ML19321A629

Motion for Order Evidencing Current Status & Setting Schedule for Further Proceeding.Amend to Application Will Be Filed by 800930.Anticipated Schedule for Environ Rept & PSAR Amends May Be Filed on Same Date.W/Draft Order & Release

ML19321A629
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	07/16/1980
From:	Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN, PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007230797
Download: ML19321A629 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

% 't ,

3 e -

r

~ USNRO

~ ~11 5o j[j{ 2 21980 y ;

e$c?

N ,

N-

/

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

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) July 16, 1980 Units 1 and 2) )

MOTION FOR ORDER RE SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS

1. Applicants have advised the Board that they will amend their application in this proceeding to change the proposed site of the Skagit Project to a site on the Hanford Reservation near Richland, Washington, that they expect to file the amendment to the application (the general information volume) by September 30, 1980, and that by September 30, 1980, they should be able to advise the Board of the anticipated schedule for filing the necessary amendments to the Environmental Report l

l and the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

2. Applicants request that the Board enter an order in l

l substantially the form attached to this motion to evidence the l

psos soonso 7 7 7 x4

r

= .

t current status of this proceeding and to govern its further progress until further order of the Board.

DATED July 16, 1980.

Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & WI AMS By J, Al f' W F.' Theodore Thomsen Attorneys for Applicant 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (206) 682-8770 Of Counsel:

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 862-8400

- . f-pr cz;

, :S 4t '

~

DOCKnes lf 2

UMC b 5

JUL 2 21980 t- 5 k' p OGce of theSec@q T DxhcEn&E g Branch UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-522

) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, )

Units 1 and 2) ._)

ORDER RE SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS 1.

Applicants have advised the Board that they will amend 1

their application in this proceeding to change the proposed i site of the Skagit Project to a site on the Hanford Reservation near Richland, Washington, that they expect to file the amendment to the application (the general information volume) by September 30, 1980, and that by September 30, 1980 they should be able to advise the Board of the anticipated schedule for filing the necessary amendments to the Environmental Report and the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, I l

2.

Additionally, by their motion dated July 16, 1980, Applicants have requested the Board to enter an order to evidence the current status of this proceeding and to govern its further progress until further order of the Board. This order constitutes the Board's ruling on Applicants' motion. 1 1

", i\

3. Applicants are requested to advise the Board by September 30, 1980 of the anticipated schedule for filing the amendments to the Environmental Report and the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report necessary to reflect the change to the Hanford Site. At quarterly intervals thereafter, commencing December 31, 1980, Applicants are requested to report to the Board the status of the preparation of these amendments and any change in the schedule for filing them.

4. The Board contemplates that after the filing of the necessary amendments to the Environmental Report and the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, or earlier if deemed appropriate by the Board, the Board will schedule a prehearing conference to consider the steps to be taken in this proceeding prior to convening the evidentiary hearing with respect to the Hanford site.

5. No further evidentiary hearing with respect to the Skagit site is contemplated and this proceeding shall be deemed to have been concluded insof ar as the Skagit site is concerned.

Done on this day of July 1980 at Washington, D.C.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD By Valentine B. Deale, Chairman L

.'EfGET conwe Puget Sound Power & Leght Cornpany Ted Thomsen 6888-Puget Power Bldg , Benevue. WA 98009 (2C6) G6363 x.x

'000KEIED ed CONTACT: Chris Curtis FOR IMMEDIATE RELE SE 1

Debbie Miller JR z L LSO P b"j David Adams July 16, 1980 b'Y OEC3 ti tb Etc:f31 p;2t!r.3GCakS C

' \ crach -

x .'

,ilZt\ W PUGET POWrR TO MOVE NUCLEAR PLANTS TO HANFORD Puget Sound Power & Light Company announced its plans today to move the site of the Skagit Nuclear Power Project from Skagit County to the Hanford Reservation near Richland, Washington.

According to Company President John W. Ellis, Puget Power and its three project partners (Pacific Power & Light Company, Portland General Electric Company, and The Washington Water Power Company) will seek state and federal authorization to build the project on a tract of land to be acquired from the Department of Energy.

Ellis said there are three principal reasons for the move --

the ability to bring the plants on line earlier with less licensing risk, the excellent characteristics of the Hanford site, and community acceptance.

"Although we believe we will be able to bring the project on line earlier at Hanford than we could at the Skagit site, these units still will not be providing electricity to our customers until the 1990s," Ellis said.

" Based on our review of the changed evaluation of the Skagit site area by the United States Geological Survey, we think our time and efforts would be better spent in licensing the units at

--- mo r e - - -

L ~_ M

~

'o

. . . . -- 2 --

Hanford than in re-proving the Skagit site. We ran out of the luxury of time a few years ago. We are faced with shortages through the 1980s and into the 1990s, and we have to protect our customers from them."

Ellis cited several reasons for relocating the units in the Tri-Cities area -- access to a pool of operating expertise, ample cooling water, related elements of the nuclear fuel cycle nearby, and the isolated nature of the site. The fact that Hanford is a proven nuclear site should allow the project to be constructed more quickly there.

"The strong community expertise and support will be a real plus," Ellis added.

Ellis said the Three Mile Island incident, coupled with last November's rejection of the Skagit Project by voters and authorities in Skagit County, played the key role in making the decision to relocate at Hanford.

Ellis stressed that, while the eastward move should enable the project to be completed in less time than at Ska. git, the units will not solve the 1980-1990 projected energy shortage.

" Studies by the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee forecast a 100 percent probability of a shortage of firm power. That means possible curtailments to customers during periods of low water and cold weather. We are fighting i for every bit of energy we can to get us through this period.

We will have to keep building smaller generation facilities and buying.more expensive forms of energy until base-load nuclear

--- more ---

( -.

• 'o

-- 3 --

and coal projects are completed."

Puget Power has recently embarked on a program to evaluate and develop non-traditional energy resources as part of its " Energy Challenge of the 1980s -- A Blueprint for in Bremerton was recently .

Action." A small hydro project announced, and proposed small hydro sites in King and Whatcom Counties are being studied. Co-generation projects with major industrial customers and waste-burning, energy-producing plants In addition, preliminary are currently under evaluation as well.

investigations are in progress to evaluate such potential re-sources as wind and geothermal energy.

Ellis again pointed to conservation as the cheapest and most readily available source of additional electricity.

"The more electricity that is saved, the less we have to produce.

And obviously, the less the customer uses, the less he has to pay for," Ellis said. "Even for those.who may feel the need now is greater they already have cut to the limit, than ever before."

\

f f

**~~*~*+....me., _ _

"# rr' - _