ML19338E168
| ML19338E168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8009250001 | |
| Download: ML19338E168 (5) | |
Text
.
?
c \\\\?!I g
6 E
n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
Y.o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 [%, g "8'
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
\\
' Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. George C. Anderson 6
Ralph S. Decker
~ '
In the Matter of DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409-SC (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor CERTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION CONCERNING REQUEST FOR FREE TRANSCRIPTS (September 22, 1980)
At a prehearing conference on September 11, 1980, this Board admitted as parties to this proceeding the two petitioners who had filed requests for a hearing--the Coulee Region Energy Coalition (CREC) and Mr. Milton Olsen III.1!
The Board ordered that these parties be consolidated (Tr. 65).
On September 16, 1980, CREC's representative telephoned the office of the Chairman of this Licensing Board; she did not speak with the Chairman but left a message that she was seeking free copies of the transcripts of the prehearing conference and of future conferences and hearings in this proceeding, in the l
same manner as she is to be afforded transcript copies in the on-going full-term operating license proceeding.
l l_/
The Board will issue a Prehearing Conference Order recording l
this action, and affording an opportunity for appeal, in the near future.
9 Sob 800925000\\
5 e/
G Y
r
- The provision of free copies of transcripts is authorized by newly-adopted 10 CFR 5 2.750(c) (effective July 25, 1980, see 45 Fed. Reg. 49535).
That rule does not appear to govern the instant show-cause proceeding, since its applicability is confined to an " adjudicatory proceeding on an application for a license or an amendment thereto".
For reasons stated below, we believe that CREC should be afforded free transcripts in this proceeding and hence are certifying a request to the Commission to expand the coverage of 10 CFR 5 2.750(c) to permit this result in this proceeding.M (The Licensing Board in the Three-Mile-Island restart proceeding (Docket No. 50-289) con-strued 10 CFR S 2.750(c) the same way we have and, on August 8, 1980, certified a similar request to broaden the rule to the Commission; the Commission granted that Licensing Board the authority to grant free transcripts in that proceeding by Memorandum and Order dated August 15, 1980.)
As this proceeding now stands, the Staff is no longer supporting the remedial action which had been proposed in the show-cause order.
It is essentially taking the same position 2
We are certifying this request to the Commission notwith-standing the Commission's September 12, 1980 delegation of its review authority and functions in this proceeding to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
In our view, the Appeal Board would not have authority to grant the instant request and, if it agreed with our view, could only recertify it to the Commission.
Cf. 10 CFR 5 2.758(d), En. 9.
J
5 5
3-t 4
on the merits as is the Licensee.
The only parties seeking the l
2 remedy proposed by the show-cause order--i.e., the design and installation on a specified schedule of a dewatering system designed to prevent or mitigate the effects of liquefaction in the event of a safe shutdown earthquake--are CREC and Mr. Olsen.
This proceeding is thus in much the same posture as a license j
application in which the Staff and Applicant are adopting similar positions on the merits and are being opposed by 4
intervenors.
The policies underlying the provision of free transcripts in those proceedings appear to be equally applicable here.
~
In particular, the Board believes that, if these parties (who have been consolidated for purposes of this proceeding) l are provided free copios of transcripts, they can better assist us in developing an adequate record on the important safety questions involved in this proceeding, assuming any of those I
questions are heard at an evidentiary hearing.
As the Commis-sion acknowledged in its August 15, 1980 opinion in the TMI-1 restart proceeding, the provision of free transcripts, inter 4
alia, will avoid inconvenience to Board members (or the Staff) i and resultant' inefficiency when members (or the Staff) lend transcripts to intervenors who cannot afford to purchase them, will assist the Board in limiting cross-examination to efficient and productive non-repetitive questions, will improve w.
n.--,,
+
.,-e a
r
[
the quality of direct and cross-examination by intervenors, and
-will avoid delay and inaccuracies in the filing of proposed
. findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We see no pursuasive reason for not providing free tran-scripts to the intervenors in this proceeding.
The cost would 4
likely be offset by improved efficiency in the progress of the proceading.
Nbreover, CREC has made a useful contribution in other proceedings in which it has participated, and we have no reason not to expect it to do so here.
The provision of free transcripts should assist it in that endeavor.
We have con-tacted the Licensee and NRC Staff by telephone and neither offers any objection either to this certification or to the provision of free transcripts to the intervenors.
We accordingly recommend that the Commission expand the 1
coverage of 10 CFR $ 2.750(c) to permit us to authorize the provision of free copies of transcripts to the intervenors in this proceeding.2I Inasmuch as we have consolidated the two intervenors, we would only authorize one copy of each transcript to be provided to them, assuming we are given authority to do so.
J 2/
Such authorization would be prospective, inasmuch as the Staff, at our request, has agreed to provide the intervenors with a xerox copy of the transcript of the September 11, 1980 prehearing conference.
(Following such a procedure would not be practicable during)an evidentiary hearing, because of the delays involved.
i 1
f q
~
w n
e
-~-
e
.. a a
w g-
5-For essentially similar reasons, we also request that the Commission broaden the scope of newly amended 10 CFR 5 2.712(f)
(which is similar in coverage to 10 CFR 5 2.750(c)) to permit us to authorize free copying and service for the intervenors in this proceeding, to the extent provided by 10 CFR 5 2.712(f).
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y
r w
Charles Bechheefer, Chai/$an Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 22nd day of September 1980.
I i
E i