ML20010C867

Memorandum Supporting Applicants' 810818 Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 17.Michaelson Affidavit Sufficiently Addresses Issues & Constitutes Adequate Basis for Granting Motion

ML20010C867
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/18/1981
From:	Silberg J ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8108210123
Download: ML20010C867 (7)

Text

. August 18, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9' /M _

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'V/\

v S) d' 'S\

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETi AND LICENSING BOJ/Ib k. .gh .

l,_:

O \ ,S  !

' c.o.y#

> i

!?

In the Matter of ) [1 ' ft/ /J

) . {-'

J" PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) s jj,

)  % ,<

Docket Nos. 50 ;;87 and )

) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

/6 4Dx

/

' ' ~

/

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF Q D

APPLICANTS' RENEWED MOTION ' 7'e > 3 ' gg > qif FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 17 "r/

L $ Q3

'\ \

FACTUAL BACKGROUND G \

cn On December 5, 1980, Applicants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 17 in which they sought dis-missal of all but one of the issues-1/ raised in Contention 17 in thi.s proceeding with respect to the 500 kV transmission lines to be utilized by Applicants for transmitting the power generated by the Susquehanna facility ("the Susquehanna lines") . Applicants' motion was supp_u 2ed by the Affidavit of Robert F. Lehman, Senior Project Engineer with Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. ("PP&L").

One of the issues raised on Contention 17 and included in Applicants' motion for summary disposition was the allegation that the Susquehanna lines " create strong electrostatic... fields chat go3 5

1/

~

Earlier, on August 22, 1980, Applicants had also moved for summary disposition of the remaininc issue raised in Contention 17 (ozone emissions). [ l 8108210123 810818

{DRADOCK 05000387 PDR

adverse 3y affect living organisms along the UHV right of way and beyond." Ma. Lehman's Affidavit set forth his calculation of the maximum electric field gradients at the point of minimum l clearance on the various segments of the Susquehanna lines, assuming a limiting voltage of 550 kV, and reported that the maximum electric field gradients of the lines would be 11 kV/m on the right-of-way and 2.28 kV/m on the right-of-way edge.

Lehman Aff., para. 44.

Mr. Lehman asserted that ic was very improbable that the maximum electric field under the Susquehanna lines would produce cogdizable effects on a person standing beneath the line except, if at all, " slight hair motion in a hand extended upwards." Lehman Aff., para. 46. Mr. Lehman went on to express the following opinion:

according to the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion, there is no evidence of adverse health effects on human beings from the electric fields produced by high voltage transmission lines...My own review of the literature confirms that finding, and leads me to conclude that early reports of potential. adverse health effects were the result of inadequate methodology and insufficient observation. Thus, the electric fields generated by the Susquehanna lines will have no naasurable effect on the health of the public; this conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the population density in the vicinity of the Susquehanna lines is very low and presence of members of the public on the r' ght-of-way of those lines for considerable periods of time la not anticipated.

Id., para. 47, citation omitted.

Citizenc Against Nuclear Dangers ("CAND"), the original sponsor of Contention 17, filed on January 7, 1981 a document entitled " Motions and Responses Concerning Su'amary Dispositions" in which among other things it opposed summary disposi tion of Contention 17. CAND, however, failed to include any affidavits or other relevant, admissible materials in opposition to Applicants' motion.-2/

On January 9, 1981, the NRC Staff filed a " Response Supporting in Part and Oppc sing in part Applicants ' Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 17" ("Staf f Response") .

The Staff Response, which was acemmpanied by the Affidavits of John C. Lehr and Gerald Gears, supported Applicants' motion as to most of the issues raised in Contention 17, but opposed summary disposition on ',he question of the health effects of electric fields. The Staff's opposition was based on the belief that Applicants' motion and supporting documentation did not " clearly demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding the human health effects of electric fields." Staff's Response at 2. The Gears Affidavit, on which the Staff's Recponse was based, stated that:

"the possible biological effects of these (electric field] induced currents and voltages is a very controversial aspect of the interaction of EHV fields with life forms. The experimental procedures necessary to adequately establish the influence of such fields on life forms are highly complex. Various experiments have provided preliminary evidence that some

~2/

In a November 4, 1980 filing that preceded Applicants' motion CAND had alleged that "an expert biophysicist testifying in Federal Court in Philadelphia cited scientific studies that indicate serious adverse effects caused by 500 kV transmission extending 2,000 feet from the UHV lines." This multiple-hearsay allegation was not supported by affidavits or any other competent evidence.

I .

biological subjects may sense, or respond to electric fields. In some cases, response was obtained at quite low field levels similar to those found in the vicinity of transmission lines. These preliminary indications of response in test animals are indicative of interaction of the fields with central nervous system functions or manifestations of chronic stimulation. There is strong disagreement among researchers in this area as to the significance of these responses. Gears Aff.,

at pp. 2-3.

On May 20, 1981 the Licensing Board issued c " Memorandum and Order on Pending Motions" (" Memorandum and Order") in which the Board granted summary disposition on all issues on Contention 17, except for the health effects of the electric fields set up by the Susquehanna lines. As to that issue, the Board decided that summary disposition was inappropriate because the issue is "a controversial matter." Memorandum and Order at 14, para. (f).

ARGUMENT A. Renewed Consideration of the Electric Field Health Effects Isste is Appropriate at This Time The Board's denial of Applicants' summary disposition motion was apparently due to the Staff's statements that (1) the electric fields set up by high voltage transmission lines cause currents to flow within animals and human beings; (2) some ani'mals may sense, or respond to, electric fields of the same order as those set up by transmission lines; and (3) these preliminary indications of response in test animals are indicative of interaction of the fields with central nervous system functions.

T Gears Aff., p. 2-3. Neither the Gears Affidavit nor the .

1 Staff's motion indicate that the Staff is prepared to testify as to the existence of adverse effects on humans or animals i from operation of the Susquehanna lines; the import of the Staff's i

filing is that Applicants' motion for summary disposition and supporting documents failed, in the view of the Staf f, to l address adequately the above mentioned issuer. Under these 4

circumstan:es, a filing by Applicants that addresses the Staff's concerns and cures the shortcomings of the former motion can be

considered by the Board as a rene'wed motion for summary disposition, i

l and which meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.749, will support l summary disposition of the contention. Cleveland Electric

Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, i

6 NRC 741 (1977).-3/ For it is beyond dispute, both in administrative 1

proceedings and in court litigation, that where the moving party I

i on a motion for summary disposition (or summary judgment) has not i submitted evidence necessary to grant the motion, the party will be allowed to make a proper resubmission. Cleveland Electric i

i Illuminating Co., supra, 6 NRC at 752; Hood v.'Burnett, 51 F.R.D.

477, 479 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Green v. Benson, 271 F. Supp. 90, 95

(E.D. Pa. 1967). This is proper because a licensing board's denial I of a ation for summary disposition is an interlocutory order. See, i

i 4

j -3/ In the Perry case, the Appeal .oard held that a motion by Applicants for summary disposition of a contention had been improperly granted because a report had been considered by the licensing board without its being supported by an j affidavit of a person competent to testify on it. Neverthe-less, the Appeal Board went on to rule that applicants could renew their motion to cure the defect. 6 NRC at 757.

1 t

o Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Gen > rating Station, Unit 3) , ALAB-2 20, 8 AEC 93 (1974). Being an interlocutory order, it is subject to being relitigated before the licensing board by means of a renewed motion.

As will be seen below, the Affidavit of Dr. Solomon M.

Michaelson in support of Applicants' renewed motion sufficiently addresses the issues raised by the Staff to justify renewed consideration of Applicants' motion for summary disposition on Contention 17, and constitutes an adequate basis for the grant of the motion.

B. Summary Disposition of the Electric Fields Health Ef fect Contention Is Appro_oriate Dr. Michaelson's Affidavit explains that the "ef fects" on humans and animals of the electric fields cited in the Staff response (induction of internal fields and currents and perception of the e:cternal fields by some animals) are not an iadication that the fields are hazardous, The Affidavit goes on to review in great detail the various kinds of scientific evidence (theoretical, epidemiolo;ical and experimental) bearing on the issue, and the numerous studies of each kind that have been performed and which shew that no adverse effects on the health of humans or animals result from exposure to the electric fields generated by high voltage transmission lines such as the Susquehanna lines.

t l l

t 4

Dr. Michaelson indicates that there is no evidence of specific symptoms'in humans due to exposure to the electric fields from transmission lines, and there is no known mechanism by which those electric fields can produce adverse health effects on humans or animals. He concludes, based on all available scientific evidence, that the electric fields from the Susquehanna lines will result in no detrimental effects to humans or animals.

It is clear that Dr. Michaelson's comprehensive discussion of the aubject clarifies the questions raised in the Staff's

, Response and fully supports summary dismissal of Con'tention 17 in the absence of contrary competent evidence by the other parties. Accordingly, Applicants' renewed motion for summary disposition of Contention 17 should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TRCWBRIDGE By , / / h dar l Jay]2. Silberg ' ' l Mamas [F. Travieso-Diazl Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Dated: August 18, 1981.

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