ML17272A343

Responds to Petitioners 790201 Addl Contention & Legal Argument.Addl Safety Contention,Parts (a) & (B),Should Be Admitted.Parts (C) & (D) Are Too Vague for Admission. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17272A343
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/21/1979
From:	Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903220107
Download: ML17272A343 (14)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)

Docket No. 50-397-OL NRC STAFF'S

RESPONSE

TO PETITIONER'S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONTENTION AND LEGAL ARGUMENT On February 1, 1979, Petitioners filed a document entitled "Petitioner's Additional Contention and Legal Argument".

On February 15, 1979, the Applicant responded by objecting to the submission'f the document stating that Petitioners had stipulated at the special prehearing conference that the pending petition to intervene should be disposed of on the basis of the record at the close of that conference.

The NRC Staff does not object to the receipt of Intervenor's February 1,

1979 filing but agrees with the Applicant that it was contemplated at the prehearing conference that the matters discussed in the Intervenor's February 1, 1979 filing would not be considered by the Board in ruling on the petition to intervene.

The Staff provides their response for consideration of the Board at the appropriate time.

A.

Additional Contention Intervenors submit an additional safety contention.

Parts (a) and (b) of the contention allege the inadequacy of assessment of the probability and consequences of accidents during operation.

The basis is said to be that there has been reliance on assumptions,

methods, models, procedures, and conclusions of HASH-1400 which has been repudiated.

Assuming the facts alleged by Intervenors to be true, the contention should be admitted.

It may well be summarily dismissed, but the Staff believes (a) and (b) meet requirements for admission.

The words "inter alia", insofar as they purport to indicate some other unstated basis for the contention, should be ignored.

Part (c) of the contention addresses "risks.to the health and safety of the public" is too vague to be admitted.

Part (d) of the contention addresses "the interrelationships affecting.

safety between WNP-2 and other nearby facilities" should also be rejected as too vague;

~LA ~

Petitioners argue that the environmental impacts of WNP-2 should be considered as they add to and interact with environmental impacts from other facilities located in the Hanford reservation.

In support of that

argument, they cite a portion of Section 1500.8 of the Council on

Environmental guality guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements as follows:

"IThe statement should also] succinctly describe the environment of the area affected as it exists prior to a proposed action, including other federal activities in the area affected by the proposed action which are related to the proposed action.

The inter-relationships and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related federal projects shall be presented in the statement."

The NRC Staff has no quarrel with that guideline.

1/

The Staff does not agree, however, that the environmental impacts of future projects necessarily must be taken into account.

"...NEPA and the Commission's regulations require a discussion of the environmental impact of the proposed licensing action under consideration.

They do not require a discussion of the impact of future projects or, indeed, of any existing plants unless they interact with or have some demonstrated relationship to or "contact" with the project under consideration."

Wisconsin Electric Power Com an (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2

, ALAB-137, 6 AEC 491, 495 (1973).

1/

See footnote 18 of The Detroit Edison Com an (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3, ALAB-247, 8 AEC 936 at 944, (1974) stating that while the CEg guidelines are not binding on the AEC, "...they are entitled to and have been accorded great weight [citations omitted]",

See also Philadel hia Electric Com an (Limeric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

, ALAB-262, 1

NRC 163, 1975) citing Greenwood in footnote 44 at page 189.

The Point Beach case was cited with approval in Lon Island Li htin

~Com an (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)

ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831 at 856 (1973).

Respectfully submitted, II',!.

/$ jg,;~

5 ~/~=

/g iJ g~~William D. 'Paton Counsel for HRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of February, 1979.

~

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)

Docket No. 50-397-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

\\

I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S

RESPONSE

TO PETITIONER'S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONTENTION AND LEGAL ARGUMENT" dated February 21, 1979 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 February, 1979.

• Elizabeth S.

Bowers, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and-Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California P. 0.

Box 808, L-123 Livermore, California. 94550 Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esq.

Debevoise 5 Lieberman 1200 Seventeenth.Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

• Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

Ms.

Susan M. Garrett c/o Creg Darby 2425 S.E.

24th

Portland, Oregon 97214 Ri chard Q.

Qui gl ey, Esq.

Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.

Box 908 Ri chl and, Washington 99352 Hepom

& Rose Suite 101 - Kellogg Building 1935 S.E.

Washington Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Temple of Justice Olympia, Washington 98504 Creg Darby 2425 S.E.

24th

Portland, Oregon 97214 iam D. Paton Counsel for HRC Staff

r

+ r f

J 0

9

~zz k1 wp cc'C yO Q ~O 9

'J)J t t~.0 E,Trj~~

GP

/I~ZR!N p~.. ~r,-".4

~s 4v~~ay cct~wssicg l +i.

p, j5~A!~

X,<a~~> +

Q lg C.ICKNI/46 SQRPQ g::=- v~i~e oF:

pJpf,f f),pic)~

p(:Suc P~~>>-(

'Lg r'Li' VlTa~t ogp;5 > gggl.g",Q ppOgZ.< t fJO

~ g p-

~': 'Q

~

&PV4E Cat Of~~i QCr. O'0-3<7-o~

p"'.

g> -"pQ S sH 4 ODP2,ss I S C. g "'v~-

p-'.fC.Q (fag O~ g 3~ (

gg F~~R~~4p

<~j )

p~

~ gl I Opp(j~ Q cp< G 0~p i),

2/21/79

'g/u/+0 gsg~c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g gi] ~'g' the Matter of WASHINGTON,PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)

Docket No. 50-397-OL NRC STAFF'S

RESPONSE

TO PETITIONER'S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONTENTION AND LEGAL ARGUMENT On February 1, 1979, Petitioners filed a document entitled "Petitioner's Additional Contention and Legal Argument".

On February 15, 1979, the Applicant responded by objecting to the submission of the document-stating that Petitioners had stipulated at the special prehearing conference that the pending petition to intervene should be disposed of on the basis of the record at the close of that conference.

The NRC Staff does not object to the receipt of Intervenor's February 1,

1979 filing but agrees with the Applicant that it was contemplated at the prehearing conference that the matters discussed in the Intervenor's February 1, 1979 filing would not be considered by the Board in ruling I

on the petition to intervene.

The Staff provides their response for consideration of the Board at the appropriate time.

A.

Additional Contention Intervenors submit an additional safety contention.

Parts (a) and (b) of the contention allege the inadequacy of assessment of the probability and consequences of accidents during operation.

The basis's said to be that there has been. reliance on assumptions,

methods, models, procedures, and conclusions of >lASH-1400 which has been repudiated.

Assuming the facts alleged by Intervenors to be true, the contention should be admitted.

It may well be summarily dismissed, but the Staff believes (a) and (b) meet requirements for admission.

The words "inter alia", insofar as they purport to indicate some other unstated basis for the contention, should be ignored.

Part (c) of the contention addresses "risks to the health and safety of the public" is too vague to be admitted.

Part (d) of the contention addresses "the interrelationships affecting safety between MNP-2 and other nearby facilities" should'also be rejected as too vague.

Petitioners argue that the environmental impacts of MNP-2 should be considered as they add to and interact with environmental impacts from other facilities located in the Hanford reservation.

In support of that

argument, they cite a portion of Section 1500.8 of the Council on

Environmental guality guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact statements as follows:

"I.The statement should also] succinctly describe the environment of the area affected as it exists prior to a proposed action, including other federal activities in the area affected by the proposed. action which are related to the proposed action.

The inter-relationships and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related federal projects shall be presented in the statement."

The NRC Staff has no quarrel with that guideline.

1/

The Staff does not agree, however, that the environmental impacts of future projects necessarily must be taken into account.

"...NEPA and the Commission's regulations require a discussion of the environmental impact of the proposed licensing action under consideration.

They do not require a discussion of the impact of future projects"or, indeed, of a'y existing plants unless they interact with or have some demonstrated relationship to or "contact" with the project under consideration."

Wisconsin Electric Power Com an (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2

, ALAB-137, 6 AEC 491, 495 (1973).

1/

See footnote 18 of The Detroit Edison Com an (Greenwood Energy

Center, Units 2 and 3

, ALAB-247, 8 AEC 936 at 944, (1974) stating that while the CEg guidelines are not binding on the AEC, "...they are entitled to and have been accorded great weight I citations omitted]".

See also Philadel hia Electric Com an (Limeric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

, ALAB-262, 1

NRC 163, 1975) citing Greenwood in footnote 44 at page 189.

The Point Beach case was cited with approval in Lon Island Li htin

~Com an (Shoreham Noc1ear Poner Stat1on)

ALAS-156, 6 AEC 831 at 856 (1973).

Dated-at Bethesda, Maryland a

E Respectful ly submi tted,

/

i r

,William 0. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff this 21st day of February, 1979.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2)

Docket No. 50-397-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "HRC STAFF'S

RESPONSE

TO PETITIONER'S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONTENTION AND LEGAL ARGUMENT" dated February 21, 1979 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 February, 1979.

• Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Univers ity of Ca 1 iforni a P. 0.

Box 808, L-123 Livermore, California 94550 Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Fsq.

Debevoise 8 Lieberman 1200 Seventeenth

Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

• Docketing and Service Section

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

Ms.

Susan M. Garrett c/o Greg Darby 2425 S.E.

24th

Portland, Oregon 97214 Richard g. guigley, Esq.

Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.

Box 9o8 Richland, Washington 99352 Nepom K,Rose Suite 101 - Kellogg Building 1935 S.E.

Washington Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Temple of Justice Olympia, Washington 98504 Creg Darby 2425 S.E.

24th

Portland, Oregon 97214 Wi xaam D.

Paton Counsel for ilRC Staff