ML20031A939
| ML20031A939 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1981 |
| From: | Conner T, Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109280413 | |
| Download: ML20031A939 (10) | |
Text
~
f.
q a
s 7
3 h
l1.%
C}
'yg (BEP2 3 ggy, y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Qg
=
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sg Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar k
N
/'N I G'f In the Matter of
)
\\
(9
)
9/ldS'1
,? '
".p g
5 0 t 3 5 2'r Q @t g Philadelphia Electric Company )
Docket Nos.
50-353y;g
)
ly 3
ts #
(Limerick Generating Station
)
7 Units 1 and 2)
)
\\p 4{ g C 9.i e i g6 APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO FRANK I.
ROMANO AND AIR ANDe d
WATER POLLUTION PATROL PETITION TO INTERVENE On August 21, 1981 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(" Commission" or "NRC") published a notice in the Federal 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 Frank I.
Romano, on behalf of himself, his family and as Chairman of the Air and Water Pollution Patrol
("AWWP").
The affidavits of four members of A%WP were attached in support of the petition.
Also attached was a statement of proposed contentions.
QSC)3 j
46 Fed. Reg. 42557 (August 21, 1981).
Ill 8109280413 81'o918 gDRADOCK 05000352 PDR
2 For the reasons discussed more fully below, petitioners have failed to state the requisite personal interest for intervention in an NRC proceeding.
Nor have petitioners identified the " aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding" which they wish to pursue.
Accordingly, the petition should be denied.
Argument Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, a petition to intervene in a licensing proceeding may be granted only if the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S S 2. 714 (a) (2 ) and (d) have been satisfied.
In essence, the regulations require the petitioner to state his Jpecific 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 the necessary particularization of an
" identifiable interest" in a licensing proceeding, includ-ing 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 peti-tioners Romano and AWWP herein.
Rather than furnish the Licensing Board with duplicative pleadings, Applicant hereby incorporates and respectfully refers the Board to its answer to the Lewis petition for a full statement of 1
the authorities upon which it relies in opposing the
_2_/
instant petition.
While petitioner Romano states that he lives within 3/
20 miles of the Limerick site, --
his petition is essen-tially a generalized statement of health and safety con-cerns shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of the public.
Thus, petitioner states that both he and the organization he intends to represent are l
" concerned with the adverse effects of nuclear reactor 4/
operation." --
Likewise, petitioner's concern over "the adverse community impact which the Limerick generating station will have on our lives, our peace of mind, our homes, our land, our water and the produce of our land l
and water" fails to demonstrate any particularized interest 5/
in the proceeding.
The petition therefore lacks a statement of the requisite personal interest necessary for intervention in an NRC proceeding.
The attached statements of AWWP members are even more nonspecific.
l
--2/
Petitioners herein have been served a copy of Appli-cant's answer to the Lewis petition.
3/
Of the four affiants who have furnished statements i
~~
i in support of the petition for AWWP, one persen states that he lives within 20 miles of the reactor.
One of the affidavits is illegible.
The other,two affidavits do not state proximity to the facility as a basis for intervention, but rather rely upon the l
use of water from the Schuylkill River at the affiant's home or office.
l
_4/
Romano petition at 1.
5/
Id. at 2.
. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. ~. _ _ _ _ _.. _ -., _ -. _., _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ -. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _
4-Further, petitioners have failed to designate with the required specificity the " aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding" --6/ in which their interest lies.
The text of the petition itself is simply a generalized statement of health and safety concerns.
As the Board stated in the Midland proceeding, the requirements for properly designating such " aspects" are unclear but likely 7/
-~
" narrower than a general reference to our operating statutes."
Further, as the Licensing Board stated in the TMI-l (Restart) proceeding, any subject matter alleged as an aspect must be "within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the 8/
notice of hearing."
To the extent that the proposed contentions may be deemed to express petitioners' designated
" aspects," many of the matters are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board and therefore fail to satisfy even.the minimal
_6/
10 C.F.R.
- 52. 714 (b).
_7/
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
_8/
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 6).
w-w_,..g w
,7--._,.p%.
p
_r_
w,--
,.y
%%.e fy,
-gv
.,,c7,,,,,e- -
-,-.y
-,y.,_,,
,,w._,,,y.,,.-my,,.y,
requirements. --9/
9/
Thus, Contention A relates to "[n]ormal routine radio-active releases" and is therefore an unauthorized challenge to the Commission's regulations under 10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 50, Appendix I.
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), Docket No. STN-50-482, "Special Prehearing Con-ference Order" (June 3, 1981) (slip opinion at 8).
Contention B, expressing concern over a possible terrorist attack or sabotage from within is also a challenge to the Commission's regulations because terrorist attacks are excluded from consideration under 10 C.F.R. 550.13 and no measures for plant physical security beyond those contained in 10 C.F.R. Part 73 may be required.
See Pennsylvania Power &
i Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 324-25 (1979).
As for Contention C, consideration of alternative l
site selection at the operating license stage is precluded, absent exceptional circumstances not l
pleaded here, under the new Appendix A to 10 C.F.R.
l Part 51.
See 46 Fed. Reg. 28630 (May 28, 1981).
Contention E appears to be a challenge to newly adopted safety regulations.
Such a frontal assault on the validity of the regulations is clearly beyond the scope of this proceeding.
So ara petitioners'
" constitutional rights" alleged in Contention F.
Although some of the general subjects within the
" contentions" may be cognizable in this proceeding, petitioners have nonetheless fciled to designate the
" specific aspect or aspects" of -these matters which particularly concern them.
It is submitted that more than an oblique reference to " construction problems,"
for example, is required under 10 C.F.R. 52. 714 (a) (2) in designating a specific aspect of the proceeding.
Conclusion For the reasons more fully discussed above, peti-tieners have failed to satisfy the requirements of estab-lishing a personal interest in the outcome of the proceed-ing and designating those aspects in which petitioner has such an interest.
Accordingly, the petition to intervene should be denied.
If however, the petition is granted, petitioner Romano should be designated as the sole spokes-man, unless counsel is obtained,with respect to any pre-sentations to the Board, including limited appearances.
Respectfully submitted CONNER & WETTERHAHN l
f-GN
~),
Troy onner, Jr.
l l
Mark J. Wetterhahn l
Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 202/833-3500 1
Counsel for the Applicant September 18, 1981
~
,--e e r,.
,w.,
-,y
,t--7
e, e v e--c
-re-,
--i -- -
a-y y
UNITED STATES O'F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to Frank I. Romano and Air and Water Pollution Patrol Petition to Intervene," in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 18th day of September, 1981.
Judge Lawrence J.
Brenner Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Appeal Board i
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 l
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
Conclusion For the reasons more fuliy discussed above, peti-tioners have failed to satisfy the requireraents of estab-lishing a personal interest in the outcome of the proceed-ing and designating those aspects in which petitioner has such an interest.
Accordingly, the petition to intervene should be denied.
If however, the petition is granted, petitioner Romano should be designated as the sole spokes-man, unless counsel is obtained,with respect to any pre-sentations to the Board, including limited appearances.
Respectfully submitted CONNER & WETTERHAHN f-7.
l Troy onner, Jr.
l Mark J. Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20006 202/833-3500 i
Counsel for the Applicant l
l September 18, 1981 l
l
h w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEP 2 1 193,, ';,
3s C. bey gk!e.We 8/
i In the Matter of ro 50-352\\qr PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
Docket Nos.
e
)
50-353 V$/
(Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to Frank I. Romano and Air and Water Pollution Patrol Petition to Intervene,' in the captioned matter have been served upon the follrwing by deposit in the United States mail this 18th day of September, 1981.
Judge Lawrence J.
Brenner Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission cashington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Judge Peter A. Morris Eugene J.
Bradley, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 2301 Market Street l
i Board Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 l
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 l
Commission Mr. Chase R.
Stephens, Chief Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary l
Paul b.
Cotter, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
2-
' Mr. Frank'R. Romano 61 Forest. Avenue Abimer, PA 19002 n1 i
Robert M. Rader i
l Counsel' for the Applicant l
o i
l i
i
.I -
i i
l 1
I i
4 i
1 e
i I
i.
.i.
,+vnnn--e n -
.e e,n _.
,--,-w,-
eme,ww.r-aee,~~w~
~ ~-..
e.,w w,.,- m v.
.,A..
.