ML20065A560

Response of County Legislator R Brodsky to Sj Chilk 820823 Ltr.Commission Should Reconsider Rulings,Reinstate Contentions & Procedures & Reject Judge Carter Resignation

ML20065A560
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/03/1982
From:	Brodsky R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8209130259
Download: ML20065A560 (4)

Text

'

a

.? -

/ '

MP UNITEDSTATESOFAMERhCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k@g In The Matter of I D Consolidated Edison Company

Tf[$tfcfCE BR

Docket Numbers50-247SP of New York (Indian Point Unit 2): 50-286-SP

September 3, 1982 Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point Unit 3) x RESPONSE OF COUNTY LEGISLATOR RICHARD BRODSKY TO LETTER TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OF SECRETARY SAMUEL J.

CHILK DATED AUGUST 23, 1982 The Commission's July 27, 1982 Memorandum and order, the ensueing request from the A.S.L.B to the Commission for clarification and guidance, and the resulting response to the A.S.L.B. from Secretary Chilk in the name of the Commission creetesdoubt that the Commission's supposed purposes in conducting this. proceeding can be met.

It must be supposed that in posing cuestions to the Board, the Commission desired answers. It must further be supposed that those charged with gathering information sufficient to answer the cuestions understood the need for speed, for s'pecificity, for completeness, and fairness. As .

a party and a participant in the opening round of hearings, it seemed to me that, except for the delaying tactics of counsel for the licensees, all the above criteria were met.

Important and relevant testimony was presented on questions

~

8209 30259 B20903 DR ADOCK 05000

posed by the Commission.

The extraordinay intervention of the commission has had, as of now, only one measurable result. The hearings have been delayed significantly. But from the point of view of the intervenors who originally requested the hearings, who have borne the brunt of presenting evidence. on the questions,

'N who are not directly or indirectly funde$ by the public or the ratepayers as are the commission, the other governmental bodies participating, and the licensees, and who now have had the rules changed in mid-hearing, the results of the

' ~

commission's decisions are calamitous. The integrity of a the entire process has been undermined, perhaps fatally.

It may reasonably be inferred th'at the Commission has abandoned

, any purpose of creating an unbiased, complete record upon which to base any findings it may make in the future.

If the Commission's concern that there be a balance between testimony on consequences and that on risk was to be addressed I fairlys a variety of procedural vehicles exist. But the

! arbitr3ry reguriements for certain kinds of testimony from each kind of witness, the arbitrary change in scheduling of hearings after plans had been made and finalized for months, the arbitrary rejection of contentions previously adopted, and the failure to concede the magnitude of the damage done to the intervenors together consitute a violation of law,

1 of the Constitutionalgaarantees of substantive and procedural

)

due process, and of the mandate of the Commission in the broader I sense to proceed in a manner that is fundamentally fair and respects the public concerns in this matter. A detailed brief of these violations can be provided upon request by the Commission.

The Commission cannot expect the intervenors to ignore the practical consequences of its acts. A failure to remedy the disasterous rulings of the past weeks may cause some or all of the intervenors to reassess- their participation in the hearings. If that should come to pass, because the s

Commission has left to the intervenors the job of creating a record upon which it can act, there may be no evidence or testimony available save .that presented by the licensees.

The resignation of Judge Carter emphasizes what is at stake in this matter. The fact of unfairness is magnified by the broad public perception of unfairness. A rigid restatement of the Commission's errors will not serve its or the public interest.

Accordingly, I request that the Commission reconsider its

.I rulings and reinstate the contentions and procedures in effect before July 27, 1982, and in consequence of that ruling reject the resignation of Judge Carter. A failure to do so will fatally undermine the proceedings and the hope that the Commission would seek full and honest answers to the many questions about the safety of the Indian Point reactors.

esp  % fully mitted, l l

' chard Bro sky

{

a te o

Service List Attached