ML19339C847
| ML19339C847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1981 |
| From: | Hastings W PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102120099 | |
| Download: ML19339C847 (6) | |
Text
.
1/@ Y
,1 9
'S $g Gr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1- -
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t t F i 0 981 P -p Offic$ t!dt IO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g, .
II
ct:msCf In the =atter of ) IN'\
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-514 C' COMPANY, et a1 rQ
) 50-515 cP (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, ) g Units 1 and 2) ) p 62
) l 0 [ 81 w I^m APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO FORELNAS ON BOARD Kh em u.,ls'O,;'gec., [/
D MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF FURTHER HEARINGS AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
/X 4'I! J Kb Cn January 22, 1981 Intervenor Forelaws on Board (F03) filed a
" Motion for Suspension of Further Hearings and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law". In-the motion, Intervenor requests the Licensing Board to suspend all further hearings as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in this proceeding until it can be demon-strated, to the Board's satisfactica, that the Applicants are able to license and construct the facilities in Oregon at their proposed site.
Intervenor bases his motion on two recent events: enactment into law by the people of Oregen of Ballot Measure 7 on Nove=ber 4,1980 (Attachment 1 to Intervenor's motion and hereinaf ter referred to as "the 1980 Act"); and issuance by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council of a " Statement in Explanation of the Need f or Power Standard" (Attachment 2 to Intervenor's motion).
Applicants oppose Intervenor's motion for the reasons explained below:
W :'.c.,;c,. .
4!m r., . .; ~, ; ,. .
- ?. S c- -
g' l
Ballot Measure 7 was narrowly passed by a majority of Oregon's, .
voters in the November 4,1980 General Election. Part 2 of Intervenor's
=otion correctly notes that, according to the provisions of the 1980 Act, bef ore a nuclear plant can be licensed f or construction and operation in Oregon "the Energy Facility Siting Council must find that an adequate -
repository for the disposal of the high-level radioactive wastes produced -
by the plant has been = licensed to operate by the approptiate agency of the Federal Government". Intervenor's motion also notes that Section 7
[ sic] of the'1980 Act additionally requires that "a site certificate for "
a nuclear-fueled thermal power plant shall net be issued until the voters - .. -
of this state have approved the issuance of the certificate at an elec--
tion held pursuant to Section 4 of this 1980 Act". However, Intervenor__
fails to mention that Section 8 of the 1980 Act specifically provides _
that:
81921200 % Q 9 [5#/0
I
)
"Section 3 of this 1980 Act does not prohibit (1) the council from receiving and processing applications for site certifi-cates for nuclear fuel powered thermal povar plants under CRS 469.300 to 469.570; or (2) an applicant for a site certificate under ORS 469.300 to 469.570 from obtaining any other necessary licenses, pe rmits, or approvals for the planning or siting of a nuclear-fueled thermal power plant."
Section 8 of the Act not only allows the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council to continue proce_. iug the Pebble Springs site certificate application, but also explicitly allows the Applicants to obtain any other necessary licenses, per=its, or approvals for the planning or siting of nuclear facilities in Oregon. This latter provision obviously relates to Federal, as well as State, per=its. Indeed, by the very inclusion of Section 8 as part of the 1980 Act, the people of Oregon intended that the nuclear option be retained and actively maintained for future implementation in Oregon.
II.
It should be further noted that Intervenor from ti=e to time has brought to the Board's attention various matters pending before the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council or in the State of Oregon and has claimed these local events are dispositive of Federal matters pending bef ore a Federal administrative agency under Federal law. See Inter-venor's May 27, 1980 filings in this proceeding of April 7,1977, April 12,1978, and as examples. We believe it is apparent from a cursory examination of these filings that Intervenor is attempting for its own purposes to play the State proceeding against the Federal and vice versa.
However, the fact remains that each is separate and distinct and, absent common the other.
questions of fact or law, one is not necessarily binding on character.
The matters Intervenor alludes to are of such nonbinding We would also call to the Board's attention that Intervenor's findings on site suitability issues will be presently due under this Board's Order of October 1,1980. In view of the date Intervenor filed this current motion to suspend proceedings and in view of the fact that l
the news about the 1980 Act has been publicly available for some months, it would seem Intervenor is more concerned with ways to avoid complying with the Board's Order than supplying the Board material data. Be that as it may, the Board in examining Attachment I to Intervenor's motion should note the striking similarity of the 1980 Act to the measure considered in Pacific Legal Foundation vs. State Energy Resource Conser-vation and Develop =ent Commission 4 72 F. Supp.191. (S.D. Cal .1979) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company vs. State Energy Resource Conservation and Development Commission 489 F. Supp. 699 (N.D. Cal'.1980), both of which cases have been argued and are awaiting-decision' in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
1 i
I
_ _ _ ~~
.-- _ - =.
III.
Part 3 of Intervenor's motion asserts that " Portland General Electric and other applicants to this proceeding have not, as yet, seen fit to inform either the staff or the Board of this significant event or offer any subsequent explanation of how it affects the ultimate status of these proposed facilities".
It is Applicants' position that the 1980 Act does rot materially affect this proceeding. Our position with regard to the conduct of this proceeding remains unchanged from that espoused over the last year, beginning with A plicants' decision a year ago to reschedule the Pebble Applicants' position was more particularly deline-Springs project.
ated in a letter to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 30, 1980.2 Applicants reiterated their desire to obtain a partial initial decision on those environmental and site suitability issues for which the hearing record ir complete. Applicants also requested the NRC staff to provide the support needed to go forward with the final stages of hearings on those remaining environmental and site suitability matters amenable to near-term resolution, viz, alternative sites, environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and accident considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act. As correctly noted in Part 1 of Intervenor's motien, the NRC staf f is now prepared to move ahead w1*h completion of the environmental and site suitability portions of the record in this proceeding.
t Intervenor also seems to believe Applicants must offer an explanation of "how it [the 1980 Act] affects the ultimate status of these proposed facilities". 9uch an explanation is inappropriate at this time. As we noted, ths s e are recent Federal court rulings en similar legislation enacted by the State of California. It is obvious l that the ultimate disposition of the Pebble Springs facility must avait a final judicial determination on the validity of such State laws as that of Calif ornia's and Oregon's. Only if and when the 1980 Act emerges unaltered from the test of judicial review can it be presumed that- Portland General Z1ectric Company will be precluded from completing licensing and constructing the Pebble Springs nuclear plants in Oregon until the require-ments of the 1980 Act are met.
IV.
Part 4 of Intervenor's motion alludes to a standard on need f or power recently adopted by the Oregon. Energy Facility Siting Council and an accompanying statement issued by the Council which Intervenor
! purports to state in part that, in considering options and constraintsecc.tto
! f or meeting demand beyond 1995, nuclear plants are precluded by Ballo'i'*i"'
Measure 7 [the 1980 Act]. Applicants view the Siting Council . statement .
as being an appropriate and requisite ade tistrative action to reflect the statutory provisions of the 1980 Act. Therefore, the Siting
~
Council's action, although of interest, has no substantive legal bearing on the matter at hand.
i l
WHEREFORE, Applicants request that the Licensing Board sut=arily deny Intervenor's motion to suspend further hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Moreover, Applicants reiterate their earlier request of August 11, 1980 that the Board go forward and at this time fix a date for a prehearing conference in order to schedule future hearings on the remaining site suitability and enviren= ental =stters identified herein. Applicants believe t. it would be a much greater drain upon the resources of the taxpayers (. , country to not obtain a partial initial decision on environmental and ..te suitability issues at this time . This will avoid needless duplication of effort should the conditions established by the 1980 Act be met or rescinded in the future.
If the Intervenor is indeed genuinely interested in conserving tae resources of the taxpayers of this country, Applicants respectfully suggest he consider withdrawing from this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, j' -
47% 4 & 4 0 Warren Hastings /
Of Attorney for Applicants Dated at Portland, Oregon this 6th day of February 1981-1 Letter dated February 15, 1980 from Warren Hastings, PGE Senior Assistant General Counsel, to the Licensing Board, with copies to all Parties.
And " Answer of Portland General Electric Company and Request for Reconsideration" dated August 11, 1980, served on the Licensing Board and all Parties.
2 Copies of the September 30, 1980 letter from W. J. Lindblad, PGE Vice President, Enginee ring-Cons t ruc tion , to John F. Ahearne, Chairman, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, were sent to the Licensing Board and active Parties in this proceeding.
DRS/4sh9.lB24 . _ .
j
~
D 1 ,' , ,
r c- ,
/ \
N IC^
, .w g ;-,. ;,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
co! ) G.j; SUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION I
C f...*..'.'
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC BOARD ,
3 In the Matter of )
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-515
)
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Answer to Forelaws on Board Motion for Suspension of Further Eearings and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been served on the following by deposit in the United States = ail, first class, this 6th day of February 1981.
Eli:abeth S. Bowers, Esq. Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Ato ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Chairman Ato:ic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com ission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Dr. Willia: E. Martin Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Senior Ecologist Battelle Memorial Institute Board Columbus, Ohio 43201 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walcer H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Fanel Washington, DC 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Alan-S. Rosenthal, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:ission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, DC 20555 Board Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
U.
Washington, DC 20555
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Frank Ostrander, Esq. Frank Josselton Assistant Attorney General William L. Hallmark State of Oregon R. Elaine Halltsrk 500 Pacific Building 8th Floor 520 S. W. Yamhill One S. W. Columbia Portland, Oregon 97204 Portland, Oregon 97258 Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet Forelaws on Board 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 j/ > _
4&R?D. dk)
Warren .4astingsf Of Attorneys for Applicants DRS/4-66.20B22
)
. . . . _ , . . . _ . , _ . . - - . , , , , . .,_.,m._. _., _, , , _ . _ - . , . , _ . . _ _ . . . , , , . . , , _ _ _ . , . . _ , _ , , ..+_ .;.. , , , ,, , . - -