ML20214C892
| 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
\\Sl3 UNITED STATES f
e.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20665
^~V' j
R.....l
~
NOV 181986
'86 NOV 18 P5 :54 GFF.L.
00Ce..
?ny-John H. Frye, III, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board SERVED Nov 1 9 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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.
the NRC staff is given five days Under the NRC's regulations, after an applicant responds to contentions filed by an inter-The 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 on various The affording of questions presented during a proceedina.
this opportunity to the staff is considered appropriate in in view of its duty to represent the public interest Commission adjudicatory proceedings and to assure the 37 Fed. Reg.
development of an adequate decisional record."
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 I have been the same time as the applicant filed its reply.
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' I have been further advised and the applicant's response.
because the contentions were over 160 paces long and had
- that, over 175 subparts, and because applicant's draft was not two days before the staff's response was received until about 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 U [L
.6 e611210276 861118 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR G
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
_