ML20079F437

Petition of State of Ny for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing

ML20079F437
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	01/05/1973
From:	Macdonald J NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20079F426	List: ML20079F423 ML20079F437
References
NUDOCS 8401180265
Download: ML20079F437 (2)

Text

I

( ,

dW / 0Y M @ME lM 6 i -b, i c h

( [f

,.,, ( . . . . . _ ..._..

UNITED STATES OF A:: ERICA ATOMIC EI!ERGY C0:0!ISSIC:3 In the Mtter of the )

ROCHESTER GAS CID ELECTRIC CORPOPATIC:T ) DOCTLT !!0 50-2LL (H.E. Ginna lluelear Power Plant Unit :To.1) )

PETITIO:1 FOR LEAVE TO IitTERVE;IE

• BY THE STATE OF IIE'd YOFX Pursuant to Section 2 715(c) of the Cor:: mission's Pulec of Practice, Section 27h of the Atemic Energy Act of 195h, as amended, and in accordance with the provisions of the Commission's Motice of Consideration of Conversica of Provisional Operatins License to Full-Term Operating License; Ilotice of Opportunity for Hearing, dated Hovember 22, 1972, the State of !!cv York, acting by and throu6h its Atomic Energy Council, hereby petitions for leave to intervene as an interested state in the above captioned proceeding upon the following grounds:

1. This proceeding is to consider the application of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for a full-term facility operating license which would authorize Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation to possess, use and operate the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit No.1, located on Lake Ontario, W.ayn~e County, New York State, at its presently licensed steady state power level of up to 1,520 meSawatts (thermal) for a period of LO years from April 25, 1966.

2. The interest of the State of !!cv York in the health, safety and environment of its people requires that all matters pertaining to the safety I

and environmental impact of the nuclear power plant in the above captioned proceeding be thoroughly considered.

(

2, .;

.lc.,se,.

B401180265 830110 PDR ADOCK 05000244

'p d Awr%2 h a PDR

f. c. 0.

llC ? 9 x- -

y-- -

T ( -

, ,, .i a

- (*

s

\

a O

3 tinder Section 10h of the Commerce Lev of the State of New York, the Ator.ic Energy Council is Ci ven the functions of coordinating regulatory progrs=s of the a6encies and instrumentalities of the State affecting atomic energy activities in New York, of coordinating the participation of the agencies and instrumentalitieq of the State in the regulatory processes of the Federal Government affecting atomic energy activities in Hev York State, and of coordinating the presentation of views of such agencies and instrumentalities for consideration of appropriate Federal a6encies.

The name and address of the person upon whom service in this proceeding may be made is:

J. Bruce MacDonald, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel .

New York State Department of Commerce 99 Washington Avenue O Albany, New York 12210 Fetitioner respectfully requests the Co= mission to grant petitioner status as intervenor as an interested state to this proceeding, Respectfully submitted, p .'

//*

\. L ....ij..;

i. y O , ,

4 s.,.

J. Bruce ItacDonald, Deputy i Commissioner and Counsel New York State Department of

{. Commerce, and j

Sworn to before me this Counsel to the Atomic Energy Council

5) ny of Januar/* ,1973

\

/s -~ l A) -

sl s e ,

f f I

Bruce L. Martin ( l flotary Public l# Dated: -. January 5, 1973 l

l

'l

.. m :-  : --- . . m -. y n .- - . . L.- L.

fivt. .7 l : 4;7%dyyygg,ggisjt y .;dyg.g ..m{,Q 'jMgMg;y((pilig.itgejp.

,j[y =~-y[i.g 4.>dpf, {,

n!A wem gc r.:!ES gy.s. Ene'9Y q 0%~

mm SmES OF AseRIm E' ?> 1 '13T, NUCU%R REGUUam CQEISSION

.3

'4.dl" p ~ ? ,, . nMaEmRE THE ATTIC SAFETY AND UCENSHU BOARD _

GG In the Matter of )

) NEW YORK STATE:

m.nx GAS AND ELECTRIC ) """"""C ""

CmPORAnm ) Docket No. 555tgEIVED

)

(R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power ) MIS 3 01977 Plant, Unit No.1) )

LEGAL SECTION m ORDER 3/,),7 / 77

!Y Q The Regulatory Staff and Intervenor Michael R. Slade have agreed upon a statement of contentions to be asserted by the Intervenor in this case. The Applicant opposes the interventicn and has moved to strike all g Q of the Intervenor's contenticus. The agreement between the Staff and Intervenor Slade states the following: "Upcn approval of these stipulated contentions by the Board, all contentions previously subnitted by intervenor shall be deemed withdrawn". The Applicant correctly points out that such an attempted reservation by the Intervenor is somewhat

.:.u

,r.s ambiguous. In the Board's view, however, the ,only contentions presently d being asserted are those stated in the Intervenor's written agreement with the Regulatory Staff. All other statements of contentions are deemed to be withdrawn.

24 TM The Applicant's motion to dismiss the petition is denied. The tr.liti a Board's ruling on each of the contentions follows. g l

1 S = cr m a 9

\

{

O s.1<!x.c<> L SLSNec m"

rr- ir 7 (9f f) ~

k-

- MAR 281977 > 40

~

y, , s.

• !5 e.e W

11

% 9

-_--n...-

a. '> :: b...-.,..,...

- -_ Am=:8 :ww M' l j.:.:3..* r F1: ,::: if,i.i."te:" N

~:9 b

,y;W,: ici "_ su".+

r.d' ; a .iiN "'.autp, .r.d.'%.u:.;g#w.'Y.

ra. .. . i . ::.e.,1 ... 4 wW

.ai E... .

ii

...t im:lvig.,i..pt

- nt i i.,0.3..

i.14 . 4 W

t

,' O-. 1

."A

.h w.

".3'? Contentims C, G, and H are rejected as issues in controversy because

• • mul each of them is vague and lacking in part-imlic-ity.

I t

he rmnining contentions are adsf.eted, as follows:

n Contention A

, he Applicant's qtmlity assurance program is inadequate and/or fails to confonn to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B 41 criteria decause:

a) it has not corrected mn1 Functions of electric type I

{

valve operators; I

b) the unin sen=1ine isolation valves do not meet A

3.w adnimum code requirements for wall thicknesses; and W!; .

SM c) criterion X is not met in that there is an inadeqtate w

operations program for inspection of activities

, affecting qimlity.

9

?. Contention B

iq .

Applicant has not deconstrated conformance with the amended w

l ECCS criteria as determined by the AEC in Docket IM-50-1.

1 l .

! ,' Contention D t

s.u M The Applicant is in violation of applicable Federal and Ill'"

m New York State water quality standards in that it does not possess an exemption for the discharge of water at O

sd W

h

-. ...=..: . . .~ wn r , - s.. , ' h - ~. -u:-.- . ~'. ':.~..---.--

Pi j yjdig;,.pO,: ew;;n. '.;.g;g:::;;"..

N..

q..: yysH q;p:.!y .: ve:e,?.f.~thig. nn.gE..pg1p.3,n;.I!pipiif,s.gif

._ u .

. ., m. , . . 4

.# .a ._

. 2,

9,t%

~. g...

. . . . . s ..

3M, wmq I

e O

=- -

3-c.J

4 Ad mesm emperatures of 23.4*F above ambient as described in the FES, pp. 3-7, sec. 3.4.1.

Contenticn E The IEPA analysis for the facility is inndaquate because it fails to adequately consider the effect of cold shock g on lake biota resulting from emergency shutdown of the gs y'y

,n,ai, facility, and because it fails to adequately consider the effect of cold shock on lake biota as a result of recirculation of discharge water into the intake water during the winter when lake ambient terperature falls.

5.

-J b below 37'F.

nyr

?k Contention F The FES is inadequate because it fails to treat the following energy conservation alternatives:

24 j!q a) ending special discounts for large volume electrical use;

.diL

& b) increasing electrical pricing in order to decrease demand; c) inplenentation by the Applicant of maxinn lighting levels per square foot by its custczners;

8 d) setting insulation standarth for new and old custotrars; QV f;/;U e) promoting energy efficiency labeling; m

f) discouraging electric space heating and air ccnditioning

! (in c14mnt-4c conditions that do not require it); and

! C.'

i

q

- an.

W i

.. - e m) 2:p:p:.pri r ;; . ;-e 4. .

>r

. .-. ~,me

.. ; a . - .

. . . . : '.t

. = - - - -

. i'. .

..e._'v, . ida:r : vie. ::r'ie:: -'>v.e r *.

. . - .>n.2

, . u- -

' %: % m. .u ng;i'.r.y:;;;..:

.. . . . .e: _

- ,.s

. a.9.::

.li5; n....ieer i 9.,en,,t A,.: ;.,,.!!

.- .e w .

j df.

M w g) peak or dmand load flattening techniques including time of day metering charges, load staggering and/or 1

selective load shedding.

! Contention I 1

Applicant has failed to submi.t an adequate site contingency l

y plan because the Applicant has failed to apprise the popu-

• if ej.id laticn of the existence of the site contingency plan and sdiat muld be required of the surrounding populaticn if the plan had to be implenented.

j h Contention J pn+i y Applicant has failed to provide flood protection ngaht 9 mWmm high water levels shown to have occurred or to j

l have been projected for Lake Ontario.

I i

=*

re. s Contention K it;.f *

, ;,,q Applicant's radwaste systems unnags$ent program is inadequate e

I because it does not keep releases to a level as low as I

! reasonably achievable.

I M

mv

.n? -'

4 l

C 9.

. rig t -%

N

{

\

- - ..-. . .r ~ .,y _ - - - = - - -_.,____..s 7.. - ~ ~

F ..

c:,.. 0 g4:etp.aT.niC.  ;;!)hsgn$@g,prp,;',,if.i'ii.::

,. ._ .Uji.Sily, i.u%:i.1;dn.,

2 ity,j.jwei9;n,d_2..2..,

1>;.'

:::a,. ;i.e . .. .Fi4

9,3

j! .- jp!2,:.;:.,pt;;,

.m.a' -

ycY. ::: -

i .......- . . . _ -  ;

aw -

i G .j "T[fF et te g The State of New York shall participate in this proceeding as an interested State pursuant to 10 GR $2.715(c).

SO ORDERED.

'DE A'IQ4IC SAFE 1T AND LICDEIlX; BOARD

~

, ale K)

't.

.o, - Edward Lutonr Chairman

=m /

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland thir 25th day of March 1977.

. =5

...e O

las

i.lgla..

i

+ ii. r . ,

t.*4 4 W

..M

f.. f.j.@..

m i

R  %.y

, % .. . I w

l

- _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _