|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20002A2101980-10-16016 October 1980 Certifies Svc of Motion to Terminate Proceeding on 801016 ML20008E0211980-10-16016 October 1980 Motion to Terminate Proceeding Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility.Attempts to License nuclear-fueled Plants at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites Abandoned ML20008E0291980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting ML20008E0251980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility ML19340B3861980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdraws 781109 CP Application.Cites State of Ny Siting Board 800523 Denial of Motion for Rehearing of 791012 Order, Dismissing Case in Which Applicant Sought Certificate of Environ Compatibility & Public Need,As Prime Motivator ML19323H0361980-05-23023 May 1980 Order by State of Ny Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ,Denying Application for Rehearing.Proceeding Closed Due to Substantial Uncertainty About Facility Ownership. Related Correspondence ML19260C3971979-12-0303 December 1979 Reply in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re Ny State Siting Board Dismissal of Proceeding. Applicants Failed to State New Arguments.No Beneficial Purpose Will Be Served by Rehearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8871979-11-21021 November 1979 Statement in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re ASLB Order Dismissing Application.Applicants Failed to Establish Present Intention to Build Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A2321979-11-20020 November 1979 Notice by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ.Replies to Utils' Application for Rehearing of ASLB Order Dismissing Application for Certificate of Environ Compatibility Will Be Accepted If Filed by 791203 ML19210E7551979-11-12012 November 1979 Requests for Reversal of Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ 791012 Dismissal of Application Or,If Reversal Denied,For Rehearing.Ownership of Proposed Station Did Not Constitute Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal ML19253C1931979-10-29029 October 1979 Motion for Indefinite Delay in Proceeding.Case 80008 Before Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismissed on 791012.Urges Deferral Until Applicants' Motion for Case 80008 Rehearing Decided.Ny State Order Encl ML19250C3801979-10-17017 October 1979 Notice to Parties by State of Ny Board on Electric Generating Siting & State Environ Dept of Public Svc. Contrary to Board 791001 Order Re Discussion of Application, Proceeding Will Continue & PASNY 791016 Argument Considered ML19209D0631979-10-12012 October 1979 Order Dismissing Application by Ny State Electric & Gas Corp & Lilco for Certificate of Environ Compability & Public Need to Construct Plant.Applicants Have Not Demonstrated Statewide Need for Facility ML19260A4261979-10-12012 October 1979 Order by State of Ny Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismissing Ny State Electric & Gas Corp & Lilco Application for Environ Capability Certificate & for Public Need to Construct Facility ML19254E6481979-10-0202 October 1979 Notice Issued by Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ of Ny Dept of Public Svc Re Util Application for Certificate of Environ Compatibility.Public Meeting Will Be Held 791012 in Albany,Ny,Re Termination of Proceeding ML19210B7681979-10-0101 October 1979 Memorandum on Standing of County of Columbia,Town of Stuyvesant,Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy & Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents.Members Reside in Geographic Vicinity & Involved in Specialized Ny Electric Energy Issues ML19259D3941979-10-0101 October 1979 Suppl to Petition to Intervene Submitting Revised Contentions.Includes Allegation That Assessment & Other Related Matters Re Alternative Fuel Sources,Submitted by Applicant to Nrc,Are Inadequate ML19275A5151979-08-16016 August 1979 Opposes Briefs of Intervenors State of Ny Atty General, Public Svc Commission & Ecology Action of Oswego Submittal in Response to Util Brief in Opposition to Interlocutory Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209A9321979-08-0606 August 1979 Response to State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation, Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Comments Re State of Ny Public Svc Commission 790725 Recommendations.W/Certificate of Svc ML19253B2991979-08-0606 August 1979 Answers Util 790725 & Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Responses to Public Svc Commission 790710 Order Re Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego Motion for Dismissal of Application.Urges Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML19209B8591979-08-0303 August 1979 Brief Submitted by Intervenor State of Ny in Response to Util 790725 Brief.Supports Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal Re Dismissal of Util 781122 Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209A5781979-08-0202 August 1979 Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Response Inadequate.Requests ASLB Expand Geographical Area Under Consideration,Based on Radiation Measured During Actual Event ML19209B4381979-08-0202 August 1979 Town of Gardiner,Ny Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re Town of Gardiner 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Recommend Town of Gardiner as Intervenor & Extend Intervention Limit from 50 to 200 Miles ML19208C3741979-07-25025 July 1979 Brief in Opposition to Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego 790426 Interlocutory Appeal Re 790413 Denial of Motion to Dismiss Application.Applicant Should Have Opportunity to Prove Case.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19253B3511979-07-23023 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenor Town of Kinderhook,That Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismiss Util Application.Grounds for Dismissal Thoroughly Stated by Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego ML19209B3751979-07-23023 July 1979 Brief on Behalf of Town of Kinderhook Recommending That Application for OL Be Dismissed for Reasons Stated by Ecology Action of Oswego & Ny State Public Svc Commission ML19208C3701979-07-16016 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,For Extension to File Supplemental Memo & for Investigation Into Applicant Intentions to Pursue Application ML19208C3281979-07-13013 July 1979 Memorandum Submitted by Applicant Re Standing of Intervenors Citizens for Safe Energy,Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Ulster County Environ Mgt Council & Town of Gardiner.Responds to E Mead & Town of Conesville 790619 Petition ML19261E7471979-07-11011 July 1979 Order Certifying Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego 790426 Interlocutory Apppeal to Ny State Board for Electric Siting & Environ W/Recommendation for Dismissal of CP Proceedings. Application Is Premature & Legally Insufficient ML19207B4741979-07-10010 July 1979 Statement of State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Per 16NYCRR70.20.Lists Alternate Sites & Modes of Generation. Fossil Alternative Site Must Be Considered in Conjunction W/Use of refuse-derived Fuel ML19275A0741979-07-0505 July 1979 Notice Per 16NYCRR70.20.Columbia County,Ny,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Will Testify Re Alternate Site,Facilities & Source of Power as Discussed in Draft Eis.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19207B5561979-06-27027 June 1979 Comments by State of Ny Dept of Public Svc on Proposed Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings Before NRC & Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Issue. Identification Should Occur After Issuance of Des ML19276G6081979-06-26026 June 1979 Reaffirms 790611 Comments.Application Is Summary of Util Findings & Conclusions.Nrc & Intervenors Must Develop Record on Which Siting Board Will Make Final Decision ML19247A8531979-06-26026 June 1979 Response to Util 790611 Proposed Joint Protocol & Discovery Rules Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy.Definitions of Issues Violate NRC Rules ML19208C6421979-06-20020 June 1979 Interlocutory Appeal on Denial of 790320 Motion for Dismissal.Case 80008 Should Be Dismissed for Reasons Set by Ecology Action of Oswego ML19225C7461979-06-19019 June 1979 Resolution Authorizing County Legislature Chairman to File W/Nrc Appropriate Petition & Other Documents on Behalf of County,So as to Become party-at-interest Re Ny State Electric & Gas Co Application for Two Nuclear Units ML19241C0051979-06-14014 June 1979 Intervention Statement Offered at 790614 Public Comment Session ML19225A3581979-06-11011 June 1979 Support for NRC & State of Ny 790427 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearings Submitted by Ecology Action of Oswego. Suggests Mod for Joint Hearings Discovery Process,Memo of Understanding,Schedule & Procedure for Joint Mailings ML19225C1051979-06-11011 June 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Reply to Comments Offered by Various Parties at 790523 Prehearing Conference on Proposed Joint Protocol in Case 80008 ML19224D7131979-05-31031 May 1979 Certification That 790319 Petition to Intervene & 790510 Contentions Truly Set Forth Position of Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Inc ML19241B3301979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions Re Site Selection.Util Has Underestimated Multiple Generation Units,Has Not Considered Proximity to Schools & Has Discriminated Against Rural Populace ML19241B3331979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions of Safe Energy for New Haven Re Environ Matters. Util Inadequately Determined Energy Needs,Has Not Performed Sufficient Research on Alternative Sources of Energy & Has Not Assessed Impact of Accident or Kv Lines ML19241B1221979-05-18018 May 1979 Initial Util Answer to Intervenor Contentions.Identifies Contentions Which Can Be Presented Unopposed at 790523 Prehearing Conference.Seeks ASLB Extension for Filing Supplemental Answers.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224B8681979-05-11011 May 1979 Submits 40 Contentions as Suppl to Petition to Intervene Re Need for Addl Power,Consideration of Alternatives,Site Selection Process,Impact on Existing Health Facilities, Financial Capacity & Effect on High Voltage Transmissions ML19242A4251979-05-11011 May 1979 Amend to 790313 Petition to Intervene,Adding New Considerations ML19269E3671979-05-10010 May 1979 Submits Specific Contentions Re Environ & Radiological Concerns.Assessment of Impact on Farmland Is Inadequate Re Estimation of Value & Use of Land & Adverse Impact of Dust, Noise,Litter & Traffic on Area Agriculture ML19242A6381979-05-0909 May 1979 Resolution 112 Objecting to Location of Public Hearings Outside of County ML19224B8141979-05-0707 May 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Response to Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Motion for Dismissal of Application.Recommends Denial of Appeal ML19224B7091979-05-0404 May 1979 Request by Util for Denial of 790313 Petitions to Intervene. Filed by Town of Gardner & Ulster County Environ Mgt Council.Petitions Lack Standing & Fail to Justify Discretionary Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224B7001979-04-27027 April 1979 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearing Before NRC & Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Re Common Issues in Const Applications of Long Island Lighting Co & Ny State Elec & Gas Corp 1980-05-23
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20008E0251980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility ML20008E0211980-10-16016 October 1980 Motion to Terminate Proceeding Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting Re Environ Compatibility.Attempts to License nuclear-fueled Plants at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites Abandoned ML20008E0291980-10-16016 October 1980 Withdrawal of 781109 Application to License nuclear-fueled Generation Station at New Haven or Stuyvesant Sites,Due to Dismissal of Case 80008 by Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting ML19260C3971979-12-0303 December 1979 Reply in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re Ny State Siting Board Dismissal of Proceeding. Applicants Failed to State New Arguments.No Beneficial Purpose Will Be Served by Rehearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8871979-11-21021 November 1979 Statement in Opposition to Applicants 791112 Motion for Rehearing Re ASLB Order Dismissing Application.Applicants Failed to Establish Present Intention to Build Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19210E7551979-11-12012 November 1979 Requests for Reversal of Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ 791012 Dismissal of Application Or,If Reversal Denied,For Rehearing.Ownership of Proposed Station Did Not Constitute Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal ML19253C1931979-10-29029 October 1979 Motion for Indefinite Delay in Proceeding.Case 80008 Before Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismissed on 791012.Urges Deferral Until Applicants' Motion for Case 80008 Rehearing Decided.Ny State Order Encl ML19210B7681979-10-0101 October 1979 Memorandum on Standing of County of Columbia,Town of Stuyvesant,Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy & Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents.Members Reside in Geographic Vicinity & Involved in Specialized Ny Electric Energy Issues ML19259D3941979-10-0101 October 1979 Suppl to Petition to Intervene Submitting Revised Contentions.Includes Allegation That Assessment & Other Related Matters Re Alternative Fuel Sources,Submitted by Applicant to Nrc,Are Inadequate ML19275A5151979-08-16016 August 1979 Opposes Briefs of Intervenors State of Ny Atty General, Public Svc Commission & Ecology Action of Oswego Submittal in Response to Util Brief in Opposition to Interlocutory Appeal.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19209A9321979-08-0606 August 1979 Response to State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation, Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy Comments Re State of Ny Public Svc Commission 790725 Recommendations.W/Certificate of Svc ML19253B2991979-08-0606 August 1979 Answers Util 790725 & Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Responses to Public Svc Commission 790710 Order Re Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego Motion for Dismissal of Application.Urges Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML19209B4381979-08-0202 August 1979 Town of Gardiner,Ny Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re Town of Gardiner 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Recommend Town of Gardiner as Intervenor & Extend Intervention Limit from 50 to 200 Miles ML19209A5781979-08-0202 August 1979 Response to NRC & Applicant Briefs Re 790713 Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Response Inadequate.Requests ASLB Expand Geographical Area Under Consideration,Based on Radiation Measured During Actual Event ML19253B3511979-07-23023 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenor Town of Kinderhook,That Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Dismiss Util Application.Grounds for Dismissal Thoroughly Stated by Intervenor Ecology Action of Oswego ML19208C3701979-07-16016 July 1979 Request,Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,For Extension to File Supplemental Memo & for Investigation Into Applicant Intentions to Pursue Application ML19208C3281979-07-13013 July 1979 Memorandum Submitted by Applicant Re Standing of Intervenors Citizens for Safe Energy,Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Ulster County Environ Mgt Council & Town of Gardiner.Responds to E Mead & Town of Conesville 790619 Petition ML19207B4741979-07-10010 July 1979 Statement of State of Ny Dept of Environ Conservation Per 16NYCRR70.20.Lists Alternate Sites & Modes of Generation. Fossil Alternative Site Must Be Considered in Conjunction W/Use of refuse-derived Fuel ML19207B5561979-06-27027 June 1979 Comments by State of Ny Dept of Public Svc on Proposed Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings Before NRC & Ny State Board on Electric Generation Siting & Environ Issue. Identification Should Occur After Issuance of Des ML19276G6081979-06-26026 June 1979 Reaffirms 790611 Comments.Application Is Summary of Util Findings & Conclusions.Nrc & Intervenors Must Develop Record on Which Siting Board Will Make Final Decision ML19247A8531979-06-26026 June 1979 Response to Util 790611 Proposed Joint Protocol & Discovery Rules Submitted by Intervenors Columbia County,Town of Stuyvesant & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy.Definitions of Issues Violate NRC Rules ML19208C6421979-06-20020 June 1979 Interlocutory Appeal on Denial of 790320 Motion for Dismissal.Case 80008 Should Be Dismissed for Reasons Set by Ecology Action of Oswego ML19225C7461979-06-19019 June 1979 Resolution Authorizing County Legislature Chairman to File W/Nrc Appropriate Petition & Other Documents on Behalf of County,So as to Become party-at-interest Re Ny State Electric & Gas Co Application for Two Nuclear Units ML19241C0051979-06-14014 June 1979 Intervention Statement Offered at 790614 Public Comment Session ML19225C1051979-06-11011 June 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Reply to Comments Offered by Various Parties at 790523 Prehearing Conference on Proposed Joint Protocol in Case 80008 ML19225A3581979-06-11011 June 1979 Support for NRC & State of Ny 790427 Proposed Protocol for Joint Hearings Submitted by Ecology Action of Oswego. Suggests Mod for Joint Hearings Discovery Process,Memo of Understanding,Schedule & Procedure for Joint Mailings ML19241B3301979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions Re Site Selection.Util Has Underestimated Multiple Generation Units,Has Not Considered Proximity to Schools & Has Discriminated Against Rural Populace ML19241B3331979-05-29029 May 1979 Contentions of Safe Energy for New Haven Re Environ Matters. Util Inadequately Determined Energy Needs,Has Not Performed Sufficient Research on Alternative Sources of Energy & Has Not Assessed Impact of Accident or Kv Lines ML19241B1221979-05-18018 May 1979 Initial Util Answer to Intervenor Contentions.Identifies Contentions Which Can Be Presented Unopposed at 790523 Prehearing Conference.Seeks ASLB Extension for Filing Supplemental Answers.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224B8681979-05-11011 May 1979 Submits 40 Contentions as Suppl to Petition to Intervene Re Need for Addl Power,Consideration of Alternatives,Site Selection Process,Impact on Existing Health Facilities, Financial Capacity & Effect on High Voltage Transmissions ML19242A4251979-05-11011 May 1979 Amend to 790313 Petition to Intervene,Adding New Considerations ML19269E3671979-05-10010 May 1979 Submits Specific Contentions Re Environ & Radiological Concerns.Assessment of Impact on Farmland Is Inadequate Re Estimation of Value & Use of Land & Adverse Impact of Dust, Noise,Litter & Traffic on Area Agriculture ML19242A6381979-05-0909 May 1979 Resolution 112 Objecting to Location of Public Hearings Outside of County ML19224B8141979-05-0707 May 1979 Ny Dept of Public Svc Response to Ecology Action of Oswego Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Motion for Dismissal of Application.Recommends Denial of Appeal ML19224B7091979-05-0404 May 1979 Request by Util for Denial of 790313 Petitions to Intervene. Filed by Town of Gardner & Ulster County Environ Mgt Council.Petitions Lack Standing & Fail to Justify Discretionary Intervention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A6871979-04-0303 April 1979 Answer Seeking Denial of 790319 Petition to Intervene Filed by Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents,Inc.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A7021979-03-20020 March 1979 Answer to Intervention Petitions of Various Groups,Including Ny State Energy Ofc,Oswego County Farm Bureau,Ecology Action & Safe Energy for New Haven.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A6771979-03-19019 March 1979 Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents' Petition to Intervene as Full Party Re Alternate Site Considerations,Need for Facility, Financial Qualifications of Applicants & Cost of Proposed Plant ML19224A6981979-03-16016 March 1979 Petitions to Intervene in Proceeding.Asserts Health & Safety Will Be Adversely Affected by Plant ML19224A6831979-03-12012 March 1979 Petition to Intervene,Submitted by Columbia County,Ny,Town of Stuyvesant,Ny & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,Inc ML19224A6851979-03-12012 March 1979 Supports Petition to Intervene Submitted by Columbia County, Ny,Town of Stuyvesant,Ny & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,Inc.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19224A6991979-03-0808 March 1979 Petitions to Intervene in Proceeding.Asserts Health & Safety Will Be Adversely Affected by Plant ML19224A5971979-03-0505 March 1979 Ny State Energy Ofc'S Petition to Participate as Interested State.Certificate of Svc Encl 1980-10-16
[Table view] |
Text
s WI
- - m r< %
p 4_s
!!f m i Q%
f OPUBuG DO G M #
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -k @C- * *[s.
/
,,3+-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [#
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s
In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. STN 96 New York State Electric & Gas Corp and Long Island Lighting Co. )
)
(New Haven 1 and 2) >
)
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT In the Matter of the Application of )
the )
)
New York State Electric & Gas Corp. ) Case 80008 and Long Island Lighting Co. )
)
(New Haven 1 and 2) 1 MEMORANDUM ON STANDING OF COUNTY OF COL!'MBIA, TOWN OF STUYVESANT, CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY AND MID-HUDSON NUCLEAR OPPONENTS This memorandum of law is filed or behal.f of the County of Columbia and the Town of Stuyvesant (collectively the
" municipal intervenors) and Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, l7] ] s,7 7 ,0 /,1 7 911120 2 T O
_1 Inc. and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc. (collectively the " association intervenors").
The municipal intervenors seek to participate in the proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" ASLB") under 10 CFR S 2. 715 (c) '. The association intervenors seek to participate in the proceedings before the ASLB under 10 CFR S2.711 The Applicant arguec that neither the municipal nor the association intervenors have legal standing to participate in the proceeding. The NRC Staff argues that such inter-venors have no legal standing but that they should be permitted to participate in the proceeding, as a matter of the ASLB's discretion, with such participation " limited to the alternate siting issue."
Both the Applicant and the NRC Staff rely exclusively upon an alleged geographic proximity test of standing (derived, as best as we can determine, from NRC cases denying standing to parties ocated more than 50 miles from a proposed nuclear
) 7J i, 7-305
facility site who seek to raise radiological health and safety issues under the Atomic Energy Act) . The municipal intervenors are located more than 50 miles from the site for which a construction license is sought in this proceeding.
The members of the association intervenors generally reside more than 50 miles from such sit'e.
However, the prime alternate site (Stuyvesant) for the nuclear power plant which is the subject of this proceeding is located within the geographic territory of the municipal intervenors and within 50 miles of the residences of most of the members of the association intervenors.
Furthermore, the association intervenors have as their primary purposes the representation of their members in administrative and judicial proceedin-s related to electric power planning in New York State. Bo h association intervenors have participated in other cases before the administrative agencies dealing with power plant siting, generation mix, tranmission line routina, conservation of energy, electric demand projections, electric p:wer rates and related issues.
The associacion intervenors thus have an organizational interest in such issues and a representational function presenting the points of view of the specialized segment of the community (their members and other constituents) which is the primary beneficiaries of such activities.
It is our position that the municipal and association inter-venors all have the requisite interest to participate in this
? J D i~,
\ b <\ > ~
proceeding based upon the geographic proximity test because one of the fundamental issues to be litigated is the superiority or not of the primary alternate site which is well within the traditional radiological health and safety radius. In addition, it is our position that the association intervenors have a completely independent interest by virtue of their specialized insolvement in New York State electric energy issues.
AN APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE The ASLB will be taking testimony on the environmental issues in this proceeding, arising largely under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), in a joint hearing with the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment.
As a practical matter, this entire standing exercise is without meaning. The municipal and association intervenors all are full parties in the State side of this joint proceeding.
As full parties, they will have an unencumbered r_;ht c cross-examine the witnesses of the other parties and an unencumbered right to present evidence on all of the issues which will be the subject of the joint hearing.
Whether the ASLB crants these parties full standing, partial standing, or no standing, they will be there and participating. Therefore, as a strictly common sense, prsctical, 1313 ?07
intelligent, constructive, productive, and efficient matter, the petitions to intervene in the Federal side of this proceeding should be granted.
We are aware of no NRC precedent which limits the pcwer of the ASLB to be sensible.
~
THE SPECIAL RULE FOR MUNICIPAL INTERVENORS The municipal intervenors are allowed under the NRC rules to participate whether they qualify for party statua or not because 10 CFR S2.715 (c) provides:
"The presiding officer will afford representatives of an interested State, county, municipality, and/or agencies thereof, a reasonable opportunity to participate and to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission..."
This rule does not require aggrievement or adverse effect for municipal participation, only interest.
Under 10 CFR SS1.24 (c) (4) municipalities and counties identified as potential alternate sites are ipso facto " interested",
It also should be noted that the scope of an ..terested county's or municipality's participation and the matters on which it may be heard are limited only by its " desires" and are not hand-cuffed even by the NRC's peculiar " contention" procedure (10 CFR 2.715[c]). l) [CS Therefore, the municipal intervenors shoulu be permitted
-5 to participate fully in this proceedina without any fttrther procedural folderol.
THE INTERVENOP.S' INTEREST IN THE ALTERNATE SITZ GIVES THEM STANDING In any event, both the municipal and b. 'i ation intervr.nors are persons "whose interest may be affected" with.n the meaning of 10 CFR 52.714 because of the location of the prime alternate site at Stuyvesant.
There are no reported NRC cases denying or granting partyship on standing grounds to persons in close proximity to a prime alternate site in an ASLB construction permit proceeding under 10 CFR Part 51. As with many obvious and equitable principles of law, cases on point are hard to find because parties are usually not so obtuse as to litigate them. Therefore, the NRC staff's penchant in this proceeding for distracting and tangential issues makes this a case of first impression.
First, NEPA itself requires both NRC study, development and description of alternatives to a proposal (42 USC S4332[2](E])
and an NRC detailed statement about them(42 USC 54332[2][C][iii]).
Seconu, the NRC rules require applicants for construction licenses to identify alternatives (10 CFR S51.20 [a] [3] ) anc the NRC staff to discuss alternatives in environmental impact statements (10 CFR 5551.23 and 51.26).
Third, specific notices must be given to local environmental organizations and governments where identified alternative cites are located (10 CFR 551. 2 4) .
1313 30'
. Fourth, the issue of alternative sites is required to be the subject of an evidentiary presentation at the adjudicatory hearings on a construction permit application (10 CFR SSI.52(b]).
Fifth, alternatives must be expressly considered in decision-making on construction parmit applications (10 CFR 551.52 (c] [3] ) .
Sixth, the April 30, 1979 notice of joint hearing in this case notes that this hearing wi.ll be on an application which
" includes provision for an alternate site in the Town of Stuyvesant, County of Columbia, State of New York."
Seventh, under NRC precedents the identification of an "obviously superior" alternative site will tip the cost-benefit balance against the site for which the construction permit application was originally made. Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nucler Power Plant, Unit 2) , ALAB-435, 6 NRC 541(1977).
Finally, it should be noted that while one of the purposes of NEPA is to improve Federal decisionmaking, NEPA is primarily an environmental full disclosure law and creates a public right to be fully informed about the potential environmental consequences of Federal decisions.
Therefore, the zone of interests protected oy NEPA, one of the two statutes governing this proceeding, includes the interest of the affected public to have a full and adequate exploration of all issues related to alternate sites. As one of the leading commentators on NEPA has pointed out
" Congress enacted a 'new and unusual statute' in NEPA. The Act creates an important new public right to be informed of the possible environmental consequences of federal activities, to have alterna-
}3 3 IO
tives considred, and to have the interests of future generations taken into account. By extension through administrative guidelines, NEPA also grants rights to the public to participate in the 102 process. Here we suggest that these new rights have expanded the category of injurable interests." Anderson, NEPA in the Courts, 36(1973)
Obviously, all to the injury and detriment of the municipal and association intervenors, this proceeding may result in the identification of the Stuyvesant site as a highly desirable site for a nuclear power plant or other large scale industrial development. The outcome of this proceeding might vastly increase the probabilities that a power plant will be prop (3ed for or sited at Stuyvesant. If this occurs, real estate values in the vicinity of Stuyvesant might decline, community cohesion might collapse, personal anxieties might increase, disinvestment in the community might occur and a variety of other undesirable results, typically found in neighborhoods where large scale developments are rumored or threatened to occur, may occur.
In addition, this proceeding could result in the creation cf a bank of environmental, site, community and social information ab ut the Stuyvesant and other Hudson River communities which cculd be used to the disadvantage of the municipal and association intervenors, not only in this proceeding, but also in the press, in legislative and administrative decisionmaking and in ecencmic relationships.
Indeed, it is so obvious that, on geography alone, the municipal and association intervenors are within the zone of 4 '*7 ') 1 j i 3lJ ,
interests protected by NEPA in a proceeding such as this one, and stand to be affected and injured by its pendency and outcome, that, if we were in a genuine court of law, we would most certainly be entitled to costs and other sanctions against the parties who raised this frivolous issue.
Even if it were not so obvious, and even if the stake in the outcome of the municipal and association intervenors were a mere trifle, it is nevertheless the law, as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States (quoting Professor Davis with approval) that such trifle were enough:
"The basic idea that comes out in numerous cases is that an identifiable trifle is enough for standing to fight out a question of principal;..." U.S. vs. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, footnote 14 (1973)
The SCRAP case sought to correct the same erroneous interpretation of Sierra Club vs. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972) pressed here by both applicant and the NRC Staff.
For the reasons stated, both the municipal and the association intervenors have legal standing within the meaning of 10 CFR S2.714 to be adm;:ted as a party as of right in this proceeding.
THE ASSOCIATION INTERVENORS HAVE ANOTHER BASIS FOR STANDING The plicant and the NRC Staf f seem to believe that the only test of standing in an NRC construction licensing proceeding is the test cf geographic proximity. In other words , it is 131s7 J'
aroued that unless a prospcetive intervenor can show that it represents persons within a 50 mile radius of the preferred site of a nuclear power plant, it has no standing to participate in the construction licensing proceedings.
This narrow and antiquated view seems to be based upon an interpretation of the " zone of interest" test in which " zone" has only its geographic meaning as referring to square inches on the earth's surface only. However, as the Supreme Court of the United States has pointed out on numerous occasions, economic, environmental and societal interests, completely detached from geographical considerations, are well within the zone of interest protected by many Federal statutes.
See U. S . vs. SCRAP , supra.
Applicant and the NRC Staff seek to apply the same myopic geographic analysis to the " injury in fact" test of standing.
Recent United States Supreme Court cases demonstrate that
" injury in fact, does not mean only the risk of a black eye or bruise , or the loss of a dollar, or the trampling of real estate owned or used by a party. Thus, alledged rajuries to a party's " organizational interest" have represented sufficient injury in fact. Anfrus vs. Sierra Club U.S. (1979).
Similarly, an association has stanfing to asser: rights that are " central to [its] purpose" where it " serves a specialized segment of the . . . camm2 nity whien is the primary beneficiary of its activities, including the prosecution of... litigation.".
Hunt vs. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333(1977).
Entirely apart frcm geography and alternative sites, the association intervenors , on their own beha'.f and or. behalf of their l 7J l s? J i, ?>
members, have an interest in and a special concern for intelligent electric power planning in New York State, and the determination of the issues in this proceeding may specifically injure that interest. It is the alleged injury to that interest and not merely the interest itself which gives rise to the association intervenors' standing thus placing this case in the U.S. vs.
SCRAP, supra rather than the Sierra Club vs. Morton, supra category.
In Sierra Club vs. Morton, supra the alleged injury was to the resource (Mineral King) rather than to the Sierra Club or its members. In U.S. vs. SCRAP, supra a "far less direct and perceptible" alleged injury to a resource was found sufficient to support standing where the allegation of such injury was also linked to an alleged injury to the interest of the petitioning party in such resource. This was true even where the petitioning party alleged an injury which
"... allegedly has an adverse environmental impact on all of the natural resources of the country. ... But we have already made it clear that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury. ... To deny standing te persons who are in fact injured simply ;ecause many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Sc rernment actions could be questioned by ncbody we cannot accept that conclusion" U.S. vs. SCRAP, 412 U. S. at .
It is instructive to note that, in support of the above principle, the Supreme Court cited cases giving standing to consumers of a product to challenge governnantal regulation of the products purchased by the consuming public. See also the recent case l3}s !
_11_
of Gladstone, Realtors vs. Bellwood, U.S. ,
60 C.Ed. 2d 66 (1979).
In the instant case, the association intervenors represent a specialized segment of the public which has shown a deep, c'ntinuing and responsible concern for electric power planning in New York State based upon the premises that, without intelligent planning, the constituency they represent might be unable to obtain a reliable supply of electric power at a reasonable cost, both economic and environ.nental, and in a way which will not disrupt their quality of life.
The petitions to intervene and the contentions presented by the association intervenors directly allege both their interests in the subject matter and the injuries which may occur to them and their members as a result of this proceeding.
Unquestionably both the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA seek to protect the interests of the association intervenors in sound electric power planning.
Therefore, entirely apart from geographic considerations, the association intervenors have standing to participate as intervening parties under 10 CFR S2.714.
October 1, 1979 Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Kafin Counsel to County of Columbia, Tow 7 of Stuyvesant, Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents Office and P.O. Address 11 Chester Street, P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone (518) 793-6611 17 7 71r iJlJ ';I