ML19247B311
| ML19247B311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000599, 05000600 |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1979 |
| From: | Goldber S, Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247B304 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080351 | |
| Download: ML19247B311 (8) | |
Text
ERA N
C f.
G
/
=
gocypCO s
g,aC i
4 S
.n
~
2 6 \\9
]
Ab M"
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~~
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- M4O" l
- f gsk b
y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIhG BOARD cn In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. S50-599
)
S50-600 (Carroll County Site)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY JAMES RUNYON, ED G0 GEL AND CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER On May 4,1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (NRC or Commission) pub-lished in the Federal Register (44 F.R. 26229) a " Notice of Hearing on Appli-cation for Construction Permits and Request for Early Site Review" (Notice) respecting Commonwealth Edison Company's propos !d nuclear plant site desig-nated as Carroll County.
The Notice provided an opportunity for any person whose interest might be affected by the proceeding to file a petition for leave to intervene pursuant to 10 CFR 52.714 no later than June 4,1979.
Under the provisions of the Notice, such petition to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the proceeding, including the reasons why peti-titioner 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.
On June 11, 1979, a late petition for leave to intervene (Petition) was filed by James Runyon and Ed Gogel on behalf of themselves and as members of Citi-Q[)
zens Against Nuclear Power (CANP) (Petitioners).
-ao Q} }
79 osos o $5'/
. TIMELINESS The Notice provided that non-timely petitions for leave to intervene would not be granted in the absence of a substantial showing of good cause for the late filing, encompassing the five factors set forth in 10 CFR 52.714(a).
The petition was received under cover letter, dated June 11, 1979, from a Jan L. Kodner, Esq.
The cover letter explains, by way of establishing good cause, that the petition was not filed on time due to a complication in mail service.
The letter also addresses the balance of the specified factors in 10 CFR 62.714.
The Staff believes that a satisfactory showing has been made m
to justify Petitioners' non-timely filing and that the petition should be entertained.
INTEREST As noted above, the provisions of 10 CFR 92.714 reeuire that a petition to intervene set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioners in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected thereby.
Based on the following, the Staff concludes that Petitioner Runyon, in his individual capacity, has satisfied the requisite intervention requirements of 10 CFR 62.714 at this stage of the pleadings.
In the Staff's opinion, Petitioners Gogel and CANP have not.
Petitioner James Runyon resides about 40 miles from the proposed site.
Pe-titioner Gogel resides about 133 miles from the site.
Both are members of CANP.
Both assert that their property interests (presumably residential) and N]Y 00
4
. plant at this location.~~1/The Staff believes that Petitioner Runyon resides generally within the geographical zone of interest that might be affected by the normal (or accidental) release of fission product from a nuclear facility at the proposed site so as to have standing in this matter.
See VEPC0 (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979),
VEPC0 (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973); Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n. 6 (1973).
Petitioner Gogel, by contrast, resides at a distance far in excess of any recognized as falling within the geographical zone of interest in NRC proceedings to date.
Similarly, there is no claim that be conducts substantial activities of any kind in close proxi-
^
mity to the proposed site.
Thus, his statement of interest is inadequate to confer standing under 10 CFR s2.714.
Petitioners Runyon and Gogel further assert an interest in the provision of the "most economical and least expensive energy source" which they do not regard as nuclear generation.
Petition at 2.
The actual economic interest advanced is vague and unarticulated.
If the economic harm contempated is lf The petition is accompanied by an unsworn affidavit of Mr. Runyond and identical sworn affidavit of Petitioner Gogel.
These " affidavits" are essentially identical to the statement of interest contained in the petition itself and add little, if anything, to the showing in the peti-tion other than to suggest that the petitioners' showing of interest could withstand greater particularization.
?;')()
OY
. that which stems from petitioners' status as ratepayers or taxpayers, such an interest is inadequate to confer standing.~2/
Petitioner CANP has not meet the interest requirements of 10 CFR 52.714.
The petition does not contain a satisfactory articulation of the group's interest in the proceeding, the manner in which such interests night be affected, or aut u ization for either nmed petitiorier to represent such interest.
The acceptable interest of Petitioner Runyon could serve to confer standing upon CANP of which he is a member.
If CANP purports to derive its interest from that of Petitioner Runyon, and the two are thus identical, there is no reason to permit CA4P to become a separate party to the proceeding.
At a minimum, there is claar justification for consolidation of Petitioners Runyon and CANP should their separate intervention be granted.
Even if Petitioners Gogel and CANP are not entitled to intervene as a natter of right, the Board could grant them intervention as a matter of discretion.
In this regard, it should be guided by the circumstances of the case and the factors set forth in 10 CFR 52.714(a) regarding considerations relevant to untimMy petitions for leave to intervene along with the standard factors set forth in 10 CFR 52.714(d).
However, Petitioners Gogel and CANP have not addressed these factors or the appropriateness in general of granting thlm intervention as a discretionary matter.
Thus, the Board ha.; not been provided with a basis for exercising such discretion in this proceeding.
2/ Status as a ratepayer alone is not adequate to confer standing under the AEA.
Kansas Gas & Electric Co., et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit IT. ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122,128 (4f7).
Similarly, economic interest
~
as a taxpayer does not bring a petitioner within the zone of interests
.'? O sought to be protected by the AEA. ~ Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts
~
~~
~
V Bar Nuclear Generating Station, Unit lT, ~ALXB-411, S NRC 1418,1420-1421 1977).
Moreover, alleged financial harm does not fall within the zone of interests to be protected by NEPA unless it is shown to be "envir_on--
CN mentally related, i.e., if it will or may be occasioned by the impact that the Federal action under consideration would or might have upon the environment." Wat_ts Bar, supra _, 5 NRC at 144.
. ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDING In addition to the " interest" requirement of 10 CFR 92.714, a petition must also set forth with particularity the specific aspect or aspects of the sub-ject matter of the proceeding as to which a petitioner wishes to intervene.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the special prehearing conference held pursuant to 10 CFR 52.751a, or prior to the first prehearing conference where no special prehearing conference is held, a petitioner must supplement his petition to include a list of the contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter.
The only aspects of the proceeding relevant at this stage are those relating to the issues of site suitability for which early consideration is sought.
This applies to contentions as well.
If admitted as an intervenor at the early site review stage, upon notice of docketing of the remainder of the construction permit application, additional relevant con-tentions could be set forth should he wish to continue to participate as a party.
The petition does not identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which Petitioners wish to intervene.
The petition does evince certain concerns in connection with the statement of matters assertedly af fecting Petitioners' interest.
Petition at 2.
Only one such matter, the utilization of the Mississippi River for cooling and other operational purposes, could arguably relate to a relevant aspect of the proceeding et this stage.
Thus construed, the Staff believes that Petitioners q<><j U/9
~
t
9 have identified the relevant aspect of the proceeding as to which interven-tion is sought so as to minimally satisfy the applicable requirement of 10 CFR 52.714.
Should Petitioners desire intervention on other aspects of the proceeding, they should so state in a supplemental filing.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff believes that Petitioner Runyon, in his individual capacity, has met the pertinent requirements of 10 CFR f 2.714 at this stage of the pleadings.
Petitioners Gogcl and CANP have not.
While the petition with respect to the latter fail to satisfy the perti-nent requirements, the regulations permit them to amend their petition with-out prior Board approval at any time up to fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference.
10 CFR 'i2.714(a)(3).
Respectfully submitted,
,h! A
'w Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of July, 1979.
4 ') 9 000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0"4ISSION
?.
2A
'i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AN3 LICENSING COARD In the Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, et al.
Docket ':os. S50-599
~~
)
S50-600 (Carroll Ccunty Site)
)
CFRTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER-VENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY JAMES RUNYON, ED G0 GEL AND CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion's internal mail system, this 5th day of July,1979
.+
John c. Wolf, Esq., Chairman Mr. John W. Cox, Jr.
3409 Shepherd Street Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc Committee Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 on Nuclear Energy Infornation 906 Campbell Street
- Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Galena, Illinois 61036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. James C. Schwab Uashington, D.C.
20555 State Coordinator Iowa Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Dr. Robert L. Holton 36 Memorial Union, Icwa State University School of Oceanography Ames, Iowa 50010 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Nancy J. Bennett Assistant Attorney General Fhilip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Environmental Control Division Isham, Lincoln & Beale 108 Uest Randolph, Suite 2315 One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601
%icago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Jim Dubert Thomas J. Miller cfo Io.,.;a Socialist Party Attorney General of Iowa 280W Uest Street r pitol Complex Anes, I o'.za 50010 State a
Ces Mc nes, Iowa 50319
/i')(/
031
9
_2_
9._
(
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. iluclear Regulatory Cornission L'ashington, D.C.
205S5
- Ato'aic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comnission 1.'ashin g ton, D.C.
205S5
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Cor.uaission L' ashing ton, D.C.
20555 k0< -
4Ad inf Steven C TGoldberg u
Counsel for f1RC Staff e
di 002