ML19225A610

Tx Pirg Amends & Replies to NRC 790605 Responses & Houston Lighting & Power 790531 Responses to Tx Pirg 790516 Contentions Submitted Per ALAB-535.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19225A610
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/15/1979
From:	Jeffrey Scott TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907190696
Download: ML19225A610 (5)

Text

s. p I m

. NRC PUM T T -

.~ < een y UNITZD S? ATE 3 NUOL.:AR R20UmATOROT FOM"!ESION ,

BEFORE THE A? Orc S;?lTT AND LICENSIN1 BOA?D

{., g jgfg p ~

In the matter of: Y cm #d3 N 2 Houston Lichting & Power 0o., N Dccket p53-466 (Allens Oreek Unit 1 )

Texas Public Interect Research Group (TexPIRG) amendments and replies

t. o. . A.

..p p l. i. c.

. a. nt. . a. n. .

d. 3. t. af. f. . t. o. .C.

. o. n. t. s...

t. i. o. n. s. . sub.

.. =.

. i.. t..t. e. d. .pur. s u. sn. t . t. o. . A.L. A. B.. . 5 3 5 INTRODUCTION Pur:uant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing appeal Board Order (ALAB-535) TexFIRG, intervenor in these proceedings, filed 49 con-tentions with the Board on May 15, 1979 We are in receipt of Applicant's responses to those cantentions dated May 3', 1379, and Staff's response to those contentions dated June 5, 1n73. Usine the numbering of contentions of the Mpy 56 th submission, we have replied and in several cases amended some of those contentions.

• hose unamended or not the subject of a reply may be amanled at a later date or be furnished with supporting replies at a later date. In order to produce this docu:ent as rapidly as possible we have been un? D .e to treat the contentions in order, for which we appologize fo. inconvenience.

ALAB-535 permitted Tex 7IR3 to file contentions which it believed it would have filed had it not been blocked by the limitati]ns stated in the federal Register notice of Septe:ber 11, 1973. Also , c ente n-tions may be filed anyti=e up to the pre-hearing conference for good cauce. Je point out that the 30ard's interpretation of the 3ectember 11th no: ice and in its subsecuent action plus the Staff's inter?re-tation of the rules in the conferences with TexPIR3 in the.latter part of Septesber were strict. Contentions were rejected or crit-icired on a scintilla of evidence thas they cirh: have been raised prior to November t i, 1975, the date of the Partial Initial Decision.

Tex?IRG believes that it should be allowed to raise any con-tention ithout rejection on the basis of the previous limitations excluded by ALA3-535. de believe that for any of these contentions to be rejectet on the basis of ALAB-535 tinliness, the burden is on others than Tex IRG to show that the contention could not have been nossibiv raised before the Partial initial Decision. After this has been achieved, then the burden would shift for Ter?IRG to

how why the contention should be adnitted under 10 CFR2.714 (a), .

the usual procedure in a construction license hearing.

R23. ONS23 AND AMENDMINT3 1

1. 29 - REPLY - Apulicant's statenent, "T x7IRG's con ention is...

understandibly noot", is in error.

The3ERreviewsthePSAR.}

2

• /

Hence, the contention is litagable until an " Errata" is published showing Staff's position. . -

rex?IRG seeks unamended ad:ission of the contention unless an errata shows that Applicant will meet the request of "two redundant recombic.ers permanently installed inside contain=ent."

1. 35 - arPLT- The contention 1 2 poorly worded, and Applicant and Staff may with to rply to the below amended contention:

Ap?licant's relief valve protection agains overpress; riza- .

tian of tne reactor vessel is based on an analysis that allows to little cargin between the calculated value and the AS'3 lie Boilder and Pressure Vessel Code licits for pub-safety.

Flux signals are plus or minus (+) 5.4% ac-Mnitor System (accordin3 to the PSARcurate in initiating SORAM from the L thus fail to actuate relief valves an,APffAJGA) and may of the ASME limits. d prevent exceeding to a precsurer signal to actuate relief valves acceptableFurther, Applican to Staff (See ,.2.2 (2) Pg. 5-3 of Supp. #2 of the SER)

Hoace there is inaiequate over-pressurization protection .

with the hi h flux signal due to thair inaccuracy cad Apnlicant should have a reduniant high flux system orthe high p .

=eet staff requirements with a pressure signal system here.

The contention should not be excluded on ti=liness, becauce Staff's finding that applicant has not confirmed that the initial operatinc pressure of 1045 pci 3 results in the highest pressure transient if reactor SORAM is initiated by a hich pres-sure signal was not available to TexPIRG until receipt of the SIR ,

has not ceen raised by others, covers the cicnificent safety issue of overpressurization, will not delay thece already delayed pro-ceedings, and will protect TexP! 3's me=bers interests.

' f37 gas -resulting REPLYfrom - Apolicant a LOCA. has equated this contention with hydrogen LOCA TerPIRG's contention is not raised by events, rather by the dancer of a " temperature excursion" in a charcoal adsorber bed as reported in Nuclear Snfetv, 20(1),

1979, F. 73, (received in March,1979).

of the chn, Staff cites the Supd2 oublished in narch, 1979 as containing lanEuege by whien 4erPInu could nave been alerted to charcoal adsorser bees being installed due to the 2 to 1 change in nuaLer of nuclear -

plants for AU,u3, that hence the contention shculd have been raised in response to the uoard's depte:ber "1" as we presume?) 2his would not be possible. ( was "11" meant ,

App'icant modified the off-css treatment system to r d e uce emissions as well as to accomodate the plant design changes, making it un-certain if the modification were for one or the other purpose.

2n addition, TerrlhG would call to the board's attentior that this issue will not be addressed by any other party, cover's an issue related to the important prown's rerrv, unit *},

inn fir fire (not waste tiac andof 1975) and hence contributes to a sound record, will not is not a part of other Go= ission action,

)

5o'b' t

• 4

1. 33 AMENDMENT TO CONTENTION:

TexPIRG treatment contends thatsuch for diseases individuals who had radiation as asthma, pneu onia, ton-silitis, adenoid conditions, acne, uriticart exusa,

=us conditions or any other benign conditions of the thy-and shoulders nead A. ave been shown to have increased can: -

risk as 1a Cancer Nations rault ofSocietv, such treatnent,62(5), Journal of :: :e 1979[See (May), p. 11 9i-* 1; New sncland Journal of Medicine, 294:1019-25,1976; New En&lan2 Jourgpl of Me:1 cine, 292:171-5, 1975; Journat of bationat Cancer Socieev, 55:519-30, 1975 persons snoula not be additionally expose]dand tnat sacn to radiation in Applicants atomic facility through e:ployment .

cants license chould be contingent on an agreenent toAppli-take reasonable steps to. prevent such persont in areas where there is exposure to radiation.from working ,

(Note: This is now the text of Contention #33) .

Response to previous replies to Contention #33:

TexPIRG does not contend Applicant's plan violates regu-lations or rules.

TexPIRG believes the contention is in the snirit of 10 CFR 20.103 (a) (1), while utilicing these recent findings. That is, it does not permit individuals to receive

= ore than the dose previously received (=ost of these persons wero irradiated in the 1940 to 1960 period). Of course that radioactivity dose was not due to applicant. The contention is also within the spirit of 10 CFR 20.104 ss it too recognizes there are individuals who should receive some lets than the 10 CFR20 regulations due to special physical conditions. '4here recently it has been shown there is a tendency for occupational exposure to increase in nuclear plants ( _ Nuclear Encineerine International, Feb. 1979, 36-41, " Radiation exposure in L'dR'S higher than predicted"), and where ACNGS will be the largest Boiling Water Reactor licensed to date, justifies a screening procedure, such as a questionnaire or the like.

1. 40 AMENDMENT TO CCNTENTICN:

During an cecident, Anticipated Transient without scras (ATW3) the Rasmussen Report assumed a reactor coolant pipe would burst at its design 1 pressure of 1,250 psi, causing before therea LOCAwasand any decreasing fuel meltinethe transient severity

. NE;O-10349 at P.42, calculated 1,535 psi for the Main Steam Isolation Valve Closure ATW3, and there is currently'a 2',700 psi rupture linit in both the piping and the reactor vessel in ACNGS, dut to a 2.25 safety factor. TexPIRG contends that dan- ,

is less strong againdf pressure transients following ATW3ger to its then the reactor vessel, because:

a.

Tbe ECCS is designed to cope effectively with a large pipe break, but not the breaking of the reactor vessel, and

b. a lower pipe break pressure will ; cevent fuel melt due to the of the coolant transientaue which results to the duepressure greater to increased whichmoderation increases coolant density.

Further, TexPIRG bases this on the higher power core denity of ACNG3 than any eperating or licensed facility ma a transient of this type more rapid in appearance, = king ore 7 difficult to control with reactivity control systems, and 3hh -} I- /Q

_, :toore likely to =asult Intervenor's in fuel =elt with consequent danger embers.

1. 42 FLEAS? ALCO TO READ AM FOLL' W3: .

TexPIRC contendtApplicant and Staff have not considered ad-equately the use of natural gas for fuel in a generating station. On Page 1 of the April 2, 1979 " Energy Insider" a Department of Energy Itblication, Deputy Aiministrator Hazel Rollins, of the Econo =ic Regulatory Administration, indicated, "...a DCE task force identified over a half trillion cutic feet of natural gas last nonth (March) for possible use ty utilities and industrial plants capable of switching from oil to natural gas." Further that exolor-ation techniques using seis=ic and . hologras methods have made discovery of natural gas =uch easier than was evidaa-tly known by the Staff when it created the Final Cupplement to the Finci Envirennental State ent. Another rencon for the increased availability of natural gas is dere ulation of inter-state : shipment. Further, the Texas Public Utilities Cocsission has witndrawn its " Docket 600" which ordered that utilities switch from natural gas and oil to other fuels. TexFIRG contends tha use of natural gas will have less severe environ ental consequences (particularly ther-nal pollution) and hence a natural gas fueled generating facility is required under National Environmental Policy Act mandate for the Allens Creek site.

1. 45 REPLT In the Detroit News, Jan. 9, 1971, P. 3, a Gru=an Aircraft executive statei the crash of the =ilitary plane may have been caused by the " latching" pheno =enon. The issue does not have to meet 10 CFR 2.714, as it wculd have been excluded under the pre-ALAB-535 rules. The phen cenon is not "=ysterions" as Applicant suggests, and at thic licansing should be arcued be-causu a large:ajor airporito serve Southwest Houstca (the pop-ulation center of the city) is to b2 constructed and ooerated near enough to ACMG3 to make flight paths from the West pas s over. A large plane crashing into the plant complex could de-PIRG member's health and safety interests.stroy all power sources for the plant safety

1. 50 REFLYStaff's reply that since Applicent's " fact" SCRIP: system was introduced in a May 1977 A=end:ent, so that TexPIRG could have raised this in response to the Septe:ber 11, Board Order, does not take into account the fact that information on the rapidity ef the SCRAM was proprietary according to the PSAR at the Housten Public Library. According to 10 CFR 2 740 (a) (2) auch information was not available to TexPIRG until they beca=e a party. This would have recuired filing this con-tention and arguing its validity at the special prehearing con-ference with no basis to assert the SCRAM syste= was too slow to re=ediate a transient as is now contended. In adfition, the issue to our knewledge was raised in 1975 (in Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants, by Richard E. Webb). Staff at its September 1978 conferences with this and other intervenore ex-pressed the idea that cententions based on evidence from 1975 probnbly would not survive the pre-ALA3-535 "new evidence" rules.

AMENDMINT TO CCNTENTION #50.

TexPIRG ecntends in event of steam-line break or recircu-

'(ation pipe break, deprecsurization of the reactor core would take place resulting in sweeping out the core stee:

bubbles (upward) by the lower plenum vater and drawinc of coolant water into the reactor. The replacement of steam -7 bubbles with water will increase reactivity before the SCRAMJ x66 30

' ~ system has functioned fully. Tbe National Reactor Testing Station (See: IN-1370, 1970, p. 104) states

• a blowdoven in a EWR LOCA "(g}ould cause the w9ter moderetor level in the core region to rise. An in- .

crocse in water level in the core region would re-sult in a reactivity accident." Reactivity insertion constitutes a danger to petitioner's health and safety because of the danger of fuel melt following such a pcwer excursion. TexPIRG centends the hiC h power core density of the reactor to be licensed in this proceeding increauesthe danger of this acci-dent, hence Applicant must demonstrate its 30RA:1 syttom capsble of preventing this accident.

1. 28 REPLY--On Staff's citation of Partial Initial Decis-ion, .TexPIRG would point out that p;rts 124-9 cive n; deci-sion on the effect of the weight of the 10NOS cooling lake on underlying faults or other geologicci features.

AME';DME:if TO CONTENTION #28

~

(Place at end of the Contention text .Put before the footnote)

TexFIRG contends the Allens Creek cooling lake and the dammed lake use? for cooling the North Anna

.at,osic plants are -.ul?ar sufficiently to present

~

Gn earthquake stimultt : g situation which endangers its members due to the nultiple failure of several systems likely to occur in the event of earthquake.

CIRTIFICATE OF SERVICE j

Copiesof TexPIRG a:endments and replies to Applicant and Staff to Contetnions submitted pursuant to ALAB-535 were served via first class mail on the persons listed below at their usual addresses on this JS J4 day of June, 1979 John F. Doherty 7C/

Wayne Rentfro nespectfully 5u::1:ted Brenda McCorkle, Esq. Attorney for TexPIRG 7 / f, 7, Carro Hinderstein Es JOU J 2) ,!

Sheldon J. Wolfe , Esq.q.;NRO) Stephen Schinki, Esq. (Staf0 Gusteve A. Linenberg (NRC) Richard A. Lowerre, Ecq. (Texas)

Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum (N20) R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. (Applicant)

Docketing a cervice aection (NRO)* g. Gregory Copelaad. Esq. (Applicant)