ML19283B738

Responds to Amended Suppl Petition of D Marke Petition to Intervene.Urges Denial of Petitions for Failing to Satisfy Intervention Requirements.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19283B738
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/06/1979
From:	Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903060707
Download: ML19283B738 (9)

Text

.

-.~

' :: L.. J G'G'.C 2CCl 1:d5 " ::'._'

v.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOil R EP".E T.:: fTC"IC F M ETY E!:D LICENSING C0 CD t :.

~

r 1, ~ ~

_ILITI..a i.,3 r G.l:i. CD:1?/.N Y, ',

D W n.Nos. EJ.i2

D-:^^

l '.

. i.eas co.e::,.ai s i anu : $

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE A'E"DED SUPPLE:iENTAL PETITIO" 0F DAVID liARKE AND THE PETITI0i!

0F ACEE FOR LEAVE TO INTERVEliE During the January 11, 1979 Special Prehearing Conference, the Board offered Austin Citizen's for Economical Energy (ACEE) an opportunity to file a statement setting fcrth its interest to participate as a party, the authorization of Mr. Marke to represent it, the adoption of Mr. Marke's contentions and reasons why ACEE failed to timely file a petition to intervene.1/ Pursuant to this offer, Mr. Marke filed a document entitled " Cover Letter to ' Amended Supplemental Petition' As Ordered by ASLB Panel on 11 January 1979".

Mr. Marke attached to this document:

1.

A document entitled " Supplementary Petition by David Marke and Listing of Contentions", signed by Mr. Marke; 2.

A document entitled " Petition by Austin Citizens for Eco-nonical Energy and Bill of Contentions," signed by Mr. itarke as representative for ACEE; 1/ Tr. 41, 43 and 85.

7903060707

-~

'.7_-

~.

.s...

...o.

(a) their support of ACEE's contentions and (b) their intent t9 t f.CEE and its 2preseat:t'.3, '4r. i'arke, repruent their i.i t e re t t in thi s pr;cteli..).

it is clete fr-th_ docu.r :: fil c; OL.;;

.r.

. ;.- M h: con: Scyo,i t...

.c,

,~T."

in t::;t

.2 i: sutoie..;..

.ig sis c.. p:tilion t_,

inte....!f.

Tne Staf f's position cn."r.

"arke's petition to intarvene has been 7

expressed in our respaqse dated January C,19792/ and during the Janu-ary 11,1978 Special Prehearing Conference.

In his latest filing, Mr. Marke has provided additional information in his effort to partic-ularize nis interest only in the area of his recreational activities.

Read in their most favorable light, all of Mr. Marke's filings allege that, while Mr. Marke is engaging in his weekly to bi-monthly fishing trips out of the ports of Galveston and Port Aransas, he may occa-sionally come within the geographic zone of interest.

Such unspecific and, at best, occasional entry into an area within 50 miles of the facilito does not meet the interest requirement of 10 CFR 52.714.

In summary, the Staff's position regarding Mr. Marke's petition for inter-vention is that we believe Mr. Marke has failed to particularize interest or one good contention in accordance with the requirements of 2/ "NRC Staff Response to the Amended Petition to Intervene Filed by David Marke," dated January 8, 1979.

. 0.

n.

'e i'.

' "*;.~i'; D0;4'. ii*n Cn **.

._...J's pt;.1..;. On lm.ilf Of AC[E iS 5 2 '.

f.'t'

'llO...

,,m. c, - --

e

,e i.-.. -.

4, ~ : ~.v.. :

s*

rv.

m r..__

i.

u.

Jj,t E C 5 '.

A: tie Eccrd notad in its October 23, 1973 Order (at 4) an organization may base its standing on a shouing that the residence of one of its nem5ers is "within the geographical zone that might be affected by an accidental release of fission products".2/ "owever, an organization which elects this method for demonstrating standing must identify speci-fically the name and address of at least one affected member who wishes to be represented by the organization and show that the member has authorized the organization to act on his or her behalf.

In the Matter of Detroit Edison Company, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2)

LSP-79-1 NRC (January 2, 1979).

Further, the petition must also show that the person signing it has been authorized by the organization to do so.

I_d_.

ACEE bases its standing to participate in this proceeding on the residence of two individuals, Mr. and Mrs. Cook, it asserts live 8 miles from tre plant (" Petition By Austin Citizen.s For Economical Energy and 1111 of coner and Licr: "c.

('Jaterford Steam J/ The Soard cited Louisiana Electric Station, Unt:

l'. A_AD-125, 6 AE" 371, 372 n.C (19731.

-t

_-..L.

";' i s o e::

--y-f e

St.,tr Utilitiet Comany (River ?cnd St?tien, Units 1 en12), ALA9-183.

7 ' ~ ~ N 226 l 10 7.;).

The Apaeal M rd r xco-1; 21 m t'nt clos; praxi-i y is Gu....'

ta 5 car a h, n ?.. :g..i r... a est.lica t'le ruuisi te i n t ? ras t.

In The IMtter of '/irainir Elect -ic and P, ar Ccnoany (North ima a :.u ci a - Pc... 2a ;ica, ua ~.

i I r.. 2,'. n L A T.- : : ',

l ". C s r._:m; 23, 1 m ).

Ha :vcc, it i: net ci ece f r:r t..

l.:IE i':ti tiac, or frw the letter sent on tahalf of :h. and "rs. Cec':

.cth r or not they are members of ACEE.

If they are members, they satisfy the '!RC's cri-teria for standing.

If they are not members of ACEE, ACEE has not demonstrated standing as a matter of right.N As indicated above, to represent ACEE, Mr. Marke must demonstrate that he has been authorized to do so.

This the Staff believes has not been done. The letter from the Chaiman of ACEE, attached to the latest filing, does nothing more than reiterate that Mr. Marke's authorization

-4/ To the extent ACEE's standing is based on the "public" having standing and therefore "part of the public, represented by an orgnization", has standing; it must fail (ACEE Petition, at 2).

An injury shared by all or a large class of citizens is insufficient.

Transnuclear Inc., et al.

(Ten Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Exports to EURAIult Memcer Nations), CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977).

To the extent ACEE bases standing on economic interests of ratepayers, such interests are not within the scope of interests sought to be protected by the Atenic Enerov Act.

Kansas Gas and Electric Co., et al.

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALA3-424, 6 NRC 122,1:3 (1977).

Furtaern: ore, such interest is not in tne zone of interests pre-tected by the ational Environ-ental Policy Act.

Portland Gener2' Electric Co.

(Pebole Springs Nuclear Plant, Unin ' and 2), ALAS-333, a n.,; 604 (1975).

. r _

t.; !.

,:.b YE e p r an d c.: prLj tu t1e prtce.::ing i:. 'arte renlied (at Tr. 33):

c n p L: _'.

r -

- v"ce f n _ ' r _:o rd cat =i c-

- f fi d;"i t of t;n : cup's :uthe'i; :i~

2 w ec c;-

cnt tncm Hm/ c c, t3 this pi.t,

' :a.;c: i n c c c.c. n ty 2

, ' i e..._

--t t: t : r' _

-'<C,

-4 rr-

,.,,;ci S i n:c i t cla not even cieir tnat SCEE wanted a ce a pactf in this proce21ing -:nen its steering cc nittee voted in 1978, then it c uld nat have authorize 3 !!r. tiarke to represent it as an organization intervening a? a full party in this proceeding.

In sun there has been no sho', ting that ACEE has authorized tir. i'arke to represent it as an organization seeking intervention in this proceeding.

Contention In addition to satisfying the standing requirement of 10 CFR 52.714, ACEE must state one good contention.

Mississippi Power & Liant Co.

(Grand Gulf fluclear Station, Units 1 a 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (1973); Louisiana Power & Liaht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 372 (1973); Ducuesne Licht Co. (Seaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1), ALAS-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry fluclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), LSP-76-10, 3 f1RC 20C, 220 (1976).

The f1RC Staff believes that ACEE has not satisfied 1/ See "Supolementary Petiticn by David t'arKe and Listing of Con-tentions" at 10 and I'.

i.,

.i.

C.~.n t:' t i n;"

'l' t'i som: elabcc; tion.

Thz 'FC Ct:f f par i ti c., i.i t.',, ch.-l ccn*:-tiu; i: t;: f o r t'1 ia cur :... r;. ', 10 7

'13-

"i t'

/

t.ie J. ;,, ', 1^72 0 __. '

en,

^^ "

t _T

.r : i S -

- F 2!,

-e

,e +

~'m c

• n; g r a

.c n

c

-e-t.-'-

'. - t'.c ce ::,',0 0 ni c r: i

'm

)

.:t cur: ti: cc.ici_.~,::

he.;.. <i i c a i.c d ;,. u u r ; '_; t u.c. t s.' ;; i;ica.

.sc acJin;;;,

.J.e.-

.u thht t.CEE nas f ailed to s;tisfy the r;quiranent of escarting at less:

one good contention.

Interventien As A Matter of Discretion In our January 8,1979 response (at 10 and 11) to Mr. Marke's supple-mental petition, we indicated (based on his assertions of education and publications) that Mr. Marke may be able to make a contribution with regard to Contention 4, thereby supporting intervention as a matter of discretion. We also believe that such a contribution could be made by Mr. Marke on behalf of ACEE. However, as noted above, the Staff finds that none of ACEE's contentions including Contention 4 satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 and therefore believes that this Board has no basis for exercising its authority to grant intervention on a dis-cretionary basis.

^

'},-~.

.ct^r~

t.

r 13 CFr^. k.714 r:pecing untirely filings.

Sincc the procccdi.1; i; c o

r.

u c i y., '

do not belie.- t u. ':EE'c l a ten.

itsali,..ili

.s

[ c ;c ~.- y1 i l ;

'1" C7" !'. ~l"(:)(1)(v)).

4it in l y,;t h a.l i n;

. m_

m.;

.___<.c_.._

u 2 c...:

v r.- Tr: terr thcroagh en:.iination l '. t e c ; t a AC E '; :.. g ren ts a s to IF.e., a ~.ctocs.

5 n

~/

of toe:

factor: is rc;uir:d to be perfor ed by the 2 car.3 The failure of !!r. I'arke to address tnese factors constitutes a f atai cefect of the petition on behalf of ACEE.

Conclusion For the above reasons we believe that the petition of David itarke on his own behalf, as supplemented, and the petition of ACEE for leave to intervene fail to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR $2.714 and sb.ould be denied.

Respectfully submitted, M

s^?

f ry:rf N'

/;t b' Henry J. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of February,1979 6/

See In the itatter of Pucet Sound Power and Licht Co. et al. (Skagit Nulcear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-523, fiRC (Janu-ary 29,1979).

t

..-.n c.--...

9,

.-r-e In tac.atter of

)

)

"CUGIC:. LIG" TING AND I'U. ER CC:"'X.7, >

aucat ;;o.. 50-UJ_

~T,'.

)

fr"

.J (xuu: 2c as noj_ct, saits 1 pr_.

s_....,.,.<.

c..,4.u.

,e n..n r e r., r r. n - e n n., e. :_.,,..,.:..n_n_ ~.

_e u_n n e

~

a

.r ME'-'L LETiila. OF Cr!!D nAiC:E AND 7::E PETITICM OF ACEE FGr. LEA'!E TC

!ER'!EME" in th: cbove-ccationed proc : ding have been served on the fol-lo::in; by depo:i: in the Unit 3d States nail, first class, cc, c: indicated by an asterisk, through depcsit in the f.'uclear Regulctory Ccraission's internal rail system, this 5th day of February,1979:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman

• Richard W. Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney Cencral Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D. C.

20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, EII Jack R. Newman, Esq.

313 Woodhaven Road Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Axelrad 1025 Ccnnecticut Avenue, N.W.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*

Washington, D.C.

20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel D. Michael McCaughaa, Member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Environmental Task Force Washington, D. C.

20555 KPFT Pacifica Radio Free Houston 3131 Ti= mons Ln. Apt. 254 Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.

Houston, Texas 77027 Batar and Botts one Shell Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Houston, Texas 77002 Panel

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coral Rose Ryan Washington, D.C.

20555 Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Acc71c Safety and Licensing Appeal 414 Kings Court, Apt. C Panel (5)*

San Antonio, Texas 78212 U.S. Nuclear Re2ulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20535 Mr. David Marke 3904 Warehcuse Ret:

Suite :

Austin, Texas 7570-

s 9

g 9 9

g e

Q e

e e a

4

~ -

a

's "a

o s

, se n

9

' g

- p e, m-ema e

n f 8 Lee i1 8

b p w e b - w J =

e' I9-

' '. '== q n..

• 8 i y 8 i

3 e. A b %e b e

h b*

5 WbM& O 4sto 4

• M *