ML20042C562
| ML20042C562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1982 |
| From: | Kodner J KODNER, J.L., PRAIRIE ALLIANCE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203310524 | |
| Download: ML20042C562 (11) | |
Text
l*
i
-~,.7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -[g ",33 p7.g IN Tile MATTER OF:
)
)
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, et al
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL
)
(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)
)
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS INTRODUCTION On March 17, 1982, this Board, by oral order, entered dur.ing a conference call, granted PRAIRIE ALLIANCE leave to submit proposed supplemental contentions.
In accordance with said Order, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE respectfully submits the following contentions in supplementation of those conten '
wed by this Board's Order of May 29, 1981.
'b n
RECEIVED g
PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS
~
MAR 3019825 i
' T.
n est attmu enom ?
caut swa n 5
y 1.
BEYOND BASIS ACCIDENTS p
G Neither the Applicant nor the NRC f T2n SER or DES disclose what measures have been taken or are planned to assure public health and safety in the event of "beyond design basis accidents", formerly known as " Class 9" accidento, espe-cially as regards additional safety features and :sucheca' es as s
- TuTT AND KODNER
+
j iva w. m.O~.maar might warrant such features.
l SUITE 1004 l CHICAGO lu.OGOS 2.
ALTERNATIVES l
TELEPHON E y
C ' 2 * * ' ' ' ' '
The Applicant and staff fail to comply with the o
}
S 5
j National En,vironmental Policy Act of 1969, in that there is j)T 8203310524 820326 PDR ADOCK 05000461 0
PDR Il
I
) inadequate consideration of alternatives to the nuclear plant.
1 The DES and SER present no examination or disclosure as to the i
economic and environuental improvements in coal, conservation, j
solar and wind energy technologies from the time of construction h
permit to the present.
3.
NEED FOR FACILITY AND PRODUCTION COSTS The Applicant and staff inaccurately assess the need t
h for the facility and prodution costs of same in that they 3
1 (a) grossly overestimate the expected average annual rate of growth in electricity consumption; (b) fail to adequately con-f sider all costs of the nuclear plant, including backfitting and other safety modifications requiring capital expenditures, costs
[
h of repair, and/or decommission and/or decontamination, and/or purchase of replacement electricity in event of accidental occurrence, such as Three Mile Island (1979), Browns Ferry (1975), or Indian Point (1980-1981), or costs of nuclear waste a
disposal; and (c) overestimate the reliability and performance of
. t the plant.
See DES, Chapter 2.
ti k
4.
GENERAL ELECTRI_C WITilDRAWAL FROM MARKET L
General Electric recently, announced that it will i
.?
withdraw from the nuclear hardware market.
The effects of this l
withdrawal have not been considered by the Applicant nor the staff.
This withdrawal is especially germane in light of d
LAW OFFICES 1
((U",*o e,"",",, Applicant's lack of experience in operating nuc1 car plants and suits too4 its future needs relative to plant servicing and design modifi-A CHICAGO. 0LL. aoeon TELEPHON E 4
cations mandated by present and future Commission regulations l
C'*'***
and orders.
]
l p
c
)
i 1
5.
SYSTEMS INTERACTION j
The Applicant and the NRC staff inadequately consider f
6 the interaction of systems installed by engineers with differing
~I
~!
functional specialties, such as civil, electrical, mechanical l(
and nuclear.
The SER reveals that the Applicant has not yet
'l described a comprehensive program that separately evaluates all I
structures, systems and components important to safety for the t
three categories of adverse systems interaction (spatially k
t coupled, functionally coupled and humanly. coupled).
These
[
problems are especially significant in light of Applicant's quality assurance and 4t:911ty control problems during construc-h C
tion of the Clinton Plant.
p 6.
!!YDROGEN CONTROL The Applicant and staff fai". to adequately protect j
E against hydrogen accumulation and hydrogen explosions or burns P
)
in the Clinton reactor.
No system has yet been installed.
There is no consideration of the continuity of GE'S role in the owner's group formed to evaluate the hydrogen concerns for f
Mark III containments, in light of GE'S announced withdrawal from the nuclear marketplace.
U 7.
PSYCIIOLOGICAL STRESS d
The Applicant and the NRC staff fail to adequately.
j?
r consider the psychological stress _and trauma, and mitigation
-3 hT,^,"[$ "",71 thereof, which will be experienced by persons residing in DeWitt
(
ousTJtoo4 and surrounding counties caused by:
(a) the operation of the emen.o. m
...on TaLEPHONE C ' *E * *
- Clinton Plant; (b) emissions of radioactivity, accidental and
-0di
- h bc
l t.
t
.y i,(
planned, by the plant; (c) transportation of spent nuclear fuel rs from the plant through said communities; (d) on site storage of f;
-s spent nuclear fuel; (c) possibility of future accidents involving h
b occurrences, design basis accidents and beyond design basis accidents, including, but not limited to, events such as the
-d e.t 1979 TMI near meltdown; and (f) emergency and/or evacuation planning.
}
j 8.
SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS g
.t The economic and social effects of station operation 3*
have not been adequately assessed and considered by the Applicant
' It M
or the NRC staff, nor have appropriate actions been taken to
]&
mitigate the following adverse socioeconomic impacts, g
4 A.
The impact of Applicant's ownership of over 15,000 acres of land in DeWitt County, a rural county in which land ownership has significant meaning in the community social.
}v structure and personal values.
For example, impact of ~ county f
dependency on Applicants for funding community services without
+
proper development of community participation in said funding.
B.
Impact of Illinois Power's withdrawal from the' y
, - -u county after decommissioning of the Clinton Power Station.
j
- c C.
Impact of over 500,000 visitors per year to
. 'q Clinton Lake ~and as many as 20,000 visitors per weekend at S
peak time.
i^: h uwomese Wj
[,N D.
Impact of alteration and recreational opportuni-ODNER b
SUITE 8004 ties in. the area caused by creation of Clinton Lake, including:
.~i 6
en.ca.o. ru...
TELEPHONE
' h' coac.....
(1)
Drastic loss of timberland and forest land-j/ [
f1 in DeWitt County, which has lead to a loss of hunting days'per 7'
n year.
$j \\
1
~.
s
'i i
i 1
'l H
t l
(2)
A permanent loss of days of stream fishing
[
Ill j in the area.
(3)
The effects upon local residents caused by I
these changes in recreational opportunities from free open use i
of forestland and streams to the more structured and controlled i
-i recreation at Clinton Lake.
t-I i
E.
Effects of recreational tourism on Clinton area, I
including:
crowding, littering, vandalism, road and traffic qli problems caused by boats and trailers and forest fires.
l F.
Impact of reallocation of Illinois Department E
I of Conservation funds from other recreational areas to the ti Clinton Lake, especially the impact on the nearby Weldon Spring t
State Park.
G.
Impact of plants closing which may lead to a Uf redefinition of land use of the plant site.
11.
The impact of over 100 more people (plant V
employees) commuting to Clinton from Decatur.upon transporta-tj
.b tional and social service facilities in DeWitt County.
t1 Y
N N
b
-fl ni(
b i
h law orricts TUTT AND KODNER l7s W. CADISON STREET outTE 8004 g
CHICAGO, ILL. 40008 TELEPHON E
-[
E ta/ ass.t ess b
o
-h 2
'J:
0
i l
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS All contentions are proferred herein on the basis of newly discovered information or the contents of the Staff's SER and DES.
New information.may justify admission of late filed contentions.
Cincinatti Gas and Electric Co. (Zimmer Nuclear Station), 10 N.R.C. 213 (1979).
These contentions should be admitted under 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) because:
(1) there is good cause for the failure to file these contentions previously, as the information was not then avail-able or did not then exist; (ii) there are no other means to address this issue, since this is a situation involving an applicant with no pre-vious nuclear operating experience which hopes to operate a reactor which no one has operated as of yet.
If not addressed through these licensing proceedings, it will be too late to explore the ramifications of all issues presented; (iii)
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S participation on these issues can reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE intends to produce witnesses and/or cross examine those of the applicant relative to said issues.
As the Staff in its SER and DES has not demonstrated that it will adequately delve into these areas, the record will be
!TUTUAN developed by PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S and the State's efforts herein; K DNER
- i7] W. M AllSON STR EET evira ico4
.(iv) as neither the applicant nor the NRC staff have CHICAGO. ILL 60008 adequately dealt with/!mpo$ tant issues, only PRAIRE ALLIANCE or va'Erwoat ciar.3. ions Illinois appears willing to pursue them.
While the Staff J
[
e i
t
' represents the public interest, it cannot be expected to pursue f
all issues with the same diligence as an intervenor would pur-f I
sue its own issue.
Cincinc.tti Gas and Electric Co. (Zimmer I
t Nuclear Station) 10 N.R.C. 213, 215 (1979);
h h
(v) admission of these contentions will not unduly L
delay the proceedings.
There is ampic time to complete dis-
{
?
covery relative thereto before the August, 1982, scheduled I'
hearings.
Even if the prehearing conference and hearing were I
i rescheduled for several months subsequent to their present times, this should not delay start up of the facility, as the fuel loading date has already been substantially set back, k
? h and work on the faci.11ty has been halted by the NRC carlier k
b this year.
In its May 2 9, 1 9 8 1,- Order, thi s Board denied the t.
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE contention No. 5 relative to.beyond design i
r basis accidents "without prejudice to the profer of a specific i
contention after PRAIRIE ALLIANCE has had a chance to study the Staff's FES and SER".
Supplemental Contention No. 1 deals with r
I such issue and is submitted on the basis of the inadequate treatment provided this problem in the SER and DES.
The J
Commission's policy statement of June 13, 1980, 45 F.R. 40101 l
s calls for the staff to take steps to identify additional cases t,-
that might. warrant early consideration of either additional l
LAW OFFICSS -
[,$ $"o E y"[,$ features or other actions which would mitigate the consequences
~
evns ioo.
- g
)
emca.o. iu
...oa of serious accidents.
45 F.R. 40103.
r res.sce.o :
r C'*"****
Supplemental contentiontNos. 2, 3 and 8 are predicated _
.[S upon the Commission's responsibilities under the National
' y j
". I {l E
I
\\
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C., Section 4332, and under 10 C.F.R.,
Section 51.23.
The Commission should fully consider all alternatives and conduct a complete cost benefit analysis each time it undertakes a major action.
Supplemental contention No. 4 deals with a new development which may have a major impact upon Applicant's ability to operate the Clinton plant, especially in light of its inexperience.
l Supplemental contention Nos. 5 and 6 should be admitted for the same reasons as Supplemental contention No. 1.
The i
May 29, 1981, Order of this Board allowed PRAIRIE ALLIANCE to l
raise one or more generic issues after receipt of the SER.
As to Supplemental contention No. 7, the United States J
Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, recently allowed a similar con-tention regarding psychological stress of TMI area residents.
People Against Nuclear Energy vs N.R.C.
F. 2d _
(DC Cir., 1982).
Recent judicial decisions may provide good cause for late or subsequently filed contention:.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom), ALAB-389 (1977).
The Board denied a differently worded contention on the same subject in its May 29, 1981, Order.
Ilowever, because of the Commission's December 5, 1980, announcement, the Board was not permitted to entertain such a contention regardless of its specificity.
See LAW OFFICES
,[,[^,j,$
",,*,", CL1-80-39, 12 NRC 607 (1980).
The question of the old PRAIRIE.
'{
eunciooA cmeA 0,ia_.o.on ALLIANCE contention's specificity was therefore irrelevant and TELEPHONE C'*/888**
moot.
Where an issue is moot, the trial court shoul refuse.to q
,3
j' y
I i
make an adjudication of the moot issue.
6A Moore's-Federal Practice, Section 57.13, e.g. Zwickler vs Koota, 389 US 241 (1967).
Accordingly, the Board should consider Supplemental
)
1 contention No. 7 on its own merits, j
i For the reasons aforesaid, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE respectfully t
.s requests that its eight Supplemental contentions be admitted
}-
to these proceedings for consideration.
~
dra l
n
%IRIEALLIANCE,ByItsAttorney,
- i fANL.KODNER
{
J h
f DATED:
March 26, 1982
}e 1
I' 1
-h t 1
}
I f.
d LAW OFFlCES TUTT AND MODNER ITS W. Mall 80N STftEET SUITE 9004 CMICAto, ILL. 90004 j
TELEPHONE j
Ces/Iss tess
.'*l
}
4 ji
.i M
o o
1 1
b ll
?
t l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
1 I
! IN TIIE MATTER OF:
)
)
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, et. _a1
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL
}
)
j (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)
)
t i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a copy
(
i I of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S Proposed Supplemental Contentions to be
[
t served upon:
I i
SEE ATTACIIED SERVICE LIST P
I i
by depositing a copy of same in the U.S. Mail at 173 W. Madison t
St., Chicago, Illinois, on March 26, 1982, with the proper
(
f postage prepaid, except that an original and two copies of said i
document was delivered to Federal Express Co., 2 North LaSalle t
Street, Chicago, Illinois, on March 26, 1982, for delivery to i
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. NRC, by no later than March 29, 1982.
i y.
/
[
k.
JAN L. KODNER
- j i.Aw omCa.
TUTT AND KODNER n W. rADISON STRauf Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 26th day of March, 1982.
.uirs iou
. CHICAGO. ILI 00804 d':::::::.
gg gns i
Notary Public Ia t
i 1
l N).j r.
u&& $h
.e
-l
/'.
p.y, W;y u;D N.
. 4lsh Ayg r
l'4 h, $' M*jp; I
'3. #: e q
3 c
m SERVICE LIST 1.1.
@!;; L llugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman Sheldon Zabel, Esq.
'M 4 Administrative Judge Schi f f, liardin G Waite 'pt 'y,.J. h.;
i / y k P.
O.
Box 127A 7200 Sears Tower 1
233 South Wacker Drive @f,"3;.,, / hf Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Chicago, IL 60606.
Dr. George A. Ferguson
, g'.,(7 y'yQ,.
- MN U.d
' Administrative Judge PhilipL.Willman,Esq.[h!:'M AssistantAttorneyGenera1T(.'V(jg.t School of Engineering jj lloward University Environmental Control;aN @ i[v
? 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.
Division
' #W M p Washington, DC 20059 188 W. Randolph St.,
' S Q f@Itj),
gM/-
Suite 2315 Dr. Oscar !!. Parish Chicago, IL 60601 Dick Goddard, Esq..
? g ;4 %j j 4 A.ji5 Administrative Judge q.
,' Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive q
~
Board
,$4s S,,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 6
Legal Director
?f3 e Commission U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory 2%g:j((;l' F
?
Washington, DC 20555
'g4%
Commission c
Washington,'DC '20555g^,??*,
Prairie Alliance Atomic Safety and Licen..,,' i-
. P. O. Box 2424 p Station A Appeal Board Panel,; 9
., N Champaign, IL 61820
'b
' n.qg Q.5 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory) g Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC J20555 n g g g ;
lloard Panel 4%M zl g,p>
U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Docketing and Service:
Commission Section
.d OfficeoftheSecretaryh'$iS^:i$c Washington, DC 20555 U. S. N u c l e a r R e g u l a t o r y M N :ly iT Commission
. del #5 Washington,,DC.'. 20555*3$${,,
x:N.?hh&
,'d, 4;,"2qw
- 95.~
6 7y. A
~ * [
/
^~ '
.ih law omcEs
~25 3:Ih T AN J KIONER
W r,"l,y?j
',q
' 'Q',,,,
c g
- r. CapleON.TA.ET?
eutTE1004
., Q q 4
c4eo, tu eocon 3 s.
3 TELEPHONE
...c... a.
s p
W, v
.:.. ;4.,
f 3
Y[f[ 3 W k h,.
.j
,.g;s
~
t q ; N i'l' ;;. * /:.
.~
b,
' ~ f4 I' f 5If,
- g.,
._, _