ML18230B103
| ML18230B103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1975 |
| From: | Chilk S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Graham W Carolina Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML18230B103 (16) | |
Text
JUN 2 3 1975 Distribution Do~ Files ~~
ELD~iles PDR/LPDR HSljapar TEngelhardt JGallo JScinto FGray MKarman CBarth Formal Files (2,'hron L/JCutchin EP/MRoss Secy (3) 75-2721 GErtter 8724 Docket Nos.
50-400 ~
50-401 50-402 50-403 Hr. William E.
Graham, Jr.
Vice President 5 General Counsel Carolina Power 5 Light Company P.O.
Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Nr. Graham:
Your letter of May 14,
- 1975, addressed to Chairman Anders, regarding a communication re-ceived by the -Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.,
has been referred to me for response.
Your views on the matter are appreciated.
For your information, I am transmitting a copy of the NRC response to Nr-. Erwin's letter.
Sincerely, original Signed by Samue!~J.
hilk Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission Retyped Off. of Sec.
6/23/75 aeyan P,.all.e.l....,
ng and Ser oml c
,,....B.o..a,r..d Docket OPPICE3P'ce Section SURNAME3P'ATS 3P' U, 4 OOVERNMENT PRINTINO OPPICEI 1474 424 144 Form hEC-318 (Rev. 9.33) hECM 0240
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc w/enclosure:
Thomas 1l. Reilly, Esq.
Hr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. J.
V. Leeds, Jr.
Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
"l p I
'! 0 v
~
~ i' 4I v
t'
Docket Nos. 50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.
C.
20555 Mr. William E.
Graham, Jr.
Vice President 8 General Counsel Carolina Power 8t Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Graham:
Thao~erudioa four letter of MayR4, 1975, addressed to Chairman Anders, regarding a
t~ received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Thomas S. Erwin, Esq. rel+4ing
~~eetiTIgs-between-the-NRC-staf~-repr esent@4i-vesmf
the-Garo11na PoHh~~~m~. ~has been referred to me for response.
Your views on the matter are appreciated.
For your information I
am transmitting a copy of the NRC response to Mr. Erwin's letter.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc w/enclosure:
Thomas W. Reilly, Esq.
Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. J.
V. Leeds, Jr.
Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section
<O~TIO~
@e"
. e O
fTI
'>r6-iS~~
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary to the Commission
l1
Docket Hos. 50-400 5
01 50-2 50-4 Hr. 111iam E.
aham, Dr.
Vice President 8
neral Counsel Carolina Power 5 L ht Company P. 0. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Caroli 27602 Gear Nr. Graham:
Thank you for your letter o
lay 14, 1975, addressed to Chairman Anders, regarding a
tter received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Tho S. Erwin. Esq. relating to meetings between the NRC staf and representatives of the Carolina Power and Light Compa
. It has been referred to me for response.
Your vices on the matter are appreciate For your information I am transmitting a copy of the HRC respo e to ftr. Enhn's letter.
Sincerely, Samuel J. Chilk.
Secretary to the Coamission
Enclosure:
Distribution.
As stated.
Central Filesl cc wi'enclosure:
OELD FileQ Thomas M. Reilly's Esq.J PDR/LPDR<
~ir. Glenn 0. Bright'Shapar v gr. d. T. Leeds, dr.i/
TEngelhardt~
Richard E. Jones.
Esq agalloch Thomas S. Eralin, Esq.J dScinto1 George F. Trowbridge, Esq/FGray Atomic Safety agd LicensingMKarman J Appeal Board~
Atomic Safety apd Licensing Board Panel v'ocketing and Service Section+
CBarth~
Formal Files (2)v Chron v L/J Cutchinv'P/WRoss v Secy (3) 82721 ~
EDocket Files (4) P nn OELD Karman-. ~'-
..Engel,h.acdt..:.d 6/9/75 ornlcc3m'VRNAMC~T DATR3m'one ABC 318 (Rer. 9.3 3) hECM 0240 Secy 6/ /75 k U, O'OVRRNMCNT PRINTINO Oit/ICCI 1414 444 144
~ \\
I I l
I \\
r r
~hl L L
lk P
f
UNITEO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,WASHINGTON, D.
C.
20555 Docket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402
~ 50-403 gUN 3 3
$975 Thomas S.
Erwin, Esq.
115 Ilest Morgan Street Post Office Box 928
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Erwin:
Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1975, addressed to Chairman Anders, regarding certain meetings on May -2, 1975 between members of the NRC staff and officials of the Carolina Power and Light Company.
It has been referred to me for response.
Informal meetings of the type referred to in your letter are regularly held by the NRC staff with applicants for licenses or licensees or intervenors in licensing proceedings or members of the public.
These IIIeetings are customarily held during the course of the staff's review of an application for a license.
They are held to obtain greater understanding of the complex information submitted in the application or to discuss new information which may be relevant to the staff's assessment.
Public announcements of such meetings are not required.
Information discussed at meetings with applicants for licenses or licensees is accepted only tentatively subject to confirmation by written submission.
It is only when such information is submitted in writing that it may be relied upon by the NRC staff in its assessment of an application.
All suhIIissions, of course, are sent to the Com-mission's Public Document Room and made available to all parties to any pending proceeding relating to that application.
Meetings such as those described above are not subject to the "ex-parte" communications limitations specified in 10 CFR 5 2.780 of the NRC Rules of Practice.
The restrictions of that rule apply to communications with quasi-judicial officials. (or their advisors) with respect to adjudications which may be before those officials.
The NRC staff's responsibilities are distinct and separate from the adjudicatory role and responsibilities of these officials, Its responsibilities to independently assess the facts exist without regard to whether or not a hearing is held in an oper ating license proceeding, whether or not a construction permit proceeding is
~pQ3Ttpy
'~~0-i'
0 I.l.
~ Qc, I
Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
contested or whether or not, in a contested proceeding, the particular question is in controversy.
Your concern regarding the matter of meetings between the NRC staff and representatives of the Carolina Power and Light Company is appreciated.
I trust the information herein will alleviate that concern.
Sincerely, QI'final Signed gy samuel J. Chjjfg cc:
Thomas M. Reilly, Esq.
Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. J.
V. Leeds, Jr.
Richard E. Jones, Esq.
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission
Jl
'I J
FROM Rf4
- .. CaxoDm Pavax' Lkjb@
Qi,B,Ram Re Crime@
BrQCigb~ Ne 'Ce
TO h
CONTROL NUM8ER 87' DATE OF DOCUMENT SIX4AS ACTION PROCESSING DATES Acknowledged Interurn'eply
,...,~PI'/
FILE LOCATION ACTION COMPLETION DEADLINE 9P IIV'REPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
Choirman Diroctor ol Regulation DESCRIPTION
@Original Q Copy Q other
'oyen e ae e~ e~ge, Xaee x eo encm see $1etlS eccvaicg the O.mme~ md hg kyifcaetea Cha C~Beaiaa
.: OteM, CC ieyhegh eentth3CC, iA boih@ ecczee. rmeinPP ecect ming, the ~MKhmia m8 "Smemfe5 pleats REMARKS h1 REFERRED TO DATE IS NOTlFICATION TO THE JCAE RECOMMENDED?
(
rt P h t
Cyet QQ C Macha Guaeke Cage Sachet F&oa) $9QQO.A)i, KQ
<<402'4 xmas, (2)
-m4,. -
s DIRECTOR OF REGULATION COMMUNICATIONS'CONTROL h
e Form HQ-32 (1-73)
USAEC
HQ 200:
I4-74)
.75.
P 7 P j LOGGING DATE
-AKE~SECIRIETARlAT To: 0 COMMISSIONER
.. 0 GEN. MANAGER 0 DIR. REGULATION Cl 0
GEN. COUNSEL 0
PLAN. SI ANAL DATE:~g~
0 INFO. SERVICES 0 SECRETARY INcoMING Nilliam E. Gra am Carolina Power Li ht Co.
.Box 1551 Ralei N.C.
27602 a3.man Anders
- ~
~~E~. Thomas Erl~'s 5/9/75 ltr to Chairman re Shearon rrzs z.cense roceedin Brunsl xck lant PREPARE REPLY FOR SIGNATURE OF:
0 CHAIRIVIAN 0
COMMISSIONER 0 'M, DR, GC, PA, IS, SECY SIGNATURE BLOCK OMITTED se~
PLEASE RETURN ORIGINALWITH RESPONSE O'
FOR'DIRECl REPLY'- '
SEND COPY OF REPLY TO:
0 SECY MAlLFACILITYI3I SUSP~ISE 0
CHAIRMAN 0
COMMISSIONERS 0
SECRETARY
~t DATE K Pic I
7>
I 0
FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION 0
FOR INFORMATION D.
FOR RECOMMENDATION Qp)~
Tirn6 Ref:
Se ticket 8 75-2694 tO ChcLL~i Co of incomin 5 Erl~
each. 'Commissioner.
5 9 75 ltr Eral~
1tr sent to II ll I'
I'OR THE COMMISSION:
WHEN SEPARATED FROM ENCLOSURES HANDLE THIS DOCUMENT AS 3 i'2-.
ACTION SLIP
Carolina Po~r & Light Company P. O. Box 1551 ~ Raleigh. N. C. 21602 May 14, 1975 VIILLIAME. GRAHAM,JR.
Vice President & General Counsel Mr. Rilliam Anders, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Re:
Docket 3os.
50-400, 50-401, 50-402,.
& 50-403
Dear i~h. Anders:
This is in response to Mr. Thomas Erwin's letter to you dated May 9, 1975.
~gir. Erwin is attorney of record for the intervenors in the Shearon Harris licensing proceeding.
Reduced to its essentials, Mr. Erwin's letter accuses the Company, and by implication the Commission staff, of improper conduct.
His charges are ill-founded and reflect a gross mis-understanding of the regulatory process.
Specifically, Mr. Erwin claims that the Company held a secret meeting with the K"'RC s"taff 'in-vrcuol'ation of the "ggC 's rute against ex ~arts communi-cations.
10 CPR 5 2.780.
To put the meeting in proper perspective, two employees of the Company met briefly with members of the regulatory staff on Friday, May 2, 1975, to outline the substance of a budgetary and construction program reduction which was to be announced to the public and to the Company employees on the following Monday.
There is absolutely no substance to the allegation that this meeting was held in violation oK the Commission's rule against ex ~arte communications.
That rule relates to coamunications with "Commissioners, members of their immediate staffs, or other hRC officials and employees who advise the Commissioners in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions." 10 CPR g 2.780(a)(1).
Both by practice and by regulation a distinction is made between the Commission (including its surrogates and their staffs) and'he.
.regulatory staff which is responsible for day-to-day licensing matters.l As a result of this distinction the role of the regulatory staff is very See 10 CFR g 2.780(e) where a distinction is made between "Commissioners, members of their immediate staffs and other
ÃRC officials and employees who advise the Commissioners in tne exercise of their quasi-judicial functions" and "staff".
~lb'. Anders May 14, 1975 similar to that of a party to a proceeding and communications such as the one in question do not =all uithin the rule against ex parte communi.cations.
Since there was, in fact, no attempt to prevent his having full knowledge of the Company's plans, it is difficult for us to see what
~hh. Erwin is really complaining about.
He attended the Company's press conference on ~lay 5 and was served a copy of the Company's official notice announcing the construction delay.
His ability to participate fully and appropr'iately in the licensing proceeding has not )een compromised in any way.
Recognizing the practical necessity of informal communications between applicants and the regulatory staff, we are hard pressed to find any basis for distinguishing t
between the meeting about which Mr. Erwin is complaining and the hundreds of conversations which take place on a-daily basis between applicants and staff in conjunction with the Comu.ssion's various licensing proceedings.
." ~th. Erwin has also claimed that the Company and the NRC staff acted improperly in failing to formally notify him of a meeting regarding a Show Cause Order issued by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in conjunction witn our Brunswick plant (Docket Nos.
50-324 and 50-325).
The meeting was 'to seek clarification and additional details concerning the seismic study referenced in the Order and to discuss the Company's preliminary views on the sort of study needed to resolve the question which led to the Order.
Another purpose of the meeting was to discuss obtaining an extension of time within"which to answer: in order to'ermit us'o.develop'-a detailed study proposal.
While Mr. Erwin's clients did file the petition which led to the Show Cause Order, that fact alone does not make them a party to the issuance of the Order or to procedural matters related thereto, including settlement discussions.
Because of this, there could be no impropriety in meeting with the staff without affording petitioners a right to attend.
It should also be noted that for the reasons stated in conjunction with the Harris meeting, the meeting in. question cannot be characterized as violating the Commission's ex parte rule.
Purther evidence that the ex parte rule is inapplicable as applied to meetings associated with the Show Cause Order is found in the fact that there is no "proceeding" within the meaning of 10 CFR 5 2.780(a)(2) involved in this case.
Finally, although ?fr. Edwin failed to mention it, it s'hould be pointed out that his client did attend the meeting about which he is complaining.
Mr. Erwin also failed to mention that although his clients are not parties to any proceeding pending in Docket Nos.
50-324 and 50-325 (Brunswick licensing),
the Company has routinely sent him copies of correspondence with NRC pertaining to the issues his clients have raised in conjunction with that plant.
- Likewise, he failed to mention that he has been kept fully informed and that he participated in a meeting between the Company and NRC staff to discuss the results of a fault investigation conducted by the Company in the Harris proceeding even though this had nothing to do with contentions raised by ~fr. Erwin in that proceeding.
In short, we have conducted ourselves in a responsible manner anc "e have and are fully complying with both the letter
Mr. Anders May 14, 1975 and the spirit of the Commission's rules and regulations.
We have in the past and will in the future accord ifr. Erwin and his clients every courtesy appropriate under the circumstances.
We do not, however, feel that we can or should acquiesce in his desire to be a party to the Company's day-to>>day decision making process or its day-to-day dealings with the regulatory staff.
Neither do we believe that the formal administrative process, as developed by Congress, the courts, and the practice of countless administrative
- agencies, contemplates the sort of involvement Mr. Erwin seems to expect.
Very truly yours,
$v G,Jr./gmc cc:
Mr. Thomas W. Reilly, Chairman Atomic Safety
& Licensing Board U. 'S. nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545
~fr. Alan~ S. Rosenthal; Chairman-Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Coaxnission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. William J.
Olmstead Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. Charles A. Barth Counsel for ÃRC Regulatory Staff U.
S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 1h.
George P. Trowbridge Shaw, Pittman, Potts
& Trowbridge Barr Building 910 17th Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. Thomas S. Erwin Post Office Box 928 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
lw'iy