ML19260A927
| ML19260A927 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | GREENPEACE FOUNDATION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060150 | |
| Download: ML19260A927 (21) | |
Text
, g' 9
4 6
4 g2 3060 gs? 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A f. g*'N )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
In the Matter of SERVE 0 NOV 20 G9 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al.
50-523 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project Units 1 and 2)
DENIAL OF PETITION TO INTERVENE
^
Identity of Petition 1.
The Greenpeace Foundation of Vancouver, British Columbia filed a petition to intervene dated September 13,19'9 and served September 18, 1979.
2.
According to its petition, Greenpeace Foundation is a non-profit, environmental organization incorporated under the B. C. Societies Act, has 17,000 paid members in British Columbia, and has offices in Vancouver, British Columbia. The aims and objectives of Greenpeace Foundation are to develop principles and techniques of ecological management and to foster the development of environmental awareness so as to:
(a) promote an understanding of the natural world; and (b) stimulate practical, intelligent and non-violent action to preserve the integrity of life sustaining ecosystems.
3.
Petitioner contends that the construction of the Skagit nuclear power project may have a direct and adverse impact upon its members and may give rise to the following concerns:
1510 202 p
7912060
/
,w
. (a) airborne radioactive contamination spreading to British Columbia adversely affecting the public health of its members; (b) necessity for evacuation of such members for their safety from such contamination; (c) necessity of coordinated evacuation of its members along with United States citizens; (d) harm to Canadian fishing interests -- both sport and com-mercial; (e) effects of Canadian geological and seismographic activity on the construction project and consequential hazards; (f) potential harmful effect on migratory birds, especially the bald eagle populations in the area; and (g) harm to property and agriculturalinterests of members on account of crop, livestock, water, air and soil contamination as a result of radioactive leakage. According to the petition to intervene, the areas of British Columbia closest to the project are essential food and milk producing lands as most of British Columbia is non-arable and said contamination may not only have a direct adverse effect on the said inter-ests of members but may also give rise to consequentialin-creased costs of food and necessities of life.
4.
Petitioner maintains that unless it is granted standing the interests of its own members and of the residents of British Columbia in general will not be represented and will not be shown proper and necessary consideration re-quired by the relevant federal regulations. Petitioner feels that the limited appearance which has already been granted to it (July 17,1979, Tr.12,092) was an inadequate opportunity fully to present and protect the concerns of its members.
1510 203
. 5.
On December 20, 1974, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, now the United States Nuclear Energy Commission, published in the Federal Register at 39 F.R. 44065 (1974) its Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permits covering the hearings on the Skagit nuclear power proj-ect in whicl$ Petitioner now seeks to intervene. This Notice of Hearing, which was pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations at Title 10 Parts 2, 50 and 51, provided that a petition to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission by January 20, 1975.
6.
Greenpeace Foundation's Petition To Intervene is a nontimely petition.
It was served four years plus 7-8 months after the deadline of January 20, 1975 for filing petitions to intervene. To be acceptable in this proceeding, Green-peace Foundation's Petition first must meet the requirements of a timely peti-tion to intervene and secondly, must meet the test for entertaining a nontimely 1) petition to intervene.
In the alternative, Greenpeace Foundation may be allowed to intervene as a matter of the Board's discretion.
1510 204 1/ At the time the Notice of Hearing in the Skagit proceeding was published, the Commission regulation governing intervention, namely,10 CFR 52. 714 (the same identification as it is today) required a petition to intervene to be under oath or affirmation and to be accompanied by a supporting affidavit of defined character, and the Not' ice of Hearing in the Skagit proceeding so spelled out. Requirements then for entertaining nontimely petitions to inter-vene essentially paralleled those of existing regulations. This Board is not disposed to deny the present petition solely on the basis of Petitioner's non-compliance with technical requirements of the former version of 10 CFR
$2.714. See Northern States Power Comnany (Monticello Nuclear Generat-ing Plant, Unit 1) at 5 AEC 25 at n.1.
. Petitioner's Claim of Interest and Its Deficiency 7.
Petitioner claims to represent the interests of some 17,000 mem-bers m British Columbia. To the extent that some of the'niembers may reside in the southern portion of that Canadian province witbin 35 or 40 miles of the nroposed Skagit plant, they may fall within the geographical zor, that might be affected by an accidental release of fission product. Puisiana Power
& Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n. 6 (1973).
No outer limits of this geographical zone have been established, although it has been held that 50 miles is not so great as neces-sarily to have precluded a finding of standing on account of distance of residence from a nuclear power plant. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 n.4 (1977).
Protecting from potential injury to persons or property from release of fission products is squarely with the zone of interest sought to be protected by the Atomic Energy Act. Vireinia Electric Power Comoany (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-342, 4 NRC 98,105 (1976).
f510 205
~
8.
An organization may establish standing to intervene as a result of potential injury to itself or as representstive of one or more of its mem-bers who have personal standing. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975).
When the standing of an organization is asserted to be derived from its mem-bers, the organization must identify and establish that at least one such member has a cognizable interest that might be affected by the result of the
. proceeding. Hou'ston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Gen-erating Station), ALAB-535 (April 4,1979) Slip Op. at 30. The member with such an interest must have authorized the organizetica to represent that interest. In the case at hand, it may not be presumed that the members of Greenpeace Foundation authorized Greenpeace Foundation to represent their interest in the subject proceeding; certainly nothing suggests as much in the statement of the purpose or objectives of Greenpeace Foundation in its Petition To Intervene.
9.
Since the Petition does not allege damage to an interested protected by the Atomic Energy Act of the Greenpeace Foundation itself or of an identifi-able member of the Greenpeace Foundation or of anyone else who authorized his or her representation by the Greenpeace Foundation in this proceeding, the Petition is deficient in not having stated an interest in the prcceeding in keeping with applicable judicial and administrative decisions governing intervention.
Imoact of Nontimeliness of Petition 1510 206
- 10. Even if Greenpeace Foundation had made an adequate showing of interest or cured its inadequate showing of interest, it would still have to overcome the obstacle of having filed a nontimely petition. The Commission's regulation at 10 CFR $2. 714(a)(1) indicates the way in which a nontimely filing of a petition to intervene can be overcome, namely, through a determination based on the balancing of specified factors. The specified factors are con-sidered below.
- First Factor
- 11. The first factor is whether there is good cause for failure to file on time. In the case at hand, the first factor takes on the meaning of whether there was good cause r.at to file before September 18, 1979 -- the due data for filing having been on or before January 20, 1975. Petitioner sought to justify the untimeliness of its Petition To Intervene on the basis of lack of notice, that there was a lack of any publicity formal or informal in British Columbia prior to June 18, 1979. Evidently following a front page news story in British Columbia's largest daily newspaper about the Skagit nuclear project, Greenpeace Foundation wrote an undated June 1979 letter to the Secretary of Energy about its strongly adverse views toward the project and forwarded a copy of the letter to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Attachment A), a little later it sought and was granted a limited appearance at a hearing on the Skagit nuclear project in Seattle, Washington on July 17, 1979, in August it obtained legal counsel, and on September 18, 1979 its Petition To Intervene was served.
- 12. Section 2.104(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice require in the case of a proceeding such as this that a Notice of Hearing be published in the Federal Register, and as heretofore indicated, such was so published on December 20, 1974. In addition, the NRC staff, according to its answer to Greenpeace Foundation's Petition To Intervene, published in December 1974 1510 yoi
. notices of hearing in trade journals as well as in newspapers in at least the.
following cities: Seattle, Mt. Vernon, Everett, Bellingham, Bellevue, Kennewick, Spokane, and Olympia, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Boise, Idaho. It isla~ir to concfu~ie~that at least some of the publicity gen-
~
~~
~
erated by these notices in the United States reached. nearby British Columbia._. _
during December 1974 and January 1975 -- in any event, well before the date of June 18, 1979.
13.
According to Applicants' answer to Greenpeace Foundation s i
petition, there was a number of articles publicizing the Skagit nuclear proj-ect in the Vancouver Sun, one of British Columbia's largest newspapers.
For example, there was a page one article in the Vancouver Sun dated January 18, 1973 reporting plans for the project; in the same newspaper of January 21, 1974, there was an article about a meeting of the Skagit County planning committee holding a meeting to hear protests of the pro-posed nuclear facility at Sedro Woolley, Washington and about the Skagit River Environmental Council issuing an invitation to British Columbia residents to attend the meeting; also, in the same newspaper of April 30, July 16 and July 17, 1975, there were articles about the Skagit nuclear project regarding waste water discharge, the possibility of earthquake, 0 2M and safety factors. Attachment B.
- 14. Further, limited appearances in this proceeding have estab-lished that Canadians and Canadian environmental organizations have been aware of plans for the Skagit project for a long time prior to Greenpeace Foundation's petition to intervene. For example, on the very first day of evidentiary hearings (July 15, 1975), a limited appearance raising questions about the Skagit project was made by Flemming Hansen, a person living in Vancouver, British Columbia, on behalf of the Vancouver Environmental Laws, under association of the B. C. Environmental Council and the Com-mittee on Scientific Pollutiun 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 opposed the Skagit nuclear project. Tr. 6084-85. On July 19,1977, one Hilda Kellerton of Crofton, British Columbia, claiming to represent two thousand people in southwestern British Columbia who signed a clean energy petition, made a limited appearance questioning the Skagit nuclear project. Tr. 7374.
- 15. Aside from the foregoing specific references, the Board takes official notice of coverage in the news media of numerous hearings and con-ferences on the Skagit nuclear project since 1975. These hearings and confer-ences, which were held in Bellingham and Seattle, Washington, and the most recent visit to the proposed plant site by Board members and party repre-sentatives~, occurred on the following dates:
1975--at Bellingham: April 15, July 15,16,17,18, 21, 22 and 23; at Seattle: July 24, 25, 28, 29, 3 0, 31, August 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8:
1976--at Seattle: May 12, June 2, 3, and 4, July 7, 8, 9 and 10;
_g_
1977--at Seattle: March 9, May 11,12 and 13, July 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23; 1978--at Seattle: January 24, March 7, 8, 9,10,11, 13,14 and 15, June 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24; 1979--at Seattle: January 16 and 17, April 24; subsequent to June 18: July 17,18,19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, August 27, 29 and 30; at proposed plant site: January 18.
16.
The Canadian government itself has been kept informed of develop-ments in this proceeding over the last several years. By his request, the Canadian Consulate General in Seattle was placed on the service list in September 1976. Also, according to the NRC Staff, a Mr. Leung of the Water Resources Service, Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for British Columbia requested in October 1976 copies of limited appearance state-ments which had been made by Canadian citizens during the Skagit hearings.
- 17. Petitioner's monthly publication of Greenpeace Chronicles published an article entitled "'76 Atomic Reactions", in the Spring of 1976 according to Applicants, which stated in part as follows (Attachment B):
STILL CLOSER TO HOME, preliminary federal hearings have been held on 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. on'y 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 atmosphere. In addition the site of the plai 's is 1ccated in a region geologists recog-nize as one of the three high risk seismic areas in continental United States only eight miles from a major fault line.
1 510 210
. 18. Petitioner itself received no direct notice from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the Skagit project, and none was called for.
Petiticr.er's excuse for nontimely filing, namely, that it was unaware of the prof. set before June 18, 1979,- is rejected for lack of credibility.
Second Factor
- 19. This second factor concerns the availability of other means whereby Petitioner's interest will be protected. Since Greenpeace Foundation has not established any interest which is protected under law, this factor weighs against permitting it_to_ intervene.
Third Factor
- 20. The third factor is addressed to the extent to which the Petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in.:eveloping a sound record. Though Greenpeace Foundation's asserted concerns a.~e reflected in subjects (a) through (g) at paragraph 3 above, Greenpeace Foundation mani-fested no expertise in any of the particular subjects. Presentation of a Canadian point of view would presumebly be stronger in the evidence if intervention were allowed, but such an input is not regarded as critical in the absence of specific information to the contrary. There is ne reason to suppose that the record would be improved in a notable fashion if Greenpeace Foundation were allowed to intervene.
1510 211 Fourth Factor
- 21. This fourth factor questions the extent to which Greenpeace Foundation's interest will be represented by existing parties. As
_ noted before, Gre npeace Foundation has not established an interest deserving of protection under law and its asserted concerns reflected in subjects (a) through (g) at paragraph 3 above appear to be generally taken care of to the extent they are within the ambit of Commission regulations, eithe. on the basis of past or prospective evidence.
Fifth Factor The fifth factor raises the question of the extent tc which 22.
Petitioner's participation will broaden the issue or delay the proceeding if Petitioner were allowed to intervene. It is probable that the proceeding would be delayed because intervenor would presumably wish to introduce testimony accenting a particular Canadian point of view concerning several At this stage of the proceeding, proposed findings on most subjects issues.
of hearing have already been scheduled and are being filed and the schedule of final hearings on subjects which still remain open for additional evidence is a matter of current consideration.
Paragraoh (d) Factors" ~
- 23. Paragraph (d) factors are enumerated as follows: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made,a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other in-terest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be enterad in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
1510 21ez
. Since Greenpeace Foundation established no acceptable interest -- an assertion of enumerated concerns is not enough -- it has no right under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, to be a party to the proceeding. The para-graph (d) factors do not weigh in favor of entertaining a nontimely petition to intervene of Greenpeace Foundation.
Summary of Balancinc Out Factors Under 10 CFR 52. 714(a)(1)
- 24. The balancing out of the regulatory factors for deciding whether to grant a nontimely petition to intervene weighs heavily against the Petitioner.
Three considerations are dominant: first, no good cause was shown for the late filing; second, prospects for improving the record if Greenpeace Founda-tion were permitted to intervene are purely speculative; and third, Greenpeace Foundation did not establish a proper interest for sustaining intervention.
-Absence of Reasons for Intervention As a Matter of Discretion _
- 25. The Board discerns no reasons in this case for permitting interven-tion as a matter of discretion. In particular, it sees no realistic prospect for meaningfully improving the record.
1510 2i3 Order
- 26. For the reasons stated above, the Board d.:nies~ Greenpeace Founda-tion's Petition To Intervene. The two technical m<.nbers of the Board agree with this order.
. Appealability This order may be appealed, in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 52,714a, to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board within ten (10) days after service hereof. The appeal shall be asserted by the filing of a notice of appeal and accompanying supporting brief. Any other party may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the appeal within ten (10) days after service of the appeal.
Done this
day of November 1979 at Washington, D.C.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i'
,. N f.
<)
't By / ' L ' M ' A
d Valentine B. Deale, Chairman 1510 214
t-ATTACHMENT A q$
.cm.n,u m
\\
(
f,5,=%
voo( u.EG 3. M 5 3 6,#f -
e-m
&m.WA
\\.
, m
/
(
B
,L
&.o #,
t.
G n..a..,~. v p:ws.u m
m
+; gse w 1 t '.~i~~ ;.
m v
w y
~
O
,o v"/
ff.c-s[c.6.-,,n C.\\
~
June 1979 k-
)
. - e...i d g'@g[,*' 9..
NRi The Honorable Jarces Schlesinger
" p+tkd g
5 Secretary of Energy c/o Department of Energy S
/
Washington, D. C.
' ~ lM 20545 Dear Mr. Schlesinger; We are writing on behalf of all Canadian citizens who are aware or who, through our ef forts and the ef forts of marry other groups,
will soon be aware of the extreme danger to Canada, its population and resources should the Skagit Nuclear Project proceed.
It is inconceivable that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission would permit a nuclear f acility to be built so near our border, where the consequences cf a nuclear accident would res'c_it in f ar greater harm to your neighbours than yourselves.
Such permission is nothing short of a callous disregard for Canada and the spirit of international respect which should join our countries.
Such per: mission would con-stitute a form of international environmental aggression.
The prevailing winds in the Skagit Valley blow from South to North.
Any amount of radioactivity released into the air from the Sedro Woolley reactors would invariably a2fect us.
If there were a najor spill in the Skagit River, radiation would soon dind its way to Puget Sound and thence by tidal action into the Scrait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia, where it would affect not only Vancouver and Vancouver Island, but many smaller surrounding communities.
This creates a possibility f ar enor: nous economic and -
cnvironmental damage.
1510 2iD The Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia are the migrctory routes for many salmon species, and their contamination would esult in the destruction of a multi-million dollar industry en both sides of the bcrder.
Rich shellfish beds and the fishinc-grounds of many other ccirr.ercially valuable species of great econcmic bencrit for corh Canad:.a. and.ir.erican fishermen.iculd be severely damaged or de5.OrOyOd.
L.lso af'=cted by any r.irborne radiation would be the rich dairy anf garf =:.f r:g :.ndus tr; cf the Lo.er Frascr Valley.
In this area is L :cd L 2.2 cf the n.ost f ortile f armland in North.berica, respon-sible !cr =cra chan half of S.
C. 's agricultural production.
This ferrland is located a mere 40 to 50 miles downwind of the proposed reacter sine.
/
(
ATTACHMENT A (continued)
_2_
]
'Of D
Our fears are further accented by the knowledge that many geolcgists question the stability of the proposed site, on the grounds that it is too close to a previously unknown earthquake fault, as well as Mt. Baker, an intermittently active volcano.
The entire area of the Puget Basin and the B. C.
Ic.aer Inninland are far too geologically unstabl9 to permit the safe operation of nuclear'rcactors.
Greenpeace, its supporters and thousands of other concerned Ca n e.di c e.? sdll de overyning possible to stop this project.
Our efforts have already started and will not cease until Canadian citizens can be confident that the Skagit Nuclear Project will not he permitted to proceed.
Sincere]y, GREENPEACE FOUNDA_ TION v
/@b Patrick Moore, Ph.
D.
President Greenpeace Foundation PM/ln c.c.
Hon. John Fraser, Minister of Environment, Ottawa Hon. Cecil Andrus, U.
S.
Secretary of the Interior Hon. Bill Vanderzalm, Minister of Municipal Affairs, B.
C.
H ur.. Rafc Eair, Minister of Environment, B.
C.
Dixie Lee Ray, Governer, Washington State Marzell Cohen, Canadian Chairman, International Joint Commission Henry P.
Smith III, U.
S.
Chairman, International Joint Commission iJoseph M.
Hendrie, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington John M. Deutsch, Director Energy Research and Development, Washington Arthcny Albrecht, Director, North Atlantic Affairs, Office cf Economic Cooperation and Development The Press 1510 216
AU 'iC.HMENT B The. VANCOUVER SUN s
8 TQ v4 January 18, 1973 NOY 201973 h Tc.2:.= / /
W. power hlGiltCUS h
SEATTI.E UP
., The' Pu;rt Suund Pourt and 1.ight
,Co. Says a study is ur.dct way into construction of a'540o inil-lba nuclear
- power plant in Ska:it county to meet power de m ands' by'1$.h.. -.
A 1 %u icre site near Sedro.Woutley. about 20 males.
south cl Bellui;fta m. has twe.n Dr D
fD),,@'
~
R aeiecied.
~
g, v]
, \\
1 l
L Ralph Dasis, rompan,Tres.
e s
1.
a
,) dent said Wednesday the project 'vontemplates a t.00,
, niegamatt generaitng capatit) at the outset, to be stoupletP-es entually.
The company has scriuired pption6 crt a major portico of the site and has dune the ~
foundation, drilling and some.
I scismic sors eys, '. the. a n-
, nouncement.said.
The VANCOUVER SUN January 21, 1974 Page 16
~ ~
huc!e,arlj.eactor plan-s-
\\
jrdtests!to be aired e
The Slugit Ck.ty planning, mental Council, whose mem-1510 i.i committee has called a meet.. bers are optpg & pb.
has issued an mvitation to at-a ing. Monday at.3 p.m. La the
. tend to B.C. residents con-courthouse at Mount Vernon,. cerned about constniction of.a
' Washington, to hear anycne -reactor so clase to t'z 'Can'-
t r
who wants to protest a. pro. dian bcrder.
lit posed nuclear.. resetor at Meanwhile, the' SIM Chb 1
Sedro Wooley.
- i-
~
of B.CA(sent a tela;pm to
.' A special zoning ordinance :- the' hearing manager, claim-
'a'mendment to permit the con - Ing that 1.5 million Canadians struction of it vin.millica I s Vancouver and Victoria are i
thermal cuelear power plant ~.in the path of radioactive em-
.~ 'on a Skagit Valley slope will wmissions from the p' ant and je considend. ~ j'*
,, possible.high-level rad,iation YThe Skagit. River Environ.. from accidents.
ATTACHMENT B (continued)
(
\\
The VANCOUVER SUN April 30, 1975 D p R 'D Di r
o, Figh9 against nuc ear p ants ~-
aLong S A mka I.c,.vdeg..J-v.s-7 v
<agit River ins - 75 Special to bl}{},
APrt 3 OdFSaring, which may run until Fri.
SEDRO WOOLEY. Wash. -The opposi.
day,is the first of a ries planned dunng tion to a waste water discharge permit spring and summ ne site eva ation council wi!! huld an-sougl by Puget Sound Power and Light Co. fo. two nuclear power plants was ex.
other heari,; here May 22 to consider other isso involved in the site en Bacus pected ir. crease today, A pubJe hearing by the state thermal Hill, fis miles east of Sedro Woolley.
power pla t site evaluation council pened On uly 15. the federal Nuclear Rc;;ata-here Tuc y at a slow pace as company tor' Commission will begin a it.ll ref..w attorneys described the conditions of a o the project with a hearing expected to proposed rmit for the two plants planned on th Skagit River nea. tere, held in Bellingham.
Opponents c the project plan to tell the site council, sa.d the council interwis to i
site council th-discharges from the nu clear power pl.ts will hate an adver e reach its decision before the federal hear-affect on fish and will violate state u" er ings start. The council will make a recom-quality standards.
mendation to Gay. Dan Evans who will At issue was a aft permit des vped make the final decision about the site.
~'
by the site evsluatio council. The ermit is required by the f ral Emir mental Protection Agency fo all disc ar;;6s to m aterways. -
. ~ * -
ne council tentstively decided to issue the permit before the hearmg began in Sedro Woolley high school Tuesday.
Roger Leed. a Seattle lawyer repre-senting the Skagit County opponents of the project said he would introduce an expert witness who will testify that heated water discharged by the nuclear plants will be a shock to fish in the river and that chlorine and heavy mets!s in waste water will be
' toxic to marine life.
He said federallaw and state standards prohibit degradation of water quality.
1510 218
ATTACHMENT B (continued)
(
The VANCOUVER SUN Jtily 16, 1975 Page 13 9
0 hM b
e,5 UL K U
=
ye
.,. y
. 3
~..
..' Earthqua<e rciw shakes.1
^
y
,,,,... -l e.-l n...'.
.,~e--.
nuc earp' arrmeanng-
\\
v..
^
c Spreist to The Sun
' *
- Reger I.ced, an attsrney for the grcup.
BELT.!NCit.ut - Tie pmsibility' that.tufd the hearing board: "There is a direct an earthquake might damsge a planned conflict between the appliera aM.tl.e nuc7est-paer plant near the Sksgit River.. group cs gec!cgy a::d seismc!ogy.
has become the firs (ncier issue in a fed -
!aed asked that geologists
- testimccy ca etal besnng bere.
seismic safety, whics was presect at a
'!be Atomic Ss!ety and Iicensing Board state nue!est hearing last week. be ine!ud-of the Nuclest Regulstory Comrnassen.ed in the federal hering record.
Tuesday crdered that such questsons about the site, east of Sedro. Woo'ey, be ccasid.
But. Puget Poacr lager Theodore cred "at the onut cf a heartsg that may Thomsen said compan,y witnesses would
.show that the site on Bacus &ll"Is escel.
rim into September.
, bot $ scismically and.geoloJnally.
lent'*
"The board is very interes ed in g'etting
- AM Rcbert Ross, s staff s!torney fu. tHe irJo the matter of seismology and geolo-gy. dd cluirmso Samust Jensch soon NRC. said he fcund it "aunap!c."
Their siews. however. hpe tan chat.
after he opened the beanng.
The hearing is being beld to consider en.. ler.ged by Nermsn Itasmu8cn. acLniverst.
virentner.tal and sne issues related to itm ty of Wauungton seistnolgist, who jold plant..which ts being plar.ned by the Pug:t the esther siste hearing inst lie 1,chesed a SouM Power and ught Co.
strong exthqus'w could a.tur near the The earthquake inue was raised by Ska-Skagit s.te. Ifr had recumnwnded that the git area sresidents concerned atxut the company redessga as project to withstand safety of the ste.'
such sta:ls.,
1510
?il
ATTACHMENT B (continued)
(
The VANCOLVER SUN D
D D
I July 17, 1975
\\
g
- A
~ J
~ '(
Page 17
]cMa@oweFia'fbfp queMioned pecial to The Sua for August because of other commitments Ltwyers for Puget Power Inid earlil of participating lawyers. The hearirig that their witnesses would testify the proj BELLINGilA5! - The safety record of nuclear power plants and the need for wcufd resume after Labcr Day and con-ect site is safe. The staff of the Nuc!ea.
large amounts of nuclear generated elec-tinue to about mid. September.
Regulatory Commission also sa,id it be-3g[u tricity were questioned during a U.S. fed.
Keron Ericson, a member of the Mav eral hearar.g here Wednesday.
com council. read a lengthy paper.which The Whatcom County Energy Council, a q2.:stioned the safety of nuclear reactors However, an opponents' group called group of young people tokup must of the anc said the chance of an,seeident or sys-Skagitonians Concer.1ed Ab g
Power iSCANP) intends to introduce testi-rnormng s session or an A omic Safety and IAensing Board hearin which is consid-tive wastes into the stmosphere were too mony cf other geologists who will warn g,
ering Puget Scund Powe and Light w,
great.
/
t the site and suggest the plant be desip.ed request for a permit to 3uild two nuc.e James Mcdonald, another council mem-to withstand greater earth shocks.
p! ants near the Skagit
'ver, four mile, ber, Id the issue of seismic safety - a David I4ppanen. another Mateem en-east of Sedro holley.
estion which the board ha: agreed must ergy counct! rnember. : tid populat:en The council testimony ge.
be discussed early in the hearing.
rrowth has slowed and pedicted tha public appearances before the board and 5!cDonald said there have been 92 earth. " downward turning growth iste will con.
all<med lawyers for Pu;;ct Power. project quakes in Whatcom County since 13ro, tinue."
ouponents at the Nudear Regulatory witit 77 oe.urrmg between 13',0 and 1970.
He said the need for the energy frorn the Commission 70 be;m formal cross-The increasing number of quakes, plus the plant "is questionab!c" because cf growth
, examination of witne ses.
volcanic action of 5! cunt 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 earth's surface," be said.
in,cludmg wind ar4 solar. power.
1510 220
I
'~ " * ~ ~, ' ~ ~ m
~ ~ ~; w U~I g e
t*~ m f
GREENPEACE q'm H 7ra y
I
~
NM
!L44 m
e EnkO 3 gp Mcome to planet Earth. This sho N
umber zero.
o
~
dzeroiswhat _
h brought to youby theSun and President O Patrick ht* ore p
LO y
Edifor Rexsygy,
Senior ggg, UOb Ilunter, Day;g Carrick it allup.
you've gotleftwhen you use ubhcation.
l mChroniclesis now a monthy p A
C ntributing Edito,
'ed Easton, EiW M
when you buy it, andby ourth p
ininz y wo.
G Science Editor, D,
re. Dr. p,,y The Grmnpm de possibleby you
.JMedverbserswhopay ormthe sun, turnedin f
g" l
P".
arry "" *"ma n J
ace.
wesend Art / Production Tim de lange a
- Iim Corte' otlectis energy fr rgy,issave seals.
2Snoenuity.and itgoes toGreenpeNow Clair f raMins"
^IdClean-gpe pie out to save wha Q,j.
Barry tavende i* P Ch.
)
4
-f h
,f p.b 1 tesomesenseoflove for Chri5fopher Ro~ Boh lVilcox f
C~~-'
0) 1 fNI. d Adverff,f"# fue Mannix y akeIVhiffey line.ar d generally try :o communica termedby our b
Circular' " Coleen M.%.e
$..A e@-Escur planet and all of its creature ns Q)l.' ~4 7". ffice jyfje Mch a" de-
@ resident. Dr. Patnck Moo O
o ystem hke phnet ~rthis 7.
'""ec Dill cannon
- Se. 4. '? O s
We need mch other, folks.W
- E81 CharlieTrueman ndence.Thestabthtyof anecos T " ~ ~'g vers and the trees.
y e Cre"'Teace chron;c;,, ;{ubl;5hed monihiy it rectly related toits divers y.the whates, thatshareourvisionof a h
vd i te-
- he Creenpe,c,7 We wouldhketocarry your
- Wearelochngfor adverteers Canadian and U S. distribution ;* M. coo copics.
O dersthroughoutNorth A by Mondayjd **d printed in c#"#
p,g green and peacefulplanet.
'ons tfd., vic
#' B c, message to our 400,000 rea f thecotmtry of their Wewouldhko to state now that w Ott; hey wouldbe narrow andhyp al0 kVest Fourih Av g'PParditoute 860Sffond '4ei g.
hnethassomethingtoicom origin.We feelthat such a po y
- 0 C. Ca d S*" Frantiseg g *94!07
'l h dthebahnce f ourecology (604) y#'7I34 (413)937,g Lond"""E"8'*ad 8
h entical. Every country ont e p o
aboutthe sacrednessofidean We
~--
their faithinGreenpeac issuei r their supp rt and forast y Ql f
h l
Qyt Q
themknow that you saw t e rwilldoourbestto portmg on tho world.
bnnq you accurate anduptod Ch,onica Eachmonth we w&nng yo k % O' A l.4DRADOR IOURNAb 3-ht andeeentsof stuco-W' *.I I l.r' By BriMIIe Bardot
......... v.
environmental movement. blest in l( ? p',af.,g. [nd whale campa R 5* Visited Brigitf[Bar I
pitu n C hi,c,,
"#'"d" of Green e seal Grmnfmes h willImd a subscrip-Wewonkihkotosendyouacopy of
' af shipEarth.
er home in P g
/, -
April. She bro"ht 6ack 3
l
%.h month.On page 19 you
[ W. %,'y
. !s English f,,#"#8'. version of
,3 E f te,s i
O F
n Z
N
! rn N
D U
D 50 U
n t
o l
9
<.5 O
b E
'O' M
O The Collapse of the Nuclear I --
Economy g
Nuclear. power was on<c thought to be a virtua!!y endless introduced Thursday evening, area of Port Ilope frcm growing Q.~~
7' M
- F#s*= yd",'k y'M,',b.vg,p4 source of cheap electrical and Jf June 3 in the plenary hall of the gardens."
thermal energy. This is no long.
BY FRED EASTON kf'M. 6 dig,.d a%,,,p., *@
pons will be available for screen-some of the problems of Port I!ahitat Forum site. Films on ENERGY PROBEof Ottawa er the case as pointed out in i
nuclearenergyand nuclearwea reports that the AECfl knew of "Why Atomie Power Dims.e.d
"!!u sin e s s Wee k " entitl
)
June 8 :.s a decisive day for the Jr
.,9 3 gi N.,,,. j,.yy, *,; - }
I" * " "
""'I"""EI* On t h at i..,1 ing during Conference time and Ilope for nine years and did e
Nov.17/75. Costs have riser day the California presniential
)
instructional workshops are nothing. In fact W.ht. Gilchrist
- g. y--
dramatically in all aspects of primary ballot will m, elude a re-planned; For info phone Dalton who is president of Eldorado o
nuclear energy production. Ur-ferendum on the question of nu.
]
..j gi,# 'wrc h!cCarthy at Greenpeace Van-Nuclear sat on the AECfl from anium, the hasic fuel for reactors has recently doubled in price
.p wer plants. hopoWon W,,-
been icftir. charge of the chicken W
couver 738-3032.
1971 until 1974. The for has w ask voren to:
and with high grnde reserves
-Pr hibit furtber nuclear power
, s, n.
__ g,
' d P "3, 3 '.,_ g ; :. g -
dwindling wili no doubt continue
- coop, N{ M.".iI P -
IP '"I C "SI'"C"I " *'
P' I#"
to increase at a rapid rate. The of existing plants at more than es CLOSER TO IIOhf E Port costs of heavy water production 60% capacity unless federal ac-IIope. Ontario has become a 1
major scandal for the nuclear STILL CLOSER TO IIOht E.
and uranium enrichment are al-cident liabil'ity limitations are 1 l hm6.8hg.g industry. Radioactive tailings
{mhminary federal hearings so skyrocketmq due to the tre-removed within one year.
h from a uraniura mine operated
- t. ave been held on the applica-mendous sophistication of the
-Requires further cuts of 10'i a tit;a factaries required for these pro-year after five years unless both
- by Eldorado Nuc! car Ltd. were ion of f.pic.t.
Power &
cesses. The most critical phase houses of the California Icgisla.
IMMOF,Eh1EltfiENCY Re-used as fillin the construction of Light Compnqv.tg_huta of the nuclear fuel cycle es the ture confirm by a 83 majority Pent: "Our f ather...,.
homes and schools. Citizens and
'two 12SOh1W boiling watt 3-luel reprocess,ing stage that they are satisfied with th'e their childreri have been expos, actors at a site near Sedro Wool-where spent reactor fuelis brok-effectiveness of safety and dis-has been organizing will be en.
ed to excess levels of Radon gas ey, Wash. only 60 air miles up-en down and separated into nu-posal systems.
couraged to follow their lead.
beirig emitted by the tailings. A Ein_d from_ Vancouver. The clear wastes, reusable uranium-recent federal report estimated stacks of these proposed plants and plutonium. Tho technology The petition used to force in -
the cost of cleaning up the conta, wquid, on a regular basis, emit eoee**
for this process has proved nost clusion of the quiestion on ihe mination at Port ilope could en-
. sobe two dozen radioactive iso-difficult and there is alrendy a ballot in California was orgamz-ceed two million dollars. "In the topes into the atmogphere. In backlog o(spent fuel building up ed by the Western filoc, a group
, in temporary storage incilities.
under the spon9arship of Ralpn Greenpeace is organizing a meantime" says Roger Eaton, a addition the site of the plants is public relations officer for the located in a region geologista
' The nuclear power industry is Nader. If Californians vote YLs nuclear programmo at the Unit.
lieginning to self-destruct due to for nuclear safeguards then it ed.%uons Conference on llum-Atomic Energy Control Board
- recognize as one of three high risk seismic areas in the contin-its own econoinic und tec hnolog-can he espected that 22 other an Nttlements. Af ajor spenkers "we have discouraged the peo.
ental United States only eight ical weaknesses.
states where the Western like on the nuclear inaues will bo pie living in the Pidgeon flill miles from a major fault line.
_,,