ML19337A478
| ML19337A478 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Lessy R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8009290034 | |
| Download: ML19337A478 (6) | |
Text
s September 25, 1989 UNITED STATE 1 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN!!NG BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483 l
)
STN 50-486 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO PETITION FILED BY JOHN G. REED I.
BACKGROUND On August 28, 1980, the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (45 Fed. R_eg. 56956) notice of opportunity for a hearing on the e
application for operating licenses for the Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The notice, inter alia, provided that any person whose interest may be affe:ted by the proceeding could submit a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice by September 25, 1980.
On September 10, 1980, the docketing and service branch, as provided in the above-referenced Federal Register notice, received a document entitled " Petition" by one John G. Reed of Kingdom City, Missouri. The petition provides that it has been filed with respect to the "... issuance of an operating license for the Callaway County [ sic] Nuclear Power Plant" and mentions three NUREG publications relating to emergency planning (" Petition," p.1).
The petition asserts that "[T]he Three Mile Island incident was indicative that local and state nuclear safety capabilities were non-existent or ineffective" (" Petition,"
- p. 1). The petition concludes:
80002H 6
i
D,
We respectfully petition the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission to withhold issuance of an operating license on the Union Electric Nuclear Power Plant which is located at Reform in Callaway County. Missouri, until an adequate local emerJency response capability has been planned, funced and operationally effective. (" Petition"
- p. 2).
For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff believes that the petition should be denied without prejudice to its timely renewal and resubmission in light of the express intervention requirements established in 10 C.F.R. 92.714.
II.
DISCUSSION Although labeled simply as a " Petition" rather than an intervention petition, it appears from its content, timing and method of service that it was submitted in response to the Federal _ Register notice referenced above. Accordingly, it must be judged for adequacy in light of the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
Thus, it should set forth with particularity:
(1) the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and (2) how that interest may be affected by the procee!
icluding the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to inter.ene, and (3) the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner seeks to intervene.
i
The regulation further provides that the presiding licensing board in ruling upon petitions to intervene shall consider:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interests in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
Under present regulations, contentions of the petitioner need not be included in tie petition (though they may be), but such contentions must be filed no later than fifteen days prior to the first or special prehearing conference considering intervention,10 C.F.R. 52.714(b).
In an operating license proceeding the presiding licensing board should satisfy 'tself that at least "one good contention" has been filed, because in the absence of such a con-tention, a hearing is not mandatory.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976).
When Mr. Reed's petition is examined in light of the previously discussed 2
intervention requirements, / it is, however, clear that the petition as 310 C.F.R. 52.714(d)(1)-(3).
See also Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRL 610 (1976).
3While it is clear, however, that these requirements must be satisfied, the Board may also consider, in evaluating the adequacy of the petition, that Mr. Reed is apparently a pro se intervenor. Wisconsin Public Service C
ation, et al. (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant), LBP 78-24, 8 NRC 78, 82 78.
filed does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
Although the petition briefly mentions both emergency planning and Class 9 accidents, the reader is only left to speculate as to the precise natn of Mr. Reed's concerns or their relationship to the pending Callaway operating license application.
Moreover, it is not clear from the petition whether Mr. Reed represents any interests other than his own, as the petition contains the phrase "we respectfully petition..." but no group or other individuals are named, or their designated representatives indicated.
Finally, the petition does not indicate the physical location of petitioner relative to the location of the proposed Callaway facility.
III.
CONCLUSION 1
Accordingly, the Staff believes that the petition should be denied without prejudice to its timely renewal, as determined by the board designated to rule on petitions to intervene in light of the requirements for intervention established in 10 C.F.R. 62.714. The Staff recomends that petitioner be afforded an opportunity to refile its petition within twenty-one days after a duly appointed board has initially ruled upon the petition.
Respectfully submitted, Roy P. Lessy Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 25th day of September, 1980.
September 25, 1980 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tiMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC C0f1PANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483
)
STN 50-486 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 62.713, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Narc
- Roy P. Lessy Address
- Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Telephone Number
- (301) 492-7992 Admissions
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals U.S. District Court, District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Name of Party
- NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 et 06, Roy P. Lessy (
Counsel for NRt' Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 25th day of Septecnber,1980.
UNITED STATES OF AfiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B_EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE!! SING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC CO:!PANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483
)
STN 50-486 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO PETITION FILED BY JOHN G. REED" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" of Roy P. Lessy,. 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 by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Connission internal mail system, this 25th day of September, 1980:
i Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Board Panel
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. John G. Reed Appeal Board
- Rt. 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kingdom City, MO 65262 Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 9oW Roy P. Lessy U
i Counsel for NRC Staff l