ML19290A377

Comments on Environ Coalition on Nuclear Power 760823 Petition for Intervention.Requests Petition Be Rejected

ML19290A377
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/20/1976
From:	Trowbridge G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Rusche B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
OTHR-760920, NUDOCS 7911060616
Download: ML19290A377 (21)

Text

~

U.S. NUCLE AR REcVLATO  ?";loH OoCKET NUMBE R .

N ,R C F o m t 195 pas:

50-239 _

NRC DISTRIBUTION roR PART 50 DOCKET M ATERI AL "["e ,

FROM: U^I" U' ""'"#

TO: .

Shau, Pittman, Potts and 9/ 0/76 Trowbridge DATE RECEIVED Mr. Ben C. Rusche Washington, D. C. - G.F. Trowbridge 9/21/76 PRCP INPUT FORM NUMBER oF COPIES RECEIVED LETTER ONoToRIZED One signed JCoRiciN AL hNC LASSIFIE D Ocoav ,

EN CLOSU RE oESCRIPTioN Ltr. in behalf of Metropolitan Edison company. . ..re the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power's 8/23/76 ltr. and N.R.C.'s 9/3/76 ltr. . ..concerning comments on

%h iUU h

U U h1

!hlI 5l Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power "Pe tition for Intervention'.' .

DG"D (20-P)

PLANT NAME:

Three Mile Island 41 DO NOT REMOVE 1556 214 SAFETY FOR ACTION /lNFORMATION ENVTno 9/22/76 RJL i _ L ASSIGjiED AL.  ?.S0!_0TCO !.0:

X BRANCH CHIEF: Reid BRA'{ Cit cuTrFe PROJECT F% NAGER: PROJECT MANA_GER!

~

KL'IC. ASST.: Ingram LIC. ASST.!

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION SITE SAFETY _&

SYSTEMS SAFETY pt A ;7 sys rus IR[G FILv ENVIRO ANAL 11TS

> ' . PDR , _

HEINEMAN TFnFSCO iI&E (> SCHROEDER BENAROYA DENTON & v_UT T EF d2-) LAINAS N OELD-ENGINEERING IPPOLITO ENVIE0 TEC11_

k.GOSSICK & STAFF MACCARRY KIRKWOOD ERNST MIPC CASE KNICHT X BALLARD 1 SIl!WEIL OPERATING REACTORS M SPANCIrR R,11ANAUER PAWLICKI STELLO HAJLES_S I . 9 T'*F TFrit _

REACTOR SAFETY OPERAE NG TECH. CAEMTIL PROJEST buNAGEMENT ROSS EISENHlTP , SEPP

_ _B_0Y D _

11UIy).N P_, COLI. INS NOVAK SilAO HOUSTON ROSZTCCZY BAER CHECK Bl_rrLER SITE ANALvlIS PE_TERS_0N MELT 7. QR_IMES VOLLER HELTEMES AT & I MJUliCit SKOVi!OLT SALTZMAN X ._JmCOLLIIIS RUTRERC X VRrcrq CONTilOL NL.iUE R EXTEllN AL DISTRIBUTION i

LPDR: llA.rliab_um Pa. M .NATil'8B:fN2. . BROOFliAVEN NAT_LAH_ _

TIC:

REG. VIE ULRIKSON(ORI{L)_ g

.NS LC -

ASLH; IA .PUR CONSULTANTS

'/ fh d[

~

'ACRS__C,YS_th]LDINGbf.NT _ _ _ _ _

yny gg

\

S H Aw, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWB RIDG E

, 18 00 M STRECT,N.W.

WASHINGTON. O C.20036

~

~ ," ';& ?M.,  ::::::o; ett."

f? 3!/o':8tr"' "  ::3 ;'.to:::'f ~-.., / x -

2 5 ": 2 " ' "'?.'.'e . GU?; '. "%"" -

".'JK"'  ::an21 s.  !!!! T iJ.i!!' / //. . .

.:.?

• 2"u"l"a: .. 2"'. ?.h. .a~ue,en ,'a

^

s */ l '

o

"*c-"'0 !/ "!:t.u "f*!!!c" tic'.'if R 4 h #, t.

3 e , . , , , , [, , , h . . ,,,,

. ' '

• 7 '.' " ~ r '7J c '"  : - e,,,,,,...u.-

n'.at; 2L .:.'I"?o.

• b':J "oto. . e. . L~~"?" ' ."**' -

e-b 1 ,- - '

"itf 'i!.n . 7 _ %y

'/ ...cuc .-..

':::: ; t'.tc'."'..,,

s, %y$>h 9t %g('U/ ' ' ' " " '

V E.'.i"."

gocL'c ~ ' l.'g.".;c!.fo. . ."c.c!s !."~' s. .' '.'.".'.'

. .~cs. 4 g

.~or o-,ve co .. o c.

7, r,

, . . . sab;.U eptember 20, 1976 g ., g. 7 7 b,JU.h.!

hi.Ji,' .. ..a i Ben C. Rusche, Director Office of muclear Reactor Regulation U. S..

earqRegulatory Commission Washing ~to If.D 0555 J c8W 4 p'gRe: Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey g Central Power & Light Company, 7- pp/ r, t : Pennsylvania Electric Company (Three a

/ . u[#_,i ,L-%/ Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1),

Docket No. 50-289 - Comments on

.Q" " .N/

Environmental Coalition on Nuclear

, .. Power " Petition for Intervention"

~.

Dear Mr. R sche:

On August 23, 1976, the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (hereinafter "ECNP") filed a document entitled

" Petition for Intervention" (hereinafter " Petition") with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (hereinafter "TMI No. 1") .1/ The Petition asks "for leave to intervene in this proceeding" and cites as authority for the request the Atomic l_/ Virtually identical petitions were filed by ECNP with respect to the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and Salem Nu-clear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.

fi 1556 215

. S H,AW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TRL BRIDG E -

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Two Energy Act of 1954, 10 C.F.R. S 2.714, and the decisions of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC and Aeschliman v. NRC. The Petition sets forth various " contentions", most of which are unrelated to the two cited Court decisions, and includes a

" contention" that "the construction permit [ sic] for Three Mile Island I should be rescinded immediately and construction and operation halted" pending resumption of public hearings and resolution of ECNP's contentions.

In a letter dated September 8, 1976, you advised Metropolitan Edison Company (hereinafter " Met Ed"), the oper-ator and co-licensee for TMI No. 1, that the Petition would be treated as a request for an order to show cause for sus-pension of the TMI No. 1 operating license. The letter also invited Met Ed to respond with comments to the Petition.

Our comments on behalf of Met Ed are set forth below and dem-onstrate that the Petition should be rejected on a number of legal grounds. In addition, Mr. Herman M. Dieckamp, President of General Public Utilities Corporation, is today sending you a letter explaining why suspension of operation of TMI No. 1 is unwarranted and directly contrary to the public interest.

A brief procedural hi tory of TMI No. 1 is appro-priate. A construction permit for TMI No. 1 (CPPR-4 0 ) was 1556 216

SH,AW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TE .vt3 RIDGE Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Three issued on May 18, 1968, following an uncontested public hear-ing. On July 7, 1972, the AEC published a Notice of Consider-ation of Issuance of Facility Operating License and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (37 F.R. 13360). The Notice afforded an opportunity by interested persons to request a hearing and to intervene both with respect to the issuance of an operating license for TMI No. 1 and, pursuant to 10 CFR 50, Appendix D, Section C, with respect to the question whether the previously issued construction permit for TMI No. 1 should be continued, modified, terminated, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values. Pursuant to this Notice ECNP and Citi-zens for a Safe Environment filed a joint petition to intervene in both aspects of the proceeding. The joint petition to in-tervene was granted by the Commission and a hearing ordered by Commission Memorandum and Order, dated February 20, 1973.

In the joint petition to intervene in the operating license and Appendix D proceeding the joint intervenors ad-vanced a large number of contentions, a number of which were similar to those now sought to be raised in ECNP's current Petition. In prehearing proceedings the contentions were re-duced in number and narrowed in scope by stipulation of counsel and rulings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Shortly after the start of the evidentiary hearing the Intervenors, 1556 217

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TR J t3 RIDG E Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Four the AEC Regulatory Staff and the co-owners of TMI No. 1 (here-inafter " Licensees") entered into a Stipulation on November 7, 1973, under which Licensees agreed to make certain modifica-tions to TMI No. 1 and the joint intervenors agreed not to op-pose the issuance of an operating license for TMI No. 1. This Stipulation was accepted and the hearing thereupon terminated by the Licensing Board on November 16, 1973. An operating li-cense for TMI No. 1 (DPR-5 0 ) was issued on April 19, 1974.

Under the terms of the Stipulation the intervenors reserved "the rights accorded to any individual, group, or organization under the Atomic Energy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the AEC regulations to seek the revocation, suspension, or modification of the operating license after is-suance of same." Conversely, Licensees and the AEC Regulatory Staff reserved "their right to oppose the institution or pros-ecution of any proceeding or litigation by Intervenors for the revocation, suspension or modification of the operating license."

Thus under the Stipulation ECNP has only such right to seek suspension of the operating license for TMI No. 1 as may be generally accorded to other members of the public and Licensees are free to oppose on any grounds any request for suspension.

1556 218

.S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TRO.. JRIDG E -

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Five I. Need for a Threshold Showing by ECNP It is not enough for ECMP to come forward with an unsupported request that the TMI No. 1 operating license be suspended. The Commission's Rules of Practice relating to requests for orders to show cause require that such requests shall specify the action re-quested and set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request.

10 C.F.R. S 2.206. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has explicitly recognized that a party requesting an order to show cause bears the threshold burden of going for-ward. In Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-315, NRCI-76/2, 101, 112 (February 12, 1976), the Appeal Board ruled:

that to withstand a respondent's motion to dismiss a show cause proceeding, the staff (or inter-venor if there be one) must at the minimum come forward initial-ly with evidence sufficient to cause a reasonable licensing board to inquire further. Such a dem-onstration of a legitimate basis for further inquiry requires the respondent to satisfy its burden of proof, i.e., to persuade the licensing board that no sanctions against it are warranted based on that evidence. (emphasis added).

1556 219

S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TR _ . tsRIDG E -

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Six This burden is in accord with accepted legal principles. In general, an order to show cause is ob-tained by an ex parte motion supported by an affidavit or declaration stating the facts on which the motion and order is based.

56 Am. Jur. 2d, " Motions, Rules and Orders" S 34; see Walling

v. Moore Milling Co., 62 F.Supp. 378, 382 'W.D. Va. 1945).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's substitute for the show cause procedure is a notice of motion which must " state with particularity the grounds therefor . . . ." F.R.Civ.P. Rule 7 (b) ; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure; Civil S 1195. The threshold requirement is also consistent with other phases of NRC procedure. See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (a)

(petitions to intervene must set forth with particularity the basis for contentions); S 2.764 (a) (a showing of good cause must accompany a request that an initial decision not become immediately effective); and para. 4 (b) of Section E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix D (a request for a hearing challenging the Commission's Section E determination must set forth the factual basis for the request).

The obligation to meet a threshold showing is also required by fairness considerations. Licensees should be 1556 220

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TF _ 'eRIDGE .

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Seven entitled to the same opportunity to defend against a requested suspension that it would receive in a contested hearing. To assure that opportunity, Licensees are " entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced . . . ." Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1) ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 576 (1975). Without a threshold showing, Licensees are denied that opportunity.

II. ECNP's Failure to Meet the Threshold Require-ment on Fuel Cycle Issue To the extent that ECNP's suspension request is based on those " contentions" relating to fuel cycle issues, ECUP has not met the applicable threshold requirements.2 / The Commission's 2/ In Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-346 (September 9, 1976), the Appeal Board indicated that the applicant has the burden to make a showing considering the factors set forth in the General Statement, even though the intervenor seeking suspension had made no threshold showing.

A motion to reconsider this portion of ALAB-346 is pending.

In any event, the Callaway situation bears no resemblance to the instant case. There, a motion for suspension was filed based on the NRDC decision by an intervenor who had pending before the Appeal Board an exception which challenged the Commission's handling of fuel cycle issues. Here, of course, there is no proceeding and obviously no one with the rela-tionship of an intervenor to a proceeding.

1556 22i

SHAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TR oRIDG E .

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Eight General Statement of Policy - Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, 41 Fed. Reg. 34707 ( Augu s t 16, 1976)

(hereinafter " General Statement") sets forth NRC policy with respect to the suspension of existing licenses and permits in the light of the NRDC decision.3/ The General Statement sets forth the criteria which are to be used in determining whether licenses should be suspended pending the effective-ness of an interim fuel cycle rule. These criteria are:

1. whether it is likely that significant adverse impact will occur until a new interim fuel cycle rule is in place;

2. whether reasonable alternatives will be foreclosed by continued operation;

3. the effect of delay; and

4. the possibility that the cost / benefit balance will be tilted through increased investment.

Other pertinent considerations include general public policy concerns, the extent of the NEPA violation, and the timeliness of objections. 41 Fed. Reg. at 34709.

-3/ The General Statement would seem to indicate a Commission decision not to suspend licenses in the light of Aeschliman and NRDC on grounds other than fuel cycle grounds. The General Statement sets forth the NRC's implementation of both NRDC and Aeschliman. 41 Fed. Reg. at 34707. Yet it only contemplates suspension or modification of licenses "on fuel cycle grounds". 41 Fed. Reg. at 34709.

1556 222

s SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TR mRIDGE .

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Nine In the context of the General Statement, a thresh-hold showing by a person requesting suspension is clearly ap-propriate. The General Statement did not, unlike Section E of Appendix D to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, require all licensees and permittees to come forward with a showing that their licenses and permits should not be suspended pending the complete NEPA review. The General Statement reflects the Commission's de-cision not to require the immediate reopening of all outstand-ing licenses and permits. Only after receiving the revised environmental survey will the Commission make that determina-tion. 41 Fed. Reg. at 34709. A proposed rulemaking by Natural Resources Defense Council which would have required licensees and permittees to affirmatively justify non-suspension was also rejected by the General Statement. 41 Fed. Reg. at 34707, 34709. Had the Commission intended that an unsupported re-quest for suspension be sufficient to compel a licensee to submit an affirmative showing on the suspension criteria, it would have made more sense for the Commission to require such a showing from all licensees and permittees, rather than leave the decision to the random election of so-called public in-terest groups.

ECNP has, of course, completely ignored the criteria set forth in the General Statement. Since ECNP must be considered 1556 223

S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TR .ts RI D G E .

Den C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Ten as having the threshold burden required by 10 C.F.R. S 2.206 and since the Commission has specified the factors on which the suspension question (at least insofar as it is based on fuel cycle allegations) is to be decided, ECNP's failure to address these factors is, of itself, grounds to reject the Petition.

Notwithstanding Licensees' position that ECNP has the threshold burden of addressing the factors specified in the General Statement, it should be noted that the principal factors applicable to an operating plant are addressed in a separate letter mailed to you today by Mr. Herman M. Diec): amp ,

President of General Public Utilities Corporation, the parent company of Licensees.

III. ECNP's Non-Fuel Cycle Contentions Do Not Justify an Order to Show Cause The bulk of the " contentions" set forth in the Peti-tion do not relate to fuel cycle issues. As to non-fuel cycle issues, criteria other than those set forth in the General Statement must be applied to determine whether an order to show cause for suspension should issue. At the very least, the issues raised by ECMP would have to be sufficient to justify 1556 224

s SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TE _ M8 RIDGE.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Eleven reopening of a proceeding, i.e., they must be the kind of

" extraordinary development" where "new disclosures give rise to a significant [ environmental or] safety related issue".

Georgia Power Co., ALAB-291, supra at 409, 413; Vermont Yankee Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-167, 6 AEC 1151, 1152 (1973). ECNP has made no effort to meet either test. A reading of the " contentions" themselves dis-closes nothing which would reasonably lead to a finding that either test could be satisfied.

ECNP's first " contention" (Petition, para. 2)4 / is that the "true benefits" from the facility are dividends paid by Licensees rather than the electricity generated by the facility. This allegation would appear to be a legal argu-ment made without any legal, factual or logical support. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has already resolved this question by holding that the electricity to be produced by a facility is the benefit, not the facility's profitability to the utility's operation. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) , ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159, 174 (1974). See also Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347 (1975).

-4/ We view para. 1 of the Petition as an attempt to deal with ECNP's standing and to summarize the " contentions" set forth in subsequent paragraphs.

1556 225

s

. S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TRL -. 9RIDG E.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Twelve ECNP's second " contention" (Petition, para. 3) argues that the cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power plants should include the cost of accidents. This is obviously not a new matter and in fact was covered by Section VI of the Final Environmental Statement. This " contention" also states that the Commission's consideration of accidents assumes

" catastrophic accident-free operation of nuclear power plants".

This allegation is, of course, incorrect. The Commission's consideration of the environmental impact of accidents, which incorporates both their probability and consequences, has been approved by the courts. Aeschliman v. NRC, slip op. at 22; Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796, 799 (D . C . Cir. 1975); Ecology Action v. USAEC, 492 F.2d 998, 999 (2d Cir. 1974).

ECNP's third " contention" (Petition, para. 4) deals with the cost and supply of uranium. Nothing in this " con-tention" indicates a basis for using this issue as support for an order to show cause. It clearly is not based on new dis-closures; nor does it raise significant environmental or safety issues. ECNP has done nothing more than reference two ERDA news releases. The most recent release, No.76-246 (July 28, 1976) merely states that as of June 30, 1976, 238 nuclear re-actors were operable, being built or planned in the United 1556 226

. S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TRL _ 3RIDG E.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Thirteen States. The other release, No. 76-94 (April 2, 1976) reports that uranium reserves recoverable at $30.00 or less per pound of U 03 8 were 640,000 tons, an increase of 40,000 tons over January 1, 1975. The release also shows potential reserves of 2.92 million tons at a cost of $30.00 or less per pound.

In the case of both press releases, the information merely up-dates earlier ERDA reports. ! Particularly since the uranium reserve estimates set forth in the April release are now greater than as of January 1, 1975, and the number of reactors slightly smaller than as of June 30, 1975, this information cannot be considered as new data giving rise to a significant environ-mental issue. As for the further argument that the environ-mental impact of uranium extraction must be considered, this is certainly not based on any new disclosures. In fact, one of ECNP's original contentions in its intervention in the TMI No. 1 operating license proceeding raised the issue of "the environmental impact, costs and risks associated with a continued assured supply of uranium over the proposed life of the nuclear facility." (Petition for Intervention, August 7, 1972, Contention 19.) It can thus hardly be considered a new matter.

-5/ ERDA Press Release No. 75-35 (March 21, 1975) stated that estimated uranium ore reserves recoverable at $30.00 or less per pound of U 03 8 were 600,000 tons and potential re-serves at $30.00 or less were 2.89 million tons. ERDA Press Release 75-138 (July 24, 1975) states that as of June 30, 1975, 243 reactors were operable, being built and planned in the United States.

1556 227

S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TR _ .v8RIDG E.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Fourteen ECNP's fourth " contention" (Petition, para. 5) asserts that changes in Licensees' rate structures would make conservation an alternative to Unit 1. No new information is cited which might warrant treating this issue as a basis for a show cause order. Here again th'e fact that ECNP raised the issue of rate structure in its intervention in the TMI No. 1 operating license proceeding (Petition for Intervention, August 7, 1972, Contention 23) demonstrates that the issue is not based on new developments. To the extent that ECNP relies on the Aeschliman decision in arguing that energy conservation can be the basis for a request for an order to show cause that reliance is misplaced. Aeschliman deals with the situation where an intervenor had both raised energy conservation issues and pursued the issue through decision and appeal. Certainly nothing in Aeschliman indicates that a person who decided on a settlement instead of pursuing energy conservation issues at a hearing could use such issues later on as a basis for sus-pension. It should also be noted that even in Aeschliman, the Court only required that the case be remanded for further pro-ceedings on the energy conservation issue, slip op, at 16, notwithstanding specific requests by the Aeschliman petitioners for both reversal and injunctive relief.6/

6/ See General Statement, 41 Fed. Reg. at 34707; Brief for Peti-tioners in No. 73-1867 at 68 (February 25, 1974); Reply Brief for Petitioners in No. 73-1867 at 33 (June 20, 1974); Appellate Brief for Petitioners in No. 75-1867 at 42 (October 26, 1973).

1556 228

s S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TR BRIDGE.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Fifteen ECNP's fifth and seventh " contentions" (Petition, para. 6 and 8) both relate to fuel cycle issues. At the out-set it should be observed that these contentions appear to involve the economics rather than the environmental impact of the fuel cycle and therefore bear no relationship to the NRDC or Aeschliman decisions or the General Statement. Again they repeat, at least with respect to the costs of waste storage and disposal, contentions originally advanced in ECNP's intervention in the TMI No. 1 operating license proceeding.

(Petition for Intervention, August 7, 1972, Contentions 18 and 24.) Even if these contentions are treated as raising issues as to fuel cycle environmental impacts, however, they are not a proper basis for a suspension request. As discussed above, the Commission's General Statement establishes the cri-teria for which suspension on fuel cycle grounds will be con-sidered and ECNP has made no showing with respect to those contentions. Thus the " contentions" themselves are not a proper basis for the request for a show cause order.

Intervenor's sixth " contention" (Petition, para. 7) claims that Licensees, with the active support of the Commis-sion, have falsified cost-benefit analyses by using unrealistic capac# ty factors. No basis whatsoever is provided for this contention, much less why such a contention is justified at 1556 229

s S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TRL _ 3 RIDGE.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Sixteen this late date. Once again ECNP seeks to resurrect an issue which it initially raised but did not pursue in the operating license hearing. (Petition for Intervention, August 7, 1972, Contention 31; Addendum to Petition for Intervention, Septem-ber 6, 1972, Contention 42.)

IV. ECNP's Petition Should be Barred by Finality ECNP seeks to suspend the TMI No. 1 operating license on the basis of contentions which involve no new dis-closures and which either could have been or actually were raised by ECNP in the operating license and Appendix D pro-ceedings. Having elected settlement in that proceeding, in accordance with the settlement Stipulation, ECNP is in no better and no worse position to seek suspension of the TMI No. 1 operating license than any other person who failed to present and litigate contentions in that proceeding.

The Courts have been strict with persons who could have, but did not, intervene in agency proceedings and then later sought entry into the administrative process. In Easton Utilities Commission v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970),

the Easton Utilities Commission sought to intervene in the AEC licensing proceeding after a hearing, an licensing board 1556 230

S HAW, PITTM AN, POTTS & TR BRIDGE.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Seventeen decision and the denial of another party's exceptions by the Commission. The AEC rejected the attempt and was upheld by the Court.

More than thirty years ago, concerned with the problem of what must be done by "an inter-ested person to act affirma-tively to protect himself" in agency proceedings, we said that "[s]uch a person should not be entitled to sit back and wait until all interested persons who do so act have been heard, and then complain that he has not been properly treated. To permit such a per-son to stand aside and specu-late on the outcome * *

• and then permit the whole matter to be reopened in his behalf, would create an impossible situation." Red River Broad-casting Co. v. FCC, 69 App.D.C.

1, 5-6, 98 F.2d 282, 286-287, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625, 59 S.Ct. 86, 83 L.Ed. 400 (1938)

Similarly, Courts have precluded parties who did not choose to participate in Commission rule making proceedings from having those proceedings reopened or obtaining judicial review of the resulting regulations. Gage v. AEC, 479 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir.

1973); Nader v. NRC, 513 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1975). This same principle has been applied to other agencies. For example, in KIRO, Inc. v. FCC, 438 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1970), the Court reversed as an abuse of discretion the FCC's admitting a party 1556 231

. SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TR S t3 RIDG E .

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Eighteen who failed to participate in a hearing and then sought recon-sideration. Certainly, reconsideration of facts which could have been litigated, but were not, should be precluded. Hudson River Fisherman's Association v. FPC, 498 F.2d 827, 833 (2d Cir.

1974).

V. Licensees' Affirmative Showing Why Suspension is Inappropriate For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II above, Licensees believe that ECNP's Petition should be rejected for its failure to meet its threshold burden. Nonetheless, be-cause of the uncertainties created by the Appeal Board's de-cision in Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-346 (September 9, 1976), we point out that the separate letter to you being mailed today by Mr. Herman M. Dieckamp makes an affirmative showing on the main criteria set forth in the General Statement which are applicable to an operating plant without in any way conceding the obligation to do so in this case.

The General Statement also identified as pertinent considerations general public policy concerns, the need for the project, the extent of the NEPA violation, and the time-liness of objections. General public policy concerns and the 1556 232

. SHAW. PITTMAN, POTTS & TRL _ 3 RIDGE.

Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Nineteen need for the project are discussed in Mr. Dieckamp's letter in terms of the cost penalties which a suspension would im-pose on Licensees and their customers. As for the extent of the NEPA violation, it must be noted that NRDC does not charge the Commission with violating NEPA, but rather with failing to compile a record adequate to support the fuel cycle rule.

Thus, the Court "does not dispute these conclusions" that the resources consumed in waste storage are minimal, that no radioactivity would be released under normal conditions, that a serious accident is incredible and that the overall envi-ronmental effects from the disposal of high level nuclear wastes are negligible. NRDC, slip op. at 34. Rather, the Court finds that these conclusions had inadequate support in the record. In any event, Licensees have been guilty only of following Commission guidance and regulations in their con-tribution to the NEPA review. The final factor, the timeli-ness of objections, clearly goes against ECNP. As described in Part IV above, ECNP decided not to pursue its complaints at the operating license and Appendix D hearing and waited until August 23, 1976, to do so. Even where a court has fot i a clear NEPA violation, it has refused to suspend a licensed activity pending agency NEPA compliance where the party seek-ing suspension " waited until after the hearings were completed to raise the environmental question." City of New York v.

United States, 337 F.Supp. 150, 164 (E . D . N.Y. 1972).

1556 233

. SHAW, P!TTMAN, POTTS & TR dRIDGE Ben C. Rusche, Director September 20, 1976 Page Twenty VI. ECNP's Request for Attorney's Fees Paragraph 10 of the ECNP Petition requests that the Commission " grant financial assistance to the intervenors under the authority of Section 102 of the National Environ-mental Policy Act". Whether the Commission is authorized to award attorney's fees and witness expenses is an open ques-tion and is pending before the Commission in a rule making proceeding. This request should therefore be denied without prejudice to its renewal if and when the Commission authorizes such awards. Edlow International Co. (Special Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special Nuclear Material), CLI-76/6, NRCI-76/5, 563 at 591-592 (May 7, 1976).

Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-280, 2 NRC 3, 4 (1975); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

(Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347, 373 (1975).

For all the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that you reject ECNP's Petition.

Resp - rully '

eed,

~

/ /

eor F. Trow ridge cc: Judith H. Johnsrud Chauncey Kepford 1556 234