ML19323J219
| ML19323J219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1980 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006190443 | |
| Download: ML19323J219 (6) | |
Text
__
't 06/16/80
+
m
\\
/
'b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR DFGULATORY COMMISSION 4
DOCKETED USNRC
[
s BEFORE THE COMMISSIO!1 g 3LIN161980 * $
% Cne 4 f
~
In the Matter of
)
MD tg%u METROPOLITAll EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289 i
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONSUMER ADV0CATE PETITION FOR REC 0!iSIDERATION I.
INTRODUCTION In the present proceeding the Consumer Advocate of Pennsylvania (Consumer Advocate or Petitioner) filed with the Commission a " Petition to Seek NRC Funding for Consumer Intervenors to Finance Witness Expenses"'(undated).
In its submittal, the Petitioner requested financial assistance on behalf of itself and those intervenors who have either requested or who may at some later date request financial assistance from the Commission for the purpose of retaining experts who will submit studies and/or testify before the Licensing Board on any issues raised in the proceeding.
In its " Memorandum and Order" dated May 16, 1980 (Memorandum),
the Comission denied the Consumer Advocate's request in light of the advice received from the Comptroller General - that the Comission may be well advised to postpone further implementation of the pilot intervenor's program in light of the 1980 House Appropriations Committee Report - and i
l the legislative history associated with the fiscal year 1980 appropriations 8 0 0 619 0 //f3
.. s legislation. Memorandum, slip op. at 5.
Petitioner has now filed a " Petition for Reconsideration" dated May 30,1980 (Petition), in which it requests the Commission to reconsider its decision to deny funding to intervenors in this proceeding.
In support of its Petition, the Consumer Advocate argues that the Comission's decision in its Memorandum is erroneous because: "(1) i the decision rejects the conclusions of the legal opinion provided by the Comptroller General at this Comission's request and provides no explanation for this rejection, and (2) the decision is internally inconsistent." Petition at 8.
As a result, the Petitioner requests that the Commission:
(1) recon-sider its decision set forth in the Memorandum, (2) schedule oral argument on the issues raised in the Petition, (3) allow the submission of briefs on the issues, and (4) revise the Memorandum to provide for intervenor funding in NRC proceedings. Petition at 8, 9.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes the request upon the ground that the Commission properly exercised its authority to resolve the policy question of intervenor funding in this proceeding.
II. DISCUSSION 1.
The Commission has the authority to reconsider its final decisions.10 C.F.R. 62.771. However, such reconsideration has traditionally been limited to circum-stances where relevant new facts or law are presented that were not previously available.M In the present Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner has 2
M See e.g., Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2).
ALAB-359, 4 NRC 619 (1976).
]
. t asserted no new significant law or facts which would, in the Staff's view, affect the Commission's decision expressed in the Memorandum.
Instead, the Petitioner refers only to the discussion contained in the Memorandum and argue; that a different result should have been reached by the Commission regarding intervenor funding. Absent a greater showing, the Petition is
-legally insufficient to merit reconsideration, and should be denied.
2.
floreover, in the present motion the Petitioner does not claim that the Commission erred in exercising its inherent authority to supervise agency adjudications, nor that the Commission is legally obligated to fund intervenors in this proceeding.
Instead, the Petitioner argues that the Commission improperly considered the funding question and misapplied the opinion of the Comptroller General. Petition at 1.
We cannot agree.
In its Memorandum, the Commission did not expressly reject or otherwise reach a position _on the representations made by the Petitioner that there are com-pelling reasons for agreeing to fund intervenors in this case.(Memorandum at 5). Rather, the Commission explained that its decision was the result, in part, of its reliance upon the advice of the Comptroller General. Memorandum at 5.
The. Commission indicated that the Comptroller General had concluded in his decision,- Financial Assistance to Intervenors in Proceedings of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, B-92283, January 25, 1980, that although the Commission had authority in its organic legislation to use appropriated funds to assist an intervenor, it may well be advised to postpone further implementation of the f oilot intervenor program. Memorandum at 4, 5.
The Commission further
. t indicated that it had relied on its own clear reading of the legislative history associated with the fiscal year 1980 appropriations legislation. Memorandum at 5.
The 1980 House Appropriations Committee Report states that the NRC budget request and the Committee recommendation for 1980 do not include funds for intervenors. See, H.R. Rep. No.96-243, 96th Cong.,1st Sess.136 (June 7,1979).
The Commission's reliance on the advice of the Comptroller General was not unrea sonabl e.
Nor did the Commission improperly characterize the legislative history of its 1980 appropriations legislation. Thus, the Commission has set forth a clear basis for its decision, and under the existing circumstances, its actions cannot be characterized as being arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of its discretion.
III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Staff submits that notwithstanding the issue of whether Petitioner's argument for funding had merit, the Commission properly exercised its discretion on the issue of whether to fund intervenors and set forth an adequate basis for its conclusion not to fund then, and the present Petition for Reconsideration should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
A
.? %&r bJr+.n W
Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff 1
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16thi day of June,1980 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter.of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONSUMER ADV0CATE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, e.s indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 16th day of June,1980:
Ivr.n W. Smith, Esq.*
Mr. Steven C. Sholly Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 304 South Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky' Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Protection 881 W. Outer Drive Department of Environmental Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Resources P.O. Box 2063 Dr. Linda W. Little Harrisburg, PA 17120 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Marvin 1. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA 19149 Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street,.N.W.
Metropolitan Edison Company Washington, DC 20006 ATTN:
J.G. Herbein, Vice President Karin W. Carter, Esq.
P.O. Box 542 505 Executive House Reading, PA 19603 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. #3, Box 3521 Honorable Mark Cohen Etters, PA 17319 512 E-3 Main Capital Building
.Harrisburg,.PA 17120 Senator Allen R. Carter, Chairman Joint Legislative Committee on
~
Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Energy Department of Justice Post Office Box 142 Strawberry Square, 14th Flcor Suite 513 Senate Gressette Building Harrisburg, PA 17127 Columbia, SC 29202
e -.
Holly S. Keck John Levin, Esq.
Anti-Nuclear Group Representing PA Public Utilities Commission York Box 3265-245 W. Philadelphia Street.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 York, PA =17404 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
John E. Minnich, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunningham Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners 2320 North 2nd Street Dauphin County Ceurthouse Harrisburg, PA 17110 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, PA 17101 Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler Robert Q. Pollard P. O. Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 Baltimore, MD 21218 Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Chauncey Kepford Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Judith H. Johnsrud 1725 I Street, N.W.
-Environmental Coalition on Suite 506 Nuclear Power Washington, DC 20006 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Washington, DC 20555 Postponement 2610 Crendon Drive
_ Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Wilmington, DE 19808 Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Karen Sheldon Washington, DC 20555 Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Docketing and Service section (7)*
Suite 506 Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt R. D.
- 5 Coatesville, PA 19320 Samuel J. Chilk*
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Leonard Bickwit, ueneral Counsel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
~
.f
,, O r.,. Yf f._
J2-t
.)- y L.
- Lucinda L. Swartz 7
Counsel for NRC Staff
.