ML19289E988

Replaces 790115 List of Principal Issues,Submitted Per Aslab 790208 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19289E988
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	03/16/1979
From:	Gendler M, Leed R SKAGITONIANS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (SCANP)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906010014
Download: ML19289E988 (23)

Text

. . .

• w r NRC PUBLIC DOCMiENT ROOM

// '8SEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION @; h\hgg\ lib -

L*p* $.

b BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR ,Gb t er g

In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523

)

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power )

Project, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

)

INTERVENOR SCANP'S REVISED STATEMENT OF ISSUES This list is submitted in response to the Board's Post Conference Order No. 2, dated February 8, 1979, and is intended to replace SCANP's list of principal issues dated January 15, 1979. Although SCANP has not had the benefit of consultation with the other parties prior to the submission of Applicants' revised statement on February 22, 1979, SCANP has had the benefit of having Applicants' revised statement prior to final preparation of SCANP's statement. To facilitate comparison, SCANP will adopt the format used by Applicants. However, for the reasons which appear below, SCANP will state its position on the matters specified in the Board's order in the form of answers to questions different from those used by Applicantu.

S00 ?2ss _1_ 2234 001 79060100lY .

e .'

Applicants have the burden of proof with respect to each issue presented in this proceeding. 10 CFR S2.732.

Although SCANP can and has introduced evidence and spon-sored witnesses in support of its contentions, SCANP is not required to determine whether or not and in what fash-ion it will proceed befere it is presented with Applicants' attempt to meet their burden of proof. As is true in any other adjudicatory proceeding, SCANP's role as a respon-dent to the party with the burden of proof gives SCANP the right to frame its responses to that party's evidence after that evidence has been produced, at least in pre-liminary form, e.g., through discovery or by pre-filing.

Thus, SCANP must take issue with Applicants' charac-terization of SCANP's desirc to review the submissions of other parties as a " wait and see tactic." On those issues where App 1~icants or Staf f has stated their intention to in-troduce further evidence in an attempt to meet their bur-den of proof, SCANP requests that it be given this pro-posed evidence sufficiently in advance of evidentiary pre-sentations to allow SCANP to prepare its response. This is not a wait and see maneuver; SCANP does not desire to review Applicants' evidence to determine whether it im ,

advisable to prepare a response, but to determine how to formulate the best response. In view of SCANP's limited resources, it is essential that SCANP be given suf ficient time to analyze opposing evidence to determine how best to 100 AESS 2234 002 ..

use its resources in response, whether such response be by cross examination, rebuttal testimony, affidavit, or other-wise. With respect to evidence which a party has compiled over a f airly lengthy period of time, and which may be rather voluminous, an unduly short amount of time such as two weeks or even one month may be insufficient to allow SCANP to prepare its response. And in view of the amount of time taken by another party to compile its evidence, and the difficulty NCANP has experienced in obtaining discovery, a longer per~iod of time may be more appropriate. SCANP is pleased that the Board shares its view that testimony should be prefiled early enough to allow sufficient time for preparation of response, see TR 11716, and assures the Board that it- desires-this- time-for-response not-as-a - -

tactic to determine whether a response is appropriate, but only to have sufficient opportunity to prepare the best possible response with the limited resources at hand.

If SCANP's resources equalled those of the Applicants it, too, could, sponsor several expert witnesses to address each issue. But a less pleasant reality exists. SCANP must review the evidence which has been submitted and which will be considered in future evidentiary sessions in order to make the difficult choices of resource allocation which, given SCANP's limitations, can best advance its position.

If on certain issues Applicants, or, in the case of issues relating to NEPA, the Staf f, does not desire to

, ,s.<

o0u,-

- o c

2234 003

,. ; -s

t offer further testimony and evidence in order to meet their burden of proof, and in SCANP's view the party has not met ,

the burden of proof, then SCANP must decide whether the re-cord is sufficient as its stands or whether it is necessary to introduce further evidence to rebut the contention that the burden of proof has been met. If further evidence is necessary, SCANP must determine the appropriate form of such evidence: live testimony, further cross examination of Applicants' or Staf f's witnesses, affidavit, or other-wise. To the extent SCANP has knowledge of the intentions of the other parties to offer further evidence or to rest on the record, SCANP will inform the Board of its decision whether or not it desires to offer further evidence in this revised statement.

With the foregoing considerations in mind, SCANP's position on the matters specified in the Board's Post Con-ference Order No. 2 is stated in the form of SCANP's an-swers to the following questions:

a. Has Applicants' (or, where appropriate, Staff's) evidence been sufficient to meet their burden of proof?

SCANP will state the basis for its answers, with appropri-ate citations to the record. Of course, it may be impos-sible to cite to the record to demonstrate that the burden of proof has not been met, for the simple reason that there may be no evidence in the record which addresses the issue.

[00 Mu 2234 004~

b. Do Applicants (or Staff) intend to introduce evi-dence sufficient to meet their burden of proof?

c. Does SCANP intend to respond to Applicants (or Staff) when they introduce evidence sufficient to meet their burden of proof? ,

Alternatively, does SCANP intend to introduce evidence despite the failure .f Applicants (or Staf f) to attempt to meet their burden of proof, in order to nail the coffin shut on the attempts by these parties to meet their burdens?

PART I ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - LWA The underlying environmental issue pursuant to NEPA is stated in the original notice of hearing:

"5. Whether, in accordance with the require-ment of 10 CFR Part 51, the construction per-mits should be-issued as proposed."

SCANP's position on this underlying issue is that the re-quirements of 10 CFR Part 51 have not been met, and that the construction permits should not be issued as proposed.

The subordinate environmental issues, which must be decided prior to issuance of an LWA, see 10 CFR 50.10(e)(2)(i), are addressed in this part.

A. Adequacy of Environmental Impact Statements.

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions J l and J 16.

2. SCANP Position. 797A AAE

+ re .

(()4 UU3 4 /N i

'yjp n? -

a. No. Massive redesign of the project by the '

Applicants, specifically the Ranney Well Collector System, the additional set-back of laterals, the off-loading barge facility and transport of the reactor vessel up the Skagit River, have changed the likely environmental impacts of the project. A revision or supplement to the FES is therefore necessary to evaluate the envi-ronmental impacts of the Applicants' new designs. At this time, the Staff should assess important new environmental data developed since Staf f and Applicants proposed findings on environmental issues on October 24, 1975. TR following 4742.

b.

No.

c. Yes, insofar as the issues of cost / benefit and alternatives remain open (as detailed elsewhere), and insofar as new evidence may be introduced on major subjects addressed in the EIS, which evidence SCANP may desire to comment on or rebut.

B. Impacts of Construction.

Bl. Reactor Pressure Vessel Delivery.

1. Contentions.

None.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. The method by which Applicants intend to deliver the reactor pressure vessel is not stated with suf ficient precision to permit evaluation at this time.

b. No. Staff intends to offer additional evi-dence in response to a request by the Board.

c. Yes. SCANP will prepare an appropriate re-sponse when the Staff's new evidence is made available to SCANP.

B2. Othe r Impacts of Construction.

1. Contentions.

200 A t 5'"' SCANP Contention J 10. 2234 006

2. SCANP Position. i

a. No. The proposed project would have an ad-verse environmental impact, especially upon Skagit River fisheries, agricultural land use, and upon eagle habitat. See TR 2923-77, 8209-8324, Exhibits 40-42. Further, Appli-cants have not revealed the_ source of the gravel which will be needed for construction of the plant, and Staff has not assessed the ecological effect of gravel removal from the Skagit River or another river, including the effect on fisheries.

b. No.

C. No. However, if other parties introduce new evidence or disclose new or more de-tailed facts about project impacts, SCANP will make an appropriate response.

C. Impact of Operation.

C1. Cooling Tower Operation.

1. Contentions SCANP Contentions J 4 and J 6.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. Applicants have failed completely to assess the risks associated with the cooling tower blowdown, see TR 2860-96, and have failed in particular to determine the character and amount of deposition of blowdown material in the soil of the Skagit Vallley, and to study those soils to determine whether they can withstand the anticipated deposits. See TR 2884.

b. No.

c. No.

C2. Visual Impacts.

1. Contentions.

SCANP Contention J 8.

7 ll, ,

, 2. SCANP Position.

~~

gr*, r s c ,

O III t' [ h 3

a. No. The visual and aesthetic impacts of i the proposed project are inadequately as-sessed in the FES. TR 3 095-3115; 8131-93.

b. No.

c. No.

C3. Project Discharge.

1. Contentions.

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

2. SCANP Position.

a. No.

b. No.

c. Not unless new evidence is adduced by other parties or significant new information commes to SCANP's attention.

C4. Ranney Collector System.

1. Contentions.

SCANP PSAR Contention 2.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. The mitigation measures required by the Department of Agriculture under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, including removal of riprap (TR 10795-96) and additional set-back of lateral (TR 10930-35), will necessitate further modification of the Ranney Well design. This will require further exploratory work, because Appli-cants' witnesses testified that tests were conducted only for pumping at no distance from the river, not for pump-ing 150 feet from the river as will now be required. TR 10902-07.

b. Yes. Staff intends to present additional evidence on this matter. TR 11720; 10966-67. Although the Board apparently

} }Q p p (" ds Applicants, anticipated further exploratory work by TR 10723, Applicants now state that they intend no further presentation.

2234 008

c. Yes. When the substance of Staf f 's addi- ,

tional evidence is made known to the '

parties, SCANP will prepare a timely and appropriate response. SCANP also intends to present the testimony of Jeffrey Haley to address possible chlorine contamina-tion of the Skagit River as a result of chlorine treatment in the Ranney Collec-tors. This testimony can be made avail-able upon short notice.

C5. Radiological Releases.

1. Contentions.

SCANP Contentions J 9 and PSAR 1(c).

2. SCANP Position,

a. No. The radiological release contained in the Cooling Tower Blowdown has not been studied adequately. See 1 C1.2a. above.

Accidental releases, especially those of Class 9 magnitude, have not been studied.

b. No.

c. Yes. The Commission has requested Staff to re-examine ~ alt regulatTons-based -in part ----

on the Rasmussen Report, Wash - 1400.

SCANP asserts that the Commission's generic treatment of Class 9 acccidents is one of such regulations, and that Staff should examine the Class 9 accident possibility in this docket. If Staff fails to do so in response to the Commmission's request, SCANP will make a motion requesting the Board to direct Staf f to study Class 9 accidents. SCANP notes also that Seattle City Light has now distributed a Draf t Environmental Report for its proposed Copper Creek Dam. The probability and ef fects of a dam accident upon the down-stream nuclear plant have not been assessed.

SCANP invites the Staf f to undertake such an assessment, and would welcome the oppor-tunity to respond to any evidence which Staff's investigations may produce. Al-though SCANP believes the Radon-222 issue should be addressed under " Radiological ptq

" l'

[' Releases", to maintain simplicity SCANP has followed the lead of Applicants, who dis-cuss that issue under " Alternative Energy Sources", Paragraph IF below.

t C6. Socio-Economic Impacts.

.l. Contentions.

SCANP Contention J 10.

2. SCANP Porition.

a. No. The S taf f has ignored several major socio-economic impacts of the proposed project. See TR 8131-93. In addition, there is important new evidence which indicates that further study in this area is necessary. Local governments in the ,

Satsop Nuclear Site area have experienced problems with land use controls far greater than anticipated for construction of the plant. 35-50 % of the new work force there have become residents of the area, a figure much higher than anticipated. Violent crime has risen sharply. The Staf f should study this new information, which was not avail-able when socio-economic inpacts were studied in this proceeding, and should determine whether any further studies are necessary or whether any of Staf f's conclu-sions should be amended or updated.

b. Yes. Staff intends to present certain testimony which has been prefiled.

c. Yes. SCANP would want to respond to any new evidence developed by Staff in res-ponse to recent events relating to the Satsop site. In addition, SCANP intends to present Mr. Fred Utevsky or someone of similar qualifications as a land use planner, to respond to the Staf f's prefiled testimony.

D. Effects of Postulated Accidents.

1. Contentions.

SCANP contention J 7.

2. SCANP Position.

See Paragraph CS above. 2234 010

~' ~

000 etss

E. Alternative Sites. '

l. Contentions.

SCANP Contentions C and J 12.

a. No. The Applicants' evaluation of alter-native sites is inadequate and biased, and the Staf f has failed to conduct an indepen-dent evaluation of alternative sites, as required by NEPA. The Staf f's f ailure to do so is critical because its reliance on the Applicants' Alternative Site Analysis preordains the result that the Applicants' desire, i.e., that the Skagit Site is preferable. Staff review has been limited to sites considered by Applicants, TR 7659, 7670, 7674, and has focused on general regions, TR 7655, rather than specific alternative sites as required under NEPA.

Staff has not made a detailed study of costs for alternative sites. TR 7661; 7668-87.

The " sunk hole" costs of the Skagit site have not been ascertained and factored out of comparisons with other sites. TR 7698.

b. Yes. Staff intends:to:present witnesses >- --

on the geology and seismology of alterna-tive sites. TR 11735-37. The Board stated that it would give Staf f guidance respecting the required scope of Staf f's presentation. TR 11626.

c. Yes. In addition to cross-examination of Staf f's witnesses on the geology and seismology of alternative sites, SCANP may wish to present Mr. Blunden, Dr.

Cheney or other similary qualified witnesses to address Staf f 's evidence. This would of course depend on the scope of the presenta-tion required of Staff by the Board.

F. Alternative Energy Sources.

,j j j 1. Contentions.

SCAliP Contentions D and J 13. FOB /CFSP Con-tentions 6 and 7.

2234 011 Siu D'S -u-

2. SCANP Position,

a. No. No evidentiary hearings have been held to date with respect to Radon-222.

SCANP has concurred in the S taf f 's plan to monitor the Sterling Proceedir.g.

SCANP has previously indicated its posi-tion that the Perkins record is inade-quate on the Radon 222 issue. See Inter-venor SCANP's Response to Partial Initial Decision in Perkins, filed November 15, 1978.

b. Applicants do not intend to present further evidence regarding alternative energy sources. Staff, however, intends to spon-sor an update of the testimony of witness Gotchy,

c. Yes. SCANP anticipates that it will want to cross examine Mr. Gotchy after he presents his testimony on behalf of the Staff. In addition, SCANP intends to offer a witness to address the availability of coal, especially British Columbia coal.

This witness could testify after Mr. Gotchy presents his analysis of the coal-nuclear comparison. Contrary to the assertion of Applicants and Staff, this witness would not be untimely. While Staff offered tes-timony in this area some time ago, the testimony was rejected because S taf f's witnesses were inadequately prepared on this issue. See TR 4121-22. While SCANP was able to cross examine Applicants' witnesses on the British Columbia coal issue, TR 5130-37, Staff's wintesses mentioned British Columbia coal only in passing when they returned to testify on the coal alternative. Because of scheduling con-straints, SCANP was not afforded the op-portunity to present a witness on this issue at that evidentiary session. SCANP should not be denied this opportunity now merely beause the testimony of Applicants' and Staff's witnesses consumed all the time available at the session in which SCANP's testimony would have been most appropriate. See TR 11694-97.

2234 012

-:.2-

k G. Need for Power.

1. Contentions.

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

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

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. Applicants have failed to use fac-tors necessary to justify their " critical water criterion" approach to need for power, and have therefore vastly overesti-mated growth and demand. See Intervenor SCANP Supplement to Motion to Reopen Need fdr Power Record, June 19, 1978, at 2-4.

SCANP's Mot',n of May 24, 1978 to reopen the need fo. power record presently is pending before the Board, pursuant to the suggestion of the Staf f, TR 10373, that the Board await further proceedings of the C.egon Energy Facility Siting Counsel with respect to Pebble Springs. While SCANP agrees with the Staf f that the Oregon decision with respect to the Pebble f [2 Springs:Sitemisrcerta-in W ievant-here," - - --

'there exists an independent basis upon which SCANP's motion should be granted.

The final report of the Northwest Energy Policy Project (NEPP), released in 1978, is based upon the most comprehensive and advanced methodology ever used to assess energy demand in the Pacific Northwest, and supports SCANP's assertion that energy growth through the year 2000 will most probably approximate 2.5%, a figure sub-stantially lower than that submitted by Applicants in their proposed findings on April 13, 1977. The need for power issue cannot be said to have been thoroughly aired until the significant discrepancies between the NEPP report's conclusions and those of the West group (upon which Appli-cants rely) are explored and explained.

Appiicants' suggestion that SCANP's motion should be denied because the NEPP report is merely cumulative is without merit. The

-o 2234 013

NEPP report is in direct conflict andwith it is the forecasts of the West Group,the sameifultimate one conclusio unlikely thaton need for power would be reached Similarly,

' otion were used instead Applicants' of the contention thatother.

SCANPSCANP's sm is untimely also is without mecit. l with motion was filed almost simultaneous The y the release of the NEPP report. be made l If need for power determination it should be d e should SCANP's motion is denied, uen-because the Board upon which SCANP relies But feels is too that the if, inconseq as evi enc tial to alter the outcome.the lower figures obtained inaccuracy SCANP contends, in more recent studies suggest th rate in earlier studies and a lower grow NP's than was earlier anticipated, SCA 2234 014

-13A-

. ~.

motion should be granted and the need for power issue explored fully in light of the most recent and most reliable evidence.

SCANP contends that the outcome of the Oregon State proceeding should have binding effect in this docket to the extent of the participation of the Oregon applicants. On the other hand, the legislative determina-tion of the State of Washington that there exists a need for power carries no weight whatsoever in this proceeding.

b. No.

c. Yes, if SCANP's Motion to reopen the need for power record is granted.

H. Cost / Benefit Analysis.

1. Contentions.

SCANP Contentions G, J 10, and J 15. FOB /CFSP Contention 8.

2. SCANP Positio~n.

a. No. Staff has not addressed the availabil-ity of uranium nor the demand made by General Electric that Applicants agrec to renegotiate the price of the reactor vessels and the initial fuel and first reload.

See TR 11652. Applicants and Staff have failed to consider the high cost of decom-missioning a nuclear plant on the cost side of the cost / benefit analysis,

b. Yes. Staff intends to present its final cost / benefit analysis. TR 11747. Applicant does not propose to present further evi-dence on this subject. TR 11749-51.

c. Yes. When Staf f submits its final cost /

benefit analysis to the parties, SCANP will then be in a position to determine an appropriate response, including cross examination and possibly presentation of additional witnesses.

m: u . ,>

s 2734 935 I. Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

1. Contentions.

None.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No.

b. No.

c. No.

J. Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

1 Contentions.

SCANP Contention I.

2. SCANP Position.

No.

Applicants have submitted their pro-tary indi-a.

posed mitigation measures to the Secre of Agriculture, but the Secretary has forth-cated that a decision will not beSCANP coming until May, 1979. h the note this time its disagreement witn bot Act, f Secretary's procedural interpretation o Section 7 of the Wild & Scenic determin-Rivers disagree-to the effect that a Section 7(a) ation is unnecessary, and SCANP's d 's ment with the substantive decision ma e by the Secretary and with the Secre i ation tions upon which a Section 7 determ n should be based.

b. No.

c. No.

Part II SITE SUITABILITY ISSUES - LWA is stated in The underlying site suitability issue d f 0 se.to;cra so lo(e)(23 <i13, 2234 016

"[Whether], based upon the available information and review to date, there is reasonable assur-ance that the proposed site is a suitable loca-tion 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 Regulations promulgated by the Commission pursuant thereto."

10 CFR, Part 100, describes the factors to be considered in deciding this issue, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A, Part IV, describes the required investigations which must be satisf actorily performed prior to determination of the site suitability issues. SCANP contends that the re-quirement of Part IV of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 have not been met, specifically requirements 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 thereof.

A t- Geography and Demography ____._

l. Contentions.

None.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. Applicants and Staff have failed to evaluate the effect of the proposed use of Northern State Hospital, which proposal has occurred subsequent to the most recent as-sessment of geography and demography in this proceeding. The demography of the area will not be adequately assessed until such a study is undertaken.

b. No.

c. Yes. Evidence about current plans for Northern State Hospital, and evidence to "D '

. respond to how evidence adduced by any n- other party.

Ois Ft ,

2234 017 i ry ether], based upon the available information review to date, there is reasonable assur-that the proposed site is a suitable loca-for a reactor. of the general size and type osed from the standpoint of radiological th and safety considerations under the Act Rules and Regulations promulgated by the ission pursuant thereto."

viation art 100, describes the factors to be considered 5592.

ng this issue, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A, describes the required investigations which must itary during actorily performed prior to determination of the 1977.

lysis ability issues. SCANP contends that the re- nt s

. of Part IV of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 aring ass-ex-been met, specifically requirements 1, 4, 5, 6, analy-vould be ireof. to the 8102-03; iraphy and Demography 5taff of ae Contentions. timony arged None. to taff is SCANP Position. 3 3r a s a. No. Applicants and Staff have failed to evaluate the effect of the proposed use of Northern State Hospital, which proposal has occurred subsequent to the most recent as-sessment of geography and demography in this proceeding. The demography of the area will not be adequately assessed until L(a).

such a study is undertaken.

b. No.

ao-

c. Yes. Evidence about current plans for ad Northern State Hospital, and evidence to respond to how evidence adduced by any other party. }'g34 gjg il0 AlSS

"[Whether], based upon the available information and review to date, there is reasonable assur-ance that the proposed site is a suitable loca-tion 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 Regulations promulgated by the Commission pursuant thereto."

10 CFR, Part 100, describes the f actors to be considered in deciding this issue, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A, Part IV, describes the required investigations which must be satisfactorily performed prior to determination of the site suitability issues. SCANP contends that the re-quirement of Part IV of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 have not been met, specifically requirements 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 thereof.

A. Geography and Demography

1. Contentions.

None.

2. SCANP Position.

,a . No. Applicants and Staff have failed to evaluate the effect of the proposed use of Northern State Hospital, which proposal has occurred subsequent to the most recent as-sessment of geography and demography in this proceeding. The demography of the area will not be adequately assessed until such a study is undertaken.

b. No.

c. Yes. Evidence about current plans for Northern State Hospital, and evidence to respond to how evidence adduced by any other party.

2234 019 l

b. U --

h e e

i Ba Nearby Industrial, Transportation and Military Facilities

1. Contentions.

None.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. Staff's analysis of military aviation is inadequate. See, e.g., TR 5540-5592.

b. No.

c. Yes. The Staf f's evaluation of military aviation was admitted into evidence during hearings on other matters in July, 1977.

Follows TR. 8325. Because this analysis was subsequent to SCANP's most recent opportunity to cross-examine Staf f's witness, and because the ongoing hearing schedule did not permit SCANP to cross-ex-amine or rebut Staf f's more recent analy-sis, the parties agreed that SCANP would be afforded the opportunity to respond to the Read Affidavit at a later time. TR 8102-03; 8325. Further, SCANP has informed Staff of recent studies which suggest that the accident rates upon which Staf f testimony was based were too low. SCANP has urged the Staff to examine this data and to introduce it into the record. If Staf f is unwilling to do so, SCANP intends to introduce the evidence and to sponsor a witness to interpret it.

C. Geology and Seismology.

1. Contentions.

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

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. The Applicants' study of the geo-logy and seismology of the region and ef0 htss -

2234 023 .

O

of the Skagit site has been demonstrated to be erroneous and insufficient. See TR following 11420, 11429, 11432-33 (testimony of Dr. Cheney); TR 10986 - 11033, 10990-97, 11008, 11020,11023 (testimony of Dr.

Whetten); TR 11035-94, 11046, 11060-65 (testimony of Mr. Blunden).

b. Yes. Applicants will distribute to the Board and parties a report on their inves-tigations pertaining to geology and sels-mology within a month. This report will provide "a large volume" of geological and geophysical information. Etaff anticipates that if Applicants' report addresses all of the outstanding concerns of the Staff and the USGS, then the Staf f review should be completed by late summer or early f all of 1979. Staff expects to be able to make its review available to the parties at that time.

c. Yes. SCANP will present Dr. Cheney, Mr.

Blunden, Dr. Steuart Smith and Dr.

Steven Malone to address the Applicants' report and the review by the S taf f. In addition to cross-examining NRC and USGS personnel, SCANP desires to cross-examine the witnesses sponsored by Applicants who testified at hearings in July of 1976 which SCANP counsel was unable to attend.

Because SCANP has never had the opportunity to examine some of these witnesses, SCANP requests that they be made available for examination when geology / seismology hear-ings are held. While SCANP agress with the Staf f that when Staf f's review is made available to the parties, this issue will be ripe for further evidentiary presenta-tion, in view of the large volume of material which Applicants intend to submit and the anticipated comprehensive nature of Staff's review of this material, SCANP requests a reasonable amount of time to study the S taf f 's review and the Appli-cants' report prior to any further eviden-tiary hearing. While SCANP is optimistic n that prompt compliance with discovery e .

r r- ,

%10 "

2234 021

requests can reduce the amount of time necessary for preparation af ter the Staff's review is made available, in view of the size of the task, SCANP estimates that roughly two to three months will be neces-sary for preparation af ter Staff's review is received. This rough estimate can be revised when the Applicants' report is received, and again when Staf f's review is received, at which time SCANP will have more certain knowledge regarding the extent of preparation necessary. In any event, no further evidentiary hearings involving USGS personnel should be held until SCANP's outstanding discovery requests are satis-fled.

D. Suitability for Development of Evacuation Plan.

1. Contentions.

SCANP Contention E.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No. It is impossible to develop an ade-quate evacuation plan with respect to the Skagit site, especially with respect to evacuation of the low population zone.

TR 4183-4237. In view of the recent change in NRC regulations respecting emergency evacuation plans, and in view of the f ailure of Applicants and Staf f to give adequate consideration to the continued use of Northern State Hospital, SCANP believes that further studies and evidence on this issue are necessary. See also EPA and NRC,

" Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG -

0396, EPA 520/178-016).

b. No.

c. Yes. SCANP intends to introduce an NRC report on this subject. TR 11766-78.

S-2234 022 150 etS$

i PART III RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES - CP The underlying radiological health and safety issues to be decided by the Board are stated in Items 1 through 4 of the original notice of hearing. These include the financial qualifications issue, Item 3.

A. Site Criteria

1. Conte,ntions.

SCANP PSAR Contention 1(a).

2. SCANP Position.

a. No.

b. Yes. Applicants and Staff apparently in-tend to introduce that evidence respecting geological and geophysical investigations which is not presented- during- the -LWA - -

hearing, as noted in II C. above.

c. Yes. SCANP will present the witnesses listed in Section II.C. above to address those portions of Applicants' and Staff's reports and reviews which are not presented in the forthcoming LWA hearing.

B. Financial Qualifications.

1. Contentions.

SCANP Contention K and PSAR Contention 3.

FOB /CFSP Contentions 9 and 10.

2. SCANP Position.

a. No.

b. Yes. Applicants and Staff intend to offer witnesses who will conclude that Applicants are financially qualified to construct and i~ .i ' operate the Skagit Project.

2234 023 -

t

c. Yes. SCANP will offer a qualified witness, who will demonstrate that the costs of this project have risen above financial ability of the Applicants to pay for them. Further, Applicants have not demonstrated the financial ability to decommission the Skagit plants.

C. Other.

1. Contentions.

SCANP PSAR Contention 2 (Emergency Evacuation Plen)

2. SCANP' Position.

a. No.

b. Yes. Applicants intend to offer the testi-mony of J. E. Mecca, and Staff has indi-cated that an as yet undetermined witness will complete his testimony within 90 to 120 days.

c. Yes. When the testimony of Applicants and Staffs witness is received, SCANP will prepare an appropriate response.

Respectfully submitted, ROGER M. LEED ,

,/ s <

( ,/' .

By 44. 4/b' t Mi6hael W. Gendler '

Counsel for Intervenor SCANP 1411 Fourth Avenue Bldg.

Seattle, Washington 98101 DATED March 16, 1979.

2234 024 llA/1-20

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

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523

)

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) ,. ni Units 1 and 2) qp g gll$

)

if \91 s vf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE $ g)b99 y[Y j_.

I hereby certify that copies of:

b d' 03 4 INTERVENOR SCANP'S " REVISED LIST OF ISSUES" have been served on the following by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 16th day of March, 1979.

Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20055 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. John H . Buck, Member Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board School of Natural Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, MI. 48104 Michael C. Farrar, Member Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Certificate - 1 2234 025 dhV

+

.~ .-

Docketing and Service Section Canadian Consulate General .

Office of the Secretary Peter A. van Brakel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Vice-Consul Commission 412 Plaza 600 Washington, D.C. 20555 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard L. Black, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staf f F. Theodore Thomsen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Perkirs , Coie, Stone, Olsen Commission & Williams Office of the Executive Legal 1900 Washington Building Director Seattle, Washington 98101 Washington, D, C. 20555 Alan P. O' Kelly Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman Energy Facility Site Evaluation & O' Kelly Council . 1400 Washington Trust Financial 820 East Fifth Avenue Center Olympia, Washington 98504 Spokane, Washington 99204 Robert C. Schofield, Director Russel W. Busch Skagit County Planning Depart- Evergreen Legal Services ment 520 Smith Tower 120 West Kincaid Street Seattle, Washington 98104 Mt.Vernon, Washington 98273 Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.,

Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice 500 Pacific Building 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &

Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washignton, D.C. 20036 H. H. Phillips, Esq. ,

vice President and Corporate ,3

- ~

Counsel Portland General Electric Company DATED:

//h % ) ((j [f 121 S.W. Salmon S treet Portland, Oregon 97204 ROGE M.,LEED .

3 1 0\

/

CFSP and FOB /[/ f E. Stachon & L. Marbet By /' b6 Lt ( hh t 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Michael W. Gendlpr" Boring, Oregon 97009

~

Chk..i.if m i. c'at.eE

. 2 -2 ,

c234 026