ML20065A566

Motion to Sever Unit 1 from Unit 2 OL Proceeding.Potential Changes in Technology & Regulation of Nuclear Reactors by 1991 Render Immediate OL Proceeding Inappropriate for Unit 2.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065A566
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	09/07/1982
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8209130261
Download: ML20065A566 (4)

Text

.

. -i* , ,

z .

NNITED STATES OF AMERICA shggD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing B r8EP -p g ,,4g In the Matter of ) Orr

) 00ckhfj 74 ; 7

. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. V!C!

50-4 COMPANY, Et A1. )

,- ) (Operating License)

'- .(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, -

)

Units 1 and 2) ) -

)

~

MOTION TO SEVER THE PNPP UNIT 2 OL PROCEEDING FROM THAT OF UNIT 1 Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CHE") hereby moves the Licensing Board to sever th.e OL proceeding for Unit 2 of the. Perry Nuclear Power Plant from that of Unit 1.

As shown in Attachment 2 of " Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Leave to File its Contentions 21 t'hrough 26,"

dated August 18, 1982, Applicants have applied for an extension of construction completion dates for the Perry reactord. Applicants have requested that the completion date for Unit 1 be changed from 1982 to 1985 and that for Unit 2 from 1984 to 1991. It is the latter change that concerns OCRE.

OCRE believes that it is improper to conduct an operating license proceeding at this time for a nuclear facility that will

_.1/

not.oper. ate until 1991, if then. Between now and 1991 it is likely that numerous changes will be made in the technology and

__1/ The conditions cited by Applicants for the extensions, par-ticularly the lack of demand for electricity and difficulties in obtaining financing, are not likely to be ameliorated in the near future. OCRE thus suspects that Unit 2 may be de-layed further or may even be cancelled.

8209130261 820907 DR ADOCK 05000g ,

hg

\

regulation of nuclear reactors. Scientific research', which is never static, will probably reveal new facts on the safety of nuclear power plants, the hazards of radiation, the feasibility

~of nuclear waste disposal, and a myriad of other issues. The NRC will undoubtedly promulgate new regulations to which Perry Unit 2 must comply. _.2_/ The courts will further interpret the laws and NRC's implementation of same; just this year two land-mark decisions were reached: PANE v. NRC and NRDC v. NRC, which, respectively, interpreted NEPA to include psychological stress and declared the S-3 table invalid. Congress may pass new laws concerning nuclear technology. To continue the consideration of Unit 2 at this time would ignore these substantiil uncertainties caused by its delayed operating date.

Another area of concern to OCRE is the fact that considerable construction hdh yet to be completed on Unit 2. Undoubtedly deficiencies in that construction will occur. OCRE believes that- these problems must be addressed publicly within the hearing structure provided by the NRC's rules of practice.

New information such as this will necessitate the re-opening of the record. However, this is rather difficult; the party so moving must meet a strict legal burden. See Kansas Gas and Electric and dansas City Power and Light (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978); Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-573,10 NRC 775, 804 (1979). For this reason it is preferable that separate OL pro-i

_2/ The degree of comp'.iance of a nuclear facility with NRC regulations is alv ays litigable. Indeed, such issues should be resolved in the public forum afforded by HRC licensing pr.oce edings .

l - -- _ - - . .. ____ __ - - - __ -

i

~

ceedings be conducted for the two units.

In addition, OCHE would note that the Advisory Committee s .

on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) did not consider it appropriate  !

, to include Unit 2 in its recent evaluation of PNPP. In fact, the ACRS report dealt only with Unit 1. This raises an' inter-esting legal complication. In Duke Power Company (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-77-20, 5 NRC 680 (1977) the board

' ruled that safety issues are not subject to summary disposition until after the SER and ACRS letter have been issued. Since the

~

ACRS letter for Unit 2 has not been issued, all safety issues in l

i this proceeding, even if dismissed for Unit 1, must remain in

/

this proceeding for Unit 2. This haa the effect of unnecessarily delaying this proceeding throughout the intervening years, until i 1991, or even beyond. Of course, this will cause a great amount 1

of expense and effort for all parties, which could be avoided by severing the Unit 2 proceeding from that of Unit 1. If Unit 2 is ever substantially complete and ready for operation, then is the time to conduct its OL proceeding, not now.

OCRE thus concludes that the separation of Units 1 and 2 1

in this proceeding is just and proper and prays that the Licensing Board is so moved.

j , ,

Respectfully submitted,

! . A E 9t h Susan L. Hiatt i OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158

%sia?

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE se -9 mt :4E

.This is to certify.that copies of the foregoing MOTI TO SEVER THE PNPP UNIT 2 OL PROCEEDING FROM THAT .0F UNIT 1 wer,e . '.ggn .

. Served.by. deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage 'dyb g'5b 'jh((CH SERV!CE gaAN

,'this 7th day of September, 1982 to those in the service 12

. . .Jj. ' ., ,31 below.

. L :.1.n1 6WHiatt W Susan.L 3., ,

' SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Daniel D. Wilt, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Bo'x 08159 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Cleveland, OH 44108 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear.Hegulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. "20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555