ML20054L830

Reply to NRC & Applicant Objections to Natl Wildlife Federation & or Environ Council 820521 Amended Contentions. All Amended Contentions Should Be Admitted.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054L830
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	06/29/1982
From:	Thatcher T NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8207080514
Download: ML20054L830 (6)

Text

.

g, bw UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f I

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I.I

= gjgg2 P -

EU UU 06:e d.%g#g#NU k

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAl MCWO!

t In the Matter of Puget Sound )

)

Power and Light, et al. )

) Docket Nos.

Amended Application for Construction )

) STN 50-522-523 Permits and Facility Licenses, )

)

SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT )

)

REPLY OF INTERVENORS NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION AND OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL TO RESPONSES OF COMMISSION STAFF AND APPLICANTS TO AMENDED CONTENTIONS Pursuant to direction of the Licensing Board, intervenors National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council (NWF/

OEC) filed amended contentions on May 21, 1982. Applicants and Commission staff have objected to certain of those amended conten-l tions. NWF/OEC here reply to their objections.

1 I. CONTENTION 3.E; BENEFIT / COST ANALYSIS NWF/OEC contend that the Commission should assess the likelihood of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) acquisition of the Skagit/

Hanford Project in order to make its benefit / cost calculations for the project. A BPA decision not to acquire will considerably increase interest charges on the project.

! Both Applicants and Commission staff claim that interest l

l charges are irrelevant in the benefit / cost calculation because only

\

true " societal costs" must be considered in that analysis. While BPA acquisition shifts part of the risk of the project to that 8207080514 820629 l PDR ADOCK 05000522

' o ~J)SO3

agency (BPA does not actually pay the extra interest, however) and interest rates paid by applicants accordingly diminish, neverthe-less total societal risk--that reflected in interest actually paid and that unquantified interest assumed by BPA--remains the same.

Unfortunately, the cost calculations performed by applicants in their ASC/ER and by the staff in the DES do not appear to treat interest costs in such a sophisticated manner. See, e.g., ASC/ER at Table 8.2-2. If, in fact, the true " societal" risk of an investment is to be assessed for the benefit / cost calculation, then the ASC/ER and DES have even greater defects than NWF/OEC have raised. But that is beside the point here.

BPA assumption of the risks associated with a project through its acquisition raises different issues than those considered in Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plan, Unit 2)

LBP-78-ll, 7 NRC 381, 391 (1978), cited by applicants and staff.

There, the intervenors argued that actual environmental costs were disproportionately borne by one group of citizens who received only a minor percentage of the benefits of the plant. (Their utility owned twenty percent of the output.) Here, the question is: will the actual dollar costs of a plant be higher or lower (depending on BPA action), and how do those costs measure up against the costs of alternatives to which the project must be compared? In comparing alternatives to the Skagit/Hanford plant, surely the Commission should not ignore the likelihood that some alternatives will be more easily financed and actually cost less, in dollars, than others.

Dollars are, after all, a standard measure of " societal cost."

NWF/OEC continue to believe, for that reason, that their contention

with respect to BPA acquisition and interest rates is valid and should be admitted. ..

</

II. CONTENTION 5.A; IMPACTS OF WASTE STORAGE The applicant and staff object to Contention 5.A, which complains of the failure to consider the environmental impacts of~

on-site storage of high-level radioactive waste for the duration of the license.

The applicants claim that those impacts are considered. The staff, in contrast, admits that neither the ASC/ R nor the DES assesses the environmental impacts of 30 years storage of high-level radioactive waste on-site, becau'se the, applicants ~"have'not requested 30-year storage in . . . [their] application."

NWF/OEC's position is quitq simple, but has evidently not been fully understood. Pending the completion of the Nuclear Waste Confidence Proceeding, neither the applicant nor the staff may assurae that off-site waste storage will be available. Instead, the Commission requires that an analysis of storage for the term of the license be made for each project. See, 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (Oct.

25, 1979). The applicants' failure to apply for a 30-year waste storage license and the staff's refusal to consider the implications of 30 years of on-site ;torage reveal that both applicants and the staff have improperly prejudged the outcome of the Waste Confidence Proceeding. (They assume there will be avail-able off-site storage.) Moreover, they have ignored Commission guidance on treatment of waste disposal in plant license applica-tions pending conclusion of the Confidence Proceeding. NWF/OEC's contention is valid.

_ , _ _ -~

III. CONTENTION 4; COLUMBIA RIVER IMPACTS Staff again objects to NWF/OEC's Contention 4, which charges that the ASC/ER and DES fail to assess the impacts of construction and operation of the Skagit/Hanford Plant on the Columbia River environment. Staff does so, however, after admitting (or, at least, assuming for argument) that the impacts not considered will, in fact, occur.

The basis of the staff's objection can be quickly summarized.

According to staff, the change in the Columbia River peaking usage resulting from operation of Skagit/Hanford is within the juris-diction of BPA, and is,therefore, not within the purview of the NRC's analysis. The response to the staff's objection can also be quickly summarized. That the near inevitable change in river operations will come only after both NRC and BPA act, does not excuse NRC from considering the effects from a chain of events it would set in motion by licensing Skagit/Hanford. The NRC must consider all likely or predictable secondary environmental impacts of its decisions, even if those impacts themselves flow proximately from the determination of another agency and only indirectly or secondarily from the NRC license approval. See, City of Davis v.

Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (EIS must consider predictable secondary development impacts of highway intercha,nge, even if development depends on later actions of private parties and other governmental bodies).

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, NWF/OEC respectfully request admission of all their amended contentions.

Resp ctfully subm tte ,f

,) " _ _

i--

• s s , 1 Terence L. hatcher Counsel for National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council 708 Dekum Building

• 519 S.W. Third Avenue DATED: June $)_g Q , 1982 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 222-1429 i

I

• Please note for all future service of documents the new address j

of counsel for National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environ-mental Council.

t

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served true copies of Intervenors National Wildlife Federation / Oregon Environmental Council's Reply to Responses of Commission Staff and Applicants to Amended Contentions, upon the following:

John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman S. Timothy Wapato Administrative Judge Columbia River Inter-Tribal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Fish Commission 3409 Shepherd St. 8383 N.E. Sandy Blvd, Suite 320 Chevy Chase, MD 20015 Portland, OR 97220 Dr. Frank F. Hooper James B. Hovis Administrative Judge Yakima Indian Nation Atomic Safety & Licensing Board c/o Hovis, Cockrill & Roy School of Natural Resources P. O. Box 487 University of Michigan Yakima, WA 98907 Ann Arbor, MI 48190 Steven P. Frantz Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Administrative Judge 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission F. Theardore Thomsen Washington, D.C. 20555 Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen

& Williams Richard L. Black, Esq. 1900 Washington Building Counsel for the NRC Staff Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Nina Bell Coalition for Safe Power Suite 527, Governor Building 408 S.W. Second Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Ralph Cavanagh Natural Resources Defense Council 25 Kearny Street San Francisco, CA 94108 by mailing, postage prepaid, this ( day of June, 1982.

4

. na MTerence uuve ~M,-

L. Thatcher