ML20207T575
| ML20207T575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1987 |
| From: | Kline J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2856 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8703240145 | |
| Download: ML20207T575 (2) | |
Text
r ffS$
j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hSNfC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 17 ftAR 20 P2:04 Before Administrative Judge GFFicE Cr Ent iasy 00CKETmG 5 SEf<vicF.
Dr. Jerry R. Kline BRANCH SERVED MAR 20190
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAf!D LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(ASLBP No. 86-529-02-0L)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
March 19, 1987
)
MEMORANDUM TO SHOREHAM PARTIES On March 4,1987, I notified the parties of some prior professional associations I had with certain NRC stnff members who have lately been designated to participate in the Shoreham-OL-3 proceeding.
I concluded that these prior associations would have no effect on my ability to render a fair and impartial decision in this case.
I thought it self Evident that my conclusion was warranted because these associations were of limited duratior., remote in time, and they predated the promulgation of 10 C.F.R. 50.47 by the Commission in 1980.
Nevertheless, Suffolk County responded with a letter addressed to me dated March 17, 1987 in which it requested additional information which it says it needs before it can decide whether it has differing views.
I believe that my initial disclosure contained sufficient information to support my conclusion. However, to allay any continuing B703240145 870319 DR ADOCK 050 2
g gp
1 ;[
L f
concerns the County may have, I provide the following additional information:
1.
The Seabrook alternative site review was performed to determine whether environmentally superior sites existed anywhere in New England considering the then existing possibility that EPA might impose a requirement to backfit the Seabrook Plant with cooling _ towers instead of approving its design that relied on a once through cooling system.-
2.
None of the matters considered in the Seabrook' alternative site review related to emergency planning or any issue raise _d in this proceeding.
3.
I worked with Messrs. Karman and Barth on an environmental issue in the Clinton construction permit case. My testimony addressed the environmental impacts of converting farmland to use for a cooling lake at the Clinton Plant.
4.
I have had no continuing personal or professional association with any of the individuals named in my March 4,1987 memorandum.
Parties wishing to take any action in response to this memorandum should do so by close of business March 26, 1987.
/
gerry R. Kline ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of March, 1987