ML20076J120
| ML20076J120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1983 |
| From: | Good R GOOD, R.P., Sierra Club |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076J122 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306200335 | |
| Download: ML20076J120 (6) | |
Text
.
,en,
V
,d'4' y
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$@y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sk S00 C U,v-C Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino MLtd W
'p vfle?
In the Matter of:
)
(9
)
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket No. 50-358
)
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
~
l PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AS AN AMICUS CURAIE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME NOW COMES the Sierra Club, petitioner herein, and respectfully requests the Commission's. permission to file an, Amicus Brief supporting MVPP's Motion to Reopen the Record for Admission of Eicht Contentions of Ouality Assurance and Character and Competence.
The Sierra Club a California Corporation has as of April 30, 1983, 348,660 members nationally, over 9,000 of which, reside in Ohio.
As such, it has a very definite and specific interest in the decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with respect to the Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant (Zimmer).
As a national organization, the Sierra Club has earned a reputation for advocacy of environmental concerns.
It has a long history of participating in legal proceedings in which environmental concerns affecting the health and safety of its membership and the public at large were at stake.
An amicus brief in this proceeding would be consistent with past practices of the Sierra Club.
8306200335 830616
)
PDR ADDCK 0500C3SB G
/
The Sierra Club has been recognized and relied upon as an activist for the preservation of a safe environment.
Beyond a proven concern for the environment, the Sierra Club has many members who reside in close proximity of Zimmer and who would be adversely affected should an accident occur.
The Sierra Club seeks to represent their interests since a potentially unsafe plant going on line could affect their health, safety, welfare and property.
Therefore, Sierra Club has the requisite standing to bring forth its position.
Sierra Club believes that the Commission ought to consider its viewpoint as to the need to reopen the licensing hearings because of the special expertise it possesses among its membership.
This includes expertise in nuclear physics, and the procedure for licensing.
This experience is particularly prevalent among its nuclear energy subcommittee.
Moreover, it represents the interests of a significant segment of the population which would be affected by the plant's operation.
Moreover, there is much uncertainty surrounding the safety of the Zimmer plant.
The plethora of newspaper articles reporting massive serious problems at Zimmer have done little to alleviate the fears of an already skeptical public.
These citizens have a right to be heard and to have their concerns responded to.
It is these citizens who live near Zimmer who have to pay the numerous costs associated with the plant.
Some of these costs include:
the psychological affect resulting from lack of confidence and fear of a nuclear power plant accident; the physical affect of irreparable damage to person
O and property; and, the financial affect of having to pay for the plant through higher utility rates once the plant goes en i
line.
Sierra Club asserts the lack of public confidence in the construction is a valid reason to reopen the hearings, if for no other reason than to assuage the fears of the community.
Evidence obtained during the hearing should not be used as a substitute for public opinion.
In fact the NRC has recognized th importance of public opinion when it stated, "(t)his form of participation by members of the public... has been a welcome and valuable part of the Commission licensing process."
43 Federal Recister 17800 (April 26, 1978).
Therefore, the public should be heard regarding the new developments at Zimmer which occurred after the record was closed.
As well, parties to the proceeding should be allowed to present additional evidence relevant to the safety and reliability of the plant.
Sierra Club also respectfully requests an extension of time.
Having read the Motion filed by MVPP, Sierra Club's i
interest and concern in this matter intensified to the extent i
that it felt compelled to take action in support of MVPP's Motion.
Due to the by-laws and internal structure of the Sierra Club, it was necessary to seek approval at various j
levels before filing this Amicus Brief.
This approval, although done in expedited manner was only obtained on June 13, 1983.
Sierra Club maintains that no party will be prejudiced by its Brief, since the Applicant has not yet responded.
More importantly, Sierra Club is raising no new arguments, but is i
I
supporting those already raised by MVPP in its Motion.
Consequently, Sierra Club's late filed Amicus Brief will not in any way impair CG&E's ability to respond to the contentions asserted by MVPP in its Motion to Reopen the Record.
WHEREFORE, the Sierra Club respectfully requests the Commission to grant it leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of the Miami Valley Power Project's Motion to Reopen the Record.
In addition Sierra Club requests that an extension of time be granted.
Respectfully submitted, THE SIERRA CLUB Yln,n By Ron' Good
'~
WidP3
^
Attorney at Law i
O CERTIFICATE OF SE'VICE d
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing pleading was served by ordinary U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the tL following persons this _l6 day of June, 1983:
Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino William J. Moran, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory General Counsel Commission Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Commissioner John F. Ahearne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chase R. Stephens Commission Docketing and Service Branch Wasnington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
~
Commissioner Victor Cilinsky Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Frye, III, Chairman Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lynne Bernabei. Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Government Accountability Commisssion Project Washington, D.C.
20555 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009
Dr. Frank F. Hooper Administrative Judge Charles A. Barth, Esq.
School of Natural Resources Counsel for the NRC Staff University of Michigan Office of the Executive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. M. Stanley Livingston, Commission Member Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Brian P. Cassidy, Esq.
1005 Calle Largo Office of the General Counsel Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Federal Emergency Management Agency David K. Martin, Esq.
500 C Street, S.W.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20472 Acting Director Division of Environmental Law John D. Woliver, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Legal Aid Society 209 St. Clair Street P.O. Box 47 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 550 Kilgore Street Batavia. Ohio 45103 Deborah Webb. Esq.
7055 Alexandria Pike George Pattison, Esq.
Alexandria, Kentucky 21001 Prosecuting Attorney Clermont County Thomas Devine 462 Main Street Miami Valley Power Project Batavia. Ohio 45103 1901 Que St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20009
/
b Ron dood w
~
--,,m-g--
-- - - - - - -. - -