ML20054M258

Reply to NRC & Util 820601 Responses to Motion to Resubmit Contention 15,pursuant to ASLB 810804 Procedural Order. Environ Effects of Nuclear Waste Should Be Considered Fundamental Issue in Proceeding

ML20054M258
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/06/1982
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20054M259	List: ML20054M258 ML20054M262
References
RTR-NUREG-0887, RTR-NUREG-887 NUDOCS 8207120178
Download: ML20054M258 (4)

Text

i 1

(d' UNITED. STATES OF AMERIdA. f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensijir Board- [.jg3 In the Matter of )

} tr--

pf[

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) DockefNos. 50-440 .

COMPANY, Et A1. ) 50-441 '4

) (Operating Licen e g ,

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) f, j Units i and 2) ) (k {

} /g

-3 OCRE REPLY TO STAFF AND --

JUL 0 91982 > 7 APPLICANT RESPONSES TO & Office of the Secretarf MOTION TO RESUBMIT CONTENTION 15 Occheting & Sentice 4 g Danch Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Procedural Ordero' _.

07 -

August 4, 1981, OCRE hereby files this reply to the responses of Staff and Applicant to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion to Resubmit Contention 15, dated June 1, 1982. The Applicant opposes the admission of the contention, while the IEC Staff argues that its consideration be deferred until the Com-mission develops guidance on the application of the April 27 Appeals Court decision in NRDC v. NRC to individual licensing proceedings.

The Applicant is apparently confused as to the intent and scope of Contention 15. OCRE, in submitting this contention, seeks to have considered in this proceeding the effects on the biosphere of the radioactive materials produced by the operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Specifically, OCRE wants asstirance that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public. 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). These activities have as their inevitable consequence the production of large quantities of radioactive waste, .the effects of which on human health are 8207120178 820706 )[ds;2 PDR ADOCK 05000440 s) PDR

m pernicious, which remain dangerous for thousands of years, and for which there are no proven disposal methods (NRDC v. NRC, slip op, at 12-13).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the 4 consideration of, inter alia, "any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemente d : . . .

the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environ-ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitnents of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." 42 USC 4332 (2) (C). The nuclear waste problem involves all of these factors, and the individual licensing action is the appropriate forum for evaluating these factors since it is the operation of individual facilities that produces these wastes. It is OCRE's belief that until the was e problem is solved, no additional wastes should be generated.

OCHE chose in .its original November motion to argue the ineffectiveness of the Waste Confidence Proceeding because this Thus, the Waste was the only avenue available at that time.

Confidence Proceeding was only a means by which OCRE sought the admission of Contention 15. Contention 15 was not and is not limited to the Waste Confidence Proceeding.-

however, that the Waste Confidence Pro-

_1/ OCRE does maintain,ceeding and all other legislative / administrative e the nuclear waste problem are ineffective. An effective waste disposal program must be based on viable technology, which is now non-existent.

. 1 i

The April 27 Appeals Court decision provided another, more direct avenue for the admission of Contention 15.

NRDC v. NRC requires that the environmental effects of nuclear waste be considered in individual licensing decisions. Slip op.

OCRE thus at 46-47. This is what OCRE sought originally.

maintains that its June 1 motion is both logical and timely.

NRC The Applicant also raises the issue of whether NRDC v.

can be legally invoked as authority since it is under appeal.

The Staff may also have had this in mind when recommending the deferral of this issue until the Commission develops the appro-  :

_2/

priate policy. OCHE would not object to the deferral of this contention, if both this proceedin and construct.i.on on the Perry I

facility were suspended as well. OCRE contends that the con-h tinued expenditure of funds for the construction of FNPP will .

prejudice the ultimate outcone of any NEPA review, which must, E' in OCRE's opinion, include the consideration of nuclear waste 1 storage and disposal. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-78-14, 7 NRC 962(1978).

l

( t

_2/ Tne Staff's argument that good cause for late filing canno j l be determined until this guidance is issued is illogical.

The Staff, in recommending deferral, essentially suggests that l j

i OCRE has filed its motion too early.

_3/ Suspending this proceeding also avoids the question of whether this deferral would oe so lengthy as to require re-opening of the record, with the higher legal burden placed on the party so moving, when such appeals are resolved and

?

the Commission guidance issued. See Kansas Gas and Electic i

and Kansas City Power and Licht (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-462, 7 NHC 320, 338 (1978); Public Service Company 10 URC 775, i

of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-673, i 804 (1979).

!1 i

l i

Nuclear waste management is a fundamental issue in the debate on the desirability of nuclear power as an energy source.

That it be considered in this proceeding is a moral, as well as  ;

a legal, imperative.

Respectfully submitted, q d'

Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative i

8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 b