ML20011A370

Answer Opposing J Shniper 810921 Petition to Intervene. Petitioner Failed to State Requisite Personal Interest or to Identify Specific Aspect of Subj Matter of Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20011A370
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	10/06/1981
From:	Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8110090363
Download: ML20011A370 (9)

Text

e4 )g-r . s, \ M1 I w.,. ,

g -

c:G.~f.',@,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O ,l gggj y -3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6; OCT C Offktd%.

ncW.v"'"'

. ~r Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa f ,/

In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) t-[l.9/ /,

APPLICAFT'S ANSWER TO JOHN ,

1 SHNIPER PETITION TO INTERVENE '

0CT 8193;n Preliminary Statement '\ " Wf'garoes On August 21, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory h /Commiss' Y/ if f

(" Commission" or "NRC") published a notice in the'TeNer& al Register entitled " Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Receipt of Application for Facility Operating Licenses; Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating Licenses; Availability of Applicant's 1/

Environmental Report; and Opportunity for Hearing" (" Notice"). -

In response to the Notice, a petition for intervention was filed by John Shniper, dated Septr$f 1, 1981. For the reasons discussed more fully belcw, petitioner has failed to state the requisite personal interest rir inter-vention in an NRC proceeding. Nor has petitioner identified, as required, the " specific aspect or aspects of the subject t)503 J/ 46 Fed. Reg. 42557 (August 21, 1977). S

//

8110090363 811006 PDR ADOCK 05000352 l 0 PDR

v. .

1 i_f. -

matter of the proceeding" intended to be pursued. Accord-ingly, the petition should.be denied.

Argument Under the Cpmmission's Rules of Practice, a petition to intervene in a licensing proceeding may be granted only if the requirements of_10 C.F.R. SS2. 714 (a) (2) and (d) have been satisfied. In essence, the regulations require the petitioner to state his specific interest in the proceeding and explain how that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

In response to the petition of Marvin I. Lewis to intervene in this proceeding, Applicant has stated its position as to thc necessary particularization of an identifiable interest in a licensing proceeding, including an explanation of how that interest would be affected by any given outcome in the proceeding. This position is equally applicable to the generalized statements of petitioner Shniper herein.

Rather than furnish the Licensing Board with repetitive pleadings, Applicant hereby incorporates and respectfully refers the Board to its answer to the Lewis petition for a statement of the additional authorities upon which it relies 2/

in opposing the instant petition.-~

Petitioner states that he lives within 10 miles and works within 4 miles of the Limerick facility. His expressed 2/ Petitioner 'serein has been served a copy of Appli-cant's answer to the Lewis petition.

, -o y<s 3-concerns,-however, relate. chiefly to econorde matters and i

l' only_ peripherally to safety, which itself.is addressed only in the abstract. Thus, petitioner states his belief that "the overall safety and soundness of the Limerick operation

- will be a natural casualty of the probable future economic 3/-

circumstances"- of the Limerick plant. Petitioner also states that he is concerned with Applicant's allegedly l " highly unstable and questionable financial base,"--4/

i which petitioner believes will cause the Limerick plant "to become a drain upon the public welfare and to require sub-l stantial intervention by public bodies in terms of various l forms of public ' bailouts' including loan guarantees and l

subsidies so that said installation will not become an active hazard in terms of operating ef ficiency and safety to the residents of the area potentially [a] ffected by the 5/

Limerick nuclear generating station."

It is therefore clear that the interests identified by petitioner are limited to matters which concern Applicant's customers and potential customers as a whole, i.e., the reliable production of electrical power and related economic questions. Such interests therefore fail to "show a 6/

l distinct and palpable harm"- to petitioner. Rather, they i

_3/ Shniper petition at 2.

4/ Id. at 1.

5/ Id. at 2.

l 6/ Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977),

citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).

s.

4 g ,

7/

express only a " generalized grievance" based on interests shared by all of Applicant's customers or;other members of the general public. In these circumstances, petitioner has not " identified, let alone particularized, any specific injury that [he] . . . would or might sustain," but merely seeks intervention "in order to vindicate broad public 8/

interests said to be of particular concern" to him.--

It is wel' established that the interests of ratepayers are not within the " zone of interests" which may serve as a 9/ -

basis for intervention in NRC proceedings.-- It is equally well recognized that a debate over the wisdom or economics of_ nuclear power in general lies beyond the scope of a reactor licensing proceeding inasmuch as these issues are 4

7/ Id.

~~ 8/ Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) , ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 741 (1978).

~~

9/ Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 (1976); Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-582, 11 NRC 239, 243 n.8 (1980); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-17, 5 NRC 657, 659 (1977), aff'd, ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1147 (1977); Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289 (Restart),

" Memorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (September 21, 1979)

(slip opinion at 7).

g- .,

.y.ot within _ the jurisdiction of the Board. --10/

~

Although the petition is unclear as to the precise personal interest asserted, the broad economic issues discussed certainly fail to establish a cognizable, perso.nal interest on the part of petitioner in this proceeding.

Further, petitioner has failed to designate with the required specificity the " aspect or aspects of the subject 11/

matter of the proceeding"- in which his interest lies. As noted, the broad economic issues raised by petitioner are

,not "within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the 12/

notice of hearing,"- and are therefore inappropriate as designated " aspects." Petitioner's generalized concerns regarding Applicant's managerial competence are simply too unfocused to satisfy the requirement that specific aspects

--10/ The Appeal-Board has held that licensing boards "are not authorized . . . to require an applicant to accept or reject an alternative solely on the basis of its economic costs" because this is a business judgment for the applictat. . Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 48 (1976). See also Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 (1978); Portland General Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979); Vircinia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Statior, Units 1 and 2 ) , ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 456 (19'n'. ,

11/ 10 C.F.R. S2. 714 (a) (2) .

12/ Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) , Docket No. 50-289

( Res tart) , " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (September 21, 1979) (slip opinion at 6) .

1

-- -- , , - - 4.-.y -,..-*t *+v+ c --m --7*--- - * + -

U &-

W ,

6-i;

'be designated.- Similarly, petitioner's vague references to plant safety are insufficient.because they are not " narrower-than - a general reference to ' [the NRC'st operating statutes. "

Also,.given the standing requirements discussed above, all aspects alleged by petitioner, includingLany contentions t

thereunder, must necessarily be limited to the demonstrated

" injury in fact," if any.

Conclusion

, For the reasons more ' fully discussed above, petitioner l-shas failed to satisfy the requirements of establishing a personal interest in the outcome of the proceeding and.

l designating those aspects in which petitioner has such an 13/- Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and

~~

2),.LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278-(1978). Petitioner makes a passing reference to " financial qualifica-tions" and " decommissioning" but does not identify

" specific aspects" of these subjects he wishes to pursue. Significantly, the Commissioners stated in Seabrook that there has never been "any demon-strated direct connection between financial qualifi-cations and safety in the utility industry," adding that "recent experience does not suggest that a utility short of funds will cut corners on sa fety. " Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 18-19 (1978), aff'd sub nom. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v.

NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978). The Commission re-stated this position in its notice of a proposed rule which, in one version, would eliminate consideration of financial qualifications, including decommissioning costs, at the operating license stage. See 46 Fed.

Reg. 41786 (August 18, 1981). In light of the Com-mission's stated views, the requirement for designating

" specific enpects" of any matters pertaining to finan-cial qualitications is even more compelling.

I I

a interest. Accordingly, the petition to intervene should be denied. Applicant has no objection, however, to a limited appearance by petitioner pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2. 715 (a) .

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN O

Troy

/h:r [. M .\

onner, Jr.

Mark J. etterhahn Robert'M. Rader Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 200;,S 202/833-3500 Counsel for the Applicant Octobe,r 6, 1981 l

l l

l

c e , ~

@ , ~

N J ..

k s

4,

\:a F1 q GEA 7 t _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA oti gy? F" gpt Q' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q) 6 In the Matter of N #

)

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Noc. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, }

Units 1 and 2) t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to John Shniper Petition to Intervene," in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by ceposit in the United States mail this 6th day of October, 1981. A copy of Applicant's answer to the Marvin I. Lewis petition has also been' served on petitioner.

Judge Lawrence J. Brenner Alan S. Rcsenrnat, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairr.an , Accmic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Judge. Peter A. Morris Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 2301 Market Street Board Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director Judge Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Chase R. Stephens, Chief Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary Paul B. Cotter, Jr., Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SA .

5:  : .

2-

-John Shniper, Esq.

Hy.Mayerson, P.C.

Meeting House Law. Bldg. &

. Gallery' Mennonite' Church Road Schuylkill Road (Rt. 724)

Spring City,, Pennsylvania 19474 i

Robeft M. ~Rader Counsel for the Applicant i

i I

i

- - - . - _ . . - - . . s_. , ,-,.

-, , - . . , . ,_ . . . _ . . - _ . . . , - . , , , - - _ , . - - . , . - - , . . - -