ML20062A120
| ML20062A120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1978 |
| From: | Knotts J, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810110064 | |
| Download: ML20062A120 (23) | |
Text
_ : g'
.o g
n;..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
smo g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- E, ggp 25 97B # %
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD YO p
~
i In the Matter of
)
')
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER
)
Docket No. 50-397-OL SUPPLY SYSTEM
)
)
U+
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION
]
TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE I.
BACKGROUND C
n r
l On July 26, 1978,* the Nuclear Regulatory Commission y u...
r, y
published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in the captioned q
matter.
43 Fed. Reg. 32338 (1978).
The Commission indi ted'
']
in the Notice that the applicat$ ion for 'an operating license (.
O J
for WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 ("WNP-2") had been docketed,c.a
~.
and that Commission consideration of the application had
)
commenced.
The Commission also indicated that "any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may. file a petition for leave to intervene" by August 28, 1978.
A petition for leave to intervene dated August 28, 1978, was filed by two individual petitioners, Susan M.
l Garrett and Helen Vozenilek, on their own behalf and on behalf of a group calling itself the "Hanford Conversion Project".
The petition was docketed by the Commission's
- I t Lp L t d6 6,y fDR.An n pgg.3,7 g
, gp g,,,L
l l
Docketing and Service Section on August ~30, 1978.
The l
, certificate of service attached to the petition indicates that petitioners failed to comply with the Notice in that petitioners failed to serve copies of the petition on the j
k NRC Executive Legal Director and on counsel for the I
Washington Public Power Supply System
(" Applicant").
By letter dated September 14, 1978, the Applicant notified this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the
)
Applicant had received a copy of the petition on September 13, 1978, served by the Docketing and Service Section.
In
[
L these circumstances, we~ calculated that the Applicant had l
until September 25, 1978, to respond to the petition.
f i
II.
ARGUMENT The Applicant hereby opposes the petition for leave to t
intervene.
However, before presenting legal argument, we wish to urge this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board")
in ruling on the petition to intervene to be mindful of the f
admonition of the Appeal Board in Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 1/
3 NRC 8 (1976).~
The Appeal Board observed in Zimmer that j
"[i]n an operating license proceeding, unlike a construction permit proceeding, a hearing is not mandatory", and cautioned
\\
1/ Accord, Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and.2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226, n. 10 (1974).
l l
I s
m.
4
.,. ~ _
that "before granting an intervention petition and thus triggering [an OL] hearing, a licensing board should take the utmost care to satisfy itself fully that there is at least r
one contention advanced in the petition which, on its face, raises an issue clearly open to adjudication in the. proceeding. "
l The Appeal Board furtheY cautioned that "a board should take equal care in (OL] cases to assure itself that potential i
intervenors do have a real stake (i.e., interest) in the l
proceeding."
3 NRC at 12.
h We believe that the instant petition to intervene is legally insufficient on both counts, viz., (1) neither the
=
individual petitioners nor the group petitioners they repre-sent have demonstrated the requisite interest, cognizabla t
under pertinent law, in the proceeding to permit inter-vention, and (2) in any event, petitioners have not set 2/
i forth a valid contention with adequate supporting basis.~
h
^-
A.
Petitioners Are Not Entitled To Intervene As
-)
A Matter Of Right A.
Petitioners Have No Legal Interest In The Proceedine The teachings of the Commission in Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
2/ While petitioners were not required by 10 CFR 52.714 to include a list of contentions in their petition at this time, they nevertheless did so.
The Applicant will address each contention herein, and will demonstrate that no valid contention has been set forth.
l l
y-,
i 3/
CLI-76-27, 4 NRC.610 (1976), and the Appeal Board's decisions-in the wake of Pebble Springs, clearly establish the test s
for determining whether a petitioner may be permitted to intervene as a matter of right.
Such an intervenor must l
assert an " interest which may be affected" by the proceeding.
- Applying contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing,$l k
i the Commission in Pebble Sorinas interpreted this " interest" l
{
requirement as requiring the allegation of both (1) some injury in fact that has occurred or will probably result
()
from the action involved, and (2) an interest " arguably i
within the zone of interests" to be protected or. regulated by the statute sought to be invoked.
The petitioners wholly fail to allege either " injury in fact" or that they fall within the " zone of interests" of the Atomic Energy Act or the. National Environmental i
Policy Act.
They assert as their " interest" in this r
proceeding basically two points - (1) that they are rate-
[
()
payers of the Portland General Electric Company ("PG2")
or are subject to rate increases by the Bonneville Power l
Administration ("BPA"), and (2) that they are located t
i 1
3/ E.g., Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, i
Unit No. 2), ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473 (1978); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143 (1977).
i 4/ See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. ~490 (1975); Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S.
727 (1972); Association of Data Processinc Service Oraanizations, Inc. v. Camp, 297 U.S.
150 (1970).
9 erg
+,.2 1i 6
e-pe--e-
'w.e--*
s-w -
e
+
r e w-w m
^'
^
^
^^
downstream from or "in the vicinity of" WNP-2.
In view of these facts, the. petitioners allege generally that an accidental release of radioactivity would adversely affect i
them from health and recreational standpoints, and that l
l increasing energy costs will affect them from an economic 5/
standpoint.
i The law is clear that economic personal interest as i
a ratepayer does not confer standing to intervene as a matter of right.
The Commission itself ruled on this I
{)
point in Pebble Springs, supra, concluding that the economic interest of a ratepayer does not come within the
" zone of interests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
4 NRC at 614.
The Appeal Board further clarified this point recently in Fermi, supra, whe~n it concluded that "neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the National Environmental Policy Act embraces l
l within its ' zone of interests' economic. concerns even
()
remotely akin to those which [the intervenor] would press as 5/ Petitioners apparently challenge the fairness of the limita-tion of liability provision of the Price-Anderson Act.
In Florida Power & Li4ht Co. (Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4), Memorandum and Order, 4 AEC 787 (1972), the Commission held that a licensing proceeding is not the proper forum for an attack on the Price-Anderson Act.
In any event, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality and reasonableness of that Act on June 26, 1978.
Duke Power Co. v. CESG, U.S.
46 U.S.L.W.
4845 (U.S. June 26,1978T-(Nos.77-262 and 77-375).
Thus, petitioners' challenge is unsupported and invalid as a matter of law, and can lend no support to their attempt to demonstrate " interest" in this proceeding.
r e
1'
% TF 9M E *
- 1ns
- r a nvw.
.,-.,m.y,,,.,.
-yw..
o
~
-g-a member and ratepayer of a cooperative that purchases power
~/
6 from a proposed Fermi co-owner."
7 NRC at 475.
The law on this point is so well established that little purpose would l
be served by additiona2 discussion of.the legion of cases.1/
Suffice it to say that any attempt by petitioners to establish their " interest" by virtue of the fact that l
they are ratepayers of PGE or BPA.must fail.
)
Petitioners also cannot establish nec,essary interest to 8
({}
support intervention in this proceeding based upon their i
places of residence.
Petitioners neither reside within i
the geographical zone which might be affected by routine 8/
i or accidental releases of fission products from WNP-2, l
nor do they reside within a distance recognized by the URC
~
in the past to be sufficiently close to vest an interest I
e 6/ As petitioners indicate, they are not ratepayers of l
the Applicant, but of PGE or of the Bonneville Power i
k_)s Administration (directly or indirectly).
Accordingly, petitioners are even further removed from the Appli-cant than the intervenors were in Fermi.
- However, this is a factual distinction with little (if any) legal significance.
The law is clear that even a direct customer.of an applicant is not, based upon that fact alone, vested with the requisite interest s
to intervene.
Pebble Springs, supra.
7/ E.g., Watts Bar, supra, 5 NRC 1418 (1977); Black Fox, I
supra, 5 NRC 1143 (1977).
8/ Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric
~
Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372, n. 6 (1973).
i i
i t
l l
+
l
_. -, ~
. i l
9/
(if otherwise well plead) in the proceeding.-
In short, the petitioners are not vested on the basis of residential location
'c with the requisite interest to intervene in the WNP-2 proceeding.
The individual petitionere reside in Portland, Oregon I
approximately 180 air miles from WNP-2 and approximately 220 Columbia River miles downstream of WNP-2.
Thus, these petitioners reside at such a distance from the WNP-2 site "that, prima facie, there would appear to be no reasonable chance of [their] being at all adversely affected by either O
10/
normal operations or a credible accident."-~
River Bend, supra, 7 AEC at 226.
With respect to petitioner Hanford Conversion Project
("HCP"), the listing of the members of HCP attached to the petition to intervene reflects.that the members reside, in 9/ E.g., Portland __ General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-4 9 6, 7 NRC
, slip op. (September 12,
/')
1978) (40 miles); River Bend, supra, 7 AEC 222 (1974)
(25 miles) ; Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631 (1973)
(16 miles); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188 (1973) (40 miles) ; Waterford, suora, 6 AEC 371 (1973)
(20 miles); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3), ASLB Order (May 15, 1978)
(20 miles).
10/ We note that the Appeal Board recently confirmed that the most severe (Class 9) accidents are deemed to be so unlikely that they need not be hypothesized or evaluated by applicants or the NRC Staff.
Offshore Power System (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-4 89, 7 NRC slip op. at pp. 27-30 (August 21, 1978).
The courts l
have upheld the correctness of that position in several cases.
Porter County Chapter v. AEC, 533 F.
2d 1011, 1017-18 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S.
945 (1976);
CESG v. United States, 510 F.
2d 796, 799-800 (D.C. Cir.
1975).
the main, west of the Cascade Mountains, weil over 100 air
~
miles from the WNP-2 site.
The closest which any member of HCP lives to the site is approximately 65 air miles west (Yakima,. Washington).
The Yakima-River flows easterly from Yakima to Richland, Washington, where it joins the Columbia River flowing southeasterly.'
Since the WNP-2 site is north of Richland.
{])
on the Columbia River, it is physically impossible for possible waterborne radioactivity from WNP-2 to reach Yahima.
This factor, together with the rationale set forth abov,e relating to distance from the NNP-2 site, demonstrates that HCP cannot meet the " injury in fact" test.
It may be helpfui at this point to, discuss the legal
- concept of " injury in fact."
One focus of the " injury in fact" test.is the concept that a claim will not normally be
([)
entertained if the " asserted harm is a ' generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.
Warth v. Seldin, supra,
' hus, a generalized asserted harm such 422 U.S. at 499.
T i
as that alleged by the. petitioners here is not sufficient.
i They must demonstrate a " distinct and palpable harm to them."
Transnuclear, Inc., CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977).
_g_
Pctitionero hnva totally failed to dcmonotrato that some actual injury "has occurred or will probably result from the action involved."
Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC at 613.
The Commission noted in Pebble Springs that "a mere academic' interest in a matter, without any real impact on the person asserting it, will not confer standing."
Id.
Petitioners' vague and general assertions relating to "the areas of health and safety, economics and environment" are precisely the types of claims which both the Appeal Board and the Commission have recognized are not sufficient O
to establish standing.
In Portland General Electric Co.
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-333, 3 NRC 804, 806 (1976), the App. pal Board ruled that a petitioner's desire to assure "an economically, socially, and environmentally sound decision" is not sufficiently particularized to afford a basis for judicial standing.
The Commission agreed that such general claims cannot afford a basis for intervention.
Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC
~
. U, ll_/.
i at 614.
Likewise, what is lacking in the instant petition is a particularization of how the interests of petitioners might be adversely affected by the issuance of the WNP-2 operating license.
Accordingly, their petition for leave 11,/ Accord, Nuclear Engineering Co.,
Inc. (Sheffield Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC (1978) ; Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station),
ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420 (1976).
-ee-ee..ws,-
9.-
3
,e ee<
wwe,
e v-e----
10 -
to intervene as a matter of right should be denied.
We discuss discretionary intervention and why petitioners should not be granted such intervention in Part II.B.,
infra.
2.
Petitioners Fall Tc Set Forth A Valid Contention.
As noted, although petitioners were not required by 10 CFR S2.714 to include contentions in their petition at
'()
this time, they nevertheless did so.
Accordingly, we will address each contention, and will demonstrate that petition-ers have failed to state even one valid contention as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Section 2.714 (b) of the Rules, 10 CFR 52.714 (b), requires that a petitioner for leave to intervene "ist the contentions which it " seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity" (emphasis added).
Any petitioner which fails to state at least one valid contention "will not be permitted to participate as a party."
Contention 1.
The first contention relates to petitioners' allegation that the Applicant has not provided a cost / benefit analysis for WNP-2.
Petitioners apparently are unaware of or choose to ignore the exhaustive documentation prepared by the Applicant to support its application for a WNP-2
. gm eg,=w.%.--
--$s.w-p-
em -
e
'- re 4 e v f 1-9. S s
construction permit and, more recently, for an operating license.
Likewise, petitioners overlook the comprehensive review of that construction permit application and the independent evaluation of the then-AEC Staff prior to i
h issuance of that construction permit.
In fact, a detailed t
cost / benefit balance was struck by the Applicant and NRC Staff, and also by.the Licensing Board, in the WNP-2 construction permit proceeding, and an analysis of alternative energy sources also was performed.
6 AEC 197 (1973).
($)
That cost / benefit balance was updated by the Applicant i
in its Environmental Report - Operating License Stage ("ER")
which was docketed by the NRC on July 28, 1977 (42 Fed. Reg.
3'441 (1977)).
The Applicant up' dated the various costs and 8
benefits of, and alternatives to, WNP-2 in the ER.
ER Chap-ters 9 and 11.
Petitioners are flatly.in error when they allege that no cost / benefit analysis has been provided for
' WNP-2, and this erroneous allegation cannot be considered
' ()
as a valid contention.
Contention 2. The second contention relates to the need 1
I for additional generating plants in the Pacific Northwest.
Petitioners provide no support or basis for this contention, j
t nor is the contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
It is precisely to guard against these types of bald l
assertions that the Commission imposes a " reasonable specificity" requirement in 10 CFR 52.714 (b).
.__.,7,
12 -
Petitioners do not discuss or even acknowledge the l
Applicant's comprehensive need for power analysis in ER l
Chapter 1, nor do they particularize how that analysis I
is inadequate.
Clearly the mere allegation here is far from adequate to support a valid contention.
f Contention 3.
The third contention relates to the j
availability of permanent waste disposal of radioactive byproducts of WNP-2 power reactor operation.
Petitioners
[
()
assert that "[ulntil such a burial place is found, there should be no more production of radioactive waste."
This is an invalid contention as a matter of law, and must be i
rejected accordingly.
The Commission itself spoke to the generic question of waste disposal in responding to a petition for rulemaking i
seeking clarification on the waste disposal question and seeking a hiatus on issuance of operating licenses.
(.-)
I On July 5, 1977, the Commission published a notice that it had denied the petition.
42 Fed. Reg. 34391 (1977).
The commission concluded that it is not obligated to make a finding that safe methods of waste disposal are available prior to the licensing of a power reactor.
The Commission l
l l
further concluded, as follows:
l m evw.wan.2.
u m a--ea -e e ns w mm
,w.,
,w v,,c-e-
,v.-
,13,
"[I]t is neither necessary nor reason-able for the Commission to insist on 1
proof that a means of permanent waste i
disposal is on hand at the time reactor t
i operation begins, so long as the Com-l
?
mission can be reasonably. confident that permanent disposal.
. can be accomplished safely when it is likely to become necessary.
Reasonable progress towards the development of permanent disposal facilities is presently being accomplished.
Under these circumstances a halt in licensing of nuclear power l
plants is not required to protect the public health and safety."
42 Fed. Reg. 34391 (1977). 12/
(2>
The Appeal Board applied this rationale to I
t individual licensing proceedings when in Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 51 (1978), it concluded that neither the NRC Staff nor the Licensing Board need concern itself with the matter of the ultimate disposal of spent 13/
fuel.
Applying the conclusions of the Commission, I
together with the teachings of the Appeal Board in Prairie
()
Island, it is. clear beyond dispute that permanent waste disposal cannot be considered a valid contention.
i 12/ On July 5, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Commission's approach.
NRDC v. NRC, F.2d
, 11 ERC 1945 (2d Cir. 1978).
L 13/ The Prairie Island proceeding involved the proposed
-~
expansion of a spent fuel pool rather than an operating license.
However, this is a factual distinction of no legal significance.
The Commission made clear that permanent waste disposal is not an. appropriate issue "at the time reactor operation begins."
42 Fed. Reg. 34391 (1977).
O e
,y,,
m.w.. w u w
.,+ er we
-+w-'e
- * * - - ' = " ' - -
~'
~
14 _
l l
Contention 4.
The fourth contention relates to the transportation of radioactive materials to and from WNP-2, and to the alleged lack of " specific guidelines concerning the transportation of radioactive materials."
Petitioners apparently are unaware that there are detailed NRC regula-tions and guidelines relating to the packaging and trans-portation of radioactive material.
The Commission'a regula-tions, 10 CFR Part 71, apply to NRC licensees which l
{}
transport licensed material or which deliver license material to a carrier for transport.
In its transport or delivery of l
packages, a licensee is required by 10 CFR 571.5 to conform to certain standards and requirements of the Depart-i ment of Transportation
(" DOT"), 49 CFR Parts 170-189, 14 CFR Part 103, and 46 CFR Part 146.
In addition, detailed i
guidelines on various aspects of transportation of radio-t active materials are set forth in NRC Regulatory Guides 7.1,
(~}
7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8.
It is not alleged that the Applicant will not comply l
with all NRC and DOT regulations relating to the packaging l
l and transportation of radioactive materials.
Rather, the t
allegation by petitioners apparently is that there are i
no such regulations and guides, or at least none which is i
adequate.
If petitioners' proposed contention is so construed, it challenges the adequacy of existing NRC regulations, and pursuant to 10 CFR 52.758 may not be i
\\
entertained because it is a proscribed challenge to j
. m L
.2 z
cou2 w,%-ee_-,_..
.-r_,,w
..,r
.,m
. l NRC regulations.
E.g., Union of Concerned Scientists v.
AEC, 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ; Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 89 (1974).
In any event, this proposed contention is vague and general, and lacks supporting basis.
For those reasons alone the contention should be denied.
i Contention 5.
The fifth contention relates to safe-gumchs measures to protect nuclear facilities, and to U,
petitioners' allegation that such safeguards are inadequate to prevent " theft, sabotage and terrorism."
NRC regulations (10 CFR 550.13) provide that an appli-cant is not required to provide design features to protect against sabotage and other destructive acts by an enemy (foreign or domestic) of the United States.
See Siegel v.
AEC, 400 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
In addition, NRC 73 regulations (10 CFR Part 73) prescribe physical protection
\\
/
measures to protect against theft of special nuclear material and industrial sabotage at nuclear power reactors.
Again, it is not alleged that Applicant will not comply
(
with all pertinent safeguards regulations at WNP-2.
- Thus, this contention also is clearly a proscribed challenge to existing NRC regulations relating to the physical protection of nuclear plants and materials.
10 CFR S2.758; Douglas Point, supra.
As such, the contention.should be deniet.
~
8
.y
,_.7.e-.
,y-v
_7_
q k
i i,
1 t
' Contention 6.
The sixth contention relates to normal low-level reactor emissicos.-
P,etitioners demand that evidence s'
be provided to demonstrate that'such emissions are not harmful.
i NRC regulations pres'cribe standards for protection against f
radiation (10 CFR Pert 2,0), as well as numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for reactor -
operation to assure that radioactive effluents are main-tained at levels which'are."as low as is reasonably
. h achie'vable" (10 CPR Part 50, 550.36a and Appendix I).
s'These standa'ds and' guides;were developed after extensive i
t s
analysia by the NRC, the Federal' Radiation Council, and other competeht. Federal authorities, and represent the i
t,
studied judgment' of tha appropriate regulatory authorities
~'
as to acceptab1e levels of normal low-level emissions.
The App ndix I guidelines were developed after extensive public rulemaking hearings, and represent the Commission's i
l s
(~)
conclusion that releases meeting the guidelines will be m
i acceptably low.
Once more, it is not alleged that the Applicant will r
not comply with all applicable standards and guides i
t re.lating to low-level [ptissions.
Accordingly, petitioners' N
demand for evidende thst the emissions limitations established
~
in NRC regulations are not harmful is in effect a challenge
'to those r9gulations, and should be denied.
'10 CFR 52.758; I
Douglas Point suora.
N.
t,: w t
g
d i
'N k,
[ g:
,s I
g t.
w %
3 y
y; f,
'k
~
i
- gy -
1 I
Contention 7.
The seventh contention relates to a 14/
-~
hypothetical feel core-melt and to petitioners' demand that evidence be provided to demonstrate that the Emergency Core Cooling System ("ECCS") would prevent such a meltdown.
This proposed contention is clearly foreclosed by the Commis-
~
sion's decision in the ECCS hearings.
Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems, CLI-73-79, 6 AEC 1085 (1973).
Further, there is no allegation that the Applicant will not comply with NRC regulations.
Accordingly, this proposed con-tention must be treated as a challenge to NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 50, S50.46 and Appendix K), and must be denied.
10 CFR S2.758; Douglas Point, supra.
Accord, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2) Third Prehearing conference Order, 5 NRC 657, 661 (1977).
In sn===U, we submit that none of petitioners ' pro-posed contentions are set forth with the specificity and i
supporting bases required by 10 CFR S2.714.
They are nothing i
{~ )
more than unparticularized' statements of concern which should not be elevated to the status of formal contentions.
In addition, several o'f the proposed contentions are precluded as a matter of law'as either beyond the scope of the juris-l diction of a Licensing Board or as impermissible challenges f
to NRC regulations.
Accordingly, the petitioners fail to set forth a valid contention as required by 10 CFR S2.714.
t 14/
As discussed in note 10, supra, core-melt accidents (Class 9) are deemed to be so unlikely that they need not be hypothesized or evaluated by applicants or the NRC Staff.
Floating Nuclear Power Plants, supra.
(
~
~
18 -
B.
Petitioners Should Not Be Granted Discretionary Intervention In Pebble Springs, supra, the Commission concluded that in circumstances where standing to intervene as a matter of right is lacking, participation in the proceeding Euur nevertheless be allowed as a matter of discretion.
4 NRC at 614-17,.
The Commission suggested that such discretionary intervention might be granted "where petitioners show significant ability to contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which would not otherwise
)
be properly raised or presented, set forth these matters with suitable specificity to allow evaluation, and demon-strate their importance and immediacy, justifying the time necessary to consider them" (emphasis added).
4 NRC at 617.
It is clear that the most important factor to be considered is the extent of the contribution which might be expected of petitioners.
Sheffield, supra, 7 NRC at __,; Watts Bar,
({y supra, 5 NRC at 1422; Black Fox, supra, 5 NRC at 1145;
,Virgi.-ia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-363, 4 NRC 631 (1976).
Other factors
~
to be considered are those set forth in 10 CFR SS2.714 (a) and (d).
Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC at 616.
The petition to intervene here indicates that there is absolutely no need for a hearing *to be conducted on the WNP-2 operating license application.
Petitioners have raised no issues of substance which require resolution in a hearing, but rather have set forth merely unparticularized statements
-+ p-es OSm.
- -+t
- e.pp gpe gmq _
q-4
,9 y
m 4%g
<._s, m
9 -$ -
-q
+-., gyme,rf f
19 - e f+m7--'m 9 t *e**-W---
. of concern (see Part II. A.2, supra). 'In addition, they have demonstrated no unique, special, or even general expertise which would contribute to the development of a sound evidentiary record on substantial issues.
As noted, the Commission in Pebble Springs, supra, 4 NRC at 617, contemplated a showing of "significant ability to contribute on substantial issues."
Petitioners have raised no such issues, and certainly have provided no indication that they have any
,g ability to contribute, let alone a "significant" ability to do so.
As.to the other factors specified in 10 CFR SS2.714 (a) and (d) for consideration in evaluating permissive inter-vention, none weighs in favor of granting the instant petition.
As noted, there is absolutely,no indication based upon the superficial pleading filed by petitioners that their participation may reasonably be expected to
]
' (. )
assist in developing a sound record.
In addition, petitioners' stated interest in the proceeding is too remote to weigh in favor of granting permissive intervention, fails to establish the necessary " injury in fact," and is simply not within the " zone of interests" protected by NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act.
Thus, petitioners have no legal interest in the proceeding, and any order which may be entered in the proceeding would have not direct cognizable effect on petitioners.
l On the other hand, the concerns raised by petitioners would normally be evaluated by the NRC Staff during the
..m.
l.~
20 -
i i
course of its review of any application, including the WNP-2 application.
The NRC Staff represents the general l
1 public in NRC proceedings and reviews, and will certainly represent these petitioners and explore their general j
concerns in the performance of its overall review of the l
WNP-2 application.
Most important of the factors to evaluate in the con-text of discretionary intervention is, in the Applicant's l
view, the compelling fact that petitioners' participation l
g-t will significantly and inappropriately broaden and delay i
this proceeding.
As noted, this operating license applica-l l
tion would be uncontested and, as such, not involve a I
hearing, if petitioners are denied intervention.
In these circumstances, and mindful of the teachings of the Appeal Board in Zimmer, supra, this Licensing Board convened to
)
rule on the instant petition to intervene must take the utmost care to assure that these petitioners have a true and sub-II) stantial stake in the proceeding and that they have raised l
a val' d contention which on its face raises an issue clearly i
open to adjudication.
l The instant petition utterly fails to establish that j
petitioners have a stake in the proceeding or have a valid contention.
Tha facts revealed by the petition clearly indicate that these failures are not a matter of j
draftsmanship, but of the realities of the situation.
Both proximity and expertise in the technical subject are
\\
e93
- e?,
e m =,iw we s
- m s(-a,rp e 4-s' cese r m
-p-e--
r T*~w
obviously lacking.
Accordingly, the Licensing Board should not subject the Applicant to a protracted hearing
?
at the sole instance of these petitioners.
Permissive intervention should not be granted to these petitioners.
III.
CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the Licensing Board should deny the petition to intervene as a matter of right, and also should refuse to grant permissive tervention.
()
Respec fu y submitted, K
b Joseph notts, Jr.
Nicho:
s Reynolds DEBEVOISE LIBERMAN Counsel for the Applicant l
September 22, 1978 h
l 1
l l
- =
w%y -*'
s mwo w
--wms e=
^*
so, - - * -
r m
p
--a v
+r
, \\ A I IIty UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (M
Ngan
- it SC gi BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e j** h 6
s,j In the Matter of
)
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER
)
SUPPLY SYSTEM
)
Docket No. 50-397-OL
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)
)
CERnnCATE OF SERVICE O
I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer In Opposition.To Petition For Leave To Intervene," dated September 22, 1978, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this,22nd day of September, 1978:
Elizabeth S. Gowers, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and
( ;
Dr. Richard F. Cole Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 William D.
Paton, Esq.
Office of the Executive l
Mr. Ernest E. Hill Legal Director Lawrence Livermore Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j
University of California Commission P. O. Box 808, L-123 Washington, D.C.
20555 Livermore, California 94550 I
. Ms. Susan M. Garrett Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.
7325 S. E. Steele Street Washington Public Power i
Portland, Oregon 97206 Supply System Post Office Box 968 Ms. Helen Vozenilek Richland, Washington 99352 7214 S. E. 28th Street Portland, Oregon 97202 Mr. Chase R.
Stephens
~
. Docketing & Service Section Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman Commission Energy Facility Site Washington, D.C.
20555 Ev&luation Council 820 East Fifth Street Olympia, Washington 98501 O
16 i
Nichola S
Reynolds V
r I
e cc:
Gerald C. Sorensen O. Keener Earle S
l t
J b
.._ _ _