ML20104A505

Notice & Brief of Appeal.Objects to Nrc'S Failure to Inform Public Re Hearings & to Allow Public Input.Related Documents Encl

ML20104A505
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/27/1979
From:	Framson M, Framson R External Citizen/Individual/Media (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7903210313
Download: ML20104A505 (11)

Text

U. S. EUCI2AR REGUIATCRI CCMMISSICN j

,e

, EZ7CEE A7CMIC S173TT AND LICZNSING ?' L 30ARD .

I ha rE HOUSTON LICETING AND POWER COMPANT l

?

eas( lear Generating Station, Unit 1) Decket No. 50 466 G,s.*

• 4 j NOTICE OF APPEALS AcmQ%to Rnles of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings, Part 2, 2 718, this consti- '

tutoo our Notice of Appeals. .

. BRIZF Our residence is located less than 30 miles to ACNGS. Robert 3. Framson's empisy=ent requires i fredent in i Harris, Fort 3ead, Wharten, Austin, Braseria and Waller Counties. Our residence

-' is located a close proximity to major thereugidares, freeways, 610 Loop and less than h mile to a main railroad line, as me of which in eye y probability will be used in transport of radio-cetive cargoe s, ingrees and agress ACNGS;'

Tcr about ten years, Madeline Bass Fransen has been studying and researching the Neelear Power iceus. She has in her personal library cellected in this period of time eartene and cartens becoming a "reemful" of data, documents, reference material, information, etc.' en 'this subject.

She has en her own cellected signatures, addresses, etc. in this local area .ef ever 2000 per-cens supporting the natiemal Clean Energy Petition, "I Petitism my representatives in govern-ment to spenser and actively support legislatism to: (1) fester wide use of solar - including wind - Power NCW, and (2) phase out operation of nuclear power plants as quickly as possible8, which has hem presented to Congress by Ralph Nader. She has disseminated information and crranged programs and debates with expert speakers em this subject for media, groups and indi-i viduals through the years. These groups included environment, ' civic, church, academic and l other kinds of groups. In this contact with the public, it is very apparent to her there ir widespread alarm and concera over ACNGS and other plaats. To answer a query posed met long -

age by Harold Scarlett, Housten Post.3nviremmental Writer, regarding the 81sek of public partiC cipation" and to speak to the issue of HRC's tilt away from public participatism,. the following observations have been made by her ever these many years. ,

Xors and mere groups and individual citizens throughout the ceumtry have long felt and more c:ntinuing to realise that USNRC precedures and hearings are preerchestrated scenaries tilted against public imput. This epimies is based om NBC's past record of flagrant capricious and projudicial ce nduct;.and it is b'ecoming apparsatly clear that IRC's record "in the matter of i

ACNGS8 is esasonAst with that allegatism.

s .i .

First, I wish to' address the issue of 3RC's 8 blackest

• en information to the public.' It can bo easily documsated that the NRC's performance to inform the public- of the ACNGS prehearings l

and hearings has been pitifully negligent, particularly compared to other government agencies.

l W3 have in our possession numerous media conspicuous metices by other government agencie's l

camenacing far in advance an invitatism for public participation in a hearing er by written I

recpense, so mething NRC has repeatedly failed to de.- This function, b eause of N3C's derelic-l tien, has hem undertaken to the degree possible under difficult circumstances by volunteers l assag the petitioners to interve me 4 th their limited time, resources ~, expo rience and: funds.

l It was suggested to ERC in our 1etitism for Leave to Intervene, Cet. 10,1978 (Appendix A),

8Information regarding the hearings of this project should be widely disseminated through all acdia and direct communications to all citizes organizations by the USNRC to the Houston-Galvestem Standard ceaselidated Statistical Area and elsewhere, as the project will have a definite impact om every ringle citizem in the area as well as the total enviren=ent.'

Prict te, during and since the spesial prehearing, various petitteners have registered their l

vigcrous objections to the unnecessary, arbitrary and unjust obstacles and deterrents deli-

! brately burdened upea petitioners by the IRC's capricious conduct prior to the special pre-l hearing and during the special preheartag in countless ways - derslection in proper advance cricataties for petitioners to present valid cententions, imposing unreasemalble and impossi-p3710 5I3 .

__ _m. _ ,

_ _ _ _ _g_

ible liititations of tino to per )t adaquatoly-propared contantf } by correspondsaco (IEC c11cvsd caly 3 dayo to prepare untantieme and ruled that the co.aontions must bo bassd on informatism that was availablo s=17 af ter Deccaber.1975, which w satwo years af ter the chahqe for intervention), scheduling hearings in the least accessible locations; further cem-pcunding this problem for petitiemers by arbitrarily expecting petitioners' rebuttals immedia-toly fellowing receipt of the EC Staff's response to cententions at the time of the special prehearig, imposing om petitioners a locatism for preparatism of rebuttals - a restricted ,

1ccatism without* accessibility to documents, data, reference materials, without typewriters, paper, etc. in an enviremment absoluta117 met conducive to thought, research and concentratism.

(Appsadix C). .

The written and unwritten precedural requirements are evidently staged to h se complicated and demanding that for many years it has very frequently been expressed to us by all kinds of professional and mem-professional people (lawyers, engineers, scientists, teachers, doctors, chmeists, housewives, merchants, etc.) that, "We are met sure we are qualified 8 er 'We don t 8 havo the hugh ameuzt of time this demands' er "We don't have the exorbitent funds er resources

to aset IRC requirements for public participatiem" or 'EC requirements are se complicated aad

> demanding that we would h compelled to meglect our families, our jobs and our tatal personal livoo!* These remarks have hem expressed by groups and individuals - enviremmental, civic, ote. - but they all preface these remarks id th expressions of serious concera mad alarm about nuclear techmelegy and its problems and is uld like to see a maratorium declared en it. Thi s fooling is se videspread that obviously one can deduce that public participation is truly met the goal of the EC.

created With reference to NRC bureaucratic 9 b aniers, Ernest Beyer, U.S. 2ducation Com=issiemer, has recently argued in his reference 'te Revernment bureaucracies that bureaucratic jargen has arioca beause professionals like to develop a language of their own to keep men,-professionals

est. "We confuse great ideas id th sluttered language ,' he says'. Amether problem is the ten-demer of officials to be obscurs when they are tackling tough questiems: *They hesitate to l

l lay it em the line and they use lets of words to confuse the questioner.n _

Tha fact becomes evident that in a populatten of clo se to 3 milliam (Chamber of Commerce Eeucten-Galvestem SCSA), only 30 plus perseas petitiemed to ihtervene beause in too many in-l stances they were met properly h formed of their right to intervene, or the process as te I

how to intervene er were apprehenstre sad discesraged to participate in the samece s sarily complex, inextricable 8 mase* the NEC compels one into with public participatism.

l Tho petitioners f er years advocated greater public involvement through a referendum (Appendix A), s3etter yet seuld h to have the decision placed in the hands of the public-at-large thrcugh a general referendum. This fasteet growing megalopelis projected to go into 5 milliam in the 1990's should h the major decision-makers. As the format new stands as orchestrated l by the USNBC, because the public is met adequately informed of its right to participate, th'ere l will be scant random participants - eartainly a format from its inception tilted away frer public input."

At the Feb. 8th, NRC alternative sites meeting im Housten, the petitioner advocated a ' rate-payors referendum", ihich have been held in other parts of Texas and throughout the country.

The cyplicant Jim Parseas replied that federal licensing precedures already 8previde for pub-110 imput, perhaps more se than a referendum would.' Obviously, Jim Parseas has a miscencep-tica of 33C precedsres in allowing and stimulating publie participation, as whom only 30 plus i

cut of close to 3 milliam (a ratie of 1 to 300,C00) in spite of undue obstacles, fulfill intri-l cato requirements to petitism to intervene, one does met have to be a mathematiciam to eenchde the NRC procedure requirements produce a fiasco.im public participation.

To further support this, as in a game of hwling whom one strives to knock down pins, the EC

. thrcugh further complicated thetacles in the procedural requirements em cententions, Skmecked dswas the origihal petitteners from 30 plus to 24 Yellenug 'this stage of the " game", "to rub salt into the vesad" the NRC has "kmeeked down" 20 more and deigned to allow a ;.altry 4 to #represest." thin burgeoning populatism as ' parties' to the hearing - a ratie of 1 ts.

750.000 p*pulatten! Amether impact by the ASL 3eard om public impst, was to allev enly 9 com-tantions out of ever 150 cententions submitted to h considered at the hearing.

l ___ -

3-

)s4pornonsche'sonby

' It .ha5 'to be observed at thic ,' ) tion, that the backgrcuads of

, Attermoy Sholdon J. Wolfo, Chair =am, Atomic Safoty a:d I,1consing 3eard, voro percomo all with

! Icgal backgrouds - 3 being attermeys and 1 an advanced law student. One would dedues from l ' this, the Chairman's propensity te view these with legal backgrounds is a special light, This dsdnetiam is reimfereed in observig Attermey Shelden J. Wolfe's decision in the matter of Exxom Nuclear Company, Inc. (Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recyclig Center) Decket L. 50-564, 5:pt. 30, 1977 im Crder Ruling om Petitions For Leave te Intervene. im regard to Ms. Jeammime '

Y. Eomicker, 8Ve comeur with the Licensig 3eard's assessment in its Crder denying Ms. Eemicker'd petitiem for leave t. intervene in the Watts 3ar proceedi g. Im Tammess.e valley Authority ,

(Wstto 3ar Nuclear plant, Units 1 and 2) L3P-77-36, 5 rac 1292,1297 (1977), the 3.ard eb-cerved that:

. . . . . . . .While the Pe titi v is an intelligent persen who takes a commendable interest in civis matters, she is s a lawyer mer possessed of setentifie er technical training."

She doe s met have available se her some type of professional assistance in commaction wi th the evidentiary pre sentati sm. . . . . . "

• petitioners' underseerig

, The question should b raised whether am "ubiased' judgment was made by Attermey Wolfe in the choice of parties in the intervention. The enviremmental impact of nuclear power plants in very demeeratic in that it hits a erose-section of a total community - people from all walko of life, the young and the eld, rich er peer, professional and mem-profe ssiemal, lawyers, scioatists, engineers, ehemists, te achers, housewives, plumbers, etc. Among the petitiemers to intervene and were denied are Dr. Joe C. Telderman, M.D. , Dr. David Marrack. E.D. , Dr. Idgar Cramo, Univ of Housten Professer, Scheel of 3usinese Adm1mistration, Dr. Jemm-Claude de Bremaceker, Rice University Professor and geophysicist, Dept. of Geelegy, Dr. h =uel Easkir, rocoarch geophysicist, Pl3 im nuclear physies, Mr. Allem D. Clark, chemical en Dr.

Toldormaa and'.Dr. de 3 emaacker testified at radiattom safety heartag in 1976. gineer.

What is left new to these east-aside persens and others? The EEC gives them the right to make what NRC terms " limited appearance". The IRC is abeelstely correct in calling it ' limited".

In oncemes, limited appearance is tekemism - a placebe, a veneer, a faseade, .53C's staged -

pretsuse of being part of the decisten-making process, when it is truly met. 'l:his limited

, appearance (a f stiante statement) is like the girl who wanted te be the bride and them was i

allowed to be " flower gir1*, except that in this case limited appearance means much less than that. Im fact Federal Code has designated that limited appearance is met equivalent of being es ' party'.at a hearing.

Demothing is serisunly amiss with a government bureaucracy whom its written and unwritten pre-d:daros allows only 4 (all attermeys) people out of 3 million to be truly part of the decision-making process.

Ao a public tax-supported government bureaucracy with public tax-cupported employees who are supposed to represent the people, it is hoped by petitioners that the USNRC will be more -

coescious of its credibility and sense of justice in met impeding public imput wi th its iz-pocitten of almost insuperable obstacles in its decisions, frequently met based om regulations.

Ths US320 instead of placing impediments and obstructions in the way of petitioners should be i occcuraging the public to participate and aid petitioners in the proceedings, petitioners who 19e r the mest part are inexperiemeed with 3RC precedures. The USNIC's fuctiem is to protect the public interest and to " regulate 8 the vested interest f or the public's sake - met to spremote* and alaat for the sake of the vested interest.

Petitiemers stand en the validity of their cententions (Appendix 3) and their arg ments in defense of their contentions (Appendix C). Petitioners will "preve' their case as required, dtes alleved to be party to the hearing. Ne one else can represent the interest of the peti-tieners. According to h2USCA Section 2239, "In any proceeding for the granting of a construe-tion per=it, the Commission shall grant a hearing spen the request of any persen whose 1:sterest may be affected by the proceeding and shall admit any s teh persom as a party te such proceeding.O r,---=.w,s..-,,-._,--_r--.- , ,,c.,,,,m-.,w ,m,-- __m. _, g,y,,- - . ._4-._-a,,-.p.. -

- , , _--y.,, --_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _

, cad becauso th:y ruled that thaIa summ:ary Et should ba cmphssizsd bsecuss to proparo ciatentione aftnr D:ccabar,1975, which vac 2 yearc after the hearing, and to :naka the US3EC precedural process viable 12 allowi chanco fe a the prior

, tion, petitioners respectfully beg the Atomic Safety and Lice ng true public participa-the previous decision and allow them as parties to the ACNGS earing.

hnsing Appeal Reard to

]

W a robruary 27,197s .

_Q, ;(e2.,_

4622 Vayaesbere Drive Eeustem, Texas 77o35 een O

..e t

(

1 i

l l

U3IED STATES 0? A. -

3 CIL3 EGU1ATORY CCM4ISSION'3 .

g

• g APPEN o rx A 3270E TES AT" s 73TT AN sNSING 3CIED In the Matter of ECUST IG c COMPANY I & M % 50 h66 (Allens Creek, Unit 1) '

Oct:bar 10, 1978 k f'il PIT _ N FOR LIAVE TO INTZ27INE 10 E RT S. & MADELINE BM . -  %..SOK$.

%, s

1. 4 In cecordance with the C sp N* f Intervantion Procedures _ or of Sept. 1,1978, and 10CF3, Section h 2.71, I am Mddgt5ffioni=g for leave to intervene in the construction per-mit proceedings.

My do:icile is locnted less than 30 miles frem the proposed Allens Creek Yuelear Project.

Infor=ation regarding the hearings of this project should be widely dissesicated through all sadio and direct communientions to all citizen organizations by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemnission to the Ecuston-Galveston Standard Consolidated Statistical Area and elsewhere, as tha project will have a definite. impact on every single citizen in the area as well as the total environ =ent. 3etter yet would be to have the decision placed in the ha:ds of the public-ct-large through a general referendum. This fastest growing megalopolis projected to go into 5 million in the 1990!s should be the major decision-makers. 'As the format now stands as or-chastrated by the U.S. Nuclear Regul/ tory Commission, because the public is not adequately in-formtd of its right to participate, there 'will be scant random participants - certainly a for-mat from its inception tilted away frc= public i=put.

My concerns of this project are multitude and varied. The whole nuclear fission process from '

its inception in uraniu= extraction to the disposal of nuclear saates and decom:issionies of facilities is a deleterious process to the. total environment, to our way of life, to our very existence and a demonical injustice te future generations. Safety, th's growing increase of tr,chnical and human accidents, euphemistically ter=ed, by industry and gover: ment, as "inci __

dants" forcing society to play the depraved game of "Hussian Rouletto", the transport of radio-cetivo cargoes, both foreign and do=estic, on our byways (my residence is a close proximity to the 610 Loop where radioactive and hazardous materials are already being transported), the ce=plete disregard for the pub 11c8 s welfare in the absence of an'avacuation plan that is re-alistically possible in. the event of a =eltdown or sose degree themof followed with an "un-plannedd release of radiation, the increments in nuclear polluti:n, both plan =ed and unplanned, leading to increments in cancer, deformities, mental retardation and all genetically related disasses including coronary heart disease, mutations and birth defects, the effects of wasting diminishing resources such as land and water, the economic unfeasibility of nuclear generation,-

tying our country into another " dependency" energy technology with an even more limiting fi-I nito fuel source unfer the merciless strs=glehold of the inscrupulous and infamous uranium car-tal, the overwhelming burden placed en the-taxpayer in subsidizing the nuclear industry and ths overwhel=ing burden and exploitation placed on the consumer through distorted rates to capitalize the monopolistic utility industry which has a myopic proclivity for nuclear genera-tion, the very low-job ratio of the nuclear industry, the vulnerability created through this process to =uclear terrorism and black = ail with the by-product through intensive security .cf subjugating society to a " police state", the increased possibility of diversion of plutonius' for making privata ato= 'co=bs which could be the crucible to a world-wide = clear holocaust, are just sose of the ec:cerns I have with the Allens Creek Nuclear Project.

Th2 utter disregard and intransigence of the = clear industry and policy =akers in gover sent to capitalize on other renewable, safe, cost-competitive, job-intensive, existing and proven tschnclogies, the manipulation away fres credible funding for research and develop =ent of othsr energy technologies 4 th less or no entironmental impact, and even more so, the complete oblivity to conservation and upgrading efficiency in the existing energy technologies which sima experts feel.would preclude the necessity of an increase of any kind of generating plant much less "=nclear" generating plants, is a display of an intolerable diabolical arrogance perpatrated on socisty. As part of this society, I wish to =ake these contentions, which are all applicable to the Allens Creek, Nuclear Project, known at this hearing.

M mm h822 Vayassboro Drive

_ _.._Mg/& lhym Houston, Texas __77035_. _

. United St:tso 1 ear 2eg ==issic: .

' ' '% A PPCVw( S

, 3EF0HZ EI ATCMIC SAEC '

LICINSbGs BCARD

%v o In the Matter of Ecusten Lighting a Poh#o=- C \

Docket No. 5C L66 (Alle:s Creek, U=it 1) 9j p I" Neve:ber 2, 1978 2ebert S. Frameen -J A .A y '

Madeline Bass Framson -

d N est Wtfons

1. The proposed Allens Creek Plast t a::ei t- cested at a site that will have an e=riro ..cstal i= pact c a presently y area. This locatics is is as area that is about the fastest grcwi:g area i_ _ ics, both 1: numbers and i: geographical dimessio:s. Applicant should be denied pet :12 for co:struction until demegraphic studies are made for a time frs=e during the life of the plast to its de=ine in 30 years. Sirce the plast a:d its enviro:s will still be radicactive after its dysfu=ctics, studios should ha = ads on its envirec=e=tal impact i=to perpetuity, and de=cgraphic studies should bo =ade for a ti=o frame after the i=itial 30 year peried and thereafter, ad infinitum, cf this populatie: that will be burdened with this enviroceental impact.

P. , Ocsstruction per=it should be denied ~ ustil studies arn made for the rcutes, to be used for radicactive materials in the completc cuclear cycle frc= delivery cf fuel reds to the p12 t to the rencval a:d trancport of radicactive wastes frc: the pls t. Lice =se shculd be dssied until the pchlic is infor:ed of these routes a:d is allcwed adequate ti=e to inter-va:e at hearings, as to the transport of radicactivs =aterials a:d wastes to a:1 from the plast, on the total spectrum of its e:virocce:tal ~ impact.

) .svironmental impact studies, includi=g plas:ed radiatics emissicus and c plan:cd radia-tion smissic s in an accident, during transpcrt of radicactive materials a:d wastes in the complete nuclear cycle relati=g to the A11ess Creek Plant c these proposed routes shculd ba ande. My family will be subject to this enviro mental i= pact and radiatic est esi cus -

since our reside =ce is located a close proximity to the 610 Locp and =any other c:ai: free- "-

ways a:d thercughfares. Robert S. Framsc:'s job, which requires 50% travel. i=cludes travel -

in the cc plete radius of Ec tstos a:d Earris Cecsty, and also into For' 3e:d, Wharten, Adsti=,

3razoria, Colorado and Waller Ccusties.

43 tan aversgs nuclear reactor ca: turn out as much as 32 tons of radioactive spect fuci a

~

yant. DCZ Assistas Secretary Jch: O' Leary and Dr. Ealph Impp, utilities ccesultant, in-dicate that there will be at least to: year 1: site storage of high icvel radicactive wastes which =akes the Alle:s Creek Nuclear Ge=erating Statics esscetially a Tuclear Vas*e 2cpcsi-tory for at least to: years and perhaps, .i: perpetuity, sisce the proble=s of radicactive i wactes are insoluble. Per=it she:1d be denied c til studies are ==ds of the radicactive l emissic:s fro = the steady incremasts of radioactive wastes stored on site. This 1: creased l storags time would necessarily i= crease bazards to the public's health and safety. A sub-stantial 1: crease in the amount of radioactive waste at the pla=t site cculd force the l P l ast to curtail operatics or shut dow altogether 1: order to cease the geseratic: of wastes. The enviro = mental. health and safety issues aree gerza e to the i:terim a:d ultirato storage of radicactive wastes =ct only te this gecoratics but to future gocerations.

5. This incre:ent of radicactive wastes, which will include we:po:s-grade pl.itcaiu: for i bombs, stor:=d c pla:t site creates a sericus seccrity risic a:d =akes this arna wice abic tc thef t, vicic:ce a:d nuclear terro.-ism. These acts of :: clear terrcris: could trigger at

cecident of catastrophic porportions releasi

g exesssive ameu=ts of radiatic=, with recul-l .t st destructive effects to the public a:d the enviroc=ent.

6. Drs. John Gofsa: and Arthur Ta plin, worli renew uclear physicist and =edical physi-I cists, both for:erly cec ected with the Atenic Z:ergy Cc_=1saio=, in their =acy years of retearch of effects of low level radiatics indicate that there is so k:cv: dsafe" level of radistic:. Also confir=irg their research are studios by disti:guished scie:tists in this count y a:d abroad, rece tly revealed is spite of atte=pted suppressic by certain gevor -

l

l i

3 .

5 cost ag::cios. Thess studies iciic te that gevar==est stacdards for safe lavals of radia-tics are flawed and erro: ecus. Drs. Earl Z. Morgn=, for=er director of health physics at 4

the Oak Ridge, Tecs. Nuclear Facility for 30 years, Irwin 3ross, Director of 3iostatistics, l Rotwell Park Cancer Institute. Thomas F. Mancuso. University of Pittsburg. research scientist

, - u= der I'.DA g sat. Alice S tewart, inter:atio: ally rsgarded epido=iclegist. Bir=inghas Univ. ,

' Il:gla-u her asseciate, George I eale. bicstatisticias, are just sc=c of the scientis y

' -Ecsc reseir:h data reflects that icvels :f radia:i:, -pcaure that ba~ bm. ec:siderei safe by 24 gover. set: cre act ally d :ger: s. These so-called gover==c:t sta:dards have caured i

l Cas=er a:d the implications are far re, aching is effecti:g =ct caly cuelear.wcrkors but the Pc s tion-at-large. Dr. Mancusolas stated, "...the ris. for the industrial pcpulatics is IC, a greater than as esti=ated before. Thereforc, the standards shculd be red ced by 10 3, beceme 10 ti=cs zers stringent, a:d conseque:tly, the ge e al populatice which is expos to a fructic= of what the Leductrial pep:latics 14, will have to to reduced accord-Icgly. Constractio: por=it should be decici until =cc-gever==e=t, independo:t teve sticutcrs )

study a:d revise radistic: limits for atc=ic werkers acd the gercral public, ,

6. 1he popdation-at-large should =ot be lu= ped i=to oce stereotypical ihdividual, with l equal susceptibility to radiatics. Radiation has a cu= 1stive facter. Particular health, '

diccase, age, preg =ancies, genetics ars just sc=c of the facters effecting ledividuals' I susceptibility to radiation. It is airsady =edically k cv that the ycung, whc cake :.p ths =mjerity of the population, and prog: ant wcme are predisposed to radiatice. Our fa ily is also oca with high susceptibility to radistic:.

Madelins 3sse Fra= son has per:1'cious acacia, ccepicte deficie:cy of hydrochlcric acid and ccrious hypothyroidis=. Her physicians are Chiefs of their Depart =ects, in research a:d twehi=g, at tho 3aylor College of Medicine, Ecusto n, Tesas. These physicians, as weih as medical jour:als and texthcoks 1 dicate that these =edical cc:diticas =nke Mrs. Tra=sca ens of the highest cascar-prone risks. These doctors have advised Mrs. Fra=sen that if cancer occurred it wculd be "envirec=entally triggered".

m asbert S. 7:a= son bas sericus colcc and prestaste co:ditices a:d is also considered a high ca:cer-prone patiect. Both Mr. and Mrs. Pra:sen v111 have to be exa=1:ed periedically for the rest of their lives for cancer - several times a year.

My family's interest is =ct protected with the picposed Alle:s Creek Plast a:d its etvirc -

ccetal i= pact 'a d I feel we represent ths' vast cu=bers i= the general populatic: with varicuc

=edical proble=s, cc iitic:s ked ages that are highly su:ceptible to radiatic:. Tc license this plant is to state that a large seg=ect of the populatioc is expe:dable. C;;:tructi::

. permit should be denied.

7 The building of Aliens Creek Nuclear' Plant vill ::t culy incrgase the danger to health c=d safety, but will also cause decreased civil liberties. This i: because of the extc=sive protective safeguards required to protect against sabctsge and terrorism. Suppose sc=ecac reportcd that a portabic ::cket capable of breaching the ecstal:=ent was in the area cf the plant, do you suppcoe that the police uccli wait tc get a search wa-rant befer ::: ducting brase to house searches at all ho=es close escush to hit the ecctal:=cet vith the rccket.

"he 3arte: 2-part of Cet. 31, 1975 was prepar*1 =dar cc tract of the N30. a:d it gives a dsta11+1 discussic: of the p-chle=. 1he IIS has =ct cc:;idered this eartrc==c:tal 1: pact asi se is inec=plata.

5. The safety a::alysis has failed to coccider the da ger fr:c insulat:r failures is cc:-

tal =ent electrical pe:etrations. Duri:g October and Neve ber 1977. the M111stcrs p10:t had seversi failurss due to tho epoxy insulater istrusion tote cable splices that led te high resista:es heati:g that caused shcrt circuits between ec:ductors tha: wars to have l

bse: isolated. At Allens Cresk, this ca: cause electricall7 operated valves to be in the incorrect position (as ope: when suppcsed to be closed), and failurs of alar =s to ope-ste properly which can e: danger the tublic health and welfare.

---  % . , ogssuie-

)

) 9 The 3IS and Safoty Evaluation of Allena Crosk is defsetiva bsenuco they ussa ths WASE 1400 Reactor Safety Study results as the basis of expected safety as the plant. Tet, several recent studies have all indicated that the report is wrong in its calculation of the probabilities of various accidents at- the plant. It faliled.to account for the inter-action of various failure mechanisms that are not independent events as assumed. It failed .

to account for the mistakes and fears af ordi:ary hunan beings that operate plants such as Allens C:sek. The report did not consider that a werker might use a cacile to set the 3rowns Ferry fire that almost caused two core melts. It clained that no spacemen sc uld burn up on the ground while sitting in the space ship, yet 4 =en have already done so.

Until the data is convincing to the insurancs industry such that they will insure all losses then the Aness Creek plant shouli sat be built. ,

10. The present plan for decommissioni g Auees Creek is i=adequats because it does mot incure that the applicant win be able to properly decemaission the plant or ;ay for it if

come way was available to do it safoly. 3efore building the plant and spendisc over o=e binion dollars in construction costs, the applicant should post bonds held in escrew to-insure that the =enoy will be available to properly decannission the plant. 3cth the CAO and the Congress have recently issued reports en this problem.

n. About 31 minion acres of U.S. farmlands have disappeared in the last decada, accord-ing to ZPA. That's an area half the size of the State of Wyoning. The diminishing supply of food for our nations with it. rapid growing population has serious inplications for its cernomy, stability and security. In a world-wide context, it8s a peace / war facter. The EPA intends to limit this adverse impact. , The Anons Creek Plant should not be constructed cc,it is obviously contributing a= adverse impact in destroying over 5C00 acres of rich food-producing farmla=d, a diminishing natural resource.

12. A large number of environmental and safety probless are associated with the 3WR, Mark III contaisment, Emergency Core Cooling System, automatic Protection systems, etc. to be uccd in the Allens Creek Plant, but I must stop now to get this photocopied and mailed.before .-

deadline, although I have studied a=d prepa.ed almost full time for the 5 days since beins-told that contentiens .ould have to be submitted by Nov. 2nd. I again wi sh to register ny ch,1ections to the arbitrary unfair accaleration of schedule not givi=g petitiecers adequate time for proper preparation of contentions. If I am given sufficient tine as allcwed by my c nstitutional right of "real" due process, I will submit nere cententions and elabcrate 22 e on the above.

v_ m v.wp&_

4622 Waynesboro Drive Touston, Texas 77035 i

.-,---g-o.--,y w-,aw -,-,--e-.ww-.----g-,,, , - - - -w-g- -w ,,-e,r- . e. -- +r u- -

=-w-m- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

m ._ .__ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ .

)DockatgpNo. 50 466

. U. S. NUCI2AR 3ZCULATORY CCMMISSION

'.. O.

. 3E7C21 T!C AT )C. CIC";TT AND LICENSING 3CA3D In the mattsr of ECUSTON LIGETING AND POCR CCMPANY

. (A11cas Creels Nuclear Generating, Station, Unit 1)

The manner in which t,._s Applicant and NRC Staff grouped responses together of 11 petitioners 8 cent:ntions is evidence of Applicant's and NRC Staff's unspecificity and vag2eness. In many i instances,' the contentions were inappropriately grouped with agresumption of similarity. ,

Petitioners wish to register their vigorous objections to the unnecessa.y, arbitrary and unjust -

i obstacles and deterrents deliberately burdened upon petitioners by the USNRC's capricicus conduct j prior to the special prehearing and during the special prehearing in countless ways - dereliction in proper advance orientation for petitioners to present valid contentions, imposing unreasonable and impossible limitations of ti=a to present adequately-preparedententions by correspondence, i further compounding this problem for petitioners by arbitrarily expecting petitioners' rebuttals '

ima:diately following receipt of the NEC Staff's response to contentions at the time of the i special prehearing. imposing on petitioners a location for preparation of rebuttals - a restrict- '

ad location withcut accessibility to documents, data, reference =aterials, without typewriters, paper, etc., in an environ =ent absolutely not conducive to thought, research and.. concentration.

Petitioners wish to object to the fact they have never received copies of the contentions of the scrlier petitioners, such as TEIpirg and John Doherty. Objections are hereby registered to Applicant's Motica for Order of Schedule. This schedule is an acce/leration in a time. frame that will negate intervenors' adequate time for proper preparation for presentation. It is hoped that ths ERC will not follow its previcus pattern in once = ore placing this arbitrary obstacle before intsrvenors and will give serious weight for a more reasonable time schedule.

~

Patitione maintain that all contentions are' based on new information and should be part of the full hearing.

1. Some of the bacieground material on this contention is based on " Growth Options", Rice Center far Community Design, May,1978, under the. aegis of Charles Sevino, " Population Land-Use Draf t for Greater Houston, 208 Area. Ecuston-Galveston Area Council (EGAC), Doris Ebner, April 1,1976,

" Population Iand-Use for Greater Houston, 208 Area", EGAC, Doris Ebner, April 1,1977 and Houston-Chamber of Commerce Houston Area Population Report, Febmary, 1976,1977, and 1978.

2.-3 These contentions regarding the nuclear fuel cycle, tra= sport of radioactive =aterials to the plant and nuclear wastes from the plant impose a serious environmental i= pact on our family, our residence is located less than 30 miles from the plant and Robert framson's business requires hic frequent travel in Earris, Fort 3end, Wharton, Austin, 3razoria, Colorado and Waller Counties, .

and our residence is loca+ed a close proximity to major thoroughfares, freeways, 610 Loop and loco thr.n a } sile frem a main railroad line. Many accidents have occurred i= our country during the transport of radioactive materials - to cite just two - one on September 15, 1978 in Pennsy.1-vania and another;in early September,1978 wL th a track destined for Barnwell, S. Carolina. Con-trine:s carrying radioactive materials ruptured during the accidents and it is obvicus radiation

~

cuitted during accidents will exceed limits of regulations,

k. This contention rehrding on site storage of radioactive wastes, the criteria for the interi=

storage is not adequately covered in the Final Supplement to the ZIS. " Nuclear Waste", MacNeil/

Ichrer Report, DOE Asst. Sec'y. John O'Legry, Dr. Ralph Lapp, Dr. Peter Montague, July 27, 1978, "Com=ents of the State of Texas On the Draft IIS Concerning Managsment of Com=arcial High Level and Transuranium-conta=ined FAdioactive Waste", November,1974, "I= prove =ents needed in the land disposal of radioactive wates - a problem of centuries GAO,1976. Not only are the en-vironmental, safety and health factors issues ger=ane to the steady increcent of on site stcrage of radioactive Gastes, but this bas a serious economic inpact in that the plant could pre =aturely hava to curtail operation and shut down altogether in " order to cease the generation of wastes.

5.-7. These contentians regardi=g =nelear terrorism with the resultant threat to civil liberties bscanse of stringent protective safeguards is based on many documents includi:g HEC contracted eIntensified Nuclear Safeguards and Civil Liberties", John E. 3arton,1r.te 1975, Statement by 3ruce L. Welch. PED, before the Joint Committee on Atomic Inorgy, U.5. Congress,197h, " Nuclear Sierra C.

Power 3u11atin, Plants Vulnerable tec.1975, " Nuclear to takeover by Armed Sabotage", Individuals, 3c11. CAO,1974, Atc=ic Scientists, ". 1976, Oct Nuclear Terror"'y at "Securit Nuclear Power Plants: at best. I adequate", GAO,1977

. - . - . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _....._. _._.. _ _. _ _ = _ . .

- - ^ -

---

v- m . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _

., . .. . . - 2. - - - - .

6. TIis centention relatos to tl )omatic-and gtnatic affsets of 1 )1evel iadiatier.. As the Applicanta's responso statec, elo'w isvol . radiation havo bacn cubjectc of continni=g res:srch

, and investigation over the past 25 years or = ore

• the history of gover==ent radiation standards, in spite of the fact that scientists and medical physicists have taken issu'e, have always been indicated by hindsight in over 25 years that the radiation exposure allowed was always too high!

Countless times in this time frame, the gover:mont has had to revise its safe radiation standards downward after obvious "bodycounts" - thus, treating atomic workers and the popu.lation-at large ao human guinea pigs, consideri=g =any seg=ents of the population, depe= ding on their jobs, ages, tomatic conditions, etc. expendable! At the present time the Texas Dept. of Health, Division of occupatio:al Health and Radiation Control is in the process of revisi:g its regulations with the

' Proposed A=end=ents to the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation, Parts 32 and 368 Draft January, 1978. Some references on this contention include "Eealth Physics", Dr. Themas Mancuso, Oct.1977, Dr. Irwin 3ross ' Study reviewed in Journal of AMA, May,1977, "3 eta-dose to Critical Human Tumer sites from Irypton 85", Health Physics, Dec.1977, " Danger: Radiation", MacNeil/leh-rar Report, with Dr. Irwin 3ross and Dr. Karl Morgan, " Nuclear Cancer: It's Top Secret", Jack Anderson, Dec.1977, Good Morni=g America, with Dr. Thocas Mancuso, March,1978. On Nove=ber 10, 1978. Environmental Protection Agency Stephen J. Gage indicated that a study that began in 1975 by ZEA and the Colorado Medical School showed that quantities of plutoniu= have been discovered in persons living nea'r a =celear facility.

8. This contention relates to the safety analysis failure to censider the da ger ~fren insulator failures in contai= ment electrical penetrations. The failures that occured in Cetober and Nov:mber 1977 at the Millstene Plant was with Unit 2. Similar to the Millstone Plant, Unit 2 ACNGS has wiring passi:g through its containment and this defective wirt=g can causa electrical failure during the operation of the plant.

9 This contentien is based on NUzzG/Ca-04co, " Risk Assessment neview Group zeport to essaC" pre-pared by Harold Lewis, et al, Sept.1978. The FG control rei centroversy concerns a " square root bounding model" adopted by NRC for the calculation of low and high co==en cause failure prob-abilities. The model uses a number of compounded subjective judgments (leg-normal distribution of failures, symmetry in the placement of upper and lower bounds, etc. ), 4 th an end-result that is som:how considered firs.- "The degree of arbitrariness in this procedure" comments the risk greup _

in hardly representative language, " boggles the mind." (A normal distribution of failures wculd increase risks by a " actor of 1,000. For FG control rod failure, this factor is hardly insigni-ficant. It is at the basis of the long-rW:g controversy about the probability of an accident where the scram or shutdown systen fails (anticipated transient without scram). ) *

10. This contention is based on " Nuclear Fuel Cycle". U . of Concer:ad Scientists,1975 HIA?

reesired only one-third of a requested rate increase frem the PUC of Texas en Nov. 20, 1978. A Michigan Power company after costly investment into nuclear generation suffered serious fiscal instability with losses to the extent that the stockholders of this ce=pany for a prolonged period rocsived no dividenis. The Xuclear Ftiel Service Co, West V a lley, New York, is fHemially unable to absorb decommissioni:g costs to the =uclear cfa ility. As a Result, the Taxpayers of N.Y. will now have to car y the unjust burden of this exorbitant expense for dece==1ssieni:g. It is pre-sc=ptious and highly speculative that El&P will maintain a financial stability to endure the men-n:wntal costs of decommissioning. 7er this reason applicant should post bond held in escrow to insure the money will be available for proper decommissioning. Another reference: "How A Nuclear Powar Plant Dies" Natural Resources Defense Council,1978.

11. di's contentien concerns the adverse i= pact of ACNGS on rich food-produc1=g farmland. The 31 million acres of U.S. Farniands have disappeared in the Last decade, resulting in the di=inish-ing supply of food for uur =ation with its rapid growing population has serious econe=ic i-plica- -

tions, as well as a growi:g threat to our nation's stability and security. This is such a sericus problem that IPA Administrator Douglas Costle has recently for=ulated an " Agricultural Ia:ds Pro-taction Policy", to limit this adverse i=;act. ACNGS will destroy 5cco acres of rich food-produe-ing farn1and.

12. This contention concerne the generic problem of 3WR pipe cracks. Some of the background documents are C33-7875 " General Electric Reactor Pipe Cracks" and H2C " Technical Report: Investi-gatics and 3 valuation of Cracking in Austenitic Steel Pipi=g of 3WR Plants (5U3IG-75/067) late 1975 On June 17, 1978, D u ne Arneli Plant suffer * " worst US 2eactor accident yet" accordi=g

- s

_3_ s ,

} - . . . .

J .

to David Co=27. Citiz:ns for a 3ettsr 7.avirenz:nt. A larga 10-inch dia=ater pri=ary cooling cyat:s piin was discovered cracked 270 degrees around its circr.mference at the Dus e Arnold 3WR.

Thio safety problem was recognized in October.1975:- strong Ia:s age at that ti== urgi g prc=pt ramir was. neglected. This is a serious problem with all si=ilarly desig=ed 3WR's. NRC indicates that a a complete circumferential break of one of the recirculation loep pipes" wuld result in the worst " loss-of-coolant" accident possible at a boiling water reactor". "Whether such cracking will be detectable prior to a 3 60 degree circu=ferential break of a recirculation pipe at the safcend is a =atter of concern". notes C3Z. Censtruction per=it shculd be denied u=til the newly reformed Pipe Crack Study Grcup cs =es out with its findi=gs.

. _1 : - =__ f h822 Vaynesboro Drive Ecuston, Texas 77o35 1..

9

• e

• =

o 4,

_..-u N: ,

• DM g .,.

l -

• J. .'

l _ _ - _ - - _ _ . _ . _ __ . . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _