ML19257C360
| ML19257C360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1980 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001280485 | |
| Download: ML19257C360 (20) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1/16/80 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC
)
Docket No. 50-367 SERVICE COMPANY
)
(Construction Permit Extension)
)
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
Nuclear-1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION FILED BY GEORGE SCHULTZ; STEVEN LAUDIG, AND GEORGE AND ANNA GRABOWSKI INTRODUCTION On November 30, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) published in the Federal Register (44 F.R. 69061) a " Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on Construction Permit Extension" (Notice).
The Notice was pub-lished in connection with an application filed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Commission Company (NIPSCO or Applicant) to extend the latest date for completion of the construction of its Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1, from September 1, 1979 to December 1, 1937.
The Notice provided an opportunity for any person whose interest might be affected by the proceeding to file a petition for leave to intervere pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714 no later than December 31, 1979. Under the provisions of the Notice, such petition to inter-vene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the proceedino, including the 1819 199 3
0 128 o gg 5
. reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject-matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. The Notice also specified that not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the special prehearing conference pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.751a or, where no special prehearing conference is held, fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference, the petitioner should file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
The NPC Staff submits this response to three timely intervention petitions filed pursuant to the Notice by the following:
Dr. George Schultz, Steven Laudig, Esq., and George and Anna Grabowski.
For the reasons given below, the Staff believes that these several petitions fail to satisfy the pertinent
" interest" and " aspects" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.714, and otherwise seek the introduction of issues outside the scope of this proceeding, and should be denied in their present form.
1819 200
. BACKGROUND The Bailly project has becn marked by an unusually litigious history. The Staff believes that some knowledge of this history is valuable and offers the following brief chronology.
The construction permit application for the Bailly facility wa; submitted in August, 1970. The application was the subject of 65 days of evidentiary hearing. The Commission authorized issuance of the construction permit in May, 1974 LBP-74-19, 7 AEC 557; ALAB-224, 8 AEC 244. At the direction of the Commission, the record was reopened for hearings on the use of a " slurry wall" to keep the construction excavation dry and the construction permit was amended to add certain conditions for the protection of the environment.
LBP-74-85, 8 AEC 901 (1974); LBP-75-3, 1 NP.C 61; ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858 (1975).
Following the imposition of a stay of construction by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October,1974, and later vacation of the construction permit, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the Conmission's final decision on the issuance of the construction permit in July,1976.-1/
The Seventh Circuit resolved the remaining issues in favor of the Commission in November,1976.-2/
1/ Porter County Chapter of Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.,
et al. v. NRC, 515 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.1975); rev'd and remanded, 423 U.S. 12 (1975).
2/ Porter County Chapter of Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.,
et al. v. NRC, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.1976); cert. denied, 429 U.S.
945 (1976).
1819 201
. In November,1976, several petitions were filed before the Comission, under the aut:.ority of 10 C.F.R. 92.206, seeking suspension and revocation of the construction permit on the basis of certain developments which were alleged to have arisen since issuance of the construction permit. The Commission's denial of that petition was upheld by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton Leaque v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C.
Cir. 1979).
More recently, the Commission denied a November,1978 petition by these same petitioners to institute hearings in connection with the Appli-cant's plans for installation of foundation piles for the facility.
Commission Memorandum and Order, CLI, 10 NRC
,(December 12,1979).
On February 7,1979, as supplemented on August 31, 1979, the Applicant sub-mitted an application for extension of time within which to complete construc-tion of the Bailly facility. Among the reasons cited as " good cause" for the requested extension were the over two-year suspension of construction occasioned by the ruling of the Seventh Circuit, installation of the slurry wall, and the work stoppage since September,1977 pending the outcome of the Staff's review of its pile installation plans.
INTEREST As noted above, the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 62.714 require that a petition to intervene set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioners in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected thereby.~3/
In judging the ade-quacy of the petitioner's showing of interest in the instant proceeding, the Staff believes that the following considerations control.
3] BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
1819 202 The Commission has indicated that judicial concepts of standing should be applied in determining whether a petitioner should be accorded party status.
Edl ow International Company (Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material), CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 570 (1976). Thus, the petitioner must show (1) " injury in fact," and (2) an interest "argu-ably within the zone of interest" protected by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Portland General Electric (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976).
" Abstract oncerns" or a " mere academic interest" in the matter which are not accompanied by some real impact on the person asserting the concern will not confer standing.
_Id. at 613; Transnuclear, Inc., et al. (Ten Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Exports to Euratom Member Nations), CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977). The harm must have some particular effect on the petitioner rather than be a concern which is "' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.'" Transnuclear, supra. A petitioner must have a direct stake in the outcome of the proceeding rather than merely be advancinq personal preferences.
See Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Reprocessing and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).-4/
The Commission has recognized that sufficient interest may be demonstrated by claims that the person requesting the hearing lives within the geographical zone that might be affected by the normal or accidental release of fission 4/ Where, as here, a hearing is not mandatory, the licensing board should take particular care to satisfy itself that potential intervenors do have a real stake in the proceeding.
See Cincinatti Gas and Electric Company, et al.
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 812 (1976).
1819 203 product from the facility in question due to the proposed action.
Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n.6 (1973); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), 6 AEC 188 (1973).
Persons residing in close proximity to a reactor site clearly fall within this geographical zone and are presumed to have a cognizable interest in licensing proceedings involving that reactor.
Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393 (1979); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979).
Though no outer limits of this geographic zone have been established, it has been held that 50 miles "is not so great as necessarily to have precluded a finding of standing based upon residence." Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 n.4 (1977).
5/
Pursuit of everyday activities in the vicinity of a reactor site or use 6/
of the surrounding area for recreational purposes' may, dependina on the cir-cumstances, constitute an interest which could be affected by a possible harm-ful effect of the facility.
However, certain economic interests do not fall within the zone of interest which the statutes implemented by the Commission are designed to protect.
For example, status as a ratepayer alone is not adequate to confer standing under the AEA.--7/
Similarly, economic interest as a taxpayer 5f Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
--6/ Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173 (1973).
7/ Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station,
[fnit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122,128 (1977).
1819 204 does not bring a petitioner within the zone of interest sought to be protected 8/
by the AEA.- Moreover, alleged financial harm does not fcll within the zone of interest to be protected by NEPA unless it is shown to be " environmentally related. "-9/
ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDING In addition to the " interest" requirement of 10 C.F.R. 52.714, a petition must also set forth with particularity the specific aspect or aspects of the subject-matter of the proceeding as to which c petitioner wishes to intervene.
The only relevant aspects of the proceeding are thore which fall within the scope 10 of the proceeding.~/
As regards the scope of this proceeding,10 C.F.R. 550.55(b) provides that:
If the proposed construction or modification of the facility is not completed by the latest completion date, the permit shall expire and all rights there-under shall be forfeited:
Provided, however, That upon good cause shown the Comossion will extend the completion date for a reasonable period of time.
The Commission will recognize, among other things, developmental problems attributable to the experi-mental nature of the facility or fire, flood, explosion, strike, sabotage, domestic violence, enemy action, an act of the elements, and other acts beyond the control of the permit holder, as a basis for extending the completiondate.1_1]
8_/
Watts Bar, supra, 5 NRC at 1420-21.
9/
Id.
10/ See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) Licensing Board " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conferences" (September 21, 1979) (Restart),
slip 02. at 6.
~11/ The notice of opportunity for hearina published herein referenced this
~
governing regulation.
44 F.R. 69061.
1819 205 There is little additional guidance for ascertaining the proper subject matter (scope) of a given construction permit extension action to which a petitioner's specification of aspects must relate.
Litigation of construction permit exten-sion applications 5s been rare. Yet, the Appeal Board has had occasion to expound upon the parameters of the " good cause" criteria under 10 C.F.R. 550.55(b) in such a context.
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-129, 6 AEC 414 (1973). After noting the dearth of legislative history underlying the promulgation of Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act,--12/
from which 10 C.F.R. 550.55(b) is derived, the Appeal Board concluded that it could not always rule out consideration of possible safety and environmental issues associated with the asserted reasons for the delay in completing construction. Specifically the Appeal Board indicated that the question to be answered in ascertaining whether
" good cause" exists, in its broadest terms, is "whether the reasons assigned for the extension give rise to health and safety or environmental issues which R/ That section provides that every construction permit for a nuclear power plant must state "the earliest and latest dates for the completion of the construction" and that "[u]nless the construction... of the facility is completed by the completion date, the construction permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder be forfeited, unless upon good cause shown, the Conmission extends the completion date" (emphasis supplied). 42 U.S.C.
52235. These dates are express conditions of a construction permit and may not be extended except by amendment.
Brooks v. AEC, 476 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir.
1973).
1819 206
. 13a/
cannot appropriately abide the event of the environroental review-facility operating license hearing.
Put another way, we must decide whether the present consideration of any such issue or issues is necessary in order to protect 13b/
the interest of intervenors or the public interest."
Id at 420.
In Cook, proposed plant design changes constituted one of the reasons assigned for the construction delays. The Appeal Board ruled that deferring considera-tion of operational safety problems associated with these design changes to the operating license hearing would not prejudice the intervenors.
6 AEC at 420.
It recognized that design changes during the course of facility construction were common, if not " inevitable."
I_d.
It explained, however, that, under the prescribed regulatory scheme, the safety implications of such design changes do not receive imediate licensing board scrutiny.
Rather, it 13a/ Since the construction permits for the Cook facility were issued prior to January 1, 1970, an environmental review was conducted pursuant to Section C of then Appendix D to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
13b/ None of the safety issues raised by the several petitioners are asso-ciated with the reasons asserted in the construction permit extension as " good cause" for the requested extension.
Even assuming such a next s could be demonstrated, litigation of these issues can and should abide any eventual operating license hearings.
1819 207 indicated that it was the responsibility of the Staff to monitor such matters and take corrective action, including, where necessary, the issuance of an order to show cause under applicable authority.
Id_.-14/
In this connection, the Appeal Board observed that:
[H]ad the design changes effected by the applicant in the present case, taken in conjunction with other fac-tors, not delayed the completion of construction be-yond the latest completion date specified in permits, there would be no question that (absent a show cause proceeding) any safety issues associated with those changes would have been considered by the licensing board in the operating license proceeding - and not befora.
Id_. at 421.
The Appeal Board expressed difficulty in rationalizing why a different result should be reached simply because of the " fortuitous circumstance" that certain events required the applicants to seek an extension of construction.
Id.
Based on the circumstances of that case, the Appeal Board concluded that the scope of the " good cause" inquiry was properly limited to the reasons assigned by the Applicants for the need for an extension, leaving ad,iudicatory con-sideration of safety and environmental issues to the operating license hearing.
Id. at 422.
14] The Staff appreciates the view espoused by the Appeal Board that it cannot altogether ignore the prospect, in judging whether there is " good cause" for the extension, that one or more of the reasons assigned for the delay in com-pletion "in and of themselves" could raise doubts about the ability of the Applicant to construct a safe facility.
Id. at 420. The Staff does not be-lieve that any of the reasons assigned foi-the delay herein signal such a situation nor do petitioners make such an allegation. As indicated in the application for extension, construction has been effectively suspended at the direction of the Staff since September,1977 while the Applicant's pile in-stallation proposal undergoes evaluation.
1819 208 The viability of the Commission's bifurcated licensing process (construction permit and operating license) has received recent Commission endorsement in connection with its consideration of petitions to initiate separate hearings respecting this same facility.
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), Commission Memorandum and Order, CLI,
10 NRC
,(December 12,1979). The petitions involved the Applicant's propo-sal, under active Staff review, to use shorter foundation pilings than originally contemplated at the time it received its construction permit in May,1974.
Petitioners argued that the pile installation proposal constituted an amend-ment to the construction permit and involved a matter incapable of resolution after construction was completed.
In denying the petitions, the Comission ob-served that the Atomic Energy Act favors the two-stage licensing process.
The Commission noted that unresolved issues left outstanding at the construction permit stage or issues that arose subsequent thereto are resolved at the operating stage.
Slip of. at 16.
The Commission found nothing in the record to recommend the injection of an "intarim" public hearing at this time.
Id_.
The Commission observed that possession of a construction permit does not guarantee receipt of an operating license and that the risk that a plant will be denied a license, for any aspect of construction, is borne by the licensee.
In this regard, the Comission cited approvingly from the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in yet another case involving this facility and "most of the same principles."--15/The Court stated therein:
"It is not the public,but the utility, that must bear the risk that the safety questions it projects will be resolved in good time, may eventually prove
_15/ Slip og. at 18.
intractable and lead to the denial of the operating license." Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1362, 1370 (D.C. Cir.
1979).-16/
The Commission stressed that its decision did not "in any sense whatsoever create a risk to the public health and safety," since unresolved safety ques-tions must be considered in any hearing held on an operating license applica-tion and that reasonable assurance of safety must be affirmatively found as a precondition to the grant of an operating license. Slip 02. at 18. The Conmission observed that the NRC Staff had the foundation pile matter under review and that should it determine at any time, either on its own initiative or in response to a request pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.206, that substantial health and safety issues had been raised with respect to the activities authorized by the construction permit, it could initiate proceedings under 10 C.F.R. 52.202 or order the suspension of construction.
Slip op. at 17.
The Staff is mindful of this mandate and will not hesitate to exercise it if the situa-tion warrants.
No such situation is presented in this case.
The Staff now turns to consideration o' the three petitions in question.
16/ This case arose on appeal from an April 20, 1978 decision of the Commission affirming the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's denial of petitions, filed on November 26, 1976, seeking the sucnension and revocation of the Bailly construction permit on the basis of developments (unrelated to the pile foundation) which were alleged to have arisen since issuance of the permit. See related Commission Memorandum and Order, CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429 (1978). The alleged new developments included: escalation of construction and fuel costs, fuel availability, financial qualifications, need for power, legislation concerning the Indiana Dunes Lakeshore, and design concerns with the General Electric Mark II containment.
606 F.2d at 136.
1819 210 PETITION OF DR. GEORGE SCHULTZ Petitioner Schultz lives and works within ten miles of the Bailly site. Peti-tioner submits that his health and safety would be adversely affected in the event of a serious accident at the plant which could necessitate an evacuation.
Petitioner registers the same concern for the inmates and employees of the Indiana State Prison where he is employed as a clinical psychologist.
Petitioner clearly falls within the geographical zone of interest that could provide a basis to confer standing in this matter.
C_f. Allens Creek, supra; f
North Anna, supra. However, petitioner does not specify how that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding at bar so as to show an
" injury in fact," a prerequisite for standing under 10 C.F.R. 52.714 and interpretative case law.-17/Stated differently, petitioner does not allege an interest (safety, health, or environmental) which could reasonably derive from the nature of the proposed action, namely, the authorization of an ex-tended period of construction for a plant already licensed.
This licensing action is clearly distinguishable in kind from proceedings which confer a " substantive" grant of authority, such as construction permit, operating license, or even spent fuel pool expansion proceedings. The instant action involves a request to extend the time for the performance of previously authorized activities.
17/ See Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC at 613, wherein the Commission stated:
"To have ' standing' in court, one must satisfy two tests. First, one must allege some injury that has occurred or will probably result from the action involved." (emphasis added.) The second test is that the alleged interest fall within the " zone of interests" protected by the statute.
1819 211
. Proceedings of the former type provided the basis for the discussion of in-terest, supra at 7.
In such a proceeding, the Appeal Board has ruled that close proximity, standing alone, is enough to establish the requisite in-terest.
North Anna, supra, 9 NRC at 56.
In reaching that conclusion, the Appeal Board observed that it was not in a position at the intervention stage to " rule out as a matter of certainty the existence of a reasonable possibility that expansion of the spent fuel pool capacity [at issue therein] might [as actually alleged] have an adverse impact upon persons living nearby."
Id.
It posited that whether the petitioners concerns proved justified or not was a matter to be lef t for evidentiary consideration.
Id.
The Staff cannot perceive of a "real possibility" that a grant of the requested extension, in and of itself, could adversely affect petitioner's express concern regarding evacuation. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to expect that the interest of prospective litigants in this matter derive from some impact which will be occasioned by the conduct of construction activities over an extended pericd of time beyond that initially contemplated. A nuclear accident cannot occur during plant construction. The proper time to litigate a concern over the potential for an accident during operation, and the acceptability of emergency evacuation plans, is upon submission of an operating license application where such an opportunity will be afforded.
Petitioner does not expressly identify the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which he desires intervention. As already noted, his only expressed concern is over the alleged absence of an evacuation plan in the event of a serious nuclear accident at the Bailly facility.
The subject of emergency preparedness, in general, and evacuation plans, in particular, is
)0\\0
. one that clearly falls outside the scope of the issues designated for con-sideration in the instant notice of hearing.
Nor is the subject one that is reasonably associated with any of the reasons assigned for the extension so as to be cognizable under Cook, supra.
The subject of emergency planning on a " preliminary" basis ~18/
was litigated in the Bailly construction permit proceeding--19/
and will be thoroughly con-sidered by the Staff on a " final" basis in connection with the eventual operating license application for the facility. The Comission's require-21 /
ments regarding emergency planning are the subject of proposed rulemaking and may well change over the course of the Bailly construction.
The adequacy of the emergency plans for the facility should reasonably be judged against the applicable Comission regulations in effect at the time of the operating license.
It is not apparent to the Staff how petitioner's interests or the public interest is harmed by undertaking consideration of this matter at the operating license phase.
Cf. Cook, supra.
Accordingly, the Staff believes that the petition of George Schultz does not satisfy either the " interest" or " aspects" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.714 and should be denied in its present form.
18/ See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section II.
19/ See, eg., Bailly, supra, 7 AEC at 568.
20/ See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section III.
2,1/ See Proposed Rule published December 19,1979 (44 F.R. 75167); Proposed Rule published Sept amber 19, 1979 (44 F.R. 54308); see also Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published July 17, 1979 (44 F IT. 41483).
)3hb
. PETITION OF STEVEN LAUDIG, ESQ.
Petitioner Laudig states that he is a resident of Indiana and lives "down wind" from the Bailly site.
Petition at 1.
Petitioner's actual residence is not given.
The petition is submitted on petitioner's professional stationery which bears an Indianapolis, Indiana address.
Indianapolis is approximately 150 miles from the Bailly site.
Explaining his interest, petitioner states that, as a taxpayer, he would have to bear the cost of any accident at Bailly or the cost of evacuation.
Peti-tioner further asserts that since he lives "on the same planet as Bailly,
[his] physical and mental well-beingis inescapably linked to radiation injected into the biosphere." Petition at 1.
The Staff believes that petitioner has not met the " interest" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
Petitioner's residence is unknown.
His business address is at a distance far in excess of any recognized as falling within the geo-graphical zone of interest in NRC proceedings to date.
Nor is there any claim that he conducts substantial activities in close proximity to the Bailly site.
Petitioner's alleged economic interest as a taxpayer is similarly inadequate to confer standing.
See Watts Bar, supra. His interest in potential radio-logical releases from the Bailly site is indistinct and linked to his inhabitance of "the same planet as Bailly." Petitioner at 1.
Thus expressed, his concern is one held in common with all persons and, thus, not adequately particularized to confer standing under applicable case law.
See Transnuclear, supra.
1819 214
. Equally significant, petitioner does not allege a harm which could reasonably be affected by the outcome of this particular proceeding involving, as it does, simply the prospect that plant construction will take place over an extended period of time. This showing is an essential ingredient of standing under 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
Petitioner does not explicitly identify the aspects of the proceeding as to which intervention is sought as further required by 10 C.F.R. 62.714.
Peti-tioner does evince an unspecific concern over the ability to implement an evacuation plan and over the population density surrounding the Bailly site.
The population density issue was exhaustably litigated during the Bailly con-struction permit hearings.---22/
As a matter of sound administrative policy, a construction permit amendment should not be utilized as the occasion to embark upon a fresh assessment of issues already thoroughly considered and decided in prior construction permit hearings.
Population density is primarily significant in terms of examining the ability to take appropriate emergency response measures in the event of a serious accident. See 10 C.F.R. SS100.3(b); 100.10; 100.11. As already noted, the subject of emergency planning is one that does not fall within the limited 12/ See,eg., Izaak Walton League, et al. v. AEC, 515 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.1975).
_2_3/ See Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-78 11, 7 NRC 391, 393 (1978), citing Georgia Power Company (Alvin W. Votgle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 415 (1975); Cf. Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 46 n.4 (1978) (operating license amendment).
1819 215 scope of this proceeding as designated in the notice of hearing, is unrelated to any of the reasons assigned for the extension and, further, can, and should, abide litigation at the eventual operating license stage.
If petitioner believes that Bailly is unsuitably sited in terms of the ability to effect a successful evacuation or otherwise, his remedy is to seek the initiation of a show cause proceeding under 10 C.F.R. 62.206.
C_f. Bailly, f
Conmission " Memorandum and Order," supra, (December 12, 1979) (pile installa-tion petition).
In fact, a request has been made by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois to halt construction of the Bailly plant on similar grounds.
See attached letter from William Scott, Illinois Attorney General, to Chariman Hendrie, dated November 13, 1979.
Staff Counsel understands that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation anticipates treating this letter as a request for action under 10 C.F.R. 92.206. The scope of the instant proceeding, however, should not be broadened to litigate inexact siting and/or evacuation concerns which will undergo additional consideration at a later stage.
Accordingly, the Staff does not believe that the petition of Steven Laudig meets the " interest" or " aspects" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714 and that it should be denied in its present form.
1819 216
. PETITIONS OF GEORGE AND ANNA GRAB 0WSKI Petitioners Grabowski reside in Cedar Lake, Indiana. This is approximately 25 miles from the Bailly site.
Petitioners claim that their health will be
" imperiled" if the Bailly plant is constructed. Petition at 1.
Petitioners reside within a geographical zone of interest which could provide a basis to confer standing in this matter.
It is not readily apparent, however, how their apparent " health" concern will be affected by the outcome of this narrow action.
Thus, the Staff does not believe the petitioners have adequately demonstrated the manner in which their alleged interest may be affected by 24/
the proceeding (the equivalent of an "in. jury in fact")~ so as to satisfy the applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714.
The petition does not explicitly identify the aspects of the proceeding as to which intervention is sought. The petition does evince a concern over emergency evacuation and population density.
Even assuming that these comprise the aspects of the proceeding upon which petitioners seek to participate, they are not identified with the requisite " particularity," as required by 10 C.F.R. 62.714, and otherwise pertain to areas outside the scope of this proceedino.
Accordingly, the Staff believes that the petition of George and Anna Grabowski fails to meet the " interest" and " aspects" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714 and should be denied in its present form.
24/ See Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC at 613.
1819 217
. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff believes that the subject petitions fail to meet the pertinent " interest" and " aspects" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714 in their present form. The regulations, nonetheless, permit petitioners to amend their petitions without prior Board approval at any time up to fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference.
Respectfully submitted, k.
Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of January,1980.
1819 218
1 e
k 5htte ai 21LIinals Office af the J.11arztcu (Gencrzt1
(!pt raga nascI i
M" 3:E"II November 13, 1979 Jutaner vunna Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Viashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Hendrie:
As Attorney General of the State of Illinois, I call for a halt of future construction of the Bailly Nuclear Power Plant at its present location.
It is the most poorly located nuclear power plant in the United States.
If completed the plant will be located 30 miles from the heart of Chicago,10 miles from Gary, Indiana and one mile from Portage, Indiana, a town of 15,000 people. Further to the north of the plant is the Bethlehem Steel Plant (which employs over 6,000 people around the clock) and to the south is the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore - a Epot whose beaches attract thousands of Illinois and Indiana citizens each day.
The President's Commission on Three Mile Island has raised a serious question about the location of nuclear power plants in popu-lated areas.
You, as Chairman of'the NRC, in recent testimony before Congress acknowledged that certain operating nuclear power plants might have to be closed because of their proximity to major urban Among the plants you cited is the Zion, Illinois plant.
If areas.
the NRC acknowledges the possibility that the Zion plant, in operating a reactor located 40 miles from Chicago, may close then there can be no question that the Bailly plant, located 30 miles from Chicago and not even 1% complete should not be built.
The Bailly Nuclear Pov;er Plant's construction parait expired on September 1,1979. Work has been halted on the plant for over two years while NRC staff and others foundation support for the structure.
an extension of its construction perm DUPLICATE DOCUMENT on the extension to consider such iss plant and its obsolete design.
NRC Entire document previously announced that they will oppose any entered into system under:
Important issues.
ANO ff b[
[
1819 2i9 N o.
of pages: