ML19341D724

Amended Petition to Intervene in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19341D724
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	03/30/1981
From:	Mills C, Mills M, Thompson A KANSANS FOR SENSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19341D723	List: ML19341D722 ML19341D724
References
NUDOCS 8104080499
Download: ML19341D724 (10)

Text

. .

. , y . . . . .

s O

March 300.h, icF1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9 g

mCIEAR REC *MTCRY CCMMISCIC! "

PERRE ""4E ATCMIC SAFTTY AND !.ICENSING ECARD

-t Apg ho, -

In the Matter of {

t- s 37[N, b ~~d Fjd3AS Gid; AfD ELECTRIC CCMPANY &

c .,I p

KANSAS CITY PC:!ER AND L:: Chi CCKPANY Docket No. 50 M i bice

. /

('.'olf Creek Genenting Station, '

to Unit No.1)

AMMENDED PETITION TO IN"'ERVE?S ,

Kansans for Sensibia Energy, (hereinafter, "KASE"), on its own behalf, and on behalf of its members, hereby semends its petition for leave to intervene in connection with the application of Kansas Cas &

Electric, Et. A1. for an operating license at the Wolf Creek Cenerating Station, Unit 1., in Coffee County, Kansas.

KASE, filed a timely petition for leave to intervena. The NRC Staff

answer to their petition dated February 2,1Cf',1, states "the Staff feels that petitioners shocid be _ given an opportunity to demonstrate the

" interest" of at least one of its members." The Staff Memorandum and t

Ctder, dated Parch 16,1CF1, states as sin, that a" request to intervene can be amended up to fifteen (15) days prior to a special pre-hearing conference."

KASE hereby aumends its original petition to set forth the following reasons why the Board should gmnt KASE leave to intervene. The reasons .

Are broken down into the requirements necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 2 714(a) (2) as set out in the previously mentioned Memonndum and Order of March 16th.

' '8004080 % .

Y q 4 -

RIGHT TC EE MADE A FARTY KASE is an uninecrporated association of app exi::ately 50 members iany of whom live in the Vichita, Kansas area and are rategyers of Tansas Cas and Electric (hereinafter, KCAE), and some of whom recide or own property within the vicinity of the Wolf Creek plant. KASE has a derivative right to intervene in these proceedin6s. The explanation of titat rights is set forth in the NRC STAFF ANSWER TO TME FETI"'ICN CF MISSCURI KAUSAS SECTICN: AMERICAF NUCLEAR SOCIETY TO TH"'ERVENE, dated February 5,1981. It reads as follows:

In Worth v. Seldin 422 U.S. hCO (1975) at 511, the Suureme Court stated that (e)ven in the almence of injury to itself, t. . associa-tion may have standing solely as the representative of its members."

And, in Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972) at 739, the Supreme Court stated "(i)t is clear that an organization whose pombers are injured may represent those members in a proceeding for judicial review." In conformity with this authority, the Appeal Board has held that an organization, even though it suffers no injury to itself by the proposed action, nay intervena in a preceeding as the representative of its members. Houston Li.rhtins and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), ALA5-549, slio o2 at 3, Olay 18,1979); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Parble Hill Nuclear Genersting Station, Units 1 & 2), A1A3-322 3NRC 328 (1976).

See, Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, slip o2. at 24, (April 4,1979). However, when intervening in this representative capeity, an organization must establishthat at least one of the persons it purports to represent does in fact have an interest which might be affected by the licensing action being sought. AIM-535, sut>r A member with such an interest must also authorize the petitioning organization to represent her or his interest in the proceeding in which the or emani-zation seeks leave to intervene, thus clot.hing the organization with that member's personal standing. AIA3-515, suurs, at 33-39. See, AIA3-c2 sunts, at 55-56.

The following six individuals are menbers of KASE through whose

" interest" KASE derives a right to intervene in this proceeding. Nrther '

more, the fo11owin6 individuals all authorize KASE as.the petitioner to represent har' or..his interest and thereby clothe KASE in their respective personal standing.

e gv - =r-e ~ - , , , - w y m, m -

3 PT?l! TIC'?2RS PROFER"T, F"!:A*;CIAL, A!Q CTHER " INTEREST" I'! THE PRCCEEDI;!C The" interest" in this proceeding of each of the six KASE members he$n named, shall be explained individually.

A. Arthur Thomnson Arthur Thompson resides at 72 S. Estelle in Wichita, Kan-:an.

He is a KG&E rategyer through that same location. In addition he owns land located northeast of Fall River, Kansas and within the accepted geographic " sone of interest" for such proceedings. He has both a

" property interest" as a land owner, and a" financial interest" as a ratepayer, in these proceedings.

3. C. Charles Mills and Parv Abbott Mills

0. Charles Mills and Fary Athatt Mills reside at 1141 N. Market in Uichita, Kansas and are rate pyers of KCE at that same address. They have a " financial interest" in these proceedings.

C. Ken Grotewiel Ken Grotewiel resides at 611 V.12th Street in Wichita, Kansas and cwhs 6. small business at another address in Wichita. He is a KC&E f

-rate gyer at both locations. He has a " financial interest" in these proceedings.

D. Anne R. Browning Anne H. Browning is a resident of the State of Kansat, Hving

! near and owning property near Madison, Kansas. Her property lies l approximately 40 miles from the Wolf Creek plant, within the accepted f " sone of interest." for such proceedings. She also has a" financial interest"

! as a consumer of electric service at her residence.

l I

l l .

~

.4 E. Jolene M. Crabill Jolene H. Crabin resides at 1407 N. Topeka, in Wichita, Kancas.

She is a rateinyer of KCE through that same address, Enri is also a steck-holder in the company. She has a" financial interest"in the proceedind.

In addition to these specific individual " interests", the six individuals namind above share an " interest" in the environmental and safety issues surrounding constzuction of the plant. These interests include those issues specificany mentioned in the original KASE petition.

EFFECT CF ANY CRDER WHICH 'AAY E ENTERED IN THIS PROCEDING ON THE

?ETITICNER'S IN EREST It is clearly stated in the Staff answer to the American Nuclear i Society that, l

Economic interest or injury gives standing under the Natioral Environmental Policy Act. . . if it is environmentany related.

Tennessee Vallev Authority (Vatts '1ar Nuclear Plant. 'h ' ts 1 & 2),

l l AIA3-413, 5 NaC 1418,1421 (1977).

All members of KASE, including those specifically named herein, have

r. financial interest in these proceedings, either as direct ratepayers 1

to KG&E, or as ratepayers of rural electric cooperatives which will either own 17% of the plant, or purchase power from Wolf Creek to supply their ratepayers. The petitioners and other KASE members will suffer direct financial injury from the exhorbitant electric rates that vill inevitably of this facility, result from the operation ( and from the inmediate economic injury sustained by the 50% higher rates which must come out of the rate;myers pockets before 19%, "if they (the two utilities building the -Wolf Creek nuclear plant) are to remain financially sound and complete the $1.7 billion . project 1

^

on schedule."

- 1 "he Wichita Fagle-Baacon. Sunday, November 16,1980 page 1. " Utilities Needins 53 Este Mike for Wolf Creek.

~5-The cost of the plant has more than tripled since the $500 million estimate in the early 1970':. Much of the increased ecst of the plant is directly httrihttable to safeguading of the environment and protection of the health and well-being of area recidents through additioral regu. lations and licensing requirements. As stated in the Crosap, McCcraick and I1Lget

'1lapsrt on the Financial and Operational Study of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Pacility,"these environmentally related cost factors include:

1. cost of work stoppages due to problems in the concrete base mat and other safety related work. These problems have occurred in other SNUPPS plants under construction.

2. changes in regulatory and safety requirements resulting from the Three Mile Island, (hereinafter, TMI) accident , which increase the average construction time for the plant.

Other environmentally related cost factors are:

1. cost and availability of permanent storage sites for adio-active waste from the plant as well as the cost and safety issues in-volved in waste dispcsal and transportation of radioactive anterials to storage and disposal sites.

2. the development of a via E e plan fcr decommissioning the plant and the related safety issues.

3 potential costs of early deco =M maioning due to a ~1C-like accident.

h. water abo.D for the plant resulting fros near drought conditions in the state. If this continues the cooling lake will be difficult to fill, and may cause delay in plant operation start-up.

o

I The six individuals naned herein share an interest in environmental ad (cafety issues nentionsf. *n this petition. They also chkre a histery of bath individual and organi:ational citizen activity in preservation of the environment and conservation of natural Ienources.

Through the relatedness of econnaic injurv to the cetitionerc

! to environmental factors, WE should be granted standinc to intervene l in the troceeding.

the ArthurThompeonandAnneR.Browningchareg"propertyinterest" in this proceedin6 Both individuals face potential coatamination of their land and their dwellin6s, (Mr. Thompson has a dvelling on his Fall River property in addition to his residence in Vichita.) by emissions into the air and water supplies resuliing from ope:stion of the Wolf Creek facility.. An accident like TMI at the Wolf Creek site would seriously endanger their property interest.

Throach the notential inlory of Art The:nson and Anne R. Browning's "cronerty interests", KASE should be .rrant-i standine to intervene in the troces.4inte.

SECIFIC ACFECT OF THE SU? JECT MAT ~ER CF THE PRCCEEDING AS TO !!HICH THE PETITIONER If!SHES TO I'rTERVENC.

I The petitioners, through KASE, wish to be heard with respect to l

KFMs inability to adequately finance, construct, opente, and in particular, deco ==insion, the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit *I.

Included will be the adverse affects of the operation of this facility on :stepayern of teth KGEE and E?CC. scd adverse effect: on the resiicnts ard the environment within the vicinity of the plant.

o y

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ s _. _

I i

l .

l I

The specific rspects of the decommissioning costs issue Petitioners wish to r.ddrc=s include the following:

, r

! i. Life of the Flant.

a. Uo commercial reactor of a size equivalent to 'Jolf Creek br.s l

been in ope:ation as long as the estimated useful life of such a reactor.

I j b. M clearly demonstrated that current estimates of the i

useful life of the niant can be quickly invalidated.

c. Longthy life in operatir.in for the plant increases the radiation build-up and resulting expenses for shut down.

2 Necessity of Front-End Deposit.

An amount equal to the entire cost of decordssioning the plant shou 11 be set aside in a front-end deposit before operation of the plant has begun. Financinc of the deposit could come from the sale of bonds.

a. We fund should equal expected decor.missioning costs in current dollars plus wrplus amounts to provide for a premature shutdown such as at M where costs are drastically g nater than esti m ted.

b. Costs at TKI for shut-down might equal one-half the total const .iction costs.

3 Use of norml-onerating revenues and reserves ~to cover costs of Lecommissioning.

-a. These' costs ire enormous. There is no assurance that utilities will be financially capable of covering such costs out of regular assetts and Tevenues.

b. ICE: has not been producing ea.rnings at the :ste of return allowed by the Xansas Corpo:stion on==4 maion.

m

.A 4 'Jhat te do with the fund.

a. Dopocit fitnds with a trustee,. preferable an agency of the State of Vancas, co income from the fund would not be subject to fedeml income 's .

b. Er,tablish to allow faster accumulation echanisms.

It is necessary for evidence of this nature to te presented is this proceeding ac previous cost analysis of the Wolf Creek Project aaxi financial aralysis of C&E has not incladed a realistic or,in fact even, in extetesive look at decommissionind cocts. For example, the Cresap, r.c Cornick and heet, Inc. Report of Novenber 19F.0 (Authoriced by the ransas Corpcration Coanission) does not seriously address the issue.

Chapter 5 of the report oc s i ot include decommissioning in capital costs.

?:udent targement of the utility would have included a front-end deposit in escrow to cover decomnissionin; cot t.s. Chapter 6 of the Cresap, P.c Corwick, and Facet report does not discuss any means of providing for this fund.

Ihe :!httelle Study, !*UREO/CR-013C (Vol.1) UNCIAS" Technology, Safety ,

and Costs of Decommissioning t. Reference Pressurized ater. . l* Smith, R.I. ,

Xansek,C.J.,(et,al.). (3attene Pacific Northwest Iats., Richland, ' dash.

(USA)). Fay 1978, sites a cost of S'c minion in 197!? dollars for immediate dismantlement of t. reactor. Accepting their assumption on inflation and 2ste of return, decommissioning after a 30 year stora6e period would yield a total cost.of G51.8 minion. Usi.w; a 9% :ste of inflatien,this same dismantlement after the reccomended 30 yer.r cooldown can be estimated at 067.1 minion in 19*1 dollars, $36.9 millien in 1984 dollars, and $94.7 minion in 1985 donar=. Costs of this magnitude must be considered in the 6

y c g- y -u- <

• u- - - - . .- v= .--- - --- - g -

C-Ucif Creek proceeding. Viable plans for the safe decommicsioning of the reactor must be in place before operation of the plant be61ns.

CC"CU! SIC'i Petitioners have experts and evidence available to them with respect to Applicants ability to finance, construct, cperate, and decommission the Volf Creek plant which may not be included in this pr,ceeding unless this petition is granted. The presence of KASE will assure meaningful public participation and that the reord adduced will be more complete and hianced than ma; otherwise be possible.

/

Petitioners :-rpectfully request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission enter its CTder permitting KASE to inte:vene as a pcrty in this proceeding, or alteru.tively, allow the six named individuals to intervene as individual j petitioners in this prcceedin6 3e uix's::igned hereby :tste that they belle-*e all statements Lade herein to be true to the test of their knowledge, infoz:::ation, and 1

belief.

• • arch 30* 1c?i Raspectfully subr.itted For KASE, 11 s e n A%

Arthur Thompson i 744 S. Estelle Vichita, Ka :

_ }t /

- es ,m s 1141 N. Market Uichita, Kansas

• hg '

fi WRA*m1=

Wichita, Kansa -

s

-ice

-A

~Ket.frotewiel 611 'J.12th St.

Wichita, Karusas N -

dlE[A b Anne 3. ~crownin6 (signature authorized G tele' e contact)

Route 1 Padison, Kansas 120 l '

NY JoIene M. Grabill i N. Topekt.

V ta, Kansas C::RTIFICATE CF SERVICE "he undersigned hereby certifies that copics of the foregoin6 Amended Petition have been served on the following W Express Pail this 30th day of March 1981.

Executive Le6al Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20535 Jay Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbricge 1P40 5. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 l

Adll Jol e M. Grabill'

.. YN p

-e