ML20058N344

Responds to Re J Lorion 900624 Concerns Re Location of Oral Argument & Lack of Notice for ACRS Meeting. Location of Oral Argument May Be Altered in Discretion of Board & Forwards Transcript of ACRS Meeting

ML20058N344
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/26/1990
From:	Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Fascell D HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20058N348	List: ML20058N344 ML20058N350
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9008140062
Download: ML20058N344 (2)

Text

. . - - - - -- .

.. . 1

'\, UNITED STATES

/ "-

7-

[

r, g'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssinotow, o. c. rosso 1

't o -

l R*..+} July 26, 1990

)

l

)

The Honorable Dante B. Fascell United States House of Representatives .

Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Fascell By letter dated July 6, 1990, you have referred your constitent f Joette Lorion's letter dated June 24 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for.

~

consideration and response. Ms. Lorion raised two ,

separate matter si (1) the location of oral argument on appeal in l an agency proct.eding in the NRC hearing room in Bethesda, Md.

rather tnan at a site in Miami, Florida and (2) the lack of. ,

. adequate notict of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on neactor Safeguards (ACR3) on pressure vessel materials' behavior that was ,

held in West D .a Beach, Florida. We respond to each in turn. ,

l: First, wich respect to the question of location of the oral argumerb, as a general matter and as you are likely aware, appel? ate otsi argument does not involve the appearance of  ;

Eitnesses or the taking of. evidence but solely the argument of h counsel on specified issues already briefed to the Appeal Board. .

L In contrast to evidentiary hearings which typically take place in ,

i: the vicinity ol' the nuclear plant involved, oral argument is- t l ' customarily heard in the Appeal Board's hearing room at Bethesda,

! as is noted in the commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, IX(e). The location of argument may be altered in .

-the sound discretion of the Board. l L .In the Turkey Point proceeding, the issue of location cf the oral l

~

l argument has been mooted by the Appeal Board's order dated l July 19, 1990 (enclosed), which cancelled oral argument. As the  ;

L Appeal Board explained, ora'l arguments are held as a matter of t discretion. 'Here the Bohrd issued its order on May 29, 1990 scheduling. argument to be heard on .Tuly 10 at Bethesda. On receipt of another intervenor's, Mr. Saporito's, earlier request than Ms. Lorion's June 24 motion for transfer to the Miami area, the Appeal Board issued an order on June 25 postponing argument until further notice and establishing a schedule for other parties' responses to the request for change of locale. The Board was advised by Mr.-Saporito, who was the only party who actually requested oral argument, that if argument were to be I held in Bethesda, he would not be represented. Given that porition, which the Appeal Board considered an effective withdrawal of the request for argument, and the lack of 1 documentation demonstration of of inadequate sufficient financial basis for resources holding or theotherr"l)Q hearing TEX 7Aggll SCA$

1'

^

4 igc 9 M Y Idutasal PDC ,

t' t Hon. Dante B. Fascell 2 July 26, 1990 i t

elsewhere than the Appeal Board hearing room in Bethesda, the Board cancelled argument. The Board said that it will decide the pending appeals on the briefs submitted by the parties and the record of the hearing before the Licensing Board. i Regarding the meeting notice matter, the meeting in question was T an open meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on-Meetings and Metallurgy which was noticed as such in the Federal Reaister on  ?

March 21, 1990, April 19, 1990, May 10, 1990 and May 22, 1990. I See 55 Fed. Reg. 10557,.14884, 19682, and 21126. The meeting was not specific to the Turkey Point-proceeding; rather'it was a generic discussion of certain aspects of pressure vessel materials' behavior which we understand were specifically excluded from that proceeding. The selection of a Florida site ,

for the meeting bare no relation to the location of Turkey Point.

The site was chosen to accommodate an expert consultant whose contribution was deemed important and for whom travel to Washington was'not practicable because of a serious physical disability. In any event, a transccipt of the meeting was made available in the Public Document Room. We provide a copy for your convenience.

Sincerely,

,o W William c. Parler General counsel 2 6

Enclosures:

Meeting. Transcript t Appeal. Board Order

.dtd 7/19/90 1

{

l t I

. . - .