ML19249A315
| ML19249A315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1979 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908220011 | |
| Download: ML19249A315 (3) | |
Text
TE R A a
(
t 4
cccxcT a USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUL 121979 >
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J fice Cf the Secret 3fy
\\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR
(
W O
a In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al.,
)
50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power
)
Project Units 1 und 2)
)
Order Denving SCANP's Motion 1.
Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Plants (SC ANP) filed a " Motion to Govern Future Presentations by Applicant to Staff of Evidence relating to Contentions advauced by Intervenor SCANP. " Pursuant to its motion, SCANP seeks an order which in its words should provide as f ollows:
"1.
With respect to any future meetings or conferences between staff ond applicant, which relate in any significant way to a subject which involves a contention being raised by intervenor SCANP in this proceeding, the following procedures shall be followed:
"a.
The staff shall consult with intervenor.s before setting the time and place of such meetings and conferences. If at all possible, any such meetings and conferences shall be held in the State of Washington, preferably in the city of Seattle or Bellevue.
"b.
Applicant shall make available to inter-venors at the same time it is made available to the staff any data, report, study, or other docu-ment which is furnished to staff in connection with such meeting or conference.
842 130 79082200l)
- "c.
Intervenors and their experts shall have the right to be present at such conferences, and to participate by means of questioning experts, and by offering comments, including comments of SCANP experts. "
2.
In arguing its motion, SCANP stated that the present proce-dure of the applicants meeting with, and supplying information to, the Staff and the Staff's consultants on issues of concern to SCANP "is clearly contrary to the rules of the Commission, and to well accepted principles of administrative law" and that such meetings "are in effect er parte contracts... " (motion at page 2).
3.
In making this sort of judgment of the procedure and meet-ings between the applicants and their consultants on the one hand and the Staff and its consultants on the other hand, SCANP has fallen into error.
Under the Commission's prohibition against ex parte communi-cations at 10 CFR $2. 780, a prohibited ex parte communication must relate to the exercise of a quasi-judicial function -- a function which does not belong to the Staff to whom the applicants are communicating.
4.
Also, under 10 CFR $2.102(a) the Commission recognizes that the Staff may confer informally with "any one party to the proceed-ing. "
5.
Further, in the Matter of Northeast Nuclear Energy Com-pany, et al.,1 NRC 436 (April 23,1975), the Licensing Board stated (at page 437):
842 13I e
v
J-
"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 Evalu-ation 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 Commission has delegated to the Li-censing 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. If the parties here argue that such a trust is unwise or that the Staff should perform it in a different way, then that argument is an attack on the regulations which is beyond the cognizance of this Board. "
6.
In view of the above considerations, SCANP's referenced motion is denied.
Done this ay of July 1979 at Washington, D.C.
ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD
/
bh,:t b
f By
/
Valentine B. De' ale, CT1a'irman 842 I,32