ML20083A086

Affidavit of E Rosolie in Support of Opposition to NRC & Util 831114 Motions for Summary Disposition

ML20083A086
Person / Time
Site:	Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date:	12/13/1983
From:	Rosolie E NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION
To:
Shared Package
ML20083A047	List: ML20083A044 ML20083A064 ML20083A086 ML20083A089 ML20083A096
References
ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8312200156
Download: ML20083A086 (5)

Text

UNITED STATES OF R.' ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 55lElE' BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY ' -: .

AND LICENSING BOARD DEC 16 A9:57 In the Matter of ) "7 ' Tr p

~

) _- 4"_

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket N5'. S'0-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) . )

AFFIDAVIT OF EUGENE ROSOLIE REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION FOR WNP-1 I, Eugene Rosolie, being first duly sworn, do depose and state as follows: I am Director of the Coalition For Safe Power (Coalition). As such .I am personnally familiar with the material f acts of this case and other f acts related to the deferral of construction of WNP-1. A statement of my education and professional qualification is attached as Attachment 1 to 'this affidavit. This affidavit addresses the causes of deferral of WNP-1 and the reasonableness of the requested extension.

1. As admitw6 by the Licensing Board in its Memorandtue and Order dated March 25, 1983, the Coalition Amended Contention #2 states:

Petitioner contends that the Permittee's decision April 1982 to " defer" construction for two to five years, and subsequent sessation of construction at WKP-1, was dilatory. Such action was without

" good cause" as required by 10 CFR 50.55(b). More-over,-the-modified request for extension of completion date to 1991 does not constitute a " reasonable period of time" provided f or in 10 CFR 50.55(b) .

~

8312200156 831213 PDR ADOCK 05000460 PM I O

~

2. The NRC Staff and Applicant state that applicant's justification for extension of construction permit No. CPPR-134 to June 1, 1991 was beyond the control of Applicant and thus con-stitutes good cause.as defined in Commission Order CL1-82-29 and ALAB-722, 17 NRC 1221;

3. NRC Staf f states that the extension of the construction permit to June 1, 1991 is for a reasonable period of time;

4. I have performed a review of all documents filed by the Staff and the Applicant in this proceeding, including responses to Coalition interrogatories and the motions for summary disposition.

l I have also examined documents made public by the Northwest Power planning Council (Nh7PC), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition (NCAC). These documents have been identified and made avainble to the Staff and Applicant at 'the offices of the Coalition;

5. I have attended meetings of the NWPPC at which the deferral of WNP--I was discussed;

6. After reviewing the material facts it is my conclusion that Applicant was responsible for the deferral of WNP-1. The Applicant requested the recommendation from BPA and concurred in it;

7. The Applicant had other options in addition to seeking the requested extension to 1991. These options included the termination of the project, placing the project in mothball or a preservation state (as it did with its WNP-4 and 5 projects),'and/or negotiated with the 30% owners of WNP-3 for earlier completion of WNP-1.

Given the level of completion of WNP-1 (63%) compared to WNP-3 (50%) this last option would have been the prudent action to take.

Therefore, the requested extension was without valid purpose;

8. The Applicant's request for the extension came eight months after it decided to defer the plant;

9. The Applicant has been unable to issue any bonds for any of its project since May 1982. Since that time it has def aulted on bonds it issued to fund construction of WNP-4 and 5 and is currently in a position of being unable to issue any bonds. It is presently in the position of having its assets (WNP-1,2 and 3) attached by creditors. The Applicant has stated that completion of WNP-1 is tied to the ability to finance the plant. Given the above information it is my conclusion that the Applicant will never be able to finance completion of completion of WNP-1.

, Thus no good cause exists for extending the completion date to June, 1991;

10. The WPPSS Executive Board has not decided on a completion date and will not do so until October 1984. (Management Plan For Extended Construction Delay of WNP-1, June 29, 1982 at 1 and Comparsion of Present WNP-1 Delay Plan with Alternatives, presented to Participants Review Board October 8,1982 at 2; Attachments C and D to Coalition Response to Motions For Summary Disposition. );

11. The NWPPC has tied the completion of WNP-1 to the completion of WNP-3. According to NWPPC the most likely completion date for WNP-1 hould be 1996. (NWPPC meeting November 4, 1983, Portland, Oregon.);

12. Therefore the completion date for WNP-1 is uncertain and no good cause exists for extending the completion date to June,1991;

13. Tne Applicant stated in its January 11, 1983 letter to NRC:

Tne actual length of the delay will depend on regional energy demand considerations.

On August 17, 1983 the BPA issued its power forecast showing a decline in regional energy demand by 900 average megawatts over its 1982 forecast (Attachment B to Coalition Response to Motions For Summary Disposition);

14. Given this fact no need for WNP-1 exist and the requested extension to June, 1991 is unreasonable;

15. Due to the facts stated above it is my conclusion that good cause did not exist f or the def erral of WNP-1, that such deferral was dilatory, that good cause does not exist to extend the construction permit and that the requested extension is for an unreasonable period of time.

/A Eu 'e Rosoy e, Director C itionIor Safe Power i

l- SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this /3 day ofgQ1983.

!Ml-o /

Notarv Public My coinmission expires: /7)a.nl Jf,/ff'[ -

EUGENE ROSOLIE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am Director of the Coalition for Safe Power. I have held that position since 1976. My responsibilities include oversight of the opera-tion of the organization. Specifically I am responsible for overseeing litigation before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Oregon Public Utility Commissioner and any other cases which may arise. I am.also responsible for the financial matters of the organization.

As Director of the Coalition, I appear before federal, state and local government agencies to present the views of the organization.

I also umke numerous appearances before civic organizations.

I was a witness for the Coalition before the Oregon Public Utility Commissioner in UM-13 and as such was responsible for presenting

~

testimony- on the prudence of utility investments into the Skagit/Eanford Nuclear Projects.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

- - - -