ML19318B029
| ML19318B029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1980 |
| From: | Scott W, Sekuler S ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B012 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006240592 | |
| Download: ML19318B029 (8) | |
Text
.
r'N V
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(Renewal of SNM-1265)
(G.E. Morris Operation Spent
)
Fuel Storage Facility)
)
4 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION In an Order dated June 4, 1980 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) ruled upon contentions.
That Order was received by the State of Illinois (Illinois) on June 10, 1980.
In that ruling the Board rejected or modified several of the Illinois contentions.
In response to that ruling and to the Board's statement that reconsideration moticns might be filed 10 days from receipt of the order, Illinois filed a Moticn for Recon-sideration.
This Memorandum is in support of that Motion.
ILLINOIS CONTENTION 1(a) SHOULD BE ADMITTED.
Illinois contention 1(a) as filed stated in pertinent part:
"...The CSAR does not adequately describe and analyze the risk of all credible accidents and the consequences thereof including:
(a) the effects on the Morris facility of a class 9 accident at the adjacent Dresden Nuclear Reactor."
8 0 0 624 0.S'7JL
, The Board rejected contention l(a) stating that " Class 9 accidents _are beyond the scope _of this proceeding," (Order at 4).
Since that ruling was made.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued i
Lon June 9, 1980_a " Statement of Interim Policy" in regard to accident considerations.
.The Interim Policy clearly rejects the previous NRC position that Class ~9 accidents need not be reviewed and are there-e fore beyond the scope of licensing board proceedings.
The Board stated:
The March 28, 1979 accident at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant has emphasized the need for changes in NRC policies regarding the considerations'tt be given to serious accidents from an environmental as well as a safety point of view.
(Interim Policy Statement at 1).
i The Commission'specifically ordered consideration in all i'
ongoing NEPA reviews of " site specific environmental impacts attribu-f table to accident sequences ths; lead to releases of radiation and/or radioactive materials,..." (Id.) The Commission also noted that NRC responsibility to examine serious accidents extends beyond its NEPA objections to encompass " responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act for'the protection of the public health and safety from the hazards associated with the use of nuclear energy."
(Id. at 10)
The Interim Policy Statement clearly gives the Board juris-diction to consider the effects of a Class 9 accident sequence which r
involves-the Morris Facility.
Effects of concurrent radioactive emissions from Morris and the nearby Dresden nuclear facility follow-
-w r
e r,--
v r-v--.---
. ing a Class 9 accident at Dresden also fit within the scope of the Commission's' directive.
In light of the Commission's new policy the Board should reverse its ruling in regard to Contention 1(a).
'THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTENTION 9 DOES NOT ADDRESS
- THE ISSUES BEING CONSIDERED IN THE COMMISSION'S CURRENT RULEMAKING AND THEREFORE CONTENTION 9 SHOULD BE ADMITTED The Bord ruled Illinois Contention 9 must be rejected as it is presently the-subject of a generic rulemaking proceeding.
(Order at 17).
Illinois respectfully disagrees with the Board's interpretation I
of this-contention.
The Rulemaking on Storage and Disposal of Nuclear
+
. Waste,PR 50-51, commonly known as the " Waste Confidence Rulemaking",
was convened to address the question of whether, by the years 2007-2009, the Federal Government would have available adequate high level waste disposai facilities.
See Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C.. Cir. : 1979 ).
The. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has defined the scope of this rulemaking as follows:
I The purpose of this proceeding-is solely to assess generically the degree of assurance now available that radioactive waste can be safely disposed of, to determine when such. disposal or off-site storage will lui available, and to determine whether radioactive wastes can be safely stored'on-site past the expiration of existing facility licenses until off-site disposal or storage is available.
~
The generic determination of whether such waste facilities may exist or whether it is generally acceptable to store fuel beyond a certain time does not involve a site specific determination of whether individual fuel pools will be_ capable of storing fuel.
Nor is the time sequence addressed by the rulemaking identical to that in this proceeding.
The rulemaking looks to an early date of 2007, the expiration of one of the party's nuclear reactors, as the time when federal disposal must become available.
In the instant proceeding we are concerned with the storage of fuel 20 years from now, in the year 2000.
Contention 9 requests a site specific evaluation of Morris facility's ability to continue to store fuel in the year 2000.
It does not propose an assessment of whether Morris will have to store fuel beyond 2007; that presumably will be determined by the rulemaking.
In the light of this clarification of the intent behind Conte.ition 9, Illinois urges the Board to reverse its ruling and to admit Contention 9.
TO CONFORM TO THE NRC' INTERIM POLICY ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONTENTION 11 SHOULD INCLUDE SUB-SECTIONS (a) through (h).
The NRC Statement on Interim Policy, of June 4,
- 1980, supra, mandates staff environmental evaluations that take into account consideration of operational safety, siting and emergency l
. planning.
Subsection? 11(a) through (h) delineate these types of considerations.
Therefoce the Board should reverse its ruling and admit these subsections as part of contention 11.
In the. alternative, the Board could append to the EIS contention, adopted as Contention 7, another paragraph to conform to the Interim Policy Statement.
One such paragraph might read:
The EIS shall include consideration of site specific environmental impacts attributable to accidents that lead to releases of radiation and/or radioactive materials.
Analysis of both probability of occurrence of such releases and environmental consequences of such releases are required.
Events arising from causes external to the facility which are considered possible contributors to risk shall be analyzed, as well as facility accident sequences.
Consequence analysis shall include potential radiological exposures to individuals and population groups and biota.
Socioeconomic impacts that might be associated with emergency measures and/or evacuation should also be discussed.
REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION.
A.
In its order on Contention 11 the Board states chat despite the fact that the contention asserting the need icr an EIS has been admitted, that the Board will defer hearing evidence on that cantention until all the evidence of potential environmental impacts are shown on the evidentiary record.
Illinois presumes that discovery into the environmental impacts will be allowed.
- However, Illinois is' confused as to when such' evidence will be produced.
. Illinois would have no objection to deferral if its evidence will be heard; however if deferral of the issue will go to prevent discovery'and presentation of this issue, Illinois must object to the Board's ruling to' defer hearing evidence on Contention 11.
B.
Illinois joins the staff in its request for clarification of the Board's ruling combining contentions.
If the Board did indeed intent to consolidate the' parties by consolidating their contentions, Illinois must join with the staff to object to such consolidation.
As the staff ably states neither party requested consolidation, the interests of the parties are not substantially the same and although several contentions raised may generally allude to similar issues, each party would be prejudiced if each were not allowed to fully litigate individually the specific issues of concern to that party.
See Staff Motion for Reconsideration at 9 and 10.
To illustrate the problems presented to Illinois by the consolidation the Board may'take note that Illinois did not respond to the Staff's motion to reconsider and to deny Contention 1(b) (vii) which Rorem et al originally proposed.
Illinois, thus, agreer with the staff that consolidation of the Intervenors is inappropriate.
7-CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the State of Illinois prays the Board to~ grant its motion to reconsider its Order of June 4, 1980, to admit Contentions 1(al, 9 and ll(a)-11(h) into the proceeding.
In addition the Board should clarify its rulings in regard to Contention 11 and consolidation.
In so doing the Board should rule that discovery and testimony on Contention 11 will be allowed or in the alternative that Contention 11 will be considered as part of the hearing proper.
The Board should also rule that the parties have not been consolidated and that each may pursue its separate case.
Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM J. SCOTT Attorney General State of Illinois i
BY:
Q_ NRM N f;
MJ l5USAN N. SEKULER Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph, Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 793-2491 DATED: June 20, 1980 r
m
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In-the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308
)
(G.E. Morris Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility License
)
Renewal)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION and a MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, at the P.O.
160 North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois 60601.
. Andrew C.
Goodhope, Esq. Chairman Edward Firestone, Esq.
3320 Estelle Terrace Legal Operation Wheaton, MD 20906 General Electric Company 175 Cmdmer Avenue Dr. Linda W.
Little Mail Code 822 5000 Hermitage Drive San Jose, CA 95125 Raleigh, NC 27612 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Forrest J.
Remick Board Panel 305 East-Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
State College, PA 16801 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ronald Szwajkowski, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Mayer,. Brown & Platt Panel 231 South LaSalle Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Washington, DC 20555 Bridget Little Rorem Docketing & Service Section Essex,_ Illinois 60935 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Office of the Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatroy Commission f
Washington, D.C.
20555 Qg h.y SUSAN N.
SEKULER Assistant Attorney General 2 gg i
-. - -