ML19346A185
| ML19346A185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Blaufuss F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KANSANS FOR SENSIBLE ENERGY, KANSAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106050346 | |
| Download: ML19346A185 (11) | |
Text
-
SERVEg,jg^*;
41931
/N*A8,~!,d 4,.
""' ^ ' ^"'"
~f b'J 'd'IN -'
.o.m o :_u z NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
e l_g$l JU:,' O.! igg 1 > Q ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I;.
JUN
- Tink"" 4. /
Before Administrative Judges:
h Os
'^4 A
James P. Gleason, Chairman 4 gI
- h b/
7 Dr. George C. Anderson
,~
c..
'y "c
.,1 prg l, [.'i..l h cis Dr. J. Venn Leeds
\\ ;,
l'/
)
D l i '
In the Matter of:
)
KANSAS GAS AND. ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. STN 50-482 OL f
(Wolf Creek Generating Station,
)
f June 3, 1981 Unit 1)
SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Ruling on Intervention Petitions, Recuests for Hearing and Contentions)
By a Memorandum and Order of March 13, 1981, we convened a special prehearing conference as required by 10 CFR 2.751(a). The conference, held in Emporia, Kansas, on April 15, dealt with petitions, proposed contentions and scheduling procedures. Those matters are disposed of as follows:
PETITICNS The Board has previously admitted as parties Wanda Christy and Mary Ellen Salava.
It had denied admission to the Missouri-Kansas Section l
of the American Nuclear Society and Kansas' for a Sensible Energy (KASE).
t In subsequent submittals, the Missouri-Kansas Section changed its request to one for a limited appearance and KASE amended its petition and submitted the authorization of six of its members to represent them in the proceeding.
The Board had deferred until the conference, ruling on a petition filed late l
by Francis Blaufuss. The Board has previously approved the petition of tne pS*NlI O*
FJ06050 M G-
i 2-Public Service Comission of hissouri to intervene as a representative of an interested State Agency and at f.5e conference, a similar request was received from the Kansas Corporation Commission.
KASE The organization is an unincorporated association of approximately fifty (50) members, most of whom live in the Wichita, Kansas area.
In its amended petition, KASE submitted the authorization of six of its members, who allegedly had a sufficient interest in the proceeding,.to represent them in the hearing on the application for an operati19 license. During the conference, testimcny disclosed that only one of the six lived within a fifty (50) mile distance of the Wolf Creek plant but that all claimed an interest as ratepayers in the amended petition.
It is clear that an organization may intervene in a proceeding as the representative of its members. Houston Lichtinc and Power Comoany, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979). And that representation is valid when, as here, it is established that at least one of its members has a cognizable interest that might be affected.by the outcome. A residence within fifty miles of the facility in question has been held adequate to justify such an interest. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 (1977).
Although it does not affect the admission of KASE as a party, which is allowed herein, it should be pointed out that a ratepayers status does not confer standing in the Commission's hear ng proceedings under either i
the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.
Economic
-~
--.,--g
-.r
-w w
,,---Uw. - - -
,-c-
3-interests of ratepayers are not within the scope of interests protected by those statutes. Portland General ~ Electric Comoany (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2, ALAB-333, 3 NRC 804 (1976).
Francis Blaufuss The Board deferred a ruling on this petition for intervention until the conference.on the basis that-it had been filed late and it desired to give him an opportunity to explain his tardiness. However, in view of our decision with respect to the contention he seeks to have litigated, it is unnecessary to adoress the lateness issue. This is discussed later in this memorandume Kansas Corocration Commission An Attorney for KCC appeared at the Conference and requested admission as an interested State Agency under 2.715(c). The regulation of rates of electric utilities is a responsibility of the Kansas Commission. The Board will permit the Agency's participation but will require the submittal of an official authorization, and indications of the subject matter on which it desires to participate, prior to or during a prehearing conference that will be held before the hearing.
CONTENTIONS To finalize its approval of the several interventions in icated, the Board, after discussion, has found various contentions submitted by petitioners as acceptable in meeting the requirements of 2.714(b) of the Rules as to specificity and bcses.
I w
e e
n
---w w
_4.
Christy Cgntention 1
Ms. Christy submitted several contentions to the Board. As a summary of her concerns, she alleges that local governments have' neither the properly trained personnel nor resources to carry out their responsibilities under the Applicants emergency evacuation plan. The Applicant submitted its plan one week before the prehearing conference. Appiicantsforoperating
^
' licenses are required to submit Emergency Response plans, which include an evacuation plan for areas in proximity to the site. During the conference, the parties agreed that her contention would be acceptable as follows:
Local governments do not have a workable evacuation plan and the Wolf Creek facility should not be licensed until there is a workable plan and until the governmental bodies in the evacuatf6n area are sufficiently staffed, equipped and funded to success-fully carry out evacuation plans.
Salava Contention Ms. Salava expressed concern in her petitions to the Board over a workable evacuation plan and the possibility of damage to her crop's, pastures and farmland through accidental releases of radioactive p'roducts.
Both the Applicant and Staff opposed the a'dmission of that part of her contention dealing with the accidental emission of radioactive materials, nn the basis of its lacking specificity, but supported the admission of ner 9
concern over tne lack of a workable evacuation plan.
Tne Commission's Rules, in 10 CFR 2.714(b), require the submittal of contentions which petitioners seek to have litigated with the basis for such contentions set forth with easonable specificity." Here, e
5-petitioner's expression of concern fails to Seet that standard as it relates to radioactive emissions since there is no claim of Applicants inability to meet health, safety or environmental requirements in this area. Statements l
of failures in other nuclear facilities as petitioner alleges do not suffice l
to be considered as a probable failure in the facility in issue here. The l
Board does acc.ept the first part of Ms. Salava's contention, the lack of a workable evacuation plan, as it has been set forth' prev'iously. We would hope, without commanding it, that a consolidation of the efforts of Ms. Christy and Ms. Salava night occur. This would probably prove helpful to both parties, particularly if they continue as pro se intervenors.
KASE Contention In its amended petition, and at the conference, the petitioner expressed its contention that the Applicant does not have the financial ability to operate the facility or provide for its decommissioning if that becomes neces sa ry.
KASE argues financial conditions have changed since the construction permit was issued and also that there is a necessity for the Applicant to establish a reserve for decommissioning costs.
It is alleged a financial burden will be placed on taxpayers if that development occurs,
~
r In the operational area, allegations are submitted that work stoppages, construction problems, regulatory changes made necessary by Three Mile Island problems, cost and feasibility of permanent waste storage, potential delays due to water draught conditions and damag? from unspecified air and water O
r.
-y y
e
+
, emissions have increased the financial instability of the project. And on decomissioning, charges are made of a substantial underestimating of costs by the Applicant.
The Applicants response, in general, was that most of the matters complained of, if _not all, were discussed during construction stage hearings and accordingly no justification exists for responding to or adjudicating them again. Additionally, the Applicant stated that several of the issues - permanent waste storage and financial qualifications for decomissioning - were under consideraticn by the Comission for Rule handling, and therefore were not appropriate & litigation at this time.
The Comission's regulations reqcire Applicants for operating licenses to submit financial information for its evaluation of the utility's ability to operate a completed facility and its maintenance if it should become necessary to have it permanently shut doein.
10 CFR 50.33(f); see also Part 50, Appendix C 1B and 118. Safety,
i considerations underlying this requirement are obvious. Decomissioning l
costs are required at the construction sta.ge as a part of the. environmental review and, as Applicant argues, matters considered at the construction
~
stage need not be addressed again in an operating license proceeding.
However for our purposes, the discussion is academic. Safety questions l
are always germane and the intervenors basic contention is that the l
spplicant lacks the financial ability to provide for decommissioning.
Mention should be made at this point of another of the applicant's l
reasons for urging exclusion of KASE's contention.
For some time the Cemission, in a rulemaking posture, has been considering methods of l
_ financing and other criteria for decomissioning activities.
It is not clear at this juncture precisely where this endeavor will lead and whether it will be applicable to the contention being considered here. Licensing Boards cannot, as the Applicant hits stated, accept contentions that are, or are about to become, the subject of general rulemaking by the Comission as this would be " wasteful duplication of effort." Potomac Electric Power Co.
(Douglas Point Nucl. ear General Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
However, where as here, the specific direction is uncertain and where there is no imediate prospect of a hearing on the apolication, we conclude that prohibition of the contention on this ground would be counter productive and possibly time consuming in the end.
If the Comission deals with this subject in the future in a way that impacts on the contention, we will take whatever action is necessary at the time.
The foregoing does not have a similar effect, however, when it comes to judging the permanent waste disposal aspects of KASE's contention. Here the Comission's intent on rulemaking is more certain and, as a consequence, I
any questions relative-to the feasibility,of waste disposal and storage are outside the boundary of this proceeding.
Increased costs of such storage, however, as it relates to safety 'is admissible. The intervenor has alleged that information developed since the construction stage hearings demonstrates the financial inability of the Applicant to operate l
or decomission the facility. As far as the aspects submitted in KASE's petitions and statements made to the Board relate to safety concerns,'
these are natters that can be considered through this contention. With l
l
'r -
8-the exception, of course, of waste disposal feasibility as discussed above. The contention can be stated as follows:
Dua to increased and underestimated costs, the Applicant does not have the financial ability to either operate or decomission the Wolf Creek facility.
Blaufuss Contention As inoicated previously, the petitioner submitted a late petition to intervene.
In an exercise of discretion, this Board could admit his petition if his explanation meet certain criteria. However, that trail need not be pursued here since petitioner submitted no acceptable contention. The proffer of at least one admissible contention is indis-pensible to participation as a party in Comission proceedings.
10 CFR.
- 2. 714(b).
In the prehearing conference, Mr. Blaufuss expressed his concer, about the air and water radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants and the effect it might have on his organic farm located ten miles from the facility. The Applicant and Staff opposed the petitioner's admission on the basis that his concern was an expression of dissatisfaction with the Comission's regulations. And we must agree. The Comission's
~
regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 proscribe standards for protection against l
radiation and the rules prohibit, except under conditions not applicable here, any attack on the regulations in the Comission's adjudicatory proceedings, 10 CFR 2.758. Although the Board must deny the petitioner's request to intervene, it will approve and encourages a limited appearance by Mr. Blaufuss wherein he will have an adequate opportunity to express his views completely.
./,
.g.
Missouri Public Service Commission The Comission which has been granted an opportunity to participate in this proceeding as an interested State agency under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.715(c) has asked that certain information be developed-during the course of this hearing.
Identifying the information as issues'but not contentions, the requests relate to design changes required to be made by the NRC as a result of the Three Mile Island incident.
Seeking to obtain the magnitude and the costs of such design changes, the PSC requested that a cost / benefit analysis be. performed for each design change and that the impact of such design changes on the facility's completion date be assessed by the NRC and furnished for the record of the hearing and the parties. On questionir.g the Commission's-representative, it seems the information desired is intended to enable the PSC to perform its own responsibilities in future rate cases. The Board has some difficulty with this request since it tends to change the nature of these proceedings from a review of health, safety and environ-mental consideracions and an operating license hearing into a data collection proce' dure for other governmental purposes. 'We will not allow such a change to occur. We believe the' Applicant and Staff will orovide -
most of the material and information' requested outside of the record here being compiled and that is the proper method and place for receiving it.
SCHEDULE Information received at the prehearing conference reflects the current dates: for significant events as follows:
e... -
. Jan. 1982 ---- Draft Environmental Sta.tement April 1982 ---- Safety Evaluation Report May 1982 ---- Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Letter June 1982 ---- Final Environmental Statement April 1983 ---- Facility Construction Completion Based on the foregoing, we establish the following schedule:
1.
Discovery consnences Issuance of this Order 2.
Last day for filing of first round discovery requests July 20, 1981 3.
Last day for responses to first round discovery requests August 25, 1981 Due to the lengthy lead times involved in this proceeding, it is not practical to provide for further scheduling requirements at this time.
Another schedule will be issued when appropriate.
Inasmucn as petitions to intervene and requests for a hearing have been received and approved by the Board and contentions for litigation have been accepted, a hearing has been approved and a Notice of Hearing in the form of the attachment hereto, is being issued today. This Order shall be considered final fer appeal purposes as of the date of its issuance and is subset to appeal to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board under the terms of 10 CFR 2.714(a). Any such appeal mu't be filed within s
w-e-
r----
, + -
-,n w
o
.. ~,
11 -
ten (10) days after service of this Order and can be commenced by.the filing of a notice of appeal and accompanying supporting brief.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
\\
[
ames P. Gleason, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of June 1981.
1 l
e 0
i l
l 1
w m-g,,g y
.-yy v-- -,--
w
~ - -- --,-
+-,-
,4---g
- -- - - - ~
,w,-~
w
-v-~*
w w
e
- ~