ML20054G001

Motion to Reconsider ASLB 790913 Order & 820512 Ruling,To Reopen OL Hearings &/Or Hold New Hearings.Motion Not Advanced for Dilatory Purposes.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054G001
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	06/12/1982
From:	Groesch G JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206180322
Download: ML20054G001 (6)

Text

,

6/12/82 UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Louisiana Power &. Light Company Docket No. 50-382

)

(Wate'rford Steam Electric

)

Station, Unit No.3)

)

JOINT INTERVENORS MOTION TO RECONSIDER ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 13,1979 AND RULING OF MAY 12,1982, TO REOPEN OPERATING LICENSE HEARINGS AND/OR IIOLD NEW OPERATING LICENSE HEARINGS Now into court comes Joint Intervenors, Save Our Wetlands and Oystershell Alliance, and upon suggesting the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( ASLB) that its ruling of September 13, 1979 excluding Joint Intervenors contentions 10,11,13, and 14 and that its ruling of May 12, 1982 overruling Joint Intervenors motions to keep the record open and to hold further hearings on nuclear wastes are erroneous and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, The Atomic Energy Act, and all acts amendatory thereof, for reasons including but not limited to all reasons set forth in Natural Resources Defense Council v.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America; Baltimore. Gas and Electric et a1 [74-1586] and Consolidated Cases nos. 77-1448, 79-2110, and 79-2131, which decision is hereby incorporated herein as if copied and set forth herein in extenso, and were in violation of petitioners 5th Amendment rights to due 82061803pg

, process and equal protection of the law.

Joint Intervenors move that said ASLB Order be rescinded and ASLB ruling be overturned, that the ASLB re-open the record of said hearings, and that hearings be held on such contentions in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The contentions stricken in the September 13, 1979 Order are as follows:

10.

Applicant has failed to properly evaluate radiation emissions which will be created by spent fuel storage due to the underestimation of amounts of spent fuel which will be held in storage during the useful' life of the facility.

11.

Applicant has failed to properly evaluate radiation emissions which will be created by spent fuel storage by underestimating the amounts of spent fuel which will be processed, handled, and stored based upon underestimation of the quantity of such products which will be stored on site at the facility.

13.

Applicant has failed to appropriately evaluate the health, cafety, and environmental risks which result from storage at the Waterford 3 site for an extended and as yet undetermined length of time, of spent nuclear fuel materials because of the lack of an acceptable and technologically feasible and reasonable means for permanent and interim storage of high-level radioactive wastes and spent fuel materials; which thus renders Applicant's interim storage as de facto permanent storage.

14.

Applicant has failed to properly evaluate the present inability to dispose of spent fuel assemblies, which will ultimately result in the necessity of increased expansion of spent fuel storage facilities at the Waterford 3 site.

Joint Intervenors upon further suggesting to the Board that in view of the monumental significance of the nuclear waste problem

[see NRDC v. USNRC and USA; Baltimore Gas and Electric et al--id.

page 1 (Edw rds, J. concurring) "This case (involving nuclear waste disposal) may prove to be one of the most important cases to be decided by the United Sta.tes courts this century'! ], Joint Intervenors move that the ASLB open evidentiary hearings on the following new contentions:

30.

The Staff's Final Environmental Impact Statement for Waterford Steam Elecrric Station Unit 3 fails to satisfy the National Environ-

mental Protection Act and in particular section~ 102 (2) (C) of NEPA' and the requirements of 10 CFR 51 and other NRC regulations concerning the uncertainties and the environmental, health, and safety effects of the burial of high-level and transuranic wastes from Waterford 3.

31.

The uncertainties in the cost / benefit analysis for WSES 3 in view of-the failure of the Staff and/or the Applicant to consider the integrity of permanent repositories of the high level and transuranic wastes, or whether or when such a repository will be developed for high level and transuranic wastes, are so large that the costs outweigh the benefits and the licensing of Waterford 3 is not in the public interest.

32.

Applicant and/or Staff have failed to adefuatedly consider the uncer'tainties concerning the integrity of the permanent repository, if such a repository is ever built, for the high-level and transuranic wastes from Waterford 3.

33.

Applicant and/or Staff has inadequately assessed the uncertainties over whether and when such a repository, or equivalent system of disposal, will be developed for the high-level and transuranic wastes from Waterford 3.

34.

Applicant and/or Staff has failed to adequately assess the the health, socioeconomic and cumulative effects of the proposed plan for the disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes from Waterford 3.

35.

Applicant and/or Staff has failed to adequately assess the health, socioeconomic and cumulative effects of the entire back end of the fuel cycle for Waterford 3.

36. Applicant and/or Staff has failed to adequately assess the' cumulative and/or synergistic effects of the back end of the fuel cycle, including the disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes from Waterford 3.

Joint Intervenors aver that this petition is necessary to protect the health, safety, property and liberty of Joint Intervenors and that other means are not available to protect the interest of pet-itioner.

Joint Intervenors have participated in 3 years of the Intervention process and have succeeded in aiding this Board in developing a record for consideration and brought the testimony and publications of eminent scientists to the attention of the Board.

Joint Intervenors' participation will broaden the issues since neither Applicant nor Staf f has raised questions concerning numerous and huge uncertainties in the disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes.

Joint Intervenors motion is not advanced for dilatory purposes.

j Joint Intervenors' participation as a party in the hearings on all aforementioned contentions is necessary to conplete the record and resolve issues which must be dealt with as a pre-condition to this

+

Board making its recommendation and the NRC making its decision whether i

to grant an operating license.

In the alternative only that the NRC finds that any of the aforementioned contentions is untimely, petitioners move that l

the record be reopened and hearings held on such contentions pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (i-v) and 10 CFR 2.714 (d) and all other pertinent regulations and laws of the United States for the aforementioned reasons and:

1 (a)

The recentness of the NRDC v. USNRC and USA, et al. decision declaring NRC regulation on high-level and transuranic waste disposalinvalid and illegal.

l (b) the magnitude of the waste problem. [see NRDC v. USNRC et al.

(Edwards, J.

concurring)].

(c) the magnitude of the risk to the public from high-level and transuranic wastes from Waterford 3 [see NRDC v. NRC et al. (Edwards, J.

concurring)].

l (d) to restore public confidence in the integrity and fairness of I

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing Process and to allay public concern that the NRC hearing process is not concerned with the health and safety of the people of Louisiana.

l Respectfully submitted,

-y

'3(

,,( I

Y l

< ^

' Gary l. Groesch ~

/

j l

Acting Counsel for Joint Intervenors e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

Docket No. 50-382

)

(Waterford Steam Electric

)

Station, Unit 3)

)

SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Lyman L.

Jones, Jr.,

Esquire Administrative Judge Post Office Box 9216 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Metairie, LA 70055 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Luke B.

Fontana, Esquire Commission 824 Esplanade Avenue Washington, D.C.

20555 New Orleans, LA 70116 Dr. Harry Foreman Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Director, Center for U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Population Studies Commission Box 395, Mayo Washington, D.C.

20555 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Dr. Walter H.

Jordan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission 881 West Outer Drive Washington, D.C.

20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Docketing & Service Section (3)

Sherwin E.

Turk, Esquire (4)

Office of the Secretary Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

.[-!{f'~'

U K !; P '~

June 14, 1982

'82 R17 tn :06 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

HEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

LOUISIANA POWER $ LIGHT

)

Docket No. 50-382 (Waterford. Steam Electric Station, )

Unit 3)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

I hereby certify that copies of the following document, JOINT INTERVENORS MOTION TO RECONSIDER ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1979 and RULING OF MAY 12, 1982, TO REOPIM OPERATING LICENSE HEARINGS AND/OR HOLD NEW OPERATING LICENSE HEAR--

l INGS, were served by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 15th day of June to parties identified on the attached service list.

f p

v'

=

l

/:k '

1,. -

Gary /L.'Groesch

~

i Dated: June 15, 1982 a