ML20053E000

Reply Opposing NRC & Applicant Responses to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy 820422 Motion for Leave to File Contentions 17,18 & 19.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20053E000
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/01/1982
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206070515
Download: ML20053E000 (10)

Text

e June 1, 1982 UNITED STATES OF A.?.: ERICA -3 NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CGMMISSIbN c: . ett

, . .E c Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) 82 jus-3 R2:23, CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING 5

) Docket Nos. 50 440 .

Yf COMPANY, Et A1. )

) (Operating fc50-441 License),h -

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

OCdE REPLY TO STAFF AND APPLICANT RESPONSES TO. MOTION. TO

~

FILE CONTENTIONS 17, 18, AND 19 Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Procedural Order of nugust 4, 1981, OChE hereby files this reply to the responses of Staff and npplicant to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Leave to File its Contentions 17, 18, and 19 dated i

April 22, 1982. Both Staff and applicant advanced various arguments opposing the admission of the contentions; OCRE addrcsses below the reasons why these arguments do not bar the admission of the threc contentions.

1 -

J Contention 17: Substratum Placement of Water Intake S.ructure l

l The Staff contends that there must be a "significant difference" in environmental impact before altcrnatives can be considered under NEPA, and sincc the fish entrainment/im-t pingement losses are considered " minimal and insignificant" i

in the DES for Perry, NUREG-0884, the NEPA evaluation of alter-native intake structures is not required. The Applicant even goes so far as to allege tnat CCRE agrees with this conclusion of the DES. Although CCnE decs not disagree with the numbers pre-k O j D

sented~in Table 5.2 of tne DES, OCEE does not agree that these P .

entrainment/ impingement losses arc insignificant, or that the

, radial well type of intake design would result in no significant differenco.

The PHPP entrainment/ impingement losses are projected to be several orders of magnitude lower than such losses presently incurred at other power plants on Lake Erie (DES at p.'5-11).

However, the impact of the radial well design (zero entrainnent/

. ngement losses) would be several orders of magnitude less than this. OChE is at a loss as to why a reduction in annual fish impingement from 10 7 to 104 is considered a significant 4

differcnce (favoring.the closed-cycle cooling system over-once-through cooling), yet a reduction from-10 4 ~to zero is considered insignificant.

Both Staff and Applicant argumsnts obfuscate the fact that this is a simple NEPis issue; when a clearly superior alternative l to a proposed action exists, NEPA requires that it be considered (42 USC 4332, 10 CFR 51.23(f), and 10 CFR 51.52(c)). -

Although FSAR data do indicate that the stratigraphy of the PHPP site may bc less suitcble to the enplcyment of the radihl well dcsign than is the Ornnd Gulf sito, perhaps some dcsign'

s. _1_/

changes could correct this problem. The burden of proof is

_1/ OCnE feels that the.. Applicant's use of the'5 gpm figure to l allege that 14,000 wells would be needed is inappropriate; the

! 5 gpm value corresponds to shallow residentihl wells (DES Section 4.3.5). Such wells should obviously not be coapared to a highly engincered structure.

e

+-+ m-f~sg y ng %*w e,m.- m-.gr-r-,p .7 ,e. , - ,qr -p.>y1, --,-9,,,ya.,y,r., ry,--wgm. ge v- m e e + -T M 7 werw+r--e-- 't w e er mi ew-m-'7-*m *--rte  %> MM-- ee-=-rw --

+e-r-P=-me

• _3_

i on the npplicant to show that the implementation of the Grand e

Gulf intake design (or some modification thereof) is totally impcssible for the Ferry site (10 CFR 2.732).

, Staff and Applicant further suggest that NRC consideration of alternative intake designs may be p[recluded E by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( Pl.'P CA ) . OChE would note'that this suggestion is indeed speculative, and that the section of Fi/PCA cited, 33 USC 1371(c)(2), refers to the discharEc of effluents, not the impacts of water intake structures. Further-more, if OCHE were to take the Staff's advice and await the issuance of future FWPCA certification) or permits, OCRE predicts that it would then be chided'for failure to file at an earlier date (e.g., at the issuance of the DES).

OCRE maintains that this contention is not untimely.- This Intervenor has only recently learned of thi. superior intake -

design. Applicant's claim that the Federal Recister notice of puolication of the Grund Gulf DES provided " constructive notice" of the Grcnd Gulf intake design in June 1981 'is misleading. The i- Federal Renister no'tice may have givcn notice of the availability of the DES; but, since the notice did not divulge in detail the specific contents of the DES, it cannot be construed that notice was given of the specific intake design. OCRE's serendipitous i

discovery of the radinl well design in the Grand Gulf PLS should i

_2/ Staff's speculation is contingent upcn possible limitations imposed oy futurc OEPA certifications.

++e -*ra ,e .,, _ gy -. .,rw -- w -4--- ?e----Y--w Y-

• thus constitute good cause for filing at this time.

r, as far as Applicant's other argements regarding the past availability of information on this intake system desiE n and the suggested availcbility of other means by which to protect its interests, OCRE believes that it is fundamentally unjust to expect an all-volunteer public interest group with limited financial resources to be intimately familiar with every esotcric document ever published and to participate in various other proceedings, the only result of which would be to dilute OCRE's effectiveness in this proceeding.

The law (NLPA) requires that alternatives to a proposal be considered. The Applicant has not done this. OCRE contends that this alternative must be evaluated before PNPP .an be licensed.

Contention 18: Use of Commercial Spent Fuel for duelear Weapons Both Staff and Applicant argue that this contention should be rejected oecause the use of nuclear waste for nuclear weapons is not a currently active proposal. Applicant also believes that tne recent pas' sage of the Hart Amendment to the NRC author-ization bill by the Senate will effectively prevent any such usage.

OCRE would note that this plcn was proposed for a short time by Kenneth Davis of the Department of Energy (128-Cong. Rec. S2961).

The proposal was apparently withdrawn because, according to Senator Mart, the DOE did not intend to spend money this year to obtain commercial spent reactor fuel for weapons'use (128 Cone.

Rec. S2959, emphasis added) .

OChE also notes that the Departments of Lorense and Energy both oppose the Hart Amendment because it would forclose the

4 i . -

. option of using spent. fuel for military purposes (sce D0D and-DOE letters in 128 Conc. Eec. S2960-61). Many senators were careful to point out .that the amendment would nor forclose this option, since the law could always be changed if circumstances (e.g. , a plutonium shortage) made this desirable . Indeed, much of the debate is support of tne amendment cited the deleterious effect the plan would have on ~ the public image of the nuclear

industry, rather than concerns over nuclcar proliferation and war. Thus, one can certainly suspect that this amendment, the

Senate passage of which was apparently predicated on the fear of puolic opinion, could be easily rescinded should the winds of 1 public sentiment blow in another direction.

It should also oe rcmembered that the Hart Amendment is not yet law; it must be approved by the liouse, whereupon it must cross the President's desk. Therein lies the obstacle. OChE concurs with the statement made by former Commissioner Eradford in a recent speech: "any crew 'that would forge ahead with a billion

! tax dollars for Clinch River while flirting with the riotion of 4

l proclaiming ketchup to be a nourishing vegetable in school lunches

{ is not a force to be underestimated" (see NUREG/BR-0032-(NhC News Releases), Vol. 2, No. 11, at p. 5).

i The Congressional Record also controverts Applicant's suggestica that the technoloCy required to affect this proposal may not be available. Senator Percy remarked that laser isotope separation tcchnology could be ready by 1987 to refine plutonium in wastes frcm the Hanford reactor (p. 32978). This application is essentially the same as that rcquired for the use of commercial spent fuel. Senator Tower, in his opposition to the amendment, O . .- ._ _ , _ - _ _ , .

- _ - _ _ - . _ ~ _ - - - _. _ --

6-indicated that tne use of spent fuel, made. feasible by laser isotope separation-technology, m1 6ht be more cost-effective than building new production reactors (p. S2979).

The applicant errs'in its analysis of "0ChE's underlying assumption . . . that if spent fuel from commercial power plants is not availaole for this nation's nuclear weapons program, there will be insufficient plutonium to arm this nation's nuclear weapons" (Applicant's Answer at-11-12). This is not OCRE's

" fantastical argument." It is the Applicant's argument, as is ,

best evidenced bf the statement in Attachment 2 to OCRE's motion.

That the Reagan administration also foresees a plutonium shortaEe is demonstrated by the fact that the administration approached Great Britian with an offer to purchase British plutonium, sup-posedly for the Clinch hiver Breeder Reactor (see "

Plutonium for Sale" by r/ alter C. Patterson, The Bulletin of the-Atomic Scientists, May 1982, pp. 55-56). .

Thus, OCHE maintains its conclusion that the use of commer-cial spent fuel for nuclecr weapons, far.from being remote and

, speculative, may well be a reality in the near future. -Consequently,-

this -is an effect of PNPP operation which must be considered under

! NEPA. OCHE fears that if this NEPA evaluation were deferred until i

j such a proposal becomes publicly unveiled, it may face a formidable i

i obstacle in seeking the readmission of the issue. E.g., if the

_3/ Curiously, others in the nuclear industry do not share the Applicant's entnusiasm for tnis plan. Some have referred to it as a-public relations dicastcr.

i m

v v 9- g w+,,-p- gww.q-v isy gywr v---yevy wg yy- ev.? Ta 1M"* M 't T-M=-+7--49#TF'+*--M--T-T- t-~^*t'""* e ***~ F' W

l record had to reopencd, this Intervenor would face a significantly

?

higner legal burden (Kansas - Gas and Electric ard Kansas City Power

and Light (flolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7

' NRC 320, 338 (1978); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC 775, 804 (1979)).

The Applicant rightly concludes that such a NEPA analysis "would require the Licensing Board to assess ooth the increased risk and total environmental cost of a nuclear war" (Applicantos-Answer at 11,-footnote 7). However, Applicant's claim that this analysis would be impossible because of classified information I is best contradicted by the success of the public educational j programs conducted by groups such as Physicians for Social

Responsibility. Using unclassified information, these groups

' have vividly demonstrated the horrific consequences of nuclear war und have convinced many that the risk of nuclear war is too 1

Great to be accepted. OCRE thus sucgests that the unclassified information now available is sufficient to support such an analysis, i and that this analysis must be performed before Perry.can be I

' li c e ns e d._.4_/ '

j Contention 19: Polymer Degradation from Hadistion Exposure Both Staff and Applicant attack OCREr s filing as untimely, claiming tnat the information cited in the Science News article i

l

_4/ Applicant's claim that consideration of this issue is ~

precluded by 10 CFR 60.13 is erroneous. 10 CFR 50.13, which.

exempts nuclear facilities from having to withstand the - effects i of an attack, is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Contention 10 does not deal with facility design.

L t

l

., . -e-was availacle in Ju.ne 1981. That article constituted OCHE's

?

first nctice of that information. Science !!cws is a credible publication which is perused wita diligence by OCEE; upon discovering that article, OCRE assumed that the information was indeed recent.

OCHE does not believe tnat the documents cited by A.pplicant (or the June 1981 Sandia reports) can be considered "information widely availa~ ole previously." Ochi would repeat here its concerns regarding the injustice of expecting a public interest group with limited resources to be familiar with esoteric documents.

If any groups are familiar with ty.ese documents, they would be the nuclear industry and the HhC. Yet they have consistently ignored the problem of dose rate effects on radiation-induced polymer degradation. For example, the language concerning realistic dose rates in the proposed rule on Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment for duclear Power Plants (47 FR 2076) was deleted in the final rule, apparently under pressure frcm the industry (see Memorandum for haymond P. Fraley, Executive Director

_5/

ACHS, from dobert B; Ilinogue, Director ONRR, dated April 16, 1982).

OCHE thus considers site-specific litigation to be the only means by wnich to effectively address this problem.

OCaE also fcels that the Perry plant snould merit special attention in this regard, since it ic the prototype 236 sice

_5/ OCnE cites thi s as a prime example of the ineffectiveness of citizen and puolic interest group participation in the !!RC rulemaking process.

l

g_

fJin/6 (FSuh Se ction 1.5.1.1) una therefore might have a radiation environment quite different frca those plants precedir.g it, applicant's arbument that "many commercial reactors have already operated for long pcriods of time" (iipplicant's Answer at 20) ignores the fact tnat these early reactors are small and of different design. In fact the example cited by itpplicant, Yankee howe, is a PWh. Comparison with these plants is obviously inappropriate. OChE maintains that Contention 19 is timely and snould be admitted.

Respectfully submitted, m$$

Susan L. Hiatt OClil. Interim itepresentative 8276 I:!unson lid.

Itentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3153 l

l l

i l

f I

l t

CliJ2IFICATE OF SEh71CE .

7 , . . -

t mhis is to certifv that copies.cf the foregcing OC..L REPLY

~

TO ~embF"7 AIID r.PPLIC4.UT nLS?OUSES TO MCTIO:i TO FILE CC:!TLUTIOliS 17 1h, AND 19 werc served oy deposit in the U.S. Ma11, . firstl2,24 class, postage prepaid, this 1st day of June, 1982 to those c tne Service List bclow. 9/

1. - . .

w Susan L. diatt 1

~ SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7301 Chippewa Rd.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commin Brecksville, OH Washington, D.C. 20555 44141 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S . Nu clear R egula tory Comm ' n -

i Washington, D. C. 20555 James Thessin, Esq.

t Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Wasnington, D.C. 20555 l

Jay Silberg, Esq.

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 f

l

' Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washi:gton, D.C. 20555 i

I w