ML20051J669
| ML20051J669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1982 |
| From: | Thessin J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205170267 | |
| Download: ML20051J669 (20) | |
Text
i t
05/12/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
v CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-44 J (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
gg/f Ci as y Units 1 and 2)
)
\\\\
- i]
E!
/
kp O
4:8 RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF TO MOTION OF 0HIO CITIZENS FOR f
RESPONSIBLE ENERGY FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONTENTIONS 17, 18 AND t
\\
I.
INTRODUCTION On April 22, 1982,1/ Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CRE")
2 moved to amend its intervention petition and add three late-filed I p
contentions. The contentions questioned (a) whether the Perry Plant's water intake structures are environmentally acceptable, (b) whether the possibility of using nuclear waste for the production of nuclear weapons must be considered in the NRC's environmental statement and (c) whether certain equipment using polymers would be, properly qualified in a radiation environment.
In this response, the NRC Staff urges that these three contentions should be rejected for the reasons set forth below.
-1/
Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Leave to File its Contentions 17, 18 and 19, dated April 22, 1982.
--2/
The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in this proceeding, 46 Fed.
Reg. 12372 (February 13,1981), required petitions for leave to intervene to be filed by March 16, 1982. The Special Prehearing Conference to consider the admissibility of contentions was held on June 2 and 3, 1981.
By the terms of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b) contentions are timely if filed not later than 15 days prior to the Special Prehearing Conference.
820 61h 26 7
/.- rrn c? m on?c m L*h Vertified Dy DW
6 o
. II.
BACKGROUND The principles governing contentions bear repetition.
In order for proposed contentions, timely filed, to be found admissible, they must l
fall within-the scope of the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing initiating the proceeding,3/ and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
@ 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law. The Commission's regu-lations in 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(b) require that a party file a list of contentions to be litigated, with their bases set forth with reasonable specificity.S/ The purpose of this requirement concerning basis and specificity is (a) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate to litigate in a particular proceeding,E/ (b) to establish a sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the assertion, and (c) to put the other
~
r
--3/
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 170 (1976).
--4/
E.g., Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek) ALAB-590, 11 NRC.542, 546.et seq. (1980).
-5/;
A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom, Unit 3), ALAB-216, 8AEC-13,20-21(1974).
0 4
4
. parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to d'efend against or oppose."6_/
A late-filed contention must comply with additional standards as
~
well, with its admissibility judged by a balancing of the five' factors listed in 10 C.F.R. % 2.714(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations.7_/
In order for any judgment to be made concerning these five factors, the proponent of a late contentier must affirmatively address them and demonstrate that, on balance, the late-filed contentions should be admitted as matters in controversy in the proceeding.8_/
III.
DISCUSSION A.
Substratum Placement Of Water Intake Structure OCRE's proposed contention 17 asserts that because the intake L
structure for the Perry plant will inflict " unacceptable damage to the aquatic ecology" in the area of the plant, the appli' cants should employ-an alternative thought to be environmentally superior. This late-filed contention should be rejected (a) because it lacks a basis for the assertions that the proposed alternative intake could be regarded as 6/
Id. at 20.
-7/
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981); Houston Lighting and Power Co.
(Allens Creek, Unit 1), ALAB-671, 15 NRC
, slip op. (March 31, 1982).
-8/
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.),
ALAB-615,12NRC350,352(1980).
t
. f providing a significant difference in environmental impact from f
the present intake design or that it is a reasonable alternative for the Perry facility, and (b) because the contention has failed to satisfy the standards for a late-filed contention.
In addition, the contention may conflict with the terms of the Federal Water Pollutier Control Act, as amended.
OCRE's proposed contention 17 reads as follows:
OCRE contends that the latest water intake system proposed by the Applicant in its design for PNPP (ER-OL, Section 3.4.4) will inflict unacceptable damage to the aquatic ecology of the site and the Central Basin of Lake Erie. The intake system planned for the Grand Gulf station (of which this Intervenor has recently learned) could well be a superior and environ-mentally preferable method of extracting the necessary water for PNPP.
1.
This contention fails properly to raise an argument under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA")9/ and should therefore be rejected by the Licensing Board.
The Commission at the operating license stage evaluates the environmental effects of licensin.g th.e nuclear plant, i.e., the proposed action, and the comparative effects of the proposed action as mitigated by alternatives whichreduceoravoidadverseimpacts.EI-However, these alternative mitigative measures need not be consiaered when they fail to provide a g
M'.
N 9/
42 U.S.C. 5 4332 (1976).
M/ 10 C.F.R. 6 51.23, Q 51.26.
l
. "significant difference" in environmental impact from the present intake i
desigM or are unreasonable or impractical.$
To articulate a contention under 5 2.714(b) which
- properly raises an environmental issue involving alternatives, OCRE's must allege, with basis, that the present design for the Perry intake structure will cause a material environmental impact. Unless the environmental impact of the current design is properly put'in issue, one need not consider mitigative alternatives to that intake structure -- alternatives which by definition would not be likely to provide a "significant difference" in environmental impact.$ OCRE has failed to meet this standard, supplying only its unvarnished statements that the loss of fish from impingement and entrain-ment are "not negligible"El andconstitute"unacceptabledamage."El The need to articulate a basis for a contention is not a legal f
formalism.
Rather it is central to the process of defining an issue for litigation. The Draft Environmental Statement concludes that the losses 4
~~-11/ Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee), ALAB-161. 6 AEC 1003, 1014 (1973), remanded for elaboration, CLI-74-002, 7 AEC 2 (1974),
further statement of Appeal Board vi'ews, ALAB-175, 7 AEC 62 (1974),
affirmed sub nom. Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir.1975); the principle articulated above was cited with approval in C.A.S.P. at 1301 n.18.
Cf.
Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 266 (T979).
12/ NRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C.Cir.1972).
H/ Maine Yankee, supra, at 1014.
M/ Motion, supra, at 2.
15/
Id., at 1.
. of fish from entrainment and impingement, will constitute a " minimal and insignificantimpact"El and "will be orders of magnitude less than at other Lake Erie power plant s."El Without a more particular statement as to why OCRE believes that these losses instead are "not negligible" f
or constitute " unacceptable damage," OCRE has failed to articulate a i
basis for requiring the consideration for environmental purposes of an alternativedesign.El Similarly, in framing a contention for litigation a party must do more than allege that it " suspects that the stratigraphy at the site may be quite suitable" for an alternative design.El Rather the party must allege with basis that the proposed alternative is a reasonable one for the plant in question.2_0/ Without some elaboration or citation from OCRE for its " suspicion" that the strata above the bedrock may support collection wells, there is no' basis for accepting a contention which implicitly challenges the Staff's contrary conclusion that the formation containing groundwater -- the lacustrine soil deposits - " consists of low-permeability fine sands, silty sands, and silty clay."El
-16/ Draft Environmental Statement related to the Operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-0884, March 1982, at 5-12.
17/
Id., at 5-11.
H/ Maine Yankee, supra, at 1014.
H/ Motion, supra, at 2-3.
H/ NRDC v. Morton, supra, at 834.
2_1f Perry DES, supra, Section 4.3.4, at 4-15.
4.
2.
OCRE has also failed to meet the standards for a late-filed contention with respect to this proposed contention.
OCRE alleges that it has good cause for tardiness because of the " novelty"'of the information upon which it is based:
specifically that it only learned of the measure proposed as an alternative when it recently received the Final Environmental Statement for the Grand Gulf plant.5/ This argument on good cause misses the mark.
Because the Commission's environmental responsibilities are limited to a consideration and balancing of costs, benefits and alternatives, OCRE's contention must be read to allege that a specific mitigative alternative to the Perry intake structure has not been properly evaluated and taken into account in the cost-benefit balance concerning operation of this plant.2_3/ Good cause for lateness must be evaluated in the a
context of when the mitigative alternative first became generally known, not when the Draft Environmental Statement was published.EI In this instance, the description of the Applicants' design has been available since at least September of 1974 when the construction permit Licensing Board found the present design to be an acceptable alternative to the 22/ NUREG-0777, dated September 1981.
23/ See 10 C.F.R. @ 51.23(c).
-24/ Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Koshkonong, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-45, 8 AEC 928 (1974).
It is a principle of long-standing that the publ'ication of staff documents provide a justification for lateness only when they contain "new information," Indiana ard Michigan Electric Co. (Cook, Units 1 & 2) CLI-72-25, 5 AEC 13,14 (1972).
~~
- previously.proposedoncethroughsystem.El A discussion of OCRE's suggested alternative -- the Grand Gulf design -- was found not only in the Final Environmental Statement for that facility published in September of 1981, but also in the prior Draft Environmental Statement, published in May of 1981.EI Without some satisfactory explanation for why OCRE filed this~ contention almost one year after the publication of the infor-mation on the' Grand Gulf design, OCRE has failed to meet its burden to show good cause for lateness. The Licensing Board in the first instance is to look at when the new information became available, not when thenewinformationfirstcametoanintervenor'sattention.E!
OCRE has not made a showing on the remaining four factors of
@ 2.714(a) which would argue in favor of allowing this late contention.
Without more, OCRE's claim, pursuant to 5 2.714(a)(iii), that its 9
participation "will surely aid in the development of a sound record" is unsubstantiated and flies in the face of OCRE's inability.to do more than
" suspect" that the suggested alternative may be practical for the Perry facility.
2_5/ LBP-74-69, 8 AEC 538, 569 (1974).
-26/ Draft Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, NUREG-0777, dated May 1981.
-27/ Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. (Cook, Units 1,and 2), CLI-72-25, 5 AEC 13, 14 1972; Duke Power Co. (Perkins, Units 1, 2 and 3),
ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 463 (1977).
See Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Co. (Perry, Units 1 and 2), Memorandum and Order (Concerning Late-Filed Contentions: Waste Disposal and Mg0 Bricks),
2 February 26, 1982,. Slip Op. at 4.~
4 4
- . 4
~
The fact that there are no other means available to protect OCRE's i
interest, 9 2.714(a)(1)(ii), that its interest is not being represented t
by another, 9 2.714(a)(1)(iv), and,that the proceeding,- while broadened, j
may not be delayed by admission of the., contention, 9 2.714(a)(1)(v), do not outweigh the negative determinations on the other two factors.
Therefore, this proposed contention should be rejected for failure to meet the standards for a late-filed contention.
3.
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
("FWPCA"),El standards established under 9.301 (" Effluent Limitations")
or 6 306 (" National Standards of Performance"), which are applicable to a point source, "shall require that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology availableforminimizingadverseenvironmentalimpact."El An applicant for a federal license must obtain a certification from the State that the discharge from its facility will comply with the applicableprovisionsof95301and306(aswellas65302and307).El In accordance with the requirements of 6 511(c)(2) of the FWPCA, if the 28/ 33 U.S.C. 6 1251.,et seq. (1976).
29/ FWPCA, 9 316(b); 33 U.S.C. 9 1326(b).
-30/ FWCPA, 9 401; 33 U.S.C. 5 1341.
If there are no applicable standards, the State shall so certify, but such certification shall not deemed to satisfy the provisions of 6 511(c) of the FWPCA. The July 14, 1974 certification received by Applicants is not in this form, see Appendix A.
I
. I State certification under 5401 requires a particular intake design alternative to be adopted or if permits or determinations under 55 208(b)(2)(c)(ii), 303(e)(3)(B), 318, 402 or 404 require a particular intake design alternative, the NRC will not consider alternative intake designs in its NEPA analysis.3_1,/
It is only in the case when certifica-tions and permits under FWPCA do not require that a particular intake structure design be adopted that the NRC may consider alternatives in its NEPA analysis.
The Applicants in this instance received a Section 401 certification from the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (0 EPA) at the constructior, permit stage of this proceeding.3_2/ That certification conditioned its findings on the use of the design then proposed, which involved a closed-cycle cooling system.
It is not clear from the terms of this certificate whether a particular intake design is being required by.
the State of Ohio.
In light of this, it would be an inefficient use of the Licensing Board's 'and parties' resources to admit this contention and commence litigation on a question of alternative intake structure designs when it is not yet known whether the specific design of intake structure will be
-31/ Policy Statemen.t on Implementation of Section 511 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), para. 4, 40 Fed. Reg. 60115
-(December 31,1975).
-32/ Letter to H. L. Williams (CEI) from I. L. Whitman, Director, OEPA, with Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order, dated July 14, 1974.
See Appendix A.
l j
,. the subject of future FWPCA certifications or permits E and in turn excluded from NRC review under NEPA.
If the issued certifications or permits do not require a particular intake structure design, a late-filed I
~
contention may well be admissible then on that basis.
However, the lack of basis for this contention and its failure to meet late-filed standards are sufficient reasons for rejecting this contention without reaching the applicability of the FWPCA.
B.
Use of Comericial Spent Fuel for !;u::iear Weapons 0CRE's proposed contention 18 asserts that the environmental impact statement concerning operation of the Perry plant must evaluate "the effects of using spent fuel from Perry for the production of nuclear wecpons." This contention should be rejected because it attempts to raise an issue which is not a part of the proposed' action and thus is not required to be considered under NEPA.
OCRE's proposed contention 18 reads as follows:
OCRE contends that the effects of using spent fuel from Perry for the production of nuclear weapons must be considered under NEPA-in the current NRC evaluation of PNPP, and a cost-benefit analysis be prepared pursuant to such action.
If this cost-benefit analysis indici.tes that such action is undesirable, the Commission should impose a licensing condition specifically prohibiting sun use of spent fuel produced at Perry.
If such a licensing condition cannot, for some reason, be imposed, then said use of spent fuel should be assumed to occur, and the NEPA evaluation should 4
be incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis used for determining the desirability of plant operation. The Comission's-decision on the licensing of PNPP should thus be based accordingly.
Defi'ning the scope of the proposed action to be taken is a key to -
theproperapplicationofsection102(2)(C)ofNEPA, The Supreme Court 33/ See', e.g. Perry DES, supra, para. 1.3, at p. 1-2.
b
___-_-__.__._________.-_--_______m._
_ _ =.
" has noted that "[i]n order to decide what kind of an environmental impact statement need be prepared, it is necessary first to describe accurately the'federalaction'beingtaken."El In Public Service Company of New Hampshire the Commission held that when the relevant federal action consists of federal approval of private action, the proper focus for NEPA analysis is the proposal submitted by theprivateparty.E/ The Comission reasoned as follows:
In Federal approval cases, "NEPA seeks only to assure
[ environmental] consideration 'during the formulation of a
)osition on the proposal submitted by private parties.'"
' Quoting Klep3e v. Sierra Club, 427'U.S. 390.(1976) (emphasis
.supplied by t1e Commission).J...[T]he scope and focus of any NEPA analysis depends upon the nature of the particular proposal being considered and the factual predicate existing at the time the analysis must be performed by the agency....
1 A formal proposal exists only when an application is docketed; it becomes a proposal for Federal action only when our staff has completed environmental (and other) analyses and decided to support the application in the hearing e
process....[0]ur NEPA analysis...should focus on the proposal submitted by private parties rather than on some broader but ill-defined concept extrapolated from that proposal. 3_6_/
In the light of Seabrook, the scope of the federal approval sought in this operating license proceeding is determined by the application.
That application does not include a proposal to reprocess the high level wastes from this facility for use in the nation's nuclear weapons program 4
-34/ Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U.S. 289, 322 (1975)
("SCRAPII").
---35/ (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), 5 NRC 503, 541-542 (1977); see also, Duke Power-Co. (0conee - McGuire), ALAB-641, 14 NRC 307, i
E 315 (1981).
36/ Seabrook, supra,.at 541-542.
t
.v a
y..
nor would plant operation, if this license is granted, necessarily lead to such a use for the resulting nuclear wastes.
Instead the pending application for a license to operate Perry, as that application concerns I
I the impacts from the uranium fuel cycle, is limited to that defined in I
the Commission's regulations.
The regulations are based on the spent fuel from plant operation either being buried for the long term at federal repositories or being reprocessed for the purposes other than the recycle of plutonium, with the uranium recycled and the plutonium and high-level wastes buried at federal repositories. E Because the proposed federal action to license this power plant does not include a proposal for the use of nuclear waste for nuclear weapons, I
there is no requirement under NEPA for an evaluation of it.
If Comission action in response to the recent decision in NRDC v. NRC, Docket No. 74-1586, Slip op. (D.C. Cir., April 27,1982), should modify the current rule so as to affect this conclusion, the' Staff will so inform the Licensing Board,
-37/ 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20(e)(1979), compare 10 C.F.R. 551.20(e)(1981); 44 Fed. Reg. 45362, 45366 et seq. (August 12,1979); further elaboration in Proposed Rule " Appendix A, Narrative Explanation of Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, 46 Fed. Reg.15154, at 15158 et seq. See also Perry DES, supra, at Appendix C.
-38/ Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 403 et seq.
OCRE in its contention does not suggest that the use of spent fuel for nuclear weapons is an environmentally superior alternative to the proposal contained in Table S-3.
It thus need not be evaluated as a mitigative alternative under NEPA. Nor does OCRE argue that the Comission by not considering such use of nuclear waste is improperly segmented its NEPA analysis.
See Oconee-McGuire, supra, at 313.
4 14 -
OCRE essentially concedes that the use of spent fuel is not a part of the pending proposed action when it admits that "the use of commercial spent fuel to make nuclear armaments is not current policy."El In fact, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has recently indicated both that "[n]o proposals to take such a step are under active consideration" and that such a program is not compelled by any foreseeable demand for plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.S/ Even if one could conclude that the use of commercial spent fuel in nuclear armaments had been under contemplation, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared until a contem-plated action is actually proposed.S/ ccordingly, OCRE's attempt to A
have a speculative, possibility considered in the forthcoming Final environmentalStatementmustberejected.S/
t 39/ Motion, supra, at 4.
-40/ Letter from Frank C. Carlucci, Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Honorable John G. Tower, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, dated March 29, 1982, 128 Cong. Rec. S2960 (daily ed. March 30, 1982).
41/ Kleppe, supra, at 403-406; Weinber er v. Catholic Action of Hawaii, 70 L.Ed. 2d 298, 305 (1981.
42/ It would be erroneous for the Licensing Board to rely on the
~
Applicants' contention that 10 C.F.R. 6 50.13 compels dismissal of this contention. That section state.c that a nuclear power plant need not be designed against the effects of warfare or hostile attack. As a close reading of this provision ma.kes clear, the danger which an applicant need not take into account is one which is external to the plant itself.
See Consolidated Edison Co. of NY (Indian Point, Units 2), ALAB-21TC 7 AEC 825, 829-30 (1974),.
affirmed CLI-74-23, 7AEC 047, 948 n.2 (1974); Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.
(Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 324-25 (1979).
This provision does not preclude the consideration of effects which are postulated to be attributable to plant operation, (Continued)
~
4
.' C.
Polymer Degradation From Radiation Exposure OCRE has alleged that equipment using polymer materials must be qualified for a radiation environment under more realistic conditions and must be subjected to more frequent surveillance. The Staff con:edes that this contention is articulated with specificity and basis; however, the Staff does not believe that OCRE has yet met its burden of justifying the lateness of this safety contention.
OCRE's proposed contention 19 reads as follows:
OCRE is concerned that the radiation-induced embrittlement of polymers, especially those used as electrical insulation, may compromise plant safety.
OCRE therefore contends that all polymer materials used in a radiation environment at PNPP should be tested under realistic conditions and inspected for degradation at increased intervals throughout the plant's lifetime.
Although the test results which fonn the basis of OCRE's contention were discussed in a Science News article on March 27, 1982, the results 42/ (Continued) such as the use of the facility's nuclear wastes.
Proposed contention 18 -- contrary to Applicants' assertion -- cannot be read as requiring Applicants "to provide for.... measures for the specific purpose of protecting against the effects of... use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S. defense activities."
Therefore, this proposed contention is not barred by the terms of 5 50.13.
The requirements of 5 50.13, when properly applied, may preclude consideration of the effects of warfare and hostile attack for the purposes of both the safety requirements of Part 50 and the environmental requirements of Part 51.
But the scope of preclusion of 5 50.13 for NEPA purposes does not exceed that for health and safety purposes under Part 50.
See Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham), ALAB-156, 6 A.E.C. 8 E 851 (1973); Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 81 n.7 (1974).
- has previously been published by the NRC in June of 1981.43/ OCRE must justify its tardiness from this earlier date.S/ Until such a showing on good cause is made, this contention should not be accepted. OCRE makes no positive assertions on the remaining aspects of 9 2.714(a) which would
.tip the balance in favor of admission of this contention, in the absence of such a more acceptable showing on good cause.
Id.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, OCRE's three late-filed contentions should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted, g 2/&
J(a)mes H. Thessin w
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda,' Maryland this 12th day of May 1982
---43/ Radiation - Thermal Degradation of PE and PVC: Mechanism of Synergism and Dose Rate Effects, NUREG/CR-2156, printed June 1981; Occurrence and Implications of Radiation Dose-Rate Effects for Material Aging Studies, NUREG/CR-2157, printed June 1981.
-44/
It would be unreasonable to require, as Applicants suggest, that a party justify tardiness in terms of discussions of similar dose rate effects prior to the Sandia reports, in the absence of some indication that' these earlier antilyses had been taken into account in the construction of nuclear plants. This is unlike the situation attending the tardy filing in this proceeding of a contention i
concerning core catchers, an idea known in the nuclear industry for well over a decade before its filing here as an untimely contention.
See Cleveland Electric Co. (Perry, Units 1 and 2), Memorandum and Order (Concerning Late-Filed Contentions: Waste Disposal and Mg02 Bricks),Feb. 26, 1982, at 4.
i e
m,,
,-- r
_ - ~ _ - _ - _ - -
i
- t.,,,.
.y
.q.
,7
...4
.o..
t,,,. 4.
y',; -
7.
f
.. i '.e..
f.4 3
. f /, ' 'i
- i /.
,j<.
l f'
, s..*
.s
..e...
s
.., APPENDIX A
.s i.
,,,,l,,.
d ;.
W
.a, 1
.s.-
.q.
'le.
i ;,
s ts..,,,,.
..,<j
,.,o
{ '... ;6.
.... i sl 1
JZ
'3. '* *,, - : -
6;.
s..".
e 4;.
i
'.*, s,
. :,~;,.,....
.,.. :.i,.
t s..:
?..
L.
.. p' ;.,... -
.. J.,.. a :,. - '. *. ^
.*a r.-
n,.. < h.
, e r,. '
.,,y.
...,.... ;. e.., :c.,.......;...
- s. '
g
,i.
rm,.-
,.. y. v,..
z u.
- p
,ynne_21, is14
.s
.'.r J.'.
,,i.*,,
,m/.
,.. n *.j. :.
..' p.
- ....fd.
' i,,
t
- . !,i.
l d.
...n...*
u
..p
- 3. '.u 4.,,
u.-
. ;. n.1.s 5
g..,
Str. Harold L. Willi==am i
- r e
'Vice President,- Engineering M*4' f C s
'2
'"The cleveland Electric 1.s -
. :i Illuminating Cr= - =y f '
='
~
.r,
Ilin.* f an ting Ba lla i an=
' :.i
.,, <.W.. - '5t
' Y:
' i,.
[.
O...
P...'[ Y*
55 Public Square-
,','-}
' cleveland, chio 44101:.3.0
.'.6.
. .J
.Y, \\.',*.
~, '
9.:
si
..(-
':r. -
u.n.anagem
- u;
'r.. ~
, ?;*.
. y' beworeer -
' i. '.
hk N
' ('
~ ~ '
- ' : ' ( P;l'<.
' 'I 't - 7 Dear h WiH % E
.r=
Pursuant to Section 401 of' the Federal Etater Po11utica
, a..,
...a.a L
. Cont:tol Act, as nW, 33 U.s c.a. s 1341, the 0
Cleveland Electric Ill"minAting CcE::=any snhmitted:for certification';i:
,.., ~
~.= /
an mded application en May 22, 1974 Q
,by the Stato that ths dischara.ss frca tho' proposed
, ) 3.
.f g
Parry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 und 2, would -
emely with the applicable provimicas of sections
,h, 3, n' 301, 302, -306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution ' ' -
.i Control Act.
)
f...-
4
,.3,.,
Ea+1ng reviewed the amanded application I hereby
)
certify that the discharges frcus the proposed Ferry
, Nuclear Power Plant, 'if constructed in accordwa with the general plans which were not forth in the
~
-w9ed application, will coc:tuly with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
.3*
i 3
.. You.are hereby notified that this action of the Director is final and naay be appealed to the Environsmental Board of Review pursuant.to Section.3745.04 of the Chio Revised code by any person s.,ho was a party to i
fM = proceerdng.
The. appeal acust be in writing and
' set forth the action cqlained of and the grounds
,upon which the appeal is based.
It nust be filed with -
the Environmental Board of Review within thirty (30)
~.
days af ter notice of the Director's act inn.
A copy
~"
of the appeal m:ust be served on the Director of the
...r..
.t.,
~
- '. Y-
.n
/
i.
.. ) -
3
,6 e.:
. a..
t t
u t
i l
e
, f
- r-4
,i m
3
(
r.;
' t.. g '.
,1**'
.t
.!....s.j.,,
=,. ',
8.
L,
... j {+.'
.'t..',,
t
. j..,
4-
,1 g
f i.t
,s
.. e,
...r
~.. m;. :.
s.
- c...v
.. 3 a,
.,3
- ..i :,.,...,.3 g
- n..;...
r
. t
~. :
str. Harol'd E.. ' williams
. G,:i. "..,
,p.,...S.
.g
+
e o-t
. June 21, 1974' S. a.." F...
4 '.
' l -
' p,,,..'"'....
f
'.c,
'... P a g e 2.,<,,..
.r. '.,
g.
<},-
.. u.,
.... e
.3 ;
.s c.,
t
..s
. :.!'.rf".' m,.
v.
aio Environmen, a,l Prot'ection Assocy and the Ehvirnn=*atal
~, ',u; :
' Law section of the office of the Attorrmey General withi Y*
n three (311 days oE ' tiling with the Board..
An ' appeal may 3"' "be filed with the Environmental Boaued of Review at the P.?;(..*'
'following addressa..
1
- 3. -
- >,.,,.r.
,,f
"'b 3
.a.
f.
..e 3
8
. q..
..?.
.! " ;'.. s Environmental Board of"Bewiew. 4f-.. d. '.
- 9-
.. e,a g.
Suite 505
.;t. 7 3
,, -0 ~
/
..c',
f.'". e. g.
- "33 North High' Street si
{
. ! " '.s -
' l :f.':
- ' :. Colmd==, 'Chio' 43215 2,..;# ' '
s '..' s t
I
. : I, ;.. s. 9...,1
~.
v n
s.
.t.
]
,v;k.
s
~.y,.
trulylyours,. r"
!'(h * ',J. it..-
- f' ' '},..l.' ';
.q.-,
b{.
~
n
~ ~ '
- }U'.:",.
)[l
- ~
- , cd 5 p.h...
. /Mr. //} # f 7,.. g '.%.. w.u a
..t S.
.L,....,.... ; Ira L Ehi+=an
.s.
.c
-.. a...
s ;
....,..<. C.. 4.
,?-
- 9 4....
+v.t'
- '*(.-.
. Director
~.
.i.
La y. g -
- :!8
.. n v.,.,-
wc.,. 5..,
., p. : '. '
.:3.
+
..a
.,.;,j IIX/zum.
o.
i,..
. *. /,
.7
.f N. ; j..
g
~ t;;.
4;.1,.
cci Micha*1'E Eardy a
e{e
'a
=
i s *
.pgr. G f,"
~
- [.
. e
.s.,
Do-utid H Hauser 3
, f;.[" 1.if..ji..i,/.. cannel. A. Bleich=e i
i
.?
.(.
...M. ;3 .L.
t.
.?,... # " 4..
m u%.. >
t',^. i,. ",'.i..,.M :.
p 3.. ' '.. P. ?..;.,r i.'.
. k, s.
,;$y.f hris Schraff C
i F
.,., ~ g..,
i t.,.
..,a.
ac.
,., r.. - w.,
f
- E \\ 'e...g. !b 'k.
a h:...." ]6il '
s o
- s-J. '.
I' ' f C S.
- #I 4;;
3 't :
.[I.
..m! "[...
'l' 1
's ' *
- .P c
.s*r3 3 i.
4-t 4,y
...\\..
......t*
.s s,.
. T p.
.{.
t, 3
- 4. '
. 7:.P-
]...
-s...
.g
-t
- o.
.g. ',
- Y a
,, '. 3;8..
,. j 's....
e
.'. g h I lsS [.
, '- t j
,. g. :;;,,
j i.h'
.t. ;. %
', i T '. *; ' '
~
- e. ".;,, J.S.
,D 4,.."
- * '[7 I
".5
~
- m:y'3,. l.. g,U., - '.,i
,'t '.'.,.,.
Y.
h i. $.
e' f,.'.. ' '
5,
..s..
i
- .- e
.s 4.4.'! '.I.t
.-.i o
, :...yl .s ?.. l.':?.f.. l.b 6!'i....
t.
,v,
..,....-. ".t. 6 1.
., r..
t.
..t <
.....,..a.
- c e.
.i.
. g
.y,..
(s.
a.
6 ?
-p.,
.g..
t..-
,,6
..,3
.1.,
..1:
t v.
,; e
.s
..l.
,.c ; s... a....;
..e,
. T T
.J.tl,. y ;.,;.,.,3..,.,..
- y ). '. ;;
. 4.,>
i.:. 3 %;;d. t,1, K. ; ;W d ,y.,,
- ; r * :',.l
,j{ *
'4.
e.
.:."
- a. f,. (..u
- b ",
s.
., L..
..t r,. (t:
g
. s.
i y j 3,. %..
.-. i'...g..,..
.., g,, :
,r
, e t ;J 1
..g s.<...
, l 4,,i * - - "..
- f ',- }; ;
..s t;;
- ; p.-,.~ 'f.
.g
- .:1
..2
' - ; g ;,..
,, !. s : :
.g, pry; 1,. r q- - -
..-e 4.
.s
- c..
...v...
- r..
- *.: r o.
, g.S i W *.,s,.8 ':'..;....-.a,. '
. )...$
f.
i g
], g,7],,.,.,
. 8
' c. 4. ;..
~
,.p...
.a
- 8.,
' 'i, a d
'.*,.,..,I..8,
- ~g,g;9
- "...+
.,e
..e.
.,i ;.
.t *,
(
- ./...
.) 8. ;.. p.', -.-
8..
..;, s..g.<
A
,.,t..
.t!
8
..,3..
8'
...,. t..
.,e s 3 -.,. te.
,4..g.I
,j g
s g
g s e. I..e.
- 6 l*
-b :*
.}.
. a 3, '
,4.
s,
.., - j.
t.
., b, 7
.I n
e-31.
- 6..
e
- m.
I
. "h ; '..... m, e:-
.. ? r.:..
-)
..(.....
. \\..,..
t, 3,
..j.
..s-4.f ~.. * -
- il.
..:. y-u.:.
,(..
... W.
a.,
r-
.,t-
.t.
....'.a....
-y
- n.. c... :
o
....i g...
g.
. s. q
[ :!,c.. ; g.
..... ' j.
.t.
.g 4,.
,.,j.. -
- ' d
- -
..e
. 2...
t,'..
-w t,i:
w.ya.'; u*ts r.).
..~...,..
' im %..J L.1 :
t, ".=g p;.
- t..
c
..t...
p,....:.
.! c F..: '
y.'
4.r-
. z..:
. u
. f. <. '.
y e
.3
.s bc.
a, a,.
.i s
c.
e.,..
s,-
c.
i,..,
.g.,..,.
.....r
. e....
o,
.g. e....
.u.
,q
- e -
... 1
..;. p.:.
, a................ /.t (..
.st.
./
p.
.. 6.,.s. - -... -
s,
.t i
..i 3 ;.
- t; *
.o.
e.-
3-s.,
, > +
\\
. ~ *..
.t u
1.
.i
.c;.
e i...
..n.
r
...r
.. a <<.4.
3.,,.-
s,.
r....,:
. t.,
.i,
4.
..s,-
n t
3.m r,
.9 f
- g..-
.s,;
~
a l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441 OL (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF TO MOTION OF OHI0 CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONTENTIONS 17,18 AND 19" in the above-captio,ned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
' internal mail system, this 12th day of May,1982:
- Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Li. censing Board 105 Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lake County Administration Center Washington, D.C.
20555 Painesville, Ohio 44077
- Dr. Jerry R. Kline Susan Hiatt Administrative Judge 8275 Munson Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mentor, Ohio 44060 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Daniel D. Wilt, Esq, Wegman, Hesiler & Vanderberg
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon 7301 Chippewa Road, Suite 102 Administrative Judge Brecksville, Ohio 44141 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jeff Alexander Washington, D.C.
20555 920 Wilmington Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45420 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Tr.owbridge Terry Lodge, Esq.
1800 M Street, N.W.
Attorney for Intervenors Washington, D.C.
20036 915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604 g'
e
.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Robert Alexander U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2030 Portsmouth St., #2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Houston, Texas 77098
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel John G. Cardinal, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prosecuting Attorney
~ Washington, D.C.
20555 Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047
- Docketing and Service Section
~ 0ffice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash,ington, D.C.
20555
~
e 8W J e H. Thessid Co sel for NRC Staff e'
G 4
e e