ML20032A138
| ML20032A138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Dewey L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | LOUISIANA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110280353 | |
| Download: ML20032A138 (9) | |
Text
I 10/26/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GULF STATES UTILITIES CO., et al.
Docket Nos.
50-458 qd ef 50-459 4 4,y (River Bcad Station, Units 1 & 2)
S fi{
IS{(Q hT c
~
C L.f]
^
STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND
- q OCT2 "/ ;ggg
1)
REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE STATE OF LOUISIANA u.3, 4)/..o ; \\.-
I.
INTRODUCTF.ON On September 4,1981 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice of opportunity for a hearing on the applicttion for an operating license for the River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2 in the Federal Register (46 Fed. Reg. 44539).
By timely motion of Septem-ber 30, 1981, the State of Louisiana (the State) on its own behalf and on behalf of its citizens petitioned to intervene.Il By a separate motion also filed October 5,1981, the State has additionally requested that hearings for the River Bend facilities be held in St. Francisville, Louisiana and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
II.
DISCUSSION In its petition the State of Louisiana has failed to designate whether it is seeking intervention as a party to this proceeding under 10 CFR 92.714, or whether it is seeking to participate pursuant to 10 CFR 52.715(c) which
_1f The State is represented in this proceeding by its Attorney General, p7
)
DESIGNATED ORIGIliAL
/
g,,
pnwa333g c r*1<1 e mz
- 3
allows raresentatives of an interested State, cwnty, municipality, and/or agencies thereof an opportunity to participate in NRC proceedings.
Although no such designation has been made, in Staff's opinion the State is probably seeking intervention as a full party under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 since its petition attempts to satisfy the requirements of this section of the CommisM oa's rules.
Staff believes that the State should be required at this time to designate how it wishes to participate in this proceeding.
It should be noted that even if a State eletts to intervena as a full party under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714 on certain issues, it may still participate as an
" interested state" under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(c) as to other issues.2/
The State's of Louisiana's petition in the instant matter is analogous to the situation in the Midland proceeding _/ where the State of Michigan 3
also failed to inform whether it was intervening under 10 CFR 2.714 or as an interested State under 10 CFR 2.715(c).
In that decision the Board raled that Michigan could participate in the proceeding as an interested State.
It also deemed the Michigan petition to be filed under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 since some of the elements of that section were discussed in that petition.
It concluded that not all of the requirements for intervention under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714 were met, but it nevertheless granted Michigan leave to file an amended petition.
I 2/
Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 392-93 (1976).
_3/
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2), LBP-78 27, 8 NRC 275 (1978).
A.
The State's Participation Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(c)
Staff believes that the Staff of Louisiana qualitifes to participate in this proceeding as an interestea State under 10 CFR 2.715(c).O Under this section of the Commission rules an interested State or other govern-ment body need not take a position on the issues, but it is nevertheless given an opportunity to participate in the proceeding by introducing evidence, interrogating witnesses, and advising the Commission. This section also requires that the State indicate with reasonable specificity, in advance of the hearing, the subject matters on which it desires to participate. Although the StaN need not furnish contentions, if it is allowed into the proceeding it must comply with all of the procedural rules and is subject to the same requirements as the other parties appear-ing before the Board.5./
B.
The State's Participation Under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714 Just as in the Midland case, the State of Louisiana has also set forth elements in its petition necessary for intervention under 10 CFR 2.714 and, in Staff's view, has satisfiod several of tne requirements of ti.
section for intervention. Under 10 CFR 62.714 a petitioner mJst:
4_/
In this regard, the Commission has stated that the participation of an interested sovereigh State, as a full party or otherwise, is always desirable. Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-25, 6 NRC 535 (1977).
5/
Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-25, 6 NRC 535 (1977).
(1) set forth the interest of th? petitioner in the pro-ceeding.
(2) set forth the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner seeks to intervene.
(3) file within fifteen days prior to the first prehearing conferenceatleastoneacceptablecontentpnwhichit desires to be litigated.
1.
Interest and Standing Staff believes that the State has established that it has the requisite
" interest" and standing to intervene in this proceeding.
As the State in which the facility is located, it has an understandable concern with health, safety and environmental areas associated with the proposed facility.
Ir.
this regard, in its petition it has asserted its duty to promote the general welfare and rights of its citizens and it specifically points out that a number of its citizens live within a fifteen to thirty mile radius of the River Bend facility and may be adversely affected by the facility. l 6]
For a detailed discussion of the legal requirements for intervention under 10 CFR 52.714 see " Staff Response to Petitions to Intervene and Request for a Hearing By Louisiana Comsumer's League, Inc. and Louisianans For Safe Energy, Inc." of October 21, 1981 at pp. 2-6.
7/
The Anpeal Board has stated in Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54,56 (1979) that "close proximity [to a Nulcear facility] has always been enough, standing alone, to establish the requisite interest." See also Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421, n. 4 (1977).
In Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 ariJ 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) where residence as far as 40-50 miles was sufficient to provide a foundation for standing.
s
2.
Aspect The States's petition also meets the requirement of 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2) that a petitioner set forth the specific " aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding" for which it seeks intervention.E Although this pleading requirement has only been addressed by NRC tribunals on a few occasions, it is apparently satisfied if a petitioner identifies its general position on the subject matter for which it seeks intervention and the subject matter so identifed is within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the Notice of Hearing.E The " aspects" listed in the 8]
In its petition, the State has listed the following as aspects of the subject matter, for which its intervention is sought:
1.
The economic impact of the nuclear power generation w' thin the state.
2.
The adequacy of nuclear waste storage facilities for waste that will be generated in the operation of this nuclear power station.
3.
The adequacy of evacuation plans for low-income and moderate-income persons, especially those residing in public facilities, such as Louisiana State Penitentiary and East Louisiana State Hospital, within a 50-mile radius of this nuclear power station.
4.
The safe operation of this nuclear power station.
5.
The adequacy of the consideration of the probability of risk of a major nuclear accident at this nuclear power station.
-9/
See e.g.:
Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear T6ition, Unit 1), Licensing Board " Memorandum and Orde: Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conference," Sept. 21, 1979, slip op. at 6.
(Seeattachment). See also, Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978); Wisconsin Electric Co.
(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1
& 2), LBP-78-23, 8 NRC 71 (1978).
Cf. Philadel ahia Electric Co.
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), Doccet Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, " Memorandum and Preliminary Information," October 14, 1981, at pp. 13-14.
!, State's petition in item 3 regarding evacuation plans and item 5 regard-j ing a major nuclear accident seem to meet this criteria. The pleading requiremenu of 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2) are satisfied if the petitioner pro-vides at least one satisfactory aspect in its request for intervention.E Having demonstrated standing to intervene and having set forth the specific aspect of the subject matter for which it seeks intervention, the State still eat file within fifteen days prior to the first prehearing conference, or such other time as the Board may set, a list of the con-tentions that it wishes to have litigated and provide the basis for each contention with reasonable specificity.
Id10CFR92.714(b).
If the State fails to satisfy this requirement with respect to at least one con-tention,b it will not be permitted to participate as a party.N III.
CONCLUSION In its petition the State of Louisiana has failed to advise as to whether it wishes to participate in the instant proceeding as an inter-ested State under 10 CFR 92.715(c), as a full party intervening party under 10 CFR 92.714, or as a participant with respect to both of these 10f Consumers Power Co., supra, 8 NRC at 278.
-11/ 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).
12/ For a brief discussion of the background of this rule see Consumers Power Co., Supra, 8 NRC 275, 277-278.
sections. At this time the State should be required to designate how it wishes to participate in this proceeding.
In Staff's opinion the State's instant petition is sufficient to r
qualify it to participate as an interested Sta':e under 10 CFR H 2.715(c).
The State has also satisfied some intarvention requirements under 10 CFR 9 2.714, but it must still furnish at least one acceptable conteniton for litigation before it can be admitted as a party.
Regarding the State's request that hearings for this proceeding be held in Baton Rouge and St. Francisville, Louisiana, Staff believes that this request is premature and need not be ruled upon by the Board at this time.
Respectfully submitted, A
4%de Lee Scott Dewey Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of October,1981.
a,
a W
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.,
Docket Nos. 50-458 et al.
50-459 (RiverBendStation, Units 152)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE STATE OF LOUISIANA" 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 mail system, this 26th 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
~
1
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 Atonic Safety and Licensing Atmaic Safety and Licensing Board Par,el*
Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 d
AWM AO#m_
Lee Scott Dewey Counsel for NRC Staff n
n
--m>=
e w
e m - -,
-