|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20077P6411991-07-22022 July 1991 Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene.* Requests Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene & Lists Supporting Statements ML20151W6251988-06-24024 June 1988 Intervenor Request to Withdraw Contention.* Request to Withdraw Admitted Contention 2 Re Dangers That Might Exist from Presence of Temporary Crane Installed in Spent Fuel Pool Storage Area.Concerns No Longer Considered Sensible ML20149F1151988-02-0404 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Amended Petition to Intervene.* Listed Proposed Contentions Inadmissable & Should Be Rejected. Contentions 4,5,6,8,11 & 15 Supported W/Adequate Bases & Should Be Admitted for Litigation.W/Certificate of Svc ML20148C9921988-01-21021 January 1988 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Expansion of Spent Fuel Facility Involves Significant Hazard Determination Which Requires Public Hearing & EIS Before Approval.Served on 880121 ML20207L9021987-01-0505 January 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Amended Request for Hearing Filed by J Paskavitch.* J Paskavitch Petition for Leave to Intervene as Amended Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009G8351981-07-29029 July 1981 Addendum to 810720 Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17212A3631981-07-0909 July 1981 Petition to Intervene in Const Licensing Proceeding.Outcome May Affect Rights & Opportunities Afforded Dade County Re Solid Waste Resource Recovery Project Pursuant to Contracts W/Resources Recovery,Inc.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17212A2541981-06-26026 June 1981 Partial Response in Opposition to Parsons & Whittemore 810424 Petition for Leave to Intervene.Petition Is Untimely & Fails to Show Sufficient Interest.Certificate of Svc & Supporting Matl Encl ML17209B1461981-05-26026 May 1981 Response in Opposition to Fl Cities 810407 Petition to Intervene & for Consolidation.Petition Is Moot & Addresses Issues Beyond Scope of Proceeding.No Finding of Significant Change Warranted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17212A2551981-05-0606 May 1981 Response in Opposition to Parsons & Whittemore Petition to Intervene in Spent Fuel Pool Mod Hearing.Petition Seeks to Raise Antitrust Issues.Allegations Are W/O Basis in Factor or Law.Certificate of Svc & Affidavit Encl ML17209A9911981-04-24024 April 1981 Petition to Intervene in Ongoing Const Licensing Proceeding & Request for Limited Antitrust Hearing ML17209A9701981-04-16016 April 1981 Response Opposing Hs Wells 810323 Ltr Petition to Intervene. Ltr Does Not Clearly State Desire to Intervene & Participate & Fails to Meet Interest Requirement.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML17266A4281981-04-0707 April 1981 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Commission Should Hold Limited Antitrust Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17266A4261981-04-0707 April 1981 Petition to Intervene in OL Proceeding.Intervenors Have Been Granted Intervention in CP Proceeding & Request Intervention Here as Protective Matter.W/Encls & Certificate of Svc ML17209A9721981-03-23023 March 1981 Petition to Intervene in OL Proceeding 1991-07-22
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20077P6411991-07-22022 July 1991 Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene.* Requests Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene & Lists Supporting Statements ML20151W6251988-06-24024 June 1988 Intervenor Request to Withdraw Contention.* Request to Withdraw Admitted Contention 2 Re Dangers That Might Exist from Presence of Temporary Crane Installed in Spent Fuel Pool Storage Area.Concerns No Longer Considered Sensible ML20149F1151988-02-0404 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Amended Petition to Intervene.* Listed Proposed Contentions Inadmissable & Should Be Rejected. Contentions 4,5,6,8,11 & 15 Supported W/Adequate Bases & Should Be Admitted for Litigation.W/Certificate of Svc ML20148C9921988-01-21021 January 1988 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Expansion of Spent Fuel Facility Involves Significant Hazard Determination Which Requires Public Hearing & EIS Before Approval.Served on 880121 ML20207L9021987-01-0505 January 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Amended Request for Hearing Filed by J Paskavitch.* J Paskavitch Petition for Leave to Intervene as Amended Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20009G8351981-07-29029 July 1981 Addendum to 810720 Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17212A3631981-07-0909 July 1981 Petition to Intervene in Const Licensing Proceeding.Outcome May Affect Rights & Opportunities Afforded Dade County Re Solid Waste Resource Recovery Project Pursuant to Contracts W/Resources Recovery,Inc.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17212A2541981-06-26026 June 1981 Partial Response in Opposition to Parsons & Whittemore 810424 Petition for Leave to Intervene.Petition Is Untimely & Fails to Show Sufficient Interest.Certificate of Svc & Supporting Matl Encl ML17209B1461981-05-26026 May 1981 Response in Opposition to Fl Cities 810407 Petition to Intervene & for Consolidation.Petition Is Moot & Addresses Issues Beyond Scope of Proceeding.No Finding of Significant Change Warranted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17212A2551981-05-0606 May 1981 Response in Opposition to Parsons & Whittemore Petition to Intervene in Spent Fuel Pool Mod Hearing.Petition Seeks to Raise Antitrust Issues.Allegations Are W/O Basis in Factor or Law.Certificate of Svc & Affidavit Encl ML17209A9911981-04-24024 April 1981 Petition to Intervene in Ongoing Const Licensing Proceeding & Request for Limited Antitrust Hearing ML17209A9701981-04-16016 April 1981 Response Opposing Hs Wells 810323 Ltr Petition to Intervene. Ltr Does Not Clearly State Desire to Intervene & Participate & Fails to Meet Interest Requirement.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML17266A4281981-04-0707 April 1981 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Commission Should Hold Limited Antitrust Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML17266A4261981-04-0707 April 1981 Petition to Intervene in OL Proceeding.Intervenors Have Been Granted Intervention in CP Proceeding & Request Intervention Here as Protective Matter.W/Encls & Certificate of Svc ML17209A9721981-03-23023 March 1981 Petition to Intervene in OL Proceeding 1991-07-22
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARL-99-201, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments1999-09-0707 September 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments ML20206H4441999-05-0303 May 1999 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 10CFR171 Re Rev of Fy 1999 Fee Schedules ML20205J0461999-04-0101 April 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Draft Std Review Plan on Foreign Ownership,Control & Domination.Util Supports Approach Set Forth in SRP Toward Reviewing Whether Applicant for NRC License Owned by Foreign Corp.Endorses NEI Comments ML20205B3771999-03-16016 March 1999 Comment Opposing PRM 50-64 Re Liability of Joint Owners of Npps.Util Endorses Comments of NEI & Urges Commission to Deny Petition for Rulemaking ML17355A2511999-03-0909 March 1999 Comment Supporting Amend to Policy & Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Re Treatment of Severity Level IV Violations at Power Reactors.Util Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Revs L-98-306, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP1998-12-10010 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP L-98-272, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses1998-10-28028 October 1998 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses L-98-252, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule1998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule L-98-248, Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement1998-10-0505 October 1998 Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement ML17229A7551998-05-29029 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Communication Re Augmented Insp of Pressurized Water Reactor Class 1 High Pressure Safety Injection Piping ML20217P6691998-04-0202 April 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Standards,Amended Requirements ML17354A8741998-03-27027 March 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication,Lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal (M97978) ML20216C1991998-03-0303 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps.Util Endorses Nuclear Energy Inst Comments.Comments Submitted on Behalf of Plant ML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998 Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices L-97-269, Comment on Pr 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements1997-10-21021 October 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements L-97-265, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Prepardness Programs Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Programs for Np Reactors1997-10-14014 October 1997 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Prepardness Programs Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Programs for Np Reactors ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997 Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997 Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997 Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997 Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997 Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns ML20137R4681996-12-10010 December 1996 Transcript of 961210 Proceeding in Atlanta,Ga Re Predecisional EC Re Facility Activities.Pp 1-151.Supporting Documentation Encl L-96-137, Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment1996-06-0606 June 1996 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment IR 05000335/19960031996-03-0808 March 1996 Transcript of 960308 Hearing in Atlanta,Ga Re NRC Insp Repts 50-335/96-03 & 50-389/96-03.Pp 1-101.Supporting Documentation Encl ML17228B3551995-12-0404 December 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Boraflex Degradation in SFP Storage Racks. L-95-270, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommission of NPPs1995-10-15015 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommission of NPPs ML17228B2841995-09-12012 September 1995 Comment Supporting Rg DG-1043,Rev 2 to Rg 1.49, NPP Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Exams. ML17228B2221995-07-13013 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication 10CFR50.54 Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval L-95-199, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial1995-07-10010 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial ML17353A2471995-06-27027 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style. ML17228B2101995-06-27027 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL Relocation of Pressure Temp Limit Curves & Low Temp Overpressure Protection Sys Limits. ML20134N0421995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/J Kunkel on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-40 ML20134N0621995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/A De Soiza on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-40.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20134N0281995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/Eo Poarch on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-78 ML20134N0331995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/D Jacobs on 960118 in Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-50 ML20134N0301995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/H Fagley on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-63 ML17228A9851995-01-17017 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposal to Issue GL Providing Guidance for Determining When analog-to-digital Replacement Can Be Performed Under Requirements of 10CFR50.59 L-94-325, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Fracture Toughness Requirements for LWR Pressure Vessels.Endorses NEI Comments & Recommendations1994-12-29029 December 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Fracture Toughness Requirements for LWR Pressure Vessels.Endorses NEI Comments & Recommendations L-94-329, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy Statement Rev, Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement,Discrimination1994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy Statement Rev, Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement,Discrimination L-94-304, Comment Supporting Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for Internal Threat1994-12-0202 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for Internal Threat ML17228A8751994-10-0303 October 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants ML20072S5221994-08-25025 August 1994 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking 9-2 Re Request for NRC to Revise Regulations of 10CFR9 to Provide Public Access to Info Held by Licensees But Not Submitted to NRC L-94-206, Comment Opposing Proposed Change to Rule 10CFR26, Consideration of Changes to Fitness for Duty Requirements. Util Wants Current Scope of Drug Testing in 10CFR26 to Be Retained & Current Trustworthiness Programs to Be Improved1994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Change to Rule 10CFR26, Consideration of Changes to Fitness for Duty Requirements. Util Wants Current Scope of Drug Testing in 10CFR26 to Be Retained & Current Trustworthiness Programs to Be Improved ML20072B3251994-08-0101 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Change Consideration of fitness-for-duty Requirements L-94-150, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Licensees Conduct Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program from Annually to Biennially1994-06-17017 June 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Licensees Conduct Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program from Annually to Biennially ML17228A3121993-09-24024 September 1993 Answer of Florida Municipal Power Agency to FPL Response in Opposition to Petition for Enforcement Action. W/Vols I & II of Apps ML17228A2981993-08-27027 August 1993 Response of Florida Power & Light Co in Opposition to Petition for Enforcement Action. ML17309A7141993-07-0202 July 1993 Petition of Florida Municipal Power Agency for Declaration & Enforcement...Antitrust Licensing Conditions & to Impose Requirements by Order. W/Vols I & II of Apps to Petition ML20045F2091993-06-24024 June 1993 Comment on Proposal Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning NRC-licensed Facilities.Supports Proposed Criteria ML17349A8161993-04-22022 April 1993 Comment Endorsing NUMARC Comments Re Proposed Generic Communication, Availability & Adequacy of Design Bases Info. 1999-09-07
[Table view] |
Text
b p 00C~~
/9 e) 4p> ~
OSNRC tg8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Soft Docpt tt"~ Seer~>
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'S",< < Serg(~+
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-389-OL (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, C FI~Q Unit No. 2) April 16,
'~
gyiQ(b APPLICANT ' RESPONSE TO LETTER OF HELEN SHEA WELLS I. Introduction On April 3, 1981, counsel for Applicant Florida Power 6 Light Company (FPL) received from the Docketing and Service Section of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a copy of a 1/ dated letter, 1/ For purposes of this Response, Applicant is treating the document as a petition for leave to intervene in the St. Lucie 2 operating license proceeding. However, it it is by no means clear from the face of the "petition" that was so intended. Although the term letter is used, and reference is made to the "interest of the petitioner," nowhere is there an explicit request for intervention. Furthermore, the letter was served on neither the Secretary of the Commission nor counsel for Applicant as required by the regulations and the relevant Federal Register notice. See 10 C.F.R. g 2.701; 46 Fed.
Reg. 15,831, 15,832 (Mar. 9, 1981). More importantly, however, Ms. Wells'wn language raises considerable doubt regarding intent. The letter states:
The Hutchinson Island Coalition . . . is aware 'that the NRC staff will conduct safety and environmental reviews before it[FOOTNOTE CONTINUED grants any license. However, we want ON NEXT PAGE] ii) 8 104230P13
1
~
.)
')'w C s 'C P
,5/
2 March 23, 1981, addressed to the "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Public Affairs" from Helen Shea Wells.
For the reasons set forth below, the letter fails to meet the legal requirements necessary for a proper petition to intervene and -- considered as such -- should be denied.
II. Discussion Not, only does the letter submitted by Ms. Wells fail to unambiguously request a hearing and participation as a full-party intervenor, it lacks the specificity and clarity necessary to be treated as a legally sufficient petition to intervene. Under the Commission's regulations a petition must set forth "with 2
how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, 1/ [Continued from page 1]
to go on record with ou to emphasize the urgent need for ro er safety precautions.
We hope that there will be a plan for evacuation 'ust as soon as possible and we would appreciate our assistance in this matter at your earliest convenience.
Letter, p. 2 (emphasis added). These statements indicate that the "petitioner" has no desire to become a full-fledged party to this proceeding but intended merely to alert the Commission to particular concerns.
2/ The letter was docketed by the NRC Docketing and Service Section on March 31, 1981. Because service on FPL was not provided in accordance with the Federal Register notice granting interested persons an opportunity to intervene in this proceeding, 46 Fed. Reg. 15,831, 15,832 (Mar. 9, 1981), Applicant is filing this Response based upon an assumed date of actual service (by the Docketing and Service Section) of April 1, 1981 -- the day after the Petition was docketed by the NRC -- and sections 2.710 and 2.714(c) of the Commission's regulations.
including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene . . . and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 C.F. R. 5 2.714 (a) (2) (emphasis added).
Particular reference is to be made to (1) The nature of the petitioner's right.
under the Act to be made a party to the pro-ceeding.
(2) The nature and extent. of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
Id., 5 2.714 (d).
These requirements are not simply matters of technical form.
In the absence of cognizable issues raised by way of intervention, there need be no formal hearing on operating licenses. The detailed, requirements of the regulation help to ensure that "potential intervenors . . . have a real stake in the proceeding."
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976) (Zimmer); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222 (1974). As such, "[p]articular attention" should be paid to the elements of section 2.714 in operating license proceedings. Texas Utilities Generatin Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-18, 9 NRC 728, 729 (1979).
In the present case, the time within which intervention petitions may be submitted has expired. Ms. Wells'etter represents the only submission to the NRC which could arguably
be construed as an effort to intervene'n this proceeding on safety and environmental issues. Under these circumstances the Board's decision on the status of this letter will determine whether or not a formal hearing will be conducted concerning health and safety and environmental matters in connection with issuance of the St. Lucie 2 operating license. It, therefore, becomes essential that the Board be fully satisfied, not only as to Ms. Wells'ntent, but that her interest is sufficient. to warrant a formal hearing. Zimmer, supra, at 9-10. See also, Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 582 (1978) (Fermi 2).
The letter's general references to matters concerning traffic congestion and population density clearly fail to satisfy the legal requirement that a petitioner set forth interest "with particularity." It contains not a single reference to any alleged personal injury. The letter also fails to delineate the specific aspects of the proceeding as to which intervention is sought, as well as the possible effect, of any order which may be entered on Ms. Wells'nterest. In short, the letter lacks the degree of specificity which is necessary and contemplated in both NRC regulations and case law to establish a basis for intervention by Ms. Wells to represent any personal interest in this licensing 3/ ~ .
3/ Although it is not necessary at this tentions, Applicant wishes to stress stage to submit con-that the letter does not even attempt to set forth even a single contention "with reasonable specificity." 10 C.F.R. g 2.714(b).
Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402 (1979). See also Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420 (1976).
Similarly, the letter does not present a legally sufficient basis for this Board to grant Ms. Wells intervenor status as the representative of "1500 property owners." Nowhere has she stated that any of these other persons has expressly authorized her to undertake such representation, or offered any facts to indicate that the Hutchinson Island Coalition (Coalition) has as "one of its continuing and primary concerns . . . nuclear power and that its commitment to nuclear questions is large and well established enough to justify the assumption that its com-mitment is known to its members and approved by them." Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresden Station, Units 1 & 2, and Quad Cities See Houston Lightin and Power Compan (Aliens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 396 (1979)
(Aliens Creek). In short, no authorization by any other person to allow Ms. Wells to represent his or her interest in this proceeding is expressed in her letter, nor can such a conclu-sion be properly implied by the Commission as a matter of law.
And since, as pointed out above, there has been absolutely no showing that Ms. Wells -- the only identified member of the Coalition has any interest to support standing in this pro-ceeding, the letter cannot be treated as a sufficient petition to allow intervention by the Coalition. See also Aliens
Creek, supra, at 390, 393-94; Fermi 2, supra, at 583.
But even beyond these purely legal points, the letter in question demonstrates a lack of awareness of several important facts which cast further doubt on the sufficiency of the docu-ment as a vehicle for intervention. For example, the letter states that there exists a "complete lack of any safety pre-cautions in the event of a nuclear accident." However, in fact, a detailed emergency plan covering the operation of both St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 has already been submitted. See Final Safety Analysis Report, St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2, p. 13.3-1.
In addition, the NRC recently promulgated a new rule governing emergency planning. 45 Fed. Reg. 55,402 (Aug. 19,, 1980).
Pursuant to the rule, Applicant must submit detailed implementing procedures no less than 180 days prior to scheduled issuance of the operating license for St. Lucie 2. Applicant has already made numerous revisions to its emergency plan to meet the new requirements and, of course, will comply.
The letter also asserts that:
- 7. Presently there exists no public warning system and there seems to be a dispute between the Department of Disaster Control in Martin & St. Lucie Counties as to which system should be used and whether Fla. Power & Light should pay for this system.
Again, this simply is not so. Current plans for use do, indeed, include a system for public warnings and notification if
Florida Radiological Emergency Plan for Nuclear Power Facilities (Draft) Annex P, pp. P-15 to -16; Appendix C of Attachment 2 to Annex P, pp. P-46 to -47; Appendix C of Attachment 3 to Annex P, pp. P-112 to -113. Nor does there presently exist any dispute over who will pay for the public warning system in the vicinity of the plant. In fact, Applicant has committed to provide funds for establishing a public notification system to meet the requirements of the Commission's new rule governing emergency planning.
III. Conclusion The March 23 letter directed to the Commission by Ms. Wells does not clearly state a desire to intervene and participate as a full party intervenor in a formal licensing proceeding. More-over, when viewed as a petition to intervene, the letter fails to meet the requirements of NRC regulations and case law governing intervention, so as to allow Ms. Wells to represent any personal interest; much less the interest of any other individuals, in this proceeding as a matter of right. 4/ This is especially so 4/ As for discretionary intervention, the Commission has established several discrete factors bearing upon the exercise of such discretion. Foremost among"a these is whether participation would likely produce valuable Vir inia Electric and Power Com an (North Anna633Power (1976);
Station, Un>.ts 1 and 2), ALAB-363, 4 NRC 631, Station, Public Service Com an of Oklahoma (Black Fox Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1145 (1977).a con- However, the letter makes no showing with respect to such attempted. Accordingly, tribution nor, indeed, is one evendiscretionary there is no basis for a grant of intervention.
in light of the standards applicable to operating license pro-ceedings. Accordingly, intervention should be denied. Should the Board entertain any doubt as to the correctness of such a result, however, it should act to clarify matters further.
5/
Although the record now before the Board would appear adequate for a decision Applicant would suggest that, should there be any doubt, a special prehearing conference be convened prior to a ruling concerning the letter to consider further any factual matters which might require clarification. See, generall , e.
Fermi 2, supra, at 584; Consumers Power Compan (Midland Plant, Units 1 a 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 277n.l (1978).
Respectfully submitted, Michael A. Bauser Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 862-8400 5/ In this connection, Applicant notes that Ms. Wells'etter deals exclusively with matters concerning offsite emer-gency planning and preparedness. Under the Commission's newly adopted regulations pertaining to emergency plans (45 Fed. Reg. 55,402) the NRC's finding on such matters is to be based "on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented." 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(2).
In view of the initial involvement of FEMA, Ms. Wells'on-cerns might be more properly presented to that agency.
This is especially so in view of the indications in Ms.
Wells'etter that she does not desire to become a full-party participant in an NRC licensing proceeding.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389-OL
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant )
Unit 2) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney has been authorized to represent the party named below and herewith enters an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.713(a), the following information is provided:
Name Michael A. Bauser Address Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone Area Code 202 862-8476 Admission Supreme Court of Vir'ginia United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Name of Party Florida Power a Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Michael A. Bauser Counsel for Applicant Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 16th day of April, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-389-OL (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and correct copies of "Applicant's Response to Letter of Helen Shea Wells" and "Notice of Appearance" of Michael A. Bauser were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below:
Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch William Paton, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Helen Shea Wells 93 El Mar Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 33457
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael A. Bauser Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 862-8400 Dated this 16th day of April, 1981.