ML19331D153
| ML19331D153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000467, Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1980 |
| From: | Eckhardt B HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008270386 | |
| Download: ML19331D153 (3) | |
Text
.
N18erTY. SIXTH CONONESS MArme.e Howes Ormes swissene Pteam (202) &SWI aos ECMMANOT. TEX, CHAtaMAN I" san, ee.n's.7.. mee. N'r~. 4.IS a.a.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
_yy
., g,,,, _ gag.g
~
C'," ",',", " *A"d-L O." M-'. ' ' " * * ' -
HOUSE oF REPRESENTATIVES
(*" "3
"*"*y SUSCCMMITTEE ON CVERSIGHT ANO INVESTIGATIONS vimeew, s. winvu. co'*
CF TNE ase"u'sS*v'a.
COMMITTEE CM INTERSTATE AND FCREIGN CCMMERC 6sv WASHINGTON. D.C,_ 20515 s
x..
p.
s...
,, g, i
August 20, 1980
?
2,,
- y. r
-~; ;_
~
Honorable John F. Ahearne i.
- ri g'?
Chairman
\\
-)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
?, '
g, M.
Washington, D.C.
20555
.." - E, U * '!" '.M...... 7#.=-...' ' *
~
- c. C 3.
Um..,
Dear Str. Chairman:
I am writing to bring to your attention correspondence which I have recently received from Str. Clarence Johnson representing TexPIRG, a Houston based consumer / environmental action organi::a-tion.
As you can see from the correspondence, Str. Johnson is soliciting my assistance in urging the Commission to conduct Class 9 accident reviews for the proposed Allen Creeks Nuclear Generating Station and all other facilities where a significant licensing decision remains.
Jnderlying Str. Johnson's request is his belief that the public in the Houston area deserve to know what the potential accident in-pacts of the Allens Creek project might be.
I share that belief with Str. Johnson.
As such, I would appreciate your comments on the points raised by Str. Johnson in his letter to me and would also.
appreciate a description of the actions anticipated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to inform the public in the Houston area of I
potential accident impacts of the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating l
Station.
Obviously, if no such information can be provided short of the conduct of a Class 9 accident review, I believe that such a l
review would be appropriate and would urge the Commission to accept l
that policy.
I will appreciate your prompt attention to this request.
Sin
. uy,
r I
Bob Eckhar Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Enclosure l
p50 Ssfl uosne au
y L ((
lY y
o a
(e aeceiveo
)
0[
s.UG 1119800 7
e-mg 3
DISTRICT OFFICE-TexPIRG
\\'
' ~
V Box 237 UC University of Houston Houston, TX 77004 ot."c: : n Honorable Bob Eckhardt U.S. House of Representatives
..., d E) 515 Rusk Houston, TX 77001
'.a.
e
Dear Concressman Eckhardt:
I was employed by TexPIRG, a Houston consumer / environmental action group, and presently assist the organization on a number of issues as an unpaid staff person.
I have been asked by TexPIRG to seek your assistance on a matter of great concern to the population of the Gulf Coast.
TexPIRG is intervening in 'the construction pemit hearing of HL&P's Allens Creek Nuclear Generating' Station (NRC docket #50-466). However, a recent policy decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Re: Accident Considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act oft 1969, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101, June 13,1980) has exempted the proposed Allens Creek facility from environmental analyses of the possible consequences of a catastrophic accident.
Prior to Three f111e Island, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policy on accidents involving melting of the reactor fuel (called " Class 9" accidents in NRC teminology) was that such possibly catastrophic accidents are incredible and need not require environmental assessments of the accident's potential impact.
The TMI accident, of course, led to much concern over NRC policies, since that incident involved fuel melting and was therefore a " Class 9" accident. The Council on Environmental nuality infomed the NRC in a letter dated Mar. 20, 1980 that the failure to consider impacts of Class 9 accidents " undermines the basic purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act to inform the public and other agencies fully of the potential consecuences of federal proposals and to provide a basis for infomed decision making." (Letter from Gus Speth to John Ahearne, p. 1).
On June 13, 1980, the NRC withdrew it. imer policy and ordered on-going environmental reviews of nuchar plants to analyze and report on the potential consecuences of the full range of accidents, includino Class 9 accidents.
In its decision, the NRC found that its former nolicy led to accident assumotions "not sufficiently precise;" did not contribute "to obiective consideration;" and did not "cive adequate consideration to the detailed treatment of measures taken to prevent and mitigate the consecuences of accidents in the safety review." (45 F.E. 40103).
In soite of all these admitted defects in its fomer oolicy, the NPC's statement exempts all nuclear facilities from the new accident reviews if a Final Environmental Statement (FES) 'has already been published.
Thus, the NRC will not conduct an assessment of the possible consec.uences of Class 9 acciAnts for the Allens Creek site.
~
LETTER TO ECKHARDT, p. 2 The selection of the publication of the FES as the criteria for de-terminino which facilities will have such reviews is purely arbitrary.
This is evident in the case of Allens Creek. The NRC staff's environmental review is r.ot completed for the plant.
In fact, the NRC staff is still in the midst of preparing an alternative site study. A construction permit has not been issued, nor has the Licensing Board conducted its necessary environmental hearings yet. Until the Licensing Board reviews and makes a final decision on the issues within the FES, the environmental review is not comoleted (10 CFR Part 51.52 (B)). Yet merely because a document has been printed for Allens Creek, the NRC will not ccnduct a review of the full rance of accidents.
Thus the NRC merely insures that an ongoing environnental decision will be based upon a policy which the agency concedes is not proper nor conducive to objective reviews.
Indeed, the exemption for.any licensing decision which has yet to be made (includino such Texas projects as South Texas Project and Commanche Peak, as well as Allens Creek) is probably not in conformance with the Naticnal Environ-mental Policy Act. The Environmental Law Institute's study for the CEQ concluded:
"The full disclosure recuirer, ant of NEPA is not adecuately fulfilled where censidera-tion of accidents in Classes *.,2, and 9 are omitted and where the full rance of accident impacts for all classes of accidents is not disclosed."
Allens Creek is prooosed to be located within 40 miles of downtewn Housten; and the NRC's locohole will mean that virtually no consideration of the potential accident impacts on Houston will be used by the NRC. The public in Housten deserves to know what these impacts will be.
The NRC is accepting public comment en its policy until Sept. 9.
I urge you to write the Ccamissioners urging them to conduct Class-9 accident reviews for Allens Creek and all other facilities where a significant licensing decision remains.
If you are your staff have any questiens regarding this letter, feel free to call me in Austin at 512-475-5881 or 512-477 a552.
Sincerely, N
1u Clarence Johnson e
. - +