ML19263B949
| ML19263B949 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna, Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901250183 | |
| Download: ML19263B949 (7) | |
Text
.
-h NRC PUE m nD vo,a-.NI ROOM 1/16/79 g
o,.d Y,
~~
v, Y.a
- 5. -
iii UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA h
.b d liUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e.
/,
3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIfiG APPEAL BOARD 7
. l~.
'I '
r of
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 OL
)
50-339 OL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPAtiY
)
(Proposed Amendment to Facility
)
Operat'ng License tiPF t, to (North Anna Nuclear Power Station,
)
Permit Storage Pool Modification)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF BRIEF Ili SUPPORT OF APPEAL TAKEN BY POTOMAC ALLIAriCE FRGM AMENDED BOARD ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO IliTERVENE On January 3,1979, the Potomac Alliance (Alliance) filed a notice of appeal from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's December 19, 1978
" Amended Order and Recommendation on Petitions for Leave to Intervene" (Amended Order) issued in the above-captioned matter.~1/
The Amended Order 2/
3/
denied the timely intervention petition of the Alliance, as amended and 4/
supplementedT on the grounds that it failed to satisfy the requisite interest requirement of 10 CFR E 2.714 either as a natter of right or discretion.
Having reached that result, the Board indicated that it would not pass judgment on the Alliance's contentions. The Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPC0 or Licensee) opposed the Alliance's intervention
,l/ The Amended Order replaced and superseded an original Order and Recomendation, dated December 8,1978.
2/ Petition for Leave to Intervene, dated June 21, 1978.
3] Amendment to Petition for Leave to Intervene, dated June 24, 1978.
4] Motion to supplement Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene, dated September 15, 1978.
S901250/F3
& pleadings on the grounds that the Alliance had failed to satisfy either the interest or contention requirement of 10 CFR s 2.714.
In its September 6,1978 response to the amended petition, the NRC Staff found that the Alliance had met the contention requirement of 10 CFR & 2.714 with its assertion of at least one acceptably pleaded contention (contention 30).
Up to and including the date of the special prehearing conference, the Staff regarded the Alliance's showing of interest as inadequate to satisfy the pertinent interest requirement of 10 CFR E 2.714.--6/
Based on the contents of the Alliance's September 15, 1978 motion to supplement its amended petition and accompanying affidavits (Motion to Supplement), the Staff took the position that the Alliance had minimally satisfied the interest Z/
requirement and recommended that it be granted intervenor status.
The Board considered the contents of the Alliance's motion to supplement in arriving at its decision. Amended Order at 6.
_5] See, VEPCO's " Answer to Petitions'for Leave to Intervene (Including Alternative Motion for Consolidation)'; dated July 6,1978; " Answer to Amended Petitions for Leave to Intervene", dated September 7,1978; and Special Prehearing Conference at Tr. 76-85.
6] See, NRC Staff " Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by Potomac Alliance", dated July 10,1978; " Response to Amendment to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by Potomac Alliance", dated September 6,1978; and Special Prehearing Conference at Tr. 67-70.
7/ See,"NRC Staff Response to Motion to Supplement Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by Potomac Alliance',' dated October 5,1978.
The Board concluded, nonetheless, that the Alliance's intervention papers collectively failed to describe cn adequate interest with sufficient p.articularity or to satisfactorily represent now an acceptable interest might b: affected by the results of the proceeding. Amended Order at 13.
It explained that the petition did not particularize the impact which the proposed expansion of the spent fuel pool capacity would have on the specific interest of the Alliance and the manner by which the impact might be expected to come about.
Id.
Though the Staff does not necessarily subscribe to all the claims made by the Alliance in its appeal brief, it believes that the latter's intervention papers have adequately addressed these twin concerns.
In its motion to supplement, the interest of the Alliance in the proceeding is described as follows:
"given the wind patterns at the facility (reference omitted),
a release-of-radiation accident (a) due to unintended criticality (reference omitted) or (b) due to failure of some major component of the spent fuel pool (reference omitted), because of the expansion of inventory in the pool, might well have ' reasonable, potential effect's' on the health and safety of Alliance members within a 35-mile radius (reference omitted).".
Motion to Supplement at 2-3.
In a supporting affidavit, an Alliance member residing in Richmond, Virginia (approximately 45 miles from the site) stated
that living downwind of the North Anna station, she could receive a great deal of windborne radiation in the event of accidental release of radiation.
She expressed further concern over the possible concentration of fission products in the food chain as a result of accidental radiological releases from the plant contaminating fish and other aquatic life in the North Anna River (Lake Anna) and portions of the Chesapeake Bay.
While this representation of interest could stand greater particularization, especially with regard to the nature of the postulated accident whose preceived effects concern the affiant, the Staff believes that, given the above cited exposition of potential accidents in the motion itself and the fact that the affiant resides within the geographical zone of interest that could potentially be affected by the proposed action,~8/
this constitutes 9]
an adequate explanation of a cognizable interest in this proceeding.
C f_.
Gulf Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-lS3, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974); _ Louisiana Power and Liaht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n. 6 (1973); Northern States Power Co.
8/ See, NRC Staff July 10, 1978 response to petition to intervene at 6-7.
~9/ The Staff believes that the statement of interest contained in the affidavit of the Charlottesville, Virginia members of the Alliance (which also accompanied its motion to supplement) lacks the requisite particularity to provide a basis upon which to confer standing on the Alliance.
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,190 (1973). The affiant also claimed that an accident at the Harth Anna plant could eliminate recreational activitie at Lake Anna, such as canoeing and camping, which the affiant engages in " frequently."
Recreational usage has been recognized as an adequate personal interest which could be affected by an URC licensing action.
See, Philadelphia Electric Co., et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
Cut see, Waterford, supra, 6 AEC at 372 n. 6 (inadequate particularization of same).
CONCLUSION In light of the above, the Staff supports the Alliance's appeal from the Amended Order denying it intervention in this proceeding. The Staff believes that the Alliance's collective intervention papers minimally satisfy the interest requirement of 10 CFR 12.714. Accordingly, the Staff reconmends that the Alliance's intervention petition, as amended and supplemented, be granted. The Staff further recommends that the matter be remanded to the Board and that the sufficiency and admissibility of the Alliance's contentions be determined after permitting a brief opportunity for the parties to discuss possible agreement in that regard.
Respectfully submitted, L.O ~ A d Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16th day of January,1979.
" :Tm '
i.- ( :
"_1 ::
n.;2 Ei!. G _ i.T.
' 5. u:,
6; CEFOT'.E THE AT'"IC WETY AD LICP:5!i:5 f? PET.L E's'RD In the Matter of Docket Hos.50-33S OL 50-339 OL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PC,4ER
)
COMPANY
-)
(Proposed Amendment to Facility
)
Operating License UPF-4 to Permit (North Anna Nuclear Power
)
Storage Pool Modification)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TAKEN BY POTOMAC ALLIANCE FROM AMENDED BOARD ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITIONS FOR LEAVE T0 INTERVENE, 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 Commission's internal mail system, this 16th day of January, 1979.
- Alan S. Rostathal, Esq., Chairman Mr. Ernest Hill Atomic Safety and Licensing Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Appeal Board Panel University of California U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 800, L-123 Washington, D.C.
20555 Livermore, California 94550
- Dr. John H. Buck Dr. Quentin J. Stober Atomic Safety and Licensing
.isheries Research Institute Appeal Board Panel University of Washington U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Washington 93195 Washington, D.C.
20555 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Dr. Lawrance R. Quarles Hunton & Williams Apartment El P. O.
Box 1538 Kendal at Longwood' Richmond, Virginia 23212 Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348 Mr. Peter Bradford, Treasurer Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Citizens' Energy Forum Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O.
Box 133 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
McLean, Virginia 22101 Washington, D.C.
20036
Ms. Gina '.areiand, Secretary Potomac Alliance P. O. Eox 9306 Washington, D.C.
20005 Anthony J. Gambardella, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General 11 South 12th Street, Suite 308 Richmond, Virginia 23219
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. liuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel (5)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary V. S. I;uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
($u A Lil sl Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff
%