ML20064C988
| ML20064C988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1978 |
| From: | Silberg J KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810300359 | |
| Download: ML20064C988 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.:,.., NRC pq Roo.y g,.. N UNITED STATES _OF AMERICA SE7' o 7 )Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION s V, ps -w .,...y ,-[ 'Belore the Atemic Safety and Licensine Ateeal Board c}T&y,- , i., r / , s Y .') a v.., Q tn,e_. Matter c:. ) /u 7 l-t <t j gi i ) W SAS GAS AND ELECTRIC CCMPANY & ) Docket No STN 50-482 KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT CCMPANY ) ) (Wolf Creek Generating Station, ) Unit No. 1) ) PERMITTEES' ANSWER TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS ON PADON A motion dated October 3, 1978, and signed by Sue Reinert "for Ecology Action of Oswego" proposed that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board consolidate five licensing proceedings on the radon issue. Those proceedings are Wolf Creek, Tyrone (Docket No. STN 50-484), Marble Hill (Docket Nos. STN 50-546 and 547), Sterline (Docket No. STN 50-485), and Seabrcok (Dccket Nos. 50-443 and 444). The motion was apparently filed in each of these five cases and is purportedly submitted on behalf of " inter-venors in the dockets listed above". It centains no authori::ation by any intervenor in the Wolf Creek proceeding. Neither Sue Reinert nor Ecology Action of Oswego (" Ecology Action") has any connection to the Wolf Creek proceeding; it is our understanding that Ecology Action is an intervenor in the Sterline hearing. The motien proposes that a record supplementing th:: estab-lished on the raden issue in Perkins be developed in the conscl-idated proceeding. Ecology Action preposes certain "grcund
- les" for such a hearing:
H / o36 o 359 6
4 2-1. evidentiary hearings to take place before the Appeal Scard; 2. applicants, intervenors and NRC Staff to be " jointly represented"; 3. witnesses presented and cross-examination con-ducted by.a single representative for each side; 4. site specific information could be presented by individual parties; 5. " generic proposed findings" on all co==en matters; 6. opportunity for " specific findings" on site specific matters; 7. scope of hearing to cover " issues raised by parties answering ALAS 480". Permittees strongly oppose Ecology Action's motion. Its summary denial is warranted by any one of its many defects described below. As an initial matter, neither Ecology Action nor Ms. Reinert has the status required to file censolidation motiens in this case. Neither is a party in Wolf Creek. No authorization for this motien has been provided by any Wolf Creek intervenors. -1/ 1/ This observation cannot be lightly regarded in view of the apparent agreement a=cng the parties in the Seabrcok proceeding that Seabreck should not be censolidated with Sterline on the radon issue. See NRC Staff Filing Regarding Resolution of the Radon Question, dated September 7, 1978. Since such an agree-ment would clearly appear incensistent with the course suggested in Ecology Action's motion, this would seem reason to suspect the ction's representation of the views of parties Oc ether pro-ceedings. i l ~ L
s 3-Indeed, Ecology Action's motion does not even identify which of the Wolf Creek intervenore i* i rurporting to represent. The rights of a person not a party in an NRC proceeding are set forth in 10 CFR S2.715. Filing this type of motion is not one of the forms of participation permitted under that rule.-2/ Ecology Action's motion should thus be denied on this ground alone. If we are to assume that Ecology Actien's motion is in-tended to refer to Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives ("MACEA"), which was the only Wolf Creek intervenor to file a response to ALAB-480, the motion should be denied as a result of MACEA's failure to comply with the Appeal Board's directives in ALAB-480. That decision established specific ground rules for requests to add additional written evidence to the Perkins record, to call for a further hearing on the Perkins record, or to con-sider objections to any aspects of the Perkins radon proceeding. MACEA has failed to meet these requirements. (The nature of MACEA's failure is detailed in the NRC Staff Response to MACEA's Request to Supplement Record, dated August 29, 1978, and in Applicants' Response Opposing MACEA's Request to Supplement _2/ The Appeal Board has on many occasions held that ene must be a party (or a state participating under 52.715 (c)) in order to file exceptions or pursue appeals.
- See, e.g.,
Duke Pcwer Cc.
- Perkins Nuclear Statien, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALA3-433,.6 NRC 469, 470 (1977); consclidated Edisen Co. of N.
Y. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALA3-369, 5 NRC 129, 130 (1977); Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Statica, Uni: 1), ALA3-311, 3 NRC 33, 88 (1976); Cleveland Electric Illuminatine Co. (Perry Nuclear Pcwer Plant, Units a anc 2), ALA3-294, 2 NRC 663, 664 (1975). We see no reascn why a dif-ferent rule should apply as to the filing of a mccien such as that involved herein. 9 m
. Record, dated August 30, 1978). Since MACEA has not met the tests of ALA3-480 for supplementing the Perkins record, it can-not bootstrap itself into a reopening of the radon record by-aligning itself with intervenors in other proceedings. Wholly apart from the inadequacy of MACEA's Request to Supplement Record, dated August 15, 1978, to meet the ALAB-480 test, it is also in-consistent with Ecology Action's motion. MACEA's only request was that the Wolf Creek record en raden include whatever amend-ments to the Perkins record might be made by Chauncey Kepford in other unnamed cases. The Ecology Action motion contemplates further evidentiary hearings in the five proceedings for which consolidation is sought; it makes no mention of Dr. Kepford. Since the Ecology Action motion is en its fact inconsistent with MACEA's only explicit pcsition, Permittees believe that granting the motion in this proceeding would not be justified. Apart frem these defects, the substance of Ecolcgy Action's proposal also demands its rejection. Consolidation of raden pro-caedings has already been rejected by ALAB-480. Censolidation is new, as it was when the Staff first proposed it, incensistent with the Ccenission's ' directive not to consider the radon issue gener-ically. MACEA was silent when the Staff initially propcsed cen-solidation; it remained silent as to the merits or demerits cf censclidaticn after ALAB-480 was issued; indeed it has remained silent to this day. Ecolcgy Action's motion is little more than a very. belated attempt to recensider ALA3-480 and to rewrite the precedures established by the Appeal Scard. Other than alleging
. ~ - without support or explanation that there would be "an autcmatic disadvantage to the parties first in line for-a hearing" (Motion, ~ p. 2), a disadvantage we fail to perceive, Ecology Action gives no justification for reconsidering ALA3-480. A consolidated hearing along the lines proposed by Ecology Action would be unmanageable. At least five Appeal Board members would be needed to encompass the Boards from each of the five cases. The single record would incorporate site specific infor-mation frem five separate proceedings, as well as " generic" infor-mation. This would make the hearing both inefficient and cumber-some, and would further delay the resolution of the radon issue l in some or all of these cases. The parties opposed to consolida-tion would be compelled to choose a single witness panel, a single representative to present direct testimony, and a single cross-examiner. The scope of the hearing as framed by Ecology Action would ccmbine in one hearing " issues raised by parties answering ALA3-480." What that-is meant to enccmpass is unclear (i.e., does it include parties in all proceedings or only in the five iden-tified in the motion). In the Wolf Creek situation, that scope would be totally unfair to Permittees since MACEA has raised no issues in response to ALA3-480. Permittees should not have te bear the time and expense of an extended litigation of the raden issue when the only ~4cif Creek intervenor to shcw any intere.=t has made no attempt to cc= ply with the requirements of ALAB-480. For consolidaticn to be appropriate, the Appeal Board mus: find that the action will be "cenducive to the prcper dispatch
4 . of its business and to the ends of justice 10 CFR 52.716. Permittees respectfully submit that the consideratiens discuss <ad above show that Ecology Action's motien does not meet these tests and should therefore be denied. Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TRCWBRIDGE D By d.~ 7 l ' - -. v' Jay E..Silberg Counsel for Permittees ~ Kansas Gas and Electric Company and t Kansas City Power & Light Ccmpany 1800 M Street, North West Washington, D. C. 20036 (202)331-4100 Dated:
- s. = 4 CIITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN Before The Atomic Safety and Licensine A= peal Board In the Matter of ) ) KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY & ) Docket No. STN 50-482 KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) ) (Wolf Creek Generating Station, ) Unit No. 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Permittees ' Answer to Motion to Consolidate Hearings on Raden" were served by deposit in the U. S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 18th day of October, 1978, to all those on the attached Service List. -{\\ \\ \\ i 5 J.I%,,d, ( C -- J,ay E..S11 berg i, Dated: Cctober 19, 1973 I i l t I ,}}