ML19270H127
| ML19270H127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bard L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906230042 | |
| Download: ML19270H127 (1) | |
Text
\\
UNITED STATES
!,l J1
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- I-WASHINGTON D.C. 20555 t
Q
[
May 17, 1979 cl ' >~ ~ x %
OFFICE 05 THE
' '/
Y '
f CHAIRMAN
/i*
,fS,
.-)\\
')
j..
I NRC Iy;pI!C ;.<.,, I' O
c ;,.-E l'-
E M3
' ly,1, 1
s.
~
My a
r Mr. Larry Bard
' U'7 P.O. Box 793 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Re: Arizona Public Service (Polo Verde Units 4 & 5)
Docket Nos. 50-592 and 593
Dear Mr. Bard:
This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1979 requesting that the Comission fund your participation in the Palo Verde proceedings.
You noted our previous letter to Mr. Anthony Roisman declir:ing his sugges-tion that we fund intervention in the proceedings. Although you are a party in the prcceeding, for the most part the reasons we gave to Mr.
Roisman also apply to your request.
The Comission previously considered the question of intervenor funding and decided against it in general.
Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (Financial Assistance to Participants in Comission Proceedings), 4 NRC 494 (1976).
The Comission is currently considering whether it should draft a bill to reform the nuclear licensing process and what form such a bill might take, and it is again considering the issue of intervenor funding in that context.
The desirability of funding without Congressional authorization and the Comission's authority to do so are matters of current discussion.
For these reasons, we are denying your request for intervenor funding in the Palo Verde proceedings.
kincerely,
\\
i s
e M. Hendrie Chairman cc:
Attorneys for all Parties 2247 224 7 9 623 0o9"I 0
March 27, 1979 Mr. Joseph Hendrie United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Hendrie:
I was very pleased to receive your letter of February 26th addressed to Mr. Anthony Roisman of the National Resources Defense Council.
Since I was not granted standing as a participant until the recent hearing and I have just received official copy of that standing granted, I now feel that I cah request intervenor funding.
As Mr. Roisman's letter of January 10th stated, he had not had any contact with me so he could not contend that funding was especially required for the public intervenor effort. Now, with my standing granted, I am legally party to the proceedings and I do request egnsider-aticn for funding.
It is especially required if the citizen intervention effort is to play any significant role in the hearing process.
Briefly stated, this is.the situation:
the ability to successfully frnd the presentation needed in the licensing proceedings is outside my personal financial resources, and because deadlines in the procedures limit attempts to raise private funding, it becomes necessary for special consideration to be given the granting of intervenor funding.
Sincerely,
/
aw tk.
Lar Bard 2247 225 q g(o oH C69
e fg, j+.
.UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSi-.J ii WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.j m +/j
%.C.-
Febr.uary 26, 1979 CHAIRAIAN Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, N.W.
b*ashington, D.C.
20005 Re:
Arizona Public Service (Palo Verde Units 4 & 5)
Docket Nos. 50-592 and 593 T"g 3 ear Mr. P isman:
.nis is in response to your letter of January 10, 1979 suggesting that the Cc.T:r.ission fund intervention in the Palo Verde proceedings.
The Cer.ission has previously considered the question of intervenor funding and decided against it in general, Nuclear Recu'iatory Commission.
(Financial Assistance to Participants in Commission Proceedings), 4 NRC e
454 (1976).
The Co:miission is currently considering whether it should-craft a bill to reform the nuclear licensing process and what fonn such I
a bill might take, and it is again considering the issue of intervenor i
funding in that context.
The desirability of funding without Congres-
[~.
sional authorization and 'he Commission's authority to do so are matters of current discussion.
In addition, no party to the proceeding has requested funding, and.you do not contend that it is especially required F.
here.
g Finally, the fact that a Commissioner will sit on the panel does'not N
sufficiently distinguish Palo Verde from other Commission licensing.
[
proceedings so that the Commission could fund intervention here without setting.a substantial preced.ent for other cases.
F Therefore, we do not believe it appropriat?. to provide intervenor funding in the Palo Verde proceeding.
We are fully aware of your support for the concept of intervenor funding and will consider.your views in our consid-eration of this issue.
p
'ncerely,
[E J
M. Hendrie cc:
Attorneys for all parties 2247 226
~
]QObCM@l
.m ee e.
~..
.. +....,
c j
Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.'
917 15TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20 005
,202 737,-3000 Westem 0fice New York Ofice 2345 YAIr sratr7 122 EAST 42ND STREET "5"' Y
- K
- Y 8 87
^*#
C^tir. 9 4 3 6 January 10, 1979 415 327-soSo air 949-oo49 Joseph M.
Hendrie, Chairman
- Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner John F. Ahearne, Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Richard T. Kennedy, Commissioner Re:
Arizona Public Service (Palo Verde Units 4 &. 5)
Docket Nos. 50-592 E 593 4
Gentlemen:
The recent announcement by the Commission th'at Commissioner Gilinsky will sit as a member of the licensing board in the above-titled proceeding provides the Commis-sioners with a unique opportunity to gain an insight into a nurber of i.ssues that frequently have to be delegated to extensive staff study.
Those issues include the following:
1.
The extent to which the staff safety review adequately discloses safety problems relevant to a proposed construction permit.
2.
The extent to which the applicant freely and openly discloses any doubts that it has regarding the ' safety re-quirements imposed on its plant.
3.
The operation of a licensing board in a contested proceeding on a day-to-day basis.
These experiences, while valuable in themselves, would be markedly improved by the assurance that the participation by the public in the proceeding would be adequate to raise all the legitimate issues that the public felt warranted exploration.
Although there are a number of state-level governmental agencies which will participate in the process, it appears that there is only one intervenor and, while I do not know the intervenor personally, I assume that, like all intervenors in these proceedings, it is substantially underfunded for purposes of a presentation of the case in the licensing proceeding.
In addition, I have no reason to believe that any of..the state or local governmental agencies necessarily have adequate funds in their budgets to make a
.presentatien comparable to the one that will be made by the staff or the applicant.
I therefore believe that this pro-ceeding should be used as a testing ground for the frequently discussed buti never implemented concept of intervenor funding.
+"
2247 227 790 3 / 30Dr p..,
- , \\ y
- m. m
Commissioners January 10, 1979 Page Two I would suggest that, in order to keep complete control over the process, Co==issioner be delegated by the other Commis-sioners the sole responsibility of deciding which, if any, intervenors would be entitled to receive funds and, if so, how much and whether they would be funded in advance of or at the conclusion of the proceeding.
I suggest that, in.a matter of days if possible, the Of fice of General Counsel draw up a set of guidelines to govern Commissioner Gilinsky's actions that would be totally immune f-rom any conceivable challenge in court by any party.
By taking this opportunity to test the efficacy of intervenor funding, the Commission would gain two important advantages.
First, it would provide concrete evidence to either support or deny allegations made about the problems which intervenor funding might create.
Second, it would assure that Co=missioner Gilinsky would have for the purposes
.of his own analysis a truly thorough and complete evidentiary record made with the full participation not only of the applicant and the staff but also of the public.
I urge you to avoid long and arduous discussions over what would be an expenditure of at most a' couple of hundred thousand dollars.
You have already spent, I am sure, at least that much trying to decide whether or not there should be intervenor funding.
This single test case would provide you with definitive information that would eliminate the necessity of -further wrangling on the question.
Let me make clear that I have had no contact with any party to this licensing proceeding.
I have no knowledge of any issues which any parties intend to raise, nor have I even looked at the docket of the proceeding and made a judgment of my own on what issues should be raised.
I make these suggestions because of the unique ' opportunity presented by Commissioner Gilinsky's attendance at the licensing board and for no other reason.
Sincerely,
'f M
~ ~ ~ <. -
4' Anthony Z./Roisman cc: service list 2247 228 e
e o