ML20062C268

Applicant'S Answer to Safe Haven,Ltd.Motion to Dismiss Appl.Urges Motion Be Dismissed as Moot.(See ANO:7810250086) Cert of Svc Encl

ML20062C268
Person / Time
Site:	05000502, 05000503
Issue date:	10/24/1978
From:	Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 7811070322
Download: ML20062C268 (5)

Text

- _ _. - _ . _ . - ._ ___

- e, m r ?.,

/.

/'/  :

_. s October 24, 1978 &f .#m -

1 3 \333 7B nq$%.s+

\A-=;\w , ...

• a 4'. "q v-  ??

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ') ' t ' ' ' W'

/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION <,

"o r ; n M '

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1

In the Matter of ) -

) f WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER Docket Nos. STN 0-

)

COMPANY, ET AL. ) _-503 (s)

)

(Haven Nuclear Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SAFE RAVEN, LTD., MOTION TO DISMISS APPIICATION t

By motion dated October 9, 1978, addressed to the 1/ 2/

Commission 7 petitioner Safe Haven, LtdT, has requested that the application in this proceeding be dismissed on the grounds that the request for . ' sothorization of a two-unit plant is inconsistent with proceedings in the State of Wisconsin which are limited to a single nuclear unit.

~1/ Section 2.730 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice requires that motions be addressed to the presiding officer while a proceeding is pending, rather than to the Commission.

Applicants therefore assume that the motion will be referred i to the Licensing Board, and accordingly are addressing this answer to the Licensing Board.

2/ Section 2.715 (a) prohibits the filing of motions by a person who is not a party to the proceeding. This fact alcne would mandate denial of the motion, since Safe Haven has not been admitted as a party. However, since the issue raised by the motion is now moot because of intervening 4

events, it need not be decided, and the prohibition of section 2.715 (a) need not be invoked.

781107e91

[.r

=

P Safe Haven's statements and allegations are legally and factually in error, and the motion would have to fail on the merits. However, on October 10, 1978, prior to receipt of the motion, Applicants informed the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin that they did not intend to pursue their applica-tion before the NRC with respect to the second unit. On October 20, 1978, Applicants requested the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to discontinue consideration of the second unit and limit the NRC's review to a single generating unit at the IIaven site. A copy of the letter to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is attached.

In light of these facts, it is not necessary to rule on the merits of'the motion, and the motion should be dismissed as moot.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE I N f

%" ) 1 Nj!(,/

/

By l -- W M e W. CIiurchill Attorney for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

j Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 331-4100 l

Dated: October 24, 1978 l

O Wisconsin Electncecwa cwmr 231 WESI MICHtGAN,MILWAUMEE.*lSCON5th 53201 October 19, 1978 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. MUCLEAR REGULATORY CW0ilSSION Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

DOCKETS STN 50-502 AND STN 50-503 HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT On May 28,1974, Applicants tendered an appi f cation for et,nstruction pemits for one or more nuclear generating units at one or mors sites in accordance with the Consnission's " duplicate plant" review concept as set out in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. Docket Nos. STN 50-502 through STN 50-507 were set aside for docketing the application and, upon receipt and pre-docketing review of tne Environmental Report and Site Addendum for the Koshkonong site, the application was docketed under Docket Nos. STN 50-502 and STN 50-503 in August, 1974. The application, under the same docket numbers, was subsequently amended to change the location of the two-unit plant to its present site in Sneboygan County where it will be known as the Haven Nuclear Plant. This was accomplished by the submittal of a total revision of the Environmental Report (Amendment 9) and the Site Addendum to the PSAR (Amer.dment 15) on December 16, 1977, to reflect the change to the Haven site, uy letter dated September 1.1978, we sent you a copy of tqe August 17, 1978, Oruer of the Public Service Conunission of Wisc onsin whict: indicated that, pending furtner resolution of uncertainties relating to uranitsq supply, decomis-sioning, drid waste disposal, that agency would not presently entertain an appli-cation for certification of more than one reactor for the llave1 Nuclear Plant.

In accordance with that Order, Applicants are hereby requesting that the NRC's review of the application be limited to a single generating unit at the Haven site under Docket No. STN 50-t 02, and that review of the second unit under Docket No. STN 50-503 be discountinued.

Review of Docket No. STN 50-502 as a one-unit applicetion may require some amendments, but we wauld ni t expect them to be extensive, nor would we exDect that NRC review of the application would have to be interruote<! pending the filing of such ar:endments.

We expect to file witnin 30 days an amendment of the General Inforration section of ttie appilcation to delete tne ostimated completion dates for Unit 2 and to provide single-unit cost informat1on.

l l

Mr. Harold R. Denton. Ofrester October 19, 1978 i

The PSAR, other than the Site Addende, is drafted generically for one or more units, and should thus require no modification. It is our view that the scope and detail of the NRC review of radiological health and sahty matters would not be materially affected by treating the Haven application as a one-unit proposal. The safety related features of the two units as originally proposed are essentially identical and independent.

The Site Addendum to the PSAR may have to be supplemented, primarily in the areas dealing with the general description of the proposed Haven plant.

Attached as Attachment 1 is a preliminary itst of sections in the Site Addendum which may have to be revised. We estimate that, if necessary, a supplement containing this infonnation would be submitted by April 1979.

Similarly the Envirorynental Report (ER) may have to be supplemented l

to provide the benefits of the project in terms of a single unit at Haven.

However, as discussed with members of your staff during meetings held on September 6

! and 25, 1978, significant time and expense could be saved if changes to the ER 1 were minimized by your evaluation of environmental impacts on the basis of the

) existing two-unit ER. The benefits of a single unit at Haven could then be i

conservatively evaluated by you against the aggregate of the environmental impacts

of two units. In our view, this conservative approach would not be inconsistent with NEPA when the applicant stipulates to such an approach. Our preliminary list

of the infonnation that may be required to accommodate a single unit environmental analysis under this approach is included in Attachment 2. We estimate that this

information could also be submitted by April 1979 in the fonn of a supplement to j the ER.

5 In the meantime, we will continue to adhere to our present schedule for l submitting infonnation not yet provided in the application. The proposed schedule for sutmitting amendments, including an identification of the major items in each i amendment, is set out in Attachment 3.

i The need for Unit I as curre itly scheduled has not chwged. Accordingly, we request that you maintain your schedule for review of our application consistent with a decision on the issuance of a construction pennit for Unit 1 by October 1

! 1980, to pennit cormnercial operation by June 1,1987.

I I

Very truly yours, o__ ,.

2 LLt.M <

Sol Burstein Executive Vice President Attachments

Attachment 1 i

HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM The following is a preliminary list of sections of the Haven Site Addendum which may require revision to reflect a single unit at Haven.

Section 8. Electric Power S3 ction 8.2 is a description of offsite power systems. If changes -

to these systems are made which would affect the single-unit plant, modified descriptions and analyses would be provided. ,

Section 9, Auxiliary Systems  !

Section 9.2.1 is a description of the reactor plant service water l system. This section would be modified to provide a service water pumphouse i arrangement, system description, and evaluation reflecting a single unit. '

Section 9.2.5 is a description of the ultimate heat sink. This section would be modified to provide an evaluation reflecting a single unit.

s Section 9.4.9 is a description of the service water pumphouse ventilation. i This section would be modified to provide a system description and evaluation  !

reflecting changes to ventilation system design for a single unit.

t t

r

[

I i

r I

i

Attachment 2 HAVEN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT The following is a preliminary list of sections of the Haven Environmental Report which may require revision to rerlect a single unit.

Section 1, Need For Power A modified analysis would be provided to reflect the need for Unit I at Haven.

i Section 3. The Plant Section 3.4 is the description of the heat dissipation system and would not change significantly. Minor changes for the single-unit service water system would be provided along with a modified service water pumphouse arrangement.

Section 3.6 is a description of chemical waste systems for the plant.

Dilution of chemical wastes may be smaller for a single unit. If so, modified  !

chemical discharge concentrations would be provided.

Section 5, Environmental Effects Of Plan't Operation i

Chemical discharge concentrations for a single unit may be slightly higher. If so, modified chemical concentrations and impact analyses would be provided.

Section 8, Social And Economic Benefits Of Plant Construction And Operation The peak construction work force will be smaller and the construction schedule will be shorter for a single unit at Haven. Thus, the economic benefits from construction payroll and taxes will be reduced. A r.;dified construction work force and schedule would be provided along with modified cconomic benefits of the construction and operation of a single unit.

Section 9, Alternative Energy Sources And Sites Single-unit coal vs. nuclear economic comparisons would be provided, along with pertinent alternative site considerations.

Section 10, Design Alternatives i Section 10.1 is a discussion of alternative cooling systems. A modified Section 10.1 including all alternatives would be provided for a single unit.

g to SctW _ , . _ _ _

, .. Attachment 2 1

Section 10.2 is a discussion of alternative intake systems. A rodified

! Section 10.2 would be provided for a single unit. .

! Section 10.? is a discussicn of discharge alternatives. fio alternative is required for closed-cycle cooling. Discharge alterna,tives for a single unit j with once-through cooling would be provided.

4 Section 11, Summary Benefit-Cost Analysis This section is a summary of all cost-benefit information. A modified 4

section providing single-unit benefits vs. two unit impacts would be'provided, t

I l

l 1

1 d

1 2-

i Attachment 3 HAVEN flVCLEAR PLAfiT SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTitiG FUTURE AMErlDMEtiTS ,

1 AMEliDMENT AMENDMENT DOCUMENT I4 UMBER DATE MAJOR ITEMS IfiCLUDED 1

PSAR . 16 11/78 1. Responses to most of NRC's SA 19 11/78 Round 1 Questions.

r ER 12 12/78 1. Responses to remaining flRC Qualification Review Questions.

2. Responses to NRC Round 1 Questions, including incorporation into the text.

3. Incorporate responses to DNR questions.

4. Impact of Transmission Lines.

5 .~ Incorporate baseline environmental impact data - Noise, Terrestrial.

Site, Borrow Area, Etc.

6. Revise Chapter 10 - To incorporate final closed-cycle cooling system information and alternatives.

L ER 13 3/79 1. Revise Chapter 10 to include alternative intake study information.

2. Incorporate additional site '

hydrological information and data.

3. Incorporate Chapter 14 - Once-Through Cooling System Study.

PSAR 17 4/79 1. Incorporate results of Lake SA 20 4/79 Michigan geophysical investigations.

2. Incorporate cesults of on-site pump tests.

3. Responses to remaining NRC Questions. '

4. Single-unit supplement to SA (See Attachment 1).

ER 14 4/79 1. Single-unit supplement to ER (See Attachment 2).

k

l 4

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

i )

j WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER ) Docket Nos. STN 50-502

) COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-503

)

(Haven Nuclear Plant, )

l Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l

l I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' s

Answer to Safe Haven, Ltd., Motion to Dismiss Application,"

j were served by deposit in the United States mail, first class, 4

postage prepaid, this 24th day of October, 1978, to all those on the ' attached Service List.

1

! I l

! U Bruc M . Churchill

/MC /

l Dated: October 24, 1978 h'

E

. I i

4 1

I

.. . _ . _ _ - - , _ . - _ . . . - . - - .1

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

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER ) Docket Nos. STN 50-502 COMPANY, ET AL. ) STN 50-503

)

(Haven Nuclear Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq. Thomas A. Lockyear, Esq.

Chairman Assistant Chief Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Ser/ ice Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Wisconsin Washington, D.C. 20555 Hill Farms State Office Building Mr. Glenn O. Bright Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts

& Trowbridge Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum 1800 M Street, N.W.

Route #3 Washington, D.C. 20036 Box 350-A Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Robert H. Gorske, Esq.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company Steven C. Goldberg, Esq. 231 West Michigan Street Office of the Executive Legal Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Director ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Sol Burstein Washington, D.C. 20555 Executive Vice President Wisconsin Electric Power Docketing and Service Section Company Office of the Secretary 231 West Michigan Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. William Charles Hanley Honorable Bronson C. LaFollette President Attorney General, State of Safe Haven Ltd.

Wisconsin P. O. Box 40 Kohler, Wisconsin 53044  ;

Department of Justice '

State Capitol i Madison, Wisconsin 53702 i  !

i I

. r WEPCO-Haven /NRC Service List  ;

Page Two

- Mr. Thomas Galazen Northern Thunder Box 334 Turtle Lake, Wisconsin 54889 ,

Paul M. Barnes, Esq.

Foley & Lardner First Wisconsin Center 777 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Eugene O. Gehl, Esq.

i Axley, Brynelson, Herrick & Gehl 122 W. Washington Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53703 ,

Richard L. Prosise, Esq.

Bureau of Legal Services  :

Department of Natural Resources Box 7921  ;

Madison, Wisconsin 53707  ;

i h

i h

i L

f I

t I

l

,, ., - - . -- , , . - . - .,r., - - - -

,-- , , ,,, :.., --