ML20084E124

Requests Opportunity to Submit Legal Analysis of Court of Appeals Decision & Effect on 1982 Rule Re OL Proceedings. Action on Proposed Policy Statement Re Util Financial Qualifications Should Be Deferred

ML20084E124
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/30/1984
From:	Knotts J BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Gilinsky V, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405020102
Download: ML20084E124 (2)

Text

T LAW Orrices or DOLi(Eif r BISHOP, LIBERM AN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 'U E f2OO SEVENTEENTH STR E ET, N. W. IN NEW YORK WAS HINGTON, D. C. 2 00 36 8 6 P, LIBER M AN & COOK

, (202) 857-9800 26 BROADWAY NEW YORK N EW YORK 10004 TELEX 440574 INTLAW Ul . . (212 248-6900 00CKLTING & SUW!r' April 30, 19 8Wl ANCH Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 -

~

Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Duke Power Co., et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station), Docket Nos. 50-413, 50- 414 .6 L._

O L, Gentlemen:

At its public meeting on April 26, 1984 regarding a policy statement on financie.1 qualifications pending completion of the ongoing rulemaking, the Commission discussed a draft policy statement which would reinstate the pre-1982 financial quali-fications rules in the interim. The policy statement was not made available to the public. However, it was evident from the discussion that the Commission may issue guidance to li-censing boards to the effect that they should admit contentions 8405020102 840430 PDR ADOCK 05000413 0 PDR QW

(

b April 30, 1984 Page Two regarding financial qualifications in pending operating li-cense proceedings if such contentions had been rejected on the basis of the rule which was the subject of the remand in New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. Nuclear Regu-latory Commission and U.S.A., No. 82-1581, (D.C. Cir. Feb. 7, 1984).

On behalf of Duke Power Company, we would appreciate the opportunity to submit for the Commission's consideration in deciding upon guidance for licensing boards a legal analysis of the court of appeals' decision and its effect on the 1982 rule with regard to operating license proceedings for nuclear power reactors. In brief, it is our position that the proposed guidance is neither required by the court's decision nor cal-culated to serve either the interests of any of the parties in ongoing licensing proceedings nor the public interest. If the proposed rule is in fact adopted, contentions rejected or dismissed on the strength of the 1982 rule will be admitted or readmitted on the strength of the proposed policy state-ment, only to then again be dismissed on the strength of the ,

new regulation. This bizarre sequence of events is simply unnecessary and unwarranted. All that the Commission need do is explain the rationale for distinguishing between electric utility power reactor licensees and other licensees. Upon completing that evaluation, the Commission will have satisfied the mandate of the Court of Appeals. As we will explain in the analysis to be submitted on Wednesday, May 2, the basis for the distinction is readily apparent and logical, given the revenue stream from sales of electricity by electric utilities and given the relative intensity of inspection and enforcement of power reactors as compared to other types of licensees.

We respectfully request that you defer action on the pro-posed policy statement until you have had an opportunity to consider our analysis.

cerely,

's Jos ph B. Knotts Jr.

orney for Duke Power Company cc: All parties Samuel J. Chilk Herzel H.E. Plaine, Esq.

t