ML20031D001
| ML20031D001 | |
| 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 8110090196 | |
| Download: ML20031D001 (9) | |
Text
._-
,G iD-r.
,/,-
- s. s-;M; i
/
.,~
gji
]T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
o.
E N0t> br ss 00..4.
BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoa['
O!E3dC,M3(N DdC3Dw vg Br.Mh
~
r
'v In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
5 m
- I l' O (Limerick Generating Station,
)
s, Units 1 and 2)
)
g C
ofp[p N
e w.JJ w) r
-1 APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO SAMUSL AND CLARISSA OCT 81981-y B.
COOPER PETITION TO IhTERVENE u.s. nuam enanc.,
i cc e ss o n Preliminarv Statement s f 's
' hJ<
- < s'q
\\-
On August 21, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Comm10s.ionif
(" 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 that Notice, a " petition to intervene" in the proceeding was filed by Samuel and Clarissa B.
Cooper and received by Applicant on September 21, 1981. --2/
While the filing was designated a " Petition to Intervene,"
it appears from the text that the Coopers intended only to make a limited appearance in writing in order to express po3
_1/
46 Fed. Reg. 42557 (August 21, 1981).
5
--2/
An amended version of the petition, which added a
//
posteript, was received on September 23, 1981.
8110090196 811006 PDR ADOCK 05000352 i
G PDR
]
2-
,.1-their views.
Thus, the petition states:
"I wish to register my strong opposition" to the issuance of operating licenses for the Limerick facility.
There is no apparent desire to participate in a formal adjudicatory proceeding.
Therefore, Applicant responds herein only out of an abundance of caution although it is believed that the Coopers are not truly seek-3/
ing party status.
Applicant has no objection to a limited r.ppearance.
For the reasons discussed more fully below, petitioners have, in any event, 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, receeding" which they wish to pursue.
Ac-cordingly, the petition should be denied.
Argument Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, a petition to intervene in a licensing proceading 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 i
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 haa stated its
--3/
For ease of reference, we shall nonetheless refer to the Coopers as " petitioners."
s 3-position as to the 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 petitioners Coopar 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 4/
in opposing the instant petition.~-
It appears from the address provided by petitioners that they reside more than 40 miles from the Limerick site.
The concerns expressed by petitioners, however, do not per-tain to this particular proximity, but only bear upon the need for power and the wisdom of nuclear power in particular.
It is therefore clear that petitioners' stated interests are 21mited to matters which concern Applicant's customers and potentia)' custar.ars as a whole, i.e.,
the reliable production of electrical power and related economic questions.
These broad concerns fail to "show a distinct and palpable
-5/
harm" to petitioner.
In these circumstances, petitioners have not " identified, let alone particularized, any specific injury that (they) would or might sustain," but merely
_4/
Petitioners herein have been served a copy of Appli-cant's answer to the Lewis petition.
S/
See Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531
~-
(1977), citina Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 499 (1975).
9
(
4-t
" seek intervention in order to vindicate broad public
)
6/
interests said te be of particular concern to them."--
It ip. well established that the interests of ratepayers are not within the " zone of interests" which may serve as a
-7/
I
/
basis for' intervention in NRC proceedings. ~
It is equally we1I Tecognized that, a debate over the wisdom or economics
,f-i of nuclear. power in general lies beyond the scope of a reactor licensing proceeding inasmuch as these issues are.
8/
not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Although the petition is unclear as to the precise personal interest
/
_6/
Nuclear Engineerina Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois,
/
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-4 73, 7 NRC 737, 741 (1978).
_7/
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 l
Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2), LSP-77-17, 5 NRC 657, 659 (1977), aff'd, ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1147 l
(1977); Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile l
Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-289 (Restart), " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions l
and Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (September 2 r,1979) (slip opinion at 7).
l 8/_ 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 l
economic costs" because this is a business judgement for the applicant.
Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 46 (1976).
See also Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 (1978); Portland General Electric Company (Trojan
'i Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263 (1979); Virginia s
Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power s
Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 456 (1980).
4 I
t s
i
.r 1
o
_ W-
- asserted, the broad economic issues discussed certainly fail to establish a cognizable, personal interest on the part of petitioners in this-t oceeding.
Thus, petitioners lack i
standing to intervene in this proceeding.
Further, petitioners have failed to designate the 54 5
" specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the gZ-proceeding"_El 2
in which their interest lies.
As noted, the broad economic issues raised by petitioners are not "within the scope of the proceeding as set forth in the notice of 10/
hearing,"-
and are therefore inappropriate as designated
" aspects."
While the petition does mention decommissioning 11/
L' and waste disposal,-
it is clear that petitioners address
_9/
10 C.F.R.
S2. 714 (a) (2).
'i 10/
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-289 (Restart),
"Menorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions and Setting Special Prehearing Conference" (September 21, 1979)
(slip opinion at 6).
~~11/ ~ The altimate disposition of reactor waste ic currently the subject of NRC rulemaking.
See 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979).
As a generic issue to be determined by the Commission, it is not for consideration by indi-vidual licensing boards.
The Commission's notice of rulemaking followed a decision by the Court of Appeals in the State of Minnesota v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979),
which sustained dismissal of a contention regarding
~
ultimate waste disposal in Northern States ?ower Company r
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 (197F).
In reciting these events, the Licensing Board in the sliens Creek proceeding stated that it was " bound by the Commission 's decision" in dis-missing a similar contention.
See Housten Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-466, " Order" (March 10, 1980) (slip opinion at 37-38).
See also Virginia Electric and Power Company (North anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-338 SP and 50-339 SP, " Order Denying Intervenors' Motion to Amend Petition to Intarvene" (August 17, 1979).
W W
F a
f
~
s 3 j t
these subjects only from their perspective of questioning the economics of nuclear power.
Also, the mere mention of these is. totally lacking in ' specificity and is not really
" narrower than a general reference to [the NRC's] operating 12/
statutes."--
Moreover, given the standing requirements discussed above, all aspects alleged by petitioner, in-cluding any contentions thereunder, must necessarily be limited to the demonstrated " injury in fact," if any.
As a final matter, petitioners' request to consider
" aspects" regarding the availability of water supplies related to Limerick may not be heard because this matter lies within the plenary jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commission, see generally Philadelphia Electric Comp any_ (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-262, 1 NRC 163 (1975), which has granted final approval to the supplemental cooling water plan for Limerick. --13/ This action of the DRBC was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 17, 1981.
Moreover, this matter was fully " ventilated and re-solved at the construction permit stage" and petitioner has not made "any supported assartion of changed c_ ~rumstances or the possible existence of some special public interest factors in the particular case."
Alabama Power Company 12/
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 ),
LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978).
13/
It may be noted that permits related to the Point Pleasant pro 3ect itself, specifically for the Point Pleasant intake structure and for the Chalfont waste treatment plant, are now pending before the United States Corps of Engineers.
1
e
.s-
- ~ ~
_(Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974). --14/
Conclusion For the reasons more fully discussed above, petitioners have failed toLsatisfy the requirenents of establishing a personal interest in the outcome of the proceeding an'd designating those aspects in which petitioners have such an interest.
Accordingly, the petition to intervene should be denied.
Applicant has no objection, however, to a limited appearance by petitioners pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
- 52. 715 (a).
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN Trcy onner, Jr.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M.
Rader Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 202/833-3500 counsel for the Applicant October 6, 1981
--14/
It is clear that petitioners have no legal interest in the need for supplemental cooling water for Limeick, which will be supplied by the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, since neither the Schuylkill River nor the Perkiomen Creek furnish water consumed by petitioners,
who reside just off the Susquehanna River.
Contrary to the representation in the petition, the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania without requirine further environmental studies.
i t
i
r u.
W ik
- ~
..,,*p\\
n>.
\\gs 5
s:
~ c u-
~
QV.s ?"..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.d ^*
' Td h)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
.chc
.~
' J...
6'# qf.
'f In the Matter of
)
',,~\\p s
)
'c 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 Sanuel and Clarissa B. Cooper Petition to Intervene," in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit 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.
Rosentnam, 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.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 I
Judge Peter A. Morris Eugene J.
Bradley, Esq.
Atomi~c 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 Rsgulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.r.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
f'
.J. "
[
Samuel Cooper l
Clarissa B. Cooper
[
P.O.
Box 16 Colora, MD 21917 l
i L
R La:
/a.
R6bert M.
Rader Counsel for the Applicant
- 1 f
+
l l
t
---s n
-c
---,qh.w-se--se
,--m--
ye-.v mmg--
-,a----+m--ie nzww-,
r
--m-----me-