ML19220A585
| ML19220A585 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1973 |
| From: | Blake E, Silberg J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904230135 | |
| Download: ML19220A585 (8) | |
Text
..,,,.. -
()
--ly 30, 1973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY CC:CIISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board
~
In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY, JERSEY CENTRAL PO'JER & LIGHT Docket No. 50-320 COMPANY and PE:!NSYLVANIA ETECTRIC COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO REVISED OEJECTIC:!S OF THE CITIZE IS FOR A SAFE ENVIRCIGIENT A:!D THE ENVIRC'NME' ITAL CCALITIO:! 0;I NUCLEAR PO' DER TO THE CONSTRUCTICN OF THE JUNIATA LINES AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING 1.
Pursuant to an order dated July 11, 1973, by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board established to rule on i
petit _ is for leave to intervene in this proceeding (" Board"),
Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (" Petitioners") on July 19, 1973, filed an amended pleading entitled " Revised Objections of the Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Pow'er to the Construction of thi Juniata Lines and Request for a Hearing".
For the reasons set forth below, Metropolitan Edisca Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Ccmpany (" Applicants")
respectfully request that Petit'_oners' hearing request be denied.
. b6 ~O6'1 7 90423 01'2g Q
L1; 1
...... ~. -.
. m..
O O
2.
In its Order of July 11, 1973, which granted Petitioners the opportunity to file a further pleading before it ruled on Petitioners' request for a hearing, the Board required specifically that:
Such a pleading should adhere to the requirements of the Commission's April 10, 1973 notice, particularly that there be set forth the matters, with regard to the environmental factors, " alleged to warrant a deter-mination other than that made by the Director of Regulation" and that the factual basis for the hearing request be set forth.
Petitioners in their amended pleading still fail to comply with the Commission's requirements.
3 In response to the Commission's requirement in its April lo, 1973, Notice (38 Fed. Reg. 9105), as reiterated by the Board in its Order, that Petitioners set forth the matters with respect to the factors referenced in the Notice alleged to warrant a determination other than that made by the Director of Regulation--namely, to rescind suspension of construction activities on the Juniata Line--Petitioners raise four "contentiens".
None meet the Commission's or the Board's requirements.
4.
The first contention alleges that construction of the Juniata line should not be~ allowed "without fully analyzing the cost / benefit of the proposed line with reference to land use of the properties through which the prcposed line will cross and the towers will be placed".
Petitioners state gg -065 n
()-
that they are " concerned about alternative proposals whereby large tracts of land will not be transversed or severed".
Petitioners do not however indicate that large tracts would be "transversed and severed" by the present route, nor do they identify any alternative route which would prevent or even reduce such transversing and severing.
The first conten-tion also claims that towers could be placed so "as to avoid disruption of cultivation and agricultural use", but sets forth no factual basis for the implicit assertion that the present route would disrupt cultivation and agricultural use, and identifies no methods for placing of towers to avoid this alleged disruption.
Finally, Petitioners assert that the routes and towers could be placed "so that wood lots are not destroyed", but presents no factual basis that such an alternative route exists or that there is any significant environmental impact from the small atount of clearing which will be done.
5 Petitioners assert in their second contention that construction of the Juniata line "would affect the eventual decision reached on the NEPA review of the operating license application concerning Units 1 and 2".
This is a reassertion of the argument raised by Petitioners in paragraph 4 of their original Objections and Request for Hearing.
Both Applicants and the Staff in their respective answers, dated May 14, 1973, and May 12, 1973, to Petitioners' original b6-OC6
0 0
request, opposed Petiticners' assertions in this respect.
It is also clear from the Ecard's Order trui the Commission's notice that the instant proceeding is not related to Unit 1.
The argument presents no reasons for reaching a determination other than the decision of the Director of Regulation to lift the suspension.
6.
Petitioners' third contention is merely a rewording of the arguments advanced in their first contention, adding only that "the [ transmission] towers could be placed in such a manner as to lessen the adverse esthetic effects of the towers".
Petitioners do not iden,tify_the " manner" in which the towers "could be placed" which might have a different esthetic effect.
There is no indication even of what " adverse esthetic effects" might be involved.
Petitioners attempt to substitute for a presentation of their factual basis only the vague suggestion that some unspecified alternative should be considered.
7 Petitioners advance as their final argument that because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission does not review transmission tower siting, the Commission "must review, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the cost / benefit and alternatives to the siting of the lines and towers".
Petitioners are correct that the Ccmmission in its cost / benefit balancing under UEPA considers the environmental aspects of transmission
! 66~O117
O O~
~
lines.
This fact, however, does not provide any justification for Petitic uers' request for a hearing on the rescinding of the suspension order.
The presence or absence of a review of " siting of towers" by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is, of course, irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding.
8.
Petitioners in their pleadings have not raised any significant matters, and provided a factual basis therefore, which warrant the granting of Petitioners ' request for a separate public hearing to be conducted at this time on only the proposed Juniata line.
9 Pinally, Petitioners have not cured the defects in their original petition with respect to the requirement that they show how their interest may be affected by this proceeding.
In an atte=pt to cure their insufficient shawing of a particularized interest in this proceeding, Petitioners e
rely now for interest on two named individuals - Chaunsey Keppler and John Simons - who are alleged to live at "a not-too-far distance" from the Juniata line.
There "s no indication that either Mr. Keppler or Mr. Simons is a member of either Petitioner.
Nor is there any snowing of how these individuals would suffer any " injury in fact" as required by Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 US 727 (1972). 6G-068 e
~
()
')
es
~.
10.
For the reasons set forth above, Applicants respectfully request that Petitioners' request for hearing, as set forth in both their original request and the amended petition, be denied.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITIMAN, POTIS & TROWBPlDGE M
f
\\[
Jay E. Silberg Ednest L. Blake, Jr.
i C6,unsel for Applicant" Dated:
July h, 1973 66-069
~
')
suly 30, 1973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinz Board In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER 8: LIGFT COMPANY and PEUNSYLVANIA Docket No. 50-320 ELECTRIC COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Reply to Revised Objections of the Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power to the Construction of the Juniata Lines and Request for a Hearing, dated July 30, 1973, in the above captioned matter, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 30th day of July, 1973:
Charles A. Haskins, Esquire Jone-lo, Esquire Chairman Off the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U
comic Energy Commission Windy Hill Farm ngton, D. C.
20545 Bluemont, Virginia 22012 Jrence Sager, Esquire Dr. M. S tanley Livingston mager and Sager Associates 1005 Calle Largo 45 High S treet Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501 Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19404 Dr. John R. Lyman Frank R. Clokey Department of Environmental Special Assistant Attorney General Sciences and Engineering Room 219 University of North Carolina Tcwne House Apartments Chapel' Hill, North Carolina 27514 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 66-070
~
~
()
..,1 Office of the Secretary (21)
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Attn:
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Sc/ X' 4444.
ErneJt L. Blake, Jr.
Dated:
July 30, 1973 9
e 9 66-071