ML20196D155

Memorandum & Order (Establishment of Lpdr).* Aj Morabto Filed Motion on 880120 Requesting That Presiding Officer Direct NRC to Place Copy of Entire Hearing for Proceeding,W/ Other Named Documents,In Lpdr.Served on 880211

ML20196D155
Person / Time
Site:	05560755
Issue date:	02/10/1988
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#188-5577 87-551-02-SP, 87-551-2-SP, LBP-88-5, SP, NUDOCS 8802170032
Download: ML20196D155 (6)

Text

5577 a .

DOLKETED 0$k8-5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REG"LATORY COMilSSION 88 FEB 11 P3:22 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL GFFICE CF SECidua Before Administrative Judge: 00CKEip[.J.y"i,lfNICL Charles Bechhoefer SERVED FEB L11968

)

In the Matter of Docket No. 55-60755 ALFRED J. MORABITO ASLBP No. 87-551-02-SP Senior Operator License for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 February 10, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Establishment of Local Public Document Room)

On January 20, 1988, Mr. Alfred J. Morabito filed a motion requesting that the Presiding Officer direct the NRC Staff to place a copy of the entire hearing file for this proceeding, together with several other named documents, in the local public document room (LPDR) for the Beaver Valley facility. By response dated February 3,1988, the NRC Staff opposed Mr. Morabito's request. For the following reasons, Mr. Morabito's request is granted in part.

1. Mr. Morabito cites proposed 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1231 in support of his request. He explains that there is much public interest in the proceeding from local news media and special interest groups and that.

4 prior to the oral presentation scheduled for February 22, 1988, these groups should have available to them the background of this proceeding.

Finally, he explains why he believes that the named documents are relevant to this proceeding and should be included in the record. In 4

0802170032 800210 SECY LIC55 055607 5 CSo2

)

2 addition, he poses several questions to the NRC Staff bearing on those named documents.

For its part, the Staff points out first that all documents filed in this proceeding have been placed in the Commir,sion's Public Document Room (PDR)inWashington,D.C. The Staff states--correctly--that placement of documents in the PDR or LPDR does not mean that they are in the record of this proceeding. The Staff observes that the circumstance that Mr. Morabito wishes to discuss certain subjects at the oral presentation does not provide a valid reason for placing documents related thereto in the LPDR. The Staff also raises a question about the relevance of the subjects described by Mr. Morabito to this proceeding.

The Staff concludes that Mr. Morabito's motion for placement of documents in the Beaver Valley LPDR is baseless and should be denied.

2. Although cited by Mr. Morabito, neither party has discussed the regulatory requirements of proposed 10 C.F.R. I 2.1231(a), which are applicable to this proceeding (as guidance) by virtue of the Comission's July 1,1987 Order instituting this proceeding and my Memorandum and Order of July 15,1987(unpublished). In pertinent part, s

~

that provision reads:

< The hearing file . . . shall be made available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the NRC Public Document Room in Washington, DC, and at any appropriate local public document room. In the event no appropriate local public document room exists, the applicant must make the hearing file available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at a location in the vicinity of the [ subject of the application].

I  :

3 The Statement of Considerations accompanying the issuance of the proposed regulations contains little additional guidance, except to emphasize the Staff's obligation to provide the hearing file to the LPDR and to note that, where an applicant provides space for an LPDR it can do so "in a number of different ways, including making the file available at a local public library." 52 Fed. Reg. 20089, 20090 (May 29,1987).

This provision, in my opinion, requires that there be an LPDR in any proceeding to which the proposed rules are deemed applicable. This is particularly so where one party to a proceeding requests an LPDR, and the requirement would apply irrespective of the validity of the reasons underlying the request. An LPDR is part and parcel of the Commission's methodology for assuring that proceedings of this type are indeed public proceedings. Moreover, it is important that information on proceedings such as this one be made available to those interested in it locally--a trek to Washington, D.C. is neither requisite nor appropriate for persons in the locale of the proceeding who wish to learn of its details.

Finally, there is an additional reason for an LPDR which neither party has addressed bu* which is extremely important. There must be some local access to the transcript of the oral presentation. See Ducuesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2), LBP-84-6, 19 NRC393,407-08(1984); Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), L8P-81-32,14 NRC 381, 397-98 (1981);

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,

i

?

4 Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 328 (1979). Indeed, the Licensing Board in the TMI case, in the course cf denying requested financial assistance to intervenors, established a hearing room library of transcripts (in addition to the LPDR) to enable parties to make complete and accurate references to transcript pages in proposed findings, other pleadings and arguments. LBP-81-32, supra,14 NRC at 398. For these same reasons, a transcript must be available to Mr. Morabito to prepare adequate proposed findings or statement of position following the oral presentation, and he should not be relegated to the position where he is forced either to pur:hase the transcript--a not inconsequential expense for an applicant such as Mr. Morabito--or travel to Washington. That is the whole purpose of an LPDR, and it should be followed in this case.

3. In view of the foregoing considerations, I am directing the NRC Staff to establish an LPDR for this proceading, as soon as it can do so and in any event prior to the oral presentation. Because the establishment of such an LPDR is a Staff function, I have no authority to establish the details of the LPDR--i.e., its location (other than proximity to Mr. Morabito's home or place of business), or its hours of operation. All I am holding is that, under the proposed regulations which the Commission has indicated I may follow, an LPDR must be 1

]

5 established.1 I also recognize that the alrerdy-existing Beaver Valley LPDR is not, and need not necessarily be, the LPDR for this entirely discreet proceeding. But it also may be the most appropriate LPDR to be utilized and, for that reason, I suggest (although I do not order) that the Staff ascertain its availability for this proceeding.

After the Staff has established an LPDR, it should include therein the hearing file for this proceeding, together with copies of the six exhibits described in my Memorandum (Documents to be Presented at Oral Presentation), dated February 4,1988 (unpublished). It should also 4

assure that a copy of the transcript of the oral presentation be placed  ;

therein as soon after the cral presentation as is feasible. The Staff need not include therein any other documents, although it clearly may do so if it wishes. In particular, the Staff need not include at this time the two particular documents identified by Mr. Morabito--i.e., a checkoff sheet for Mr. Morabito's examination and the qualification notebook for Mr. Morabito's examiners. If Mr. Morabito wishes to incorporate these documents into the record of this proceeding, he may offer them into evidence at the oral presentation. Admission into 1 I differentiate the establishment of an LPDR--which is required by the standards being used for guidance in this proceeding--from a direction to the Staff concerning the details of a matter comitted in the first instance to the Staff, which would be beyond my authority. See Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 199-208 (1978).

6 evidence will depend, of course, on a demonstration that they are relevant and material to matters at issue in this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PRESIDING OFFICER Charles Bechhoefer /

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of February,1988.

1 I

1 I

-