ML19269C548

Applicants' List of Principal Issues Re Environ Matters,Site Suitability & Radiological Health & Safety.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19269C548
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	01/09/1979
From:	Little D, Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN
To:
References
NUDOCS 7902050297
Download: ML19269C548 (42)

Text

,t .

a L 6)

T lrQ /

f

~

,o <; h e[Vf\

a;'.- '-

9; 26' i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

) dvl'f f NUCLEAR REGUL7.1'ORY COMMISSION / ta At g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POUER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DOCKET NOS.

et al. )

) 50-522 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following:

APPLICANTS' LIST OF PRINCIPAL ISSUES in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on January 10, 1979 with proper postage affixed for first class mail.

DATED: January 10, 1979 Vrv{

F. Theodore Thonsen '

Counsel for Puget Sound Power &

Light Company 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 7902050297

Date: January 10, 1979'~_ _

Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Energy Facility Site Evaluation 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Council Washington, D . C .' 20036 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert C. 'chofield, Director School of Natural Resources Skagit County Planning Department University of Michigan 120 West Kincaid Street Ann Arbo: , MI 48109 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20555 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Portland, OR 97204 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad Washington, D. C. 20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. John H. Buck, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Warren Hastings, Esq.

Appeal Board Associate Corporate Counsel U.3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland General Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 Michael C. Farrar, Member ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing CFSP and FOB Appeal Board E. Stachon & L. Marbet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Boring, OR 97009 Docketing and Service Section Canadian Consulate General Office of the Cecretary Peter A. van Brakel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice-Consul Washington, D. C. 20555 412 Plaza 600 (original and 20 copies) 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, WA 98101 Richard L. Black, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff Donald S. Means U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Box 277 Office of the Executive Legal La Conner, WA 98257 Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.

Rives, Bonyhadi, Drummond & Smith Roger M. Leed, Esq. 1400 Public Service Building 1411 Fourth Ave. Bldg. #610 920 S.W. 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Portland, OR 97204 Russell W. Busch, Esq. Thomas F. Carr, Esq.

Evergreen aegal Services Assistant Attorney General 5308 Ballard Avenue N.W. Temple of Justice Seattle, WA 98107 Olympia, WA 98504 12/13/78

UNITED STATES OF A%1 ERICA MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) January 9, 1979

' nits 1 and 2) )

)

APPLICANTS' LIST OF PRINCIPAL ISSUES PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & WILLIAMS F. Theodore Thomsen Douglas S. Little Attorneys for Applicants 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Of Counsel:

Lowenstein, Nceman, Reis, Axelrad a Toll 1025 Conr ecticut Avenue N.N.

Washington, D.C. 20036

e TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. Environmental Impact Statement. . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. Impacts of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Impacts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Cooling Tower Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Visual Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Project Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Ranney Collector System . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Radiological Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6. Social, Econ 3mic and Other Impacts . . . . . . 14 D. Effects of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . 15 E. Alternative Sites - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F. Alternative Sources and Design Features . . . . . . 18 G. Need for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 H. Cost-Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 I. Federal Water Pollution Control Act . . . . . . . . 29 J. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 SITE SUITABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A. Geography and Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B. Nearby Industrial, Military and Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 C. Geology and Seismology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 D. Suitability for Development of Evacuation Plan . . 37 RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 (i )

APPLICANTS' LIST OF PRINCIPAL ISSUES This list is submitted on behalf of Applicants pursuant to the Board's order of December 22, 1978.

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

In compiling this list, we have included as " issues" all of the contentions of the two previously admitted inter-

' venors, SCANP and FOB /CFSP. SCANP's contentions are set forth in two documents: (1) an agreed statement of SCANP's environmental and site suitability contentions (follows Tr.

67; herein "SCANP Contentions") and (2) a document entitled "SCANP Contentions Regarding PSAR" (herein "SCANP PSAR Contentions") dated April 15, 1975 filed pursuant to the Board's order of March 17, 1975. The contentions of FOB /CFSP (herein " FOB /CFSP Contentions") are set forth in the Board's order of May 26, 1976.

During the course of this proceeding the Board has requested presentation of additional evidence on a number of subjects. Even though these requests are not " issues" we have also included them in our list.

Because the contentions of the recently admitted inter-venors, the three Indian tribes, have not yet been defined with reasonable specificity, they have not been included in our list.

It should be noted that proposed findings of fact on many of these matters were submitted by Applicants and by the Staff in the fall of 1975, following the first eviden-tiary session in this proceeding.1 These findinae provide a convenient summary of and specific citations to the evidentiary record as it existed through the close of that session on August 8, 1975. Tr. 4722.

The principal evidentiary documents cited in our list, in addition to the tranccript, are:

1. Final Environmental Statement, May 1975 (herein "FES"). Follows Tr. 2913

2. Final Supplement to the FES, April 1977 (herein " Final Supplement to FES"). Follows Tr. 7767.

l Applicants Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision Environmental and Site Suitability Determinations, October 24, 1975 (herein

" Applicants' proposed findings"); NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Proposed Partial Initial Decision on Environmental and Site Suitability Matters, November 21, 1975 (herein "Staf f 's Proposed findings") .

3. Environmental Report. Exh. 4.

The Board requested that our list of issues be divided into three categories according to our opinion, namely, (1) issues presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing; (2) issues on which further evidentiary hearing is required before Board decision is appropriate; and (3) issues on which no evidentiary hearings have been held. With respect to each issue or subject on our list we have indicated under the heading " Status" the appropriate category, in our opinion.2 To summarize our opinion as to the current status of the issues in this proceeding, we believe that all ot the envi-ronmental an/ site suitability issues (the LWA issues speci-fied in 10 CFR 50.10 (e) (2) ) are ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing (category 1), except for the following issues on which we believe further eviden-tiary hearing is required before Board decision is appro-priate (category 2):

2 With respect to those matters that we consider " ripe for Board decision" it should, of course, be understood that on some of these the previously filed proposed findings of fact should first be updated to reflect the evidence subsequently received.

ENVIRONMENTAL C.4 Ranney Collector System - the evidence th:

remains to be presented is the Staff's analysis of SCANP counsel's allegations.

F. Alternative sites - the evidence that remains to be presented is the Staff's testimony on the geology and seismology of alternative sites.

G. Alternative Sources and Design Features - the matter that remains to be resolved is the generic issue relating to Radon-222 (Table S-3).

I. Cost-Benefit analysis - The Staff's analysis remains to be presented.

SITE SUITABILITY E. _ Geology and Seismology - additional evidence will be presented by Applicants and by Staff.

With the exception of geology and seismology, the radio-logical health and safety issues (the construction permit issues) are in category 3, i.e., no hearings h ae been held. As to geology and seismology, hearings have been held on the safety aspects (in addition to the site suitability aspects) of these subjects, and a further hearing is needed before Board decision. Although no hearings have yet been held on the other safety issues, we believe they are ripe for hearing. See the Skagit Safety Evaluation Report (September 1977) and Supplement No. I thereto (October 1978). Accordingly, Applicants urge that the health and safety issues, as well as the environmental and site suitability issues, be set for hearing at the earliest practicable time.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS A. Environmental Impact Statements

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention J 1:

The DEIS does not represent the independent work of the NRC.

a. It is hardly more than a summary of the Applicants' ER, and as such necessarily represents the Applicants' point of view. It incorporates many judgments made by the Applicants and the Applicants' consultants concerning environmental impacts; it relies entirely on the data base accumulated by the Applicants and reflects any deficiencies in that data base or methodologies or judgments involved in accumulating it.

b. The preparers of the DEIS failed to make their own independent evaluation and investigation with regard to: alternative sites, seismology and the need for the project.

c. The DEIS was not prepared by the " responsible official" as NEPA mandates.

. b. SCANP Contention J 16:

For the foregoing reasons, the DEIS does not comply with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines or 10 CFR Part 51.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 86-91, 268-269, pp. 26-28, 118-119.

b. Staff's proposed findings 13-15, 156-160, pp. 8-9,98-101.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Environmental Report.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES.

b. Final Supplement to FES.

c. Testimony of Leech and Milsted - independence of Staff's environmental review. Tr. 2901-2919, 3016-3029.

5. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

B. Impac~.s of Construction

1. Contentions None.

2. Board Requests Board requests to Staff for additional information on Skagit River fisheries and Staff's conclusion that construction activities will not have any significant impact on those fisheries. Board letter to Staff counsel, July 8, 1975, questions 1 and 2.

3. Propose'. Findings

a. App'leants' proposed findings96-120, pp. 31-45.

b. Staff's proposed findings 16-32, pp. 9-23.

4. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Myers and panel - environmental impacts of construction and operation; also Board questions 1 and 2. Tr. 2612-2708, 2752-2790, 2838-2896.

b. Environmental Report, Chapter 4.

c. Testimony of MacIsaac - construction traffic. Tr.

2290-2431.

d. State of Washington NPDES permit proceeding findings of fact re impacts of construction runoff. Ex. 57, Council Order No. 7, findings 22-40, pp. 7-12.

5. Staff Evidence

a. Testimony of Leech and Milsted - introduction of FES, including corrections. Tr. 2901-2913.

b. FES, Chapter 4.

c. Testimony of Derickson - Board questions 1 and 2.

Tr. 3199-3216, 3260-3266.

d. Final Supplement to FES.

6. Intervenor Evidence

a. Testimony of Brubaker - ecological impacts, including Skagit River fisheries. Tr. 2923-2977, 8209-8324.

b. Testimony of Orrell - Skagit River fisheries.

Exhibit 40.

c. Testimony of Norton - agriculture and land use.

Exhibit 41.

d. Testimony of Ellingson - eagles. Exhibit 42.

e. Testimony of Sweeney - aesthetics and secondary impacts. Tr. 8131-8193.

7. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

C. Imoacts of Operation C.1 Cooling Tower Operation

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention J 4:

The DEIS completely fails to evaluate the economic significance of agriculture in the plant vicinity, and the economic and social damage to agriculture which chemical, thermal and radiological releases due to normal and abnormal plant operation may cause. The DEIS fails to discuss and analyze the economic consequences of damage to vegetation resulting from cooling tower drift.

b. SCANP Contention J 6:

The DEIS failed to evaluate the impact on birds who use the Pacific flyway of the plant cooling towers and other structures.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 121-131, 275, 281, pp. 45-49, 120-122.

b. Staff's proposed findings 37-39, 194-199, pp. 26-28, 119-122.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Myers and panel--environmental impacts, including effects from cooling tower operation. Tr. 2612-2708, 2752-2790, 2838-2896.

b. Environmental Report, S 5.1.3 and Appendix H.2.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, SS 5.3.1, 11.2.1, 11.18.9.

b. Testimony of Milsted, Dvorak, and Derickson -

Impact of Project on agriculture and on birds. Tr.

3185-3188, 3231-3288 and Tr. for 31 July 1975 (Vol.

II).

5. Intervenor Evidence

a. Testimony of Ellingson - eagles. Exn. 42.

6. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

C.2 Visual Impacts

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention J 8:

The DEIS does not discuss and analyze the effect of the visual impact of the plant on recreational values of the Skagit River, and surrounding terrain. It is notable that the bias of the preparers of the DEIS leads them to assert that the cooling towers will be " dwarfed" by the natural mountainous background, instead of emphasizing that the towers will be completely inconsistent with the beautiful natural setting of the Skagit Valley.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 132, 133, 283, pp. 50-51, 123-124.

b. Staff's proposed finding 203, pp. 124-125.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Environmental Report, SS 3.1, 3.9, 5.1.3.

b. Testimony of Myers and panel - environmental impacts including aesthetics. Follows Tr. 2627,

p. 3; Tr. 2777-2787

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, SS 3.1, 5.1, 10.1.

b. Testimony of Milsted, Leech and Carson - visual impacts. Tr. of 31 July, 1975 (Vol. II).

c. Final Supplement to FES, Chapter 4 and SS 5.7, 6.6.

d. Testimony of Henley - visual impacts. Tr.

7762-8129.

5. Intervenor Evidence

a. Testimony of Heilman - visual impact of plant. Tr.

3095-3115.

b. Testimony of Sweeney - aesthetic impacts. Tr.

8131-8193.

6. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for evidentiary hearing.

_o_

C.3 Project Discharge

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention J 3:

The DEIS completely ignores the economic significance of the fishery based in the Skagit River. There is no dollar value placed on the fishery, and no attempt is made to reflect the potential economic and social harm of any damage to the fishery which may be caused by normal or abnormal plant operations.

b. SCANP PSAR Contention 1(b):

Thermal discharges into the Skagit River will be at excessively high levels.

c. SCANP PSAR Contention 1(d)

The operation of the Project will result in the discharge into the Skagit River of biocides in addition to those evaluated by the ER and PSAR.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 134-166, 273-274, pp.

51-69, 119-120.

b. Staff's proposed findings 40, 164-189, pp. 29-30, 104-117.

3. Applicants Evidence

a. Testimony of Berthrong, Chakravorti, Scott and Houghton - design, releases and environmental impact of project discharge. Tr. 3376-3617.

b. Environmental Report, SS 3.6, 5.1, 5.4.

c. State of Washington NPDES permit proceeding findings of fact re discharge from Project operations. Ex. 57, Council Order No. 7, findings 41-89, pp. 12-26. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ,

CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 23-29, particularly n.42 (1978);

affirmed, New England Coalition v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 582 F.2d 87, 98-99 (1st Cir. 1978).

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, SS 3.3.6, 3.6, 5.3, 5.5.3.

b. Final Supplement to FES, SS 4.3, 5.3.

c. Testimony of Milsted and Derickson - Skagit ,iver fishery, Tr. of 31 July 1975 (Vol. II); Tr.

3199-3231, 3259-3268.

5. Intervenor Evidence

3. Testimony of Brubaker - Skagit River fishery. Tr.

2924-2976, 8209-8324.

6. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

C.4 Ranney Collector System 4

1. Contentions

a. SCANP PSAR Contention 4:

The provision made for intake of cooling water is inadequate and temporary.

2. Board Requests

a. Board request to Staff for analysis of certain allegations by SCANP counsel in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act proceeding, including allegations concerning the reliability and quality of the water supply from the proposed Ranney Collector system.

Tr. 7538-56. SCANP counsel's letter and memorandum of June 30, 1977 to Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Cutler (filed herein by Staff counsel on July 12, 1977). These allegations were answered by Applicants' counsel in their letter of August 9 and memorandum of August 8, 1977 to Assistant Secretary Cutler (filed herein on August 9, 1977).

b. Board request for analysis by Applicants and Staff of additional allegations by SCANP counsel concerning the quality of the water to be produced by the proposed Ranney Collector system. SCANP counsel's letter of November 1, 1977 to Assistant Secretary Cutler and of November 9, 1977 to the Board; Board's letters of November 14 and 22, 1977. These allegations were answered by Applicants' counsel in their memorandum filed herein on December 23, 1977, and by the Staff in the prefiled statement of Messrs. Schreiber, Zussman and Marmer, which was filed herein on February 17, 1978, but has not yet been presented.

c. Board request to Applicants for additional information concerning the projected yield from the proposed Ranney Collector syttem Board letter of January 9, 1978 to Applicants' . nsel; see also the further explanation by Mr .inenberger at the 24 January 1978 prehearing cc 'arence.

Tr. 8389-91. This request w', addressed in the prefiled statement of Applicants' witness Mikels, which was filed on February 22 and presented at the hearing on June 21, 1978. Follows Tr. 10,691.

3. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 167-174, pp. 69-73.

b. Staff's proposed findings 36, 163, pp. 25, 102-103.

4. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Mikels - yield, reliability and quality of water from the proposed Ranney Collector system. Tr. 3037-75.

b. Environmental Report, Appendix G.

c. Testimony of Paterson, Mikels, Anderson, and Cassidy - description of measures taken by Applicants to comply with the mitigation requirements prescribed in Assistant Secretary Cutler's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination of April 11, 1978, and response to Board's questions and SCANP's allegations concerning the proposed Ranney Collector system. Tr.

10,632-10,716, 10,728-10,967.

5. Staff hvidenc

a. FES, SS 3.3.5, 5.5.3.1.

b. Final Supplement to FES, S 4.1.

c. Statement of Schreiber, Zussman and Marmer, prefiled February 17, 1978 but not yet offered in evidence.

6. Intervenor Evidence

a. Testimony of Brubaker - ecological impacts, including Skagit River fisheries. Tr. 2923-2977.

b. Testimony of Orrell - Skagit River fisheries. Exh.

40.

c. Testimony of Brubaker - Skagit River fisheries.

Tr. 8209-8324.

7. Status Except for presentation of the Staff's analysis of SCANP counsel's allegations, the presentation of evidence regarding the proposed Ranney Collector system has been completed.

C.5 Radiological Releases

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention J 9:

There is no discussion of the statistical probability of genetic, or somatic or other forms of injury to life forms which will result from normal, and accidental, chemical and radiological releases, and of the nature of such injury.

b. SCANP PSAR Contention 1(c) :

The present plant design will cause radiological contamination of cooling tower blow down.

2. Pr. posed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 175-186, 284-287, pp.

73-79, 124-126.

b. Staff's proposed findings 41-48, 204-208, pp.

30-34, 125-127.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Tosetti - entrainment of radioactive gases. Follows Tr. 2629.

b. Testimony of Myers and panel - radiation. Follows Tr. 2627; Tr. 2630, 2890.

c. Environmental Report, SS 5.2, 5.3.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, SS 3.5, 5.4, 5.5, 11.17, 11.18.

b. Testimony of Milsted and Essig - genetic and somatic risk estimates. Tr. 2978-3015.

c. Testimony of Leech, Hewitt and Essig - upperbound dose estimates. Tr. 2709-2753.

5. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

C.6 Social, Economic and Other Impacts

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contantion J ic The DEIS ignores the following social and economic costs associated with the generation of electricity to meet regional needs: economic and personal hardships associated with price increases for consumers and businesses; induced industrial growth with attendant costs in terms of resource commitments and public services; destruction and modification of natural resources.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 188, pp. 79-80.

b. Staff's proposed findings 50-51, pp. 35-36.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Environmental Report, S 8.2.2.

b. Testimony of Myers and panel - socio-economic impacts. Follows Tr. 2627, pp. 7, 8.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, S 5.6.

b. Testimony of Winters. Tr. 7949-7950.

5. Intervenor Evidence

a. Testimony of Sweeney - secondary impacts. Tr.

8131-8193.

6. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

D. Effects of Postulated Accidents

1. Contention

a. SCANP Contention J 7:

The DEIS entirely ignores the likelihood and consequences of accidents of any kind. It is unreasonable for the DEIS to ignore the consequences of accidents for purposes of environmental and economic impact evaluation since the consequences of accidents are evaluated with respect to other aspects of the licensing process, including the safety analysis.

b. By its motion dated December 3, 1975, SCANP sought to amend contention J 7. Applicants and Staff opposed the motion and oral argument was held.

Applicants' Response dated December 15, 1975; Staff's Answer dated December 16, 1975. Tr.

4729-4745. The motion was denied by the Board.

Tr. 4855.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed finding 282, pp. 122-123.

b. Staff's proposed findings 200-202, pp. 122-124.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Environmental Report, Chapter 7.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, Chapter 7.

b. Testimony of Grimes - evaluation of postulated accidents. Tr. 1895, 1908-1909, 2068-2183.

5. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

E. Alternative Sites 1 Contentions

a. SCANP Contention C:

The studies conducted by Applicant in evaluating alternative sites for the proposed power plant were insufficient. More suitable sines, sites such as Hanford, exist within the State of Washington and these were not fully studied by Applicant. The comparative analysis of the alternative sites that were studied is biased and insufficient.

b. SCANP Contention J 12:

The discussion of alternatives in the DEIS is completely inadequate.

a. The preparers of the DEIS did no independent evaluation of alternative sites and they included insufficient information about alternative sites. All information that is included about alternative sites was supplied by the applicant.

b. There is absolutely no discussien of Hanford, which is an obvious and readily available alternative site.

t

c. The tabular comparison of three sites is grossly inadequate and pre-ordains the outcome. The comparison of sites does not give any weight to the unique scenic and recreational values, which have been nationally recognized, of the Skagit River and its setting. Furthermore, the seismicity values assigned to the Skagit site are clearly erroneous. Even using the tabular comparison presented in the DEIS, if proper values were utilized, the Skagit site would turn out to be the least desirable.

2. Board Requests

a. Board request for Staff review of Cherry Point site. Tr. 4716.

b. Board request that Pebble Springs site be considered as an alternative site. Tr. 4855-56.

c. Board request for independent analysis of the sites considered by Applicants. Tr. 5593.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Jacobsen and Knight - selection of Skagit site, comparison of it with alternative sites, need for additional generation in Western Washington and vulnerability of cross-mountain transmission lines. Tr. 3683-3716, 4384-4430.

b. Environmental Report, S 9.2 and Appendix 0.

c. Applicants' siting studies. Exhibits 46, 47.

d. Testimony of Jacobsen - evaluation of Cherry Point site. Tr. 4937-5015, 5849-5908.

e. Testimony of Finnegan - recreational values near Skagit and Cherry Point sites. Tr. 5959-6006.

f.

Testimony of Jacobsen, Knight, Ostrom and Woodley -

evaluation of Pebble Springs site as an alternative to Skagit site and rc: liability and cost advantages of westside generation. Tr. 6008-6274.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, S 9.2.

b. Testimony of Leech and Conner - Staff review of alternative sites. Tr. 4123-4180.

c. Testimony of Leech and Peltier - evaluation of Cherry Point site. Tr. 5016-5056, 5503-5535.

d. Testimony of 'ans of the Bonneville Power Administration - discussion of the inf]cence of load centers, transmission costs and transmission system losses on alternative sites. Tr. 5222-5292.

e. Testimony of Dvorak, Leech, Peltier and Parker -

detailed analysis of Skagit, Goshen, Ryderwood, Cherry Point and Pebble Springs sites. Tr.

7331-7759.

5. Status Pursuant to the Board's order (Tr. 7359-60), the Staff will offer testimony on the geology and seismology of alternative sites. This is the only aspect of the alternative sites issue that remains open.

F. Alternative Sources and Design Features

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention D:

Alternative methods of generation were not properly evaluated, including the alternative of a coal-fired plant.

b. SCANP Contention J 13:

Alternative energy sources are not properly and fully discussed. Limiting assumptions are made with reference to these alternative sources, so as to predetermine the outcome of any cost benefit analysis. The DEIS discussion of the alternative of a coal-fired plant makes the significant limiting assumption that the plant would have to be located on the Skagit site, when there are many other sites available that would not be available for a nuclear facility, including sites closer to tne load center located on salt water where cheap coal, including coal from British Columbia, could be imported. Also ignored is the possibility of using coal from seams approximate to the site itself. If the preparers of the DEIS had properly analyzed the possibility of a coal-fired alternative, then it would have been clear that the coal-fired alternative was far preferable, in terms of both economic and environmental costs, to the nuclear plant.

c. FOB /CFSP Contention 6:

That Applicants have not adequately described and considered as an alternative the use of solar energy.

d. FOB /CFSP Contention 7:

The Applicants have not adequately described and considered as an alternative the delay of plant construction until the need for additional amounts of electricity can be satisfactorily demonstrated, and the use of smaller coal-fired plants and industrial on-site plants to take care of interim needs.

2. ?roposed Findings

a. Staff proposed finding 55 (alternative plant designs), pp. 38-41.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Knight - alternative energy sources, including solar and coal. Tr. 3717-70, 3982-4001.

b. Testimony of Ferguson - cost comparisons between the proposed Skagit nuclear units and alternative coal-fired units. Tr. 4001-72.

c. Testimony of Knight - alternative sources, particularly British Columbia coal. Tr. 5074-89, 5117-40.

d. Testimony of Ferguson - updated cost comparison of Skagit Project with a coal-fired alternative, and FOB /CFSP contention (7). Tr. 6279-6333.

e. Environmental Report, SS 9.2.4, 9.3.

4. Staff Evidence

a. FES, SS 9.2.2, 9.3.

b. Testimony of Beskid and Connor - alternative energy sources and SCANP contentions D and J-13, including cost comparison of the proposed Skagit nuclear units with alternative coal-fired units. Tr.

4085-4118, 5309-24, 5340-5501.

c. Testimony of Gotchy - health effects of coal and nuclear fuel cycle alternatives, including Radon-222. Tr. 10,482-10,632.

5. Status Except for resolution of a generic question relating to Radon-222 (Table S-3), the matters of alternative sources and alternative design features are ripe for Board decision.

G. Need for Power

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention A:

Need for the power to be produced by the Skagit Project cannot be demonstrated.

1. The projections by the Applicant of future power demand are incorrect and overstated because:

a. Applicant's demand projections fail to account for price elasticity in the Pacific Northwest. As rate increases become effective in the future, the higher prices for power will decrease the demand for and use of power.

b. Applicant's and Staff's evaluations fail to consider changing consumer attitudes.

Consumers are becoming increasingly conscious of the need for energy conservation, and are reducing consumption both for that reason and for reasons of economy. Much of this change in consumer attitudes has been brought about by government, and utility, programs to encourage energy conservation.

c. Applicant's projections of increased industrial growth and consequent pcwer use are unrealistic, incorrect and overstated.

d. Applicant's projections of population growth are incorrect and overstated.

e. Applicant's forecasts fail to take into account the impact on demand of measures to reduce energy consumption in new and existing buildings, by means of changes in construction techniques, insulation and lighting requirements; of economics which manufacturers can affect in their power consumption requirements; and of power savings which will be achieved by requiring changes in the construction of home appliances,

f. Applicant's and Staff's evaluations fail to consider that internal utility company policy changes and state regulatory agency changes in rate structures have caused and will cause reductions in forecast demand for power.

(1) The utility industry has begun advertising campaigns directed at conservation of energy which will reduce demand below that forecasted, has introduced, or is actively studying, peak time pricing, marginal cost pricing, elimination of incentive rates, and has decreased promotional advertising.

(2) State regulatory agencies have ordered peak time pricing for residential customers and have flattened rates. The State of Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has ordered the Applicant herein to effect a modified peak time rate change and has announced that future regulatory decisions will place increasing emphasis on energy conservation.

g. Applicant's forecasts have employed outdated data and techniques. Such factors as worst case analysis, simulation of load of constituent utilities and effects of pricing policy on demand have not been employed in Applicant's forecasts.

h. Applicant's forecasts of resources ignore resources available from outside the region, including resources from the southwest and B.C., and conceal substantial resources by identifying them as reserves and by making unreasonably conservative assumptions about weather conditions.

2. The need for the Skagit project is based on questionable and unfounded assumptions including: "

a. Measures to achieve voluntary curtailment of demand are not an alternative to construction of new generation.

b. Rare resource deficits of short duration, are unacceptable and must be avoided by constructing new generation, regardless of the cost of new generation.

c. Rate changes, including peak time pricing, cannot redistribute system loads so as to reduce the need for new generation.

d. If the need for new generation is reduced, for any reason, the Skagit Project should be the last, not the first, project deferred.

b. SCANP Contention B:

Assuming arguendo, that Applicant's forecasts for future power demand are adequate, the forecasted demand does not show a need for two units at Skagit.

c. SCANP Contention F:

For NRC to accept any contention that the project is justifiable, and needed, as an element of hydro-thermal program would be contrary to NEPA; since the NRC is on notice that the Bonneville Power Administration has not as yet completed requisite NEPA procedures, including EIS preparation, with respect to the hydro-thermal program. As a result, all aspects of the hydro-thermal programs are being re-evaluated, and the program, or any element of it, may be modified or abandoned.

d. SCANP Contention J 11:

The DEIS is an incomplete description of regional energy resources and needs, of the reliability of and nature of forecasts of regional resources and needs, and of the hydro-thermal program. The description of the regional system and distributing and coordinating organizations is insufficient, and the discussion of the reliability of previous load forecasts is biased and reliable. The description of price elasticity in relationship to electrical energy demand is most inadequate, and indicates either a clear deficiency of economic expertise on the part of the preparers of the DEIS, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader as to the present state of economic research into questions of price elasticity. Furthermore, the DEIS completely ignores the relationship between the plant and the 1 + recast and reasonable needs of the applicants. I e DEIS discussion of energy conservation and substitution questions is inadequate and biased.

e. SCANP Contention J 14:

The alternative of postponing the date of commencement of construction has not been fairly evaluated. Such an alternative would permit further development of alternative energy sources and would permit technological improvements which could both reduce risks associated with plant operation and imprt-e plant efficiency. A postponement would have the additional advantage of permitting further gathering of environmental data improving the ability to assess the impact of the plant, and would tend to encourage the utilities in the region to take appropriate measures to restrain the growth of energy demand, which in and of itself would be a definite social, economic, and environmental advantage. In the absence of a denial of the permit application, postponement of the date of commencement of construction is clearly preferable to the proposed action.

f. FOB /CFSP Contention 1:

The Applicants have overstated the need for the facility in that they have underestimated the effect of conservation of electricity.

g. FOB /CFSP Contention 2:

That Applicants have overstated the need for the facility in that they have underestimated the elasticity of demand as prices paid for electricity increase.

h. FOB /CFSP Contention 3:

The Applicants have overstated the need for the facility in that they have used an excessive growth rate in projecting future demand for electricity.

i. FOB /CFSP Contention 4:

That planned generating capacity of the Applicants exclusive of these plants will adequately meet the Applicants' projected demand for electricity.

j. FOB /CFSP Contention 5:

That Applicants have failed to adequ'tely describe measures which they could take to reduce demand, including:

a. The restructuring of general rate schedules to discourage increased use of electricity; and

b. The expansion of electricity conservation promotion programs.

2. Evidence The subject of need for power has been heard in this proceeding at three evidentiary sessions: a "Skagit only" session in August 1975, a joint Skagit/ Pebble Springs session in August 1976, and a joint Skagit/ Pebble Springs session in March 1977. The testimony presented at each of these sessions was extensive.J It thus seems appropriate to identify it by hearing session in toto rather than by the individual witnesses:

a. August 1975 Skagit session: Tr. 4243-4688.

b. August 1976 joint session: Tr. NFP l-1733 and Tr.

of August 24, 1976 (Vol. II),

c. March 1977 joint session: Tr. NFP 1734-3756.

3 . .- Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings on need for power dated April 13, 1977. These findings reflect the joint Skagit/ Pebble Springs hearing on need for power and supersede Applicants' October 24, 1975 proposed findings on need for power.

b. Staff's supplemental proposed findings on need for power dated May 20, 1977. These findings also reflect the joint hearing on need for power and supersede the Staff's November 21, 1975 proposed findings on this subject.

c. FOB /CFSP's proposed findings on need for power dated May 13, 1977. See also Applicants' June 13, 1977 reply to these findings.

3For convenient reference all prefiled need for power testimony incorporated in the transcript of the Skagit proceeding is listed (with citations to the record) in Appendix C attached to Applicants' proposed findings on need for power of April 13, 1977.

d. Intervenor SCANP's proposed findings on need for power dated May 13, 1977. See also Applicant's June 13, 1977 reply to these findings.

4. Pending SCANP Motion to Recpen Record On May 25, 1978, SCANP filed a " Motion to Reopen the Record on Need for Power". This motion was answered by the Staff on June 7, 1978, by Applicants on June 9, 1978, and by the State of Oregon on June 12, 1978. The Staff and Applicants urged that the motion be denied.

Oregon neither supported nor opposed the motion.

Subsequently, at the evidentiary hearing on June 20, 1978, SCANP served a supplement to its motion, and the motion itself was discussed at some length by the Board and counsel. Tr. 10,333-10,378, 10,409-10,438. In support of its motion, SCANP argued that certain testimony which had been prefiled by the Oregon Department of Energy in the still pending4 Oregon state certification proceeding on the Pebble Springs project warranted reopening the record in the instant Skagit proceeding. Tr. 10,337-10,356. The State of Oregon, however, remained neutral on this motion. Tr.

10,359-10,362.

The Staff suggested that the Board adopt a waii, and see" attitude, i.e., that it defer ruling on the motion pending further developments in the Pebble Springs state proceeding. Tr. 10,379 Applicants ruggested that the motion be dcnied witheat prejudice to its renewal should any information of significance to the.s proceeding be developed in the Pebble Springs state proceeding. Tr.

10,431-10,433.

The Board took the matter under advisement and subsequently fixed a schedule for the filing of responses to SCANP's supplement to it s motion. Tr.

10,433, 11,478. The State of Oregon responded on July 11, 1978, remaining neutral but pointing out that SCANP had " unjustifiably touted" the Oregon Department of Energy's testimony. Oregon Response 9 2. Applicants responded on July ll, 1978, again urJing that the motion be denied.

The Board has not yet ruled on SCANP's motion. It remains Applicants' position that it should be denied 4

The Oregon Siting Council's decision in this proceeding is currently expected by about June 1979.

for the reasons set forth in our answer of June 9 and our supplemental answer of July 11, 1978, i.e., the motion was untimely filed, and none of the additional evidence proposed by SCANP would add anything of significance to the record in this proceeding.

In connection with the need for power issue, it should also be noted that the State of Washington has found that the Skagit Project will be needed. State of Washington site certification proceeding findings of fact 69-90, pp. 50-62, Exh. 84; see also letter dated December 12, 1978 from State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to Chairman Deale. See Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1) , ALAB-502, 8 NRC (October 19, 1978), slip op. 4-8.

5. Status The need for power issue is ripe for decision by the Board with no need for further evidentiary hearing.5 H. Cost-Benefit Analysis

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention G:

The Applicant and the Staff have not prepared an adequate cost-benefit analysis for the Project.

b. SCANP Contention J 15:

The cost benefit analysis is grossly inadequate and involves assumptions designed to bias the conclusion in favor of the plant. The assumed capacity factor of 75% is far too high, in view of present experience with operating reactors. Many 5Notwithstanding this, pursuant to the McGuire rule (Duke Power Co., William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625-26, (1973) , Applicants will furnish, as they have in prior years, their updated forecasts of loads and resources--the forecasts that will be used in preparing the 1979 West Group Forecast--to the Board and the parties as soon as the necessary revised tables can be prepared in a form comparable to those used for the 1978 forecasts transmitted to the Board and parties by our letter of December 30, 1977.

direct and indirect social, economic and environmental costs are completely ignored, and no attempt is made to quantify such costs, although the methodology exists to do so. The effect of accidents, including a major release accident, is complctely ignored in the cost benefit analysis.

There is no assessment of present and potential recreation value of the area impacted, and no attempt to quantify such value. The benefits to be derived from the plant have been overstated, and the costs associated with it have been understated. It does not reflect the opportunity cost of the investment proposed.

c, FOB /CFSP Contention 8:

That neither the Applicants nor the Staff have done an adequate cost-benefit analysis in the following respects:

a. Applicants have understated aggregate capital costs of the facility by failing to allow for time lapses between capital outlays and initial commercial operations.

b. Applicants have failed to adequately describe capital costs of the facility by failing to schedule capital outlays.

c. Applicants have overstated the useful life of the facility by overestimating the availability of slightly enriched uranium as a fuel, and thus have underestimated the cost of electricity generated at the facility.

2. Applicant Evidence

a. Environmental Report, Chapters 8 and 11 and Supplement II, Table 1.

b. Testimony of Ferguson - cost of power from Skagit Proj ect. Tr. 4003-4071.

c. Testimony of Ferguson, Sonstelie, Jaye and Koppe -

updated estimate of cost of power from Skagit Project FOB /CFSP contention (8), nuclear fuel cycle costs, uranium availability and capacity f actor.

Tr. 6279-6336, 6362-6551.

3. Staff Evidence

a. FES, Chapter 10.

b. Final Supplement to FES, Chapter 10.

c. Testimony of Leech and Conner - capacity factor.

Tr. 4689-4705.

d. Testimony of Patterson - uranium availaoility. Tr.

7187-7314.

4. Status We understand that the Staff intends to offer a final update of its cost-benefit analysis following presentation of its testimony on geology and seismology. While Applicants plan no further presentation of a cost-benefit analysis, it should be noted that an updated cost estimate for the Project will be presented as part of Applicants' evidence on the issue of financial qualifications.

I. Federal Water Pollution Control Act

1. Contentions None.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed finding 92, pp. 28, 29.

b. Staff's proposed finding 12, p. 7.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. FWPCA Section 401 certificate issued by Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council.

Exhibit 57; Tr. 4908-4910; Exhibits 83-85, Tr. NFP 1755-1765.

4. Status This subject is presently ripe for decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

K. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

1. Contentienc SCANP Contention I:

Intervenors contend that to permit the project to proceed would be contrary to the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The DEIS completely ignores the fact that the Skagit has been designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for special protection and preservation, and it makes no attempt to relate the impact of the project, including modifications to the river bank and bed, and riprapping, to the requirements and policies established by Congress and administering agencies under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It further f ails to discuss and deal with the special significance of the Skagit as a wild and scenic river.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 266-267, pp. 116-117.

b. Staff's proposed findings 155, p. 97.

3. Applicant Evidence Testimony of Peterson, Mikels, Anderson, and Cassidy -

description of measures taken by Applicants to comply with the mitigation requirements prescribed in Assistant Secretary Cutler's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination of April 11, 1978. Tr. 10, 632-716; 10,728-967.

4. Staff Evidence

a. Final Supplement to FES

b. Testimony of Leech, Dvorak, Parker, Winters, Hesseldahl and Henley - SCANP Contention I and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Tr. 7760-8129.

5. Intervenor Eiidence

a. Testimony of Sweeney - aesthetics and secondary impacts. Tr. 8131-93.

b. Testimony of Brubaker - final supplement, including power plant impacts on the fisheries value of the Skagit River. Tr. 8209-8324.

6. Status SCANP Contention I raises both a question of law (first sentence of contention) and a question of fact (remainder of contention). The question of fact, i.e.,

whether the DEIS completely ignores the fact that the Skagit has been designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, etc., is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

The question of law, i.e., whether to permit the Project to proceed would be contrary to the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, is a question for decision by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, not by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 16 USC 1278. This decision was issued on April 11, 1978 by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Cutler. Letter of April 11, 1978 from Cutler to Gossick (NRC). Assistant Secretary Cutler determined that the Commission could not license the Skagit Project so long as the Skagit River remained a

" study" river under the Act. Cutler decision, p. 10.

However, he also determined that if Congress were to designate the Skagit River above the Sedro Woolley pipeline crossing as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the Commission could license the Skagit Project if certain mitigating measures were applied to the riprap, Ranney Collectors and fish hatchery. Id.

The legislation referred to by Assistant Secretary Cutler has been adopted. National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.95-625, S 703, 92 Stat. 3467, 3522. The mitigating measures proposed by Applicants have been submitted to Assistant Secretary Cutler, and are under review by him. Letter dated June 5, 1978 from Voss A. Mcore (NRC) to Cutler; Applicants' letter of May 22, 1978 to William H. Regan (NRC) .

d SITE SUITABILITY A. Geography and Demography

1. Contentions There are no contentions on these subjects.

However, in a motion dated December 3, 1975, SCP~m asked that the record be supplemented regarding the potential development of the Northern State Hospital f acilities, located about 4 miles from the plant site. The Board requested further factual presentations on this matter (Tr. 4747) and the record was subsequently supple-mented. PSAR, Appendix 2N, Exh. 115.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 8-18, pp. 5-11.

b. Staff's proposed findings 57-63, pp. 42-46.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. PSAR, S 2.1 and Appendix 2N. Exhibit 115.

b. Environmental Report, S 2.2.

c. Testimony of Myers and panel - geography and demography. Tr. 728-731, 774-778, 786-795.

4. Staff Evidence

a. Site Suitability Report. Follows Tr. 1888, pp.

2-4; Tr. 1896-1897.

b. FES, S 2.2.

5. Status ~

This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

B. Nearby Industrial, Military and Transportation Facilities.

1. Contentions There are no contentions on these subjects. However, SCANP filed a motion on December 3, 1975 asserting that the PSAR statement that "there are no mi itary air routes within 20 miles of the plant site" was incorrect. Applicants in their response of December 15, 1975 to SCANP's motion, agreed that this statement was incorrect and undertook to provide current, corrected information on military air routes. The Board's response to SCANP's motion was to call for evidentiary presentation upon the matter in question. Tr. 4747.

Such presentations were made and are listed below.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 19-23, pp. 11-13.

b. Staff's proposed findings 64-69, pp. 46-48.

3. Applicants' Evidence

a. Testimony of Myers and Starke - nearby inoectrial, military and transportation facilities. Folime" Tr. 728, pp. 6-8.

b. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, S 2.2.

Exh. 115.

c. Testimony of Cobb - military air routes from Whidbey Naval Air Station. Tr. 5141-5218.

d. Testimony of Starke - explanation of incorrect statement in PSAR re military air routes. Tr.

5293-5306.

4. Staff Evidence

a. Site Suitability Report, follows Tr. 1888, pp. 4-7; Tr. 1898

b. Testimony of Read - military aviation hazards. Tr.

5537-5592.

c. Affidavit of Read - military aviation. Follows Tr.

8325.

5. Status of Record This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

C. Geology and Seismology

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention H:

Based on information which has come to the attention of intervenor SCANP since the time when the petition to intervene was passed upon, intervenor now contends that the seismic characteristics of the site make it unsuitable for the Project because the plant site is within approximately three miles of an active known fault and it would be impossible, or impracticable, to design the plant to meet the appropriate safety criteria in view of new seismic evidence which came to intervenors attention in early March 1975.

b. SCANP Contention J 2:

The DEIS ignores the opposing scientific views of the Independent Consultant retained by the TPPSEC to evaluate the project.

(The reference is to views on seismology expressed by a consultant to TPPSEC. Tr. 39, 40.)

c. SCANP Contention J 5:

The DEIS contains insufficient information concerning seismology, and unfavorable seismological information known to the NRC has been excluded from the DEIS. The DEIS should have included the seismic information which is partially contained in the PSAR, and which is available from TPPSEC.

d. SCANP PSAR Contention 1(a) :

The plants as designed do not comply with applicable regulations, guidelines and design principals since:

a. The design basis carthquake is too low.

2. Board Requests

a. Board request for interpretation of Earth Resources Technical Satellite (ERTS) imagery. Tr. 31-32.

b. Board request for seismic reflection data in the Strait of Georgia and data on small earthquakes in Canada. Tr. 3974.

c. Board request for further investigation cf historical accounts ra: . ding the 1872 eacthquake.

Tr. 3974-3975.

3. Proposed Findings The parties have not proposed any findings of fact on the subjects of geology and seismology because additional evidence on these subjects will be presented. However, Applicants filed, on February 27, 1978, a memorandum regarding geology and seismology, similar in form and content to proposed findings. The purpose of that memorandum was to provide a composite picture of the evidence on geologic and seisniologic matters in relation to the Skagit site. The memorandum was based upon evidence in the record and in the PSAR as of that time and upon reports by the Staff and its consultant, the USGS, which had been distributed and were later admitted into evidence during the hearings in March 1978.

4. Applicant Evidence

a. Testimony of Adair, Coombs, Finnegan and Leslie -

volcanic hazards and steam activity at Mount Baker. Tr. 859-922, 931-970; Exhibit 20 (USGS Assessment of volcanic hazards from Mount Baker).

b. Testimony of Ivey - interpretation of ERTS imagery for northwestern Washington and southern British Columbia. Tr. 1314-1342, 1686-1712. Exh. 26 (Report by Mr. Ivey).

c. Testimony of Adair, Bolt, Coombs, Dobrin and Miller

- summary of Applicants' investigations, geologic and seismologic conditions of the site and vicinity, differences in regional tectonics and small earthquakes in the Skagit valley. Tr.

835-858, 971-1141, 1171-1313, 1635-1685, 1713-1863, 3773-3896.

d. Testimony of Adair, Coombs and Miller - rebuttal of postulated Strait of Georgia lineament / fault. Tr.

3897-3971.

e. Testimony of Adair and Dobrin - results of investigations performed since prior hearings, Devils Mountain fault zone, expected location of future large earthquakes, off-shore seismic reflection data, additional investigations regarding 1872 earthquake, and small earthquake data from Canada. Tr. 5636-5811.

f. Testimony of Bolt - assessment of SSE acceleration for two maximum earthquakes postulated by the USGS. Tr. 8554-8700.

g. Testimony of Adair and Miller - summary of PSAR amendments since prior hearing, additional reports on 1872 earthquake and Central Washington seismicity,, geologic mapping in the plant site area, geophysical data encerning the Devils Mountain fault zone, topographic features in the Bacon Creek drainage near the Straight Creek Fault. Tr. 8707-8947.

h. Testimony of Dobrin - geophysical data regarding the Devils Mountain fault zone. Tr. 9284-9513.

i. Testimony of Adair, Crosby and Talmage - coring and logging procedures, geologic mapping and description of on-going field investigations. Tr.

11,241-11,416.

j. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, S 2.5. Exhs.

115, 130.

5. Staff

a. Testimony of Lefevre and Stepp - geologic and seismologic suitability of plant site. Tr.

1875-2062, 2181-2285.

b. Testimony of Brackman, Devine, Hays, Kelleher, Lefevre, Morris, Stepp, Wastler, and Whetten - NRC and USGS reviews of geology and seismology. Tr.

8960-9283, 9513-!'640, 9662-10,248.

6. SCANP Evidence

a. Testimony of Cheney - review of saology and seismology section of PSAR. Tr. 1344 _406.

b. Testimony of Blunden - review of bored hole logging. Tr. 11,035-11,235; Exh. 171.

c. Testimony of Cheney - need for geological mapping.

Tr. 111,417-11,480.

7. Other Evidence

a. Testimony of Crandell - USGS volcanic hazards project and steam activity at Mount Baker. Tr.

1412-1515.

b. Testimony of Rasmussen - seismological evaluation done for state siting agency. Tr. 1522-1630.

c. Testimony of Crosson - seismic network and seismicity of western Washington. Tr. 2432-2533.

d. Testimony of Smith - western Washington seismicity, small earthquakes in Skagit Valley and peak ground acceleration expected at site. Tr. 2544-2604.

8. Status In June 1978, Applicants received requests from the Staff for additional geologic and geophysical information. These requests concerned interpretations of the tectonic history and struc*ure south and west of the proposed Skagit site, partict s.rly in the Gilligan Creek and Day Creek areas. Applicants' investigations are nearly completed and a report is being prepared.

Applicant will present evidence on these investigations at the appropriate evidentiary session and it is expected that the Staff will also make a further presentation.

D. Suitability for Development of Evacuation Plan

1. Contentions

a. SCANP Contention E:

The site is unsuitable for the development of an evacuation plan since the physical limitations of the -ite make any evacuation plan ineffective.

2. Proposed Findings

a. Applicants' proposed findings 73-84, pp. 20-26.

b. Staff's proposed findings 61, 145-152, pp. 44-45, 91-95.

3. Applicant Evidence

a. PSAR, S 13.3. Exh. 60.

b. Testimony of MacIsaac - LPZ evacuation. Tr.

2290-2431.

c. Testimony of Myers - LPZ evacuation. Tr. 735-737, 774-818.

4. Staff Evidence

a. Testimony of Peltier - development of evacuation plan. Tr. 1890-1902.

b. Testimony of Houston - emergency evacuation planning. Tr. 3622-3881.

c. Site Suitability Report. Follows Tr. 1838, pp. 3, 4.

5. SCANP Evidence a- Testimony of Smiley - evacuation of LPZ. Tr.

4183-4237.

6. Status This subject is presently ripe for Board decision with no need for further evidentiary hearing.

RAPIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

1. Contentions

a. SCANP PSAR Contention 2:

The emergency evacuation plan is not adequate.

b. SCANP PSAR Contention 3:

The Applicant is not financially qualified to construct and operate the Project.6

c. FOB /CFSP Contentions (9) and (10):

(9) That Applicants are not financially qualified to construct the proposed facility.

(10) That the Commission Staff has not completed its review of the Applicants' financial ability, and it is therefore premature to conclude that the Applicants are financially able to construct the proposed facility,

d. SCANP PSAR Contention 1(a) :

The plants as designed do not comply with applicable regulations, guidelines and design principles since:

a. The design basis earthquake is too low.

2. Board Requests Board request for information on the seismic design of the facility. Tr. 10,451-10,456.

3. Status No evidantiary hearings have been held on the safety issues, except that, at the request of the Bor d (Tr .

2025), the safety aspects of geology and seistalogy, including the design basis earthquake conten;2on, have been addressed in conjunction with the site suitability aspects of geology and seismology. The evidence on 6SCANP initially presented its contention K but restated that contention in the form of its PSAR Contention 3. Tr. 42-43.

E geology and seismology has previously been summarized, supra.

Dated: January 9, 1979.

PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & WILLIAMS By A F. Theodore Thomsen B M Dckglas S. Little Cf Attorneys for Applicants 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Of Counsel:

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036