ML20077D174

Memorandum in Support of Motion Seeking Stay of ASLB 830711 Decision Permitting Hearing to Proceed W/Inadequate Eis. Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077D174
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/22/1983
From:	Berlin K BERLIN, ROISMAN, KESSLER & CASHDAN, WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20077D168	List: ML20077D166 ML20077D174
References
NUDOCS 8307260407
Download: ML20077D174 (38)

Text

. . __ . _.-

UNITED-STATES.OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD _

~%

Q 4' s.

x In the Matter of ) jf .,, v%%

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Docket Nost S 50-529 l et al. ) iM STN 502530 $ l (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) q t/

Station, Units 2 and 3 ) T s MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC.'S MOTION SEEKING A STAY i West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.

(" West Valley") files this motion for a stay that is necessary to protect the integrity of the process established by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. 4321 g seq.

On July 11, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing

[

! ' Board (" Board") assigned to the above-captioned matter rejected West Valley's motion that the Board declare the NEPA statements in this matter inadequate because of their failure to address an issue--salt drift deposition--that the Board itself had previously described as "both significant and a serious environmental issue" on which the record was " sparse." The Board based its decision on, among other things, an argument that an inadequate NEPA statement could be cured at a hearing.

Such a decision strikes at the very integrity of the NEPA process. Taken to its logical conclusion, it implies that an agency never has to prepare a NEPA statement if it plans to hold a hearing on-the issue. That position finds no support in law. 8307260407 830722 PDR ADOCK 05000529 O PDR

2 The consequence of the Board's decision is clear irreparable injury to the Plaintiff. The NEPA process is j l

designed to insure that decision makers make intelligent and informed decisions. It. requires careful impartial analysis by the NRC staff of environmental issues. If the decision below is allowed to stand, no such analysis will occur. Board members will evaluate environmental issues, not the NRC staff.

The issue will be presented to the Board in an adversarial rather than an impartial matter. West Valley will be asked to prepare the equivalent of its own NEPA statement--a task that i

no intervenor like West Valley has the resources to undertake.

West Valley, like all other petitionerb, must be and is in the position to fully evaluate the adequacy of a complete NEPA statement, It is in no position, however, to write one on its own. The only way to cure the defect in the NEPA staretient and to protect the integrity of the NEPA process is for this Appeal Board to declare the current NEPA analysis inadquate and

.to stay any hearing on West Valley's contentions until an adequate new or supplemental NEPA statement is prepared.

Factual Background West Valley filed its petition to intervene on October 14, 1982. Its petition was accompanied by three extensive reports prepared by experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and the University of Maryland. Joint Applicants and the- NRC submitted their responses on or by November 15, i

1982. On December 30, 1982 the NRC agreed to grant West n --

. , , - ,. - , , , , , - - - . , - - , , , . , - - , , ,,, ,w . - - -e -wr -vwe -,a n e- r- - s , . - , - - - , - -<

e 3

valley's petition to intervene with respect to Units 2 and 3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station ("PVNGS"). In its opinion, the Board stated:

.The Board considers the salt deposition issue to be a significant and a serious environmental issue. Land suitable for farming is in short 3

supply in Arizona. .Thus, special public interest implications-are involved. The spectre of possibly rendering unusable some of what little fertile land is available impels us to compile as comprehensive a record as possible to insure that this will not happen. . - . The Board has previously noted that the record on salt ~~

deposition is-sparse.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is annexed as Exhibit A.

In its opinion granting intervention, the Board deferred decision on whether to admit West Valley's contentions relating to the inadequacy of the NEPA analysis prepared by the NRC. .As a result, on February 2, 1983, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Board rule that the NEPA analysis

.was inadequate and in essence to continue any hearing until the NEPA analysis had been corrected. At oral argument, the NRC l

staff reported that they could not possibly complete the EIS and engage in a hearing in the 16 months remaining before the i start of fuel loading. West Valley responded by arguing that was ridiculous. West Valley pointed out that the Joint Applicants - had agreed to do a new study on the effects of agriculture on area crops, that the study would not be ready until November 1 (now the end ~ of December) and that discovery )

on this most critical issue could not begin until that study was completed. On May 6', 1983 West Valley filed a supplemental motion seeking a decision and pointing out that interrogatory

---

....n.,.__..._,_._ _ . _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ ,

= .

4 answers filed by Joint Applicants strengthened its case that the issues involved in its contention had not been adequately addressed by the EIS.*/ A copy of its memorandum on that point is annexed as-Exhibit B. Finally, on July 11, 1983, the NRC ruled against West Valley on three grounds:

1) it had no power to order the preparation of a new EIS; 4

2) it could not tell if the EIS was inadequate until a hearing hed been held; and

3) any de'fects in the EIS could be cured by a hearing.

Ac deccribed belcw acne of these grounds finds support in fact or law.

The Standards _t.or.Grantirq a Stay NRC regulations provide that in datarmining to grant or deny an application for a stay, the Appeals Board will consider:

a) Whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; b) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; c) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties; and d) Where the public interest lies.

10 C.F.R. S2.788(e).

• / Hereinafter Joint Applicants refer to the statements mandated by NEPA'as either a "NEPA Statement" or an "EIS."

l a .

1 5

West Valley Is Likely to Prevail on the Merits i As previously stated, the Board in its decision i granting West Valley's motion to intervene found that the issue of salt deposition by PVNGS was significant and that the record on this issue was sparse. In addition, in support of its NEPA metion, West Valley submitted experts reports, copies of which are annexed as Exhibit C, showing further inadequacy in the NEPA statements. The sum total of the Board's ruling and the experts reports submitted by petitioner is a record that establishes thht tha EIS did not adequately address the i i

environinental issue which the Board found to be significant.

Such. a record cannot meet NEPA's requirement that an environmental statement " insure a fully informed and well considered decision." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

Natural Resources Defense Councilj Inc.., 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). See also,.10 C.F.R. SSI.1(a).

Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality

("CEQ") require supplementation of a final environmental statement if:

There are significant new circumstances or (i) information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.

(ii) . . .when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.

40 C.F.R. 1502.9 (c) (1) (ii) , (2) (1982) (emphasis added).

CEQ's interpretation of NEPA is entitled to substantial deference. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979).

6 Moreover, the NRC has expressly adopted the CEQ regulations for guidance. 10 C . F . R. S S 51. 5 (b) (1) , 51.23(d) (1982); see 40 C.F.R. 1500.3 (1982). Information concerning impacts of cooling tower operation on a major agricultural industry is, as the Board stated, "significant" and " relevant to environmental ~

concerns" and therefore a basis for supplementation.

The cases on supplementation of environmental impact statements support this conclusion ~. For example, in Warm LorinqG Dam Task Fort:e v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017, 1024-25 (9th

-Cir. 1980), the Court concluded that new information shcwing that a geological fault potential posed a greater threat to safaty of the dam than previously recogni: red triggered the ,

l supplementation requirement. Subsequent detailed seismic studies, however, demonstrated that the original EIS had in fact considered a sufficient rarge of earthquake damage and therefore cured the NEPA defect. And, new studies by the Federal Highway Administration bearing on a highway project 4

were recently held "new and significant" information requiring supplementation of the agency's environmental impact statement.

Stop H-3 Association v. Lewis, 538 F. Supp. 149, 170 (D. Haw.

1982).

West Valley has brought forward significant new information about a serious environmental issue--salt deposition on crops grown under desert conditions. Since neither the environmental statements' nor reports address the issue, the Board should have declared the EIS inadequate and

4

. .o 7 l l

should have required development of data whic can serve as the  ;

foundation for a satisfactory supplemental NEPA statement.

Should the necessary data prove to be unattainable' or

-unduly time consuming to compile, the NRC could then prepare a worst case analysis'. Council on Environmental Quality regulations expressly require that agencies conduct further studies or perform worst case analyses where there are gaps in relevant important information:

[ If (1) the information relevant to adversa impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among i alternatives and is nct known and the - overall costs of obtaining it are e::orbitant or (2) the ,

information relevant to adverse -impacts is important to the decision and the means to obtain it are not known (e .g . , the means for obtaining it a.r e beyond the state of the art) the egency shall weigh the need for the action against the risk and severity of possible adverse imoacts were the action to proceed in the face of uncertainty. . If the agency proceeds, it shall include a worst. case analysis and an indication of the probability er improbability of its occurrence. '

40 C.F.R. 51502.22(b) (1982) (emphasis added). See also the comprehensive analysis of NEPA' " worst case" requirements in Sierra Club v. Siegler, 495 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1983) and the

-analysis in North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 332 (D.D.C. 1980), rev'd on other grounds, 642 F.2d 589, 605 (D.C.

Cir. 1980).

The Board's Decision None of the ground relied upon by the Board in denying West Valley's motion is compelling. First, the Board held that it had no power to order preparation of a new EIS.

While West Valley does not argue with that analysis, it misses

.-e- m e yv y ei. <-v,g-w+p -,g.9yeg-$-w '- =-

8 the point--West Valley did not ask the Board to order the preparation of a new EIS. Instead, it asked the Board to exercise its traditional role of ruling on the adequacy of the EIS.

Review of the adequacy of environmental analysis is an important function of Licensing Board' proceedings:

A licensing board. , . is expected to. evaluate independently and resolve the appropriate =

contentions of the various parties, to assure itself that the regulatory staff's review has been adequate, and to inquire further into areas where it may perceive problems o. find a need for elaboration. If - it finds itself not catisfied with the adequacy or completeness of the staff revtew, or of the evidence presented in support of the license application, it may, for example, reject the application, or may .

require further development of the record to '

support such application.

Public Servic,e_ Company of New Hampshire, et al. (3eabrook Station, Units 1 ar.d 2) , CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977),

quoting Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units l' and 2) ,

ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 334. The Board, noted the Commission, serves as "a final check in the NRC NEPA process." M.

Thus, the Board has the power to declare the EIS inadequate, and the Board has the power to delay a hearing until a new EIS is prepared.

Second, the Board argued it could not decide at this time if the EIS was adequate. However, the Board's ruling on t

West Valley's petition to intervene established the inadequacy of the EIS when it said the issue was a serious environmental issue which was only sparsely addressed in the record. This ,

l

9 ruling combined with West Valley's experts repor'ts establishes without a doubt the inadequacy of the EIS.

Third, the Board stated that if.there were defects in the EIS, they could be cured at the hearing. In so ruling, the Board confuses the role of a hearing in the NEPA process. In every case, a hearing which reviews the findings in an EIS will develop some new evidence relating to the environmental issues raised in the NEPA statenent. The mere fact that such evidence has been developed does not mean that the EIS is inadequate.

Hera, however, we begin at a different point. Rathcc than having an adequate EIS which is being reviewed, we have an EIS which doen not adequately address the issue which the Board found is environmentally significant. The Board's position that a hearing can cure an inadquate EIS, rather than supplament the facts contained in an adequate EIS, thus would 3

create a loopbole which would swallow the statute. In essence, one would never have to prepare _ a NEPA statement if a hearing were to follow. Such an interpretation destroys both the letter and spirit of NEPA.

l Irreparable Injury West Valley will be irreparably injured if this Appeal Board does not grant this motion. Unless an adequate NEPA analysis is prepared by the NRC staff, the issue of environmental concern will never be adequately addressed in the manner contemplated by statute. Rather than impartial analysis of the - environmental issue by the NRC staff, environmental issues will be considered by a Board. Rather than the public

. .. . ~ = - - . .. -. _. - - - -

10 input provided by the NEPA process, the issue will be resolved by attorneys for the NRC staff without any public involvement, review or advice. Rather than full development of the issue, the issue will _never be fully addressed since only the NRC staff has the resources to undertake the initial review required.by NEPA. ,

West Valley recognizes that 'as an intervenor it has the responsibility to males its case if it be.11 eves that the EI5 is inadequate. But neither under law nor regularions does Wes;t Valley have the responsioility to prepare its own EIS. If that were the standard, no pyblic intervantion socid be possib*,.e in any of these preceedings. Therefoce, we request this Appetl Board fir.d tbat West Valley will be irreparably injured if the stay is not granted.

Haru to Other,P_prt!es As -previously indicated, it was West Valley's position that a NEPA analysis could have been prepared and a

' hearing. held without delaying the opening of PVNGS Unit 2. Of course, a : NEPA analysis would not have delayed the opening of Unit 3., From the time of the filing of West Valley's motion to intervene to the time of the fuel loading of Unit 2 almost two years . will have elapsed. Thus, Joint Applicants and the NRC have been 'on notice for a sufficient amount of time to resolve this issue without. delay. To the extent any delays result from their opposition to preforming their duties under Federal statutes and regulations, the delay has now become their fault and they are in no position to complain.

~11 Public Interest NEPA sets forth a clear policy upheld in hundreds of cases that the public interest requires the preparation by an agency of ' an adequate EIS before an agency can proceed with a

_ project that has a significant' effect on the human environment.

There are no excuses under NEPA for the failure to produce this document.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal Board should grant West Valley's motion, declare the EIS invalid, and stay a hearing until West Valley's request *o the Board filed t

simultaneously with this motion, for leave to appeal is decided

and until a valid EIS is prepared.

Respectfully submitted,

' ~ '

Dated: -

~ '

~~'s

-Kenneth Berlin 2550 M Street, N.W.

Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20037 (202)429-8501 Attorney for Petitioner West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.

\

L s-e a D 7

EXHIBIT A 3

I

(

o 4

9

i? O a .

SEVED DEC3 01982 m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a

.; ,o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ED ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD C$@jkg ,

Before Administrative Judgesj2 3 y) P2 57 Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole -- -

f. .f_. " . .

~~'

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan In the Matter c,f Docket Nos. STN-50-528-OL l

, j STft-50-529-OL ARIZ0!1A PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY, ET AL. ) STN-50,530-OL (Falo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,) Decet::bar 20, 1982 Units 1, 2 a:'d 3 Operating License i Proceecing) }

M940RAN00M AND ORDE3 (Ruling en the Petition to intervene of 'iest Valley Agricultural Protect. ion Council, Inc. )

INTRODUCTION On July 11, 1980, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity for a hearing on the

[ application for operating licenses for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, 45 Fed. Reg. 46941, revised 45 Fed. Reg. 49732 (July 25, 1980). The notice permitted the filing of petitions for leave to intervene in the proceeding, and established August 11, 1980 as the deadline for filing such petitions. One petition for intervention was granted.. Hearings were held during the weeks of April 25, May 25 and June 21, 1982 ano the record was closed on June 25, 1982. Tr. 2710.

O,  :.:

On October 14, 1982, West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.

(West ValTey) filed an untimely petition to intervene in this proceeding entitled " Petition to Intervene- and Request for Preparation of Supplemental or Revised Environmental Impact Statement, Hearing and Other Relief."

Applicants and Staff filed responsas opposf ng ir.tervention..ll The petition alleged that West. Valley had recently discovered substantial new information thc: salt drift frot the Palc Verce cooling tcwers, spray ponds and evaporation ponds will cause damage to t.ie surrouncing crocland.

Mecorandum cf Law in fuoport of tne Perttion of West Valley Agricultural Protection Cour.cil, Inc. to Intervene in Licensing Proceedings at 1.

The_ questions ne "are us are:

1) Whether West Valley has satisfiec'. the star. cards for late intervencion set forth in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1).

i

2) Whether West Valley has wt the burden of estz,blishing that the record should be reopened.

DISCUSSION

1. STANDARDS FOR LATE INTERVENTION An untimely petition to intervene in a proceeding may be granted if it is found that a balancing of the following five factors set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) favors intervention:

l If Joint Aoplicants' Response To Petition To Intervene Of West Valley

.. Agricultural Protection Council, Inc., Novemoer 9, 1982; Response Of The NRC Staff To West Valley's Petition For Intervention And Request To Reopen The Record, November 15, 1982.

. a) J  :

S. -3 .

J' (1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.

(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.

(iii) The extent to whic+r the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest wil! be represented by existing parties.

(e) The extent to wnich the cetitioner's participation will orcader the issues or delay the croceeding.

A consiceration of ecch of the five f actors follows:

, (f) Gled Cause. The Staff asserts that good cau:e for a ,

(' petitioner's unthely filing- is the mst important consiocration in ,

deciding wnether to grant lata intervention. Staff's Resptnse at 11. A 1

showir.g of goco causa is caly one of five f;cr. ors to be balanced under 10 CFR 2.714 (1)(1). See Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley ,

Reprocessing Plant) CLI-75 4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975). Failure to show good cause for late intervention is, in itself, not fatal to a petitioner's claim. When good cause is not shown, however, a demonstration that the other factors favor granting the petition must be particularly strong. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Comoany (William H.

Zimmer Nuclear Station), LSP-80-14, 11 NRC 570, 575 (1980); Ouke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALA8-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977); Metrocolitan Edison Comoany (Three Mile Island Nuclear

- Station, Unit 2), ALAB-384, 5 NRC 612, 615 (1977); Project Manacement Corcoration (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383,

. m, q

... ._. . :.)

[ .._

384 (1976); Virginia Electric and Power Ccmoany (North Anna Station,

, Units L and 2), ALA8-289, 2 NRC 395, 398 (1975).

West Valley puts forth three factors which it claims constitute good cause for the untimeliness of its petition: (1) It has -

recently acquired substantial new information on the effects which salt deposition frcm Palo Verde may have on local agriculterd; (2) It reliad on misleading information from tha Staff; (3) The Staff failed to disclose material facts which, if xnown, may have prcmpted earlier i

intervention. Memoranoun of Law in Support of the Petition of ' dest .

Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc. To Interr?.na in Licansing l I

Proceedings, October l?,1982 at 7-9. These factors dc not amount to a l showing of good. cause. The Final Environmental Statemant sn the apolicatica fer construction permits (FES'-CP) containec infermatice on i the effects of salt ceposition caused by the Palo Verde Nuclear facility.

See Staff Response at 3-6. Notice of the publication of the FES-CP was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1976. 41 Fed. Reg. 8000. Section 3.6.2 of the FES-CP stated that: -

the staff's calculations suggest that the maximum depositions will be somewhat lower than those calculated by the applicant, but not to a significant extent....

It is important when considering the results of.such calculations, to realize that at the present state of the art, drift model predictions may differ by a factor of 10 with observed values. Thus, predicted l values can serve only as indications, not rigorous '

determinations. FES-CP at 3-21, 3-25.

._-  % .r- - --,- - - - . . , - -

w

/

. .Q"' Q- 1 w

. x

.j .

. s y

,3 c ,

s y An Atomic Safety and Licensing Sodif'authoFI{ zed the ' }

t -

issuance of construction permits for Palo Verde Units 1, 2 arid.3 on '

~

May 24, 1976. Arizona Public Service Ccmoany (Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and s .-

3), LSP-76-21, 3. NRC 662 (1976) . Concerning salt drift, the-BSard fotsic' that: ). - - y s ,

The. degree of impact is presently net predictable... . '

The reccrd supports a. finding that these effects will ~

be temporary and/or localized and are expected to be ,'

minimal." Id. at 686.

- o

._ s Chenical deposition, princioally salt.frcN. operation of the ccoling tcwers, will occur arr the site anc tcf

~

f^

lesser degree on the land surrounding the site and cray -

i a.lter salt sensitive flora ard f aena. :d'.at 695. i West Valley's claim that it "5hly recently received '

w indications that salt deposition might pcse a ,jor threat to agricuittre .

n. .

~

~

in the PVNTi Area"l is therefore withcuc merit? nfomstion on the effect of salt drift on agriculture was avadaolo even bcfore construction .

)

1 permits were issued for the Palo Verde units. .

West Valley recognizes that a claim that it relied on . ~

the NRC Staff to protect its interests is insufficient  :-f ,%

to constitute good **

cause for late intervention. A-petitioner cannot sit back and 6bserve' - >

s the proceeding, and then intervene upon deciding that ,it$ interest is o. f, 7 , .

not being adequately protected by existing parties.1 oUth S Carolina ,

, ( _

Electric and Gas Ccmoany (Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Stat?cn,- Uni,t,1), \^. '

LBP-81-11, 13 NRC 420, 423 Cf. Pacific Gas and' Electric Ccmoany (diabl'a ,

h, ,

s Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-583,17 NRC 447[436 (IOD); . J.

Puget Sound Power and Light Comoany (Skagit Nuclear. Pawer Project,'Voits x. T

/

s -

o 2] Memorandum at 8. - q

,_ , , _ _ . _ . . . _ r . .,..-,.N-.- w -.-- - r- - - - ,- ; - - - + - * -

~

.~

Q

,: \

/ '.. - ,

, - f(~h i; ~~ ~

,j

%s )

i-% / . / t s.,

. . -- co -

., r y '- .

4 '

I and,2), ALAB-5591.ld NRC 152,172-173 41979), vacated as moot

,,-  :% ~  :

+. CLN40-347,1,2m NRC-407 (1980);J0 uke, Powee Comoany (Cherokee Nuclear ,

5' cation; Units 1, 2 ahd. 3), ALAB-4t.b',"6 NRC; 643, 644 (1977) . It must be

, t -

. d.

est'ablished that Petitioners were- furnish'gd. erroneous information on

+

matters of basic fact and thht it wu rii.ih ce epon that information that

. q prempted their own inaction.jPyge,t; Sound P6wer and Light Comoany (Skagit c

' -~m ,

4 Nuclear Power Project; UcGE L and 2), ALA8-552,10' NRC l, 9 (1979). This

/ , ,

showing has not been made. ' pest Valley alleges that the Oparating License

,[.\ a f

Final Environmental Statement (FES-OL) specifically states that "the staff dces not expectoimpacts from salt-drjft deposition." Mencranduin at

.' . , , 8. _Since no citation ,ias been furnished fer dhis curportad quota, we un

~,

On?y cssuma that the passage referred to issQile of those wnich acosar in Section 5.1.L of the FES-OL:

Although the effluents. from the station's cooling ~

-m , towers will' have. atmosphei .ic it.macts-(such as fogging due to the visible pGse evetting 'ana salt deposition D. Jx ~

b due to drift, visible pluses aloft) the staff believes

? ] that operation of.. these Suwers will produce no appreciable A .- cffsite impacts, "and the 'ppacts that may occur will be T .- less than those predicted in the FES-CP (Section 5.3.2) .

This conclusion is based pr.imarily os more recent

, observations of atmosphenc impacts' it power plants y with mechanical-desft cooling towers (MDCTs) and on the changes in the location and design of the PVNGS g

towers. (from rectangular to circular MDCTs) ...

s Si. sed on the above evaluations,'the staff concludes that the change in design and in the location of jae station's cceling towers will r'esult in no appreciable offsite simpacts due to fogging and will result in drif.t deposition rates that will be less than.ihose piedicted in th'e FES-CP.

,5 FES-GL at 5-8, 5-9 ~ *~

y_ ,,

H .. ,

.d r

~~ p Y- , ,/

"* =

p . .'-. ,.,.

~

! .~4 -

- - - - , , _,-,-n ,, - - - . , --- = - - -

],s

-7 Identical information was first presented in the October, 1981 Oraft Environmental Statement for the Palo Verde operating licenses for Units.1,. Z and 3. It is consistent with the information presented in the FES-CP, which foresaw that the staff's calculations might find the ,

maximum depositions to be somewhat lower than the applicant had predicted.

FES-CF at 3-21. We therefore reject Petitioner's assertions that the Staff furnished misleading or clearly erroneous information or that they could not have previously known that salt depositions might have an effect on local agriculture. We conclude that Petitioner has not established good cause for late intervention.

(ti) The Availability of Other Nans Whereby the Petitioner's Interest Will Be Protected. Applicants and Staff allege that West Valley's interests may be adequately protected by the availability of legal action for damages, trespass or private nuisance should salt emissions frem Palo Verde cause damage to their crops and land.

Applicants' Response at 23, Staff',s Response at 19. We disagree. These purported remedids presuppose the doing of damage which could cost the members o'f West Valley their livelihood. Economic compensation for ruined crops may scarcely be considered an adequate remedy for continuous salt deposition. This solution could easily expose tne memoers of West Valley to the prospect of multiple repetitive lawsuits, as well as rendering their land worthless. A successful suit for trespass or nuisance would

, require more burdenseme and expensive modification than would identifying and, if necessary, remedying any prcblems before the Palo Verde units are 6

9.- <9

..)

e put into operation. We find that intervention in this proceeding is the only adequate means to protect West Valley's interest.

(iii) The Extent To which tpe Petitioner's Particioation May Reasonably Be Excected To Assist In Develooing a Sound Record. The effect of salt deposition from Palo Verde has not been, and cannot be, precisely measured. As previously stated, the Board found at the construction permit stage that the degree of impact was not predict 1ble. Palo Verde, 3 NRC at 686; see infra at 5. The Staff's FES-OL could do no more to improve on this fact than to state a belief based on observations of other plants and on the location and design of the Palo Verde cooling towers.

FES-OL at 5-8, 5-9; see infra at 6. The Applicants admit that the operational Environmental Protection Plan is still in its formative stage, and that environmental-technical specifications have not yet been drafted.

Applicants' Response at 48. Applicants further state that "[i]f Petitioner or its consultants have any concerns respecting the scope or -

details of the program, there is ample time to bring them to the attention of the Applicants and/or the NRC staff. In any event, Applicants commit to faithfully consider any monitoring suggestions Petitioners may choose to offer at this time or any 1ater date." g.at48-49.

West Valley has filed a lengthy petition containing the reports of three experts on the subject of salt deposition on agriculture.3_/ It has indicated that these experts are available to 3/ Or. Edward Davis of the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Dr. Charles Mulchi of the University of Maryland Department of Agronomy and Dr. Michael Golay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Nuclear Engineering.

. . 3 0 testify. Memorandum at 12. Considering the acknowledged paucity of information on the consequences of salt drift. from Palo Verde to the West Valley lands, and the fact that the operational Environmental Protection Plan has not yet been formulated, the testimony of these experts may make

a. valuable contribution to the record. We need not decide the merits of that testimony in order 'to admit Petitioner as a party. See Ituston Lighting and Power Comoany (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), 11 NRC 542, 549 (1980).

To reopen the record to examine West Valley's information would enable the Board to more carefully delineate the nature and extent of management's monitoring program, the possibility of its success, and its impact on agricultural crops. It would also enable us to determine

. whether tecnnical modifications of at least Units 2 and 3 are feasible before they are ready to be put into a.peration.

The Board would prefer that salt deposition problems be identified and remedied before all three Palo Verde units are operating so that action under 10 CFR 2.206 once the damage has been done, as Applicants suggest,M may be avoided. It is therefore the Licensing Board's belief that the information offered by Petitioners may be of considerable value in developing the record.

(iv) The Extent- To Which The Petitioner's Interest Will Be Represented By Existing Parties.

No other party to this proceeding advanced any contentions bearing upon the effects of salt deposition on agriculture.

Therefore, Petitioner's interests have not been represented in this proceeding.

M

l 4

. A' 10

. l l

(v) The Extent To Whien The Petitioner's Particioation Will Broaden The Issues Or Delay The Proceedino.

The record in this proceeding was closed on June 25, 1982. Unit 1 is scheduled to go into operation in August,1983N Unit Z in 1984 and Unit 3 in 1985.

2 The admission of West Valley as a party to this proceeding could potentially delay the operation of Unit 1. Recognizing this, West Valley suggests in its petition that since it is ultimately concerned with the total amount of salt deposition from the three Palo

, Verde Units, the NRC may require only limited modifications on Unit 1, if modification should be necessary, leaving the more complex modifications for Units 2 and 3. Memorandum at 14. Applicants seem to agree that this type of procedure would lessen the impact of delay, but discount such a possibility because " West Valley did not offer to exclude Unit i from any reopened preceeding." Applicants' Response at 31 n.12. Although West Valley did not make this offer, the Licensing Board may exercise its discretion in excluding Unit 1 from any reopened proceeding. The Board agrees with Staff and Applicants that to reopen the record on Unit 1 may well delay the proceeding past the projected date for fuel loading.

Petitioner suggests, however, that "there are a variety of flexible technical solutions which would assure that each unit of PVNGS begins

{ operation on schedule." Memorandum at 14. If we were to restrict a reopened proceeding to testimony on the amount of salt deposition frem Units 2 and 3, while allowing Unit 1 to begin operation as scheduled, we SJ See Staff Response at 20.

,~. . __ _ _ . _ _ - _ - - . - . . _ . _ . _.

. o 0 could examine the Applicants' monitoring program and build a record on the technical aspects of salt deposition without deltying the operation of any Palo Verde Unit. In this way, the total amount of salt deposition may be reduced, if necessary, by modifying Units 2 and 3 only. This course of actiert would. cure the delay factor.

2. BALANCING THE FIVE FACTORS Petitioner West Valley has not met the heavy burden of proving good cause for late intervention. It has, however, stated contentions which have not previously been , set forth by any party to this oroceeding.

It offers testimony from acknowledged experts on an issue which has not been finally resolved. West Valley's standing to bring these contentions, were they timely filed, would be undisputed. See Staff Response at 11 n.2. Salt deposition from the three Palo Verde units might potentially destroy the livelihood of West Valley's members.

The crucial factor in this balance is that of delay. Although West Valley has a strong interest in this proceeding, it must not be allowed to hold up the operation of Unit I without good cause. With respect to Unit 1, therefore, the balance of five factors weighs against the Petitioner.

This is not the case with Units 2 and 3. To permit Unit 1 to begin operation on schedule while reopening the record with respect to Units 2 and 3 should cause no delay whatsoever, while offering an opportunity for early examination and, if necessary, remediation of the .

1 problem of salt deposition. The Board finds, therefore, that although l the reasons for petitioner's tardiness lack merit, the other factors specified in 2.714(a) tip the balance in favor of reopening the record

w

'q  !

. s.) .s I to adnit West Valley as a party with respect to Units 2 and 3. In reaching this result, the Board rules that Contention III is admissible for litigation. Contention III reads as follows:

The salt deposition from the PVNGS will reduce the productivity of agricultural lands owned by West Valley members.

STANDARDS FOR REOPENING TiiE RECORD Although we have ruled that the five factor balance weighs in favor of granting West Valley's untimely petition to intervene, the record in this proceeding was closed on June 25, 1982. West Valley, therefore, has the additional burden of proving that its motion to reopen the record to i admit new testimony should be granted. The test for meeting this burden l was stated in Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALA8-598,11 NRC 876, 879 (1980) as follows:

(1) Is the motion timely? (2) Does it address significant safety (or environmental) issues? (3) Mignt a different result have been reached had the newly profferred material been considered initially?

g. Kansas Gas and Electric Comoany (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520,

-523(1973).6_/

6/

At least one Licensing Board has expressed some doubt that these standards relate to situations in which reopening is requested on ~an issue which has not been previously heard. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Cemoany (William T. Zimmer Nuclear Power 5tation, Unit 1),

L5P-82-54, 16 NRC (July 15, 1982), rev'd. on other grounds, '

CLI-82-20,16 NRC (July 20, 1982). Since we concluoe tnat Petitioner has met the standards for reopening the record, we need not decide this issue. We do note, however, that the issue of salt

. . o O i 4 .

im 13 .

The Board considers the salt depositicn issue to be both a significant and a serious environmental issue. Land suitable far farming is in short supply in Arizona. Thus, special public interest implications are involved.1.The spectre of possibly rendering unusable some of what little fertile. land is available impels us to compile as comprehensive a record as possible. to insure that. this will not happen.

While we would have wished to have Petitioner's information presented earlier in the proceeding, it was presented in advance of the issuance of the Initial Decision and well before the fuel loading date of any Palo-Verde unit. In Vermont- Yankee, g., a motion to reopen the record was denied where the reactor was already in operation when the motion was filed. As we discussed infra, reopening the record with regard to Units 2 and 3 only will cause no delay in the operation of Unit 1 and will perhaps aneliorate possible future problems.

The Board has previously noted that the record on salt I deposition is sparse. Had further information been made available before 1

the close of the hearing, we would have incorporated it into the record.

Were it found that the amount of salt deposition to be produced could be

[ harmful to area agriculture, as intervenors allege, a condition could have been written into the operating license requiring the salt monitoring program that Applicants have already committed themselves to implementingl/ In consideration of the above, the Board feels that there is adequate cause to reopen the record to consider Petitioner's

contentions, i

, 7/ See Applicants' Response at 47.

O m.

... )  :)

l

- 14 ORDER For the foregoing reasons and in consideraticn of the entire record in this matter, it is this 30th day of Decemoer,1982 CRDERED

1) That the petition of West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.,. to intervene in this licensing proceeding is crinted;

2) That the record in this proceeding is reopened for Units 2 and 3 but remains closed for Unit 1;

3) That the record will be reopened for the specific limited purposa of considering the salt deposition issue;

4) That Contention III of West Valley's petition is admitted as an issue in controversy for the reopened proceeding;

5) That the Board will schedule a prehearing conference to discuss the dispositicn of Petitioner's other contentiens and the relief sought; and

6) That West Valley's Novemoer 18, 1982 "Sucplemental Memorandum" in support of its petition to intervene is an unauthorized filing and accordingly has not been considered by the Board.

~

! THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l b. Q.n f .

Robert M. Lazo, Chatfmbng ~

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

I, Dr . R1cTiaro F . Col e ADMINIS RATIVE JUDGE

{ . o

0

• EXHIBIT B 1

l 1

v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSIGN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD In the Matter of ) <

) N y- .

ARIIONA PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY ) '

Docket Nos. STN 50-529

~

(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) 50-530 Station, Units 2 and 3) )

WEST VALLEY ACRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC. ' S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DECLARATION THAT NEPA ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE AND FOR CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS In the course of discovery in this proceeding, West, Valley Agric Ltural Protection Council, Inc. (" West Valley") has asked numerous interrogatories designed to elicit data concerning the amount and effects of salt deposition on crops grown in the vicinity of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (

• PVNGS * ) .

These interrcgatories directly relate to West Valley's claim that the environmental analyses performed in connection witn licensing P' IGS fail to meet the requirements of the National Environmental

! Policy Act ("NEPA*), 42 U.S.C. 4331 et. seq. The recently received responses from Joint Applicants to West Valley's First Set at Interrogatories provide further reinforcement as to the limited analysis of sale drift and its impacts undertaken by Joint Applicants and tne NRC S ta f f . The absence of additional data in

. :ne responses beyond the sparse analysis previously se: far:n in ne Environmental Repor:s (ER) and Statements (E:5) = stristag and

~~~

j '". ly r e l e '.* 3 n t 50 ene 3 card's dec; tJ.- ':n '4es: *'211ey'3 pend ~.;.

1

03. We3: 7111ey therefori ~ Is 3;:m ::ed .:: S u p 7 ' e :- n a l

'4 c t ; C S .; " . 7 ; : e q.? fat:her ;Sd;c;3 Of *13.+

6 . 21:e '?EFA **1' "

' I? 37ar3'5 1: ten:.

~

- 0,

, p k M O_830506_ m n- m -- - - - - - - J

1 The following examples are representative of the anavailacility of further illumination concerning salt drift from Joint Applicants' interrogatory answers:

West valley's First Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 15 and 16, sought Joint Applicants' view as to the completeness of the environmental evalaation of sale drif t quantity and deposition patterns and any citations to the Environmental Reports, Statements or the record demonstrating complete consideration of salt drift quantities and patterns. In answer- (No. 16), Joint Applicants could identify only:

1) ER-CP, figure 3.3-1

2) ER-OL, f i g u r e 3 . 3 - 1.*./'

Then, in answer to an interrogatory asking for documents concerning choice of the- " FOG' model to describe salt drift deposition patterns, Joint Applicants identified none (No. 22).

Yet the ability of that model to predict salt drift deposition ratos under PVNGS conditions plainly should have been addressed in any full environmental reports.

Interrogatory No. 29A requests information concerning Joint Applicants' moni toring program, including plans to monitor spray and evaporation pond salinities and salt particle emissions from the cooling towers and ponds. Joint Applicanta responded:

_ The relevant portions of Wes: 7 alley': Fi: 3t 3e of

• nterrogatories E x r. Q i t 1.

and Joint Applicants' responses i st: acne! 15 l

_ _ _ _ . __ --- ------- - - - - - ' - ~ ~

l l

3

• a: t:) and ( i) . There are no clans to .aonitor salinity of :he spr ay ponds and evspoca: ion ponds for the purpose of de:ermining drif: salinity.

c; (i) , (ii) and (ii t) . There are no clans to implement a monitoring program o monitor de tf t mass or drift droplet size distribution or the size and quantity of salt par:tcles em.tted fecm the cooling towers, spray ponds or evapor ation ponds" (emphasis added).

Interrogatories No. 33 and 35 ask' whether Joint Applicants have considered or are considering water desalinization  !

as a sal: drift mitigation strategy. Joint Applicants responded that they had never considered such a strategy.

Similarly, in response to interrogatorles No. 37 and 39, Joint Applicants state that they have not in ene past considered not are they . at present considering blowdown treat;aent or water rec rculation as salt drift mi:igation strategies.

Development of careful maintenance programs is essential

c continue satisfactory performance of drift elimination sys: ems.

e: when asked to describe the maintenance plans for PVNGS

'No.

47), Joint Applicants responded that they have no such plans sa ye:.

Interrogatory No. 51 asked for the identities of

.id:/id als connected with the project with knowledge of 1'.:e r 7a t i ve cool.ng tower drift elimi' nation systems. Joint Appi :37:3 3:ste : hat no one wi:n NUS, Becntel, or even APS itself, mai 1;:n <newledge,  : dent:fytng on'y. :nd : ridua ls 1: Marley, 'ne

v. l . t; - :eer >endor .

-.- l T". e .. :

3 r. 3 s e r  :: In wrcoga:ory Nc. 5: ic<newiedger nl:

- . . . A ;: p '. . e n s h a ! n . - n . r/o ' e e d

. 9 m. - . ;d ?; : ' ? */'n 3 3rs .

.. 4 sait toleranues before completion of the Environmental Statement--

Ooerating License: Joint Applicants further acknowledge (in answer to Interrogatory No. 55) that their only information on such tolerances is set forth in the ER-CP, Section 5.4.2, and les accompanying reference No. 35.

These examples suggest that Joint Applicants have not and do not take the " serious environmental issue" (Memorandum and order of December 30, 1982 at 13) seriously at all. Since the NRC staff has come forward with no additional data on salt deposition beyond that set forth in the EM and EIS, we can only assume there is nothing the Joint Applicants and NRC staff can add at this point to cure the EIS deficiencies. It appears that apart f ecrs the newly initiated crop Study sponsored by Joint Applicants, no attempts have been :nada to identify and analyze salt drift amounts, pac:eens, and ef fects in any meaningful f ashion.

• dest Valley therefore urges that the Board address the l

paucity of Jata on this important environmental issue by ruling that the NEPA analysis on PVNGS was inadequate and that these l

l proceedings should be continued until those defects are remedied.

Respectfully submitted, t

i l

Osted: -

~~

Kenneta Berlin i Attorney for Intervence Wes:

Villey Agre:altara' Fr'tect:an Counci1, Inc.

255C '4 Str+e , '3 . '4 W33hing'.Cn, s. . d 3' l

. 92) 429-331.

l

. ~ . . .. .. . _. . _ . . -. . .

l r , ,

j . .

y i

4

, FXHIBIT C i

i I i' 7

4 4

fi r

I i 9

i 4-1.

4' k

i r

i f

i i'

h i.

i I

L Lo . . . . _ . . . . . , _ _ . _ . , , _ . .. . . _ , _ _ - - _ . _ . . . , _ . _ _ . . - . . . . _ , . _ . , . _ . - _ - . . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ , _ . . . _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . . .

,.. s

e. o

(

y=y g , ,,= e.y . == ,...

. .L . w. 1.1.J V s . w 1".UA."*[ 4, - 7 *. )

... .e M. ..w . 7 4-- poS.% .. . 2$ w.1 4 . -

.{ . ..w.. . g j.. ... #.. 3. 9.J ...J .=*= ..g., * [ g g. . *[ s

• t a.,.7 A g.. . 4. n. ? w. .w.. . --i O.

... . .SC.J.. . ,s w..-w= , s . 4 .* , .-..

.?T. ,* 6M.e . P.

w. . . 74..& d A. A.

9 9 w&'d.1 ,

G" w. - . K.

s. , T . L. ..

E"T*Y""

wb.W=w.e e I.=mm omww..g.. e . fww . .J =4 Jg = .w ..-wwg . J . . a. 4 - .= .%g .79w.Gge ..w.. 7 g-==== ed..wwg .J w

.# .%g .C g . S g p e g-w 4 .J . . .* e . 2 S . 4

= -

2* "

hg US

• g a. =. M. a

w. .-

• yw =w-3%= .-w=.9 = j .. e- . --w

'J.~.

.w . n .iS3- .

.e.

.wus. a - . . ..-g 4 . ~ w . s .J. .

w- ,

. I 1 . 4 .M J e

---

wg g 4. .Gg og.d .J ., g.J.3.J .%g aa . ~~ .-. y --..=w-,

w g.

w. --=--.. . p-4 w .. .O g .

- j $. *. *. 3 2**- E*G**** .

• . $. tf 9 R ; . $ s y s.

• S , * $ *, O **

2* 4*

• 2 m y ,w == = = 4 - w = =S Q . . w w .= w. 2 P e 4.-=-w3 == . . A. =M "d5..**w*..

. a. y -2*E d *d

• 4. P . 2 -1

. 4 * *7s a. a. 2=S

,'7 3 a* *. 3&

• E . .a. mwwa-._w-e

• d *d ** **

ww ,... 3.".a **

• w -- . 3 *.

1** * * **

.# J... G 2

.e A --. 3 w.me .e.w ew S E w.

3& .. ap

-a a .4 w.. . .

. e. e w 2. e _*w . t s. e. d. wa 3 .4.a .

• E*

7.%. maw

• w w . .-[ wa**dbe==.A.Lp

.dw. . g .1 .a. . . J *J ww . , 4

{e . a. *..%* 4 g .* J-g= * .. * * * *%sga. www 3 w* " .* a. a g *4 *g .t *** ****

-. . . w w y - 2* . . .s

• p

.s .g sn 4 2 As s g .. .m

.s .. . ...2,g.d

. .s . g J..@.

3.e. 9=

s e .

w . w = v - -- w-m-g. .w .m. 7

. 4 w . .. . ..=..ww

• • 2]

== ***

• w . . .S .* g .E * * * * -

',7 SJ34.c* Jade

. w

• J 4 **

..g.g .-. .. . . =2 = *.* 3 g .* E 4w *. w* 3 .d**

.l. .g .s --wh 2.*. 43 - e ,

e . . = - 2*4 == e w4 4. .#.# s.we# " G 3=w 4  %.g w ..-.

. . J. a. = "e 2 A =S wo e ". k= .2

• 2* **

.w .E w*

• • 4

.' .t 3"=b a. '.*

• 4 km

= ww a. c " 3 .# .* * * * ,?

7---

• . *****d ***

• a.*.* ** k 2..*.*.'.'.4 4 =. .d-e

g. .3. ..-..4.. . # .g m==aP*4 w.=ww .

7. s d . .E s. J w . a. 7 .4 **2-

.w. e

.O g .A.

. . . w ** . & .%

4..M . &. @. e

...4 ** 4*d **4 ** **

• e*

• a. p ** *kJ *

. . ~ .J.w..

myw. 3..

own e .www. 2 . *4* e2 -m

• E. d ~$e =m4 2* "e k a. . . . o .$ ... . . . .==3

• • J *d *4 .* * * * *9 *..

• %****.- 4 %s ww * % ow s.

8

2. . .* w* *. *. 3=w

• a. .*

. wwa g==..=

• ..b. a. *e **d n. =. *jr --e

<=.

a .2 --w .s bww..

a**

.bg .w .

y 2** -. . J. a'.

• am. y . e. %. ~* 3. .e p .- . 2 .* *e

• a

. 4 .*. .%s,.32..ae.. ..a ..

.%a .. 14w ... s .

. g 3 .s =w 4. .. e . . .ww .w w. ww. 7.... . .3 w w w . .o. g

...*2..**

ew >e 3

. .a d...'..2.=

k

4. *w .. 2=* # *2 w-- 4. .* .e .** * , p y . c. '

• y***E*

. .. 4 e .S .*. 4 m - - ,e , - - - - - - s ~ , - , r-- ,y e w---y---.m -

~

/'

o

- s,

• 1st*oo gOi al s aalui s oaips s . 4 e 8in3s - :a 3a4 -ualD ns:p*smp a a *g  ;(Is p e ;a s-a1liI s n s s.eg o

- - - 4 - s

• I u 0 I( s L 's- .4usd ia e8 s*

s - u(lf . 0 ssomg ai u

to *to-g1 o " agtp. o sg s

h*

n IoDelg

- ae r us

.gle s ao ga s(n 83o.

nu oli

• g pg* sss s r . .

usD Dmooal *s4 li a3 o 1 seo4 1

• 3 s 1

sratwuu s 4

Iofsos4 .i a8ugs ss a

• sr lilss aie1 ol- ;*s1 su slfoO:lioom s usp-ji

• 1 a3 - at ss0:I. 6 s *  ;

uapna. e.* 4 os I a -

u*q sl e [a 4 e3 -

4s- a *- ' h u $a- sl s1oo( :ss g io o - ps1

,sl (lie s

s* aiie s

• gl aa 8s o gl a

s ;a. a u o o 6i e '

ossi4g a up. sHimO4aD s i s 6 se o oa o asm t s41 :b 3gsplo.lotu. s

• a 6<

9o a e J u i e s4 I

• e * . -

q ol as . o8 be l -

m1a aus pmooml*s0uH so o4o:9p m s o ;6 - sy 3 . ai 8 e Dfla i

lsls3 a sIa a 4ls

• a 1s si pmi' s s

solio O

- al3 e 1<

p oOss*- a' iIl cloie s n slr u1o - t sosa ' neap i n44.fsAleisp.

i3 u e**n r o .

- *lus8e8oi us siD .peooae .

- s oa*3 u aluso upl na' s imloo- O i1 N . g.

s i t l -

o1 1

o :.. s s- e ooiulIl l s

avsui

• ns s I. 6 os iu1 .o sa 8 i s

1l eaka-

. st s' osifld s: -

u4 up s

%.iuoI s Se(s.u- oOjag N

tusu9p afis1 a

(

.s

.s eua4 ss. .

- us p.

sl

, a i d *, * -

als a(al ss m o oa s- l'e.loi

' s a lapml{ll

• ~aO p l:

- g a e o o:soge s a sel unn ions er saa*

• g e su o a. =D o s' lu - l

• s

• s

• smoou4* *uI -

+4 a g eso suses A a . o uas1ou

~slil 4 *u1 - nu adja s )

.l l s uu s 3agi evpsga nusIo a

pst

- o e usano et .

m-s * * *

. sg s 4os*; . eO ga

o s: e .i* jL In aI.4l 6i

. ri :r .g4 p sss' s o l' n 4a al I. fu*sup us:9llopi ' s4 a s ogl s *  :

r4 4

• o asipi i,

• a a 8llI s e *- s , eiil i ' sl n ns ss .t4

• a i

• . - * . 4*

. - st ssp s. to o 53 l

e ;A ss t( 'slsmg4suss*

8s o 4 afl s'a aIa eu-4 cll pesOol q na oasoeIr*mi.

l . pin os -

in ealo ee s

s gs n rg o }:- ss a

e u;m a 8 3 Dsi nso-

• e s mompsM. a

• s

iOI s e

s*

• lt - - u3 r usn. .

ls ia sl a4 w ta i

• ; , -

• e . *

. :its n uans8: i O 'ss o.i; a.* o ** n

• 1 o o fs. o. inu is* a (i . nu s. np*s noe 9 (s i i .

ootute. iss;u.

er;e -* s

• < o 's op tuso:ts) :

a

. s

-a08i o ms3i p i

. s pi 6 4,

9x.ssaoilsi es eos . : *e *,* ~s o oa 's ps :

o i .

a *

• a*

n r; s*

es o.s .4ussan * < i :o.

n.:u i u.s r*a eas a n

u6s u a iipip. asO); is.

a ' in.

• se osoaloa

' e ma sl nrg o- ;sl ss u

• . - ios :sm s

s o880aO3 9msps'aaospl -

s 9 u n : : p 1 p s

e. a n . a

.t

• u. i. p a,i *+sC s o l 4 e i s4 se68 i1 <8 a

us-si us'el's a. r u oellim eg n *as ;piseu.*

4 ar p e so sjoeipl ase ms a .r4

*.

og4 :t8 4

r*

e s'

ooi.sisas;u1 s

- a s o;ms a n

o3 -

8 :

mogpi ma.lo :2 si sy

• - s a

o 9. > ne osi nu s .

oosiDs*

us ls' a s

u - 4 . 's s*

e

u- se sos m . ;( s

• e 4 o * . - -'

m.mosd:o90 sop 1 ooIsse

• s

a. s n a so.

. a sl a

• s' r I. c.m o o o *e*- i.9 n s s .,

o

• s: n

b.  ; i. .un: noiog ps s . i : .s: . a. ., . e. c 9 . noit ais . -

i .

.o:p: 4

• esun

.u i ps

e. .i i:

As oos: .:s  : o s. *e os:

'. s

.r

.; s c. o. . ' sre o s.s, ,

1s a . inute a s i

. iu.::

i. u : . 9. siin::.os .

' ' ;1i; ; 4 1 ' ,

l

/

6 b.

., r oe . seoogpap u osgp . .

• .s csg .

• ug;

• s . tr s*i' ofg 4 a io p.l4 ss o s e i sedes I s*lls -

s g*. glp a 4 . sl a

p,4 g eg

, - 4 . , s.

sr . - - g8-

- u g a(a s a1ti u s e, osaeja

( lsa3io 8 s as Ooigi ss8

.4os4 i8 <

3otp- poo.

. .

• o34 g. g r g4 *-oy*; u3ue u r* e lmsaGgo4on%

i e o 4 g nr eopl1 a

a

- 4 al u bo tp sono e

a4

• s 11mD

1. 3 n s=<o go ag g ggll gj i

• . * :r na 3 s ,.

4as o( sr a(s u lmsmOgotoa r ;i 84 a - sa o ojl- a.O4ps u, n1egi.

a - e

• go gs 3

e e cg 4e g , 4tm og t )g s.

a a- s g u .n

• agoI s s. - . -

3 1i l

sDg1 s

• o )( om1u10 n

- s8 6l ooolt(olq eo* a a pi o m o lg g 1a ga

- go s . o::a ugSjelslio ag ( e s oopIl3. L a-84ogse gi

a. r g so sia t.

e tp

• s a( o

• a sr u oooIlin *- a- s s o ;a a 8s84 e t-s iga (lj s)* *b -

(s ls ags a

4 cse soo4p3ep .

• 4 8- us p. ,,4pras slesgo so ug1of>4 eII-ai sr s 'l p so g*

• 4og p sl ip ssga 4 s 43 a

a(g e s .(

• s e o s.

ai m c .r re m olo

• sr e n' 4-

• o l-r*.

- ;s s a(a so4(pg a o ei$boloIo.

l8 sn l

s8 e3 s,1 h ogoG8p .

a 4oa g g

.ssufgp.

ue i ro .

.s *- ea oaos s.rt o a* -

%. 6 o M .plga ' .l : *s* o l a

t p 4 o 0 o s*i s i i a.a l os sOsoo

a i

a. o . n,aslilisp i , i s s a8

- ugs0 u s ali es *o9 ni s

ooGasop O ** (

s ss

• ais . a<lr ' o /lI n u . : p: te, a.

oll .

g8 ns i1 4 r o rg . *

- se

s

r

.im oo3go 1). s uao ;6mp u3u nHlam1 tl t 3 6

r t i 1s a oo ;aal sf4 na - a, a f3 g

(

a pj. u' e, . * . ja 4 -8 s; ps . o po ua . u l tluie s suiiep ss o io . r pl' a . vat' g o o a(v4m81;pp. - s .g4 i 9 uta ae o4 8iI aA r p' sg; s11e,s su o da u. osr io ;fi

• ag. t am s imblo561op. .:

o a., .[s 's o *- o$4 t

- a a

• a s p 'L so0IV e ;.1 . p o a u. * .a . ' a s; g ,

u .,

o. 4 s. a1l4sou ose usi 4

s. * + a4t a u 's 1: 1 ii l ( (l t 6 i s 4

9. ;l s ii p s'elapi o.n ig osi s.s 1 t o. u in; . fu 1 e u a. 8e is i

- ;9

- o .sa o i u a.r; ga. . sauss i .i.o 'L8 s

a. r p us r msap osuso . a s . *' a uso ioo. al* (3o :sas a spus n o - pstin iI ia i Oiti . . . t e a, se a 8 aji t i4fi i i rn s or -* a. c

• or i.psll a a0

• s a u 4. (pe alillm t l ' na a  :

a. (s e i

saeIoag u s a.

Asl a a a b4 u o ;6l' s

3

& ) 3

& a4 6a s

si gs a ,.ta e,

• i*3 e s o -aa a, eg e a n

aolan i sou,opa tfa so a v o *

• u1n at31 s - i e. :P a s.

l o4

• u  : s ;. 9. : o n 4 4 e na olI 6

e.r g e sau 1 s8

- . s  ;

~usLp  : i*

'ss . 4 6 *

• a.

a s4 p o on o s'e.

s loi ni1aaps s8 s e anotlo t e 4a uo:s1 . saio t4 6ls

-nm aogp s o a s u ,* s s sras ~ 4 s*

. - o es a. (pf

- v: .

psueg u oO sI 9 o e. pd a 's 8 a tj o 3 slit ssiu i

i agll altl a *- 4 g *- s sosp r:l' a .

s o s. ' s:

an.

ariw os *

u; so pp6 44s1* 8 3:!b4 9 ooOsn as o ei a a a I ils e a uI al e iI

- a s - i i r*no . **

9. )g a o. acp ao so go sD. souITa;s rs o go -n i s' 8

' . o r n oo ; ase aal tl u a

• a!s

. i .ia

• t e s1

. ps .

so1la e. o ogsip I

5

's s o

s0.pI e 4 o .o n

u *-

slOissp usn sa e i so a.  ;.i8n 1 ;A ; sop.; i s 6i

i t1 ( o e, s

sgI u s u ao sws .;a rsssroio i a

s so. osu *sl se a

.a o *.l i .

a aososeus*soo:

i-n s s .,

ee s

ioss i*4 a i* s is 4 e s$ as 4's :. r : r s m onc  ; o s- a

• . - sa .*- ose u 4;s6 r i i ,

smo:4i  ; :e s

• a e .o s

3a s

u

- sl 34 o :u0 i 6s 4

eis ie

. d  ; is

• es *

• 8 ' .j s

ae eg

- r e oIlg"us1 ,ng6 g, ugos4 s

ios a 6

ul,

. :a3l a 4a r eae l o ;g aoid es sg au4ml4ag is lI sgl{sgig

4. r 8. u-

- s u sppa s s.iot t s g a, grigugol4 r - 4 ppop ' .. m a4s s/ a p se3gl oi ns' - - .

o.o s1gsug4s g g ei gel g g ss tl i _

gg3s A

- rg es

r. . g .4

a. s I eol a o

o3 g

.oia. s sgss e gi e

. g -

• 4s8 {1 o *.4 o . o g

s).

pIl n o[s ahs 4 nlie. a3a.g I . r r . a .

u D.n(as s&ois[ su Oa ls 9so c oI s&I*8 ' a ns s s a

l ,

oe-

• 1oto :s . j ag 4e l -

uolpoi4is4sa.

i

,u . 4 - i

>is14 su ;a8

- s

- n o o . sf4 e. c a

- gA mlo tsua . 4oa nsoj s ooo4s14':i g a

8 4

n . - o)4eg tjA g8 .

a a 4 o

i. 'Ds i ooo +a o g

oo:a 4l3j4 s 4ge3pa4 a

.r

. I e s4

)s I1.4 0aOsiom 4

)4 e n

e&glit'so pa .s*a - 49s a

a usu Nsep va% r soj-u 8

' i*

usn a n' vash u . onsgu'6 .

s' iH a .Im

• a dll op3g g ae ela

) p fil N o lo ea Deelol u1oIiAna s3 l uu a lo.ep

' s ope j sa m {. l o )'o () 9 s*

i0

- n cer ro dlp a. rg s's .

r a 8l

• el4 ia I a[;~ 44io lI s 4 g s0 e 4alIap eN s - s; u - u 4o;am1 4mjes( o i I 0 I o o. ,

. . r1 p o *sI

• su11ouio essoa s s j s 48 4 # e a :lI spapim:.deess o o e o ;81pmD a *- <[e

• • * * *4 a

m3pos

- 1 e sip.N us o es s aepor8)np .*

e

. +ga s g ggr m [o Ip. 8 s

.o su s s e sis i

oasoss4s a 1i .

4e sls u sope i a *

.rgo ::ll a s. -

ose si o p*s s., '

3l 3 0 s 0 a,: a - 4 l ( g3l .tnp gla 4: - sl na un a *sI P 4 aI Dno p4p d o o.s.* ' us o .:"li n. ogrp o e., mpp 4t s * * . i - i.loll go -e sjo:4gpsa. i$ a a .Iu8 a Is sa i itosI o -s8 piu ss i' cl . (p . g g5 8 u .' . spnle.8$os i-

t. g srp* paaooIogol n8 a

s agup13.0 n

- 4 o rgo G1i . 4n ~oa $pv:a u s u ~4 & a sl g asl sl us ' sos r reNeOos:r l ( .g I t .l soe(l6 s)8 sa n oO ra e.glo 4 {80 l. p f' .pp u o ndl0 s's o o s ( a a s j aO .r .I al u e O *a 3d n I lg i u m ui a e, o: ilv olias -ode olppa. a e,

• u 4a*sv u o.a s,u 4 o imoool ada i s' g4 i ; . *s o lt g8 ns i u :o sn s: i ;

i s s ioig s a . s* n ss s:

• i4

• i i4 o*ania

4. o s

u s* oo s4 e 1 a.'eo si o o s

st ;uge 4s a soe.

l 3 4os .,

• p i apspp s:s e

. usm s u

• oog. p i o 4. nu ti

' s o o :s 8 s3 a ne s *, omIe. p. sp o n o o s' e. s'oi s e

• u goo l*a4lIo.4as - nr) ' a o p e. s' s*

o 'las I ss ae

• dN a.(sm *

• a .

so oi(*aI sj ' i .3 ai

• a .em r

• ar .

n' e.gaeu.9c4 ooOis us ia*oes . ooGesom o44 sl 8 s .u osl t. . e ie pmoe pi a us3. li8 ooDsa8

• <

• s

e. 's u 8 os a, rn e i- os*o o se e 6 s sol . n Di(er&*Gin

s . rem o> asp *: ,

• a * .

1 .fu s 8. s' di

• i si (  : sq sIiiNsmD ul n i e. (6 re m (3 o s siu p *-

r oas - i, .

• p * :. ms* i ' sssi. a.gmN (oGl- .

) o u . u o :.8:op *a t

• a i

,. u o p! 8saA ss s l < a!s e g4 o *4 s est .

• a* .

us'sc e.trp ooi4 m lp o ::!l r.u mMu s' s up . . - so:;g8ll

• epsp oes

a. .'

o e., ai s 4 a ns: e O v) sil a t silt sI 4 8 , u si4 ooo s , s ' r o .v(b * *4 - a s' ip i o o:a e a c4 u :a e f o *a s i

• n o4 poosi.u30

• t 4 es i.5

.( .gs uinsoesn g ia i oIoie " n

• s s.o r s*

suaioantrasm. oge s sgni . . 3 u.( e .le np

• su) e. s 44o 8 e s(

oe* evp o(:p .t s ) ug so

p. sp ,

e. i lao a .,

st s 3a . s; + rp pp nss* - > u. so s. us e. oo9sa.*oi s ooi.8l sa* l:s ab. o 4*,p: y ,u ba :. 4e os r io *$ip gt 4 a s . t (8 s a a . a e is; i n6 s s. . .a ..-:. .w 4 ... )' a. r -w9 A-; 1.? .S , , . .... . . , . (' ..- . C.3 ~w e~ *.; *- a.. . -. .. , ,2 . -. 3 ,. a. -w2 3 81 .3 .o a.. .a. - . .? , a ._r 5 a.~ .  %.. . . v. ; e 2.u..,n., . , a .  %. a. . , ,. . .. u. .a. r fs*. g ..._g 4 . g ..s ,g . 4. g.y. w ,4 g J .. 1 J ,JJ .. 4 g e4 .d. .- ,. g - Mg , . 3 ~, . 3.J. J. .? 3. . , . _ . . _ , .4. .. ~ 3 3 .. t 5 2 s.a . . . . c,.,.SC, 4 . _e , . . S a 4. , t 3. . -". . .. a a.T. . 4 2. . ,. , n 3a . 4. . .

o. ..., s., .i .a .. g C C d..i .s.C aA

.. e.e_S a . . 3 .. 3.. .- 4 . 3 3w m, t1,.t.a w .. _ . S.,i.. . 3 . ..e. . r.

• s ..j**M .a.

. .. w.dJ. a -- J. 1 g*. . a 4. 3 m. *. .C a .*.. .. ** , _ g r e. .g 4. .J ,. . .. . =. .%. .3... .. . . "e. .. 4 * . d. .? =. N ** #****" -*****N t.' 5 a,, **J * .T.a 7 b. 4 2 9 C 5 *. d.*. ** . S. 5 '%'".d** . . . _g ..F 3 7'*. * .3.*/ 7. . E.'.'..**d_** . g " 3 ...wJ .. 4 ..9 .g 3 ... 2 . .. s i ... j.- s. d  %... j .w. ' . = . ...:7 , 4 3. . ... .s .. . . . . 3. .y... 4.. .g g . . .. e .. r 4. .%., .w..

• 4 .. .b J s .

p.. 3 .m. 3. .. s. 4 # . . .%. .S 4 .-g yw 4. 3  %. a. 2 Q . 3 %. .*. 4. J 4. s. %. ' -*5** .s44. . ..y 1. ,s. .y s,. .'. J p .a 4 3.. .. . e a., s. ~% s .. 4..a,g.e g 4.4 . .. . e. .m. E s' .d 4 ..2 = g .= .-.. .. . 4. g 3. 36.e .b g.4 ..6. s..p.  %.g. .g g .4. . . g . .s f.4 =.= .% . 9 g. 6 .g ,3. .J' ? w 4 . e. %. .s .E **. g"* 2J .w. .. 3. .w c.. 4 .3 w e % ,w, ? .3 ..3 * ** . 2 . .-*. .a .a. . a

b. k. *, r . .

• e. .==- . *. .k.- k. e. .3 d

3e 9 J __v-l i 7, '% . . 1 , .S.ec r:c:e.".da d o e '. - ~. C .-. =.c . "....~ . .". e Deficiaccies' is. :te IIS I:: PY:TG5 Z1:=1:*y L983 Charles I. . 'dulchi, Ph.D . .

1. . .i =ccitor g p;cg- s= to accu. ire ' asell e a:=csphere ag-.

. gee.n...,,.4 - es g-s a.cc. e s 4 . 4 3- . . , - s .,. e n - - e. ays 4 ,. .

w. . .g4- --

ear ?v:iG5'shcul" be a:1: ed.4 ediately. ne prog 1= shculd

".se s:1:e Cf the 12- ;;cce^ es 1:d span the 71-ious Seasons of a t,,._, . .w. e j e a ,. , 1.r< _4. - sn. .e - . we -..,. c a ,,. .,... 4. ,. -_ ,, e c .1.. , ---., d 4 . 4- o- ., s

4. .w.

L- . . ------i.s.d. -.. .. ,-- -- r L =.,C,,12 - o - c ,, . 4. . . . . s a .. .-. _ 4 _ _. . 4----- ,-4-- c' Usi: 1 operstions ~.:d 'ce expanded :: include 1: 1ssessment of a a_t . =<a

• a s 4 c es '.'~~~ $ '- ? -

a swur *s - (w**C..-. - .-we."s, =. v' e C . -' . *. c , c ,. a--s , =.-e . 2,, se s e_e, a. , . .).

9. .

. .% .. a s c ,. 4.a ., C .2 w .w. .3 -- . 4. , .4. .. ..w .a. C C S .. _4 .e. -- a = 1.i . . 54.s.C . a - - s, . . ., pc , . 3 _ a,. a. . ,f, . . C .e 4. . .4. , , ,. 4..,. .w. .-. .. . g- 4 . -.- . .s O. p.1 G.C - '.a. gg -- .w *a w e . .v4.a.e,.4 . .R ev a. .- s i d'J- - . - . . . ca.? a sa'. t'd 'a - e - '.." a."

• d

.- 34 -s -.. ,. 3.,. 3 7 - 4a.. g- dg.g r.e i .1s.e ad 3. . O. p.; G e . -" a c d a . a-i se 2. . . .ad .wC t,._i A w1. w 4 s i. a ,. ---A. .4. s .. . e o. r. . 2 S . s. d . . s . ..,. 4 . . 4. .,. ., S 4, . 3.r.4. e.r.- .a 4..i g.,. w .w. g.. g. Op.TG.'s .' s " Cf S c~ d."w '*. ga. s.4 .* .. . .  ? . .# " e *- S S a."*j* , ~ . * * . . . . . 4 ....-1..W g 3-w4*

6. - y 5 'w

• G P. * * * *. .". S '*

. ~. C S "y 6. *. .'* d .* % w **.". ' " *=i. C . '. '.5. w4 C ". 6 2= .". = d. "*w "y C S ' ~. 4. 0 6". =. . g.a.s god 4-y ge.4.3 m. wo -* s. .g.4.m .. 4. . - A.

• S e ." . 3. ."." '. ." O _. - a .n. . a-s.".C C - d w.

.. a.meo- -- ---wsM .* .* s -. - 3 a.o..s-- . d e 5 . m. e. . YC .' S . w" 'S-a' ~4~ e s - ."-- ' * * * .* -.v

• S---- -"

ga. q w 1 * **sa., 3 *hC s g i 4- .**. 4 uj ** ** * #. ** 7'5 ** ... * " , r . *. ** . .-*

• U 4."*.

. .-- , *..b..3 . a* *n"* e ." '.'.".S..'4 2. - ". 3 .W bg s y* *1* -* 4* *=. - *2 * *d* J w4 i. w . . 4 44 . .,i 4 . *a

• N 6= **"==******=*/ A *. * '**-*7**,*'a. '* D F 3-.

-*** P D***,*** '* #*** * ' T" ". 2. 9y C ". *. S . M .#

• 30"N

.--* ---- .* *

• T A. ." . .s' - **sv, O ?'

--. s**- Q ." *. .d 2" "J. =g-.

3. -M

~~4 ss.C"3 - J. .. O. N # *k %.t'*** e.- ,.4. w . s. .a ..%. i.= . =A= > a G d a a. ..

• 4

. . . a. ( . 4 J ., o..g Y= J .w .a .

4. . = =wk. =.

~. . -- c .' yc td s + w.' s a i . a- .w a ". e =. >a -- d . . a . d. J- . m .' a. . . T.TGS .*1ch 7=.1 . . "w's . w e -J.- 3-3, ,c ,o,we w e_J., ... ., . . ,,. c , 1.,. 1. . E y . ... la.sess . a. a -- ~ ,, . . 4 ., a ,,,.

e. . e . ps , a:. .

3. us

- 4 - .w. .. w .,.,.c,. . . d ,,d.. _4 _ . ,., ,..s,, a ww- ., ce. 4 . g a.a... daccsicios -o:ss, i=p ac-ic s., etc. prev .cus17 di.scussed, exper_.ects s- % ta a..,.g .a.e __.va 4 . .-,., 13. 4. .. -., _ ,,.._, t. _ c .,,, es w ..,e t., c u . . :. e 3 _4 _J . _ . cycle o J. :he plar.:s seculi i:e condue ad. *tese studies shculd 4..c.i " d e a l .'. w- . a ' ..".e za a' c c. . e s "" _

• c .' 7 3. ~

~ww _d _- ."e .=.gJ.cc, Csee C .4 3.1 1 y e, .w et, 1: r, t. J1r . e .t ,. ,. s , .. -.3..es, 6-.y i_ 3. . _. ., .g , . --- ., w .= , . . ~'% . e a-~.Aw d a s Hs4 cu-- 1A % e, e..m c.-A., C . ,a -5 r_, d a. - a .n. . a_. w .n.. a e. . s . . a. 4 .4 .< T.1- ,- w t . _, ., 1 f .J.,,. . . .w. .w .6.,.. ..e. .. 0. 7. ~N.Q . . ,s .4. . ._3c .,.w3s . .j ,,,4. 1 3 _, .s.1. . a. . . o. g e ".~. . a~ ~ s a" *.u ' -d.4 .". "w .i." d .2- .d. ~ d"" . d. 6 ' ~'* - ***- * - * * = -d~ W1***" - "--*--6 "'~~ . 4 = { - 4 .-~'/' w a.s . a.= .a g w .* ,C p (*.*g .h .I a. *Q . **.. b.g w _ .= o,. g *1" .-f ai ,Q . I4. 3. d 4. 7 *..b. g S,u.k.av,a.- ~~.d. .. 6 1 4cc Cv. 1:d- --- J s- ' . re .i .a a,. ' " s .4. . .- +. .>..a e . s i..s v =. .ia- a. J h.

• .. 4 '.L g f g g ...,~. a. g a g.i. =. a. a g .4.g..W .i g

e. .s .., 's - .4. *.*;* 4..** ".* d. s"* 1.~. 4 * .* 7 g 2 .,*

a s d 14 .*. S w 4- 1. 4 a. f ,J 3. , . g .ee S..s . **. 4. . a. a) . 1. . e.4 *1 .  %. e 4.. .g . . , * *J m .y i. e .i."1. 4. ,, e.s . . ?. % s. Ja .V i. .d1.- . '. .. go.. . s.e..a. .6 3 6., I., ,.4 31 .p . . 6. .s g.-g g. 4 . 3. .q. '. . A ws. pn c Qo .4 . ,. c 4. .

0. ]. {,c'"" g mJ * '9 y .. 4gq=..sd ...

m. Je

• 3 2s~ =y= .I.+, a- J. g w== =. .a . v. .i. .e e. s, .* . s. . . J a. s. .a. . .a

• a'.

4 -w,. d a .1 4 .m.g. . ". e , ..=.m.p s o .b. c 1.,. 4 .M a ** .. *3. *. 2 d J . .* .* =1

• . * ** . . ? .s .** *.3 *. c a .1.*.* -M 74a *. 43 32 4 mg g.,.s . 4. =. = 4J. . Q .m e =. 4. we a.km g g.T. 4. *., 9 e n wT. .* a,. mu =. 1 f . . *..*. 4. a.

4 J. g . m.g.w d.c 4. * *~7'..'..'. ". *. " d ~.1.'. . . *% . ' , ' .. ' . . ' * * " * . . " * ".'.~#~*".'g~' .. . w* . "*. "*. .*' . "*'.a'"*."=a" . . = J 4m -. w . ,. m = ww. 4 m c. ..-g .- 4 a. 3.a. .? .g r .... 4 ,. p. A W. C e.m.yD =. r.,

b. e 5

.= a g., . - .bs -- . .= c. 5 . .m 4=='" - ,gg.a.d ha  : 0. 7.7G3 . ( %.{Q . s .. 7. . .i a- a = c,. .J a. .w . c d,.

y. =.~ = .o s ---b a, o g ...

d <sg... = gg . 4 .* c s ". e .* *

• d "w C Ed ' .. ' . ".1~."w."'.'.'. . *..". "< d_ _-. ,* _* ~ e .". . o- . 1 ..". *. ". ~ . " . ' . . " . ' . " .

~ am a b ct,4 - g aa -a b *.h s-bg=3 bacgn@g l a >' * ~4si4 s-A == ~ o ? d -- 5----- ~ w- 5-*w-- ~ - w- ~ - /---- ---  %-----1

g. yn 7 m7 4J -

4 Ae 1. 4 w a. 3= f.= ..a . me wW g. 4 . .-.4..m. G= a. d 4. 6 -p.Q .C 3 s. F ~ .. g i 1: best speculative , 1:1 (b) sal: acc~ 212: ice oc leaves and .,,,. . .4_.. g a n d d . v. d_ ._- - ic d.- c .' "..-". = _' . s .* *. . e v a. .a. . s a... .d ; c _-~ ' ..g- d__= w 4e ,,.,g .- 4eg, , , _. . .,__3 _+ w, 2 a ,-a-4-.. ' . . c s _d _' _' A . = . d. 1: . d__' +- _dI.' - ccviren=ec s). -ir . Cos: 1:217ses ccccer ing the 1.=1cul: ural sec:cr seculd be revised := iscicde: ( s.) yield reductics associated ,.-. _w w . .g .__. ., . c s ' .d. '.-- . e' " _d ._" e _ sa ' 4 e 4 _- _..* 2 . d.. c w_= . a_- as :_.d.._- r quali:7 t -igatica water f cm the Cit 7 e f Phceci.: beccces less a.vsilable idter C' its 2 a.:d 3 beccme ccerstic=11; (b) 71 eld 1 d quali:7 reductic: dua to sal: i= pact c vege:1:icc; (c) ces: c' .-dded_ _4 _- "_ . s . d. ..~. .e a ' =. a c ." = . ' . = .' . . - = w '_ _' a- _ 1 a s w c ' a . .= d_ wd-.--" _w . ,. = ,w4_4. ._ _a . t_. -,, - ,s. ._, g. 4. ., _4 .. 4. s-,__. , ,, c wa = '- , (d) .'was m.3 . a ssce '. 1 : = s th _d c.'. - 1_- * ---" _ e. *. l,, c c, e -s d ..-.,_d.. - a g"_ .1 ' .?. 7 '._d.".. . = a _' _4 _~. *_ cc d1 ices; and.(e) i= pact cd water suc 2ges cc far s dcwnstres=

r. _w.

a a _i . 2.. _d , = - "

• 1_ w . .". =. . . uck.=e=. y 7..-."..-',d.-_ ' d_a- .. . .- . .."m.d...".

s c" ~. . r.*. . ' ,- . '.'.s e a. T _T c ..".e . su._-e.7..s aa-.2 . 1. =. - . + - .~ a c' .- . .m - ._" e S uck e v. =. . . d. e 1 . .d a. .- "w w . .. 1, e ..".c d s . a .a,.d ' = = a _' . *rd.-_aa_'-_a--=_'d_ _ $ . = .-- s~ .a. a- - ~ ~, r -. - tics by ?T.iG5 should be exglained. . sing the revised ecccccic 1.,..1 .?. _. s _4 e. ._.- . . . ,. 1,_ . 4_ . _:. ... . a.._ .= e u, _. 4.v,m. ,s ,. 3 _ . . _42_.,. ..., w.as_ c.e various opticcs f:r charges 3.: ?T.tG3 can be =cre prc;erl7 a.<.d. d__- =. s . e d .  :=d. . . . . d_~_" e _' - a.d_-".=..- .. c - ". c ..". c .' . ~" a. s e . , a . a c e . =. .~ s To g *.d . -e 6--g

• i w-!- a -,d- -"d -

• o-

' *-bs - - m

1. e a d*d - -* S - - ~~ d--

F g,,*** - ma 3--* --$---'---e*-"'-"~'- Ta-g.a. . 4_ . , . _ J, .?4-4se -*YLi4 -- ,.- e- -A -.~ .~ --- ,. s .h2 .v 1. y-i ap _ _ 4 O.- w . .3 .w f w w c *. _4 5 ---w------a 4 .ab1 y A, *. .'t -. w S..9. .m .J c g. . "b . . 4-4 e O. $. *. 'J' . T c 'p' e #. ~.' .i i. */ . ' " ' = . _d.".4'.'_-. . .'.'.'A . s g.,_4. , . ga_ _i .,. ce z a t ,, _. .. . _ ..u. g , n. s _s _ae,1 _ 'ccs, _'. 2' _' _' be o . ,c,..22. . . 1s si. e .w .- 1_ 1, _ 4_ . 3 . ._. ,. _4_ , _, 3 _ . ema_4 ,. 1 4 _ ,.c .._1 .. ocn,ge _n< a a,- ,__4 _2 .ze --- <..-. .s . . . , ..g1 .,. .. e.u1,,s-  :. en.. .. . , .w1: . .. u.. c f PT.TGS . Sc=e shid:s i land.use are going :: hacpec i::sspective cd 9V?iG5 ; however, the regica is : c vas; :o lasn=e 1 catal shid; f cm.agrict.L:.re 1 the cex several decades is s c me .' .+ . *. c.a.a- = =r i a s s .' ' ~ " _' _* _s - wd_ . " . . " . = . . =. g "_ . - . .a. .. = . . =. :~= ed. .e. c a 1, _ . -. ._, i ~. ..,. - as. .. e. . ...u.. .. . 4._ 2_ .,. ._c .- cc4 4a c _ ., ._ 4. . .. .w. 4. _.g .. 4_ m, ., .a, . .-5 ..ne.1.4cCS, . . _. ,, s.. . . c .o.4. .... .. .,. . . . . . - . _a ..--i. . w. ., S _. ed ep-ic=s cc reduce wacer use lad sa.ic ec ssic free cies 2 1=d 3 1. S. P.IG c ar a. . -c .~. _' .."_ . - . e'. =. c - a c m _" .a _' . ' . - 205, ~ - e. "2 ..s 4 C e C._a 4 4. wo., "w4.- 9* -o- .- C'- 1 ** * *-_6.w .m 4, 339.3 s4b el.,1. w .- . w C1_4=m 6 8 **- - = 4 'd - - law.AO

te sou-twest wcere 1 =cre f17ersble ecccc=:.c climate exists.

i Coments Regarding Topics Which Shculd Be Addressed in Preparation of a Supplementary Envircnmental Statament Regarding Salt-Orift- and Water-Consumption-Related Environmental Effects of Operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station by Michael W. Golay Consultant l i x - prepared for  ! West Valley Agricultural Protection Council l Phoenix, AZ l February 17, 198' - l 9 Overview: Tne major environmental effects of cencern are those asso-ciated with salt drift and water consumption at the PVMGS sita. The fol-lowing discussion focuses upon aspects of the PVNGS ccoling system and its design which will cause environmental effects in these two categories and upon strategies for their mitigation. Tnis discussion supplements that of the report " Examination of Salt-Orift- and Water-Consumption-Related Aspects of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station," (Golay,1982), . which discusses the important sources of such effects and possible stra-tagies for their mitigation. Rather, the discussion of this report cen-sists of an outline of important issues which must be addressed in prepa-ration df a ccmprehensive, accurata Envircnmental Statament concerning such effects. Effects of the cooling tcwers and spray pond at the PVNGS site are considered separately. The scope of this report is restricted to the sources of drift and water consumption associated with these cool-ing devices, rcssible alternatives and mitigaticn strategies, and off-site drift transport. i .> = t CCOLING TOWER-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ',. Assessment of Envirenmental Effects Accurate measurement of the seace- and droelet-size deoendent drift ~ liouid and salt mass fluxes is needed. Such measurements are needed for accurata characterization of the drift source created by a cool-ing tower, and for demonstration of proper performance of the cooling tower drift elimination system. It is very difficult to perform such measurements accurately. Consequently, it is necessary that the Environmental Statement (ES) address what is to be measured, where, how, when, why and how well in order to demcnstrate a recog- l nition of the purposes and limitations of such measurements and to , show that efforts to minimize such limitations will be undertaken. Continuous monitoring over coolina tower life of drift emissions is essential for maintenance of envirenmental cuality. Cooling tower conditions change over life, with the likely result that drift emissions will increase in time. The E5 should recognize this fact and show how such increases will be detected and elimi-nated. Comorehensive verification of the models used to describe drift transoort is essential to accurate environmental imcact analysis. Models used for such work are often seriously inaccurate. To the degree that the PVNGS site meterology is different from that at sites at which such models are more ccmmonly applied, the empirical infonnation which they emoloy becomes increasingly less valid. These l remarks apply equally to the models for plume behavior and to those for the motion and mass change of drift droplets within the plume and the atmosphere. Evaluation of drift releases and effects arising from sources out-side the fill and due to off-desien coeration must be taken into account. Sources of such releases include drift from the hot water distribution system, and increased releases due to cooling tower deterioration, wind effects and other off-design meterological con-ditions . c .. . .y' s ~ . 1 , . n. ' i~ l Evaluation of the ' costs to scciety of cco'@ig7tiewer water censumotion, , including examination of methods for correct assessment of the va'tue - of water must be cerformed as cart of'the PVdg benefit-cost analysis- 1 i which is reouired in an E3. Water consumptionareducing stiategies  ! such as those involving blowdcwn elimination '-hrcugh*'desalinatien' and/ or chemical treatment.should also be addressed. Salt concentration-minimizing cccling'syitem designs shoulo'be exam-ined in the E5. This can be done by,)xamining means ot desalination of" the recirculating water. Such cchentratirN1 minimization would'be valuable as a means.of minimizing salt drift emissions routinely, and , as a means of dealing with perieds of unusually sline makeup watar. It would also have the benefit of reducing bicwdcwn flows.. - Possible Cooling System Alternatives and Environmsnthi Imcact Miticaticn Stratecies ._ Drift-minimizing ecoling tower desions should be exciiined in the ES. Such designs include these employing}very high efficiency drift eli-minators, and icw gas velocity cooling tcwers. Water consumotion minimtzing ecolino. tower desiens iheuld be examined in the ES. This is done by reoptimization of the tcwer', reflecting higher costs of water than those used in the" basic design. ,To the degree that construction of the cooling. tcwers thas progressed to the point that a ecmplete reoptimization would be'meadingless, local re-optimization reflecting constraints imoosed by cc:;pleted cooling , '~ ' tcwer work should be performed. ~ ~ Alternative ecoling technologies shculd oe examined whien may be' used - partly or ccmoletely as substitutes for the evacorative cooling towers . currently olanned for use at the PVNGS'. ,The most attractive such al-ternative probably involves use of base-loaded dry cooling,' employing i I either a conventional water ccoling system or a binary fluid ccoling ' system such as that based upon ammonia. In this mode, evaporative ccoling could be used in ecmbination with the dry cooling. The degree O to which fellowing this course has been forecidsed by prior construc-tion of evaporative ccoling tcwers maf be substantial. However, if - -- - - ~- . . i' . ~ , *1 ,i the evaporative tcwer fill designs were reoptimized to reduce water consumption and drift releitses, it is reasonable to expect that addi-denal ecoling capacity would be' required at the site. If this capa-- city were tc<use dry cooling technology, and be used in a base-loaded mode, it ctuld centridura maximally ~to reduction of the environmental effects o'f interest. SPRAY POND-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT5 Assessment of Environmental Effects Accurate measurement of the scacs- and dreolet size-decendent drift licuid and salt mass fluxes,-as with cooline towers, is very difficult to cerform in sorsy cends. This is because the spray pend drift source is distriEuted over the entire pond, and has a ccmplicated spa-tial' structure, whjch can change sig.nificantly as the local weather changes. In' additicn to these factors, the difficulties asscciated with the tschnoicgy for performing an accurate point measurement of the drift fluxes remain the same .in this situation as in the cooling tower case. It is essential that an ac' quate e E5 examine hcw such measurements would bi made, what their' uncertainties would be and.how such uncertainties would be taken f.nto account in anaysis of spray pond-associated environmental effects. Xnewledge of the soray cond drift source criar to the cerformance of such a measurement necessarily must be coor because of the caucity of the existing relevant literatu'ee and because of the sensitivity of soray cond dri?t releases to the details of the cond an'd scray gec=e- l tries as well as weather. An E5 c'encarning such drift effects must pay special attentien^to cuantification of this uncertainty and its  ; incorpora' tion into any analysis.cf environmental effects. Plume rise, the-drift source flux and subsecuent off-site drift trans- ~ oort from soray acnds will be strongly influenced by the local weather a and the scray cond heat load. It is essential that the envircnmental effects analysis.cf an Es recognize the importance of such influences g and quantify both their effects and the uncertainties asscciated with r-- 1: t,. the estimates of such effects. Erosion of the dry salt beds and offsite transcort of such salt which could occur when all scray cond water had evacorated ~must be analyted in any ES. This will be difficult because the basic data needed for such an analysis are large unavailable and Will be subject to signifi- , cant uncertainties. Consequently, the estimation of these associated uncertainties will be of central importance to any environmental ef-facts analysis which is performed. Possible Soray Pond Alternatives and Environmental Imoact Mitication Stra-tecies The major available means of mitigating soray cond environmental ef-facts is reduction of the salinity of the water being scrayed into the air. This could be acc:mplished using a desalination system simi-lar to that discussed previously in connection with c:oling tcwer water desalination. The ES should address this and any other methods of reducing spray pond environmental effects (no other attractive candidates for this purpose come to mind). - The main alternative to use of a s ray cond as an ultimate heat sink is use of another tyce of ultimate heat sink. Of the available tech-nologies, an emergency cooling evaporative cooling tcwer appears to be the most feasible to use. This judgement reflects both the exper-ience in which such ccoling texers have been used previously and the recognition that such teuers would be environmentally preferable to spray-ponds. Whether their use would be permitted under current nuclear safety regulations is unknown. REFERENCES M. Golay, " Examination of Salt-Orift- and Water-Consumption-Related l Ascects of the Palo-Verde Nuclear Generating System," Report for the West I Valley Agricultural Protection Council (September 1932). i 1 's*.,. ?'Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,e% s t-jS j:. fp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ; Y[p f7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B RD (2 In the Matter of ) ) ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. STN 50-529 et al. ) STN 50-530 ) (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) Station, Units 2 and 3) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I hereby certify that copies of the attached Petitioner West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.'s Motion Seeking Stay of Decision Permitting Hearing to Proceed With Inadequate EIS and Memorandum in Support thereof have been served upon the following listed persons by deposit in the United States mail, properly addressed and with postage prepaid, this 22nd day of July 1983. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety _&' Licensing Atomic Safety & Lice 1 sing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Howard A. Wilber, Member Administrative Judge -Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety E Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 e '. , . Dr. Dixon Callihan Rand L. Greenfield Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Union Carbide Corporation P. O. Drawer 1508 P. O. Box Y Sante Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Arthur Gehr, Esquire Warren Platt, Esquire Snell & Wilmer Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Edwin J. Reis, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Office of the Exec. Legal Dir. Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, D.C. 20555 Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Of fice of the Exec. Legal Dir. Lynne Bernabei, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Government Accountability Project Washington, D.C. 20555 Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Q Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Dated j~ 00 /fSS Geri L. Kelly ~ Secretary to: Kenneth Berlin Attorney at Law 2550 M Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 429-8501 Attorney for Petitioner West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.