ML19273B178

Suggests Commission Use Proceeding as Testing Ground for Concept of Intervenor Funding

ML19273B178
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	01/10/1979
From:	Roisman A National Resources Defense Council
To:	Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7903130275
Download: ML19273B178 (3)

Text

-

> \x. HJ..;.B o

. c .y -

Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.

917 15TH STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

/ c .,

202 737-5000 Westens O@ce

, New York Opce 2345 Y^tt sTarrr f) N -* rAsT 4:xo sintrT h' Y RK, N.Y. 3 0017

'A' ^m. cAtir. 943o6 415 5 7-io8o January 10, 1979 A gf g 7 g ets 949-o049

. d -

Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner 9' Npv .I John F. Ahearne, Commissioner d Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner 4 d)

Richard T. Kennedy, Commissioner 4 9 Re: Arizona Public Service (Palo Verde Units 4 &. 5)

Docket Nos. 50-592 & 593 i Gentlemen:

The recent announcement by the Commission that 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 number of issues 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. A'.though 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 j licensing proceeding. In addition, I have no reason to bel:16ve,,that any of..the state or local governmental agencies necessarily.have adequate funds in their budgets to make a presentation 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 but never implemented concept of intervenor funding.

~=~" -

., 79 D 3 I b O27i soo% Reoded Paper - ),. , ,, .

, j

Commissioners January 10, 1979 Page Two - .

N I would suggest diat, in order to keep complete control over the process, Cc=missioner 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 Office of General Counsel draw up a set of guidelines to govern Commissioner Gilinsky's actions that would be totally immune from any conceivable challenge in court by any party.

By taking this opportunity to test the efficacy of intervenor funding, the Cc= mission would gain two important advantages. First, it would provide concrete evidence to either support or deny allegations made about the problems which intervenor funding right create. Second, it would assure that Commissioner 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 tnat 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,

! ~ .. .s -:.- .

m/-

4' Anthony Z.fRoisman cc: service list f

e' bk