ML19269C854
| ML19269C854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1979 |
| From: | Silberg J, Yuspeh A SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902140227 | |
| Download: ML19269C854 (21) | |
Text
- -
' gR 3
310 PUDLIC DOCUMENT ROOM
- h
.. s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
{': _
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
and ) Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) 50-388
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO AMENDMENTS TO THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER On January 15, 1979, 'setitioner Environmental Csalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) filed its Amendments to the Petition for Leave to Ir.cervene, including a statement of ECNP's con-tentions. Pursuant to the Board's December 14, 1978 Order Scheduling Prehearing Conference, Applicants submit their response to EC"P's contentions.
Contention 1 (Health Effects of Uranium Fuel Cycle)
In this contention, ECNP asserts that Applicants' evaluation of the health effects of the r.ranium fuel cycle, and in particular the health effects of "long-lived isotopes",
is inadequate.
In general, Applicants do not object to the admission of a contention dealing with the effects of long-lived 790214 O]
isotopes resulting from the uranium fuel cycle on human health, as those long-lived isotopes are specified in Table S-3 (" Summary of environmental considerations for uranium fuel cycle") of 10 CFR Part 50. Table S-3 uaes not specify health effects, and in fact states in footnote 1 that health effects "may be the subject of litigation in individual licensing proceedings." However, Table S-3 does specify the quantities of effluents associated with the uranium fuel cycle (except for radon 222). To the extent that ECNP 's contention is arguing that the quantities of long-lived isotopes as stated in Table S-3 are incorrect, that argument would be a challenge to a Commission regulation and outside the scope of this hearing. It should also be noted that the contention's reference to " full detoxification period" as that term was used in NRDC v. N2C, 547 F.2d 633 (D. C. Cir. 1976) is misplaced. This decision was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Corp. v. NRDC, 98 S. Ct. 1197 (1978). Contention 2 ECNP in the first sentence of this contention asserts that the Applicants' cost-benefit ratio is " falsified." It is not clear to the Applicants what is contended by the balance of the contention. Applicants object to the admission of this contention based upon its vagueness and lack of
specificity. Applicants cannot, cased upon the contention as stated, prepare to litigate an issue since Applicants cannot determine what the issue is. To the extent that the conten-tion may be seeking to raise the issue of whether it is appropriate to compare background sources of radiation to
" radiation attributable to Susquehanna", that issue has already been decided. See Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-175, 7 AEC 62, 63 (1974); Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALA.'-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1012 (1973); Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87, 100 (1978), appeal pending; cf. Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, 1300 (D. C. Cir. 1975). Contention 3 (Uranium Supply and Environmental Effects of Mining) In this contention, ECNP seems to be raising two issues. The first part of the contention asserts that "known and assured reserves of uranium are insufficient to supply the lifetime fuel required for Susquehanna 1 and 2." The second part of the contention relates to " problems of disposal of mill tailings." On the uranium supply issue, Applicants do not object to the admission of a contention on uranium supply, and are prepared to demonstrate that an adequate fuel supply exists for the life of the plant.
With regard to uranium mining, the " environmental impact assessment" of uranium mining is stated in Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 50, with the exception of impacts of radon 222. Applicants would have no objection to a contention on the environmental effects of radon 222. However, Applicants submit that the application of Commission rules prevents the admission of a brorder contention. Contentions 4 and 6 (Energy Conservation and Alternate Sources) In Contentions 4 and 6, ECNP raises issues of energy conservation and alternate energy sources. ECNP's fourth centention asserts that increased energy conservation efforts would eliminate the need for Applicants' facility. Additionally, the last paragraph of the contention states that Applicants have not discussed " increased electrification of industrial operations." In contention 6, ECNP generally asserts that the Applicants' analysis of alternatives, including solar energy and energy conservation, to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), is inadequate. Additionally, ECNP raises the question of "end use efficiencies." In the present proceeding, Applicants seek the necessary licenses to operate a completed nuclear power facility. Appli-cants submit that the series of alternatives to the SSES now proposed by ECNP, including energy conservation and alternate energy sources, are no longer reasonable alternatives to the
completed plant. Therefore, Applicants oppose the admission e* of these two contentions. Applicants' opposition to the consideration of these alternatives to the existing plan is based on the principle, now well established both in the courts and before the Commission, that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is applied with a " rule of reason" for the range of alterna-tives that must be considered. Important court cases articu-lating this legal principle are Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834-36 (D. C. Cir. 1972); Carolina Environmental Study Group v. U. S., 510 F.2d 796, 798 (D. C. Cir. 1975); Scientists' Institute for Public Infor-mation, Inc. v. AEC, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D. C. Cir. 1973). The principle is also adopted by the Commission in Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co rporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 (1978). Applicants believe that the application of the National Environmental Policy Act at the operating license stage under a rule of reason precludes consideration of an alternative that is inconsistent wita already constructed facilities. Applicants are authorized, under the construction permits, to complete const*uction of the two nuclear power units. A shift to alternatives proposed by ECNP at this time is not reasonable.
NEPA case law supports the proposition that alter-natives to completed projects need not be considered under the rule of reason. For example, in Badoni v. Higginson, 455 F. Supp. 641 (D. Utah 1977), the Federal Court in considering the need for an environmental impact statement prior to the operation of a dam and reservoir, concluded that:
. . . [t]he courts have consistently interpreted NEPA to require a consid-eration of alternatives which are reasonable and do not demand what is not meaningfully possible~. (citations omitted) 455 F. Supp. at 649 Similarly, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York discussed the application of NEPA to a substantially completed Federal housing project and upheld the NEPA evaluation performed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The court stated:
In reviewing HUD's weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of the appropriate alternatives, we will not turn the clock back and compel the agency to disregard present realities or require HUD to pivot its decision on facts that no longer exist. Trinity Episcopal School v. Harris, 12 E.R.C. 1281, 1293 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). The United States Court of Appea ts for the D_ strict of Columbia Circuit in Maryland National Capital Park and Planninc Ccmmission v. U. S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029 (D. C. Cir. 1973), declined to stop construction of a substantially completed
facility, notwithstanding the absence of any NEPA review. The Court observed:
. . . [w] e must face the reality that the building was substantially complete as of May 1973.
487 F.2d at 1042 The appropriate time to raise the question of whether the Susquehanna plant, rather than some alternative, should have been built, was before construction was authorized. Cases have held that no environmental review is needed if the facility has already been completed. See, e.g. Save Our Wetlands v. U. c. Army Corps of Encineers, 549 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1977). Other cases hold that a project which has been completed would not be reassessed even where the original environmental review was inadequate. See, e.g. Ogunquit_ Village Corp. v. R. M. Davis, 553 F.2d 243 (1st Cir. 1977). In this proceeding, environmental review of the plan itself was completed at the construction permit stage. Reopening that decision at this time would be, in Applicant's view, inappropriate. See Detroit Edison Company, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Fower Plant, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-341, Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated January 2, 1979 at 24-24a. In contention 4, ECNP states that Applicants should have compared the " cost of upgrading thermal insulation in existing residences and commercial buildings" with the cost to completo construction of Susquehanna. This is inappropriate
as an operating license issue, since it raises a question about the right of the Applicants to finish construction, a matter decided at the construction permit stage. In the last paragraph of Contention 4, the Coalition raises an issue on the increased unemployment which allegedly would result from increased electrification of industrial operations. In Contention 6, ECNP states that Applicants have not considered end use ef ficiencies. The Commission has determined that issues involving social values related to the end use of power need not be considered. Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-5, 7 AEC 19, 28 (1974). These two issues raised by ECNP fall within the ambit of the Commission's proscription. Thus, this aspect of the Coalition's contention should not be admitted. Contention 5 (Radiation Doses) - This contention asserts that "models used to calculate individual and population doses are inaccurate and obsolete." In its contention, ECNP discusses various items, such as the milk transfer coefficient for iodine and the basis used by the Commiscion to establish its radiation standards. Applicants would not object to a contention based on the three specific challenges identified in the proposed contention, i.e.
- 1) underestimation of the milk transfer coefficient for iodine;
_9_
- 2) use of factors to coniert alpha-particle dose in rads to rems which are too low; and
- 3) underestimation of the radiation effect, on a per rad basis, for very low energy beta and gamma radiations.
To the extent that the contention attacks "the entire set of radiation standards" because they are based on " data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki", Applicants believe that it is a challenge to the Commission's regulations, and is outside the scope of this proceeding. Contention 7 (Emercency Plan and Class 9 Accident) ECNP raises several issues in this contention. First, the Coalition questions the adequacy of the emergency plans of Applicants and various state and county agencies. Second, the contention asserts that Applicants have failed to comply with NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act by failing to perform "a full analysis of both the probability and conse-quences of worrt case accidents." Third, the contention states that an emergency plan must include drills of all the potentially affected public. Fourth, ECNP suggests that the Applicants might fail to follow Commission rules and pro-cedures if an accident were imminent. Fifth, ECNP cites an alleged statement by Thomas M. Gerusky, Director of the Pennsylvania Office of Radiological Health, regarding that Department's capability to respond to a nuclear accident.
This part of the contention also raises the issue of the Department's funding. Applicants will comment on each of these items. ECNP first questions the adequacy of various emergency plans. The apparent basis for this complaint is that the plans wculd not " assure prompt notification and evacuation of all areas in which persons may be exposed to radiation dores in excess of those permitted by existing radiation exposure guides for the general public and Protective Action Guides." ECNP has indicated no reasons why '.he plans would not assure the requisite notification and evacuation. The Commission's proposed change to its emergency plan regulation, 43 Fed. Reg. 37475 (1978), would make emer ency planning beyond the low population zcne (LPZ) dependent on the design features of the facility and the physical characteristics of the environs in the vicinity of the site. That proposal is, according to the Commission, to Pa used for " interim guidance." In its contention, ECNP f a-.ls a anything unusual Shout the Susquehanna facilitj about its location, which would necessitate emergency plaa ng beyond the LPZ under the interim guidance which the Commissior has provided. See Detroit Edison Company, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atordc Power Plant, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-341, Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated January 2, 1979 at 12. Accordingly, ECNP's general comments about Applicants'
emergency plan are without basis and are a challenge to the existing and proposed Commission rules. Thus, the elements of the contention on general emergency planning should not be admitted. The second part of ECNP's contention relates to a Class 9 accident. The Commission's position that it is not necessary for a license applicant to discuss Class 9 accidents because the probability of their occurrence is so small has been upheld by the courts. Offshore Power Systems, (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194 (1978); Porter County Chaoter v. AEC, 533 F.2d 1011, 1017-18 (7th Cir. ) , cert. denied 429 U.S. 945 (1976); Carolina Environmental Study Group v. AEC, Si0 F.2d 796 (D. C. Cir. 1975); Ecology Action v. AEC, 492 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1974).* Thus, this part of ECNP's contention is a challenge to Commission policy, upheld by the courts , and should not be admitted. The third part of the contention deals with the lack of drills including " participation of all of the potentially af fected public. " The Commission has rejected a rulemaking petition seeking such drills. Such action mandates denial of this aspect of the contention. On August 6, 1975, the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) recuested that NRC
- It should be noted that none of these decisions rely upon WASH-1400 (the "Rasmussen Report"). Therefore, their conclusions are unaffected by the recent NRC Statement en WASH-1400.
require licensees to distribute emergency plan instructions to the public within a 40 mile radius of the facility, to disseminate information explaining these plans to the public, and to conduct actual evacuation drills at least annually. On July 7, 1977, the NRC denied the PIRG petition. See Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-50-14, 42 Fed. Reg. 36326 (1977). The denial was based upon the NRC's analysis "that the proposed rule would not further ensure the health and safety of the public, and in fact may increase the probability of injuries and loss of life, in addition to causing other inconveniences and costs not commensurate with the benefit." 42 Fed. Reg. at 36328. In view of this ruling by the Commission, the contention should not be admitted. ECNP suggests, in the fourth part of the contention, without any basis for its statement, that: In the early stages of an accident, the Applicant may be unable or unwilling to ascertain that an offsite radiation hazard exists or will exist, and may be expected to avoid advising other responsible author-ities and the public as long as the utility officials believe that emergency evacuation -- detrimental to the utility company's inter-ests -- is not absolutely essential. The Applicants fully recognize and accept their operational responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act and Commission regulations. The Applicants will fully comply with all accident and emergency procedures and rules of the Ccmmission.
A contention which postulates a deliberate refusal to observe such regulations should not be admitted. Finally, in this contention, ECNP questions the emergency response capability of the P.innsylvania Office of Radiological Health. As part of its contention, ECNP alleges that Office Director Thomas M. Gerusky has raised this issue. However, the Coalition indicates that Mr. Gerusky under oath has denied making such a statement. This alleged statement, which is not presently acknowledged by the State official, is no basis for a contention on the Office's capability. The Appeal Board has also rejected, as lacking any evidentiary support, the same argument when it was raised in the Three Mile Island proceeding by Dr. Chauncey Kepford, one of ECNP's two authorized representatives in this proceeding. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) ALAB-486, 8 NRC 9, 22 (1978). ECNP also expressed concern about the resources available to the State office to perform its mission. No such support is sub-mitted for this proposition. The identical claim was rejected by the Appeal Board in ALAB-486, supra at 20-21. Applicants tnerefore submit that this aspect of the contention should be rejected as without any basis. Contention 8 (Use of Herbicides to Clear Transmission Line Right-of-Wav) In this contention, ECNP alleges that the use of "inade-quately tested" herbicides to maintain clearance of trans-
mission line right of way will pose a health hazard. This issue was treated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) issued in connection with the Susquehanna construction permits. FES 55.5.l(c). Under NRC regulations, environmental reports and environmental impact statements issued in con-nection with operating license hearings need not consider matters discussed at the construction permit stage. 10 CFR 5551.21, 51.23(e). Since ECNP has not shown any new informa-tion or other basis in support of its contention, the conten-tion should not be admitted. Contention 9 (Archeoloav) This contention states that the archeological investiga-tion of the Susquehanna site prior to construction was not adequate
- and argues that "[c]ompletion of archeological investigations . . . should precede further construction at the site."
The relief which the Coalition requests in this contention does not relate to the operating license proceeding. Rather, ECNP complains about an investigation undertaken prior to the start of construction and asks for a modification of the construction permit now in effect. Such a request is outside the scope of the present operating license proceeding, and Applicants therefore object to the admission of the contention.
*It should be noted that the " upland site" for the facility was chosen in 1970 (prior to the filing of the construction permit application) , not after the 1972 Hurricane Agnes flood as asserted in the contention.
Site archeology was dealt with in the Final Environmental Statement issued in conjunction with the construction permit proceedings. See FES, S2.3. Contention 10 (Design Issues) ECNP in this contention raises a series of Susquehanna design issues. Applicants will deal with each of these allegations separately. First, ECNP questions the strength of the pressure suppression containment structure. Applicants do not object to the admission of this part of the contention, and are prepared to demonstrate that the design of the pressure suppression containment structure is fully adequate. Second, the contention expresses concern about the ability of the reactor pressure vessel to withstand thermal shock. The Commission has determined in several prior regulatory proceedings that, absent some special circumstances, pressure vessel integrity need not be considered in licensing proceedings. For example, in Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-137, 6 AEC 491 (1973), the Appeal Board said: The probability of a rupture of the pres-sure vessel is considered so low that it becomes an appropriate area of inquiry by a licensing board only upon a showing by a party of "special circumstances." Such a showing requires more than a mere alle-gation thereof; and a beard is authorized to exclude contentions or challenges re-
garding pressure vessel integrity which have no substantial or prima facie basis. (footnotes omitted) 6 AEC at 503 See also Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Unit No. 2), CLI-72-29, 5 AEC.20 (1972); and Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 336 (1973). Since ECNP has made no such showing, this aspect of ECNP's contention should not be admitted.' Third, this contention raises the issue of possible stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel , Aping in BWR coolant water environments. Applicants do not object to the admission of this contention and would present testimony on
~
the ability of Susquehanna's stainless steel piping to withstand such environments. Fourth, ECNP inquires about the ability of the Susquehanna SES to " survive" Articipated Transient Witnout Scram (ATWS). Applicants have no objection to the admission of a conten-tion on ATWS, and are prepared to demonstrate the extremely low probabilities of such events and the capabilities of the plant to withstand them should one occur. Applicants note that ATWS will apparently be the subject of a rulemaking proceeding scheduled to commence withtn several months. See NUREG-0460, ' Anticipated Transients Without Scram for Light-Water Reactors", vol. 3 (December, 1978). To the extent that this rulemaking addresses the " ability of Susquehanna to survive" ATWS events, the contention would, Applicants believe, become moot.
Fifth, ECNP alleges that "overpressurization of the reactor vessel is a serious safety problem." This allega-tion does not form the basis of an appropriate contention for the same reasons as those stated with regard to sub-issue 2. Sixth, the contention, in a cursory manner, mentions
" numerous problems" with electrica'l cabla penetrations as well as other design features "that have not been specifically addres.=ed" in the contention. Since all these additional matters are either vague, or not "specifically addressed,"
Applicants would object to their admission. Contention 11 (Sincle Failure Events) In this contention, ECNP asserts that " excessive re-liance on ' single failure' events . . . leads to a false sense of security." Applicants' reliance on " single failure" events is in full accord with the single failure criterion establi.ched in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The contention is apparently challenging that regulation and therefore should not be admitted in this proceeding. Contention 12 This contention simply lists a series of items (decommis-sioning, radioactive waste management, e tc . ) and asserts that their " lifetime monetary full cost determinations" make
the Susquehanna facility " economically non-competitive with virtually any of the many alternative sources of energy or with conservation." ECNP then asks that no operating license issue until there are " national policy determinations, federal legislation and administrative agency regulation of these issues." Applicants submit that this contention, absent further definition, is too vague and unspecific to permit its mean-ingful litigation. These overbroad assertions with no specific connection to the Susquehanna facility do not present an appropriate basis to warrant admission as a contention. To the extent that the contention asserts that
" national policy determinations, federal legislation, and administrative agency regulation" must precede the granting of an operating license, the contention requests relief beyond the scope of this proceeding and challenges the entire NRC regulatory structure.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in Applicants' Answer to Request for an Operating License Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene Submitted by the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, dated September 20, 1978, Appli-cants respectfully submit that ECNP should be admitted as an intervenor in this proceeding and that proposed contentions
(or parts thereof) to which Applicants did not object should be admitted as the contentions of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power. Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By - Jay E. SilbErg Alan R. Yuspeh Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 (202)331-4100 Dated: January 26, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM.4ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station ) Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Appli-cants' Response to Amendments to the Petition for Leave to Intervene of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power" were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, or by hand, this 26th day of January, 1979, to all those on the attached Service List. k Alan R. Yuspeh Dated: January 26, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFFTY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) Units 1 and 2) ) SERVICE LIST Secretary of the Commission. Dccketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nucles_ Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chairman Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Atomic Safety and Licensing Co-Director Board Panel Environmental Coalition on U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Power Washington, D. C. 20555 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Board Panel c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 South River Street Washington, D. C.' 20555 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger Board Panel Post Office Box 377 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R. D. 1 WaJhington, D. C. 20555 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Colleen Marsh Board Panel 558 A, R. D. #4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mt. Top, Pennsylv'ania 18707 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bureau of Radiation Protection Scard Panel Department of Environmenral Rescurcez U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C. 20555}}