ML20062E851
| ML20062E851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502 |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1978 |
| From: | Churchill B, Goldberg S, Hanley W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), SAFE ENERGY FOR NEW HAVEN, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062E849 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812130084 | |
| Download: ML20062E851 (20) | |
Text
'
ElY 2 I s7g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-DC pt*n,IC'-DCC[9 . 0.V n:,D l
l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) -
. )
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER )
COMPANY, ET --
AL. . ) .
Docket No. 50-502,T f @ SIK %
.s
) ly 3 -1 }W.
(Haven Nuclear Plant, Unit 1)
) 87 ~~ ,/ f pi-
) ^ '
.N /f 2{'-
,/ */
f.'.e 6
- ::- .c v STIPULATION OF CONTENTIONS -N c v' :o, mx w'.s ,,
/
The NRC Staff (S taf f) , the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al. (Ac. olican ts ) , and Safe Haven, Ltd., bv. their respective attorneys or representatives, hereby stipulate and agree as folicws: -
- 1. Safe Have'n agrees that the sole contentions it is asserting in this proceeding are those set forth in Attachnents A, l B and C hereto, subject to the reservation set forth in paragrapa 8 below. r.
- 2. Except as set forth in Attachnents A, 3 a.d C, Safe Eaven hereby withdraws all other contentions submitted in all of its previous petitiens and filings.
- 3. A parties to this Stipulacicn agree that the cententiens set forth in Attach =ent A nay be ad # tred for considera-len as matters in cent eversy a=cng the parties in this pro-ceeding. Applicants hereby wi hdraw thein objecticn to Safe Eaven's Petit.on for Leave co Intervene as staced in
~ '
781213OOff -
paragraph 45 (b) of Applicants' .v.ay 3, 1978, Answer to that petitlen. -
- 4. Safe Haven and.the S-="f further agree that de unstipu-lated contentiens set forth 12. Attachnen: 3 =ay also be considered as matters in contreversy in this p cceeding.
Applicants do not agree that the unstipulated cententions i
set forth in Attachnent 3 are p cper cententiens to be admitted as matters in cont:cversy.
- 5. Safe Haven asserts that e d unstipulated cententiens set forth in Attachnen; C shculd he ad:titted as =atters in controversy. Both the Staff and Applicants assert that ,
the unsticulated contentions set fcrth in Attachnent C are not ad 4 ssible.
- 6. If any party to this Stipulation wishes ec present stata- l nents cf deir positiens with respect to any of de un-stipulated contentiens in At achnents 3 and C, such statenents shall he filed wi-u - 14 days cf .he date of i this 'Stipulatien. i
.. i f !
- 7. The par-des have entered inte '" s stipula ic: is a spirit l l
t of ccmpeccise and cocpe;at:.cn w:.:n ne gcal c:. . . :.c:. q :
precedural disputes; derefere, :x: agreements by any party l herein shall be const ned as a waiver cf any riphes to
=veke any of de Cc-issien's : cles a .d cegula icns with l
O
~
respect to arguing the admissibility or inadmissibility of any of the unstipulated contentions.
B. Nothing contained in this Stipulation shall ba deemed to prevent Safe Haven from filing new or amended contentions upon a showing of good cause as required by 5 2.714 of the Commission's regulations.
- 9. Nothing contained in this Stipulation:
(a) shall be deemed an admission by the Staff or Applicants of the merits of any contention or the validity of any allegation of fact or law stated in any contention; nor, (b) shall be construed as a waiver by any party to this ,
Stipulation of any rights with respect to the admissibility of evidence pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.743 of the Commission's regulations..- .
- 10. Each party to this Stipulation expressly reserves any right to move for sunmary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749 of the Commission's regulations.
YWi e hf h .
o William C. Hanley~
~ ~
.I Safe Haven, Ltd.
A'rr . a, i 9 7 3 (u w A.'NW Steven C. Goldberg '-
Counsel for NRC Staff
,la M h W a. I
[v
/
( / v 3cfce W. Chtfrchill Counsel for Applicants "
1 ATTACH.NENT A /
STIPULATED CCN tr.NTICNS OF ALL PARTES
- 1. Applicants have failed to adequa:ely consider de following energy sources now available, or available by 1987, as alternatives to th.e nuclear option:
(a) photovoltaic cells:
(b) solar generating sta: ions: .
(c) wind generation:
(d) wood as a fuel for spac'e heating and for large generating stations:
(e) =unicipal solid waste as a generating fuel:
(f) cognera: ion: and .
(g) co=bination of above. -
(contentien 2(a),(b),(c),(e), (j),(=),(n (abbreviated versien)
- 2. Applicants have failed to adequately detail deir assumptiens and pre-dictions relative to de need for =cre epera:-Mg capacity in ia: not enough censideration has been given to the flat:ening of de bird ra:e in Wisconsin or de possibility of the develep=en: cf nega:ive popula:icn growth in iis sta:e. Such a : rend c=uld drs=a:ically lower de=and during de lifetime ci de Haven nuclear plan:.
(centen:icn 3(b)] 1/ Cententiens in Anach=ents A, 3 and C are derived fr = dese advanced in Peti:icner's peti:ica for leave := in:ervene, pes =arked April 5,1973, and sta:e=ent ef new and rev. sed con:en:icns , da:ed Augus: 7,1973.
4 2 -- .
- 3. Applicants have failed to provide a discussion of de degradation of de aesthetics of the lakeshore area brought en by de construction of Se Haven nuclear plan:. The Lake Michigan shore between Manitewoc and Sheboygan is a beau:iful and pr.=e exa=ple of Great Lakes aesi'etics.
The construction of the proposed Haven nuclear plant v' 'd severly degr4 i [ the scenic and natural beauty of the area.
, (contention 37(a)]
l f
- 4. Applicants' discussica of trans=issien line corridors and their
! environ = ental, aesthetic, and econcmic i= pact is inadequate in the following respects:
(a) All transmission line corriders are not delineated and Seir . total impact cannet be judged until iey are. (b) An econc=ic value for the produce and grain poten:ial cf de land affected by the cens:ruc-ion of trzcs=issicn lines is act provided. . e
. (centen:icn 30)
) .
- 5. Applicants fail to discuss de fellow.ng =erits cf put .ng all cans-mission lines underground:
(a) The aesietic and env.ren= ental values cf underg-cund rans-mission lines . ; (b) The grea:-- - u-bili:y ei underground 22ns=ussien lines and de fac: da: Sey are protec:ed from incle=en: we2 der.
- (contention 40)
. e o ee h e**- e == 6* m . me- em eup ****=*e94EED + e eee ese
- ep y eID= 9 mese e e '
}
- 6. The proposed natural draft ecoling towers win have a significant i= pact on the environ =ent of the area in Se fo!!cwing respects:
(a) They will cause icing of reads, fcgging, and an increase in the heat and hu=idity in the area cf de plant, as well as an increase in the a=ount of snowfall. (b) The cooling towers , easily the largest structures en de lake-shore in Sheboygan County, win be aestheticaHy unpleasing
~
and destroy an otherwise natural skfline. o (c) Fogging frc= the ecoling towers =ay adversely affect naviga-tion on Lake Michigan. (d) Noise pollution fro = the tower (44-62 d3A) will degrade both the aesthetic quality of the area as wen as de wildlife habitat. (e) Data relating to de cenfiguraticn and characteristics of de .. visible plu=es of de ecoling towers may be deceptive in light of the fict that onsite =etecrological data were cbtained frc= a tower located as =uch as 4200 feet NNW cf de #2 ccoling tewer. (f) The Haven ER states , and we cencur, dat the ecoling tewers , represent a hacard to birds, especially =igrater7 species, kining as =any as several thousand bir '.s at a t_=e. (Haven I?., 55.7.4.2) Whereas such 's"s can cause a significant i= pac: en migrator 7 bird pcpula:icns and de towers are a disruptive ele =ent in de flyways ci such birds , and whereas eccling :cwers ;
- \
~
l I
.._4
would be mandatory on the d* aven nuclear plant, we contend that this reason alone should cause de Applicant to seek another generating option. [ contention 43(a) - (f)] l l 7. The removal of 3-4.5 =illion cubic yards of soil frc= the site will have the following adverse enviren= ental effects : * (a) The te=porary re= oval of vegetatien frc= 232 acres will cause considerable eresion and a large a= cunt of solid =aterials to i be transported into the lake waters and increase the turbidity of the lake water. (b) The natural nutrients found in de scil =ay cause potential . degradation of de water quality. (c) Re= oval cf vegetation will disrupt the natural wildlife habitat. r . (contentien 44)
- 8. Applicants state the need for a ten-=ile te=perary power trans=issica line to the site but offer no route for *his transmissica line nor do dey provide an enviren= ental impact discussion for de creation of such a te=perary rcuta.
(contentien 40) l l l . i
- 9. Applicants have failed to discuss the corrosive effects on the spent fuel and its cladding within the spent fuel pool for the term of the operating license. .
(contention 51) -
, 10. Applicants have failed to discuss the methods cf I2.:xiling spent fuel
===hlies in the event of corresien er the less of pirfsical integef of its c1=Hing.
(contention 53) a
- 11. Applicants have failed to fully assess the cu=ulative thermal burden of having five nuclear reactors operating within a fiftf =ile radius along Lake Michigan.
(contention 26(f)] f = o 4 0 9 e
-. . . . - - - . . . . - . . ~ . . . .
l
/
~
n i
~-
. ATTAC*rGENT 3 I
. ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS AGREED L*FON SY 5AFE MAVEN AND STAFF t
- 1. Applicants' discussion of the means of reducing de perceived elec:rical -
demand .is inadequate and incomplete in that: I f (a) Applicants fail to detail the effect an inversion of the current rate structure would have on predicted demand. Industrial ; and commercial areas, a =ajor portica cf the Applicants ccm-mercial sales, are particularly sensitive to the pricing of I electricity. Inverted rates has e de potential for drs=a:ically affecting demand. . (b) The effec:s of =a=datorf oad l management progra=s (e.g . , use-of load control water heaters) are not adequately discussed by 1
. Aeplicants, =cr is there adec.uate descri=. tion of d,.,e effects cf allowing 1 cad =anagement as an eptien with financial incentives beycnd de ac:ual savings in ra:e charges. This could be a valid !
optica for icse already using elec:ricity to heat water and pre- : vide them wi:h an ince=:ive to participate in de prog-am. l (cententien 1(a),(f)]
- 2. Applicants and Staff have inadecuately censidered de icng-te_
r health effects cf de cra:nu= fuel cfcle (giv- '5 - #"--+ values cf Table 5-3 in 10 CFR Par: f1) . l (contentien 34) I A., . P I ( -. -. ... .
ATTACHMENT C UNSTIPULATED CONTENTICNS
- l. Applicants have failed to adequately consider de following energy sources now available, or available by 1987, as alternatives to de nuclear option:
(a) forced Guld geothermal electric generating stations: (b) magneto-hydromatic generating stations; (c) Guidi:ed beds: o (d) fuel cells; (e) hydrogen as a fuel for generating stations: (f) gas &cm hu=an and agricultural wastes; . (g) heat kom cows' = ilk: and Ch) small scale hydrepower. F = (contention 2 (d) , (f) , (g) , Ch) , (i) , Os ' n),(o)] (abbreviated versien)
- 2. Applicants have failed to adequately detail their assu=ptions and predictions relative to de need for more generating capacity in de felicwing respects:
(a) Much of de perceived need is based en de assu=ptien dat natural gas supplies will be unavailable, but Applicants fail to adequately censider de subsetutien cf sr.detic gasses, hydrogen, er gecpressuri:ed nare.ral gas in meeting
8- . t l I the needs currently met by natural gas. Especially in space , heating and industrial precesses, synthetic gasses may have a serious efect on the demand as predicted by Applicants. (b) Applicants fail to account adequately fer the growing ' south-ward trend" of the population. While this trend is in existence ' 1 among individuals, it is also quite strong in industry. Southerd ! states cEer milder climates, abundant and cheap work forces, { and other advantages attractng industry . Much of Applicar.ts' j t perceived de=and is [ue to the reqwemen s of industrial pro-cesses, yet Applicants fail to provide analysis of those industries o planning to move into the state, out of the state, or expand within ! and outside of the staw, nor is there analysis of these companies I which may simply close dcwn instate operatiens within the life-time of the proposed Haven nuclear plant. ' I (ubden 3 (a) , (f)]
- 3. Applicants have not established these levels above de nat.=al background levels ci radiation which are sendangerous to icse people wii respiratory condi:icas and allergies. i (contentica 5) :
t
- 4. Applicants have not established levels ei radiation expes =e above de l na: =21 backg :cu=d levels which are sendangerous te de elderly and to children.
I ! (cententic= 6) l
9
)' 5. Applicants have not presented a case to prove that the levels of radia-tion from de proposed Haven nuclear plant will not have a long-term effect on dairy cattle and livestock and will not lead to genetic deteriora- ;
tion in future generations of the stock. . (centention 7) i
- 6. Applicants fail to discuss the relationship of the Haven nuclear plant with the breeder program. If, in fact, any of the cost cf de p1' ant or its fuel are based on a value being assigned to spent fuel intended for a
reprocessing and introduction into de breeder program, we must also, then, see the Applicants' case for a breeder program, its econcmics and dangers. (contention 17)
- 7. Applicants fail to assess de effect even small radioactiv+ releases will have on tcurist, spcrtfishing, and outdcor recreation activities in the area cf the Haven nuclear plant in dat:
(a) Just the knowledge dat radicactive releases at e pessible or have taken place in de area may cause Se area to beceme less desirable as a fishing area causing a less of ince=e to local =erchants . (b) Radicacnve releases er de $reat of such =ay cause de ar-a to icse its desirabilitf as a tourist area :ausing less ci ince=e :o
- Iccal =erchants and hotel and =ctel cceraters . '
1 l (centennen 13) ,
10 - -
- 8. Applicants fail to fully assess the effect even small radioactive releases in this dairy area would have on the sale of milk and dairy products from Wisconsin. While the releases themselves may not be extensive or, if extensive and dangerous, confined to a relatively small portien
, of the state's dairy herd population, the ecenemic effect of the knowledge
! that some Wisconsin = ilk or cheese was showing signs ci radioactive contamination would, in fact, taint the reputation of all Wisconsin dairy products and have an inevitable detri= ental effect on Se sale of dairy products from the entire statt.
(contention.19)
- 9. Applicants fail to provide test data indicating that iose systems ,
provided in Se design ci the Haven nuclear plant in erder to provide emergency eccling of the reactor core will actually work as dey are supposed to in a critical situation. Such test data is mandatory before the questien of iis plant's safety can even be censidered. (contentica 21)
- 10. Applicants have failed to adequately detail the methed of decem=is-sieni=g they prepcse for Se Haven nuclear plant.
=(a) The exact medeledegy =ust be determined in advance se an estimate of de cost can be provided.
O l ae- * * * - em + eem + e eso + 6
- m onum . . . . - . . , . . . . . . , ,
4 t .
?
l (b) The exact metholodogy must be determined in advance as the ; means of decc=missioning =ay raise the is '-l of radioactive ' exposure given to the residents of the area. (c) If Applicants choose not to na=e the exact =ethed of deccetsis-sioning planned. then it is their responsibility to provide data
, on the cost of the =ost expensive for= ci decommissioning as well as proof that they have set aside a fund to =eet this expense.
i (d) If Applicants cheese not to na=e the exact method of decem-missioning they intend to use, they must provide data on exposure to* radiation of de surrounding pcpulation assuming : they will be using that meicd which willlead to the greatest
- i exposure. ;
(e) If Applicants chocse not to na=e the exact methed of deccmmis-siening, they must demons: rate that, should seyThcese to dismantle and remove de reactor, iey have a disposal site t chosen and available to the=. ( (f) Applicants must detail the effect = ore censervative radia:icn j standards, assuming such star..Srds are instituted, will have en the ecst cf dec=-issien:=g . (centen:icn 30) i
- 11. Applicants fail to provide a detailed analsyis of de research and development costs involved in the Haven nuclear plant. Such costs must include the oro rata share of all research and development per-formed by the United States Gover==ent at the taxpayers' expens'e.
. (contentien 31(a)]
I l . 12. Applicants fail to delineate the following probab1'e hidden ecsts that
, can develop in the construe:icn and operation of de Haven nuclear plant. ,
i (a) Applicants fail to discuss deir expected costs for litigatien and hearing procedures brought en ircugh environmental , and health censtroversies surrounding the construction cf - the proposed plant. (b) Applicants have not discussed de ecs: ci civil dis 3bedience brought en by the ccnstrue:icn ci de Haven nuclear plan:. Such a discussion =ust provide for costs to Applicants, resi-dents of the area, the County of She'ecygan, de town cf Mesel,
~
the cities of Sheboygan and Manitewec, and the Federal Gcvern-ment. (c) Applicants fail to provide a $creugh discussion cf de cst escala:icn ci uranium supplies and ecst cf new enEichment f2H" ties if paid for ircugh taxpa'fer funds. (centen:icn 32(c),(e), Ch)] -
.. . . . \
- 13. The shoreline placement of certain structures of the Haven plant are placed so as to be subject to damage due to the erosien of the shoreline.
Some plant structures are placed as close as 50 feet to the edge of the shoreline bluff with the eresica expected to be as higb ' a 60 feet 'within the forty year lifetime of the plant. (contention 45) .
- 14. Applicants provide no proven basis for their estimate of de cost of decommissiccing the Haven cyclear plant. Plants such as the Santa Susanna plant in Califernia which are being decommissioned show that the cost of decommissioning may be as high as fifty percent of the cost of the plant. Applicants mus: make provisiens at this time to provide -
i financing for a " worst case" decommissioning program for the Haven nuclear palat. This ecst esti= ate and the erovisien ci adec.uate A:nds j for the deco =issioning ci the plant is reasonable and censistent with current NRC practices as indicated by the United States General Acc unting Office in " Cleaning up the Ra-*= cf Nulear Facilites -- a Multibillion Dellar Prchlem," F.MD-77-46, June 16,1977, at pagel2: "NRC will no S longer issue a -"1 license er renew an existing license unless the =ill owner submits a recla=ation plant for ""Mg and a # g a::2ngacenn to finance the plant when -Ci operatons cease.'
, (cententien 56) -l
P r
- 15. Appliants should provide a trust fund or bonding arrang=eent to facilitate the maintenance of the fuel storage pools beyond the expected life of de plant should :;o means of disposal be available er nonproliferating reprecessing be in operation at the time the pisnt closes or the pccis l become filled. Again, this is consistent with the philosphy on which I
the licenses for =illing operations' are granted and renewed. l (contentien 57) . i I ,
- 16. Applicants have not adequately discussed de roles a combined program of Icad management, peak pricing, time of day rates, su=mer pricing i
?
policies, mandatory energy efficiency legislation, and ecenemic inces-tives would have in reducing the demand perceived by the Applicants.in , whole or in part, f (centention 1(4) ,(g)] .
- 17. Applicants fail to establish a level of radiatien above dat which is supplied by natural sources which is preven non-dangercus to de populatica as a whcle. Such levels remain in dcubt and ast doubt on the long term safety of 6e Haven nuclear plant. One =oed only to i Icok at the work cf Morgan, Mancuso, 3ress, Stewar:, ~a=plin, Gef=an.
and others to be alerted to cur dearth cf k=cwledge in iis area. (cententien 4) e
- 18. Applicants have failed to adequately describe de effects of having five
. nuclear reactors operating within a fiftf =ile radius in dat Applicants fail to discuss, specifically, the i= pact cf long-ter= storage in the area of spent fuel generated by five reacters.
I
. r
[ contention 26(e)] i .
- 19. Applicants fail to discuss alternatives to de prop ~csed underwater stcrage of spent fuel at the proposed Haven nuclear plant. Applicants should ,
discuss, among other alternatives , the storage ci spent fuel in sealed storage casks, near-sudace heat sinks , air-cooled vaults, both on-site and off-site as alternatives to underwater storage on site. The heali, safety, environ = ental and economic i= pact of these alternatives =ust . be discussed and evaluated. (contentien 50) ,
- 20. Applicants should specify a site for the re=cval of all spent fuel shculd a breach in de intepty ei the fuel holding pcols cecur, as in de case ci sabotage. Such a site should be capable of centaining de spent fuel plus two full reacter ceres in an emergency situatien in which ce=penent failure, hu=an er cr. ac.s of Narre, er sabotage recuire such receval.
The ecst and environ = ental i= pact of de alternative stcrage peci =ust be evaluated and censidered. (cente=:icn 54) . l I I l
. 1 I
l i l
.. .o .
- 21. Having estimated de amount of low level waste =aterials dat will
, accumulate at the Haven nuclear plant, Applicants have failed to outline the disposition of such =aterials. Applicants should indicate where these low-level radioactive wastes will be disposed of and discuss the availability of off-site disposal of of the Haven low level wastes in light of current problems with licensed low-level radicactive land burial facilities in the United States.
(contentien 55)
- 22. Applicants have failed to establish a baseline for radioactivitfi n milk in and around the Haven site. The most i=portant agricultural product in the area around the Haven site, milk should receive the = cst careful .
) consideration in radiatica =enitoring.
(centention 59) ;# .
- 23. 2_/ Applicants shculd provide an analysis of the Haven site based on a scenario in which only ene 900 =egawat: reac:cr is censtructed.
In preparing an order en de Advance Plan preceeding held pursur.nt to Se Power Plant Siting Act, the Public Service Cc==issica cf de State of Wiscensin has indicated Sat it finds Sat Applicants have =is-2/ The Staff reseries judg=ent en de acceptability ei dis centennen
, pending furier discussicns mi Applicants and internal delibera- '
ticus en Se i=per: ci de order upcn Se NP.C cens:ruenen permit applicatien fer Haven, Units 1 and 2. - 1 I f
< ~ - t Judged the need for two 900.W reactors and would entertain an appli-3/
cation for only one such reactor.- (See Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Advance Plans " Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and t r Order", decket 05-F.P-1, dated August 17, 1978, a copy of which.is attached.) Applicants have based their economic analysis ci the site in the context of two reactors sharing a single site. Should the Public Service Com-mission accept only one reactor, Applicants should have available for I j this proceeding informatica on the single reactor optien. t t Furthermore, we contend that all arguments en the viability of alterna-tive energy sources be viewed in the centext of =eenng a 900 MW need rather than 1800.W. (contention 60) ,- . t 4 d 3/ All parties to Sis Stipulaten do not necessarily agree $at de c:nten-tien ace.:rately character :es de Advance Plan Crder. l i l i t L I b am e=== . e-.===.. ...}}