ML19261B941

Memo by Intervenors Re Status of Need for Power Issue Under State Law.Aslb Must Consider Compatibility of Licensing Action W/Nepa.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19261B941
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	02/08/1979
From:	Leed R LEED, R.M.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903070563
Download: ML19261B941 (7)

Text

.

aLC DCC O L I ECOM 9 .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, d g Units 1 and 2) )

Oh of

% 5E INTERVENOR'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING STATUS OF NEE' "

FOR POWER ISSUE UNDER STATE LAW /

The State of Washington regulates nuclear sites anu-projects under Ch. 80.50 RCW.

The legislative policy is declared in RCW 80.50.010.

This policy does not, in any sense, amount to an absolute declaration that all proposed nuclear power plants are deter-mined to be necessary. Nor does the statute, by its terms, -

autnorize the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, created under it, to determine, whether or not a proposed energy facility is "needed", let alone prepare a forecast.

The statute itself enunciates no standards or criteria to be applied by the council in reaching de cisions regarding proposed energy facility sites. It is clear from a review of the statute that the legislature did not empower the siting 7903070 9-3

e council to determine conclusively, as far as the state of Washington is concerned, whether or not the need for power justifies a proposed site. Rather the concern of the legis-lature which is manifest in the statute, is to insure that the least environmentally harmful sites are chosen, and that the greatest possible care is t ak en , in cor.ne ction with the de-velopment of a site, to protect and enhance the environment.

The legislature says, in RCW 80.50.010, as a preliminary to declaring the energy policy of the state:

"It is the pclicy of the state of Washington to recognize the pressing need for increased energy facilities, and to insure through available and reasonable methods, that the location and opera-tion of such facilities will produce minimal ad-verse ef fects on the environment, ecology or the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life.

It is the intent to seek courses of action that will balance the increasing demands for energy facility location and operation in conjunction with the broad interests of the public. Such action would be based on these premises:

(1) To assure Washington State citizens that, where applicable, operational safe-guards are at least as stringent as the criteria established by the federal gov-ernment and are technically sufficient for their welfare and protection.

(2) To preserve and protect the quality of the environment; to enhance the pub-lic's opportunity to enjoy the aesthetic and recreational benefits of the air, water, and land resources; to promote air cleanliness; and to pursue beneficial changes in the environment.

(3) To provide abundant energy at rea-sonable cost."

~

While the above language mentions the "need" for energy facilities, no particular type of facility is specified.

Thus the legislature must be unde rs tood to have contemplated that there were many possible solutions to the "need" for energy, including, undoubtedly, conservation, and other " soft" technology solutions, as well as alternative energy forms, such as solar,co-generation, wind, and geothermal power.

Mo reove r , the mention of "need" for power must be read in conjunction with the clearcut recognition, in the following sentence, that " demands" for energy facilities must be balanced against the broad public interest, particularly the public's interest in providing energy at reasonable cost, and the public's interest in preserving and protecting the quality of the environment.

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, (formerly the Thermal Power Plan Site Evaluation Council), has never made any effort to determine whether the energy to be pro-duced by the proposed Skagit plants would be available at

" reasonable cost". Indeed, the site evaluation council hos laid down no standards to even allow it to determine what

" reasonable cost" might mean.

There is, therefore, no definitive statement in Wash-ington law, respecting the proposed Skagit Nuclear Project, purporting to declare expressly a "need" for the power to be produced b:s the project. Moreover, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is not empowered to pronounce upon that questic.t on behal_ of the state of Washington, nor to conduct its own need forecasts.

The need for power issue is one that is properly dealt with by the Nuclear ' Regulatory Commission in connection %'th its licensing activities. The National Environmental Policy Act, in requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to bal-ance the costs and benefits of.a proposed nuclear project, implicitly imposes upon the commission the duty to consider whether the power to be produced by a nuclear project is indeed necessary. Such consideration of need for power in-volves not only receiving evidence concerning projections of demand and supply, but also evidence of factors bearing upon demand, including price, availability of substitute sources and forms of energy, and the potential of measures, including government action, to promote conservation to address any "need" which might be found. The need for power issue is thus an extremely important aspect of the analysis re-quired by NEPA, and one which may not be passed over, even if a state agency has purported to address the same question.

See Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energv Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

It is instructive to note that intervenors are seeking to introduce to the record by their pending motion to reopen the most recent energy forecasts of the Oregon Department of Energy, which is empowered by state law to address the need for power on behalf of the state of Oregon. These forecasts relate directly to the applicants who own 40%

of the project, and if the Board is interested in official projections, this evidence should be received. So, too, should the Northwest Energy Policy Project's recently com-pleted four-state forecast, which is also embraced in inter-venor's motion, and which represents an " official" study of need for power in this region.

CONCLUSION This board is required, by NEPA, to address the need for power question in connection with its review of the compa-tibility of the proposed licensing action with the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act. This review must precede, not follow, a decision on the LWA. Whether the legislature of the state of Washington, or an agency in the state of Washington, has, or has not, addressed the need for power issue, in no way affects the obligations of this board to deal with the question.

DATED this ,P day of Feltzunu- , 1979.

J i () M.! 'shu h <.ll ROGER LEED -

h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al.,- ) 50-523

')

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, )

CD Units 1 and 2) )

) o,A

) g 't.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE f 9bg(3 yyI g]S ?$

I hereby certify that copies of: C*5 '

• p INTERVENOR' S MEMORANDUM REGARDING STATUS OF NEED 4 "3 FOR POWER UNDER STATE LAW have been served on the following by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this lth day of January, 1979.

Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20055 Washington, D.C. 20036

- Dr. John H . Buck, Member Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board School of Natural Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, MI. 48104 Michael C. Farrar, Member Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Certificate - 1

~

Docketing and Service Section Canadian Consulate General Of fice of the Secretary Peter A. van Brakel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Vice-Consul Commission 412 Plaza 600 Washington, D.C. 20555 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard L. Black, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff F. Theodore Thomsen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen Commission & Williams Office of the Executive Legal 1900 Washington Building Director Seattle, Washington 98101 Washington, D, C. 20555 Alan P. O' Kelly Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman Energy Facility Site Evaluation & O' Kelly Council 1400 Washington Trust Financial 820 East Fifth Avenue Center Olympia, Washington 98504 Spokane, Washington 99204 Robert C. Schofield, Director Russel W. Busch Skagit County Planning Depart- Evergreen Legal Services ment 52C Smith Tower 120 West Kincaid Street Seattle, Washington 98104 Mt.Vernon, Washington 98273 Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.,

Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice 500 Pacific Building 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &

Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washignton, D.C. 20036 H. H. Phillips, Esq.

vice President and Corporate Counsel Portland General Electric Company DATED: cQ/[7[77 121 S.W. Salmon Street 7

Portland, Oregon 97204 CFSP and FOB

~ I V b

/

/ {Ll hN

\

E. Stachon & L. Marbet MICHAEL W. GENDLER 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Of Counsel for Intervenors Boring, Oregon 97009 Certificate - 2