ML19331A976
| ML19331A976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1972 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Buck J, Quarles L, Wells A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP), Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007240558 | |
| Download: ML19331A976 (2) | |
Text
.
p) s, March 20, 1972 Algie A. Wells, Chairr.:an Atemic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board O. S. Atomic Energy Cocuission Washington, D. C.
20545 R
Dr. John H. Otrk c/o Atoa...; Santy and Licensing Ecard THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS m
U. S. Atonic Energy Cossission POOR quAUTY PAGES j
Washington, D. C.
20545 Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles, Dean.
School of Engineering and Applied Science Ur versity of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 In the Matter of Consur. ors Power Company
>!idland Plant, Units I and 2 Docket Nos.
50-329 and 50-330 Gentlemen:
This is to advise the Appeal 2oard that the AEC regulatory staff does not intend to file a fomal answer in response to Steve J. Gadler's petition dated February 23,1971, for review of the Ate:aic Safety and Licensing Goard's order denying his petition for leave to inter-vene in the captioned proceeding.
Our views in regard to Mr. Gadler's petition for leave to intervene are sat forth in our "ACC Pegulatory Staff Answer to Petiticn to Intervene of Steve J. Gadler," dateo January 3,1972 (copy attacned).
We urge the Appeal Soard to uphold the Licensing Board's order for the reasons discussed in our January 3 filing.
F.espectfully submittec, David E. Karta11a Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
Enclosure:
Cy of AEC Reg. Staff Answer to Pet to Inter./Gadler, dtd 1/3/72.
3 3...P.$.gS..k...h.E...
.$.E.N.U.t.i.m
.0.E $Y
.... 0'GCi 0 h b*i...
0FTl DEKartM NTFEkielard t
SURMAh0E>
......Q oatt >
..3/.2.0/.7.2
.3220H2.
Form AEC.3ts (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240
- u s covtawswr **'Nr**e o**>cs 1,7o-e7 7-J 8007240f58 G
L
D
\\
2-cc w/ enc 1: Arthur W. l'urphy, Esq.
Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Goodman Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Irving Like, Esq.
Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
William J. Ginster, Esq.
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Honorable William H. Ward Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
James A. Kendall, Esq.
James N. O'Connor, Esq.
David Comey, Esq.
Mr. Steve J. Gadler firs. Mary Sinclair Honorable Vern Miller Nathaniel H. Goodrich, Esq.
fir. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.
Howard J. Vogel, Esq.
l I
OmCE >
SUR98At0E >
DATE>
Form AEC-Sl0 (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240
- u s covenwsNT >==Temo on et toro-ao? na
- ge
<Q-1 UMITED STATES OF A.. ERICA i
ATOMIC ENERGY C0;'cIISSION
. l 3., _.
i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Ai!D LICENSI"G BOARD l
In the Matter of s.
CO ;SUMERS POWER ' COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.'50-329 I
)
'50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
AE'C P,EGULATORY STAFF ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVETE OF STEVE J. GADLER-On Deceber 20,.1971, Steve J. Gadler (petitioner), uhc appears to be a resident of St. Paul,. Minnesota, filed a timely petition to intervene in the captioned proceeding pursuant to the Supplementary l:otice of Hear ng published in the Federal Register on Neverlaar 29, 1971 (35 F.R.
23169).
The.Suppicmantary Notice identified additional issues for-consideration'and determination by the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proccading. These additional issues relate to the i:aplementation of the National Environmental Policy Act'cf 1969 as provided in Appendix D,10 CFR Part 50 of the Comr.ission's recula-ti ons. The Supplementary Notice granted a thirty day period from date of publication in tne Federal Register fbr the 'iling of petitions to intervene 'on the additional issues specified.
The bases for the intervention of Mr. Gadler are stated in seven generally worded contentions regarding the effects -of the operation of the pro-posed Midland Plent.
The Supplementary i:otice provides that petitions to
- itervene are to be filed p ersuant to 10 CFR Section 2.714 of the Ccamission's " Rules of Woo 62ao 69 9
1.
i.. -
--2.-~
Practice." Under 10'CFR Section 2.714:a petition to intervene must
'(1)l set forth the interest of the petitioner in'the proceeding; (2):
how thatLinterest may be affected by Cor.nission action; ~and (3) the
-contentions-of_ the ~ petitioner in reasonably specific detail.
In our view the petition to intervene _of Mr. Gadler fails 1to meet the requirements of.10 CFR Section 2.714' in all ~ three respects.
As to the first two requirements of Section 2.714, petitioner's naked assertion of an affected interest-does not give him standing even 'under the' broadest-interpretation of recent judicial prcnouncements. }le note-that petitioner does not claim to be a resident of Michigan, nor does he claim to own or live on property in the vicinity of the plant. The' interest alleged by petitioner is no different from the interest of any other member of the general public. The Supreme Court in Jenkins-v.
McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 423 (1969) has stated that persons challenging; agency action must show both an " adversary interest" and "some connection-between the official action challenged and some legally protected interest-of the party challenging that action." Petitioner has alleged no such
" legally protected interest."
In addition, the petition of Mr. Gadler is inadequate under the third requirement of 10 CFR Section 2.714, in failing to set forth contentions in reasonably specific detail. The' petitioner's statements as to the k.
4 1
m a
m m
m.
mm..m
o-basis for his being grcnted intervence status in this proceeding are unduly broad and vague and provide no reasonable basis ender 10 CFR Section 2.714 for granting the petition.
Finally, ccs if not all of petitioner's assertions could have been raised under the earlier Notice of Hearing (35 F.R.16749) in this proceeding. The Supplementary Notice of Ecaring expressly states that it does not provide an additional opportunity to cny person to intervene on the basis of, or to raise matters encompassed within, the issues pertcining to radiological health and safety and the ccaron defense enc security specified for haaring in tna price notice.
Accordir. gly, for :::e atove stated recscas, we believe the present petition to intervene should ba denied.
Respectfully submitted,
,. i.
f.? '- :.:,5.: - l:,
Rcbert Newtcn Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff "ated at Eethesda, **aryland, this 3rd day of January,1972.
O