ML19330A919
| ML19330A919 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Race P, Reist S, Stamaris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8007290766 | |
| Download: ML19330A919 (5) | |
Text
__
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Y
s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.
N CCCKETED I\\
ATOMIC SAFRIT AND LICENSING BOARD
-T JUL 2 51980
- 5 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman f
c...r 33 g.9,.,
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan
\\3 r cy- -
Gustave A. Linenberger
\\'
F U1 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330 OM
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING UpON STANDING TO INTERVENE (July 24, 1980)
On May 28, 1980 the board published in the Federal Register an Amended Notice of Hearing (45 FR 35949) in this proceeding which relates to certain soil-related activities and building settlement considerations at Consumer Power Company's Midland Units 1 and 2.
The Amended Notice of Hearing provided an opportunity until June 27, 1980 for persons whose interests may be affected by the proceeding to file a petition for leave to intervene under 10 CFR 62.714 (45 FR 35949).
The following persons, all Michigan residents, have filed petitions for leave to intervene:
y O
l l
l 8007290 766
- Petitioner Place of Residence Date of Petition (1980)
Patrick A. Race Bay County June 25 Barbara Stamaris Freeland June 27 Sandra D. Reist Bay City June 26 Sharon K. Warren Midland June 36 Terry R. Miller Bay County June 25 Michael A. Race Bay City June 25 Geor<;e C. Wilson, Sr.
Saginaw June 24 William A. Thibadeau Saginaw June 23 Carol Gilbert Saginaw June 16 Each petition is timely and each petitioner resides within 25 miles of the Midland facility.
Each states that his or her health, safety and property interests will be
_affected by alleged excessive building settlement at the Midland plant and each petition sufficiently refers to an aspect of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene.
The Applicant by answers dated July 1 and 8, 1980 and the NRC Staff by answers dated July 1, 7, and 14, 1980 address each petition.
Both the Applicant and Staff state that each petition demonstrates the respective petitioner's standing to intervene in the proceeding.
The Board agrees,
\\
and rules that the above named petitioners have satisfied
. the " interest" and " aspects" requirement of 10 CFR 92.714(a)(2).
This ruling, however, is not predicated upon an interest in the proceeding as ratepayers as asserted in several of the petitions.
By answer dated July 14, 1980, the Staff has regarded a letter dated June 23, 1980 from Wendell H. Marshall to Mr. A. Schwencer of the NRC Staff to be a petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
It is probably Mr. Marshall's intention to intervene in this proceeding, and by reference to other matters he apparently demonstrates standing to intervene.
Therefore, the Board regards the letter as an intervention petition.
However, the Applicant has not answered or filed any other response to Mr. Marshall's letter.
Therefore the Board defers acting upon Mr. Marshall's June 23, petition / letter until Applicant has had an opportunity to answer.
In the meantime Mr. Marshall, who has been admitted as an intervenor in the Midland operating license proceeding on a similar issue, i
will be permitted to participate fully on all phases of this 1
proceeding until further ruling of the Board.
Applicant should file its answer to Mr. Marshall's June 23 petition within 10 days-following the service of this order.
Most of the petitions have identical substantive wording and all are very similar to each other.
Noting this circum-i stance, Applicant suggests that where petitions are identical, r
~~
, consolidation under 10 CFR 92.714(d), limiting intervention on common interests to representation by a single spokesman.
The Board will defer ruling upon this suggestion until amended and supplemental petitions are received and the contentions can be considered.
Most of the petitions have included a statement to the effect that petitioners are not required to frame specific contentions until 15 days prior to the holding of the special prehearing conference required to be held under 10 CFR 92.751a.
These petitioners state that they reserve their right to file contentions within that time limit.
The NRC Staff has also made such statements which are a correct reference to 10 CFR 92.714 (b).
However tha Roard has authority under 10 CFR 92.711 and 92.718 to ch j the time for the filing of contentions.
The amended notice of hearing which announced the opportunity to file intervention petitions provided that a supplement with contentions must be filed no later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference, "or other time set by the board...".
The Board has determined that 15 days prior to the special prehearing conference is not a suitable time for the filing of contentions in this proceeding.
Therefore the time for the filing of supplemental petitions with contentions; is changed to August 14, 1930.
On or before that date any
...
- petitioners found above to have standing to intervene and Mr. Marshall may file an amended petition under 10 CFR 82.714(a)(3) and a supplement to the original petition under 52.714(b) setting forth his or her contentions within the scope of the amended notice of hearing, setting forth with reasonable specificity the bases for each contention.
The Applicant and the NRC Staff may file answers to any amended petition and supplemental petitions on or before August 29, 1980.
In a separate order the Board is setting a special prehearing conference in this proceeding and a conference in the operating license proceeding for September 10, 1980 at Midland, Michigan.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AF5 LICENSING BOAED
/
/
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland July 24, 1980 4
9
-