ML17138B321
| ML17138B321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1980 |
| From: | Cutchin J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005230358 | |
| Download: ML17138B321 (9) | |
Text
05/21/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC'SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO CAND'S MOTIONS DATED APRIL 29, 1980 Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND) has filed a document, dated April 29, 1980, entitled-"Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Motions and Replies to Interrogatories Concerning Contentions Nos. 2, 16 and 17."
In its filing CAND requests the Licensing Board:
1.
"to remove Contention 2 from the environmental category because it is now definitely a public health issue that should be dealt with at the NRC public hearing concerning public health and safety."
2.
"to issue a clarifying memorandum that states unequivocally, and in considerable detail,.
how the NRC regulations will be interpreted by this Licensing Board concerning all types of evidence, testimony and discovery statements at the public hearings."
3.
"to place Contention No.
16 in the category of public health and safety."
4.
"to remove Contention No.
17 from the environmental hearings and re-classify this contention on UHV lines as a public health and safety matter."
Three of the motions seek to have contentions reclassified, as "safety" rather than as "environmental" contentions.
The fourth motion seeks an advisory opinion.
The Staff opposes the four CAND motions for the reasons discussed below.
a~
Reclassification of Contentions Contention 2 states:
Health Effects of 'Low-Level Radiation and Other Dischar es from the Faci lit ECNP 2; CAND 6, 15 The residual risks of low-level radiation which will result from the release from the facility of radio-
- nuclides, and particularly from the release of cesium-137 and cobalt-60, into the Susquehanna River, and the health effects of chlori[n]e discharged into the river, have not been, but must be,'dequately assessed and factored into the NEPA cost-benefit balance before the plant is allowed to go into operation.
By the terms of the contention, only failures to properly evaluate "residual risks" in the NEPA cost-benefit analysis are faulted.
The contention assumes that regulatory limits for effluent releases will be met but alleges that the environmental impacts of such releases have not been adequately considered in the NEPA cost-benefit balance.
It charges no failure to meet any requirement of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or regulations adopted thereunder.
- Thus, by its terms this contention sets out an environmental, and not a radiological
- safety, issue.
Contention 16 states:
Coolin -Tower Dischar e
(CAND 2)
Seventy million gallons of radioactive evaporated water to be vented daily from the Susquehanna facility's cooling towers will pose an economic threat to the dairy industry in the Eastern-Central area of Pennsylvania.
This threat has not been properly evaluated.
The contention deals with economic impacts.
Economic impacts are examined in weighing the costs and benefits under NEPA, and not in considering the radiological safety of a plant under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.~
- Thus, See e.g.,
Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit lg, ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 335 1978), where the economic impact of construction of a facility on agricultural production was considered an environmental issue.
this contention by its terms raises an environmental issue and not a safety issue.
Contention 17 states:
Transmission Lines (CANO 14) e The Applicants'lans for transmitting electricity generated by the Susquehanna facility utilize ultra-high voltage (UHV) transmission lines, which produce noise pollution, cause electrical shock from flashovers, create television and radio interference, create strong electrostatic and electro-magnetic fields that adversely affect living organisms along the UHV transmission right-of-way and beyond, and generate dangerous levels of ozone that will cause more injury to veg-etation than any other pollutant and can also have harmful effects on human health.
For that reason, the Applicants should be barred from transmitting electricity from the facility, if and when it becomes operational, over UHV lines and should be required to use lines in the range of 138,000-230,000 volts maximum.
Alternatively, the Applicants should be required to place the UHV lines underground, using compressed gas as an insulator.
This contention does not deal with the radiological safety of the nuclear plant itself, but rather with whether conditions should be put on the license to ameliorate the purported effects of transmission lines.
The effects of transmission lines and the imposition of conditions to ameliorate these effects are looked at only in the course of weighing the costs and benefits of a facility under NEPA, and not in the course of evaluating the radiological safety of a facility under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.~
This contention is also only 2/
appropriate for,consideration in the environmental phase of the hearing.
~ See:
Pub'jic Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 3
5 2),
ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 83 1977, affirmed, Public Service Co. of New Ham shire v.
- WRC, 582 F.2d 77 (1st Cir.
1~978
- Detroit Edison Co.
Greenwood Energy Center.
Units 2 5 3), ALAB-247, 8 AEC 936, 939 1974
Thus, the contentions as admitted are correctly classified as involving environ-mental issues.
To transform Contentions 2 and 16 to include radiological safety issues would require additional allegations (with bases) that specific radio-logical safety limits are not met.~
No such allegations have been made by CAND.
Contention 17 could not be transformed to include matters within the purview of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
If CAND is seeking to exparid these contentions to include radiological safety issues it has failed to justify doing so.
Further, the moving party has the burden of proving that its motion should be granted.~
CAND has made no attempt to demonstrate that there is any infor-mation upon which an expansion should be based that was objectively unavailable at the time its original petition was filed or that had any such information been available 'the scope of CAND's contentions would have been broader.~
Therefore, CAND has not shown good cause for broadening the scope of the subject contentions, and they should not be reclassified.
The requests for reclassification of the three contentions should be denied.
Advisor 0 inion In asking the Licensing Board to render an advisory opinion detailing its planned interpretation of NRC regulations "concerning all types of evidence, Allegations that the limits set out in regulation are unsafe would constitute-an impermissible attack on the regulations without a showing of special circum-stances.
No such showing has been made.
10 C.F.R. 52.758; Potomac Electric Power Co.
(Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1
8 2
, ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 89 (1974).
10 C.F.R. 2.732; Consolidated Edison Com an'f'New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station Units 1, 2 and 3
, CLI-77-2, 5
NRC 13, 14 1977 J Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3),
LBP-78-3 6
EC ea i m'ssed as interlocutor
, ALAB-168, 6 AEC 1155 (197)).
testimony and discovery statements at the public hearings" CAND is requesting the Board to engage in sheer. speculation.
The Commission's rules on these matters soeak for themselves.
Application of particular rules to specific fact situations must await the hearing and an actual controversy.
Without knowing how and for what purpose evidence is introduced no rulings are possible.~
The request should be denied.
Conclusion For all the reasons discussed above the four CAND motions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, James M. Cutchin IV Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of l1ay, 1980 See:
Tennessee Valle Authorit (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 1B, 2A 5 2B ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341, 362 n.
90 (1978); Florida Power 8 Li ht Co.
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-335, 3 NRC 830, 842 n.
26 (1976).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
" BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO CAND'S HOTIONS DATED APRIL 29, 1980" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following 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 21st day of May, 1980:
. Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.,
Chairman*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright" Atomic Safety and Li'censing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P.O.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Colleen Marsh Box 538A, RDA'4 Mountain Top, PA 18707 Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairperson The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P.O.
Box 377 RD81
- Berwick, PA 18503 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
500 South River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission
'ashington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Bryan A. Snapp, Esq.
Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101 Mr. Robert M. Gallo Resident Inspector P.O.
Box 52 Shickshinny, PA 18655 I
~
~
James M. Cutchin IV Counsel for NRC Staff