ML20010C863

Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 17.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact to Be Heard.Applicants Are Entitled to Favorable Decision as Matter of Law

ML20010C863
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/18/1981
From:	Silberg J ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 8108210117
Download: ML20010C863 (3)

Text

• b August 18, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N, OJp,/,

//

' I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  %

(ft- h of d In the Matter of )

)

k fM cy S PENNSYLVANIA PONER & LIGHT COMPANY ) oj,/ f

) '6 / \ Ls/

and ) Docket Nos. 50-3 7

) 50-386 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

) T s I (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) .8 Units 1 and 2) ) g 4 =

. 3 AUG 10 1981 > r3 j

cy : << : > ll f APPLICANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF t, N M,[ h ,

CONTENTION 17 g Pennsylvania Power & Light Company and Allegheny 1

i Electric Cooperative, Inc. (" Applicants") move the Atomic Safety 4

and Licensing Board, pursuant to S 2.749 of the Commission's ,

Rule of Practice (10 C.F.R. S 2.749), the Special Prehearing.

Conference Order of March 6,1979, LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 328, and the Board's Memorandum and Order on Pending Motions dated May 20, 1981 (" Memorandum and Order") , for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of the remain.ng portion of Contention 17

v in this proceeding, which alleges that the 500 kV transmission lines to be utilized by Applicants for transmitting the power generated by the Susquehar.na facility ("the Susquehanna lines")

treate strong electrostatic. . . fields that adversely af fect

@o3 I 5

/i i 8108210117 810818 '

PDR ADOCK 05000387-O POR I

f

. o,

• I 1

living organisms along the UHV right of way and beyond."-1/

Because the Board, in its Memorandum and Order, denied Applicants' earlier motion for summary disposition on this issue, Memorandum and Order at 14, para. (f), the instant constitutes a renewed motion for summary disposition of the Conten-tion. As grounds for their renewed motion, Applicants allege that there is no genuine issue c: material fact to be heard with respect to the remaining portion of Contention l', and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on it as a matter of law.

This renewed motion is supported by the Applicants' Statement Of Material Facts as To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard (Contention 17), the Memorandum in Support of Applicants '

Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 17, and the Af fidavit of Solomon M. Michaelson in Support of Summary Disposition o* Contention 17, all filed simultaneously herewith,together with all pleadings and other papers in this proceeding.

-1/ In the Memorandum and Order, the Board granted Applicants' motion for summary disposition of the remaining allegations in Contention 17, except for the issue of alternatives to the Susquehanna lines, which was lef t open pending final disposition of the health effects of the electric fields from the lines.

Memorandum and Order at 14, para. (g) . On the basis of the materials submitted with this motion showing the absence of adverse health effects from the electric fields generated by the Susquehanna lines, Applicants respectfully move the Board to also grant summary dispo9it ion of the alternatives issue.

i l

1

• i l

As set forth in the March 6, 1919 Special Prehearing l l

Conference Order, supra, 9 NRC at 328, responses to this Motion are due three weeks from its filing date.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By _, s .

Wr Ja.f), E .[ Silbe rg [

Matias F. Travieso-Oiaz ,

Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

Telephone: (202) 822-1000 Dated: August 18, 1981.

Y

=a