CLI-82-40, Order CLI-82-40,denying Zimmer Area Citizens/Zimmer Area Citizens of Ky 821119 Motion to Have Util Provide Svcs of Consulting Firm to Monitor Procedures Per Order CLI-82-33 & Motion for Review of Independent Entity Selection
| ML20023B322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1982 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | ZIMMER AREA CITIZENS - ZIMMER AREA CITIZENS OF KY |
| References | |
| CLI-82-40, NUDOCS 8212270241 | |
| Download: ML20023B322 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
n SERVED DEC 231982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2[j(E' COMMISSIONERS:
82 CEC 23 P2:28 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky v :...
... ca m.
John F. Ahearne liCDLiifi55EEVh4 Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY, et al.
Docket No. 50-358 (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
ORDER CLI-82 _40 By their petition of November 19, 1982, Zimmer Area Citizens-Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky (ZAC-ZACK) and City of Mentor, Kentucky, both intervenors in the Zimmer Operating License Proceeding (jointly "Intervenors"), have asked the Commission to provide them, at the expense of the Comission or the utilities applying for the Zimmer license, the services of a consulting firm for the purpose of monitoring procedures instituted in compliance with the Commission's Order to Show Cause and Order Immediately Suspending Construction, CLI-82-33, NRC
, November 12, 1982.
Intervenors have also requested the Commission to entertain their views with regard to the selection of the independent entity required by the Ccmmission's order to conduct a review of the status of the Zimmer facility and provide a report of its consideration l U2122'70241 821223
[b]
PDR ADOCK 05000348 O
2 of various alternatives for management of work at Zimmer. For both l
requests Intervenors seek an answer before the Commission allows further
. action.
On November 30, 1982 MVPP filed a response in support of Intervenors' petition, urging that the Commission itself select the third party auditor.
In addition, MVPP petitioned the Commission to establish a detailed structure for public participation throughout the audit. Dr. David Fankhauser supports Intervenors' petition, and the applicants strongly oppose it.
The Commission is not empowered to expend its appropriated funds for the purpose of funding consultants to Intervenors.
See P.L. 97-88, Title V section 502 (95 Stat. 1148 (1981) and P.L.97-276 section 101(g) (96 Stat.1135 (1982)). Nor does it appear that the Commission has authority to require the utility-applicants to do so or to assess fees for that purpose where the service to be performed is for Intervenors' benefit and is not one needed here by the Commission to discharge its own licensing responsibilities.
See Mississippi Power & Light Company v. NRC, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1979) cert, denied 444 U.S.1102 (1980).
See also National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1978),
Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Co., 415 U.S. 345 (1974).
Thus, the first request cannot be granted.
With regard to Intervenors' second request, the Commission has delegated authority to the Regional Administrator to review and approve the selection of the independent entity.
It is the Commission's understanding that the Regional Director has required and received a statement of the qualifications and information to establish the independence of tho entity
d a
3 selected to conduct the independent review at Zimer pursuant to the Comission's order. That information is already on the public record and has been sent to interested persons with notice that coments will be l
considered if they are simely submitted. That procedure ensures consideration of public views and is consistent with Commission precedent.
I See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-81-30,14 NRC 950, 956-7 (1981). The further procedures requested by MVPP will not be instituted; nevertheless, close Comission supervision will continue and the public will be kept informed of progres:; at Zimmer.
l In light of the nature of its response, the Commission sees no need to delay further action in compliance with its show cause order.
The separate views of Comissioner Gilinsky and additional views of Comissioner Ahearne are attached.
It is so ORDER:D.
i FogtheCommissicn
,h o
f I
o i
i ft E
/
SAMUEL J. CitRK j
Q ~'(.
j Secretary of thd Comission 8
'%
- k k k 5 I
l Dated at Washington, D.C.
this N day of December, 1982.
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I voted to deny the request that the Commission take a direct part in the selection of the independent auditor on the understanding that the Commission had asked Mr. Keppler to keep it informed of his progress in conducting this review so as to permit it to step in if it needed to do so.
This is what the Commission asked Mr. Keppler to do, and what he is, in fact, doing.
When I suggested that the Order explain that Mr. Keppler would keep the Commission informed so that we have sufficient time to intervene should we disagree with his proposed action, a majority of the Commission, to my astonishment, voted against the proposal.
This makes me wonder whether the Commission is as serious about dealing with Zimmer as I understood it to be.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER AHEARNE I disagree with Commissioner Gilinsky's characterization both of the order and of his proposal.
The Commission wilJ keep close watch on what is happening at Zimmer and will continue to be deeply concerned about substantive issues.
l l
l h
L l
l L
i e
?
. -.