ML20064N668
| ML20064N668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1983 |
| From: | Bell N, Hovis J, Thatcher T, Wapato S COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, HOVIS, COCKRILL, WEAVER & BJUR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION, YAKIMA INDIAN NATION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8302160302 | |
| Download: ML20064N668 (8) | |
Text
l a
0%w%(ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 83 FEB 15 All:49 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C W fJr EcpE g y (h t @R 1;CH3 4 SERVICE u,
In the Matter of
)
-)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522
)
STN 50-523 COMPANY, et al.
)
February 10, 1983
)
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project
)
)
Units I and 2
)
INTERVENORS' MOTIONS TO SUSPEND HEALTH AND SAFETY PREHEARING SCHEDULE The Yakima Indian Nation (YIN), the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Comission (CRITFC), the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), and the Coalition for Safe Power (CSP), hereby move the Board to issue an order that the S/HNP certification and construction licensing proceedings be immediately suspended pending adoption of the final Recional Energy Plan. Additionally, Intervenors move that the evidentiary hearings on all other matters be deferred until the conclusion of evidentiary hearings, if any, on "Need for Power." This motion is made in recognition of similar requests made by the Applicant before the Board and the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).
Applicant's Motion to Suspend Health and Safety Prehearing Schedule. February 4, 1983.
On January 18,-1983, the Board issued an order providing a schedule of events leading to the evidentiary hearings on health and safety matters. This order was established consistent with the joint ASLB/EFSEC prehearing conference 8302160302 830210 PDR ADOCK 05000522 TSO3 P"
6
. sumary memorandum of January 7,1983. Pursuant to the Board's order of January 18. 1983, the Yakima Indian Nation and.CRITFC filed notices, dated January 25th and January 31st respectively, of intent to file new contentions based upon information contained in the SSER. On February 4,1983, the Applicant filed a motion to suspend the health and safety prehearing schedule.
The context of the Applicant's most recent request deserves further elabora tion.
However, first it should be realized that not only is the Applicant requesting the Health and Safety Prehearing Schedule to be suspended, but also that issuance of the joint EFSEC-NRC Final Environmental Statement be deferred. Applicant is also requesting that the EFSEC suspend its S/HNP certification proceeding and further processing fo the S/HNP certification application.
Letters of Robert V. Meyers, V.P. PSP & L to Daniel Muller, Assistant Director Environmental Tech. NRC and Nicholas D. Lewis, Chaiman, EFSEC dated February 4, 1983. These suspensions and deferrals requested by the Applicant relate to one telltale event: The Draft Regional Energy Plan adopted by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) on January 26, 1983, included neither S/HNP unit. Apparently, the Applicant's intent in requesting the suspensions and deferrals, particuarly with regard to completion and issuance of the FES, is to hold matters in abeyance until the Applicant attempts to persuade the NPPC to alter its plan and include S/HNP as a "needed" resource.
Certainly the Applicant has the right to provide comments to the NPPC, pursuant to statutorily prescribed processes, 16 U.S.C. 839b (4)(d)(1),
however, the intervenors have endured the irony long enough.
1] The Applicant states that the FES schedule was based upon an assumption "[a]s was noted by EFSEC" that the draft Regional Energy Plan would include the two S/ Hit.' uni ts among the resource options covered by the regional plan.
Letter of Robert V. Meyers, V.P. PSP & L, to Nicholas D. Lewis and Daniel Miller dated February 4,1983.
However, neither the EFSEC letter of January 12, nor the minutes of the January 10 regular EFSEC meeting reflect this
" assumption".
-3.
Both the Applicant and Intervenors have recognized since at least May 5th,1982, that the need for power issue was li.kely to be dispositive of the outcome of these hearings and that the Regional Energy Plan would have substantial bearing on this matter.
(Pre-Hearing Conference at Richland, Washington, May 5,1982 at Tr. 4-15).
Indeed the Applicant had previously requested that hearings on environmental matters as well as need for power be deferred subsequent to publication of the Regional Energy Plan.. Letter of Theodore Thompson of April 26, 1982. At the Richland hearing at least one Intervenor was convinced that it is clear that the NRC staff was entirely justified in cercluding, unofficially, in a February 19, 1982 report that the Skagit/Hanford plants would be cancelled or deferred indefinitely...
(Cavanagh, Tr.17 (May 5,1982)) No doubt the NRC staff as well as Mr. Cavanagh were assured in their conclusion by previous representations of the Applicant that it would not go forward with the project unless it was "regionalized" (incorporated) into the Regional Energy Plan for acquisition by the Bonneville Power Administration.
(Bell, Tr.11-12 (May 5,1982)) Apparently, even the largest user of electricity in the Pacific Northwest, the Direct Service Industries, were skeptical of the Applicant's abilities to build the S/HNP units.
(Bell Tr. 13 (May 5,1982)).
After ten months of posturing and negotiation regarding scheduling of the 21 S/HNP proceeding -- particuarly with regard to the FES deadline -- the Applicants are now suggesting that previously expedited processes be delayed, because the Northwest Power Planning Council has tentatively concluded the S/HNP p' oject is too costly and unneeded.
r 2] See e.g. Letter of Roberc V. Meyers, V.P. PSP & L to W.H. Regan, NRC dateif July 16, 1982; memo of James Connolly, EFSEC re: minutes of the Application Review Committee dated August 2,1982; Transmittal of FES schedule approved at August 9 Council Meeting, EFSEC dated August 10, 1982; letter of John F. Wolf, ASLB to Nicholas D. Lewis, EPSEC dated August 31, 1982; letter of F. Theodore Thomsen, Applicant, to John F. Wolf dated September 9,1982; letter of F. Theodore Thomsen to John F. Wolf and Nicholas D. Lewis dated November 29, 1982.
. Each Intervenor to this proceeding has contentions regarding need for the S/HNP which have been accepted by the Board and aptly consolidated to read:
Contention 1.
The Applicants have relied upon an inflated calculation of demand for electrical energy; reliable regional energy forecasts demonstrate no need for the Skagit/HNP.
Memorandum and Order Restating Admitted Contentions, January 18, 1983.
Each Intervenor has requested that the "need" question be resolved prior to expending further limited resources on processing the S/HNP applications.
(Pre-Hearing Conference at Olympia, Washington, December 2,1982, Cavanagh Tr. 98, Thatcher Tr.100, Bjorgen Tr.100, Majkut Tr.102, Lothrop Tr.104, Hovis Tr. 108, Bell Tr. 118-119.) Additionally, even the Applicant' desires "to minimize further expenditures in connection with S/HNP pending adoption of the final Regional Power Plan...".
Letter of Robert V. Meyers, V.P.
PSP & L to Nicholas D. Lewis, EFSEC dated February 4,1983. This desire is consistent with recent statements by John Ellis, President of Puget Sound Power and Light, which appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. According to the article of Saturday, February 5,1983, Ellis stated that not only has the S/HNP been scaled from two nuclear power plants, to a singis reactor, but that the Applicant will probably abandon the project altogether if Skagit/
Hanford is not included in the Regional Energy Plan.
(See Attachment.)
"It would probably be time to bite the bullet" added Ellis.
"The question would be whether we as utilities can continue to carry the project if the council won't accept it. The answer is probably no."
Seattle P-I, C-2 Saturday, February 5,1982.
In Matters of scheduling, the paramount consideration is the public interest. Potomic Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539 (1975).
In the present setting, both the Applicant and Intervenors are similarly interested: Minimize further expenditures
. pending adoption of the final Regional Energy. Plan.
Intervenors respectfully suggest that the most efficacious process would be a complete suspension of the health and safety related schedule and disposition of the question of "need" prior to all other matters.
One minor difference in this motion by Intervenors and that of the Applicant, is that the Applicant proposes that new contentions be filed and ruled upon according to the Board's schedule prior to suspension of the health and safety matters.
Intervenors, on the other hand, would prefer that the health and safety proceedings be suspended inmediately and prior to the deadline for filing new contentions on health and safety matters. According to the Board's Prehearing Schedule (Health and Safety) the difference between Applicants and Intervenors proposals is less than twenty days. The Applicant justifies its suggestion in that several schedule events may have occurred prior to a ruling on the suspensions. Had service of Applicants motion been more timely (CRITFC obtained a copy 2/9/82 from the Coalition for Safe Power),
this matter could have been handled more expeditiously. Nevertheless,
latervenors, CRITFC and YIN, recognize the ten day extension to file contentions as per suggestion of Judge Wolf, (transmitted telephonically by Lee 5. Dewey, NRC staff counsel) pending the Board's consideration of Intervenors' and Applicants' motions on suspension.
In ruling upon these motions the Board may wish to consider the likelihood that S/HNP may procesd to a licensed " option" status despite the Draft Plan.
Previous rulings of the Appeals Board cast doubt on the propriety of keeping an option open to build nuclear projects by obtaining construction pennits.
That such a timeframe be allowed " cuts against any suggestion that Congress envisioned a regulatory scheme whereby an Applicant could apply for and
~
- obtain a pennit and then hold it in reserve until subsequently, if ever, it seemed to make good business sense to use the permit." -Georoia Power Co.
(Alvin W. Bogtle Nuclear Plants No.s 1 & 2) ALAB-276 (June 11,1975).
Congress did not so envision.
CONCLUSION The Applicant has represented in both its May 15, 1982 quarterly report and its latest annual reports that it will not proceed with construction at Skagit/Hanford unless the Regional Power Council indicates in its plan that there is a need for the facility.
(Olympia prehearing conference December 2,1982, Cavanagh Tr. 97).
Now that the Draft Regional Energy Plan has been published, the-Applicant appears ready to " bite the bullet," and seeks to minimize costs associated with the licensing proceeding. Likewise Intervenors seek to minimize their costs and would request that the NRC and the ASLB recognize what the regional public has determined to be in its interest -- that the licensing proceeding be deferred until publication of the Regional Energy Plan. Wherefore Intervenors move the Board to immediately suspend to Health and Safety Prehearing Schedule including the items numbers (3) Filing of new cor.tentions, (4) Applicants' and Staff!s response to new contentions, and (5) Board ruling on contentions.
Intervenors also move (severably) to defer the evidentiary hearings on all other matters until the conclusion of evidentiary hearings, if any, on "Need for Power."
o
._7
/h day of February 1983.
Dated this Respectfully submitted, a Ay D r
S. Timothy Wapato Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 2705 East Burnside, Suite 114 Portland, OR 97214 A....
-M g
James B. Hovis Hovis, Cockrill, Peaver, & Bjur Attorney for Yakima Indian Nation 316 N. 3rd Street, P0B 487 Yakima, WA 98907
(
3R tr s
Nina BelI Coalition for Safe Power Suite 527, Governor Bldg.
408 S.W. Second Ave.
j/[7 Por and, OR 97204 C.-. L $A Q '
l
\\
Terrence Thatcher National Wildlife Federation 708 Dekum Bldg.
519 S.W. Third 5'e.
Portland, OR 97204 I
l m ^
Puget Power plans only one nuclear reactor now By Joel Connelly sought a federal heense fo-two reac-not included in the Northwest Power F1 Reporter tors in order to " keep open the op-Planning Councils 24 year energy
'ame The Puget Sound Power & Light tion" of esentually buildmg a second plan for the region.
Co has sca?ed back its propmed Skag.
"It would probably be time to bite une.
it llanford Nuticar Project from Iwo Puget Power and three other utth-the bullet." added Dhs. "The quest:on lies hase mitated $400 milhon in the would be whether we as utthfies can nuclear power plants to a smgle reac.
Inr. utihty President John Elhs said 2 inHion Maga Hanfont project, first continue to carry the obrt if the g
announred m 1973 Planntv1 as tum council won t accept it.
e answer is p.g ggy g
[(
~We would not build that projett reactors m the Skagit Valley, the nu-probably no" as a twm unit. all of the equipment clear projitt was mcved to llanford The power councirs draft energy se have purchased is for a smgle in Eastern Washington in 19t!0.
plan. adopted last week, contabs no Eshs s.ud the Bellevue' based util-mention of the Skagit-Ilaaford pro-s_
J reactor." Dlis told Post Intelhgenrer cditors yesterday.
Hy will probably abandon the nuclear ject. A final plan is stated for adoption
,,., g ?,
g
.,3
-e r
Ilut DI s said Puget Power flas swoject altogether if Skag t-lianford is later this spring.
"i The draft plan says that the
. - ~
Northwest needs no nuclear plants beyond threa Washington Public Pow-er Supply System reactors now under p
construction.
'io..
T The power council's approval is reeded before costa of nuclear and k
coal plants can be underwritten by I
l the Bonr.eville Power Administration.
N' l
the federal agency that markets elec-
{
trkity in the Northwest.
Dils alao said he has " strong feel.
John Ellis, presdent of Puger ings" about the financial troubles of Power, advises p;blic uteties not the WPPSS nuclear program.
to defatAt on their WPPSS debts.
Although an observer from the sidelmes - Puget Power is not a member of WPPSS - Dlis said a knowing" whether a default on default by the supply system would WPPSV termmated reactors would have a lasting negative impact on the " wash off" on nuclear plants still un-Northwest's econotay.
der construction.
And the president of Washing-Even thoush Puget Power is not a ton's largest private utility had stern member of WPPSS. It owns part of words for pubile utilities that have the supply system's No. 3 nuclear refused to make debt payments on plant. Private utlhtles own 30 percent WPPSS* ahutdown No. 4 and 5 reac-of the reactor, which is under con-tors.
struction at Satsop east of Aberdeen.
"I think they're playtag with dy-WPPSS officials have maid they namite" Ulh said of private utilities may be forced to slow down construc-that have gone to court and resisted tion at the No. 3 reactor because debt payments.
pending lawsuits would make it im-
"The ultinute risk is far less if possible to sell bonds on the reactor.
utilities hang in there for a while"
- l dont agree." Dhs said yester-added Dils.
- Dis is the only way they day. "I feel WPPSS can get addhional can get time to renegotiate the debt. money, possibly through short-term Rey lose all flexibility in a default financine."
situation. Creditors would te reizing Over the past few days. WPPSS assets, and everyone would be sumg officials have changed their tue, say-everyone else."
tag there are ways to avoid a slow.
Ellis ankl there is "no way of down at the Saisop reseter