ML20215L253
| ML20215L253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1984 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F109 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706250615 | |
| Download: ML20215L253 (1) | |
Text
.
L. - sI g n N ,-_
, ..I,- , ,g i l :\ .
{
e#pn% .
uniiED STATES M Qf -
-!. e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS;ON "g((/ ' RECORD COPY
,,- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
%,.....}. .
June 14,1984 -
v 1:
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino -
' j ,l Commissioner Gilinsky '
Commissioner Rober.s 1 '
. Commissioner. Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal q}
. FROM: James A. Fitzgeralf *
-i Assistant General :: 3nsel ,
SUBJECT:
REP. MARKEY REQUES" FOR DOCUMENTS --
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SHOREHAM '
<> y We are in the process of closing out the NRC's response to i Rep. Markey's March-May 1984 letters. We are uncertain :. l whether your office has specifically afdressed a document. ,, !
request contained in the Congressman's May 4, letter, to wit: -
I
, m 1 a record of all your communicatiens with Executive Branch and federal agencies in 1934 that relate to emergency planning or the Shorehan proceeding, ,
A copy of the letter is attached for.your convenienc'e. This is similar to a request of April 12 te which you' have responded, but broader insofar as it covers " emergency l planning." -
]
l Discussions with Rep. Markey's staff have clarified that the f emergency planning communica.tions contan: plated by the request are those of a general nature but do not include ,
routine communications regarding other specific facilities j (e.g., routine correspondence to and from FEMA regarding 1 FEMA findings, transmittals to FEMA of proposed and admitted contentions, transcripts of* hearings, requests for. responses .
to interrogatories (and corresponding FEMA responses) and similar' communications). l Please advise by June' 22, 1984 of any ec=munications by your ,
office of the sort covered by the request. j
Attachment:
i Ltr, 5/4/84, Markey - ." s to Palladino -
11 1 .;
q cc: SECY (2) p.!
OPE, (2) .
j
- -^ <
~' ,"
CONTACT: j X-4322'4 , i
~
g625 g7t**
connES ec CE pop
- . g, . x., ~ w ; U-- - T IH
- q ,_,i .
^
')
wonas owoA U nc..cummaw %IM"
- =:me.: ar.d.: - - - ,
':::W"= =~ :::':Wra. " ~-
. . COMMIT i EE ON INTERIOR " " ' " ' " "
$#[. g 3.. AND INSULAR AFFAIRS %"EE~e===
==L ;;;*= g u.s. House op mussurAnvas
- M* * %
==r r=gy* ' wAss NaTon, o.c. mosts
.f.3,%"".*a*
.gp=;;.. "' ~ A~:2 a ,'
=
1.,,,'t,,;'O 'a- May 4, 1984 1
- 7 "Zll",.". ""- . <
C':::"".O "- a1 i
==;,g W .'". 3 S'h', .
i sama austem, sa6ss. _
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 E Street, N.W. , ,
[ Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
.);
3
Dear Mr. Chairman:
7~
~
I have learned from documents that the Nuclear Regulatory .
J
. Commission '(NRC) has provided the Subcommittee, and from documents provided by other federal agencies, that you have met and spoken in recent weeks with Department of Energy (DOE) -
Secretary Donald P. Hodel and Federal Emergency Management l Agency (FEMA) Director Louis O. Guiffrida. -
.t It. is apparent that DOE, TEMA and the White House Office -
of Science and Technology Policy have taken on the role of advocates for the .Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) in .
proposing federal implementation of the LILCO emergency plan.
In effect, they have become parties of influence to the .
proceeding. It is also my understanding, that you have discussed. emergency planning issues as well as the Shoreham :,
proceeding with Secretary Hodel and Director Guiffrida. ,
j i 3
I . am concerned about the potential implications of your communication because of NRC's responsibility to remain independent in its role as an adjudicator. For example, I an i troubled by the fact that Secretary Hodel off ered. you DOE's i legal support in responding to the U.S. District Couit's .
issuance of a temporary restraining order. Because these agencies represent the Administration, to which you are i subordinate in your role as Chairman, your contact with them creates the reasonable inference that you have ,been influenced '
I by them in an inappropriate manner. , j t
Again, I am requesting that vou erovide the hheemmittee j vith a recoro or all your communications with Executive Branch '
and teceral agencies . in 1984. tIInt relate co' emergency planning '
~.[
or the Shorenam proceecing. simil,-1v - if vour' staff or any
~
of the other Commission efficem-have anem9ed in such com- .
1 a
O /Y - ED S A4,,$
e The denorable Nunzio.J. Palladino -
May 4, 1984 -
Page Two 4
munica ions. I would accreciate an accounting of those even:s. I oelieve your response to One succommit:ee should l be ace available to all of the parties to the Shoreha= i ,
proceeding.
, . 1 Sincerely, -
l l
~
l Edward J . Mark
- Chairman !
. Subcommittee on Oversight 3 and Investigations ,
LTM/ tru O
O 4
-N , .
4 g .
t
- ,48 O
k
_i s
- lf a
.e
UNIT ED STATES l 3la f 'l
'$# $ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
/ WASHINCTON OA 20848
% {
4 Q..OT/... :% .'
cPPICS CP THE * - Me:G C0h m tSS4048R '
June 13, 1984 JUN 13 P3:19 C Q' * ' ' " * - T Pr.05.~5 'kN.'.' . b; . .7,$,8,hM 4; .. '.
SD - 322 0c. ~
ih$ck '
l sh - WVvyy u a
HOTE TO: Files 1
e On June 12, 1984, I had the following telephone conversation with Mr i
,'u Claude A. Davis of Danville, Va., who represented himself as a stock- l ,
t holder in a number of nuclear utilities, including GPU (TMI-1), Public Service of New Hampshire (Seabrook) and Lon THI-1 given that, in his view, GPU had hired the top nuclear engineers in the ment country, integrity issuethe had steam generators had been repaired, and the man been corrected.
j of those issues. I explained to him the status .t said it now appeared He asked if a decision unlikely since thewould be made Comission agreed in Jurie-I 1984. the !;
to extend coment into July. period on the ASLAB decision regarding management and train .
- allowing TMl-1 Mr.. to Davis asked restart if Mr. Mondale's was influencing coments the decision.
. re never garding I
knowledge, it has had no affect. I said, to my .
{
I Mr. Davis expressed the viw that NRC was bankrupting the nuclear l industry,like countries puttingF this country in a competitive disadvantage with '
}
nuclear programs.rance, Germany and maybe China that ha'.e successful i He mentioned Seabrook as an example. !
that it was not obvioJs NRC was the culprit on that case I responded Shoreham was not licensed .
outstanding issues--emerge. I explained there were two significantHe asked why .
developed a plan as required) and diesel generatorsncy planning (where ,
require a reliable on-site source of emergency power (the regulations and those at Shoreham have suspected deficiencies that actions). might require corrective ,
Mr. Davis asked that I pass on one message to Comissioner Asselsti "Please don't let Mondale scare ne:
facts and with your own courage.you. " Act on your own knowledge of the John H. Austin .{
Technical Assistant to II Comissioner Asselstine ,
lkbhkbbbbobNO9 14 PDR '
.3 A
}
.,w
-9%W9# ,f L pge =nn - - - -
j ** u
^#'
- ) E ,
,I '4, e 5
- ,"[ - ' . , , ,, ;'9. . . K
d
,. V
~% "[_
- , ~
4 h. , A * "2 ;.
{ 11 ' .,
- i. .. . ,
h t,, . ,.
, ^ ,.lt - [', ,w (,
+ .. - .. .. ..
- *e * * * ; . J .E ,h,
,k c.
j}
. 1
's e
'f
-.4', y . y s;
- k
- l .. d,' K * . 7, g ,. , .i ' 3 l ]
.[;\
.. r , e.
cip , ..',g . w V , .. ,.-
w w+ mm 1 *. av.
_s
- o. %
w + nmm, 3
...~"u:;...'c n ewsuw g agp"n, . ,
nh .wk.n.w a g.,e@a%w m d.
w mm.
nv
. .m.- 3w.m e n..e, n . ram.s.sn
=....... . . .
- p. , ,f A. g(.;
+.,..,1.
!m"".*".Mll::%w,.
ww s..
., m.a nr
.. .cc vyQM.g . ~,.FF1a r,. s. w ~m
~
u -
~~~~m ,
1 1
s -
~:
x .s 1 .< '. ,* ?$t d . .A> - -
a
~n ..
.r..e n, 1,84 ws.
. in . J4 (h ,Q .' -g.}
l W,y *:
ypQq f Q%.yp%yf?M,If,d.eeen.ree Y "' . }, 7,gi c4w&e w W . - e- .S" l.:.~ '$3y"
}
m i. v v.sti 2 ', s;$. seetear ReplEssey consis'Wien~ 5;a f .
' j a .i.,-. , , . , ,,, .i
$d '
k3*L Weibi~e'g' tee'#9.WV-MSM]4$g%fE@AN&:? y -k I
V+
i
- 4. MM$f3ifp$df S.e.er Nten f,u e %se f. - %g ,- <
- *u *.
3,pg . . e o.
r M m,c .e,mc% v.ed'.+ . - ..
s u ,.
! a.p;.a
. . .;J ,w %j , m% . - .. <..y e4:;3 ale petteait .,some eise aso eo
. 7 44 Altheegh . . A ,.
- . 1. . .a
.issus,,my 4 mge4efere; 4 ,
h ',g,,,
l ' 'v#regairdingMeH.Buislisiir
'4 Tisfat? intetse. -
yMWT l p, ;gy::.g ; , -. r wg. g.....
.y;gg. u., e a y ,,
s.g,.q1fMw;m.,..
~~
gwp' . hw; i ; *f V"" it our daily l
7p's
~
Jihe N tisiet is^ s. 'ir3f! l I
W y ibm!Shifr~ense t W1 y+ -
te.d o .bscures and
, . , , . . ~ , .
, .;,ym +a. s. . &.
' set . ~ sanely,
,.;g;M . _ _ _ _ "'
-wc
, 691 >
('.M 0:,. u .$ .*. *J l @% ,.
.. ;-g
' jf g' ~ , h!, ' ' *
&Q s. .. Q, .R,
~,rg , ..
~ ,cas evaamatsea 'p1ain ' eas be pat a3
. LaMeekjeisET.Wguey7stMeisi? tees: by ~the' Fear County itselear n4 iesse4*isi ?'linEWistE!P15(as [tiessediog ' th e I nd i a n Fo i s t 4 j
- . j*Reartfoo $efoep$'PretirQaded,%3@that arestendprestee~, fear county ly j lt J
.' admististisiisfdefenIVsirEi s#fiiIe see W 1eefas # Po is t . ae sessessible' ?sblia'ef fisiste, have aseperated with the Power 4}'
Antiserisy of;. she State .et New York ase Cesselid at a d Edison
'Ceepanyp tis"heder teIdevelt,y as effective emergency evacuation 4
~
plan. They have also seen fit to print and publish a 20 page "r desweest which introduces the public to the need for emergency p l .s n a i a g , what could be an emergency, how they would 5 el notified, whether they should stay indoors or leave the area, wg
,! i, e
, ~ . _ . _ ..
b g "
.N '
L r
.' &,.a + %yQ4 Ors .,:n %>:yg,t..,;,c . a.. .s r.a 7 2;: -
. L Qif; w: .
. //f7 % "' N ' Jf
^
- DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT AND CONTMot.
yf~ - .s B , ( , ...~ji. epg
,,m u
e e e===*o= e s s e mye on e.cn eu. .m. . v e n . . .. .. .o m a i, m e .,, , , . . y .. . u u , . .... , , , . i 3
- -- - - . . ~ . . - _ _ . . . - _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ ,
~ -
, w. -s, 7; % f.e 0 'Ns& , $A s, f. l f~h}$ ?* *0 .. i (9;' &$$4f?&
b m d ,.;MlWiM8 M . ~ y g K g ++ M b m'L pu 4{q a % !. s. Nh'% y; py en. wn .. . . w~w k
g47:
bhb lkNIbNNNi R
- Y M y.ty W..D.T198sN.
Rese;5..frn
.y.<a+*"... g g @... .+;'M#i c~
,: Ch y
$ y; }
Oge" *? f lh *ffgeileasN tM4(f' y , 'ews ares, wk.st route N li r- trekt" j'aee 4' 5sueTyst11&reeoftles ee~ntere, eter'vertoes"tes ' pick-ep pelae s ,
9%
2 i' ein ~ '
' ~
1
\ ,*u .1b. W e%*9 ,, , 4.? !
l6dde: jaasdre . and . mas, xu j
[{h.; n ,- J. 'ed and the -& j m m m
. - 4
.,,.y ?.Q$'. , -
1Q j
{B'?, &4 3, :
.W g r'.
..r .
~ '
4me? yeteriset stoesphere 4
hes' . *
'%ise. re seisati'tede has
"$tetips;is. set safe
^ /.f!
- {jgy
. W evessated .,
- h. .R a .y -
io., e...ey.id.
tie'seresca),'-efD u
Lth !the .< . 2.+
, gn. . qn. g. 2 ;, ;y 3.0%gdq.,
Wit'stis', ' sad yelm'
.t e,.
' 'f1i'eles' is - tts twe D*
instig"af fie'se'df by y; i, h/fo~o destleiiG. ~ ' X& .
.g4 , to Ily'fGgr egg
- spi"W Aq g, g it i lt is ' a'e't : te" ': WO sW 11& sea. . t re61em ti"to eyes the l W. .
' Tee urante es uf. ....e
>.. 6. 0hdE@n:g.M%W.
+m. ~ ~ r.
- g ' N. + . t p..> M% E'. .
% l' s ..
l-P/*laa t f, P h,. . L 88- =-6 4 yst% bac tkey,h' .We , ' y' h I
.. .are. ave,re .
q, x
- p. %.. .
4" 'TE tis {s'e4ts aneeld ;e'ver- .o . .
- 7;g g3.gg'y",,eg,,4 g,, ,,
<; l I ,, "eveessti'es*1s"Astdij5 iip'remeter ' Betf if ~~it did, we'have police. ^!* '
' reitseere .weEtavd69eposy Sheriffs.'we have Correction Officers, s
,P
. Firsises, Yelisete'eEFiresea',15cheetCTeachers, sus Drivers, .1 ;
, +.:( CemetimmeimalaniesTebebshei puhtic', etClarge; . all willing e o ?
~~ 'seepeedte' Isi order re" develop a proper ' avacuat ion pl an. It can be dese. With the proper education nf the public , a safe evacuaties plas,is.pessible. Mich the proper education, everyese costi sederstead that they are safe. With the proper 6 l edoesties of the public, we will know that it is safe to ,
operate this aselaar power station. There will be more 'J.. '
benefits to the community, :o :he po pu' ac a , :a :. h . Nun: ,
the whol,e Long Island spectrum, if this plant functions.
. y continued............. ..'
- p. .en.,.
d.7 - ) +
gR.+ h.~lQ. . .s:y k
.,,,. O=.. - .- ., .
s' ,.
' ^ ~
$ . ,d. % .>
.k
\
._ 3l f tv. M*.,)l1 '
i p'; ,
' li Mr. Mwaaie J. Palladise i g* M , " June 11,1944 .!
'xi t pege 3 __-- ., lj i +
i
> There are these who oesid say people like myself who live
^
s
" i te Shetehas test.the pleet to opes besesse if it doesn't, our Ig.jf*tases eit!' 'riee semelderably. ' While 1 admit se one wasta their
~
ii
. .tsees to rise, it is tidiestees.._to be11 eve we would expose our ' #
4 4hil ese Es es The fact of the matter
- b. ,m4.n.deteJoet shnee leved'ana.s rvoas.yLesagere . 3,.eu etatin 5. i. e.r .4 .i I ^ 4*bestyeed*i%e: beve FedeeEted .estselv'es .thovenskiy regerdins 'f ,
,,seelost; peace K to'ere'est W seesersee abeet as evseeation '? ; i
~
w ,
i pm .:cettets>eeny:meee%e:6.
R.M.r4.ii -
see seessee Tse 'de met'5ese'sWptest. edented 'u"sstt *Tae te feetsee of the thepeople seed . 3 l t #
[the erge ait seed . for tes te st ' powe r . - A few "ye a r s b a c k , we had to
. .%. .i tiens'fep et,.t(psj as less as an hour 1.1 Nh;,7(4bessessi'etjdu}s4 megisait sieO es! times et;ges: for.our fuel O2!j
~
y;sebetriee I l kNtW 4 4 setz.$-r.
g hte @{de e poete i 547pe614c' x tetied.radat of wee'sereasia3 Mh I t
yges.eveen '
yyy e;.g smatsse. w s.etaar 9M
)
gg
^. .-
y "gg ; . . g 3
- p. m"ttanceble.m'thi.,1a.t, e.a s of t,. 3,
- w (w ..,sr.eer. g gg;,+
pser g g igr = g~y
.? -
- s,
,,,,,,gg re.ut. 2:s of ggg,, ,,y, ,
s j
o F >
YAdditieselly,lthe p
- i
~
%%wo- <n... te: -
w' m'%. , A" N t
. eenus i
.44e p ifelt.Cessty.will T4 ,iik jeE % .bbt$b.{ , !' h M 4esperissesTs;,. ~
' '~
-ltsiit %!!!lf Ee -
i
le,dA.,sg e) Lthe4 hine"' saaval.
e t t e',
.. . , ~
-QM j$ ;j '
w .~ c. ; -
e is.'5Lt 5TeikkstierarL* U?i.) "
m
,;kgi~this, it is i
Ksessider.afurther
/ d W Ceses y , tkse. .
V.. a l est a de~'kh estCte borrow. @1 k..v1f.e ~y.x,atig yy 3.q;g_y ,, y - ..
m a jI teet Mtthere. have beein varLees eeudiee prepaeed for -
i ,
i..
~
tke fiaaaeia1 Ml 4
pj.M. . $c LiteeU~eefsteh8einsey$9amisetleeiwith hes & Compesy, as censissioned respeet -tuw
- . le The latest , 4 gygg..g;gg
- q i by the Blee Ribbes Fasel organised by the County Executive. . i.;
- Cemetseiesa ef.eseh stedy are subject to question beca
- se of #
I '
pre a dettreised peeftiese. ;;j :!
We have structured our governmental annual budgets in
-I anticipation of certain revenues, which eoparentiv vil' not $a forthcoming, This is causing us, at this time, to prepare or p borrowing huge suas of money at higher than normal interest it costs, all of which will be paid by the taxpayer. p@
continued............. , N d.+
& r..s
,), N
'4A,-
. gi hR a l
1
- g y
- ? 5% -
)
,...' (
9:
. I l
Mr. Woeste J. Palladino
- jl i
4 l i June 11, 1984 ,
Page 4
.t ..
's W i? .0:
,1 3 . y .- -
,s.
4
- 3' .ta'seesery, it is yes, the Federal Goverosent, who can ti 1
~,
klyus. Tow,'the Federal Wuclest Regulatory Commission, can 'j 1 help as to selve this probles. By implementing and putting , ." i dcf j "a
t,..th i s pleet,:s operat es, we.will thes:.have pagessee, 9 ._; .
- 9c.24.n.y3. 9.
i i x as opportunity to .
ap ,
. : .n
,y
, ' pew w .p. ., ., . w ,;
. 4 , l j .. ? g5Flease.beed this beehesing. plasse help'us. Do not turn' T.A J
]
pser'.best-ce es,'4e set 'a11ew yourself~te be swayed from your J# ,
'reepeesibility by whetoris and hysteria.
a M
.:q c.h s- ,
J 1 the.k yo.. w s !
3 , ,
t W a l
I
. ry . .
+, ;x ,
S a: .
< siseerely yours, n. +
y *"r " .t. ' , ~. A :)
p.yrv.,%g,g. n,:. n
.g;%
D
%gyae.vc ! .,sw+K..JM
.. e :;
.i,e .'
"sih@& J
' 2;N M l iiRQ9& . W.M
, , t.-.. .
.. -J capute .,
Jys . w. f.q p, . commty comptrotter
>94 + + - - u.
SQ6.m.
- x.
C
(,
JAC ja / '-
- ~
.-- dt g._ ;gg j
m y:+ r.+ ;. y : g p-
., .:. - j . . . g e .., . r. ; 3..
ik 'YQ* ^ p ,I ". Q,,'s :9. . p;;;f.I
,~g, ,
x i .?Nh t h u. .. :;,; . . a . .. . -
I b (: ,. ' '; '
fk * ?.
l
- f. .-
- ,.lI;} $*g.L
- 't*f.'
- ,
'. 4 8
'47
- ,t..'2M i
Q3
., +4
.- .~ .w;
? ., ,
- . ,3.. .v,,-,
b #
[
4
, y 2
UN q
)
1
.. v y'
.' :]I
+.
,L s
. 4f a~ _ Q'rl.y's j .
2 n :
4
~ - + - - - . . .. _ ,,
- -- . . - .. .;.' ' . . . - - . . . . . . - . . . . . . - -. . . . . - . _ .
- . L:: --a
't
,.o j
,- lW
~
o "l? C -(y) i DCCKE TE.-
US.NRC
-6/5/84 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUN -6 A10 :07
. NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSION
- 57..
.; 1 Before the Commissi_on - * '[yf.,['.. ,
J
.i D C CKIT "U"R -
) PROD. L UT!L-;"*.C..:p '.. h M M ~ O i
In the Matter of )
) -
LONG' ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL .
i ) -
-' 1 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) ) '.
{?.0{.
a ,.,,(. .,' . .,.{.v..f 3,,3.p g
' i{
, ) r . . . . . n .:...:.n sw
. l SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK 1 REQUEST FOR RECUS AL. AND, ALTERNATIVELY, l MOTION FOR-DISQUALIFICATION OF' ]
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO l i .
. k Suffolk County and the State of New York hereby retiuest -
f i that Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino recuse himself from f participating-in any matters concerning the Long Island )
, Lighting Company's'("LILCO") Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
("Shoreham"). In the event the Chairman decides- not to recuse himself, the County and State move the Commission to take cog-ni::ance of this issue and vote whether Chairman Pal.ladino should be disqualified from participating in Shoreham-related v . 4 matters.
- i. ,
The legal standard which applies to the issue of wnetner Chairman Palladino should be disqualified :is 'whether "a disin- d terested observer may conclude that [the-Chairman] hasTin some p,q
- 4. ;
measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular 4 l
.? ,
f 2h' 0--
3?f f
- w
]
r 1
4 I
case in advance of hearing it." Cinderella Career and j Finishing Schools, Inc. v. PTC, 425 F.2d 583, 591 (D.C. Cir. ,
l
. l 1970) quoting with approval from Gillican, Will & Co. v. SEC, j 267 F.2d 461, 469 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 896 (1959)-
1 (Emphasis added). The documents referred tos hereinafter show that Chairman Palladino's actions on Shoreham-related matters
- clsarly within the proscription of this legal standard. f 1
From at least March 16, 1984, the Chairman personally inter- i j
~ i vened in adjudicatory matters pending before the Licensinc !
1 j
Board. His intervention caused the Staff, the Chief Adminis-
)
trative Judge of the Licensing Board Panel, and ultimately the Licensing Board Judges to take actions of factual and legal 4 consequence tha t prejudiced the interests of the County and ,
1 State. The Chairman did this in advance of hearing the posi-tions of the County and State.
In short, Chairman Palladino's intervent ton in the Shoreham proceeding "may cause a disinterested observer to -
cone'lud e " the following:
(1) The Chairman, without consulting the other members of i i
i the Commission, took the initiative with the Staf f and Chie f Administrative Judge to engage in substantive discussions and to formulate a strategy for the Staff and Licensing Board that would serve LILCO's interests without regard to those of the County and State; 3
, /
n a
w - .e
m._. . . . . . , _ . . _ - . - . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . - . , _ _ . . . . ; _ _ . ; .. o _ . .a 1
.6 m 4
j 1
(2) The Chairman's initiative caused the Staff to change -
- . J
- its previous position and to support the licensing of Shoreham <
'l -
3
- . with no. emergency onsite power system, contrary to the inter- '
q
- I
[ ests of the County and State; a1J i
(3) The Chauman 's initiative caused the Chief Adminis- .
l trative Judge to formulate an adjudicatory proposal' to permit ,.
j the licensing of shoreham with no emergency onsite powee -*j
.j system, contrary to the exprecs provisions of the NRC's regula- ,
i 'tions and contrary to the interests of the County and State. -
- J 1
t ~
! The Chairman circulated this proposal to the-Licensing Board -'
l
. panel, includin,g presumably the Shoreham Judges,.thus 3 i
! demonstrating his approval of the proposal; ,
i
, (4) The Chairman's initiative caused the sta f f and l
- s. '
l 4
i Licensing Board to work in parallel for the establishment of an t
~
unconstitutional hearing format and sche.dule which benefittei LILCO, contrary to' the rights and interests oE the County 'and
' ~
State; (5) The Chairman commenced his ini tia t tve for the purpose ;
of giving aid to LILCO before the Licensing Board and in the financial. marketplace, a . consideration which is outside the. 4 scope of interests. protected by the Atomic Energy Act. He !
commenced his initiative in advance of hearing from the County i
and State and.without giving them notice of what he planned .o C
- O.?'i a '
.y 1 9 ';
- l. ., . . _ . . _ _ .
. _ _ _ . ._ 1..,
, s -
t s
do, and, indeed, without even consulting with other members of the Commission. The actions of the Staff and Licensing Board -
3 1
gave effect to his initiative, in contravention of the regula-tions, and prejudiced the County's and State's rights to due j
\ process of law. _
i The Chairman's initiative required that prejudgments he made on two issues then central to the licensing of Shoreham:
(1) the schedule +on which LILCO would receiv'e a low power
. . 1 licensing decision; and (2) the need for an onsite emergency ,
4 1
power source.. These were issues wP.ch had been settled on '
February 22 by an Order of the Board chaired by Judge Brenner.
. On March 16, the Chairman met with the Chief Administrative Judge, B. Paul Cotter, Jr., and the S ta f f ' s Executive Dicector
,and other top-level Staff personnel, including the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Executive Legal Director and members of their offices. The Chairman discussed with these persons the impact of the Licensing Board's February 22 Order on LILCO's financial hecith and formulated means to aid LILCO.
In the words of the personal notes handwri*. ten by Judge Cotter at the March 16 meeting, an " alternative solution for low power" operation of Shorehamswas discussed. This "solucion" ;
Anvolved LILCO filing a " proposal to get around (the] diesel ;
[onsite emergency power source] issue and hold hearing on r
operation at low power." (Final emphasis i.a original.) The
, J
meeting also involved the formulation of an " expedited" hearing ,
1 format and schedule. Again, in Judge Cotter's words, a hearing ,
J-l ordered by the commission "would define ' contention' and set 1l time frames for expedited procedure." It would.also " review ,
AI '
Soard order of February 22." Significantly, Judge Cotter no.ted
~
that LILCO's financial health was discussed. He webte,
"[LILCO] Says [it] will go bankrupt if [it has to wait for] .
I 12/84 I.D. [ Initial Decision of the Licensing Board]." (It was 1 i1 then anticipated that the 3renner Board would issue its deci- Sj sion on low power operation of Shoreham in December 1984. ) A *
- , '! i reasonable-observer may conclude that the only prompt decisloa '
l which could avert a LILCO bankruptcy was a favorable one to LILCO. -
Thus, on March 16, Chairman Palladino planned and se t in i notion with the NRC's top judicial and Staff personnel changes in the course of the Shoreham proceeding. In short order, the following occurred:
(1) New Licensing Board Judges were appointed to hear -the proposal for low power operation that LILCO filed with the Brenner Board four days after the Chairman's March 16 meeting.
(Judge Cotter's notes state: " NOTE: Concern re Same Board 5
~
Chairman." Also, t' - notes, written four days before LILCO I I
filed Les proposal to operate Shoreham at low power without 1
Y
,s
- .x A,4 s- 4) .
...s-------
- y. x s .
4 n 4 diesals, state: "LILCO file proposal to ge't around diesel. ,
issue and. hold hearing on operation at low power");
r (2) The Staff abruptly reversed its previous position and supported the licensing of Shoreham with no onsite emergency power source. (Judge Cotter's notes state: " Based on LILCO ,
proposal, staff can issue report in 30 days as to.whether plant safe at '5% w/o diesels");
a
- (3) The new Licensing Board issued an Order defining the ,
issues to be heard under expedited hearing procedures. (Judge ,
cetter's. notes state: " Define ' contention' and set time frames' - -
for expedited procedure").
I These action were planned at the Chairman's initiative without regard for the interests of the County and State and in
- advance of the Chairman hearing from those parties. Given the legal standard set, forth in the Cinderella case, supra, there is no lawful basis on which the Chairman should participate. in -
any matters r' elated to the Shoreham plant. Surely, the facts described above, and as set forth at length below, may cause "a ,
disinterested ebserver (to] concluqe that [the Chairman] has in some measure adjudged the fac,ts' as well as the' law of E this]
case in advance of hearing it." ;
-1 i
t 3
,e . Y'E Q l gj.
?.
e The legal standard quoted above is not, prosecutorial, and it does not bring into controversy the question of " guilt." ; ,
- 1 The issue, rather, is one of the integrity, and the appearance 3!
of integrity, o f the shoreham proceeding. The events of record ,
, ,u which began at the Chairman's initia tive on '4 arch is have un-dermined public confidence in the impartiality of Chairman Palladino and other NRC personnel. The only way to' restore -
l public confidence in the Shoreham proceeding is for the , j
-)
- ' individuals who have demonstrated, or have appeared to demon- '
strate, partiality toward LILCO to disqualify themselves and ; i 1
for scrupulously fair procedures and rease.ied decisions to be followed. The starting point for this is the recusal of the
- Chairman. -
j i
l I. The Chairman's Personal Intervention In The .l Shoreham Proceeding Recuires Disqualification.
According to public documents, Chairman-Palladino's personal intervention in the Shoreham licensing proceeding' ,
1 began with an ex parte meeting with the Chief Administrative l Judge and the Staff on March 16, 1984. To put this interven-tion into perspective, we will briefly describe the posture of the shoreham proceeding prior to March 16. ,
L
', N >
((
,a t
-[
r, A. '
Events Prior to March 16, 1984 1 i
. l On February 22, 1984, the Licensing Board chaired by Ad-ministrative Judge Lawrence Brenner (the "Brer.ner Board") ruled that there was no basis for granting LILCO a low power license for Shoreham "in advance of conplete 11,tigation" of the emer ,
gency diesel issues. The Rrenner Goard set a schedule for lit-
. 1 igation of those issues that, af ter a discovery period of ap - )
i 1 proximately.two months, provided for a conference of the parties on May 10, to determine subsequent procedures. .In .
.i ,
,; issuing that schedule.the Brenner Board concluded: ,
1 Based on what we have before us now, there is no basis to proceed towards litigation that could possibly lead to a low power .
license in advance of a complete litigation i of Contentions 1, 2 and 3 [the outstanding diesel issues).
j See Transcript of ASLB Hearing, February 22, 1984, at 21,615.
Hence, as conceived by the Brenner Board, the hearing on the -
s i
diesel issues would be unlikely ta start before June, and a'de-cision in all probability would not be expected before December 1984.
Significantly, as of Februa ry 22, the NRC Staff had taken i che unequivocal position that under the NRC's regulations no low power license could he issued "or Shoreham unless the-Sie-sel issues were first resolved. Thus, as of-February:22,'the >
~
15
-g- L
~
i- j l
( . . .
y i .'
. )
I a
i Staff position was'that there could be no low power license l 1
until LILCO had an onsite electric power system which met NRC 1 1
4
'S I requirements or had received a proper axemption .from those NRC j]
requirements.
i Yb At the February 22 cQnference before the Brenner Board, l
. ; 1 i the NRC Staf f opposed LILCO's arguments that " enhanced" offsite Il power could substitute for deficient onsite power. Thus, the -
Staff would give no credit to LILCO's offsite oower system, j including the gas turbine physically located at Shoreham, be- , l
. 1
- cause " General Design Criteria 17 requires an independent, re-
[i !
dundant and reliable' source of on-site power." See NRC Staff's Response to Suf folk County's Motion to Admit Supplemental Die-1984) footnote 7-
~
sel Generator Contentions (February ~14, -
(Emphasis added) . The Staf f took "no position upon whether ap--
] plicant, upon a proper technical analysis, could or could not support an application for an exemption to allow it to go to
! low-power' absent reliable safety-grade diesels." Id . _ (Emphasis .
added).1/
1/ The Staf f's position tha t no license could be issued for Shoreham without an adequate onsite A0 power system was publicly stated by Messgs. Harold.Denton and Darrell Eisenhut at an open meeting between the Sta f f snd the_ TDI
~
j j Owners Group on January 26, 1984. Mr. . Denton sta ted : ,
i'
[W]e are not prepared to.go forth and recommend the issuance of new licenses on t any plant that'has Delaval diesels until' the issues that are raised here today are- j.
s (Footnote cont'd.next page) [ _;;I R
4 m O m
- . . _. __ .. _ . . 3 s
9 1
The Brenner B'oard's February 22 decision to li*.igate the l l
diesel issues before considering a low power license for .l Shore' ham was a serious setback for LILCO, and one which -
threatened to put LILCO into bankruptcy. The Brenner Board's - .
decision was followed two days later by a published repcrt }
i (Newsda , February 24, 1984) that LILCO's Chairman, William J.
Catacosinos, had met with the NRC. Commissioners. Moreover, in i
- a March 9, 1984, letter to shareholders published in LILCO's ,
l 1983 Annual' Report, Dr. Catacosinos noted: ,
. . i
' .l Our inability to open eham has created I a serious cash sS9rt' 7r LILCO. Ac- '
l cordingly, since so, I have made government officia'-
. ce of our critical 4 situation, and I bei_- a there now seems to j be a greater understanding among federal t, ,
state and county officials of the crisis the company faces . . . . A timely reso- -
lution of the Shoreham situation and a res-olution of the Company's critical cash i
- shortage are essential to the continued vi- [
ability of LILCO. '
I l
(Emphasis added). Significantly,, Judge Cotter's notes of the .j
)
Chairman's March 16 meeting state: "Says will go bankrupt if l
1 12/84 I.D. [ Initial Decision of the Licensing Board]." The !
l I
(Footnote cont'd from previous page')
$ l adequately addressed. -
l i
Meeting transcript at 8. Mr. Eisenhut added that " prior-to licensing, even a icv oower licer se , " the Staff must have confidence that the TDI. diesel problems have been .
solved. Meeting transceipt at 93-06 (Imphasis added). }
b
~A d
ny
.e ge 4
__ .m w .
~
.( .
l 1
1
" greater understanding" of federal of ficials to which Dr. I b
Catacosinos referred thus made itself felt in and through .l 5l Chairman Palladino's office. . 1 l
l l
B. Chairman Palladino's Personal Intervention Beninning ]
March 16
~
Between to February 22 and March 20 there wa's no pending LILCO proposal for low power operation of Shoreham. !
LILCO's original low power motion which relied upon the TDI l 1 i !
diesels had been rejected on February 22 by the Brenner Roard, ;
,' and there was thus no prospect for an early low power decision !
l 1 for Shoreham. LILCO had not appealed from or sought reconsid-eration of t e Brenner Board's February 22 ruling. In this j W '
., context, ths following events occurred:
e l
- 1. On March 9, the NRC Staff notified the Commissioners !
'l d j
of " potential licensing delays" of 9 months for shoreham. The- '
i i
9 month " delay" was estimated by LILCO itse16 snd passed on to )
3
, the Commissioners by the Staff. However, it has been revealed that the NRC Staff disagreed with this estimate, because the j 1
Staf f did not consider LILCO's construction to be complete and thus the delay could not be attributed to the licensing process. See April 24 Memorandum from J. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations, to the Commission. In fact, it should have been clear to all persons in March 1984 that there was no Enorehan a
's $.
-l @
j a sp a
I
h
, e
" delay" attributable to the licens Log proc ss; rather, the only l delay was due solely to the repeated failure of LILCO's TDI diesels. Thus, the plant was not ready for licensing because h the diesels would not work. -
il l
- 2. On March 16, in what turned out to be an improper ex j parte meeting, Chairman Palladino met with members of the NRC 1
Staff -- a party in the Shoreham Licensing Board proceeding -- 1 i
" Tony Cotter" (B. Paul Cotter, Jr., the NRC 's Chie f Adminintra- ' 'I I
tive Judge), and top level Staff personnel, including the Exec- 'l utive Director for Operations, the Director of the Office of :! il Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Executive Legal Director and their subordinates to discuss the alleged " delay" in the q i licensing of :< areham.2/
.l l
The other Commissioners were not adv'ised nf the March 16 i '
I meeting in advance. Neither the County nor 9 tate sas advised )
of this meeting, and no transcript was made.2./ Further, this 2/
~ Chairman Palladino had met on . March 15 with personnel from the Offices of Policy Evaluation-and General Counsel cen-cerning the potential delays. It was then decided to hold the March 15 meeting. See Individual Statement of 1 Nunzio J. Palladino Before the'Subcomm. on Energy and the Environment, H. Comm. on, Interior and Insular Affairs, l May 17, 1984, pp. 8-9 (hereaf ter, "Palladino Statement") . <
3/ Commissioner Asselstine has criticized Chairman Palladino for meeting with one party -- the Staff - "without the opportunity for the others to have any notice of the meeting or de provided an opportunity to comment . . . . "
]
NRC April 23 Meeting Transcript, p. 10. Similarly,
.i (Footnote cont'd dext page) , . ,d 44 q ,
12 - -
,. .~
" 1 l
q J
l 1
meeting was held even though there was no new LILCO proposal 1 J
for low power operation of Shoreham, and even though, as noted ;)
above, LILCO had taken no appeal of or any other action to .
) ,
j
. disagree with the Brenner Board's February 22 rulings concern- !
1 ing low power operation, the TDI diesels, or the schedule fo r .
. litigation. Nevertheless, Judge Cotter's notes of the Chair-man's March 16 meeting reveal: "LILCO file proposal to get -
1 around diesel issue and hold hearing on coeration at low I power." While Chairman Palladino has stated that "some prelim- l l
inary ideas regarding expediting the Shoreham hearing were -
1 discussed," see Palladino Memo to Commissioners, April 4, 1984, ' ' l Judge Cotter's notes in fact indicate tha t these discussi'ns o l
r (Footnote cont'd from previous page)
Commissioner Gilinsky stated:
l The Staff is a party'in the hearing; the Chairman. is one of the ultimate judges.
' The Staff Directors should have told the Chairman politely that it is not their job to carry the ball for the Company. It'is understandable that they did not say this under the circumstances . The Chairman is , ,
by law, the Staff's direct supervisor. He controls annual bonuses worth many thou-sands of dollars to senior sta f f members.
What we have is a situation in which one member of the ultimate NFC adjudicatory ,
t ribitna l, appears to be directing the actions of a key party in the case.
CLI-94-8, Separate Views of Commissioner Gilinsky, May 16, .
1984. .
a
- i
=s 4
'k 1
~
___- w 3 8 r
+..
included " concern" with Judge Drenner, a " Commission ordered
! bearing" that would " define contention and ret time frames 'fo r ,;
- 1 ,
1 '
expedited procedure," and discussion of a LTLCO " proposal to ,,
get around diesel issue and hold hearing on operation at low jI power."4/ Significantly, the LILCO " proposal" mentioned in 1l
- (
i I
Judge Cotter's March 16 notes was not filed until March 20, four days later. Nothing in the public record suggested that LILCO would file such a proposal "to get around I.the] diesel f
,t
.1<
isnue."
- k,.
! , 1i
+l 8 4/ These documented statements sharply contradict the testi- i
~
meny of Chairman Palladino before the House Subcommittee '
.j on Energy and Environment on May 17. Chairman Palladino !
there stated: I i
- At that meeting, held on March 16, I was briefed as to the status of ai number of 1!
cases, including the Shoreham proceeding. l' While th.e briefing included identification
, by the Staff of. the issues of the Shoreham .
proceeding, 1 do not recall the Staff in -
1l
. 'any way stating or intimating how tho s e .! j issues should be resolved. I am confident i that if the Staff had done that, or 16 An other impropriety had been committed , one j or more of the sevecal top agency lawyers !j present would have raised a warning flag. j Likewise, I recall the sta f f advising tha.t I they understood that LILCO planned to , l appeal the denial of its low power request.
But again, there was no discussion, to the best of my recollection, of the merits of that request.
Palladino Statement at 10. j
- ,,d k
c
. . . . . . - . + . - .. . . , . . . . .
'; i . . .
One reason that Chairman Palladino met with the Staf f and f others on March 16 "was the possibility that if tfRC didn't do ,
1 1 something Shoreham would go under because of NRC's inability to
> 'i '
g make timely licensing decisions, and I felt that, whatever i ~l i happened to Shorgham, I did not want inaction by NRC to be the l
t cause." Palladino Statement.at 4-5; s e e _id_. a t. 1 1 .' . Thus , the -
- Chairman clearly was acting at least 'in part out of concern for .
- . )
LILCO's financial condition. Judge Cotter's notes underscore .l I that point: the March 16 meeting included
- dis'cussion that ' li
- LILCO would "go bankrupt" ~if it had to. await'a Licensing Board 5 decision -- even assuming such a decision war 1 6avorable -- in-
, December 1984. l I
l 1
e !
- 3. On March 20, Chairman Palladino . circulated a ,memoran- )
I r
dum to the other Commissioners. The memorandum purported to j 1
report on the March 16 meeting and proposed that in order to-8
" reduce the' delays.at Shoreham," the Commission should
" consider a proposal from OGC ' [Of fice of General . Counsel] for
~
an expedited hearing on the diesel probl'em, or proposals for other possible actions so tha t at least a low power decision - .
might be possible while awaiting resolution of the. emergency planning issue. I have asked the OGC to provide a paper on i 1
this subject soon." Chairman .Palladino did not then raport, as i
he later did ' in his April 4 Memorandum, that. ideas for i
expediting the Shoreham proceeding had been discussed at' his '
,) '
- .> < h Q
- is - 3 2
+
s .
S March 16 meeting with the Staf f and others who were present at that meeting. The Chairman also did not report that the ,
l
" delay" estimate for shoreham was based on LILCO's estimate, not the NRC's, and that the Staff disagreed with LILCO's '
estimate. ,
i The Chairman's March 20 Memorandum was circ 21sted to
. l "SECY, OGC, OPE, OIA, EDO." Thus, at a minimum, the NRC Staff, through the Executive Director of Operations, was further l
advised of Chairman's view that the shoreham proceeding needed ,
l
\
! to be speeded up so that a low power decision could_be reached .
i earlier than the schedule adopted by the Brenner Board. In-
, deed, the March 20 Memorandum specifically requested the EDO --
i .
1.e., th2 Staff, a party in the shoreham proceeding -- to respond to the March 20 Memorandum and to prepare a paper l 1
- outlining steps to deal with the " delays".
J 4. On March'20 -- the same day that the Chairman circu-lated his above-described Memorandum -- LILCO filed its unpree-edented proposal for a low power license, styled as a. Supple-mental Motion for Low power Operating License. LILCO made es-sentia11y the same arguments for a ' low power license, that the 9
Brenner Board had previously rejected, except that" LILCO added that it also intended to install at Shoreham four =obile diesel generators, not qualified for nuclear service, to " enhance" the 4
lb
- 16 - ,
4
- I
^_
, 7
, l t
" 3 1
s l
l 1
offsite AC electri'c power system. LILCO served copies of the i Motion on the NBC Commissioners. Even though LILCO's March 20 proposal for Shoreham's operation did not comply with GDC 17 --
there would be no onsite electric power system -- LILCO did not j i
apply for a waiver or an exemption of that regulation. ]
l
- l
, 5. After March 36, Chairman Palladino had further dis- !
. cussions with his staf f and "with EDO as we'll, searching for I
options," to deal with the alleged delay. Palladino Statement i
at 11. On March 22, Chairman Palladino's legal assistant read 3
- i j
to Judge Cotter by telephone the following " working paper" /!
a t
prepared by the Ch' airman's office (this paper later was sent ta i
.~ l Juige Cotter), which relates to LILCO's March 20 proposal:
. I i
The EDO has recently provided the .
{
Commission an assessment for Shoreham that t projects a nine-month licensing delay due l j
to, I am told, the shoreham Licensing , !
- Board's requirement to litigate the -
{
i diesel-generator questions before allowing ,,
j operatio,n at low power. -
i The Commission would like this matter litt-gated on an expedited basis with a target date of receiving the Board's decision on .)
this matter by May 9, 1984. Would you j please look into what steps are required to ;
meet such a date and inform the Commission !
on these steps as soon as possible, but not l later than March 30,, 1984. l l
For planning purposes, you could assume the i following steps:
-- A two week staf f review of the propos-al by LILOO; i
l
, i?
1q w
_ 17 -
'1 d
. .. : p.
.. A
.m. . . - _. . u . _. . . . ., ..;__. m. _
/- l 'g f
(,
\ ,;
l : .* ,
y:
j .. .s ,
m.
" \,
g k I' - ',
.(
< w 4
-- A one week discovery period; 1 \
q
- 's \ i o
's
- -- A two week. period for filing testimony ' 4;
- ,' and holdinv.3 hee. ring; .:;T' ]
,us
...i .i\
- !\ -- A tso. week period to issue the Board's !I
+o decision. ', ji
! , s. ,
s - 14
'. (
^ Final Commission guidance on 4he expedited -l l hearing on this matter wod1d be based on '
i' i your submittal' and follow-up discussions .- 4
, If you have any questions,please )let. ~
me "l k now .,5,/ -
j 1s 3
'\
~
[
l-
" Chairman Palladino had not discussed this " working p mer" with ;
l l
the other commissioners and, thus, the reference to 'The .: l
.. e l l, '
Commission" in the second paragraph was not accurate. 'T$e' ,
fl
- : I
'other Commissioners were not informed of Chairman Palladino's 1 1
%. j 1
1 s 't' working paper" or his request to Judge Cotter until April 4. , )
+ - ~4 i .c 0f l
- 6. Judge Cotter responded s to Chairman Palladino'.s - (
l " working paper"'the next day.
His March 23 response, in.tb "
).
form of a detailed 9 page' proposed order for adoptio'n by the
, , Commission, contal'ned the' following etemenbh: .'
H l
, N 3 4 , x .
l
.N l eg.
. a 5_/ The time' estimates in the " working paper" apparently were hsq derived by Chairman Palladino . from "OGC 's rough estimates E l
" of the time that an expedited hearing such ;as suggested'by GGC might take'% . 2 ." 3 Palladino Statme?c at 12. The j.
estimate of a two' week period for Staff review of the L' LILCO proposal -- a' reguetion from .the 30-day review (
period disc'2ssed on March '16 and reported in Judge ' '
Cotter 's notes -- pr esumably re flects further conversation 3 t with the Sta'f e hher by the Chairman, his stff, or the j' OGC. ]1 s
,8 i 3
, M.
u q- 19 - .,
6 i
(
a en.
-+
3 '
as .,
- g. .
\
- 4. ..
i (a) A proposed decision that' consideration of o 'LILCO's low power proposal be expedited and that it be decided l on the merits. This, of course, prejudged the very questior -
issue: whether LILCO's proposal was a' challenge to GDC 17 t c ,
{
had to be re beted outright. It thus had the ef fect of deciding that the GDC.17 requirement of an onsite electric"
. power ' system could be eliminated without even requiring LILCO I
to' seek an exemption or waiver under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.758 or i
.)I :
$ 50.12(a). '
1'
'i
. - d, (b) A proposed decision that a new Licensing Board ,
'1 1
r be 3ppointed to replace the Brenner Board, which on- }
T l
3 February 22, 1984, had dealt LILCO a setback. This proposal' to 1 ..
1 appoint a new Licensing Board came four days before the; Brenner Board advised Judge Cotter that it had a potential schedule l 1 1
! conflict due'to the judges' involvemente in the Limerick pro- 2i
+ .
ceeding. Significantly, Judge Cotter'sl notes of the, Chairman's March 16 meeting state: " NOTE: Concern re Same' Board Chair-man" [ i . e .,, Judge Brenner].
(c) A proposed decision tha t LILCO's ' March 20 Motion be litigated on a schedule that Judge Cotter described as "bru-tally tight" and."[d]efinitely not recommended but possibly i achievable." The Cotter schedule called for a dec Lsion on the LILCO yetion within 50 days. To achieve such " expedition," -]
1 lr 1.'[ .
A-
'My v >,
I
,Iws c
w 3.- .
m -
y- ,_ ;
- i. 4 , .i
', f 7 f i, ; ,/ ,< ,
- l. ; l
.] } N& ,
j f, ,
l
.,A, fp 3-j.. - .
pJ l
, p. i < j
,t , ,
~J , ;
j Judge Cott5r sugge'sted that there be 16 days for discovery, 5 s ,- >- , i j' '
dneslp$% sun close 'of jfkcovery and filing testimony, 5 days
- )c <e r y;
% -s ,,1 ,, ,
' u. O the 's1. art of hed d$g', and 10 days for.the hearing. This a p!,(
,, +",
? 0 schedule is clearly responsive to'and consistent with the -
l
.;, g Chairman's " working papeli" directive that Judge Cotter devise ji,<
an er.1!i edited schedule,' fog /.iO/proham. , Further, one reason cited
'~
o' +1 y lJ c by Judg'e Cotter for adoption of ' this " brutally tight" schedule ,
1 i was"the-enormousfinanciaiNavestment" of LILCO. See Cotter f draft order, p. 4. Thiswairyhe sama reason cited by Chairman :
Palladino for his personal intervention in the first place. n; 1
- .. 1 See 52, sg ra. Si'gnificantly, Judge Cotter's. notes of the- -
l t
- March 16 meeting,/ with the Chairman state
"Says will go bankrupt if 12/84 I.D. (Initial Decision of the Licensing ,
s Board)." As noted previously, the only decision.that could
, avert a LILCO bankruptcy was an early one favorable to LILCO.-
\ .
- 7. On March 26, Suffolk County submitced preliminary i
views to the Brenner Board "egarding LILCO's March'20 Motion.
Thes'e views were submitted in response to a specific March 22 request of the Brenner Board that parties provide preliminary views on how the new LILCO Motion should he. handled. In these views the County. stated: , ,
(a) The County required more thaa the' normal . ten-day ' ,
period to respond to LILCO's Low Power.klotion, because-it raised many new and complex factual' issues 6,/' and the County .
J O
- "q .
6/
~
The NRC's Office of General Counsel has agreed that t% a issues raised by LILCO's Mot. ion are " extremely compic ."- ~~
see 512, infra..
- e. 1 ( ["
I 7
. ,L , l
)
.needed;to retain appropriate experts to analyze those issues.
-(b) j Analysis of the, factual issues would first require the county to obtain substantial inferr.ation through
- discovery.
'\
Additional' time wa's. required to, address legal (c) l
)
issues raised by LILCO's Motion. .
+
(d). A number of threshold issues should be addressed
. /:
before 'the merits of LILCO's; Low Power Motion were considered,
- q 4
including: (1) ' the Motion' did not meet the criteria enunciated ,,
.by the Brenner Board on February 22 for-a new low power propos-l al, because it did,not state how it met regulatory requirements.
1 i or why a waiver therefrom should be granted; (11) the Motion j relied upon power sources located at- the Shoreham site which
~
4 .
j were not seismically qualified, as required, but LILCO had sought no. waiver o.f the NRC's' seismic requirements; and .(iii) contrary to the Board's February 22 order, the Motion appeared to rely upon the'TDI diesels.
i The County requested a conference with the Brenner Board to discuss the procedural-matters affecting the diesel litigation v i and LILCO's Low Power Motion. ,
On March 28, the. State of New' York filed preliminary views which supported those submitted by the County. The County' .!
.-j
. J;
- i. .
N me .
E .i -
_.i a
~
1 .
i supplemented its views on March 30, urging that the LILCO Motion be summarily dismissed fo r failing to comply with GDC ,
- 17. '
- 8. On March 27, Chairman Palladino gave Judge Cotter's
- draft order to the Office of General Counsel. Chairman Palladino did not give the draft order to the other ~ *i Commissioners until April 4.
- 9. On March 30, the NRC Staff responleil to LILCO's Low Power Motion. In an abrupt and complete reversal _ of its prior position that no low power license could be issued for Shoreham until the TDI diesel problems were sclved, the Sta f f stated in-stead that operation of Shoreham could be permitted in the
~
complete absence of any onsite electric power sys tem.
If the protection af forded to the public at low-power levels without diesel generators is found to be equivalent to for gceater than) th'e protection afforded to the public at full-power with approved diesel genera-tors, the Sta f f submits that LILCO's motion should be granted.
.c This sudden change in Staff position led a Commissioner to conclude that Chairman Palladino's intervention had been in flu-ential:
COMMISIONER GILINSKY: I must say that this confirms ne even further in my view that the staff ought not be in these hearings.
Here is the staff concocting arguments on ,
q 22 - "
u . s .. _ __ ._ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ ._._2._. _J- _._t t'
a how all this can be rationalized and I must say that even though you didn't tell them anything about the-hearings, this is aftec ,;,
your meeting with them on the speeding up 1 d.I
! the process so the e f f ec t o f it is inevita-ble. ,You have-them go back and think, '!
'Well, how can we speed up this process?' j I am not suggesting that you did anything proper (sic] , mind you but that is intrinsic 1 in the way the system works. _]'
i
-NRC April 23 Meeting Transcript,.p. 59 (Emphasis added).7/ .
E Further, without addressing any of 'the County's and 4 4
j State's concerns regarding the time required to respond :o- ,
Jk LILCO's Low Power Motion and without revealing ' the 9taff's .
[1 meeting with Chairman Palladino, the 'Sta f f called for an l expedited' hearing on the Motion with'all testimony to be ' filed' 1
by April 23. This Staff schedule was consistent with the -
'. guidelines set forth in Chairman Palladino's " working p' aper" .
i and with Judge Cotter's proposed order. :
10 . - On March,30, Chief Administrative Judge Cotter issued f
l an order removing the Brenner Board and establishing a new' ]
licensing board "to hear and decide" LILCO's Low Power Motion.
The order noted the " advice" of the Brenner Board tha t " two o f ;
its members are heavily committed to work on another operating license proceeding." Accordpng to a report in Nucleonics Week, j April 5, 1984: i l-l 7/
~
See also CLI-84-8, Separate Views of Commissioner j Gilinsky, May'16, 1984 ("the Sta f f had- been trying to run j-
.ty legal' interference for the Company") .
/ o- '
[
o
_ _ . unn.
i 1
Appointment of a board to hear Lilco's motion for a low-power license at Shoreham ,
j . . . [was] his idea, Cotter said through ,.
I an agency spokesman. However, he said, :t ,
- palladino's staff was " aware" of his deci- 'I{
sion. ,
i a -
.{ J Indeed, Judge Cotter informed the Chairman of the actual ap-pointment before,it was made. Palladino Statement'at 14.8/
i Moreover, Judge Cotter's notes of the March 16 meeting reveal \
l that there was " concern" with Judge Brenner. In any event,
, '$l i Chairman Palladino was aware of Judge Cotter's decision because j Judge Cotter had. proposed appointment of a new Board in his
- 4 1
. . . 1 March 23 draft order which was prepared et Chairman Palladino's request. Further, even if the appointment of a new Board was i
i Judge Cotter's " idea", this idea was one of the proposals -
developed by Judge Cotter at the request of Chairman pilladino and, thus, the " idea" clearly was the product o f the Cha irman ' s intervention. l l
i 11. On the same day, March 30, the parties'were-notified I . _
by telephone that the new Licensing Board (the " Miller Board")
would hear oral arguments on April 4, 1984, on LILCo's Low
' 8/
~
The office of General C6unsel spoke with Judge Cotter r I
several times between March 27 and March 30 regarding Judge Cotter's proposal to appoint a new board and specif' ically -l'Jestioned whether the action did not appear to i' presume hat LILCO's Motion would be. granted. See tIRC~ 4 April 23, 1984 Meeting Transcript, pp. 8-9. ;
r S .
' ^?
-. . . _ . . . _ u. . _ _ . . ._. ._ _ ,_ _ . _ _ _ , ,_ , . _
,, y _
q . . , ,
4 Power Motion. The telephonic notice stated that.this Board was I " established to hear and' decide the motion on an expedited ..
t 1
- ?
basis." This oral notice was confirmed by the Miller Board's .
i Notice of Oral Arguments (March 30, 1984), which stated that at .
)
u the oral argument the Board would hear the issues raised by the i
parties "in their filin3s, as well as a schedule for their expedited consideration and determination." (Emphasis added).
'h =
Q 1 1 I i In light of the known facts, it would not be reasonable to :,
j conclude that the Miller Board's March 30 decision to expedite .
6 1
- the proceeding was independent of the chain of events that -
' i
.3 began with the ' Chairman's March 16 intervention. It.must be 1 4 i i .
borne in mind that the Miller Board was appointed on March 30. l 3
To make a reasoned and independent judgment to expedite the proceeding, the Board would have had to review and - consider I -
LILCO's inch-thick March 20 Motion and the responsive pleadings r
of the County, State, and the Staff, become1 familiar with the extensive record complied by the Brenner Boar'd, particularly ,
the February 22 conference, and hear from'the parties regarding the many issues raised by LILCO's motion. Nevertheless, the Miller Board decided.to expedite the proceeding the very same day it was appointed -- MarcM 30. j4 -
n
- 12. On Aoril 2,.the NRC's General Counsel circulated a Memorandum to all the Commissioners. The purpose of this' !
k A -
'/
as d
9 A
Memorandum was to respond "to the Chairman 's March 20, request that OGC develop proposals for expedited hearings on the Shoreham diesel problem." The OGC noted that the " issues I. raised by LILCO's Motion] are extremely complex . . . . OGC' suggested a number of alternatives, includihg an expedited hearing schedule, which allowed a total of 80 days between a 6 Commission Order starting the proceeding and a Licensing Board decision on the LILCO Motion. Under this OGC " expedited" schedule, there would have been 15 days for discovery, 10 days between close of discovery and the start of hearings,9/ and 15 ,
days for hearings.
- 13. On April 3, the County filed Comments on the Miller Board's March 30 Notice of Oral Arguments, pointing out'that
- "there is no basis for any expedited process," and tha t this e
issue should be addressed by the parties at the oral argument, l- The County repeated its view that LILCO's Low Power Motion should not be argued on the merits until the County had . ac. op-portunity to retain experts and conduct adequate discovery, as discussed in the County's March 26 Preliminary Views. Also, on April 3, the State of New York filed a motion in opposition to the Miller Board's ruling thdt LILCO's Low Power Motion would be given expedited consider 3tton. The State argued that 9/ Prefiled testimony was omitted.
a
., . ('
7 5,-
- 2A - ..
l l
expediting LILCO's Low Power Motion was cryitracy and would !
deny the State due process of law. ,
- 14. On April 4, Chairman Palladino distributed a tiemoran- l k
dam to the oth'er Commissioners, attached to which was Chairman l Palladino's March 22 " working paper" and Judge Cott_er's March 23 draft order. The Chairman's April 4 Memorandum was also distributed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, of which Chief Judge Cotter and Judges Miller, Bright, and Johnson (the Miller Board) are members. '
- 15. On April 4, the newly appointed Miller Board heard oral argument on the LILCO Motion, including whether GDC 17 was being impermissibly challenged by LILCO and whether. there was any basis to expedite the proceeding.
- 16. On April 6, the Miller Board issued its Memorandum and Order Scheduling Hearing on LILCO's Supplemental Motion for Low-Power Operating License (the " Low Power Order"). The Low a Power Order stated firrt that LILCO could operate Shoreham at low power with no ensite electric nower system, provided that the public health and safety findings suggested by the NRC l Staff were made. The Board thus adopted the position urged by the Staff in its March 30 filing and by Judge Cotter in his March 23 draft order. It provided the final link in the chain l l
which began at the Chairman's March 16 meeting with the -
l 4 ,
" l 1
3
- e l
l
1 1
formulation of an " alternative solution for low power." This was, as Judge Cotter's notes reflected, che means for LILCO "to i
get around Cthe] diesal issue."
Second, despite the " extremely complex" issues presented,
- 1 the Board decided to expedite consideration of LILCO's Motion.
Again, this decision was consistent with the Chairman's i
i
" working paper," the position of the Staff, and with Judge ,
Cotter's draft order. The Board 's Order defined the issues and ;
established expedited procedures. Judge Cotter's notes'of the , j i
Chairman's March 16 meeting reveal a discussion to " define '
' contention' and set time frames for expedited procedures."
Significantly, the time frames established by the Miller Board have a striking similarity to those proposed by Judge Cotter in his March 23 draft Order for the Chairman.
Judge Cotter Miller Board Time for discovery 16 days 10 days
. Time between close of i discovery and filing j of testimony 5 days 4 dayr Time between filing of testimony and start ;
of hearing 5 days a days j 3
Elapsed time set aside 3 for hearing 10 days 11 days 3 0 :
_' i
, p
's
\
i l
l
- 17. Suffolk County and the State of New York protested the Miller Board's April 6 Order as denying them due process of ')
1j law and as being contrary to GDC 17 and other MRC regulations.
The County even submitted detailed affidavits of expert consul- ll tants documenting that th9 April 6 Order denied the County a
-t chance to prepare for and par.'.icipate meaningfully 'in the hear-ing. The Miller Board and, subsequently, the Commission re-fused to alter the April 6 Order, forcing the County and the State to seek a temporary restraining order in federal court.
The TRO was granted on April 25. ,
- j l
l II. Chairman Palladino Must Recuse Himself Or Otherwise Be Discualified By The Commission The standard for determining whether Chairman Palladino must recuse himself or otherwise be disqualified is whether "a l "a disinterested observer" may conclude that Chairman Palladino "has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law" in l
' the Shoreham case "in advance of hearing it." Cinderella,_
supra, 425 F.2d at 591 (emphasis supplied).10/ Under the l
Cinderella standard and the facts described above, a disinter-ested observer certainly may conclude tha t Chairman Palladino i
b 10/ Chairman Palladino has contended that he has not prejudged j the Shoreham proceeding. See e.g., Palladino Statement at - i 20-21; Palladino Letter to Congressman Markey, April G, ,
1984: CLI-94-9, Separate Views of Chairman Palladino, May l 7
16, 1984. His position, however, does not address the , i legal standard set forth in the Cinderella case , j!
. i di t
y .
has at least in some measure-adjudged the facts and law in this l
case before hearing it. Certainly, as noted previously, a dis- ,
interested observer could conclude that the only decision Which could avert a LILCO bankruptcy was an expedited one favorable I
^
to LILCO.
The Chairman's March 16 meeting with top-level Staf f per- 9 sonnel -- an ex parte meeting prohibited by. Section 2. 780 of 4 4
- 1 the regulations -- and his meeting with Judge Cotter, the NRC ' s l
Chief Administrative Judge, dealt with establishing a strategy
~'
and an action plan to help LILCO without any regard for the , y ef fects on the rights and interests of the County and State.
l This strategy and plan were based on the concern that the sub-
- 1 stantive rulings and hearing procedures adopted by the Brenner l l
Board might permit LILCO to go bankrupt before a low power l license decision could be issted. Therefore, to get around those rulings and procedures, the strat'egy and actions Fallow-ing the intervention of Chairman Palladino produced a new Licensing Board, a new legal standard Which would permit the-low power operation of Shoreham with no onsite power and with- .
out waiver of GDC 17, and a new expeditei hearing schedule which ef fectively b'arred the ' County and State from preparing ,
I for'and participating meaningfuly in the hearing. The County- ,,
i and State submit that these results would not have been-prgduced but for the personal intervention of Chaienan $
Psiladino.ll/ -
. :d
'lf >
11/ _ Chairman Palladino on May 16, 1984 disputed'the assertio6 '
of Commissioner Gilinsky that Chairman Palladino had
. .. ... . - . .- - . - . : . ..a
~'
l l Significantly, Judge Cotter's notes reveal that the dis-cussion at the Chairman's March 16 meeting focused on how to .
- I chance What was then the law of the case. The discussion thus focused on an " alternative solution for low power" -- that is, an alternative to What had been decided on the record by the 1 i Brenner Board with the participation of the pe-tier under the I
provisions of the NRC's regulations. The March 16 meeting was l an entirely different setting: It dealt with a "LILCO propos- l
. 1 al" Which had not even been submitted and of which the County and State had no knowledge; it was a secret meeting of which
- 1
- l there was no public notice; the discussion was not on the record; the parties (except for the Staff) were not present; it focused on a means of obtaining a favorable decision in time to' avert a LILCO bankruptcy; and the NRC 's ex parte rules were
, violated.
~
(Footnote ' cont'd from previous page) directed the Staff's ideas on any issue in the Shoreham case. The Chairman suggested , in fact, that the Staff had taken positions in February 1984 before the Brenner Doard which were consistent with those taken by the Staff on March 30, 1984. See CLI-84-8, Separate Views of Chairman Palladino, May 16, 1984. However, before the Brenner Board, the Sta f f had insisted that for a low power license, LILCO needed te fix the diesels or seek an exemp-tion or waiver. Sea Section I.A, supra. On March 30, the Staf f took the entirely new position (after meetings with the Chairman) tha t : (a) the diesels did not need to be fixed; (b) LILCO could operate at low power with ~~no onsite power system at all; and (c) LILCO did not need t seek a :
waiver or exemption. We submit that Commissioner Giltnsky J was clearly correct: the Staff got its marching orders i from the Chairman and carried them out. -, ,9;
-a
- 31 - -
. . . -. . . . - - . .. . . . . - . - . . . . . .. . . 2 a 1
' 4
, s
- ~. l l
l In essence, the March 16 meeting was a. planning session to j figure out how to get around the lawful rulings of the Br,enner -
A Board. Its purpose was improper; its diucussion was improper; and the actions of NRC personnel that followed it'were improp ' , ;
1 er. Each of these personnel acted as a link in a chain of in-propriety that commenced in the Chairman's office o~n March 16. 9 I
Under the Atomic Energy Act, the cone of interests to be ,
l protected by the NRC is the public's health and safety. See l Power Reactor Develooment Coro. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio,_and Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 409, 415 (1961); cf. Portland General Electric Co., (Pebble Springs Fiu-clear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 N.R.C. 610 (1976). . l f'
. In the present case, however, there is every indication that Chairman Palladino used the power and prestige of his of fice to ,
i f
set in motion actions which prejudiced the rights and interests l of the County and State, but aided LILCO's efforts to secure an j
~
operating license in time to avoid bankruptcy. (Judge Cotter's notes of the Chairman's March 16 meeting underscore this !
concern for LILCo. ) Under the circumstances set forth herein, a disinterested observer may surely conclude that Chairman l 4
Palladino has in some measurb prejudged the facts as soll. as ;
I the' law in the shoreham proceeding in advance of the hearing. i j The final evidence of the Chairman's prejudgment can be seen in t
I the actions of the Chie f Administrative Juige, the 9taff, and
. ~p ,
~, :d
. q ut
- 32 - _
j
_ . . _ _ . _ _.. _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . _ . ___._.____. _. _... 2 . a { ;
m .
i' 4; .
l ** .
the Licensing Board personnel who along the way gave ef fect to his wishes. l* h t
' l4 1 The Shoreham proceeding hts been pervasively tainted by .i the Chairman and others who werked in parallel with him to aid LILCO at the expense of Suffolk County and New York. State. .
The only way to begin the process of restoring institutional integ - .
rity in this proceeding is by the disqualification of those
! whose actions have created the taint. The place to start is 'i .
with the Chairman's recusal. If he does not recuse himself, the County and Sta'te move the commission to take cognizance of] '
' this matter and vote on whether to disqualify the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted, ,
4 Martin Bradley Ashare j j Suffolk County Department of Law 1 1 Veterans Memorial Highway {
Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
- KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART , HILL,
' CHRISTOPH$R-& PH,ILLI PS 4
/ _. O-Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher 1900 M Street, N.W.
Wa shing ton, D.C. 20036 Attorneys - for Suf folk County y i i 4
Fabian G. Palamino f&fY '
Special Counsel to the Govenor of N(
MEi 9
33 - ._ l
4 & h is :
Jg'.
A m
.J New York State -
Executive Cnamber - Room 229 . ., J '
- Capitol Building. ll Albany, New York 12224 2!1 _
_<l Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo ,
'- Governor of the State of New York d-1 s
9 l June 5, 1984 . .
1 0
a f "j l
.J h
I
$ 3 er
!) ' l; 1
= 1 4-t i
h 4 1
6 I
b a
- k. .
11
.k
'k '
,. g:
i .
] >
t e N 4
't
'h .
c
- 3. ,1 >
j ,
t a _s 2:R_j A*
- 34,. .
e
.T
.4'
. OL __- _ . . - ' . _ .
+ i.. .. <.... , . . _ . . . . _ _. _..._._ ._ .. _. . _ . . _ a
~
l 1
g-f 0?!YEm
~SHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY ' COMMISSION '84 .
^
Vuy-g A10:o7
- Before the Commission
manifestly poor judgment in having personally involved
- yourself with the Staff and Chief Judge on pending l
. adjudicaterv issues, you persist in writing about Shoreham' in' terms of "11 censing delay." ,
What does it take, Mr. Chairman, to get corose the l simple fact that there is no " licensing delay" in the .
shoreham case, In reality, Sheraham is still not physica111 .
complete, because -- as you'and everyone else who-nas .
(
knowledge of shoreham knows -- the diesel generators installed.there by LILco do not wo;X. Any so-called " delay,"
therefore, is LILCO's delay and not that Attributable to the
- NRCr its regulatory process, or anyone else. ,
Continued.... .
a q: #
, ..: ~
. t.
ents sasen en ci * " * " * . '*<
es ta e ue asona,ssa.
satsaAae..u h M,4 ewor.nwa.
testFD64ud4 as ? Ilied s s ture a 4 , . . .. .
I
,'" %, rT
.s . 4aw 4 n u gienefpfB1;'.2T 84052g POR ADOCK 05000 ._ ,
- 2pp .. 2%3
_. .c
.1
j .
.% v> ,
~, .,. .
. . I
~ I
. : )
- With all that has happened in the Shoreham case' with ,e I
. regard to the insensitivity and indifference of the NRC to .0) the rights of suffolk county and to the merits of the pending fi 4 safety issues, I suppose I shouldn't be but I am, -
l nevertheless, shoched that your May 2 letter persists in ;
promoting cliches about ' licensing delay
- rather than dealing *
- with the reality of L1LCC's f ailursa at Shoreham. Common , .i courtesy would dictate that you at least attempt to correct ,
_,j the reeced officially. ,q sincerely, ,.-)
.? .. -r i i'
s
. i. $ w . f. & J # '"' " .;l
'- Frank R. Jones , 0 Deputy County Executive ,
,,0
. 1
'j FRJ/dr ,
- g. ,
,$ g
. : 2'l ces The sonorable Mario M. Cuomo -
commissioner victor Gilinsky ., j Commissioner Thecas H. Roberts
- Commissioner James K. Asselstine ". l commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal . ,, ,
Congressman Tom Sevill .' ,
congressman Edward J. Markey "s .- .
Congressman Horris K. Udall - -
Congressman Thomas J. Downey '
l A Congressman Robert J. Hrazek i Congressman William Carney ".i i o Congressman Manuel Luj an , Jr. l N_. . senator Daniel patrick Moynihan . l Annakor Alfonse D'Amato , j
- 3
'j 1
1
- l
. l
' i
- 13. ., ; 1
. l .7l;
. l l
ses.e .
~
l
_ -- _ _ ___ ._ _. . _ _r y '{ , 'w..y . / 8/0
.- y~
p g g.;,,
THE ASSEMBLY i
I STATE OF NEWTORK I A.Lp[s-k.
au ; .
k .
ALSANY A
O!ctCE J HCCHBAu?.CENtA" Assemoryman 4tn C pet 34 M -4 N 2b 8""*'ag Commee
" * "M D""
- {
Suffo A Couny CCMMITTED Route 112 - Hvo Cffect $ wades 15, i. P *. . s.
'+. 3
.. nove w ., l w no Ace, ss:P.o.so ? 5*d.INd h. :. . C'"**"^**"**
A **
j een m,enon stam N.Y.,U U6 ,
. . $MNCH g
.ews.2ns.. ,
4 J
Open Letter to Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Reculatorv 2l
.i Commission from New York State Assemblyman George Hocnbrueckner, l Long Island . j e l 7 . . . . . . . . . . 1 i "' ~i. =. " l. . i . . :.
=L. 5... D. v. 3.~ ,O. L ,
May 22, 1984 . .... V.. e- .J n . . .. - ., w ,. ,'
- ? l Nunzio Palladino, Chairman . ..
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
i 1717 E Street, NW ' 3 Washington, D.C. 20555 !
Dear Mr. Palladino:
~
I am a New York State Assemblyman who represents 117,000 people, most of whom live within 10 miles of the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) Shoreham nuclear power plant. -
I attended the May 17, 1984, hearing of the Congressional Subcom-mittee on Energy and the Environment, regarding the licensing pro-V cedure at the.Shoreham plant, and I listened very carefully' to your testimony and that of others. Based on that hearing and your testi-mony indicating the manner in which you attempted to expedite "the Shoreham licensing hearings in an unprecedented way, I hereby re-quest that you disqualify yourself from any further activity in the decision-making process concerning the Shoreham plant.
The basic reason that I am making this request is my belief that we in government must use our power and position appropriately and must always . avoid any action which could be perceived to .be im-It would be inappropriate for me 'to judge whether your proper.
Shoreham-related actions occurred due to your concern as an adminis-trator trying to expedite the licensing process or as a regulator ?
who appears to be predisposed toward licensing of Shoreham. Only '
you know the real answer. Based on the recent sequence of events, i however, the perception of people on Long Island, regardless of j their position on opening Shoreham, is that you have already j concluded that,'Shoreham must be activated as quickly as possible. 9 w
igj;
~
.~
4466040338-540522 $
PDR ADQCK 05000322 '
O PDR -
DC D r
2fP
_ _. .. . . - - . . . . - . . - .. . =.u . -a
.s . .
, j
.~ . .
, ,. j
)
Open Letter to Nun:io Palladinc .
Chairman, U.S. NRC -
May 22, 1984 '
l Page 2 ,
(
'l g
Certainly we all agree that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice without due process is also Justice denied. Your -
unprecedented action to expedite the Shoreham licensing process without consulting your NRC cdileagues has placed your credentials as an objective and unbiased regulator in very serious doubt. ' '{
In crder to maintain the integrity of the NRC for future decisions .
it must make regarding other nuc.7. ear plants, it is absolutely e
( 3 ! essential lating to that the you withdraw Shoreham licensingfrom any further decision-making re-process.
l
. j .,
Thank you for your consideration. I anxiously await your response. -
Sincerely, ,
,, ,]
t ut George J.'gioc'nbrueckner t
Member ei the Assembly .
GE:ej .
l cc: U.S. President Ronald Reagan i U.S. NRC Commissioners U.S. Senators Moynihan and D'Amato
s Nassau-Suffolk Congressional and State Delegations .
]'
,(,/ Governor Mario Cuomo
,bledia . -
1
- 1
. . I l
b j
j.
..~.
N A
( . 'e - '
- - 88cf tGmeccescassa
. $7AN / t.f.t 4AC4 X.UCA1 AAIZ., CHAIRMAN ANO COUN3E
,7jg 7 Njdp
- ROY JCN13
^** **" "*" ' " * "
=7:= =>"" :Th"a== ~- COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR EA RE @IdE6 AND INSULAR AFFAIRS "EEsa s Em = ENE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES $sseYcN E sa
, N EvEEure WASHINGTON, D.C. 20615 2 L* 2 n w. %WA
~
MfL"lh".ca
- 4 %"a Ma7 10' 1984 -
E*l!.fesem ee.
- lF#"a=&$ ..
M " A" .m '
iTE?."Ay* *nt OLbT.
- The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladine
, Chairman ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. '
Washington, D.C. 20555 , ;
-4
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In my March 28,1984, April 12, 1984 and April 24, 1984 '
letters, I have expressed concern about the appearance of -
impropriety created by your administrative involvement in the Shoreham licensing proceeding.
In response to my suggestion that you consider recusing yourself from voting on the low power or full power license '
for Shoreham, you have responded that you have not prejudged the merits of the proceeding in any respect. However, information obtained in the course of the Subcommittee's investigation--particularly your April 4, 1984 memorandum to the other Commissioners--strengthens the appearence that your actions have influenced the course of the proceeding.
Therefore, I believe you should explain in detail why you should not recu3e yourself from any further decision-making 1 role in the Shoreham proceeding, j On March 16, 1984, you met with T. Paul Cotter, Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j
( ASLB) panel, other Commission offices and the Nuclear i Regulatory Commission (NRC). staff. According to your April 4, '
1984 memorandum "some preliminary ideas regarding expediting the Shoreham hearing were discussed" at this meeting. I :
believe that it was inapp'ropriate for the Chairman of the NRC i to have discussed expediting the proceeding without the other Commissioners present. The matter is further complicated because the NRC' staff, a party to the proceeding, was present and the views of all other parties were not. sought.
' I Your March 20, 1984 memorandum to the other Commissioners regarding perceived " licensing delays" recommended that the' Commission consider proposals to expedite the Shoreham O
-W M
w 4 Y. ' l pf[ygg 3@M/ O CV A
1 .
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino May 10, 1984 Page Two i;
proceeding. Unlike other memoranda on this subj ect, you did I not mark this memorandum for " Limited Distribution" and it was widely circulated. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that you intended for the licensing judges and the NRC staff to become aware of your view that the Shoreham proceeding should ,
be expedited. In this context, the NRC staff's sudden i reversal of its previously held position on a key issue relevant to t'e proceeding to a " pro-LILC0" position could q reasonably be seen by an objective observer as an ef fort to comply with your expressed wishes.
As I mentioned in a previous letter, I believe you have mischaracterized the delay,at Shoreham as a " licensing delay" since the current delay is not attributable to the NRC's .
licensing process. The delay is not a licensing delay per se, , 3 but rather, is attributable to the lack of a qualified source '
of on-site power at Shoreham. To be sure, William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, has informed my staff that the nine month delay cited by you as a reason to expedite the ,
Shoreham proceeding is based on the licensee's projection. An i April 24, 1984 internal memorandum from T.A. Reb , Assistant for Operations, to the Commission, reveals that the NRC staff does not agree with LILCO's estimated construction completion date. Hence, it appears that there are no recognizably valid reasons behind your efforts to expedite the Shoreham proceeding.
Judge Cotter informed my staff that your legal assistant called him on March 22, 1984, and read him a " working paper" drafted by your office relating to Shoreham. The " working paper", a preliminary document, was attached to your April 4, 1984 memorandum and states:
The EDO has recently provided the Commission an assessment for Shoreham that proj ects a nine-month licensing delay due to, I am told , the Shoreham Licensing Board's requirement to litigate the diesel-generator que'stion before allowing operation at low power.
The Commission would like this matter litigated on an expedited basis with a target date of receiving the Board's decision on this matter by May 9, 1984.
Would you please look into what steps are required to meet such a date and inform the Commission on ,
these ste March 30,ps as soon as possible, but not later than 1984. '
};gj i
1
h =*
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino May 10, 1984 Page Taree
/i For planning purposes, you could assume the i following steps:
-- A two week staff review of the proposal by LILC0; a
-- A one week discovery period;
-- A two week period for filing testimony and holding a hearing; -
-- A two week period to issue the Board's decision.
Final Commission guidan'ce on the expedited hearing on this matter would be based on your submittal and follow-up discussions. If you have any questions, please let me know. ,
According to Judge Cotter this working paper was sent to him ,
by your staff and he expressed his comments by writing a draf t '
order which he cent to your office on March 23, 1984. You - -
supplied it to the other Commissioners as an attachment to your April 4, 1984 memorandum in which you indicate you
, forwarded it to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) on March 27, 1984.
Judge Cotter's draft order, written in response to your interest in this case, if approved by the Commission, would f<
have directed him to appoint a new licensing board to convene !
an expedited hearing on LILCO's motion. The introduction to j the dtaft order states: j
~ 1 On March 20, 1984, LILCO: filed with the Licensing j Board a " Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating l License." LILCO has requested the Board either to j refer the motion immediately to the Commission for decision or to decide the motion on an expedited basis and to certify its decision to the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.730(f) (1983). As' -
discussed below, the Commission has reviewed LILCO's
, motion and has concluded that referral at this time would be inappropriate. We agree, however, that a decision on certain ' issues ' raised by the Applicant should be expedited to the extent possible ?
consistent with the development of a sound record.
In the exercise'of the Commission's inherent authority over the conduct of our adjudicatory proceedings, we hereby grant that portion of LILCO's ,
motion that. requests an expedited proceeding.- To that end, we direct the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, in consideration of the existing schedule and. caseload -
9[
i
- O
,. _. _ ._.. -_._ _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _. . _ . _ . . _. .____._.m l
, - . . y^ .
. 1
.The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino May 10, 1984 Page Four -
B of the Panel's members, to appoint an Atomic Safety -
and Licensing Board to hear and decide LILCO's-supplemental motion in accordance. with the 3 procedures and schedule outlined below. d1 I
Apparently, both you and Judge' Cotter had decided that LILCO's i request for an expedited hearing should be granted prior to .i l Lhearing from and resolving the views of all parties. I believe that it would have been improper for you or Judge ,
- Cotter to have' reached a decision about a matter-of both
. procedural and substantive importance in a formal adjudication without consulting with all parties.
Judge Cotter's draft order raises additional questions of' .I l propriety. The draft order, written by him for.possible- -
j Commission use, would have directed him to expedite the '
.j hearings and ap' point a new licensing board. Similarly, the l' i
" working paper quoted to him on March 22, 1984 could '
reasonably have been interpreted by him as a directive to ,
expedite the hearings at the Commission's request, although in reality you were acting unilaterally at that time. On March 30, 1984,-Judge Cotter appointed a new licensing board headed '
by Marshall E. Miller (the Miller Board). In your April 23,.
1984 response to me you implied that Judge Cotter had not taken this action as a result of your interest in this case.
You wrote: -
As for your comments regarding the-appointment;of.a separate Shoreham licensing board, Judge Cotter, Chairman of the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, informed my office, before making the i appointment,.that the decision was his own and that - '
its basis was the questionable availability of the pre-existing board s personnel.
What you neglected to menti.on was that your office and Judge Cotter had apparently planned to expedite the Shoreham proceeding prior to learning of a scheduling conflict with 'the 3 pre-existing board. If, indeed, the decision'was "his own",'I must conclude that the decision in question was.not-co- j i t
expedite the hearing but rather a decision as to what process would be used to set the hearing on a fast track. Your. '
explanation ofEthe need to appoint a new board, because of , ;
scaeduling problems with the old board, is difficult to i understand when Judge Cotter's March 23, 1984 draft order had +
-1 made this suggestion prior to hearing fromLJudge Lawrence j, Brenner (the previous board's Chairman) on March 27, 1984. 7 j.:
. .r y
4 a
. . . . .. -. . .. . . . . . - - . . -.a
~
.G r
,m , i' f ,
t The Honorable ?unzio J. Palladino
.May 10, 1984 '
Page Five' -
Your statement to the Subcommittee, that Judge Cotter's I decision to appoint a new board to consider LILCO's Supplemental Motion on an expqdited basis was "his own", ,
appears to have been misleading. It is clear from the 2 documents appended to your' April 4, 1984 memorandum that your office had communicated your desire to expedite the< hearings *7, prior to when Judge Cotter informed s your office that the decision was "his own" and prior to hearing from Judge Brenner on March 27, 1984. .
I am also concerned by the' fact that the expedited
, hearing schedule set forth in the draft order sent to you by x Judge Cotter and the schedule proposed by your staff in the
- " working paper" appear to be similar beyond coincidence to the actual schedule imposed by the' Miller Board on April 6,1984 These circumstances also lead me to question whether the ;
substance of either document or yout. views on this matter were
~
I l communicated to the Miller Board. '
o, l
While the transcripts #js ' closed Commission, meetings provided to the Committee /In! an Execut.ive Sescion last week i l
are relevant to the issues ogscribed 'in, this ' letter, they are not the basis of this letter, nor werdsthey relied upon in the ,
l preparation of this letter. Any corrS4pondence communication addressing those mattegt will be p,orrepared
, separately, identifying the source or aources of information i
relied upon. -
(
The unfortunate but inevitable conclusion that omt be drawn from this chronology of events is that you'have not , , ,
maintained the appearance of an icpartial adjudicator. '
Because even the appearance of improprie:y is unacceptable, I believe that you must explain fully why you should not l>e recused from any future decision-making role in this proceeding.
Sincerely, i
EdwardJ.Markey/;#
Chairman .
Subcommittee on Nersight .
and Investigationc EJM/ tru .
crl e
y
=
4
7
.y, ,, g ,,,
y + g, UNITED STATES 6 , t.
n JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSr, J jY2 3,
,3g()gg/
.,g > WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 u
[,.
S p**egr ***
j/ , May 9, 1984 CHAIRMAN , ,
l~ ,
The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcontaittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee'on Interior and Insular Affairs a
- 4 United States House of Representatives Wahhington, DC 20515 b n. - Dear Chairman Markey . . ;
on May-3', 1984, you wrote to me about your intention to , l address three internal memoranda which I provided to you' in -
response to earlier requests for information. You expressed your preference to make public reference to the three internal memoranda and asked for a statement of '
< , reasons why the public. interest would be served by keeping the three memoranda confidential. .
t-s Although I do not obj.ect to your making public reference to s .-
the three memoranda, I would note that the April 4, 1984 1
memorandum is not of a' type that would ordinarily be made.
public. The attachments to that memo are very preliminary docuinents. They were not prepared for public dissemination and they were not ultimately adopted by the commission.. I would hope that any reference to the April 4. memorandum would reflect the foregoing circumstances.
Sincerely, Nunzio J. Palladino cci ' Rep.' Marlenee -
Rep. Udall Rep. Lujan .
e 4 g .
+ .? _
P .
/Y}
TWOMEY.'LATHAM & SHEA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P. O. BOX 398
. THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR. RIVERHEAD. NEW YORK 1190h '
STEPHEN B. LATHAM b)( hfIb JOHN P SHEA. Ils MNkH MAIN STREET ,
t ROBERT Q. Pf KE (516) 727 218 0 EAST HAMPTON. N Y.11937 qq CHRISTOPHER O. KELLEY ($16) 324-1200 - '
AMY..TuR~ER
'84JY -T P3 :35 .
i May 4, 1984 CFF:Cf Or Shu ::r 00CXETfhy & SEir/n .
BRANCH. .
,0 Express Mail '
Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino D00KET NUMagg
. Commissioner Frederick M.-Bernthal PROD. & Wl. FAC,MMD- 0 L -
L. vaissioner Victor Gilinsky ~
- m. '
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K..Asselstine *" 4 i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission ,,
- Washington, DC 20555 Ret Docke'c No. 50-322-(OL) ( I.cw Power )
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is to advise you thatinterve'nor Tow'n of
, Southaupton has discussed with attorney for Suffolk County the " Joint Responsive of Suf folk County and the State of New York to the Commission's O'rder of April 30, 1984" which will be served on . the Commission today. The T1.vn of Southampton joins- in that filing in -its -
entirety. ~
-C: Cycn ~
Yours truly, l
- A ;; , .
m Stephen B. Latham Sp cial Counsel to the !
Town af Southampton SBL:gm .
8 ,
b !
. d.*1' !
.' ~E ,
g!_}
4 4.
)
i
_ a
- - := =ai a -- 1
-~ ,- .,7.y .
,9y. 1 4 naas, "
.f "
t UNITED STATES ^ - l l
l NUCLEAR REGUL'ATORY COMMISSION f'k'yE d.. i* 7 j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL -
$, . Q j[ WASHIN GTON. O.C. 20555 . "
- May 4, 1984 gg WE.; :~ ;&a#:.; - :..4 n
')JS$
e
'84 ffM -7 P 1 :51 - -
cri;clr 00Ca risT - TjM-[..
I[v N SRAMcH I i
- . l MEMORANDUM FOR: William L. Clements SERVED MAY' 71984 . l Docketing and Service Branch C 'fice of the Secretary p'.
4
~
L. FROM: + -Valarie M. Lane. N M b . :. ;
Secretary te Judge Brenner .. l Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel ,,
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM - DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL '
Please serve the attached letter from Mrs. Wilhelmina DiMartino to Judge Lawrence Brenner to the parties in the above-referenced '
proceeding. - -
Thank you.
Attachment -
f" ,
\g ; .
su
- W C e
. CD co .
C A y
" r-'1 e
m, O' e -
m.e D $.
- ~9 i
- 7 -
E .D I
eM J
! q
.e .
'% 4 KQg l
- , ,.- l;;
POR 6 .a
-[
_' ~d *N .
... ~
\
_ t.. ,
l , .
..,...... .. . . . ~ . ';; , ;-
. c..= s. ...
~ - -
,- k; .:: ~ 4 ::-
- - m z3 . ,
Ramsenhurg H.T. 11960
.yc 2 s
. A;ril 26, b4 '. ._
\
l y=:
~
- Judge'Iawrence 3:ennd: " . .
9 s
l2
' "" ~ Nuclear Re tory Ccamission ~
3.;:.'Matomic > I m g R S. :-
. .; . ""' 1717 E St. , N.W. - ' "
.'. . . " 91 %.
1 ~- :-
g;
. e-;
W M h tton, D.C.'2,05554 ' ' p . (J - i. 9i
-~.. E ' --
~ 1
,f-*'
Dear Judge. Brenner:
. 1. .b.. ...,. ;
Jit = ' r: _:
. g.--. ! :
. . . c. c . . . . .. . .. a.. : ,.
~;-~.
. ~* . F... 4 -i. i )
%;J.. ..;:ris ca resident of Lozig:JIsland and a taxpayer I wish, to 'go .._.~v-
-- k. .
on record ..
.......' I I
f:;.;
-"q? e.- are being manipulated by Federal agencias and membe:rs o l
acting against out. best interests.
.rJF P We are pawns of' a Company who _:
s.:.to lose.:. billions of dollars .because of' lack of foresight and mis-management
. M" G 'ulated by our own Government and Lilco tBecause of this we a:re being 'l o put Shoreham *on line" '
._:f
'; N .L.This without is a Democracy?our representation or any consideration for our safety. -
..,I c.. . .
_,3 /
tm0Icou,ld still'fuziction withoitt the opening of Shoreham.
1.m The . .. n "9 1
.:. $.~3 residents of L. I. will still use electrical power --which has . ..5 d'
b
,.. in the future by the addition of alternate sources of hydro-elec h..
.:.:.w, =
,3^- trie:
.. . Power,
- . :. . , r, wind power,. - - - - . solar power and+ solar calls. ..
I
,' l ,.r.= . :. .... ->:- '/.
4 M Jucleari'lbwer was developed too fast and some ttt 111 ties lack the ."
/ i
'":.li7 sk111s or the will to udie it safely and effectivenly ' Nuclear . %
Vli':.Ih "~"i. :.efficiently.
. plantis cost far more' to build than expected and ope:raI,e less .. :
. g_.4 ;.2 Rates will rise unabated if Shoreham goes 'on line' / ,,
e"O.., about Nac13ar safety contineas.instead And in the meantime of beingthe reduced. ybMc disquiet i 1r
. 7/- - the record is dia - The record of.* ' .,~
yf disasters .
.. mstretch -l:.g ; . from ., _coast .g . , to coast and .:
continue tio occur. .=- .. . .e - -
.y.- ..
1y L"Shoreham must'not-be' allowed.to'open.' Its record is: d*1i cosit .g '. g .::
- - 3. ~.y. -
@_~3.:::
" over-run after coat over-rva The latest -
g.~~i"f. -
.~3 developments include.
temporarily replaced by-inefficient Dies.els. Recent 1.y off site cracked .has dogged sYary phase., ~.7 JJ perm -
.-. power was lost for from 20-45 minutes. .: '"
P 55 minutes could oanse a perilous situation,If the the plant plant: vas could"en line" reach.
QML unacceptable temperatures and before it was even opet:rative could
. pose a..real threat to the people of L.I.
a.
. .l.~ 'It would" seem that our safety is secondary to tT7Ma financial
..7....
E". . situation.. Weren'ts"the
. I'm~ sure Big a sointion ipple* and "
could be found Chrysler",both saved for this f=ca problem.
the brink
' of benkruptcy= but if. an accident occured nothing aca:1d save the livse and property of the'* people of the. Island. .
~
]
' Judge 3rcisner, you are' a member of the powerful U. S. Nuclear j
'~ Regulatory Commission.
Inu have full knowledge of the many serious :
and those.that might have been serious accidents in the Nuclear 4 field.
Don't let Shoreham open, we beg of you, DON"T LET SHO1L' TAM,,
. 92 3 . Ecw many lives is one Shoreham worth? ; j' d m >
Sincerely, +
vavics 840504 ADOCK 05000 ./ ' ~
j lg . 3 .-
e . .. -; :a.; g: .
, ( .. . ; ,. .
I- .--- -
jyf-
" / p Keay i' ' UNITED STATES
- a. -8 .o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
{ j wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20586 DOCg7ggygrR
.f ~
May 1, 1984 PROD. A UTIL. nc,h. .UM- . , _
0L- f bfysa':
The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment g Mf-g 45 Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs J United States House of Representatives !
.' g4y g.
' Washington, DC 20515 SERVED MAY hgANc4a 8
- gg 21984
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On April 26,-1984, I sent you a copy of a letter that was -
. sent'to Congressman Markey expressing'the Commission's f/
concerns about the legal problems which might result from -
i releasing a transcript.of.the. adjudicatory proceeding now , !
ongoing with regard to the low power operation of the '
-# l Shoreham plant. Those. concerns also~extendedLto the
- i. < release of an April 2, 1984 legal memorandum from our a3
,i General-Counsel concerning the Shoreham proceeding. These- , 1 documents are. examples of the most sensitive adjudicatory records possessed by an agency responsible for the conduct
, of quasi-judicial functions.- A major concern expressed-in
< my letter was the breach of confidentiality of such documents. ,,
In response to our suggestion for a staff-level meeting.to n discuss ways of resolving the Subcommittee's oversight. 1
. needs Tn a manner consistent with the Commission's need to (
preserve the integrity.of its adjudicatory processes, a 3 meeting was held .on April 30' between our General Counsel and members of his staff and members of the staff of the 1
Subcommittee and of'the full Committee. This letter builds ,
on the exchange of information that took place at that !
meeting. .
Our concerns in this area.are both for. safeguarding the due process rights of the parties to the Shoreham proceeding and for meeting.our corresponding obligation to make adjudicatory decisions solely on the basis of the record of the case. At the same time, we recognize and intend to abide'by our commitments'under Section 303(a) of the Atomic Energy Act to keep the Congress " fully' and currently-informed" with res under Section 303(pect c), totofurnish the Commission's information activities, requestedand by -;
a the Congress, l
We believe that it is essential that every reasonable effort ~be made to harmonize those concerns.. As indicated d...; '
above .a' major concern on our part is'with the -
' 4{
w .;l I: i J Q, lj f M r Of '+
g ,
.-- = ~ . .. _ . - .:.... . . - .--...;....
}q ,4
,. , 1
'2
, l confidentiality-of the two documents in question. We were. l
. informed at the April 30 meeting between our staffs that no
' assurance of confidentiality should or would be given. We 0i believe that it could only be destructive to the conduct of
~
dl an impartial, unbiased proceeding for the Board or the parties themselves to be aware.of the preliminary views of individual Commissioners and their closest advisors on the :1 !
issues.in. controversy and the Board's handling of the case l to date. .
qj We are prepared to furnish the two requested documents to j the Committee upon'its. formal action to receive'the
.- l reque'sted documents in Executive' Session, pursuant to the. u standing rules of the House of Representatives. We read 3
i the rules to provide that documents so received may not be 1 released or used in public session without conserit of the :q l
.i Committee. .The Commission believes, and would urge the - -
4 Committee in Executive' Session, that such documents should. ..
'. not be disclosed to the public, to any party, or to the < l Board; and that they should not be quoted from in'public i
hearings or any other public forum.
We believe'that,'with the confidentiality.protections outlined above, release.of these documents does not .
constitute an intrusion that creates a serious risk, under i the pillsbury doctrine, to the-legal validity of the - l ultimate result.in an adjudicatory proceeding. , A quite ;
. different resultfmight obtain if these' documents were to be !
' used as the basis for a searching inquiry into the agency's I adjudicatory decisionmaking process. --
l l
As sr the past, it'is our hope.that the Commission and the :
Committee can reach an accommodation through a mutual i respect for the obligations.and authority of each. We i!
believe firmly that the interests not just of the Committee i and the Commission, but~also of the public-, are best. served j when disagreements are resolved through discussion and i cooperation rather than through confrontation. I 1
i Commissioner.Gilinsky has no objection to providing the transcript in question to,the Committee. Commissioner 3i I
0n April 25, 1984, Congressman Markey submitted a ;
written request for the transcript of a Commission meeting J I
held on April 24, 1984. We are prepared to provide this transcript as well in' Executive' Session. . f'
.'j ,
~ .,
v
, a l
i l
3 j
,l
~
- - Asselstine believes the' Commission should provide copies of )
the requested documents and transcripts to the j jj
- Subcommittee, ., a 1
i Sincerely,
- n. .
--a i
9 ,n?v:N . sed.wO.- -
O l
Nunzio'J. aliadino cc: Rep. Edward Markey i Rep. Ron Marlenee -
,j Rep. Manuel Lujan. . !
! ?l 1
\ !
- > \
{
l i ,
4 i -
i
) .
l
-j O
e i
'b ' !
I o
I i
,r
'4
.. i I
o t
g
' ~
b.L. ) - , .
. ]
~t patart # #
Y UNITED STATES 1 e
[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOM l g a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20585 l
' ~
$ 00CKETE0
%, #[ April 30, 1984 ,
UNC WA MAN .Doggg7gg W A UTIL. FAC,$;~3944[- h ' ;
i { r's t = d
(*, C* C '.". ] g ' ; g ,- )
The Honorable' Robert J. Mrazek ?4c NNd{F -
United States House of Representatives ':!I Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman krazek:
SERVED MAY a,j984 This letter responds to the April 27, 1984 letter on the .
Shoreham licensing ' proceeding from you amd Congressman .
1 Downey. In particular, I wanted to provid!e a response 'to .!
your request for an explanation for why I should not remove i myself in the future on matters c on ce rnim,g ths Shoraham :j !
licensing proceeding. ,
.a i I have not prejudged the merits of .the Shereha'm licensing '
, l
, proceeding in .any respect, nor does my Mtarch 20, 1984 "1 -
memorandum contain any suggestion that I have prejudged it, in reality or in ' appearance. My recommenada ti o n that the Commission consider options for an egedited hearing on the l diesel problem, so that a low power dectsion might .be possible, implies no judgment how the diese F gene ra to r . .
problem should be resolved. Moreover, to assume that there will be a resolution of the emergency. plamning issues says nothing about .how that issue. might. be resolved: the. issue
. could be resolved either in granting or demying the Shureham license.
t The Administrative Procedure Act ( APA) requires that agency
. licens~1ng proceedings be conducted -both with due regard for..
the rights of all the parties and compl eted 'within n' .
reasonable time." Since the Commission has supervisory responsibility over all of its adjudicatioms, it is entirely ;
in keeping with the spirit of the APA that I, as Chairman, !
suggest measures designed. to assure that- the Commission !
complies with both these statutory requirements. That is all that my. March 20, 1984 memorandum attempts to do.
By way of backgrounC on ' March 9,1984 the EDO notified j' the Commission.<of significant potential licensing delays i
for the Shoreham and Limerick plants.- Spec.ifically, the !
ED0' indicated potential delays of la 'montins for these two_ 'l
' plants, whereas our January 25, 1984 report to Congress had- i forecast a total delay of only 7 months, all for Limerick.- q' -
') ?9 ' ,
.i 9 ,
u.,.
y .. ,. . . + a. - .= . =. . .a xx .a a. . w . -..
E i 2 __
1 m"
i Subsequently, based on information provided by the staff, 4 it became clear to me that delays for other plants were '
'. also possible, and I informed the Commission of th.e general circumstances in my memorandum of March.20, 1984. .'
Over the last several years, Congress'has indicated its concern about unwarranted delay. For example, i'n its report on the NRC Appropriation for FY 1981, the House '
- j Appropriations Committee directedithe Commission to provide ;
a monthly report to'the Congress on the status of licensing, proceedings. H. Rep. No. 96-1093, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.,
4 146-47 (1980). The history -of this requirement makes . clear the Committee's concern over licensing delay. Another .:
j
- example is the temporary operating license authority in the a Commission's Authorization for FY 1982-83 in which the !
Congress directed the Commission to adopt administrative
]}
j measures to minimize the need to use that authority. Pub.
]L Law 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067, i 11 (1983). It is clear to me '
that the intent of this Congressional instruction was that' the Commission should address administrati.vely the matter f
of unwarranted licensing delay in specific cases. 1 i
i The Commission's Policy and Planning Guidance also '
t addresses the matter of delay in the licensing' process. It provides that'" actions should continue to be taken to eliminate unwarranted delay in reaching decisions ,
' consistent with not compromising' safety." As Chairman, it :
is my responsibility tu take . steps -to carry out that guidance.
My memorandum of March- 20, 1984 was intended to -
bring the Commission to gri ;
delay in particular cases. psI recognize'that:
with the issue hearing-of possible ,
schedules must be' consistent with the rights of the parties to.present their cases. 1
\
The Commission met on April 24, 198'4' to review.the status of licensing proceedings and the subject of licensing delay. Additional meetings need to be held in the future.
As for your comments regarding the appointment of a !
separate Shoreham licensing, board, Judge Cotter, Chairman of the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, informed my offic'e, before making the appointment, that the decision was his own and that its-basis'was the-i questionable availability of the preexisting board's personnel. )
(I have been informed that two of the three d.
members preparin of the: preexisting non-emergency planning board are d.
have no_g for exten5ive-hearings in the Limerick case.)
-I A
' reason to question' Judge Cotter's authorityJoe judgement on this matter. , _7
( '
', 9 L
.. . .. ~. - . .-- . . -
- i 3 __
g The matter of the appointment of a separate Shoreham Board '
was 8eril addressed 24, 1984 at Judge the recent public Commission meeting on-Robert M. Lazo, Deputy Chief
- Administrative Judge of the Panel, responded to questions j about the appointment of the separate board as follows:
~.{
COMMISSIONER GILINSXY: Could you explain why we have so many boards,in.this case? .
'l>1
MR. LAZO: There was a fourth board on the security matter and those issues were settlee I think the
, answer to your question is that: the panel chairman and H I'on a regular basis meet with the chairmen members of )i j
individual licen' sing boards to discuss schedules. g L We want to be certain that'we will'not have two' <- i licensing boards coming together at~the'same time j
where one would have to stop and wait. We have 7
$l 22 operating license -
of our panel members, proceedings in the-o~ffice. All t the Chairman as well as-the- ,
technical members, serve on a number of boards.
When we detected that there could be a probler because '
i of members of one board, the Shoreham board, beimg ,
also heavily involved in other operating license cases we thought it would be useful to appoint' a -
- separate boa.rd. .
I jl COMMISSIONER GILINSXY: How was this done? Does t'he -
Chairman do the appointing or is this done with the agreement of the first boa.rd?
MR. LAZO: }
In that case the first-board ~had advised 1
our office that they anticipat.ed a schedulirg: problem and suggested that a separate board be appointed.
Tony Cotter and I then sat down and looked at the i availability new board.
of time of other members and' assigned a i:
- * *g * * *
, * *
- g COMMISSIONEP ASSELSTINE: Bob, let me go back and ask one additional question on the replacement or the "
i additional board.- Was the're- ever a suggestion made i'n your discussions with the Board to: simply give.the new j-!
1, Board total authority over.the diesel generator issue' A as opposed to just'the low-power request and, if so, where and why did that originate? -
f, '
- ' )f o s-
y - . - . . . . . . .. - . -- . . . . . . ~ ,, -
4 MR. LAZO: That was discussed and it was considered at l the moment the two issues were really qu ite distinct. ,
However, I must.say that there is a good possibility that that, in f act, will happen, that the present new low-power Board will get responsibility for the _,
overall diesel gent.rator issue. i COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You mentioned tha.t the original Board had suggested the Board to handle the
" low-power license. What was the original Board's response or reaction to that proposal, to abolish the
- original Board altogether and simply give that issue
/
over to the new Board?
MR. LAZ0: The original Board would pref'er to keep tne '
i issue because they feel that they have f1nvested quita ;
l a bit of time in it. . ;;
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay. .Thank you.
(Transcript: pp.30-31 and 33-34).
With regard to your comments about my April 4,1984 men.orandum and the appended draft order, let ne clarify that I did not propose that the Commission aalopt the order, although I did later cast my vote for an opt 5cn similar to this in response to the Office of the Genera 3 Counsel's list of options;. I believed the Commissioners should have' I the order as'backgroun6 material for their etnnsideration of 4 OGC's memorandum of April 2,1984. In any ewent, it would have been inappropriate for me to keep the draft order from
'the other Commissioners. .
In closing, I believe that an understanding of the facts can help to address the questions you have. raised about the Shoreham proceeding. I hope the above matertal -- as w' ell as the interaction that can take place at the May 17, 1984 Subcommittee hearing -- provides -the necessary information.
,- Sincerely, ,
+
2R
~
- .y - ,<.~. 5 a.Al d = ' -
~
Nunzio J. Palladino A.ttachment: Transcript, " DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE STEPS TO AVOID LICENSING DELAYS", Aprii 24, 1984 3
, .gh cc: Rep.: Morris K. Udall ?
Rep. Manuel Lujan 3
+
._ _ , _ _. . - .m .
..~ .-
[ '
4C Caov
-5 + o UNITED STATES g
! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a wAsHWGTON, D C. 20666
- s. J ' -
April 30, 1984 P r.,E0 09m.E
%'. . .N. . o# ,
CHAlM84AN -[
M HM' ~1 P3:45,
- The Honorable Thomas J. Downey $Q-(Shigt .,,o .
United States House of Representatives SRANCH Washington, DC 20515 .
Dear Congressman Downey:
This letter responds to the April 27, 1984 letter on the ,
Shoreham licensing proceeding from you and Congressman l Mrazek. In _particular, I wanted to provide a response to s.l your request for an explanation for why I should not remove i myself in the future on matters concerning the Shoreham l licensing pro'ceeding. l
, 1 l '
I have not prejudged the merits of the Shoreham licensing pruceeding in any respect, nor does my March 20, 1984'-
, t )
J memorandum contair} any suggestion that I have prejudged it, in reality or in ' appearance. My recommendation that the Commission consider options for an expedited hearing on the
' diesel problem, so that a low power decision. .might be' -
possible, -implies' no judgment how the diese1 ' generator problem should be resolved.. Moreover, to assume th'at there will be a resolution of the emergency planning issues says ]
1 nothing about how that issue might be resolved: the issue- ;
i could be resolved either in granting or denying the Shoreham j
license. J l
The Administrative Procedure Act ( APA) requires that agency licensing proceedings be conducted both with_ due regard for the rights of all the parties and completed "within- a- )
reasonable time." Since the Commission has supervisory (
responsibility over all of its ad'judications, it is entirely in keeping with the spirit oi the APA that I, as Chairman ,
suggest measures designed to assure that the Commission complies with both these statutory requirements. That is all that my March 20, 1984 memorandum attempts to do.
3 ,
By way of background, on March 9, 1984,-the EDO notified '
the Commission"~of significant potential licensing delays for the Shoreham and Limerick plants. Specifically, the E00 indicated potential delays of.14 months for these twc plants , whereas our Janua ry . 25, 1984 report to Congress had '
forecast a total delay of'only 7 months, all'for Limerick.
1
.i ?
p W~ y L.
u
~~ - ~'
~,
K 2 __ !
l' l- Subsequently, based on information provided by the staff, it became-clear to me that< delays for other plants were !! 4
- 4 also possible, and I informed the Commission of the ga.neral circumstances in my memorandum of March 20, 1984.
Over the last several years, Con 4 concern about unwarranted delay.gress has indicated For example, in itsits j J report on the NRC Appropriation for FY 1981, the House .,
Appropriations Committee directed the-Commission to provtde a monthly report to the Congress on the status of licensing proceedings.
H. Rep. No. 96-1093, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.,
146-47 (1980). The history of this r'equirement makes clear !
the Committee's concern over licensing delay. -Another .
example is the temporary operating license authority +1n the af i j Commission's Authorization for FY 1982-83 in which the Congress directed the Commission to adopt administrative ..i j
'l l
measures Law 97-415, to96 minimize the need to use that authority. Pub.
Stat. 2067, q l i 11 (1983). It is clear to me '
that the intent ~of this Congressional instruction was that; the' Commission should address administrative 1y the matter of unwarranted licensing delay in specific cases. l The Commission's Policy and Pla,.ing' Guidance also- '
addresses the matter of delay in the licensing process. It 1
)
provides that " actions should continue to be taken to
- eliminate unwarranted delay in reaching decisions i
consistent is my res with not compromising safety." As Chairman, it ,,
.I guidance.ponsibility to take steps to carry outithat '
My memorandum'of March' 20,19S4 was intended to bring the Commission to gri delay in particular. cases. ps with the issue I recognize of possible that hearing schedules must be-consistent with the rights of the parties to present their cases.
The Commission met on April 24, 198'4-to. review the status of licensing proceedings and the subject of licensing delay. '
Additional meetings need to be held in the future. >
As for your comments regarding the appointment of a 'l separate Shoreham licansing board, Judge Cotter, Chairman of the NRC Atomic . Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 3..
informed my offife, before making the appointment, that the 1-t decision was his own and that its basis was the (
questionable availability of the preexisting board's personnel.
(I have been informed that-two~of the three members of the preexisting non-emergency p.lanning board are- >
preparing for extensive hearings in the Limerick case.) I e have no reason to question Judge Cotter's authority or judgemenc on'thisJmatter. ', , r .gr ,
7d i 3:y
+,
.. j
l ', , ' 3 i e 3 ;
?
The matter of the appointment of a separate Shoreham Board '
I was addressed at the recent public Commission meeting'on l April 24, 1984. Judge Robert M. Lazo, Deputy Chief -
1 Administrative Judge of the Panel, responded to questions
.about the appointment ot the separate board as follows:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you explain why we have j, so many boards in this case? ,
a'
. 1 !
MR. LAZO: There was a fourth board on the security i matter and those issues were settled. I think the.
i answer to your question is that the. panel chairman and j I on a regular basis meet with the chairmen members of a' individual licensing. boards to discuss schedules. ]l l We want-to be certain that we will not have two. - ]4 licensing boards coming together at the same time .j ,
] where one would have to stop and wait. We.have
' ngII 22 operating license proceedings .in the -office. All of,our panel members, the Chairman as well as the technical members, serve on a number of boards. 1
^
. When we detected that there could be .a probl.em because i
, of members of one board, the Shoreham board,-being- i i also heavily involved in other operating license
- cases, we thought it would be useful to appoint a separate board.
2, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How was this done? Does the ,
Chairman do the appointing or is this done with the I
, agreement of the first board? .1
)l
. MR. LAZO: In that case the first board had advised j our office that they anticipated a scheduling problem and suggested that a separate board be appointed. ;
. Tony Cotter and I then sat down and looked at the . 1 availability of time of other members and assigned a '! '
new board. ,
l,
- g * * * * *
- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Bob, let me go back and ask one additional question on the replacement or the , ;
. additional board. Was there ever a suggestion made in j':
your discussions with the Board to simply give the new Board total. authority over the diesel generator issue' -
as opposed to just the low-power request and, if so, ;j .
where.and.why did that originate? , ,/ j
, at i hy T* }
. 1!
0
.m-. - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
o . . .
. l 4
MR. LAZO: .That was (iscussed and it was considered at ';
l the moment the two issues were really quite distinct. 9 l l However, I must say that there is a good possibility
.that.that, in f act, will happen, that 'the present new -
i low-power Board will get responsibility for the ;
overall diesel generator issue. 4 C'OMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You mentioned that the -
original Board had suggested the Board to handle .the low-power license. What was .the original Board's response or reaction to that proposal, taa abolish the -
s original Board altogether and simply give that issue. *;
over to the new Board? 4
~
. MR. LAZO: The. original Board would prefer to keep the :2 issue because they feel -that they have invested quite 3
l a bit of time in it. g COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay. Thank 3you.
(Transcript: pp.30-31 and 33-34)
! With regard to your comments about my April 4,1984-i memorandum and the appended draf t order, let me clarify that I did not propose that.the Commission-acdopt the order, although I 'did later cast my vote for an optf on similar to .
' this in response to the Of fice of the General Counsel's -
t list of options.. I believed the Commissione rs should have i i
the order as ' background material for their consideration- of -1 OGC's memorandum of April 2,.1984. In any event, it' would i have been inappropriate for me to keep the draft order from '
r the other Commissioners.
. J^
In closing, I believe that an understanding of the' f acts' can help to address .the questions you -have raised about the .
Shoreham proceeding. I hope the above materf al -- as well as the interaction that. can take placa at the _ May 17, 1984 Subcommittee hearing -- provides the necessary information.
Sincerely,
~
N ' ,
- ,<.~. 5 AAld= '-
r Nunzio J. Pa1Tadino
Attachment:
Transcript, " DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE STEPS T0-AVOID LICENSING DELAYS", April 24, 1984 t
, cc: . Rep./Merris K. Udall s d'
- Rep. Manuel Lujan
, t.
]
q i
. .e, ,w t ,g\
i l 601tgTess of dje EidttD 6tAtt$ ,
Douge of Rep *tathes N[
! EEadfagton, D.C. 20515 ',<
l . April .27, 1984 ,
'84 NAY -1 P3 :45
- 0FFICf.' 0F SECRL fu i 00CKETING & SERVICI 1- l BRANCH i Tne Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino .i
. 1 Chainnan -
-i j
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission j l 1717 H Street, N.W. 'j Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l
- li As a result of a recent and unusual chain of events at your agency .
'4t
- regarding the Shopeham Nuclear Power Station, we have examined your
- .
- efforts to expedite the low power licensing process for the Shoreham j l I reactor and are compelled to conclude that you are no longer an .
-( i impartial adjudicator.
J '
It is apparent; that you have made detenninations idiich could 'have a substantive impact upon the procedural fairness of this controversy without
, the benefit of hearing all sides of the argument. Accordingly, we are ,
constrained to ask for an explanation from you for why you should not '
1 remove yourself '
in the future on matters co.ncerning the Shoreham licensing '
preceeding. -
I
! Specifically, we are concerned because we understand that you met with Judge B. Paul Cotter, Jr.. . Chief Administrative Judge of the NRC's~ Atomic -
Safety and Licensing Board, on March 16, 1984 concerning the Shoreham licensing process and subsequently suggested to other NRC Commissioners in.a March 20, l 1984 memorandum that this proceeding should be expedited. As you know, a {
sintflar request was.made by the Long Island Lighting Campany. However,. '
apparently because of your interest in this case, a new licensing board was constituted and the. hearing process for this case was greatly expedited to the extent that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbit. has granted New York's Governor Mario M. Cuomo and Suffolk County a temporary restraining order stating that "... meaningful participation in the ad-ministrative proceeding by,. plaintiffs has been precluded by the limited -
discovery period." 7;,
jj
.' Neither the newh instituted licensing panel nor you have presented an explanation as to why the licensing' process in this' case must be expedited.
il
{
The~ inescapable inference created by your intervention is that you agree with '
LICCO's contention in its Supplemental Motion that its financial difficulties constitute a sufficient reason to shorteircuit the review of issues relevant to.public health and safety.
.' Q, i a
a
. .. . - - . .. == -
= = = v--
1 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman ,
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Page 2 .
i '
, I I
Because it would have been highly inappropriate for you to have t determined LILCO's request for an expedited hearing process to be
' l meretorius prior to hearing from all parties, your actions--iraciuding j your April 4,1984 cemorandum to the other Comissioners that circulated 1 a draft ordnr that would have interfered even more directly wihth the I licensing process-foster the gravest concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the licensing process, in general, and the expedited l format in particular. i 1
We do not claim to be experts on the complicated engineering and i procedural !ssues involved here. One thing we do know with greeat faith .
i !
is that the people of Long Island are fearful that the significantly l l
altered licensing process now in effect for Shoreham will not serve their (
best interest in terms of safety. NRC's credibility has been severely '
damaged. We hold this view knowing that the Comission has aggparently i
decided to take action to introduce a more reasonable time scheedule into l the hearing process. This does not alter the previous actions that !
transpired evidently at your direction. That chain of events tresulting l in the speed up of LILCO's request for a low power license aree just too !
fortuitous to be regarded as mere coincidences. Hence, we wonild re u 1
that you provide us with a detailed explanation of why you shmuld o l recused from any further discussion making role in the licens1:ng of j l Shoreham.
l l
Sincerely, l l
, THOMAS J. DOWNEY ROBERT J. MmAZEX -
Member of Congress Member of Comgress cc: Honorable Morris K. Udall House of Representatiyes .
E g 4 9 e
4 0 .
(h ' '
?
. N
7
+
.. t >
.i I . 1 en ia mi=
I UNITED STATES OF A}$RICA
- _
- )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FMISSION
' ,' 1
' In~the Matter of )
j-
) i LONG ISLAND LIGHTIlG COMPANY ) D eket No. (s) 50-322 0L-4 g
) .
~2 ! l
)
1 (Shoreham Unit 1) ) *
!lll5 :
). -
NI 555 ;
) g a
) E'
, .L=
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THE I
' gg4 'l
'I I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s)Y 555: 'l .
upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by =: !
E the Office of the Secretary of the Coraission in this: proceeding in ,
' accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CTR Part 2 - .@
g""ig"g ..
Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
mg.
=:3.- ,
3=
E55i SM.Mai - l 9
a==
4:;&.ar.&
7"*??'"
D.C. this F.25 )
DatedatWashington,/}kl4 M day of = i 1p .
N.=..
7 3u t
I u,ua .
i : iMF W !l5 Ef Ak($) 1
~
Of fife /cT the Secietary of the Comaission h2 cyn:.u \
y::. .=
t"=2 s
t ESSIl J wuau -
b&ri *+
n=.'=u tu:u:
- g .
i.Ei5;
.n hk l- v;;arw s;e;.=,:n,3
- su,;auann ..
I
- ' 22.1;".1233'8 !
,s F4titJuh,; .. [
' 5
,e.3:n
~
' ti.K2
?!! ==.
er 'm d
- l'..,
W.
w.+ .a .
- - . x- . . . - .. - ..- _ -.-, .-.,. . . . -
~
a -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
In the Matter of ) -
i ) ,
) Doc'.et No. 50-322 OL-4 LONG ISUUID LIGHTING COMPANY '
I
) (Low power) '
- (Shorehass. Unit 1) ) ,,,
31 SERVICE LIST .
}
)
Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller ('afreneCo npher Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, -
)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher & Phillips 4i Washingtom. D. C. 20555 1900 M Street, N.W.0036 8th Floor !l Washington, D.C. 2 :) i Mr. Glenns 0. Bright -
l i Atomic Sa.fety a d Licensing Board - Ralph Shapiro, Esq. 'i i
U. S NucGear Regulatory Commission Cammer and Shapiro, P.C. '
i Washingtom. D. C. 20555 9 East 40th Street -
{
New York, New York 10016 Ms. Eliza:beth B. Johnson #
l Oak Ridge National Laboratory Honorable Peter Cohalan l
-P. 0. Box X Building 3500 Suffolk County Executive '
. Oak Ridge Tennessee 37830 County Executive / Legislative Building . !
- Counsel flor NRC Staff Veteran's tiomorial Highway Office of the Executive Legal Director Hauppauge, New York 11788 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.l ~
Washington, D. C. 20555 Stephen Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham and Shea W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. P. O. Box 398 1 1 Hunton and Williams Riverhead, New York 11901 <
700 East Main Street : i
, Richmond, Virginia 23212 - t Jeffrey L. Futter, Esq. 1 Long Island Lighting Company '
l 250 Old Country Road ;
Mineola, New York 11501 !
Mr. Martin Suuberg 1 Long Island Lighting Company 4 c/o Congressman William Carney ATTN: Andrew W. Wofford 1113 Longworth House Office Building Vice President Washington, D. C. 20515 175 East 'Old Country Road 1 Hicksville, New York 11801 T. S. Ellis, III, Esq. ,
Donald P. Irwin, Esq. j Energy Research Group, Inc. Hunton and Williams q. . '
400-1 Totten Pond Road P. O. Box 1535 Waltham. Massachusetts 02154 . Richmond, Virginia 23212 ;,'
My 1
. 9; '!
{
. - _ . - _ . _ . _ . _ _ ._. __ . . ._ r m Board and Parties Continued: 50-322 OL-4 (Low Power)
Fabian Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor
! r i Executive Chamber Room 229 ~
State Capitol
- Albany, New York 12224 Christopher M. McMurray
- Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Chr-istopher arid PMllips Suffolk County Attorney '
1900 ft Street, N. W. H. Lee Dennison Building Washington, D. C. 20036 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 '
Mr. Brian McCaffrey
, Long Island Lighting Company Ms. Nora Bredes
- 175 East Old Country Road Executive Coordinator - SOC
- Hicksville, New York 11801 195 East Main Street .:
Smithtown, New York 11787 ,]
James Dougherty, Esgi .
i 3045 Porter Street, N. W. I,
'i Washington D. C. 20008 ,
f m
'.j s .
iNb
^, .* .i 4] 1
. :s >
4 4
m= --
7 ._ ,
h . ' (.^\ ^ %
. )47
/
APR 3 01984' .
Docket No. 50-322-OL_1 Y :- ;t Mr. Pete allely, Vice President OPEN, INC.
d ;
P.O. Box 673 4 Shoreham, NY 11786 d
Dear Mr. Vallely:
o This is in response to your April 13, 1984 letter to Chairman Philadino transmitting the position paper and analysis of OPEN, INC. on the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Because Chairman Palladino may ultimately be required to review the decision of the Licensing Board in the 4 Shoreham proceeding, it would be inappropriate for him to consider the j information you have submitted. However, you may wish to4orward your papers i to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing this matter with a request <
that they be incorporated into the 'public appearance files of the Shoreham .a' proceedi.ngs . ..
Sincerely, f
. S e Edwin J. R is -
Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel DISTRIBUTION E.Reis/B.Bordenick L.Dewey/R. Goddard R.Perlis/L. Mcdonald /R.Rawson E.Christenbury i J.Murray i J.Scinto G.Cunningham OELD FF (2) (w/ incoming)
C.Petrone, Res. Inspector J.Gutierrez, RI A.Schwencer,144/R.Caruso,144 W.Dircks,MNBB 6209 R.DeYoung,EW-359 H.Denton,P-428 T.Murley,RI ,
F00 Control 814360 - 1 it -d E.Reis Chron (2) DS07 75 DFC :0 ELD :0 ELD gg : LD , ':EL a p. :EDO . : :
.....:..._____.....:....-, .....:.. s. . . . _ _ _ : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . _ . : . . . . . . . .
NAME :EReis:1b :EChristenbury JM ....f___:GC y ningham : : :: 3 d
.....:............:........____:.__. .. .a -s.-- ......:............:...__.......:........... 3 DATE :04/ /84 :04/.14/84 : 4/ /f>4 10'4/10'34 : : : _
m (h&
(f A
{ . .i M s t a u - AV- . .
^^
' 3 ^' /d 0
I COUNTY OF 5UFFOLK i
~
G eewe w. co u.a**
eu,m.m cow ,rv s ascurw a
'84 m y p p 9-
, 9: 1
].:
L 1
omca or TMs couarry ruset.mve .
<...= ~. . .
1 . e.. .,ny re . o *"
om. ; .. g l April 27, 1984 l
.[' A
- . i l
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman -
Commissioner Victor 0111nsky *'i i.)
" ~
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts ?li,5 Commisstoner James.R. Asseletine ,1 Commissioner Frederick M. Sernthal -3"'
U.S. Nuclose Requ1 story Commission 1717 M Street, N.E 6' NN Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
'd -
Dest Chairman and Commissioners .
On April 11, the Buffc!k County Rgecutive wrote to the d Chairean requesting, assong other . things, that the Comis- - 2 sien promptly take action to diseetshlich the 1,1 censing - d ,
Board convened to hear LILCO's Supplemental Motion for i Iow power liconee. The Chairman has not responded,- and in the interia the United States District Court .has acted at '
the request of Suffolk county andLNew ifork State to re-~ 4; strain the NRC from pre:,eeding with the . unconstitutional hearing schedule which that I.icensing soard - Amposed. h County is again asking that the Coassission.'imediately a:- '
to disestablish that Licensing Board or, if not, to giw g clear reasons why the Commission believes in the presene O circumstances it serves the public iritecent to have th ei 9 t Licensing Board cor.tinue to presid's.
Second, in view of the improper personn 1.we P/ean s j of the Chairmen and Judge Cotter that preceded 1M se:12-4 1 of Judges Miller, Bright, and Johnson, Seff m - ~
neteev requests that the Commissioners, o n e r- .
j j
Cnalemen, promptly meet and vote to disqualify Merw-l Palladino, Judge Cotter, and Judges Miller, 9r --*
Johnson from participating in any Shoreha.~-r714eed {
mttern. 5 4.
.s , ' s 3,- 1 W^ ^rGu i u ~ 8 4 0DN /s PDR ADOCK 05000322 =
P ,%
b
. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e 0.u.
,r n . .s ,w ., * ' ' 'y#.
NE, sea see'am m y e s fee - ij ; 4 7 g5 ,
I e
.V .. .n...~, --....a .. ,
};gg cmne- ww w .
'* , l
) (' \
- 1
' I q
- , 3 I
h Pag'e 2 i t .1 il i April '7, 1984 In the alternative, we ask that each of such named irdivid- i%)
p uala voluntarily act to recuse himself or herself fer s.;c" I participation. As a follow-up to this request, on whleh p i
the county urgec prompt Comission action, the County's t.
econsel have been instructed to serve on the named indiv td-
)
uals additional formal papers.
T. ,-l O
Pinelly, the Commission's order of yesterday of ternx- i directed the County to appear before Judges Miller, Bright,
- .j l klf and Johnson concerning the estabilahment of a new hearing schedule. It is entirely inappropriate for those Judgme, Ah who are Defendants in the District Court action and pre- M$ ) !
l nontly under an order of restraint, to be intolved in a 'e ,~ g l
t conference of the parties to resolve questions related - fp that litigation. Accordingly, the County asks that you g:
delete from your order the direction that. Judges Hiller, -
y%
Bright and Johnnon participate in a conference of the ' ') ,
parties. ' '
.l
" I Again, the county urges in the strongest possible - -
,1) terme that the commission act-promptly on .the county ,
' d, Executive's written request of April Il and the matters raised herein. On two occasions during the past week, the !
Commission has swiftly acted to rneet and issue orders on 1 shoreham-related matters. .We. ask_ for similar peoreptness g.
here. .
p
' :Jj 9
.1ncerely yours, a
/7A6 [ I F'ednk R. Jonee( /
Dtputy Ocunty Txecn re.
f 9M/tk cet Judges, Cotter, Miller, Bright and Johnson Service List H
. :t
[
'Uj -
l
-2
.=-
r . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . z.
- ~ *' ' ~
> 0 CUTIVE CHAMBER NEW YORK CITY P'E
'l fj/
h 00lKETEC
) USNRO start or New YORK W APR 27 P2:25 EXECUTIVE CHAM 3ER OFFP4 0F SECht.T/,n PABIAN PALOWNo ALBANY 122:4 '
00CXETING & SERVici ~
se.e l cowmi n in oev.cner BRANCH l
=
a ,
April 27, 1984 I 00CMET NUMBER ~
Honorable Marshall E. Miller, Chairman PROD. & UTIL FAC. NM.b
~
' Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Judge Miller:
l 7.is is in reply to your direction for a conference at 2:00 P.M. in Bethesda, Maryland today.
The State of New York is willing to meet to -
discuss a revised reasonable schedule for preparation and hearing of LILCO's Supplemental Application for'a low power license.
- However, due to the unanticipated and short .
notice of such conference -- I received it in New York City at approximately 10:00 a.m. this morning -- and due to the. fact that I had previously arranged duties, as a representative of New York State, I will not be able to appear at the scheduled 2:00 p.m. cenference in Bethesda. .
Furthermore, the State of New York does not deem it appropriate to have a conference of auch revised schedule before this Board in view of the fact that it is presently challenging the assignment of this Board to conduct the hearing of the,aforesaid Application. In furtherahce of this challenge, ,
j I
9 A
ddl
'h
, # e 4
k yf
e
- i u w c a n .,a,4,- w-. . .. . w. n , , cut *u , ux. a a o C ECUTIVE CHAMBER tGIYORK CITY P.03 Honorable Marshall E. Miller April 27, 1984
- the State of New York intends to request the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to delete from its Order of
, April 26, 1984, any provisions which would allow this '
i I
Board to conduct such conference.
l l
Very truly yours, l
(- -
L Fabian G. P lomino Special Counsel to .
Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York ,
cca Commissioners, NRC Commission Honorable Marshall E. Miller ,
l Honorable Glenn O. Bright i
Honorable Elizabeth B. Johnson J
4 i
a !
4 4
, 4 4
a , , *' i # %
/. ;
A Q
., . , 1 7
Congress of tije Eniteb setateg hou%e at hepit$tntatibt4 EEasfj(ngton,18.C. 20615 l April 27,1984
. l l
l 1
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino ~I
-2 Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1717 H Street, N/W. '
j Washington, D. C. 20555 j
Dear Mr. Chairman:
i As a result of a recent and unusual chain of events at your agency regarding the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, we have examined your l efforts to expedite the low power licensing process for the Shoreham l reactor and are compelled to conclude that you are no longer an )
, impartial adjudicator. ,
j It is apparent that you have made determinations which could have a l substantive impact upon the procedural fairness of this controversy without l the benefit of hearing all sides of the argument. Accordingly, we are I constrained to ask for an explanation from you for why you should not j remove yourself in the future on matters concerning the Shoreham licensing. l proceeding. c !
l Specifically, we are concerned because we understand that you met with l Judge B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chief Administrative Judge of the NRC's Atomic l Safety and Licensing Board, on March 16, 1984 concerning the Shoreham licensing process and subsequently suggested to other NRC Commissioners in a March 20, <
1984 memorandum that this proceeding should be expedited. As you know, a similar request was made by the Long ?.sland Lighting Company. However, <
apparently because of your interest in this case, a new licensing board was I constituted and the hearing process for this case was greatly expedited to I the extent that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has l granted New York's Governor Mario M. Cuomo and Suffolk County a temporary I restraining order stating that "... meaningful participation in the ad-ministrative proceeding by plaintiffs has been precluded by the limited discovery period."
Neither the newly instituted licensing panel nor you have presented an explanation as to why the licensing process in this case must be expedited.
The inescapable inference created by your intervention is that you agree with LILCO's contention in its Supplemental Motion that its financial difficulties constitute a sufficient reason to shorteircuit the review of issues relevant to public health and safety. ,
s 0 a. :
M SPf
e T *% ,a =m . y
- l l
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino l Chairman l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 61
!l i
l Because it would have been highly inappropriate for you to have -
),
determined LILCO's request for an expedited hearing process to be
, meretorius prior to hearing from all parties, your actions--including your April 4,1984 memorandum to the other Comissioners that circulated ,
a draft order that would have interfered even more directly with the licensing process-foster the gravest concerns about the fairness and ,.
impartiality of the licensing process, in general, and the expedited, l
format in particular. j
.We do not claim to be experts on the complicated engineering and procedural issues involved here. One thing we do know with great faith l 1s that the pecple of Long Island are fearful that the significantly 1 altered licensing process now in effect for Shoreham will not serve their best interest in terms of safety. NRC's credibility has been severely >
J damaged. We hold this view knowing that the Commission has apparently I decided to take action to introduce a more reasonable time schedule into the hearing process. This does not alter the previous actions that j
, transpired evideltly at your direction. That chain of events resulting 1
. in the speed up cr' LILCO's request for a' low power license are just too i
, fortuitous to be regarded as mere coincidences. Hence, we would request that you provide us with a detailed explanation of why you shouldAe y' recused from any further discussion making role in the licensing of Shoreham.
4 Sincerely, [ l 4 Wm f m% i l; v ;
- t s'k ROBERT Ji MRAZEK ?) , ~
NHOMASJ.00WNEW Member of Congress i Member of Congress 3.
cc: Honorable Morris K. Udall House of Representatives 1
4 i
/
9~9
~.,
a
- y. .
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
Page 2
.q a
Because it would have been highly inappropriate for you to have determined LILCO's request for an expedited hearing process to be meretorius prior to hearing from all parties, your actions--including .'
your April 4,1984 memorandum to the other Comissioners that circulated a draft order that would have interfe}ed even more directly with the licensing process-foster the gravest concerns about the fairness and .
impartiality of the licensing process, in general, and the expedited format in particular. '
We do not claim to be experts on the complicated engineering and procedural issues involved here. One thing we do blow with great fa i is that the" people of Long Island are fearful that the significantlyith. , ,
' i altered licensirg process now in effect for Shoreham will not serve their.
best interest in terms of safety. NRC's credibility has been severely ,
damaged. We hold this view knowing that the Comission has apparently -
5 decided the hearing to process.
take action to introduce a more reasonable time schedule into This does not alter the previous actions that transpired evidently at your direction. That chafa of events resulting i l
in the speed up of LILCO's request for a low power license are just too fortuitous to be regarded as mere coincidences. Hence, we would re u l that you provide us with a detailed explanation of why you should o e l
recused from any further discussion making role in f.he licensing of Shoreham. j i j Sincerely, l
I i
. THOMAS J. DOWNEY ROBERT J. MRAZEX -
Member of Congress Member of Congress cc: Honorable Morris K. Udall House of Representatives 1
I I
~
j
+v.
j '
[
(b, k.,
a . (,.
l c
. EORGE EDWARD BEATTY,JR., A.I.A., ARCHITECT e 32 COURT STREET, SROOKLYN, N.Y.11201212 TR.5 0974 l /
WARDENCuf7 ROAD,SHOREHAM, L l.,N.Y.11786 516 SH.4 3817
.s; April 25, 1984 Victor Glinsky N NRC Conunissioner i Matomic Building 1717 H Street, N.W. i Washington, DC 20.555 .
l
Dear Mr. Glinsky:
The statius of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is a matter of I utmost urgency for both my own community of_Shoreham and for the
- entire Long Island area as well. ;r
.. s I am convinced that the plant has been built and can be operated '
within acceptable safety limits. I believe the current battle over evacuation plat is more jurisdictional and politi>ul than
- substantive. It is my firm belief that responsible agents of local, state and federal government have an obligation to join forces to resolve this issue.
I am confident that I am in accord with most reasonable L ng
, Islanders who view the abandonment of the Shoreham Plant.and the- l
'4
' bankruptcy of LILCO as the height of fol*1y. I urge you lend your .
very best efforts to bring this facility on-line safely and quickly. .
Very truly yours., ,
y %. '
"' \ .
4 . ._
=
Geo[ge'EdwardBeatuy,Jr.
GEBJr/slw a
i
, i I:
. r 3
'. .[
. c v -
k .~\ ' h ' bl ~ q y,
y J~ c
s
, anNtfy amm cmoassa
/ ,
J., STONLEY $cOvtLLE lQ I l
- $7AFP DHECTOR
, ACDS K UOOLL. AAC CHAOMAN ANO COUNSEL PHILup tu r70N. CAuf. u4Must LuJan, an., n ,ax. ACY JONES
, R . = u"e" # =a""M"E a cau,. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR ^ " " ' " ^ " " "
bY~,'AE'~ EMc, I. .
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS TE^cksn Con ei E E U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES YeduNcNsn ex n y an.gyran WASHINGTON, D.C. 20615
%J" E'"r'JA cu 'u"a"
. ". vocOcu. u. 'i "J/f"Jf.',c',,'
o April 24, 1984 Ji f0NV COEUel CayF.
EEA"ll* **
M E M %*** I
'0".".#J"2"
.un. - '. 'm- 1l u9ni a"tUr*f"fa"ni .I na4ao a u= c.au . ,
i The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuc14 gy Regulatory Commission l 1717 H Street, N.W. -
! Washington, D.C. 20555 i e
Dear Mr. Chairman:
- l
- Your responses to my March 28, 1984 and April 12, 1984 letters ,
t fail to address the issues that I have raised or respond substantively -
to my requests and questions. l
\
l
., Your responses appear to revise history and delete the actual !
! chronology of events in order to suit your own needs. Judge Cotter !
j appointed a new licensing board for Shoreham and suggested that it i expedite the hearing process only after a meeting with you in'which
- he apparently heard you make exactly those suggestions. To insist 3
that such determinations were "his own" is to ignore the obvious issue 3 of propriety and to contribute to the appearance of impropriety. I believe that any appearance of impropriety must be scrupulously avoided and request, in order to further this goal, that you supply the Subcom-mittee with a more complete explanation that resolves all known facts.
i In your April 23, 1984 letter, you state that you did not propose that the Commission adopt an order that would expedite the Shoreham licensing hearings. But why then did you circulate such an order on April 4, 1984, and, at whose request was that order drafted? I cannot answer these questions because you and your staff have refused to provide the dccuments necessary for me to make an independent evaluation that I have previously requested.
I hope and expect that my request for certain documents will be fulfilled upon receipt of this letter. Additionally, I request that 3 the Subcommittee be provided immediately with a copy of the transcript from yesterday's closed Commission meeting on the Shoreham proceeding. zI S' cerely,
/fA IL P d J .M " . \
. Chairman, Subcomm tee on .c y l Oversight and Inv tigations .
EJM/rau k '{ C&W If .
l
1 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS' ' V '
p., .r., g I egy g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g.v] .
_ ] ,
Apri1~23, 1984 I
The Honorable Edward'Markey', Chairman Il Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations :i l
. Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs . - - - l 1 United States House of Representativ.es'
.- t '
~ '
-' Washington, DC 20515 - '-
,,, q
, Dear Chairman.Markey- ' '
N'. l
' 1 I am ' responding tb'.your letter of April 12, 1984 which, . ;
among.other things, requested that I. reconsider recusing .
l myself from voting on either the low-power or full-power ;
license for Shoreham. I am sending this letter to you. this j morning because the Commission is scheduled.to meet on the ,
Shoreham proceeding. .
I As I stated in my April 5, 1984 letter to you on this '. 3 matter, I have not prejudged the merits of LILCO's '
Supplemental Motion of March 20, 1984 or. any other issue in -
the Shoreham proceeding. Nothing in your April 12 letter causes me to reverse my intention to participate fully in l the Shoreham case. . . . . . . ,,
,W ith regard to other matters in your letters of March 28 ~
i and April 12, let me say at the outset that my. statements on licensing delays were intended to refer to un~ warranted-licensing delays. In this regard, I was reassured to note !
your statement that you understand my concern about _;
unnecessary licensing delays. -
By way of backgr.ound, on March 9, 1984, the EDO notified the Commission of significant potential licensing delays for the Shoreham and Limerick plants. Specifically,-the
. EDO indicated potential delays of 14 months for:these two' ..
plants, whereas our January 25, 1984 report to Congress had forecast a total delay of only 7 months, all for Limerick.
Subsequently, based on information provided by the staff, it became clear to me that delays for other plants were (
also possible, and I informed the Commission of the ge'neral circumstances in my memorandum of March 20, 1984 3 Over the last several years, Congress has indicated its J concern about unwarranted delay. For example, in its report on the NRC Appropriation for FY'1981, the House ;
Appropriations Committee directed the Commission to provide a m'onthly report to the Congress on the status of licensing j
proceedings. H.Rept. No. 96-1093, 96th.Cong., 2d Sess., .
d-Nd x
M wtter240 Ol' ,
_ _ _ . . -. ~ .
,. r ,,s. . s
- , ' a, 2
146-47 (1980). 'The history of this requirement makes clear the Committee's concern over licensing delay. Another i example is the temporary operating license authority in the .
Commission's Authorization'for.FY 1982-83 in which the -
' Congress directed the Commission to adopt administrative :
measures to minimize the nied to-use-that authority. Pub.. l Law 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067, i 11 (1983). It is clear to me I that the intent of this Co'ngressional -instruction was that ,
l the Commission should address administrative 1y the matter - !
of unwarranted ifcepsing delay in. specific cases.
The ' Commission's Policy ind P1anning Guidince :itio- ,
addresses the matter of del.ay in the licensing procers'.-- It -
provides that " actions .should continue to be talen-to .r eliminate unwarranted dilay in r.eaching decisient. ,
consistent with not compromising : safety." ..As . Chair.m. . . .an,:it
.is my responsibility to take steps to carry out that guidance. My memorandum of March'20, 1984 was intended to -
9(
bring :the .Commissid.n rt6. grips :with :the- issye .of pass'tble
- i
, delay-in particular casesi .I . recognize th'at:heaftng ,-
schedules':mQst:be cons ~is. tent with.the rtghts of.:-the ipacties to pfesent .thete:c'aiesi . ::- ; n . cur Asr . II letter d
- -- :: =.1 :: , i . . .: . : r. .: 22 :!:';1 a "u'~p in Asifor your comments regarding the appointment. of, a separate Shoreham licensing board, Judge Cotter . Chairman ',-
of:the .NRC .Atomte:.Srfetytand Etcpustng : Bated Rane'1, ;h :
info rme d . mf :o f fice r ab ef gre tmaking utbe ta ppatn tme nt; -that tthe decisioniwas hii:own and thatrtts hastsdwes tthe ew-: t .:ei- -
' questidnable ayallability:of :thedprdexisttng: bared't: nc e personne14 di have been.in'feemedithet :two ef, thecthree __.
members of;the:preexistingynon-emergency planning board are preparing for extensive hearings in the Limerick case.) I bove no reason -to" question : Judge ,C6tter's authdettyide e f judgement on:this' mattert:: . : i .: -
' t :: .: .; :3*sy:
^
. Eith regard to$your'[ comments about'.3y .Apri1' 4,11984$ -
memorandum and:the appended draft. order, let .me : clarify '-d that I have not proposed'that the Commission a'dopt the- ,
6rder, although I did-1ater cast.my; vote for.an ,optten ,
similar to this in response to the-Office of the-General Counsel's list of options. I believed the. Commissioners'..
should have the order as background material for their -
consideration of OGC's memorandum of April 2, 1984. In any {
event, it'would have been inappropriate for me to keep the i draft order from the other Commissioners. '
i J
i
^)
.d i
. _ _ . __ _. - -- , . .. . . . - .c
- t. 'e . .
,5 .
S
- i. . , . :. .
3 l -
~
Additional matters raised in your lettirs will .br respohded
- j to as soon as possible.- .
..i
- }
Sincerely, e
gg i, l
. x .
Nunzio.J. Pal.ladino .
'~
Sc: " Rep. Ron Marlehee. - - -
. '. . '. . . s 7
- .i u1
. ..,l
}
i e
1 a
1
)
I i
- I i .!
- .l
-l 4
. 1' i 1 A
} \
}
li i
~
T l'
. . ' ,; <'l
'.;si
... j . :!
'l . l 1 j
67
~
5~~ COUNTY OF' SUFFOLK cc A'. 7 """:'m ,;,ggg.gffff
- PR0;. L UT" ?!. -- * **
v.
- 00CKETEC U.3HFC APR 161984 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXbuhE12 P2
- 14 PETER F. CoHALAN f,ri' ..' p* 3 - (,, , : yJoa" C. GAU.AGHER surrotx couNvv execurtva ;gg,; 3,,,g, ., ,,
W rosrury ,
2.U NCH April 11, 1984 s D [t P C 1,, ,.
~
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
, f-1,,D,..g ,, Q **""
b -
1717 H Street, N.W. F..C ~w
- *j ' " - ' -
Room 1114 Washington, D.C. 20036
.l ,
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing on Suffolk County's behalf to object to your ,
recent personal intervention in the Shoreham licensing proceeding and to ask that you and your colleagues take prompt action to remedy the procedural irrecularities which your intervention produced.
By memorandum to your colleagues dated March 20, you characterized the Shoreharn- proceeding as experiencing alicensing delays" and proposed an " expedited. hearing" so that "a. low power decision might be possible" for LILCO on an expedited basis.
Your memorandum followed press reports of a meeting that you'had with LILCO's Board Chairman and stated that you had discussed Shoreham's " licensing delays" on March 16 with certain NRC staff personnel, including " Tony Cotter." Mr. Cotter, who is the NRC's Chief Administrative Judge, and the NRC's.other Judges sit as adjudicators in contested licensing proceedings such as Shoreham.
They are, by law, required to be impartial in their judgments and free from the undue influence of anyone, including the members and chairman of the NRC. ,
On March 30, Mr. Cotter issued an unanticipated order which precipitously changed the Licensing Board Judges who would consider LILCO's request for a low power license. On the same day, these new Judges issued a' separate order which mandated that they.would decide LILCO's low power license request on an
" expedited basis." Neither the previous Licensing Board which had heard and rejected LILCO's low power license request on February 22, nor Mr. Cotter, . nor any- other NRC Judge had ever suagested the need to " expedite" the Shoreham proceeding.
>d
,a
',, ' ' i';
+ : .i l VETERANS MEheORIAL MIGMW AY ,S. MAypps42.N.Y.t1TSS e (51Sl390 4000 .
- ~
4 l .
N' On April 4, the new Judges convened an " oral argument" of counsel. Two days later, the Judges " expedited" consideration of LILCO's low power license request in the fashion of an entirely new form of proceeding: a so-called " limited evidentiary hearing on an expedited basis." The Board's " expedited basis" turned out to mean the flat rejection of every significant legal and procedural request of Suffolk County and a mockery of due process. The " limited evidentiary hearing" turned out to mean crippling the County's ability to prepare and present a meaningful substantive case so thoroughly that it was tantamount to barring the County from being heard on the merits. (In this light, it is inconsequential that the Board went even farther by stating that it could have probably ruled on LILCO's low power license request with no hearings at all.)
Adding insult to the county's injury, the Board ounctuated its order with the statement (contrary to the explicit representations of Suffolk County and New York State) that the
" expedited schedule will not prejudice any party to this proceeding." Seen in this context, the Board's order was a tribute to the power of your office as Chairman to influence the ,
purportedly impartial decisionmaking of the Licensing Board.
The effects of your personal involvement in Shoreham, Mr. Chairman, did not end with the Licensing Board's abusive procedural ruling. They tainted the NRC Staff as well. From January 26 through April 3, the Staff, and Messrs. Denton and Eisenhut particularly, publicly repeated their position that Shoreham would not be permitted to operate, even at low power, until the " serious problems" (as Mr. Denton put it) with the Transamerica Delaval emergency diesels were resolved. On April 4, as part of the " expedited basis"-juggernut that you had set running in March, the Staff unexpectedly reversed itself. At that time, the Staff announced to the Licensing Board that not only did it now support low power operation of Shoreham with the defective Transamerica Delaval diesels, but with no onsite emergency power system whatsoever. The Staff went so far as to read the Commission's regulations, which explicitly require onsite emergency power and have always been interpreted by the NRC to mean just that, out of existence. Then, in keeping with the spirit of its other rulings, the Licensing Board bought the Staff's arguments one hundred per cent.
Mr. Chairman, the inevitable inference to be drawn from these events is that your meeting with LILCO's Board Chairman, your expression of interest to " expedite" the Shoreham proceeding when meeting with Mr. Cotter and the NRC Staff on March 16, and your March 20 memorandum proposing " expedited" treatment of LILCO's low power license request signalled the Licensing Board Judges and the Staff to shift gears; they were now to rush -
forward and issue a low power license for Shoreham, despite the g
- y. -
effect this would have on the concerns for safety expressed by Suffolk County and New York State. The Licensing Board and Staff, in turn, took your signal as a marching order. And, without any justification, they " expedited" the Shoreham proceeding so f aithfully that the Board is now poised to issue a low power license for shoreham while significant safety issues, such as the following, remain outstanding:
(1) There is no qualified onsite emergency power source at Shoreham, as required expressly by NRC regulations, becaus3 the installed Transamerica Delaval diesels are defective (the new replacement diesels which LILCO has ordered will not be ready for operation until late 1985);
(2) LILCO is financially unqualified to operate Shoreham, because the company is teetering on bankruptcy and the New York Public Service Commissioin Staff has, following a year-long investigation, recommended that no more than $2.2 billion of the
" grossly mismanaged" $4.1 billion Shoreham project be permitted into LILCO's rate base; (3) LILCO is organizationally unqualified to manage and direct operations of Shoreham, because the company's upper management is known, by the NRC itself, to lack requisite experience in nuclear power management; (4) LILCO is technically unqualified to operate Shoreham, because the company does not have the requisite licensed operators with BWR operating experience; (5) There is no offsite emergency preparedness for Shoreham, and no reasonable basis to assume there ever will be; ,
(6) Both Suffolk County and the State of New York oppose issuance of a low power license on safety and economic grounds (issuance of a low power license would prejudice these interests).
The stark fact, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no justification for the NRC even to consider issuance of a low power license at this juncture, let alone to rush the proceeding forward with the present public-be-damned spirit. Shoreham's electricity 10 years.
-- by LILCO's own admission -- will not be needed for Why then rush forward with action which prejudices the public interest for the sake of licensing an unsafe, unneeded, uneconomical, and unwanted plant?
i
i
- m. ,
The answer is that you, followed by the Staff and the Licensing Board, have sought to aid LILCO's efforts to gain access to Wall Street money markets. Although this objective lies beyond the NRC's proper health and safety jurisdiction, there is unfortunately recent precedent for such an abuse. On March _16, FEMA admitted using its regulatory authority in the Shoreham proceeding for the purpose of seeking to give LILCO
" breathing space with Wall Street."
The only interest that the NRC should have in LILCO's financial health, Mr. Ch airman , is whether and how the company's '-
financial frailties might cause it to cut corners on safety. The .
recent statements of LILCO's Board Chairman that the company has "four months left" and that "the plant will have to be abandoned" unless the NRC and FEMA use some undefined " power" are testimony to the company's financial illness. So is the continuing downgrading of LILCO's securities and the $2.2 billion cap on Shoreham's costs which the Public Service Commission Staff has proposed as LILCO's recovery for the $4 billion Shoreham plant.
(The PSC Staff found that the remaining costs for Shoreham were
" imprudently" incurred by LILCO because the company had " grossly mismanaged" the Shoreham project.)
In light of the company's financial instablility, the NRC, for example, should want to know whether LILCO will be able to ,
attract and retain qualified nuclear management and operators for Shoreham. Similarly, the NRC should inquire whether LILCO's proposal to operate Shoreham without a qualified onsite emergency power system is caused by the company's financial inability to wait for the installation of new diesel generators in late 1985.
The NRC should not be using the power of its federal authority to force the Shoreham plant at hell-bent speed on the local and State governments which' oppose it on substantive safety grounds.
That is a denial of due process. Yet, that is just what the NRC, with your personal encouragement, has done here.
Mr. Chairman, your actions have unfortunately converted the Shoreham proceeding into a forum where the accommodation of LILCO's financial interests, as LILCO perceives those interests, is the paramount objective. The Licensing Board and Staff, in shaping the way they exercise their own responsibilities, have loyally followed your lead by ghving LILCO's financial interests priority over the public's health and safety. If the Shoreham proceeding is ever to possess integrity as an adjudication in which public safety issues are addressed fairly, you must personally act to rectify the pro.cedural abuses which your earlier personal involvement produced. On behalf of Suffolk County, I therefore request you and your fellow Commissioners: ,
l
- s l
. '
~~
- l
- s. ,
l l 1 (1) Take the necessary action to disestablish the Licensing Board that has abused due process and issued unfounded , orders to " expedite" with artificially " limited evidentiary :) ' hearings" LILCO's low power license request; (2) Issue an order to the Staff and to the Licensing Board i Panel that the Shoreham proceedings, including any proceeding on i LILCO's low power license request, should not be exped.ited except , ' I on a showing by LILCO of good cause and sp'ecial circumstances that are within the purview of the NRC's health and safety ., jurisdiction; and that in no event should expedition, if any, of I this proceeding bar a party from developing and making a meaningful presentation of its case on the merits; and -
- l (3) Reply promptly to this letter so that all affected $l parties can know precisely where their interests stand.
]
The County awaits your early reply so that, one way or . jl another, this unfortunate situation can be remedied. 1 1 Sincerely yours, M PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE - cc: Governor Cuomo Commissioner Gilinsky ! Commissioner Roberts l' Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal PFC/ps j ,
- f. :
# ;.4 M
~
A '
- QM.
SMi Mn 55s _. Mi5! J;.1
,:.65 :
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N w.- In the Matter of ) $n u
) _.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANT ) Docket No. (s) 50-32[ dt-M E
)
) -!
(Shoreham Unit 1) .
) . .
smua&aa -
) ==1
) 15 5 !
,, e i e- """.""_ ;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 'ou.uu,. l Statua&st - . I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) == : ___ 4 upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by """"' the Office of the Secretary of the Coc=1ssion in this proceeding in [ accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - .. Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and 3._ Regulations. 4-
=i Sul2W&W irruars ie"= l auuuns i
* $4uam W8 Dated at Washington, D.C. this I" ~ .
[b -$ day of J geg 1 , 5"" l j (/ *l
==
\
l
- aar n=r. ;
Y& l- " Offics 6f the Secretary of the fo= mission !!!!!![.)
)555 pmmm:
.m_,.
&bNI IE.55 l a: .w.
8 . liuuuuu ; g....=
%"M.
Ed w.:.=.:. . M... .G. < wtamm
, f555 .
F==; r .=;
+ ,
- i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) ,
1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ~ Docket No. 50~-322 OL-4 (Shoreham, Unit 1) ) ,
. SERVICE LIST '
Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller $frn" "bo"Lnher Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher & Phillips Washington, D. C. 20555 1900 M Street, N.W. 8th Floor l Washington, D.C. 2 36 l Mr. Glenn O. Bright ;
/,tomic Safety and. Licensing Board Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Camer and Shapiro P4 . 3
..9; East 40th Street
~
Washington .D. C. 20555, .. - New York, New York 10016 Ms. Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Honorable Peter Cohalant P. O. Box X. Building 3500 Suffolk County Executive - Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 County Executive /Legt.slative
, Building '
Counsel for NRC Staff . ... Veteran's Memorial Highway Office of the Executive Legal Director Hauppauge, New York 11788 '
- A S. .Nuc.1. ear Regu.latory_ Commisston '
Washington, D. C. ~~20555 Stephen Latham, Esq. Twomey, Latham and Shea - W. Taylor Revaley, III, Esq. P. 0; Box 398 Hunton and Williams Riverhead -New York 11901' 700. East Main Street Richmond,~ Virginia 23212 . - - . ...... _ Jeffrey L. Futter Esq. Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road ' Mineola, New York 11501
, Mr. Martin Suuberg Long Island Lighting Company c/o Congressman William Carney AT.TN: Andrew W. Wofford 1113 Longworth House Office Building Vice President Washington, D. C. 20515 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New ' York 11801 T. S. Ellis, III, Esq.
Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Energy Research Group, Inc. Hunton and Williams .., 400-1 Totten Pond Road P. 0.. Box 1535 . l' Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 . Richmond, Virginia 23212 ,J' qg
v: o Board and Parties Continued: 50-322 OL-4 (Low Power) Fabian Palomino, Esq., Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Christopher M. PicMurray . Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Christopher and Phillips Suffolk County Attorney 1900 11 Street, N. '.4. H. Lee Dennison Building Washington, D. C. 20036 Veterans Memorial Highway ' Hauppauge, New York 11788 i Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Ms. Nora Bredes 175 East Old Country Road Executive Coordinator - SOC Hicksville, New York 11801 195 East Main Street - Smithtown, New York 11787 ' James Dougherty, Esq2 , , . 3045 Porter Street,.N. W. ' Washington, D. C. .20008 I
^
l 4 4
. e e
I i 1 1
- i si
~ ~
0 1.
} ,
jf{ ' ' [Rf u%q-& e- UNITED STATES
- i ,' d ) j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 .~ *"e ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4, " ' U W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 .b C-
d8
. '84 APR 12 pg 39 April 11,1984. ,
l' i -5!CM o
" .; g - < -
SE3vED ( n ,?! " - ' mLi '. ., FOR: Docketing and Services Branch < FROM: James A. Laurenson ' Administrative Law Judge v / (O l
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM/ EMERGENCY PLANNING DOCKET N0. 50-322-OL-3 SERVICE LIST Please serve the enclosed letter dated April 2, 1984 to Judge Laurenson from Robert L. LaBua, a Suffolk County Legislator, upon all the parties.
. Enclosure
[ i;
'. . y COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
- fh f Wh. t td l l
~
COUNTY LEGISLATURE F;OIERT L. LA BUA 333 LARxFiELO ROAD l LEGtELATOR. I STM DISTRICT E AST NCRTHPORT, N. Y, t 1731 i (S I GI 3 68-5100 LEGISLATIVE & PER'80NNEL COMMITTEE
,,,,,, ApriC 2, 1984.
PUTLIC WORKS CosemiTTEE FINANCE & INSUR ANCE COMMgTTEE , EDUCATION & YOU"N COMMITTEE . PA;1MS. RECREATICN & CULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE .I TRAN TAT ON E NOMIC DEVELOPMENT HUM AN SERVICES COMMITTEE ( Judge James A. Laurenson, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, - U.S, Nuclear Regata. tory Commission, Eas.t-Web.t Tower, Room 402A, ',, 4350 Eas.t-Wes.t Highway, , Bethesda, Maryland 20614. i
Dear Judge Laurenson:
Ab one of 18 Suffolk County Legislators who received.a copy of . Comptrotter Joseph R. Caputo's letter to you dated February 28, 1984, I felt some comments were in o.tder.
- Mr. Capu.to 's sta.tement "tha.t no.t att elected o f ficials o f Suf f olk Coun.ty oppose .the operation o f Shoreham", .is accurate. To my knowledge, there are only two (2) elected officials, including Mr. Caputo, in county
,* government who s ha.te this view. The vas.t majority o f us who have^ par-(' ticipated in coun.ttess houts of public hearings , are. opposed to Shoreham's operation. Anyone who travets Long Island's highway sys. tem knows eas t-west evacuation would be impossible. These main . traffic arteries cannot even adequately handte normal rus h hour .traf fic. Mr. Caputo s.ta.tes the plan.t can operate safety. By what au.thority can he make such a guaran. tee. LILCO h. ired a consattant to inspec.t critical s af e.ty s ys.tems at Shoro. ham. White individual organiza.tions opposed .to Shareham's operation were ques.tionin9 .the adequacy af .the dieset generators, L1LCO put these concerns aside. When the dieset generators were started up, .they literatty felt apart. Is .this an indicat.Lon o f Li LCO 's s af e.ty inspection pro 9. tam ? If so, Lord hetp as! While you are probably not inte. tested .to know, since i.t is no.t wi. thin your realm o f responsib.itity, the cost o f Shoreham has gone from '
$500 mittion to $4. 2 bittion due .to various pro blems, mas.t o f which are r.ot the f aut.t o f the ra.tepayer. If Shoreham is attowed to operate, even .Q on low powe.1, our utility cos.ts will double. This would be an economic s S.f.
Z dis as.t e.t for Long 1 stand's economy. Even more so .than if ~ LILCO had to 'l absorb the construction costs or work out a financial arrangement for some assistance. h U 9C M
l .
- 1
.g.
t
=
s . l 1 will end my Letter at this point, however, I could go on for pages and pages. I felt that responsible professionats, such as yourself,.who are not to be held accountable to the 1. 3 mittion people o f Suf.f olk-Lounty, should be aware of our plight. The opposition to Shoreham by' 17 out of 18 County Legislators is based on reat concerns and is a bipartisan position. , Those who state our opposition to Shoreham is political, are terribly mis- 1 informed and out of touch with "our world". . Very truly yours, 1
/ S RLL/ct Robert L. LaBua, '
Legislator. c.c. Hon. Joseph R. Caputo ALL Suffolk Legislators 4 l l ( a f
. :c k
=,
. E 52 E'
E El
- ==
UlfITED S*.?ATES OF AMERICA g, NUCLEAR PJ GULATORY CO OIISSION G
.=
. ?2 In the Matter of ) 55
) , .=__
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CC '"!27 ) Docket No.(s) 50-322 0L-3 g
) Hit
) El (Shoreham Unit 1) ) E5
) -
$l I
)
Wii 1 , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE y ( 55 , I her by certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) 55 upon v.'.ch person designated on the official service list compiled by EE , the Of fice of the Secretary of the Coccission in this proceeding in = accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2- % Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatcry Cocsission's Rules and
- 55 Regulations. 55 EE '
EE 5
. 5 is 25 D.C. this f5 DatedetJ!cshingten,fdSt
$$ l day of .t f
/, 1f . -
. f E
g E5 I. . E
.E
_, kh/bf I'- . lDl4& h Of fied' df/the Secretary of the Cf .hmission. E5 cir 55 EE YEI E5 tie
==
E m i5f if
- =
r-
=
.M b
. . T w%.
. ,i:-,
M L's.". 7 I
h
~
UNITED STATES 07 ASSRI5 NUCLEAL REGULATORT COMMISSION In the Mqtter of )
) ,
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-3220L-3
)
(Shoreham, Unit 1)
)
)
)
S ERVICI LIST '
. 1 James A. Laurenson, Esq., Chairman Eleanor L. Frucci.,'Esq.
(. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulator'/ Comission Atomic Safety and Licensihg "BWtrPanel , Washington, D.C. 20555 U. 'S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ' Washington, D. Q,. 20555 ! Dr. Jerry R. Kline . Jay Dunkleberger, Esq. . Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy.0ffice ' U.S. Nuclear R.egulatw/ Comission Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Energy Research Group, Inc. { f Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; 400-1 Totten Pond Road d{ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissioq Washington, D.C. Waltha=, Massachusetts 02154
, 20555 .
Gerald C. Crotty, Esq. l Counsei for NP>C Staff Counsel to the Governor lli
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission Executive Chamber State Ca 31tol i Washington, D.C. 20555 ' Albany; lew York' 12224 : ,
t no and '111a$s i Cou sel to the .Governe
~
700 East Main Street Executive Chamber - Richmond, Virginia 2321& Shte 'Cgitol ' p , g pg Jeffrey L. Tutter Esq. }9.3 Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road 1723 Eamilton Avenue, Suite K San Jose, California c5125 Mineola, New York 11501 i s Leng Island Lighting Company .. E
~
ATTN: Andrew W. Hofford Vice President ~ 175 East Old Country Road Eicksv111e, Sev Tork 11801
' Ralph Shapiro, Esq. ~
Car:ner & Shapiro, P.C.
. yl [
9 Iast 40th Street . mtp ; New York, New Terk 10016 ., t b
. m
' f*:
l y . . Y' t -&. '. et 2,. t, .'."-* *. '.
- 2' . . "
? . Bo nr d'nnd ..
eartins
* ' een inuod:
. c.. t . a . 2 < . -
5 0-3 22-0L3
- Mr. Brian McCaffrey
[ ~ . .~ . .
, _.c,._.. Long Island Lighting Conpany
_. .. .: n ,;, 175 East Old Country Road e
*n :: . . . 0 .
Eicksv:Lue, New York 11801
~
JJ . Bonorable Pet'er Cohalan Suffolk County Executive County Executive / Legislative Blgd. Veteran's Memorial Highway Eauppauge, New York 11788 Stephen Latham, Esq. Janes Dougherty, Esq. homey, Lathan & Shea 3G45 Porte: Street, N.W. ( , P.O. Box 398 Washington, D.C. 20008
, P.iverhead, New York 11901 '
Fabian Palomino, Esq.
' Herbert 'R. ~ Brown , Es q. Special Counsel to the Governor ,
1.awr' enc ~e' toe Lanpher, 'Esq. Executive Chamber
.H131,' Christopher & Phillips Room 229 l 1900KStreet,N.W.,8thFloor State Capitol l 4 Washi.ns.. . ton', D. . C.20036 Albany, NY 12224 1
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
~
Suffolk County Attorney
- H. Lee Dennison Building :
- Veterans Memorial Highway Hauopauge, NY 11788
. 'uD a Mr. Hartin Suuberg
~~
c/o Congressman Willie= Carney s Ms. Nora Iredes 1113 longworth House Office Building Executive Cecidinator - SOC Wrshington, D.C. 20515 195 East Xain Street Snithtevn, New Tork 11787 TS Ellis IIT Chris Nolin s Qd 'P3' y.,b"*;' 3 3 , 7 Es 9-
'89* New York State Assembly Energy Commit ee 626 Legislative Office Building P.C. Soz 1535 Albany, New York 12240 Richmond, Va. 23 n2 Alan S uBosenthal, Cbr %
~ . Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccxcission Jonathanb.Feinberg,Esq. Washington, D. C. 20555 New York State Department of Public Service Gary J. Edles Three Rockefeller Plaza Atcznic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Albany, N.Y. 12223 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory m ission Washington, D. C. 20555 f.
Christopher H. McMurray J
' "}q rii .
Kirpatrick, Lockhart, Ff11 Howard A. Wilber ': ; Christopher & Phillips ~Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board . 1900 M Street, N.W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormtission ! Washington, L.C, 20036 - Washington, D. C. 20555 .
p- --
)
1 ).,,. ~ m.,
- y
.j w w /y?< ~ -
,gbo UNITED STATES :
! g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' ! .. ) , ..g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 ; ,=,g,.,---.
"e. RECElVE0 7. . .. . . . , . ~u0 !
*%,,d'/ . ~Tf75'3 95-onmes on rHa '84 APR 17 P12:09 C .: ".;' "" '84 ' A;: -9 P 2 0 5 CCMMtS$10NER
, Acril 9, 1984
^
i PUBLIC 00cJMENT ROOM , ,
... . J e---._,,, . _. ,
; ,. g . , ; ;.
{, 90 ' g . 3 m. m .., * { y :: = = = b. .,, , r. .,ch .., .. - . ge.s;
. . SERVED .L.:., ,, i.gy 1 MEMORAt{DUM FOR SAMUEL J. CHIlX, SECRETARY l
\
.1 Please send the attached memorandum from the General Counsel on " Licensed Reactor Operator Examinations" to the parties .
to the Diablo Canyon and Shoreham operating license y proceedings. I would also like this memorandum to be sent :.? to the parties in the other pending operating license cases, as well.as to the applicants in uncontested operating -
,'j license cases. -
i
.' l l
/
Victor Gilinsky -
. . J l
l
Attachment:
l 4/6/84 OGC Memo ,' l i j
~ '
cc: Chairman Palladino ' Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine ' Commissioner Bernthal , OGC i i l l j l i s 1
, .o a i
S404100-149 1T40409 .
- l
&N M'. .~ '
PDR ADOCK 05000275 ' E-G PDR 'Y
'i [. ,0* 0%g%,
'# UNITED STATES ,
i '1 ,.
^
NUCLE AR R.EGULATORY COMMISSION 3g :..,c.?..4j ;[~ i yr , , f wAsmNoToN, C. C. 20959 e..,---. l
.,, .,;,a j .
l April 6, 1984
'84 AP? -9 o2 :15 l 1
;C"CFJ.NDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilinsky ,,,."..c,,..:
FRCM: "ames A.. Fit::geral - Assistan: General Clnnsel S,0,Q. . . . .; . ,. e.... . . .. . o SUEJECT: LICENSIO RIACTOR OPERATOR EXAMINATIONS , - During the March 30, 1984 Commission briefing on a . .j full-pcwer operating license for WPPSS-2, you raised tne . l question of whether the staff's interpretation of 10 CFR . 5 55.25 (b) is consistent with the terms of that regulation.1 Both during the briefing and in a letter dated April 3, 1984, you sought the views of the General Counsel. The , staff's interpretation as stated in NUREG-0094, in our view, n appears to contradict the plain meaning of the regulation. ,, 10 CFR 'S 5 5. 25 (b) , entitled " Administration of operating test prior to initial criticality," reads: , , The Commission may c.dminister,a simulated operating- ) test to an applicant for a license to operate a reactor', l prior to its initial criticality if a written request / l by an authorized representative of the facility. I licensee is sufficient for the Commission to find'that: 1 (b) The applicant has had extensive actual operating experience at'a comparable reactor. i l In 1976 the Operator Licensing Branch, NRR, issued . l NUPEG-0094, an NRC licensing guide _ entitled "A Guide for the Licensing of Facility Operators, Including Senior Opera- i tors." This guide was designed to revise and replace ~WAS*d
'.1094, the AIC licensing guide. Section XI of NUREG-0094, entitled " Administration of operating Test Prior to Iniuial Criticality," defines what is meant in 5 55.25 (b) by the , ,
term " extensive actual operating experience at a ecmparable reactor." A June 28,.1976 letter from Ben C. Rusche, i Director of NRR, to the Commissioners indicates that one of 1 Tr. 43-45.
Contact:
Carole F. Kagan, CGC ..! X41493 . J~ e4 3464 TOUT 7T 840409 - asjii PDR ADCCK 05000275 . g PDR ,
g - 3
. li. g .
/
- 1 2-
. l
-i
]
J the revisiens made was :c define " extensive actual operating e::perience" :: include "participatien in traiging programs that utilize nuclear pewer plan: simulators."- 4 , C:==issioner Gilinsky pointed out during the March 30,.1934 . C:mmission briefine that '.71s i..terpretation cf 5,55.25 (b) g seems te c,e inconsisten w;:n tne plain meaning c: :ne l regulation, which calls for actual, not simulator, operating i experience.3 Mr. Thompson of NRR explained that the staff ') nad used the NUREG-0094 guidelinks since their premulgation, j and considered s '8 plant operation.gmulator experience adequate to ensure safe , l A brief review of the legislative history of 5 55.25 (b) i yields nothing that would contradict the plain meaning of i the regulation. The Statement of Consideration for the .
's !
promulgation of 5 55.25 states that S 55.25 was added to - ;d Part 55 to provide for the administration of an operating ,,
^ 9 7i test "provided the conditions stated ~in the_section are .
met." 26 Fed. Reg. 9654 -(Oct. 12, 1961). The condition > 4
.f .
stated in. S 55.25 (b) is " actual operating experience" .'! (emphasis added). No provision is made for simulator j experience, equivalent experience, or comparable experience.. j
. 1 A provision similar to S 55.25 (b) is contained in I ~l 5 5 5 ~. 2 4 ( a ) . Under that section, the " extensive actual 4 operating experience," within two years of appli.catibn, can ! '
contribute to the basis for waiver of any or all of the written examinations and operating test. It is interesting , to note that when read in light cf Section X of NUREG-0094 1
'and 5 55.24(b) this phraseology contemplates hands-on l 3 operating experience rather than some substitute. 1
\
. cc: Chairman Palladino !
Commissioner Roberts ~. Com=issioner Asselstine Ccmmissioner Bernthal SECY i i CPE , EDO ELO 2 SECY-76-341, June 28, 1976, Enclosure 1. - 3 Tr. 43-45. - s.-
,Tr. 44-45.
~
s"
. w. e ,
" ~ t : , .,
e 49 l
M "' "', ,.}' , // f
- '3 dans$%,
3 UNITED STATES '" M ' b
. - [ty'yg 3 g ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
;; . .a E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20:03 0 0 f. E,"I'E '.
o% 9% '# u m.= c . 5,, . v .
.,,.. April 9, 1984 CsmuN - .
'84 APR -9 P 6 :03
. MEMORANDUM FOR: :1 -
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary j,,Q.. ....J. .
. .i3.{. "%'.'
, .p.-e-FROM:
y7 - ""n:cp.. .-
...L --
Nunzio J. Palladino j() .
SUBJECT:
LICENSED REACTOR OPERATOR EXAMINATIONS
]
Attached is a copy of a memorandum that I sent to my fellow - Commissioners on April 9,1984 I orally requested that Commissioner Gilinsky defer his plan to send the OGC - memorandum dated April 6, 1984 to a number of parties and applicants until the Commission had more time to research ' the background. However, he. refused. Since Commissioner Gilinsky insisted that his memorandum be served tonight, I want SECY to send this memorandum and its J l attachment along with his memorandum. .,
Attachment:
Memo to Comm fm NJP dtd 4/9/84 w/ attached 1967 document
} ; ;",',' ',~ ~', g - # .7f' ~~
3 A3 l 1 cc: SECY . - ! OGC I j OPE
. 2.: Shk m
c::
= cd C, s e ":3
= :::= m c ;;g a E.
= -
m it M <
- - m !
. ::: N
~2 a l
= g .
o_ v1
- . r R
..s i
~
^^^A1GGe,s.g40409 PDR,ADOCK OS000gyg~
. >lk 7.?,g
8 "
PDR h
~
.--- ... . .,._.._. i
1
#] n ur,,q . - )
\
.r f*g '
y7p q UNITED STATES l 3 g,s wl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%, ~ y l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20sss 00L,4E775
')i'Y April 9, 1984 CHAIRMAN fiEliORANDUti FOR: .
'84 APR -9 P6:04 Commissioner Gilinsky .1 Commissioner Roberts '/
.- r. . , !
Commissioner Asselstine M J p"'i ['., E .
' i Commissioner Bernthal
~ ' ~ '
FR0ft: o 3 Nunzio J. Palladino
SUBJECT:
LICENSED REACTOR OP.ERATOR EXAttINA .. I have just received a copy of Commissioner Gilinsky' s request to serve the April licensed reactor operator examinations on thees 6, 1984 OGC memo addressing parti number of proceedings and on th( applicants ininuncontest a si cases. e ' d T. < reasonable I.believe time to this action give the NRCshould be deferred time to research the for a e '; background 55.25(b). of the interpretation to be given to 10 CFR .-
~
1967 interpretation, in which OGC concurredFor
,1 ached' '
to conflict be with thebackground. other pertinent April 6,1984 OGC positionwhich. appears viewed as correct.and applicants to gue e i to the parties and applicants what purpose is ex cation be served by providing them this information . pected to Commission since 1975, Finally, since Commissioner e Gilinsk , other background to contribute to the precedents-been set by the staff, OGC, and Commission in thi e that h s matter. _ to research the above matter andtional background or o.ther information that provide s ta f f any a is pertinent.
Attachment:
As stated cc: SECY OGC , OPE ' _i E00
/, 2.y e e4o4o9 PDR ADOCK 0500o275 .
0 PDR lf - -..-... -..- -
'f .I, ,,,
n 1 - ,q J. . *' 1' , ,, ^
\
, I gy P. I I Barold L. Prica i Direczor of Regular. ipa 1
- g. . -a . .. . .. . ..M kg !
*. ~ .a .,;s -
P.1. Morris,Dir@ tor Utvistos of m etar t4a= =ies '{ OfE2ATOR LICTESIEC PEDG2AX CCNSIDE21TIONS INVOL7ING Id'3 GZ EUCJJJL
, TIAIXDiG CIITER *
,I The Censtai F1=.* M .e. c y _7 is constructing a Ruelear Tra****g Cs= tar im Illinois wh4rh is intended to provide virtua.Lly all of tbs Jaining .
r equir ==.=m e = for tiair customer operating staffs in the future, This training will be,pawridad, is larse part, by utilizing a Dranden II reacter plant c h ' -tot. jj
.y ,
Na have had seraral d.Locassions with GE during the past two years . regarding the asumir of cred.it that shiator training will receive ' ,1 under ccanidarations of Part 55, e.g. , to what degree,1.f any, will ,- t it ashseitzca for "seenal operating experinsee?" Resoluciaa of thim . mattar is needed men by beh CI ar.d their uf*1*ry customere eines ' l staff training 1 mass be e-ed several years before plant operation I and in a mannar compatible with Part.55 requiramasta.
- l After Tadow and h--ton with the offica of the Generalf.eenmal and the Divtsiens et Courp14 = =-- and Reactor S W =rds, a proposed policy on the goesqiam of aligibility for " cold" reactor operator and l senior rameter operstar --4--tions was agreed upon to establish that the app 14a-*t has l$md extaasive actual operating crperience at s' e.a2 parable raaeter I would, of couraa. basrequirst raquired by section 55.25(b). The applicant of to qun1L*y under the other provisions section 55.25. - '
Individuals from G2 utiller customars who formally complete the program at tbs G2 Mac. lear Training Centar, using the Dresden II Si=ulator; vould l be considered qualified in accord.me.ee with section 55.25(b) for " cold" ' 9perator and sen.he ope.acar license ev=^=tions at their own facility, provided that: i I . (1) They have ad *W as appropriate course in Nuclear Technology fundamentals., . (2) They have manipalmtad the controls of a nucimar reactor throughout \i tem (10) 'complanta startups. - fA. _.- t
. . .,l ,)
~
.w,
.s %,... \
4.., \ g l
. MP - - .. .... . - . - ;
, i, , m' * '
- 1 .
- - ; c. . - .
Esrold L. Price . - -
.-7
!)
(3) They have coupletad a minimum three-merth assign =ent at an operating boiling wats: lpower ranctor and have spent at least tw noctha of this period observing the d.ay-co-day ep.aration of this plant as members af sh!it operating crews. 1 (4) They have sasseeafully' custplaced an AIO administered operator 1 em<e., tion f9r the Dranden II plant as demibed in sectiona $3.21 and 35.23, toJinclamia a wal.k-through oral exanir.atien in the Dresden U plint and manipulation of the Simulator controls fo'r an operating tan . 3.aquirement No. 4 lu tantative and is subject to further consideration. ~ the mattar of whacher or not the C &4=sion administera === ^ tions at the Tr=4a4= Cent.e4 is, at this cima, not of importancs to CZ and chair eustomers for p tag purposes. It'- w id benotedkkstthanerequirementsaremera17 shother alternative ' for astablishing "dyld" --4natic.n aligibilley and thatatare are withim the fram'awork of ten existing Part 55 regulation. Further, an individual
-l I
vbofailstomeetpvcesofthseerequirementaisnotautomaticany denied . aligibility peramant to 35.25(b). - ' I O
, oh a l
j . I e o 0 9 I
' a t
omcr > QLA!.QEL _ 1hDMI M'AO \- . ..
- dr / ,[U. gel Y t - l m . b/
%, rv M2kovhole Pava 4e / j d C.
-, u mm, _. n,A, , , ,% ,. .uu& , , , ~, s/,-e
~~~ ti _ _ _,, u a
***aun m ****e** 6-* * * ****
)$W l OfN h&l NNM h66 <bCC Y t Y 00Ld:TEC of the '
MASilCS-MORICHES-SHIRLEY BOARD OF EDUCATION 240 Mastic Beach Road SUPE Mastic Beach, New York 11951 e , DENT 8 E i
, P2 :27 i Rita Rech, President .
Robert Reichert, Vice President Telephone (516) 281-3020 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Nicholas Bouhouris Wayne Williams, @M.? I etipn l Jian nne Dawson Dr. Eric C. Waxrg.M.y ygg Tho nas Galinski Dr. Lewis Wasserman, Spg ti.o n Henry Herr ssey Mark Matthews D O C l' ?.T .' "s' P ~ ~ ' ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT
- James A. Wright, Business PRO D. C. Uill . . .
s. December 7,1983 ,g, g[g 1q $@3 . 1 ( J Mr. James A. Laurenson, Chairman i Atomic Safety and Licensing Bureau -! United States Nuclear Regulation Commission , Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Laurenson:
The William Floyd School District is on the fringe of the ten mile radius surrounding the Long Island Lighting Company plant at Shoreham. , While the School Board is not taking a position for or against the opening l of the plant, it does oppose t';: proposed evv.cuation plans in the event of an emergency. The plant should not be allowed to open until such time that a realistic and workable evacuation plan is developed. G Very truly yours, icholas' oul$s Np/em
- y. :
'1
,.,j ;
,/.>.
4 l f
[ ky UNITED STATES U y
; g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
#f g ,a wAsmNGTON, D.C.20666 ];f "' ET NUM' CR
** j ,. p / -
, e.% 0.a UTIL FA0.. T N g ,p =pr hc,./3.
"' % .* November 23, 1983 E CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilinsky '83 DEC -5 A10:33 ;
Commissioner Roberts
.. Commissioner Asselstine yng y 31,,.g ir Commissioner Bernthal 00CKETING & SERVIC:
FROM: Nunzio J. Palladino gEME0 D
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CALL FROM CONGRESSMAN STRATTON I received a telephone call from Congressman Samuel S. ' Stratton, (NY/D), to express his concern about the - situation at Shoreham. He stated that press reports by the New York Times suggest that state and county officials will site idly by and allow the plant to deteriorate. He l pointed out that NRC has the authority to grant a license ei based on utility emergency plans if the Commission. finds - He also pointed out that the ; such plans to be adequate. experience at TMI disclosed less iodine is released in an , _~ ~ j accident than had previously been predicted. As a result, "l he believes emergency planning by the Commission is , conservative, j Congressman Stratton urged t. hat NRE' con'tinue to rsview the ,- Shoreham plant so that a definitive decision can be made based on utility emergency planning if the state and county governments don't propose their own plan. He indicated to me that he would be makihg a press statement on this matter soon. cc: 4GC ( -
, OPE SECY '
OPA OCA 4 F l EDO g
#y gV I t
( 4
.; $h
~f
.wz+ *ff _
~
M \ C.50.311-2.C
. . OR SoundBeach he-SchoolGo-OjW i P.O. BOX 308 SOUND BEACH, NEW YORK 11789 l
, j? '83 DEC -6 P2 :58
'1' 0FTU. Or S., ., c e, m RESOLUTION FRESENTED TO THE E',GERSHIP OF THE SOUND BEACH PR 00CXEilNG H vihr !
L ON NOVE E R 16, 1983 .j l
"WHEREAS, federal regulations for full power operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant -
require an emergency plan for communities surrounding the plant which will ascure those communities adequate protection in event of a nuclear emergency and,
/i
" M REAS, the Long Island Lighting Company, in an effert to meet fe-deral regulations, i has prepared an emergency plan which LILCO, lacking coordination with local or state governments, will atempt to implements and "EREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's . Shoreham licensing board is now conduc-iing hearings to review the adequacy of the LILCO emergency plan; and -
" M BEAS, the LILCO emergency plan includes protective actions to be taken by the schools, and i
" M REAS, this board has identified the following weaknesses in the LIICO emergency ~ plan : l "1 Early Dismissal Our emergency early dismissal procedure, which LILCO's plan incorporates, would not bring school children to an uncontaminated area quickly enough to protect their health and safety. j
, "2. Transportation
( In an attempt to retrieve their children, parents will be faced, not only with added road conjestion due to the ongoing evacuation proceedures, i but also with the possible conflict regarding older siblings being returned to an empty home while the parent is in transit to and from our school.
" 3 .' Needs of School personnel We cannot guarantee that teaching personnel will stay in school to j supervise early dismissal. These teachers need to attend to the safety of their own families and, therefore, may not be available to perform emergency related tasks.
"4. Notification The sucess of an early dismissal plan depends on prompt dismissal from schools. In those cases in which parents will not be home during the day, the school may not be able to contact them by phone. We must also take into consideration that conjested telephone lines would hamper our attempts to notify parent 5 immediately. Rj
'l , . ..lh
~q DEC 1 1983 L
. . 3 "S. Relocation If a Shoreham emergency develops quickly and requires an evacuation of children from schools directly to relocation centers, this school does not have any vehicules or drivers to transport all children to reloca-l tion centers in a timely effective manner. '
"6. Supervision at Relocation Centers We cannot guarantee that teaching or non-teaching personnel could travel to and remain at relocation centers to supervise school children until parents arrive to retrieve them.
"7. Sheltering i The LILC0 plan suggests that sheltering (remainihg indoors) may be the i preferred protective action in specific Shoreham emergencies. However, none of this district's schools nor our own school have basements or other structures necessary to provide adequate protection.
, "8 Trust in Public Information
/ In the LILCO plan, the only public information upon which to base deci-
. sions for protective actions will come from the utility. LILCO, through
- its Public Schools Coordinator and WALK AM Radio, will both describe the '
extent of the emergency and recommend actions. Because LILCO would be-both operator of the plant and initiator of emergency actions, potential. ! for conflict of interest exists. School administrators, receiving infor-mation only from LILCO and not from any governmental agency, will be for-ced to decide upon actions with potentially serious consequences without , the benefit of a directive from a responsible governmental source.
"9. Indemnification LILCO does not provide indemnification for school districts 'should dama-ges, injuries, or deaths result from school administrators decisions !
during an emergency, decisions which can be made based only upon infor-mation and recommendations offered by LILCO.
"Now, be it therefore 4ESOLVED, that the Sound Beach Pre-School finds that LILCO's emergency plans for schools do not offer children or school personnel of the Sound Beach Pre-School adequate protection in the event of an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Plants and, be it further
" RESOLVED, that this school board believes that licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant should not be permitted unless or until complete and reasonable resolution of these outstanding, critical emergency planning problems can,be achieved. "
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY TE BOARD AND THE MEMBERS OF TE SOUND BEACH PRE-SOH00L AT TE GENERAL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16th,1983 Y- . BCL4 Marie-Anne Humbert-Boasi "p Directrice of the Sound Beach Pre-School . I) > )
1 l
. s -
. 2."
, au-F==
??5
==-
===
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C ht In the Matter of ) _
) s .G. ..
LONG ISIM*D LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-322 0L-3 g y
. ) _
(Shoreham Unit 1) ) -
. ) G
) "
) ems:
ifJ24.228. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Udl I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) - upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the office of the Secretary of the Coc:nission in this proceeding in ,~" accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2- ._ Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and , g._ l Regulations. m-t *l su =
.a =
1 S q ,' Dated at Mcshington, D.C. this
=.
hh dr.y of dd/ 1j . (([5. a==:.
&:Ew.
{
$0f,l /.
& L ?
Of fied 6f/ the Secretary of the Cdmmission ;mu. Wu'M 55 LQ \ YElai
- .=:
l55 n=_u linini n5= 555I
==
N Y.
.EU
. .1 5!5 ISE
. 12i:
', Bit f5i Ef2 Y..:.:
t. H:
a (. . % UNITED STATES Cy A>2RICA NUCI2AR FIGUIJ. TORT C0dSIISSION In the Matter of ) '
) l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket L .(s) 50-3220L-3
)
(Shoreham, Unit 1) )
)
)
1
\ SERVICE LIST l
James A. Laurenson, Esq., C irman Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and LicensiR~g N FE Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc: mission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s- Washington, D. C. 20555 .
1 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Jay Dung eberger, Esq. j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy. Office .{ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 , Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Frederick J. Shon g Energy Research Group, Inc. j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'. 400-1 Totten Pond Road i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission _ Waltham, Massachusetts 07154 '
. I Washington, D.C. 20555 , !
l l Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocciission Washington, D.C. 20555 (' W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. Hunton and Williams 700 East Main Street. ~ Richmond, Virginia 23212 Jeffrey L. Futter, Esc. MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Compan7 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K 250 Old Country Read San Jose, California 95125 Mineola , New York 11501 Leng Island Lighting Ccmpariy ATTN: Andrew W. Hoffo d Vice ? resident 175 East Old Country road Hicksv111a, "ew York 11301 ?.alph Shapiro, Esc,. Canmer & Shapire, P.C. 9 East 40th Street a.;; f ::ew York, Nee Yerk 10016 b
;:s e
e .
, . Board and narties continued: ,
50-322-1 '. Mr.3rian McCaffrey StewartM.51 ass,Esq. Long' Island Lighting Company Regional Counsel,'TZy). 175 East Old Country Road 26 Federal Plaza Eicksv111e, New York 11801 New York, Rev York 10278 - . 9 a Honorable Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive County Executive / Legislative 31gd. -
' Veteran's. Memorial Highway -
Eauppause, New York 11788 . , James Dougherty, Esq. Stephen Latham, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W. , Twomey, Latham & Shea Washington, D.C. 20008 3 j P.O. Box 398 ] .j Riverhead, New York 11901 i
?
Herb,'ert' H. ' Brown.,' .Esq. . ,
,, Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Mi Hill, Christopher & Phillips - -
e
'1 1900 M Street,.N.W., 8th..F.loor d Washington',' 0.CJ 20036 l
. t.. .: . . . ..
David J. Gilmartin, Esq. . ATIN: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq. Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Me.corial Highway Eauppauge, New York 11787 - Mr. Martin Suuberg Ps. Nera 3:edes c/o Congresscan W1111a= Carney Executive Coordir.ater - SCC {' 1113 Longvorth House office Building 15'5 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20515 Scithtour., New York 11787-Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq. T.S. milis, III, Esq. . Pacific Legal Foundation Donald P. Irvin, Esq. 1990 M Street, N.W. , Suite 550 Eunton & W1111a=s Washington, D.C. 20036 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Va. . 23212 e .' . Jonathan 0. Feinberg, Esq. New York State Department of Public Service ! Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, N.Y.' 12223
~:-
Christopher M. McMurray - y.irpatrick, Lockhart, Rill
/g' m Christopher & Phillips' !$
1900 M Street,- N.W. Wechington, D.C. 20036 ,
I y $;b 4. . .
/(p /
ROCKY POINT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 00(.KETED ROCKY PolNT Y APHANK ROAD gglRC ROCKY POINT LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11778 (516) 744-1600 m 3 E12 BOARD oF EDUCATION WILLI AM J. TURSELLINO, PR ESIDENT O I
. H
$ de
- T' JUNE SCHMIOT. VICE PRE $1 DENT L .. ., ' ' -
MAQTIN W. HALEY p***,4 . ,
- EDWARD J. SWEN8EN Assistant Supesintendent of Schools ALEI3ANDER 8. MAIN ' = i = . a '. C . . .. .
LO UIS ROMANO VlpotNlA KUZLOSKI, CLERK KENNETH EDWAROS, TREASURER N November 15, 1983 . sgiED NOV 291983
! James A. Laurenson, Chairman
\ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Chairman:
Enclosed is a copy of a resolution passed by the Rocky Point Board of Education at its regular monthly meeting held on Monday, October 31, 1983. - Sincerely,
~ '
Vir nia Kuzloski District Clerk VK:me Enc. 1
+
-$gj sy h
9 . 1 ~ l 4 SHOREHAM RESOLUTION ] 00 GEED October 31, 1983 113 NOV 29 40:12 l WHEREAS, the Rocky Point School District lies within i C@6knClit '. A m . the emergency plar.ning zone of the Shoreham NucigMETING'& SERvirl. Station BRANCH ;
. and WHEREAS, the Board of Education is cognizant of its responsibilities relative to the health and safety of . .
students and staff on its premises and ( WHEREAS, it is known at this date in time that no Shoreham i evacuation plan has been approved by the Federal, State and i County government agencies i and WHEREAS, there has been no coordination relating to any 3 evacuation plan j therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Education of the. Rocky Point School District supports any action whereby School, County, State and Federal officials work cooperatively in devising an approved evacuation plan and be it further RESOLVED, that the Board believes that no operating license
' be granted to LILCO until an approved evacuation plan is devised.
~
49.
' ~
=.=l
,' , Ti?.2 Miiiii l
??Lif I Chid l w:.== 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g=
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q]
. uz
=*
In the Matter of )
) e 5l LONG ISLASD LIGHTING COMPAm. ) Dockee No. (s) 50-322 CL-3
) .WJdd4 de l
) -l (Shoreham Unit 1) ) --
. ) L
)
y ... E2 % 555i i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _l W'.K l I hereby cer:iify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) 7-~ i upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by ;l the Of fice of the Secretary of the Coc: mission in this proceeding in '"" ; accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2- yi Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and -
=l Regulations. .u=
)
w=l l
"""5 j
- = -
_-- ) ; w=
.K~i l Dated at Washington, D. . this I.ZZ day of [0 W 11 h. -
- =i
- .-= :
r hhf i kbl ]. . Of fice/ o'f the Secretary of the Cc/6 mission llZ:. 55
.E5
- =:
- =
!$5
==
r 55i5
==
sin')
~
list.C zw.
=u.. .
h
- ;fg
(&$ E
J
, _,a '
~.
O UNITED STATES 07 AMERICA NUCLEAR P2GUU. TORT C0F04ISSION In the Matter of
) ! . )
LONG ISLAND LIGEIING COMPANY ) Docket No. (s) 50-3220L-3
) -!
(Shoreham, Unit 1) )
) l
) +l
. SERVICE LIST James A. Laurenson, Esq., Chairman Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing soird Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cecmission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 .: Dr. Jerry R. Kline Jay Dunkleberger, Esq. ' Ate:ic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy. Office . J. , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 . , l Washington, D.C. 20555 EMP i re State. Plaza _ Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Frederick J. Shon g Energy Research Group, Inc. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'. 400-1 Totten Pond Road ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commissio q Waltham, Massachusetts 07154 . Washington, D.C. 20555 l I Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. . Hunton and Williams I 700 East Main Street Rich =end, Virginia 23212 Jeffrey L. Tutter, Esq. MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite R 2!0 Old Country Road San Jose, California 95125 Mineola, New York 11501 f Leng Island Lighting Company ATTN: Andrew '4. Wofford Vice President 175 East Gid Country Road Richsv111e, New York 11801 P.alph Shapiro, Esq. Canmer & Shapiro, P.C. 7 9 East 40th Street .;si j New York, New Yerk 10016 ..R:
. m.:}y 2
e a - m
.s , ', j ' Board and earties continued: ,
50-322 I . 4
'l Mr. Brian McCaffrey i Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Long Island Lighting Company !
P.egional Counsel,'TIMA 175 East Old Country Road 26 Federal Plaza Eicksv111e, New York 11801 New York, New York 10278 _ _ _
% i Honorable Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive County Executive / Legislative B1;d. i
' Veteran's. Memorial Highway l Eauppauge, New York 11788 . .
Ja=es Dougherty, Esq.
' Stephen Latham, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W. l Tweney, Latham & Shea Washington, D.C. 20008 l P.O. Box 398 i Riverhead,'New York 11901 j
. 1 Herb.ert'H.'B'rown., Esq. . '
Lawr'ence Coe Lanpher, Esq. '
-Hill, Christopher & Phillips - -
1900 M Street,. N.W. , 8th..F.loor I Washingtori, D.Cl 20036 *
)
David J. Gilmartin, Esq. l ATT.t: Patricia A. Deepsey, Esq. * { Suffolk County Department of Law a Ve:erans Me:orial Highway l Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Martin Suuberg ' Ps. Nera 3:edes l c/o Congresscan Willia: Carney Executive Coordir.ater - SCC !
- 1113 Longverth House Office Building 1?S East h*ain'Strect j
(, Washington, D.C. 20515 Scith c ot-.. Ecv York 11787 i ucinda low Swartz , Esq. T.S. Ellis, III, Esq. Pacific Legal Foundation Donald P. Irvin, Esq. 1990 M Street, N.W. , Suite 550 Bunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20036 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Va. 23212 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. New York State Department of Three feckef eller Plaza Alb any , N,.Y / 12223 ..
;Ui Christopher M. McMurray ', , , .
4 Kirpatrich, Lockhart, E111 . 1., Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W. Wechington, D.C. 20036 '
/yL PORT JEFFERSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Administration Office cocxErEn HIGH STREET, PORT JEFFERSON, N.Y.11777 516 473 3333 CHARLES A.EBETINO Superintendent of Schools bLb lmb Assistant Superintendent for Business cGr":7 'm*r3 .
PCC D. ; '; n L. F '.0.. _qqQ Q
. W A' . -
f3 0FFiCE 00CxETING OF 5EU<L rt.' .
& SEPiII8.
I BRANCH November 10, 1983 l l l Mr. James A. Laurenson, Chairman l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Laurenson:
l The Board of Education of Port Jefferson Union Free School District is hereby registering concern about the availability of adequate evacua- ' tion plans in the event of an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear. Power Plant. In response to this concern, the Board has initiated the forming of a citizens' committee to review the District's existing emergency evacua-tion plan. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, < ( 24 . W Charles A. Ebet'ino Superintendent of Schools CAE:nb , x,_ , 4
/g a
.a- z.T ix6:n
. v m uw_. c:.a. 50. ... 3.. .9, ,,- A-O L3 "4 ..
OCT 2 71983
/0 } l l
Docket No.,50-322 00 E -- t unc
'83 NOV -1 P4:09 The Honorable Mario M. Cuomo . . .
Governor of New York Albany, NY 12224 [oCNN2ipe F BRANCW - . ),$N
Dear Governor Cuomo:
This is in response to your recent letter to Chairman Palladino expressing (' .your views on the emergency plan proposed for-Suffolk County by the Long Island Lighting Company. As you are aware, the NRC has requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency to review the proposed LILCo plan and provide us with its views as to the adequacy of that plan. In addition' the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing
, Board will be holding public hearings on this plan; these hearings should comence in early December. At these hearings, all parties to the proceeding-will be permitted to probe into the proposed plan and present testimony either supporting or opposing the plan.. Indeed, each of the concerns which you allude to in your letter have been raised by the parties as issues to be litigated in that proceeding. .
To date, the Comission has made no decision on the adequacy of the plan nor. reached any conclusion as to whether such a plan would insure that the health. and safety of the public will be protected. Rather, the Comission has only concluded that the utility should be given an opportunity to present evidence f~ on the plan -se' e king to demonstrate its effectiveness. ' Any decision by the (' - Comission as to the adequacy of the proposal must await the conclusion of that hearing. The New York State Energy Office is a party to the NRC's ongoing licensing proceeding in Shoreham and has participated periodically in these hearings. Should the State desire to participate in the emergency planning phase of this hearing, its contribution would, I am sure, prove useful as always. Sincerely, (SigrMMEEL E-Id William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations- '
>FC : OELD : ELD : -
........:.......... . . . . : . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ : . _ _ _ _ _ s. . . . . . . : . . . _ _ . . . . . ph-EDO
.___:..........__ g/amb4:....DELD LAME : EChristenbury J.Murray : G.Cunnin
.....:____...............:............:....._____gham :- :- : W.Dircks LATE : 10/ Sty 83 : 10/ -/83 : 10/2p /83
- 10/ /83: : ' 10/ /83 : '10/ /83,
-} 5 { l CUi W G
[*' . c,at
- r. =#:
O. . G N&' w.m Mit en = UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g,.;;; . NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com1ISSION {s2 r,."" ' nu.us In the Matter of ) ==
) s tifi5il LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. (s) 50-322 OL-3 zmmp:
) ._m" " "
) ~
(Shoreham Unit 1) ) - ==&
, ) ...
$5
~
)
) LIE Si?@
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . " - -.2
==
l' I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by b the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in t"""' secordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2- .. L.S. Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Codmission's Rules and E 92 Regulations. w=u
. i32 lii5fi
, E52, iM5i ENE Dated at shingten, D. . ~ ~Z .
de.y of 19g , ,. [s'
.gasyu;;.
"~
?*.*??*.
/ asududa
(
. 22r l l bbbWU 7:::
Office 6fth4Secretafy-oftheCommipion 5
,ua=:.
\'s'.*uus
.$.5 L*.*uun i?2.
!= =
I uwuu d. 55E i=h"
' 55.?
, sO -
. -l ' . Egg
. / =
IN5 C.t.'!: U== a
}.
- l. .
i .- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATOP.Y COFDIISSION l In the Matter of ) l-
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY .
) Docket No.(s) 50-3220L-3
)
(Shoreham, Unit 1) )
)
)
. . SERVICL LIST e
, -l James A. Laurenson, Esq., Chairman Eleanor L. Frucci., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and LicensiR~g T af rPanel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccesission U'. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D. Q.. 20555 - i-Dr. Jerry R. Kline ay DunMeberger, Esq. - Ato ic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy. Office . U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission Agency Building 2- .* Washing:en, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza l
,, Albany, New York 12223 -
Mr. Frederick J. Shon f Energy Research Group, Inc. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'. 400-1 Totten Pond Road , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiorl Waltha=, Massachusetts' 02154
~ l Washington, D.C. 20555 -
l l Counsel for NFC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Washing:on, D.C. 20555 f g
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
s Ehncon and Williams - 700 Eas: Main Street ! Richmond, Virginia 2321& Jeffrey L. ?ut:er, Esq. MP.3 Technical issociates long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamil:en Avenue, Sul * - 250 Old Country Road San Jose, California 95125 Mineola, New York 11501 Leng Island Ligh:ing Company ATTN: Andrew W. Wofford . (ice ?residen: 175 Eas: Old Country Road Eicksville, New Terk 11801 Ralph Shapiro, Esq. Cammer & Shapiro, P.C. 9 East 40th Street * ,gi New York, New Yerk .10016 >,%;
.y.
q'
,. 3oard and carties continued:
50-322 g 1: ,
}tr. Brian McCaffrey Stewart M. lass, Esq. Long' Island Lighting Company Regional Counsel,'T EJ. 175 East Old Country Road 26 Federe.1 Plaza Eicksv111e, Kev York 11801 -
New York, New York 10278 , , , Honorable Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive County Executive / Legislative Blgd.
' Veteran's.Me=orial Highway .
Eauppause, New York 11788 . . Ja=es Dougherty, Esq. . Stephen Latham, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W. . Twomey, Latham & Shet Washing:en, D.C. 20008 - P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Her(ert'H.' Brown.,.Esq. . " Lawrence ~Coe Lanpher,' Esq. . 3 Hill, Christopher & Phillips , 1900 M Street,. N.W. , 8th. Floor Wa s hi n g to n', 20036
. .. . '.D. C....
David J. Gilcartin, Esq. ATIN: Patricia A. De psey, Esq. ' Suffolk County Depart ant of Law Veterans Me=orial Eighway Eauppauge, Nev York 11787 Mr. Martin Suuberg Ps. Nera 3:edes l c/o Congresscan Willia = Carney Ixecutive Coordir.ato - SCC ( 1113 Longvorth House Office Building 1?5 East Esin Street ! Wash 1cgten, D.C. 20515 Scichtov , Nov York 11787 Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq. T.S* 11 ITT Donalc .;1s?:v- Pacific Legal. Foundation
. _ in,, Es q.
Esq. 1990 M Street,. N.W.
- Suite 550 Ettron & ,r!1111a=s yash4ngton, D.C. 20036 P.O. Boz 1535 Richmond, Va. 23212 ,
? .
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. New York State Department of P Th:ublic Service Plaza ce Rockefeller Albany,.N,.Y? 12223 Christopher M. McMurray '
'D Kirpatrich, Lockhart, E11L 'd'"
Christopher & Phillips 1900 M S::eet, N.W. , Ecchington, D.C. 20036 ,
, ,. eqf W s
M W b,, - gg. paso. hm..-. . -loocarwuwsca a urit ac..w . . . e gg 1 m,s y,.w w ; #w w ,, t . x ~ tc-oev$alacerso U 4 N
;ly; .. n
.h n Q. -._y.i' N1 f.
3. 13 512 P2:18. 4: t \'*g., . *
,Jn k i'M . m ',n .M
~
w... : i or u ta- !
;- y o;# s... + "y-'
< T '3 vir"r ~y gzyMj . '#
.. n y:$?_%:f. Q
^
~
i ,,. a-e s: s m, . Octaber 4, if23 EMED OCTf7' O. .sM!M.S[as:.ok edf!@ M) 9U
- . ,,g,n .. c NS.N ' ..c. .
.%.y
. *= c n. ;- -.
c 0 % y : ,..
. .Q(
.gg n '
(.#y 9. . qv .. y. ;. q '
'tStithe Nuclear Regulatory W; .
JNanagement Agency (FSMA i n'ireiview of an energencyr)MRde '
. We gj.mtu.;
i.'ad. Lighting Company- '~ - 3.i
~
for9:':;d;
,- q
~ . .
islation does authorize 0 festrgency prepar'edness. '
,T '
g-- ' ~1 antwriting. to'erge n HMQ] f, t w,.,v.(TVy gt'Shercham .r - A willnsafrain fica. . ./ t73W. it<8boreham'because it
'eNosafelf evacuate.oi';%hq .4
,l..
3 2 : of ' at serious neclea:
;that the. State willenot . M edness'plinton Suffolk. :M w
f!thebstate' alone h~as' the j g -
- ' 19e - ~
' eCthat the public healib and a.7 :
--%%,?@ WN6t&#h '"
I E -#yt . : , Wflaa3 $edgenrent 4 resa: ding the . b w&Dt11ty' effeseeloping and implementing an adequat e eme r;r .:; Ip
- %;33pegegdesse::plasJensboreham,
. + , N Er plan *kiek relies ~ solely I as end convinced entirely :anupon
- e. private '
? " ',stilityJeeckers cannot provide the degtee ci secer :.tv neces e v - j te'esseliede that the public health and saf ety of thi r egion's ~
7 . . residents;are. adequately pretected.
-In an emergency situation, even those involving ocre i
familiar disasters,, one cannot always predict h:w = d e wee a
, c.,sy G1 preset.j 4kis thahrha3hres thi11 is.especially ties do not include. true inthe. theprotection,et case of individuals @
# pub 11MassithM safetye ' '
~:.-- Q r u.,. .,,p -xg w.m ..
.- n y-f - ,
2 ; 4 htper267p . ___- .
. s.m -
. . . . , . . . , .,,p. . c , .: g . ;
.w + g :,s .. <
, . , - , 4., u ;.
k -. < ~ s . Ql,. r.a -i,& . f}:. .r::.7 ,. ,., ..,, ; ,p:g:.
~ }. =
v .
, , n ., . 4, . . ,, ,
.,ey.'
( .i
* ,.A , ,
~.. .. .,,
, , , ,-[
t ' * 'I - % [} .* : i tph'.PfTZap1EC 7--h1e bimpose 2at a utillty-direeted worker
~ Cilk respefOleg T4N#7Baanmer',when' his action may involve
]
.. CL 60$ tetw Laittenger .And perhaps protecting 'ais s
r f't. 9 use'that residents will react
~ '
te- f~ t frWb,kility. vorkers whose T M ,M issibed t((ge er caest of the disaster? Unde: i b A(y 28 perform functions which may ,
- aseenk h em.'egets W.gette. *e
, $ ' tt ,,
tai peWor? I am,sure this is - l'q
. tot thetseemasto f either . esvisite .or endorsed when the congress a
, , an4i.the:JSC tempemahl J ' i ed(the~ devslopment of of f-siee
'ge er i, 'EKy;ttT r,
s-b y, plants. ;;..; ,.y gee'that before a new nuclear 4i
, ;;3 Je M#MM31 ' eeg : -
powess t aga eper. etkeie e t~be sisasonable assurances that '%i
!.'?
5 ther to' hdesthK W &irdadequately. protected. itpdeveloped, utility-di:ected, and' .)"'299 I do not .5
'I ;Nbelieve.xtbattasF ~ Sie 7
stility-operatos p' is . ;'preparede s,s5 plan meets this standard. N m >.y . , . .. u %, s Sinc rely, i 3 s. . f j .-
~;c 1'g;g.. .f, p ,y. j- . ,
,9 e
aw a
.M ,.s .
., c
,t
.f .
,..4 h'
I d$h M^$.b: Eenoirable Semaio .7. 3 & Palladino k a,
~'d.V Chairman -
+ - Nuclear .Eagulatory Commission ' !
' Matestic Sauding - m
~
3 1717 E Street, N.W. washington, D.C. 20555 l [ ,-a, -
.t..
),,,r$' .g I 1
-l -
I h* ,
.]
/ G3' ,
. pe %9 .,
l y jg, UNITED STATES y ) .r. g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5, s
,Q>j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 00LKETED
;ga;
- l f
%,>p 83 SEP -9 P3 :42
, September 9, 1983 ,
OFFICE OF SiCht* : 00CKETING & SERVif.. l BRANCH l Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq. - l O0C Pacific Legal Foundation p9 - DER p
, g _g [, -j 1990 M Street, N . h, . - " ' * ' = =
Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, I ' Unit 1) l Docket No. 50-322 OL, (Emergency Planning) ' 1
Dear Ms. Swartz:
In your September 1, 1983 letter to Ms. Shoemaker, , you state you regret "that the Appeal Board was not ' available to bear arguments during the week of August 29, l 1983". In point of fact, it was not the unavailability - of the Board which precluded the oral argument being ! scheduled for a date during that week. Rather, it was ; the consideration that the other parties to the appeal - were entitled to receive reasonable advance notice of the date of argument. Sincerely,
.in. - . J k, .:, ' &
Barbara A. Tompkins Secretary to the Appeal Board cc: Docketing and Service W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq. 3
,.i h e ,a -
_ f:%& ! m sY f$0 if
g - m 00C!CT NUM3:3 8 (' y'3IeWuq\ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%a fjyiL FAC" * **"""b~,^
l
'g f WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 G
t U 4:! E 00CKETED USNMC i
%[ (.# ,
September 8, 1983 !
'83 'SEP -9 mi:14 l l
OFRCE OF SECRtJA ' l 00CKETING & SERVlf,! j The Honorable Thomas J. Downey 0# " United States House of Representatives l Washington, D.C. 20515 ! SERVED SEP S1983
Dear Congressman Downey:
)
1 This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1983, in 'I which you expressed interest in the pending Shoreham offsite ! emergency planning proceeding. Your questions concerning i the fairness and degree of participation in the proceeding and the schedule of the proceeding are discussed below. Pursuant to Section 191 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. I S 2241 and 10 CFR S 2.704, the Commission has delegated the j authority to conduct formal adjudicatory proceedings related' l to the operating license of the Shoreham nuclear power plant > l to an atomic and safety licensing board. On May 11, 1983, a ) special licensing board was constituted to preside over all issues of offsite emergency planning. That board, like all , licensing boards, is bound to follow the requirements of the ' i NRC regulations and must comply with the Administrative l Procedure Act in the conduct of its adjudicatory proceed-ings. The Commission has issued a policy statement at 10 CFR Part 2, App. 2. . entitled, " Statement _of_ General Policy and Procedure: C"nSuct of Proceedings for the Issuance of l and Operating Licenses: for Production Construction and UtilizationPermit Fac). {lities for which a Hearing is Required i Under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended, 10 CFR Part 2, Apo. A." which details the intent of the Commission to provide for fair and full adjudicatory proceedings to all parties equally. This includes the right to file contentions, present evidence, challenge testimony, l participate in hearings and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. To date, the Intervenors have filed contentions which have bien admitted by the Board concerning offsite emergency plans and the parties currently are involved in discovery. All decisions made by the Licensing l Board will be reviewed by an atomic safety and licensing I appeal board before final review by the Commissioners l themselves. The mechanics of the licensing process are b intended to provide all parties in this proceeding the opportunity for full and fair participation. On August 19, 1983, the Licensing Board issued a prehearing conference order setting out the schedule for formal 4 l' proceedings on emergency planning. The order, which did not 3 adopt any party's proposed schedule in its entirety, 9 scheduled discovery to end by September 23 and the' hearing N $TW Yff
7 2 to begin by November 14. In sum, Suffolk County proposed a brief period to complete informal discovery followed by.an intensive deposition schedule. Filings of summary disposition _ motions and testimony would lead to hearing in early 1984. LILCO proposed four-and-one-half weeks for discovery followed by three-and-one-half weeks for preparation of summary disposition motions and testimony to lead to a hearing in mid-October. The NRC staff substantially agreed with LILCO's proposal but the staff's , schedule would lead to a hearing in mid-November. The 'i schedules proposed by the parties are attached. - In response to the Licensing Board's scheduling order of August 19, 1983, all parties filed comments. Suffolk County objected to the " unreasonable" schedule and-reiterated its i support for its proposed schedule (amended to permit LILCO - I to take the depositions it requested). The other intervenors, Shoreham Opponents Coalition, North Shore ",. Committee and the Town of Southampton, echoed Suffolk' ~, j County. The NRC staff, although it did not endorse Suffolk County's reasons, agreed to an extension of two or three weeks and it opined that such an extension ~would not be prejudicial to the parties. Although LILCO would have preferred to condense the taking of all of the depositions . into fewer days to avoid any enlargement of the schedule because it believed the hearing process would be prdtracted for other reasons, LILCO would have acquiesced to an extension for discove.ry of one or two weeks. On August 30, the Licensing Board issued a Revised Special Prehearing , Conference Order enlarging the discovery' period by three i weeks with commensurate adjustments to the entire schedule. That schedule is attached for.your information. I hope that this information has been responsive to your i request. Sincerely, . Martin G. Malsch
' Acting General Counsel
~
. i Attachments: Revised Schedule Ordered by - the Atomic and; Safety. Licensing. Board . g. Schedules Proposed'by , q; the Parties ,u ,
- 4
. REVISED SCHEDULE ORDERED BY THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD September 16, 1983 Last day to produce documents End of discovery ~I October 14 October 26 *
- Last day to file mot" ions for , *)
summary disposition November 2 Conference of Counsel Reports due -- settlement, stipulations, ' n authenticity of documents, need for cross-examination plans, and J.- order of proceeding at hearing ., : November 9 Conference of Counsel, Bethesda November 15 Last day for filing answers to motions for. summary disposition - November 18 All written direct testimony to be filed November 28 Last day for filing motions-to strike testimony' November 28 ' Trial briefs filed with proposed preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law _ December 5 Hearings begin on Long Island O
, ed x
i 4 9
. o 7
SCHEDULES PROPOSED BY THE PARTIES LILCO's proposed schedule appears below with NRC staff's l varying position in brackets and Intervenors' position l marked by asterisks. l 1 I August 23, 1983 Last day to make document requests August 29* September 9 Last day to produce documents or (September 16] take depositions October 21* - j
\
September 16 Parties report to Board concerning l
, (September 23) status of contentions- i l
a. issues susceptible to I settlement ,
- b. issues for summary l disposition
- c. issues to be litigated
~
September 30 Summary disposition motions filed (October 21) l November 4* ' September'30 Parties file written testimony , I (October 21) on issues to be' litigated 2 weeks after
. rulings on summary * . 's disposition motions (December 19)
- _
October 7 Parties fi.le answers to summary (October 28) disposition motions .
~
October 17 Hearing begins on litigible issues (November 14)- - 2 weeks after filing . of testimony (January 2 or 9) *
.1
. T$
E..k,
- u,
* . ,' 4 .
. Spas s .N .W YOAN
- TRADE
~1111 Losswosme Houes Omes DmLoose
' " ~ * ' " ' " " "
Congres of tije <eb 6tateg =~=A" "4:'==~
~ "" *^ '"
$0tigt of Representatibeg
* " " * ")" " '
EEasfMngton, D.C. 20515 August 8,1983 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman ! l Commissioner James Kilburn Asselstine , Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts The Nuclear' Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. .
~ Washington, D. C. 20555 .
6,
Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:
I am writing to express my interest in assuring that all parties receive a full, . fair and objective opportunity to make their case in the pending Shoreham licensing' - proceeding. .. The Shoreham licensing proceeding will assess the adequacy of the Long Island Lighting Company's Utililty Plan for offsite emergency response. In its May 12, 1983 Order, the Commission ruled that L1LCO should be given an opportunity to prove the acceptability of its own plan. Because this type of plan and this proceeding are , unprecedented, it is also imperative that all other parties,. including the intervenors and the County, have the right to make their point that workable emergency preparedness is impossible for Shoreham. The stakes in this effort.are too high for there to be even the appearance ,that the rights and responsibilities of any party to provide constructive comment have been impaired or short circuited. The Shoreham case is not commonplace; it is unique. Whether a utility offsite plan without the full participation ofethe state and local governments can adequately protect the public is subject to disagreement. Because of the unusual nature.of this case, the Commission should take special care to ensure that these issues receive fair and objective hearing. - I would appreciate your response to the following; one, the measures being taken by the Commission to assure that there'is full and fair participation by all_ parties in the Shoreham proceeding, and' two, a detailed statement of the schedule for formal proceedings accompanied by some idea of the views on that schedule. as expressed by the parties. S3,c erely, i
$ Jh 9 T OSIAS J. -DOWpEY Member cf Congress TJD:cb
.I I .
.h5
, . J.
TSv9tn zH 4'pp
- .. . gj
==1 s
gi awua ESEf
, 5E5i L
tes.:::: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L"= NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q ,. In the Hatter of )
=
) mmm LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPA1Pl ) Docket No. (s) 50-32[0L-3 .
Zu 4 - g== (Shoreham Unit 1) ). 2:52 ,
) =- 1
)
=.__=
) -
"."" " I muum z_ _.
CERTITICATE OF SERVICE """2 wwuu uuuuu I ( I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) =l upon each person designated on the official service list co= piled by ' the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in secordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-E- Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and , 255 Regulations. ' 5i55-i ua;.=u ,
. J
. muuuu swuw
, ' &*!4we
?.= = a
!== j Dated at Moshington, D.C. this ==
day of 8 8 1 .. .
. r- -
{l
=: =
swuu 1 uuuuu
"""'. 1
^
[ /* ,
~ 2 Of fie'e 'of the Secretary of the' Com:nission ?!Z
*1".'"
yeuuu. EEE tsa . h5E ' t* ?.==.": uwws V.u. 2
,wwa
- =e.
?5.55.
- uwu.
, ,. .:7 :::uw.
t- :l
.M 3
= 2. .
- w..u .
E251 i
!!!.6 i
- i.:.i:
s . :. . ,
. e. . j j
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR PJ.GLU. TORY C0>011SSION In the Metter of )
i
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No.(s). 50-3220L-3 . . -
)
(Shoreham, Unit 1) ) -
)
)
SERVICE LTST - . James A; Laurenson, Esq., Chairu n E.leanorL..Frucci,'Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety' and LicensiRg WEWPanel - U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Cocmission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- -
! Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D. C,. 20555 i .;
a Dr. Jerry R. Kline - Jay Dunkleberger, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy,0ffice *
.g..
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 , washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza ; Albany, New York 12223 -- ) Mr. Frederick J. Shon f Energy Research' Group, -Inc. i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board! 400-1 Totten Pond Road L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio q Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
' Washington, D.C. 20555 l
Counsel for NEC Staff ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ ~ ~ ~ Wa shington, D.C. 20555 ,
~ " - - - - ~
' W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. ,
e . 1 Hunton and Williams '- . 700 East Main Street , Richmond, Virginia 2321& - . . . . . . . I Jeffrey L. Futter, Esq. MdB Technical Associates , Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K 250 Old Country Road San Jose, California 95125 Mineola, New York 11501 i Long Island Lighting Conpany ~re.n' 2. . .
- ^
ATTN: Andrew W. Wofford . t.. .I ~ Iice President
~
, .i.'- .
175 East Old Country Road Hicksville., New York 11801 Palph -Shapiro , Esq. , i Cammer,& Shapiro, P.Ci 9 East 40th Street ' ~
. New York, New York 10016 - M,
, j t.y J
, ~4fy -
4
l
. Board end omreins continued: ,
50-322
- j. .
t Mr. Brian McCaffrey l Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Long Island Lighting Company
- Regional Counsel,'TEFJ. 175 East Old Country Road 26 Federal Plaza Hicksville, New York 11801 New York, New York 10278 - - - -
Honorable Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive County Executive / Legislative Bisd. ! Veteran's Memorial Highway l
\
Eauppauge, New York 11738 . _ James Dougherty, Esq. j Stephen Latham, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W. , j Twomey, Latham & Shea Washington, D.C. 20008. l; P.O. Box 398 i Riverhead, New York 11901 , TVeYbXr..t' H..:Vrlw.n.,-Esq._ i
~' tawrence 'Cbe"Laiipher. Ts'q . -
Hill, Christopher & ohillips .
' ~
i
., .19,00. M.,Str,e.et.. N.W. f th,El,oor l
tWa.sh,in'gton g 0.C." 20036 ' ~~
. . a. . 1.. .n . . . .,..-
David J. Gilmartin, Esq. , ATTN: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
- Suffolk County Department of Law -
Vetarans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Mart 1n Suuberg Ps. Nora Bredes i c/o Congressman William Carney _ Executive Coordinator - SCC i 1113 Longworth House Office Building 195 East t'ain Street ( [s Washington, D.C. 20515 Smithtcwn, New York 11787 l Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq. T.S. Ellis, III, Es4 Pacific Legal Foundation Donald P. Irvin, Esq. 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 550 Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20036 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Va. 23212 - Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. New York State Department of i Thr"e Roce7elferPlaza Albacy, N.Y? 12223 -
- ,s Christopher M. McMurray .(
- Ktrpatrick, Lockhaft, Rill '.M'<
Christopher &'Phillips M ,.. : 1900 M Street, N.W. #l Washington, D.C. 20036 , t
...-.7 .. E '~~~ . ,.
.( .
" '^
~
Y ~
- lbf a ,.h , *
'L
>gg OF n SAG yAR8 f H4 0 .., %'
v 516 725 0222
# C. SON 660 M AIN ST.. ,S AG M AR*,C R. L. l.. N EW YO R K 1196 3 Mayon a
FF.RDINAND RUNCo
- i Mu sTE ES l
.J AMES BRANNEN PATRICK KIRN j ECWARD GRfGORY JANE VAN KCVICS '1 JOAN E. SCHCEN CAROL A. SCHRCEDER CLER4& TREAS. DEpuTvcismK l
April t5, 198 3 ,
-l Chairman Nunzio J. Paliadino ,
Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner John F. Ahearne l Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts i Commissioner James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Washington, D.C. 20555 l Re: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 1 Docket No. 50-322; Suffolk Co. ; Motion to Terminate Shoreham 1 Licensing Proceeding
Dear Sirs:
I am the Mayor of the Village of Sag Harbor on eastern Long Island, which lies east of LILCO's Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The Village. of Sag Harbor is home to more than 2800 year-round residents, and in - the summer, our population swells to more than 5000 people. I am writing this letter in support of Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate the Shoreham Operating License Proceeding (dated February 23, 1983) and its Motion for Certification which seeks a prompt resolution by the' ; Commission on the issues raised by its motion. In view of the over-whelming and controlling significance of the legal questions raised by i the County's Motion and the need for a quick resolution of the present Shoreham dispute by the residents and ratepayers of eastern Long Islandr l I urge you to devote your immediate attention to the County's Motion enf, - to terminate the Shoreham proceeding without further delay. y ,; My support for Suffolk County is based upon a number of' facthSim particular,thedeterminationbysuffolkCountythatthesafe-evatnetdem%l of eastern Long Island (as well as other is of Suffolk' Countyyis - % impossible. and my belief that the Shorehan. Juclear Plant is not safe - 9. 8K i , T *8 CN $43?S
- ,m.1.k~1 . -
.%G .5LAN.O .n- 7
- iNCC- ea;ma?C :s V Am;. 25 '8's w w,.s
>-r (' _ _
. Chap.rman Nunzio J. I ladino Cbmmissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissionar John F. Ahearne Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K. Asselstine
- April 6, 1983 -
Page Two s enough to operate. . I support the exhaustive effort made by suffolk County officials and experts to determine the feasibility of safely evacuating suffolk County residents and the subsequent decision of the-Suffolk County Legislature, on the basis on that investigation, that safe evacuation is not possible. Accordingly, I share Suffolk County's view that Shoreham cannot be permitted to operate and that this legal issue must be resolved by the Commission itself. As you can appreciate, the future of Shoreham is of utmost concern to all of Long Island, and the present uncertainty regarding its future and the continued expenditure of tens of millions of dollars to complete a plant which legally cannot be permitted to operate is wasteful and irresponsible. I strongly belieYe that the public interest would not be served by further months of debate and litigation in the NRC licensing hearings and that the matter requires your direct intervention. Accordingly, I urge you to devote your immediate attention to re-solving the present legal dispute surrounding the Shoreham project by granting Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate the Operating License Proceedings without further delay. Ve .truly urs', W
~
D AC Fred Run Mayor W dh (JamesBrannen, Trustee Q who bw Pntrick K'rn, Tr tee k 0 f Wl W '
'8ne VanKovics, Trustee b r Edward Grege:ry,gTrustee FR/cs cc: Martin Lang, Supervisor
. Town of Southampton
.?
.- t
b Gg OF SAG h qs4 M
~
%gO
\ .{
- l ogt .
i SIS 725 0222 , P. O. BOX S6O M AIN ST., SAG kiARBOR. L. l. NEW YORK 11963
- MAvon FEROINAND RUNCO
- N TNWSTEES JAMES BRANNEN PATRICK KERN EDvvARO GREGORY
- JANE VAN KOVICS
- JOAN E. 5CHOEN CAROL A. SCHROECER CLandeTasas otNiv CLau April.6, 1983-
~ .:
0 Mr. Harold R. Denton
- Director '
Nuclear Reactor Regulation . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Washington, D.C. 20555 - "
,a
.Re:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station . Construction Permit #CPPR-95 , ,-
Dear Mr. Denton:
I am the Mayor of the Village of Sag Harbor on eastern Long Island, which lies East of LILCO's Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The Village of Sag Harbor is home to more than 2800 year-round residents, and in the summer, our population swells to more than 5000 people. ' It has come to my attention that the construction permit for Shoreham in due to expire on March 31, 1983 unless extended by your office. This letter is to. urge you to deny LILCO's request-to continue con-struction at Shoreham and to prevent the further wasteful expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on that project. As you know, Suffolk County has. determined, on the basis of many months of intensive examinat.4 7n by experts, that she safe evacuation of Suffolk County residents, particularly those who reside in eastern Long Island, cannot be accomplished. Accordingly, Suffolk County has urged the NRC to terminate the Shoreham operating license proceedings in view of the fact that approval and implement ..on of a Suffolk County off-site emergency plan is a requirement for the issuance of an operating license. I agree with the County's determination and can see no continue. reason why your office should permit construction at Shoreham.-to...J f I have also been made aware of comments attributable to NRC SETTLED ON EASTE. AN LONG tSLANC 1707. INCORPOR ATED ON M ARCH q M:4 "'t yp 26,1816
..,bpr,il 6, 1983 l Paga Two -
l Opokesmen that in Long Island's daily newspaper, Newsday, which suggests less than serious attention will be given to suffolk County's request that construction at Shoreham be halted. For example, James Fitzgerald, an assistant general counsel at the NRC, reportedly stated "I don't think you need an evacuation plan during the construction phase," while NRC spokesman Frank Ingram is alleged to have said "Re-quests to extend plant construction dates are a dime a dozen." (See , attached Newsday article.) These comments do nothing to instill con- ,l fidence in the integrity of the NRC decision-making process, and I ! trust that they are not indicative of the attention that you will de-vote to this matter. l It is my belief that the County's determination that there can be no safe evacuation of Suffolk County residents is dispositive of ' the question of whether Shoreham will be permitted to operate. In view of that controlling fact, it would be irresponsible for your office to continue to permit LILCO to expend millions of dollars in funds for construction. I strongly object to any action (or inaction) by the NRC that would permit Shoreham's cost to unnecessarily escalate even further. I urge you to give Suffolk County's opposition to the extensiori of LILCO's construction permit your immediate and thoughtful attention. I-look forward to hearing your response to my c.oncern. . t V t ul ours,' a l g Fred Runi:o, Mayor , M: +, 3'~ es Br nen, T stge l m a 2 f tr a . /dsLA #.
, Ja'n'e Va'n ~KoEds , Truste {
n h /Ae>N w P'atrick Kerh, Trustee N> $s t sw EdwardGrego%y,(Trustee FR/cs
Enclosures:
Newsday article cc: Chariman Palladino Commissioners Martin Lang,. Supervisor Town of Southampton 1
. = Nf '
. ~
9
....- 7 -
r a ts 83 THE t REGION ~ Permit Extension - For N-Plant Fought - By Robert Fresco . la an um.aual move aimed at preventing the opening of the Shoreham nuclear plant, Susolk County has uked the federal Nuctur Regulatory
. Commission to block a routine extension of the ~ '
plant's construction permit. ' The county contends in its request that because l 1 it has not approved an emergency evacuation plan - for the plant, Shoreham cannot open, and sa a re. ' sult, construction should not proceed. l But the legality of the county action was imme. - diately questioned by a top NRC attorney. James - Fitzgerald, an maaistant general counal, said he doubted the county's objection had any legal basia."I - / don't think you need an evacuation plan during the construction pham," he said. l And NRC spokesman Frank Ingram said that "requesta to extend plant cohstruction dates are a dime a dosen." And, he added, the cammia=ian rou- - tinely grants them.
"His attitude doesn't surprise me," Deputy County Executive Frank Jones said of Fitzgerald's comment. "The Nuclur Regulatory CommMn '
consistent 1,7 f alls on the side of the nuclear-power i advocatea L1140's construction permit expires March 31. . Ori Feb. 25, the company submitted a request for a nine. month extension.1JLCO spokeswoman Judith Brabham said that the utility is not changing ita -' previously announced plan to load fuel into the reac. tar by the end ofJune and begin commercial produc. tion of electric power there in early 1984. She said an extension beyond June was requested to allow
" minor construction work" such as painting in the "non nuclear" area of the plant.
LIl40's construction permit for the $3.2 billion plant has already been extended twice, Brabham said. The original permit was granted in April, 1973, and expired in May,1979. Brabham said it was " customary" for utilities to ask for extensions.
' But the county's lawyer, Herbert Brown, wrote in a letter Wednenlay to the NRC,"We submit that the 11140 request (for the extension) can't lawfully be anted." Thia, he argued,is because,"no operat. ,2 i licenas for the Shoreham plant can lawfhlly be . .. .y '
issued," since there la no emergency evacuation tan ' ,.., 6:g F-for the plant. "Suffolk County has resolved t it ;* will not adopt or implement" such a plan, he added.
. .s,
, ~ v
% ~a s s
.u- . <
(, -h4
, par e l . 'i ci l
C.
,,!, i E CO OFFICE OF THE 'S U P E R V I S O R TQWN HALL '
SHELTER ISLANo. N. Y. I'1964 Q',NEEL April 4, 1983 csis) 149-oc1s 3 Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner John F. Ahearne ! Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K. Asselstine /j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 i Re: Shc eham Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-322; Suffolk Co. ! Motion to Terminate Shoreham Licensing Proceeding . l
Dear Sirs:
I am the Supervisor of the Town of Shelter Island on eastern Long Island, which lies east of LILCO's Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The Town of Shelter Island is home to more than 2,000 year-round residents, and in the summer our population swells to more than 10,000 people. I am writing this letter in support of Suffolk County's Motion To Terminate the Shoreham Operating - License Proceeding (dated February 23, 1983) and its Motion for Certification which seeks a prompt resolution by the Commission on the issues raised by its motion. In view of the overwhelming and controlling significance of the legal questions raised by the County's Motion and the need for a quick resolution of the present Shoreham dispute by the residents and ratepayers of eastern Long Island, I urge you to devote your immediate attention to the County's Motion and to terminate the Shorehan proceeding without further delay. My support for Suffolk County is based upon a number of factors, in particular, the determination by Suffolk County that the safe evacuation of eastern Long Island (as well as other.. areas' of Suffolk County) is impossible and my belief that the Shoreham Nuclear Plant is not safe enough to operate. I support the exhaustive effort made by Suffolk County officials and experts to, determine the feasibi.1.ity of safely evacuating Suffolk County . residents and the subsequent decision of the Suffolk County N Th,d I / q, w co .v nw< v - D ,, ' A n . ppp . i}
y - . . _ __-- - - - - - , 4 -
- - f ,I-.
18 l
.c 1
-Legislature, on the basis of that investigation, that safe evacu- I
~~
ation is not possible. Accordingly, I share Suffolk County's l
. ' view that Shoreham.cannot be permitted to operate and that this l 1egal issue must be resolved immediat'ely by the: Commission itself. !
As you can appreciate, the future of Shoreham is of utmost !
, concern to all of Long Island, and the present uncertainty regard- -
l ing its future and the continued expenditure of tens of millions l
- of dollars to complete a plant which legally cannot be permitted i
to operate is wasteful and irresponsible. I strongly believe 1 that the public interest would not be served by further months of l debate and litigation in the NRC licensing hearings and that the matter requires your direct intervention. , i Accordingly, I urge you to devote your immediate attention ! to resolving the present legal dispute surrounding the Shoreham ' i project by granting Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate the Operating License Proceedings without further delay.
~
S !. n c e r e ly , .
'I Mal Nevel ->
Supervisor MN/dc
- a. 5. *
- I b.
= ,
- l D
. _ . . ?
2 i n (
,f b '
' . .[
,o
, ?'- ,M sN
, WICLIAM CARNEY l /d couurrrte MtACHAMT b l
d . g,gte hfW YOA4 n, . C"A"A 1434 60how mo 8 83C1 ButLDiMQ . (2021226-3424 Muse moWrY WaustA sesne e.e.ca + pitMim48 MLoupt CON $3NvAfK. 3400 C:CaTw Octan Avgmys fC.A 4h , AMOme N MM E "" C0ilgrE55 0" t1E 93J1itti $tatES COMMffff! CN
"""^*"***""
Must of Representatiets TDashington, BE. 20sf """""'#"c5"'"
- so rv .
March 15,1983 sa=gg,* ao Nunzio Palladino, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Washington, DC 20555 - e l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed please find two constituent requests from Mr. Christman and Ms. Leonard regarding nuclear energy in general and the Shoreham project. I would appreciate any information you can forward on these important topics. In addition, if I can be of any assistance i in processing these requests, please do not hesitate to contact me. j Thank you for your attention to this matter. ; j l
~
With best regards, I am ; Sincerely urs , NE , C. WC:kk Enc. r n ,'
.e.
,sv. .y ,.,. .m
s
, , , :s. :
Brookhaven National Laboratory Medical Departmnnt, Bldg. 490 . i Upton, N. Y. 11973 ;
\J The Honorable William Carney
. 1113 Longworth House Office Bldg. '
Washington, D. C. 20515 February 17, 1983 4
Dear Mr. Cainey:
We wanted to say thank you very much for your help with our difficulties - with.the IRS. We did take some documentation to the Riverhead office ; (including your letter) and were treated very cordially. It appears to be- . satisfactorily resolved, and we appreciate your interest. j Do you know of any report on the Shoreham Nuclear Power station that
- could be assumed to be reasonably objective? My information to date is from ,
either the Shore. ham Opponents' Coalition (completely negative). or from people here at BNL (knowledgable, but with an admitted interest. in not worrying about nuclear power plants.) Sometimes it is hard to believe that they are talking,- about the same installation. I would appreciate some information on which to. ( base my own opinion. '
- I hope I am not being a nuisance, but I take- this sort of thing seriously, and I am impressed with your reputation of involvement in this: area,
. . s Thank you again.
. Sincerely, ,
~ L ,.i /UbNb h U G Robin J. Caldwell Leonard ,
^
O t t
'A. 0't A
. g :
, -,,g -y 3
- s. -
\r
~
y\ - z DATU: Februarv 28J83 7 CALL OR VISIT TAKEN BY:' ach \ NAME: _ Mr. Erwin .,. Citistman (Hao) __ ...._. ADDPQ:S: .Cl Rooseve]f Boulevard i . CITY,' STATE: East Patchoque, New York ZIP CODE:___11772 liOME Pil0NE: OFFICE Pil0NE: BUSINESSADDRESS,IFANY: e SOCIAL SECURITY NO.: V.A. CLAIN NO.: ALIEN REGISTRATION NO.: _ PASSP0lsf NO.: __. ,_, d OrlRiR PERTINF.NI' IDIN1'IFYING NO. : Bilsfill)ATli: _ COMMliNfS:____ Hao cal 1gd to vo'iq.e_his._o.p.i ni. ort _tagar_ din 5L.the._Shor.thac_phD.t._.. He feel S__that_there is a lot nF " chi.cker_littl* tyndr. opp" renardinn tho 1 coenino of_.this clant_and a orpat deal nf anisinf.orma. tion hainn .nivan *n the oublic by the newsnanore Ho i.S. c.once.rrad A hn"+ tha finanifal CQQ5.e.QuenCE.S t0_the county.. and r**idan.ta. if_ this n1 arir _dcos nb* Open . -
-l l
He._ feels that if it i a nat <a f a _the. MRC xi.LI.m+ a1.1ow .i.t._to_open_nc matter _ wha.t_the._ gal i ricia n c wa n.t._i t._4 e cu rt4e _thei r hands. - . . . _ - He _would..lijea enma i nfor.ma.t. ion..on. nuc. lear _ powe r-and_the_NRG _sutdelines... -= . . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . -- . _ _ , (Ha n i s a momhar nf the Inngr.es.s.icna.I__C141b_and_WC_knoWS-h44'l. ) =
..c WORKSHElIf Y!
CONGRESSMAN Wil.LIAM CARN!!Y
~ '
First District, New York 9I' I
- s. I jh,I;.
~ .
4 rw DesrMf. New Yoas , " ' "'( . - , P1. sass Aoosess neeutS to TH: ~ 1 WASHINGTON. O.C., OFMCI l UNLESS OTHERWISS INDICATED UbMulTTgg .y q)qngy WASHINGTON OFMCt: m Couutica 222:navev.=Hov. o,nesevue=3 Langress of tit 9aim.tet 4
""--==="-"~
consasencs, tmanseonTAfot. Amo fouassas tates OtSTfuCT OFPicts: c 3ALowen PWA Outi,osme couurrneoN 5005t of itsintatiDes n~n". suo u~ *~~u. SAtowwe. New Yoes 115 j WEACHA,,N,T Nm ,MAA,INE ANO T.u~ uiin usi.10i
,_ _. W. hm.g ton, B.C. 20515 o . , _
4
'"%2,t",%*?"' wa, 2'll.*3lw"L uns 1
.oor ,m_, aie "wn March 30, 1983 l i Mr. John Suermann Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Suermann:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Mr.. Norman Neubert, Jericho, New York, ' As you will note, Mr. Neubert is concerned with the prob - lem of a safe evacuation at the Shoreham nuclear power plant in the event of a nuclear power mishap. I believe Mr. Neubert's suggestion as to a possible' method of evacuation will be of j interest to you. Any informatio.n which you could provide per- { taining to Mr. Neubert's suggestion would be greatly appreciated". ' Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes I remain, Si cerely, o / i d'> >
- NORW F. LENT '
Memaer of Congress I NFL/ag ! ! - f 0 m O n
;g;
$0 i& 0Mb '
lQ
-. q - -a - ., ~vv ,
NE.I. @,. '7#
..\ 'k . N 17 $8'3 r#..,' ..y .s ; ;,. . 4 y ,- .,
~. . ... ..
~~.. -"-,y. i . . ! . . $ .". . e
* - -: ; ~ . -
,f'. , . , , . 7. , +/ , .
,q,. ' g *.
, '.' ..Je t. y.4 ::t, . . , , . ' * ' ' ' . , ' . . -
,,L 'y * ** 4' @.. 'f.f "' ,, -)
a,; i - . t ! :r , i I . : *- .t. 'i ',A ,.4 u n'. ' ./...,
, h' f '
~l'*****',
? ' , 1 *} ! .">f t' ml .O,,l1* .';* _* * l* *
, , ^
.t.
. m '
~
e,
/ .
.: r ..
h.7.,.y. .s.. ,t .
- ,, , .3 s . .. . .
.. i, . .. ,.
- w. .
- g. , . .W .g
. pr . . .
(ihM,.;y1%g::u..-n .'
,%.% I,$March .;y . 13th -. 1983 J
l.5...9...[M,;T.,d.l : . i
- p c :Il -
~.:. ... . . . .
..;D ...a U . Island Lighting Co. '
. %:.m / .1 /
. .. rF % ' , .' " .
;:Q @,h q;.1 ong:. w;. ,. i .. , ,. . ; .,, .,Mineolai 3Y. w -.
^
. e.,
. **'...C;..
+. ,p 'i . . . <
M:D fe ,,
. ' J .t, ; ,,- 3.j J !.
,d
'm , a. :: ' ' '
- 6 y,1.hl;;?.' N ..cGe n.;.. .a .,'.o 'c
. ?a.....,y.
. ,, e,,tleman s '. ' .. i.
. . u .'. w ;;..
1 y , r., p, .s. d .s.:.:
#m, ;. .. .. ., . I 4.. . *
.d./.N~'$.h,',hha ej, boon reading occasionally / theproblemobM . b ., ,, ,
N.:h.h. .h. ,r. '. ,,
, $..... at the SlJoreham nuclear plant [.[ :.\.'.;,;t' .f Y . . - .
. . .h..'. .
P 8 m r b m. ul o
. _,. , . 2 2 W: Pay
> ,a o . , .
o Y performed at any nuclear. plant... .' ::1. R. . : . '. . J . l d'S -
. g,5.?It.."be. ..lieve. many.:of you forgot or'aro too' ou ~ '
3 ', tremember ; tha : BERLIN AIRLIPT", To refrekh' "* ' U T Y c'. y ' l:;macorya.blockadowasplaced.aroundWestBak i '.i.'.b Y " E*k
.., l
.. < ..by.ths. Russians in 1948* This.bl ' T' ** L c' ~
ts ^I ' l.,.:..by .the . United Si:at ir. Force by flying small..DC 3kado "N was e .
;.'and DC 4 =
[ ., . '-( that was'n e t [ho 1 "E k' -
- n -
ally 1 i h b$ c . -
. .. . Iw .'... . .. .g. ., . - ,- . . ....,.. . .. -.
.. . .i ..., , .. . . , . , ,
c 3 ok vo a ver "
. . With. proper area ovacuation their would '2
'll 3
. ,' .. ,.c. ...
ba , n. o,.ppoblem for certain areas to drive or. bus
. .y t'y, N#.5' .
O U "."d e d '
- u. their assigned. airfield At pr t U ta o i on he , ,, -
i d , y 52 m mn:m w gggpv 73,:.I
. r. . -, -
. Arrangements would have"to b ' '
~~ ' *
'% U
~~.
, . ..I / frfrf and o: cit.proceedures l$a d $ao a e
- e E
ntn n
- 4. . thoucd fp pe uld r,0 coved"7.d'U. . : '. ,-
within hours - Lo 7;,d 'f j.p ' capable : airfkolds 'Isla d; does haVe its sharo of jotg. f.',,
. l".i n.,q
. ' / , M , ; ?, i! .
, l, . ; f/2 ' . e ..
; . .c ., .
- ','y . .l ' .,'.'",: .
JU.f:m.S t. E th oughty "
.. . . . .: . . .~ - . . . .
. ,,, .:. "'.e.n.. ,
,,.: ..,1, ,y b ..
- 7. [.l! ,,
. r. a e , .
l .i.313.,,1..)8 P. -@,i ,a; :.,..,..G'. w'e .y:.a.. ll'Y.'.1 ,, .,1 :i. .M?, #* ' .:,.V.
- g. . .5 ' b. ... , ,;.. ";
a
. ' y.. d ,. Rospeotfu. . . . . , , , . ,
."Y. e 2.,. .u, ,.*
,.i N g- . +'. 't y e
.t',.,.., 4. % . . ; t*,.
.c.t- - , .t . .,1,'
W. ,.
' ,, .
- A. ,ap. . .' .i , b. . './* s. . : *,, l. g,t ." . . . ....,,s'p..'.
a .
\ f,lt{(Q
'. '.. '.;. 2:': :
4,xc
. ? j. l' ..~:,, ,*: M , ':.; .a ,, *- ' ,. l. .
%' ; l;%@
Copies T '
. Retired US .AAF Pi' o+'
' ,Y 'l t',.:p . j (..y., Hon, Laria' Cue::; ,
n.l. J -
.. m ,
f T,, n' _- _ . ,
;. mgK4g@X'FC
/ 1 / port, New Tork 11705 l' , l February 28, 1983
+ 1 t J.
Dear Mr. palladino,
'- I do not think the Shoreham Nuclear Plant should be. opened. l It is too dangerous. I cannot see how any evacuation plan could t really work. As it is, .the proposed plans have been so complex l that I can't imagine how people could follow them in the event of i an accident. It would be especially hard for those who live very close to the. plant. le
. don't know enough yet about nuclear energy !
to open such a plant. In the long run, the plant would hurt us all, rather than help us. The other major problem is the storage J of nuclear. wastes. In the past nuclear wastes have been dumped in the sea. Some of them have already been found to have leaks. There were fish near the leaking containers, some.cf which may '
- 4 have been caught by the fishermen. I saw something about this on l T.V. I hope that you will recognize these dangers and try to prevent the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. I would appreciate it very much if you would send me a reply. Thank you.
Sincerely, d Avril Opinante
/
s
/* b i
M d
~
t
)f g
-nnove- w' l 9
. ocem nam 9.....,.g,u os 3 PROD. & LT!1L FM.. 1..... -
C/ L OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS l < 235 uDo souttvAno p/ "}j
- UDO sE ACH, NEW YORK 11561 *3 g
(516) 849-2224
%ND L ,
OR. HROM( P. 0814 MAN i- : CCsyn&7eEsulent at uhook usNRC 13 Mv/ 1985 Frank M. Rasbury i l'xecutive Director of Nassau County ( Chapter of the American Red Cross 264 Old Country Road fF
'g0g ,fg[gjjg -
j MANCH Mineola, New York 11501 .
Dear Mr. Rasbury:
There has come to my attention that in official testi. mony before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Lilco and the Nassau Chapter of the American Red Cross have committed the Lcng Beach School facilities, along with other schools in Nassau, to a Lilco plan of evacuation in the event of a radiological accident at the ' Shoreham Nuclear Plant. Please be advised that our school district entered into an agree-ment with the Red Cross a number of years ago agreeing to cooper-- ate in the event of a natural disaster such as flood ~ fire, , hurricane, etc. A Shoreham emergency would not be included in that category. Consequently, we wish to emphasize that the Long
' Beach City School District will not be a participant in any Shoreham evacuation plan' developed by Lilco and sponsored by the Red Cross.
A copy of this letter is being sent to Morton B. Margulies so that we can set the record straight as to the position of the Long Beach School Distr,ivt in this regard. , ,
. Verytruly5oursh .
E30ME P. OBERMAN f S3perintendent of Schools ' jpo:g . 1 cc: Morton B. Margulies, Administrative Law Judge Irving Rosenthal, Long Beach City Hall j
~
.~ . -, i 9
-*1 m,
/ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -}}