ML20030D078
| ML20030D078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002937 |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1981 |
| From: | Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS, SUSQUEHANNA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108310363 | |
| Download: ML20030D078 (6) | |
Text
- - - - -
@g 9
s y
L; AUG 2 71981 >
T1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
c"
- ome ry 7 NUCLEAR REGULATOPJ COMMISSION
\\n t
? I knks Y
C: a 2
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
\\c, g
Before Administrative Judges A
Glenn O. Bright SERVED AUG 27198I Paul W. Purdom James P. Gleason, Chairman In the Matter of:
)
)
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company )
Dochet No. 70-2937 Allegheny Electri c Cooperative Inc.
)
August 26, 1981 (Susequehanna Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
Order (On Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearing)
On March 2, 1981, the Susquehanna Environmental Advocates (SEA) filed a petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing on the application of the5Pennsylvan-nia Power and Light Company and the Allegheny Electric Co-operative, Inc. for authority, under 10 CFR Part 70, "to receive, possess, store, inspect and package for transport nuclear fuel bundles / assemblies" for use at Unit 1 of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND) also filed a request for a hearing 3
on the matter on March 27, 1981.
Both petitioner organiza-3 tions are party intervenors in a current operating license
/ o proceeding involving Units 1 and 2 at the Applicant's ApO5 Susquchanna Station site.
Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388. lies -f S*"
y 0108310363 810826 FDR ADOCK 07002937 C
=
b 4
j
- In a previous Order, this Board declined jurisdiction of these petitions.
However, by virtue of a Commission Order 1
cn July 22, 1981 that the petitions should be reviewed, this Board has been designated to perform this responsi-bility.
Backcround:
The Applicant filed a request for a Part 70 license en December 23, 1980 to permit sturage of irradiated fuel at its Susquehanna Station site near Berwick, Pennsylvania while the Applicant's operating license proceeding continued.
Copies of the application were served (by NRC Staff Counsel) on the Board and parties in the latter proceeding on January 1
- 14. 1981.
After the present petitions for intervention and hearing were neceived several months later, they were re-ferred to the Board for its consideration and, as indicatbd,
~
we declined jurisdiction.
Parenthetically, the reasons stated in the Board's May 20, 1981 Order -- that it intended to concentrate on expediting the hearing schedule on the operating license schedule instead -- were grounded in a belief that the Board should not permit itself to become involved in endless rounds of unscheduled collateral proceed-ings.
Although a few Boards, in operating license cases, have assumed jurisdiction over Part 70 application pro-ceedings, and such. actions have been endorsed by the Commis-sion, the uncertain jurisdictional status of petitions and
8 3-requests for hearing on such applications represents a comp-licating factor in such proceaaings.
However, the issue is moot here in connection with the present petitions as the Commission sua sponte has directed the appointment of a licensing Board to consider them, and if required, to conduct an appropriate hearing under 10 CFR Part 2 and Part 70.
Hearing reoui rements:
r The conditions essential to establishing a right to intervene in Commission proceedings and of participation
)
in a hearing process under its laws and regulations have been stated time and again in NRC adjudicatory decisions.
The petitioner must meet a test of judicial standing wherein some injury is alleged to have occurred or is likely to as a result of the proposed action.
Additionally, the petitionefs alleged interest must be arguably within the zone of in-terests protected by those statutes administered by the Com-l mission.
Where a petitioner fails to naet the standing-for-intervention test, the Board has discretionary authority nevertheless for granting such intervention after evaluating j
the applicability of those factors governing petitions for intervention generally and for such petitions filed late.
l See 10 CFR 2.714(a) and 10 CFR 2.714(d).
Also Portland l
l General Electric Company (Febble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units i
j 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
l
l 2,
- The petitions:
SEA's petition alleges that its members who are customers of the Applicants would be affected financially by the proposed action and reflected an intention to raise four issu>s in the proceeding.
Of the four issue.c, three relate to increased costs due a) to storing fuel on site; l
b) providing security for the fuel; and c) purchasing fuel now rather than at a possible lower cost if purchased later when the fuel would be used.
The other issue relates to
" health and safety risks, if any, of bringing and storing the fuel on-site."
CAND's peticion calls for a public hearing "to show cause why these changes (fuel storage) are needed and how they will impact on the cost-benefit ratio, the human 1
environment, and tne health and safety of the public. "
The petition also alleges that the application required a sci-entific evaluation by all the parties "because of the con-1 tentions pending in this licensing case directly dealing r
with the health and safety issue of the uranium fuel cycle."
Conch:sions:
It is clear from a substantial number of Commission decisions that the financial interests of ratepayers are not arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the laws administered by the NRC.
Kansas Gas & Electric Co..et al. (Wcl ~ Creek Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-424, l
l-1
' 6 NRC 122, 128 (1977); Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-333, 3 NRC 804 (1975).
Accordingly, the. petitioner's allega-tions in behalf of its members' financial interests fail to meet standing requirements to support intervention as a matter of right.
And the remaining " issue" concerning
" health and safety risks, if any," (emphasis added), simply fails to state any injury that has occurred or is likely to as a result of granting the requested license.
The standing requirement for intervention is not met here either.
Any reading of CAND's petition requires the con-clusion that a hearing is being requested on the Part 70 license application to have the rationale and iustification for its issuance demonstrated in a public forum.
Although such a session might enlighten the petitioner, it is not required by the rules and regulations of the Commission.
In any event, it is not substitute for those NRC admini-strative proceedings, being considered here, where adversarial issues are to be litigated and decided.
CAND's petition must be denied.
The remaining question for decision is whether SEA's petition for intervention should be granted through an exercise of the Board's discretionary powers to grant it.
In deciding on this matter, we have been cautioned to consider, s
_ ~,_
in addition to the particular circumstances in such cases, the factors set forth in the regulations at 10 CFR 2.714 (a) and (d).
See Portland General Electric Company (1976), supra.
Since most of these factors deal with a consideration and protection of the petitioner's request, it is apparent that some valid interest most be evident in the petition to initiate the' discretionary authority of the Board.
As wehave seen, however, it is also evident that such an interest is not ap-parent here.
The status of the Applicant's ratepayers is not a cobaizable issue in these proceedings and " health and safety risks, if any" expresses ambiguous and unspecific interest if, in fact, it expresses any at all.
Accordingly, the Board could not, in the circumstances of this case have any basis on which a discretionary power for incervention could rest. '.
The petitions for intervention and request for hearing by SEA and CAND are denied.
This Order shall be con-sidered final for appeal purposes as,of the date of its is-suance and is subject to appeal to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board under the terms of 10 CFR 2.714(a).
Any such appeal must be filed within 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'
- v:
w Dated August 26, 1981 James P. Gleason, Chairman 2.t Bethesda, Maryland.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
-.- _ --..