ML20148T153

Applicant'S Response to Additional Contentions of the Tx Pub Interest Res Group Filed on 781101.Finds None of the Contentions Have Merit.Cert of Svc Encl

ML20148T153
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/13/1978
From:	Newman J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812040329
Download: ML20148T153 (10)

Text

\

, , NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM

• i

$ ofh.o fb y -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y 9 $

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ngb -

4Q BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR s, # l O.  :

l In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY ) I

) Docket No. 50-466 )

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating ) l Station, Unit 1) ) I

)

) i l

l APPLICANT'S RESPONS", TO ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF THE TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP FILED ON I NOVEMBER 1, 1978 l l

l Applicant files this Response to the additional con-l tentions submitted to the Board on November 1, 1978 by the l Tewas Public Interest Research Group (Petitioner) .

Contention I Petitioner's first additional contention relates to the " dredging and channelizing" required for barge trans-portation of reactor components to the ACNGS. As a matter of background, barge transport would be used, if at all,  ;

for the one-time shipment of the pressure vessel (the largest prefabricated component to be moved on the site). Overland trans-port' remains a viable alternative and Applicant's plans in this regard are unchanged in the period since the initial 7 812.0 4 0 3d

proceedings on this application.* / Since the contention is

= unsupported by relevant new data or information, as required by~the Board's Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures R (Corrected Notice)', 'it should be rejected.

Contention 2 l

l

.This contention is ostensibly based on the Environmental ]

. Protection Agency's comments on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement. By careful paraphrasing, Petitioner intimates-that the EPA has predicted direct radi-ation doses in excess of the standards contained in 40 CFR l l

190 - Environmental Radiation Protection Standards For Nuclear Power' Plants. This misconception is largely dispelled by

, the unedited text of'the EPA's comment:

4 1

Direct Radiation We recognize the difficulties associated )

with trying'to predict, in advance of I station operation or even construction, i what the off-site direct radiation doses will be from nitrogen-16. Accurate dose estimates will probably not be available until results from the post-operational radiation monitoring program have been completed. It should be noted, however, that, based on the dose estimations reported.in the draft supplement, the ,

direct dosen from other sources from the 1 plant could. exceed EPA's standard for the

• /To.the extent Petitioner argues that barge transport would require' dredging, it is in error, since the San' Bernard River is a-federally maintained navigable water way to a point

~

well above~any. potential off-loading junction for the ACNGS

site.

[

. :. . . ,_ . , , - , , . , . , , . . . . . ~ . _ , , , , . . , . . . ,..,.-,nL.,. ,

4

• _3-uranium fuel cycle (40 CFR 190) .

The applicant should be advised that, in event post-operational experience indicates actual off-site dose rates in_ excess of 25 mrem /yr will be pro-duced at close-in. locations where per-sons reside, corrective action such as additional shielding or operational limitations may be required in the future. l The final statement should address direct l radiation doses in the context of EPA's J uranium fuel cycle standards. We believe i that d.d~cct radiation doses to humans l in the site environs can be controlled  ;

by proper plant design and layout. Thus, we - urge the applicant to consider _ care-fully the design options to minimize the effects of this dose exposure path-way.

Quite.obviously, there is nothing in the EPA comment

- that goes beyond a general recognition of the difficulties.

in_ predicting direct doses, not just for ACUGS but for all BWR plants.

In any event, nothing in Petitioner's assertion casts any doubt on the' ability of ACNGS, as designed, to meet the i

criteria of 40 CFR 190 by satisfying the requirements of f 10 CFR 50, Appendix-I. As the. EPA noted in promulgating Part 190:

The NRC has recently issued a revised set of regulatory guides for light-water-cooled reactors which implement their announced intent to use the most realis-tic models available when adequate experi- .

t mental data exist'to permit a prudent and scientific determination. These models b

r

- , . , . , , . .. . . . . _,.....:. - - ~ ~ . . - . - a

. - . - - - , =

c - . .

are intended for use in. implementing I the.recently-issued Appendix I to 10 )

CFR Part 50, which defines design and operating criteria for single reactor units. EPA has examined Appendix I and i 1the accompanying regulatory guides and l agrees that they provide the basis for 1

-realistic. implementation of these stan-dards for single reactor units.

In the case of light water reactors, models-and monitoring requirements for i

, demonstrating conformance with Appendix I of 10 CFR 50 are generally adeauate for demonstrating conformance with these standards. (emphasis added) 42 Fed. Reg. 2858-59 (January '13, 1977).

If the contention is that the contributing dose at the site boundary attributable to routine emissions will not meet the numerical requirements set forth in Appendix I, Petitioner fails to provide any basis for this allegation and makes no

attempt to.specify in what respect these requirements will be exceeded.

Contention 3 Petitioner contends that there must be an evacuation plan for the " heavily-populated Houston-area." This conten-tion is amplified with unsubstantiated " projections" of pop'-  ;

ulation density and the number of visitors anticipated for the proposed adjacent state park. / Petitioner asserts no e */ Petitioner 1seems rto imply that the Applicant did not anti-cipate. future ~ population changes (Petitioner's only attempt Lat "new evidence" : reference ~s unidentified reports on population changesTand concomitant traffic problems.) or heavy usage of

'theTstate-park.

~

LThis,is certainly not true. See Applicant's Response to'Second Amendment for' Leave.to Intervene and Con-

'tentions n Supplementing Petition for' Leave t'o Intervene Filed by. Texas-Public Interest-Research Group, Inc., filed September 28, 1978,.atLpp.l13-14, quoting Staff testimony.at the' prior u hearingsand;FES S 5. 6. 4. -(November , 1974),

a l

s 1 -t

.new informationL(other'than unspecified "new evidence" on J

traffic. conditions.in llouston) to support its assertion regarding'the ability to take protective measures for persons in Houston. As to-evacuation of the state park, Petitioner e identifies no new information to warrant re-examination of this isstie which wasf determined definitively in the partial ,

initial decision on ACNGS (2 NRC 776, 779).

Contention 4 Petitioner alleges in this contention.that the Applicant has.not provided'the necessary assurances to protect the Lproposed ACNGS against potential sabotage. The Commission's regulations set forth in Part 73, and in particular S 73.55, provide for design and security measures required to protect

'a proposed facility from sabotage. . Petitioner apparently

.sceks to challenge these measures, with which Applicant must and will comply, as inadequate to protect the proposed ACNGS from:theithreat of sabotage. If so, the challenge is impermissible absent a showing of special circumstances.

10.CFR-S_ 2.758.. If Petitioner is alleging that Applican't

~

will not meet NRC requirements, he has failed to allege with supporting bases in what specific respects, based

'upon' design changesfor-new information, tnese requirements l wi'll not be met. .Having' failed to do so, the contention should be dismissed, n.

4 a cd' , - , m ,

1

' Contention 5 This contention apparently seeks to raise issues relat-ing to the consideration in the FES of accidents other than:designLbasis accidents (i.e. Class 9). If so, it has been determined that this issue is-inappropriate for litiga-tion in individual licensing proceedings. See e.g._, Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Therefore, this contention should not be' allowed.

In addition, to the extent the contention alleges that l the conclusions in the FES are improperly based on the re-sults of-the. Reactor Saftey Study (NASH-1400) it is, likewise, improper. In fact, conclusions reached in the FES do not 1

[ depend on NASH-1400. This, of course, is consistent with the Interim General Statement of Policy issued by the Commission whi'ch concluded, among other things, that the contents of the studyb ! are not an appropriate basis for licensing decisions.

39 F.R. 30.964 (1974). Since the contention is based on a false premise, it is improper and should be disallowed.

• /The Interim General Statement of Policy was issued in con-nection with the release of the draft version of WASH-1400, but anticipated and, by its terms, it applicable to the final study.

n

?

~ '

m...i- a m. .__________.m.____ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ .m___ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . __._.___.mm_____m,____.____m.___

r 1

7- j

> l Content' ion 6 i This contention is wholly unsupported except for a vague and unspecific. reference to "Mannings roughness factor,"

hardly a coherent challenge to the extensive analysis in i

. the PSAR at S 6.2.l'.3.1.2.1. Of greatest importance, however, Petitioner has made no showing of relevant design changes,- '

or. pertinent new evidence or new information to justify the l admission of the " contention".

2 .

Respectfully submitted, i

, utib l fasu1~

l /

. November 13, 1978 /Jack R . Newman J

a Culp j~ h,/RobertH. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.  ;

2, Washington, D.C. 20036 j

-1 J. Gregory Copeland j i

Charles G. Thrash. Jr. j 3000 One Shell Plaza i Houston, Texas 77002 j l _

Attorneys for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OF. COUNSEL: 1

- LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, '

~;. . AXELRAD & TOLL

- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.  ;

-Washington, D.C. 20036 i i

' BAKER &'BOTTS

.3000 One Shell' Plaza

, Houston, Texas 77002 1

1 a

i T S' $ / T v % ( e y4 +e - U*y.e&>p-.gy--* -

9 +T~,$,+-g,pJo-Ma.syr Wy ,ee y w g .wy-Yq9--tewyw tre ev < w eg % t w-d r- 71 yrww F i- r-Tw WWr14-+-h- -

F M

4 .-

l l

4 '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l UUCLEAR . REGULATORY COMMISSION I l

I BEFORE . THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING .30ARD I t l

. In' the Mat ter. of.

. HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466

)-

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )  !

Station, Unit 1) )

)

, 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby. certify that copies of Applicant's Response to ,

Additional Contentions of the Texas Public'Research Group filed  !

on November 1, 1978, were served on the following by deposit in H the United States Mail, postage prepaid,.or by hand delivery this

( 13th day of' November 1978:

i. 1 i

-Sheldon J. . Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the St' ate of Texas Washington, D. C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station i

Dr.

E. Leonard Cheatum- Austin, Texas 78711 Route 3, Box 350A Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor City of Wallis, Texas 77485

Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety'and Licensing Gregory J. Kainer 4 Board Panel' 11118 Wickwood i: U.S. NuclearfRegulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77024

,. Washington, D. C. 20555 r Atomic Safety and Licensing je . Chase R. Stephens

( Dockcting and Service Section . Appeal Boa'rd Office of the. Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l ,

Commission Commission f

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionc Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 i I

- . -- = . - -

7 J+

r I

i R. Gordon.Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing l

. Baker & Botts Board Panel t 1701. Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 a Steve Schinki,-Esq.

Staff Counsel' T. Paul Robbins -

- U.S.iNuclear Regulatory c/o AFSC

. Commission 600 West 28th Street, #102 Washington,. D. C.'20555 Auston, Texas 78705 I

John F. Doherty . Waync E. Rentfro I Armadillo Coalition of Texas P.O. Mr< 1335  :

4433 1/2 Leeland Rose. , erg, Texas 77471 _

Houston, Texas 77023  !

Brenda A. McCorkle James' Scott,,Jr. 6140 Darnell 8302 Albacore- Houston, Texas 77074

' Houston, Texas 77074 j Emanuel-Baskir  !

Carro Hinderstein 5711 Warm Springs Road 1 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77035

[ Houston, Texas 77025 Steven Gilbert, Esq.

Jean-Claude De Bremaecker 122 Bluebonnet 12128 Addison Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Houston, Texas 77030 Brent Miller Edgar Crane 4811 Tamarisk Lane 13507 Kingsride. Bellaire, Texas 77401 i Houston,. Texas 77079 f John V. Anderson 3626 Broadmead Patrici'a L. Day - Houston, Texas 77025 ,

L2432'Nottingham "

+

Houston,_ Texas -77005 John R. Shreffler 5014 Braeburn Lois'H. Anderson Bellaire, Texas 77401 3626 Broadmead 1 Houston, Texas 77025 Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive 4

David Marke Houston, Texas 77035 Solar. Dynamics, Ltd.

3904 Warehouse RowL Madeline Bass Framson Suite C. 4822.Waynesboro Drive Austin', Texas 78704 Houston, Texas 77035 4

a-1 t, 1 9 -

9 + -gg.w.g , ,y-y w ,v+-- -w-,,c. --w-,w  % ,w,mw,, ,, d .- ve-,..w.

4 '

J

- Shirley Caldwell Mrs. R. M. Bevis '

14501 Lillja 7706 Brykerwoods Houston, Texas 77060 Houston, Texas- 77055 Ann Viharton - Kathryn Hooker 1424.'Kipling 1424 Kipling  !

Houston, Texas. 77006 Houston, Texas 77006 Joe'Yelderman, M.D. John Renaud, Jr. ,

Box 303 4110 Yoakum Street

.Needville, Texas 77461 Apartment 15 D. Michael McCaughan 3131 Timmons Ln. Allen D. Clark Apartment 254 5602 Rutherglenn ]

Houston, Texas. 77027 Houston, Texas 77096 j Lee Loe D. Marrack 1344 Kipling 420 Mulberry Lane Houston, Texas 77098. Bellaire, Texas 77401 i

Alan Vomacka, Esq. .

. George Broze Houston Chaptor,. National Lawyers 1823-A Marshall Street-Guild Houston, Texas 77098 4803 Montrose Blvd.

Suite.11 Charles Michulka, Esq.

Houston, Texas 77006 P.O. Box 382 Stafford, Texas 77477 1 Hon. John. R. Mikeska j Austin County Judge l P.O. Box 310 _ 4 Bellville, Texas 77418 )

4b f - f 14011" <

1 4

i I

e

j,

. . , , . ,c m .,. a, .,..a,._, . , , . . . . _ . . - . . _ , - , , , . . - _ , , . . _ . . . , - - - . . . _ . ,