ML19241B691

Houston Lighting & Power Motion to Compel Further Answers to Certain Interrogatories Submitted to Intervenor Tx Pirg. Requests That All Tx Pirg Answers to Interrogatories Be Resubmitted Under Oath.W/Certificate of Svc & Documentation

ML19241B691
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/21/1979
From:	Biddle C, Copeland J, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907230088
Download: ML19241B691 (48)

Text

. g,h.

.s.

/

J ,,

f4

(; .,.

.m .- t

, li Nut PU!:!JC IP 9'U\iENT ROOM  % u s

\,',/

y

.x ~.

g .?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  % /%-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION YKrj 'frr-);Yk /*

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LlCENSING BOARL In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS _

Houston Lighting & Power Company (" Applicant") re-quests the Board to issue an order as described herein compelling furthe~ 'swers by the Texas Public Interest Research Group

("TexPirg") to certain of Applicant's interrogatories and requiring that all of TexPirg's answers to Applicant's and Staff's interrogatories be resubmitted under oath. As de-tailed below, there is a serious question whether an individual purporting to respond to discovery on behalf of TexPirg was authorized to do so. No interrogatories responded to were under oath or affirmation as required by 10 CFR S 74' :b) (b) and a large number of interrogatories have essentially been ign- ed.

The relief requested and the arguments in support of such relief are set out in detail below.

\ ?,

fO' 104 l

!g*

> /

7 007 2 300$f l

I.

Background

A. TexPirg's Answers to Applicant and Staff Interrogatories Were Not Submitted Under Oath Three sets of TexPirg's answers to interrogatories were not signed under oath or affirmation as required by 10 CFR S 2. 74 0b (b) As.-1/discussed below, TexPirg's failure to submit answers to Applicant and Staff interrogatories under oath or affirmation as required by NRC regulations raises substantial doubt (in addition to the matters described in Part B, below) as to the authorization of Mr. Doherty to sign the interrogatories on behalf of TexPirg as well as to the accuracy and completeness of the statements contained in these responses.

B. Mr. Doherty as TexPirg Officer On March 13, 19'i9, Applicant served a notice of deposition on John F. Doherty requesting him to appear on March 26, 1979 for the "taking of a deposition concerning TexPirg's admitted contentions." At the deposition, Mr.

Doherty stated under oath that he had been with TexPirg since the end of 1977 and explained his position with TexPirg as follows:

1/ TexPirg's March 27, 1979 answers to Applicant's first inter-rogatories signed by Mr. Doherty; TexPirg's May 14, 1979 answers to Staff's first interrogatories signed by Mr. Scott and TexPirg's June 6, 1979 answers to Applicant's second interrogatories signed by Mr. Scott.

,i7 kU e .

"Q. What is your position with Tex PIRG now?

A. I think I'm what they call Acting Research Director.

Q. What does that mean?

A. Pretty much jack of all trades, unfortunately.

I handle a lot of phone complaints, work on the intervention.

Q. Work on the intervention for TexPIRG?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. In the Allens Creek proceeding?

A. That's right.

Q. So far as my question to you today, then do you speak for TexPIRG?

A. (Witness nods head).

Q. Yes?

A. Yes. That's right.

Q. ...What I'm really trying to tie down now and I guess I do have the answer, and that is that you will speak for TexPIRG?

A. Yes."-2/

Thus, when asked whether he spoke for TexPirg, Mr.

Doherty answered in the affirmative.

2/ Deposition of John F. Doherty, March 26, 1979, pp. 9-11.

Mr. Doherty did state that he would relinquish his position of Acting Research Director with TexPirg when Mr. Clarence Johnson, formerly Executive Director of TexPirg, returned from employment in Austin,- Texas. Id. at 9-10.

g 9 7

!i d1. I '

On the next day, March 27, 1979, TexPirg served its answers to Applicant's first interrogatories to TexPirg (Exhibit A hereto) . In question G, TexPirg was asked:

" Provide the names and addresses of all officers and directors of TexPirg."

TexPirg provided the following answer:

" Acting Research Director - John Doherty; 4438 1/2 Leeland, Houston, Texas 77023 Richard Bost, TexPirg, Rice Memorial Building, Rice Univ. Houston, 77005; Elizabeth Heitman

[same address as Bost]

(See Exhibit A, p. 7). Moreover, the interrogatories were signed by Mr. Doherty, as the " Executive Director" of TexPirg.

(See Exhibit A, p. 7) . Thus, at that date, Mr. Doherty clearly held himself out as the spokesman for TexPirg and also indicated that he had the status of a corporate officer.

In an order issued on May 1, 1979, the Licensing Board ordered that "on or before May ll, 1979, Mr. Doherty shall notify the Board whether or not he has an official position in the Texas Public Interest Research Group." In response to this order, Mr. Doherty addressed a letter to the Board, dated May 10, 1979, in which he advised the Board as follows:

"As of May 1st, I was a 20 hour2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per week employee of Texas Public Interest Research Group. My work consisted of 50% of hours on the Allens Creek effort in TexPIRGs behalf, and 50% of hours devoted to the consumer issues that TexPIRG attenpts.

" Assuming that by ' official' the Board meant an officer, I am not an officer of TexPIRG. TexPIRG consists of a corporation structure of officers and a board of directors. I do not hold either a post or directorship."

4 AQe r \.

Mr. Doherty signed this letter as " Acting Research Director, TexPirg."

In sum, Mr. Doherty's deposition and his answers to Applicant's first interrogatories tc TexPirg indicated quite clearly that Mr. Doherty's position of either " Acting Research Director" or "'Jxecutive Director" of TexPirg gave him an official position with TexPirg, which authorized him to speak for the organization. Yet Mr. Doherty disclaimed holding any official position in the May 10 letter. How-ever, he did not state that his status had changed. In addition, on June 6, 1979, TexPirg served its answers to Applicant's second set of interrogatories (Exhibit B hereto).

TexPirg's attorney, Mr. Scott (who signed the interroga-tories on behalf of TexPirg), stated in response to Inter-rogatory No. 24 (a) that "Mr. Doherty does not work for Tex PIRG anymore and was not authorized [in his March 26 deposi-tion] to say that Tex PIRG was not concerned about chlorine discharges..." (p. 3) . In light of both Mr. Doherty's statements in his May 10 letter, and Mr. Scott's statement, which must be construed as applicable to all of Mr. Doherty's representations, it now must be assumed that Mr. Doherty was not authorized to speak for TexPirg at his deposition or to sign TexPirg's answers to Applicant's first interrogatories.

[O'

.mc fh II.

Deficiencies as to Form 10 CFR S 2. 740b (a) provides that interrogatories served on a corporate party shall be answered "by an officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party." Section 2.740b(b) provides that interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation." TexPirg has failed to comply with botn of these sections.

The courts have interpreted Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is similar to the provisions of S 2.740b, to provide that where interrogatories are served on an adverse party that party may select the officer or agent who is to answer them and verify the answers. See, Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 4A 5 33.07. In this case, there is now a substantial question as to whether Mr. Doherty had the requisite stature of agency to answer interrogatories on be-half of TexPirg. We now have the rather bizarre situation in which Mr. Doherty has signed interrogatories on behalf of TexPirg and stated in a sworn deposition that he was authorized to speak on behalf of TexPirg and the attorney for TexPirg, Mr.

Scott, has represented that Mr. Doherty had no authority to answer on behalf of TexPirg.

}k0 ABoh a ,

e Based ur .! TexPirg's failure to comply with the pro-visions cFR S 2.740b(a) and (b), Applicant requests the Board to issue an order requiring TexPirg to resubmit its answers to the Applicant's first and second set of interroga-tories, as well as the NRC Staff's first interrogatories to TexPirg, to be signed under oath or affirmation by the person with knowledge of the information contained in each of the answers to said interrogatories and who has been authorized by TexPirg to submit such answers.

III.

Deficiencies as to Substance In addition to the aforementioned relief, Applicant also requests the Board to issue an order compelling further answers to Applicant's second set of interrogatories. While this portion of the motion relates to Applicant's second set of interrogatories, reference is made throughout to the Applicant's First Interrogatories for background. As will be seen, Applicant attempted to use a second round of inter-rogatories to obtain specificity in the hope of avoiding the necessity to involve the Board in dealing with these types of problems. Unfortunately, Applicanc's efforts have been totally frustrated.

When interrogatories are answered by a person acting as the agent for the corporation, certain general h 1 '

kOUp i il

standards are applicable to judge the adequacy of the answers.

First, the answers provided must be " complete, explicit, and responsive" to the interrogatories. Second, the agent answering the interrogatories on behalf of the corporation must obtain and furnish such information which is within the knowledge of the corporation. He cannot merely plead personal ignorance. Finally, if the agent cannot furnish the informa-tion requested, he should so state in the response under oath. Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 4A H 33.26. The following discussion of individual responses to Applicant's interrogatories will show that Mr. Scott. who signed the interrogatories on behalf of TexPirg, wholly failed to comply with these standards.

Interrogatory No. 1. Interrogatory No. A.4a of Applicant's first interrogatories to TexPirg, read as follows:

"4. TexPirg Contention 1.b. states that 'the cooling lake at South Texas is large enough to accommodate one more unit..."

(a) Describe how the STP cooling lake would

" accommodate" a third 1200 MW(e) nuclear unit.

In TexPirg's March 27 answers to these interrogatories, signed by Mr. Doherty, TexPirg's completely nonresponsive answer was as follows:

"4.A. It would be obviously superior from both an environmental and safety impact."

In Interrogatory No. 1 of its second set of inter-rogatories to TexPirg, Applicant posed the following inter-rogatory:

a, ? 9 1;3 m3

_e_

"In response to Interrogatory A4(a) of Applicant's first interrogatories to TexPirg, TexPirg answered:

'It would be obviously superior from both an environmental and safety impact.' Specify each environmental and safety impact which you con-sidered in answering this question, and specify exactly how much additional water would be con-sumed in the STP cooling lake by a third 1200 megawatt unit at the STP site."

TexPirg answered as follows:

" Building Allens Creek at the S. Texas construc-tion site prevents environmental damages to the farm land, fresh water, wildlife, and nearby people and only 1/5th as many people would be exposed to the safety dangers from the plant within the 50 mile radius. The NRC Staff says that 17,700 acre-ft. per year would be saved."

TexPirg's answer is not respcnsive to the interroga-tory. Applicant requests the Board to order TexPirg to answer the interrogatory fully, explaining the exact nature of the damage to farmland, fresh water, wildlife and nearby people. Secondly, TexPirg should be required to specify the alleged safety dangers and how these dangers would be obviated by moving the Allens Creek Unit 1 to the South Texas Project site. In addition, Interrogatory No. 1 requested TexPirg to identify how much additional water it contends would be consumed in the STP cooling lake by addition of a third 1200 megawatt nuclear unit at mue STP site. TexPirg answered that 17,700 acre-feet per year would be saved. This is totally non-responsive to the question and TexPirg should be ordered to answer the question that was asked.

[O

.v ,

) .)

Interrogatory No. 2. By way of background, Interrogatory A4(b) of Applicant's first interrogatories to TexPirg inquired into whether TexPirg had any knowledge as to whether Applicant would be able to contract for and receive sufficient water flows from the Colorado River to operate a third unit at South Texas. The interrogatory further drated that if the answer were in the affirmative, TexPirg was to state the source of its information. In response, TexPirg answered "Yes. Environmental Report."~3/

Thus, Interrogatory No. 2 of Applicant's second set of interrogatories was proffered in an attempt to elicit where in the Environmental Report TexPirg had found such informa-tion. Interrogatory No. 2 was as follows:

"Specify the page numbers in the ACNGS Environ-mental Report or the South Texas Project Environ-mental Report which show that the Applicant will be able to contract for and receive sufficient water flows from the Colorado River to operate a third unit at STP."

TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory No. 2 of Applicant's second interrogatories was as follows:

"Page 10.7 of S. Texas ES. Also Houston L&P would not be so dumb as to build a lake that was planned for four units if it did not know that it had enough water for four (not just three) units."

3/ See Exhibit A hereto, p. 1.

O d

[t o o 1~]

ia There is no page 10.7 in the South Texas Project Environmental Report. Page 10.7 of the FES for the South Texas Project dces discuss water usage, but there is absolutely no discussion of water requirements for four units at STP in that portion of the FES. TexPirg should be ordered to either state that it has no such information or to provide the spec'.fic information requested.

Interrogatory No. 3. Interrogatory No. A5(b) cf Applicant's first interrogatories to TexPirg requested that TexPirg specify the differences in environmental effects which would result from using more land for a 1200 megawatt unit at ACNGS rather than locating a third 1200 megawatt unit at STP. TexPirg answered as follows:

"Almost 11,000 acres of prime and unique farm land would be lost for no good reason. Such loss would be very significant."

In Interrogatory No. 3 Applicant asked TexPirg to specify the number of acres of both prime and unique farm land located at the ACNGS size and requested that TexPirg provide the source of its answer. While TexPirg did answer as to the soil classifications, it did not provide the source of its answer. Applicant requests that it be ordered to do so now.

Interrogatory No. 5. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

/n L i' I -

j

'ui "With respect to your answer to Interrogatory A7(b) of Applicant's first interrogatories to TexPirg, state whether you possess any docu-ments or have conducted any studies which show the persons, corporations or other entities in the Houston area will be required to convert to surface water and will use the Brazos River as the source of their surface water."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

"The Harris-Galveston County Subsidence District requires present users of ground water to convert to surface water. A large amount of Brazos River is already being di\ erred for use in the Houston arr.a by the Brazos River Authority, i.e.

Oyster Creek canal system."

This answer is totally nonresponsive to the interrogatory and TexPirg should be ordered to state whether it possesses any documents or has conducted any studies of the nature described in Interrogatory No. 5.

Interrogatory No. 6. Reconstruction of the ques-tions leading up to this interrogatory provide the Board with one of the best examples of the avoidance of the responsibility to give full, complete and responsive answers.

Applicant's Interrogatory No. A8(b) of its first interrogatories to TexPirg was as follows:

"8. TexPirg Contention lE alleges that 'construc-tion of an additional facility at South Texas would require less use of additional land for transmission lines..."

"b. What adverse environmental effects do you contend would result from using more land for transmission lines associated with the 1200 megawatt nuclear plant located at ACNGS rather than STP."

ro 1"7 hL .

l L TexPirg's answer, signed by Mr. Doherty was as follows:

" 8 (a) . The FES Supp. says 1041 acres less.

(b). Over 1000 acres prime and unique farm land would be lost as located near a large city that will need the land to feed several million people without wasting fuel for trans-portation from the California " arms that are being destroyed by salt deposits. (see FES Supp.)."

Applicant's Interrogatory No. 6, intended as a follow-up interrogatory, was as follows:

" (a) With respect to TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory 8A(b) of Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg specify what crops are grown on the prime and unique farm land that you contend will be lost and specify which of these crops would have to be imported from California if this farm land is preempted by construction of ACNGS. (b) With respect to the prime and unique farm lands referred to in answer to this interrogatory, specify the total number of acres of cor. arable land in the United States.

(c) Also.specify whether the ' California farms that are being destroyed by salt deposits' have the same soil classificatione as the soil found at the ACNGS site."

TexPirg's answers, as signed by Mr_ Scott, are as follows:

" Rice, sorghum, corn, cotton, hay, and other crops that could be grown on the Allens Creek land would have to be transported longer distances (at high freight rates that will increase as energy .ncreases in cost). (B)

I don't know and it is not important to the local people. In some other state the local utality (sic] is celling them the lake flooding their land is sa insignificant part of the na-tional total because the Allens Creek site will grow their crops. (C) I don't know, but they now grow cotton, rice, etc. that is grown at the Allens Creek site.

3-7 i _; )

[( 0 vl-

Unless this response is intended to be an admission as to TexPirg's total lack of knowledge, this series of questions and answers follow a pattern whereby interroga-tories are answered with unresponsive generalities. Requests for furthee substantiation are met with deprecatory expressions rather than statements of fact. TexPirg should be admonished against a continuance of this course of conduct and should be ordered to either answer the interrogatories with facts or state that TexPirg does not have the re7uested information.

Interrogatory No. 8. Applicant's Interrogatory No.

ua was as follows:

" (a) With reference to TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory B7(d) of Applicant's Fi.rst Interrogatories to TexPirg, specify the levels of heavy metals in 'the Allens Creek discharge, Wallis, Sealy, and plant discharges', s 'cify exactly which heavy metals are in such _-

charges and their concentration levels."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

"They are higher than that of the Brazos River where the Applicann did limited samplling [ sic]

for heavy metals." -

TexPirg's answer contains none of the information clearly requested. Mr. Scott has merely stated that the heavy metal concentrations are higher at those points than at the points where Applicant did take samples in the Brazos River. TexPirg should be required to specify the types and concentrations of heavy metals at the identified discharge points or state that it does not have the requested information.

} r i fioI. a' Interrogato y No. 9. Applicant's Interrogatory No. B8(a) of Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg, related to TexPirg's contention that " thermal shock will kill large numbers of fish during the winter when plant shut-downs occur." The interrogatory asked TexPirg to specify the temperature change required for such thermal s hoc'. . TexPirg responded that it " varies depending o:. the type of fish, rate of change, and prior temperatures as well as other parameters in the fish environment." In an effort to elicit the source of this information, Applicant asked the following Interrogatory No. 9:

"In response to Interrogatory B8(a) of Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg, TexPirg stated that the temperature change required for thermal shock ' varies depending on the type of fish, rate of change, and prior temperatures as we.1.1 as other parameters.' Specify the source of that answer."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

" Common sense acquired by observation, reading, and page S.5-13 of the Final ES for Allens Creek."

Page S.5-13 of the Allens Creek FES contains no discussion of the tolerance ranges of fish to cold shock.

In fact, the SFES contains the statement that the " Staff was unable to find any evidence of cold shock occurring in Texas reservoirs, probably because of the sub-tropical climate and mild winter conditions allowing for more gradual accumulation e-

-)

<v r of fish populations to lower temperatures." Again, TexPirg should be required to come forth with specific facts available to it, and if it has no rach facts, it should so state.

Interrogatory No. 11. Applicant's Interrogatory No. 11 was as follows:

" (a) Describe the large scale refuse combus-tion facility being planned by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority described in TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory Dl. of Applicant's First Set of Interrogatories to TexPirg pro-

'ziding the following information: (1) the feed stock (fuel) for the facility; (2) the source of the feed stock; (3) the amount of the feed stock; (4) the amount of the feed stock to be stored on site; (5) the amount of feed stock consumed per day; (6) the facility's total steam yield; (7) the capacity of the project for production of electricity; (8) the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity that would be generated from the plant; (9) the supplemental fuel source, if any, for operating the plant and the cost of producing power from the plant when operating with the alternative fuel source; (10) the amount of power required for pro-cessing the feed stock prior to its use for steam generation."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

"These details can be obtained from Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority and Browning and Ferris Corporation by Applicant easier than from TexPirg."

Applicant s Interrogatory No. 11 was a follow-up to TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory D1 of Applicant's first interrogatories, wherein TexPirg described the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority project and the Browning Ferris Industries project and then stated as follows:

an I

, 3 r/

t i  !-

" Failure to mention these local projects in particular indicate that no conscientious research was done into the possibility of generating elec-trical power from the combustion of municipal refuse in the Houston area. As the potential for electric power production from refuse is large and may in fact obviate the need for the Allens Creek nuclear facility a complete study of this alter-native source c f energy should be undertaken."

Thus, TexPirg answered Applicant's first interrogatories by asserting that Applicant has failed to undertake adequate research on a parti- 21ar topic and then when pressed for details necessary to fully evaluate such an alternative, TexPirg provides no such details, but engages in debate.

Accordingly, Applicant requests the Board to order TexPirg to answer Interrogatory No. 11.

Interrogatory No. 16. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

"With respect to TexPirg's answer to Inter-rogatory No. D7 of Applicant's First Inter-rogatories to TexPirg, answer the following:

(a) On what basis do you calculate that 80%

of the refuse collected at two Houston landfills are combustible? (b) How is this refuse 'pretreated'? (c) On what basia do you assert that the combustible refuse col-lected from two Houston landfills will yield 10,000 Btu per pound? (d) on what basis do you calculate that a refuse combustion elec-trical power plant will be 40 percent effi-cient? (e) what is the highest efficiency rating amoung the electric generating plants listed in the reports by the EPA and the National Center for Resource Recovery?

Identify the source of your answer. (f)

Identify all solid waste electric power generation plants in the operational, design, or planning stage with the capacity equal to or greater than 4,000 tons per day."

e. j ,

i

'v4 Isi

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

" (a) Greg Skie concluded that after study-ing the matter. (b) Non-combustible materials such as metal are removed. (c) Prior studies.

(d) That is a normal average for fossil fuel plants and refuse plants. (e) I don't know.

(f) As of 1976, they were listed in our answer to question 5 of contention 5 of the Applicant's First set of Interrogatories. I have no newer information yet."

Parts (a), (b) and (d) clearly sought further de-tails as to prior interrogatory answers by TexPirg in an attempt to examine the feasibility of TexPirg's proposed 4,000 ton per day plant. The answers given are clearly nonresponsive and TexPirg should be required to provide those details at this time.

Interrogatory No. 17. As the Board is aware, TexPirg has raised a contention regarding the failure by the Applicant to take into consideration increases in air traffic in or near the Allens Creek site. Applicant asked the follow-ing Interrogatory No. E.4(a) in its First Set of Interrogatories in an effort to elicit the factual basis for the many unfounded allegations which had been raised by TexPirg:

" Identify the source of the following alle.ged facts: (a) 'large plane traffic has increased at least 30 percent in the last three years, and (b) will be several hundred percent higher before the plant is closed in about 40 years.'

(c) new airports have been proposed to be built in the Fort Bend County area much closer

1. y 156 than present air? orts.' (d) ' heavy population densit/ [is] pl,..med for the area east of the plant...' (e) '[airpinne crash protection' can be donc by roughly doubling the thickness of the containment vessel or still core cheaply by burying the plant for about a five percent increase in cost."

TexPirg's answer to this interrogatory was as follows:

" (a) FAA (b) 30 percent /3 yr. X 40/3 equals 400 percent in 40 years. (c) Houston Chronicle 3/23/79 p. 17. (d) Every one in Houston knows it. (e) NRC Staff and book in U. of Houston."

Applicant's follow-up Interrogatory No. 17 was as follows:

" (a) In your answer to Interrog' tory No.

E4(a), TexPirg answered 'FAA'. te the name of the person at the FAA wh. ild TexPirg that large plane traffic . ' in-creased at least 30 percent in the last three years. (b) With respect to the answer of E.4(b), state the basis for the assump-tion that airplane traffic will continue to increase 30 percent every three years for the next 40 years. (c) With respect to the answer to Interrogatory No. E.4(e), provide the name of the person on the NRC Staff s:ho provided this information and provide the name of the book alleged to be in the University of Houston Library."

TexPirg's answer to this interrogatory was as follows:

"I don't know his name, but he seemed to know what he was saying. Also the Houston Post recently indicated that the growth was even more. (b) experience and the fact that all business assumptions of electrical growth, etc. seemed to project upon past fast growth l 0 fi

'u). l "'_. )

in the Houston area. For example a new business airport just opened up in Fort Bend County, and the City of Houston just started planning for a new ' Intercontinental' type airport near the Allens Creek site. (c) I don't know, partly because I don't know what the question was."

This series of interrogatories and answers is set forth in full because it provides additional evidence that TexPirg has not taken its responsibility to answer inter-rogatories seriously. The answer to Interrogatory No.

E4(a) -- "FAA" -- was obviously too general to provide any facts. In response to Interrogatory No. 17(c), Mr. Scott answered that he did not know the answer because he does not know what the question was. Mr. Scott obviously had the question available co him because it was set forth in the Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg. Applicant requests the Board to admonish TexPirg from continuing this type of conduct and to order it to either set forth the information requested o state that it does not have the information. Applicant is entitled to have a clear and concise admission by TaxPirg that it has no information to support its allegations if that is in fact true. In any event, TexPirg should be required to answer Interrogatory No. 17 (c) by providing the name of the person on the NRC Staff referred to in TexPirg's prior answer and the name of the book alleged to be in the University of Houston Library.

a tn ee - 1~3 Interrogatory No. 20. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

" (a) With respect to the answers to Interroga-tories Nos. F7 and F8 of Applicant's First Interrogatories to TexPirg, state how TexPirg determined that Dow Chemical, Amoco, Shell, Exxon, Browning-Ferris and Monsanto are planning self-generation of their electricity require-ments. If this information was obtained directly from the foregoing companies, provide the name of the person of each company who communicated such information to TexPirg. (b) With respect to TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory No. F9, state whether TexPirg has any documents or studies showing that HL&P's industrial customers can generate electricity more cheaply and more reliably than HL&P. If TexPirg has no such information state the basis for the answer pro-vided in response to Interrogatory No. F.9."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

"By talking with people at the City of Houston, and Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, and reading the newspaper. (b) The companies would not be planning to generate their own electricity unless it was cheaper and more reliable."

This answer is clearly not responsive to the interrogatory. TexPirg's answer indicates, at a minimum, that it did talk with people at the City of Houston and Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority. The interrogatory required that TexPirg p ride the names of persons communicating in-formation to TexPirg. TexPirg should be required to provide that information now.

Subpart (b) of Interrogatory No. 20 asks for documents or studies. TexPirg's answer is clearly non-responsive and does not indicate whether TexPirg has any

/O h

• t a s iv

• such studies or not. TexPirg should be required to answer this interrogatory now. Furthermore, Interrogatory No. F9 of Applicant's First Interragatories to TexPirg requested TexPirg to identify "the factors which you believe will cause an increase in the amount of self-generation by 1987."

TexPirg answered: "The users wish a cheaper, more reliable source of power." Clearly, TexPirg has not yet responded to Applicant's fundamental request for identification of the factors that are going to cause an increase in the amount of self-generation. Applicant has now attempted to elicit that information on two occasions and has gotten totally evasive answers from TexPirg. TexPirg should be required to identify the factors that will cause an increase in self-generation by 1987 or state that it has no such information.

Interrogatory No. 24. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

" (a) Referring to the discussions between counsel and Mr. Doherty set forth at pages 87 through 94 of John F. Doherty's deposition dated March 26, 1979, state whether TexPirg now regards the limitations on chlorine discharge set forth in the EPA permit for the Allens Creek project as satisfying TexPirg's concern with respect to chlorine discharges in the lake, and if not, why not and who within TexPirg so concluded.

(b) In addition, state whether TexPirg has con-cluded that the chlorine minimization study described in the EPA permit satisfies TexPirg's contention with respect to chlorine discharges into the lake and, if not, state the reasons why and who within TexPirg so concluded."

G b 3.b

In what is clearly the most egregious answer so far, TexPirg stated as follows:

" (a) We have no copy of what Mr. Doherty said about Chlorine discharges since you will not let either Mr. Doherty or anyone else have a copy of his deposition to read. Mr. Doherty does not work for TexPIRG anymore and was not authorized to state that TexPIRG was not concerned about chlorine discharges that are twice the levels allowed by the board in the 1975 partial Initial Decision. TexPIRG is as concerned as it ever was, very, about the level of chlorine discharges. WE are concerned about the bad effects on the fish and other aquatic life in the cooling lake for the same reasons that the NRC Staff expressed in 1975. Only Mr.

Doherty, if anyone, said they were not concerned.

(b) It does not, for the reasons stated above plus the fact that NEPA requires studies before action, not studies after it is too late to do anything about the bad results learned. The study results must go in the ES."

Before posing Interrogatory No. 24, Applicant attempted to elicit from Mr. Doherty on deposition whether the chlorine minimization study that was committed to by Applicant and required by the NPDES permit satisfied TexPirg's concern with respect to chlorine discharges. Mr. Doherty stated that he was unaware of that commitment and committed to advise counsel for the Applicant as to whether that commitment satisfied TexPirg's concern with chlorine discharges.~4/

Having received no reply from Mr. Doherty, counsel for Applicant propounded Interrogatory No. 24. As can be seen, n

4,/ Deposition, pp. 90-94. t

y )

b;b L Mr. Scott now takes the position that Mr. Doherty was not authorized to speak for TexPirg in his deposition. Nonethe-less, the answer given by Mr. Scott is still not responsive to the interrogatory. Subpart (b) of the interrogatory asked, without regard to the discussion with Mr. Doherty in the deposition, why the chlorine minimization study did not satisfy TexPirg's concern with respect to chlorine discharges.

All TexPirg has said is that it continues to be concerned about the " bad effects on the fish and other aquatic life in the cooling lake for the same reasons that the NRC Staff expressed in 1975." This is simply not responsive. In the first place, the Staff has in fact concluded that Applicant's chlorine minimization study satisfies its concerns with respect to chlorine discharges. Secondly, TexPirg's answer does not specify why it regards the chlorine minimization study as being an inadequate methodology for minimizing chlorine impacts in the cooling ake.

The interrogatory specifically requested identifica-tion of the person within TexPirg who is continuing to press TexPirg's contention in the face of the commitment by Applicant.

Obviously, Applicant intends to rely upon the commitment to the chlorine minimization study in responding to TexPirg's contention. TexPirg still has concerns with the chlorine discharges in light of that commitment. Applicant is entitled to know why, and who the person is at TexPirg that haa so 3

h V 'i

[i G concluded, so that Applicant may take such person's deposi-tion. Applicant requests the Board to order TexPirg to answer the interrogatory as asked.

Interrogatory No. 25. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

" State whether TexPirg believes that the chlorine minimization study referenced in Interrogatory No. 23 hereof should be done prior to plant operation, and if so, how the study could be done prior to plant operation."

TexPirg's answer was as follcws:

"Yes, Houston Lighting & Power or NRC should fund or carry out an experiment to confirm both the amount of chlorine needed to keep the plant ' clean', and what fish can tolerate.

It is amazing that plants could have operated for years, and yet the claim is stated that we still do not know these things. In fact it is known that such concentrations are harmful to fish and Applicant does not wish to admit this.

The Final ES clearly shows the harmful affeccs

[ sic] on page S.5-16, 17, 18, 19. Since the chlorine harms the environment, the burden is on the Aprlicant to find alternative ways to reduce the impact."

This answer is clearly nonresponsive to the interrogatory and TexPirg should be required to answer the interrogatory at this time.

Interrogatory No. 26. Applicant's interrogatory was as followi:

"Specify the amount of temperature chenge re-quired to induce thermal shock for the different types of game fish normally found in lakes in Texas. Provide the source of your answer."

[ 0 ('4

,v ieJ TexPirg gave the follc*'i .g answer:

"The Staff of the NRC could find no such data, therefore the Applicant has not met its burden of proof that rtquires them to show that no harm can happen due to the thermal shock."

This answer is clearly not responsive to the in-terrogatory and TexPirg should be ordered to answer the interrogatory or state that it has no such information.

Interrogatory No. 31. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

" (a) Specify every reason why TexPirg -clieves that Applicant cannot barge the reactor .ssel up the San Bernard without channelizing the river. Provide all assumptions used in answer-ing this question (i.e., weight, length and width of the reactor vessel; length, widtn and depth of the barge; width and depth of the San Bernard River at the point where TexPirg alleges the river will have to be channelized; etc.). (b) Specify all adverse environmental effects which Tex?irg alleges will result from Applicant's plan to move the reactor pressure vessel to the site by barging to an unloading point on the San Bernard River and trancporting the reactor vessel overland to the site from that point. (c) State who answered this interrogatory. (d) Provide the name of TexPirg's expert witness on this contention.

TexE.rg's answer was as follows:

"Tae barge when loaded with the reactor vessel in the river will not be deep enough to go up the length of the river. This is especially true near the mouth of the river.

(b) Dredging will change the character of the river such that it will cause destruction of much of the life in the river. Construc-tion of the unloading dock will damage both the land and water near the site. Transporta-tion of the vessel along the roads to the Allens Creek site will destroy the roads and bridges. (c) Jim Scott. (d) None yet." ,

a o7 ivL i .O TexPirg's answer to Interrogatory No. 31(a) is clearly not responsive. TexPirg asserts, without any basis, that the river will not be deep enough for the barge.

Applicant is entitled to know all of the assumptiers under-lying the conclusion stated in TexPirg's answer, and, Ap~

plicant has in fact requested such information in the inter-rogatory. TexPirg should be required to provide those assumptions now.

Interrogatory No. 32. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

" (a) With respect to TexPirg Cont (ation 10, explain what in your view, Applicant must do in order to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 31, with regard to intergranular stress, corrosion and cracking. In so doing, explain why the current metal content provided in the ACNGS

' design will not withstand excess oxygen levels, superposed loads, and residual stresses. (b)

Identify any documents relating to the NRC investigation of stress, corrosion, and crack-ing problems at other BWR units and identify the specific portions of those documents which indicate that similar problems may occur at ACNGS. (c) State who answered this interroga-tomy. (d) Provide the name of TexPirg's expert witness on this contention."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

" (a) Meet that criteria. Many other plants approved by the same NRC did not meet that criteria under operating conditions. (b) I don't have any of those documents. Some of the reactors with similar problems are:

Dresden 1, Oyster Creek 1, Nine mile [ sic] Point 1, Lacrosse, Elk River, Humbolt Bay 3, Dresden 2, Quad Cities 1 and 2, Millstone 1, Peach Bottom 3, Monticello, and Duane Arnold. (c) Jin Scott. (d)

None yet."

l i s J' TexPirg's answer to Part (a) of this interrogatory is clearly not responsive and TexPirg should be required to answer the interrogatory or state that it has no idea as to what Applicant must do to meet Criterion 31.

Interrogatorv No. 33. Applicant's intw rogatory was as follows:

" (a) With respect to TexPirg Contention 11, specify the basis for your assertion that Applicant has not adequately assessed the effects of flow-induced vibration on jet pumps, spargers, fuel pins, core instru-mentation, and f.el rods. In so doing, identify the five TWR units which experienced feedwater sparger t 41ures from 1975 to 1976 as a result of flow-induced vibration and state whether the feedwater spargers on those plants are exactly the same as those planned for ACNGS. (b) State who answered this inter-rogatory. (c) Provide the name of TexPirg's expert witness on this contention."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

"The five reactors are Millstone 1, Pilgriam (sic], Monticello, Dresden and Quad Cities.

Applicant has the burden to show that its system will work. (b) Jim Scott. (c) None yet."

TexPirg's answer to this interrogatory is not responsive since it does not specify any basis for TexPirg's contention and it even fails to state whether the feedwater spargers on the named plants are the same as those planned for ACNGS. TexPirg should be required to provide an answer now.

4L '

@ /d

Interrogatory No. 34. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows: ,

" (a) With respect to TexPirg Additional Conten-tion 6, provide the calculation used in deter-mining that the water within the weir wall will not clear the first row of vents before the differential pressure exceeds 28 psi. (b)

Define 'mannings roughness factor' and identify the rau :e of this f;ctor as included in your calculation of dry well differe'.tial pressure during a LOCA. (c) What do yot calculate to be the peak differential pressure reach during this accident? Provide the calculation that shows this value. (d) Show that portion of the calcula-tion cemonstrating the proper accounting for the mannings roughness factor delays the time to clear the first row of vents by 0.5 s onds.

(e) Prc.vice the calculation that shows the sequence of events postulated in TexPirg Addi-tional Contention 6 thct will lead to a containment vessel pressure in excess of 15 psig.

(f) Provide the basis for the statement that a containment vessel pri sure in excess of 15 psig will cause the containment vessel to crack.

(g) State who answered this interrogatory. (h)

Provide the name of TexPirg's expert witness on this contention."

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

"We have no such calculation, and don't need one. (b) Manning's roughness factor is the n in the Manning formula for hydraulic flow which is Velocity equals 1.49/n times (hydraulic radius) 1/2 times (Slope of channel) 1/2. (c) Over 35 psi. (d) Not done. (e) The excess pressure will destroy the dry well so that the pressure reduction from the suppression pooi will not be achieved allowing the pressures inside the containment to rapidally [ sic] reach levels much in excess of 15 psig. (f) The containment will not crumble at small pressures above 15 psi, but will be at the excessive pressure generated during accidents. (g) Jim Scott. (h) None."

\ O

,q l sJ' h v 'r TexPirg has provided a specific answer to Inter-rogatory 34(c), but has not provided a calculation used to derive that answer as requested in the interrogatory. Mr.

Scott should be required to provide the calculation since his response to subpart (c) clearly indicates that the peak differential pressure was calculated. Furthermore, if the calculation does exist then Mr. Scott should be required to answer subparts (a), & and (d) of the interrogatory.

Subpart (e) likewise called for a calculation which is not provided in Mr. Scott's answer. Finally, TexPirg's answer to Subpart (b) of this interrogatory is totally non-responsive in that TexPirg was asked not only to define "mannings roughness factor" but to also show how the factor is included in the calculation of dry well differential pressure during a LOCA.

Interrogatory No. 35. Applicant's interrogatory was as follows:

" (a) With respect to TexPirg Contention 8, explain the basis for the statement that Ap-plicant only has a manually operated SCRAM system as its redundant system. In so doing, specify the exact char ,6 that need to be made in the Applicar' SCP3.M system in order to provide a suf ? ..y redundant SCRAM system. (b) Str .- ered this interroga-tory. (c) Prov. "

cf TexPirg's expert witness on this vc mo t. _ . "

TexPirg's answer was as follows:

" (a) The SER. A S ' RAM such as that used in the N reactor at Handford, Washington should be used. (b) Jim Scott. (c) None."

4 8 /.' 170 As an initial matter, a reference to the SER without specific pages is clearly not sufficient. Secondly, TexPirg's simple refarence to a SCRAM system on a Department of Energy production reactor does not in any way answer that portion of the interrogatory requiring TexPirg to specify the exact changes that need to be made in Applicant's SCRAM system in order to provide a sufficiently redundant SCRAM system. TexPirg should be required to answer the interrogatory.

For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests that the Board order TexPirg to provide more complete answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of Applicant's Second Interrogatories to TexPirg.

In order to avoid unduly burdening the Board, Applicant has confined its request to those of the second set of interrogatories it considers essential.' In appraising the motion, Applicant requests the Board to note that, as discussed above, none of the answers were under oath as required by the rules and, therefore, not one would be adequate even if it was adjudged responsive. In addition, both the signatory to the first set of interrogatories (Mr.

Doherty) and TexPirg's counsel (Mr. Scott) have cast serious doubt on the former's authority to sign the answers. In 4oo i }]$

these circumstances, any doubts concerning Applicant's right to responsive answers to the specified questions, under oath or affirmation and signed by a clearly authorized agent or officer of TexPirg, should be resolved in favor of Applicant.

Because of its importance to the conduct of Applicant's case and to the integrity of the Commission's administration process, Applicant requests prompt oral argument if this motion is opposed.

Respectfully submitted,

/W M/ /

OF COUNSEL: J./GregoryfCoppland j /

/ Thomas Biddle, Jr.

BAKER & BOTTS Charles G. Thrash, Jr.

3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEh%hN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

-7 i d

[< v-O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND L EENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify cnat copies of the foregoing Applicant's Motion to Compel Further Answers in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following'by deposit in the United States mail, p9tage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this ;2/f/ day of ly p , 1979.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.,Ch[rman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 9n I

t i"7 4 0.r J

Steve Schinki, Esq.

Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 John F. Doherty 4438 1/2 Leeland Houston, Texas 77023 Madeline Bass Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Carro Hinderstein 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 D. Marrack 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Brenda McCorkle 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 F. H. Potthoff, III 1814 Pine Village Houston, Texas 77080 Wayne E. Rentfro P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 James M. Scott, Jr.

8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 Nf/

J. Grefor J op land /

s ,3

,; oU. _

l' '

EXHIBIT A

( h) .) J Atasston ;n ihr r gf 73

a .

5 5 '~[

1 s

4 i

. t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR NEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ECARD In the Matter of X X i

!!UUSTC:I LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY X Docket No. 50-466 X

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating X l X ,'

Station, Unit 1) i TEX PIRC _RFSPONSE TO H. L&P'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIIf Ten IIRG submits the following answers to the questions. These i responces were prepared by John Doherty. ,

Tex PIRG Contenti.n 1 1 Yes. You have them.

F 2, n/a.  :

3. I do not yet know each person to be called ac a witness. ~.ffert' mre now: underway to locate such people. An ef fort will be made to he c you and the URC to pay for at least one expert for each contention tc toctify for Tex PIRG.

E.(a) It would be obviously superior from both an environmental and cafety impact. (b)Yes. Environmental Report (ER) (d) You have it.

5. (a) I don' t know. (b) Almost 11,000 acres of prime and unique farm land would be loct for no good reason, Such loss would be very cign: icant.

^

(c) ER and Final Supplecent to Final Environmental Statement (l'ZS ST p) and 7:C.

6.(a) I don' t know, but the FE5 Supp says that it wculd be signific .e t.

(b)n/a (c)You have.

7.(a)ctatute creating cubcidence district for Houston area. (b) Many ill have to in future (c)The Texac Viater Plan (d)You already have it.

3. (a)T:le FZC Supp cays 1,041 acrea lecs. (b)Over 1,000 acros of nri:

rnd unique farm land tould be lost that ic locatc; near a large cit e that will need the land to feed several million people without wasting fuel for transportation from the California farms that are being

$ctrcyed my calt capocitc. (c) FES Supp.

9. (a)Thoso ctated in the Final E5's for S. Texas and Allens Crock.

(b)Over 4 million fewer people would be within the 50 mile radius o f the plant that could emit more radiation than a thoucand atomic

' combs and 13 pladhd to emit more rtdioactive materialc then any othc plan' (b 'b d C C6 N /l/0 ~7T(Jf 3f8&/ 7 E

s- -

Th3 environmental damages will have a much worse effect at the Allons Creek location because it is c:oser to the people that would be us: 1g thJ environment that was destroyed. (c)I,_f don' t know what p 81 and 82 say.

(d)You have them.

Contention 2 1.Yes. The ER, FES, and FES Supp.

2 n/a

3. I do n ' t kno w who yet.

4. (a) The shore line of tne original lake located north and northccst of the present lake None of it will be available because it is without either water nor park area.(b)(i)No (ii)Yes,the fish restocked woulc soon die and /or be contaminated.(e) you have the ER and FES and FEJ Supp.

5. (a) mg/l and ppm; free available chlorine, total residual chlorine (b) As ernlained in FES Supp. (c) You have.

6. (a) No.(b)Because the total nutrient loading to the lake is expec ced x to be high as is the thermal loading which will greatly increase the algae growth (c)(i)No(ii)yes (iii) partially, because the lake is smaller and hotter.(c) You have. .

7. (a) All present in the Brazos, Allens Creek, sewer discharges and nuclear plant discharges.These include mercury,cadmin, and lead as well as cobalt, copper, iorn, manganese, nickle, strontium and sinc.

(b)Most fish will be unable to live in the lake even if there s=

would not be excessive heavy metal concentrations. Those most likely to Alive are the fish that feed off of the bottom of the lake there the heavy metitls concentrate such as carp._ (c) I know of no safe level for heavy meta: ...

concentrations in fish, just as there is no " threshold" for radiation that is safe. (d) The differences would be at least doublehhat cf the Brazos, but in addition it would be much higher because in addition the levels in the Allens Creek discharge, "lallis, Sealey, and plant discharges would be added and their concentrations are higher than that of the Brazos where sampled.(e)You have.

3.(a) It varies depending on type of fish, rate of change, and prior temperatures as well as other paramaters in the fish environment.I expect only rough fish could live anyway. Some would be killed by thc thermal shock of going from cold to ho t, but most could be killed during the winter (when the base load is less needed and the plant

' trill be regularly closed for refueling) when the shock is from hot to cold. (b)Yes I disagree because each year the plant will clase in the winter months, an;l most of the lakes fich will be near the discharge.

(clYou dha e. , a .-,

/O j,j  ;(' -

iv e i

(

v 1

Contention 4

1. (a) Yes. The ER, $P, Supplement, and FES Supplement all support such a relocation. In fact, request 16 in the ER Supplement supports such a move.

2. N/A

3. We don't know who will be called yet.

4. There are several, but the map with request 17 in the ER Supplement is one.

5. A large amount. It would save Brazos River water, and allow a better spawning area, and a better shoreline for a public recreation area.

G. You have.

Contention 5 ,

1. The final supplement to the final environmental statement has a brief section orr page S.9'5 on combustion of refuse which shows that inadequate attention was given to this alternative source of electrical energy.

While the report does cite two prototype plants that were operational at the time of-the report it fails to even mention the work that was going on in Houston in 1975 to plan for a large scale refuse combustion facility under the direction of Paul Davies of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority. It is my ;nderstanding from Mr. Davies that Houston Power and Light was.well aware of this proposed facility and in fact HL&P made it clear to Mr. Davies that electrical power generated from even a modest refuse combustion facility would not be allowed into the electrical system under HL&P's control. I believe as a result of this lact of cooperation at even the study phase of a refuse combustion system for the Houston area that the project that is being carried forsard is much more modest than would have been the case with HL&P cooperation.

(This information was obtained from a telephone conversation with Mr.

Davies in the fall of 1978 with Gregory Skie. }

The final supplement to the final environmental statement also fails.

-to mention the project under the control of Browning Ferris Industries in Houston to develop a refuse derived fuel. The project has been active for the last several years and is in short an attempt to extract a paper rich, fraction from refuse. for use as a , rimary or supplemental boiler fuel.

Failmre to mention these local projects in particular indicates that no conscientious - research was done into the possibility of generating electrical power from the combustion of municipal refuse in the Houston a rea . As the potential for electrical power production from refuse is large and may in fact obviate the need for the Allens Creek Nuclear facility a complete study of this alternative source of energy should be- undertaken . .

s

2. The response given above will also apply to question number two. .

3. A list of person's will be supplied as soon as available. Inouiriefhave been made with and I expect to have confinnations shortly. I do expect Dr. Jack Matson from the Department of Environmental Engineering at the University of Houston, a representative from the National Center for Re-

/0 id<

V

]N a

O  ; 3 Contention 5 (continued) source Recovery, and possibly a person who ha .ked in the recovery of materials and energy from solid waste for the past 10 years who now has his own company in this area. These witnesses will testify as to the feasibility and potential for materials and energy recovery from solid waste in the Houston and Harris County area.

4. The attachments showing existing plants published by the !tional Center for Resource Pecovery list the operational plants by locat in, type, and owner. The one page attachment published by the Environmen.al Protection Agency in their Fourth Report to Congress lists the plants that were in the operational, design, and planning stage about the time, or shortly after the time, the first environmental statement on the Allen's Creek Plant was written. Many more cities and utilities were actively looKing e into the potential for refuse combustion by the time of the supplement to the final environmental report written in August of 1978. Europe has had a large number of successful waste heat recovery refuse incinerators in operation for: manycyears. The best current source of informatian on these plants is the Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal: Materials and Energy Recovery . Van Nostrand Reinhold Environmental Engineering Series,1975.

A list by name, owner, and location of the plants in Europe is in this book. I will be happy to send a photocopy of the relevant table as soon as the book gets back into my hands.

5. This information was obtained from the enclosed handout published by the EPA in their Fourth Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction 1977 page 51. A listing of the communities with facilities

1) in operation 2) under construction 3) in the advanced planning stage

4) or being studied is listed on page 47 of the EPA's Fourth Report to Congress on Pesource Recovery and Waste Peduction 1977. I nave included it as a three page attachment.

6. Such an estimate will be forthcoming.' Such an estimate will include amor-tization of plant construction costs, operation of the plant, as well revenues from the sale of electricity, recovered materials, and income from the City of Houston for disposa'. of the citie's solid waste.

7. The following is a more accurate assessment of the potential for electrical power production from refuse in the Houston area.

6.,000 tons / day x 80% of the refuse is combustible = 4,800 tons / day 4,800 tons / day x 2,000 lb./ ton x10,000 BTU /lb of pretreated refuse = 9.6 x 10 10 BTU / day 10 9.6 x 1G May x M heat M ele & cal condon eMency = 3.% % W ay

.3.84x 10 9 BTU / day x 0.293 watt-hours / BTU x 1 day /24 hours = 469 Mega Watts The earlier esti.. te was based on the thermal energy of a smaller amount of refuse. Although this amount of electrical energy falls short of the peak power estimate of the Allen!s Creek plant, I believe it is imoortant to re-member that a refuse combustion plant will have far less down time than a, r

. nuclear plant. On an annual basis the total electrical power output of these two facilities would then be brought much closer to one another. More details on power production will be provided later.

5 1_ t

/[ nO_

l'

. n ~

. U '. ,

Contentior 5 (continued)

8. This statement means that in an area that produces 6,000 tons of refuse per day, it is reasonable to assume that half of this amount could be diverted from land fills to a waste processing facility for materials and energy recovery.

9. Several sources list the heat content of mixed soli'd waste (5,000 BTU /lb.),

separated solid waste (10,000 BTV/lb.) and coal (11,000- 14,000 BTU /lb.).

The best of these sources is, the Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal: Mat-erials and Fnergy Recovery. Van Nostrand Reinnold Environmental Engineering Series, 1975. Another is, Fnerav Conservation Throuch Imoroved Solid Waste Management by Robert Lowe, EPA 1974 The two landfills in Houston accept approximately 6,000 tors of refuse according to Browning Ferris Industries (the operators of the landfills).

A published source for this figure will be provided as soon as possible.

4 l l i Uq .

IV

k5$. k Y$$ .h l M t

1 .; .4 9

Steve Frishrian &. P Augt.s t 27, 197/

/

/ 's '

s Pan.e 2 /

~

Contention s' ' - - -

1 Yec. ZR. ~

2. n/a p ,/79 f.l 7

3. '.'io don' t have one yet, c a t.c y&L. -

4.(a) FAA (b) 30%/3 yr X 40/3 equals 4004 in 40 years.(c) Houston (d) Everyone in Houston knows it. (e) URC staff and book in U. of Hol ston,

5. Hone o f thic is known for sure yet y sy ANmL-Contention 7 Yec, ER and FES, y Mo.4 ALAS 9.WW W*#  !

4(

1 2* n/a Texas Energ/' Extension Service,

3. AndrerSnnsome , Univ. of Houston, Houston 77004, 7a9-1756

4. (a)Their manage = cat could authorize it, and the company could char ;e for' their services and expenses. (b) All people in the service crea

ould be allov.ed the services.(c)I don't understand the question be: tuse it ic so vague.(d) Only cost-benefit chcald be concidered so long as all cocts and benefits are used and properly measured. (c)First com2..

first served. (f)It was not claimed in the contention that the retro f _ts

.ould replace all the need for povier, since the use of solid waste would help alco.

5. !.f half of the cost of ACNGS were spent on conservation then the use of solid viaste would eliminate the need for any nuclear plant.

6. The question does not make any sense cince 4(e) has no dates . -

7. There are many companies and each are ouned by thousanda of .

stockholders co it is too much of a burden to answer fully , but don Chemical i one o f them, and Amaco.is another.

3. I' think that Shell, Exxon, Brov/ning-Ferris, and Monsanto are building or planning to build their own energy cources such as oil r coal fired plants.

9.The ucera wish a cheaper,more reliable source o f povier.

10 It is lihely to be enough such that v.ith the other reductionc 11 energy uce and alternative sources of energy that there will be nc :'ed for a nuclear plant in the Houston aren.

11 The rate must go up with incroaced useage, and the rate chould 4.

7o~

a 1R) i o

be higher fcr peak ussage times so that there vrill be less need for peak units.

12. It is not certain that Dr. 'llells vrill testify, and he has not prepa"ed his statement so far as I knovt.

13. I dont t knort for certain.

14.aBuilding and landscape design. (b) I dont t knort exactly.

(c) I don' t knovt. (d)The mst varies viith the system and the size o f' home,(e) I do At knovt :' .. (f)Ho,

15. The applicant, Houston L&P, admitted that their projections of demand had decreased by 22 %.

16. ER Supp, Table S1,1-2(todified), and table S.8.6 on page S.8-6 a.

FES Supp. You have both, G. Other

~

l

• Iscting E'esearch D {. -- John Doherty; 4438 1/2 Leeland , Houston, Sxas rector er 023 Richn.rd Boat, TEXPIRG, Rice "

Memorial Building, Rice Univ.

Houster 77005 llisabeth Heitman, Gervice to all parties via U. S. Postar Service, this 2."1 th of March, '979. '

R. Go" don Gooch (App.)

J. Grerary Copeland (Ap,.)

.3heldon J. 'dolfe (URC)

Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum (URC)

Gustave A. Linenberger (URC)

Steve Schinki (NRC) Respectfully su' emitted, Doc::eting & Service 500. (NRC)

N Carro Hinderstein 9thn wherty "

Brenda iicCor:le Executive D3. rector of Tex PIPG U. Of Houston Houston, Texas 749-3130 .

D 9

I s  !

. i

, I

\

fO m

s MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY 47 TABLE 18

SUMMARY

OF RESOURCE RECOVERY MIXED-WASTE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION, SUMMER 1976*

Capacity Locationt Typet (tons per day) Products / markets Startup date Operational facaities (21):

' Altoona, Pa. Compost 200 Humus 1963 Ames, Iowa RDF 400 RDF, Fe, A1 9/75 Blythevine, Ark. MCU 50 Steam / process 11/75 Braintree, Mass. WWC 240 Steam /proceu 1971 I ' Chicago,I2. (Southwest) RWI 1,200 Steam 1963 i Oicago,13. (Northwest) WWC 1,600 Steam (no market) 1970 N-E. Bridgewater, Mass. RDF 160 RDF/ utility 1974 D-Franklin, Ohio Materials recovery 150 Fiber, Fe,' glass, Al 1971 I Grovaton, N. H. MCU 30 Steam / process 1975 g

Harrisburg, Pa. WWC 720 Steam (no market) 1972 Merrick, N. Y. RWI 600 Electrid% 1952 i Miami, Fl. RWI 'wu Steam 1956 Nashville, Tenn. WWC 720 Steam / heating & cooling 7/74 Norfolk, Va. WWC 360 Steam / Navy base 1967

? Oceanside, N. Y. RWI/WWC 750 Steam 1965/74 Palos Verdes, Calif. Methane recovery Gas / utility & Fe 6/75 5

D St. Louis, Mo. I RDF 300 RDF/ coal-fired utiUty 1972 3 Saugus, Mass. WWC 1,200 Steam / process 4/76 Snoam Springs. Ark. MCU 20 Steam 9/75 N-South Charleston, W. Va. Pyrolysis 200 Gas, Fe 1974 N-Washington, D.C. RDF 80 RDF, Fe, A1, glass 1974

'e Facaities under construction (10):

5; D Baltimore, Md. Pyrolysis 1,000 Steam / heating & cooling Fe, glass 6/75

'G Baltimore County, Md. RDF 550 RDF, Fe, A1, glass 4/76 d Chiago, cl. (Crawford) RDF 1 on RD F/ utility 3/77 Hempstead, N. Y. WRDF/WWC 2 000, Electricity. Fe, A1, glass NA

'9 MHwaukee, Wis RDF 1,000 Roi , corrugated, Fe 1?77 D-Mountain View, Calif. Methane recovery Gas /utaity 6/77 g N-New Orleans, La. RDF1 650 Nonferrous, Fe, glass, paper 11/76 Portsmouth, Va. (Shipyard) WWC 160 Steam loop 12/76 7t D-San Diego County, Calif. Pyrolysis 200 <d fuel / utility 4/77 St. Louis, Mo. RDF 6,000 DF utility, Fe, glass, Al NA 9- '

Communities in advanced planning (33): (RFP 'ssued, design study underway, or corutruc+ ion funding made avaHable)

n ' Akron, Ohio WWC 1,000 Steam / heat, cool process 7/78 3g Albany, N. Y. RDF 1,200 R D F, Fe NA

, Bridgeport, Conn. RDF 1,800 RDF, Fe, A1, glau NA Central Contra Costa County

n. Sanitation District, Calif. RDF 1,000 RDF/ sludge incinerators 1979 Q1emung County, N. Y. RDF 00 RD F, Fe NA

• Dade County, Fla. WWC/ wet-pt/p Electridty/utSity, Fe NA 3.00(D M G Detroit, Midi. RDF/WWC ,v I RDF/ste3M NA q Hackensack. N. J. RDF 2,500 Steam / utility NA Haverhill, Mass. WWC 3.000 RDF/utHity, Fe NA d (Continued) gs of

• A Nationuide Survey ofResource Recovery FacGities (ref. 6), updated.

he tD = EPA demonstration grant; G = EPA implemen'.ation grant; N = non-EPA pilot or demonstration facility; E = ERDA grant.

-ot tRDF = refuse <ierived fuel; WRD' = wetpulped refuse 4erived fuel; WWC = waterwall combusion; RWI = refractory wall incinerator with wastetteat boiler; MCU modular combustion smit. m

• $ Plant dosed down in 1976. dhhh h k h *k. <g ,'n ., A'e r '

'nt 1 Uses R DF tedinology, but current plan is to landfHI the light fraction because of lack of matket. J r tC-E3 s tg ugea La j 5 ;6. d 2 L-4h J j r3 7

-?

4

[j h i dJ

6m'". _

y <3 f *l -

e ,

i' q RESOURCE RFCOVERY AND WASTE REDUCTION l TABLE 18

SUMMARY

OF RESOURCE RECOVERY M1XED-WASTE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATICN, SUtotER 1976 (continued) i I Capadty Products / markets Startup date Typet (tons per day)

Locationt i

c Communities in advanced planning (33): (continued) 2,000 Utility NA Honolulu, Hawaii NA Steam, Fe NA I

' MCU 50 Jacksonville, Fla. (Navy base) Humus, Fe NA Compost 50 Key West, Fla. (Navy base) RDF NA RDF 750 I G-Lane County, Oreg.

1,050 Steam, Fe NA

' G-Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't., Ky. WWC NA 40 Steam Mayport, Fla. (Navy base) RWI NA .

WWC/RDF 2,000 NA Memphis, Tenn. Steam /papermill 1980 .

WWC 1,200

! Minneapolis 4t. Paul, Minn. RDF, Fe, A1, glass NA RDF 2,000 Monroe County, N. Y. NA RDF 1.600 RDF GMontgomery County, Ohio Steam, Fe NA WWC 1,800 New Haven, Conn. 1977 MCU 100 Ste* n North Little Rock, Ark. Steam / heat & cool, Fe NA [

3. WWC 1,000 Onondaga County, N. Y. Fuel / cement kiln, Fe NA  !

RDF 150

• Palmer Township, Penn.

Methane NA Methane recovery 50 E Pompano Beach, Fla. RDF, Fe NA 1 Portland, Oreg. RDF 200 I Electricity NA Pyrolysis 50 Riverside, Calif. NA 8

' NA 750 NA Salem, Lynn & Beverly, Mass. NA Pyrolysis 1,500 Ammonia

' Seattle, Wash.

Newspaper, corrugated, Fe 11/77  !'

Smithtown, N. Y. Hand sort 1,000 Gas / utility 1978 Sun Valley, Calif. . Methane revery NA RDF NA Steam Takoms, W ash. NA l NA 1,300 NA Westchester County, N. Y. RDF, Fe, A1, glass, humus NA D-Wilmington, Del. RDF/ sludge 300 i

Communities which have commissioned f easibility studies (54):

Anchorage, Alaska 500 200 '

Auburn, Maine

• 2,000 Allegheny County, Pa.

i Babylon, Huntington & Islip, N. Y. 3,000 l Brevard County, Ra. 200 '

NA i!j G-Charlottesville, Va.

100

• 1 Cowlit: County, Wash.

Columbus, Ohio NA ,

1,200 ,

I Cuyahoga County, Ohio DeKalb County, Ga. 1,000 $

l

, Dubuque, Iowa  ;

750

} District of Columbia (Metro Area COG) 1,200 G-Denver, Colo. ,

Dutchess County, N. Y. 700 Erie County, N. Y. 2,W0 _t f

• 4 Fairmont, Minn. 150 ,

i 1,500 Hamilton County,Chlo 1.awrence, N. Y. " hf g nar  ? ,h NA f

[ Lincoln, Neb. ) ' Y. 6% V $ L ([. Es "A

i Ilncoln Comty, Oreg.

Madison, Wisc.

"A

1. i' Marquette, Midt.

r/iami County, Ohio NA GMiddlesex County, N. J. NA Minneapolis (Twin Resco) NA t Montgomery County, Md. IE I Morristown, N. J. NA Mt. Vernon, N. Y. 400 (Continued) ,

L ,

I ,

{, See previous page for footnotes. j I

I aO  !' \n8v i f 4v L 1

( $

~

. kh

-) ..

MIXED-WASTE PROCESSING FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY RECOVERY 49  ;

i TABLE 18

SUMMARY

OF RESOURCE RECOVERY MIXED-WASTG FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION, SUMMER 1976 (concluded)

Capacity location (tons ,4r day)

Communities which have commisnoned feasibility studies (54): (continued)

Niagara County, N. Y. 760 G-New York, N. Y. (Arthur Kill) 1,500 Oakland County, Mich. NA Oranga County. Calif. 1,000 Phoenix, Ariz. NA Pasadena, Calif. 200 Peninsula Planning District, Va. NA Philadelphia, Pa. 1,600 G-Richmond, Va. NA Riverview, Mich. NA Rochester, Minn. NA St. Coud, Minn. NA Salt Lake County, Utah 750 Scranton, Pa. NA

! E. Virginia Planning District 1,500 G-apringfield.13. NA S pringfield. Mo. 1,000 Tallahassee, Fla. NA Tampa /St. Petersburg, Ra. NA Toledo, Ohio 1,200 Tulsa, Okla. NA Tennessee Valley Authority 2,000 Western Berks County, Pa. 250 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District 400 Winnebago County, DI. NA Wyandotte, Mich. 1,000 G = aided by EPAimplementation grant.

bb p.

,v IvJ

. _ - - . _ . a

. ~ .

(3

'/..

TREND IN MIXED-WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY IMPLEMENTATIONS July January July i January July Facility Status 1974' 1975' ' ' '1975 '1976' 1976 Operational 15 15 19 19 21 Under construction 7 8 8 10 10 Advanced planning- 23 30 30 29 44 Feasibility studies # 25 32 37 52 65 Total 70 85' 94~ 110 118

\

• EPA interview and file data.

• Prior to 1976, this category included all communities known to EPA which had " expressed interest" whether or not resources had been committed for feasibility studies.

Source: Fourth Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SW-600, 1977, p. 51.

e b

y g r- -p s 1i - -

1 y 1 1t- y q

1 . . . . . . .

Ui ui Ji i . a a s J .. Jl i .. , J.

1211 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202/223-6154) p m y.y.- -

. m c~ = -

.~ ,y 73.g- gy w- [O,f p..k

.. .-e, s

s .; . - . -

++

O/

.4 e pr. . -

-  % - Q F 1. .a .w u m M u .. f 1M W . . %

c-

% 1 m~N W&.~MCmiww. m x e -

> . o INCO m w .

M .v.m  %

Gli.M..E h w M Pi a v;g:M.nm ~nm6c. +Mv:ihr:. .w.

6hMSreWh CLcdracM&2 Ju &Ftma WWMd RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES. . . A STATUS REPORT

-September 1978-Periodically, Resource Recovery Briefs summari:es the status ofsome of the resource recovery activities in the United States.

In addition to the systems listed here, a number of communities are magnetically separatmg ferrous metals, ccnducting source separation programs for old newspapers, etc. While this revort cannot be considered complete, future issues will present other systems as they are reported.

Reparted Reported Capital Costs Location Key Participants Process Output Capacity (millions of 5) Status A krJn, City of Akron; Glaus, Pyle, Shredding; air classification; Steam for urban heating and 1000 tons per 46a Under construction; one-Ohio Schemer, Burns & De Ha- magnetic separation; burn- t.coling and indust'al use; day (TPD) half complete;in shake-ven; Ruhlin Construction ing of refuse-derived fuel magnetic metals down by July 1979; fully Co.; Babcock & Wilcox Co. (R D F) product in semi- operational by Jan.1980

\ (boiler supplier); Tetedyne suspension stoker grate National (operator) boiler Alb any, N.Y. City of Albany and 10 sur- Shredding; magnetic sepa- R D F; magnetic metals; 750 TPD 22 Groundbreaking held in rounding communities; ration; combustion in semi- steam for urban heat!ng and Oct.1977; construction Smitn and Mahoney (de- suspension swer grate cooling; nonferrous metals 20% complete;in opera-signers and project man- boiler; recovery of nonfer- tion by Spring 1980 agers) rous from boiler ash myy .- ras b3 5 Ames, Iowa City of Ames; Gibbs, Baling (wa:te paper); thred. 200 TPDE y ' Operational since 1975 Refusederived fuel)cr uses ' 6.19 d 3 Hill, Durham & ding; magnetic separation; by utility; baled paper;Q L' L Richardson, Inc. (designer) air classification; screening; magnetic metals; alfmihfmhq @ torp tour 5

• Wh "R

[TPffider'f other mechanical separation other non-magnetic metals Baltimore, City of Baltimore; EPA Landgard@ process: Steam; magnetic metals: 1000 TPD EPA 7 Monsanto Enviro-Chem M d.' shredding, pyrolysis, water g!assy aggregate State of Systems, Inc., has with-quenching, magnetic Maryland 4 drawn from the proj ect; sepa.stion City of plant temporarily closed Baltimore 11 for instal!ation of air pol-Monsanto - 4 lution control equipment Addit ional and otner modifications; funds: Dept. startup scheduled by of Commerce, Winter 1978 F.E.D.A. - 3.1 City of Baltimore 1 Baltimore Maryl.nd Environmental Shredding; air cla:s!!ica- R D F; magnetic metais; 600 1500 8.4 Shredding, air classifica-County, Md. Service; Baltimcre County; tion; magnetic separation glass for secondary TPD tion, magnetic separation Teledyne National (de- products; aluminum and landfilling operational signer and operator) for testing; first transfer station operating Bridgeport, Connecticut Resourcas Shreuding; magnet;c Eco-Fuel ll@(powdered 1800 TFD 53C Under construction; to ba Conn. Recovery Authority; separation; air clasifica- fuel) for use in utility operational by early 1979 Occidental Petroleum tion; froth flotation boiler; magnetic metals; Corp. and Combustion non-magnetic metals; Equipment Assoc. glass (designers and 0: erators)

Chicago, III. City of Chicago; Ralph M. Shredding; air classifica- RDF fe use by utility: 1000 TPD 19d in shakedown; began test-(Southwest Parsons Co. (designer); tion; magnetic separation magnetic metals firing RDF; gradual pro-Supplemen- Consoer, Townsend & duction to reach full tary Fuel Assoc. capacity by Fall 1978 Frocessing Fxilig) -  !

fg3 3 0 -'

~

( -

> Reported Reported Capital Costs ocation Kay Participants Process Detput capacrty (millions of $) Status Mcago, Ill. City of Chicago;Metcalf Waterwall combustion Steam for Brach Candy 1600 TPD 23 Dperational since 1971; Northwest & Eddy,Inc.(designer) Co.; post-incineration steam delivery line under mcinarator) metals recovery construcoon and expected to be on line in 1979 ade Dade County; 8!ack Hydrasposal (wet pulp- Steam for ut'ity to produce 3000 TPD 82 Contracts signed between ounty, Clawson/ Parsons & ing); magnetic and other electricity; glass; aluminum; County and P&W and la. Whittemore, Inc. mechanical separation magnstic metals Florida Power & Light; (designers) all state permits approved; state has issued and sold pollution control bonds; construction (site prepara-tion) has begun; shake-down expected in 1980 Detroit, City of Detroit Shredding; air classifica- Steam and/or electricity for 3000 TPD 100 Preliminary negotiations Mich. tion; magnetic separation use by utility; magnetic underway with joint ven-metals ture, Combustion Engi-neering, Inc./ Waste Resources Corp., prior

'o contract signing; agree-ment for steam purchase by Detroit Edison has been finalized; preparation of environmentalimnact statement initiated Duluth, Western Lake Superior San- Shredding; magnetic separa- RD F; ferrous metals; steam 400 TPD 19' Under construction; Minn. itary District (operators); tion; air classification; sec- for heating and cooling cf municipal projected startup by Consoer, Townsend & ondary shredding; fluidized plant and to run process solid waste; -

Apr.1979 Assoc. (engineers) bed incineration of RDF equipment 340 TPO of and studge 30% solids sewage sludge East City of Brr:kton and mar- Shredding; air classifica- Eco-Fuel ll@ for industrial 1200 TPD 10 12 Fue! is being made and Bridgewater, by towns: Combustion tion; magnetic separation; boiler; magnetic metals delivered to user; Mass. Equipmer.t Assoc.; East other mechanical presently testing Bridgewatei Assoc. separation Franklin, City of Franklin; Hydraspasal / Fibre- Paper fibers; magnetic 150 TPD 3.2 Production plant Ohio Black Clawson Co. claim" proprietary proc- met &ls; aluminum; color- (50 TPD operating since 1971 esses using wet pulping and sorted glass b 1 magnetic separation; heavy pacessed) media;l igging; electrostatic preciptatine ; aptical sorting

. n-Hampton, City of Hampton, NASA Mass burning Steam for use bf NASK M 200 TPD' 9.4 Design and construction Va. Langley Research Center, Langley Research Center :a contract awarded to J.M.

U.S. Air Force at Langfey ~ di 33 ..

3 '1 Kenith Co.,Jan.1978; l@ij Field , 'A Proceeding with plans and procurement of equipment Harrisburg, City of Harrisburg; Waterwall combustion; Steam for utility-owned 720 TPD 8.3 Operational since Oct.

Pa. Gannett, Fleming, Corddry bulky waste shredding district heating system and 1972; steam main comple-and Carpenter,Inc. (steam driven); magnetic for city-owned sludge dry. tion by Oct.1978; sludge (designers) separation; sewage sludge ing system; magnetic drying f acilities comple-burning metals tion by iaid 1979 Hempstead, Town of Hempstead; Hydraspasal (wet Electricity from utility. 2000 TPD 73 Under construction; N.Y. Hempstead Resource pulping); magnetic and owned turbine generators; (150 TPH) startup and testing in Recovery Corp. (Div. of mechanical separation; color-sorted glass; alumi- Aug.1978 Black Clawson/ Parsons & burning of RDF product num; magnetic metals Whittemore, Inc.) (owner / in air-swept spout spreader operator) stoker boilers Lane Lane County; A!!is- Shredding; air classifica- R D F; magnetic metals 500 TPD 2.1I In shakedown;to be fully County, Chalmers Corp.; Western tion; magnetic separation operational by Nov.1978 Ore. Waste Corp. , ,

Heported A Raorted Capital Costs L ocatio - Key Participants Procek ' Output ,.

city (millions of S) Status Madison, City of Madison and Shredding; magnetic sepa- RD F for use by utility; 400 TPD 2.59 under construction Wis. M.L Smith Environmental ration; separation of com- magnetic metals (max.) startup ceduled for (designers); Madison Gas & bustibles and non- (200 TP0 Jan.1979 Electric Co. combustibles; secondary being shredding air swept processed)

Milwau ke e, City of Milwaukee;to ex. Shredding; air classifica- RDF for use by utility; 1600 TPO 18 in shakedown, partially Wis. pand to surrounding Mil- tion; magnetic and other bundled paper and cor- operational; test firing waukee Count'y areas; mechanical seraration rugated; magnetic metals; Roi Americology Div. of Amer. aluminum; glass ican Can Co. (owner /oper. concentrate ator); Bechtel, Inc.

(designer)

Monroe Monroe County (owner); Shredding; air classifica- RDF for use by utility; 2000 TPD 50.4h Under construction; 805 County, N.Y. Raytheon Service Co. tion; magnetic and other magnetic metals; non- complete; startup (designer) mechanical separation; magnetic metals; mixed scheduled for early 1975 froth flotation glass Nashville, Nashville Thermal Transfer Thermal combustion Steam for urbal heat- 400 TPO 24.5 Operational since 1974 Tene, Corp.;i.C. Thomasson & ing and cooling Assoc., Inc. (designer)

N ewark, N.J. City of Newark; Combus- Shredding; air classifica- Eco-Fuel 119for use by 3000 TPO (in 70 (for 3000 Final cratract signed in tion Equipment Associates tion; magnetic separation utility; magnetic metals 1000 TPD TPD) (ini- 1977; groundbreaking e-and Occidental Petroleum modules; tially 1000 pected by mid-Fall 1973 Corp. (designers and to serve TPD with a to be operational by operators) N ewark's cost of $25 early 1980 700 TPO and million includ-surrounding ing fuel user community) conversion)

New Orleans, City of New Orleans; Waste Shredding; air classifica- Magnetic metals; aluminum 700 TPO 7.75i Shredding /landfilling La. Management, lac. (owner / tion; magnetic and other and other non-magnetic operational; recovering operator); National Center mechanical separation metals; glass f errous; aluminum, oth for Resource Recovery, nonferrous metals and inc. (designer / glass in shakedown implementer)

Niagara Hooker Energy Corp. Shredding; magnetic sepa- Electricity for use by 2200 TPO Approxe , Under constr~ tion; to t.

Falls, N.Y. (Hooker Chemicals and ration; burning of company complex; mately 65 early 195 j operational Plastics Corp.) shredded refuse magnetic metals $12 million worth of (owner / operator) equipment on order Pinellas Pinellas County; Florida Mass burning Electricity; secondary 2000 TPD 70 Negotiations are underw County, Fla. Power Corp. materials recovered af ter for a f ull-service contr.

burning include ferrous with UOP,Inc ; projecte-metals, aluminum and other to begin operation by l' non-magnetic metals Pompano Waste Management. Inc.; Shredding; air classifica- Methane 50-100 TPO 3.1 Dedicated May 2,1978 Beach, Fla. Er ergy Research & Desel- tion; magnetic and other in shakedown opment Administration; mechanical separation; Jacobs Engineering Co. anaerobic digestion of air (designer) classified light fraction with sewage sludge San Diego San Diego County; Occe Shredding; air classifica- Pyrolytic oil; magnetic 200 TPO EPA 4.8 Demonstration plant;sn

, C o u nt y, dental Petroleum Corp. tion; magnetic and other and non-magnetic metals; San Diego dowrl pegd g resolutio.

Cahf.* (designer / operator) mechanical separation; glass (* C -

hg f froth flotation; pyrolysis l% nta J vP um Saugus, Ten communities including Water wall combustion; Steam f or electrical genera- 1200 TPO 50 Ope <ational since 1975 Mass. Saugus and part of north- magnetic separation tion and industrial use; (two boilers ern Boston; RESCO (joint magnetic rtetals with 600 TP0 venture of De Matteo Con- capacity each) struction Co. and Wheela-brato r-F ry e, Inc.)

South Linde Div., Union Carbide Purox oxygen con- Fuel gas 200 TPD Unknown O perational demonstr.,

Charleston, Corp. verter (pyrolysis); tion plant since 1974 W.Va. shredding

/0m 18.

i-

. O o Reported Reported Capital Costs Location Key Participants Process Output Ca pacity (millions of $) Status Tacoma, City of Tacoma (owner / Shredding; air classifica- R D F; magnetic metals; 500 TPD 2.Si in shakedown; full opera.

Wash. operator); Boeing Engi. tion; magnetic sept, ration steam tion by late Fall 1978 nearing (designer)

Wilmington, Delaware 5und Waste Shredding; air classifica- ierrous metals; non. 1000 TPD 51k Contract signed August 10, 01.* Authority; EP A: t:an; rnagnetic and otner ferrous metals; glass ROF; mus:ipal 9 from EPA, 1978 with Raytheon Serv-Raytheon Service Co. mechanical separation; humus solid waste OSW; ice Co. groundbreaking froth flotation; aerobic cr:orocessed 16 from EPA, expected by Sept. 1979 digestion with 350 Water Prog.:

TPD of 6 from State 20% so9ds di- m atching gested sewage grants; sludge remainder from the Authority through sale of revenue bonds The following localities are either operating or constructing small modular com- , Operating: In shakedown; bustion units to produce steam from mass combustion ut municipal solid waste: Blytheville, Ark. (50 TPD) Crossville, Tenn. (60 TPD)

Grovaton, N.H. (30 TPD) Salem, Va. (100 TPD)

Siloam Sonngs, Ark. (19 TPD)

North Little Rock, Ark.(100 TPD) Under construction:

Lewisburg, Tenn. (50 TPD)

In addition to the systems hsted above, projects are underway to recover methane. Azua, Caiif. - Azusa Land Reclamation Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the containing gas mixtures from sanitary landfills which can be purified to pipe line Southwestern Portland Cement Co. - Began operations in April 1978 quality.They are:

Mountain View, Calif.' - City of Mountain View; EPA; Pacific Gas & Electnc Co. - In shakedown Palos Verdes, Calif. - Los Angeles County Sanitation District; Reserve Fuels,

.inc.(joint venture of Reserve Oil & Gas Co. and NRG,Inc.) - Operational Staten Island, N.Y. - (Fresh Kills Landfill) - New York City Resource Recovery Task Force; Brooklyn Union Gas Co., Inc.; Leonard S. Wegman, Inc.; New York State Energy Research and Development Autnonty - Plan to enter demonstration phase of protect; prehminary testing of gas has been completed The following state and local governments are in the " Request for Proposal'* Auburn, Maine Montgomery County, Ohio (A FP) stage, te., R FP's have been issued - or are reportedly imminent - but Central South Central Conn. St. Paul, Minn.

contracts have not been signed: Jefferson County, Ky. Seattle, Wash.

K no xvde, Tenn. Tulsa, Okla.

Cost information as reported: fCost of Phase 11 of the pro:ect including construction of the rescorce re-covery f acihty alone and in-plant equipment.

aconstruction hncluding $5 milhon for extensions to existing steam distribu. which includes central r wg;f er d g[opOnfujgtIOn Mt tsid'eiuipmentwith whichPhase I tion system) $31 milhon; engineenng and construction supervision $1.5 mdlion; cost approximately $2.2 l }

J{ [QgWike interest during construction $5.5 million; contingency, start-up and land costs 9For the processing pt t

$1.5 melhon; fees, underwntini rd issuance costs $2.0 million; debt service h Total funding authorized by county legislature; 550.4 minion, including an reserve fund requirement $4.5 mahan.

$18.5 million grant.in-aid from New York State, D.E.C. fur. ding under the Envi-D Construction and engineenng $5 6 mul'on; land $98,000; miscellaneous ronmental Quality Bond Act. Includes $28.4 milhon for construction of the equipment $165,000; plant start-up in Fall 1975 $322,000. resource recovery f acility. Construction of Russell Station R DF handling facihty s estimated at S8 mdli n. Balance of funds wiil be spent for engineering,startup, CTotal revenues hncluding band, proceeds and investment ir come)

$54,386.040. Total expenditures $ 53,386.040, cocosting of the fullewing: * @ '" # '*

proiect development $3.026,458 bond issue expenses $1,391,413; construction ' includes Reduction Module hncluding landfilt) S4,908.000 and Recovery

$39,549,771; special capital reserve $5.022,588; debt service $5,395,810 (includ. Module $2,848,300.

ing main f acility and six transfer stations). lNot including shredder which was already on s;te.

d lncludes design and construction. Funding through G.O. bonds. k Total protect costs - $51 miihon, including $20 million for studge module.

' Including incineration.

• Partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protec' ion Age yfE, )

1O' ; s kU _

0 e O 9 E EXHIBIT B

[~Q ' \\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C014IISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAE1Y AND LICEISING E0ARD In the Matter of I X

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POVIER CO. X Docket No. 50-466 X

{ Allend Creek, Unit 1)

~

X TF1 PIRG'S RFSPONSE TO H L&P'S SECOND SET OF IUTERROGATCRIES Te:c PIRG submits the following answers to the questions.

1 Building Allens Creek at the S. Texas construction site prevents environmental damages to the farm land, fresh water, wildlife, and nearby people and only 1/5th as many people would be expcsed to the safety dangers from the plant within the 50 mile radius. The IIRC staff says that 17,700 acre-ft per year would be savod.

2. Page 10.7 of S. Texas ES. Also Houston LLP would not be so dumb as to build a lake that was planned for 4 units if it did not know that it had. enough water for four (not just 3) units.

3. Applicant owns 11,152 acres at Allens Creek site o f which the bottomland portion (about 9,000 acres) is Prine-1 farmland and the upland portion (about 2,000 acres) is prime-2 farmland. (b) I din' t know.

4 Page S.9-il of Allens Creek final Supplement.

5 The Earris-Galveston County Subsidence District requires present users of ground water to convert to surface water. A large amount of Brazos River is already being diverted for use in the Houston area by the Brazos River Authority, i.e. Oyster Creek Canal system,

6. Rice, sorghum, corn, cotton, hay, and other crops that co uld be grown on the Allens Creek land would have to be transport-ed longer distances (at high freight rates that r;ill increase as energy increases in cost) (b) I don't know and it is not important to the local people. In sone other state the local utality is telling then that the lake flooding ne17 land is an insignificant part of the nationaa. total because the Allens Creek site "till g on their crops. (c) I dont t know, but they new grow cctton, rice, etc that is g own at the Allens Creek site.

7. I read that large operating nuclear plants contain more radioactivity than 1,000 atonic bombs the size of those dropped on Japan.

1.

7 907 2300f[

48[ 192

8. They are higher than that of the Brazos River where the Applicant did limited sanphling for heavy metals.(b) No.

9. Common sence aquired by observation , reading , and page S.5--13 o f Final ES for C1 ens Creek.

10 Utalities always try to operate their large base load plants such as nuclear _, plants during their peak use season which in the Houston area isen the sun =er.

IT. These details can be obtained from Gulf Coast Vlaste Disposal Aubhority and Browning and Ferris Corporation by applicant easier than from Te:c PIRG.

T2 Greg Skie s 13 (a) Greg Skie. (b)Mr. Davies of Gulf Coast, head of Hou.ston Solid Vlaste, and all Houston L Pe P uanagement involved in not using solid waste.

T l+ Yle do not disagree with any of it. Yle believe that the capial cost of a nuclear blant is even higher, and that when fuel from refuse is added to other fuel instead of being burned alone.,that the cost per unit of electricity generat;ed will be cheaper than that from nuclear power when all if the costs including environmental costs are considered.

1L (a) Not yet, (b)Mr. Greg Skie, not complete yet,we dont t know yet (c) Vie dont t know details , but such factors should be considered in nT7 generating plants. The amount assumed will be based on past e:cperience and nor=al "leariing curve" assumptions.

16. (a) Greg Skie concluded that after studyigg the matter.

(b) Non-combustible materials such as metal are recoved. (c) Prior studies.(d)That is a norial agerage for fossil fuel plants and refuse plants.(e)I don' t know.(f) As of 1976, they were listed in our ansurr to question 5 of contention 5 of the Applicants First set of Interrogatories. I have no newer information yet.

17. I don't know his name, but he seemed to know what he was saying,Also the Ecuston post recently indicated that the growth was even tore.(b) e:cperience, and the fact that all business assumpticns of electrical growth, etc seem to project upon past fast growth in the Ecuston Area. For e:cample a new business airport just opened up in Fort Eend County, and the City of Houston has just started plarhing for a nevc "Intercontinenta3' type airport near the Allens Creek site.(c) I don't know, partly because I don' c kno7 7that the question was.

2* ),J

/< +O D

18. The exact location is not yet knovin at least to the general public,The City will probably oun the airport, the airport will be large like intercontential, traffic will eventually be similiar to that at intercontiental, the current status is that the City o f Houston and the Chanber of Connerse both want the airport and are pinnning for it now.

19. 1,200 M?le, study by city o d seattle, riashint; ton. (b) The annual denand for each of' the years would be lowered by 10,512. thonsand IElhr and the peak hour denand would be lowered by 1,200 10lle if only one half of the cost of Allens Creek was efficiently spent to cause conservation in the Ecuston area.

20. By talking with people at the City a f Houston, and Gulf Coast Vlaste Disposal Authority, and reading the newspaper.(b) The conpanies would not be planning to generate their own electricity unless.it was cheaper and nere reliable.

2.1. ITo, but we hope that he will.

22 Not as of this tine.

25. Yle have no docunents, but strongly dist"te am attengt or statenent that c1:Las that thousands of acres o. .ch farn lanc can. be renoved fron production in a local area and not affect tl.e production o f crops in that local area.

2/+. (a) ?ie have no copy of what Mr. Doherty said about Chlorine discharges since ycu wD1 not let either Mr. Doherty or anycne else have a copy of his deposition to read. Mr. Doherty does not work for Ter PIRG any nore, and was not authorised to say that Ten pIRG was not concerned about chlorind discharges that are !; nice the levels allowed by the 'coard in the 1975 partial Initial Decisicn.

Ter PIRG is as concerned an it ever was, very, abcut the level o1 chlorine discharges. ViZ are concerned about the bad ef fects on the fish and other aquatic life in the ~ cooling lake for the scne reasons that the l'iRC staff expressed in 1975. Only Mr Doherty , if anyone, said they were not concerned. (b)It does not, for the reasons stated above plus the fact that IQA requires studies before action, not studies after it is too late to do anything about the bad results learned. The study results aust go in the ZS.

25. Yes, Houston Lighting and power or URC should fund or car:/ aut an enperiment to confirn both the arount a f chlorine needed to keep the plant " clean", and what fish can tolerate.

3

2. O. r 3

lc '

[i V dr

It is amazing that plants o uld k . e operated for years, and yet the claim is stated tha, still do not know these things.

In fact it is known that such concentrations are harmful to fish and the Applicant dces not wish to admit this. The Final ES clea"ly shows the P.ci__al affects on page S.5-16,17,18,19. Jince the chlorine haras the ,;nvironment, the burden is on the applicant to find alternative ways to reduce the inpact.

26 . The staff of the NRC could find no such data, therefore the Applicant has not =et his burden of proo f that rec _uires hin to hhow that- no harn can happen due to thermal shoch.

27. Many organisms that Texas game fish feed on are affected by chlorine levels below 0.002 ppa, and fish are directly killed by levels as law as 0.004 ppa according to the information on page 5.5.18 o f the Final Supp o f Allens Creek ES.

28. (a) Not now, but can rep? ace about half of its capacity such that a single coal plant could replace it now. Also as the Houston area grows it will generate more waste and within the next 20 years it could replace the whole plant with waste alone.

Also if all the waste in the Ecuston area was sent to one location then there would be enough to replace the plant by 1987with a waste fired plant alone. (b) It is not '" a""or , but considers only the present trash at what is now only one site in East Harris County.

29 . Vle don't have any docunents now , but everyone including the "Lignt Company", and the federal government encourage the public to consdrve. For exanple by tur 4"g dona the air condit-ioner control so that the temperature does not drop below 80 degrees in the sunner can save huge amounts of electricity at no cost.

Caticing cracks in windows and doors is alnost free and a huge conservation braefit. Even thn installation of insullation an(

solar water cc . lectors (heaters) is said to have a rapid " payback" because of th reduced fuel bills.

30 I don' t know what Mr. Doherty F.ated.He may have ceant that burning trash causes some air pollution such as oil and coal.

Or he may have meant good effsets such as reduced radiation dangers such as those caused by nuclear plants.

4.

l

,v -

31 The barge when loaded with the reactor vesselSthe river will not be deep enough to go up the length of_the river. This is especially true near the mouth of the river.(b) Dredging will change character of river such that it will cause destruction of much of the life in the river. Construction of the unloading dock will damage both the land and water near the site. Transp-ortation of vessel along the roads to the Allens Creek site will destroy the roads and bridges. (c) Jin Scott (d) none yet.

32. (a) Meet that criteria.Many other plants approved by the sane URC did not meet that criteria un' der operating conditions.

(b) I don't have any of those documents. Some of the reactors with similiar problems are: Dresden 1, Cyster Creek 1,Uine d'e point 1, Lacrosse, Eik River,'imbolt Bay 3,Dresden 2, Quad Cities 1 and 2, Millstone 1, Peach Ectton 3,Monticello, and Duane A"nold.

(c) Jim Scott. (d) none yet.

33. The five reactors are Millstone 1, pilgrian, Monticello ,

Dresden, and Quad Cities. Applicant has the burden to show that his system will work.(b) Jim Scott (c) Hone yet.

34 We have no such calculation, and dont t need one.(b_)" Manning's roughness factor" is the n in the Mc" 4"g formula for hydraulic flow which is Velocit / times islope of channel)I!(c).yOver equals 35 psi1.49/n (d) Hot ti=es(hydeaulic done (e)The exc radius)2 s

3 pressure will destroy hhe drywell so that the pressure reduction from the surpression pool will not be achieved allowing the pressures inside the contnd"-ent to rapida117 reach levels much in encess of 15 psis. (f)The containment will not crumble at small pressures a bove 15 psi, cut will at the excessive pressures generated during accidents (g) Jin Scott (h) Hone.

35. (a) The SER. (@) A SCRAM such as that used in the U reactor at Ezaford, Washington should be used. (b) Jim Scott (c)Uone.

36. (a) Tests on si=iliar syste=s. (b) The cables are arranged and composed of materials si 414 ar to those that failed the tests.

(c) Each cable =ust be seperated far enough from all other cables such that fires from one can't spread from cable to cable nor jumb fro one cable to another. Also each cable must be fireproof.

An autocatic redundant spray system of different design cust be able to reach the full length of all cables. ( d) I do n' t kno w.

(e) Jin Scott (f) Hone. /nh 19'

/' i ,0

))' g . Served 8We %g /,[g'O !'3<

on all parties. June 6,1973.

Secretary and Chairman Wolfe. -