ML19309C928
| ML19309C928 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004090396 | |
| Download: ML19309C928 (6) | |
Text
4' C)
UtlITED STATES OF At1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ftt11SSION BEFORE THE COMl11SSION In the flatter of
)
)
f1ETROPOLITAtl EDIS0N C0!1PANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Order - February 11,1980)
(Three flile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, ETC.,
BY WILLIAll A. LOCHSTET On fiarch 18, 1980, Llilliam A. Lochstet (Petitioner) filed a timely Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene, etc., (Petition) pursuant to an Order issued by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on February 11, 1980M and the Commission's Rules of Practice, specifically, 10 CFR Q 2.714.
The Order proposed to modify the facility's operating license to:
"(1) define operating parameters for the current safe, stable, long-term cooling mode for the facility (defined as the recovery mode), and delete all other permissible operating modes so as to assure that operation of the facility in other than the stable shutdown condition of the recovery mode is precluded;
_1]
The Order in question was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1980 at 45 Fed. RS. 11282-84.
80040903$f
(2) impose functional, operability, redundancy and surveillance require-ments as well as safety limits and limiting conditions with regard to those structures, systems, equipment and components necessary to main-tain the facility in the current safe, stable shutdown condition and to cope with foreseeable off-nonnal conditions.
(3) prohibit venting or purging or other treatment of the reactor building atmosphere, the discharge of water decontaminated by the EPICOR-II system, and the treatment and disposal of high-level radioactively contaminated water in the reactor building, until each of these activi-ties has been approved by the NRC, consistent with the Commission's Statement of Policy and Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (44 F.R. 67738)."
I.
INTEREST As provided by the Order, a petition must satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
This regulation directs that a petitioner set forth his or her interest in the proceeding and how such interest might be affected by the result thereof, including the reasons why intervention should be permitted.
10 CFR 9 2.714(a)(2).
In this regard, consideration is to be given to the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party, the nature and extent of petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding and the possible effect on such interest of any order entered in the proceeding.
10 CFR 9 2.714(d).
Also to be stated in a petition are the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceed-ing on which intervention is sought.
10 CFR 9 2.714(a)(2).
l l
It is elemental that judicial concepts of standing are controlling in deter-mining whether a petitioner has satisfied the foregoing requirements.
Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-614 (1976); Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143,1144-1145.
Consequently, a petitioner must show " injury in fact" and that such interest is " arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute." Port-land General Electric Company, supra.
Particular attention should be given to the particularization of the above elements in connection with non-mandatory proceedings, such as the instant one, to assure that potential intervenors have the required interest to warrant a hearing. g. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al.
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976) (a case involving an operating license).
Mr. Lochstet's Petition asserts that he resides in State College, Pennsylvania, which is located approximately 75 miles from the facility.
Mr. Lochstet also avers that he has reason to travel past the plant at distances of less than 5 miles.
He asserts that to avoid foodstuffs, presumably contaminated by gaseous releases of radioactivity from the facility "would require more l
care and time spent in selecting foods and create an unreasonable burden [on him]".
Petition at 2.
I The Appeal Board has held that geographic proximity of a petitioner's resi-dence to a facility is deemed enough, standing alone, to establish the interest requirements of 10 CFR s 2.714 Virginia Electric and Power Company i
i
. 1 (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979).
Although no specific distance from a nuclear power plant has evolved from Cornission.' decisions to define the outer boundary of the " geographic zone of interest", distances up to about 50 miles have been found not to be so great as to preclude a finding of standing based on residence.
Tennessee Valley "uthority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2) ALAB 413, 5 NRC 1418, 1422 n.4 (1977). Based on Petitioner's residence, 75 miles from the plant, and the assertion that he has reason to travel past the plant at distances of less than 5 miles, the Staff believes that Petitioner has established stand-ing under the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714.
I:.
ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDING As noted above, a petition, in addition to setting forth a petitioner's interest and the effects thereon, must also identify the specific aspect (s) on which intervention is sought.
This matter is not addres' sed by the Peti-tion. Thus, the Petition in this regard is defective.
III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff believes that although the Petition is, in part, presently deficient, it appears amenable to being cured, and, subject l
thereto and to submission of contentions as required by 10 CFR 5 2.714(b),
should be granted.
~
Respectfully submitted, M
B6rnard li. Bordenick '
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland this 4 th day of April,1980.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
'I>
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
l Docket No. 50-320 ll (Order - February 11,1980)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
),)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO REQUGl FOR HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, ETC., BY WILLIAM A I OCHSTET", dated April 4,1980, 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 Commission's internal mail system, this 4th day of April,1980:
Mr. Steven C. Sholly
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 304 South Market Street Panel Mechanicsburg, Penns%
nia 17055 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. William A. Lochstet 119 E. Aaron Drive
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conraission Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear _
Washington, D.C.
20555 Power
- Docketing and Service Section 433 Orlando Avenue Office of the Secretary State College, Pennsylvania 16801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
I Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 H. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 g
h Y
- 8ernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff