|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7881983-11-23023 November 1983 Withdrawal of OL Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20023C6971983-05-12012 May 1983 Affidavit of DB Goldstein Supporting NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Need for Power.Four Forecasts for Energy Needs Refute Need for Power Justification Developed by Util.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20071A6671983-02-10010 February 1983 Certifies Svc of Intervenor Motion to Suspend Safety & Health Schedule on 830210 ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N8101983-01-31031 January 1983 New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20028F1831983-01-25025 January 1983 Notification of Intent to File New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028E9701983-01-19019 January 1983 Reply to NRC & Applicant Response to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council,Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission & Coalition for Safe Power 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Certain Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20028C3221983-01-0303 January 1983 Suppl to DOE 821126 Limited Appearance Statement.Doe Position Is That Hanford Site Is Not Open,Unclaimed Land as Defined in 1855 Treaty W/Yakima Indian Nation,Article Iii. ASLB Is Wrong Forum for Resolving Issue ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20070L4901982-12-27027 December 1982 Affidavit of Mv Stimac Supporting Applicant Answer to Yakima Indian Nation Motion for Reconsideration.Describes Plant Site & Location of Casements.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J6021982-12-23023 December 1982 Response Supporting Intervenor 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Quantification of Environ Impacts Not Practicable Due to Subjective Nature.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023B3081982-12-20020 December 1982 Response to 821201 Discovery Requests.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H3711982-12-13013 December 1982 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Contentions Should Be Reorganized to Facilitate Coordinated Evidentiary Presentations for Environ Matters ASLB Set Out as Contentions 4,7 & 8.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070D1181982-12-10010 December 1982 Affidavit of R Jim Supporting Yakima Indian Nation Brief on Admissibility of Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10 & Motion for Reconsideration.Nation Has Right to Pasture Horses & Gather Roots Even Though Us Holds Title to Land ML20070C9121982-12-10010 December 1982 Notice of Counsel New Law Firm Affiliation,As of 820901 ML20070C8181982-12-10010 December 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Yakima Indian Nation Contentions 7,8 & 9.Nation Right to Enjoy Reservation Peacefully Given by 1855 Treaty Should Be Protected by ASLB ML20070C7981982-12-10010 December 1982 Brief Supporting Admissibility of Yakima Indian Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10.Attempt to Terminate Reserved Rights of Yakima Indian Nation Violates Fifth Amend.Land Cannot Be Taken by Inverse Condemnation ML20070C7691982-12-10010 December 1982 Certifies Svc of Brief on Admissibility of Reworded Proposed Contention 10,motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order,R Jim Affidavit & Notice of Counsel Law Firm Change on 821210 ML20028B9251982-12-0101 December 1982 Brief Re Admissibility of Yaking Indian Nation Proposed Contention 10.Clarification Needed on Procedural Rule of Commission & Scope of Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028B8971982-12-0101 December 1982 Request for Production of Documents & Interrogatories,Per 10CFR2.740(b) & 10CFR2.741.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20028B2631982-11-26026 November 1982 Limited Appearance Statement.Hanford Site Is Not Part of Yakima Indian Nation Reservation Established by 1855 Treaty. Indian Privilege of Hunting,Gathering Roots & Berries & Grazing Animals Does Not Extend to Hanford Site ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20023A8301982-10-15015 October 1982 Response to 820910 First Set of Production Requests. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20023A8141982-10-14014 October 1982 Response to Yakima Indian Nation 820930 Suppl to Petition to Intervene,Containing List of Contentions.Objects to Contentions 4-10.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027C1591982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to 820917 First Set of Interrogatories ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20071N3791982-10-0404 October 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H5481982-09-29029 September 1982 Applicant Response to Coalition for Safe Power 820910 First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20065H5451982-09-29029 September 1982 Supplement to Petition to Intervene,Consisting of Contentions & Bases for Contentions ML20065J1601982-09-28028 September 1982 Responds to Util 820917 First Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20069F9491982-09-23023 September 1982 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene.Supporting Brief Encl ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20137F8001982-09-17017 September 1982 Amended Subagreement 2 Between State of Wa Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council & NRC Re Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings on Facility Project ML20027B5661982-09-17017 September 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027B5631982-09-17017 September 1982 First Set of Interrogatories ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl 1983-09-28
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063M6211982-09-10010 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 820923 to File Responses to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.Staff Will Be Absent from Ofc 820911-23.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20063M2351982-09-0101 September 1982 Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue on Coalition for Safe Power Contention 26 ML20063M2291982-09-0101 September 1982 Motion for Summary Disposition of Coalition for Safe Power Contention 26.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists.Basis for Contention Was PSAR Section 3.10 Which Has Subsequently Been Amended.Related Correspondence ML20063A5051982-08-19019 August 1982 Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant 820730 Response Opposing Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820716 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Question of Standing Raised.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062D5201982-08-0505 August 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820716 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Shown for Contention 4.Other Factors Favor Admission of Contention 5.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058D5401982-07-21021 July 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820706 Memorandum & Order.Contentions 3E & 5 Should Be Accepted as Litigatable Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063H1141982-07-16016 July 1982 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene ML20053D0651982-05-27027 May 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 820611 to Answer Coalition for Safe Power 820527 Amended Contentions. Washington co-counsel Has Not Received Contention & Document Is Lengthy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052D0561982-04-28028 April 1982 Response Opposing Deposition of MT Dana.Discovery Premature & Does Not Relate to Matters in Controversy.Reasonable Notice Not Given & Allowing Deposition Would Amount to Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20054E1511982-04-20020 April 1982 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Addl Contentions Since Portions of PSAR & Amend 5 to Application for Site Certificate/Environ Rept Received on 820416,4 Days Before Contentions Due ML20005B7061981-08-18018 August 1981 Motion,In Ltr Form,For Order That All Parties Fully Serve All Documents on Coalition for Safe Power & Forelaws on Board,Pending Renoticing & Rulings on Petitions to Intervene.Impractical to Gain Access to Documents at Lpdr ML19332A8871980-09-11011 September 1980 Statement Suggesting That Full Commission Review of Orders & Opinions Below Not Necessary Due to Mootness.Aslb 800827 Order Indicates Proceeding Has Terminated ML19321A6291980-07-16016 July 1980 Motion for Order Evidencing Current Status & Setting Schedule for Further Proceeding.Amend to Application Will Be Filed by 800930.Anticipated Schedule for Environ Rept & PSAR Amends May Be Filed on Same Date.W/Draft Order & Release ML19323J2211980-06-0404 June 1980 Reply Withdrawing 800508 Motion to Dismiss Application. Applicant Response to Motion & Mecca Affidavit Provided Detailed Info Re Applicant 800414 Rept.Progress Rept Must Be Filed by 800601 by Applicant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19312E9291980-05-23023 May 1980 Reply in Opposition to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 800508 Motion to Dismiss Application W/Prejudice Due to Lack of Diligent Pursuit.Applicants Are Engaged in Extensive Program to Locate Suitable Site ML19310A2181980-05-0808 May 1980 Motion to Dismiss Application W/Prejudice.Applicants Took No Steps to Pursue Application Despite Opportunity Given at 800122 Conference to Address Pending Geology & Seismology Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19323A9731980-04-17017 April 1980 Pleading in Lieu of Brief Amicus Curiae Re Untimely Petition of Three Indian Tribes.Urges Admittance of Tribes as Full Parties Except for Fully Addressed Issues Where Serious Gaps in Existing Record Must Be Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296D5061980-02-22022 February 1980 Response in Opposition to Doi 800215 Motion for Extension Until 800414 to File Brief Amicus Curiae.Motion Filed at Last Day of Permitted Period.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296C8801980-02-15015 February 1980 Motion for Extension Until 800114 to File Brief Amicus Curiae Re Whether Indian Tribes Status Gives Sufficient Cause for Late Intervention.Nrc Does Not Object to Such Extension.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296B1471980-02-0101 February 1980 Answer in Opposition to Skagitonians Against Nuclear Power 800122 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories.Motion Untimely & Questions Re Seismic Profile Outside Scope of Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260D5181980-01-21021 January 1980 Motion in Opposition to NRC 791102 Motion to Postpone Hearings on Geology & Seismology Issues.Proposed Evidence Twice Rejected as Inconclusive.Applicants Have Failed to Carry Burden of Proof Re Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML19262C3001980-01-18018 January 1980 Motion to Compel Applicant Answers to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power Interrogatories Re San Juan Islands Seismic Profiles.Interpretation of Atomic Energy Act Holds Applicant Liable for Matl False Statements ML19257A3971979-12-12012 December 1979 Objection to Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power Interrogatories Re Seismic Profiles of San Juan Islands.Western Geophysical Seismic Profiles Not Discovered by Util Until 1979.No False Statements Made ML19256F8401979-12-0505 December 1979 Reply to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 791109 Proposed Findings on Financial Qualifications.Intervenor Adopted short-term View Rather than long-term Considerations Re Inflation Rates & Market Ratios.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A1121979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 791112 Proposed Findings of Fact.Fes & Fes Final Suppl Addressed Environ Impacts & Whole Population Issues Indiscriminately Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A1071979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply to NRC 791005 Proposed Findings of Fact.Urges Board to Reject Recommendation 3 Contained in Finding 44,Pages 27-28. Condition Re Environ Evaluation Prior to Commencement of Const Activities Is Not Authorized by NEPA & NRC Rules ML19211A0881979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply in Opposition to Intervenor Forelaws on Board/Citizens for Safe Power Findings of Fact Re Alternative Sites & Postulated Accidents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19262A7481979-11-20020 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Indian Tribes 791105 Supplemental Petition for ALAB-552 & ALAB-559 Review.Petitioner Failed to Raise Good Cause Re Alleged ASLB Misapplication of Late Intervention Factor.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8911979-11-0909 November 1979 Pleading Re Applicants' Financial Qualifications.Total Cost of Project Exceeds Applicants' Figures.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260B1681979-11-0808 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Skagitonions Concerned About Nuclear Power 791116 Motion to Direct Certification,Stay Proceedings & Review ASLB Actions.Detriment to Public Interest as Basis for Interlocutory Review Not Established 1983-09-28
[Table view] |
Text
._
- f. . .
p 4 SE=? 3 NRC PUBut DOCL"# *U
$gf FEB 1.2197 b c q=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-522 COM PANY , et al. ) 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) February 9, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )
)
APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM RE SIGNIFICANCE OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ON NEED FOR POWER By his letter dated December 12, 1978 to the Licensing Board, the Chairman of the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council stated:
The Washington State Legislature has established the following state policy: "it is the policy of the State of Washington to recognize the "
pressing need for increased energy facilities . . . (RCW 80.50.010) and further "To provide abundant energy at reasonable cost." (RCW 80.50.010 (3)) . Despite recent amendments to chapter 80.50 RCW (the most recent being in 1977) no material changes have been made in the legislative determination since its enactment in 1970. Thus, the State of Washington has made a legislative determina-tion that there is, indeed, a pressing need for power.
At a prehearing conference on January 16, 1979, the Licensing Board requested a brief from the representative for the State of Washington on the legal impact of the State 's legislative determination upon the Licensing Board's decision 790315018l h
4,= ,
making process in reaching a conclusion about need for power.
Tr. 11,500. This request was expanded in a later order to include not only legislative but also any executive, adminis-trative and judicial determinations by the State of Washington about the need for power. Post Conference Order, January 26, 1979, p. 2. The parties were invited to submit briefs on the subject on February 9,1979. This memorandum sets forth Ap-plicants ' comments.
As explained by the Appeal Board, "Need for power" is a shorthand expression for the
" benefit" side of the cost-benefit balance which NEPA mandates for a proceeding considering the licensing of a nuclear power plant.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 ) , ALA B- 4 22, 6 NRC 33, 90 (1977).
The traditional method for determining the need for power has been to review the reasonableness of an applicant's fore-casts of the demand for electrical energy and the need for additional generating capacity to meet that demand. Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, 4), ALAB-490, 8 NRC 234, 237 (1978) ; Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1) ,
ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 327 (1978). In this proceeding, an ex-tensive record has been developed regarding Applicants' fore-casts of energy demand and generating resources. Several other forecasts have also been examined in great detail. Proposed findings of f act on this voluminous record have been sub-mitted. See Applicants' List of Principal Issues, January 9, 1979, pp. 25-26. In Applicants' assessment, the evidence that has been received in this proceeding clearly establishes the need for the Skagit Project.
The present proceeding is somewhat atypical, however, in that there are justifications of the need for the Skagit Pro-ject which supplement the forecasts already under consideration here. These supplemental justifications are administrative, executive and legislative determinations by the State of Washington to the effect that the Project is needed. These important determinations are identified and discussed below.
There is well established recognition in Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decisions that the need for power issue can be resolved in a number of ways other than the traditional approach outlined above. For example, authorization of the Seabrook facility was approved on the basis of it being a sub-stitute for oil-fired plants. Seabrook, ALAB-422, supra , 6 NRC at 95-99. The Appeal Board has also approved placing heavy reliance upon a state utility commission's demand forecast and upon a state siting board's determination regarding the public need for a proposed nuclear plant. Shearon Harris , ALAB-49 0, supra, 8 NRC at 237-241; Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.
(Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No.1) , ALAB-502, 8 NRC __
, (October 19, 1978) (slip opinion at 4-8) . These deci-sions in the Shearon Harris and Sterling proceedings clearly illustrate a trend toward deterring to the judgment of local regulatory bodies on the need for power question.
Administrative and Executive Determinations by the State of Washington On September 13, 1976 the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (formerly the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council) adopted its decision and order recommending to the governor that the certification application for the Skagit Proj ect be approved. That decision and order, which has been received as an exhibit in this proceeding (Exh. 84), sets forth the Council's findings of f act, including its findings on need for power. These findings were antered following a lengthy contested case proceeding in which intervenor SCANP was an active participant. The Council which heard that contested case was comprised of members f rom thirteen state agencies and a Skagit County Commissioner. The Acting Chairman of the Council for that proceeding was a representative of the State Utilities and Transportation Commission.
The need for power issue was vigorously contested during the certification hearings in May to July of 1975 and April 1976. The evidence presented by Applicants included the 1976 forecasts of loads and resources for each of the participants in the Skagit Project and for the region, and econometric fore-casts of electricity sales for Puget Sound Power & Light Co. ,
r the states of Oregon and Washington, and the West Group of the Northwest Power Pool. Specifically addressed in these presen-tations were a number of potential influences on future energy demand including conservation, price elasticity, price of com-peting fuels, and population trends. These same issues have, of course, been addressed in hearings before this Licensing Board. SCANP presented a witness who criticized some of the load forecasts presented by Applicants. Over three days of the hearings and 750 pages of the transcript were spent on the need for power issue.
The Council's findings of fact include a comprehensive review of the evidence on the need for power question. Exh.
84, pp. 50-62. The Council's conclusion was that:
Weighing all of the evidence, the Council finds that the demand forecasts presented by Applicant are reasonable, that proj ections of future capacity are reasonable, that the additional electric power to be generated by the Project will be required to meet the future needs of the Pacific Northwest region, and that it is prudent and in the public interest to plan the Project for completion as presently scheduled in order to assure the citizens of the State of Washington an adequate supply of electrical er.ergy.
Exh. 84, p. 62.
The appropriate deference to be given to this need for power determination by the Washington State Council should be decided in accordance with the Appeal Board's recent decision in the Sterling proceeding. In that case, the Appeal Board deferred its decision on the need for power issue until the New York State siting board had first ruled upon the issue pending
?
before it of the need for the proposed facility. Sterling, ALAB-502, supra, 8 NRC at (slip opinion at 4-8) . The siting board there, like the Council here, included a member from the state public utilities commission and could "be ex-pected to possess considerable familiarity with the primary f actors bearing upon present and future [electricityl demand . . .
Therefore, the Appeal Board announced that it would give " great weight" to the findings of fact and con-clusions of law "unless shown to ' rest upon a fatally flawed foundation'", and assuming the basis for state agency's decision would be developed in some detail. Id., n. 13, 8 NRC at (slip opinion at 8) . The Council's determination re-garding need for the Skagit Project was, of course, explained in considerable detail in its findings of fact. Hence, the Council's determination is entitled to substantial deference here and provides a solid supplemental justification for the Skagit Project.
The Council's administrative determination that the Skagit Project will be needed was followed by an executive deter-mination to the same effect by the then governor of the State of Washing ton, Daniel J. Evans. His order approving certifi-cation of the Skagit Project, as recommended by the Council, is also in evidence in this proceeding. Exh. 85. In that order, Governor Evans found, inter alia, that tne Skagit Project "will balance the increasing demands for energy f acility location and operation in conjunction with the broad interests of the public" and further that " approval, construction and operation of the Project will be based on the premises specified in RCW 80.50.010". As discussed in more detail below, one of those premises is "to provide abundant energy at reasonable cost."
RCW 80. 50.010 (3) ; Exh. 86. Subsequently, the present Governor of the State of Washington, Dixy Lee Ray, advised this Board of her position with respect to the Skagit Project by her letter dated February 24, 1977, which reads in part as follows:
I invite the Board's attention to the fact that the State of Washington, after thoroughly reviewing all aspects of the matter, including the need for power question, has approved the Skagit Project. This approval is set forth in the Site Certification Agree-ment signed on January 5, 1977, by my predecessor, Governor Daniel J. Evans, and Puget Sound Power &
Light Company.
As for my position, I would like the Board to know that I support nuclear power as a safe, depend-able, additional source of electricity, that I agree with the action of the previous administration in approving the Skagit Project, and that I trust that it will move ahead on-line to begin supplying us with electricity in the next decade.
Tr. NFP pp. 1742-A and B. These actions by the chief executive of the State of Washington provide additional supplemental justification of the need for the Skagit Project.
Determination by the Washington State Legislature The Washington law on the siting of energy facilities, Chapter 80.50 RCW, provides in pertinent part that:
The legislature finds that the present and pre-dicted growth in energy demands in the State of Washington requires the development of a procedure for the selection and utilization of sites for energy facilities. . .
It is the policy of the State of Washington to recognize the pressing need for increased energy facilities. . .
It is the intent to seek courses of action that will balance the increasing demands for energy facility location and operation in conjunction with the broad interests of the public. Such action will be based on these premises:
(3) To provide abundant energy at reasonable cost.
RCW 80.50.010; Exh. 86.
The Appeal Board has not, as yet, directly addressed the question of the weight to be given to state legislative deter-minations. In the Seabrook proceeding, the Appeal Board did note that the basis for their decision that the plant was needed (namely, the substitution theory) was consistent with the Presidential policy of reducing oil imports. Seabrook, ALAB-422, supra n. 70, 6 NRC at 99. The logical extention of the previously mentioned Appeal Board decisions in the Shearon Harris and Sterling proceedings is that legislative determina-tions regarding the need for a project can be given con-siderable weight by a licensing board. A state legislature, as much as any other body, has the duty of insuring that electri-cal energy supplies will be sufficient to meet future demands in the state. In addition, a state legislature can reasonably be expected to be familiar with the trends in economic activity and projected energy demands and with the consequences of energy shortages. Hence, the judgments of the Washington State Legislature should, in Applicants' opinion, be given consider-able deference.
The Washington State Legislature determined that there is a pressing need for increased energy f acilities in the State of Washington and that there should be an abundant supply of energy at a reasonable cost. How do these findings apply to the need for the Skagit Project? Puget Sound Power & Light Company (a 40% co-owner of the Project) has all of its cus-tomers within the state and The Washington Water Power Company (a 10% co-owner) has many of its customers there. In addition, a portion of the service' territory of Pacific Power & Light Company (a 20% co-owner) is within the state. Thus, a sub-stantial part of the power to be produced by the Skagit Project will serve the demand within the State of Washington and the Washington legislative determination should be weighted accordingly.
Applicants do not urge that the state determinations are dispositive of the need for power question be' fore the Licensing Board. Indeed, wholly apart from these determinations, the extensive record compiled here clearly establishes that there is a need for the Skagit Project. What the state deter-minations provide are significant supplemental justifications of the need for the Project.
DATED: February 9, 1979 Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN T, WILLIAMS
/
B F. Theodore Thomsen By ( ,
Ddyg.as G. Little Attorneys for Applicants 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Of Counsel:
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washing ton, D. C. 20036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DOCKET NOS.
et al. )
) 50-522 ej. ~
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) fp
) wy ,
) USNQ 06- '.
2 FEB 1.2197d F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE h7 c,r a +. s=*<a e g 5'"
I hereby certify that the following: "'I APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM RE SIGNIFICANCE OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ON NEED FOR POWER in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on February 9, 1979 with proper postage affixed for first class mail. ,
DATED: February 9, 1979
- 0 F.
J Theodore Thomsen 4b &
Counsel for Puget Sound Power &
Light Company 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101
'".- Date: February 9, 1979 Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Energy Facility Site Evaluation 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NkW. Council Washington, D.C. 20036 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Robert C. Schofield, Director School of Natural Resources Skagit County Planning Department University of Michigan 120 West Kincaid Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20555 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Portland, OR 97204 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Washington, D. C. 20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. John H. Buck, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Warren Hastingd, Esq.
Appeal Board Associate Corporate Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland General Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 Michael C. Farrar, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing CFSP and FOB Appeal Board E. Stachon & L. Marbet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Boring, OR 97009 Docketing ar Service Section Canadian Consulate General Office of the Secretary Peter A. van Brakel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice-Consul Washington, D. C. 20555 412 Plaza 600 (original and 20 copies) 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, WA 98101 Richard L. Black, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Donald S. Means U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Box 277 Office of the Executive Legal La Conner, WA 98257 Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
Rives, Bonyhadi, Drummond & Smith Roger M. Leed, Esq. 1400 Public Service Building 1411 Fourth Ave. Bldg. #610 920 S.W. 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Portland, OR 97204 Russell W. Busch, Esq. Thomas F. Carr, Esq.
Evergreen Legal Services Assistant Attorney General 5308 Ballard Avenue N.W. Temple of Justice Seattle, , WA 98107 Olympia, WA 98504 12/13/78