ML14154A063

Reply to NRC Staff'S Answer to Sierra Club'S Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing

ML14154A063
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	06/03/2014
From:	Taylor W Sierra Club, Wallace L. Taylor, Attorney at Law
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-285-LA, Pending, RAS 26019
Download: ML14154A063 (21)

Text

1BEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONINTHEMATTEROF))DocketNo.50-285OMAHAPUBLICPOWERDISTRICT))June3,2014FORTCALHOUNSTATION,UNIT1)REPLYTONRCSTAFF'SANSWERTOSIERRACLUB'SPETITIONTOINTERVENEANDREQUESTFORHEARINGINTRODUCTIONOnApril25,2014,thePetitioner,SierraClub,filedaPetitiontoInterveneandRequestforAdjudicatoryHearingtorequirealicenseamendmentfortheFortCalhounStation.ThePetitionpresentedfourcontentionsregardingsafetyissuesatFortCalhounthatwouldrequirealicenseamendment.TheNRCStafffiledanAnswertotheSierraClub'sPetition.ThatAnswerattemptstoshortcircuittheCommission'sconsiderationoftheSierraClub'sPetitionwithtechnicalproceduralargumentsthatignorethefactsandtheCommission'sprecedents.ThisReplywilladdresstheargumentsintheStaff'sAnswerastheyarepresentedintheAnswer.THECONFIRMATORYACTIONLETTERAND0350PROCESSAREALICENSEAMENDMENTPROCEEDINGPursuanttotheCommission'sregulation,10C.F.R.§50.59,alicenseamendmentisrequiredforany 2modificationsthataffectthesafetyofanuclearreactor.Inthiscase,thePetitionerhaspresentedfourissuesthathaveresultedin,orwillresultin,significantmodificationstostructures,systemsandcomponentsatFortCalhoun.TheConfirmatoryActionLetter(CAL)andtheongoing0350oversightprocessregardingFortCalhounhaveincorporatedthelicenseamendmentprocess.TheStaffAnswercontendsthatthereisnolicenseamendmentproceedingpending,andtherefore,thePetitionercannotintervene.TheStaff'sargument,however,ignoresthenatureoftheCALand0350processes.Theseprocessesconstituteadefactolicenseamendmentproceeding.Thecourtshavelongrecognizedthatthelabelgiventoaproceedingisnotdispositive.See,e.g.,CommonwealthofMass.v.NRC,878F.2d1516,1521(1stCir.1989)(statingthatthe"factthattheNRCdidnotcallitsdecisiontorestarta'reinstatement'ofthelicenseisnotcontrolling");ColumbiaBroadcastingSyst.,Inc.v.UnitedStates,316U.S.407,416(1942)(statingthat"[t]heparticularlabelplaceduponitbytheCommissionisnotnecessarilyconclusive,foritisthesubstanceofwhattheCommissionhaspurportedtodoandhasdonewhichisdecisive.");CitizensAwarenessNetwork,Inc.v.NRC,59F.3d284,295(1stCir.1995)(statingthat"itisthe 3substanceoftheNRCactionthatdeterminesentitlementtoasection189ahearing,nottheparticularlabeltheNRCchoosestoassigntoitsaction.").InresponsetotheStaff'sargumentitisimportanttonotethattheterm"CAL"isconsideredbytheNRCEnforcementManualasaprocess.See,NRCEnforcementManualat3-32.AsdescribedbytheNRCEnforcementManual,theCALprocessinvolves(1)theidentificationofasignificantconcernregardinghealthandsafety,safeguards,ortheenvironment;(2)theNRCStaff'sissuanceofaspecificCAL;(3)alicenseerespondingbytakingactionand/orprovidinginformationasprescribedintheCAL;and(4)whenthecircumstancesthatpromptedtheNRCtoissuetheCALhavebeenaddressed,theclosingoutoftheCAL.See,NRCEnforcementManualat3-29to3-36;seealso,NRCEnforcementPolicyat68.Inthiscase,the0350panelwascreatedinNovemberof2011.ACALwasinitiallyissuedonJune11,2012.TheCALwasrevisedandupdatedonFebruary26,2013.Inaddition,the0350panelissuedaRestartChecklistBasisDocumentonNovember13,2012,describinginmoredetailwhatOPPDhadtodobeforetheFortCalhounreactorwouldbeallowedtorestart.TheBasisDocumentwasrevisedandupdatedonMarch7,2013,andagainonNovember15,2013.

4AfterFortCalhounwasallowedtorestartonDecember17,2013,anewCALwasissued,andthe0350processisstillongoing.ThenewCALisacontinuationoftheongoingprocess.ClosingoutthepreviousCALdoesnotcloseouttheprocess.ThecurrentCAL,issuedonDecember17,2013,confirmsthecommitmentsmadebyOPPDinits"IntegratedReporttoSupportRestartofFortCalhounStationandPost-RestartCommitmentsforSustainedImprovement."(ML13336A785).TheIntegratedReportisthereforepartoftheCALprocess.TheIntegratedReportdocumentsthatOPPDiscommittedtorevisingandmodifyingitsfloodprotectionsystemsandprocedures.OPPDalsocommitstomodificationstoitscontainmentinternalstructures(supportbeamsandcolumns)toaddresstheproblemsdescribedinPetitioner'sPetition.Inaddition,OPPDcommitstoupdatingandrevisingthedesignandlicensingbasisdocumentsforFortCalhoun.AlloftheaboveareissuesthatweresetoutinthepreviousCALs,butwerenotaddressedpriortorestart.FortCalhounwasallowedtorestartwiththeunderstandingthatthoseissueswouldbeaddressedinconnectionwiththecurrentCAL.AllofthisclearlyshowsthattheCALisaprocessandthattheissuesraisedbytheSierraClubinitsPetitionareanintegralpartofthatCALprocess.

5ThereisguidanceincaselawtodeterminewhetheraCALprocessconstitutesadefactolicenseamendmentproceeding.InClevelandElec.Illum.Co.(PerryNuclearPowerPlant),CLI-96-13,44NRC315(1996),theCommissionconsideredwhethertheNRCStaff'sdecisiontoauthorizechangestoamaterialspecimenwithdrawalschedulewasadefactolicenseamendment.Basedoncourtdecisions,theCommissiondeterminedthefactorsthatarematerialtodecidingwhetherNRCactionsareadefactolicenseamendment:InevaluatingwhetherchallengedNRCauthorizationseffectedlicenseamendmentswithinthemeaningofsection189a,courtsrepeatedlyhaveconsideredthesamekeyfactors:didthechallengedapprovalgrantthelicenseeany"greateroperatingauthority,"orotherwise"altertheoriginaltermsofalicense"?Ifso,hearingrightslikelywereimplicated.Forexample,inCitizensAwarenessNetwork,Inc.v.NRC,59F.3d284,295(1stCir.1995)(CAN),...thecourtfoundthatthechallengedNRCapproval"undeniablysupplement[ed]"theoriginallicense.Theagencyhadpermittedthelicenseetodismantlemajorstructuralcomponents,anactivitythatthecourtfoundunauthorizedbytheoriginallicenseandagencyrules.Similarly,inanothercase[SanLuisObispoMothersforPeacev.NRC,751F.2d1287(D.C.Cir.1984)(SLO)],wheretheNRCStaffextendedthedurationofalow-powerlicense,areviewingcourtviewedtheStaffapprovaltobealicenseamendmentchangingatermofthelicense,andthereforetriggeringanopportunityforahearingundersection189a.44NRCat326-27.ThelessonfromPerry,then,isthatdeterminingwhetheraCALprocessisadefactolicenseamendment 6requiresareviewofwhetheractiontakenbytheNRCStafforcommitmentsmadebyOPPDinresponsetotheCALandthe0350processwouldpermitFortCalhountooperate(1)inamannerthatdeviatesfromatechnicalspecificationinitsexistinglicense;(2)beyondtheambit,oroutsidetherestrictions,ofitsexistinglicense;or(3)inamannerthatisneitherdelineatednorreasonablyencompassedwithintheprescriptivetermsofitsexistinglicense.Theabove-describedreviewwouldincludeconsiderationoftheprovisionsof10C.F.R.§50.59.Section50.59requiresthatalicenseecannotmakestructuralorproceduralchangestoanuclearfacility,orconducttestsorexperimentsatthefacility,whichwouldbecontrarytoitsUSAR,andwouldbeachangeinthetechnicalspecificationsofthelicense,withoutalicenseamendment,unlesstheexceptionssetoutin§50.59(c)(2)apply.Thisreviewwouldclearlyrequireanadjudicatoryhearing,allowingpublicparticipation.AndtheCALand0350processesincorporatea§50.59analysis.A§2.206PETITIONISNOTANADEQUATEORAVAILABLEREMEDYApetitionpursuantto10C.F.R.§2.206isnotanappropriatevehicletoparticipateinalicenseamendmentproceeding.ContrarytotheassertionoftheNRCStaffinitsAnswer,thePetitionerisnotchallengingany§50.59 7actiontakenbyOPPDortheNRC.Onthecontrary,thebasisoftheSierraClub'sPetitionisthattheCALand0350processesregardingFortCalhounareadefactolicenseamendmentproceedingforwhichtheSierraClubshouldbeallowedtointervene.Asstatedpreviously,theCALand0350processesincorporatea§50.59analysis.STANDINGTOINTERVENETheCommissionmustgrantahearinginalicenseamendmentproceeding"upontherequestofanypersonwhoseinterestmaybeaffectedbytheproceeding,andshalladmitanysuchpersonasapartytosuchproceeding."42U.S.C.§2239(a)(1)(A).Indeterminingwhetherapetitionerhasmettherequirementsforestablishingstanding,theCommission"construe[s]thepetitioninfavorofthepetitioner."EntergyNuclearVermontYankee,LLC,andEntergyNuclearOperations,Inc.(VermontYankeeNuclearPowerStation,60NRC548,553(2004).Furthermore,thereisapresumptionthatpersonslivingwithin50milesofanuclearreactorhavestandingduetotheirproximitytothereactor.PacificGas&ElectricCo.(DiabloCanyonPowerPlantIndependentSpentFuelStorageInstallation),56NRC142,168(2002).TheCommissionhasalsosaid"[b]ecauseofthevalueperceivedinsuch[public]participation,thisCommissionandits 8predecessor,theAtomicEnergyCommission,havealwaysfollowedaliberalconstructionofjudicialstandingtestsindeterminingwhetherapetitionerisentitledtointerventionasamatterofrightinourdomesticlicensingproceedings.").PortlandGeneralElectricCo.,etal.(PebbleSpringsNuclearPlant,Units1&2),4NRC610,615(1976).Significantly,theNRCStaffhaspresentednothingtodiminishtheeffectofthesepoliciesonthePetitioner'sstanding.ThedeclarationsaccompanyingthePetitioninthiscaseshowthatNebraskaSierraClubmemberCandyBlessliveswithin35milesoftheFortCalhounreactor.Herexactaddressis8519BirchDr.,Apt.316,LaVista,Nebraska68128.Shefurtherstatedthatsheisawareof,andconcernedabout,thesafetyrelatedproblemsatFortCalhoun.SherelateshersafetyconcernstotheallegationsofthePetitioninthiscase,specificallymentioningtherisksofflooding,inadequatestructuralconditions,andimproperoperationofthereactor.Therefore,Ms.Bless'declarationclearlystatesherinterestinthespecificissuessetforthinthePetitioninthiscase.PamelaMackeyTaylor,inherdeclaration,confirmsthatthereare110SierraClubmembersinIowawholivewithin50milesoftheFortCalhounreactor.Shefurther 9describestheirinterestinasafeenvironmentaroundFortCalhoun.Ms.TayloralsodescribesherknowledgeoftheproblemsatFortCalhounandrelatestheconcernsoftheIowaSierraClubmemberstotheissuessetforthinthePetitioninthiscase.ADMISSIBILITYOFCONTENTIONSPursuantto10C.F.R.§2.309(f),apetitioner'scontentionsmust:(1)provideaspecificstatementoftheissueoflaworfacttoberaisedorcontroverted;(2)provideabriefexplanationofthebasisforthecontention;(3)demonstratethattheissueraisedinthecontentioniswithinthescopeoftheproceeding;(4)demonstratethattheissueraisedinthecontentionismaterialtothefindingstheNRCmustmaketosupporttheactionthatisinvolvedintheproceeding;(5)provideaconcisestatementoftheallegedfactsorexpertopinionswhichsupportthepetitioner'spositionontheissueandonwhichthepetitionerintendstorelyathearing,togetherwithreferencestospecificsourcesanddocumentsonwhichthepetitionerintendstorely;(6)providesufficientinformationtoshowthatagenuinedisputeexistswiththelicenseeonamaterialissueoflaworfact.ForeachofthePetitioner'scontentionsinthiscase,thePetitionerhasclearlystatedthecontentionwitha 10descriptionofthecontention.Thenforeachcontention,thePetitionerhaspresentedanextensivediscussionoftheissuesandfactssupportingthecontention,withreferencestothesourcesanddocuments,andthelegalbasis,supportingeachcontention.ThePetitionerhascitedtoallofthesourcesthatareavailabletothepublicandreferencedsomethatarenot.Forexample,theFSAR,theLovelessreportonfloodingatFortCalhoun,andinternaltechnicaldocumentsandreportsinthepossessionofOPPDanditsconsultants,arenotavailabletothepublic.Thosedocumentsandotherinformationnotpubliclyavailablewillhavetobeobtainedthroughdiscoverypursuantto10C.F.R.§§2.336and2.706.Itisobviousthatifapetitionerisrequiredtohaveaccesstoallofthefactswhenapetitionisfiled,asinferredbytheNRCStaff'sAnswer,therewouldbenoneedforthediscoveryproceduresprovidedin§§2.336and2.706.TheCommissionhasalsomadeclearthattheburdenonapetitionerinstatingitscontentionsisnotasheavyastheNRCStaff'sAnswerasserts.InDominionNuclearConn.,Inc.(MillstoneNuclearPowerStation,Units2&3),CLI-01-24,54NRC349,theCommissiondescribedthecontentionadmissibilitystandardsas"insist[ing]uponsome'reasonablyspecificfactualandlegalbasis'forthe 11contention."Id.,54NRC349,359.TheCommissionfurtherexplainedinMillstonethatthestandardsforcontentionadmissibilityweremeanttopreventcontentionsbasedon"littlemorethanspeculation"andintervenorswhohad"negligibleknowledgeofnuclearpowerissuesand,infact,nodirectcasetopresent."Id.at358.Rather,petitionersarerequiredonlyto"articulateattheoutsetthespecificissuestheywishtolitigate."Id.at359.TheCommissionandthecourtshavealsomadeclearthattheburdenofpersuasionisonthelicensee,notthepetitioner.Thepetitioneronlyneedsto"com[e]forwardwithfactualissues,notmerelyconclusorystatementsandvagueallegations."NortheastNuclearEnergyCompany,53NRC22,27(2001).TheCommissiondescribedthethresholdburdeninstatingacontentionasrequiringapetitionerto"raiseanyspecific,germane,substantial,andmaterialfactualissuesthatarerelevanttothe...requestforalicenseamendmentandthatcreateabasisforcallingonthe[licensee]tosatisfytheultimateburdenofproof."Id.Courtshavefound,however,thatthisburdenmaynotbeappropriatewhere,ashere,theinformationwasinthehandsofthelicenseeorNRCStaffandwasnotmadeavailabletothepetitioner.See,e.g.,YorkComm.fora 12SafeEnv't.v.NRC,527F.2d812,815n.12(D.C.Cir.1975)(wheretheinformationnecessarytomaketherelevantassessmentis"readilyaccessibleandcomprehensibletothelicenseapplicantandtheCommissionstaffbutnottopetitioners,placingtheburdenofgoingforwardonpetitionersappearsinappropriate.").Also,inVermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorp.v.NRDC,435U.S.519,554(1978),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaffirmedtheNRCinfindingthattheproperstandardtoapplyrequiredintervenorstosimplymakea"showingsufficienttorequirereasonablemindstoinquirefurther,"aburdentheNRCfoundtobesignificantlylessthanthatofmakingaprimafaciecase.Inthiscase,thereisnoquestionthatthePetitionerhassetforthfacts,sources,law,andspecificallegationsmorethansufficienttomeetthestandardsforapropercontentionasdescribedabove.Indeed,thecontentionspresentedinthePetitionareexceedinglymorethan"conclusorystatementsandvagueallegations."NortheastNuclearEnergyCompany,53NRC22,27(2001).PETITIONER'SCONTENTIONSContention1ThereisnoquestionfromthefactspresentedinthePetitionthatOPPDhasand/orwillundertakesignificant 13modificationsandtestsorexperimentstoaddressprotectionfromfloodingoftheMissouriRiver.TheseactionsareallpartoftheCALand0350processesasdescribedaboveandinthePetition.ContrarytotheassertionintheNRCStaff'sAnswer,thePetitionerisnotchallenging§50.59activities.Also,becausethePetitionisbasedontheCALand0350processes,thePetitionerisnotconstrainedbyarequirementtowaituntilOPPDchoosestoapplyforalicenseamendment.Adefactolicenseamendmentproceedingisalreadyunderway.TotheextentthattheStaffisarguingthatthecontentionisvagueandconclusory,thediscussionabovelaysthatargumenttorest.BasedonthestandardsforcontentionadmissibilityadoptedbythecourtsandtheCommission,especiallywhenthePetitionerdoesnothaveaccesstoinformationavailabletothelicenseeandtheNRCstaff,thecontentionismorethansufficient.Contention2TheNRCStaffisincorrectinarguingthatthereisnothingintheFortCalhounoperatinglicensethatprohibitsreconstitutingdesignandlicensingbasisdocuments.Thatisnotthepoint.Thepointisthatinreconstitutingthedocuments,OPPDisundertakingamodificationthatwillchange"theproceduresasdescribed 14inthefinalsafetyanalysisreportasupdated,"requiringalicenseamendment.10C.F.R.§50.59(c)(1).Andagain,whenthePetitionerdoesnothaveaccesstoalloftheinformationregardingthisissue,thecontentionismorethansufficientto"requirereasonablemindstoinquirefurther."VermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorp.v.NRDC,435U.S.519,554(1978).Contention3ThereisnoquestionthatthestructuralsupportbeamsandcolumnsareimportanttothesafeoperationofFortCalhoun.NoristhereanyquestionthatthebeamsandcolumnsdescribedinthePetitionareinadequateandunsafe.Finally,thereisnoquestion,asaffirmedbyOPPD'sownconsultants,thatmodificationswillhavetobeimplementedtoaddresstheunsafecolumnsandbeams.Suchamodificationrequiresalicenseamendment.TheNRCStaffisincorrectinarguingthatthePetitioner'sremedyonthisissueisa§2.206petition.UnlikethepetitionatissueinSouthernCaliforniaEdisonCo.(SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation,Units2&3,CLI-12-20,76NRC437(2012),thePetitioninthiscaseisnotclaimingviolationsof§50.59.Rather,thePetitionerassertsthatlicenseamendmentsmustbeobtainedaspartoftheCALand0350processes.ItissignificantthatinSan 15Onofre,theCommissionreferredthequestionofwhethertheCALprocesswasadefactolicenseamendmentproceedingtoanAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardPanel.AndthatpaneldiddeterminethattheCALprocesswasadefactolicensingamendmentproceeding.SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCo.(SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation,Units2&3,LBP-13-7,77NRC307(2013).AlthoughtheCommissionvacatedthelicensingboarddecision,theCommissionemphasizedthat"[f]uturelitigantscancitethedecisionassupportforanargument;weoralicensingboardthenmayconsiderwhethersuchanargumentispersuasive."CLI-12-20at11.Contention4Regardingthiscontention,theNRCStaffagainincorrectlyarguesthatPetitioner'sremedyisa§2.206petition.Forthesamereasonsasdiscussedabove,thatargumentinincorrect.ThePetitionerisbasingthiscontentionontheCALand0350processes.TheonlyotherargumentpresentedbytheStaffisthatthePetitioner'scontentionisvague.Onthecontrary,thePetitionercitedtotwogeotechnicalreportsfor1967and1968,andthelinkswherethereportscanbereadinfull,thatclearlyshowthattheFortCalhounreactorwasconstructedonkarstterrain.ThePetitionthenexplainedinsomedetailfromthereportstheproblemsandchallenges 16insitinganuclearreactoronkarstterrain.ThePetitionalsoquotedatlengthfromtheCommission'sownguidancetheprecautionsthatmustbetakeninsitingareactoronkarstterrain.Finally,thePetitionnotesthatthereisnoindicationthatanystepsweretakentoaddresstheproblemofthekarstgeologypriortoconstructionoftheFortCalhounreactor.Thesefactscertainly"requirereasonablemindstoinquirefurther."VermontYankeeNuclearPowerCorp.v.NRDC,435U.S.519,554(1978).ThisisespeciallytruewhenthePetitionerdoesnothaveaccessatthispoint,withouttheavailabilityofdiscoveryproceduresattendanttoahearingandinterventionopportunity,toallofthefactsinthepossessionofOPPDandtheNRCStaff.ThePetitionerhadrequestedinformationandwasstonewalledbytheStaff.ItisclearfromthediscussionpreviouslyregardingtheadmissibilityofcontentionsthatthePetitionerisnotrequiredatthispointtoproveitscase,andinfact,theburdenofproofisonthelicensee.Acontentionsimplymustpresentacogentandspecificallegationthatmeritsfurtherinquiry.Thiscontentioncertainlydoesthat.

17TIMELINESSTheNRCStaffmisapprehendsthenatureoftheSierraClub'sPetitiontoIntervene.TheStaff'sAnswerallegesthatthePetitionisuntimely,pursuantto10C.F.R.§2.309(b),becauseitwasnotfiledwithin60daysofaFederalRegisternotice.Ofcourse,asnotedinthePetition,therehasbeennoformallicenseamendmentproceedingforwhichnoticehasbeengiven.ThatiswhythePetitionerallegesthattheCALand0350processesareadefactolicenseamendmentproceeding.TheNRCStaffalsoallegesthatthePetitionisuntimelypursuantto10C.F.R.§2.309(c),whichallowspetitionstobefiledafterthedeadlinesimposedin§2.309(b)uponashowingofgoodcause.TheStaff'sargumentmissesthemark,however.Inthiscase,therewasnodeadlineimposedby§2.309(b)becausetherewasnoformalnoticeintheFederalRegister.Therefore,thePetitionerisnotaskingtofileanuntimelypetitionafteradeadline.Furthermore,iftheCALand0350processesaredeterminedtobeadefactolicenseamendmentproceeding,thatwouldtriggerahearingopportunityunder42U.S.C.§2239(a).Giventhatopportunity,thePetitionerwouldthenbeabletofileatimelyinterventionpetitionand 18contentionspursuantto§2.309(b).ThatiswhathappenedintheSanOnofrecase.TheCommissionreferredtoanAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardPanelthequestionofwhethertheCALinthatcasewasadefactolicenseamendmentthatwouldbesubjecttoahearingopportunity.CLI-12-20at5.TheCommissionsaid:However,ourreferraltotheLicensingBoardPanel(toconsidertheConfirmatoryActionLetterclaim)couldresultinadeterminationthatalicenseamendmentisnecessary.SuchadeterminationwouldrequiretheNRCtopublishaFederalRegisternoticeprovidinganopportunitytoseekapublichearingthatFriendsoftheEarthseeks,andwouldrendertherequestforadiscretionaryhearingmoot.Id.TheASLBPfoundthattheCALprocesswasadefactolicenseamendmentproceedingsubjecttoahearingopportunity.Basedonthatfinding,theBoardheldthatthequestionsofstandingandtimingweremootsincethosequestionswouldberesolvedinthehearingprocedure.LBP-13-7at37.Thus,theissueoftiminginthiscaseatthisstageoftheproceedingsisirrelevant.COMMISSION'SINHERENTSUPERVISORYAUTHORITYTOGRANTPETITIONEveniftheNRCStaffweresuccessfulinitsvigorousattempttoforeclosepublicparticipationintryingtoensurethesafetyofFortCalhoun,theCommissionshouldinvokeitsinherentauthoritytoinitiateanadjudicatory 19hearing.ItisclearfromtheforegoingdiscussionhereinthateveryeffortisbeingmadebytheNRCstafftopreventtheissuesraisedbythePetitionerfrombeingheard.ItisalsoclearfromthecontentsofthePetitionthatthePetitionerhasraisedseriousandsignificantissuesrelatedtothesafeoperationofFortCalhoun.If,becauseoftheuniquecircumstancesofthiscase,therulesoftheCommissionwouldpreventadjudicationoftheissuesraisedbythePetitioner,theCommissionwouldbeatriskofnotprotectingthepublicandtheenvironment,astheCommission'smissionstatementalleges.WearesurethatisnottheCommission'sdesire.Therefore,althoughtheCommissioniscautiousaboutusingitsinherentauthority,thisisacasewheretheexerciseofsuchauthoritywouldbejustified.CONCLUSIONItisdisappointingthattheNRCStaff,representingaregulatoryagencythatissupposedtobeactinginthepublicinterest,wouldtrysohardtopreventpublicparticipation.Onthecontrary,theCommissionpridesitselfonpromotingtransparencyandpublicparticipation,asitshould.Specifically,withrespecttolicensingdecisions,theAtomicEnergyAct,42U.S.C.§2239(a),requiresthatthe 20Commissionmustgrantahearingupon"therequestofanypersonwhoseinterestmaybeaffectedbytheproceeding,andshalladmitanysuchpersonasapartytosuchproceeding."Congressionalintenttopromotepublicparticipationcouldnotbeclearer.InthiscasetheSierraClubhasdemonstratedtheinterestoftheorganizationanditsmembersinthesafeoperationoftheFortCalhounreactor.Furthermore,thePetitioninthiscaseamplysetsforthwhytheCALand0350processesareadefactolicenseamendmentproceeding,andsetsforththeSierraClub'scontentionsinsufficientdetailtosupportthePetition'srequesttointerveneandforanadjudicatoryhearing.Therefore,theSierraClubrespectfullyrequeststhattheCommissiondirecttheNRCStafftoconvenealicenseamendmentproceeding,andissuetherequisitepublicnoticeintheFederalRegister,sothatthePetitionerandothersmayparticipateinapublichearing,asrequiredunder§189(a)oftheAtomicEnergyAct.ThePetitionerfurtherrequestsanyotherreliefthattheCommissionmaydeemappropriate.

21/s/WallaceL.TaylorWALLACEL.TAYLORLawOfficesofWallaceL.Taylor1183rdAve.S.E.,Suite326CedarRapids,Iowa52401319-366-2428;(Fax)319-366-3886e-mail:wtaylorlaw@aol.comATTORNEYFORPETITIONER