ML19270F864

Applicants' Revised Statement of Issues,Per ASLB 790208 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19270F864
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	02/22/1979
From:	Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903270641
Download: ML19270F864 (17)

Text

EDJJ Fc,, ; . .

.am

'. 9 :p ,' la l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( ,x

/7 y,$/

fd

),.'u 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, ) February 22, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )

)

APPLICANTS' REVISED STATEMENT OF ISSUES This revised statement of issues is submitted on behalf of Applicants pursuant to the Board's Post Conference Order No. 2 dated February 8, 1979. In accordance with that order, this revised statement replaces our previously filed " Applicants' List of Principal Issues" dated January 9, 1979. Because our previous list was used as the basis for the discussion of the status of the issues at the conference of January 16 and 17, 1979, we have, except for a few minor changes, used the same subject headings and numbers -- and the same grouping there-under of intervenor contentions -- as in our previous list.

This will facilitate cross referencing between the two lists and tie in with the transcript of the January conference. It also eliminates the need to repeat the text of the contentions in this revised list, as they appear in full in the previcus 790327 0 0 gly

list. The only rearrangement of contentions was to move SCANP contention J 10 from C.6 to H, under Environmental Matters.

As on our previous list, the underlying issues, subordinate issues and intervenor contentions have been grouped under three major headings. As requested in the Board's order, the intro-ductory discussion under each major heading relates the sub-ordinate issues and contentions to the underlying issues stated in the original notice of hearing. Under each subordinate issue (subheading) we have stated the position of Applicants on the matters specified in the Board's order (paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 on page 2) in the form of Applicants' answers to ques-tions a, 6 and c, as follows: (These questions reflect our understanding of the information the Board desires to receive from each party.)

a. Should the record be considered closed on the above subject and contentions? State the basis for your answer, with any appropriate citations to the record.

b. Do you take the position that the evidence of any other party on these matters is inadequate or insuf-ficient ac a matter of reason or law? Answer yes or no. If your answer is yes, describe the deficiency, with any appropriate citations to the record,

c. Do you intend to offer additional evidence on these matters? Answer yes, no or don't know yet. If your answer is yes, describe the nature of the evidence, to the extent feasible, in specific terms, e.g. each witness' name and qualifications and thrust of his testimony; also specify the time when the evidence has been or will be made available to the other parties.

If your answer is don't know yet, explain why you don't know yct and state when you will know.

Part I ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - LWA The underlying environmental issue (the issue pursuant to NEPA) to be decided by the Board is stated in Item 5 of the original notice of hearing as follows:

5. Whether, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, the construction permits should be issued as proposed.

The subordinate environmental issues to be decided by the Board are those specified in 10 CFR 51.52(b) and (c). They include those intervenor contentions (matters in controversy) that fall within the scope of NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51; All such conten-tions are identified and addressed in this Part I. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10 (e) (2) (i) , the environmental issues must be decided prior to an issuance of an LWA.

A. Adequacy of Environmental Impact Statements

1. Contentions SCANP Cententions J l and J 16.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed, subject to the understanding that new evidence on other issues may also be relevant to this issue.

Tr. 11,711-13.

b. No.

c. No.

B. Impacts of Construction B.l. Reactor Pressure Vessel Delivery

1. Contenticas. None.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes, It is recognized, however, that the Staff has not yet filed its reevaluation of this mat-ter, as previously requested by the Board, and that the Board or the Staff may wish to make such reevaluation a part of the evidentiary record.

Tr. 11,713-14.

b. No.

c. No. (It should be understood throughout this statement that all "No" answers to question c are subject to Applicants' right to rebut any new evidence presented by others. Tr. 11,715.)

B.2. Other Impacts of Construction

1. Contentions. None.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed. Tr. 11,717-19.

(The Indians reserved subject to further study.

Id.)

b. No.

c. No.

C. Impacts of Operation C.l. Cooling Tower Operation

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions J 4 and J 6.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed. Tr. 11,719-20,

b. No.

c. No.

C. 2. Vis ual Impacts

1. Contentions SCANP Contention J 8

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed. Tr. 11,720.

b. No.

c. No.

C.3. Project Discharge

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions J 3 and PSAR 1(b) and (d).

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed. Tr. 11,720. (The Indians have expressed a concern on this sub-ject. Id.)

b. No.

c. No.

C.4. Ranney Collector System

1. Contentions SCANP PSAR Contention 4.

2. Position of Applic'at:

a. No. The Staff intends to present additional evidence on this matter. Tr. 11,720. (SCANP wants to wait and see and so do the Indians.

Tr. 11,721. Any " wait and see" must be justified and be subject to a specified deadline.)

b. No,

c. No.

C.5. Radiological Releases

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions J 9 and PSAR 1(c) .

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties have so agreed, except that SCANP may file a new motion re class 9 acci-dents. Tr. 11,722; 11,733-34. (The Indians have expressed a concern on this subject.

Tr. 11,722-26.)

b. No.

c. No.

C.6. Socio-Economic Impacts

1. Contentions. None.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes, except for presentation of certain pre-viously filed testimony by the Staf f. Tr.

11,726-27. (SCANP and the Indians want to wait and see. Tr. 11,727-33. SC ANP has no conten-tions.)

b. No.

_s_

c. No.

D. Ef f ects of Postulated Accidents

1. Contentions SC ANP Contention J 7.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties have so agreed, except that SCANP may file a new motion re class 9 acci-dents. Tr. 11,722; 11,733-34. (Both FOB /CFSP and the Indians indicated that if the subject is taken up, they may want to present a witness.

Tr. 11,734. FOB /CFSP has no contention. )

b. No.

c. No.

E. Alternative Sites

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions C and J 12.

2. Position of Applicants

a. No. The Staff intends to present witnesses on the subject of geology and seismology of alterna-tive sites, pursuant to the Board's request. Tr.

11,735-37. The Board stated that it would be issuing a post-hearing order on the subject of the Staff's consideration of alternative sites.

Tr. 11,626. Depending upon the content of that order, additional evidence may be presented by the Staff. Tr. 11,735-37. (SCANP wants to wait and see. Id.)

b. No.

c. No.

F. Alternative Energy Sources

1. Contentions SC ANP Contentions D and J 13.

FOB /CFSP Contentions 6 and 7.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes, when the generic qdestion on Radon-222 is resolved. The Staff has suggested that the Sterling proceeding be monitored to see whether tne Radon-222 question might be resolved there.

Any concerns not resolved there could then be considered here. Tr. 11,738-40, 11,643-45.

SCANP concurred in the Staff's plan. Id. Appli-cants accept this plan provided it does not delay completion of the LWA hearing. Applicants sug-gest that, in order to prevent the possibility of delay, the parties be required to prefile here all evidence which they want to offer on the Radon-222 issue. If this same evidence or any part of it is considered in the Sterling proceed-ing, the Sterling transcript can be offered in lieu of the evidence prefiled here, thereby removing or reducing the need for hearings here.

The Staff also indicated that witness Gotchy is preparing a limited update of his testimony which has previously been presented here. The revisions are to be available by the end of May.

Tr. 11,738. The Board indicated that it was dissatisfied with the organization of Mr.

Gotchy's testimony and might be addressing his testimony in a post-conference order. Tr.

11,636. FOB /CFSP said it wanted the opportunity to cross-examine further Mr. Gotchy, although it did not specify the scope of such further exami-nation and should be required to do so. Tr.

11,634-37.

FOB /CFSP will notify the Board by March 1 whether they would want to produce a witness on wind power. Tr. 11,737-38. They should not be permitted to produce such a witness absent a clear showing of good cause for their untimeli-ness in presenting him. SCANP indicated that it might offer a witness to address the availability of coal, especially British Columbia coal. Tr.

11,740-743. This should not be permitted without a clear showing of good cause for untimeliness.

Applicants reserve the opportunity to comment further upon any such requests, if and when they are made.

b. No.

c. No.

G. Need for Power s

1. Contentions '-

SCANP Contentions A, B, F, J 11 and J 14.

FOB /CFSP Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. There is pending a motion by SCANP to reopen the record on need for pcwer. Applicants have urged that the motion be denied and have further suggested that it be denied without prejudice to its renewal should any information of significance to this proceeding on the need for power issue be developed in the Pebble Springs state proceeding. Tr. 10,431-33, 11,584. A proposed decision frem the adminis-trative law judge in that case is expected in April. Tr. 11,576.

b. No.

c. No.

H. Cost-Benefit Analysis

1. Contentions SCANP Contentiens G, J 10 and J 15.

FOB /C7SP Cente.ntion S.

2. Position of Applicants

a. No. The Staff has yet to present its final cost-benefit analysis. Tr. 11,747. FOS /CFSP tentatively indicated that it may present a witness to address capital costs and capacity factors. Tr. 11,743. FCB/CFSF has no contention concerning capacity factors. Applicants will provide all parties with an updated capital cost estimate but at this time do not propose pre-senting a witness en the subject. Tr.

11,749-51. (SCANP wants to wait and see the Staff's analysis and theru dter offer witnesses.

Tr. 11,750),

b. No.

c. No; however, see preceding comment on Applicants' capital cost estimate.

I. Federal Water Pollution Control Act

1. Contentions. None.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed. Tr. 11,751.

b. No.

c. No.

J. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

1. Contentions SCANP Contention I.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed. Tr. 11,751.

b. No,

c. No.

Part II SITE SUITABILITY ISSUES - LWA The underlying site suitability issue to be decided by the Board is referred to in Item 6 of the original notice of hear-ing (" general site suitability") and is stated in full in 10 CFR 50.10 (e) (2) (ii) as follows:

[Whether], based upon the available information and review to date, there is reasonable assurance that the proposed site is a suitable location for a reactor of the general size and type proposed from the standpoint of radiological health and safety considerations under the Act and rules and regularions promulgated by the Commission pursuant thereto.

The factors to be considered in deciding this issue include those mentioned in 10 CFR Part 100. The subordinate site suitability issues to be decided by the Board are those inter-venor contentions that relate to the underlying site suitabil-ity issue. All such contentions are identified and addressed in this Part II. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10 (e) (2) , the site suitability issues must be decided prior to issuance of an LWA.

A. Geography and Demography

1. Contentions. None.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes,

b. No.

c. No.

B. Nearby Industrial, Transportation and Military Facilities

1. Contentions. None.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. SCANP indicated that it wanted to respond to the Staff's analysis of military aviation.

Tr. 11,766-67. The Staff's evaluation was ad-mitted into evidence during hearings in July 1977. Follows Tr. 8325. Therefore, any response by SCANP would be untimely,

b. No,

c. No.

C. Geology and Seismology

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions H, J 2, J 5 and PSAR 1(a) .

2. Position of Applicants

a. No,

b. No.

c. Yes. Within a month, Applicants will distribute to tle Board and parties a report on the investi-qa',1ons per formed in response to the Staff's questions of June 1978. The report will provide a large volume of geological and geophysical information.

Applicants anticipate that a presently undetermined portion of this report will be presented at an LWA evidentiary session because it may have a bearing on the issue of site suita-bility. The remainder of the report would be presented at construction permit evidentiary sessions. Applicants cannot determine what parts of the report should be presented when and until the report is completed and has been discussed to some extent with the Staff and other parties.

In response to Mr. Linenberger's request (Tr. 11,630-31), Applicants will present a wit-ness or witnesses (probably Messrs. Adair, Tal-mage and Crosby) to address Mr. 31unden's inter-pretations on the gravitational stability of the plant site. These witnesses will also be pre-pared to address any questions from Mr. Linen-berger about the possibility of coal seam fires at the site. (On this question see pp. 2.5-36, 36a of the PSAR.)

D. Suitability for Development of Evacuation Plan

1. Contentions SC ANP Contention E.

2. Position of Applicants

a. Yes. The parties so agreed, except that SCANP desires to introduce an NRC report but no witness on the subject. Tr. 11,766-68.

b. No.

c. No.

Part III RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES - CP The underlying radiological health and safety issues (the issues pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) to be decided by the Board are those stated in Items 1 through 4 of the original notice of hearing. They include the finan-cial qu?lifications issue, Item 3, as follows:

3. Whether the applicants are financially qualified to design and construct the proposed facilities.

The subordinate health and safety issues to be decided by the Board include those intervenor contentions that relate to the underlying health and safety issues, including the financial qualifications issue. All such contentions are identified and addressed in this Part III. The radiological health and safety issues must be decided prior to issuance of a construction permit but need not be' decided prior to issuance of an LWA.

A. Site Criteria

1. Contentions e

SCANP PSAR Contention 1(a) .

2. Position of Applicants

a. No,

b. No.

c. Yes. Whatever portion of Applicants' forthcoming report on geological and geophysical investiga-tions that is not presented during the LWA hear-ing,.as noted in II.C above.

B. Financial Qualifications

1. Contentions SC ANP PSAR Contention 3.

FOB /CFSP Contentions 9 and 10.

2. Position of Applicants

a. No,

b. No.

c. Yes. Puget's witness on financial qualifications will be Russell E. Olson, its Treasurer. A similarly qualified witness from each of the other three applicants will also be presented.

These witnesses will present evidence showing that the four applicants are financially quali-fied to design and construct the propcsed facili-ties. Thic evidence will be similar to the financ' . information previously submittec to the parti s, wh';h was evaluated by the Staff in Sa. <tc 0 of Supplement No. 1 to the Skagit SER,

< - 5 ;g ,at it will be updated. The updated e', tie ace aan be prepared upon relatively short notice and Applicants would plan to make it available to the Board and all parties whatever number of days in advance of the evidentiary session on this subject that the Board deems appropriate.

C. Other

1. Cont?ntions SCAMP PSAR Contention 2.

~

2. Position of Applicants

a. No.

b. No.

c. Yes. J. E. Mecca, Puget's Manager-Nuclear Li-censing & Safety, will testify on this conten-tion. In essence, his testimony will consist of Section 13.3 of the PSAR.

Dated: February 22, 1979 Respectfully submitted PERKINS, COIE, STONC, OLSEN & WILLIAMF CY F..

k  %

Theodore Thomsen Attorneys for Applicants 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 of Counsel:

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NCCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND PCUER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DOCKET NOS.

et al. )

) 50-522 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following:

APPLICANTS' REVISED STATEMENT OF ISSUES in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on Februarv 22, 1979 with proper postage affixed for first class mail.

DATED: February 22, 1979.

N d M F. Theodore Thomsen Counsel for Puget Scund Power &

Light Ccmpany 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101

. Date: February 22, 1979 Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairran Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Energy Facility Site Evaluation 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Council Washington, D.C. 20036 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert C. Schofield, Director School of Natural Resources Skagit County Planning Department University of Michigan 120 West Kincaid Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20555 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Portland, OR 97204 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Washington, D. C. 20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. John H. Buck, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Warren Hastings, Esq.

Appeal Board Associate Corporate Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland General Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 Michael C. Farrar, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing CFSP and FOB Appeal Board E. Stachon & L. Marbet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Boring, OR 97009 Docketing and Service Section Canadian Consulate General Office of the Secretary Peter A. van Brakel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice-Consul Washington, D. C. 20555 412 Plaza 600 (original and 20 copies) 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, WA 93101 Richard L. Black, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff Donald S. Means U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Box 277 Office of the Executive Legal La Conner, WA 98257 Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.

Rives, Bonyhadi, Drummond & Smith Roger M. Leed, Esq. 1400 Public Service Building 1411 Fourth Ave. Bldg. #610 920 S.W. 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Portland, OR 97204 Russell W. Busch, Esq. Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Evergreen Legal Services Assistant Attorney General 520 Smith Tower Temple of Justice 506 Second Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98104 2/16/79