ML19259B373

Intervenor Tribes' Response to ASLB 781222 Order for Conference.Presents Issues & Contentions Which Require Further Evidentiary Consideration Before ASLB Decision Is Made

ML19259B373
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	01/11/1979
From:	Busch R, Means D EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES, MEANS, DONALD S.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7902090082
Download: ML19259B373 (12)

Text

-m .

.: 9r~,:

a

'P*O EUllEIC OGJU. ,.. . .

% , r.,[< ,

C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

/k v 3D Y. 's 1) i s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  %

q C*e

'l as gf5O g [f/

a BEFORE TIiE AT9IC SAF"{. AND LICENSING BOARD /

In the Matter of )

• % TIM

)

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ) DCCKET NOS. 50-522 et al. ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) January 11, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )

)

INTERVENOR TRIBES' RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 22, 1978, ORDER FOR CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION The Licensing Board Order for Conference, requiring a response by January ll, was not received by counsel for Inter-venor Tribes until earlier in the month.

Accordingly, counsel has made the best use of the limited time available in attempt-ing to review the record, as required in the Order. Counsel have traveled to Sedro Woolley and made a limited review of the Record, during library hours, and have received from Applicants, on January 5, copies of the ER and PSAR.

Because of the limited time available to respond, and because Applicants' appeal is pending with contentions by Applicant and Staff which would limit or eliminate Intervenors' participation, the Tribes have made what they consider to be a reasonable investment in time and resources prior to the January 11 deadline.

-l-790209 C 0 8'2

To avoid redundarcy, this Response deals only with those issues concerning which the Tribes intervened. The Tribes reserve the right to such additions to this Response, particu-larly with respect to citations to the record, as may appear appropriate after the January 11 deadline.

ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS I. ISSUES PRESENTLY RIPE FOR BOARD DECISION WITH NO NEED FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

With respect to the concerns of the Intervenor Tribes, there are no issues in this category.

II. ISSUES ON WHICH FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUIRED BEFORE BOARD DECISION IS APPROPRIATE.

A. Does Applicants' Proposal Pose Risks to the Treaty Indian Fishery?

1. Operation of the Ranney Collector System the Tribes contend that backflushing of and intro-duction of biocide into Rm.nney Wells and laterals may result in adverse impacts on juvenile salmonids at the stream / ground water interface; that the area of influence in the river bed needs to be defined in order to meet concerns raised by the State Fisheries biologist in TPPSEC hearings that burrowing salmon alevins may be damaged by infiltration velocities and silta tion; that there exists a possibility, as to which insuf-ficient evidence has been introduced, that ground water tributary to the collector fields may contribute to make-up water in unacceptable amounts; that operation of Ranney Collectors may induce infiltration from the beds of streams 2-

a and sicughs which support salmon migration, spawning, incuba-tion and rearing, again without sufficier- e.udence hacing been introduced; that introduction of biocides a t Ranney Collectors may exceed present estimates due to bacterial growth; and that the movement of the Skagit River in its alluvium, especially at flood stage, may interfere with mini-mal function of the cooling water intake system. In connec-tion with these contentions, Petitioners are also concerned that the alternative of a surface water diversion, at present abandoned by Applicants, may be reintroduced should Ranney Collectors prove insufficient. The " coercive" effect of inves tment into nuclear plants and reliance on those plants in preference to other energy alternatives would seem to militate in favor of whatever intake systems work, regardless of whether they are presently unacceptable.

Relevant discussion of Ranney Collector function and impacts is contained in the FES at pages 3-7, 5-2 and 5-19; in the FSFES at pages 4-1 through 4-7; in the ER at pages 3.3-1 and 5.1-1; in " Applicant's Memorandum Regarding Quality of Make-up Water to be Supplied by Ranney Collectorz." dated December 23, 1977; in the Affidavit of Frederick C. Mikels attached thereto; in the Affidavit of Keith E. Anderson attached thereto; in a document entitled " Final Report on Hydrogeological Survey for Bechtel Power Corporation..."

(citation to be supplied when available) ; in prefile testimony of Frederick C. Mikels dated February 22, 1978 and in a a

document entitled " Hydrologic Engineering Issues.,," (further citation to be supplied); in the Memorandum of January 24, 1974 from W. M. Borland to Bechtel concerning channel stability (further citation to be supplied); in a table of water quality data submitted to the NRC staff covering the period December 16, 1974 through June 23, 1975 (citation to be supplied); and in other relevant documents and exhibits appended to the above-cited materials.

2. Warm Water Hatchery The Tribes contend that the hatchery will be unacceptable because of interspecific interaction, especially with regard to predation of enhanced smolts on native fry; that hatchery stocks may compete too successfully with valuable natural stocks; that scheduling of releases to meet various hatchery constraints as well as management objectives may result in unacceptable mortality to enhance stocks; that mixed stock harvest problems may result in unacceptable pressure on native runs, and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of Skagit nacive stocks in response to fishing pressures, and inefficient use of the hatchery harvest; that fisheries investment in a warm water hatchery introduces a new element of risk because of the possibility of shutdown and other operational problems interfering with the orderly rearing and release of hatchery stocks; that introduction of hatchery stocks into the lower river and marine environment will result in manipulation of river stocks to fishing sites too low cn the river for treaty fishing access; that hatchery operation will introduce unacceptable le/els of nutrients and other wastes into the Skagit; and that the possibility of hatchery stocks concentrating harmful substances in the food chain for fish, eagles and man has not been satisfactorily dealt with.

As with the Tribes ' other contention with respect to the fisheries, many of the questions associated witl. hatchery operation have not been discussed in any meaningful way in the Record. The hatchery is generally described in FES at page 3-9, The discharge of fish food, feces and remains is dis-cussed in the FES at 5-19. Further discussion of the hatchery is found in the ER at 3.3-2 and in Appendix P. To the time that this document is being prepared, Intervenor Tribes are unable to find, in materials prepared by Applicant or Staff, a discussion of predation, competition and mixed stock prob-lems. When those citations are located, they will be supplied to the Board.

3. Hot Water Diffuser The Tribes contend that on the present state of the record the diffuser poses an unacceptable risk to fish popu-lations in the river due to lethal and sublethal effects, somatic and otherwise, attributable to chemical and thermal characteristics of the effluent. These effects must be evaluated alone, and in co..bination. For example, chlorides are known to be more to:.ic to salmonida with lucrease in heat. retitioners contend that there is insufficient evidence concerning fish populations at the diffuser site, concerning turbulence at the river bottom from stream bed sediments, diffuser design and diffuser jets, concerning stream velocities throughout the cross section at the dif fuser site, concerning thermal attraction for juvenile and adult salmonids during certain temperature conditions, concerning nutrient attraction, concerning concentration of harmful substances in the down-stream benthic community and the food chain, concerning the rmal shock, concerning chemical and thermal interference with migra-tion and timing of spawning activities, concerning exposure of adult salmon waiting to spawn in the main river downstream, concerning' predation of salmon fry delayed at the thermal plume because of attraction, concerning lethal times and con-centrations for juvenile salmonids at various stages of develop-ment, specifically concerning somatic effects on steelhead and Coho smolts able to maintain themselves in the river current at the mixing zone, concerning methods of monitoring and shut-down designed to prevent unexpected excesses of heat and toxins, and concerning synergistic effects of diffuser discharge in combination with construction impacts, accidental releases of radiation and other impacts attributable to plant construction and operation. Petitioners are alarmed by the assumption, based on inadequate sampling methods, that juvenile salmon only migrate at the river edge; by the suggestion that juvenile salmon will be attracted to the plume at certain periods; by the lack of detailed and specific information concerning turbulence and velocities throughout various cross-sections, correlating to toxic levels at those cross-sections; and by the complete lack of information concerning sublethal effects of heat toxins, etc.

The diffuser is discussed in a general way in the FES at page 3-7, regarding discharge at 3-21 and 3-22, regarding thermal characteristics at 5-4 through 5-8 and regarding impacts at 5-19, 5-20 and 10-2; in the FSFES with regard to fisheries impacts and other matters at pages 4-13 through 4-19; in the ER at pages 3.4-4 through 3.4-5 and 5.1-1 through 5.1-7.

Monitoring is also discussed in the ER at page 6.2-1 through

6. 2-25 plus attachments. There may be other citations to the diffuser which Petitioners will provide as they are located.

One of the difficulties the Tribes have experienced is the scattering of information, often conclusory in nature, through-out a voluminous record with a complex system of cross refer-encing. Testimony in the transcript which is helpful appears at 8049, et seq. and at 356A.

4. Construction Impacts from Riprap Improvement The Tribes contend that there has not been sufficient study as to the impacts on spawning gravels and migration pathways of improvement to existing riprap, as allowed in the Department of Agr culture's Section 7(b) Determination.

There is general discu:sion in the record to the effect that riprap will be ir.'p rove d ; to the present tir.e ccumsel have not located discussion of the specific areas of improve-ment, scope of improvement and possible adverse effects on salmon habitat.

5. On-site Construction Impacts The Tribes contend that there is inadequate information in the record concerning special problems of siltation in the Bacus Hill area; that evidence of extreme siltation has not been adequately evaluated and presented in the record; that there is not suf ficient hydrologic data con-cerning retention and runoff in a modified stream shed during the worst possible storm event; that the efficiency of still-ing basins during probable maximum floods in the drainage has not been a'dequately addressed; that the watershed draining into the site area is insuffiently mapped; and that the integrity of storage structures at the site during periods of probable maximum discharge needs to be computed with refer-ence to acceptable safety factors and with reference to the impact downstream of structural failure.

Siltation is discussed in the FES at page 4-8 and in the ER at pages 4.1-10 through 4.1-12; in the FSFES at 4-32 and perhaps in reference to construction plans for which citations will be supplied as they are located.

An additional contention by the Tribes with respect to construction impacts are that losses in Wiseman Creek presently quantified as trival are not trivial with reference to their impacts on Indian fishera and their householcc.

The latter concern finds documentation in the FES at page 4-8.

6. Containment Vessel Transportation The Tribes contend that there is insufficient evidence in the record concerning the impacts of stream improvements downstream from the plant site upon salmon pop-ulations; that containment vessel transportation may cause unacceptable interference with Indian fishing activities; that enhancement to stream flows may result in interference with salmon migration and with Indian fishing activities; that construction of a barge slip may result in unacceptable siltation; that the existence of a barge slip may result in harboring. predator problems due to interspecific interaction between slackwater predator fish and juvenile salmonids; that use of a barge slip as a recreational fishing site may result in unacceptable sport pressure upon Tribal fishing activities in the immediate area; that construction of overland transporta-tion facilities from the barge slip to the site has not been adequately evaluated with respect to salmon streams in the area; that out-migrating Coho from Hansen Creek may suf fer unacceptable predation due to the barge slip; that the loca-tion, operation and post-construction use of the barge slip may interfere wi th the Indian access to usual and accustomed fishing sites; and that the synergistic effect of the barge slips and the diffuser in the irmediate .icin.ty has not been fully definea.

Containment vessel transportatior is discussed in a docu-ment titled " Delivery of the Skagit Reactor Pressure Vessel Equipment for Puget Sound Power and Light Company," March, 1978.

Thus, discussion of questions relating to barge transportation in the various environmental documents prepared previously, and in the transcript, is necessarily somewhat limited. There is some discussion in the FSFES at pages 4-20 through 4-23.

The Tribes will provide further citations as they become apparent.

III. ISSUES ON NHICH NO EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HELD.

A. Health Effects of Low Leval Ionizing Radiation

1. Genetic Isolation The Tribes contend that there has been no evidence taken, and no assessment of risk haJ, for " normal" a. d for

" accidental" releases upon a genetically isolated Irdian Community. Thus evaluation of tne risks inherent in plant operation is incomplete.

The Tribes are not aware that there is any evidence in the record in this proceeding concerning this issue.

2. Susceptibility of Indian Population The Tribes contend that there is no evid mce presently in the record concerning relevant health f actors unique to the Indian community which may render individual Indian people more susceptible to health effects from normal and accidental releases.

The matter is not discussed, as far as the Tribes are aware, in the record.

3. Lack of Baseline Health Data and Sophisticated Monitoring Systems The Tribes contend that there is insufficient baseline cata available to ellow the implementation of effective health monitoring systems ana that health monitor-ing systems proposed are not sufficiently sophisticated to insure prevention or other remedial measuros with respect to health effects on the Indian community.

Again, Petitioners are not aware of any evidence in the record concerning this issue.

B. Socio' economic Impacts The Tribes contend that they constitute unique communities with respect to non-radiological health factors, cultural values, social customs and economic characteristics; and that the record is de'.'oid of evidence concerning the impacts of plant siting upon their communities.

Mentions of Indian impact in the record are amazingly rare. In the discussion of fisheries impacts in the FES, cited previously, there is a statement to the effect that only Indians fish commercially in the plant area. In the hearing transcript at 2698, the court asked the Applicants '

counse: /h e the t Inci_ a 1

. ater richts z=cu i c 1. u l. , ud ccuc,sel repl: 2d fishi.3 ri;5tc, b 1: .: : atcr rights co re an issue. At about that location, there is discussion of Indians having been contacted, an assertion which puzzles the Tribes, since no record of any meaningful initiative by Staff or Applicants can be found.

CONCLUSION More detail concerning these various contentions will be found in the Tribes' Brief in Support of Intervention, Reply to Answers of Staff and Applicants, Response to the Licensina Board's September Requests and Brief in Opposition to Appli-cants' Appeal. Should the Licensing Board request that these contentions be presented in a different format, the Intervenor Tribes will gladly comply. The Tribes reserve the right to do so and to make additions or corrections to these contentions, as time permits.

Busted u)ba;e8G /w& %f !au it,iM9 ' D a t'e Russell W. Busch Q l '

Attorney for Upper Skagit and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe 520 Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 W j Jhif h yY) wa ~

l ll, l N:

Donald S. Means d 0 D a't e /

Attorney for Swinomish Tribal Ccr.munity Swinomich Tribal Cornunity Box 277 LaConner, Washington 93257