ML20108D258
| ML20108D258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Downey T HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105B503 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8412130080 | |
| Download: ML20108D258 (1) | |
Text
pq (0 N de i L 'g L l/
.2 ). " ' "
eM k kW h
UNITED Sy'ATES
'O
[
g
- LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOrc 1
h.....lj, SECRETARIAT REC g
RASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1
m 1 um The Honorable Thomas J. Downey United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Downey:
I am responding to your letter to the Commission dated March 25, 1982, i
regarding the scheduling of hearings in the Shoreham proceeding.
Because the Commission may have to review the actions of the Licensing Board, your letter has been referred to our office for response.
i l
There are over 50 contentions which need to be resolved in the Shoreham case.
The Atomic Safety awnd Licensing Board has scheduled hearings to begin on some
_of these contentions on May 4.
It is the Board's position _that those issues which can be dealt with now should be addressed without further delay. My_
understanding is that the Board expects that the hearings will last significantly longer than the four weeks you estimated, probably through most of the summer.
In any case, all of the contentions will be thoroughly considered before a final decision is rendered.
You should be aware that the NRC staff issued the Safety Evaluation Report on t
the Shoreham plant in April 1981 and a Supplemental SER in September 1981.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review in October 1981. In the case of Shoreham, hearings were delayed in order to try to reach 4
a compromise with Suffolk County reducing the number-of issues in contention.
Such a compromise was agreed to by the County Executive and attorneys for the County but rejected by the County Legislature..
At the request of Congress, the Comission provides a monthly report on the status of various licensing proceedings being conducted by the NRC. Any projected date given in the report is only an estimate, based on the most current infonnation available, about when a particular phase of a proceeding l
is likely to commence or be completed; it is not a judgment about what the result of that proceeding should yield.
Clearly, it is the obligation of any adjudicatory body considering a given case, whether it is the Commission or a licensing or appeal board, to study thoroughly and objectively the issues that are properly before it and render a full and fair detennination of whether, consistent with the dictates of applicable law, a requested licensig action should be approved.
Sincerely, 3
g I.
g.
El %1iUG arl ton mmerer, Director j
Office of Congressional Affairs
)
r 80 840521 h
250 g
PDR BELAIR
{