ML20031G556
| ML20031G556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1981 |
| From: | Dewey L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110230236 | |
| Download: ML20031G556 (22) | |
Text
E 10/21/81 V
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt11SSION g
g W
OCI2 2 ISB N P
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
{
'kyg%r p
~
In the Matter of
)
9
)
'g f'
GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-458 03 et al.
)
50-459
)
(River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVEl4E AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY LOUISIANA CONSUMER'S LEAGUE, INC. AND LOUTSIANANS FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC.
I.
INTRODUCTION On September 4,1981 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register (46 Fed. Reg. 44539) a notice of opportunity for a hearing on the application for an operating license for the River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2.
By timely uction of September 30, 1981, the Louisiana Consumer's League, Inc. (LCL) petitioned to intervene and in a separate motion filed this sa:ae date requested that hearings for the River Bend facilities be held in St. Francisville, Louisiana. On October 2, 1981, Louisianans for Safe Energy, Inc. (LSE) filed a timely petition to intervene on behalf of its members and an behalf of Gretchen Reinike Rothschild.
Attached to this petition was a request that hearings be held in St. Francisville, Louisiana.
On October 7, 1981, this Board was established "to rule on petitions to intervene and/or requests for hearing and to preside over the proceeding in the event a hearing is ordered...
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL N
Certfflod By g
8110230236 811021 Of PDR ADOCK 05000458 h
sf o
eon
II. TriE REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERVENTION As discussed below the basic requirements for intervention in a Nuclear Regulatory Comission proceeding are that:
(1) the petitioner must have standing to intervene (or, as referred to in 9 2.714(a) of the Commission's rules, an " interest" in the proceeding), (2) the petitioner must identify the aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which it wishes to intervene, and (3) at least fif teen days prior to the first prehearing conference to be held in the proceeding the petitioner must list at leest one acceptable contention for litigation.
A.
Intere$t,and Standing Section 2.714(a)(2) of the Comission's Rules of Practice requires that a petitioner must "... 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 petiti9ners should
permitted to intervene..." Judicial tests of standing are to be applied in HRC cases and accordingly, for a petitioner to satisfy this
" interest" or " standing test" it must be found that:
(1) an injury to the petitioner has occurred or probably will occur from the proposed licensing action;1/ and (2) the petitioner has an interest arguably 1]
This " injury in fact" test requires that there is a distinct harm which will occur to the petitioner and that "... a cognizable interest of tt; petitioner might be adversely affected if the pro-ceeding has one outcome rather than another. Public Service Co.
of Indiana (Marble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438, 439 (1980).
s
U to be protected or regulated by the within the zone of interests stat;tes governing this Commission.E The injury in question may not be a generalized grievance but must be a specific injury which the individual petitioner, in contrast to all members of the public, would suffer from the proposed act.O The interest to be protected must be one within the cognizance of the NRC to protect and not one outside its mandate.b y
The " zone of interest" test for intervention in NRC health and safety proceedings has been held to be identified as ".
. an interest in the avoidance of a threat to health and safety as a result of radiological releases from the nuclear facility (either in normal operation or as a result of an accident.)" Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAb-342, 4 t4RC 98, T05 (1976).
y Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs, Units 1 and 2),
CL1-76-27, 4 f4RC 610, 613-614 (1976); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, S f4RC 1143,1144 (1977).
y Transnuclear Inc., CLI-77 24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1
& 2), CL1-80-10, 11 f4RC 438, 439 (1980); Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(Export to South Korea), CLI-80-30, 12 HRC 253, 258 (1980).
y Portland General Electric Co., supra; Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1147 (1977).
An organization has standing to intervene and represent its members who would be affected by the proposed licensing actions.5/ However, it may represent only its penbers, and not others. / To represent its members, the organization must identify at least one menber and submit an i
affidavit from that member showing a possible adverse effect on that individual's interests protected by the relevant statutes and that such individual has authorized the organization to represent it in the p o-ceeding to protect those interests.E/
I B.
_The Specific Aspect Requirement In addition to demonstrating interest or standing, Section 2.714(a)(2) also provides that a petitioner must set forth the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding under review as to which it seeks to intervene. This pleading requirement has only been specifically p/
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976).
4 7/
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-77-11, 5 NRC 481, 483 (1977).
l y/
Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402, 404 (1979); houston Lighting &
Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 HRC 377, 389-400 (1979).
t
}
1 I
i t
e
,...., - -.,. _. - ~. - -. -...,. _. _,.. -...,.
i s.
dddressed by NRC tribunals on a few occasions.
It is satisfied if a petitioner identifies its general position on a subject natter as to which it seeks to intervene.E/ Further, the subject matter so identified must be within the scope of a licensing proceeding or it cannot be raised.lS/
C.
The Requirement that the Petitioner States at least One Relevant Contention "lthough the aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding under wnich a petitioner seeks to intervene may initially be identified in a rather general manner, the petitioner later must be much more specific with respect to listing contentions for litigation. Section 2.714(b) of the rules requires that not later than fif teen days prior to the holding of the special prehearing conference it must file a supplement to its petition to intervene which includes a list of the contentions that it seeks to have litigated and the basis for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. This section also provides that if the petitioner 9/
See e.g.:
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), Licensing Board " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conference," Sept. 21, 1979, slip op.
at 6.
(See attachment).
See also, Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 276, 278 (1978); Cf.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2),
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, " Memorandum and Order Setting Schedule for Submission of Contentions and Other Preliminary Information,"
l October 14, 1981, at pp. 13-14.
10/ See e.g. the following cases where matters without the jurisdiction of tne Commission or licensing board were ruled inappropriate for consideration:
Babcock & Wilcox (Application for Consideration of Facility Export License), CLI-77-18, 5 NRC 1332,1348 (1977);
i Allied Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving & Storage Area),
i ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422-423 (1976); Long Island Lighting Co.
(Jamesport Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631 (1975).
l
. ~. -.
._. _,~.._ -- -.._-_ -____
m j
fails to satisfy this requirement with respect to at least one contention,b it will not be permitted to participate as a party. b III.
THE PETITION OF LOUISIAllA C0tiSUMERS LEAGUE A.
LCL's Interest or Standing According to its petition LCL is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana.
Statements made by LCL pertaining to its standing in this proceeding include the fact that a number of its members allegedly live within 15 and 30 miles of the proposed facility and ^. hat an even larger number obtain their drinking water from the regional acquifer over which the proposed facility is to be located.
LCL also cites the potential financial, health, safety and environmental problems associated with the plant that could potentially adversely effect its members.
In Staff's view LCL would satisfy interest or standing requirements for a health and safety proceeding if, as alleged, some of its members live within a fif teen to thirty mile distance of the nuclear facility, and it sought to intervene to protect interests :rotected by the relevant statutes. As the Appeal Boarf has stated in Virginia Electric and Power
_1_1/ Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (1973).
Louisiana Power & Light Co., Waterford Station Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 (1973).
ly For a brief discussion of the background of this rule see Consumers Power Co., supra, 8 NRC 275, 277-278.
., Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), "[c] lose prox-inity has always been deemed to be enough, standing alone, to establish therequisiteinterest."E And, in some cases, residency within forty to fifty miles has been deemed sufficient to show standing or interest to intervene. b Although standing to intervene would thus ordinarily oe satisfied by residency of the organization's neubers near the facility, in the instant uatter therr are additional elements which must be established before LCL satifies the standing requireuents of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714.
In the first place, LCL has not listed those members which reside within the fifteen to thirty mile radius.
Secondly, when an organization (as opposed to an individual) petitions to intervene, it must show that either the organi-zation itself has standing to intervene or that one of its members has standing and that the organization has been authorized to represcrit that member.E Since LCL has not submitted affidavits or other proof regarding 13/ Virginia Electric and Power C_q. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979).
,1_4 / Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
4 ALAb-413, 6 NRC 1418, 1421, n. 4 (1977).
In Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 190; aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973) residence within 30-40 miles of the site was sufficient to show interest to raise safety questions. And see Consumers Power Co. (Palisades Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-79-20, 10 NRC 108 (1979) wnere residence as far as 40-50 miles was sufficient to provide a foundation for standing.
15/ Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, supra at 396 (1979); Houston Light _ing and Power Co. (South Texas Projects, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 645 (1979); Public Service Cc. of Indiana, (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328 (197 ).
i
_ _. _ - ~
. these elements, CLC has failed to demonstrate its standing to intervene in this proceeding.
However, it should be noted that LCL has the right to amend its petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(3) to provide this requisite proof.
B.
The Aspect Requirement Regarding LCL's Intervention LCL lists the following as " specific aspects" of the subject natter of the proceeding for which it seeks intervention:
1.
The adequacy of nuclear waste storage facilities for waste that will be generated in the operation of this nuclear power station.
2.
The adequacy of evacuation plans for low-income and moderate-income persons, especially those residing in public faci?ities, such as Louisiana State Penitentiary and East Louisiana State Hospital, within a 50-mile radius of this nuclear power station.
3.
The safe operation of this nuclear power station.
4.
The adequacy of the consideration of the probability of risk of major nuclear accident at this nuclear power station.
In Staff's opinion LCL's aspect number three does not " indicate its general position on the subject matter as to which it seeks to intervene
.."15/ This topic is so vague that it give5 tne carties no idea of the general subject matter, let alone the " aspect" of the subject natter, to be litigated. While the Staff does not believe that the specificity of conten-tions is needed at this stage of the proceedings, some more definitive aspect 16/ See Metropolitan Edison Co., supra at 6.
M ev
-s>
-rm s
r,~--wmm---r-7---c~
--n--m,y
-~
+e<--w
.e-n--
-q~
g.--
r-w p-v-----o---
m-ya rygm--
--p y-------g
,m y,,p,-
,m_,,,,._g-7-,,,-n-,,r,,-
n
of the subject matter of the proceedings is needed than such statements as "The safe operation of this nuclear station."E It further does not appear that two of the three of LCL's other
" aspects of the sebject natter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene" (10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(3)), are those which can be raised as the subject matter of this pro ~eding.E The first " aspect" LCL lists involves waste storage, u.
'ong term waste storage may not be raised as contentions in an individual licensing proceeding because this matter is presently the suoject of the " waste confidence" pro-ceedings.E The second aspect it lists involves the evacuation of low income and moderate income persons such as those residing in public institutions within 50 miles of River Bend. However, this is not a per-missible aspect since LCL can only raise such an issue if it involves persons who are its own members.2_0/
The last " aspect" that LCL seeks to make the subject of this pro-ceeding is "the probability of risk of a major nuclear accident at this 1_7] g. Consumers Power Co., supra, 8 HRC at 278.
7 18] See Metropolitan Edison Co., supra.
19/ See Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-150, 14 HRC
, (July 17, 1981), slip op.
at 46-47); Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-584, 11 HRC 451, 465 (1980); 44 Fed.
R_eg. 61372, 61373 (October 25,1979).
g See, Long Island Lighting Co., (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-11, 5 HRC 481, 483 (1977); see also, Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plants, Units 1 & 2), ALWT13, 5 HRC 1418, 1421 (1977). Nothing in LCL's petition suggests that any of
. the persons included in this listing are members of its organization.
If LCL can demonstrate that such persons are its members, then this would be an acceptable " aspect" for this proceeding.
m nuclear power station." Staff believes this type of subject natter nay be appropriate as an " aspect" in an NRC licensing proceeding since it may be sufficient for the framing of a suitable contention.1/ The pleading requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2) are satisfied if the petitioner provides at least one satisfactory aspe:t in its request for intervention.SS/
IV. THE PETITION OF LOUISIANAUS FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC.
A.
LSE's Interest or Standino Louisianans for Safe Energy, Inc. (LSE) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana whose purposes allegedly include the education of the Citizens of Louisiana regarding energy options available to meet the needs of the State with particular reference to the demand for electric energy, the dangers of various energy options and the costs of various energy options. According to its petition to intervene, most of the members of LSE live within fifteen and thirty miles of the River Bend facility and obtain their drinking water from the aquifier over which this focility will be located.
The petition also scrtes that
(
21/ See " Statement on Interim Policy on Nuclear Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environnental Policy Act of 1969.
l 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (June 13, 1980).
1 22/ Consumers Power Co., supra, 8 HRC at 278.
l l
l l
l
~
\\ the interests of this petitioner include:
(1) property ownership (several members own real estate near the facility and have a financial stake in the property values), (2) safety, environmental, and health concerns regarding potential radioactive emissions from the facility (caused by safety deficiencies in the plant due to numerous unresolved safety issues, the operetion of the proposed facility and the indefinite storage of radioactive wastes on the site), and (3) financial interests (many of LEC's members are rate payers who have an ongoing economic interest in electric rates and in the financial stability of Gulf States Utilities).
As in the case of LCL, LSE may be able to satisfy interest and standing requirements for a health and safety proceeding if, as alleged, some of its members live within 15 to 30 miles of the River Bend facility.
See pp. 6-7, supra. However, LSE, like LCL, (1) has not listed any such member, or supplied an affidavit of the member showing how he would be affected by the proceeding, (2) has not established that such member is in the " zone of interest" protected by the relevant statutes, and (3) has not shown that such member has authorized LSE to protect his interest.
i Absent this affidavit, standing and interest of LSE have not been established.
It should be noted that the prope.'ty ownership and financial interests (in contrast to health, safety and environmental interests) set out in l
)
LSE's petition to intervene would not be sufficient to confer standing.
It is well established that being a rate payer of an applicant is not a sufficient interest to allow intervention in an NRC health and safety
)
l l
L proceeding.E The other financial interest set out in LEC's petition, a financial stake in real property values, would also not ordinarily be a cognizable interest since the zone of interest to be protected has been identified as one of ilealth and safety rather than economic or financial interests.b In its petition, LSE has specifically cited Gretchen Reinike
- othschild on whose behalf, in addition to its members, LSE is inter-vening. With respect to her interest in this proceeding, the petition merely states that Ms. Rothschild is a rate payer of Gulf States Utilities and a property owner in the vicinitiy of the proposed facilities in West Feliciana Parish. As previously discussed, Ms. Rothschild's status as a rate payer or the mere financial aspect of property ownership without 23/. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 fiRC 122, 128 (1977); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413, 5 f4RC 1418,1420-21 (1977); Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 & 3),
ALAB-376, 5 r4RC 426 (1977); Public Service Co of Oklahoma et al.
(Black Fox fluclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), LB0-77-17, 5 fiRC 657 (1977); Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB 582, 11 f4RC 239, 243 n. 8 (1980).
2y Houston Lighting & Power (q. (Allens Creek fluclear Generating Station, Unit 1, ALAB-582,11 HRC 239, 242 (1980); Long Island Lighting Company (Jamesport fluclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 f4RC i
631 (1975). See also Virginia Electric and Power Co. (florth Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 flRC 98,105 (1976) but note that in this opinion the Appeal Board also stated that "... we may also assume, without deciding that the zone is broad enough to encompass as well as interest in avoiding an economic loss which might be directly tied to the radiological releases (e.g., a loss occasioned by the necessity to cease doing business in the area dffected by the releases)."
I
so.ae health or safety connection would not confer standing to ir tarvene.
It should further be noted that the petition does not provide the dis-tance of the property from the facility or state whether Ms. Rothschild has residence there or engages in any activitie at that location which could be affected by the facility. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for establishing that Ms. Rothschild has standing in this proceeding.
B.
Aspects of LCE's Intervention Aspects of the proceeding in which LCE desires to participate include:
1.
Necessity in the Public Interest for the construction and operation of the proposed facilities.
2.
Financial stability of Applicant to a) complete the construction of the proposed facilities, and t.) absorb the financial costs associated with possible nuclear accidents or occurrences, and/or future decommissioning of the facilities.
3 The adequacy af evacuation plans in the event of a nuclear accident or occurrence.
4.
Safety hazards created by construction and operation of the proposed facilities, including but not limited to the following:
a)
Failure to adequately evaluate the safety risks which would result from the operation of the proposed facilities due to Unresolved Safety Issues, b)
Failure to adequately evaluate the hazards created by the temporary storage of spent fuel on-site of the proposed facilities, and the transportation and ultimate disposal of radioactive nuclear wastes that will be generated and the operation of these facilities,
. c)
Failure to adequately evaluate risks created by hydraulic events involving the Mississippi
- River,
~
d)
Health issues relating to the escape of low-level radiation into the environment, e)
The probability of risk of a major nuclear accident at the proposed nuclear facilities and the potential harm to residents of the state of Louisiana, including petitioners, and potential harm to future generations of residents of the state.
Staff believes that some of the concerns listed by LSE, such as itens 2, 3, and parts of 4, are sufficiently within the scope of the subject matter of this pruceeding to satisfy the " specific aspect" requirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(a)(2).2]/ However, these concerns, as presently set forth by LSE, are not adequate to satisfy the requirements for contentions of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) since no basis is set forth for any of the concerns listed. 5/ As previously discussed, pursuant to this section of the Commission's rules LSE has until fifteen days prior to the first prehearing conference, or such other time as the Board gay set, to submit a list of I
the contentions that it wishes to have litigated.
i l
2p/ See Metropolitan Edison Co., supra; Consumers Power Co., supra.
2j/ See Cinctnnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 14RC 8, 12 (1976); Wisconsin Electric Co.,
supra.
I 1
i l
.,-.m.-
-.m-.,..
.m
.. _ _.,., - _. -.. ~,
m...
,-,. - _., ~,.,-,
-.w
IV. CONCLUSIONS For the above stated reasons, Staff believes that neither LCL nor LSE has established standing to intervene since neither organization has
~
provided proof that it has been authorized to represent its members or that some of its members live as alleged within the fif teen to thirty mile radius of the River Bend facility.
Standing also has not been demonstrated by LSE for Gretchen Reinke Rothschild.
There is accordingly no basis at present to admit LCL or LSE as a party to this proceed'.ng. Moreover, no notice of hearing can issue under 10 C.F.R. b '.11 e) in this operating license proceeding until such time as petitioner'. clarify their standing to intervene and set forth at least one good contention (with a reasonably specific basis therefore) within the jurisdiction of the licensing boards of this Commission.
As we have pre-viously indicated, the petitioners have until 15 days before the special prehearing conference held pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.751a, or such other
/
time as this Board ray set, to so amend their petitions to intervene.
4 Staff further believes that the requests under 10 C.F.R. s 2.105(e) of LCL and LSE to hold hearings for the River Bend facilities in St. Francisville, Louisiana are premature.
Until more of the facts regarding intervention in these facilities is made known, a Licensing 27/ See 10 C.F.R. st 2.714(a)(3), 2.714(b) and 2.711(a).
y...
.,...,,.m._
m,
Board would not be in a position to determine whether ',here are other more preferable areas to hold hearings.
Respectfully submitted, A
Lee Scott Dewey Counsel for flRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of October,1981.
l h
,/
ATTACHMENT UNITED STATES OF A'.: ERICA NUCLEAR REGULA*IORY COM.'.11SSION (h
.V ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- T! '.. 2/: S ptemd6r 21, 1979 J
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Linda %. Little In the Matter of
)
M$TROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear (Res tar t)
S ta tion, Unit No. 1)
MDIORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON PETITIONS AND
_S_ETTING SPECI AL PREHEARING CONFERENCE
~
The purpose of this order is to rule upon petitio'ns to intervene and petitions to participate by government agencies, and to set a schedule for the special prehearing conference.
Petitions of Government Agencies The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by Governor Dick Th ornburg (Commonwealth) and the County of Dauphin by the D auphin County Commissioners (Dauphin County) have each filed petitions under 10 CFR $2.715(c) and are clearly entitled to participat e in the proceeding respectively as an interested state and county
~
pur-suant to that section.1/
Neither the licensee nor the NRC staff 1/
10 CFR f 2.715 (c ) :
The presiding officer will afford representatives of a interested State, county, municipality, and/or agencies a
n
- thereof, introduce evidence,u reasonable opportunity to participate and to interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission without requiring the representative to position with respect take a to the issue.
Such participants (footnote continued)
e.
-S-
,W shall indicate the subject matters on which it desires to 4
participate by filing a statement on or before the date pro-r vided below for supplemental petitions.
Petitions for Leave to Intervene Under 10 CFR 92.714(a)(2), of the Commission intervention rules, a petition for leave to intervene:
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 rea-sons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d) of this section, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Paragraph (d) of 92.714 states:
(d) The Commission, the presiding officer kB or the 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, con-sider the following factors, among other things:
(1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
l (2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's l
property, financial, or other interest in the l
proceeding.
(3) The possible effect cf any order which l
may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
l The intervention rules also pr' ovide that the petitioner's l
specific contentions need not be filed until later in the pro-ceeding, but petitioners sometimes include specific contentions
(
D l
l n
. /-
-G-in the in.itial petitions filed.
For efficiency the board issued an order on August 31, 1979 relievir.g the licensee a,nd staff of any responsibility to address now specific contentions in original petitions.
Accordingly their answers r nd the board's rulings below are limited to whether petitioners have satis-ficd the " interest" and " aspects" requirements of the inter-vention rule, v
Since the change in the intervention rule effective May 26, 1978, the suf ficiency of the " aspect" requirement must be evaluated in initial intervention petitions, but no reported NRC decision defines this requirement.
We have taken it to mean L_. ply that the petitioner must indicate its general position on the subject matter as to which it seeks to inter-k vene.
That subject matter must, of course, be within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the notice of hearing.
The " interest" requirement of petitions has been well defined in NRC decisions, but, even so, interest must be de-termined in the context of the case at hand.
There is nothing unusual about " interests" in NRC proceedings.
The Commission has adopted the standard of " standing" in judicial proceedings - -
its standard for " interest."
A petitioner must allege that as from the action sone injury has occurred or will probably result 1
i l
g UNITED STATES OF NiERICA I4UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIllG BOARD In the Matter of
)
GULF STATES UTILITIES C0.,
Docket Nos. 50-458 et al.
)
50-459
)
(River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
140TICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter.
In accordance with s 2.713, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Hame:
- Lee S. Dewey Address:
- Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Telephone:
- (301) 492-7510 Admission:
- Supreme Court of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia U.S. Supreme Court Name of Party:
- NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Respectfully submitted, M
Lee Scott Dewey Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of October,1981.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM USION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GULF STATES 'JTILITIES C0.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-458 et al.
50-459 (River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY LOUISIANA CONSUMER'S LEAGUE, INC. AND LOUISIANANS FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC." and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" of Lee Scott Dewey 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 mai' system, this 21st day of October,1981 :
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.*
Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Mark J. Wetterhahn Board Panel Conner & Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1050 Washington, D.C.
20006 Dr. J. Venn Leeds Administrative Judge James E. Booker Rice University Gulf States Utilities Company P.O. Box 1892 P.O. Box 2951 Houston, Texas 77001 Beaumont, Texas 77701 Gretchen R,. Rothschild Doris Falkenheiner, Esq.
Louisianians for Safe Energy, Inc.
Louisiana Consumers' League 1659 Glenmore Avenue 535 North 6th Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
William J. Guste, Jr.
Linda B. Watkins Attorney General Staff Attorney State of Louisiana Department of Justice 234 Loyola Avenue 7434 Perkins Road 7th Floor Suite C New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Baton Rouge, Louisiana Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comaission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coonission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing anc Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington, D.C.
20555 A
N Lee Scott Dewey Counsel for NRC Staff l
l
-