ML20041E240

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Radiological Health & Safety Issues & Environ Issues in Form of Initial Decisions.Certificate of Process Encl

ML20041E240
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/13/1982
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8203100276
Download: ML20041E240 (32)

Text

i

,f- 4"(

~

February 13, 1 82 f

+ CO2;'t/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

' ,' ~M, f- >h NUCIZAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

~

g ,7 . f)

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t- jQ" v . , / .'

In the Matter of 'i'1.iTTy\

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466

~

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1 INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND S/JETY ISSUES, AND EINIR0!D1 ENTAL ISSUSS IN TEE FORM OF INITLtL DECISIONS FOR V.ARIOUS ISSUES John F. Doherty, J. D.

Intervenor pro se 4327 Alcombury fane i

Houston, Texas 77021 O

IT

• . s .  :.,

e so3 s- . _ _ _

-w ll 8203100276 820213 -

PDR ADOCK 05000466 O PDH

- _ . - _ _ . . _ _ . _ - _ . . - _ ,.. .r,

(I' rg:: TABLE OF CONTE'T5 pace I. INTRODUCTION . ........ . . . . . . . i II. CONTESTED ISSUES . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .1 Bishop Contention 6, LPG Pipeline. . . . . . 11 Board Question 4A, Combustible Gas Control .11 Board Question 14, Dresden 3 MSLEM . . . , . 12

~

Doherty 3, Puel Enthalpy . . . . .. . . . . 7 Doherty 5, Pool Swell Loads. . . .. . . . . 5 Doherty 6, Pump Impeller Missile . . . . . . 2 Doherty 9, Containment Buckling. . . . . . . 2 Doherty 10, Diesel Generator Reliability . . 6 Doherty 41, k' ate _r Level Indicators . . . . . 5 Doherty 50, Jet Punp Bea= Cracking . . . . . 1 TexPIRG 1, STUP-3 vs. ACNGS Site . . . , , . 13 TexPIRG 55, Rapid Depressurization/ Steam Line Break . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III.. CONCLUSIONS . . ...... . . . . . . . . .26

~

invironnental . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Jaret an#. 'a'iolo.-ical :Ienlth .

. . . . . . 23 e

ee

=

w.

b5

February 13. 1981 UNITED STATES O? AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SE?nRE THE ATOM!C SAFETY AND LICENSTNG BOARD Tn the Matter of )

1 ROUSTON LTGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466 CD (Allens Creek Nuclear Generatinc )

station. Unit No.11 )

TNTERVENOR DOHERTV'S PRO?OSED WINDINGS OF FACT alm CONCT.USTONS OF LAW ON RADTOTOGICAL HEALTR AND SAFETY ISSUES AND. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE FORM 07 TNITIAL DECISIONS FOR VARIOUS ISSUES. .

Intervanor. John F. Dohertv, of Hnuston, Texas. now files the above titled findings under instructions from the ARLR for this croceedine. The findings are not exhaustive, but are filed only for selected issues in the coqstruction per it proceedines.

~

As recuired by 10 C7R 2.754(c). the exact record rere ence relied unon is cited with resoect to each Drotosed finding of fact herein. As Anolicant chose not tn file Environmentd issue findings, references to numbered caragrachs in findings related to Environmental issues are to Staff's findings of fact. And, as the Staff chose not to file Safety issue findings of fact, references to numbered paragranhs in findings related to Safetv issues are to lonlicant'n findings of facts. In fairness, hnw-ever, it should be noted that Staff indicated on January 25 1982 that it sunoorted the inolicant's Rafety issue filines.

and that Acolicant indicated on Januarv 2P 1982 that it suonorted Staff's Environmental findin5s.

_1 CONTESTED ISSUES (I'

Dohert" Contention 50: .Tet Pumn Beam Cracking

k. .- . .

1. (To contest para. 219)~ .

In his Cnntenti on 50, Mr. Dnhertv alleges that the beam which holds the jet nu:as in place .in the ACNGS reactor system will crack and thereby sub.iect the coolant re-c.irculation system to disassembly and/or hazardous dis-olacement. The basis of Mr. Doherty's concern is an incident at Dresden Unit 3, on February 2, 1980 and crackine discoverdd in 9 of 26 BWRs un to March 1981.

In the Dresden Unit 3 incident, a det numn failed.

(Staff's witness T.itton, n. 2. followine Tr.13183; Annlicant's witness Aleksev, n. 3. line 14, followine Tr. 13PM6). (This paragraph to contest para. 219)

P.Intervenor does not contest paragraph 220,to 225

3. (To contest Para. 226)

The Applicant has agreed to purchase the new heat treated beams (Applicant's witness Esot, Tr. 13268, 13270; App.

Exhs. 24, 24-A and 24-B). The Board finds that use of (a) a 2 3 inch instead of a 2.0 inch high hold down beam, (b) the higher temperature annedling treatment and (c) ower preloading stress should lower the probability of a Dresen 3 type of incident. However, in view of recentness of the Dresden 3 incident, we will require the Applicant to present results of follow-up studies on det pump bean cracking in BWR-6 plants of the proposed jet pump hold down beam design at the operating license stage. We note the particular importance of this because the jet pumps have a safety function in the' design based loss of c'oolant accident (LOCA). (Applicant's witness Aleksey, p. 2,-

following Tr. 13183).

i

Doherty 6 Pune Inne11er Missile Damare 4 Intervenor does not contest paragraph 71-74. '

3. Based on the foregoing evidence, it is clear that the issue ([

of the effects of pump overspeed during' a LCCA is still an unresolved generic safet- issue. Resolution of this issue has been give low prio / by the Staff. Staff and Appli-cant testimony show th,at ,it is an e'Itremely unlikely eu nt that pump overspeed will occur. Although Staff witness-Leung indicated an overspeed event with missile generation had not occurred (Tr. 13049-50, line 21-8), there is no evidence in the record that this witness is familiar with'the pump industry as a whole. Although probabalistic analysis of postulated missiles are low, we will require the Appli-cant to utilize resolution of generic issue B-68, Pump Over-speed During a Loss of Coolant Accident, thereby placing themost thorough safety effort results in the ACNGS design.

(The foregoing contests paragraph 75.)

Doherty 9 containment ' Buckling

6. Intervnor urges no alteration of paragraph 86 - 88.

7. The ACNGS steel containment will be constructed in accordance with the ASME code and the design meets the NRC's present .

design requirements (Staff's witness Chan, p.4, following

, Tr. 11194). Chicago Brid Se & Iron Company (CBI) will manu-f acture ,the steel c ontainment. 'CBI is also responsible for.

performing the required analyses and design activities. To perform this task, the containment vessel is mathematically I

modeled using Kalnins' Shells of Revolution Program. The program accounts for axisy= metric and nonaxisynnetric loads

, on arisymmetric shell structures. (Applicant's witness l

l Mokhtarian, p. 7 following Tr. 11044; Tr. 11126-27).

Although A'pplicant's witness Mokhtarian stated conservative assu=ptions were =ade to account for dynamic loads and reduction factors are used, we note that Staff's statement of concern in NUREG-0471, June 1978, with regard to this .-

generic issue stated, "The structural design of a steel' con- '

tainment vessel subjected to unsymmetrical dynamic loadings may be governed by the instability of the shell. yor this

f type of loading, the current design verifica. tion =ethods, analytical techniques, and the acceptance criteria may not

( be as comprehensive as they should be.Section III of the ASME code does not provide detailed guidance on the treatment of buckling of steel containment vessels for such loading conditions. Re5ulatory Guide 1 57 recommends a minimum fac-tor of safety of two against buckling ~for the worst loading condition.provided a detailed rigorous analysis, considering inelastic behavior, is performed. On the other hand, the 1977 Summer Addenda of the ASME code permits three alternate methods, but requires a factor of safety between 2.0 and 3.0 against buckling depending upon the applicable service limits. NUREG-0471, p. B-7. (Staff' witness Chan, p.2, Following Tr.11194). And further, that NUREG-0747, "A Description ~of Current and Planned Research in Structural En6ineerin5,", December,1980, states , "The current standard methods for ' determining bucklin5 loads of steel containment vessels that are subjected {o axisymmetrical dynamic pressure loads have not been verified by testing or accurate analys.s."'

And last, that Applicant has chosen to use the most conser-vative of the three alternative methodolo5 ies mentioned in the relevant portion of the ASME Code. (Staff's witness Chan,

• Tr.11235). (The foregoing is offered to replace paragraph 89).

8. (This paragraph is offered to replace paragraph 90).

Containment buckling is on the Staff's list of generic

~ technical activities, as Task B-5 Although it is not anticipated that the Staff's work in this area will re-1 l

sult in significant design changes, as noted in paragraph 7 above, we believe it is premature to believe~ such changes will impact only future licensing activities. (St'aff's witness Chan, pp. 2-5, following Tr. 11194; Tr. 11197-98, 11213-22).

9. Intervenor does not oppose the first two sentences of paragraph 91

(

• Applicant's witness Mokhtarian, Tr. 11063-64.

4.-

10. The Staff has determined that the conservatism associated (.

with the definition of the loads on the contaiment compensate (~ ,

, fon uncertainty related to buckling calculations. (Staff's

~

witness Chan, p. 6, following Tr. 11194).

11. Intervenor does not oppose here the remainder of paragraph 91.

12. (This paragraph to replace paragraph 92).

In light of Staff's concerns as expressed in :iUREG-0471, and in ITUREG-0747, we believe it premature to conclude the AC: LGS containment will be adequate if constructed with current knowled 6 e of dynamic response and buckling in standing steel shells. Although the Applicant has chosen the most conservative of three alternativ.es men-tioned in the relevant ASME code, where methods of deter-mining buckling loads subjected to axisymmetiical dynamic pressure loads such as the ACUGS contaiment might sustain 'in the design basis loss of coolant accident (LOCA) have not been verified by test.ing or accurate analysis, we cannot conclude that the containment will have a conservative design. Further, we note the ACNGS shell has not been designdfor a hydrogen explosion load. (Applicant's witness Mokhtarian, Tr. 11136). Although Appli5anf!g witness Mokh-tarian testified additional strength could be obtained through stiffeners (Id., Tr. 11099-101) he did not. state stiffeners were expected to encompass all suspected re-quirements for strengthening from resolution of Iask 3-5

13. Intervenor's contention does have merit. *,le conclude that in light of the current unsettled and incomplete knowledge of the containment requirements with regard to buckling that construction ~of the containment cannot begin until Task B-5 is resolved.

Dohertv Contention 5. Pool Swell Demare

($' 14. Intervenor does not challenge paragraphs 63, 64 (c.? 15.(Intervenor does not challenge the first three sen-tances of paragraph 65.) Applicant's w"itness Nuta stated that the architect engineer-would send response spectra to the General Electric Company to be used in evaluation of the hydraulic control unfit (HCU) modules. -

(Applicant's witness Nuta, Tr. 20268). 1 conparison between the dyndmic load capability expressed by appli-cant's witness Stancavage, (Stancavage, p.1, following Tr.

20297) and the conclusions of applicant's witness nuta,

( Nuta, p. 3, following Tr. 20244) is impossible.

16. Intervenor does not challenge paragraphs 66, 67, 68 and 69 17 The Board finds that contrary to Mr. Doherty's allegation the TIP will not be danaged due to poolswell following a LOCA.

However, we will require resolution of Task Action 3-10 to be utiliced in construction of the ACNGS. We are c'oncerned that lack of certainty ingrediction of the LOCA loads '

indicates conclusions drawn by the Applicsat's witnesses, have been drawn with lack of caution.

Dohertv Contention 41. Inadecuacy of water level indicators

18. Intervenor does not challenge paragraphs 191, and 192.

19. (Intervenor does not challenge herethe first two sentan-ces of paragraph 193.)

20. On 3WR/6 plants such as ACNGS, the reactor vessel water level is measured indirectly but continuously through sev-eral water level instruments located between the shroud and the reactor pressure vessel. The fue1~ (of which coverage .

by water is the contention's concern) is located within the shroud. ( Applicant's witness Lane, p. 6, lines 19-23, follow-ing Tr.15445).

21. Ihterrenor does not challenge here, paragraphs 194, 195, and 196.

{

22. The Board will require at the operating license stage of review the applicant's plans with regard to informing operators of the increasing density of liquid in the indicators for water

level indication'as cooling progresses. (Tr. 15491-15492).

(.

Texoirg Contention 55 Main Steam Line Break Consequences 22* Intervenor does not content here, paragraphs 359 and 360.

(

23. The Board finds that Applicant has not shown that no mechanism exists for drawing cold water into the core quickly

~

enough to adversely affect. reactivity prior to full SCRAM.

No statement in the record attests to that conclusion.

Doherty Contention 10, Diesel Generator Reliability (RPCS)

24. Intervenor does not contest here the content of paragraphs 93 and 94.

25.(Intervanor does not contest here the 13 portions of para-graph 95.)

26. (Relative to the last sentance of paragraph 95). In af ition to the above commitments, Applicant has taken into account in the ACNGS diesel generator design, aeproblem'with failure of the turbocharger on diesels manufactured by the General Electric Company. (Applicant's witnesses Clarke and Montalbano, p. 10, following Tr. 14716)..

27. Although Applicant testified that replacement of 1/8-inch thick tube sheets which had soldered joints in the lube oil coolers of diesels manufacture by the General Motors Company,

( Applicant's witnesses Clarke and Montalbano, p.11, following Tr. 14716) on cross examination by Board Member Linenberger the witnesses were unable to say if the proposed 1/2-inch thick tube sheets jointed by a rolling process would improve the problem (Id. , Tr.14803). '

28. Because Applicantrhak inadequately addressed problems associated with lube oil coolers for it diesel generator for

.the EPCS, in regard to reliability, we will require installation of additional diesel generators as set forth in Mr. Doherty's contention.

29. We will refuire Staff, and Applicant if it so chooses to present evidence on compliance with the recommendations of liUREG/CR-0660, at the Operating License stage of review to determino if any necessary changes are required.

Doherty Contention 3, Desien Safety Limits of Fuel Rods

(

30 (For paragraph 57; Interrenorticuld substitute)

Intervenor Doherty alleges in Contention 3 that:

The.. design,.safetf limit of_tha-al energy for each fuel rod is too high for fuel rods which will be in a cluster such as that pro-posed for ACNGS. Tests on two General Elec-tric 9/16-inch outside diameter zircaloy rods,.that had been irradiated approximately one-third (1/3) the time a fuel rod typically is irradiated indicated that the cladding will rupture at between 147 cal / gram of uranium oxide fuel to 175 cal /gm of uranium oxide fuel if a power excursion (Reactivity Initiated Ac-cident occurs.

Intervenor would then have us lower the design safety limit an unspecified amount. There was extensive evi-dentiary testimony on this issue. Staff's witness Meyer, (Tr. 13995 - 14083; 14093.- 14240), Applicant's Witnesses Holt claw and Williams (11718-11953) and Intervenor Doherty's witness Scott (Tr. 14244 - 14286; 14309 - 14399). Mr. Scott's written testimony was struck following Mr. Doherty's statement that his definition of design safety limit differed from that of Mr. Scott. (Tr. 14399)

31. (Intervenor would substitute'this finding for the first two sentences of paragraph 58).

The NRC's design safety licit of 280 calories / gram

" cal /gm" is intended to correspond to a value which sets an upper limit on the permissible mount of heat deposited in a fuel rod during a Beactivity Insertion accident-(RIA). This limit is intended to assure that large pressure. pulses will be avoided and that coolabil-ity of the fuel will be =aintained.

32. (Intervenor does not contest here the remainder of

( paragraph 58).

33. (Intervenor does not contest: paragraphs 59 and 60.)

34. Intervnor's concerns, however aam to whether long-term (~

use of the fuel, expressed as high burn-up will not b.

so alter it and the surrounding cladding, that a. weak power burst even of the size in the 1980 Brookhaven recort cited by Staff's witness Meyer, (Meyer, p. 3 following Tr.14019),, would lead t'o the postulated -

consequences in the contention.

35. Fuel rods for the ACNGS are expected to be renoved from the reactor after 33,000 mwd / tonne burn-up.

(Applicant's witness Holtzclaw, Tr. 11937).

36. The recent tests conducted by EG&G Idaho Inc. at the ,

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory were conducted on fuel pins with no higher exposure than 5' 000 mwd / tonne.

(Doherty Exhibit 3, p. 592).

37 In tests with fuel rods creviously irradiated to burnups of 32,000 mwd / tonne, rod failures occured at lower energy depositions in sone cases than in sinilar tests with un-irradiated fuel rods, with little sensitivity attributable to the degree of burn-up. Only a few previously irradiated.

rods were tested. (Doherty Exhibit 3, p. 584).

38. The nunber of fuel rods tested for fuel failure whid2 had burnups in excess of 32,000 mwd / tonne is two. (Doherty Exhibit 3, p. 588).

39. Although Staff's witness Meyer testified in this contention that fuel failure was a value used in radiological dose calculations, (TR. 14020 -14021), he testified in relation to Doherty Contentions 14 & 25 (joined) that fuel failure detection could be done by detecting fission product releases "fron failed fuel rods" in several parts of the plant. (Appli-cant's witness Meyer, p.1 - 2, following Tr.13625). As the fuel rods are neant'to retain the fission gases, fuel failure is a factor with regard to the integrity of the cladding.

_9-( 40. At least one of the two rods of 32,000 mwd / tonne burnup may have been tested in conditions too disimilar to ACNGS k(

,- to make those results applicable to any conclusions with-regard to ACNGS (Applicant's witness Holtzclaw, Tr. 11920-22).

41. Fuel rods with higher burn up suffered or experienced.sreater flow blockage 'than those with none. (Doherty Exhibit 3,

p. 592; Applicant's witness Holtzclaw, Tr. 12227).

42. If fuel in molten state were excelled from the fuel' rods through the cladding in pieces the size of sand grains, "very violent fuel / coolant' interactions then evolve into very sizable pressure' transients, which could harm das in-ternals to the vessel and potentially affect the, pressure boundary". (Applicant's witness Holtzclaw, Tr. 12206-07).-

43 Staff's witness Meyer testified that as fuel is burned up,

" Cladding mechanical properties are changed. The yield stress increases, the ductility decreases. Thes,e effects tend to saturate at a relativel'y low burnup around, ...

5,000 megawatt days per metric ton." (Staff's witness Meyer, Tr. 14,114).

44. The accident event in the BWR of ACNGS design which yields the largest energy insertion is a control rod dropped out of the core. (Applicant's witnesses.Holtzclaw and Williams,

p. 3r following Tr_ 11750). _

45. There is one figure for the design safety limit on plants of ACNGS design. (Staff witness Meyer, p. 2 following Tr. 14019).

46. In the event of a control rod drop accident or other rapid reactivity insertion event, the ACNGS core may have fuel with greater than 32,000 mwd / tonne burnup in its core. The total experimental experience', subjecting fuel and cla$ ding (in fuel rod form) with as much burn-up as =ay occur at ACNGS consists of two fuel rods. In view of this extremely limited experience it is not clear if the fuel cladding will n20ture,

'( fail, or some combination of the two in a control rod drop or other rapid reactivity insertion event. If the fuel clad-ding were to rupture and sand-grain sized pieces of fuel were

~

to escape into the coolant, a violent fuel / coolant inter-action wo,uld take place which could harm reactor internals (.

and potentially affect the coolant pressure boundary. The

{

most recent tests referred to by Staff and Applicant did not include fuel of greater burnup than 5,000 EWd/ tonne, yet at these low burnups the fuel tended to greater flow blockage compared to unirradiated fuel in .she same test-capsule.

As burnup increases to 5,000 mwd / tonne, it has also been observed that the ductility of cladding decreases. In ad-dition it has been observed that at high burnup (32,000 mwd / tonne), rod failures (loss of ability to retain fission gases) occur at lower energy depositions than for low burn-up (5,000 mwd / tonne) or zero burnup fuel indicating changes in the cladding which decrease the capability of it to re-tain the fuel and its fission products from the coolant.

In view of these facts, there is weak basis for having the current design safety limit, or any such limit because information is lacking on the fuel's capability to with-stand reactivity insertion through much of the fuel's use in the reactor core. Staff witness Meyer's statement that the observed effects tend to " saturate at 5,000 mwd / tonne",

was not substantiated and stands vague in the face of -planned fuel. burnup of 35,000 mwd / tonne for the proposed ACNGS.

47. Because there is no demonstrable conservatism in the current fuel d'esign for fuel rods at higher burnup quantities we con-

'clude the current design safety limit is unjustifiably high j for the ACNGS. Attempts to be conservative appear to be l mers guess work, backed only by the two test rods described l in Intervenor Doherty's Exhibit 3 We therefore decline

to license the current 10NGS, in light of these fuel design l

deficiencies.

l (The above paragraphs replace items 61 and 62) l i

l

Bishop Contention 6, Liouid Petroleum Gas (LPG) PinelineHazard

(

48. Intervenor does not contest here, paragraphs 44-48.

( 49. (To roolace paragraoh 49).

The Board is unsatisfied that a possible rupture of the 6-inch Shell Oil Co. LPG pipeline will not present any hazard to the ACNGS Plant. The Board finds that the anal-ysis performed by both. Applicant an'd Staff are in agreement (Applicant's witness Iotti, Tr. 17136-45) and are based upon conservative assumptions, in part, but that the meteor-logical conditions assumptions are not conservative, but rather realistic. If a worse case detonation occurred, the resulting overpressures would be within 5% of the design basis tornado leadings for the ACNGS as proposed.

(Staff's witness Campe, p. 5 following Tr.17238; Tr.17144).

We find the resulting overpressures hazardously approaching the tornado loadings, and will require location of the 6-inch pipe line to where the overpressure (taking into account a blast wave reflected off a structure) will not be within 20% of the design basis tornado loadings. In the alternative, Applicant may provide additional streng-thening of the ACNGS structures to produce the same re-sults as relocating the LPG pipeline as described above.

Board Ouestion 4 A: Standards for Combustible Gas Control

50. (To replace paragraph 365g in its first 2 sentences).

At the time this question was asked the applicable reg-ulations were in 10 CFR 50.44 Those regulations are no longer in effect, being replaced by 10 CPR 50.34(f)(2)(ix),

47 Fed. Reg. 10, at 2303).

51. Intervenor does not oppose here the remaining sentences of paragraph 365, 366, 367

52. During the eridentiary hearings, the Board raised a ques-tion as to whether there were any problems associated with inadvertent operation of the CO2 inerting system,

(, particularly with overpressurization of the containment.

52. (cont.) b.

Staff's witness Fields testified that following a com-(}

pidte me'.a1 water reaction and .inerting with CO , the 2

containment pressure would reach 42 psig. The containment is designed to accomodate stress no greater than 45 p.sig.

(Staff's witness Fields, Tr. 16283-84). Although ACNGS has considerable containment strength now , we believe that unless. uhe containment can be proven to withstand Greater than 45 psig, the proposed inerting system cannot be used. First, the history of regulation on nuclear power plants indicates that new requirements are added, and these typically bring new equiptment into the con-tainment, thus reducing containment volume. Second, we believe there is inherent difficulty in accurately de.

termining what the pressure developed from inerting a h7drogen containing, complex volume as.the ACNGS during LOCA would actually be, such that tha 3 psig margin urged as suffi-cient by Applicant does not withstand scrutiny.

53 Applicant's proposal in not licensable at this time, and we therefore decline to extend a construction per-mit.)

Board Question 14 MSLRM Problem discovered at Dresden 3

54. (ddd to' paragraph 137).

However, we will require the Applicant to present who will have responsibility for supplying the administrative con-

! trol over the movement of control rods such that an

! event such as occured at the Dresden 3 plant referenced in the Board order of April 10, 1980, candot occur. '

! Th'is may be done at the OL stage of review.

i I

TexPIRG Contention 1. An "STNP 3" site is "obviously sucerior"

([ to the Allens Creek Site.

55. Intervenor does not contest here paragraph 261, 262, 263, and 264.

. ~ * '

56. (.To replace paragraph 265). -. .. In every~

impact used in the Comparison of alternatives for terres-trial ecology and land use, with the exception of impacts on " Endangered or threatened speeies",the impact of the proposed ACNGS exceeds that of the "STNP 3" alternative.

(Staff Ex.13, Table. 2.10)s Development of the ACNGS site would mean inundation of 4,787 acres of the highest grade of " Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands as defined by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This is " Prime farmland", and, "... is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops.

. . . It has the soil quality, growing season, and mois-ture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed." (Applicant's l

witness Hussey, Ey. JRH-2, Table 1, and p. 3, following Tr. 9689). The land will be unavailable to agriculture for the projected lifetime of the plant, fourty-years, plus nine years for plant construction and testing.

l (Applicant's witness Guy, Exhibit JDG-2a, Following Tr. -16897) .

57. Use of the "STNP 3" site would result in no farm lan4 loss because all land where such a nuclear plant would sit is precluded from agriculture by the proximity of STNP plants there now. (Staff's Exhibit 13, Sec. 2.3.6.2,

('

p. 2-54).

5

58. Eig.ht acres (3.2 bectares) of prime farmland soils will be disturbed for landing the reactor pressure vessel from the San Bernard River. (Staff's Exhibit ((

133 Sec. 3.2.2.1). The disturbance ' Jill be for five years. (Applicant's Exhibit 16, pt.14).

59. Use of the ACNGS site would destroy the highest grade of agricultural land in the United States in a large quan-tity.

In view of the availability of STNP, this destruc-tion is needless. The mere fact it totaled 0.003% of the prime farmland in the U. S. does not decrease the fact the destruction may easily be avoided. (Applicant's witness Hussey, p. 2-3, following Tr. 9689).

60. The Staff has estinated that the operation of a third unit at the STNP site would increase the forced evap-oration from the cooling pond by about 17,000 acre-ft per year. (Staff's Exhibit 13, Sec. 2.3.6.2, p. 2-55).

61. The Staff has estimated that the operation of the ACNGS would 6ause evaporation of 40,400 acre-ft per year. -

(Staff's Exhibit 12, Fig. S.3.2, p. S.3-3).

62. Applicant's: witness McCuistion expressed the opinion that the site using the least water, all things being equal, would be best. Bf.all things being equal, he indicated equal costs was a significant factor to .

equalize. (Tr. 9999). .

63. Evaporative water loss will be more severe at the ACNGS site by 23,400 acre-ft/ year than at the STNP site.

(Staff's Exhibit 13, Sec. 2.3.6.2; Staff's Exhibit 12, Fig. S.3.2). Applicant's witness McCuistion considered water loss a significant factor in site selection. (Tr. 9999). -

64 Tho Staff testified that ficcal burdons pieced upon Bay City, a locale where many of the workers at the -

STNP-1 and STNP-2 site have taken up residence have -

(, ..

not been relieved by tax revenue increases and hence would not in event of an increase :f workers residing there to construct an "STNP-3". (Staff Exhibit 13, Sec. 2.3.6.2). However, TezPIRG's witness, C. Johnson stated that Texas school finance law provides for spe-cial funds for fast growing school districts. He further stated he believed that several school dis-tricts in the Houston suburbs had done this. (Tr.

10971-72). The Staff has projected 250 new students would come into the STNP area due to parental relocation to work on "STNP-3". In particular, Bay City has from 500 to 700 student spaces available. (Staff's Exhibit 13, Table 2 5, p.2-26).

Au licant's witness Guy testifying on "Need for Power" 65 testified STUP-1 was expected to be completed in 1984, and STNP-2, in 1986. (Applicant's witness Guy, Exhibit JDG-2A, .follmring Tr.16903).

gg, Protection for the 24-in. natural gas pipeline against erosion by the Brazos River consists ,

of (among other things) the placement of a network of barriers to the riverflow which snag debris and accumulate materials on the

~

riverbank. There are 4,000 feet of barrier.

(Applicant's witness Mercurio, p. 18-19, fol-lowing Tr.11407). The barriers will impede ,

any river recreational boating because they are partially above the river service. _ _,

~

67. If the 3TNP site is used, children of workers who attend public schools will make any local school district eli- .

gible for certain funds available to districts whose tax

(, base is small. (Tr. 10971-72). School systems in the .

STNP area have adequate housing for students. The influx l

or continuation of residence near STNP by workers for an"STNF-3", is not expected to contribute traffic prob-lens, but it is uncertain these people would. bring in

. Exhibit 13, Soc. 2.3.6.2, p. 2-56).

68. Because the two STNP units have been delayed to 1984 and 1986, for conpletion (Applicant's witness Guy, Exhihit JDG-2A, following Tr. 16903) the STNP region is likely (

to acconodate workers for an "STNP-3".as well or better than it has for the earlier STNP units because the resi-dent workers will be required to shift their locus of enploynent a short distance.

69 Staff in its FES Supp..#2 conparison of the ACNGS and an alternate STNP site assuned no workers renained'in the area to work on a third unit at STNP. (Staff's Exhibit 13, Table 2.12, p. 2-64). Staff's alternate conclusion that even thouEh the workers could be properly phased, that site STNP would still be no nore than equiv-alent to the Allens Creek site,.is unsupoorted in the record, and cannot apply to school taxes. (Tr. 10971-72).

70. Construction of the ACNGS will require disturbin5'the

~

recreational boating opportunities on the Brazos'at the site with jettys. (Applicant's witness Mercurio, p. 18-19, following Tr.11407). This too is a socio-econonic inpact, but there is no evidence it was considered in the record.

73, (Rerring to paragraph 270).

Although Applicant's witness McCuistion testified con-

~

struction of "STNP-3" would not necessarily result in preservation of the Allens Creek area for agricultural purposes, because Applicant allegedly plane to use the site (which it owns) for the consturction of a power plant, (McCuistion p. 4-5, following Tr. 9855), there are no current plans for additional units other than lignite that are not identified as to location. (Appli-cant's witness Guy, Exhibit JDG-2A, following Tr.16903).

72. A lignite coal facility constructed by EL&P would, in all liklihood, be situated in or near the lignite coal fields. (Applicant's witness Perl, p. 19, following Tr.

5532).

73 Applicant presented testimony that the Pbwerplant and Industrial Puel Use Act, 42 U. S. C. S70', ;j[ sec.

(' prohibits the use of natural gas as a prinary snargy source in any new electric power plant. (Apilicant's withess Guy, p. 6 - 7, followin5 Tr. 5148).

74. Applicant's witness McGuistion stated that the ACNGS had been extensively reviewed from an environnental standpoint and there were no inherent difficulties wi.th siting a plant there. (Applicant's witness McCuistion,

p. 5, following Tr.9888). However, the Applicanteis :

prohibited from using natural gas, in all liklihood would construct a lignite plant at the mine, and has no current plans for adding to its capacity at sites unchosen with coal. In addition, in no part of this

~

record is it asserted Applicant can neet Environnental Protection Agency standards for emissions for a coal plant. Therefore it is pure speculation that in the event Applicant locates the proposed ACNGS at "STNP-3" Applicant will use the Allens Creek site for an electric generating station, which will take the land out of use for agriculture or other productive .

ventures.

75. (Referring to paragraph 271.)

Mr. McCu.istion testified that HL&P is legally pre-cluded under the STP Participation Agreenent to con-struct an individually owned unit at the STNP site.

(Applicant's witness McCuistion, p. 6, following Tr.

~

9855). 'de note that Mr. McCuistion is not an attorney (Id., 1-2), nor did he indicate he had been advised by an attorney that HL&P was 1crally precluded to construct an individually owned unit at the STNP site. Therefore, we cannot conclude.fron this witness that the Applicant is legally obligated nor constrained

( from constructin5 an individually owned unit. '

76. If HLLP constructed an "STP-3" unit it would be entitled to 30.8?3 of the power it could produces (Id,., at 7).

~

77. Nothing in the Sguth- Taras Participation Agreement pre-cludes all of the parties from contracting for a 100%

owned plant, by one party. (Applicant's Exhibit 19, STNP {

Participation Agreement). ,

78. There is no evidence in the record any of the three other STNP partners are seeking either additional power or any .

nuclear power, nor is there any evidence any partner for-casts the need for such power. ,

9, The STNP Partnership Agreement contemplated addi-tional generating units. (Applicant's Exhibit 19,

p. 8-13).

80. At p. 8 of his written testimony, Applicant's witness McCuistion indicated the other partners of the STNP, through management committee representatives,were contacted about the contention's content and about the group's interpretation of the provisions of the STP participation agreement on individually owned generating facilities. (Applicant's witness McCuis-tion, p. 8, following Tr. 9888). This three person group als'o indicated they would not recommend an -

amendment for making an 100% individually owned plant .at the site possible. '/e can place very little weight in this testimony ,because, as in the prescedent of the nation's Courts, this is a form of advisory opinion, devoid of reality of need; in such opinions it 1 -

is, impossible to detarmine'if the party seeking the opinion and those rendering it approached the problem with proper seriousness.

l 81. Although the STNP Participant's Agreement sets re-quirements for a 100% individually owned plant, it's clear the participants may contract in any way they wish if they all agree. There was nothing in the record to indicate any of the participants other l

l l -

than Applicant were seeking new nuclear or other fueled power, and Applicant's witness McCuistion,

k. who is not an attorney, gave legal testimony which hence cannot be granted much weight.. The statement by Mr. McCuistion.,that management coccittee repre-sentatives indicated they would refuse permission for an STUP-3 site was hypothetical to them, and hence cannot be granted any weight.

82. A pending' legal proceeding, addndicating water rights on the Colorado River,could result in an increase in the water available under Permit No. 3233, Applicant's current permit for the -

STNP site. However, Applicant's witness McQuisti6n, who~is not an attorney, also testified that final resolution of the proceeding cannot reasonably be ,

anticipated within the time framorequired for a '

decision (presumably the construction license ,

adjudication). (Applicant's witness McCuistion, '

p.12, following Tr. 9888). Mr. McCuistion, being a non-lawyer, we can place little weight in his opinion. ( H . p. 1-2).

83 Mr. McCuistion testified t t another legal proceeding posed a " serious Question" additional water could come from. Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) reservoirs to provide water for the STNP site, and indicated he thought several appeals would be taken. He indicated he thought this proceeding might exceed the time frame l

for the ACNGS construction licensing proceeding. Mr.

Mc Quistion, being a non-attorney, we can place little weight in his opinion. (Id. p. 12-13 ; Id. , p. 1-2) .

84 There is no evidence that at this moment Applicant

(- does not have the ri3ht to sufficient water from the Colorado River to operate an STUP-3 there.

dhile Applicant's witness McCuistion testified there was litigation that =ight prevent the Appli-cant from receiving water if currently may receive, e and that resolution of this doubt =ight take longer

~

than a reasonable forcast for the le'ngth of ti=e for this Board to reach a decision with regard to the construction permit for ACNGS, that does not

'autweigh concerns for preventing environmental i=-

pacts associated with the ACNGS site. It is spec-ulative to assu=e it =ay take too long for an adverse decision on one or both of the water supply issues mentioned in the McCuistion testicony. The decision as to which site is best may be delayed, but if the STNP site is chosen by the Board, Applicant will have cchsiderable investigative work to do at the STNP site before moving into the = ore costly construction phase. If there is an adverse decision in the litigation which prohibits enough water for an STNP-3, Applicant may then pursue other sites including Allens Creek.

'85 The STNP partners (of whom EL&P is managing part-ner)have begun construction of two 1,250 MWe pressurized water reactors at the STN? site with only an authorization for "run of the river" water to a maxi =um of 102,000 acre-ft/ year, al-thoug.h additional water say be received in extreme emerg'encies. (Applicant's witness McCuistion, p.' 10-11, following Tr. 9888).

36. Permit No. 3233 grants FTAP use of 102,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water. This constitutes 3.2% of river flow at the STNP site, according to ihe Final inviron= ental State =ent for the South Texas Nuclear Project, at page. 5-23. (Tr. 9,908).

37, The Applicant may purchase and is allowed to purchase water from reservoirs on the Colorado River, because there is an agreement in the form of a contract between the Applicant and the LCRA for sale of water. (22. 9S92, and under questioning by Board Member Judge Linepberger, at Tr.~10096). '

l

- 88. The cooling late underconstruction at the STNP site

(, is large enough to accomodate an additional unit, as Testified by Applicant's witness McCuistion, ( p.8, following Tr. 9888). .

89 Permit No. 3233 with the LCRA grants Applicant the right to sufficient water to operate current STNP plants, 102,000 acre-ft./ year and this is but 3.2%

of the total annual river flow at the site.

Nothing in this record indicates the emergency provisions and the water Applicant may purchase from LCRA reservoi: s will not be enough to provide for a third unit at STNP.

90. (Refer to paragraph 273).

The transmission lines for a third unit at STP would be' only'66% of the land area needed for the ACNGS lines and would parallel existing rights-of-way for their entire. length. (Staf?'s Exhibit 13, Sec. 2.4.1.5).

Transmission lines are a terrestrial ecology and land use impact. (Id. Table 2.10, p. 2-58).

91. No testimony with regard to terrestrial ecology and transmission lines was presented by Applicant in de-termining its conclusion that land use impacts are indistinguishable between the ACNGS and STNP site.

(Applicant's witness McCuistion, p. 15, following Tr. 9888).

92. (In reference to paragraph 274).

Mr. Hussey, Applicant's witness on land use impacts also testified on terrestrial habitat impacts of .the ACNGS. Mr. Hussey presented the conclusions of his review of the ER, the Supplement to the ER, and Staff's FES. (Applicant's witness Hussey, p. 1 -2, foliowing

(

Tr. 9689). He is, however, not an ecologist, biolo-gist, agronomist,or botanist, nor is there any tes-timony in the record that he is specially qualified in this area, other than knowledge of soil mechanics.

In his testimony with regard to the' reactor pressure vessel barge slip's environmental impact, he was unable to reply to many questions, such that two additional witnesses (Henderson'and Smith) were cal-led at the request of the Boar (, on a single day's notices to assist. (Tr. 9288). sv

93. Although transmission line corridors would be tillable, the fact that the transmission lines to a new unit at STNP would be 66% of that at ACNGS, and would parallel those already in place in the case of the STNP site, unlike that at ACNGS, indicates less terrestrial im-pact for the STNP site. Applicant's witnesss Hussey is not a biologist or person in a related field, hence his conclusion must be granted little weight. Assuming the lines do nct interfere with agriculture, other im-pacts cannot be determined less per acre under the transmission lines for one site than for the other."

94. Ap,licant's witness Van Sickle testified that the Brazos River would not be a likely source of future water supply for the City of Houston and -hence water should continue available for the proposed ACNGS. He based this on poor water quality, that the State of Texas had a policy of discouraging water transfer from west to east, and no reservoirs were planned. (Applicant's witness Van Sickle, -

p. 6-9, following Tr. 8046). However, TexPIRG witness C. Johnson testified efforts were being made by govern-

~~

ment entities in the Houston-Galveston area to prevent land subsidence by converting from ground water with-i drawal to surface water use and that as a result, areas of Galveston County are converting to Brazos River usage-(TexPIRG witness C. Johnson, p. 20-21, following Tr. 10777).

And, Applicant's witness Finlay agreed with consumption figures in the Texas Water Plan in Table 4-12.15 which

showed that Zone 6 of the Brazos River, that zone where the proposed ACUGS would be constructed,would experience an increase in industrial consumption of Brazos River

(

water from 195,000 acre-feet per year (1974) to 622,700 acre-feet per year (2000), indicating trippling of water consumption for these purposes in 26 years. (Applicant's witness Finlay, Tr. 8229, Tr. 8,218). Finally, the Texas Water Plan indicates a shortage af'1,394,000 acre-feet / year, during plant operation in Zone 6. (Tr. 8221).

g5, Fort Lend County, the county immediately east of the ACNGS had a 53% population growth from 1970 to 1976.

(Staff's witnesses Sofer and Ferrell, p.8, following Tr.

17993). At a distance of 30 miles from the site, the population has more than doubled from 1970 to 1980, with the Staff giving a population of 97,662 for 1970 increas-ing to 216,037 in 1980. (Id. , p.12-13).

gs, Refering first to Page 2 of Table 1 of Attachaent WTW-1, (Applicants witness White, after p. 10, following Tr. 8910) if the total projected population for the 0-50 mile annulus is totaled and averaged for the three studies, and that result compared with the result that emerges from perfor- .

ming the same treatment to the same 3.stndies on Page 1 of Table 1 of Attachment WTW-1 for the population projec-tion for 1980 in th O - 50 mile annulus, it can be shown l that the population is exuected to increase 46% by the time the plant has operated one-half of its licensing.

97 Both Staff and Applicant presented indications that pop-

'ulation growth has been great or is projected to be great in the area surrounding the plant site. (Staff witnesses Sefer and Ferrell, p.8, following Tr. 17993; Id. p. 12-13; I and Applicant's witness White, after p. 10, following Tr.

l 8910). The Texas Water Plan indicates that industrial water

! (

l l

l

use will more than triple by the time ACNGS has operated halfway through its licensing period, for the zone at g..

the plant site. And, TexPIRG witness Johnson, a former L public advocate, testified that communities west of Houston were converting from well to surface water to prevent further land subsidence.(Tr. 10777). With substantial and sustained industrial and population growth, plus the subsidence problem, poor water quality, state policy with regard to the direction of water.trans-mission, and-lack of reservoirs are unlikely to prevent accelerated use of Brazos River water. This increased usage is highly likely to make it increasingly difficult for a unit at the Allens Creek site to be supplied with the 30,000 acre-feet per year it will need.

98. Construction of the ACUGS will remove approximately 13.7 km (8 5 miles) of Allens Creek as a running water aquatic habitat. This loss would be avoided if STP were built. (Staff's Exhibit 13, Sec. S.'9.2,

p. S.9-13).

99 The destruction of the 8 5 miles of Allens Creek as running water aquatic habitat, must be subtracted against the unquan-tified benefit, the provision of 17,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River confers to its estuary.

100. Intervenor does not: oppose paragraph 268. ,

101. Intervenor does not oppose paragraph 269.

102. (With reference :to paragraph: 275, the Board's atten-tion is respectfully. directed to thir Intervenor.'s Finding of Fact la. bled paragraph 56.)'

103. (Intervenor does not oppose here,Ja% paragraph 276, conclusions with regard to the value in dollars of the farm land lost, or the value in dollars of the recreational lake.)

(With reference to the balance of the paragraph, the Board is requested to note this Intervenors paragraphs 56 and 92 ).

104, (Paragraphs 277, 278,279, 280, are not challenged here by this Interrenor).

b_

105 (" Reference to Paragrsph 282). *

(Intervenor does not contest. at this tine the findings with regard to TexFIRG's witness Marrack. Intervenor respectfully points out that findings of fact with regard to Applicant's witnesses Finlay, Van Sickle, and McCuistion have been' challenged above and urges _

the findings with regard to them in paragraph 282 not be accepted).

106. (Reference to paragraphs 283 and 284).

(With the exception of the statement regarding Mr.

McCuistion testimony, and what it allegedly " clearly demonstrates", .which this Intervenor has challenged in parts 86-89' of this filing, Intervenor does not contest at this time the contents of these two paragraphs. '

e i

1 I

CONOLUSIONS Environmental 107 The STNP site is obviously superior to the proposed Allens Creek site for a nuclear unit as the one described by Applicant. This conclusion is based on a balancing of soecioeconomic, aquatic ecology and water use, and terrestrial ecology and' land use.

In addition special' factors relevant to one or both site raised by all parties have been considered in the above conclusion.

108. The STNP site is superior as shown above. The saving of over 5,000 acres of prime farm land is a single overwhelming factor in this assessment.- In addition the' transmission line impacts will be lessv, The terrestrial impacts, while not large, weigh in this conclusion in the STUP sites favor. There is an overwhelming superiority in the STNP site with regard to the terrestrial ecology and land use impacts.

109. The unquantified impact of removing 17,000 acre-feet per year from an estuary which*is a food producinE area at the mouth of the Colorado River, probably outweighs the destruction of 8.7 miles of Allens Creek itself, but the further' degradation of the Brazos River is very disturbing. There is a limit '

as to how much worse the Brazos River should become, an issue untouched in this proceeding. As to water use, there is substantial evidence that the bur 6eoning

. industrial and population growth of areas near the plant, including Houston, will make water more valu-able from the Brazos River throu5h the 40 to 50 years of plant construction and operation. This increase in water requirements does not appear to be anywhere near as great at the STNP site.

6 4

., 110. Socioeconomic considerations appear to us to slightly

( favor the STUP site. With two plant expected to be under construction there (construction.has temporarily halted) when construction of the contemplated pl, ant would commence, a smooth ' transition in people's lives-would easily occur. .The largest socioeconomic " bump" from a major construction project,.'such.as this ode is.

at the beginning of the project. Here the beginnin5 should be close to indestinguishable from the contin-untion of normal activities and hence provide a small change at the STNP site. It appears the start-up of construction at the ACNGS will have more socioeconomic consequences because that area has not previously been invaded by.the many facets of a lar5e construction pro-ject.

111. The argument that the site comparison here is meaningless because the Applicant will use the ACNGS' site for an en.ergy oper-ation of some kind has been rejected as speculative. While a coal plant is the only probable option, to conclude any generating station is forthcoming and accord weight to that conclusion in this analysis would be faulty. The two legal -

conflicts with regard to Colorado River water being avail-able for a third unit at STNP are also too speculative to

~

use here. There is evidence in the record that such water is indeed available for the licensing period at the STNP.

112. The~refore, it is ORDERED that the proposed Alleas Creek Nuclear Generating Station, if found not to present the public with undue risk to health and safety be constructed at the site known as the GTUP (or "STP" site) and not at the site known as the Allens Creek site.

o 28- .

Safety and Radiolocical Health 113. (Each of the eleven Safety and Radiological Health issues (

dealt with in this filing have a conclusionary paragrap.h.

The Board is referred to the below contentions, and the nunbered paragraph containing- the conclusion for each issue.

Bishop Contention 6 . . . . .. . . . . . 49 Board Question 4A . . .. . . . . . . . . 53 Board Question 1,4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Doherty.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,47 Doherty 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Doherty 6 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 5 D oherty 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,13 Doherty 10. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . 28,29 Doherty 41. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .22 (p. 5)

Doherty 50. . . . . ... . .. . . . . . 3 TexPIRG 55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23) 114 Because of the deficiencies in safaty of fuel when it has obtained burnup in the higher fuel use range, and inclusion in the reactor design of nany paraneters which assune the fuel is safe at these higher burnups, (Doherty 3); because there are unsettled issues with re5ard to-the lar5e containnent shell (Doherty 9); and because the possibility of a loss of coolant accident yielding hydrogen which will be inerted with carbon dioxide to the extent a breach of containnent is a distinct possibility (Board Question 4A), a construction pernit- cannot be granted Applicant, as this Board is enpowered to grant under.10 CFR 2 760.

e e

C 2' :'5f CERTIFICATE OF PROCESS Copies of "INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S PROPOSED FINDINGS O N I@ 4 b FACT 'AND CO:!CLUSIONS OF I;AW ON RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH '

LW AUD SAFETY ISSUES, AND ENVIRON" ENTAL ISSUES IN THE k,hhl.;f,u;;CH FORM OF INITIAL DECISIONS FOR VARIOUS ISSUES" were served on the parties below via First Class Mail from Houston, Texas, this i32E of February,1982.

. ,Sheldon Wolfe, Esq., Administrative Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Administrative Judge

,Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum, Administrative Judge Steven M. Sohinki, Esq. Staff J. Gregory Copeland, Esq. Applicant

, Jack R. Newman, Esq. Applicant The Several Intervening Parties Respectfully Submitted, dkh John F. Doherty

• These, and the Appeal Socrd were served 2/15/32.

O

(

,