ML19224D312
| ML19224D312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | Copeland J, Thrash C BAKER & BOTTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D313 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907110342 | |
| Download: ML19224D312 (37) | |
Text
b
@ C 6 '%
8 %i$ C 020?Uauc roonm acer Yz " .p ,
J, ptiw UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g h NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
, c(rej,[g"# g'-
% i &
BEFORE ThE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ' M/lIm In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & S POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 5
(Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, S Unit 1) S APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO TEXPIRG'S ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF MAY 16 In its Memorandum and Order of April 11, 1979, the Board allowed all parties thirty days from the date of the Order within which to assert additional contentions meeting a specified criterion. This time period expired on May 11, 1979.
On May 18, 1979, Applicant received a list c f additional con-tentions frca TexPirg dated May 12, 1979, but bearing a cer-tificate of service date of May 16, 1979. TexPirg, represented by counsel, plainly failed to meet the timeliness requirement of the Board's Order and sets forth no grounds whatsoever to justify its late filing. Accorcingly, tnese contentions should be d.ismissed. Ecwever, if the Board rules otherwi.se, Applicant submits the folloring individual responses to TexPirg's addi-tional contentions.
Q i \A )s
~
7907110342 '/f
d$k1m.
Contention 1. Inadequacy of the FES based upon number of units, alternatives and delegation.
Applicant opposes admission of this contention on the following grounds:
A. The contention with respect to the scope of the project is based upon allegations of "act which are without any basis. Applicant has not committed, nor does it have any plans to construct and operate additional units at the ACNGS site.
Applicant has a pending application before the NRC to constrr.ct and operate only one unit at ACNGS. The ASLB previoucly ap-proved the withdrawal of HL&P's application for construction and operation of Unit 2 (Board's Order of August 14, 1978).
Moreover, the Board has previously rejected an almost identical contention noting that "in the event another unit (or units) were to be proposed, environmental analyses would hrce to be performed by the Applicant and Staff." Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 5 (February 9, 1979).
B. The allegations with respect to the insufficient description of alternatives lacks both specificity and basis as required by 10 CFR 92.714(b). TexPirg alleges that the Staff's analysis of alternative sites is deficient in two respects.
First, it states that the effects on people living in Houston of a " core melt and steam explosion" at alternative sites must be considered. This raises the issue of consideration of
.b b ? ? ?'O 2
.A accidents greater than design basis accidents which must be rejected for the reasons discussed in Applicant's response to contention 12. Second, TexPirg states that alternative means of transportation of the reactor pressure vessel to alternative sites should be considered. This is simply a restatement of a contention which is already in the case. Finally, contrary to TexPirg's claim, 10 CFR $51.52(b)(3) provides that the findings in the FES may be modified by the ASLB's initial decision.
C. The allegations with respect to environmental prch-lems being deferred for further study identify only three items that have been improperly deferred. The three items cited by TexPirg, namely, chlorine, heavy metals, and survival of game fish, all have bean admitted as issues in this proceeding. See Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 4 (February 9, 1979). At this point TexPirg's allegations are unproven and provide no basis for a conclusion that che FES is in any way defective. And, as stated above, the initial decision is the proper vehicle for considering any modifications which might be required in the FES following trial on the merits of TexPirg's allegations.
Contention 2. Natural gas alternative.
Apr'.icant opposes this contention which seeks to raise the issue of natural gas as an alternative to ACNGS. The contention does not raise an environmental issue ' ' urges a
, r -
'p 3 ) ") 3 J't
consideration of natural gas only because of its cuirent and projected future economic advantage. Consideration of alter-native sources of energy based on purely economic grounds is not required. Consumers Power Comoany (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 161-63 (1978); Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 8 (Feb. 9, 1979).$!
Contention 3. Vertical temperature distribution of the cooling lake.
TexPirg contends that a cooling lake vertical tem-perature profile has not been considered by the NRC Staff in the assessment of heat loading impacts on the acquatic ecosystem.
However, the NRC Staff did in fact request information from the Applicant on this subject. Applicant fully explained in the ER Supplement the basis for predicting that the cooling reservoir will be unifc m in temperature throughout the vertical plane (p. SH-129). The Staff then independently concluded that temperature stratification need not be addressed in the FES.
2/ The Board has previously rejected a similar contention on the grounds that it was both speculative and failed to allege deficiencies in the Staff's analysis in FES. See Board's Order Ruling on Intervention Petitions, pp. 74-75. This contention is no less speculative and no more specific as to alleged deficiencies.
) )) - '
4
s
- aN>
Rather than stating the specific errors in this analysis,* /
TexPirg asserts incorrectly that no analysis has been done.
Accordingly, TexPirg's contention is based on a wholly incor-rect premise and must be denied as plainly insufficient to present a litigable contention.
Contention 4. Use of cooling lake for ACNGS will violate sections of the Clean Water Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued an NPDES permit (under Section 40% of the FWPCA) for discharge into the ACNGS cooling lake. (See Final Supplement p. 5, F-1).
The NRC has recognized that under the provisions of the FWPCA, EPA has jurisdiction to approve the cooling system for a nuclear power plant. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), 7 NRC 1, 26 (1978); NRC's Policy Statement .n Implementation of Section 511 of the Federal Wster Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 40 Fed. Reg. 60115 (December 31, 1975). The NRC has no jurisdiction to consider a collaterni attack on the legality of the EPA's issuance of a discharge permit for the ACNGS cooling lake.
- / TexPirg does make a vague reference to other lakes but fails to allege, much less demonstrate, that the temperature profiles in these lakes are in any way comparable to the Allens Creek cooling reservoir.
y m.
5
Contention 5. Need for State PUC approval prior to con-sideration of Construction Permit by the NRC.
Contrary to the statement in this contention, the Public Utility Commission of Texas nas issued certificates of convenience and necessity for ACNGS (See ER Supplement p. S 12.1-2). The NRC has no jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on the legality of the PUC certificates. Moreover, TexPirg is simply wrong in even alleging that State PUC pro-ceedings must be completed and a certificate of convenience and necesrity obtained before the NRC may consider an application for a construction permit. While the State has full autharity to issue its o m permits, the NRC need concern itself on.y if and when the State of Texas determines that the Applicant should not be permitted to build and operate nCFJS. See, Southern California Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 ), ALAB-308, 3 NRC 20, 30 (1976). Clearly, this is not the situation here, and the
- ontention must be dismissed.
Contention 6. Energy conservation.
This contention, which alleges that ACNGS is not needed apparently because of future conservation of energy, sh;uld be dismissed since energy conservation has been admitted by the Board as an issue in this proceeding as TexPirg Con-tention 7. Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, pp. 6-7
,(
3 [J .) ?2.
6
(Feb. 9, 1979). The remaining statements made ay Tex?irg in this contention do not raise any separate issues.
Contention 7. Use of cooling towers instead of the cool-Ing lake.
TexPirg's attempt to raise again the issue of cooling towers at ACNGS should be rejected for the same reascas it was rejected previously; that is, the comparison of environmental impacts of cooling towers with the cooling lake was made in paragraph 64 of the Partial Initial Decision. Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 5.
/ In fact, as to subpart (a) of TexPirg's contention the Eoard concluded that even though the resevoir would use more land and more water, such considerations were of little importance at the ACNGS site.
TexPirg has not alleged a single fact challenging the con-clusions reached by the Board in the PID, nor can TexPirg avoid the fact that the new reservoir will use even less land and water. Subpart (b) of the contention is already in the case.
Subpart (c) is manifestly irrelevant and shows nothing more than that the Applicant always considers the most appropriate
- / As discussed in Applicant's response to Contention 10, this contention is also clearly outside the scope of new con-tentions which TexPirg was permitted to file by virtue of paragraph 9 of the Board's April 11 Grder.
s?r ,
~
?. :
7
cooling system for its individual power plant sites. r'inally, subsection (d), which refers to the cooling lake as violative of the provisions of the FWPCA, should be rejected for the same reasons as discussed in Applicant's response to Contention 4.
Contention 8. Fossil fuel alternatives.
The Applicant opposes this contention. In Part (a)
TexPirg attempts to raise an issue concerning the relative cost of procuring gas, coal, lignite ar.d ;il as opposed to uranium.
Similarly, in Part (b), TexPirg states that because of a'_leged future unavailabilit'2 of uranium, fossil fuel alternatives will be economically superior over the li . v f t1 : plant. Part (c) also seeks a purely economic comparisen of alternatives based upon unsupported allegations concerning the cost of reactor safety equipment. Consideration of alternatives solely on economic grounds is improper for the reasons set out in our response to Contention 2.
Parts (d) and (f) also do not state valid conten-tions. These statements are merely unsupported rhetorical assertions which do not state the basis for any definable factual controversy. To the extent tTat they attempt to raise an irsue concerning Class 9 accidents. they do not adequately present an issue for consideration in this proceeding for the reasons stated in our respc se to Contention 12.
.- h 8
Contention 9. EPA standard for the uranium fuel cycle.
In its " Additional Contentionc" filed on November 2, 1978, TexPirg alleged "that direct radiation dosage at the site boundary, when added to doses from other sources, may violate 40 CFR 190." TexPirg now has repeated this contention, this time dropping the reference to the EPA comment in the Final Supplement to the FES, which prompted the original allegation, and adding vague references to accidents and transportation as additional sources. The Board's response to the original con".ention is directly applicable to the obvious reiteration:
Since there is no allegation by PIRG that Applicant either will not meet or is unable to meet the criteria of 4i C.F.R. 190 by satisfying the requirements of Appendix I to Part 50, there are no bases for the contention. . . . (Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p.12).
TexPirg has again failed to provide a sufficient allegation as to the insufficiency of Appendix I compliance and, therefore, the contention must be rejected.
_ Contention 10. Inability to meet 10 CFR Part 100 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
It is difficult to determine exactly what aspects of Part 100 and Part 50, Appendix E are being challenged here, since there is no reference in the contention to any specific provision. The contention is actually a series of unrelated, vague and confusing allegations which do not define litigable 9
issues. In addition it appears to challenge the findings of the 1975 Partial Initial Decision (2 NRC 776) on population (paragraph 82), meteorology (paragraphs 131-33), LPZ and popu-lation center distance requirements (paragraph 81), and feasi-bility of emergency pians (paragraph 84), without presenting
" newly discovered evidence or a material change in circum-stances" on these issues, as required by the Appeal Board in this proceeding. Houston Lightinc & Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, slip op.
at 15-16 (April 4, 1979). For these reasons the contention sho:ld be rejected.
In addition, Part (a) seems to attack the regulations themselves. The site suit bility requirements in Part 100 are not dependent upon the size of the reactor. In any event, the size of the ACNGS reactor has not changed from that described in the FID (2 NRC at 798), and there found to be acceptable.
Fart (b) is a vague and unsubstantiated challenge to the ability of this reactor to operate safely witho' . reference to any particular aspect of the Commission's safety regulations which will not be met. TexPirg appears to allege that a new reactor design must be tested by full scale operation before it may be licensed. Such a requirement would virtually preclude the development and licensing of new desigr s and is contrary to Commission policy. See, Ohio Edison Co. (Erie Nuclear Plant,
,7 .,
10
Units 1 and 2) ASLB Order Subsequent to the Firrt Prehearing Conference (August 18, 1977), p. 7.
Part (c) does not appear to even address Part Sc, Appendix E or Part 100. The statement is an unsubstantiated assertion concerning normal releases of radiation from the plant. Such releases are covered under Appendix I to Part 50 and no grounds are provided to support a contention that this regulation will not be met.
Part (d) appears to challenge the population projec-tions in the PID (paragraph 82). There is no basis given for the assertion that "during the later stages of operation of the plant much more than 500 people per square mile will live within 30 miles of the plant." The Licensing Board has already found to the contrary, 2 NRC at 798, and no new information is provided to demonstrate that there has been "a material change in circumstances."
Part (e) challenges the adequacy of the Applicant's emergency evacuation procedures on the grounds of heavy auto-mooile traffic. The contenti;- appears, although it is un-clear, to seek consideration of evacuation for areas outside the LPZ without a showing of special circumstinces which would warrant such extended consideration under recently published Commission guidance. (See response to Contention 36) In any event, the contention does not specify any area beyond the LPZ bb N $]
11
i where, in TexPirg's opinion, extended evacuation plans are required, nor does it state why evacuation, as opposed to other emergency pr>cedures, will be necessary. To the extent that this sub-contention seeks to raise an issue relating to class 9 accidents, it is invalid for the reasons stated in response to contention 12.
Part (f) states that no "NRC approved" state evacu-ation plan exists and presumably for this reason, the plant does not satisfy Commission requirements. The regulations do not require NRC " approval" of state plans.
Parts (g) and (h) challenge the Board's findings on meteorology contained in paragraphs 131-133 of the PID. The Staff's analysis of local meteorological conditions, which formed the basis for the Board's favorable ruling, is found in Section 2.16 of the FES. The contention does not state any basis for challenging the adequacy of this analysis or the Board's ruling. In addition, Part (h) attempts to relate the effect of rainfall to exclusion area and LPZ size in some vague manner without specifying a basis for the intended relationship.
Part (i) challenges the determination of the Board in paragraph 82 of the PID that Houston is sufficiently distant from the ACNGS site that "no special circumstances contemplated by 10 CFR S100.ll(a)(3) need to be given. . . . " 2 NRC at 798.
Nothing is provided to indicate that circumstances have mater-ially changed since this finding was made.
12 335 33p
Contention 11. Protection against sabotage.
The contention should be dismissed since it does not allege in what specific respects the Applicant will not comply with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 73 of the Commission's regulations relating to the physical protection of nuclear power plants. The ASLB has previous]y dismissed a similar contention asserted by TexPirg. See Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, pp. 3-4.
Contention 12. Class 9 accidents.
This contentier is actually a request to consider Class 9 accidents in this licensing proceeding without any factual " showing that with respect to the reactor in question, there is a reasonable possibility of eue occurrence of a par-ticular type of accident generically regarded &s being in Class 9." Long Island Lighting Cc. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), 6 AEC 831, 836 (1973). Pursuant to Commission guid-ance, Class 9 accidents need not be considered unless such a particularized showing is made.
The contention also makes reference to recent events involving the Three Mile Island plant. The complexitles of that incident are currently being examined in detail by the Commission, and by Co.,gress and other groups. See, e.g., Exec.
Order No. 12130, 44 Fed. Reg. 22,027 (April 13, 1979) (announc-ing the formation of the President's Commission on the Accident 13 . - , ,
DO3 .:jf
at Three Mile Island); Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, News Release (May 4, 1979)
(creating a task force of Committee members to investigate the accident at Three Mile Island); 44 Fed. Rec. 19,262 (April 2, 1979) (notice of first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee on the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2). If any change in the Shoreham prin-ciple should be required as a result of thece efforts it must be presumed the Commission will make it. See Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), ASL3 Memo-randum and Order Concerning Motions to Postpone Evidentiary Hearing, slip op. p. 3 (May ll, 1979). Until then, however, a discrete licensing proceeding is not the vehicle for abandoning Shoreham.
Contention 13. Extended storage in the Spent Fuel Pool.
This contention challenges the adequacy of the FES with regard to the alleged possible need for long term storage of spent fuel at the ACNGS site. As the Board has previously ruled in rejecting identical contentions raised by five other petitioners, Appendix I calculations include doses from spent fuel stored at the site and therefore the contention is either an impermissible challenge to the regulations or lacks a tasis for challenging Applicant's compliance with Appendix I. Order Ruling on Intervention Petitions, p. 66. Moreover, the Appeal 14 bb -
Eoard has held that consideration of the need for long term storage of spent fuel at the site is not required under NEPA in view of the Commission's " findings of reasonable assurance that methods of safe permanent disposal. . . can be available when they are needed." Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 ( 1978 ) . _*/
The contention also raises the issue of a meltdown of the spent fuel pool analyzed in the " German Study, Working Report #290." As is demonstrated in the Staff's response to an almost identical contention submitted by another petitioner in this proceeding, the cited study has been thoroughly repudiated by the German agency that issued it. NRC Staff Response to Additional Contentions Filed by the Franson' , dated May 2, 1979, pp. 1-2. A revision of the study concludes that "a melt accident is out of the question for the fuel element pool. "
. . . Id.
- /
V On May 23, 1979, that decision was remanded to the Commission for clarification and consideraticn in the light of a related proceeding and other current developments." state of Minnesota et al. v. United States Nuclear Reculatory Commission et al, United States Court of AppeaJ.s for the District of Columbia Circuit Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032, Slip op. pp. 3, 16. However, the court did not set aside or stay the license amendments involved and rejected the claim that the environmental and safety effects of storage of spent fuel in .he storage pool should be considered in an adjudicatory proceeding. Slip op.
- p. 15. The court pointed out that the matter might quite appropriately be addressed in a " generic" proceeding which would presumably be a rule-making proceeding. Slip op. p. 11.
- 1. A$U~
~3
\
. ,s Contention 14. Constitutionality of the Atomic Energy Act.
This Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the Atomic Energy Act. It is well estab-lished that an administrative agency has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of the statutes it administers -- this Job is for the courts. Encineers Public Service Co. v. SEC, 138 F.2d 936, 952-53 (D.C. Cir. 1943), dismissed as moot, 332 U.S. 788 (1947); Panitz v. District of Columbia, 112 F.2d 39, 41 and n. 13 (D.C. Cir. 1940). In any event, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Price Anderson Act, 42 USC 2210 et sec., which limits the liability of all private operators of nuclear reactors, is constitutional. Duke Power Company v. Carolina Environmental Study GrouD, 98 S.Ct. 2620 (1978).
Contention 15. Occupational exposure.
TexPirg attempts to compare one ertimate of occupa-tional exposure from an unlikely source (the 'GESMO Report of 1976") to figures in an article reflecting actual measurements.
TexPirg draws from this comparison that "measurec exposure has been recorded about 3 times estimated exposure. " What Tex?irg fails to realize is that it is comparing apples and oranges.
The proper comparison should be between the estimate of occupa-tional doses set forth in the FES and FSFES (p. 5-8 and S. 5-29,
.c 16 3 ') ;I .}y.
a
-s respectively) and any pertinent measured exposures. The antic-ipated doses for ACNGS are estimated to be : 00 man-rems per year. Actual recorded exposures from 1969 to 1976 ranged from 178 to 594 man-rem per reactor year average for light water reactors. " Occupational Radiation Exposure At Light Water Cooled Power Reactors," NUREG-0323, p. 4 (1976). This NUREG publication is the scarce of information relied upon in the article cited by TexPirg. Thus, TexPirg is half-right in the data base used, but is completely in error in the comparison it makes since the "GESMO Report" has nothing to do with the estimates used for ACNGS*/. The proper comparison shu.; that estimated and recorded historical values are very close. The contention should be dismissed as unfounded.
Contention 16. Using Wallis as the population center.
The Applicant oppcses this contention, which chal-lenges the Licensing Board's findings in the PID (see 2 NRC at
- / TexPirg's "GESM0" estimate value is reported in units of man-rem per GW(e)-year--a ratio between exposure and electric-ity generated, while the FES estimate is in units Of man-rem per reactor year--a ratio between exposure end time. If the measured NUREG figures are converted to man-rem per GW(e)-ycar units, the values average about 1,100 (see Table 1, NUREG 0323). Hence, TexPirg may be correct that the GESMO estimate is low by a factor of 3 (570 compared to 1,100), but that, of course, has nothing to do with ACNGS.
- s -
17
798) without alleging any new information to support the chal-lenge. The projected population of Wallis was reevaluated in the Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement 2, p. 2-2 without changing the conclusions reached in the PID. TexPirg has set forth absolutely no basis for a contention that this town will increase by 25 times in population over the life of ACNGS.*/
Contention 17. Rupture of six-inch LPG pipeline.
TexPirg contends that the proximity of a six-inch liquid petroleum gac pipeline (at its closest approach, atout 7000 feet away) poses an unacceptable explosion hazard. As documented in Supplement No. 2 to the SER at page 2-9, Applicant has commited to relocation of the pipeline if additional analysis or alternate physical measures (such as interception dikes or revetments) do not provide an adequate safety assurance. This commitment removes the source of TexPirg's concern and leaves nothing further to litigate.
Contention 18. Differential poct-construction settlement.
Without mention of any supporting bases, TexPirg hypothesizes problems with differential settlement between the reactor building and other seismic Category I structures 11
- / TexPirg has not (.ven identified the "large intercontien-tial [ sic] airport near the plant." As documented in Section 1.2 of the SER, Supp. 2, there is no such airport nor any plans fcr one.
3, h
18
"the reactor sunk 18 inchcs as the South Texas reactor already has." The contention is based on both cpeculation and the absolutely false premise that the South Texas Project contain-ment has sunk 18 inches. The assertion as to STP is totally unsubstantiated. The STP Containment has settled well within the predicted six inches (see STP FSAR Section 2.5.4.10.3).
Even if TexPirg's factual assertion was correct, it has neither shown nor alleged a correlation between the soils and construc-tion at Allens Creek and at the South Texas Project, nor does it focus on the key issue of differential settlem=nt. TexPirg has alleged nothing that could possibly displace Applicant's detailed analysis which concluded that the " differential antic-ipated between seismic Category I structures are on the order of 1/2 inch or less and the piping and other significant umbil-ical connections between Category I structures will be designed to accommodate one inch of differential movement." (PSAR Section 2.5.4.10.2). Accordingly, this proposed contention must be dismissed as totally without basis and totally speculative.
Contention 19. Availability of documents.
The " contention" does not set forth a material issue of fact suitable for litigation in this proceeding.
Contention 20. Computer program.
TexPirg alleges the computer program used to calcu-late the seicmic stresses on the containment and reactor is 19 ,
,r ,
JS? J3
s .
defective because (1) "it subtracts forces when they should be added" and (2) uses the square root of the sum of the squares method to sum forces . There are two fatal flaws in TexPirg's allegat.i nns . First, the general charge that Applicant uses improper mathematics in cumulating stresses is totally mean-ingless. TexPirg dces not indicate in what manner, under what conditions, cr for what purpose Applicant " subtracts" when it is correct to " add". This general allegation is no better than a bald assertion that the computer program is " wrong". Without greater specificity, this amorphous challenge can not be enter-tained.
The attack on the square root of the sum of the squares methodology ir similarly c void of any particulariza-tion and basis. TexPirg in no way explains or alleges why this method is unreliable or why the " actual sum"*/ method is the most conservative in all cases. It is incumbent on TexPirg to allege sufficient facts to raise at least an inkling of the source of dispute. TexPirg has failed to do so and its con-clusory statements must therefore be disregarded.
1/ Applicaat is unfamiliar with this terminology, but sup-poses t! t TexPirg refers to the absolute sum computation.
20 3 37g
o Contention 21. Full scale testing of ECCS.
TexPirg's allegation in this contention that the ECCS has not been demonstrated effective by the " majority of the evidence" is a direct challenge to the Commission's ECCS regu-lations set forth in 10 CFR 550.46 and Appendix K to Part 50.
Under the procedures provided in 10 CFR S2.758 a party may not challenge the validity of an NRC rule in a licensing proceed-ing. If that party seeks a waiver or exception of that rule under 52.785(b), he must demonstrate "special circumstances."
Since TexPirg has done nothing more than make a generalized complaint about ECCS testing this contention is inappropriate for this proceeding. See, Ohio Edison Co. (Erie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ASLB Order Subsequent to the First Prehearing Conference (August 18, 1977), at p. 7, where the Board rejected a very similar contention.
Contention 22. Control r"^m indicators.
The contention is wituout basis and lacks minimal speci'icity. The features of the control room which are al-legedly "not sufficient" are not identified and the relation-ship between the P"NGS control room and the Three Mile Island control room i.s never identified nor described.
Contention 23. Appendix I releases.
The contention is nothing more than a conclusory assertion, wholly without any proffered support. It must be 91 -
3 0 b- 3f
reje:ted as lacking the specificity required for a valid con-tention. -
Contention 24. Testing of safety features and components.
The contention refers to unidentified " features or components" of ACNGS and states "they cannot be proven safe nor properly designed. . . before completion of const;uction." It is impossible to determine the " features or components" com-plained of and, accordingly, the contention is impermissibly vague. More importantly, the contention complains of the fact that the unidentified components have not "actually been tested in a full-scale reactor. . . under design bases accident con-ditions," and thus suggests imposition of conditions which are not required by NRC regulations, as discussed in the response to Contention 10.
Contention 25. Technical qualifications.
While Applicant strongly disagrees with the alle-gations in this contention, many of which border on libel, it is sufficient to state that the subject matter of the proposed
" contention" is plain.y not qualified for consideration under the Board's instructions in paragraph 9 of the Memorandum and Order issued April ll, 1979. In response to ALAB-535, the Joard extended opportunities to the different parties to avail themselves of various forms of relief. TexPirg was given an oppor'. unity to " assert any additional contentions they might j
,,.)
have ad'rancet but for the _mposition of" the limitations in the hearing notices. This contention does not fit that :aold.
Any ccncern generated by the construction history of the South Texas Pioject would naturally have to arise after the date construction began. The STP construction permit was issued in December, 1975. Hence, the relevance of matters occurring at the STP site would have qualified as "new evidence or information" under any possible construction of that term.
Indeed, this exact point was made by the Board in admitting TexPirg's contention that the South Texas site is an obviously superior alternative to the Allens Creek site. Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 4. TexPirg has not, and indeed could not have, argued that it was inhibited in any fashion from presenting the contention before now. TexPirg has failed to follow t'ae Board's explicit instructi ons without a word of justification for what is otherwise an unacceptable late filing.
Since TexPirg has offered no reason why this contention should be considered, in should be disregarded.
Contention 26. Financial qualifications.
Setting aside the entirely speculative nature of the major premise in this contention (i.e. the poor : cord at STP impugns Applicant's financial qualifications),*/ this contention
- / Applicant would also note that there is no relationship between cost forecasts and financial qualifications.
2a, b b 'i
. 'j[
can not be entertained for the same reasons 25 must be dis-missed: TexPirg has no license to expand the scope of conten-tions at this late date beyond the parameters specifically allowed by the Board or the Commission's regulations. TexPirg has not attempted to comply with either in this regard and the contentAcn must therefore be rejected.
Contention 27. Heavy metal contamination.
TexPirg attempts to convey some concern over the introduction of heavy metals from the cooling lake into the Brazos River and hence into stored oil and/or the Gulf of Mexico. The exact nature of TexPirg's concern is impossible to decipher from its garbled recitation. In any event, it appears to be squarely predicated on a " plan to place heavy metals . .
from Allens Creek cooling pond into the Brazos River." The rest of the baffling statements are irrelevant in light of the fact that TexPirg has not identified sach a " plan" nor asserted the slightest basis for such an expectation. The only identliied source of heavy metals in the cooling lake is from the Brazos River and its tributary. (See FSFES p. S.5-19 & 20). TexPirg has not challenged this assessment. Ic is difficult to imagine the materialization of the highly speculative and tenuous chain of events TexPirg postulates when the initiating phenc .
completely unsubstantiated and appears to be the reveru_ of
,,r ,.
. ? -
24
wh2 ' it has claimed. TexPirg's Contention 27 should be re-jected as incomprehensibly vague, speculative, ana contra-dictory on its face.
Moleover, this contention clearly arose after . Tune, 1978 (the date of the referenced environmental statement) and hence is not of the variety that can be considered under the Board's instructions without proper justific aon for late filing (see response to Contention 25). For this additions reason, this contention must be disregard d.
Contention 28. Use of intensity VII of the Modified Mercalli Scale as the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
This contention should be dismissed because TexPirg has provided no additional information to challenge the conclu-suons reached by the ASLB in paragraphs 124-130 of the PID establishing the safe-shutdown earthquake. (2 NRC at 810-11)
TexPirg simply takes issue with the Staff's characterization in the SER of the 1891 Rusk earthquake without providing any basis to challenge this characterization.
Contention 29. Redundant nydrogen recombiners.
TexPirg calls for two "recombiners and lead shielding in place at ACNGS to provide the ' active redundancy' considered important in Section 6.2.5. of the Supp. #2 of the SER."
Applicant agrees and in Amendment 46 to the PSAR, dated July 14, 1978, provided for "two redundant recombiners permanently 25 J j [..; }fg
installed inside containment." 5taff's contrary statement in the SER supplement appears to be an oversight on its part and will no doubt be corrected in an errata publication. TexPirg's contention i; understandably misconceived but undeniably moot.
Contention 30. Charcoal absorber water sprays.
TexPirg's contention on fires in the charcoal filters of the Standby Gas Treatment Systen is identical to McCorkle Contention 17. Both contentions stem from the absence of water sprays and compliance with Regalatory Guide 1.52. TexPirg and Ms. McCorkle should be consolidated as parties with regard to this contention for the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law and argument.
Contention 31. Compliance with Appendix I.
Relying on three publicatiana and speculation that "the recent Three Mile Island incident may press Congress into lowering these Appendix I standards," the contention asserts that the gaseous radwaste system at ACNGS will not be able to accommodate more stringent requirements. ACNGS complies with Appendix I, and that is the governing regulation. Discussion of coapliance with future regulations presents no litigable issne. In fact, the Board reached this exact same conclusion
'uth regard to a previously raised contention concerning rad-waste system " margins fo; growth" and extensive modifications 26
"if regulations for radioactive emissions are char.ged. " order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 7?.
Contention 32. SDVT float switches.
TexPirg is partially correct in stat:.ng that the float switches used in four earlier BWR designs have had fail-ures. But the problem of those failures does not reach Allens Creek. The ACNGS design does not use the self-equalizing float switches which failed at other BWR's and TexPirg cites uothing to support a contention that switches used in the ACNGS design might fail. This change in design alleviates the problem and removes TexPirg's allegation of defect.
Contention 33. Generic issue A-ll.
To the extent TexPirg alleges that there is no rea-sonable assurance that the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, may be constructed and operated prior to the ultimate resclution of this generic issue without endangering the health and safety of the public, Applicant agrees that this contention meets the minimum requirements for presenting a l itigable issue.
Contentions 34 and 48. Hydrogen monitoring.
In these two contentions, TexPirg contends that Applicant's. systems for detecting the potential and occurrence
' ~
'7 3'Ji )r ,k{
of hydrogent/ explosions cre inadequate. The sole basis for TexPirg's concern in both instances is "t' e recent Three Mile Island incident." TexPirg does not explain, however, why this incident reflects on the adequacy of hydrogen monitoring at ACNGS. TexPirg alleges that " current approved containment building monitoring apparatus did not bring such an event to the attention of operators immediately." TexPirg does not allege, as it cannot, that the " approved containment building monitoring" at TMI-2 in any way resembles the system design for ACNGS; TexPirg does no c acknowledge, or perhaps does not under-stand, the significant differences in the engineering and per-formance between a PWR (TMI-2) and a BWR (ACNGS)--particularly the radical differences in containment design. In order ta frame an acceptable contention of tnis sort, TexPirg must challenge the present eight hydrcgen sampling subsystems for detection of hydrogen in the containment and drywell (see PSAR Section 7.5.1.4.2.11) with reasonable specificity. Merely raising the spectre of Three Mile Island is plainly insuf-ficient. TexPirg's contentions must be dismissed for lack of any supporting bases.
- / TexPirg refers to "non-condensible gas" in Contention 48; but since hydrogen is the only non-condensible which poses a
" chance of an explosicn" Applicant infers that both contentions address hydregen gas , oblems.
28 Sy g
Contention 3E "High flux" pressure relief valves.
TexPirg alleges scme connection between " poor per-formance of radiation monitors" and pressure relief valves.
Apparently TexPirg holds the erroneous belief that a high flux signal actuates certain pressure relief valves. Applicant cannot discern any possible contention in tPis confused dis-cussion of the relatinnship between flux signalc and pressure relief when none exists. Pressure relief valves actuate only on actual high system pressure (ranging from 1,103 psig con-troller set pressure to 1,190 psig spring set pressure) or signals from (a) drywell high pressure or (b) reactor vessel low water level in conjunction with output pressure from at least one LPCI or core spray pump. (PSAR Section 5.2.2.2.3 and Table 5.2-6). Given these uncontroverted facts, TexPirg has fallen far short of framing an understandable contention.
Additionally, TexPirg's supporting references make clear that this concern was documented by alleged "new evi-dence" in 1978 and 1979. Therefore, in accordance with the Board's Order of April 11, 1979, TexPirg cannot submit this contention for ccasideration without addressing the factors Justifying a late filing. This contention is unacceptable for the same reasons that Contantions 25, 26 and 27 failed.
Contention 36. Adequacy of emergency plans.
this contention seeks to require the Applicant to 29
develop and prove the feasibility of emergency evacuation plans for an area well outside the low population zone. Pursuant to recent Commission guidance on emergency plans, an applicant need develop plans for areas outside the LPZ only if special circumstances exist which warrant such extended consideration.
43 Fed. Rec. 37473, 37475 (August 23, 1978); Houston Lighting
& Power Co. ( Sc.ath Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ASLB Prehearing Conference Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, pp. 60-61 (April 3, 1979). No special circumstances are alleged here, and the contention is therefore inadmissible.
Intervenors contend that " Applicant has not developed in the PSAR" those aspects of an emergency plan which are required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. The Applicant's analysis of emergency plant is contained in 513.3 of the PSAR. TexPirg does not identify in what respects this analysis fails to comply with the provisions of Appendix E. Accordingly, the contention is inadmissible for lack of specificity.
Contention 37. Hydrogen explosions in off-gas system charcoal adsorbers.
TexIirg's contention on off-gas explosions is totally subsumed in Shreffler Contention 2, which was adopted as a Board Question in an Order entered by the Board on April 13, 1979. The Board pointed out to TexPirg in that Order that all parties have a right to full participation with regard to Board 30 $
Questionc TexPirg's suggested additions to the off-gcs system are no more than one proposal to " meet the current requirements of the Commission with respect to standards for combustible gas control." (See O_ der Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions,
- p. 71). Thus, TexPirg's contention is not an independent allegation. TexPirg will have ample opportunity to nresent its proposal as part of i;s affirmative evidence on Shrefflel contention 2.
Contention 38. Screening of plant employees.
Relying, without any supporting basis, upon the assumption that "there are cancer prone individuals" and that such persons may become applicants for employment at the facil-ity, the contention states that Applicant "should agree to. . .
a screening process" to avoid hiring such persons. The conten-tion is remote speculation. Appij.: ant will comply with such regulations as govern the acceptability of employees at nuclear reactor facilities. The Boarc has rejected quite similar arguments "that an individual's susceptibility is increased by factors such as poor health, disease, pregnancy, and genetic de fects . " The Board was correct that this type of contention is "an impermissible challenge to NRC regulations . . . ."
Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 32.
Contention 39. Redundancy in spent fuel cooling system.
While it is true that the ACNGS spent fuel cooling
. ? !:
31 JJ Uf-H
system is not comnle ely redundant (all active components-e.g.
pumps-are, some passive components-e.g. heat exchangers-are not), that f act alone is insuf ficient to form an a dequate cor -
tention. TexPirg must also allege some colorable basis for assuning that a fully redundant cooling system is needed.
Applicant has demonstrated in its safety evaluation that decay heat generation poses no problem as long as the irradiated fuel is submerged in water. Redundancy of the heat removal mechan-ism is provided by the make-up of water lost due to fuel pool heat-ap from either of two safety-grade sources. TexPirg does not dispute this finding. The Spent Fuel Pool is conserva-tivel/ designec~ to maintain a safe water level, totally inde-pendent of the cooling system, and in complete compliance with the 10 CFF. v, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 61 and Regul.itory Guide 1.13. (PSAR Section 9.1.3.3. ) . TexPirg has not shcwn any reason for believing that an additional cooling system is necessary or desirable and its contention must be dismissed as groundless.
Contention 40. ,lant piping ultimate yield strength.
For reasons not fully understood by t? Applicant, TexPirp contends that a pipe burst LOCA is less of a hazard than a reactor vessel burst LOCA and, accordingly, that tne ultimate yield strengths should be fixed to guarantee that a pipe will burst before the vessel does. This is an interesting r
) J .. ' ;,-]
(,
32
approach to pressure relief operation. However, the Applicant (and, apparently, the Commission) prefers the use of pressure relief valves and has provided for nineteen of them. Since the set points of these relief valves are well below the design pressure of all componentL of the renator coolant presure boundary, TexPirg's suggestion misses the point entirely. This contention should be dismissed for failure to frame a realistic controversy.
Contention 41. Survey c. grouth feults.
TexPirg's claim that it will suffer " economic injury" it ACNGS is constructed without a better survey of growth faults in the site area is an injury which is not cognizable by this Board and on this basis the contention should be dis-missed. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976);
Order Ruling Upon Intervention Petitions, p. 18 (Feb. 9, 1979).
The contention is likewise inadmissible as a health and sa- ;y issue since.the question of " growth faults" in the ACNGS site area was previously considered by the Board in great detail in the Partial Initia. Decision (5s 108 & 109, 2 NRC 804-05) and TexPirg has alleged no new information wl.ich would challenge the Board's findings on this question.
Contention 42. Natural gLs alternative.
This contention is riearly identical to Contention 2, and Applicant opposes it for the reasons stated therein.
33 ) )' !j ));
Contention 43. Tornado missile design for charcoal tankc.
TexPirg alleges that Applicant has shown no basis for the conclusion that a rupture of the off-gas charcoal tanks would result in offsite exposures that are a small fraction of 10 CFR 100 guidelines. The facts are decidedly the oppos-ite. In PSAR Section 15.1.36 Applicant has set out in detail the assumptions, methods, conditions, and calculation results sh, wing that the instantaneous and simultaneous failure of all gaseous radwaste processing equipment will not exceed the Part 100 doses. (See particularly Table 15.1.36-2.) TexPirg's weak assertion that these results have no basis must be dismissed as groundless.
Contention 45. Mysterious plane crashes.
TexPirg suggests that planes flying ever nuclear power plants have experienced a phenomenon described as
" latching" -- a disturbance of guidance systems causing crashes.
Absolutely no factual underpinning is provided to establish the alleged causal relationship and the contention is therefore without any basis.
Contention 46. Relief valve failure.
To the extent TexPirg contends that a commitment should be made to either (a) select and use the relief valve design with the least recorded failures or (b) use a variety of designs, Applicant agrees that this contention meets the mini-mum requirements for presenting a litigable issue.
3 ;; V:'2 34
Contention 47. Outside es_itainment coolant sampling.
To the extent TexPirg contends that a commitment should be made to provide for reactor coolant sampling outside the containment, Applicant agrees and has plans to incorporate such a system into the ACNGS design. Thus, there is no contro-versy for litigation.
Contention 49. Water level indicators.
TexPirg's contention on water level indicators ap-pears to have two parts. The first asserts that water level indicators generally are unreliable. It is impossible for Applicant to respond to such a barren and conclusory statement without some reasonably specific clarification of how the alleged failures indicate that the water level instruments designed for ACNGS ar similarly inadequate. Without this correlation, reference to other failures is meaningless.
The second part of TexPirg's contention proposes an accident scenario initiated by a combination of MSIV closure, scram, and water level indication " stuck on low." TexPirg does not hint what would cause an erroneous low level indication or why it would not return to the proper reading. Moreover, the only consequence of this unexplained hypothetical is that "the operator would naturally increase the feedwater pumpflow [ sic)."
Applicant cannot understand what would be " natural" about such actions after a MSIV closure and scram; but, more importantly,
,: c , , . , ,
.) . L 35
the "how" of such actions is even more puzzling given that by hypothesis the steam driven feedwater pumps have been deprived of their motive force when the MSIV's closed. Any further attempts to discern the sense and import of this contention would be futile since it is obviously without support or rea-soning.
Contention 30. Reactivity insertion.
TexPirg hypothesizes a steam line break accident that
" draw [s] coolant water into the reactor." The hypothetical is too unspecific and vague to warrant a response. Applicant cantot imagine from where the coolant will be " drawn", nor why it will flow in this fashion, nor why the depressurization and high temperatures will not flash the water in the core -- from whatever source -- into steam and hence result in negative reactivity inse:; tion exactly as predicted for all other steam line break accidents analyzed. Perhaps TexPirg is employing a principle of physics, thermodynamics or fluid flow that the Applicant is not aware of, but it has not explained this phe-nomenon sufficiently to support a litigable issue.
Rcspectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL:
BAKER & BOTTS
- b "
3000 One Shell Plaza J. Gregory Copeland y Houston, Texas 77002 Charles G. Thrash C. Thonas Biddle, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002
'7r .,
- ) .)
36
OF COUNSEL:
LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, J. R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Harold F. Reis 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W. Robert H. Culp Washington, D. C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Attorneys for Applicant HOUTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
' 7 r-37
S . ${