ML20008G077
| ML20008G077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1981 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Marbet L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, FORELAWS ON BOARD |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107020162 | |
| Download: ML20008G077 (12) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
06/30/81
~
y UNITED STATES OF Af1 ERICA
~~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Jtjt e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Jhu In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, _ET _AL.
50-515
)
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
HRC STAFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVEN0RS FORELAWS ON BOARD AND LLOYD K. MARBET The NRC Staff hereby requests Intervenors Forelaws on Board and Lloyd K. Marbet (Intervenors) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and the Licensing Board's Order of June 19, 1981 to answer separately and fully, in writing, under oath or affirmation the following interrogatories within twenty days of receipt of these interrogatories.
These interrogatories relate to Intervenors' contentions in this proceeding which challenge the adequacy of the Staff's revised alterna-l tive sites analysis contained in Final Supplement No.1 to the Final Environmental Statement, NUREG-75/025, Supplement No. 1 (FES-SUPP).
For each response to each interrogatory, identify the interrogatory by number and identify by name and address the person or persons who pre-pared the response.
If more than one person prepared the response, identify which part of the response each person prepared.
Ide.iufy by name and address all persons who contributed in any manner to the pre-l paration of each response, identifying the response by number.
l
- 8107020 N
. i 1
General Interrogatories 1.
Identify by name and address each person upon whom Intervenors may rely to substantiate their assertions of inadequacy as to the Staff's revised alternative sites analysis (FES-SUPP).
2.
Provide a written summary of the views of each person identified in response to Interrogatory 1.
3.
Identify by author, title, date of publication, publisher, and present location, all books, texts, writings or other graphic material upon which the persons identified in response to Interrogatory 1 may rely to substantiate their position.
4.
Will Intervenors voluntarily make available to the NRC Staff, for in-
- tion and copying, all materials idantified in response to Interrogotory 3t 5.
Identify by name and address all persons whom Intervenors may utilize as witnesses at the evidentiary hearings regarding the Staff's revised alternative site analysis in this proceeding.
6.
Set forth the professional qualifications and resume of each person identified in response to Interroga.ory 5.
7.
Summarize in writing the views of each person regarding the Staff's revised alternate site analysis identified in response to Interrogatory 5.
8.
For each inadequacy as to the Staff's revised alternative sites analysis alleged by Intervenors in Contencions AS-1 through AS-5, identify the person or persons, by name and address, who asserts such inadequacy or upon whom you rely, in whole or in part, to substantiate your position I
that an uadequacy exists.
9.
Describe what measures need to be taken, and what changes should be made, to correct or remedy the inadequacies alleged by you in your Contentions AS-1 through AS-5.
- 10. Have you or any other persons identified in your response to these interrogatories ever visited either the proposed Pebble Springs _ site or any of the alternative sites discussed in NUREG-iS/025, Supplement No.1 (FES-SUPP)?
11.
If the answer to Interrogatory 10 is, in whole or in part, in the affirmative, state the following:
A.
The name and address of the person who visited the site in question.
B.
The date or dates of any such visits and the name and location of the site.
s C.
Whether any written notations were made at the time of any such visits.
D.
Whether any still photographs or moving pictures were taken at the time of any such visit.
Contention Specific Interrogatories 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 /hydrolgoic and socio-economic resources the Staff proposed a rating system based upon specific environmental criteria which were given a "+," "O," or " "
1/
For your convenience the text of each contention is set out below.
i rating as related to their degree of environmental impact within the specific criterion.
For aquatic resources the Staff arbitrarily chose to l
evaluate "the potential sites being considered within each candidate area on a comparative basis rather than absolute terms" and without consideration of site specific plant designs (FES-SUPP., 2.4.2.2.2 i
Criteria and Methods). This arbitrary and inconsistent bias has affected the overall outcome of the final site alternative analysis."
- 12. State in detail any and all bases you rely on for the assertion that the Staff "nas used an arbitrary and inconsistent comparison process for environmental impact within the four site comparison categories
- * * *" utilized in the FES-SUPP.
- 13. State in detail the " comparison process" which you believe snould have been utilized by the Staff.
- 14. State the full and complete bases you rely on for choosing the l
" comparison basis" you have set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 13.
- 15. To your knowledge are there additional comparison processes l
which could have been utilized in the FES-SUPP. in addition to the one 1
set forth by you in response to Interrogatory No.14.
- 16. State in detail how, with regard to aquatic resources, the Staff's evaluation of the " potential sites" in " absolute terms" would have affected the overall outcome of the final site alternative analysis.
l l
- 17. Do you contend that if the Staff had evaluated "the potential I
sites" in " absolute terms," with regard to aquatic resources, that, any l
one or more of such " potential sites" would, in your view, be obviously i
superior or preferable to the Pebble Springs site?
i i
18.
If your answer to Interrogatory No.17 is in the affirmative, in whole or in part, state in detail your bases for concluding that any one or more of the potential sites is obviously superior or preferable to the Pebble Springs site with regard to aquatic resources.
- 19. Do you contend that there will be unacceptable and/or long-term adverse impacts on aquatic resources at the Pebble Springs site?
20.
If your answer to Interrogatory No.19 is in the affirmative, state in detail your full and complete bases for such an answer.
Contention AS-2.
"Throughout the Staff's site alternative analysis the Boardman site has been used as a site alternative even in light of the open admission on the bottom of page 2-10 and the top of 2-11 of the FES-SUPP., which states:
However, the U.S. Atomic Energy Comnission det' ermined that the presence of the Navy's Weapons System Training Facility adjacent to the Boardman site l
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 considering the Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council's opposition to a nuclear plant (even if "har 'aned") at the site, l
the applicant decided to file an application for the Pebble Springs site for its two-unit nuclear plant."
(emphasis added).
"The Staff further identifies this problem with other such statements on pages 2-7 and 2-40 of the FES-SUPP. The " Thermal Power Plant Site Certification Agreement for the Boardman Site between the State cf Oregon and Portland General Electric Company," dated February 27, 1975, on page 7 states:
No construction shall t.mence on any nuclear plant until the Council has been presented with i
. l satisfactory evidence of an irrevocable decision by the U.S. Navy to terminate 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 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."
21.
Is it your position that the Boardman site could not be utilized under ay circumstances as a nuclear reactor site?
22.
If your answer to Interrogatory 21 is in the affirmative, in whole or in part, please state the full and complete bases for such an affimative answer.
21.
Is it your position that the U.S. Navy Weapons Training Facility loct ted adjacent to the Boardman site could not, under am circumstances, be moved to another site?
24.
If your answer tc Interrogatory No. 23 is in the affirmative, please state the full and complete bases for such an affirmative answer.
25.
Is it your position that the U.S. Navy will never permanently cease operations ct its Weapons Training Facility adjacent to the Boardman site?
26.
If your answer to Interrogatory 25 is in the affirmative, please state the full and complete bases for such an affirmative answer.
- 27. Do you contend that, with regard to aquatic resources, the Hanford site is obviously superior or preferable to the Pebble Springs site?
28.
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 is in the affirmative, please state the full and complete bases for such an affirmative answer.
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, 2/ or final decommissioning of the proposed facilities. Thus under aquatic resources the Staff's analysis is unfairly weighted to the advantage of the Pebble Spri.qs_
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 Springs sites."
29.
Define the term " accidents" as used in the above-quoted contention.
Specifically, your answer should include, but not necessarily be limited to, an indication as to whether you are referring to reactor accidents or hydrological accidents.
- 30. State the full and complete bases for the assertion contained in the above-quoted contention that the Boardman and Pebble Springs Reservoirs would require dewatering due to accidents (other than Class 9 accidents).
2/
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.
Contention AS-4.
"The Staff's final treatment of Aquatic Resources is outlined 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 river. After adjusting the environmental rankings to account for this factor, the Staff finds the Hanford site on balance to be equal to Pebble Springs from the standpoint of overall environmental 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."
- 31. State the full and complete bases you rely on for the conclusion in the at'ove-quoted contention that the Hanford site is "the obviously l
superior alternative to Pebble Springs plants within the pre-established I
para.,eters set forth by the Staff in the consideration of the four site compa rison categories."
32.
Is it your contention that the impacts to aquatic resources at the Hanford site, as summarized in Section 2.5.2 of the FES-SUPP will not be significant because of the presence of three other nuclear plants on the same stretch of the Columbia River?
33.
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 32 is in the affirmative, in whole or in part, please state the full and complete bases for such an answer.
.g.
Proposed Contention AS-5.
"The Staff's treatment of the alternative sites analysis fails to meet the intent of-the new Council on Environ-mental 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."
34.
State the exact and precise provisions of "the new Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] regulations" (40 C.F.R.1500) which you believe are applicable to the FES-SUPP. issued by the Staff in this proceeding.
35.
Is it your contention that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has oromulgated regulations implementing the CEQ regulations cited by you either in Contention AS-5 or in your response to Interrogatory No. 337 36.
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 35 is in the affirmative, in whole or in part, provide a citation or other descriptive identifica-l tion of any such regulations.
l
- 37. Do you contend that the FES-SUPP. is in whole or in part not in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51?
I 38.
If your answer to Interrogatory No. 37 is in the affirmative, in whole or in part, state which portion or portions of the FES-SUPP. are not in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
Your answer should also provide l
l
).
a reference to the relevant portion of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 which you claim has not been complied with by the NRC Staff.
Respectfully submitted, M
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 30th day of June,1981.
l 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 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENORS FORELAWS ON BOARD AND LLOYD K. MARBET" in the above-captioned proceedina have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 30th day of June,1980:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.*
Richard S. Salzman, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, DC 20555 i
Dr. William E. Martin Senior Ecologist James W. Durham, Esq.
Battelle Memorial Institute Warrer Hastings, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43201 Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street, TB17 l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Portland, Oregon 97204 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
Department of Justice Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chaiman*
520 S.W. Yamhill Atomic Safety and Licensing Portland, Oregon 97204 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Donald W. Godard, Supervisor l
Washington, DC 20555 Siting and Regulation l
Department of Energy Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles*
Room 111, Labor & Industries Bldg.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Salem, Oregon 97310 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
.v.
,,,,._-,_,-m,
Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet J. Carl Freedman Forelaws on Board Box 553 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 Boring, Oregon 97009 Frank Josselson, Esq.
Ms. Bernice Ireland William L. Hallmark, Esq.
Coalition for Safe Power R. Elaine Hallmark, Esq.
10544 N.E. Simpson One Southwest Columbia, 8th Floor Portland, Oregon 97220 Portland, Oregon 97258 Atomic Safety and Licensing Kathleen H. Shea, Esq.
Board Panel
- Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
& Axelrad Washington, DC 20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
- Docketing and Service Section*
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 M
i Bernard M. Bordenfck Counsel for NRC Staff i
1 l
..