ML20054D790
| ML20054D790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Morgan C MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D785 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8204230387 | |
| Download: ML20054D790 (32) | |
Text
_ _
i rgveiE3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS:
Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky John F.
Ahearne Thomas M.
Roberts and BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
)
Docket Nos.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-247 SP
)
50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER GRANTING INTERVENTION AND DENYING THE POWER AUTHORITY'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714a(a),(c) (1981), the Power Authority of the State of New York (Power Authority), licen-see of Indian Point Unit No.
3, hereby appeals the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Licensing Board's) order gran-ting intervenor status in this proceeding to the following petitioners:
(1)
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS);
(2)
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
(NYPIRG) and Parents Concerned About Indian Point (Par-ents);1 1.
Inasmuch as Parents is but a created and controlled branch, 820423038'l
i e -
o (3) Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc.
(WESPAC);
(4) Friends of the Earth (FOE); and (5) Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy (RCSE).1 The Power Authority bases its appeal on the following grounds:
(1) because the persons UCS purports to represent are l
not members or the functional equivalent thereof, UCS does I
not have standing to intervene in this proceeding; (2) the intervenors, opponents of nuclear power regardless of safety, should not be allowed to use this proceeding to debate nuclear power; (3) because of their diverse purposes, intervenors are not adequate representatives of their members; and (4) intervenors' attempts to undermine the objective resolution of issues germane to the continued operation of Indian Point bar their participation in this proceeding.
The Power Authority also appeals, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714(a),(b), the Licensing Board's denial of the Power Authority's request for an evidentiary hearing on both the child, or subsidiary of NYPIRG, all of the allegations contained herein regarding tWPIRG apply with equal force to Parents.
1.
As the petition of the Greater New York Council of Energy (GNYCE) was conditionally granted, the Power Authority rer,erves its right to appeal a subsequent grant of intervenor status to GNYCE, if and when it is granted.
M L questions of memberships and membership control over the policies and practices of those organizations.
I.
BECAUSE THE PERSONS UCS PURPORTS TO REPRESENT ARE NOT i
i MEMBERS OR THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT THEREOF, UCS DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO INTERVENE IN THIS PROCEEDING The Licensing Board terms adherence to constitutional requirements for standing to be a " needless paper char-ade."
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petitions to Inter-vene and Agenda for Second Special Prehearing Conference) at 35 n.9 (Apr. 2, 1982) (Order).
Yet, the Supreme Court of l
the United States has ruled that the " persons" an organiza-tion seeks to represent in a proceeding must be members or the functional equivalent thereof.
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S.
333 (1977); see also Health Research Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D. 21 (D.C.Cir. 1979).1 They must " possess all of the indicia of membership in
[that) organization."
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. at 344.
"(I]ndicia of membership" is established by'the right to elect and serve upon boards of e
1.
la determining whether a petitioner seeking leave to intervene has assertid An interest which may be affected by a proceeding, see 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(2) (1981), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commis-sion) applies contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing.
In re Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield, Illinois, Iow-Ievel Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), 7 N.R.C. 737, 739-40 (1978); In re Public Service Co. -(Black Ebx Station, Units 1 a:d 2), 5 N.R.C.1143,1144-45 (1977);
In re P rtland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Lhits 1 and 2),=4 N.R.C.' 610, 612.{1976).
y 1
t, t'
i,
,g,.'
. ~..
l,
directors.
Id. at 344-45; Health Research Group v.
- Kennedy, 8 2 F. R. D.
at 26.
Here, however, the Licensing Board has admitted UCS as an intervenor even though the persons it purports to repre-sent are not members with voting control over the board, officers, and. policies of the organization.
They are, instead, non-voting " sponsors" who have no rights and are entitled to exercise absolutely no control over the organization.
Order at 31-35.
Article III of the Constitution of the United States requires that the person before the tribunal "be himself among the injured."
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S.
- 727, 734-35 (1972).
The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect 1
against injury to the complaining party, even though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally.
Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 499 (1975).
That person
" generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, r
and cannot rest his claim to the relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties."
Id.
Because the "associational standing doctrine represents a very limited exception to the fundamental Article III requirement," Health Research Group v.
Kennedy, 82 F.R.D.
at 25, more than the mere existence of a cognizable injury to a third party must be established.
Otherwise, "any associa-tion could gain standing simply by presenting the
court with the case or controversy of any unrelated third party."
Id.
So long ac the courts insist on some sort of substantial nexus between the injured party and the organizational plaintiff - a nexus normally to be pro-vided by actual membership or its func-tional equivalent measured in terms of control - it can reasonably be presumed that, in effect, it is the injured party who is himself seeking review.
Absent this element of control, there is simply no assurance that the party seeking judicial review represents the injured party, and not rpprely a well informed point of view.I4 Ye t, the Licensing Board has determined regarding UCS and its powerless, non-member " sponsors" that "where an indivi-dual UCS sponsor has standing, this provides sufficient nexus between the organization and this proceeding so as to permit representational standing by UCS."
Order at 34.
UCS has no members.
UCS is funded by contributions from non-voting " sponsors."2 Originally, UCS' Articles of 1.
Id. at 26-27 (emphasis in original and added); cf. In re Houston LTdhting and Ibwer Co. (South Texas Project, UniE 1 and 2), 9 N.R.C. 439, 459 (1979) ("[T]here may be a difference between [the petitioner's] ' constituency' and its ' members.'").
2.
See Transcript of Testimony of Ibbert Pollard, Hearirg Before the Special Cmm. on Nuclear Safety at 13 (Special Cmmittee Testimony)
("We are sponsomd by donations frm over 75,000 sponsors"). UCS generally refers to its adherents as " sponsors." See, e_.g.,
Industry's Response to the Accident at 'Ihree Mile Islard: Oversight Hearirgs Before the Subccan. on Energy and the Environent of the House Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 96th Gong.,1st Sess. 56 (1979) (statee nt of Fbbert D. Pollard accompanied by Ellyn R. Weiss) (Oversight Hearirgs); Special Committee Testimony at 13; Iatter frm Eric E. Van Icon to Fellow Citizen at 4 (undated solicitation letter).
Incorporation provided that "the corporation shall have no members."1 Later this clause was amended to allow "non-voting nembers."2
"(I]ndividuals will become bona fide members upon the contribution of time or money and shall
-have the right to receive certain publications and other items at reduced or no fee."3 The UCS' " sponsors" have no active voice in management of the group's affairs.
We have a management structure up in Cambridge, Mass., an executive director and an assistant director and a board of directors which meets occasionally to discuss major policy issues.
The man-agement together with the board decides when we are going to make various moves, what cases we will get into and what policy. positions the organization will t a ke. L '* h UCS is totally controlled by the Cambridge Group.
Its
" sponsors" possess not a scintilla of the control incident to membership.5 1.
Articles of Incorporation of Union of Concerned Scientists Ebnd, Inc. at 1 (Sept.19,1973) (enphasis added).
2.
Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Union of Concerned Scientists Fund, Inc. (Nov. 15, 1978).
3.
Id. (emphasis in original and added).
4.
Oversight Hearings at.56-57 (enphasis added).
l S.
See Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S.
333; Health Ibsearch Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D. 21.
l l
4 Despite this, the Licensing Board granted intervenor status to UCS.1 The Licensing Board reasoned that when a non-membership organization has a well-defined purpose which is germane to
[a proceeding], sponsors can be consi-dered equivalent to members where they financially support the organization's objectives and have indicated a desire to be represented by the organization.
1.
'Ihe Licensing Board noted that it would have admitted UCS at its discretion had it not ruled that UCS met the standards for interven-tion as a matter of right, order at 35 n.10.
Yet, UCS has not even approached meeting its burden of showing that the requirements for discretionary intervention have been met. See In re Public Service Co.
of Oklahoma, 5 N.R.C. at 1149-51 (Licensing Board's grant of discretion-ary intervention overturned when record devoid of any indication that petitioner might make a substantial contribution to the proceeding); see also In re Nuclear Engineering Co., 7 N.R.C. at 745 (burden on peti-tioner to show it meets criteria for discretionary intervention).
"Formost among the factors which are to be taken into account in deciding whether to allow participation in the proceeding as a discre-tionary matter is whether such participation would likely produce 'a valuable contribution... to [the] decision-making process.'"
In re Virginia Electric and Ibwer Co. (North Anna Ibwer Station, Units 1 and 2), 4 N.R.C. 631, 633 (1976); In re Nuclear Engineering Co., 7 N.R.C. at 743-44. Accordingly, a petitioner "must specify the extent to which it will involve itself... and the contribution which that involvement can reasonably be anticipated to make."
In re Nuclear Engineering Co.,
7 N.R.C. at 745.
"[B] road, generalized averments will not suffice."
-Id.
UCS has presented no evidence that its participation would con-stitute a valuable and significant contribution to this proceeding. LES claims that it "has been involved with safety issues relating to the Indian Ibint reactors for the last five years," Petition for Isave to Intervene at 2, but has not demonstrated that its staff members are
" qualified by either specialized education or pertinent experience to make a substantial contribution." In re Tennessee Valley Autirrity (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Obits 1 and 2), 5 N.R.C.1418,1422 (1977).
Nor has it shown that its " participation r~f reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record."
In re Ibrtland General Electric Co., 4 N.R.C. at 616; In re Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Ibwer Plant, thit 2), 7 N.R.C. 381, 387, aff'd, 7 N.R.C. 473 (1978).
Additionally, UCS's attspt to undermine this proceeding by prmot-ing psychological distress in the community provides further support for not allowing UCS special treatment. See text, infra at 23-26.
' Order at 34.1 In this regard, the Licensing Board noted that UCS's objectives with regard to nuclear power are widely known and that "it is a desire to support the pursuit of those goals that motivates the financial participation of I_d_. at 32.
d UCS sponsors."
Exercising " considerable influence on [an organiza-tion's] policies and projects" through " financial support" and " letter writing" constitutes neither indicia of member-ship nor anything else that is sufficient to confer associa-tional standing.
Health Research Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D.
at 27.2
"[A] plaintiff cannot gain standing merely on a showing that its interests and expertise are germane to the interests of any third parties wno would have standing in t he i r own r ig h t. " _Id_. a t 26 (emphasis added).3 1.
The Licensing Board also based its decision on the opinion in the ihree Mile Island Festart proceeding in which LES was admitted "on the basis of UCS sp3nsors who lived within 20 miles of the plant."
Order at 34. Ibwever, because "neither the staff nor the licensee oppose [d that] ruling," its value as precedent is limited.
In re Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit tb.1)
(Restart), Memorandum and Order Ruling on Petitions ard Setting Special Prehearing Conference at 14 (unpublished, Sept. 21, 1979).
2.
In a previous case in which UCS was denied intervention for failure to particularize its interests, an Atanic Safety aand Licensing Board declined "to explore the question whether representational stand-ing can be based on the personal interests of a mere financial contri-butor to the organization."
In re Virginia Electric and Ibwer Co.
(? brth Anna Nuclear Ibwer Station, Units 1 and 2), 9 N.R.C. 402, 404 n.2 (1979).
3.
The Licensing Board stggested that UCS' sIonsors could have independently been granted intervenor status and then authorized UCS to represent them. Ibwever, NRC regulations only allow an individual to be represented by himself or herself or by an attorney-at-law.
10 C.F.R.
t I
Similarly, RCSE has failed to establish the requisite nexus between the organization and the persons it purports to represent.1 Although RCSE submitted affidavits from two persons alleging membership,2 this mere recitation does not establish that they " possess all of the indicia of membership in [RCSE),"3 or "any other connection with [RCSE]
sufficiently substantial to confer associational standing on
[RCSE]."4 S 2.713(b); see In re Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Lhits 1, 2 and 3), 6 N.R.C. 642, 643 n.3 (1977) ("an individual not appearing on his or her own behalf must be represented by a lawyer").
'Ihe Licensing Board's interpretation of Health Research Group with regard to the substitution of parties is also incorrect.
See Order at 34-35 n.9.
Wille Jtdge Sirica did allow the public interest organiza-tions to ameM their pleadings to substitute persons with standing, Health Ibsearch Group v. Fennedy, 82 F.R.D. at 30 (emphasis added), he did not indicate that the new plaintiffs could then authorize the public interest organizations to pursue the litigation.
1.
In re Houston Power & Lighting Co., 9 N.R.C. at 459 ("A peti-tioner is responsible for providing a Board with sufficient information for determining whether the petitioner has standing of right."); accord Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Canmission, 432 U.S. 333.
2.
Affidavits of Helga Ancona and Wayne Browning (Exhibits A ard B to Amended Ibtition of IbcklaM Citizens for Safe Energy for leave to Intervene (Dec. 14, 1981)).
In its original petition for leave to intervene, RCSE stated that it sought to intervene on behalf of persons 4
who were either " sponsors or members." Petition for Ieave to Intervene at 2 (tbv. 9,1981).
3.
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Cdmnission, 432 U.S.
at 344.
4.
Health Research Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D. at 27.
l
II.
THE INTERVENORS, OPPONENTS OF NUCLEAR POWER REGARDLESS OF SAFETY, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS PROCEEDING 20 DEBATE NUCLEAR POWER Cor.,0.ission Chairman Nunzio Palladino has stated that (t]he function of the NRC is to safely regulate nuclear power and not to become an advocate for nuclear power.
- However, neither is the NRC to debate whether or not there ought to be nuclear power; this is the province of the Congress.III The Commission, in addressing a petition to shut down all nuclear power plants, further declared that it does not sit as an arbiter of any na-tional morality alleged to exist apart from the Constitution and the laws of Congress, which each Commissioner is sworn to uphold.
Nor does any other Commission.
Nor does any Court.
If the petitioners feel that the statu-tory standards applying to nuclear power are not stringent enough on moral grounds, they must make that case to the Congress.
The morality embodied in the existing statutes is not the one that they urge, and we have no power to change that.t2]
UCS and NYPIRG do not seek a safe nuclear plant.
They seek no nuclear plants at all.
(N]uclear power is neither necessary nor in the public's interest (and NYPIRG]
1.
Ietter fran Nunzio J. Palladino to 'Ihe Honorable Ibbert j
Stafford (June 18, 1981) (emphasis added) (attach:mnt; response to question submitted by Senator Hart).
2.
46 Fed. Peg. 39,573, 39,580 (1981).
l
YorkState'soperatingreactors.gfNew favor (s] an expeditious phase ou Robert Pollard, a UCS nuclear engineer, told reporters at a news conference that the only question with which the nation is presented is "how fast we should do away with nuclear power as an energy source."2 Such statements by UCS and NYPIRG raise a serious question as to whether they "look[]
upon [this] proceeding as a forum for resolving technical questions in the fairest and most comprehensive manner, or alternatively, whether [they] view [] this proceeding merely in terms of a podium for soapbox oratory."
In re Penn-sylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), 10 N.R.C.
597, 602 (1979).
UCS and NYPIRG should not be allowed to call upon the resources of the NRC to aid them in achieving their goals 3
which are inconsistent with congressional policy and the 1.
Iatter frcm Joan Holt, NYPIRG, to NRC Commissioners at 10 (July 24, 1981).
2.
Gloan Voiced on Atcm Power, Wash. Post, May 3,1979, S 1, 8, col. 1, at col. 2.
3.
Congress has declared:
(a) the... use... of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribu-tion to the general welfare, subject... to the paramount objective of makirg the maximum contribution to the ca: mon defense and security; and (b) the... use... of atcmic energy shall be directed so as to... improve the general welfare, increase the standard of livirg, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise.
. purposes of this proceeding.1 See Doyle v.
United States, Atcmic Enrgy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2011. 'Ihese plicies are to be effectuated by a program which encourages " widespread participation in the developnent and utilization of atmic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the camon defense and security and with the health and safety of the public."
Id. S 2013(d).
'Ihe Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that Congress' role is to establish policy regarding nuclear power.
Nuclear energy may some day be a cheap, safe source of pwer or it may not. But Congress has made a choice to at least try nuclear energy, establishing a reasonable review process in which courts are to play only a limited role....
Time may prove wrong the decision to develop nuclear energy, but it is Congress or the States within their appropriate acencies which must eventually make that judgment.
Vernont Yankee Nuclear Ibwer Corp. v. Natural Resources D3fense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 557-58 (1978) (emphasis added); see TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978) ("it is... the exclusive province of the Congress... to formulate legislative policies and mandate programs and projects").
1.
In rejecting this argument, the Licensing Board reasoned that
"[t]he fact that 'the sole or primary purpose of the petitioner organization [is] to oppse nuclear power in general or the facility at bar in particular' is not a basis for denying a petition to intervene."
Order at 28 n.7., quoting In re Houston Lightirq and Ibwer Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), 9 N.R.C. 377, 396 (1979).
However, the Appeal Board in Houston Lighting was not addressing the issue of whether a petitioner's oppostition to nuclear power should preclude its intervention. Pather, it was addressing only the requirement that an organization submit authorizations frm the persons it purports to represent.
[I]n some instances the authorization might be presumed.
Ebr example, such a presumption could well be appropriate where it appeared that the sole or primary purpose of the petitioner organization was to oppose nuclear pwer in general or the facility at bar in particular.
In such a situation, it might be reasonably inferred that, by joining the organization, the members were imp 3icitly authorizing it to represent any personal interests which might be affected by the proceeding.
In re Houston Power & Lighting Co., 9 N.R.C. at 396.
'Iberefore, the Licensing Board erred when it applied this reasoning to the issue raised by the Power Auttority.
494 F.Supp. 842, 844 (D.D.C. 1980).
To UCS, power plants are " unnecessary reactors" which can cause cancer and genetic damage to future generations.1 Robert D. Pollard,2 formerly employed by the NRC and currently on the staff of UCS, is vehemently opposed to the nuclear option at any cost.
Pollard envisions a future of either catastrophe or no nuclear power:
[F]or the long term, even after Three Mile Island, I think I see only two options for nuclear power.
We are either going to have a cata-strophic accident, and that will finish it off, or the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission will begin to do its job, and in doing that job it will make nuclear power so expensive that no more nuclear plants will be built, and the existing ones will gp phased out as rapidly as possible.I J Mr. Pollard's UCS is so adamant in its belief that the 4
Indian Point plants should be closed at once that evidence 1.
fatter fran Eric E. Van Icon, Executive Director of UCS to Friend at 2 (undated solicitation letter) (emphasis in original); see M. at 3 ("Since 1971, UCS has been a leader in the struggle against the dangers posed by nuclear pow r.").
2.
Ib11ard has " affirmed" that the information in both the Union of Concerned Scientists' Petition for Decaumissioning of Indian Ibint 1 ard Suspension of Operation of Lhits 2 & 3 (filed Sept. 17, 1979), and its Petition to Intervene, is correct. Affidavit of Ibbert D. Ibllard (filed tbv. 9,1981).
3.
Transcript of Testimony of Ibbert Ib11ard, Hearing Before the Special Canm. on Nuclear Safety at 78-79 (1979) (hereinafter Special Canmittee Testimony).
4.
U.S. Ibnel Releases Reports that Critic Says Show Failure to Act on Safety Before Licensing Atan Reactors, N.Y. Times, Feb. 13, 1976,
to be offered at the hearing could not alter this view.
He reiterated this immovable stance at a congressional hearing.
Mr. Pollard:
I would think that what we need to do with these plants is de-commission them and not let them operate again.
The Chairman:
How quickly?
Mr. Pollard:
Immediately.
The Chairman:
Tomorrow afternoon?
Mr. Pollard:
Yes sir.
The Chairman:
As soon as we can?
Mr. Pollard:
As soon as we can.
I think if we wait until tomorrow after-noon, and the accident occurs tomorrow morning, everyone will agree we should have shut them down today.
That is what we are facing here, is the country going tobesmartenoughorw{ggenoughto face up to the problems
' which we know exist.
Or are we going to wait until we have a serious accident that kills 10,000 people, that contaminates metro-politan New That is the choice we arefacing.I{Qrk?
J S 1, at 15, - col. 1.
UCS has made public its objection with regard to Indian Ibint by placing a full-page advertisemnt against operation of the plants in the New York Times.
48,000 People Could Die on a lbrth-erly Wind fran 2.dian Ibint, N.Y. Times, Sept. 23,1979, S 4, at 20; see also Some Day We All Will Wake Up, N.Y. Times, Apr. 8, 1979, S 4, at 22, (full-page advertisement in which UCS claims that "[t]he government has violated a public trust").
1.
'Ihe courts have uniformly confirmed that "[a]bsolute or perfect assurances are not required [by the Atomic Energy Act], and neither pre-sent technology nor public policy admit of such a standard." Citizens for Safe Ibwer, Inc. v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291,1297 (D.C. Cir.1975).
2.
Industry's Ibsponse to the Accident at 'Ihree Mile Island:
Oversight Hearings Before the Subcom. on Energy and the Environment of the House Ccmm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 96th Corg.,1st Sess.
44 (1979) (statement of Ibbert D. Ibllard).
?
NYPIRG established its Indian Point Shutdown Project in 1979.l NYPIRG Annual Report, 1979-1980, at 13.
Joan Holt, project coordinator, has stated that no amount of safeguards could satisfy her concerns; the only solution is to shut down Indian Point.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
[I]f I was tracking what some of your initial comments were tell me if this impression is wrong.
The impression I got was that if a num-ber of changes are made in the operator improvements, procedural improvements and in short and long term safeguards that there are really no set of those that would meet your concerns.
MS. HOLT:
That's right.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That your concerns really would only be met when the plant is being shutdown.
MS. HOLT:
Yes, because of the site.
That's my personal view, yes.
And that's the view of my organization.
We feel that there is no way because you cannot guarantee that accidents cannot Dr. Henry W. Kendall, a UCS co-founder, states:
We (trS] believe that in view of the unique features of nuclear power that it is imprudent for a nation to adopt a canmitment to this source until all feasible alternative neans of preventing energy are exploited, energy management and con-servation implemented fully, and, finally, a compelling need shown to exist.
H. Vendall, Nuclear Ebwer: A Review of Its Problems, reprinted in U.S.
Fomign Iblicy and the Export of Nuclear Technology to the MiddlT Fast:
Hearings Before the Subccuas. on International Organizations and Movements aM on the Near East aM South Asia of the House Comm. on Ebreign Affairs, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 298 (1974) (emphasis added).
1.
A NYPIRG publication proclaims that nuclear Irwer has becane a
" nightmare." Nuclear Ebwr: An Idea Itose Time Has Passed?
(1979)
(unpaginated); see NYPIRG's 1980 Irgislative Program 7; NYPIRG Annual Report, 1979-1980, at 13; NYPIRG Annual Report,1975, at 6.
happen.
You can debate probabilities all day but they can happen, and if they happenourregionisindoublejgardy because of the dense population.
NYPIRG intends to use this hearing.
To NYPIRG, it "should be of a broad enough scope to allow participants to raise basic questions about nuclear safety--and to challenge many of the assumptions underlying the way the NRC regulates nuclear power plants."2 Holt, New York City's Nuclear Threat, Agenda, at 5 ( Ja n. -Fe b. 1981) (emphasis added).
Because the Commissioners have mandated that the scope of the hearing be limited specifically to Indian Point, Memorandum and Order at 2 (NRC Sept. 18, 1981), NYPIRG's 1.
Transcript of NRC Public Meetirg, Presentation by Canmenters in UCS 2.260 Petition on Indian Point at 71-72 (Feb. 5,1980); see Statenent of Joan Holt for Presentation to the NRC at 4 (Feb. 5,1980)
(Ibit Presentation Statement) ("'Ihere is no way around it:
those plants must be closed!").
2.
Ibit has denounced the Cancissioners for perpetrating " lies, cover-ups, and... public relations hype." Statemnt of Joan Holt Before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Canmission for the Committee to Protect Q111dren frcm Nuclear I: angers 1 (Jan.15,1980) (Holt Commit-tee Statement). Holt has told the Canmissioners that it is they "who are on trial here!" Ibit Presentation Statement at 4.
She has accused the Commissioners of " collusion" with the utilities, id. at 2, and with being "more interested in protecting the nuclear induTs ry than in safe-guardirg the public." Holt Canmittee Statement at 1.
She has charac-terized Governor Carey as misled and misinformed, Letter from Joan Holt and Dean Corren to Covernor Hugh L. Carey at 1 (June 30,1980), and with being nere concerned with " money rather than lives." Consumer Group Paps Carey on Indian Ibint, Ihily News, tbv. 18,1980, at 10.
She claims that the " emergency preparedness scheme of the NRC is a criminal sham," _id_. (emphasis added), an:1 that the NRC is playing "Ibssian Ibulette" with the citizens of NEw York. Nuclear Panel Approves Festart of PASNY Plant, Gannett Wstchester Newspapers, Nov. 15, 1980.
i I
challenges and those of UCS are within "the province of Cong ress," not this Licensing Board.
Similarly, WESPAC and FOE should nor be allowed to intervene in this proceeding to promote their goals of clos-ing down the nuclear power industry.1 1.
hTSPAC admits that its ultimate goal is to terminate the use of nuclear power as a viable energy source in this country.
In its Amended Petition, WESPAC states:
Yes, we would like to close down the industry--w believe it recresents an unconscionacle threat to the health, safety, and financial well-ceing of pecple living in areas populated by nuclear plants and other components of the fuel cycle.
Further-more, we vauld like to end tne nuclear weapons industry... and free the world's reople from the Sword of Ebmocles hancina over our heads.
WESPAC's Pre-hearirg Memorandum and Paspanse to Staff and Utility Answers to Petitions for Leave to Intervene at 5 (Dec.1,1981) (hTSPAC Amerded Petition) (emphasis added); see WESPAC Petition, reprinted _i_n, Dmrgency Planning Around U.S. Nuclear Powerplants:
Nuclear Pegulatory Cmaission Oversight Hearirns Before a Subconm. of the Ibuse Cma. on Goverrrent Cparations, 96th Cong.,1st Sess. 351 (1979) (statement of Connie Hogarth, Director, WESPAC) (L%ergency Plannirg Hearirgs) (empha-sis added) (" nuclear powerplants are a clear and present dary;er to the health and welfare of livirs taings"). WESPAC's director, Connie Hogarth, believes that nuclear power is " threatening to world peace, threatenire to the very future of htmankind." Hogarth, A Dafense of Civil Disobedience, N.Y. Times, Sept. 22,1977, S 22, at 20, col. 3 She holds that (elvery nuclear plant built today increases the probability of a nuclear accident and increases the probability that the plutonitm produced will eventually beccme a weapon of mass destruction.
-Id. at 20, col. 4.
Icrna Salzman, Mid-Atlantic Pepresentative for FOE, has urged that nuclear energy be abandoned and that the United States " opt for safer focus of energy that do not nurtgage our lives and those of our descen-dants." Salmnan, Carl, & Dickerson, Nuclear Canble, N.Y. Times, Mar.
31, 1974, S 6, a t 65, col. 1.
Moreover, ECE endorsed, with other environnental groups, "a phase out of nuclear energy over the next 10 years and a major shift away from large-scale, higt.
achnology energy developed generally." Carter, Pailure Seen for big-Scale, High-Technoloov Ener=v Plans, Science, Mar.
2,1977, at 764.
The views of UCS emanate from the desire to place the Commission, not the safety of Indian Point, on trial.
UCS charges Commission " mismanagement."1 It has accused the Commission of being " blind to safety issues."2 It claims that the NRC safety standards are in a state of disarray.
Rather than having an organ-ized, unified and unequivocal set of safety standards, NRC has a bewildering collection of regulations, regulatory guides, informal rules-of-thumb, formal technical specifications, design re-quirements, performance criteria, etc.
ad hoc basis. g and interpreted on an that are appl:,
III.
BECAUSE OF THEIR DIVERSE PURPOSES, INTERVENORS ARE NOT ADEQUATE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR V. EMBERS Even if they were not barred from this proceeding because of their opposition to nuclear power regardless of safety, intervenors' purposes are so broad and their 1.
Ibilard resigned fran the Canmission because "I could no longer, in conscience, participate in a process that so effectively evades the sirrJ1e legislative mandate given to the N.R.C.-
protection of public health and safety."
Con Ed Official Brands Critic of Atom Safety Uhprofessional, N.Y. Times, Feb. 24,1976, S 1,16, col. 4, at col. 5 (enphasis added).
2.
Safety an Issue at Indian Ibint, N.Y. Times, Jan. 21, 1976, S 1, at 62, col. 7, at col. 8.
3.
Nuclear Siting and Licensirg Act of 1978:
Hearirgs Before the Subccmn. on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Comm. on Environment and Public Works, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 975 (1978) (Detailed Testimony of Ibbert D. Ibilard Before the Subcomm. on Energy and Power of the House Canm. on Interstate and Foreign Ccmmerce).
members' interests are so diverse that intervenors cannot adequately represent their members.jt Associated General Contractors v. Otter Tail Power Co., 611 F.2d 684, 691 (8th Cir. 1979); Simone, Associational Standing and Due Process: The Need for an Adecuate Representational Scrutiny, 61 B.U.L.Rev. 174, 180 (1981) (Simone) ("An ade-quate representation problem occurs when an [ organization] represents a diverse membership which has varied inter-ests.") NYPIRG, WESPAC, and FOE are multi-issue groups with diverse interests. Decisions made by their control groups may not reflect the views of presumed " constituencies."1 They must demonstrate that "the interests [they] seek [] to protect are germane to the organization's purpose." Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. at 343; see In re Houston Lighting and Power Co., 9 N.R.C. at 447. Their concerns are certainly not germane to their pur-poses. Germaneness helps insure, not only that the party before the Court be a competent and effective advocate on the issues presented, but also that the members of the plaintiff organization have had an opportunity to influence their representatives on positions related to the particular member injury at issue. Like the membership requirement this too ultimately insures that it is the injured party, and not merely a 1. See Simone at 179.
well-intentioned advocate, who is, at least in effect, before the Court. Health Research Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D. at 28 (emphasis in original and added).1 In granting intervenor status to NYPIRG, WESPAC, and FOE, the Licensing Board refused to recognize this well-established requirement.2 NYPIRG has wide ranging, disparate goals: The public or quasi-public objectives which the purposes will achieve are to provide citizens of Central New York a lawful and meaningful method to influ-1. In Health Research Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D. 21, Public Citizen and Health Ibsearch Group (HRG), both Nader-inspired groups, challenged certain aspects of the Food and Drug Administration's regula-tion of over-the-counter drugs. For standing, both organizations relied upon contributors to Public Citizen which served as an umbrella organ-ization and conduit for funds to a diverse set of consumer advocacy groups, one of which was HPG, whose primary purpose was consuner advocacy on health issues. ~Id. at 28. In denying standing to Public Citizen, Judge Sirica observed that a person contributing to Public Citizen "exercis[ed) influence over an organization with the broadest of concerns: the public interest," and that the interests sought to be protected by the lawsuit were germane only to the purposes of HRG. _I_d. d (emphasis added). Se Court, however, denied HPG standing because its relationship with the contributors was " highly attenuated." -Id. at 28. We Court further noted that "[ health issues were] merely one of many projects to which Public Citizen's contributions are channeled." _Id. 2. Post-Hunt cases have continued to require a close relationship between an organization's purpose and the interest it seeks to protect. See, e.g., Church of Scientology of California v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1777, T279-80 (5th Cir.1981); NCAA v. Califano, 622 F.2d 1382, 1391 (10th Cir.1980); Ccamittee for Auto Responsibility v. Solcmon, 603 F.2d 992, 998 n.13 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 915 (1980); National Constructors Association v. National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., 498 F.Supp. 510, 520-21 (D.Md.1980); Wampler v. Goldschmidt, 486 F.Supp 1130,1133-34 (D.Minn.1980); National Office Machine IMalers Association v. bbnroe, he Calculator I Co., 484 F.Supp.1306,1307 (N.D.Ill.1980); Consmers Union of United States, Inc. v. Miller, 84 F.R.D. 240, 244 (D.D.C.1979); Huertas v. East River Housing Corp., 81 F.R.D. 641, 649 (S.D.N.Y.1979); Boyce v. Riz20, 78 F.R.D. 698, 704 (E.D.Pa. 1978). l l I
ence decisions which affect the public interest. [NYPIRG) will seek to contribute to and effect informed public action by research, evaluation, and education. The areas of involvement include environmental preservation, con-sumer protection, racial and sexual dis-crimination, product safety, corporate responsibility,,as well as problems of social welfare.'" NYPIRG is involved with issues concerning consumer protec-tion, the environment, government reforu, health, higher education, energy, redlining, senior citizens, small claims, taxes, and mass transit.2 In its Petition for Leave to Intervene at 1, WESPAC t states that it is " concerned about the quality of life, peace (and] justice." WESPAC's purposes are: l To stimulate among the residents of Westchester County, New York, through an exchange of ideas and cooperation among i diverse organizations, a fuller under-standing of the issues which offset the quality of life including, but not lim-ited to, the environment, economic 4 security, the preservation and expansion of individual rights, the equality of-all peoples, and the promotion of world peace, all for the betterment of Westchester County, America and the World. b 4 1. Certificate of Incorporation of Central New York Public Interest Research Group,~Inc. (filed Aug. 8, 1972) (enphasis added). '1he group's name was changed to New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. in 1973. Certificate of Amendment of 'the Certificate of Incorporation of Central New York Public Interest Research Group (filed Ibv. 12, 1973). 2. NYPIRG Annual Report, 1979-1980, at 12-24. I
Certificate of Incorporation at 3 (emphasis added).1 WESPAC seeks to combat racism and sexism, Emergency Planning Hear-ings at 335, United States imperialism, prison overcrowding, and anti-union corporations. WESPAC Newsletter, Jan./Feb. 1981, at 7, 10, 12.2 FOE comes closer. At least it "is ' dedicated to the preservation, restoration, and rational use of the earth's resources,' and is working for 'a clean environment, a decent workplace, and reasonable use of energy.'" But FOE has been quoted as stating that it will " continue the tone, extent, and breadth" of the work it has been doing, covering a broad range of energy, land management, and resource exploitation issues L'* J The constitutional requirement articulated in Hunt is 1. WESPAC's concern with " economic security" is not a cognizable interest. In re 'Ibnnessee Valley Authority, 5 N.R.C. at 1420-21 (neither taxpayers nor ratepayers have requisite interest for starxling); In re Ibrtland General Electric Q. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2), 3 N.R.C. 804, 806 (1976) (ratepayers have insufficient interest). 2. WESPAC claims that its " broad range of concerns makes'(it] more, not less, qualified to participate in this proceeding." WESPAC Amended Petition to Intervene at 6. 'Ihe issue is not whether WESPAC is " qualified," but whether WESPAC is an appropriate agent to represent a diverse mmbership with varied interests. 3. Foundation for Public Affairs, Public Interest Profiles F-45 (1980). 4. Id. at F-51 (emphasis added). NE has been involved in pro-ccedings ooncerning nuclear wapons proliferation and radioactive waste transp rt. NE Statement to the New York City Council Environnental l Protection Committee on Indian Ibint II at 1 (Oct. 28,1981) (statment of Iorna Saltzman). 'Ihese issues are not on trial in this proceeding. l
to ensure that'an " association has a personal stake in the outcome of (a lawsuit] by limiting the type of member inter-ests for which it may sue."1 On the one hand intervenors' purposes -- to shut down all plants regardless of safety -- preclude their participation. On the other hand, the stakes and interests of intervenors' " members" "are too diverse and possibilities of conflict too obvious to make (them] appro-priate vehicle (s] to litigate the claims of (their] members" in this proceeding.2 Associated General Contractors v. Ot te r Ta il Powe r Co., 611 F.2d at 691. IV. INTERVENORS' ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE OBJECTIVE RESOLUTION OF ISSUES GERMANE TO THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF INDIAN POINT BAR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCEEDING Equity compels parties before the Licensing Board to act " fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the contro-versy in issue." Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814-15 (1945). Yet, the Licensing Board has refused to address 1. Sinone at 183. 2. NYPIRG's " mandatory membership" (students are automatically menbers unless they request a refund of their dues) further supports the notion that the interests of NYPIRG members are too diverse to make NYPIRG an adequate representative in this proceeding. W e propriety of mandatory student assessments by a state PIRG is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the W ird Circuit. Galda v. Bloustein, 516 F.Supp.1142 (D.N.J.1981), appeal docketed, No. 81-2433 (3rd Cir., filed Sept. 3, 1981). p-e
UCS', NYPIRC's, and Parents' urgent ef forts to undermine this proceeding.2 UCS, NYPIRG, and Parents have conducted a campaign to induce, instill, or exacerbate a phobia of nuclear power in the residents living near the plants.4 Thic campaign to frighten and terrify can have but one purpose: to create or exacerbate fear. The " Parents' Survey" and the pamphlet, "In Case of A Nuclear Accident Do You Know What To Do?",5 both dis-1. All allegations contained herein apply to other petitioners whm the Power Authority muld have expected to identify through an evidentiary procedure. 2. Although the Licensing Board decided to luid in abeyance the litigation of the issue of fear in this proceeding "pending issuance of an opinion by [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit] in Pane
- v. NRC, Ibcket tb. 81-1131... and any NRC policies or regulations as a result of that decision," Memorandum and Order (Formulating Conten-tions and Designating Intervenor Responsibilities) at 14 n.5 ( Apr. 9, 1982), it did not address the Power Authority's contention that UCS, NYPIRG, and Parents should be barred frcm this proceeding because of their attempts to prcmote fear in the cmmunity.
3. LI'S, NYPIRG, and Parents are acting in concert in these pro-ceedings and any action of one should be construed as the action of all three. 4. Nowhere in any respnse do UCS, NYPIRG, or Parents deny that they have engaged in the very conduct which the Power Authority has charged. 5. 'Ihis pamphlet was printed by the Fund for Secure Energy, Inc. (FUSE), and was distributed by NYPIRG. See Affidavit of Roger Stavis (Exhibit B to Ibwer Authority's Motion for leave to File the Following Reply to Potential Intervenors' Ibsponses to Power Authority's lbtion to Exclude Fear as an Issue in thie Proceeding (Dec. 31, 1981)). In [ addition, the Ibwer Authority is informed and believes that officials of NYPIRG's Indian Point Shutdown Project have distributed both the NYPIRG I " Parents' Survey" and the pamphlet "In Case of a Nuclear Accident. Ib You Know What 'Ib Ib?" to assemblies in Pockland and Westchester Coun-l
O. tributed by NYPIRG, are examples of scaremongering. This " survey instrument was not intended to elicit )bjective responses regarding attitudes or knowledge pertaining to the respondents' emergency evacuation plans, but rather was [ intended] to intimidate, frighten, and create a sense of helplessness in those who read it." Af fidavit of David Valinsky 1 8 (Exhibit A to Power Authority's Motion for Leave to File the Following Reply to Potential Responses to Power Authority's Motion to Exclude Fear as an Issue in this Proceeding (Dec. 31, 1981)). The " survey's" primary aim appears to be to threaten the parents of young children by focusing on tension-raising hypotheticals such as the need to know "where my kids are at any minute of the day--and what will be done with them in a nuclear emergency." Affidavit of Dr. Robert L. DuPont in Support of Licensee's Motion to Exclude Fear as an Issue in this Proceeding 1 6. The " survey's" targeting of parents of young children rather than the public at large, and the " questions" -- ties. NYPIRG makes the misleading claim that the pamphlet "is totally beyond the pale of the hearings" because " FUSE is not a participant before this board, and therefore cannot present any defense of the specific wording it adopted." thion of Concerned Scientists, New York Public Interest Research Group, and Parents Concerned About Indian Point Fesponse to PASNY's Mation to Exclude Fear of Nuclear Ibwer as an Issue in this Proceeding at 3 n.* (Dec. 17, 1981) (Joint Response). Although it distributed this pamphlet to the public, see Affidavit of Ibger Stavis, NYPIRG would have the Cmmission believe that there is no connection between what it terTns a " legitimate instrurnent of mass emmunication," Joint Response at 3 n.*, and itself.
O O implicit suggestions that something mysterious and awful might happen to the young children of concerned parents in a nuclear emergency -- demonstrates that the " survey" was designed to create and promote fear, not to provide or soli-cit objective information. See id. 1 9. The " survey" fails to provide useful information, such as "if you hear a siren, turn on your radio and get accurate information--do not listen to rumor and do not act before you are informed of a specific situation." Id. 5 10. The purpose of the booklet can only be to induce or exacerbate fear in the reader. Id. 1 11. For example, after several questions designed to create misgivings about nuclear power, the twelfth question states, "Is nuclear energy worth all this?" See id. 11 12-13. Thus, instead of offering a responsible or reasoned approach to this proceeding, UCS, NYPIRG, and Parents have attempted to undermine the objective resolution of germane issues. The Licensing Board erred by granting them inter-venor status without even an evidentiary hearing. V. BY REFUSING THE POWER AUTHORITY'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THE LICENSING BOARD DENIED THE POWER AUTHORITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE ITS ALLEGATIONS The Power Authority requested "an evidentiary hearing pursuant to In re Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2), 8 N.R.C. 275, 277 n.1 (1979), on both the ques-
. i I tions of memberships and membership policies and practices of those organizations whose intervention the Authority oppose (d ] . and on the contentions asserted . con-cerning the scaremongering conduct of UCS, NYPIRG and others." Power Authority's Answer to Petitions for Leave to Intervene at 40 (Nov. 24, 1981). Rather than an evidentiary hearing, the Licensing Board granted intervention. " Standing to intervene . may appropriately be the subject of an evidentiary inquiry before intervention is granted."1 The Licensing Board in Consumers Power Co. indi-cated that the applicant could pursue its " bona fide doubts" about the propriety of petitioner's intervenor status in this manner. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.718(e), the presiding officer has the authority to "[rlegulate the course of the hear-ing." Moreover, a Licensing Board is empowered to consider, at a party's request, "a particular issue or issues separ-ately from, and prior to, other issues relating to the effect of the . operation of (a] facility upon the pub-lic health."2 NRC regulations " impose a duty" upon licensing boards l i 1. In re Consumers Power Co., 8 N.R.C. at 277 n.l. [ 2. NRC Statement of General Iblicy and Procedure,10 C.F.R. Part l 2, Appendix A,1 I(c)(1); see In re Potomac Electric Pbwer Co. (Douglas Ibint Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), 1 N.R.C. 539, 544 (1975); cf. In re New England Ibwer Co. (NEP, Lhits 1 and 2), 7 N.R.C. f 271, 282-84 (1978).
. I to conduct proceedings "in the interest of insuring a fair, impartial, expeditious and orderly adjudicatory process."1 On the face of this record, there are " bona fide doubts" about permitting UCS representational standing for it has no members to represent. At this stage of the proceeding, the record regarding the Intervenors' scaremongering is clear and unrefuted. i 'T f i d i i I 1. In re Consumers Pbwer Co. (Midland Plant, Lhits 1 and 2), 5 l N.R.C.- 1442, 1445-46 (1977). l
i j i ' e CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Power Authority of the State of New York requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission reverse the order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (1) granting the intervention of UCS, NYPIRG, Parents, WESPAC, FOE, and RCSE, and (2) denying the Power Authority's request for an evidentiary hearing. Respectfully submitted, nD / de Charles Morgan, Wr. " Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr. MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000 Thomas R. Frey General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point. Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D. Fischman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated: April 19, 1982 l
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS: Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky John F. Ahearne ) Thomas M. Roberts and BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD t ) In the Matter of: ) ) CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) NEW YORK, INC. ) Docke t Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP ) POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF ) NEW YORK ) (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 19th day of April, 1982, I caused a copy of the Power Authority's Notice of Appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Granting Intervention and Denying the Power Authority's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and the brief in support thereof to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid on: s 1 i I, ^ 'L
\\ 'ik ~l, ^ s o y E 1 , Louis J. Carter, Esq.,f 2hairman Janice Moore, Esq. I Administrative Judge Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety an'd Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal Director 7300 City Line Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J.' Shon Administrative Judge Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Consolidated Edison. Company Washington, D.C. 20555 of New York, Inc. 4 Irving Place Dr. Oscar H. Paris New York, New York 10003 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Harmon and Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20006 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charles A Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Westchestar People's Action Washington, D.C. 20555 Coalition, Inc. Joan Holt, Project Director P.O. Box 488 Indian Point Project White Plains, New York 10602 New York Public Interest Rascarch Group Alan Latman, Esq. 5 Beckman Street 44 Sunset Drive New York, New York 10038 Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 John Gilroy / Ezra I. Biall'k, Esq. Westchester Coordinator ' Steve Leipzig, Esq. i Environmental Protection Bureau Indian Point Project New York Public Interest Research New York State Attorney ~ Group General's Office 240 Central Avenue Two World Trade Center White Plains, New York 10606 New York, New York 10047 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. it Alfred B. Del Bello Now York University Law School Westchester County Executive 423 Vanderbilt Hall Westchester County 40 Washington Square South 148 Martine Avenue New York, New York 10012 New York, New York 10601 s Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Charles J. Maikish, Esq. Litigation Division New York State Assembly i The Port Authority of New York Albany, New York 12248 and New Jersey ,One World Trade Center j Marc L. Parris, Esq. New York,-New York 10048 Eric Thorsen, Esq. V County Attorney County of Rockland l t 11 New Hempstead Road New City, New York 10956 \\ i ,( 6 t
I . o Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Pat Posner, Spokesperson General Counsel Parents Concerned About Indian New York State Energy Office Point 2 Rockefeller State Plaza P.O. Box 125 Albany, New York 12223 Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Atomic Safety and Licensing Renee Schwartz, Esq. Board Panel Botein, Hays, Sklar and Herzberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorneys for Metropolitan Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Transporation Authority 200 Park Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing New York, New York 10166 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honorable Ruth W. Messinger Washington, D.C. 20555 Member of the Council of the City of New York Honorable Richard L. Brodsky District #4 Member of the County Legislature City Hall Westchester County New York, New York 10007 County Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 Greater New York Council on Energy Zipporah S. Fleisher c/o Dean R. Corren, Director West Branch Conservation New York University Association 26 Stuyvesant Street 443 Buena Vista Road New York, New York 10003 New City, New York 10956 Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Mayor George V. Begany Conservation Committee Chairman Village of Buchanan Director, New York City 236 Tate Avenue Audubon Society Buchanan, New York 10511 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 New York, New York 10010 Judith Kessler, Coordinator Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy 4 Lorna Salzman 300 New Hemstead Road Mid-Atlantic Representative New City, New York 10956 Friends of the Earth, Inc. 208 West 13th Street David H. Pikus, Esq. New York, New York 10011 Richard F. Czaja, Esq. 330 Madison Avenue Mr. Donald L. Sapir, Esq. New York, New York 10017 60 East Mount Airy Road RFD 1, Box 360 Ms. Amanda Potterfield, Esq. Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 P.O. Box 384 Village Station New York, New York 10014 ~ '~~ Paul F. Colarulli 9}}