ML20054B750
| ML20054B750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1982 |
| From: | Kodner J KODNER, J.L., PRAIRIE ALLIANCE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204190165 | |
| Download: ML20054B750 (11) | |
Text
'
? .
- ~ , _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y2 /D 15 o t'7 BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
IN Tile MATTliR OF: )
)
ILLINCIS POWER COMPANY, et-- a1 ) Docket No. 50-461 OL !
) i (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1) )
'~F1'
'D PRAIRIE ALLIANCE BRIEF IN SUPPORT c'< .
- 9 0F SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS 2[ '
d%%*,
l b -l1 ., s cc ", oda Q L
INTRODUCTION i $ '
\s
\
- !v ?2
/x Pursuant to 1 cave of this Board, on March 26, 1982;T- 28 Qy PRAIRIE ALLIANCE submitted eight supplemental contentions rela-tive to the instant proceeding. During an April 1, 1982, conference call, the parties commented upon said proposed sup-plemental contentions, generally presenting their res,pective f
objections or support for same. At that time, this Board granted' the parties leave to file briefs by April 12, 1982, relative thereto.
ARGUMENT Some of the proposed supplemental contentions ("PSC"),
(1, 5 and 6) were submitted upon the authority of this Board's May 29, 1981, order and because of the inadequate treatment ;
LAW OFFICES
,',C"o$,*o
,"[,y these issues received in the DES and/or SER. Others (2, 3 and 8)'
CUITE IOO4 i CHIC AGO. lLL. SO60s were offcTed solely upon the latter basis. PSC 4 and 7 were l i
TELEPHONE ci:/2 3.is'" filed because of external factors which could have maj or impact upon the operating license proceedings. ()SO3 i
8204190165 820412 /h '
l A. PSC 1, 5 and 6 In its May 29, 1981, Order at Page 10, this Board ruled that old PRAIRIE ALLIANCE contention 5 (beyond design basis
, accidents) was denied "without prejudice to the profer of a specific contention after PRAIRIE ALLIANCE has had a chance to S study the Staff's FES and SER". PSC No. 1 is based upon the in-adequate treatment this issue was given in the SER, only as to f
the failure to consider cases which might warrant installation of 1 additional safety features to mitigate the consequences of seri-ous accidents. The Staff should have considered such cases in a the SER. 45 Fed. Reg. 40101, 40103 (June 13, 1980),
t "lloweve r , it is also the intent of the . ,
Commission that the staff take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant early consi-i deration of either additional features or other j actions which would prevent or mitigate the con-C sequences of serious accidents. Cases for such consideration are those for which a Final En- .
q vironmental Statement has already been issued at the Construction Permit stage but for which the l Operating License review stage has not yet been reached. In carrying out this directive, the ,
staf f should consider relevant sitefeatures , in-i cluding population density, associated with
(
accident risk in comparison to such features at presently operating plants. Staff should also consider the likelihood that substantive changes in plant design features which may compensate further for adverse site features may be more casily incorporated in plants when construction has not yet progressed very far." (emphasis added) i During the April 1st conference call, Applicant and LAW OFFICr5 TUTT AND KODNER jl
. the NRC Staff asserted that the PSC No. 1 lacked specificity.
'"
- c"^ j",,",l""' PRAIRIE ALLI ANCE respectfully disagrecs . The contention draws l CHICA*0, ILL. 80602 ,
vrt e,.sou s directly upon the Commission's language in its policy statement S t 2/223153 5 and is limited to the particular aspect described therein 2-l
s t
(i.e. additional safety features and such cases as might warrant ,
such features) . It alerts all parties to the issues raised i
therein and is therefore sufficient under the rules.
The contention is germane here even though it is ;
predicated upon Staff responsibilities. Staff reports relate 3
directly to the adequacy and safety of Applicant's plant and the environmental impacts of same. In this sense, objections to the Staff's reports are likewise directed to the safety of .i the plant and environmental consequences thereof. Contentions have previously been allowed challenging the conclusions or deficiencies in governmental reports, as contrasted to those submitted by the applicants. e.g. Proj ect Management Corporation,'
i et al (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), LBP-76-14 NRCI-76/4, i i CCil Nuclear Regulation Reporter, Section 30060 (1976, (ERDA
, I F.E.S.).
PSC Nos. 5 and 6 are generic safety issues (systems interaction and hydrogen control) which have applicability to the Clinton Station. Applicant is not excused from dealing with these issues simply because of their generic application to other plants. Applicant is required to show that the plant's ,
overall solution to these issues has not yet been found.
I Virginia Electric and Power Company, (North Anna Nuclear Power i
Turr [ND KODNER '
cub $ ioO be a finding by this Board that the Clinton Station can bc
, CHICATO. ILL. 60602 T ELEPH CN E E12/2531535 l
operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Gulf States Utilities Company, (River Bend Station, i Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760 (1977). Accordingly, PSC f I
5 and 6 are germane to these proceedings. These contentions are further authorized by the May 29, 1981, Order of this Board, ,
at Page 14:
"If, after receipt of the SER, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE wishes to raise one or more generic issues, revised contentions having the required i specificity can be filed at that time." ;
PSC 5 and 6 cach contain the requisite specificity.
Both contentions set forth specific reasons for PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S concern on these issues and should therefore not be denied on !
t grounds of lack of specificity or vagueness. j B. PSC 2 and 3 I i
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, acknowledges that recent Commission amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 preclude this Board's consideration :
of need for power and alternative energy issues in this operating :
license proceeding. Sec 47 Fed. Reg. 12940 (March 26, 1982). l t
flowever, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE respectfully submits that in the inter-!
est of " streamlining" the licensing process, the Commission has violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by these rule changes. Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. vs AEC, 449 F 2d 1109 (D.C. Cir, 1974). Major changes and improve- l
'Aw orricts ments in these areas may occur in the several years between the I TUTT AND KODNER j l
~ "* *h"j[j', ",,"""o construction permit and operating license stages, and may thereby CHICA%O. lLL 60801 raursous render inaccurate the construction permit NEPA analysis of these ;
Std213 IS35 3 issues. ;
. _ _ .. .. _ ._~
! C. PSC 8 i This PSC (socio-economic ef fects) is based upon the
' i inadequate treatment this issue received in the DES. This issue )
is appropriate for NEPA consideration in the DES. See Project i
Management Corporation, et al, (Clinch River Breeder Reactor !
l Plant), LBP-76-14, CCll, Nuclear Regulation Reporter, Section l
30095 (1976). The PSC does not suffer from lack of specificity l in that it presents several examples of social and economic ;
environmental effects which were not adequately considered in the DES.
t i D. PSC 4 and 7 i These PSCs (General Electric Withdrawal From Market !
\ i and Psychological Stress) are offered now because of recent ex- !
- ternal developm'ents which could have a major impact upon these
- t proceedings. 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) sets forth the requirement a
for admission of late filed contentions.
Now information may justify admission of late filed contentions. Cincinatti Gas and Electric Co. (Zimmer Nuclear Station), 10 NRC 213 (1979). These contentions should be ad- ;
mitted under 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) because:
(i) there is good cause for the filure to i file these contentions previously, as the infor-mation was not then available or did not then exist; l 1
'* ' 1 TurrIN ODNER. .
i in w.uao..ou. m ar- issue, since this is a situation involving an .
cunE iou applicant with not previous nuclear operating ex- ,
CNCASO h. 40601 per ence which hopes to operate a reactor which no l TELEP HON E one has operated as of yet. If not addressed !
8 ' */ * * * ' ' * *
, through these licensing proceedings, it will be !
too late to explore the ramifications of all issues j presented; ,
. i
.. l l l l l l 1 i (iii) PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S participation on these issues can reasonably be expected to assist !
in developing a sound record. PRAIRIE ALLIANCE i intends to produce witnessses and/or cross examine i those of the applicant relative to said issues. l As the Staff in its SER and DES has not demon- :
strated that it will adequately delve into these {
areas, the record will be developed by PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S and the State's efforts herein; (iv) as neither the applicant nor the NRC Staff have adequately dealt with these important issues, only PRAIRIE ALLIANCE or Illinois appears !
willing to pursue them. While the Staff repre-sents the public interest, it cannot be expected to pursue all issues with the same diligence as an intervenor would pursue its own issue.
Cincinatti Gas and Electric Co. (Zimmer Nuclear Station), 10 NRC 213, 215 (1979);
(v) admission of these contentions will not ;
unduly delay the proceedings. There is ample time to complete discovery relative thereto be- .
for the August, 1982, scheduled hearings. Even if the prehearing conference and hearing were ,
reschedu. led for several months subsequent to l their present times, this should not delay start up of the facility. Construction delays have aircady substantially set back the fuel loading date to September, 1983, and a January 15, 1982, ;
stop-work order by the NRC as to certain elec- l trical work on the facility continues in effect ,
as of this writing.
l PSC No. 4 is based upon an article appearing in the I December, 1981, issue of Electrical Week, a copy of which is l attached as Exhibit "A". Significant questions are raised by t
GE's announcement as to its ability to carry out design modif1- ;
i cations mandated by present and future NRC regulations and orders, as is specifically raised in the contention. Exhibit A does !
LAW OFFICES i Ub5 a"o$.$ $1[Er report that General Electric will continue to compete in the l f
t CUITE tood l cwicaro.itt. oso " nuclear plant servicing" business. It is uncicar whether the l T ELEPH O N E
''***** servicing business includes such hardware design modifications.
1 I
\ s l.
h
i i
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE stands willing to withdraw PSC No. 4 if, upon i
clarification of this point by GE or Applicant, it is shown that GE is not discontinuing hardware design modifications. l 4
PSC No. 7 was submitted upon the January 7, 1982, ;
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia !
l Order in People Against Nuclear Energy vs NRC, No. 81-1131. i f
PRAIRIE ALLIANCE had been incorrectly advised that the Court had l 1
allowed a psychological stress contention in the Three Mile Island restart proceedings. When PRAIRIE ALLIANCE was unabic to obtain a copy of the opinion in the Federal Reporter advance '
sheets, it was erroniously assumed that the decision would be forthcoming in a later volume. It has now come to PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S attention that the Court did not order admission of the psychological stress contention, but rather merely directed I the NRC to " prepare a statement of the reasons for its determin-i ation that psychological health is not cognizabic under the Atomic Energy Act." Accordingly, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE withdraws 1
PSC No. 7 at this time, without waiving its right to resubmit l the contention subsequent to a final 1st Circuit decision in the i People Against Nuclear Energy case.
l
! CONCLUSION l
\ s Forthereasonsabovestated,PRAIRIEALLIANCErespectfullh tuv orrica. i
! iE$EoYo 7 $ requests that proposed supplemental contentions 1 through 6 and SUITE 1004 l cHicato. ito. .o.oa T ELEP HON E 8 be admitted to these proceedings. l' g { b.t./
l PRAI(fE ALLIANCE, by its Attorney, JAN L. KODNER DATED: April 12, 1982 j ]d; }l ' - J,{
' l I ; J j IW,lDE THIS ISStJE t .
- g. .
' 1 J,
a.
, o
' FERC slashes Form.1 reporting requirements -p2
) w. .
' ' ' Cancellation, deferrat trends could cap growth -p3
' Va. commission reconsiders Eurodollar bund plea -p3 FERC chief questions obligation to serve -p5 h t j TJ.Y. PSC of fers earnings bonus for switch to coal -p5 8 Il a I
- ?'
} }
N I Analyst picks four candidates for diversification -p7 I e fF November of ferings,long term bonds make comeback -p9
{
t t SPECI AL: Flow.throughs room in 3rd quarter earnings - p 10 l , ,
} 'i 1 GE BOWING OUT OF NUCLEAR HARDWARE MARKET; WESTINGHOUSE WILL STICK General Electric is bowmg out of the nuclear hardware market, sees no domestic reactor orders in sight for a decade and expects to ship out its last nuticar steam supply system m 1986 or shortly thereaf ter. Ilut the big diversified manufacturer wdl continue to compete aggressively in the nuclear plant servicing and nu.
clear fuel businesses including fuel reloadings. %gnehouse, the other major U.S. supp!ict of nuclear power plants, plans tojud it out - beating the bushes tags business untd the domestic market comes back.
With favorable shifts in political and regulatory attitudes, Westinghom&lieves U.SJthliesso.uld resume placing nuclear plant orders in four or Ove years. For other heavy e!ectne utility equipment, the market ap.
praisals of the top men at GE and Westinghouse :re less divergent. Dec 3' @
I Speaking before some 300 security analysts and newspeople sday, GF chMrmanin New York la and chief executive of6cer John Wekhy!.id,"Our planning does not anticipate any new nuclear plant orders."
i lie said'GE would work off its backlogs and remain in the nuclear fuel and nuclear plant servicing businesse.s where it expects to tum a proGt. "If we were starting again, we would not enter this busine3," Welch told
/ his attentive audience.
Following the fonnal presentation, CE executive vice president and power systems sector executive lierman Ilill said he expects to sh'ip out the last of the nuclear plants now on order by the end of 1986. Con-tacted later,Ilill said that would include the overseas orders for which GE is presently competing, but extend.
ed his deadline to "1986 or in that time frame." lie said he doesn't foresee any U.S. nuclear plant orders be-
~
'ine placed in the next decade, and he doesn't know whether the nuc! car option in the U.S. wdl be resived' Etter that. lie said he wdl keep an engineering staff together for the servicmg activity - hinting tids tould be f a nucleus for expansion if GE sees things differently in the future.
At Westinchouse, power systems president Gordon Ifurlbert said he std! believes in "the nuclear imper-
] ative" and has fa2th that American citizens wdl arrive at the " :ght trade offs" among safety, economics and
, fuel conservation. To revive the nuc! car power option in the U.S., he said,"we must clinunate the uncertain-ties" now involved in the permitting process. "If some of these uncertainties are elimmated and andation comes down," llurlbert said,"we would expect to see nuclear orders placed by U.S. utilities witiun four or Gve years."
Meanwhile,llurlbert said, Westinghouse will be work:ng the overseas markets - Taiwan, South Korca, Japan, England (which has studied the possibihty or goina to Westmghouse type pre:.surized water reactors) and Italy. Noting that Westinghouse has already closed du.sn its Tampa, Fla., nuclear component production facdity,Ifurlbert said steam generators and internals are he;ng produced at .ts Pensacola, Fla., plant. !!e said the major disadvantage U.S. heavy equipment supphers h.i.e a working the overseas markets is the lack of competnive Snancing through the Export.lmport Bank u Wr institutions. For some ofits oserseas work,
!!urlbert s:ud, Westinghouse is turning to foreign "souremg" ,nanufactunng components in countries which will fumish competitive financing for export deals. IIe sa:d so.:h "sourcing" may be suggested for l'.S. quip.
ment orders, but that wi!] depend on how U.S. buyers feel ab.mt such arrangements. "It wou' ' au job, ,;ut of this county," he said.
TILEPIIONES Electncal Week Officers is pubbshed ever/ PAonday Subsaiption :nt'ormation: riew Ycrk, fl.Y.10020. of the Corpcrauen: HarcM W. r.fby tacGraw-Hill.
cCraw, Jr., ChairmanInc.,1221
.nd Ch e Avenue cf Execuuve Of ficer: Joseph L. Dicnne, President and Ctaef Operaung Ofricer; Robert ti. ' ar.Jes, TOL REE O 23 '" ##' "
Jesse Atock, EJitor Danic! Tanz. we.ite Mitor Cary Aderman. Wash:ngim , unor News olfices Deadiine for news: 5 p m. Thur sday. Subsmption, rates MSivr_in U S. & Canaca: 9 . '. . cwhere New York (212) 997-2904 (att maildebwered) Additacinal subscriptions afier first to w ne address. .n wme envelag - ;exh Washtngton (202) t>2 4-7 571 in U S. & Canada.54 2 5/y r cisewhere. O copynght 19's t by tacGraw Hau. inc. Ali rir : e ser v e d.
Reproducuon in any form whatsoever forbidden without enpress permisuon ci the cop /" :t owner.
ISS N ^4oi695 NIh
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer General Electric Company Presentation to Financial Community Represen tatives llo tel Pierre, New York Ci ty December 8, 1981 Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. Our purpose today is to give you an update on General Electric, how we are doing -- how we've done in 1981 -- then a sense of our positioning -- where we are heading -- where we want to go --
and last, a feel for how we will get there.
Face 15 Question: If you will strive not to hang on to weakness in the Eighties, will you get out of the nuclear power business and, secondly, would you enter that business now?
Mr. Welch: I will s tart with the second half of that one --
no! And, now, let's go to how we are addressing the first half of the ques tion. In the first several months of my tenure on this job, John Burlingame and I have been spending a lot of time on nuclear power with lierman liill and his associates. We think we have a realistic plan to participate in that business, because of the obligations that General Electric ha; .t.an on, and ta deliver nuclear reactors f rom our backlog ti. r ;;hout the decade.
We have a plan which, very candidly, does act an t icipa te any further new orders fo r er;uipmen t . It also, eo ry candidly, plans to be pro fitable every single year, b-gi-. ia with 1981 th ro ugh the decade, by building off very s uccr:an : u. vices and fuel businesses. So, General Electric will heno: .:s commitments in
,this business and deliver the orders we n t"e .n ;he backlog. We will be profitable by operating a very successful fuel and services business. But we a re n ' t expecting any imme di a te p
. y H
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN TIIE MATTER OF: )
a )
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, et a1 -
) Docket No. 50-461 OL
)
.l (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)
)
l!
NOTICE OF FILING 1 TO:
SEE ATTACilED SERVICE LIST h PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date, ,
n I am filing on behalf of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, INC., an original and two copies of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF l
SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTIONS
[ with the Secretary of the United States of America Nuclear Regu-j; latory Commission, a copy of which is attached hereto and is I
N; herewith served upon you.
N -
,i JAN L. KODNER, Attorney for i,; PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, INC.
A
, STATE OF ILLINOIS )
i
) SS.
)
llCOUNTYOFCOOK
! PROOF OF SERVICE i L
The undersigned certifies that he caused a copy of
. PRAIRIE ALLIANCE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL 1; CONTENTIONS
- ' filed on behalf of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, INC., to be served upon:
l il SEE ATTACilED SERVICE LIST h
, fbydepositingintheU.S.Mailat 173 West Madison Street, l 4 Chicago, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid, on
! j April 12, , 1982.
LAW OFFICES l l TUTT AND KODNER yl
[ 173 W. M ADISON STREET '
l cunE sco4 CHICAGO, ILL. SOGO" (ISubscribedandSworntobeforeme this 12th day o , 1982.
M ril TELEPHON E l 195/263 1535 [i s l h2Lr$ _ , 41 OW Nort1dy Public l
l l
?
t
S!!RVICE LIST ,
f Ilugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman Sheldon Zabel, Esq. .
Administrative Judge Schiff, liardin G Waite P. O. Box 127A 7200 Sears Tower Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Philip L. Willman, Esq. ,
School of Engineering Assistant Attorney General I iloward University Environmental Control !
2300 Sixth Street, N.W. Division i Washington, DC 20059 188 W. Randolph St.,
Suite 2315
' D r . Os c a r 11. Parish Chicago, IL 60601 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Dick Goddard, Esq.
Board Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Prairie Alliance P. O. Box 2424 Atomic Safety and Licensing Station A Appeal Board Panel Champaign, IL 61820 U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC '.20555 l Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Commission Section l Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,
Commission Washington, DC 20555 i l
i I
LAW OFFICES !
TurT AND KODNER j 978 W. M ADISON STREEY ;
CUITE 1004 CHICAOO. ILL. 60008 TI1EPHON E 392/208 1838 i
o i