ML20214C892

Discusses Allegations of Purported Improprieties in Connection W/Nrc Reviewing Draft of Applicant Answers to Contentions Re Emergency Planning Exercise.Nrc Will Not Review Draft Filings W/O Direction.Served on 861119

ML20214C892
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/18/1986
From:	Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Frye J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1573 CLI-86-11, OL-3, NUDOCS 8611210276
Download: ML20214C892 (2)

Text

l

\Sl3 l UNITED STATES f e.,

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

• W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20665

~ ^~V'.

j R.....l NOV 181986

'86 NOV 18 P5 :54

'% l GFF.L .

• - 00Ce.. .

?ny-John H. Frye, III, Chairman ,

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission SERVED Nov 1 9 1986 Washingtong D.C. 20555 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Plannina) ,

Dear Judge Frye:

In a letter of October 17, 1986, you called to my attention allecations of purported improprieties in connection with NRC staff counsel reviewing a draft of applicant's answers to contentions concerning the Shoreham emergency planning exercise.

Under the NRC's regulations, the NRC staff is given five days after an applicant responds to contentions filed The by an inter-reason venor to file its answers to those contentions.

for this extra time is to " allow the regulatory staff an opportunity to consider all matters and positions taken by other parties before finalizing its position onaffording The various of questions presented during a proceedina.

this opportunity to the staff is considered appropriate in view of its duty to represent the public interest in Commission adjudicatory proceedings and to assure the development of an adequate decisional record." 37 Fed. Reg. 15127, 15129 (July 28, 1972).

Since the Commission directed that this proceeding on the Shoreham emergency planning exercise be expedited (CLI-86-ll),

the staff agreed to file its response to the contentions at the same time as the applicant filed its reply. I have been advised that staff asked the applicant to supply a draft copy of its reply so that staff, in keepina with the spirit of the contentions regulations, could examine both the intervenors' and the applicant's response. I have been further advised that, because the contentions were over 160 paces long and had over 175 subparts, and because applicant's draft was not received until about two days before the staff's response was due to be filed, the staff prepared a draft of its response to the contentions from the contentions alone without considering the applicant's reply. When the applicant's draft finally e611210276 861118 .6 U [L PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR

l 2

arrived on about August 13, staff compared it with the

- contentions to see if any of the positions taken in the staffAs draft response should be changed. I am advised that no positios which the staff had already recorded in its draft response was changed as a result of that review.

s It appears from the above explanation that staff counsel's actions in the present case were consistent with the spirit of the relevant NRC regulations, and that there were no improprieties. However, I recognize the appearance problem that may be created if staff counsel were regularly to review draft applicant filings. Therefore, I am directing attorneys who serve as staff counsel in hearinos not to review applicant draft filings in the future without express authorization from  !

the Deputy General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement.

Sincerely, ['

C. Parler General Counsel cc: Service List

- -_ _ _ _ __ _______________ __