ML19263E666

Objects to ASLB 790421 Order.Requests Reinstatement of Contention Labeled Alternatives & Seeks Severance from Citizens Energy Forum on Emissions Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19263E666
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	05/02/1979
From:	Dougherty S Potomac Alliance
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906200596
Download: ML19263E666 (5)

Text

'

Sh p gl[$

. NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM sp 0

\bp wy g7 /

UNITED STAIES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U [o 9

4' /

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j 76.

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-338 SP VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) 50-339 SP

)

(North Anna Power Station, ) (Proposed Amendment to Units 1 and 2) ) operating license NPF-4)

STATEMENT OF OBJECH ONS Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.751a (d) , the Potomac Alliance (the Alliance) notices its objections to the order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) in the above-styled matter, dated April 21, 1979 and entitled " Order Granting Intervention, Providing for a Hearing and Designating Contentions of Intervenors"(Order) . This Order recited in i

their entirety certain contentions to which certain parties had stipulated previously, and by implication disallowed the remainder of the intervenors' contentions.

The Alliance's objections are as follows:

1. The Board erred in disallowing the contention of the

. Alliance labelled " Alternatives" and found in Attachment C of a document entitled " Stipulation of Cententions" and signed by the parties March 29, 1979.

2. The Board erred in disallowing the contention of the Alliance labelled " Emissions" and by directing that this centention be consolidated with a contention raised by the 2287 279 79062005%

v. '

Citizens Energy Forum, Inc. (CET) and managed thereafter by CEF.

Bases for the Objections 10 CFR S2.751a(d) directs that at the conclusion of the special prehearing conference the " presiding officer shall enter an order which recites ... any agreements by the parties, and which identifies the key issues in the proceeding..." The function of the order which identifies the key issues is fundamentally different from that which t

i

" limits the issues or defines the matters in controversy" I

at the conclusion of the prehearing conference. 10 CFR S2.752(c). The function of the former is merely to elim-inate contentions which are so clearly without merit or i

outside the jurisdiction of the Board so as to be inapprop-riate for further consideration. The Board's " designation" i of contentions, in that it disallows two c1'early nonfriv-olous contentions, is an action which under NRC regulations is proper only at a later stage in this proceeding.

Sections 102 (2) (C) (iii) and 102 (2) (E) of the National Environmental Policy Act require all agencies of the federal government to consider alternatives to proposed courses of action. 42 U.S.C. 54332 (1978). Naturally, this require-ment does not apply to proposed alternatives which strain 2287 280

the imagination, but it does apply with full force to

" reasonable" alternatives. Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 5 ELR 20249 (5th Cir. 1975). The three alternatives raised within the referenced contention satisfy this " rule of reason" standard. When the Alliance propounded this contention at the special prehearing confer nee of March 29, 1979, neither the Staff nor the Applicant contended that these alternatives were unreasonable or otherwise inadmissable. Given the relatively loose standard of ad-missability at this, the special prehearing conference stage of the proceeding, the Board erred in denying these alternatives further consideration.

The Board also erred in consolidating the contention of the Alliance labelled " Emissions" with a contention advanced by CEF, because the requirements for consolidation set forth in 10 CFR S2.715a were not present. As argued by counsel for the Alliance at the special prehearing con-ference, consolidation of the two intervenors in this pro-ceeding would be prejudicial to the Alliance. It was then pointed out that the intervenors had discussed the matter of consolidation but were irreconcilable. Further diff-erences are evident from the fact that the Alliance has chosen to retain counsel, while CEF has chosen not to, and from the style of CEF's previous pleadings, which arguably do not meet the standards which would be required of counsel.

2287 281

. - . . m- * -_ m---.

Moreover, even if consolidation were appropriate in this regard, it was error for the Board to designate CEF as the proponent of the contention in question. ,

The contentions set out in Attachment A of the

" Stipulation of Conter.tions" are the result of extensive negotiation and considerable compromise between the parties.

In its regulations the Commission has established a policy of encouraging stipulations, see, e.g., 10 CFR 52.753, and has directed licensing boards to explicitly give heed to such agreements.10 CFR S2.751a (d) . Lacking sound reasons for doing so, it was inappropriate for the Board to disturb the settled agreement of the parties.

Finally, the Alliance feels obligated to note its concern over the last sentence on page one of the Board's Order, which seems to imply that the burden of proving the designated contentions falls on the Intervenors.

The Alliance requests the Board to reinstate the dis-puted contention labelled "Alteinatives," and to authorize the Alliance to pursue the contention labelled " Emissions."

Respectfully submitted, Dated at Washington, D.C., [' &+; .

this 2d day of May, 1979 Jgmes B. 'Dougherty L/

Counsel for the Alliance 2287 282

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of

~

Objections was mailed this 2d day of May, 1979, by United States Mail, First Class, to the followil J:

Secretary, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 es e ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section 4 o

Citizens Energy Forum, Inc.

P.O. Box 138 ,( s gy g McLean, VA 22101 s hg h()/

{ $ e' j. '

2 Michael Maupin, Esq.

Hunton & Williams 4,cy#

y P.O. Box 1538 #

Richmond, VA 23212 7

• Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.,

Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Os J Jhmes B. Dougnerty (,/

Counsel for the Pctomac Alliance 2287 283

- - . . - ..-