ML20063A404

Petition for Reconsideration of Commission 820809 Order Rendering ASLB Initial Decision Effective.Exceptions to Decision Require Resolution.Commission Order Premature. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20063A404
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/18/1982
From:	Halligan T CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8208240321
Download: ML20063A404 (2)

Text

-

.e s

j ,

, Augue;t 18, 1982 -

UNITED ~ STATES OF AMERICA 'd" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COZ4ISSION Tj;EJc 0 p

BEIORS 7=E NRC' COMMISSIONERS is023 k0:26' IN TFE MATTER OF PE'TNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT BERWICK ATOMIC POWER PLAl[T and SUSQUEHANNA' UNITS CI[$f ? etCPg.

ALLEGHENY EUCTRIC COOPERATITE DOCKET ~ NOS. 50-38@t d $hj CITIZE'TS AGAINST HUCLEAR DANGERS ~

• PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COM'4ISSION ORDER-The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND) oppose the Order of

,f the Commission, dated August 9, 1982, wherein the Commission has decided to cake the Atoalc Safety and Licensing -Board ( ASLB) Initici Decision " effective." CAND~ petitions the Commission to reconsider their Order of August 9,1982.

The Cocaission Order, at this instant, is a harmful imposition in this proceeding, and not in the public interest, because there are presently ~ exceptions before the ASLB concerning the Initial Decision that require resolution. The Cocaission Order is therefore confusing the issue and is premature. CAND requests the Commission to stay their Order pending the outcome of ASLS rulings on the exceptions- to the Initial Decision.

Cand further wishes to notify the Commission that after a preliminary review of the nucerous inconsistencies in the Initial s Decision, the Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 3, and other-rolevant NRC documents recently published concerning major unresolved public- health and safety issues in this case (evidence that contradicts prior ASLB decisions and public utterances) there is little doubt that the AbLB panel members, past and present, have, intentionally or otherwise, deceived the public and probably acted laproperly in tne perforcance of their official duties over the past three and one-half y ea rs.

8208240321 820818 ] O

PDR ADOCK 05000387

-G PDR

r .

2 l

CAND, in previous correspondence, explicitly cautioned against the violation of the public interveners due process r16 hts, and also the violation of relevant federal laws (e.6. NEPA) and NRC regulations in I

this case. The ASLB has repeatedlyc and arbitrarily 16nored those 1 i

pleadin6s. CAND does note b' lieve that this is cerely a case of I l

incompetence or conflict of interest' with the nuclear indust"y, although those influences may exist.

It appears that the interveners have very little recourse before the ASLB. The re fore, because the ASLB panel members apparently have repeatedly violated the public trust while adjudicating the federal a

licensin6 ofAnuclear reactor, it is deemed necessary, and the civic responsibility of this public interest intervener, to bring these matters to the attention of the proper authorities. Prelimina ry inquires preparatory ~ to filin6 criminal complaints a6ainst the culpable officials in the Berwick case have been cade this week at the headquarters of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Respectfully submitted M M Dsted: August 18, 1982- -

Corre spondenty v CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Citizene Against Nuclear Dangers Petition For Reconsideration Of Commission Order bave been served on.all parties to this proceedin6 by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, this 18th day of August,1982 CAND Exceptions To ASLB' Initial Decision--April 21, 1982

Enclosures:

CAND Brief In Support Of Exceptions--May 21, 1982 CAND Proposed Findin6s & Conclusions--April 2,1982 CAND Proposed Findin6s-& Conclusions--March 26, 1982.

A _. _ -_

O

, April 21, 1952 UNITED STATES' OF AI.' ERICA .

OCCKETED NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY CO CIISSION USNRC BEFORS THE ATOMIC SAFE"Y AUD LICENSING BOARD .. ..t- .. .

22 ASO 23 R0:20 IN THE VATTER OF 0FFICE OF SECRETARY. -

PENNSYLVANIA' POWER & LIGHT CO.

AND BERWICK ATOMIC POb SUSQUEHANNA UNITS'1 -& 2 bfh ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. DOOKET NOS. 50,387 & 50-3EE CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS' EXCEPTIONS ~ TO THE ASLB INITIAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS OPPOSITION TO -

EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAhTING In accordance with the directives and provisions of paraEraphs nos. 224 and 225 of the ASLB Order (page:118), served April 13, 1982 (and received April 16, 1982), the Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND) hereby file exceptions to the Initici Decision of the ASLB.

A* brief in support of the exceptio'ns shall be filed within the thirty day period allowed.

The main contention of CAND is that the ASLB did not ' comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in its decision taking, and as a result the Initial Decision is flawed!

The ASLB has published a less than meticulous document that does not address the requirements of NEPA.

The ASLB did not evaluate the environmental assessments that are relevant to the several contentions -under review in this license application case.

The ASLB did not take into consideration available alternatives, which is the basic process of decision nakin6 mandated by NEPA.

The Initial Decision is laced with phrases that are the conplete opposite of the true facts.

l I

b 10O~lNO-H I

_.~._.~

o 2

The Nuclear Re6ulatory Commission, the Applicants, and especially the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania played major roles in concealin6 facts cbout adverse environmental impacts that the public wa s entitled to know under federal and state environmental laws, which in turn the ASLB

~ ~

should have e11 cited and evaluated.

The issues and contentions in this case do not involve minor technicalities, they involve major public health and safety issues.

Thus, CAND is justifiably concerned when the ASLB does not take the relevant environmental laws seriously. The NRC and its boards are obliSated under NEPA to refrain from manipulating the data .in their findin6s and conclusions in the Initial Decision in a misleading fashion. It appears, however, that this ASLB report is the end result of a fixed predetermination to grant an operatin6 license!

Therefore, CAND will presently submit a brief takin6 exception with certain of the ASLB conclusions and findings. They will be N identified with particularity, and the ASLB will be petitioned to revise certain parts of the Initial Decision in conformity with NI?A.

' Respectfully submitted fanwv4 I h Dated: April 21, 1982 Correspondenf jf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Citizens Against Nuclear D~a niers l Exceptions To The ASLB Initial Decision And Eesponse To Applicants Opposition To Emergency Evacuation Planning have been served on all parties to this proceedin6 by deposit in the U.S'. mail, first class, this 21st day of March,1982 t

i

.. w

[g

.g.

• May-21, 1982 UNITED ~ STATES'OF AMERICA' '. OCCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORr COMMISSION USHRC g {'0 2C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ANIT LICI!NSING BOA IN THE' MATTER OF 0FnCE OF SECRETARY.?

. 00CKETMG, QERVICt PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. HERWICK ATOMIC POWER PEANT AND SUSQUEHANNA' UNITS' 1 & 2 ALLEGHINI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. DOCKET NOS'. 50 -387 &~50-388 CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS BRIEF~ IN SUPPORT OF EXCEPTIONS ~ TO THE ASL3 INITIAL DECISION

.c( -

As was indicated in the exceptions previously filed by CAND, dated April 21,198k the ASLB has- failed to comp 1r with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in its decision makin6, and there-fore the Initial Decision is flawed. The ASL3 erred by not evaluatin6 the environmental assessments or considering the alternatives, as

~

recuired by NEPA.

The ASL3 should have elicited this information at the public hearings because the Final Environmental Statement (FES') prepared by

' the NRC' staff was based on inaccurate, outdated, incomplete and misleading environmental data, or181na117 submitted by the Applicants,

'which the NRC, in turn, and obviously the ASIE also accepted at-fa rce value. This is contrary to the intent and purposes of NEPA, as' amended, and relevant federal court ru11n6s. The Applicants did not sui: cit any viable alternatives for inclusion in the FESLNor did the NRC' staff, as required by law, recommend any alternatives in any section or chapter of the FES'. The ASLB' has the authority to order full compliance with NEPA, but arbitrarily choose not to exercise that authority, as evidenced by this 61arin6 omission in the Initial Decision' b The title is hereby corrected to read: " Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Exceptions- To The ASL3 Initial Decision." To be deleted are the wo rds: "And Respone To Applicants Opposition To Energency Evacuation

?1anning." ,

N O 5 ^A Q N O

s; ,"

p;.

. 2

^? .

Specifically, the ASEF was in error when it neglected to include in its Conclusions of Law and Order (pages 117 and 118 of the Initial Dacision) an additional condition, to wit: "The licenses will be subject to a finding by the Director of Nuclear Re6ulation, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, that all provisions of the National Environmental' Protection Act have been fully implemented prior to issuance of the operatin6 licenses." The Initial Decision should,

- I t he re fore , be amended to include this license condition, in compliance with NEPA. The NRC staff had not properly considered all the environmental impacts on human and natural resources in this license case. The ASL2f, in cooperation with the EPA, should outline the basic infor=ation that the NRC and the. Applicants must cover in an updated supplemental environmental impact statement. The NRC must assess not only the admitted contentions but we16h the impact a6ainst the asserted benefits of the overall operation of the Berwick reactors.

It would appear from the conduct of the public hearin6s and the refusal on the part of some Sovernment agencies to comply with the discovery interrogatories of the interveners that the NRC and the DER' say have both played major roles-in concealing facts about the natural resources that the public is entitled to know under federal laws.

It would also appear that agencies promotin6 nuclear power g ene ra tion , such as the NRC and the state Bureau of Radiation, may have withheld crucial data about the environmental impacts of the Berwick reactors. During the course of these proceedings the agencies probably 1Enored pertinent information received from environmental and wildlife agencies (such as the Pa. Fish Commission), and officials presumably kept from public view detailed studies on aquatic life, etc., carried out by their own consultants, that would have proven damaging to

r . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . _-___1 _ _ _

3 the Applicants case.

In addition, some of the presentations in the FES appear to have a

manipulated the environmental data in a misleading fashion. In the opinion of CAND, it has been deconstrated beyond any question that there has been a failure on the part of the NRCr and the DER to cocply with their legal _ disclosure obli6ations. The NRC and the DER were obligated

-- under NEPA to publicly disclose this information. They did not do so.

Insteed they apparently acquiesced in the urgings of the promoters of

. Berwick to withhold certain information. Such action was-discrimatory towards the public interest interveners. It also prevented the ASLB' access to this vital information, and, because it was not subaitted it was not evaluated. This means that the ASLB Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order contained'in the Initial Decision, Dated i April 12, 1982, is based on incomplete and inconclusiv.e evidence.

Respectfully submitted 1

g

> Dated: May 21, 1982 C'orrespondegt l

l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Brief In Sunport Of Exceptions To The ASLB Initial Decision have been served an all parties to this proceedin6 by deposit _

in the U.S. mail, first class, this 21st day Of May,1982.

l l

l l

l -

April 2, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:3ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE laTTER OF PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. BIRWICK ATOMIC POWER PLANT AND SUSQUEHANNA UNITS 1 & 2 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. DOCKET NOS. 50-387 & 50-388 CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS-PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, BASED ON IMPORTANT NEW INFORMATION '

AND RECO:CIENDATIONS TO THE NRC CO:GISSIONERS AND THE CONGRESS-l The Citizens A6ainst Nuclear Dan 6ers- (CAND) of Berwick, Pa.

having appeared as a party to the intervention with le6a1 standing before the Atomic Safety and~ Licensing Board ( ASLB), herein, su=ma rize its participation in this operatin6 license application case, and also present findings of fact and conclusions of law. They are submitted at this time, under terms of the special provisions of the NRC ,

disc retiona ry rules concerning the extraordinary nature of relevant new and incriminatin6 information that mandates inclusion of this important public safety related information into the record, even if it necessitates an exception to the stated filing deadline.

CAND will not specifically refer to the transcripts of the hearin6s' to validate its observations and proposals. Rather, the basis of some of CAND's findin6s and conclusions include the following:

1) The failure of the utilities' and their vendors quality assurance programs, as described by Mr Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC);

2) The current investigation of collusion related to the Diablo Canyon safety reviews;

3) The major violations and breakdown of quality control at the Zinmer Nuclear Power Station, which is a lead reactor setting the standards for the Berwick Huke.

I' Dh 10 ( p

2 A . separate careful scrutiny of the verbatim text of all witnesses l

will be undertaken, presently, to identify instances of probable perjury.

This information will, in due course, be incorporated into intervener l

appeals, and will also be presented to the Justice Department.

After reviewing the public hearin6 record of this proceeding, CAND concludes that the Applicants and the NRC have not proven that the Berwick reactors (Susquehanna Units 1 and 2) can be operated safely in accordance with NRC re6ulations and the Atomic Energy Act. Nor l _

will the human environment be adequately protected in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and in accordance with related Pennsylvania laws. Therefore, an operating license should l

not be issued under the circumstances.

CAND further concludes that because the NRC' and the Applicants, in their testimony on most contentions, completely ignored their le6a1

~

obli6ation to comply with explicit directives of the National

~

Environmental Protection Act on specific major public health and safety issues, the ASLB must order full compliance with NEPA by the Applicants and the NRC staf f before- an ASLB operatin6 license decision can be contemplated.

To place this proceeding in its proper perspective, we must So back and review the salient points. First of all, there was a major violation of the citizen interveners' legitimate r16ht to due process of law.

It occurred on January 29 and 30, 1979, at the first Pre-Hearin6 Con ference , held in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., whereat, the counsel for the NRC, and the counsel for the Applicants (PP&L), each presented the l public interest interveners, who were not represented by counsel, with a larGe stack of legal documents citin6 literally hundreds of reasons .

why (in their view) the contentions subm tted should be denied and I the nublic hearings not even be held! (Incidentially, this hi6 h -handed l

3 treatment towards the public interveners has been standard operatin6 procedure ever since, with the condescendin6 approval of a not too impartial ASLB--especially the " reconstituted" Board)

These ennormous amount of technical papers were handed to the interveners, CAND included, approximately ten minutes before the starti of the Pre-Hearin6 Conference convened to decide the merit of the I

contentions to be adjudicated! Normally, an interver should have received these documents at least several days in advance of a pre-l l hearin6 conference and allowed about ten days to study such NRC' and Applicant position papers, and allowed to respond to their alle6ations.

But... ten minutes notice!!!

The importance of this cannot be understated'. The administrative jud6e, had he acted fairly . from the outset, wculd have postponed the conference several days to allow all parties time to respond in writing.

The record -of the cobrerence vill show that CAND vigorously objected to this high-handed conduct of the ASLB and also protested the =

inherently unfair tactics of the NRC staff and the Applicants. These l

pleadin6s were noted and arbitrarily brushed aside by the ASLB. It was clearly evident from the start, therefore, that the apparatus assembled to go through the motions of conducting the licensing review were not Soing to tolerate the rights of concerned American citizens, nor allow the U.S. Constitution to stand in the way of approving the Berwick operating application. However,those well laid plans of mice and men would soon go awire as a result of the Three-Mile-Island disaster, which began three years aEo-CAND and the other interveners were at a decided disadvanta60 durin6 the two day Pre-Hearin6 Conference because we were confronted with the suprise imposition of the aforementioned NRC and Applicant legal proposals that were used extensively in their arguments against O

pr-4 the interveners. CAND had no time to research the issues raised.

Because of this lack of time to prepare a comprehensive and convincin6 rebuttal, the ASLB jud6 ed that CAND did not have suf ficient cause to uerit the admission of several contentions that will, nevertheless, have a great impact on public health and safety and the human environment if the Be rwick nukes become operational. A notable case in point deals with the rejected contention on the environmental impacts of the low-flow augmentation reservoir.'

This unfair situation was formalized in the ASLB Order of March 6,1979 (issued just three weeks before the chaos at TMI began) wherein the ASLB promugated numerous scholarly, yet arbitrary decisions that established the explicit wording of the admitted contentions, which in one contention on radiation induced abortions--was admitted--

but never explicitedly identified as an actual issue. CAND was confused by this ASLB.trickerh and opposed the wordin6 of much of the Order of March 6,1979, because it disregarded many of the important health and safety issues, presumably in the name of expediency.

Another due process violation occurred when CAND was not afforded an opportunity to properly contest the ASLB' decisions at that time due to late mailings of the 86 page Order. CAND intends to appeal this injustice, however, when the Initial Decision is rendered by the ASLB One of several crucial issues swept under the bulging NRC rug was the refusal to admit the contention that the so-called low-flow augmentation reservoir, to be built by the Applicants, a s an important environmental matter. This was a serious misjudgment by the ASLH.

i Now, three years latter, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) is entertaining the execution of a proposed " interim agreement" l concerning the Cowansque Lake Reformulation Study, whoreby, the

5

~

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would release from impounded stora6e one-hundred miles upstream, water for downstream users, principally the Applicants for their Berwick Nukes.

Such a government bailout would seemingly relieve PP&L from constructing a massive storaEe reservoir at the Pond Hill site.

Nevertheless, such a plan would drastically chan6e the environmental impacts caused by suct, a federal action, and require the complete changin6 of certaim sections of tha Final Environmental Statement.

It will require that the NRC and the U.S. A rmy Corps of En61neers-re-evaluate this complex issue of water storage because it will not only impact adversely on the flood control aspects of the Tioga and Cowansque Lake projects, but also impact adversely on the overall federal and state flood control systems for the entire North Branch of the Susquehanna River.

The latest development occurred just a few weeks a6o with the announcement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that they are recommending in a report to the U.S. Con 6ress, after years of en61neerin6 surveys, a flood control project to raise Susquehanna River flood levees in the Wyomin6 Valley, which is a shc rt distance upstream from Berwick. This project would also include bu11 din 6 additional structures downstreau from Berwick as mitigating measures to protect the communities of Danville, Sunbury and Bloomsburg from possible floodin6 caused by the improvements upstream. This master plan could be jeopardized by any unilateral water storage plan devised by PP&L and approved by the NRC and the Commonwealth.

Needless to say, the Corps of Engineers plans are at cross-currents with the Applicants water storage optional plan for Tioga and Cowansque reservoirs.

T he re f o re , the ASLB findings and conclusions certainly should

a -___.

t_.

6 require the full resolution of all environmental aspects of this matter, includin6 conductin6 public hearin6s, in conjunction with' the Corps of "n61neers and the SRBC, before issuance of an operatin6 license.

Because some of .the' people in char 6e acted in bad faith, there can be little doubt that the above issue and some other rejected contentions plus the summary dismissal of the contention on the danger of radiation induced abortion, must simultaneously be investigated by the appropriate independent Bovernment agencies (e.6. General Accountin6 Office), since the ASLB, in the past, shirked its duty to review these public health and safety issues in a meaningful way, brou6ht to the attention of the Board by the public interest interveners.

From June, 1979 until October, 1981, these proceedings have been characterized by a protracted exchange of allegations and some unfair

\

and unjust ASLB decibians concernin6 discovery interrogatories.

. During the months immediately"preceedin6 the public hearings, there were numerous allegations and equa11y unfair ASLB decisions concerning summary disposition of many contentions. Several of these judgements ,

rendered by the ASLB will be appealed by CAND at the appropriate time, l for reasons specified in previous CAND communications and motions, i

These issues should also be the tar 6et of the GA0' inquiry.

) ,NRC Chairman Palladino, on December 1,1981, at San Francisco, CA.

I in a speech before the conference of the Atomic Industrial Forum, i

stated what the interveners in the Berwick case have tried to impress-l l upon the NRC staff and the comatose ASLB for the past three years. ..

I l to no avail, unfortunately. The Chairman told the nuclear industry executives that he found the failure of their quality assurance -

proErams inexcusable. Referrin6 to the construction of atomic power planta, Mr. Palladino said: "There have been lapses of many kinds---

l L

I 7

in desi6n analyses resulting in built-in design errors, in poor construction practices, in falsified documents, in harassment of quality control personnel and in inadequate trainin6 of reactor operators,". Perhaps Mr. Palladino has not yet studied the Berwick Docket, but, he nonetheless gave a near perfect discription of what has been goin6 on at the PP&1 Nuke construction site since 1973, -

all the while the NRC' has sat on their hands! -

() CAND would, therefore, ask the NRC' Chairman to have his staff conduct an independent in-depth review of the 99 management in the Berwick case, especially since the PP&L reactors are geo6raphically located a relatively short distance upstream from the TMI reactors, on the saae river system--the Susquehanna. CAND can assure Chairman Palladino that the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation (whose membera can be expected to try and ball-out Met-Ed) are presently bein6 urged to conduct a Congressional investigation of the Berwick . ~ .

~

reactors. Such an inquiry should require the full cooperation of the NRC Inspection and Enforcement Division--as a safeguard prerequisite to federal financial assistance'in any salvage attempts at TMI. The NRC cannot henceforth justify a double standard whereby hiSh safety standards and strict enforcement of re6ulations are currently imposed at TMI while these same re6ulations and safe 6uards are compromised seventy miles northeast of TMI at the Berwick reactors.

On November 25, 1981, the NRC reconmended a $200,000 fine for a breakdown of quality control at the Zimaer Nuclear Power Station, in couthwestern Ohio, tentatively scheduled for completion in July, 1982.

The proposed steep fine steamed from false quality assurance documents and numerous deficient quality assurance programs. A s a result, the MRC has ordered the Zimmer applicant (Cincinnati Gas & Electric)

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -~ , . , _ .d

~

8 to review all safety-related systems in the plant.

The Zimmer reactor is one of the GE lead plants in the so-called c16ht-member " owners Group" of which PP&L is associated, formed for the purpose of resolvin6 " Generic" safety engineerin6 problems. The various safety test plans and construction quality assurance programs first approved for Zimmer, and the LaSalle plant in Illinois, set the standards for Berwick. The mistakes and fraud at Zimmer, therefore, may well have been repeated at Berwick. CAND' proposes to the ASLB

_ that before a license be issued to the Applicants, the NRC order a review of all satety-related systems at the Berwick atomic power plant, and all necessary technical modifications be fully implemented.

CAND also proposes to the ASLB that all of the approximately forty unresolved safety and environmental issues identified in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Supplements 1 and 2 (based in part

\ ' ' ^^~

on outstandin6 FSAR' questions) including those requiring " additional documentation" be completely resolved prior to issuance of an operatin6 license for Berwick. There may, well be a connection between these major deficencies in the Berwick SER and the falsification of quality assurance documents uncovered at Zimmer by the NRC technical staff.

The Applicants, during the course of the public hearin6s, alluded to numerous scientific studies conducted by reputed experts to bolstar their ar6uments before the ASLB'. CAND would like to point out tF.t, in one instance at least, there is a majo'r discrepency concernin6 the contention on Ultra-H16 h-Volta 6e (UEV) transmission lines. The.public hearing transcript reveals that the Applicants tried to convince the ASLB that some obscure controlled experiments on animals done in the past at a New York State lab are suf ficient to prove that there can never be any hazard caused by hi6h ener6y electrical fields to humans

~

9 livin6 snd farmin6 near ths Appliccnts 128 mile lon6 transmissin lino right-of-way spanning several counties in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

A typical

• valid test cited by the Applicants as their evidence involved experiments on as few as eicht rats over a span of only a few hours! This testimony was delivered on October 7,1981.

On October 15, 1981, at a " Limited Appearance" session of the public hearings, a letter was read into the record by the ECNP intervener published by PP&L (one of hundreds circulated) .that emphatically warns people livin6 near PP&L h16h volta 6e transmission lines to take certain

- precautions to prevent physical harm that can be caused by electrical shocks from the lines. This, in our jud 6ement, at the Very least, impeaches the credibility of the testimony of October 7th. It also may involve the presentment of material false statements by the Applicants, and it certainly appears as if the Applicants have deceived the ASLB with their conflictin6 documents. , , . _

CAND compares this lack of candor with the recent misconduct of the officials of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), builders

~

of the notorious Diablo Canyon reactors in California. The NRC reported that on November 12, 1981, PG&E submitted a deceptively favorable seiemic report to the NRC which conflicted with other versions l submitted on previous and subausquent dates. Conflict of interest char 6es are also alleged a6ainst the consultants.

CAND proposes that the NRC requisition the records of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Federal Energy Administration, pertaining to the Applicants UHV transmission lines, and compare them with the Applicants highly questionable public hearin6 testimony and summary disposition af fidavits in order to pin point the apparent misrepre sentation involvin6 the electric field controversy.

l

- _ -_ - - - ~. -

.------~.3 p-

10 The same investiEative comparison should be made in relation to the CAND contention that future. low-powered television transmission will be seriously disrupted by nearby UHV transmission from Berwick.

The NRC and the Applicants denied in their affidavits that any problems would develop. However, this hypothesis piled on top of hypothesis is contrary to scientific reality. The Federal Communications Commission should be called upon by the GAO and the NRC to verify the existence of low-power TV franchises that will be intersecting PP&L's URV lines, and thus refute the patently false statements issues by the NRC and the Applicants.

Re spectfully submitted Dated: April 2, 1982 I un~ a i W L -

Correspondept ' jf T

1 .

. , m.

CERTIFICATE OF 5ERVICE -

I hereby certify that copies of Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, Based On Important New Information And Recommendations To The NRC Commissioners, And The Congress have been served on all parties to this proceeding by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, this 2nd day of April, 1982.

I p

e O

- ,e-

,; March 26; 1.982 UNITED STATED OF AMERICA ' 00MIEDC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION >

BEFO?E: THE ATOMIC SAFETY AUD LICENSING BOARD ' h. g g g -.

OFFICE 0F SECRETM:Y' -

IN THE~ MATTER OF 00CMEigG SERvicg PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. BERWICK ATOMIC POWER PLANT AND SUSQUEHANNA UNITS 1 & 2 ALLEGHENY' ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. DOCKET NOS. 50-387 & 50-388 CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE EMERGENCY _ EVACUATION PLANS-Due to the inadequate, inconclusive and apparently fraudulent omergency drills conducted at the Berwick atomic power plant on or about March 18, 1982 (which constitutes important new relevant information in this case) the Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND) 1

~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~

submit the fo11owin6 'findin6s of fact and conclusions of law on , __

~ Contentions 6 and 20 (EmeP6ency- Evacuation Plans).

The Applicants summary disposition affidavits, plus their pre-hearing and public hearin5 testimony affidavits presented to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) during 1981 attest to the fact that ,'

6Xtensive emergency evacuation plans would be coupletely tested, thereby '(in their estimation) not necessitatin6 actual presentment of certain direct testimony, nor the need for allowance of cross-examination on certain important aspects of the Emer60.ncy Plan, etc., at the publie i

hearings held in October,1981.

The ASLB partially--and wrongly--approved these summary disposition motions over the valid and timely objections of CAND. We concluded then, intuitively, as every party should now know factually, that the

. Applicants deceived the ASLB concernin6 their intentions on compliance

~ _

O 2  :

1 l

l with Sovernmental emergency evacuation drill requirements.

There was the explicit understandin6, both on and off the record, that a comprehensive test of the Emer6ency Plan would be conducted encompassing the ten mile radius of the Berwick atomic power plant site.

The so-called emer6ency drill that the PP&L actually held on March 18,1982, involved carticination by only four of the twenty-seven community governments ~ within this ten m'ile radius. This non-compliance with the

. full test requirements of the Emer6ency Plan certainly-impeaches the credibility of the Applicants affidavits previou' sly submitted on Contentions 6 and 20.

The Citizens A6ainst Nuclear DanSers conclude that the Applicants, the Pennsylvania Emer6ency Management Agency (PEMA), and the Federal Emor6ency Ma.nagement Agency (FEMA) are in violation of federal and state I " " ' ~ ~ ~

laws in this~ matter, and that the ASLB, therefore, should not issue an operatin6 license for the Berwick reactors until the appropriate safety laws are complied with. - -

Incidentially, CAND will definitely appeal all aspects of the Emer6ency Plan test drill inadequacies associated with Contentions- 6 & 20 includin6 pertinent ASLB decisions.

L

3 CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS MOTION BEFO?S THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING- BOARD CONCERNING THE BER'4ICK E'4ERGENCY PLAN CAND hereby moves the ASLB:

1) To order the Applicants to conduct a complete re-test of the Emergency Plan as prescribed by law; only this time all twenty-seven c:mmunities should be fu117 participatin6- .

2) The ASLB'should also order the NRC Solicito General & Inspect,or Gcneral, or .other investigative officer,. to review the public hearin6 testimony on Contentions-6. and 20, and identify the apparent instances of misrepresentation and/or perjury by the Applicants, PEMA and FEMA.

These findin6s should then be turned over to the Justice Department.

3) The ASLB should order the inclusion of all A plicant, PEvX, FEMA, NRC, and local Governbent documents pertainin6 to the test emergency . ..,_-

_ drills cited above which are all definitely relevant to Contention 6 and 20, be included in the public hearin6 record, and copies of all these papers be forwarded to all parties to the intervention. Otherwise, ex parte communication violations will continue to occur, which is contrary to NRC rules, and another issue that will have to be appealed.

F Respectfully submitted 1Annt-<zA m>

Dated: March 26, 1982 Correspondeny ' f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law For The EmerFency Evacuation Plans and Motion Beford The ASLB Concerning The Berwick Emergency Plan have been served on all parties to this proceeding by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, this 26th day of March, 1982 <

} 2 ? hlm3_

__