ML19330A170
| ML19330A170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1972 |
| From: | Woodard W NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150941 | |
| Download: ML19330A170 (6) | |
Text
-
LULAu m.ua E300. & UJJL, fl.C. MMS' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATCMIC ENERGY COMMIS$10N 0
W Q
s ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD g g ;,,,, g )
\\
[6 rQ'\\
/
C:.tu Algie A. Wells, Chairman c-
~
Dr John H. Buck
{
M M.2.i1972 > ~j I
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles
\\9 c~ - + - ary
\\
Sc
\\1(>,Oa d
)
IO in the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
DOCKET NOS. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-POOR QUAUTY PAGES
~
On February 28, 1972, Steve J. Gadler (Petitioner) filed a petition with the Appeal Board for review of the Order of the Atomic Safety-and Licensing Board, dated February 9,1972, denying his petition to intervene.M By way of background, the petitioner on December 20, 1971, filed a petition to intervene in this construction permit proceedir.:. following pub-lication in the Federal Register on December 4,1971 (s6 F.R. 23169) of a Supplementary Notice of Hearing. That notice identified additional issues for consideration and determination by the Licensing Board relating to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as provided in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 0.
The Supplementary Notice expressly stated that it did not provide an additional opportunity to any person to intervene on the basis of, or to raise netters encompassed within, the issues if Even though an initial Decision has not yet been rendered in this pro-ceeding, we do not view this appeal as interlocutory, within the meaning of 10 CFR Section 2.730(f), inasmuch as the Licensing Board's Order was final with respect to the petitioner.
- 0nso Ty C
.s 2
pertaining to radiological health and safety and the common defense _and security specified for hearing in the prior notica.
(35 F.R.
- 16749, Cctober 29, 1970.)
Both tne applicant and the staff opposed the petition; in sum, they stated that the petitioner lacked proper standing or interest, that he had not stated his contentions with suf ficient particularity, that the interests he represented were already adequately represented in l
the proceeding, and that in any case the issues which he raised were primarily related to radiological health and safety, even though shrouded with environmental verbiage, and hence could properly be asserted only in response to the first notice of hearing unless a showing of " good
~
~
cause" we re made.
The Licensing Board's Order stressed that petitioner, a resident of Minnesota, hundreds of miles f rom the Midland site, was asserting an interest which was not specific to him but, purportedly, of general interest.
The Order also recited that there were already a number of environmental groups in the proceeding asserting essentially "public" interests, as well as a group of local citizens asserting private rights; and that those environmentai groups would adequately represent the public interest, so that no purpose would be served by permitting another intervention purporting to represent the general, as contrasted to a private, interest.
s 3
-The ~ peti tion for ' review ir.cludes no reasons or explanaticn why the petitioner believes that the Licensing Board was in error, or why we should. overrule the Licensing Board's Order.
The applic nt, by letter dated March 9, 1972, asks that the ruling be upheld, both on the grounds stated by the Licensing Board and because the petitioner was untimely as to the particular issues raised.
The regulatory staff, by letter dated March 20, 1972, declined to file a new statement but referred to that which it had previously filed with the Licensing Board.
The Licensing Board has broad authority -- indeed, a duty -
ander AEC rules of practice to regulate the course of a hearing.
(10 CFR 5 2.718.)
The Board is specifically empowered to rule on requests for intervention.
(10 CFR 5 2.7i4.)
In assessing the Licensing Board's exercise of these responsibilities, we note that there is a question whether the petitioner has shown adequa te standing or interest, as required by 10_CFR 5 2.714, to participate is a party to this proceeding.-2/
We also note in passing tr at pet itioner made a limited appearance in this proceeding at which he asserted many of the same issues through which he now seeks to intervene.
Given this background, and given the searching examination of questions of this type which other parties are providing, we find nothing which Indicates that the Licensing Board abused its discretion in this case.
2/
Cf. C rowthe-v. Seaborg, 312 F. Supp. 1205 (D. Colo. 1970).
-s 4
4
?
1 i
i The Petition for Review of the Licensing Board's Order is acccrdingly denied.
It is so ORDERED.
4 By the Atomic Safety and Licensing
' Appeal Board j
i William Woodard Executive Secretary 3-5) -
^^
oated:
~
l l
1 l
I 4
i 4
h 4
l ff 1.,ry o*
m.,.
.s
- m s, m =s c r ~*
_ v~ ~s r't :
t r =
.~s s w
-.\\
a
....~a
.s
~ !v.7 t
k -
s.:,-7'
(..
.~..
... 3
..u..
m
.s r 5" carri:
- t:, ;
ni m ei r? ' '
2" "i
n: 2i *ar 3!,
i n.
~
...a.
t 1;
.c icas Ln at and Cemral.
ira ussor of Physics
- f oun s e l l'niversity of Houston Jcha K.
Restrick, Eaq.
3801 Cullen Boulevard ccasumers Pcuer Cocoany
'lous ton, Te::as 77004 212 U :., t '41ch. :an / 9 2nue J., msdn, flichi;.n 49291 Dr. David B. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
- !r. R. C.
Youn;dahl P.
O.
Box 1663 Senior '/ ice Prealdent Los Alamos,. :*eu Mexico ' 87344 Consumers Pcuer Ccc:pany 2il Uest Michigan Avenue Cr. Stuart G. Forbes Jacksen, 'lichigan a9201 100 Tennessee Avenue, Apt. 37 Redlands, California 92273 Honorabla Frank Olds, Chairnun Midland County Board of Supervisors Thomas F. Englehardt, Esq.
623 St. Charles Screet David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Robert Newton, Esq.
Regulctory Staf f Counsel Henorable Jercme Maslowski U. S. Atomic Ener:;y Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20545 State of Michigan Seven Scory Office Suildiag Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
525 Uest Ottawa
- Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq.
Lansing, Michigan 43913 Haroid-F. Reis. Esq.
Lowenstein, Me'.raan & Reis Henorable Curtis G. Beck
.ll00. Connecticut Avenue, i.
'f.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20036 St a:e of Michigan Seven Scory Office Building 523 West Ottawa Lansing, Michigan. 439i3'
b -
30-329, 330 page 2 Myren M. Cherry, Esq.
Ullliam J. Cinster, O q.
Suite 1005 Marrill 3nilding, Suita i 109 North Dearborn Street SaAina7, Michigan 13602 Chi ago, Illinois 6060:
' - % 1.1.
u;r,,;
Ant!ony Z. Roisman, Esq.
- 17 D.:o. LO, !apieten 3erlin, Roisnan and Kessler
- ". il a nd, ':: = f q 6 00 L 712 t!. Street N.
W.,
6th Floor
~.i u h in g t o n, v. C.
wux
.;/-na.-
u ;:../, Li.2 a c.c 3 fa n a i d a r Jam
of U
't!al and Nuclear Power Cc.caittee T-Aa, c :.a t c. a s c o, i.'
?. o. dox 333
- lid iand, Michi,an 436'*O
-1
- i.
e G mco w,
.... c ; s t
.cp Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
- 710 Ueat Sc. Andrew.L,ad J.111 chard S inclair, Esq.
Midland, Michigan. 43640 Allen Kezsboa, Esq'.
~~
Xaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Mr. Steve J. Gadler and Handler 2120 Carter Avenue 425 Park Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 53108 New York, New York 10022 Ho wa r d J. '/c ge l, E s q.
Willlam A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
814 Flour 2:: chant;e Buildin;;
James M. O'Connor, Esq.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 The Dow Chemical Company 2030 Pow Center Midland, Michi",an 43640
~/
L r
., W b N!1 ]
,I }l -/w,/ / (f Office of the fecretary of the Commission ec:
Mr. Murphy Mr. Engelhardt AS&LBP Mrs. Brown Reg. Files