ML19269E114
| ML19269E114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1979 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906260534 | |
| Download: ML19269E114 (7) | |
Text
_.
pf.B 0 5 U
~
I*
05/17/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, )
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522
)
STN 50-523 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO SCANP MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE PRESENTATIONS BY APPLICANT TO STAFF 0F EVIDENCE RELATING TO CONTENTIONS On April 27, 1979, Intervenors SCANP filed a motion which requested a Board order that would set forth certain procedures to be followed when-ever there was a meeting between the staff and applicants which related to a subject involving a contention raised by SCANP.
Specifically, SCANP requested that the Board set forth procedures that would:
1)
Allow SCANP to participate in the selection of the time and place of meetings.
2)
Allow SCANP to have any data, report, or other document at the same time it is made available to the Staff in connection with such meeting.
3)
Allow SCANP and its experts the right to be present and to participate in such meetings.
Staff opposes this motion for the reasons set forth below.
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 52.102 explicitly recognizes that an applicant may be required to supply additional information during review of 'an application by the NRC technical staff. As an aid in exchanging inferr Mian, the St?'" " - r r 'st any one party to the proceeding to confer with the Staff infor::all/".
10 CFR 52.102(a). Meetings between 2132 345 7 ' ""
. the NRC technical staff and the applicant's technical staff are common 1.Y conducted in the course of the technical review of applications and serve an essential means for the exchange of technical information and views.
The articulated policy as to all meetings conducted by the NRC technical staff as part of its review of an application is that those meetings will be open to attendance by all parties.or petitioners for leave to intervene in the case as observers.
Domestic License Appli-cations, Open Meetings and Statement of NRC Staff Policy, 43 Fed Reg. 28058 (June 28, 1978) _Emph sis,added.
Reasonable efforts will be made i
by the NRC Staff to inform the party or petitioner of forthcoming meetings conducted by the NRC technical. staff so that appropriate arrangements for attendance can be made.
Id Intervenors acknowledge that they receive notice of these meetings (Motion at 2) bu' complain that they are not consulted regarding their i
location or timing.
Further, they assert that they do not have the means to fly to Maryland from the State of Washington in order to be present at such meetings and that such meetings should be governed by the same nolicy or nolding licensing proceedings near the state.
(Motion at2-3).
Intervenors' complaints are without merit. The purpose of these meetings is to facilitate an exchange of such additional information between the technical staffs of the applicant and NRC and its consultants as required to conduct the Staff's review of the application. Accordingly, the timing and lccation of such rcetinc? -"st
'# r ' --'t th? ccm--
- ---n n'
2132 346
~
- e active participants and not the convenience of the observers to the
- eeting.
For this reason and contrary to the implication contained in Intervenors' motion, such meetings, particularly with regard to the geology and seismic review, have been held at the site, at the Staff's consultant offices in Menlo Park, California and at Denver, in addition to those meetings held at the Commission's offices in Bethesda, Maryland.
Further, the Staff's practice of preparing a written summary of such meetings and forwarding the summary to interested persons unable to attend, serves the function of informing those persons unable to attend of what transpirad at the meeting.
Intervenors nave made no allegation
~
that they have not received such summaries or that the summaries are
-insufficient.
For these reasons, Intervenors request that they be consulted before setting the time and place of any meetings between the Staff and Applicant must be denied.
Intervenors further allege that documents provided to the Staff are not being offered on a timely basis to the other parties.
First, the Staff notes that applicant states in its response to the motion that it is their practic e to make the information available, either by distributing the documents to all interested parties or by making the documents available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient location.
Applicants' answer tn SCANP ' Motion to Govern Future Presentations By Applicant To Staff Of Evidence Relating To Contentions Advanced By Intervenor SCANP' dated May 8,1979 at 4.
While the Staff expects the applicants to abide by these statements, in the event documents are not made available on a ti.eiv cn.s..ne discovery xactice folicwed in this proceeding affords Intervenors a remedy.
2132 347
i l
! [
~_
~
Finally, Intervenors assert that these meetings are e_x_ parte contacts which are prohibited by Commission regulations and are inherently and fundamentally unfair (Motion at 2). The NRC Staff position is that these applicant-staff meetings do not represent ex parte communications which are prohibited by 10 CFR 52.780. Communications which are prohibited by these provisions only apply to ccmmunications to the " 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 62.780(a). The e_x, parte prohibitions are also I
applicable to members of the Atemic Safety and Licensing _ Appeal Board, members of their immediate staffs, and other NRC officials and employees who advise members of the Appeal Board in the exerc'se of their quasi-jud'cial function. 10 CFR 52.780(f). Thus, while it is clear that 10 CFR 52.780, in general, prohibits communications involving NRC personnel who exercise quasi-judicial functions with respect to applications before the Commission, it does not apply to NRC personnel who do not exercise quasi-judicial functions.
Quasi-judicial functions are not performed by NRC technical staff personnel who are reviewing applications. Therefore, 10 CFR 52.780 does not prohibit ex_ parte communications between these staff personnel and the applicant.
Indeed,10 CFR 52.102(a) recognizes the necessity for and provides for reviewing staff personnel to confer informally with "any one party to the proceeding" such as an applicant during the course of a review. See Northeast Nuclaar Enerav Co. (Montague Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 :nd 2), LEP
- -19, i T.C 236 (1975).
5 aff-acplicant meetings 2132 348
~ _.. _ _. -
-+ -
5_
which may or may not involve contested issues are not prohibited as g parte communications under the Commission's regulations.
For this reason alone, the motion should be denied.
In addition, the motion must be denied on jurisdictional grounds.
The Commission had delegated to the Licensing Boards power and duties with respect only to the hearing process (See 10 CFR 982.104 and 2.718). The Staff's review function is largely completed outside the hearing process.
In another proceeding, an intervening group requested that the Licensing Board issue an order that would direct similar procedures for the conduct of meetings between the Staff and Applicant.
The Licensing Board denied the motion, stating:
"The fact that the two areas of activity [the Staff review and the hearing process] may proceed, for a time, con-l currently, does not extend to the Board any supervisory authority over that part of the process thr.t has been entrusted to the Staff." Montaoue, i
- pra.
For all of the above reasons, this motion should be denied.
Res g fully submitted, 4 2'S CG Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of May, 1979 2132 349
~
/
o
/
~
' ~ ~ -.
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO SCANP MOTION TO GOVERN FUTURE PRESENTATIONS BY APPLICANT TO STAFF Of EVIDENCE RELATING TO CONTENTIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first cTass, or, as indi-cated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 17th day of May,1979:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman
- Robert C. Schofield, Director Atomic Safety and Licen:ing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
120 W. Kincaid Street Washington, D. C.
200.6 Mount Vernon, L'ashington 98273 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Roger M. Leed, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1411 Fourth Avenue School of Natural Resources Seattle, Washington 98101 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
.Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis Chairman Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member
- Washingtcn State Energy Facility Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Site Evaluation Council U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 820 East Fifth Avenue Washington, D. C.
20555 Olympia, Washington 98504 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
F. Theodore Thomsen, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen
& Axelrad
& Williams Suite 1214 1900 Washington Building 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Seattle, Washington. 98101 Washington, D.C.
20036 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet Rives, Bonyhadi & Drummond c/o Forelaws on Board 1400 Public Service Building c.x..,.,
2 n-e r..
in -.,,c teria, ere
',r:1:., cre:ca c75 2132 350
~
---~<
j t
/- -
+
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Thomas F. Carr, Esq.
State of Oregon Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Temple of Justice 500 Pacific Building Olympia, Washington 98504 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Donald S. Means Attorney for Swinomish Tribal Canadian Consulate General Communits Robert Graham P. O. Box 277 Vice-Consul LaConner, Washington 98257 412 Plaza 600 6th & Stewart Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Seattle, Washington 98101 Panel (5)*
8.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Washington, D.C.
20555 Siting and Regulation Department of Energy Atomic Safety and Lica.nsing Board Room 111, Labor and Industries Panel
- Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Salem, Oregon 97310 Washington, D.C.
20555 Re. sell W. Busch, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section (4)*
Attorney for Upper Skagit Indian Office of the Secretary Tribe and Sauk-Suiattle Indian U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tribe Washington, D.C.
20555 Evergreen Legal Services 520 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 O
/
i ',/
2/
.,lai(.ii./#4 lW:X TU Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff 2132-351
.