closed off LILCO's access to the capital markets. Indeed, they will tes-tify that at present, none of LILCO's secorities are of invest-ment grade, the Company has been forced to suspend dividends on its common stock, and the Company has stated publicly that s
\
-
by ty%e,need to' pay for the activities for which LILCO seeks an fixemption, would only further aggravate tne problem and in-
~
(
\
,i
'c,reasu,the harmful impact on the public resulting from LILCO's
'Linducial condition.
m 4
-7 )
%\i. sl ,' ' '
g,
\, ,
/ y '
, y
e I - % 4,
)
t f
\
.,,r - ----. . - . - . . . _,,-- ,.- - - -- - - . . . - - , .-- . . - - - - - - - - . - - . .- -.
J -
Suffolk County's evidence will also establish that LILCO /
itself is predicting bankruptcy unless two measures, both of which are beyond LILCO's ability to effectuate, ite.taken.
First, in order to stem off a bankruptcy, LILCO will have to be relieved of its past and future obligations for Nine Mile 1
- Point, which amount to almost onc billion (S918 million) dol-l [
lars. LILCO has proposed that such a billion-dollar-bailout be undertaken by the New York Power Authority. In addition to f
such a billion-dollar bailout, LILCO has also stated that in d
order to avoid bankruptcy the pending PSC prudency investiga-tion must be settled on terms which are extremely favorable to LILCO: namely, instead of LILCO's abscrbing between $1.8 and
$2.2 billion -- as proposed by the PSC staff and other interve-nors -- the Company would absorb only $250 million. The l
/I County's evidence will show that the Governor of New York has !
already rejected both the foregoing means of averting a LILCO bankruptcy. In short, Suf folk County's evidence will be that LILCO is not likely to be able to avoid a bankruptcy or some N other form of formal reorganization in the near future.
Evidence on these matters will demonstrate that as a direct result of LILCO's current financial condition, the puo-lic interest would be harmed if the requested exemption were granted. The County's witnesses are also prepared to testify I
! 1 l
- j. s. .
.7 ,
i
+; ,
l 9
- r Y'
- ' ' as to how the public would be adversely affected by the y granting of the requested exemption.
- -f
^
The evidence which the County proposes to submit concern-ing LILCO's existing financial crisis makes an affirmative pub-lic interest determination "less probable" and therefore the evidence is relevant. The public interest will not and, in the County's view, cannot be served by the issuance of a license now, to a company which is currently on the brink of insolvency and bankruptcy, authorizing that company to engage in tne in-herently hazardous activity of operating a nuclear power plant that admittedly is unable to comply with the NRC's regulations.
Such an action by the NRC is not in the public interest for numerous reasons, including the following, as to which tne County's witnesses would testify: the Company lacks resources to assure that the activities for which the exemption is sought can be conducted safely and in conformance with the Commission's regulations; the increased risk of inadequace maintenance and/or inadequate security as a result of lack of funds; the Company's inability to cope with any unexpected events or circumstances (whether nuclear related or otherwise) because it lacks the financial wherewithal and flexibility to deal with unpredicted exigencies; and the lack of assurance that the Company would have the resources necessary to fund the
activities it proposes, or to shut down and safely decontaminate the plant, if nec9ssary. Additionally, LILCO's presently existing financial condition has already adversely affected service to its customers because to remain solvent LILCO has had to cut back on many service-related aspects of its business. The granting of an exemption and the resulting attempt by LILCO to begin operating the Shoreham plant, in light of LILCO's current lack of financial resources, could only result in additional deterioration in its service to the public.
D. The Need for an In Limine Determination Suffolk County seeks an in limine determination of the ad-missibility of the proferred evidence in order to avoid the burden and expense attendant to the preparation of extensive testimony on how, due to LILCO's precarious financial condition, the public interest would not be served by granting LILCO the exemption it seeks. Such a determination is warranted in light of this Board's ruling that discovery sougnt by Suffolk County, which involved information concerning LILCO's current financial condition, including matters such as anticipated costs and the projected source of funds for conducting the activities for which the exemption is being c ,
Y sought by LILCO, "is not relevant to this proceeding." June 27 Order at 2. Similarly, counsel for LILCO has recently !
questioned wnether the testimony being prepared by Suffolk County's witnesses is "within the ambit" of the June 27 Order.
See letter of Robert M. Rolfe to Lawrence Coe Lanpher and i
Cherif Sedky, July 3, 1984, attached hereto as Exhibit II. ;
1 Given the foregoing, Suffolk County has reason to be uncertain whether the evidence it proposes to submit (as out-lined above) will be admitted by the Board. If the Board has, as LILCO appears to believe, effectively ruled that such evi-dence is irrelevant and inadmissible, there would be no point j in the County's incurring the substantial burden and expense involved in preparing and submitting such testimony. On the other hand, if, as a result of this motion, the Board determines that Suf folk County's evidence is relevant and ad-missible, the June 27 Grder should be vacated to the extent it sustained LILCO's objections to Suffolk County's Second Dis-covery Request. Such action on the part of the Board would af- ~
ford Suffolk County the opportunity to develop a meaningful record on how the granting of the exemption sought by LILCO ;
would not serve the public interest.
t 13 -
I a
E. Referral to the Commission If the Board determines th.at evidence of the sort discussed herein is not admissible with respect to the public interest determination mandated by 10 CFR Section 50.12(a), the County requests the Board to refer that ruling to the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.730(f) . Such referral is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest and to prevent the' unnecessary delay and expense that would be in-volved in obtaining a Commission ruling after the hearing on LILCO's exemption application has taken place.
In the County's view, a ruling that the evidence described in this Motion is irrelevant and not admissible in this pro-ceeding would be contrary to the provisions in 10 CFR' Section 50.12(a) and the Commission's May 16 Order in this case, which require that this Board make a determination that the requested exemption is in the public interest. If the Board nonetheless ,
decides that the evidence proposed by tne County is irrelevant and inadmissible, a review by the Commission is necessary to resolve the conflict which would then exist between the Board's rulings and the Commission's Orders and Section 30.12(a).
Clearly, a prompt resolution of whetner the public's interest in the granting of the exemption requested by LILCO is or is not a proper subject of consideration in this proceeding, is necessary.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Herbert H. Bro fw Lawrence Coe Mnpher Karla J. Letsche Cherif Sedky KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated: Washing ton, D.C.
July 9, 1984
- . , - - - - , - - , - --