ML18230B105
| ML18230B105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1975 |
| From: | Graham W Carolina Power & Light Co |
| To: | Anders W NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| Download: ML18230B105 (6) | |
Text
R RR COVCIIfrcrcfIT IfnrfrTIIICorrlctt t973>> 493 303 F RO!.I CONTROL HUM8ER FILE LOCATION=
Carolina Power & Light William E. Graham 8 4 DATE OF DOCUMENT ACTION COMPLETION DEADLINE Raleigh, H. C. 5/14/75 5/27/75 TO AC IOH PROCESSING DATES PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OFI Acknow ledtted Choirmon Chairmen>Anders Intertm RepIy Ci I fR Rl ff F Inn l X Omit ted DESCRIPTION Ltr 5originol Q Copy C! Other R EMARKS R
Response to Thomas Erwin's letter to Anders dtd 5/9/75 accusing the Company, and by implication the Commission staff, of improper conduct in holding secret meetings concerning the Shearon Harris and Brunswick plants
'ECY 75-2721 R" FERRED TO DATE IS NOTIFICATION To THE JCAE RECOMMENDED?
f/action
'haper 5/ZQ 21/
1 I / cyct Gossick
., Dircks /
Rusche'age Docket Tf.lcs) 50-400, Ol Q Py SeAtPQ
. PDR -402, 03,
-324, 25 DO NOT DETACH THIS COPY DIRECTOR OF REGULATION Form HQ-32 (1-73)
COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL USAEC
t I HQ 200 (4-74)
J I.
75.'72 j LOGGINGDATE 4EEF SECRETARIAT TO: 0 COMMISSIONER 0 GEN. MANAGER 0 GEN. COUNSEL DATE:~$
0 Q~
INFO. SERVICES 0 DIR. REGULATION 0 PLAN. St ANAL. 0 SECRETARY Q 0 INcoMING l'ii1 1iam E. raham e.
Carolina POI'er Li ht Co.
.Box 1551 Raleigh N.C. 27602
~Iman ihlders sUIUE . Thomas.
Erl~' 5/9/75 1tr to Chairman re EKearon xs zcensm vroceedin Brunsld,ck Q, PREPARE REPLY FOR SIGNATURE OF:
0 CHAIRMAN 0 COMMISSIONER 0 GM, DR, GC, PA, IS, SECY SIGNATURE BLOCK OMITTED PLEASE RETURN ORIGINAL WITH RESPONSE 0 FOR DIRECT REPLY 0 SEND COPY OF REPLY TO:
0 SECY MAIL FACILITY{3)
SUSPENSE DATE:
0 CHAIRMAN 0 CmmISSIONERS 0 SEC RETARY r
0 FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION Gate 0 FOR INFORMATlON 0 FOR RECOMMENDATION Time
~f - Se ticket
'EMARKs:
75-2694 5 9 75 ltr Erl~ 'r.
~
~
'\
to Chairman .
Co of incan 5 Erl~ tr sent to
~ ~
-,'lib each Commissioner. ~ V
~ 4 ~,.
I FOR THE COhJNISSION:
WHEN SEPARATED FROM ENCLOSURES =*
HANDLE THIS DOCUMENT AS t 8 724 AcT)DN SL)p I'
Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1551 ~ Ratefgh, N. C. 27602
~gfay 14, 1975 WILLIAME. GRAHAM,JR.
Vice President 8 General Counsel Mr. Milliam Anders, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!fashington, D. C. 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, & 50-403
Dear Mr. 'Anders:
I This is in response to Mr. Thomas Erwin's letter to you dated May 9, 1975. Mr. 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 NRC staff in violation of the NRC's rule against ex ~arte 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 he1d in violation of the Cosmission's rule against ex ~arts communications.
That rule relates to coamunications with "Commissioners, members of their immediate staffs, or other NRC officials and employees who advise the Commissioners in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions." 10 CFR 5 2.780(a)(1). Both by practice and by regulation a distinction is made between the Commission (including its surrogates and their staffs) and the regulatory staff which is responsible for day-to-day licensing matters.>
As a result of this distinction the role of the regulatory staff is very See 10 CPR 5 2.780(e) where a distinction is made between "Commissioners, members of their immediate staffs and other NRC officials and employees who advise the Commissioners in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions" and nstaffn
~ ~ ~
Mr. Anders 2e May 14, 1975 similar to that of a party, to a proceeding and communications such as the one in question do not fall within the rule against ex ~arte communications.
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 Mr. Erwin the Company's press conference is really complaining about. He attended on May 5 and was served a copy of the Company's official notice announcing the construction delay. His ability to participate fully and appropriately in the licensing proceeding has not been 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 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 Commission's various licensing proceedings.
Mr. 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 with 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 permit us to 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, th'ere 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 characterised as violating the Commission's ex ~arte rule. purther evidence that the ex parte tule 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 Mr. Erwin failed to mention it, it should 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 the Company has routinely sent him copies of correspondence with 'icensing),
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 Mr. Erwin in that proceeding. In short, we have conducted ourselves in a responsible manner and we have and are fully complying with, both the letter
Mr. Anders <<3w May 14, 1975 and the spirit of the Commission's rules and regulations. We have in the past and will in the future accord Mr. 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.
f
,t Very truly yours, l
WEG,Jr./gmc cc: Mr. Thomas W. Reilly, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Mr. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. William J. Olmstead Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Hr. Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Mr. George P. Trowbridge Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Barr Building 910 17th Street, H. W.
Washington, D. C.. 20006 Mr. Thomas S. Erwin Post Office Box 928 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602