ML20214P984
| ML20214P984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1986 |
| From: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P975 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612040450 | |
| Download: ML20214P984 (28) | |
Text
-.
- N 88 noces g3 3i, 80wAmo 4 anaAKO. ana8SACMulff78. CMAsmasass PMong gae AL S**Ft. WASdisestose CAmtos J esoosnesAc.CAuP085mA "d" @;,,,,, $'d,6 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES r'us"s
'2M.% %'E SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION
" " 7"
llll",5,t'c,,",*"',,*",',',,o,,
- *"'ast AND POWER mas o omcas.n casAa OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCF t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
WASHINGTON, DC 20515 October 28, 1986 Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to you because I am deeply troubled by Judge B.
Paul Cotter's recent decision to reconstitute the Shoreham l
Licensing Board by removing two of its three members.
I understand that their sudden removal comes without advance notification of any of the parties or even a request for their views on the question, and has occurred with no reasonable explanation other than vague and perhaps contradictory references to " scheduling difficulties' and avoidance of " undue delay" about which no specific information has been supplied.
As you know, the change in the composition of this Licensing Board comes at a critical time in the Shoreham licensing process.
The questions surrounding the issuance of this license have become a major issue regarding the rightful roles of state and local governments in the emergency planning process.
If public confidence in the NRC and the regulatory process is to be maintained, it is absolutely crucial that the Commission har these matters in a manner that is unquestionably beyond res,
r Only a few weeks ago, in my letter of October 9 to you l
requesting that the Commission defer any action on a low-power l
license for the Seabrook nuclear plant until all emergency l
planning issues have been fully and completely resolved, I urged i
you to be mindful of the perceptions of State and local governments and the public.
Now those State and local governments
)
and the public are conf ronted with yet another challenge to the credibility of the NRC's regulatory process.
This recent act ion at Shoreham can only further increase the public's skepticism about whether the licensing process is being conducted with even a minimal concern for fairness and public safety.
In order to f acilicate this correspondence I have sent directly to Judge Cotter a letter enumerating those questions pertaining to him, a copy of which is attached for your convenience and information.
8612040450 861121 ppft N>o(K 0500032.7_
PDR U
1
Tho Honorablo Lcnds W. Zcch, Jr.
Page 2 October 28, 1986 So that the Subcommittee may better understand this recent action to reconstitute the Shoreham Licensing Board, please provide answers to the following questions by November 4, 1986.
Please note that for the purpose of this request, the word
" record" or " document" includes but is not limited to all handwritten or typed communications, documents, draf ts, memoranda, letters, notes, " route slips," briefing and appointment logs, word processing recordings and audio tapes.
The word " communicate" refers to all documents (as per the above) and/or verbal communications including but not limited to all conversations between any two or more persons, including all meetings, telephone calls, and all documents (per the above) exchanged between or among two or more persons.
To the extent that any records cannot be provided or have been destroyed, please identify whether or not such documents existed, in whose files they existed, the reasons why such records are unavailable, and, if destroyed, who destroyed them and/or ordered their destruction.
For example, such records which are unavailable should be identified by title, author, date, etc.
1.
With ref erence to Judge Cotter's October 7,1986 " NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD" (hereinaf ter " NOTICE"):
Did you or any Commissioner or any member.of any Commissioners' staff (s) communicate with Judge Cotter prior to October 7 regarding either the NOTICE or reconstituting the Shoreham Board?
If so, please identify the persons, date, time, circumstance, substance of the communication, and provide all records pertaining thereto.
2.
Prior to October 7, did you or any member of your staff communicate with Judge Cotter or any other Commissioner or member of the Commissioners' staff (s) regarding the removal of Judge Kline and/or Judge Margulies from the Licensing Board?
If so, please identify the persons, date, time, circumstance, substance of the communication, and provide all records pertaining thereto.
i 3.
On October 17, 1986 Judge Cotter wrote to Herbert H.
- Brown, l
Esq. regarding his issuance of the October 17, 1986 " NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD:
CLARIFICATION" (hereinafter l
" CLARIFICATION").
In that letter Judge Cotter stated that "It was my determination, in consultation with the members of the existing Board, that the expanding emergency planning-related Shoreham cases could not reasonably be handled in A timelv manner by a single board....The reconstitution will assure that all issues can be heard thoroughly without undue delav (emphasis added)."
l (a) Did you or any Commissioner or any member of the Commissioners' staf f s communicate with Judge Cotter verbally or in writing between October 7 and October 17 regarding either the CLARIFICATION and/or reconstituting the Shoreham Board and/or replacing Judges Kline and/or Margulies?
If so, please identify the perscns, date, time, circumstance, substance of the communication, and provide all records pertaining thereto.
l l
F
(
Tho Honorcblo Lrnds W. Zsch, Jr.
Page 3 October 28, 1986 (b) Have you, any member of your staff, or any other Commissioner or NRC staf f member ever communicated to Judge Cotter or any member of any Licensing Board a target date and/or dates by which the Shoreham Licensing Boards should issue a decision?
If so, please explain why, and inform the Subcommittee who participated in such communications, the date of the. communication, the target date or dates specified, the substance of the communication, and provide all records pertaining thereto.
(c) Have you, any member of your staff, or any other Commissioner or member of any Commissioners' staff ever communicated to Judge Cotter or any member of any Shoreham Licensing Board that it should complete its deliberations and/or issue a decision "in a timely manner" and/or without " undue delay?"
If so, (i) please explain why, and inform the Subcommittee who participated in such communications, the date of the communication, the target date or dates specified, the substance of the communication, and provide all records pertaining thereto; (ii) What is meant by the phrases "a timely manner" and/or "without undue delay"?
(iii) What precisely would constitute "an untimely manner" or " undue delay ?"
l (d) Does the Commission believe that it has a responsibility to expedite licensing?
If so, why?
Is it expected that l
reconstituting the Board will expedite the hearing process and/or the licensing process?
If so, how?
Why does the Commission feel that such expedition is necessary or desireable?
5.
On the subjects of reconstituting the Board and/or replacing Judges Kline and/or Margulies and/or expediting the licensing process for Shoreham, please provide a complete chronology and description of all communications and records, including but not limited to meetings, discussions, telephone calls, and conversations of any kind, between (a) Judge Cotter and either yourself and/or any other Commissioner and/or any member of the Commissioners' staff (s);
(b) NRC Staff and Judge Cotter, including but not limited to the Office of the General Counsel and Office of the l
Executive Director for Operations; and (c) Yourself and any employee of ( i) the White House, ( ii) the Department of Energy, (iii) Federal Emergency l
Management Agency (FEMA), or (iv) any party to the l
Shoreham proceeding.
l
$1 g
Tho Hcnortble Londo W. Esch, Jr.
Page 4 October 28, 1986 Please provide all records pertaining to such communications.
6.
On October 3,1986, the Board made several rulings regarding the emergency planning issues at Shoreham.
Did you or any other Commissioner or any member of any Commissioner's staff discuss or communicate in writing regarding the October 3 Board rulings or hearing and/or possible reconstitution of the Board with each other or NRC Staff or any employee of the White House, DOE,. FEMA, or any party to the Shoreham proceeding?
If so, please specify the person (s), time, place, type of communication, and substance thereof.
Please provide all records pertaining to such communication.
7.
Please provide to the subcommittee all records pertaining to the October 7 " NOTICE" and the October 17 " CLARIFICATION
- of which any Commissioner, Commissioners' staff member, or member of the NRC Staff is aware, whether or not such records are now in your or their possession.
8.
Please provide to the Subcommittee all records of which any Commissioner, member of the Commissioners' staff, or member.of the NRC Staf f is aware pertaining to any " schedule conflict" pertaining to the Shoreham litigation on the part of Judge Kline or Judge Margulies.
Please explain why the alleged scheduling conflicts do not affect Judge Shon.
Please provide all documents pertinent to his schedule.
9.
When did you first learn that there were " schedule conflicts" that might require reconstitution of the Shoreham Board?
How and f rom whom did you learn of such " schedule conflicts?"
Please specify the date, circumstances of the communication, and provide all records pertaining thereto.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
I look forward to your responses by November 4,1986.
1 Sincerely, Edward J. Marke()W i
Chai rman Enclosure
- ~
F RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS g*-
RESPONSES TO CONGRESSMAN MARKEY'S QUESTIONS-0F OCTOBER 28, 1986 QUESTION 1.
WITH REFERENCE TO JUDGE COTTER'S OCTOBER 7, 1986
' NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD" (HEREINAFTER
" NOTICE"):
DID YOU OR ANY COMMISSIONER OR ANY MEMBER OF ANY COMMISSIONERS' STAFF (S) COMMUNICATE WITH JUDGE COTTER PRIOR TO OCTOBER 7 REGARDING EITHER THE NOTICE OR RECONSTITUTING THE SHOREHAM BOARD?
IF S0, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PERSONS, DATE,
~
TIME, CIRCUMSTANCE, SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICA-TION, AND PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING THERETO.
ANSWER.
NONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF THEIR STAFFS COMMUNICATED WITH JUDGE COTTER PRIOR TO OCTOBER 7 REGARDING EITHER THE OCTOBER 7, 1986 " NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD" OR RECONSTITUTING THE SHOREHAM BOARD.
e l
QUESTION 2.
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 7, DID YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR STAFF COMMUNICATE WITH JUDGE COTTER OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER OR MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS' STAFF (S) REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF JUDGE KLINE AND/0R JUDGE MARGULIES FROM THE LICENSING BOARD?
IF S0, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PERSONS, DATE, TIME, CIRCUMSTANCE, SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION, AND PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING THERETO, 4
- ANSWER, n
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 7, NEITHER I NOR ANY MEMBER OF MY STAFF COMMUNICATED WITH JUDGE COTTER, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, OR A MEMBER OF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER'S STAFF REGARDING REMOVAL OF JUDGE KLINE AND/0R JUDGE MARGULIES FROM THE LICENSING BOARD, Y
QUESTION 3.
ON OCTOBER 17, 1986 JUDGE' COTTER WROTE TO HERBERT H. BROWN, ESQ, REGARDING HIS ISSUANCE OF THE OCTOBER 17, 1986 " NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD:
CLARIFICATION" (HEREINAFTER
" CLARIFICATION").
IN THAT LETTER JUDGE COTTER STATED THAT "IT WAS MY DETERMINATION, IN CONSULTA-TION WITH MEMBERS OF THE EXISTING BOARD, THAT THE EXPANDING EMERGENCY PLANNING-RELATED SHOREHAM CASES COULD NOT REASONABLY BE HANDLED IN A TIMELY MANNER BY A SINGLE BOARD....THE RECONSTITUTION WILL ASSURE THAT ALL ISSUES CAN BE HEARD THOR-OUGHLY WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY (EMPHASIS ADDED."
(A)
DID YOU OR ANY COMMISSIONER OR ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS' STAFFS COMMUNICATE WITH JUDGE COTTER VERBALLY OR IN WRITING BETWEEN OCTOBER 7 AND OCTOBER 17 REGARDING EITHER THE CLARIFICATION AND/OR RECONSTITUTING THE SHOREHAM BOARD AND/0R REPLACING JUDGES KLINE AND/OR MARGULIES?
IF SO, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PERSONS, DATE, TIME, CIRCUM-l STANCE, SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION, AND PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING THERETO, i
- ANSWER, NONE OF THE C0ftMISSIONERS NOR MEMBERS OF THEIR STAFFS COMMUNICATED WITH JUDGE COTTER VERBALLY OR IN WRITING BETWEEN l
OCTOBER 7 AND 0CTOBER 17 REGARDING EITHER THE CLARIFICATION AND/OR RECONSTITUTING THE SHOREHAM BOARD AND/OR REPLACING JUDGES KLINE AND/OR MARGULIES, (B)
HAVE YOU, OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR STAFF, OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER OR NRC STAFF MEMBER EVER COMMUNICATED TO JUDGE COTTER OR ANY MEMBER OF ANY LICENSING BOARD A TARGET DATE AND/OR DATES BY WHICH THE SHOREHAM LICENSING BOARDS SHOULD ISSUE A DECISION?
IF S0, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY, AND INFORM THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHO PARTICIPATED IN SUCH COMMUNI-u CATIONS, THE DATE OF THE COMMUNICATION, THE TARGET DATE OR DATES SPre cIED, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION, AND PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING THERET0.
ANSWER.
NONE OF THE CCMMISSIONERS, NOR MEMBERS OF MY STAFF, NOR NRC STAFF MEMBERS HAVE EVER COMMUNICATED TO JUDGE COTTER OR ANY MEMBER OF ANY LICENSING BOARD A TARGET DATE AND/OR DATES BY WHICH THE SHOREHAM LICENSING BOARDS SHOULD ISSUE A DECISION.
(C)
HAVE YOU, ANY MEMBER OF YOUR STAFF, OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER OR MEMBER OF ANY COMMISSIONERS' STAFF EVER COMMUNICATED TO JUDGE COTTER OR ANY MEMBER OF ANY SHOREHAM LICENSING BOARD THAT IT SHOULD
COMPLETE ITS DELIBERATIONS AND/OR ISSUE A DECISION "IN A TIMELY MANNER" AND/0R WITHOUT " UNDUE DELAY?"
IF S0, (I) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY, AND INFORM THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHO PARTICIPATED IN SUCH COMMUNICA-TIONS, THE DATE OF THE COMMUNICATION, THE TARGET DATE OR DATES SPECIFIED,.THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION, AND PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING THERET0; (II) WHAT IS MEANT BY THE PHRASES "A TIMELY MANNER" AND/OR "WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY?"
(III) WHAT PRECISELY WOULD CONSTITUTE "AN UNTIMELY MANNER" OR " UNDUE DELAY?"
ANSWER.
NONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOR MEMBERS OF THEIR STAFFS COMMUNICATED TO JUDGE COTTER OR ANY MEMBER OF ANY SHOREHAM LICENSING BOARD THAT IT SHOULD COMPLETE ITS DELIBERATIONS AND/0R ISSUE A DECISION "IN A TIMELY MANNER" AND/OR WITHOUT " UNDUE DELAY."
THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, IN CLI-86-11 DIRECTED THE LICENSING BOARD TO " EXPEDITE THE HEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH FAIRNESS TO THE PARTIES,..."
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, 23 NRC 577, 582, CLI-86-11 (JUNE 5, 1986).
IN ISSUING ITS DIRECTIVE, THE COMMISSION ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (APA), AND COMMISSION POLICY STATE-MENTS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING ADJUDICATORY AND LICENSING
PROCEEDINGS.- AS A-GENERAL PROPOSITION, THE COMMISSION AND ITS SUBORDINATE. ADJUDICATORY TRIBUNALS ARE RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE APA FOR ENSURING THE CONCLUSION OF' MATTERS BROUGHT BEFORE THEM WITHIN A " REASONABLE. TIME" WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE " CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OF THE PARTIES."
SEE 5 U.S.C. 554(B), 555(B), 558(C),
706(1).
CONSISTENT'WITH THE APA, COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENTS AND REGULATIONS ENCOURAGE LICENSING BOARDS TO CONDUCT THEIR PROCEEDINGS EXPEDITIOUSLY AND EFFICIENTLY.
SEE STATEMENT OF POLICY ON CONDUCT OF LICENSING PROCEEDINGS, 13 NRC 452, CLI-81-8, (MAY 20, 1981); STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE:
CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND OPERATING LICENSES FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES FOR WHICH A HEARING IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 189A 0F THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED, 10 C.F.R. PART 2, APP. A, I.(B),
AND V., PPS. 120, 121, AND 123.
THE DIRECTIVE IN CLI-86-11 DID NOTHING MORE THAN REQUIRE A TIMELY RESOLUTION OF ISSUES REGARDING THE EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISE, CONSISTENT WITH THE APA AND COMMISSION POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.
(D)
DOES THE COMMISSION BELIEVC THAT IT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO EXPEDITE LICENSING?
IF S0, WHY?
IS IT EXPECTED THAT RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD WILL EXPEDITE THE HEARING PROCESS AND/OR THE LICENSING PROCESS?
IF SO, HOW?
WHY DOES THE COMMISSION FEEL THAT SUCH EXPEDITION IS NECESSARY i
OR DESIRABLE?
i I
l i
L
,,..--,,.-..,-.n.
ANSWER.
SEE ANSWER 3(c).
THE COMMISSION DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER
' RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD WILL EXPEDITE THE HEARING AND/0R LICENSING PROCESS.
i i
l 4
,,-,,,-----,,- -., -.,,, ~,-,,,,,.
,,,,+,---...,m-
. ~,,.,, -,,.---y.,,-4.,.
m.m.,,,
,.y.,
~_,.,-.v--., -,, -%,-
,,m-,,,
CUESTION 5.
ON THE SUBJECTS OF RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD AND/OR REPLACING JUDGES KLINE AND/0R MARGULIES AND/OR EXPEDITING THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR SHOREHAM, PLEASE PROVIDE A COMPLETE CHRON0 LOGY AND DESCRIP-TION OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS AND RECORDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS, TELE-PHONE CALLS, AND CONVERSATIONS OF ANY KIND, BETWEEN (A)
JUDGE COTTER AND EITHER YOURSELF AND/0R ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER AND/0R ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS' STAFF (S);
ANSWER.
l NONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOR THEIR STAFFS HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS, MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS, TELEPHONE CALLS, OR CONVERSATIONS WITH JUDGE COTTER ON THE SUBJECTS OF RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD AND/0R REPLACING JUDGES KLINE AND/OR MARGULIES AND/0R EXPEDITING THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR SHOREHAM.
THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER, DID DIRECT "THE BOARD TO EXPEDITE THE HEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH FAIRNESS TO THE PARTIES" IN ITS PUBLISHED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, 23 NRC 577, 582, CLI-86-11 (JUNE 6, 1986).
L
(B)
NRC STAFF AND JUDGE COTTER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE OFFICE 0F THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS; ANSWER.
I AM AWARE OF ONLY LIMITED COMMUNICATION BETWEEN JUDGE COTTER AND THE NRC STAFF ON THE SUBJECT OF RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD.
ON OCTOBER 22, 1986. MR. DAVID PRESTEMON OF THE LICENSING BOARD STAFF TELEPHONED MR. MICHAEL BLUME, AN ATTORNEY IN THE OFFICE OF
~
THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), TO NOTIFY HIM OF RECEIPT OF THE INTERVENORS' OCTOBER 22, 1986 " MOTION FOR RESCISSION OF...
RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD."
ALSO, AROUND OCTOBER 23,1986,g MR. PRESTEMON TELEPHONED MR. BERNARD BORDENICK, NRC STAFF COUNSEL, INQUIRING AS TO WHETHER THE STAFF WOULD BE RESPONDING TO THE MOTION.
MR. BORDENICK RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY, AND ON OCTOBER 24, 1986, HE TRANSMITTED A LETTER TO JUDGE COTTER, WITH COPIES TO ALL PARTIES ON THE SHOREHAM SERVICE LIST, RESPONDING TO INTERVENORS' " MOTION FOR RESCISSION" (SEE ATTACHMENT).
STAFF COUNSEL PREPARED AND TRANSMITTED THE LETTER SUBSEQUENT TO ISSU-ANCE OF JUDGE COTTER'S OCTOBER 7 " NOTICE" AND OCTOBER 27
" CLARIFICATION."
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAVE BEEN NO OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN NRC STAFF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OGC AND THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, AND JUDGE COTTER ON THE SUBJECTS OF RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD AND/OR REPLACING JUDGES KLINE AND/0R MARGULIES AND/0R EXPEDITING THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR SHOREHAM.
-(C)
YOURSELF AND ANY EMPLOYEE OF (I) THE WHITE HOUSE, (II) THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (III) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY-(FEMA), OR (IV) ANY PARTY TO THE SHOREHAM PROCEEDING.
- ANSWER, I HAVE HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS, DISCUSSIONS, TELEPHONE CALLS,-OR CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THE.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA), OR ANY PARTY TO THE SHOREHAM PROCEEDING ON THE SUBJECTS OF RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD AND/0R REPLACING JUDGES KLINE AND/0R MARGULIES AND/OR EXPEDITING THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR SHOREHAM, 9
Y l
QUESTION 6.
ON OCTOBER 3, 1986, THE BOARD MADE SEVERAL RULINGS l
REGARDING THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES AT SHOREHAM.
DID YOU OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER OR ANY MEMBER OF ANY COMMISSIONER'S STAFF DISCUSS OR COMMUNICATE IN WRITING REGARDING THE OCTOBER 3 BOARD RULINGS OR HEARING AND/0R POSSIBLE RECONSTI-TUTION OF THE BOARD WITH EACH OfHER OR NRC STAFF OR ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, DOE, FEMA, OR ANY PARTY TO THE SHOREHAM PROCEEDING?
IF SO, PLEASE SPECIFY THE PERSON (S), TIME, PLACE, TYPE OF COMMUNICATION, AND SUBSTANCE THEREOF, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO SUCH COMMUNICATION.
ANSWER.
NONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOR THEIR STAFFS DISCUSSED OR COMMUNICATED IN WRITING WITH EACH OTHER OR NRC STAFF OR ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, DOE, FEMA, OR ANY PARTY TO THE SHOREHAM PROCEEDING REGARDING THE OCTOBER 3 BOARD RULINGS OR HEARING AND/OR POSSIBLE RECONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD.
QUESTION 7.
PLEASE. PROVIDE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE OCTOBER 7 " NOTICE" AND THE OCTOBER 17 " CLARIFICATION" 0F WHICH ANY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS' STAFF MEMBER, OR MEMBER OF THE NRC STAFF IS AWARE, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH RECORDS ARE NOW IN YOUR OR THEIR POSSESSION.
ANSWER I HAVE ATTACHED ALL RELEVANT RECORDS.
l 4
QUESTION 8.
PLEASE PROVIDE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ALL RECORDS OF WHICH ANY COMMISSIONER, MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS' STAFF, OR MEMBER OF THE NRC STAFF IS AWARE PERTAINING.T0 ANY " SCHEDULE. CONFLICT" PERTAINING TO THE 3HOREHAM LITIGATION ON THE PART OF JUDGE KLINE OR JUDGE MARGULIES.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE ALLEGED SCHEDULING CONFLICTS.D0 NOT AFFECT JUDGE SHON, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO HIS SCHEDULE.
ANSWER.
I HAVE ATTACHED ALL RELEVANT RECORDS.
THE COMMISSIONERS. THEIR STAFFS, AND THE NRC STAFF DO NOT KNOW WHY THE " ALLEGED SCHEDULING CONFLICTS" DO NOT AFFECT JUDGE SHON.
f
QUESTION 9.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THERE WERE " SCHEDULE CONFLICTS" THAT MIGHT REQUIRE RECONSTITUTION OF THE SHOREHAM BOARD?
HOW AND FROM WHOM DID YOU LEARN OF SUCH " SCHEDULE CONFLICTS?"
PLEASE SPECIFY THE DATE, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMMUNICA-TION, AND PROVIDE ALL RECORDS PERTAINING THERETO.
ANSWER.
ON OCTOBER 24, 1986, I FIRST LEARNED OF THE SCHEDULE CONFLICTS REFERENCED IN THE OCTOBER 7 " NOTICE," WHEN MY LEGAL ASSISTANT, MR. JOSEPH GRAY, ORALLY ADVISED ME OF THE RECEIPT AND SUBSTANCE j
OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE'S OCTOBER 17, 1986 LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE RECONSTITUTION.
\\
ATTACHMENTS i
O
ATTACHMENTS 1.
CLI-86-11 2.
Notice of Reconstitution of Board, 10/7/86 3.
Letter to Judge Cotter from Senator D'Amato, 10/14/86 4.
Letter to Judge Cotter from counsel for Suffolk County (Brown), 10/14/86 5.
Letter to Chairman Zech from Senator D'Amato, 10/15/86 6.
Letter to counsel for Suffolk County (Brown) from Judge Cotter, 10/17/86 7.
Notice of Reconstitution of Board: Clarification, 10/17/86 8.
Letter to Senator D'Amato from Judge Cotter, 10/17/86 9.
Letter to Commissioners from Presiding Officer Blass, Suffolk County Legislature, 10/17/86 1
- 10. Letter to Judge Cotter from counsel for Suffolk County (Brown), 10/22/86
- 11. Motion for Rescission of " Notice of Reconstitution of Board" and Subsequent " Clarification" and Motion for Expedited Consideration, 10/22/86
- 12. Letter to Judge Cotter from NRC Staff Counsel Bordenick, 10/24/86
- 13. Briefing Outline, 10/28/86
- 14. Letter to Judge Cotter from Congressman Markey, 10/28/86
- 15. Letter to Chairman Zech from Congressman Markey, 10/28/86
- 16. Sense of the Legislature Objecting to the Recent Removal of Two Judges from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Panel, 10/28/86
- 17. LILCO's Opposition to " Motion for Rescission... and for Expedited Consideration," 10/30/86
- 18. Letter from Judge Cotter to Congressman Markey, 10/31/86
- 19. Letter from counsel for Suffolk County (Brown) to Judge Cotter,11/7/86
- 20. Memorandum and Order (ASLBP),11/7/86 i
4 F
I.
t I
Cite as 23 NRC 577 (1986)
CL1 88-11 B.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONSRS:
Nunzio J. Palledno, Chairman Thomas M. Rotwets James K. Aseeletine Freder$ck M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
t In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL 3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
June 6,1886 The Commission (1) directs the appointment of a licensing board for immediate initiation of a hearing on the emergency plan exercise results; (2) offers guidance on the timing of summary disposition motions; and (3) offers guidance on the standard for admissibility of contentions con-cerning emergency exercise results.
1 The Commission continues the Appeal Board's stay of the remand in 3
ALAB-832 (23 NRC 135 (1986)), instructing the Licensing Board not to initiate proceedings on the remand issueruntil the Commission com-Pietes its review of ALAB-832.
1 The Commission is in the process of reviewing the " realism" and "im-materiality" issues of ALAB-818 (22 NRC 651 (1985)) and expects to issue shortly a decision on those issues.
s j
RULES OF PRACTICE:
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION Commission rules provide that summary disposition motions may be filed "within such time as may be fixed by the presiding officer." 10 C.F.R. i 2.749(a). The rules further provide that if essential facts are 577 i.
~
8%
g S..
1
J T
h
. ~
not available for response to the motion, the Board may deny it or ma B
i such other order as is appropriate.10 C.F.R. j 2.749(c).
RULES OF PRACTICE:
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION Intervenors are not necessarily entitled to discovery to oppose sum-mary disposition of their contentions. First they must show that discov ery is necessary and is likely to produce evidence supporting the ence of a genuine issue of material fact.
~
EMERGENCY PLANNING: PREDICTIVE FINDINGS f
\\
Under Commission regulations and practice, Staff review of exercise results is consistent with the predictive nature of emergency planning, and is restricted to determining whether the exercise revealed any de ciencies which preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that prote i
measures can and will be taken, i.e., fundamental flaws in the plan.
Since only fundamental flaws are material licensing issues, hearings o the exercise results may be restricted to those issues.
EMERGENCY PLANNING: PREDICTIVE FINDINGS The Commission's rule change in response to the court's decision in Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir 1 emphasizes the predictive nature of cert. denied,105 S. Ct. 815 (1985),
emergency planning findings. See 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232 Uuly 13, 50 Fed. Reg.19,323 (May 8,1985).
CONTENTIONS (ADMISSIBILITY)
RULES OF PRACTICE:
Imposition of an admissibility requirement that intervenors' conten tions must demonstrare fundamental. flaws in the emergency plan ha i
l the potential to require premature evidentiary decisions. What is re quired is that intervenors' contentions satisfy the specificity and ot quirements of 10 C.F.R. f 2.714 by (1) pleading that the exercis demonstrated fundamental flaws in applica9t's plan, and (2) providin l
bases for the contentions which, if shown to be true, would demonstrate u:
fundamental flaws in the plan.
L.
1<
I l
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER B-Now pending before us in the Shoreham emergency planning adjudica-tion are three related matters: (1) petitions for review of ALAB-832
' 88**
(23 NnC 135), a March 26,1986 Appeal Board decision reversing and remanding on a number ofissues, but directing the Licensing Board to t exist-delay remand proceedings; (2) motions from LILCO and Intervenors concerning litigation of emergency planning exercise results; and (3) pe-titions for review of ALAB-818 (22 NRC 651 (1985)).
In sum, we direct continued deferral of the ALAB-832 remand, and immediate initiation of the exercise hearing to consider evidence which j
nercise l
Intervenors might wish to offer to show that there is a fundamental flaw
- uning, in the LILCO emergency plan. Further, the Commission is now review.
ing ALAB-818, and expects to issue shortly a decision on the realism NI
I
- V' and immateriality issues.
mason I.
ALAB-832
]
The Appeal Board in ALAB-832 reversed and remanded to the Licens-ing Board on a number of issues, but directed the Licensing Board to 4
son in y
hold the remand in abeyance until the Commission provided instruc-
'1984),
tions. No party has requested initiation of the remand pending Commis-sion review of ALAB-832, and thus we direct the Licensing Board to are of j
continue to defer the remand proceedings until further order of the 61982);
l Commission. Pending petitions for review of ALAB-832 will be ad-dressed by the Commission in the near future. If the Commission g
decides that further hearings are required on any of the issues considered g
in ALAB-832, the Commission will so direct the Licensing Board.
uten-II. MOTIONS CONCERNING LITIGATION OF EMERGENCY
, j, PLANNING EXERCISE RESULTS kr re.
nercise in a motion dated March 7,1986, Suffolk County, New York State, miding and the Town of Southampton (the Governments or Intervenors) asked aurate 1
the Commission to advise the parties to this proceeding of their proce-dural responsibilities concerning further hearings on emergency planning issues. Intervenors ask the Commission to make clear (1) that there should be no proceedings on the results of the February 13,1986 Shore-ham emergency exercise until after FEM A issues its evaluation of the exercise; (2) that the filing of contentions on the exercise should await 579
C (3) that because the Shoreham the issuance of "EMA's report; and sition by Licensing and Appeal Boards have upheld the Go h ground that denying LILCO's application for an operating licens d
is upon LILCO's emergency plan is fatally defective, the b di gs.
LILCO, and not the Governments, to initiate fu argu-8.
proceedings on the exercise, preferably In a pleading of March i
ments by Intervenors, and further submitted its ow the Commission to immediately appoint a LILCO esks the heard Shoreham emergency planning issues. Furthe have been litigated Commission toinstruct the Board:
- to admit only contentions which could not
{
t demon.
at some earlier time, and which, a 1
d' di
- to conduct an expedited procee ng; f
ce whose pur-to schedule an immediate Prehearing Con eren f llconten-pose will be to determine schedules for the fili l
.tions other than those which must aw quests; f
t ntions which
- to permit the filing of a second round o con ef the F could not have been filed prior to issuance o f discovery; report, along with a corresponding second rou i to the issuance
- to bar discovery against FEMA personnel pr or ation of of FEMA's exercise report so as to expedite th FEMA's report on the exercise.the NRC Staff re the G.overn-On March 24. 1986, ments' motion and to LILCO's mo i t d their response to LILCO's motion on March 24.
largely object to the t
pointment of a licensing board, the Governmen s from the Com-other propo;,als on the ground that h objections to has issued its Since the motions and responses were filed, F ddress only the re-them.
report, thus mooting some of the requests. We th l
maining questions.
q UIn support of this standard. LILCo ctes and a licensins boardf S
d 105 s. Ct. 815 (1985),
y rests v. NRC. 735 F.2d 1437 (D C. Cir.1984) cert. denie,
l decision in Carvhae power d Eght Co. (shearon Hams (1985).
580 E
'lt
~
A Bareham (1) The proposal to use " threshold pleading" and summary disposition prior to discovery to exclude contentions which do
- ion by not demonstrate, as pleaded, a fundamental defect la the ad that emergency plan
- upon The Governments assert that this suggestion is defective on three 8
first, that the Commission's contention pleading regulations re-a argu.
j counts:
8851 IDS I
quire adequate specificity and basis, and the use of the fundamental flaw enduct l
criterion is a departure from the regulations that can be implemented hsly only by rulemaking; second, that by this proposal LILCO is allegedly at-tempting to require merits decisions at the contention pleading stage, es the
{
contrary to settled Commission precedent; and third, that the use of summary disposition prior to discovery is legally unsupported, based on i
higated an erroneous Licensing Board reading of UCS v. NRC, supra note 1.
20n*
We disagree with the proposition that restriction of any emergency J
planning exercise hearings requested by Intervenors to " fundamental atPur-i flaws" requires rulemaking or is otherwise inappropriate. In the pream-
)
ble to the rule reviewed by the UCS court, and in our rule change re-m en-sponding to the court's decision, we emphasized the predictive nature of sof the emergency planning findings. See 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232 (July 13,1982);
+
r q re-
{
50 Fed. Reg.19,323 (May 8,1985). The court never questioned this concept. The court also observed that there was nothing to prevent the
=hich 4
Commission from excluding from exercise litigation any issue which dEMA was not material to licensing decisions. See 735 F.2d at 1447-48. Under N
our regulations and practice, Staff review of exercise results is consistent mance nun of i
w th the predictive nature of emergency planning, and is restricted to determining if the exercise revealed any deficiencies which preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be t
avern-at the taken, i.e., fundamental flaws in the plan. Since only fundamental flaws
'j attheir are material licensing issues, the hearing may be restricted to those j
W ap-issues.
flowever, we agree with Intervenors'second point, that the wording t
le the ICorn-of LILCO's proposal to exclude contentions which do not demonstrate fundamental flaws in the emergency plan, has ttfe potential to require ans to 1
premature evidentiary decisions. We remedy that possible defect by directing the Board to admit only those Intervenor contentions which amt its satisfy the specificity and other requirements of 10 C.F.R. l 2.714 by (1)
[
% re-pleading that the exercise demonstrated fundamental flaws in LILCO's plan, and (2) by providing bases for the contentions which, if shown to be true, would demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the plan.
Intervenors' third point is that summary disposition prior to discovery is legally defective. Our rules provide that summary disposition motions
%g 581 l
r--a.-
~'"'"-m-v----.--
$o l
O l
may be filed "within such time as may be fixed by B[i 10 i C.F.R. 2.749(a). The rules furthe such other order as is appropriate.10 h dis-tion of their contentions. First, they must convince the Boa covery is necessary and likely to produce evidence s I
ence of a genuine issue of material fact. These rules sho l
for this proceeding.
(2) Other LILCO Proposals
[
LILCO also proposes that the exercise proceeding b i i the Board which previously heard Shoreham emergency I
We direet the Chairmen of the Atomic Safety a
]
to reappoint the members of the eerher Board ' th ther, the Board is to expedite the he
,[.
l completion of the proceeding.
III. REVIEW OF ALAB 818 As noted above, we previously deferred review now plan to proceed initially with b
and preemption issues at some fu dressed in ALAB 818, and we see no need for fu INTERVENORS' $10 TION OF JUNE 3,1986 IV.
The June 3,1986 Suffolk County, State of Ne Southampton Supplement to Motion for NRC Procedures is denied. The mot t
i requiring a public meeting. The Commission de I t r enor-tation of its own procedural rules. We perceive no ha I
[.
l d c s on (
2 The Board and the parties should keep in mind that the C ht mandate more este AL AB Ill may obviate the need ror a hearing on the exercise res sive evidentiary heanngs.
E 582
~_
""'N'w-$
~'
- ~ ~ - -,,,., _ _ _ _
'"--w.
U 7
j m
~
'1 l
ber."
from this denial of their motion, as the issues raised by the exercise will are be aired in the adjudication we initiate today.
Buke Commissioner Asselstine approved in part and disapproved ir. part.
ne-His separate views are attached.
msi-It is so ORDERED.
is-For the Commission tist-pate SAMUEL J. CHILK g
Secretary of the Commission 1
o I
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
'j this 6th day of June 1986, hr-1 j
f SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE I
I agree with that portion of this Order which directs the initiation of a j
hearing on the results of the exercise of the emergency plan for Shore-ham. I also agree with the decision to continue to defer review of the issues in ALAB-832. However, I do not agree with the procedural guid-3.,
ance provided to the Licensing Board in this order. I see no reason to set
.g any pleading requirements beyond those already existing in the Commis-
,y sion's regulations.
4 tal.
]
une Ws ns M-ars i;
em 4
..-,...n--.,._
-,,--...--.,n
.)_g y
^
~
~
~
J
- xeti..
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 9tISSION
~86 0CT -8 P 3 :04 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY O FF n...
00Cnci :.:.. : - /. !
~^
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 4
(EP Exercise)
SERVED OCT -81986 (Docket No. 50-322-OL-5)
[ASLBSNo. 86-534-01-OL]
NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 CFR li 2.721 and 2.721(b), the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board for Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No.
i t
50-322-OL-5, is hereby reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge John'H Frye, III, in place of Administrative Judge Morton B. Margulies i
and Administrative Judge Oscar H. Paris in place of Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline because of schedule conflicts. Administrative Judge John H Frye is appointed Chairman of the Board.
As reconstituted, the Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
John H Frye, III, Chairman
)
Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shen 8610100311 861007 ffL___ ADOCK_05000322een %z y
D362
2 l
All correspondence, _ documents and other material shall be filed with the Board in accordance with 10 CFR I 2.701 (1980).
The addresses of the new Board members are:
Administrative Judge John H Frye, III, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 6
/
/4 d &
I
- 3. Paul Cotter, Jr. /
Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Issued at Bethesda, Maryland, this 7th day of October, 1986.
l l
l l
i I
.~
~.
.~
m =8,=Ca
De0WS4 Offect tusLeweG asseme3 ar, 3 f
Puent 1203: 226-asse teuramJ taaMST te&StaCHWSETTS.Cseamaande
$e"emieYnr vema"s "sica n's Y o-o U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES i
p,,;,y,,,,,,,,===
"d",'*%*"' "*"2 un.
SU8 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION someo AND POWER g688=a"';,gg,,,,
= e==esu.imo.eam
^ TMs COMMITTEE ON E GY AND COMMERCE
"~
WASHINGTON, DC 20515 October 28, 1986 i
i Administrative Judge B. Paul cotter, Jr.
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Dear Judge Cotter:
I an deeply troubled by your decision to reconstitute the Shoreham Licensing Board by removing two of its three members --
Judges Morton Margulies and Jerry Kline.
This decision has sparked outrage among State and local government officials.
Their replacement at this critical tin!e in the Shoreham licensing process would mean that the extensive knowledge of the issues that l
they have gained over the lengthy proceedings of the past months will not be brought to bear on matters of vital importance to all parties and to the public.
In order to assist the Subcommittee to determine whether to hold a hearing on this matter, please provide answers to the following questions by November 4,1986.
Please note that for the purpose of this request, the word
" record" or " document" includes all handwritten or typed communications, documents, drafts, memoranda, notes, " route I
slips," briefing and appointment logs, word processing recordings and audio tapes.
The word " discussion (s)" includes all conversations between any two or more persons, including all meetings, telephone calls, and so forth.
To the extent that any person asked to provide records is aware of such records that are not in their possession or have been destroyed or for other reason cannot be provided, please identify whether or not such documents existed, in whose files they existed, the reasons why such records I
are unavailable, and, if destroyed, who destroyed them and/or l
ordered their destruction.
For example, such records'which are unavailable should be identified by title, author, date, etc.
1 6iitSM M pp,
Judg3 B. Paul Cottor, Jr.
'Page 2 October 28, 1986 With regard to the October 7 " NOTICE OF RECONSTITUTION OF 1.
BOARD" (hereinafter " NOTICE") and the October 17 " NOTICE OF CLARIFICATION" (hereinafter RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD:
" CLARIFICATION"), please provide to the sgbcommittee all records gartaining to (a) the NOTICE, (b) the CLARIFICATION, and (c) the reconstitution of the Shoreham Doard.
4 4
h 2.
With reference to your Octobo-7, 1986 NOTICE:
(a) What are the " schedule conflicts" to which you refer?
Why is it believed that such " schedule conflicts" may be (b) alleviated by replacing Judges Margulies and Kline?
4 When did gou first learn that there were " schedule (c) conflicts that might require reconstitution of the Shoreham Board?
How and f rom whom was this information l
communicated?
f (d) Who first suggested that these " schedule conflicts" might be alleviated by reconstituting the Board?
When?
l Please grovide to the Subcommittee all records pertaining (e) schedule conflict" in the Shoreham litigation on i
to any the part of Judge Kline or. Judge Margulies, and all records pertaining to a reconstitution of the Shoreham j
Boards as a way to alleviate such conflicts.
i Was your first communication with Judges Margulies and/or 3.Kline regarding scheduling difficulties and/or replacing either or l
both of them and/or reconstituting the Board initiated by you, by Please either Margulies and/or Kline, or by a third party?
l provide the date, time, persons participating, substance of the communication, and all records pertaining thereto.
l Prior to October 7, 1986, did you discuss or participate in l
4.
the removal of any written or verbal communications regarding (a) the reconstitution of the Judges Margulies and Kline and/or (b)
Board with any of the parties or with Chairman tech or with any other NRC Commissioner or with any member of the Commissioners' l
or the NRC staff or with any Administrative Judge?
If staff (s) so, please provide a detailed chronology specifying the date, with j
whom you communicated, names of other persons present or participating, substance of the communication, and provide any records pertaining to such communication.
I With regard to the October 17, 1986 CLARIFICATION:
Between 5.
october 7 and October 17, did you discuss or participate in any
[
written or verbal communications regarding (a) the removal of (b) the reconstitution of the Board, Judges Margulies and Kline, the form or content of the CLARIFICATION with any of j
and/or (c) the parties or with Chairman Zech or with any other NRC i
staff (s) or member of Commissioner or member of the Commissioners' the NRC Staf f ?
If so, please provide a detailed chronology l
L x =
.Judg3 B. Paul Cottor, Jr.
1 Page 3 October 28, 1986 specifying the date, with whom you communicated, names of other persons present or participating, the substance of the e
communication, and provide any records pertaining to such communication.
6.
On October 17, 1986 you wrote to Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
regarding your issuance of the October 17, 1986 " NOTICE OF i
RECONSTITUTION OF BohRD:
CLARIFICATION."
In that letter you stated that "It was my determination, in consultation with the members of the existing Board, that the expanding emergency planning-related Shoreham cases could not reasonably be handled in f
.A M EADASI by a single board....The reconstitution will assure that all issues can be heard thoroughly without EAdEA dalAE (emphasis added)."
(a) What is meant by the phrases "a timely manner" and or " undue delay?g would constitute What precisel l
"without undue dela{"?
~
Has the Board or "an untimely manner any of its members established a target date for issuing a decision?
If so, (i) what was this target date or dates, (ii) when was such a date established, (iii) by whom, and (iv) for what reason (s)?
I (b) Do you and/or the Board believe that it has a i
responsibility to expedite licensing?
If so, why?
Is it expected that reconstituting the Board will expedite the i
hearing process and/or the licensing process?
If.so, l
how?
Why does the Board feel that such expedition is necessary or desireable?
7.
With regard to the reconstitution of the Board and/or expediting the licensing process for Shoreham and/or removing l
l Judges Kline and/or Margolies f rom the Board, please provide a complete chronology and description of all communications, including but not limited to meetings, discussions, documents, telephone calls, and conversations of any kind, between yourself and/or Judge Kline and/or Judge Margulies and/or Judge Frye and/or Judge Paris ands (a) Chairman tech; (b) Any other NRC Commissioner (s);
(c) NRC Staff, including but not limited to any member of the Commissioners' staffs, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Executive Director for Operations; and (d) Any employee of (i) the White House, (ii) the Department of Energy, (iii) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or (iv) any party to the Shoreham proceedings.
Please provide all records pertaining to such communications.
8.
On October 3, 1986, the Board made several rulings regarding the emergency planning issues at Shoreham.
At any time did either you or any of the other Judges discuss or communicate regarding
-- - - -. ?=i-.
i.
Judg3 B. Paul Cottor, Jr.
Page 4 October 28, 1986 the October 3 Board rulings or hearing and/or possible reconstitution of the Board with each other or any NRC commissioner or commissioners' staff or NRC Staff or any employee of the White House, DOE, or FEMA?
If so, please specify the person (s), date, place, type of communication, and substance thereof.
Please provide all records pertaining to such communication.
9.
Why did you leave Judge Frederick Shon to serve on the original Board and the new Board?
What f actors went into the decision to remove Judges Kline and Margulies f rom the original Board and leave Judge Shon?
Did either Judge Kline or Judge Margulies rquest that the original Board be reconstituted?
Please provide a chronology of such communications describing the persons involved, dates, place, substance of the communication, and all records pertaining thereto.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
I look
~
forward to receiving your responses by November 4,1986.
Sincerely, b_ ^ > > -
Edward J. Mark h Chairman 4
l i
I l
o
-.