ML17139A059
| ML17139A059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Laverty J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104080174 | |
| Download: ML17139A059 (11) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
)
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50" 3888 NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS MOTION DATED MARCH 16 1981 I.
INTRODUCTION On March 16, 1981, Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND) filed a pleading entitled "Statements and Motion Concerning Discovery, Summary Disposition and Ex Parte Actions" (Motion).
This Motion asks the Licensing Board in this proceeding to:
1.
reconsider its "MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Directing CAND and ECNP to Respond to Interrogatories)" of February 27, 1981 (Motion 2.
compel the Staff to publish the FES, the
(Motion at 2),
investigate the veracity of affidvaits submitted by the Staff and Applicants supporting motions for summary disposition (Motion at 2), and 4.
order Applicants to cease and desist from further attempts to pressure the [Nuclear Regulatoryj Commission (Motion at 3-4).
gsd1
/de
~y1 IQ 1
t I
"11 I
11 I
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes CAND's Motion and asks that it be denied in its entirety.
II.
DISCUSSIOH A.
Motion for Reconsideration is Ina ro riate in These Circumstances CAND's request for reconsideration of the Board's "MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Directing CAND and ECNP to Respond to Interrogatories)"
(Order) is inappropriate.
That Order specifically addressed the very argument raised here by CAND.
In pertinent part, the Order states:
CAND here states that it cannot respond to discovery without receipt of certain additional documents or information.
l(e have stated many times, however, that a party is required to reveal only such information as it currently possesses concerning its contentions; if it has no such information, it can so state.
Documents and other information received subsequently may change a
party's
- answer, but the possibility they may do so is no excuse for not answering.
Order at 3.
The instant Motion states that "the Citizens have no information to reveal at this time, because of a lack of knowledge.
This is due to
[CAND's reliancej on the data contained in yet to be published NRC documents, namely the FES, the
Motion at 1.
- Thus, CAND has merely reiterated the same position ruled unacceptable in the Board's Order.
As CAHD has provided no other reason why the Board's Order should be reconsidered, its request should be denied.
B.
The Licensin Board is Without Authorit to Com el the NRC Staff to Issue Documents CAND asks the Licensing Board to issue an Order compelling the Staff to publish "the FES, the SER, and the FSAR, etc..."
(f1otion at 1).+
The Commission has long recognized, however, that licensing boards are without authority to direct the Staff in the performance of their admin-istrative functions.
Carolina Power and Li ht Com an (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), CLI-80-12, 11 NRC 514, 516 (1980).
As was aptly noted in Northeast Nuclear Ener Com an (Hontague Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-19, 1
NRC 436, 437 (1'975):
Under the Commission's regulatory
- scheme, the Staff is given the duty of reviewing applications for licenses (Section
- 2. 102).
This review results in at least two important products, the Safety Evaluation Report and the Draft Environmental Statement.
The regulations do not give the Licensing Board a part in this review or in the preparation of the resulting reports.
The Comnmission has delegated to the Licensing Boards power and duties with respect only to the hearing process (2. 104 and 2.718).
The Staff's review and reporting function is largely completed in a setting outside the hearing process and therefore without the purview of the Licensing Board.
The fact that the two areas of activity may proceed, for a time, concurrently, does not extend to the Board any supervisory authority over that part of the process that has been entrusted to the Staff.
Thus, in keeping with the Commission's Rules of Practice, this portion of CAND's t1otion must be denied.
The Staff notes that the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is a
gl document prepared by the Applicant and is only reviewed by the Staff.
C.
CAND's Re uest to Have Certain Affidavits Investi ated is Without Merit The third portion of CAHD's Notion asks the Licensing Board "to investi gate the several affidavits, filed by the Applicants and the NRC supporting summary disposition of the various contentions..."
(Notion at 2.)
CAND cites one example of allegedly false statements concerning the existence of low-power television stations.
While CAND argues that those affidavits which assert that there are no low-power television stations near the transmission lines are false, it provides no evidence, under affidavit or otherwise, which indicates low-power television stations will be established.
tagore importantly, CAND does not even reference the particular affidavits which state that there will be no low-power television stations near the transmission lines.
Neither the Staff nor Applicants made any mention of low-power television stations in the affidavits which accompanied their motions for partial summary disposition of Contention 17.
Yet, on the strength of its unsupported, unsworn statements, CAND asks that these assertions be investigated.
This request is clearly without merit and should be denied.
D.
A licant's Letter to the Commission Was Not an Ex Parte Communication
- Finally, CAHD moves the Licensing Board to "order the corporate officers involved to cease and desist from further attempts to pressure the Commission."
(Notion at 4.)
The basis for this tiotion appears to be Applicants'etter to the Chairman of the Commission, dated February 12, 1981 concerning delays in the licensing process.
CAND asserts that this letter is an "ex par te communication."
(Notion at 3.)
It is clear that the Applicant's February 12, 1981 letter to the Commission is not an ex parte communication.
Section 2.780 of the Commission's Rules of Practice govern ex parte communications.
This section prohibits any party to a proceeding from submitting off the record to Commissioners or Staff members "any evidence, explanation,;
- analysis, or advice, whether written or oral, regarding any substantive matter at issue in a proceeding before the NRC...."
10 C.F.R. 5 2.780(a).
The ex parte communication rule does not, however, apply to communications concerning procedural issues.
Puerto Rico Water Resources Authorit (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-313, 3 NRC 94, 96 (1976).
!n the first instance, Applicants'etter to the Chairman was not "off the record."
All the parties, including CAND, received copies of the letter and were free to write letters in reply.
- Secondly, the letter dealt entirely with procedural, not substantive, matters.
Thus, this letter is not an ex parte communication and thus, there is no basis for CAND's tlotion for a "cease and desist" order.
~~
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated
- above, CAND's Hotion of Harch 16, 1981 should be denied in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted, Dated at Bethesda,
- Haryland, this 6th day of April, 1981
/
3'~/~ K ~/. l <<l,'< ll/3 essica H. Laverty Counsel for NRC Staff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2)
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-387
)
50-388
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS MOTIOfl, DATED MARCH 26, 1981," dated April 6, 1981, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 6th day of April, 1981:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Administrative Judge 513 Gilmoure Drive Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. Paul W. Purdom 245 Gulph Hills Road
- Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Bryan A. Snapp, Esq.
Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company Two North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania" 18101 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau. of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Ms. Colleen Marsh Box 538A, RDy4 Mountain Top, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Thomas J. Halligan Cor respondent:
CAND P. 0.
Box 5 Scr'anton, Pennsylvania 18501
- Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.,
- Chairman, Administrative Judge
'Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. John H. Buck, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mr. Thomas S. Moore, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety 5 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 "Atomic Safety 5 Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing 5 Service Branch Washington, D.C.
20555 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
P.O.
Box 1560 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18703 Mr. Robert M. Gallo Resident Inspector P,O.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Robert W. Adler Dept. of Environmental Resources 505 Executive House P.O.
Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 essica H. Laverty Counsel for NRC Staff
flWNI0