ML19308B356
| ML19308B356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1979 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912280463 | |
| Download: ML19308B356 (5) | |
Text
11/14/79 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
(EPICOR-II)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWEk TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE On November 5, 1979, the Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) filed a timely Peti-tion to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Petition) pursuant to the Commis-1 and the Order for Modification sion's Memorandum and Order of October 16, 1979 of License dated October 18, 1979 (collectively, the Orders), and the Commission's Rules of Practice, specifically, 10 CFR E 2.714.
I.
INTEREST As provided by the Orders, a petition for leave to interve,ne must satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. This regulation directs that a petitioner set forth his or her interest in the pro-ceeding and how such interest might be affected by the result thereof, including the reasons why intervention should be permitted.
10 CFR 9 2. 714 (a) (2).
In this regard, consideration is to be given to the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party, the nature and extent of petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding and the possible effect on such interest of any order entered in the proceeding.
10 CFR P 2.714(d).
Also to be stated in a petition are the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding on which intervention is sought.
10 CFR 9 2.714(a)(2).
If We presume that the reference to the "NRC Order of October 14 (sic], 1979",
is intended to be to the Commission's Memorandum and Order of October 16, 1979.
7912286hd3
0.
It is elemental that judicial concepts of standing are controlling in deter-mining whether a petitioner has satisfied the foregoing requirements. Portlan_d General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-614 (1976); Publi' ;r;vice Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-397, 5 hnC 1143, 1144-1145. Consequently, a peti-tioner must show " injury P 2" and that such interest is "' arguably within the zone of interest' protected by the statute." Portland General Electric Company, supra.
Particular attention should be given to the particularization of the above elements in connection with non-mandatory proceedings, such as the instant one, to assure that potential intervenors have the required interest to warrant a hearing.
Cf. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976) (a case involving an operating license).
Clearly, an organization can establish standing through members of the o:gani-zation who have interests which may be affected.2_/
Public Service Co. af Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976).
At the same time, when an organization claims that its standing is based on the interests of its members, the organization must identify specific individ-ual members with interest, describe how the interests of each of those members might be affected and show that each of those members has authorized the organi-zation to act on his or her behalf.
Houston Lighting & Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979). Edlow International Company (Agent for the Government of India on Application to
_2 /
In light of petitioner's apparent intention to intervene in a representative capacity on behalf of individual members, the question of whether it has l
shown sufficient " institutional" interest need not be reached.
Edlow l
International Company (Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material) CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 561, 573-574 (1976).
l
Export Special Nuclear Material) CL1-76-3, 3 NRC 561, 574 (1976). Allied General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnuell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-)28-,
3 NRC 420, 422 (1976).
An organization may satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714 by showing that the residence of one of its members is "within the geographical zone that might be affected by an accidental release of fission products".
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n.6 '1973).
In fact, the Appeal Board has recently held that geographic proximity of a member's residence to a facility is deemed enough, standing alone, to establish the interest requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714.
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979).
Although no specific distance from a nuclear power plant has evolved from Commission decisions to define the outer boundary of the " geographic zone of interest", distances up to about 50 miles have been found not to be so great as to preclude a finding of standing based on residence.
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1422 n.4 (1977).
Respecting the foregoing, the SVA Petition merely contains the vague assertion that it is "a citizens group made up of residents of the Susquehanna River Valley, who use the river water for drinking, cooking, bathing, recreation and other purposes and who are endangered by any releases of radioactivity through any pathway from Three Mile Island." Absent identification of one or more SVA members (and what such members' interest may be) and their authorization to be represented by SVA in this proceeding, the Petition is defective insofar as i
demonstrating the requisite interest.
In regard to the requirements that a petition also show how such interest would be affected by the results of the subject proceeding, the Petition must also be ~
found wanting. The stated effect on SVA's alleged interest appears to be the potential danger caused by "any releases of radicactivity through any path'.ay from Three Mile Island." The referanced Order of October 18, 1979, and, for that matter, the Commission's Memorandum and Order of October 16, 1979, do not authorize any releases from the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 facility; all that is permitted is the operation of the EPICOR-II system to decontaminate intermediate-level waste water and its storage on-site.
Thus, SVA has not identified an effect on any interest resulting from the subject proceeding.
II.
ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDING As noted above, a petition, in addition to setting forth a petitioner's interest and the effects thereon, must identify the specific aspect (s) on which interven-tion is sought. This matter is presumably intended to be addressed by SVA's statements in paragraphs 3.a.-c. and 4 of its Petition, o
The crux of SVA's position, set out in paragraph 4 of its Petition, urges the need to prepare "an Environmental Impact Statement regarding the entire clean-up of Unit 2 and restart of Units 1 and 2," based on the assertions set forth in paragraphs 3.a.-c.3/
Irrespective of the merits of the allegations con-tained in paragraph 3.a.-c., SVA's suggestion cannot be entertained by this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board since its jursidiction is confined to those matters specified in the respective Crders by the Commission which are clearly limited to the operation of EPICOR-II.
3/
The relationship between the assertions in a.-c. and the introductory con-tention of 3. is not readily apparent; even assuming, arguendo, that worker exposures resulting from the activities authorized by the Order were not ade-quately assessed and that off-site waste disposal facility may no longer be available, it does not perforce, follow, that the activities authorized are not "necessary", as SVA contends, to protect health and safety and minimize danger to life and property.
E
However, in spite of the foregoing, it would appear that paragraph 3.a.-c.,
if interpreted to challenge the sufficiency of the measures provided and the,
attendant impact on the environment, do suggest appropriate aspects of the proceeding on which intervention may appropriately be granted (subject to the cure of deficiencies regarding interest, discussed above).
III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff believes that although the SVA Petition is deficient, it appears readily amenable to being cured, and, subject thereto and to submission of a supplement as required by 10 CFR R 2.714(b), should be granted.
Resp tfully submitted, AD Y Lawrence J.
handler Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of November, 1979 o
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
e BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-320 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ))[ A1..
)
(EPICOR-II) i
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ION TO INTERVENE AND I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETIT" in the abov REQUEST FOR A HEARING BY THE SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY in the United States mail, proceeding have been served on the following by depositc it in the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 1 t first Albert J. Slap, Esq.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
- Public Interest Law Center Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of Philadelphia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Washington, DC 20555 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Atomic Safet+ and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Martin J. Steindler Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (5)*
Argonne National Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9700 South Cass Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Argonne, IL 60439 Docketing and Service Section (5)*
Lar;'* B. Selkowitz, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Wiaaif, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler, P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O.
Box 1547 Washington, DC 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Jean Royer Kohr, Esq.
Minney, Mecom & Kohr 121 E. King Street Lancastr.r, PA 17602 N
!!Nk Lawrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff
.