ML19305E099
| ML19305E099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004220377 | |
| Download: ML19305E099 (20) | |
Text
..
4/18/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the liatter of
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 70-1308 (Renewal of SNil-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY ELAINE WALSH On April 25, 1979, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Comission) pub-lished in the Federal Register (44 Fed. Reg. 24354) a notice with respect to its consideration of the application of General Electric Company (Applicant) to renew its Materials License No. SNti-1265 for the fuel storage plant at Morris, Illinois (GE florris). The notice provided that any person whose interest may be affected could submit a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 CFR 6 2.714 by May 25, 1979. On March 19, 1980, Mrs. Elaine Walsh filed an out of time petition for leave to intervene.1/
The response of the Staff opposing this petition is set forth below.
I i
1/
The Staff's copy of this petition was not accompanied by a certificate of service from petitioner.
Har apparent failure to serve this docu-ment contravenes 10 CFR Q 2.701. The petition was served on the parties i
to this proceeding on April 3,1980, by the NRC Office of the Secretary.
There is a fifteen-day period from the date of service for the Staff to file an answer, w' bh results in a response date of April 18, 1980.
10 CFR 6 2.714(c)-
i u
8004220 3g
I.
PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED INTERVENTION STATUS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT A.
Interest As stated in the above-cited Federal Register notice,10 CFR 5 2.714 requires that a petition for leave to intervene "shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the proceeding." The requirement that interest be set forth with particularity must be strictly observed to assure that the adjudicatory process is invoked only by those persons who have real interests at stake.
Virginia Electric & Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1&2),
ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973). This is especially true in a license proceeding where, as here, a hearing is not mandatory.
In these circum-stances, a Licensing Board must take the utmost care to assure that a poten-tial intervenor has the required interest.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976).
T The Commission has indicated that there is a " functional need for well-defined and specific interests, which will lend concrete adversity to the decisionmaking process." Edlow International Company (Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material), CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 570 (1973). The detennination by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) of whether the interests asserted by Mrs. Walsh entitle her to status as a party is governed by judicial concepts of standing.
Edlow, supra st 569-72.
Thus, the petitioner must show (1) " injury in fact" and (2) that the interest 9
i
- is " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the relevant statutes.
Portland General Electric Company, et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976).
The Conmission has recognized that,ufficient interest may be demonstrated when the person filing a petition for leave to intervene lives within the geographical zone that might be at~fected by the normal or accidental release of fission products from the facility in question.E Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n.6 (1973), Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188 (1973), aff'd., BPI v.
Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974).
Persons residing in close proximity to a reactor site clearly fall within this geographical zone and are presumed to have a cognizable interest in licensing proceedings involving that facility. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393 (1979); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979).
y While no specific distance from a nuclear power plant has evolved from Connission decisions to define the outer boundary of the " geographic zone of interest," the Appeal Board has found that a licensing board "cannot be tarred with the brush of irrationality" for presuming that someone who carries on everyday activities within 25 miles of the plant has an interest.
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
Further, the Appeal Board has indicated that 50 miles "is not so great as necessarily to have precluded a finding of standing based on residence." Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1422 n.4 (1977).
. Mrs. Walsh's petition minimally complies with the requirement in 10 CFR Q 2.714 that a petition set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the proceeding. Her petition consists of a cover letter in which she states why her petition is untimely and a single contention which is followed by four paragraphs entitled " Bases". However, from her contention and bases there may be gleaned a statement of her interests in this proceeding and how those interests may be affected by this proceeding.
Her petition expresses a concern about the close proximity of the GE Morris facility to the existing Dresden suelear power plants.
In particular, she states in paragraph 2 of her " bases" that "this concentration of all emissions from Dresden's oper-f ations, plus CE's if relicensed, would exceed safe limits for me".
At the end of her petition, Mrs. Walsh states that "I am right in the prevailing wind emissions'" Although she does not state how close she lives to the GE Morris operation, the Staff's calculations indicate that her address is approximately one mile from GE Morris. A person living in such close prox-imity to a facility clearly falls within the geographical zone of interest and is presumed to have a cognizable interest in the licensing proceeding.
Allens Creek, supra and North Anna, supra.
On the basis of the geographic proximity of Mrs. Walsh's residence to GE Morris, coupled with the concerns expressed in her petition, the Staff believes that she has minimally satis-fied the " interest" requirement of 10 CFR 6 2.714.
In reaching this deter-mination on Mrs. Walsh's interest, the Staff has recognized that she is proceeding pro se and that a pro se petitioner for intervention should not be held to the same standards of clarity and precision to which a lawyer
. might reasonably be expected to adhere in a petition for leave to intervene.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, et al. (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant),
LBP-78-24, 8 NRC 78, 82 (1978).
1 B.
Contentions In addition to satisfying the standing requirement of 10 CFR 5 2.714, peti-tioner must state one good contention.
Mississippi Power & Light Co,. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1&2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (1973); Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371 (1973); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1),
i ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry i
Nuclear Plant, Units 1&2), ? BP-76-10, 3 NRC 209 (1976).
As a general precept, a " good contention" is one which falls within the scope of the issues set forth in the Federal Register Notice, supra concerning this pro-ceeding and, which is set forth with basis and specificity per the require-I ments of 10 CFR 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law. See, jt.jl.,
Beaver Valley, supra at 245; Prairie Island, supra.
The Staff recognizes that petitioner is proceeding pro sjt and may not be held to the same standards of clarity and precision as a lawyer, Kewaunee, s
supra. Nevertheless, the Staff believes that it is incumbent upon a petitioner for leave to intervene to set forth at least one contention which, on its face, is sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted l
i
. and to put the other parties on notice of what they must address. As is set forth more fully below, the NRC Staff believes that petitioner has not stated one good contention.
Mrs. Walsh's petition contains the following single contention:
"The "Too Close" Location of G.E. to existing nuclear plants (Dres-den I, Dresden II, Dresden III, Dresden spent fuel storage facility),
Proposed nuclear plants (Braidwood and LaSalle), The underground dan-gers (natural gas pipelines, oil pipe lines, coal mines and g'as in the mines), and the Barge traffic of the Illinois River."
In the Staff's view, this contention is unbounded, overly broad and not capable of being litigated, in that it fails to alert the other parties as to the issues which must be addressed. The contention itself consists of a series of unconnected phrases, none of which state an issue capable of litigation in this proceeding.
In petitioner's " bases" section, she does tot provide adequate basis to support her contention.
Rather, her " bases" section consists of no more than a further series of vague allegations without basis.
To the extent that the first phrase of petitioner's contention ("the too o
close location of GE to existing nuclear plants") alleges that GE Morris is located in "too close proximity" to the Dresden nuclear power plants, there is nothing offered in support of this allegation.
In petitioner's bases section she merely makes another unsupported allegation, that the concentra-tion of all emissions from operat.en of Dresden and GE Morris exceeds " safe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ limits" for her.U Petitioner does not specify in what manne,r the proposed renewal of the license for operation of GE Morris must deal with the close proximity of these facilities.
In this regard, there is no reason to believe that the proposed renewal of GE's license to operate the GE Morris facility will fail to appropriately consider the close proximity of these facilities.
There are numerous references in the Applicant's Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (CSAR), Chapter 3, " Site Characteristics" to the Dresden reactors (see pp. 3-5, 3-6, 3-12, 3-18, and 3-19). To the extent that this "conten-tion" states a concern about radioactive emissions from GE Morris, the Staff notes that Applicant's CSAR describes the radiation protection program at GE Morris (See Chapter 7, pp. 7-1 to 7-34).
In addition, the Staff M provided estimates of the types and amounts of radioactive effluents releawd from.GE Mo rri s.
(See " Summary Description of Probable Impacts, subsection b.,
" Radiological Effluents," pp. 14-21 of the Staff's 1975 EIA, supra.) These documents provide sufficient discussion of the proximity of GE Morris to Dresden and radioactive emissions from GE Morris to allow petitioner to particularize what concerns she has about these issues.
Despite this, petitioner has failed to provide anything more than vague assertions without bases.
-3/
The Staff notes that the GE Morris facility is bordered on the north by the Dresden Nuclear Power Station site (DNPS). See p. 7 of the NRC Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA), December 1975, which was prepared in connection with the license amendment authorizing increase of the GE Morris spent fuel storage capacity to its present level. Also, contrary to the implication in petitioner's paragraph 2 that all three units of DNPS are operating, the Staff notes that Dresden 1 and 3 are shutdown.
. The other phrases included in Contention 1 are similarly vague. There is no indication as to the nature of petitioner's concern about " proposed nuclear plants (Braidwood and LaSalle)" or the nexus between these facilities and the proposed GE Morris license renewal.
Further, petitioner merely mentions underground dangers and barge traffic on the Illinois River. Nowhere in the contention or bases is there any indication as to tne nexus between these
" dangers" and the GE Morris facility or how such " dangers" allegedly pose a threat to GE Morris.
l With respect to the remainder of petitioner's " bases", the Staff notes that there is no support for the allegations there presented.
For example, the statement that it would take all of Lake Michigan to cool just one spent fuel rod is devoid of any basis in fact.
For the reasons stated above, petitioner's only proposed contention must be i
rejected.
Since petitioner has failed to state at least one good contention, her petition fails to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714 and she should not be granted intervention status as a matter of right.
II.
PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED INTERVENTION STATUS AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION Even if Mrs. Walsh is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right, the Board could consider whether to grant her petition for intervention as a matter of its discretion.
In general, this consideration should be guided l
t l
.~
by the circumstances of the case and the factors set forth in 10 CFR 6 2.714(a)(1)
(regarding considerations relevant to untimely petitions for leave to intervene),
as well as the fac'. ors set forth in 10 CFR 9 2.714(d).
Pebble Springs, supraat616.O i
The foremost factor among the factors to be considered is whether petitioner will make a valuable contribution on a significant issue appropriately addressed in the proceeding. Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-ll, 7 NRC 381, 388, aff'd., ALAB-470, 7 NRC 47L (198).
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143 (1977); Watts Bar, supra.
In the words of the Appeal Board:
[T]here is particularly strong reason why discretionary interven-tion should not ce allowed in the absence of some clear indication that the petitioner has a substantial contribution to make on a significant safety or environmental issue appropriate for considera-tion. Watts Bar, supra, j
As stated by the Commission in Pebble Springs, supra:
Permission to intervene should prove more readily available where petitioners show significant ability to contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which will not otherwise be properly raised
-4/
The Staff believes that where a petitioner F.as demonstrated " interest" but has failed to adequately state one good contention, the Board cannot waive, in its discretion, the requirement that a petitioner state one good contention. On the other hand, where a petitioner has not demonstrated " interest," but has stated one good contention, we believe that the Board, after considering the factors set forth in Pebble Springs, supra, could exercise its discretion to admit that petitioner as a party.
Although the Staff believes that Mrs. Walsh falls in the former category, we have included this discussion so as to fully explore all grounds upon which a petition for leave to intervene may be granted.
or presented, set forth those matters with suitable specificity to allow evaluation, and demonstrate their importance and imediacy, justifying the time necessary to consider them.
Applying these guidelines to" Mrs. Walsh's petition, it does not appear that Mrs. Walsh is equipped to make a substantial contribution to the development of a sound record.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that she has any relevant knowledge or experience which would allow her to provide a substantial con-tribution to exanination of any of the issues raised in her petition.
In addition, she has not presented an argument to justify intervention based on all the other factors set forth in 10 CFR $ 2.714(a)(1). Accordingly, the Staff believes that this Board has no basis for exercising its authority to grant intervention status to petitioner as a matter of discretion.
III. THE FACTORS IN 10 CFR 5 2.714 DO NOT WEIGH SUFFICIENTLY IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR TO WARRANT GRANTING 0F PETITIONER'S UNTIMELY PETITION The Federal Register notice, supra, provided that petitions for leave to intervene were to be filed by May 25, 1979. Mrs. Walsh's petition was filed on March 19, 1980, approximately ten months late. As the notice explained, nontimely petitions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Licensing Board that the petition should be granted based on a balancing of the following factors specified in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) in addition to the factors in 5 2.714(d):
(1) 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 participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be i
represented by existing parties.
f (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will t
broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
l The good cause factor alone is not deteminative of whether untimely filings may be accepted.
Rather, the other four factors cf 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1) must be examined. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582, NRC (Fabruary 22, 1980, slip.
op. p. 2); Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1&2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 635 (1975). Where, however, good cause has not been demonstrated, a petitioner bears the additional burden of making a l
t compelling showing on the other four factors.
Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1&2), ALAB-559,10 NRC 162,169 (1979);
Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Station, Units 1&2), ALAB-289, 2
)
NRC 395, 398 (1975); Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4,1 NRC 273, 275 (19759; ERDA (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 388-89 (1976).
l The only factor which Mrs. Walsh's petition even attempts to address is the first factor (good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.) She states five reasons why "I did not try to intervene at the 2-29-80 Pre-hearing conference."E In the Staff's view, none of the reasons given by Mrs. Walsh constitute good cause for her failure to file on time.
Mrs. Walsh does not state any reasons whatsoever for her failure to file on time (by May 25, 1979).
Insofar as the reasons she gives for failing to file at the pre-hearing conference held on February 29, 1980, Mrs. Walsh first states that she is confused as to " limited appearance and a petition to intervene".
In this regard, it appears that Mrs. Walsh has attempted to i
convert what she originally intended to be a limited appearance statement at the prehearing conference into a petition for leave to intervene.E Her confusion as to the difference betw?en these two methods of participating in NRC adjudicatory proceedings pre-dates her late filed petition for leave to y
A prehearing conference was helt in Morris, Illinois on February 29, l
1980. As stated by the Licensirg Board in its " Order Setting Prehear-ing Conference" (January 17, 1900):
"The purpose for this prehearing conference is to hear from the parties with regard to the contentions which have been filed by intervenors and rule upon what contentions shall be at issue in this proceeding."
O The statement from Mrs. Walsh's petition quoted atave indicates that sne mistakenly believed that a petition for leave to intervene filed on that date would have been timely, which as previously stated, is not the case.
In fact, as explained, infra, Mrs. Walsh was advised in a letter from Staff counsel on February 22, 1980, that the period for sub-mitting petitions for leave to intervene had expired on May 25, 1979.
y In Mrs. Walsh's petition, she requests:
"Therefore, may I petition the Board to interve'1, instead of the limited appearance I had requested."
Mrs. Walsh further states that she has included an enclosure which is
" altered from limited appearance to:
Petition to Intervene".
She crossed out the title of that enclosure (" Limited Appearance") and wrote " Petition to Intervene".
l
_ _ _ _ intervene. This confusion is evident in a document dated February 7,1980, from firs. Walsh to the GE liorris Licensing Board.
In this document she stated that she was filing her supplement to her petition for leave to interveneU and requested " permission to read my contentions and bases, for a limited appearance pursuant to provisions of 10 CFR 5 2.715 at the prehear-ing conference".
In a letter to Mrs. Walsh on February 22,1980, (a copy of which is attached), Staff counsel explained the difference between a limited appearance statement and a petition for leave to intervene.
Str.ff counsel's letter also advised Mrs. Walsh that, as stated in the Federal Register notice, supra, the period for submitting petitions for leave to intervene had expired on May 25, 1979 and that any late filed petition would not be entertained by the Licensing Board absent a detennination by the Board that the petition should be granted, based on a balancing of the factors in 10 CFR Q 2.714(a)(1), (1)-(v) and 10 CFR 5 2.714(d).
Mrs. Walsh also states that "while at the prehearing conference, I felt that the time for leave to petition to intervene has been extended by the Board to 2-20-80".
However, the Staff notes that at the prehearing conference, the Board estcblished a twenty-day period, i.e., until March 20, 1980, for the Intervenors to further amend their proposed contentions to cure the defici-encies noted by the Board and the other parties.
In view of Mrs. Walsh's con-fusion as to the dates for submitting petitions for leave to intervene, she
-7/
Contrary to Mrs. Walsh's statement in her Febr"ary 7,1980 document that she was enclosing her " contentions and ba es", there were no such contentions and bases filed by Mrs. Walsh as part of that document.
14 -
could have questioned the Board at the prehearing conference about the March 20,1980 date.8/
As a further reason for her late filed petition, Mrs. Walsh states that Staff counsel's letter gave her "2 days' time to prepare the 30 copies needed for a limited appearance and that Staff counsel advised her that the time for leave to intervene had expired".
In this regard, Staff counsel's letter, in describing participation by making a limited appearance, merely noted that if Mrs. Walsh desired to make a limited appearance and proposed to incorporate written material as part of her limited appearance, that it would be helpful if she had extra copies of any written material to give to the court reporter. Staff counsel further stated that about 30 copies should meet the reporter's needs.
It is not apparent why Mrs. Walsh did not make a limited appearance at the prehearing conference, especially since the Board provided an opportunity for members of the public to do so (Tr. 142-143) and I
several individuals made limited appearances (Tr. 144-160).
In any event, the Staff does not believe that petitioner's failure to make a limited appear-o i
ance constitutes good cause for her tardy petition for leave to intervene.
Mrs. Walsh also states, as a reason for failing to file a timely petition for leave to intervene, that she does not have an attorney and cannot afford one. However, other individuals not represented by an attorney filed a 8_/
Mrs. Walsh's petition indicates in paragraph 4 that she attended that conference.
At the prehearing conference, a Mrs. Walsh approached Staff counsel to acknowledge Staff counsel's letter of February 22, 1980 and did not express any confusion about the difference between a limited appearance statement and a petition for leave to intervene.
. timely petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
(See " Petition for Leave to Intervene", filed by Bridget and Ralph Rorem, Jr., Keith Story and Everett Quigley, dated May 23, 1979).
In addition, notice of the oppor-tunity to petition for leave to intervene was provided in the previously cited Federal Register notice which was published on April 25, 1979.
It is well settled that Federal Register publication constitutes constructive notice to all persons of the matters set forth in the notice. Long Island Lighting Company (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 646-47 (1975). Moreover, as the Appeal Board noted in Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),ALAB-574, NRC (Janua ry 10, 1980, slip. op., p.ll):
"... persons whose residence is in sufficiently close proximity to a proposed nuclear facility to give them an interest in that facility's licensing proceeding are duty-bound to take at least some steps to obtain such readily available information as might be required to prctect their interest in a reasonably timely fashion..."
In the Staff's view, Mrs. Walsh's residence only sne mile from the GE Morris facility imposed on her such a duty.
For the reasons set forth above, the Staff believes that the first factor does not weigh in favor of petiticner.
Since good cause for petitioner's failure to file on time has not been demon-strated, petitioner bears the burden of making a compelling showing on the other four factors. West Valley Reprocessing Plant, CLI-75 4, supra.
Not-withstanding this additional burden, petitioner has wholly failed even to l
l.
w _
address these factors, let alone to make a compelling showing on those factors. The Staff has nevertheless, examined those factors to ascertain whether there is a basis for accepting this untimely petition.
In evalu-ating these factors, we have been cognizant of the Commission's admonition
"... that favorable findings on some or even all of the factors in the rule need not in a given case outweigh the effect of inexcusable tardiness".
West Valley, CLI-75-4, supra.
The second factor (availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected) weighs in favor of petitioner. The only other means for petitioner to protect her interest would be to file a limited appearance under 10 CFR 6 2.715(a).
But such an appearance would not be an adequate substitute for participation as a party with a party's attendant procedural rights. West Valley, CLI-75-4, supra.
It does not appear that petitioner "may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record" (the third factor). There is reason to draw a o,
negative inference on this factor since petitioner has not stated a single contention with adequate specificity and basis.
In the Staff's view there is no reason to believe, based on the petition for leave to intervene filed by Mrs. Walsh, that she possesses a special background or expertise which would make her participation useful in the development of the record.
She has proffered no special evidence or data that she plans to present which would aid evaluation of the GE Morris license renewal application. Accord-ingly, the third factor does not weigh in petitioner's favor.
_ The fourth factor (extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties) also weighs against petitioner.
Clearly, there are other parties to this proceeding who seek the same ends as petitioner, namely, assurance that the GE Morris facility will be operated safely. The other Intervenors, as well 'as the NRC Staff and the Applicant, all have this objec-tive.
It is of particular note that certain other individuals (Rorem, et al.)
living in close proximity to the facility have been representing their interests in the proceeding by participating as Intervenors. Both Rorem, et al. and the other Intervenor (the State of Illinois) have filed contentions which relate to one of the issues raised by petitioner, namely, the close proximity of GE Morris to the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. Another concern of petitioner, related to radioactive emissions of GE Morris, is also shared by Rorem, et al. (see Rorem Contention 5, in "Re-Amended Contentions of Rorem," et al., March 19,1980).
It is clear that Petitioner's interests are shared by these other parties. The only question is one of degree or emphasis.
Of course, petitioner's precise interests cannot be represented by existing parties, for those interests, of necessity, are unique.
However, there can be no question that petitioner's interests are being represented to a degree by existing parties to this proceeding, and that this factor must weigh against petitioner.
With regard to the fifth and final factor, we cannot at this juncture deter-1 mine whether petitioner's participation would broaden the issues or delay the proceeding since no issues have been identified for adjudication. Petitioner l
f
. has raised some issues which add to, and thereby broaden the issues raised in the contentions proposed by the Intervenors. These issues include alleged dangers resulting from " natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, coal mines and l
gas in the mines," a total loss of electrical power at GE Morris; the siting of certain proposed facilities (Zion, Braidwood and LaSalle) and impacts of GE Morris on water resources and electricity usage in the vicinity of the facil ity.
It is not clear whether petitioner's participation will delay the i
proceeding, since no contentions have been admitted as issues in controversy r
in this proceeding and discovery has not yet commenced. However, as pre-viously stated, petitioner's contention raises issues in addition to those contained in the Intervenors' contentions.
If the Board grants petitioner intervenor status and admits her contention, such additional issues will require more time of the Board, both in hearings and at the time of the decision, and will require more time of the parties first to prepare for the hearings and to brief and prepare the issues for the Board's consideration following the hearing. The proceeding could thereby be delayed, as could the issuance of a license renewal. Obviously, this latter impact cannot be determined with any precision at this point but the potential for delay is evident. This factor weighs against petitioner.
For the reasons stated above, the Staff believes that, on balance, the factors in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 5 2.714(d) do not weigh in petitioner's favor. Thus, the Board should not entertain this untimely petition.
IV.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, the NRC Staff believes that the petitioner has not success-fully demonstrated that she should be granted standing as a matter of right for failure to state one good contention in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714.
In addition, petitioner has not demonstrated that she should be allowed to intenene as a matter of discretion.
Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that on balance the factors set forth in 5 2.714 weigh in favor of not denying the petition on the basis of untimeliness.
Consequently, it is the NRC Staff's position that the petition for leave to intenene submitted by Mrs. Walsh should be denied.
However, the Staff has no objection to participation by Mrs. W;1sh by way of a limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.715(a).9/
Respectfully submitted, M
M m M cAIlcA Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland o
this 18th day of April, 1980.
i 9f At the prehearing conference, several members of the public made limited appearances and the Board stated its willingness to give other members of the public an opportunity to make limited apparances at any further hearings conducted by the Board (Tr.143).
l
8 us Septer.ber 26, 1979 "rs. El ine 1.'alsh 33 Pheasant Trail-
~
1:ilr.:ington, Illinois 60481-
~
In th'e '!:atter of General Electric Co:4pany (GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility)
Docket l'o. 70-1308 (Rene :a1 of S::!:-1765)
Dear "rs.1.'alsh:
I ao pleased to respond to your letter of Au2ast 29,1979, requesting infor-r..ation on the prehearing conference and evider.tiary hearings,to be held with respect to the application of tiie General Electric Corc.pany (GE) for rene'.-tal of its license for the l' orris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility. The Au;ust 13, 1979, notice of hearing issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bot.rd (ASLB) established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and re juests for hearing does not establish a date for either a prehecring con-fcrance or evidentiary hearings to be conducted tvith respect to the applicetion by CE for a licerise rencual for its Corri; 0;cration.
The notice provides that pursuant to a notice to be published in the Federal Pe-ister, a Special Fre-hasring Conference will be, held in the vicinity of f. orris 7filinois, at a ti..c and place to be set by the ASLB in the near future.
L'o deterr.ination has yet been r.sde by the ASLB,with respect to the specific issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing.
For your use and inforrution, I am enclosing a copy of the ASLC's August 13, 1979, notice of hearing, as published in the Federal Recister on August 20, 1979(44 Fed. Reg. 46830). To assure that you will be advised of the dates of hsaring, T~T.m requesting that your nane be added to the distribution list for the notices to be published in connection with the conference and the hearing.
Copies of these notices will be sent to you.
If I can be of cny further assist ace, please feel free to direct any furthar inquiries you may have to ne, Sincerely, l
Houard K. Shepar n
Executive Legal Director
Enclosure:
As stated l
NY was2o N
)
U Federal Registir / W1. 44. No.162 / Monday. August 20, 1979 / Notices i
48830 For the Atomic Safety and ucens.ng Board. Amendment No. 4(to Ucense No. DPR-preparation of an EnvironmentalImpact
- 19. Amendment No. 39 to Ucense No.
Aodnw C Coodhopa Statement is riot required.
DPR-25. Amendment No. 53 to Ucense ne Assessment does not consider Goinnan and Amendment No.50 to No. DPR-29'D. PR-30. and (
ultimate disposal.of the decontaminated p on.v n w r u s-ir-rmau =1 Ucense No g : related Safet Evaluation.
waste water because use of EPICOR-Il eus.o coot remi.as will not foreclose any options for such Allof theseitems are avai le for t n 50-237.50-20. 50-254 and public Inspection at the Commis: Ion's ultimate disposal and because dispose.:
willbe the subject of a subsequent Public Document Room.1717 H Street.
50-265]
Assessment.Furthermore the NW Weshington. D.C., and at the Assessment does not consider the Commonwealth Edison Co. and towa*
Morris Public Ubrary,604 Uberty Street.
decontamination or disposal of the high-I!!Inols Gas & Electric Co.t Issuance of Morris. Illinois, for Dresden 2 and 3. and les el cor.taminated wasfe water at Amendments to Facility operatin9 at the Moline Public Ubrary.50417th Three Mile Island. Decontaminetion and Ucensea Street Moline. hols, for Quad Cities 1 and 2. A c y of items (2) and (3) may disposal of that waste water will be e U.S. Nucle at Regulatory be obtaine upon request addressed to considered in future Assessments.
Commission (the Commission) has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory De Assessmentis availab!e for issued Amendments Nos.44 and 39 to Commis sion. Wa shington, D.C. 20555.
public inspection at the Commission's Facility Opera 4ing Ucenses Nos. DPR-1g Attention: Director. Division of Public Document Room.1717 H Street.
and DPR-25. Issued to Commonwealth N.W., Washington D C. 20555 and at the Edison Company, which revised the Operating Reactors.
BU-2 Local Public Document Room in
. Technical Specifications for operation of.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, tMs 13th day a
the Government Publications Section' the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, of August tre.
State Ubrary of Pennsylvania. -
Units Nos. 2 and 3. located in Grundy y.,r the Nudear Regulatory Commission.
Education Building. Commonwealth and County.hols.ne Commission has mmad A.!ppotta.
Walnut Streets. Harrisburg, a.17126.
also issued Amendmerits Nos. 53 and 50 o,,f, op,,oring acoctors amnch No. A Copies of the Assessment h ve been to Facility Operating Ucenses Nos.
ofri,lon ofop,mring a,octors.
s' circulated for comment to other federal DPR-29 and DPR-30. issued to p o,,,s-a o rw st-ra an a 1 agencies.to the Commonwealth of Commonwealth Edison Company and
,u,,,cong,, y,,
Pennsylvania and to local and municipal lows.hols Gas and Electric Company.
governments in the nree Mile Island widch revised the Technical
- f. -
area. Any comments or suggestions on Specifications for operation of the Quad
- fDocket No.70-13081 the Assessment should be filed within Cities Nuclear Power Station. Units Nos.
30 days from publication of this Notice 1 and 2 located in Rock Island County.
General Electric Co. (GE Morris by addressing a copy to the Secretary of hols.The amendments become OperaUon Spent Fuel Storage Facility);
the Commission. U.S. Nuclear effective as of the date ofissuance.
Hearing on Application for Renewal of 1
9..
Regulatory Commission. Washington.
ne amendments modify the Materials Ucense No. SNM-1265 D.C. 20555. Attention: Docketing and Technical Specifications to change the On April 24.1979. the U.S. Nuclear Service Branch. All comments received s withdrawal schedules of the pressure Regulatory Commis: Ion @ornmission)
- g~
by the Commission will be made vessel material survelliance capsules to Published in the Federal Register (44 FR
"[
available for public inspection in the be in accordance with10 CFR 50 24354) a notice with respect to its Commission's Public Document Room.
Appendix H.
After analysis of the comments, the staff De application for the amendments considera, tion of General Electric Company s (Ucenue) applicaUon to i
~4 will brief the Cominission and the complies with the standards and k,3 -
Commission will then decide whether to requirements of the Atomic Energy Act senew its Matedals,Ucenn No. SW-1285 at the Ucenne a fud storage adopt the staff recommendation.
of1954,as amended (the A. and the fac ty f'
!8 f
Commission's rules and te ations.%e Op do )
e Jt13 Dated at Washington D C. this 14th day of Commission has made a propriate authorizes the applicant to receive.
A #st.19's.
findings as required by e Act and the ssess. store, and transfer irradiated I
Fo% knmMon.
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 el received from light water reactors in 4
?-
I ha WoM CFR Chapter L which are set forth in the, Hs Morris Operadon fuel etorage facihty.
Assistant Secnrary of the,Commissloa license amendments. Pdor public notice
~;
gra on.?s-ar :c ru s-sf-ra au mal of these amendments was not required ne notice prodded that any person since the amendments do not involve a whose interest may oe affected by the sumo coot tsso-et-as significant hazards consideration, proceeding may file a petition forleave De Commission has determined that ~ to intervene and request for hearing the issuance of these amendments will Pursuant to to CFR i 2.714 by May 25.
'I.
[ Docket No. 50-471 CPI 2979.
not result in any significant Boston Edison Co.(Pligrim Nuclear environmentalimpact and that pursuant On May 21.1979. the State of hols Generating Station, Unit 2); Ordef to to CFR I 51.5(d)(4) an environmental through its Attorney General filed a t
ne he s heduled impact statement. or negative
- petition for leave to intervene.This declaration and environmentalimpact petition by the State of hols has been
' commence A
st 1979 will b
. appraisal need opt be prepared in granted by this Board.
convened in the Blue Room of Memorial c nnection with.ssuance of these In addition, four individuals. namely:
Ha!!. 83 Court Street. Plymouth, amendmenta.
Bridget uttle Rorem and Ralph Rorem.
Massachusetts For further details with respect to this Jr Essex,hoir.Keith Storeyc
,f }
- It is ** *rdered..
Kankakee. hols; and Everett Qulgley.
action. see [1) the application for Dated at Betheda. Maryland.%Is 13th amendments dated May 15.1977, as Kankakee.hols, also filed a petition day of August to a.
supplemented November 3.1978. (2)
, for leave to Intervene.ne petition of e
Federal RegistIt / Vsl. 44. N2.162 / Monday. August 20,1979 / Notic2s 48831 this s'oup of four individuals has also (Docket No. STN 50-4371 public comments and other documents, t
been granted by this Board. In addition, is available for inspection and copying an unincorporated organ!zation called Offshore Power Systems at the Commission's Public Document "Appleseed" petitioned to intervene.
(Manufacturing License for FloatinD Room at 1717 H Street. NW.,
This petition by Appleseed has been Nuclear Power Plants); Notice of Washington. DC. 20555. The Secretary of Reconstitution of Board the NRC maintains a mailing list for denied by this Board with leave to supply deficiencies pointed out in Lester Kornblith, Jr., was a member of persons interested in receiving notices e
Appleseed's petition which will then be the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board of the group s meetings and actions.
I reconsidered by the Board.
for the above proceeding. Mr. Kornblith Anyone wishmg to be on that list should S
'Y
"[" 85IO"'
On June 5.1979, the Acting Chairman retired and is unable to continue his 10lpl l
cf the Atomic Safety and Licensing service on this Board.
Board Penel established a Board to rule Accordingly Glenn O. Bright. whose Washington. DC. 20555. Attention:
on petitions for leas e to inters ene and/
address is Atomic Safety and I;, censing Docketing and Service Branch.
or requests for hearing and to preside Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory He study group wul provide its gng 8
eC o
os' oser the proceeding in the es ent that a Commission. Washington. D C. 20555 is
,y g
n appointed a member of this Board.
hearing was ordered This Board consists of the fo!!owing-Dr. Linda W.
Reconstitution of the Board in this,
{tud gr up s fea y
s lit tle. 5000 Hcrmitage Drive. Raleigh, ma in ac dance, S c, tion General Counsel Nuclear Regulatory North Carohna 27612. Dr. Forrest J.
Commission. 202/6343224.
Remick 305 E. Hamilton Avenue. State Pracuce as amended.
College. Pennsyl anla 16801: and Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, thu 13th day Dated at Washington, DC, this 13th day of Andrew C. Goodhope. Esq 3320 Estelle of August.1979.
gug'a
"'7 Terrace. Wheaton, Maryland 20o00, who Robert M. tazo, Chairmn.
o will serve as Chairman.
Acting Chairman. AtomicSofety and A Special Prehearing Conference wiH ucensing BooWond m m ru.4 uw us.)
""**8"*'*
be held in the vicinity of Morris. Illinois
!" D
- N"-* "8 "I 8" CCE" N pursuant to notice to be published in the Federal Register at a time and place to fDocket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301].
be set by this Board in the near future.
Study of Nuclear Power Plant At the Special Prehearing Conference.
Construction During Adjudication'.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.1 the Board will consider allintervention ~ Mee!ings Issuance of Amendments to Facility petitions, discuss specific issues to be Operating Ucenses considered at the evidentiary he. ring.
%e next meeting of the Nuclear and wiH consider a schedule for further Regulatory Commission's advisory -
ne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory en co ur ad d c t n which n
an o
ill be in ed to a ten t Sp a Prehearing Conference end members of was previously scheduled for Friday Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 the public who are not parties to the September 7.1979' wiU instead be held and DPR-27 issued to Wisconsin 4
in Electric Power Company (the licensee),
proceeding will be afforded an at 9.:>0 a.m. Friday August 31'1979' East which revised the licenses for operation
^
Room 415. East West Towers. 4350 epportunity to make a limited appearance pursuant to provisions of to West Highway. Bethesda, Maryland.
of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit Future meetings will be held on the last Nos.1 and 2. located in the Town of CFR I 2.715 of the Commission s Rules cf Practice. Persons desinns to make a and place.
Two Creeks. Manitowoc County, Friday of each month at the same time Wisconsin.De amendments will limited appearance statement are Members of the public are invited to become effective twenty days after requested to inform the Secretary of the attend the group's meetings and there issuance, unless a b, earing has been Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory will be a limited amount of time nqmted.
Commis sion. Wa shington, D.C. 20555.
avaHable during each meeting for ne amendments add a license Written limtfed appearance statements members of the public to make oral
- condition relating to the completion of may be mailed to the Secretary or statements to the study group. Written facility modifications for fire protection.
presented to the Board at the Sprcial comments, addressed to the Secretary of he Commission has made Prehearing Conference or at any the Commission United States Nuclear appropriate findings as required by the subsequent sessions of the evidentiary Regulatory Commission. Washington, Act and the Commission's rules and heating.
DC 20555. Attention: Docketing and wguletions in to CFR Chapter I, which Dated at Bethesda, Maryfand. This 13th Service Branch, will be accepted for one are set forth in the license amendments.
day of Aupst 19r9.
week after each meeting. The Chairman Prior public notice of these amendments For the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board. of t$e study group is empowered to
.was not required since the amendmenta Andrew C. Goodhope, conduct the meeting in a matner that,in do not involve a significant hazards Chairman.
his judgment, wiU facilitate the group's consideration.
w rk, including,if necessary, continuing ne Commission has determined that In c.c. us :a ni,a s-u. m us ]
or reacheduhng meetings to another day,, the issuance of these amendments will
, a goo, n A file of documents relevant to the not result in any significant group's work, including a complete environmental impact and that pursuant
- transcript of each meeting, memoranda to 10 CFR l 51.5(d)(4) an environmental exchanged between group members, impact statement or negative,,,,,
e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY ELAINE WALSH" in the above-captioned proceeding hav^ v 'n served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first cic.:.
or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 18th day of April, 1980:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Edward Firestone, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal Operation 3320 Estelle Terrace General Electric Company Wheaton, MD 20906 175 Curtner Avenue Mail Code 822 Dr. Linda W. Little San Jose, CA 95125 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Everett Jay Quigley R.R. 1 Box 378 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Kankakee, IL 60901 305 East Hamilton Avenue State College, PA 16801 Mrs. Elaine Walsh 33 Pheasant Trail Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Wilmington, IL 60481 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 186 West Randolph Street Panel
- Suite 2315 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, IL 60601 Washington, DC 20555 Ronald Szwajkowski, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Panel (5)*
Mayer, Brown & Platt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 231 South LaSalle Street Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60604 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Office of the Secretary Essex, IL 60935 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Wh Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff
/-
'o, UNITED STATES
+
8
,o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 v, (
h - W,f f o
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g % 4,/
~
February 22, 1980 Mrs. Elaine Walsh 33 Pheasant Trail Wilmington, IL 60481 In the Matter of General Electric Company (GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility)
Docket No. 70-1308 (Renewal of SNM-1265)
Dear Mrs. Walsh:
I am writing in reference to your letter of February 7,1980, to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing in this proceeding. A copy of your letter was recently transmitted to me.
In your letter you request pennission to read your contentions and bases at the prehearing conference to be held on February 29, 1980, with respect to the above proceeding. Your letter also indicates that you desire to make a limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.715 at the prehearing conference.
It is not clear from your letter whether you seek to participate in this proceeding (1) as a party by filing a petition for leave to intervene or (2) by making a limited appearance wrsuant to 10 CFR i 2.715.
Your earlier letter dated August 29,1979 (Attac1 ment A) did not inquire as to methods of participating in this proceeding but solely requested infonnation as to the dates of the prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing. As Mr. Shapar's response of September 26, 1979, to your inquiry (Attachment B) indicated, the notice of hearing issued by the Licensing Board on August 13, 1979, (Attachment C, which is included as an enclosure to his response) did not establish a date for either a prehearing conference or evidentiary hearings to be conducted in this proceeding. To assure that you would be advised of the dates of the prehearing conference and hearing, we requested that your name be added to the distribution list for the notices to be published in connection with the prehearing conference and hearing. Subsequently, the Licensing Board established February 29, 1980, as the date for holding the prehearing conference in Morris, Illinois.
As the notice of hearing indicates, a notice was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 1979, which provided that any person whose interest may be affected by the GE license renewal application may file a petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing by May 25, 1979. Thus, the period for submitting petitions for leave to intervene has expired.
In the event that you wish to participate as a party in the hearing relating to the b 4C p> c z.g c1 C 2 %
u Mrs. Elaine Walsh '
license renewal appifcation for the GE Morris Operation, a petition for leave to. intervene must be filed which satisfies the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) i 2.714 with the presiding Licensing Board in the proceeding. Since the period for submitting petitions for i
leave to intervene has expired, any petition filed now would be considered an untimely petition under 10 CFR S 2.714.and would not be entertained absent a detennination by the presiding Licensing Board that the petition should be granted, based on a balancing of the factors in 10 CFR i 2.714(a)(1),
(1)-(v) and 10 CFR $ 2.714(d).
If a person or organization is admitted as a party to NRC proceedings, that person or orgar.ization may participate through i
presentation of testimony, cross-examination of the other parties' witnesses, and the filing of motions and any required pleadings in the proceeding.
Another method by which a member of the public may participate in Commission proceedings is by making a limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715. A 1
person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues in the proceeding. The presiding Licensing Board has i
broad discretion as to the receipt of limited appearance statements.
In practice, the presiding officer usually inquires early on the first day of the hearing or the initial prehearing conference in the proceeding whether there are any individuals in attendance who wish to make limited appearance s ta tements. The notice of hearing issued by the Licensing Board on August 13, 1979, describes the procedure to be followed by members of the public who wish to make limited appearance at the GE Morris Special Prehearing Conference.
I would further note that should you propose to have written material incor-porated in the record as part of your limited appearance statement, it would be helpful if you have on hand at that time extra copies of any such written material to give to the court reporter. About thirty copies should meet the reporter's needs.
Enclosed is a copy of 10 CFR Part 2, " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings," which includes information regarding intervention and limited appearances. Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 2 explains in detail the Rules of Practice in Part 2.
Sincerely, r %. c a $ 4 k 0 % $2td Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure and Attachments: As stated cc w/o enclosure and w/ Attachments-Service List w
.u 4-
..g.
......s
.c
........... ~............ =.
--.bO
- a f
lpp' 'v.- I3 i i lu 37 c; ;;u inuttg <
pj.00. & Uill FAC. ?d-/3 08 AM',...."*Mno a
. @%.MU m-
.e,o.
W &
g.&
.y
& &9
/
D
-vu abb w a
,a 3 6 n b l-sA-nf n /d (ymmLMm m
L o
TM -
h g hN kt.(
duAx/ G?g1v wM4 n
i azuL A p 2
" & A L A
hu A
'l a l D a m n -ra-1 V
)
- 9A~ &
." @. w
_......._.._ _. (/A.i-
.42A.>.
~
404 2il... C. % a. K k s A
, i.
....82,.@, M... / 4 14
\\
e e
.s if $,]
/
i.y
[
2 n..
~
=
I'
'M;%j. [(
g g,.il.. y**yii *.y-.
j'3
'*N[$"
.........=l.
._.t.'.:.:.:."_:s..F. x
- .:.5...:.::.c:::....
l.
/$
~ 'S.
Septer:.ber 26, 1979
~
':rs. Elaine 1.'alss -
33 pheasant Trail-f 1:ilmington, Illinois 60481-In th'e Patter of General Electric Co: pany (GE l' orris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility)
Docket No. 70-1308 (Rene.:al of S::!*-1765)
Dear :
- rs.1.'alsh:
I ao pleased to respond to your letter of Au2ast 29,1979, requcsting infor-cation on the prehearing conference and evidar.tiary hearings,to be held with respect to the application of the General Electric Cort.pany (GE) for rene.tal of its license for the i:or.ais Operation Spent Fuel Storage facility. The Au;ust 13,1979, 60tice of hearing issued by the Atomic Screty and Licensing Botrd (ASLB) established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and reiuests for hearing does not establish a date for either a preheering con-ference or evidentiary hearings to be conducted with respect to the application
~
by GE for a license renewal for its I:orri: 0;cretion.
The notice provides that I
pursuant to a notice to be published in the Federal pe-ister, a Special Pre-
\\
hsaring Conference vill be. held in the vicinity of I;crrTs7filinois, at a tir.e and place to be set by the ASLB in the near future.
No deternination has yet been r.ade by the ASLB.with respect to the specific issues to be considered at the evidentiary hearing.
For your use and information, I an enclosing a copy of the ASLB's August 13, 3979, notice of hearing, as published in the Federal Recister on August 20, 1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 48830). To assure that you will be advised of the dates of hsaring TTn requesting that your nane be added to the distribution list for the notices to be published 'in connection with the conference and the hearing.
Copies of these notices will be sent to you.
If I can be of cny further assistance, please feel free to direct cny further inquiries you may have to me.
Sincerely, l
Hu.tard l'.
Shepar Executive legal Director Er. closure: As stated 1
ug 19 / 0 2 20 Q 2Q i
e a
Federal Registtr / Vol. 44. No.162 / Monday. August 20. 1979 / Notices 48330 preparation of an EnvironmentalImpact For the Atomic Safety and Ucens;ng Board. Amendment No. 4(to Ucense No. DPR-
- 19. Amendment No. 39 to Ucense No.
Statement is not required.
Andrew C. Goodhope DpR-25. Amendment No. 53 to Ucense De Assessment does not consider CAoinnan.
No. DPR-29. and Amendment No. 50 to ultimate disposal of the decontaminated gru on.n.asno rw W-ra ass al 0
}
c]. D waste water because use of EPICOR-II sus o coot neo-ei.a d ft us h will not foreclose any options for such g g,
[Dochet Noa. 50-237,50-249,50-254 and public inspection at the Commission's be th subject of a su e ue Public Document Room.1717 H Street, 50-265]
Assessment. Furthermore, the NW., Washington. D.C., and at the Assessment does not consider the Commonwealth Edison Co. and Iowa-Morris Public Ubrary. 604 Uberty Street.
[
decontamination or disp,osal of the hi{h-Illinols Gas & Electric Co.t ssuance of Morris.U!inois for Dresden 2 and 3. and i
level contaminated waste water at Amendments to Facility Operating at the Moline Public Ubrary. 50417th Three Mile Island. Decontam, ation and Ucenses Street. Moline, Illinois, for Quad Cities 1 m
disposal of that waste water will be He U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and 2. A copy o! items [2) and (3) may p
be obtained upon request addressed to consideredin future Assessments.
Commission (the Commission} has ne Assessment is available for issued Amendments Nos. 44 and 39 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555 public mspection at the Comnussion's Facility Operating Ucenses Nos. DPR-1g Attention: Director. Division of h
Public Document Room.1717 H Street.
- and DPR-25, issued to Commonwealth N.W, Washington, DC 20555 and at the Edison Company, which revised the Operating Reactors.
%S2 tecal Public Document Room in
. Technical Specifications for operation of.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 13th day a
the Covernment Publications Sectwn, the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, of August ur:'s.
State Ubrary of Pennsylvania. -
Units Nos. 2 and 3. located in Grundy For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Education Building. Commonwealth and County. Elinois.The Commission has t1 omd A.!ppotito, als issued me dme ts Nos.53 and 50 pjvi,f, op,mffn, g,oeg,,, amoc3 po, a
- c3f, 54 plee of the to Facility Operating ucenses Nos.
s s n
e ee g
fonofop,mring,octors.
circulated for comment to other federal DPR-29 and DPR-30 issued to Iv a t oca en m cipal I w(((a Ces d El e
m any, l
governments in the nree Mile Island which revised the Technical
?. -
area. Any comments or suggestions on Specifications for operation of the Quad- (Docket No.70-13081 the Assessment should be filed within Cities Nuclear Power Station. Units Nos.
30 days from publication of this Notice 1 and 2.locced in Rock Island County, General Electric Co.(GE Morris by addressing a copy to the Secretary of Blinois.The amendments become Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility);
T*
Regulatory Commission. Washington.
The amendments modify the Hearing on App!! cation for Renewalof the Commission. U.S. Nuclear effective as of the date ofissuance.
adaterlats Ucense No.SNW1265 D.C. 20555. Attention Docketing and Technical Specifications ta change the On April 24.1979, the U.S. Nucle
.Q Service Branch. All comments received s withdrawal schedules of the pressure Regulatory &mmission Ammiss,ar ion)
O [,-
by the Commission willbe made vessel material surveillance capsules to published in the Federal Register (44 FR 4-available for public inspection in the be in aecordance with to CFR 50, 24m) a notice with respect to its 0
Commission's Public Document Roon Appendix H.
consideration of General Electric After analysis of the comments, the sta!I ne application for the amendments Company s (Ucensee) application to will brief the Commission and the complies with the standards and senew its Materials License No. SNM-93 Commission will then decide whether to requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 1285 at the Ucensee a fuel storage adopt the staff recommendation.
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the fac ty i
s Dated at Washington. Dt this 14th day of Commission's rules and regulations.%e Op do ) " e j tE Commission has made a propriate authorizes the applicant to receive, A
st, ur 9.
findings as required by t e Act and the Possess, store, and tran'sfer irradiated Fode Wh Commission's rules and regulations in 10 h
?'
John u opa.
CFR Chapter L which are set forth in the, fuel received from light water reactors in its Morris Operadon fuel storage facihty.
Assis tant Secretary of the, Commission, license amendments.Priorpublic notice r'
fra come m w.ra au-l of these amendments was not required
%e notice prodded that any person since the amendments do not involve a whose Interest may be affected by the anis.o coot mo-ei a significant hazards consideration.
Proceeding may file a petition for leave The Commission has determined that to interveoe and request for hearing the issuance of these amendments will
' Pursuant to to CFR I 2.714 by May 25 1.~
[ Docket No. 50-471 CPI 2979.
not result in any significant Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear environmentalimpact and that pursuant On May 21.1979, the State of hols Generating Station, Unit 2); Order 1o 10 CFR I 51.5(dj(4) an endronmental through its Attorney General filed a t
impact statement. or negative
- petition for leave to intervene.%Is
- De hearings presently scheduled to declaration and environmental impact petition by the State of hofs has been
' commence on August 27.1979 will be
- appraisal need not be prepared in granted by this Board.
convened in the Blue Room of Memoria!
connection with issuance of these In addition, four individuals. namely:
Hall. 83 Court Street. Plymouth, amendments.
Bridget uttle Rorem and Ralph Rorem.
Massachusetts For further details with resp-ct to this Jr Essex,ho!r Keith Storey;
$. l *
'It is so ordered.. 7 g
action, see (1) the application for
' Kankakee, hofs: and Everett Quigley, Dated at Bethesda. Mary and.nis 13th amendments dated May 16.1977, as Kankakee, hols, also filed a petition day of August 19:'9.
supplemented November 3.1B78 (2) for leave to b srvene.ne petition of D**]D " 3D T Y $
eM oM.2.XlhLa
V Federal Register / Vd. 44, No.162 / Monday. August 20. 1979 / Notic s 48831 this g oup of four Individuals has also
[ Docket No. STN 50-4371 public comments and other documents, 2
been granted by this Board. In addition, is available forinspection and copying an unincorporated organization called Offshore Power Systems at the Commission's Public Document
- Appleseed" petitioned to intervene.
(Manufacturing License for Floating Room at 1717 H Street. NW.,
This petition by Appleseed has been Nuclear Power Plants); Notice of Washington, DC,20555.ne Secretary of denied by this Board with leave to Reconstitution of Board the NRC maintains a mailing list for supply deficiencies pointed out in I. ester Kornblith. Jr., was a member of Persons interested in receiving notices 3
Appleseed's petition which will then be the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board of the roup's meetings and actions.
I reconsidered by the Board.
for the above proceeding. Mr. Kornblith Any nu wishing to be on that list should On June 5.1979, the Acting Chairman retired and is unable to continue his write to: Secretary of the Commission, of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing service on this Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Comnussio,n.
Board Panel established a Board to rule Accordingly, Glenn O. Bright, whose Washington, DC 20555. Attention:
on petitions for leave to Intervene and/
address is Atomic Safety and Ucensing
- 8'd M Ce &anck or requests for hearing and to preside Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory He study group will provide its final os er the proceeding in the event that a Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, is report to the Commission by November appointed a member of this Board.
1,1979. For further information on the hearing was ordered. This Board consists of the following: Dr. Unda W.
Reconstitution of the Board in this study group's mission. please call Little,5000 Hcrmitage Drive, Raleigh, manner is in accordance with Section Stephen S.Ostrach. Office of the e ek 30. H rri ton A enue State ac c as College, Pennsyls anla 16801: and Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 13th day Dated at Washington, DC, this 13th day of Andrew C. Goodhope. Esq.,3320 Este!!e of August.1979.
August.1979.
Gary Mllboilia, Terrsce, Wheaton. Maryland 20906, who Robert M. Imo, Chairma.
o will serve as Chairman.
Acting Chairman, AtomicSofety and A Special Prehearing Conference will Licenring BoardPonel be held in the vicinity of Morris. Illinois
[N Dw. *nu Ned W-m a u m)
IN Dw. mum Mied W-4 au m) e m Coot M M M pursuant to notice to be published in the 8" CODE """
Foderal Register at a time and place to (Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-3011 be set by this Board in the near future.
Study of Nuclear Power Plant At the Special Prehearing Conference.
Construction During Adjudication.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.;
the Board will consider allintervention
- gee:ing, Issuance of Amendments to Facility petitions, discuss specific issues to be Operating Ucenses considered at the evidentiary hearing, he next nieeting of the Nuclear end will consider a schedule for further Regulatory Commission's adv'sory -
He U.S. Nuclear Regula tory actions in the proceeding.The public committee on nuclear power plant
. Commission (the Commission) has will be invited to attend the Special construction during adjudication, which issued Amendment Nos. 39 and 44 to Prehearing Conference and members of was previously scheduled for Friday, Facility Operating Ucense Nos. DPR-24 p
s o de September 7.1979. will instead be held and DPR-27 issued to Wisconsin dep b'ahad at 9.30 a.m. Friday, August 31,1979, in Electric Power Company (the licensee),
p di cpportunity to make e limited Room 415. East West Towers. 4350 East which revised the licenses for operation appearance pursuant to provisions of to West Highway Bethesda, Maryland.
of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit Future meetings will be held on the last Nos.1 and 2, located in the Town of CFR I 2.715 of the Comnussion's Rules cf Practice. Persons destrmg to make a and place.
Two Creeks. Manitowoc County, Friday of each month at the same time Wisconsin.De amendments will limited appearance statement are requested to Inform the Secretary of the Members of the public are invited to become effective twenty days after attend ee group's meetings and there issuance, unless a b, earing has been Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory will be a limited amount of time requested.
Commis sion. Wa shington. D.C. 20555.
available during each meeting for The amendments add a license Written limited appearance statements members of the public to make oral
- condition relating to the completion of may be mailed to the Secretary or statements to the study group. Written facility modifications for fire protection, presented to the Board at the Special comments, addressed to the Secretary of
%e Commission has made Prehearing Conference or at any the Commission. United States Nuclear appropriate findings as required by the subsequent sessions of the evidentiary Regulatory Commission. Washington, Act and the Commission's rules and hearing.
DC.20555, Attention: Docketing and regulations in to CFR Chapter I, which l
Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. This f ath Service Branch, will be accepted for one are set forth in the license amendments.
J day of Aupst 1979, week after each meeting.De Chairman Prior public notice of these amendments For the Atemic Safety and Ucensing Board. of t$e study group is empowered to
.was not required since the amendments Andrew C. Goodhope, conduct the meeting in a ma7.,er that,in do not involve a significant hazards chairman.
his judpnent, will facilitate the group's consideration.
work, including,if neceasary continuing The Commission has determined that
[
In ow. sas srw W-m un m) h coot nm or rescheduhng meetings to another day,, the issuance,of these amendments will A file of documents relevant to the not result in any significant group's work, including a complete environmentalimpact and t'.i pursuant transcript of each meeting. memoranda to 10 CFR I 51.5(d)(4) an e stmental ~
exchanged between group members, impact statement or negaf
~
d
' i
,