ML20041G359

Ny City Council Reply to NRC & Licensee Response to Petition to Amend Petition to Intervene.Amended Petition Satisfies Requirements for Admission of Interested State as Party

ML20041G359
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/12/1982
From:	Messinger R NEW YORK, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8203220127
Download: ML20041G359 (4)

Text

.

l I

o ID UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION

~~ ~

W ..

RECEl'MD 9 FMRI'91982* b10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U UI T9

- #1eaweca mm:m

( 8023 sAwym gg 1M j,

\$

In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP March 12, 1982 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit 3) )

NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL REPLY 'IO NBC STAFF AND LICENN' RESPONSE 'IO PEITTICN EDR LEAVE 'IO AMEND PETITIN EUR INIERVENTION h New York City Council respectfully subnits that its petition to intervene, as amended by the addition of five new signatures which bring the total nurrber of signatures to nore than a majority of the coumilm=6rs, now satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) for the admission of interested, states as a party. Further, the New York City Council will make a valuable contribution to the decision making process and should be admitted as the interested state representing New York City even if there are technical defects in its petition to intervene. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27 , 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976) .

h language of the governing regulation,10 C.F.R. 2.715(c),

mandates the acceptance of the City Council's petition to intervene:

(c) 'Ihe presiding officer will afford representatives of an interested State, county, nunicipality, and/

or agencies thereof, a reasonable vyeur:Lunity to participate and to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise the ecmnission without requiring the representative to take a position with respect to the issue.

8203220127 820312

{DRADoCK 05000247 h $0l l PDR

'Ihe City Council, by a majority of its i b ls, has petitioned to intervene and named Ruth Messinger as the councilperson to co-ordinate the participation of the Council in the prw ings.

'Ibe Staff's objections to the petition do not address the substance of the Council's appearance by a majority of its mebers nor of the designation of Ruth Messinger as the co-ordinator. It is not at all clear in what substantive respects the petition therefore fails to meet the needs of the Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board in assuring that interested states participate meaningfully and in developing as emplete a record as possible.

'Ihe New York City Council's unique position as the elected representatives of the residents of New York City cmpels its acceptance as an interested state in the discretion of the Board, even if the petition to intervene does not meet the technical requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) . 'Ihe factors noted by the Nuclear Regulatory r=niasion in instances of discretionary standing all weigh in favor of admission of the New York City Council. In Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976) , six factors were listed by the c2=niasion:

1. 'Ibe extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

2. 'Ihe nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the pr

• ing.

3. 'Ihe possible effect of any order which may be entered in the pr W ing on the petitoner's interest.

l l

6

4. 'Ihe availability of other means whereby petitioner's interest will be protected.

5. 'Ibe extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.

6. 'Ihe extent to which petitioner's participation .

will inawiw iately r broaden or delay the prw ing.

'Ihe New York City Council, through its r ;- 1=, is the only awswriate body to represent the extensive interests of city residents in the safety issues to be explored at the Indian Point hearings.

Certainly, the Attorney General of the State of New York has broader and conflicting responsibilities to the residents of New York State. 'Ihe interests of the city can only be represented by the City Council, which has petitioned to intervene with a majority of its

• _rs. 'Ib exclude the participation of the Council in this s p ial investigatory pr M ing would be an abuse of the discretionary power of the Board to grant standing to a proposed party that might be otherwise technically ineligible to participate.

In response to the Licensees' omplaint that the petition for leave to amend was not filed in a timely fashion, the New York City Council sul:mits that the addition of five additional signatures to its l

petition to intervene is not a substantive Enredreit such as would prejudice the other parties by its inclusion. 'Ihe Council asserts its good faith intention to participate in the pr w ings on the safety l

of Indian Point and the state of emergency planning without delaying the hearing or burdening the other parties, consistent with its responaihility to the citizens of New York City.

l

- - _ = .__ .- -. - _ _ . _ _ _ -__ - -

)

.i Dated: New York, New York March 12, 1982 FesWJc11y subnitted,

, ~s' ,

amt Messnaza IbW of the Council of the City of New York District #4 City Hall New York, New York 10007 212-566-0709 i

. . .. . .- _. .- -