ML19199A656

Petitions to Intervene on Behalf of 13 Property Owners in Berks County,Pa.Supporting Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19199A656
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/16/1974
From:	Ager L SAGER & SAGER ASSOCIATES
To:
Shared Package
ML19199A655	List: ML19199A651 ML19199A656
References
NUDOCS 7905070117
Download: ML19199A656 (3)

Text

....

GA.

( ')

_ ().

,)

~'

UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIO:t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI:IG BOARD I

In the Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket !! o. 50-220 91I A et al.

)

\\

i (Three Mile Island Generating 30.; Tigg i

Station, Unit 2)

)

A c:;;

9 i

i AUG1eiga s F_.

c.,

t :, - -..:,.7

]

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO IIITERVE:E I"*[] "2 CLg?

I W 1.

Stsndine Petitioners are Frederick and Gertrude Hellrich, R.

D.

1. 1, s

East Greenville, Pennsylvania; Edgar B.

and Anna E.

Hoff=an, R.

D.

1. 1, Barto, Pennsylvania; Andrew M. Alfonsus and Joseph l'

Shertel, R.

D.

1. 1, Barto, Pennsylvania; Joseph H.

and Herman H.

Shuhler, R.

D.

1. 1, Bally, Pennsylvania; Richard and Hildegard

Gerhart, R.

D.

1. 1, Bally, Pennsylvania; Walter J. and Florence

Shuhler, R.

D.

1. 1, Bally, Pennsylvania.

They are all property owners in Berks County, Pennsylvania.

The proposed electric transmission lines, which will convey current at 500 KV from the second unit of.the Applicant's nuclear generating station at Three Mile Island, will pass through property owned by the Petitieners herein.

Those Petitioners are aggreived individuals that are directly affected by the actions of the Applicant.

They

. O 't n

i cu 7905070//7

'T

.YY a.

.- (:

.'y

'.)

l further will be affected by the determinations of the Atomic Energy Commission in these proceedings, purs uan t. to a review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Petitioners have asserted, in a case now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis t ri c t of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No.73-531, that their rights have been affected without a full and meaningful opportunity for review under the l

National Environmental. Policy Act.

They have asserted in that proceeding and before the P enns y lvan i a Public Utility Commission that public convenience and necessity does not require the transmission of the electricity from.the proposed facility in the manner ch a r, the~ Applicant proposes.

The Applicant has 1

adopted condemning re s o lu ti ons affecting the properties of all Petitioners herein.

The eventual construction and operation of I'

those transmission lines is primarily dependent upon the determination of the Atomic Energy Commission in its review of the proposal under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Thuc, they seek intervention in this case.

2.

Tineliness of Filing Petitioners as plaintiffs in the aforesaid Civil Action in the Eastern Dis t ric t of Pennsylvania, alleged that their due process rights have been violated because they had not been afforded re as on ab le notice under the circumstances so that they could have an opportunity to a meaningful hearing with re f e rence to their rights and in te res ts concerning the issues o f public 90 10) i

_2-cu

... ~..

... ~.

.a

< 3

(

[ ')

necessity and convenience under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Despite this fact, the Applicant, by its Counsel, l

had never apprised the Petitioners of the pending Atomic i

Ene rgy Commission proceedings so that they co

.d timely file a 8

Petition for Intervention prior to June 27, 1974.

The civil action involving both the Applicant and th e Petitioners herein was filed in March, 1973.

there have been l

numerous communications and several conferences involving the Judge assigned to the aforesaid civil action.

However, counsel for the utility in ten tionally caited until -!ter l

J une 27, 1974, to apprise petitioners, through.their counsel, I

of the fact that the Atomic Energy Commission filed Notice concerning intervention in this matter.

i Petitioners and their counsel do not receive the Federal Register and were not apprised of the pending action before this Co= mission involving their rights until after the time to file a Petition for Intervention had expired.

By a Motion and Memorandum of Law dated August 7,

1974, and filed by Paul E.

Holl, Esquire, Assistant United States Attorney i

in the aforesaid civil action, plaintiffs in that case, petitioners hercin, were invited to intervene in the pending proceedings.

He stated that: "In the circumstances of this case, the Commission's Regulatory Staff will not object on timeliness grounds to such petition, provided that the petition is filed by August 15, 1974."

4a..

/

Lv 1

r M'

)

()

-F

~

)

(

Q I

On August 12, 1974, Lawrence Sager, Esquire, attorney for petitioners herein, conferred with Paul E.

Holl, Esquire, and they reached an agreenent that if plaintiffs could become i

intervenors in the presently pending matter before the Atomi.

I Energy Commission, then the objections that petitioners had raised in the aforesaid civil action vould be moeted as to the United States Atomic Energy Commission, since they-would have their hearing involving the National Env.ironmental Policy Act.

Accordingly, under that understanding, this pet! tion is filed, and petitioners shall file an appropriate S tipulation wi.th the Court to abate further action in Civil Action No.73-531 as to the United States Atomic Energy Commission pending the exhaustion of the administrative remedies.

t 3.

Good Cause In addition to the facts asserted aforesaid concerning the nontimely filing, petitioners assert that there is no other means

.by which their interest will be protected.

Indeed, this Petition for Intervention arises because of the fact that it is the only means by which their contentions can be adj udica te d.

Petitioners verily believe their interests are not represented by any other parties to this proceeding.

Petitioners' participation will effectively assist in developing a full record for a NEPA review concerning the environmental impac. of transmission liacs.

This problem is peculiar to p e ti tione r 's special interest.

Thus, 4-np iO3 6d i

~79F

Na

_..., a.

1

/. J s

9 9>

l the record shall be so broadened, yet, because of petitioners' limited in teres t and in te rven tion, there will be no delay in i

the proceeding.

4.

Contention The proposed transmission line connected with the operation of Unit Number 2, with respect to that S e::r r in Berks County, Pennsylvania, is neither.necessary nor proper for the service, i

accomodation, convenience, or safety of the public, and cannot be properly cons tructed under the Nationni Environmental Policy Act since:

(a)

There is no need for an additi'onal transmission i

line as proposed since Applicant can supply the electrical services within its service area without the proposed line.

l (b)

The reliability of the present and reasonably fo re s e e ab le future ' service of the Applicant would not be so increased by the proposed transmission line when the cos t/b ere fits,

alternative routes, and environmental impacts are considered to justify the construction of the proposed 1ine.

(c)

The projected growth in the population within the service area is not sufficiently large enough to. justify the proposed line on a cost / benefit basis.

(d)

The present and foreseeable economic conditions that the low forecast use to justify the propsed.line are not accurate.

Land use patterns and economic conditions in the

. Oq 1QC)

Lu

, i 7'

i

- Eb, i

(

')

')

Q-

,)

s

~

area are such that a compound low growth rate of two to four per cent in the area of service can be anticipated.

This growth can be adequately served by the present facilities as

' future proposed lines, other than the one in questica.

(e)

The requirements of the PJM Power Pool can be adequately served without the proposed line.

The proposed 300 F.V line does not come under the extra high voltage transmission (EllV) Agreement.

I (f)

The requirements'of the :Tational Environmental i

Policy Acp have not been complied with since there has not been an independent determination by the AEC of the need for the proposed line, analysis of alternative locations, or the alternative of no-action.

s (g)

When the environmental impacts as well as the cost / benefit anclysis is balanced, with any benefits from the proposed line, it is well revealed that the proposed line is not justified,'especially since it will have a permanent and irreversible impact on r,he environment by taking away needed agrecultural lands, woodlands, and will have adverse esthetic effects.

(h)

The impact of the proposed line will a dve rs e ly affect the land use, directly and indirectly and the costs relating to the loss of productivity, values of land, and loss A -

O 9

g cv i

e

_ 9 j

-.- ()

t I

of natural resources, have not been properly considered and l

I reviewed.

It is contended that the cumulative environnental inpacts do not justify the proposed line.

W 3 F,R E F O R E, Petitioners request the Coenission to allow the filing of the Petition for Intervention and to grcnt I

the Peritioners. Intervention,$ta:us, acccoting the contention as proposed.

D 4M4 (M

Lawrence Sager, Attorney for Petitioners t

I t

O e

O,

• I L s,-

i J

iLs

_ A>,s l

(

.)

)

l Oj

?

co

/

..Z3 AFFIDAVIT

[y

.. a AUG1 G 97.;> -

i

?'

COMMO3TEALTH OF PEHiSYLVA1IA:

'E "rr

?f SS.

C,/

COUNTY OF MONTGO!!ERY g,

g,..;.,'

]

~

WE, the undersigned are property owners in Berks County and we have been served with notice that our land has been conde:aned for the purpose of constructing a transmitting line in conjunction with the proposed operation of Unit 2 of the Threc !!ile Island Generating Station.

We are authorized to take this affidavit on behalf of ourselves and the other petitioners herein.

The facts set forth in the Petition for Intervention are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.

We have further authorized Lawrence Sager, Esquire to act as attorney in our behalf.

t te,

~,

t Y A ?? $ 1 5 n ' ' $ N 1_! N 6 /H

, _/

CDlOR200

(),01be m

..) C Y

Orut, b < h,!rNN W &

lb /, A123_ Y

'! k. L i <. :1E S/*

!):L -

niara.-,c Jf n 4244S YM'/C.-

w G & Q X l1.-,-

Ns-t.C.

.e N _ [- tu s (~ f : i D,h~. 9/,)/u L.2L 4, L>b1(.

o /O+

/

Sworn to and subscribed before me 1974.

o.';

O '.)

l this /2 hay of August,

/

/.-U/ki/ O.

bt,w/

q cv

/

~

Y

.? )

n

.}

}

I tMITED STATES OF AMERICA

' ATOMIC E:2RGY Com!ISSION In th'e Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITA:* EDISON CO:IPANY,

)

Docket No.(s) 50- 320 ET AL.

)

)

(Three Mile Island Unit 2)

)

)

)

CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s*

)

upon each person designated on the official sersice list compiled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Cernission in this proceeding in 2-

,accordance uith the requirc=ents of Section 2.712 of 10 C7R Part

, Rules of Practice, of the Atomic Energy Com:nission's Rules and Regulations.

t g day of t'f v.c J 197 M.Datej at Washington, D. C. this u

'I L

1..) }2j.sm a.

~

1 io e.u.t.

Dffi e of the 5ecretary of the Coc:aission 0

e r

e n,

i QQ u,)

'e

sm i

' \\

5

\\

s

./

U:fITED STATES OF A!G11CA ATOMIC ENERGY CC:' MISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITA:I EDISCU CCMPANY, ET AL.

Docket No. 50-320

)

(Three Mile Island Unit 2)

)

l SERVICE LIST l

Sidney G. Kingsley, Esq., Chairman Mr. Richard E. Wells Atesic Ssfety end Licensing Eccrd 353 North 24th Street U. S. Atomic Energy Cc=ission Cc=p Hill, Pennsylvania 17011

.Weshington, D. C.

20545 Frederic J. Ceufal, Esq.

Mr. A. Hunter Rineer Atc=ic Safety and Licensing Eoerd Govern =ent Publicaticn Section U. S. Atcaic Energy Ccesissien State Librery of Pennsylvania f

Washington, D. C.

20545 Education Euilding, Box 1601 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126 Dr. E=neth A. Luebke Atcmic Safety end Licensing Ecord U. S. Atcmic Energy Cc=sission Washington, D. C. 20545 George F. Trevbridge, Esq.

Shev, Pittnen, Potts & Trawbridge 910 17th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20006

~

Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Begu] ation U. S. Atomic Energy Cc= mission Washington, D. C.

20545 e

cu y

3 i

pETAILS_

l.

Persons Contacted General Public Utilities _ Service Corocration_ (GPU)

• R. F. Fenti, Lead Site Auditor

• S. Levin, Project Engineer W. T. Gunn, Site Project Manage-United Encineers and Constructors, Inc.

G. Shank, Assistant Electrical Superintendent J. Schmidt, QC Records Leardinator M. Mason, QC Instrument Engineer

• D. C. Lambert, QC Field Supervisor Catalytic, Inc.

• J. Furlong, Layout Engineer R. Keffer, Electrical Supervisor Burns & Roe, Inc._

i N. Rudolf, Instrument Engineer M. Burztein, Site Electrical Engineer J. J. Burbure, Site Electrical Engineer

• G. T. Harper, Site Project Engineer denotes those persons present at the exit meeting.

?.

Plant Tour The inspector walked through various areas of the facility to

~

observe activities in progress and to inspect the general state l

of cleanliness, housekeeping and adherence t k

Heat trace strips were being attached to' the borated water The inspector storage tank flow lines and valve components. verified system.

Roe, Inc. drawing 3212, Revision 4.

i L. s I