ML20083R674

Ack Receipt of NRC Response to Re Licensing Delays.Memo Implies Prejudgment on Aspects of Licensing Proceedings.Relevant Documentation Requested

ML20083R674
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/12/1984
From:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20083R651	List: ML20083R674
References
NUDOCS 8404240247
Download: ML20083R674 (6)

Text

.

_m

.V.

haarnes.w case.e.s 5 6 SCDWuE" STAss DeutEC.T.W.R I

= ca.

- vom - -...

onw. tw To.. CAW en ws. uw.n. A.'s.escL n w Josets e

.W._,.."."u..

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR

^ ' " * " ' ' " " * * ' * * "

' %.. '-": 2 n X.c.

. ~.

ta':*f

r.Ilir ::"A AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

"!!.lA"'.".===.

E

. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATNES "en.anssa.

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20615 April 12, 1986

=..m 1

0" "**en. om

':=:':::::@,

a..

d. ass.

f.

"".A'"u"*".;.T

=

The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 B Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

1 Thank you for your prompt response to-my March. '8,1984-letter to you about perceived " licensing delays.".I continue to think that your Mirch 20, 1984 memo ~randum to the other Commissioners on this subject and other subsequent actions that-you have taken strongly imply that you have pre-judged a,syects of the Shoreham licensing proceeding.

~

h I

Regardless of"your' initial' intent, $e'rtain' events hava..

~

e*

l tiranspired which.cre&te the appearance that your statements and views have ' bee 6 treated as a mandate by members of the N1tC's^

1 Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board (ASLB)..Your March 20, 1984' memorandum states that'you convened a*meetincf with B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chief Administrative Judge of the ASLB and members.

of the'NRC staff (a party to the proceeding). on March 16, 1984 to discuss potential licensing delays at Shoreham and other. plants.

Apparently, as an outgrowth of that meeting, and your subsequento memoranda, Judge Cotter appointed a new board to consider on an expedited basis the Long Island Lighting. Company's (LILCO)

March 20, 1984 " Supplemental Motion for [a] Low Power Operating.

License."

Qver the unanswered objections of Suffolk County and New York State, the newly appointed licensing panel issued an order on April 6, 1984 that states:

"...the expedited schedule set forth below will not. prejudice any party to this proceeding."'

In reaching such a decision, I am concerned that the board did nots (a) specifically resolve or even respond to the arguments.

of intervenors that an expedited schedule would prejudice their right to a full.and fair hearing; and, (b) state why it apparent:1y, 4240247 840412 P

COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

- - ~ -. - - -

~ '

s

\\_

i

.f The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino April 12, 1984 Page Two believes an expedited hearing is necessary.

I respectfully request that the Commission formally ask the board to respc:nd to these two issues.

It would appear that in the absence of any specifica11Ly stated rationale by the licensing board, that it has declirund to respond to the arguments of intervenors and decided to cdblige.

LILCO because of the utility's perceived financial problems.

Apparently, the board is in agreement with the rationale seated by LILCO in the first two sentences of its Suppleme'ntal Motion:

The Shoreham Nuclear ~ Power Station represents both a huge commitment of economic resources and Long Island's only power plant not dependent on foreign oil.

Thus, there are compelling reasons for the.

station's early operation.

. I am unaware of any statutes which provide the ASLB with t3me authority to expedite a proceeding on this-ba' sis without hamari:ng from and resolving the views of all parties.

Because of tdhe appearance of impropriety in the board's actions, I believe t!ae Commission should request the board to explain why it. believes -

an expedited hearing is necessary.

-- With respect to your involvement in this case, I understand -

that on April 4,1984 you circulated a f'ol' low-up memorandumo-

~

to the other Commissioners that included a proposed order cifrafted by Judge Cotter and a paper written by your own staff that smanid have set forth an expedited schedule in which the Shorehant lamr power. licensing proceeding would be completed in thirty to si: sty days.

Your memorandum and the draf t order,.apparently written prio'r to the April 4,1984 licensing board hearing to decide.

the merits of. LILCO's request for an expedited proceeding, was circulated without obtaining or representing the views of all parties.

As the ultimate decision-maker in this proceedinag, your actions create the appearance that you have pre-judged the merits of LILCO's request and did so in an unorthodox and inappropriate fashion.

The present " licensing delay" at Shoreham is not attribuitable to the NRC licensing process.

The delay is not a licensing delay.

per se, but rather, is directly attributable to the use of de:fective and unqualified equipment used to supply on-site power.

Bence, actions taken to expedite. review of this issue could impacet ugpon the consideration of the merits and substance of the procemedLng itself.

./

The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino i

April 12, 1984 Page Three In order that public confidence can be restored, if possible, to what has become an unseemly and confused process, I think that it is essential that you explain why you believe the Shoreham proceeding should be expedited as well as your reason for circulating the draf t order prepared prior to hea=dbig from and resolving the views of all parties.

In this context:,

I also think you should reconsider recusing yourself from vot=b2g on either the low power or full power license for Shoreham.

Additionally, I would like to be provided with all docuanents and memoranda on this issue that have been written or circulateci subsequent to your March 20, 1984 memorandum.

I would appreciate receiving these documents within five working days.

Fur'ther, please identify and provide a description of a:L1 communications that you, the other Commissioners, OGC, EDO, cmc members of the NRC staf f have had in 1984 that related to or concerned the matter of licensing Shoreham with employees or- "

officials of LILCo, representatives of-L'ifdo (including,but emot limited to members of the firm Hunton and Williams), organizaticans composed of or representing the nuclea'r industry, the Secretauqr of Energy or members of the Department of Energy staff, the.

Director or Associate Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or members of the FEMA staff, or, othat Executive Branch offices or members of the White Hottse' staff.

To 'the. pxtent -

~

that any such communication was written, please provide alI~

relevant documents.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Edward J. Marke Chairman

' ~

Subcommittee on Oversight; and Investigations O

e s

4 e

0

-Q

---r

-~

=

/

jama84g#

UNITED STATES i

,,, l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

• f hjf g

wAsm cm. n. c. asses

g u;

l

(%.*v/

'E March 20, 1984 i

__._memu==

7-

~

Mr.MORANDUNFOR:

Commissioner Gilinsky i

Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine l

Commissioner bernthal

(

FRONT Nundio J. Palladino o

p l

fUBJECT Cp.

LICENSING DEIAYS i.,

, !L' 84, the EDO notified us that poterntied.

~"~ ~~ " On Mar c 9

licensing delays,.as of the end of February, arma 9' months for On March 146, 2 had a

'~~ ' ~~ ~ " shorehanD 'and' 5 months for Limerick.

I status sp.d sicheduling meeting with the staff, Osic, OPE, and Tony Cotter ;to discuss these and other possible de21ays.

~

1

,It turns"ou that, beyond she'reham.and Limerick, Selays may l

arise f@E W terford and coenanche Peak.

These Emosstible delays

~~

l are in siddition 'to the: difficulties being expeetiemcod at i

i

..._....Diablo @ydn, Byron, Midland, Palo Verde, and LQrmand Gulf.

Briefing. sheets were provided on allegations omr:4 en the l

. problems,lat :n number of plants, and these were: ediastributed to l

your of% ices to assist in understanding the pramblean and l

preparigg for the Bevill hearing.

I suggish that the Cossaission hold a special, menet$tng to

'discussqthe' problems associated with the foregening l

plants. 7.2 believe it :is irrtant that we hawee each a f[:

meeting: fin the' neaf futura so we can focus better een the i

ammmemmes issues.,,q::We; can address this at agenda planniaW.

2dantified.

i

. below -are some thoughts that we might discuse: at tt.he meeting.

i Ll i

50.that:'ve can take steps to both (a) reduce-tshe Selays n't l

Shoreham! and Limerick.that have been officially reported to us by i.he EDO, and (b) reduce' the possibility; that delays at i

other.pinntjs may. arise or, if they arise, be extsansive, I

{

'- -- -".proposdT..the; fallowingi rhishoreham,havetheCommissionconsidacra. proposal from 00C for an expedited hearing on the diesel probleim, or proposals.for other possibia actions so that 1

atEle 'st a low power decision might be veible while i

awWit g resolution of the emergency p1,t.mati issue.

l

.2:.have asked the; 00C to provide a paper eso s

,s)$bje4t soon.. In preparing this paper, it;he. 00C should i

i l-"---'.

work yith cther offices within NRC as nent'essary.

2

w.. i n.

r u.

. '.r..

m,

.... a. i u,

a_-

_p

s

,2 l

']

have the. staff determine whether the For% Limerick, licensee will seek a low power cuthorization, and have OGCf(ag'in working with others as necessary) determine whether there are any other steps that might a

be..takep to expedite the hearing.

Fof:Waderford and Comanche Peak, the EDO informed us senior executive in charge of tha't he' has placed one identifying the problems and laying out solutions and schedules for ghtting to a licensing decision at each plant. ! In addition, I would like the EDO to detersnine I also want bo*;wh4t we are doing relates to the Board.

to:t'nsure that we are taking action with the licensee to cor. rec % either by consultation or enforcement, as appropriate, any problems having merit that come to our attention.

FohjDiablo canyon,'I suggest that we give carefal. conside to" proceed without going deeply into the other allegations unless a review shows serious problemas acrt alteady dealt with.

Fd. : Byjron, we probably need to wait to see wha'. the However, if a hearing is reopened, r

Appeal. Board says.

OGC- (again working with others as necessary),

sh6uld prepare options for commission consideration to

~' ~

exp)dit:e.it.

we have a review by the commission of the Midlaznd pinut 1

noe scheduled for April 2,19M; I suggest that the yeyiew 'inciludt options prepared by the staff facc-subsequent agency action.

For Palo Verde.'and Grand Gulf,,,the staff should keep the In Commipsion ' informed of actions planned'or needed. staff revie any event, be' complete,d on an expedited basis.

For th"a'geberal problem of last minute allegations tlhat e

aifeet"a number of plants, I recommend that the cousa:ismice consider developing a policy for handling last minutse Such a policy might include a deadli.ne. after -

allega)$.cns.

which r,the : threshold for allowing allegations to hold! up aFor example, tha o

licensing action is very high.

new infornuat: ion,.

might be something like the followings l*~~~'

supported jby signed affidavitsy and presented in a l

,a

9 4

S.

j L.

~

• T :

1

f.

3 By copy, I

._..._, __,01sciplined tray through established channels.would likm OGC to e

._..._ __.in a paper %r Commission review and decision.

c By cop?CI would also like the EDO to respond to the specific i

~ '

" matter.s'.: raised above and provide a paper to the connaission for dealing with potential, delsys.

This

~] outlininy the stepspaper would !be in' preparation for a Commission meeting o this genera 3. subject.at'the earliest possible time.

7 In keepfng.with my suggestion fo'r a commission meetl.ng in the

near fu,tt}re} I propose that. papers be prepared within the,

so that the next couple' of weeks (at least by April 5)

Commisalon s,ould meet about mid-April.

.a..tm.:.u.i SECY, pleast track the above action items.

.i.'

co2 SICY.!

OGC.

ope' OIM I

T.DO.

e.

i

.p...

..,f '

,I 1

j.

a...

4

. y'..'

,t rn

-l L:.

w'.

s

' e..

+

i..

..... 'h!..

.i

.". j,

A - ----*

'-(;

i6:

4

.m.. 3,

. a.:.

e

1-l

.4. i.

EbJ

e. l t

w.

.. g,

,?

.. u l

i

'?

"]

s.

.6..,.

..e

• 3 i

N 6.i: '

i

.j.

(

,p,s g

.- a -. -- 9 yms.t as..a ca s GN ii

• A

,