ML19350D070
| ML19350D070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1981 |
| From: | Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104130244 | |
| Download: ML19350D070 (6) | |
Text
i 04/09/81 G
k q
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APg
-2 BEFORE THE AT0tilC SAFETY AND LICENSIflG BOARD In the flatter
)
b, 1
/
17 KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY &
Docket flo. 50-482 e
KAtlSAS CITY POWER A!19 LIGHT COMPA!lY)
)
(Wolf Creek Generating Station,
)
Uni t 'lo.1)
)
NRC STAFF RESP 0!!SE TO AMENDED PETITI0tl 0F t1ARY ELLEN SALAVA INTRODUCTION By Menorandun and Order served l1 arch 16,1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that ilary Ellen Salava had by virtue of residing within five miles of the plant site denonstrated a cognizable interest in this proceeding. Ms. Salava had indicated a concern with respect to emergency planning.
The Board agreed with the Staff that the petitioner had sufficiently identified an area of intervenor interest to meet the aspect requirement of 10 CFR Q2.714. The Staff also indicated that since petitioner may subnit her contentions with the required specificity of 10 CFR Q2.714(b) at any time up to 15 days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference it was premature for the Board to rule on the adequacy of the petition as a whole to satisfy the regulations.
By letter dated March 21,1981 (received by the Staff on April 3, 1981) petitioner stated that her " contention is that there is no viable energency plan for the Wolf Creek Generating Station."
B10.413 M
.. 8 Applicable Contentions Regarding Contentions The standard governing admissibility of a contention in a Commission licensing proceeding is that such proposed contention aust fall within the scope of issues set forth in the Federal Register flotice of Hearing (Notice of Hearing) in that proceeding and conply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b) and applicable Commission case law.
See, e.g.,
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Units flos. I and 2), ALAB-197, 6 AEC 18B, 194 (1973); aff'd BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974); Duquesne Light Co.
(Beaver Valley, Unit flo.1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 242, 245 (1973);
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atonic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
10 C.F.R. 92.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which petitioners seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases -for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity. A; contention must be rejected where:
(a)- it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirenents; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Conaission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seek to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in l
. question; or
C (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEc 13, 20-21 (1974).
The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 92.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infir.aities listed above, to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject natter in the proceeding, and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra at 20.
Fron the standpoint of basis, it is necessary for the petition "to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power and Light Co.
(Grand Gulf Nuclear station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
Furthermore, in examining the contentions and the bases therefor, a licensing board is not to reach the merits of the contentions. Duke Power Co. (Amendnent to 11aterials License SN!1-1773 -
Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at
!1cGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146,161 (1979); Peach Bottom, supra, at 20; Grand Gulf, supra at 426.
Nonetheless, it is incunbent upon the petitioners to set forth contentions which are sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose. This is particularly true at the operating license stage where, as here, a hearing is not nandatory, in order to assure that a proposed contention raises an issue clearly open
g to adjudication. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768-69 (1977). The Staff is aware of the recent decision of the Appeal Board in the Allens_ Creek case (ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980)) where a more liberal view is taken with respect to basis.
The nere allegation of " concern" with respect to energency planning is not even reasonably specific so as to comply with the requisites of 10 CFR Q2.714. Since this is the only contention submitted by this petitioner, her petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding must be denied.
Respectfully submi.ed, t'
/W Myro Karnan Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of April, 1981.
1 r
r.
UNITED STATES OF A". ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:'. MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
K*iNSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY &
)
Docket No. 50-482 KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
(Uolf Creek Generating Station, Unittio.1)
)
CERTIFICATE _0_F SERVICE I hereby certify-that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AMENDED PETITION OF MARY ELLEN SALAVA 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,-through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal m.;i system, this 9th day of April, 1981.
James P. Glea3cn, Esq., Chairman Atonic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Panel Silver Spring, FD 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:.aission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography Docketing and Service Section University of Washington Office of the Secretary Seattle, Washington 93195 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. J. Venn Leeds 10S07 Atwell Floyd Mathews, Esc.
Houston, Texas 77096 Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Treva J. Hearne, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Assistant General Counsel P.O. Box 360 Kansans for Sensible Energy Jefferson City, Mo.
65102 P.O. Box 3192 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mary Ellen Salava 1800 M Street, N.W.
Route 1, Box 56 Washington, D.C.
20006 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Uanda Christy 515 N. 1st Street Burlington, Kansas 6r' Ato'"ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- a
'4 'ir. L.F. Drbl l-tissouri-Kansas Section:
Eierican I;uclear Society 15114 i'avaho Clathe, KS 6C052 Francis Blaufus s
'.'2s t; halia, Kansas 66093 YZ%
sVAM;/
j
- Myron Karr.an Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel