ML19341B684

Answer Opposing Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Petitioners Have Not Shown Sufficient Interest to Establish Standing & Should Not Be Granted Intervention. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance

ML19341B684
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry, Robinson
Issue date:	01/27/1981
From:	Burger J, Sanger H, Wallace L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19341B683	List: ML19341B684
References
NUDOCS 8102030660
Download: ML19341B684 (15)

Text

- . . - . _ _ - - _ - . . . .-_- .__ - - . ._ . - - - . _ _ .

j .

)  ?? f O -

UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA -

t

' ~ '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t! MISSION In the ?!atter of )

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-259 4 ) 50-260 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, ) 50-296 Units 1, 2, and 3) )

j t

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO PETITIONS FOR LEAVE

. TO INTERVENE AND REQUESTS FOR A HEARING STATEMENT AND SLW1ARY This is a proceeding concerning amendments to the outstand-t ing operating licenses for applicant Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The. amend-I ments will authorize the onsite storage, for up to five years, of l

low-level radwaste generated by the normal operation of the plant.

The application, and associated materials filed with it, demonstrate that total radiation doses attributable to the facility for which.

permission is sought will be inconsequential. Even at the boundaries

~

of the site, the low-level wastes stored in the planned facility will' not contribute measurably to the level of background radiation already,

.present.

A Notice of Consideration of Amendments to Facility Operating

~ Licenses was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 11, 8'102030 @

1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 81,697. Four identical petitions for leave to intervene and requests for a hearing have been filed by various citi-zens residing in the Alabama communities of Florence, Huntsville, and Shtffield.I The petitioners allege that they have an interest in the t

proceeding based generally on their status (1) as residents and property owners in close geographical proximity to the plant; (2) as customers for power from several municipal or cooperative electrical systems, each of which purchase and obtain its electricity from TVA;

. (3) as users of water and air "which may be affected by the proceed-l ing"; and (4) as consumers of foodstuffs, both animal and vegetable,

" grown and raised in cisse proximity to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant." The petitioners all contend that the granting of license amendments may increase health and safety risks to them and their descendants by (1) " increasing the on-site' radioactive inventory and the risk of radioactive contamination to them and their descendants";

(2) " increasing the risk of fire"; (3) increasing the risk of air

~

contamination and water pollution; and (4) increasing the risk of unspecified "other dangers" to petitioners and their descendants.

The petitions are defective. They fail-to meet the require-ments for intervention specified in section 189 of the Atomic Energy l

l 1 The signers of the petitions are: John R. Martin (Sheffield, Alabama), Noel M. Beck (Florence, Alabama), Robert W. Beck.(Florence, Alabama), Betty L. Martin (Sheffield, Alabama), Greg Brough

.(Huntsville, Alabama), Michael D. Pierson (Huntsville, Alabama), David Ely (Huntsville, Alabama), Debbie Havas (Huntsville, Alabama), Nancy Muse (Florence, Alabama), Richard L. Freeman (Florence, Alabama),

l Alice N. Colcock (Sheffield, Alabama), and David R. and.Ivonna Curott (Florence, Alabama).

2

Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 2239 (1976), and set out in section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (1980). The Rules of Practice require that, among other things, the petitioners must establish: (1) the nature of the petitioners' right under the Atomic Energy Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioners' property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioners' interest. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(d). The petitions here fail to demonstrate sufficient interest in the proceeding to justify intervention, either as of right or in the discretion of the Commission. Accordingly, TVA respectfully requests that all of the petitions for leave to intervene be denied.

ARGUMEhl' I .

Petitioners Have No Standing To Intervene.

The Atomic Energy Act provides that the Commission "shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected [by the grant of a license amendment] and shall admit any l

such person as a party to such proceeding." Section 189 of the Atomic 2 A pleading which is insufficient to support the granting of intervenor status will not be suf ficient to trigger a hearing.

10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1). See In re Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts j Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977).

3

. _ ~ - - -_. .. __ ._ . . - ..

4 Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S 2239 (1976). In order to i

establish a sufficient interest under the Act to support such interven-tion, a petitioner must satisfy the familiar principles of standing, often articulated by the courts and the administrative agencies. A l petitioner must " allege that he has been or will in fact be percep-tibly harmed by the challenged agency action, not that he can imagine circumstances in which he could be affected by the agency's action."

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 688-89 (1973).

In Portland Gen. Elec. Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976), the Commission outlined the requirements of standing to intervene in a licensing proceeding and stated that the test of standing applied by the courts i

also applies to commission proceedings. The Commission held that to satisfy the requirements of standing a petitioner must show (a) injury in fact, and (b) that the injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected by statute. Id. See also In re Consumers Power Co. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-79-20,10 NRC 108 (1979).

When each of the petitioners' several allegations of interest is examined, the insufficiency of the allegations to meet the test of standing is clear. First,-petitioners' claim that they are consumers of power purchased from TVA through local distribution systems does not establish' standing. The mere economic concerns of ratepayers are not within the zones of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act.

Portland Gen. Elec Co. , supra, 4 NRC 613-14. In fact, the Atomic 4

Licensing and Appeal Board considered precisely the same issue in another proceeding involving TVA and reached the same conclusion. In re Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-415, 5 NKC 1418, 1421 (1977).

Second, the petitioners' allegations of injury based on radioactivity from proposed fatility are insufficient. The present operating license allows the production, collection, processing, storage, packaging, and shipment of low-level radioactive waste

. generated at the plant. The amendment applied for would simply permit TVA to store the low-level waste on the site for up to five years, rather than shipping it to a disposal facility as presently contem-plated. TVA's application does not in any way involve the operation of the nuclear plant itself and the amendment would thus have no effect on plant operation or its previously determined environmental i

impacts. The quantity of radioactive material and potential radiation doses to members of the public as a result of the proposed intermediate-term onsite storage of low-level radwaste are several orders of magni-tude smaller than the potential public exposure due to plant operation (which are themselves small as compared with natural background radiation). The proposed storage facility will not produce additional levels of radiation significant from a health and safety standpoint on the plant site, or at.its boundaries. Because the levels of radia-

~

I tion at the plant site will be so low as -to cause no concern for public l

health and safety, it is obvious that persons situated 30 miles from the site, such as the petitioners, have.no demonstrable basis in fact l

5

to fear harm, and thus have no claim to standing. The present situa-tion is factually different from that in the decisions that hold that mere geographical proximity to a power reacter is sufficient to estab-lish standing in a power reactor licensing proceeding. See, e.g.,

In re Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 193'(1973).

The petitioners' other allegations of possible interests that could be affected by the amendment (e.g., increasing the risk of

- fire, or loss of property value) completely lack the required specificity under the Commission's rules. Accordingly, the peti-tioners have failed to establish standing as' a matter of right with respect to any of their alleged interests in the proceeding.

II Petitioners Should Not Be Granted j Intervention as a Matter ,

of Discretion.

Finally, this is not a case where petitioners should be permitted to intervene as a matter of administrative discretion. .In determining whether to permit discretionary intervention, the foremost i

factor for consideration is whether such participation isslikely to l

produce a valuable contribution to the decisionmaking procesc. See Portland Gen. Elec. Co., supra,'4 NRC 617. .See also In're Pub. Serv.

Co. of Okla. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and'2), ALAB-397, 5 1mC'1143-(1977). There is no allegation-that petitioners have' access to special I

i 6

L

knowledge or expertise. Further, the petitions make no reference to the particular engineering or environmental details of TVA's applica-tion. They offer no comments directed to any design or operational aspects of the proposal; thus there is no reason to believe that their participation will be especially valuable, or even useful. This is especially so, since the Commission has indicated that it will give ample consideration to the health and safety aspects of the proposed plan in order to protect all of the legitimate interests of the resi-

. dents in the vicinity of the plant. See, e.g., letter, T. A. Ippolito, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Hugh G. Parris, Manager of Power, TVA (December 5,1980) (copy attached).

An adjudicatory hearing in this motion would only serve to 1

delay the project, without protecting the interests of the public.

)

Because of the growing shortage of commercial offsite storage _ sites for low-level wastes, TVA's onsite storage facility could be' critical

( .

l to the continued normal operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.

I i

Indeed, if commercial storage sites become unavailable in the next i

few years, it is even more important that this storage activity not

! be delayed.

l CONCLUSION

~

These petitioners have not alleged facts which would show that their health, safety, property, or any other judicially ' recognized l

i l

7 i

L

interest will be affected by the operation of the facility for which permission is sought. Accordingly, the Atomic Energy Act does not permit their intervention as parties to this proceeding, nor require an adjudicatory hearing.

For the reasons given and upon the authorities cited, the petitions for leave to intervene and requests for a hearing should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, J W M $.[$4ry,k.

Herbert S. Sanger, Jrf General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

Telephone No. 615-632-2241 FTS No. 856-2241 tuo4 E . (j,&

Lewis E. Wallace-

-Deputy General Counsel ,

/ E /$4M 7 W

1. 7ames F. Burger A$ hut /A X./$41& E Donald R. Bustion-II Attorneys for Applicant Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee January 27, 1981

4-pm' Houq"o UNITED STATES

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ p% w [ c wassmoton, o. c. :esss gmp p .

.g.

Decer.eer 5,1930 ts,% M_,~ .f,e a o L ,

0:cket fics. 50-259 50-250 and 50-296 Mr. Hugh G. Parris Manager of Power Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street, Tower II .

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Dear Mr. Parris:

We have received your application of July 31, 1930, as amended by your letter of ficvember 17, 1980 for amendments to the licer.ses for Browns Ferry Unit tios.1, 2, and 3 to authori:e ensite low-level waste st: rage at Browns Ferry for a period of five years. We note in Enclosure 3 to your submittal that ccnstruction work on the storage facility is in progress. Your letter of i:ovee.ber 17, 1980, requested that we publish in the Federal Recister a notice concerning your application. Enclosed is a copy of tne "rictice of Consideration of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

• for the Br0wns Ferry fiuclear Plant, Unit fics.1, 2, and 3, which we have sent to the Office of the Federal Register regarding your applica-tion of July 31, 1930 as amended by your letter of tiovember 17, 1930.

Your apci fcation entails amendment of the Part 30 portion of your reacter license authorizing possession of byproduct waste material in accordance with the license and supporting application. In this connection, the f;RC Staff will have to assess the significance of potential envirormental -

impacts to determine whether the provisions of 10 CFR 530.32(f) are or should be applicable to yeer program. In order to ninimize any delay in such determination, I antic 1,' ate that cur staff will need to meet with your staff to obtain supporting information, in the very rear future. We will contact Mr. Larry Mills of your staff to establish a convenient eeting schedule. In the ceantime, howuer, TVA car.tinues construction at its own risk.

Sincerely, a

d

$df.

Thomas Ippolito, n Chief

. 0:erating Reacters Branch #2 Division of Licensing y g As Stated oo ou J h, cc w/ enclosure:

See next page pu RE OF .

j g]) D D DS