ML19208C324
| ML19208C324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208C325 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909260065 | |
| Download: ML19208C324 (4) | |
Text
TFRA
,n
,o August 16, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
h 4 /
~.5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
=
/
In the Matter of gs' '
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466
- y (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY ROBERT A. EDGAR The NRC Staff opposes the petition for leave to intervene filed by Robert A.
Edgar in the captioned proceeding. Mr. Edgar's petition is undated but was not postmarked until July 31, 1979, almost two weeks after the deadline specified in this Board's " Supplemental Notice of Intervention Procedures" (44 Fed. Reg. 35062, June 18, 1979). The petition must therefore be considered untimely pursuant to 10 CFR 62.714(a)(1), which reads, in pertinent part:
Nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a detennination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors in addition to those set out in paragraph (d) of this section:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's partici-pation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
7909 6006 10~15 149
. (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's partici-pation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Since Mr. Edgar has failed to address these five factors in an attempt to justify his late filing, the Staff believes that the Board should deny the petition at this time. However, we would have no objection to the grant by this Board of a short period of time within which Mr. Edgar could amend his petition in order to discuss the factors set forth in 10 CFR 62.714(a).
In the event this Board permits such an amendment, the Staff's position with regard to Mr. Edgar's standing to participate in this proceeding as a full party is discussed below.
Mr. Edgar alleges that he and his family reside within 15-20 miles of the proposed Allens Creek site and in a general way, that his interests will be affected by the facility.
10 CFR 82.714(a)(2) requires that a petitioner for leave to intervene set forth his or her interest in the proceeding and how such interest might be affected by the results thereof.
In this regard, consideration is to be given to the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party, the nature and extent of petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding and the possible effect on such interest of any order entered in the proceeding.
In addition, the petition must identify the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding on which interventinn is sought.
1015 150
. The Comission and Appeal Board have previously emphasized that judicial concepts of standing are controlling in determining whether a petitioner has satisfied the foregoing requirements for intervention as of right.
Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-614 (1976); Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143,1144-1145. Specifically, a petitioner must show " injury in fact" (which has occurred or will probably result from the licensing of the facility) and that his or her alleged interest is " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by either the Atomic Energy Act or NEPA.
Pebble Springs, supra.
The Appeal Board has recently held that an allegation of close proximity to a proposed facility is deemed enough, standing alone, to satisfy the interest requirements of 10 CFR 62.714. Virginia Electric Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (January 26, 1979). Although no specific distance from a nuclear power plant has evolved from Comission decisions to define the outer boundary of the geographic " zone of interest," distances up to 50 miles have been found not to be so great as to preclude a finding of standing based on residence. See, eg., Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421,
- n. 4 (1977). Cf_. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973); Northern States Power Co.
1015 151
- (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 190, 193, reconsid. den., ALAB-110, 6 AEC 247, aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973).
Therefore, the Staff believes that Mr. Edgar has satisfied the minimal require-ments of 10 CFR 92.714 regarding interest, as those requirements have been interpreted by the Appeal Board. The Staff notes that this Board has ordered the required supplement to all petitions for leave to intervene to be filed no later than September 14, 1979. See " Order Scheduling Special Prehearing Conference," dated August 6,1979.
The Staff has enclosed a copy of 10 CFR Part 2 (the Commission's Rules of Practice) for Mr. Edgar's use, as well as a copy of the August 6,1979 Order referred to above.
Respectfully submitted, r
Stephen 'M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 16th day of August, 1979.
1015
.'52