ML17276B807

Suppl to Amended Petition to Intervene,Listing Contentions & Basis for Contentions

ML17276B807
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	04/19/1982
From:	Bell N NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML17276B809	List: ML17276B807 ML20054E151
References
NUDOCS 8204260185
Download: ML17276B807 (8)

Text

P 1

8 Faye uRT ENFOR"ATEON DISTRIBU ION SySTEM (RIDS)

I I

2o 018)

DOC ~ DATE: 82/0a/1g NOTARIZED.

HO FACIL:50-522 Skagi t Nuclear Power pr g

t' DOCKET 50-523 S~agit Nuclear Power Project~

Unit 2i Pu et sou ower ro ect< Unit 1i Puqet Sound Pow 05 0

0 052 AUTH NAb'E AUTHUR AFFILIATION-BELL N

Coalition for Safe Power

~

~

REC I P ~ NAtlE RECIPIENT AFFILIATED@

DISTRIoUTIuN CODE:

DSOSS COPIFS RECEIYFD:LTR D Er CL g

SIZE:

TITLE: Fi 1 ines (i'ot Or ig by nRC)

NCTE.S:

~

(J PT TR ETC L COPIES LTTR E"lCL RECIP IEKT Rc,CI P IEh T ID CODE/n At~ E L'IC R'NA LA DRY i f'! ~

t

SUBJECT:

Suppl to arrenuea peti tion to 'nt b

ion o intervenei 1 isting contentions asks for contentions'NTER'L:

ASLAP ELD PA EXTERNAL: LPoR NT1S 5

1 1

2 1

ASLG GC RGNS NRC PDR 01

~5 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REuUIRgD.

0 LTTR P

ENCL '7 44 w al h

~

44 I

t

/4 cf 4D c

4 cnrS y

'it'CL:"c.F..r.~ULATO~<

~w irk 4 J B:"FOHZ "'!iZ

8!:".HiCrc CO ~vZSSEG LEC:::S Z:::C 50 I:D c

~

~

~

':at"er c" 4

e a '

PO4:-R

'(":-:

c t/:ianforc 'Zuc

=-=-." P""-ect cs '4nc 2)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Doclcc t.pcs.

c4T\\

('I 44 c V

4lV h

w v 4

<<4 4

44

<<4'w Ll

~ a

~

~

4 4

4v 4 V

4 v 4

'lac' P "suan" to T'-'e e.". o= t.-.e Coce o= Pecera

~e=

Pa"t 2.ill (b) Pet'tic..er Cca1i"'cn

=or Safe Po1le hereby s"'"; ts its s"".."le;.,ent to its petition consistin! o" a list of cc.".=e.-.-

tiors and the bases

="" each contention.

l. et'ioner contencs that Applicant has

=ailec. to sho::

a

.".ee"

=or t! e S/ric"P as re-u='red bv the;:a" ional Ervi onmenta1 P"'=""

i>ct <<I.c the Co.-c4miss:cn's rules.

The..eed for the elec-rical ge 4e~a i~c capacity c= the project has rot been proper1's-a-olishec 1i n3. ch because Applicant has not developed an adecuate

.-ode akes t!;e folio;:inr into ccnside ation:

volur. ary cu "ailment of electrica1 consu-.:.prior.;

b.

c

~

the cortinuirg poor economy of tl'e regicn; Bonneville Po1~er ~aminstraPion incen" ives for con tion; d.

e.

e1asticity of demand; pea!1 loc.d -ricine to cia er demand

'andatory nec; co.".st uc ion stardarc.s

~ RFCE!VEQ APR 23 1~8~~

for c

4 nr

+ I4.c~ IIc,grafM~

y4~gjg KDMBtÃQ

~

]

so ar;

c. mandatory stanc;arc!s for cowae

'a 1 c~ d 3.'tous

!'Ie 1 tlnc and

~ ~ 44

~

~

coo1 '", 'c:htinc3 and aopl iance 1'se,

)

4 I

4

I 0+

/

~.

c "cec C:

S/<<:~>P 's compatible w'h

~

>a.-.=c-d Reservation in fai'ling to preser.t ""

uture use provice

-.-. assess;..ent c

-:..-.= ='act'vity betwee'n the project an'c othe" n 'cle r a.".

c'.-...ical '"c ~t--'a'cil't'es bv inadecuately cescribi.".g:

a.

the cnances in land-use w'hin a if"r

..ile "ac's, irlclucing "he develo=r;.ent o

a hazarcous waste cu;..

.. three

.-..'les

he " oposec. site; and

b. n"clear and chemical fac'it's:;ithin a ='ty nile

<<ac'us arc the activites conducted therein.

Pet'tioner contends that Applicant has ailec to concuc"

. a.-. asses's;..ent of the potential i...pact of the S/iiiuP on nuclea

, acilities and activ'ies locatec on the'.-.'anford

.-,eservaticn a-..c the ability oz these operations to cont'nue irl the even" c=

a najor accident at t1 e S/<-.~'P.

Petitioner contends that the Applicant has fa'led to conduct an a'ssessrl.ent" of the oo~entiaZ "i...=act"o= s rroundir.g

-r. clear -racili "ies and--activities on the S/iii!P p its ability C

cont'nue operation in the event o

ac"icents a" these fa-

'.ries and the loss of operat'on 'ability o S/t-.:,"-.

hese f cies incluce the Fast Flux Test Facility,

. c..

niles

=

or..

t.";e proposed site, which has the potent'="1 for a ',160 lbs.

acc'ent an" a containment capable of wi'thsta.".ding up.to 1=0-300. ebs.'TiNT and the ll-reactor wh'ch nas no ccntainient.

~ilding Ceoloav of the Proposed Site A 9 Petitioner contends that present geology and seisr.",ic s=. dies presentee by the Applicant are irladeauate and do not I

eeet the requirer..ents of 10 CFR 100 Ar.pendix A.

.-.=plicant has not consideied the safety sign'icance of all 'incr..ents

within a =:ve miles radius of the site.

Applicant has not adequatelv a.::sessed the Cold Creek svncline.

not 'dent=='ed all aults in t;".e Pasco Basin.

Applicant has 50.

'Peti"=one= con"ends tha" neither the Applicant nor the BC. Sta=f have'actored in the ef ects of the li+. S"'.

F.e ens volcanic activity on the area's geology and seismisitv and '.

efx:ect cn the'roject~

Numercus scientists fror. the U.S.

Geo-l logica'. rvey a'nd tne Universi=y o

( ashington have stat c

that the;".". St.

Helens activ'ty has chanced the geology of the Pac' c Northwest and what is know n about i'onsider ng the cont'nu'ing nature of this activity i" must be consicered an unresolved issue.

51.

Petitioner contends tnat Applicant has not considered tne Han ord geology and seismology in the design og the plant anc its safety systems.

Applicant merely has taken t.".e project f or.. the Skagit site anc placed it at F!anford.

One eva;..ole c= this is tne Hissoula Sands issue raised by the Staff.

$;ashincton Public Power Suoolv System Plants 4 and 5

~ ~

52.

Pet'ioner contends that 2"plicant Has not conside ed the-comoleticn of the'ter...inated nuc ear projects KPPSS 4'nd 5 as an alter".a,tive to the proposed project.

Furthermore,. Petitioner contends that since these two =lants are under NRC jur'd'-

tion the NZC. Sta. f and the ASLB must inves" gate tnis al" '

t tive.

Failure to do so would v'olate HEPA and the Commiss'on's regulat'ons.

53.

Pet'ioner contends that

<.PPSS 4 and 5 would be more likely to be accepted bv the Northwest Power Planning Council for regionalization than the S/HNP because construction has already been started on the units and because a majority of the re-L

docume""s had been rade aiiailable the issues wou}d exist t

anyway.

furthermore Pets tzoners

.have alreadv ra>sed a

number of issues ahd the possihili ty exists that no new issues will arise.

.Conclusion Raven the above facts and the showing that the require-

'ments of 10 CFR 2.".11(a) and 2.714(a)(l) have been

met, Petitioner Coalition for Safe Power p'rays that the Board xn the above-captioned proceeding

~rant this motion for an extension of tire.

Respectfully submitted, Dated this day, the 20th of April, 1982 Coalition For Safe Power 1