ML19209A481
| ML19209A481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1979 |
| From: | Bielawski A, Mark Miller, Murphy P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910040115 | |
| Download: ML19209A481 (14) | |
Text
. _..
I ara.
s/
g a/s
- a. ' '.
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i 6 pg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' q c '-s ' ~./
0h
.f,,.":*
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,S' i
l
-s i
- f r
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CGMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ANSWER OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY TO THE CONTENTIONS OF B0B NEINER FARMS Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Applicant"), pursuant to 10 CFR 52.714(c), submits the following answer to the Amended and Supplemental Contentions of Petitioners, Bob Neiner Farms, Inc., et al. ("Neiner Farms"), dated August 7, 1979:
Applicant has no objection to contentions 3, 5,
6, 7,
10 and 11 and believes that these Contentions should be admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding.
How-ever, Applicant urges the Board to consolidate Rorem Conten-tion 1 into Neiner Farms Contention 3, both of which raise substantially the same issues.
In order to not reduce the scope of Rorem Contention 1, subparts (a) and (c) of Neiner Farms Contention 3 should be amended to specify 25 miles, rather than 20 miles.
1090 001 Applicant opposes Contentions 1, 2,
4, 8 and 9 for the reasons set forth below.
7910040//5 G-
Contention 1 This Contention seeks to litigate certain environ-mental impacts of 765 KV transmission lines.
Contention 1 should be dismissed as raising issues outside the scope of this proceeding.
Section 3.9 of Applicant's Environmental Report for the Braidwood Station, Operating License Stage
("ER-OLS") describes the transmission facilities which Applicant proposes to construct in order to tie the Braid-wood Station, Units 1 and 2, into Applicant's transmission system.
Pursuant to the decision in Detroit Edison Co.
(Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-247, 8 AEC 936 (1974), the Commission's NEPA responsibility extends to considering the environmental impacts associated with the construction of transmission lines necessary or proposed to tie the Braidwood Units 1 and 2 into Applicant's transmission system.
However, no 765 KV lines are proposed in connection with the units for which an operating license is sought in this proceeding.
The mere fact that Applicant's transmission system currently includes some 765 KV transmission lines, and the fact that Applicant may at some indeterminate time in the future install additional 765 KV lines in connection with the installation of additional generating capacity, does not make the environmental impacts associated with 765 KV lines a proper issue in this proceeding.
Nor, of course, is it relevant that the transmission linea installed in connection with Braidwood Units 1 and 2 will utilize right-of-way corridors which either contain 765 Kv lines or 1090 002
I in which 765 Kv lines may be installed at some future but indeterminate date.
The court in Green County Planning Board
- v. FPC, 559 F.2d 1227 (2nd Cir., 1976), held that the poten-tial that 765 KV lines might be installed at some future time did not require that the impacts of 765 KV lines he evaluated in connection with a proposal which did not include 765 KV lines.
At the construction permit stage, the Board did evaluate the impacts of construction and operation of those transmission lines associated with the Station (Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-1, 8 AEC 1197, 1208-10 1130-34, 1215-16 1152, 53 (1975)).
A description of the relevant lines, none of which are 765 KV liner, is' contained in S3.8 of the Fina] Environmental Statement, Construction Permit Stage, cited in paragraph 31 of the Braidwood partial initial decision.
Contention 1 should be dismissed as seeking to litigate matters which are not within the scope of the proposal being evaluated in this proceeding.
Contention 2 This Contention asserts that prior to the issuance of an operating license for the Braidwood Station Applicant must have an NRC-approved decommissioning plan.
Applicant objects to this Contention because it raises policy issues currently the subject of generic rulemaking before the Com-mission.
On March 13, 1978, the Commission announced a 1090 003
broad range rulemaking proceeding to develop more explicit criteria for decommissioning nuclear facilities (43 F.R.
10370).
C7e of the specific questions on which the Commission sought public comment is:
"Should detailed decommissioning plans be required prior to the issuance of licenses?" Id,.
at 10371.
The Appeal Board in Potomac Electric Power Co.
(Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 83-85 (1974), discussed at length the Commission's policy respecting the simultaneous considera-tion of generic issues in rulemaking proceedings and indi-vidual licensing hearings and concluded that:
Our consideration in adjudicatory proceedings of issues presently to be taken up by the Commission in rulemaking would be, to say the least, a wasteful duplication of effort.
In short, the Vermont Yankee line of cases stands for the proposition that licensing boards should not accept in individual licens-ing proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rule-making by the Commission.
Id. at 85.
Contention 2 falls squarely into this category and should be d'
"ds s ed.
Contention 4 Contention 4 challenges the analysis of the Licens-ing Board which ruled on Applicant's construction permit application regarding the hazard presented by the shipment of explosives in the near vicinity of the site.
Contention 4 should be dismissed because this matter was explored fully by the Licensing Board during the review at the construction 1090 004-
permit stage.
As the commission held in Alabama Power Co.
(Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974), "In our view, an operating license pro-ceeding should not be utilized to rehash issues already ventilated and resolved at the construction permit stage."
The construction permit Licensing Board explored at length.
the potential hazard associated with the transportation of explosives from the Joliet arsenal on the Illinois Central Railroad track which borders the Braidwood Station exclusion area.
Braidwood, supra, at 8 AEC 1226-27 1985-88.
Applicant alerted Neiner Farms (in Applican,t's response to Neiner Farms' original Petition) of the need under Commission precedent (see, e.g.,
Farley, supra, and Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar
_ ear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1422 fn. 5 (1977)) to demon-strate that either changed circumstances or special public interest factors might lead to a different conclusion than that reached during the construction permit review in order to relitigate settled issues at an operating license hearing.
Neiner Farms, however, chose to criticize the validity of aspects of the Licensing Board's reasoning, apparently without even reviewing the very substantial evidence on which the Licensing Board based its decision, rather than attempting to show that there has been some significant change in circumstances relevant to the Licensing Board's original decision.
No grounds for rehashing this issue have been presented, and the Contention should be dismissed.
1090 005 Contentig n
Contention 8 challenges the selection of the near-est population cent 2r for evaluation of compliance with 10 CFR S100.11(a) (3).
Contention 8 should be dismissed because it poses an interpretation of the term " population center" which has been specifically rejected by the Appeal Board.
Moreover, the sam of the total peak population of each of the referenced
- recreational facilities within the minimum population center distance is far less than necessary to constitute a population center.
In Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 49-51 (1977),
the Appeal Board specifically rejected the very interpreta-tion of " population center" inherent in Contention 8; that is, that a population center can consist of the aggregate of persons residing (temporary or otherwise) in various direc-tions and at various distances from the plant.
As the Appeal Board pointed out, the objective of the population center distance concept is to insure that cumulative exposure doses to the population as a who3e is kept within bounds in the event of a major accident.
This objective, according to the Appeal Board, dictates that the population center be The citation to Table 2.2-7 of the ER-OLS appears to be an error (Table 2.2-7 presents water quality sampling data).
Based on the description of the material purportedly contained in the referenced Table, Applicant assumes the reference is to Table 2.1-6 (attached hereto) which contains data similar to that presented in Table 2.2-7 Environmental Report for the Braidwood Station, Construction Permit Stage (" ER-CP S " ) (also attached).
1090 006
defined in terms of the population concentrated in one direction from the plant such that, in the event of a serious accident, the entire radioactive cloud could pass over the population center.
Id. at 49.
As is apparent from ER-OLS Table 2.1-6, the recreational facilities referred to in Contention 8 are located at various directions and distances from the plant.
The Seabrook decision does permit that a recrea-tional area with a high transient population be considered as the "popul$ tion center" if the population is sufficiently large.
Idl. at 52.
However, the only recreational fatility within the minimum population center distance of "one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the low population zone" (10 CFR S100.ll(a) (3))
is the Chicago Beagle Club witn a membership of 75 families and a peak daily attendance of 1500.*
This population is far smaller than 25,000 residents which, under 10 CFR 510 0. 3 (.c), constitutes a population center.
Thus, Conten-tion 8 should be dismissed as it would require an impermis-sible aggregation of populations located at various direc-tions from the plant, virtually all of which are, in any event, located beyond the minimum population center distance.
The LPZ outer bounddry is 1 1/8 miles from the reactors (FSAR S 2.1. 3. 4 at FSAR p.
2.1-8).
Thus, the minimum population center distance is 1.5 miles.
1090 00/
Contention 9 Contention 9 asserts that data which " wor'd be" more accurate than that presented in Applicant's ER-OLS Tables 2.1-17 through 2.1-21 is available from the Farm Census.
Applicent objects to this Contention unless Neiner Farms furnishes a proper basis for the assertion that the Farm Census data differs significantly from the date in the Tables.
It appears on the face of the Contention that Neiner Farms is merely speculating that there may be some significant difference between the Farm Census data and the data presented in Tables 2.1-17 through 2.1-21.
Applicant would withdraw its objection if, within 15 days of the scheduled prehearing conference, Neiner Farms serv s on the a
Board and all parties whatever Farm Census data is referred to and there is, in fact, a difference from the data in the ER Tables which would be significant in the calculation of total population doses.
WHEREFORE, Contentions 3, 5,
6, 7,
10 and 11 should be admitted as issues in controversy, Rorem Conten-tion 1 should be consolidated with Neiner Farms Contention 3, Contentions 1, 2,
4 and 8 should be dismi.ased and Contention 9 1070 008 should be dismissed unless Neiner Farms provides a proper busis for the Contention on or before September 7, 1979.
DATED:
August 22, 1979 Respectfully submitted, bi ' L Michael I.
Miller l*
k$4f 0 Paul M. Murphy /
/
hl) i Alan P.
Bielaws)Ci U
Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312)558-7500 1090 009 Braidwood ER-OLS j
TABLE 2.1 6
%AJOR RECRJ hTIONAL AREA 3 w! THIN 10 MILEnr THE BRAIDWOOD staff 0N DISTAMCF &
DIRFC* inn 1976 TOTAL EST! MATED PEAK g:pgATic3AL ARwa FROM SITE A*TENDANCE8 DAY ATTENDANCE State Faestattes Oes Plannes conservation b
Area O miles N 92.04) 1,000 Goose Lake Prairie State Park 9 males NNW 60.728 462 Eankatee Raver State Park 9 males E 1.447.951 JJ,000 Illinois and Michagan Canal State Trail (Channehon Park Access) 10 males N 99,000 800-1000*
70TAL e*EM B F M S H I P r nvete Parts and Cluos I f d*112' 8 i
f Ch2cago Beagle club 0.5 male sw 75 1.50n Bra &dwood Recreation C1sab9 2 miles NE 2, 3 5tl 600 Sowth Wilmington Seor t smen's ClaL' 3 males SSE 1.150 600 Ar e a 1 Outdoor Club 3.5 males N W11mingtof) Recreation Area Club-3.5 miles NNE 750 3.000 Ponderosa Sportsmen's Cluba 4 miles S 20' 15-25 SouthWalmingtonFageman Beach and Park Club 4 miles SSW 1,800 2.10n wait County Sportsmen's Cluba 4 miles NC 550 000
- \\
Fossal Rock Recreation Club 4.5 males NNC Ceco Employees Peercatien Association, Inc.k 5 males NNW
$03 1,000 f
Coal City Area Clao 5 males NNW 1,600 4.500 3an Pecseatson Clab 5 olles S Shannon Shores 6 males S Cresden Lakes Sports Club (Public,I 7 males NNW 3%0 Rainbow Council Scout Re se rv a t io n1 7 males NW
- 6. 0 0(t I.r00 Csose Late C1 ab" 7.5 males NNW 736 500
- io t e : Aetertsa t*) sndicates information not avaalat te.
- Source: !!!ancts Department of Conservation (19'6c).
bSource: Doyle (197').
Source:
N>moff (19?71 Source: Classen 111774
'Fource: Schwiesew (19971 Iscarce: Commonwealth Fdison company (1973).
" Source: Ch&Iman i1*??i.
Source: Dvorst (1977).
tource Wool m a tie (19771
'Courec:
89-4 9 (18775 "Murce s Errek (1*771 Soures - Enert i11771 O
Sverec a**1stti f1*'*i.
i
/ =>
91 I v 2.1-30
P00RBRMAL Table 2.2-7 LIST OF RECREATION FACILITIES WITHIN 10 MILES OF U)
THE BRAIDWOOD PLANT State Parks Distance (in miles)
Total Annusl(2)
Peu Daile and Direction frc:,
Attendance Attendance Name Plant Kankakee River State 8E 966,721 20,000(3)
Des Plaines State Park 8N 16,850 470 (est)
Channahon Parkway State Park 10 ft 59,207 1,600 (est)
Goose Lake Prairie State Park 9 NNW Private Pick!
Distance (in miles)
Total Membership (, IPeak Daily and uirection from families A tt enda nce,
Name Diant
,_ person; Braidwood Recreation Club 2 NE 2,350 600 New Lenox Sportsmen's Club 3 NE 50 0 500 Crows Nest Club 4 NE 8
40 Arrowhead Club
? SE, 102 300 South Wilmington Sportsmen's Club 3"
1,750 600 South Wilmington Fireman Beach 5 SSW 1,800 2,100 and Park Club Shannon Shores
- r. S 350 1,000 Chicago Beagle Club 1 W'/4 75 1,500 Wilmington Recreation Area Club 4 NE 750 3,000 Will County Spc'tsmen's Club 4 NE 560 800 Ceco Employees Recreation Association 6N 500 30C Coal City Area Club 6 NW 1,600 4,500 Dresden Lakes Recreation, Inc. (Public) 7 NNW 350 Boy Scouts 6f Atrerica 8 NW 120 Rod and Gun Club 9N 750 1,500
- Information not available.
hh bfl 2.2-34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Common-wealth A.
en Company, certifies that on this date he filed 20 copies (plus the original) of the attached pleading with the Secretary of the Nuclear ':gulatory Commission and served a copy of same on each of the persons at the addresses on shown on the attached service list by United States mail, postage prepaid.
DATE:
ugust 22, 1979
/
/
~ ai[/NL]Attsb!
- 1 Paul M. Murphy
/
on on 1090 012