ML20042B721
| ML20042B721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1982 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Cohalan P SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203250581 | |
| Download: ML20042B721 (2) | |
Text
__-_
W
- p atGu (D STATES
'o g
..,ULATORY COMMISSION y
3 asHINGTON, D. C. :{$55 5
- l
% *****,o Marc 2QS-N M Qb
'U2 [ ~ 24 f0O
,j\\
Q1 MQ
'h
.du u /9) h MAR 241982, d
'~
Mr. Peter F. Cohalan d ts trm m em Suffolk County Executive 6
$#9 Office of the Suffolk 8
County Executive
,'d' Y U W Veterans Memorial Highway M0Q
% FAC... g g *
.w.
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Dear Mr. Cohalan:
I am responding to your March 5, 1982 letter to Chairman Palladino regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's February 26, 1982 monthly status report to Congress.
In your letter, you expressed concern that the projected dates given in the status report,.as well as certain statements in the footnotes to the report, are inappropriate as expressions of the Commission's prejudgment of the outcome of ongoing licensing proceedings, most particularly that relating to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
~
The monthly status report is an effort to fulfill the request of Congress that it be apprised regularly of the-status of the vprious licensing proceedings being conducted by the NhC.
Any projected date given in the report is only an estimate, based on the most current information available, about when a particular' phase of a proceeding is likely to commence or be completed; it is not 'a judgme'nt about what result that proceeding should yield.
- Likewise, the explanatory material in the footnotes that accompany the report are designed to impart backgrop d information concerning a particular proceeding or the licensing process in general and.are not in any way a prediction of the result in any adjudicatory proceeding.
As illustrative of this principle, I note the items referenced in your letter, including the projected date for an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision in the shoreham case and footnote to the report concerning issuance of a low-power license, restricted to.five percent power, following a licensing board ruling.
The p'otential decision date is only an estimate of when the licensing board will reach a determination of the issues'in the proceeding, not a statement of what that determination will MD3 be.
Similarly, footnote 3 is intended to indicate only that I
8203250581 e2O323 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - ~
.s
.a Mr. Potor F. Cohnlan
~
in the event of a licensing board ruling that is favorable to the applicant's request for an operating license, consistent with present agency practice a license may be granted that initially is limited to low-power testing.
This would remain in effect while the Commission considers whether full-power operation may proceed pending further merits review of the licensing board's decision.
The NRC's February 26 compilation of estimated dates for the milestones in the licensing process for all pending construction permit operating license applications is thus not a prejudgment of the outcome of any particular proceeding.
Clearly, it is the obligation of any adjudicatory body considering a given case, whether it be the Commission or a licensing or appeal board, to study thoroughly and objectively the issues that are properly Lefore it and. render a full and fair determination of whethee, consistent with the dictates of applicable law, a requested licensing action should be approved.
Sincercly, k
f Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
General Counsel e
9