ML20031B360
| ML20031B360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1981 |
| From: | Conner T, Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110010275 | |
| Download: ML20031B360 (9) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DOCKDED
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MEO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEP2 8198l > q Mc Cf the Se:retary WMng & serg:e d
Before the Atomic-Safety and Licensing Boar Eg j
Cn In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company )
Docket Nos. 50-35,(W8 I
)
50-35 (Limerick Generating Station, )
['
Units 1 and 2)
)
SEP3 o 1981w -$-
3 v.s.mEdd@%
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO cc WILLIAM A. LOCHSTET PETITION TO INTERVENh, Preliminary Statement On August 21, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(" Commission" or "NRC") published a notice in the Faderal 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 William A. Lochstet, dated September 18, 1981.
For the reasons discussed more fully below, petitioner herein has failed to state the recuisite personal interest for ir.tervention in an NRC proceeding.
Nor has petitioner identified the " specific aspect or aspects of the subject 503 9
1/
46 Fed. Reg. 42557 (August 21, 1981).
l f
9110010275 810925 PDR ADOCK 05000352 o
PDR~
Accord-matter of the proceeding" intended to be pursued.
ingly, the petition should be denied.
Argument f Practice.e. a petition to,-
3
...;. ;..g...Under.,.the. ;Commi.ssion.,. R,,ugas..o
's
. intervene in a licensing proceeding may be granted only if
. p.j the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 552. 714 (a) (2) ar.d (d) have the regulations require the been satisfied.
In essence, petitioner to state his specific interest in the proceeding
'and explaib'hok that inteiest'ida'y.~be AEfecte'd'b'y the outcome".
~ ' : 1. a -. : +: 4
~-o'**
'~
, r... a :.
- s... f..q... 6.
.,.., r -
~
.e In response to the petition of Marvin I. Lewis to s.,
intervene in this proceeding, Applicant has discussed the decisions of the Appeal Board which have apparently accepted
.s -
-i i
a petitioner's geographic proximity to a facility as a bas s D
9 or at least a presumed basis for intervention in a licensing A
Ed Because petitioner herein states that he lives proceeding.
he falls outside the 50-120 miles from the Limerick plant, mile line of demarcation generally accepted by the boards 2/
~
in this line of cases.
I-Thus, the Appeal Board in Dairyland Power Cocperative I
(1978),
(Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor), ALAB-497, 8 NRC 312 sustained the Licensing Board's denial. of intervention where (Watts Bar
Uni.ts 1 and 2),
Nuclear Plant, The 50-mile proximity limitation 1421 n.4 (1977).
for standing was most recently acknowledged by the Appeal Board in Cleveland Electric IlluminatingUnits 1 and 2),
Company _ (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,50-440 - and 50-441, " M Scheduling Prehearing Conference Regarding Petitions (A Docket -Nos.
for Intervention"
. ~
The petitioners resided 75 miles beyond the facility.
decisions of several licensing boards have followed suit.
In Blue Hills, the Board held that petitioner's residence
- pprox2.ma.tely*el.4 0. miles.. fr.om. tha. y a..r 414 t,.y;. was. "'too
.g.
f
'* 5, ;~,' ge. > *..
.s,s, b-
?.
......."e a
,,v.*
.,s
_..y'.
..% :.'.p, constitute.an. adequate: geographic zone bf interest for.
3/
intervention purposes." -
And in denying intervention to petitioners who resided 75 and 90 miles from the facility, the Board in TMI-l (Restart) stated the basic principle as
'W*
- w. -
- ^ * % -
' ~ ' '
W"
- s'. 'W.4
' gggg..
w
.. c t r;.. V %. ; ' M. '.S p., *..: -.sy.., c. :r,
.;/.i.
- & M; q.
- :.
The governing rule is that a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure h
by all or a large class of citi-zens is normally not cognizable as standing to participate.
Warth v. Seldin, [422 U.S.
- 490, 499 (1975)]..
J/.
And in the Callaway proceeding, the Licensing Board
~
2 likewise found that distances of 70 and 75 miles were "not within the proximity which has been recognized heretofore as within the geographic zone of interests that might be. 5/
affected by accidental releases of ' fission products.'"-
W
!?
g$1:
(Blue Hills Station, 3/
Gulf State ; Utilities Company Docket Nos. STN 50-510 and STN 50-511, Units 1 and 2),
" Order Denying Petition for Leave to Intervene" (December 27, 1978) (slip opinion at 2).
4/
Metropolitan Edison Comoany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289 (Restart), " Memo-
~~~
randum and Order Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (September 21, 1979) (slip opinion The Board added thac "(petitioner's: concerns are at 7).
genuine but they are shared by a very large portion of the I_d. at 20.
d population."
_5_/
Union Electrical Comoany (Callaway Plant, Unit 1),
Docket Nos. STN 50-483 and STN.50-486, " Memorandum and Order" (February 5,1981) (slip opinion at 6-8).
l 4-Finally, in Davis-Besse the Licensing Board held that a petitioner who resided 84 miles from the plant and worked 73 6/
~
miles away had not demonstrated. standing.
K. - -.1..c y r.e4.;g -A.'
,5 3 cag p%
onert,s.spanda.ng. ge,.; estab.}ished hy. the..
4 p
g
......,...; n-s facti.that he. s'ometimes. may/ travel nearby the f aci]ity and "have occasion to breath the air in the vicinity of the 7/
plant." -
Nearby travel is an activity common to the general public and clearly not a particularized interest sufficient
't'o"ftisti~fy in'terYEnthon'.7 N 't fB' 5t5 d.E 5'of pioceeAidg,
~
h e
4 y.e1'i 54 A r.i. WQ:y.t '_%.'M r '@~' N.*4N<
' ; w 't. ~& N: Y.' !
2-%~~
M:: ' ; % *
&. y, m ::': :.
,a.
Appeal Board sustained the denial of intervention where petitioner similarly resided 125 miles from the nuclear plant'.and claimed that. she.'mhds occasional visitis 'nearbj.
The Appeal Board agreed with the. Licensing Board's finding that such an interest was " remote" and insufficient for 8/
standing.
As the Licensing Board in Callaway more recently stated, "where the involvement is intermittant [ sic] or irregular, the potentiel harm becomes too speculative and 9/
yemote."..to. permit. intervention.
Petitionerchas.therefore a.
e c.
_6/
Toledo Edison Comoany (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit.No. 1), Docket No. 50-346 " Memorandum and Ordir Denying Request for Hearing" (October 2 3, 1979).
]/
Lochstet petition at 1-2.
8/
Public Service Compar.y of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1150 (1977).
9/
Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1),
Docket No. STN-483, "Special Prehearing Conference Order" (April 21,1981) (slip opinion at 3).
.--..--,-_-,r,--.
,...----,-._.--.---.e.,..
failed to demonstrate the personal interest in the outcome 10/
of this oroceeding necessary for rtanding.
Abcordingly,. petitioner's lack of proximity to the
~
., g.i W 1.",fac.tlity 'is 'disposi.tsved9. Howe.ver ;"Appli'eshtniso.dakes tMP -*' \\' 2 J
a position that' petitioner has trot shown standin'g Gnder the
~
I decisions of the Commission as analyzed and discussed by Applicant in response to the Lewis petition.
The position i
taken by, Applicant there as to the necessa f particulari-c
- n m.r:
4 = : : ;.
v
, i,. ?
- v r.w
- v....s...
..g.
s.
~
, w.
..; e.
- h../ :.:.c. h * ". M @ b ^ Y.{.en W ig,1e g g e q g aj &.en g g,, $ c @ 7g,,x.y,
-ing, including an explanation of how that interest would be affected by'any given outcome'in the pro'ceeding, is equally aprlicable to the generalized statements of p.etitioner 11/
herein'.
Rather than furnish' t'he Licensing Board with g
Petitioner does not explain how operational releases
" emitted to the air, water and soil in the plant vicinity" will affect him differently from members of the general public.
See Lochstet petition at 2.
His stated concerns regar 'ing the "overall airshed of eastern United States"
=-
and "the radon content of the air in State College and
'all. ef Pennsy.lvania and 'the area" 'from the mining of' ura-
~
u- -
nium in the western United States (id. at 2-3) confirm
[s the generality of his interests.
~~
p.
e 11/
Thus, the health concerns expressed by petitioner are simply too diffuse and generalized to qualify him for standing.
Some of the interests expressed, such as petitioner's " mental health, security, social and politi-cal status," (id. at 1) are outside the " zone of interests" protected undeF the operating statutes of the NRC.
Specifi-cally, matters relating to psychological stress, i.e.,
" mental health," may not be considered in reactor licensing proceedings.
See Metropolitan Edison Comoany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-8 0- 3 9, 12 NRC 607 (1980) (2-2 ~ vote).
In reconsidering this order, the Commis-sioners voted to adhere.to their previous determination "to I
exclude psychological stress and community deterioration Id., CLI-81-20 (September 17, 1981) (slip contentions."
opinion at 2).
Similar allegations have.been dismissed by the licensing boards, e.g., Consumer Power Co sany (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), Decket No. 50-155, " Memorandum and order" (September 25, '1979) (slip opinion at 3).
l 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 12/
.. Nich.,it r.eli.es.igopposing.:ther.; instant peti. tion
...,;.;,.3.;,.,
y
.l
~
'S. Finally, petitioner has' failed'to designate:"the-i specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the 13/
proceeding" for which he seeks intervention.
Instead, the petition is aerely a generalized statement of his concern
- ~; m :& M sN:..' ?W% n *::' ' %? :*
e...w,:;.fo..
~ 1:"Ta.e v
- -.. w n L ctors relatedkto operational or accidental *
-
- O. *~*
g_
.r h'eait.
1-
.' J e *-
s.r. _..
m;
- . +- @9 l.:,. ; :. '.h
. q sp v:. =. :y. : -
e
.n -
As the radioactive releases from the Limerick. facility.
Board stated in the Midland proceeding, the requirements for properly designating sach' " aspects" are ' unclear 6ut 'lik'eiy
14/
" narrower than a' general' reference to our operating ' statutes. "
Therefore, the mere recitation that issuance.of the license would not " provide adequate protection of my [h]ealth, 15/'
safety and property, or those of my progeny" is clearly insufficient te meet even the minimal requirements for
. ; specifici.ty,undeir. this pro xision.
12/
Petitioner herein has been served a copy of Applicant's answer to the Lewis petition.
l_3_/
10 C.F.R. 52.714's)(2).
14/
Censumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LEP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
M/
Lochstet petition at 3.
=-
Conclusion For the reasons more fully discussed above, petitioner has failed to establish a. personal interest in the outcome 4 _$ the.4,roceeding,.suf.fician.t;s. fog. standin.g. to intervene. ;.. Hec..,.~
0
,a.
te.L s
ilas also -f ailed to de~signate t30se' asoucts of the proceeding'
~
in which he has such a personal interest.
Accordingly, the petition to intervene should be denied.
Applicant has no
. objection,.however, to a limited appearance by petitioner
. L'Y v "c ::- = : -
& A%.- ? W.
- a
- .;:v r.=, s a, t to.10 C..F. IG.. i-n.
v- - :S 2. 715-(a)l.i-
. N 3.
. :i w.b..
.e,:
~:
'.-?
pursuaE
^
,i.s. '.
' ' : - k-
.J. Y N-L
+
., : ~- -
- .2 ::
- L:::
.a-
.. :. :..:6:.:,.l;ac :.. <.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTEPJIAHN
(
Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Mark J. ".7etterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania. Avenue, N.W.
Washington;'D;C.
20006-.
~,,
'202/833-3500 Counsel for Applicant
- g..
September 25, 1981
9
-~~ s.
.Sf k'/
""W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cf
-"~0 lF.A EE? 2 E 1981
- R
"$ Nec' :tren In the Matter of
)
h94...
n.,j:e
- V L....a d
)
~ PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )-
Docket Ncs. 50-35-2
)
50-353 O
(Lime. rick. Generating Station,.)
,Uniti 1 and 2),.
')
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer S
to." William A.
Lochstet Petiition*to" Intervene,"' in them '
' ' v. 6 -
w'-
7 captidned 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-r.he Marvin I.
Lewis'. petitior. has also been served on petitioner. -
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
" Washington, D.C.'
2'0555- -
Washington,'D.C.
20555-Judge Peter A. Morris Eugene J.
Bradley, Esq.
Atomic Safety c.d 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.
205C5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Chase R.
Stephens, Chief Washington, D.C.
20553 Dockeu.ng 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 Washir.gton, D.C.
20555
d a
1 2 -:
f f
.s.
A s
,t Mr.. William L. Lochstet 119 E.
Aaron Drive 2
, State C,ollege, PA.-16801 L
~
'a
'.5.,
- v..
.a u
- .. ~..
s
- - l
(.
1 Robert M.
Rader 3
l' Counsel for the ApplicantL 4
1 4
0 e
9
- ...u... -
e... c.,. :q..:,r
- ). >... +.:. ad->..:
- mq :J : ' ::;G p '..- : :..-.v: L n 0-
- =
.,.s..t v '..a:
- .t.*
- .: %:1 s
4.
2
+
J, a
1 3
.i 2
I l
t i
j t
1 l'
' t i.
i
... ~.
.m ;.,
=,.
<.e <:....
7,...
r I
+
p#f gp
't-I
.f E
h t
f.
I i
i F
{
6-..<r.4--,-m-#..
...-...-.-.,..m.---.1.,,-
-+ - -,..,v ~ _ _
- - - - - -... - - - - - - - - - -