ML20214N253

Forwards 870514 Testimony Presented on Behalf of Suffolk County at Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Re External Influences on NRC Adjudicatory Procedures in Facility Proceeding

ML20214N253
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/19/1987
From:	Blass G SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Asselstine J, Carr K, Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#287-3583 OL-3, NUDOCS 8706020114
Download: ML20214N253 (6)

Text

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 00LKETED l L I USNRC COUNTY LEGISLATURE GREGORY J. BLASS OfffC'. OI R

• PREsioinG orncER 00ChEii!G . ' M.

BRMIO-May 19, 1987 000KET HWM ' M PROD. & UTIL FAC.. _ _ _ - - -~

Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Commissioners:

Enclosed is a copy'of the testimony which I presented on behalf of Suffolk County on May 14, 1987, before the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation. The Subcommittee's hearing concerned external influences on the NRC's adjudicatory procedures in the Shoreham proceeding.

S ncerely,

. #de Greg y . Blass Presiding Officer cc: Service List - Shoreham Proceeding 8706020114 870519 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR 0s43 LEGISLATURE SUILOiNG. vtTERANS MEMCRIAL M*GMW AY e MAUPPAUGE. HEW YodM i 1783 e (S t el 360-A088

4 l

TESTIMONY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK C

-BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION SENATE COMMITTEE ON. ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS Presented by Gregory J. Blass Presiding Officer Suffolk County Legislature May 14, 1987

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today on behalf of Suffolk County concerning external influences on the NRC's Shoreham proceedings. This is an important subject, and we commend the Subcommittee for its efforts.

During five years of participating before the NRC, Suffolk County has seen repeated lapses in the NRC's objectivity. For example, we have witnessed the NRC " harmonizing" out of existence a fundamental safety criterion that. stood in LILCO's way; bending regulations so that LILCO need not confront adverse evidence; changing rules to give LILCO another chance; and putting greater

. procedural burdens on the County than on LILCO. On one occasion, the NRC's bias against Suffolk County and New York State was so extreme that we had to win a U.S. District Court order to restrain the NRC from snuffing out our constitutional rights.

I O

?. Among the large number of prejudicial actions taken by the NRC toward Suffolk County since 1982, here are a few that have happened recently:

(1) The Staff was caught cribbing -- literally copying --

portions of LILCO's brief and claiming the plagerized wo.tds and ideas as the Staff's own. The Staff did this after secretly getting an advance copy of LILCO's brief.

(2) The Executive Director of the Staff made up what he claims to be facts about the position of Suffolk County officials. His' claim is contrary to the sworn affidavit of the County Executive. When confronted with having effectively called elected County officials " liars" -- and indirectly also embracing the Governor of New York State within that label -- the Executive Director simply stood on his so-called " belief."

(3) The Executive Director of the NRC Staff refuses --

without justification -- to meet in public with the Suffolk County Legislature concerning what the County finds to be the Staff's blatent favoritism toward LILCO.

, (4) At this moment, the NRC is absolutely prejudicing the rights of Suffolk County. LILCO has asked the Commissioners to review its request for a license to operate Shoreham at 25%

-, ,,,w,, ,,-p ,,,-v -

. power. While the question of whether the Staff should be permitted to review LILCO's request is awaiting a ruling by the Commissioners, the Staff and its contractors are in large numbers already doing the review. What greater show of the Commissioners' bias against Suffolk County is there than having its own Staff do exactly what LILCO wants while the issue of whether the Staff should do it is pending before the Commissioners?

The question for the County once again is what to do. Are we to be forced to secure our rights by having to go to court?

Can we not expect the NRC to follow even the most fundamental standard of due process?

Suffolk County's experiences leave for us no conclusion but that the Commission has given up objectivity for LILCO's cause.

In short, we can infer only that either overtly or by a wink-and-nod the Commission has signalled its Staff to run interference for LILCO.

The County has found it impossible to explain charitably the contradictions at the NRC. The Commissioners claim impartiality, ,

but they act as LILCO's partisan. The Staff professes safety first, but helping LILCO is what it shows. Even the words of the l

President of United States are made into but an echo at the l l

l l

., -4_

Commission: In October 1984, the President pledged that his Administration does not favor the licensing of Shoreham over State and County objections. Yet, the Secretary of Energy openly repudiates these words by working with LILCO for the licensing of Shoreham. And the Commission itself proposes to change its regulations in defiance of the President's words.

Is this the product of NRC or Administration cynicism? Or the product of someone - perhaps even many people -- trying to wire the system to license Shoreham? Suffolk County does not have the answer, but we know that something is awry at the Commission.

As this Subcommittee examines the facts, it will observe a disparity between how LILCO appoaches the Shoreham case and how the County does. We have used our resources to try to make the NRC follow its own rules and apply the law. Our efforts have been overwhelmingly before administrative tribunals and the courts. LILCO, on the other hand, has devoted large resources to trying to get around the law and to change the rules.

Suffolk County has read that the URC Commissioners have decided to retain a special counsel to investigate the conduct of the Commission and Staff in several matters. The County believes

(

0 s: that the conduct of the Commission and-Staff concerning the licensing of Shoreham is a matter that should be a,dded to the special counsel's mandate.

I 1

i l

l l

I

\

L.