ML19224B954
| ML19224B954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1979 |
| From: | Mulkey M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906280061 | |
| Download: ML19224B954 (17) | |
Text
l l
l( {l (
k_, [L j Uf;ITED STATES OF AMERICA
. ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD In the isatter of
)
)
NEH YORK STATE ELECTRIC AND GAS CORP.
)
Docket flos. STN 50-596 AND LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
)
STN 50-597
)
(New Hasen 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF INITIAL ANSWER TO SUPPLEPENTS TO PETITIC'IS TO INTERVENE Introduction By order of this Board deted April 30, 1979, all petitioners for intervention in this croceedinq were informed that supolements to their petitions to inter-vene referred to in 10 C.F.R. 62.714(b) could be filed on or before May 11, 1979 and that. answers thereto should be served by hand to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel by 4:00 p.m. en May 18, 1979.
Recognizing the abbreviated time for these answers, the Board stated that it will entertain reouests for supplemental answers.
The NRC Staff has received filinqs from nine cetitioners identified below.
Some of these documents reached our hands as late as May 17.
This answer will address the filinos before us from each petitioner in a general way, indicating our basic position respecting whether that petitioner has met the criteria of thn rnn,i<;sion's Pules of Practice which determine thether icn.
.a, v
' m" t c -
419 003 S
/7-790cagoog
2-fe.ible, enqaced in discussion with Applicants' counsel to determine whether wn and they can agree on t'"; admissibility of at least one contention from each petitioner who has filed contentions.
Where such agreement has been reached, we provide that information below.
In light of the extreme limitations upon time to prepare this answer and the number and complexity of filings made on May ll, we respectfully request that, nursuant to the Board's April 30 order, we be permitted to file a supplemental answer ir which we can more full explain the reasons for the positions we forth in this answer and in which we can address the matters which we are unable to reach in this answer. We will be prepared to discuss more fully the positions set forth herein at the Special Prehearing Conference on May 23, 1979.
In addition, we can also then address the ouestion of scheduling for any subsecuent filings on these matters.
Discussion of Petitions Village of Mexico A see -b of our records reveals that the letter to Secretary Chilk dated May 9, 1979 from the Mayor of the Villace of Mexico is the first connunication from this petitioner which we have seen.-1/ It is aoparent frca enclosures to that letter that a petition to intervene dated January 12, 1979 was ad-dressed to Secretary Chilk.
That date is prior to the publication of the k) 0 69 1/ Ue d id rece iv e, letter f r v.. t n e iv., n
>. s. _.
v.
m ; c.
v.
S'ecretary Chilk da ted February 20, 1979 unich apoears to express a desire to nake a linited arnearance in this proceedina.
Our innuiry to the Tcwn reveals that the Villace of "exi~co is a separate govern ental entity, wholly contairied within the Tct:n.
. Feleral Register notice stating an opportunity for interested persons to seek intervention in this proceeding. While that fact may explain why Staff counsel assigned to this case were unaware of the filing. we know of no reason why the petition should be treated as other than tinely filed.
The petition was acconpanied by demonstration of authorization by the Village Trustees.
The Village of Mexico states in its May 9 letter that it is 1.5 miles east of the pro'osed New Haven site. We believe that the Village has demonstrated that
)
it has an interest that may be affected by the proceeding as reouired by s2.714(a)(1) and that it is also, therefore, an interested me ality within the meaning of s2.715(c).
Because we were unaware of the Village's desire to intervene in this proceeding, we have made no contact with the Village, made no service of our previous re-sponses upon then, and provided them with none of the assistance which we offered other petitioners by means of discussions of potential contentions, provision of cooies of portions of the Commission's regulations, and familiari-zation with the contents of the local public documents room.
Consequently, we cannot determine whether the Village micnt have preferred to now reouest participation as a party under s2.715(c) had they been accorded the same treat-ment by the NRC Staff as other petitioners in this proceedinq.
Accordinaly, we prefer to defer our response to the contentions set forth in the Villaae's May 9,1979 filing until af ter the Special Prehearing Conference.
Mexico Central School District 4 j ()
0W In our March 8, 197; xesponse to tne fetitivi..uc w.e La u. m.1. ~
by Mexico Central School District," we argued that this petitioner has fulfilled
lr I -
the interest requirer'ent of the Commission's regulations, but that the petition lacked a dcmonstration of authorization for interventic by the School Board.
On April 6, 1979, Dr. Voninski, representina the School Board, subnitted a letter to Secretary Chilk which enclosed minutes from the May 1,1978 Meeting of the Mexico Board of Education Comittee to Review New Haven Power Project describing the establishment of the comittee, chaired by Dr. Voninski, and containing, among other things, statenent of a unanimous connittee vote to "appiy for intervention status before the sitina committee." Because of the ambiguity of the reference to intervention in that docunent, we orally sug-gested to Dr. '!oninski that he provide documentation clarifving the Board's intention to intervene in the NRC proceeding.
As part of the School Board's May ll, 1979 submittal of supplenent to their intervention oetition setting forth contentions, they have submitted an abstract of minutes from the May 10, 1979 School Board meeting making clear the authorizatior the Board for intervention in the NRC proceeding.
Therefore, our remaining concern about the adequacy of the School Board's showing of interest to intervene has been resolved.
We and the Applicants have agreed that the Sche,1 Board's contention 3(a) plus (c) fulfills the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 92.714(b) of the Comission's Rules of Practice.
For the convenience of the Board, we set it forth here:
Neither the "pr nor the annlicant have adeonately established the adverse imct of the construction 2nd oceratino onases of the H r m n cllots unon tne evervday functioninq of the Mexico Scnool b e s te:
a.
ihe increased traf fic related to the construction of i'
4V C06 transnortation of school children within and generated by tne construction zone.
Beino a rural school district, almost all our students are bused to school.
The safe trar, portation of school children in creas of "reased truc. and construction related traffic has not been ade-quately addressed by either the applicant or the NRC.
(See EE 45.1.4). This is escecially true given the severe winter conditions in the Mexico area and the pro-
,iection by the applicant that nost of the construction workers wiil be commuters from outside the "exico School District.
These factors will further compound the serious and underexamined safety problems related to the safe busing of school children.
Traffic flow catterns will be altered throughout the School District and this pre-sents a significant and unresolved safety issue.
( 5_ e ER 4.1-14-17).
c.
Inadeauate attention and study has been given to the increased hazards to safe traffic and road conditions generated by the cooling towers emitting 10-13,000 gallons of water vanor per minute per tower durinq our severe winter weather conditions.
In particular, the increased potential for ice and fog, and this impact on the safe transportation of school children nas not been properly addressed by the NRC or the applicant.
(See ER 2.8-2-4).
In light of all of the above, the Mexico Central School District should be admitted as a party to this proceeding.
Safe Energy for New Haven In our March 29, 1979 response to the petition to intervene filed by Safe Energy for New Haven, we argued that this petitioner had demonstrated an interest which may be affected by the proceeding, but had inadequately identi-fied the aspects of the croceeding regarding which inte vention is souaht.
On May 11, 19.79 Safe Energy for "ew Haven filed contentions which they seek 419 009 to h*.e litigated in this proceeding.
Those contentions clearly identify the av.ts of concern to the petitioner We and the Applicant have agreed that Contention 7(a) plus (c) fulfills the requirements of 10 C.F.R. s2.714(b).
For convenient reference, it is repeated here:
7.
Applicant has failed to determine the impact of industrial growth on the character and quality of rural life.
a.
rapid residential expansion due to influx of workers during construction phase.
c.
anticipated commuter traffic over rural roads will impede recreational activity, e.g.,
bikina, horseback riding, snowmobiling.
In addition there would be accompanying noise levels, vehicle emissions, dust and increased potential for accident.
Based on the above, we argue that Safe Energy for Ncw Haven should be admitted as a party to this proceeding.
Oswego County Farm Bureau Our March 29, 1979 response to Osaego County Farm Bureau's petition to intervene sets forth our position that the petition established the requisite interest but was d ficient in identifying aspects of tha oroceeding to which their interest is directed.
The filing of contentions en May li prov' des the identification of those aspects.
We and the applicents have agreed that Contention (1)(1) reets the reauirements ofs2.714(b).
That contention states the followina:
1.
Agriculture.
The assessnent of ireact on aariculture is inade:,Jate.
The Appl ant and Staff have:
419 00f t 2 properties involved, specifically the fruit orchard.
contend that drainaqe fields will be disrupted and destroyed, producinq trees will be destroyed and the stratification of the soils will be disrupted which will cause irreparable damage to the land for the pro-duc tion of fruit.
Cased on their petition as supplemented by the filing of ccntentions, Oswego County Farm Bureau should be admitted as a party to this proceeding.
Ecology Action of Oswego As with the two petitio.iers just discussed, we have earlier argued that this petitioner has demonstrated an affected in arest and must identify the asnects of the proceeding rela'ed to that interest.
Their May 11, 1979 Supplement to Petition to Intervene by identifying contentions which they seek to have liti-gated, adequately identifies the ca pects of the proceedina in which they are interested.
We and the Applicants have agreed that Contention 16 filed by Ecology Action of Oswego meets the requirements of 92.ll4(b).
It is set forth below:
Contention 16.
The Applicant (and TRC Staff analysis) has failed to propose an adequate radiation monitoring program during plant operation because:
(1) there are an insufficient nunber of monitors at various distances from the prooosed site:
(2) the radiation monitoring system does not ensure that releases from.' anode sources of radiation such as releases from the Y':1 and Fitzcatrick =l plants will not inflate backorour.d radiation estinates, thus
-- g+4mn 4n,-
.,s ~,c.:,,u,,
nr +sn n,- _, a g.,,
419 00S
_g-(3) the radiation monitorino system will not adequatelv 3Jrt out the source (4ine "ile Point site vs. New Haven site) associated with the releases.
' c: ' O' foregcing reasons, Ecology Acticn of Oswego should be admitted as a party to this proc.2 ding.
Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.
In our responses of April 2,1979 and May 2,1979 to the petition to intervene filed by Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc., we set forth our position that this petitioner lacks standing to intervene in this proceeding as a matter of right and that they have demonstrated characteristics such that they should be granted, as a matter of discretion, permission to intervene with limi-tation to participation on alternate sitino related issues only.
Nothing in their May 10, 1979 filing of " Contentions of Concernei Citizens for Safe Energy, Irc." supplements their argument respecting demonstration of an affected interest arguably within the zone of interest protected by the Atonic Energy Act.
Fur-ther, except for the filing of preposed contentions on subjects beyond the scope of the alternate siting issues, no showing is made that Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc. fit the criteria for a grant of discretionary intervention on these broader issues.
Accordingly we maintain our cosition regarding the admission of this petitioner which was set forth in our earlier responses.
We understand the Applicants' position respectino Concerned Citizens for Safe r.
t.
.n
_c
- 4.,, v m-
,,,-,-.,-, contontinn has boon u;..
.i. >
'., reculnion ; nee:i se;
.u.-,,,a
_u.2 419 010 not te reached because this petitioner lackr candinq to intervene.
How-ever, we and the Applicant have agreed that, setting aside tLe cuestion of standing, Contention I, 1-4 of Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc. meets the requirements of 92.714(b).
It is set forth below:
I.
The analysis of Stuvvesant as an alternative site gives inadequate consideration to adverse social ar.d economic imoacts upon the County of Columbia and the Town of Stuy-vesant which would result from the construction and opera-tion of the proposed facility and its associated trans-mission requirements:
- i. The predictions as to the number of construction workers who will move into the proposed project area is wrong.
This has led to a gross und!restimate of the di-rect inoact on housing and cormunity services such as schools, hospitals, fire and police deoartments, and roads.
2.
Even if the prediction is correct, the direct im-pacts have been undertstinated.
3.
The impacts of the " boom-bust cycle" of ma.jor capital projects in rural areas have not been analyzed.
The " boom" will disturb forever the trancuility and stability of the socio-ecor omic structure of the affected area. Then the reduction in activitv upon completion of construction will lead to a " bust" in which the survivors who remain have neither the com-munity tLat was, nor the resources to suoport the con-munity that has become.
4.
By focusing only on site specific historic resources and by ignoring the widespread inpacts or construction and operational activities, the coolinq towers and trans-mission lines, the potential impact on historic and at thetic resources has been incorrectly described and evaluated.
For the foregoing reasons, the NRC Staff submits that Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc. should be admitted as a party to this proceeding with their participation linited to alternate sitina issues.
'!a address below the question Opponents, Inc.
419 0ii "iA-h kon Nuclear Opponents, Inc.
Our previous responses to the petition to intervene of Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc. (MHNO) took essentially the same position as that discussed above with regard to Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.
On May 10, 1979, MHNO filed only a one-sentence statement that it wishes to " adopt the contentions made by Concerned Citizens for Safe Energv, I ric. " Consequently, nothing in their supplemental filing prompts us to broaden our position respecting discret;onary intervention for MHNO limited to alternate siting issues.
Our initial examination of the Commission's regulations and case law reveals no reason why a petitioner may not " adopt" the contentions of another petitioner for purposes of complying with 52.714(b).
However, the identity of questions raised by these two petitioners arcues strongly for consolidation of their participation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715a.
In light of the ptsitions taken by these petitioners, we can see no way in which such consolidation would prejudice any rights of either petitioner.
Therefore, it seems appropriate to us that, if both are adraitted as carties, they be consolidated for all purposes of the proceeding.
We have scne uncertainty (prompted by the limited time we have had to exanine the question) about whether a petitioner may simplv adopt the contentions of another petitioner for purposes of satisfying the reluirements of 52.714(b).
Further, the choice of this course of action calls into nuestion whether "HND 419 012
'n, 'ny independent capacity to assist in the development of a con.,,rehensive and accurate record on the issue of alternative -ites, the primary bas,'s upon t.-hich we recor nended that they be granted discre+ anary intervention status.
In light of these considerations and the additicr al fact that "Ht10's original petition to intervene was untimely filed without any allegation of cause there-for, we are unable at this time to state a position about whether they should be granted party status. We expect to be able to state our position in our supplemental answer.
Columbia County Colunbia County, in its May 10, 1979 submittal filed jointly with the Town of Stuyvesant, asserts an entitlement to participate in this proceeding under 10 C.F.R. s2.715(c) without filing of contentions and further states that, should they be required to file contentions, they wish to adopt those of Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.
Our position regarding Columbia County, as set forth in our April 2 and May 2 answers,is that they have failed to denonstrate that they meet the interest requirement of either 52.714(a)(1) or of 52.715(c),
We did support their being accorded party status as a matter of discretion, limited to participation on the alternate sitina issues.
As we stated in our May 2,1979 supplemental answer (p. 7), we kncv. of no reason why discretionary g9 00
l t
coali require a statement with reasonable specificity of the subject matters on chich a 92.715(c) party desires to participate.
Whether or not the "adop-tion" of another petitioner's contentions is sufficient to fulfill the "at least one [ admissible] contention" rule of s2.714(b), it does appear to provide reasonaole specificity of the subject matter on which Columbia County wishes to particinate.
In light of th1;, we recommend that Columbia County be admitted as a party to this proceedina with their participation limited to alternate siting issues.
Town of Stuyvesant Our position with respect to the Town of Stuyvesant is identical to that re-garding Columbia County set forth above.
We note that the proposed joint protocol for the conduct of joint heat ings by the NRC and the New York Sitina Board on matters within their common Jurisdic-tion provides that no consolidation of coverr. rental bodies or acencies which' are parties to the joint proceedina shall be required (p. 5).
However, the representation of Columbia County and the Town of Stuyvesant by the same coun-sel and their joint filina of all pleadines to date appears to indicate that they have de, facto consolidated their participation.
We welcome this aoproach and believe that it assists in the orderly progress of the croceeding.
Osweco County 4 ] r; j4
..e i u G Jua.
i-ai.-
m
.-.a.
u
.--->U Ji.-c r I U s.
. 52.715(c) from the Chairman of the Oswego County Legislature on behalf of the County.
We
. sill be addressing that petition within the time provided for responses by the Conaission's Rules of Practice.
However, we can indicate now that the County's discussion of the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. s2.!14(a)(1) governing nontimely petitions to intervene aopears to us thorough and persuasive.
Oswego County is clearly an " interested... county" within the meanino of 12.715(c).
It does seem appropriate for the Board to await ruling on the County's petition until after the County Legislature has an opportunity to formally enact the resolution directing the Chairman of the Legislature to petition for leave to intervene which is apparently anticipated on June 14, 1979.
General Matters We have attempted in our discussion of each petition to intervene for which we received a supplemental filing to state our position respectina whether each petitioner should be admitted as a party.
We do not mean to imply that no conditions of the sort identified in 10 C.F.R. 52.714(e) should be inposed or that no consolidation (other than that identified above) of parties should be ordered either for all purposes of the proceeding or with respect to one or more issues pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s2.71Sa.
In fact, an initial exanination of the proffered contentions indicates that such a course may be appropriate.
However, the time available for this answer does not permit the kind of de-tailed analysis necessary for us to make specific recorrendaticos on this sub-
- ject, 419 015 In addition wo wish to ronnrt to tho Poard tha t.. durina tho wook of
",v 7.
1:79 t:w
lr f' -
ve to discuss infornally the framina of contentions as contemplated by the Statement of Consideration accompanying the M<y 26, 1978 amendment to 10 C.F.R. s2.714 which is published at 43 Fed. Reg. 17793 (1978).
That Statement of Consideration reports past practice of "frecuent revisions" of contentions during the "some months or more" after expiration of the period during which timely petitions may be filed and the Special Prehearing Conference.
The amended rule in 10 C.F.R. 52.751a, of course, cenerally provides for a special prehearing conference within ninety days after the notice of hearing is published.
The Statement of Consideration in 43 Fed. Req. 17793 (1978) makes it clear that the intent of the Comnission's rules is to encourage the practice of negotiation regardina and stipulation to contentions (where possible) to " reduce unnecessary cor +.roversy and litigation."
In light of the number of petitioners and scope of their proposed contentions, the NRC Staff feels that it would be fruitful to continue this discussion and negotia-tion process following the Special Prehearina Conference and before parties make a fornal responsa to all of the contention; and the Board rules on their admissibility.
Accordingly, we recornend that the Board set aside time at the May 23, 1979 Special Prehearing Conference for the particinants to discuss this course of action.
Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, the NR: Staf f recomends that the following peti-Board, Safe Energy f or New H"ven, tMwego County tarn Bureau, Ecology Action 419 016
/ -
of Oswego, Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc., Columbia County ari To.in of Stuyvesant. We have elsewhere reconnendec' the participation of the ile'.. York State Energy Office as an interested state pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
s2.715(c).~2/
Under the proposed joint protocol (p. 3), the New York State Departments of Public Service and Environmental Conservation would each participate in the IRC proceeding as interested states under s2.715(c).
We have not herein ooposed the adnissitn of any o'.er petitioners, although we may wish to do so in a supplemental answer.
Respectfully submitted,
/
(u d e._,L L
Marcia E. f'ulkey Counsel for ICC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of May,1979.
s
\\
\\
q f q f
419 017
4 UNITED STATES OF A?iEsICA NUCI. EAR REGULATORY CU :I: SION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SA_FETY A!!D LT CIM;S T];G LOA _R]
In the Matter of
)
)
N.l YCHK STATE ELECTRIC AND GAS CORP.
)
AND LO:;G ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
)
Docket Nos. STh 50-596
)
STN 50-597 (New Haven 1 and 2)
)
_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF INITIAL ANSWER TO SUPPLE 5ENTS TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE", in the aoove-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, fir t class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regu.lhtory Commission's internal mail system, this 18th day of May, 1979:
Seymour Wenner, Esq., Chaircan*
Stanley B.
Klimberg. Acting Cqunsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Encrgy Office,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 2 Rockefeller Plaza Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223 Dr. Osiar H. Paris, Member
- David A.
Engel, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Department of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Conservation Washington, DC 20555 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 Dr. Walter H.
Jordan, Member Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Linda Clark 881 West Guter Drive Safe Energy for New Haven Oak Ridge, TN 37 30 Box #22 - RD #1 Mexico, NY 13114 Roderick Schutt, Esq.
Huber, Magill, Lawrence Helen Daly
& Farrell Ecology Action 99 Park Avenue W. River Road - RD #5 New York, NY 10016
- Oswego,
'Y 13126 Michael Flynn, Esq.
Nancy K. ', eber Robert Gray, Esq.
RD #3 Craig I.1 dyke, Esq.
Mexico, NY 13114 State of Sew York Department of Public Service Empire State Plaza Alb,nv. NY 17'9' 41?
0LET
e; a J.
Kafin Mr. Paul Voninski for Columbia County, Mexico Academy and Central School att4 eto of Stuyvesant and Concerned Mexico, NT 13114 T-a Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.
11 Chester Street, P. O.
Box 765 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Glens Falls, NY 12801 Panel
- U.S. Neclear Regulatory Conaission William Keeping, Supervisor Washington, DC 20555 Town of Cardiner Cardiner, NT 12525 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
Dr. Stephen J.
Egemeier, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Management Council Washington, DC 20555 300 Flatbush Avenue Ki n r;s t on, NY 12401 Docketing and Service Section (4)*
Office of the Secretary f
Peter D. G. Brown U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman of the Board Washington, DC 20555 Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents P.O. Box 666 New Paltz, LT 12561
(
)'am n
('k '
Marcia L. Mulkey Counsel for NRC Staff 419 019
.