ML19350C921
| ML19350C921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1981 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bowers E, Jordan W, Martin W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104100298 | |
| Download: ML19350C921 (9) | |
Text
fa Kicoq%
g UNITED STATES i2. f, d/< / ' 'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 40 D
h h!; / /
S[% (
- 1 8
6
...../
h.
OM y,9Oa yg g
br, $
ea April 8, 1981 f
},
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Dr. William E. Martin Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Senior Ecologist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Battelle Memorial Institute Washington, DC 20555 Columbus, OH 43201 Dr. Walter H. Jordar.
881 West Guter Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company, et al.
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-514, 50-515
Dear flembers of the Board:
Enclosed for consideration of the Licensing Board is a " Stipulation Regarding Contentions and Scheduling" which has been agreed to by Applicants, the NRC Staff and Intervenors Lloyd K. Marbet and Forelaws on Board. While the enclosed Stipulation has not yet been executed by the above-named parties, they have authorized Staff counsel to file it with the understanding that an additional copy will be circulated for signature and, ultimately, filed with the Board. Additionally, counsel for the State of Oregon has authorized me to state that he takes no position with regard to the proposed Stipulation.
Sincerely, A
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure As Stated cc: See Page 2 6104fd02%
c
O l
' cc w/ encl:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
James W. Durham, Esq.
Warren Hastings, Esq.
Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Donald W. Godard Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet Ms. Bernice Ireland J. Carl Freedman Frank Josselson, Esq.
William L. Hallmark, Esq.
'R. Elaine Hallmark, Esq.
Kathleen H. Shea, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section I
i i
i I
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-515 (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1and2)
)
STIPULATION REGARDING CONTENTIONS AND SCHEDULING I.
Applicants, NRC Staff (Staff) and Intervenors Lloyd K. Marbet and Forelaws on Board (Intervenors) enter into the following stipulation:
A - The following contentions should be admitted as issues in this proceeding regarding the Staff's revised alternative sites analysis (contained in Final Supplement No. I to the Final Environmental Statement, NUREG-75/025, Supplement No.1) (FES-SUPP.):
1.
Contention AS-1.
The Staff has used an arbitrary and inconsistent comparison process for environmental impact within the four site comparison categories:
terrestrial, aquatic, geologic / hydrologic, and socio-economic resources.
For terrestrial, geologic / hydrologic and socio-economic resources the Staff proposed a rating system based upon specific environmental criteria which were given a "+," "O," or " "
rating as related to their degree of environmental impact within the specific criterion.
For aquatic resources the Staff arbitrarily chose to evaluate "the potential sites being considered within each candidate 6-area on a comparative basis rather than absolute terms" and without consideration of site specific plant designs (FES-SUPP., 2.4.2.2.2 Criteria and Methods). This arbitrary and inconsistent bias has affected the overall outcome of the final site alternative analysis.
2.
Contention AS-2.
Throughout the Staff's site alternative analysis the Boardnan site has been used as a site alternative even in light of the open adnission on the botton of page 2-10 and the top of 2-11 of the FES-SUPP., which states:
However, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission detennined that the presence of the Navy's Weapons Systen Training Facility adjacent to the Boardman site' constituted a serious problem because the proposed nuclear facility was not designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft crash and assurance was not available that the Navy would move its Weapons Training Facility on this basis, and also consider-ing the Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council's opposition to a nuclear plant (even if " hardened")
at the site, the applicant decided to file an application for the Pebble Springs site for its two-unit nuclear power plant."
(emphasis added).
The Staff further identifies this problem with other such state-ments on pages 2-7 and 2-40 of the FES-SUPP. The "Thennal Power Plant Site Certification Agreement for the Boardman Site between the State of Oregon and Portland General Electric Company," dated February 27, 1975, on page 7 states:
No construction shall connence on any nuclear plant until the Council has been presented with satis-factory evidence of an irrevocable decision by the U.S. Navy to terninate its use of the Boardman Weapons System Training Facility on or before a date certain.
~
Yet the Staff has proceeded to use the Boardman site for comparison with other site alternatives which have unfairly weighted the outcome of
. 1 their analysis in the comparative rating under aquatic resources on Table 2.4 (against the Hanford site) and thus is carried over in the final analysis.
3.
Contention AS-3.
The Staff, both in its analysis of the impacts of effluent discharges in Table 2.4, of the FES-SUPP. in which it considers no discharges from the Boardman Reservoir, and Table 2.13 of the FES-SUPP. in which it considers no discharges from the Pebble Springs Reservoir, fails to consider dewatering of these reservoirs due to accidents, other than Class 9 Accidents,M r final decommissioning o
of the proposed facilities. Thus under aquatic resources the Staff'.s analysis is unfairly weighted to the advantage of the Pebble Springs site. Also, under neither aquatic nor terrestrial resources does the Staff consider the impact upon bird populations and terrestrial wildlife of effluent discharges into the water contained in the reservoirs on the Boardman and Pebble Sorings sites.
4.
Contention AS-4.
The Staff's final treatment of Aquatic Resources is cutlined on page 2-40 of the FES-SUPP. wherein they state:
The Hanford site, while judged to be superior to the Pebble Springs site in terms of terrestrial resources and socio-economic resources, was judged inferior with respect to aquatic resources.
The Staff is concerned that the impacts to aquatic resources, as summarized in Section 2.5.2, could be significant because of the presence of three other nuclear power plants on this same stretch of the Columbia River. This concern would be especially important for plant effluents discharged to the
_1]
In the event Intervenors' proposed contentions regarding Class 9 Accidents set forth below is admitted by the Board, the word
" accidents" used in this contention would also include Class 9 Accidents.
y river. After adjusting the environmental rankings to account for this factor, the Staff fin'ds, the Hanft rd site on balance to be equal to Pebble Springs from the standpoint of overall environnental' Concerns.
This unaccounted for and inexplicit adjustment of the environmental rating for aquatic resources serves to prevent a fair treatment of the Hanford site as the obviously superior alternative to Pebble Springs plants within the pre-established parameters set forth by the Staff in the consideration of the four site comparison categories.
B - Intervenors have also advanced the following contentions:
1.
Proposed Contention AS-5.
The Staff's treatment of the alternative sites analysis fa:h to meet the intent of the new Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 C.F.R.1500) in which roughly equal treatment should be given to each major candidate site so that a thorough comparison of the environmental consequences at alternative sites can be presented.
The site comparison analysis fails to go into enough detail so that the differences in environmental consequences can be clearly understood.
Applicant opposes admission of this contention and will submit argumentation to the Board supporting its opposition by April 15, 1981.
Intervenor will set forth its argumentation as to why the contention should be admitted by May 4,1981.
Staff does not oppose admission of the contention but notes that the Commission has not yet promulgated regulations implementing the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality cited by Intervenors and has made clear that until such action is taken its existing 10 C.F.R. Part 51 regulations remain in effect.
See flotice of Proposed Rulemaking - Revision of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and related confonning
D.
1 amendments, 45 F.R.13739 at 13740, March 3,1980, where the Commission noted that "until a final rule is adopted, the Commission's present regulations will remain in effect."
In Staff's view, however, the foregoing goes to the merits of Intervenors' proposed contention but does not affect the admissibility of the contention.
2.
Proposed Contention AS-6.
Supplement No.1 to the final environmental statement does not address site specific consequences at the proposed site and its alternatives of reactor accidents up to and including Class 9 accidents. This comparison should be made another criterion for choosing between the proposed site and all other site alternatives in arriving at an "obviously superior" site.
Applicant and Staff oppose admission of the above contention on the ground that neither Commission regulations or precedents require the Staff (or this Board) to consider the specific consequences at alternative sites of reactor accidents up to and including Class 9 accidents. As to accidents up to and including Class 8 accidents at the proposed reactor site, the Staff has already addressed such accidents.
(See FES, NUREG 75/025, pp. 7-1 to 7-5).
Additionally, Class 9 accidents need not be considered at the proposed site since on June 13, 1980, the Commission caused to be published in the Federal Register a Statement of Interim Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consider-ations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
45 Fed.
Reg. 40101.
The Commission, in its " Class 9" Policy Statement, withdrew the proposed Annex to Appendix D to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, suspended the rulemaking proceeding that began with the publication of the proposed Annex on December 1,1971, and directed that the Staff:
. t
- *
- initiate treatments of accident considerations in accordance with [ guidance in the Policy Statement]
in its on-going NEPA review, i.e., for any proceed-ing at a licensing stage where a Final. Environmental Impact Statement'has not been issued.
(Emphasis Added) (45 Fed. Reg. 40101, at 40103).
The Commission also went on to state that:
- *
- this change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in conclusions regarding the environmental risks of accidents expressed in any previously issued Statements, nor, absent a showing of similar special circumstances, as a basis for opening, reopening, or expanding any previous or ongoing proceeding.5/
,5/
Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford disagree with the inclusion of the preceding two sentences.
They feel that they are absolutely inconsistent with an even-handed reappraisal of the fonner, erroneous position on Class 9 accidents.
The FES considering the Pebble Springs construction permit application was issued in April 1975.
Thus, Pebble Springs is not in the class of cases which are required to consider " Class 9 accidents.
Intervenors will file with the Board their argumentation as to why the contention should be admitted by May 4, 1981.
C - The parties submit the following discovery and hearing schedules to the Board for its consideration.
1.
All Discovery Requests Filed - 20 days after issuance by the Board of a Final Order ruling on matters related to this Stipulation including proposed Contentions AS-5 and AS-6.
l 2.
Responses Filed to Discovery Requests (20 days thereaf ter).
I 3.
All Motions for Summary Disposition filed (20 days thereafter).
i l
4.
Responses to Summary Disposition Motions (20 days thereafter).
5.
Board Ruling on Summary Disposition Motions (20 days therea f ter).
4 4 6.
Prehearing Conference (10 days thereafter).
7.
All Testimony Filed (20 days thereafter).
8.
Comnence Hearings (15 days thereafter).
II.
The parties to this stipulation _ request that the Board accept the agreements set out in Part I above.
Respectfully submitted, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC C0ftPANY, ET AL.
i Warren Hastings NRC STAFF 7!N Sernard M. Borden~1ck LLOYD K. MARBET AND FORELAWS ON BOARD Lloyd K. fiarbet 1
-.. _ _, - - _ _ - _ _.. _.