ML20235A800

Responds to Portion of Transcript of Seabrook Hearing Re Bus Driver Training.Atty cross-examination Suitable & NRC Position Consistent W/Responsibility to Ensure Development of Full & Complete Record.Served on 880111

ML20235A800
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON
References
CON-#188-5314 OL, NUDOCS 8801130040
Download: ML20235A800 (2)

Text

)5/f ... .:

o

^ d,y* U c q'o,, ' UNITED STATES

'.. 8

(

.oS g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Uh6

,7. . +' -

D 24 1987 '88 JAN -7 P2 58 0012 v. bt iAr 7

. 00CXris .s SEavlCf.

BRANCH Robert ' A. Backus, Esquire l' '

~

. Backus, . Meyer 8 Solomon SERVED JAN 111N8 116 Lowell Street Manchester; NH 03106 In the Matter of i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW' HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

'(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

Decket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning - SL.

Dear Mr. Backus:

Your letter of October 26, 1987 to the Chairman of this Commission and your subsequent . October 28, 1987 letter to William Parler, General Counsel, have been: referred to me for reply. As you correctly surmise in your letter to Mr. Parler, separation of functions restrictions within the agency preclude off the record ' comments . respecting matters in adjudication by the General u

Counsel or the Commission. Your letter to the Chairman criticizes the conduct 'of NRC staff as represented by staff counsel at the Seabrool<;

hearing.

I -have examined the portion of the' Transcript of the Seabrook hearing you enclosed in your letter relating to; bus driver training and do not believe that the staff attorney's cross-examination was Inappropriate nor do I believe the. staff position was' inconsistent with the staff's responsibility to insure the L . development of a full and complete record, Since both Judge Smith and the witness panel apparently understood Mr. Tur'k's questions and since the questions are consistert with the Staff's formal filings in the proceeding :t .

was appropriate for Mr. Turk to pursue the issue.

To the extent that you see staff counsel's questions as reflecting advocacy of the applicant's position, I do not believe that a review of the totality of staff positions in the proceeding to date supports such a view.

For example, in the same transcript to which you refer, staff counsel cross-examined applicant witnesses concerning potential weaknesses in letters <

of. agreement for Dover and Merrimack Valley school buses. (Tr. 4384-85) '

Under Commission regulations the staff is to examine submissions of applications for NRC licenses and formulate a position on the merits of those applications. 10 C.F.R. I 2.101-2.104. Staff counsel is to represent the staff. and reflect its position on the merits of the applications in NRC hearings. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.743(g). Those agency employees who represent the staff are not to advise or consult with the Boards or the Commission in a contested adjudicatory proceeding. 10 C.F.R. I 2.719(d), 2.780(e). Staff I

f p0

. , :.;_ .;_ =-- --

_- -s .

counsel. as a member of the Bar and as an employee of the Commission, also has an obligation to see that the record is complete and accurate. See oenerally Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point Station, Units 1, 2 and E C LI-7 7-2, 5 NRC 13, 15 (1977); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-505, 5 NRC,527, 532 (1978).

~

You also refer to Scenic Hudson Preservation Counsel v. Federal power Commission, 354 F.2d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965), to indicate that the Ccmmission should not merely call balls and strikes, but should i affirm 8tively Inquire into all relevant facts and protect the public. In j Commission proceedings this affirmative responsibility is accomplished in two 1 significant ways. First, the staff does an independent review of the application. it then defends its view before .an independent adjudicatory board which also affirmatively reviews the issues. In this second area, staff positions inevitably will conflict with the positions of one or more parties in the proceeding who wish a different outcome on a particular issue.-

1 appreciated hearing your concerns and hope you will find my explanation of the staff's adjudicatory role helpful. '

Sincerely, '

M$dSIEldby '

krm f. Emey James P. Murray 1 s

Deputy General Counse! 9 for Hearings and Enforcement i

r -

K___-.__._-_________.__--______..