ML20042C566
| ML20042C566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1982 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203310530 | |
| Download: ML20042C566 (15) | |
Text
-
a 03/30/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f'g
- w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
BEFORE THE AT0tm SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Nf4 60 il ti-D*d*% 082r :
In the Matter of b
4 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-466 a
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
HRC STAFF REPLY TO TEXPIRG'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On March 15, 1982, Intervenor TexPirg filed a document entitled
" Additional TexPirg's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
Thisdocumentconsistsofnumberedparagraphs(17through97) purported to be findings of fact. These findings appear to subsume TexPirg's original findings of fact (1 through 16) submitted on February 12, 1982 and, therefore, we will respnnd to only the March 15th submittal.M For the reasons set forth below, the Staff bejieves that all of TexPirg's JV proposed findings should be rejected by the Board.
First, TexPirg's proposed findings are nothing more than a collection of disjointed thoughts and facts with no rational assessment 1/
TexPirg was granted an additional 30 days, from February 1.2, 1982 to March 15, 1982, in which to submit proposed findings.
See Board Order, dated February 25, 1982.
Although the March 15thTindings f
appear to contain all the findings submitted earlier, we would note D
that only the February 12th submittal contains proposed conclusions 5,
of law.
/f e203310530 e20330 j
INE ORICIng DRADOCK05000p,g g,,g g
Asop
. of their effect on the problem or issue discussed. They appear to be Mr. Scott's brief notes from his review of the hearing transcript or submitted testimony. The paragraphs are not organized in a coherent' fashion and it is extremely difficult to decipher how TexPirg has intended Mr. Scott's collection of random and subjective thought '..
processes to affect the ultimate conclusion on the respective issues.
In short, TexPirg's proposed findings are difficult to read, difficult to l
understand, lack a rational and objective assessment of the issues and, ultimately, do nothing to further the decision-making process. We believe that if any party wishes the Board to consider its proposed fit. dings, it is incumbent on that party to submit findings which meet a minimum professional' standard of providing a coherent, rational and objective assessment of the issues. TexPirg's proposed findings fall far short of this minimum standard and should be rejected in toto.
Second, the Staff objects to TexPirg's proposed findings because they completely mischaracterize or fail to reflect the record.being cited.
An initial examination of these findings showed that a vast j
majority of them did not accurately reflect 1; 6 record and further effort was needed to critique the findings for theigbjectivity and accuracy.
Also, we believed it was our responsibility to ultimately determine if these findings would warrant any corrections or additions to the Staff's previously submitted proposed findings on environmental' matters.
Accordingly, a sample of the proposed findings was reviewed to, test their accuracy. The sample chosen was TexPirg's first fifteen supplemental findings (1s17-31).
The Staff's detailed critique of these findings is set forth in Appendix A, infra. This critique of the sample has revealed e
e
4 3-l that TexPirg's findings are not an accurate and objective characterization of the hearing record and, should be completely rejected.
In conclusion, TexPirg's proposed findings are a disjointed col-lection of facts and thoughts with no rational.and objective assessment of the issues.
Inaddition,thefindingsdonotreflectanaccuraEe characterization of the hearing record. They do not further the decision-making process, and should not be considered by the Board. Accordingly, for these reasons TexPirg's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law should be rejected in toto.
Respectfully submitted, M.
' Richard L Black Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of March,1982.
eJ
=mm G
O S
s 9
w
i I!
<9N
- 's APPENDIX A M.,
This appendix contains the Staff's detailed assessment of TexPirg
. t. s proposed findings 17 through 31.
As noted above, further detailed. review
- t
,1C was not considered necessary based on this limited review because of the
- 1..'
W obvious gross mischaracterization or lack of understanding of the hearing la
- M.
record. Accordingly, the lack of an assessment of proposed findings 32 through 97 does not mean that they are acceptable to the Staff. To the
_(
PJ contrary, our limited review shows that none of TexPirg's proposed findings fl can be considered reliable and, therefore, should be rejected on the 7;
basis of the inaccuracies reflected in this sample.
In this assessment y?
?
the TexPirg proposed finding will be cited, the hearing record citations y%
will be analyzed, and we will conclude with our coments with respect to the finding.
4*
A "17.
Allens Creek Lake will not be a recreational benefit.
Page 8 9
Marrack Direct, p. 4277."
- 3. 7-Marrack, p. 8.
l2 Dr.MarrackconcludedAhatthecoolinglakewill not be a significant recreational a)nd comunity benefit.
l 1
p, (emphasisadded)
~
Tr. 4277.
- i Dr. Sanders testified generally regarding the ability d
to predict the future ecology of the cooling lake.
a5, f
Coment: Obviously, Dr. Marrack differs with' $taff and Applicant opinions regarding the viability of the cooling lake as a 7
'?
recreational benefit. However, he concluded only that it would not be a significant benefit. Dr. $anders never testified, as
/ '
TexPirg claims, that the cooling lake would not be a
/
recreational benefit. Therefore, these citations to the record are inaccurate with respect to Dr. ifarrack and totally fal'e s
with respect to Dr. Sanders.
"18.
Largemouth bass will not be self-sustaining in AC. P.7 .
Schlicht, P.2985."
Schlicht, p. 7.
This cited testimony only refers to the fishery managemen' convened by the Applicant. This panel concluded that the proposed reservoir would support a productive sport fishery based on native species.
Tr. 2985. Dr. Schlicht testified that there is some question as to whether there will be adequate spawning area for the black s
bass to maintain their maximum possible standing crop. The black bass sport fishery could be self-sustaining.
(Tr.2985-87).
Conant:
Dr. Schlicht never testified, as claimed, that large-mouth bass would not be self-sustaining.
To the contrary, he concluded that it could be self-sustaining, but that ~" periodic P
restocking of largemouth black bass,g!'
may be necessary due to lack of sufficient shallow spawning ~6reas necessary for that species to maintain its maximum population." Schlicht, P.9.
"19.
There will be little if any spawning areas for any game fish in AC Lake because of very limited shallow water a'rea, a.nd because much of it is unsuitable because of silting, improber [' sic] substrate, chlorine levels, algae growth and high temperatures.
Page 15 Schlicht; P.20 Schlicht; P.2641; P.2927; P.4 of Dr. Sanders direct; P.9 Sanders:"
9 I
I 3
o Schlicht, p. 15.
Dr. Schlicht testified that the habitat in the lake is sufficient to maintain a strong crappie population and
,1f a viable sport fishery.
.7, Schlicht, p. 20. Dr. Schlicht testified that chlorine discharges willnotgenerallybetoxictoaquaticbiota,exciptina.
v d'
relatively small area within 1,200 to 1,500 feet of the point
.. -"/;-
of discharge, which fish generally avoid during chlorination.
Tr. 2641-42.
Dr. Schlicht testified that chlorine concentrations
,.3 could be high enough in certain areas of the lake to kill fish.
O However, that area is a very small portion of the total 9,.
spawning area in the lake.
Tr. 2927. Dr. Schlicht testified that fish will seek out that area in the lake that provides the most optimal conditions. With
".~
'l respect to water temperatures, the optimal conditions would tend to be at the bottom of the lake in hot sumer weather.
[.
Sanders, p. 4.
Dr. Sanders testified that even though the dx 2
W
redesign of the cooling lake eliminated a sizeable shallow spawninghabitat,thereshoubbesStficientspawninghabitat o
for crappie.
~
7, Sanders, p. 9.
Testified that chlorine discharges may cause
[
acute effects on fish near the vicinity of the discharge.
5,j However, the overall loss to the 1'ake fi,shery.should be minor because of the small proportion of the fishery prese'nt in the area.
,i Comment:
It is clear that TexPirg's, citations to the record do not support this proposed finding. TexPirg has misrepresented and mischaracterized the record.
e e
- ~~
._._.u__._
4-
~
"20.
may not be viable spawning area because of silt.The best spa
+,
Page 4 of Sanders, P.4 Ma rrack."
p Sanders, p. 4 N,
Dr. Sanders testified that the Allens Creek
- confluence may not be a viable spawning area because of the high silt load. However, he further testified that the a
+
g steep-sloped brush area along the southern perimeter of the i
reservoir also will provide some shallow spawning habitat.
11 arrack, p. 3-4.
Dr. Marrack testified that spawning areas in the lake are limited and cited the FSFES with respect to the viability of the spawning area of the Allens Creek confluence.
}
Comment:
No party testified that the Allers Creek confluence was the "best spawning area",as TexPirg claims.
Thus, TexPirg has
.j 4
not accurately characterized the record on this point.
With i
respect to the issue of viable shallow spawning areas, see Staff Proposed Finding, f 85.
"21.
tiercury can cause chronic effects on fish production.
Sanders."
P.15 Sanders, p. 15.
Dr. Sanders testi/ied that there is a possibility c.N that some chronic effects on fish production from mercury will occur if elevated concentrations in~the Brazos River persist during make-up water pumping. However, Dr. Sanders predicted that direct chronic effects may be unlikely.
_ Comment:
While it is true, as TexPirg claims",'that' mercurf can cause chronic effects on fish production, this proposed finding does not accurately reflect the total record on this issue.
See Staff Proposed Findings, 1 98-106.
s "22.
Allens Creek will be eutrophic and mudd synthesis can take place only on surface of lake [y so that photo-4, Sanders."
sic]. Page 12 of c.
..,,1, Sanders, p. 12.
Dr. Sanders testified that the cooling lake will be eutrophic and light limited caused by suspended silt load.
.3 1,1,1 a
Comment: While the thrust of TexPirg's proposed finding is essentially true, it completely ignores the evidence of record
~.:
regarding whether eutrophic conditions will have any adverse w,.
4 P ',+
impacts on recreation or fish production. See Staff Proposed 7
Findings, is 114-117.
Thus this proposed finding without
.,y.
further analysis, is devoid of any benefit to decision-making.
"23.
Eating of game fist, caught, if any, may not be safe because of heavy metal and radioactivity concentrations in the fish meat.
P.3382;
{
3312; 3318."
,,,."l Tr. 3382.
Dr. Gotchy testified on the phenomena of bioaccumulation
~
- I of radioactivity in fish. At Tr. 3384, he concluded that fe consumption of fish would not pose a health hazard.
~
Tr. 3312.
Dr. Gotchy testified that assumptions o'f bioaccum' lation u
p" factors in Staff analysis is upper bound and conservative. See also Tr. 3316-17.
d Tr. 3318. Dr. Gotchy testified that it would take concentrations of radioactive substances thousands or more higher than anything in the cooling lake to induce any kind of radiobiological change in fish.
'.. y Coment:
It is clear that TexPirg by referring to these citations either does not understand the phenomena of bioaccumulation or has deliberately mischaracterized Dr. Gotchy's testimony. This may be an example of TexPirg randomly' selecting transcript O
m
._ _T._ f. Q
. cites to support a TexPirg issue that has no support in the record.
"24.
The effects of much higher levels of radioactivity in the upper portions of the lake due to short half-life radionuclides was not considered by the staff or applicant. P.3519;.4155."
"25.
When the radioactivity of other isotopes other than the three considered by the Applicant and Staff are considered, the levels of radioactivity in the upper lake can be more than 8 times the calculated whole lake equilibrium concentrations. See Page 5-28 of FSFES; p. 4155.
Considered Not Considered Half-life Cs 137
.026 curies /yr.
Cr 51
.14 curies /yr.
26 days Cs 134
.014 curies /yr.
Mn 54
.12 curies /yr.
310 days Co 60
.0099 curies /yr.
Cu 64
.024 curies /yr.
12.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> Np 239
.014 curies /yr.
2.33 days
[
Total
,0499 curies /yr.
I 131
.045 curies /yr.
8.04 days
~
I 133
.028 curies /yr.
22.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> Total
.371 curies /yr.
Tr. 3519-20.
Dr. Armstrong testified thd; his analysis considered
.g the radionuclides with the highest. concentrations (tritium, cesiumandcobalt-60)andtheseovenihelmedtherestofthe radionuclides by an order of magnitude. However, all 80 radionuclides were analyzed.
Tr. 4154-55.
Dr. Gotchy testified that the short-lived radio nuclides would not reach true equilibrium in the lake and would not go through the bioaccunulation pathways in fish or other O
+
1 i
7-l food pathways because they would decay away before ingestion by man.
See 'also Tr. 4150.
Comment:
This proposed finding highlights the fact that Mr. Scott
.j does not understand the term " equilibrium concentration." See Tr. 3522-33.
If he does understand the tenn, then he $as'
.4 d
completely mischaracterized the record which reflects that I
.J short-lived radionuclides were considered (See Table S.S.16 of L;
the FSFES), but they will not reach equilibrium concentrations
'l in the lake.
(Tr.4154).
In addition, TexPirg's table is a
L.j totally misleading because it does not list tritium (H-3) with a calculated release of 15 ci/yr.
(SeeTableS.S.16, supra).
4
]
Dr. Armstrong testified that tritium has the highest c.on-centrationofallisotopes(Tr.3525). Dr. Gotchy testified P
3 that tritium, cesium-134, and cesium-137 would contribute 99 percent of the dose from drinking water and from eating 3
fish.
(Tr.4152).
a 2
"26.
Two acre-feet of radiological waste will be added to AC each year.
Page 3516."
s!
Tr. 3516. Dr. Armstrong testified tha_t two acre-feet per year of radiological waste will be added to the cooling lake.
Comment:
This finding by itself means absolutely nothing when I
viewed in the context of cooling water. flow of 1910 cubic feet per second. Thus, TexPirg has cited an is'olated fact but j
has made no rational assessment of how that fact changes a '
~
Staff or Applicant conclusion with respect to doses received from the liquid pathway.
i "27.
Some types [of] fish have bioaccumulation factors three times as large as those considered by the applicant.
P.3.575."
Tr. 3575.
Dr. Ancstrong testified that the range of bioaccumulation factors for specific radionuclides for different species of 4
fish may show a variation of two to three in the reported literature.
3 ri Comment:
TexPirg'sproposedfindingmischaracterizedDr.'Armstrong's statement which was merely an acknowledgement in the uncertainty of bicaccumulation factors.
- s.,
- d "28.
The bioaccumulation factors of 100,000 for phosphorous in fresh-water fish were not considered by the applicant.
P.3580."
7, Cement: This appears to be a sufficiently correct statement.
However, Dr. Armstrong stated that the bioaccumulation factor h
of 100,000 for phosphorous referred to by Mr. Scott was not
>s0 radioactive phosphorous which was pertinent to the calculation
>7 of dose.
See Tr. 3581-82.
Thus, TexPirg's proposed finding is 1,i; not relevant and misleading in light of Dr. Armstrong's clarifying,
- I remarks which are completely ignored in this finding.
"29.
No pathway for gaseous effluents into the water were considered even though Iodine is emitted into the air and it is very t
soluble in water and a large lake to be us3d the public is nearby.
[ Sic] P.3602; 3911; 4197; 4206."
,ij Tr. 3602.
Dr. Armstrong testified thit.the radioactive pathway
[
chart depicted on FSFES pg. S.5-23 does not indicate a pathway
.q from gaseous effluents' into the water. He further testified
?
that he had no knowledge of the sourc'e' terms that represented the equilibrium concentrations in the cooling lake.
Tr. 3604-06.
4 I
9
.I
\\
Tr. 3911. Dr. Gotchy testified that I-131 in the gaseous plume would' be deposited in the lake by rain rather than runoff from l
the land.
Hepreviouslytestified(Tr.3908)thathehaddone approximate calculations of the fraction of gaseous effluents which might contribute to the lake, but they were not considered in the equilibrium concentrations.
Tr. 4197. Dr. Gotchy testified that different types of atmospheric stability (includingprecipitation)wereconsideredinthe calculation of source tems. However, the calculation of source terms was outside the scope of his testimony. Tr. 4198.
Tr. 4206-07. Dr. Gotchy testified that source term calculations from gaseous plumes considered both wet and dry deposition.
Coment: The testimony outlined above does not give any support to TexPirg's proposed finding.
In fact, Dr. Gotchy testified that if gaseous emissions were deposited in the lake it would increase the concentration of tritium by about five percent and would increase the concentrations of cesium 134 and 137 by less than one percent. Heconcludedthdthedosewouldincreaseby less than one percent from that preyjously calculated for the liquid pathway. Tr. 4214-15.
"30.
The applicant has not made plans to monitor the AC Lake for pathogenic amoebae even though they have killed pepple in Texas as recently as 1979. P.3811; 3822."
4 Tr. 3811-13. Dr. Schlicht testified that there are no plans to ',
monitor the cooling lake for pathogenic amoebee becau'se the Applicant and the Texas Department of Public Health do not er-
j
' consider it a health hazard. Also, he testified that fish are not susceptible to the amoebae.
Tr. 3822-23.
Dr. Schlicht testified about the encephalo meningitis that is caused by the Naegleria Fowleri amoebae.
Coment:
This proposed finding mischaracterizes the record wh,ich indicates that this amoebae is not considered a health hazard in Texas and, therefore, monitoring is not warranted.
"31.
Gotchy admitted that the AC Lake could fail the design objective of 3.0 mrem for total body required by Appendix I,10 CFR 50 because he admitted a factor of 3 uncertainty in his calculation of 1.4 mrem from liquid pathway only so that 1.4 x 3 equals 4.2.
This is without even considering the additional dose that could be expected to enter the liquid pathway from gaseous emissio's.
[ Sic] P.3931; 4211."
Tr. 3931. Dr. Gotchy testified that there was a factor of 2 or 3 uncertainty in his dose calculations. However, he testified that this uncertainty was the result of upper-bound, conservative assumptions. Tr. 3929.
Tr. 4210-11.
Dr. Gotchy testified that based on the recent BEIR estimates, the Staff could be overestimating the doses by an order of magnitude.
Coment:
TexPirg has completely mischa eterized Dr. Gotchy's statements. This statement of uncertainty merely reflected the fact that, in Dr. Gotchy's opinion, the Staff's calculation of doses is overly conservative and on the high-side by a factor of 2 or 3, or perhaps an order of magnitude based on the recent BEIR estimates. TexPirg's g op_osed finding is either a
\\
failure to understand the issue or a misleadina statement.
I i
e ok
\\
8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t'JIISSION BEFORE'THE AT0!!IC SAFETY AND LICENSIrlG BOARD In the Matter of i
i HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466 (AllensCreekNuclearGenerating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
j f
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF REPLY TO TEXPIRG'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" and " APPENDIX" in the above-l captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through l
deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 30th day of March, 1982:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Susan Plettman, Esq.
i Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Administrative Judge Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayo'r i
Route 3, Box 350A City of Wallis, TX 77485 t
Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Hon, de;hn R. Mikeska fir. Gustave A. Linenberger*
Austin County Judge Admfaistrative Judge P.O. flox 310 Atenic Safety and Licensing Bellville, TX 77418 Board Panel j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i
llashington, DC 20555 Mr. John F. Doherty 4327 Alconbury Street J. Gregory Copaland, Esq.
Houston, TX.
77021 Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza Mr. William J. Schuessler Houston, TX 77002 5810 Darnell Houston, TX 77074 i
a
. Jack Newman, Esq.
D. Marrack Lowenstein, Reis, Newman &
420 Mulberry Lane Axelrad Bellaire, TX 77401 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
Brenda A. McCorkle c/o James Scott, Jr., Esq.
6140 Darnell 13935 Ivymount Houston, TX 77074 Sugarland, TX 77478 Mr. Wayne Rentfro Rosemary N. Lemer P.O. Box 1335 11423 Oak Spring Resenberg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- Carro Hinderstein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Houston Bar Center Washington, DC 20555 723 Main Suite 500 Houston, TX 77002 Margaret Bishop U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission J. Morgan Bishop Region IV, I&E 11418 Oak Spring 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77043 Arlington, TX 76011 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Bryan L. Baker Pollan, Nicholson & Doggett 1923 Hawthorne P.O. Box 592 Houston, TX 77098 Rosenberg, TX 77471 Robin Griffith Carolina Conn 1034 Spily Ann 1414 Scenic Ridge Rosenb6rg, TX 77471 Houston, TX 77043 Mr. William Perrened Atomic Safety and Licensing 4070 Merrick Board Panel
- Houston, TX 77025 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Ric iard L.' yyack Counsel for tRC Staff
..