ML20083M245

Requests Answers to Listed Questions on NRC Change of Position on Low Power License for Facility in Light of Evidence Re Tdi Diesel Generators.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20083M245
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/10/1984
From:	Jones F SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
NUDOCS 8404170534
Download: ML20083M245 (11)

Text

goy COUNTY dFl!!iUFFDR gp}Q fQTED CO;;nzSpanozygg

%.# is%P PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE .y OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE FRANK R. JONES

,.y ,, , y ggg t Erttry county ExEcutivt

, n :x; 7. SEPv:

nmi April 10, 1984 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Dear Mr. Di rc k s :

On January 26, 1984, at a meeting between the NRC Staff and the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("TDI") diesel generator "0wners' Group," the Staff presented substantial evidence of " serious problems" with TDI diesels, particularly those at the Shoreham nuclear plant. Harold Denton stated:

We view this as a very_ serious problem for the industry...... You wouldn't think that-diesel generators would get on the critical path of the nuclear power reactors, but that's very likely what has happened. And just so there is no doubt about where-the Staff stands on these issues, we are not prepared-to go forth and recommend the issuance of new licenses :on any olant that has Delaval diesels until the issues that are raised here today are adequately addressed.

At th.e same meeting, Darrell'Eiser. hut emphasized'the Staff's position that the known defects in'the TDI diesels must be solved and the diesels determined to be adequate for nuclear service "orior to licensing, even a low-power license . . . . . . . .

8404170534 840410 cont'd PDR ADOCK 05000322 g 30N H L "E DENNISON EXECUTivt OFICE 80tLDING VE%R ANS MEesOmi AL M4GMilt AY MiUPPAuGE. N V.11798

,=, _ .,

y

r <

Mr. William J. Dircks Ap ri l 10, 1984 Six weeks later, on April 3, Mr. Denton again reiterated the Staff's position in a letter to the County's counsel and quoted his January 26th statement.

Despite the consistency of Staff's position from January 26th to April 3rd, on March 30 --- four days before Mr. Denton repeated the Staff's position that no license, including a low-power license, should be issued until the TDI diesel problems are resolved -- the Staff filed a pleading with the Licensing Board supporting LILC0's motion to obtain a low power license for Shoreham. The Staff did this with full knowledge that on February 22, the Licensing Board had admitted three of Suffolk County's contentions challenging the adequacy of the TDI diesels at Shoreham. The Licensing Board there stated:

(W)e don't have any confidence that any of these (TDI) diesels will operate at any power unless we have litigated (Suffolk County) Contentions 1, 2 and 3 on the merits.

Significantly, the Staff itself had supported admission of those three contentions in a lengthy pleading of its own.

At the April 4 " oral argument" before the Licensing Board, the Staff attorney -- in a shocking flip-flop -- argued that Shoreham could be granted a low power license without any diesel generators and without any onsite emergency power at all.

In totally rejecting the relevance of the repeated statements of Messrs. Denton and Eisenhut to the contrary, the Staff attorney announced that his position "...was cleared by Mr. Denton, and Mr. Denton was sitting here. earlier today listening to the Staff's position and certainly approved the Staff's position"."

This crude reversal of the Staff's position on a low power license for Shoreham cannot be explained by anything in the public Pecord. The Staff's reversal to support licensing of

Shorehbri without any onsite emergency power system came as a complete surprise to Suffolk County. I request an immediate explana. ion.

-- What happened between April 3 and April 4, or for that matter between January 26 and April 4, to cause the Staff to complately reverse-its position?

What legal authority does the Staff have to ignore its own regulation -- GDC 17 -- which requires an onsite emergency power system?

/

L

.c , M r, . William J. Dircks April 10, 1984 What benefit does the Staff perceive for a quick low power license for Shoreham that justifies licensing the plant with no onsite emergency power system?

-- Never has the NRC licensed a nuclear plant with no onsite emergency power system. Why has the staff decided to do so at Shoreham?

I would appreciate your prompt response to thesc questions.

Sincerely yours, F ank R. dn

, eputy Coun y xecutive FRJ/ec cc: Governor Cuomo Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissior,er Roberts Commissioner Asselstine

' Commissioner Bernthal Harold Denton r

I w

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK yd- ; h..:

F. ' 2!

$?

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. COH ALAN JOHN C. GALLAGHER surrota cou~tv cxecurive cmcr orPuTv April 11, 1984 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Room 1114 Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing on Suffolk County's behalf to object to your recent personal intervention in the Shoreham licensing proceeding and to ask that you and your colleagues take prompt action to remedy the procedural irreaularities which your intervention produced.

By memorandum to your colleagues dated March 20, you characterized the Shoreham proceeding as experiencing " licensing delays" and proposed an " expedited hearing" so that "a low power decision might be possible" for LILCO on an expedited basis.

Yourememorandum followed press reports of a meetino that you had with LILCO's Board Chairman and stated that you had discussed Shoreham's " licensing delays" on March 16 with certain NRC staff personnel, including " Tony Cotter." Mr. Cotter, who is the NRC's Chief Administrative Judge, and the NRC's other Judges sit as adjudicators in contested licensing proceedings such as Shoreham.

They are, by law, required to be impartial in their judgments and free from the undue influence of anyone, including the members and chairman of the NRC.

On March 30, Mr. Cotter issued an unanticipated order which precipitously changed the Licensing Board Judges who would consider LILCO's request for a low power license. On the same day, these new Judges issued a separate order which mandated that they would decide LILCO's low powet license request on an

" expedited basis." Neither the previous Licensing Board which had heard and rejected LILCO's low power license request on February 22, nor Mr. Cotter, nor any other NRC Judge had ever suagested the need to " expedite".the Shoreham proceeding.

VETER ANS MEMORI AL MsGHw AY e H A UPP A UGE. N.Y.1 1768 m (516: 360-dooC

On April 4, the new Judges convened an " oral argument" of counsel. Two days later, the Judges " expedited" consideration of LILCO's low power license request in the fashion of an entirely

- new form of proceeding:

on an expedited basis."

a so-called " limited evidentiary hearing The Board 's " expedited basis" turned out to mean the flat reiection of every significant legal and procedural request of Suffolk County and a mockery.of due process. The " limited evidentiary hearing" turned out to mean crippling the County's ability to prepare and present a meaningful substantive case so thoroughly that it was tantamount to barring the County from beina heard on the merits. (In this light, it is inconsequential that_the Board went even farther by stating that it could have probably ruled on LILCO's low power license request with no hearings at all.)

Adding insult to the County's injury,.the Board ounctuated its order with the statement (contrary to the explicit representations of Suffolk County and New York State) that the

" expedited schedule will not prejudice any party to this proceeding." Seen in this context, the Board's order was a tribute to the power of your office as Chairman to influence the purportedly impartial decisionmaking of the Licensing Board.

The effects of your_ personal involvement in Shoreham, ,

Mr. Chairman, did not end with the Licensing Board's abusive '

procedural ruling. They tainted the NRC Staff as well. From January 26 through April 3, the Staff, and Messrs. Denton and Eisenhut particularly, publicly repea'ted their position that Shoreham would not be permitted to- operate, even at low power, '

until the'" serious problems" (as Mr. Denton put it) with the Trans* america Delaval emergency diesels were resolved. On April 4, as part of the " expedited basis"-juggernut that you had set _ running in March, the Staff unexpectedly reversed itself. At that time, the Staff announced to the Licensing Board that not only did ito now support low powe" '-"ition of Shoreham with the defective Transamerica Delaval ' but with no onsite emergency power system whatsoev. Rtaff went so far as to read the Commission 's recillation explicitly require onsite.emeroency power and have en interpreted by the NRC to mean just that, out of es hen, in keeping with the spirit of its other rulings. ing Board bought the Staff's arguments one hundred p 2.

Mr. Chairman, the inevitable .iference to-be drawn trom these events is that'your. meeting with LILCO's Board Chairman, your expression of interest to " expedite" the Shoreham proceeding when meeting with Mr.' Cotter and the NRC Staff on March 16, and your March 20 memorandum.proposinar" expedited" treatment of LILCO's low power license request signalled,the Licensing Board Judges and the Staf f to shift gears; they were now to rush

. forward and' issue a low. power license for-Shoreham, despite the

effect this would have on the concerns for safety expressed by Suffolk County and New York State. The Licensing Board and Staff, in turn, took your signal as a marchina order. And, without any justification, they " expedited" the Shoreham proceeding so faithfully that the Board is now poised to issue a low power license for Shoreham while significant safety issues, such as the following, remain outstanding:

(1) There is no qualified onsite emergency power source at Shoreham, as required expressly by NRC regulations, because the installed Transamerica Delaval diesels are defective (the new replacement diesels which LILCO has ordered will not be ready for operation until late 1985);

4 (2) LILCO is financially unqualified to operate Shoreham, because the company is teetering on bankruptcy and the New York Public Service Commissioin' Staff has, following a year-long investigation, recommended that no more than $2.2 billion of the ,

" grossly mismanaged" S4.1 billion Shoreham project be permitted '

into LILCO's rate base; (3) LILCO is organizationally unqual?ified to manage and direct operations of Shoreham, because the company's upper management is known, by the NRC itself, to lack requisite experience in nuclear power management; (4) LILCO is technically unqualified to operate Shoreham, because the company does not have the requisite licensed operators with RWR operating experience; (5) There is no of fsite emergency preparedness for Shoreh'am, and no reasonable basis to assume there ever will be; (6) Both Suf folk County and the State of New York oppose issuance of a low power license on safety and economic grounds l (issuance of a low power license would prejudice these '

interests).

The stark fact, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no justification for the NRC even to consider issuance of a low power license at this juncture, let alone to rush the proceeding forward with the present public-be-damned spirit. Shoreham's electricity -- by LILeo's own admission -- will not be needed for 10 years. Why then rush forward with action which prejudices the public interest for tne saxe or licensing an unsafe, unneeded, oneconomical, and unwanted plant?

1

, The answer is that you, followed by the Staff and the Licensing Board, have sought to aid LILCO's efforts to gain access to Wall Street money markets. Although this obiective lies bevond the NRC's proper health and safety jurisdiction, there is unfortunately recent precedent for such an abuse. On March 16, FEMA admitted using its regulatory authority in the Shoreham proceeding for the ourpose of seeking to give LILCO

" breathing soace with Wall Street."

The only interest that the NRC should have in LILCO's financial health, Mr. Chairman, is whether and how the company's financial frailties might cause it to cut corners on safety. The recent statements of LILCO's Board Chairman that the company has "four months left" and that "the plant will have to be abandoned" unless the NRC and FEMA use some undefined " power" are testimony to the company's financial illness. So is the continuing downgrading of LILCO's securities and the $2.2 billion cap on Shoreham's costs which the Public Service Commission Staff has proposed as LILCO's recovery for the $4 billion Shoreham plant.

(The PSC Staf f found that the remaining costs for Shoreham were "irprudently" incurred by LILCO because the company had " grossly m'.smanaged" the Shoreham project.)

In light of the company's financial instablility, the NRC, for examole, should want to know whether LILCO will be able to attract and retain qualified nuclear management and operators for Shoreham. Similarly, the NRC should inquire whether LILCO's proposal to operate Shoreham without a qualified onsite emergency power system is caused by the company's financial inability to wait f,pr the installation of new diesel generators in late 1985.

The NRC should not be using the power of its federal authority to force the Shoreham plant at hell-bent speed on the local and State governments which oppose it on substantive safety grounds.

That is a denial of due process. Yet, that is just what the NRC, with your personal encouragement, has done here.

Mr. Chairman, your actions have unfortunately converted the Shoreham proceeding into a forum where the accommodation of LILCO's financial interests, as LILCO perceives those interests, is the paramount objective. The Licensing Board and Staf f, in shaping the way they exercise their own responsibilities, have loyally followed your lead by giving LILCO's financial interests priority over the public's health and safety. If the Shoreham proceedino is ever to oossess integrity as an adjudication in which public safety issues are addressed fairly, you must personally act to rectify the orocedural abuses which your earlier personal involvement produced. On behalf of Suffolk County, I therefore request you and your fellow Commissioners:

(1) Take the necessary action to disestablish the Licensing Board that has abused due orocess and issued unfounded orders to " expedite" with artificially " limited evidentiary hearings" LILCO's low power license request ,

(2) Issue an order to the Staff and to the Licensing Board Panel that the Shoreham proceedings, including any proceeding on l LILCO's low power license request, should not be expedited except on a showino by LILCO of good cause and special circumstances that are within the purview of the NRC's health and safety jurisdictions and that in no event should expedition, if any, of this proceeding bar a party from developing and making a meaningful presentation,of its case on the merits; and (3) Reply promptly to this letter no that all affected parties can know precisely where their interests stand.  !

The County awaits your early reply so that, one way or another, this unfortunate situation can be remedied.

Sincerely yours, PETER P. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE cc: overnor Cuomo Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal PFC/ps

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

Before The Atomic Safety And Licensing Board ~f ,

)

In'the Matter of )

4

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shorcham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LETTER TO MR. WILLIAM J.,,

DIRCKS FROM MR. FRANK R. JONES, dated April 10, 1984 and LETTER-TO NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, CHAIRMAN, FROM PETER F. COHALAN, dated April-ll, 1984, have been served to the following this 13th day of April 1984 by U.S. mail, first class.

James A. Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq. 6 4

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Jerry R.-Kline W. Taylor.Reveley III, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Willaims U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212

.Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C. 20555 Agency Building 2 Empire' State Plaza Edward M. .Barrett, Esq. Albany, New-York 12223 General Counsel-Long Island Lighting. Company 250:Old Country Road

Mineola, New York 11501

g. -- - - -

W ~

,.g.s* ,,

h t

W- s Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

, Long Island-Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea

( Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 398

( P.OJ Box 618 33 West Second Street i North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River,'New York 11792 Nora Bredes' Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary

.} Shoreham Opponents Coalition 1717 H Street, N.W. ,

, 195 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ,

l'" Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l' Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc. Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road H. Lee Dennison Building i

' '

• Naltham, Massachusetts 02154 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 ,

! \

L MBB Technical Associates Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.

< 1723 Hamilton Avenue '

Atomic Safety and Licensing I- Suite K ,

Board Panel /

San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulitory C~mm. o F)b ,L , ,

. Washington, D.C. 20555

'% l Fl_i Joel Blau, Esq. Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Iy New York Public Service Commission Suffolk County Attorney ,

L

~

The Governor Nelson'A. Rockefeller H. ~ Lee Dennison Building

. Building. . . Veterans Memorial Highway

1. ' Empire State Plaza Hauppauge,'New York 11788 t --- A1bany, New York 12223 ltcmic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and-Licensing l%, n , Board-Panel Appeal-Board p'd 7 U'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.. Nuclear' Regulatory Comm.

l H- Wa'hington, s D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

.a a:

[ "((

i Bernardg M. Bordenick, Esq.

David A. Repka,'Esq.

Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

-Staff Counsel, New York State l s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission-

! Wakhing ton , - D.C.' 20555 3-Rockefeller Plaza l Albany,1New York 12223 ShbartDiamond.' . Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

L z.d ; Business / Financial Regional' Counsel-NEW YORK TIMES Federal' Emergency Management 229-W.'43rd Street 1 ,

Agency New; York, New Yo'rkfl0036 :26' Federal Plaza

.New York, New York- 10278

{ ._ & ,

w "2-

-c:

+ , - * *,

mmen - , ,n..-

s Spence Perry, Esq. James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Associate General Counsel 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. 20471 Fabian Palomino, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 3

/ ~

(erbert H. Brown, Esq.

KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATE: April 13, 1984 /

t 9

_