ML12118A464
| ML12118A464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia, EA-12050, EA-12051 |
| Issue date: | 04/27/2012 |
| From: | Horin W A, Smith T R Energy Northwest, Winston & Strawn, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22331, ASLBP 12-918-01-EA-BD01, EA-12-050, EA-12-051 | |
| Download: ML12118A464 (17) | |
Text
1 April 27, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
ALL OPERATING BOILING WATER REACTOR LICENSEES WITH MARK I AND MARK II CONTAINMENTS:
ORDER MODIFYING LICENSES WITH
REGARD TO RELIABLE HARDENED CONTAINMENT VENTS (EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY) ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS IN ACTIVE OR DEFERRED STATUS: ORDER MODIFYING LICENSES WITH REGARD TO
RELIABLE SPENT FUEL POOL
INSTRUMENTATION (EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Docket No. EA-12-050 Docket No. EA-12-051
ASLBP No. 12-918-01-EA-BD01 ENERGY NORTHWEST'S ANSWER TO REQUESTS FOR HEARING INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h), Energy Northwest hereby answers the requests for hearing 1 filed by Pilgrim Watch with respect to the Order Modifying Licenses With Regard
1 "Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Spent Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation" ("PW SFP Hearing Request"), dated April 2, 2012; "Pilgrim Watch Request fo r Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents" ("PW HV Hearing Request"), dated April 2, 2012. Pilgrim Watch subsequently sought to supplement the hearing requests.
See "Pilgrim Watch Request for Leave to Supplement Request for Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents," filed on April 4, 2012; "Pilgrim Watch Supplement to Request for Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Spent Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation," dated April 12, 2012. This response addresses the original requests and the requests to supplement.
2 to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents (EA-12-050) ("HV Order") and the Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (EA-12-051) ("SFP Order") (collectively, "Orders"), both of which were issued to Energy Northwest and were immediately effective. Energy Northwest operates the Columbia Generating Station ("Columbia") in Richland, Washington. Columbia is a boiling water reactor ("BWR") with a Mark II containment. On April 3, 2012, Beyond Nuclear requested that it be authorized as a "co-petitioner" with Pilgrim Watch.
2 Both of Pilgrim Watch's requests for hearing should be denied. For the reasons set forth below, (1) intervention as of right is unavailable to Pilgrim Watch with respect to the Orders at issue here; and (2) in any event, Pilgrim Watch fails to demonstrate standing to intervene with respect to the Orders. Beyond Nuclear's request to become a co-petitioner was untimely and, in any event, suffers from the same deficiencies as the Pilgrim Watch requests for hearing. Accordingly, the requests for hear ing should be denied in their entirety. BACKGROUND The Commission issued the HV Order and the SFP Order on March 12, 2012. In Section V of each order, the Commission stated that any person adversely affected by the Order may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance.
3 The Orders stated that "[i]f such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is 2 See "Beyond Nuclear Pleading to Co-Petition in the Matter of Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Spent Fuel Pool Modifications," dated April 3, 2012; "Beyond Nuclear Pleading to Co-Petition in the Matter of Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents," dated April
3, 2012.
3 SFP Order at 11; HV Order at 9.
3 adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)."
4 Further, the Orders specified that "[i]f a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
"5 DISCUSSION A. Intervention as of Right is Not Available to Pilgrim Watch
- 1. Scope of Hearings on Enforcement Orders Given the scope of any enforcement hearing that might be held on the Orders, and the nature of Pilgrim Watch's interest in such a proceeding and its requested relief, intervention as of right is not available to Pilgrim Watch. Unlike other cases in which intervention has been granted with respect to NRC enforcement actions, the Petitioner does not seek to sustain the Orders against a licensee challenge. Rather, Pilgrim Watch argues that the Orders should not be sustained - not because it would be injured by the Orders themselves, but because Pilgrim Watch seeks measures beyond those in the Orders. As such, Pilgrim Watch's interests and requested relief are beyond the scope of the proceeding. The requests for hearing must be denied. It is well-established that the Comm ission has the authority under Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA") to define the scope of a hearing on an enforcement action, and that the scope of such a hearing is limited to those issues set out in the pertinent enforcement order.6 As such, "[t]he Commission may lawfully limit a hearing to consideration of the remedy
4 SFP Order at 14 (emphasis added); HV Order at 13 (emphasis added).
5 SFP Order at 11 (emphasis added); HV Order at 9 (emphasis added).
6 See Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380, 1381-82 (D.C. Cir. 1983), aff'g Boston Edison Co.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-16, 16 NRC 44 (1982); Public Serv. Co. of Ind.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438, 441-42 (1980).
4 or sanction proposed in the order."
7 In Bellotti, the scope of the hearing opportunity with respect to an enforcement order was limited, by the notice, to the question of whether the order should be sustained
.8 Petitioner Bellotti, the Attorney General of Massachusetts, appealed the Commission's denial of his petition to intervene in a proceeding with respect to a Commission enforcement order issued to the Pilgrim Nuclear Station.
9 The order directed the licensee to develop and implement a comprehensive plan of action to, among other things, improve management functions.
10 The Attorney General, while not opposed to the issuance of the order, challenged the adequacy of the corrective actions required by the order and requested intervention on that issue.
11 The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's authority to define the scope of an enforcement proceeding and its denial of Bellotti's interven tion petition, holding that the "petitioner is not affected by the proceeding as the Commission has limited it, and so he is not entitled to intervene pursuant to section 189(a) [of the AEA]."
12 In seeking corrective actions beyond those specified in the NRC's order, the intervention request in Bellotti exceeded the
7 Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 70 (1994), aff'g LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) (citing Bellotti, 725 F.2d at 1381-82; Marble Hill, 11 NRC at 440-41); see also Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding), CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 195, 206 (1997) (stating that the Commission "remain[s] mindful that the enforcement context of [a] proceeding necessarily restricts the scope of remedies that intervenors may demand to those set out by the NRC staff in its enforcement order") (citations omitted).
8 Bellotti , 725 F.2d at 1382.
9 Id. at 1381-82.
10 Id. at 1381.
11 Id. at 1381-82.
12 Id. at 1383.
5 scope of the hearing opportunity as defined by the Commission -
i.e., on whether the order "should be sustained." In reaching this conclusion, the Bellotti court noted that "[t]he Commission's decision to limit the scope of the [enforcement] proceeding was not arbitrary," and that this decision was made pursuant to a Commission policy "directing agency resources toward the inspection rather th an the adjudication process."
13 As in Bellotti, the present hearing requests involve enforcement orders. Under the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. § 2.202, any hearing on such an order is limited to petitioners "adversely affected by the order."
14 Also, as in Bellotti, the Orders here at issue state unequivocally that "if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained."
15 Intervention as of right is unavailable except where the licensee contests the order or where a petitioner is injured by the Order. In no case may a petitioner seek enforcement relief beyond that which is imposed by the Order. Here, no licensee has contested the Orders, the Orders were not issued to Pilgrim Watch and Pilgrim Watch fails to
13 Bellotti , 725 F.2d at 1382 (citing Marble Hill , 11 NRC at 441-42). In Marble Hill , the Commission stated: This consideration calls for a policy that encourages licensees to consent to, rather than contest, enforcement actions. Such a policy would be thwarted if licensees which consented to enforcement actions were routinely subjected to formal proceedings possibly leading to more severe or different enforcement actions. Rather than consent and risk a hearing on whether more drastic relief was called for, licensees would, to protect their own interests, call for a hearing on each enforcement order to ensure that the possibility of less severe action would also be considered. The end result would be a major diversion of agency resources from project inspections and engineering investiga tions to the conduct of hearings. Marble Hill , 11 NRC at 441-42.
14 Licensees are presumed to be adversely affected and can therefore request a hearing on an order. 15 SFP Order at 11; HV Order at 9.
6 demonstrate that it or its members would be injured if the Orders are sustained; rather Pilgrim Watch hypothesizes an "unacceptable risk to the environment" and contends that the Orders do not solve the potential problems it identifies.
16 As such, Pilgrim Watch raises concerns and seeks relief that are well beyond the scope of the hearing opport unity provided by the Orders. As discussed below, Pilgrim Watch opposes the Orders due to their alleged inadequacies. Like petitioner Bellotti, Pilgrim Watch seeks to litigate the adequacy of particular corrective actions contained in the Commission enforcement orders. Pilgrim Watch therefore raises issues that are outside th e scope of a hearing on the Orders. 2. Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Order In its hearing request related to the spent fuel pool instrumentation order, Pilgrim Watch proposes a single contention:
Based on new and significant information from Fukushima, the Order To Modify Licenses With Regard To Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation issued March 12, 2012 (EA-12-051) is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it lacks a requirement for licensees to re-equip their spent fuel pools to low-density, open-frame design and storage assembles >5 years removed from the reactor core placed in dry casks.
17 Pilgrim Watch's own characterization of its contention demonstrates that the request exceeds the hearing notice. Pilgrim Watch plainly seeks to raise generic issues and request remedies (e.g., re-equipping spent fuel pools) that go well beyond the license modifications and new safety requirements imposed in the SFP Order. Pilgrim Watch argues that "there will be an unacceptable risk to the environment jeopardizing the health, safety, property and finances of Petitioners' members" if power plants "[are] allowed to operate without a requirement for low-
16 PW SFP Hearing Request at 3; PW HV Hearing Request at 2-3.
17 PW SFP Hearing Request at 1 (emphasis added).
7 density, open-frame pool storage and dry cask storage for assemblies > 5 years old."
18 Pilgrim Watch argues that "[t]he most effective way and reliable measure to prevent a spent fuel pool fire would be to re-equip the pool with low-density, open frame-racks."
19 All of these concerns reflect the Pilgrim Watch's dissatisfaction with the actions imposed by the Order, and demonstrate that Pilgrim Watch seeks additional measures beyond t hose contained in the Orders. As a result, granting the hearing request would contravene well-established principles set forth in Bellotti and in subsequent Commission adjudicatory decisions. Specifically, a petitioner "may only intervene with respect to matters found to be within the scope of the Staff's enforcement order and may not expand the breadth of the order or proceeding."
20 The Commission has clearly stated that, with respect to an enforcement matter, it "need not hold a hearing on whether another path should have been taken."
21 Pilgrim Watch would have the Commission do precisely that, by imploring it to hold a hearing and take additional action in the form of a supplemental order adopting the Pilgrim Watch's positions.
22 Pilgrim Watch effectively seeks to expand the scope of the proceeding, and ultimately the Orders, by having the Commission consider the adequacy of specific actions required by the Orders.
18 PW SFP Hearing Request at 3.
19 Id. at 8. 20 Sequoyah Fuels , CLI-94-12, 40 NRC at 70.
21 See id. (citing Bellotti at 1381-82 and Marble Hill at 440-41).
22 PW SFP Hearing Request at 11.
8 3. Hardened Vent Order In its hearing request related to the hardened vent order, Pilgrim Watch proposes two contentions:
Contention 1 Based on new and significant information from Fukushima, the Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened Containment Vents issued March 12, 2012 (EA-12-050) is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it lacks a requirement for licensees to install filters in the direct torus vents (DTVs).
Contention 2 Based on new and significant information from Fukushima, the Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened Containment Vents issued March 12, 2012 (EA-12-050) is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it does not require the hardened DTV to be passively actuated by means of a rupture disc, so that neither water nor electrical supply is needed and operator intervention is not necessary to actuate the system.
23 As with the hearing request on the SFP Order, Pilgrim Watch's own characterization of its contentions demonstrates that the request exceeds the hearing notice. Pilgrim Watch plainly seeks to raise generic issues and request remedies that go well beyond the modifications and new safety requirements imposed in the HV Order. For example, in Contention 1, Pilgrim Watch argues that the NRC should "require that U.S. reactors install filtered DTV[s]."
24 And, in Contention 2, Pilgrim Watch argues that the NRC should "require the hardened DTV to be passively actuated by means of a rupture disc, so that neither water nor electrical supply is needed and operator intervention is not necessary to actuate the system."
25 23 PW HV Hearing Request at 3 (emphasis added).
24 Id. at 8. 25 Id.
9 Unless the NRC requires DTVs with rupture discs, Pilgrim Watch asserts that "there will be an unacceptable risk to the environment jeopardizing the health, safety, property and finances of Petitioners' members."
26 All of these concerns reflect Pilgrim Watch's dissatisfaction with the actions imposed by the Order, and reflect Pilgrim Watch's view that additional measures are needed beyond those contained in the Orders.
27 As with the request for hearing on spent fuel pool instrumentation, granting the hearing request on the HV Order would contravene well-established principles set forth in Bellotti and in subsequent Commission adjudicatory decisions. Specifically, a petitioner "may only intervene with respect to matters found to be within the scope of the Staff's enforcement order and may not expand the breadth of the order or proceeding," and the Commission "need not hold a hearing on whether another path should have been taken."
28 Pilgrim Watch would have the Commission do just that - by seeking to expand the scope of the Orders and by having the Commission consider the adequacy of specific actions proposed by Pilgrim Watch. Additionally, in seeking to have the Commission re-examine its Orders and impose additional requirements, Pilgrim Watch seeks impermissibly to litigate the Commission's exercise of its enforcement discretion in this case, labeling, for example, the NRC's failure to require a rupture disc as "sav[ing] the industry money."
29 It is well-established, however, that "[e]nforcement decisions inherently involve 'the exercise of informed judgment on a case-by-
26 Id. at 3. 27 Pilgrim Watch would, of course, be free to petition for a rulemaki ng on these actions, as well as the remedies requested in conjunction with the SFP Order.
See 10 C.F.R. § 2.802.
28 See Sequoyah Fuels, CLI-94-12, 40 NRC at 70 (citing Bellotti at 1381-82 and Marble Hill at 440-41).
29 HV Hearing Request at 18.
10 case basis.'"
30 Allowing the Petitioner to intervene on the bases presented would severely limit the Commission's discretion by allowing an intervenor to object to the Commission's considered opinion as to the correct course of action, as dictated by the enforcement order. The same rationale for limiting the scope of enforcement hearings, as articulated by the Commission in Marble Hill and later accepted by the D.C. Circuit in Bellotti, applies equally to the orders here. A licensee's willingness to consent to an order, as Energy Northwest did here, would be undermined by fear of a hearing post factum on whether more drastic relief is warranted. In sum, granting the request for hearing would be contrary to the terms of the Orders and Commission precedent. Such an action would undermine the various considerations of regulatory efficacy, regulatory economy, and enforcement discretion that underlie the Bellotti decision. As noted by the Commission in Sequoyah Fuels , the Bellotti court "expressed the concern that if a petitioner, rather than the Commission, was permitted to define the scope of an enforcement proceeding, the Commission would be deluged by petitioners every time the Commission issued an enforcement order, and the scope of many proceedings would be 'virtually interminable
' and 'free ranging.'"
31 The issues raised and the relief sought by Pilgrim Watch far exceed the scope of the noticed hearing opportunity, and a hearing on the Pilgrim Watch's terms would "open[] the door to a free-wheeling examination of all possible discontents."
32 30 Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-94-6, 39 NRC 285, 320 (citation omitted).
31 Sequoyah Fuels , CLI-94-12, 40 NRC at 70 (citing Bellotti , 725 F.2d at 1381).
32 Bellotti , 725 F.2d at 1382.
11 B. Pilgrim Watch Has Not Established Standing to Intervene As set forth more fully below, even assuming intervention as of right were available to Pilgrim Watch, the petitioner nonetheless fails to demonstrate standing to intervene with respect to the Orders. Th e Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) provide that a request for hearing must state the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party, the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and the possible effect of the proceeding on those interests. The Commission, in applying contemporary concepts of judicial standing, has further determined that to satisfy its standing requirements, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) it has suffered a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury-in-fact within the zone of interests arguably protected by the governing statute; (2) the injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
33 Pilgrim Watch fails on all three parts of this traditional standing analysis. 1. Pilgrim Watch Has Not Shown "Injury in Fact" Caused by the Orders Pilgrim Watch has failed to "allege some specific 'injury in fact' that will result from the action taken."
34 Such an "injury" must be "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical.'"
35 Pilgrim Watch fails to establish that it (or a member) will suffer any such concrete injury as a result of the Commission's decision to sustain the Orders and it fails to demonstrate that the Orders themselves create any potential for
radiological or other particularized injury to the Petitioner.
33 See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 188 (1999); accord Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992);
Dellums v. NRC , 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
34 Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 330 (1989).
35 Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citations omitted).
12 Indeed, insofar as Pilgrim Watch alleges any injuries, those alleged injuries are broad and conjectural. For example, in describing the nature of its interest in the proceeding, Pilgrim Watch refers to "an unacceptable risk to the environment" and asserts that this "jeopardiz[es] the health, safety, property and finances" of Pilgrim Watch members.
36 These supposed risks are hypothetical and their link to radiological health and safety of the Pilgrim Watch (or its members) is highly attenuated. Thus, Pilgrim Watch has not alleged any concrete or specific "injury in fact
" cognizable under the AEA. 2. Petitioner Has Not Shown Any Alleged Injury that is Traceable to the Challenged Orders Even assuming arguendo that Pilgrim Watch has al leged a specific "injury in fact" cognizable under the AEA, Pilgrim Watch nonetheless fails to demonstrate how such an injury would be caused by the Orders at issue. An "assertion of an injury without also establishing the causal link to the challenged [Orders] is insufficient to establish [a petitioner's]
standing to intervene."
37 Pilgrim Watch has made no showing of any injury that plausibly results from the issuance of the Orders. Indeed, there is no link ever established in the hearing requests to harm to Pilgrim Watch that might emanate from the Orders themselves. Any of the potential "injuries" alleged by the Pilgrim Watch would not be caused by the Orders, but rather would stem from sources independent of the Orders, such as failure of containment in an accident scenario 38 or a rapid loss of spent fuel pool water.
39 Pilgrim Watch's focus on additional
36 PW SFP Hearing Request at 3; PW HV Hearing Request at 3. Pilgrim Watch has not, in any event, identified any members resi ding in the vicinity of Columbia.
37 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 149, 155 (1998). 38 See, e.g., PW HV Hearing Request at 3.
13 requirements - beyond those imposed by the Orders - is insufficient to show that any cognizable injury, assuming one existed, is likely to be caused by the Commission's decision to sustain the Orders. The Orders in fact require specific actions to make improvements in the very areas Pilgrim Watch highlights, just not the improvements that Pilgrim Watch would prefer.
40 3. Pilgrim Watch Has Not Shown that Any Alleged Injury Would be Redressed by a Decision Not to Sustain the Challenged Orders Pilgrim Watch also fails to show that any alleged injury to it is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the proceeding it seeks to initiate. As the Commission has noted, this element of standing requires that "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'"
41 For the reasons discussed above, the particular relief Pilgrim Watch seeks -
i.e., actions beyond those contained in the Orders - would be unavailable in the proceeding. As such, its alleged injuries cannot be redressed by a "favorable" decision in the proceeding, namely a Commission decision not to sustain the Orders. Additionally, given that the Orders impose new requirements related to spent fuel pool instrumentation and hardened vents, actions which are intended to reduce the risks of
39 See, e.g., PW SFP Hearing Request at 6.
40 Cf. Millstone, LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 149, 155-56 (1998). In denying an intervention petition, the Licensing Board noted that the Petitioner "merely repeated the contents of [an] earlier petition, aimed primarily at the Millstone recirculation spray system ["RSS"]," the subject of a prior license amendment proceeding. Significantly, the Board observed that the petition did not demonstrate "how an accident with offsite consequences results from the installation of a new sump pump subsystem [the subject of the new license amendment proceeding] designed to prevent any failure of the RSS," of which the petitioner complained.
Similarly, in this case, Petitioner fails to demonstrate how any cognizable injury will result from the Orders, which are designed to prevent the type of releases and environmental impacts of which Petitioner complains. Instead, Pilgrim Watch merely repeats issues that have been raised by it and by others in other proceedings.
41 Sequoyah Fuels , CLI-94-12, 40 NRC at 76 (citing Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561).
14 accidents, issuance of the Orders logically would do more to mitigate or redress Pilgrim Watch's alleged concerns than would voiding the Orders. At bottom, Pilgrim Watch has failed to demonstrate standing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). Accordingly, for this reason as well as the reasons discussed above, the hearings requests should be denied.
C. Beyond Nuclear's Request to Become Co-Petitioner Should Be Denied Beyond Nuclear seeks to become a co-Petitioner with Pilgrim Watch. However, Beyond Nuclear's requests are untimely. The Orders provide that "any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order."
42 The Orders were both dated March 12, 2012. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.306(a), requests for a hearing on the Orders were due April 2, 2012. Because Beyond Nuclear's requests were not filed until April 3, 2012, they were too late. In any event, Beyond Nuclear's request should be denied for the same reasons that Pilgrim Watch's requests for hearing fail. Because Beyond Nuclear simply adopted the Pilgrim Watch arguments wholesale. Beyond Nuclear, like Pilgrim Watch, did not raise an issue within the scope of a proceeding on an enforcement order. And, like Pilgrim Watch, Beyond Nuclear also failed to show that it (or its members) has suffered a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury-in-fact; that the injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action; or that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. As a result, Beyond Nuclear's requests to become a co-petitioner should be denied.
42 SFP Order at 11; HV Order at 9.
15 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Pilgrim Watch's requests for hearing on the Orders, as well as Beyond Nuclear requests to become co-petitioner, should be denied.
/s/ signed electronically by William A. Horin Tyson R. Smith Rachel Miras-Wilson Winston & Strawn LLP
1700 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006 COUNSEL FOR ENERGY NORTHWEST Dated at Washington, District of Columbia this 27th day of April 2012 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
ALL OPERATING BOILING WATER REACTOR LICENSEES WITH MARK I AND MARK II CONTAINMENTS:
ORDER MODIFYING LICENSES WITH
REGARD TO RELIABLE HARDENED CONTAINMENT VENTS (EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY) ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS IN ACTIVE OR DEFERRED STATUS: ORDER MODIFYING LICENSES WITH REGARD TO
RELIABLE SPENT FUEL POOL
INSTRUMENTATION (EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY) ) )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Docket No. EA-12-050 Docket No. EA-12-051
ASLBP No. 12-918-01-EA-BD01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "ENERGY NORTHWEST'S ANSWER TO REQUESTS FOR HEARING" in the captioned proceeding have been served via the Electronic Information Exchange ("EIE") this 27th day of April 2011, which to the best of my knowledge resulted in transmittal of the foregoing to the following persons.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-16C1
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, Director 148 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332 Email: mary.lampert@comcast.net U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel
Mail Stop O-15D21
Washington, DC 20555-0001
OGC Mail Center :
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair
E. Roy Hawkens
Dr. Anthony J. Baratta E-mail: axr@nrc.gov E-mail: roy.hawkens@nrc.gov E-mail: anthony.baratta@nrc.gov Paul Gunter, Director Reactor Oversight Project
6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Email: paul@beyondnuclear.org
/s/ signed electronically by William A. Horin Tyson R. Smith Rachel Miras-Wilson Winston & Strawn LLP
1700 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006 COUNSEL FOR ENERGY NORTHWEST Dated at Washington, District of Columbia this 27th day of April 2012 SF:332430.1