ML19351A116
| ML19351A116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1981 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8106250272 | |
| Download: ML19351A116 (5) | |
Text
.
-c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION q
2 USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD JUN 2 21981 > 4 D
Before Administrative Judges:
Ofsca geme-o 7.gj
,T, k{~~~ / /
S' Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan Pgf '
Dr. William E. Martin SERVED JUN 221981
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
POR D GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, g
ff k\\
)
June 19, 1981 U
C
~ Units 1 and 2) 4
- N I;? 1icgI ' 5 M
- g"D"'
ORDER RELATIVE TO STIPULATION i
REGARDING CONTENTIONS AND SCHEDULING
.y On May 1,1981, Portland General Electric (PGE) submitted an (
'd' executed stipulation pertaining to issues based on the Staff's revised alternate sites analysis contained in Final Supplement No. I to the Final Environmental Statement, NUREG-75/025.
The parties agreed on Contentions AS-1 through 4 but did not agree on Contentions AS-5 and 6.
Contentions AS-1 through AS-4 are admitted by the Board.
Proposed Contention AS-5 The Staff's treatment of the alternate sites fails to meet the intent cf the new Council en Environmental Quality regulations (40 C.F.R.1500) in whic'1 roughly equal treatment should be given to each major candicate site so that a thorough comparison of the environmental consequences at alternate sites can be presented. The site comparison analysis fails tJ go into enough detail so that the differ-ences in environmental consequences can be clearly understood.
[
810625o
- 2. -
On April _6, 1981,.PGE submitted its argument opposing the admission of Contention AS-5.
It is-PGE's position that AS-5 does not raise a
-genuine issue requiring resolution. PGE contends that the regulations
-1 referred to in the contention (40' C.F.R.1500) do not apply to Pebble Springs since the draft environmental statement was issued in the spring J
of 1975 and the regulations are only applicable to a draft statement issued on or after July 30, 1979. PGE also cites the NRC's proposed l
regulations implementing 40 C.F.R.1500 as support for July 30, 1979 effective date. PGE contends it is totally irrelevant to this pro-ceeding whether the Staff's supplement to the FES complies or not.
On June 1,1981, Intervenors submitted argument in support of the admission o'f AS-5 by quoting from'the March 23, 1981, Federal Register.
concerning the applica. tion of CE0's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations; -46' Fed ~ Reg. 18026.
In response to question 12a, CEO stated:
"Thus the new regulations do not require the redrafting o' an EIS or supplement if the draft EIS or supplement was filed before July 30, 1979.
However, a supplement prepared after the effective date of the regula-l tions would be controlled by the regulations." 46 Fed. Reg. 18029.
Intervenors state the' effective date of the CEO regulations was July 30, l
1979 and the Draft Supplement No. I was issued in November of 1979.
I Intervenors also stated that failure of the site comparison analysis to go into enough detail so that the difference in environmental con-sequences can be clearly understood is a genuine issue that should be heard even though the Board determines the CEO regulations do not apply.
l
~
3-As stated in the Stipulation, the ' Staff does not oppose the admission of AS-5 but notes that NRC has not yet promulgated regula-tions implementing the CEO regulations and therefore 10'C.F.R. Part 51 7
remain in.effect. The Staff stated that the foregoing goes to the merits of Intervenors' proposed contention AS-5 but does not affect the admissibility of the contention.
The Board has determined that Contention AS-5 has raised a genuine issue and therefore we need not reach the questicn of NRC's lack of implementation of the CEO regulations. The contention is admitted.
Proposed Contention AS-6 Supplement No. I 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 alternatives in arriving at an 'obviously superior' site.
As set forth in the Stipulation, PGE and the Staff oppose the admission of Contention AS-6 on~the ground that neither Commission regulations nor precedents require the consideration of the specific consequences at alternate sites of reactor accidents up to and in-cluding Class 9 accidents. Additionally, it was stated, Class 9 accidents need not be considered because of the June 13, 1980, State-ment of Interim Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consideration under NEPA. 45 Fed. Reg. 40101~. The Policy Statement provided for consideration of Class 9 accidents in proceedings where a FES had not been issued. The FES for Pebble Springs was issued in the spring of 1975.
Thus, they concluded that Class 9 accidents should not be considc.ed in this proceeding.
~
-+
e m--
-,--e
--,ww we r-
.r-.
e e-*
--,e e w e s ++ e-e < e e
-e+m-me ~ w,-~~,e---re
==.----wem-w..-,e..e.--,
v.
w-e e-
c-+m-.+
---e-%
^
j
. Intervenors contend that Pebble Springs falls within those cases that the Staff should treat as an exception to not considering Class 9 accidents since "the Operating License review stage has not been reached."
ri The Staff obviously has taken the position that Pebb1r Springs does not justify. exceptional treatment.
The Board agrees with the Staff and PGE that Pebble Springs does not warrant the consideration of Class 9 accidents. Contention AS-6 is not admitted.
Discovery and Hearing Schedule The parties stipulated to the following schedule and the Board adopts the schedule except for minor adjustments in No. 4 and No. 8:
Board Order - Friday, June 19. 1981 (170).
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 Conteritions AS-5 and AS-6, Thursday, July 9,.1981-(190).
2.
Responses Filed to Discovery Requests (20 days thereafter) -
Wednesday, July 29,1981(210).
t 3.
All Motions for Sumary Disposition filed (20 days thereafter) -
Tuesday, August 18, 1981 (230).
4.
Responses to Sunnary Disposition Motions (21 days thereafter) -
Tuesday, September 8, 1981 (251).
5.
Board Ruling on Sumary Disposition Motions (20 days thereafter) -
Monday, September 28,1981(271).
6.
Prehearing Conference (10 days thereafter) - Thursday, October 8, 1981 (281).
0 e
..,s,
,,.....,w
,y
,r.w--~,.-
..p-
. 7.
All Testimony Filed.(20 days thereafter) - Wednesday, October 28, 1981 (301).
8.
Comence H,7arings (20 days thereafter) - Tuesday, November 17, 1981 (321).
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD hh Y l b:= M Eliz@eth S. Bowers, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland June 19,1981 l
j l
?
-.