ML19209C497
| ML19209C497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1979 |
| From: | Berson B, Mulkey M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910150716 | |
| Download: ML19209C497 (24) | |
Text
.
UtlITED STATES OF AftERICA 9/13/79 M tluCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO!1 VON
- C bY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Af!D LICE!iSI!!G BOARD
' ~ ' '
i.
<g-
^
.,s In the Matter of
)
)
.1 METROPOLITAtt EDIS0tl COMPAtlY, et al.
)
Docket flo. 50-289 Q
,9 s
l1~
.j?
y.
)
Dlf'[ y 8l ~l E/
m
?
1
. (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
~:
Q flRC STAFF RESP 0:lSE TO PETITIO:lS TO IrlTERVEtlE
'I Ifl THE THREE MILE ISLAll0 UtilT 1 PRCCEEDIrlG
' D '.,./
e
"~
RECEIVED BY THE STAFF Oil OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 13, 1979
- r. -
Introduction The flRC Staff submits'this response to eight petitions to intervene in the Three Mile Island Unit One proceeding established pursuant to the Commission's August 9, 1979 Order. We set forth below our understanding of the basic pequirements-for intervention of right in this proceeding which relate to_the interests of petitioners and the identification of aspects.of the subject matter of the proceeding on which the petitioner desires to intervene. We then. discuss the particulars of each petition in relationship to these basic requirements and attempt to identify and discuss any additional considera-tions relating to interest aad aspects which are raised by the petitions.
While some petitions identify contentions or potential contentions, we do not address the adequacy of contentions at all in this submittal, in accordance with the Board's Order of August 31, 1979.
The petitions addressed herein and our conclusions respecting them are as follows:
(1) The petition of the Anti-iluclear Groon Representing York conforms
~
with the requirements of=10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) regarding interest and aspects.
1145 521 ggo7/4 7
. (2) The petition of Chesapeake Energy Alliance conforms with the interest and aspects requirement.
(3) The petition of Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power con-forms with the interest and aspects requirement.
(4) The petition of Steven C. Sholly conforms with the interest and aspects requirement.
(5) The petition of the Newberry Township T.M.I. Steering Committee and of the eleven individuals named therein meets the interest and aspects requirement only if the Commission later determines, by the mechanism identified on page 13 of the August 9,1979 Order, 44 F.R. 47824 (August 15,1979), that " issues ch as psychological distress... can legally be relevant to this "oceeding."
(6) The petition of Paul Carrick, which may be intended as a re-quest to make a limited appearance, adequately establishes interest of the petitioner but provides little or no identifica-tion of the aspects of the subject matter on which he desires to participate.
(7) The petition of Frieda Berryhill, Chairman of Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement, is whollv lacking in alle-gations rP ating to petitioner's interest, although some identification of aspects of the subject matter of desired intervention is pecvided.
1145 322
' (8) The petition of liarvin I. Lewis provides an inadequate basis for establishing interest and fails to identify aspects re-garding which participation is sought.
Our analysis and argument supporting these conclusions are set forth more fully below.
Basic Requirements for Interest and Ascects The Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(2), and the Notice of Hearing in this proceeding at pages 15-16, 44 F.R. 47824-25 (August 15, 1979), provide that a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with articularity the interut cf the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, including the reasons why the petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the nature of petitioner's interest under the Atomic Energy Act, his property, financial or other interest in the proceeding, and the possible effect of an order in the proceeding on that interest.
For assessing whether the provisions establishing a petitioner's right to intervene are met, the Commission has determined that judicial standing requirements apply.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976). These standards, set forth in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727(1974); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (1970); and Association of Data Processing Service Organization v.
Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970), require a showing that (1) the action being chal-lenged could cause injury in fact to the person seeking standing, and (2) such injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute governing the proceeding.
1145 123
. In alleging a particularized injury, a petitioner need not show that he necessarily will be injured by the results of the proceeding, but that i
there is a reasonable possibility that the action might have an adverse im-pact on his int'erests.
Virginia Electric Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 NRC 98, 104-05 (1976); Virginia Elec-tric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). The injury must be particularized to the individual petitioner and not one which is " shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens."
Edlow International Company, CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 576 (1976), quoting from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).
I Residence has been found sufficient, standing alone, to establish " injury in fact" for persons concerned about injury to their persons or property from operation of the reactor.
Virginia Electric and Power Comoany_, ALAB-522, supra at 56; Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek luclear Generating Station), ALAB-535 (April 4, 1979), slio op,. at 29.
This geographical proxi-mity test for standing applies to petitioners making a showing of residence (or other frequent activities) "within the geographical zone that might be affected by an accidental release of fission products."
Louisiana Power and
'~1/ Similarly, pursuit of everyday activities in the vicinity of a reactor site, Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974), use of the surrounding area for recrea-tional purposes, Philadelphia Electric Co., et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-73-10, 6 XEC T73 (1973), or part-time residence, such as student. residence, Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977), may, depending on the circumstances, demonstrate an interest which could be affected by a possible harmful effect of the facility.
1145 324
. Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n. 6 (1973); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 225 (1974)., No outer limits of this geographic zone have been established, although it has been held that 50 miles "is not so great as necessarily to have precluded a finding cf standing based on residence." Tennessee Valley Authority, ALAB'413, supra at 105.
Protection from potential injury to persons or property from release of 'fis-sion products is squarely within the zone of interests sought _to be protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
Virginia Electric Power Comoany, ALAB-342, suora at 105. However, other alleged potential injuries in fact, albeit directly linked to the outcome of the proceeding, do not fall within the zone of in-terests which the statute is designed to protect.
For example, alleged injury to a ratepayer's interest in avoiding increases in electricity prices does not involve an interest sought to be protected by the statute.
Portland General Electric Co.noany, CLI-76-27, supra at 614; Tennessee Valley Aatherity, ALAB-413, supra at 1420-21.
Similarly, the interests of taxpayers are not protected by the ~ ta' cute.
Id_. at 1421.
Further, a purely economic interest comes within the ambit of the National Environmental Policy Act " zone of interests" only if it is environmentally related, that _is, linked to an environmental impact of the federal action.-~2/
_I_d. at 1421. See also L Lg Island Lighting d
Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, s
s 640 (1975).
An organization may establish standing to intervene as a result of po antial injury to itself or as representative of one or more oUits members who have
~
-2/ This discussion of " zone of interests" is limited to proceedings outside the antitrust sphere, which may be treated differently.
Portland General Electric Comoany, CLI-76-27, supra at 614 n. 5.
1145 325
. personal standing.
10 C.F.R. 52.4(o); Uarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975). When the standing of an organization is asser ted to be derived from that of its members, it must identify and establish trat at least one such member has a cdgnizable interest that might be affectec' by the result of the proceeding.
Houston Lighting and Power Co., ALAB-435, supra at 30.
The member with such an interest must have authorized the organization to repre-sent that interest, although authorization may be presumed in the case of mem-bers of organizations whose purpose is such that it may be fairly inferred that, by joining the organization, the members implicitly authorized the representation of any of their personal interests which may be affected by the proceeding.
Id_. at 37-38. Antinuclear groups, groups opposed to the facility at bar, and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists fit this Id. at 37; Virainia Electric Power Company (North Anna Nuclear criterion.
d Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, slio.on, at 5 n. 2.
Absent express authorization, groups may not represent other than their own members, and individuals may not assert the interest of other persons.
Long Island Lightina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-11, 5 NRC 481, 483 (1977); Tennessee Valley Authority, ALAB-413, suora at 1421.
There is, under the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, no provision for private attorneys general.
Portland General Electric Comoany (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-333, 3 NRC 804, 806 n. 6 (1976); Long Island Lighting Comoany, LBP-77-11, suora at 483.
In addition to demonstrating their standing to intervene, petitioners to participate in NRC proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a) are to identify 1145
- 26
. the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which they wish to intervene. Although this provision has not yet been dis-cussed extensively in NRC case law, it is apparent that the provision permits some notice to other participants of the issues likely to be litigated and, therefore, of the scope of the contested subject matter in the proceeding.
The requirement of some specificity in the identification of aspects of the issues can assure that submittals relating to aspects are not so brcad or vague as to defeat any genuine notice regarding issues of particular concern.
Accordingly, we submit that the appropriate test for adecuacy of identifica-tion of aspects is whether they are sufficiently specified to put the Board and parties on notice regarding the basic areas in which a petitioner con-templates framing contentions.
1145 327 Petition of the Anti-Nuclear Group Recresentinq York ANGRY filed a petition for leave to intervene in a document dated August 29, 1979. The Staff believes that petitioner satisfies the interest and aspects requirements of 10 C.F.R. f2.714(a) to represent its members in this pro-ceed ing.
The petition states that ANGRY is a non-profit corporation based in York, Penn-syl vania.-3/ All of its members reside within 15 miles of TMI.
Its primary purpose is to raise the level of awareness of persons living in and around York to potential dangers to public health and safety represented by nuclear fission as a means of generating electricity and to oppose the use of nuclear fission in general.-4/
The petition was signed by Ms. Holly S. Keck, the legislative chairman of ANGRY. Although the petition does not indicate the place of her residence, as noted earlier, ANGRY avers that all of its members reside within 15 miles of TMI. Therefore, ANGRY has identified a member with personal interest who authorizes the intervention (Ms. Keck) and meets the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) to represent its members in this proceeding. The petitioner also alleges that it represents the interests of non-member indivi-duals with whom it regularly communicates.
However, as we discuss at the outset, an organization cannot represent persons other than its own members absent express authority to do so, nor may parties act as private attorneys general. No express authority to represent these non-members is revealed within the four corners of the petition.
3]
Petition for Leave to Intervene (Detition) at 1.
-4/
Ibid.
1145 128
9-ANGRY also satisfies the aspects requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a). The petitioner seeks to intervene with resp $ct to the management capability of Metropolitan Edison to operate TMI-1 without endangering the public health
~
and safety, the adequacy of the emergency plans, and whether it is appropriate to consider an order to permit renewed operation before long-term actions are completed.~5/
e 5]
Petition at 4.
1145 129
! Petition of the Cheasapeake Energy Alliance, Inc. (C.E.A.)
C.E. A. petitioned the Co=ission for leave to intervene on behalf of its mem-bership by document dated September 3,1979. The Staff beiieves that the petition satisfies the interest and aspects requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a).
The petition etates that C.E. A. is based in Baltimore, Maryland, approximately 55 miles from TMI, but its membership rolls extend to sections of Maryland adjacent to the Pennsylvania border near TMI and into southern Pennsylvania El as well.
The principal concern of the organization is the safety of nuclear 7) power.
C.E.A. alleges that radiation from a reopened TMI 'Init 1 could adversely affect the health and property of its members and damage life forms in the Cheasapeake Bay.
The petition was signed by Robert Q. Pollard, a Baltimore resident, who was not specifically identified as a member of C.E.A.
However, NRC Staff has confirmed by telephone his membership in C.E.A.
We conclude that Mr. Pollard's residence, although at the outer limits of distances heretofore recognized as sufficiently close to the facility to establish standing, is sufficiently proximate to clothe C.E.A. with interest sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) and represent the interests of its members.
In addition, the petitioner has identified several aspccts of the subject matter of the hearing as to which intervention is desired, including the management capability of Metropolitan Edison and the effect of radiation on C.E.A.'s members and on the Cheasapeake Bay.
6/
Petition at 2.
7f Ibid.
8/
Petition at 4.
1145 730
-"~
?00R OR B M Petition of the Environmental Coalition on Nucletr Power The Environmental Coalition on f;uclear Power (ECNP) requested leave to inter-vene by petition dated September 4,1979.
The Staff believes that ECflP's petition satisfies the interest and aspects requirem(nts of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) for the reasons set forth below.
The petition states that members of ECllP are affected by the operation of TMI-1 by virtue of their residences, property, businesses and employment located at distances ranging from less than one mile to more than 9. miles from TMI-1 and 2.-9/
Mr. Donald Jones, Mrs. Dorothy Jones and Mrs. Patricia Street are specifically identified as ECNP members residing less than one mile from the plant who would be subjected to additional quantities of radia-tion resulting from both permissible routine releases and accidental releases 10/
of radiation associated with further operation of TMI-1.-
Authorization of ECNP to represent the interests of these incividuals may be presumed be-cause of the nature of the organizational interests represented by ECNP.
Therefore, ECNP satisfies the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a).
Similarly, ECNP satisfies the aspects requirements of H2.714(a).
Petitioner specifically identifies the issues specified in the Comission's Order and Notice of Hearing as aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which intervention is sought. ~-11/In addition, ECNP incorporates by reference numerous issues (many of which are similar or identical to the issues speci-fied in the Comission's Order) included in its Reg Jest for Enforcement Action previously submitted to several NRC Office Directors.
9/
Petition of the Environnental Coaliticn cf *:ucicar Pcvier fcr Leave to Intervene in Evidentiary Hearing on Reopening, Revocation of Operating License, and Other Matters (Petition) at 2.
g/ Petition at 6 and n. 7 at p. 7.
j4g 3 y/ Petition at 1. Pet: tion of Steven C. Sholly Steven C. Sholly petitioned the Commission for leave to intervene by letter dated August 20, 1979. On September 4, 1979 he filed a supplemental letter which elaborated in greater detail both the nature of his interest in this proceeding and 'those aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding on which he wishes to intervene. We believe that the September 4,1979 letter clearly demonstrates that Mr. Sholly meets both interest and aspects requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714(a).~~~12/ Mr. Sholly states that he lives within 12-13 miles of the TMI plant and is employed in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about eight miles from TMI.-~13/ He also states that radiation releases from a future accident at TMI could jeopardize his 14/ health and safety because of the proximity of his workplace to the reactor. In addition, he believes he may be required to evacuate from his residence or take other protective measures in the event another off-site release of radiation from TMI occurs.~~15/ Mr. Sholly also identifies and discusses in some detail eighteen contentions. Some of the contentions raise issues which probably fall within the scope of this proceeding. For example, Contention 109 alleges deficiencies in the licensee's off-site radiation monitoring program, Contentions 111 and 115 address the technical and management capabilities of the licensee and ~~~12/The August 20, 1979 letter was sufficient in and of itself, in our view. All subsequent references will be to the September 4 letter. 13/ Letter at 1, Para. A; and 2, Para C. 14/ Letter at 2, Para C. 15/ Letter at 1, Para A. 1145 ;32
. Contention 101 addresses emergency planning. Of course, we intimate no views on the admissibility or merits of any contention at this stage.
- However, the contentions identified by Mr. Sholly clearly apprise us and other parties of those aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding on which he wishes to intervene.
4 1145 133 Petition of Newberry Township TMI Steering Comittee (Committee) and Eleven Named Individuals The flewberry Tcwnship TMI Steering Committee (Ccmmittee) seeks leave to inter-vene on its own behalf and on behalf of its members in a document mailed on August 31, 1979. Eleven named individuals also seek intervenor status in the same petition. The petition states that all members of the Committee reside within a five mile radius of the TMI Nuclear Power Station in Newberry Township.-17/Mickey Minnick is identified as the Chairman of the Committee in an affidavit attached to the petition. Each of the named individuals are also residents of Newberry Township and live within five miles of the TMI facility.-18/. We believe that the Committee may represent the interests of its members in this proceeding if interest were based on the proximity of the residence of its chairman to the TMI facility coupled with an allegation of direct harm within the zone of interest protected by relevant statutes. Similarly, the residence of each named individual within five miles of TMI, coupled with an allegation of direct harm, would be sufficient to support his or her in-terest. However, as we read the petition, the harm alleged is indirect, grounded exclusively on the possibility of psychological harm.-19/ If this is correct, then we conclude that an adequate showing of interest can be made -16/ Petition for Leave to Intervene (Petition) at 2. The named individuals are Mickey Minnick; Richard J. Zlogar; Linda S. Carlisle; Virginia Phillips; C. Willis Wolfe; Linda I. Cominsoki; Patricia A. Smith; Donna K. Umholtz; Colleen M. Clark; M. David Clark; and Michael L. Glock, M.D. J7f Petition at 1. g/ Petition at 2. H/ Petition at 2: " Interests to be affected." 1145 U4
. by petitioners only if the Commission subsequently determines that issues such as psychological distress can be legally relevant to this proceeding. i The Commission's August 9,1979 Order and Notice of Hearing at p.13, 44 F.R. 47824 (Aug'ust 15, 1979) describes the mechanism by which this determina-tion is to be made. Therefore, petitioners will have an opportunity to fully brief this question. The only aspect of the subject matter of this proceeding on which petitioners wish to intervene also relates to the psychological impact of the Tiil acci-dent.~20/ t However, as just noted, the Commission will determine whether psycho-logical impacts can be considered in this proceeding. Therefore, we express no view at this time as to whether petitioners have identified an aspect appropriate for hearing, f It appears that, should the eleven individual petitioners demonstrate ade-quate interest under.10 C.F.R. 52.714(a), it would clearly be appropriate that they be consolidated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715(a) since each raises the same issue, each resides within close proximity of the others, and each is repre-sented by the same counsel. 20f Petition at 3. 1145 135 Petition of Paul Carrick Paul Carrick requested leave to intervene by letter dated September ;,1979.-21/ His letter states that he lives in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, about 10 miles from the TMI reactor site and is a teacher of philosophy at the Harrisburg 22/ Area Community College in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. Carrick states that, as a homeowner, he ht.s a definite stake in the future of the TMI faci-lity. We believe that Mr. Carrick's meets the interest requirement to 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a). However, we are unable to clearly discern from Mr. Carrick's letter any aspects of the subject catter of the proceeding on which he wishes to intervene. The only hint of an aspect contained in his letter is that he desires to live in M/ as safe an environment as reasonably possible, and that he and his wife have "always been onenminded about the ability of engineers to improve the ~24/ operation and design of... [ nuclear] power plants." However, these state-i. ments are so broad that they do not inform the Board and. parties in any meaning-ful way of Mr. Carrick's concernr. Therefore, we conclude that unless or until amended pursuant to 10 C.F.R. E2.714(a)(3), Mr. Carrick's letter does not satis-fy'the a's'pects requirement of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a). 21/ Mr. Carrick's letter is denominated as a " request for participant status in TMI public hearings." He elected to treat tiie letter as a petition for leave to intervene. However, it is possible that Mr. Carrick is seeking to make a limited appearance. He may, of course, avail himself of that right in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 52.715(a) without any further action en his part. 22/ Letter at 1. 23_/ Letter at 1, last paragraph. -24/ Letter at 1, third paragraph. 1145 ,s36
~ P00R OR;B O Petition of Frieda Berryhill, Ci. airman Coalition for fluclear Power Plant Postponement (C.*!PPP) i Frieda Serryhill, Chairman, CNPPP, petitioned the Commission for leave to intervene by letter dated September 3,1979. The one-page petition is am-biguous on its face as to whether Ms. Berryhill seeks intervenor status as an individual or whether CNPPP seeks intervenor ::tatus in her own right or in a representative capacity.-25/In either event, the petitioner has completely failed to allege how her interest (or the interest of the organization or its mcmbers) may be affected by this proceeding and has therefore failed to meet the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714. In addition, although the petition does state certain apsects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which participation is desired, they are largely non-specific and some appear to go beyond the scope of this proceeding, i.e_., " revision of Table 3-3," '" safety hearings, scheduled for Ap61 4 after TMI-2 has been licensed to operate." At least one aspect, " violation of NEPA" is so non-specific that we find it impossible'to discern the petitioner's con-cern. Therefore, unless appropriately amended pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(3), the petition is inadequate. -25/ The ambiguity results, in our view, from the combination of the following: The petition is written on CNPPP letterhead and states that "I hereby petition the Commission for full participation" and is signed by "Frieda Berryhill, Chairman." (emphasis supplied) 1145 337
s Petition of Parvin Lewis Marvin Lewis requested leave to intervene by letter dated August 21, 1979. He lists his address as Philadelphia, some ninety miles from the Three Mile Island site. His allegations of interest are based on four separate factors. fir. Lewis first alleges that he ingests milk from the Harris-l burg area and that, therefore, accidental releases of radioactive iodine could l " increase [his] ingestion of radioactive iodine." The Appeal Board has accepted I a Ticensing Board ruling that a claim of concern about movement of spent fuel i
- ting routes in close proximity to the sources of food sold ancLconsumed by petitioners who also sponsor one of the allegedly affected gardens was suffi-cient to establish interest, although the Appeal Board observed that they "think whether the Sierra Club test has been met to be a close question."
Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage I Statio'n), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, '423-24 -(1976). We are mindful that the alle-gation of potential injury need not be demonstrated to have merit, bt that l only a reasonable possibility of injury need be shown. However, we believe that the present statement by Mr. Lewis fails to sufficiently link his present ~ i ingestion of milk to the prospect that any future accidental releases of radioactive iodine can reach Mr. Lewis in sufficient quantities to raise any possibility of injury. The second and third factors cited by Mr. Lewis are grounded on his status as a Phihdelphia ratepayer and taxpayer, respectively. ' As we discussed at the.. outset,, the rule i.s clear that one's status as either a ratepayer or a ~ 5 taxpayer is insufficient to bring one within' the zones of interest 5 rotEcted by the Atomic Energy Act. Finally, petitioner's fourth allegation of interest amounts to nothing more than a generalized grievance against nuclear power which is also insufficient to confer standing. Therefore, the petition as 1145 U8
19 - a whole fails to adequately establish an interest of the petitioner which may be affected by this proceeding. ~ The petition' is completely silent regarding the aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding on which intervention is sought. Therefore, Mr. Lewis has obviously failed to meet the aspects requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a). However, in our review of the petition for leave to intervene filed by ECNP, supra, we noted that a Natvi@is of Philadelphia is identified as a mem-ber.-26/ This. raises at 1.eas Q e possibility that petitioner Lewis is also a member of ECNP. If this is the case, Mr. Lewis might determine that ECNP will adequately protect his interests in this proceeding or, conversely, that he might be able to raise issues which are of concern to him through ECNP. ... w ~ J Y w~
- 3. - -
2_6/ Petition of ECNP at 5, n. 3. 1145 2 9
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the NRC Staff argues that the Anti-nuclear Group Representing York, the Cheasapeake Energy Alliance, the Environmental Coali-tion on Nuclear Power, and Steven C. Sholly have demonstrated that they have or represent a member who has an interest which may be affected by the proceed-ing and have adequately identified the aspects of the proceeding on which they wish to intervene. The petition of Newberry Township T.fi.I. Steering Committee and the eleven named individuals alleges an interest related to and identifies only an aspect of an issue, psychological distress, which has not yet been determined to be legally relevant to this proceeding, Paul Carrick has demonstrated an ir.terest which may be affected by the proceeding, but has not adequately identified aspects of the proceeding. The petition of Frieda Berryhill, Chairman of the Coalition for Nuclear Plant Postponement, puts fonvard no allegations respecting interest of the petitioner, and the petition of Marvin 1. Lewis is deficient in demonstration of interest and lacking in identification of aspcets. These eight petitions for intervention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a) are all such petitions which the Staff has received as of this date. Respectfully submitted, .M lu /k.c - Marcia E. Mulkey Counsel for NRC Staff su p 0. Add Bruce A. Berson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of Ssptember,1979. 1145 ,>40
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0i4 MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Afl0 LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, et _a_l_. ) Docket No. 50-289 ) (Three Mile Island, Unit 1) ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 92.713, 10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided: Name: Marcia E. Mulkey Address: Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Telephone No.: (301) 492-7445 Admissions: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Name of Party: NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co m.ission Respectfully submitted, ibt Marcia E. Mulkey Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of September,1979. \\145 %\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0!l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Af!D L!rENSING BOAFD In the Matter of ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, _et _al. ) Docket No. 50-289 ) (Three Mile Island, Unit 1) ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that th9 undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.713(a), the following information is provided: Name: Bruce A. Berson Address: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Telephone No.: (301) 492-7036 Admission: Supreme Court of Minnesota Name of Party: NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Respectfully submitted, &J 0 && Bruce A. Bersor. - Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of September, 1979. 1145 342
UiilTED STATES OF A" ERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY A"D LICENSI"3 E0ARD In the Matter of. ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ) Docket
- 3. 50-289 ET AL.
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE IN THE THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 PROCEEDING RECEIVED BY THE STAFF ON OR BEFORE SEPTEhBER 13, 1979" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" for Marcia E. Mulkey and Bruce A. Berson, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by a single asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or, as indicated by double asterisk hand-delivered, this 13th day of September, 1979:
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Ellyn Weiss, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman and Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission 1025 isth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20555 Wasi *ngton, D. C. 20005 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. Steven C. Sholly 881 W. Outer Drive 304 South Market Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mechanicsburg, F?nasylvania 17055 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Mr. Thomas Gerusky Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources George F. Trowbridge, Esq. P.O. Box 2063 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Karin W. Carter, Esq. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Assistant Attorney General Department of Environmental Resources Metropolitan Edison Company 709 Health and Welfare Building Attn: J. G. Herbein, Vice President Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 P.O. Box 542 Paading, Far.nsylvania 19C03 Hancrable Mars Cchen 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Ms. Jane Lee F'rrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 R.D. 3; Box 3521 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 1145 343
- ?. - l 1 Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Holly S. Keck l Department of Justice Anti-fluclear Group Representing Strawberry Square,14th Floor York Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 245 W. Philaralphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Robert L. Knupp, Esq. Assistant Solicitor John Levin, Esq. Knupp and Andrews Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm. P.O. Box P Box 3265 407 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq. John E. Minnich, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunnir3 am h Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners 2320 North 2nd Street Dauphin County Courthouse Harrisburg 'annsylvani; 17110 t Front and Market Sts. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.17101
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D. C. 20555 8
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
(_s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )'/k MH ) 'f Washington, D. C. 20555 [ 16(A-Marcia E( Mulkey / Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff / U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 I. i Robert Q. Pollard I Chesapeak Energy Alliance '609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponerent 2610 Grendon Drive i Wilmiiigton, Delaware 19808 Prof. Paul Carrick 17 South 29th Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 1145 344}}