ML073390444

LB Memorandum and Order (Denying the Village of Buchanan'S Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene)

ML073390444
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/05/2007
From:	Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS 14734
Download: ML073390444 (13)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED 12/05/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SERVED 12/05/07 Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating December 5, 2007 Units 2 and 3)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying the Village of Buchanans Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene)

In a letter dated November 15, 2007, postmarked November 23, 2007, and received by the Board on November 29, 2007, which was signed by Daniel E. ONeill as Mayor, and James Seirmarco as the Village Liaison to Indian Point, the Village of Buchanan, New York (Buchanan) requested that it be granted Intervener status in this proceeding.1 In its Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene Buchanan did not proffer an admissible contention. 10 C.F.R.

§2.309. Accordingly, we must deny this request.

A. Synopsis of this Proceeding The proceeding before the Board is a license renewal application for the Indian Point Nuclear Facility that was submitted on behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations (Entergy or the Applicant). Under Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, license renewal proceedings are governed by 10 C.F.R. Part 54, and are generally limited to a review of the 1

Village of Buchanan Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Nov. 15 2007)

(hereinafter Buchanan Petition).

plant structures and components that will require an aging management review for the period of extended operation and the plant's systems, structures, and components that are subject to an evaluation of time-limited aging analyses.2 Entergy submitted a license renewal application for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 on April 30, 2007. A notice of the application and an opportunity to request a hearing on the application was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007.3 Requests for hearings and petitions to intervene were originally due on October 1, 2007, however, the Commission extended the original deadline to November 30, 2007.4 B. Buchanans Petition to Intervene In its Petition, Buchanan presents as its basis for being involved in the proceeding that the Indian Point facility is located within Buchanan, is subject to its laws and jurisdiction, and is provided municipal services by Buchanan.5 Accordingly, Buchanan states that it would like the proceeding to take into account several factors which it believes are important to its citizens.

First, Buchanan cites the health and environmental benefits of the facility. The Petitioner states that the operation of the facility reduces the need to burn fossil fuels for electricity and that if it was not available Buchanan would have to get its energy from fossil fuels which would create additional air pollution.6 Second, Buchanan states that the use of nuclear power reduces the 2

Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-26, 56 NRC 358, 363-64 (2002) (quoting Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-01-20, 54 NRC 211, 212 (2001)).

3 72 Fed. Reg. 42,134 (Aug. 1, 2007).

4 72 Fed. Reg. 55,834 (Oct. 1, 2007).

5 Buchanan Petition at 1.

6 Id. at 2-3.

need to import energy sources from abroad.7 Third, Buchanan states that there are significant economic, tax and financial benefits to the village and the region from the facility.8 Finally, Buchanan asserts that nuclear energy is one of the safest available ways of producing energy.9 C. Standards Governing Contention Admissibility Section 2.309(f) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets out the requirements that must be met if a contention is to be admitted in an agency licensing or enforcement adjudication. An admissible contention must: (1) provide a specific statement of the legal or factual issue sought to be raised; (2) provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (3) demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding; (4) demonstrate that the issue raised is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (5) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions, including references to specific sources and documents, that support the petitioners position and upon which the petitioner intends to rely at the hearing; and (6) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with regard to a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application that the petitioner disputes, or in the case when the application is alleged to be deficient, the identification of such deficiencies and supporting reasons for this belief.10 7

Id. at 3.

8 Id. at 4. Buchanan notes that: (1)Indian Point currently pays $34 million in property taxes annually; (2) the energy supplied by Indian Point supplies its recipients with a 20%

savings in electricity costs; (3) the Metropolitan Transportation Authority uses electricity from the facility to power the New York City subway system and Metro-North commuter trains thereby keeping fare costs low; and (4) a rate increase caused by a more expensive energy source would discourage the use of mass transit leading to traffic congestion and increased air pollution caused by the additional cars on the road. Id.

9 Id.

10 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(I) - (vi).

The purpose of the contention rule is to focus litigation on concrete issues and result in a clearer and more focused record for decision.11 The Commission has stated that it should not have to expend resources to support the hearing process unless there is an issue that is appropriate for, and susceptible to, resolution in an NRC hearing.12 The Commission has emphasized that the rules on contention admissibility are strict by design.13 Failure to comply with any of these requirements is grounds for the dismissal of a contention.14 The application of these requirements has been further developed as summarized below:

1. Brief Explanation of the Basis for the Contention A brief explanation of the basis for the contention is a necessary prerequisite of an admissible contention.15 [A] petitioner must provide some sort of minimal basis indicating the potential validity of the contention.16 The brief explanation helps define the scope of a contention - [t]he reach of a contention necessarily hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases.17 11 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2202 (Jan. 14, 2004); see also Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978); BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974);

Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974).

12 69 Fed. Reg. at 2202.

13 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3),

CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI-02-1, 55 NRC 1 (2002).

14 69 Fed. Reg. at 2221; see also, Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 325 (1999); Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149, 155-56 (1991).

15 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii).

16 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,170 (Aug. 11, 1989).

17 Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 (1988), affd sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert.

denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991); see also Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1

2. Within the Scope of the Proceeding A petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding,18 which is defined by the Commission in its initial hearing notice and order referring the proceeding to the Licensing Board.19 Any contention that falls outside the specified scope of the proceeding must be rejected.20

3. Materiality To be admissible, a petitioner must demonstrate that the contention asserts an issue of law or fact that is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding. In other words, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the subject matter of the contention would impact the decision on a pending matter.21 Materiality requires that the petitioner show why the alleged error or omission is of possible significance to the result of the proceeding.22 This means that there must be some significant link between the claimed deficiency and either the health and safety of the public, or the environment.23

4. Concise Allegation of Supporting Facts or Expert Opinion and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CAI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 379 (2002).

18 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

19 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-825, 22 NRC 785, 790-91 (1985).

20 Portland Gen. Elec. Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979).

21 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv).

22 Portland Cement Assn. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 394 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert.

denied sub nom. Portland Cement Corp. v. Admr, E.P.A., 417 U.S. 921 (1974).

23 Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61, 75 (1996), revd in part on other grounds, CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235 (1996); see also Pacific Gas &

Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),

LBP-02-23, 56 NRC 413, 439-41 (2002), petition for review denied, CLI-03-12, 58 NRC 185, 191 (2003).

Contentions must be supported by a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestors/petitioners position on the issue . . . together with references to the specific sources and documents on which [it] intends to rely to support its position.24 It is the obligation of the petitioner to present the factual information and expert opinions necessary to support its contention adequately.25 Failure to do so requires that the contention be rejected.26 Determining whether the contention is adequately supported by a concise allegation of the facts or expert opinion is not a hearing on the merits.27 The petitioner does not have to prove its contention at the admissibility stage.28 The contention admissibility threshold is less than is required at the summary disposition stage.29 Nevertheless, while a Board may appropriately view Petitioners support for its contention in a light that is favorable to the Petitioner,30 the Petitioner must provide some support for his contention, either in the form of facts or expert testimony.31 24 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

25 Georgia Institute of Tech. (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-95-6, 41 NRC 281, 305 (1995), vacated in part and remanded on other grounds and affd in part, CLI-95-10, 42 NRC 1, and CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111 (1995).

26 Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 NRC at 155.

27 Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 NRC 1649, 1654 (1982).

28 Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-04-22, 60 NRC 125, 139 (2004).

29 Compare 10 C.F.R. § 2.710(c). [A]t the contention filing stage the factual support necessary to show that a genuine dispute exists need not be in affidavit or formal evidentiary form and need not be of the quality necessary to withstand a summary disposition motion.

54 Fed. Reg. at 33,171.

30 Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 NRC at 155.

31 Id.

In this regard, [m]ere notice pleading is insufficient. A petitioners issue will be ruled inadmissible if the petitioner has offered no tangible information, no experts, no substantive affidavits, but instead only bare assertions and speculation.32 Further, if a petitioner neglects to provide the requisite support for its contentions, the Board should not make assumptions of fact that favor the petitioner, or supply information that is lacking.33 Any supporting material provided by a petitioner, including those portions of the material that are not relied upon, is subject to Board scrutiny.34 Likewise, providing any material or document as a basis for a contention, without setting forth an explanation of its significance, is inadequate to support the admission of the contention.35 In short, the information, facts, and expert opinions provided by the petitioner will be examined by the Board to confirm that they do indeed supply adequate support for the contention.36 But at the contention admissibility stage all that is required is that the petitioner provide some alleged fact, or facts, in support of its position.37

5. Genuine Dispute Regarding Specific Portions of Application All contentions must show that a genuine dispute exists with regard to the license 32 Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma, Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 203 (citing GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC 193, 208 (2000)).

33 Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-01-35, 54 NRC 403, 422 (2001).

34 Yankee Nuclear, LBP-96-2, 43 NRC at 90.

35 See Fansteel, CLI-03-13, 58 NRC at 205.

36 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),

ALAB-919, 30 NRC 29, 48 (1989), vacated in part on other grounds and remanded, CLI-90-4, 31 NRC 333 (1990).

37 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170. This requirement does not call upon the intervener to make its case at this stage of the proceeding, but rather to indicate what facts or expert opinions, be it one fact or opinion or many, of which it is aware at that point in time which provide the basis for its contention. Id.

application in question, challenge and identify either specific portions of, or alleged omissions from, the application, and provide the supporting reasons for each dispute.38 Any contention that fails directly to controvert the application, or that mistakenly asserts that the application does not address a relevant issue, may be dismissed.39

6. Challenges to NRC Regulations In addition to the requirements set out above, with limited exceptions not applicable in this case, no rule or regulation of the Commission . . . is subject to attack . . . in any adjudicatory proceeding.40 By the same token, any contention that amounts to an attack on applicable statutory requirements or represents a challenge to the basic structure of the Commissions regulatory process must be rejected.41 Additionally, the adjudicatory process is not the proper venue for the evaluation of a petitioners own view regarding the direction regulatory policy should take.42 D. Boards Ruling on Buchanans Request For Hearing And Petition to Intervene The Board finds that Buchanan has not raised an admissible contention. The issues which Buchanan has proffered are outside the scope of this proceeding for several reasons.

The contentions asserted by Buchanan are not in any way related to plant aging issues at the Indian Point facility. The contentions do not raise any genuine disputes with the Application on 38 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

39 Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200, 247-48 (1993), review declined, CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994); see also Texas Utilities Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), LBP-92-37, 36 NRC 370, 384 (1992).

40 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a); see also Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI-03-14, 58 NRC 207, 218 (2003).

41 Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-76, 16 NRC 1029, 1035 (1982) (citing Peach Bottom, ALAB-216, 8 AEC at 20-21).

42 Peach Bottom, ALAB-216, 8 AEC at 21 n.33.

any material issue of law or fact. Buchanan does not demonstrate that its issues are material and it has not offered any basis in support of any contention. Furthermore, Buchanan does not provide statements of fact or expert opinions supporting its positions.

E. Potential Future Actions The Board advises Buchanan that pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 2.311 any appeal to the Commission from this Memorandum and Order must be taken within ten (10) days after it is served.

The Board also advises Buchanan that even though it has not been admitted to this proceeding as a party pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, it may nevertheless participate in this proceeding with respect to admitted contentions as an interested governmental body pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.315.

However, since no contentions have been admitted to date, a request pursuant to Section 2.315 at this time would be premature. Instead, Buchanan may petition to participate as an interested governmental body with regard to any admitted contention within thirty (30) days of the contention being admitted by this Board.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD43

/RA/

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Kaye D. Lathrop ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Richard E. Wardwell ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, MD December 5, 2007 43 A copy of this Order was sent this date by First Class Mail to: Mayor Daniel E. ONeill, the representative for the Village of Buchanan. Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to: (1) Nancy Burton as the representative of CRORIP; (2) Counsel for the NRC Staff; (3) Counsel for Entergy; (4) Manna Jo Green, the representative for Clearwater; (5)

Counsel for WestCan, CAN, RCCA, PHASE and the Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter; (6)

Sherwood Martinelli, the representative for FUSE; (7) New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance; (8) Counsel for the New York City Economic Development Corporation; (9) Counsel for Westchester County; (10) Counsel for the State of New York; (11) Counsel for the State of Connecticut; (12) Counsel for the Town of Cortlandt; and (13) Counsel for Riverkeeper, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR

)

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating, )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DENYING THE VILLAGE OF BUCHANANS HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.

Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Lawrence G. McDade, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Sherwood Martinelli Lloyd B. Subin, Esq. FUSE USA Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. 351 Dyckman Street Office of the General Counsel Peekskill, New York 10566 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

2 Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DENYING THE VILLAGE OF BUCHANANS HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE)

Michael J. Delaney, Vice President - Energy Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman New York City New York AREA Economic Development Corporation 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 110 William Street New York, NY 10016 New York, NY 10038 Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Director Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 112 Little Market St.

Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq. Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Village of Buchanan Assistant Attorney General James Seirmarc, M.S., Liaison to Indian Point of the State of Connecticut 236 Tate Avenue 55 Elm Street Buchanan, NY 10511 P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Assistant County Attorney Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Office of the Westchester County Attorney Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Michaelian Office Building 460 Park Avenue 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 White Plains, NY 10601 Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq. Nancy Burton Attorney General of the State of New York 147 Cross Highway John J. Sipos, Esq. Redding Ridge, CT 06876 Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341

3 Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DENYING THE VILLAGE OF BUCHANANS HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE)

Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.

Senior Counsel for Special Projects Office of General Counsel New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Boadway Albany, NY 12224

[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December 2007