ML20148T086
| ML20148T086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1978 |
| From: | Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812040299 | |
| Download: ML20148T086 (24) | |
Text
unanmuCD q 4p ,,
m \ -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y M v,/ T pf*'
BEFORE THE AT0filC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g .
y is v-In the Matter of I
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY (Amendment of Materials License )
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station ) Docket No. 70-2623 SpentFuelTransportationandStorage) --
at McGuire Nuclear Station) )
NRC STAFF BRIEF ON STANDING 0F THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) TO INTERVENE IN THIS PROCEEDING
>f Q
Edward G. Ketchen November 8, 1978"- -
Counsel for NRC Staff -
e 781204o997 O
C
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STATEMENT OF STAFF P0SITION................................. 1 II. ISSUES BRIEFED.............................................. 1 III. BACKGROUND.................................................. 2 IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED STANDING AS A MATTER 5
OF RIGHT....................................................
A. Standing to Intervene is Posited on Identification of Individuals and Their Interests to be Affected. . . . . . . 6 B. Disclosure of Organiz;tional Membership Lists is Not Sought by NRC,.and Thus is Not an Issue in this Proceeding..,.'...................................... 9 V. . PETITIONER MAY BE ADMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION........................ 12 VI. C0NCLUSION.................................................. 22 O
G
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l In the Matter of )
)
D UKE POWER COMPANY )
)
(Amendment of Materials License ) Docket No. 70-2623 SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station )
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station) )
NRC STAFF BRIEF ON STANDING 0F THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) TO INTERVENE IN THIS PROCEEDING I.
STATEMENT OF STAFF POSITION NRDC has failed to establish standing as a matter of right. NRDC may be permitted to intervene as a matter of discretion. -
l II.
j ISSUES BRIEFED
- 1. Whether NRDC, as an organization, has standing in the above-captioned proceedings if NRDC fails to identify a member within the zone of interest protected by the applicable statutes who may be injured in fact by the proposed action, and who has specifically authorized .
NRDC to represent that individual's interest. .
- 2. Whether NRDC may be permitted "to intervene as a matter of m discretion, if it fails to establish standing as a matter of -,
right.
. . Review of the respective filings and the prehearing conference discussion reveals the problem. NRDC refuses to specifically identify an NRDC member who may incur an injury in fact within the zone of interests.
protected by statute and who has authorized NRDC to act on that. person's behalf in these proceedings.1/ The Board questioned whether it could know as a matter of fact whether there was an individual meeting the Commission's standing criteria.2/ The Applicant's position is that -
NRDC has not established standing as a matter of right.E The NRC Staff response to NRDC's petition to intervene opposed NRDC's admission for failure to establish standing as a matter of right.O -
In pertinent part, the Staff stated:
"Although NRDC states a concern within the zone of interest protected by statute, its petition as now drawn does not meet the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. 62.714. The petition does not indicate the names of any members of the named organizations who live,-work, or 'are engaged in activities along the prcposed transportation routes, near to the Oconee facility, or near to the McGuire facility's spent fuel pool. The Commission requires as a minimum identification of organization members living, working, or engaging in activities near the proposed transportation routes and how their interests will be affected by the proposed amendment. Barnwell, supra, at 423. Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-136, 6 AEC 487, 488-489 (1973); Duquesne Light Company (Beaver Valley Unit 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 244,n.2 (1973); Public 1/ T r. 34.
U Tr. 43 ,
E Tr. 47 ..
O "NRC Staff response to the Natural Resources Defense Council Petition to Intervene," September 11,1978, p. 5-6. At the time of its response to NRDC's petition to intervene the NRC staff took no position on question of discretionary intervention because it recognized that NRDC could possibly cure the defects in its petition with respect to standing as a matter of right under the Commissions rules of practice Ibid., p. 6.
. Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976). Standing to intervene may be based upon residence in the vicinity of activity.
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC 631 (1973). Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, T XEC 188, 190 (1973), aff'd. CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973).
The Addendum filed on September 7,1978E by NRDC does not cure the petition's defect by specifically naming persons who live or work in the vicinity of the proposed action or whether NRDC has been authorized to represent their interests in this proceading. The Board is required to have a clear and current showing that NRDC members do in fact reside near the place of the proposed activity, that their interests are those set forth in the petition, and that NRDC is the ,
authorized representative for this proceeding, if such is the case. C_f. Bar1well, supra, at 423, See, e.g. , Consumers Power Company (Mid'.and Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329-0.L., 50-330-0.L., " Memorandum and Order," Slip. lo .
August 14, 1978, North Anna, ALAB-146, supra, at 633 (the adjudicatory process may be invoked by only those persons who have real interests at stake and who seek resolution of concrete issues.)
It is possible that these defects can be cured by NRDC. _
(Footnote omitted).
During the course of the hearing the Licensing Board directed the NRC Staff, the NRDC, and the Applicant to brief the question of NRDC's standing.1/
E upra, S n. 1.
El Tr. 55-58. We have also addressed the matter of discretionary inter-vention of NRDC on the assumption that the Board questions on discretionary intervention during the prehearing conference implied that the Board would ".
like to hear from the NRDC, the NRC Staff, and the Applicant on this N
issue as well.
e
IV.
PETITIONER liAS NOT DEMONSTRATED STANDING AS A MATTER OF RIGHT For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff continues to believe that NRDC has not adequately demonstrated its standing to intervene as a matter of right considering all matters contained in NRDC's initial petition, dated August 21, 1978, the Addendum to the initial petition, September 7, 1978 and statements at the prehearing conference on October 24, 1978.
Moreover, NRDC now attempts to evade the question of standing, as that concept has been traditionally understood and decided, by attemptino to characterize the issue as involving an effort to compel the production of NRDC's entire membership lists.1/ Such lists have no bearing on the question of standing now before this Licensina Board.
A. Standing to Intervene is Posited on Identification of Individuals and Their Interests to be Affected Commission regulations have consistently been interpreted to require the petitioner, NRDC, to state with particularity its interest in the proceeding -
and how that interest may be affected by the results of that proceeding ,
in order to establish standing. See 10 CFR 52.714(d). Intervention m
9 3I T r. 26-29; 33-40.
as a matter of right in Commission licensing hearings is governed by l
l judicial concepts of standing, which require that the petitioner l
demonstrate a personal interest in the outcome of the proceeding and that the interest is at least arguably within the " zone of interests" protected by the statute invoked.1/ An organization may be found to have standing to intervene if it can show that it or its members have such an interest.2/ -
When an organization's standing is based upon the interests of its members, it must identify one or more individual members, describe specifically how their interests will be affected by the proposed action, and demonstrate that those members have authorized the organization to act on their behalf.3_/
1/ ortland P General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, -
Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-614 (1976).
2_/ Allied General Nuclear Services, et al_. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420 (1976).
3/ Allied General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and '
Storage Station), ALAB-328, supra at 422-23; Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB- ,
136, 6 AEC 487, 488-89 (1973); Duquesne Light Company, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-108, 6 AEC 243, 244,at n. 2 (1973). ~
An examination of the facts in the Barnwell case is instructive.
There, as to ACLU /SC'sE p etition to intervene, even an individual member's affidavit attesting to the truth of the petition was found insufficient to support standing, where affiant did not specify her particular civil liberties or property interests believed to be affected by approval of the proposed action. Not only does the NRDC petition here fail to present a particularized statement of any individual member's interest in the proceeding and how such interest would be affected by the proposed action; it fails to identify even one member who has such an interest.
NRDC's reliance on the Marble Hill I case is misplaced. In that case,the Appeal Board simply held that an organization may represent the ir,terests of its members without showing that its corporate interests are also -
adversely affected. The Appeal Board then applied this rule and affirmed a finding of standing where affidavits of a member and the organization's director established the interest of the member. It is, of course,
~ ~
NRDC's refusal to identify such an affected member, his interest, and his willingness to have NRDC represent that interest, which distinguishes this case. ..
E merican A Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina.
2_/ Tr. 49. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328 (1976). . _ ,
U - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _
Finally, the line of judicial decisions allowing organizations to l
represent the interests of their members does not support admission of NRDC as a party without amplification of its petition to intervene.E Those decisions reaffirmed the requirement that one seeking
" judicial" review of administrative action must have suffered an " injury in fact," alleged in a manner capable of proof at trial. Further, in no way have these cases impaired the basic legal principle that one party may not represent another without express authority to do so. I The NRC Staff submits that upon this latter point NRDC's petition must also fail. Although alluding to rights and affected interests of unnamed members presumably within the protected sphere of interests, the petition (as amended by the Addendum, September 7,1978, and at oral ~
argument) fails to allege NRDC's authorization by those members to serve as their representative in this litigation. Although the " overwhelming support" of such members of NRDC for their organizations' nuclear activities
~
is asserted,E ntervention i is alleged to have been authorized not by such affected members, but "by the Staff and Legal Committee of the NRDC Board of Trustees as part of its general authorization of our efforts to assure .
-1/ See, eg. , Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S.
333 (1977); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1976); United States *
- v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
-2/ Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
LBP-77-ll, 5 NRC 481 (1977).
-3/ " Addendum to NRDC Petition for Leave to Intervene", September 7, 1973, p. 1.
a rational approach to the problem of spent fuel storage."1/ [ Emphasis added]. We submit that the NRDC Staff and Legal Committee of the NRDC Board of Trustees is not legally competent to authorize NRDC to represent individual interests of persons who by happenstance are members of NRDC.
The NRDC petition to intervene filed on August 21, 1978 concludes with the .
statement that "The Natural Resources Defense Council has long been opposed to ag! hoc efforts to deal with short-term pressures created by the absence of a permanent nuclear waste storage solution."2/ Clearly, this is an allegation of an unspecific "public interest" (as opposed to a member's particularized interest) motivation which led the United States Supreme l Court to deny standing in Sierra Club v. Morton, supra.
B. Disclosure of Organizational Membership Lists is Not Sought by NRC, and Thus is Not an Issue in this Proceeding NRDC attempts to avoid the basically factual issues involved in establishing standing by seeking to invoke protection against the disclosure of its membership lists.2/ The NRC Staff submits that requiring the -
identification of at least one member whose specific rights and interests may l/ Ibid, p. 2.
2/ " Natural Resources Defense Council Petition for Leave to Intervene", -
August 21, 1978, p. 4; See Tr. 49-50. ,
2/ T r. 26-29; 33-40. *W
be examined in the hearing context simply does not raise the issue of compelled disclosure of organizational membership lists.
I The Supreme Court's opinion in NAACP v. Alabamal/ does not vitiate the requirement of identification of parties in litigation. The Supreme Court in the NAACP v. Alabama .was faced with the Alabama's attempt to obtain the NAACP's entire membership lists under the guise of enforcing compliance with the State's foreign corporation statute. Finding a chilling effect upon freedom of association produced by the State's implementation of such statute was not relevant to the organization's "doing business" within the State, the Court did not require disclosure of the NAACP membership lists .
noting that the organization had "made an uncontroverted showing" of past harms to known members upon revelation of their identity.2/ More important a distinction, however, is the fact that the state agency was seeking to compel disclosure of the membership lists (and, indeed, had obtained a court order to that effect) as a predicate to virtually all aspects of the organization's existence within the State. ..
3/ 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
2/ 357 U.S. at 462. Harms cited there far exceed the speculative and vague allegations in the affidavits served by NRDC Counsel _,
at the October 24, 1978 prehearing conference. Tr. 26.
Such a case, and the atmosphere in which it occurred, has no bearing on the nuclear licensing procedures challenged here. The Commission's regulations and precedent do not require, nor seek, membership lists of the petitioner. All that is sought is the identification of at least
~
one individual member, and a specification of that person's potentially affected interests, so that such factors may be adjudicated in the public hearing requested by such presently unna'med individual (s), as provided by the regulations and the Atomic Energy Act. Absent such specifically identified potential harms to at least one person, there is no basis for requiring a hearing on the merits of the general issues asserted by NRDC. Sierra Club v. Morton, supra.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as Buckley v. Valeoll make clear that disclosure of identity as a condition of undertaking a certain activity (there, the making of a political campaign contribution in excess of $10), even if the activity is constitutionally protected, is not invariably prohibited. Disclosure was upheld in Buckley, as serving substantial government interests which outweighed any potential infringement upon First Amendment rights. NRC Staff submits that the mere identification of one person in this proceeding who ,
is alleged to be harmed, actually or potentially, and who seeks to e
+N 1/ 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
have "RDC invoke his statutory right to a hearing, presents a de minimis threat to petitioner's organizational rights when balanced against the substantial commitment of time, money and manpower incurred when the administrative processes are to be set in motion.
For the above reasons, NRC Staff opposes NRDC's petition to intervene as a matter of right based upon its initial petition of August 21, 1978, the Addendum filed on September 7,1978, and oral arguments made at the prehearing conference on October 24, 1978, V. -
PETITIONER MAY BE ADMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION The Commission has considered the availability of intervention as a matter discretion, in circumstances where judicial standing is lacking.1/
~ '
In Pebble Springs, the following guidelines were established for the exercise of discretion:
--1/
Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Muclear Plant, Units -
1 and 2)~, CLI-76-27, NRCI-76/12, 2 NRC 61D, 614-617 (December 23,1976). _
e O
h _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
In determining in a particular case whether or not to permit intervention by petitioners who do not meet the tests for intervention as a matter of right, adjudicatory boards should exercise their discretion based on an assessment of all facts and circumstances of the particular case. Some factors bearing on the exercise of this discretion are suggested by our regulations, notably those governing the analogous ~
case where the petition for intervention has been filed late,10 CFR 62.714(a), but also the factors set forth in 10 CFR 62.714(d) governing intervention generally:
(a) Weighing ~in favor of allowing intervention-(1) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the _
petitioner's interest.
(b) Weighing against allowing intervention-(4) The availability of other means whereby petitioner's interests will be protected.
(5) The extent to which the petitioner's interests will be represented by existing -
parties.
(6) The extent to which petitioner's orparticipation will inappropriately broadenNRCI-76/12 at 616."37 delay the proceeding. ,_
7-1/ ebble P Springs, supra, at 666.
__-_______m__
The Appeal Board has observed that foremost among the factors to allowing participation as a matter of discretion, is whether such participation would likely produce a valuable contribution... to our decision-making process. In the words of the Conmission in Pebble Springs _, ' permission to intervene should prove more -
readily available where petitioners show significant ability to contributeon substantial issues of law or fact which will not otherwise be properly raised or presented, set I forth these matters with suitable specificity to allow I evaluation, and demonstrate their importance and l inmediacy, justifying the time necessary to consider them.' NRCI-76/12 at 614-17 1/
Applying these guidelines to the NRDC pleadings as explained by the NRDC statements made at the prehearing conference held on October 24, 1978 in Charlotte, North Carolina, this Board should find that a basis for granting discretionary intervention has been established. NRDC's" participation, however, in these proceedings should be limited to the issues set forth in Contentions 3.c. and 3.d. (alternative storage at the Oconee in the existing spent fuel pool or in a new spent fuel pool
~
at the Oconee site), and Contention 4 (related to residual risk).
~
1/ Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Units -
1 and 2), ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, at 1145. See: Tennessee Valley Authority
~
(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-36, 5 NRC 1292,1294-95 -
(1977). ,
2_ / Supra, n. 1. ~
This is to be distinguished from allowing NRDC to participate as a full Intervenor across the board on all issues admitted by the hearing board in this proceeding.1/
Foremost among the factors involved in granting discretionary intervention is whether such participation would likely produce a valuable contribution to the decision-making process.2_/
The NRDC's ability to state several viable contentions with the requisite specificity and adequate delineation of a basis, namely Contention 3.c.,
3.d and Contention 4 (except for the statement that, "The NRC regulations
,et leve?s for workers ten times higher than acceptable even if the BEIR
~
Committee calculation of health effects is used,")3] indicates a likelihood that NRDC could make a valuable contribution to the decision-making process in this case. In addition, with respect to the two alternatives described by Contention 3.d. and 3.d. which relat to the alternatives of storage at the Oconee site, NRDC appears to have significant ability to contribut on this issue of fact. As pointed out by NRDC Counsel at the hearing, NRDC attached to its original ,
petition to interveneb a study conducted by Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, 1/ ebble P Springs, 2 NRC, at 617.
2/ Ibid.
-3/ " Natural Resources Defense Council Statement of Contentions", October 6, 1978, p. 5. This statement constitutes an attack on the regulations. Tr.122.
- 4) " Natural Resources Defense Council Petition for Leave to Intervene,"
August 21, 1978.
4 NRDC's principal technical expert on the question of whether expansion of spent fuel storage capability at the Oconee facility appears to be technically feasibh.1/ Dr. Cochran's qualifications indicate that he could be of assistance to the Board in Contention 3.c. and 3.d. , and Contention 4. 2/
Also attached to NRDC's original petition for leave to intervene is a copy of the NRDC Comments on NUREG-0404, the Draft Generic Environmental Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Lightwater Power Reactor Fuel.
That document, signed by Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, a1NRDC Staff scientist, addressed the issue of storage of spent fuel at reactor sites as a general proposition. The fact that Dr. Tamplin may be made available by NRDC on Contention 3.c. and 3.d. is a factor weighing in favor of NRDC's discretionary intervention on that issue. Although the alter-
~
native storage issue (NRDC Contention 3) is in this case as a contention of the three other admitted intervenors, it is doubtful that the contribution that the Drs. Cochran and Tamplin might make would be otherwise available if NRDC is not permitted to participate on this question. For this reason, this factor weighs in favor of the admission of NRDC on Contention 3.c. and 3.d. and Contention 4 as a matter of discretion.3]
1/ Tr.142. '
2] A description of Dr. Cochran's background and experience is attached to NRDC's Statement of Contentions, October 6,1978. ,
E Ibid.
With respect to Contention 4 (residual risks from low level radiatioh) it is also apparent that the participation of both Dr. Tamplin and Dr.
Cochran on this issue could be of value in the decision-making process.
No other Intervenor has raised this issue in this proceeding.
1 We agree with NRDC that it is no better qualified than anyone else to raise the issues described in Contentions 5 and 7.1/ NRDC has not l indicated that it will provide any factual expertise which would be a valuable contribution to the decision-making process in this case.
Accordingly, the fact that no other Intervenor, as of right, raised the matters described in Contentions 5 and 7, but NRDC did, does not support discretionary intervention on those two issues.
The first factor weighirig in favor bf allowing intervention under the
~
Participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. As set forth above, the first factor weighs in favor of NRDC's discretionary intervention on Contentions 3.c. and 3.d. , and -
E-Contention 4.
1/ Tr.142.
The second factor to be considered which might favor the grant of disuei.ionary intervention is the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding. NRDC's unwill-ingness to supply any information beyond its institutional interests weighs against discretionary intervention.E NRDC has refused to -
identify a member of its organization which has any property, financial, or other interests in this proceeding.
Similarly, the third factor, i.e., the possible effect of any order on the petitioner's "special interest" as a national environmental organization does not support intervention, and there is no member of NRDC who has been identified and who has a particular interest that will be affected by any specific order entered by this Licensing Board. A generalized undifferentiated interest could not result in any adverse effects to persons or property.2/
1/ This generalized "special interest" is not enough to warrant admission ~
of NRDC as an intervenor in this proceeding as a matter of right.
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radiation Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978).
2] Watts Bar, supra, at 297.
On the fourth factor, there are no clear other means whereby NRDC's specific participation on Contention 3.c. and 3.d. could be fostered.
The significant contribution that Drs. Cochran and Tamplin might make l on this factor supports allowing discretionary intervention on this question. With respect to the fourth factor, NRDC should also be admitted as a discretionary intervenor on Contention 4. NRDC has said that it is seeking a rule change with respect to 10 C.F.R. 520.101.II -
However, the fact that NRDC has alleged a specific contention related to the proposed activity on which it indicates some capability of adding a significant contribution and the fact that no other petitioner raised this issue in this instance tips the scale in favor of allowing NRDC in on Contention 4, except for the one sentence that constitutes" an impermissible attack on the regulations. I Y " Natural Resources Defense Council Statement of Contentions",
(September 7, 1978), p. 5. ~
Y The objectionable language is: "The NRC regulations set levels for '
workers 10 times higher than acceptable even if the BEIR Committee ^
calculation of health effects is used." NRDC Statement of Contention.s, p. 5.
While other parties who have.similar interests to those espoused by' NRDC have been admitted to this proceeding, the fifth factor favors NRDC's discretionary intervention, at least on Contentions 3.d. , 3.d. ,
and Contention 4.
l As discussed above, the ability of NRDC to bring forth expertise in these areas weighs in favor of their admission on Contentions 3.c. and 3.d., and 4 at least. It is unlikely that NRDC's interest will be represented by existing parties on Contention 4 since no other party raised this contention. While other parties have stipulated to the admissibility of a contention on a7+ernative storage at the Oconee site,1/
this factor should not weigh against allowing intervention on Contention 3.c. and 3.d. NRDC has indicated its ability to make a significant ~
contribution on this issue in its Contention 3.d. and 3.d.
The sixth factor, the extent to which NRDC's participation will inappropriately
~
broaden or delay the proceeding, does not weigh against allowing inter-vention with respect to NRDC's Contention 3.d. and 3.d. and Contention 4.
Since NRDC is capable of providing valuable testimony through Drs. Tamplin ,
and Cochran slight broadening or delaying of the proceeding is outweighed particularly since the subject matter of 3.c. and 3.d. will be covered in any event. Admission of Contentions 5 and 7, would unduly broaden and ,
1/ Stipulated Contentions 1 of Carolina Environmental Study Group, Carolina Action, and Safety Energy Alliance. See " Order Following Prehearing Conference", (November 3, 1972).
delay the proceeding and NRDC admittedly has not indicated that it has _
any special expertise in these areas which would assist the Board by making a significant and valuable contribution to the decision-making process.1 /
The Staff believes that foil consideration of the factors weighing in favor and against allowing discretionary intervention on balance favor NRDC's admission as a matter of discretion on Contention 3.c.
and 3.d., and Contention 4.
~.
1I Tr. 141-144. .
e V'
.tt
VI.
CONCLUSION NRDC's intervention as a matter of right in this proceeding should be denied. After weighing the factors set forth by the Commission in Pebble Springs, including the very important factor of whether a valuable contributicn to the decision-making process could be added by allowing intervention as a matter of discretion, the Staff believes that NRDC could be admitted as a discretionary intervenor with respect to Contention 3.c. and 3.d. ,
and Contention 4 1/ as those contentions are set forth in its statement of contentions of October 6, 1973. NRDC's discretionary intervention should be limited solely to those two issues in accordance with the guidelines of Pebble Springs, supra _.
Rec uectfullysubmitted,d M. A Mw Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, fiaryland this 8th day of November,1978.
-1/ The NRC Staff, however, objects to that part of Contention 4, which ,
argues that the Commission's regulations are unacceptable. This is an attack on the Commission's regulations. supra , n. 2, p.19. Potomac _
Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2)
ALAB-218,8AEC79,88-89(1974).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials Licente )
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station )
Spent Fuel Transoortation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF BRIEF ON STANDING OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) TO INTERVENE IN THIS PROCEEDING" dated November 8, 1978, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the follow.ing, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of November, 1978:
Robert M. Lazo, Esq. , Chairman Ms. Brenda Best Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1740 E. Independence Blvd.'
Washington, D. C. 20555 Charlotte, North Carolina 28205 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. , Director Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Bodega Marine Laboratory Natural Resources Defense Council University of California 917 - 15th Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 247 Washington, D. C. 20005 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Mr. Jeremy Bloch Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Safe Energy Alliance Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1707 Lombardy Circle U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Washington, D. C. 205S5 Shelley B lum, Esq.
W. L. Porter, Esq.
418 Law Building Associate General Counsel 730 East Trade Street -
Legal Department Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Duke Power Company '
422 South Church Street J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Debevoise & Liberman
~
700 Shoreham Building l h o . $0
P A
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Charles Gaddy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2501 Washington, D.C. 20555 Davidson College Davidson, N.C. 28036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 l
Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of South Carolina 2500 Bull Street I Columbia, South Carolina 29201 C. i -
.4 s . i. . ;- - .: ,
u.
Edward G. Ketchen Counsel for NRC Staff m
.