ML20147B517
| ML20147B517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1978 |
| From: | Friedell E, Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147B521 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810110037 | |
| Download: ML20147B517 (14) | |
Text
_ -
l%
09/29/78 t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAP, REGULATORY COMMISSION EIIByg %g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
g
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-46
)
l V 'A (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
O 4g1 Station, Unit 1)
')
g' g (b f
S NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AMENDE3 PETITION to FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OF T. PAUL ROBBINS g
The NRC Staff opposes the amended petition for leave to intervene filed by T. Paul Robbins on August 25, 1978, in this proceeding.
It is clear from an examination of the amended petition that Nr. Robbins has alleged only an economic interest 'in this proceeding.
He alleges that the project will cause economic hardship to himself and the citizens of Texas by contributing to a lowering of the water table in the State.
To the extent that Mr. Robb' ins seeks to represent the interest of the citizens of Texas, the Staff's response to his original petition explained t' hat he cannot represent a generalized public interest as a " private attorney general";
^
he can only represent his own [ersonal interest. 3 To the bxtent
~
Mr. Robbins alleges-economic harm to himself,' both the Commission and i
3NRC Staff's Response to Petition to Intervene of T. Paul Robbins, July 18,1978, p. 2, citing Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-Il s 5 NRC 481, 484 (1977).
=
l 4
7 #1#41gpr37 w
~
p 2-a
~
the Appeal Board have recognized that purely economic interests are not sufficient to confer standing in NRC licensing cases.1 Further, the amended petition contains no facts from which a finding could be made that Mr. Robbins should be granted discretionary inter-vention. The paramount factor to be considered in determining whether participation as a discretionary matter should be granted.is whether such participation would likely produce a valuable contribution to the decision-makingprocess.S The issue of water use has been raised by the Texas Public Interest Research Group in a contention which the NRC Staff has recommended be admitted as an issue in controversy. S Further there is no showing.that Mr. Robbins has information or expertise which is not available to the other parties.
HethereforehasmadenoshoNingwhich would support the granting of the petition as a matter of discretion.__5f 3 Portland General Electr'ic Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-614 (1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (June 20, 1978).
See also, Chairman Rosenthal's opinion in Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC li31,640(1975).
~
Portland General Electric Company, CLI-76-27, supra, 4 NRC at 615.
See," Stipulation Between NRC Staff and Texas PlikG" dated September 26, 1978, Contention 1(d).
Mr. Robbins woul.d be free to make a limited appearance at the upcoming hearing for the purpose of making a written or. oral statement, as provided for by 10 CFR 52.715(a).
4
.netmsp;*w m y e
-e s.,
,o a
- e
,yn g.
.y,,,
,_.n.__
n-,_,,,._g,,,
e 4, - -
f
_. 3-Accordingly, the NRC Staff l believes'that Mr. Robbins petition should be denied.
Rsspectfully submitted, 7
tephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff fL A/Q h
- Ellen Silberstein Friede11 Counsel for NRC Staff-Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of September,1978 6
e 4
e.
1 k
f
-..,,,.._n_...,..._..<~.._-._y
~..._7,.,,-.,
h7tg 0%2%78 UNITED STATES AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSfDity RQ m
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'b
/-
- ggg, g
gegl Y{
J In the Matter of Dq1
/
- p. O' HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466 -
b T*%.d**
S (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1).
4 cr y
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF TEXAS PIRG On September 26, 1978, the NRC Staff and the Texas Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) reached agreement with regard to most of the issues raised by PIRG in the captioned proceeding. That agreement is embodied in the
" Stipulation Between NRC Staff and Texas PIRG" of the same date.
Four proffered contentions remain on which agreement could not be rdached.
.y These contentions are addressed below. The numbering used in this response corresponds to that used in the above-referenced stipulation.
Contention 8,
Applicant has not demonstrated' a design that will provide an adequate margin of safety, in the event of Anticipated Transients'Without Scram.
l In_that Applicant has no nuclear reactors. operating at the present time, and therefore will not be drawing upon a pool of operators experienced in responding to transients, and since transients occur most frequently r
?
in the early stages of power plant life, ACNGS in the first few years of operation in particular will threaten release of radioactivity in excess l
of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines. Therefore, Petitioner asserts that the l
license should be conditioned upon the incorporation of an automatic l
redundant scram in the ACNGS design.
New evidence, in the form of an l
Electric Power Research Institute study and NUREG-0460, indicates that l
i
,. ~i
.,,,,n
i
~
?
-2 l
new reactor designs often have higher frequency of transients than older designs, ACNGS will be such a new design, BWR/6/.
(Additional note:
studies by Peter Bourne and others confirm that experience mitigates adverse r.esponses to stress conditions.)
Response
This contention should be excluded because it is not based upon new informa tion.
Specifically, the allegation that the Applicant lacked experienced operators could have been made at the inception of this proceeding and, in any event, well prior to December,1975.
In addition, review of a post-1975 study is hardly necessary in order to recognize the obvious fact that new designs experience more problems than older, more established ones. The Staff, therefore, believes'that this contention should be excluded.
Contention 9 Petitioner contends that the Staff has inaccurately concluded in its NEPA evaluations that a nuclear power alternative is less costly, both economically and environmentally, than coal-fired generation. This contention is based upon the following factors:
a.
The operating experience for nuclear plants of this size indicates they will produce only half the power of their planned capacity, while coal-fired plants will produce at a 70 percent capacity.
Furthermore, a comp,arison of two 375 MWe coal-fired units should be analyzed relative to the ACNGS, because smaller-sized units will be more reliable and thus require smaller reserve margins.
This alternative would thus utilize less resources and be less costly. Studies by Kahn (1977) and Komanoff (Nuclear Power Performance and Update, 1976, 1977) provide evidence for this factor.
. b.
Capital costs associated with coal-fi,ed plants planned by other Texas Utilities are 40 percent less than those projected by the Applicant and Staff, and the prospects of utilizing Texas-mined lignite would substantially reduce the operating costs of the coal fire alternative.
Both of these aspects would substantially alter the weighing process in Appendix S.D of the DS-FES.
Research by Kahn (1977) indicates that peak-load central power c.
units, such a'; small coal-fired units, will be more likely to encourage the use of supplemental solar heating and cooling units in the power grid.
Since such solar units would result in environmental benefits and inng-term economic benefits in the Applicant's service area, the base-load nuclear generating station represents an environmental liability relative to peak-load station alternatives.
Petitioner, therefore, asks the Board to find that coal-fired generation of power would be a preferable alternative to ACNGS.
Response
This contention is bas 9d entirely upon the alleged er.onomic superiority S
of coal over nuclear power.
The Appeal Board's decision in the Midland proceeding makes it clear that this contention should be excluded as the Appeal Board stated:
The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act increased our concern with the economics of nuclear power plants, but only in a limited way. That Act requires us to consider whether there are environ-mentally preferable alternatives to the proposal before us.
If there are, we must take the steps we can to see that they are implemented if that can be accomplished at a reasonable cost, i_.e_., one not out of proportion to the environmental advantages to be gained.
But if there are no preferable environmental alternatives, such cost-benefit balancing does not take place.
Manifestly, nothing in NEPA calls upon us to sift through environmentally inferior alternatives to find a cheaper (but dirtier) way of handling the matter at hand._2]
S onsumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, C
7 NRC 155 (1978).
2-/ Id.at162.
\\
b l
h-l.
Since this contention focuses entirely upon ecor,amic cost of coal v.
nuclear, it should not be admitted as a matter in controversy.
Contention 10 Applicant has not adequately demonstrated compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, App. A, criterion 31, with regard to intergranular stress, corrosion and cracking. Excessive oxygen levels, superposed loads, and residual stresses may result in ultimate failure of piping, despite altered metal content for the ACNGS desir i. The NRC investigation of stress, corrosion, and cracking problems at similar BWR units was re-leased in December 1975.
Response
This contention should be excluded because it is not based upon new information. The report to which Petitioner makes reference is NUREG 75/067, which was issued on December 5,1975. More importantly however, the bibliography of that document contains numerous references which discuss the problem raised by this. contention. All of the listed references were available well prior to December,1975. Therefore, the contention could have been raised prior to the deferral of the Allens Creek appii-cation.
Contentionik Applicant has not adequately assessed the effects of flow-induced vibration on jet pumps, spargers, fuel pins, core instrumentation, and fuel rods.
Feedwater sparger failures occurred at five BWR units from 1975 to 1976, all due apparently to flow-induced vibration.
Petitioner asks that a license be denied until an adequate assessment is presented by the Applicant.
Response
The flow-induced vibration phenomenon has been recognized and reviewed for several years by the Staff.
Indeed, by Petitioner's own admission, eral of the reported incidents with feedwater spargers occurred during 1975 (at a time when this concern could have been raised in the Allens Creek proceeding).
Further, the widely available journal Nuclear Safety has published articles dealing with vibration incidents at various reactors periodically over the past several years.
As an example, the January / February 1974 issue examined incidents involving flow-channel problems which had been reported in September and October, 1973. Therefore, the contention is not based upon new information, and should be excluded.
Respectfully submitted, j"
fx f1
' i-Stephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff bb A/d bh Ellen Silberstein Friedell Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of September,1978 G
ne g
g O
T
5 0 l'ilD?;a, @.
S,7 f.A W 09/29/78 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0TlD
$131 ev Zb
'IS"p" a
o
- ,q Dl)TJC 19 7.,
[g In the Matter of
~I y -4
)
' ' c,AT g,vy 791 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 GGT
,f g
)
<U"gse j
.9*
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
b Station, Unit 1)
)
N NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS OF ARMADILLO C0ALITION AND JOHN H. DOHERTY t
On September 27, 1978, the NRC Staff and the Armadillo Coalition of Texas, Houston Chapter and John F. Doherty reached agreement with regard 2
to most of the issues raised by Petitioners in the captioned proceeding.
That agreement is embodied in the " Stipulation Between NRC Staff and John F. Doherty, Individually, and on Behalf of the Armadillo Coalition of Texas. Houston Chapter" of the same date.
Four proffered contentions are addressed below.
The numbering used in this response corresponds to that used in the above-referenced stipulation.
Contentions 1 and 2 1.
The proposed Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS) will not keep liquid and gas radioactive effluents as. low as reasonably achievable as required by the code of Federal Regulations.
Technology exists which will reduce the amount of such substances which will be released by the plant. Changes in the gas effluent stack and liquid radwaste system indi-cate that although Staff has considered this problem it is unfinished, Compared to other Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's) liquid and gaseous effluent limits proposed for ACNGS represent a dangerous trend toward tolerance of radioactive effluents when recent genetic, medical and radiological literature pointing to the possibility that radioactive i++w+
'*'r d
doses above background doses (that is very low doses) is more hazardous to the health of persons such as petitioners than was thought at the time applicable part of Code and Federal Regulations were written, is noted.
2.
Based on new information by the Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) of other BWRs, radioactive effluents as listed in Tables 5-10 and 5-16 of the Final Supplement to the FEIS of ACNGS will not be as low as reasonably achievable as required by the Code of Federal Regu-lations.
a.
Petitioners contend that tue Commission has the power to require Applicant to limit the release of effluents to an amount lower than that proposed.
Petitioner urges the Comnission to take note of the rapidly growing population east of the reactor cite and less than 35 miles from the said cite and impose stricter limits, by:
(1) requiring the use of additional radwaste equipment and hold-up tanks to reduce emissions, or (2) permitting only pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology.
b.
There are medical findings since 1975 that show the risk of cancer (particularly to infants, children, elderly, asthmatics, and exuma victims) to be greater than was thought when the plant was originally considered by the Commi,ssion.
Response
These contentions are clearly challenged to both 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, which establish dose limits for nuclear power facilities, because they imply that the regulations should be changed as a result of new literature l
regarding effects of low level radiation.
Since Petitioner has demonstrated no special circumstances pursuant to 10 CFR 52.758 which would justify such a challenge to the regulations, the contentions should be excluded.
O
- +
Contention 5
^
In the event of blowdown, loss of coolant, reactivity initiated or' other accident, the location of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism Hydraulic Unit as planned in AC!iGS, as well as the Traversing in Core Probe makes these two systems vulnerable to suppression pool uplif t.
There are no Mark-III containment systems in operation today, and no full scale tests have been done to guard against this possibility.
Petitioners contend plant is endangered in the event such accidents destroy these systems when they are needed.
Response
This contention should be excluded because it is not based upon new infor-mation. Specifically, the location of the Hydraulic Control Unit and Transversing In-Core Probe are the same as they were prior to the deferral of the application. Therefore, the alleged vulnerability to suppression pool uplift could easily have been raised at a much earlier time, certainly prior to December 1975.
Likewise, no reason is provided by Petitioner with regard to why the alleged need for full scale tests of the Mark III design could not have been raised prior to December,1975.
Contention 7 The design of obtaining Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) core spray water from the suppression pool following exhaustion of the condensate storace tank during Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), Reactivity Insertion Accident (RIA), or Tran'sient Without Scram (TWS) is an unnecessarily high risk to Petitioner's safety and environment interests because sup-pression pool water is colder than reactor coolant; hence when sprayed in the core it will increase core reactivity causing high temperature and increased possibility or actuality of fuel melt and formation of a critical mass.
t-
_4
Response
The Petitioner has not, and cannot demonstrate that this contention is based upon new information. The fundamental features of the BWR/6 design have not changed since this application was first docketed.
- Hence, the alleged problem involving the temperature of the suppression pool water vis a. vis the reactor coolant could have been raised prior to December, 1975. Therefore, the contention should be excluded.
Respectfully submitted, rce n'l
'tephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff 2% LIQ kle,Lt Ellen Silberstein Friedell Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of September,1978
/
U'lITED STATES OF /JiERICA
.w=
~,
iiUCLEAR REGULATORY CC'DtISSIO!i MO!Q' Jf;{#
i BEFORE THE ATO'41C SAFETY A'lD LICEl:SIfiG BOARD g7l
~1 I
, q? '/g 1
' In the ibtter of
)
~'U U-5.1
[e I
)
-3
~, -
HOUSTO'i LIGHTIfiG & PO'.1ER C0"PAflY
)
Docket lio.
50-466
's l
A._
(Allens Creek fluclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "flRC STAFF RESP 0.'iSE TO AEfiDED PETITIO?l FOR LEAVE TO IllTERVEffE OF T. PAUL ROBBIfiS", "flRC STAFF RESP 0.'iSE TO C0!iTEfiTIO!iS OF AR'GDILLO C0ALITIO!! A'iD JOHil H. DOHERTY", and *tiRC STAFF'S RESPO!1SE TO C0!!TEliTIO?iS OF TEXAS PIRG" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States cail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the fluclear Regulatory Comission's internal tail system, this 29th day of September, 1978:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Ator.ic Safety ar.d Licensing Louenstein, Reis, fleman & Axelrad Board Panel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, fi.W.
U.S. liuclear Reculatory Comission
!!ashington, D. C.
20037 Washington, D. C.
20555 P,ichard Lowerre, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatun Asst. Attorney General for the Route 3, Box 350A State of Texas Watkinsville, Georgia 30577 P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Mr. Glenn 0. Bright
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor U.S. !iuclear Regulatory Ccmission City of Hallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C.
23555 Hon. John R. !!ikesta R. Gordon Gooth, Esq.
County Jud:e, Austin County Baker & Botts P. O, Cox 310 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, fl.H.
Bellville, Texas 77418 Washington, D. C.
20005 Atenic Safety and Licensing J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Appeal f. card +
Baker & Botts U.F, flu: lear Regulatory Comission One Shell Plaza Wasaington, D. C.
20555 Houston, Texas 77002
.,-,~~-.4.es
^
t
~ ~
g,y
.i.
~ '
~
y
.s.
' ~ '
. 1 lt Atomic Safety and Licensing:
Docketing and Service Section*
Board Panel *'
Office of the' Secretary U.S.~. fluclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 l
t Mr. Wayne'Rentfro James Scott, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 1335
- i' Texas Public Interest Rosenberg, Texas 77471.
Research Group, Inc.
Box 237 UC Mr. John F. Doherty University of Houston Armadillo Coalition of Texas,.
Houston, Texas 77004 Houston Chapter 4438 1/2 Leeland Avenue
-Houston, Texas 77023-T. Paul Robbins 600 W. 28th #102 Austin, Texas 78705
(
lY Atephe M. Schinki-Counsel for flRC Staff
=
k
^
\\
s r
O h
...A
.w. e
.