ML19209C027
| ML19209C027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1979 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110412 | |
| Download: ML19209C027 (7) | |
Text
' M LUCUMEiji 30e; 08/13/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO." MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS NG APPnAL BOARD 6
p st:
In the Matter of
)
(d' PUGET SOUND POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY, )
l K
/
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 p
3 Yp
)
STN 50-523
,9kagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
y Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITIONER TRIBES' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO ORDER OF J'JLY 9 _1979 t
INTRODUCTION By a Memorandum and Order dated July 9, 1979 (ALAB-552), the Appeal Board allowed the petitioning Indian Tribes an opportunity to address particular deficiencies noted by the Appeal Board with respect to the Tribes' attempt to establish substantial " good cause" for a late-filed petition.
Particularly, the Appeal Board invited the Indians to establish
"... whether because of inadequate investigation on the part of the federal agency or for some other reason, they were furnished erroneous information on matters of basic fact and that it was reliance upon that information which prompted their inaction prior to June 1978."
[ALAB-552, Slip. Op. at pp. 16-17.]
The Appeal Board also instructed the Indians that
"... in the instance of an asserted reliance on an erroneous statement of material fact, the memorandum should specify (1) where that statement appeared; and (2) when, and through what source, the tribes first learned that the statement was likely or possibly 4 error.
If the cJaim is that there was a failure on the part of a federal agency to disclose to the tribes a germane fact which either was or should have been known to that agency, the memorandum should similarly specify (1) the nature of that fact; and (2) when, and through what source, the fact first came to the tribes' attention."
[ALAB-552, Slip. Op. at
- p. 19, n.20.]
1130 099 7 9101107/p
On July 30, 1979, the Indien Tribes filed their supplemental memorandum in response to the Appeal board's Order.
The memorandum attempts to entablish that the NRC Staff, through information set forth in the Skagit Final :mviron-mental Statement (FES), gave misleading and possibly erroneous statements which were relied upon *o the detriment of the Indian Tribes.
They allege that these statements were made with respect to the three main areas of concern
-- namely, (1) genetic and somatic ef fects, (2) socio-econon ic impacts, and (3) Skagit River fisheries impact.
The NRC Staff submits that the assertions set forth in the Petitioner Tribes' Supplemental Memorandum fail to establish that any erroneous information was furnished to the Indians nor do they establish that the Indians relied on information provided in the Staff's FES to their detriment.
A.
Genetic and Sumatic Effects The Indian Tribes contend that genetic and somatic 11sks to the receptor Indian population from " normal" and " accidental" releasca have not been explored and that the risks are real and significant. The Indians then identify several statements in the FES to the effect that the radiological effects fron normal I
and abnormal plant operation are expected to be exceedingly small and will be an extremely minor contributor to the radiation dose that persons living in the area normally receive from background radiation (Memorandum, p.3).
The Indians claim that these statments are judgmental and unsupported because there has been no evaluation of the genetic and somatic susceptibility of Indian receptors.
The NRC Staff does not dispute the fact that the genetic and somatic impacts to Indian receptors have not been evaluated in the course of this application.
We are also of the opinion that these impacts should be evaluated to apprisa 1130 100
the Indians of the potential risks.
In fact, the NRC Staff has this evaluation under ray and has committed to complete it and make public its analysis and conclusions. However, these facts do not establieh that the statements rude in the FES were either misleading or erronecus. We think it is clear in the FES that radiological effects werc evaluated and computed by the Staff based on offsite population data without regard to specific receptors in that popu-lation.
FES 95.4.2.1 states:
"In general, radir. tion doses calculated by the Staff are intended to apply to an average adult.
Specific persons will receive higher or 1cwer doses, depending on their age, living habits, food pref-erences, or recreational activities."
Thus, the above statement should have put the Indians on notice that specific receptors in the population, e.g. Indians, were not specifically assessed in the Staff's evaluation of radiological effects and therefore, it would be difficult for the Indians to establish that they acted to their detriment when they relied on any statement in the FES concerning this issue.
Finally, we shculd correct a statement made in the memorandum regarding the FES analysis that "the environmental risks due to postulated radiological acci-dents are exceedingly small" (FES 67.1) is " infected" by its reliance on WASH-1400.
(Memorandum, pp.5-6).
The Staff's analysis of the envirenmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents as presented in the Skagit FES did not depend in any way on the results developed in WASH-1400.
In fact, WASH-1400 was only available in draft form at the time the Skagit FES was published and the FES makes it clear that the results of the study were not assessed by the Staff or the public.
See FES E7.1.
Accordingly, it is incorrcct for the Indians to assert that the Staff conclusions regarding the envirot. mental risks of postulated accidents is based, in part, on WASH-1400.
1,b n
B.
Socio-Ecor.omic impacts With respect to the socio-economic impacts isuue, the Indians again assert that the FE9 did not evcluate the socio-ec.>uomic impacts to Indian resources and populatimns.
riowever, a reading of the FES reflects that the Staff did evalu-ate the socio-economic impacts to the surrounding communitics, both with respect to construction activities (Section 4.5) and operational impacts (Section 5.u).
These evaluations assessed impacts to the population in general surround-ing the proposed Skagit site but did not concider the impacts to a unique segment of that population, e.g.
the Indians.
The Indians have not indicated how these evaluations are false nor have they established how the Steff's assessment of socio-economic impacts was misleading with respect to them.
In addition, they have not established how any statement made.by the NRC Staff was relied on to the detriment of the Indians.
C.
Skagit River Fisheries Impact The Indians contend that the FES and the FES Supplement were misleading and left the impression that there would be no fisheries impact (Memorandum, p.8).
How-ever, this is not the case.
Both the FES (Section 5.5.3.2) and the FES Supple-ment (Section 4.3.4) assessed the impacts to the Skagit fisheries and concluded that the potential for any substantial impact to aquatic biota was small. The Indians appear to challenge these conclusions by asserting that the underlying evaluations by the Staf f-were inadequate. However, the question on appeal is not whether the Staff's evaluation was inadequate (a conclusion the Staff would vigorously oppose), but rather whether statements made in the FES were false and relied upon by the Indians to their detriment.
In their memorandum, the Indians have not specified any " fact" asserted by the Staff in its FES which they be).ve to be false.
Therefore, we again believe that the Indians have failed to establish that they were furnished " erroneous information on matters 1130 102
. of basic fact and that it was reliance upon that information which prompted their own inaction prior to June 1978" (ALAB-552, Slip. Op. at pp. 16-17).
CONCLUSION As the Staff has previously indicated,1/ the Indians' intervention presents a very close question that must be given careful and deliberate consideration.
That consideration now has focused on one factor -- whether good cause exists for the late filing of the Indians' Petition.
To determine whether good cause exists, the Appeal Board has invited the Indians to substantiate their claims that they were furnished erroneous information on matters of basic fact and that they relied on that information sufficiently to cause them not to inter-vene until June 1978 to protect their interests. We submit that the Indians were not furnished erroneous information. We think it is clear what facts were relied on by the NRC Staff to support the statements in the FES with regard to the three matters discussed above.
We also believe it is sufficiently clear in the FES what was not analyzed by the Staff in the preparation of that docu-ment.
Since the Staff is of the opinion that the Indians were not furnished erroneous or misleading information, the Indians cannot establish that they relied on these statements in the Staff's FLS to their detriment.
Respectfully submitted, fil((
I R~ chard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Ibryland this 13th day of August, 1979 1 NRC Staff Response to Indians' Brief In Support of Appeal, dated June 29, 1979.
The Staff's position as to admission of Petitioner Tribes remains the same as 4_n its response of June 29, 1979.
11T9 1n3 IIJV iv
UNITED STATES OF A'fERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENCING E0ARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. S'IN 50-522 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE I herchy certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITIONER TRIBES' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN RESPON3E TO 01U)ER OF JULY 9,1979" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 13th day of August, 1979:
Valentine B.
Deale, Esq., Chairnan*
Robert C.
Schofield, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
120 W. Kincaid Street Washington, DC 20036 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Dr. Frank F. Ilooper, Member Roger M. Leed, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1411 Fourth Avenue School of Natural Resources Seattle, WA 98101 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Washington State Energy Facility Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member
- Site Evaluation Council Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 820 East Fifth Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Olympia, WA 98504 Washington, DC 20555 F. Theodore Thomsen, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen Lowenstein, Newman, Reis,
& Williams Axelrad & Toll 1900 Washington Building Suite 1214 Seattle, WA 98101 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
River, Bonyhadi & Drummond Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet 1400 Public Service Building c/o Forelaws on Board 920 S.W. 6th Avenue 19142 S. Bakers Feiry Road Portland, OR 97204 Boring, OR 97009 1130 104
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Thomas F. Carr, Esq.
State of Oregon Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Tenple of Justice 500 Pacific Building Olympia, WA 98504 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Donald S. Means Attorney for Swinomish Tribal Canadian Consulate General Community Robert Craham P. O. Box 277 Vice-Consul Laconner, WA 98257 412 Plaza 600 6th & Stewart Street Russell W. Busch, Esq.
- Seattic, WA 98101 Attorney for Upper Skap,it Indian Tribe and Sauk-Sulattle Indian Donald W. Codard, Supervisor Tribe Siting and Regulation Evergreen Leg'1 Services Departnent of Energy 520 Smith Tow 2r Room 111,. Labor and Industries Scattle, WA 98104 Building Salem, OR 97310 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
Warren Hastings, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Associate Corporate Counsel Washington, DC 20555 Portland General Electric Company Docketing and Service Section (4)*
121 S.W. Salmon Street Office of the Secretary Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa s'11n g t on, DC 20555 Patrick R. McMullen Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney Courthouse Annex Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 j Qt
(~
f Ric1(ardL.B1dek Coudsel for NRC Staf f Ih5
,