ML19246B464
| ML19246B464 | |
| 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 7907130538 | |
| Download: ML19246B464 (7) | |
Text
06/11/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cv
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d'
s O
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD TlgP NRC PUllLIC DOCr.iMT P,00M 6]
JUN 11 1974 > I3 !
In the Matter of
)
- ELY W E ~j l
Docket No. 50-466 9
W 9
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
$s' (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
m Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW CONTENTIONS SUEMITTED BY F. H. POTTHOFF III Pursuant to this Board's April 12,1979 " Memorandum and Order, F. H. Potthoff III, filed a pleading entitled "New Contentions Submitted By F. H. Potthoff III,"
dated May 25, 1979. The Staff hereby makes the following responses, seriatum, to the proffered contentions.
c.0NTENTION I Mr. Potthoff recognizes that the PSAR indicates that all category I structures will be designed to resist perforation, penetration and spalling by tornado driven missiles.
However, he contends T. hat such protection can only be pro-vided by burying the Allens Creek facility mderground.
The subject of tornado missiles was discussed in both the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (Section 3.5.4 and Table 3-1) and its Supplement 1 (Sectivi 3.5.4).
Mr. Potthoff challenges none of the analysis there presented or the adequacy of the tornado missile spectrum against which the category 1 structures are desig ned.
He states no basis for his bald assertion that adequate protection can only be provided by underground burial.
Therefore, this contention falls far short of the require-ments of 10 CFR 52.714 and should be excluded by the Board.
3[J 3 7 9 0 7 r 3 0 6'33 G
. CONTENTION II Mr. Potthoff asserts that an August,1972 plane crash disabled cc:apletely the ECCS at the Millstone facility and thus that the Applicant should use an ECCS operated by air pressure or mechanical means. This contention should be rejected for two reasons.
First, the only event of which the Staff has a record which even remotely resembles the alleged incident at Millstone was the crash, in 1971,of a small private plane into a 27.6 Ky power line. There was no disabling of the ECCS. The lir.e affected was a non-required backup line installed by the licensee as an eme, gency backup to the two required off-site power lines. Of course, even if these required lines were disabled, the licensee still had its onsite emergency power source avaihble. This plane crash had no effect whatever on operation of the plant, let alone on the ECCS.
Thus, there is absolutely no basis for the cor,tention proffered by Mr. Potthoff.
Further,10 CFR 550.46 and Appendix K govern the reliability criteria for the ECCS. To suggest that anything further is required constitutes a challenge to the regulations which may not be entertained by this Board absent a sacwing of special circumstances pursuant tc 10 CFR 52.758.
CONTENTION III, Mr. Potthoff avers that the alternative of wind energy has not been adequately consi> red by the Staff.
In an apparent attempt tu support the viability of this energy option, he cites two reports -NASA's Wind Machines, published in 1976, and FEA's Project Indecent.ence, pub lished in Novetter,1974. The first w
- ~)
-n h
. pub'.ication does not help Mr. Potthoff's cause at all. The most that that
_.1/
publication demonstrates is tnat a single 1.25 W wind nachine was operated in Vermont. That power output is less than 0.1% of the rated capacity of Allens Creek (1200 MW). The report does not, therefore, provide a basis for an allegation that this alternative is available on a large scale commercial basis in the time frame in question. Secondly, since NASA published its document in 1976, this contention could have been raised under the "new information" provision of this Board's September 1,1978 " Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures,"
Therefore, pursuant to the April 12, 1979 Order of the Board, the contention may not now be raised.
To the extent Mr. Potthoff relies upon Project Independence,~2/ the statement he quotes from tht! document that this alternative can be developed and imple-mented in a relai'vely short time scale. However, the conclusion of the report was that this option will not have a major impact on the nation's energy output L'itil at least the 1985-1990 time period (pp. 49, 72). Therefore, the report provides no basis for challenging the Staff's conclusion in the FES Supplement,
- p. 5.9-7, "that wind cannot be considered a viable alternative source of energy far the proposed 1200 MWe of baseload generating capacity."
J/ The report indicates that the machine only cperated at its rated output in winds of 30 mph or more.
l/ The FEA, in Project Indeoendence, considered wind power as a part of the solar pcwer alternative.
}h-Further, Mr. Potthoff places great emphasis on the economics of wind vs. oil power.
However, that comparison is irrelevant to the question whether wind is a viable option to the Allens Creek nuclear facility.
For these reasons, the contention should be excluded as a matter in controversy.
CONTENTI0f1 IV In this contention Mr. Pot'.hoff alleges that the Staff has not given adequate consideration to solar photovoltaic cells as an alternative to Allens Creek.
However, neither of the sources cited by Mr. Potthoff support the viability of solar power as an alternative to the proposed facility. First, Mr. Potthoff cites an article from Science News in which a Stanford Ovinsky announced the invention of a new type of solar cell which could render solar energy cost-comp )titive with nuclear power within three years. However, with regard to this claim, the article states, "It's quite a claim, and one [Mr. Ovinsky]
admits will only be possible with outside funding, perhaps from the government."
Therefore, even from a standpoint of cost-effectivenss, Mr. Potthoff's contention WcJ1d appear to be very speculative at present. As the Appeal Board recently stated, in the Hoce Creek proceeding:
The Supreme Ccurt has embraced the doctririe, first enunciated in 'Jatural Resources Defense Council v.
Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837-38 (D.C. Cir. 1972), that environmental impact statements reed not discuss the environmental effects af alternatives which are " deemed only remote and speculative possibilities."
Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro
- v. Natural Pesources Defense Council, 45 U.S. 519, 551 (1978).j/
Further, even if the cosu of the new solar cell is competitive with nuclear power, Mr. Potthoff alleges nothing which would lead one to challenge the J/ Public Service Electric and Gas Comoany, et al. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAC-518, 9 NRC 14, 38 (1979).
3b)
Staff's conclusion, at p. S.9-8 of the FES Supplement, that power from solar cells is not an option which could replace a 1200 Ele power station in the time frame of interest.
The other allegations in the contention are based upon the Project Independence study, the conclusion of which is stated above and which does not support the conclusion which Mr. Potthoff implies.
Further, the question of whether the new solar cells woula be cost-competitive with oil is irrelevant to the issue of the viability of this option vs. nuclear power.
For these reasons, the Staff urges the Board to exclude this contention as an issue in controversy.
Respectfully submi tted,
." Dl It L
M f}vy p.. q %
l Stephen M. Schinki Coune.el for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Paryland this lith day of June,1979 363 330
UtlITrD STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C001ISSIO!1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ATID LICENSIf!G BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUST0fl LIGHTING & PCWER CCMPANY
)
Docket No.
50-466
)
(Allens Creek fluclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW CONTENTI0flS SUBMITTED BY F. H. POTTHOFF III" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the Uni ted States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this lith day of Jt.ne,1979:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Jack Newman, Esq.
Atonic Safety and Licensing Lowenstein, Reis, flewnan & Axelrad' Board Panel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Comission Washington, 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 A. Einenberger
- Austin, Texas 78711 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
20555 Hon. John R. fiikeska R. Gordon Gcoch, Esq.
Austin County Judge Baker & Sotts P. O. Box 310 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Bellville, Texas 77418 Washington, D. C.
20006 Atomic Safety and Licensing J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Appeal Board
- Baker & Botts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission One Shell Plaza Washington, C. C.
20555 Houston, Texas 77002 3N
s 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Carro Hinderstein Board Panel
- 8739 Link Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con,ission Houston, Texas 77025 4ashington, DC 20555 Locketing and Service Section
- Texas Public Interest Office of the Sccretary Research Group, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 Mr. John F. Doherty 4438 1/2 Leeland Avenue Brenda A. McCorkle Houston, Texas 77023 6140 Darnell Houston, Te.vas 77074 Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Mr. Wayne Rentfro Houston, Texas 77035 P.O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Mr. F. H. Fotthof f, III 1814 Pine Village it. Kathryn !!acker Houston, Texas 77080 1424 Kipling Houston, Texas 77006 D. Marrack 42C Mulberry Lane National Lawyers Guild Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston Chapter 4803 Montrose Blvd.
Mr. Jean-Claude De Bremaecker Suite 11 2128 Addison Houston, Tcxas 77006 Houston, Texas 77030 Mrs. Karen L. Stade Jonathan Kamras~
P.O. Cox 395 1901 S. Voss Rd., #7 Guy, lexas 77444 Houston, Texas 77057 Jon D. Pittman, Sr.
2311 Bamore Rosenberg, Texas 77471 e
~
/
j s.., -! +
/p.x n
Stephen M. Soninki Counsel for NRC Staff b
-.