ML20196C377
| ML20196C377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1988 |
| From: | Hochbrueckner HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196C373 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7600 OL-3, NUDOCS 8812080005 | |
| Download: ML20196C377 (2) | |
Text
E GEORGE J. HOCHORtJECKNER 1000 Lamonessu Moves Osms tv i st OssT9sCT. NfW Test Waemues0ELeC 20515 (2011225 4 418 Csasamtrett-oitTest essucest AAMfD 5EfMCtS
- '=;,",'t,~'
CongTegg of ffje 1Hnitch fetates nn,=r---
C W 19720 SC1tNCt. 5PACL AND TICHNmy Masbington. RC 20515
%UT ns u e inoi Novemoer 22, 1988 Mr. Lando W.
Cech, Jr.
Cnairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 15th Floor Rockville, Maryland 20852
Dear Mr. Zecn:
The purpose of this letter is to request that the Commission take steps to consider the disqualification of James P. Gleason from further involvement in any proceedings relating to the licensing of the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
As you know, Mr. Gleason currently chairs one of the Licensing Boards in the Shoreham matter.
On September 23rd, Mr. Gleason's Licensing Board found Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton in default, dismissed them from the Shorehar proceeding, and ordered the NRC to issue LILCO a full-power operating license.
The ostensible grounds for this decision is Mr. Gleason's disapproval of the Governments' steadfast and sworn refusal to adopt or use LILCO's emergency plan.
The September 23rd opinion demonstrates gross bias and invective toward the Governments.
In various places the opinion accuses the Governments of acting in "bad faith"; of acting in a way that is "prejudicial" to LILC0; and of acting in a way that
- cmpromises the "integrity of the NRC's adjudicatory process".
The opinion uses inappropriately harsh language to characterize the Governments as "disobedient" and "disrespectful" and even accuses the Governments of having an "overall plan to thwart" the NRC's licensing process and "subvert" the NRC's process for "political ends".
roclaims that in all of the Me, Gleason p'no redeeming features", and Governments' conduct there are
(
concludes that the "only appropriate penalty" is for the l
Governments to be dismissed from all Shoreham proceedings.
Mr. Gleason takes this extraordinary action notwithstanding that I
the Governments are the sovereign representatives of millions of l
l 8812080005 881205 PDR ADOCK 03000322 p
Mr. Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 22, 1988 Page 2 people whose lives would be endangered by Shoreham'a operation.
The Governments and their citizens have a right to raise the safety risks posed by Shoreham.
I'm dismayed that the Chairman of an NRC Licensing Board would seek to stifle debate on these critical issues.
Mr. Gleason's unsuitability for participation in the Shoreham matter is underlined by a history of hostility toward those who dare to raise safety issues in licensing proceedings.
In 1970, for example, Mr. Gleason chaired the panel that granted a construction permit for Diablo Canyon.
The press has reported that Mr. Gleason's activities while on that panel were prejudicial and unfair toward those intervenors who opposed the construction of Diablo Canyon.
Indeed, his actions were such that even one of his follow judges on the Diablo Canyon construction panel criticized Mr. Gleason.
This membor, Mr. Thomas A. Pigford, accused Mr. Gleacon of engaging in "certain procedural actions" that "made it unduly difficult for intervenors to present their case".
I also am informed that in tb3 Indian Point special proceedings early in the 1980s, Mr. Gleason willingly replaced the panel Chairman who had resigned "as a matter of conscience," over decisions limiting intervenors rights in that proceeding.
Evidently no such pangs of conscience troubled Mr. Gleason.
Mr. Gleason's hostility toward intervenors has found full voice in his hyperbolic attack on Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton and the safety issues which they seek to raise.
Surely, in view of Mr. Gleason's statements of September 23, there can be no question but that Mr. Gleason cannot preside fairly over any further Shoreham proceedings.
Thus, I urge the Commission, as a matter of urgent public safety effecting the residents of Long Island, to take appropriate steps to disqualify Mr. Gleason from further participation in any matters relating to the Shoreham licensing process.
Sincerely noe it.L
<-