ML19296D965
| ML19296D965 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1980 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003130675 | |
| Download: ML19296D965 (9) | |
Text
r 4
c?) l.( %
$))
D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C C TU3, V
y f
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Z
g g G t>
Valentine B.
Deale, Chairman O!Td CW#
I EMk Dr. Frank F.
Hooper y%
m Gustave A.
Linenberger Al 13-In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al.
)
50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CONFERENCE OF JANUARY 22, 1980:
BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND RESULTS 1.
On Tuesday, January 22, 1980, the Board held a con-ference among the parties in Seattle, Washington, (Tr. 15051-15215), pursuant to its order for a conference issued December 21, 1979.
2.
In keeping with the Board's suggestion in its sched-uling of the conference, counsel for the NRS Staff had on hhnd for participating in the conference's discussion the following personnel:
from the NRC Staff - Robert Jackson, Chief, Geo-sciences Branch, who is renponsible for the NRC Staff's review of geology / seismology issues in the Skagit matter, and Harold La Fever, Staff Geologist who assists Mr. Jackson; from UCUS -
James F.
Devine, Deputy for Engineering, Office of Earthquake Studies and Dr. John Whetton, of the University of Washington, who is a consultant to USGS and who has performed for the latter extensive field mapping services in the vicinity of 800318 0 G'7 5
a
. the proposed site.
At the conference, counsel for the NRC Staff also pointed out that the NRC Staff has the resources to employ outside consultants (other than USGS) and it has done so in the Skagit matter:
it has employed the Phoenix Corporation to review the aeromagnetic work submitted by the Applicants during the spring of 1979 and it has retained Dr. Kelleher, formerly of the NRC Staff with expertise in seismology, along with Nathan Newmark and others.
3.
The principal focus of the conference was a pre-sentation by representatives of the NRC Staff and represen-tatives of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as to their change of position on geological and seismological issues since October 3, 1979.
At or about that time the Geosciences Branch of the NRC Staff submitted its input for use in pre-paring the Final Supplement to the NRC Staff's Safety Evalu-ation Report (SER).
This input, which included as attachments two reports of the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
had constituted the staff's anticipated direct' testimony on issues of geology and seismology.
The two reports of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) were of February 23, 1978 and September 17, 1979.
4.
As pointed out by counsel to the NRC Staff, the USGS report of September 17, 1979 basically agreed with the Applicant's proposed use of a bedrock acceleration value of 0.35 g as the Safe Shutdown Earthcuake for the Skagit plant
, but noted that the review of certain proprietary seismic pro-file lines had not been completed and indeed, had not yet been received by the USGS at the time.
5 In meetings with the NRC Staff on October 18, 1979, and with the NRC Staff and the Applicants in Bethesda, Maryland on October 26, 1979, the USGS indicated that the continuing review of seismic profiles, additional field mapping, mostly by Professor John Whetton, and further aero-magnetic interpretations had led to serious concerns relating to the capability of a family of northwest trending high angle faults in the vicinity of the proposed site.
These further studies by USGS also resulted in an erosion of confidence of the NRC Staff in previous conclusions on geology and seismology.
6.
From October 17, 1979 through the end of the month, by individual phone calls and by teleconference calls, counsel to the NRC Staff kept the Board and parties informed of developments growing out of the USGS's new concerns about issues of geology and seismology concerning the Skagit site.
In view of the recommendation of the NRC Staff and general agreement among the parties, the Board cancelled the hearings on geology and seismology and the so-called minihearings on other subjects which all had been scheduled to be held in the end of October and in November.
Later, on November 2, 1979, the NRC Staff followed up its oral motion with a written motion seeking an indefinite postponement of hearings on geology and seismology.
a
' 7.
Telephone call's with the NRC Staff in November and in early December disclosed that it was anticipated that the Applicants would be requested to supply new information con-cerning geology and seismology; the nature of such informa-tion was not identified.
In the absence of generally available information about developments of the USGS and NRC Staff positions on the issues of geology and seismology, the Board called a conference among the parties in order that the record of the public proceeding might reflect the develop-ments which occasioned USGS and the NRC Staff to change their positions, the comments thereon by the Applicants and other parties, and answers to questions by the Board.
The Board felt that consideration at the same time might also be given to outstanding issues other than geology and seismology.
And so on December 21, 1979, the Board issued its order for a conference to begin on Tuesday, January 22, 1980.
8.
On January 8, 1980, the NRC Staff issued to the Applicants joint USGS-NRC Staff requests for additional in-formation which were developed as a result of new data pro-vided by USGS to NRC on October 10, 1979.
These requests took the form of ten questions, the first nine of which were generated by USGS and tne last one, the tenth, by the NRC Staff.
The NRC Staff also forwarded at the same time a copy of its letter of January 4, 1980 to USGS requesting clarifi-cation of the overall intent of the USGS questions, and
. certain other USGS views.
The USGS-NRC Staff set of questions to the Applicants, along with a copy of the NRC Staff's letter of January 4 to USGS, was made available to the Board and the parties.
9.
Following the NRC Staff's and the USGS's explanation at the conference of their change of position on geological and seismological issues, the principal executive of the Applicants in charge of the Skagit project, namely, Warren Ferguson, gave assurance that the Applicants are determined to go forward with the processing of their application for a construction permit without, however, continuing to make major expenditures to advance the construction work.
- Apropos, reference was made to Mr. Ferguson's letter of November 19, 1979 to Harold Denton, NRC's Director of Nuclear Regulation.
Mr. Ferguson noted that four major construction contracts have been terminated, and he suggested that answers to some of the questions raised by USGS-NRC Staff pertaining to geology and seismology might be enveloped by the substantial work already performed by the Applicants.
There is need, accord-ing to Mr. Ferguson, to relate the information already at hand with the questions posed, and the Applicants anticipate doing so.
10.
The representative of Skagit County suggested that dismissal of the application for a Skagit construction per-mit would be preferable to a suspension of the hearings.
The continuance of the application through a suspension of hearings rather than its dismissal maintains a burden upon the County Government and the citizens of the County which would be obviated with a dismissal.
Counsel for Skagit County pressed the argument in favor of dismissal of the application because of uncertainty of the site.
11.
Counsel for SCAMP agreed with counsel for Skagit County that the proceeding ought to be terminated, rather than unnecessarily prolonged, if the record at hand indicates that the site is not clearly superior to other available options.
12.
Counsel for the NRC Staff emphasized that the Board has no authority to dismiss the Skagit application without pre-paring a full decision with findings of fact to support that decision.
According to the NRC Staff counsel, the Board under NRC Regulations could not dismiss the Skagit applica-tion for lack of prosecution.
13.
During the course of the conference, counsel for the Applicants brought forth three legal and/or political outputs which bear upon the outlook of the proceeding:
- First, Governor Dixie Lee Ray stated in her address to the State House and Senate in the week previous to the conference that in her view any new nuclear power plant coming into the State of Washington ought to be located at Hanford.
Appar-ently, the Governor's view included the proposed Skagit plant.
. Second, the Board of Skagit County Commissioners refused in November 1979 to grant an extension to the rezone agreement with the Applicants under which the Applicants were required to begin by the end of 1979 construction on the first Skagit nuclear generating unit.
The negative vote of the County Commissioners followed an advisory vote on the November 6 ballot in Skagit County wherein 70 or 71 percent of a record size vote was opposed to the construction and operation of the proposed Skagit nuclear power plants.
The negative vote also followed the recommendation of the Skagit County Planning Commission not to extend the rezone agreement.
Third, on December 14, 1979, Puget commenced a declaratory judgment action against the State of Washington and Skagit County seeking to determine whether Puget is authorized to go for-ward with the nuclear power plants at the Skagit site by virtue of the State site certification agreement and State law despite the action of Skagit County.
It apparently is too early,to estimate when a decision in the declaratory judgment proceeding might be expected, although a year or longer might be involved.
14.
As a result of the conference, which primarily focused on geology and seismology and the development of new positions on the subjects by USGS and the NRC Staff, though other subjects were considered as well, the Board has decided the following:
. A.
Until hearings on geology and seismology can be settled upon, hearings on other matters, such as emergency planning, Three Mile Island lessons applicable to Skagit, radon, floodplain management, quality assurance and alternate sources (Mr. Gotchy's testimony), will be shelved.
B.
The Applicants are expected to pursue dili-gently answers to requests for edditional information from USGS and the NRC Staff which Puget received by letter of January 8, 1980 from the NRC Staff.
Note is made of Puget's letter of February 15, 1980 to NRC's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation seeking clarification about the requests for additional in-formation accompanying the NRC Staff's letter of January 8, 1980.
C.
The Applicants and the NRC Staff will each make written reports to the Board on or before April 15, 1980 regarding their progress in resolving the USGS/
NRC Staff requests for additional information forwarded to the Applicants by letter of January 8, 1980.
A ren-sonable estimate, if poscible, when hearings on geology and seismology might be rescheduled would be welcome in the reports.
A suggested date for second reports to the Board would also be welcome.
D.
Counsel for the NRC Staff will see to it that all parties and the Board are furnished copies of maps and materials used by the USGS and the NRC Staff in their presentations at the conference (or updated ver-sions of same).
E.
The NRC Staff's motion dated November 2, 1979 to postpone indefinitely the hearings on geologic-seismic matters is granted, with the understanding that the' Applicants and the NRC Staff will report to the Board as requested concerning their efforts to prepare therselves for hearing in light of the pending requests for additional information to the Applicants.
The Board has I.o objection to allowing the App icants the time reasonably required to meet the requests for additional information of USGS and the NRC Staff.
At the same time, the Boar d is not disp ) sed to I.er nit the issues raised by USGS and the NRC Staff to drift indefinitely without anseer.
F.
The dispute between SCANP and the Applicants about SCANP's Interrogacories regarding San Juan Island Seismic Profiles will be addressed in a later Board order.
. G.
Unless later informed by the parties to the contrary, the Board assumes from discussions at the con-ference that SCANP and the Applicants will be able to arrange a satisfactory resolution of SCANP's continuing interest in discovery bearing upon Bechtel's Report of
~
Geologic Investigations, 1978-1979, and that SCANP and the NRC Staff will be able to arrange a satisfactory resolution for handling SCANP's pending interrogatories to the NRC Staff.
15.
The conference, which was scheduled to continue for three days if necessary, was adjourned at the end of the afternoon of the first day.
,/
Done at Washington, D.C. on this day of March, 1980.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
(
By /d W
4, N :~l ( _.
Valentine B.
Deale, Chairman