ML19345B926
| ML19345B926 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002909 |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1980 |
| From: | Cowan B, Kenrick J, Marcucci D ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012020758 | |
| Download: ML19345B926 (23) | |
Text
1!
~=s n
[."
(')N hl)
ONITED STATES OF AMERICA
,,2'~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]-
3 7l
.,?',,..,.
g' '
e
.N
-d BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARIP,v7 /
OM In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. 70-2909 (Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant Special Nuclear Material License)
ANSWER OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1
TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF CATHALYNN DONELSON Westinghouse Electric Corporation
(" Westinghouse")
files this Ancwer in response to an untimely Petition for Leave to Intervene ( the "Interven* ion Petition") filed on November 10, 1980, by Cathalynn Donelson
(" Petitioner" or "Donelson").1 Westinghouse opposes the Intervention Peti-tion and the attempt to substitute Donelson for Allred as 1On-November 10, 1980, a Joint Motion for Substitution of Named Intervenor (the " Substitution Motion") was filed by David L. Allred ("Allred") and Donelson.
With respect to Donelson, the Substitution Motion raises the same issues the Sub ygpD3 as the untimely Intervention Petition and, accordingly, is answered as part of this pleading.
Insofar as 3
stitution Motion constitutes the motion of Allred to with-draw from all participation in this proceeding, the West-
/
inghouse response is set forth in a separate pleading filed simultaneously herewith entitled Answer of Westinghouse j@gD*
Electric Corporation to Joint Motion for Substitution of
}
Named-Intervenor.
f 3pv 7
gen 55 64 I')
8012020 75g
-9 1
a party to this proceeding. 'As more fully discussed below, the bases for the opposition of Westinghouse to the Inter-vention Petition and so much of the Substitution Motion as seeks to allow Donelson to substitute for Allred are as follows:
1.
The Intervention Petition and Substitution Motion fail to disclose the fact that in a prior affidavit of Petitioner and other related filings in this proceeding, Petitioner authorized and designated the Safe Energy Alli-ance of Central Alabama, Inc. ("SEACA") to represent her interests and. serve as a spokesman for those interests, and Petitioner. expressed the desire to be represented by attor-ney Julian McPhillips, counsel for SEACA, as her attorney in this pJoceeding.
Petitioner is a charter member and member of the Board of Directors of SEACA.
Thus, Petitioner
.and her interests already are represented in this proceeding, and Petitioner has waived or relinquished any rights, and is estopped from asserting any-rights, she might otherwise have possessed to representation as a party apart from that of SEACA.
2.
The Intervention Petition is untimely filed, I
l and Petit!.oner fails to' address, as she is required to do, i
each of, the five factors to be. considered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the " Board") in determining
'whether the intervention Petition should be granted.
Dis-cussion by Petitioner.of these factors and an affirmative I -
u-demonstration that,-on balance, they favor permitting tardy admission to this proceeding'is a requisite.
3.
The good cause alleged by Petitioner does not constitute good cause for tardy filing under appli-cable NRC regulation and decisions.
4.
Petitioner does not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the.other four factors to be examined when considering an untimely petition for inter-vention weigh in her favor, let alone outweigh the lack of good cause.
FACTS Westinghouse applied to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission _("NRC" or " Commission") for a Special Nuclear Material License authorizing Westinghouse to acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use and initially transfer special nuclear. material for its proposed Prattville, Alabama nuclear fuel fabrication plant.
Notice of the Application was pub-lished in the Federal Register on March 6, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 14724).
That notice provided, inter alia, that any person whose interest might be affected by these proceedings could file a request for a hearing in the form of petition for leave to intervene by April 7,-1980.
Pursuant to-the Federal Register notice, timely petitions to intervene were filed on behalf of SEACA and.
f J
. ten individuals, including David L. Allred.
With the exception of the Allred petition, all intervention peti-tions were submitted by Julian L. McPhillips, Jr.,
as counsel.
Simultaneously with the filing of the petition for leave to intervene on behalf of SEACA and the indi-vidual petitioners, SEACA, on April 7, 1980, filed a motion requesting a two-month extension of time within j
which to file contentions in connection with its petitien for leave to intervene.
That motion was made moot by the Commission Order of April 3, 1980, whereby tha deadline for filing petitions for leave to intervene in this proceed-ing was extended to June 14, 1980.
(45 Fed. Reg. 23553 (April 7, 1980)).
On April 22, 1980, Westinghouse. answered the peti-tion to intervene of SEACA and the ten individual petitioners.
In its Answer Westinghouse took the position that the peti-tions as drafted failed to meet NRC requirements and should be denied unless the deficiencies were cured by an amenda-tory filing submitted by the June 14, 1980 date.
Thereafter, on June 12, 1980, SEACA filed an Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (the "SEACA Amended Petition").2 The SEACA Amended Petition represented that For the convenience of the Board, a. copy of the SEACA Amended Petition, together with its Exhibits, is attached hereto as Attachment 1..
SEACA was authorized by eighteen of its members, including Cathalynn Donelson, to represent those members and their interests in this proceeding.
All of the individuals (o ther than.Allred) who initially had filed petitions for leave to intervene withdrew their requests for individual representa-tion in favor of representation by SEACA and Julian McPhillips.
In addition, eight members of SEACA, including Cathalynn Donel-son, who had not initially filed individual petitions for leave to intervene, authorized and designated in a sworn affidavit SEACA and its president to serve as a single spokes-man to represent their interests, and authorized and directed Julian McPhillips to act as their individual and corporate attorney.
Allred continued in his individual capacity.as a petitioner independent of SEACA.
ARGUMENT I.
The rules governing intervention and untimely fil-ings are set forth
'.n 10 C.F.R. S 2.714.
However, as a preliminary matter, Westinghouse submits the Board should dismiss the instant Intervention Petition with prejudice on the ground that. Petitioner and her-interests already are represented in this proceeding by SEACA and its attorney,
{
I l t l
i Julian McPhillips, and therefore Petitioner has waived or relinquished any rights, and is estopped from asserting any rights she might otherwise 'have possessed to representa-tion as a party apart from that of SEACA.
As noted above, on June 12, 1980, SEACA filed the SEACA Amended Petition :in which it was alleged that SEACA "has been authorized by 18 of its members [ including Cathalynn Donelson) to represent them in opposing the con-struction and operation" of the proposed plant.
The SEACA Amended Petition further alleged that certain members of SEACA " consisting of 8 in number (including Cathalynn Donelson], have not previously filed individual petitions but all of.said [8] members share the same common interests of the first set of. [10] members [who had previously filed intervention petitions), and a-ll have duly authorized and designated SEACA to represent their interests."
c The SEACA Amended Petition was signed and verified by the president of SEACA pursuant to authorization of the SEACA Board of Directors, one of whose members was Cathalynn Donelson.
The president of SEACA verified under oath that the petition "was true and correct in every particular."
Attached to the SEACA Amended Petition were three exhibits.
Exhibit I is a designation-authorization by the ten individuals who previously had filed individual petitions i
s for leave to 'inte-vene designating SEACA, its president and other officers, and Julian McPhillips to serve as a single spokesman to represent their interests.
Exhibit II is an affidavit signed by eight mem-bers of SEACA, including Donelson, averring under oath that they "do hereby authorize and designate the Safe Energy Alliance of Central Alabama, Inc. and its president Robert H. Campbell to serve as a single spokesman to repre-sent our common interests in the above-captioned proceedings, and we further authorize and direct attorney Julian McPhillips to act as our individu-.1 and corporate attorney in his repre-sentation of [SEACA]."
Exhibit II contains, inter alia, the i-following additional language:
1 "2.
We all desire to be represented by attorney Julian McPhillips.
"3.
We all believe that SEACA, its president and ~ other of ficers, will well repre-sent our interests. "
In paragraph 4 of Exhibit II, the eight signators attest to i
j the affidavit.
The first signature is that of Cathalynn i
Donelson.
A notarization appears at the bottom of Exhibit II, and states that the individuals who are signators to the
~
exhibi t "af ter being first duly sworn, did sign the above as a designation-authorization of SEACA to represent their
- i l
=T
+
-w r
s interests in the above-captioned proceedings."3 By her actions described above, Donelson clearly and unequivocally has designated SEACA and its attorney, Julian McPhillips, as the party and attorney respectively, to represent her interests in this proceeding.
Thus, there remains no basis for a late and independent request to in-tervene now before this Board.4 Exhibit III to the SEACA Amended Petition constituted the resolution of the Board of Directors of SEACA authorizing Robert H. Campbell as president of SEACA to sign in the name of SEACA the petition for leave to intervene.
Among the directors of SEACA signing the Exhibit III resolution is Donelson.
4The failure of Petitioner to disclose to this Board in a full and complete manner the facts set forth above con-cerning her prior representations to this Board is particu-larly egregious.
Although Petitioner alleges that she "has been informally involved in the licensing procedure for the proposed ANFFP since April,1980" and although Petitioner references several aspects of that alleged involvement, the i
sole reference to SEACA in the Intervention Petition is a statement that "[allthough Petitioner has been associated with the Safe Energy Alliance of Central Alabama, Inc.,
said organization has not presented every issue which Peti-tioner believes should be presented in this matter."
This almt a t casual reference ' to an alleged association with SEACA stands in sharp contrast to the fact that the relationship of Petitioner with SEACA has been so intimate and involved i
that Petitioner under oath asked this Board to allow SEACA and its counsel to represent her interests. '
.~.
II.
The' criteria for consideration of nontimely filed intervention petitions are set forth in 10 C.F.R. 1 S 2. 714 (a) (1) as follows:
"Nontimely filings will not be enter-tained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule.on the petition and/or request, that the petition and/
or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following fac-tors in addition to those set out in paragraph (d) of this section:
(i)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii)
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's ' inter-est will be protected.
(iii)
The extent.to which the petitioner's participation may.rea-sonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
4 (iv)
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be. repre-sented by existing.psrties.
(v)' The extent to which the petitioner's participation will
- broaden the issues or delay the proceeding."
t The Intervention Petition in the instant proceeding is defi-i cient on its-face because it fails to address each of the l
l five factors listed above which must be addressed by Peti-tioner.
Further, the Petitioner fails to' demonstrate good' l
m
, -~
~ ~
.e r
cause for her tardy intervention and ' fails to meet the heavy burden with respect to the other four criteria set forth in the regulations.
Accordingly, the Inter-vention Petition and the Substitution-Motion should be denied.
A.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (the " Appeal Board"), in a recent decision affirming the denial of a late intervention petition, held that where an untimely petition for intervention fails to address each of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a) for late intervention, such a petition is deficient and must be denied.
In re Duke ~ Power Co. '(Perkins luclear Station, Units 1, 2,
3),
NRC ALAB-615, 2 Nuc.
l Reg. Rep. (CCH) 11 30,532, 30,532.01 (September 29, 1980).
In the Perkins case, the Appeal Board first stressed "the imperative necessity that all participants in NRC adjudica-tory proceedings - whether lawyers or laymen representing themselves or organizations to which they belong - familiar-T ize themselves at the outset with" the Rules of Practice.
Id. s(emphasis in original).
The Board further pointed out that "[t]he Rules of Practice are most explicit in P
- n establishing the criteria by which late intervention peti-tions must be judged." ' In this regard, the Board held:
"[T]he late petition must address each of (the] five factors (set forth in S - 2. 714 (a) ] and affirmatively demon-strate that, on balance, they favor permitting tardy admission to the proceeding."
(Emphasis added.)
After noting that the untimely petition to intervene in i
Perkins was devoid of recognition that its fate hinged on the S 2.714(a) factors, and that no mention was made of that section or its requirements, the Appeal Board found that the petition for intervention in that case was
" patently deficient and, as such, a fit candidate for denial."
In the present case, the untimely Intervention Petition of Donelson also is patently deficient and should be denied.
As in the Perkins case, the Petitioner fails to mention or refer to S 2.714 (a) despite the fact that the fate of her petition hinges on 'those factors.
- Further, it is apparent that Petitioner. fails to address each of the five f actors ' raised in S 2.714 (a).
Thus, Petitioner does not address at all the second criterion (the " availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected"); or the third criterion ( the " extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record").
Although 4
Petitioner arguably touches on the fourth criterion (the
" extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties"), and the _ fif th criterion ( the " extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding"), the mention by Petitioner of these factors consists of conclusory one-line statements with no discussion in support of these conclusions which would enable the Board adequately to consider these factors.
Thus, the untimely Intervention Petition is patently defi-cient and should be denied.
B.
The first factor to be addressed under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a) is " good cause, if,any, for failure to file on time."
The attempt by Petitioner to establish good cause for her late intervention wholly fails.
The gist of Peti-tiener's presentation on good cause for late filing is that Petitioner was relying on the intervention of Allred to advance her concerns and interest.
(Intervention Peti-tion, p. 4).
Such reliance does not constitute a valid excuse for good cause under applicable decisions of the Commission.
In In re Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 1:, 6 NRC 760, ALAB-444 (19 77),.the
. ?
}
I Appeal' Board rejected a late. petition by the Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS").to intervene in a licensing a
proceeding.
The State of Louisiana, an intervenor in the proceeding, had withdrawn from the proceeding because of a " limitation of resources" and UCS." endeavor [ed] sim-i ply to substitute itself for a prior participant in the proceeding which [had] withdrawn and to pursue the same issues which that participant.had advanced."
Id. at 795.
The Appeal Board held first that "all belated petitioners (are required] to make the ' good cause' showing for their tardiness - no matter whether intervention is being sought 1
on a substitution basis or, instead, for some other reason."
4 Id. at 796 (emphasis in original)..
The Board then held that the UCS explanation for its late filing "that it and its members 'were lulled into -inaction by - the State-of Louisiana'" - did not constitute a showing of good cause.
Id. at 796-97'.
i In River Bend, the Appeal Board relied upon its i.
prior decision in In re Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), 6 NRC 642, ALAB-440 (1977).
In the Cherokee case, the Appeal Board likewise had rejected, inter alia, a late petition for intervention by an individual i
[
who argued that she had initially relied upon another inter-venor to represent her interests.
The Appeal Board stated:
i I
i 5,
~
"All that [the petitioner] offers'in justi-l fication for that protracted period of inaction is that, after attending some of the evidentiary hearings and examining many
]
documents pertaining to the facility, she reached the conclusion that her interests t
were not being adequately protected by any of the participants - more particularly, the State of South Carolina.
That explana-tion will not carry the day.
It is not claimed that the state undertook to represent the interests of'the petitioner specifically, as opposed to the public in-terests generally.
This being so, (the i
petitioner] assumed the risk that the state's' degree of involvement in the pro-I' ceeding would not fulfill her expectations.
And a foreseeable consequence of the mate-rialization of that risk was that it would then no longer be possible to undertake herself the vindication of her interests."
(6 NRC at 644-45)
Petitioner in the instant proceeding is in the same position as the UCS in River Bend.
Here, as in River Bend,-a participant is leaving the proceeding be-cause of limitation of resources.
Here, as in River Bend, i
Petitioner is attempting to substitute herself for the prior participant.
Here, as in-River Bend, Petitioner is attempting to pursue the same issues which the prior par-ticipant had advanced.
Here, as in River Bend, Peti-tioner's good cause assertion amounts to no more than that she was " lulled into inaction" by the presence of another participant in this proceeding.
Further, wh'en Petitioner authorized SEACA and Julian McPhillips'to represent her interests in this 4
i
ok
- p 'g)49 o
T23i>
k//
{fl '"e(g)f>
/////
- ew, P/* 4
'N
'Wlf, ${
g/gf' i,l IMAGE EVALUATION NN TEST TARGET (MT-3)
I l.0 lll?
e ol;2 EA p"
C na l,l
'bb
" I.8 ll 1.25 14 1.6 4
6" i
g) 4
+A klY'N kpbk}f4 s,,//
y
f bhj/
.iRlN N'
'O Q
\\R////llf' 4P,g*k h
E*
f/
pie ge N'kN IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)
\\.0 l? m Eh 5 ((f lEl I.I
[*EM p8 l.25
'IA 4l 1.6
,ii i
4 go
?
I i
y si, u9 4
W/
V
proceeding (see discussion, supra, p.
),
Petitioner assumed the risk that.SEACA's involvement in this pro-ceeding might not fulfill her expectations in much the same manner as the petitioner in Cherokee assumed the risk that the state's involvement in that proceeding would not live up to her expectations.
A foreseeable consequence in the present proceeding was that it would no longer be possible for Petitioner to undertake indi-vidually the vindication of her alleged interests.5 Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain that her in-terests are not being fully represented by SEACA or that she was " lulled" by the Allred intervention into allegedly failing to intervene herself.
This is especially true since Petitioner admits she has been familiar with this licensing proceeding since at least April, 1980, two months before intervention petitions were due to be filed.
Thus, Petitioner has not met the good cause factor under 5 2.714 (a) (1) (i) for her untimely filing of the Inter-vention Petition.
As discussed below, the interests asserted in the Inter-vention Petition of Donelson and the interests asserted in the affidavit signed by Donelson in connection with the SEACA Amended Petition are substantially identical.
C.
The Commission has ruled that a late petitioner has a " substantial burden" in justifying tardiness, and that "the burden of justifying intervention on the basis of the other factors in the rule [S 2.714(a)] is consid-erably greater where the latecomer has no good excuse."
In re Nuclear Fuel Services, Irc. (West Valley Reorocess-ing Plant), 1 NRC 273, 275, CLI 75-4 (1975).
In the instant proceeding, Petitioner cannot carry her substantial burden of demonstrating that the other four factors to be considered by the Board in ruling on the untimely Interven-tion Petition weigh heavily in her favor.
In fact, those factors weigh strongly against permitting such a late inter-vention.
First, Petitioner did not address the issue of the availability of other neans whereby her interests may be protected (S 2.714 (a) (1) (ii) ).
Second, Petitioner does not specifically address how her participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, although Petitioner alleges that she has provided assistance to Allred in the past.
While a prospective intervenor need not be an expert in order to meet this factor in justifying his or her late intervention, In re Sou h Carolina Electric and Gas Co. __
(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), 7 NRC 200, LBP-78-6-(1978), a potential late intervenor mus show reasonable expectation of rendering significant assist-ance to the Board.
As noted by the Appeal Board in the Cherokee case, suora, 6 NRC at 645:
"Given the present posture of the pro-ceeding, the Licensing Board would have been warranted in allowing their inter-vention only upon the most convincing showing that their participation at this late date would make a significant con-tribution
. Such a showing has not been made.
To the contrary, although their sincerity is beyond question, there is nrShing before us to indicate that either petitioner possesses (or has at her disposal) any expert knowledge which might be brought to bear upon one or more of the concerns which their peti-tions set forth."
Petitioner in the Intervention Petition has not shown any way 'in which she wil1 be useful in developing tbe record in this proceeding.
In fact, based upon Westinghouse's review of the, contentions asserted by Allred, which Petitioner desires to assume and which Peti-tiener claims to have assisted in preparing, it appears that Petitioner's presence in this proceeding and assump-tion of those contentions will only confuse the record and not add to its sound development.
For example, one Allred proposed contention states that the safety of the proposed facility will be inadequate to protect health
or minimize danger to health and property because "[t]he walls will be.used for shiciding, based on Westinghouse's t
assumption of normal incidence, whi'.e most accidents are not normal incidents. " - This contention is nonsensical' and demonstrates fundamental ignorance of the meaning of the word " incidence" as used with reference to nuclear technology.
The Westinghouse assumption of normal inci-dance'in connection sith shielding is an assumption related to the angle of approach of the atomic radiations as they impact on the shielding wall.
The third criterion to be considered is the extent to which Petitioner's interests will be represented by existing parsi : in this proceeding.
As demonstrated in Part I, supra, Petitioner, a member of SEACA, previously has represented to this Board.under oath. that SEACA, its president and other officers, "will well represent her interests," and Petitioner authorized and designated SEACA to speak on behalf of those interests.
Although Petitioner now claims that SEACA has not presented every issue which
- she believes should be presented, Petitioner fails to specify any interests - that are not being protected by SEACA.
A com-parison of..the interests alleged by Donelson in Exhibit II i
to the SEACA Amended Petition with die interests alleged in-the Intervention Petition now before this Board demonstrates f
4 1
.m.
tha t those interests are substantially identical.
For example, the first interest alleged in Exhibit II to the Intervention Petition is that Petitioner lives and works in close proximity to the proposed facility - an allega-tion identical to the first interest alleged in paragrcph 5(a) (p. 1) of the Intervention Petition.
In a similar man-ner, each of the other five interest allegations set forth in Exhibit II of the SEACA Amended Petition is copied almos t verbatim in the Intervention Petition.
The only additional claicts of interest in the Intervention Petition are that Petitioner's use of recreational facilities would be asfected by the discharge of radio ctive materia) s into tre environment by the proposed facility.
This appar-ent additional interest claim represents a distinction without a difference since it is encompassed by the broad assertions of interest in Exhibit II, such as the claim of being affected by any release of radioactive materials into the environment and by the claim that enjoyment of Petitioner's property may be affected by the proposal.
Thus, Petitioner has not shown any interest not already protected by SEACA in the instant proceeding.
The final criterion to be considered by the Board in ruling on the untimely Intervention Petition is the extent to which Petitioner's participation would broaden e4 48 t
1 i
the issues or delay the proceeding.
Although Petitioner makes the conclusory statement that no prejudice will
. result from her -intervention and that the interests of all
~ parties and the residents of Central Alabama will be bene-fited (Intervention Petition, p. 4), this allegation fails to specifically address t..m matters of broadening issues or delaying the proceeding.
In the Substitution Motion, Petitioner attempts to take over the contentions of Allred.
To a large extent the contentions of Allred are encompassed within or closely related to the montentions of SEACA.
The similarities are so prevalent that Westinghouse has plans to file at an appropriate time a motion for consolidation of the Allred contentions with those of SEACA.
The continued presence of. the Allred contentions under the sponsorship of Petitioner thus will delay this proceeding.
6Some prejudice already has occurred.
Representatives of Westinghouse and the NRC. Staff met with Allred in Mont-gomery, Alabama, on one occasion and reviewed with him certain of his proposed contentions.
A second meeting was set up to complete the review process.
Representa-tives of Westinghouse and the ' NRC. Staf f went to Mont-gomery, Alabama, a second time to meet with Allred as well as SEACA.
During the meetings with SEACA, Westing-house and the NRC Staff were advised by telephone that Allred would be. withdrawing his contentions and, there-fore, there.would be no purpose in meeting with Allred to review those contentions.
Accordingly, no. discussion of the majority of Allred's contentions was ever~under-taken in an ef fort to arrive at an understanding of those contentions and a stipulation concerning their wording and admissibility.
If Donelson is permitted to substitute for Allred, the matter of reviewing those contentions would.
again have to be addressed.
- t. [.
CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, Westinghouse re-spectfully requests this Board.to deny the Intervention Petition and so much of the Substitution Motion as would permit Donelson to substitute for Allred as a party.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barton Z. Cowan
/s/ John R.
Kenrick/BZC Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott i
/s/ Donald R. Marcucci/BZC Law Department Westinghouse Electric Corporation Dated:
November 24, 1980.
.s
.g 1
3ITORI THE U.S. NOCLIAR RZ30*.ATORY 00M."*SSICN OTT CI 0F ::OC* ZAR."A IRIA* SATI"Y A'TO SA!!GUAROS-0 */:S 0': OF T7IL CY LI A'TO MA~IRIAL 3 Air"Y i
ORAN: M TUIL L 0ZNSING 3r APPLICA* ION of Westinghouse Iloctric C:rporatica for's Special Nu= lear Material
-
- OOCZZ" NC.
70-2909 License for the Alaba=a Nuclear Fuel Tabrication Plant to be located near prattville, Alabama 4
AMI't0E0 ?I-:TICN FCR ; N/I -'c IN*IRv!NI ANO.EQCEST TCt A MIARING
~
Comes now the Petitiener, The Safe Inergy Alliance of Central t
{
Alabama, In:. [ hereinafter 'SIACA") and nereby files tnis amended 1
petiticn for leave to intervene in the above-styled and numbered proceeding and states unto this Honorable Co==ission as follows:
1 1.
One petitioner is a duly-incorporated non-profit corpcration, having beer. properly incorpcrated in the Office of the Jcdge of Probate Montgomery County, Alabama on June 10, 1980.
2.
The petitioner nas been authorized by 18 of its members to represent them in opposing the const uction and operation by
' Westingho se Ilectric Corporation of a nuclear fuel f abrication plant to le located near Prattville, Alabama. All-such members have cogn;zable interests as more specifically stated in Exhibits I and II attached he eto and incorporatec herein. One sat of said se=hers, consisting c ! 10 in number, have previously filed individual petitions io intervene on April 7, 1980 and by the pleading embodied in Ixhibit I have authorized and designated SIACA to represent its c=mmon interests in the above-styled proceeding.
- ne second set of said members, censisting of 8 in number, have not previously filed individual petitions but all of said
=e bers snare.he same cer: mon interests of the first set of members, and all have duly authorized and designated SIACA t represent their interests. See Ixhibit II attached nerato.
i 3.
All of tne indiv %t=1
-=- d *.--- ~ '
.d DUPLICATE DOCUMENT
~
work in the. -
- t e
'-t Entire document previously 13'e eles, p entered into syster,under:
$ON \\ NDb ANO k
d No. of Pages:
2 7,
r-----'
.~
-t-
._ - a eh '
- S p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ' ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. 70-2909 (Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant Special Nuclear Material License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
I hereby certify that copies of the." Answer of Westinghouse Elec.tric Corporation to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Cathalynn Donelson" were served upon the persons liste~ on Attachment 1 to this Certificate of Ser'Jice hf deposit in the United States. Mail (First Class), postage prepaid, this 24 th day o f November, 19 8 0.
/s/ Barton Z. Cowan l
Barton Z. Cowan t
Counsel for Westinghous; Electric Corporation I
I
ATTACHMENT 1 John F. Wolf, Esquire, Chairman Ms. Cathalynn Donelson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 855 Park Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Montgomery, Alabama 36106 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Ira L. Myers State Health Officer Dr. Harry Foreman, Member State of Alabama Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Public Health B: - 395, Mayo State Office Building University of Minnesota Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -Panel i
Dr. Martin J. Steindler, Member U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20555 Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Argonne, Illinois 60439 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Barton ". Cowan, Esquire Eckert, Seamans, Cherin &.Mellott Docketing & Service Section 42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street O(fice of the Secretary Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Donald R.
Marcucci, Esquire Law Department
. Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 64 516 South Perry Street Monrgomery Alabama 36101 Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 David L. Allred, Esquire 231 Oak Forest Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36109
-