ML20050D043
| ML20050D043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/1980 |
| From: | Lazo R NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050D033 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 ALAB-590, NUDOCS 8204090501 | |
| Download: ML20050D043 (2) | |
Text
M. *
- D *i f
- m W W.'m vsar m.r.,w.
W:. H s N O T 0 ti. 2." 2 OIII
,,'n
- o.,. g 4 h.,
..*.--s p.w,y 1:, n::.
9...p 0.,... i w :u. ;,.
t....,.s...n..:..
..a. - a...s ; [ a.. s s. ':
o s
e.
as..
~P.0M R,_ b...
.n.
i.,, o,
- c... :.. r.u.,...... e a.r e.
... o: w........,
r SUU5CT:
AU.5-550 (/d. LENS, C?.EEX)
In light of the extra:rdinary attention being given the Appeti 5 card's m:st recen-decision in Aliens Creek (A'.A5-590) which discussed the reevirerent on.,,.:.
.n,.
3..p.e,-.,
- e. L... y....c....
cn. %v.3,.3.o.
n
- e. s t. / l w,.
r..s.s
..s.:
v u
3 r.
- 4. e. j. :. v
.
- o c c". s
'.w
- m. *.
u C,s D.. n. :...... g,..
- 2. 3
.k.og...g
-,.g.e..gkj.
se
. s.....
e.
- '..,... w n..'1.4 '.m a.b.. e. ). e...'l '.3
- .q a.
C w.....'..e s #. '. # ~..
- . 8.. #..#. #. n o.
W'.*15. $.. *..*'.a. **viah*
b
.8 7.
u.
n, A..
3, to nave One fine i.s assessLEr.1 ci ne li. e ;y eTie:Is o,. this K
A. c :. 3 :. O n o n :.......
-. s
- a. a g i n.,3.
- 1... y. :.. :..... :..e
. n...... g s......, :. : z.
3.
..y n
...... 6.
.. 3
.... 7
.,.,.. s.. w... e.
.. s..).
- 3..,. L.
s e.t...:.:.e 0.,
w.,.....L..un a
......o a.....
e.C C.,
s.
.n,.
...:..zs%n.
p,s s :a.', :
1 :. e. t. :.,
.e. :.s:s
.s Cisbn.... D. S us y
..a a.
...7
..w...
... =. n s. n : ~....- a. #. '... ~ 1.
7
..m._
b = =.... 5. =. 7.... i c =.. *.. c 'i.' '.' =.
s..'.... 6 4..s t o -h=.
n=.....+.. o..T o.. o r.n.. t.:.
e 0.,
- e.,. w..,. e.
s
' nititi stroes Of the,:r::eedin; r.iess the i.tervener advancet bases ic-
?
i
.' ". s... v ' = '.. a '.~'.t.e '..-.. so. 9. 'ero c =. =. d:..,s.
'u '. = c o... =.. >.'.., s wh. i. '.. w - "i d.
a.
St.ap; ears tb rnany of us on the Li:ensin; 5:trd panel that ALA5 550 has eliminated the " bas es" rec;uirement.
If so, -he cnly restrictions en the inititi admissicn of cententions are:
(1) thtt the cor. ention be within t'5e' jurisdiction of the board as cefined by the noti e of hearing ar.6 the re.:uit-icns; and (2) that the centen-icn no
- onsti.ute a challen.te to the Ccmmission's reculations.
Thus, even frivcieus tententions wou...it :.e: cme the subject of discovery tnd summary cisposition procedures where formerly they '
~
had been eliminated pric,r to the ccm en:ement of these pre:edures.
Of course, u
ciscovery and summa ry disposition precetures can se ano citen are
.me. con.
seming, cumbersome and expensive n:
only to the government but to the appli-can and the intarvenor as well.
7"-ther, ALA5-550 h= s the effe-t ci shif t-inc. '.he burden wi*.h respect to contentiens which are f rivolous en' their face.
?z.her -han. reovir.nc Ine in erven:r to provide scme bas..s T or the conten-
-ion in. order to have it censidered ALA5-590 pitces
.he burden on the appli-cant and staff to de nstrate that there is no basis for the contention.
This contrasts with the -recent decision in Cestle 'v.
Pacific Letti Foundatien, L.Ed. 26 14 EP.C 1153, in which the Supreme Court apprev.et-an EPA re.
l
.F
.P di it:t, r. sting tha'. it had in the past L;;r:ved similar rec;uiremer.:s that 8204090501 820319 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
'~'
e e
e
.e s. n. }. :. y, {. 3.:An.
.23..
s.ee.a.
$.a.s f".
i.
- L. -,..t.i.. *.-
....a.
.e..si.:--
L e.
.. :m.
.d.
es.
g
..s
..s E.h.e.s..2...'
~...,- :.a p.E, 1,
~.s._.. >
~.,,..,.........
.u.s........:. e. e :.. :.
- u..
- e...,,. :.,.,.:
s
......4.
w.
. z..., 2..r.;., :
..:,'.o..e
.D
.3.
2.:*J.....:.- -
4
. 4 s... e,
.. e s.-
.y
.=..,..g y.
..; es vi.
4
.. s.
...s'I 1'
- n... n g e
- .
- - *
- a..c.* E. n. t.
'a ji.s...t*
.. s r...
...aw.
me y..
w y.
. - gg -:.:
.e s.t.
Y
...y7.. C :.
. 3 a:...w.,
E.s... : 5 K 1..
et.
..4,.
n.
4w,.
- ten,h r.
6..
.... a
- 3.. s =.
- s..s. =. a. -.a
. z. a. g
. a.
..a.
. s C.., m.e..
.q g *. gs. a.
.e. s.. g. a.
.. a.
.s.
u cs=:.n; and incorporate, in the ::.c : r. e..
- a..
e
/
. l'. :..
.M,. N/ '
ll* N. A**
\\
s u.,o.a..
v 1E.
.e
- r.. : n. r,:
, n
.....a.
.s
.L.....
.t. s.. a. 6.y z......
a.n t.yn s
3 s..w
.i.
(
O.. n. 5... a. 'i,
n.t. i e*.;.
.n r :.
- n. :.*.
r==.:::.
. -.u l
W e
.i e
..?*...
g
..M.
sm c r es c us V A1 E N TI N E fi.
EA'E e
se ci e c--::,:.- avc.::.~.
ita:*a
- Ct
..e:s*
..,a.g.g...,g g ggy.
1 &Li t e. $... g m
- e. s R.
= AS =t* O O %.3.C.
2O03*
- se
=O3: :::
s
.i... s C,
- L C. C f.)
-!cn: able John F. 5.hearne
~~
C.'.*:....M-
. 1:ni.e:i States Nuclear ?.egulatory C: mission T, s. =.
a n..gton, DC 20o...os D e c Chti.:... man Ahes. ne:
As En 'attC Dey member Ci the Atomic 3!dCy and Licensing 3 erd Panel serv.n when called upon (legg.71 1e75.cresent). I have been ::cubled occasions.Dv 3
s s
by hew Atomic Safety and Licensin-Apped 3 cards execise thei role.
=
1 It appears that semetimes when Appeal 3:s.-is ded with Licensi-- 3eed s
decisiens en petitiens to intervene, C.s Apped 3:t-d action bea s the namp of R-legs. ism gone s, wry. In these cases, the Apped 3:t-d decisiens introduce into the
- "5 nue'.e.s.- Ecensing process delays, waste cf legs.1 ar.d.echnied talents, and cis-action i
- c-. the substance of nucler safety, health an:' enri :nment. AHowing interventica in c..e who should not. be allowed to inte yene under reasens.ble constructica of the C.c= mission's regulations is a disservice to the pc:~.ic, to eve y party cencerne:i, and.c the pa-ticule petitione, cu-7 omoticas to in--a=== Tblic participation in hea-ings notwithstanding.
O
'The 1e""ctic stamp which Appe.a13cs-ds r.ive the nucl.c licensint. o. rocess s
eviden.ly finds its roots in the composition of the Ac.ces.1 Paneh four lav..ters and one technical person on a full-time basis sad twc other persons with technical bac?g:cund very much on a ps.-t-time basis.
Bef:re a forum.of that kind, the subnance of issues imbedded in technics.1 censideratiens which non-technied persens (such as lawyers) frecuently treat with limited, hani.ly accuired knowledge tends te be placed in a legdistic setting. In such ci ecastance, it is not surp;ising to find the two lawyers on a typical Appeal Seed prevai'i.g over the single ncn-lawyer.
A fine exampie of this, where the two lawyers teamed together in misguided legalism s.rai.s* an unconvinced technied persen, is found in the Ane.s Creek case.1/
II By contrast to the. Appeal Panel, the Licensins Bord ?anel contai.s many mere technical persons than lawyers and its boa-ds en constructica permits, cperating lice.ses and technical mcdifications thereto ce ; udently determined, pu stant to sis.ute y boundaries, each to conta.i. ene lawyer an:' tq:o/ tech.ical persens.
}t4
.o xv y A1.A3-590, Ap:S 22, ice 0.
J ['o r.
s g
... =....
, _ _'r c :., e n* ~s n-. <.
Crys FJ, E0;, Dochet.. 50-l M7.
ee r*.c-e : c
.:.. ~.. n
~
~
~~ ~, ~e v
4
"::::1ble' Joh. '. Ahes ne 6, ~. s.
1.C..C. 0
.- a. e w o
- h e.
..... e e..-e. s { g ( a..
.; r.t a.t i 1.
7.. :
- C a _e -.? c.
..,e..m e.. -. s.. ;....e. 4 e.q a..e,s.a::74s.
r 2
M..,.,...-....s.n.j e g go.a..te..
..e ig.3
.s C. " a.e..I.... _: '.- ". '.'6.h. a..".."_e c#
'u'*1 a. M a. a..=. "'.3
.c n...
is ".. > a.
W a.a..s'..s-
- o. e e,
....-a.
e..>
e.v.'
ab ~ 6 h.s.= '. c u.i.'i ca'6i..s p^..=n
.s..
3,.q.; 33ce o.i 3.
in.,a.. s. g..e3 66
-.u:_:..
2
.g........
.3-d e...e... c'ia.is, " o u1'
,.6 u
seem. can be ' amp]v protected for the Com:.issi:n by a lav.zer en a Licensing
= ou',
resumtb..v b.y a n oin.e-la e cn zz Appeu. -nos-6 a.nd.;v t.ne.tav..:Brs it the service of the Commission in the. Office cf Gene:d Cou.se'.
Tne justi'ication icr~ Appeal Boz-ds to be de iced.ly.weig:.:ed in fav:: cf Isv.fe it the enpense cf p'a 'si ci.2 ts, a..wi on..a..*.d s a.i e'.'.'.e e,.= =..:.e... c%. 3 ets, '.v d.*....ie.' e, an d sa. 4 c-^u.
2 m
u c
_e s pa eu.
e Nticler' mie v., fer enenpie, is not perceived as essen:!Cly related to a re::rd of faverabie decisiens on 2 erd cues-icas i. courts :f appeals, whereas
... e..i.e3 ali ir.-
ha n. u cl. e r h a..'..e. n 5 3
a"
' -= = i e ' v'm- =". W-V in
. e a.'6. -5 r '-
.e. "'..e..$ a-iv e.Ma" = e c.'.n u -l a..e
.=...' a m.,'a.n '. a..= " e. a.s w _=.c. =..' '..i.a e c. '..- =.c -" c a.s.
P.s"cl.e..
F.S.fe!y is not a p'oduct of su0h waste.
~
W e C*_Il *ro
...'7a 6 'w' a. V.***.h
.1.. V. -
^
- s *. -.v m' ".~ s *.*.*r'..c a. d
. ~.. =. s. d.'a... '. '.*.
c..
a r
c7..r. -.- h a.'.s a.
n, a.. ~ni 6 +6..,- =. c, a -d, e....'.*..e-a.... ' ". =. '. oco'
...a, 3
.- =
- a.e ' - -
C... =. N.ea.m. '.s-O cc-d:s deu'als o.' two "*.." sic'_e ' '
.. *.. v a.. s e,
's'
.h. a.
.L.o. n a.' :-=-6
.~6 g
g-e.'.' ec *.ive'.v -a ad c"*6 oa' *ha '. v-n ~.'. i.e.s.
..S.e c
~
d.
E '*-' -
. e - - -
-
- i - %' - -"? =-. - - E 6 u-
-
- 8 ' "n'- "-
9"
'c+
C
.b..*'.c pg.4.jo.3 4 C.-
4a' e. v a *a*
- c7 shd1.=.= *.
- ".. "... N.'.".'..
,M_ '. i a. "h ".. "; " '.:h a
.I..'. a. - a. s'. ^..#
6
.6
~
,s..e
..; 1 C3,.
E 1.
ce.c3 4
. e.l.. ed, C..e: 4.... C e.
. s..
.i
- o...:.:....t t
. aa 1
c6
...........s
'r.%. a..
.6...
- 1. * *, b" a c cast 3*1 Wi"6 D"'*
C"# #i-i *-*
C ~ ~~ # e ei C""#s D ul's _.,
- "ca c 6.--
J
~5 8-6 :-
c4
- e. =...:e. ar u a'i.n. a.i.v co.s eal '.v
'6hm. 4...'. a.. v a '. -.e
. ". =..t.i c e-..e t...3
~.e_-d:s
- 3. a c' the toolicant's~ motica for summa v disotsi:icn, Res-tinN with -h c
4/ the Acceal 3:1-d imoosed noen the ip'plicant V3?CO additional unc.ui..tified t e accompanyin-burden for all concerned cf as cra] hearin-befere t'.e Apped 3:a-d, a later e titica s
e b.v '. '. =. 4 ". a-v a..... s f o.-
Co....-'. issi ou-. a v.ia.ve, an' --"- d e of. i =.
e.*.
to. a. w o.-t..
- 1. 6
.a len.th, the Nerth. Anna c.ise was wound up when. :n : day 29, l'io, the Sec ets.v of the Commissica forwarded notice to counsel fer t'.s i.:e ven::s.hti their petition ic.- C:mmissica review was deemed denied.
By ecmps-isen to this yer's date cf May 9, the Licensir.; 301-d:s amended de..it's of petitions to intervene occurred en Dec=mber 19,157E ind the Licensing Scs-d s grant of the applicant's motion for summa y disposition was issued on. August 6, 1579.
As perpetuated by the Apped Ecs-d, the Scrth Ar.i case leaves the 2',..-.. c.e.e.t e., t h at 2:s principal impact has been ic pr:vice job se -ity for lawyers both in and c6: cf Government with no perceived effsetting value to the nucles-licensing process.
2/
- 5. SRC 54, ALAS-552, Janua y 25, 1979.
T/
9 NRC 351, Licensing Bosrd's cc.~ments en AI.AS-552, Ma ch 13,1979.
]/
10 NRC 554, ALAB-555, Octobe-29,1975.
/.
mm vm. m
- y
.o 1
= --,.......-.n.
..u n,.
.-),...
=..
+
a..
.,.0 w.
e.e... -..
o 2.-d.'s Ce:1sion *.. *.ne.. ;e.s L eek case, w...nica 13ve,4ves the a ne ".,.ppea.!
c
. a."...2.=.1 c '. a Li c e.a..ci.a 3 O c.e. c's d e a i.d... ' a...y"
'... =..-". =....i.,. : 'e a s sh. a. caa..e"6:o. o.
3 what is the meaning of the recuiremen of the Ocamissien's regulation" on inte -
ven-ica that a petitione-to inte vene must p : cide the bases fe each of his cententicas "with reasonable specificity," 2.714(b). Under the Ie;>'ietic u. ealism affected bf Appes.1 Boards, Licensing 3ca-ds are cens.ained to t eat mere assertions, speculative.:thecticing, and icle cle.ims : ELegati:ns :f petitienes to intervene as se-!:us statements of substa ace, with::: any attenien to thei meits, c: lack Sere:f,.when decicing whether to allcw c-deny a pe i ica :: intevene.
Legal fc:lishness.. scores ae. inst common sense, go:d ress:n and sound law.
a in both tha Anans C eek case and the Nc -h.2.na case, Appeal Boards have
.,..e..ep.
.e. y c..,.,, o c., -,. s,.: m e-c.... m:.
. c
- c.. _. 1. c.: s p es: c u..
.2 3.........
aon as a re.asonable mes..s fer applicants ic deal with. s gind petiti:ne-s to intevens.
.e, g.
e,.
.,s e...a a:..- t$ c,...e:,-
=.,
e.,.o ; _e::.
"..=. E o =..'s.
- n a..-
'so (a.*. v.n=.
r
.. e
...s
-~
s s
..-.s..:. =.:..
,v.-
6.v=.1.co. M.._c ;. a. - a. s. an '.. =.~. a. '. '.c. '. ' ".. c " v. ;.'.h o. c..*.~.o'."..%" c.'
- .h. e.
bases fer each c' his contentions "wi2 reas:..at'.e speci'ici 7," Appeal 3ca cs c..r,_.. : v e.'.v, by"p ae.-
"una. a..f =. - a.
c e '
.- "..' ei..s
- c..' ". =. ",...... t e. :. - a...k a6-c'.t.n on a.
e a
%s i-terventica and build up Se burdens:me me:ien I:: summs y dispositien as a
.... " pers:c e way.of. c:viatm.g a neet. ess - a.3 p-A fa-diffcent point of view ft:m Se A; pet' 30s. cs' is evidenced by the S.greme Ccu-t of the United States i. its recen decision ci Costie v. pacific Lera; ?cundatien, No. 70-1492, Ma ch *.5,1920.
- 1. Se Costie case, the Supreme C:u-: neid that agency rules may recuire an ap '!:in, ic: a hea-ing "to meet a th esheid burden of tendering. evidence suggesting the need ic: a hea-ing.
- See, e.r., Weinberre
- v. Hvnson. Westcot 6 Du.ninr, 4* : U.S. at E20-621 (1573), an:i cases cited th. erein."
_id., SEp Op. at 15. The Sup. eme Ceu-t we= on to reemphasize "the fundamental administrative law principle. hat 'de ictmulation of procedures was. basically to be left within the dis::etica ci the agencies :o which Congress had c:nfided the responsibD.ity for substantive.iudgmens.' Ve = cat-Yankee Nucietr
?evie-Corp. v. N?.DC, 435 U.S. 519, ~ 24 (1975)."
.I.d_., S h o. 02 at 16.
Lest ou comments leave a mistaken imp essi n, we ts.1:e this occasion to e);:ess disagreement with a fermer p;cp:sd tha A;;es.1 sea cs se aconshed. The
- n funnica of the Appeci. ane, in ou-t.... mar:mg, :s use:., anc cestrab.le:
it is wey fc: the Commission to have r.ppes.3 s es es c ous3.e e. neck c.ec stons of.7a.censmg S carcs. - ?:om the standpoint of orderly managemen of adjudicatica within the Commission, neither members of the Commissien, the Office of Genera.1 Counsel, nor assistants to the Commissioners are an acceptable substitute for Appeal Boards.
How the authority and responsibility cf the Appes.1 pane) should be defined and ca--ied out is, a separate cuestion.
+
0 H:ntrabie John F. Ahes ne Ju.e.5, ISEO
- s t e.: c'.'.-
IV The Nucler Regulatory Commissien cught te be chcEcterized by tech. icd st, ty and speed in decisien md:ing. Tne Cc=missien should nei permit im; actical lep*ms to clutte up is nucler licensing proces.
As E move towed greater emphasis,upon the sufostance of nuclee safety, hedth cad environment c.d away fMm legd points of view, two recc=mendatiens to the Cc= mission ce cifered:
Fi st, to change the compositien cf its Apped Panel in c:de-to remove the present imbdcace between Apped Eced membes who re 1sv. ce s and these v:ho re imowl-edgetble about the substance ci relevent technied subjects,
.... d an Se:cadr to.iettisen the excess legalist!: b,e-Er.e which Apped Bouds have ic:ced the nucler licensi..g process to cery when it deds with petitlens to i..tervene.
The Commission co$d previde Emurance :: 1.icensing 3ct-ds of thei-entitlement to the "peticult-ity" and "reasontble specificity" called ic: in the C.c==issien's regulation on intervention and could dse deveicp 2e theme en inte -
g;-
ventien rectirements Es Epproved in the Ccstie case by the Supreme Cou-t of the United StEtes. The Licensi.g 3ords
~ " "
would thereby be in an improve:i positica ic: Esce-taining whether petitioners to intervene ce likely to make a positive contribution to the reccid and v:hether thei conten-tiens are worthy ci hering.
It is submitted that these two recommendations would have E sdutry effect
- =:n the three conce ns noted at the beginning ei this letter, namely, delays, waste cf legal sad technied ta.lents, and distractica from the substance of nucles safety, hefth a.nd environment.
Sincerel',,
s IN&
/ // W dbj e
y v
cc:
The Ecnorable Victo-Gilinsky The Hencrable Riched T. Kennedy The Honorable Joseph M. Hencrie The Honerable Peter A. Bradford Leonud Bickwit, Generd Counsel A]an S. Rosenthe.1, Che.irman, Atomic Stiety and Licensing Apped Panel Robert M. Lano, Acting Chai man, Atomic Sciety End Licensing 3cErd PEnel Hows-d K. ShEpe, L:ecutive Lesd Direct:-
Service lis's ic-2 "a" Creek and Nc th kna cases
n e
. +
4 O
s
..~..e,' ~ne
- a. '. e. ~ ~... '. '.. s ~..c *.....
' O C "... *-) e 't..' \\' C ) *.- ; '.. 5 *...'.. g-
s-..-
m t.
1,., s '.... z e.
5.
.3 gg
- g 33.-
%...h.,. %aSeS ea" e3 C."..".".*.*.**.'#**,
'.' e # ~~. e'.. *' eS s,..1 d % e ac e s o.
4...n c*..... s a.
A e...
4.o..r.e
..JC" s.
s rel'eh upon 'c: such bases.
Tne s. ure. :se cf 'the sta:e=est.
- n
~;-
~
..esho.'
,'1--3 e~-*
..<S.Sc,a
- e. e eS :S a
..C.
4 to De 10e ES to O.ne Ocec ::C E near,:.3 00 :ne CCO e".0 Cs.
~.r ea
=='.,., e' $ ~ g., - g -
.e.%.,r...
- f
%. e. g.:. e, c 5e :...: :
. g * *D,-
.e..t.e...t.a..
.1 s
.--.. w
. ~ '..
s y y '- - s ' A *' ~
d.~
C,uts-
- ~
~.*~. s C*
~~~
C c~.~.. C e ", #. " h. e * *~ *.*..*.# C'..
.o _ye e,.. :. :.. e. s e,.,. e e g,.,..
.-..a c.
.<.Cn.
Ar.e=d 10 CTI. 2.714 (d) by in, sert'.ng a: the end thereof the' f olles-d.ng ne.-
2.
sentence:
,., e n..
.<Cn S,,...-
u.,
z-.:..: :,
.e
.ne cc...,en S
.nc o.he
- ..:.c
. :on s..%
.e
.D - -. ec, e -
fe, J., \\
g
- '.en a:.s es s.gn ::.can:, sSues t n:.cn gus::.:y.urtne proceec-4
....O
- " (* a.
e g
Me g
,8
+