ML19242B313
| ML19242B313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1979 |
| From: | Aldwin W BALOUGH, R. C. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080058 | |
| Download: ML19242B313 (4) | |
Text
.
se,s
.s
/
. +#-
h TE R h lp" ff o,-%
M h
6
-6 h
$*'is, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Ar s s
9 'I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l%)
C7 f c,1 \\
In the matter of
)
Docket No. 50-70
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC CCMPANY
)
Operating License
)
No. TR-1 (Vallecitos Nuclear Center -
)
(Show Cause)
General Electric Test Reactor)
)
RESPONSE OF INTERVENORS RCN.'io V.
DELLUMS AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH TO L'. CENSING SOARD'S QUESTIONS OF JUNE 18, 1979.
1.
Does Inter %9nor Dellums have " standing," as that concept is employed in N.B.C.
licensing preceedings, to participate in this case by virtue of his status as a Congressman?
Answer:
Congressman Dellums has standing as a congressman to participate in this case.
The Dellums office is the federal representative of the constituents of dae 3th Congressional district, and as such has as one of its responsibilities the representation of constituents' interests before federal agencies.
The Congress-man joined chis case following requests from his constituents that he work for the permanent shutdown of the G.E.
Test Reactor, which these const; uents considered to be a menace to the lives and property of them and their descendents.
1.a. If so, are there legal or regulatory impediments to his representation by Mr. Halterman or Ms. Snow?
What are they?
Answer:
.No.
Follow.ng Duke Power (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-73-28, 5 AEC 666, 673-680 (1973), it is apparent that Congressman O(llums may be represented in this case by Mr. Halterman or Ms. Snow, under 10 CFR g 2.713.
In Duke Power a nonprofit corporation was held properly to be represented before the AEC by a non-attorney representative.
The Congressman joited this proceeding to protect the rights of the residents )f the 8th Congressional District.
Each congressional office is provided with substantial staff for the purpose of assisting the congressman in discharging his congress-ional duties.
No one maf reasonably expect that the Congressman 7 90808 cose
..?Us
s.
personally is capable of performing all the work af all the congressional staff.
Indeed, most of a congressaan's time is properly spent in Washington.
D.C.
The rationale of the Duke Power case was that the corporation was not able to per-sonally appear in the case.
Obviously Congressnan Dellums could personally appear, but for him to do sc, and prosecate this intervention personally, assuming the inevitability of hearings, would be in conflict with his primary duties as a congressman to attend to legislative matters in Washington.
It may therefore be said that as a congressman, Co.gressman Dellums is precluded from the personal prosecution of this intervention just as surely as was the corporation in Duke Power.
Thur, under the rationale of Duke Power, the Board should allow Congressman Dellums to be represented by his staff.
2.
Assuming that Congressman Dellums has " standing" as a private citizen, and was admitted to the case on that basis, do the points raised by the Commission's General Counsel have relevance to the Congressman's continued participation in the same manner as heretofore?
What relevance?
Answer:
Congressman Dellums entered this case as a proper means of discharging his congressional duties.
As part of this endeavor Congressman Dellums pleaded an interest both as an individual and as a congressman in the outcome of the case.
Whether or not the Board admitted the Congressman according to the pleading of personal interest or the pleading of congressional interest does not alter the conclusion that all the Congressman's pleading and other ef 'rts were done as part of the proper discharge of the Congres I's official duties -- which include protecting the resicents of the 5th Congressional District from the threat of radioactive contamination.
The two problems raised in this regard concern 13 U.S.C.
g 203 and 205.
Section 203 generally prohibits the receipt of compensation by members of Congress or legislative employees for services performed in connection wita any proceeding in which the United States has a direct and substantial interest, except in discharge pf official duties.
No violation of section 203 has occurred for at least three reasons:
(1) all services performed by Congressman Dellums or his staff have been in dis-charge of the Congressman's official duties, as explained above, (2) no outside ccmpensation has been received by Congressmar Dellums or his staff for services performed in conr ection with th13 case, and (3) the United States does not have a direct and substantial interest in this case within the meaning of section 203.
The case involves no claims by the United States or against the United States; rather, in addition to the various intervenors, the case involves only the alleged rights of the General Electric Company.
3v.
Section 205 generally prohibits representation by members of Congress or legislative employees in connection with any proceeding in which the United States has a direct and sub-stantial interect, except in discharge of official duties.
No violation of section 205 bas occured for at least two reasons:
(1) all services performed by Congressman Dellums or his staff have been in discharge of the Congressman's official duties, as explained above, and (2) the United States does not have a " direct and substantial interest" in this case.
3.
Should the Licensing Board attempt to determine the matter itself, or is the case an appropriate one for referral to the Department of Justice for investigation as involving a possible violation of federal criminal law?
a.
If such referral is believed to be appropriate, should c.he referral be made by the Licensing Board, the Office of the General Counsel, or by some other body within the N.R.C.?
Answer:
There is no supportable argument that violations cf Federal law have occurred on the part of Congressman Cellums or his staff in the prosecution of this intervention.
All intervenors have no objection to the referral of these questions to the Department of Justice.
We note that Congressman Dellums had already referred this matter to the Justice Department.
Intervenors believe that if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to pursue this matter, the referral of the matter to the Justice Department should be made by order of the Ccmmission.
Resp,ec*.fu11g Submitted, b
V4 h.
w W.
Andrew Baldwin For Friends of the Earth and Ronald V.
Dellums O
i e'
L il.
JVJ
9
's s\\
O
\\
4 gt
- s. 0 UNITED STATES OF AMEP.ICA COCc#p.N,rk' NUCLEAR RECULATORY CCMMISSICN P
.;P ri S-5 u
.s
' b 'gd. 3$'
j f.
%'y \\WY pay.9g,.
/,
CS* vf"
/
In the Itatter of
)
[ [m'g
)
CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-70 (Show Cause Order)
)
Cperating' License No. TR-1 (Vallecitos Nuclear Center -
)
Ceneral Electric Test Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SEP'/ ICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Response of Intervenors pon31d v Dellums and Friends of the Earth to Licensing maarc Gaestic a
has oeen served as of this date by personal delivery cr first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following.
Zdward Luton, Esq., Chairman Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Comdission Mr. Custave A. Linenberger, Member
' ~
Atomic Safety and Lluensing Board Panel Daniel Swansor., Esq.
d.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Dr. Harry Foreman, Member Director of Center for Population Nr-George Edgar Studies Mercan, Lewis and Bockius University of Minnesota 1800 M Street, NW Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Washington, D.C.
20036 Hon. Ronald V. Dellums Ms. Barbara Shcckley Atten: Nancy Snow 1990 Bockman Road General Delivery, Civic Center Sta.
Cakland, CA 94604 San Lorenno, CA 94580 Edward A.
Fireston Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards General Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Energy Divison Washington, D.C.
20555 175 Curtner San Jose, CA 94125 h,
_ b i k/h By:
vd/ dows Mg'
~-
Dated 7
1
)
t
\\
y 9
bdU
.