ML20003A558

Contentions 50 & 55 in Response to NUREG-0470,Suppl 2, Draft Suppl to Fes Re Const of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station,Unit 1. Site Je-3 Superior to Applicant Choice W/Less Environ Impact

ML20003A558
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/26/1981
From:	Doherty J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20003A559	List: ML20003A558 ML20003A565
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8102040285
Download: ML20003A558 (4)

Text

.

6 y r 9 -

/\F 4'.N

• D

- ~

', ' T Tl A /h U-'

D*~]D o v.s m e &

g ;au 'I(j JJ .

Y g g, yggy -

, L -

c.

UITITED STATES OF AMERICA 0% ~

[;9d U.E O 3 dg , r- 'i NUCLEAR REGULAT3RY COMMISSION q 47~.". /pgI A .

W ay N

%a#

ke \ wew f a

.D"4 /-

, E.f_ FORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AITD LICENSING UAR s-n 4 /

.phe atter/of ,

HUSt',2rMITING & PC' DER COMPANY Docket No. 50 a66 OP (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1)

JOHN ?. DOHERTY'S CONTENTIONS 55 John F. Doherty, Intervenor pro-se in the above Construc-tion License proceeding now files these Contentions in resconse to Staff's release of NUREG-470, Suop. No. 2, " Draft Supplement to Final Environmental Statement related to the Construction of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating 3tation, Unit No. 1,"(hereafter:

Draft). This document was available according to Staff on December 17,1930.MHence, Intervenor has treated his obligation to file Contentions based on the Draft as granting his 30 days from December 12, 1930. He further bases his right to file these on new infor=ation provided by the Draft. The Board in its Order of December 17,1980 (p. 2), stated, " Staff advised that the second Supplement to the FES would be issued soon(TR. "310-15) and the 3 card observed and Staff agreed that said issuance might Generate amendments to petitions to intervene. . . " (TR 1818) .

CONTENTION 95, Intervenor contends that for che reasons listed below the site designated Je-3 in the Draft is a superior site, eith less environmental i= pact for the same benefit, as the site proposed bv Aoplicant in :lallis, Texas. Hence, said Je-3 site must be used for the proposed boiling water reactor to fulfill the aims of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Intervenor does not contend that necessarily each of the belaw reasons is sufficient to conclude the Je-3 site is environ = ental 17 superior and hence preferable, but rather that a combination of so=e or all of the reasons do sc.

n 2/ I; Was announced at 25 Fed. ?er. 79,sa. p%

B10 2 04 0 'A% g 6#/

o .

• Q Con:ention SS Farts (a) to (C)

(a) Intervenor contends Staff has erred in its caelulations, of the amount of land to be taken for power line transmission ri; hts-of-way for site Je-3 Using 73 miles as transmission line length, and using a 150 foot wide right-of-way a mini-mum recommended in Tnble 4.1 of Manarement of Transmission Lines Rirht-of-way for Fish and 'dildli'e, f Vol 1, pg. 24, (Dept. of Interiory Fish & Wildlife Service, (1979), the tynical right-of-way for a 345 kv line is15-170 ft or 18.2 - 20.6 acres permile. Using 15 ft/ mile this would require 1,328 acres, which is 442 acres less than staff estimates, and 523 acres less than required by ACNGS (Draft, Sec. 2.3.1.2, Fg 2-23)

(b) Intervenor contends the Draft did not consider the pos-sibility (and hence erred) of meander cut-off (as a result of flooding) on the Brazos River at a p6 int approximately 1.1 miles upstream from a point marked "31" in Figure S. 2.3 (Fage S. 2-8) of :he Final Supple =ent to the Environmental Impact Statement. (The Special-Fre-Eear'ing. Conference of 10/16/79, pp. 984-939, covering a Bishoo Contention has more on thid. If the Brazos River takes this new courso, construction of a picelinato the nake-up pumphouse in encess of two miles would be recuired. In addition, a mile of oiping from the spillway to the 3razos, would prob?.bly be re 'lired unless the prior spillway were closed and a new one constructed. An additional impact would be down-time for the ACMGS, caused by low cooling pond water level while the new make up oipin6 and other facilities were constructed. Intervenor contends failure to include this in the comparison between Je-3 " makeup and discharge pipeline' impacts (Draft, Table 2.10, Fase 2-58) and ACNGS was in error and that the Je-3 site is superior to the ACMGS site with regard to environmental impacts caused by makeup and discharge pipelines.

(c) Intervenor contends the Draft is in error in its conclusion environmental impact on terrestrial soecies from a plant at the Je-3 site would be the same as that of the ACNGS with

1

" T FS D

p

.. .U.L O wc c Contention 95 Parts (c) to (4) regard to threatened or endangered terrestrial species, on Table 2.10, Fase 2-58. The Final Supple =ent to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, (Table S. 2-5, Fase 5. - 7) lists six cnec'.es from the " Endangered and Threatened 'ilildlife and Flants," list from 1977, for ACMGS, but the Draft centions but two species, the red wolf mad the alligator, and the Coastal Site Comnarison Recort by Tera Corporation (Nov. 1980) lists but three others: Eskimo Curlew, Brown Felican and Southern Bald Eagle, none of the three of which are believed to inhabit the specific site (Tera Study, pg. Je-3 ?). Hence intervenor contends the Je-3 site is sucerior because die in-pact to endan ered or threatensd terrestrial species is less at Je-3 than at ACNGS.

(d) The Draft has speculated considerably in the impact to the "onsite" area in its terrestrial ecology analysis. First, although it references the circular mechanical draf't cooling towers of the FES of the Blue Hills Station, on pg. 2-38, it states a' require =entifor three of these " towers" while the Blue Hills Station FES (EUREG-0449, pg. 3-7 requires but two such units. Next, it is unclear fro: the text if the-Draft considered a cooling lake or a coolin5 tower in arriving at the conclusion on site impacts would be the same at Je-3 as at ACNGE (Draft, Table 2.10, pg 2-58). Intervenor thus con-tends the onsite i= pact will be less at Je-3 site than ACSGS site.

(e) Intervenor contenis since the cooling towers for the Je-3 site will acc.omplish the same task as a cooling lake for the ACNGS site, these two different cooling systems must be com-pared for "onsite impacts",(Draft, Table 2.10, pg. 2-58).

Intervenor contends the use of circular sechanical draft cooling towers as described in UU23G-0574, " Final Environ-mental Incact Statement Related to selection of the prefe= red closed cycle coolint system at In.dian Point Unit Co. 3, (Dec.

1979, Sec. 2.4.3 3) at the Je-3 site would have less irract at that site than a cooling lake at ACUGS, because of less land use, less visual i=cact, and less loss of habitat for protection of terrestrial fauna.

-a-D*fD "D .$ 3  ;

oh.b.

"> 6 5 3 Contention 55 (Continued, Parts (f) to ( h)

(f) Intervenor contends the Draft erred in concluding the ACNGS site superior to the Je-3 in aquatic ecoloc7 and water use, because the conclusion is based on being able to determine but a of 9 catatories (Drsft, Table 2.11, Pg. ?-61). Hence, Staff has not" adequately wei-hed the relevant environmental factors in deciding whether and how to o ford.'ard with the pro. ject."

Conservation Society of Southern Vermont v. Secretarv of Trans-nortation, 362 F. Supp. 6?7,633 (D.C. Yt. 1973) affir=ed 5C8 F2d 927 (2nd Cir. '97a), vacated a23 U. 3. 3C9,(1975).

(g()1 )Intervenor c .ntends terresterial habitat the effect and quality, of transmission lines (2) endangered on species will ce greately nitigated by use of a sinrle 3a5 kv connection from the Je-3 site and the Cedar Bayou unit of applicant.

'ower requirements at the P. H. Robinson unit of applicant could then be shifted from Cedar 3avou to P. E. Robinson via the existing 345 kv line between these two applicant clants (Draft, Fig. 2.7, Page 2-13). Use of this plant would make the Je-3 site of less environmental i= pact in these two characteristics than ACNGS in these two character-istics on its site.

(h) Intervenor contends Staff's conclusion the impact on habi-tat quality (Draft, Table 2.11, Page 2-61) will be greater for site Je-3 than ACNGS is in error, because it is based heavily on a " Personal Communication" (Ref. 10, Pg. 2-69, referring to a statement on Pg. 2-39) which is (a) too vague for the significance accorded it, and (b) a private record unavailable to interested persons for pur70se of comment.

Information on habitat quality does not appear to be so

rare as to make such coccunications the l7nch pin of an imoortant determination. Hence the determination is unsupoorted even in this somewhat cursory first look at sites.

Respegpf'ly"baitted, v.

ochn F. Doher.7 Certificate of 3ervios Inclosed.

I I

l

- m

.