ML19259D289
| ML19259D289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000599, 05000600 |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1979 |
| From: | Steptoe P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910170594 | |
| Download: ML19259D289 (30) | |
Text
-,
J y 4 I
sh C PUDLIC DCCUMENT ROOM 1
5 L
f
$yY e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
In The Matter of
)
Commonwealth Edison Co. -et al.
)
Docket Nos.
)
S 50-599 and (Carroll County Site)
)
S 50-600 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.714, Commonwealth Edison Company, Interstate Power Company and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company
(" Applicants") respond to the " List of Contentions" filed by the Jo Daviess County Ad-Hoc Com-mittee on Nuclear Energy Information ("Jo Daviess"), the
" Contentions" filed by the State of Illinois, the " Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene" filed by the Iowa Socialist Party, the " Supplement to Petition Frc LeTve To Intervene" filed by Iowa Public Interest nesorch Group, Inc., Cacholic Worker, Environmental Coordinating Organiza-tion, Dubuque Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Carroll County Environmental Coalition
(" Iowa PIRG"), and the
" Amended Petition For Leave To Intervene and Request For Hearing" filed by James Runyon, Edward Gogol and the Citizens Against Nuclear Power, Inc. ("CANP") in the above-captioned proceeding.
1160 051 10 M y,1ot
Interest and Standing Applicants have addressed Petitioners' standing to participate as parties in this proceeding in previous filings.1/
Applicants objected to the CANP petition because it was late.
Applicants alEC objected to the individual request to intervene by Mr. Gogol, who resides 133 miles from the proposed site, on the grounds that Mr. Gogol does not have sufficient interest to participate as a party in this proceeding.
- Further, Mr. Gogol should not be permitted to intervene as a matter of discretion since he has merely asserted in a conclusory manner that his participation will add to the development of an adequate record, and, more importantly, si'.ce Mr. Gogol raises issues which are in all respects identical to those raised by CANP and Mr. Runyon.
See, Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 615-616 (1976)
Consolidation of Parties In its Answer to the petitions to intervene filed on behalf of Iowa PIRG and Iowa Socialist Party, Applicants urged the consolidation of these petitions pursuant to 10 CFR S2.714 (e) and 2.715a.
The bases for this request were that the signer of the Iowa Socialist Party petition was
-1/
See, " Applicant's Answers To Petitions To Intervene",
dated June 18, 1979 and " Applicant's Answer To Petition To Intervene of James Runyon, Ed Gogol and Citizens Against Nuclear Power and Applicant's Response To Request of J.
Larry Priske" dated July 12, 1979.
1160 052 identified in the PIRG petition as one of the members of PIRG upon whom PIRG relies to establish standing and that the issues raised in both petitions were substantially similar.
As shown below, the issues raised in the Contentions submitted by Iowa Socialist Party in its " Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene" are substantially the same as those raised by the Contentions in the Iowa PIFC " Supplement".
The Contentions correspond as follows:
Iowa Socialist Party Iowa PIRG Contention Contention 1 (a) (i) 7 1 (a) (ii) 1 1 (b) (i) 3(a), 3(b) 1 (b) (ii) 3(a), 3(b) 1(b)(iii) 3 (d), 3(f) 1(c) (i) 3 (g) 1 (c) (ii) 3 (g) 1 (d) (i) 3(c) 1(d) (ii) 3(c) 2 6
3(c) 5 Given the similarities between the interests of the parties and the factual issues identified in the petitions,2/ pplicants A
renew their request that the petitions of Iowa PIRG and Iowa Socialist Party be consolidated.
Applicants also request that if petitioners Runyon, Gogol and Citizens Against Nuclear Power are admitted to this proceeding their participation be consolidated.
-2/
Iowa Socialist Party Contention 3 subsections (a), (b) and (d) do not raise issues which pertain to site suitability or any of the proposed findings submitted by Applicants.
Instead, they present legal arguments regarding the appropriateness of conducting Early Site Suitability proceedings at this time.
Accordingly, there are no litigable issues raised in these subsections.
Therefore, the absence of a corresponding PIRG contention should not preclude consolidation of the parties as requested.
1160 053 APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO CONTENTIONS Applicable Legal Standards As distinguished from construction permit proceedings, the nature and scope of the findings which must be made by the Licensing Board in an early site review proceeding are not expressly set forth in the Commission's regulations.
10 CFR S2.101(a-1) (1) (i).
Unlike other hRC proce dings, an applicant is required to submit proposed findings in its initial application on 5.he issues of site suitability with respect to which the applicant has requested review.
These proposed finidngs delineate not only the scope of the Staff review,3/ but also the scope of the issues to be litigated at the early site review.A!
Accordingly, as part of their Site Suitability Report, Applicants submitted 1385/ proposed findings on the issues of site suitability.
In accordance with 10 CFR 52.604 (a),
the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing which identified the general issues of site suitability which will be considered at the hearing:
-3/
See, Statement of Considerations published in conjunction with issuance of Early Site Review Regulations, 42 Fed. Reg. 22832 at 22884 (1977).
4/
10 CFR S2.604(a).
5/
Finding number 8 relating to the need for the power generated by the Carroll County units and Finding number 131 relating to decommissioning of the proposed facility will be withdrawn during the course of the special prehearing conference..
1160 054
Whether, from both an environmental and safety standpoint, the Carroll County site is suitable with respect to:
geology, hydrology, meterology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, water use, regional demography, community characteristics, economy, historical and nationa? landmarks, land use, noise considera-tions and aesthetics.
44 Fed. Reg. 26229 (1979).
The Licensing Board does not have the jurisdiction to explore matters beyond those which are embraced by the Commission's Notice of Hearing.
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB 534, 9 NRC 287, 289n.6 (1979).
Some of the issues identified by petitioners could be proper subjects for adjudication in eventual construction permit proceedings, even though they are not appropriate at this stage.
The Commission's regulations provide the procedural mechanism available to Petitioners for raising these unreso!;ed issues for consideration during the course oi construction permit proceedings.
10 CFR S2.604(c).
Accordingly, contentions which are beyond the limited ucope of this proceeding, should be 6eferred and raised anew, if Petitioners so desire, dur#.ng the subsequent construction permit proceedings. 1160 OSS
SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONSk/
For convenience, Applicants have grouped petitioner's contentions by subject matter in Table 1.
The issues which Applicant believes are not appropriate for resolution in early site review proceedings are marked with an "x" in the left-hand column and addr, sed in the following discussion.
Need for an Environmental Impact Statement The State of Illinois argues in its contention 1 that an environmental impact appraisal is necessary.
This is a legal argument which does not present any issues of fact to be tried.
Morrover, the NRC Staff has informed Applicants and the State of Illinois that it is preparing an environmental impact statement.
Therefore the contention adds nothing and should not be admitted.
Need for Power These contentions are clearly inappropriate since they are not related to the suitability of the Carroll County site.
Applicants are not at this time requesting findings endorsing their projections of electricity demand growth.
Further, the Notice of Intent from which this Licensing f/
Applicants are confining their objections at this time to the substantive issues raised by petitioners' contentions.
Based on preliminary discusFions with petitioners State of Illinois, Iowa PIRG, o Daviess and Citizens Against Nuclear Power, we bei qve it ic likely that any necessary refinement in the language of petitioners' contentions can be accomplibied by agreement among the parties.
Board derives its authority does not set forth need for power as a matter to be considered. See Portland General Electric Co., supra, 9 NRC at 289n.6.
Cost-Benefit Balancing The State of Illinois argues in contention 2 that under NEPA the ultimate cost-benefit balancing for the proposed Carroll County nuclear station may not be deferred.
This is a legal conclusion which does not present triable issues of fact.
If the State of Illinois is arguing that the NRC may not through early site review proceedings undertake preliminary cost / benefit balancing on site suitability issues and then subsequently conduct an ultimate cost / benefit balancing on all issues related to issuance of a construction permit, this constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's early site review regulations which is pro-hibited by 10 CFR 52.758.
Alternative Energy Sources This issue is unrelated to site suitability.
Applicant has not submitted information or asked for a finding in respect of alternative energy sources, nor is this issue listed in the Commission's Notice of Intent as a matter to be considered. Accordingly, consideration should be deferred until the construction permit stage. 1160 057
Financial Qualifications This issue also has nothing to do with site suitability.
It should be deferred until the construction permit stage for the same reasons which support deferral of need for power.
See also Public Service Company of Indiana, (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179, 183 (1976).
Table S-4 Iowa PIRG contention 2 directly challenges the validity of Table S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51.
As such it cannot be entertained in any adjudicatory proceeding absent a showing by affidavit of special circumstances.
10 CFR S2.758.
State of Illinois contention 11 also constitutes an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations.
Applicants' discussion of the environmental affects of transportation in Section 3.8 of Site Suitability Environ-mental Report states that these effects are within the scope of Table S-4.
Under 10 CFR S51.20 (g) (1), no further discussion is required.
This is made clear by the Statement of Considerations which accompanied promulgation of 10 CFR 551. 20 (g ) and Table S-4: 'l160 058
The Commission is cognizant of the fact that there may occassionally arise a situation where the transportation of fuel and waste for a particular reactor falls within the scope of the rule, but the transportation involves distances, popula-tion exposures, accident probabilities, or other factors which are much greater than those discussed and analyzed in the Survey or which are not accounted for in the Survey.
In such an instance, parties to a reactor licensing proceeding have available to them the provisions of 10 CFR S2.758 which provides, in part, that the Commission upon a showing of special circum-stances such as those mentioned above, may waive the application of a rule in a particular proceeding.
40 Fed. Reg. 1005, 1007 (January 6, 1975) (emphasis added).
Decommissioning The State of Illinois and CANP aLSert that Applicants have inadequately considered the impacts of decommissioning.
In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159 at 178 n.32 (1974),
the Appeal Board held that an inquiry into similar issues was unnecessary:
Decommissioning will not take place for some forty years and, in our judgment, nothing would be less profitable than attempting to evaluate now what method of decommissioning will be deemed most desirable forty years from now, in light of the knowledge which will have been accumulated by that time.
See also, Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-77-36, 5 NRC 1292, 1296 (1977). 1160 059
More importantly, in March of 1978, the Commission announced its intent to commence rulemaking proceedings regarding decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities.
This proceeding will specifically consider the environmental effects associated with plant decommissioning.
Id., at 10371.
As the App 3al Board has repeatedly held, " licensing boards should not accept in individual licensing proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission."
See, Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974) and cases cited therein.
This is particularly true where the development of new criteria could make any finding by this Board obsolete and worthless in later reviews.
Accordingly, these contentions should be deferred until the construction permit stage.
Transmission Lines Applicants have not requested any findings in respect of transmission lines.
The specific corridors which these lines will take will not be selected until the construction permit application is prepared, and accordingly, consideration of this issue must be deferred until that time.
.. 1160 060
For the sake of clarity, Applicants note that one of the criteria they used in selecting among alternative sites in Chapter 9 of the Site Suitability Environmental Report was the minimization of the area of new transmission line corridors needed to deliver power from each candidate site to the system grid.
See SS-ER, Chapter 9, pp. 9.2-20 to 9.2-21 and 9.2-44 to 9.2-46.
This was done on the assumption-that transmission line impacts, whatever they may be, will be proportional to the length and width of such corridors.
However, no attempt was made by Applicants to assess the environmental impacts of transmission line construction and operation, which is the issue petitioners attempt to raise.
Three Mile Island and Class 9 Accidents:
Many of the petitioners have rr:. sed concerns relating to the accident at Three Mile Island and the possibility of Class 9 accidents which are apparently unrelated to site suitability and are best deferred to the construction permit stage.
State of Illinois contention 17 requests an explanation from Applicants as to how they will utilize the NRC Staff and ACRS lessons learned recommendations contained in NUREG-0560 and NUREG-0578.
Applicants believe \\\\60 06\\
that these recommendations are related to the design of the plant rather than site suitability and accordingly should be considered at the construction permit stage.
Additionally, the fact that these recommendations have not yet been adopted by the Commission and are currently in the process of being supplemented and refined supports deferral until the construction permit stage.
Iowa PIRG does not request this Board to investi-gate Class 9 accidents but cites the possibility of such accidents as a reason to consider the potential toll-bridge evacuation problem it raises in contention 7 in early site review proceedings.
Applicants believe that Iowa PIRG contention 8 adds nothing to contention 7 since it does not independently present any issues of triable fact.
If Iowa PIRG is asking this Board to determine, as a matter of law, that emergency planning should be based on mitigating the consequences of Class 9 accidents, this issue is being considered in rulemaking proceedings.
44 Fed. Reg. 41483 (July 19, 1979).
Consideration in this docket is therefore inappropriate.
The appropriateness of emergency planning as an issue in these early site review proceedings is also discussed infra, p. 15.
Iowa Socialist Party in its contention 3 (b) argues that early site review approval should not be granted at this time because "the full impact of the Three Mile i160 062 Island Unit 2 accident has not been studied."
Applicants believe this is a threshold legal argument in opposition early site review proceedings rather than a contention which
?;ist. triable issues of fact.
Further, as with State of Illinois contention 17, there is no showing that any of the " lessons learned" from Three Mile Island relate to site suitability.
The design of the proposed Carroll County station will be reviewed at the construction permit stage and will incorporate all applicable NRC bafety requirements arising from the Three Mile Island review.
Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 13 states that "the accident record of U.S. commercial power reactors indicates a strong possibility of meltdown of the Carroll County reactor cores, if they are built."
Nothing in the contention relates this concern to site suitability.
The design of the plant, including those features intended to prevent such a catastrophic accident, will be submitted and reviewed at the construction permit stage.
Accordingly, this issue should be deferred until that time.
Unresolved Safety Issues State of Illinois contention 18 generally invokes unresolved safety issues involving Westinghouse reactors.
The contention is deficient in that no nexus is shown between these issues and site suitability.
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station Units 1 and 2) ALAB 444, 7 NRC 760, i160 063 771-774 (1977).
Applicants are unaware that any such nexus exists.
Consideration of these unresolved safety issues should be undertaken during construction permit proceedings when the design of the plant is reviewed.
Uranium Mining & Milling Contentions relating to uranium mining and milling clearly have nothing to do with the site suitability issues in this proceeding or the findings Applicants have requested.
To the extent petitioners wish to address the incremental impacts of this portion of tne uranium fuel cycle caused by construction and operation of the proposed Carroll County facility, those impacts are summarized in Table S-3 and are more appropriately considered at the construction permit stage.
Iowa PIRG contention 4 requests this Board to prevent Applicants from contracting for uranium fuel prior to, or in the absence of, any findings by the Board.
The Appeal Board has recently rejected a virtually identical request in Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB 507, 8 NRC 551 (1978). Iowa PIRG's contention suggests that the Appeal Board's decision is being appealed to the First Circuit under the name Ecology Action of Oswego, N.Y. v. NRC.
The fact that an appeal is pending does not alter this Licensing Board's duty to follow the Appeal Board's decision.
1160 064
_1,_
Emergency Planning Applicants have not requested any findings with respect to emergency planning and this subject is not mentioned in the Commission's Notice of Intent.
Further the rapid development of federal, state and local emergency planning requirements in response to the Three Mile Island accident, see, e.g.
4 4 Fed. Reg. 41483 (July 17, 1979),
suggests that any finding by this Board on this subject might not retain its validity in later licensing reviews.
10 CFR S2.605 (b) (2).
Finally, Applicants believe that NRC, state and utility resources should not be diverted from the intensive effort to upgrade emergency preparedness at existing nuclear power plants to address the feasibility of emergency planning for the Carroll County facility, ten years in advance of the need for such a plan.
The subject of emergency planning should be deferred until the con-struction permit stage.
Decontamination Citizens Against Nuclear Power contentions 4 and 11 suggests that it may be difficult'or expensive to accomplish any necessary decontamination of the proposed Carroll County facility, and this may cut short the intended 40-year operating life of the facility.
Accordingly CANP argues that any overall summary cost-benefit analysis for the station which assumes a 40-year operating life is invalid.
The issue cf 1i60 065 w
whether decontamination is practicable relates to the design of the plant and not to site suitability.
Further, the overall summary cost-benefit analysis for the facility, referred to by CANP, is deferred to the construction permit Ltage (Applicants' proposed finding 117).
The necessity for any decontamination of the Carroll County facility and the practicability and expense thereof are therefore more appropriately addressed at the construction permit stage.
Potential Rate Increases Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 5 raises the possibility that the Carroll County facility will require large rate increases.
This concern has nothing to do with site suitability.
Further, the argument is clearly outside the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction and is more appro-priately addressed to the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 162-3 (1978)1/
Diversion of Investment Capital Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 6 argues 7/
The Illinois Commerce Commission currently has pending in ICC Docket No. 78-0646 an investigation into, among other things, the economic reasonableness of the proposal to construct the Carroll County facility.
The Illinois Commerce Comnission also has pending before it a rate increase application by Commonwealth Edison Company in ICC Docket No. 79-0214.
The reasoning of the Appeal Board in the Midland decision is particularly compelling where the very issues sought to be raised are pending before the appropriate reg [ulatory agency.
w h 1160 066 4 g
that conctruction ut the proposed Carroll County facility will tie up large amounts of capital which should be invested in more labor-intensive technologies.
This concern has nothing to do with the acceptability of the Carroll County site for the proposed facility.
Further, the argument is outside the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction and is more appropriately addressed to the Illinois Commerce Commission. See Consumers Power Company, supra, 7 NRC at 162-3.
Storage of Spent Fuel On-Site Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 7 questions how much spent fuel will be stored on-site, and for how long.
This is a design feature of the proposed plant and has na connection to the acceptability of the proposed site.
Accordingly, it shou]' be deferred until the construction permit stage.
Disposal of Spent Fuel Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 8 raises issues which are unrelated to site suitability.
- Further, these issues are the subject of a generic rulemaking proceed-ing and may not be addressed in individual licensing proceed-ings.
44 Fed. Reg. 45362, 45363, 45369 n.26 (August 2, 1979).
Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
Disposal of Low Level and Intermediate Waste Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 9 m.
%s 1160 067
_n_
A,
questions where the wastes from the Carroll County facility will be taken, and speculates that no approved burial grounds may be available.
The availability of approved burial grounds obviously has nothing to do with the suitability of the particular site where the proposed plant will be located.
Further, the amount of low and intermediate level radioactive waste generated and the conditions under which it will be temporarily stored depend on the design of the plant.
Accordingly, t'.iis contention should be def erred until the construction permit stage.
Price-Anderson Act Citizens Against Nuclear Power contention 14 questions the adequacy of Applicants' willingness and ability to procure insurance which will cover the full costs and consequences of ca'tastrophic accidents involving the Carroll County facility.
This issue obviously has nothing to do with site suitabiliti and the Commission's regulations do not require proof of insurance until issuance of a vonstruction permit.
10 CFR 55140.11 (4 ) ; 140.13.
If CANP is challenging the sufficiency of the insurance coverage required by the Price-Anderson Act, as implemented by 10 CFR Part 140, this is precluded by 10 CFR S2.758.
Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitu-tionality of the Price-Andernon Act.
Duke Power Company v. 1 1160 068
Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S.
59 (1978).
If CANP believes the Price-Anderson Act is inadequate, the remedy is with Congress, not with this Licensing Board.
Political Debate Over The Future of Nuclear Power Iowa Socialist Party contention 3 (a) states that early site review cannot be approved while political debate over nuclear power continues.
This is a threshold legal argument against initiating these proceedings.
It is not a valid contention because it fails to raise any triable issue of fact.
If facts pertaining to the licensing of a particular nutiear power plant are at issue, an adjudicatory proceeding is the right forum.
But if someone wants to advance generalizations regarding his particular views of what applicable policies ought to be, a role other than as a party to a trial-type hcaring should be chosen.
Duke Power Co.,
(William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-128, 6 AEC 399, 401 (1973).
NEPA Forbids Separation of Early Site Review From Construction Permit Process Iowa Socialist Party contention 3 (d) argues in effect that the Commission's early site review procedure is inconsistent with NEPA.
This constitutes an attack on the Commission's regulations and thus may not be entertained in an individual adjudicatory proceeding.
Nki -
I'l60 069
Technical Qualifications Jo Daviess contention VI(b) challenges, arsong other things, the technical ability of Commonwealth Edison Company to construct, maintain and operate a nuclear power plant at this site.
This contention relates to the suitability of the Applicants, not the suitability of the site.
Applicants have not requested a finding endorsing their technical qualifications at this time.
The inquiry requested by Jo Daviess should be deferred until the construction permit stage, where the subject must be reviewed pursuant to 10 CFR 550.40(b).
Terrorist Activities and Armed Attack Jo Daviess contentions I(a), I(b) and VI(e) (4) raise the question of how the proposed facility will be defended against terrorist activities and armed attack.
The NRC requirements for physical protection of nuclear power plants and special nuclear material are set forth in 10 CFR Part 73.
In general, these requirements relate to the design of the plant and the security organization which must be established, rather than to site suitability.
There appears to be no claim by Jo Daviess that there is anything about the proposed site which would make a facility located there an unusually attractive target or particularly vulnerable to terrorist activities or armed attack.
A finding on this subject is therefore more appropriately deferred until the construction permit stage.
1160 070
_2 0-
Safe Manufacture of Kerr-McGee Fuel Rods Jo Daviess VI(e) (5) raises issues relating to the adequate and safe manufacture of nuclear fuel rods.
This issue has nothing to do with the suitability of the Carroll County site and therefore is not appropriate in this proceeding.
Commonwealth Edison's " Poor Safety and High Violation Records" Jo Daviess contentions I(c), III(f) and VI(b) refer to Commonwealth Edison Company's alleged " poor safety and high violation records" in two ways.
In contention VI(b)
Jo Daviess refers to Commonwealth Edison's alleged poor safety record in questioning Applicants' financial and technical abilities. As stated previously, Applicants believe contentions concerning their financial and technical abilities should be deferred until the construction permit stage.
At that time it will be appropriate to investigate thoroughly any allegations with respect to Comcaonwealth Edison's safety record.
In Contenticn I(b) and III(f) Jo Daviess argues that Commonwealth Edison's " poor safety and high violation records" requires this Board to examine the risk of " illegal discharges of radiation and chemical pollutants," and the potential transportation of such discharges by the strong river current into Pool 13.
1160 071
-21_
k
Applicants have no objection to the consideration in these early site review proceedings of the effects of possible non-routine releases of radioactivity or chemical pollutants in excess of EPA limits and the potential trans-portation of such releases by the strong river current.
However, Applicants believe that in this context the allega-tions in contentions I(c) and III(f) concerning Commonwealth Edison Company's " poor safety and high violation records" unnecessarily confuse the issue and should be deleted.
Effects of Low Level Radiation Jo Daviess contention I(d) states that Applicants have not sufficiently " examined, researcned and considered":
The insufficiency of research into the short-term and long-teru effects of low-level ionizing radiation from nuclear power plants
- upon, (1) the incidence of leukemia, bone cancer, and other hazards to human and animal health within the site 50 mile area.
(2) the absorption thereof in milk animals and aquatic food sources.
(3) the compounding effect of overlapping circles of exposure thereto, caused by the addition to the Northern Illinois area of two more nuclear power plants, as Applicant contenplates at this site.
Ac.ording to Jo Daviess, this inquiry is required by NEPA, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, P.L.91-224, and 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51. -
Applicants object to subsections (1) and (2) of this contention.
Applicants have requested a finding (Finding 126) that routine releases of radioactive liquids and gasses and direct radiation from the proposed facility will comply with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I.
Jo Daviess contentions I(d) (1) and I(d) (2) do not challenge compliance with Appendix I; instead they call for a broad, unfocused reexamination by the Licensing Board in this docket of the bases for Appendix I and the general subject of the health effects of low level radiation from nuclear power plants.
Such an inquiry is precluded by Appendix I, which explicitly states:
Design objectives and limiting conditions for operation conforming to the guidelines of this Appendix shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with the "as low as is reasonably achievable" requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a.
See also 10 CFR 2.758.
Nothing in NEPA or 10 CFR Part 51 requires further consideration of these issues by this Licensing Board, since an environmental impact statement was prepared and considered in connection with the rulemaking that produced Appendix I.
As the Court of Appeals has recently stated:
Where factual issues do not involve particularized situations, an agency may proceed by a comprehensive resolution of the question rather than relitigating the question in each proceeding in which it is raised.
I160 073,
Minnesota v. NRC, F.2d (D.C. Cir. No. 78-1269, May 23, 1979) (Slip opinion at p. 10, citations omitted.)a./
We note that one Licensing Board has allowed reexamination of the general issue of health effects of low level radiation in the context of a construction permit proceeding.
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al.
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-78-26, 8 NRC 102, 144-7 (1978).
In our view that decision is erroneous because it undercuts the purpose of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I.
Applicants have no objection to Subsection (3) of Jo Daviess contetion I(d) since it raises the possibility that due to the location of the Carroll County facility these may be some " compounding effect" of radiation from neighboring power plants which is not within the scope of Appendix I.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Applicants request 8/
Jo Daviess contention I(d) also cites the Environ-mental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, P.L.91-224 in support of its request that this Board must undertake a far-reaching generalized inquiry into the genetic and somatic effects of low level ionizing radiation.
As far as Applicant can determine, that Act merely established staffing for the Council on Environmental Quality and did not impose any sub-stantive obligations on any federal agencies or private parties. 1160 074
that the following contentions be rejected:
State of Illinois contentions 1, 2, 3, 4 (to the extent it deals with alternative energy sources), 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18 Iowa PIRG contentionsE/
2, 3 (a), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Jo Daviess contentions I(a), I(b), I (c),
I (d) (1), I(d) (2),
V (a) (1), V (a) (2), VI CANP contentions
- 1. through 14.
Since petitioners Citizens Against Nuclear et al.
have failed to submit one good contention, Applicants ask that their petition to intervene be denied.
Applicants have no objection to keeping CANP on the service list in this docket, and no objection to CANP resubmitting their petition to intervene and accompanying contentions at the construction permit stage.
Applicants believe all other petitioners have
~9/
We have requested that Iowa Socialist Party be consolidated with Iowa PIRG.
Iowa Socialist Party's contentions should be dropped in favor of the corresponding Iowa PIRG contentions, which are more complete.
If this request for consolidation is not granted, Applicants request the Iowa Socialist Party contentions 1(a) (i),
2, 3(a), 3(b) and 3 (c) be rejected.
1160 075
-2s-
submitted one good contention and should be allowed to intervene in these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted, I
t s
s.e
- vQ w h \\
/d/,
(b (
~
One of the Attorneys for CommonwealthEdisor. Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500 1160 076.
TABLE 1 Description Contention Number State of Iowa Jo Illinois PIRG ISP Daviess CANP X
Need for an Environmental Impact Statement 1
X Need for Power 2
6 2
VI (d) 1 X
Cost-Benefit Balancing 3
X Alternative Energy Sources 4
VI(a), VI(c) 2 Alternative Sites 4
VI (d) (2 )
Plum River Fault 5
1 1 (a) (ii) II (a), II(b)
Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecology 6
10 III Stransky Airport 7
IV (c)
Savannah Army Depot 8
IV(b)
Transportation Explosions 9
X Financial Qualifications 10 5
3 (c)
VI(b) 3 X
Table S-4 11 2
X Decommissioning 12 10, 11 X
Transmission Lines 13 3 (a)
V(a) (1), V(a) (2)
Releases to Ground Water 14 III(i)
Socioeconomics 15 3
1(b),
IV(a), IV (d) 1(c),
IV (e), V (a) (4 ),
1(d)
V (b), V(c)
Indian Burial Grounds 16 X
TMI (Class 9) 17 8
3 (b) 13 X
Unresolved Westinghouse Safety Issues 18 X
Uranium Mining & Milling 4
VI (d) (3 ), I(b) 12 X
Erergency Planning 7
1 (a) (i)
I(a), I,(b )
15 Cooling Towers 9
III(e), III (j )
V(a) (3)
X Decontamination
- 1160 077 g
4, u X
Potential Rate Increases 5, 11
TABLE 1 CONTINUED Description Contention Number State of Iowa Jo Illinois PIRG ISP Daviess CANP X
Diversion of Capital
& Creation of Jobs 6
X Storage of spent fuel on-site 7
X Disposal of spent fuel VI(e) (2 )
8 X
Disposal of low-level and intermediate level wante VI(e) (2,), VI(e) (3 ) 9 X
Price-Anderson Act 14 X
Political Debate over future of nuclear power 3 (a) VI(e) (1)
X NEPA forbids separation of early site review from construction permit process 3 (d)
CONCLUSION Effects on Agricul-tural Economy IV(e), V(a) (5)
X Technical Qualifications VI(b)
X Terrorist Activities and Armed Attack I(a), VI(e) (4)
X Safe Manufacture of Kerr-McGee fuel rods VI (e) (5)
X Commonwealth Edison's poor safety and high violation records I(c), III(f), VI(b)
X Effects of low level I(d) (1), I (d) (2 ),
ionizing radiation III(g), V(a) (5)
Compounding effects of overlapping circles of exposure to ionizing radiation I (d) (3 )
Construction of Nuclear Power Plant on Parkland Sand II (c)
Effect of heat and water on surrounding Sand Prarie II(d) 1160 078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Docket Nos. S50-599
)
S50-600 (Carroll County Site)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Philip P.
Steptoe, hereby certify that copies of
" Applicants' Response To Petitioners' Supplemental Contentions" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 19th day of September, 1979.
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman Mr. James C.
Schwab 3409 Shepherd Street State Coordinator Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Iowa Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Mr. Glenn O.
Bright 36 Memorial Union Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Iowa State University U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Ames, Iowa 50010 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Nancy J. Bennett Assistant Attorney General Dr. Robert L.
Holton Environmental Control Division School of Oceanography 188 West Randolph, Suite 2315 Oregon State University Chicago, Illinois 60601 Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Mr. Jim Dubert Thomas J.
Miller c/o Iowa Socialist Party Attorney General of Icua 2801-1/2 West Street State Capitol Complex Ames, Iowa 50010 DesMoines, Iowa 50319 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. John W.
Cox, Jr.
Board Panel Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Committe on Nuclear Energy Commission Information Washington, D. C.
20555 906 Campbell Street Galena, Illinois 61036 1160 079 4
Atomic Safety and Licensing Paul A. Fuerst Appeal Board Panel Dubuque Fellowship of Reconciliation U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 809 Dodge Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Docketing and Service Section Richard Worm, President Office of the Secretary Environmental Coordinating U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Organization, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20555 3555 Hillcrest Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Ms. Nettie Post The Catholic Worker Thomas J.
Sorg 382 East 21st Street Director Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Carroll County Envirnomental Coalition Mr. Richard Goddard 305 West Cole Mr. Steven Goldberg Mount Carroll, Illinois 61053 Office of the Executive Legal Director Edward Gogol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 6105 W. Winthrop Commission Chicago, Illinois 60660 Washington, D.C.
20555 James L.
Runyon Mr.
J.
Larry Priske 1316 - Second Avenue 503 Division P.
O.
Box 307 Galena, Illinois 61036 Rock Island, Illinois 61201 Ms. Jan L.
Kodner 230 West Monroe Chicago, Illinois 60606
'/
Philip P.
Steptoe 1160 080