States Key Issues for Consideration at 790509 Prehearing Conference.Nrc Should Provide Funds to Intervenor So Latter May Exercise Legal Rights & Assist ASLB in Finding of Facts. Certificate of Svc EnclML19263E869 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Palisades |
---|
Issue date: |
05/07/1979 |
---|
From: |
Sinclair M GREAT LAKES ENERGY ALLIANCE |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7906250409 |
Download: ML19263E869 (5) |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217N7201998-03-31031 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Changes to 10CFR50.55a,inservice Inspection & Inservice Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Components ML20203J9661998-02-27027 February 1998 Comment on GL 98-XX, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps ML18067A6301997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Supporting NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Charges,Tests or Experiments). DD-97-15, Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request1997-06-18018 June 1997 Director'S Decision DD-97-15 Re Petitioners Request That NRC Prohibit Loading of VSC-24 Until Coc,Sar & SER Amended Following Independent third-party Review of VSC-24 Design. No Adequate Basis Exists for Granting Petitioners Request ML20115H7061996-06-0404 June 1996 Submits Addl Info to Support Petition for Rulemaking PRM-72-3 Re Amend to SAR ML18065A0761995-09-13013 September 1995 Comment on Draft Rg DG-1043 Re Proposed Rev 2 to Rg 1.149. New Malfunction Tests Required by Revised Rg Can Be Tested at Required 25% Per Year & Reported in Next 4-yr Testing Rept W/O Rev to Test Plan ML20086D9031995-06-29029 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Generic Ltr Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval.Proposed GL Also Avoids Unnecessary Expense for Requirements That Provide No Benefit ML18064A8201995-06-27027 June 1995 Comment on Proposed GL Re Relocation of Pressure Temperature Limit Curves & Low Temperature Overpressure Protection Sys Limits.Supports Issuance of Ltr ML20085E6541995-06-13013 June 1995 Comment Re Draft NUREG/BR-0199, Responsiveness to Public. Expresses Concern on Dry Cask Storage W/Exemption Given to VSC-24 Cask & Procedures for Unloading & Transport at Plant ML18064A7681995-05-26026 May 1995 Comment on Proposed GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power Operated Gate Valves. ML20073M0621994-09-29029 September 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Addition of NUHOMS 52B Dry Casks to List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks. Objects to Proposed Rule Because of Substantial Differences Between Fuel Rods & Assemblies at Different Plant ML20056E5101993-08-11011 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning ML20012G5301993-02-26026 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Suggests That NRC Conduct Formal Hearing ML20012G5311993-02-24024 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5331993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5341993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5321993-02-23023 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5231993-02-20020 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20012G5251993-02-15015 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20128L9531993-02-10010 February 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127E8851993-01-15015 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127E8631993-01-14014 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127F0561993-01-0808 January 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116N9171992-11-12012 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116K9591992-11-0909 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116L4651992-11-0606 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L0501992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Concerns Noted ML20116K7851992-11-0303 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L1811992-11-0202 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L2051992-11-0202 November 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L3341992-10-30030 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Can Not Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L2881992-10-26026 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L1311992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Cannot Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116L2841992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20116L2681992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Waste Can Not Be Stored Safely.Doe Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20116K9861992-10-22022 October 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule.Deadly Waste Cannot Be Stored Safely.Doe Stated Will Not Be Liable for Wastes If Interim Site Not Built by 1998 ML20127E1371992-09-16016 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4721992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4081992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4011992-09-14014 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3981992-09-11011 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6611992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3831992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4521992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6241992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D9421992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D6331992-09-0909 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A4111992-09-0808 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20106A3671992-09-0808 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule ML20127D7191992-09-0606 September 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Approval of Two Addl Dry Cask Storage Designs.Opposes Rule 1998-03-31
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20071N4031982-10-0505 October 1982 Motion for Indefinite Continuance of Proceeding.Need for Steam Generator Replacement Alleviated Due to Better than Expected Corrosion Performance of Steam Generator Tubes. Future Rate of Corrosion Unpredictable.W/Certificate of Svc ML20038C1621981-12-0808 December 1981 Response Opposing Christa-Maria 811204 Motion for Indefinite Extension of Time to Respond to Licensee & NRC Motions for Summary Dispostion.Time to Respond Already Extended & Contentions Insubstantial.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140B4781981-08-31031 August 1981 Response to Aslab 810824 Order to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed as Untimely.Untimely Filing Due to Misunderstanding Re Computation of Commission Time Limits for Appeal Filings ML20010D1381981-08-17017 August 1981 Brief,In Form of Pleading,On Appeal from ASLB 810721 Order Denying Petition for Hearing Re 810309 Order Confirming Licensee Actions to Upgrade Facility Performance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18046A7511981-05-28028 May 1981 Reply Supporting Util Workers' Union of America & Mi Util Workers Council 810331 Request for Hearing on Overtime Restrictions Imposed by NRC 810309 Order.Requested Hearing Would Not Involve Labor/Mgt Dispute.Proof of Svc Encl ML19343D1661981-03-31031 March 1981 Requests Hearing on Commission 810309 Order.Restrictions on Overtime Were Imposed W/O Consulting Union Which Is Collective Bargaining Agent for Operating,Maint & Const Employees.Commission Stds Are Not as Restrictive ML18046A2561980-12-0101 December 1980 Response to NRC 801107 Requests for Admissions.Admits That Two Manual Containment Isolation Valves in Containment Bldg Penetration 4a Were Found Locked Open on 790911.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18045A7771980-10-0606 October 1980 Motion to Compel More Specific Answers from NRC to Second Round of Interrogatories 1 Through 4.Requested Info Needed in Detail in Order to Determine If Discretion Abused. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML18045A3831980-07-18018 July 1980 Response in Opposition to NRC 800703 Motion for Protective Order Re CPC 800221 Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.Relief Not Warranted Per ALAB-594. W/Certificate of Svc ML18045A2531980-06-13013 June 1980 Supplemental Motion to Compel NRC Response to 800225 Interrogatories 2 Through 5,13 Through 15 & 17.Matl Not Privileged,Relevant or Necessary to Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML18045A2241980-05-14014 May 1980 Motion to Compel NRC to Produce Documents Requested in Util Interrogatories 2,3,4,5,12,13,14,15 & 17.Util Will Review NRC Objections Re Other Matls.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML19290D5851980-01-29029 January 1980 Answers to 800117 Notice of Hearing.Noncompliance Item 1 of 791109 Notice of Violation Miscategorized.Civil Penalties Imposed Per 791220 Order Abused Discretion Entrusted to NRC Per Atomic Energy Act ML18043A8131979-05-30030 May 1979 Consumers Power Opposition to Great Lakes Energy Alliance 790509 Prehearing Conference Statement,Amended Contentions & Request for Financial Assistance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19263E8691979-05-0707 May 1979 States Key Issues for Consideration at 790509 Prehearing Conference.Nrc Should Provide Funds to Intervenor So Latter May Exercise Legal Rights & Assist ASLB in Finding of Facts. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269D9241979-05-0404 May 1979 Applicant Answer Opposing Great Lakes Energy Alliance 790420 Response.Response Does Not Cure Defects Found in Earlier Submission.Alliance Petition to Intervene Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19289E9631979-04-20020 April 1979 Responds to Nrc,Consumers Power Co & ASLB Re Intervention in Hearings on Steam Generator Replacement.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19282C3811979-02-27027 February 1979 Great Lakes Energy Alliance Petition to Intervene & Statement of Contentions.W/Attached Article on Pipe Corrosion ML19331A3741974-11-0101 November 1974 Response to Saginaw Intervenors' Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument.Discusses Saginaw Intervenors' Procedural Deficiencies.Requests That Motion Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19331A3791974-10-0909 October 1974 Memorandum Opposing Saginaw Intervenors' 740930 Petition to Reopen Record &/Or for Reconsideration of Initial Decision. Petition Untimely & Issues Raised Are Insignificant to Plant Safety & Should Be Denied.Proof of Svc Encl 1982-10-05
[Table view] |
Text
.
gg Qt N
[ YN 8/
o g
7, c*ffs S Y 7.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- bk NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Yb BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9 b
/ os In the Matter of )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-255 SP (Palisades Nuclear Plant) )
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF INTERVENOR GREAT LAKES ENERGY ALLIANCE Citizen intervenors who are members of the Great Lakes Energy Alliance (GLEA) present the following key issues to the Licensing Board at the Prehearing Conference on May 9, 1979.
The primary issue is that without the full participation of parties other than Consumers Power Co. and the NRC Staff, this Board has no assurance that it will get the facts that it needs to make an intelligent judgment in this proceeding.
Secondly, the Board must consider and, in accordance with applicable law, grant the petitioner funds to be used for actorney fees and for expenses of witnesses and consultants in order to carry on a proper hearing.
In reference to the above mentioned primary issue, we have shown in our response of April 20, 1979, that the Board can-not rely upon Consumers Power Co. or the NRC Staff to disclose all the relevant information to them. In fact, Exhibit 1 of that re-sponse specifically states that Consumers Power Co. assumed that Myron Cherry would not appear because the citizens lacked funds, and that since there was no discovery and there would probably be no intervenor cross-examination, that they (Consumers Power) would be able to " finesse" Dow/ Consumers' continuing dispute, so that the Licensing Board would know nothing about it. Implicit in this plan was the fact that they could expect that the NRC Staff would not assist in getting the real facts to the Licensing 7906250 Vof 2214 191
Board in the Midland suspension hearings. Consumers' attorney, Rex Renfro, of the firm Isham, Lincoln and Beale of Chicago, Illinois, who are also representing Consumers Power Co. in this licensing proceeding, also suggested that the Dow witness be someone from Dow Chemical Co. who was unaware of the Midland Division recommendations to Paul Oreffice, President of the Dow Chemical Co., to the effect that the Midland n-plants would be disadvantageous not only to the Midland Division of Dow, but to their employees and the community. This Dow refused to do.
Therefore, we ask this Board to make their need for full participation of the citizens known to the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission (NRC) in these proceedings, and to request that funds for the attorneys, witnesses and consultants be provided to the citizens.
There are at least two legal routes by reason of which the NRC can provide these funds for the Great Lakes Energy Alliance.
The Comptroller General of the United States held in Matter of Costs of Intervention--Nuclear Regulatory Commission, B-92288 (Feb. 19, 1976), that the NRC has statutory authority to pay the legal expenses of intervenors. In this decision the comptroller general not only held that the NRC has the authority to pay legal expenses of intervenors, but set forth the standards:
(1) the NRC must believe that participation by the intervenor is required by statute or necessary to represent adequately opposing points of view; (2) the intervenor must be indigent or otherwise unable to bear the financial costs of participation.
Also, Public Law 93-438, Section 205 (b) 1,2 (Energy Reorganization Act, October 11, 1974) specifically states that,
" Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Director of Nuclear Regulatory Research shall perform such functions as the C_mmis-sion shall delegate, including . . . engaging in or contracting 2214 192
for research, which the Commission deems necessary for the per-formance of :.ts licensing and related regulatory functions."
(Emphasis adced. )
Under the provisions of this Act, the Commission can make funds available to contract for the services of the attorneys, witnesses and consultants which the citizens in this action will need to exercise their rights and to assist the Board in getting all the facts.
Without this funding assistance from the Cor. mission, not only will the Board remain uncertain as to whether the f acts presented to them are complete and accurate, but the citizen intervenors will be denied their Constitutional rights to due pro-cess and equal protection under the law.
For too long in nuclear power plant licensing proceed-ings, citizens and ratepayers have paid the salaries of all the utility and government regulatory parties in nuclear plant licens-ing and all costs through their taxes and utility rates, with no funds made available from those sources, which they have pro-vided, to pay for their own participation. By definition of the N RC , their right to intervene is based on the fact that the NRC acknowledges that their proximity to the nuclear facilities being licensed places their lives and property at risk.
Citizens must not be denied full participation in licensing proceedings any lou 3er at the same time that they are required to pay all the costs and bear all the risks.
Citizens who are members of the Great Lakes Energy Al-liance wish to restate all the issues that were raised in their original petition to intervene, dated February 27, 1979, and to amend PETITIONERS' RESPCNSE of April 20, 1979, so as to include the following additional people who live in the vicinity and are deeply concerned about the safety problems at the Palisades n-plant:
- 1) Mr. and Mrs. Jan.;s Ashley, whose property is Lot 17, Thunder Mt. Heights Subdivision, ac-2214 193
cording to Plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats on P. 20, in the Township of Covert, County of Van Buren, and the State of Michigan.
- 2) Eric Brown, Sr., whose property is Loc 131, of the same Plat as above.
- 3) Harriet Brooks, who owns property in Forest Dunes, Covert Township, 700 feet from the Covert Township Park and about two miles south of the Palisades plant. The property is 240 front feet and extends to U.S. 33 and has two summer cottages on it which are rented in the summer.
Of necessity, citizens who are members of the Great Lakes Energy Alliance, reserve the right to file a Motion to Amend the Petition to cover these issues and also the Response to the Petition, dated April 20, 1979.
Resq ctfully submitted, t < ~~t. .. , L: . ?
- Mary Sinclair, Vice President Great Lakes Energy Alliance Dated at Midland, Michiga May 7, 1979.
2214 194
UNITED STATES OF A.NERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-255 SP (Palisades Nuclear Plant) )
/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of PRE!!EANING CONFERENCE STATDU.NT OF INTERVENOR GREAT LAKES ENERGY ALLIANCE in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 7th day of May, 1979:
Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, and hand delivered at the Berrien County Courthouse, St. Joseph, Michigan, on May 9, 1979, to:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., ,;=
Chairman @ 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mis!' y, Washington, DC 20555 r J, g: gay 131979 7 Michael I. Miller, Esq. - '
Martha E. Gibbs, Esq. o$$ ,w,a, y Isham, Lincoln and Beale L Pd" Number One First Nafional Plaza p Suite 4200 1 Chicago, Illinois 60603 LGLr. NO2hi A ElRYSINCLAIR,VicePresident, Great Lakes Energy Alliance 2214 195