ML19208C398
| ML19208C398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1979 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Ancarow J, Bishop J, Bishop M, Blatt B, Blue J, Boggett S, Brode L, Brown S, Chilcoat J, Conn C, Cosgriff G, Elder T, Ginn B, Griffith R, Gurasich M, Johnston L, Karkaki B, Lemmer R, Lashawnna Lewis, Perrenod V, Piepmeier J, Ryan D, Streilein P, Van Slyke G, Waller D, Weinrebkuchm R, Jason West, Wilson C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909260256 | |
| Download: ML19208C398 (3) | |
Text
C MBLIC DOCWfEMT RgAugust 1, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C-4,.
7, In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
~,
., _ _ _ ' '7
)
'/
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
y' Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE FILED BY:
J. Michael Ancarrow Dorothy J. Ryan Barbara Blatt Rachel Weinreb-Kuehm Laura Brode Margaret Bishop Stephanie M. Brown James R. Piepmeier James Chilcoat Robin Griffith Barbara J. Ginn Glen Van Slyke J. Morgan Bishop Connie Wilson Patricia L. Streilein Carolina Conn Virginia Lacy Perrenod Janice Blue Gabrielle Cosgriff T. E. Elder Marjorie A. Gurasich Leotis Johnston Barbars' Karka ki.
Rosemary N. Lemmer D. B. Waller Laura Lewis Jeffery R. West Steohen A. Doccett Timely petitions for leave to intervene in the captioned proceeding have been filed by the persons listed above. All petitioners allege that they reside within a fif ty-mile radius of the proposed site for the Allens Creek facility and, in a general way, that their interests would be affected by the plant.
10 CFIP12.714(a)(2) requires that a petitioner for leave to intervene set forth his or her interest in the proceeding and hcw 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 1pygg vse
~ ~ ' ' ~
,a property, financial or other interest ir) 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 intervention is sought.
The Comission and Appeal Board have previously emphasized that judicial concepts of
',anding are controlling in determining whether a petitioner has satisfied the foregoing requirements for intervention as of right.
Portland General Electric Comoany (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-614 (1976); Public Service Comoany 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 alleged interest is " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by either the Atomic Energy Act or NEPA.
- Pebble, Sprinas, suora.
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 Comoany (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, e2., Tennessee Valley
a Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421,
- n. 4 (1977).
_C_f Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973); Northern States Power Co.
(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 all these petitions have satisfied the minimal requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 regarding interest, as those requirements have been interpreted by the Appeal Board. However, each of the petitions is silent with regard to the specific aspects of the subject matter involved in this proceeding as to which intervention is sought. Of course, prusuant to 10 CFR 92.714(b), the petitioners must file a supplement to their petitions listing their specific contentions at least 15 days before the next scheduled prehearing conference in this matter.
But pursuant to 10 CFR 9?.714(a)(2), the Staff, Applicant and this Board are entitled to know prior to the filing of contentions what aspects of the subject areas those contentions will involve. The Staff therefore believes that each of the petitioners should be required by this Board to amend his or her filing to indicate the specific aspects of the proceeding as to which issues will be proffered in the required supplement to the petitions.
The Staff has enclosed copies of 10 CFR Part 2 (the Cormiission's Rules of Practice) for the information of thg petitioners.
Respectfully submitted, Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 1st day of August,1979.
~
g
.