ML19210B407
| ML19210B407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1972 |
| From: | Wilchins H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911070739 | |
| Download: ML19210B407 (9) | |
Text
-
?e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
_'-C 1-In the Mc
/ c' ME ROPOLITAN EDISQN COMPANY, ET AL )
Docket No. 50-289 (Tf Mile Island Nuclear Station wit 1)
)
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY THE CITIZENS FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL C0ALITION OF NUCLEAR POWER 1.
On July 7,1972, the United States Atomic Energy Comission published a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing concerning the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (37 F.R.13360).
2.
On July 24, 1972, pursuant to the foregoing Federal Register notice, Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition of Nuclcar Power (hereinafter referred to as "the, petitioners" or "the Coalition") requested an extension of time to file a petition to' inter-vene in the above captioned proceeding.
3.
On August 7,1972, prior to the issuance of a ruling on tne requested time extension, the Coalition filed a timely petition to intervene and a i
request for a public hearing in this case.
4.
On August 17, 1972, counsel for Metropolitan Edison Company, et al
- 7911 oro 735> g 1585 038
~
)
.. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as " applicants") filed with the Commis-sian a timely answer to petitioners' petition to intervene.
On August 16, 1972, the regulatory staff requested a time extension in order to consider the matters set forth in the applicants' answer.
5.
Petitioners maintain that its timely petition to intervene was filed in oroer to protect its standing before the Commission in this proceeding since a time extension had not been granted within the permissible. inter-vention period and that said filing is not an exhaustive statement of all contentions by petitioner.
It renews its request for a time extension based upon the difficulties in case preparation resulting from the recent flood devastation in the Harrisburg area.
The regulatory staff is cognizant of the difficulties under which petitioner is operating and notes that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been granted an extension of time to September 7,1972, for the same reasons of good cause as are stated by petitioner.
Under these circumstances, we believe that peti-tioners should be granted a time extension to September 7,1972, to sub-mit such additional contentions. The applicant, in its reply to the petition to intervene, appears to acquiesce on the request for a time extension.
6.
The regulatory staff believes the petition to intervene generally satisfies the requirenents of 10 CFR 9 2.714 and should be granted sub-ject to the following qualifications and reserves the right to. answer 1585 039
all subsequent modifications of the petition:
A.
The petitioner alleges that it properly advances the in-terests of ce'rtain unnamed members and organizations in this proceeding.
It is not clear from the Petition to Intervene that this is the case.
Therefore, the regulatory. staff be-lieves the.__ Coalition should be required to amend its petition to intervene by identifying as parties the members whose interests are affected by this proceeding, and by indicating that such members authorize the Coalition to represent their interests.
Such an amended petition should provide the necessary link with respect to the named members as to whether (i) the specific organization in the Coalition is properly acting as their representatives and (ii) they as individuals agree with the allegations of injury.
The amended petition should be filed with the Commission on or before September 7, 1972, provided the' Commission grants the petitioners' request for 3dditi~ nal time within which to file additional contentions.
o Otherwise we believe that the Commission should permit the amended petition to be filed with the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as "ASLB") as a condition precedent to petitioner being admitted as a party to the proceeding.
1585 040
~
B.
(1)
This answer addresses the contentions raised by petitioners in terms of meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 with respect to the specification of con-tention.
Except as noted below, the regulatory staff believes the contentions generally are stated with sufficient particularity to meet the requirements of 10CFR52.714.
We note that certain contentions, however, i.e. contentions (c), (d), (h), (i), (k), (q),17,18 and 28 are too vague to meet the requirements of $2.714 that contentions be stated in reasonably specific detail.
We believe, however, that in the event the Commission determines to notice a hearing that opportunity for further definition of these contentions be afforded through appro-priate prehearing procedures as may be detennined by the oresiding ASLB.
(2)
The regulatory staff has no objection to contention (a) except for that portion which concerns the reprocessing of fuel after it has been transported '
- the plant. That portion raises issues concerning the reactor fuel cycle which is outside the scope of this proceeding.and_should be rejected as a contention.
See e.g. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Memorandum and Order dated June 6,1972 -
1585 041
Js t
5-In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.,
Docket No. 50-271 and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Memorandum and Order dated July 19, 1972 - In the Matter of Consumers Power comoany, Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330.
Other contentions that partially address fuel cycle issues are discussed infra.
(3)
The regulatory staff has no objection to contentions
~
(d), (h), (i) and (k) insofar as these contentions are intended to question whether or not the Three Mile Island Plant has been constructed in conformity with the construc-tion permit. Any contentions regarding matters which solely involve construction permit requirenents are out-side the scope of an operating license proceeding and should be rejected since such matters are dealt with during the construction permit proceeding. The regulatory staff believes this matter can be clarified in prehearing procedures in the event a hearing is scheduled by the Commission.
(4)
With respect to the validity of contention (f), the regulatory staff reserves judgment pending further clarification by petitioners, in the event a hearing is scheduled, as to whether this contention is intended as a challenge to the ECCS interim acceptance. criteria or whether it is intended to 1585 042 4
question whether the facility as constructed meets these cri teria. Any contention which challenges the validity of the in,terim acceptance criteria is outside the scope of this proceeding and should be rejected.
See e.g.
Atesmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Memorandum and Order dated June 20, 1972 - In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., Docket No. 50-271.
(5)
Contentions (g), (o), and (33) appear to be challenges to the Commission's regulations with respect to permissible levels of radioactive releases.
If a hearing is scheduled, these contentions should be dealt with by the presiding ASLB in accordance with appli, cable procedures.
(6)
Contentions 15,16,17,18,19 and 20 are all either partially or exclusively concerned with the reactor fuel cycle. To the extent that they are so concerned, these natters are outside the scope of this proceeding and should be excluded.
See Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Memorandum and Order dated June 6,1972 - In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., Docket No. 50-271 and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Memorandum and Order dated July 19, 1972 - In the Matter of Consumers Power Comoany, Docket No. 50-329 and 50-330.
Those portions 1585 043
. em.e of the contentions which appear sufficient are as follows:
(a)
Contention 16 insofar as it is concerned with the transportation of spent fuel from the reactor.
(b)
Contention 18 as it relates to any analysis of environmental or monetary costs of plant operations.
(c)
Contentions 19 and 20 insofar as they relate to the consideration of viable alternatives to the plant.
(7)
Contention 30 should be rejected on the ground that it is legal argument and does not place in issue any question of fact.
(8)
Contentions 36,-37, 38, and 39 appear to be radiological contentions and should b properly placed in that category.
(9)
The applicant, in its reply to the petition to inter-
.vene, urges that petitioners be required to file by September 7, 1972, restated contentions accompanied by support-ing affidavits setting forth with particularity.the basis for each of the contentions.
The regulatory staff opposes this request.
Under the circumstances of this case, we believe that appropriate prehearing procedures, including one or more prehearing conferences, would serve as a more useful and expeditious means to deal properly with the contentions raised by petitioners.
Such prehearing procedures underjt%5 0 4 4
I
~#
. firm direction of the ASLB would best serve the interests of all parties.
Respectfully submitted,
. )Q, w f //'.m,* Gjj. -
n ys M1 k-<blu
.~ -
Howard M. Wilchins Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 23rd day of August,1972.
/
~
1585 045
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In t.he Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station )
Unit 1)
)
\\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify ti:at copies of "AEC Regulatory staff's answer to petition to intervene filed by the Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition of Nuclear Power,"
dated August 23, 1972, in the captioned matter, have been served on the following by deposit l' the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 23rd day of August, 1972:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Miss Mary V. Southard, Chairman Board Panel Citizens for a Safe Environment United States Atomic Energy P.O. Box 405 Commission Harrisburg, Pa.
17108 Washington, D. C.
20545 Douglas Baker Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Coalition on Appeal Board Nuclear Power United States Atomic Energy 1919 Sandy Hill Road Commission Norristown, Pa.
19401 Washington, D. C.
20545 Mr. Frank W.
Karas George F. Trowbridge Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Office of the Secretary of the Trowbridge Commission Barr Building U.
S.
Atomic Energy Commission 910 17th Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20545 Washington, D.
C.
20006 Herbert C. Goldstein Attorney-at-Law 133 State Street Harrisburg, Pa.
17101 0 ;, i 9'. ";j,,
_) ;f v.. ~.,, s / // ii...]
Howard M.
Wilchins Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff 1585 046