ML20099A493
| ML20099A493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1979 |
| From: | Marke D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, External Citizen/Individual/Media (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099A491 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902220161 | |
| Download: ML20099A493 (31) | |
Text
, . . , ,
,'. .'. ') -
) g JAN 26197;9'>
S
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
%T,5N h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION %
BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ##
In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO., ) Docket Nos. 50-498 ET AL. ) 50-499
)
(South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2)
)
SUPPLIMENTARY PETITION BY DAVID M ARKE AND LISTING OF CONTENTIONS
~
With Requested Deficiency Corre'etions On Ausst 2,1978, the Uritted State's Nuclear Regulatory Commiss. ion (Commission) published in the Federal Register (33 F. R. 33968) a
~
Notice of Opportuni,ty for a Hearing on the Application for Operating Licenses for South Texas Project Units I & II (STP). On August 24, 1978, the above named petitioneer submitted a preliminary petition, cdmittedly informal, expressing his interest and desire to become a
~
party to the above captioned proceedings. For reasons not yet under-ctood, or in fact acknowledged by the petitioneer both the NRC staff cnd the applicants attorneys alledge to have received said petition bearing a postmark of 5 September 78, and have each urged the commission to deny my petition because it " appears to have been filed in an untimely m anner". Petitioneer does not wish to argue at this time the point as to whether the petition was filed untimely as indicated by the postmark.
The petition was filed in good faith, was prs cared with every intention of meeting the delivery deadline, however was not posted by hand, 9 90ZZZ 05I ,
) ') .
d
~~
2- -
therefore the petitioneer cannot state irrevocabily that it reached the --
post office prior to the 1 September 78 deadline. It is my feeling however that late delivery, if indeed it did occur, was a situation .
6 ~
! well beyond my control, and perhaps due to difficulties in the postal ,
! service.
NRC staff has included in their response an itemization from 10 .
CFR 2. 714 (a) (1) communicating the factors whereby the Commission ._
I may grant a petition which may appear to have been filed in an untime5y m r. . -, ., m
' fashion. "I will therefore deal with each of the criteria in order, as set
! forth in the staff re,sponse and in 10 CFR 2. 714: . . .
, u (i) " Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time". As mentioned
~
above, the petitioneer has made very good and, reasonable effort ,
- to attempt to make a timely filing. It is with regret that such i
timeliness was not met, and good cause cannot be specified at this time due to lacking the means for discovery of the tardiness.
Petitioneer however pleads the Commission to review this suppli-mentary petition as well as the orginal in the spirit in which it was submitted and make exception for the seemingly small' tech , .
nicality of timeliness as justified in the succeeding paragraphs.
- As requested at the special Pre-Hearing Conference this instrument
, is being submitted as modified on 19 January 1979, therefore is not
- untimely. Further, it is noted that on pages 2 and 5 of the staff response l of 8 January 1979 that staff does not consider the alledged 4 day delay l of the originalinstrument to be of enough significance to be deemed l untimely.
. ~_ ._ . , _ _ . _ . _ . ._ - _ .
) s-
) '
, -(ii) "Availabilitt of other means whereby the petitioneer's interest 1
~
will be protected". Petitioneer Marke can see no way due to the lack of other possible participants fro:n the local area, of assuring that his interests will be representea and protected. There is -
l to my knowledge only one possible intervenor from San Antonio, .
and one seemingly very unlikely intervenor from Houston involved in the proceedings. It is therefore felt by the petitioneer that ,
even were these other parties to be admitted'to the proce.edings .
- that his interests not only as a citizen of Austin. but due to the -
particular nature of his interests (to be explained under contentions) could not reasonably be repres'ented by these other individuals.
j Further owing to the fact that the board is not burdened by an over-i .
t large group of fossible intervenors, petitioneer Marke requests the ,
indulgence of the Commi.ision not only as a matter of right, but 4
as a matter of discretion in a proceeding not heavily laiden with
- public input.
{ .
E Petitioner feels further that the specifications of 2. 714.'are further l served owing that the third possible intervenor was not present at the l Pre-Hearing Conference, as well as the fact that should his petition on behalf of ACEE, attached, be accepted that broader public input, and thus concern will be prepresented. It seems obvious that no other .
l petitioners representative of the group being present that those interests can in fact not be represented otherwise. Further staff seems to be in '
agreement.
l 4
s.
s N . - .
)
) s' g
e, ,
2.~
J (iii) "The extent to which the petitioneer's participation may. '
reasonably be expected,to assist in developing a sound record".
Petitioneer I.tarke has considerdble expertise which was perhaps ,
not spelled out with sufficient pa'rticularity in the initial petition. ,
q .
- I will spend sufficient effort by pleading for standing as a matter 4
i of right and discretion, the level,1 adequacy, and experience of .
6
.s. .
my expertise, demonstrating I think fully my ability and readiness I
~
!
- During the special Pre-Hearing Conference, my qualifications were
! discussed, at which tima I offered if necessary do submit a proper ~'
resume', which was not specifically requested. Upon request of the 4 Board I will still provide same. Staff asserts that these qualifications. ,
. . . "would appear to weigh in favor of thd petitioner".
- v. <
-(iv) " Extent to.which th,e petitioncer's interests will be represented b :,
i by exsisting parties". As discussed in section 11 above the petitioneer ,
i feels that due to the totallack of other possible parties to the pro'- *
~
ceeding from this geographic and demographic area that his interests
\
will be represented by no others', and therefore prays the indulgence l . -
of the board in order that his rights may be upheld and his interests D
) .
protected. \'
{
, L l
The " fourth factor" of 2. 714 should be borne out by the recoid of 11 January 1979 f
4
,,.---_.,,-,-,_._-%.m.-r, ,..m . , - , . , , - - _ _ . - - _ . - . - . - . , - - - - . - - _ _,e------ _ , - -, - - -
.v ,
y
. ) f- ') -
l < -
_ M "The extent to which the petitioneer's participation will broaden or ~~'
delay the proceedings". The petitioneer is prepared to introduce in
' his contentions issues which he feels in good faith will broaden the'.
, f scope of the hearing as pertaining to technical issues, environmental issues, and to a limited respect economic matters. The petitioneer i has appraised himself of the operating procedure and rules of practice
' x.
s
- ' of the Commission and will make every effort to provide not only ,
, adequate and proper input to the proceedings, but do so in such t,
fashion as to see them conducted expeditiously. -
1 . . . .
- Ptetitioner has already agreed in association with ACEE whom he also represents by attached instrument to provide experts as felt necessary in order ,that all issues may be dealt with expeditiously ,
and completely, rather than attempting to burden only the petitioner. "
.' in areas wherein others.2nay hnve greater expertise, thus not only l
broadening, but streamlining the issues as we1L Staff contends that the original a11 edged "4 day delay will not in any disrupt this proceeding" (page 3). This corrected document being filed at the request of the -
Board, and in the time specified, . petitioner submits that it cannot be considered untimely."
While it is regretable that this was apparently not achieved, the pe-i titioneer respectfully pleads the Commission on the basis of i thru v l w tbove that this petition be granted and that he be made a party in this l
l decision making process. ,
i
! II. Plea for Standing as a Matter of Ridt .
Petitioneer Marke is prepared t,o show with sufficient particularity
( '
he is entitled to standing in the above proceedings as a matter of right under the law. .
k i .
~3 -f ..
3 A. Request for Standing Before the Commission as an Individual While petitioneer Marke is aware of the tradition of the Commission
~
~
~
to discourage the admission of individuals not residing within a certain
. geographical area, variously cited by" staff and the applicants attorney -
at ranges from 20-25 miles, 30-35 miles, and occassionally 50 miles, he not withstanding requests standing due to the fact that his health, both physical and mental would be endangered and placed in jeopardy by the unsafe operation i . .
4 -
,cf the proposed South Texas Project. The petitioneer's physical health
~
. is jeopardized not only by the possibility of a major accident at the plant -
cite, but by the normal day to day operation of'said reactor. It l's Well
' demonstrated in scientific history that levels of backround radiation i .
over the past 25 years have increased significantly over extremely broad geographical areas due to no catastrophic accidents, but rather ',
due solely to the aforementioned daily operation of similar facilities. . ,
This has been measured and well documented by numerous authorities in the field, including the petitioneer himself. It can, easily be shown -
that nemal release of radioactivity from STP can be carried by the i
winds to the area of Austin. as has been demonstrated by a ballon re-l l leas,e within the last 12 months from the site. Further, the petitioneer's health is endangered by similar pollution introduced intothe food chain ,
via atmospheric and water born discharges finding their way into crops grown in the vicinity of the plant and consumed by the petitioneer, water.
l .
from'the surrounding watershed consumed by the petitioneer during
!i
.- . . . - . . . ..-.... - ---- . . - - - , , --~ . . - .
) -7_ ') .
l frequent visits for business and recreational purposes,. as well as intro- .- p . . . -,
duction into the marine life cycle affecting the seafood both purchased _
in the area and' gathered recreationally by the petitioneei. While it is fairly certain and acknowledged that this staff and attorneys for the .,
cpplicant will consider this claim vague or nebulous, it is well established .
that theburden of proof to deny this allegation lies with the Commission, i
Staff and the Applicant. As regards similar matters,' in Environmental ,;
Defense Fund. Inc. v. United States Department of Health. Ed. cation & , ., , .
Welfare 1/ regarding chemical pollutions, the court found that Congress ;; i imposed upon the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare the burden
.. :n :: .s . . .
.f. ,
of finding," before any pesticide-chemical residue may remain in o'r'on -
en agriculture commidity, that the residue is " safe". Since a former cecretary had found that there was no such thing as " safe", residue for ..
, s-
.o chemical known to produce cancer in experimental animals, the present secretary had the burden of determining on what basis any residue is safe. . . . etc.
Petitioneer Marke further asserts that he will suffer mental anguish -
cnd possible loss of his mental health due to the physchological impact i
(unsafe) .
cftperation of a plant of this nature within such a close geographical zone. Further he is threatened by the fact that materials including fuel components, waste components if and when they are transported,
! pass by his residence and his ' place of business as will b'e described f
in the..next paragraph. Recognizing that STP represents such mental enguish and impairment the petitioneer feels it well within his right to reouest standing in all further proceedings.
I If 423 F. 2d 1083 (D. C. Cir. 1970) l
} - (( - ] ,
The petitioneer is further endangered by ths tran' sport of the aforementioned-- .j materials owing to the fact that the major north-south railline passes within less than 150 yards of his residence, and 'upon which may well be carried fuel assemblies, spent fuel assemblies, and other waste materials
' generated as a direct result of this plant's operation. Additionally the petitioneer owns business interests within no more than 500 yards of l IH 35, a major surface route leading to the area of the plant, and upon i
I 3
which is currently carried, and will no doubt be furthered as a result _
of STP operation, nuclear commodities at this time. In lieu of such _ ,_
conditions petitioneer represents that traditional geograpitip limititions'
~
cannot be held any longer in .such proceedings. While the Department of Energy has developed a program over the last three years to demon-strate the safety of vehicle and railborne fuel casks it is also a fact as
~
reported in the media that accidents have occurred during that period and indeed within no less than the last six months involving supface transportation of radioactive materials, some of which have resulted in the' deaths of innochnt bystanders living .in no closer proximity to an operating ireactor than does the petitioneer. While the probability of such an accident occurring is low it is the responsibility of the Commission and the licensees to assure that no possibility exists whereby such accidents can take place. Petitioneer asserts that at this time no such evidence has been presented.
4 l
-- - - - - - - a -- - - - - -
) cy ) -
Petitioneer further states that he is regularly involved in recreational
~
pursuits particularly along the Southern Gulf Coast, specifically in- . ,'
volved in off shore and on shore fishing in the area south of Galveston and Port Aransas. It is obvious from the tophgraphy of the surrounding area including Matagorda County that ultimate drainage of any water-bor.ne residues which may escape the plant, or its cooling lake by any means, including drainage into the acquifier systems will in alllikelihood offect the quality of marine Itfe in that area, jeopardizing petitioneer
~
Marke's recreational priveleges. In State of Washincton Department of Game v. Federal Power Commission 2/ Washington States Sportsman's Council was upheld in their request for standidg under 313b of theYederal ~~' -
Power Act, 16 USC 8251 (b), stating "all are ' parties aggrieved' since they claim ..the Project will destroy fish in which they among others are interested in (sic) protecting. " Indeed section 313 (b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 8351 (b) reads: "(b) Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission and such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States Court of Appeals foi any circuit within the license or public utility to which the order relates is located. .. ". This is pointed out recognizing .
that the petitioneer is,not yet a party to the proceeding, however strives to point out the public utility of his residence, i. e. the city of Austin, is party to the license and thus affected by these proceedings.
l l
2/ 207 F. 2d 391, 305 n.11 (9th Cir.1953) l l .
_v ..-,.. .. _ . _ . _ ,
p ,
jo - > .- _
~
While petitioneer Marke was not a party to the proceedings resulting in .
the construction license, due to his'non-residence in the area at that l
time, he feels that standing is further indicated under the law d.te to ,
his current and permanent status as an " interested consumer" in this .
proceeding. Section 308 (a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 825 g .
(a) reads: "In any proceeding before it the Commission, in accordance 1
- with such rules and regulations as it may orescribe may admit. as a party ,
cny interested state., state commission, municipality, or any representative
., . a "
of interested consumers or security holders, or any competitor of a" ~ '
- . . . . . , .s-
. L._ ~~ "'-
party to such proceedings or any othir person whose pa'rticipatio'n in the proceeding may be in the public interest. " (emph. asis added) In-osmuch as petitioneci Ma'rke is an ' interested consumer, and as will be
~
developed in the next section is the representative of a body of. interested-consumers, and indeed security holders, i.e. the utility in the city of ,
Austin is publicly. owned, therefore all citizens are effectively stockholders, and having stated his interest in good faith may as well be considered a party whose participation will be in the public interest, he should be I
l grcnted standing in these proceedings. To do otherwise would be a clear and obvious violation of Fairness Doctrine. Further explanation en the part of the petitleneer is not considered necessary owing to the feet that the burden of proof in this and other such cases clearly rests with the Commission, Staff and the Applicant.
l
) -n - -.) -
~- -
C. Conclusion of Plending for Standing as a Matter of Right In summation th'e petitioneer pleads the Commission that he has demon- ,
otrated areas under the law whereby he should be' granted standing as -
n matter of right, although he will be pleased to entertain further questions by the Commission with regard to his pleadings. Petitioneer further ceserts that he has answered the major questions raised by the respr.ases ,
of both the staff and the attorneys for applicant to his initial petition. :
oc .
- The issue of the petitioner fishing areas and frequency was ..
thoroughly discussed at the Pre-hearing Conference. For 'completo .
details, that record is refered. It was established that the frequency of such expeditions ranges dependent upon season from weekly to bi-monthly. Staff in page 5 indicates that the area between Port Ar.ansas and Galveston is 175 miles. Petitioner would note that on page 2-2 ~
of the finalEnvironmentalStatement, NUREG-75-019 it is clearly shown that the STP site is only 10-12 miles from Matagorda Bay, .
and no more than 16 miles from the Gulf side of Matagorda Pen'nsula
.It is further noted that approximately 1/3 of the 50 mile radius "zene of interest", or nearly 2,600 square miles lies in the Chlf of Mexico, .
nearly equi-distant between Aransas and Galveston, the two ports from which the petitioner fishes. It is further noted that perhps 85-90 miles of coastline (which is fished) lie within the same zone It would seem th'at this demonstrates adequately that the petitioner's recreational interests lie well within the well established " geographical zone of interest".
TIT. Pleas for Standine as a- Matter of Descretion l
While pet'itioneer Marke has made every effort to show with adequate s'pecificity that he shot'.d be granted standing as a n.atter of right under l .
/
+r- , - - -e,
. . .- -_= .- .
l
, . '6 3 -
~
- gg .
. the law, he is as well aware of the boards descretion to grant standing cs pointed out in Rrtland General Electric Co. (Pueblo Springs Nuclear -
Plant, ' Units 1 & 2)3,/, that the petitioneer "may nevertheless make some contribution to the proceeding". In addition to such contribution as the
- petitioneer may make to the proceeding due to his expertise which will be ellaborated upon shortly, petitioneer Marke further pleads the ~
' ~
descretion of the board to grant standing as per the qualifications out-lined in 10 CFR 2. 714 (a) (1) (11,111,. iv). .
While staff has made referrence to " abstract concerns", and " mere
~
ccedemic interest" the petitioneer would at this time prefer to ellaborate ',
upon his qualifications as an expert in the field wi th useful commentary to make to the proceedings. Petitioneer is a graduate of the Unversity of Nevs.da and the University of California systeIr.s, having studied cxclusively and extensively in the field of Nuclear Chemistry. Mr. Marke has been widely published in the scientific community on topics not only limited ~ to radiochemistry, but in the field of radioisotope disposition and containment. 'Mr. Marke is regularly called upon by the city of Aus~ tin and the State of Texas, as well as other municipal bodies including the city of San Antonio, and various public groups in and around the other
, metropolitan areas of Texas for his expertise in the field of nuclear waste management. Mr. Marke has been an invited guest of the Texas House of Representatives Energy Resources Sub-Committee, testifing .
3/ CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976)
)
with regard to' waste disposal operations contemplated in the state of Texas, has testified frequently before and at the request of the Electric Utilities G~ommission of Austin regarding not only nuclear matters, and - ,
not limited exclusively to waste disposal, but energy related matters
~ on a broad spectrum. Marke's expert testimony'and advise have fur.ther been solicited by the Austin city council both in the nuclear field,.as -
well as the traditional and non-traditional energy generating technologies.
Further Mr. Marke has been cal 1~ed upon frequently by the Texas Energy 4 .
Advisory Council for his expertise in the energy field, most particularly with regard to nuclear endeavors and the solar sciences. He has as well been engaged by that agency not only as.a consultant but as a member of proposal evaluation panels in the contract awarding process of the Energy Deve t.opment Fund administered by that ag'ency. .
The petitioneer is currently employed as chief of research and development and general partner of Solar Dynamics Limited, of Austin, a Texas limited partnership, organized for the purpose of researching and developing solar / thermal electrical generating technologies. As principal scientist at Solar Dynamics petitioneer Marke is daily and continuely abreast of -
developments not'on1.y in energy technology but in energy policy. As such he has been invited to testify en several occassions before the 4
DepartmeM af Energy in efforts to establish, formulate and define the l
national encegy plan. He has kept himself well abreast of s' cientific l
^
.> ) .
- C
_y_ -
developments in as many aspects of the energy field as possible, ,
and considers that on the basis of expertise alone the board should ,
a exercise its discretion, granting him standing in the above captioned proceedings. Further petitioneer Marke alledges that his interests cannot be represented by other persons tentattvely possible parties to this proceeding. As me ntioned in the first portion of this pleading.
petitioneer Marke is aware of one other possible intervenor in San .
Antonio and one late arrival who has filed a petition from Houston, and does not..feelin any respect ths.t these persons if admitted.will represent i
his laterest, or the interests of ACEE whom he represents in the pro-ceedings. Petitioneer does not feel that these persons possess the part- .
icular technical expertise which would represent his concerns for his health and property, nor that they can represent the concerns of the quasi public body which he represents, Austin being the only municipally owned utility in the South Texas Project. Furthermore, owning specifically ,
to the petitioneers location in Austin it is not felt that interests could be represented by other than a resident of the immediate geographic location, and none appearing, pleading,is made as a matter of discretion on this basis.
l -
Lastly petitioneer urges the board to weigh its discretionary powers in addition to the list of contentions presented by the petitioneer which will follow after this discussion. Upon close examination of those i
_ - , . _ . , _ _ , . , -. _ - -_m,.- _ _r,- ,
.) /f- .
) .
contentions it should be olivious that the petitioneer has genuine concerns which need be represented, that he has a working knowledge and expertise t
on the subject and that he has considerable information of consequence to lend to the proceeding. Petitioneer therefore pleads the commission .
that he be allowed by discretion to represent tiie potential harm which .
may arise to his interests, the interest of those he represents to the issuance of this operating license. ,
- c ,- . .
- ~ ,
g 4 g
S m
I e
e O
t l
l i
h
)
) .
_ g -.
.. i. .;
' ~
BILL OF CONTENTIONS -
The following is an identicallisting of contentions prepared by -
petitioners Marke and ACEE.
Prior to, the actuallisting of the petitioneer's contentions it should be s -a .:-' e. ,[
i made clear that With the exception of contentions 1 & 2, no, priority ,
or weighted listing has been made. The petitioneer recognizes that this proceeding cannot speak to many generic issues affecting the entire nuclear program, however.many "possible problems" which may per-tain to STP can perhapslbest be viewed by analogy to similar reactors.
Every attempt has been macile to be as totally site specific as _possible.
i i Petitioneer David Marke therefore contends: ,
- 1) The entire nature of this proce'eding is untimely by no less than 18 months. When the August notice appeared in the Federal Register, it was " generally known" that another cost overrun would shortly be announced, along with a significant delay in the construction period.
Within a few weeks of the deadline, perhaps by conveni.ence, Project Management and the various participants released word that the delay, -
would amount to approximately 18 months. The purpose of Operating I
l t
- - w, - - - - ,- -
~
) -M -
) .
1 .
~
Lt. cense hearings are initially to assure that the reactor has in fact been constructed in accordance with the provisions of the construction -
permit. This fact combined with the fact that as of August 1978, NRC -
in.spection reports indicate that Unit 1 is only 41.5% complete. Unit .
2 is well behind that timeline. .I contend that at least two actions are no less than obligitory upon this board: A) that this proceeding be tabled for no less than 18 months in order to allow construction to get.
to the point that it should have been, if on schedule, when the hugust ;_,
notice was published,' and B) that at the very least no action whatever should be taken towards lisencing Unit 2 until it reaches a commensurate , ir level. No commu icating from eith'er staff m the applicant have' ac- .. n knowledged this matter;.it is therefore imperative that the board address -
this issue. '. -
m
- The question of this contention is not specifically related to Realth and/or safety, but asks: Can the health and safety of the: petitioner (s) be assured if operating licensing procedures are commenced at what
- 2) It has been well documented not only by the media but by NRC Inspection reports that both management and the contractor have been
' negligent in their responsibility to assure conformance with the con-struction permits. Theie have not only been numerous and frequent reports that here have been construction inadequacies and failures i
j in such critical areas as improper cadwelds, improper tying, welding, '
and mounting of reinforcement steel,. and voids .in the concrete itself,.
y but NRC Inspection of 4 April 78, 15May78, and 29 November 77, and other indicate that current plans have not been available on the job site, that QA & QC personell have performed faulyinspections, have l
4 - - - - -w
)
) : ,.
e 3- ,
c i -h- - .. : -.:L . . ? =
falsified inspection reports, ani have certified complete inspections .. ..
that have not been done. Not only are NRC guidelines being met, ' - . -
y
. but HL & P's and Brown & Root's own proceedures are being violated. '
NRC has issued both ~ infraction citations, and deviation cit.ations re- ,
garding these issues. It is curious to note that regular announced inspections are generally passable, but that almost without exception, .;
unannounced inspections regularly uncover infractions and deviations.
This assuredly indicates a major amount of incompetence, .and indeed . , _
fraud as indicated by falsified QA reports on the part of the contractor.
and pro [ect management._ I.would. contend that one of the mandates ,
4 .
of this board should be to apply enthusiastically stringent and continuous -
inspe<: tion to this project. The contractor and manage ment have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of' experience, ar.3'a willingness to falsify, therefore 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> NRC supervision should be imposed, and the
- costs borne by the contractor. The board should in no case consider l
until all past QA reporting has been verified, and compliance assured,
- The' record of 11 January 197S will reflect with great particularity a the large details of evidence presented with this contention. It is fur-ther noted that one Mr. Dan Swayze has since the Pre-Hearing filed ,
suite in federal court alledging violations of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and 10 CFR 50. 55 regarding similar acts of reported non-compliance.
. This suit may well involve "new evidence", and petitioner (s) would like to reserve the right to explore this issue at greater length. The question of the contention: In the light cf cited falsification of QC/QA reports and others can the Health and Safety of the Petitioner (s) be assured? .
e-
-,,,- - ,. ,-__6 - , , - - - - , - - - - -- a-
- ~ - - - - - - - ~
- } "l "
l} ) ,
- 3) The Emergency Core Cooling Systsm (ECCS) has not yet been demonstrated effective _with any great probability on four reactors of this size. This petitioneer is aware that a proposed rulemaking 'is underway to be attached to 10 CF R part 50, however the period for .
public comment does not end ,until 5 February 79, and it will no doubt '
' be sometime yet before rules are firm, and sometime beyond that before . .
such engint. . ,,
- an be completed. Surely an operatihg lic'ense b'ased
- upon the coristruction of major safety systems not yet specified can not be complicated. This petitioneeris also aw'are that EECS has undergone .
LOFT within th'e last month in' Idaho, however single test or even several successful tests are not at all conclusive owing in particular to the fact that the LOFT facility is approximately 1/20th the size of STP
~
reactors Again I contend that. operating licenses are out of order -
and should b,e denied. ..
c . .
i
~
s
- The question of contention: Considering.the relatively young state of the art as regards LOFT testing, the extreme risk of a LOCA, would the issuance of, an operating lisence prematurely (before LOFT testing is complete) endanger the health and safety of the petitioner (s) ?
4)' Rsdioisotope and Radionuclide poll'utien cannot be contained in an assured fashion; even to the 30-40 mile perimeter of the so called
" zone of interest". The physical. mental, and genetic health of the l
petitioneer, ACEE, and thd public are jeopardized by significant amounts of such materials in atleast the following manners:
A) Airborne pollution, a result of " normal" reactor operations. .
B) Poison products re1~ eased or imparted into the cooling lake..
} QO - ') .
i -
C) Further airborne contaminants released as a result of cooling ~~
pond s'urface evaporation, which will be high due to the relatively -
shallow depth and large area of the pond.
~
D) Similar contaminents released into .the public and/or geologic water supply due to percolation of the cooling lake.
E) D, above, introduces undesireable materials into the food chain in at least four basic ways.
- 1) Direct intromissibn to the water system.
l '
l- . 2) Acceptance from both water & atmosphere by food crops'.
- 3) Carried by marine life, widely caught for food purposes 3: ,
in the area. _
y i 4) By birds (some of them migratory) whichwill be harvested . -
by sportsman. ,
It must bi borne in mind that most of these pollutants are carcino' genic in nature, taking 10-15
- years to. fully develop. In the human body.
l Prevention of such tragedy can only be taken now, and it is the social / ~~
l .
moral / legal obligation of this board to assure such action.
1 j
i .
1
- The question of contention: In the event of " abnormal" operation STP, can the health and safety of the petitioner (s) be assured by plans
! currently in effect? _ It is also noted that in the Staff Response (page 11) that the staff concedes ". . . It is possible that a substantial contributio,n could be made by the petitioner either as a witness or through his cross-examination of other party's direct cases". (relating to conten 4)
- 5) I have in my possession a listing of 31 pressure transient ex- .
cursions involving Westinghcuse PWR reactors very similar and in some cases nearly identical' to those employed at STP. These reactor vessel over pressurizations are documented from 1973 through 1977, and I have received
- unconfirmed information'that another has occurred sometime in December of 1978. These over pressurizations normally occur during start up and b1ow down operations, and liave resulted in .
- _w ___m .Q..._ . . - - _ , ,,
R / -.
.) ' *
. . ) ~
12 minutes. Somo heva bacn cystsmic failurce, while others have been ,
due to operator error. These events have- resulted in the shut down of -- . ,
plants, i. e. such as Diablo Canyon Units.1 & 2, and can obviously not _
-. be tolerated. The pioblem appears 'to lie in the reactor equipment itself, and is peculiar to this type reactor, which I contend should not be allowed to operate until this defect is cured. .
- The question of the contention: Understanding that " Tech-Specs" ~
for the "fix" of this probeim are not yet available, can we reasonably be expected to lisence a reactor whose type has shown such profound -
defects ? The record of 11 January 1979 also reflects that the petitioner (s) are willing to call upon outside expertise in this issue if necessary.
- 6) Due partially to cost overruns, at least some of the partner
~
licemens are not finanically capable of building satisfactorily and/or operating such a reactor Austin for instance is faced with two immediate
~"
problems: A) there is currently a city council sponsored referrendum e
placed on the 20 January 79 ballot which will at least hold its financial.
committment to the' $161 million currently allocated and B) due in part to the abore, city officials fear that the bonds for the next progress payment on the original may not be saleable, placing Austin in default.
It is nearly obvious that Austin has not the financial responsibility for such an undertaking, and it is questionable whether the other participants .
can "take up the slack" as we?1 as meet their own overrun requirements, ;
In this respect it would seem that such an economic matter would under the law be a matter of contention.
_ , - - - - - - e --- ,, _
_3 _. ,__,_ _, , _ __ _
-) - ;;t y .;
l
~
Is it reasonable to expect co-operation (licensees)'of ~STP who'-
seem to be involved in grave financial difficulties at the construction . ,, _
stage to be sufficiently solvent to safely operate STP? '
~
~
- 7) This reactor is not requisite for the ass'ured energy futures of-the participants. hor example: the city of Austin, already owning well i in excess of 2008/o generating capacity does not plan to receive power j from STP for nearly a decade, and instead plans to sellit to HL & P. .
Corpus Christi wants to sellits portion out of state, a move heavily . .
. ~. : :- .. :
contested by HL (s P, but indicating that STP is not a necessity for - .;
Corpus Christi either. San Antonio's needs are presently being adequately
,, .. . . - . ,w , . . -
n... - . . -
met, new coal plants are coming on line or are in construction cer,tainly making their requirement uncritical. Thtus a large portion of the planned capacity can be demonstrated unnecessary, and it would seem that a technology not so high in risk could be selected for the remainder, if l in fact it is necessary.
- Is hiere in fact a demonstrable need for STP operation?
t 4
- - _ _ . _ . - - - . _ - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - , , ,a --.. . . , - , , , ,.. - , - - - - . , --- -
) ) ..
~
- 8) A further contention is made that the transport of incoming i
fuel supplies is not totally or satisfactorily proven.to present zero risk to the populace en toto. While significant studies have in the past been carried out, notably by ERDA, accidents supposedly impossible continue to happen. Within' the last 90-12'O days there have been
.cccidents in the Northeast of the nation resulting In the dispersal of r
radioactive material, the total effect of which will not be known for
~~
dncades. While the Commission can regulate and/or enforce the pro- '
csdures to be followed, it cennot even predict the influence of the human element. As.In contentions .2 and 5 above,. in spite of mammoth ragulations, operatot errors, insufficiencies, or even "purposefulb _
cccidents" are a major factor. _Both the project manager and the contractor have demonstrated incompetence and/or lack of expe'rtise during the construction phase. How are we to be assured of their zero-error performance when we get to a point that citizens involved with STP only by their presence are involved by virtue of such potentially dangerous chipments ? This is to say absolutely nothing of the possibility for i .
l ' hijacking, etc. , which I myself do not considera a real possibility, but j which cannot be totally discounted.
I.
Fur ther while short-term storage is provided for high level wastes on-site, when " permanent" storage becomes available, how will these :
l l, materials be transported off site? There is also underway new rule-
! making with regard to so-called kw level wastes, which will no doubt I Etm0Asm NS90-01
4
~
) ) -
l
. s
~
~
change current plans in that area. This is the time to make such plans, -
l and it is obligatory 6f not only the Applicant, b'ut the Commission as .
well. Where are and what.are these plans ? I contend that if they do indeed exist, they are not sufficiently available to the public or this ,
~
petitioneer that opinions or plans either in agreeanc'e or dispute may
. be prepared. I urge that the Commission not lump this issue into that broad category known as " generic", for they are most definitely -
germaine to the operation of this reactor, which this proceeding adresses.
This issue may not merely be swept aside with a statement that "it l will be 'aken t
dare of in due time", the public and this petitioneer have a right to 1.now. , . *
- 9) Recognizing as we all must that the fissioning of atoms represents a higher potential for danger than do many other forms of generation, what con-sideration has th'e applicant or any of the partner li en des given to i
the alternati.ves available. Petitioner contends that no serious, unbiased investigations or studies have been done. In Austin, the studies "done" have been blatently biase4 and totally inconsistent from one study to the next. I contend that insufficient consideration has been given to .
traditional fuel sources such as coal or lignite, which fuels Texas possesses in great abundance.
l l Petitioner would further contend that virtually no objective analysis has been done with regard to non-traditional sources, i. e. solar, l
e, - - --
}
coal generation, and coalliquitaction and gasification. Petitioner is aware,after extensive research,of no such studies, and asserts that ,
they must be done in order to determine if operation of STP at this time is the best option available.
Lastly, Petitioner contends that an agressive conservation program could obviate the need for any new generating facilities i.n this area
' - for the next decade, when, should fission still be the technology of c...
choice, the dangers may be lessened, and the questions answered.
- The question of the contention: .Can' the pub'lic interert best be -
served by operation of STP when in fact there are alternatives which would portend no potential harm to .the petitioner (s) and others?
- 10) Recent studies by-theTex'aii Water Developinenf Board 3#
' ~
.A ~ .
~ ~
Indicates a cyclic drought pattern in Southern Texas at- 10-12 year intervals, lasting fmm 5 to 6 years. " Drought" is defined as that l condition reached when rainfall is 75% or less than normal. It is i
worthy of note that during the drought period from August 1975 to April e
1976 all of Matagorda County received approximately the same rainfall
~
i as'it did inthe severe ' drought of August 1952 to April 1953.[Only one county to the west even less rainfall was recorded.
In the area of the STP reactors, the Water Developm'ent Board ,
considers that there is available 11.0 acre feet /megwatt available for nuclear reactorr cooling. STP alone will require fully 1. 4 years supply to meet its.inittail need, disregarding leakages, percolation, and evaporation.
It is therefore also conceivabic that the reciprocal,1/1. 4 years, or more -
5_/ Continuine Water Resources Plannir.c and Development for Teys,1977. -
Phase I. Texas Water Devciopn.e a lioard. Austin, Texas Alay
.. . . - , .----y ,_--.e-- -, g .-n-.m- -
. -,.-,,m.- . , .
j 3- 3 .
~
'cpecificc11y .707 yacra cf covara drought could feasibly preacnt sericua problems to reactor cooling operations. Petitioner contends that at any idi_W I time more than 1 year's normal supply is anticipated for a single year's? I C
. operation, that operational 11 censes should be reconsidered,' again, ~~
what are the applicant's plans ?
t
- There is large disput'e as to the evedentiary portion of this con-tention between petitioner (s) and the applicant. Petitioner (s) have not yet been able to obtain a copy of the FSAR, wherein the applicant alledges lies the appropriate eveldence. Question: Should there be such a,.d rought condition exist,_ how will petitioner (s) health and safety be assured, recognizing that the " allowable" ha'zards of STP operation 4
would then be spread over fewer years due to shutdown from drought?E' +
This is elaborated upon in the record of 11 January 1979.
.c; u 2 02 .
.~ .. ,.y
- 11) Petitioner contends it is obvious in light of nuclear history that the cobling lake,will ultimately become coritaminated without presuming an accident. It follows that the public for its own protection ._
must be denied complete access to a 7,000 acre lake for recreational
! and all other uses. Three questions seem apparent: '
i A) How bill the applicant " police" these grounds such that no public trespass, even accident'a l is allowed?
l B) How do the Licensees propose to prevent le'akage and percolation to other acquifiers or leaching to the sea itself?
C) How can it be proposed by anfone to prevent intromission into the food chain of radioactive pollution products as they are assimilated by crops, marino life, and transported in some.
cases to very large distances by water fowl, some of which are migratory?
These questio'ns must affirmatively be answered before any operation of STP can be authorized.
I 12) How can the Appilcant assure that significant airbor.ne releases will not be allowed, and if so what measures can be applicant take to
_ _ _ _ _" clean up"__such pollution. It seems clearly that the applicant must prove,
. .- - . - . - .- _ .. .~
~ - 1
. . 1
.) .
) .
~
~
- 13) The petitioner recognizes that the. Price Anderson Act has + .,
recently been upheld, but also that it has not been tested. In the case of a major accident, perhaps a LOCA, wherein it has ' variously been . ~ :.
estimated that deaths could run into the thousands, and damages into ,
the tens of billions of dollars who will ultimately bear the liability for same. Price Anderson, .not withstanding, someone must bear
~
such a burden: the populace is obviously unable on my major scale. . <
x .
What are the plans of the applicant and the partner licensees for.such.
o :s . ~
n, m.,.
an event? While probabilities are high7against such an occurance, it is empericil that each operational reactor'-hour brings us statisucally closer to such an ac.cident. Petittorir contends that the gravity of such
- an occurance demands that the plans of the applicant / operators of STP be made known, not o'nly if sought, but widely available to the public so. affected. ,
- 14) Petitioner contends that adequate evacuation or environmental plans have not been made (public) by the applicant. Further contention is raised as to isow the applicant plans to handle repairs of even a minor accident or breakdown, i.e. where will enough workers be obtained to maintain ' proper radiation dosage levels? Additionally how does the l
applicant plan to pay for or implement improvements brought about as a result 6f the many inevitable regulatory changes over the lifetime of STP? All of the partner constructors have contracts with fixed dollar amounts. Petitioner contends that owing to the whims, political in some cases, of the partners that HL & P must be prepared to bear the r .
-- - _ . _ _ - - - =. .
o ~
) } ~
. ')
.j l
brunt of suc'h encumberances. What plans havo bacn neda to date?
- Question of the contention: Can.the petitioner:(s) or the public m -
cafety be assured or even postulated if an adequate plan for public cducadon does not exist? .
- 15) In early construction plans, fuel tanks for the~ standby gen-orators' were located in an upper floor of the building containing the -
Diesel engines, a seemingly supreme engineering error. What method Cf construction is being employed to correct this problem?
- Mr. Marke has considerable expertise which may be brought to n- n.
bear in this issue, as does UCS, one of the potential consultants.
The Question: Can the operationalintegrety of STP be assured in a . ~
. the event of a fire or accident in the diesels?
- 40) As regards storage of wastes, pettttuner contends that guideitnes y from EPA are not expected until 1983-1985,6/ as stated in both pr'oposed .
rulemaking 1! and from the interagency report.,to the President..
7, It is further obvious from the previously cited interagency report that "
" optimistic" projections for iong term storage could be realized under one plan no sooner than 1990, and under the other (seemingly the favored) no sooner than 1592. 'Witit very little of the same' type of delays that
. have made this proceeding untimely as outlined in contention 1 above, it
~
may easily be conjectured that the 10 year interim on-site storage will not be adequate.
In light of the. proposed rulemaking .1 8 what plans are being made by the potentiallicensee to care for and store low level wastes in the -
cmount genera:ed by this reactor?
,17) While there has been a recent settlement in favor of the licensees regarding fuel pricing, what plans are,' or can possibly be made for fuel 6_/ Report to the President by the Interar:enev Review Groun on Nuclear ,
Wnste Alanwoment, Draft, October, _ 19 70, pg. 19
, ) ') .
-~
provision during the later operationallifetime of STP? Has the applicant
' considered the fact tha t assured fuel supplies may not be available, and D.
the effect upon its ability to continue or even adequately disband
~
~ ~ ~
9"9*uestfoti$f the contention:' How is the cost / benefit ratio effected in the event of a nuclear fuel ahortage beyond that already contracted?
I
- 18) Due to apparedtly deliberate falsification of QA and QC reports as documented in NRC Inspection arid Enforcement Activity Reports in possession of this petitioner as referrenced in contention 2 above, i petitioner contends that a stop work brder should be issued until all previous QA and QC reports have been verified. ' Any such action would
[ ^
also obviously result in a postponement of this proceeding. , Petitioner -
Marke feels that such a request falls wellwithin the spirit of the announce-i ment '.' Prior to the issuance of any operating Ifeenses, the Commission will inspect the facilities to determine whe'ther they have been constructed
! in accordance with the application, as ammended, and the provisions of the construction permits. . . . ", and ihrther that licenses will not be i granted until the Commission..."has concluded that the issuance of licenses will not be inimicable to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.." 9I Under separate cover this petitioner is making a request for copies of all non-classified enforce-ment and activity reports relating to STP, and is prepared if necessary to seek aid under the Freedom of Information det in that regard.
- 19) Petitioner further contends the Commission has been lax in its 1/ F. R. Vol. 43 . no. 149, August 2, 1978 i
-__.__s
..) -
) .
s I
~ '
duty to inform and invite public response to such action as 'these 'pr6beedings. -
\
l This is evidenced by the fact that essentially no interest has been shown'~ -
by Houstonians, the area most properly affected. I submit that a more Gnthusiastic method of' announcement than publication in the Federal ~
i Register is indicated unless the Commission be found lax in its duties
.cs representatives of the public in such cases. Inasmuch as parties w x.:-- ,
cn neither side of the issue have been involved to even a minor extent, a= _
petitioner contends that a re-announcement b of these proceedings be --;
_ .. #.. - _:;;c s -.
made involving more conventional media approach, and that no less.can be considered as the duty of the commission. '-
, _; i~ 7 ,
e' l 20) Petitioner Marke contends that in no fashion have even interim l
plans been laid for the ultimate decommissioning of TP. While the time .
frame for the specific technology ma'ybe quite some distance away-(assuming no ac6idents occur in the " normal" lifetime of the plant), I am aware of no tentatiire plans, technical or fiduciary to p'r ovide for this eventiality. The City of Austin has set aside 4% of its total committment for the purpose, an amount that viewed in the light of recent costs and/or i estimates for this procedure seems woefully in adequate. I contend that i the Applicant (s) must show in sufficient detail their current plans, both mechan *cial and fiscal to deal with decommissioning not only at its expected time frame, but at an emergency interim point such as may be required by a major accident, or one merely incapacitating the reactor.
1 I
,)
)
_3 .
- There are 1.arge questions regarding decommissioning specific to STP yet unanswered. There is only minute mention made in FES and SER. Additionally the office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas has proffered questions in their petition. . It would seem that sufficient question exists and is reflected in the record of 11 January 79 .
to constitute a valid contention.
- 21) This petitioner has an unconfirmed (at this writing, soon to be
' ~ ~
substantiated) report that a request for a congressionalinvestigation-of STP has been filed on 19 December 78 by Johnny Nelms, Business agent for Pipefitting Local (211, 2535. Galveston Road, Houston, Texas -
~
77017, in a letter to CongressmadRobert Darnagi,~alleNging that Brown
& Root Co. is using " illegal aliens" and unskilled labor in the construction
. .. . . / : r _. ~
of STP,,,thus endangering the gen'eral' public due to incompetent w'o'rk- -
manship. 'I contend that this matter should be investigated'for substance, i -
L and if true should be considered "new evidence" and be made a part" ,
of these proceedings. .
'~
' Resp tf ly su mitte ,
~
- & ,/ -
David Marke i
l l
l l
l .
l c .- - - - ._. - -_ . . _ _ . .. . - - - .-