ML20069F086
| ML20069F086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1983 |
| From: | Lindsey I LOUISIANA, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303220301 | |
| Download: ML20069F086 (11) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ i DGQKETED
~ 4.c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '83 p,'jp g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UD .*13 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF Docket Nos. 50-458 OL 50-459 OL GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, et al (ASLBP No. 82-468-01-OL)
(River Bend Station, Unit 1 and 2) March 15, 1983 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA The State of Louisiana, appearing herein through William J. Guste, Jr. and other undersigned counsel, re-spectfully submits the following Supplemental Petition as required by 10 CFR 2.714 (b) . On October 5, 1981, the State of Louisiana filed a " Petition For Leave To Intervene In Facility Operating License Proceedings". On February 10, 1982, in its " Memo-randum and Order Ruling on Petitions to Intervene," this Honorable Licensing Board ordered "that the State of Louisi-ana shall be admitted as an interested state under Section 2.715 to any proceedings which may result from the filing of I an admissible contention and may be admitted as a. party under Section 2.714 contingent upon its filing an admissible con-l j tention." On August 20, 1982, this Board ordered contentions l l to be filed by December 15, 1982. On December 2, 1982, Louisiana filed a " Motion for Extension of Time within which i 8303220301 830315 gDRADOCK 05000458 PDR c Dsos
O to File Contentions." By order of December 21, 1982, Louisiana's Motion for Extension of Time was granted in part and this Board ordered the State of Louisiana to file contentions by March 15, 1983. Louisiana notes that under the Rules of Practice, petitioners under Section 2.714 are not required to submit contentions until fifteen (15) days prior to the special pre-hearing conference. Louisiana respectfully trusts therefore that if any of its contentions are found to be inadequate, it will be allowed to amend them until fifteen (15) days prior to the special pre-hearing conference set for Tuesday, May 24, 1983. Louisiana respectfully requests this Board to dis-regard and treat as having never been filed its contentions of December 15, 1982 and now supplements its Petition For Leave To Intervene by submitting the following contentions: CONTENTION 1 Applicants have " failed to allow for proper con-sideration of the uncertainties concerning the long-term isolation of high-level and transuranic wastes, and ... failed [ed] to allow for proper consideration of the health, socioeconomic and cumulative effects of fuel-cycle activities." Basis Under the provisions of the National Environmental l l 1 NRDC v. NRC, Civ. Action No. 74-1586 (D.C. Cir., April 27, 1982), slip opinien, pp. 11-12. l
s 9 f Policy Act, (NEPA) 42 USC 4332 et seq., it is clearly required "that environmental concerns be integrated into the very pro-cess of agency decisionmaking" and that " environmental values and consequences (must] have L'een considered during the plan-ning stage." It is further clear under NEPA that the contri-bution of the fuel-cycle to the environmental costs of licen-
~
sing an individual nuclear power reactor must be considered. Applicant has failed to consider, and has not shown, the en- , vironmental cost of the uranium fuel-cycle with respect to a River Bend Station, Onit 1. CONTENTION 2 Applican't's Emergency Plan does notprovide reason-able assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken , in the event of an, emergency to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to property.
< Basis 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities), Section III, ("The Final Safety Analysis Report"), provides:
"TheFinalSafethAnalysisReportshall contain plans for coping with emergencies.
The details of these plans and the details of their implementation need not be included, but the plans submitted must include a de-scription of the elements set out in section IV [ Content of' Emergency Plans] to an ex-tent sufficient to demo.nstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that appro-priate measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to property." Further, Section IV to Appendix E (" Content of Emergency Plans") provides that emergency plans shall contain
" procedures for use in emergencies."
In its FSAR, Sec. 13.3, " Emergency Planning," - Applicant has failed to adequately address the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections III and IV, especially with respect to the evacuation of personnel. Specifically, Applicant has failed to affirmatively demonstrate that appro-priate measures can and will be taken to assure the adequate evacuation and care of patients in Parish and State hospitals within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the evacuation and and security of prisoners in the Pointe Coupee Parish jail, West Feliciana Parish jail and Dixon Correctional Institute. By way of example, it is apparent from reading of Appendix D of Section 13.3 of the FSAR (especially Section II, " Evacuation Routes" and Section III, "Special Evacuation Areas") that appli-cant assumes that school buses will be available for use and available in sufficient numbers to evacuate ambulatory patients. Such an assumption is untenable. Further, applicant has failed to vary the perimeter l of the plume exposure EPZ to take into account the particular characteristics of the area surrounding the site location. As may be seen from Appendix D, Map 6 (" River Bend Parishes , Evacuation - 10 Mile Emergency Planning Zone") of Section 13.3 i of the FSAR, the EPZ is an area with a radius of 10 miles. I However, NUREG-0654 (Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation l of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in (
/
Support of Nuclear Power Plants) states on page ll: "Although the radius for the.EPZ implies a circular area, the actual shape would depend upon the characteristics of a particular site." (See also Figure 1, " Concept of Emergency Planning Zone," and,Tablo l~, " Guidance on Size of the Emergency Plan-ning Zone," pages 16-17, especially the notation to Table 1
, s stating: " Judgment should be used in adopting this distance based upon considerations of local conditions. . . ")
CONTENTION 3 Applicant has failed to adequately consider the effect of a release of radioactive materials into surface and ground drinking water supplies. s
. Basis River Bend Station, five (5) miles south of St.
i Francisville, Louisiana, is situated geographically and geo-logically in such a manner that release of . radioactive ma-terials would have the potential to affect both surface drink-ing water supplies, namely the Mississippi River, and ground water supplies ~, namely the Baton Rouge Regional Acquifer.
- The Mississippi River serves as the sole source of drinking water for approximately 1 1/2 - 2 million people (the figure varies due to the seasonal influx of visitors, tourists and workers) and numerous commercial enterprises using this 1 water'for food and beverage preparation and production, down l ,
river from St. Francisville, and additionally is used by numer-q eg a' ous industries which discharge varying quantities and types of
- ^ 1 't I ,$
effluents into the river. River Bend Station is directly situated on top of a shallow acquifer known as the Shallow Upland Pleistocene Terrace Deposit which recharges directly into the Mississippi River. Applicant has failed to adequately consider the effect of an accidental or planned release of radioactive materials on the health and welfare of those per-sons for whom the Mississippi River is the sole source of po-table water, and has additionally failed to adequately consi-der the synergetic effect of such radioactive materials com-bining with industrial effluents discharged into the river. Further,-River Bend Station is situated in the re-charged zone of the Baton Rouge Regional Acquifer, which is the sole source of drinking water for in excess of 400,000 persons and numerous commercial enterprises using this water for food and beverage preparation and production. Applicant has failed to consider the effect of the contamination of the Baton Rouge Regional Acquifer by radioactivi4(on the health and welfare.of those persons and commercial enterprises for whom this acquifer is the sole source of potable water. CONTENTION 4 Applicants have not adequately considered the effect of a failure of the Old River control structure on the safe operation of River Bend Station. Basis 70 miles North of Baton Rouge, and thus North of the River Bend Station site, the Mississippi River is attempting to divert its course to the Atchafalaya River to take advantage of a shorter, steeper route to the Gulf of Mexico. It is pre-
. vented from doing so only by an antiquated and structurally questionable barrier known as the Old River control structure.
Should this structure fail, the Mississippi River would naturally divert its course away from its present channel resulting in the formation of miles of silt deposits just downstream of the struc-ture and reducing the flow of fresh water through its present course by more than half. Engineer Ralph Kazmann of Louisiana State University estimates there is a 50-50 chance that the Old River control structure will fail during the next 20 to 40 years, corresponding roughly to the operating life of River Bend Station. Applicant's have failed to adequately consider the consequences of such failure on the. safe operation of River Bend Station, Unit 1, specifically, the effect of a reduced flow and heavy siltation of the Mississippi River on the intake of cool-ing water, on the relative increase in thermal pollution re-sulting from the discharge of cooling water into a reduced volume of river water, and the possible effect of salt water intrusion into cooling and other safety and non-safety related systems utilizing Mississippi River water. CONTENTION 5 Applicant has failed to consider the effect of the I resumption and continuation of construction activities on Unit 2 on the safe operation of Unit 1. l ! l
Basis Section 1.1, " Introduction," of the Applicant's FSAR, Vol. 1 reads in pertinent part on page 1.1-1 that:
" Unit 1 is scheduled for completion in October 1983, and commercial operation is expected to begin in April 1984. Unit 2 is currently not scheduled and construction has been halted."
There is no indication as to whether or not con-struction has been permanently halted, or whether or not construction will resume again on Unit 2. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Applicant may. resume construction on Unit 2. 10 CFR 50.34 (b) (6) (vii) provides:
"On or after February 5, 1979, applicants who apply for operating licenses for nu-clear powerplants to be operated on multiunit sites shall include an evaluation of the po-tential hazards to the structures, systems, and components important to safety of operating units resulting from construction activities, as well as description of the managerial and ad-ministrative controls to be used to provide assurance that the limiting conditions for oper-ation are not exceeded as a result of construction activities at the multiunit sites."
Applicant must therefore " include an evaluation of the potential hazards to the structures, systems, and compo-nents important to the safety of operating units resulting from construction activities" on Unit 2 as they will affect operations of Unit 1. CONTENTION 6 Applicant has failed to provide adequate assurance that River Bend Station components and systems relying on 9 Mississippi River water for their operation will be adequately protected against infestation of Asiatic Clams (Corbicula leana) . Basis I&E Bulletin 81-03 " Flow Blockage of Cooling Water to Safety System Components by Cerbicula sp. (Asiatic Clam) and Mytilus sp. (Mussel)" raised a unique issue with the po-tential to affect numerous safety and non-safety related com-ponents at River Bend Station, namely infestation of Asiatic C1 cms into systems and components utilizing Mississippi River water. In correspondence between Applicant and NRC Region IV, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Applicant addressed the issue and " committed to perform an assessment of the com-ponents and systems for their adequacy to prevent or detect fouling." In its letter of February 14, 1983, (a copy of which is attached), Applicant answered Region IV Inspection and Enforcement Director Karl V. Seyfrit's request for additional information, and stated that they " . . . [did] not have sufficient data to make a detailed assessment of intrusion potential," and that "[c]hlorination treatment will provide control [of in-festations] . " The State of Louisiana believes that chlorination treatment alone will fail to provide control of Asiatic Clams, and therefore feels that Applicant has failed to affirmatively demonstrate that it can and will control such infestation in such a manner that components and systems relying on 1
1 Mississippi River water for their operation will be adequately protected. THEREFORE, the foregoing having been considered, the State of Louisiana respectfully requests that its con-tentions be accepted and that it be permitted to be admitted as a party to these proceedings. Respectfully submitted, STATE OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. Attorney General lL IAff DOUGIfAS 'LI?y!fSEY V // Assistant Attofney General V Department of Justice Lands and Natural Resources Division 7434 Perkins Road, Suite C Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
. (504) 766-8610 Dated at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 15th day of March, 1983.
I w
,, w:
a _ 6: r-oO G~3 - 1
. l O U.2;F S~.'*'1'.T ? S L'.~. ~I:I'TI ES C O MF2._V ~ -
=,, , -,
- .3 y_2 , .: - . .
. .-:.-3 4la ,,:
Februa ry 14, 1983 RBG- 14,3 74 File Nos. G9.5, G9.33.1 Mr. Ka rl V. Seyf rit , Director
-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commtsston Region IV, Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement ~'
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 , Arlington, Texas 76011
- t. u. g Cc g e pe--)
Dear Mr. Seyf rit:
River Bend Station Units 1 and 2 Refer To: RIV Docket Nos. 50-458/I&E Bulletin 31-03 50-459/I&E Bulletin 81-03 This letter is in response to your December.10. 198,1, request for additional information concerning Gulf States Utilities Company's December 9,1981 final response to I&E Bulletin 81-03, " Flow Blockage of Cooling Water to Sa fety System Components by Corbicula sp. (Asiatic Clam) and Mytilus sp. (Mussel)." The information requested focuses on two items. The first, was to provide an assessment of Corbicula sp. or Mytilus sp. intrusion potential once River Bend Station (RBS) becomes operational. The second, was concerning the effectiveness of preventive chlorination practices during operation. In GSU's July 10, 1981 letter we stated that Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.4 of the Environmental Report-Construction Permit Stage (ER-CPS) contained the results of Louisiana State li niversity studies performed for GSU on the middle and upper Mississippi River. The studies did not identify the mussel (Mutilus sp.) in the river. The studies did identify the the Asiatic clam (Corbicula sp.) as the principal bivalve mollusk in the samples. Although a few other mollusks occur in the river near the site, only the Asiatic clam (Corbicula sp.) is likely to be entrained in the PBS
- , cooling water systems in any substantial quantities. There eng are, as yet, no data on the ambient densities of the clam's i ggG- planktonic veliger larvae (small, unshelled, free-living the stages), which will be the most vulnerable life-stage for
. Es entcainment by the cooling tower makeup wster intake. ! ,[O Monitaring for larval claa densities in the immediate , x vicinity of the RSS intake will be initiated as spawning { !$ ' temperatures are reached (mid-ts-late-spring) in 1983. i :0 , i Unless proncunced increases occur in the ambient denstties , [F' of juvenile and adult :lims near the in*..ke, the poteattal T ." ,/ L
-{---
ext;ts for entrai nent .: an'y i f:2 . : reds t i:.. I > [7
M Cf
. . CE thousands of these older individuals per day during the surrer and autumn months. During normal operating conditions, most, if not all, of the larger shelled indivi !u ils (as well as f ragments of those crushed in ptmps) will be removel by the strainers and upflow clarifiers. At this time, GSU does not have sufficient data to make a detailed assessment of intrusion potential. Entrainment of the planktonic veliger larvae is expected to be in direct proportion to their ambient densities in the river. Until special monitoring for these larvae demonstrates their absence or sca rcity, GSU must assume that sufficient quantities will be entrained to produce infestations unless controlled. Chlorination treatment will provide this control.
The RBS design provides for the introduction of sodium hypochlorite at three points in plant cooling systems: (1) the makeup water intake line upstream of the clarifiers; (2) the service water pump discharge; and (3) the circulating water system downstream of the circulating water pump. Chlorination of the intake line is not intended for biofouling control, but rather to enhance the performance of polyelectrolytes used in the clarification process. Therefore. the feedrates and concentrations will vary with influent water quality and can only be established on the basis of clarifier operating experience. Chlorination of the service water will be continuous by means of metered pumps to maintain a chlorine residual of 0.03 to 0.40 ppm. It is estimated that the circulating water system will be chlorinated to a concentration of at least 5 ppm for about 30 minutes three times per day during the warmer months and once or twice per day during winter. These practices should be adequate to maintain lethally-toxic levels of chlorine for larval Corbicula under normal operating conditions. 4 GSU is developing a routine surveillance schedule to be implemented by the RBS Operation's Maintenance Group. The surveillance program is designed to detect flow blockage in potentially af fected systems and components listed in our July 10, 1981 letter. GSU trusts this response satisfactorily answers your concerns. We will be glad to discuss any further connents you may have concerning our response. I Sincerely,
/ . f. P "9 -
J. E. Booker Manager-Engineering, Nuclear Fuel & Licensing River Bend Nuclear Group JEB/RJK!kt
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF GULF STATES UTILITIES DOCKET NOS. 50-458 OL COMPANY, et al 50-459 OL (River Bend Station, Unit 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Supplemental Petition of the State of Louisiana in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, this 15th day of March, 1983. t B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Esq. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C. Licensing Board 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1050 Commission Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 16801 James W. Pierce, Jr., Esq. Dr. Forrest J. Remick Post Office Box 23571 305 East Hamilton Avenue Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893 State College, PA. 16801 s Doris Falkenheiner, Esq. Dr. Richard F. Cole Stephen M. Irving, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing. ,535 North Sixth Street Board Baton Rouge, LA. 70802 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing & Service Section Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David Repka Washington, D.C. 20555 Ccunsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Gulf States Utilities Co. Commission Attn: Mr. James E. Booker 7735 Old Georgetown Road Manager-Engineering and Bethesda, MD. 20814 Licensing i Post Office Box 2951
/ ,
Beaumont, Texas 77704 f )~ Linda B. Watkins 4520 Jamestown, Suite 2 S LINDSEY ,/
'IAN DQUG@t Attorney G#eral Assistan Baton Rouge, LA 70808
__}}