ML20039C240
| ML20039C240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1981 |
| From: | Brandenburg B CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8112290103 | |
| Download: ML20039C240 (26) | |
Text
.- , _
- e-c
- ...~
CQlYr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO 7g A9 nok NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt$1 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD,- : ECTdb C
Before Administrative Judges: d0d Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the Matter of )
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF )
NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Unit ) Docke t Nos . 50-247 SP No. 2 ) 50-286 SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3 ) \ 0) o
) y ~(ig d RECTITE', ((
DEC28BB CON EDISON'S ANSWER TO AMENDED IS P E_II,II_O,:iS,,F,OR _(ME,,10 ,I,111gEJiE j _
aly Pursuant to leave granted by the Licensing Board i
j at the first pre-hearing conference held on December 2, 1981, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (" Con Edison"), licensee of Indian Point Unit No. 2, submits its l
i answer to the amended petitions for leave to intervene i herein.
Amended petitions to intervene or other papers responding to objections raised to the various original petitions to intervene have been received from the New York 0503 s
8112290103 811221 j PDR ADOCK 050002g G
- u. . . _
~
Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), the Union of Con-f cerned Scientists (UCS), the New York City Audubon Society, Parents Concerned about Indian Point, Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy, the West Branch Conservation Association, Friends of the Earth, Inc. and the Greater New York Council
, on Energy. In addition, amended petitions for leave to inter-l vene as interested states or responses to objections to such intervention have been received from Robert Abrams, Alfred DelBello, Ruth W. Messinger, et al., the New York State Assembly and the Special Committee on Nuclear Power Safety, ,
the County of Rockland, and-the Village of Buchanan. In addition, a late filed application of Richard R. Brodsky for
- leave to intervene as both a party and an interested state was received. The revised submittals of the private organi-i zational petitioners will be discussed first, and then the responses of persons seeking " interested state" status will .
be discussed.
I i
ORGANIZATIONAL PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE i
- 1. U n i o,n ,o f,,C,o n c e r,n e,d ,S,c i,e n t,i,s,t,s ,( ",U,C,S,",)
In its November 24,1981 Answer to Petitions for Leave to Intervene, Con Edison showed that the initial pe-titions for leave to intervene filed by private organiza-tions such as UCS should not be granted because the organi-i zational petitioners # ailed to demonstrate an interest
'l i
2 -
which may be affected by this proceeding. It was shown that under both Commission precedent and judicial decisions to which the Commission has referred for precedent, if an organization seeks to take part as a representative of its membership; then tre organization must show that a cogniza-ble interest of its members would be affected by the Commis-sion action under consideration. It was also shown that an organization seeking intervention as a representative of its members must show that those members have an actual, active role in the governance of the organization in order for the members' interests to supply derivative standing to the organization.
The UCS' " Amendment to UCS' Petition for Leave to Intervene and Response to NRC Staff, Consolidated Edison, and PASNY Challenges to UCS Standing to Intervene" (" amended UCS petition") fails to cure the defects of its initial peti-tion, and thus UCS' request for leave to intervene should be denied. The initial argument in the amended UCS petition that " traditional (NRC] standing requirements" should not apply to this proceeding must be rejected. The amended peti-tion fails to cite any portion of the Commission's orders which would permit this Board to ignore the Commission's rules on standing. As the amended UCS petition acknowledges, the Com-mission's January 8 and September 18, 1981 orders in this proceed-ing specifically provide that except as expressly stated, 10 CFR 3 -
Part 2 is to apply.* The argument made by*UCS that since the order does not expressly state that the standing .
requirements of Part 2 applies the Board can ignore these standing requirements obviously violates the Commission's orders.
In Part II of the amended UCS petition, UCS as-serts that it has standing to intervene as an organization independent of the standing it claims through its sponsors.
This argument reduces itself simply to a statement that since UCS is concerned about nuclear safety it has a right to intervene in this proceeding. This claim-must be re-jected. Recognizing the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sierra, Club v.,,Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Hous,t_on ,Li,qh,t,1,ng ,a,nd ,
Pgwer,Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390-91 (1979) stated that:
"[0]rganizations of [the prospective intervenor's]
stripe are not clothed with independent standing to intervene in NRC licensing proceedings . . . .
[A] mere ' interest in a problem,' no matter how long standing and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organization "
' adversely affected' or ' aggrieved'. . . .
UCS' argument that it has standing in its own right simply amounts to an argument that it has an " interest
- "In other respects, except as provided in this Order 10 CFR Part 2 will control." September 18, 1981 Order at p.2.
4 -
j
in a problem" and should be rejected. In the case of S!Eq [q {a, ,E_1_qqqq{q ,a_n_d ,P,qw qg ,C qm ga n_y (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402 (1979),
the Board rejected a UCS petition to intervene which was based upon its alleged interest and expertise. The Board in that case recognized that both Commission and Supreme Court precedent mandated denial of a petition which was
~
based simply on a claim of interest in a problem and allegedly unique qualifications to address that problem.*
UCS' claim that its alleged " financial interest in assuring the safety of Indian Point facility"** estab-lishes its right to intervene in this proceeding must be ,
rejected. The Commission has consistently held that an allegation of economic interest standing alone does not confer a right to intervene in an NRC proceeding under the Atomic Energy Act. Tennessee ,Vall,ey , Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALA3-413, 5 NRC 1418, The case of Coles v. Havens Realty Corp., 633 F.2d 384 l (4th Cir. 19 8 6) 7 EffE.-~6fE6E66-- C. f.-~ ~ ( 19 81 ) , in no way cupports intervenEf66 in Ehi duirent cise. In Coles, an organization was able to show how the actions of defendants had an impact on specific " projects". (633 F.2d at 391)
No such showing has here been made. Rather, UCS' argument amounts simply to " protestations of general interest" (633 F.2d at 390) in nuclear safety, which the Coles court recognized as being insufficient to establish sEidding.
- UCS amended petition at 6.
i 5 -
m
i .. .
1 1420 (1977); Portl_and , Gene,r_a1,E,1, ectr _ic , Comp,3,ng (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 612-13-(1976); P,u,bli,c ,S e r,vi,ce ,Compa,ng,o f ,Okl,a,h,qma,,
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, -
l 1147 (1977); Vi,rgi,ni,a ,Electr,ic ,and,,P, owe,r,,Cqmpa,ng (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-342, 4 NRC 98 (1976); D,e,tr,qi,t,,Edi,s,qn Cg. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 .
and 3), ALAB-376, 5 NRC 426, 428 (1977).*
Similarly, the amended UCS petition fails to estab-lish any basis for its claim that it has standing to intervene on behalf of its " sponsors." The case of Health ,Research ,
Grgqq,g.,,[qnggdg, 82 F.R.D. 21 (D.D.C. 1979), holds that in order to acquire standing derivatively through the interest of its members an organization'must show a " substantial nexus" between the organization and the parties it purports
- to represent. Qealth,Research clearly establishes that an organization cannot acquire standing based on claims of representing mere " supporters" or " contributors" who have I no governance responsibilities in the management of the i
- It is significant that none of the cases cited by UCS involved an NRC proceeding. In any event, the "fi-l 1 nancial interest" of the parties in the cited cases was much more direct than the tenuous, strained financial interest alleged by UCS in its amended petition.
. ~ . ---
4 i
organization. (82 F.R.D. at 26-27) Although UCS strains mightily to distinguish the situation in qealth,Research, the plain fact is that the UCS " sponsors" are simply persons _
who make don 9tions to'UCS without exercising any direct voice in the operation of the organization. This is plainly an_ inadequate nexus between organization and individual for the former to acquire the status of the latter.
The " sponsors" affidavit attached to the amended UCS petition lacks any statements as to that: person's-role in the governance of UCS. Nothing in the other material at-tached to the amended UCS petition claims that individual 1 " sponsors" have any responsibilities in governing the af-
_ fairs of the organization. For these reasons, the defects, in the initial UCS/NYPIRG petition respecting UCS have not been corrected, and UCS has not established that it is en-l titled to participate as an intervenor-in this proceeding.
- 2. qe w Y,q[g ,P,u,b,1,i,,g _I,n,t e ge,s ( ,3e s e,a,qqh ,qqqqq ,( N,Y,P,1,qq)
Con Edison believes that the material submitted by NYkIRG is sufficient to establish its status as an intervenor under applicable NRC authorities. The material shows that t a named person'within the " zone of interest" recognized by the NRC has authorized NYPIRG to represent her interest, and that such person is a NYPIRG member with a direct role in the operation and governance of NYPIRG, who has an ar-ticulated interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The 7 -
1 -e-e age v w w =mrw -ee-1 w r eee wwe r--m mv c=~ e=rwo c e w - ye-twm -w w v~ w -eli- e ,-ww y wyw, .. W m- m g e .e* =r- r ww+w w -e prm ee--w-- e y n meeyr v e,wres *,=e ww,*er. wr '
NYPIRG material also establishes authorization of the person representing it in this proceeding.
While NYPIRG may have satisfied NRC requirements as to intervenor status,* before NYPIRG is permitted to intervene herein it should be required to set forth "the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the-proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene," see 10 CFR S 2.714 (a)(2) and Con Edison's November 24, 1981 Answer at pp. 14-18. Con Edison would be willing to accept NYPIRG's admitted contentions as an appropriate " aspect" statement.
- 3. P a,r e n t,s, ,Cqn ge rn e,d ,Ab,qu t, ,I,n d i a,n ,P,qi,n t, Con Edison believes that the submittals of Parents Concerned About Indian Point has satisfied the defects of its initial petition for leave to intervene, so long as Parents Concerned sets forth the specific aspect or aspects of the proceeding as to which it wishes to intervene.
4- Mw_ _Yggg _C,i t sf ,gd u,b qn, ,S qc i e,% ,I n,q .
Con Edison withdraws its objection to the Audubon l Society's petition for leave to intervene, so long 'as it
!
- In this the case of NYPIRG, as in all other cases, Con l Edison reserves the right to object to participation on j the basis of a failure to submit an acceptable conten-tion, or to urge consolidation of intervenors.
l l
-- 8 -
sets forth the specific aspect or aspects of the proceeding as to which it wishes to intervene.
- 5. R,gckl,a,nd ,Ci,ti z,e n s_,Fqr,,S a f e ,E,ne,r,qy -
! The amended petition of Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy fails to establish the right of that organization to intervene in this proceeding. The affidavits of the two named individuals attached to the amended petition simply state that they "may be affected by the outcome of the pro-ceeding." The affidavits and the amended petition fail to state what interests of these named individuals will be l affected by this proceeding. As noted in Con Edison's November 24 " Answer to the Petitions to Intervene," if an .
organization seeks to establish a right to intervene based l
upon the interest of its members, those interests must be stated with specificity. The amended petition of Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy fails to meet this essential test.
In addition to -the above defect, the petition and the accompanying affidavits fail to discuss what duties and responsibilities these individuals fulfill in the governance of the organization. Thus, the "significant nexus" test between the organization and the named individuals has not been met.
- 6. We s,t,,B ra,n ch ,Cqn s e r,va,t i,qn ,A,s,s qc,1,a,t_i,qn Con Edison continues to object to the participation 9 -
l
d
, of the West Branch Conservation Association. Although the affidavits appended to its " Amendment to Intervenor Apolica-i tion" are from members who apparently have a direct role in the organization's operations, the affidavits fail to state i what interest of these members is sought to be protected. -
The affidavits simply state that the members live within 10 miles of the Indian Point site. ~ The fact of proximity to a site does not in itself meet the requirements of standing.
The Appeal Board stated in Houst_on ,L,1,qht_ing_and_P,ower ,Co,.
( Allens Creek Nuclear Generati ng Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979), that although a cognizable interest is
" presumed" by the close proximity of a member to a faci 11ty, ,
j a petitioning organization "could not content itself with the simple assertion that it had members living in the shadow of a facility." (9 NRC at 393) i
- 7. We,s,t c h,e s t e r ,P,e,c o l e ' s ,A c t_i o n ,C o a l i t,1,o n_ ,( ",WE,S_ PAC ",)
Although WESPAC's " Pre-Hearing tiemorandum and Response to Staff and Utility Answers to Petition for Leave to Intervene" states (at 5) that "we would have no trouble obtaining affidavits from the six people listed in our pe-tition," Con Edison to date has not received any such af-fidavits, despite the fact that the Board stated that af- .
fidavits should be submitted to resolve questions on in-tervention (Tr. of December 2, 1981 pre-hearing conference at p. 46). WESPAC's subsequently filed " Supplement to Petition to Intervene" does not include affidavits from 10 -
I--
individual members indicating interests in this proceeding which they wish WESPAC to represent.
Given this_ failure to submit members' affidavits, Con Edison continues to object to WESPAC's petition for leave to intervene. WESPAC has failed to indicate how the interests of named members who have governance responsibilities in the organization may be affected by this proceeding.
8- EEi e _d s ,qf The ,qagg,,,I n,c .,,(",[qq",[
Con Edison continues to object to the petition for leave to intervene of Friends of the Earth, Inc. FOE has substituted rhetoric for substance. Nothwithstanding its intemperate assertion that licensees' opposition to its intervention petition "is frivolous, irrelevant, [and]
obstructionist," this organization has failed to submit affidavits from individual members with governance respon-sibilities authorizing FOE to represent their interests, l
and indicating how their interests may be affected by this I proceeding. Nor has FOE supplied any documentation authoriz-ing its putative "Mid-Atlantic ' Representative'" to represent FOE in the proceeding.
- 9. Gre,a,t,e r,,New Yo rk ,Cou n c,i_l ,On ,En e,r,qg ,(",GNYC,E ",)
The " Amendment to Petition for Leave to Intervene of the Greater New York Council on Energy" fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714, and thus the petition of 11 -
GNYCE for leave to intervene should not be granted. The affidavit of a GNYCE member attached to the amended peti-is defective in two respects. First, the affidavit fails to show with any degree of particularity how the mem- -
ber's interests will be affected by this proceeding. The affidavit simply _ avers that the affiant has a " direct inte-rest in the outcome of the proceeding" without in any way specifying what this interest is. Second, the affidavit and the other papers accompanying the amended petition fail to state what the governance responsibilities of the GNYCE member are in the day to day operation of the organization.
Thus, the " substantial nexus" necessary for intervention based upon a member's interest has not been deconstrated.
The amended GNYCE petition is also deficient because it does not supply confirmation that GNYCE has authorized its '" representative" to represent its interests'in this proceeding. The affidavit accompanying the amended petition simply states "by knowledge and belief, that its [i,.e., GYNCE's]
members have authorized GNYCE to represent them." There is no statement at all as to the basis of this belief, nor is there any support offered in the form of a resolution or other-wise for the claim that Mr. Corren is authorized to represent GNYCE.
12 -
II INTERESTED STATE PETITIONS r5i cfNg 15Tgffsvfgf----
1- PeEitien E- Ru,th ,Mes, singe [,,,et ,al. .,
The amended petition of Ruth Messinger, et al. to intervene as an interested state continues to suffer from the same defect of the original petition: a complete absence of any evidence that these named individuals have been author-ized by the City of New York to represent it in this proceeding.
Although the amended petition appends a number of City Council resolutions, no such authorization is among the attached resolutions. As we stated in our initial " Answer to Petitions to Intervene," Con Edison has no objection to Ms. . Messinger and the other City Council members petitioning to intervene as individual parties to this proceeding. We do, however, in this case and in the case of other individuals seeking interested state participation, object to their taking part in this proceeding as representatives of governments without meeting the standards of 10 CFR S 2.715(c).
We also note that the amended Messinger petition does not include information about the total make-up of the City Council which was promised at the December 2, 1981 pre-hearing conference. (Tr. 70-71).
- 2. gbe.tt _A_b_ tams Con Edison continues to object to the participation of Mr. Abrams. Con Edison agrees with Abrams' statement (Response of Robert Abrams at p.3) that "under 10 CFR S 2.715(c) representatives of an interested State may intervene" in this and similar NRC proceedings. But just as with other prospective ,
intervenors, the " representative" must supply some basis for ~
the Licensing Board to conclude that tha representative has indeed been given the appropriate authorization. In this instance, interested State authorization'for Mr. Abrams is conclusively precluded by the cited provisions of New York State law.
As we noted in our initial " Answer to Petitions to Intervene," it is the State Energy Office which has sole responsibility under the law of the State of New York to represent New York State in proceedings of this sort. Under section 7-101 of the State Energy Law and section 104 of the Commerce Law, the State Energy Office is given responsibility to coordinate the " regulatory programs of the agencies and instrumentalities of the state . . . affecting atomic energy '
activities" (Commerce Law S 104(3)), and to develop "a coordi-nated position with respect to regulatory programs of the federal government affecting atomic energy activities" (Com-merce Law S 104(4)). The legislative memorandum supporting the creation of the State Energy Office states that the
. . . proposed Energy Office . . . pulls together energy activities scattered throughout state government."* Similarly, the Governor's approval message approving this legislation (Chapter 819, Laws of 1976) referred to a need for a " single State agency in the state with comprehensive authority and responsibility in the energy field."**
Thus, the State of New York has expressly and specifically provided in clear legislative language that the State has elected to speak with but one voice on matters relating to atomic energy, precisely to avoid the difficulties of determining who is authorized to represent the State's in-terests in this and similar proceedings.*** That authorized
- New York State Legislative Annual 1976 p. 322.
- Ibid----
at 405.
- For this reason, the fact that there were multiple re-presentatives of the State of Pennsylvania in the Three Mile Island Unit No. 1 restart proceeding does not aid the prospective intervenors here. Unlike New York, no legislation evidencing"a Pennsylvania state desire to have but a single representative in proceedings dealing with atomic energy matters has been cited. Moreover, l we are advised by counsel in that proceeding that no i objection was raised by any party to participation by multiple state agencies, hence the TMI-1 Licensing Board had no occasion to rule upon the issues presented here. Nor does the clear legislative intent for the State of New York to speak with a single voice in mat-ters relating to atomic energy affect the participation of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in this proceed-ing. 'The Port Authority is a bi-state agency, represent-ing the interests of two sister states in matters affect-ing the Port of New York. The Metropolitan Transportation l Authority is separately incorporated as a public benefit corporation with liabilities and responsibilities separate from those of the State of New York.
representative is the New York State Energy Office, which is solely empowered to represent the State and ,all ,qf,its ,
agengi_es under section 7-101 of the New York Energy Law and section 104 of New York Commerce Law. The " Response of Robert Abrams to Con Edison's Answer to Petitions for Leave to Intervene" does not and cannot rebut his lack of authority to participate as an " interested state." In addition, the Abrams response does not allege that he is an agency of New York under New York State law, although for the reasons stated above, if this were so, then Abrams' interests would be represented by the New York State Energy Office under the legislation cited.
3- Th_t _as s eeb k _a g _i t_s. _ge_qi a 1_Cgqqi ne e ,On Jiu gle a_t _Pqwe g As in the case of Mr. Abrams' response, the " Amended Petition to Intervene" of the Assembly and its Special Committee on Nuclear Power
- fails to address the point that under section 7-101 of the State's Energy Law and section 104 of the Commerce l Law, it is the State Energy Office which has responsibility l
l to coordinate the State's atomic energy policy. Although the I
affidavit of Mr. Fink which accompanies the amended petition refers to certain responsibilities of the Legislature, under Article 3, S 1 of the New York State Constitution, the "legis-lative power" of the State "is vested in the Senate and As-j sembly." Thus, assuming that these legislative powers could serve as a basis for intervention in this proceeding, both 16 -
houses of the legislature must authorize participation on behalf of New York as an " interested state." To authorize the Assembly to participate on the basis of a claim of legis-lativa power would be analogous to permitting individual New -
York City Council members to participate as representatives of the City of New York.
In addition, although the amended Assembly petition apparently bases the Assembly's claim to participate on a claim that the Assembly is an " agency" of the state and thus f alls within the "and/or agencies thereof" language of 10 CFR 92.715(c)* the amended petition and accompanying papers is bereft of any support for such a claim. In fact, the releva,nt definitions of " agency" under New York law expressly exclude the Legislature, and parts of the Legislature. See, e.g.,
Public Officers Law S 86(3), State Administrative Procedure Act S 102(1).
- 4. C_ou n ty,,o f,,R,o ckl,a,nd, Con Edison opposed the initial petition for leave to
^
intervene filed by Rockland County upon the ground that there was no indication the Rockland County Legislature, as the
- See " Response of the New York State Assembly and the Special Committee on Nuclear Power Safety, Thereof, to Con Edison's ' Answer to Petition for Leave to Intervene'" at 2.
17 -
- - < - 4 A governing body of the County of Rockland, had duly authorized the County's participation in this proceeding. By letter dated December 3, 1981, the Assistant County Attorney trans-mitted an application seeking leave to amend the Rockland , _
County petition to interested state status. The Assistant County Attorney states in the enclosed application that an authorization of the Rockland County legislature is attached, however the attachment is only a resolution which was evi-dently proposed before the Legislature on October 21, 1981.
There is no documentation supporting any action taken by the Rockland County Legislature in either approving and authoriz-ing the County's participation, or authorizing the modifica-
~
tion of its status to one of interested state. Further confirmation of authorization by the County Legislature, such as in the form of official minutes or a clear statement base.d upon personal knowledge that the Legislature has indeed acted to authorize participation,.is required before the Licensing Board can act upon the Rockland County petition.
I r
- 5. A1,f,r,e,d,,De1,B,e11,o Con Edison continues to object to he. DelBello 's participation as an interested state, although no objection is raised to participation as a person upon an appropriate showing. Unlike th: County of Rockland, the County of Westchester has not submitted any statement showing that the County's Board of Legislators has authorized anyone to
represent the County in this proceeding. As we stated in our " Answer to Petitions to Intervene" (p. 4), it is this Board, and not Mr. DelBello, which has the powers of the County under the Westchester County Charter. Although DelBello's amended petition to intervene refers to S 110.11 .
of the ' County's Charter, to-the effect that the County Executive shall be "the chief executive and administrative officer of the County," the petition fails to cite any provi-sion of the Charter or any other law which would authorize him to represent the County's interest in this proceeding.
In this regard, we note that subdivision 10 of S 110.11 of the County Charter provides that the County Executive is to:
. . . perform all such duties as may be pres- .
cribed in this act, or other law, or bg~act of the ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Cgunty,Bqard." (emphasis supplied)
Both DelBello's original and amended petition to intervene fail to cite any authority which actually shows
- that he is authorized to intervene in this proceeding.*
- 6. Vi l l,a ge,,o f ,B u c h,a,n_a,n, Con Edison does not object to the Village's peti-tion to intervene, inasmuch as there is a clear indication of authorization for the representation of the Village's
- The amended petition cites Article 2-B of the Executive Law (Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene at 2).
This statute does give the County Executive certain emergency planning responsibilities but it in no way gives the County Executive carte blanche to represent the County in all matters r6f6t6d t6'Et6mic energy.
l
petition to intervene, inasmuch as there is a clear indica-tion of authorization for the representation of the Village's
. interests.
^
- 7. Richard _L._Brodsky Mr. Brodsky seeks to participate both as an in-terested state and as a party. Mr. Brodsky seeks to inter-vene as a party in order to protect his own interests and those of two named individuals. . Con Edison opposes Mr.
Brodsky's participation as an interested state for the same reasons that it opposes the intervention of Messinger and the individual New York City Council members: there has been no showing that Mr. Brodsky has been authorized by the Westchester Board of Legislators to be their repre-sentative in this proceeding.
Con Edison does not object to Mr. Brodsky's.partici-I pation as a party to protect his own interests upon a proper showing pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.714(a) justifying late inter-vention. Although Mr. Brodsky purports to provide some ex-planation for his late filing, he has not adequately addressed the factors set forth in 10 CFR S 2.714(a)(1)(ii)-(v), particu-larly in light of the fact that Mr. Brodsky has simply adopted the contentions of UCS/NYPIRG. Con Edison opposes Mr. Brodsky's representation of the two named individuals unless affidavits are provided authorizing such representation, and identifying
the interests of these individuals which will be affected by this proceeding.
WHEREFORE, Con Edison respectfully requests that -
the joint petition for leave to intervene filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the New York Public Interest Research Group should be denied as to UCS and granted as to NYPIRG upon submission of an appropriate
" aspects" statement; thet the petitions of Parents Concerned About Indian Point and New York City Audubon Society, Inc.
should be granted upon submission of appropriate " aspects" statements; that the petitions of Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy, West Branch Conservation Association, Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc., Friends of the Earth, Inc., and Greater New York Council on Energy should be denied; that the petitions for leave to intervene as interested states of Messenger, et al., Abrams, Assembly and its Special Committee on Nuclear Power, DelBello, and Brodsky should be denied, without prejudice to intervention I
under 10 CFR S 2.714 upon an appropriate showing that the petition of the County of Rockland to intervene as an inter-
)
firmation of authorization by the Rockland County Legislature; and that the petitions for leave to intervene as interested states filed by the Village of Buchanan, Port Authority of F
= j.
- . s of !!ew York and New Jersey, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the New YorkT9 tate Energy Of fi::e should: be granted. -
e S;
,, c Respectfully sus ynitted, p .,
',, 1
..?. -
t . BRENT >L.'sBRANDEtiBURG > .
. , ~ Assistant C.ensral,Co nsel -
Consolidated Edison omgany
' ~ '
of New York, Inc. < . .
4 Irving Place'. ~i A "
M
- New York, N6w York 10003 . r' /
(212) 460~-4333 +
'" I -.
fi f
~ - i, Of counsel ~
Thomas J. Farrelly
+
[
,t'
- ' ?.
f
~ ;
r ~. :
, ~.~.,
e December 21, 10,81 -
4 k
e3 ,
[0 d
ya ,
e l Y y
,y
++ g
+ -
e- E 9 f i e d j f
s 4 ab s
/ 0
? 9 w y
/, e f 1 #*, __
6
~
( ja
, , / l'.'
1
i' U UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' 2g A9 n0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS*fbN
. . , .., :- r -
" 2,;f,Q.4-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,-jgf. g Before Administrative Judges: ~~
Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon
/ '
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
,r t,,_____________________
C, j, i - )
in the Matter of I
r ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 50-286 SP
'NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Unit )
No. 2) ,
. )
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK'(Indian Point, Unit nc. 3) ) ,
____.'________________)
~
n ., ,
'"' + qqRTI,F,I,qEE,j{,SE,RYI,q{
e- o' :'
l,.I ,cer61fy ,that I have served copies of the annexed
/( +-.
" Answer to' Amended Petitions For Leave to Intervene" on the following part;ies by first class mail, postage prepaid, this
/
['
21st day o'f Depember, 1981:
i a' , j ',
<. ,r /
'_ '//
e' g,
' ~ ~
~
J . - , . .
Samu'el J. Chi.1k, Secretary Docketing and Service
/ ,
Branch U. 5. ~ Nuclear Regulatory
. Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7 Washington, D.C. 205.55 Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555
' Louis J. Carter, Chairman
? Atomic Safety and Licensing '
Office of the Executive
,, Board -
Legal Director
,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
' Commission Commission
, Washington, D .'C ~ 20555 . Washington, D.C. 20555 t
f/
/
p 4 r p, Q': .
b".
1 Oscar H. Paris, Member Thomas'R. Frey, Esq.,
Atomic Safety and Licensing General Counsel Board Power Authority of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State of New York Commission 10 Columbus Circle Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10019 Frederick J. Shon, Member Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant General Counsel Board Power Authority of the U.S. Naclear Regulatory State of New York Commission 10 Columbus Circle Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10019 Ellyn R; Weiss, Esq. Joan Holt, Director William S. Jordar., III, Esq. Indian Point Project, Harmon & Weiss, Suite 506 NY Public Interest Research 1725 I Street Group Washington, D.C. 20006 5 Beekman Street New York, New York 10038 Ruth Messinger, et al Members of the Council of Lorna Salzman the City of New York Mid-Atlantic Representative City Hall Friends of the Earth New York, New York 10007 208 West 13th Street New York, New York 10011 Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg Attorneys for the Metropolitan Paul F. Colarulli, Esq.
Transportation Authority Morgan Associates, Chartered 200 Park Avenue 1899 L. Street, N.W.
New York, New York 10166 Washington, D.C. 20036 Charles Morgan, Jr.,"Esq. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq.
Morgan Associates, Chartered Morgan Associates, Chartered 1899 L. Street, N.W. 1899 L. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20036 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
Executive Counsel to the Morgan Associates, Chartered Speaker, New York State 1899 L. Street, N.W.
Assembly Chair, Special Washington, D.C. 20036 Committee on Nuclear Power Safety Charles A. Scheiner State Capitol Co-chairperson, WESPAC Albany, New York 12248 Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc.
Alan Latman, Esq. P. O. Box 488 44 Sunset Drive White Plains, New York 10602 Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Zipporah S. Fleisher, Secretary Environmental Protection West Branch Conservation Bureau Association New York State Attorney 443 Buena Vista Road General's Office New York, New York 10956 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General General Counsel Steve Leipzig, Esq. ~
The Port Authority of New York Deputy Assistant Attorney and New Jersey General One World Trade Center, 66S 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10048 New York, New York 10047 Attention: Charles J. Maikish,Esq.
Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Jonathan L. Le vine , Esq. County Attorney Rockland Citizens For Safe Energy The County of Rockland P. O. Box 74 11 New Hempstead Road New City, New York 10956 New City, New York 10956 Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Greater New York Council on Conservation Committee Chairman Energy Director, New York City Audubon Dean R. Corren, Director Society New York University
- 71. West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, New York 10010 New York, New York _10003.
Pat Posner John Gilroy, Westchester Parents Concerned About Indian Coordinator, Point Indian Point Project P. O. Box 125 New York Public Interest Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Research Group 240 Central Avenue Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. White Plains, New York 10606 New York University Law School 423 Vanderbilt Hall Alfred B. Del Bello, 40 Washington Square South Executive of the County of New York, New York 10012 Westchester i
Westchester County l Stanley B. Klimberg 148 Martine Avenue
! General-Counsel New York, New York 10601 I New York State Energy Office
! 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Clerk's Office i Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchanan i
36 Tate Avenue Buchanan, New York 10511 4
m e a
Shea & Gould Richard Brodsky, Esq.
Attorney for Power Authority of 9th Legislative District the State of New York Westchester County 330 !!adison Avenue White Plains, tiew York 10601 tiew York, New York 10017 Dated: December 21, 1981 New York, 11ew York -
//
( /
f(fitt < , $1l&'-~
--- sem c.- ssuecasa- ---
4 -