ML19224A702

Answer to Intervention Petitions of Various Groups,Including Ny State Energy Ofc,Oswego County Farm Bureau,Ecology Action & Safe Energy for New Haven.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19224A702
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	03/20/1979
From:	Schutt R, Zebrak I HUBER, MAGILL, LAWRENCE & FARRELL
To:
Shared Package
ML19224A701	List: ML19224A700 ML19224A702
References
NUDOCS 7905250370
Download: ML19224A702 (8)

Text

_

e,.

u ..- r . r D .e . n- - e e O.r n.v r -R. T c n-

...vuonr . R w. e rOvw

. .,, ,,. .. r.v, . n.a.v. L U.v.,r

- .. ev cw ei n v c d

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board In the Matter of )

)

. .-m.

. a- v. O .~u- 2-e r-r-em--

.c.~~.- m .n2C & G n~ S )

CCRPORATION and LONG ISLAND )

LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-596

, - n i 20-as/

(NYSEG Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE On February 9, 1975 cne Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of Hearing of Application for Construction Permits regarding the application filed by the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) and the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) for construction permits for two pressurized water nuclear reactors designated as NYSEG 1 and 2 to be located in the Iown of . :w Haven, Oswego County, New York. The notice provided, inter alia, that any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding cculd file a petition to intervene by March 12, 1979. Counsel for NYSEG received petitions to intervene on behalf of New York State Energy Office, Oswego County Farm Bureau, Town of Mexico, Mexico Academy and Central School, Safe Energy for New Haven, Ecology Action, and the joint petition of Columbia County, Town of 7905250 7 452 036>

~

<1 e.,,. ;.. sa...

2,a

.m Cen e.ne a

- r.4 4.,o..e

- --.:-- 3c-.o r..e. 3 v..'-)

. ~u s..

.. v .= v.o x 4----

..4.

s . .c. c.,. .--.. ---  :- . .w.o. . o... ,s e .sLox , -re e

s petition whether it seeks cc intervene or make a limited appearance or for that matter whether it supports or c :osas ~".= ca..s

- . v ---.4 0. . =.~d c eg a -4 c .. c# T' .C r -v c ".. d - s ' a.nd '.

The Tcwn of Mexico does not appear to have satisfied the min-Onum requirements for intervention. (See 10 CFR 5 2. 714 (a) ( 2) . )

County of Columbia, Town of Stuyvesant and Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Petitioners have served a Petition To Intervene accom-panied by counsel's Affirmation In Support Of Petition To Intervene.

Althcugh the Commission's regulations respecting the requirement contained in 10 CFR S2.714 (a) 'at an a#fidavit accomoany petitions to intervene has been abolished (43 Fed. Reg. 17798), the Petitioners (1) The New York State Energy Office's petition was dated

.3 2-- . .w. 2, .c7c , . . a.".d s e - "< e d c.. .v.a - .5 '. / n' ' - o# +5a. # o-l'owi ..~3 petitioners did not provide a certificate of service; Oswec_o County Farm Bureau's cetition was not dated but was received on March 14, 1979; . Tcwn cf Mexico's petition was dated February 20, 1979 and was not received by Applicant's

~.,

me u. ..., e., e 1 u,.. .--4 , .sL2 -.w. , ,

., - a , 9 c -. ..-

.w

.. . o 0ee4,e --- c4 .w

.. e Secretary of the Ccmmission with docket date stamp of

-v2- - - w. 7,

. , o70,.

. .v.o.x o n' c = d er..v. a..d C e .*.*. ' ' S c.".o o .' ' s , ' *_ 4 ~ 4 . .

was dated February 26, 1979, postmarked March 12, 197. and received on March IS, 1979; Safe Energy for New Haven's

-a.4.4c.

e- was #=.a.d. .M ar .b. .O,

' i s' 'i o. , y os a .ked .v.a ."

- .- .. '--,7 - i. 'C' 2n

-..d . o c e 4 y o. d .v a * * ". ' d. , .' .O '/G,* ? C c ' *w C_ "; a'C*-4^",'s

-- -. w. "e..#^n y w d" ed -

.v.a- s ". C, .' .C ~iG- , was 4.c.

a e va.C' "wv n'y y--a..'.'s w c^uu . se' "...d

.w ,a

- e.-, .w e .w or .ge

.v = ~ s . . -,

~ 1c 7c . -~~.a . . . o. n e e 4 - o. rw-u---- ..e Og--o . - - - - - -

m.- ..

C ...~.. d ssic - + .'a ' 't , ' O

's ..". Acc..u.e "

- . - . 4=~.a.

- s .s=~..y c #. .v~ = --

. -a ~1.c - ,

_c-...

o44r.

y-...--. -.

^

C C i "...~~ ' S L ^s "...'y , ".'~sw ".. c# e *. " v, v a s a." . "-.a.. d v u C. C --". . a #--

~

~^

Citizens for Safe Energy was not dated but counsel's Nctice C# n' "yc, e -" " " .". C e " .". -# ^^

o v "u.". C a-' ' a~ n' ##"-- - .a a . '

^v .". ." n _C L'"y "y C " '. ^#

v.

.O o. . 4 -=='m .v.---..

sw w p. .-. - . . . o--y o. . . wo m wGc Am

-6..od-- 1 9

--,

• O*O,

-s 4 ,

m

-. .A-ogo syoA-

-.. .M. m- . a. .w.

9 E

--, -*O*

, , C, .

4 0' n .-

V*

have lon . Ir. elected to have their counsel affirm their Pe-inion to Intervene. It is not, however, apparant that counsel fo: .e Petitioners is necessarily competent to make all of the averments contained in his affirmation. Northerr States Power Co. (Prarie Island Nuclear Ge' erating Plant, Units 1 & 2),

ALA3-107, 6 AEC 188, 190, reconsid. denied, ALA3-llo, 6 AEC 247, affirmed CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973).

With respect to the motions contained in its Petition To Intervene which Applicant opposes, it would seem that the relief requested is premature since a person does not become a party until he is granted that status by the NYSEG 1 & 2 Licensing Board which has been designated by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Panel. (44 Fed. Reg. 8392, 10 CFR 5 2. 714 (g) ,

and 52. 730 (a) ) .

With respect to the Petitioners' assertion that they may be in4ured

. J if the construction permits for NYSEG 1 and 2 are granted, it would appear that Petitioners constituency is located more than 100 miles iron the New Haven site. Although residence within 30-40 miles o(2)f the reactor site is sufficient to satisfy the " ene of interest" test as set forth in the Pebble Sprincs case, Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976), and residence (2) Northern States Power Co. (Prarie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 185, 190, reconsideration denied, ALAS-110, 6 AEC 24~, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973); Louisiana Power 5 Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unl: 3), ALAE-12f>, 6 AEC 371, 372 n. 6 (1973); Vircinia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Unit 1& 2),

,.-- . .- - ,-- --, -,s , ,, ,

h nd-110, O nLL CJ1, blJ-J4 (asa / s, ).

4 + ) b. I nw <

'I b

within 50 miles (") might also satisfy this test, Petitioners' re=cte location from the proposed NYSEG 1 and 2 facility should preclude a finding of standing.

The Petitioners further assert, in effect, that they may be injured by the denial of construction permits for NYSEG and 2 in that the Licensing Board's determination of various issues in that proceeding could be binding upon the petitioner in another proceeding relating to the Stuyvesant site. The Indian Point case (Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.(Indian Point, Units 1, 2 & 3), ALA3-304, 3 NRC 1 (19 7 6-) ) , held that a potential intervenor having ;he same issue in another proceed-ing in which he is a party does not give standing to intervene in the other proceeding in order to protect the potential inter-venor from the creation of an adverse factual or legal prece-dent. The fact that a potential intervenor in one pro-ceeding u.ay be confronted with the same or similar issues in a hypothetical proceeding respecting the same facilities but at another site would not appear to justify a departure frer the holdings of the Indian Point case. In addition, with respect to paragraphs 5 and 15 of counsel's Aftirmation In Support of Petition Tc Intervene, Petitioners have not particularized a causal relationship between the asserted injury to their interest and (3 ) Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclea' Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1413, 1421 at n. 4 (1977).

452 039

the licensing action being sought in this proceeding as re-cuired by 10 CFR S 2. 714 (a) ( 2) .

Although the Petitioners do not appear to have stand-ing as a matter of right, intervention could be allowed as a matter of discretion. Portland General El- .c Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2), supra, _t 614-17. In light of the premature motion of the Petitioners respecting financial assistance it doas not appear likely that the Petitioners would make a valuable contribution towards develop-ing a sound record. It should also be noted that there is available other means whereby the Petitioners' interest will be protected. The Petitioners apparently have already been admitted as parties to the proceeding before the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment for the NYSEG 1 & 2 facilities. (See Counsel's Affirmation In Suppcrt Of Petition To Intervene, paragraph lc.) In addition, it is not unlikely that the Petitioners' interest will be repre-sented by the New York State Energy Office if its Petition For Leave To Participate is granted.

(4) The Applicant is not aware that party status has been granted the Petitioners.

452 040

Respectfully submitted,

,. W O P r C"'*r r 7 7 C"' C

$G' CORPb .'2"Ib $ / #

04,M / CJJ 4 41 <dc Roderick Schutt Ira Lee Zebrak ROderick Schutt, Esq.

Ira Lee "ebrak, Esq.

Huber Magill Lawrence & Farrell 99 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 Dated: March 20, 1979 kNL ,,

L....

.u .,,,

n D S i n _ n q O.r n.v.,

cnA 7 n, NUCLEAR REGULATDRY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

NEW YORR STATE ELECTRIC & GAS ) Docket Nos. STN 50-596 CORPORATION and LONG ISLAND ) STN 50-597 LIGHTING COMPANY )

)

(NYSEG Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that service of APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE dated March 20, 1979 was made upon the following by first-class mail on March 20, 1979:

Seymour Wenner, Esquire Daniel Swanson, Esquire Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Edward J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire Dr. Oscar H. Paris Long Island Lighting Compan'y Member 250 Old Country Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mineola, New York 11501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stanley E. Klimberg, Esquire Acting Counsel Dr. Walter H. Jordan 'Tew York State Energy Office Member 2 Rockefeller Placa Atomic Safety and Licensing Board A l b c.n y , New York 12223 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Mark R. Gibbs Tcwn Supervisor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Town of Mexico Office of the Secretary S. Jefferson Street Docketing and Service Section Mexico, New York 13114 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ecology Action Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o Ms. Helen Daly 3 card Panel W. River Rd. RD #5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oswego, New York 13126 Washington, D.C. 20555 452 049L

Safe Energy for New Haven Paul Voninski, Ph.D.

c/o Ms. Linda Clark Vice President Box -122 RD =1 Mexicr Academy and Mexico, New York 13114 Central School Mexico, New York 13114 Oswego County Fa_m Bureau c/o Ms. Nancy K. Weber Robert 2. Kafin, Esquire RD #3 Miller, Mannix, Lemery Mexico, New York 13114 & Kafin, P.C.

P.O. Box 765 11 Chester Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 AA M6b Ira Lee ZebraV Esquire Huber Magill Lawrence & Farrell 99 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016

.- ,s 4J/

&  ?

d, 'e 44