ML20031B257
| ML20031B257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1981 |
| From: | Conner J, Conner T, Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110010116 | |
| Download: ML20031B257 (7) | |
Text
/
<p,M %~
~
\\
6 qq@mD utNEO.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
3Ng g% P 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s twwt ~
~
I.....*.rJ, & Suf.08
[
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Boe$ b s 'cEp. l g.
In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company )
Docket Nos. 50-353@p 50-352
)
f j,.'
(Limerick Generating Station, )
(
Units 1 and 2)
)
i OL -(
-2 SEP30 ggggh z b'
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO
' Qe emuno,
CHARLES '7UCE T7YLOR PETITION TO INTERVENE s
Preliminary Statement
,.n 7,myi o
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 Fac3:.ity 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 Charles Bruce Taylor, dated August 26, 1981.-2/
,1, For the reasons discussed more fully below, petitioner
+,
has failed to state the requisite personal interest for intervention in an NRC proceeding.
Nor has petitioner identified the " aspect or aspects of the subject matter 3
NO s
_1_/
46 Fed. Reg. 42557 (August 21, 1981).
1[
2/
Although the petition was so dated, it was not served upon the Applicant as required by the Nr,tice.
The petition was forwarded to the Applicant by the Office of the Se:retary and received on September 16, 1981.
0110010116 810925 PDR ADOCK 05000332 PDR g
of the proceeding" intended to be pursued.
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. 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.
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 "ident.4 -
fiable 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 herein.
Rather than furnish the Licensing Board with repeti-tive pleadings, Applicant hereby incorporates and respectfully refers the Board to its answer to the Lewis petition for a I
statement of the additional authorities upon which it relies 2/
~
in opposing the instant petition.
While petitioner states that he lives within five miles of the Limerick plant, his statement that the-instant
--2/
Petitioner herein has been served a copy of Applicant's answer to the Lewis petition.
r m.,.... _. ~,,,. _ _. - - -, _,. - _ _.,, - - - _... _.,., _ _ _, _ _,.., _ _, _ _ _, _,., _,,
proceeding directly affects the personal safety of his family, his property value and the welfare of his community is the kind of glaring generality which will not suffice to show the particularized " injury in fact" necessary for standing.
Indeed, petitioner himself asserts that his personal interests in the proceeding are indistinguishable from those shared in substantially equal measure by all or 3/
a large class of the public.
Such a generalized interest fails to "show a distinct and palpable harm" to petitioner,--4/
and fails to show how petitioner "will or might be injured in fact by one or more of the possible outcomes of the 5/
proceeding."--
Further, petitioner has failed to designate with the required specificity the " aspect or aspecus of the subject 6/
matter of the proceeding"-
in which his..nterest lies.
The
--3/
Thus, petitioner states that he is concerned about "the welfare of the community in which we live" and "PECO's relationship and responsibility to the surrounding communities in the Limerick area," in-cluding the " unorganized citizenry" which petitioner purports to represent.
^
Ri
_4/
Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977).
5/
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site),
ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 740 (1978).
_6/
10 C.".R.
- 52. 714 (a) (2).
1
.)
aspect which petitioner has designated is "PECO's relation-ship and responsibility to the surrounding communities in the Limerick area."-7/
Even if the designated aspect were to be construed as limited to statutes within the jurisdiction of the Commis-sion, the Licensing Board in Midland has held that the specification of the requisite " aspect" should be " narrower 8/
than a general reference to [the NRC's] operating statutes."~~
Petitioner's vague allusion to PECO's " relationship and responsibility to the surrounding communities" obviously fails to meet even this minimum requirement for specificity.
_7/
Obviously, the Licensing Board lacks jurisdiction to review PECO's activities insofar as they are subject to State regulatory bodies and other federal agencies with whom regulatory authority is not shared.
See Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy 2 ark, Unit 1), ALAB-464, 7 NRC 372, 375 (1978);
Cleveland Electrical Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 74 8 (1977).
Since the subject matter al-leged in petitioner's designated aspect is not "within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the notice of hearing," it is invalid.
See 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).
--8/
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
. Conclusion For the reasons more fully discussed above, petitioner has failed to satisfy + he requirements for intervention of establishing a personal. interest in the outcome of the proceeding and designating those aspects in which he has such an 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
^
Troy B. Conner, Jr.
V Mark J. Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N,W.
- -w w Washington, D.C.
20006 202/833-3500 F.',
Counsel for Applicant g
September 25, 1981 i
~
~
a-' ' I Qg \\
Y
- M
- 'c,73
\\\\
l' J
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E;J J 193{
~~
cud. y e...
27
'l L
L.; "t --
.,-c:
3'~"'"
d 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 Charles Bruce Taylor Petition to Intervene," in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 25th day of September, 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.
Rosenthal,~Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Satety and Chairman, Atomic SL'.ty 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 l
Board Ihiladelphia, Pennsy3vania 19101 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory f
Commission Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20565 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 i
Commission i
Washington, D.C.
205E5
.~. _ _, _. _.,... ~
e j i
l Mr. Charles Bruce Taylor l
24 West Tenth Avenue Collegeville, PA 19426
- 4
.3
_r,
(k-j Robert M.
Rader Counsel for the Applicant i
4
..s,.
i
- ,'.a s
i
'1 l
l' I
T d
n
.