ML19344E259

Response in Opposition to Victaulic Company of America 800813 Untimely Petition to Intervene.Adjudicative Rights Will Be Violated Upon Acceptance of New Party W/O cross- Examination.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344E259
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	08/22/1980
From:	Johnsrud J Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008280277
Download: ML19344E259 (4)

Text

..

A

--. e

~ ===:-,

CNVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER e u w .i.n.. o m .: 4.x s. a... a.o.a.. p. ieco s, ... ow.o.,,, c ,,. s ~ m u . a2

,n,..- e o. n. e n s. c. irso i 7.so na 2 4..n ;.na,, e -4n o,i s. 4..,.. '

i i4.nr m g

,ys#~ g UNITED STATES OF At: ERICA g. # y, b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N AN ~

In the Matter pf > s . .%

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. ) .M'he oc ..

e

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating ) Docket Number 50-289 -

Station Unit 1, Restart) ) (Restart / License Revocation)

)

ECNP INTERVENORS' PESPONSE TO LATE-FILED PETITIO'1 TO INTERVENE OF VICTAULIC COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.

On August 13, 1980, counsel for Victaulic Company of America, et al., -

hand-delivered a late petition for leave to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding during the course of the Final Prehearing Conference in this pmceeding which had been noticed for hearing by the Order of the NRC

~

Commissioners dated August 9,1979 (not August 9,1980I as is stated by this petitioner on page 1 of its filing). The Envit 'tal Coalition on Nuclear Power opposes the granting of full party status t. these late petitioners, un- ,

less the Commission wishes to toss aside a full year of work by all parties f

who had filed timely petitions to intervene and begin again with the requisite j full rounds of discovery among the parties, yet mom motions and crcss-motions,  !

j yet additional prehearing conferences. From long observation of NRC ASLB pro-ceedings, it would be our expectation that such a petition as has here been filed h

would have been denied on the soot by the Board had the petitioners been ex-pressing their opposition to the reopening of TMI-1. .

E The petitioner here cites 10 CFR 2.711 and 2.714 as a basis for this very

{

1 ate request. 'Je . note that 2.711 states quite clearly that extensions or reductions of time limits may be set by the Comission or the pmsiding officer, except as othersise provided by law or by the Comission's Rules of Practice codified in -

10 CFR Part 2. On both counts, this petition is not timely: the Rules at 10 CFR _

2.714(a)(1) specify that such petitions must be filed not later than the time QSd W

S) b The date of the Comission's Order to maintain TMI-l in shutdown condition is l// h" similarly misstated as July 2,1930, rather than 1979, on the same page.

80"8280 71'7 _ _ _ _ __ __ __. _

3p. ....

set in the notice of hearing or by the Corrmissioners or ASLB pmsiding officer.

]-

The same section further states that nontimely filings will not be entertained in the absence of a balancing of the specified factors (i) through (v) in addi-tion to those enumerated in 2.714(d)(1),(2), and (3).

On these bases, the petitioners fail to quaYify for late' intervention in the following ways: .

1. There is no good cause shown for these petitiioners to have ,

failed to file at the proper time nearly a year ago. There.is no .

good cc::e shown for their having failed to file at any time since the deadline. The Federal Register notice and ample newspaper coverage of the Commission's Order of August 9,1979, and of these proceedings have been available to all who wished to participate.

, 2. The interest now claimed by these petitioners was known, in its essence, to all ratepayers of the Suspended Licensee at the time when intervention was permitted. Other parties complied with the reg.ila tions. No new interest that has developed suddenly at this late hour is claimed in this petition.

3. flo evidence is advanced that these ratepayers, who claim to be "some of the largest electrical users of Met-Ed," are indeed sub-ject to rates that are as high as or higher than those of other industrial and commercial customers of other utilities in the Commonwealth or elsewht 1. There is, further, no information provided in the petition to justify the claim that these petitionars have any special claim to represent the interests of the Suspended Licensee's residential custorrers. The members of the citizen group i A.fl.G.R.Y. or of ECilP would appear to meet that interest better in that some of those persons are actual residential customers of this utili ty.

4 As Intervenor Sholly has pointed out in conversation, some of these late petitioners were parties to the Public utility Cor:nission's proceedinos on rate increases related to the TMI accident at the time appropriate for intervening in the Tf!I-l Festart proceedinc. As such, they have surely been fully infomed of the issues they now seek to raise on the eve of hearings.

5. Utility rates and cost of purchased power am not matters within the decision-making realm of the flRC's ASLB. For satisfaction in these matters, tne petitioners should be returning to the PUC; that body is the appropriate foru i for protection of these petitioners' alleged interests. Rates exceed the scope of this .P.C proceeding.

6. The petitioners, at nos.,10 - 12, claim but have not demonstrated cutbacks in production, fuiloagns of ecoloyees, loss of competitive position, and " indefinitely continued expansion plans." : lor have they shown that any such alleged suffering exceeds that of all of us who are suffering the effects of rampant inflation combined with severe regional and nationwide economic recession.

7. The petitioner has not demonstrated in what ways the interests of these firms differ significantly enough from those of the Suspended Licensee to warrant late intervention.

_ . . _ . _ 7 . . -

__ - - . _ _ _ . - - _ , _ _ _ = . _ . _

O .

9 .

=

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE f

'I~hereby certify that copies of EC'iP I!1TERVEtiORS' RESP 0'4SE FILED PETITIO t TO INTERVEfiE OF VICTAULIC C0!!PA served upon the parties to tt * , pmceeding as guired by deposit in t M_ day of August,1933.

U.S. Mail, first class, postage paid, this

/ bW 1). /Vbs&

{ Ju'dith H. Johnsrud Co-Director and Representative

-- of the ECNP Intervenors in the i absence of Cr. Xepford

't t

_ Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Chai:=sn Acccic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocrission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 1

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

! 881 West Outer Drive f

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 i, Dr. Linda V. Little Atr.ic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 5000 Hermitage Drive i

Raleigh, Ibrth Carolina 27612 -

a Docketing and Service Secticn -

Office of the Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocui <fon

{ Washington, D.C. 20555 1

<h d 1 yy ,

George F. Tttsbridge, Esquire p j f I it N Shw,.Pittman, Potts & Tru. bridge T 9' /

U 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washin6 ton, D.C. 20006 y g$ ** !

!/

Ik,,

a-es A. Tourtellotte, Esquire hf .h gl  !! ] g l

Office of the Executive Legal ..

i Director 4 -8 '.

UyBe  ! -

l

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory M<sion ' e Washington, D.C. 20555 .-n:

-'; Eub.- g o ,,

.: .* o l

V

• BAN t '- C' d .

~ > .

N

^W

1. eO e

D ,

_.:H=Ri;*. . . . . . . . . . .

8. The petition before us offers no information concerning the ways that this petitioner expects to assist in the develcoment of a sound and complete record; nor is there any explanation as to how those issues can suggested in no.13 will be addressed better or more fully than be ex defense. pected to be provided by the Suspended Licensee in its own

9. '~

There is no question that the petitioner's entrance into this pro-ceeding will serve to delay the hearings without connensurately broadening the issues to be addressed.

Only management capability and financial condition of the S of concern to these petitioners.yspended Licensec appear to be issues Other parties, including the Licensee and the fiRC Staff, will be presenting dimet evidence on these issues.

There is no showing in the late petition of ways in which those peti-tieners admitted would contribute parties will not.substantively to the mcord in ways that the But uncuestionably, if these late petitioners are adnitted, the other parties that had raised those issues at the proper time, whether they are now expecting to be able to litigate them.in the proceedin now exists or not, would undertake discovery, as, presumably,so g also as it will the Licensee and the HRC Staff. The proceedings will be delayed.

Such delay might not work to the detriment of several of the parties other than the late petitioner, but the intent of the Conraission to comnlete these TMI-l proceedings as expeditiously as possible would be frustrated. The Board will note that some of the intervenors may be required to utilize vacation or other personal time from their full-time employment in order to particpate in these proceedings.The Board has already issued its Order that sets forth the opening date for the eviden-tiary hearings, and part of the issues these petitioners propose to raise are scheduled for the early sessions. The adjudicative rights of the parties will be violated if a new party is allowed to enter without opportunity for discovery by the other parties. No positive purpose will be served.

Uith respect to 10 CFR 2.714(d), ECNP agrees that the late petitioners l will be affected by the outcome of these proceedings. All who purchase their electricity from this utility, all others whose " nuclear utilities" would be assessed to pay for the clean-up of Tf I-2 under a plan proposed by the Suspended Licensee, and all who live in the long shadow of Tl:I share the consequences of the outcome of this proceeding.

In the event of future accident conditions at either THI-1 or T:I-2, ECf!P concludes that these late petitioners will be ad-versely affccted by the very outcome that they so ardently desire.

The petition of Victaulic Company of America and its co-petitioners should be denied, unless the Corrission wishes to liberalize its Rules so as to allow the comparable late petitions to intervene of others who might wish to oppose the reopening of TitI-1 but for any reason, or ncne, had failed to meet the NPC's deadline.

g Dated this 1 % Respectfully submitted,A I

of August,1933 day

&Y /k= =^

udith H. Johnsrud l

Co-Director, ECNP l

l_ . . . - . . - - - - -