ML20148S927

Responds to Requesting Advice from NRC in Presenting Case Against the Choice of Fulton Site for Nuc Plant

ML20148S927
Person / Time
Site:	05000463, 05000464
Issue date:	11/21/1978
From:	Moore V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Spackman T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 7812040242
Download: ML20148S927 (2)

Text

l lf y

f * "% o, UNITED ST ATES yA ..

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 3 . 1. .....e .

c WAc m oTON.o.c.20sss

% ,!@f f

J. . # HOV21'is78 Docket Nos. 50-463 and 50-464 L Mr. Thomas Spackman II Griest Road - R. D. 1 '

Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania 17563

Dear Mr. Spackman:

This is in response to your letter of September 19, 1978 asking for , -

advice and guidance from the NRC in p 2senting your case effectively against the choice of the Fulton site for a nuclear plant. He are pleased to respond to this request, since it is the policy of the NRC to be helpful to all pcrties in a proceeding in apprising them of their rights and privileges in presenting their views at appropriate times in the NRC review and hearing processes.

You are correct in assuming that you and other intervenors will receive copies of all correspondence and data regarding the application (by the end of this year) for an early site review (ESR) for the proposed Fulton Generating Station. According to the ESR regulations (Enclosure), the applicant may choose which environmental issues he wishes the NRC to review. Although you express the view that intervenors would wish to have a say in this choice so that matters of importance to them will be adequately covered in the review, the regulations restrict the choice of general issues to the party that requests the ESR. Previously admitted intervenors may raise specific contentions within the scope of, and directly related to, these general issues, if such contentions had not been raised previously and good cause is shown for raising such additional .-

contentions. Such contentions, as well as previously admitted contentions which are within the scope of the general ESR issues, will be considered at the ESR hearings.

Although not legally prohibited, it is generally not practically feasible for an intervenor to apply for a separate ESR on issues of his own choice.

A more frequently foliowed course for an intervenor is to bring up con-tentions regarding his own interests during the construction permit (CP) hearing. However, if an intervenor has contentions regarding specific ESR issues, he should bring them up during the ESR hearing. Further litigation of issues considered at the ESR stage will not be allowed at the subsequent CP hearing unless significant new information is available which would require a relitigation of the ESR issues; thus it is important that intervenors be prepared to litigate the ESR issues at the ESP, hearing.

Other appropriate issues of importance to the intervenors and not within the scope of the ESR proceeding may be contended at the CP hearing, which i 7812040242

fir. Thomas Spackman II will be scheduled subsequent to the ESR proceeding. The staff will provide copies of the ESR application to all parties as soon as it is accepted for review. This will provide the earliest notice of the subjects Philadelphia Electric Company (PE) proposes for early review.

With regard to the effective timing of intervenor comments, it is help-ful for the NRC staff to receive comments from intervenors and all other interested individuals and organizations as soon as possible after the acceptance and docketing of the application for an'ESR. The comments should be limited to the specific ESR issues being reviewed. Comments on other issues should be reserved for the CP review, when they will be con- .

l sidered by the staff in preparing the draft and final environmental statements. .

In answer to another of your questions, intervenors will be notified of all NRC-PE meetings and will be apprised of their right to attend as observers. Regarding legal representation at hearings before the ASLB, i

many intervenors have found this advisable. However, it is not a legal I

requirement, and boards and the staff counsel present at hearings have generally tried to be helpful to intervenors representing their own interests.

In the interest of avoiding delay, the attempt is usually made to start the ESR hearing before the ASLB about a month after the issuance of the Final Site Environmental Statement. However, intervenors need not wait for this statement to prepare testimony in support of their ESR contentions.

Several months will transpire between docketing of the application and I the ASLB hearing.

I Enclosed also is a copy of NUREG-0180, which offers some clarifications I of the ESR regulations. I hope that these documents and the responses given above will provide helpful guidance in effectively presenting your .-

l view about the Fulton site.

Sincerely, kg h 7/6& \.c.

Voss A. Moore, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

Enclosures:

As stated cc: The Honorable Robert Malker

~ - - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _