ML19253D138
| ML19253D138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/09/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253D139 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-RIA, TASK-SE SECY-81-150, NUDOCS 8103300237 | |
| Download: ML19253D138 (24) | |
Text
sm March 9, 1981 f,
.i SECY-81-150
! (k j> i
, whff 1,w 9
p s [ [" 4 [O _
8// %
RULEMAKING ISSUE d
( Affirmation)
For-The Commissioners
@ g f]1 A
,3 cl
~ ^N gD From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Subiect:
DOCKET NO. PRM-2-10, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FILED BY THE CITIZENS ADVISOR ( BOARD REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 2 Purcose:
To obtain Commission approval of a Federal Register notice (Enclosure A) denying the petition (as revised to comply with the Comnission's instructions in Memo; andum 580-548 from S. Chilk).
Catecory:
Routine matter Discussion:
The staff was advised in Memorandum S80-548 of February 5,1981 from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, to William J. Dircks, EDO, (Enclosure G) that the Commission required revision of the proposed Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking according to certain enclosed comments and an attached outline.
The staff is hereby sebmitting the requested revisions (Enclosure A).
Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve the revised Notice of Denial of Petitior, for Rulemaking (Enclosure A) for publication in the Federal Recister and thereby close Docket No. PRM-2-10.
2.
Note:
a.
A letter transmitting a copy of the hotice of Denial will be sent to the Citizens Advisory Board (Enclosure B).
b.
Denial of the petition does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment or involve unresolved conflicts concerning available resources.
Accordingly, no environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or CONTACT:
environmental impact appraisal need be Fredric D. Chanania, OELD prepared.
492-8689 8.10" 9 7 b-
e
_2_
c.
The appropriate House and Senate Committees will be notified (Enclosure C).
d.
A public announcement will not be is;ued.
N Williad'J. Dircks Executive Directoi for Operations Enclosures :
A.
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking B.
Draf t Letter to Alan H. Kirshen c.
Draf t Letter to Chairman of Committees Petition for Rulemaking E.
Federal Register Notice F.
Letters c' Comment (13)
Memorandum O'a 548 (Feb. 5, 1981)
G.
Commissioners' conmer.ts or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesdav, March 25, 1981.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be subnitted to the Comnissioners NLT March 18, 1981, with an information copy tc the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it ceauires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Conmissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of April 6, 1981.
Please refer to the aporopriate Weekly Commissio) Schedule, when publisheo, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Conmission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2
[ Docket No. PRM-2-10]
CIfIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING AGENCY FOR OMAHA, NEBRASKA AN9 COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA; NOTICE OF DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is hereby denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Citizens Advisory Board.
The petitioner requested a variety of amendments to the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2, including provisions for informal hearings where formal hearings would not be held and requests for hear'ngs to be filed by persons not attempting to intervene in the croceeding.
Petitioner also sought expanded service of all docket-related papers and the holding of all hearings and meetings at reactor sites at times maximizing public attendance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fredric D. Chanania, Office of the Executive Legal Director, 6.S. NJClear Regulatory Commissi?n, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone (301) 492-C689.
. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORttATION:
This petition for rulemaking was filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Plenning Agency for Omaha, Nebraska and Council Bluffs, Iowa on March 13, 1980.
Petitioner sought a number of amendments to the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2.
The petitioner's proposals were set out in the Federal Register notice requesting comnent on the peti-tion.
In brief, the petitioner sought the following:
1.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.105 which would require that an "infornal hearing" be held by the NRC staff in all licensing cases where a "fornal hearing" is either unavailable, not requested, or requested and denied.
2.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.714 giving persons not attempting to intervene in a licensing proceeding the right to request a formal hearing.
3.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.715 providing that any person so request-ing would be furnished by the Secretary of the NRC all docket-related papers and be sent notice of all hearings, conferentes, and info proceedings.
4.
An amendment to 10 Cl? 2./51 requiring that all hearings and NRC-licensee / applicant meetings be held at a site and at times maximizing attendance by a najority of persons potentially affected.
4 Thirteen public comments were received on the petition, all of wnich opposed the peti tion.
Connenters stressed that petitioner's suggestions would add cost and delay to the licensing process, were annecessary in view of current NRC rules providing for public participation in licensing, and were subject to abuse by persons seeking only to delay licensing rather than contribute to the process by good faith participation.
We have considered the Citizens Advisory Board petition and the comnents submitted in response, and have concluded that the petition should be denied.
The reasons for our denial of the Citizens Advisory Board petition nay best be undarstood in light of the NRC's current practice with regard to informal public meetings or hearings, particularly since the substance of most of the concerns expressed by the petitioner are already met under our present practice.
We will discuss these matters in response to the four basic areas of concern raised in the Citizens Advisory Board petition.
(1) NRC Informal Hearinos and Ibetinos.
The NRC currently holds infonial public hearings or meetings near the site, in the area of the NRC regional offices, or in the Washington, D.C. area on matters of special public interest relating both to specific nuclear plants and to more generic issues.
Recent informal public hearings or meetings have covered a wide range of subjects, including (a) environmental, health, and safety matters related to applications for construction permits or operating licenses for nuclear power plants, (b) upgrading emergency preparedness plans at
-4 operating nuclear power plant sites, (c) the NRC's proposed policy and procedures for enforcement actions, and (d) NRC enforcement actions against specific licensees.
Such meetings and hearings are designed and conducted to achieve several objectives:
to inform the public of proposed NRC or licensee actions, to enable the public to observe firsthand the NRC rege-latory process at work, to air differing views on the matters in issue, and to provide an opportunity for the public to question NRC and licensee per-sonnel directly.
To maximize participation, members of the public are generally notified in advance of the infonnal hearings or meetings through notices published in local newspapers, notices published in the Federal Register, radio and television announcements, or through a combination of these methods.
The public meetirgs on environmental, health, and safety matters related to applications for construction permits or operating licenses for nuclear power plants are noteworthy. These meetings have generally been in two areas:
(1) special meetings on environmental, health, or safety matters among the NRC staff, licenree/ applicant personnel, and the public, and (2) other technical meetings between the NRC staff and the licensee /
a ppl ican t.
Two examples illustrate these types of inforral public meetings.
In the early stages of NRC consideration of the contruction permit applica-tion for Palo t!erde Units 4 and 5, open public meetings were held in Phoenix, Arizona on environmental matters (October 12 and 13,1978) and on safety matters (October 17 and 19.1978). At the Palo Verde meetings, information was presented to the public, and question-and-answer sessions followed.
. In connection with a proposed increase of the naximum power rating in the operating license for the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, an informal meeting was held on January 16, 1980 in 0 aha, Nebraska.
TRC staff members partici-pated along with the licensee Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), parties (both individuals and groups) that had previously raquested a fomal NRC hearing on the matter, and other members of the publ'lc.
During the meeting, OPPD presented its plans for the power increase, the NRC staff discussed its review of OPPD's proposed power increase, and other participants nade their views known and questioned OPPD and NRC participants.
Shortly af ter the meetinj, the request for a fomal NRC hearing was withdrawn, and the NRC received favorable coments on the exchange of infomation and views which had taken place.
Technica neerings between the NRC staff and the licensee or applicant are generally open to the public pursuant to the NRC "Open Meetings" policy, which is fully described in a policy statement issued on June 28, 1978 (43 r d. Reg. 28058) and in another published on October 20, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg.
e 49082). Other sp '" meetings are held where circunstances and public interest comment action.
For example, approxinately 70 meetings werc held in 1980 with the publi., local officials, and other interested organi-zations in the area neLr the Three Mile Isir.nd (TMI) plant on various sub-jects related to the status of TNI.
As to the three other general subjects mencioned abc/e, approximately 130 informal hearings or meetings took place during 1980 in areas immediately
. surrounding the operating or proposed nuclear plant itself or in the general areas where such plants are or will be situated.
Over 30 of the 130 local meetings focussed on the NRC emergency preparedness program.
These 30 meetings and workshops involved providing the public with information on proposed NRC emergency preparedness regulations, cresenting an evaluation of the status of the emergency preparedness plans for the nuclear power plant in that area, and giving the public. an opportunity to question NRC and licensee personnel directly on these topics.
In addition, proposed policy and procedures for NRC enforcenent actions were 'iscussed at several regional public meetings which took place in 1980.
The entorcement policy and proce-dures and the schedule of meetings were announced in NRC press releases and published in the Federal Register.
45 Fed. Reg. 66754 and 45 Fed. Reg. 69077.
Open, infomal meetings have also included natters subject to NRC enforcement actions, usually where licensees had received an NRC notice of violation of the terms or conditions in their construction permits or operating licenses.
In 1980, such open enforcement meetings were held, among others, in Athens, Alabama on Browns Ferry Unit 3 (containment penetration closures and TVA operational procedures); in 14adison, Indiana on the f4arble Hill iluclear Power Station (upgrade of quality assurance program and construction manage-ment activities); in Sacramento, California on the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (valve misalignment and administrative procedures); in Bay City, Texas on South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 (construction activ! ties and quality assurance program); in New York City on Indian Point Unit 2 (river water leakage into containment); and in South Haven, Michigan on the
. Palisades Nuclear Power Station (nispositioned safety system valves and routine surveillance test procedures).
At these open meetings, NRC personnel questioned the licensee on various aspects of the violation and proposed or completed remedial actions, with the public observing the entire process.
Following this segment of the meeting, the public had an opportunity to question the NRC personnel present and, at times, those of the licensee.
Attendance at such open enforcement meetings ranged from one person to large crowds of several hundred persons.
As a result of activities such as the examples noted abcVe, the NRC has found that open, informal meetings and hearings have positive, useful effects in penaitting the public to judge for itself the effectiveness of nuclear regulation by the NRC.
The NRC staff continues to explore ways to improve its anticipation of matters which have considerable public interest, so that informal hearings and meetings may be scheduled.
Open and informal meetings also provide a valuable forum for members of the public to receive infonnation on NRC practices and policies directly from NRC personnel, and to make known their own views on such matters.
Positive effects flow from a face-to-face exchange of ideas anJ from the ability of the public to have question-and-c.:swer sessions. Usually, the questions range from general subjects and NRC regulations and policies to the licensee's actual compliance with such NRC mandates.
. The Commission is keenly aware of the public interest in this area and will continue to investigate and ericourage approaches which will meaningfully enhance, in a sound and practical manner, the positive effects of public participation in the nuclear licensing process.
To that end, increased efforts have been and are being made to afford interested members of the public an opportunity to participate in these informal meetings and hearings at convenient locations, usually in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant location.
In addition, providing ef fective advance notice in widely-dissaninated local and national media is obviously necessary and will con-tinue to be part of NRC practice.
Finally, the NRC will attempt to schedule such hearings and neetings with due regard for the nost appropriate and convenient time of the day for all concerned.
In sone of the instances noted abovc, neetings and hearings have continued through the evening well into the early norning hours.
Public participation in the NRC regulatory process is not, however, a goal which can be pursued without regard for budgetary and personnel limitations.
The Conmission must take into account reductions in its financial resources and limitations on its personnel strength in pursuing the fulfillnent of all of the NRC's responsibilities and objectives.
In addition, the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dictrict cf Columbia Circuit in Sholly v. NRC, No. 80-1691 (Nov. 19, 1930). creates further uncertainties for NRC budgetary and personnel resources, pending possible Supreme Court review of that decision. The imoact of Sholly on the NRC's responsibility to
. hold fomal adjudicatory hearings, if not reversed by the Supreme Court or legislatively, is potentially substantial, and is presently undergoing close sc rutiny.
Any increase in the number of fomal hearings that are ultimately required to be held, above estimates made prior to Sholly, will obviously have fiscal and personnel impacts on the NRC's ability to hold infomal hearings and meetings that are discretionary in nature.
Accordingly, making infomul hearings mandatory in all operating license proceedings, as the petitioners have requested here, is not appropriate at this time and we decline to fomalize the use of informal hearings as a requirement in all such cases.
Infomation concerning proposed NRC licensing actions is and will continue to be available in the Federal Register and in NRC Public Document Rooms.
Current tiRC regulations already provide an avenue for members of the public to request that certain licensing or enforcement actions be taken.
See 10 CFR 2.206.
Interested members of the public may also request and inter-vene in adjudicatory hearings pursuant to Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act providing they can demonstrate the requisite interest at stake, the
" standing" requirement.
10 C.F.R. 2.714; see Portlar.d General Electric Company (Pebble Springs iluclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 fiRC 610 (1976).
Nonetheless, the Commission has discretion to order hearings upon request even where standing has not been shown.
Public Service Company of Indiana (ftarble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438, 439 (1980).
Limited participation in NRC proceedings by non-parties is also permitted under the current rules.
. In our view these avenues, together with the above-described NRC practice of holding infornal hearings and meetings where circumstances warrant, are sufficient to ensure effective public participation in the NRC regulatory process.
fiandatory diversion of additional NRC resources to infornal public meetings or hearings in every type of license proceeding throughout the entire country, as petitioner seeks here, would adversely affect the ability of the f!RC to fulfill its fundanental environmental, health, and safety statutory responsibilities.
Substantial delays in the licensir; of nuclear power plants could also result, since even minor license a.endment actions would have to await conclusion of the informal hearings.
The Commission needs to maintain some measure of control in deciding when circumstances warrant the holding of informal public hearings or meetings, and cannot allocate, in advance, the substantial resources necessary to meet the full breadth of the petitioner's request absent a stronger showing of deficiencies in our current practice and of substantially greater benefits to be gained.
The TiiI experience, with over 70 informal neetings in 1983 alone, demonstrates that the MRC can and will exercise its discretion +' in"a ve the public in a substantial manner in deservicg situations.
(2) The Right of Persons Not Atten otina to Intervene to Recuest Formal NRC Hearings.
Under current NRC rules, persons seeking to intervene in NRC proceedings nust meet a traditional threshhold requirement to show how their interests will be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
(d).
See al so, Portland General Electric Comoany, suora; Public Service Company of Indiana, suora.
The purpose sf this recuirement of " standing" is
. to establish that participants in the heering process will contribute in a meaningful way to the development of a complete record on healt'., safety and environnental issues.
This ensures that the public finds used to provide the adjudicatory resources for such proceedings will not be expended o.'
matters which are of no relevance to the issues then being adjudicated.
Petitio..er suggests, however, that any person should be able to request an adjudicatory hearing, irrespective of whether that person can show any personal stake in the outcome of the hearing and also irrespective of whether that person intends to participate in the hearing itself. We have difficulty in finding significant positive aspects in such a proposal, particularly in light of the above-mentioned practical benefits which result from enploying the well-accepted standing requirement.
The petitioner's suggestion would essentially abrogate the standing requirement entirely while creating certain anomalous and costly situations.
For example, although at times intervencrs pose views which differ from those of a licensee / applicant or the NRC staff, it is not difficult to conceive that adoption of petitioner's proposal would lead to enpaneling a licensing board and holding a hearing without any participation by a party taking a differing position on the issues.
- Indeed, pet 1tioner does not state what the issues might be at such a hearing, since the proposed rule change does not require the person requesting the hearing even to identify such issues with particularity. Adjudicatory hearings held under these circumstances would not contribute to the enhancement of the NRC's ability to protect the public health and safety and, in fact, would seem to be en expenditure of NRC resources without any benefit being gained.
. (3) Furnishing of Docket-Related Papers and Notices of All Hearings, Con-ferences and Idormal Proceedings.
Petitioner would amend 10 CFR 2.715 to provide for service of all docket-related papers ("all pleadings and papers of record") to any person so requesting, whether or not a participant in the proceeding. This would be an expansion of current practice that seems unnecessary in light of the steps the NRC presently takes to ensure that members of the public have reasonable access to all docket-related papers, notices, and other material.
NRC Local Public Document Roons (LPDR's) are situated near the site of each licensed or proposed nuclear pnwer plant in the United States.
Each LPDR contains the entire file of docket-related papers for that site, along with other NRC documents of general public interest.
The main NRC Public Document Room in Washington has all dockets and corresponding docket-related papers on file as well as most other publicly-available NRC documents.
The LPDR's can usually obtain additional materials for persons requesting them on short notice.
Finally, the Freedom of Infonnation Act is available tu persons desiring to obtain documents
~
which would not ordinarily be placed in an LPDR or in the main NRC PDR in Washington.
We are confident that these methods adequately provide interested members of the public acces', to NRC documents, particularly those related to a specific proceeding.
Nationwide service upon request would in our view be an unjusti-fiable expense and would not measurably add to public knowledge regarding NRC proceedings.
In addition, the Comptroller General has recently ruled
. that Section 502 of the 1981 fiscal year Energy and Water Development Appro-priations Act (P.L.95-357) prohibits the fiRC from providing certain docu-ments and transcripts free of charge to non-applicant parties in adjudicatory proceedings.
See CG Opinion fio. B-200585 (Dec. 3, 1980).
Certain aspects of the petitioners proposal would, therefore, seem to be contrary to the Comptroller General's position.
In its present fom,10 CFR 2.715(b) requires that the Secretary of the Commission serve notices of hearing upon all persons requesting such notices.
In practice, a docket list relating to each nuclear licensing natter is compiled by the Office of the Secretary, and persons on this list receive direct notification of all hearings, pre-hearing conferences, oral argunents, and other fornal proceedings associated with that docket.
Hence, a portion of petitioner's request in this area is already current practice.
fio reove r, all formal proceedings are noticed in the Federal Register and in local publications selected as being those reasonably calculated to provide the widest notice to the largest number of potentially affected people.
Every effort, including advertisements and press releases, is made to notify the public of infomal public meetings to be held near the site.
We conclude that the thrust of petitioner's proposal to amend 10 CFR 2.715(b) as to the furnishing of notices of hearings is fully satisfied by current NRC rules and procedures.
(4) Location and Scheduling of Hearings and flRC-Licensee / Applicant fieetings.
Finally, petitioner requests that all hearings and t1RC-licensee / applicant meetings be held at a site and at tines,shich will maximize attendance by a majority of persons potentially affected.
Most adjudicatory hearings are already held near the relevant nuclear reactar site, usually in the nearest sizeable city or town.
Appellate oral arguments in adjudicatory proceedings are, however, generally heard in the Washington, D.C. area.
Public meetings of a more infomal nature are also ordinarily held near the site, particularly when they involve issues re'ating to the nuclear plant. Meetings with licensees or applicants may be held either near the plant or reactor site or in Washington, depending on the nature of the necting, tne convcnience to the parties involved, and urgency of the meeting.
Except for infomal contacts between the flP,C staff and the licensee or applicant (telephone conversations, discussions during site visits, etc.), flRC staff-licensee /
applicant neetings are generally open to ti.e public and are announced in advance.
As noted above, this "Open Meetings" policy is fully described in a policy statement issued on June 23, 1978.
It pro-vides that "All meetings conducted by the f1RC technical staff as part of its review of a particular donestic license or pemit application (includPg an application for an amendnent to a license or pemit) will be open to attend-ance by all parties or petitioners for leave ta intervene in the case." The scheduling and location of such meetings is arranged, where possible, with the intent of allowing all interested parties to attend. This has, in some instances, resulted in meetings being held outside of nomdl business hours, as petitioner appears to suggest.
Requiring that all fomal and informal hearings and meetings normally be held proximate to the actual or proposed nuclear plant site would not, in most cases, increase public convenience.
Such reactor sites are not located, for obvious reasons, in high popul: tion density areas.
Most interested members of the public would reside in a nearby population center, and this is where hearings are held under the current system.
Furthemore, reactor sites are simply not properly equipped to accommodate large public meetings.
We find no demonstrable merit in the petitioner's suggested change to our rules, and we will continue the current practice of holding the majority of adjudicatory hearings and public meetings in a city or town near the operating or proposed power plant site.
As to the petitioner's second point, most adjudicatory hearings are held during normal business hours.
However, evenino or even weekend sessions are occasionally held to pemit intervenors to participate if they are unable to do so during business hours.
Such sessions may also be held to hear state-ments offered by non-parties participating pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(a).
Special infomal public meetings, such as those at Three Mile Island, are usually held during non-business hours.
We decline to accept the petitioner's approach for the timing of hearings and meetings, which implies that evenings and weekends should be preferred, as a matter of course, to regular business hours.
Where the basic purpose of an inforroal meeting is to inform the public (as with meetings at Three Mile Island), evening hours have been used frequently, and we expect such
. practice to continue.
Non,,al business hours, however, are more appropriate for the conduct of agency business in fonnal proceedings or in official meetings with the licensee or applicant.
There are simply nore hours and days available for the conduct of business if normal working hours are u til ized.
Licensing hearings can be a lengthy process, and would be even more time-consuming if petitioner's suggestion were adopted.
We conclude that the efficient conduct of hearings and meetings requires that they generally take place during normal business hours on weekdays.
As we have noted above, special arrangements are of ten made to acco,nodate members of the public wishing to appear at the hearing but unable to do so during business hours.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission denies the petition for rulemaking filed by the Citizens Advisory Board.
A copy of the Commission's letter of denial is available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Roon,1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of March, 1980.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuei J. Chilk Secretary of the Connission
Enclosure B
. )n.s &hf'8 5.
Alan H. Kirshen, Esquire Citizens Advisory Board Creighton University School of Law 2133 California Street Omaha, Nebraska 68178
Dear Mr. Kirshen:
This is in response to the Petition for Rulemaking which you filed on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board, requesting amendments to certain sections of 10 CFR Part 2.
After careful review and consideration of your proposal, the Comnission has decided to deny your petition.
The reasons for this denial are explained in the enclosed Notice of Dt.nial of Petition for Rulema king.
Sincerely, Samuel J. Chilk Secretary
I Enclosure C g
U2 UL-l
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
Enclosed for your infomation are copies of a Notice of Denial of Rulemaking in Docket No. PPJi-2-10, a petition filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency for the Omaha, Nebraska / Council Bluffs, Iowa region.
The petition was filed on March 13, 1980, and was published for ccrament in the Federal Register on April 17, 1980. 45 Fed. Reg. 26071.
Thi-teen public comments were received, all of which opposed the petition.
Petitioner sought a variety of amendments'to the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 CFR Part 2) aimed at increasing public participation in, and public understanding of, NRC licensing proceedings.
The Notice of Denial explains how current NRC rules and prucedures address these cor cerns.
The petition is denied because the specific amendments sought are either unneces-sary or would result in increased cost and delay in the licensing process with no commensurate gain in public health and safety.
Sincerely, Howard X. Shapar Executive Legal Director
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In re Petition for Rule Making)
Docket No. PRm -2_-lo pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.802
)
PETITION FOR RULE MAKING COMES NOW the Citizens Adviscry Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, and for its Petition for Rule Making states as follows:
1.
The Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) was created by said Agency, a council of public officials in the Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa metrcpolitan area, to serve in an official advisory capa cit.o to that body in the planning of matters of concern to the =ctropolitan area, and to provide a means of review and citizen input with respect to matters of community or regional concern, independent of official MAPA action or position.
2.
By virtue of the public interest in its safety and well-being, and by virtue of recent events which have caused public concern about the safety and reliability of nuclear energy facilities, and by virtue of the growing Governmental recognition of the desirability of public input into Govern-mental decisionmaking processes, as exemplified by the large number of statutes and regulations requiring citizen advisory boards and/or public hearings as a part of the administrative
(
process, including particularly the Administrative Procedure Act and 5 U.S.C.
S 554(c) thereof, an informal public hearing should be required in every instance of issuance, mmendment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license; provision sPould be made for any interested person to be permitted t." request a formal hearing pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.105, without being required to intervene and make the shcwings required by 10 CFR S 2.714; all interested persons should be permittec to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding for issuance, amend-ment, modification, suspension or-revocation of a facility operating license, nad all interested persons should have the opportunity to observe all aspects of a licensing pro-ceeding by tne scheduling of such proceedings at a place reasonably proximate to the facility in question.
3.
To the ends of establishing a procedure for an informal public hearing, Petitioner proposes as follows:
a.
10 C.F.R. S 2.105 should be amended as follows:.
a.
If a formal hearing is not required by the Act or this chapter, and if the Co= mission has not found that a formal hearing is in the public interest. it will, prior to acting thereon, cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of proposed action with respect to an application for:
(1)
A license for a facility; (2)
A license for receipt of waste radioactive material from other persons for the purpose of co==ercial dispocal by the waste disposal licensee; or; (3)
An amendment of a license specified in paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section and which involves a significant hazards consideration;
[
(4)
Any other license or anendment as to which the Commission determines that an opportinity for an informal public hearing should be afforded, or as to which a he ring is requested by 5 or more persons.
In the case of an application for an operating license for a facility of a type described in 5 50.21(b) or S 50.22 of this chapter or a testing facility, a notice of opportunity for hearing shall be issued as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed.
b.
The notice of proposed action will set forth:
(1)
The nature of the action proposed;
(')
The manner in which a copy of the safety analysis and of the ACRS report, if any, may be obtained or examined.
c.
The notice of proposed action will provide that, within thirty (30) days from the ditn of publication of the notice in.the FEDERAL RSGISTER, or such lesser period authorized by law as the Com-mission may specify:
(1)
The applicant may file a Request for e. Formal Hearing; and (2)
Any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding may file a petition for leave to intervene;'and (3)
Any five -(5) persons whose interest may be affected by the proceeding may file a Request for a Formal Hearing.
d.
If no request for a formal hearing is filed withir the time prescribed in the notice, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will cause to be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation reasonably proximate to the facilit or site of waste disposal, a Notice of Informal Public Hearing (or other Notice reasonably calculated to apprise all interested parties), which will set forth the nature of the action proposed, together with the time, date and place of an informal public hearing on said proposed action, at which all interested persons may appear, pose questions, obtain answers and make comments to the licensee, other appropriate repre-sentatives of vendors and/or consultants of the licensee, the staff of the ccamission.
The time and~
place of said informal public hearing shall be established to make same reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potential..y affected by the action proposed.
(
e.
An informal public hearing will be reported under the supervision of the presiding officer by the best practicable means.
Following a bri2f presen-tation by the licensee and other appropriate representatives of vendors and/or consultants of the licensee with respect to the action proposed, the staff of the Commission uay make such presen-tation as the circumstances shall warrant.
There-after, all interested persons' shall have the opportunity to ask questions, obtain answers to the best of the ability of the licensee, represen-tatives of vendors and/or consultants, and the staff of the Commission, as appropriate, and to make comments; provided, however, that such questions and comments shall be germane to the action proposed.
Such questions anc comments shall be considered by the Commission and its staff, and by Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards in their respective delib-erations.
Any such questions or cc=ments which are not germane shall not be considered.
f.
If a request for a formal hearing is filed within the time prescribed, as hereinabove set forth, the Commission or an atomic safety and licensing board designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated atomic safety and licensing board will issue a not1ce of hearing or an appropriate order.
If,uth request for formal hearing shall be denied, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards shall proceed to convene an informal public hearing in accordance v ' th this Section.
g.
Applications for facility licenses under section 103 of the Act and for facility operating licen.ees under se.ction 104b of the Act as to which any person intervened or sought by tir.ely written notice to the Commission to intervene in the construction permit proceeding to obtain a determination of antitrust considerations or to advance a jurisdictional basis for such determination are also subject to the provisions of SS 2.101(b) and 2.102(d).
b.
In Sections 2.750, 2.751, Title 10, CFR the word " formal" should be inserted before the word " hearing" wherever it appears.
('
c.
10 CFR S 2.757 should be modified to add the following:
(e)
The provisions of this Section shall be applicable to informal public hearings as well as formal hearings.
4.
To the end of permitting interested persons to request for a formal hearing without being required to intervene and make formal showings, Petition proposes as follows:
a.
10 CFR S 2.105 should be modified as hereinabove set forth.
b.
10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (2) should be modified as follows:
" A Petition for Leave to Intervene shall ser forth with particularly the interest of the petition. in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragre.ph (d) of this Section, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner' wishes to intervene.
A request for formal hearing shall set forth generally the interest of the requestor in a formal hearing, the reasons why an informal hearing is insufficient in the premises; the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceedings as to which a formal hearing is sought; and, if no petition for leave to intervene has been filed, the reasons why a formal hearing should be held in the absence of any petition for leave to intervene.
c.
10 CrR S 2.714 (e) should be modified to add the following:
(4)
Avoiding evidence and argument not related to the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the pro-ceeding for which a formal hearing has been sought or as to which a petition for leave to intervene has been directed.
In the absence of any intervenors, a formal hearing should proceed in accordance with Section 2.715, of this Title.
5.
To the era of permitting all interested persons to participate in a limited manner in all aspects.of a proceeding, Petitioner proposes as follows:
a.
10 CFR S 2.715 should be modified as follows:
(1) A person who is not a party shall be permitted to make a limited appearance by making an oral or written statement of his position on the issues at any session of the hearing, prehearing conference or special prehearing conference, within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the presiding officer.
He may, in the dir:reticu of the presiding officer, be permitted to atherwise participate in the proceedings within such limits and on such conditions ac may be fixed by the pre-siding officer.
(2)
The Secretary will give notice of all hearings, pretrial conferences, special pretrial conferences, oral arguments and any informal proceedings to any person who requests it prior to the issuance of the notice, and will furnish copies of all such notices to any persons who so request thereafter.
The Secretary shall further furnish copies of all pleadings and papers of record to any person who requests same, and shall further furnish copies of all papers as they becone of record to any person who so requests.
All memoranda of forthecming meetings between Co=nission staff and repressntatives of a licensee and/or representstives of vendors and/or censultants of licensees, and all minutes of such caetings, shall be transmitted to the Secretary for inclus.~.cs in the record of such pro-ceedings, and ncy ho~ transmitted dirret3y by Cc= mission personnel to laterested persons who have made a
- riquest,
- b. lieu of transmittal by the Secretary.
(
.1-6.
To the end of permitting all interested person to
~
have the opportun.ity to be informed as to all aspects of a proceeding for license issuance, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation, and to the end of permitting publicaccesstoallaspectsofsuchp$cceedings, Petition proposes the following:
a.
10 CFR S 2.715 should be modified as hereinabove set forth.
b.
10 CFR S 2.751 should be modified as follows:
(a)
Except as may be required by the Act, all informal hearings, formal hearings, pretrial conferences, special pretrial confer-ences, oral arguments, and all informal pro-ceedings, including meetings between Cc= mission staff and representatives of the licensee and/or representatives of consultants and/or vendors fer the licensee shall be public.
All hearings shall be held at a site and time reasonably calculated to make same reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potentially affected by the action proposed, which should normally be proximate to the facility concerned.
All pretrial conferences, special pretrial conferences, and informal proceedings shall, upon the requ*st of any interested party, similarly be held at a site and time reasonably calcu-lated to make some reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potentially affected by the action proposed.
Notice of such pro-ceedings shall be disseminated sufficiently in advance of same as to allow time for such a request to be made, and such proceedings re-scheduled if required.
7.
Petitioner asserts that the foregoing request for rule making are in the public interest and should be handled in accordance with Subpart H, Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.801 el seg.
(
i,
.r.
WHEREFORZ, your Petitioner prays that the Co=ission initiate rulemaking procedures ~ in accordance with the foregoing Petition for Rule Making.
Respectfully submitted, CITIZp3S VISORY BOARD METR POh1 AN AREA PLANNING AGENCY
/
h.t E 772 L
//
/
Peter M.
Lima, Chairman A1 N rshen, Chairman Citizens Advisory Board Natural Resources Committee Ci :izens Advisory Board Alan H. Kirshen, Attorney in fact for said Citizens Advisory Boar Creighton University School of Law 2133 California Street Omaha, NE 68178
(
UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUL.CORY COMMISSION In re Petition for Rule Making)
Docket No.
pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.802 )
~~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies o.
the Petition for Rule Making in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following persons:
Docketing & Scrvice Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Washington, D.C.
20555 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Le Secuf, Leiby & Macdae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Joseph R.
Gray, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Lloyd C.
Shalla General Manager Omaha Pr.Llic Power District 1623 Hirney Straet Omaha, NE 68102 Harold Denton, Esq.
f Director of Nuclear Reactor Regula". ion
/7 f,
U.S. Nuclqar Regulatory Commission l'
/
Washington, D.C.
20555 0 /
I l
IY I
s' I
h Alan H. ~irshen, Attorney March 13, 1980
Enclosure E 2 son
_ Proposed Rules 7
'~ asi-Vol 45. No. r8 Thursday. April it.1980 Th:s seccon cf the FEOULAL REG; STER AccREs sts: A copy of the petition for hearing.The amendment requested by conta.ns rotices to tne puohe of the rulemaking is avadable for pubhc the pet:tioner would also spectfy how propcsed essuance of rues and inspection in the Commission's Public the informal pubhc heanng should be repatons The purpose of these nobces Documeat Room.1717 H Street. N.W.,
conducted and reported. Conforming i
es to gwe mterseted persons an Washington D.C. A copy of the petition changes of a technical nature to 10 CFR may be ebtained by wnting to the 2.750, " Official reporten transcript" and ma$nI to t. e a on of faal Division of Rules and Recorda. Office of 2.757. Authority of presiding officer to g,,
Administration. U.S. Nucle ar Regulatory regulate procedure in a heanng" are also Commission. Washington. D C. 20555.
proposed
~
~~
All persona who desire to submit IL The petitioner also proposes to NUCLEAR REGULATORY wntten comments or suggestions permit interested persons to request a COMMISSION concerning the petition for rulemaking formal heanng without being required to should send their cmnments to the intervene as a party (which they now 10 CFR Part 2 Secretary of the Cornmission. U.S.
must do under the Ccmmission's (Docet No. PRIA-2-10]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
existing regulations) by amending 10 Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention:
CFR 2114 " Intervention." The pnncipal Citizens Advisory Logrd of the Docketing and Service Branch.
changes which the petitioner preposes Metropolitan Area Planning Agency; rom FURTHER INFORMATION CCNTACT:
to nuke are as follcWs:
Filing of Petition for Ruiemaking Joseph hL Felton. Director. Division of (a) Add the fotowing sentent.e to Ru!es and Records. OfSce of 2114(a)(2):
ace NCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administra tion. U.S. Nuc! ear Regulato y A rewest for fermal heanns shan set forth Commission.
Cornmission. Wa shington. D.C. 20555.
pnerab the in:erest of de re:n.eator.n a Action: Phhcatwn of petition for Telephone: 301:492-7211.
fctmal he anng. the reasces why an mformal Ru!emaking from the Cihens Adviscry suretIMENTARY LNFORuaTIOM: L Under heaWe mea $cm m de pnses; 6e spec c asoect or aspects f the subject Boani of the Omaha. Nebraska-Coacil existing Commissin regulations, Bluffs. lona Metropohtan Area Plann'"?
reecifled proposed licensing acticns
"*[*[,,In7g0 $,*n',.$rNt uon o,
A8enCy-must be pre-noticed by publicatica in for leave to intervene has been fi:e the the Federal Register before a license can reasons why a formal hernna should be held suuuaRY:The Nuclear Regulatory issue.10 CFR 2.105, " Notice cf Prcposed in de absence of any petmon for leave to Commissien is pubbshing for public Action." lists the types of actions intemce.
comment a petition for rulemaking filed requinng pre-notice,it permits the (b) Add the following item (4) to before the Comm ssion en March 13.
license applicants to request a heanng 2.n 4[e).
1980. by Alan 11 Kirshen. Esquire, en and any person whose interest may be
- 14) At t es evidence and argument not behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board of affected by the proceedmp to file a e!sted to N specac aspect or aspects of be the Metrepolita t Area Planning Agency. petition for leave to intervene. If a st.b ect matter of the pxeeding for which a l
an official advisory board in the Oma a, umely hearing request or petition for formal heanre has been sought or as to Nebraska-Council Bluffs. Iowa area.
leave to intervene is not fded. the which a petition for leave to mtervene has
'F.ds petit:en. which has been assigned Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation been directe1In the absence of ariy Docket No PRM-2-10. requests that the or Director of Nut! ear Material Safety intervenors, a for:r.at hearms should proceed in acectdance wii i ris, of eis ma.
Commission amend 10 CFR Part 2.
and Safeguards, as appropnete, will "Rdes of Practice for Domestic.
issue the license.
IIL The petitioner urges the Licenstag Proceedings." to require an The petitioner requests the Commission to amend 10 CFR 2.n5.
!stformal public heanns in every Commission to amend 10 CFR 2.105 to "Partic:pation by a person not a)arry" instance gf issuance, amendment..
require propc sed licensing actions to be in a manner which in its view would modification. suspension or revocation pre-noticed if a heanng is requested by permit stlinterested persons to of a fr.cdity operating license.The five or more persona. In addition. the partic!pete in a hmited manner in all petitien also regnests spectSc petitioner requests that i 2.105 be aspects of a proceeding. In general, arn nd=ents to Pa-t 2 designed,in amended to permit any five persons amended 2J15 would:ia) permit petitioner's view, to permit interested whese interest may be affected by the persons making limited appearance perscns to request a formal hearing proceeding to file a " Request for a statements to "otherwise marticipate in withoat being required to intervene. to Formal Heanna"If a ttmely request for the proceedings within d.h limits and participate in a hmited manner in all a formal heanng is not filed, the on such conditions as : ay be fixed by aspects of such proceedings, and 'o petitioner requesta that the Director of the presiding officer:* (b) require the observe all aspects of a pruceedinh by Nuc' ear Reactor Regulation or the Secretary to provids otice of all aci eduling the proceeding at a place Director of Nuclear Matenal Safety and hearings, pretrial et nferences, special reasonably proxtt= ate to N facdity.in Safeguards. as appropristc, be required pretnal conferences cral arguments and t
q::estion. The petitioner proposes to publish a "Nctice of informal Public any informal proceedincs to persons sign ficant amendments to 10 CFR 2 ;05.
Heanng"in one or more newspaper
- of requesting such notice: {c) include 2.ne 2J15. and 2J51. and conforming general circulation reasonably memoranda ci forthcoming meetings
' changes to 10 CFR 2J50 and 2J57.
proximate to the site which desenbes between the Commission staff and DaTE: Comment penod expires June 16.
the proposed action and specifies the representatives of the licensee and the 19c0.
time. date and place cf the informal minutes of such meetings,in the record
260*2 Federal Register / Vai. 55. No. 76 / T':ursday. April 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules of the proceeding: and (d) requae thr, Pre 4ction Ag-ncy's " Environmental licensea are being arnended to include Secretary or other NRC persennel to Radiation Pro ection Standards for radioactive release limits, dose limits.
furnish c:: pics of all pleadings and Nuclear Powe: Operators"(40 CFR Part and other requirements associated with papers of record to any person 1901. which require certain uranium fuel cornpliance witn 40 CFR Part 19a (Final requesti:.g such documents.
cyc!e facmties to be oprated such that procedures for uranium mills are still IV. Finally, petit:aner proteses that 10 release of radioactive matenals and under development 43 CFR 190 is not CR1151 "He.nry to be Pubhe" be resulthg radiatien deses to the public effecta e for uranium mills until a :enced. Section 2151 new reads as are belew speafied limits. The propused December 19601 Environmental Reperts folews:
amendment would also req =re licensees already requtred to be submitted with Excepa mav be requested pursuant to to submit reports to NRC when those new application = in accordance with 10
~
Sectien tel of the Act, all heanrgs wd! be standards hate been or may be CFR Part St. " Licensing and Regulatory pubhc unless otherwise ordered by the excc eded.
Policy and Procedures for enntenmental
\\
Commission-CATts: Comnient period expires June 16, protection." will be required to include The petitioner requests that this 19o0.
in!crmation relatise to comp!hnce with s6* tion be revised to reed as follows:
ADDRrssts: Interested persons are 40 CG Part 190. Section 51.00(c) cf 10 Except as may be required by the Act. s!!
invited to submit written comments to CFR Part u already requires informal heanngs. formal hearingt. pretnal the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Environmental Reports to include a conferences. special pretnal can'erences, cral Nuclear Regulatory Comrn:ssion.
discussion of the status of the facility,a argnents, and all mforma! p*oceeings.
WashinFlon. D C. 20555. Attention:
ccepliance with applicab!e int!adir ft meetings between Commission sta'T Dacketing and Service Branch.
envirenmental quahty standards and representatives of the beensee and/or FOR FURTNER INFORMATION COMTAC'r.
impeded by Federal agencies. The NRC representatives of consultants and/ '. All htr. John W. Hickey. Office of Standards stan will provide guidance to epphcants, vendors for the licensee shat! be pub!ic Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatery licensees. and others as appropnate en Commission. Wa shington. D.C. 20655 s arim aspects of comphance with 40 a o r b y c ! al m e
.e resscnab?y accessibir to the maienty of (phone: 301-442-5956).
Cfi Part 190.
persens potereetly affer.ed t y the setion
$UPPuf MNTAR) iNFORW AT1CN: The Irrpect of the P cposedRega/ctices-propcsed an.ch shou!d normany be Nuc!eer Regulatory Commissien r.ompliance with 40 CFR Part 190 is an preurnate to the facihty concerned N1 proposes to a-
.d its regulatiens in 10 existing epa requ.rement and t'e NRC pretnal conferentes. erecal pre;nal CFR Pr.rt 20. "Stancards for Protec.tlen staffis already working to assure that conferences. and infernal proceed.ngs s} all.
Agalast Radiation." to incorporate the hs licensees will comply. The proposed
["*
existing requirement for compliance regulations would incorporate the
.$ a y e el te ad t reasonably calculated to make serce hic) with 40 CFR Fart 190. "Enyt onmental existing requriement into NRC ressenably accessit,le to.he w.a! mrv of Radistfor.Proteetion Standards for regulations and add a new reperting pesens potentiauy affected by the Jenen Nuclear Power Operations." The requinment. Since the Environmental p.opesed. Neuce of such pre:eedtags shau be Enybenrrental Protection Agency (EPA)
Protection Agency has already issued an disicemated su5c:ent!y in advance of same pub!!shed 40 CFR Part 190 on January environmental statement assessing the se to a!!ow time for sucn a request to be 13,3g7/ (42 FR 2S58). In accordance with impaet cf 40 CFR Part 190 [ EPA 5 0/4-made, and such proceedings resd.eduled if "9#i a Memorandum of Jnderstanding 76-01P. November 19 6) the between EPA sad the former Atomic Comnussion has concluded that any The petitioner states that this reviseG Energy Commission (38 FR :4938.
impacts associated with the preposed provisien is intended to permit September 11.1973). NRC is responsible rules themselves will be insignificant, interested perscns to be fully informed for enforcing the provisions of *0 CFR and an additional environmental i= pact of and have access to all aspects of Part 190 for NRC licensees.
statement is.,ct required.
licensing proceedings.
Pmrisions of 40 CPR Pcet 190-40 Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of Dated at Washington. D.C., this 11th day of CFR Part 190 requires certain uranium 1954, as amended, the Ei ergy Apni.1980.
fuel cycle facilities to be operated such Reorganization Act of19 4. as amended.
For the Nuclear ReFulatory Commission.
that releases of radioactive material and and section $53 of title 5 of the Uruted Samuel ). Chilk.
resulting radiation doses to the public States Code, notice is hereby given that Secretcry of the Commission.
are below specified limits. The effective adoption. i the following amendments dates for compliance are December 1.
to 10 CFR Part 20 la contemplated. All fra A awnae ra.d - us..t 1979. for most operations: December 1 Interested persons who desire to submit a g,,,
1980. for uranium mills; ar.d January 1, written comments er suggestions for 1983. for discharges of krypton-85 and censideration in connection with the 10 CFR Part 20 lodine-129. Vanances may be granted proposed rules should send them to the by NRC under certain circumstances.
Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Ertvironmental Rad!ation Protection PmposedAmendments-The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standards for Nuclear Power proposed amendments state that NRC Washington, D.C. 20' 55. Attention:
Opersuon licensees must comply with 40 CFR 190.
Docketing and Service Branch by June AatNcy: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and would require licensees to submit 16.1980.
Commisafon.
reports to NRC when 40 CFR 190 limits ACT1oN: Proposed rule' have been or may be violated.
PART 20-4TANDARDS FOR Comments are particularly rquested on PROTECTn.iN AGAINST RADIATION sussuAMv:The Nuclear Regulatory the proposed reporting requirements.
- 1. A new paragraph (c)is added to Commission (NRC or Commission)is Implementatan-.-The NRC staff is l 20.105 to read as follows:
considering amendmg its regulations to already i=plementing 40 CFR Part 190 in incorporate the existing requirement for accordance with the Memorandum of I 20.105 Permissib6e levets of roe.stion in certam utaruum fuel cyrJe licensees to Understanding mentioned above.
- anr**tr$ct*d areas.
comply with the Environmental Existing licenses, except uranium mil!
d e
law OrreCES LowessreIN, NewxAN REIs AXcLRAD & Tott
'C 2 5 C C ae N C CTIC UT Av C N U C. **. w.
.co..
so...s'.
wA t M I N GTON. D. C. 2 0 0 3 6
..c..'...
4=
$ l l% /.
..o.
- r
.t s
.....s>.n.6..o 2 02 B6L-6400 n,\\
oxe..
......s.....
A 6
p ess..
IL)
JUN PETmCN RUL,:. pg - 2.- 10 l 6 m< a >
",I DOCKET NUM"ER g
CZee e n. g
'!'l**Z'Z"'"
v
(@- (~M 2Som we m.3
~
e1
.m.....
~r.*~ t lllllr' June 16, 1980 y
d s
C) l l b oo.06.s
..s...=
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulator- ' Co=ission 1717 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
By Federa] Register Notice dated April 7, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 26071), the Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission re-quested public cc==ents on a March 13 petition for rule making filed by the Citizens AJvisorf Boa?.d of the Metro-politan Area Planning Agency, en official adviscry board in the Omaha, Nebra ka-Council Bluffs, Iowa area.
Che petition proposes significant amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
The following co=ents respond to the petition, and are offered on behalf of Boston Edd. son Company, Cc=bustion Engineering, Inc., Houston Lighting & Power Company, Northern Indiana Public Service Cc=pany, and Puget Sound
& Light Ccmpany.
letitioner proposes that 10 C.F.R. S 2.105 be amended "to require proposed licensing actions to be pre-noticed if a hearing is requested by five or more persons."
We strenuously object to this proposal.
If it were adopted, eve: y licensing action, including even those which are solely administrative and of no safety significance, would have to be pre-noticed if five persons so request.
How-ever, Section 189 of the Atcmic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
- 2239, permits the Cc= mission to approve, without prior notice, a proposed licensing action which does not present a sig-nificant hazards consideration.
The proposed rule would negate that statutory discretion.
Petitioner has not inconstrated why the Cceriss i.on should take =mch action.
wesem., :ans.kl0$9.md.%
' Lowrxsinrx. Newux. Rzza. AxtutAD b TQL!.
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary a
June 16, 1980
~
Page Two Since the proposed rule has no apparent rationele / and could require the Co= mission to hold many unne.cessary hearings with attendant costs and potential delays, we believe it should not be adopted.
Petitioner also proposes that interested persons be permitt ed to request a " formal hearing" without being re-quired to intervene as a party.
We oppose this proposal.
The Cc= mission has, by virtue of its rule making authority under Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act, devised two procedures for participation in NRC licensing proceedings-a person may petition to intervena as a party pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.7:4 or may make a limited appearance pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.175.
A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement on the record but is not a party and is not entitled to parti-cipate in the proceeding.
Also, under Section 2.206, interested persons may request an appropriate NRC Division Director to institute a proceeding "to modify, suspend or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper."
We believe that NRC's current procedures in Part 2 provide interested persons abundant opportunity to participate formally or informally in NRC proceedings.
Petitioner offers-no reason why the existing procedures are inade-quate and we know of none.
Petitioner requests that an " informal public hear-ing" be held in each instance where no formal hearing has been requested.
Public meetings can be useful for re-ceiving public comment on issues involving nuclear power plants; such meetings can also permit correction of many public misconceptions.
We therefore endorse the concept of holding public meetings but we do not believe such meetings should be converted into informal " hearings."
The term " hearing" connotes an adversary atmosphere--
witnesses, cross-examination, a record.
If the Commission
[or an appropriate Division Director) determines that a public meeting is warranted, because of the circumstances of the particular proceeding or issues brought to the attention of the Commission, such a meeting can be sched-uled to discuss, not decide the issues.
Petitioner also suggests amendment of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.715 to permit expanded participation by limited appearees in hearings.
We believe this amendment is unn^careary since Section 2.715 was amended (43 Fed. Iag.
17798, May 26, 1973) te permit interested persons further
?etitioner's proposal appears to be 111ogical in that no mechanism is specified by which the five persons would become aware of a proposed licensing action upon which to request i hearing before a notice had been published.
LowzxsTzrx, NrwxAx, Rzzs. AxztnAn & Totz.
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary June 16, 1980
~,
Page Three opportunity to express their views in the licensing pro-cess.
The proposed notice requirements would clearly im-pose a substantial burden upon the Commission's staf f; we believe the Secretary need only provida notice of hearings or conferences at which persons interested in expressing their views could ecrLicipate.
Also, the Secretazy need not be required to serve on any requestor documents al-ready in the Public Document Room; such c requirement would waste very limited manpower and funds.
Finally
.etitioner requests that 10 C.F.R. 5 2.751 be amended to require that virtually all hearings, pre-hearing conferences, ar.d meetings between the Commission staff and representat'.ves of licensees and/cr consultants be open to the public and held at a time and place such that the public can attend.
NRC has already implemented many of Petitioner's recommendations (see "Open Meetings and Statement of NRC Staff Policy," 43 Fed. Reg. 28058, June 20, 1978).
Notice is given of prehearing confer-ences, hearings and othe: special meetings by the NRC.
Prahearing conferences and hearings are usually held in the vicinity of the proposed power plant; thus, poten-tially affected persons can attend.
We believe, there-fore, that amendment of Section 2.751 is unjustified and unnecessary.
If Petitioner proposes that all hearings, meetings, etc., be scheduled for evenings in the site vicin'.ty, we object -- again because the proposal would be a misure of staff manpower and budget.
Sincerely, g,4.h
.-M Frederic S. Grby FSG/gnh
im p
Portfard Genem! ElecticCcmpany
- [=.
U L._.
Ccr.a t.' E :ee e.a crec:e ser:e-DOCKET NUMBER June 11, 1980 c
6' [,.
g$
PRM 10 PETITICN RULE
=
(45 FP 2PJD) dDN 1b NOO >
Secretary of the Cot =ission d
gin;3 ti the W' AITN:
Docketing and Service Branch i ' M, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==1ssion G
p@D#
Washington, D. C.
20555 h
4 //a 1 @.-
C rear Sir:
We have reviewed the proposed amendnents to 10 CFR Part 2 requested in a peti: lor. for rulemaking fro: the Citizens Advisory Ecard of the C-.sha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning sgency (Federal Register, Vols 45, No. 76, April 17, 1989, Page 26071-72),
in our view, this petition should be denied outright for the following reasons:
1.
One of the fundanental purposes of having a governmen-ta.1/ regulatory agency such as the NP.C is to pr vide unbiased, qualified review of licensing issues so as to represent the entire public in a ti ely canner and not prejudice the rights of the beneficiaries of a power generation facility.
This petition ignores this role of a governnental/ regulatory agency.
2.
Requiring an informal public hearing in every instance of issuance, acendment or codification of a Facility Operating License would be a deterrent and/or detrinent to public health and safety.
The hearing process as requested would be overly burdensone, inef ficient and nonconducive to expeditious inprovecents in facility operation.
3.
Per=1tting " interested persons" to request a for=al hearing and participate in a limited me.ner in all aspects of a proceeding is akin to pernitting any person to participate in any proceeding at any tine and is cespletely subversive to an orderly licensing process.
F.xisting rules governing formal intervention are necessa.y and sufficient to ensure that persons with bona fide interests are given full opportunity to participate as a party in a proceeding.
The public welfare is better served by this approach than by a schene to enhance the arbitrary role of " interested persons".
w...umui n em. blI1lEO.nd%
c :. u
- w =,- o ;: e a
Portfard General Eectric Company Secretary June 11, 1980 Page two 4
Ph.atting " interested persons' to be fully inforned of and have access to all aspects of licensing proceedings would be an unwieldy process providing little, if any,
=eaningful benefit.
Interested persons are adequately infor=ed in accordance with the existing noticing requirenents of 10 CFR 2.
5.
The cost-benefit aspects of this petiica co:pel denial.
The financial burdens placed upon the licensee would lead to unnecessary rate increases placing an unwarranted financial burden on rate payers.
Your serious consideration of these co==ents is appreciated.
Sincerely,
/
g/
D E B EVO I S E E. LI B E R M AN ia co s cvc =?cc=?= s?.c ci. = =
=asmast==.o.c.aoose
...... s.......
e.....
...... m.....
a u a s.....~.....
.........w.....
........s.
5 " -*s.
.......... m
.c.c....c 2:1,..,...
June 16, 1980
...... c.
a.,3 CCCKET NUMBER 3
PETIT!ON F.ULE._P3.S. 7 2-lO
\\m i,w, Mr. Samuel J.
Chilk (gg tp ffg'gh s
Secretary
\\ IJ l s\\
V.'
/
United States Nuclear DM G i-f.'
JUN1a g.),, r(\\
m
Regulatory Co==ission Washington, D.C.
20555 1x Crdc ri FUi /D
- l'i ATTN:
Docketing and Service 6
. w :e A
.r aner p
7....
=
%g 4\\/
RE:
Docket No. PRM- -10, Peti tion For hule:.ar.v/?.' i g @' /
To Mccify 10 CiR Part 2: 45 Fed. Reg. 26071, Acril 11, 1980
Dear Mr. Ch il k :
By the captiMed notice, the Nuclear Regulatory Con =ission ("NRC") requested cc =ents on a petition for rulemaking ftled before the Co==ission on March 13, 1920 by Alan H.
Kirshen, Esq., on behalf of the Citi: ens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, an of ficial advisory board in the O=aha, Nebraska - Council Eluf f s, Iowa area.
This petition seeks to modify 10 CFR Part 2,
" Rules of Practice For Domestic Licensing Proceedings," to require an informal public nearing in every instance of issuance, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license.
The petition also requested certain amendments to Part 2 designed, in petitioner's view, to permit interested persons to request a formal hearing without being required to in t e r v e r.e, to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of such proceedings, and to observe all aspects of a proceeding by scheduling all phases of the proceeding at a place reasonaoly proximate to the facility in question.
On behalf of Wasnington Public Power Supply System, we respectfully submit the following contents'.
i:;a.~ved. e:: ty rd..hb
Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Two We believe th at the proposed changes in the manner of public participation in NRC proceedings are unnecessary, in par t contrary to law, and de trimental to the ef ficiency and ef f ectiveness of the licensing process.
Since these changes would be contrary to the best interests of everyone involved in an NRC proceeding, the petition should be denied.
I.
The Petition Should Be Denied This petition must be denied because petitioner nas not shown that the NRC's current procedures for public participation, as reflected in tha regulations, are inadecuate.
A.
Petitioner Has Failed To Demonstrate Any Inadecuacv In Tne Current Reculations The regulations sought to be modified are entitled to a strong presumption of validity and ef f ectiveness, Forester
- v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 359 F.2d 774, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1977), and it is a fundamental requirement tnat any petition seeking to modify such regulations demon-strate both the manner in which they are deficient and how the proposed changes would correct these defects. This petition merely states th at recent events have caused public concern about the safety and reliability of nuclear energy f acilities and that public input into governmental decision-making processes is desirable.
It does not discuss the current regulations concerning public participation, let alone demonstrate any way in which they fail to adequately address either or both of these concerns.
Absolutely no basis is given upon which to judge the relative merits of the proposed regulations f"
relation to the current regu-lations.
Since this petitio:. has totally failed to meet the
~
Samuel J.
Cnilk June 16, 1980 Page Three threshold requirement of demonstrating why the pr esent trgulations need to be modified (10 CFR 2.802(c)) * /, it a
should be dismissed forthwith.
B.
The Current Reculations Have Been Held Valid And Adecuate Since the purpose of thic petition for rulemaking is to change the manner of public participation in NRC pro-ceedings, it must be noted that the current regulations implementing 5189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
S2239(a), have several times been judicially approved and found to be in accord with Congressional intent regarding the manner and extent of such participation.
- See, e.g.,
BPI
- v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1971),
and tne legislative history cited therein.
The proposed regulations greatly alter the balance of rights and bilities as to public participation struck responsi-in the Act, and thus are contrary to the Federal Maritime Commission v. limits authorized by Congress.
See Anglo-Canadian Shioning Comoany, Ltd., 335 F.2d 255, 258 (9tn Cir. 1964).
II.
The Procosed Informal Hearing Reculations Are Overbroad, Confusinc Ano Wasteful The petitioner proposes that an informal hearing be held in every instance of issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of a facilly operating license.
In order to do this, petitioner proposes to modify 10 CFR 52.105.
We note but will not dwell on the technical problems arising from petitioner's failure to mesh his proposal to the structure of the regulations, particularly S2.201 et The regulation as proposed is unclear and unworPable.
sec.
- /
From the Commission's Rules,10 CFR Part 2, S2.802(e)
~
one might infer that it has been determined that th is petition contains the information required by 10 CFR 52.802(c) since it has been assigned a docket number and published in the Federal Recister.
We contest any such determination.
In our view, for the action proposed,tne petition fails to state adequate grounds and lacks both r statement of the etitioner's arguments with respect to the issues and a r
discussion of specific instances in whicn the present rule is "burdenseme, deficient, or needs to be stren;thened."
Sa=uel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Four One exa=ple of tne detri= ental effect of the prcposed modifications to S2.105 car. be seen in ene acility of five or = ore persons to request that a hearing ce held regarding the suspension, etc., of a facility's operating license.
Under tne provisions of Subpart E, it would be within the sound discretion of the appropriate NRC of ficial whether there are grounds for such a proceeding to be in i t i a te d.
That judgment is reviewable.
However, under S2.105(a)(4) as proposed, the Co==ission would be recuired to publish notice of the requested action, and under tne otner provisions of 52.105, an infor=al hearing would be =andatory.
The overall result of tnis proposal would be that the initiation of many proceedings which are now discretionary wich the appropriate NRC officials would beco=e =andatory upon receipt of a request for any such proceeding frc= five or = ore people.
The convening of even a so-called " informal" hearing would entail a =ucn greater expenditure of both licensee and NRC resources than the present procedure, with nc assur a.nce of an i= prove =ent in safety.
Sound discretion is the essence of effective regulation and enforce =ent.
The loss of this discretion could have very serious consequences for the ability of the NRC to effectively carry out its duties.
F.ven if the petition were limited to requiring informal hearings only in the cases of issuance or amendment of facility operating licenses, the practical effects of enacting these proposed changes would be extre=ely severe.
Since infor=al hearings would ce =andatory in every instance of amend ent to an operating license, no =atter now incon-sequential the amend ent might be, the effects of this proposal will be to dramatically increase the time and expense involved in the licensing process; to require a
=assive increase in bo th NRC =e.npowe r ano f unding levels to hold these additional hearings; and to require informal hearings even when there is absolutely no interest in the hearing on the part of anyone other than the Applicant and the NRC, thus rendering =any, if not most, of these nearings a mere e=pty for=ality.
The a=endments would, without benefit of statutory authcrity, return the Co==ission to the era of "due process-itis" which prevailed prior to PL B7-615 (1962), which amended Section 189 of the Act to permit dispensing with unnecessary hearings on every =inor license amendment.
The Co==ission has recently rejected a petition for rulemaxing that nad the potential for seriously delaying and disrupting the licensing process, noting that
Samuel J.
Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Five It is well established that th e adjudicatory process, whether before the courts or l eg is-lative tribunals, must be conducted in a manner to insure th e integrity and orderly dispatch of the proceeding, to avoid undue delay or prejudice to the rights of existing parties and to permit finality in the process.
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking of Wells Ecdleman, Docket No. PRM-2-7, 45 Fed.
Reg. 35345, 35)=6, May 27, 1980.
These same considerations, together with the other f actors just noted, require that this portion of the petition for rulemaking be denied.
These considerations are generally applicable to the other changes requested by petitioner, and are incorporated cy reference in the discussions of those proposals.
III.
The Proposed Formal Hearing Regulations Duplicate The Procosec Informel Hearinc Regulatio,ns The petitioner seeks to amend the regulations so as to allow an interested person to request th a t a formal hearing be held once a notice of proposed action has been published, but "without being required to intervene and make formal showings."
Petition at S4.
The only real effect th is proposed change would have is th a t the mere request for a formal hearing would mandste that an informal hearing be held regardless of the merits of the request for the formal h e ar ing.
(See proposed regulation 52.105(f)).
7 tis proposal is thus objectionable for all the ree:ons given
,n Section II above, and should be denied for the s am e r e r.s o n s.
In particular, it would change the calance of rights and responsibilities reflected in the statute, Sec. 189.a.
IV.
Proposed Regulations Regardinc Limited Participation By Interestec Persons In All Ascects Of A Proceecing 7f promulgated as written, persons not par ties to a pro-ceeding would be " permitted to otnerwise participate in :ne proceedings within such limits and on such conditions as may
Samuel J.
Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Six be fixed by the presiding of ficer." Petition at $5(a).
Unless this section were to have no meaning, sucn persons would have to have some " limited" ability to cross-examine witnesses and/or present evidence and/or file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
However, since they would not be parties to the proceedinc, no party would have been able to obtain discovery from tne: (some of whom may not have been known until the day of the hearing, prehearing conference, etc.), and the parties could thus be unprepared for and denied an adequate opportunity to refute such presentations. Tnis would be a fundamental and exceedingly egregious violation of the parties' most basic due process rights to a fair hearing.
l'he proposed notice requirements and the requirement that copies of all pleadings and papers of record be fur-nished to any person who requests them, regardless of their proven interest in the proceeding, would lead to a number of ur:necessary problems.
First, such requirements would be an invitation to litigation 'oy anyone who claimed that he or she did not receive the required notice of the conference, etc. or a copy of a paper and that some aspect of the proceeding tbus violated his or her rights.
- Second, these provisions are also capable of massive abuse since it sets no requirements for or limitations on the nu=ber of persons who can request receipt of such notice and copies of all papers.
Thus, every person in the country who desired to obstruct any or all NRC proceedings could request that a copy of all notices or pleadings be sent to him or her.
The potential for mischief is virtually unlimited. Finally, the expense involved of sending notices and/or copies of pleadings and papers to unlimited numbers of people would be a severe strain upon the NRC's budgeted resources.
No showing is made by petitioner as to why it is claimed, if it is so claimed, that the local public document rooms are not serving public needs in this regard.
We oppose the service of notice of forthec=ing meetings between Staff and various other parties and the service of the minutes of those meetings upon non-parties.
The Staff itself represents the public interest and thus service upon non-parties is unnecessary to protect whatever public interest exists in these meetings. This requirement also invite: 1.t19ativa ever such things as what meetings must be included within the requirement and how complete ene minutes must be to adequately apprise interested persons of what was
Samuel J. Ch ilk June 16, 1980 page Seven discussed at those meetings.
The same potential for abuse described aoove is again present in this requirement.
Here again, petitioner does not address any inadequacies in present methods of making information available to in te r e st ed members of the public in the vicinity of the facility.
In sum, petitioner has not demonstrated any way in which current NRC procedures regarding limited participation and making available notice, documents, etc., to interested persons are deficient.
For this reason and for the potential unwarranted expense and even harm which could result from adoption of the proposed regulations, this portion of the petition should be denied.
V.
Procosed Reculation Concerning Holding All Hearinos Near Tne Facility Site The proposed requirement that most, if not all, hearings, conferences, and meetings be public and acid at a location convenient to the site of the facility and at a time " reasonably calculated to make same reasonably access-ible to the majority of persons affected cy the action proposed" is objectionable for all of the reasons given in Sections I-IV, above.
The heavy procedural burden of implementing this proposal could only result in drastically increasing the length of time and the amount of money involved in the licensing process.
This is especially evident when one focuses on the phrase " meetings between Commission Staff and representatives.
Thus, day-to-day interchanges between Applicants and the Staff, who are charged with representing the best interests of the public, would not only have to be public, but would nave to take place at a loca'. ion proximate to the site and at a time convenient for members of the public after the publication of appropriate notice.
This is, in reality, a prescription for bringing the licensing process to a complete halt.
The NRC already has a policy of holding as many hearings and prehearings as' feasible near the site of the f acility and at ti=es calculated to make these proceedings reasonably accessible to interestea members of the public.
It has also recently initiated a policy of allowing interested persons to be present at more informal meetings between members of the Staf f and the Applicant.
However, to require every meeting to ce at a location proximate to th e site would only have the detrimental effects stated above.
MIDDLE SOUTH SERVICES,1NC1 BOX ElOOO/NEW ORLEANS.LA.70151/(504) 529-5252
- o...rtc u e,.
s m.2c..r.
..=,.
c~,.c
,,,.a June 12, 1950 s H_ t%j m
\\
GOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE _PRM I g..c,s3;;;
a 3
t.
q
, -/
I
~-- I S gg A M Secretary of the Ccemi s. ten U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccnmission
'g
-< gQ f Washington, D.C.
20555 k,4 :;, 3 3,
, f Attention: Docketing and Service Branch b
,dv /
r-iI' Pe: Petitica for Rulerrtking Filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Ccaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Icwn Petropolitan Area Planning Agency Docket No.
PPM-2-10
Dear Sir:
Middle South Services, Inc., on behalf of the Middle Scuth Utilities System, has revie',ed the petitlen for ruleraking filed by the Citizens Adviscry Board of the creaha, Nebraska--Council Bluffs, Icwa Matrcpolitan Area Planning Agency.
T1.e Middle South UH'4 ties System servas apprcxirately 1,500,000 electric custccurs in portions of Arkansas, Iouisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. The follce'ng ccnpanies are included. in the System:
Arkansas Power ani Light C=pany Arkansas-Missouri Pcuer C==any Icuisiana Pcwer and Light Cccpany Mississippi Pcrer and Light Cmny New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
System Fuels, Inc.
Middle South Energy, Inc.
Middle South S ices, Inc.
The System ec gnies wish to ex:ress their disagreerent with the changes prcocsed by the petition. Although the "supCerting statement" required M' 10 CPR 2.o02(c) (3) was not available, the petition inelf caly i=> lies the current rules to be deficient.
The petition does not show the need for a c."2.nge SE AVf NG: MICCLE SOUTH UTIUTIE S INC.+ A AKANS AS PCWE A & LIGHT COMPANY
- A AKANSAS MIS SCU Al PCWE A COMPANY lCE IN".
N EW C A LEAN S PU B LIC '"EP{ID Y-LCul51ANA POWE A & LIGHT COMPANY
- MISSISSIPPI PCWER & Ll3MT COMPAN ? a 2 cd oy Card..klI A:xnoac:
/
June 12, 1980
- Page in the present regula*4~.s nor analyze de be;efits of the p:tgx: sed chat.
For ex=cle, yd ' A ' a South perceives that de budgetary and persc r.el irpact en
!E v.:uld net be insig.ificant.
g g,te
- e. g1 cc.. _ a. -.a.~..:
u., _,; -., n. _i n_ _agg+ t n.
. -. a.
.r..a_ o, e_._. < - ; ~. e s
,c issue gcVer= ental decisic.1-r. king process appe.ars 1="' *1e.
'i: wever,
~% -= ='
n ' sed. N *%... c. e-d
- 4 m i s.~~. 4..~ as.d. c y M i c r2 4 -i-r. a -_
52' " "- a - "-a d
cbstructica and delay of the lac licensing functicn. Cr.ce the vie 9 int cf the ge.eral pchlic has been de+a --dr.ed by c ~ rent retheds, "five in~2 rested persens" c=uld further delay an already ex *r.sive and lenz.d.v lice. sinc. rocess.
r
!K is the representative of the 3eneral relic in a licensing procedure.
Given the exter.sive oppc=r.ities already pr /ided fer pdlic i crolve ent in thea deci.acns of a "p elic" agency, 4 see no justificatica fcr a fa'.:rable decisicn en the petition fcr rale aking suMitted by the Citire.s Airisery Board of the Cr aha, r.e.braska-Ccuncil Bluffs, I:wa Metropclita:. Area Pla r.ing Agency.
In conclusien, e believe that anv. t ce be.efits that right he suagested be the pro,csed rule chances alreafv exist..#iddle Scuth d:es not believe de 1
a proposed rale changes will ed.a.ce the c.uality cf cub'ic r.articit.aticn er de regulatcry and lice. sing premss. We appreciate de cpec=...ity to suMit these c:rrents a.d hcpe that dey will be helpfal in tac's respc.se to de peti-tien.
Sincerely,
)* l F
J. D. Pattersen
. var.ager
%s. 4
%... 3 9,,
t*. ~24 -
C e
D V v.p.1..
L EBo EU F, L AM S, LElBY S M AC R A E 1333 N Ew Hw es m a t Av tN u c, N. W.
WAS WNOTo N, C. C. 2 C C 3 6 f t.tDace t 3C3 *9 ? 750 C taest act.atst m a 's C a L L s. La g O E L F., m, r s 3 3.e s ts LCOM a. Alm E N. J a.
CawfRCN r. nea g m a t a
,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,7 3,,,3 g-sCSCPM C sa: s. t iO C a. = ca me g n o se P. m g m a t.= n 4 0 8 4aae 0. $ C t s ' I s s a 'e s 7 6 E n h C s
- s. s* '_.a # 0..a a tm an o a. wan ge it6tt **CF'*
O. s. p g
- r,,
egmotN e s u g iga m. ne a m s m a.6 QEcrenv CC Stst s a w g s
- p. enc o m a w t a v,,m *.
Y t w a t e** ta cu.o p secrs P a t Lir 8aL ** C m sac o u lGa s,
\\pgll s\\
i o s acaowa, 3C3 *S? 7D*3
- ,vLos m. s a io 0 s C.ELLawCa?w en g ee t tm, =
/ N a r. v e = =. a... o c o s aan stv a aaem' son
- wituam o.womm N-c-ambes =.ssmoca TELE *=o=E 3 3 3es.030 tuo=an c.ssmar
[/
- t L ua ** a. Ca n ha m a u
- s a
- C s o **
- L L E v, s m.
- cae c accarss s aia *' c c'a rill *
- m"DCEIIE) so a s.caast m oo g a D, F E L Das a as **
J ** 'n "c. E k *
- 8 'o s"o m
?
'8'*'"."E"'C**
C a s
sow micwam a
tw og w c m.rictLL *a U.,,N E O v s cx +3 2.e e weLuma w. m o s t= s LaTT sacos emitoLancts 0-JUN I 8,ido > 3 so== a. muer a n c a tw ca = s o.c mo sav,mic s.seco-a->cuo o.sa on
->==
'r'=
=
o c e,a,o s. om e,,~e,o oca.n o esen o a
[,"$o"/,E',C,Qrv**
M'Jil'.'J'& ;!"5'#7
- n.i4% e
.m aa t s a. c a t t a,= **
c
-'*-*"* ~ * ' ' ' " '
r~~-o.
s
-ALc o.sa,~~ca 3
- c"n,*"c Ma s g
gg.g
,g,ga
...s o
sostem s.steaus s camL c. c s t L aa a n samurL ea.svo=t=
p*,.
g
- "*EL ovE" O suormt s.Tnemas.sm*
."'a m e s r. 's c - = s"o n, a'= ggc,n.#r u,,mesyg g
i a Chab o o-sCN Es en am m e on. voiG T *s O l I \\ ( ?'.
sase t s 4. La* Coe N e..m,cname maCwyg6 oma ? s. Le ais oceano m.warson aiensa wocD LCVLsCv
- O ma as a. 2i gm a R gsiOE NT ** m'h E a s *
- s "t h o *0 N CFFtCE acs.:c,:.amr cas oc~:c~ o ri:5 June 16, 1980 A,siv c: -o
-c sis r e s et er c=.- a a s.m Samuel J.
Chilk, Esq.
Secretary DOCKET NUMhR g
-.4 1 g m"
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i17m..y pyi e r
Commission g-j Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Do cke t No. P R'4 1 0 :
Petition for Rulemaking to Amend 10 C.F.R.
SS2.105 et al.
Dear Mr. Ch ilk:
On April li, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission published for comment a petition for rulemaking filed on March 13, 19CO, on behalf of the Citizens advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency of Omaha, Neoraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa.
On behalf of The Detroit Edisori Company, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Public Service Ccmpany of Indiana, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, we are submitting comments on the petition.
It is our position that the petition should be denied.
The petition for rulemaking, if granted, would significantly expand the number of cases in which a formal public, hearing would be required prior to the issuance of an amendment to a construction permit or operating license, would require a so-called informal hearing on every request p..u_.n.. s -MithCC.rns
. for such an amandment, and would codify formal requirements for meetings convened cy the Commission's Staff to discuss or review requests for such amendments.
We believe that the proposed additional requirements for formal hearings and informal hearings on license amendments are contrary to the Atomic Energy Act and the intent of Congress and should not be adopted.
The proposed additional requirements for meetings conducted by the Commission's Staff are both burdensome and unnecessary; they also should not be adopted.
If the petition were granted, the Commission would be required to conduct a formal hearing in any case where such a hearing was requested by at least five persons.
The existing requirements for intervention would, in essence, be abolished.
A formal hearing could be obtained as a matter of course by persons who were anable to establish standing and unable or unwilling to advance any specific contentions.
In addition, where no request was made for a formal hearing, the Commission would nevertheless be required to conduct an informal hearing on each and every application for a license amendment.
While the petition uses the words " informal hearing," the requested procedure would require the appointment of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to preside over the informal hearing.
The requested procedure also apparently contemplates some form of review of the informal hearing record by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Thus, what petitioner denominates as an " informal hearing" could well prove to be almost as formal (and as time-consuming) as a full adjudica-tory hearing.
The contemplated procedures would presumably have to be ecmpleted before the Commission could act upon even the most routine license amendment request.
When Congress amended Section 189a cf the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
S2239, in *962, it did so to eliminate any requirement for a mandatory hearing, except upon an application for a constr& tion permit.
In addition, Congress acted to make possible for the Commission to approve license amendmec's without prior notice or hearing where the requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
In passing the 1962 amendments, Congress intended to eliminate hearings "in the absence cf bona fide intervention."
1962 7.5.
Code, Cong. & Admin.
News 2214.
The amendments to tr.
Commission's regulations requested by petitioner would largely undo the relaxation of hearing requirements adopted by the Congress in 1962.
Such changes to the statutory scheme, if they are to be
To require that such technical conferences regularly be held in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant would involve significant additional amoun t s of S t a f f t ime, plus s ignificant additional travel expenses.
Moreover, documents needed for Staff review might not be available in the vicinity of the plant and would have to be transported there for the technical meeting.
The Staff should be afforded the flexibility to schedule technical meetings at a convenient time and place, free of any formal, legal requirements.
For all these reasons, we recommend that the Commission deny the subject petition for rulemaking.
Sincerely, b $d&u,
ACatr)),
Y
'td4 2
Commonwealth Edison I g5 c.. rest see.ar es:a c en: me,
p A:: ess Re: y:c P:s: Cm:e 5:x 757
/.. -
C.i:a;o. m.,o:s 50:90
.r:0 a-t.of June.,6, gr, AET NUMEER 7
\\
's b=... u I e..
3 8d n~,. p -
\\
e :. '.;-
y 7:
2[Q~} Q "e. c Q
M y
g
,.,y
.c o.
- 2.. 2. y-
.- f :ne C:mmission
- j JUN I g r,,<9 d r 4C.J L,..e.. r J..i c.- pa,ulatcry Comm
- . ssicn c$gj,,g fr y g-easnington, DC 20555 C
3 f.j a
g' *"~}s ATTENTION:
Cocketing and Service Branch 9
s
\\s,
/611 hs\\
D e,.- S.s.,
Commonwealtn Ecison Company ("Cc.monwealth") herecy s u o m.i. s c a m.. a. r. '. s.i n.* a..e - a. c '. t.9 a.
- a. *..* *..* c q ' r.
- u.1 a..- c-k.i.., '..i.' a. *
~y r..
~
w m
Citizens A visory Board of tne Me:: poli *an Area Flanning Agency
(" Petitioner") PRM-2-lo, 45 Fed. Reg. 26071 (April 17, 1950).
Commonwealth presently n010s cperating licenses for seven nuclear
.--.n..s anc cwnw..L,,4on pe....,.s 7c. s.4x
- 2..:...na.
.=-..
e.
.v.
.a..
nas also filec an application for early site review for : c units to
-*o.w
.in ca.--
.'.' c ~J n..,
.T.1 1.i r..i s.
v ^,. ~r.
- e =.' *. ", *.=.. a. '. -. a.,
=~
o
~
y c
s r.
.e r -..s.ic =..* o.' a.
- a. x a.
.i a... a.
w.i
- a.
.. a.
n "...' =.: -
14.-=..e'..,
-. +.. =..e.e
= r~.
a
.v
. n a.
- a. '. '.(
.i a... ~. y
- - a.
.'.'-=..e..".-
.-.. a. c e.
^#
+
la 3=.
s..s k a.
.' n 4 r.p. o v.i.a.'3 i
4 v.
.o 3
g
.s e - -.c a s. =...i. 4. q =. - ' s.- =.
L. a. s e.
C v...~.o n w e a".1 *. s *..- - ~. ~.' v,
.. c 4.,<. w -., puo.'.4-n e :..i r.,s w. n a..'..i n a.l.'
.l.i.- a. c.i. -
. - *..i ^ s,
c- ~-.. :..
w.
mc a
".' n t a. - a. s
- a.- pa. so s" -=. a.l.l w..
- ..- a. ~.' a..e *. f..-.=.1
.n a..m.i r, s w.i * ~. u *.
a
.o o
w
- a..i n -
- e q u i =.
- t o.i n t a.
v a. n a..
~^n*.
a.y tv-
... a.
..-.n
-a.
'a-*s
.-a.
.2.
c
.s e
provisicnm of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954 (tne "A::") anc 4.,- ^w n s.i s t a n. n.i + 5
- 5=
n a. a. ~ f v- -
.a f #..i.i a. n a y.
.i r. + - =..' 4. a. n s.i r. g
---.a2.,
w
.o v.u
...y a.- o. f.4 m.a.
.~ 3 -a.
nn-w n.e n. n +o n a e,-m.4ssinn cs a.e.a.m..,
6.4:,-
r..
. a.,.
. o wwmm o
o (Maren 27, 1930).
x.
c.3 a-y.,
.J.4.. a-m L v.3 4.-
.oa.:.w.
5,C&.i n
,m>a ni.
w a
v
.o.
- e
. n a.
1.e s, a n - o.
e f C e n s.... -
4 e. n n o.
. o.4. s.
T.. a.1 s w-s..mv.i m s-
.ws s.4 O.
ww w
o s
na
..in,
.i n
- a. e - a.. *. c '. a11
.-*.o..-
.'.i - a. n c.i.,
. - - - -
- u n.i
- y f *. a s u +s.1 4 -
-a
.c
..~
w.
F -
...4 s.' -. *...'.e - '. a.
.- =.
- a. s *. =..
.' n. e.,n.* *. - =...m...'*. e *
.a 2 -..i o n s,
w..<
s 2
c
.o a...a. r.-
- a. n *. s
- w w.. s.. L.
..i.- n - a.
... 4. s.. w, =
c- *. 4 r. -
14.=..2=.s
--r.
a w
w.
c.,...,. 2 2.4 c n. m. 2.... a
..o. n -..,. n s
.4, v,.., <.
- a. 4.n of.
c w....
....o
..n
.o.
o o
o.1. a. - ~. y
. s~ <.4. =, -
^
s.i - n.i f.i c a. n *s
-.2 z. s..~.' s. " n s.i - a.. c- *. i m. a.s.
q ". s,. n a.
=
2 e
i a calance Le.seen permitting puolic carticipation anc the nee: fcr a f #. 4 c 1 =. r.. v.i n *. n. e
.1 4 - a. n s.i." - - w - a s s.
ina. c. -. i s s.' -..' s r. * *. f.- =. a.
s
. 3 r.
... s.,,,., a.,. h.4 s o-l n.,..
w o
Mcreover, :ne seneme acvarte cy Fe:itioner acui: ce
.i s w-v.i + '.' y u n '. :.i.'.' a a.i.,
..,c wo-m..
p,. +... 4
.n a..
- - a.
.. = m a. n. c L.c w
wa
.m o n
.o s..
..s v.' *J.. a.
-f
.l.i
- a. n s a.
- - a. n Ci..a n *6 s
- n.# - n. c.* *.. v u *..d -
- 1u..,V
- * -. a. s.e * ~
- ...a.
.y v
w o-mgJ.} r Mg 4 - m. - e....J e m. c..E 3 4 q i O S..
.9 m.ga 4gws p m.
8 E'N" "I m M.e.T -
g -..mi egg g
ma
-.s i4 v
s. s w
. c w.
.o s
w Iqa.
ai.m o. m.
- y m.3 J ~- o.
C.
s.u p q.
3 4 a p h c.4 p-ae. 4c s w.i.'-
o
. y.4
- o. =.,.'u.
- s. e.c o.. o.
=
o ow w
w.
3
....m.. 4.Iy w, s.i r.#. n *. a.1
- a. c..' r.,
.#.. a.e - =.. *. ". #. a. :.....'.
.t a. : -
.c ~. n.."...
L".
..o
- .t..."*.
s
.P.. a.
..- a. o-a.' -
- .. o..' o",
c'K.i n *.*
- wi1a
" s.',7.' #..i. c-i.
~.c^.- c - ~. e w
c.
2-.,
. S.e.
.J.,.,
m e m...e.i e s.
-
- 4 e q u F. 4.q w.4 e. i g. = o..c p e...3
..-. c- *. o. -..
+-s y
.s c.s.
- e..i,., -.. -. -
J
..J
. 4.- s. p.c.4.m. e 4
.m..e g
o.1.-
. a.
.- c -.;. s..=.-
(. q., g -.. - m..
w..
...v..,
o y....
w...t O n.. f.,
.q a..
e.
.'a.e..s g
.14-a.
,,.4my
- c o.gVg-}g-
.n n,
- e. q q.
.-.a..
w w...
ca
.c
.w ow
..s ic
.c.
intenOs.
@fs.....
~ w-
+
.o
.w.
Westngh0use Wate.r Reactor cune 16, 19So
- e..m:
.m^..
".....:F.,._*.-
-v D..mslons ye:tric Cct;:CrEtion c.
Cn n.6
- v. U s.l c. ; n.a vv.u F 10 gim PETITIO'1 CULE N TiU6cW)
O s
..,.,._, o b_. e,.,, m,.,, c....,4 s s.e..
"D t.S.
-. a 7.
6ffice of the Secretarv of the Ccamission gje e#~
~'
Washington, D.C.
20555 3
JUP'Iw.,E0 > d m
ATESTICN:
Docketing and Service 3 ranch C,e.:e cf the se:g+.y N/
o e,
Cde::.y & te.j:,
'-/
Sam Gentlemen:
\\^
m eh/
/6I ) W go3.jee.
741.4..3
^#
P e *. 4 '.4 o *.
.#. ^ -
.D ". ' e ~.. a k...i ".. ;,
- i..
.'o a-c #
- k. a.
M..a. ' - c y c ' 4 *-
- 1
-A C 4 '.d e.n s n' d ". 4 s o - v, Area Planning Ave n c v..
n. '. ' ' 7., 1050,
.0.<.e
,u,4s".a.d 4.
- "..a
- r. a d. e. = '. n. 4. o-.e - #.".
- a d a
n_ y.
.. n, ~,
1_ * '. C. V,,
C "w..."1.'.e. s.' C ". - '.^...' s.". a s.
- ~,. **.....e..'
c
- 3 y~..
w w.
%..o.* g } e c -
- s.
7-
- A o.4 g, - o
.o. w o.. A C.#
- ". e
- k. e
_4 6 4.
p, 3 m,
- s.,.,.
.5.a.~..4,,-
r..,,.
.b, o. w.., 7.: o.c r
no.
.,v..;
w
.- p.; w.s. g g.e.
4.m..fg.e... s '
.M.o b.- g -.g ' 4 + 3 3 n.= p. g 31.3
.4 g; n y...g y g.h..i,a.k.
g e n., A
.u A
o
- c..~s.-... e... u,
..~n A 4 c.4
- s 4-o.,
y
.A-
- 4.. g u.. e e.
.a g.e g a..c e,
s
-,. w 1 4 c y.e g.e.4..g
.a e.. Co.e-y w
s y.
1 4. u.,1 g o.
- v. a,.,m c s.s..i e n. o
.a
- e.,,.:.1. 4 +. e n a e. n.
4.e.y_
s c
.c u,,, v....e.i n e..
e,,
,. C C C - "y ^s
.* *. 4 C ".
h.=a-
. a v.i e
- c-d * ".. =
c'. # - a_.. e..
- _4cned
.k. e n e.e. 4 4.". C_ '10 ". S e T.' e "'.
.4
- - *- ""*"-a*
-a 4
4 c'7d eC^'
a*#s k"'
""a
'. *' P~"
C' a "*"J
'S "'" a e *
- w--
- -Y--
r---C' u c,,. g..,:. 'n.
eu h ao ~ '.. *. ---~asaA
- "..a_
~
_d
_4.. e _, s '..^s u '. d be w
yar y
c C 4.,,n n
._.u_. 9...a~..
4..
.4 s
dC e C,s_s
..%.p.,3 3 7 4,
- e.. e., 4 C.
s 2 ut 4,o eo
.e c e s a_., O_n. )..,.,. 4
. : c c.i e.n.. j w.,
o 4
c.
z.
n _i n _i._ _i.n. g,
=n-a_.
ze--4 a.a
- n,. e.. _. - e.e,
- p...
- e... y..- -..... c.... p.,. a g g a g.e....a..
- v. s a. 4 3,t.u.e..; ay
=. e..n.. a. _,..
n a
- e o
.4 n..., Ae (.n. a..
n
-.1, g e n.
. g I'. arch 3, 1920/Fgs. 13739-13766):
os.ces
_4o*.
=.d uea-- c '. e~..'.
.".'a..=.-
...' '. a... i.=..'
- t... s a_
=
^*
o
.- a_.- - ". c..":, ", - c...~. u~. -
y s.
- . c. - - ^~- a s s.i.., '" c'.
'*."..' e n~ _'
.n.,
e--=
z o _4 -.. o _'
"e - a. 4 '..i " c.-'.= #.'
.-4 # a.,
..e._..*.
c_ a _-
- 7 0 ^ " '_"_
- A'a 10, f.
1.,G (,c ) (E )
- s y
e'-
a1
- a_ ',-'e' '. a '_ ' .'... s -
C.'.~#e r
c.
- . e s L,.1 s a-u c,.
3 _4., p. s a_ '
- k. a e,..
c
- v..e e u p n
- a. O.: an c-.~a A.n..a., u.
ns D A. _71 (w-) ( 3 )
in:
e4*
g.4
.._4 _: 4"*".*..
eXD, a.*. S ' C.". ^ #.
a o&.a, oo n
c, :....e.-....,., w,.3 4..
- w. u yr c.
- c. n u_,"a.n's, e
o.
e _4 oo a
.e.4 4.c.: c a n. '
_d."... e a s a. #..
' ". i E "...^"...e.
^ #.
a ".. ' ". a. n. ' s,
no
.a y
a.4.,.. 4 e. 4 e a..u.
4......Se e_
, r_,c.. ^.*.a.' e x. ~y s.s s ". e S,-
ea y...
e e.
n or, A significant ir. crease in the poten*ial for accidental releases.
- 'nm oy ca d..Gfl9lfQ. Jy-S
J If such proposed action is determined to have substantial impact, an Environnental Impact Statement is to be written.
The sccping proces for an Environ: 'ntal I::act Statement then becins [ 31. 2 S (a) (5)1 "any person who requests an opportunity to pasticipate in the'sccping process" is given opportunity to air specific concerns.
Therefore, it would appear that the petitioner's concerns will be adequately addressed by current regulatory plans; and, that to grant this petition would be contrary to the "three principal aims" of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (Re: Federal Register /Vol.
43, No. 230/ Wednesday, November 29, 1978/Part VI)to:
Reduce paperwork, Reduce delays, and Procuce better decisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to co=nent on the petition for rulemaking We hope that you will give these ecmments serious consideration.
If you have any questions regard ing this matter, please write ce at the above address or telephenc me on (412) 373-4650.
I Very truly yours, ZI y/,, r Jf /
U onald P.
DiPia :a, Manager Licensing Administration RPD/rk O
Secretary of the Commission June 16, 1980 ANPP-15552 - JMA/JPS Page 2 Paragraph 4 of the petition is intended to provide for interested persons to request a formal hearing without being required to inter-vene and make fomal showings. The problem is that the requestor need only specify the aspect of the subject matter as to which a hearing is sought and need not identify any specific issues (unlike a person filing a petitten to intervene, who must file a list of contentions (see Section 2.714(b)).
If a request for formal hearing is filed and granted, ani it is solely because of such request that a formal hearing is scheduled, there would be no issues to be determined.
If there are no issues to be determined, there is no point in holding a hearing.
Paragraph 5 of the petition is intended to permit all interested persons to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding.
The proposed revision to Section 2.715 would permit a person not a party to the proceeding to " participate in the proceedings within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the prescribed officer." The participation provided for in the proposed revision in some respects resembles the limited participation described in Section 2.714(e) and (f). The chief difference is that a persen participating under the proposed revision to Section 2.715 need not identify his interest in the proceeding, or how such interest may be affected by the results of the p cceeding.
(See 10 CFR Section 2.714(2).)
Permitting the type of participation requested by petiticner would be contrary to all traditional notions cf standing. The proposed revision is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Co=ission's established requirements in Section 2.714.
For the foregoirg reasons, Arizona Public Service Company respectfully urges the Comission to deny the subject petition.
(1) Although Paragraph 2 of the petition states that an informal hearing should be required in all instances, it appears that under tne proposed revision, an informal nearing is required only (1) if no request for formal hearing is filed within the time prescribed in the notice published pursuant to Section 2.105(a) (see proposed Section 2.105(d)),
or (2) if a request for a formal hearing is filed but denied (see proposed Section 2.105(f)).
Presumably, if no notice is recuired under Section 2.'05(a) and no request for formal hearing is filed, no informal heari.q is necessary.
Secretary of the Conmission June 16 1980 ANPP-15d62 - JMA/JPS Page 3 (2)
For instance, the differences between a formal and informal hearing are not defined.
Furthermore, the requirements applicable to an inforral hearing are confusing.
Although the retition proposes to make Section 2.750 applicab'.; solely to formal hearings, an informal hearing is to be reported "by the best practicable means" (see proposed Section 2.105(e), thus raising tie question of when would a transcript not be the best practicable means.
Proposed Section 2.iv5(a) provides in part that a notice of pro-posed action will be published "with respect to an application for:....(4) Any other license or amendment...as to which a hearing is requested by 5 or more persons." If such a request is made, following which a notice is published, is it necessary for 5 persons to file yet another request for hearing, assuming the applicant does not, pursuant to proposed Section 2.105(c) (3)?
Very truly yours,
CLf.A O
E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President, Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director EEVBJr/JPS/av 4
F,.
b $ Y 0 & 5 h b ?.L SarS 53 w
~
- C E N ' x, A A t:ONA e5036 P. O. B O K Zi6EE June 15 1950 t
ANPP-15c52 - JMA/JPS b
CG;KET NUMBER PETITION RUL: ' au - 2,10 c
(45 FR 24070 s
Secretary of the Commission o;;y g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
'2.
g,p~
Washington, D.C. 20555 (3-L~
g 2 0 G20 > 1 V
Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch C:e et e.,3
.y 0-N::: & se vi:,
6:'
Re:
Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan y
Arec Planning Agency; Filing of Petition W
'Fulv f
for Rulemaking 45 Federal Register 25071 Wl W,
(April 17, 1980)
Dear Sir:
On March 13, 1980, the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning tgency filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission.
The petition requests the amendment of 10 CFR Part 2 relative to the conduct of licensing proceedings.
Ari:ona Public Service Company, as Project Manager and one of 5 Participants in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, opposes the petition for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
Paragraph 3 of the petition provides for the holding of an informal hearing in situations involving the issuance, amendment, n(@1ification, suspension or revocation of a f acility operating license. '
There are several orocedural uncartainties associated with the proposed revision to Section 2.105.Nl The pri'.cipal problem, however, lies with the potential for waste of time and effort.
For instance, assume Qat under proposed Section 2.105(a) (4), the Commission determines that the occortunity for a public hearing should be afforded. Assume further tnat neltner the applicant nor anyone else files a recuest for formal hearing under proposed Section 2.105(c) and (d).
Under such circumstances, an informal hearing would be required.
The requirement for an informal hearing would aoply even though the proposed action may be a license amendment which involves no significant safety issue.
An informal public hearing would have to be arranced, a notice of such hearing would have to be published, and the licensee, Commission staff cnd cerhaos vendors and consultants would have to ore-pare for the informal hearing. However, if no one desired a hearing, it is unlikely that anyone from the oublic would apoear to ask cuestions or make co rnents.
Thus, holding an inrormal hearing under sucn circum-stances would benefit no one, and would only result in a waste of time and effort.
Acknowec;ed of can:1.N[.2kN 4.
Secretary
,f the '.cmmission June 13, 1950 Page 2
.. -.=.=.i,...:..i r.. a..- a. e * =.. -=_ =-
..e
. =.
p o.. <. < n a_. s '
.ca-.q.
r
~
....e
.._,.,a. s *. a f v-.,. a.' n a. =
.4 r., w.i *... o *. - a..' q,. a. ~. '. a.
3.;;
+,
se intervene, woulc tc incensistent witn Secti n 27s(1) of tne A t.
Tnat provision expressly grants interested states tne privilege tc participate Out not intervene in f mal licensing proceecings.
Granting similar privileges to any intereste persons woulo te inappropriate.
Moreover, formal proceedings currently cost licensees ano ne feceral covernment tens anc even nuncrecs of tnousanus of collars.
It is outrageously inepuitable for Petitioners to cemanc tnat suen costs ce incurred oy otners wnile "intereste persons" stanc cy witncut ceing require: to intervene c:
contricute anything to tne process.
Finally, i *. should be recognized tnat in : easing tne frequency of informal or formal nearings, as contem latec y
Petitioner, oculd result in a significant
- ain en licensee an:
- a_---*-.. c#.
- n =_ *. n ^ ' c
^
- aff *as u.-a.s.
Y a_
- m e.. ^..i r. a,
- t. o *. n a. *a.a.
c*
Special Inquiry G cup:
Practically all tncse wno are familiar with the licensing process, inclucing most Licensing 3 ard mcm ers une res:cnce: :: a cuustionnaire ser.t out Oy tne Special In;uiry Group, agree tnat tne formal nearing process does little to ennance tne cuality of reactor safety.
(Vclume I, page 140)
Commonwealtn uncerstands tnat f: reascns of pu lic policy, puoli: nearings are a necessary part of :ne process of nuclear regulation.
Nevertneless, in allocating the limited resources of Staff and licensees, first priority nas to ce given to making plants as safe as possible.
Frecuent puclic nearings of trivial matters would civert management attention and engineering resources a.ay from plant cperations anc cesign reviens ani:n are tne esta:lisne me nanisms for maintaining plant safety.
Commonwealtn believes tnat the remaining portion of the petition, cealing with s neduling matters, is unnecessary in view of current NRC practice.
Hearings are generally nela in tre vicinity of the affecteo facilities, and Licensing Scares, in Comm:nwealtn's e x p e r,l e n c e, nave usually gone out of tneir way in nol:Ing a Citional sessi:ns c: evening sessions to a:: mmodate Ou lic parti: 1 pati:n.
Sincerely,
/
i.
u
.,m
~
D.
L.
C e : : ". e s ea.,,.,.
. r.
Js......
N G'. s. a. ;..'.- a. n b.',
- y ia a* s%.? C '.A made at all, should be made by the Congress.
The Ccanisson should decline to amend its regulations in the absence of Congressional action.
The petition for rule: aking also requests that 10 C.F.R. 52.751 be amended to establish specific require-ments for " informal proceedings, including meetings between Commission staf f a~.d representatives of the licensee and/or representatives c. consultants and/or vendors for the 7
ansee Petitioner requests that all scch Angs shall be public, shall be preceded by formal i
. ce, and shc11 be held in the vicinity of the plant site upon reque st oy cny person.
We submit that the proposed amendments concerning " informal proceedings" are both unnecessary and burdensome.
W.th respect to the requirement that meetings corvened by the Commission's Staff be open to the public, such meetings are already publicly conducted, except in
.:ases where rest icted or proprietary data is being discussed.
In addition, che Commission's Staff normally notifies intervenors of any significant meetings.
Upon occasion, other interested persons, who have manifested a desire to receive notice, are also notified.
Finally, the Ccamission's Staff has ir cecent years adopted a policy of voluntarily conducting public meetings in the vicinity of the plant site where a signif u
,t license amendment or enforcement action is pend ing.
Thus, current Commission practice adequately addresses the need for public information and public participation. and no formal amendnent to the Commission's regulations is necassary.
It is also true that the adoption of formal requirements for meetines with the Commission's Staf f would be burdensume.
It is often necessary and desirable for the Staff to convene an informal meeting on short notice to discuss questions that have arisen during the ccurse of Staff review.
Formal public notice of a meeting under those circumstances is not practicable.
The content of such informal review meetings is usually quite technical.
Public participation in such a technical meeting will
'either aid the Staff in its review nor enhance public
- trstanding of the application.
Technical conferences are usually held in the
- ommission's offices for the convenience of the Staff.
Occasionally, technical conferences may be held at the location of a vendor, in order to permit the Staff to review documents and records =e'ntained by the vendcr.
Samuel J.
Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Eight For the reasons stated above, this portion cf the prcposed petition should also be denied.
VI.
Conclusion Petitioner has f ailed to demonstrate how the current regulations are inadequate for implementing the type of public participation Congress wished to have in NRC pro-ceedings. The proposed --difications to the regulations are unneeded, detrimental to the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing process, snd, in some instances, contrary to the requirements of law.
For all the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that this pe tition for rulemaking be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
(
\\
7 W
O v
Joseph B.
Knotts, Jr.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9800 Counsel for Wasnington Dublic Power Supply Syster
~
.=
C92A Carolina Power & Light Compny DOCKET NUMBER
. 'une 16, 1980 PETIT!CN RULE PRM - 2.- J O 9
- m (45 FR. 260'71) e Secretary of the Co issiod p
United States Nuclear Regulatory Co= ission C C h u.s C
USNRO j
Vashi:gton, D. C.
20555 2
JUN 2 3 G80 > ?'
Attention: Docketing aud Service Branch f;
Offi:e cf the been 9
- M A PETITION FOR RULDiAKING Er ~t
.c<
DOCKET NO. FRM-2-10 g
d
. si 4
Dear Sir:
On April 17, 1950, the Co==ission published a Petition for Eulc:aking f:. led by th C'L1: ens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Flanning Agency of the Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa area (457R26071)-
The petition requests that 10CFR2 be a: ended to " require an infor al public hearing in every instance of issuance, a:end:ent,
=odification, suspension, or revocation of a facility operating license."
It is our opinion that such a rule change is not only unnecessary, but could prove counter-productive to the public health and safety. A=ple oppo;tunity is already provided in the existing regulations for interven-tion by the public in significant license modifications, and the Co J.ssion has establishe0 procedures for noticing license a:end=ents in the Federal Rerister. The establishnent of a mini =um criteria on inter-vention should be designed to encourage only those with legitimate interest in the proceedings to participste. To permit groups which do not even =eet the current r.ini=al require =ents for intervenors to parti-cipate in bearings would dilute the efficacy of the process and may, in fact, reduce the techni:al fiber of the entire licensing process to ar'-ini strative gamesmanship.
It should be noted that such " informal hearings" would still require " formal" actics by the' KRC Staff, utilities, vendors, architect /
engineers, court recorders, etc.
Thus, substr.tial human resources and time would be required for each license modif :ation. The diversion of this manpower from saf ety-related :..,.ues at a time when the industry and NRC are striving to maxi =ize our efforts in these safetf areas would represent an unwarranted diversion from issues bearing on the public health and safety and could prove highly deleterieus to the public-health and safety. A final consideration in this regard relates to license amend =ents issued on an expedited basis.
Even with the best of intentions on the part of everyone involved, the infor=al hearings and their associated preparations, noticing, etc., required by this petition uncem ea. 6)288G.tedy 411 7eyettevd e Street
- P. O. Box 1551
- Raleign. N. C. 27002
_a,, - _ -
. ~,
m
would make it impossible for any license technical specification change to be obtained on an expedited or energency basis. Circumstances occasionally necessitate that utilities request energency changes to their technical specifications. At the present time, these requests can be processed in a very short period of ti=e if the needed change is a straightforward one, and in the best interest of the public health and safety.
If the petition was adopted and the rule changed, this type of review would become essentially i=possible and this could add substan-tially to the costs of power production or result in unnecessary power outages for utility custoners without providing any increase in public health and safety.
L'e hope the preceding co=nents will be taken into consideration in the Co==issien's deliberations on this petition.
Yours very truly,
s
/
E E. Ut1e[y Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering & Construction DLE/je (154-084) 4
Telep hone 617 366-9011 J
DG 7eC-J DC.C ?)9 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY s.1.1.1 hYC 80-19 Yu$N 20 Tumpske Road Westbcreugh, Mcssachusers 01551 mns cm c,
DOCKET NUMBER PRM lC W
PETITION RULE H5 F8. 26010 E
auu 2 3 sm
- 3
~
Secretary of the Cc :ission O -a d Be SCT@0 fI U.S. ~.Juelear Regulatory Commission g,g & St:r.
g Wa'hington, DC 20555
\\
ennd N
V c,
t?
Attention: Docketing & Service Branch il\\
Subject:
Co::ents on Petition for Rule =aking from the Citizens Adviscry Scard of the Omaha, Nebraska-Ceuncil Eluffs, Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (45FR25071-4/17/20)
Dear Sir:
Yankee Atc=ic Electric Co:pany appreciates the opportunity to cc :ent on the subject petitien for rulemaking.
Yankee Atemic owns and operates a nuclear power generating plant in Rowe, Massachusetts.
The Yankee Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering services for other nuclear power plants in the northeast including Ver cnt Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook 1 and 2.
Yankee Atomic recommends that the petition be denied. We believe the i= pacts significantly outweigh the value of this preposal.
The proposed amendment requiring fr tal publi-hearings in every instance of issuance, a end:ent, codification, suspensien er revocation of a facility operating license would place an i==ense burden on licensees and the NAC staff without =easureably contributing to i= proved health and safety of the public.
The ti=e spent at public hearings would divert technical resources frcm i=portant engineering and operational concerns thereby actually negatively i=pacting safety, Also, the significance of public hearings would be greatly di=inished since the =ajority of time would be spent on procedural and =inor technical =atters. The i=portance and benefits of public hearings are related to =ajor public policy decisions such as regional planning and the like.
The proposal to permit interested persons to request a for=al hearing without being required to intervene approaches absurdity.
An individual requesting a hearing should have a good reason and should be able to vigorously pursue their cententions before a formal hearings beard. They should not be allowed to request a hearing when their =ajor objective is merely interruption of public energy supplies or media exposure. The opportunities for individual intervention provided in the present syste:
already are = ore than a=ple and in fact have eften impacted plant operation Ackmm=~1 by m..bb3lsa.mda
June 19,1980 O. S., Nuclear Regulatory Cem=ission Attention: Docketing & Service Branch Page 2 with absolutely no benefits accr uing to the public, the licensee, or the NRC whatsoever Exa:ples of this are legion, but the exte.;ded 6 month shutdown i= posed on Boston Edison'.s Pilgrim Unit 1 in 1974 is clearly an exa:ple of abuse of the system and resulting in needless less to the public. These proposed a:endments would exacerbate the proble of irresponsible intervention even further.
If a Public Information Program is the objective of the proposal we believe such a progra= could be beneficial to everyone but it should be considered outside the context of a licensing action for the reasons discussed above.
If you have any questions regarding our cc =ents, please contact us.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY e
. H. Moody Eenior Licensing Engineer JHMA
Atomic Ind ustrial Forum, Inc.
9 D
7101 Wcsconsin Avenue g
4 Washington, o.C.~ 2 OO14 Telephone: (3o1) 654-92 60 DCCPJETE'.)
TWX 71o82496o2 ATOMIC FoR DC
,p gggg 6
b JUN 91950 >
y Of&s cf t!3tedey July 1, 1%0 9
DC3ET NUMBER ll R&SgiSmP"-
Drmh PETITION RULE N 2 10
/
g Of5 'FR A (.671)
Secretary of the Commission G. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing'ca, D. C.
20555 Att:
Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 45 FR 26071 Dear Sir-The Atomic Industrial Forum's Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safet/ has reviewed the subject proposed amendments requested in the petition for rulemaking filed on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board of the Omaha, Nebraska - Council Blu fs Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning Agency and requests r
tha; this petition be denied.
A requirement to conduct an informal public hearing in every instance of issuance, amendment or modification of a Facility Operating License would pose a significant deterrent to public health and safety by/or operation and by diverting importantinhibiting expeditious facility design end technical resourced to engage in unnecessary public hearing activity.
F.risting rules require that the NRC, prior to acting thercon, cauoe to be published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed action with respect to an application for:
- 1) a Facility Operating License, or 2) an amendment to a Facility Operating License which involves a significant ha:ards consideration (in cases where the NRC determines that theIe is no significant hazards consideration involved, the Connission may issue the amendment and then publish a notice in the Federal Register).
Such existing rules are entirely adequate to ensure that members of the public are given full opportunity to request public hearings concerning Facuity Operating Licenses.
In addition, permitting "all interested persons" to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding would in effect allow any person to participate in any proceeding at any time and would, in our judgment, substantially degrade the effectiveness of the licensing process and thus significantly reduce the high levels of protecton to the public health and safety that the present licensing process provides.
Furthermore, existing rules governing formal intervention and limited appearances are more than sufficient to ensure that persons with genuine interests are given full opportunity to participate in a proceeding.
/dnMed td by cro.~MM.w
Secretary of the Commission (2)
July 1, 1980 Finally, the proposed amendments require that "all informal proceedings, including meetings between the Commission staf#
and representatives of the licensee and/or representatives consultants and/or vendors of the' licensee" be:
- 1) "upon the request of any interested party.
held at a site and time reasonably calculated to make some (sic) reasonably accessable to the majority of persons potentially affected by the action proposed" and
- 2) noticed "sufficiently and in advance.
as to allow
. time for such a request to be made, and such proceedings to be rescheduled if rcquired".
Such requirements would result in significant delays in accomplishing necessary interactions between the NRC staff and the licensee and would thus make the licensing process even more cumbersome and costly than it already is, while providing no meaningful benefits to the health and safety of the public.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments and we would be pleased to answer.any questions you may have on the above comments.
Sincerely, D. C. Gibbs, Chairman Committee on Reector Licensing and Safety DCG/jph
- ;gst?rHI!A!TT UTII.!TII!!!
.u n.M..m,.ao..uw m..E7 N
NS P.o Box 270 4
l HART 7oRo, CONNEcTACUT 06101 1
. = rm.
u mw..
m a3, 4i j y.u. a s 2,
<=
v.uw wwt aw.-
L, t
June 16, 1930 l
N' #
Docket Nos. 50-213 d
50-245 DOCKET NUMBER 50-331
'000 %
PRM -2,-10 3100.2 et usue
,t PETITION RULE 045 F8. 260m) 57't el 3m0, '?
k the f2 Netiq g 'o'rky Secretary of the Co= mission ic de sf Atta: Docketing and Service Branch to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:r.tission g
g', '
Washington, D.C.
20555
.hference:
(1) Federal Resister, Volu=e 45, No. 76, ? ages 26071 - 26072.
Gentle =en:
Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Ncclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2 Co==ents on Petition for Rule =aking Filed By Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropelitan Area Planning Agency Docket No. PRM-2-10 In Ref erence (1), the NRC Staff published for public co=nent a petftion for rule =aking filed by'the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropoli*.an Aren Planning Agency requesting amendments to 1C"FR Part 2, " Rules of Pre t'.ce for Domestic Licensing Proceedings".
Northeast Utilitier Service Company (NUSCO), as agent for The Connecticut Light and Power Co=pany, The Hartford Electric Light Co=pany, Western Massachusetts Electric Co=pany, Northeast Nuclear Energy Cc=pany, and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co=pany, all of whom are cuners or licensees of operating nuclear power plants, hereby sub=its the following cor= tents.
We are in opposition to the recuest of the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency to re. quire modifications to 10CFR Part 2.
The suggested modifications would, in general, add a substantial additional burden to an already co= plex and time consuming licensing process withour any attendant benefit in =aking the procedure more effective or, as is the goal, =sking the plant st.bject to that proceeding, a safer plant.
Further, there is no evidence that present procedures do not per=1t interested persons to be fully informed of, and have reasonable access to, licensing proceedings such as would warrant the changes suggested by the petitioner.
AcknowWged ty card..
- 2. 10. d _
2-I.
[7; ceti*1oner has proposed pre-notificatica procedures by publication if a heaZ12g is reques*:d by ;zt; cr ::te persons.
The establish =ent of such a nominal ' threshold, and with no require =ent to specify an issue in contention, would likely result in a substantial increase in the ti=e and cost required to conduct any license a=end=ent proceeding, whether a substantive issue is involved or not.
The proposal that five persons
=ay de=and a formal hearing will also result in subs tantial increases in resource and ? conc =ic costs and the ti=e ree.uired to conduct a proc,eding, as would the suggested changes in the conduct and reporting of infor=al public hearings.
II.
Broadening the ability of any person to request a for=al hearing, without being required to qualify as an intervenor by apecifying items in contention, will acce=plish little but to further burden the process.
The proposed grounds for requesting a for=al hearing are so general that they invite litigation as to the denial of any request, and a substantially more labored process will result if requests beco=e routinely granted.
III.
Present licensing procedures allow interested = embers of the public to contribute their co=nents and opinions but otherwise preclude their participation absent a showing that their participation will further the goals of the proceeding.
Establishing the much broader grounds for partici-pation as sugt.sted by the petitioner will lead to substantial co==it=ents of time and resources on the part of all other parties to the proceeding.
The petitioners' proposal would also i= pose a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary without any evidence that such a burden would be in the broadly defined public interest, as opposed to the interests of a few parties who may have a special interest to expound upon, but nothing of substance to offer to the licensing proceeding.
IV.
The requirement that all hearings, =cetings, conferences, and any other discussions between any individual and a se=ber of the Cc==ission's Staf f be public would clearly frurtrate the present process which at lea s t fosters an open discussion and resolution of co= plex technical issues.
The additional requirement that all such meetings be held in prox 1=ity to the facility concezned will result in substantial inef ficiencies and costs associated with providing staff support.
Present regulations, with thei. proper interpretation and i=plementation by Co==1ssion personnel, provide s abstantial opportunities for parties aff ected by any licensing action to participate to varying degrees as they right be aff ected.
The petitioners' proposals would add substantially t: the cost, ce=plexitv.
and ad=inistrative burden of these proceedings without evidence of any benelit which might result through the participation of a great =sny = ore people to a potentially =enh larger degree in every aspect of a licensing proceeding. The Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission is charged by law with an obligation to regulate
o
-3_
the use of nuclear power in the public interest so as to damure that the public health 42:d 23 ety is n di times prote:::d.
approval of petitioners' f
proposals vould constitute recognition by the Cc==ission that it is unable er unwilling te fulfill its responsibilities without substantial input of nenbers cf the lay public at any, and potentially every, stage of a licensing process.
Very truly yours,
NORTEEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMhLW Y
'n'. G. Counsil Senior Vice President
?
As<\\
onsumers C
-)s i POWBi DOCKET NUMEER L3 CCCpEUy PrTmON m C ERM *-2-lO se /
U. 4.
~(45 FE$60m)~
h
.3 OOtKETE:
s c a u ome : 212 weet u nena.n Av.nu., ;.em,on, u 6cne,.n as:o1.csi737 3455o q
usup-
~
U AUG OD>f August 5, 1900 Cffice cf the Se: t'.g D :ke,ing & sery!:e p
9 Bruch
\\
Secretary of 11.e Cc=ission Cv g/
N U S Nuclear Regulatory Cc=issic:
'4ashingten, D C 20555 Attentier Docketing e '. Jervice Eranch
. o.1 7. v.. e, _..a..., s e. c e.-..d.n 3- + %... " :,a - '.4 - a...de n o ' t a.. d.+. 4... '.. -
"'a-
- d..e-
". e.- a n.c.~ -". '.'
t..'"..".=, '..v '
'.-.*,,*e C.' 4 -n s A'. 4. s o -~,,.~- a. ' o '. *
- a.
C
.=.%..
S. ~
.~...
,-:c,
.v..., po.1. a.. n...... e. g.. 4 -..e ns...,",
yu 4 #... a,__..a <.. %..
. n.,
n,..
.i, re...,
, e-t c + c,....,..,, e... e.
.r y--.
....g4 a,-a.4 ~..
a
- a..
.e.,
.. ~..
'.-$e su ja.*.
, e +.1+.d e
- o 4 ~.. -e. _ s a. a.. '. ' a '.'.d., a', e, ".'..'.'.'...-.' v a... a...
.d.. * '. =.
k licensing prc ess presuppeces that the current process does not afford the public adequate involvement. Ecvever, the 7ada~'
ragister ::tice cites no evidence in supper of such a contention, and Censu=ers Pcver Conpany telieves that such a contention is =varranted.
Present 230 rules, as describe' in 10 CFR Part 2, previde numerous =echs.nists and oppertunities for public involvement. ' hese include the current tules geve ning hearings and pre-nctices which the petitioner prc;cses te change.
A' s o, * %
-"--a-:
a..,,.a-,. _,
e.-
,, e s.
,, _.a.
..f.,..n.,..,. c.r. n,,., s. <.. c,... a. <...
. =. ~...
any matter related to a nuclear facility. Che IG" is required to reviev a.a.r.-. a.
.u,
.oe -. i.
. aa a..r. <.,
.u a, u,.h e,i. < c.s em-f.
o.
public adequate access to all inic=ation pertinent to each plant, Tnis a.a "_, ' - '.
- P.",
e o
- ak., _'.* s k d...3-a,-" *. ' d. *."_-a...*.
-^c
.a._a.
d s a-.._,' 4.e '.~ 5./
e
.u 4
an
..ov<>a - r r +...
- r. g..<.~ a../.,a.
s.>.,,,
,...<g.,
t..~., a, a.
. u.e a
.v plant dechet.
2.
Two other iters in the preposed changes are verthy cf attention.
Tne ter:
"infc = al hearings" is crincusly vague and it is equally verrisene that persens vh'.:> are nev, a " party to the proceedings" should be alleved : par-tici, ate.
Censu=ers Pcver Cc=pany su rests that the te = "i..fc = al hearings" s
- a.. % a. tu.1 -e.se $, g7. 4. - 4. r g. 4 -
.%. e ge t..t. ve..-*4...a
~
4.
-e ye C,a,<r.t,A.
.. 6
+s 2
c to qualify as " parties to the preceedings".
Clarification c' "in'e =al" vill allev ever.1ene to understand better the 1:nact of the n.ren.ese'. chanr.es ani
-.. * %~.. ~' a. s a,,' d. c a'.' a. *~ ",-.
d.a.s N
a.
-."- 4..-
a.'-'
r.=. *.d..d,. *. s *. o c r. -at a
- e u.d. d ",-
.a
.u..e e.g g..-,..r
..,.,..>..a-.g v.a. e n
c.. n..,,.. a.s..s a y--, a og
.a.,s. g,.
e
. r
-,,v..<. a.. ~... e.
f.
..." a.s.Ocva.- v._-,any. %.' ' a.v e s
".a* % s-as y..-"e.=.'. *v. * %..,a..#*'-._-
"..e,_
- v. -
y.
a.
..,.a.
a.a.... ~.,. _.,....,..
,a
...,..4 a.,.4 -. 4,4,..., a.a a 4.. < -..
.a s.....
greatly the already :=tersc=e licensing process.
Iven though no ecst/tenefit w-weni a,e. 5 8 %. m b.....
(
./
Secretary of the Cc==issien 2
August 5, 1980 analysis has been perfor:ed, it appears likely that the proposed actions vould involve large costs to both the NEO and to the licensees.
C: the other hand, the benefits
'a he reali:ed appear vanishingly small, esp.eci-ally in light of the exist:.t.g N?,C rules and the public availability of infor=at:.c n.
h.
Fo-the reasons discussed in the preceeding paragraphs, Censu=ers Power Cc:pany suggeste that the petitioner's request be denied,
'.n total.
Even '. hough these ec==. :ts are being sub=itted after the due date, please censider the
.tn actions concerning the proposed charges to 10 CFR Part 2.
[
f-^
^
Eavid ? Hof.^.ar
- iuclear Licensing Administrator CFH92-30
.