ML20071M388
| ML20071M388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1983 |
| From: | Gehr A ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR, SNELL & WILMER |
| To: | Callihan D, Cole R, Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305310215 | |
| Download: ML20071M388 (5) | |
Text
L N
n'= m:n,,-
" :e*hT.,ww e::::."utV:""
' - c" cc5
'c'.J" t 'd ;f"'" " '2 0o'."I'!!..
f"Idif,"st S N ELL & WILM ER
"!."'". !o".'c'"'
"?!.'." i M15, i "O,"c'fe"f// ^
Guv G GCiD#ON d*'O.*8LCV
- ibb8AM A. M'CES. D uCtc. e=Gatt t Em M. w-ECL
- O LO C CO a n%
0
"'".it.*fa"?- '
8"^"d.5.w'u"&
"f"o' h 0 ;"'
'* 5 " * ^ ** o" ^ 8 5
" ll" t *",';;..
C'IO!!fc's.'w"G Cit'.'t" "i ".:3'~
"'"5'*"
LawaEneOCF. wrevTaa#0P MARC 8A J. SWSCai RCSERT J. GtB50m ROGth m. $*[wCt. er bCN CaIt C etts A. a sce mE GA J
D.
JamCSm. CONDO LON=it J. w.66 saws. A "f."c's"f. ";l.7."
Rt"!!'C sL"M2,'" *
%'3".i"R ':'"if**
't't='*5o**
SwSAes G wies.CawuTE
- as C ACLP. ant =ONv m'C ARD C.UNDEowoo TELtcopigmS; s
L sAmeC.'rCammow no NTD ELL $w p
T.
NDEmSo%
M ANV AL (602) 2S7 72f t
!,!"" 1/#,.
"'!".!"f.ct.".st<5;", "" %_s :t.,*,"c'"J.J,o-T
'u' "^c '* o=> 85 5 2 5
.ost -A.oo~
... < c
- s. W.<
o o A.
.c 1A<L
",'U' E *0%e
lft's't'.'J.f."."?.o..c.
O..csTo~. co-o..sc.,
May 23, 1983 L"'52c'"'
. ;j,c,=4a.,ogeg, no ce a. o c.u G'
Robert M.
Lazo, Esq., Chairman dfg ((g*
Administrative Judge 3
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board s
g U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission g/c 2.
Washington, D.C.
20555 q4
-l
- , R$% b.
')1 Dr. Dixon Callihan D7 Administrative Judge
'~
,d /
Union Carbide Corporation 4 /iAV P.O.
Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530
Dear Administrative Judges:
On May 6, 1983, West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc. (West Valley) filed a " Supplemental Motion" to buttress its arguments respecting the issues raised in its motion, filed February 2, 1983, as to which the Board has not made a decision, spec., whether or not the NRC Staff's Final Environmental Statement - Operations Stage (FES-OS) meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
a procedural statute; and, if not, whether or not the issuance of a supplemental environmental statement by the NRC Staff must be issued before the reopened hearings on Palo Verde Units 2 and 3 may proceed.
Responses to the original motion were filed by the Joint Applicants on February 14, 1983, and by the NRC Staff on February 17, 1983.
Additionally, the issues were argued orally and at length at the pre-hearing conference held on February 24, l
1983.
o$g O
O S N E LL & WILM ER ASLB Administrative Judges Messrs. Lazo, Callihan, Cole
-May 23, 1983 Page Two West Valley's attempt to reargue its case at this late date is impermissible under the established rules of practice, 10 CFR S2.730(c), which govern proceedings before the Board.
The l abel, " Supplemental Motion," which West Valley has given its filing is nothing more than an artifice which does not alter the character of the filing nor provide an avenue to circumvent the Commission's regulations.
The Joint Applicants' position on the outstanding issues remains unchanged:
1.
Compliance with NEPA requirements is not determinable solely by reference to the NRC Staff's environmental statement, but must include consideration of any modifications thereof made by the ASLB, the Appeal Board or the Commission and circulated pursuant to 10 CFR 551.52 (b) (3).
4 2.
At the construction permit stage, the procedural l
requirements of NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51 were fully met through:
environmentalstatementpCStaffofitsdraft (a) the publication by the N and the solicitation of comments from federal and state agencies and l
the public; i
I (b) the consideration by the NRC Staff of comments receivedandpublicationbytheNg;Staffof its final environmental statement-(c) the review of the NRC Staff's final environmental statement by the ASLB; and the modification of such statement by the ASLB' g/.
(d) initial decision pursuant to 10 CFR 51.52 (b) (3)-
t i
1/
NUREG-75/022.
2/
NU REG-75/0 7 8.
3/
3 NRC 662.
m<
m
,--,--,n,w-,
r
I S N E LL & WILM ER ASLB Administrative Judges Messrs. Lazo, Callihan, Cole May 23, 1983 Page Three 3.
The ASLB's Initial Decision disposing of concerns of potential environmental effects from ggoling tower drift and alternative cooling facilities / is not subject to collateral attack in this proceeding.
4.
The draft and final environmental statements of NRC Staff relating to the operation of Palo Verdek!
fully meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 (including specifically 10 CFR 551.24 (e)) and provide full discussion of the NRC Staff's inde-pendent conclusions respecting potential impacts from cooling tower drift and the bases therefore.
5.
Upon the conclusion of the reopened hearing and the issuance by this Board of its initial decision either affirming or modifying the NRC Staff's final environmental statement as provided by 10 CFR S51. 52 (b) ( 3), the procedural requirements of NEPA will have been fully met and the due process rights to a hearing for those claiming that their agricul-tural activities may be impaired will have been satisfied.
4/
Supra, paragraph 85 ("The Board finds that operation of the Palo Verde cooling system will have no significant effects on the public health and safety, and the potential environ-mental ef fects will be acceptable. ") ; paragraph 144 ("Moni-toring will provide the data base necessary for determina-tion of the ecological effects of cooling tower drift on the environment surrounding the facility."); paragraph 150 ("The Board suggests that care be taken to assure that appropriate analysis and interpretation of the monitoring data.
be carried out at periodic intervals during construction and operation of Palo Verde.
The review procedures of the Com-mission should be frequently invoked to assure that construc-tion and operating procedures are appropriately modified, if necessary, to minimize environmental degradation. ") ;
see also paragraphs 81, 114, 129 and 159.
5/
NUREG-0841 (October 1981) and NUREG-0841 (February 19 82).
e M
S N E L L b W i k. M E F
/-
L; -
i
(,
ASLB hdminishratide Judges Messrs. Lane,-Callihan, Cole May 23, 1983 Page Four I
6.
The' issues raised by West Valley respecting the adequacy of the NRC Staff',s environmental state-t ments'do nothing more than challenge the factual
'b'ases uooh which the Staff's environmental con-f b
clusions hre based.1/
Thus, West Valley has challenged:
(a[ The source terms to,be~used in predicting i'
/ ';
i any environmental impacts (i.e.,
salt con-jtent of the cooling tower drift, the mass J,
of the drift, the drift droplet size dis-tribution, and drift' sources other than the 3
cooling towers) ;-
I (b)
The validity of the predictions respecting the
.aer,ial depositions of salt from the drift;
- I (* c )' Thd number of acres of agricultural land which might be impacted by salt depositions.
t
( d)'
The dvidence of the impacts of foliar salt
[
,f depositions on a'ricultural productivity; and g
The adequacy of[the salt deposition monitoring
{
(e) e program.
1T..
The resolution of the purely factual questions raised by West Valley will not be advanced by issuance of
[
i supplemental environmental statements.
(
'B.^
The adjudicatory process before this Board clearly
~
provides the proper and time-tested means for the prompt resolution of questions of fact.
j i
6/
In large measure, West Valley's challenges have been directed at the environmental reports prepared by the Joint Applicants; this is particularly,true of the allegations in the " Supple-mental Motion". ; Attacks of this nature are irrelevant under NEPA where the 5nvi.ronmental asses'sment at issue is one made by a federal agenc'y.
This is espepially true with respect to Palo Verde where it is clear that the NRC Staff's assessment t
was independent and did not rely solely upon the Applicants' report.
For example, see the NRC Staff's Final Environmental j
Statement-Construction Permit'Stige pection where the staff com-pared its independent;~ estimate a:S drif t droplet size distri-bution with that'of,the, applicant and concluded "[t]he staff's calculations s'uggest' that the' maximum depositions will be somewhat lower' than those cal'culated by' the applicant" (NUREG-75/078,,53.6.2,fpage 3-21).
y
)
1
S N E LL & WILM ER ASLB Administrative Judges Messrs. Lazo, callihan, Cole May 23, 1983 Page Five 9.
Upon resolution of the factual questions raised by West Valley, the Board can, as it deems appro-priate:
(a)
Through its Initial Decision modify with i
the NRC Staff's environmental statement as may be warranted by the record; and (b)
Impose such license conditions or prescribe such environmental specifications as it deems necessary to assure that the operation of Palo Verde will not result in unacceptable impacts on agricultural activities conducted in the i
vicinity.
i In the event the Board determines that consideration should be given to West Valley's " Supplemental Motion" in spite of the strictures of 10 CFR S2. 730 (c), Joint Applicants request the oppor-tunity to respond to such motion and argue the relevancy and inter-pretation of matters discussed therein.
Respectfully submitted, A
2 Arthur
.G SNELL & WILaER Attorneys for Joint Applicants ACG: jaw 1
cc:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Kenneth Berl'in Lee Scott Dewey
.