ML20105B494
| ML20105B494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1982 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Willmott D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105B503 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8301030298 | |
| Download: ML20105B494 (4) | |
Text
.
(r) o 12 7i/
w.
y. m.g'g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
2,,
',I P
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20655 4
(-Q.f 4
DEC21IBR
~
i Docket No. 50-322 Mr. David J. Willmott Editor and Publisher Suffolk Life Newspapers Montauk Highway Box 262 Westhampton, NY 11977 a
j
Dear Mr. Willmott:
Your letter of November 24,1982, to President Reagan in regard to the proposed licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power plant has been referred to this agency for answering. We appreciate your concerns with the licensing of 2
. nuclear plants, and recognize our responsibility to license only those facilities which will not cause ham to the public health and safety.
As you are aware, extensive hearings have been going forward before this agency since the spring of this year looking into whether the problems you raise in your letter do in fact exist and thus whether the plant may be licensed. For example, you speak particularly of " slip shod and deliberate l
~,
construction defects and errors." The on-going hearings have been specif-ically focused on questions related to the quality of construction at the Shoreham facility since September 14, 1982, and the hearings on these questions will continue into Janu'ary of next year. Suffolk County has been represented by competent counsel and technical consultants at these hearings and has been thoroughly probing whether there is any cause to doubt the quality of construction of the Shoreham facility.
In your letter you also allege that this agency is "short cutting the hearing process, white washing our concerns and input." We do not believe this is so. As we have indicated, hearings in this proceeding started on May 4,1982 and have encompassed approximately 22 weeks of actual hearing. The detailed and thorough cross-examination conducted by Suffolk County's attorneys during these many weeks of hearing shows there was no "short cutting" of this' proceeding. The hearings were moved from Long Island, N.Y. to Washington, D.C. for the period October 12, B82 until the end of 1982, to allow the
)
Licensing Board to work on this and other matters in their offices during 1
evening hours. The parties actively participating in the hearing, including i
the attorneys for the County whose office is in Washington, D.C., did not object to this move. The only, attorney who did strongly object was a
.Mr. Stephen Latham who represents a group known as the Shoreham Opponents Coalition and who has not been actively involved in the hearings. The j
Licensing Board has indicated that had Mr. Latham been attending the hearings,
~ the hearings would not have been moved. -In this' connection, it should also
[8 pp j
m
Mr. David 4. Willmott -
be noted that after the first couple of weeks of hearing, very few members of the public attended the hearinos for even a few minutes when they were being conducted in Suffolk County.
Further, there has been no limitation on oral examination which-might be probative and relevant to the issues in the proceeding. The Licensing Board did require that as predicate to testimony on emergency planning issues that witnesses be deposed ahead of time to learn what material infonnation they had which could be put in the record of the proceedings. These depositions were to be held in Suffolk County and open to the public. These witnesses were then to appear at a hearing before the Licensing Board for further examination and cross-examination on any material information they had relevant to the licensing of the Shoreham facility. The County and the other intervenors have refused to take part in this proceeding, although given an opportunity to test the appropriateness of these procedures by appeal before being bound by them.
In regard to emergency planning, no licensing of the Shoreham facility will take place until on-site emergency plans are in place. The regulations of the Connission provide:
[N]o NRC or FEMA review, findings, or detenninations concerning the state of offtite emergency preparedness or the adequacy of and capability to implement State and l
local offsite emergency plans are required prior to issuance of an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and/or low power operations (up to 5% of the f-ratedpower). Insofar as emergency planning and pre-paredness requirements are concerned, e license authorizing fuel loading and/or low power operation may be issued after a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will
- be taken in the event of a radiological emergency 10C.F.R.I50.47(d).
l in adopting this regulation, allowing the loading of fuel and the testing i
of reactors at low-power levels, the Connission stated:
i l -
The Comission egrees that there may be slightly higher risks due to the plant operators having less experience with the plant at this stage and with a potential for undiscovered design and construction defects. However, in the Comission's view, this risk is significantly outweighed by several other factors.
First, the fission product inventory during low power testing is much less than during higher power operation due to the low level of reactor power and short period of operation. Second, at low power there is a significant reduction in the h
1
NN Mr.-David J. Willmott 3-required capacity of systems designed -
consequences of accidents compared to capacities under full-power operation.
available for taking actions to identii 1
and mitigate accident consequences is m m "-
at full power. This means the operate-sufficient time to prevent a radioactis occurring.
In the worst case, the addi available (at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />), even fot 9
likelihood sequence which could eventut release of the fission products accumu'
~
into the containment, would allow adeqt actions to be taken to protect the pub ~
. g1 !
Weighing all risks involved, the Comi:
N
mined that the degree of emergency pre 1 ;_
3 sary to provide adequate protection of
~~;
4 and safety is significantly less than -
.gp full-power operation.
[footnoteomittt p's:.}-
T ?eM '
We enclose a complete copy of the Statement of Cooside "
Reg.
30323] on adoption of this rule for your informat-
?,%
M Di No operation of the facility at higher power levt isk M,J~
increases can take place until off-site plans has gency procedure exercises conducted, and any significa*
overed properly addressed.
lfL y; y a At the NRC we are aware of the configuration of '
atmost
'M I importance of protecting health and safety of tk nam plant
'< V will not be licensed for any level of operation zonably 4
assured that the public could not be hurt by tbt that 5
, 9:j;q -
i emergency procedures are in effect comensurate s
. hat level of operation.
a 3
p[?f, U
We appreciate your writing your letter and our c-in z,
relation to the Shoreham plant.
-s,.
A l
Sincerelv
,'y
..M l
p.
r.p.- :. '.
n%
,,y m
MI Guy H. Cut
,jh5 i
Executive nr-
Enclosure:
?
- 0CA >
g_.\\__:_ 'nn..i s/g_:F '
'A
- E I
UFG; :UELD
- UglD
..)
s
':GCu in
./.____gham :
i __..:...
NAME :EReis/dkw EChristenbury: JMu, y,
___:__.s IN1h82 / :12/$182
- Lfe m k
- 1 82' DATE 12/ / 82
- 12/ /82
\\ /Jm#
o No.
Logg.n D.te I2/l4/82 NRC FECRETARIAT TO:
O Commi.sioner D.ie h Emec. DirJOper.
O cen. Coun.es LJ Cong. Li.i.on O soricitor O euniic Att. irs O secrei.ry o
O in c.,. 4 oi..,
O poney ev.iu. tion in:omin :
Llhite House Referral From:
David J. Willmott t
yo:
NRC o.g.
19/11/R7 Subject.
ennearned ahnnt I il CO Mhnepham nue olant haar inne hainn ennettietarf hy NRA* fearful tafety levels are not:
beinn niven nroner attention O e,e re,e,iy ror si n. ore or; O Cn.irm.n O Commi i nor O soo. ac. ci sot. e4.ssey. ia. c.
O sien.eure 6:ock omini.e O R.iurn ori,in.i on incomine.iin re n.e h For direct repiy Suspense: Bec 23 l
For.opeopri.te.ction l
O Forinform.iian Rc:'d Cff. EDO as :,,,,,,,,, p,-
Time... R !. 53-(. 7,_,g't Rem.rks:
i l
For the Commission:
bae
- Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence end Records Br.nch NRC FORM S2A ACTION SLIP (H2)
- g, y
u)N AE x gst4 y gap g s
-