ML19323G679
| ML19323G679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ALAB-590, NUDOCS 8006060463 | |
| Download: ML19323G679 (2) | |
Text
_
g' "4<,
gqig ta'.eJ g g % % '.
I 4(
UNITED STATES yg, QJ j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 5. 5 wy !
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL e
S,[T4 /
W ASHIN GToN, D.C. 2o555 Y
N May 27, 1980 CCC g verma
- i
- Ya meea, a 9, Y*ee erg MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Lazo, Acting Chairman T;
Eh*
Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ea w...
c W
FROM:
Oscar H. Paris
\\< $I Charles Bechhoefer Frederick J. Shon Members, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SUBJECT:
TOUR MEMO TO PANEL MEMBERS DATED 5/22/80 REPORTING YOUR MEMO TO GENERAL COUNSEL DATED 5/16/80 RELATIVE TO ALAB-590 As you are aware from a conversation that you had earlier with one of us (Paris),
several Panel Members do not agree with the interpretation placed on ALAB-590 in your memo of 5/16/80 to the General Counsel.
Consequently we do not share your concern that ALAB-590 eliminates from 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 the " bases" require-ment for contentions.
In our view, AIAB-590 merely restates the principle established originally by ALAB-130 (Grand Gulf) in 1973. Over the years a number of us have applied the Grand Gulf principle in evaluating the adequacy of petitions, without any sense that we were acting contrary to the regulation in a 2.714.
We simply do not see that ALAB-590 requires anything that was not already required by ALAB-130.
Further, it is our impression that the petitioner with whom ALAB-590 dealt did cite bases for his contention. We interpret ALAB-590 as saying only that a Licensing Board, at the outset of a proceeding, is not free to determine whether a petitioner has correctly relied on the bases which he cites-scarcely a novel proposition.
It seems to us, in fact, that the alternative to the result reached in ALAB-590, viz., that a Board cculd use its own technical expertise to dismiss, out of hand, contentions which it considers non-meritorious, would be a dangerous policy indeed.
Such a practice would virtually assure that any issue other than the cost conventional would be very difficult to introduce into a proceeding.
Since the three of us share the different (dissenting?) opinion expressed above, and we are aware of other panelists who agree with us in whole or part, we 8006060 h believe that the foregoing interpretation of ALAB-590 by panel members should also be brought to the Commission's attention. We request, therefore., that our view be co=::unicated to the General Counsel in a manner which you deem appropriate.
bNl L
Oscar'E. Paris, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel anlan M_
W Charles Bechhoefer, Member Atomic Safety and Licensi g Board Panel L$
WW Frederick J. Shotf, MidB(r i
Atomic Safety ad Licensing Board Panel l
cc:
All AS&LBP Panel Members
-