ML20031A004
| ML20031A004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1981 |
| From: | Marbet L FORELAWS ON BOARD |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109180264 | |
| Download: ML20031A004 (6) | |
Text
T Fo rc1o w s o n Boord nue roca uws or econocy I. Everythsng is connected ten everythsng Our constsence teaches us itis right, else-our reason teaches us it is useful,
- 2. Everything must go somewhere.
th1t men should live accordsng to Ihe Golden Rule,
- l. Nature known best.
%'. %'inwood Reade t There on non essch thnese an, dra r I,oser eormg. o,.gon o7me (503) 637 3549
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, u us,3 c,,,c,,
,, e.,,y Commeaer e toers. weae swee sw e, Asleeg A Knopf,4AC
/\\.
c T
UNITFD STATES OF AMERICA I
~,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
j
^
w Sep U
BEFOR;. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOArk%
786rf g D
- {
In the Matter of
)
N" b
)
9
/
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-5.
g COMPANY, H M.
)
50-515 p
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
N t!SN30 FORELAWS ON BOARD'S:
SEP 1 11981
- q I.
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NRC STAFF F OMee of the S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENOR' a
Docketing & seaje oa CONTENTION AS-5 (FIRST PART).
E.-
8 II.
MOTION FOP SUSPENSION OF FURTHER o;
HEARINr,s DATED: Set,tenber 8, 1981 I.
A.
ARGUMENT IN CPPOSITION On August 18, 1981, the NRC staff filed a " Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention AS-5 (first part)"
l in which they move that "the Board should find, without the nec-l essity of holding an evidentiary hearing, that the CEQ regulations relied on by intervenors are not applicable to this proceeding" and ask the Board "to summarily dispose o.' the first part of Contention AS-5" as well as " dismiss said portion of that Conten-tion from this proceeding."
Forelaws C ' Eoard opposes this motion based upon the following response to the NHC staff's " Statement of Naterial Facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be heard":
1)
The staff asserts in the first four (1-4) statements of material facts and number 3 that "the date of completion of the A REVERENCE FOR ALL LIFE THE GOLDEN RULE '
THE FOUR LA%5 Of ECOLOGY GUIDELINES OF CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL!5M
~8109180244 810708 h
i PDR ADOCK 05000514 4)O \\
j o
PDR FOREtaws ON soARD
?
Draft FEG-OUPP by the staff were prior to the effective date of 40 C.F.R.
1500 et sec."
The staff makes the case that the issuance of the NRC staff's Final Environmental Statement was April 1975.
As we have shown in Forelaws On Board's " Argument for the Admission of Contentions AS-5 and AS-6", pages 1-2, dated June 1, 1981, this material fact is irrelevant due to the straightforwar,d position of the Council on Environmental Quality that supplements exist by themselves. (46 FR 18029, March 23, 1981, Question 12a)
In material fact number three the staff ettempts to circumvent the irrelevancy of the FES dare of issuance by claiming that "the Draft of Supplement No. 1 to the Final Environmental Statement...
was completed by the staff on June 15, 1979."
They reference this date by referring to an answer to interrogatory four contained in
" Answers of the NRC staff to 'Fcrelaws On Board's Interrogatories
- Dated July 8, 1981'" which states in relevant part:
"The ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) analysis was finished on June 15, 1979, when a draft copy was sent to the NRC staff."
The staff is attempting to represent that because a contractor finished its analysis by June 15, 1979, this somehcu negates the actual date the " Draft Supplement Ho. 1 to the FES on the Pcbble Springs Nuclear Plants Units 1 and 2" was issued (Novemaer,1979) which unfortunately for the staff was after the date of the CEQ regulations of July 30, 1979.
Regardless of who performed the work the staff's final responsibility lies in the doc ument they endorse and this Board would fall victim to subterfuge if it allowed the deviousness of this argument to prevail.
The staff was fully aware of the CEQ regulat' ions by November and consciously chose to proceed with the issuance of their Draft Supplement No. 1 for public review.
Material facts 1 c are thus unsupportable.
2)
The staff's remaining argument is found in number 5 and G of Statement of Material Facts.
Forclawa On Board failed to find a number 7.
Here the staff reiterates its position of 4
April 8 in the " Stipulation Regarding Contentions and Scheduling" (page 4) that "the NRC has not yet promulgated regulations im-plcmenting the regulations of the CEQ cited and relied on by m-
3 intervenors in contention AS-5" and that "the Commission has made it clear that, until regulations implementing the CEO regulations...
are promulgated, 10 C.F.R. Part 51 regulations remain in effect.
This argument is in direct conflict with 40 C.F.R.
1507. 3 ( a) which states in re evant part:
flot later than eight months after publicatio.n of l
these regulations as finally adopted in the Federal Register, or five months after the establishment of an agency, whichever shall come 'atar, each agency shall as necessary adopt procedures to supplen cat these regulations...The procedures shall be adopted for public review and after review by the Council for conformity with the act and these regulations.
The Council shall complete its review within 30 days.
Once in effect they shall be filed with the Council and made readily available to the public...
On March 3, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions and Related Conforming Amendments" with a public comment period which expired May 2, 1980.
Since this time the NRC has taken no action which is in direct conflict with CEQ regulations.
Forelaws On Board believes the resolution of this portion of the staff'n motion can only be resolved by the Commissian itself and %hus requests that if the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board grants the staff's motion for summary. disposition based upon material facts numbers 5 and 6, they certify this question directly to the Commission for its final judgement.
Forelaws On Board does not believe the NRC can exempt itself from compliance with Council s a Environmental Quality regu-lations (40 C.F.R.
1500) by merely pursuing a course of inaction B.
STATEIJEilT OF IJATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS GENUINE ISSUE TO DE IIEARD The staff in " Summary Disposition Procedures" states that a party opposing a motian for summarv disposition "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact" and
"' mere allegations or denials' will not suffice".
In this regard the staff claims "that the Joint Intervenors to date have only made more allegations, having failed during discovery to identify any witnesses they can or will present on contention AS-5."
The staff asserts a test for " mere allegations" based on the intervenors presenting their case with the use of opposing testimony.
In re-sponses to Interrogatories 1 and 5 of "Forelaws On Board's Response to NRC Staff Interrogatories" OG/30/01 dated July 28, 1981, we
a stated:
Forclawn On Board has not at this timo made any deter-mination as to whether there will be a need to rely on anyone, excent the NRC staff, to substantiate our assertions of inadequacy as to the staff's revised alternative site analysis.(emphasi, added)
If the staff really believed that this was substantial grounds for motion for summary disposition it would have moved for all contentions to be dismissed i.y the Bohrd.
In addition the staff has failed to outline for the Board our responses to staff inter-regatories numbers 34-38 which specifically address the facts shoving that there is a Eenuine issue to be tried.
Finally, the Board will note that Forelaws On Board, in response to the staff's " Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard" has established genuine issues to be heard and is thus incorporated by reference herein.
II.
MOTION FOR @!SPENSION OF FURTHER HEARINGS Attached to this motion is an article which appeared in the Statesman-Journal, Salem, Oregon, on Wednesday, September 2, 1981 In it an interview with Robert Short, board chairman of Portland General Electric, concludes that "to get Pebble Springs built it will have to be moved to another state, largely because of regu-
'latory delays in Oregon."
With the Chairman of the Board of Portland General Electric making such rcpresentations, Forelaws On Board must once again move for the suspension of any future hearings in thi7 proceeding until it can be determined what posi-tion Portland General Electric takes in the need for further pro-cessing for a license to construct at the Pebble Springs Site.
This very much affects any further review of site alternatives.
As we have stated in our January 22, 1981 motion for suspension of these hearings, "the continuation of these proceedings is a drain upon the resources of all parties as well as that of the taxpaycrs of this country."
Nothing has changed the futility of these lic-i encing proceedings moving forward in face of the continuing inability, now recognized by Portland Cencral Electric, to license the Pebble Springs plants in Oregon.
Thus we pray that this motion be granted in the interests of servim; the truth.
1 Roc?
t 1
i
=ted, 9K
'/
/
F w
/db yh/K. [ rbet T relaws n Board
49, jtetesman Journcl, Sc!em, Ore., Wednesdcy, September 2,1981 PGE chairman announces a rate While Short's staff of lawyers ear. PGE customers' needs by 1992 or 8
(
[
By MARTIN ROSENBERG lier this summer was locked m de-1993.
tailed contract ta!ks with the Bonne. 'Th_e company anticipates havmg or uw smewmanru; vi!!e Power Administration staff, more than enough power until 195S or PORTLAND -If utility chief Rob-Short was cff to Bahrain m the Mid-1389.
~
en Shen was in a partying mood die East.
f~ShorCsaid !E is now convinced l Tuesday it was hard to tell from His mission wc 5 to find new j that to get Pebble Spnngs built it will lockmg at him-sources of cheap money. Short said I have to be moved to another state l Short, board
~
chairman of C
the irony of representing a power l largely because of regulatory delays <
q.
company trymg to borrow OPEC I m Oregon.
J Portland Gener.
al Electne Co.,
8 dollars that to a large extent came ~~~PGFso'far has speht'5130'isiilion
- m t out of Amencans' pockets did not es-on the plant, and if it ever is built will announced his y,3 -
.g cape tum.
recesse about 40 percent of its out-eompany s
.,j, Short succeeded in getting a con-put.
" milestone" rate dscrease in a 1a.
sortium to agree to lend PGE at Currently, PGE is keeping its ex some unspecified future datr 325 penses for Pebbie Spnngs to a mini-quiet ozce and r" 7 ".4 million for two years at rates that mum. he said.
showing little under certain international financial PGE stockholders know that good emotion.
g conditions drop below the prime news is becommg less of a ranty in One could al-ROBERT SHORT lendmg rate in this country.
their annual and qcarterly reports.
most think he was announcing one more in a stnng
,,The sums of money available t The company was authorized to of mammoth rate increases and was investors out of OPEC are so large esm 14.39 on its equity for the year ready at any moment to duck for they're incomprehensible.' he said.
endmg May 31, 1960 but it earned cover.
Short said the arrangement is just only 6.02 percent "among the poorest eammgs anywhere," said Chairman Short, in all likelihood, the openmg of a door that he might one observer.
had other thmgs on his mind.
have reason to pass through again, in companson, PGE was author-With the cost of borrowing money seekina larger sums.
zed to earn 14.95 percent on equity higher than a utility pole, PGE must PCE has completed a decade of the year endmg May 31,1951 and it find $250 milhon to $300 million a buildmg that is unparalleled by any reached 12.19 percent.
year for the next five years,largely other compames in this country, Earnmgs per
- hare stood at $2.10 to build a coal-fired plant in Montana given the limited base of financial the year endmg May 31,1991, up from and pay for PGE's 10 percent share reserves PGE was able to tap, Short fl.07 the preceding year.
of the cost-overrun-plagued Wash-said.
Short said it would be "impru-ington Public Power Supply Sys-Only four year ago, an Oregon gov-dent" to sell more common stock tem's praject 3 nuclear plant. Hard emor blasted the utility as " mis-than the absolute minimum needed times have caused Short to tighten managed," saying PGE h' ad overex-to kee'p the company going, largely cargrate operations. PGE's $160 tended itself by buildmg too many because a share of common stock is million 1981 opemting budget - rent, costly generatmg facilities.
now at just 65 percent of its book salanes etc. - was cut 1835 percent, Much of the growth pains have value. PGE soid 3 million shares last or $30 million, by Short's assistants. passed, with the Trojan nuclear year but has no plans to sell any this Such prunmg has contnbuted to. power plant in operation for several year he said, imoiovir.g the company's ! scal posi-yeas and the Boardman coal fire Isst.i ag more stock when existing tion to the point that 30 percent of the plant completed on budget last sum-share are below book value would capital needed for expansion this mer, dilute the value of stock now held.he year will be generated internally.
More_ola,que.stion mark _is__the said.
One year ago, all capital funds Peb}le Spnngs nuclear plant, whit h_
The rompany has embarked on a came ! rom outside sources.
fhor_t said will_be needed to.m"et novel program to raise mune)
_ _ ~ - - - -
through a common stock investmet.t missioner, who now is allowmg the i
plar' offered to m customers. A 5 utility to keep pace with corts by percent discount on the s'ock is providmg " timely relief '
available on remvested dividends.
Where does the company now An estimated 1,206 customers have stand?
opened accounts with the utility.
PGE is more healthy than it was Shurt said he would be " utterly de-a lear ago, but not as rubust as it a lighted" if the program. announced one decade ago, Short said.
June 11, were to produce 10 percent Future rate mcreases?
of his company's equity require-Probcbly not until next July, Short rrent. (About one-third of PGE's ca said.
pitalization needs are provided by stockholders.)
/
One PGE official said that the
\\
company's improved fortunes in part are the result of a changed attitude
/
m the office of the puolic utility com-
U11TED STATi:5 0F AllEl:ICA IIUCI. EAR HKGULATORY C0iii1ISSIGI!
EEFoDE Yl!M ATOMIC CAFETY AND LICENSIHG DOARD
' In the Iint;ter of
)
)
PORTLAllii GEMERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket Hos. 50-514 COIIPAHY, ET AL.
)
50-515
)
(Pobble Springs Nuclcar Plant, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
4 CERTIFICATE OF GERVICE
~
I hereby certify that copies of "Forelaus On Board's: I. Response in Opposition to URC Staff Ilotion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention AS-5 (first part)
II. Hotion for Suspension of Further llearings" dated September 8,1981:in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 6th day of September, 1981..
Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.
James W. Durham, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard Warren Hastings, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear RcEulatory Commission Portland General Electric Company Washington,.DC 20555 121 SW Salmon St., TD17 Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. William E. Hartin Senior Ecologist Frank W.
strander, Jr., Esq.
Battelle liemorial Institute Department of Justice Columbus, Ohio 43201 520 SW Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive J. Carl Freedman Oak Ridge, TH 37830 Dox 553 Cannon Deach, Oregon 97110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panc1 Frank Josselson, Esq.
U.S. Huclear Regulatory Commission William L. Hallmark, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 R. Elaine llallmark, Esq.
1 SW Columbia, 8th Floor Atomic Safety & Licensing Portland, Oregon 97258 Appeal Board j
U.S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Kathleen H. Shea, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Ave., HeU.
i llernard H.
Bordenicl:, Esq.
blachington, DC 2003G Counsel for HRC Staff U.S.
Huclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section
- Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Huc1 car Regulatory Commission
,q
<p ja Washington, DC 20555
%'))s ln gs
.\\
O
\\*h. ',
L1yff.l.rbt r.- v,
s, L-32 [ 11981 *
- g. ;
F relaws an 1oard h(ojs
[
/'
s
(
\\ (.#
,g
-. -