ML20065H545: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
        ,o s        .
                                                                            '        DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                    82 OCT -4 A10:54 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION URCE CF 3ECE#UU BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                            M '
00CKEi g r
In The Matter of Puget Sound                    )
Power and Light et al.                            )
Amended Application for Construction)                Docket Nos.
                                                                                                        ~
Permits and Facility Licenses,                    )    STN50-532, 50-523 SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT                    )
SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE OF CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION Pursuant to Commission regulations,          10  C.F.R. Section
: 2. 714 (b) , petitioner Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation (YIN) submits this supplement to its petition to intervene. This filing lists the contentions which YIN wishes to litigate in this proceeding, along with specific bases for these contentions.
LIST OF CONTENTIONS AND BASES
: 1. Applicants Have Relied On An Inflated Calculation of Demand For Electrical Power; Reliable Regional Energy Forecasts Demonstrate No Need for the Skagit/Hanford Project YIN herein incorporates by reference the contentions and bases filed by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on this matter.
: 2. The Applicant has used an Inaccurately Low Estimate on the Environmental and Financial Cost of the Project in its Benefit / Cost Ratio YIN herein incorporates by reference the contentions and Page 1
                            ... y 8210050169 820929 PDR ADOCK 05000522 g                  PDR                                                                    3
 
k bases filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Oregon Environmental Council on this matter.
: 3. There Are Cost-Effective, Environmentally Preferable Alternatives To The Project; The Environmental Report
!                Is Inadequate In Its Discussion Of Those Alternatives YIN herein incorporates by reference the contentions and bases filed by NRDC on this matter.
: 4. The Acquisition Of Skagit/Hanford By Bonneville Power    +
Administration Is Highly Unlikely; That Unlikelihood Is Crucial To Determining The Finance Ability Of The Project YIN herein incorporates by reference the contentions and bases filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Oregon Environmental Council on the matter.
: 5. The Environmental Impacts Of The Proposed Skagit/
Hanford Nuclear Project On Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Resources Have Not Been Fully Assessed.
Furthermore, Environmental Impacts Must Not Infringe Indian Treaty Rights YIN herein incorporates by reference the contentions and bases filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Oregon i      Environmental Council on this matter.
In addition, YIN asserts that the design, construction, operation, or other occurrences resulting from authorization or approval of the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission or through the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board processes, must not in any way threaten or diminish  the  value,  availability,  viability,  production potential, accessibility, or usability of the treaty reserved property, water, fishing, hunting, and gathering rights of YIN or Page 2 L.                                                                        i
 
                        .                  _.    -  .- -. - _-                                          ~.      .
o its members,~or diminish or impair the enjoyment of reserved
;        treaty ' water and ' property rights of YIN or its members.                        YIN
:        submits that applicants have not sought to meet their burden of persuasion regarding many environmental impacts and the potential diminution of treaty reserved rights, treaty reserved rights to lands and their use.
.i YIN submits that in raising these contentions and bases that any diminution of those rights must be with the consent of the
,        YIN, which has not been obtained.                    YIN particularly cites the Northwest Ordinance which continues to be the law of the land.
Our national policy is firmly established in the first great act of our Congress, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, which i
declared:
                " Art. 3 *** The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their land and property
* shall never be taken from them without their consent;
                                  ~
and in their property, rights and liberty, they never-shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful i
wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for prevent-                                            l ing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them." (Emphasis supplied.)
We further cite 25 USC Sec. 177, which provides in part:
No purchase, grant, lease or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto from any Indian Nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity under law
: o. equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.
We further call attention to 25 USC Sec. 194, and Wilson v.
I I
Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S.              653 (1979).        25 USC Sec. 194                                '
provides:
                "In all trials about the right of property in which 1
Page 3 i
f
    ,v.s                  .._ -,. ...,, -    - _                          .-...,.,,,,,..,y. _,,__4_,. _ . - - -
 
9 s
an Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the white person, whenever the Indian shall make out a pre-sumption of title in himself from the fact of previous possession or ownership."
Wilson, holds that 25 USC Sec. 194 is triggered once a tribe makes out a prima facie case of prior possession or title to the particular area under dispute, and thereafter the plaintiffs would have not only the burden of producing evidence but the burden of persuasion as well.  (422 U.S. at 668-669).
Applicant has failed to recognize and disclose the magnitude and impact of these proceedings on the YIN and its members. In S/HNP-ASC/ER 8.4, applicant, in a cursory manner, acknowledges the reserved fishing rights of YIN and its members and the right not to have the habitat of this reserved fishery impacted.
However, applicants have not addressed impacts to the reserved treaty rights of YIN and its members within the Hanford Reservation site area, Columbia and Yakima Rivers and on the treaty reserved rights of the Yakimas in their use and enjoyment by the YIN and its members of the 1,387,505 acre treaty reserved Yakima Indian Reservation.
History material, public documents, anthropology reports and other writings show that applicant's submission is inadequate and misleading. This material is and has been available to applicant but applicant has failed to present this important information.
Basic documents showing the establishment of these reserved rights to lands and resources and enjoyment of same, include:    !
l 1
Page 4                                                            I I
i                                                        _
 
4 BASIC DOCUMENTS American Indians, North-of Mexico Edited by: Frederick Webb Ilodge Published by: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Amet: an Ethnology Bulletin No. 30
 
==Subject:==
Shahaptian Family                                              .
Pages: 519, 520 and 983 Dated: October, 1912 Intergroup Relations in the Southern Plateau By: Angelo Anastasio Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1955 Barnaby, J. T, Dams and the Columbia River Salmon
* Presented at the meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Western Division, San Diego, California Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1947. Symposium of
                  " Overcoming Obstructions to Movements of Fishes in Rivers" Bureau of Ethnology Fourteenth Annual Report to the Secretary of The Smithsonian Institution, 1892-93
'              By: J. W. Powell, Director Part 2, Published by: Government Printing Office, 1896 Bureau of Ethnology Eighteenth Annual Report to the Secretary of                            ,
The Smithsonian Institution, 1896-97
;              By: J. W. Powell, Director Government Printing Office, 1899 Pages: 944 - 1006 Bureau of Indian Affairs Records of the Treaty File.            Letters received, 1855 - Washington Superintendency, W-537.
Letter of Governor Isaac I. Stevens to George W. Mannypenny.
The National Archives Bureau of Indian Affairs Records of the Treaty File.            Minutes of pro-ceedings leading up to Treaty of Point No Point Date: January 26, 1855 The National Archiven 4
Page 5
 
E 9                                                          ,
s Bureau of Indian Affairs, Records of the Wilber, James H., letter dated November 17, 1881 from H. Price, Commissioner-
 
==Subject:==
Trouble between the Indians and whites at the Tumwater Fisheries Records'of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (RG 75).
Letters scnt: Land Division Letter, Book 87
* The National Archives Bureau or Indian Affairs, Records of the Letter dated February 21, 1884, to Honorable C. Delano, Secretary of the Interior, from E. P.-Smith, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Record copies of letters sent, Volume 24 The National Archives                  >
Chief Sluskin's True Narrative By:  Luculus V. McWhorter Published: Washington State Historian Volume VIII, No. 2, April 1917 Commission, Appointment of
 
==Subject:==
Bonneville Dam and protection of the Columbia River fisheries Document No. 87 Seventy-Fifth Congress, First Session Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Report 1897 Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session Pages 93, 94, 298 Contents: Fisheries in Washington, Irrigation, Fisheries Condition of the Indian Tribes
,            Report of the Joint Special Committee appointed under Joint Resolution of March 3, 1865 Pages 8, 9, 424, 425, 440, 441 Craig, Joseph A., and R. L. Hacker 3              History and Development of Fisheries of the Columbia River Bulletin of U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, 1940
.i            Pages 133 - 216 Davidson, F. A.
Historical evidence of the use and occupancy by    I the Yakima Indians of their usual and accus-tomed fishing locations at Celilo Falls and the Dalles on the Columbia River Date: August 15, 1953                              1 i
Page 6                                                  y l
 
I o
Doty, James Extracts from the journal of Mr. James Doty, Secretary for treaties in Washington Territory and the Blackfoot Country,-show-ing his proceedings in assembling for a council at the Walla Walla valleys, the Cayuse, Walla Walla, Ne= Perce, Palouse, Oakinakans, Pisquose and Yakima Tribes of Indians under the directions of Governor Isaac I. Stevens, Supt. of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory Doty, James A true copy of the record of the official proceedings at the Council in the Walla Walla Valley, held jointly by Isaac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent, Washington Terri-tory, and Joel Palmer, Superintendent, Indian Affairs, Oregon Territory, on the part of the United States, with the tribes of Indians named in the treaties made at that Council Date: May 28, 1855 - June 11, 1855 Doty, James Secretary of Treaties for Washihgton Territory under Isaac I. Stevens, Governor, and Commis-sioner of Indian Affairs Covering the period January 20, 1855 to January 4, 1855.
The notification by Gov. Stevens to the Indian tribes that a treaty council will be held at Walla Walla in June.
YIN Archives, Box 10-1 Executive Document No. 38 Indian war in Oregon and Washington Territories.
Letter from the Secretary of the Interior transmitting in compliance with the resolution of the House of the 15th instant, the report of J. Ross Browne, on the subject of the Indian war in Oregon and Washington territories.
Thirty-Fifth Congress, First Session Date: January 25, 1858 Executive Document No. 39 Indian Affairs on Oregon and Washington              i Territories Thirty-Fifth Congress, First Session Date: 1857 i
Page 7
 
s                                                                .I l
l Executive Document No. 78
                  . Explorations-and surveys, Reports to ascertain the most practicable and economical _ route for a railroad from the Mississippi: River to the Pacific Ocean
.                  Thirty-Third Congress, Second Session Volume 1, 1853-54 Executive Document 91 Report of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practical and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River Thirty-Third Congress, Second Session Findings, U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312                                        !
Fisheries on the Columbia River, Washington Territory
                -Secretary of the Interior, Report 1886-E: 7 Forty-Ninth Congress, Second Session Fisheries on the Columbia River, Washington-Territory Secretary of the Interior Report, 1887-88 Fiftieth Congress, First Session Fisheries, Right of the Indians in the Wisham Fishery Case Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Report 1897 Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session Gibbs, George Indian Tribes of Washington Territory Published: Ye Galleon Press (reprint) 1972 Gibbs, George Railroad Survey Report Geology of Central Washington Territory Volume 1 Dated: 1855 Pages 477 - 482 Gordon Report In the United States Court for the District of Oregon United States v. Seufert Brothers Filed in U.S. District Court March 6, 1917 District of Oregon Griswold, Gillett Aboriginal Patterns of Trade between the Columbia Page 8
 
c      .
    ~
River and-the' Northern Plains M.A. thesis,-Montana State University, 1953 Hewes, Gordon Aboriginal Use:of. Fishery' Resources in' North-4 western North America Ph.D.: Dissertation,1 University of' California, 1947 Railroad' Survey Report Indian Tribes of Washington Territory Dated: 1854-Volume 1 Pages.: L402 - 428 Railroad Survey Report (Stevens)
Narrative of 1855 Dated: 1860                                                                                                        <
Volume XII                                                                                                        '
Pages: 222 - 225 Railroad Survey Report-(Gibbs) e Geology of Central Washington Territory Dated: 1855 i                            Volume 1 i
                            .Pages: 477 - 482 Ray, Dr. Vern Native Villages and Groupings of the i                                  Columbia River Basin
,                          Published: Pacific Northwest Quarterly
",                          Dated: 1936                                                                                                        ,
T 4
Ray, Dr. Vern Tribal Distribution in Eastern Oregon and
!.                                Adjacent. Regions 1
Published: American Anthropologist-Volume 40 i                          Dated:-1938 Relander, Click i                          Drummers and Dreamers j_                          Published: Caxton Printers, Ltd.
+
Dated: 1956
: j.                         
 
==Subject:==
Smowhala, The Prophet l                          Pages: 286 through 311 inclusive J.                          Relander,: Click r                          Strangers On The Land
                          . Published: Yakima Indian Nation l-                          Dated: December 1962 i-                Page 9
 
  .g.
A historiett - of a longer story of the Yakima Indian Nation's efforts to survive against great odds Report on the Condition of the Yakima Indian Reservation - Washington Submitted by the Secretary of the Interior Sixty-Second Congress, Third Session Dated: January 23, 1913 Document No. 1299 Secretary of the Interior, Report Dated: 1884-85 Forty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Pages: 216 - 219
 
==Subject:==
Condition, Habits and Dispositions -
Progress Made - Industrial Boarding Schools -
A Mistaken and Pernicious Policy - Conflict of Departments - The Indian Police - Piutes -
Fisheries Secretary of the Interior, Report Dated: 1886-87 Forty-Ninth Congress, Second Session Pages: 129, 130, 131
 
==Subject:==
Joseph's Band of Nez Perces, Washing-ton Territory - Fisheries on the Columbia River, Washington Territory
;                Secretary of the Interior, Report Dated:~1887-88
)                Fiftieth Congress, First Session Pages 80, 81, 303 Subjects: Fisheries on the Columbia River, Washington Territory - Condition of Agency -
Civilization and Morals - Agency Stock Secretary of the Interior, Report Dated: 1892-93 Fifty-Second Congress, Second Session Page 423 Subjects: Census - Indians Living Along the Columbia - Agriculture - Improvements and Repairs - Allotments of Lands in Severalty -
Reservation Schools Secretary of the Interior, Report Dated: 1897 Fifty-Fourth Congress, Second Session Pages 98, 99, 100, 319                            i i
l Page 10                                                  l
 
G Subjects: Wisham and Tumwater Fisheries on the Columbia River - Fishery, Tumwater -
Commission - Health - Census Snowden, Clinton A.
History of Washington - The Rise and Progress of an American State Published: 1909 Volume 3 Pages 254 - 375 Chapter XLIII - Treaties With the Indians Social Economic Status of the Yakima Nation, Washington State University Circular 397, 1961.
Particularly from page 31 regarding tribal dependence on fisheries.
Swindell,  Edward G.
Report on  source, nature and extent of fishing, hunting  and miscellaneous related rights of certain  Indian tribes in Washington and Oregon.
Office of Indian Affairs, 1942 ityaty, Preliminary Proceedings By: James Doty, Secretary of Treaties for Governor Stevens Extracts from the journal of Mr. James Doty, Secretary for Treaties in Washington Terri-tory and the Blackfoot Country, showing his proceedings in assembling for a council in the Walla Walla valleys, the Cayuse, Walla Walla, Nez Perce, Palouse, Oakinakans, Pis-quose and Yakima Tribes of Indians under the directions of Governor Isaac I. Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory Treaty Proceedings of the Yakima Indian Nation By: James Doty, Secretary of Treaties for Governor Stevens A true copy of the record of the official pro-ceedings at the council in the Walla Walla Valley, held jointly by Isaac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent, Washington Ter-ritory, and Joel Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Oregon Territory, on the part of the United States with the Tribes of Indians named in the treaties made at that Council      l Dated: May 28, 1855 - June 11, 1855                )
l Page 11                                                    '
* i Trea_tv Uith the Yakimas 12 Stat. 951, 2 Kap.524.
Walker, Deward Mutual Cross Utilization of Economic Resources of the Plateau Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 41, 1967 Yakima Indian Natien Primer The Yakima Indian Nation, Retention of Customs and Beliefs, Tribal Government and Member-ship Operations of the Yakima Agency Published: Circa 1960 Yakima Tribes v. United States, Docket 161, Indian Claims Commission, An unconscionable consideration claim re-garding in part PSe area herein involved-Petitioner YIN in furtherance of the purposes of these procedures is prepared to supply this lack of information and to show through these materials, reports and testimony under the purpose of Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC Sec.
2239) how the interests of the YIN and its members will-be affected by these proceedings and that these interests have not been adequately addressed by applicant.
It is clear from available materials that the fourteen tribes and bands of people indigenous to their region in which permission is sought to construct the project is now YIN and its members. Basic Documents.
It is clear from available materials that these indigenous people have owned, occupied, possessed, enjoyed the lands and resources of this entire region for thousands of years and Page 12 j
 
l Y
4          %
i a
continue, as the YIN and its members, to rightfully own, occupy, possess, and enjoy the lands and resources of this entire region.
except as limited by the Treaty with the Yakimas (12 Statute 951) or where their rightful ownership use and enjoyment has unlawfully and improperly been withheld or diminished.                                              Basic Documents, United Stia_tes v. Tarlg , 3 W.T.                                    88 1887; United States
: v. Winans,-198 U.S. 371 (1905); Department of Interior, Federal Indian Law, Government Printing Office (1958), pp. 146, 495-500,-
599, 662; United States              v.          Oregon, 302 F.Supp. 899                    (D. Ore.
1969); Washington v.                Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S.                                      658 (1979); United ' States v.
Washington, 506 F.Supp. 187                        (W.D. Wash. 1980); United States v.
Adair, 478 F.Supp. 337                (D. Ore. 1979); Kittitas Reclamation District    v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, Opinion, September 10, 1982, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Nos. 80-3505, 81-3002, 81-3068, 81-3069.
The area over which these rights were established - and continue to prevail are set out in the Treaty with the Yakimar (12 Statute 951) and the Basic Documents.                                          As pertains to this
              . proceeding this-area encompasses the Hanford Reservation, the f
4 Yakima and Columbia Rivers and the Yakima Indian Nation.
Petitioner has reserved rights to hunt, fish, gather roots and berries, pasture their horses and cattle, and to further their culture and religion within the Hanford Reservation, site area, Columbia and Yakima Rivers.                                        Basic Documents.      Applicant i
Page 13                                                                                                                    j 1
  ~at w  -                -      -- -              mm.,,y-, = , , - , . - - - -          - no    - g,  . . .  -    ---=,--ee. t-
 
          . has not addressed these rights and haw they will be affected or protected by these proceedings or this project.
The Yakima Indian Reservation                    (containing approximately 1,387,505 acres) located at its closest point within 13 miles from the Hanford Reservation is set aside and reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of the YIN and its members.                                    The Yakima Indian Reservation was established by treaty as a permanent i
homeland for the YIN and its members.                          In exercising these homeland rights, YIN and its members are dependent specifically, on these lands and its resources and the water and air traver"ing or bordering the Yakima Indian Reservation to fulfill their life, sustenance, culture and religion.                  There is no other area in the world that can be substituted as a homeland for YIN and its 1
members.      Basic Documents.
Applicant has not addressed the cumulative effects of non-natural radiation which would invade the air and water from similar non-natural producers of non-natural radiation within the a
Hanford Reservation would have as regards this project.                                      This cumulative effect will impair the Yakima Nation's foods, gathering rights, rights of movement, and their right to use
;          their reservation as a permanent homeland and the resultant effect on the livelihood, property, resources, life, culture and 1
            -religion of YIN and its members.                  YIN's concern about the present                        i safety of the Hanford Nuclear Reserve has not been addressed.
;          Many of these present concerns involve the leakage of storage Page 14
 
o A
  ^
l i
i tanks containing radioactive waste within the Hanford Nuclear Reserve.
Out'of 150 storage tanks on the Hanford Reservation, 49 are presently leaking into the soil around their storage bins.        Tae canisters that contain radioactive waste are located 7 feet belaw the surface of the ground and fif ty feet above the Yakima River water table. In 1973, one tank alone lost 115,000 gallons of highly radioactive nuclear waste and this leak went undetected for 55 days. This leakage exists in the hydrologic flowpath of water in which the Yakima Nation has water use rights and treaty reserved fishing rights and impairs-and impacts the foods of YIN and its members.
Existing    nuclear production  and    the  production of i      non-natural radiation which now invade the air and water has not been addressed. The storage of nearby radioactive dumps and the cumulative effects of non-natural radiation which would invade i
the air and the water from operation of these dumps in regard to this project has not been addressed.
t Specifically, YIN does contend that:
t j
Both the application for site certification / Environmental Report  (AC/ER)  prepared by  the applicant and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff are deficient with regard to the assessment of environmental impacts and how YIN and its members will be affected by S/HNP.      The following is a description of 3
Page 15 l
 
those insufficiencies and YIN contentions regarding these deficiencies:                                                    _
A. Neither the applicant nor NRC staff have described all the constituents and contaminants contained in the Columbia River at the Hanford Reach, which when processed through applicant's project could result in effluent discharges toxic to salmon and steelhead. For instance, 1978 United States Geological Survey data for the Hanford Recch at the Vernita Bridge shows recoverable    quantities  of  the  following water  quality constituents: (1) Arsenic, (2) Barium, (3) Cobalt, (4) Silver.
U.S.G.S. Water Resources Data for Washington, 1978). These constituents have been described as toxic to fish in minute
    .oncentrations.
Forstner & Whittman, Metal Pollution in the Aquatic Environment, 28 (1981). Yet, neither the applicant nor the NRC staff has considered in their documentation of environmental impacts the potential toxic conditions that concentration and alteration of these and other contaminants will pose to the salmon and steelhead of the Hanford Reach or their effect on the treaty reserved fishing rights of YIN and its members.
B. Both the applicant's environmental report and the NRC staff's Draft Environmental Impact Statement discuss at some length the Columbia River flow quantities in the area of the discharge. ASC/ER at 2.41, 2.45; DEIS at 4-23, 4-24. However, these descriptions do not address the level of turbulence or Page 16 j
 
iC                                                                                                                                                    .I 1
1 l
currents in the Columbia River at river mile 361.5.                                            Rather such turbulence is. superficially aiscussed, in one sentence by the applicant in - answer to a question posed by 'the Energy Pacility Site Evaluation Council. ASC/ER at E-133 amendment 5.                                                  The DEIS does provide some information with respect to turbulence, stating that.the " proposed (discharge) location is in an area where the main current crosses from northeast to the southwest side of the channel and judging from the channel conformation, an area where turbulence and predominating flow vectors would have a tendency to. vary greatly with discharge", and that " river velocities under various flow conditions in the immediate vicinity of the intake structure are not available".        DEIS at 4-66 and 4-57.                                        Evidently, the applicant's efforts to model the discharge plume, described at pages 5.13 to 5.16 of the ASC/ER, do not reflect local currents and turbulence. This conclusion is supported by the total lack of data on either turbulence or local currents contained in Table 5.11 entitled " Study Casa Parameters".                                                            ASC/ER at Table 5.1-1.      It is possible that the predominating flow vectors which may vary greatly with discharge will result in a 1
size and shape of the discharge                plume              different                      from representations made by the applicant.                  For instance, both the l        applicant and NRC staff at times assume that the discharge plume i
occupies a width 0.7 percent of the cross-section of the Columbia River. Yet if the size of the plume were to actually occupy 1.4 f
percent of the river cross-section, due to " varying" flow Page 17
 
S vectors, the result would be a two-fold increase in the numbers of evenly distributed organisms encountering the discharge.
Assuming a condition where outmigrating salmon are evenly distributed, in the period of early May 1966 approximately 70,000 juvenile salmonids would have encountered the discharge plume if it occupied 1.4 percent of the river cross-section. Considering that the exact migration patterns of juvenile salmon are not known at river mile 361.5, the size and shape of the discharge plume cannot be disregarded. See Testimony of Robert Gerke, NPDES Hearing, June 2, 1982. Accordingly, " expected seasonal and other temporal variations of important parameters such as flows and currents should be described monthly", U.S. NRC Regulatory 4.2.
The applicant and NRC staff have failed to describe how this plume and changed local currents and turbulence will affect an already impacted fishery acknowledged to have been reserved by the YIN and whether this additional discharge plume will further impact these reserved rights in a legal and proper manner under the Law of the Land.
C. Neither the applicant nor the NRC staff has adequately examined the effect of heated water from this project will have on the already critical temperature of the Columbia River as it af fects YIN's treaty reserved steelhead and salmon fisheries in the Columbia River and its tributaries.                            1 Page 18 l
l
 
1 1
4 There are 'two major categories of heated water ef fects oon I
aquatic life.
                                                      ~
Direct effects are usually unrelated to.another.
perimeter of the aquatic environment.                Indirect effects involve a-stepwise procedure whereby some other condition, changed by the addition of heat, becomes deleterious to aquatic life.
The ranges of temperature beneficial for migration, spawning i
and hatchery-of salmon, have been tabulated by M. C. Bell, 1
Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria, U. S. Corps of Engineers, Northern Pacific Division, Fisheries          Engineering  Research    Program.          Contract  #DACW 57-68-C-0086.          This tabulation from numerous references on the subject and pro development in its flavor shows these ranges for chinook salmon:                                                                          ,
Migration Range Adults:
j                                ~ Spring Chinook          38' - 56'F
;                                  Summer Chinook            57' - 68*F Fall Chinook              51' - 67'F
,                              Juveniles:                  45' - 62*F Spawning Range                      42' - 57*F Hatching Range                      41* - 58'F 1
The most obvious direct effect is lethality.                  Also, a direct-effect as regards cold water fish such as-steelhead or salmon is N
the introductior, of competing species such as bass and walleye
            - that replace trese treaty reserved fish.                  As early as 1970, the Columbia River was only a few degrees from this conversion l
[
j            Page 19 i
 
                                                                                  .i
        ,                                                                            l l
H brought about by non-natural causes.      William A. Brungs. " Effects of Heated Water from Nuclear Plants on Aquatic Life".        Nuclear Power & the Public, University of Minnesota Press (1970), p. 53.
In his report to the PMFC for the preparation of a comprehensive salmon management plan, Russell G. Porter, in his          -
          " Factors Affecting the Columbia River Chinook and Coho Resources
  ,        in Fresh Water", on October 13, 1977, reported as follows:
                " Adverse water temperatures cannot only cause direct mortalities, but may influence oxygen content and nutrients, may control algal blooms that modify taste,
]
odor, color and ecology, and may affect growth, condi-tion, swimming speed and fish behavior, as well as
:              initiate outbreaks of disease.
                " Higher than normal temperatures over extended period of time may cause adult salmon to die prior to spawn-ing as a result of accelerated chronological aging.
In addition, adults have been known to cease migrating when temperatures approach the upper limit of the migration range given above (Bell, 1973). At the other extreme, temperatures near or below the lower limit of the spawning range can cause a cessation of spawning activity.
                "High or low temperatures outside of the hatching
:            range can result in increased mortality during the eggs' tender stage.
                "Although growth is certainly accelerated by increased temperature during cold months, temperatures above 68*F result in no growth because of increased metabolic    .
}              activity.
                " Disease is directly affected by temperature and may be brought on by temperatures near the upper or lower l              tolerance limit. Increased temperatures may have an adverse effect on juveniles prior to their leaving the estuary and on adults entering the estuary.
1
                " Swimming speed of salmonids are adversely affected by high or low temperatures. Extensive work on the
'              effect of temperature on metabolic rate and swimming speed on salmonids has been conducted by Brett. Much Page 20                                                                  -
l i
 
    -C
': O of this work is summarized in a single article-(Brett
              -and' Glass, 1973). Brett et al. (1958)-found the-maxi-mum sustained speed in coho fry was realized at a temperature of 67*F and that the upper lethal limit was 77*F. Swimming speed was reduced as much as one half-at a temperature of-41*F."
Information . regarding annual temperature of the Columbia River or even in specific-stretches of the Columbia River cannot
        -present an adequate basis for consideration.      The temperatures being_ displaced to later periods and being increasedLto as much as five degrees as late as January have a resulting effect.
Further, thermal studies show that there will be an effect in the localized areas of present and projected thermal outfall.
Applicant and NRC staff have not adeo 1:ely examined the ef fect of this temperature change in regard to these critical stages and the resulting effect on the acknowledged reserved rights of YIN in these fisheries.
D. Both the applicant's ASC/ER and the DEIS state that adult salmon and steelhead show a preference to migrate up the east side of the Hanford Reach. DEIS at 4-63. However, neither the ASC/ER nor the DEIS adequately address the migration patterns of juvenile salmon and steelhead at river mile 361.5.      The DEIS does state that,
              "[n]evertheless, some fish may pass directly through the area proposed for outfall location. Likewise, actively outmigrating juveniles are known to dis-perse in the river somewhat (S/HNP ASC/ER, 1981; WPPSS 1972). -Although the tendency is to stay relatively-near the shore, and some individuals could be carried through the plume by the current."DEIS at 4-63.
(Emphasis added.)
Page 21
 
i No studies have been completed for the IIanford Reach at river mile ' 3 61. 5 to measure the numbers of juvenile salmon and steelhead migrants likely to pass through the-proposed discharge
,                      plume. Testimony of Robert Gerke, NPDES hearing June                                                      2,        1382.
Yet, a conclusion is made in the DEIS that "some small increase in predator . related mortalities to juvenile fish would occur; 4
however, the magnitude of such an effect is not likely to cause i
i-significant reductions".                                  DEIS at 4-63.            Such statements typify F
fishery impact estimation.                                    "On the Columbia River, where estimation of' impacts is complex, and where most estimates-have been potentially negative, this has of ten resulted either in non-estimation,                      or under-estimation                      of      potential    fishery losses--and a response by some independent decision nakers 'if 4
i                    they can't estimate the loss, maybe there isn't going to be any,'
i                    ..... but this is virtually a suicidal way to continue given i
present stock levels".                                  Meyers, Fish, Energy and the Columbia 1
River, March 1982.
1
!                            An estimation of the average yearly number of juvenile salmon does appear at Table 2.2-21 of the ASC/ER.                                                  This table i
4
                      -suggests that 14 million salmon and steelhead outmigrants utilize                                                                                ,
the Hanford Reach.                                  Even if 0.7 percent of these fish pass through the discharge zone, approximately 100,000 juvenile salmon 4
j                      per year will encounter toxic discharges.                                                  The NRC must exercise the strictest fiduciary standards to insure that this treaty i
4 4
1 Page 22 4
    . - . . -              - .      ..y,-.,r,-,-.,,.._,_.-_,,,._,._,._,.,.y            ,,.,,_..p. y_ , ,, , , .  %_  ,%,,-.,,._m,.,7,..m.          9.m_.,s_,mmwvr
 
reserved resource oi. YIN is not in paired by the S/IINP. In this regard the DEIS and ASC/ER are deficient.
E. Neither the applicant nor the NRC staff has examined the effect of additional stress to juvenile salmon and steelhead threatened by the proposed discharge in combination with pre-existing stress and stress-inducing conditions downstream.
It is relatively clear that the five major dams in the Columbia River above the Hanford Reach (Priest Rapids, Wanapu.a , Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wells) impose substantial stress on juvenile salmon migrating through the Mid-Columbia portion of the River. Testimony of Robert Gerke, NPDES Hearing, June 2,    1982.
Indeed, mitigation measures are needed and have been proposed for those dams which may cost in excess of $10-20 million per dam.
Detailed Implementation Plan for Initial 4(h) Recommendations for the Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement of Anadromous Fish in the Columbia Basin, April 1982.      Additional stress such as disorientation will be caused by the S/HNP discharge.      See U.S.
EPA Toxicity of Chlorinated Power Plant Cooling Waters to Fish, (1976). This stress must be considered in light of the pre-existing stresses. In addition, stress-inducing conditions downstream of the S/IINP proposed discharge include McNary Dam, John Day Dam, The Dalles Dam and Bonneville Dam. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fisn and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Game, Oregon Department of Fish and Page 23
 
Wildlife, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Initial 4(h)
Recommendations for the Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement of Anadromous Fish in the Columbia Basin, Tasks 1.3.5-1.3.9 (Nov.
1981). It has been estimated that the losses to the anadromous fishery caused by the hydroelectric projects of the Columbia River system have resulted in approximately a 6.5 billion dollar impact to the region over the past two decades.      Meyers, Fish, Energy and the Columbia River, March 1982. This estimate does not attempt to monetize impacts to treaty fishing rights.      The stress added by the S/HNP discharge to conditions such as WNP 1, 2,  & 4 discharges, predation, collection at McNary Dam and migration survival at lower Columbia River dams and reservoirs (McNary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville) must be considered.
Consideration of the effect of this stress on the treaty reserved rights of YIN is essential.
F. Neither the applicant nor NRC staff has addressed in detail the potential toxic effects to migrating salmon and steelhead which would be caused by the discharge of metals from the S/HNP. While the DEIS states that ambient concentrations of certain heavy metals (notably cadmium, copper and n'ercury) exceed EPA maximum criteria for aquatic protection, the DEIS concludes that since EPA standards are generally at least an order of magnitude below observable threshold concentrations and in the cases of cadmium and copper the concentration would only continue to be slightly exceeded, no biological consequences of any Page 24
 
1 l
              ' increased concentrations of these metals would be expected.        DEIS at 4-64. Applicant states that "[f]ollowing worst-case dilution on the order of 190.1 at the edge of the mixing zone,. metal concentrations are estimated to be only six percent above ambient i
levels. This negligible increase in trace metal concentration a
should ' not affect aquatic biota". ASC/ER at      5.3-2. These 1
conclusions ignore several basic considerations; (1) that tens of thousands of migrating juvenile salmon will encounter the discharge plume within the mixing zone;      (2)    EPA criteria generally recognize that regulating only for the acute lethal j              toxicity of wastes is no longer adequate; (3) the toxicity of metals will be increased by the applicant's project; and (4) the concentrations of the metals should at least be controlled on an 1
additive basis.
Applicant's proposed discharge will contain quantities of several toxic constituents in acute and chronic toxic amounts, at 3
the point of discharge, as diluted within mixing zone boundaries, and beyond the boundaries of the mixing zone.            Among these constituents are: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and j            zinc. While the state of Washington has not developed numerical criteria for aquatic protection for these constituents, it has i
developed narrative criteria- " toxic, radioactive or deleterious I
material concentrations shall be below those      ... which may cause acute or chronic conditions to the aquatic biota"          ... Wash.
Admin. Code Rev. 173-2,01-045 (2) (c) (vii) . Additionally, the U.S.
Page 25
 
I Environmental Protection Agency has developed numerical criteria for these pollutants. U.S. EPA Criteria Documents, 45 Fed. Reg.
79318, 1980).
The applicant states that the proposed project will discharge the following concentrations at the point of discharge:
average            maximum Cadmium                  12.9 ug/L          38.4 ug/L Chromium                29.9 ug/L          257.4 ug/L Copper                  102.6 ug/L          360.4 ug/L Lead                    168.3 ug/L          939.7 ug/L Mercury                    1.69ug/L          12.86ug/L Zinc                    380.5 ug/L        1159.2 ug/L Applicant estimates that 300 feet downstream from the discharge point concentrations will be diluted to the following:
average            maximum Cadmium                  1.32 ug/L          3.19ug/L Chromium                  3.05 ug/L          21.2 ug/L Copper                  10.5 ug/L          29.7 ug/L Lead                    17.2 ug/L          77.6 ug/L Mercury                    .177ug/L          1.06ug/L Zinc                    38.8 ug/L          95.6 ug/L The following criteria based on the EPA criteria documents were derived using a hardness number of 55 mg/L as Caco (3) for Columbia River water.
Page 26
 
3
                                                          ,)
Chronic'            Acute Cadmium (1.05 In. hardness-6.53) (1.05 in. hardness-3.73) e                              e-                  -
                                = .098 ug/L                    = 1.6 ug/L s                Copper  5.6'ug/L                        (.94 in hardness-1.23)
                                                              - e-
                                                              = 12.6 ug/L-Lead      (2. 35 In- hardness-9-. 4 8) (1. 22 In ^ hardness .47) e                              e
                                = .94'ug/L                    = 83.0 ug/L Hercury .00057'ug/L                      .0017 ug/L Zinc    .46 ug/L                        (.83 in hardness + 1.72) e
                                                              = 155.4 ug/L Chromium hexavalent .29 ug/L                None trivalent (1.08 in hardness
                          + 3.48) e
                                      = 2460 ug/L With the exceptions of zine and lead, for all discharge parameters at the edge of the mixing zone, acute concentrations recommended by the U.S. EPA would be exceeded.-              Under average conditions all chronic concentrations recommended by the U.S.              EPA would be exceeded.
The EPA criteria represent a reasonable estimate of pollutant concentrations consistent with maintaining a Class A-designation.of the Columbia River Hanford Reach.              " Good health and ability to function vigorously are as important for aquatic ecosystems as they' are for humans.          The former endpoint of bioassays, viz, death, has been supplanted by more subtle endpoints such as the protection of respiration, growth, Page 27
 
v reproductive success and a variety of other functional changes."
U.S. EPA Water Quality Criteria 1972, 117 (1973).                                                      Hence to aver                  -
4      that " EPA standards are generally at least an order of magnitude below observable threshold concentrations" as-justification for disregarding EPA criteria is meritless.                                          Indeed, Lorz. and MacPherson have shown that' downstream migration of smolting coho 1
salmon was partially inhibited by exposure to copper at levels as low as 5 ug/L.            Lcrz and MacPherson, Effects of Copper and Zinc on Smoltification of Coho Salmon (1977).                                      Neither the applicant-nor the NRC has demonstrated with certitude that metal
;      concentrations 'will not impair the production potential of Columbia River salmon and steelhead habitat in the Hanford Reach.
This evidentiary gap is compounded by the apparent disregard for the chemical alteration of the metals which would be discharged from the applicant's project.                                The addition of scaling control chemicals, for instance sulfuric acid, allows a higher dissolved
;. solids concentration to be achieved before scaling in condensor 7
tubing would occur.                U.S.                EPA Proposed Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category, 80 (1980).                                              The toxicity of metals is believed to vary depending on whether the metal is a free ion or bound in an inorganic or organic complex.                                                                Chapman, Toxicologicel Considerations of Heavy Metals in the Aquatic Environment, (1978).                  Generally, the dissolved form of metals is thought to be the most toxic form.                                  Id.        Applicant's use of Page 28                                                                                                                                l
 
sulfuric' acid to reduce and control pH would result in a thousand-fold increase in the . free ion -species - of metal
                  - constituents in the applicant's discharge, as opposed to-bound forms. See Andrew, - Hodson, Konas'ewich,~ Toxicity to Biota of 4                  Metal Forms in Natural Water, ' 139 - (1976) .                                  _This increase in
)..
toxicity was only cursorily considered by the NRC and applicant.
ASC/ER at N-27.-              Unless controlled, this increase in toxicity would result in increased mortalities of juvenile migrating
^
salmon and steelhead.                As - mentioned above,                            assuming even distribution of migrating juvenile salmon, and a discharge plume
:                  0.7% the cross-section of the Columbia River, approximately                                                                          ,
l_                  100,000 juvenile salmon will encounter the discharge _ plume per year. The Washington Department of Fisheries has expressed concern that "the potential exists for losses of fish due to high
,                    levels of copper at or near the discharge pipe                                            ....                We believe extreme care must be exercised to avoid problems related to copper."        Direct Testimony of Robert Gerke,                                          Witness                        for Washington Dept. of Fisheries.                                  Neither the appilaant nor NRC i
staff have established that the discharge will cause no chronic or acute toxic conditions.                        Indeed, the contrary conclusion is
!                    indicated.
Additionally, neither the applicant nor NRC staff has considered additive and synergistic effects of the combined metal i
discharges from the S/HNP.                      It has been shown that with a mixture
!                    of copper, cadmium and zinc, lethal thresholds have been attained-I Page 29
 
r  ~,                                                                                                                                                                                              ;
when each metal was at a concentration of 40 percent or less of                                  -
l its individual lethal threshold.                                                Eaton, Water Res. 7:1723-1736 (1973).            :Neither applicant nor the NRC have considered whether additive or synergistic toxic effects will result from the applicant's proposed discharge.                                                  Yet it is clear that the
                        -applicant's project will discharge copper, cadmium and. zinc,'as
                        -well as other metal contaminants in excess'of EPA recommended criteria.              As early as'1968, the Federal Water-Pollution Control Administration recognized that, When two or more toxic materials that have additive effects'are present at the same time in the receiving water, some reduction is necessary in the permissible concentrations as derived from bioassays on individual substances or wastes. The amount of reduction'requir-ed is a function of both the number of toxic materials present and their concentrations in respect to the derived permissible concentration. An appropriate means of assuring that the combined amounts of the several substances do not exceed a permissible con-centration for the mixture is through the.use of the following relationship:
(Ca          Cb                                                    Cn                      )
(    +                  ...                            +                    < 1)
(La          Lo                                                    Ln ~                    )
Where Ca, Cb, ... Cn are the measured concentrations of the several toxic materials in the water and La, Lb,
                                              ... Ln are the respective permissible concentration limits derived for the materials on an individual basis.
Should the sum of the several fractions exceed one, then a local restriction on the concentration of one or more of the substances is necessary.                                                                                                                      ,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality Criteria, 35 (1968).
In light of the considerations of additive effects, salmonid migration patterns, sublethal thresholds and increased toxicity i
Page 30                                                                                                                                                                ;
 
of~ metal contaminants, no assurance-is given by-the NRC'in its DEIS'or the applicant in its ASC/ER that discharges of metal
-            contaminants will.not impair the production potential of the aquatic habitat in the Columbia River Hanford Reach.                                    Examination i
of the effects of these metal contaminants on the treaty reserved
.            fishery of, and as is hereinafter discussed, on their food value to the Yakimas, is essential.
G. It is clear that the' total retidual chlorine which wou'ld be discharged. from the S/HNP would result in greater potential
          -mortalities af juvenile salmonids.                    The Environmental Protection l            Agency has prescribed a criterion of 2.0 ug/L total residual
!            chlorine for protection of salmonid fish.                              U.S.        EPA Quality Criteria for Water, 33 (1976).                    The DEIS states that "[i]n addition, the nominal concentration at the edge of-the mixing i
4 zone would be .002 mg/L (2.0 ug/L), precisely the maximum i            permissible level, leaving no room for errors in estimation of i
l          dilution patterns or for operational errors                              (i.e.      accidental l          overuse or discharge (,? blowdown with greater than .38 mg/L l          .TRC)."    DEIS at 4-64. While these numbers have been changed i
slightly in applicant's exhibit 17A, considerations of accidental overuse or discharge of blowdown have not been addressed.
Further, the synergistic relationship of heat and chlorine has been well demonstrated.        U.S.            EPA Toxicity of Chlorinated Power Plant Condenser Cooling Waters to Fish (1976).                                While the DEIS                        ,
1 i
addresses this relationship, the applicant's environmental report i
i .-
;            Page 31 l
 
does not address synergism in any detail. Considering that "both indirect and direct effects would be expected      ....    [t] hose organisms not-killed ou right by exposure to the discharge plume would experience greatly increased susceptibility to predation,"
this omission is significant. DEIS at 4-64. In light of these anticipated impacts, neither the NRC staff nor the applicant has made a showing that Indian treaty fishing rights will not be impaired by discharges of chlorine and by the synergistic effects of heat and chlorine. Examination of the effect of these discharges on the reserved treaty fishing rights of YIN is essential.
H. Neither the applicant nor NRC staff has displayed the importance of the Hanford Reach anadromous fish to the Indian fishery of the Columbia River. Fall chinook salmon (brights) spawning in the Hanford Reach are harvested by the ocean fisheries of S.E. Alaska, British Columbia and Washington, as well as the Indian and non-Indian commercial fisheries in the Columbia River. The following table summarizes pertinent 1981 harvest statistics for bright chinook:
Estimated 1981  % Contribution of        % of Total Harvest of    Upriver Brights to      U.S. Bright Brights    Respective fisheries      Harvest Fishery Alaska            45,400              16.9%              76.0%
British Columbia  78,100                8.9%              -
Washington-Ocean    6,200                3.1%              10.4%
CR non-Indian      1,350                4.2%              2.3%
CR Indian          6,800              15.3%              11.4%
TOTAL          137,850 TOTAL U.S.      59,750 Page 32 i
 
I Affidavit of Willis E.                                        McConnaha in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, et al. v. Malcolm-Baldrige, Civil No. C80-342T -(April. 26, 1982).                                                  If one assumes a value of
                                              $35.00 per harvested' bright chincak (see P. Meyer, Fish, Energy' and the Columbia River, March 1982), total loss of upriver bright chinook would result'in approximately a yearly $5 million impact to only commercial fisheries.                                                    This estimate does not reflect the value of other chinook stocks and steelhead utilizing the Hanford Reach. 'More important, this estimate does not take into account the full loss to treaty fisheries.
Economics provides an inadequate tool to fully capture the magnitude of'such treaty fishery losses.                                                        A con-temporary Indian leader's commentary captures the intrinsic but unquantifiable value of salmon to Native Americans.            'Our religious leaders told us that if we don't take care of the land, the water, the fish, the game, the roots and the berries, we will not be around here long. We must have~our salmon forever!!!!'                                                                                                                          D.
Frank, Sr., Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs.
Meyer, Fish, Energy and the Columbia River, March 1982.
Overestimates of the fall chinook spawning population in the Hanford Reach allow the conclusion that natural spawning fall chinook populations are not a matter of concern.                                                                                                                        Such a
;-                                            conclusion would be far from the truth.                                                        Significant and costly efforts are underway to rebuild this run, both in terms of protection of upstream and downstream migrants at mainstem dams, and in terms of drastically reduced fishing opportunities for tribal members.                        Reduction of the upriver (bright) fall chinook run has been the primary cause of reduced fishing opportunities Page 33
  +u._ . _ - _ - - , . . _ _ - - . _ - -        _a__----. --    - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -  _ - - - - - _ - - - - . - - - _ _ - -          - -      - - - . - - - - , - - , , _ . _ . - - - _ _ - - , - - - - - _ - - , , - - - - - . - - . - . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -
 
o for tribal members. This reduction, permitted and/or caused by the Federal Government, is a direct violation of the 1855 Treaty between the Federal Government and the Yakima Indian Nation.
Instead of Table 4.9 on page 4.51, applicant and staff should present complete adult anadromous fish passage counts at McNary, Ice Harbor, and Priest Rapids Dams.      This data, if included, would provide a more complete picture of the status and long-term trends of anadromous fish runs in the project area.
In addition, to implement section 4(h) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act P.L.
96-501, (Regional Power Act), CRITFC as well as state and federal fish and wildlife agencies submitted recommendations to the Northwest Power Planning Council describing measures to rebuild anadromous fish runs. The work contained therein describes a chinook base run segment of 120,000 destined to pass McNary Dam.
Based on this segment size, compensation of 22,000 adult returns was determined to be appropriate for dam-related mortalities of the fall chinook population returning to the Columbia River between  McNary  and  Priest  Rapids  Dams. Initial  4(h)
Recommendations for the Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement of Anadromous Fish in the Columbia Basin. 134 (Nov. 16, 1981.)  In terms of hatchery production, this compensation will require releases on the order of 22,000,000 juvenile fall chinook to the Hanford Reach area. Neither applicant's ASC/ER nor the NRC staff's DEIS reflect the impact that the S/!INP may have on l
Page 34
 
r efforts to rebuild the depressed fall chinook population of the Hanford Reach.
Failure by the applicant and the NRC staff to give specific consideration to impacts to the treaty fishery of the Columbia River treaty tribes demonstrates the lack of certainty or guarantee that Indian treaty rights will not be impaired by the S/HNP construction and operation. Specific consideration as it regards YIN where the salmon is part of its culture and religion is essential.
I. Neither the applicant nor NRC staff has described specific efforts which will be taken to minimize impacts to aquatic biota that will enure from construction of the S/HNP Intake / Discharge System. The staff and applicant state that
        " suspended materials (resulting from river bottom excavation) may also release or absorb dissolved substances affecting pH, nutrients, trace metals and pesticide concentrations in the water". DEIS at 4-36. However, no analysis is presented regarding potential contaminants, such as trace metals and pesticides which would be released from bottom sediments. Such analysis must be conducted in any event pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 230.60. Chemical constituents such as toxic radioactive nucleides are likely to be found in this sediment.        See "Radionucleides in Transport in the Columbia River from Pasco to Vancouver, Washington", Battelle-Northwest (1971). Consequently, l
Page 35 l
* I l
I I
the absence of data displaying the. constituents of river bottom, l particularly contaminants which may affect salmon and steelhead, demonstrates not that there will be no effect on Indian treaty rights, but that precise effects have not been evaluated.
Examination of this matter regarding the treaty reserved fisheries of YIN and as will be hereinafter diacussed, their consumption, is essential.
J. Beginning at page 4-40 of the NRC DEIS, NRC staff discuss existing water rights in the vicinity of the S/HNP and environmental impacts associated with water withdrawals. DEIS 4-40, 4-42. The DEIS states at page 4-41 that:
The water rights authorization sought by the appli-cant, however, would pose two legal problems: (1) there may be additional water rights that are not public record (e.g. according to the Winters Doc-trine, federal lands, projects and reservations have reserved water rights usually not of public record); and (2) the adopted WDE's minimum flow regulation (Washington State Department of Ecology (1980), could preclude or limit the continuous with-drawal by S/HNP during a period of low flow. However, the latter could be resolved by EFSEC because it has the authority to preempt State permit authority and thus the minimum flow regulation in licensing energy facilities. EFSEC can authorize a water withdrawal for the project.
The staff goes on to conclude that, "[i]n the staff's judgment, no measures to mitigate water use or water rights as in the study area are necessary."
This conclusion ignores basic tenets of the Columbia River Instream Protection Program which focuses on providing instream flows in the Mid-Columbia River for anadromous fish as an Page 36
 
indicator for the well being of other equally important Columbia River instream resources. Washington Dept. of Ecology Columbia River Instream Resource Protection Program, 83, June 1981.      In l conjunction with the treaty reserved water right of the Columbia River treaty tribes, the Washington Instream Protection Program provides a strong mandate for flows of sufficient quantity and quality for Mid-Columbia River anadromous fish.
The YIN has a reserved right to flow for fishery purposes that cannot be impaired by this Commission or any other agency.
See U.S. v. Washington, supra, and page 5, supra.
The  applicant's  proposed  diversion  could  preclude maintenance of recommended minimum flows for the Hanford Reach.
The NRC staff as well as the applicant has not displayed the probability that the S/HNP diversion will reduce flows beyond minimum recommended flows for the protection of anadromous fish contained in the Washington Dept. of Ecology, Columbia River Instream Protection Program and the Initial Recommendation for the Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement of Anadromous Fish in the Columbia River Basin. Involvement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Columbia River instream flow considerations is not without precedent. In 1955, at the request of the Atomic Energy Commission, minimum flows of 36,000 cfs for the Hanford Reach were established by the Federal Power Commission.      14 P.P.C.
1067, 1074. If S/HNP withdrawals would cause reduction in minimum instream flow levels these must be accounted for.
Page 37
 
K. The DEIS states that " locating the (intake and outfall) structures 853m (2,800 f t. ) downstream of river mile 361.5 would reduce environmental effects of construction because of the size
          -of excavations and the duration of excavation activities would be substantially reduced."      DEIS at 4-57.      The NRC staff reasons that by moving the intake and discharge structures closer toward shore by approximately 2,000 feet, significant short-term impacts to ' aquatic biota due to construction would be significantly diminished.
However, this analysis raises questions regarding both the salmon and steelhead migration routes and the construction impact control program.
;              The exact migration routes of these fish in the vicinity of the Hanford Reach at river mile 361.5 is not known. Testimony                            of Robert Gerke, NPDES Hearing June 2, 1982.                Until such migration routes are ascertained, it is not possible to select specific locations    for the discharge and intake structures while                                              '
[      simultaneously ensuring that treaty fishing rights will not be impaired.
At page 4.5-3 of the ASC/ER, the applicant describes its construction impact control program for the construction of the S/HNP intake and outfall structures.            Statements like "every effort will be made to achieve an environmental balance which results in minimal damaging effect upon wildlife, fish or other aquatic species" does not provide useful information.                                  The Page 38
 
statement that " work will be scheduled to minimize turbidity and endangerment of. aquatic life" cannot be considered a program.
URS Engineers, Application Review S/HNP ASC/ER (May 20, 1982).
In response , to the question "[w] hat specific environmental constraints will be imposed on the construction of intake and discharge pipes", posed by EFSEC, the applicant responded that such information is provided in its U.S. Corps of Engineers Permit Application included as Appendix J of the ASC/ER.                      ASC/ER at E-128. However, beyond a bare description of time frames no meaningful environmental constraints appear in the permit application. In the absence of this information it is impossible to conclude that the construction of the intake and discharge lines will not harm outmigrating juvenile salmon and steelhead, or salmon and steelhead in other life stages.                  Until the exact migration patterns of salmon and steelhead are known for this area of the Hanford Reach and until sediment and river bottom substrate constituents are known, a useful construction impact control program cannot be formulated.          Examination of tlis area as regards YIN treaty reserved fisheries is essential.
L. Neither applicant nor NRC staff has adequately discussed 4
the effect of the construction            (installation)              of three torpedo-shaped intake structures and a single discharge nozzle would have on YIN's acknowledged treaty reserved fishing rights and the companion right to have the environment necessary to support the treaty reserved fishery.          Applicant and NRC staff Page 39
                                  ,.                -_ ,      _    _ , , _ m .,, , , ,
                                                                                                , - . ,  ,m, - , , , , ,
 
have. acknowledged that all remaining mainstream anadromous fish production has been compressed into the uniquely free-flowing Hanford Reach. DEIS 4.2.4.1 at 4-53.
The planned excavation will, according to plan, directly disturb 12,000 feet of substrate.            DEIS 4.2.4.1 at 4-56.            This plan would seriously affect the treaty reserved fisheries of the YIN and its members and the necessary environment to maintain those fisheries.
Sedimentation is reported to cause P.he most damage of all the factors affecting aquatic life.            Gibbons, D. R., and E. O.
Salo, 1973. "An Annotated Bibliography of the Effects of Logging on Fish of the Western United States and Canada."                U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-10, Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon;  Bell,  M. C.,  Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria.              U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northern Pacific Division, Fisheries Engineering Research  Program,    Portland,      Oregon. Contract    No.        DACW 57-68-C-0086; Burns,    J.W.,      1972.  "Some Effects of Logging and Associated Road Construction on Northern California Streams."
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 101(1):1-17; Brode,            J. M., J. W.        Burns and G. E. Smith, (1973). " Effects of Logging Road Construction on                        '
Invertebrates in a Small Coastal Stream."            Calif. Dept. of Fish &
Game, Inland Fish Administration Report 73-1; Hall, J.D., and R.L. Lantz, (1969).      "Ef fects of Logging on the Habitat of Coho Page 40
                  ~    .--          -. -      -    -  -  -    -- , - ,- -          - - . .
 
                                                                                                        ~
r Salmon and Cutthroat Trout in Coastal Streams", in symposium, pp.                                                          ,
                                                                                                                                \
355-375, University of B. C., Vancouver,                                      B. C., Canada.              Heneger,        l l
D.L.,  and K.W. Harmon,      (1971).            "A Review of References to Channelization and its Environmental Impact."                                          Proceedings of a symposium. Amer. Fish.      Soc.,          Northern Central Div.,                                  Special Publication No. 2,    Omaha, Neb.; Herbert,                                  D.W.M.,          and J.C.
Merkens, (1961).    "The Effect of Suspended Mineral Solids on the Survival of Trout."        Int. Journal of Air & Water Pollution 5 (1) ,
pp. 46-55; Hollis, E.H.,      J.G. Boone, C.R. DeRose and G.J. Murphy,
      *1964).-
                "A Literature Review of the Effects of Turbidity and Siltation on Aquatic Life."          Staff Rep., Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, Annapolis, MD; McNeil, W.J.,                                        and    W.      H. Ahnell, (1964).    " Success of Pink Salmon Spawning Relative to Size of Spawning Bed Materials."        U.S.          Fish & Wildlife Service, Spec.
Sci. Rep., Fish., No. 469; Phillips, R.W.,                                        ( 1971). " Effects of Sediment on the Gravel Environment and Fish Production."                                                          In James Morris (Ed.), Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment, pp.
64-74, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; Tebo, L.B. Jr.,
(1957).    " Effects of Siltation on Trout Streams."                                              Soc. Am. For.
Proc. 1956: 198-202; Wickett, W.P.,                      (1958).                    " Review of Certain Environmental Factors Affecting Production of Pink and Chum Salmon."    Jour. Fish. Res. Bd., Canada 15(5):1103-1125.
Generally, an 85 percent mortality can be expected when 15-20 percent of the voids in the gravel are filled (Bell, 1973, supra)..
Page 41
 
            .        ..      ~.  .          .        . .    -_            -.          -                  ._ - ..                  . _
l
      .                                                                                                                                                        'I l
m
                                              ~
Suspended silt'has been demonstrated to have the following                                                                                      '
detrimental effects: adhesion to the chorion of the salmonid ova (Hollis, et al., 1964,'s'upra). abrasion, thickening and fusion of gill lamella (Herbert and Merkens, 1961; Bell, 1973, supra),
alteration ' of stream temperature regimes, participation of organic particles producing high BOD (Gibbons and Salo 1973, supra), and a-decrease in fishing success (Bell, 1973; Phillips, 1971).                                                                                                                .                              t 4
Planned disturbance is detrimental to the spawning sequence                                                                                    '
extending as it does into October, DEIS at 4-57.                                            Statement that most chinook . would have left the area in this period is unsupported and is contrary to factual patterns.
Further examination of the proposed change in the river bed, resulting siltation and its effects on the treaty reserved
[        fishing rights and required protection of fishing habitat is essential.
M.      Neither the applicant or NRC staff has adequately l
i discussed the effect of project construction at the plant site,                                                                                        I water-intake and discharge pipeline route, and transmission land corridor, on the terrestrial ecology and the impact on the treaty 4
reserved hunting and gathering rights in the area.                                            It is recited
;        that the above described area 'is presently used by wildlife.
:        DEIS 4.2.2.1.        It is likewise acknowledged that deer use the area
,.      Land that some of the area is an important-fawning area for mule f
deer.      DEIS 4.2.4.2.            Thirty-nine mammalian species occur on the                                                                          ,
1 -
Page 42 l
6
                                    ,.,w--.      .-pr    y----,~--ec_--.--    , - - - ,,4y--e,-w,,g,-  -y  ,#    - , , -,m,-ww..,    = , , . . , , , 9. yy .
 
  -      _                                  _.          .-      =.
b Hanford Reservation.      DEIS 4.2.4.2.            About 60 species of birds are found on the Hanford Reservation and ducks flock there by the
        -thousands. DEIS 4.2.4.2.            Plants and animals will be removed from the 1,200 acres above described and larger animals excluded
:        from this acreage and its' habitat by a six-foot chain link fence.
j        DEIS 4.2.4.2.      Hunting and other recreational pursuits (which we assume will include gathering of natural foods) will not be permitted on the S/HNP site or associated areas.                      DEIS 4.2.4.2.
This habitat removal and the changed character.of the land.
use will not only affect the wildlife resident to the area, but will likewise affect the migratory bird pattern in the flyway which is shared by the Yakima Indian Reservation.
;            Within the S/HNP site and associated areas are bitterroot, lomatium and balsamorhiza careyana which are not only needed for l      foods by the YIN and its members, but are also used in the religion of YIN and its members.                YIN reserved by treaty its right to gather natural foods in this area and to hunt in this area, and this treaty reserved right will be affected by the project.
Construction and operation of the S/HNP will affect and/or destroy the growth of these plants, ASC/ER 4.1-7,                              4.1-8,          thus depriving the Yakima Nation and its people access to the treaty reserved use and enjoyment of this flora.                    Furthermore, the applicant has cursorily addressed the total radiological burden to which the plants and animals of the Hanford Reservation will Page 43
                  - ,  - -  -  ,  . - . ,      -                  n, e,--,  =--,,-,e- ---,ev+>-om.,n,nwre ,- + , ~
 
be subject to with' the operation of the S/HNP. - News articles (e . g . " Rolling Across the Desert  ... Radioactive Tumbloweed",
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May      3,    1979)  refer to numerous reports made to D.O.E. regarding radioactive tumbleweed, mice, snakes, wasp nests, coyote and rabbit feces and migratory birds.
The analyses of the applicant regarding radiological burdens are subject to legitimate contention.      ASLB, Memorandum and Order,    5, 7 (July 6,  1982). Thus applicant has not assured that the treaty reserved hunting and gathering rights of the YIN will not be diminished by the project.
Additionally, the applicant does not assure the YIN and its people free access to the Hanford Reservation or the S/HNP site area for the exercise of their treaty secured rights.          Indeed, access to the Hanford Reservation and the site area will be so strictly controlled for security reasons, that plans for limiting access to the site area are specifically omitted from the ASC/ER.
ASC/ER 3.11. Thus the applicant does not assure the YIN and its people the free exercise of treaty secured rights will not be affected or the probability of free exercise diminished by'the S/HNP.
Consideration of the effect that S/HNP will have on these              i treaty reserved rights is essential.
N. Neither the applicant or NRC staff has accorded the proper importance to the area involved.          The area involved in thisl construction of the project contains one of the remaining                '
l I
l Page 44                                                                        i
                                                                                  -l 1
 
1 I
1 pristine remnants'of a regionally dense settlement system which stretches along the middle Columbia.                        This area needs to be approached and systematically explored rather than excavating and seeing what is found, as the applicant suggests.                          ASC/ER 2.6-6.
Construction excavators do not have the proper training to
;        ascertain the worth of the area as they proceed.
,                "The Middle Columbia Region in prehistoric and early historic tir9s contained one of the highest population densities ir ..he intermountain west. It achieved this dense settlement and aggregation by virtue of its geo-graphic situation, resource abundance, and cultural endowment. Geographically this region is dominated by the junction of three major rivers--the Yakima, the I
Snake, and the Columbia, within a 15-mile core area.
,                These rivers functioned as travel routes linking the i                interior areas with areas on the lower Columbia and the coast.            Most importantly they provided an unknown abundance of anadromous fish.                  It is not chance that the three rivers intersect here for they meet in the geographically structured topographic low of the Columbia Plateau. This low point has a mild winter climate with relatively few days of deep snow pack or extreme cold, a fact which made it a major winter ground for migrating animal populations. Included in
;                the prehistoric fauna are elk, deer, mountain sheep, bison, and pronghorn. The shrub-steppe environment of this region not only provided the major forage for overwintering animals but also fostered a variety of smaller animals available year round including rab-bits, sage hens, badger, etc. The river margins supported beaver, raccoons, otter, ducks, geese, and a wide variety of small animals and birds. The sea-sonal migrations of ducks and geese provided still another major resource in the area. Within the i
shrub steppe a number of food and medicinal plants were available including several varieties of " Loma-tium" and "Balsamorhiza sagittata" (arrowleaf balsamroot). Bitterroot and onions occur on the higher ridges on the Hanford Reserve.
                "Within the context of the rich and nucleated resource mosaic it is not surprising to find the density of settlement and use by Native American people.                      It is not surprising to find sites lining the river banks 1
i Page 45
 
I and scattered.among the shrub-steppe. It is not sur-prising to find extensive cemeteries on islands and throughout the area. It is not surprising to find special religious places. Further, it is_not surpris-ing in view of the fact that Native Americans have lived out their lives in this region for more than 10,000 years that the Native American people feel a deep and intimate connection to this place.
            "In view of the' fact that Native American religions are closely tied to the lands upon which their life began and continued cultural survival depends on the maintenance of usual and accustomed places, the exclusion of Yakimas from this core of their homeland is absolutely destructive of their religion and culture." Report of Anthropologist, Morris Uebelacker.
Exploration of the area to be disturbed requires a systematic exploration by trained persons in order to comply with the purposes of the national policy set forth regarding such areas in 16 USC Sec. 470-1. Such a systematic exploration is necessary to protect the rights of the YIN in this area so important to its culture and religion.
: 6. Applicant has Failed to Adequately Address the Potential Contamination of Salmon, Steelhead, Eels and Other Natural Foods in the Columbia River From the Operation of the Project as Regards Members of YIN Who Consume Large Quan-tities of these Foods.
Applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.20(b) to quantify, to the fullest extent practicable, the factors considered in calculating the environmental effects of the project.      Consideration of protection against radiation is to be specifically considered.
10 CFR Part 20. It is well known that the effect of low level radiation on living organisms is cumulative.      Gofman,  J.W.,
Radiation & Human Health, Sierra Club Books,      1981,  p. 47.
1 l
Page-46 i
 
1 i
l Therefore the applicant should be required to provide a complete and accurate analysis of the existing radiological burden.
Section 2.8 of the.ASC/ER does not.                                          ASC/Er G-9 refers only to the consumption of sports fish and not consumption of salmon and eels and other natural foods.                                        This section fails to discuss the results of innumerable studies done since the 1950's on aquatic life of the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean, a partial-listing of which is available from the Department of Energy, Richland Office.          These studies show that radiation from artificial sources,                i.e.                        Hanford, exists in fish and oysters (e.g. Federal Water and Pollution Control Agency, May 1964),
birds  (e.g. C00-1514-3,                                      " Distribution of Mallards from the ColumLia Basin Region as Indicated by the Presence of 65Zn in Birds Shot by Hunters in the Pacific and Central Flyways", June 1967, Fred A. Glover, et al. Colorado State University) and river sediment  (e.g. TID-25895 "Radionucleides in Transport in the Columbia River from Pasco to Vancouver,                                            Washington,                            W.L.
Hauschild,    Battelle-Northwest,                                      1971). Additionally,                              news articles  (e.g.  " Rolling Across the Desert                                            ...                  Radioactive Tumbleweed", Seattle                        P-I,                  May  3,  1979)  refer to numerous occurrence reports made to the D.O.E. regarding radioactive mice, tumbleweed, snakes, wasp nests, coyote and rabbit feces and migratory birds.      Applicant's Section 2.8 of ASC/ER does not discuss, for example, the artificial radiation in the Columbia l      River sediment downstream of the plant.                                          Thus, there is reason to I      Page 47 l
                            - _ . _ - _ ~ _ - . , . - _ - _ _ . . . - .
 
_ ~                      _                    _              _                    _ -
l conclude that applicant has underestimated the effect of past and                                      l present Hanford operations on the environment and underestimates, additionally, the effect of the project.
While applicant has discussed liquid radwaste discharges they have failed to relate the effect of this on humans and particularly those persons, who like members of YIN,' consume large quantities of anadromous fish, wildlife, roots and berries                                      ;
from within the Columbia Basin and within the air and water currents of the project.              ASC/ER 5.2-1.
i                Yakimas have always had as a basic part of their diet such natural foods. Salmon from the Columbia River is a staple.
Finding:    "In the main, at the time of the treaty, the Indians who were parties to the Yakima Treaty lived in a food gathering culture. They existed on game, fish, roots, berries und some cultivated vege-tables. Of these foods fish was a major food and they landed salmon, steelhead, trout, mussels, eel, and other miscellaneous fish. Salmon, however, both fresh and cured, was a staple in the food supply of these Indians.        It was annually consumed by these Indians in the neighborhood of 500 pounds per capita.
Circumstances necessitated that large quantities of fish, fish oil, roots and berries be cured in ade-quate quantities to insure a sufficient and balanced diet for those periods of the year when the fresh                                                i supply of these commodities was not available.
1                Quantities of fish in considerable numbers were                                                  "
preserved for-future use through smoking and drying."
U.S. v. Washington, 384 Fed. Supp. 380.
This large consumption of salmon by the Yakamas continues.
Finding:    "The Yakimas continue as a religious rite not only the first salmon ceremony but the basic, i                undying salmon culture existing in this northwest
!                area, and this religious concept of the interdepend-
!                ence and relatedness of all living things is a Page 48 l'                                                                                                                  '
I
 
          ? .
f dominant feature of their lifestyle.
                    "The Yakima Indians have been.and continue to be very dependent.on anadromous fish.to. sustain their way of life.
                    "They live close to the poverty level and have not reached' economic or social parity with non-Indian citizens of the State of Washington.
                      "Anadromous fish are vital to the Indians' diet with-approximately 2,000 of the enrolled members 1 fishing 4                    for personal consumption. Approximately four hund-red tribal members fish commercially for the most part-in.the Columbia River area..." U.S. v. Washing-ton, supra, p. 382.
See also:    The Socio-Economic Status of the Yakima-Nation, supra,
: p. 30 et seg.
Cs in fish flesh caught in the Columbia River would be 1000 i              times higher than its concentration in the water.          Chapman, W.H.,
;              H.L. Fisher and M.W. Pratt, Concentration Factors of Chemical 3
Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms.          UCRL-50564, 1968 Ng. Y.C.,
C.A. Burton,      S.E. Thompson, R.K. Tandy, H.K. Kretner and M.W.
Pratt, Predictions of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices.          IV. Handbook for Estimating the Maximum J
Internal Dose from Radionucleides Released to the Biosphere.
Livermore:        University    of  California,  Lawrence  Radiation Laboratory, UCRL-50163 (Pt. IV), 1968.                                                    .
Applicant must present a showing that there will be no damage from non-natural radiation not only to the public at large but also to this specific danger to this specific group i.e.,          the-YIN and its members.                                                                    :l Page 49 I
 
                                                                                                                                                                        -)
a l
The health. effects of ionizing radiation, whether somatic or genetic, are cumulative, thus existing radiological. burdens must be ' considered.            Gofman, supra, p. 47.                                                              Furthermore, the age of irradiation is all important (ibid. p.                                                                        48) with'M utero doses the nost potent (ibid                                pp.126, 729).                                          Applicant does not provide
_ projections of children M utero in its population projections in the_ASC/ER.      Dr. Rosalie Bertell states that radiation has an enhancing effect on existing health burdens and that such
:information is necessary to correctly determine the impact _of a proposed project.                          See X-Ray Exposure and Premature Aging, Journal of Surgical Oncology, 1977, p.                                                                          379, and Radioactive Effluents: Pebble Springs Nuclear Plants, testimony before the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, April                                                                          3,  1978. Gofman discusses _the implications of occupational exposures to the human genetic pool (ibid. p. 584) and calculates the radiation exposure and effects to temporary workers (ibid. p. 586).
Applicant relies on models which underestimate both the dose and the effect of radiation that would be released from the project by failing to incorporate the findings of "The Heidelberg Studies" (Radioecological Assessment of the Whyl Nuclear Power Plant). 1978, Department of Environmental Protection of the University of Heidelberg,                                                  University of Heidelberg,                            NRC Translation 520, U.S. NRC.
Likewise, applicant has not considered other contributors of non-natural radiation _that are so close that they share the same                                                                                    ;
l l
Page 50 u___.      __ ____ ..            _ _ . _  . _ . . _ . _ . . . - . _ _ _ . _ , _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . - . . _ , _ . . , _ _ _                            . _ . . .
 
i 1
l
  .                                                                                          l local air, water and terrestrial environment, i.e. WPPSS                1, 2, 4, waste disposal, present waste with some leaking, and other operating contributors such as the Fast Flux Test Facility.
The accumulation of non-natural radiation by the natural foods being the basic diet of YIN and its members and the consumption of same and the effect on the treaty reserved cultural and religious aspects of this consumption, must be examined.
: 7. The Commission Should Not Issue Any Construbtion Permit or Facility License for Skagit/Hanford Pending Completion of the Waste-Disposal Confidence Proceeding Commission regulations provide                that when there are unresolved safety questions with respect to a project, a construction permit may only be issued if the Commission determines that:
(i)  such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for completion of construction of the proposed facilities, and (ii) ... the proposed facilities can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The regulations also require an assurance of safety prior to issuing operating licenses. 10 C.F.R.            Sec. 50.57 (a) (3) .
The applicants claim that those impacts are considered.                The staff, in contrast, admits that neither the ASC/ER nor the DES assesses the environmental impacts of 30 years storage of high-level radioactive waste on-site, because the applicants "have not requested 30-year storage in ... [their] application".
l i
Page 51 l
 
7_
O Pending the completion of the Nuclear Waste Confidence Proceeding, neither the applicant nor the staff may assume that off-site waste storage will be available.        Instead,  the Commission requires that an analysis of storage for the term of.
the licensa be made for each project. See, 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (Oct. 25, 1979). The applicant's failure to apply for a 30-year waste storage license and the staff's refusal to consider the implications of 30 years of on-site storage reveal that both applicants and staff have improperly prejudged the outcome of the Waste Confidence Proceeding.    (They assume there will be available off-site storage.)    Moreover,  they have ignored Commission guidance on treatment of waste disposal in plant license applications pending conclusion of the Confidence Proceeding.
The Commission has not yet issued an order in its Waste-Disposal Confidence Proceeding.      Until it does,  the required assurances with respect to the waste disposal hazards from Skagit/Hanford cannot be nade. Until such assurances are available, no permits should issue. NRDC v. NRC, No. 74-1586 (USDC, April 27, 1982).
: 8. No Provision is Made for Access for Enjoyment of Treaty Reserved Rights by YIN and its Members Applicant has not provided for access to the Hanford' Reservation for the exercise of treaty reserved rights of the YIN and its members within the Hanford Reservation and S/HNP site area.
Page 52
 
It is clear that that access must be provided particularly when the lands are held by the United States, the other party to the treaty. In determining the access servitude over the ceded lands that flows from the Treaty With the Yakimas (12 Stat. 951),
the Supreme Court said in United States v. Winans, 198.US 371, 384:
          "The rights so reserved imposes a servitude on the entire land relinquished to the United States under the treaty and which as was intended to be, was continuing against the United States and its grantees as well as against the State and its grantees."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Access must be provided regarding S/HNP site to accord YIN the exercise of its treaty reserved rights in the ceded area.
USNRC Regulatory Guide Series, NUREG-0099, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2:
          "8.2 Costs.  [L]ong-term external costs include im-pairment of recreational values (e.g. , reduced availability of desired species of wildlife and sport fish, restrictions on access to land or water areas preferred for recreational use); deterioration of esthetic and scenic values; restrictions on access to areas of scenic, historic, or cultural interest; degradation of areas having historic, cultural, natural, or archeological value; removal of land from present or contemplated alternative uses; creation of locally adverse meteorological conditions (e.g.,
fog and plumes from cooling towers, cooling lakes and ponds); creation of noise, especially by mechanical-draft-cooling towers; reduction of regional products due to displacement of persons from the land proposed for the site; lost income from recreation or tourism that may be impaired by environmental disturbances; lost income of commercial fishermen attributable to environmental degradation; decrease in real estate values in areas adjacent to the proposed facility; and increased costs to local governments for the Page 53 c                                                                        I
 
r services required by the permanently employed workers and their families.        In discussing the costs, the applicant should indicate, to the extent practical, who is likely to be affected and for how long."
: 9. S/HNP Limits Use of Yakima Indian Reservation By YIN and Its Members as a Permanent Homeland The Yakima Indian Reservation was reserved as a permanent homeland by the Yakima Indian Nation and its members where they could live and enjoy their culture, life and religion without interference by whites in their activities.            Basic Documents.
The basic thrust of the treaty negotiators was that the Yakimas should remove themselves from permanent residence within the over ten million acres which they possessed, owned and over which they exercised dominion, to go to the relatively small Yakima Indian
      . Reservation where the United States could and would protect them from the activities of the white man.              Basic Documents, and particularly Treaty Minutes, Folio 100-115.
Now the white man's activities (S/HNP) threaten to make the Yakima Indian Reservation a less desirable place to live.
Objectively reasonably present fear and apprehension regarding the effect of the increased radioactivity in the air, land, water and natural foods upon members of YIN and the genetic effection of their descendants will keep YIN members from residing on their reservation. Even now, present use of the Hanford Reservation is keeping YIN members from residing on their permanent homeland.
Likewise, surveys show that enjoyment of their permanent homeland by members of YIN residing on the reservation will be impeded by i
i Page 54
 
S/HNP construction and this objectively reasonably present fear and apprehension. See also:    Mannenback, Stephen F.  "The Decision to Choose Nuclear Power Before and Af ter Three Mile Island", Environmental Law, Volume 11, No. 2, pp. 421-434.
Applicant considers evacuation to be a proper means of protecting persons from damage in emergencies. However, there is no place for the Yakimas to go. Nor would financial mitigation protect the Yakimas because the reserved area with treaty reserved rights and benefits cannot be purchased.        Basic Documents.
There is another and more frightening hazard of nuclear power plants, the possibility of a serious accident in the course of operation of the plant.      In 1957, a Brookhaven National Laboratory study commissioned by the AEC concluded, under quite pessimistic assumptions, that a single serious accident could result in 3,400 deaths at distances up to 15 miles; 43,000 injuries at distances up to 45 miles; land contamination at even greater distances; and $7 billion in property damage. Four years ago, the AEC chairman told the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that, because of advances in the technology, the consequences could now be even greater.    (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on Proposed Extension of AEC Indemnity Legislation,      89th Cong.,  First Session, 347-348 - 1965.)    The potential destructive impact of a nuclear power plant catastrophe dwarfs by many orders of Page 55 l
 
                                    .    ..                              _ . -                - . -=                __ - - _  -.  .  . . _ .
magnitude any other catastrophe which could be imagined as I
resulting from a man-made artifact.
Applicant contends that the probability of such an accident is extremely low.                    However, the energy industry sought protection l
of their resources and the resources of insurance companies by 1                            the passage of .the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 limiting the t
liability for such a catastrophe to $560 million.                                                  As owners of over a million acres,of land in the catastrophe area, it would take little damage per acre to exceed this damage to the land of the Yakimas alone.                      This does not. include any other damage to the persons or property of the YIN or its members.                                                  Such an intrusion 4
on a'possible financial destruction of the YIN and its members, I
again violates the purpose of the Treaty With the Yakimas.
)^                                10. Sovereignty of YIN and Trust Responsibility of United States of America and the Unique Relationship Between the Two Governments Requires That YIN be Permitted to Raise and the NRC Should Assist in the Examination of any Matter That
.,                                      Might Affect YIN Regardless of Whether It Is Contended by YIN or Not The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation is an Indian Nation established by Treaty with the United i                            States of America in 1855 and has a government duly recognized by
                            -the Secretary of Interior.                                            (Treaty With the Yakimas.)      Among the rights that have been guaranteed and reserved to this signatory
;                            Indian tribe is the right to control its affairs within the t
United - States through an Indian government.                                                    The treaty      ,
                            . reservation and guarantee of these rights is explicit.
i e
Page 56
 
r t
1 The Yakimas were explicitly guaranteed that they were-to have "their own government" and were to have "their own laws".
(Record of the Official Proceedings at the Council in the Walla Walla Valley, June 9 and 11, 1855.)      Other treaties signed the same day as the Treaty with the Yakimas provide for submission to the laws of the United States but Article VII of the Treaty With the Yakimas merely acknowledges dependency and does not provide for submission to the laws of the United States.        (Comparing Article 8, Treaty With the Walla Walla, Cayuse, etc., 12 Stat.
945, 2 Kap. 521, with Article VIII of the Treaty with the Yakimas.)    The Yakima Treaty together with its legislative history in the Treaty Minutes which are to be read in interpeting the Yakima Treaty; clearly provides that the Yakimas were to be exclusively governed by their own laws.
The Treaty With the Yakimas clearly states that the signatory fourteen tribes and bands "for the purposes of this treaty, are to be considered as one nation.      (Preamble, Treaty With the Yakimas.)
In Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832), Chief Justice Marshall explained the legal effect of the use of the terms
        " treaty" and " Nation":
              "The term ' Nation' so generally applied to them means a ' people distinct from others'. The Consti-tution, by declaring treaties already made, as well as those to be made, to be the Supreme law of the land, has adopted and sanctioned the previous treaties with the Indian Nations, and consequently admits their rank amoag those powers who are capable of making treaties. The words ' treaty' and ' Nation' are words Page 57 r
r J
 
of our own language, selected in our diplomatic and legislative proceedings by ourselves, and have a definite and well understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians, as we have applied them to other nations of the earth. They are applied to all in the same sense." (Emphasis supplied.) 6 Pet. 559-560.
This was the law of the land at the time of the execution and ratification of the Treaty With the Yakimas and explicitly establishes the sovereignty of the Yakima Indian Nation--except as limited by the terms of the Yakima treaty.
Article II of the Treaty With the Yakimas provides that the Yakima Indian Reservation is to be set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the Yakimas and that no one except United States government personnel was to enter the reserved area without the permission of the Yakimas and the United States.
This Court, in Williams      v. Lee, 358  U.S. 217 22]  (1958),
explained the legal affect of that language:
          "[I]n return for [ Indian) promises to keep peace, this treaty ' set apart' for their permanent home a portion of what has been their native country, and provided that no one, except United States government personnel, was to enter the reserved area. Implicit in these treaty terms, as it was in the treaties witn the Cherokees involved in Worcester v. Georgia, was the understanding that the internal affairs of the Indians remained ex-clusively within the jurisdiction of whatever tribal government exists."
This implicit right of sovereignty that flows from this portion of a treaty was reaffirmed and expanded by the Supreme Court in McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164, 173-175, and in United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 1978.
These cases also make it clear that the Yakimas' right of Page 58                                                            .
1 I
 
self-government continues to exist until lawfully abrogated or modified by Congress.
10    C.F.R. Sec. 2.715  contemplates  such breadth of participation by an interested governmental body.                By filing its contentions, YIN does not waive but insists it has the right to so proceed as an " interested governmental body"                  in all proceedings before the NRC.
Likewise, the NRC has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the YIN and its members.        The Ninth Circuit has determined "that any federal government action is subject to the United States' fiduciary responsibilities toward the Indian tribes". Nance v_. Environmental Protection Agency, 645 F.2d 701, 711 (9th Cir. 1981), citing Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 297 (1942).      First articulated in Cherokee Nation v.
Georgia, the trust principles contained therein have been applied in many situations to protect the rights of Indian tribes.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S.      (Pet.) 1 (1831).            See e.g.,
Morton v_. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 236 (1974); Navajo Tribe v. United States, 364 F.2d 320 (Ct. C1. 1966); Pyramid Lake Band of Paiute Tribes  v. Morton, 354 F.Supp. 352    (D.D.C.        1972); Eric      v.
Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 464 F.Supp. 44        (D. Alaska 1978);          R. Chambers Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 1213, 1234 and nn. 100-101 (1975).                          The fiduciary obligations arising from this trust relationship Page 59
 
between the United States and the Indians have been likened to the obligations of private trustees or guardians. Consequently the acts of federal representatives are to be judged by "the most exacting fiduciary standards".      Seminole v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-297 (1942). If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has specific skill and expertise in dealing with impacts to        '
aquatic biota and other impacts on the reserved treaty rights of the YIN from nuclear power plant construction and operations, such expertise must be used to the operations, such expertise must be used to the fullest extent possible to protect the treaty reserved assets of YIN. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts Sec.
181 (1959); Calvert Cliff's Coordinating Committee v.      Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1111 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
Petitioner YIN does not address in this proceeding the question of whether or not NRC regulations provide adequate procudures to fulfill the NRC trust responsibility. Rather, YIN urges that within the procedural confines of NRC regulations the ASLB must exercise its discretion on substantive issues in a manner which conforms to the strictest fiduciary obligations.
Any judgment call which purports to reach an accommodation between a competing economic interest and Indian treaty rights is impermissible. Pyramid Lake Band of Paiute Tribes v. Morton, 354 F.Supp. 352, 356    (D.C. 1972); Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation v. Malcolm Baldrige, No. C80-342T (W.D.
Wash., Oral ruling Aug. 4, 198:l. The NRC is obligated to use l
Page 60 l
l
 
I e
  .o its resources and authorities to the fullest extent possible,to protect the treaty reserved assets of YIN.
Additionally, under the National Environmental Policy Act agencies of the federal government- have not only tne . obligation to consider the environmental consequences of proposed actions, but also the substantive authority to base decisions on environmental consideration. Gulf Oil v. Morton, 493 F.2d 141, 145    (9th Cir. 1973), quoting Calvert Cliff's Coordinating Committee v. A.E.C., 449 R.2d 1109, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 1971).        This authority has been recognized by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in various opinions. See e.g., Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach, Unit 2) ALAB-82, 5 A.E.C. 350, 352 (1972).      The trust obligations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission direct this authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in effect to prevent authorization of any action which would impair or extinguish treaty established interests.      See Confeder.ited Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Alexander, 440 F.Supp. 553 (D.Or. 1977), KRD v. SVID, Opinion Ninth Circuit, Sept. 10, 1982, supra.
DATED this 29th day of September, 1982.
Re      tfully submitt d, s
dffLC -
JS B. H0VfS,  Attorney for Petitioner Yakima Indian Nation 6 North Third Street P. O. Box 487 Yakima, WA 98907      (509) 575-1500 Page 61
 
T
,  o STATE OF WASHINGTON)
                                                ) as:
County of Yakima                      )
JOHNSON MENINICK, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
: 1. I am the Chairman of the Yakima Tribal Council.
: 2. I am authorized to submit the attached Supplement to Petition to Intervene of Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation.
: 3. I have read the attached Supplement to Petition and I know its contents. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the statements in the Supplement to Petition are true and correct.
0h_ HNSON MENINICK d ..
J .b .          SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me thise2 9                                          ay of September tid;S.,.
p-        1982.
                  /
f e'd' N''
                                            ..                $ '7h . M f)Totary Public ih and for the St t                                f
                "$[. 4,D-{ :,$s.O.          Ci        V Washington, residing at -YM=
                - d ; O..',N ' Ej' i Wr          N. 2 c A-!                    My Commission Expires: J-/ 6 - [3
              ,s@.n.                  .-      s
                  %            ,S,...
                      .[:,'. ' ?$~
z~~~....L
                              ..... J I
Page 62
                                                                    ,,    - _ , . , , , _ _ _ _ . . ,    ,---...-,4-, z . - - . - - = - - - - - - -}}

Revision as of 23:06, 30 March 2020

Supplement to Petition to Intervene,Consisting of Contentions & Bases for Contentions
ML20065H545
Person / Time
Site: Skagit
Issue date: 09/29/1982
From: Hovis J
HOVIS, COCKRILL, WEAVER & BJUR, YAKIMA INDIAN NATION
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8210050169
Download: ML20065H545 (62)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20065H545&oldid=2725243"