ML20040H086
| ML20040H086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1982 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202170141 | |
| Download: ML20040H086 (7) | |
Text
02/11/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p iI *
/,t.
e N
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'Cg,)*%)
p 2- %
In the Matter of
)
)
\\
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-5
)
50-515 t
.g, (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE T0 " APPLICANTS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF OCTOBER 23, 1981 BOARD ORDER AND STATEMENT OF POSITION ON DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION,"
I. INTRODUCTION Applicant in a filing dated January 29,1982,1/ has referenced two portions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of October 23, 2
1981_/ which stated the following:
(1) "... it is appropriate to proceed with certain discrete issues on alternate sites (except seismic) at this early stege of the consideration of a construction permit.", and (2) "... we will call for the position of the parties on the issue of the requirement for the application to state the earliest and latest dates for completion of construction."
-1/
" Applicants' Request for Clarification of.0ctober 23, 1981 Board Order and Statement of Position on Dates for Completion of Construction."
2/
" Order Relative to Intervenors Motion to Suspend and the Schedule."
- P nm NUEr nr~ "1 Ca.
dk po 8202170141-820211
}gg PDR ADOCK 05000514 O-~
Applicants' latest filing, at pages 1 and 2, states as to (1) above that:
It is unclear to Applicants how and in what manner, if at all, seismic issues will be treated in the evidentiary hearing on alternate sites now l
scheduled to commence on March 30, 1982. The Board did not provide in its Order of October 23, 1981 any basis for its decision to eliminate seismic issues from the alternate site hearing or explain which, if any, seismic issues are to be excluded assuming this was the intent of the Board's Order.
Accordingly, Applicants at page 2 of their filing have requested the Licensing Board to:
{
"... clarify its October 23, 1981 Order, it being Applicants' I
desire to proceed with all discrete issues on alternate sites, including seismic".
Additionally, Applicants in response to (2) above have set forth revised "best estimate [s]" of the earliest and latest completion dates of construction for Units 1 and 2.3_/
II. DISCUSSION A. Alternative Sites l
The NRC Staff has no objection to Applicants' Request for Clarification
-3/
Applicants' filing at pages 2 and 3, recognizes "the present uncertainties relating to regional needs and current impediments to construction [i.e. present Oregon law precludes construction]." The filing also states that the Pebble Springs license application will be "further amended to reflect the new constructir i completion dates prior to scheduling of further evidentiary hearings on need for power and financial qualifications issues."
as to the above quoted part (1) of the Board's October 23, 1981 Order.
In the Staff's view, the matters to be heard at the upcoming hearing on alternative sites include: (a) Intervenors' contentions (AS-1 though AS-4) previously admitted as issues in this proceeding by the Board; and (b) any inquiries from the Board which, as in all construction permit application proceedings, go to the question of whether the Staff's review of alternative sites in this docket has been adequate. See the National Environmental Policy Act and 10 C.F.R. Part 51. The Staff's review in this regard consists of " Supplement No. I to the Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, April 1980", (FES Supp), which publication constitutes the Staff's revised alternative site analysis. This analysis includes Sections 2.4.2.2.3 and 2.5.3 of the FES Supp, which as noted in Applicants' filing, relate to geological and seismological considerations.
In addition, the FES Supp would be amended by any Staff testimony which may be presented at the upcoming " alternative sites" hearing.U The Staff believes that anv confusion which may exist regarding the Board's above quoted statement came about as a result of the Prehearing Conference which was held in this proceeding on October 14, 1981.
During that Prehearing Conference the Board heard Oral Argument on
-4/
10 C.F.R. 551.52(b)(3) provides that an FES is deemend amended by an initial decision which would be based, in part, on such Staff testimony. This provision was upheld in New England coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, 94 (1st Cir.1978).
4-several discrete matters including, inter alia,1)Intervenors' Motion of September 8, 1981 to suspend further (alternative site) hearings and
- 2) the question of the continuing validity of the NRC Staff's proposett findings which were filed with the Board on December 2,1980_/. Included 5
in the Staff's proposed findinos is a section (III) relating to general site suitability matters which concern the Pebble Springs site. The Staff suggested in these proposed findings that it would be inappropriate for the Board in make full findings of fact as regards the geology and seismology of the Pebble Springs site.
It has never been the Staff's position that it would be inappropriate for the Board to make all necessary findings regarding alternative sites (including " seismic"). Moreover, the Staff is unaware of any present basis for the Board to conclude that it cannot hear and decide all aspects of the alternative sites matter.
B. Construction Completion Dates The Staff believes that the portion of Applicants' recent filing, which sets forth construction completion dates, moots "the issue [ raised at the prehearing conference] of the requirement for the application to state the earliest and latest dates for completion of construction."
-5/
"NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Limited Partial Initial Decision on Environmental and Site Suitability Matters." These proposed findings relate to matters where the record is closed.
s III. CONCLUSION
~
The Staff has no objection to Applicants' request for clarification of the Board's October 23, 1981. The Staff is prepared to proceed on all aspects of the alternative sites matter. Applicants have now supplied the current earliest and latest dates for completion of construction thus mooting the question of whether the application must state these dates before the Board can proceed to hearing on the alternative sites matter.
Respectfully submitted, M
l Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of February,1982.
e i
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 RESPONSE TO " APPLICANTS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF OCTOBER 23, 1981 BOARD ORDER AND STATEMENT OF POSITION ON DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this lith day of February,1982.
Mr. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Administrative Judge Mr. Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Siting and Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Energy Washington, DC 20555 Room 111, Labor & Industries Bldg.
Salem, Oregon 97310 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board James W. Durham, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Warren Hastings, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Portland General Electric Conoany 121 S.W. Salmon Street, TB17 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Portland, Oregon 97204 Administrative Judge 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
Department of Justice Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- 520 S.W. Yamhill Atomic Safety and Licensing Portland, Oregon 97204 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
2-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, Gregon 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, 't.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 Comission Washington, DC 20555 l
b r
i
/
e r.-
w y
y y-,