ML19254D998
| ML19254D998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1979 |
| From: | Little D, Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN, PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910300430 | |
| Download: ML19254D998 (27) | |
Text
- '.
I C PL7EIC DoccMEM R004.
[s %
\ - % l,e -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a/
f) gp**t.*
s 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION % a BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Cocket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) C.Jtober 3, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO GREENPEACE'S PETITION TO INTERVENE BACKGROUND Jn December 20, 1974, the commission published in the Federal Register its notice of heering in this proceeding. 39 Fed. Reg. 44065. That notice fixed January 20, 1975 as the deadline for filing petitions to intervene. Four years and eight; months later, Greenpeace Foundation, by its letter dated September 13, 1979, petitioned to intervene as a party in this proceeding.1 1A pplicants' received the Petition to Intervene dated September 13, 1979 from Greenpeace in an envelope postmarked 129 056 7 910 3 0 0 + Jo
Greenpeace explains in its Petition to Intervene that it is a nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Vancou-ver, British Columbia. Vancouver is approximately 60 to 65 miles northwest of the Skagit site. FES follows Tr. 2913, Fig.
2.5. Greenpeace states that it is incorporated under British Columbia law 2 and has 17,000 paid members in that province.
It claims to represent the interest of its members; however, at one point, it also claims to represent the " residents of British Columbia in general." Petition to Intervene, p. 3.
Greenpeace has neither filed an affidavit by one of its members supporting or authorizing the Petition to Intervene, nor 31sted its contentions or the basis for each contention.
September 18, 1979. No proof of service accompanied the Peti-tion to Intervene. Although the Petition to Intervene had not be9n filed in comformity with the Commission's regulations, Applicants assume that it has been accepted for filing. Appli-cants have,used September 18, 1979 as the date of filing by mail.
2 The certificate dated May 4, 1972 from the British Columbia office of the Registrar of Companies (attachment A hereto) indicates that the nonprofit organization was ori-ginally incorporated on October 5, 1970 and changed its name to Greenpeace Foundation by resolution passed on January 21, 1972. Greenpeace's existence thus predates the announcement of the Skagit Project in January 1973.
3G reenpeace is not authorized to represent the public interest. Further, the Commission's regulations make no allow-ance for parties to act as private attorneys general on the public's behalf. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-ll, 5 NRC 481, 484 (1977).
1236 057
.'\
In the four years and eight months between the deadline for filing petitions to intervene and Greenpeace's Petition to In-tervene, extensive evidentiary hearings have been conducted in this proceeding. There were sessions in July-August 1975, June, July and August of 1976, March, May and July of 1977, March and June of 1978, and July and August of 1979. The transcript now exceeds 18,000 pages. The record has been closed and the schedule for findings of fact has been estab-lished on the majority of environmental subjects, including aquatic and terrestrial impacts of construction and operation of the Project, the environmental effects of radiological re-leases during normal and abnormal operation, and the potential impact to migratory birds, including bald eagles. At present, the parties are vigorously working towards completion of evi-dentiary hearings on the remaining LWA and construction permit issues. Applicants hope to see the completion of such hearings this fall.
With such an extremely late Petition to Intervene, Green-peace bears an extremely heavy burden to justify its failure to file on time. The tenuous excuses offered by Greengtace can hardly be construed as good cause for allowing late interven-tion. Greenpeace's justification based on lack of notice to it of the proceeding is, in fact, false. While timeliness con-siderations conclusively resolve the matter , the Petition to 1236 058
Intervene is also deficient in that Greenpeace has failed to make an adequate showing of standing to intervene in this proceeding.
TIMELINESS Section 2.714 (a) (1) of the Commission's Regulations, 10 CFR
- 2. 714 (a) (1) , sets forth the following standards specifically applicable to late intervention petitions:
Nontimely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding of ficer, or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors in addition to those set out in paragraph (d) of this section:
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file
, on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner 's participation may reasonably be expec-ted to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner 's interest will be represented by exist-ing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
1236 059
In the following pages, Applicants will evaluate the Petition to Intervene in light of these five factors.
First Factor Petitioning to intervene more than 4-1/2 years late places an extraordinary burden on Greenpeace to excuse their failure to file on time. The excuse that they offer is lack of notice. They observe that the notice of hearing was published only in the United States. To the best of Applicants' know-ledge, this observation is correct. More important to their position that they never received notice is their claim of
" lack of any publicity formal or informal in British Columbia prior to June 18, 1979." Petition to Intervene, p. 4. On that date, they allegedly received notice via a newspaper story.
Even upon first glance, this excuse seems outlandish. How can an environmental organization presently representing 17,000
~
British Columbians exist for so many years (it has been over six years since the Skagit Project was announced in January 1973) without being aware of a proposed nuclear project some 35 miles south of the border? The truth is that Greenpeace has for a long time be i aware of the Skagit Project. In the Spring 1976 edition of its monthly periodical, Greenpeace Chronicles, Greenpeace published an article entitled, "'76 Atomic Reactions." That article (attachment B hereto) states, in part, 1236 060
_3_
STILL CLOSER TO HOME, preliminary federal hearings have been held in the application of Puget Sound Power
& Light Company to build at least two 1,280 MW boiling water reactors at a site near Sedro Woolley, Wash.
only 60 air miles upwind from Vancouver. The stacks of these proposed plants would, on a regular basis, emit some two dozen radioactive isotopes into the a tmosphere . In addition the site of the plants is located in a region geologists recognize as one of the three high risk seismic areas in the continental United States only eight miles from a major fault line.
Hence, as shown by its own publicity, Greenpeace has known of the Skagit Project since early 1976. Its proffered excuse of
" lack of notice" is not only baseless, but it is flatly erroneous.
Limited appearances in this proceeding establish that Canadians and Canadian environmental organizations have for many years been fully aware of plans for the Skagit Project.
On the very first day of evidentiary hearings (July 16,1975) ,
a limited appearance opposing the project was made by Flemming Hansen on behalf of the Vancouver Environmental Laws, ander association of the B. C. Environmental Council and the Com-mittee on Scientific Pollution and the Environmental Control Society. Tr. 194. At hearings one year later (July 8, 1976),
the Citizens Association to Save the Environment, from Victoria, British Columbia, and the Sierra Club of Western Canada stated their opposition to the Project. Tr. 6084-85.
During August 1976 hearings, more than 20 citizens from British 1236 061
Columbia filed letters opposing the Project. Tr. NFP 66, 257 et seq., 538, 540, 815, 1250, 1539-41. Groups represented by
, these let- ter writers included the British Columbia Voice of Women, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Also at this time, a British Columbian member of the Canadian House of Commons wrote to express his concern about the plant. Tr.
NFP 814. In July 1977, another Canadian spoke on behalf of 2,000 British Columbians opposed to nuclear power. Tr. 7375.
Contrary to Greenpeace's claim, the media in British Colum-bia publicized the Skagit Project long before June 18, 1979. A number of articles from the Vancouver Sun, one of the province's largest daily newspapers, about aspects of the Skagit Project are set forth in attachment C. These articles report on the plans in 1973 for a nuclear plant in Skagit County, county zoning hearings in 1974, state NPDES hearings in 1975, hearings in this proceeding in 1975, and approval of the state certification in 1976. A Canadian TV program on August 11, 1976, which was broadcast in the Vancouver area, specifically addressed the plans for the Skagit Project. Tr.
NFP 275. Western Washington newspapers and television and radio programs are, at least to some degree, circulated and broadcast in British Columbia. Without a doubt, Greenpeace i236 062
members and other citizens of British Columbia have been in-formed of the Skagit Project through the media over the past several years. As we have seen, Greenpeace had actual know-ledge cf the plant as early as spring 1976.
Finally, the Canadian government has been kept informed of developments in this proceeding over the last ceveral years.4 Beginning in September 1976, both the NRC Staf f and Applicants placed the Canadian Consulate General's office in Seattle on their service list. Since then, the various plead-ings and.other filings have been sent to that office.
Therefore, Greenpeace has failed completely to provide good cause for its failure to file its Petition to Intervene on time. They represented that they never received even informal notice of the Skagit Project, when three and one-half years earlier they objected to the Project in their own periodical.
Even if there was not such evidence of Greenpeace having notice, knowledge of the Skagit Project among British Colum-bians and especially environmental organizations has been wide-spread for several years. Therefore, Greenpeace's delay in reguesting intervention is inexcusable.
4 The Atomic Energy Commission Board of the Canadian gov-ernment was sent a copy of the Draf t Environmental Statement in July 1975 and asked for its comments. FES, follows Tr. 2913,
- p. ii. Whether that impact statement received wider circula-tion within federal or provincial government is not known.
-s- 1236 063
Factors Two through Five As the Appeal Board stated in this proceeding with respect to another petition to intervene, which was not quite as tardy as Greenpeace's Petition to Intervene:
[P]etitioners for intervention who inexcusably miss the filing deadline but by not merely months, but by several years, have an enormously heavy burden to meet.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company (Skagit Nuclear Power Pro-j ec t , Uni ts 1 and 2) , ALAB-559 , 10 NRC (August 31,. 1979, slip opinion p. 21) . Having failed to excuse their years of tardiness, Greenpeace therefore must make a particularly strong showing on the other four f actors under 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) .
Puget Sound Pcwer & Light Company (Skagit Nuclear Power Pro-ject, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-552, 10 NRC (July 9, 1979, slip, opinion p. 7) ; Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).
Greenpeace's showing on the other four factors falls far short of meeting this burden. They offer only a single argu-mentative sentence on each factor, with no supporting factual presentation. Petition to Intervene, pp. 4, 5. On the second factor (the availability of other means to protect their in-terest), they state that only Greenpeace "is best informed and best able to recognize and represent factors affecting its unique interest." Id., p. 4. This statement, of course,
-S-1236 064
evades the pertinent issue, which is whether there are alterna-tive means available to Greenpeace. Further, since Green-peace's interests are "to develop principl.es and techniques of ecological management and to foster the development of environ-mental awareness" (Id., p. 2) , the advancement of these educa-tional goals would seem to be achieveable without participation in a licensing proceeding. In any event, Greenpeace's showing with respect to the second factor is deficient.
On the third f actor under 10 CFR 2.714(a) (1) (the extent to which a petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record), Greenpeace argues that data on Canadian subjects, such as geology and fishing in-terests, would allow a more complete overview of the effects of the Project. Id., p. 5. Greenpeace does not demonstrate, let alone even address, its capability to contribute on any of these " Canadian" subjects. They also do not indicate what in-firmities there might be in the current record and what hard evidence they could present to remedy those infirmities.
Hence, Greenpeace's showing on this factor is inadequate.
Their showing on the fourth factor is similarily defi-cient. That factor is the extent to which a petitioner's in-terest will be represented by existing parties. All that Greenpeace of f ers is a conclusionary statement that other parties "will not be representing Canadian interests." Id; 1236 065
/
Greenpeace is qualified to represent only its members- in-terest, and not the broader public interest of residents of British Columbia. Further, they provide no explanation of-why existing intervenors are not well qualified to present conten-tions and evidence , as SCANP has , on those subjects (fisheries, radiation, evacuation, geology, migratory birds, and agricul-tural interests), about which Greenpeace has expressed some concern. Id., p. 2, 3.
Greenpeace also has not established that its participation would not delay this proceeding, which is the fif th f actor _
under 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) . With respect to this factor, the Appeal Board has stated in this proceeding:
In the instance of a very late petition, the strength or weakness of the tendered justification may thus prove crucial. For, obviously, the greater the tardi-ness the greater the likelihood that addition of a new party will delay the proceeding -- e.g., by occasion-in'g the relitigation of issues alreacy tried.
Although the delay f actor may not be conclusive, it is an especially weighty one. (Footnotes and citations omitted.)
ALAB-552, p. 7, 8. Judging by the concerns expressed by Green-peace (they have not propounded any contentions) , we can only conclude that Greenpeace would, if allowed to intervene, seek to relitigate many iscues that have already been tried. The result would be delay. Greenpeace has done nothing to dispel this conclusion.
1236 066
Therefore, Greenpeace's demonstration on factors two through five of 10 CFR 2.71o (a) (1) is as deficient as its show-ing with respect to the first factor. Having failed to satisfy the Commission's regulation regarding late petitions to inter-vene, Greenpeace 's Petition to Intervene should be denied.
STANDING Under Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 2.714 (a) , a petitioner for intervention as a matter of right in an NRC licensing proceeding must allege an
" interest [which] may be affected by' that proceeding. Con-temporaneous judicial concepts of standing should be used to determine whether an interest has been sufficiently alleged. A petitioner must allege both "inj ury in f act" and an interest that is " arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute." Portland General Electric, Ct. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) , CLI-76-27, 4 NRC G10, 613-614 (1976).
Greenpeace has f aile'd to establish standing under the above standard either in its own right as an organization or, derivatively, as the representative of its members.5 The 5G reenpeace seeks to be made a party to represent its members. This suggests that their purported standing is derivative. However, at other parts of the Petition to i236 067
reason is that the Petition to Intervene lacks allegation of injury sufficient to satisfy the requirement of " injury in fact." This requirement is set forth in 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (2) ,
which states, in part, "the petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding,
[and] how that interest may be affected by the results of the preceeding." (Emphasis added.)
Greenpeace stated its organizational interests in broad and general terms. It described its aims and objectives as devel-opi ng p;inciples and techniques of ecological management and fostering greater environmental awareness. Petition to Inter-vene, pp. 1, 2. In Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 (1972) , the Supreme Court, conf ronted with similar generalized interests,6 found that tP- Sierra Club lacked standing because:
(A] mere " interest in a problem," no matter how long-standing the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not suf-ficient by itself to render :he organization Intervene, Greenpeace discusses its ceganizational purposes.
Accordingly, Applicants have assessed both organizational and derivative standing in this memorandum.
6 Sierra Club asserted its "special interest in the con-servation and the sound maintenance of the national parks, game ref uges and forests of the coantry." 405 U.S. at 735, fn. 8.
Greenpeace's stated interest is comparably broad. Petitica to Intervene, pp. 1-2.
1236 068
" adversely affected" or " aggrieved" within the meaning of the APA.7 Greenpeace must establish its organizational standing in terms of the final result of this proceeding. Edlow Inter-national Co., CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 574 (1976). No causal nexus exists between a denial of Greenpeace's request to intervene and any possible impairment of its aims and objectives. Green-peace thus has not established standing in its own right as an organization.
Nor is the Petition to Intervene sufficient to establish standing derivatively through Greenpeace's members. The Appeal
\
Board has recognized that an organization can establish standing derivatively, where specific members are identified, how their interests may be af f ected is indicated, and where the members authorization of the organization is stated. Allied-Genera'l Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976). Greenpeace has neither identified specific members, indicated how particular members' interests might be affected, nor demonstrated members' authorization.
7 Although Sierra Club involved the APA rather than 10 CFR 2.714, the Appeal Board has previously observed that Sierra Club provides appropriate guidance in evaluation of interven-tion petitions filed in licensing proceedings. Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALABTITI, 7 AEC 222, 227, fn, 11 (1974).
1236 069
In Baynwell, the Appeal Board affirmed a denial of standing to the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina (ACLU /SC) because its petition was lacking "particularization of how the interests of one or more members of the ACLU /SC might be adversely af f ected by the grant of the sought ma-terials license." The fatal deficiency was failure to particu-larize the interest that might be injured, further complicated by a failure to supply affidavits from mc.ibers stating their particular concerns and why they wished the organization to represent their interests. The same insufficient showing marked by lack of particularity and absence of af fidavits is apparent in this case.
This lack of particularization of stated interests is not cured by Greenpeacc's enumerations under " Effects of these pro-ceedings on the Petitioner's interest." Petition to Intervene, pp. 2-3. There, Greenpeace expressed generalized concerns of possible harm to both its members and the public. Even if there is a generalized asserted harm, Greenpeace must still show a distinct and palpable harm to it or its members to meet the " injury in f act" test. Ten Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Exports to EURATOM Member Nations, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977). Greenpeace's generalized concerns do not differ in any way f rom those of other people located in the general vicinity.
1236 070
In addition to no identification of members, and no par-ticularization of harms, the Petition to Intervene lacks au-thorization by members to have the organization represent their interests. Although in some circumstances membership authori-zation will be presumed,8 that presumption would be inappro-priate here. Greenpeace can offer no evidence that the organi-zation was formed for the specific purpose of advancing opposi-tion to nuclear power or the Skagit project. Nothing in the aims and objectives of the organization suggests that, by join-ing Greenpeace, a person was authorizing that organization to represent whatever interest he or she might have with regard to a proposed nuclear power plant.
8In Houston Light and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-535, 9 NRC (April 4, 1975), the Appeal Board stated that the presumption of authorization might be appropriate, (W]here it appeared that the sole or primary purpose of the petitioner organization was to oppose nuclear power 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 implicitly authorizing it to represent any personal interests which might be affected by the proceeding.
CCH Nuclear Regulation Report, p. 28, 947.
_1,_
i236 071
By f ailing tis suf ficiently allege an " interest affected by the proceeding" as required by 10 CFR 2.714, Greenpeace has not established standing, either in its own right or derivatively through any of its members. Absent this threshold requisite, the Petition to Intervene should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSE'I & WILLIAMS i -
By j f.A W b / = ' ^ m F. Theodore Thomsen By bd
( uglas S. Little Attorneys for Applicant 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (206) 682-8770 1236 072
, , 8961 soc. ,
, ATTACHMENT A I : ' ~ : W 5 M 4:s M f4' ' . -- . . - . 2
,. j
- I
- e.....
..:= ;
4 . <+ ,. .,
%<hb k kb h '
' Cau'u ;
l . Frantur af Bruts# cain=his i
I Werchg Gertifgthat z., .m .m m.m ;
fg -
iJ
- j we.4 = eo um en or ocees. , cro +-i n rs=a=oa =4
, 1
'n .
l%; .
i I
(f '
% e n e.:ncas.:d.c7a r .,saa , a ,to e. soet.sto. 1 9
e j Sct' Cb Dged ita mme .md 13 ::'Rs I=cw!L cs N_f.CU WJ7!O'*.
)
j
\h \
,s ,
i 'g
,R l 6tven usa nor w aa a or ga az g .,
%4 r. s -r - k tj l ^$' dayof Ihr one ilf tivu:and nme hunind and atzmt -tm 'i f.
., A. A
^%
%d[
d 6
- R9 % d h!4 E g M #ewK+Mr4MPM$d A.H. HALL _
+ .i n- gl 10 f hkMNab _.
1230 073
.~.' ,l(scc
. SOCIETIES' ACT
-i i
} EXTRAORDINARY RESOLUTION At a meeting of the Directors and Members j ,, of 00M'T MAKE A WAVE COMMITTEE duly convened and held at Vancouver, British Columbia, on the 21st day of January, A.D. 1972, the following E traordinary Resolution was duly passed;-
- UPON MOTION duly made, seconded ~and unanimously carried IT WAS RESOLVED as an Extraordinary Resolution that the Society name be changed to GREENPEACE FOUNDATION.
Certified a true copy this 2nd day of May, A.D.
1972.
Solici tor f or :ne company l .
(* h U < */ . ',$ p FILED *"o hiMrzhzo"
.d/
- 1 / pij m ens.w. _1-1236 074
% 2 pg**
'~t ,
N 'GdEEMPEACE' Qy b .
g ,
N ,
lh D b.'~R Welecae toplaneth Earth.Thisshowis being umber zero.
pra,is,,,,'@o,,
,a':: Ilunter, th~ brought to youby theSun and t e n dzeroiswhat con,,,p"I'ng Editors pg g '
David Car The sunis allyou've gotthlycoming it allup.
pubhcation, in, an EAIcea Chi Scienc, pg,'*'s Rod Ar[r$"'"'8 Dr. pa,,,4 R. Dr. paul you ve gotleftbuy when it,and by our youusoThe Giv ethey use. lhe money we -
Sponx. Carry *'! man made possibleby yout rnedintodollanbyhuman when you adverbsers whopay for the spac Art / Production *le I ange y ' Ii* C"'s,'
- collectis energy from the eace.sun, u gy,iswesend
- ** - f;*i' iia 6vkins. Da"' AIdClean' i h- .
y,4P lavendg y"" U"Ch. angenuity,andit dgoestoGreenpNow, people out tosave seals. what g"85'opher Ro$"#' Bob Wilcox way from our fdehcate ## f # shore-
%,.' peopleouttosavewhales tankers a wesent # **""i##t" Ado,'tisin8 Fae Afannigdg* Whitley stop thebombs,tumoil Circuf,fj, lcen Aff3 coy, t
- !1Y #I hNcAfaste, - medbyour Offic, h"** #"d 9'""d all of its creatures. de-our planet an
. , . , ? '86 Financ, g;$ Cannon L,gyf CharlieTrueman The Greenpeacethephilo:,ophy DeclarationofInter has been ter president,Dr. Patnck system hke planetearthisdeac
. Moore, as De Creenpeg '# '8 publi36 *"offdy pendence.Thestabthtyof aneco by theCr du Foundasjo e***dian and U.Sfd 8 ibuti"n la 150, C P les-directly related to its diversity.
whales, the eagles, the nyer We nee s and the trees.visionof a .
l Producedand UntedinCana by Afonddy Publ,c.,{, M, g'8'ia, 8' * '
We areloobogWe needthe forwouldadverttsers hketo carry that yourhshare utNorth our
/
green and peacefulplanet.or400.000readersthroug oo '
O//fors. ' message to t y of their i
2Iog w,,,7 M venu, 3,37 8M Second Stree, .
'" Calii.,9907 Did 33,ppai If use go e g nd '
We would hke to state now compamesbecauseof thecoun thatrh ywe do wouki m
Vancouv,,'
IMO 733 7 3f Cdnada g 3)957 133, london, businesses or l nethassomethmotoloarn (Q ' -- - - ' ~ - ~ ' w_ ~~ w ~ '~
ongm.We reelthat such a our d thebalanceof poecology.tius ecntical Eh 3
testladitt Gmpeam We g
@F j I about the sacredne:4of tssuolor th& suppod and rt themin for return, and tolet hfe anW e-3 y
- O V, / lamm, j\ ask you. our readers. to suppo sage mtheGreenpuoce n
/ N themknow that you saw their mes 5 (m M m
%' Egg- 4 LAllRAggy10URyg7 M,weca% say weMmMotng Chronicius.
willbnng you the on the $
g,, &
' p, , 'f _ h NYUr/gitte yar<fot , , , , ' ' ' ' ' ' I'"Re 10 bnng you accurate andup h to date reporveme "
Edeen Ch,"' '
- vcteran o5 Geenpeace se ;
, th ] ' / ' and svhat*Paisns, yg,gg,4 Brigitte Bardot envir nmentalmlatest in the hierature, music, Gimnpooce J !
d l#.&,4 her hom, n Paris in
- he brouEht 6* E supea,s. willImd a sulscrip-We would hke to send you a copy of Lc - -g f,,',3 t .
"--- ch month. On page 19 you
LJ .his E81igh language #'/3' .a ,ol -3,j
- - ' - ~l _ , %
l r
hh
@D ais -.
gu 'o N LQ N 2 CC~D (D P m DD cotQ 'o i
, (D V* Cu to n
, sa m i
- W$
N DI'he d,llapse of the Nuclear .I~ '
O Economy Nuclear power was on:e thought to be a virtually endless m 'M Monic 3metiens introduced Thursday evening, area of Port Ifope from growing source of c he a p electrical and J June 3 in the plenary hall of the gardens."
Qb_['g$ p*1 6. M@'A .br,.,C iN'g.p) thermalenergy. Tliis is no long. 11Y filed EASTON .A Nvj.A.
= -* llahitat Forum site. Films on EN ERGY PROllE of Ottawa er the case as pointed out in nuclear energy and nuclear wea- reports that the AECil knew of "Itusiness Week" entitled Juno 8s a decisive day for the p [J),j b ,M 4, , ,,.")g.
- g. ,A ., pms willhe available for screen- some of the problems of Port "Why Atomic Power Dims", futum nuclear energy. On that ( ,, 1.g ,g'4Q. .s ing during Conference time and llope for nine years and did gep.;ty/L-.-7d}
Nov.17/75. Costs have risen day tiie California, preside niial ) instsuctional workshops are uths In fut WK GMrist dramatically in all aspects < f ,
planned For info phone Dalton who is president of Eldorado nuclear energy production. Ur. P un*'Y 8 Hot * *U 8HCI* 88" cren mn on the question of nu-
'* p' h4 McCarthy at Greenpeace Vank Nuclear sat on the AECII from anium, the basic fuel for reactors has recently doubled in price "*'P"""P""'**P'"P"****""
l ]'J8- ;-g .y #"% .
couver 'l38-3032. 1971 until 1974. The fox has beenleftinchargeof the chicken wiH ask voters tm T% m .t g and with high grade reserves Jmhibit fuitber nuclear power a, coop,
$(,y,m-.3-4 -
dwindling will no doubt continue "
to increase at a rapid rate. The I
,j"",";,'g{" ','"lg*,'[3l,#l8'[,
- CLOSER TO If0ME, Port has Wconm a Wiggpk
- " "d'7 ""I"** "I*** pc. nta STILL CLOSER TO !!OM E.
an u : iu i en r r t as at cident [inhihty limitations are @d;h. % - major scandal for the nuclear Preliminary federal hearings so skyrocketing due to the tre-menthyus sophistication of the med within one year.
-Hequiu s funher cuts of 109 a de-
"M9.hh AM 1
@Mh; .
industry. Radioactive tailings from a uranium mine operated have been held on the applica-factones requued for these pro-l tion of Puget Sound Power &
year aher five years unless both LN C bE OF EMEltGENCY,Re. ' by Eldorado cesses. The most critical phase houses of the California legisla- used as fill inNuclear Ltd. were the construction of Light CompanyJo build at least l
of the nuclear fuel cycle is the pese mur father _ '. homes and schools. Citizens and two 12BOMW boiling water re- p
& ture confirm by a 8 majoritv stage their children have been expos. actors at a site near Sedro Wool- g N fuel reprocessing that they are satisfied with th'e ey, Wash. only 60 air miles up- 8 where spent reactor fuel is brok- ed to excess levels of Radon gas (x en down und st parated into nu-ef fectiveness of safety and dis- has been organizing will be en.
being emitted by the tailings. A wind from Vancouver. The >
Ch posal systems. couraged to follow their lead. stacks of these proposed plants cIcar wastes, reusable uraniuin. recent federal report estimated l
and plutonium. The technology The petit. ion used to force in.- ... ** the cost of cleaning up the conta. w uld, on a regular basis, emit g for th.is process has proved most clusion of the question on the mination at Port ilope could ex- 5'{' ie two dozen radioactive is to difficult and there is alieady a ballot in California was orgamz- .
ceed two million dollars. "In the topes inuo the atmosphere. In addition the site of the plants is d
. Ch , backlogof spent fuel brihling up ed by the Western liloc. a group meantime nys Roger Eaton, a under the sponminp of Halph Greenpeace is organizing a gmblic relations officer for the located in a region geologista CD
- j in teenporary storage hicihties. nuclear programrte at the linit. recognize as one of three high 1 The nuclear power indusery is Neder. If Cahfornians vote YL3 Atomic Energy Control 11oard' beginning to self-destruct due to for nuclear safeguards then it ed Natmns Lonference on llum- r sk seismic areas in the contin-its own economic and tec hnolog- can be enpected that 22 other an Settlements. Major speakers "we have discouraged the peo - ental United States only eight l
i ical weaknesses. states where the Western lik,c on the nuclear issues will he pie living in the Pidgeon liill miles from a major fault line.
l I
ATTACHMENT C The. VANCOUVER SUN January 18, 1973 Page 1 j.
W. power ylaint' due- \ ;
SEATTLI. t AP) -,The P :vt sound Ponce andLght
,CE *ays a n!udy is urder way into .o struction of a'5400 mai-tion nuclear
- power plant in to meet power Ska:
demands t county by IS$lt.< ,
A t %o acre site near Sedro .Woulley, about 3 miles.
souut of Belluncha m. ha5.wco selected. -
Ralph Dasis, companyTres.
,) dent- said Wednesdav the project contemplacs a t." -
nwgamant generattne capacity at the outset. to be sicuDicea-
~
es entually.
The company has acquard' opuons on a naajor portion of the sue and has done the' foundatiors drilling and some .
acis mic sursess,'.the an.
, ruiuntement 44ut. ,
~
t; p'T g
> W)Ju UN A b bJho The VANCOUVER SUN %
January 21, 1974 Page 16
, , t- e Nucle.or) r.f eactor p art-1 e g protestso:o be cirea :
.The Skagit County planning mental Couccil, whn: mem-committee bas called a meet, bers are opposing h pM ud an invMtu u ab inI MoodaI at .3 P.m. In the - tend to B.C. residents con-
. courthouse at Mount Vernon, cerned about constmetion of_a Washington, to 13 ear anycnet ' reactor so clase *.o ' 'Can.i.
who wants to ptetest a pro . dian boder. l 2 "4 o, 0 7 7 posed nuci ear reactcr at ' Meanwhde, the'Chb Siq\
Sedro Wooley. . ,
of B.CJ:sisent a tela.;;am to A specal :oning ordinr.nce tri hearing manager, claim-amend::.ent to permit the eco , Ing that 1.5 million Canadiara struction of the $Nmillion in Vanccuver and Victoria are thermal are! ear power plant 'in the path of radioactive em-on a Skagit Valley slope will emissions frem the plant and
' he.ccasidered. j.'
- possible higMevel radiation
' The SkagiL River Envirard . from accidents.
The VANCOUVER SUN April 30, 1975 F.igat aga..in, st nuc ear plan s .
9 Ip.G ' A. ; b - Lf. 5, a ong S,o/\/p,t gi iver egins 75 Special to {}yp APP 3 0@JS.irmg. which may run untti En-SEDRO WOOLEY. Wash. - The opposi. day,is the first of a ries planned during tion to a waste water discharge permit spring and summ
'Ite site ev- ation council will hold an-soug by Puget Sound Power and Ught other hean .; here May : to consider Co. fo two nuclear power plants was ex.
pected , increase today. other issu involved in the site on Bacus Hilt fit miles east of Sedro %'oul:ey.
A pubJe hearing by the state thermal power plast site evaluation counct opened On uly 15. the federal Nuclear Re:;.::a-here Tuesday at a slow pace as company tor- Commission will begin a full renew attomeys described the conditions of a o the project with a hearing expected to proposed pernut for the two plants hcid in Bellin;; ham.
planned on th Skagit River near here.
- "'#*"E' Opponents c the project p!an to tell the site councl. said the mien counci .'" ds to site council thJc discharges from the nu clear power pl' ts will ha5e an adre e reach its decision before the federa! hear-affect on fish and will violate state w er ings start. The council will make a recom-quality standards. mendation to Gov. Dan Evans who will At issue was a o aft permit des oped make the final decsten about the site. ~'
by the -ite evaluatic.) council. The cemit e a required by the fe*eral Emi . mental Protection Agency fo all disc' arges to
. .g.ater ears. - - -
The cauncil tentatively deaded to issue the permit before the hearmg began in Sedro Wmiley high school Tuesday.
Pacer Leed. a Seattle la.ner repre-sentm;the Skagit County opponents of the project said he would introduce an expert witness who will testify that heated water discharged by the nuciear plants will be a shock to fish in the nver and that chlor:ne and heavy mets:s in waste water will be
' toxic to marine life.
He said federallaw and state standard.s prohibit degradation of water qua!!!y.
&. [1{h # m 1236 078
The VANCOUVER SUN July 16, 1975 Page 13
. .p:'
- ..,3
. ~ .
Earthqua <e row shak,es . '
nucIearpIanf. h..... ._ . -geanngy ~
Special to The Sun ,
' Roger Leed an attorney for the group.
BE1.1.1NGil.ul - T'oe poebdity that (cfd the hearing toard: "There as a direct an earthquake might dsmsge a planced conflict between the applicant and.tl.e nuc7rst-pos er plant near the Skagit River. group on geology and seismology.,
has become the first, m.2)or issue in a fed - 14ed asked that geologtsts' testimony on cral bearing here. seismic safety, which was presect at a
'Ibe Atomic Safety and I.a. censing Board state nuclear hearmg last week, be includ-of the Nuciest Regulatory Commtssion ' .ed in the federsi bearing record.
Tuesday ordered that such questions about the site, east of Sedro Wooley, te consid. But . Puget Power lawyer Theodore ered "at the onut" of a beartsg that may Thomsen sad company wunesses mid run into Septemter. .- -
show that the sue on Bacus Hill"is excel-
"The toard is very interes:ed in gettirg lent" bot 3 sessmically and geolo;;ically, into the matter of wismology and geolo.' And Rcbert Ross. a staff attorney for tite gy.** sd ch irman Samual Jensch m NRC. said he found at "aunape.
after he opened the rearing. Their slews. however. hase been chal-The bearms is bem; beld to consider en- ler.ged by Norman Itasmusen, act.niversa-varcrttrer.tal and sne tisues related to tae ty of Wavangton wismolgist, who jold ptact..wtucn is being plar.rud by the Pug::t the earlier szate hearing that he 1.chesed a Sound Power and U;;st Ca strong emhquake could .myur near the
~'be eartbquake is.ue was raised by Ska- Skagis s te. He had recumnended that the git area resdents cmacerned about tse company redes;gn as project to withstand
- y of the ac.- such a . -
1
- l j 1236 079
The VANCOUVER SUN July 17, 1975 Page 17 gcMa(powerbfbfy questioned pecial to The Sua for August because of other commitments Lawyers for Puget Power laid earlife BELLINGilAa! - The safety record of of participating lawyers. The hearing that their wimesses would testify the proj-would resume after labor Day and con- ect site is safe. The staff of the Nuclear tinue to about mid. September. Regulatory Commission also said it be-a e am ts o ear e era ed el ' ' "
tricity were questioned dunng a U.S. fed- Keron Ericson, a member of the Whav cti eral hearing here Wednesday. corr council, read a lengthy paper which However, an opponents, group called The Whatcom County Energy Council, a questioned the safety cf nuclear teactors and said the chance of an accident or sys. Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear.
group of youn:: pecole, to% up most of the tem failwe which coWd ' release radioac. Power (SCANP) intends to introduce testi-mormng s session of an Afomia Safety and tive wastes mto the-stmosphere were
. . mony too of other geologists who will warn taensmg Board hearin which is consid- ,
ermg Puget Sour.d Powe and Light Co 's request for a permit to uild two nuclear gnat. / the site and suggest the plant be designed JamesycDonald, another council mem- to withstand greater earth shocks.
plants near the Skagit ver, four miles ber gatsed the issue of seismic safety - a David I4ppanen. another Whateem en-east of Sedro Woolley. estion which the board has agreed must ergy counell member. said population ne council testimony ge . '" be discussed early in the hearing. trowth has slowed and predicted that public acpearances before the board and alcDona'd said there have been 92 earth. " downward turning growth rate will con-allowed lawyers for Pu:;et Power, project quakes in Whatcom County smee IS60, 12nue."
coponents .4nd the Nuclear Regulatory wita 77 oc.urr:ng between 1%0 and 1970. lie sa:d the need for the energy from the Comrmssion to begin formal cross- ne increasing number of quakes, plus the plant "is questionable" because of grow 1h
, examination of uitnesses. volcanic action of Stount Baker, "all are rate changes, and sug;:ested that society The hearing is tentatively scheduled to indications of increased stresses beneath has time to develop other energy sources, contmue throu;h this month, then recess the earta's surface," he said. includmg wmd and solar. power.
The VANCOUVER SUN December 8, 1978 NUQLEAR' OLDIHA. Wash. g c ffg4T SITE AGREEDf" The contract wi;l ;et fcrth the er.h.>rr
- i. - An app:ica-tion for location of a multi billion ddlar r ental and safety standards the srle has nuc! ear generating faality near fedro determmed w111 be necessary<or the pro-Woolley in Skagit County uns signed 7:es- fg# ,"ar a -
day by Gos ernor Dan Evans. --
Puget Sound submitted the apnlicaticn Evans said he has directed the clar- for site cer ificat:en in Stareb.-1974. Since
. man of de state ener::y facthty s:te craiu- that time the appliention has been the sut).
atton coune:I to prepare a site certifica' ion- :ect'cf extensive hear:ngs before the site agreement withm "O days. The agreementy councl.
w;il be a centract between the statra:( If all goes according to plan, the first Pu::et Sour.d Power and Iaght Co..';r:me unit of the fac:lity snould go onto line in sponsor of the prcposed twin nuclear the early 1980's and the second unit plants. around 1385.
1236 080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of , )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DOCKET NOS.
et al. )
) . 50-322 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following:
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO GREENPEACE'S PETITION TO INTERVENE.
e \
in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on Octcber 3, 1979 with proper postage affixed for first class mail.
DATED: October 3, 1979 1
you lgs S. Little Counsel for Puget Sound Power &
Light Company 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 1236 081 -
, Date: October 3, 1979
- Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Robert C. Schofield, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 218 County Administration Building Washington, D. C. 20036 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Chairman of Resource, Ecology, Assistant Attorney General Fisheries and Wildlife 500 Pacific Building University of Michigan 520 S.W. Yamhill School of Natural Resources Portland, OR 97204 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Roger M. Leed, Esq.
Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Room 610 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1411 Fourth Avenue Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, WA 98101 Washington, D. C. 20555 CFSP and FOB Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Eric Stachon Atomic Safety and Licensing 2345 S.E. Yamhill -
Appeal Board Portland, OR 97214 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Dr. John H. Buck, Member Axelrad & Toll Atomic Safety and Licensing 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Apr aal Board Washington, D. C. 20036 U.S. Auclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Warren Hastings, Esq.
Associate Corporate Counsel Michael C. Farrar, Member Portland General Electric Company Atomic Safety and Licensing 121 S.W. Salnon Street Appeal Board Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Washington, D. C. 20555 James W. Durham Portland General Electric Company Docketing and Se'rvice Section 121 S.W. Salmon Street Of fice of the Secretary . Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -s Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
(original and 20 copies) Stoel, Rives, Boley, Fraser and Wyse Richard L. Black, Esq. 2300 Georgia Pacific Bldg.
Counsel for NRC Staff 900 S.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, Fifth OR Ave.7ue 97204 Office of the Executive Legal Canadian Consulate General Director Donald Martens, Consul Washington, D. C. 20555 412 Plaza 600 6th and Stewart Street Nicholas D.' Lewis, Chairman Seattle, WA 98101 Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Patrick R. McMullen, Zsq.
820 East Fifth Avenue Skagit Ccunty Prosecuting Attorney Olympia, WA 98504 Courthouse Annex Mounc Vernon,, WA 98273 Thomas F. Carr, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Temple of Justice Olympia, WA 98504 8/ 2/79 1236 382
- . - -. . -. .- . . . - __- ---