• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

March 25, 'l981 " UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC BEFORE AND LICENSING BOARD THE ATOMIC SAFETY MAR27>9.81 ';— '-1c Office of the secre'gy Docke',in' Servm Branch ) ) PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. ) and ) Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.) 50-388 ) (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,) Units 1 and 2) ) APPLICANTS'ESPONSE TO "CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS STATEMENTS AND MOTION CONCERNING DISCOVERY, SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND EX PARTE ACTION" In a filing dated March 16, 1981, Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers ("CAND") attacks a number ot unrelated actions e~l Applicants, the Licensing Board, and the Staff. CAN p II'fI g arguments are dealt with below. ppp 068 lolV. 11 s Wam+ ~ cogMtss to>i I. DISCOVERY In the first part of its filing, CAND objects to t Staff's January 30, 1981 motion to compel and the Board's February 27, 1981 order compelling discovery. Since CAND indicates that it "will respond under protest to the directive of the Board prior to the stated deadline", its objection is moot. However, CAND's filing again +0~ indicates its apparent unwillingness to comply with the 5 requirements of discovery. CAND has raised certain (( contentions in this proceeding. Applicants and the Staff have sought through discovery to ascertain the basis for Sx040ro r 2 A I 1% /' d these contentions. CAND now states The Citizens have no information to reveal at this time, because of lack of knowledge. CAND Statements and Motion, p. 2. As the Appeal Board has stated in this proceeding: A lit'igant may not make serious allegations [i.e. contentions] against another party and then refuse to reveal whether these allegations have any basis. ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 339 (September 23, 1980). CAND should not be permitted to ignore this rule. II. STAFF ISSUANCE OF FES AND SER CAND ' filing includes a motion that the Board issue an order compelling the NRC Staff to publish the above mentioned overdue documents forthwith, even if they need to be supplemented at a later date. The Licensing Board does have responsibilities for scheduling which would enable it to examine Staff schedules for issuing documents such as the Final Environmental Statement and Safety Evaluation Report. Offshore Power S stems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 199-208 (1978). That authority does not include the power to order documents published "forthwith". Id. at 206. We share, however, CAND's desire to have these documents issued at the earliest possible time. III. SUMMARY DISPOSITION MOTIONS CAND's filing asks that the Licensing Board investigate the several affidavits, filed by the Applicants and the NRC staff supporting summary disposition of the various contentions, for instances of misinformation, which, if and when verified, should be stricken from the record, and appropri'ate action taken . by the Licensing Board to insure any repetition. CAND's suggestion is totally lacking in basis. The only example given by CAND is its statement: The responses in the affidavits alleging that there will be no low-power television stations that would receive damaging electrical interference from the Applicants transmission lines bring power from the Berwick Nuke. Such inferences are patently false! CAND Statements and Motion, p. 2. CAND does not provide a citation to where the affidavits mention "low-power television stations" or the absence of such stations in the vicinity of the transmission lines. In fact neither the Affidavit of Robert F. Lehman in Support of Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 17, dated December 4, 1980, attached to Applicants'otion for summary disposition, nor the Affidavit of Gerald Gears, dated January 8, 1981, attached to the Staff's response to Applicants'ummary disposition motion, makes any mention of low-power television stations. So CAND's complaint falls of its own weight. Of course, CAND should not be allowed to collaterally attack the summary disposition motion more than three months after it was filed and more than two months after CAND d submitted its answer to the motion. See 'CAND's Motion and Responses Concerning Summary Disposition, dated January 7, 1981. CAND itself asserts that at least some of this information (notwithstanding its lack of relevance to the summary disposition motions) "was nationally published since last September". CAND Statements and Motion, p. 3. Even if CAND were to be allowed at this late date, and without a showing of good cause, to submit additional arguments concerning summary disposition of Contention 17, its attempt is both procedurally defective and wrong on the merits. Procedurally, CAND is seeking to raise matters without any evidentiary basis. CAND was warned six months ago that factual information which may contradict material supplied by affidavit should likewise be presented by affidavit. ASLB Memorandum and Order Inviting Further Responses to Summary Disposition Requests, dated November 4, 1980, pp. 4-5. While the Licensing Board on one occasion was willing to overlook prior failures by CAND to adhere to these rules, see LBP-81-8, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 2 and 16), dated March 16, 1981, p. 8 fn. 17, we see no justification for CAND's continuing to ignore its responsibilities. If CAND is allowed to oppose summary disposition by unsupported, unsubstantiated and vague allegations such as it has presented here, the whole concept of summary disposition would be subverted. Substantatively, CAND's allegations are without merit. According to CAND: Already the first of what could prove to be scgres of applications have been filed with the FCC to set up low-power television stations (costing as little at $ 25,000 each) in communities where the Applicants UHV (or EHV) transmission lines are located, which in turn could create, in the future, interference with TV reception, and thereby cause irreparable harm to the TV operators, some of whom will be non-profit organizations serving minority audiences. CAND Statements and Motion, pp. 2-3. CAND is simply incorrect in alleging that there is an application pending before the FCC (let alone one that has been approved) for a low-power television station whose broadcasting would be interfered with by the Susquehanna transmission lines. The first point to be noted is that the uncontroverted evidence before the Licensing Board demonstrates that television interference, even when it occurs, has only been experienced on Channels 2 through 6. Affidavit of Robert F. Lehman in Support of Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 17, dated December 4, 1980, para. 24 (filed in support of Applicants'otion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 17, dated December 5, 1980). CAND has supplied no evidence to the contrary. The second point to be noted is that the FCC has received no applications for low power television station licenses on Channels 2 through 6 anywhere near the Susquehanna transmission lines. Attached hereto are the docket pages from the FCC listing every application filed for low power television station licenses. In all of Pennsylvania, only one application has been submitted for Channels 2 through 6. That application was filed for authority to operate a station on Channel 5 in Kittanning, a small town in Armstrong County. At, their closest, the Susquehanna transmission lines are some 145 miles from Kittanning. Since TV interference is a function of distance, Lehman Affidavit para. 25, the Susquehanna transmission lines could not possibly impact that proposed station. And, in any casef the Kittanning application, like all the others submitted under the new FCC policy, has not even been acted upon by the FCC. Thus, it is clear that for both substantive and:pro- cedural reasons the kind of untimely, unsupported, and erroneous allegations by CAND should not be allowed to stand in the way of a properly supported summary disposition motion. IV. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION Finally, CAND objects to a February 12, 1981 letter written by the president of Pennsylvania Power a Light Company to the Chairman of the NRC concerning the schedule of this licensing proceeding. CAND asks that this type of ex parte communication should be disallowed by the Licensing Board. CAND Statements and Motion, p. 3. Obviously, the February 12, 1981 letter was not. an ex parte communication, since it was served on all paities to this proceeding -- including CAND. For a communication to be ex parte it,must be "off the record". 10 CFR 52.780(a). Since the letter in question was served to all parties, it was not "off the record"; rather it is a part of the record. Respectfully submitted, SHAW F P ITTMANf POTTS 6 TROWBRIDGE By Jay . S 1berg Mat s . Travieso-D' Co el or Applicants 1800 M Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated: March 25, 1981 March 25, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSXON In the Matter of ) ) PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6 LIGHT CO- ) Docket No. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) ) (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Applicants'esponse To 'Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Statements And Motion Concerning Discovery, Summary Disposition And Ex Parte Action'" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 25th, day of March, 1981. y . Si berg Dated: March 25, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY'ND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) ) AND ) Docket. Nos. 50-387 ) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) ) (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) Units 1 and 2) ) SERVICE LIST Secretary of the Commission Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Co-Director Washington, D.

Load more

  131

Copy Link