ML20126M074

Argument Supporting Forelaws on Board Admission of Contentions AS-5 & AS-6.Requests That Issue on Whether to Proceed W/Hearings Be Submitted to Commission for Further Review.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20126M074
Person / Time
Site:	05000514, 05000515
Issue date:	06/01/1981
From:	Marbet L FORELAWS ON BOARD
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8106110285
Download: ML20126M074 (5)

Text

.

Fo re1a w s o n B oard Tas rova Laws or ecotocy i

1. Everythsnt ss connected to everythsng i Qur conscience teaches us it is right, els e.

our reason teaches us it is useful. 2. Everything must xo somewhere.

that men should live according to y m ,,,, y,,, n,.,7 tne, f4 y 4 There nn nn auch thsna as u frer lunf t. i y sntrotN'eddt 19142 S Bemers f e'ry Ad i gg.

!s t=

1e g.

Soreno. Oregon 9700s (603) 637 3549

, , , , , , , ,,, ,,,,,, , ,4 gg gy,g

,,e,,,,c,,,,,,,.,go,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

g h Anrod a Knoof. nac

$ . , $c@d 9

9 p eu ,

l ,[ --.---

%M ,U..A

v. .y. - Er, d O . It . z C ul - *...- ,-

.% 141.1 w A

• ** , r GC . . m' .? A, .c. v

a. m q t y v O. ..?? u. ce S. n .-

1  %

k ,uw'* a

.1 tJ y .m . u . .

y; y Q' =~ c .o. .: -::- t . e. ,, . r . C c i.=. =. ~. V.

/

au , .- A T.', -T T ^ ~ '...

t c..'. '. v~ = R r'...=. "

In the Itatter of )

)

c.s.. , u.e.

s_ r, =

._r,v ~.- ,. .. +- ~. - ,, x, e ,..v ws. a.,. .

2. v ,un ,. A r.. D e.,

s ) e.0 C 0 ". 2."<" '

. . )  :. 0 . '. ., *'- \ ,. 2

) / y (Febble Sprin;:s Iiuclear Flant, ) s g

Units 1 and 2) ) DocKeTiD t us';=

FORZLAWS OM ECARD'S: S- gggj ,

I. Argument for the Arimission of Conter.tions

z. etca :f es se tW

,7 AS :: and AS-6. ,

C:n:2 L Emi" -

Sr :a @/ j II. ?ocition on ipplicant " Response to Soard's g, Order cf April 28, 1981." M Dated: June 1, 1981

! I. A. On April 8, 1981, the Atcaic Safety and Iicensing Icard received for consideration a " Stipulation Regarding Contentions and Schedulinr," in which the applicants and the IIRC staff acree that t,

proposed intervonor contentions ASl throuc,h AS4 shcula be acimitted as issu'es in the above entitled croceedinr. hile the staff di:i not orpose contention AS-5 the applicant il d so it a: arpr.ont sub-r;tte A ril .t, 1991, ir "hich it corte r ds that 'ecause th: drnft environmental 1. r 'a c t stat 3 ment on the Pcialc '?rinE3 lucitar 'lunt l

was issued in fcbruar, of 1976 it followc tnat " t. .c .e tt Council on Environmental '.uality regulations have no bearing on t?.is matter unles: as ne t e ' in 40C F", 150 6.12 an c ency 1:sirca to impler.ent the same at an earlier date." The applicant then qu:tes a "r.e. ,t ro co s e d A REVERENCE FOR. ALL UFE

• THE GOLDEN RULE

• THE FOUR LAM $ Of ECOLOGY Q - -

cuioEuse.scec m in m iRos E,m.s-S6 A

• .n. nan,.n..n 64 0611 ogq$.- . . . . - . - - . - . - - - _._ . .. . .

f 1

]

. . j c  !

I

. t I

i s

.- enu . $ . 4 ^. . "

o' . 'w.".=.

-.' a. a - ', a. c,~ "- . =. . c .*-; L v^ .~ . d.

^

..-'o.

. .-v c . - . .'" o, a *v a

. .*. *s ** *. v* r. ^ . . . .^"

^

Co .....c.v.. ~..4- 9,, . p ,.n

.o .: a, .n v. , p. e-*' ' \ *6 i C .' .' ^ #.

. n ' .. w . .i p, , .. . . . . ~o' . '. - . . ' c-

'.'.,'d'.'v',

."..a.s v" ^ . '- = ~ - . " . . :u.--

,,,v,., u . . P r ". . e'- .- a.-a o r. .- '.'.F. " v ooe . .- M. e a" . . .

. . a. . r 4

.. 4 .-

.2.,... 4 .a

. . ,,..2.. -.. . . .c m.uic. .m ocaa.r.d^". .. .=..a.- "u . a. .".2". '-o

' .d .- ve .

. -o "v. ...'. a m a . n *w - - o .~ . .' i -

a s o .a "o .." 'r o ". a. .' o .. o- w' r. a .ma - .d. '. . o "- .1 ". .. o *w e ". a a *.

n.,, ,, woe .w..a , c-. o u. c... n .4 ..o .u, 4 ._.. , . , , . , a . 4 c .,

.>. y osec.n ,,

.r ., .

.he

. . u, ,. i w.~ . . . . . . .. w...

new regulations of the Council on Environmental Qualit", is not in i 2 v .4 o r <- .o . ax e n 3,.,, e. .s. ,. n .o .. .. 4.,o s . o n .., # .v. , -...a ,.., 3, e .e.re c . .an e i ., ,1. .a . _3.

.4 w v.

a do e. - . n. u. m. ... a .m. .,a.

. . . . a c m. ~v .4 c ,. . , . u. . ,. u o u,.n. 4 .- ns n . ../ .4 .-.. - .. . . a. n. . , ,

Q u a .' i ". ". a o-rv a "u o~ a ud wv dua. r u k .i .' s .^. a. d. - 1 . *w".i. a r e M. '. - *. '.. : e d.ea =- .- " 7. c " .*w "j Most Asked Questions Concerning C:O's ':ational Invironmental Policy l Act Regulations" ( 4G T3 180 26, March 23, 1981) which states in rele- ,

i vant part:

n:,,.

ww 4. . g ,r. ., g. . . . 4 . 4 . g- .p... . . . . .ue. . 3 ,-..v w .+ v . . e . . ,. . ., . .., ., g . 4 0 w-i

-, . , , . h. w 4 3. " ... .^ ^ . ' . ". . . . . * * . * . I

.n p g . ,u,. , :y .r n..". "Aw. a . .c *' O n. ' . ' A- ' 8 ". * .d+." " '. 0 ." A.,"'.d.."^"...^"..c"..'

v .

esv snu .o . 4 - . u. . u, <<,a

- v .c .c .r ...u.su w.

eu n e e. n..a n ,/ a . . w .o . ca s e e.c. .....2 .ume s

. e. s . u. e doc ume nt . Thus the new regulations do not rec.uire the redrafting of an E S or supplement if the draft EIS or supplement was filed before July 30, 1979. However, a supplement prepared after the effective date of the regulations would be controlled by the regulations.

(46 FR 180 29, March 23, 1981, Question 12a.)"  ;

- The effecti've date of the Couheil's regulations was July 30,  !

1979, and the effective date of the Craft Supplement :10 , 1 to the FES on the Febble Springs Muclear Plan Units 1 and 2 was November, 1979. It is clear that the new regulations Of the Council on Environmental Cuality are relevant to this proceeding and that there is a genuine issue to be resolved. Furtnermore, the latter ,nart of the contention AS-5 which states: "The site comparison analysis fails to .7.0 into encu.en detail so that the defferences in environ-

n. am ". '. * .' , v^ ^ n o* *. q' u n #. .

• a. c'

. i C * *.. "v P.

'. .' n a .' . '/ ' *. ' .u *. " S. 'w o ^a &. , " 4 s ^. .m ' *. * .*.;1 ' a P. *. . '.'

. .' '. n*.

-- b.-a 4 cf7 .a n .e s -. O n,a q ...e . .e

. v..... . 43.43 *w.u a. p r. a .e s d Oi - Aa .

.a.-

. ..d . . .:. . 4s,m

• m# w. . W...m. d p y.14

. 4 -

v3=

1

• a

.A 411 v.r v" #. -wu. n. m. ...p ,7 r. .?, o^ .-c-f,a g 1 g *w *4 m w p. .g .

s

- Ip

..4 O c .4 (s 4* I p. gg s, anf} .* u. .. p P.

[ .* k 9 d.

vsb. 4) a ;.* , .*. ; ./ . .k p,Y8 . n)p.*

.. w l t.g E If.s 'V s,4"I.'e".*.

3 A=

v, **8.V c lg 6 . '. .

. . s w. .

of Intervenor Conte:. tion A3-G Lased up o n E. 2:a;u .2 n ; f interim 0 0110;

/'.'-'.^*s.,.w'

n. Vv..D.s.*,".='..'V'

%#^* ^ '. . .c. '.'.,.;.." 'V",- . '.=.'w ^# ^

V 6 . f. '.

c '6 '.s'.'.'*.*o*.o" '.' as1n. .', . .= 1.G'l' I 'w ... . . i 7- ..v i .a v^ r...e . a '. t. o . ' .dn^ " n" c w o '. 1 9 C. s v" " b '. 4va.-

. e w 4. " *.

. . V..e. c' a o r.d. --

o a". ". ", .

mA ..re

..P.u. s.

'P m.d 5 > 68 Q4. )d

. 4 .4. 'm I e g 1..

e

o. gA..A w 'J b' .w4.e 3 .e.

.e

.v .hpk.. r.# d e b, m , . m. ..d p.gc.J gj %A t n

. ..P..n3*ww' .~

.v  %..*

h. . p.&

h a. .Ne e ,

.-J

• . ..* J C n .~ G g , y .1 -

G r. 6 . . . b. c. 1 ..^.4 vv. ... .L G 1 =d . . ws&a.eA.. v .

. e l

i y , - . . - , - . , . . . . ., . . _ _ , . _ ., .- ., .r , . . . - - - ..4

~

w "Mowevo", it is alFo the intent cf the Cormission that the staff tC: 3 steps to identify additional cases that mi ght warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the Ocncequences of serious acciden'tc. Cases for such considera:1cns are those for which a Final Environmental Statement has already been issued at the Co nstruc tion. ?e rmit stage out for which the Opening license review stage has not yet been reached."

It is Forelaws On Board's contention that this proceeding represents just such a case and one in which it is demonstrated that there is no apparent need for a rush to conclusion of an inadequate analysis of site alternatives. The choice of site alternatives represents those " actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents." It is obvious that the preparation of an adequate analysis can lead to a site location best fitted to provide high quality accident response as well as mitigation of accident impacts upon all aspects of the environment.

We would note that this is echoed in the U.S. Department of Interior's January 13, 1980 commentsHon the draft supplement wherein it is n-stated that:

"We feel that site' specific consequences of reactor accidents should be among the key issues, both in the applicants '

site selection process.and in the staff's evaluation of that process." (Final supplement No. 1 to the FES related to the construction of Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, E-3 4)

Under the circumstances we do not believe that the Board can i

i ignore this issue and believe it is incumbent that an examination of class 9 accidents be introduced at this tire in this portion of the proceeding.

II7 Forelmes On roard has reviewe d coth t!.e aci:licc.nts ' "Respense i

l to Joard's Order of April 20, 1301" and the "UEC Otaff */iows on Ap,nli c an t r ' ilesponse to Board's Order of 4/ 2B/01. " T!te Applicant raises :

ariety of issues which inpact the final outcome of the Feb ,le 3prings plants, amon; w'.ich are "the completion of its car' man Plant, the Regional l

3111, a*:.d construc tion progress on tne Cc1 strip 3 anc 4 and vi?PSS No. 3 units," all of which need further examination :y this Scard.

n addition, the Merril Lynch report examines the effect of One i

November 1980 election in Oregon on the Pebble Springs Plants as I e .

~. - - s,,.- <w , .-.,r.- y -, -

s l

F I

....p..1 a .g., . . ,.,...p-

? ., o e

. ~ m..wq .

' . 1'. * .. . m,.-

s u J.

• . . . 4 #

a.' t,.a 'g$4. e. #4

.. ;.. - - - ....7.,.;. . . . . . .

CL. ; o.3.- . . . n. -.. j e. y- r.4.,-.. ,

....). -s ...,e-4,  :

.-.m.... Q .c. a. g..  :

., n. .r D . e. w. ., 2

..,.3

... V .'- .. . - 2% e ., . . a...

(, sp.p . sg~2 e

2 * . , . i ,z .e .m .4 } *

. +*

• ....,',\.

A s .*. e.

. . . . .% . . . .4

) .e. b. 3 .2 ..n..~. .

. p. .e .s .4 *..,.n..-

• e

.s..... .= . .. : e .. :. : - ,s. . 0 a . .y ; =.

.-,.n. 4- u. a. o 2 +w.g.,,e ... n.. 2.

. . . . ~ . . . .. .

I 4* ,

c o " _' d- .. ~"_^.'..e '. a r'- a. a v. a ," . "

s card's posi:1cn chat nis 2 card shou'.d lr It is ?c relaws On l

require rigcrous analysis by both the staff and ap;11 cant as ::

i u .w. . ne o g. #c

. . . .w.., o e _,ac_4,4

. .. . 4eae n_ .s ss 3 ., 2- .. a . w. e .,4.i . 3. 4 4 .w.o o d s w

. . .a. . .wo- u ,

e i can even be uilt. Considerin; one fac cr alone, the .e;icnal 3111 ( ? L 9 G ~0 *. ) , Portland C-eneral Ilectric and :s partners ir

..'". .. ,~a a .- a a. u . .- a .. . . ' ," 4 .1 * 'y. c" .- ~~ a. a m .' a .d....' . . , , . . * . . y c u. . o .-

- ~

c a. bx. .t e c

. w r .

requirement contrac ts with the Donneville F r..rer Administration.

i

[

) In addition, Residential Power Ixchange contracts tith EPA are being Q

,- -mo0 m 4e.,..a. .

. .,. ,~. = =. o n s. . a . s v. 4 _' '_ e .' .4 ~ =.

. .c- ... . ". =. a ' '- .' " . . .- a.

_1 c ~o t g.nc u e.%.

u a .e..- a y. u 4 n. ..4.. es o.e. s'no .e. a ...a 4.

, , , ., 4 o . ...s.u .z . . a _**,m s , a 4 w.4 ,.v n Q .

policy would be implemented. Resources needed c fulfill these power obligations would have to be consistent '.cith a resource plan 7

developed by a new Regional Power and Conservation ?lanning Council.

i

- - Any other resources wculd require a special Act of Congress. The

p. . .

j ' ' totality of this proc,ess is. immense and represents a major change for energy planning and resource acquisition in '.ni s re;;io n .

Forelaws On Ecard believes that under circumst snces such as these 46 4e a4 -....y o s s .4 ., .., u, t,o y- .,,r. o-nc m u . e w 4 ,

wi.. o ,,re-v,.:sx4 n ,

y . T..4

.. ...v-,.,.w ...- waow -

..4 .e- a-great deal of HRC staff tine and resources, especially at a time in which the Commission, because of Three '.ile Island, is changing 1, a variety of regulations and policies in crler to expedite a

_ .4 m. . n si n ,~.s w a .., i .1,% _ t,. e_ n . a.

.. ,, , o c c .y. . , e us. e.s m. ._.

.y

., , , 2 .m e .3c .n,. . o . ..,,.2..,a-

v. . - . .

I " .. ' -o a ." ^ ".e m=

.m' .' H, ' a. 1 "s a .c.4<. e .". a " '"a

..i 4 .e e " a.

. . v' '. ......a..-

• ~ ' '

ev ...-*s.*=.c*'. . ' " . -

i

...e .a , .a.. . .,, . .. . ...s. .r  %. ....o.e. 4 c .,

. 4

. . .,,w . .., o , 2 ,. u. . . , . e

-m. .,.. u. .. x..4

. m-2.- - . ,..., . . ..

'*r, e, m e. . .,,

• s~.c. .s *s m . s .l t..t ,  ?. e * . *

.o ... ._4-

,n

~..n _;. ' . ..

t

?

.A v. I* ,.,.m. m o.n.44.u.., . w. a.

c .e .e~ n e. . . .. .A 0 . . .

l

..,,u.~u.,, ..o%u ., ..,t,,. ..,

, , ,,,0 . . ,s

. ~s.. . ~ ,. ,. .. .~. .- . . . c l s.4 c. us a~s.o- 4

. .. n. .. e . . . . . ~ . ,.s .. .. ~. .

...- ~

e. .m. 4 .,.4,., m. . .;.o. 4. . . .

f l , 4

...un. .s a. . .,. ,, ,, .

,m. ~ . n.u. e. .,1 m. s.

6 .r.i c .,t. .c~..1,.- . ... ..

their prosscution uneconomical and inti. :el', .

o

.,a,,~,...,,..

c . .. .i s , ~t .u. . . ..-., a /

i

/ ' * "

/ /,

/ A. H

-% /y/ /t%Y ' -

, , < :.- -% e;, . . /

c

- s/O . . . ^

d m

o v w

I v-n. a 1 a ts

- .t., s. ~'.. n a . .l d7

~

.} V -> % ' 1

/,C 4 =~

' ' E.'N I 4 . . , , . . .

.: u - . . a a n. .. a . u : r .._c.

c.,.-,-, _ .

.m,.a u n '6)

~ . -- e ., vh' l

!!UC'.,E/G REGULATORY COMMISSIO!!  ? .'. ~L ~ 7 D"\ ,

7 . <

u r v u,

. .1 .,,...C

.:. c. u . - m, u

. ,. C . . . . c . . . ,u .ca. a

.,5

vd D wW K - M ' ,.,i g.

?:

.q/ l-

.'. n,e .=s.tiri

.: c :t A.

1 ,

l In the Matter of. ) N . dAC , s Q' ~'

s

/ .

.' \ ***

PO?.TLAND.GEUERAL ELECTRIC ) Docket Mos. 50-514 COMPANY )s. 50 -515

)

(Pebble Springs Muclear Plant, )

Units 1 and.2) )

~~ - -

w .: m. .r .e r e wA m. .e. O .r o _e.n. .VT

. .C r

.I-hereby certify that copies of "?crelaws On Scard's: I. Argument for.

the. Admissicr. cf Contentionc. AS-5 and AS-6, II . Position of Appli-cants' " Response to ,Doard's Order of April 28, 1981" dated June 1, 1981, in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the fol- .

i ' lowing by deposit in the United States I: ail, first class, this '.st

[.

. day of June,.'1981.

- 3

~l .-

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. James W. Durham, Esq./  !

Atomic Safety and Licensing'3oard Warren Hastings-, Esq.

U.S. .Iluclear Regulatory Commission Portland General Electric.Co. l 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street, T317  ;

Portland, Oregon 97204 .

Dr. William E. Martin q' %.. ,Se'nicr Ecologist ,

Frank Ostrander

i. i Sattelle Memorial -Institute Department of Justice,- ,

1 Columbus, Ohio 43201 529 S.W. Yamhill  ;

Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Walter-H. Jordan 881 West' Outer Drive J. Carl Freedman Oak . RidE e,: Tennessee 378?O Lo:: 553 Cannon 3each, Oregon 97110  !

' Frank Josselson, Esq.

William L. Hallmark, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing C. Elaine Hallmark, Esq. Appeal Panel

, 1 Southwest Columbia, 8th Fl. U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commissicr.

Portland, Oregon 97258 Washington, D.C. 20555 i

! Kathiecn :.s. 3hca, E s.1 Atomic Safety and Licensing I' L0ecnstein, ::ewman, Reis i: card ?anel

. j. A Axcirad U.S. :uclear Re;;ulz.tcry Com'r.issier 10 25 Connec tic ut Ave . , M . ', ' . eacnington, D.C. EuS55 clachincton , .C. 20036

.l i.oc.:ctinc & Corvico Section lI

1r . T.cenard Bordenic!: Office of the Secretary Counsel for i.0 Staff v' . S . Muclear Regulatory Commissior U.S. Huclear Ecgulatcry Commission 'la s hi n gt o n , D.C. 20555

., klAshington,-D.C. 20 c:o t

/ ,

M. eu .

ns  ;- --

r

?. , ,

Lpycf i; . /. .ar/ ct

Forel,

:.ws O n 'oard

_o

'k t