ML20148A411
| ML20148A411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1978 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148A403 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812280354 | |
| Download: ML20148A411 (5) | |
Text
-.
I O
. c;:..
12/11/78 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ROARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING A POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50 466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generatino
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO "AR'%DILLO COALITION OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)
& JOHN F. DOHERTY'S (AS AN INDIVIDUAL) AMENDMENT TO CONTENTION #1, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF THE AMENDMENT UNDER 10 CFR 2.758 (b)"
The NRC Staff opposes the request for admission of Contention #1 of the Armadillo Coalition and John H. Doherty in argended form filed on November 21, 1978*in the captioned proceeding. The November 21 pleading also 1.ncludes-a request for a waiver of the appifcation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I in this proceeding. The Staff opposes that request as well.
s The original statement of Petitioner's Contention #1 is set forth in the
" Stipulation Between NRC Staff and John F. Doherty,' Individually and on Behalf of the Armadillo Cc:.if tion of Texas, Houston Chapter," dated September 29, 1978.
Even a cursory perusal of the Stipulation reveals that " amended" Contention #1 is not really an amendment at all but an entirely different issue.
Its central thrust is that (1) the Houston area does not comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard,
)
and will not do 'so for five years, and (2) the combination of the 7812@@9 i
...~m
~
. radioactive effluents emitted from. the proposed facility and the air pollutants are more injurious to petitioner's health than the radioactive effluents alone, l
Apart from considerations related to a waiver of the regulations, the i
Staff objects to admission of the contention as an issue in controversy for the following reasons:
(1) the submission is untimely, since the Board never granted further time for amendment as alleged by. the Petitioners (See Tr. 3E '-84).
(2) the Petitioners have failed to address, let alone justify, acceptance of the contention pursuant to the criteria contained in 10 CFR 52.714.
(3) no basis is provided for the allegation that there will be a synergistic effect of radioactivity from the plant and air pollution.
(4) although the contention alleges that Houston may be granted a five year extension to comply with national air quality standards, no attempt.is made to reconcile that extension with the proposed date for commencement of operation of the plant (1985).
It is therefore unclear what potential impact is being alleged.
I
l 3-In addition the Staff'does not believe that the Petitioners have made the' showing required by 10 CFR 62.758 to justify Comnission involvement in a request to waive application of Appendix I.
10 CFR 52.758 requires that, in order to have a contention'which seeks waiver of'the application of a regulation considered in an individual proceeding, the petitioner must, at the outset:
(1) demonstrate that special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceedings are such that application of the rule or regulation would not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted; (2) identify the specific asoect of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which application of the regulation would not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted; (3) set forth with particularity the special circumstances alleged to justify the waiver;
~(4) constitute a prima facie showing that application of the rule would not serve the purpose for which it was adopted.
i D
aonnuev c=
...we6 e%
%ema y
4-Petitioners;hilege tha_t Houston is already overburdened with air pollution and it may " reasonably be expected to receive a portion of the burden of radioactive isotopes emitted from the plant in nonnal operation." They go on' to allege that "the air pollution situation in Harris County" creates a special circumstance" under 10 CFR 52.758. This challenge to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 sh'ould be rejected for several reasons.
First, the petitioners state that application of the regulation would not serve the purpose for which the rule was adopted, namely to protect the public from radioactivity.
Substantially all of the Commission's regulations.have this purpose.
Petitioners have made no attempt to discuss the particular purpose for which Appendix I was promulgated or to address specifically whether application of the rule would serve that specific purpose.
Secondly, a claim that "the air pollution situation" is a special circum-stance. is totally vague. No attempt is made to describe with particuarity how the dose limits contained in Appendix I impact "the air pollution situation," except to allege that the combination of the 'two are "more l
injurious" than the radiation alone.
It is impossible, from reading the petition, to discern the specific basis for the claim of special circum-stances.
Further, it is important to remember that 10 CFR 32.758(c) requires a finding that a prima facie showing be made with regard to the e
W p e
- end--
o dewee h
i b
petitioner's claims. This requirement clearly contemplates that more must be set forth than required for a contention in the usual sense.
In the Staff's view, an initial showing must be made that the special circumstances alleged will in fact exist or occur should the plant be i
ljcensed in compliance with the regulations as written.
Clearly, no such demonstration has even been attempted, let alone successfully made.
For the reasons set forth above, the filing of. the Coalition and Mr. Doherty neither comply with the requirements for the " usual" contention nor meet
.the more stringent criterion of a prima facie showing which would elevate this matter to the Commission pursuant to 12.758.
The request for waiver of Appendix I to 10-CFR Part 50 should be denied, and Contention 'I should be excluded as an issue in. controversy.
l Respectfully submitted,
)
,(i /d W "
f l'.
% j tephen M. Schinki Counsel for 'NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of December,1978 l.
.