ML20030B110
| ML20030B110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1981 |
| From: | Morbet L FORELAWS ON BOARD |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108060064 | |
| Download: ML20030B110 (7) | |
Text
-
I,1 p
F o r e 1 a w s o n' B o a r d
'MaE FOUR LAWS OF ECOLOGY t
- 1. Everythsng is connected tu everythsng
-l Our conscience te ches us itis right, else.
nur reason traches us it is useful.
I}
that rnen should live according to
- 2. Everythina must go somewhere.
the Golden Rule.
- 3. Nature known best.
f W. Winwood Heade L There in non auch thinx as a(rrelunch.
8oreng. Oreaon 97009 cg (503) 637 3549 t
n,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.i 1 e 4 m ssNG cmet t e, se,<y Commoa.r. a 80esoi soon ovea.ineo 6, i:
f.
q, Alfred A Knopf, lac 7:
(' 7
- '[
[h
/h.
v 3
s t
UNITED ST/sTEC F A::ZRIC/s g
[
M 301981, ;
rarCLEAn nEcutATOny cc::::IssIOn y
i; g
r
~
[
U::a cf tL: 5 :nt3ry
]
h M G 0 5 193J w 79
\\
C m y s 5:n a a"h j
a n n 7,1 c y g n 1 m ; p,0f a nie.s. g p q,
,, pop. 7;,z 37n.;1g gnrg7v l
4 g
N o
c6 s
cne iatter of
)
f6 g
)
PORTLAi:D GEU7 AL ELECTRIC
)
Dochet '!as. 50-514 C O:!Pt.I'",
~T AL.
)
50-515
)
Pchbla 3;rir:s aclear Plant,
)
Unita 1 and P)
)
FCRELAWS 07 BCARD'S EPSPO!'SE TO U"C GTArr'F IPTZnROCATT.ICS OF/30/81 "iT~r NIL" on, 1931 The ollc'. zinc. is in response to ':RC staff's interrogator-ies dated G/30/31 All interro.c.atory responses have been pre-pared by Lloyc: E. ::arbc t of Forclaus On Loard.
General Intorro atories 1
Forolawa On "oard has not at this ttre n. ado any deter-mination as to uhother there ud11 be a need to rely on anyone, e:: cept the IIFC staff, to substantiate our assertions of inadecuacy as to the staff's revised alternative sites analysis.
g
'Sce int 6rro3a'to' y resl onse number 1
{
2.
r i
3
- ec interro7,atory response number 1 A.
Tm..
5.
Fo ro] au:: On Donrei has not at th$ a tino identified any witnesses ue rill utilize in the evidentiary hearin53 recarding the ntar C 's reviser.' alternative site analysis in this r.rocceding.
i 6.
Soc interrogatory responac number 5.
A ret'ERENCE FOR ALL LIFE THE GOLDEN RULE THE FOUR LAWS OF ECOLOGY O
l cP 9,$ 0 (l GuiDeusEs OF CRE4TivE EsvrROsuEs14Lisu i
l 8108060064_a107UB l
PDR ADOCK A 000 4
poREt4ws os sogno G
2 7
See interrocatory res!. onco number 5 C.
All con"entions were developed by Lloyd K. Harbet of Forelawn On Board.
9.
In order to remedy the inadequacios of the site alter-native analysic nerformed by the staff, a methodology of equal a? plication would have to be developed for use in exat..ination of all potential *itcs on an equal bacis.
The staff has not performed cuch an analysis and has developed a methodology of arbitrary application, inconsistent and unequal data gatnering, f
as well as uncqual ;omparison of the envi ronmental consequences at alternativo cites.
10.
Yes.
11.
/.. )
T,loyc ".. i; a r b e t 19142 3 T.ckers Ferr,. IM.
"oring, O?
97009 D.) (1) Pe!.ble SprinF.s Cite:
I c. ave visited this site four times in the last seven years but have not recorded the dates.
(ii) I'oardman Site :
I have visited thic site on two ceparate occasions uith the Oregon Ener;y Facility Citing Council but have not recorded the dates.
(iii) Hanford Site:
I have visited the I:anford Nuclear Reservation tuice; ence in 1973 and once in 1979 (iv) Skagit Site:
I have visited this site once in 1977.
C.
No D.
Yes.
Contention Specific Interro atories Contention 5 ", - 1 12.
This is sr.elled out definitively in the cocond and third sentoncos of the contention i tcc] f'.
I 13 The otaff chould have utilized a consis tent site evalu-ation process con?aring criteria rerivesentative of all potentj al I
environmental impact.
The comparison to be performed would be j
i consistent and would be based upon ac'.enuate and equal levels of site information gathered from both literature scarches as well as on sight studies which would help provide final verification I
i, F
i
l for all data assinulated from available 13.terature as ucll as j
fully su,r:tlenentine, uhat could not be obtained from such literature.
"'ho comparison would also explicitly account for site specific plant designs and their costs.-hich would serve j
to mitirate environnental impact.
14.
~'hc basis for choosing the site comparison process outlined in interro;atory response nunber 12 is that it would pro-l vide a en;".] e t a site comiarison analysis, civinr, equal treatment to all alternative sites and based upon an adequate and fully developed site exanination within each parameter.of environmental impact to %.o measured.
All this would be encorcq assed by the i
n'alication of consistent site cora;Arison nethodolo;y incal;able f
of acing nanipulated in order to orchestrate a particular outcome.
l 1s.
ns.
i 10.
Ti t? regard to aquatic reso urc e s, the staff's evaluation of the "fotential sites" in " absolute terms" would have affected the overall outcome of the final site alternative analysis by first of all rer;uirina the generation of adequate site specific infor-nation in. order to conduct such a co:r;arison.
The generation of this infor: ation (i'?cally. tith consideration of site specific plant desi;ns) uould have provided a co:Tlete analysis of the alternatives considered and would have rendered a result free from the inadequacios of the staff's current vite analysis which calls to question the man!,;ulation of its results.
17.
l'e contend that until an evaluation of "the i_ o t e ntial si tes" in "obenlute ter::s" with regard to aquatic resources is c o nd.ic te d, the staff cannot, justify a deterr.ination that any of the ot.her potential sites are not obviously superior or preferable to the F^Ndo " " t'i n, cite.
13.
Please refer to interrogatory re-.ponse number 17 l
19.
'Jo contend that staff cannot denonstrate, usin;, the information cathered and methodology applied in their site alter-native analysis, that the Pehi>1e
" r,r i n g s site or any other site vill or will not have unnacceptable and/or lo ng-term adverse
?
impacts on aquatic resources.
Forelaws On Board does not have the l
?
e r
i k
4 I
t t
financial recources to conduct the kind of site con;aricon I
analyaic uhich the staff choulri have perforned.
20.
See interrogatory response number 19.
f Contention A7-P 21.
7:o.
It is our contention that the _'cardnan site t
cannot be utilized under the renant circumstances as a nuclear l
reactor cite and it ic irrelevant to hyyothesice circumstances i
other than those 'hich are in exis tence.
22.
Pleace refer to interrogatory responso number 21 23
- o.
I f
24 Tlease refer to interrcaatory responce number 23.
i
_S.
- othing in the univer.:,e hac been known to "never perman-l ently coact" its operations and Forelawa On 30ar<1 cannot be,in to guess hou lon;,the U.S.
1lavy intends to opere.te its '*ea; )ns Training 7acility adjacent to the.. oar { m sa:c.
iorelauc On 2 card is very nucD aware that the staff has provided no demon-stration tescifying to the coacation of the o;;cration of the leapons '. raining Facility or its relocation to cor.e ot.ler site.
25 Please refer to interrogatory rec; once nuder 25.
27.
I:o.
lc contend that the staff cannot juctify that the tianford cite is inferior with regard to aquatic resourcec and thus cannot substantiate after accounting for all other environuental rankingc that the IIanford cite ic on balance "cqual to.-eEle Springs from the standpoin t of overall environmental concerns. "
If the staff has not manipulated the outcome of the environuental impacts, with f
roi,ard to aquatic resources, for the L:anford cite, then upon com-parison from the standpoint of overall environmental concerr.2 (ucing the st'aff's criteria' fo'r other categories) the.Ianfo~rd site would ce obviously superior.
23.
Oce interro;;atory recponce number 27.
~
Contention A :-3 29.
The use of the term " accidents" includes reactor or hydrological accidents which would cause dowatering of the reservoir.
These could be due to anything from dam failurec to mechanical or explocive manfunctions of the reactor itself.
All accidents could be cauced by natural events, " Acts of God", mechanical manfunction,
5 human error, cabotage, or any co..:Lination thereof.
33.
Contingencies for devatering the rocervoir &_:o to accider.Lc vere tcctified to by the applicant in licenuint, hearingc before the Ore:;on State Energy Facility Siting Council.
Contontion !.9-4 31 Pleace refer to interrof;atory rec;.once nu-2er 27 and then to.a;;c F-32 of the FES Sup.;1ccent ::o. 1 for Febble Springs
' ncre it is Otated in the accond pararraph, t o p o f
.7 a ~.;e, "Sitoc s
l uith two or more "+" ratings and no " " ratings t ere jud;;ed to be super-ior to Febb]c Sprin~s."
Turning to Table 2.1G, "Ctaff Evaluation of the Suittuility of Alternativt. Sites Relative to Febble Sprin;;s" and disre;ardin;, the staff 's manipula tion of A gr.atic P.c sourecc, jus tifie d by such exanplec as thoce reasons outlined in interro; atory nu.1ber i
27, and appl in;, conservatively a neu ratin;; of "Q_.al" und.er f
At,uatic t.ccourc es, as a fair application of ctaff'c.;e tho dology, then the only conclucion that can be reached is that the llanford cite is "the obvioucly cuperior alternative to Febbic Springs plants iith the pro-catabliched parauctcre set fortn b; tc.e staff in con-cideration ci the four cite comparican categorica."
32.
vur contention neither states to the effir:.ative or no;;ative concerninc th ction.
Our contention does state that the staff has not d en 3.
ved that the 1:.:gac ts to a.quctic recources at the I:anford cite, as cummarized in Section 2.5.2 and attested to in Section 2.G, will he ci;;nificant because of the preconce of three other nuclear plants on the name stretch of the Col =.;ia River.
33.
Cec interrogatory responce nu::. Lor 32.
34 The follouing provisions apply to the FES-EUFF. as pre-1 a
pared by the staff in this proceedin,, 1500.2(c), 1501. 2 ( b ), 1502.10, l
1502.14, 150?.1C, 1502.22(a)(b), anc; 18 02. 24 2
35.
Le h ve not made thin contention ei ther in ti.e a ffien.a tive or the negative but suu ect the staff revier: 40 L1 ' 150 7.3.
30.
';ec interrogatory response nu:.9 ':r 35, 37 Yes 38.
The FIS-SUPP. is not in com1.liance writh 51. 23 (c ) in that the ctaff has not quantified "to the fullest extent practicable"
- f. J r
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - ' - - ~
~
~~^ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~
n the varinuc factorc anccrninc "t.le environmental and other o f fect:. of the facility ond the alternativec cva11able for reducinc or avoidin:, thoso effectc. "
Instead the staff cac per-f.;rmed a cursory exatr.ination of alternativec (fo: e xar.:,.le c o f this sea footnoto, page 2-11, Aquatic hocources 2.4. 2.2. 2 ; page 2-5 firct 1.arai;raph; page 2-19 top paragrapn and very bottom parc;rapn; 1;c 2-24, :iubpar t 3.4.2.2.4, 3rd full paragraph; page 2-32, cub, art, 2.5.1, 2nd full paragraph; pa;c 2-34, 3rd full paragraph) compounded by erraicic and unsubstantiated weichtins of certain factors (for enangles of this see page 2-34, botto.:: ara;raph; pace 2-40, subpart 2.C, fo t.: '.. paragraph (roardman) and fif th par u;raph (i anford)).
T a f fi rr. all responces to the IT.C staff's interrc3atorics to be truc to the best of r.y nnowled:Jc.
.rpec tfull;. submittea, 4
ir
} k,/
/ /
/
-/
W
>>' y1
' N/d
~ g4 K.11rff t
,2
.' xlaw: Of. icard i
I I
i
Ed 4
UI!ITED STATES OF A'; ERICA r-I!UCLEAR RECULATORY C0!i!!ISSION DZFORE T!!E ATO:'IC SAFETY Af'D _ LICE!:CIIIG EOARD'-:
JUL 301981 > 3 "o"
Cf ::::f D? f.mcry g
C:O.; & Orf.3 In the I!atter of
)
D;,- i
+~
)
9 d
k PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Locket Ilos.
50-514 I
/l l 4G COI;PA!!Y
)
50-515
)
(Pebble Springs !!uclear Plant, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that cories of "Forolau:; Cn Doard's P.esponse to I:nC "taff'a Interrocatories OG/3G/C1" dated July 28, 1931, in the above captioned i<roceeding have Lcan served on the followina by do!.osit in the United States ;icil, first class, this 28th day of July, 1901 i
Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.
James t!. Durhan, Esq./
Atomic Safety and Licencing Board tlarren Hastings, Esq.
U.S. 11uclear 1:egulatory Commission Portland General Electric Co.
Flashington, D.C.
20555 121 S.5'.
Salmon Street, TB17 Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. !!illiam E.
.:artin f
Senior Ecologist Frank Ostrander Battelle 1:emorial Institute Department of Justice Columbus,^ Ohio 43201 529 S.W.
Yamhill Portland, Oregen
's7204 Dr. 'clal t e r II. Jordan 881 tlest Outer Drive J. Carl Freedman Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bo y. 553 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 Frank Josselson, Esq.
t!illiam L. Hallmark, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing R. Elaine itallmark, Esq.
Appeal Panel 1 Southwest Columbia, 8th F1.
U.S. Muc1 car Regulatory Commission Portland, Oregon 97258 Washington, D.C.
20555 Kathleen.13. Ehca... Esq. -
Atomic-Safety and Licensing -
Lowenstein,Ileuman, Heis Board Panel A Axelrad U.S.
E,uclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connecticut Ave., H.W.
WashinEton, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Docketing & Service Sec cion ilr. Eernard Bordenick Office of the Secretary Counsel for liRC Staff U.S. Muclear Reculatory Commission U.S.
!!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
-lAshington, D.C.
20555 LIJ;y n'./.;ar et f
Fore ws On ' card
.~
/
-