|
---|
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
.
r- ,; ,, c a. c,w p ,3 .., . . .,,,.c .
~~
t)00KET M . '~ 9
/Of53 - J ,
PROD. A UTIL. FAC 'bM 4 ..
~ '
.. ?
00utETED USNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Co m !$$10N y y .9 p4 m s
l BEFORE THE COMIS$10N OmCE OF SEC9ETAPY 00CKt iING A SEHvlCf.
',L .,. 2-
, BRAllC5i
.e .
'In the Matter of a .
l L.
.. a ,
) ;
o
/
j LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 4s. ..
c j (ShorehamNuclearPowerStation.
C Unit 1) ,
p u
L
?'
~
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONS T0 INTERVENE AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON CONFIRMATORY ORDER, FILED BY f' SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC. AND p
l-BY SHORENAH-blADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT r
1
- 1. .
E rsm l
/1 '
4 f, j .-
}
4 Sherwin E. Turk pl , . Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney
[ ,
k May 8, 1990 c i . u ,
- . +
- 4) - .,#;
h- <
i.-tw 4 ., -
4 of . a -
. . 4 s -y .,. .
s >
E . . . Ns' Y .'
901029 M9 I* ? l y
a PDR g
A M0 ppg 322 9n-rp , < w g c. m..: 71, ..,7.y.y 7 .. .y.y .,,,;.4; . . , .c
})$a7 t .; nay y -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA >
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ,
l t
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322.
(ShorehamNuclearPower-Station, .
Unit 1)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND !
REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON CONFIRMATORY ORDER,. FILED BY' SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC. AND BY SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT-r t
l 8
Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney May 8, 1990
l _
i i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY ComISSION l
BEFORE THE COMMISSION :
1 In the Matter of ,
10NG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 ,
(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, l, ' Unit 1) ;
l NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING ON CONFIRMATORY ORDER, FILED BY SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY,'INC. ,
AND BY SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ;
On March 29, 1990, the Commission issued an immediately effective
" Confirmatory Order" modifying the operating license for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station held by Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0" or the
" Licensee"),prohibitingLILCO"fromplacinganynuclearfuelintothe - '
Shoreham reactor vessel without prior approval from the NRC." On April 5, ,
1990, notice of the Confirmatory Order was published in the Federal Register (55 Fed. Reg. 12758); the notice afforded any persons adversely ;
l affected by the Confirmatory Order an opportunity to request a hearing .
thereon within 20 days of its issuance, and required any such person to i
- set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by-this Order and [to] address the criteria set forth i'
in10C.F.R.2.714(a)." Id. at 12759.
In response to the aforesaid notice, on April 18..1990, petitions for-leave to intervene and requests for hearing on.the Confirmatory Order were filed by Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy Inc. ("SE 2") and the 5
, - - , -, - ....,-.....----,-rs,.--,-,e-e.--, -- v r- en -
Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" District").1/ Therein, f the Petitioners argued that their interests would be adversely affected by i
~
I the Confinnatory Order, based on their view that-it constitutes "one part of the larger proposal to decommission Shoreham" (District Petition at 2; !
SE 2 Petition at 2). A single response in opposition to the Petitions (and ,
r to similar petitions and requests for hearings filed by these Petitioners in connection with a proposed amendment to the Shoreham physical security ,
plan)wasfiledbyLILC0onMay3,1990.II ,
i The NRC Staff (" Staff") hereby responds to SE 2 and the District's Petitions. The Staff submits that the Petitions fail to demonstrate that ;
the Petitioners' interests' will be adversely affected by the Confimatory i Order, or that the Petitioners are entitled to a hearing thereon. For these reasons, as more fully set forth below, the Staff opposes the Petitions and recomends that they be denied.
l i
~1/ 'Shoreham-Wading River Central School District's Petition for Leave -
to Intervene and Request for Hearing", filed April 18, 1990
("Distri:t Petition"); and " Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy. Inc.'s Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for .
Hearing", filed April 18,1990 ("SE 2 Petition"). The two Petitions appear to be largely identical, except insofar as they describe the-identity of each Petitioner and the impacts each would allegedly experience as a result of the Confinnatory Order.
l l -
2/ "Long Island Lighting Company's Opposition to Intervention Petitions i on Confimatory Order and on Amendment to andRequestsforHearing'datedMay3,1990("LILCO'sOpposition").
Physical Security Plan, t
+
i G
r - >ev,e,r* ,r,-- - -m~.,- s-w ,r e e-- -,-.v-m--s, , e e
._ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. _ __ _. _ _ _ . _ _ - .~ _._. _ , .
4 DISCUSSION i
A. Lack of adverse Impact Upon Petitioners' Interests. j i
- 1. Petitoners' Stated Interests. l The P'etitioners assert, as they must. under Comission regulations (Lee e discussion-infra, at 6), that the Confimatory Order will have an l adverse impact upon their interests. These interests are said to consist of such factors as: .
'~
- 1. Petitioners' asserted " genuine or direct interest in the [
outcome" (presumably, the outcome of Shoreham's decomissioning) ,
(SE 2 Petition at 4; District Petition at 4); *
- 2. Thethreatof(unspecified)"distinctinjuriesasadirect consequence of the Confimatory Order" (SE 2 Petition at 5; District '
Petitionat5);
- 3. The alleged " endanger [ ment of] the health and safety of ;
Petitioners' members during this unapproved decomissioning "
resulting from "LILCO's efforts to save money by shutting down all i' operations, slashing staff and permanently defueling the. reactor" (SE 2 Petition at 5-6; District Petition at 5-6);
4 "[5]everely increased . . . radiological health and safety risks" to the Petitioners and their members, allegedly caused by LILCO's " continuous refusal to abide by the tems of its Operating i License" (SE 2 Petition at 6; District Petition at 6); .
l 5. SE 2 and its members' " interest in the radiologically safe I and environmentally benign operation of Shoreham.to provide them with I reliable electricity and to avoid the substitution of fossil fuel plants," which would pose adverse effects on the environment, the trade deficit and the nation's energy security (SE 2 Petition at 7-8); ,
- 6. The District's purported interest in "the health and i environment of almost-2000 students and 500 employees, who live
, and/or work in close proximity to the Shoreham facility, from both l the possible radiological impacts of the Confimatory Order and the i
adverse health and other environmental consequences of non-operation of Shoreham" such as would be caused by fossil fuel replacement plants (DistrictPetitionat7-8);
- 7. Petitioners' reliance upon LILCO to meet their energy needs, and their " interest in ensuring that an adequate and reliable ,
supply of electricity will be available to meet their needs and that ~ >
rw- w - m- - , - e*-- - -----,,--*~w, - cwo, w -
l i i
the electricity provided is available st reasonable rates" -- which ,
interest would be adversely affected by "[a]ctions to dismantle the i facility and build substitute oil or. 'jas burning plants" (SE 2 !
Petition at 9; District Petition at li); . !
- 8. The District's economic' interest'in preserving Shoreham's !
value as an operating plant, in that it allegedly provides ,
"approximately ninety percent of the School District's tax base" -;
(District Petition at 8-9); and l
- 9. SE 2's interest in opposing agency actions which interfere with that organization's " informational purposes", due to the Staff's purported refusal to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS), ;
which allegedly deprives SE 2 of its ability to connent on such an ,
i EIS, to advise its members of the environmental . risks of alternative i l
l actions,(and 1eaders SE 2toPetition report the findings at 10). , to its members and to political In sum, SE 2 and the District's interests are asserted to include :
I (a) protecting the radiological health and safety of their members, i
students,and/oremployees;(b)protectingtheenvironmentfromthe effects of Shoreham's operation; (c) protecting the environment from the effects of fossil fuel replacement plants; (d) ensuring the availability of an adequate, reliable and inexpensive energy supply; (e) preserving Shoreham's tax value as an operating plant; and (f) protecting SE 2's !
infomational capabilities.
L i 2. Lack of Adverse Impact.,
The Petitioners do not directly identify any impacts that the Order, by itself, may be expected to have upon their interests. In addition to-t listing the interests described above, they contend that a hearing is- '
required to detemine "whether, if a decision is made to go to full power 3 operation at Shoreham, the Confirmatory Order gives reasonable assurance 4
...[ofprotecting)thepublichealthandsafetyandthenational l defense and security"; and "whether, if a decision is made to decommission h Shoreham, the Confimatory Order gives reasonable assurance that.such !
1
I
- 5-l ' decommissioning will be conducted in accordance with the public health and .!
safety and the national defense end. security" (SE 2 Petition at 11-12; j l
District Petition at 10-11). Further, Petitioners contend that the !
i Confirwatory Order constitutes part of Shoreham's "de facto decommis- l f
sioning"; and they request a " full and fair NEPA consideration of the decommissioning proposal" (SE 2 Petition at 12; district Petition at 11). , l On their face, some of Petitioners' stated interests (in particular, those involving radiological health and safety or the environmental l impacts of Shoreham's operation) might be found to be sufficient to afford one or both of these Petitioners standing to participate in certain kinds j of licensing actions for Shoreham -- assuming that they had properly i
. f demonstrated their authority to act in a representational capacity on. !
behalf of their members, employees or students. M No such action, !
however, can reasonably be fou'd to be present here and, under the t
- standards governing intervention in Commission adjudicatory proceedings, !
the Petitions should be denied. ,
Section189(a)(1)oftheAtomicEnergyActprovides,inpertinent part, as follows:
3/
In light of Petitioners' failure to demonstrate any interests that may be adversely affected by the Confirmatory' Order, as discussed infra, we do not address here the Petitioners further failure to demonstrate, by affidavit or otherwise, their capacity to represent the interests of their members, students, or employees. See i generally, Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek NucTear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393-97 (1979);
Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 5tation),LBP-87-7,25NRC116,118(1987); Combustion Engineering Inc. (Hematite Fuel. Fabrication Facility), LBP-89-23, 30 NRC 140, 149 Station, Unit 2)(,LBP-84-6,19NRC393,411(1984).1989); Duquesne Light C >
_ _ .__, , , n.,,, ,e,, e,,.ae,, --- .,.gn-,,.w., . , , , , , ,.,.g.w..m- , .,, ., p. . , , -
i In any proceeding under this chapter, for the granting, k suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit, or application to transfer control, *
. . the Comission shall grant a hearing upon the.
request of any person whose interest may be .
affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to the proceeding. ]
Id.,42U.S.C.I2239(a)(1)(emphasisadded). Under 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714(a)(1), "any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding [
and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene." Any such petition must satisfy the following requirements: . ->
. The petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the
)roceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should
>e permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the i specific aspect or aspects.cf the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
10C.F.R.I2.714(a)(2)(emphasisadded).4/
The Commission has long held that judicial concepts of standing will -
be applied in determining whether a petitioner has sufficient interest in '
, a proceeding to be entitled to intervene as a matter of right under i
4/
- 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(d)(1) provides that, in considuing petitions for leave to intervene, the Comission or presiding officer shall consider, among other matters, the following factors:
(1) The nature of the petitioner's right-under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding, i
(ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's '
l property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
-. _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ . - _ _ _ ___
i 1
Section 189 of the Act. See. g Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile i Island Nuclear Station Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 332 (1983), citing -!
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant. Onits 1 and2),CLI-76-27.4NRC610(1976). The Comission has further held that !
these judicial concepts require a showing (a) that the action will cause'
" injury in fact," and (b) that the injury is " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the statutes governing the proceeding. E , 18 NRC at 332; Pebble Springs, 4 NRC at 613. Further, in order to establish 3 standing,ithasbeenheldthatthepetitionermustshow(1)thathehas i
personally suffered a distinct and palpable ham that constitutes j injury .in-fact; (2) that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action; and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable ,
decision in the proceeding. Dellums v. E , 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir.
1988). Cf. Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield Ill. Low Level Radioactive WasteDisposalSite).ALAB-473,7NRC737,743(1978)(theremustbea concrete demonstration that harm could flow from the result of a proceeding).
An application of these principles to the instant Petitions 1
demonstrates that the Petitions should be denied. The Confirmatory Order issued on March 29, 1990, did no more than confirm LILCO's voluntary comitment, as expressed in LILCO's letter of January 12, 1990, not to l place fuel in the reactor core without prior Comission approval. That comitment was found to be appropriate by the Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (" Director"), in light of certain actions which LILCO had already taken following its agreement with the State of New York to transfer the plant to on entity of the State for 1
. - , ,,4 ,- . , .--, . ..-- -,--r ~ . - - , ~ _ _ ~ ~ . . - , ~ . - . - . - __ -....m. -- . .--,-,1- - - . _ -
decommissioning. Specifically, LILCO had completely defueled the reactor vessel and reduced its operation and support staff below the level which would be required if the plant were to return to an operating ~or standby mode. See 55 Fed. Reg at 12758. The Director stated (jjd.):
The NRC has determined that the public health and safety require that the licensee not return fuel to the reactor vessel for the following reasons: (1)The reduction in the licensee's onsite support staff below that necessary for plant operations, and (2) the absence of NRC-approved procedures for returning to an opera-tional status systems and equipment that the licensee i has decided to deactivate and protect rather than ,
maintain until ultimate disposition of the plant is determined. Such systems and equipment include all emergency core cooling systems, most of the plant's )
safety-related systems, and most of the plant's-auxilliary support systems. If LILCO were to place nuclear fuel into the. reactor vessel, this could result in a core configuration that could become critical and produce power without a sufficient number of adequately trained personnel to control operation. In addition. it !
is questionable whether necessary safety equipment would be available.
In light of these considerations, the Director found LILCO's commitment to not place nuclear fuel in the reactor core without prior NRC approval to be " acceptable and necessary"; concluded that "with this commitment, the plant's safety is reasonably assured"; and determined that the public health and safety require confirmation of LILCO's commitment in an innediately effective Confinnatory Order. Id. Finally, the Director made it clear that "[t]his Confirmatory Order in no way relieves the licensee of the tems and conditions of its operating license or of its commitments covering the continued maintenance of structures, systems, and components outlined in its letter of September 19, 1989." Id. at 12759. ,
The Confirmatory Order cannot reasonably be found to adversely affect any. interest identified by the Petitioners. It nowhere authorizes LILCO
.g.
to take any action which would affect the public health and safety (such as authorizing fuel loading or operation of the reactor), nor does it in any way alter the present status of the plant. Indeed, it does no more than recognize that certain actions already taken by LILC0 could have an adverse impact upon the public health and safety if LILCO should later decide'to place nuclear fuel in the reactor.'unless the NRC imposes the Order. By the same token, the Confirmatory Order does not preclude LILCO
.. from placing nuclear fuel in the reactor vessel at some future date, should it decide to do so, but only requires prior NRC approval for such u an action; that effect can hardly be said to constitute "de facto decomissioning" of the plant. Most significantly, the Order does not effectuate or authorize a decommissioning of the plant, nor does it even constitute a necessary step in any decomissioning plan; it only provides that the plant may not be refueled absent the adoption of approved steps to assure the protection of the public health and safety.
In sum, Petitioners have failed to show that the Confirmatory Order may reasonably be found to have some adverse impact, i.e., some " injury in fact" upon any interest they have identified; and they have failed to show 1 that such injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action or that such injury could be redressed by a favorable decision in this proceeding
(_1.e., by rescission of the Confirmatory Order).
B. Petit'oners' Concerns Are Beyond the Scope of the Proceeding.
The Petitioners argue that they are entitled to a hearing in order "to determine whether the order should be sustained, vacated or modified under the AEA" (SE 2 Petition at 11; District Petition at 10). In this
__ .-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ _ _ __.__ _ __ _ _ ._ ~- _ -- _ . _ , - _ - _ _. - _ __
. i e ?
-i
'{
regard, they identify four principal aspects of the proceeding as to which' -
they seek to intervene: l (1) "whether .the Confirmatory Order is arbitrary, caparicious and/or f
abuse of discretion and/or not supported by substantial evidence";
(2) "whether if a decision is made to go to full power operation a't l Shoreham, the Confirmatory Order gives reasonable assurance . . . [of-protecting) the public health and safety and the national defense'and q
security"; }
(3) "whether, if a decision is made to decomission Shoreham.;the !
Confirmatory Order gives reasonable assurance.that such decomissioning- !
will be conducted in accordance with the public health and safety and the national defense and security"; and A
(4) they request a " full and fair NEPA consideration' of the decomissioning proposal"'(SE 2 Petition at- 11-12; District- Petition at 10-11). I In addition, the Petitioners identify a long list of issues they-would seek to explore in hearings, premised on their belief that the I Confirmatory Order constitutes one step in the de facto decomissioning of the plant-(SE 2 Petition at 22-26 and 38-40; District' Petition at 21-25 L and37-38). These include issues such as whether LILCO's reductions in a staff and level of plant maintenance are in accordance.with NRC regulations; whether there are' adequate procedures and. personnel to operate the plant if LILCD decides to place fuel back in the reactor vessel; whether LILCO's comitments in its September 19,1989 . letter are ,
in accordance with its responsibilities under its license; whether LILCO's reduced level of staffing and maintenance is in compliance with NEPA; and
'I i
i t
s ' - ~ , . , , ---s-.---- .---- .---- - - . . . . - . . - - - - - - - . - - - - - . -
I r L ,
,11 .
whether the Confirmatory Order, insofar as it' recognizes LILCO's reduced; level of staffing and maintenance, is in compliance with NEPA.
Notwithstanding Petitioners' lengthy enumeration of purp6rted aspects of the proceeding,in which they would seek to participate, it is-apparent
~
that those concerns are beyond the' scope of any proceedingJon the l Confirmatory Order. As stated'above, the: Confirmatory Order neither ' j permits plant operation nor forbids:it; nor does it constitute part of a
~
de facto decommissioning of the plant. In the event that LILC0 or a r 1
subsequent licensee proceeds with a plan to decommission 1the plant, many,
- l l of the issues raised by Petitioners might arguably be raised in any '
L .
related license amendment proceeding. Similarly, if LILCO or:a subsequent
+
licensee should decide to operate the' plant, many of Petitioners' other .;
concerns could be raised in-a petition filed under 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 The -
Confirmatory Order, however, does not give' rise to.a proceeding broad ' ,
enough to consider the issues raised by Petitioners here, and those; issues remain outside the scope of any proceeding on the Confirmatory Order.- ;
The Commission has clearly indicated that it mayglimit.and define the scope of an action which it initiates. Boston Edison' Cor(Pilgrim' Nuclear 1 Power Station), CLI-82-16.- 16 NRC 44,- 46 '(1982), aff'd, Bellotti v.-NRC, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1983). See also, Public Service Co. of Indiana I (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Units 1 &L2), CLI-80-10,;11 NRC' f 438,441-42(1980). In these cases, the Consnission denied third party -
petitions for hearings and intervention on enforcement orders modifying *
[
the licenses for the facilities, on the ground that the petitions presented concerns outside the scope of the proceedings. In approving the Commission's authority to define the scope of its proceedings, that is, 9
4-s e
- - - . - - . . , - ~ , , , . . , - . , . . --
_e,,_ . . _ , , _ ,. , , _ < , -
. .w,.-. .,,,-..-a-<
~-
l
.l i
their agenda and substance, the Court in Bellotti stated, "[w]e have no
- doubt that as.a general matter. such authority must reside in the -
~
Commission". Bellotti, supra. 725 F.2d at 1381.
Here, the Confirmatory Order clearly-limits the scope of any hearing i i
that may be held in connection with that Order. ~ Section V of the Order states, "If a hearing is held, the issue:to.be. considered at such hearing l
I ,
shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be. sustained". 55 Fed.:
l
- Reg. at 12759. In order to succeed in their request for a herring, the ,
g Petitioners must demonstrate that their interests'may~ be affected by the
- scope of the proceeding as defined by th'e Consnission; and Petitioners' right to a hearing must be evaluated only in the context of:the-specific action effectuated by the Confirmatory Order.
As set forth above, any hearing on the Confirmatory Order would be-limited to considering whether the Order should be sustained, that.is, whether the facts regarding the facility stated in the Order are true, and +
L whether the remedy selected by the Director is~ supported by the facts.
Accepting, arguendo, that the Petitioners' interests are:affected by the issues they propose for hearing, those issues'are nonetheless outside the scope of this proceeding as defined by the Confimatory Order. Indeed, '
l the correctness of this conclusion is demonstrated by'the " remedies" sought by Petitioners, all of-which exceed the scope of the proceeding on.
the Confirmatory Order which was noticed in the Federal Register Qee e SE 2- .
I Petition at 40-43; District Petition at 39-42).
J t
)
--, ...,,1 - , ,, . . . . __~..-...L ~,...L .. . , , . .
s
- 13 ,
CONCLUSION-For the reasons more fully set forth above, the-Petitions should be +
s denied for failure to demonstrate how the Petitioners' intere'ts s may be i affected by the Confirinatory Order or that the Petitioners are entitled to -
q a hearing thereon.
Respectfully submitted, c
l Sherwin E. Turk
. Senior-Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated atlRockville, Maryland
- this 8th day of May, 1990.
m i,
e t
, - - , , . . - , . . .Ea. ...- ,
1 ,
L 00CMETED'
-USNHC:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION
. SD MY 91 P4 :09 BEFORE THE COMMISSION ~ .gFiE SEC TA BRANC6i-In the Matter of )-
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket'No. 50-322
- (ShorehamNuclear'PowerStation. )
Unit 1)'
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ,
i Notice is given'that I hereby enter.my appearance'in the above -;
captioned proceeding. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I'2.713(b). the following-q information is provided: '
Name: Sherwin E. Turk-H Address:' Office 'of the General Counsel !
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone: (301)492-1575: .
Admissions: United States Supreme Court '
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia '
District of-Columbia State of New Jersey 1
i Name of Party: NRC Staff 1
1 Respectfullysubmitted, '
, a l Y ,
Sherwin E. Turk ,
Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney ;-
e a Dated at Rockville, Maryland . 1 this 8th day of May, 1990
\ Y
=
-00 CME 1ED USNRC UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGVLATORY COMMISSION cgy.9 pjg7 BEFORE THE COPNISSION
[0CK[llNG A SEifViffiCE -- I BRANCH ~i In the Matter of ) !
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY . Docket No. 50-322 ;
^
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) . .
CERTIFICATE OF! SERVICE- i I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONSL '
TO INTERVENE AND-REQUESTS FOR. HEARING 10N CONFIRMATORY ORDER, FILED BY.
SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY INC..AND BY SHOREHAM-WADING 1 RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" for.Sherwin E.
Turk in the above captioned proceeding'have been served on the following
- by deposit in the United States mai.1, first class or.'as indicated by)an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail-
- system, this 8th day of May,1990:
James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq. W. Taylor-Reveley, III, E'sq. f Dow. Lohnes & Albertson Donald.P. Irwin, Esq; i 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Hunton & Williams: .i Suite 500 707 East Main Street.
Washington, D.C. 20037 P.O... Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212-
. i.
Office of the Secretary (16) '
Attn: Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
.i
'b
.Sherwin E. Turk Senior' Supervisory 4 Trial Attorney m
.m, * . . .. . . - . , ~ . , . .. .* -* .v...v.., % .