ML20206P856
| ML20206P856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1986 |
| From: | Eckart D, Glenn J, Metzenbaum H CONGRESS (JOINT & ROTATING COMMITTEES, ETC.), SENATE |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206P838 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8607020255 | |
| Download: ML20206P856 (2) | |
Text
T.
Congst%6 at tf)t Bnittb htatt%
Souse of Representatibed l
Eashington, DE. 20515
'~
Agil 22,1986
.~
me Honorable Nmzio J. Palladino Gairman Nuclear Reg 21atory Ozmission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Wa t ington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Gaiman:
We are writing to express our grave concern with the 0:maission's action vacating the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appal Agil 18,1986 Board's order for an exploratcry " mini-hearing" dealing with the effect of the January earthqtake on the safe operation W the Perry nuclear power plant.
As you know, following the January earthquake that struck north-east Ohio, the Ohio Citizens for Respnsible Energy (OGE) filed a Se Appeals motion to reopn the hearing record for the hery plant.
Board felt that it needed more information tafore it could rule on the safety sigtificanoe of the OGE motion. So the Appeals Board took an a ini-eminently ansible action, and deci&d to hold a one day m
hearing" to ensure that there had been an adeqtate examination d all the issues in the cam. Sus the Board establieed a reasonable procedare to obtain more input frca the public concerning this speific can, but without musing any delay in the efforts of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating (GI) to obtain a full pwer license for the plant.
he Causnission's rash decision in the Perry case leaves the Appeals Scard mahle to obtain answers to any questions that arise as It also denies the public a result of a action to reopn the record.
the rigit to be heard on any issues that arise af ter the initial decision of the Appeals Board. As Omsnissioner Asselstine stated in his dissenting views in this decision,
- rhus, in the future, whether a Bcard can a>nsider a safety issue in same detail before ruling on a motion to reopen will &pnd upon how adest a Earticular intervenor is in meeting these stringert pleading requirenants on the first romd of pleadings.
If the intervenor d)es not make an own and shut man in Under these his initial pleading, he will not get a moond chance."
new gocedires dictated bf the Ozzission, severe safety goblans such as those that plagued the Zimmr plant might never te disc)vered.
8607020255 860626 PDR COMMS NRRC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
-w--m--,
-w,--,-.
n.---,
.---,,-e-
,-,---,-+-------~..---------,_,-------w, e.
e
..n
F i
I Se Honorable Nunzio J. Elladino Agil 22,1986 h9' 70 We feel that it was highly imgopt for the Camission to inter-ject italf into the cederly goceedings of the Appeals Board in this case, with the result of stamarily cutting off all public input irto the decision making promss. At the very least, the Camission should have heard f rca the prties to the case before issuing its order. Se Omnission's actions in this case demonstrate a total disregard for the necessity that the public be heard on issues affecting the safe operation d nuclear power plants.
Sincerely,
/
/ ' }KNARD M.ETzas
- g. Join GLENN f
ted States S United States Serate k
l w
IGN F. SEIBERLDG IS E. EQUJ T 6
Munber cf Congress Member d Q) ngly 1
i
_