ML20011A715
| ML20011A715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1981 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bowers E, Jordan W, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110290328 | |
| Download: ML20011A715 (2) | |
Text
- _ _.
)
y 3
fj" October 28, 1981 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 x
pl ' fy DISTRIBUTION Dr. Walter H. Jordan
(/ @
s Bordenick Administrative Judge k
Repka 881 West Out9r Drive 1
Oak Ridge, TH 37830 E
867 3
Reis 88 Shapar/Engelhardt
-44 Christenbury/Scinto g
g%7f8/A }
Olmstead in the flatter of 7A FF (2)
PDR/LPhebble Springs fluclear Plant Units 1 and 2)$
Portland General Electric Cocpany, et al.
NRC Docket File:
E.Adensam Docket Nos. 50-514 and 50-515 P. Leech
Dear Adninistrative Judges:
During the Prehearing Conference in the above-captioned natter which was held on October 14, 1981, in Portland, Oregon, one of the subjects discussed by the parties and the Boerd was the so-called " accident consideraticns under HEPA-Class 9 accidents" natter.
(.See_ Tr. 5805-6 and 5810-11). Applicant in a letter to then HRC Chairman Ahearne, dated September 30,198G, listed that matter as one of "four matters [ ripe] for the conpletion and closing of the record." As I stated at the Prehearing Conference nothing further need be done by the Board concerning that matter.
The Staff's position in opposition to consideration of " Class 9" accidents in this proceeding has already been set forth at pp. 5-6 (Proposed Contention AS-6) of the " Stipulation Regarding Contentions and Seeduling" (Stipulation) which was submitted by the parties to the Board on !!ay 1,1981. A copy of the Stipulation is attached to this letter as a convenience to the Board and both the proposed site (Pebble Springs)g " Class 9" accidents is applicable to parties. The Staff's position regardin and the alternative sites considered by the NRC Staff in Final Supplenent No. I to the Final Environacntal Statecent, HUREG-75/025, Supp. No. 1). The Board's Order of June 19, 1981, ruled that Intervenors' proposed Contention AS-5 was not admissible for the reasons advanced by the Staff in the attached "Stipuistion."
Sincerely, Bernard M. Bordenick jhg Counsel for NRC Staff
..............$sp.............
c~co. ec...see eage.z...
7::
P%T8vasigg
~
p
'm wes-age 2h NRC FORM 3I8 00 80l NRCM O24C OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
7 t j-ng
)> -
er f
c.y g.-
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
(w/ enclosure) fir. Donald W. Godard Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
James W. Durhan Esq.
Warren Hastings, Esq.
Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
[
Lloyd K. 1:arbet lis. Bernice Ireland Atomic Safety and Licensing Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel J. Carl Freedaan.
Frank Josselson, Esq.
William L. Hallmark, Esq.
R. Elaine lla11 mark, Esq.
Kathleen H. Shea, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section r
..OELD @,pD,.,_. _ _ _ _ _. _
omcep ggggg,, g
, euxuu.c)
..ERefs-
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
~~ ~~~~ - --
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
-our>.1. 0./.W. l/. 81....
j unc rosu ais no,soi sacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
_i um ies,2-32se2y_
3 t n es-==
Portland General Electric Company
-'3s-m fr, v
"><-n m. a.
. u > -
Leg' i Deparl' ment D
1 a
.,,<.: 6.n,,:..stu o.,s.4
.c "6
- te. "sters.wi
.g, Mal/-1, 19s1
... 34
' * ' - - ' > ~, -
- i..it s.,,i,
-'a?
r. c.
y3,,
- t..!.
, :..1 / 5 -....
e..". 'r ;' -r e,,
!,i.
f t it. 6.
.... r.t.
I e,-,ir.. s &
f.
The Honorable Elizabeth S. Bowers Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units Ta'nicI 2)
Docket Nos. 50-514, 50-515
Dear Ms. Bowers:
I enclose herewith the fully executed Stipula-tion Regarding Contentions and Scheduling mentioned in Mr. Bordenick's letter of April 8, 1981.
Yours very truly, Warren astin s WH:dp Enclosure c:
Service List 1300 Willamette Center 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204 (503)220-3000 p 4 f 6 '3 F s'1 c<, i rco tu
UNITED STATES OF AfiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt1ISSION
_BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the liatter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, ET &.
50-515 (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant.
Units 1 and 2)
)
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 shculd 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 l
inconsistent comparison process for environmental impact within the four I
site ccmparison categories:
terrestrial, aquatic, geologic / hydrologic, l
and socio-economic resources.
For terrestrial, geologic / hydrologic and socio-economic resources the Staff proposed a rating system based upon i
specific environmental criteria which were given a "+," "O," or " "
rating as related to their degree of environmental impact within the i
specific criterion.
For aquatic resources the Staff arbitrarily chose to evaluate "the potential sites being considered within each candidate l
bO pQ[
gs 6 G.LSO 2_3L L
^6
-2 i
area on a c wcarative 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 Boardman site has been used as a site alterrative even in light of the epen 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 Commission determined that the presence of the Navy's Weapons System 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 vould move 1.'i Peapons Training Facility on this basis, and sb o 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." (emphasisadded).
The Staff further identifies this problem with other such state-ments 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 of Oregon and Portland General Electric Company," dated February 27, 1975, on page 7 states:
No constnJction shall commence 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 Bnardman site for comparison with other site alternatives which have unfairly weighted the outcome of
. 's their analysis in the comparative rating under aquatic resources on Table 2.4 (6 gainst 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 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 3/ or final decommissioniro 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 Springs sites.
4.
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 impact.; to aquatic resources, as summarized in Section 2.5.2, could be significant because of the, presence of three ot' :r nuclear power plants on this same stretch of the Columbia River. This concern would be especially important for plant effluents discharged to the J/
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 soult. also include Class 9 Accidents.
~ ~
4
's river. Af ter 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.
B - Intervenors have also advanced the following contentions:
1.
Proposed Contention AS-5.
The Staff's treatmen'. of the alternative sites analysis fails 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 thet a thorough comparison of the environmental consequences at alternative sites can be presented.
The site comparison analysis fails to
) 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 l
should be admitted by May 4, 1981. Staff does not oppose admiseion 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 tht until such action is taken its existing 10 C.F.R. Part'51 regulations remain in effect.
See flotice of Proposed Rulemaking - Ravision of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and related confonning l
e 5-amendments, 45 F.R. 1J739 at 13740, March 3, 1980, where the Commission noted that "until a final rule is adopted, the Commission's present regulatie ts 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. 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 shetild he 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 Boa-d) to consider the specific consequences at alternative sites of reactor accidents up to and including Class 9 at.cidents. 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 I
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 direc Ad that the Staff:
,e y
-r--
,-w,-
t
- i
- *
- 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 Added) (45 Fed. Reg. 40101, at 40101). (Emphasis Impact Statement has not been issued.
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 former, erroneous position on Class 9 accidents.
The FES considering the Pebble Springs construction pemit application war issuea 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.
2.
Responses Filed to Discovery Requests (20 days thereafter).
3.
All Motions for Summary Disposition filed (20 days thereafter).
4.
Responses to Summary Disposition liotions (20 days thereafter).
5.
Board Ruling on Summary Disposition riotions (20 days thereafter).
,- s 6.
Prehearing Conference (10 days thereafter).
7.
All Testimony Filed (20 days thereafter).
8.
Commence Hearings (15 days thereafter).
II.
The parties to this stipulation request'that the Board accept the agre.J.'nts set out in Part I above.
Respectfully submitted, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
(#V' y+o Warren Hastingff NRC STAFF Y
b Y 7!N Sernard M. Borden'ick LLOYD K. MARBET AND FORELAWS ON BOARD l
M'tL!
9f/
og K/ liar f
-