ML19242A040
| ML19242A040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1979 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907310118 | |
| Download: ML19242A040 (9) | |
Text
'
June 11, 1979 L'
TATES OF AMERICA NUClub 4GULATORY COMMISSION NRC F Q tg g. _,
nu saiuM BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSItlG BOARD
' @ ' l' In the Matter of
)
, 3-g
)
W v ;,u ~-
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 C
)
d J U M 1. 13 7 3 P'3 (Allens Creek Nuclear Ger.erating
)
L Station, Unit 1)
)
d c;rdMW S
W 9
Y NRC STAFF'S '1ESPONSE TO AMENDMENTS TO MARRACK CONTENTIONS 2, 2, 4 and 6
, Pursuant to this Board's April 11, 1979, and May 1,1979 irders, Dr. Marrack has submitted a pleading, dated May 24, 1979, which sats forth amendment to four of his original contentions.
The Staff addresses, seriatin, amendments to Contentions 2, 3, 4 and 6, below.
Contention 2 Dr. Marrack alleges that the Staff has not considered, in the FES Supplement, the fact that the preferred transmissic"
'4
' route crosses a major waterfowl wintering area.
He also alleges that there has been no consideration of the health effm-ts of transmission lines on farm workers or wildlife.
With regard to the allegations of impact of transmission lines on migratory waterfowl, this ecard rejected Dr. Marrack's original contention on this subject in its February 9,1979 Order, stating:
!} h i 3b9
-t
/
7 907310 } l 3 h
_2_
./
[T]he Applicant's Environmental Report has been amended in response to a question from the Staff... to orovide a discussion of this specific point.
The Applicant states:
"There are many miles of transmission lines in the Houston Lighting and Power Company system, some of which have been in existence for decades.
Many of these lines cross water bodies several of which are used by migratory waterfew1.
These lines are regularly inspected (for maintenance purposes) and no instances of signifiv..t bird losses have been reported.
Hence, this aspect or' the propos2d contention is rejected for lack of an adequate basis.
Dr. Marrack has not, in the instant pleading, cured the defect noted by the Board in its February 9 Order. He has not taken issue with the above conclusion that no significant impact on waterfowl has been experiencea in Texas due to transmission lines, nor has he particularized the impacts which he predicts will occur should the preferred transmission route be approved by this Board.
With regard to health effects of transmission lines, Dr. Marrack has stated no basis for the implication that 345 Kv lines will have any affect on either farm workers or wildlife.
For these reasons, the Staff believes that Contention 2 shoulo ue excluded by
e Board.
uuntention 3 Dr. Marrack avers tLat secondary impacts of the proposed project have not been adequately evaluated in the FES Supplement.
He lists three secondary impacts which he asserts have not been adequately considered--agricultural productivity, flooding and drainage, and water supply.
The contention should be rejected for two reason. First the Staff discusses impacts of station construction in Section S.4 of the FES Supplement and Section 4 of the original FES.
No specific inadequacies in those discuss ;ons are set forth by Dr. Marrack.
Secondly, as pointed out by the Board in its February 9 Order rejecting Dr. Marrack's original contention, the subject of secondary impacts was dealt with in the Partial Initial Decision (PID) in this matter (2 NRC 776), and no information is presented by Dr.
Marrack which would warrant reopening those findings.
Indeed, the areas of concern expressed by Dr. Marrack were soecifically addressed in the PID.
Agricul tural productivity w:s discussed in findings 65-68 of +5e PID.
Flooding and drainage are addres.ed in findings 26-33. Water use impacts are covered in findings 37, 38 and 49.
For these reasons, the Staff believes that Contention 3 should be rejec ed by this Board.
Contention 4 Dr. Marrack contends that inadequate consideration has been given by the Staff to the alternative sites at South Texas (STP) and in the Trinity River Basin.
The STP analysis is alleged to be inadet,uate t ecause (1) the advantages of STP f
-4_
from a standpoint of impact on migratory waterfowl were not considered and (2) alternative grid connections from SlP to the Houston Iighting and Power Company's grid system were not considered.
Dr. Marrack has assumed in proffering this contention that since STP has been approved already, the waterfowl impact has already occurred and that this is an advantage over Allens Creek. There is no basis for that assumption.
In fact, since the STP transmission lines do not serve the load centers that are to be served by Altens Creek, additicnal transmission lines would have to be constructed for that purpose.
In any case, given the Applicant's response to the Staff question mentioned, suora (Contentien 2), there is no specific basis given for the contention that transmission lines will have any significant impact on migratory waterfowl.
Sec andly, Dr. Marrack's assertion that alternative grid connections were not considered is incorrect. They are considered in the FES Supplement in Section S.9.2, p. S.9-12.
In support of the allegation that the Trinity River Basin has not been adequately considered as an alternative site to Allens Creek, Dr. Marrack offers only vague, unparticularized statements which cannot provide the basis for a litigable contention.
For example, he contends that the Trinity River P-li acceptable population density.
The Staff agrees; hcwever, mar une alternatives to Allens Creek have acceptable population densities.
Indeed, there are no regulations which would exclude a site based upon population density.
/ [j l bk2 The crux of Dr. Marrack's contention with regard to the Trin ty River Basi n is that the Basin was rejected as an alternative to Allens Creek based upon " question-able logic" and " flawed reasoning" which was not corrected in the 'ES S ent.
However, Dr. Marrack never particularizes what is " questionable" about the ogic or " flawed" in the reasoning used by the Applicant or the Staff.
The last portion of this contention is a repetition of Contention 2
, asserting again that alternatives to the Allens Creek transmissit routing have not considered for their impact, or lack cf impact, on migratory waterfowl.
The Staff has responded to these assertions, suora, in a..swer to Contention 2 For the reasons stated above, the Staff believes that Contention 4 does not comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 62.714 with regard to specificity an and should be excluded by this Board.
1/
Contentior, 6 Dr. Marrack asserts that " discrepancies and inconsistencies exist" between t original FES and FES Supplement and that these documents should, therefore
, be combined into a single publication and be distributed and comented upon prior to the hearing in this matter.
Dr. Marrack sta tes that this is particularly required since that Staff is still developing new environmental information specifically with regard to imoacts on the San Bernard River from transportation of the reactor vessel.
S Although this contention does not conoly with the equirements of 10 CF the Staff notes that it nas been conductina ar additional incuiry into th 4,
question of alternative sites for this appiication to determine whether its e
previous conclusions should be modified in any way.
will be presented to this Ecard in :ne fom of suco;emental testimony at theThe evientiary hearings.
of Petitions For Leave To Intervene BSee ".'iRC Staf f Brief Ir Response To Appeals Fro f Eight Petitisners," dated March pp. 31-36.
this proceeding, the Staff sill take steps to assure that his na 26, 1979, the service list so that he will receive a copy of the supplemental St ff
-'ains on analysis when it is prepared.
of the Trinity River Basin alternative in the forthcening testimon a
basis for a late filing of contentions under 10 CFR 62 714(a)
, he may have g,
g7
- q This ' contention" presents no factual issue which is litigable before this Board. Not only has Dr. Marrack failed to particularize any of the alleged discrepancies and inconsistencies between the FES and its Supplement, but his
" contention" amounts to an assertion that a new impact statement must be publi 5ed whenever any new environmental infomation is received or analysis is performed. Nothing which Dr. Marrack has cited, and no authority of which the Staff is aware, would support such a position.
Indeed, the FES and its Supplement, at this point in the proceeding, constitute simply the Staff's position with regard to the environmental impacts from the Allens Creek facility.
In this regard, the regulations specifically provide [10 CFR 551.52(a)(3)]:
[A]n initial decisiori uf the presiding officer may include findings and conclusions whi:n affirm or modify the content of the final environmental impact statement prepered by the staff. To the extent that findings and conclusions different from those in the final environ-mental statement prepared by the staff are reached, the statement will be deemed moditied to that extent and the initial decision will be distributed as provided in 951.26(c).
If the Comission or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in a final decision reaches conclusions different from the presiding officer with respect to such matters, the final environmental impact statement will be deemed modified to that extent and the decision wil! be similarly distributed.
cnerefore apparent that the Commission has recognized that environmental It 4
analyses may be modified during the course of its proceedings without the neces-sity of publishing a completely new impact statement.
To the extent that Dr. Marrack alleges that this procedure is not proper, that assertion constitutes a challenge to the regulations which may not be entertained by this Board absent a showing, not madt: here, of special circumstances as required by 10 CFR 52.758.
/ / ';
30h 4g For these reasons, the Staff believes that Conter.'. ion 6 should be rejected by this Board.
Respectfully,abmitted,
_,/)L f x )}\\ ll= '-
Step an M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this lith day of June,1979.
l4 b I'. 0 >
UNITED STATES OF AM.RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC ';11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No.
50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO AMENDMENTS TO MARRACK CONTENTIONS 2, 3, 4 and 6" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicateu by an asterisk b) deposit in the Nuclear Rcgulatory Commission internal mail system, this litn day o' June,1979:
Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esq., Chai rman
- Jack Newman, Esq.
Atonic Safety and Licensing Lottenstein, R?is, Newman & Axelrad' Bcard Panel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Uashington, D. C.
20037 Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Asst. Attorney General for the Route 3, Box 350A State of Texas Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Mr. Gustave At Linenberger Austin, Texas 78711 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor U.S. "uclear Reculatory Ccmmission City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
20555 Hon. John R. fiikeska R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Austin County Judge Baker & Botts P. O. Box 310 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, ".W.
Bellville, Texas 77418 Washington, D. C.
2COC6 Attnic Safety and Licensin-J. Grecory Capeland, Esq.
Appeal Peard*
Baker & Botts U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Ccenissicn One Shell Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Houston, Te:<as 77002
. ; Atomic Safety and Licensing Carro Hindcc:+ain Board Panel
- 8739 Link Terrace U.S. iluclear Regu.
y Comission Houston, Texas 77025 Washington, DC 20555 Decketing and Service Secticn
- Texas Puolic Interest Office of the Secretary Research Group, Inc.
U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 8302 Albaccre Houstol, Texas 77074 Mr. John F. Doherty 4438 1/2 Leeland Avenue Brendt. A. McCorkle Houston, Texas 77023 61'.G Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 Mr. and firs. Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Mr. Wayne Rentfro Houston. Texas 77035 P.O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Mr. F. H. Potthoff, III 1814 Pine Village Ms. Kathryn Hooker Houston, Texas 77080 1424 Kipling Housten, Texas 77006 D. M3rrack 420 liulberry Lane fiational Lawyers Guild Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston Chapter 4803 Montrose Blvd.
Mr. Jean-Claude De Bremaecker Suite 11 2128 Addison Houston, Texas 77006 Houston, Texas 77030 Mrs. Karen L. Stade Jonathan Kamrat P.O. Box 395 1901 S. Voss Rd., #7 Guy, Texas 77444 Houston, Tex 2.s 77057 Jon D. Pittr..an, Sr.
2311 Bamore Rosenberg, Texar 77471
/
' C(
~,
'5tepnen M. Schinki Counsel for :iRC Staff r
[j l,
.