ML20008F519
| ML20008F519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F520 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104210131 | |
| Download: ML20008F519 (2) | |
Text
L i
[
UNITED STATES
/,0)\\
! h, #ot NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
'/)
c
{, ME k
WATN NGTON. D. C. 20555 Y.
Y d u,Aip2 0 /Sgy A 11 G
March 31, 1981 g
.},
h s & r % [@
cwwan s
($7
[D The Honorable Tom 3evill, Chairman c
Succomittee on Energy and Water Development DC3 Comittee on Appropriations N gl United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Bevill:
I have received your recent letter about the conduct of a Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and NRC staff counsel in providing advice and suggestions to a petitioner for leave to intervene in the Clinton operating license proceeding. Your letter attached correspondence from the Illinois Power Company comenting on the practice generally and on some of the par-ticular circumstances at Clinton.
Because the issue of whether the petitioner should be admitted to the proceeding is now pending before that Licensing Board, my response is necessarily confined to the general focus of your letter.
5U.S.C.557(d).
Your letter inquires about a long-standing Comission practice -- one which we believe is not in any way improper.
It is clear that agencies have some inherent authority -- indeed, an obligation -- to explain the scope and operation of their regulations to those affected by them. This practice is reflected, for example, in the issuance of staff guidance documents and Regulatory Guides to potential applicants, licensees, and the public to aid the interpretation of NRC substantive requirements. This practice is also seen daily in the many informal contacts between the staff and those it regulates. The staff's practice of explaining what is expected of potential intervenors under thosa regulations is in keeping with this role.
In its rules of practice, the NRC has insisted that a potential public participant adhere to certain rules of pleading, including a statement of interest and of specific concerns about the facility.
The Commission has recognized through its experience that some of these par-ticipants, especially those not represented by counsel, often raise issues of l
{
centra-1 concern to the licensing action but, unfortunately, in rather general-ized fashion. This experience also demonstrates that there will be substan-l tial time and resource savings if the staff, which may be joined by the i
applicant, negotiates informally with these potential intervenors either to resolve the concerns short of hearing or to stipulate a set of particularized issues for hearing. This does not mean that the staff waives any of its objections to contentions through these negotiations -- the ultimate decision on matters to be litigated rests with the Licensing Board. What it means to the staff and the applicant is that the Board's decision on the issues to be
'8.104 210 G\\
The Honorable Tc= Eevill 2
iiti;ste:, if any, may n:t include any ;enerali:ed ::::2nti:ns ;-i: are difficult to address in the proceeding.
This crocess saves ti e and re-sour:es :ecause it dis:curages preliminary contests on these matters, tail:s ra:: ort bet sacn the carties usually resulting in a =:re afficient an: less cisru :ive hearing, and enables tne parties to pre:are for and ultimately litigate only well-define issues. Conse;uently the NRC amenced its rules in 1978 to facilitate the negotiations. See cenerally, Statement of Considerations to Part 2 Amendments, 43 Fed. Rec. 17798,17799 (April 25, 1978). The Cet=ission has also en curaged parties to reach a " fair and reasonable settlement of contested... proceedings" and expects its Soards and parties to take " appropriate steos to carry out this puroose." 10 CFR 2.759. These policies are reflected in the actions of the Clinton Board.
In our view this does not constitute funding or assistance for intervenor participation but is a time-tested way in wnich the licensing process is expedited at a net savings to the taxpayers and with an increase in public confidence.
A narr0wly focused proceeding is in the best interests of all concerned.
Sincerely,
\\
vb
[
t.
d s_
Joseph M. Hendrie E
e-
.s e