ML20052F152
| ML20052F152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205120172 | |
| Download: ML20052F152 (80) | |
Text
c -
NUCLIARREGULATORgLg.SS!CN :-Osus/
s au Q
Q y Ve, N
O L*
f
_\\
' ll O
- 11 l
(./
In te Mat::ar ef:
}
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.,
)
et al
) DOCKET NOS.
) STN-50-522 (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project 1 STN-50-523 Units 1 & 2
)
DATE: May 5, 1982 PAGES: 1 thru 77 Richland, Washington g.,
SOfl -g o 6-L
} O i-f' f A.LDR%X REPORTING O
F- %
400 Virr M a Avs., S.W. Washd.p:n, D. C. 20024 O
- ewhc= : (202) 554-u45 8205120172 820507 PDR ADOCK 05000522 T
HDH
i i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
' O 3
l In the matter of:
4 O
=
5 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.
et. al.
Docket Nos.
I 6
i (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project STN-50-522 Units 1 and 2)
STN-50-523 7
l 8
Auditorium 9
Federal Building 825 Jadwin Avenue to Richland, Washington 11 Wednesday, May 5, 1982 12 The prehearing conference in the above-entitled 13 matter was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.
14 BEFORE:
The Honorable JOHN WOLF, Chairman m n strative Judge 16
~
The Honorable FRANK F. HOOPER Administrative Judge I
18 2
The Honorable GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, Jr.
Administrative Judge 3g 3
20 i
d i
21 i
22 l i
O 23 i i
24 i
O i
25 i i
i i
i l,
2 i
1 1 l APPEARANCES
- l l
On behalf of the NRC Staff:
l 2
()
3 RICHARD L. BLACK, Esq.
4 On behalf of the Applicant, Puget Sound Power & Light Co.:
O 5
F. THEODORE THOMSEN, Esq.
Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen & Williams 1900 Washington Building 6
Seattle, Washington 98101 7
STEVEN P. FRANTZ, Esq., and 8 l DAVID G. POWELL, Esq.
i Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, suite 1214 g
Washington, D.C.
20036 10 On behalf of the Intervenors, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.:
11 RALPH C. CAVANAGH, Esq.
12 25 Kearny Street San Francisco, California 94108 13 O
On behalf of the Intervenors, National Wildlife ja Federation and the Oregon Environmental Council:
j TERENCE L. THATCHER, Esq.
Law Center 16 1101 Kincaid l
Eugene, Oregon 97403
,7 t
On behalf of the Intervenors, Coalition for Safe Power:
,g NINA BELL, and 4
39 LLOYD MARBET Coalition for Safe Power j
20 408 S.W. 2nd, Suite 527 l
Portland, Oregon 97204 21 Also present :
22 1 ()
ROBERT LOTHROP 23 Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission 8383 N.E. Sandy Boulevard, Suite 320 i
l 24 Portland, Oregon 97220
)
25 l
l l
I
3 i
l CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Good morning.
Wa ara meating hora 3
this morning in the matter of Puget Sound Power & Light Co.,
2 O
! ee a1., the Skaeie/Hanford nue1 ear Po.er gre3ece Unies 1 and 3
2.
We are meeting pursuant to a Notice of Special Prehearing 4
O Conference, which was issued on Agri1 2, 1982 for the purpose s
of identifying the key issues to be considered in this g
proceeding, take steps necessary to further define the issues, 7
consider all petitions to intervene,and to establish a g
schedule for further action in this proceeding.
9 I would like to begin by introducing the members jg of the Licensing Board:
On my left is Dr. Frank F. Hooper.
3, He is a professor at the University of Michigan.
He is a 12 biologist, and has broad experience in his field.
33
! O To =v rieht is custave ^. sinenbereer, 3r.
He is
,4 I
l a nu lear physicist and has been in this field from the very 5
I l
early days at the University of California.
,g I am John Wolf, a lawyer.
e First I would like to ask for preliminary matters.
jg Before I do that, I have one preliminary statement to make, g
namely, that I would like to have all Counsel submit notices 20 l
i of appearance for this proceeding.
j 21.
The first preliminary matter I would like to take Q
up is Mr. Thomsen's letter of April 26, 1982, which brought a response from Mr. Lewis of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Q l
I l
i
4 i
I j
Mr. Thommen, could you discuac your letter a bit, i
l
! and tell us what you propose to do, whether you propose to 2
O 3
file any motions, as a result of the situation you discuss therein, or what you have in mind regarding it?
4 O
5 MR. THOMSEN:
Yes, Judge Wolf, I would be pleased to.
6 No, we don't contemplate filing any motions.
This 7
was simply an effort to advise the Board and the parties 8
in advance of our thoughts on scheduling the evidentiary 9
hearings in the proceeding, and as indicated in the letter, in we summarized the background of scheduling heretofore.
,i Earlier this year, Applicants and the Staff, in conjunction 12 with the Staff of the State Siting Council, had agreed on a 13 O
tentative schedule that would have called for the 34 environmental hearings, the joint hearings, between you 3g gentlemen and the Siting Council to begin in mid-June, at 16 least that was the party's suggestion.
, j j7 2
As the time went along, as we described in the 18 letter, there were several ne'.: developments that to us j
39 indicated that it would make more sense to postpone the hearing n need for power until some of these new developments 21 i
had come to light, so to speak.
And so we suggest that the hearing on need for power at least would be more efficiently 23 conducted and more productive, if it were held sometime in I
g O
ear 1r.83, after the regional plan becomes available, and I
5 1 l after the BPA draft foraccot 10 final, cnd aftGr wa hopo some of the questions concerning the supply system nuclear 2
4 O
i units have been answered.
3 4
So with that suggestion on the table, on our part, 5
that need for power hearings should be deferred, then we considered whether it would make sense to have evidentiary 6
hearings on the other environmental issues, and we looked 7
over the list of those.
Of course, we don't have the g
contentions identified yet, but it seemed to us that it would g
not make sense to have a piecemeal hearing on environmental 30 issues, and try to hear some of them this summer, and then j,
need for power and whatever else might remain next summer.
,2 The thought there being that our experience, at least, has i3 O
doen with hearings thae if we have a hearing, and then waie a year and have another hearing, what we heard before seems 3g to need updating, and it hasn't been a very fruitful process 16 f
to have piecemeal hearings.
So it was then our main suggestion that the
,g 2
environmental hearings, at least, be postponed until next 39 l
year, until need for power was ripe for hearing.
- However, s
! then, turning to the other parts of the case, the safety i
l E issues, and of course, obviously, we don't know what the O
safeer issues wii1 he vecifica117 vee, withoue having deate m
with the contentionr, fe think that side of the case, and the l 1
n rmal prehearing procedure should proceed this summer.
I have 25 i
i
6 I
l in mind, for example, thm davalopment of ths final impset l
statement.
I understand the draft environmental statement i i
({)
is about to be issued, or has been issued for comment, and certainly we would urge that that process continue to include 4
(])
the issuance of the final environmental statement in due 5
Course.
6 Also, we understand that the Staff is nearing the time to issue another supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report, and we would hope that process continues to issuance 9
of the final supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report, so that the safety side of the case could be readied for 11 evidentiary hearing.
12 Another activity that we would urge should go forward 13
(
this summer, in the normal manner and course of events, would
[}
be discovery, once we have the contentions identified, so that 15 the issues come into sharp focus, and then are ready for 16 i
hearing at the earliest appropriate time.
i 17 So we think we should, of course, take these things 18 g
in step, and proceed with the case in pretty much of a normal 19 j
schedule, with the exception of the environmental issues, as i
20
[
I inidcated, which I think should await the availability of l
21 the regional plan.
22 So we are anxious to proceed with the licensing
)
proceeding in the manner I have described, and we had no 24 thought of filing a particular motion on this, but realizing 4
i l
l l
7 3,
that cch0duling would b3 ona subjcct to b2 discussed todcy, 1
this is our view of scheduling.
2 O
We have some specific suggestions on what might be 3
an appropriate discovery schedule, once the Board has 4
admitted, or disallowed the contentions, as the case might be, 5
an get into dat later.
6 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you.
7 Before we proceed further, I would like Counsel to 8
i state their appearance for the record.
g MR. THOMSEN:
Yes.
I am F. Theodore Thomsen of the
,g firm of Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen & Williams, in Seattle, j
3, attorneys for the Applicants, and with me at counsel table is g
David G. Powell of the firm of Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
l 13
!O Axe 1 rad, Washington, D.C., Associate Counse1 for the
(
Applicants, and also, Steven Frantz of the Lowenstein firm.
,g CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you.
MR. BLACK:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, my nama is f.
,7 Richard L. Black, and I am Counsel for the NRC Staff.
,g MR. CAVANAGH:
Mr. Chairman, my name is l
19 l
Ralph Cavanagh.
I am Counsel for the National Resources 20 3
d Defense Council, Western Office, in San Francisco, California..
l 21 l
l Mr. Chairman, could I just ask if a response to the 1
22 lO gresentation--
23 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I am going to ask you to respond j
24 1
O after the aggearances.
I i
l 1
I i
l l
8 I
i 1 l MR. THATCHER:
My nnme is Taranca Thatchor.
I cm Counsel for Petitioning Intervenors, National Wildlife 2
(
i Federation, and Oregon Environmental Council.
My office is 3
4 in Eugene, Oregon.
MS. BELL:
I am Nina Bell, representing the 5
Coalition for Safe Power and our office is in Portland, Oregon, 6
and with me today is Lloyd Marbet, who is acting as an 7
assistant.
g MR. MARBET:
I am Lloyd Marbet.
9 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Now, who will speak for the 10 coalition for Safe Power?
3, MS. BELL:
I will.
12 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
And tell me again who you are 33
()
speaking for, Mr. Cavanagh.
34 MR. CAVANAGH:
The Natural Resources Defense Council.
16 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
You haven't been admitted as a j
g e
party as yet, correct?
j
,g MR. CAVANAGH:
No, sir.
,g Y
I believe the Staff has indica ted it has no l
i 20
- i objection to our admission.
21 I :.i CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Ms. Bell, will you respond to 22
()
Mr. Thomsen's statement?
f l
MS. BELL:
Yes.
24
({)
In doing so, we would like to make a formal motion l
l' l
t
to dafor concidaration of this application.
i I
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
You will have to speak ups I can't 2
O 3
hear you.
MS. BELL:
In doing so, we would like to make a 4
5 formal motion to defer this application -- Excuse me, are the microphones on?
6 THE REPORTER:
I am not sure how the PA system 7
i g j here works.
MS. BELL:
I will just speak loudly.
9 In responding to Mr. Thomsen's letter, we would 10 like to make a formal motion to defer consideration of this 33 application, because we believe that, number one, the applicatiol 12 is not complete, according to 10 CFR 50.34, the concept of 33 O
a expedited groceeding has been i_.greger and fruie1ess, and, three, uncertainties which make the Applicant unable and 15 unwilling to go forward, at least on the need for power issue, 16 l
cast doubt on the entire application, and proceeding will g
2 cause an excessive burden to all parties.
,g Addressing the first issue, we believe that the
,g application was incomplete when it was made, and remains 20 3
- i so today.
First of all, PSAR amendments keep arriving.
The 21 last one we received was this Monday.
The Applicants position i
22 l l
l O on seine forwara with the evideneiary hearine, as expressed l
23 in its April 26 letter to the Board casts doubt on a l
24 j
substantial part of that application.
After all, if there is t
i i
l
10 t
5 j
ij no nr.d for ths plant, it will not be grantsd a conatruction i
2 permit, nor will it be built, Q
i l
3 on the second point, the entire basis of this 4
application, and the time schedule which has been attempted, 5
has been because the Applicant's alleged need for an expedited process, the results of which have been the 6
pemature filing of the application, and an inconvenience and 7
burden on all parties.
a 9
The Applicants,have requested and received an
^
expedited review of the project application from Mr. Denton, jo Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in a meeting held i
on July 23, 1980.
12 In a meeting on November 18, 1981, Mr. Myers from 13 O
Pugee Sound Power. tight nummarised the reasons for the 14 request, stating that n6ed for power was the foremost.
At 15 this meeting, the status of the geology and seismic review 16 f
was also discussed with both the Staff and the Applicant 37 agreeing that it was a " pacing" item.
It was noted that the 18
(
site review of WPPSS II, the Washington Public Power Supply l j ig
(
a i j System number two plant, geology and seismic review, to which gg l
s the Skagit/Hanford project is tied, was expected to be 21 l i completed in early 1982.
As of this date, we are not aware 22 O
that this review has been come1eted.
22 The review schedule has been characterized by the p
Staff as "very tight" and " extremely short."
Undoubtedly 25 i
l
11 1
for thic roacon, Mr. Mualor, Assictcnt Dircctor for Environmental Technology, Division of Engineering, at the j
2 O
3 NRC, commented in a memo dated August 13, 1981 to Mr. ve1ner, 4
Director of his Division, that " depending on the level of 5
cooperation we get, we may need your muscle. "
The schedule milestones agreed upon by the 6
Applicant and the Staff, attached to a letter of January 23, 7
1982, from Mr. Myers, Vice-president of Puget Power, to 8
Mr. Denton of the NRC has already not been met.
For example, 9
the Joint Siting Council, NRC, DEIS, has not been completed 10 and made public, an event scheduled for the first of April.
y As late as the 16th of February, the Staff was 12 still expecting a DEIS issuance in April, and I have been 13 O
informed that it has just occurred.
This slippage in the DEIS
,4 schedule will directly affect the projected schedule for 15 hearings, as stated on Page 2 of a memo from Mr. Reagan in
,g f
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that stated that the DEIS g
i would have to be published in March of 1982, to meet a hearing;
,g
}
date in the early fall of this year.
,g ll The Applicant has stated that the Skagit/Hanford 20 l
i s
i plant will only go forward if the Northwest Power Planning 21 '
Council, created by the Northwest Electric Power Planning Q
Conversation Act, "regionalizes the project," by causing the Bonneville Power Administration to underwrite its finances.
24 However, this report, this forecast and plan will
12 1
not be produc d until March or April, 1983.
Algo important l
is that the Act has charged the Council to put conservation j
2 O
before nuclear power.
3 ;
l 4 l On the last point, now we have the uncertainty O
regarding cereain recent forecases in the northwese Power s
Planning Council's Regional Plan due to be issued.
These 6
are not the only uncertainties.
Additionally there is the 7
fact expressed in the Coalition's Contention 56 that the 8
i APP icant has stated publicly that it will not build the l
9 plants unless the are regionalized by the Bonneville Power io f
Administration, and act depending on the Northwest Power Plan 33 due in April,
'83.
12 Furthermore, the Applicant has alao stated, as 13 O
exeressed in Ceaue1..s co tenei. 21, thae it wiu not 14 g
f rward unless federal regulations are relaxed.
There is is ngton WMes and hanspodadon Commission a so e
as 16
- j
. ruling of March 12, 1982 that Puget Sound Power & Light can 37 no longer include construction works in progress for the 3g 1!
Skagit Nuclear Plant in their rate base.
The reason is stated 39 in their Fourth Supplemental Order, in which it says:
that 20 at Pages 7 and 8 of our Second Supplemental Order, we required g
~
s Puget to exclude construction works in progress for rate-making i
l l
O aurgoses on the Pebbie Sgrings and Skagieenenford Nuc1eer 23 Power Plants, because "their economic feasibility, their need, and their probability of construction were not demonstrated 25 1
l l
h
13 i !
on the rscord, and further ordered Pugat to csaco accruing i
2 AFUDC for rate-making purposes on those two projectr..
3 This belief was echoed in a motion filed by the 4
Direct Service Industries in that rate case, in which they 5
state:
that Puget's attempts to justify its need for additional revenue, on the basis of its plan to build 6
two billion in new plant between now and 1985, these plans 7
g l include construction of the Skagit Nuclear Plants, the Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, and Colstrip Plants 3 and 4.
There is 9
almost no possibility that all of these plants will be built, jo particularly between now and 1985.
It is absolutely 33 i
unrealistic to expect Puget Power alone to finance a 12 construction program equal to the total so far invested by the 13 O
agonsors of the wPPSS P1 ants 4 and 5.
l M re ver, Pebble Springs is functionally terminated, 15 and the status of the Skagit Plants is so precarious that they 16 l
have been excluded from rate-making consideration by the 37 e
Commissioners of Idaho and Oregon.
It is likely that the 18 regon mmc WMhy Codssioner WM foHow sd in de 19 Portland General Electric rate hearing that is now ongoing.
20,
i
! He has already oredred that Portland General Electric abandon I
s 21 :
l 5 l
their construction permit site certification for the 22 O
Pebbie Sprines P1 anes.
m l
The burden placed on Intervenors that have been inv lved in this proceeding since 1976'is unfair, when the 25 l
l i
1
14 l
1 :
Applicant donc not want to go forward, and doubt han bsen l
2 cast over its ability to go forward on the issue of need for O
3 power.
We have been arguing about need for power since 1974.
4 At the time of the original Skagit proceeding, the Applicant 5
stated that if WPPSS 1,2,3, and 4 were all operational on 6
or before 1982 that Skagit and Pebble Springs Units 1 would 7
have to be online this very year.
Currently there is so much a
doubt about the need for nuclear power plants in the region 9
that two Washington Public Power Supply System plants under 10 construction have beenpermanently shut down.
Another has in the last week been " mothballed" for five years, and the ii Pebble Springs state application has been terminated.
12 In the Beaver Valley case, the Appeals Board has 13 O
seated that a board requires a re11ance on more chan 3ust m
hope.
Given the Applicant's history of grossly overstating 15 the need for electricity, and the current situation, there 16
[
really is no reason to rely on Applicant's assertion that the 37 plants will still need to go forward in an expedited 18 l!
proceeding, or at all.
l; 39 l
The burden placed on all parties of going forward 20 5
with such uncertainties is tremendous.
For Intervenors that g
l5 means filing interrogatories, and being the subject of O
aiscoverv.
le means 11ning up witnesses for something that m
might not take place, and paying their fees.
O The Board must ace in feirness to ett gareies, eo 25 t
15 l
in summary we mova that concidarction of contantions, i
discovery, et cetera, should be delayed until the Applicant 2
()
l hcs completed their application on need for power.
3 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
We have a question that 4
O Judge Linenberger would like to ask you.
5 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
I was just curious, Ms. Bell, 6
about the terminology you used.
In the very early part of 7
your statement, you talk about the need for the plant, and 8
later on in the statement, you talked about regional need 9
for power.
Now, under certain circumstances, those are two to completely seperable considerations.
I don't know whether 33 y u wre making that distinction or not, and can you amplify 12 on y ur choice of language there?
13 O
MS. BELL:
Well, the Applicants themselves have 34 stated that the plant is a regional resource, therefore, I is believe that it is dependent on the regional need for power.
16 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
So your terminology "need for 37
.a the plant" was in the context of regional resource needs?
18
~~
MS. BELL:
That is correct.
t jg l
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Thank you.
j
,oj I
JUDGE WOLF:
Mr. Cavanagh, you don't represent s
i 21 3
a party that has been admitted, however, we will listen, if
()
l you have anything to add that is pertinent.
We don't need to t
g recite the history of the problem, again.
l i
O MR. CAVANAGH:
Thank you, Judge Wolf.
,5 4
4 b
16 i
i I would just like to endores Ms. Ball's praccntation i ;
l and add a few other thoughts:
On the lack of urgency for 2
O 3
the NRC to invest additional resources in this project at 4
this time, at least before the Applicants have resolved the fundamental uncertainties that they allude to in their own 5
letter.
6 It can't be overemphasized that this region at this 7
moment has three partially completed nuclear units in a
mothballs, as Ms. Bell m9nt.f oned, two within a few miles of 9
the proposed site, that are awaiting restart, if and when 10 regional electricty needs so dictate.
,i i
.Also, in terms of the urgency of pressing forward 12 n w, and the supposed need for a quick decision, it is crucial 13 O
to pay close attention to the Washington State forecast, just issued in final form in March of 1982, to which this Board 15 under its precedents must defer, over and above the 16 self-interested projections of need issued by the Applicants.
j 37 That forecast, as the Applicants themselves concede indicates jg that the Skagit/Hanford units will not be needed until after l
ig a
the turn of the century.
20 1
=
s We also have received, again, in the last month, 2i j
i the draft forecast of the Bonneville Power Administration, O
which in terms of its pro 3ections of need over the nexe 2,
20 years is closely similar to that of the Washington State f
O forecese, end which 1ed Bonnevi11e egein to-hete construc 25 i
17 i
for up to five years on thn Washington PUblic Supply System i
Unit 1, and that halt will bring the on-line date of that 2
O P ant into the period of the Skagit/Hanford Units, it is that l
3 i
much of a delay.
4
'O zn sum, we think it is c1.ar that the nRc Seaff was entirely justified in concluding, unofficially, in a 6
February 19, 1982 report that the Skagit/Hanford plants 7
l w uld be cancelled or deferred indefinitely, and we feel that 8
ee no %sMcadon h de E to egend any me of i
9 its scarce resources on this application at this time.
jg The thing that particularly concerns NRDC is the suggestion that you should press ahead with your environmental review process at a time when fundamental uncertainties O
identified by agg11 canes ehemse1ves grevene them from gressing m
l forward with the critical issues that underly that process.
Just to give a concrete example, through no fault of your I
draftsmen, the draft environmental statement that I received 17 j.
two days ago is already obsolete, because it did not and could not accommodate the final Washington State forecast, j
19 Y
which I have just alluded to, and it did not and could not j
20 l
J
! accommadate the Bonneville draft forecast.
The lowest 21 !
demand growth rate identified in your draft environmental O
stee mene is 2s percene higher than that finally aaopted in the m
Washington State forecast, and almost 20 percent higher than l
- s h
that of the Bonneville forecast.
l
18 i
So, in effect, you have got yoursolvss in a i
situation -- the scene is in fact changing so rapidly that 2
O y u are shooting at a moving target now, and we are 3
concerned that any meaningful environmental review process 4
is impossible.
We do not agree with Applicants that the need 5
f r power from this plant is an uncertain question, given the 6
l l
unambiguous findings of the Washington State forecast and 7
l our own analyses.
8 The Applicants, simply cannot have it both ways:
9 they cannot both cite fundamental uncertainties that prevent 3g them from making their environmental case and expect the NRC to proceed with its own environmental review process.
I just ask you in closing to compare Applicants own
()
insistence that "the facts are simply not in yet," with the NRC's admonition in its 1977 Seabrook Station holding:
15 "If the Staff believes that inadequate data about 16 I
environmental considerations is available, or that reasonable 17
(
0 l'
alternatives have not been adequately explored, it can and 18
,=
i should decline to issue a DEIS."
fl 19 l $
So in sum, once again, we feel that there has been l j 20 no case made for the NRC continuing to invest its resources o
y 21 or to continue an environmental review process that by 22
()
Applicant's own admission is simply not possible at this 23 time.
If the Applicants aren't equipped to undertake it, we 24 don't believe the NRC should have to try, and we can't believe
()
j 25 l
~ _ _ _
19 I
l thara aren't bettar uses for your recourcas.
3 l
JUDGE WOLF:
I think you ought to understand that 2
O 4 ehis Board does not issue any regere, ie is noe our regert.
3 MR. CAVANAGH:
Right, of course, it is the Staff's.
4
!O Ju = E WOtF=
Ie is the Staff's report.
s 9
6 though, has other demands on it at this time.
7 I
MGE WOW:
I don't know about dat.
g AU 9
MR. BLACK:
At this time I do not wish to argue the jg merits of the need for power question, nor the interrelationship g
between this project and the mothballed or deferred WPPSS Projects.
I think that is a question that we need not get to 13 O
et this goint.
I thinx ene question ta t we need to set to
.at this point is:
What is a reasonable and fair schedule 16 9
has to be broken down into several components:
Number one, I think that we have to establish some
,g type of schedule at this prehearing conference that goes to l
g i
l the question of pleading contentions, and finding out who the 20 g
parties are, and finally defining the contentions.
e 21 At this point, I think that we could -- at least as 22 far as the Staff is concerned, we are prepared to argue all of contentions at this prehearing conference, but that indeed 24 Q
may not be a wise use of our resources, and the Board may wish I
i
20 I
3 l to not forth a furthur pisading cchadulo whorsby Staff, i
I Applicant, Parties can file further responses to the 2
O contentions.
That is the first thing, a schedule of 3
pleadings going to the contentions.
4
()
Once the contentions are defined by the Board in 5
U
~
6 time we can see what the scope of those contentions are, and 7
establish a reasonable discovery period.
Discovery, of g
course, is always limited or defined by the scope of the g
contentions, and I think that would ba the time, rather 10 than this prehearing conference to determine what a reasonable
,l i
discovary schedule should look like.
Finally, after discovery, we should look to the l ()
question of what would be a reasonable and fair hearing schedule, and we must bear in mind that at least on the 15 environmental side we have a memorandum of understanding 16 I
with the State of Washington whereby we will conduct joint 17
,i hearings with the State, if indeed feasible, reasonable, and g
l*
in accordance with the protocol for the conduct at joint i
19 i
hearings, which both the State and the NRC has signed.
?
20 I
So we must look at, again, the scope of the 21,l lj j
contentions to define the scope of the hearing, and I think
(
it is premature at this time to decide what that hearing 23 schedule should look like, and I think that that should await 24
()
not only the prehearing conference order, but it should also 25 j
l i
21 I
await discussions with the Staff, and thn NRC, and tho othsr i
parties -- the Staff, che State, and the other parties, to 2
set forth a reasonable hearing schedule.
3 I think at this point it is clear to say that we 4
O shou 1d noe see any hearing schedu1e, hecause of the 1acx of s
definition of contentions, the lack of any clear schedule on 6
discovery, and accordingly consideration of a hearing schedule 7
should be deferred until we can get a clear handle on those 8
items.
9 Another question has been raised, and that is whether 3g the Staff should expend its resources, pending resolution of 3,
the uncertainties with respect to the climate here, with 12 respect to the need for power, with respect to the interaction 13 l
O of this grosece vieh the wreSS groseces.
And 1 wou1d on1r
,4 state on behalf of the Staff that certainly, if there is a is clear resolve on the part of the Applicants that this project 16 will not go forward, then of course the NRC would stop its 37 I
review as well.
However, it is NRC policy that if there is i
3g l
}
an application before the Staff, we will continue our review ig in accordance with not only our resources, but the dictates 20 y
l e
i of the project itself.
And in this particular instance, we 1
i l5 l
have indicated that we will go forward with our review as long 22
}
O as there is n application before us, and to this date, there u
is an application before us, and the Staff will continue its l C
- i""*
25 l t
i l
i l
l l
l t
1
22 1 l And the continuation of that review also will go 2
to publication of the FES.
Now, we have just yesterday, O
i 3
I believe, published or sent out the DES for comment.
We will, i
4 go through a comment period, and we will publish an FES in s
due course, as long as an application is before us.
And when 6
I say "due course," that may reflect some question as to the uncertainties.
7 8
If we go through this comment period, and the 9
application is withdrawn, for one reason or another, of course, 10 we would terminate that FES publication.
If the application l
l has not been withdrawn, but there are still some questions 33 i
regarding need for power, let us say, we may decide to 12 publish an FESon all chapters except need for power, let us 13 O
say, and then pub 11sh a fina1 rES on the need for power i
14 question, when the regional forecast comes out in April of 15 1983, and the Staff has a reasonable amount of time to review 16 that forecast.
37 So the only thing that I would want to say on that jg 8
is that our reviews are going forward, and they are going 19 i
f rward because we have a valid application before us.
We 20 d
can only ascertain that an application is invalid, if in fact 21 i
it is withdrawn, and withdrawn informally by one means or g
O another, such as the Applicant says:
"Please terminate your 23 review," or withdrawn informally by letter.
But until that g
O time, our revie ao so forw rd-we do not oon iaer te -
25 i
L
23 l
wanto of recourcss from thn standpoint that the Applicant 3
pays us licensing fees, and so it is not as if the 2
()
G vernment is footing the bill.
The Applicant is footing the 3
bill.
We do not second-judge the Applicant's business 4
- ' ( )
judgment as to the viability of a project at this stage of the 5
review.
6 And in that respect, I would like to make one 7
comment with respect to something Ms. Bell indicated as to g
the fact that an incomplete PSAR was submitted.
I think that g
just indicates that perhaps the Coalition doesn't understand f
the nuances of the Staff review.
Of course a PSAR is not 11 submitted in toto.
It has to reflect staff concerns which 12 are generated through staff questions that go back to the
()
Applicant, with respect to the questions regarding certain parts of the review.
The Staff may have questions on all 15 aspects of the review, whether it is design components, whether 16 3
it is emergency planning, and even, of course, in the 17
'O environmental review, but we go through our process of review 18 i
through submitting questions and getting responses back from 19 j
the Applicant, and those responses back from the Applicant
,5 20 J
come back through PSAR amendments, or environmental report 21 l
amendments, and that is an ongoing process.
It does not 22
()
reflect the fact that the application when it was filed was 23 l
incomplete.
The Staff would not docket that application l
l 24 I ()
initially, if it were not complete.
So even before it is 25 l
24
'l 1'
1 docketsd, we go through quito a longthy process of making l
2 sure that at least'their PSAR and ER submittals have enough O
3 information that we can begin the process of review, and 4
after we begin the process of review, there are other submittals O
5 that come in in the form of amendments, and I just wanted to 6
make that point clear.
It is an ongoing process.
It never terminates; even after there is an operating license issued, 7
a the process of Staff review continues even after that point.
9 I am trying to think if there is anything that I have to left out, but I think that I have given you my ideas of what we should do at this point, recognizing some of the 33 uncertainties that are here.
12 I guess my main point is that we can do certain 13 O
things today to complete this process of defining contentions, i4 l
l but other schedules with respecc to discovery and a hearing, 15 i
I think should' await until we actually have a definition of 16 those contentions.
37 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you, Mr. Black.
18 3
Off the record for a moment.
ig f
(The discussion was held off the record.)
o 20 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
On the record,
{
21 i
Mr. Thomsen, do you have any rebuttal statement g
O y u wish to make?
23 MR. THOMSEN:
Briefly, Your Honor.
l(2)
Mr. B1ack, I think has ab1y summarized the situation i
l 1
l
25 f
l and ths Applicant agress with the pocition of the Staff.
l i
l 2 I I,
too, do not propose to try the merits of need for power
(%
l 3
this morning at a special prehearing conference.
I would observe only that the Washington State forecast mentioned 4
5 by Mr. Cavanagh has been seriously questioned.
The BPA forecast is now coming under question.
Our own forecast 6
continued to show a need for the Skagit Units.
That is also 7
true of the regional forecasts about to be issued by the l
8 PNUCC.
g Secondly, certainly we have not given up on the jg Skagit project.
We wouldn't be here if we weren't determined 33 t
proceed with the licensing process.
We are investing our 12 m ney in the licensing proceeding.
We are not asking for any 13
()
quick decision, or placing any particular burdens on the 34 Intervenors.
They are here voluntarily participating in 15 the proceeding.
That necessarily means they must pay some 16 attention to whatever procedures the Board thinks are 37 2
appropriate.
jg 8
l I agree with Mr. Black that we should take this one 1
jg l
a l
step at a time.
I am not proposing that we set any particular 1
l l
schedule for evidentiary hearings, nor any particular l
i l
3 i
schedule for discovery at this time.
I agree the first step l 22 l
(])
is to deal with the petitions to intervene, and the contentions.
i 23 l
MS. BELL:
Mr. Chairman, may I make some additional i
?4
()
brief rebuttal?
i l
26 3
1 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Unless you havs something that ic new,.I don't want to continue this discussion.
We are going 2
i 3
to have to take it under advisement and make a decision, but what point do you want to make?
If you can state it in one 4,
5 or two sentences, you can go ahead.
MS. BELL:
What I wanted to say was that what 6
i nobody in the Intervenors has addressed yet is the fact that 7
safety questions and safety regulations are also going to 8
l change, and in the interim, and it doesn't make sense to 9
10 g
ahead with the safety questions, and the safety part of the evidentiary hearing, when in fact the rest of the applica-33 tion is being postponed.
12 Also, the other thing that I would like to bring 33 O
to the soard's ate neien is thae 1o CFR 2.2ss seates thae:
"The Commission recognizes that the public interest may be l
15 l
served through settlement of particular issues in a 16 I
pr ceeding, or the entire proceeding.
Therefore, to the 17 extent that it is not inconsistent with hearing requirements
,g n
o f de M, de fah ad reasonaMe sedeMM 19 f
ntested initial licensing proceedings is encouraged.
It 20 f
is expected that the presiding officer and all of the parties 21 to these proceedings will take appropriate steps to carry O
out these proceedines.-
m The settlement that we propose is that nothing l
24 O
should happen until a complete and final application is 25 I
I i
27 1
submitted, and what we are saying is not that wa ehould 2
debate need for power at this prehearing conference, but that O
I the Applicant's unwillingness and inability to go forward on 3
4 need for power essentially undermines their application.
()
5 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
The Board will take this whole question raised by the need for power issue under advisement.
6 7
Any party may, if they wish, submit a further statement in 8
writing regarding it.
9 MR. CAVANAGH:
Within what time limit, sir?
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, I don't know that until you 10 are admitted that you have the right to submit anything at n
this point.
12 MR. CAVANAGH:
May I hope to be admitted today?
13 I ()
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
We will have to see how it works 14 out.
We are going to review your amended--
15 MR. CAVANAGH:
But I assume a decision will be made 16 today on whether I will be permitted to intervene.
j 37 2
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I don't know whether it will or not.
18 g
We will have to see what comes up.
39 l I MS. BELL:
Mr. Chairman, could you tell us the
,2 20 5
l time limit for submitting additional comments, and positions?
21 I i l
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I am going to in a minute.
l 22
()
Well, we think that two weeks, namely by the 19th 23 of May would be sufficient time to permit you to put in writing g
(])
the arguments that you have regarding this question.
25 i
i
28 l
i j Judga Linsnbergor wishns to addrass a couple of 2
questions to you, Mr. Thomsen.
3 MR. THOMSEN:
Before that, sir, might I ask on the 4
May 19, I assume that is the date for the Coalition to file 5
a motion, and then we would have an opportunity to answer that thereafter, or what is the...
6 7
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
No, I thought that this was just 8
a statement of the arguments that have been made.
9 M. THOMSEN:
'The same date for all?
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, she has made an oral motion, 10 but as regards any motion, I want them in writing, if you are ij going to make a motion, Ms. Bell.
As to that, then the 12 l
regular time would apply.
l 13 MR. THOMSEN:
That is what I was concerned with.
34 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
On this other matter, if you can 15 16 g
e us a concise arguent regadng h, whMn two weeks, h f
might be helpful.
t 37 Now Judge Linenberger has a couple of questions.
18 8
MR. BLACK:
Before that is discussed, can I ask jg just one matter of clarification?
When you say "to present 20 j
additional views," do you mean just solely on the question j
21
- i f whether the fact that there is such uncertainty clouding 22 O
the issue of need for power thee in fece chie epgucation i
22 cannot go forward at this tirra, or the application should 24 l
lO in face he withdrawn 2 25 t
29 i
l CHAIRMA!; WOLF:
I don't know about that.
1 I don't know if it is to be withdrawn, Mr. Black, 2
O 3
but I think you ought to address yourself to the question of whether or not it would be fruitful to go forward at this 4
5 time, in view of this question that has been raised about need for power.
6 MR. THOMSEN:
I am having a little trouble, as 7
Mr. Black is, knowing exactly what we are to address.
It 8
Seems to me we either get a written motion, and then have the 9
usual time to respond--
jg CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, I think it is up to the party jj to make the motion.
I am not going to rule that the party 12 has to, or can't make the motion.
That is up to the party.
33 O
This I wane for the Board.
This has nothing to do with thae business.
I don' t know whether that clears it up for you, or--
jg f
MR. THOMSEN:
Well, I am still not sure what g
question I am addressing.
jg MR. BLACK:
It doesn't clear up my problem, because j
19 I don't think it is appropriate at this time to really go into g
s the merits of the need for power question.
I think that--
21 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I don't want you to go into the O
merits of it.
I want you to discuss whether or not if the m
need for power matter cannot be determined until next spring, j whether or not we should proceed at this time in the case.
25 i
______________________________.__.________.____J
30 I
MR. BLACK:
With anything.
j l
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
With anything.
2 l
()
MR. BLACK:
Including discovery?
3 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes.
4
()
MR. THOMsEN:
I understand.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Or you can argue that we should, if th'at is your argument, whichever way you want to go.
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Mr. Thomsen, getting back to your letter of April 26, 1982 that has been adverted to by 9
yourself and others so far, perhaps you can help the Board understand a little better the Applicants position with 11 respect to one consideration.
You indicate that it seems inappropriate to Applicant to proceed with the environmental l
phase of the hearing until the need for power question is resolved in some way.
I cannot tell from that whether you 15 are saying that environmental considerations associated 16 I
with site suitability necessarily embrace the need for power 17 O
question, or whether you are saying that because the need for
'8 i
power question will be resolved very soon, and because of l ;
19 l
l j your dislike for bifurcated hearings, therefore you would not i j 20 like to start environmental matters without having the need l.
y 21 l
for power.
Which--
lj 22 i
MR. THOMSEN:
It is the latter.
It is simply a 23 product of my judgment as to the utility of piecemeal hearingg.
24 l
My dominant thought is need for power should be postponed, and
()
25 l
r i
31 i
the rent is tha tail on tho dog.
No, I don't son that need 2
for power has anything to do with site suitability at all.
O 3
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
All right, sir.
Secondly, a couple of details:
At the last page of 4
O 5
the same letter we are talking about, you refer by initials o som enthy.
6 Can you identify that entity, and tell us briefly 7
8 I what its roll is?
MR. THOMSEN:
Yes.
g I don't know what the initials stand for, but it is 39 the name of a consulting firm that has been hired by the 3i State Siting Council to act as the Council's independent 12 consultant, and in particular to prepare a portion of the 33 joint NRC State Environmental Statement.
So, "URS" is in 34 affect the Siting Council's staff, for the purpose of 15 Preparing that portion of the impact statement that was 16 prepared by the State, and also they have been retained to 37 2
review the comp.leteness of our application to the State, which 3g is the combined Application for Site Certification / Environmental 19 Report.
That is another one of their jobs for the Siting 20 8
j Council.
Under the State procedures, they have to have their i
consultant review the application for completeness, and we are O
simg1y suggesting here that since ehet grocess is under av, 23 and is scheduled to be completed by about May 20 that it be O
comg1eeed.
Again, we gav the cost of ie, ie is direct 1r sitied
,s,
t I
l 32 1
to us, and it ecsmed logical to un that that chould continus, l
2 l and as far as I know, the State Siting Council agrees that I
3 that should continue, and it will -- it is continuing.
4 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Finally, Mr. Thomsen, in the 5
closing paragraph of the same letter, you emphasize that Applicants are confident that the units will be needed, and 6
indeed that they are essential to the future well-being of 7
the region, the words you used.
g MR. THOMSEN:
Yes.
9 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Let me, for the sake of 10 understanding, purposefully distort my interpretation of 3,
this to say that I don't understand how this statement of 12 confidence that it is needed and necessary is consistent with l
13 O
the seatement:
We had hetter s10w down, fe11ows, decause we are not sure things are needed and necessary.
I think I see an inconsistency.
Perhaps you could 16 lj:
comment on it?
37 l
MR. THOMSEN:
I would be glad to explain what I 18
~*
mea e Mnk dat in he course, nder one, dat de d
19 Regional Power Planning Council, in their plan to be issued g
i j
next spring, will show a strong indication that the Skagit 21
.:i Units are needed, and secondly, by that time there will be O
a consensus that the BPA forecast is sime1r not re11adie, end 23 even more so the Washington State forecast.
So we think it O
wi11 =1eim te1y he c1e r that the Sx sit units are needed, and 2s l
i
-n-
33 1 l thst. that will bn clear by nnxt spring, becauto we think our i
own forecasts are more reliable than the others that have 2
o 3
been mentioned.
So we remain of the view that there is sufficient 4
5 probability, at least, that that will come out that way, that we must maintain the Skagit option.
We must protect and 6
preserve our ability to go forward with the Skagit project.
7 Of course, if we are wrong, and there is no need shown ever 8
for the Skagit Units, we, won't build them.
We couldn't get 9
them licensed, and the last thing we want to do is build to Units that aren't needed.
So we are expressing confidence 11 in the fact that consensus will develop that they are needed 12 by next spring.
That is all.
13 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Thank you, sir.
g CmMN WOM:
Judge Hooper has a q"estion for 15 you, M. Gomsen.
W. Momsen, can you M ng the Boa d 17 e
up to speed, so to speak, about these regional plans?
j jg l
MR. THOMSEN:
Yes.
3g JUDGE HOOPER:
I remember in the earlier parts of 20 the proceeding we had the Northwest Power Pool.
What is the g
i relationship of the Northwest Power Pool to this new regional l
O pian thae is seing deve1oged2 can you give us a 11ee1e bie of background on this regional plan, and its relevance to g
O your gosition righe now2
,s i
34 l
l MR. THOMSEN:
Yaa.
i 2
In December, 1980 -- I think that was the year --
O 3
the Congress passed what we call the Regional Act, a new 4
piece of federal legislation affecting the Pacific Northwest, 5
and that Act defines a region that is somewhat different from what'you remember we talked about as the " West Group" 6
a lot before.
Now, we talk about the " Northwest Region."
It 7
is a little bit larger than the West Group, encompasses a 8
little bit larger area.
g That federal Act, among other things, established 10 a regional -- what we call a Regional Council.
Its name is 11 a little bit longer than that, Regional Conversation and 12 l
Planning Council, or something of that kind, but at any rate, 33 O
it is a Council comprisea of eight people, two representatives y
fr m each of four states:
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and i
15 i
a.
e ee a,o of Meh 16
[
responsibilities is to turn out a plan.
That is what we 37 e
refer to as the " Regional Plan."
And under the law, they jg
}
were supposed to complete that plan by next April, and that ig f
is two years after they were formed that they were to complete 5
the Plan.
So they were formed in April of ' 81, and the Plan g
E is due in April of '83.
22 O
They have been hirine consuteants, ho1 ding eub11c m
hearings, getting input, making studies, to turn out this l
l TheP1anismuchbroaderthansimeirademanaforecase.l l O P1an.
2s i
l1.
35 i
i i
That is ono part of it, but tho Plcn is to dsal algo with l
2 i conversation measures and renewable resources, and what makes 3
sense from the resource side of the picture, and also with 4
conversation and with the fisheries resource in the Columbia 5
River, and so on.
It is quite a large undertaking.
And that is what is underway, and due next April, and it promises to 6
l 7
be a very significant report for the Region.
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Well, my next question then is:
8 9
To what extent will you he bound by this Plan?
If the Plan finds that the Skagit/Hanford Units are not needed, would to you automatically withdraw your application?
33 MR. THOMSEN:
No, that is, in the sense that we 12 are not legally bound by it.
The consequence of that --
13 O
see me back ug 11tt1e bit.
This Regiona1 Ace a1so authoris.s the Bonneville Power Administration to purchase the output 15 f resources in this Region, but only if the resources are 16 l
consistent with this Plan.
Now, this new authority on the 37 part of Bonneville Power Administration provides another 18 alternative method of financing generating resources in this ig Region, and it is entirely possible that the sponsors of the 20 y
Skagit project, for example, will ultimately want to avail g
7, E
themselves of this possibility, or method of financing.
That i
h,,)
w uld not be available to them, if the Regional Plan said that 23 i
i the Skagit Units are not needed.
O so that is one of its main conseauences.
wecoutd.!
25 4
I i
_,m_____,
36 i
l if we could financa thtm without using this BPA financing, 1
2 go forward, but in all likelihood we will want to try to O
3 use the regional financing.
4 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
All right, thank you.
5 JUDGE WOLF:
Does anyone have any further statement about the matter that they wish to make?
If not, we will 6
move on then to another matter, namely, the Notice of the 7
Taking of Deposition of M. Terry Dana.
g l
MR. THOMSEN:
J think I can dispose of that.
9 The Applicants had wanted to question Mr. Dana 10 about his affidavit, and about the 70-odd contentions that 33 have been filed on his behalf now by the Coalition.
Of course 12 the Coalition objected to that.
I thought that perhaps I 13 O
cou1d resolve this informally by simply having a meeting with Mr. Dana, and so I talked with him earlier this morning by 15 phone, and inquired whether -- I had talked to him Sunday 16 also about the possibility of meeting, and I asked him 37 whether he was willing to meet with me.
He had said he wanted jg to talk to Ms. Bell, and I assume he has.
ig
! i At any rate, this morning he said he was not willing 20 lld to meet with me, ad I asked him whether he was going to come 21 3
to this conference, and he said he was not.
And I asked him g
O whether he wou1d consider withdrawing from this proceeding, 23 and he said, "No."
And I asked whether he was familiar with
' O the 70 contentions fried on his beha1f.
I wasn e sure ahoue 2s
37 I
i i that.
Hs said, "Yoc," he was.
And I asked him whnthor ho l
2 l would be willing to consider withdrawing any of those 3
contentions.
That had been one thing I wanted to discuss with him.
And he said, "No."
And I asked him whether he realized 4
5 the consequences of that, in terms of this proceeding, the expense and difficulty we all have, the job, anyway, of dealing 6
7 with those contentions, and he said he was.
8 So in view of these responses, I concluded that it 9
would not be productive to take his deposition, so I withdraw 10 the request on that.
He satisified the points I had in mind over the telephone.
i ij JUDGE WOLF:
Well, I don't think that I am satisfied 12 with his refusal to discuss the matter with you, and I think 13 O
that under those oircu tances, un1ess he is wittine to m
respond to discovery in this matter that he will not be 15 g
e to tes W y here.
16 f
MS. BELL:
Excuse me, he is not able to, or I am 37 not able to?
jg JUDGE WOLF:
I say unless this person, Mr. Dana, 39 is willing to comply with the procedures of th'is hearing, he 20 a
will not be eligible to testify, if you intended to bring 21 i
him as a witness.
I don't know whether you did or not.
O as sett:
ar chair = n, ar o na is not a witness-23 He is a member of the Coalition for Safe Power, and as for g
Q the discussion that the Applicant has had with this member of 25 l
38 1.
ours, Mr. Drna, wa were navar informed that the Applicant 2
was interested in an informal discussion with him, or of 3
these two phone calls, but we are not intending to bring him 4
as a witness.
He is simply our member.
5 JUDGE WOLF:
Well, did I misunderstand Mr. Thomsen?
6 I thought that you had set up a date for taking this person's l
7 deposition, is that correct?
8 l MR. THOMSEN:
Yes, I had in the Notice suggested 9
that it be taken last evening, but then the Coalition objected to to the taking of any deposition.
So I thought then maybe at least we could have an inforum1 discussion.
And they were n
suggesting-that I was trying to harrass Mr. Dana by the taking 12 of -- and of
_e, I thought:
Well, let us have a private 13
()
i4 meeting then, just Ms. Bell, and whoever he wanted there,
'[js off the record sort of discussion, and Sunday he said:
- Well, he would talk to Ms. Bell about that, and think it over, and ig this morning he said he would rather not meet with me, even 37 l
informally. -So I went on to ask him the questions, and in ig 3
4 39 view o,f the answers I got, I decided to withdraw the request.
i MS. BELL:
Mr. Chairman, it seems that the 20 c
3 Applicant h'as had an informal discussion with Mr. Dana over 21 xs 3
the telephone, and since he has withdrawn the request to 22
' ' ~ ()
depos<( Mr. Dana, it seems the question is moot.
23 i
s CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, I understand that, and g
f cou[se it is up to him how he handles it, but I am not 25 I
s i
1 l
h r
39 l
l l
i I przpsr d to acc0pt that conduct on the part of a pereen who 2
is standing as the basis for your Intervention here.
I think
- O 3
he has a duty to this Board to respond an be cooperative, and i
4 I will taka this under advisement, and we wilt discuss it at l
5 a 1ater time.
I don't be11 eve that discovery is harassment.
That s
7 might have been so back around the period of the Civil War, but the procedures in the courts have 1ong passed that time, j
8 and I think that any time there is a request for discovery, 9
10 I think the parties have to respond.
If there is any i
harassment, you can bring it to me, and we will see that it is 33 eliminated, but the mere fact that they are asked to appear i
12 for discovery is not harassment, in my judgment.
13
- O we wi11 take up next, as. se11, your motion for i
extension of time by the Coalition for Safe Power, dated 33 Apri1 20th, 1982.
l 16 l j MS. BELL:
What do you request from me?
37 l
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Are you stil1 standing by that jg t
motion?
M you want to--
j 19
..LL, yes,.e are se111 staneing by th. motion.
and in fact since the motion was filed, we =ti11 received an g
ir additional amendment to the Preliminary. Safety Analysis g
~
O aegort, and of course the Seaff has a1so.aggarene1y f11ed 23 their DES, so--
g O
CaAIaaAn WOtr=
We11, you may receive amendments 2s I
4 7-u, y
-w----
w ym e-W--.-e.---
,p
,,m__
40 i
all during tha h2aringo, poonibly.
I don't undaratand your t
l d
i f Position on that.
If any new matter comes up, you understand 2
O 3:
how you can hring that sefoze the Board, I am sure, and you 4
can bring that before the Board at any time, whether it is this
- O meneh, or in three or four months.
If there is some new matter s
in some report that is being made, you can do that.
I don't 6
4 think it gives you the right to ask for an extension fo time.
7 MS. BELL:
We asked for an extension of time to 8
file contentions on the entire Preliminary Safety Analysis g
10 Report.
We had received Amendment 23, which was the change of site from Skagit to Hanford, and it is just simply pages, and there were times where you would pick up a section to 12 read a section through, and you would end up in the middle of 33 O
a sentence.
And the reason this was was hecause we had never J
received an original Preliminary Safety Analysis Report in g
the Skagit proceeding.
The Applicant told us that they were 16 i
l l r:ot willing to provide this to us.
37 The only alternative we would have had, would be to 18 drive all the way from Portland to Richland, to read about
,g Y
15 volumes.
20 f
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
We read the motion.
We understand 2i i
I that.
What are you saying to us now?
I don't understand.
22 O
I don't think that we can delay everything, waiting the next u
amendment to some report.
There may or may not be further amendments.
t
]
41 l
1 Mr. Block, ara you finichsd mcking all amendmento?
2 MR. BLACK:
I hope not.
Our review would be sorely 3
deficient in that respect, I think.
4 I think that there is ample case law, and I was 5
just looking through my notes, but there is a Commission Decision that is directly on point with respect to a similar 6
motion that was filed for additional time to file contentions.
7 g
And the commission simply stated that there is a provisien 9
in the Regulations that takes care of that, and that it 10 the provisions at 10 CFR, Section 2.714, which is the late-filed contention provisions, which you have to establish 3,
good cause, and address four additional factors.
And I think 12 that is the sum and substance of this whole motion, that of 33 O
course the Coa 11eion has the r1 he to fi1e additionat i4 9
contentions upon the receipt of new information.
No one has 15 ever denied that right, nor ever will.
And there is a 16 provision in the Regulations that allows that.
And our j
j7 i :
response to this motion is simply that it is premature, and jg 3
that there is a provision in the Regulations for the ig Coalition to file additional contentions, and on good-cause 20 l j requirements, and therefore I think it would be very easy to 21 l 3 dispose of this contention by denying it, saying it is l
g O
premature, and of course they have the right to file additional 23 1
contentions upon good cause shown.
l 24 Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the motion.l O
MS. BELL:
25 i
i l
L
42 l
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Anything furthar, M2. Ball?
i I
1 MS. BELL:
Yes, I will withdraw the motion.
2 O
3 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
You understand, if you do have some 4
matter, the rulas provide an opportunity for you to present i
5 them, if you can show good cause, so I don't think that you are missing anything by withdrawing the motion.
6 I would like to take up next the amendments filed 7
by the Coalition for Safe Power, the contentions it has g
included in them.
9 MR. BLACK:
Mr. Chairman?
10 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes.
j, MR. BLACK:
If I may speak for one second, 12 Mr. Cavanagh indicated to me earlier that he had a time 13 O
prohtem today, and I seated to him thae I thoughe.11s Amended Petition and Supplement to his Amended Petition was is an easy matter to dispose of,and I thought that it would 16 i :
perhaps be a better use of our time if we could go to 37
(
NRDC's Petition to Intervene,and then take up the National i
3g Wildlife Federation's Petition, and then finally get into the 3g Coalition, and perhaps that would be well suited to 20 g
d Mr. Cavanagh's purposes, as well.
l 21 l
i CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Does anyone have any objection to 22 O
deine thae2 We will then move over to the Amended Petition to l
24 O
Intervene of the National Resources Defense Counci1. represenyd 25 l
i
43 l
l by Mr. Ccvancgh.
3 I
l Is that correct, Mr. Cavanagh?
2 (Z) i MR. CAvANAGH:
zes, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
And you have filed a supplement to 4
the Amended Petition, as well as an' Amended Petition to S
Intervene.
MR. CAVANAGH:
That is correct.
7 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
So if you could briefly state just g
U and the Supplement bring you within 9
the requirements of the Rule regarding standing, if we could 3g move forward on that.
11 MR. CAVANAGH:
We addressed in our Amended Petition 12 both the standard for intervention as a right, and the
()
standard for intervention as a matter of the Commission's discretion.
15 On the former head, intervention as a right, we I
introduced an affidavit by an NRDC member living within
'g 17 20 air miles of the proposed site, who indicated that he
'8 i
authorized NRDC to represent his interests in this proceeding, 2
19 Y
and that he had health, safety, and recreational interests l j 20 l
implicated in the decision of the Board.
l b 2'
' j on the discretionary intervention side, we detailed 22
()
NRDC's extensive expertise in the need for power and electricity l
23 j
forecasting area, and in particular cited the qualifications 24
()
of our senior scientist, Dr. David Goldstein, who would be 4
v n-
44 I
i 1 ;
appocring cc en expart witnoca for NRDC, and would be in a position to enlighten the Board on some of the issues we 2
O have been discussing already today.
3 In our Supplement to the Petition, we identified 4
O 5
four contentions, all in the basic area of need for power from this facility, and the availiblity of alternatives to it 6
that are cost-effective, and environmentally preferable.
7 l Those contentions went respectively to the need for power from 8
the facility in the NortDwest region, the availability of 9
markets for the power outside the region, the reasonableness to of Applicant's deman forecasts, and the availability of 33 alternatives to the project, and the adequacy of analysis of 12 those alternatives in the Applicant's documentation.
13 So those are th four contentions going to the need 34 for power, availability of alternatives questions, and the jg asis for intenendon goes to Wh a meder whMn M ah 16 miles of the facility, and expertise that we believe meets 37 l
the discretionary standards that the Board has established.
3g CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Ms. Bell, do you want to comment on j
19 the Amended Petition, and the Supplement to the Amended i
20
! Petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council?
21 MS. BELL:
Mr. Chairman, we support the Amended O
retition of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you.
O Mr. Thomsen, do you have any comment on the
,s i
I i
45 4
1 !
two papara thnt I hava just ncmed?
2 MR. THOMSEN:
I just want to confirm for the record O
3l that we did ear 1r this morning distribute to the Board and 4
parties our written comment on the NRDC Supplement.
O e
CaAIRMAN WOtr=
We haven e had a chance to 1ook at that yet.
6 MR. THOMSEN:
I realize that, but I just wanted 7
to indicate that, and I have asked Mr. Frantz to summarize a
9 our position on the NRDC and the other Petitions we will 10 be coming to.
So I would like to turn the microphone over to him, if I may.
33 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Mr. Frantz?
12 MR. FRANTZ:
Judge Wolf, the NRDC has submitted 13 O
rour contention = with rairir deta11ed aaa exten ive ha=e -
i 14 l
Based upon its pleadings so far, the Applicant has no 15 objection to the admission of these contentions, and the 16 participation by the NRDC on its contentions, as indicated j
37 and refined by the Supplemental Petition, and the bases supplied.
33 I
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you.
j jg Mr. Black?
,g d
MR. BLACK:
Judge Wolf, the NRC Staff responded g
to the Amended Petition from the NRDC on April 23rd, 1982, and O
concluded that NRDC had adequately established standing to 23 be allowed to intervene as a matter of right in this g
O 9'oceedias-2s l
v-----r
--wrw-
46 I
, j W3 alco believa that in tho Supplcment to ths Amended Petition the four contentions advanced by NRDC in 2
O ehe area of need for power and eteerneeive resources hed been 3
pleaded with the requisite basis and specificity pursuant to 4
O to CrR seceton 2.214, and eherefore, the Staff concludes that s
6 i
issues in controversy.
7 ;
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you.
8 On the basis of the discussion that has taken place, g
and the papers that have been filed in connection therewith, 10 the Petition to Intervene by the Natural Resources Defense Council is granted, and forthwith you become a party.
MR. CAVANAGH:
Thank you.
O CHAIRMAN WOLF:
If you h ve other engagements, you m
may be excused at any time you want to.
MR. CAVANAGH:
Thank you, they are later today.
I will stay as long as I can.
MR. THATCHER:
May it please the Board, I would like to concur in Mr. Black's suggestion that if possible you take i
up the intervention petition of the National Wildlife l j 20 l
} Federation and the Oregon Environmental Council, which again, 21 l
in some respects is similar to, but has some additional 22 contentions to those filed by Natural Resources Defense Council.
We have similar affidavits of members, and similar l 24 G
! standing therefore to the NRDC organization.
We have raised V
25 I 1
I
47 0
l cartcin additionnl matters not reiced by tha NRDC.
Mr. Black 3
indicated that perhaps it would be ap ropriate to take up 2
O that matter, so that all parties would be either admitted, 3
or denied admission at an early stage in this proceeding, so i
4 O
we could all discuss the relevant portions of the proceeding.
5 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, I was just going to call on g
you to fill us in a bit on the basis and the reasons why you 7
think you should be admitted, at this time, in the light g
Y 9
MR. THATCHER:
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Now, Mr. Thatcher, you will represent the National Wildlife Federation.
Do you also represent the Oregon Environmental O
Councu2 MR. THATCHER:
Yes, I do, Your Honor.
We have 15 filed a joint Petition, and I am representing both parties.
16 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I wish you would address yourself 17
=
' ~,
to that fact that there has been no showing, unless it is in l
18 1 !
this Amended Petition, as to the right of the Oregon group to l
j 19 Y
be admitted here.
j 20 MR. THATCHER:
The Oregon Environmental Council s
y 21 j
we have included in our Amended Petition, the name of, although i
22 O
decause of me111ne difficutetes, and simg1r the fact that we 23 1
are a citizens' organization, and so it takes some time to l
i 24 I
get our members to sign the proper papers, and get them in I
l L
48 i ;
mail to us.
The Oregon Environmental Council too has mamborg l
l that live within 50 air miles of the plant, and who are 2
1 3
concerned with the health, and safety, and environmental 4
impact of the construction of this plant, as compared to O
alternatives.
That is Mr. oor1e Hunt, whose affidavit wi11 s
shortly be filed with the Commission.
He does live within 6
45 air miles of the proposed plant.
l 7
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
But as of now, I take it, there is 8 I I
no evidence of that in the record, is that correct?
9 MR. THATCHER:
No, we have not yet filed the 10 affidavit.
I have made th( allegations in our Petition to ij Intervene, under oath, myself, that I have spoken to 12 Mr. Hunt, and he has authorized me to represent him and the 13 Q
Oregon Environmental Council.
j4 l
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
You will submit the affidavit, and 1s e
o a y acdon on de Oregon group und we han 16 f
that paper in hand.
37 E. THATCHER:
Yes, sir.
18 5
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
So you will just address yourself to jg the National Wildlife group.
20 g
i MR. THATCHER:
The National Wildlife Federation has s
21 i 1
i a large membership throughout the Pacific Northwest, and for Q
purposesofestablishingclearlyourstanding,wehavealready{
g filed the affidavit of Mr. Willis Hicks, and Mrs. Ruth Hicks, i'* *" """' "
""""i"S* "-
'"*Y ^^'* "" **"
O 2s
49 I
I l
1 l to us.
Thsy hava authorized tha National Wildlifo Fcdsration l i
I 2
to represent their interests.
They are associate members of 3
the National Wildlife Federation.
Their affidavits ware 4
submitted at the same time as our Amended Petition, and they, 5
as their affidavits indicate, both live within the 50-mile zone, which is considered to be the zone of interest, clear 6
zone of interest.
They also hike and birdwatch, and generally 7
a recreate in that area, and they have asked National Wildlife Federation -- have authorized the National Wildlife Federation 9
10 to represent those health and safety interests.
As well, we have filed the affidavits of members 33 who use -- Barbara Breunig, who is a member of the National 12 Wildlife Federation, who lives in Portland, Oregon, who uses 13 O
eaa easor the ci a eaa wi1atife re ouroe= on ene cotumate 14 River, which we believe could be adversely affected by 15 construction and operation of this plant.
16 f
So we have both claims of standing within the 37 50-mile zone, as well as other recreational interests that jg 2
might be affected by operation of this plant.
19 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Very well.
20 i
Mr. Frantz?
MR. FRANTZ:
Judge Wolf, the Application has no e
n to de stanung of de Nadonal MMe Federadon 23 in intervening in this proceeding.
Q CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Mr. Black?
i
50 l
MR. BLACK:
ThD Staff has no objection to oithar i
i l
the National Wildlife Federation or the Oregon Energy 2
I O
Councu.
We recognize that the affidevie of Mr. Hunt was 3
4 not attached to the Amended Petition, but based, number one, 5
on the representations of Counsel that such an affidavit would be filed, we had no objection, and also we would note 6
that the Amended Petition asserts that several OEC, Oregon 7
8 Energy Council, members use and enjoy the Columbia River fishery that could be adversely affected by this project, g
and based upon those representations as well, we believe that 30 the Oregon Energy Council has a requisite standing to become ii Intervenors as a matter of right in this proceeding.
So in 12 summation, the NRC Staff supports both the National Wildlife 13 O
rederation na the oreson ener97 Counci1 to decome vertie-m to this proceeding.
15
. T M CHER:
For de record, h shod be inMcated 16 that tne organization is the Oregon Envioronmental Council.
j 37 e
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Would you say that again?
18 MR. THATCHER:
Oregon Envioronmental Council is the j
10 l
f the joint Petitioner with the National Wildlife j
name 20
{
Federation.
g i
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Since they adopt the contentions O
that you are submitting for the National Wildlife Federation, 23 shouldn't we think about consolidating the two in any avent?
g MR. THATCHER:
The presentation for the National O
2s 1
51 l
1 l Wildlifo Fcd3 ration and tha Oragon Environmental Council will be consolidated.
We are joint Petitioners, and simply 2
O 3
we will file papers in the name of -- and conduct the 4
hearing, if the hearing is finally held, in the name of both O
5 parties.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
What about the National Resources 6
Defense Council?
Shouldn't you be consolidated with them 7
also?
a MR. THATCHER:.Well, Mr. Cavanagh and I have discussed 9
the matter of consolidation, and it is true that on the need to for power question we have adopted the statement of their ji contentions.
I think it would be useful if such consolidation 12 were to occur on those issues.
Number one, of course we 13 recognize that NWF and the OEC have raised issues beyond those g
raised by NRDC, and in addition, if such consolidation were jg to take place, we would ask the permission of the Board, if 16 I am not speaking out of turn, and Mr. Cavanagh can correct j
37 me if I am, that if such consolidation were to take place, ig that either Mr. Cavanagh or I could represent all three j
19 f
parties in those matters in which there is consolidation, if 20 s
there is consolidation, so that both of us need not be g
i present at the same time, if that seems to be the best way t
O to proceed.
Would you like to comment?
O MR. CavaNacH:
I aeree with ehee, your sonor.
I
52 I would point out, though, that tharo ara contentiono that 1 t i
! NWF and OEC have which we have not entered.
Our intervention 2
O i
3 is a relatively narrow one, so we could not, of course, 4
represent their interests outside the scope of our 5
intervention.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, since you are closely in 6
touch with one another apparently, we can withhold any final 7
statement as to consolidation until maybe the ne'xt meeting, 8
or something.
9 MR. THATCHER:
Fine.
10 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
But in the meantime, if you will 33 get in the affidavit for the Oregon group, we can handle that 12 then at that time.
13 In view of the discussion, and without opposition, 34 the National Wildlife Federation is admitted as a party.
33 yo aa ecision on de 16 Oregon Environmental Council until the affidavit is actually
~
37 submitted?
ig CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes, if you get it in, we will 39 in lude it in the order that we issue as a result of this 20 d
hearing.
21 MR. THATCHER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I will make O
every possih1e effere to get it in immediaee1y.
f CHAIRMAN WOLF:
It will be two or three weeks, I am!
O sure before we can see out an Order, perhape 1oneer, because 2,
i
l 1 l of othar commitments we hava.
2 MR. THATCHER:
May I say also, Your Honor, that 3
with respect to the contentions filed by the National Wildlife 4
Federation and the Oregon Environmental Council, I understand 5
that the Applicant has objected to three of those contentions.
I have not seen the Staff response, but I have 6
7 been told informally that the Staff objects to three of those a
contentions.
I think that perhaps the best way to handle 9
that, since I was just handed the Applicant's response, is to ask for the right to provide written response.
I can 10 discuss it, if you wish, however.
I do have some immediate 33 responses, if necessary, to talk about it today, but I do 12 believe there are responses, and indeed, in one case, one of 13 O
the contentions 111 in face have to be amended, because the
,4 contention was written before amendments to the Commission 15 Rules that occurred on March 31st.
I must admit that in 3g l
Eugene, Oregon we get the Federal Register a couple weeks 37 late, so I am prepared to amend that contention with respect 18
}
to financeability, because I think the question of the 39 acquisition by the Bonneville Power Administration is in fact 20 a critical issue in this proceeding, as the Applicant 21 evidently has already said in public' statements, and it may g
very well properly be placed in the third contention of the 23 National Wildlife Federation, with respect to cost benefit 24 analysis, because the cost benefit analysis of this plant will 25 I
t l
54 i
ba alterad, if thm Bonncville Power Administration is not 2
able to acquire the output of that plant.
So that sort of 3
amendment we are prepared to make.
4 We are also prepared to make arguments on their 4
5 objection to our concern with the fisheries impacts of the resource, and to clarify our -- and I believe that they have 6
raised good questions, which we believe we will clarify with 7
respect to the issue of the disposal confidence proceeding.
8 And I believe that this yould be most appropriately done by 9
us filing a written response to this substantial written jo document that we have just been presented today.
11 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Do you have any comment to that, 12 Mr. Frantz?
13 O
sa. raxNrz:
ves, audge Wo1f, we a1so be11 eve that the it would be prudent for the Board to defer any consideration 15 as to specific contentions until the other parties have 16 3
submitted their pleadings with regard to the proposed content-j 37 tions to date.
However, we would also like to add that if the 18 I i l
National Wildlife Federation proposes to amend the contentions j
3g that they also must satisfy the requirements of 20 d
Section 2.714 (a), with regard to late-filed contentions, I :i that the National Wildlife Federation has no right to amend i O their contentions at this stage, without the showing of sood 23 cause, and without some of the other four factors.
xa Ta^rcaza:
ze wouta he 99roeri te, I e xe ie, O
25 l
55 i
i I
i j to ask ths Applicant how, at this vary ecrly stags, for l
2,
instance, when a regulation has just been altered, how they O
i 3
would be prejudiced by our simple amendment to include that 4
question of financeability, which has just been changed by 5
the Commission, into our cost benefit contention.
I just don't think that there would be any problem, but as Mr. Frantz 6
7 said, the best way to deal with that, I should think, would l
be in written form.
8 9
CHAIRMAN WOLF:. I think so, yes.
If'you will.do that, we will.
10 MR. TIIATCIIER:
Yes, we will, jj i
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
--include it in the Order.
12 Mr. Black, do you have any comments?
l 13 MR. BLACK:
I think to tie this package up in a 34 nice little bundle, maybe the appropriate thing for me to do 15 at this time would be to give the Board, as well as NWF/OEC 16 f
our response to those three contentions that we deem 37 admissible at this time, and therefore, when they frame their 18 response, they can take the Staff's points into consideration ig as well.
And I would be willing to, at this time, indicate 20 what our objections to those three contentions are, for the 21 i
record, as well as for a further response from the National r
l O W11d11fe redereelon.
2, l
MR. TIIATCl!ER:
May I ask Your lionor if that g
l O reegonse wou1d be in writine, or eha11 I eeke decei1ed notes
,s 1
I
56 i l on the words that Mr. Black says today?
MR. BLACK:
Well, what I can do is I can tell you 2
l O
3 what our response is, the words will be in the transcript, 4
and I can also give you my notes.
So you will have a 5
very detailed explanation.
MR. THATCHER:
But there is no written response?
6 MR. BLACK:
There is no written response, but I 7
am prepared to do it orally.
The only reason that I am 8
prepared to do it orally,and not written is that -- although 9
I could do it written, I would think that in the interest of 10 saving time, since my response is short, that this would 33 be a better way to do it.
12 MS. BELL:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if 13 t
O this apg11 s to ehe coneentions of the Coa 11eton for Safe Power as well.
In other words, the deferral of oral l
15 iscussion on contentions, and simply that we would respond 16 in writing, as would the National Wildlife Federation?
37 2
MR. BLACK:
I think that we ought to wait until we jg s
The Coalition stands on different ground, just get to that.
j 19 fr m the standpoint of the length and breadth of their 20 I s l
Petition.
21 l
l 3 lE CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I agree.
I think we will have to lO ask you to eaxe that ug when we get to the Coa 11eion s l
Petition and contentions.
O very we u, I take 1e that this w =1a satisfy y -r 25 t
57 rcquirements, if you got tha oral statsmsnt and the notes 1
2 from Mr. Black, is that correct?
i 3
MR. THATCHER:
Yes, I am all ears, Your Honor.
f 4
MR. BLACK:
Let me go ahead then.
5 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
You don't receive a copy of the t
6 transcript, I take it?
7 MR. THATCHER:
I guess I can.
8 THE REPORTER:
There is a sales form available, if 9
anyone wants one.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I guess you sell them, is that 10 correct?
ii THE REPORTER:
Right.
12 MR. THATCHER:
We will work that out, Your Honor.
13 MR. BLACK:
The NRC Staff, with respect to the 34 uPP ement to the Petition filed by NFW/OEC believes that l
15 Contentions 1, 2, and 3 meet *the specificity and bases 16 requirements of 10 CFR Section 2.714 (b), and should be
,j g
l*
admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding.
18 Contentions 4, 5, and 6 are objectionable, and t j 39 should be denied for the following reasons:
20 d
No. 4, and this is a quotation:
The Applicants g
i have failed to assess fully the environmental impacts of 22 O
the erogosa1, and in gereicu1ar the impacts of the grosece 23 I
on Columbia River fish and wildlife resources."
g The alleged basis for this proposed Contention is 25 i
l a
w w-w.
-m-w-
g--wr-
--- w
,- m w
y-,
-w-
g--
- -w--
--e m
w-----m---
--.g,-
58 that whnn additional bacoload thormal resources, such as 3
the proposed Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, are added to the 2
O regi nal electrical system, the regional hydro projects in 3
j the system will operate more as peaking units.
The increased 4
use of the hydro-peaking will allegedly cause significant 5
impacts to the fish and wildlife resources along the 6
7 The NRC Staff has no reason to doubt that the 8
a on of Magit/Hanford as baseload un hs in de region 9
could cause hydro projects to shift to peaking, and that this jg shift may cause some impact on fish and wildlife resources.
g However, the program of adding additional thermal baseload units to the regional resources and shifting hydro projects 13 O
to peaking is under the review and implementation authority of the Bonneville Power Administration.
Thus, any impacts associated with this regional hydro-thermal program should be reviewed and assessed by the BPA.
In fact, it appears that the BPA has assessed these impacts in its programmatic g
environmental impact statement.
g I
And this I would refer to you to the final EIS, j
20 f
the Role of Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific 21
- i Northwest Power Supply, December,1980.
I O
The C - ission has he1d that:
Issues fuur addressed in a program statement need not be addressed again i O in a sudsequene imgact statement c = cerning = 1r a gare of I
59 1
the program."
I am citing United States Energy Research and 2
I O
Deve1og-nt Adminiserati-grosect sanaeemene Corporati-3 4
Tennessee Valley Authority, which is the Clinch River O
Breeder Reactor riane, and that can he found ae CtI-76-13, s
4 NRC 67 at 80, 1976.
And accordant with that is 6
7 S_cientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. AEC, 481 F. 2d 1079 at 1087-1088, and at 1093, and that is a 8
D.C. Cir. 1973.
9 Accordinly, to the extent that this proposed j
10 contention asserts that the Applicants have inadequately l
3, i
assessed the impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a 12 result of BPA shifting it hydro projects to peaking, it is 13 Q
beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Consistent with 34 i
Clinch River, those impacts have been assessed by BPA in its is i
programmatic EIS on the regional hydro-thermal program, and 16 need not be consMered here.
h erefore, W s conten & n 37 should be rejected.
18 I am going to Contention 5, which states:
"The jg acquisition of Skagit/Hanford by the Bonneville Power 7g d
Administration is highly unlikely; that unlikelihood is
- i crucial to determining the financeability of the project."
Q NWF/OEC asserts that "the Commission requires all g
licensed applicants to demonstrate their financial O
9"" i'i"^t* ""
- c ""*r" * *"a var *** th 9 ""*= ' " ""* ^
2s t
l i
~
60 licansas cra sought, 10 CFR, Snction 50.33 (f), and 10 CFR, i
Section 50.40."
2 O
3 This assertion, and subsequently, the foundation for the contention are erroneous because of a recent rule 4
5 change by the Commission, and I believe that the National Wildlife Federation has noted that that rule change has been 6
made, and I would only refer you to 47 Fed. Reg. 13570 at 7
13573-13574.
In a recent Appeal Board Decision in Houston 8
Lighting and Power Co., Allens Creek Nuclear Generating g
Station, Unit 1, ALAB-671, on March 31, 1982, which indicated in l
that the Board is foreclosed from any consideration of any ij financial qualification issue, andparticularly in this case, 12 I
including the acquisition of the facility by BPA under the j
33 O
,egiona1 rower Act, which might have been raised wieh regard to the Applicant's financial qualifications to build jg 9
16 f
Now, moving on to Contention 6, it states:
"The g
e Commisison should not issue any Construction permit or 18 8
facility license for Skagit/Hanford, pending completion of 19 waste-disposal confidence proceeding."
g l NWF/OEC asserts in this contention that no constructica j
i permits for the facility should be issued until the Commission O
comp 1.ees the waste-disgesa1 confidence groceeding.
The Commission is considering the waste management question, which' O
we b 11 eve is what they are ea1 king asout here when they
,s i
i
61 1
talk about tha westo-dicporal confid2ncs proc cding, in a 2
generic rulemaking proceeding.
And I refer you to O
3 44 Fed. Reg. 45362, August 2nd, 1979.
4 In addition, the Commission has determined that 5
licensing practices need not be altered during this proceeding.
And for that I would refer you to 44 Fed. Reg.
6 7
61372, on October 25, 1979.
Based upon this Commission precedent, the Appeal g
Board has held that licensing boards are precluded from 9
withholding licensing authorization pending completion of the 30 waste management generic rulemaking.
And I would refer you 11 to Virginia Electric Pcwer Company, North Anna Nuclear Power 12 Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451 at 463-465, a 13 O
1980 case, and a1eo Pus 11c Service Compeny of Ok1ahome,
,4 l
Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-573, 10 NRC 775 at l
15 16 codngly, Ms Contendon must M rejected 17 2
because the Licensing Board is precluded from withholding 33 3
l issuance of the construction permits pending completion of jg the waste-disposal confidence proceeding.
20 And for all those reasons, I submit that 21 Contentions 4, 5, and 6 should be rejected.
O what I 3ust read, I wi11 desivina to the 23 National Wildlife Federation, so they will have our response to those.
l 25 I
I l
62 i
l CHAIRMAN WOLF:
W3 will considsr thoca objections i
i 2 l when we pass on the contentions, Mr. Black.
O i
Mr. rrantz, do you have eny commenes ee this time 2 3
4 MR. FRANTZ:
Yes.
In addition to the contentions mentioned -- objections 5
mentioned by Mr. Black, we would also like to point out that 6
Contention 3 of the National Wildlife Federation consists of 7
several subparts, two of which are also objectionable, even 8
though the main part of the contention, we feel, probably I
9 does satisfy the Commission's regulations.
10 Subpart (b) of Contention 3 of the National Wildlife 11 Federation, which is that the Applicants have not included 12 decommissioning costs in the project cost calculations.
This 13 O
coateatio= i= toe tiv tehout d i -
rae ^99ticane a =
14 considered decommissioning costs, in fact, an entire section, ig Section 5.8 of the Application for Site certification and 16 Environmental Report does consider the decommissioning costs 37 1 e for Skagit/Hanford, and therefore, we feel that this 18 subpart of Contention 3 should be rejected as without basis.
j 19 Similarly, Suppart (d) of Contention 3 alleges that 20 d
the Applicant has not considered the environmental cost of 21 ll5 hydroelectric power for peaking purposes.
That is really an Q
issue encompassed within Contention 4 of the National Wildlife g
Federation.
We believe that Contention 4 is not admissible.
g
'a aditio" to the ra = "" =*"eion a by "r
" ^cx
' O 2e l
i
63 i
that thara 10 no ralavanca of tha hydroalectric impccts l
2.
with the Skagit/Hanford.
The premise the National Wildlife O
rederation epgears to be making that somehow the increased 3
4 impacts from hydroelectric power will result from the O
construction and overaeton of skasie/Hanford, there is no s
basis for that allegation.
The demands for peaking power 6
upon the systems have absolutely no relevance at all to what 7
units are constructed and operated to provide baseload power.
8 Consequently, Contention 4 should be rejected as 9
being irrelevant to this proceeding, and not required to be 10 considered in this proceeding.
33 With respect to contention 5 regarding financing 12 of the plant, as Mr. Black has already stated, the Commission 13 O
has recently excluded consideration of financial 34 qualifications for electric power utilities, and therefore 15 co e
o so e
e ected as being conhan to de 16 I
Commission's rules.
g 17 With respect to Contention 6, which refers to the 18 waste confidence proceeding, we also agree with the Staff's j
39 objections that the Commission has already ruled that these issues should not be considered in individual licensing 21.
.i I proceedings, that the Commission has a generic proceeding Q
already underway which is considering these issues.
Therefore, 23 Contention 6 should also be rejected.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
We will consider your statement 25 l
t
64 l
wh n we take tha metter undar advictment.
1 l
2 l Does anyone have any other comments?
3 If not, we can move on then to the questions raised 4
by the Amended Petition by the Coalition for Safe Power.
O tee - ask suse a few quesuons, Ms. Beu:
s liow do you expect to -- this is aside from the 6
7 question of the relevance and validity of the contentions 8
you have submitted -- flow do you expect to prove those contentions?
What is going to be your method of proof?
9 MS. BELL:
We expect to provide witnesses to provide 10 direct testimony, as well as do cross-examination of the 3,
Applicant's case.
12 CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
You will provide some witnesses, 33 O
though?
34 MS. BELL:
Oh, yes, indeed.
I don't think that we
,g could support these contentions without witnesses.
16 f
CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
And you are familiar with the 37 rules regarding written testimony, and so forth?
,g
}
MS. BELL:
Yes.
3g CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
Very well, since there are a great
,g i
number of these contentions, and since we have failed to 21
.:i take a break all morning, I wonder if it wouldn't be well to Q
break for lunch, and take these matters up after lunch.
MS. BELL:
Mr. Chairman, it seems that since there 24 are so many, and because this is the proceeding used for the l
i
i 65 i ;
contcntions for National Wildlifo FGdarction thct it would be l extremely burdensome to talk about all these contentions--
2
()
3 CliAIRMAN WOLF:
I agree with that, but'I thought 4
that we could get a few comments by the other parties, and
()
try to work out some kind of a procedure, if we can, for 5
restating some of the contentions, or correcting whatever 6
defects may appear in them.
So we will try that after lunch, 7
if we may.
g Would 1:00 o' clock be a suitable time to come back?
9 If so, we will adjourn till 1:00 o' clock.
10 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the luncheon recess was j,
taken, to return at 1:00 p.m.)
12 I
s
()
14 I
15 16 3
17 18 I:
l 19 i
l 20 l
2i 22 23 24
(
25 i
66
'J 3
AFTERNOON SESSION 1:00 p.m.
2 O
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Back again on the record, please.
3 Ms. Bell, in order to move forward on this, I 4
i O
would suggest that we hear from the other parties, and then 5
you come back and rebut whatever y'ou want to rebut, rather 6
than as?ing you to go through each one of the contentions at 7
this time.
,[
s.
8 Do you think th'at would help work it out, or if 9
you have another suggestion, you may make it?
ig MS. BELL:
Do you mean oral rebuttal, or written?
33 CHAIRMAN WOLP:
No, orally, right now, at this 12 i
t me.
I)
MS. BELL:
We would prefer to have the time to g
read the Applicant's response, which is rather lengthy, and 15 respond to each one in writing.
It would be much less 16 burdenson, in a certain way, for us to do that.
37
.a CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, what will that take?
About g
E i
qg 10 minutes, or...
to read that?
Are you into it already?
y I
MR. BLACK:
Judge Wolf, if I may speak, I spoke to 20 the Coalition at the break, as well as the Applicant, with d
I 21 5
I respect to how we should proceed with the Coalition's 2,4
()
Amended Petition, and it is 70-odd contentions at this stage.
I thought that the most practical procedure at this point,
()
instead of responding to all of the 70 contentions at this t
67 i
point, would be to have both the Applicant and Staff noto for the record their general objections to these contentions.
2 O
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
That is just what I suggested, 3
Mr. E'?ck.
4 l
MR. BLACK:
And then give the Coalition further 5
time to file responses in written form to those objections.
6 I think that that would be easiest, from the standpoint that 7
I haven't had a chance also to read the Applicant's responses 8
to all the 70 contentions, but I know that the Staff's 9
objection to these contentions fall within one fairly basic 10 objection as to basis and specificity.
And at the break I 33 gave Ms. Bell a written write-up that we have, that I had 12 written with respect to the basic pleading requirements for 13 contentions, giving NRC case law, and what have you, and 34 also that write-up indicated what the Satff's general 15 16 3
I would note at this time, at this point, based upon g
ae po e
on o
ended Peddon, we do e
18
}
object to all of the contentions, all 70 contentions, which ig basically fall within 18 different categories, on grounds 20 g
s primarily of basis and specificity.
And I think that the Applicant's objections go mainly to those grounds as well.
O where ere few conteneiens thee are cha11enges ee regu1aeions or somehow other grounds for objections in them, but I think O
ehee the bese wey to de 1e is to noee the genere1 eb3eceiens,
,s
68 l
i cnd than hava tha coalition havs additional time to go b ck 2
and reframe their contentions, and hopefully take the Staff O
V 3
and Applicant objections to heart, and come up with a more 4
acceptable pleading, setting forth better-defined and 5
more particularized contentions.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Ms. Bell, do you want to comment on 6
7 that suggestion?
MS. BELL:
Well, that is what we agree with.
8 MR. FRANTZ:
Judge Wolf, the Applicant also objects 9
to every contention on the grounds of specificity and basis.
jo The reasons are set forth in our response, which I believe 3,
n w all the parties and the Board has.
12 If the Coalition intends to file a response to I
13 our objections, we would note that they are free to do so.
34 However, if they intend to amend their contentions to cite Is new bases which were not previously supplied, or they intend g
[
to raise new issues in reframing their contentions, they 37 so must sadsfy de rephements of M GR Secdon 2.m, 18 8
egad to late-Med contendons.
19 I
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I think Ms. Bell understands that, j
20 l 5
that she is bound in to the areas that she raised contentions 21 i
\\
about, unless she can make a showing of good cause for going 22 O
into a new eree.
23 MS. BELL:
Right.
O cnAIRMAN WOLF:
We11, if that is true, eue90se 2s i
i
69 i
1 Mr. Black that you -- I tako it that you hava covarad 2
everything you want to cover in your written document, and 3
your statement just now, Mr. Frantz?
4 MR. FRANTZ:
That is correct.
5 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Mr. Black, do you want to make --
Perhaps I ought to ask Mr. Thatcher for comments.
6 i
7 MR. THATCHER:
I have no comment generally on the i
Coalition for Safe Power's contentions.
8 9
CHAIRMAN WOLF:, And Mr. Cavanagh?
10 MR. CAVANAGH:
Nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Mr. Black, would you comment then?
33 MR. BALCK:
Yes, I think for the record I would 12 just like to note what the grounds for our general objections 13 O
to these conteneiens are.
And I think we de have the seme
,4 1
bjections that the Applicant has noted in its written 15 response, but I would also like to perhaps give the Coalition 16 some further reasons why we do object to all their contentions.
j 37 i
I would also note that if in fact all of these 3g contentions are found inadmissible, then it follows that the j
ig Coalition as a party must be dismissed, because they have 20 d
n further contentions in the proceeding.
So I believe at 21 i
this point it is incumbent upon the Coalition to reframe 22 acceptable contentions.
23 I just would like to state for the record that the !
3 O
regualtions do provide that a contention must have basis as 25 f
70 i
i 1
wall as Epocificity, and I point to 10 CFR Snction 2.714.
2 And this requirement of basis and specificity has been upheld O
3 by the Commission, as well as by the Federal Courts.
4 The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 CFR 5
Section 2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any infirmities, and to establish 6
sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further 7
8 inquiry into the subject matter in the proceeding, and to 9
put the other parties sufficiently on notice, so that they will know at least generally what they have to defend against.
to 33 or oppose.
From the standpoint of basis, there is sufficent 12 case law to indicate that they do not have to detail the 13
()
evidence which will be offered in support of this contention.
i4 The do not need to go into the merits of the contention.
15 At this particular pleading stage in the proceeding, 16 however, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to, one, set 37 forth contentions which are sufficiently detailed and ig specific to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible ig f
and relevant to the issue of this construction permit.
20 l j Two, show that further inquiry is warranted.
21
- i Three, put tSe other parties on notice as to what g
()
they will have to defend against or oppose.
g l
l And four, set forth a reasonable basis for each of g
l ()
the contentions, recognizing that the degree of specificity 25 i
71 j
of bassa need d will bn judged on a casa-by-casa basis.
i l
In its Amended Petition, CSP has set forth 70 2
0 3
contentions under 18 headings.
The NRC Staff submits that 4
none of the contentions meet the basis and specificity O
5 requirements of 10 CFR Section 2.714 (b), and accordingly, all of them must be rejected.
6 Initially we would note that most of the Coalition's 7
proposed contentionc suffer from the same shortcoming with g
respect to their admissibility.
Simply stated, the list of 9
contentions are nothing more than a collection of disjointed, jo generalized statements, with no rational or specific 33 assessment of how the facts apply to the Skagit/Hanford 12 project.
l 13 CSP has attempted a scatter-gun approach to 34 interventi n.
It has submitted a collection of broadly-framed 15 contentions that are not limited in any respect to matters 16 relevant and specific to this proceeding.
These amorphous 37 contentions are not sufficiently detailed to, one, either jg
?
emonshate a regional basis as to relevance or, two, pd de 19 parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against 20 g
s or oppose.
And I would just conclude by saying that this O
ticensing seerd shou 1d noe admie vegue contentione which ere l
I l
l lacking in specificity required by the Commission regulations,l t
24 O
and to do so wou1d constitute e direce che11ense to the s
f 1
m
72 1 l rcgulation itself, as wall as to wall-dafinsd caca law in 2
NRC practice.
3 So with those general objections, I think it now 4
is incumbent upon the coalition to come forward with 5
contentions that meet the basis and specificity requirement.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Ms. Bell, how soon do you think 6
7 you can ed!t and reevaluate your contentions?
8 MS. BELL:
Well, we have to formulate our response g
to the Board's question of this morning within two weeks, and 10 four weeks for the contentions would be good for us.
MR. FRANTZ:
Excuse me, Judge Wolf, I believe the ij typical time provide in the rules is ten days to respond to 12 a pleading.
I suggest that ten days would be appropriate.
13 O
MR. Ta ncaER:
Mr. Chairman, insofar as Naetona1 Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council must 15 also respond to certain objections, and that the Board has jg asked that there should be a filing on this much larger and 37 generic issue of need for power within two weeks, I must 18
~
8 respectfully ask that the Board consider whether or not there ig is any great urgency in the Coalition for Safe Power 20 i
responding within ten days, in spite of the fact that that g
i may be the normal time.
There is a larger issue here, and r
O I must say that I don't see the ureency thet eher need to 23 respond in such a short period of time to a very extensive O
fitina, and ther are atso very extensive contenetons.
2s l
~
73 CHAIRMAN WOLF Yes, wa arc awara of that.
Our i i problem is that members of the Board are committed to various 2,
O 3
things in May and June.
However, I think that three weeks would be ample time for you to get up a revision, Ms. Bell, 4
O and that would be the 26th of May, and I would like you to 5
mail it, so that we have it on that day, if you can.
6 MS. BELL:
I will try, but I can't guarantee that 7
l you will all get it the same day, 8
CHAIRMAN WOLF:, Well, two of us are in Washington, g
so if you get the one to the Board on that day, that would to suffice.
We will get in touch with Dr. Hooper, and fill him ij in.
We are just having a little trouble getting together then 12 f r an evaluation, is what our problem is, within a short 13 O
eime efter thee.
so if you wi11 ery to de ehet, we wou1d ePPreciate it.
15 MR. BLACK-Judge Wolf, are you also contemplating 16 that Staff and Applicant will have an opportunity to respond g
to the reframed contentions?
I think that would only be fair.
18 o
ay es do we have to hear 19 j
l it, Mr. Black?
You have already stated your position.
,g l
l MR. BLACK:
Well, but I think when they reframe a
- i their contentions, they may come back with contentions that O
we wi11 heve specific grob1 ems with ehee come outside the general objection, and I think that we--
0 CHAIaMAn WOtF:
I 111 sive you a week efterwards 25 I
l '
74 l
to do it.
That will bo the 2nd of Junn.
1 2
MR. THOMSEN:
Applicant also, I assume?
l CHAIRMAN WOLF:
I beg your pardon?
3 I
4 MR. THOMSEN:
Applicant also in that timeframe?
5 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Would you file them simultaneously, 6
please?
7 MR. THOMSEN:
Yes.
8 MR. THATCHER:
If it would please the Board, the 9
National Wildlife Federation is prepared, if this is 10 acceptable to you, to file our response to the Staff and Applicant's objections to our contentions within sufficient n
l time that you will have it in your hands by May 26.
12 l
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes, that will be all right.
l 13 l O Judee tinenbereer wou1d 11xe to maxe e seacemene to Ms. Bell.
15 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Aside from the specifics of 16 the matter, the Board is going to be the one that determines
{
37 the fate of your contentions, and all members of this Board 3g i
have had experience with contenti;ns that however voluminous j
19 the bases may be, and particularized they may be, leave the g
s Board in a position that when the record is closed, it is g
i virtually a Solomonesque task to determine who has prevailed, r
o just because of the way the contention is worded.
And let me say more specifically here that a lot of contentions indicate' g
that something has not been done adequately.
I am not 25 I
i
75 I
i 1
referring to any of your 70.
They may fall in this category, 2
but that is beside the point.
This is a hypothetical example, 3
but it is a realistic one also.
Contentions alleged that certain things have been done inadequately, and the bases l
4
(}
that are given are that insufficient analytical detail in 5
these areas supports the position of Applicant.
6 Well, when you get ;ords such as " inadequate" and 7
"insufficent," and you come to the end of a record, it is a 8
and what very judgmental call as to what is adequate or not, 9
10 is sufficient or not.
So please keep in mind, as you are tightening up your contentions, this kind of consideration, 11 because it can -- if things are too imprecise and leave too 12 much of a judgment call, that is at best poorly supported by 13 O
any kind of record you or the other parties can make, you 14 jeopardize your own case in leaving it that way.
15 So keep that in mind, if you will, please.
It will 16 help all of us, not just us, but you too.
17 MS. BELL:
Thank you, 18 y
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Thank you.
19 i
I assume that we will be relieved of CHAIRMAN WOLF:
l 20
, the evidence that was pleaded, and the merits, and that sort 21 i
of thing, in framing the contentions, or reframing them.
22 Are there any other matters that we should take up 23 now?
24 We have had a request for the opportunity to address 25 n.-..,
,.,...n..
n.
,-.,n..,
..--r-,,
76 j
1 thn Board by a repressntativa of indian trib2s.
2 Could you come forward?
Would you state your name,,
O 3
and address, and who you represent, and what the reason is yo 4
have asked permission to speak?
O s
sa. toTuaor:
sv name is nob toehrop.
I am with the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.
Their address 6
is Suite 320, 8383 Northeast Sandy Boulevard, Portland, 7
8 Oregon, 97220.
I requested leave to speak in regard to the broad 9
issues of what -- correct me if I am wrong -- I perceive the jo Board to take under advisement of setting its timeframe for jj evidentiary hearings on this matter.
The Columbia River 12 Intertribal Fish Commission will be submitting a Petition to 13 O
Intervene in this groceedine imminenetv.
i.
I The Petition will bear substantial resemblance to the 1s a
onal MMHe Federadon and MC PeWons.
16 l
( l In regard to the broad timeframes which you may 37 establish, I think that it would be well on our part if you jg were to consider the status of our Petition in considering jg Y
those timeframes, as well as the letter from Applicant in j
20 5
regard to the timeframes, and its intention not to litigate in g
- i a piecemeal fashion.
However, Applicant is in other forms O
99re tve1r eur uine environment i iteis tion on other m eter-i m
re1ated to this proceeding, and I am not certain of the O
ex ct import of their representations on their willingness to 2s i
77 d2for.
It is bsyond ma a little bit.
i I
That is all I have.
2 O
3 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Well, you submit whatever papers 4
you have to submit, and we will take them under advisement 5
and give everyone the opportunity to respond to them in the regular course, according to the rules.
6 MR. LOTHROP:
Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
If there are no further matters we 8
9 should discuss, we will adjourn.
(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m.,
the prehearing 10 conference adjourned.)
33
- Oo-12 13 O
15 16 3
17 o
18
- i j
19 Y
, j 20 i
o l
21 !
i.
22 0
23 s
24 i
O 2s l
P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3
4 in the matter of:
Puget Sound Power & Light Company, et al.,
' p, Skagit/IIanford Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2' 5
Date of Proceeding:
May 5, 1982 6
Docket Number:
STN-50-522, STN-50-523 7
Place of Proceeding:
Richland, Washington 8
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 9
transcript thereof. for the file of the Commission.
jo
/
/
12
+, -
tj i
. Thomas Willis (
13 Official Reporter
{)
15 16 i
j 17 e
j 19 3j 20 s
21 3
22
(
23 1
24 25
- - -