ML19211A112

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

ML19211A112
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	11/30/1979
From:	Little D, Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN, PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19211A089	List: ML19211A088 ML19211A107 ML19211A112
References
NUDOCS 7912170048
Download: ML19211A112 (100)

Text

.- -.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT

) Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) November 30, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO SCANP PROPOSED FINDINGS This-is Applicants' reply to Intervenor SCANP's proposed findings of fact dated October 12, 1979 (SCANP Proposed Findings).

1595 093 7 91g170 gqg

.. y TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Environmental Impact Statements....'.......... . 1 B. Impac ts o f Cons t r uc t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Impacts of Operation.......................... 15

1. Construction Work Force Immigration....... 15

2. Construction Traffic...................... 18 D. Cooling Tower Operation....................... 21

1. Meteorological Data Base.................. 22

2. Weather Modifications..................... 24

3. Drift Deposition.......................... 26

4. Imp a c t o n B i rd s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 E. Visual Impacts................................ 30

1. Coo li ng Tow e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2. Visual Impacts of Other Onsite Alterations..................... 35

3. Visual Impacts of Of fsite Alterations. . . . . 36 F. Project Discharge............................. 38 1595 094 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page G. Ranney Collec tor Sy s te m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 50

1. Bank Stability............................ 50

2. Yield..................................... 53

3. Iron Bacteria............................. 54

4. Ef fec ts of Chlor ine Flushing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 55

5. S e d ime n ta t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 H. Al t e r n a t iv e S i te s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 I. Me t e o r o log y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 J. Wild & S c e n i c R i v e r s Ac t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 K. Rad io log ic a l Re le a se s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 L. Ef f ec ts o f Postula ted Acc iden ts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Appendix B - Transcript 1595 095

-iii-

A. Environmental Impact Statements

1. As is the case in many parts of the SCANP Proposed Find ing s , much of the discussion under this heading is actually an attemp: to raise new issues. Thus, while the adequacy of Applicants ' Environmental Report; compliance with the Fish &

Wildlife Coordination Act; responsiveness to environmental im-pact statement comments; recognition of Ranney Collector System design modifications; consideration of Indian populations; en-vironmental impact statement completeness with respect to cool-ing water system alternatives; and consideration of environmen-tal impacts outside of the United States are nowhere mentioned in the SCANP Contentions or those of any other party, they are the subject of the bulk of this portion of the SCANP Propbsed Find ing s . SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 1, 2-7, 14-15, 22-25, pp. 1-4, 6-7, 9-11. SCANP was cautioned concerning th is problem a number of times and offered an opportunity to amend its contentions. See, e.g., Tr. 2147-168, 2171-178. However, it never bothered to do so. Having failed to raise issues in contentions, it is now too late to attempt to place them in controversy by means of proposed findings, at least in the complete absence of a showing of direct interest. See, e.g.,

Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) 8 AEC 857, 867 (1974); 10 CFR Part 2, App. A. S III(a) (3) . Further, they are all without mer it.

1595 096

_1_

2. As for the adequacy of the environmental review of the Project with respect to aquatic and terrestrial impacts, con-struction work force impacts, the economic significance of the Skagit River fisheries and surrounding agriculture, Ranney Col-lector System design modifications, alternative sites, genetic or somatic ef fects due to releases, the impact of cooling towers and other structures on birds, and the consideration of n.

accidents (see SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 9-21, pp. 5-9),

full consideration of these matters is presented in the Staff and Applicants proposed findings and/cr elsewhere in this reply and need not be repeated here. F't r th e r , the social and eco-nomic costs associated with the generation of electricity to meet regional needs will be treated in proposed findings on the cost-benefit analysis for the f acility, to be filed later.

3. Insofar as the issue of a surface water intake struc-ture as an alternative to the proposed Ranney Collector System is concerned (SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 1, 23, pp. 1, 9-10),

the record reveals that the matter was fully disclosed and dis-cussed in both the Environmental Report, Exh. 4, SS 10.2.1 and 10.2.2, and the FES, p. 9-13. Consideration of this alterna-tive was later discontinued as being unreasonable and, in any event, would require additional NRC and State approvals. Tr.

7869, 7917-920, 10,471-474, 10,636, 12,281-283.

I595 097

4. With respect to SCANP's complaint concerning the NRC Staff's response to a Department of Commerce comment on fish facility discharges in light of possible, future pollution standards (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 7, pp. 3-4), the reply was, in fact, responsive. Among other things, it referred to section 3.7.3 of the FES which notes that the effect of the fish-rearing facility on the composition of Project discharge "will be nearly negligible." The comment then concludes that

[T]he total ef f ect of the discharge is not expected to violate established water quality standards. There-fore, additional treatment of the fish-rearing effluent appears unnecessary.

FES, p. 11-4. In context, the term " established" need not be limited to encompassing present, but may be expanded to include anticipated standards.1 As for compliance with Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, as embodied in 40 CFR 1Further, 10 CFR S 51.26 (b) , contrary to the reading suggested by SCANP, does not require a complete response to each and every comment but "a meaningful reference to the existence of any responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the draft environmental statement, indicating the response to the issues raised." It then continues:

All substantive comments received on the draft (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous) will be attached to the final statement, whether or not each such comment is individually discussed in the text of the statement.

(Emphasis added.)

1595 098 S 1500.8 (a) (1) (1978) (see SCANP Proposed Finding No. 12, pp. 5-6), it should be noted that the FES Final Supplement was modified to take into account precisely the State of Washington Department of Game comment referred to by SCANP. See FES Final Supp., pp. 4-19, 11-6, A-12.

5. SCANP also asserts that there has been a failure to comply with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C.

S 661 et seq. SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 4-6, pp. 2-3. The short answer is that it has long been well established that good-f aith compliance with NEPA will automatically take into consideration all of the necessary factors under the Fish and Wildlif e Coordination Act ( FWC A) , and that to require separate compliance with both .sould be unreasonable. See, e.g., Envi-conmental De fense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke, 473 F.2d 346, 356 (8th Cir. 1972); Sierra Club v. Morton, 400 F. Supp. 634, 640 n.47 (N.D. Ca. 1975); Cace Henry Bird Club v. La ird , 359 F.

Supp. 404, 417-18 (W.D. Va. 1973), aff'd, 484 F.2d 453 (4th Cir. 1973). Since the Skagit proceeding clearly reflects good-faith compliance with NEPA, the requirements of the FWCA have been met.

6. Moreover, National Wildlife Federation v. Andrus, 440 F. Supp. 1245, 10 ERC 1353 (D.D.C. 1977), cited by SCANP, is not to the contrary. Although the court there did find a 1595 099 failure to comply with the FWCA, it did so in a situation where not only had there been a failure to meet the requirements of NEPA, but--in add ition--the construction of a federal dam was proceeding without proper congressional authorization. Accord-ingly, action was occurring of which Congress, in the absence of the report prescribed by the FWCA (16 U.S.C. S 662 (b)) , was unaware. Id. at 1255, 10 ERC 1360. Thus, the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from those here.

7. Further--and apart from the question of compliance with NEPA, as such--the requirements of the FWCA have, in fact, been met. The Department of Interior was consulted at the time of the preparation of both the FES and FES Final Supplement and commented on both.2 See FES, p. 11; FES Final Supp.,

pp. ii-lii. Washingtor State has been consulted and constantly involved with the Project Jy means of, for example, proceedings before the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council--of which both the State Department of Fisheries and the State Department of Game are members--and comments of the 2

Contrary to SCANP (see SCANP Proposed Findings, p. 2) the comments have been thoroughly considered. The effects of dredging should not be of concern since no dredging is expected in connection with the pressure vessel delivery. See, e.g.,

FES Final Supp., fol. Tr. 7766, p. 4-20. Floodplain effects, of course, have been addressed in detail. See, e.g., Tr.

14,472-558.

1595 100 State Parks and Recreation Commission, Department of Ecology, and the Department of Game on the FES and FES Final Supple-ment. See, e.g., Exhs 57, 84; FES, p. 11; FES Final Supp.,

p. iii. All are part of the record of this proceeding. Thus, the specific requirements of the FWCA, as embodied in 16 U.S.C.

S 662 (a) , (b) have, in fact, been met.

8. Finally, with respect to environmental impacts and Indians (see SCANP Proposed Finding No. 22, p. 9), the FES and FES Final Supplement are both nondiscriminatory in addressing, among other things, environmental impacts on the population as a whole, including Ind ians .

Where special impacts are con-cerned, such as Indian fishing, they have been considered. See FES, Table 2.11 and SS 4.3.1, 11.7.9. Insofar as environmental impacts outside of the United States are concerned, they, too, have been adequately considered, as discussed in " Applicants' Answer to Intervenor SCANP's Motion To Require Implementation of Executive Order 12114," filed with the Board on November 1, 1979. SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 24-25, pp. 10-11.

B. Imoacts of Construction

9. Tne matter of construction impacts was r owb.ece raised in the contentions of SCANP or any other party. Accordingly, 1595 101 as in the case of Environmental Impact Statements, it is im-proper to place issues into controversy now by means of pro-posed findings. Nevertheless, as the discussion below demonstrates, the points raised by SCANP are without merit.

10. With' respect to terrestrial impacts (SCANP Proposed Finding s Nos. 1-3, pp. 13-15), and in contrast to the statement on page 13 of the SCANP Proposed Findings, the Staf f did not characterize the impact of land clearing as " temporary." In fact, the very portions of the record cited by SCANP in support of its statement are to the contrary; the cited portions refer to such things as "a loss of habitat for several species of fauna," and the permanent nature of the " terrestrial impacts associated with . . . road construction."

11. The other point missed by SCANP is that only a rela-tively small amount of land will be disturbed in the first place: an onsite plus of fsite total of about 500 acres. FES, S 10.1.1.1. Moreover, the record contains extensive documenta-tion--other than the Goldstein and Dvorak testimony criticized by SC ANP--establish ing that the onsite and offsite construction areas represent but a tiny fraction of terrestrial biota habitats in the site region and contain no unique habitats.

Myers, fol. Tr. 2627, p. 2; FES, SS 2.7.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1; FES Final Supp., SS 5.4, 5.5, 5.6; Exh. 4, SS 2.7.2.2, 2.7.3.2, 4.1.1, 4.3.

1595 102

12. With respect to siltation control measures and " flash storms,"3 (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 4, p. 16), limits have been established in the NPDES Permit on the basis of a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. See Exh. 83, Attachment I, p. 9. A monitoring program will be established and, if limits are not met, remedial action taken. See Exh. 4, S 4.1.2.1.2.

13. With respect to the discharge dif fuser (SCANP Proposed Find ing s Nos. 5-6, pp. 16-17), its location has been deter-mined. See, e.g., FES Final Supp., pp. 4-14; Exh. 83, Attach-ment I, p. 2. The NPDES Permit does require an investigation with respect to the precise location of the dif fuser and pos-sible improvements. Exh. 83, Attachment I, p. 17. However, no major changes in the impact of the dif fuser are expected. FES Final Supp., S 11.12.2. As to the actual installation of the d if fuser itself, construction ef fects, including the production 3It should be noted, from the record, that Mr. Newman's testimony, referenced on p. 16 of SCANP Proposed Findings, does not concern construction run-of f, but that from the Bacus Road SR-20 intersection pavement. Tr. 6821-823, 1595 103 of some turbidity and the loss of some benthic habitat, have been evaluated and found acceptable. See, e.g., FES, S 4.4.2, Derickson, Tr. of 31 July 1975 (Vol. II), pp. 1-3. See also Applicants Proposed Finding No. 30, p. 17.

14. As for barge slip construction (SCANP' Proposed Finding No. 7, pp. 17-18), there is no inconsistency between the Staff's statements in the FES and FES Final Supplement and the quoted finding of fact. It is clear that the turbidity ex-pected by the Staff is from cofferdam installation and removal, as well as possible shoreline restoration, and not from dis-charges of construction water. See FES Final Supp., S 4.4.3.

Insofar as coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers is concerned (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 8, p. 19), required permits for both the barge slip and discharge diffuser will, of course, be obtained. Thus, Corps involvement is assured.

15. In connection with Reactor Pressure Vessel ( RPV) delivery, SCANP suggests that the removal of snags in the river (which might impede barge passage) could have adverse effects on the aquatic environment. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 9,

p. 19. The NRC Staff, however, conducted a detailed assessment of barge travel up the river and found the expected impact on aquatic biota from snag removal to be insignificant. NRC Staff Assessment of Impacts Associated with the Delivery of the Reactor Pressure Vessel ("RPV Delivery Assessment"), fol.

1595 104 Tr. 12,216, pp. 4-8. See also Hulman, et al., fol. Tr. 14,476,

p. 5; Tr. 14,490-495. As for the installation of culverts and resultant " reduction in spawning and rearing habitat" (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 10, pp. 19-20), it is relevant to note that only small portions of Hansen and Coal Creeks will be af '

fected. RPV Delivery Assessment, fol. Tr. 12,216, pp. 10, 12.

Further there is no evidence in the record indicating that the affected areas will not return to their original state. In fact, the uncontradicted conclusion of the Staff is that cul-vert installation and the lining of the bottom with gravel "may produce salmonid spawning habitat but, at a minimum, culvert installation should not remove potential spawning habitat."

Id., p. 12. With respect to siltation, as the Staff has noted, most particulate matter will settle out near the construction area and remain there until fall, when runoff increases, where-upon it will be redistributed downstream with natural sediments by the flushing action. Id., p. 9. Further, the number of any steelhead trout emerging should be small; with emergence com-plete by mid-July. Id.

16. SCANP devotes considerable attention to possible siltation resulting from road and sewer pipeline construction and related effects. SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 11-20, pp. 21-29. However, in spite of SCANP's statements to the con-trary, the record is clear that virtually no harmful siltation 1595 105 should result. The road and sewer work was analyzed by numer-ous witnesses, including Mr. Goettge, a civil engineer for the Applicants, and Dr. Goldstein, an aquatic ecologist for the Staff. Tr. 6727; Goettge, fol. Tr. 6598, Appendix A. No serious problems with siltation were identified. See, e.g.,

Goettge, fol. Tr. 6598, Appendix A, pp. 5-6, 11-12; Dvorak, et al., fol. Tr. 6732, pp. 6-8. With respect to the road work, even SCANP witness Newman indicated--modifying his earlier testimony somewhat--that direct surface drainage, carrying silt, from the area of major work would not enter Wiseman Creek. Tr. 6812-815, 6818-825. As far as the sewer line is concerned, as it approaches each of the bridges (over Wiseman, Coal and Hansen Creeks), it angles up from the trench to the ground surface near the bridge. The routing is such that the stream banks will not have to be disturbed with any heavy equipment, thereby preventing the possibility of silt entering the streams from the work. See Goettge, fol. Tr. 6598, pp. 2, 3; Finnegan, fol. Tr. 6591, p. 4; Exh. 104.

17. SCANP also makes mention of allegations--all raised by Mr. Newman--concerning the possibility that the sewer line trench could act as an aquifer, causing water to flow toward the streams (especially on the west side of Coal Creek); that the trench could drain existing wet areas; and that significant erosion might occur as a result of roadwork. SCANP Proposed 1595 106 Findings Nos. 11-13, pp. 21-23. With respect to the possible flow of water to the streams, however, the sewer line profile drops quite rapidly west of Coal Creek (Exh. 113, Sheet 5 (Sta-tions 43+75 to 55+00)) except in a 160-foot stretch just west of the creek. In that stretch, there is a slight slope of the sewer line down toward the creek, but this slope ends outside the creek bank as the sewer line rises to be attached to the bridge. Exh. 113, Sheet 5 (Stations 42+13.77 to 43+75) .

Therefore, even if the sewer line might act as an aquifer, the amount of drainage would be small and would be intercepted by the creek bank. Near the other creeks the sewer line slopes away from the creeks. Exh. 113, Sheet 3 (as modified at Tr. 6926-926), and Sheets 11, 12; Tr. 6839. Accordingly, the stated concern is not justified.

18. As for the possibility that the sewer line might drain wet areas, this would appear extremely unlikely since the wet areas are already lower than surrounding terrain and, hence, would not be drained by the sewer line trench. Tr. 6870, 6893-894. For example, Mr. Newman pointed out a boggy area north of SR-20 and west of Coal Creek. Exh. 112, Photograph 9; Tr. 6827. However, the profile of the sewer line shows this area as being a depression with the sewer line rising both east and west of the area. Exh. 113, Sheets 3, 6, and 7 (Stations 43+75 to 80+00). In addition, Mr. Newman indicated that the 1595 107 possibility of draining wetlands is based on his assumption that the trench would be lef t open for a month or two during the dry season. Tr. 6893-894. As he recognized, such a prac-tice is extremely unlikely. Tr. 6705, 6882.

19. In addition, with respect to erosion, measures such as revegetation, netting and straw will be employed for control.

Goettge, fol. Tr. 6598, pp. 6-7, and Appendix A, p. 10; Dvorak, et al., fol. Tr. 6732, pp. 9-10. Even SCANP witness Newman has ag reed as to their ef ficacy. See, e.g., Tr. 6846, 6853-854.

20. In essence, the conclusions of fered by SCANP are based on the premise that there will be significant siltation. As discussed above, however, this premise is in error. Such siltation as does occur will be small and distributed over various phases of construction. Further, construction activi-ties will be timed to minimize the impact of erosion. See, e.g., Tr. 2656-661-A. Insof ar as SCANP's criticism of environ-mental monitoring is concerned, conclusions of the Applicants and the NRC Staff are based on recent field work 4 and the 4With respect to " differences of opinion between the Washing ton State Department of Fisheries and the Dames and Moore consultant to the Applicant" (SCANP Proposed Findings, pp. 24-25), information has, in fact, been updated as a result of certain more recent investigations performed in connection with the Project. See Tr. 2026-028. However, this is not a problem and, in fact, would be expected.

1595 108 application of standard scientific techniques and clearly pro-vide an adequate basis for assessing impacts. See, e.g.,

Exh. 4, S 2.7.5; FES, S 4.4.2.; Tr. 7025-027.

21. In concluding, SCANP ref ers to ef fect.s of clearcutting along streams, the discharge of water used to flush water-bearing systems, noise, dust and the burning of non-mer-chantable timber. SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 21-24, pp. 29-31. With respect to tree removal, due to recent clear-cut logging in the site vicinity, construction activity onsite and along rights-of-way will result in only a small increase in stream length from which the canopy is removed, therefore caus-ing only minor alteration in ambient temperature, with little impact on fish populations. Minimizing the length of stream bank cleared and preserving a buffer zone adjacent to the stream will further reduce temperature ef f ects, as will the cooling effects of downstream ravines and waterfalls. Further-more, most salmon spawning occurs during the period of high-water flow and minimal insolation when temperature increases will be least. FES, S 4.4.2.2; Exh. 4, S 4.1.2.1.1. System flushing water, of course, will meet NPDES standards; and the generation of noise, dust and burning of non-merchantable tim-ber have all been evaluated and found acceptable. FES Final Supp., SS 4.1.11, 4.2.10, 4.3.10, 4.4.10, 4.5.10, 4.7.1, 4.7.10, 5.9; FES, S 4.5.3; Myers, fol. Tr. 2627, pp. 6-7; Exh. 4, SS 4.1.1.4, 4.1.1.5.

1595 109 C. Soc io-Economic Impacts

22. In its proposed findings on socio-economic impacts, SCANP addresses two subjects: (1) construction work force im-

' migration, and (2) construction traffic. SCANP Proposed Find-ing s, pp. 32-41. Since neither subject was raised in any con-tention, it is impermissible for SCANP to attempt to place these matters into controversy now by means of proposed find-i ng s . In any event, tl+. ' findings proposed by SCAMP are without merit.

1. Construction Work Force Immigration

23. SCANP argues that the delay in the commencement of construction will result in a significantly larger labor force. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 3, p. 32. This is specula-tion, without support in the record.

24. SCANP challenges Dr. Winters' conclusion that it is likely that the Skagit work force can be recruited from the Bellingham-Seattle labor pool. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 4,

p. 33. SCANP attempts to undercut this conclusion by suggest-ing that it is an assumption with no basis in fact and that Dr.

Winters failed to consider the possibility of other major con-struction activities within the same labor pool area. It is clear, however, that Dr. Winters' conclusion was no mere 1595.110 assumption but was based on data comparing worker availability with the needs of Skagit. Winters, fol. Tr. 13,361, pp. 8-10.

These data show excess workers in all crafts, who would be available for other construction projects in the area. Id.,

p. 10. As for the possible effects of the Boeing expansion in Everett, the suggestion that Boeing will employ the same skills as needed for Skagit is speculation, at best. Tr. 13,893-895.

The possible effects of the proposed Northern Tier pipeline are also quite speculative, both as to area of impact and construc-tion schedule. Tr. 13,828-831; Exh. 194.

25. Dr. Winters estimated that "perhaps 5 to 10 percent" of the Skagit work force would be willing to commute daily from the Seattle area. Winters, fol. Tr. 13,361, p. 8. However, SCANP argues that even fewer will be willing to do this because of the expense. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 5, pp. 33-34. It is equally logical to conclude that the increased cost of gaso-line will promote carpooling and that this, coupled with the tight housing market in Skagit County, will increase rather than decrease the number of workers willing to commute from the Seattle area. At best, this matter also is rather speculative.

26. SCANP seeks to undermine Dr. Winters' estimate that about 20 percent of the peak work force will move to Skagit, Whatcom and Snohomish Counties, by suggesting that his estimate 1595 111 is based on guesswork and unfounded assumptions. SCANP Pro-posed Finding No. 6, pp. 34-35. To the contrary, Dr. Winters relied, in part, on the experience at Trojan. Winters, fol.

Tr. 13,361, p. 10. The figure for Trojan was an estimate, not an assumption or guess, as implied by SCANP. This was made clear by Mr. Myhra in the questions and answers that immediately follow those quoted by SCANP:

Q. Did they conduct any surveys to establish that or did they advise you that they established that?

A. They advised me that that was their best estimate.

Q. They advised that 90 percent of the workers were workers who previously resided in the area?

A. Yes, that 's correct.

(Myhra testimony, TPPSEC Application 74-1, Vol. X, p. 166, as cited by SCANP, p. 35.)

27. Finally, SCANP questions the ability of Skagit County, through land use, zoning and other measures, to control and mitigate the effects of whatever level of work force immigra-tion may occur. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 8, pp. 'c-38. In so doing, however, SCANP ignores the opinion of the skagit County Planning Department that " adequate measures can be taken to mitigate any adverse impacts arising from this influx of construction workers." FES, p. A-37. It also ignores the per-tinent provisions of the rezone contract between Puget and Skagit County, particularly Articles 5.2 and 5.3, which provide 1595 112 for construction impact payments to school districts and for law enforcement agencies. Exh. 4, Appendix K, Part 4. Even more comprehensive is Article VI C, Social and Economic Imoacts, of the Skagit Site Certification Agreement between Puget and the State of Washington, which provides for the moni-toring of primary and secondary socio-economic impacts, and for the payment of claims for such impacts to counties, cities, school districts and other governmental agencies. Exh. 83, pp. 32-34. When these matters are taken into account, the con-clusion of the Staff that the impacts associated with the in-migration of workers will be acceptable is amply supported.

Winters, fol. Tr. 13,361, p. 12.

2. Construction Traffic

28. All parties recognize that the construction traffic will, at times, result in some traffic congestion. The ques-tion is how bad will the congestion be and how much weight should be attributed to it in striking the cost-benefit balance. Although not mentioned by SCANP in its prococad find-ings, an important f actor in answering this questir .s Article III N, Construction Traffic, of the Site certification Agreement, which provides for the development of plans and methods to prevent traffic overloads. Exh. 83, pp. 22-23.

I595 113 These measures provide assurance that the impacts of construc-tion traffic will be acceptable. We turn now to the details urged by SCANP.

29. SCANP argues that the average vehicle occupancy rate used by MacIsaac, Applicants' traffic expert, was overly opti-mistic and based on specious assumptions. SCANP Proposed Find-ing No. 10, pp. 38-39. SCANP attempts to support this argument by suggesting that MacIsaac f ailed to understand the derivation of the 1.44 occupancy rate stated in a Woodward-Clyde report, and revised it upward without sound reasons. However, as MacIsaac explained, the derivation of the 1.44 figure is simply not given in the Woodward-Clyde report. Tr. 2345-346.

MacIsaac did not revise the Woodward-Clyde figure, he simply rejected it as unsupported. Then, using the same raw data as Woodward-Clyde, he derived his own occupancy rate estimate in the manner and using the sources and rationale he identified.

MacIsaac, fol. Tr. 2292, pp. 5-6; Tr. 2343-348. If anything, in view of the worsened outlook for the price and availability of automobile fuels since MacIsaac testified in July 1975, it seems likely that his occupancy rate estimate was too low rather than too high.

30. SCANP argues that MacIsaac's assumption of service level E caused him to overestimate the capacities of the local roads. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 11, pp. 39-40. SCANP fails 1595 114 to note, however, that the road capacities MacIsaac used in preparing his estimates were those suggested by the Washington State Highway Department for the particular roads involved.

Tr. 2324-325. Thus SCANP's level of service argument misses the point. The same is true of its argument based on the sub-standard lane width (11 vs. 12 f ee t) of SR-20. SCANP Proposed Find ing No. 12, p. 40. Again, the capacities used by MacIsaac reflect the judgment of the State Highway Department as well as the existing conditions of the particular roads involved.

Tr. 2324-325.

31. SCANP's final point is that as of the time of MacIsaac 's testimony in July 1975, neither Skagit County not the State of Washing ton had developed plans or appropriated funds for the road improvements envisioned by MacIsaac. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 14, p. 40. However, MacIsaac was opti-mistic that the legislature would respond favorably to the identified need given the relatively low cost of the improve-ments envisioned. Tr. 2333-334. Add itionally , subsequent to MacIsaac 's testimony, Puget entered into the previously mentioned site certification agreement which includes, among other improvements to facilitate construction traffic, left turn channelization as well as financing by Puget. Exh. 83, Article III N, pp. 22-23.

1595 115 D. Cooling Tower Operation

32. SCANP exaggerates plume visibility by citing only the maximum winter plume leng th. The visible plume is longer in the winter because the capacity of air to hold moisture de-creases with colder temperatures. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 1, p. 42. The plume lengths will average 300 meters (980 f ee t) in summer, and about 1300 meters (4300 feet) in winter.

Exh. 4, S 5.1.3.2, FES S 5.3.1.1. The Staff found these pre-dictions of plume leng ths to be reasonable. FES S 5.3.1.2.

33. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 2, pp. 42-43, includes quo-tations from the FES regarding 1) the possibility of inadver-tent weather modifications, and 2) the suggestion that fallout of salts contained in the drif t could adversely affect soil and vegetation in the area. However, the subsequent conclusions of the Sta ff, which SCANP f ails to quote, are first, that "obser-vations do not support any serious concern over possible weather mod ifications," and second, that, "the maximum salt deposition from drift is therefore expected to be less than the normal deposition from rainf all. " FES S 5.3.1.2. SCANP Pro-posed Finding No. 2, should, therefore, be rejected as incomplete and misleading.

1595 116

34. Contrary to SCANP's assertion that few studies have been made on the impacts of existing natural draf t cooling towers (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 2, p. 43), studies on the character istics, operation, and impacts of existing natural draf t cooling towers are wide in scope and numerous. See, e.g., FES S5 (Refs. 1-7, 10-17, 19, 23, 24); FES S 11 (Refs.

11, 12, 13); Exh. 4, S 3.4 (Ref. 1) ; Exh. 4, S 5.1 (Refs. 19, 22, 23) ; Tr. 3123-125, 3247, 3255-256.

35. With regard to SCANP's assertion that studies have been done in places "very different" from the Skagit Valley (SCANP Proposed Findings No. 2, p. 43), the record indicates that the areas studied have not been dissimilar to Skagit in topographic features, Tr. 3257, or in climate, FES S 5.3.1. 2.

Even SCANP's own witness, Professor Badgley, testified that the British experience with natural draf t cooling towers indicated, at most, minimal ef f ects on climate, rain, and snow, and that this represented an analogous situation to the Skagit River Valley. Tr. 3151-152.

1. Meteorolog ical Data Base

36. SCANP states that Professor Badgley found numerous flaws and shortcomings in the Applicants' study of meteorology and that more studies are needed. SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 3-7, pp. 42-45. In f ac t , SCANP witness Badgley testified that he was in general ag reement with the Staff's evaluations, 1595 117 calculations, and conclusions. Tr. 3132. He testified that the routine determinations of meteorological conditions had been performed and that no deficiencies in the gathering of the data existed. Tr. 3135. Dispersion calculations had been made in a proper and routine fashion and accurately reflected dis-persion at the site. Tr. 3149, 3178.

37. With regard to the concern that the induced wind from the cooling tower could overpower the natural winds and draw in materials, Professor Badgley testified that no additional data is needed. Tr. 3154-155. With regard to maximum downflow of air from the site to the valley, no additional data is neces-sary to determine the extent of the flow and its confinement within the valley. Tr. 3181. With regard to the Pasquill categories, Badgley testified that the use of 60-meter and 10-meter data was sufficient to delineate those categories.

Tr. 3160. When asked whether instrumentation at a level of 3,000 or 4,000 feet on Cultus Mountain would be helpful, Badgley testified that from a theoretical standpoint it would be "very nice" but that from a practical standpoint no addi-tional information relevant to dif fusion would be gained.

Tr. 3169, 3175-171, 3180-181. In addition, the radiosonde data for 3,000 feet at Quiliut would be " fairly well correlated" to 3,000-foot level winds over Skagit. Tr. 3179.

1595 118

38. SCANP's contentions relating to the adequacy of Applicants' meteorological data and studies are addressed in additional detail in Section III C, Meteorology, of Applicants' proposed findings and in Section I, Meteorology, of this reply. In sum, SCANP's proposed findings are contrary to the evidence and should be rejected by the Board.

2. Weather Modifications

39. SCANP asserts that plumes form cumulus clouds. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 8, p. 45. In fact, the authority cited by SCANP states that the formation of cumulus clouds is rare and appears only to precede natural cloud formation. FES S 5. 3.1. 2. Weather conditions which favor long plumes are also favorable for cloudy skies at the Skagit site. Under these cond it ions , the cooling tower plumes will either level of f below the existing cloud cover or actually merge with it, reducing the visual impact. FES S 5.3.1.2. Only occasionally is the plume expected to increase low-level cloud substance and duration. Exh. 4, 5 5.1.3.2. While the plume will cause a small amount of shading, the staff has evaluated this impact and concluded as follows:

Apart from the visual impact, the only environmental ef fect of the plumes is expected to be a small reduc-tion in the amount of sunshine in the area beneath the plumes. The area affected will be small and will be mainly on the plant property. The staff expects no measurable impact on agricultural production f rom this cause.

1595 119 FES S 5. 3.1. 2. See also, Applicants Proposed Findings, Nos. 50-51, pp. 29-20.

40. SCANP states that " precipitation has, in the past, been enhanced by cooling tower plumes." SCANP Proposed Finding No. 9, p. 46. In fact, in only one study has the possibility of precipitation enhancement even been suggested. Exh. 4, S 5.1.3.6. As for possible ecological effects, the amount of water vapor contributed by the Skagit forest cover alone is three times that which will be contributed by the cooling towers. Exh. 4, S 5.1.3.4. At most, this slight increase in moisture may cause minor changes in distribution of moisture sensitive vegetation.

41. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 10, pp. 46-47, states that plumes f rom cooling towers in Pennsylvania have been reported to descend to ground level, causing ground fogging. In fact, the record shows that this was an isolated event, the only one ever reported in the literature. FES S 5.3.1.2. Observations of cooling tower operation support the conclusion that visible plumes seldom, if ever, descend to ground level. While instan-ces of snow showers and ice crystal formation have been repor-ted, SCANP omits the fact that the amounts of precipitation were very small. FES S 5.3.1.2.

42. The occurrence of subfreezing temperatures may result in icing on SR-20 f rom cooling tower dr if t. Subfreezing temperatures can be expected during approximately 65 days of 1595 120 the year but advance warning is usually available. Exh. 4, S 5.1.3.3. Icing f rom dr if t is indistinguishable f rom that due to natural causes. FES S 5.3.1. 2. During ic ing , normal county highway procedures are expected to be maintained. While the Burling ton Northern railroad tracks may experience some icing, because the diesel locomotives carry sand for the purpose of improv ing traction and since limited use is made of this line, no significant impact on rail transportation is expected.

Exh. 4, S 5.1.3.3. In addition, the major portion of the drift deposition will occur within the plan site boundary. Exh. 4, SS 5.1.3.3, 5.4.4.

3. Drift Deposition

43. SCANP argues that no basis exists for estimating cool-ing tower drift losses to be .005 percent of the circulating wa te r ra te . SCANP Proposed Finding No. 11, pp. 47-48. This figure is based on the current state-of-the-art of dr if t eliminator design. Exh. 4, SS 5.1.3.3., 5.4.4. In addition, the results f rom experimental methods, such as the Isokinetic Sampling method and the Particle Instrumentation via Laser Light Scattering method used to measure the drift rate for operating cooling towers, indicate drift loss to be approxi-mately .005 percent of circulating water flow. Exh. 4 S 3.4.1.

1595 121

44. The major portion of drift deposition will occur with-in the plant site boundary. Exh. 4, S 5.1.3.3. At a distance of five miles from the cooling towers, the annual deposition will be no more than two pounds per acre. Exh. 4, S 5.4.4.

Even the maximum salt deposition from the drif t is expected to I be less than normal deposition from rainfall. FES S 5.3.1.2.

While the drif t may have a maximum salt concentration of 850 mg/l (SCANP Proposed Finding No.12, pp. 48-49) , the aver-age salt concentration will be 537.1 mg/1. Exh. 4, Table 3.6-6. By comparison, the Skagit River contains an average salt concentration of 46.6 mg/1. Exh. 4, Table 3.6-6. Most of the drif t deposition will take place within 1 mile of the cool-ing towers. The deposition for two units will be highest in the west sectors where the estimated annual deposition, within 1 mile of the tower, will be 59 lbs./ acre. This annual deposi-tion will be reduced to about 2 lbs./ acre at a distance of 5 miles f rom the cooling tower. Exh. 4, 5 5.4.4.

45. Plants demonstrate no signs of stress when salt ,

deposition remains lower than 1 ton of soluble salts per acre per year. Injurious levels of chloride on crop plants vary from 14 to 200 lbs./ acre / year. The maximum chloride deposition will vary from 0.1 to 3 lbs./ acre / year within 5 miles of the cooling towers and thus will not be detrimental to plant life.

Exh. 4, S 5.4.4. The chloride concentration anticipated f rom 1595 122 drift from the cooling tower is 53 mg/l or approximately one-seventh of the safe chloride dose. Tr. 3233-234. Sodium may be harmful to strawberry plants at levels of 70 to 100 mg/1.

The maximum sodium concentration in the drif t will be 50 mg/1.

Tr. 3235.

46. Critical f actors to foliage absorption are droplet size and total deposition. Tr. 3285. Most of the drift will fall on the plant site. Exh. 4, SS 5.1.3.3, 5.4.4. At 1 to 2 miles from the cooling tower, i.e., the nearest strawberry patch location, the concentration of chlorides is approximately 15-20 mg/1. Tr. 3282. Similarly, droplet size decreases with distance from the plant site. FES S 5.3.1.1. Decreased size correlates with decreased foliage absorption and leaf spotting. Tr. 3236-237.

47. Contrary to the assertion by SCANP that the experi-ments involved one-time salt application and did not investi-gate the effect of exposure over long periods (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 13, pp. 49-50), the experiments involved multiple applications over a substantial period of a plant life-span.

The sprays were applied weekly for two and one-half hours. The total treatment time was divided into three treatments with a total exposure of seven and one-half, nineteen, and thirty-two and one-half hours. Tr. 3269.

1595 123

48. No need for further data on rainfall and washing effect has been demonstrated. As Mr. Dvorak testified, the amount of drif t which is deposited as droplets is a function of the relative humidity. In the summertime, as the droplets -

evaporate the salts evaporate; the salts become an aerosol and are dispersed even more widely than with the droplets them-se lve s . Tr. 3280-381. For further discussion of drift deposi-tion and its possible effects, see Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 52-56, pp. 30-32.

4. Impact on Birds

49. There is no support in the record for any finding of substantial bird kills as proposed by SCANP. SCANP Proposed Find ing Nos. 17-19, pp. 51-53. See also Applicants Proposed Finding No. 57, pp. 32-33. SCANP cites the results of a single two-month Davis-Besse study in support of its proposed fir.iing without mentioning the dif fering topography which the Staff found to be so significant. The Davis-Besse plant is located in flat terrain adjacent to a marsh; the Skagit plant will be in wooded terrain, 400 feet above the river. FES Final Supp.

S 11.1.1. In addition, SCANP ignores the results of a study at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station: 17 birds killed during June 5-30, September 1-November 30, 1974; 22 birds during 1595 124 March-June, 1975. Because the impacts have not been signifi-cant, the monitoring program was discontinued. FES Final Supp.

S 11.1.1. The Three Mile Island facility is, as is the one at Davis-Besse, located at the shoreline and, therefore, has a relatively greater impact on birds than is anticipated at Skagit. FES Final Supp. S 11.1.1.

50. With regard to impact on waterfowl (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 18, p. 52), the Staff has evaluated the necessity for a monitoring program and has determined that such a program is not justified. FES Final Supp. S 11.1.1; FES S 2.7.2.1.

E. Visual Imoacts

1. Cooling Towers

51. SCANP states that the plumes emitted from the cooling towers will be between 4300 feet and 2.4 miles long. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 1, p. 54. This is misleading. The plume lengths will average 300 meters (980 fee t) in the summer, and 1700 meters (4300 feet) in the winter. FES S 5.3.1.1. The winter weather conditions which f avor long plumes are also favorable for cloudy skies at the Skagit site. Under these 1595 125 cond it ions , the plume will either level off below the existing cloud cover or actually merge with it, reducing the visual impact. FES S 5.3.1.2.

52. SCANP implies that the cooling towers contravene the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 3-4, pp. 54-55. However, the Secretary of Agriculture, in his determination under that Act, found that, although the towers

" diminish the scenic values, the impacts are not unreason-able." Exh. 203, p. 8. See Section II J, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, of Applicants Proposed Findings.

53. SCANP asserts that visual quality decreases with the introduction of man-made elements. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 4, p. 55. Forest Service research has shown that this assertion is without empirical foundation. Instead, research indicates that a person viewing scenery who sees a man-made object may or may not be offended, depending on how that man-made object affects the natural landscape and depending on the individual's background, and education. Tr. 8036.

54. Witnesses for the Staff, Applicant and SCANP, agreed that visual impact varies among ind iv iduals . Applicant witness Myers testified that visual taste depends on background, educa-tion and experience. Tr. 2785. SCANP witness Sweeney stated that opinion on visual impact is individual (Tr. 8160), and that visual impact is primarily psychological. Tr. 8153.

1595 126 Staff witness Henley explained how the assumption that people are offended by man-made objects set in natural surroundings is without empirical basis. Tr. 8036. Applicant witness Myers was asked for his personal opinion regarding the visual impact of the cooling towers. His response that the cooling towers are " nice, lovely structures" is consistent with the above cited observations, and contradicts SCANP Proposed Finding No. 5, p. 56. Elsewhere in the record, other witnesses, including a SCANP witness, recognized that to some people, the cooling towers would be objects of beauty, or at least neutral factors. FES S 5.1.4; FES Final Supp. S 4.5.9.6, A-43; Tr. 8035.

55. Contrary to SCANP's assertion (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 6, pp. 56-57), the Staff does not assume a contradictory posture in stating that the plant's mountainous backdrop will

" soften the view" while also stating that the presence of the cooling towers is incongruous with the natural, mountainous backdrop. The Staff's view is, granting that the visual impact of the cooling towers will be adverse, the choice of site loca-tion will do much to mitigate this impact. The cooling towers, when seen against a 4000-f t mountain, will present less impact than would the same towers on flat terrain. Staff testimony, fol. Tr. 3290 (Vol. 2, 31 July 1975) pp. 1-2; Tr. 2784-785.

Thus, while the presence of the cooling towers is incong ruou s 1595 127

/

with the natural mountainous setting, the mountainous setting a

will mitigate the adverse visual impact of the towers better than any other setting.

56. SCANP states, as a conclusion of the NRC Staff and the Forest Service, that the visibility of the cooling towers would diminish the quality of the recreational experience available in the area. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 7, p. 57. The sup-porting quotations from the EAR and the Supplement to the FES are misleading because they omit qualifying portions. For example, wh ile the Supplement to the FES does state, as quoted by SCANP, that recreational activities in the area would be a f f ec ted , the statement is made in the following context:

The cooling towers and their vapor plumes would have no direct impact on the recreational potential of the Skagit River.

The towers would have a secondary impact on the quality of the recreational experience available on this lower portion of the river. This impact is psy-chological. For those persons prepared to accept nuclear power as a necessary facet of modern techno-logical society, the recreation experience in that stretch of the river from which the towers would be visible would be unaffected. However, to those per-sons who either oppose or are frightened by nuclear power, the visible presence of the cooling towers and all they symbolize could prove so disturbing that recreational activities in this area would be avoided.

It can be surmised that, for some people, the quality of the recreation experience available on the lower Skag it River would be seriously diminished; for others, it would not be af fected.

FES Final supp. S 4.5.9.

1595 128 SCANP Prdposed Finding No. 7, p. 57, should be rejected because it is incomplete and misleading. Add itionally , SCANP's sugges-tion that the visual impact on local residents would be pro-longed and more severe than the impact on visitors is without foundation and contrary to the record. In fact, Staff witness Henley testified that a person viewing an environmental change for the first time, is more aware of the change than an habitual viewer, Tr. 8035.

57. Furthermore, contrary to SCANP Proposed Finding No. 8,

p. 58, the siting of the cooling towers will mitigate their impac t. SCANP stresses that the towers will extend to about 930 feet above sea level, but neglects to note that Bacus Hill is approximately 570 feet above mean sea level and is forested with trees60-100 feet tall and thereby obscures the towers from the sou thwest. FES Final Supp. S 4.5.8. Downstream from river mile 33, the towers would not even extend above the hori-zon line. FES Final Supp. S 4.5.8.

58 . In addressing the adequacy of tower visibility studies, SCANP misrepresents the extent and independence of the Forest Service and NRC Staff studies. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 9, pp. 58-59. SCANP states that "the U.S. Forest Se fv ice 's Study pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was not per-formed independently, instead relying upon information provided by the Applicant, which performed such tasks as raising an 1595 129 indicator balloon and taking photographs." However, Staff .

witness Hesseldahl testified that the Forest Service did inde-pendent analysis of visual quality of the towers and Wild and Scenic aspects of the river. Tr. 7803. For analysis of the visual impact of the plant, two methods of evaluation were used: the Forest Service system of visual analysis, and a system utilized both by private industries and the Forest Ser-vice in California. The latter system involved raising bal-loons on cables to the height of the proposed structures and observing these balloons from principal viewing points. This method was used because Hesseldahl determined this to be the best method for evaluating the visual impacts. Tr. 7831-832.

Hesseldahl was accompanied by a photographer who took pictures for him. Tr. 7887-888. However, because the photographs taken by Applicants were more accurate than those taken by the government photog rapher, the government photographs were not used. Tr. 8030-031.

2. Visual'Imoacts of Other Onsite Alterations

59. In addressing the visual impacts of other onsite alterations, SCANP exaggerates. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 11, pp. 59-60. Of the 1500-acre site, only approximately 260 acres will be disturbed by construction. FES S 4.1.1. Contrary to SCANP's assertion that the land not permanently cleared will retain an altered appearance following "revegetation," the 1595 i30 Staff found that vegetation of the plant dite has been partially . influenced by logging and reforestation activities for a considerable period of time. See Exh. 5, e.g., slide 4.6. The Staff concluded that the land clearing and subsequent replanting could be considered an extension of these activi-ties, rather than an intrusion on a natural lardscape. FES S 4 . 4 .1. Further, only the 130 acres occupied by plant struc-tures and facilities will be fenced, not 300 acres as indicated by SC AN P. The rest of the 1500-acre site will remain as a wildlife habitat. FES S 5.1.1. As to the visual impacts of the plant structures other than the cooling tower, SCANP is simply mistaken in suggesting that these impacts have not been addressed. FES SS 3.1, 5.1.4; Exh. 4, S 3.1.

3. Visual Imoacts of Offsite Alterations

60. With regard to the effect of siltation on water quality (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 12, p. 60), SCANP cites FES S 4.4.2.1 for the fact that excavation of the site will result in substantial erosion and siltation. However, FES S 4.4.2.1 states only that some erosion and siltation will occur. Fu r the r, the Staff conclusions regarding siltation emphasize that Applicants will be required to control siltation in accordance with EPA regulations and that any impact from siltation will be temporary. FES S 4.4.2.1. In addition, SCANP cites no evidence for the proposition that the increase 1595 13I in suspended solids will significantly decrease the natural visual quality of the river. In fact, in issuing the NPDES permit for Skagit, the State Siting Council made the following finding:

Maximum levels of total suspended solids associated with the Construction Runoff Discharges will be less than levels of total suspended solids occurring naturally in Wiseman and Tank Creeks with some frequency.

Exh. 57, Finding No. 33, p. 10.

61. The adverse effect on visual quality which SCANP anticipates from construction of the barge slip (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 13 , p . 61) will either be temporary, and the entire site will be restored to its natural condition, or be sanc-tioned by a public agency, to which the site would be turned over for maintenance and use as a public access site for recre-ational activities on the river. FES Final Supp. S 4.4.1.

Since it will be located in a reach of the river which is already extensively developed with powerlines, p ipeline s, bridge crossings, roads, and houses, the Staf f concluded that the barge slip would hardly dominate its setting. FES Final Supp. S 4.4.8.

62. SCANP asserts that there has been inadequate study of the visibility of the two 500-KV transmission lines. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 14, p. 61. To the contrary, the Staff 1595 l32 considered the possible visual impact of these lines from the river and SR-20 and concluded that they would not be visible.

FES Final Supp. S 4.6.1.

63. In sum, the visual impacts of construction (SCANP Pro-posed Findings Nos. 15, 16 , pp . 61-6 2 ) have been reviewed by the Staff and found to be temporary and of no real signifi-cance. FES SS 4.2, 4.5; FES Final Supp. S 4.7.8. SCANP's pro-posed findings on visual impacts are without merit and should not be adopted.

F. Project Discharge

64. Contrary to SCANP Proposed Finding No. 3, p. 65, the potential effects within the mixing zone have been well considered in this record. For example, Applicants analyzed the dilution of thermal and chemical effluents within the dis-charge plume. Berthrong, et al., fol. Tr. 3382, pp. 9-12, Figs. 2-5. Furthermore, issues such as thermal shock, thermal attraction, migration blockage, and the chemical effects of the discharge have been thoroughly considered. Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 79-97, pp. 45-57. Each of these issues involves, to some extent, conditions within the mixing zone. Further-1595 133 more, all of these issues have previously been considered and decided by the Washington State Siting Council.5 Exh. 57, pp. 15-24; Exh. 84, p. 49.

65. SCANP contends that no model adequately depicts the discharge plume. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 4, p. 65. Appli-cants analyzed the discharge plume using the best model available (that by Jirka and Harleman) and " worst case" condi-tions. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 79, p. 45. While SCANP's witness Brubaker was critical of the model used, he would not have been satisfied with anything less than an in situ test. Tr. 8309. The Staff concluded that even if the thermal plume volumes calculated by Applicants were an order of magnitude too small, the state water quality standards would not be threatened. FES, p. 5-6. The dilution of 20 used by Applicants was considerably less than the dilution of 39 calcu-lated by the Staff for the edge of the mixing zone. Id.;

S The decision of the Siting Council (Exh. 57) appears to provide an alternative ground on which this Licensing Board could base its decision on all issues relating to the water quality effects of the construction and operation of Skagit.

These issues include not only the effects of the project discharge (addressed in Section F of the SCANP Proposed Find ing s) but also the water quality effects of construction (addressed in Section B of the SCANP Proposed Findings) and of the Ranney Collector system (addressed in Section G of the SCANP Proposed Finding s) . The appl'. cable legal principles were recently reexamined and confirmed by the Appeal Board in Carolina Power & Light Company (H. B. Robinson, Unit No. 2),

ALAB-569, NRC , October 31, 1979 (CCH Nuclear Regulation Repor ter, 1 30,429). See also the Seabrook, Yellow Creek and Peach Bottom decisions cited in Robinson. Although 1595 134 Tr. 3474. SCANP also claims that the bottom characteristics must be known to formulate an adequate velocity profile. They cite no support for that claim. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 4,

p. 66. Other than knowing certain physical parameters at the diffuser site, the bottom characteristics would not seem rele-vant to the modeling of the plume. Such physical parameters were available from Applicants' hydrographic surveys and dif-fuser design. Exh. 4, Fig. 2.5-7; Berthrong, et al., fol.

Tr. 3382, p. 9. The characteristics of the plume have been described sufficiently to assess in a conservative manner the effects of the project discharge.

66. SCANP urges that at least a 30-year low flow condition should be used for the worst case analysis. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 5, p. 66. We note that the Washington State water quality standards use a 7-day, 10-year low flow criterion.

Id. These standards have been approved by the EPA. FES, we are not aware of any decision in which a Licensing Board has dealt with the possibility, as in this case, of accepting and factoring in a decision made by a state agency (rather than by the EPA) in issuing an NPDES permit and Section 401 certification pursuant to th e Wa te r Ac t, we believe that for a Board to do so would be consistent with the principles confirmed in Robinson and the legislative history of the Water Ac t reviewed there. However, because the water quality issues were also heard in this proceeding, the state decision not having been issued until later, we do not urge the Board to base its decision solely on the state decision, but rather to adopt its own findings consistent with the state decision.

1595 135

p. 5-6. They provide a reasonable guide for assessing the environmental impacts of the project discharge. We also note that the 7-day, 30-year low flow (about 4050 cfs) at Sedro-Woolley is about 85% of the 7-day, 10-year low flow (4740 cf s) ,

and that the 7-day , 100-year low flow (about 3490 cfs) is 74%

of the 7-day, 10-year low flow. Exh. 4, Fig. 2.5-5. There-fore, the use of a 30-year or even a 100-year low flow, in addition to being unnecessary, would not materially change the worst case analysis that has been made.

67. Citing work by Spigarelli, SCANP asserts that sal-monids are likely to be attracted to the thermal discharge plume during the winter. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 6, p. 67.

The Spigarelli research, which is not completed, is of little applicability because it concerns a once thorough cooling system on Lake Michigan. Tr. 8051, 8065. SCANP's witness Brubaker, who is not an expert in fish biology, was not aware of any studies evaluating thermal plume attraction. Tr. 2959.

Evidence presented by Applicants negated the likelihood of thermal attraction to the discharge plume. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 84, pp. 48-49. Laboratory studies, such as pro-posed by SCANP, would be quite expensive and would not be likely to predict with much accuracy what may occur in nature.

Tr. 8061, pp. 13,203-204.

1595 136

68. SCANP next claims that if there is thermal attraction, fish-would be exposed for longer periods to chemicals in the project discharge. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 7, pp. 67-68.

The premise of thermal attraction to the plume is contradicted by th e ev idence , as discussed in the preceding paragraph. The comment of the Washing ton Department of Game which was refer-enced by SCANP, was answered by the Staff. As the Staff ex-plained, it is juvenile fish that will not be able to maintain themse lves in the currents of the discharge. FES Final Supp.

p. 11-6, A-13. The 1.5 fps river velocity discussed by SCANP is a minimum velocity, which would be found only at 10-year, 7-day low flows. Only minor variations in this velocity are expec ted. The 1.5 fps velocity neglects the contribution of water discharged through the dif fuser. These jet velocities can reach 13 fps when two units are operating. Berthrong, et al., fol. Tr. 3382, pp. 9-10; Tr. 3395, p. 3575; See also Applicants Proposed Finding No. 84, pp. 48-49. SCANP's witness Brubaker did not doubt that juvenile salmonids would be swept through the plume in 10-year, 7-day low flow conditions.

Tr. 8311-12.

69. Hence, SCANP's position seems to be that migrating adult fish might maintain themselves in the plume. SCANP Pro-posed Finding No. 7, p. 68. However, the evidence indicates that adults prefer remaining near the bottom while the plume 1595 137 o

• would be elevated above the bottom. Applicants Proposed Find-ing No. 84, pp. 48-49. SCANP disagrees with this evidence, claiming th a t the river bottom characteristics are unknown and could contain irregularities that would direct the plume toward the bottom. However, several studies including hydrographic surveys have been made at the dif fuser location with no bottom irregularities reported. Sch re ibe r , et al., fol. Tr. 12,226, pp. 23-25; Exh. 4, Fig. 2.5-7. SCANP further claims that there will be areas of lower current for resting adults near the dis-charge pipe. This claim lacks and SCANP has not cited any sup-port in the record. Moreover, the jet velocity and angle of the discharge would carry the plume past any such low velocity areas. Thus, fish in such areas would not experience chemical concentrations approaching those in the discharge plume.

70. Brubaker mentioned a study by Sylvester (not by Battelle, as SCANP stated in its Proposed Finding No. 8 at

p. 68) abou t increased cusceptibility to predation for fish exposed to a temperature increase of 18

• F for sixty seconds.

Tr. 2931. The maximum delta T in the low flow winter condition is 16* F. An organism carried downstream through the plume under this condition would pass within three seconds into a portion of the plume where the delta T was only 4* F.

Berthrong , et al. , fol. Tr. 3382, p. 12. Hence, the Sylvester study has no applicability in this case.

1595 l38

71. SCANP claims that fish acclimated to 15* C (59' F) could experience cold shock if the temperature dropped to 5' C, during a plant shutdown. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 9, p. 69.

SCANP has not shown how fish could become acclimated to 15' C in the plume. Such temperatures in the discharge will be ex-perienced only in the summer months, when the delta T between the discharge and the river is only a few degrees centigrade.

FES, p. A-59, Table 6-A. Cold shock during plant shutdown is thus not even remotely possible.

72. Contrary to SCANP Proposed Finding No. 10, p. 69, the composition (ratio of riverwater to groundwater) of water to be supplied by the Ranney Collectors was determined by several methods, none of which dapended upon analyzing water samples taken at the proposed intake site. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 117, p. 68; Mikels, fol. Tr. 10,688, pp. 2-9; Anderson, fol. Tr. 10,735, pp. 4-6. River flow conditions have virtually no bearing on the composition (ratio of riverwater to ground-wa ter) of water to be produced by the Ranney Collectors. The quality of that water should closely approximate the excellent quality of Skagit River water. Id. Additionally, SCANP's pro-posed finding on the subject should also be dismissed in that SCANP relies on the testimony of Dr. Brubaker, who is not a hyd rolog is t.

1595 l39

73. SCANP next urges that various impurities may in the future be added to the ground and river waters and subsequently appear in the project discharge. SCANP's Proposed Finding No. 11, p. 70. The record contains no support for this specu-lation. We note that state watec quality standards and restrictions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on development upstream of the collector site would tend to maintain the excellent water quality now found in the Skagit Valley.

74. SCANP challenges the Staf f's calculation on the amount of gaseous radioactive releases that might be entrained in the cooling towers. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 12, pp.70-70a.

Its witness Badgley thought that the releases might be directed toward the cooling towers about 10% of the time--or about twice the estimate used by the Staff. Tr. 3152. Applicants based their analysis on the conservative assumption of winds being directed towards the cooling towers about 19% of the time.

Tosetti, fol. Tr. 2629, p. 2. Badgley thought that Applicants' assumption was conservative for purposes of predicting the worst case. Tr. 3159-160. The doses calculated by Applicants for the entrainment phenomenon were extremely small. Tosetti, fol. Tr. 2629; See Applicants Proposed Finding No. 132, p. 80.

1595 140 o 4

75. SCANP next challenges the amount of chloramine that may be' produced in the #ish facility. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 13, p. 71. As recognized by SCANP (Id.), the amount of chlorination of the circulating water system will vary depend-ing upon the chlorine demand of the water. An amount of sodium hypochlorite solution will be added until a maximum concentra-tion of 0.5 mg/l of free available chlorine is reached at the condenser outlet involved. Berthrong, et al., fol. Tr. 3382,

p. 8. Before the blowdown reaches the fish facility, essentially all of the free available chlorine will have reacted with the chlorine demand both in the condensers being chlorinated and in the blowdown from the other cooling tower.

Tr. 3348. In any event, a conservatively estimated maximum concentration of total residual chlorine at the point of dis-charge is 0.09 mg/l for up to thirty minutes per day with one unit operating. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 89, p. 52.

This limit is set in the NPDES Permit, Exh. 83, Attachment 1,

p. 5.

76. SCANP argues that the maximum level of chlorine in the discharge, 0.09 mg/1, will be lethal to fish. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 15, p. 72. The 0.09 mg/l concentration is an ex-tremely conservative estimate of the maximum amount and thus will not often be encountered. Berthrong, et al., fol.

Tr. 3382, p. 9. In fact, the Staff's analysis indicated that i595 14l no detectable residual chlorine would appear in the discharge.

Milsted, fol. Tr. 3345, p. 4. The maximum level of 0.09 mg/l will not cause any adverse impact due to the rapid dilution of the discharge in the river. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 89, pp. 52-53. SCANP totally ignores the fact of dilution, as well as the importance of exposure time, in its findings.

SCANP Proposed Finding No. 15, p. 72. SCANP also misquotes witness Orrell, who said ".1 or one-tenth" not .01, as stated by SC AN P. Exh. 40, p. 105, line 6.

77. SCANP contends that the concentrations of copper, zinc, ammonia, lead and the ferrous form of iron in the dis-charge will be damaging to the aquatic biota. SCANP Proposed Find ing s Nos. 15a-19, pp. 72a-73. The water quality parameters reported by Applicants for the discharge are maximum concentra-tions based on maximum Skagit River concentrations from three data sets. Berthrong, et al., col. Tr. 3382, p. 6. The maxima in the river data occur independently, e.g. , the highest value for zine does not occur simultaneously with the maximum value for lead. Tr. 3539. The most important factor, which SCANP fails to even discuss, is that the chemicals in the discharge will be rapidly diluted in the river. As a result, aquatic organisms will only briefly be exposed to the chemical concen-trations of the project discharge and thus will not be affected. Applicants Proposed Findings, pp. 53-55. Finally, 1595 142 as to SCANP's request for more analysis of the ferrous iron content in the discharge, we note that iron in the discharge will mostly be ferric, and not ferrous iron. Tr. 3452.

78. SCANP apparently urges that the concentrating of any impurities present in makeup water, prior to discharge, should not be allowed with respect to certain chemicals. SCANP Pro-posed Finding No. 21, pp. 73-74. The concentration of chemicals due to evaporation f rom the cooling towers, however, has no impact on either water quality or aquatic life, due to the rapid dilution of the discharge and the fact that following dilution the concentration of chemicals naturally occurring in the river will be increased only 1.6 percent under maximum operating conditions. Berthrong, et al., fol. Tr. 3382, p. 16; Exh. 4, Table 3.6-5.

79. SCANP raises the possibility of synergistic and addi-tive ef fects f rom the discharge. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 22, p. 74. However, SCANP has not shown that any of the circumstances necessary for such effects to occur will be pre-sent at the projact discharge. The coincidence of low flow, maximum concentrations of various metals in the river water, maximum discharge temperature, and long exposure times, which is necessary for synergistic ef fects, has an extremely low pro-bability. Tr. 3539-3540. SCANP claims that a thermal shock of 10* C would be harmful to fish exposed to 0.04 mg/l of residual 1595 143 chlorine for two hours a day. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 22,

p. 74. The delta T of 10' C is higher than the worst case ex-pected for the project discharge. In addition, there is no possibility of fish being exposed to 0.04 mg/l of chlorine for two hours a day. Synergistic and additive effects will not be measurable. Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 93-95, pp. 55-56.

80. SCANP's next allegation is that certain phases of pro-ject construction and super saturation of water flowing over Skag it River dams may cause fish to be more vulnerable to the project discharge. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 23, p. 75. How-ever, these phases of construction will precede by several years the operation of the facility. Thus, these construction impacts, if any, will have ceased or been mitigated before dis-charge begins. There is no evidence of any super saturation produced by the dams on the Skagit, all of which are tens of miles upstream from the discharge site.

81. The possibility of chlorine acting as an attractant to fish (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 24, p. 75) has been fully considered and found not to be of concern at the project dis-charge. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 85, pp. 49-50.

Brubacker's opinion that fish facility effluent could act as an attractant was not based on any studies or literature refer-ences. Tr. 8231-232. Since Brubacker is not a fish biologist, we place little weight on his opinion.

1595 144

82. SCANP raises the possibility of the plume being a barrier to salmon migration. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 25,

p. 76. However, this possibility was fully and adequately con-sidered and found to be inconsequential. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 86, p. 50.

83. SCANP asked the Board to accept certain comments by the Washington Department of Game in the Final Supplement to the FES. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 25, pp.76-76a. These comments were made without any supporting data or studies. FES Final Supp pp. A-12, A-13. The Staff, the Forest Service and the Washington State Siting Council all independently concluded that the operation of the Skagit project would produce minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Id., p. 11-6.

SCANP Proposed Finding No. 26, p. 76a, regarding the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was answered above in our reply findings on environmental impact statements.

84. All of SCANP's proposed findings relating to the pro-ject discharge must be rejected because they are contrary to the evidence.

r G. Ranney Collector System

1. Bank Stability

85. In its find ings, SCANP described two threats to the Ranney Collector System. One is the possibility of a cut-of f i595 l45 channel developing across the meander from river mile 38.6 to some point downstream. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 3, p. 79.

That possibility was considered by Applicants and is remote.

See Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 124-126, pp. 73-74. The second threat seen by SCANP is the scour of the riprap during a flood, with resultant damage to the discharge lines. SCANP Proposed Findings, pp. 78-81.

86. SCANP mistakenly characterizes the Skagit River as presently being a meandering river. While the Skagit River has historically meandered, the addition in about 1959 of riprap protection has stopped the meandering process in the area of the proposed collector site. Exh. 4, App. L, p. L-17; Tr. 10,789-790. Applicants will inspect and maintain the rip-rap so as to keep it in place. Exh. 204. Applicants' main-tenance activities are well within the scope of activities per-mitted by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Exh. 207, p. 8.

87. The 1978 legislation, which designated the Skagit River as a component of the National and Wild Scenic System, provides that:

Riprapping related to natural channels with natural rock along the shorelines of the Skagit segment to preserve and protect agricultural land shall not be considered inconsistent with the values for which such segment is designated.

16 USCA S 1274 (a) (18) . The proposed Ranney Collector site is within the designated Skagit segment. In sum, there is no

-s1_

1595 146

basis for concluding, as SCANP suggests, that the Skagit River will be allowed to meander out of its present channel in the Ranney Collector site area.

88. SCANP mistakenly refers to Dr. Borland as a "repre-sentative of the NRC Staff," when he was a consultant to Appli-cants. Exh. 4, App. L; Tr. 10,944. Dr. Borland's work was performed in 1974. He recommended extending the riprap up-stream and downstream of the proposed site so as to minimize maintenance costs. Exh. 4, App. L, pp. L-7, L-8; Tr. 10,949.

Subsequently, and in accordance with the Secretary of Agricul-ture's Section 7 determination, Applicants changed the flood protection design for the Ranney Collector System. Plans for additional riprap were dropped. New flood protection measures included increasing the inspection and maintenance of the existing riprap, moving the caissons further from the river, thickening caisson walls, burying deeper the water distribution pipes, and turning the pipelines away from the river. Tr.

10,656, 10,951-954, 10,960-961.

89. SCANP contends that the riprap protection would be totally inadequate in even a 50-year flood, and further, that the river will " interfere with" the Ranney Collectors about every five or ten years. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 6, p. 80.

The impact of a 100-year flood on the Ranney Collectors has been well considered; it poses little, if any, threat to the 1595 147 Ranney Collector System. See Applicants Proposed Finding No. 125, pp. 73-74. In December 1975, the collector site ex-perienced a 10-year flood with damage to about 125 feet of rip-rap. Such damage is easily repaired. A 100-year flood would create only 'slightly greater velocith than would a 10-year flood, thereby possibly causing a similar amount of repairable damage. Tr. 10,664-668. For the above reasons, flooding will not a f f ec t the reliability of the Ranney Collector System.

2. Yield

90. SCANP presented several criticisms of Applicants' yield calculations. SCANP Proposed Finding Nos. 9-12, pp. 82-

83. These included the absence of a perpendicular line of observation wells during pumping tests, the assignment of permeabilities in calculating yields, and the reliance upon Darcy's Law. Applicants covered these matters in their find-ings, as d id th e Sta f f . Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 107-117, pp. 62-69; Staf f Proposed Findings, pp. 46-50.

In addition, SCANP considers the yield calculations question-able due to the "significant possibility" of meandering of the Skag it River. SC ANP Proposed Finding No. 12, p. 83. However, as previously observed, ne ither is the Skagit River presently a 15 5 148 meandering river in the collector site area, nor is future meandering expec ted. We find, contrary to SCANP's position, that the yield calculations are conservative.

3. Iron Bacteria

91. Relying upon its witnesss Brubaker, SCANP contends that the Skagit PUD situation of high iron content causing iron bacte ria in the PUD Ranney Collector laterals might be ex-perienced at the proposed Ranney Collector site. SCANP Pro-posed Find ing No. 13, p. 83. However, the hydrogeologic environments dif fer quite substantially at these two sites.

Applicants Proposed Finding No. 121, p. 71. Brubaker obviously was unaware of such dif f erences. He did not know, for example, that the Skagit PUD site was in a tidal reach of the river.

Mikels, fol. Tr. 10,688, p. 3 ; Tr. 8,24 0-241,

92. SCANP further contends that the iron content of water f rom the Ranney Collectors will be higher than that r iver water because diverted river water will dissolve iron as it moves towards the laterals. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 14, p. 83.

Overlooked is that the ground water near the proposed collector site has a low dissolved iron content, which indicates only a small amount of iron is available for dissolution into the diverted river water. See Applicants Proposed Finding No. 121,

p. 71.

15?5 147

93. SCANP further claims that the iron content in the water to be produced by the Ranney Collectors has been under-estimated because water samples at the collector site were taken during high river flow conditions. SCANP Proposed Find-ing No. 15, p. 84. SCANP's claim, however, is not supported by evidence in this record. Tr. 8,322-324. In any event, the ground water conditions at the collector site were measured over a six-month period under a broad range of river flows, with no correlation between iron content and river level being found. Mike ls , fol. Tr. 10,688, Exh. E. As previously noted, the iron content of water to be produced by the Ranney Collec-tors will be quite low and, hence, the growth of iron bacteria is very unlikely.

4. Ef f ects of Chlor ine Flushing

94. Con tra ry to SC ANP 's inference, should a chlorine solu-tion ever be necessary for treatment of iron bacteria, a measured amount would be used, thereby restricting the volume of gravel aquifer af f ec ted. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 122, p. 72. Furthermore, the ground water does not, as SCANP suggests, come into contact with nearby stream beds.

SCANP witness Brubaker concluded that there must be such con-tact to hold the water in the creeks. Tr. 8,247. His inspec-tion of the area was cursory and he made no measurements.

1595 150 e

Tr. 8,246-248. Furthermore, he was not a hydrologist.

Brubaker fol. Tr. 8,211, p. 1. Observations by experienced hydrologists and water level measurements established that the streams are perched above the water table. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 106, pp. 61-62.

95. SCANP further alleged that chlorine solution, if used, could reach the river. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 18, p. 84.

Applicants answered this allegation in their findings. Appli-cants Proposed Finding No. 122, p. 72. SCANP also cites witness Brubaker in support of this allegation. Brubaker, however, was not very familiar with the treatment technique.

Tr. 8,242. SCANP also references the synergistic effects between thermal pollution and chlorine as a cause for concern.

However, there are no thermal effects of the Skagit Project at or near the proposed Ranney Collector site.

5. Sed imenta t ion

96. Contrary to SCANP Proposed Finding No. 20, p. 85, periodic maintenance of the riprap will not measurably increase the bedload of the Skagit River. Tr. 8,291-293. Conversely, allowing the existing riprap to lapse into a state of disrepair could permit greater erosion of the river bank, thereby adding to siltation of the river. Tr. 8,250-251.

1595 151 H. Alternative Sites

1. Applicants' Methodology

97. Citing Staff witness Stull, SCANP asserts that the Bechtel siting studies are of little utility for the evaluation of potential sites. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 1, p. 86. That assertion does not adequately reflect Stull's testimony. She said that the Bechtel siting studies were not, standing alone, sufficient for her purpose. Her purpoto was to determine whether any of the sites that Bechtel did not consider further might be potentially preferable to Skagit. Tr. 13,140, 13,173. In carrying out her purpose, she drew information not only from the Applicants' siting studies, but also from numer-ous other sources. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 151, p. 90.

98. SCANP's position is that the Applicants' site selec-tion process was inadequate, in that neither was it comprehen-sive, nor did it involve "the consistent application of appro-priate criteria." SCANP Proposed Finding No. 2, pp. 86-87.

However, the Staff in its review found Applicants' siting studies to be sufficiently comprehensive. Leech, et al., fol.

Tr. 12,542, p. 13. The Staff also observed that Applicants' studies contained enough information to support the selection of the three candidate sites of Skagit, Goshen, and Ryderwood.

1595 152 Tr. 12,663. The proof of the adequacy of Applicants' studies is the Staff's conclusion following its own independent evalua-tion that the three sites are among the best in western Wa sh ing ton, and that no obviously superior sites are likely to be available. Leech, et al., fol. Tr. 12,542, p. 13. Finally, SCANP's claim that Applicants did not consistently apply appro-priate criteria must be dismissed for lack of any support in the record.

2. Sta ff 's Methodology

99. SCANP criticizes the Staff 's alternative site review and Applicantc' selection process by comparing them to the Environmental Standard Review Plan. SCANP Proposed Findings, Nos. 2, 4, 6, pp. 86-88. The standard review plan has no applicability to comparison of alternative sites required by law of the Staff. The standard review plan was issued in pre-liminary form in February 1979. Exh. 182. It is only an advisory document, providing general guidance to the Staff in the conduct of its review. It offers no benefit to Applicants, o having come into existence many years af ter the Skagit site had been selected and an application made. Tr. 12,651-653. We find that the standard review plan does not govern either the Applicants ' or the Sta f f 's alte rna.tive site me thodology.

100. SCANP characterizes the Staf f's objective in reviewing alternative sites as being merely confirmatory. SCANP Proposed 1595 l53

Find ing No. 5, p. 87. Clearly, the Staff's objective and their actual review was independent and, hence, much more than merely confirmatory. See Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 150-154, pp. 89-92.

101. 'ihile the Staff did not analyze meteorology in connec-tion wit'a its 1979 testimony (Tr. 13,167), the Staff and Appli-cants separately considered meteorology in their earlier com-parisons of alternative sites. Dvorak, et al., fol. Tr. 7336,

p. 6 and Table 1; Jacobsen, fol. Tr. 5869, Table 1; Jacobsen, fol. Tr. 6012, pp. 7, 10. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 8, p. 88, is in error.

102. SCANP suggests that site election criteria were incon-sistently applied to the Thornwood and Skagit sites. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 9, p. 88. The Thronwood site is located e igh t to ten miles north of the Skagit River, whereas the Skag it site is less than two miles from the river. Tr. 13,032; FES, Fig. 2.2. If makeup water could be directly removed from the Skag it River, the pipeline to Thornwood would be six to eight miles longer than the one at the Skagit. Conversely, if makeup water had to be withdrawn indirectly from Ranney Collec-tors, the pipeline f rom the proven Ranney Collector site near Hamilton to Thornwood on the upper Samish River would have to pass by the Skagit site and continue about ten miles further.

Exh. 46, p. C-15 and plate 1.

1595 154

3. Replacement Power 103. SCANP criticizes the use of a three-year delay period for estimating the cost of replacement power. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 11, p. 89. The Staff provided a current estimate of the time needed for an applicant to select a site on the Hanford Reservation, conduct the necessary field work, and pre-pare an application and supporting documents, for the NRC to docket the application, prepare an environmental impact state-ment, conduct a hearing and reach its decision. The estimate was a range of 30 to 48 months, and assumed a minimum of inter-vention. Tr. 13,236A-244A. The three-year delay given by the Staff is very reasonable, espec ially in the current licensing climate. Additional delay could well arise during state pro-ceed ing s. Jacobsen, fol. Tr. 6012, p. 15.

104. SCANP further criticizes the Staff for relying upon the West Group Forecast in its estimate of the amount of replacement power needed. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 12,

p. 89. One of SCANP's criticisms is of the use of a 75 percent capacity f actor for the first year of operation of the Skagit project. However, the West Group Foreca st uses a 60 percent capacity factor for the first full year. Exh. 185, Estimated Loads and Resources Table, n. 1. Contrary to SCANP's proposed finding, the reasonableness of the West Group Forecast is checked by an econometric model, which allows price elasticity 1595 155 to be considered. Exh. 185, pp. 3-4. By accepting the West Group Forecast, the Staff accepts the Applicants' proposed need for power, which is included in the West Group Forecast. Since we have previously found a need for the Skagit project, the Staff's use of the West Group Forecast is reasonable.

105. SCANP next urges that the cost assigned to replacement power should be lower than that used by the Staff. SCANP Pro-posed Finding No. 13, p. 90. Both Applicants and Staff agree that replacement of the energy from the Skagit project would come f rom oil-fired generation located either in the northwest or sou thwest. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 177, p. 105; Staf f 's Proposed Finding s, pp. 107-108. The Staff now agrees with the Applicants' conclusion that the Staff 's low estimate of replacement power cost was grossly understated. Id.

106. SCANP claims that there would be no replacement power cost if the replacement power could be purchased for less than the cost of generating power at Skagit. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 14, p. 90. SCANP has not demonstrated the source of any such less expensive power. Furthermore, even if such power were available, it would be used to reduce the generation from oil-fired units--a more expensive type of generation than Skagit. Kn igh t, fol. Tr. 14,329, pp. 3-4. Given the large 1595 156 amount of oil-fired generation projected by the Western States Coordinating Council for the late 1980s, SCANP's premise is wrong. Id.

4. Transmission Costs 107. SCANP alleges that an east-west line across the Cas-cades may be no less reliable than a north-south line west of the mounta ins. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 15, p. 91. What SCANP neglects is that the east-west cross mountain transmis-sion lines are longer and thus more vulnerable to outages.

Tr. 12,746-747. While there have been occasions when Western Washing ton was close to a blackout due to failures of cross mountain transmission capability (Applicants Proposed Finding No. 15 6, p. 9 3) , there is no evidence in this record of a similar threat to north-south transmission lines. Also over-looked by SCANP is that an outage on a cross mountain transmis-sion line might be much more difficult to repair within a short period of time due to the relative inaccessibility of such lines. Kn igh t, fol. Tr. 3687, pp. 6-7.

108. SCANP witness Carstens claimed that Hanford was closer than the Skagit site to the load centers of the four partici-pants in Skagit. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 16, p. 92.

Carstens had no qualifications in this area and pointed out that Applicants had the best information on load centers.

Carstens, fol. Tr. 14,008, p. 1; Tr. 14,080-081. Carstens

-62_

1595 157

chose to neglect where the power from Skagit vould actually flow; clearly, it would flow to the Western Washington load center. Tr. 14,081-085; Applicants Proposed Finding No. 155,

p. 92. Moreover, the comparison of transmission costs and in-cremental losses for alternative sites that was presented by witness Eastvedt of BPA shows that Carstens' purported lead center proximity calculation is totally misleading. Leech, et al., fol. Tr. 12,542, App. B (Eastvedt testimony), pp. 17-18, Tables 1 and 2.

5. Demog raph ic s 109. SCANP contends that accident analyses were required

~

but were not made for any of the sites studied. SCANP Proposed Find ing No. 18, p. 92. Not being an environmentally related issue, an accident analysis is not required by NEPA. As ex-plained above, the mention of accident analyses in the Pre-liminary Standard Review Plan certainly does not create a regu-latory requirement. In any event, the Staff compared the popu-lation densities of alternative sites against the regulatory guide criteria of 500 people per square mile. Exh. 183.

Because the candidate sites did not exceed the population den-sity criterion, there was no need to prepare accident or evacuation analyses for the alternative sites. Tr. 13,114, 1595 158 110. SCANP criticizes the Staff's demographic comparisons for not using the latest census figure. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 19, p. 92. When the 1978 population estimates of SCANP's witness Darland are used, the population density within ten miles of the Skagit site is only about 60 people per square mile--far below the NRC's of 500 people per square mile.

Tr. 13,863; See Staff Proposed Findings, pp. 100-101. Even if additions to the population were made for transient population or for future developments, as SCANP urges, the relatively low population density near Skagit would clearly not be af fected to the extent of making Skagit an unsuitable site. Tr. 13,117.

111. SCANP next urges that the Hanford and Pebble Springs sites should be distinguished from the Skagit site on the basis of tra ffic impac t. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 20, p. 93. We d isag ree. Traffic congestion during construction is a temporary and limited impact, and hence is, at most, a minor factor in the comparison of sites. Applicants Proposed Finding No. 48, p. 28. See also Staff Proposed Finding No. 181,

p. 97. While SCANP's witness Darland opined that the Skagit site should be assigned higher economic costs associated with a higher risk of injury during an evacuation, he paid no atten-tion to the probability of occurrence of events requiring an evacuation. Tr. 13,871-872.

1595 159

6. Aquatic Imoacts 112. The Woodward Clyde siting study screened out the Skagit site because it had already been chosen for a nuclear plant. Tr. 13,287A-288A. It also screened out the Skagit Valley due to Woodward Clyde's interpretation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Tr. 13,142. However, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Skagit Project are compatible. Exh. 207.

Hence, the Woodward Clyde siting study lends no support to SCANP's pos ition.

113. SCANP's reconstruction (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 22,

p. 94) of witness Stull's testimony on salmon spawning areas is mislead ing . She noted the rerouting of Black Creek (Tr. 13,227); however, Black Creek contains no salmonid spawn-ing areas. FES, Table 2.14. While Stull agreed that Coal and Hanson Creeks would be affected by construction activities, she concluded such impacts would be negligible. Tr. 13,228-229.

Clearly, such potential impacts were not disregarded by her.

Tr. 13,229.

114. SCANP alleges that there was no investigation of whether salmonid spawning areas might be af fected by the pro-ject discharge. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 23, p. 94.

Applicants' baseline studies found minimal spawning gravel in 1595 l60 the vicinity of the proposed diffuser location. Exh. 4, pp. 2.7-69, 5.1-C. SCANP has presented no evidence of spawning occurring in the discharge area.

115. The only rare or endangered 'pecies in the plant site vicinity are bald eagles. Tr. 13,151. The Skagit Project will not affect the eagles. Applicants Proposed Findings, pp. 33-34.

116. Contrary to SCANP Proposed Finding No. 26, p. 95, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is not an institutional barrier to the licensing of the Skagit project. Tr. 12,658; Exh. 207.

The status of the Skagit River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has been fully considered here. FES Final Supp.; Exhs 119, 203-207. Since the Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the Skagit project will not directly and adversely affect the Skagit River and its associated values (Exh. 207), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has no bearing on the alternative site question.

7. Geology 117. SCANP urges that no final decision be made on alterna-tive sites until the geological review of the Skagit site is completed. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 27, p. 95. The Board notes, however, that the Staff has been able to compare the geology, se ismology, and geotechnical engineering of alterna-tive sites based upon the available information. Leech, et al., fol. Tr. 12,542, p. 17. A further observation is that 1595 161 geological differences between alternative sites are differences in cost, not in environmental impacts, as the Staff has noted in its proposed find ing s. Staff Proposed Findings, pp. 93-95. Hence, completion of the geologic review for Skagit will not impac t the conclusions that, from an environmental standpoint, the Skagit project is superior to other western Washing ton sites studied and is comparable to the Pebble Springs and Hanford sites, which lie east of the Cascades, out-side the region of interest. Applicants Proposed Findings, pp.99-102.

118. SCANP alleges that there is no evidence that Appli-cants uniformly applied geologic criteria in its siting studies. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 28, p. 95. Applicants explained how they applied geologic and seismologic factors in their site comparison. Jacobsen, fol. Tr. 5,869, pp. 3-4; Jacobsen, fol. Tr. 6,012, pp. 6-8; Exh. 4, S 9.2. The Staff was not aware of any important inconsistencies in Applicants' siting studies. Tr. 13,029.

119. The question of landslides at the Skagit site was specifically considered by the Staff. Leech, et al., fol.

Tr. 12,542, p. 19. SCANP claims that the Staff's conclusion was cast in doubt by Blunden's report of June 1978. SCANP Pro-posed Finding No. 29, p. 95. We note that the Staff in its prefiled SFR Section 2.5 addressed the issue of slope stability 1595 162 at the Skagit site. SER, S 2.5.5.1. The Staff 's conclusion that landsliding will not af fect the seismic category 1 facili-ties has not been altered by Blunden's report.

120. SCANP alleges that the Staff should have weighed into its alternative site evaluation the possibility of damage to the Ranney Collectors f rom flooding. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 30, p. 95. This potential problem, which is solely an economic concern, has been considered elsewhere. Applicants Proposed Findings, pp. 73-74; Applicants Reply Findings, para-g raphs 86-89, suora. Because, as we found, flooding will not affect the reliability of the Ranney Collector system, it has no bearing on the alternative site question.

121. SCANP next alleges that the Staff should have given greater consideration to earthquakes in the Skagit Valley.

SCANP Proposed Finding No. 31, p. 96. Such events were minor, i.e., less than about magnitude 3. Tr. 13,709. While Cheney felt that such earthquakes were especially significant (Id.),

he is not a seismologist. Tr. 13,723. Testimony by seismolo-gists in this record indicates that these mino: earthquakes are not of concern to the Skagit Proj ec t. Staff Geology and Seismology Summary, fol. Tr . 8974, pp. 29-30; USGS Status Review, fol. Tr. 8974, p. 14; Bolt, fol. Tr. 857, pp. 3-4.

1595 I63 122. SCANP further claims that in its alternative site evaluation the Staff should have accounted for the USGS's posi-tion on the 1872 earthquake. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 32,

p. 96. We note preliminarily that the Staff must perform its comparison of alternative sites based upon its best judgment.

Postulating an event similar to the 1872 earthquake very near the Skagit site, the USGS found the 0.35g seismic design to be accep table. USGS Status Review, fol. Tr. 8974, p. 19; Tr. 12,980. Hence, the USGS position does not change the Staff's evaluation.

123. SCANP urges that the Hanford and Pebble Springs sites are clearly advantageous to Skagit due to insuf ficient geo-logical information and greater geological complexity with respect to the Skagit site. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 33,

p. 96. For this finding, SCANP relies on Cheney's testimony.

Cheney's review of sites other than Skagit was extremely limited. His testimony provided little more than a criticism of the Skagit site. Cheney, fol. Tr. 13,668, p. 2; Tr. 13,761. Cheney obviously gives little credit to the enor-mous amount of geological information on the Skagit site that has been collected. However, even if the Skagit site is in a more geologically complex area, we fail to see how the alterna-tive site comparison should be influenced. Geological complex-ities might af f ect the SSE for a site; nevertheless dif ferences 1595 164 in SSEs are economic, not environmental. Similarly, SCANP's challenge of a 0.359 SSE for the Skagit Project (SCANP Proposed Finding No. 34, p. 97) is of no consequence to a NEPA compari-son of alternative sites.

8. Nuclear Parks 124. Relying on its witness Carstens, SCANP contenda that the Hanford site enjoys a clear advantage due to the existing plants located there. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 35, p. 97.

However, Carstens possessed no apparent expertise on either nuclear siting or the Hanford Reservation. Carstens, fol.

Tr. 14,008, p. 1. Several of his alleged advantages appear to assume a common owner or builder--e.g., common site preparation equipment, common security forces, common public relations facilities, and common administration buildings. There are no grounds for such an assumption. His alleged advantages are speculative.

9. Canadian Concerns 125. SCANP claims that the Staff should have given weight to the concerns of Canadians. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 36,

p. 98. The Staff has considered the enviromental impacts of the Skagit Project without regard to the nationality of the interest affected. FES; FES Final Supplement. There has been 1595 ic5 no demonstration that Canadians would be impacted more than Americans. Obviously, impacts on Canadians would be less, owing to their being located a greater distance from the site.

I. Meteorology 126. In its findings, SCANP warns of purported failings in the Applicants' meteorological research activities. SCANP Pro-posed Find ing No. 1, p. 99. However, as documented in the Applicants Proposed Findings No. 205, pp. 119-120, the nature and magnitude of the error in recordation were identified and an acceptable method by which the erroneous windspeed data could be corrected was developed. The corrected data appear in the PSAR S 2.3. Moreover, the effect of the error (prior to its correction) was to produce higher chi /0 values (indicating g reater impac ts) than the correct data. Tr. 749-51; Exh. 15.

127. As to the possible effects of downslope winds (SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 2-4, pp.99-100), according to SCANP, witness Badgley testified that downslope winds under certain conditions could result in restricted dispersion and a concen-tration of blow-down (sic). However, Professor Badgley admit-ted that since the drainage air is cold and is produced almost 1595 l66 in contact with the ground, as it drains down the valley it incorporates itself into the warmer air above it and becomes

" churned up." He testified that any released particles would become well mixed with the drainage layer because of the mechanically generated turbulence. In addition, any particle released above the ground level occupied by the drainage air would not even move downslope but would instead act as a plume and immediately ascend. Tr. 3174-175. This explanation ap-parently satisfied Chairman Jensch since in the subsequent questioning by the Board, he asked only one question and it concerned definitions of shortand long-range. Tr. 3177, 3180.

128. SCANP cites Professor Badgley's criticism of Appli-cants' monitoring of wind velocity and direction. SCANP Pro-posed Finding .:o. 5, p. 100. However, Professor Badgley acknowledged that the data obtained from the onsite metecro-logical tower are appropriate for determination of dispersion characteristics at the site, and that they have been properly used with conventional methods to predict the dispersion of the cooling tower plume and radioactive releases. Tr. 3126, 3135, 3149, 3178. The onsite meteorological measuring program con-forms to the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Program." SER, fol. Tr. 14,441, S 2.3.3. See also Applicants Proposed Finding Nos. 202-204, pp. 117-119.

1595 167 129. Widh regard to the duration of Applicants' meteoro-logical monitoring activities, SCANP contends that a three-year study would be minimally acceptable. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 6, p. 100. However, the Staff views one year of onsite meteorological data as suf ficient at the PSAR stage of review.

Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, Regulatory Guide 1.70, S 2.3.3. In fact, the PSAR includes onsite data for a two-year period. PSAR, S 2.3.

J. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 130. In Section J of its Proposed Findings, pp. 102-107, SCANP challenges the adequacy of the consideration given to impacts of the proposed facility on the Skagit River in view of its status as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as well as the environmental review associated with the Secre-tary of Agriculture's determination approving licensing of the facility. It is clear that, as a matter of law, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is bound to accept the determination of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act S 7, 16 U.S.C. S 1278; Appli-cants Proposed Finding No. 187, 99 110-111. This is not the 1595 168 proper forum in which to cha'llenge the Secretary's determina-tion. Add itionally , it is clear that the impacts of the Project were fully and properly reviewed and considered in this p r oceeding .

131. The Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture carefully studied the possible impacts of the Project on the River. It collected information from Applicants, NRC Staff, and f rom independent sources by means of field trips, govern-ment reports and interviews with private individuals knowledge-able about the River. See, e.g., Tr. 7769-780, 7925-958.

Thereafter, additional work was conducted and the environmental analysis report (Exh. 119) prepared and submitted to the NRC for its u'3e in developing the FES Final Supplement under the

" lead agency" co7 cept. Tr. 7824-832, 7904-907; FES Final Supp., pp. 1-1 to 1-2. Work on the FES Final Supplement by the NRC Staff with the assistance of the Forest Service involved the gathering of additional information, investigationc and evaluation. FES Final Supp., pp. xi, 1-2; Tr. 7823-832, 7845-849, 7886-890. Information thus gathered and evaluated, as well as numerous submissions by proponents and opponents of the Project, formed the basis for the Secretary of Agri-culture's determination. Exh. 203, p. 2.

1595 169 132. The full, independent environmental / consideration given to facility impacts is clearly consistent with require-ments. The " lead agency" concept, as implemented in developing the FES Final Supplement was peaper. The lead agency technique has been sanctioned and, indeed, encouraged by the Council on Environmental Quality. 10 CFR S 1500.7 (b) (1977); 43 F.R.

55,978, 55,992-993 (1978). Courts, too, have found it consis-tent witn NEPA and approved its use. See, e.g., National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 389 F. Supp. 1263, 1272-274 (D. Conn. 1974), aff'd in certi.nent cart, 524 F.2d 79, 85-87 (2d Cir . 1975) .

133. Further, environmental consideration was given to the impact of the Project on values listed in The Skagit Final En-vironmental Statement (Exh. 117). In particular, the values for which the River w?s designated a component of the Wild and Scenic River System, as well as the specific matters mentioned on pages 103-106 of the SCANP Proposed Findings (land use, transportation, socioeconomic and scenic values, the Skagit hiver fishery and eagles) have all been considered. See, e.g.,

Exh. 119, pp. 24, 27-34; Exh. 203, pp. 2-3; Exh. 207; FES Final Supp., pp. 4-7 to 4-8, 4-11 to 4-19, 11-3 to 11-7, 11-11 to 11-12; Tr. 7886-896.

1595 170 134. Finally, SCANP's criticism of Mr. Hesseldahl on pagel 103 is wholly unjustified. SCANP Proposed Finding No. 3,

p. 103. The record reveals that Mr. Hesseldahl was well quali-fled to testify concerning the Skagit as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and potential impacts. See, e.g., Tr. 7769-770, 7787-789. No objection whatever to Mr.

Hesseldahl's appearanc6 as a witness was raised during the hearings. In fact, at one point SCANP counsel himself des-cribed Mr. Hesseldahl as perhaps "the Forest Service's most experienced employee with regard to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as it applies to that (the Skagit] River." Tr. 7832-833.

K. Radiolocical Releases 135. Again, most of the matters discussed in the SCANP Pro-posed Findings (i.e., calculated doses as presented in the SER Supp. 1, pp. 108-109; NEPA review of revised dose estimates, pp. 109-111; dose evaluation models, pp. 111-112; and building ventilation design, pp. 114-115) were not placed in issue by any contentions and cannot be properly raised now. In addi-tion, however, they are without merit.

1595 171 136. As for the calculated doses presented in the SER Supp.

1, the value given in Table 11-7 for " Doses to any organ from all pathways" (15 mrem per year per site) is simply that number calculated by rounding off to two significant figures so as to be comparable to the proposed dose design objectives contained in RM-50-2. The Staff concluded that this calculated dose satisfied the proposed dose design objective. SER Supp. 1,

p. 11-7. Although the calculated doses in Table 11-7 of SER Supp. 1 are greater than those presented earlier in Table 5.6 of the FES, they are still very small. For examp e, the highest whole-body exposure ptedicted (2.2 mrem per year) represents only a few percent of background. See FES, S 5.4.3. Since the effect of the changes is small, and the Licensing Board's decision will be based upon all of the information in the record, the FES need not be redrafted and recirculated. See Lono Island Light Co. (James- port Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) , LBP-77-21 5 NRC 684 (1977);

Niagara Mohawk Power Coro. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347, 371-372 (1975).

137. With respect to the dose calculations and the method-ology described in Appendix A to the prefiled testimony of NRC Staf f witness Essig (fol. Tr. 2722), there is no indication in the record that the assumptions utilized were unreasonable.

1595 172 Further, the mathematical models employed in calculating the doses presented in SER Supp. 1, Table 11-7 (which replaced FES Table 5.6) are those presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Rev.

1) . SER Supp. 1, p. 11-5. Accordingly, SCANP's criticism of the methodology described in Appendix A to Mr. Essig's testi-mony is irrelevant since it was not employed in developing the referenced SER tables.

138 As for the matter of cooling tower entrainment of radiological releases, SCANP Proposed Finding No. 5 (pp.

112-113) completely ignores Professor Badgley's statement that, insofar as winds blowing toward the cooling towers are con-cerned, the frequency assumed by Applicants' witness Tosetti was, if anything, conservative, i.e., higher than he would assume. Tr. 3159-160. Tosetti, in turn, calculated that any doses resulting f rom such entrainment would be small. Tosetti, fol. Tr. 2629.

139. Finally, insofar as ventilation exhaust from the fuel and auxiliary buildings is concerned, the NRC Staff has found the f acility to be in f ull compliance with the "as low as is reasonably achievable" requirements of Appendix I. SER Supp.

1, p. 11-7. That conclusion was based upon, among other things, Applicants' February 6, 1978 submittal entitled "10 CFR 1595 173 50, Appendix I Compliance Evaluation," which was distributed to all of the parties. Id., p. 11-2. As indicated on page 14 of that submittal, potentially contaminated auxiliary building ventilation will be passed through charcoal and HEPA filters.

The fuel building, on the other hand, is not a source of radio-active gaseous effluents. See also Exh. 176 (PSAR) , SS 9.4.2, 9.4.6. In case of contamination, building ventilation will be exhausted through the Standby Gas Treabment System (SGTS) , but the SGTS will not be employed during normal operation. Exh.

176, SS 9.4.2, 9.4.6. Accordingly, SCANP's concerns are un-founded.

L. Effects of Postulated Accidents 140. Most of the SCANP Proposed Findings concerning the effects of postulated accidents constitute an attempt to expand an old contention, raise new ones, or reargue motions pre-viously denied. Applicants Proposed Findings Nos. 138-141, pp. 82-85. SCANP Contention J.7 alleges that the environmental statement for the Project " entirely ignores the likelihood and consequences of accidents of any kind," and that 1595 174 It is unreasonable . . . to ignore the consequences of accidents for purposes of environmental and economic impact evaluation since the consequences of accidents are evaluated with respect to other aspects of the licensing process, including the safety analysis.

SCANP Contentions, fol. Tr. 67, p. 9. In contrast to pages 116-119 of the SCANP Proposed Findings, Contention J.7 contains no mention, whatever, of risk probabilities and the potential failure of safety systems, calculational conservatism, sabotage or operator-induced malfunctions, anticipated transients with-out scram, loss-of-coolant accidents or fuel handling acci-dents. Even though warned of the deficiency--specifically in connection with this contention--and of fered an opportunity to amend its contentions (see Tr. 2148-178), SCANP refused to do so.

141. In any event, with respect to the possible f ailure or malfunction of a safety system during an accident and calcula-tional conservatism (SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 2-3, pp. 116-117), analyses may properly assume--absent a special showing of a particular deficiency--that emergency components will operate as designed. Evaluation of realistic, not worst-case, effects is sufficient. See, e.g., Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) , ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 835-836 (1973), aff'd by unpublished order sub nom. Lloyd Harbor Study Group v. AEC (D.C. Cir. No. 73-2266, Nov. 11, 1595 175 1976), vacated on other grounds sub dom. Long Island Lighting Co. v. Lloyd Harbor Study Group, 435 U.S. 964 (1978) [herein-af ter cited as Shoreham] ; Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 925 (1976), vacated in part and remanded on other grounds, ALAB-366, 5 NRC 39 (1977). In addition, contrary to SCANP Proposed Finding No. 4, p. 117, NEPA does not require consider-ation of sabotage. Shoreham, 6 AEC at 851.

142. With respect to Applicants' alleged failure "to assure lowest possible levels of accidental radiological release" in connection with " anticipated transients without scram," a

" design basis loss-of-coolant accident with reference to the project's final design parameters," and " postulated fuel hand-ling accidents" (SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 5-8, pp. 117-119), there is no requirement that releases be held to the absolute " lowest possible" level.

Compliance with NRC regulations is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1009-010 (1973), aff'd sub nom. Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir . , 1975). Further, any uncertainties as 1595 176 to the specifics of final design details 6 do not pose la bar to the issuance of an LWA or a construction permit because the ultimate cost-benefit balance cannot be precisely computed.

See, e.g., Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069, 1082-085 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

143. Finally, with respect to Class 9 accidents and the

" event at Three Mile Island" (SCANP Proposed Findings Nos. 9-10, pp. 119-120), the relationship, if any, between the incident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, and the Skagit Project appears nowhere in the record. Most importantly, the Commis-sion itself has provided guidance by means of its announcement that the rulemaking begun with the 1971 proposal to place nuclear power plant accidents in nine categories to take them into account in preparing environmental impact statements will be completed. Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants), 1 Nuclear Regulation Reporter (CCH) 11 30,415, 30,415.01, 30,415.06. Since the matter of Class 9 accidents 6 It has long been settled that a complete, final design is not necessary under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for the issuance of a construction permit. All that is required at the construction permit stage is reasonable assurance that a facil-ity of the general type proposed can be constructed and oper-ated without undue risk to the public health and safety. See Power Reactor Development Co. v. Electrical Union, 367 U.S.

396, 406-409 (1961).

1595 177 and their consideration is being investigated within a general #

rulemaking, additional separate consideration within the con-text of this proceeding would be neither desirable nor proper.

Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).

144. With the record reflecting that the Staff's analysis of the probability and consequences of accidents has been sufficiently performed in accordance with Commission guidance, the Board should properly find that the Staff has considered the consequences of accidents in accordance with Commission regulations and that the environmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small.7 7

In announcing its intention to proceed by rulemaking the Commission requested that the NRC Staff, "[i]n the interim, pending completion of the rulemaking on this subject, bring to our attention, any individual cases in which it believes the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents should be con-sidered." Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants) , 1 Nuclear Regulation Reporter (CCH) 1 30,415.06. Thus, the mat-ter is being monitored on a continuing basis.

1595 l78 M. Alternative Energy Sources through HH. Order (Reply findings on these subjec :s will be filed, as necessary, af ter SCANP files its proposed findings.]

Dated : November 30, 1979.

Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, IAMS OLSEN&f ByD d F. Theodore Thomsen By dl&h[ Little

\]outflas S.

Attorneys for Applicant 1900 Washing ton Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (206) 682-8770 Of Counsel:

Lowenste in, Newman, Re is ,

Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washing ton, D. C. 20036 1595 179 APPENDIX B

, , November 30, 1979 TRANSCRIPT VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES ,

o -

1 4/15/75 Special Prehearing Conference 1-76

- o -

JULY - AUGUST 1975 SESSION 2 7/15/75 Limited Appearances77-430 3 7/16/75 Limited Appearances 431-701 FERGUSON Introduction FINNEGAN Wild and Scenic 4 7/17/75 MYERS Application, ER, PSAR 702-926 and LWA MYERS ) Site Suitability STARKE )

LOU )

FARRELL )

HUI )

FINNEG AN ) Geology / Seismology DOBRIN )

ADAIR )

BOLT )

LESLIE )

MILLER )

COOMBS )

5 7/18/75 Panel Contd. Geology / Se ismology 927-1161 6 7/21/75 IVEY ) Geology / Seismology 1162-1407 DOBRIN )

ADAIR )

MILLER )

COOMBS )

i CHENEY Geology / Seismology 1595 180

VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 6-II 7/21/75 CHENEY Geology / Seismology 7 7/22/75 CRANDELL Geology / Seismology 1408-1631 RASMUSSEN Geology /Se ismology 8 7/23/75 IVEY ) Geology / Seismology 1632-1865 DOBRIN )

ADAIR )

MILLER )

9 7/24/75 STEPP ) Site Suitability Report 1866-2062 LeFEVRE )

GRIMES )

PELTIER )

10 7/25/75 STEPP ) Site Suitability Panel 2063-2286 GRIMES )

PELTIER )

11 7/28/75 MYERS ) LPZ Evacuation and 2287-2537 MacISAAC ) Construction Traffic CROSSON Geology / Seismology 12 7/29/75 SMITH Geology /Se ismology 2538-2798 MYERS ) Environmental Impact LARSEN )

HOUGHTON )

REICHARD )

KRAFT )

SHICKER )

RABIN )

TOSETTI i CARLTON )

FINNEGAN )

3 HEWITT ) Appendix I ESSIG )

LEDCH )

13 7/30/75 Panel Contd. Environmental Impact 2799-3032 e

1595 i81 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES LEBCH ) FES; Independent Review MILSTED .) by Staff BRUBAKER Ecological Effects ESSIG ) Genetic and Somatic LEBCH ) Effects MILSTED )

14 7/31/75 MkKELS Ranney Collectors 3033-3290 LOU Meteorology HEILMAN Aesthetics BADGLEY Meteorology MILSTED ) Environmental Effects LEBCH )

CARSON )

BESKID )

DERICKSON)

DVORAK )

14-II 7/31/75 DERICKSON) Fishery MILSTED )

MILSTED ) Agriculture DVORAK )

MILSTED ) Birds DVORAK )

DERICKSON)

MILSTED ) Visual LEBCH )

CARSON )

DERICKSON Board Questions 1 and 2 15 8/ 1/75 LEBCH ) FES; Independent 3291-3511 MILSTED ) Review by Staff LEBCH Wild and Scenic MILSTED ) Board Question 3 i 1595 I82 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES MYERS ) Project Discharge FINNEGAN )

HOUGHTON )

BERTHRONG )

SCOTT )

CH AKRAVORTI) 16 8/ 4/75 MYERS ) Project Discharge 3512-3737 FINNEGAN )

HOUGHTON )

PELTIER ) Site Suitability and HOUSTON ) Evacuation JACOBSEN ) Alternate Sites KNIGHT )

KNIGHT Alternate Energy Sources 17 8/ 5/75 KNIGHT Alternate Energy Sources 3738-3979 ADAIR ) Geology / Seismology COOMBS )

MILLER )

18 8/ 6/75 KNIGHT Alternate Energy Sources 3980-4240 FERGUSON Cost of Power BESKID ) Alternate Energy Sources CONNOR )

LEECH ) Alternate Sites CONNOR )

SMILEY Evacua tiori 19 8/ 7/75 SWARTZELL ) Need for Power 4241-4517 KNIGHT )

KNIGHT Board Question 4 CONNOR Need for Power i

1595 183 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 20 8/ 8/75 CONNOR Need for Power 4518-4722 CONNOR Postponing Construction; Board Question 4 ANDERSON Need for Power LEECH ) Capacity Factor CONNOR )

_o -

21 5/12/76 Special Prehearing Conference 4723-4844 JUNE 1976 SESSION 22 6/ 2/76 Limited Appearances 4845-5090 MECCA Revised Exhibits JACOBSEN Cherry Point LEECH Cherry Point KNIGHT B. C. Coal 23 6/ 3/76 KNIGHT B. C. Coal 5091-5335 COBB Aircraft Routes GENS BPA Transmission System STARKE Aircraft Routes CONNOR ) Coal Alternative BESKID )

24 6/ 4/76 BESKID ) Coal Alternative 5336-5597 CONNOR )

PELTIER ) Cherry Point LEBCH )

LEECH Capacity Factor i 1595 184 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES READ Military Aviation JULY 1976 SESSION 25 7/ 7/76 ADAIR ) Geology / Seismology 5598-5846 DOBRIN )

MILLER )

Limited Appearances 26 7/ 8/76 JACOBSEN ) Cherry Point 5847-6085 FERGUSON ) Dollars for .35g OSTROM )

SUMMERS )

FINNEGAN Cherry Point KNIGHT ) Skagit/ Pebble JACOBSEN ) Springs Comparison FERGUSON )

OSTROM )

SONSTELIE )

Limited Appearances 27 7/ 9/76 WOODLEY ) Skagit/ Pebble 6086-6341 KNIGHT ) Springs Comparison JACOBSEN )

FERGUSON )

OSTROM )

SONSTELIE )

FERGUSON ) Coal / Nuclear Cost Comparison SONSTELIE )

28 7/10/76 JAYE ) Nuclear Fuel Cycle 6342-6552 KOPPE ) Costs; Nuclear Capacity SONSTELIE ) Factor FERGUSON )

l'595 185 AUGUST 1976 JOINT NFP SESSION NFP VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 29 8/17/76 KNIGHT ) Need for Power 1-279 BREDEMEIER )

HEINRICH ) -

SWARTZELL )

LISBAKKEN )

NOGLE )

Limited Appearances 30 8/18/76 Panel Contd. Need for Power 280-549 Limited Appearances 31 8/19/76 Panel Contd. Need for Power 550-815 GEKAS ) Need for Power TAYLOR )

Limited Appearances 32 8/20/76 GEKAS ) Need for Power 816-1054 TAYLOR )

SCHULT Z Need for Power NOGLE Need for Power 33 8/21/76 CONNOR Need for Power 1055-1253 TIMM Oregon Report Limited Appearances 34 8/23/76 TIMM Oregon Report 1254-1542 MURRAY Need for Power Limited Appearances i

1595 186 NFP VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 35-I 8/24/76 TIMM Oregon Report 1543-1733 LAMBERT Need for Power BOLY Need for Power 35-II 8/24/76 TIMM Oregon Report MARCH 1977 JOINT NFP SESSION 36 3/ 1/77 Limited Appearances MILLER ) Oregon Report 1734-1983 WELLS )

FANG )

NADAL )

37 3/ 2/77 WELLS ) Oregon Report 1984-2192 FANG )

MILLER )

NADAL )

TIMM )

MURRAY NRDC Scenario 38 3/ 3/77 MURRAY NRDC Scenario 2193-2463 39 3/ 4/77 NETSCHERT Industrial Conservation ' 2464-2706 ANDERSON Econometric Forecast 40 3/ 5/77 ANDERSON Econometric Forecast 2707-2967 SCHULTZ Hydro Resources BLOOD Surplus Energy 41 3/ 7/77 TAYLOR Need for Power 2968-3219 D&VEN PORT ) Conservation SWARTZELL )

McCLELLAN )

SOOT ) f TAYLOR Need for Power 1595 187 NFP VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 42 3/ 8/77 TAY LOR Need for. Power 3220-3498 BLOOD West Group Forecast Power Imports and Exports HEINRICH PGE Forecast McCLELLAN ) Conservation SWAR~2 ELL )

43 3/ 9/77 HEINRICH ) Need for Power 3499-3756 KNIGHT )

LISBAKKEN )

NOGLE )

BREDEMEIER ) ,

SWARTZELL )

_o -

43-I 3/ 9/77 Conference of Counsel 1-24

_ o _

MAY 1977 PRE-LWA WORK SESSION CONTD.

PAGES 44 5/11/77 Limited Appearance 6553-6804 GOETTGE ) Sewer Line and.

FINNEGAN ) Road Work BURKE )

DVORAK ) Environmental 7.aalysis GOLDSTEIN ) of Proposed Pre-LWA Work NEWMAN Construction Impacts 45 5/12/77 NEWMAN Construction Impacts 6804-7061 CLOUGH Environmental Impacts BRUBAKER Construction Impacts i

1595 188 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES DVORAK ) Environmental Analysis of GOLDSTEIN. ) Proposed Pre-LWA Work HOUGHTON ) Aquatic and Terrestrial LEDER ) Effects 46 5/13/77 HOUGHTON ) Aquatic and Terrestrial 7062-7161 LEDER ) Effects JULY 1977 SESSION 47 7/19/77 MECCA Chapter 2 of PSAR 7165-7413 PATTERSON Uranium Resources Availability PARKER ) Alternative Sites LEBCH )

DVORAK )

PELTIER )

Limited Appearance 48 7/20/77 PARK ER ) Alternative Sites 7414-7667 LEBCH )

DVORAK )

PELTIER )

49 7/21/77 PARKER ) Alternative Sites 7668-7922 LEECH )

DVORAK )

LEECH ) Wild and Scenic; DVORAK ) Final Supplement to FES PARKER )

WINTERS )

HESSELDAHL )

HENLEY )

50 7/22/77 Panel Contd. Wild and Scenic 7923-8193 SWEENEY Aesthetic and Secondary Impac ts

(

1595 189 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 51 7/23/77 BOWER Exhibit 124 8194-8375 BRUBAKER Aquatic Impacts READ Military Aviation (F8325)

LEBCH Revised Table S-3 GOETTGE Proposed pre-LWA Reduced Scope Road Work 52 1/24/78 Prehearing Confer n e 8376-8484 MARCH 1978 SESSION 53 3/ 7/78 BOLT Geology / Seismology 8485-8700 54 3/ 8/78 ADAIR ) Geology / Seismology 8701-8947 MILLER )

55 3/ 9/78 HAYS ) Geology / Seismology 8948-9160 WASTLER )

LEFEVRE )

BROCKMAN )

WHETTEN )

MORRIS )

DEVINE )

KELLEHER )

STEPP )

56 3/10/78 Panel Contd. Geology / Seismology 9161-9410 DOBRIN Geology /Se ismology 57 3/11/78 DOBRIN Geology / Seismology 9411-9640 Panel Contd. Geology / Seismology 58 3/13/78 Panel Contd. Geology / Seismology 9641-9900 e

1595 190 VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 59 3/14/78 Panel Contd. Geology /Se ismology 9901-10129 60 3/15/78 Panel Contd. Geology / Seismology 10130-10315 61 6/20/78 Prehearing Confer nce 10316-10475 JUNE 1978 SESSION 62 6/21/78 GOTCHY Coal-Nuclear Health 10476-10718 Effects MIKELS ) Ranney Collectors PETERSON )

CASSIDY )

ANDERSON )

63 6/22/78 MIKELS ) Ranney Collectors 10719-10978 PETERSON )

CASSIDY )

ANDERSON )

64 6/23/78 MORRIS ) Geology / Seismology 10979-11236 WHETTEN )

BLUNDEN Bore Hole Logging 65 6/24/78 ADAIR ) Geology / Seismology 11237-11480 TALMADGE )

CROSBY )

CHENEY Geology / Seismology o -

66 1/16/79 Conference of Counsel 11481-11645 67 1/17/79 Conference of Counsel 11646-11775 68 4/24/79 Conference of Counse1 11776-11953 e

1595 191 JULY 1979 SESSION VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 69 7/17/79 Limited Appearances 11954-12146 Preliminary Matters 70 7 /18/79 SCHREIBER ) Ranney Collectors 12147-12354 MARMER )

ZUSSMAN )

Limited Appearance 71 7/19/79 WEBER Ranney Collectors 12355-12543 LEECH Alternative Sites 72 7/20/79 Limited Appearance 12544-12760 LEECH ) Alternative Sites EASTVEDT )

STULL )

DVORAK )

LEFEVRE )

WINTERS )

73 7/21/79 Panel Contd. Alternative Sites 12761-12890 74 7/23/79 Panel Contd. Alternative Sites 12891-13088 75 7/24/79 Panel Contd. Alternative Sites 13089-13326

-13227A 76 7/25/79 Panel Contd. Alternative Sites 13228A-13327A 13328-13458 WINTERS Socio-Economic Impacts and Cost-Benefit Analysis 77 7/26/79 ELLIS ) Quality Assurance 13459-13670 FERGUSON )

PADGETT )

HETTINGER )

WINTERS Socio-Economic Impacts and Cost-Benefit i Analysis CHENEY Alternative Sites 1595 192

VOLUME DATE WITNESSES SUBJECT PAGES 78 7/27/79 CHENEY Alternative Sites 13671-13912 DARLAND Alternative Sites 79 7/30/79 MECCA Amended Application 13913-14171 and Complete PSAR CHENEY B. C. Coal CARSTENS Alternative Sites 80 7/31/79 MIKELS Ranney Collectors 14172-14387 KNIGHT Alternative Sites AUGUST 1979 SESSION 81 8/27/79 Limited appearances 14388-14573 PELTIER Safety Evaluation Report and Supplement No. 1 HULMAN) ) Floodplain Management STULL )

82 8/29/79 GITTLEMAN Financial Qualifications 14574-14801 LAZAR Financial Qualifications 83 8/30/79 LAZAR Financial Qualifications 14802-15048 OLSON ) Financial Qualifications COBERLEY )

PACK )

COOMBS )

1595 193