ML19323H051

Response to ASLB 800327 & 0403 Orders & to Fes,Suppl 1.Urges More Rigorous Site Alternative Analyses Prior to Further Hearings.Recommends That Subpart II of EPA Be Treated as Contention in Proceeding

ML19323H051
Person / Time
Site:	05000514, 05000515
Issue date:	05/27/1980
From:	Marbet L FORELAWS ON BOARD
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8006110235
Download: ML19323H051 (4)

Text

.-

.4 g

g.

pp N

. :1&; -

i

'.i 1 -

Fis r o 1 e w o o in B o_ o rd

-rus roun t.as er scot.ocy i

~-

• ' :.q;.~

.x.

• :~

u i

I. EwrythiM is connoceed so everythan Ourconscience teachee usitis righL

. M eier.

i our reason teaches un it is sen{ul.

2.'Eurythin aseet no eenmeacheer.

l that men should liue neeerding te

,3, y,g,,, g,,,,, s,,g, j^

the Men M.

l W. Winuend Jteede

4. There is nun each thin en a fnv lanek.

~

ser.ae.o,.go einos a w %,

a 6

... u os o c.n.r.u passsa m es

%,, c

.. e Ass.ee A ma.pf. nac

~

5

.n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i.

HUCLEAR REGULATORY CONLISSION

.i l

].-.-

' ". ?,3J.T.BEFORE7 HEM ATOMIC c SAFETY : AND-'LICEUSIt!G BOARD.

j 4-.

w

... +

-, e..

In the Matt'er~of:-~~~~~ T '

~

T l

J.. T.

)

i PORTLAUD. GENERAL. ELECTRIC

),

Dockets Nos.

50-514 l

C OMPANY, ET, A,,_L. " ~~ ~

~ - ',

)

~~ ~

50-515 g

q.

).

s (Pebble Springs Nuclear ~ Plant,

)

Units 1 and. 21

)

DOCKETED usunc i

_ FORELAWS ON BOARD RESPONSE TO_ BOARD'S ORDERS 2 ' U g ' eg g.9 F HARCH;F 'ANDMRIL--3,-'SO, AND SURPLEMENT qv n

i._ _ -

05 ice d the Secretwy,

-#'~~~-~r NO'.?T TO'THE' FINAL ~ENVIRONMENTAIl'IIiPACT STATE-

+

MENT RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF" PEBBLE SPRINGS NE 6

NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 j

_; g: _ _

c*,,

4 f

I.

On March 27, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1ssued an order requesting response to staff's letter of March' 2

10, 1980, outlining its support of the applicant's request for a partial initial decision on site suitability matters.

Forelaws l

On Board has agreed to outline its contentions concerning the staff's issuance of the supplemental FES on site suitability and sets them forth under Subpart III.

Forelaws On Board has no ob-jection to the setting forth of discovery and hearing schedules contingent upon the resolution 1of the issues we have raised in Subparts II and III.

Forelaws On Board is in agreement with the staff that:

t c

The previous positions and schedules ady'anced by the staff on December 19, 1979, as to the following matters are now moot by virtue of applicant's announcement and subsequent re-

~

h 4._

.. - - - -. ---. - -. -s.._

cusocuses or cessim um.onumausu 8006110235

,o ws on.onno

-~

-~

.. n ; a +..

xy-,:.. ~.; :.. a, e,,,..

. n

"*~~

• i - A. ~;

?.p.e.

~ *;.**%

1 *p. ? s.l,Lf.e 2t t 4 'Q ' Q.7.p '..p*>;Q.: ? 25-MW

~2-.

-% p'% w r y --.

.....y c; a..,1b

.^

~

. ~...

e

% ;. y '** ~ ~,1 'i~; g W lr N r m w A 4.

~.-

-,Q

....,, % : 4

.c

s..

~

. 2.;

+.4.' ~', G d qudt F a' partini initirX dncicien on sito ' suitability: ~-(a) * ~.

c./; c - -

1 financial *" qualifications 4(or.,any.other radiological health'and.f C "

~

f'C' i T safety' issues)','"(b) t Appendix I (or zero release), (c) ' "n' sed forldier"',

U' ;~ ~ '.(d) economics of. coal versus nuclear alternatives (or any other

~

t -

subject matterI which -is not' related to site suitability issues).',p.

... ~..

3:

...a...-

.. (

7_.In the interests.of clarity the staff should outline what it-

, '.m.

spec hk'ch11['meissby' site', suitability issues versus non-site

~

a.

m-+: -1.. - suitabil'ity issues - Forelaws.On. Board considers this clarifica; tion.;-;.

7,.---.

n..

2 -- important.before' any: resolution of.this matter can go forward.

7,,

J ' ',

l

";J

. Forela$s' On Board.also condicie~rs Alternativen to the Pebbles Spring 2...

c

-., - ~ -

plants.'to.be.a hon-related site suitability matter, which is changed:

~..

~

7-

.s.u_b.stantially by'the applicant's announced delays of on-line dates.

~

,, [5.,~.T..* $ :.

T*

,A^

g. ' '_ p

-II.7 On. Aprilg,1.,1980.,.the' Atomid Safety and Licensing Board issued

~an. order asking-the parties to this proceerling to respohd to the 1

Oregon Energy Fac1'lity Siting Council's suspension of its proceed-

~

.)

j ingonPebbleSp'ringshntil' July 1, 1981, and whether "this action

~

affects (any party's) position relative to the continuance of. the

~

i NRC proceeding;on_ site, suitability."

Forelaws On Board is affected by this decision in the follow-

' ng manner.

i

~

]

1.) ~The Siting Council is now presently devoting its i

time to a substantial revision of its Siting'Stendards by.which j

it will base sitiing decisions on proposed applications for energy facilities.

This has caused a significant commitment on the part t

l of Forelaws On Board in present and future rulemakings to be held 3

on these matters raising very real questions of scheduling con-1 j

flict with upcoming hearings or proposed findings of fact and con-I clusions of law'on site suitability.

ii 2.)

Forelaws On Board seriously questions the efficiency in committing' resources on the part of all parties to this pro-ceeding to the' issue of site suitability in light of the length of i

delay involved in the state li. censing proceeding as well as the inability to predict further changing developments in the processing of this application before both state and federal licensing bodies,

~

I which might. further_..ch,ange the resolution of site suitability matters.

n

.,., a.

. ~. -

One such cha,nging devel'opment' is the soon to be processed initiative

).

m ee..

a m

.r'.'

.4 O

g am-p ee.

9 E

=

. y. -.1

.#.. g m._._

m.

..m

_ _.-~

~+. %..-,

..., qm.f. r;,.

m,, :.; a..- - - - + 3...-.a -.

- ~

-vnwws

.c. s

-m

. m s.

..m _.

G.W Gsw.. ;..y,e--

, -:4.WQ';j."lf.: '. &m@:.@ L ~

~n-

~

3.m 9.p :r...,. Jam-@c.g.g, W.WE-J : -.: ;, /t;p...,,

r:

J:..t 7

c.n.:.....

.,w~,

e a::..

v ?g'.:~: n posals slated for-the November 4,.., _1980,-Oregon' general election

&'m2.

Spro -

t=

.m :7., _.,,

. c.- -- : -

. which b[ favorable vote would resolve any further question's of the

. ca m:n v v m~: =..

~I

~

-likelihood that theselfacilitiesicould go forward. -

.-.a~

m$ce;,.a_...,.,,:... m.

. e 3.) ". In. light ;of. the,J,a'nuary.;18,.1980, _ letter of the

.c.

.?O U.S. Department. of -Interior where it.is stated:

s_.

~....

. _ ;n. N - _.

- M "We. feel;tnatlsi.te specific consequences of reactor

,ff"?";r.-accidents should:be'among the-key issues, both in the applicant's~' ___-

~

i

' ~iisite selection process 'and'-ini.the staff 8 s. evaluation of.that pro-1 :.,,.. !

. (FES, E3,4)f }',. 7 5. ;,'; {..,

J.f.-.

I.

., cess."

p

+p..

. fr.- :._ ;

+'

4.

l

.: J 1.

as well:as the U.S..,-Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,

. y..

M_.~.--:.J.. letter',of.,, January;30, ;1980,;whereilit;is state,d: -

.g ;

.-....,.,.,s z y. M "Inifuture:environmentaY: impact sta.tements on proposed.

P

= enq;.ca

' ?- * nuclear %ovieill'anss;ss 'iielie've -that-the treatment of the alter '

)

j

? --

2 In particular, l * ~;.;

native sitesJguestion will need-to be more detailed.-

in order"to meet 'thiintent of the' new Council onJEnvironmental

~~

~

. Quality regulations _(40 CFR 1500) roughly equal treatment should j-

/.

l be given' to each major candidate site so that a. thorough comparison

{

of the environmental consequences at, alternative sites can be. pre-l sented in the'EIS.

The site comparison should go into enough depth 1

so that the differences in such consequences can be clearly pre-l sented."

(FES, E4-5).,,

i

~

T ~

Forelaws:On Board finds no. reason in face of the delays in both

, 1.

c Safety

_.the state'and federal licensing proceeding that the Atomi.

i l

and Licensing Board should opt for an inadequate analysis of site

~

l c-

-Thus to proceed tc further hearings without a more alternatives.

l a

rigorous analysis is premature and unfounded in the status of these plants, i

III.

Forelaws On Board ra$,ses the following contentions with '

t respect to the issuance of the staff's Supplement No. 1 to the final environmental statement related to construction of Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and 2.

a.

Site specific consequences of reactor accidents are not addressed and thus' supplement 1 does not-show how this would affect criteria ~used by.'the' staff to access site suitability of the various

~

alternative siteslproposed.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should require -this anal ~ysis to be' performed by

• the staff.

J.:.. b. - - The staff uses-~an' arbitrary and inconsistent comparison

~

~

process within the fourl' site comparison categories, 'which thus

. ~.. ~. m. y. + w m,

a.

,. r. c 4.

. a.... w :

1

.,, t - -...g. j' a c.,

....,, ;.;;.c :,... f.g..; _.

4.

~_.

d.i. - ;

.'y.

W'7~.':n

..,$-*:T.f. :7.;.:?--ifffW.i. F ;.'&

_..>.UJr Y.-

Y -.-f.f i n d N.g. c?"[.<f$ '..;. g[ k, $,,.'U.I N ] "'('

.; (. O.[ y.;,;

( -' f.*.

7..,7,. 3

.. m... r 7,,

.m c,,..,.

u r,..

.-r. r....

..,.:..~:

7,.affeets.the,overall ; outcome of the-final site alternative analysi's J"~

--[ ' [

of h'ebble Sprh.ngs'."... b5.s is' specifically found in Aquatic Resources _ - - -

~

-. ~. -

3

._ which.:is arbitrarily:tr'eated.-differently from the other three categories.

d.

..;:.(;2~.4.2.2 2). r.a.?.:.

^

.3.

- ~

_. : f. Ith s....:. a

-a :.'. w.,

... 2.. ;.:..

~.

c.. The staff's'use of the Boardman site as a site alternative 1-

.:.T. U.1.llis ' preclu'ded..by..the-State". of, Oregon f..se'e FES pg 2-7 and pg. 2-40)'. N..

a....

7._.

..g..;._...

.yet~the. staff..h..as. preceded to.use the Boardman site for comparison _

. ~

~

,.}-

...with.other-s.ite. Tit;hrnatives unfairly deighting the outcome of their,.._

~~

p. : -. w analysis of' Aquatic. Resources against the Hanford site and in the e

- final ~. analysis.in favor of. Pebble Sp~ rings.

(FES pg 2-40) r m,-

... - ~...

.. =,.. -. m.. : ; _;.... 7- -- - -

7._---..-.

~

m.

~ ;.

.7 7rdQStafjrf ha'slnot[.jcknsidered <iewatering of reservoirs due

.._.m.,.,,,

. w_.

m...... _. _ _ _

2.

either to' ' ace'i~ dents 'or',(de'co' mini'ssioning"in their" analysis of alter-m 1

1:native sites under Aquatic Resources wnich has unfairly weighted 3.

_ __their analysis in favor of PebbleS'p' rings.

E s

i --

e.

~

The staff's tr'eatm'ent of sit'e alternatives under Aquatic 3

Resources as well as their unaccoun'ted for and inexplicit adjustment 5

of environmental rankings to account for this factor in their overall con.clusions (se.e.. FE.S. pg. 2-40.) serves to prevent a-fair treatment of

~ the Handford site as. the superior alternative to the Pebble Springs E ~~ ~ ~

c sit..e.(.using the f.our. limited criteria set forth by the staff in

i..

...-. " reach.iiig~. t5e'ifebn. _c'lus. ions)'.

I S.' ~

~~

~

. ~

~

~

Forela' s. On Board feels the comments outlined by the U.S.

}

1.

f.

w

r. -

Environmental Protection Agency in Subpart II (3) of this submittal i

choulc' be treated as a contention and are thus adopted.

i i

Re ectfully submitted,

),,,

' bet o

e o

laws Board

~

Dated:

May 27, 19v0 cc:

all parties ]

+a

..=

..m

.o.

6 r.

r. :..

~~

~;

J b

....a_e>

..mg mum. -

-e.

e