ML20062D520
| ML20062D520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1982 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208060112 | |
| Download: ML20062D520 (20) | |
Text
~
cj _
i 08/05/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, ET _AL.
) STN 50-523
)
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power )
Project, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE I. INTRODUCTION On May 5,1982, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CP,ITFC) filed an untimely Petition to Intervene along with a Supplement to Petition to Intervene listing the contentions it wished to litigate.
On May 19, 1982 and May 25, 1982, the Applicant and the NRC Staff, respectively, submitted their responses to the untimely petition and contentions.1I Both Applicant and Staff acknowledged that CRITFC met l
l the " interest" and " specific aspect" requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a). However, Applicant objected to the CRITFC petition on grounds of untimeliness whereas the Staff concluded that the balance of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714(a)(1) weighed in favor of l
1/ The NRC Staff inadvertently neglected to serve a copy of its i j response on CRITFC. This service was completed on June 9, 1982. l
/ G OEM )
0208060112 820005
$DR ADO G 0 %O0 Certified By [ )
YCf _. -
d'
. CRITFC being permitted to intervene in this proceeding. Both Applicant and Staff, however, objected to certain specific contentions submitted by CRITFC in its Supplement to its Petition to Intervene.2_/
On July 2, 1982, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order concerning CRITFC's late-filed petition to intervene. The Board con-cluded that CRITFC's petition was technically deficient in that the requisite authorization from CRITFC's members was lacking and that the petition was not properly signed. The Board further noted that it would rule on the admissibility of CRITFC's contentions after the deficiencies were corrected and the late filing question resolved.
On July 16, 1982, CRITFC submitted its response to the Board's July 2, 1982 Memorandum and Order. Since the NRC Staff did not identify or object to any technical deficiencies in the execution of CRITFC's original petition to intervene, we do not take any position as to whether the Board-noted deficiencies have been cured by CRITFC's response.
In addition, CRITFC submitted a " Motion for Admission of Second Supplement to Petition to Intervene" on July 16, 1982 (Motion). In this Motion, CRITFC again listed and renumbered the contentions it wishes to litigate, along with specific and additional bases for the contentions.
Particularly, it submitted additional bases to support its initial
-2/ CRITFC's five contentions largely incorporated by reference previous contentions filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) or the National Wildlife Federation /0regon Environmental Council (NFW/0EC). CRITFC's Contention 4 asserted supplemental issues concerning aquatic impacts which were not addressed in the con-tentions submitted by NRDC or NFW/0EC. These supplemental issues were objected to by both Applicant and Staff because they lacked basis'and specificity.
E y.
. contention (Contention No. 4 in the May 5, 1982' Supplement) concerning the impact of the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project (S/HNP) on Columbia River fish resources and the potential infringement on Indian treaty rights. This contention as originally submitted was objected to by both the Applicant and the Staff because it lacked basis and specificity.
Accordingly, CRITFC has attemnted to cure the noted deficiencies in this contention by moving the Board to admit the amended contentions as set forth in the Second Supplement. The Staff recognizes that the Board has yet to rule on the admissibility of CRITFC's initial late-filed petition to intervene. Although the Commission's Rules of Practice do not ex-plicitly provide an opportunity for an untimely petitioner to amend its contentions as a matter of right, a fair procedure should be established to give proponents of a contention a chance to respond to objections (Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521, 524-25 (1979)) or to cure procedural or pleading defects (Virginia Electric & rower Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-146, 6 NRC 631 (1973)). Given the nature of CRITFC's interest, the rights sought to be protected, the contentions asserted, and the early stage of this proceeding, we believe that fundamental fairness suggests that CRITFC should be given an opportunity to respond to the objections to its initial contentions. Of course, the right to assert untimely contentions and the right to respond to objections to them has to be founded on a showing of " good cause" and a favorable weighing of the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1).
Accordingly, the following Staff response will first discuss the untimeliness aspects of this Motion and then discuss whether the amended
4.
contentions meet the " basis and specificity" requirements of 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.714(b) for admissible contentions. Finally, the Staff will coment upon the question of consolidation of parties.
II. DISCUSSION A. Untimeliness The Staff considered the untimeliness aspects of CRITFC's inter-vention attempt in our response to CRITFC's May 5, 1982 petition to intervene. We analyzed the " good cause" and other untimeliness factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 P. 714(a)(1) and concluded that even though CRITFC had not established the requisite " good cause" for its tardy petition, consideration of the other factors weighed in favor of accepting its intervention petition at this early stage of the proceeding. See NRC Staff Response of May 25, 1982, supra at 10-14.
Accordingly, the Staff believes that consideration of the untimeliness factors and fundamental fairness should allow CRITFC to respond to objections to its initial contentions.
However, the introduction of new contentions in this Second Supplement rests on a different footing. They must find their foundation on a new showing of " good cause" or a favorable weighing of the other
. factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1).3_/ This being so, the untimeliness factors must be considered anew. See also Tr. 68.
With respect to Contention 4, CRITFC asserts as good cause that it was unaware of the recent decision in Natural Resources Defense Council
- v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission, No. 74-1586 (D.C. Cir.
April 27, 1982) when it filed its original contention on waste disposal.
Although the amended contention arguably falls within the scope of the original contention, we further believe that the recent decision in NRDC
- v. NRC, supra, gives CRITFC good cause to amend its original contention on waste storage to assert inadequacies in the NRC's analysis of the environmental impacts of long-term waste disposal. As good cause for Contention 5, CRITFC asserts that (1) it did not receive a copy of the Staff's 5/HNP DEIS until June 18,1982, and (2) it was not familiar with the pleading requirements of " basis" and " specificity." Motion, pp. 34-35. The Staff submits that these assertions of good cause are not sufficient to justify an untimely filing. The Staff's S/HNP DEIS has been available to the public since April 1982, and the Applicant's
-3/ Arguably all the bases advanced with respect to new Contention 5 concerning impact on Columbia River fish resources are generally within the scope of the bases originally asserted for old Contention 4. However, the Staff submits that Contention 5(B)
(inadequate discussion of local currents and turbulence), 5(J)
(economic loss to treaty fisheries), 5(K) (impacts from release of bottom sediments during construction activities), 5(L) (impacts associated with water withdrawals), 5(M) (construction impact control program), 5(N) (bioconcentration), 5(0) (water quality ;
monitoring program), 5(P) (impacts from a possible accident), and 5(Q) (impingment and entrainment impacts) are outside the scope of the subject matter in the originally submitted contention. In addition, CRITFC has amended Contention 4 (originally Contention 5) l to include consideration of Table S-3. l 1
5/HNP-ASC/ER has been available since December 1981. CRITFC should have availed itself of either of these documents to fonnulate contentions. In addition, it .is Staff's understanding that one of CRITFC's members, the Yakima Indian Nation, received the above documents upon publication. In short, if CRITFC was serious about protecting its members' interests, it should have and could have obtained the necessary documents to pursue intervention in a timely manner. Its inadvertence in either obtaining the necessary documents or becoming familiar with the requisite pleading requirements cannot be excused at this late date particularly when other parties to this proceeding have been diligent in protecting their interests. In sum, the Staff submits that CRITFC has established good cause for its late amended Contention 4 but has not established good cause for its late amended Contention 5.
The Staff noted in its aforementioned May 25, 1982 response (p. 12) that even though good cause has not been demonstrated or established, a late-filed contention can still be considered and admitted if the other four factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) weigh in favor of admission, particularly if the orderly and timely conduct of this pro-ceeding is not jeopardized.
With respect to these factors, CRITFC asserts that (1) this pro-ceeding is the only available means to protect its interests on these issues, (2) the expertise of its staff and its ability to obtain outside experts will insure that the record is fully developed, (3) existing i
environmental and public interest groups will not adequately represent unique tribal rights, and (4) its participation will neither broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. Motion, pp. 32-37. For the reasons
. advanced by the Staff in our May 25, 1982 response, supra at p. 13, we believe that consideration of the above-listed factors must weigh in favor of allowing CRITFC to assert these untimely contentions at this juncture in the proceeding. The Staff would note, however, that the hearings before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Counsel (EFSEC) involving the application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and for a Section 401 certification under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, were completed on June 2, 1982 and the application is awaiting EFSEC decision. The FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et_ seq., authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or delegated States (such as Washington) to impose effluent limitations on discharges and water quality monitoring conditions and FWPCA 5 511(c)(2) prohibits other Federal agencies from invoking NEPA as authority for setting different water quality limitations or requirements. Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702 (1978);
see also Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and NRC, 40 Fed.
Rg . 60015 (1975). Accordingly, EFSEC, through its FWPCA proceedings, has certifying authority with respect to effluent limitations and water quality monitoring conditions for S/HNP. CRITFC was a party in that proceeding.1/ Accordingly, contrary to CRITFC's assertion the FWPCA proceedings do represent another means whereby CRITFC has sought to, and can protect, its interests with respect to the water quality issues which
-4/ However, it is our understanding that CRITFC did not present any expert testimony or introduce any evidence.
arewithinthecertifyingauthorityofEFSEC.b Be that as it may, on balance the S.taff still concludes that CRITFC should be allowed to submit and intervene on water quality and fish resource contentions which are within the jurisdiction of this Board.
In sum, the Staff concludes that CRITFC has adequately established good cause for Contention 4 but not for Contention 5. Notwithstanding the absence of good cause for Contention 5, the Staff submits that the consideration of the other factors in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1) weighs in favor of allowing CRITFC to submit and intervene on these issues which are within the jurisdiction of this Board.
B. CRIFTC's Amended Contentions In this Motion, CRITFC has listed five (5) contentions it wishes to litigate. These contentions must meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) in order to be admitted as issues in controversy. See Staff Response of May 25, 1982, pp. 14-16, supra.
-5/ The identification and delineation of these issues in the context of NRC or EFSEC responsibility will be considered infra (Section II.B) in our discussion of the admissibility of the specific CRITFC contentions.
i
l l
. l l
l l
l
- 1. " Applicants Have Relied On An Inflated Calculation Of Demand l For Electrical Power; Reliable Regional Energy Forecasts Demonstrate No Need For The Skagit/Hanford Project" '
- 2. "There Are Cost-Effective, Environmentally Preferable Alterna-tives To The Project; The Environmental Report Is Inadequate ;
In Its Discussion Of Those Alternatives" These contentions are the same as submitted in CRITFC's initial petition to intervene and merely incorporate by-reference the con-tentions and bases submitted by NRDC. Staff does not object to these contentions and, in fact, the Board has accepted them as issues in controversy. See Board Memorandum and Order, dated July 6, 1982, pp. 1-2.
- 3. "The Applicant Has Used An Inaccurately Low Estimate On The Environmental And Financial Cost Of The Project In Its Benefit / Cost Ratio" This contention is the same as submitted by CRITFC in its initial petition to intervene. It incorporates by reference the contention and bases as set forth by NWF/0EC. The Staff has not objected to Contention 3. A.-D., as propounded by NWF/0EC, however, the Staff did object to Contention 3.E. See "NRC Staff Response to Amended Contentions of NWF/0EC," dated June 11, 1982, pp. 3-4. Subsequently, the Board accepted Contention 3.A.-D. but rejected 3.E. Board Memorandum and Order, dated July 6, 1982, p. 2. Accordingly, CRITFC should be allowed to intervene on Contention 3.A.-D. as admitted.
l l
i
- 4. "The Commission Should Not Issue Any Construction Permit Or Facility License For Skagit/Hanford Until It Has Assessed The Environmental Impacts of Temporary Waste Storage At The Project During The Life Of The License And Has Complied With The Requirements Of NRDC v. NRC, No. 74-1586 (D.C. Cir. April 27, 1982 F This contention has been amended by CRITFC (originally, Contention 5) and incorporates by reference the same contention submitted by NWF/0EC (Contention 5). The NRC Staff has previously dis-cussed the admissibility of this contention in response to the NWF/0EC submittal. See NRC Staff Response to Amended Contentions of NWF/0EC, dated June 11, 1982, pp. 8-10. The Board has previously rejected Contention 5.A. and deferred action on Contention 5.B. Memorandum and Order, dated July 6,1982, p. 3. Accordingly, CRITFC's Contention 5.A.
must be rejected and Contention 5.B. must be deferred.
- 5. "The Environmental Impacts Of The Proposed Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project On Columbia River Fish And Wildlife Resources Have Not Been Fully Assessed. Furthermore, En-vironmental Impacts Must Not Infringe Indian Treaty Rights" This contention has been amended by CRITFC (originally, Contention 4) which (a) incorporates by reference the same contention and bases as submitted by NWF/0EC (Contention 4), and (b) asserts additional bases (A through Q). With respect to NWF/0EC Contention 4, the Board has deferred acceptance of this contention without prejudice to raising it again upon publication of the S/HNP FES. See Board Memorandum and Order, dated July 6,1982, p. 3. Accordingly, the issue of the
~
impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of shifting hydro projects on the Columbia River to peaking should be rejected without
W prejudice to subsequent renewal. The acceptability of CRITFC Contentions 5(A) to (Q) will be discussed seriatim by the Staff.
A. Toxic effects of contaminants in Columbia River and project discharge. Thiscontentionassertsthat(1) arsenic,(2) barium, (3) cobalt, and (4) silver have not been described and analyzed to determine their toxicity to fish. The Staff submits that this contention meets the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(b) and, accordingly, has no objection to the admission of this contention.
B. Discharge plume and effects of local currents and turbulence.
This contention asserts that local currents and turbulence have not been adequately assessed to determine their impact on the size and shape of the discharge plume. The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention.
C. Control and monitoring of pH in cooling water system. The Staff submits that the control of cooling water pH and the subsequent discharge of effluent with pH limitations lies within the review and regulating authority of the State of Washington through its FWPCA proceeding. Limitations on pH will be a condition of the NPDES Permit.
l l These limitations must be accepted by the NRC and factored into the NEPA l
cost-benefit analysis. Carolina Power & Light Co. (H. B. Robinson, Unit l
No. 2), ALAB-569, 10 NRC 557, 561-62 (1979). Since this contention alleges that the Applicant will not have the ability to control the pH and comply with the NPDES limitations, it is outside the review and regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC and must be rejected.
D. Trace metals from corrosion of condensor tubes. This con-tention alleges that trace metals will be introduced into the cooling water system by corrosion of the condensor tubes and may subsequently have adverse impacts on aquatic environments. As basis, CRITFC alleges that the tubes will become corroded by decreases in pH and increases in chloride concentrations. Apparently CRITFC is contending that the addition of sulfuric acid in the cooling water system will result in heavy material losses through inadvertent exposure of the stainless steel heating coils. Motion at 11. However, CRITFC has not alleged how this phenomer.on will occur at S/HNP other than a bald speculative assertion that it might inadvertently happen. Since corrosion inhibitors will not be used in the cooling water system, the Staff submits that this contention is without basis and should be rejected.
E. Overestimation of fall chinook populations. This contention asserts that the ASC/ER and the DEIS do not adequately reflect the impact that S/HNP may have on efforts to rebuild the depressed fall chinook population of the Hanford Reach because they have overestimated the l~ population. Particularly, CRITFC challenges the DEIS estimate of l 34,062chinookspawningnearHanfordin1981(DEISTable4.1at4-51)5/
l whereas other data indicates a spawning population of 25,000. CRITFC concedes that data for other years are generally in agreement. Motion at 12. Staff does not understand the thrust of this contention given the concession that most of the data (1966 to 1981) is generally in 5_/ Mistakenly referred to as "31,062" by CRITFC. Motion at 12.
I 1
l
I
~
agreement. In addition, we fail to understand the overall thrust of the contention that S/HNP may have an impact on efforts to rebuild these populations because some data has been overestimated. Without a rational explanation of the nexus between the data on populations and the impact of S/HNP, we submit a concrete litigable concern has not been identified.
Accordingly, this contention must be rejected for lack of specificity.
F. Studies of juvenile salmon passing thr~ough plume. This contention apparently asserts that studies must be conducted to actually measure the numbers of juvenile salmon and steelhead migrants which are likely to pass through the proposed discharge plume and, hence, encounter potential toxic discharges. However, this contention fails to identify why such studies or actual measurements would be significant in light of the fact that (1) migrating salmon are known to prefer the opposite side of the river from where the discharge will be located, (2) the fish will actively avoid temperatures which are potentially lethal to them, and (3) the plume will occupy about 0.7 percent of the river cross-section during minimum regulated discharge conditions. Accordingly, we urge rejection of this contention because it provides no basis why actual counting of fish passages would provide any better data than estimates to determine the significance of potential effects.
G. Effect of pre-existing stresses. This contention asserts that other conditions along the Columbia River (e_.g., dams, other thermal projects discharges, and predation) will subject the fistiery resources to stresses which must be considered in combination with the stresses
induced by the S/HNP discharge. The Staff has no objection to the admission of this contention.
H. Toxic effects to fishery from discharge of metals. This contention asserts that the project discharge of certain metals (notably cadmium, copper and mercury) will cause chronic or acute toxic conditions which have not been adequately considered. In addition, it asserts that additive or synergistic toxic effects have not been adequately considered. The Staff has no objection to this contention.
I. Effects of chlorine. CRITFC asserts that accidental discharges of chlorine and the synergistic effects of heat and chlorine have not been adequately considered. The Staff has no objection to this contention.
J. Economic value of Columbia River fishery. This contention is apparently challenging the lack of consideration of the economic value of the Columbia River fishery and its impact on Indian treaty rights. Staff has interpreted this contention to mean that an economic value of the loss to the fishery caused by operation of S/HNP must be detennined to be factored into the cost-benefit analysis in weighing the potential extent of a socioeconomic impact S/HNP may have upon local comunities or Indian tribes. Staff has no objection to this contention if our interpretation is correct.
K. Effects of river sediments. In this contention, CRITFC asserts l
l that the river bottom sediments have not been analyzed for potential contaminants to determine if construction activities might disturb the l
l
, sediments and have some impact to aquatic biota. Staff has no objection to this contention.
L. Water withdrawal. This contention asserts that diversion of water by S/HNP might reduce the flows in the Columbia River beyond the minimum recommended flows established by the State of Washington Department of Ecology for the protection of anadromous fish. However, as stated in the S/HNP DEIS, water withdrawal authority is under the licensing jurisdiction of the State of Washington. S/HNP DEIS, p. 4-40.
Accordingly, this Board does not have the authority to determine and regulate water withdrawal rights. Therefore, this contention must be rejected.
M. Construction impact control program. This contention asserts that an effective construction impact control program cannot be formu-lated and instituted until the exact migration patterns of salmon and steelhead are known in the Hanford Reach and until the constituents of the bottom sediment are analyzed. With respect to migration patterns, this contention ignores the fact that construction activities will be
!' limited to July 15 through October 15 -- a period of lowest river flows and a period after most 0+ chinook have left the area and only relatively few adult anadromous salmonids would be present. See S/HNP DEIS,
- p. 4-57; ASC/ER, pp. E-131 and E-111. Accordingly, since construction I activities will be limited to periods when relatively few adult salmonids l
l will be migrating, there is no basis for asserting that migration patterns should be studied. Therefore, this contention should be rejected for lack of basis. With respect to the assertion that river l
[ _
bottom sediment should be analyzed, it is the same contention as 5.K.
Therefore, this contention should be rejected because it is duplicative.
N. Bioconcentration effects. This contention asserts that the bioconcentration effects in fish of lead, mercury and nickel have not been considered to determine if a potential human health hazard exists.
Staff has no objection to this contention.
O. Water quality monitoring program. This contention asserts that the monitoring program proposed for the NPDES Permit with respect to salmonid bioassays is inadequate. As such, it challenges a proposed condition on the NPDES Permit and is, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of this Board. Accordingly, this contention must be rejected.
P. Fishery impacts from accidents. This contention asserts that accident impacts have rot been considered for the anadromous fishery of the Yakima River system nor has consideration been given to inadvertent aquatic discharges of radioactive or other toxic materials. The Staff submits that this contention lacks basis and specificity. There is no basis asserted for why the fishery of the Yakima River system should be considered separately from the Columbia River fishery in the event of an l
l accident involving the liquid pathway. In addition, no basis or l
l specificity is provided as to the mechanism which would release radioactive or other toxic materials through the discharge to the l
Columbia River in the event of an accident. The assertion that the j release may be " inadvertent" is too speculative and vague to support a l
litigable issue. Therefore, this contention must be rejected.
t I
i Q. Impingement and entrainment. This contention asserts that an intake structure with 3/8 inch perforations is inadequate as an effective fish screening device. The Staff has no objection to this contention.
C. Consolidation of Parties In this Motion, CRITFC has also opposed any consolidation of the parties in this proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715a because it does not have the same interests to protect as the other parties even though it has raised the same issues. Motion, pp. 38-40. The issue of con-solidation is an abstract question at this point. The Board has not ruled on the admissibility of the untimely petition to intervene submitted by CRITFC nor has it ruled on the specific contentions. When these rulings are made and consolidation is considered, CRITFC can assert how it would be prejudiced by any consolidation action considered or ordered. The Staff has previously suggested that consolidation should be considered as a means to restrict duplicative or repetitive evidence and argument on need for power, alternative energy sources, and financial cost issues. See Staff Response of May 25, 1982, supra at pp. 16-17. We are unaware and CRITFC has not asserted, how these issues are unique to any Indian treaty rights. The question of impacts to Columbia River fisheries may rest on a different footing. Be that as it may, the Staff believes that consolidation of specific issues should be considered by y '
the Board after discussions with the parties and after it has ruled on the admissibility of intervention and contentions.
Respectfully submitted, kIOkAvd . hAdLk (M)
Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of August, 1982.
l 1
l
i
^
i s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, ET AL. ' ^
) STN 50-523 ,j
) ., . ; .,
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power ) P-Project, Units 1 and 2) ) , ,- , ,
,C r
~/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF SECOND SUPPLEMENT l' TO PETITION TO INTERVENE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 5th day of August, 1982:
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman Kevin M. Ryan, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attornay General e Atomic Safety and Licensing Temple of Justice , .
Board Panel 3409 Sheperd Street Olympia, WA 98504 ;,
./
[
Chevy Chase, MD 20015 Frank W. Ostrander, Jr. , Esq.
OregonAssistantAttorneyGeneralj 500 Pacific Building 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger* ,
Administrative Judge Warren Hastings, Esq. -
~'/ .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Associate Corporate Counsel e'
Board Panel Portland General Electric Company /
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 121 S.W. Salmon Street Washington, DC 20555 Portland, OR 97204 Dr. Frank F. Hooper '
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet Board Panel c/o Forelaws on Board .
School of Natural Resources 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road University of Michigan Soring, OR 97009 Ann Arbor, MI 48190 '
i a
h a /
( of
2-
\
David G. Powell, Esq. Coalition for Safe Power Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Suite 527, Governor Building
& Toll 408 Southwest Second Avenue 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Portland, Oregon 97204 Suite 1214 ,
Washington, D.C'. 20036 /
James W. Durham, Esq.
7 '
Portland General Electric Company a " , . - 121 S.W. Salmon Street, TB17 Lf Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman
Portland, OR 97204 Washington State Energy Facility ]
I.
s.
Site Evaluation Cobncil Docketing and Service Section*
, 4224 6th Avenue', S.E. -
Office of the Secretary Mail. Stop PY-11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Olympia , , W A 98504 Washington, D.C. 20555 F. Theodore Thomsen, Esq.
Perkinse Ocie",' Stone, Olsen
& Williams . , Richard D. Bach, Esq.
1900 Wasnirinton Building Rives, Bonyhadi & Drumond P
Seat,Me, WA 98101 ? 1400 Public Service Building 920 S.W. 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ralph C. Cavanagh
. Board Panel * .
., Attorney for the Natural Resources
,0.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -' Defense Council, Inc.
/ Washington, DC 20555 ',s ',,- 25 Kearny Street San Francisco, CA 94108
- AtomicSafetyandLicensibg Appeal Feard* ~
Terence L. Thatcher U.S. Nuclet r Regulatory Commission Pacific Northwest Resources Washingtons DC 20555 Center
,',. - Law Center, 1101 Kincaid Eugene, OR 97403
- 5. Timothy Wapato James S. Hovis, Esq.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Yakima Indian Nation f '
Fish Comission c/o Hovis, Cockrill & Roy 839?iN.E. Sandy Blvd., Suite 320 '?i6 North Third Street
.'. Partland, Oregon 97220 P.O. Box 487
? / , Yakima, WA 98907
> Mr. Robert C. Lothrop Attorney for Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
- Suite 320 8383 N.E. Sandy Blvd.,
Por.tland, OR 97220- ,
I' ll/ [, y
, , Lee Scott Dewey
)
f/ ,
Counsel for NRC Staff f
~I
,i'
, , /