ML19341C578

Response to NRC & Applicant Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Environ & Site Suitability.Intervenor Agrees W/Nrc Findings D-3,6 & 9,opposes NRC Findings 37-45 & Applicant Findings 21-27,118 & 121-125.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19341C578
Person / Time
Site:	05000514, 05000515
Issue date:	02/13/1981
From:	Marbet L FORELAWS ON BOARD
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8103030773
Download: ML19341C578 (6)

Text

,,

, , ,

hh NNIN Fo reIa w s o n Board mlE FOUR MV'S OF EC01.OGY Our conscience tea ches us it is right, I. Everything is connected to everythons elee.

Our reason teaches us it is useful, thit inen should live according to the Golden Rule.

'U i$ ( l 2. Everything must go somewhere.

3. Nature known bret.

W. Winwood Reade 4. There sa nn s uch thong an u free lunch.

,, , , y 5_ e ,,,,, p ,,,, n ,

Boring. oregon 97009 e e,,,,ne,a e, p.,, . n e HE uuMG casar.LE (503) 63T 3549 o, e.,<, coa.a.oa.<. e so ro. w .

we.a A nacos. enc -

9 4 s /

UlIITED, STATES OF AI1 ERICA G Oo:::V' \

, g,, , . .

!!UCLEAR 11EGULATORY CO:!iiISSIGIl ,--

FEg 5

,8- 7198p l

_DEFORE THE ATO'!IC SAFETY AliD LICE!:SITIG DOAR1 f In the !!atter of )

)

Docket Ilos. . 50-514 O P

PORTLATID GE!!ERAL ELECTRIC )

CO: IPA!!Y ) 50-5 . \ t -' / ig (Febble Springs Units 1 and 2) l'uc.'. car Plant,

)

6 '

O f \

'

~

F0 HELA'cl3 O!! EOAliD ' S ilESPO!:3C TO IIRC STAFF ' S A!;

APPLICA!!T'S PROPOSED FII!DIl!GS OF FACT A! D C0f!-

$ M/2 0 21981 > 4 g ross s

. CLUSIO ?S OF LA'l II: T!!E FGH:1 0F A Lli ITED PARTI h ma. J II!ITIAL DECISIGi! O!! EI:VInol!;iE11TAL Ai:D JITE SUIT ^%

HlLITY :ATTERC o> P ui On January 22, 1Y31, Forclaus On Board filed a " lotion for Suspension of Further IIcarinFs and Fincin; s of Fact and Conclu-sions of Law," in the above entitled proceecing, asking:

"

. . .the Atomic Cafety and Licensin;; Doard to suspend all further hqarings as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of lau in this proceeding until it can be demon-strated, to the Board's satisfaction, that tne Applicants are able to license and construct these facilities in Oregon at their proposed site. Otacrwise the continuation of these pro-ccedin.gs is a drain upon the resources of AJ1. pprties as well as that of the ta:: payers of this country." s.- .

,

While the Applicnnt has filed a response to this motion on February 6, l 'J 31, Forclaun un !:oarrl still helicves that, they have failed to demonstrate thct they are "nble to license and construct these facilities in Oregon at their proposed site."

The Board has yet to rule on our motion. In the interest of meetin;; the requirements of the Doard's direction of October 1, 1980, A REVERENCE FOR ALL LIFE

• THF. GOLDEN RULE

• THE FOUR LAWS OF ECOLOGY

. -

.

. - S.- p .

-

- . - . ... ...

cuioe'ists or casArive ouviaosuturA'isu 810soao773 3g l

1 sm -

momm armn/mnN1 fM R

-

• 3'Y

'

.

-

..

2 D** n 1 oc o .dJ.. m ;

for all parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclu-sions of lau on site suitability and environmental issues where the record is closed, Forelaws On board does so in the following manner:

I. Preliminary statement

1. Forelaws On Board has reviewed the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of a limited, partial, initial decision on environmen'tal matters and site suitability, issued both by the Applicant and the !!ItC staff. Our position on the futility and the waste involved in reaching a limited, partial, initial decision'in these proceedings at this time has not changed.

Our response is not to duplicate the efforts mnde by both the MRC staff and Applicant but to merely respond to 'those areas

'

which we feel will be most helpful to the Board in reaching their decision. Ue further respond in'this manner in order to best in-vest our, resources and tiac which are in no way equal to the re-sources and time available to the !!RC staff and Applicant.

2. In the interest of shortening our response, Forelaws On Board addresses the staff's submitta) before addressing the Applicant's submittal. By doing so we prevent unnecessary dupli-cation of arguments which can be merely avoided by the Board's adoption of those portions of the staff's findings in which we are in substantial agreement.

3 Finally, we would hope the Board would recognise that while our desires have been to provide full representation in these proceedings, reality has dictated the devotion of our time to issues of which our participation best serves to provide this Board with as complete a record as possible. As will be outlined, most of these issues remain to be resolved.

,

II. Ilhu Ctaff's Findint:s 4 Forelaus On Board agrees with !!HC staff's footnotes l numbers one (page 2), five (page 8P, and ninc (page 21) as well as finding number 3 on pace 21.

5. Forelaws on Board agrees with the following IIRC staff findings: -

D. Itatters in Controversy

! 1. Heed for Power (page 11)

• This footnote contradicts proposed IIRC Staff finding 4 Cooline P_and P@referenmaam farm 6agshM

. - _ . _ . . -

_ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ ----- _._____- _ _ _.._. __.__ _ _

• *' *

,

j 2. Alternatives and Economic Co's ts (page 11)

J 3 Possibic Alcal Illooms in the Coolinn Hoservoir (page 12)

, 6. Radiolonical Uc1 case (page 20)

9. Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

! (page 21)

6. Forelaws On Board is opposed to staff's adoption, under

8. Environmental Effects of Postulated Accidents (page. 20) of the ,

Applicants' proposed findings on environmental effects

• of postu- ,

j lated accidents (sce applicant findings 80-88, pages 33-35) . The.

j Applicants and staff's analysis on this issue is cursory and does not reflect post Three idile Island experience.

.

This issue is un-

' resolved and demands further exploration of the effects of acci-dents beyond the design basis, i.e. , Class 9 events.

7. Forelaws On Doard is opposed to ImC staff findings:

• i B. Ponulation Density and Use Characteristics, numbers 37-40 (pages 22-23) as this information should be updated to re-

) flect the 1980 census and any other demographic and population changes.

'

C.. l'enrby Industrial, Transrortation and ! 111tary Facilitics, numbers 41-45 (pa;;es 24-2G) as this information should l be updated to reflect changes that have occurred since this infor-mation was last gathered and examined as well as any projected changes that are to take place in light of the Applicant's newly proposed time period for constructing the Pebble Springs plants.

,~

8. Forelaws On Board agrees uith Imc Staff finding G. ,

Ceolony and Seismolorv, number SG, page 30.

.

III. Applicant's Findings 9 Forelaws On Doard does not support Applicant's finding

,

number 21, Hadiolor,1 cal Effccts on Construction Vorkors (page 10) .

.

In addition to being an issue involving radiolor,1 cal releases for j which this record is not closed, this issue cannot be settled j until it is clear when the two Pebble Springs plants are to be

'

built. Thus the assumption that there is "a 2-year time period

between the start up of Units 1 and 2" is yet to be proved.

i

• These objections apply as well to Applicant findings 132-145,

, pages 49-53.

_ - _ _ . _. . . _ - - - - _ . . _ _

'*

'-

4 " '

D**D 3

'

,

D lf oo o .S.$ ._,

10. Forelaws On Board does not support Applicants findings

. 22-27 (pages 11-12), Socio-economic Effects. Hone of the studies used by the Applicant to support their findings reflects newly proposed on-line dates for construction and operation of the Pebble Springs plants.

11. Concerning Applicant's proposed findings 70-78, pages 27-31, Forelaws On Doard believes the*, Board should hold the Applicant to that design of the Pebble Springs plants which allows only zero release discharges to the reservoir. .

'

12. While Forelaws On Board agrees with the l'HC Staff find-ing concerning Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (see ilEC finding number 34, page 21) ue take issue with the Applicant's proposed finding l'.3, page 44, which reads in part:

"We certainly must consider any known effects on our i immediate successors as of importance cod. parable to effects on those now living. When it comes to balancing adverse impacts to those descendents who may follou thousands of years from now against the benefits to the present generation, we would weich d

benefits to the present population. The benefits are certain--

4 the impacts hypothethical."

,

Forelaws On scard believes that this is nothing short of legalized murder and, regardless of the numbers used and their validity, promotes a philosophy in which the moral responsibility that one generation has for arather is completely thwarted. While this Applicant can lay bare its ignoble disregard for future generations as well as the individuals who must bear the effects

] of the actions it takes upon their lives, we pray this Board will j not subscribe to such artful mechanisms of sophistry.

13 Forclaus On Doard is opposed to Applicant's finding I.,

Alternatives to the Proposed Plant (Environmental Effects of the Coal vs. !!uclear Fuel Cycle), numbers 121-125, pages 45-4G. This

'

issue is not resolved and is subJcct to the Applicant's new on-line dates for the Pchble Sprinrs plants. The new on-linc dates j provide for an updato of the ongoing c::perience with the coal vs.

nuclear fuel cycle environmental offects. The staff has proposed i in D. Matters in Controversy, 2. Alternatives and Economic Costs:

i l I

- - - -

_.- - - . _ . _ - - . . _ . . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . . _._ _ __ ._

'

l

. . *

• 5 l

• l At this time the Board cannot make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the need for power, alternatives or the economic costs of the propocod facility because the record is not yet closed on thche matters.

,

We are in substantial agreement.

Dated-this 13th day of February, 1981 Respectfully submit ed,

-

L

• df4. fiaffet '

.

. r elaus On Board

.

4

-

__ -. -

- - -

, '. . .

-

. . -

o UNITED STATE 3 OF AMERICA g UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g co :Cira

% UF/ * .;

F.EFORE ,THE ATO 1IC SAFETY AMD LICEriSING BOAR -

2 FEB t 7;gg ,

-

In the Matter of OMu C-s m, cithe g gNtan J

) y " } 2..s g

) 47WL PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC #

) Docket Nos. 50-514 s ..

COMPANY ) 50-515

)

(Febble Springs Nuclear Plant, )

.

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Forclaws On Board's Response to MRC Staff's and Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Limited Partial Initial Decision on Environmental and Site Suitability Matters," dated February 13, 1981, in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 13th day of February, 1981.

~ ~ ~

Elisabeth S. Eowers, Esq.~ James W. Durham, Esq./,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Warren Hastings, Esq.

U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission Portland General Electric Co.

Washington, D.C. 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street, TB17 Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Uilliam E. i:artin

[\ Senior Ecologist Frank Ostrander Battelle Memorial Institute Department of Justice Columbus, Ohio 43201 529 S.W. iamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Falter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive J. Carl Freedman Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bo:: 553 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 Frank Josselson, Esq.

William L. Hall ~ mark, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing R. Elaine Hallmark , Esq. Appeal Panel 1 Southwest Columbia, 8th F1. U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission Portland, Oregon 97258 Washington, D.C. 20555 Kathleen H. Shea, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Lowenstein, Meuman, Reis Doard Panel

& Axelrad U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connec ticut Ave. , M.W. Uachincton, D.C. 20555 WashinFton, D.C. 20036 DocMeting & Service Section Mr. Bernard Bordenich Office of the Secretary Counsel for NHC Staff U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 at L{by{j i ;'. plar/et Forelnus On card