ML19347D991
| ML19347D991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1981 |
| From: | Bloch P, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104140586 | |
| Download: ML19347D991 (9) | |
Text
D GII 4 0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
}@ APR 101981 *
~
O!!'ce cf tg 3,q:ce}
0 W r: 1 :m.
Before Administrative Judges:
b NS.*
y Peter B. Bloch, Chairman 0
0 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon fg,9),
llAq ]O U8/
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY,)
) Docket Nos. 50-440-OL ET AL.
)
50-441-OL
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2))
April 9, 1981
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCHEDULING PREHEARING CONFERENCE REGARDING PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION Four petitions for intervention were filed in a timely f ashion, in response to a notice of opportunity for hearing pub-lished in the Federal Register (46 Fed. Reg.12372) on February 13, 1981. One petition (" Sunflower Petition") was filed by Sunflower Alliance, Inc., Northshore Alert, Evelyn Stebbins, Richard Sering, David Nash, Gail Caduff Nash, I.inda Qualls, David Qualls, Citizens for Safe Energy, Jenny Steindam, Harold Steindam, Wes Gerlosky, Margaret Gerlosky, William Brotzman, Grand River Winery, Cumings Homsted Park Coro., and Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy. The other petitions were filed by the Lake County Board of Coninissioners and Lake County Disaster Services Agency, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE) and Tod J. Kenney.
g
/ ;p plVb. *O m m~. A 6 ' %r!)Ll ' U
- 9 l
El %/,, ' !S3/x. p Ci:
l
-t I
- D *']jf
$ 9
C #;d y' g
- 97. y l
810.41.405Wo g
Perry Prehearing 2 Responses to" these petitioners have been filed by the NRC Staff and Applicants.
THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Under 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2), a petition for leave to inter-vene as a party shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioners should be permitted to intervene with particular reference to the factors in parag, aph (d) of this section, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Paragraoh (d) of %2.714 states:
[T]he Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on petitions to intervene and/or requests for hearing shall, in ruling on a petition for leave to intervene, consider the following f actors, among other things:
(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 interest in the proceeding.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In addition, intervention may be limited to issues in which peti-tiener has an interest.
10 C.F.R. {2.714(f).
Furthermore, repre-sentatives of a municipality are specially assured of the right to participate. 10 C.F.R. ?2.715(c).
l
Perry Prehearing 3 ARGUMENTS The NRC staff has asserted with respect to several of the petitioners 1I either that no interest in the proceeding has been alleged by them or that their interest has not been suffi-ciently particularized.
Staff also represents that petitioners generally have not shown the specific aspects of the subject matter of this proceeding as to which they wish to intervene.
However, each of the business petitioners and each of 7he individual petitioners, including Tod J. Kenney and those included in the Sunflower Petition, has alleged an interest that is suffi-ciently particular to give them standing in this proceeding.
Each of the individual and business petitioners joined in the Sunflower petition is alleged to live or be located no further than 50 miles from the Perry Nuclear Plant (" Perry").
Similarly, Tod J.
Kenney states that he lives in close proximity to Perry.
In addition, as Applicant has recognized in its filings, each of the individual petitioners describes at least one " aspect of the proceeding" in which petitioners are interested.1 1
The Sunflower Petition was filed on behalf of several peti-tioners but separately sta es the contentions and standing of each.
S We tentatively accept Applicant's conclusions concerning the admissibility of issues, but we may of course revise our conclusion should that seem appropriate at the conclusion of the special prehearing conference.
Perry Prehearing 4 Applicant objects, however, to admitting Sunflower Alliance, Inc., North 3hore Alert, Citizens for Safe Energy, Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, and OCRE, as parties because these organizations have not shown a direct effect on their organization or on at least one member of each organization.
Houston Lichting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-535, 9 N.R.C. 377 (1979).
In that case, the Licensing Board denied intervention for lack of standing and the Appeal Board _
affirmed, stating (id at 390):
[0]rganizations... are not clothed with independent standing to intervene in NRC licensing proceedings.
Rather, any standing which [such organizations] may possess is wholly derivative in character.
It must appear [from the petition] that at least one of the persons it purports to represent does in f act have an interest which might be aff ected by the licensing action being sought.
In this case, the petition states that members of Sunflower Alliance, Inc., Citizens for Safe Er.ergy, and Northshore Alert are directly affected; and 10 C.F.R.
2.714(a)(3) permits "Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene... [to] amend his petition for leave to intervene." Hence, Sunflower Alliance, Inc.,
Citizens for Safe Energy and Northshore Alert shall have an oppor-tunity to demonstrate the validity of their general assertions about the effect on their members; and the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy may want to amend its petition providing that at least one of its members is directly affected.
Similarly, OCRE has alleged
Perry Prehearing 5 that at least five of its members live within 30 miles of Perry and shall be permitted to amend its petition to demonstrate which mem-bers are directly affected. The amendments must permit the Board and the other parties to determine "for themselves, by independent inquiry if thought warranted, whether a basis existed for a formal challenge to the truthfulness of the assertions in the...
petition." [ Emphasis in original.]
Id at 393.
ho party has challenged,the petition for leave to intervene filed by the Lake County Board of Commissioners, the principal gov-erning Board for Lake County, Ohio, and by The Lake County Disaster Services Agency.
In general petitioners have indicated at least one aspect of the proceeding in which they are interested. However, some of the issues which have been identified may not be admissible in the proceeding, and the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy appears to be interested primarily in an issue of doubtful admissibility.
CONCLUSION CONCERNING PETITIONS For the reasons stated above, each of the petitions for leave to intervene is granted with respect to each petitioning intervener except that Sunflower Alliance, Inc., Northshore Alert, Citizens for Safe Energy, the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy and OCRE must amend their petitions in compliance with this order before party status may be granted to any of them.
Perry Prehearing 6 PROCEDURAL MATTERS A prehearing conference shall be convened in this case pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
2.751a, which sets forth the subjects to be covered. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.711, each petitioner may file an amended petition no later than 25 days prior to the conference so that there will be adequate time to respond and to prepare the
' required brief discussed below.
These amended petitions shall state contentions with particularity and shall cure defects in the pett-tions identified in this Memorandum and Order.
In particular, petitions which have failed to state standina adequately should be accompanied by one or more affidavits stating the place of residence of members on whom standing is based and stating that the organiza-tion is authorized to represent the member's interests. Also, the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy should indicate at least one aspect of the proceeding in which it has an interest.
In addition, no later than seven days prior to the prehear-ing conference each party and each petitioner shall have delivered to each person on the service list a brief stating in reasonable detail:
(1) reasons, suoported by legal authorities, why issues included in petitions should be considered relevant to the proceedings in whole or part or should be consid-l ered irrelevant to the proceedings.
Perry Prehearing 7 (2) the matters the party or petitioner will seek to discover, including reasonable specificity about the plan of discovery to be followed.
(3) the manner in which petitioners' cases should be coordinated or consolidated, in whole or in part.
(See 10 C.F.R.
2.715a and 2.716.)
(4) suggestions for the fair and expeditious determina-
~
tion of the issues involved in this case.
At the conference, each party and petitioner should be
. prepared to respond to the issues raised in the preconference brief.
In carticular, each party and petitioner should coment about its position concerning discovery others have said they will undertake and concerning the time within which they can reasonably be expected to comply with discovery requests directed at them.
MOTION On March 26, 1981, Daniel D. Wilt and Terry Lodge filed a " Motion to Extend Time for Filing Reply Brief." This motion apparently was filed on behalf of Sunflower Alliance Inc., et al.
However, it is not necessary to act on that motion because the procedure adopted in this order should accomodate petitioners' need by providing them with an adequate opportunity to respond.
l j
Perry Prehearing 8 ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 9th day of April 1981 ORDERED (1)SunflowerAlliance,'Inc.,NorthshoreAlert, Citizens for Safe Energy, Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy and Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy may amend their petitions as required in this Order.
(2) The Petitions for Leave to Intervene of Evelyn Stebbins, Richard Sering, David Nash, Gail Caduff Nash, Linda Qualls, David Qualls, Jenny Steindam, Harold Steindam, Wes Gerlosky, Margaret Gerlosky, William Brotzman, Grand River Winery, Cumings Homsted Park Corp., the Lake County Board of Comissioners, The Lake County Disaster Services Agency, and Tod J. Kenney are granted and each shall be considered a party to this proceeding.
(3) A Special Prehearing Conference will comence at 9:30 a.m., on June 2-3, 1981, in the Public Assembly Room of the Lake County Courthouse, Lake County Administration Center, 105 Main St.,
Painesville, Ohio 44077.
Perry Prehearing 9 (4) Prior to the Special Prehearing Conference, parties shall file amended petitions and briefs pursuant to this Memorandtsn and Order, and the parties shall be prepared to discuss at the conference the matters set forth in this Memorandum and Order.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Peter 8. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 1 hA yr.JerryIR.KIine ADMINISJRATIVE JUDGE sL ffL
?
Mr. Frederic J n ADMINISTRAT E J' E
April 9, 1981, Bethesda, Maryl and.