ML20039A588

Response of Ny State Assembly & Special Committee on Nuclear Power Safety Opposing Util 811124 Answer to Petition to Intervene.Assembly & Committee Is Separate & Coequal Branch of Ny State Govt

ML20039A588
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/08/1981
From:	Roffe A NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20039A583	List: ML20039A582 ML20039A588 ML20039A590
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8112180465
Download: ML20039A588 (3)

Text

. .

UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA . ,,.. ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'5 8 ld D2 :38 Administrative Judges:

Louis 3. Carter, Chairrnan Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick 3. Shon In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Docket Nos. 50-247-SP

^

(Indian Point, Unit 2) 50-236-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)

December 3,1931 RESPONSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY AND THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR POWER SAFETY, THEREOF, TO CON EDISON'S ,

" ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE" On October 4,1981, the New York State Assembly (" Assembly") and the Special Committee on Nuclear Power Safety, thereof ("Special Committee"), filed a timely Petition to Intervene in the above entitled proceeding as a representative of the State, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715(c). On November 24, 1981, the Jonsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (" Con Edison") served an answee to Petitions for Leave to Intervene, requesting that virtually all the petitions . for intervention be denied. Con l Edison argues that only the New York State Energy Office ("SEO") is authorized to act as representative of the State.

Con Edison's objections to the intervention of the Assembly and the Special

! Committee are totally groundless and warrant rejection. The Assembly is one house of a l

j separate and co-equal branch of the government of the State of New York. The Special Committee was duly appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and is chairec by the Speaker of the Assembly pursuant to Sections 1.c.(1) and !.h. of the Rules of the 8112180465 011208' i PDR ADOCK 05000247 G PDR l

Assembly. The Assembly and the Special Committee have a substantial interest in the subject matter of this proceeding, namely the safety of the Indian Point #2 and #3 nuclear power plants. The Assembly shares the State responsibility for emergency planning and the funding for such planning as exemplified by the recent enactment of the Radiologic Emergency Preparedness Act of 1981 (Chapter 703, Laws of New York). The Special Committee has, since its formation in May c ' 1979, coordinated, investigated and otherwise carried out the affairs of the Assembly in all matters relating to commercial nuclear power generation in New York State. The Special Committee conducted "An

~

Inquiry into the Accident at Indian Point Number Two on October 17, 1980" which is of particular pertinence to the above entitled proceeding.

The Con Edison Answer asserts that "since the Abrams and Assembly /Special Committee petitioners do not even claim that they are the State of New York . . . they should be denied" (p. 6). None of the petitioners to intervene pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715(c), including the SEO (see SEO Petition for Leave to Intervene, dated November' 6, 1981), have asserted that they "are the State of New York" nor has any party or petitioner, other than Con Edison, objected to the intervention of the Assembly and 'the Special Committee. To do so would require far too narrow a reading of 10 CFR Section 2.715(c) which was designed to ". . . afford representatives of an interested State, county, municipality . id/or agencies thereof, a reasonable opportunity to participate. . . ."

l (emphasis sur.ned). The Con Edison Answer would have the SEO, represent the view of the

! State of New York in this proceeding. In fact, there is no singular view of the State of New York. The Legislature, by virtue of its power to legislate (Constitution of the State of New York, Article 3, Section 1), to appropriate (Constitution, Article 3, Section 20) and, if it sees fit, to override the veto of the Governor (Constitution, Article 4, Section 7), certainly has an essential role to play in representing the views of the interested State i

herein. Con Edison's co-licensee, the Power Authority of the State of New York, recognized the validity of multiple representation when it stated that it ". . . does not

. . t w

\

eppese the .!ntervention or . . ." any of the eight governmental entities that requested opportunity to participate pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715(c) (see Power Authority's Answer to Petitions for Leave to Intervene at p.1).

. . 'On November 24,1981, the NRC staff filed a response which clearly recognizes the

rights of s:veral parties to intervene as representatives of " interested states." The NRC y

7 staff supported the request,of the Attorney General, the SEO, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The NRC supported the s

' request of-the Assembly and the Special Committee ". . . provided that the State

• /

Assemb'iy identifies its representative and provides the Board with some assurance that

/

such person has been authorized to represent the State Assembly in this proceeding" (p. 31). That information is being provided in the Assembly answer to the NRC staff.

response to be filed herewith.

Contrary to the Con Edison citations (at p. 7) that purport to question the standing g

of public officials to sue, the NRC has allowed intervention by several representatives of the interested state (the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) in the proceeding to consider the restart of the Three Mile Island Unit No.1. Exclusion of all State representatives

other tnan the SEO, as Con Edison suggssts, would run counter to the intent of 10 CFR

~

t i Sectien-2.715(c) to provide the most complete record available upon which the Board can

>\ " '

(g base {! f:s recommendation.

r ,

Therefore, the= Assembly, and the Special Committee respectfully request that the Board reject the Con Edison objections and grant leave to intervene in the above entitled n y si proceeding.'

x

. ~ ~_/V-ANDREW S. ROFFE, s .

';. Executive Counsel to the Speaker for:

STANLEY FINK, Speaker New York State Assembly t; Chair, Assembly Special-Committee on Nuclear Power Safety

) ,

_.3 w