ML19220C090
| ML19220C090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1974 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904280212 | |
| Download: ML19220C090 (5) | |
Text
W I
s
.~.
0?W
~
~-*
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT0!1IC. ENERGY C0tilISSION BEFORE THE AT0!!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
-In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, _T. AL.
).
Docket No. 50-320 E
)
'(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY FREDERICK AND GERTRUDE HELLRICH, ET AL.L,/
s On May 28, 1974, the United States. Atomic Energy Commission published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on Application for Facility
. Operating Licen'se and a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing with respect to whether the provisional construction permit for the captioned facility should be continued, modified or terminated to protect environmental alues in accordance with Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 of the Comission's regulations. The notice provided that petitions to intervene must be filed by June 27, 1974 (39 F.R. 18497).
Some of the present petitioners were plaintiffs in a civil action filed by Lawrence Sager on their behalf, in March 1973 against the Metropolitan Edison Company (Applicant) in the United States District Court for the f
.lf The other petitioners are Edgar B. and Anna K. Hoffman, j
Andrew M. Alfonsus and Joseph Shertel, Joseph H. and
/
Herman H. Shuhler, Richard and Hildegard Gerhart, Walter J.
and Florence Shuhler.
d B7 1;;
7901280 N !y g/
e v
.g
}
- ~ ()
s r
i Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No.73-531).
In that action, the plaintiffs asserted that public convenience and necessity did not require.the construction of certain transmission lines asso-
.ciated with the instant facility, and that those lines had been constructed in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On May 2,1974, the complaint in the civil action was amended, pursuant to the District Court's order of April 1,1974, to include the United States Atomic Energy Commission (Comission) as a defendant with respect to the contentions concerning NEPA.
In a memorandum in support of a motion thereafter made by the Comission 4
to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remidies, l
it was represented that the Regulatory Staff of the Comission would not oppose, on: the grounds of untimeliness, a petition by the plaintiffs in the District Court action to intervene in this proceeding, if the petition were filed by August 15, 1974.
On August 14, 1974, Frederick and Gertrude Heilrich and some of the other plaintiffs in the District Court action, filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding.
Consistent with the representation made, the Regulatory Staff has no objection to the petition on grounds of untimeliness, and submits that the petitioners have made a, substantial showing of good cause for failure to file on time in this proceeding for the following reasons:
87 132
/
[
~
~..
\\
3 m
-Q
.Ee
')
1 l
4 3-(1), If the District Court actiori is dismissed, the petitioners will have no other means availabie to protect their interests regarding the construction of the transmission lines.
(2) The petitioners' counsel, Lawrence Sager, is very know-2 ledgeable in Atomic Energy Commission matters] and can be reasonably expected to assist in developing a sound record.
~
(3) Petitioners' particular interest will not be represented by the existing parties to this proceeding who were so admitted by the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order dated July 24, 1974.
(4) The petitioner's participation in this proceeding will 6
unquestionably broaden the issues to be litigated. However, the Staff believes that such participation will not delay the proceedings due to the petitioners' representation that their limited interest and intervention will not do so.
The Regulatory Staff believes that the first paragraph of the petition, which alleges that the transmission lines will pass through property owned by the petitioners, adequateIy complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714 concerning the showing of petitioners' interests and how they may be affected.
-2/ Mr. Sager has participated as a party in such other AEC proceedings as Philadelphia Electric Comoany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Dockets Nos. 50-352, 50-353; Metrooolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
j Docket No. 50-289; Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fniton Generating i
Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket.Nos. 50-463, 50-464.
8/ B3 h
t.
T
.~. ;
....__ J ~ T
'W;
,[.
... c..:3 y
\\
1.
\\.
1 s,
The Regulatory Staff believes that the. petition sets forth, with, the specificity required by 10 CFR 12,.714, one central contention, i.e., that the requirements of NEPA have not been fulfilled by the Commission. This contention is stated in paragraph 4(f) of the Petition for Leave to Intervene as follows:
"The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 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."
Although the Regulatory Staff would not object in hearings to relevant reference to matters asserted in paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
j (g) and (h), those assertions should not be admitted as contentions i
but should be viewed as detailed specifications of the contention made in 4(f).
Accordingly, since the petition meets the requirements of 10 CFR 1 E, the Regulatory Staff belie,es petitioners should be admitted 2.714 as p'arties to this proceeding for the purpose of presenting their
\\
contention 4(f) as more specifica'.ly detailed in the other subdivisions
\\
of paragraph 4.of the petiti.on.
Respectfully submitted, Bf
$M Dated at Bethesda, Maryland Richard L. Black this 27th day. of August,1974.
Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
~
{
y Northern States Power Comoany (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
[
Plant, Units i and 2) ALAB-107, RAI-73-3,188 (March 29,1973);
Duquesne Licht C.o., et al._ (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1)
ALAG-lG9, RAI-73-4, 242 (April 2, 1973).
l 07 l) a
~ -
\\
.8.'
i
=
.,-)
w y
j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0tJ4ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of J
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET'AL.)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(Thke Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY FREDERICK AND GERTRUDE HELLRICH, ET AL.",
dated August 27, 1974, in the above-captioned matter, have been served on the f,ollowing by deposit in the United States mail, first i
class or air mail, this 27th day of August,1974:
1 Mr. Edward Luton George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Barr Building Washington, D. C.
20545 910 - 17th Street, N. W.
~
t Washington, D. C.
20006
~
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S, Atomic Ensrgy Commission Board Panel Washington, D. C.
20545 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Dr. Ernest 0. Salo Professor, Fisheries Research Atomic Safety and Licensing Institute, WH-10 Appeal Board College of Fisheries U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Univers'ity of Washington Washington, D. C.
20545 Seattle, Washington 98195 Docketing and Service Section Mr. Chauncey R. Kepford Office of the Secretary Citizens for a Safe Environment U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 108 N. Pershing Avenue Washington, D. C.
20545 i
York, Pennsylvania 17403 Karin W. Carter, Assistant Attorney General Office of Enforcement Departmnt of Environmental Resources 709 Health and Welfare Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 6
NC!M[l.
l Richard L. Bl y.]f % h I
x Counsel for Ar.C Regulatory Staff 87 l)b l
-