ML19289E992

Response by Intervenor Greene County (Ny) to NRC & Ny State Public Svc Commission Objections to Interrogatories Submitted by County to NRC & State Commission Witnesses

ML19289E992
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	03/19/1979
From:	Butzel A BERLE, KASS & CASE (FORMERLY BERLE, BUTZEL, KASS
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906010066
Download: ML19289E992 (4)

Text

.

NRC PUBLIC DOC;".iENT ROOM I ~

• O C 'unEspoNDCNCE p M g

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gS S-STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT gg 4' g% jh# y

____________________x c3 h c ' \y In the Matter of POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF  : Docket No. 50-549 NEW YORK

Case 80006 Greene County Nuclear Generating Facility  :

_---_---_-----------x RESPONSE OF GREENE COUNTY TO OBJECTIONS OR NRC STAFF AND PSC STAFF The NRC Staff has objected to three interrogatories posed to its witnesses by Greene County, and the PSC Staff has objected to three interrogatories addressed to its wit-ness. The following is Greene County's response.

A. NRC Objections

1. Interrogatories 9 (A) and 9 (B) . These inter-rogatories ask Staff to provide " delay costs" with somewhat -

varied assumptions from those used by Staff in the FES. In the County's view, delay costs are of uncertain relevance in a NEPA evaluation, since they assume that an applicant is entitled to bias the cost-benefit analysis by its own pre-authorization investments and choices. Be that as it may, the NRC has presented " delay costs" in the FES. In doing so, it has used assumptions which the County deems question-able; and certainly the County is entitled to inquire into these. We have done so by posing alternative assumptions and asking that delay costs be presented on this alternative basis.

The computations involved are relatively simple ones, and they can pose no burden to the NRC Staff. On the other hand, Greene County has no engineering witnesses available to it who could provide the alternate calculations. In the circumstances, the interrogatories are proper and should be answered.

llU y5C' 2234 030 7906010066 4 s

e' '

2. Interrogatory ll(H) . This interrogatory asks Staff to evaluate the Fitzpatrick and other upstate sites in the same manner in which Staff evaluated mid-Hudson sites.

We do not mean by this to require Staff to make as extensive investigations as were undertaken for the mid-Hudson sites; rather, what we seek is whether, from points of view other than transmission, the respective upstate sites are, in a general context, preferrable or superior to Cementon.

NEPA, we submit, requires that this sort of evaluation in this case. Thus, by its specific language, NEPA calls for a detailed statement of, alternatives, among other things. Here, Cementon has been found to be a ser-iously-flawed site. In that context, upstate sites, though perhaps inferior from a transmission point of view, may nonetheless be preferrable alternatives because they do not have Cementon's flaws. Their environmental advantages, in short, may well outweigh any disadvantages associated with transmission and related costs.

Indeed, the FES, at pp. 9-29/30, states specifi-cally that the sites involved are environmentally acceptable candidate sites. Furthermore, in at least three situations (Nine Mile Point, Ginna and Sterling), nuclear plants have been shown to-be feasible-for the-sites because units are already operating there or are now under license. Given this background and the serious and acknowledged deficien-cies of Cementon, an evaluation of the Upstate sites as reasonable and feasible alternatives is prerequisite under NEPA. (In addition, because Cementon has been found to be so seriously flawed, the evaluation also appears to be required under the Ccmmission's Seabrock decision.)-

The Staff cannot in these circumstances claim that it cannot be compelled to undertake evaluations not included in the FES. The point is that some such evaluation had to be included, and the Staff had an affirmative responsibility to provide it. Calvert Cliffs coordinating Committee v.

AEC, 449 F.2d 1109, 1118-19 (D . C . Cir. 1971). Again, we do not ask Staff to undertake as detailed an analysis as may have been undertaken for the mid-Hudson sites -- we do ask it to go back into the field. What the County seeks and is entitled to (and what we believe can be provided on the basis of information already available) is a general ranking of the Upstate sites in categories equivalent to those developed for the mid-Hudson. The NRC Staff should be directed to answer Interrogatory ll(Hl.

2234 031 OE0 Atss

4 B. PSC Obiections

1. Interroaatories 32 and 34. These interroga-tories are directed to that testimony of Staff witnesses Gordon and Lutzy which urges the Siting Board to take into account the asserted fact that if Athens is licensed instead of Cementon, the resulting cost increases will range between

$500 million and $700 million. The thrust of this testi-mony, as we read it, is to try to make relevant to the Siting Board's decision the fact that PASNY has already invested considerable amounts in the proposed plant even though it has not been certificated.

The interrogatories that we have posed seek the basis for such testimony. In our view, such considerations are irrelevant. The fact that PASNY has invested prior to certification, or that its choice of sites was a bad one requiring delays to implement alternatives, should have no bearing on the Siting Board's decision. This is true be-cause Article VIII is designed to authorize investmen't in and selection of sites only through certification; the position of Gordon and Lutzy, in contrast, would make the certification dependent in part on the applicant's pre-certification investment and choices.

We, then, believe the testimony identified in Interrogatories 32 and 34 to be irrelevent and improper.

The fact is, however, that it has been submitted by Staff.

If it is to be allowed, then we are entitled to know on what basis under Article VIII the testimony is deemed to be relevantla'ndnwh'at its import is intended to be in that context. If, on the other hand, the Hearing Officers agree with our view of relevancy, then the testimony should be struck. In that case, of course, answers to the interroga-tories will not be required.

2. Interrogatory 55. This interrogatory is addressed to PSC witness Becker who claims, among other things, that nuclear waste disposal will be accomplished in an economical manner. Interrogatory 55 is directly relevant to this part of Becker's testimony. It seeks information on the West Valley Nuclear Center, where reprocessing and waste disposal had been carried forward for Tome time. Now, however, the operations are closed due to problems that arose, and methods are being sought to dispose of the accumulated wastes. The projected costs for disposal range well beyond $1 billion -- and even then it is uncertain that the problems can be fully resolved.

2234 032

s

_4_

If the West Valley experience were isolated, then we would acree with Staff's objection. Dut the fact is that West Valley represents virtually all the experience that has been accumulated in connection with the reprocessing and disposal of commercial reactor wastes. It is, in sum, vir-tually the only -- and certainly the best -- measure of just how costly the nulcear waste problem amy turn out to be. As such, the West Valley experience is directly relevant to Dr.

Becker's position. Staff should accordingly be directed to answer Interrogatory 55.

Dated: March 19, 1979 Respectfully submitted, BUTZEL & KASS Attorneys for Greene County et al.

By _ Albert K. Butzel /

cc: Hearing Officers Active, Parties 2234 033 St0 t>tSS