ML20010A129

Memorandum Supporting Objections to ASLB Findings in 810728 Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum & Order.Objects to Ruling on Need for Power Contentions & Refusal to Include Airplane Crash Contention.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20010A129
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/03/1981
From:	Lodge T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY, LODGE, T.J., NORTHSHORE ALERT, SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20010A122	List: ML20010A121 ML20010A129
References
NUDOCS 8108110096
Download: ML20010A129 (6)

Text

• MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT The Board's Memorandum and Order contains a number of findings of fact and conclusions of law to which Sunflower, et al., object;

1) The Alliance objects to the ruling on the "Need for Power Contentions" (Order, pp. 37-48), which the Board denied as an issue in this proceeding.

The Board finds (Order, p. 38) that We may readjudicate issues, but only if there is a significant change of circumstances or policy.

The Board was presented with extensive data (Order, pp. 43-44) concerning the severe decline in forecast net energy demand of Applicant. In the face of those very substantial changes since 1976, which these inter-venors believe comprise a "significant change of cir-cumstances," the Board termed the contentions " needless litigation" and refused to allow "relitigation" of an issue which supposedly had been considered at the construction permit stage.

Sunflower, et al . , believe that the adducement of evidence at hearing would conclusively prove the complete absence of need for power from the Perry Units by-Applicant or its co-venturers. If that 8108110096 810803 PDR ADOCK 05000440 G PDR

- - _ _ - - - . . - . - _ - - - - -. . . - . - = - .. . _.- . ._. -- - , _ .

were proven, it logically would follow that any operation of the Perry plants would cause economic and environmental costs far outweighing the bene-fits derived from generating power. (Intervenors would ask the Board to note that there are con-tinuing environmental impacts from an operating nuclear facility, as well as one under construction).

Operating a facility for which no need exists would inescapably cause disbenefit.

In sum, this contention was wrongfully excluded from consideration at this stage of licensing.

2) Intervenors object to the Board's refusal to include the " Airplane Crash Contention" (Order, pp. 72-74) as an issue.

I The very fact that the FSAR data on projected growth of air flights to and from the Lost Nation airport was not conclusively, for the analysis of air crash probabilities at Perry is a ground for this conten-tion's admission. The contention was wrongfully excluded, and is far from " chimerical" (Order, p. 73) in view of the lack of data in this Board's record or the FSAR which can clearly assure safety.

I

, i.

3) Sunflower, et al., object to the refusal by the Board to consider operating licenses for the Perry units in separate proceedings (the " tandem licensing" contention, Order at 55), and parti-cularly the Unit 2 license closer in time to the projected operational date (1988) . Separate j proceedings would be Indicative of a common sense appraisal of the situation, and would be a recognition that substantial differences -

as in net energy demand or construction / quality assurance practices - will, occur between the units in coming years. A look at the past 6 years' variations in those two areas alone is prine facie evidence that reliance upon tandem licensing and the doctrine of collateral estop-pel to avoid litigation where there has been substantial material change of circumstances is, indeed, chimerical.

4) Sunflower, et, al . , object to the Board's refusal to dismiss the operating license application be-cause the Commission is without jurisdiction to

- grant it under 42 U.S.C. Section 2133 t'd) .

- - - , - - - - - - ,- ~ v rv--- -- , , - - - - - - - - , = - r - w - v- , - - - - w- w -w_ -.----wr- r---,--vo, ~+ + y -1m e e

(Order pp. 7-8). The Alliance believes that emergency planning and preparation is, since Three Mile Island, a collection of activities of which the NRC must take notice prior to issuance of a IIcense to oper-ate, and that they do clearly comprise " licensed activities." It may be true, as the Board observes, that Canadians hardly need a license to respond to an emergency.

But Canadians might object to the need and expense for emergency preparations as quite burdensome, since they cannot derive any tax revenues or other benefit (not even energy') from the Perry Units.

The point is, no compulsion exists over Canadian sovereignty to prepare for emergency compilcations at the PNPP; the NRC cannot license activities which could impinge directly and physically upon that sovereigr.ty.

5) Intervenors object to the Board's statement (O rde r ,

p. 13) that Sunflower, et al . , failed to submit a brief prior to the June 2-3 conference. Inter-venors respectfully ask the Board to take note of

o.

their Amended Petition of May 8, 1981, served exactly 25 days prior to the conference. Sunflower Alliance further requests the Board to note the Alliance's assertions made in good faith during the conference that it had stated its contentions with sufficient particularity in its pleadings. The Alliance and its co-intervenors do not believe that their all-volunteer and admittedly inexperienced but reasoned participation in this proceeding warrant derogation, espec' ally to the extent of factual misstatement.

WHEREFORE, Sunflower Alliance, et al., pray the Board to find their objections well taken, and to revise the July 28, 1981, Memorandum and Order in conformity with said objections.

t TERRY J HAN LODGE Counsel Sunflower Allian[/

ce, et al.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Intervenors ' Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order were served via regular postage prepaid First Class mail, to all parties on the accompanying Service List this 3rd day of August, 1981.

I k N/

TERRY f ATHAN LODGE l

l

g

, =:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of )

)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Cha i rman Mr. Jeff Alexander Atomic Safety and Licensing Board OCRE Representative U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 929 Wilmington Avenue, /H Washington, D. C. 20555 Dayton, Ohio 45420 Dr. Jerry R. Kl ine Mr. Frederick J. Shon .

Atomic Safety _and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '

U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 .

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Boa rd Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coinmission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Bruce V. Churchill, Esquire Office of the Secretary Shaw, Pittnen, Potts & Trowbridge U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.V.

Washington. D. C. 20555 washington, D. C. 20036 Charles A. Barth, Esquire

• Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Office of the :xecutive Legal Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Di rector Lake County Adminstration Center U. S. Nuclear Aegulatory Commission 105 Center Street Vashington, D. C. 20555 Painesville, Ohio 44077

• Mr. Tod J. Kenney 228 South College Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 q) 1)

Il 2 i,U3 51981 > 1 b

\

, e et seeetary

- t sesa

-5 N U" cm -4

- .- .- - - - ..