ML20008F137
| ML20008F137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1981 |
| From: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103120344 | |
| Download: ML20008F137 (7) | |
Text
.rmic E rrTtEss MtseO9fTY MCM9Cpts DOCKET NUMBU g
" 0 ':, T ",',.'7 fRODA UTIL F>ic....Z.g' y
e:,;.
4.
'"" l""%t 2 h
C o n g C C G d O f ti) t I$ n it t b 5 t ?.t C $
fh EM'#
T!,0%*'2:::""
"Scuse of 31tpresentatints UC-
" " " "GL""'-
C ""a '"L. %
Comtnittet en Eppropriattons r ; ;..=,==~
aj.[{
CIashing:cr., D.C.
20515 2;";1'..'"u'~'2%... -
":.NL" " "'
0".*Jm,... e:.7*-
March :.1931
- IA
..g.,
[(5h
"" Arf.:"::::'"
p 3
~. n u..
p ga g-yu N
(=0 sawis
=ti".'t':"a" coexano TJOla"J' A'";.i'-
[
usnne y?,
2 MAR 1 oggggy ~~.
Honor Sie Josepn M. Hendrie g-Occieting a 3,,yfe,7 g otr%,
Chai rman s
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission v
Ba +
Washington, DC 20555 f
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have received a letter from the Illinois Power Company (copy attached) concerning a pre-hearing conference on an operating license request. According to the Power Compa6y, the administrative judge responsible for the hearing requested that Comrnission staff provide a local intervenor group, the Prairie Alliance, assistance in revising and preparing contentions against the Clinton Unit 1 power plant.
The transcript of this matter indicates, in addition, that NRC staff had provided such assistance to groups desiring to intervene that were not qualified or prepared to do so.
While I was not aware that this type of assistance was being provided by NRC staff, I am concerned that it may be outside the statutory scope of authority of the Comission.
Certainly it raises the question of whether or not the hearing boards are concentrating on their primary task of addressing significant safety issues in disagretment in a timely and ef ~ective manner consistent with the policies outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations.
l You are aware of the Committee's and the Congress'. views conce.rning' funding and other assistance to intervenors.
I would like to -know yo'ur.
personal views on this and would like you to advise me'of'the. legal.~ basis on which you are providing assistance of this type and your ~ views concerning i t.
I would also like to know the policy guidance to the Boards under which tnis assistance was offered.
Sincerely, N
.5 l
5
- f
)1 d
d n
io: Bevill,-Chairman Subcc.....ittee-on Energy l
anf Water. Development
~~
Attachment
'8'10812O M Co
DC T'ET NUMCER ggj fRcD.& U m FAC.3. m... g g
/LLINDIS POWER DOMPANY
(~ ~ ' '
/
U'_,
500 SOUTH TTH STREET. DEC1TU6. auNOIS 62525 February 27, 1981
&\\lIk N
Honorable Tom Bevill 333gg7 Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee
[df usm:
2 2305 Rayburn House Office Building
-. pg gMAR y g 990I M on Energy & Water Development g
0x4:,gIylf v,
Washington, D.C.
20515 8'g
~
p
Dear Congressman Bev111:
c-I am writing to strongly endorse the position you have taken (as reported in theiFebruary 23, 1981 issue of the Energy Daily) with respect to the delays in licensing which the NRC has just reported to the Congress.
Construction of our first nuclear unit (Clinton Unit 1) is scheduled for completion in' January 1983.
On-less the NRC improves its performance very significantly, we will not have an oper'ating license at that time and therefore, we will have a unit sitting idle as is the case with other units in our country today.
This situation is inexcusable and will cos*. Ameri-can citizens billions of dollars.
You may be interested in a specific cause of delay which we have encountered in the licensing process for our Clinton unit.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for our Operating License recently held a pre-hearing conference to determine if a local group, the Prairie Alliance, should be admitted as a party to.our hearings.
The Prairie Alliance had submitted 41 contentions
(
to the Board and petitioned to be admitted as an intervenor.
At
~
l the pre-hearing conference, the Board had Prairie Alliance read i
each contention and then accepted questions and comments from the l
Applicants (Illinois Power Company and two electric cooperatives) l and from the NRC Staff.
In each case, the response from both the l
Applicants and the NRC was that the cententions were too vague and l
too general.
Questions from the parties as well as Board members l
were unsuccessful in eliciting substantive clarification of the contentions.
l I believe it was obvious to everyone in the room (with the l
possible exception of the' Prairie Alliance representatives) that very little progress was being made and that the Prairie Alliance
Congressman Tom Sevill February 27, 1981
\\
i i
,o representatives did not understand the contentions they were reading.
After E contentions had been read and " discussed," the Board called a short recess.
Upon their return, they requested suggestions as to how progress might be made in developing sub-stantive contentions.
The Board Chairman asked the NRC attorney to suggest ways that the NRC Staff could " help" Prairie Alliance to sharpen their contentions and censolidate them (see attached excerpt from the transcript).
Needless to say, the Prairie Alliance welcomed the opportunity and agreed to cooperate with the NRC Staff in developing contentions acceptable to the Board.
During this time, we (the applicant) sat helpless and watched the regulatory process being abused in a manner which surely was never intended or anticipated by the Congress.
Also, as you might expecto we refused to carticipate in anv. w a v. in this process of educating the Prairie Alliance and assisting them to become inter-venors.
[
Subsequently, the NRC Staff and attorneys travelled to Champaign, lallinoistoholdsatwo-daymeetingwithPrairieAlliance (presumably t taxpayer's expense) to assist in the preparation of suitable con-tentions, without which no hearing would be required.
u-The NRC has advised the Congress (in its third monthly report on January 30, 1981) that contested hearings are adding to the licensing duration and are causing delays which they have not an-ticipated.
There should be no hearinc in our case.
Only Prairie ~
Alliance has come f orward to intervene.
It is not qualified and it will contribute nothing.to the process except delay.
For it, however, delay is success because its stated objective is to delay the construction of our unit.- The Licensing Board, by aiding this group, has virtually assured that our operating license will be delayed with a likely increased cost o our customers of millions of dollars.
Certainly, it was not the intent of the Congress that the licensing process be administered in such a manner.
In closing, I would suggest that you and your committee could c.erform a c.reat service to our national enere..v eroc. ram bv. c.ivinc.
to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission and the Chair-man of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel more specific instructions for reflecting the vill of Congress and for performing the licensing function in:a timely manner.
It should be made abundantly clear that the hearing procedure is not intended by the Congress to be used to delay the licensing process and that only persens with a demonstrated capability to contribute to the process
should be admitted as parties to hearings.
These hearings a' e extremely expensive to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers and should be limited to those cases where a substantial contribution will be made.
This test was not met in our case, but unless something can be done to reverse the situation, our customers will pay this cost without receiving a commensurate benefit.
We believe that your position is sound and that the NRC should be required to do its job in a timely manner.
We believe that they have used (in fact, abused) the excuse of Three Mile Island to justify inexcusable delays in the licensing process.
Last year, I visited Japan where they still build nuclear units in about 6 years as compared to 12 years in the United States.
I don't believe their engineering or construction is any better than ours, but their licenring process is f ar better.
Their plants are apparently just as good as ours, but built in half the time.
We cannot tolerate the licensing inefficiency which is strang-ling our industry and is having a severe impact on our country.
We would be very pl' eased to assist you in any way we can in resolving this problem.
2-Sincerely, e
I sqV L.
J.
Koch Vice President Attachment cc:
Edward R. Madigan, Congressman 15th District John F. Ahearne, Chairman NRC Robert M. Lazo, Acting Chairman ASLR Panel' f
i I
a i
I ;this contention, first, as being vague; and second, as bein-I
\\
2 !either repetitive of or incorporated in CententioS Number 3.l 3
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have any respense that
(
4 you wish to make at this time, Mr. Samelsen ?
5i MR. SAMELSON:
No, thankgcu.
g n
I g
6 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
At this point, we'll take a R
I l10 minute: rece ss.
7 E
E 8
n (WEEREUPON, a short recess in dn 9
the above-entitled cause was g
ch 10 g
had and the following proceedir E
11 g
were had, to-wit:)
d 12 j
I should like to say to you that this Board E
En R.13 is much more interested in substance than we are in form..
E 14 y
We recogni=e that the regulations require that': things be
_^
=
15 y
'done in a certain matter, and we also recognize that 'the 16 interveners are not represented by legai counsei.
G 17 g
We particularly are impressed with the fact 5
18 E
that M,r. Goddard's position concerning the contentions that 19 2
we have so far discussed tend to be in the direction that 20 they're too vague and they do not adequately meet the i
21 ll regulations applying thereto.
22
('
Mr.: Goddard, have you any suggestions how 23 this situation may be rendered?
l ( ',,.
24 lO' MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, in other cases with I
15 1
l l
l l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. -
!~
MU i
i 1
which Mr. Ear =an and I have been connected in the pact, one
\\. '
2 approach that has been taken has been to meet with the 3, pe titione rs and explain what we consider to be the c,
t 4
deficiencies in their proposed centention; attempt to I
I s
5t ascertain the nature of their concerns with greater 2
i j
6. specificity obviously than has been set forth in their R
C0 7
proposed contentions; and then to attempt to de=cnstrate a
=
l
[
8 lmeans by which they could reduce these concerns to writing d
I 9
with such specificity and basis stated in the contention 3
5 10,as required by 10 C.F.R. of 7.14 that they-will be E
II l susceptible to the development of evidence by the Staff and I
g 12 g
'the applicant and the State upon those contentions.
h?
13 m
I don't-mean to imply that the Staff would 5
14 l
draft the contentions for the petitioners nor to go so fas a
i C
15 g
co provide your direct assistance in draf ting the ccatentic:
16 but rather attempting to resolve the different views that m
17 the Staff and the petitioners have as to what constitutes w=
E 18
=
a suitable contention,to know that.
r" 19
]
Naturally, the applicant in any such case 20 would be invited or certainly weIcome to participate in l
21 any such discussions.
Of course, it would be up te the r-22 s
. applicant and their counsel.
I'= not suggesting that tnat i
23 j'be done here but this might be one way to resol.ve the 1
(?..
24 r
~
, issues.
i 25 i
l 5
6 s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
~.
1 1
l Another way to resolve the issue would be l
2 sinply to state in a summary fashion the positied of each 3
party on the contentions as they are drafted.
Those
(
4 ;cententions are before the Board, and let the Board make 5l a decision as to each of the contentions given the views l
j 6 'of each party.
E 7
Have I answered your question, Judge! Clark?
n S
8 M
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
If the Board is to d=
9 g
reject these. contentions because of the inexperience o
10 E
represented in the int e rve ne rs, I feel tha-t pe rhaps we have
=
E 11 g
not yet reached the ideal solution to the problem, and d
12 7
E therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Samelson would he be c
/.- =
13 tv agreeable to sitting down with the Staff with the idea in x=
14 l mind of revising his contentions with their advice but not Er 15 j
'with the15 participation perhaps so as it's presented in 16 contentions, which more truly meet the requirements of the 6
17 e
regulations and also meet your requirements as to the G
18 g
contentions that you.wish to pursue.
19 MR. S AMELSO N :
We would welcome such an opportuni 20 ito meet with the Staff and to imply the s t an da rd s that are 1
21 set down.
We appreciate the fact that the Board and the 22 i
i Staff recognice the limitations under which we 're working 23 and understand that this proposed proce ss is not a preceden s*
24 k.,
to the initial proceedings, and in the alternative, we wou-25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
-