ML20009H219
| ML20009H219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308, 07200001 |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108070050 | |
| Download: ML20009H219 (7) | |
Text
'
08/05/81..
N
/
/
UNT.TED STATES OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b
+
g v
In the Matter of
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 70-1308 & 72-1
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO JULY 17, 1981 FILING 0F ELAINE WALSH On July 17, 1981, Mrs. Elaine Walsh filed a document entitled "Re:
Order Setting Prehearing Conference" in which she expresses her opposition to any Licensing Board Order "which would not permit the People of the State of Illinois... to be represented at any and all hearings of the Atomic, [ sic] Safety and Licensing Board." In another document also dated July 17, 1981 and entitled "Re: Notice, July 2, 1981 - Order Can-celling and Resetting Prehearing Conference"1/ rs. Walsh requests that "my M
additional Contention: [ sic] be added to my original Contentions [ sic], per my Limited [ sic] appearance of March 1980, my letter cT Mav 5,1980, [and that such contention] be considered at the rescheduled prehearing confer-ence."1/ Mrs. Walsh also states that "[a] copy oT my original contention, 1
1/ Since the titles of Mrs. Walsh's two documents are nearly identical and they may be fairly read together, the Staff will hereafter refer to them as " filing of July 17, 1981."
1/ s is stated in detail in footnote 6, infra, it is not clear whether A
Mrs. Walsh is seeking to participate in this proceeding as a party by filing a petition for leave to intervene pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.714 or by making a limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.715(a). To the extent that her filing of July 17, 1981 constitutes a petition for leave to intervene, the Staff is filing this answer pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.714(c).
E)SCO 5
8100070050 810805
/
PDR ADOCK 07001 C
. e my letter of May 5,1980 and the additional contention are enclosed."
In both documents, Mrs. Walsh states that she will be unable to attend the prehearing conference on August 6,1981El and requests that the Licensing Board allow Mr. John Van VrankenSI to read them for her.
BACKGROUND On March 19, 1980, Mrs. Walsh filed an untimely petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
Although the Licensing Board found that Mrs. Walsh had shown "a proper interest in the proceeding," the Board denied her petition, "both as a matter of right and of discretion of the Board."El According to the Board, the single contention set forth in the petition:
"is so broad and vague that it does not establish an issue or issues which are litigable in this proceeding."
_I_d., a t 2.
d The Board also found that on balance, the factors in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1) did not warrant granting the untimely petition.
El The Licensing Board scheduled a prehearing conference for July 23, 1981, mitted to participate further in this, tate of Illinois should be per-
"to hear argument as to whether the S proceeding and the extent of such participation.' Order Setting Prehearing Conference, June 22, 1981. The Board also stated that it "will set times for the filing of testirony and hearings and any other matter that may come before the Board."
Id.
At the request of counsel for the Applicant and for " good cause shoW," on July 2, 1981, the' Licensing Board issued an order which cancelled the prehearing conference scheduled for July 23, 1981 and reschedulbd the prehearing conference for August 6,1981. See
" Order Cancelling and Resetting Prehearing Conference," July 2, 1981.
Subsequently, because of the strike by the air traffic controllers, the prehearing conference has been rescheduled for August 14, 1981.
El John Van Vranken is counsel for the State of Illinois, which is parti-cipating in this proceeding as an intervenor pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.714 and as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715(c).
El See " Order Ruling on Petition to Intervene By Elaine Walsh," June 4, 1980, at 1.
Mrs. Walsh's latest filing, requesting that "my additional conten-tion be added to my original contentions, per my limited appearance..."
indicates continuing confusion on her part concerning the methods by which a member of the public may participate in NRC proceedings.5/ As the Staff has pre,iously stated with respect to Mrs. Walsh's March 19, 1980 petition for leave to intervene, the Staff has no objection to participation by Mrs. Walsh in this proceeding by way of a limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.715(a).1/ However, for the reasons set forth below, the Staff continues to oppose participation by Mrs. Walsh as an intervenor, since her latest filing, if considered as a petition for leave to intervenc, is untimely and fails to satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR 9 2.714(a).
DISCUSSION In Mrs. Walsh's July 17, 1981 filing she asserts that she was denied intervention on the grounds that "firidget Rorem Little [ sic], ET AL. [ sic]
contentions were identical to mine." According to Mrs. Walsh, the State of Illinois, as the only admitted intervenor, is representing the " State of 5/ rior to filing her March 19, 1980 petition for leave to. intervene, P
Mrs. Walsh had expressed an interest in the previous prehearing con-ference held in this proceeding. The Staff responded to her letters of August 29, 1979 and February 2, '1980. See letter of September 26, 1979 from Howard K. Shapar, Executive Legal Director and letter of February 22, 1980, from Staff counsel.
Since it was not clear from l
Mrs. Walsh's February 22, 1980 letter whether she was seeking to par-ticipate as a party by filing a petition for leave to intervena or by making a limited appearance statement, Staff counsel's letter explained the differences between these two methods of participating in NRC adjudicatory proceedings and enclosed a copy of the Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2.
1/ ee "NRC Staff Answer to Petition for Leave To Intervene Filed By l
S Elaine Walsh," April 18,1980, at 19.
i w--e 4
--r--
-m-=
y -- -
-y y
-m y---
_4 Illinois, Grundy County, City of Morris II. [ sic] in Grundy and certain individual residents of Grundy County, myself as one of them."
Mrs. Walsh's filing also contains the following "Additione' Contention":
G.E. request for re-licensing of the Spent Fuel Pool for 20 years, is dangerous! as the 20-year renewal if granted, would exceed the life spar. of the Spent Fuel Pool. There-fore I request the Atomic, [ sic] Safety and i.icensing Board deny the renewal request of G.E. for the Morris Plant, on the grounds the Spent Fuel Pool is not guaranteed or ',afe, for the additional 20-year renewal request.
Although Mrs. Walsh is correct in noting that Illinois is
sole re-mainingintervenorinthisproceeding,8f Illinois' status in this proceeding has no bearing on Mrs. Walsh's entitlement to participate in this proceed-ing as an intervenor. Mrs. Walsh is not correct in asserting that her earlier petition for leave to intervene was denied on the grounds that her proposed conte.itions were identical to the contentions of former inter-venors in this proceeding, Rorem, et al. As previously stated, the Board denied Mrs. Walsh's petition for lease to intervene for her failure to state a single litigable contention and for untimeliness.
It is true, that in balancing the factors in 10 CFR 9 2.714 regarding consideration of untimely petitions for leave to intervene, the Board noted that her interests would be protected by the existing parties, since one of the admitted contentions raises an issue similar to the principal concern expressed oy Mrs. Walsh in heroetition.E/ That cor.tention is stil'1 an issue in controversy in this l
8/ See " Order Dismissing Intervenor Rorem, Et al. As Parties to This Pro-ceeding," June 17, 1981. A number of the contentions of the Intervenors Rorem, et al. and the State of Illinois were combined in the original Board 07deTruling on contentions.
In the Board order dismissing Rorem, et al., the Board did not address the status of the combined contentions Te'rTved solely from contentions originally proposed by Rorem, et_ al.
El See Board Order Ruling on Petition to Intervene by Elaine Walsh, supra, at 4.
. i proceeding, and none of Mrs. Walsh's assertions in her July 17, 1981 filing warrar,t a departure from the earlier conclusiot iched by the Board regarding representNon of her interests in this proceeding.
Similarly, the " Additional Contention" in Mrs. Walsh's filing of July 17, 1981 is so broad and vague that it does not establish an issue or issues which are litigable in this proceeding. Mrs. Walsh has pre-sented no basis whatsoever for her claim that the proposed renewal of the license to operate th? 3.E. Morris facility for twenty years "would exceed the lifespan of the Spent Fuel pool." For these reasons, Mrs. Walsh has not satisfied the requirement of 10 CFR i 2.714 that a petitioner must state one good contention.
Moreover, Mrs. Walsh's filing of July 17, 1981, when considered as a petition for leave to 'ntervene, is untimely.E As the Staff and the Licensing Board have pointed out, an untimely petition for leave to inter-vene must demonstrate that the factors in 10 CFR 9 2.714 weigh sufficiently in petitioner's favor to warrant granting of the untimely petition. With respect to Mrs. Walsh's prior (but aleo untimely) petition for leave to intervene, the Licensing Board agreed with the Staff that on balance, the factors in 10 CFR 5 2.714 did not warrant granting Mrs. Walsh's petition for leave to intervene. Order of June 4,,1981, supra, at 3-4.
Since Mrs. Walsh's filing, of July 17, 1981 is totally devoid of any discussion of these factors, fhere is no basis for the Licensing Board to alter the conclusion reached in its Order of June 4,1981, supra, denying her prior N As the Etaff stated in its Answer, supra, to Mrs. Walsh's earlier petition for leave to intervene, the time period for filing petitions for leave to intervene expired on May 25, 1979.
O '
petition for leave to intervene.
Consequently, Mrs. Walsh's filing of July 17, 1981 must also be rejected as a petition for leave to intervene on the grounds of untimeliness.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Mrs. Walsh's filing of July 17, 1981, when considered as a petition for leave to intervene, must be rejected.
However, the Staff has no objection to consiferation of this filing as f
a limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR i 2.715(a).
Respectfolly submitted, M
Aw kbM Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of August, 1981.
e 0
e
,,-a e
w
UillTED STATES OF AftERICA ilVCLLAR REGULATORY C0ltilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t
In the 14atter of
}l GENERAL ELECTRIC C0ftPANY h
Docket No. 70-1308 & 72-1 1
(Renewal of SH!i-1265)
(GE itorris Operation Spent Fuel
/,
Storage Facilitj)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO JULY 17, 1981 FILING OF ELAINE WALSH" In the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mall, first class or, as Indi-cated bv an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's interna) aall system, this 5th day of August, 1981:
Andrew C. Goodhope Esq., Chairman Edward Firestone, Esq.
Mainistrative Judge Legal Operation Atomic Sofety and Licensing Board General Electric Company 3320 Estelle Terrace 175 Curtner Avenue Wheaton, MD 20906 Mail Code 822 San Jose, CA 95125 Dr. Linda W. Little Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5000 Hermitage Drive Panel
- Raleigh, NC 27612 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Atouic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Panel
- 305 East Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaission State College, PA 16801 Washington, DC 20555 John Van Vranken, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Office of the Attorney General Office of the Secretary 188 West Randloph Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Suite 2315 Washington, DC 20555
. Chicago, IL 60001 Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Dennis A. Mcriahon Esq.
Mayer, Br0wn & Platt, 231 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60604 th a y & U h u u ilc k L td MarjorJ e Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff
.