ML19345F081
| ML19345F081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1981 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW YORK, STATE OF, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR61372, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 NUDOCS 8102060681 | |
| Download: ML19345F081 (5) | |
Text
.
9
+
'Q zu -.
z e
ut FER C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cp
' 081 > L
?
isl'" % m f'
~
s e
)
4 In the Matter of
)
4 gg
)
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE
)
PR-50, 51 (44 Fed. Reg.
AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
)
61,372)
)
(Waste Confidence Rulecaking
)
February 4, 1981 to
- g8 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE FILINGS OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY (SE )
2 l9S/
On October 6, 1980, the national organization of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy (SE ) filed its suggestions as 2
to further proceedings.N By a motion dated November 3, 1980, Robert Abrams, Att orney General of the State of New York, moved that pages 5 through 22 of the SE suggestions be 2
stricken.
A motion to strike the entire SE filing was made by 2
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) on Novecher 7, 1980.
An opposition to these motions was filed by SE n November 18, 2
1980.
4 The Abrams motion stated that the participants were authorized to file suggestions for further proceedings (SE 2 Suggestions, pp. 1-5), but "not their judgment of the record.
l_/The Connecticut Chapter of SE2 had previously filed its Statement of Position on July 1, 1980 i
8102 0 6 t> Q
, l The balance of the SE filing is unauthorized."2/ It was con-2 tended that SE should have set forth its views in a statement 2
and cross-statement, but it is not permitted to offer its views of the record in any other filing and "SE2 may not arrogate that right unto itself."1/
NRDC-NECNP moved that the entire SE filing be stricken 2
for its failure to comply with the procedural requirements.
Movant contended that the SE Suggestions were actually in the 2
nature of a statement of position, which should have been filed earlier at the same time the other participants' statements were require.d to be filed.
Suggestions complained of The major portion of the SE2 consist of over 24 scientific literature citations and f the references, as well as purported evaluations by SE2 record as developed to date.
The hybrid rulemaking procedures developed for conducting this proceeding were described in the Notice of Prehearing Conference as follows:
"The Commission has determined that this proceeding should not rely on opposing participants to develop a full record but that it should be a broad-ranging, public, legislative type of inquiry.
Consequently, the procedures developed should be f ashioned to obtain broad public participation.
l Greater involvement will be encouraged by allowing 1/Abrams Motion, p. 2.
1/ Ibid.
l l
t r
W
. those who do not choose to become full participants, to comment upon the issues at different stages of the proceeding."4/
In the First Prehea, ring Conference Order, dated February'1, 1980, it was provided that "Ly September 10, 1980, all Partici-pants shall file their suggestions as to further proceedings, additional areas of inquiry or further data or studies."
The date for filing such suggestions was later extended to October 6, 1980, but no changes were made in the nature and scope of proposed suggestions.
The October 6,1980 filing of SE expressly purported to 2
be in accordance with our Order of May 29, 1980, concerning
" suggestions as to nature and scope of further proceedings, additional areas of inquiry or further data or studies."
It citations of opinions cannot be reasonably found that the SE2 of scientific organizations or its analysis of what it believes to be the evidence of record, is beyond the scope of permis-sible suggestions.
If the moving parties feel that there is some unfairness in allowing comments by SE to which they are 2
unable to respond, such objections should be removed by the recent Memorandum and Order of the Commission (January 16, 1981),
directing the NRC Working Group to file and serve upon all participants "a report which summarizes the record ~, identifies b/ 45-Fed. Reg. 3056.
i l
_4-key issues and controversies, and indicates insofar as possible
~
at this staga of the proceeding how their resolution could affect the Commission's decision."
All participants are given 35 days to comment upon this report (Order, pp. 2-3).
On January 29, 1981, the Working Group filed and served its report and four supplementary summaries, which summarized i
the record and identified the issues in controversy and any areas where additional information is needed.
The responses j
permitted to these massive studies should enable both SE2 ""E the moving parties to submit fully their comments and relevant information for the record in this proceeding.
3 I
Finally, some consideration should be given to the role SE apparently seeks ur.ilaterally to establish for itself in 2
this proceedingt Its views were alluded to in its initial notice of intent to participate, and they were further described in its Suggestions filed October 6, 1980, as follows:
"...SE, stated its intention to evaluate the informa-tion 8ffered to the Commission and to suggest various points of reference and questions for the Commission to explore in reaching a. determination of this most important issue 'as the record is developed.'
is making available to the Commis-In so'doing, SE9 sion its judgment of that record.
That judgment will be founded on the knowledge and experience of its individual members in nuclear energy and related is in a matters.
With this principle in mind, SE2 position at this time to identify certain 'further data or studies' which it believes should be included or emphasized,-but it cannot provide its final views as to the state of the record until that record is l
declared to be complete by the Commission.
Therefore, SEo's views herein must be considered only. preliminary "
an8 tentative judgments on the record as it now exists.
i
. ~,.
All participants to this proceeding, whether full or limited participants, must in fairness be treated equally.
Neither SE n r any other participant can be permitted to set 2
itself up as a super party entitled to give the Commission its
" final views as to the state of the record" at any time or in any manner that it chooses.
All participants will be expected to submit their views on the Working Groupb summaries of the record within the time alloted.
Thereafter the Commission itself will decide what further procedures, if any, it desires to establish.El All participants, without exception, will be expected to comply with the procedures established by the Commission.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons, it is, this 4th day of February 1981 ORDERED That the Motions to Strike the SE Suggestions filed by 2
Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, and by NRDC-NECNP, are denied.
l l
/
ah 0 v y s Marshall E. Miller Presiding Officer M44 Fed. RS. at 61374.
.