ML20041A088
| ML20041A088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1982 |
| From: | Marrack D MARRACK, D. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202190078 | |
| Download: ML20041A088 (10) | |
Text
'
3' ,
. . - =
7 m
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . g os NUCLEAR REGULATORY*
COIG:ISSION .
DKHETC RECElygg BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETYJ AND LICENSING B 1RD E" -
In the Matte 5 of, .
l-4 2h.
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY l' . Docketb.5b 7 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating i 1x 4 (".
Station, Unit ,1) ] , T-tu -
PROPOSED FIND o FACT N COI USIONS IN LAW g
. 11 FEBRUARY 1982 g Intervenor' accepts the NRC. Staff's B_ackcround statement, page 1-9
~
of their.8 January 1982 " Findings M Fact and. Conclusions in Law" as ,
having no gross deficiencies except in that they failed to note in 45 that the Board's Pardal Initial Decision follow'ing the 11 March 1985
~
public hearing that NRC Staff & Applicant were aware, from that hearing, of significant deficiencies in the FEIS and EnyironmEntal Report of.the Applicant in this matter. 'Dr.,Marrack drew attention to general deficiencies of the EIS.
No follow-up enquiries were made by the Board, the NRC Staff or Applicant into the specifics of the deficiencies.
' Subsequently the NRC Staff chose-and the Applicant failed to insist on remedyini; the FEIS deficiencies.
FROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT CONTENTION 75: TRANSMISSION LINES /WATERF0WL Marrack 2(c); Board Question 4.
"Neither the FES nor the FSFES addresses the impact upon
- migratory waterfowl along the' transmission routes beyond the plant i site, nor considers that this impact could be minimized by construct-( ing the power lines to follow the Brazos River to the south of the site, then east and then north to the O 'Brien substation."
The face value of the Applicant's Environmental Report, as amended in response to a question from the Staff (Amend..No. 0 11/13/?3 p.25 6 .2A), states: -
"There_are many miles of transmission lines in the Houston. Light-
"'fing & Power Company system,' some of which have'been in existence for many decades. ;Many of these lines cross water bodies, several-of
~
which are used by migratory waterfowl. "'hese lines are regularly ~ bk l~ inspected (for maintenance purposes) and no instances of significant 8202190078 820211
~
i PDF! ADOCK 05000466 Q_ PDR
~
Y
- pago 2 - .
bird losses have been repo qed."
There is no critical assessmerit of this self serving statement u of the Applicdnt iri expert's testimony. A substantial amount of responsible scientific literature was introduced in evidence that there are indeed probl~ ems for migrating' wildfowl from transmission lines. See also Dr. " Reed .p.ll, last Answer and Dr. Schlict,-
Tr 7557; 8 17'. .
~
The NRC Staff in -their " findings of Fact" chose to totally dismiss this evidence and.give 100fe credence to Staff's and Applicant's witnesses. This is without scientific merit. No critical examination was made of Applicant's methodology or sources for claims of "no impact'".
In fact, an air survey from two to three hundred feet above the .
ground flying rapidly over the' transmission lines (Tr 7570,1.6) could not reasonably be expected to detect dead or injured birds on the ground. 'Espechly,asiscommonknow1' edge, injured,animalscommonly seek to hide themselves. That the Applicant's staff were prepared to submit a once a year (Tr 7573,l'.5) air survey data 'as a sound basis for their statement raises questions of veracity.
No empirical evidence was offered and no effort had been made to obtain such evidence in the Brookshire-Fulshire-Katy migratory wildfowl feeding areas, or elsewhere for that matter, in support of Applicant's position and statement.
In short, documentation contradicting Applicants experts was entered into evidence and raised substantial issues regarding the impact of these transmission lines on migratory wildfowl. The' failure of Staff to discuss this evidence in their subsequent " Findings in Fact" and the total acceptance of Applicant's self serving testimony demeans these proceedings.
Perhaps most appalling, however, is: the Staff's analysis of the Marrack " Alternate Route". Unlike the characterization in the Staff's
" Findings of Fact", no specific route was ever proposed in sufficient detail to permit the detailed analysis the Staff hasl displayed in their
" Findings of Fact". If the Applicant's proposed route had been as .
criticaaly examined.. there would_be.no. controversy pere. The
- obligation .of selecting jiransmission;1irie ~ routes an' d ialternatives 4 with an analysis of the pros and cons lies with the Applicant.
The Contention by Intervenor Dr. Marrack was simply - "that r.either the original EIS nor the SEIS 'contain sufficient information
~ -
s
- e
~ pagh 3 - ,
to id:ntify this (Transmission line on migratory. wil'dfowl) impact'and there is certain'ly no consi'&eration o'f alternatives to mitigate this r
impact." (Bripf in. Support of Intervenor's Contentions" 24 May 1979,.
submi'tted by Ihr. Marrack).
page 2, -
No specific transmission line route was proposed as an alternative.
The reason for mentioning a southern route was merely to place,the transmission line at the southern limit of the feeding area. Any wildfowl movement out of .this area would entail flight with migratory characteristics. (' ibid p.4 last paragraph' - "The poraibility exists
'that transmission line impacts upon. migratory waterfowl could be mini-mized /[ mitigated 7 by following the Brazos River to the South of the -
site, then turning East and then North to the O 'Brien substation.
Of course, due to the absence of impact data and full disclosure, no need for such an alternative was identified.") In other words, migratory waterfowl moving out to distant areas s 7uld attain substantially greater flight elevation than is commonly the case when they are moving to a different, nearby location, within the general feeding area.
It is noted that many hunters successfully shoot down duck and geese and commonly do this with birds at less than 200 foot altitude.
Thus these birds do fly at altitudes less than those the Applicant's expert Dr. Schlicht assigns them " fly at much greater heights (hundreds of feet) than that of H.L.& P's transmission towers and their associated electrical lines." (Schlicht at 18, Tr 7650)
Dr. Marrack's Contention 75 >a*- :-
"Neither the FES nor the FSFES addresses the impact upon migratory waterfowl along the transmission routes beyond the plant site, nor considers that.this impact could be minimized by constructing the power lines to follow the Brazos River to the south of the site, then east and then north to the O'Brien substation." A general suggestion of transmission line routing is not supported by evidence of scientific fact because, amongst other things,no specific route in this general direction was disclosed by the Applicant as an alternative to their proffered routes and no field studies of phenomena has been dono in the specific area.
, In particular, the Intervenor would not route a transmission line -
through bottomland forest. A sensitive siting would place a trans- .
mission line adjacent to but not in Bottomland Forest. The wildfowl will have adjusted to tree heights for years.
- page 4 . -
It should be further noticed that s'itins the proposed plant at the S.T.F. site not only reduces the length of new transnission-lines'-
4_ hazard to migratory waterfowl but, bec'ause it would result'in doubling up of towers and electrical lines in an established transmission line corridor, help make those already .present more visible to the passing wildfowl (Reed, Tr 7309,1 9). This~ alternative was not addressed in the FEIS or Supplements nor its signi'ficsnce in the . advantages of the S.T.F. site forapossible additional plant; reviewed in the Staff's
" Findings of Fact".
CONTENTIONS TEXPIRG 2 & 4; GRIFFITH 4: MCCORKLE 2, AS CONSOLIDATED *
- COOLING LAKE'S RECREATIONAL VALUE -
~
pater Quality .
I. Mercury The Brazos River Mercury concentrations reported
(Table S 2.6) have to be taken at their face value r,efle'eting raw Brazos River water sampled.(water with' dissolved and suspended solids) in the absence of data to the contrary. Dr. Saunders surmised the analysis'was done on' raw river water. The lack of the commonly used proper analytical quality controls in the reported analyses and absence of a proper statement ~of the pre-analytical handling of the Brazos River water samples and these same serious deficiences in the report on analyses done by the U.S. Geological Survey,make comparison of the two sets of analyses impossible. However, th.e Staff's " Finding en ofFact"ignoresthefactthatDr.Tischlernoted,(p.3ht.S.G.S., U did report high river mercury concentrations at the general time the samples reported in Table S 2.6 were being collected.
No testimony was introduced showing that high levels of mercury concentration in Brazos River water are not and'will not recur. - 1" Allens Creek will also contribute some mercury to the cooling lake.
The attempts to discred'it the precision of the mercury analysis of Brazos River water are without merit since the specifics of the analyses, methods used and quality control data were' not reported or
~~
' introduced into evidence. It should be noted that neither the URC
~
Staff's nor Applicant's-witnesses are experienced 1ahalytical chemists _ _
.A . ..
' w: .fi
~
~
cn -or qualified as expert witnesses ;incthisrmatter.;.2),.
Testimonythatit}{s~impossibletopredictthemercuryloadings'~f
}' in the cooling lake was given (FSFES p. S.5-20, Saunders p.14,'
~
=
Tischler p.27) and mercury cooling 1ake contamination was not denied. No testimony was introduced showing that mercury will not accummulate
- - pag 3 5 - .
through tha foo'd chain in tha sport fishas and caus'e a human mercury poisoning problem. The Staff's complacency towards' this ma.tter of public health ,in their " Findings of Fact" is deplorable. Prohibition of fishing and/or' confiscation of all fis'h caught would destroy the only/significant recreational' potential, the proposed cooling lake is claimed to offer. TheBoard.considere~dtheevidenceforcontaminationbyMercuryd[the cooling lake and finds significant mercury contamination is probable, in which event a public' health hazard will occour with impairment of the
. recreational value of the lake. .-
4 II . Chlorination ~ . f . Conceptually the resultant of adding chlorine to " dirty river water" at the range of temperatures which occour in cooling system condensers j such as those proposed for ACNGS gis considered to be " free
, chlorine" and " combined residual chlorine," a varied mixture of chemicals.
The mix depending upon the kinds, the amounts gf each and proportions of the organic molecules in the, water and the temperature at the time of chlorination. These have not been adequately defined for this proposed cooling lake. In practice with lake waters a large part of the " combined residual chlorine" is chloramines (Saunders Tr 4734,l.12) which react quantitatively in a test an oxidative iodine displacement reaction under controlled conditions,to generate a colored compound whose amount is proportional to the amount of chloramines originally present in the water sample being analysed. Some other classes of chlorinated compounds which may be present in chlorinated lake water also can participate in the reactions leading to color formation. The sum of the compounds reacting to give color in the specific quantitative test are referred to as 7RC -- Total Residual Chlorine. The standard assay has been in use in public health water quality assessment to determine if sufficient chlorine has been added to kill water-borne bacteria. Th test does not quantitate and measure all the chlorine
/%45W 4s compoun'dsy whic , in sum, form the " combined residual chlorine," an entity which is always greater than ,the TRC (Saunders Tr h753 1.13);
TRC being a subset of chemicals in the " combined residual chlorine." The NRC Staff's " Finding of Fact" ignores the testimony of'TexPirg's .] expert witness, Dr. Marrack, who has a long experience in analytical # chemistry, on non-TRC Reacting Chlorinated C_ompounds (NTRCC) which ~ _ nake the. difference between " combined residual chlorine" and TRC. Trihaloethanes (Saunders Tr 4750,1.16) commonly predominate amongst those chemicals which form the ETRCC. This group of compounds
- pago 6 - .- 4 .-
are relatively . stable compared with -chloramines 'and will persist in: the cooling lake water. They are toxic to fish, especially' juvenile:/Tr$4/ d--- and to zoopla,nkton and a matter of concern.to'the proposed-la 's fish s productivity Their toxicity increases with temperat(7L4 ure.g. he FEIS and Supplements did no't consider the impacts of this class of compounds generated by chlorination. The NRC Staff's " Finding of Fact"' chose to avoid the uncertainties by not mentioning the evidence. The chloramines which are the major part of the TRC are also
, toxic to fish, especially juveniles and also to freshwater shrimp and zooplankton. The toxicity studies reported in the FEIS & FSES pageS517areshorttime7nearadultfish' studies,fortlemostpart 3 and none involve full reproductive cycles. Nc/significantadditional -
testimony .of chloraminehhnijuv'enile forms - - and long term toxicity was offered (Saunders Tr 4769,1 7 & Tr 4830 1.2). A sustained yield fishery requires the forage fish to have successful generous reproduction and this also applies to all stag'es of the food chain of the sport fish, even in a "put & take" managed lake (%.4ff2.,4 4), There is no critique of the performance of food chain components or as,an overall system in face of a multi-stress (temperature, heavy metals and chlorination derivatives) situation in the NRC Staff's
" Finding of Fact". Itfailedtocriticallyreviewtheevidenceftff45,
, ithe hearing on these matters and gave 1007 credence to the NRC's and i Applicant's experts. Again, this is without scientific merit.
T,he Board finds, on the basis of the testimony, that there is ihsufficient evidence on the proposed cooling lake's chemical c6aracte'istics r and the changes with time,to determine that chlorina-
-tion will' not have a significant adverse impact ,on the lake's fish add imkair its recreational fishery potential.
s ys
~
III. Excessive Plant Growth l l The. Board recognizes that there is no issue over the presence of high' nutrient loads and good mixing in the proposed cooling lake and that these will support heavy plant growth. At issue is which plants _ ir will predominate and in particularcyhe ' extent of' Algl proliferation.
~That this lake will- have-dhusuall'y; high'-temperature 9 compared with'. -
]' "
[ , ~ lakes in the immediate area,_by reason of;the.propobed-p'ower plant-L . hot water discharge, is not contested. : Applying the data from EIS Figs' 5 2 & Table 5 4 to that in~ Fig 5 5 suggests with water temperatures in excess of 33 C, much of the time over significant areas /the lake j i I
~
i
- pago 7 - . ,'
algae will be a major component of ~the plant growth"and that[ he higher temperatures in the discharge canal and during the hottest 4 spells in the year, Blue-Green Algae will predominate. Some species of these form' surface scums (EIS p.66). The Board notes that the expert witnesses for the HRC Staff and Applicant chos ..for all too obvious rea' sons, to present their, experience .offelsewhere in the U.S.A. without show3ng they were equivalent in chemical and temperature characteristics to those
~
projected for the ACNGS cooling lake.and they. ignored the studies
~
from the two nearest power plant. cooling lakes, Smithies Lake (Parrish Plant)'and Lewis Creek Lake which in many' ways parallel - those medsured characteristics ascribed to the proposed cooling lake. TexPirg's expert contends-that the Lewis C, reek Lake has Blue-Green algal blooms from late April or May through'early autumn (Dr. Marrack foll. 7r 14891) as observed personally and as reported in a Rice University study which found that wa.ter temperature was a main determinant for bloom formation.by a species common to the area that forms floating mats and scums. Because this species forms gas bubbles and floats, water turbidity causins loss of solar energy has litt,l'e impact on the development of this algae as the predominant species. .However its presence over extensive areas is aesthetically displeas* ig and not conducive to water-contact sports. It also interferes with fishing equipment and thus the recreapional value of the body of. water. In addition, the surface scums impede light penetration, in the same manner as turbidity from suspended particulates, and thus cg< tails phytoplankton development, the base of the food chain on.which the recreational fishery. depends, causing a restriction in the populations of larger fish. and impairing fishing as a recreation. l l The Board is also aware, though not part of the contention, that l exotic plants Hydilla and Water Hyacinth are a very significant problem in lakes in the area,~ impairing marins access and water sports. The above matters would not be an issue if the S.T.P. site were
/
l used for the proposed plant. l Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that .the high temperatures
.) _
.ofthe. proposed. cooling;willicause(preferentialdevi.,lopmentog _ q
~ floating algal' blooms ind limpsir (sij[;nifican~tly thel? recreational -water
~
~
i sportsandfishinglinLthepro$ios5dcohlinglakeandalsobeaesthetically - l displeasing during the hottest mon 5Ns'of'the year when most intensive recreational use of the' lake can be expected. l l L _
- pagh'B - . '
CONTENTION 1 -- BARGING- . The Dames & Moore report.on Transportation of the React 6r Vessel 4_ (RPV)wasmad#availablein'lateMarch'1980,(Applicant'Ex.,16)an untimely late date in these proceedings. - This report.did not. reflect the.pbeexisting data'of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) on'the dimensions'of San Bernard River navigation channel or its' limits ; equally, the. Applicant was unaware of this ACE data (TexPirg Ex.15) .- 1Niis, like other matters, reflect on the basic
' unpreparedness of the Applicant for managing this project.
~
Am unsurveyed, approximately 1000 meter, river section exists between the upper limit of.the ACE maintenance & survey and the propose'd sr Applicant's unloading dock ei.tegmile 27 (Kaurer Testimony Tr 21160-21215). No testimony was submit'ted ' showing fully laden . barges navigate this uncharted 1000 meter river section above the ACE maintained channel or Phillips Dock at mile 25 3 The S.T.P. site transportation' route is already established as one of the several benefits of this alternat site. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
..'The Board has given careful consideration of all the documentary and oral evidence presented by the parties. Based on our review of the entire record in this proceeding and the foregoing environmental . findings and the findings set forth in our previous Partial Initial Decision (2 NRC 776), and in accordance with the Notice of Hearing, the Commission's regulations,'the national Environmental Policy Act, as amended, and relevent HRC decisions and case law, the Board concludes as follows: .f.,
A. The provisions of Sections 102(2), (C), and (E) of NEPA }? and 10 C'.F.R. Part 51 of the Commission's regulations have i not been complied with in this proceeding. . B ._ The Board has independently considered the environmental, economic, technical and ~ o,ther benefits.against environmental and other costs, and has considered available alternatives, , and we have' concluded'thatithe z, v .. - behefits to.be-derived from-
' n~
~D ACNGS do notnoutweighritp? costs. Accordingly; we conclude' = 3Vi that the appropriate ~ action.in this proceeding is .that no -1(
constrpction permit be issued. 7 It is so ordered.
_ - n--- u .;.-. .
.=.- z. . -p- -.' . . . . . .
. UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA- -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' .. COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOM'IC SAFETY AND LICENSI'NG P'O'ARD
- In the Ma.t'thr of.: .
S. ,, 9-HOUSTON LIGHTING'&.' POWER
~
5 . COMPANY - 9 Docket No. 50-466 l ,
~. S : :
~
f) h (Allens Creek Nuclear
~ .
S -
' Generating Station,1 Uilit ' 5 I 4p#
_ No. 1) - 9
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
. .I hereby certify-that copies of the foregoing
' were served on the following by deposit in th'e United
^
_ mail, postage, prepaid, or by hand-deliverv. ~
- ~ . - - -
Sheldon-TTN31ef:Es@ r-Chairman David Preister Esq Atomic. Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General ~ Board Panel . for the State.of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission._. Pi, O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 . Capitol Station'-
~
Dr. E., Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A; - Watkinsville, Georgia 30677. _ Stephen A. Dogget.t, Esq.- =- , P. O. Box 592 dr. Gustave .A. Linenberger- Rosenberg, Texas 77471 ,
. Atomic Safety and Licensing' .
Board Panel Mr. John F. Doherty U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4327 Alconbury ' 1 Washington, D. C. 20555 Houston, Texas 77021 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Robert S. Framson. , Docketing and Service Section Madeline Bass Framson . Office of the Secretary of the 4822 Waynesboro Commission Houston, Texas 77035
. _,by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory'Commissio'n - -
Washington,D.C.305_,55, ~ ;c;;]._
} Carro Hinderstein .
J. Gregory Copeland 8739 Link Terrace
~
3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77025
'H o us ton , _ Texas _ __7 7002 _ -
atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Brenda McCorkle Appeal Board 6140 Darnell U.SrNuclear Regulatory "ouston, Texas 77074 ; Commission - Mr. W.{ Matthew Perrenod Washington', D. C.:20555i i . . - -
.3 7 . . , _ _
- ~-
. . . . . .- _ %- .4070 Mer tek_ , -
.d W. -
Jack:Newman,~Esq. J' Houstod', Texas 77025
%a ;lowenstein, Reis, Newman &~AxeNacT~ ~
- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. ~ ~ '
Mr. Wayne E. Rentfro- " u Washington, D. C. - P. O. Box 1335 -
~
' ~ 20037~ ~
~
Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Richard Black, Esq. Staff Counsel Mr. James M. Scott U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemn.'. 13935 Ivy Mount - Washington. D. C. 20555 . i Sugar Land, Texas 77478 - ._ ._ .-}}