ML19254F812

Brief Per ASLB Order on Special Prehearing Conference. Requests Reinstatement of Contentions 3(a) & 3(c).Also Requests Advance Notice of Applicants' Negotiations for Property & right-of-way.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19254F812
Person / Time
Site:	05000599, 05000600
Issue date:	10/22/1979
From:	Schwab J IOWA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7911190097
Download: ML19254F812 (7)

Text

,, ,

NRC PUBLIC DOCIMENT ROOM gq, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'2

' ' 7, '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J

-@g%< 'f/'[$

A h In the Matter of Comonwealth Edison Company

)

)

' lh/

Interstate Power Company Docket Nos. S-599 s Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company S-600 q{,

Carroll County Site October 22, 1979 BRIEF OF IOWA PIRG, ET. AL., RESPONDING TO MEMORANDUM OF SPECIAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE AND ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

1. While it is true that the Applicants have not requested any specific findings of fact related to transmission lines which would emanate from the Carroll County units, it is not true that the rights-of-way remain, at this point, an unknown quantity. Section 3.9.1 of the CCS-SS-ER provide adequate details concerning the location and description of rights-of-way for the needed transmissior lines to allow any of the intervenors to narrow the scope of such routes to within a few hundred yards on either side of its likely final path.

The only major question, really, is the nature and exact location, of lines crossing the Mississippi River.

The intervenors herein are duly concerned, that before purchase of further land or easements take place by the Applicants for the purpose of the proposed transmission lines, property owners should be aware of the likely environmental effects and health effects from such structures. This can only be achieved through hearings that fully explore the issue, before and not after such purchases take place. Property owners who detennine, from the evidence, that continuing adverse health and environmental impacts can be expected, 1744 203 7911190 09 7 6

a not unlikely outcome, may decide that a single payment is an inadequate fom of compensation. As the intervenors representing the local property owners of Carroll County, we cannot accept the argument that the Applicants should be allowed to define the rules of the game in one fashion, while playing it by another set of rules entirely. Enough is known, or presentable in the way of evidence, to substantially define the major effects attributable to the transmission lines as now planned. Property owners in the affected areas should be exposed to such evidence at the earliest opportunity.

On this basis, Iowa PIRG, et al., request the prompt reinstatement of their contention 3(a), and the clause, "and the transmission lines,"

in contention 3 (c). Alternatively, the intervenors demand advance notification of any planned negotiations for property rights by the Applicants along any of the rights-of-way described in Section 3.9.1 of the CCS-SS-ER.

2. The intervenors believe that the licensing board may have misinterpreted the purpose of their contention no. 4, which may well have been better stated as a separate motion, rather than a contention.

Our purpose was not to raise the mining and milling of uranium as an evidentiary issue at this time, but rather to protect our own proprietary interests intact until the construction pemit is considered.

Therefore, intervenors now move that the licensing board issue a prohibition against the Applicants from proceeding to negotiate or sign any contracts for the mining, milling, or processing of uranium fuel, either prior to, or on the basis of, any findings of the licensing board during the early site review of the Carroll County units.

1744 204

The intervenors incorporate by reference both the Ecology Action of Oswego, and Kepford suits versus the NRC, cited in their " Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene," as pending cases involving substantial issues dispositive of the precise pre-emptive damage to a proper cost-benefit analysis, which the intervenors herein seek to avoid.

That public interest intervenors have a right to expect the NRC, including licensing boards, to take proper steps to insure such equity is clearly established in the law. Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power

v. AEC, 463 F. 2d 954, 956 (D. C. Cir.,1971); Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comittee v. AEC, 449 F. 2d 1109 (D. C. Cir.,1971); Arlington Coalition

v. Volpe, 458 F. 2d 1323,1332 (4th Cir.,1972) cert den. sub nom; Fugate v. Arlington Coalition, 406 U. S.1000 (1972); EDF v. TVA, 468 F. 2d 1164,1183-84 (6th Cir.,1972); Essex County Preservation Association v. Campbell, 536 F. 2d 956 (1st Cir.,1976).

The intervenors argue that the relief sought against premature environmental damage from uranium mining, is comparable to relief from unauthorized or premature construction activity, where the environmental impact had not yet been evaluated. Not only is there a monetary comitment on the part of the Applicants, but there is also serious danger of tipping the cost-benefit balance severely against the environmental interests in the case. The seriousness is underlined by the memorandum of Dr. Walter H. Jordan, ASLBP, NRC, to James R. Yore, Chairmari, ASLBP, of September 21, 1977.

In 1977, Dr. Chaunce Xepford testified in the matter of the Three Mile Island Ur.it. 2 (Docket 50-320) Operating License hearings, 1?14 205

that the uranium mill tailings factor incorporated in Table S-3 of 10 CFR was seriously underestimated in calculating health effects over hazard life, because it was based on the life of the mine, rather than the active life of the tailings piles. Dr. Jordan supported that position, and averred in his memorandum that the values were too low by a factor of 100,000. Even assuming cotimum management of the tailings, Dr. Jordan subsequently refined his estimate to 400 additional deaths per reactor fuel requirement per year from mill tailings.

The intervenors maintain that these are consequences severe enough to merit the relief requested, and remind the board of the difficulties that have arisen for the Three Mile Island board in the aforementioned appeal by Dr. Kepford.

3. NUREG-0180 clearly anticipates the possibility of a review of financial requirements for the Applicants in an early site review.

While it clearly leaves that option to the Applicants themselves, there is an issue of equity here which supercedes the technicalities of the regulations. It is repeatedly argued by the Applicants, as well as the NRC staff, that early resolution of selected issues is in the public interest for all parties, including intervenors. Yet, while the Applicants find no company other than the NRC staff for that assertion (certainly not among any of the intervenors), the Applicants have sole discretion to detennine the issues in the early site review. Issues of crucial importance to the intervenors, such as proof of financial requirements, are promptly dismissed as outside the bounds of the case.

It would seem that a process designed to expedite the public interest would operate in a precisely onposite fashion. In the instance here, intervenors are concerned about the impact of the recent denial of the 19 4 206

Applicants' huge rate increase request before the Illinois Comerce Comission. There is a justifiable fear that failure to deal with this issue in a timely manner will leave local residents in doubt as to the likely outcome of the proceedings.

4. Once again, the intervenors herein stress their concern about the Applicants' ability to define the boundaries of the early site review at will, while matters of crucial concern to the intervenors are not only ruled irrelevant in the case of financial requirements, but are removed from the case after prior submittal by the Applicants. The only possible reason for the Applicants' motion for permission to withdraw proposed finding of fact no. 8, is the dubious nature of the need for these two units in the first place.

That circumstance underlines the uncertainties that lie ahead for local residents in the proceeding. The intervenors state that if need for power can be withdrawn as a proper issue for an early site review, it is a serious enough sign of unlikely need for the foreseeable future to justify dismissal of the early site review itself.

5. The Applicants, NRC staff and licensing board seem to have had no objection to Iowa PIRG contention no. 9. It is therefore presumed that its omission from the board's order was an inadvertent error, and a corre etion is requested. If this is not the case, the intervenors request the additional opportunity, upon notice, to argue for its admission.

Respectfully submitted, damesC.Schwab State Coordinator, Iowa PIRG 17'4 207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, Docket Nos. S50-599 g al . S50-600 (Carroll County Site)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James C. Schwab, hereby certify that copies of "Brief . . .

Responding to Memorandum . . . and Order" of Special Pre-Hearing Conference" on behalf of Iowa PIRG, et al., in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 24th day of October,1979.

John F. Wolf, Esq., Chainnan Nancy J. Bennett 3409 Shepherd Street Assistant Attorney General Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph, Suite 2315 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chicago, Illinois 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Jim Dubert Washington, D.C. 20555 Iowa Socialist Party 129 Ash Street Dr. Robert L. Holton Ames, Iowa 50010 School of Oceanography Oregon State University Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Corvallis, Oregon 97331 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard J. Goddard, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Director /9604 MNBB Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq. Docketing and Service Section Isham, Lincin and Beale Office of the Sceretary One First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 42nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60603 1 44 208

Thomas J. Miller Mr. James L. Runyon Attorney General of Iowa 1316 - Second Avenue State Capitol Ccmplex P.O. Box 307 Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Rock Island, Illinois 61201 Mr. John W. Cox, Jr. Please note the following chcnge Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc Comittee of address for service:

on Nuclear Energy Infonnation 906 Campbell Street Thomas J. Sorg Galena, Illinois 61036 111 Broad Street Mount Carroll, Illinois 61053 (Carroll County Environmental Coaltion)

Y"

/JamesC.Schwab 1744 209