ML17138B377
| ML17138B377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1980 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS |
| References | |
| LBP-80-18, NUDOCS 8006260283 | |
| Download: ML17138B377 (11) | |
Text
Wl LBP 18 UNITED STATES
'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'ATOMI'C S'AFETY 'AND L"fCENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoef er, Chairman Dr. Oscar. H. Paris Glenn O. Bright ui
'~>az USÃRC
""<2@f980 ~
off'm of the Secret Dochefing g, ge
~ ~
a(ech '""e In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC (Susquehanna Steam Units 1 and 2)
)
)
& LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Electric Station, ),
)'ocket Nos.
50-387 50-388 OL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON VARIOUS CAND MOTIONS'June 24, 1980)
By filings dated April 29 and 30, 1980, Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND), an intervenor-in this operating li'cense proceeding, submitted responses to the Staff's and Applicant.s'nterrogatories, respectively.
Those filings also included several motions.
We will deal here with these motions.
- 1. 'First, CAND asks that the hearing on certain of its contentions be transferred from the environmental portion of this.
proceeding to the radiological health and safety sessions.,
It i) specifies Contention 2 (health effects of low-level,rani'ation-;"':,~"
and other discharges from the facility--at least insofar as-=-
discharges of chlorine are concerned),
Contention 16: (eff'ects of cooling tower discharge),
and Contention 17 (transmission lines).
CAND claims that there are "public health and safety" issues
~
4 involved in each of these contentions and that they-accordingly.---
. z-o+
8008u 602K~ g.
1
should be heard with the 'other safety issues.
The Applicants and Staff each oppose 'this motion.
CAND's motion reflects a misunderstanding of the reasons for our subdividing this proceeding into environmental and health-and-safety segments.
Our basic reason for dividing the proceeding into distinct parts was one of convenience to both the parties and the Board.
The numerous complex contentions at issue in this proceeding demand that there be some division into manageable segments for purposes of discovery, hearing,
~ and post-hearing
~
. procedures.
,In responding to discovery requests, CAND itself has benefited from such segmentation.
See 'our Memorandum and Order on Discovery Motions (II), LBP-79-31, 10 NRC '597 (October 30, 1979).
The choice of environmental and health and safety designa-tions for the two segments of the proceeding was premised on the statutory underpinnings of the contentions at issue and the rulings we must make, as well as the differing Staff documents involved with such issues.
- Thus, the environmental hearings include issues
'rising from the Commission's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), whereas the health and safety hearings for the most part include issues arising from the requirements of the Atomic'nergy Act, With respect to the environmental issues, the Staff prepares a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FES),
whereas with respect to radiological health and safety issues the Staff prepares a Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
This is not to say that some environmental issues do not involve public health and safety, considerations.
We will assume for the present that each of the issues which CAND wishes to transfer to the health and safety hearings does so.
But to the extent they raise health and safety issues, the contentions nevertheless do not raise the type of radiological health and safety issues cognizable under the Atomic Energy Act.
Cf. State
.of. New Ham shire v. Atomic Energy Commission, 406 F.
2d 170
'(1st Cir. 1969).
- Thus, Contentions 2,
16, and 17 raise no question as to whether the Commission's safety requirements will be satisfied but rather pose inquiries with respect only to certain.alleged health and other effects of radioactive releases or of UHV transmission lines.
These issues bear upon the cost-benefit balance for the facility and hence are encompassed by governing NEPA requirements, They are also dealt with by the Staff in the FES, not in the SER.
For both legal 'and practical reasons, therefore, CAND's contentions 2, 16, and 17 are logically grouped with the environ-mental contentions.
Although we have flexibilityin our allocation of various issues to particular hearing sessions, and could hear an issue at any time after publication of the Staffls document treating that issue, we have been presented with no pursuasive reason why our earlier segmentation should be modified.
Consequently, CAND's motion is denied.
2.
CAND further asks us to direct one of the Applicants (Allegheny Electric Cooper'ative)'o submit as a draft supplement to the Draft Environmental Statement" (DES) in this proceeding a
"mini" impact statement prepared by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA'),. cover'ing a portion of the UHV. transmission lines for this facility.
CAND characterizes the preparation of the "mini" statement as "piecemealing",.
T'e Applicants and Staff
\\
each oppo se this request At the outset, we must correct CAND's impression that the DES is prepared by the Applicants.
Although the Applicants (through their Environmental Report) may provide some of the infor-mation utilized in the DES, the DES is the responsibility of, and is prepared by, the NRC Staff.
10 CFR
$ 51.22.
- Moreover, our authority to issue directions to the NRC Staff regarding the performance of 'its independ'ent responsibilities to prepare the DES is at best limited.
Offshore Power S stems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
ALAS-489, 8
NRC 194, 201-208 (1978); cf. Carol'ina Power
~d' C
tSh '.
Pl,
'-4),
'CLI-80-12, 11 NRC (April 17, 1980)
. It is within our province, of course, to rule on the adequacy of an FES (or portions,ther'eof) once it is introduced into evidence, and to modify it if necessary.
10 CFR 5(51.52 and 51.53.
In any event, we 'see no indication of the "piecemealing" raised by CAND.
According to the 'Appl'icants, the "mini" statement to which CAND refer's is an FES issued by the REA in September
- 1977, concerning a portion of the transmission lines being considered in=this proceeding.
The REA statement would give rise to "piece-mealing" only if the NRC Staff were trying to avoid assessing all of the transmission-line impacts through reliance on the REA statement.
However, that does not appear to be the case.
For
.the Staff seems to have attempted. to asses's all of the transmission-line impacts emanating from the construction and operation of this faci;lity, including but not limited to those previously reviewed by REA.
See DES, Appendix B; see 'also FES-CP.
The adequacy of Y
- this assessment is, of course,'pen to review'n thi:s proceeding.
For these
- reasons, CAND's request that we order the DES to be supplemented must be, and hereby is, denied.
3.
CAND also asks us to order the Applicants to supplement the DES with respect to the impacts of serious accidents.
In taking this action,-we are asked to modify our previous Memorandum and Order Concerning Class 9 Accident Contention, LBP-79-29, 10 NRC 586 (October 19, 1979).
The Applicants and Staff oppose this motion,. although for different reasons.
For the reasons which follow, we find that modification of LBP-79-29 is warranted.
To begin with, and as we 'previously pointed out, the Staff (not the Applicants) has the'res'ponsibility for preparing the
- DES, and our authority with 'respect to such preparation, is strictly limited.
As the Staff points out, the particular relief sought by CAND is therefore not appropriate.
- Moreover, as the App'licants observe,, the discrete reasons assigned by CAND for modifying our October 19, 1979.Memorandum and Order, which permitted consideration of serious accidents to the maximum extent then permitted by NRC rules, are not legally adequate to warrant such modification.
CAND relied on a March 20, 1980 letter to NRC from the Couricil on Env'ironmental Quality and certain reported statements by the Chairman of the Commission which indicated that policy changes regard'ing the treatment of serious accidents should be or were being considered.
The Applicants correctly point out that formal action by the'ommission would be necessary for us to expand our consideration of serious accidents beyond that permitted by our earlier ruling, which was based on then-existing Commission policy and precedent.
On the other hand, the Staff advised us that formal a'ction by the Commission regarding the consideration of serious accidents had indeed been taken, in that. the Commission had approved a "Statement of Interim Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmen'tal Policy Act of 1969".
The Staff stated that, as a result, the 'FES for this facility will
~
~
include an assessment of the environmental.risks attributable to accident sequences'hat can result in. inadequate cooling of reactor fuel'nd melting of the reactor core."
That -policy statement became effective upon publication., 45'ed.'~e.
40101 (June 13, 1980).
(The Staff supplied a copy to the Board and parties.)
Our preliminary examination of it indicates that it, at.a minimum, has withdrawn the legal basis on which LBP-79-29 was predicated, and permits con-sideration in licensing proceedings such as this one of a far broader spectrum of accidents than was formerly the case.
For these reasons, although the specific relief requested by CAND is not appropriate, CAND is corr'ect in its view that our October 19, 1979 order should be ll modified.
Therefore, except insofar as LBP-79-29 accepted for litigation Contention 19, our order in that opinion is hereby vacated.
In our Special Prehearing Conference Order of March 6,
- 1979, we provided that discovery requests on new information appearing in the FES could be filed within 10 days after service of the FES, and that responses to discovery on new information in the FES must be fil'ed within'5 days of service of the request.
LBP-79-6, 9
NRC 291, 327.
To the extent that the Staff's discussion of serious accidents in the FES constitutes such new. information, the foregoing schedule would of course apply.
Within 30 days after service of the FES, or within 15 days. of service of responses to.discovery on new information in the FES, whichever is later, any party may file additional contentions based on new information in the FES (including serious accidents, to the
8--
extent indicated by the Commission's new policy statement).
Responses to any new contentions must be 'filed,in the time frame provided by 10 CFR
$ 2.730(c) for responses to'otions.-
(Me expect that any new contentions on this subject which are 'found admissible will be heard in the environmental segment of thi:s proceeding.)
4.
CAND has also moved us to issue a clarifying memorandum that states, unequivocally, d'd dl d
'1.
d d
~l. 'll be inte reted b~ this License
~oa~cC concerning all types oF em ence, testimony an z.scovery statements at the public hearings, Example:
Precisely what will be considered admissible and what will be inadmissible?
tEmphasis in original.]
-This motion in effect requests an advisory opinion on
\\
matters which cannot be adequately ruled upon in the absence of specific underlying facts.
We decline to offer such an advisory opinion and
~den this motion of CAND.
5
- Finally, CAND seeks an extension of time to respond to certain of the Staff's interrogatories.
CAND explains" that it was not able to answer the questions because it had not been supplied with certain documentation it had requested from the Applicants, the Staff, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
CAND explains that it intends to develop information "from other sources" to respond to these'nterrogatories.'
CAND does not need an extensi'on of time.
Its answer that it did not have 'the information at that time to answer'he interrogatories fulfilled its obligations to respond to the Staff's inquiries.
When and if CAND obtains additional information--
from whatever source it must supplement its earlier response to include such newly acquired information.
See 10 CFR
$2.740(c).
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of June 1980.
Qe
'I a