ML20079H371
| ML20079H371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1982 |
| From: | Bell N, Thatcher T, Wapato S COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| INTR-821213, NUDOCS 8212160267 | |
| Download: ML20079H371 (10) | |
Text
s 00LKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'82 DEC 15 A10 56 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ^ ?U!.IA
.,;,0 & SEfE P A fiCH In the Matter of
)
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, _E T _A L.
)
STN 50-523 Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power
)
December 13, 1982 Project, Units 1 and 2
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION TO CLARIFY AND AMEND CERTAIN CONTENTIONS At the prehearing conference of December 2, 1982, there arose some confusion as to the proper scope of certain environmental quality and cost contentions presented by National Wildlife Federation / Oregon Environmental Council (NWF/OEC), the Yakima Indian Nation (YIN), the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), and the Coalition for Safe Power (CSP).
At that conference, counsel for NWF/OEC offered to present a draft of amended contentions and to clarify those issues.
After consultation among all these parties, and with the concurrence of YIN, NWF/OEC, CRITFC and CSP hereby jointly propose that the Board amend Contentions 7 and 8 (numbering from the Board's Order of November 2, 1982) as follows:
7.
The Applicants' have failed to assess fully the environmental impact of the project on Columbia River fish and wildlife resources.
(NWF/OEC 4, YIN 5, CRITFC 5; NWF/OEC lead party on bases presented in its Supplement; YIN lead party with respect to its bases SA through SN and relevant portions of unlettered bases found on 8212160267 821213 PDR ADOCK 05000522 PDR C
pp 14-15 of its Supplement (relating to radiological burden); and CRITFC lead party with respect to its bases 5A through 50 Wherever the bases presented by the two tribal organizations overlap, they are directed to coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication of evidentiary presentation and arguments by cooperative designation of one or the other organization as a lead party for each basis asserted.)
8.
The Petitioners contend that the Applicants have under-estimated the environmental cost of the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project (S/HP) to such an extent as to inappropriately alter the cost benefit base balance required by NEPA and 10 C.F.R. S 51.20 in favor of constructing the project. (CSP 14, NWF/OEC 3, YIN 2, CRITFC 3; NWF/OEC lead party with respect to the bases identified in its Supplement; CSP lead party on the bases identified in its Supplement, CRITFC on the bases identified in its Supplement, in-cluding environmental effects described in its Contention 5; ~ YIN lead party with respect to bases identified in its supplement, including environmental effects described in its Contention 5.
Wherever the bases presented by the four intervenors overlap, they are directed to coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication of evidentiary presentations and argument by cooperative designation of one of the organizations as lead party for each basis asserted.)
Rationale - (Contention 7)
The Board's Contention 7 is based on NWF/OEC Contention 4, YIN Contention 5, and CRITFC Contention 5.
NWF/OEC provided one primary basis for its Contention 4, referred to generally as the
. " hydro-peaking" issue.
Both YIN and CRITFC incorporated by reference the NWF/OEC basis, but added substantial additional bases for their adoption of this environmental contention.
These bases are set out in YIN Supplement, pp 14-15 and Bases SA through SN, and CRITFC Supplement, Bases SA through 50.
The confusion which the parties seek to dispel with respect to Board Contention 7 appears to have arisen because of the dual nature of the tribal contentions.
Each tribal Contention 5 reads as follows:
The environmental impacts of the proposed Skagit/
Hanford Nuclear Project on Columbia River fish and wildlife resources have not been fully assessed.
Furthermore, environmental impacts must not in-fringe Indian Treaty Rights.
The Board evidently misread the extensive tribal bases for this contention, the bases that went beyond what NWF/OEC had proposed, as applying only to the second, treaty-related sentence of the contention.
Thus, when the Board split the tribal Contentions 5 (Board Contentions 4 and 7),
into two contentions 4 it did not include the tribal bases with each new contention.
This was not the intention of either YIN or CRITFC and is not reflected in the language of their petitions.
For instance, the CRITFC Supplement prefaces the factual bases for its Contention 5 as follows:
Both the (ASC/ER)
. and the.
(DEIS)
. are deficient with regard to the assessment of environmental impacts.
The following is a description of those insufficiencies.
CRITFC Second Supplement, July 16, 1982 at 8 The YIN Supplement is phrased in nearly identical terms.
YIN Supplement, September 29,
' 1982 at 15 The bases asserted by the tribal organizations supported both sentences of their Contentions 5 and therefore should support both the contentions the Board has created from tribal Contentions 5.
YIN and CRITFC wish to present evidence and argument, founded on the extensive bases contained in their supplements, both as to their treaty right claims as well as to other general environmental concerns covered by other environmental statutes and regulations.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to clarify that the extensive tribal bases support both claims, i.e., general environmental claims set out in Board Contention 7 and treaty claims set out in Board Contention 4.
The proposed mmendment does not alter the original tribal contentions in any way.*/
Rationale - (Contention 8)
NWF/OEC's original Contention 3, YIN Contention 2, and CRITFC Contention 3 read generally as follows:
The Applicant Has Used An Inaccurately Low Estimate Of The Environmental And Financial Cost Of The Pro-ject In Its Benefit / Cost Ratio
- /
Intervenors suggestion that responsibility for argument on contentions be divided depending on which organization presented which basis is not meant to imply agreement with staff's position that intervenors are limited in their presentations to the bases set out in their Petitions to Intervene.
Intervenors understood the Board at the prehearing conference to permit expanded bases for accepted contentions if additional support is found through discovery or other investigation.
Such bases would be added to the intervenors' contentions by amendment.
' The Board struck the words " environmental and" because in its view the petitions to intervene gave no basis for the environmental cost contention.
At the pre-hearing conference NWF/OEC moved the Board to reconsider that ruling, pointing out that it had presented a basis for that part of its contention by reference to its
" environmental effects" Contention 4.
See, NWF/OEC Second Supplement at 5 (May 21, 1982).
In other words, NWF/OEC intended that the general failure to assess environmental affects alleged in its Contention 4 (now accepted Contention 7), would be considered in terms of " environmental costs" for Contention 3.
On this basis, NWF/OEC moved at the December 2 conference that the Board reincorporate the words "environnental and" into NWF/OEC contentions now listed as Contention 2 in the Board's November 2 Order.
Judge Linenberger, however, pointed out that the Board's Contention 8 (formerly CSP Contention 14) raised questions of environmental cost in a manner similar to thtt charged by NWF/OEC Contention 3.
Judge Linenberger's implicit suggestion was that Contention 8 was the proper place to discuss environmental " costs."
l The parties propose to act on that suggestion by amending existing Cont'ntion 8 so that it may become the vehicle whereby each of the parties concerned with environmental costs may present its factual and legal arguments.
To do so, intervenors would consolidate all environmental cost contentions under Contention 8 and permit each individual organization to present the basis with which it is most familiar.
CSP would present arguments with respect I
- to the bases it has asserted,as would NWF/OEC and the tribes.
In this way the Board need not substantially amend its November 2 Order, but it could permit all parties to present the argumants that they initially made in their petitions and supplements.
All the inter-venors involved have consulted and agreed to consolidate their positions so that there is no repetition with respect to environmental cost arguments.
It seemed inappropriate, however, to require any organization to present the arguments and factual material compiled solely by any other organization.
The proposal of the intervenor3 does, in one respect, alter the original approved contentions an'.hus needs further elaboration.
YIN Contention 2 and CRITFC Contention 3 objected to the failure of the Applicant to include all " environmental costs" in its benefit / cost analysis.
As basis for that contention, they in-corporated by reference original Contention 3 of NWF/OEC.
That NWF/OEC contention referred only to the so-called " hydro-peaking" issue.
As discussed above, YIN and CRITFC environmental concerns, generally expressed in their Contentions 5, go substantially beyond those of NWF/OEC.
The tribal organizations did not originally reference those issues in their " environmental cost" contentions.
However, upon considering the full set of contentions and issues filed in the S/HP proceeding, YIN and CRITFC conclude that all their environmental concerns expressed in their Contentions 5 should be analyzed in terms of " environmental costs," as well as the adequacy
. of environmental analyses and possible violation of treaty duties.
See, Board's Contention 8.
In particular, by the time the Board hears the environmental issues in this case, the Northwest Power Planning Council will have completed its Regional Energy Plan.
That Plan will include a method to calculate the "quantifiable environmental costs" of power resources, such as the cost of lost fisheries, lowered air and water quality, and the like.
Unless the Final Environmental Statement is postponed until after the issuance of the Regional Energy Plan and incorporates the cost methodology, the adequacy of FES environmental cost analyses must be subject to question.
CRITFC and YIN propose that they be permitted to address such matters under the Board's general Contention 8.
Conclusion In conclusion, intervenors NWF/OEC, YIN, CRITFC, and CSP seek to reorganize their contentions to facilitate coordinated evidentiary presentations for those environmental matters which the Board has set out as Contentions 4, 7 and 8.
Those matters are:
(1) the inadequacy of the environmental assessment (Contention 7), (2) the resulting misapplication of environmental cost / benefit analysis (Contention 8), and (3) possible violation of Indian treaty obligations and duties as the result of environmental impacts. (Contention. 4).
The reframed contentions, however, will not substantially broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
Rather, they should assist in developing a sound record in'an orderly manner.
1
-g-Respectfully submitted,
}l 1
ll Q)qE' /
m
~
Terence L. Thatcher, Counsel National Wildlife Federation Suite 708, Dekum Building 519 S.W. Third Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 222-1429 l
,i
<l
'C S. Timothy Wa'phto, $ utive Director Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission 2705 E. Burnside Portland, OR 97232 (503) 238-0667 s.
g Nina Bell Coalition for Safe Power Suite 527, Governor Building 408 S.W. Second Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 295-0490 DATED this f$
day of December, 1982.
/'
GOVETED T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C S A10:56 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA In the Matter of
)
Wi:
3 eft iAh r
.r
)
uCCIRi?G & SERVICE ANCH PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, _ET _AL.
)
STN 50-523 Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power
)
December 13, 1982 Project, Units 1 and 2
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEY I hereby certify that I have this th day of December, 1982 caused to be served true copies of INTERVENORS' MOTION TO CLARIFY AND AMEND CERTAIN CONTENTIONS, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
John P. Wolf, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 3409 Sheperd Street Chevy Chase, MD 20015 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48190 Lee Scott Dewey Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 F. Theodore Thomsen Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen and Williams 1900 Washington Building Seattle, WA 98101 9
7
\\
NA
\\,.-
W p --
CERTIFICATS 'O, F' SSRVICE ' 23 s
1 w.
c
-\\
h' 43 i-s 6
\\;
s -
a w.,
Ralph Cavanagh d'm
,_ g Natural Resources Defense Council g
25 Kearny Street San Francisco, CA 94108 e
h Eugene Rosolie, Director N
,y Coalition for Safe Power g'
j Suite 527, Governor Buildings i' '
[
408 S.W. Second Avenue C
Portland, OR 97204
\\ c
- _, y 4
N C
y
=
+
s i
James B. Hovis b
g
(
^
' f, g (.
't' M,
Yakima Indian Nation
~ 9-Y c/o Hovis, Cockrill, Weaver and Bjur
'lb m
4*7' 316 North Third Street i
(,$\\ s
- j-P.O. Box 487 I[
N-i
't i
r g
g n
.1
?s t
- Yakima, WA 98909 s.
,3 h%
., i g
' *'y 4
s-
~
Rob Lothrop
?
Columbia River Intertribal Fich Commission
'.% s t
'N 2705 E. Burnside v.
-i s 1fi~','s
?,, /,4 3L Portland, OR 97232
,~
4 4
' A.
N D= >(r, - ~'\\
t N
_h*
~%
-w h
Terence L...Jhktcher-
,s s
.g
,3
\\,
s(
3 g
5 1e I
a s
s, s
1,
- 5. A t,
4.. r..
i I
s
\\
s x+
f 5
=
,s
)
+-
"I 1
i g
i
'(
e
<g
,, w h,
w t.
!s' g
(.
i rs g
+
,.I A
\\g l.
"A 9
. j L
i
.[ C s
4, g
y i
t i
\\
s k
4 5
.'s
,g
' t 3
6 k
6
.g 9m 5
}
g
-\\%
+
s
, s,
'y s
t s,;
s b
u} $*.. L, 4
g
\\
i w