ML20058J825

Answer Opposing Friends of the Earth of DE Valley 820707 Submittal of Contention Based on New Info.Commission Expressly Precluded Such Contentions in Recent Policy Statement.Contention Filed Inexcusably Late

ML20058J825
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/04/1982
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8208120106
Download: ML20058J825 (5)

Text

n t, ,.

- " ~

, .. g_

.(l 0 ""

' 00CKETED

,, 3 :,-

USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf@lISSION E OF SE  %.f h'

11NG & .

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing B ERt,NCh In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-3'53 ~

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO " SUBMISSION OF A CONTENTION BASED ON NEW MATTER" BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH IN THE DELAWARE VALLEY Preliminary Statement By letter dated July 7, 1982, 1_/ Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley (" FOE") requested the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board") to reconsider its ruling on Contention V-1,-- which the Licensing Board had rejected in its Special Prehearing Conference Order ("SPCO"), dated June 1, 1982. The basis of the request for reconsideration was the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 1

in People Against Nuclear Energy v. United States Nuclear I

i l --1/ As stated in the letter from Applicant's counsel dated July 29, 1982 to the members of the Licensing Board, Applicant was not served with a copy of this pleading i and learned of it only by means of the Staff's response l which counsel received on July 29, 1982.

2/ Although the pleading filed by FOE refers to Contention

V-3, it is clearly Contention V-1 which pertains to the subject of its request for reconsideration as discussed below.

l e20m20ms s20eO4 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR -

9 g

_. . ~ __

Regulatorv Commission, No. 81-1131 (D.C. Cir., January 7, 1982). 3/ In that case, the Court decided that potential i

harm to psychological health and community well-being resulting from the restart of Three Mile Island, Unit 1 is an environmental impact cognizable under NEPA.

In Applicant's view, the request for reconsideration should be denied as inexcusably late and lacking in merit.

Additionally, the Commission has expressly precluded such contentions in a recent Statement of Policy on the treatment of psychological impacts.

Argument i

In proposed Contention V-1, FOE asserted, inter alia

that the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage for Limerick " failed to evaluate the effect of the plume from the cooling towers which will be visible" in the area around the plant. FOE alleged that the plume would be a deterrent i

to visitors at historic places and would raise the spector of a nuclear accident. In its SPCO, the Licensing Board rejected Contention V-1, stating as to this particular aspect:

In general, we consider that this impact was encompassed in the evaluation of the

visual impact of the plant which was performed at the construction permit stage. We recognize that some of the

--3/ Respondents and Intervenors in this proceeding filed motions for reconsideration with a suggestion for rehearing ~en banc, which was denied on June 30, 1982.

The time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari therefore runs until September 28, 1982.

l

b 4

- 3' -

2 impacts allegedly resulting from viewing the plume, however, are psychological.

This would not.have been considered when the construction permit was issued if a basis had been provided, we might consider them now. However, no basis is given for the proposition that viewing the plume will cause people to become alarmed about possible radiation exposure.J/

FOE's request. for reconsideration of this ruling is unjustifiably late. In its SPCO, the Board stated that any I

request for reconsideration should be filed within 10 days after service of the Order, i.e., June 15, 1982. The instant request by FOE, however, was not filed until July 7, 1982. FOE states that it relies upon the decision by the Court of Appeals on January 7, 1982 by the Court of Appeals, which required consideration of psychological impacts in i

connection with the restart of Three Mile Island, Unit 1. 5/

Accordingly, by FOE's own admission, its request for reconsideration is late without cause. It should therefore I be denied as not in compliance with the SPCO of the i Licensing Board.

I Additionally, the request is entirely lacking in merit.

FOE merely restates its speculation that plume visibility will create anxiety. As the Board has already ruled, no basis has been shown for this subjective and wholly J/ SPCO at 144-45.

5/ While not relied upon by FOE, it is also noted that the full opinion filed by the Court of Appeals on May 14, 1982 preceded the time within which FOE was obliged to seek reconsideration by a full month.

-4 -

speculative analysis. More importantly, the Commission has rpecifically instructed licensing ' boards not to adopt psychological stress contentions which do not precisely meet the three criteria stated by the Court of Appeals for considering psychological impacts. The Commission defined these criteria as follows:

First, the impacts must consist of

" post-traumatic anxieties", as distinguished from mere dissatisfaction with agency proposals or policies.

Second, the impacts must be accompanied l by physical effects. Third, the

" post-traumatic anxieties" must have been caused by " fears of recurring catastrophe"._6/

FOE's proposed contention does not meet these criteria.

The proposed contention does not even involve an accident scenario, let alone the physical or psychological harm associated with an accident. Moreover, the Commission expressly stated in its guidance that "the only nuclear l plant accident that has occurred to date that is sufficiently serious to trigger consideration of psychological stress under NEPA is the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident." 3 The vague and subjective anxieties alleged by FOE as the basis for consideration of psychological impacts are therefore insufficient to support

-6/ Statement of Policy on Consideration of Psychological Stress Issues, 47 Fed. Reg. 31762 (July 22, 1982).

7/ Id. at 31762-63.

l l

its contention. Accordingly, FOE's request for reconsider-ation must be denied.

Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that FOE's request for reconsideration of its contention is unduly late and, in any event, without merit and should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

i Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicant August 4, 1982 i