ML20031D304
| ML20031D304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1981 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bell N NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110130227 | |
| Download: ML20031D304 (2) | |
Text
\\
\\
7y x
en Q
f p,
- ~Y
( d.l'
- $ F
\\e-fy 9% ;-
FQt y
Q-f dsa%31-?caud G2:3 October 5, 1981 7
,f a
Ms. Hina Bell T h o3 q
Coalition for Safe Power.
j Suite 527 9-hg 408 Southwest Second Avenue
\\
y Portland, Oregon 9/204 t
p 4
\\
o t
Dear Ms. Bell:
This is ir, response to your letter seeking clarification as to the status of the Skagit proceeding. As I have indicated to you on tne telephone, the Skagit proceeding pertaining to the constructiori perrit (CP) application for the facility proposed to be located in Skagit County, Washington has been terminated by Board Order dated August 27, lo".
That means that the hearings conducted with respect to that facility are considered concluded and that no Board decision will be issued. llowever, as you are aware, the utility Applicants are auending the CP application to reflect the relocation of the proposed facility to the Hanford Reservation. The amendments to the application are expected to be completed by Deceuber 1981, at which time tney will be reviewed by the NRC to ensure that sufficient information is contained in then for docketing. After docketing by the HRC, a notice of hearing will be issued by the Comission affording opportunity for public intervention and participation with respect to the Skagit/Hanford CP Lp-plication to those who have standing on this amended application and who could not have previously intervened. We expect the Skagit/lianford CP hearings to comence around late-suimer 1982 with portions to be held jointly witn the State of Washington Energy Facilities Siting Evaluation Council.
The previous hearings with respect to the Skagit facility pertained to environnental matters and, thus, were largely site-specific. ilowever, please understand that the nuclear power plant facility known as Skagit is being transferred to a new site on the llanford Reservation. Accordingly, the fNility systems, design, equipment, hardware, etc. remains essentially tha saae except for changes made to reflect new requirements and site con-ditions. Tnerefore, the "Sumary of Skagit/Hanford CP Application Schedule Meeting, June 18, 1981" letter that you referred reflects a continuation of the Staff safety review scheoule for this facility and, in addition, a g()7 scnedule for the commenceuent of the environmental review.
)
/ /
i" 0110130227 81100'5"
""~
~ " ' '
(DRADOCK 05000522 on
~ ~ ' " ' ' " " " '
~~~~~~~~~~ "'" ' ' '
FDR
- NRC P ORM 318 4f. 40) NNC M O24C OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- " *32"2'
7 f
ym, y
a m
we pr 7
y g
4.x y
. t You have also requested information about the HRC's policy of providing certain free documents to Intervenors. Please find enclosed a copy of the December 3, 1980 letter from the Comptroller General to Congressman licConaack concluding that "if the Commission implements its procedural cost reduction progran using its fiscal year 1981 apraropriations it will be violating Section 5D2 of the Appropriation Act [ Pub. L. No.96-367, 94 Stat.1331 (1981)J." The procedural cost reduction progran implemented by the Cor,raission on July 25, 1980 was a limited fon.: of Intervenor funding.
l Accordingly, the Comptroller General's opinion has largely curtailed the Staff's dissemination of free documents to Intervenors which might be construed as the type of funding prohibited by Section 502 of the Appropriation Act. However, each request for documents by Intervenors in tne future will be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine if the request is appropriate.
Finally, you have requested that Coalition for Safe Power be placed on the Staff's licensing service list in oroer that it may be kept informed of the events involved in the Skagit/Hanford application.
The Division of Licensing informed r.e that this was done several months ago.
Sincerely, Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
PDR, LPDR Docket Files JTM 50 -Sey'M J
Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto/0lmstead Reis/ Black /Sohinki EAdensam 416/MMallory 128 v
A SQ' i -
..9 ELD
,,0, ELD
-4 R B,1ack,h,,,b,, EJ,Rei s,,,,,,,,
om> 10/..).../. 81 10/ L
......../.81 NRC FORM 318 410< 00i N RC M O2 d O OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- *o "8 32$ 824,
m'%
y UNITED STATES
[('['S.7 /(( 'g NUCLE AR'REGUL ATORY COMMISSION wAswmcToN, o. c. aeass
. u vfcc.. p Y
%,, Q,
j Decem6er 4,1950 CH AI RI.. AN MEtGRANDUM FOR:
Secretary
~
fecutive Director.or Ope:ations FROM:
John Ahearne t
b
):
SU5 JECT:
PROCEDURALAS.jsTAKE Attached is a letter I have.'ust received from the Comptroller' General concluding that our procedural assistance program may not use any FY El funds.
Therefore, by this memorandum, I am directing the office of the Secretary and the NRC staff tu immediately cease such program until the General Ceunsel and the Commission have had an op-portunity to examine this decision and reach a conclusion as to what our future a,ction should be.
Any tocuments that are in the process of being transmitted should be held and no'further processing should occur without further direction from the Commission.
By copy of this memorandum, I am also asking the Controller to determine how much in FY 81 funds have been expended to date on this program.
ce; Com.issioner Gilinsky Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford GC CON ASLAB ASLEP OCA t
e F/0/0 7&/7
.p>
s
,,.;'5.~,7,-
I
. ; : :.-l' CoM *rA eL.' a A ctNga A.. OF T*4f UNITao STAras
't.*.,
~s.snose. c c. m.e
%s'y' r l'8 PYmY e
ama ro.
s-2005E5 m
Dece=ber 3, 19E0 Tne Eonerable John T. Ahearne Chair.an, Nutlear Regulatory Cer. ission Lear Mr. Chair =an:
k'e are enclosing for your irfor=atio:< our letter of this date to the Chair =an, Subce=ittee on E: ergy Research and
? oducticn, Ce: ittee on S61ence and Technology, Eeuse of Representatives.
In our letter we conclude that the* Nuclear Reg.11atory Cer.=issica r.ay not invfully use funds s.pp cpriated by the Inergy and litter Develop ent Apprepriation Act, 1951, P ub. L..'.96-267, 94 Stat. 1331, to impleant the procedural reduction program announced by the Co=1ssien in the cost Tederal Register on July 25, 1980 (l.5 Ted. Reg. 49535).
Sincerely yours, 7,
f I
s%U h la t
Comptroller General of the United States Inclosure I
i 1
l i
l i
l l
l l
l l
l
'Pu P6 0 P pos, 10-6-6)
% v12 22 NL7
i
/
.- w.
_ ?j [ .
f o v.'":R oLLER G ENcRA1. C F rHE UN! RCD STArr.S
% A s ms%cTON. D.,
1: Sat 3-200fE5 Dece:ber 3, 1950 The Eencrable Mike McCornack Chair an, Subec::1: tee en Energy Research and Production Cen=1: tee en Science and Technology Ecuse cf Representatives
Dear Mr. Chair an:
You have requested our opinien en the p cpriety of the procedural ces: redue:icn progra: for intervenors being instituted **y the Nuclear Regula: cry Cc::ission.
This progra: is designed. to ease the econe:ic burden en interveners in the Cc::issien's adjudn atery proceedings by previding free copies of transcrip:s and by copying and serving without charge certain of the docu:ents the intervenors need to participate in the proceedings.
Ucder the 'pregran the Co :ission has also reduced frc: 20 :o 2 the number of copies of filings required of all parties.
Ter the reasons indicated belev, we cenclude that, with the exceptien of the reduction of required copies, the Cc==1ssion =ay no: lavfully use its fiscal year 1951 app:cpriation to 1:ple en:
the cos: redue:icn progra=.
The Cc= ission's adopticn of the progra: vas announced in the Federal Registe en July 25, 1950, (45 Fed. Reg. 49535).
The program was ef fected by =eans of three a:endnents to the Cornissien's regula-icns relating to adjudicatery licensing proceedings in 10 CFR Part 2.
First, See:icn 2.70S(d) of tha par vas a:endad by reducing f:c:
20 to 2 the number of cepies of plea 91ngs er ether documents that every party to the proceeding is required to file.
Second, Secticn 2.712 was a: ended by adding a provisien that, except in antitrust proceedings, the Co--d ssion vill copy and serve, at no cos to the party, the party's testi=ony, p:oposed findings of fact and con-clusient of law, aad respenses to discovery requests.
This free copying and service is available to all parties to the proceeding except the applicant for the license.
Third, Section 2.750 was a ended by adding a provisien allowing the presiding officer at the proceeding to provide a free transcript of the proceeding to any par:y, ether than the applicant, at the sate time tha the Cc==dssion staff receives its copies.
P O
loo s 10 ~ 0 6 ~ 0 l....
l 3-2003E5 4
)
i
-Tunds for carrying out the Co=:ission's functions for fiscal year 1951, vere appropriated by the Inergy and '4ater Levelopment Apprcpriation Act, 1951, Pub. L. No.96-367, 94 Stat. 1331.
Sectien 502 of this Act prevides:
"Nene of the funds in this Act shall be used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise co=pensate, parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act." (94 Stat. 1345)
It is clear from this language that if the procedural cos: reduction progras vill pay the expenses of interveners in the Commission's adjudica ery pr.oceedings the Co= issien may no: use funds apprepriated by the fiscal year 19El Appropriation Act to inplement the prograr, t
Cbvicusly the ces: reduction progrs= vill apply to the Cc--*ssien's adjudicatory proceedings.
The very title of the Tederal Register announce ent (" Procedural Assistance in Adjudicatory Licensing Proceedings") and the Federal Register su==ary (".NRC is t:ending its regulations in order to provide a one-year pilot progra= of procedural assistance in adjudicatory proceedings ***")
nr.ke this clear.
It is equally clear that the beneficiaries of the progra: are to be interveners in the Co--* ssien's proceedings.
The amended regulations s: ate that the free transcripts, cepies, and service, are to be provided to parties "other than the applicant." The explana:ery =aterial in the Federal Register announcerent indicates that procedural assis:ance vill be offet td "to all intervenors vi:heet cualification" (45 Ted. Res. 49535), th'at copies of transcripts vill b e "na il e d t o in t e rveno r s " (,I d. r t 49536), and that the free copies of documents vill reduce costs "to intervenors" (Id.).
Finally, it is certain that the program vill " pay the expenses of" the intervenots.
Clearly if the Cc--dssion did not adopt the reduction program then the costs of purchasing transcripts cos:
and cepying end serving docu ents vould be expenses that the intervenors would have t-bear if they were to participate in the Co :ission's proceedings By bearing these costs itself, the Cc==issien is necessarily osying expenses of the intervenors even though the i
Co= issien i; not taking any cash pay ents directly to the interveners.
I Although the Cc==ission's anended regulations speak of copies "vithout cost" to the intervenor, and of " free" transcripts, these e
copies and transcripts udll not be "vithout cost" or "f ree" to the l.
l I
'7.[____.,_,_._,.__.---------------------
- - ~ " ' ~ " " '
3-2005E5 Co= ission.
The Cc==ission vill have to expend its appropriated m:neys to =ake copies of docc ents and to pay the reporters the e-price of the transcripts.
The Co==ission itself, in its Tederal Register announce ent recognizes that it will be paying intervenor expenses.
The announce:ent indicates that intervenors right ordinarily pay as =uch as S1,000 per day to obtain transcripts and that by providing them to the intervenors at its own expense the Co=rission is providing "an expensive service," 45 Ted. Reg. 49535.
- Further, by providing free copies of certain documents and by serving them on behalf of the intervenors, the Cc =ission vould be per'orning "a service which vould have high payoff in ter:s of reducing costs to interveners * **"
Id. at.49536.
Therefere, ve =ust its procedural cost reduction progra: conclude that if the Co==ission 1:ple:ents using its fiscal year 1951 appropriations it sill be violating Section 502 of the !.ppropriation Act.
The Con =ission's legal analysis, submitted sdth the request for our opinien, discusses language in the Heuse repor: on the fiscal year 1980 Cc--4ssion Appropriations Act that "The budget i
request and the co=:ittee reco::endation do no: include funds for intervencrs."
(H.R. Report No.96-243, 96th Cong., 1st session 136 (June 7,1979).
cuoted above, however, is stronger because itThe language of pub. L. No.96-367 precludes paying the expenses of or otherwise cc pensating intervenors in addition to precluding the direct provision of funds to interveners.
The legal analysis also asserts that our 1976 decision on Cen=f ssion intervenor funding, B-92285, February 19, 1976, found "no legal proble=s" vith procedural cost reductions of the sort nov proposed.
Eevever, the context l
of the discussics of cost reduction in that l
l decision was limited to "si=plifying procedures and eli=inating unnecessary or unduly burdense:e requirements" rather than shifting the cost burden of unchanged procedures and requirements fro:
intervenors to the Co==ission.
Our renclusion does no: apply to the Ce==1ssion's sr. ended regulation which states that all parties to the proceeding need file only the original and 2 copies of pleadings and other documen":s instead of the original and 20 ccpies which was formerly required.
In our opinion by =aking t'ds a:endment the Co=:1ssion r
.. not paying intervenors' expenses, but rather is _e_lininatinc an adjudication cost for all of the parties by codifying its procedural recuiremen:s.
As indicated in the previous paragraph, I
ve deterzined in our 1976 decisien tha: the Co=:issien does have
- he authority to si=plify procedures er elizinate unnecessary or
=
---e-p--
,.,_3
,m-m.~.p.
-p.,i.,-c.m
.y.v,,-.
.,,.-3.,,..-
s~ ~%.
e.-
,...,.----m
-mw,,w..,-.,,
~~.-cc 4-,
w q
e E-20M E5 unduly burdense:e require ents which increase parties' costs in participating in the Co=.issien's p cceedings.. B-92288, Teb dary 39, 1976.
The Federal Register announcement indicates that the 20 copy requi.recent was "for the Cennissic='s convenience for internal infer:ational distribution ***"
45 7ed. Reg. 49536.
- Further, these 20 copies only partially set.the Cc= ission's needs and the Ce=.ission therefere produced additional copies.
- he cost of p:c; ducing the 20 copies was not a necessary expense Tnerefore.
of ;trticipating in the Cc==issien's proceedings, but rather was an instance of the Co:nission requiring the parties to bear part of 1:s o.m expenses.
By eli_inating this recuirenent for all par:1es, including intervenors, the Cc n.issien is no: paying intervener's expenses.
t In ycur letter you p3 sed e,uestiens concerning whether the 2cr ission's p cgra:
vas consistent with the vishes of the Congress n.s cypressed at E.R. Report *No.96-243, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 139 (1979); vith the Independent offices App cpria:icn Act of '.952,
,31 U.S.C. I 483a;. and s-ith Office of Management and Sudget Circular Ko. A-25.
Tne enact ent of pub. L. Sc.96-367, af ter you sent your le::er, takes it unnecessary, in cur opinion, to address the c:her questions posed in your letter. Ve have discussed this with a nenber of the subco:=ittee staff who indicated that in the interest of avoiding unnecessary delay ve need not answer the c her ques:1 ens in your le:ter.
Sincerely yours, b
)
s M' t t 4 9*
c a
4 3 Cc:p::eIler GeneraA r
of the United States
{
e i
0
_4_
y,,,,
7
,.,-,-,---,n,wn-.
-.--m-----cm
- - - -. - - ~
,--r
g
-, - ~,- -
.