ML20054L249
| ML20054L249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1982 |
| From: | Hooper F, Linenberger G, Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, National Resources Defense Council, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION, OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207070308 | |
| Download: ML20054L249 (8) | |
Text
,
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
s f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l 3 p
JUL 61982 > :
Before Administrative Judges 3
Office d th* MRtn7 '
Decw n A S ka I
John F. Wolf, Chairman
' fg" Frank F. Hooper y
SERVED Jul ggoo?
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
~~
^
x In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-522
)
50-523 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL. )
)
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
July 6, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board's determination regarding the contentions of the parties is set forth below.
Those contentions which have been accepted are stated in language acceptable to the Board. Those contentions which have been rejected as issues are so identified together with a summary statement of the reasons for the rejection.
I.
The contentions submitted by the National Resources e
Defense Council and accepted by the Board are:
1.
"The Applicants' will not need the electricity to be generated by the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project to serve loads in the Pacific Northwest Region."
[ Accepted]
2.
"The Applicants' projections of regional electricity demands are unreasonable."
[ Accepted]
C207070308 820706
~
G PDR i
\\
. 3.
"The Applicants will not be able to market surplus output from Skagit/Hanford project outside the Pacific Northwest Region." [ Accepted]
4.
" Applicants' Application for Site Certification Environmental Report does not adequately discuss reasonable alternatives to the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project."
[ Accepted]
II. The contentions submitted by National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council and the action taken by the Board in regard thereto is as follows:
1.
" Applicants have relied on an inflated calculation of demand for electrical power; reliable regional energy forecasts demonstrate no need for the Skagit/Hanford Project."
[ Accepted]
2.
"There are cost-effective, environmentally preferable l
alternatives to the project. The Environmental Report is inadequate in its discussion of these alternatives."
[ Accepted]
3.
The Board accepts Contention 3 rewritten as follows:
f The Applicant has used an in; c:urately low estimate of the financial cost of the Project in its Cost / Benefit Ratio.
j l
(Paragraphs A through D represent an acceptable basis for this contention.)
l
. 4.
"The Applicants have f ailed to assess fully the environmental impacts of the project on Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Resources."
[ Accepted]
The Board finds that this contention represents a potentially litigable issue cognizable in this proceeding. However, j
information to be made available later1I may well alter much of the specific information needed to properly litigate the environmental impact and cost considerations.
For this reason, we defer acceptance of Contention 4 at this time, but recognize the right of Intervenors NWF and OEC to resubmit their contention at a later time without prejudice.
5.
The Board rejects Contention 5.
On-site storage of spent fuel is part of application.
No other radwaste storage is at issue. As to Table S-3, action is deferred until Comission develops policy.
In the interim, Boards have been directed by Commission to pursue same course as previously.
6.
On May 11, 1982, counsel for NWF/0EC transmitted the affidavit of Mr. Doyle Hunt, a member of OEC who resides about 45 miles from the proposed S/HNP site and who authorized OEC to i
represent his interests. As the result, the Board finds that OEC has established the requisite standing to participate in this proceeding. OEC, having submitted several acceptable contentions jointly with NWF, is admitted as a party.
1! The joint NRC-EFSEC Final Environmental Report is currently estimated to issue in December,1982; the Northwest Regional Council is scheduled to publish their regional resources analysis in April,1983.
. III. The contentions submitted by the Coalition for Safe Power and the action taken by the Board in regard thereto are as follows:
The Board has combined CPS's contentions 1 and 3 to read in the following way:
1.
" Coalition for Safe Power (CPS) Intervenor contends that the Applicant will not need the power generated by the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 and 2, to serve their own loads or the loads of the region as claimed in the Application for Site Certification / Environmental Report (A~,C/ER).
Petitioner contends that no weight should be given to Applicant's projected load forecast as outlined in aplication for Site Certification / Environmental Report, Section 1.1 and Table 1.1".
[ Accepted]
2.
Rejected Contention 2 since it is mooted.
3.
Contention 3 is combined with Contention 1.
4.
" Applicant has misapplied the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 432, by rejecting the following alternatives which are available, environmentally preferable and more economical than the proposed Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project:
wind power, biomass, sol:r, conservation, co-generation, low-head hydro, ocean temperature differences and alcohol fuel.
- Further, Applicant has followed a very narrow view of this Act by considering j
each alternative separately. Applicant must also be required to consider combinations of various appropriate technologies as l
alternatives to the proposed project."
[ Accepted]
. 5.
Rejected - there is no showing of the environmental superiority of other possible sites.
6.
Rejected - lacks specificity.
7.
Rejected - conjectural.
Impacts c.
ar not cognizable under Commission Regulation.
8.
Rejected - lack of basis and lacks specificity.
9.
Rejected - basis not acceptable, lacks specificity.
- 10. Rejected - basis not acceptable, lacks specificity.
11.
Rejected
- eard lacks jurisdiction.
12.
Rejected - basis does not establish nexus with socio-economic impacts.
13.
Rejected - proceeding documents need not be final at this stage.
14.
The Petitioner contends that the Applicants have underestimated the environmental cost of the S/HNP to such an extent as to inappropriately alter the cost be ? fit balance required by NEPA and 10 CFR 51.20 in f avor of constructing the project.
[ Accepted]
(Contentions 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 are rejected in that all lack adequate bases; moreover they are subsumed by Contention 14.)
22.
Rejected - environmental impacts of decommissioning not litigable in construction permit hearing.
23-24.
Rejected - lacks specificity as to how neighboring facilities interact adversely with S/HNP.
. 25.
Intervenor contends that the S/HNP foundation design is inadequate to permit the plant to withstand (for purposes of safe shutdown) potential seismic events of the site.
[ Accepted]
26.
" Petitioner contends that the electrical equipment, other than that supplied by General Electric will not be qualified to IEEE 344-1975 and Regulatory Guide 1.100, and thus the plant will not conform to current standards of safety and regulations."
[ Accepted]
27.
Rejected - absent a basis for alleging obvious environmental superiority of site, consideration of WPPSS alternative not required.
- 28. Rejected - lacks basis for alleging inadequacy of emergency preparedness plans at construction permit stage.
29.
Intervenor alleges that the Applicants' cost projections used in weighing costs against benefits are questionable in the following limited respects:
- A higher than justified plant capacity factor has been used; and Fixed charges, interest rates, and capital cost projections have been underestimated.
The Board's restatement of Contention 29 intentionally rejects many of the broad ranging subjects covered by Intervenors' explanatory bases for the reasons that said subjects are either subsumed within other admitted contentions or else are inadequately supported.
. 30.
" Petitioner contends that Applicants underestimate the somatic and genetic effects of radiation releaed from the proposed project during normal and abnormal operating conditions thus entirely underestimating the cost of the plant in the cost-benefit analysis required by 10 CFR 50.21(b)."
[ Accepted]
- 31. Rejected - no basis for alleging that Tradescantia-based dosimetry is meaningfully useful for assessing radiation effects on humans and most other organisms.
32.
Rejected - no basis.
33.
Rejected - no particularized basis for alleging that updated probabilistic risk evaluation renders extant designs and components unsafe.
- 34. Rejected - no basis given to support allegation that rebaselining results lead to underestimation of accident risks.
35.
" Petitioner contends that Applicants underestimate the potential and significant costs of an accident in section 7.4 of the ASC/ER as required by 10 CFR 51.20."
[ Accepted]
IV. Remarks The Board is aware of the identical nature of certain of the accepted contentions of the parties. The consolidation of contentions and the designation of a lead party for presentation of evidence at the hearing will be taken up at a later time.
Subsequent to consolidation it is anticipated that each party's contentions will be numbered in sequential order.
. The parties may start discovery immediately as to the issues raised by the contentions which have been accepted by the Board.
It is so ORDERED this 6th day of July 1982.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A*w
' John F. Wolf, Chairman
/
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE A/L4
,M Frank F. Hooper f
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE k
ort
' Gul tave A. Linenbefger, Jr.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I
i i
!