ML19256E408
| ML19256E408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Bergen L OREGON, STATE OF |
| To: | OREGON, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911050156 | |
| Download: ML19256E408 (4) | |
Text
t;!x, b-Y L!C y9 Y '
e.:. g1 ? s..
%/ '
,c jfl
- 7 , \9,"
1
\
c ,9 ,g @
r
$ [/
DATE: d j 7 t[/ ~
TO:
/
Members of the Energy Facility Siting Coun :il, and 15 Pebble Springs Parties Here is Volume I of the Proposed Order. It embodies my analysis as to whether the material received into evidence meets the requirements of the Council's standards. I have tried to make this Proposed Order succinct, and understand-able to non-experts.
Parties have until October 5,1979 to mail or deliver exceptions to this Proposed Order, Volum? I. Replies to the exceptions may be mailed or delivered until October 17, 1979. File any exceptions and replies in the normal manner, with the required number of copies (original and nine copies). Remember that one of the two copies formerly served on Lloyd Marbet is to be served on Carl Freedman at Box 553, Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110. Also, David Hupp's address now is 1155 - 13th NE, Salem, Oregon 97301.
I also am enclosing a summary prepared for news people and for those who have an interest in the case but may not spend the time to read the entire Proposed Order.
O i r
a w(/
Cowell Bel; gen
/SL 7 91105 0 M,j 1255 153
3 e
4
SUMMARY
OF CONCLUSIONS IN VOLUME I OF THE PPCPOSED ORDER Demand for Pebble Springs - There will be a demand for the output from Pebble Springs Unit 1 by 1987, the earliest date it can be constructed and operating. There will be a demand f or the output f rom Pebble Springs Unit 2 by the 1989-1991 time period. The requirements of the standard were met.
Economic Pruoence - No party present2d the evidence required by the Council to analyze the relative costs of the Pebble Springs Facility and proposed alternatives. Without the required evidence, no decision could be made as to whether the Pebble Springs Facility would be prudent f rom a cost standpoint. The evidence does not meet the requirements of the Council's standards.
Environmental Impacts - The proposed Pebble Springs Facility would be constructed, operated, and retired without undue adverse impacts on the environment. No federally-designated endangered plant or animal species would be harmed by the proposed f acility. The requirements of the standard were met.
Beneficial Use of Wastes - Applicant would make beneficial use of wastes and by-products produced by the construction and operation of the Pebble Springs Facility. The requirements of the standard were met.
Land Use - The Pebble Springs Facility would be constructed and operated in conf ormance with state-wide planning goals and county comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances. The requirements of the standard were met.
Historic or Archaeological Significance of Site - The proposed f acility would be constructed without damaging the site's limited historic and archeologic significance. The requirements of the standard were met.
Water Recuirements - The proposed facility would be con-structed and operated without infringing on the existing water rights of others. The requirements of the standard were met.
Ability to Construct, Operate, and Retire - Applicant proved that it would hire an appropriate architect-engineer, that it would institute a proper deviations-f rom-normal-operations procedure, that it would train its operators and supervisors as specified in the standard, and that it would execute an appropriate written agreement among the co-owners of the proposed project. Applicant did not prove that it would institute a training program for those who have author-ity to override recommendations of the plant superintendent relating to safety matters. Applicant also failed to prove 1255 154
that it would establish an off-sita organization, independent of personnel responsible for power production, with authority to shut down the facility. The chairman and another member of the planned off-site organization both are responsible for power production. Also, it is not clear the off-site organi-zation would have complete authority to shutdown the f acility.
The requirements of the standard, therefore, were not met.
Ability to Finance - PGE, PP&L, and Puget Sound Power &
Light Co. proved they have the financial resources to con-struct, operate, and retire the proposed f acility. The co-owner organized as a co-operative, Pacific Northwest Gener-ating Company, however, did not meet the ability to finance standard. It needed to prove that it had loan commitments for its share of the project, and that it had sales contracts for its share of the f acility's output. It is in the process of applying f or a loan commitment and is in the process of obtaining sales contracts for its share of the f acility's output. Since it does not have a loan commitment nor executed sales contracts, it has not met the requirements of the ability to finance standard.
Socio-Economic Impacts - Applicant identified the reason-ably f oreseeable socio-economic impacts of building and operating the proposed facility. And the affected area can absorb the resulting industrial and population growth. The requirements of the standard were met.
Public Health and Safety Normal Emissions - During normal operation, the proposed f acility would emit less radiation than the limits specified in the standard.
Plant Security - Applicant did not prove that security measures at the proposed f acility will be capable of success-f ully resisting determined sabotage efforts. Applicant's failure to present the evidence was apparently due to a concern that making the plans public would jeopardize its ability to protect the proposed facility.
Spent Fuel Storage - Applicant would store spent fuel, while the f uel is on-site waiting to be shipped elsewhere, in a storage facility designed to: prevent loss of fuel pool water; protect the f uel f rom mechanical damage; and prevent off-site exposure f rom exceeding the limits set in the standard if all the activity f rom the f uel rod gaps in ene fuel assembly is released. The requirements of the standard were met.
I255.155 Spent Fuel Transportation - Applicant would ship spent f uel in containers that could withstand the designated four-sequence accident and not emit more radiation than specified in the standard.
Earth-filled Dams - The reservoir at the proposed f acility would be f ormed by two earth-filled dams. The dams could withstand, without f ailure, reasonably expected loads and could be drained and refilled consistent with the safety of persons and property interests downstream. The require-ments of the standard were met.
ROLE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER The hearings officer acts for the Siting Council in conducting the hearing. The Proposed Order is the hearings officer's analysis as to whether the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Council's standards. The Proposed Order does not contain the hearings officer's personal opinion about nuclear energy, but is the result of a comparison of the evidence received during the hearing with the criteria established in the standards.
The Council may accept, modif y, or reject the recommenda-tions in this Proposed Order. The Council will make the final decisien, and will put that decision in its final order.
VOLUME II OF THE PROPOSED ORDER Current plans call for reopening the hearing to consider what can be learned f rcm the Three-Mile Island Unit 2 accident and to receive additional evidence on the cost and availa- -
bility of long-term storage for spent f uel assemblies. House Bill 2570, passed by the recent session of the Oregon Legis-lature and signed by Governor Atiyeh, directs the Department of Energy to study those two matters, and the studies will be filed during the reopened hearing. Evidence received during the reopened hearing, and evidence on the following subjects, will be treated in Volume II of the Proposed Order: The emergency core cooling system; emissions from an abnormal occurrence; emergency plans; decommissioning the facility; residual risks; waste disposal.
1255 i56 .