ML19254E055
| ML19254E055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1979 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910310021 | |
| Download: ML19254E055 (19) | |
Text
O PODLIC Doc'y3WNT ROOy 10/03/79 1
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFDilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPA';Y, )
3 g
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522
)
STN 50-523
'q, h (Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
- g. 'A Cp Units 1 and 2)
)
Vf gS f g
[
4 y f/
g.
g%
NRC STAFF'S A*.JWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
,,.f FILED BY THE GREENPEACE FOUNDATION g
i,c
)
M 03 I.
BACKGROUND on December 20, 1974, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, now the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, published in the Federal Register a " Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit" (Notice of Hearing),
39 F.R. 44065 (1974), with respect to the application filed by the Applicants to construct the Skagit facility.
The Notice of Hearing set forth the requirements pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which are to be met prior to the issu-ance of construction permits, and designated this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to conduct these proceedings.
The Notice of Hearing also pro-vided that any person whose interest might be affected by the proceeding could file a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 62.714.
The Notice further provided that interested persons could file requests for limited appearances pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 92.715.
Pursuant to this Notice of Hearing, a timely petition for leave to intervene was filed by the Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Plants (SCANP) on Janu-ary 20, 1975.
Neither the Staff nor the Applicants objected to the granting of the petition for leave to intervene. On February 10, 1975 the Board issued 1243 330 O21 7910310
.j~
C
an order granting the petition to intervene and admitting SCANP as a party to the proceeding.
Also pursuant to the Notice of Hearing, the Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC; later changed to the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, or EFSEC), an agency of the State of Washington, filed a timely letter which stated its intent to appear and parti-cipate in the proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 62.715(c).
Neither the Staff nor Applicants objected to the TPPSEC intervention and it was accordingly granted by the Board in an Order dated March 3, 1975.
Following a Notice issued on March 12, 1975, a special Prehearing Conference was held in Bellingham, Washington, on April 15, 1975.
At that Special Prehearing Conference, SCANP filed with the Board a ccpy of its contentions which were incorporated into the record as if read (Tr.67) and were stipulated by both the Applicants and the Staff.
On June 18, 1975, the Board issued a Special Prehearing Conference Order which accepted the SCANP contentions for purposes of the proceeding related to the Limited Work Authorization (LWA).
The Order also suggested a schedule for discovery and commencement of the hearing to begin on July 15, 1975.
The evidentiary hearing was held beginning on July 15 and continuing through August 8, 1975 in Bellingham, Washington and Seattle, Washington.
In accordance with 10 CFR 92.715, a number of limited appearances were made at the hearing on July 15, and 16, 1975, and have been made throughout this proceeding, both in support of and oppostion to the construction of the facility. Additional evi-denitary hearings were held in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979.
}2k
on September 13, 1979, a " Petition to Intervene" (Petition) was filed in this proceeding by 'he Greenpeace Foundation of Vancouver, British Columbia. The Staff submits that the Petition provides an inadequate basis for establishing interest, fails to overcome the obstacle of the lateness of the filing, and fails to set forth a basis upon which discretionary intervention should be granted.
Our analysis and argument supporting these conclusions are set forth more fully below.
II.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR INTEREST AND ASPECTS The Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR 82.714(a)(2), and the Notice of Hearing in this yroceeding provide that a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, includ-ing the reasons why the petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the nature of petitioner's interest under the Atomic Energy Act, his property, financial or other interest in the proceeding, and the possible effect of an order in the proceeding on that interest.
For assessing whether the provisions establishing a petitioner's right to intervene are met, the Commission has determined that judicial standing require-ments apply.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), C1.I-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
These standards, set forth in Sierra Club
- v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1974); Barlow v.
Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (1970); and Association of Data Processing Service Organization v.
Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970),
require a showing that (1) the action being challenged could cause injury in i243 332
fact to the person seeking stan: ag, and (2) such injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute govarning the proceeding.
In clieging a particularized injury, a petitioner need not show that he necessarily will be injured by the results of the proceeding, but that there is a reasonable possibility that the action might have an adverse impact on his interests.
Virginia Electric Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 NRC 98, 104-05 (1976); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). The injury must be particularized to the individual petitioner and not one which is " shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens." Edlow International Company, CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 576 (1976),
quoting from Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).
Residence has been found sufficient, standing alone, to establish " injury in fact" for persons concerned about injury to their persons or property from operation of the reactor. / Virginia Electric and Power Company, ALA3-522, 1
supra _ at 56; Houston Lightine and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generat-ing Station), ALAB-535 (April 4, 1979), slip 02. at 29.
This geographical proximity test for standing applies to petitioners making a showing of residence (or other frequent activities) "within the geographical zone that might be affected by an accidental release of fission products." Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372
- Similarly, pursuit of everyday activities in the vicinity of a reactor site, Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974), use of the surrounding area for recrea-tional purposes, Philadelphia Electric Co., et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CL1-73-10, 6 AEC 173 (1973), or part-time residence, such as student residence, Tennesse Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 (1977), may, depending on the circumstances, demonstrate an interest which could be affected by a possible harmful effect of the facility.
1243 333
n.6 (1973); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
No outer limits af this geographic zone have been established, although it has been held that 50 miles "is not so great as necessarily to have precluded a finding of standing based on resi-dence." Tennessee Valley Authority, ALAB-413, supra at 105.
Protection from pote1tial injury to persons or property from release of fission products is squarely within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
Virginia Electric Power Company, ALAB-342, supra at 105.
However, other alleged potential injuries in f act, albeit directly linked to the outcome of the proceeding, do not fall within the zone of interests which the statute is designed to protect.
For example, alleged injury to a ratepayer's interest in avoiding increases in electricity prices does not involve an interest sought to be protected by the statute.
Portland General Electric Company, CLI-76-27, supra at 614; Ten 1essee Valley Authority, ALAB-413, supra at 1420-21.
Similarly, the interests of taxpayers are not protected by the statute.
Id. at 1421.
Further, a purely economic interest comes within the ambit of the National Environmental Policy Act " zone of interests" only if it is environmentally re-lated, that is, linked to an environmental impact of the federal action.2/
Id.
at 1421.
See also Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 640 (1975).
An organization may establish standing to intervene as a result of potential injury to itself or as representative of one or more of its members who have personal standir.g.
10 CFR 82.4(o); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975).
When the standing of an organization is asserted to be derived from that of
-2/ This discussion of " zone of interests" is limited to troceedings outside the antitrust sphere, which may be treated differeuS v.
Portland General Electric Company, CLI-76-27, supra at 614 n.5.
its members, it must identify and establish that at least one suen member has a cognizable interest that might be affected by the result of the proceeding.
Houston Lighting and Pow 7r Co., ALAB-435. supra at 30.
The member with such an interest must have authorized the organization to represent that interest, although authorization may be presumed in the case of members of organizations whose purpose is such that it may be fairly inferred that, by joining the organization, the members implicitly authorized the representation of any of their personal interests whicn may be affected by the proceeding.
Id. at 37-38.
Anti-nuclear groups, groups opposed to the facility at bar, and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists fit this criterion.
Id,. at 37; Virginia Electric Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, slip on. at 5 n.2.
Absent express authorization, groups may not represent otter than their own members, and individuals may not assert the interest of other persont.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-11, 5 NRC 481, 483 (1977); Tennessee Valley Authority, ALAB-413, supra at 1421. There is, under the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, no provision for private attorneys general.
Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Sp.ings Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-333, 3 NRC 804, 806 n.6 (1976); Long Island Lighting Company, LBP-77-11, supra at 483.
In addition to demonstrating their standing to intervene, petitioners to parti-cipate in NRC proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR H2.714(a) are to identify the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which they wish to intervene.
Although this provision has not yet been discussed extensively in NRC case law, it is apparent that the provision permits some notice to other participants of the issues likely to be litigated and, therefore, 1243 335
. of the scope of the contested subject matter in the proceeding. The requirerent of some specificity in the identi'ication of aspects of the issues can assure that submittals relating to aspects are not so broad or vague as to defeat any genuine notice regarding issues of particular concern. Acccrdingly, we submit that the appropriate test for adequacy of identification of aspects is whether they are sufficiently specified to put the Board and parties on notice regarding the basic areas in which a petitioner contemplates framing contentions.
III.
DISCUSSION OF INTEREST AND ASPECTS The Staff believes that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing of interest in this proceeding.
Petitioner claims to represent the interests of some 17,000 members in British Columbia seeking " peaceful" solutions to the problems of environmental preservation. To the extent that some of the members may reside in the southern portion of that province, they may well fall within the geographical zone of interests referenced earlier.
However, no memoers are identified in the Petition, and the residence of the only officer of the organi-zation mentioned in the Petition is not given.
The Petition does indicate that Greenpeace offices are located in Vancouver, B.C.,
and the solicitor for Green-peace lists as his address Vancouver.
Vancouver would appear to be almost 70 miles from the plant site, which may be within the outer fringes of the geographical zone of intere"ts.
However, there is no indication that the solicitor is in fact a membe of Greenpeace who has authorized the organization to represent his interest in the Skagit proceeding.
In the absence of an indi-cation of individuals who may be injured by the proceeding, there is no basis for distinguishing between the concerns of Greenpeace and those shared in substantially equal measure by a large class of citizens who reside some distance from the proposed plant site.
1243 336 The Staff submits that Greenpeace must provide the name of at least one member who has a cognizable interest that might be affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
In addition, the Petitioner must show that the interested member has authorized Greenpeace to represent his or her interest in this proceeding.
Although authorization may be presumed in some cases (see above), the aims and objectives of Greenpeace listed on page 2 of the Petition, of promoting an understanding of the natural world and stimulating action to preserve the integrity of life sustaining ecosystems, fall short of providing the impli-cation that members sharing those general aims would automatically be authoriz-ing Greenpeace to represent them in U.S. proceedings in opposition to nuclear power plants.
An additional requirement set forth in 92.714(a)(2) is that Petitioner must identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which it wishes to intervene.
The Staff submits that, although the conce?.ns raised by Petitioner (Petition, pp. 2, 3) would have to be considerably refined to render them capable of litigation, they do satisfy this requirement.
In sum, the Staff concludes that Greenpeace has failed to demonstrate that it or any of its members possess the requisite interest to be permitted to intervene as a matter of right.
IV.
TIMELINESS Even if Petitioner had made an adequate showing of standing in this proceeding, it would also have to overcome the obstacle of having filed its Petition over 4 1/2 years after publication of the Notice of Hearing. The Commission's regu-lations provide that:
"The petition... shall be filed not later than the time specified in the notice of hearing...
Nontimely filings will not be enter-tained absent a determination... that the petition and/or request s,9. a 3 3 37
-9_
should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors in addition to [those addressed previously regarding standing):
(1) 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 expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's parti-cipation will broaden the issues or delay the proceed-ing."
The Staff's position regarding these facts is as follows.
A.
Good Cause The Staff submits that Petitioner has failed tc offer an adequate excuse for its failure to file on time.
In light of the fact that several areas of Petitioner's concerns, that of potential harm to fish, migratory birds, and agricultural production from operation of the proposed facility, were the sub-ject of litigation years ago (with proposed findings of fact submitted more than 3 1/2 years ago), Petitioner has an especially large burden to overcome to justify its late action.
The sole excuse offered by Greenpeace for delaying the submittal of its Petition for over 4 1/2 years is that it failed to receive notice of the proceeding until June of this year.
This factor, according to the Petition, constitutes good cause for excusing the delay.
Although the Staff was unable to locate any Commission decisions which discuss the adequacy of notice of foreign petitioners, the Staff submits that the notice provided in this proceeding was truly adequate for Greenpeace to have been made 1243 338
aware of the Skagit proceeding long before now.1/ Section 2.104(a) of the Commission's rules of practice require, in the case of a proceeding such as this, notice of hearing to be published only in the Federal Register.
Such publication, even in the presence of an alleged " press blackout" of other news publications regarding the time limits within which to request participation in an NRC hearing, has not been fcund to be inadequate notice. Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2), ALAB-341, 4 NRC 95 (1976).
Despite this, the Staff caused to be published notice of the hearing and the time limits for requesting the opportunity to participate in the proceeding in numerous newspapers in the Pacific northwest area of the United States. / In addition, there was 4
extensive covercge of the hearings on the Skagit facility in newspapers as evi-denced by the sampling of clippings that were appended to " Applicants' Answer to Indian Petition to Intervene" dated July 28, 1978.
Despite the fact that Greenpeace claims a membership of over 17,000 in British Columbia, Petitioner apparently alleges that none of its members had notice that a hearing was ongoing in Bellingham, which is only about 20 miles south of the Canadian border, and later, Seattle.
It would indeed be curious if Green-peace, in an amended petition, were to indicate specific members who reside sufficiently close to the proposed plant site to fall within the geographical zone of interests, and yet they do not reside close enough to hear of a hearing
-3/ The Staf f is aware of one NRC hearing in which a petition for leave to intervene was filed by a foreign party.
Babcock & Wilcox (On Applica-tion for Consideration of Facility Export License), CLI-77-18, 5 NRC 1332 (1977). Despite NRC-published noti _e in the Federal Register, a timely petition from Germany was received.
-4/ Nctices of hearing were published by the Staf f in trade journals as well as in newspapers in at least the following cities in Decembar 1974:
Seattle, Mt. Vernon, Everett, Bellingham, Bellevue, Kennewl.(, Spokane, and Olympia, Washington, Portland Oregon, and Boise Idaho.
}2d) which had been running off and on for four years by the time that Greenpeace allegedly first heard of the matter.
The argument that the British Columbia area was devoid of public notice about the proceeding is further weakened by the fact that there has been a sizable amount of interest shown by other British Columbia residents throughout this proceeding.
Limited appearance statements were made by British Columbia resi-dents as early as July 1975.
During that hearing session, a limited appearance statement was received from a Mr. Hansen on behalf of the Vancouver Environ-mental Laws, under association of the B.C. Environmental Council (Tr. 194).
In addition, a letter was received from a Mr. Leggatt, a Member of Parliament of the Canadian House of Commons, which was submitted in support of Mr. Hansen's statement (Tr. 585).
In August 1976, limited appearance statements were again received, and two groups from Vancouver made statements (Tr. NFP-66, 67).
One of the groups, the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, claimed to represent 15 local environmental, social, and edu-cational groups that had apparently heard of the proposed Skagit project. Numerous residents of British Columbia have participated more recently.
A further indication of the recognition in Canada of the Skagit licensing pro-ceeding can be found from the fact that the Canadian Consulate asked to be placed on the service list for the proceeding during the fall of 1976.
In addition, in October 1976, a Mr. Leung of the Water Resources Service, Depart-ment of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for British Columbia requested a copy of the limited appearance statements that had been made by Canadian citizens during the Skagit hearing.
When considered together, there exists evidence that there was in fact publica-tion of news articles in British Columbia, or at the very least, public
)}$b
distribution of U.S. news articles in that province, which described the pro-posed project and the public hearings that accompanied it.
In light of this fact, the Staff rejects the allegation that there was a news blackout regard-ing the Skagit proceeding beyond the U.S. Canadian border.
In sum, the Staff concludes that it satisfied the regulatory requirements by publishing notice of hearing for this proceeding in the Federal Register months before the commencement of the actual hearings.
In addition, adequate notice was made in numerous U.S. newspapers at the same time.
Further, although not required, constructive notice may be inferred to have been made in British Columbia by virtue of the fact that there has been an involvement for over four years from groups claiming to represent numerous B.C.
residents, as well as from the B.C. and Canadian federal governments.
These factors preclude a finding that Petitioner has advanced a reasonable excuse for its late filing.
Petitioner must therefore prevail on the other four facters specified in 10 CFR m2.714(a)(1) in order to overcome the obstacle of the lateness of its filing.
B.
The Availability of Other Means Whereby the Petitioner's Interest Will Be Protected The Staff agrees that this hearing is probably the sole remaining adjudicatory proceeding that will consider whether the Skagit facility should be licensed. As such, it may be the only effective means whereby Petitioner can participate in protecting its interests. 11oweve r, as was indicated earlier, Greenpeace has failed t'
identify any specific interests that are separate from the general interests of the population as a whole.
Petitioner's claim of "different cultural, legal and social values" which it seeks to represent is vague and lacks the specificity that would be required to distinguish its interests from those of U.S. residents or from the persons already represented by 1243
$4\\
intervenors in this proceeding. Accordingly, this factor tends to weigh against admitting Greenpeace.
C.
The Extent to Which Petitioner's Participation May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist in Developing a Sound Record The Staff has no basis of ascertaining that Petitioner could reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
Greenpeace has claimed no special expertise in the subject areas that it is interested in, although it does claim to possess data on Canadian geology and seismology, fishing, civil defense and public welfare. However, these subjects would have to be relevant and material to the issues in the proceeding to have a bearing on whether Petitioner should be admitted.5/
To the extent that Greenpeace has information to offer regarding Canadian geol-ogy and seismology, the Staff, Applicants, and SCANP have already submitted testimony on the subject which incorporates that body of information that describes the regional geology and seismology, including that of Canada.
It is unlikely that Greenpeace, which claims no expertise in the subject, can produce relevant and material information which the parties have not already become familiar with.
Nor has Petitioner claimed to have any such information on the subject which is in the exclusive domain of the Canadians.
Greenpeace also claims to be able to produce information on Canadian fishing, civil defense, and public welfare. However, the Staff fails to see how such information would even be admissible evidence in this proceeding. There has already been a wealth of evidence presented on the effect of the proposed project on the Skagit River fishery. The effort on the Canadian fishery would be at
-5/ This assumes, of course, that Petitioner is not raising any new issues for the hearing.
The Petition is devoid of any suggestion that Green-peace will offer any significant new information that would give rise to a new issue in the proceeding.
1243 342
best tenuous, in light of the evidence presented by the Staff and Applicants that there would be a negligible impact on the Skagit River fishery. Likewise, there is no indication that Canadian civil defense and public welfare, which is preaumably mentioned in regard to the subject of emergency planning, is a matter which is relevant to this proceeding.
This results from the fact that the Canadian border is well beyond the radius of territory within which the evacuation of persons must be considered.
In sum, Greenpeace has failed to indicate that it will be able to assist in developing a sound record. As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board recently declared in a decision affirming the Licensing Board's denial of a similar late-filed petition in this proceeding:
(p)ast experience teaches that predictions on the ability of a prospective late intervenor to make a substantial contri-bution to the development of a sound record often rest upon little more than rank speculation.
ALAB-559, slip og. at 19, August 31, 1979.
So it is here, with no more than an allegation that Greenpeace can offer only information which is unlikely to add anything new on one subject, and that it could offer new but irrelevant information on two others. Accordingly, this factor also must weigh against the Petitioners.
D.
The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Interest will be Represented by Existing Parties and The Extent to Which the Petitioner's Participation will Broaden the Issues or Delay the Proceeding These factors are interdependent with respect to Petitioner.
The record indi-cates that SCANP has already raised as concerns in this proceeding four issues that Petitioner would now have us relitigate: airborne radioactivity releases, impacts to the fishery and migratory birds, and harm to agriculturs' interests.
Not only has SCANP, in conjunction with FOB and the Board, vigorously pursued
)}hb J
four years ago.6/
most of these issues, but it did so in most instances almost Thus, the Staff submits that existing parties are already representing the general interests raised by Greenpeace.
If the record were reopened on these issues solely for the purpose of allowing Petitioner to participate in the litigation, the proceeding would be unnecessarily delayed. To the extent that the emergency planning and geology-seismology issues have not yet been fully litigated at this time, Petitioner's participation solely on these two issues may not unduly broaden their scope. However, there has been no showing of interest by Greenpeace on these issues which is distinct from that of SCANP e FOB.
On balance Petitioner's admission would unnecessarily delay * - proceed-ing.
Consequently, this factor weighs heavily against Petitioner.
E.
Conclusion In summary, four of the five factors to be considered in determining whether Petitioner has overcome the obstacle of the lateness of its filing weigh heavily against it.
Only the second factor, the availability of other means whereby its interest will be protected, has some aspects which may favor its intervention. However, the failure of Petitioner to indicate how its interest is separate from that being represented by existing parties lessens the weight to be accorded this factor. On balance, the other four factors militate against excusing Petitioner's lateness.
V.
THE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS A HATTER OF DISCRETION Even if Petitioner is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right, the Board could grant the Petition as a matter of discretion.
In general, this
-6/ Emergency planning and geology / seismology, which are the subject of intervenor contentions and also Greenpeace's concern, have yet to be fully considered in the hearing.
i243 344 consideration should be guided by the circumstances of the case and the factors set forth in 10 CFR 92.714(a) (regarding considerations relevant to untimely petitions for leave to intervene), as well as the standard factors set forth in 10 CFR 92.714(d).
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976).
The Appeal Board has declared that:
"in the vast majority of instances the pivotal factor in determin-ing whether to grant discretionary intervention will be that of the ability of the petitioner to make a valuable contribution to the development of a sound record on a safety or environmental issue which is raised by him and appears to be of enough importance to call for Board consideration."
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1&2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1422 (1977).
As discussed above, this factor does not support Petitioner's case.
Accordingly, the Board has no basis upon which to determine that Petitioner could make a valuable contribution to the proceeding.
Absent such a showing of ability to make a valuable contribution to the proceeding by, for example, a demonstration of expertise on a relevant issue, the Staff submits that it would be improper to grant Petitioner intervention in this proceeding as a matter of discretion.
VI.
CONCLUSION On the basis of the foregoing, the Staff concludes that Greenpeace has failed to establish standing to intervene either as a matter of right or discretion.
In addition, Greenpeace has failed to overcome the obstacle of its late filing.
Accordingly, the Staff urges the Board to deny the Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
/% y/
Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Fbryland
}24 this 3rd day of October, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. SIN 50-522 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY THE GREENPEACE FOUNDATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission's internal mail system, this 3rd day of October, 1979:
Valentine B.
Deale, Esq., Chairman
- Robert C. Schofield, Director Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
120 W. Kincaid Street Washington, DC 20036 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Roger M. Leed, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1411 Fourth Avenue School of Natural Resources Seattle, WA 98101 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Washington State Energy Facility Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger, Member
- Site Evaluation Council Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 820 East Fifth Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Olympia, WA 98504 Washington, DC 20555 F. Theodore Thomsen, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen Lowenstein, Newman, Reis,
& Williams Axelrad 6 Toll 1900 Washington Building Suite 1214 Seattle, WA 98101 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
Rives, Bonyhadi 6 Drummond Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet 1400 Public Service Building c/o Forelaws on Board 920 S.W. 6th Avenue 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Portland, OR 97204 Boring, OR 97009 1243 346
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Thomas F. Carr, Esq.
State of Oregon Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Temple of Justice 500 Pacific Building Olympia, WA 98504 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Donald S. Means Attorney for Swinomish Tribal Canadian Consulate General Community Robert Graham P. O. Box 277 Vice-Consul LaConner, WA 98257 412 Plaza 600 6th & Stewart Street Russell W. Busch, Esq.
Seattle, WA 98101 Attorney for Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Tribe Siting and Regulation Evergreen Legal Services Department of Energy 520 Smith Tower Room 111, Labor and Industries Seat *le, WA 98104 Building Salem, OR 97310 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Warren Hastings, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Associate Corporate Counsel Washington, DC 20555 Portland General Electric Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 121 S.W. Salmon Street Panel (5)*
Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Patrick R. McMullen Skagit County Prosecuting Docketing and Service Section (4)*
Attorney Office of the Secretary Courthouse Annex U.S. Nuclear Regule-ory Commission Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Washington, DC 20555 James W. Durham, Esq.
Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street TB 17 Portland, OR 97204
/- %/ E d ew,w Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff 1243 347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE FILED BY THE GREENPEACE FOUNDATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 3rd day of October, 1979:
Patrick Moore, PhD, President Greenpeace Foundation P.O. Box 34307 2623 West 4th Avenue Vancouver, B.C.
V6K 1P8 LW t M4/rWW Daniel T.
Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff 1203 348