ML20150D134
| ML20150D134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1978 |
| From: | Copeland J, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812050037 | |
| Download: ML20150D134 (36) | |
Text
__
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM m
sc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$$NC 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g7 v.,,d BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
f/
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & PONER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS FILED BY Lois H. Anderson, Patricia L.
Day, Robert Framson, Madeline Framson, Steven Gilbert, Carro Hinder-stein, Kathryn Hooker, Lee Loe, Brenda A. McCorkle, Charles Michulka and Ann Wharton I.
INTRODUCTION On September 1, 1978, the Board issued a Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures (Corrected Notice) allowing petitions for leave to intervene to be filed in this proceeding by October 11, 1978.$!
The Corrected Notice was published,in the Federal Register on September 11, 1978 (43 F.R.
40,328) and provided that petitions for leave to intervene should set forth the petitioner's " interest" and "how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding.
The Corrected Notice also provided that any contentions which a petitioner seeks to have litigated must be based upon " proposed changes in
-*/
The Doard had issued an earlier Notice of Intervention Procedures which was published in the Federal Register on May 31, 1978 (43 F.R.
23,666).
2 0 5 () o y[.
G
the plant' design and/or based upon new evidence or information that had not been available prior to the Appeal Board's memorandstm i
and order of December 9, 1975, with the bases for each contention i
set forth with reasonable specificity."
l In response to the Corrected Notice, petitions for leave to intervene in this proceeding were filed by a number of persons, including those listed in the caption above.
On October 24, 1978 applicant Houston Lighting and Power Company filed a response to the petitions urging that they be denied on the basis that, inter alia, the petitioners had failed to establish their standing to intervene in this proceeding.
Earlier this month, a number of the petitioners who responded to the Corrected Notice filed contentions which they seek to place in issue.
For the reasons discussed below, however, the contentions of those named in the caption above are improper l
and should not be allowed.
As a result of their having failed to set forth any valid contentions, and in addition to the i
reasons discussed in applicant's October 24, 1978 filing, the
]
petitions should be denied.
10 CFR S 2.714(b).
II.
CONTENTIONS Many of the contentions submitted by different petitioners i
concern the same issues.
These are grouped appropriately in the discussion below.
In addition, a listing of petitioner's i
l l
i j
3-contentions by number, and where they are considered in this Response, is included in the Appendix.
Anderson a, Framson 4, Hinderstein II, Hooker 3, Loe 3 /
and McCorkle V These contentions all concern high level waste disposal.
All are deficient, however,-in that they are not based on changes in the plant or new information or evidence and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements of the Board's Corrected Notice.
The matter of high level waste disposal has received attention for many years.
Numerous studies existed prior to 1975 and could have been relied upon by petitioners to frame contentions.
E.g._,
U.S. Atomic Energy Comm'n, Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (WASH-1248 1974).
The addition of a few more studies or opinions to an existing body of literature is not "new evidence or new information" within the meaning of the Corrected Notice.- j In addition, to the extent the contentions allege that a decision must be made as to the ultimate means of high level
-*/
Although unnumbered, this is the first full contention on page two.
--**/
Within the context of the Board's Memorandum and Order, "new evidence" or "new information" must be taken to mean some-thing, in fact, only recently available -- that is, previously i
not known or reasonably discoverable -- and tending to prove that which is alleged in a given c-ontention, i
- - - = =
v v
y 9
-errw--,
+-
+pyqvr, er6-s,we+
_.4_
waste disposal before a construction permit can be. granted, they are in error as a matter of law.
The Commission itself has concluded that it is not obligated to make a finding that there are presently available methods of waste disposal available before licensing a reactor.
42 F.R.
34,391 (1977).
This position was recently upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
NRDC v.-NRC, F.2d 11 ERC 1945 (July 5, 1978).
Accordingly, the contentions are irrelevant and should not be allowed.
Finally, to the extent contentions allege that the effects of spent fuel storage at the site have not been properly evalu-ated, they are unacceptably vague and unspecific.
The Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (Final Supplement),
for example, provides detailed information concerning the radiological impacts associated with facility operation under both normal and accident conditions.
- See, e.g., pp. S.5-23 to
-31, S.7-1 to
-2.
Within such a context, an unsupported asser-tion that a construction "[p]ermit should be denied until studies are made of the radioactive emissions from.
radioactive wastes stored at t'e site" (Pramson 4) is clearly not sufficient to place a matter in issue for adjudication.
See Corrected Notice, p.
4; 10 CFR S 2.714 (b).
.w,m,
,-,s
s,e Anderson b, Day and Wharton 1/
These contentions all concern electric generation alternatives.
Neither the Day nor Anderson contentions, however, are even allegedly based on plant changes or new evidence or information and, thus, are improper under the Board's Corrected notice.
Further, both contentions are unacceptably vague, unspecific and without basis.
The Anderson contention fails to even suggest a single alternative deemed preferable; the Day conten-tion offers no basis whatever for a conclusion other than that contained on page S.9-6 of the Final Supplement that " geothermal energy is not an available alternative source of energy for the proposed 1200 MWe of base-load anerating capacity."
As for the Wharton contention, it too lacks specificity and basis.
In addition, uhile the contention appears to adopt the position that natural gas is a preferred alternative to the proposed plant (although this is by no means clear) it contains nothing to suggest other than that, "[b]ecause current restric-tions do not permit the use of natural. gas as a boiler fuel and because future prices are expected to be too high" natural gas is not "a viable fuel for an 1200-MWe base load power station."
Final Supplement, p. S.9-3.
For the above stated reasons, these contentions should be disallowed.
i
-*/
Although' unnumbered, the first Wharton contention appears on-page one.
l i
~
i s-4.-,
.-r,.
.6-Anderson c, d and Wharton 2 /
These contentions should be rejected in that they are not based on plant changes or new-information or evidence.
More importantly, however, these contentions are clear challenges to the Price-Anderson Act, the constitutionality of which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 98 S.Ct.
- 2620, 46 U.S.L.W.
4845 (June 26, 1978).
As a result, the contentions are clearly improper and should be rejected.
See also Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey Point Units 3 and 4), Commission Memorandum and Order,4 AEC 787, 788 (1972).
Anderson e'and Framson 12 These are not contentions.at all but, rather, a series of conclusory statements, such as:
" Utilities have overbuilt t
their capacity which have [ sic] cost the consumer many millions of extra dollars" and, "A large number of environmental and
. safety problesm [ sic] are associated with the BWR, Mark III i
Containment, Emergency Core Cooling System, automatic Protection systems, etc.
In no way db they constitute, as re-quired, a listing "of the contentions which petitioner (s) seek to have litigated and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
10 CFR S 2. 714 (b).
Accor-dingly, they must be disallowed.
Id.; Corrected Notice, p.
4.
-*/
This contention, although unnumbered, appears at the middle of page two.
Framson 1 and 10 These contentions are not even allegedly based on plant changes or new evidence oc information and, therefore, are improper under the terms of the Board's Corrected Notice.
Peti-tioner has failed to show why these contentions could not have been raised at the earlier hearings in this proceeding.
In addition, to the extent the contentions take issue with the consideration given by the NRC Staff to decommissioning --
I toth the factors considered and costs assumed -- these matters.
)
I have been noticed as the subject of a proposed rulemaking.
l See 43 F.R.
10,370.
Since the Commission has undertaken to con-i sider these issues on a generic basis, it makes no sense to adjudicate them in individual licensing cases.
In fact, the Appeal Board has specifically stated, in a similar context involving the Commission's fuel cycle rulemaking, "that licen-i 1
sing boards should not accept in individual license proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission."
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, these contentions should be dismissed.
Framson 2, 3, Hooker 5 and Michulka 5 1
These contentions all concern the transportation of fuel and radioactive waste.
However, they do not even purport to be based on changes in the plant or new information or evidence.
Accordingly,
~
they' fail to, comply-with the requirements of the Corrected Notice and should not be allowed.
In addition, although the contentions are vague and unspecific, to the extent they take issue with the consideration given to the environmental effects resulting from transportation activities, they constitute an impermissible challenge to Section 51.20 (g) (1) and Table S.4 of.the Commission's regulations which prescribe-the environmental' impacts of the transportation of fuel and waste to and from a reactor.
10 CFR S 2.758, As for the-health and safety aspects of transportation, the commission's regulations r.
cide a panoply of requirements directed at assuring adec atection.
- See, e.g.,
10 CFR Part 71, SS 73.30-73.36.
.,e the contentions do not allege that there will be non-compliance with applicable regulations and make no attempt at a showing of special circumstances, they can only be interpreted as an irpermissible challenge to the regula-tions which should not be allowed.
10 CFR S 2.758.
Framson 5 and 7 These contentions concern the safety and safeguarding of the facility and nuclear materials.
Commission regulations, however, prescribe protection requirements in detail.
- See, e.g.,
In the absence of any allegation that regulatory requirements will not be met, these contentions can only be
_ 9_
~
read as a challenge to.the' adequacy of the regulations which, absent any special showing, is improper.
10 CFR S 2.758.
In addition,-the contentions are vague and unspecific.
Clearly, undefined references to such things as " nuclear ter-rorism" (Framson 5) and " decreased civil liberties" resulting from " extensive protective safeguards" (Framson 7) are not sufficient to raise litigable issues.
See 10 CFR S 2.714(b);
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
, Finally, the contentions are not based on any change in the plant or evidence or information not_available prior to December 1975 and, therefore, do not meet the requirements of the Board's Corrected Notice.
For all of the above reasons, these contentions should be rejected.
Framson 8 This contention is unacceptably vague, unspecific and without stated basis.
The contention appears to assert that,-
at ACMGS, insulation failure in containment electrical penetrations of a type that has allegedly occurred at Millstone (whether involving Unit 1, 2 or 3 is not specified) could "cause electrically operated valves to be in the incorrect position and failure of alarms to operate properly which can endanger public health and welfare."
However, no "electri-cally operated valves" or " alarms" are identified, nor is how i
,-~,e-,-
e<~-m-m- - <.,,.-----
, their failure could occur and " endanger the public health and safety" explained.
Further, no connection is made between the
" containment electrical penetrations " which allegedly f ailed at Millstone and those which will be utilized at ACNGS.
Thus, the contention, as it stands, is clearly insufficient to raise a litigable issue and should be rejected.
See 10 CFR S 2.714(b); Corrected Notice, p.
4.
Framson 9 i
This contention is not based on any identified change in the plant or new evidence or information not available prior to December 1975.
Accordingly, it is inconsistent with the Board's Corrected Notice and should not be allowed.
In addition, to the extent the contention alleges that the conclusions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and i
Safety Evaluation Report (SER) associated with Allens Creek are improperly based on the results of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) it is, likewise, improper.
Nowhere is the alleged reliance identified in the contention and, in fact, conclusions reached in the EIS and SER do not depend on WASH-1400.
- This, of course, is consistent with the Interim General Statement of Policy issued by the Commission which concluded, among other the. contents of the study ! are not an appropriate 1
things, that
-*/
The Interim General Statement of Policy was issued in connection with the release of the draft version of WASH-1400, but. anticipated and, by its terms, is applicable to the final study.
~
basis for J icensing decisions.
39 F.R.
30,964 (1974).
Since the contention is based on a false premise, it is improper and should be disallowed..
Framson 11 This contention alleges that The Allens Creek Plant should not be constructed-as it is obviously contributing an adverse in-pact in destroying over 5000 acres of rich food-producing farmland, a diminishing natural resource.
The contention does not even purport to be based on
~
changes in the design of the' proposed plant orEnew information or evidence.
Petitioner has made no attempt to show why this contention could not have been. raised at the earlier hearings in this proceeding.
For this reason, the contention is in-proper and should not be accepted.
Corrected Notice, p.'4.
Framson 6, Hinderstein XI, Hooker 1, Loe 1, / McCorkle II, VI, Michulka 4 (part) and Wharton 3**/
The thrust of each of these contentions is concern with respect to exposure to low ~ level radiation.
Commission
-*/
Though unnumbered, this is the first contention, which appears on page one.
--**/
This contention, although unnumbered, begins with-the last paragraph at the bottom of page two.
l l
regulations, however, specify acceptable direct radiation levels and radioactive effluent concentrations for both restricted and unrestricted areas.
- See, e.g.,
10 CFR SS 20.101, 20.103, 20.105, 20.106 and Part 50, Append'.x I.
If the clahn is thut releases from the ACNGS will not meet the requirmnents set forth in the regulations,
petitioners fail to provide any basis whatever for this alle-gation, and make no attempt to specify in what respect any releases will fail to meet said requirements.
Therefore, such allegations do not satisfy the " specificity" requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714(b) and the Corrected Notice.
If petitioners are claiming that the releases from ACNGS must be lower than the regulatory requirements, in any respect, such a claim is a challenge to the adequacy of the commission's regulations and, absent some special showing, is not permitted in this licensing procceding.
See, 10 CFR S 2.758.
Finally, the somatic and genetic effects of low level radiation have been the subjects of continuing research and investigation over the past twenty-five or more years.
A host of studies existed prior to 1975 and could have been relied upon by the petitioners in framing contentions earlier.
The addition of a few more studies or opinions to an already vast body of scientific information is not "new evidence or new information" within the meaning of the Board's Corrected Notice.
For this additional reason, the contentions should be rejected.
i
Hooker 2 and McCorkle XVI These contentions should be rejected.
Both refer to core melt accidents, presumably based on a hypothesized failure of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS).
As a result, they constitute an impermissible challenge to the adequacy of Commission regulations prescribing acceptance criteria for ECCS (see 10 CFR S 50.46) without even an attempt'at showing special c,rcumstances.
10 CFR S 2.758. /
In addition, with respect to McCorkle XVI, the words imply that a "new fuel arrangement and containment system" at ACNGS constitute "new information" or " changes in plant design."
There is no such change in plant design.
The assertion is, therefore, without support and the contention should be re-jected.
See Corrected Notice, p.
4.
IIooker 6 and Loe 2**/
These are not contentions but, rather, simply assertions that, because perfection in human endeavors is impossible, the ACNCS should not be built.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Commission is charged with prescribing regulations defining what is and is not licensable.
-*/
To the extent these contentions seek to raise other than design basis accidents (class 9), they. concern a matter which the Commission has-determined to be inappropriate for litigation in individual licensing proceedings and are therefore improper.
- See, e.g., Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States, 510 F.2d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
--**/
This contention is not numbered but begins at the bottom of the first page.
/
Absent a special showing of a deficiency within the web'of. safety regulations, compliance with them (and not some subjective standard of " perfection") is a sufficient demonstration of i
safety.
See Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic
.i Power Station), 6 AEC 1003, 1008-10 (1973)), aff'd sub nom.,
i Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d'1291-(1975).
Since j
there'is no basis whatever in the contention to support an allegation that the ACMGS will fail to comply with any of the Commission's regulations, the contentions raise nothing which' may properly be placed in issue as a matter in controversy in thic proceeding and should, therefore, be denied.
Gilbert This contention, involving surrounding population and evacuation planning, is not based on changes in the plant or evidence or information and should, therefore be rejected. /
now Corrected Notice, p.
4.
Clearly. vague references by petitioner to unidentified
"[s] tudies by Rice University and the City of Houston,"
a "recent study by the civil defense," and what the " city of Houston Civil Defense has stated" are not an adequate specifi-cation of new information or evidence arising since 1975 within the meaning of the Board's Corrected Notice.
- /
If petitioner wanted to raise an issue relating to the evacuation of Houston which is about 45 miles from the proposed site, it could have done so at the earlier hearings
.in this proceeding.
m l Hinderstein I This contention alleges that, because the " final EIS" for the ACNGS project was given an ER-2 rating by the EPA, proceedings should be suspended.
In fact, however, the page of the Final Sup-plement referenced in the contention indicates that the Draft Supplement received an ER-2 rating, not the Final Supplement.
The Final Supplement contains additional information in response to EPA comments.
- See, e.g., pp. S.ll-4 to
-6.
Since the con-tention is based on a misunderstanding of.the facts, it should be rejected.
More-importantly, however, there is no requirement that proceedings be suspended -- cr even that a construction permit be withheld -- pending the receipt of a given EIS rating by the EPA.
Accordingly, the contention is ircelevant and should s
be disallowed.
J
- Hinderstein III and Michulka 4 (part)
Tnese contentions-concern alleged " dredging" of the Brazos River for barge transportation of reactor components to the ACMGS.
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 noved on the site).
Overland. transport remains a viable alternative and applicant's plans in this regard are unchanged in_the period since the k/
initial proceedings on this application. /
Since the contention is unsupported by relevant new data or information, it should be rejected.
Corrected notice, p.
4.
Hinderstein IV and Michulka 4 (part)
These contentions both involve alleged ACMGS cooling system effects on aquatic biota.
Insofar as the Michulka contention is concerned, however, a conclusory statement that "the dis-cussion (in the EIS) of thermal effects and intake construction is [in]sufficiently detailed as it relates to the Brazos" clearly j
l lacks sufficient basis and specificity to raise an issue in an adjudicatory proceeding.
In addition, it is neither based on changes in the plant, nor new information or evidence.
Accordingly,
-*/
To the extent petitioner argues that barge transport, in any case, would require dredging it is in error, since the San Bernard River is a federally maintained navigable waterway to a point well above any potential off-loading junction for thO ACNGS site.
+ I I
the contention 1should be rejected.
See 10 CFR S 2.714(b);
Corrected Notice, p.
4 As for the E tn6 c n contention, it merely asserts --
without support or amplification -
that "The cold-shock effect will be increased by the change of design flora two units to one unit since the one unit will not be operating as much of the time as two."
Thus, it also lacks specificity and basis l
and should be disallowed.
Id.
Hinderstein V This contention asserts that alternative siting on the Gulf Coast, so that sea water.could be used for condenser cooling, should receive more attention.
The contention could well have been raised earlier, however, since it is not based on a change in the plant or new evidence or information.
Accordingly, it should not be accepted.
See Corrected Notice, p.
4.
In addition, cooling' water availability and systems con-stitute only one element in the selection of alternative sites, In view of the extensive consideration given to factors per-tinent to site selection -- including the consumptive use of i
water -- (see, e.g.,
Final Supplement, pp. S.9-10 to -15) an assertion that the utilization of sea water for cooling should be more " fully explored" lacks both sufficient basis and. speci-ficity to raise an issue in an adjudicatory proceeding.
See 10 CPR S 2.714 (b) ; Corrected Notice, p.
4.
For this Ldditional reason the contention should be rejected.
i.
Hinderstein VI This contention, concerning the use of a cooling tower instead of the proposed lake, suffers from the same basic infirmities of Hinderstein V, discussed above.
It is not based on plant changes or new evidence or information.
In addition, in view of the consideration given to alternative cooling systems, including cooling towers (see, e.g., Final Supolement, p. S,9-16) a simple assertion that a construction permit should be denied "until the choice of a cooling lake over a wet. cooling-tower is environmentally and economically justified" is insufficient as to both basis and specificity to raise a litigable issue.
See 10 CFR S 2.714(b); Corrected t
Notice, p.
4.
Accordingly, the contention should not be 1
accepted.
Hinderstein VII and McCorkle IV l
These contentions both deal with the economic costs of the plant.
However, since the matter they seek to have addressc; is nowhere tied to changes in the plant or new information or evidence, it could have been raised earlier.
Accordingly, the contentions are inconsistent with the terms of the Board's Corrected Notice and should be rejected.
i In addition, McCorkle IV fails to meet even the most mini-
. mal requirements with respect to specificity.
The generalized-l '
1
. -,, ~ ~ -......
...,_,--.m-,4
<-l E
e statement that "the cost of the f acility may be excessive" is followed by equally vague questions which ask:
"How much will it
( ACUCD). cost me?"
The contention is utterly unsupported by~any factual assertions necessary to establish a litigable issue.
As for Hinderstein VII, the factors raised in the conten-tion have either been considered, are inappropriate for liti-gation in this' proceeding, or are offered without supporting basis.
For example, projected annual fuel costs are given in the Final Supplemeat on page S.10-6.
As for the consideration of decommissioning costs, beyond that presented on the same page of the Final Supplement _, thic matter has been noticed as the subject of a proposed rulemaking.
See 43 F.R.
10,370 and the discussion on page 7, suora.
Further, the statement in the contention that "the average operation of nuclear plants in the United States is at 56% of its designed potential capacity" is offered wholly without support or basis.
t
-.. ~...
,n
- 20 q
l More importantly, however, the matter of cost is raised l
in both contentions wholly without reference to the environmental i
effects'of alternatives.
As a result,.the contentions are virtually irrelevant to this proceeding and should not be allowed.
The Appeal Board has recently noted:
The passage of the National. Environmental Policy Act increased our concern with the economics of nu-clear 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.
Mani-festly, 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.
In the scheme of things, we leave such mat 2ers to the bus-iness judgment of the utility companies and to the wisdom of the State regulatory agencies responsible for scrutinizing the purely economic aspects of pro-posals to build new generating facilities.
In short, as far as NEPA is concerned, cost is important only to the extent it results in an environmentally superior alternative.
If the " cure" is worse than the disease, that it is cheap is hardly impressive.
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Units 1 & 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 162-63 (footnotes omitted).
Without even an allegation of the environmental superiority of a specified alternative, the con-tentions are improper.
i In sum, for the reasons discussed above, both of these con-tentions should be rejected.
-s'n-
,,.e, a
r-
,.-ew, y..
-,,-e-,
e m -- n -ep, ----
..,.,.4 p..e-y y e---
--y-yc
_a e
Hinderstein VIII This contention, concerning Attwater's prairie chicken, is not based on any plant change or new information or evidence and, therefore, should be rejected.
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
In addition, a bald assertion that " greater safeguards for the continued well-being of this scarce bird are needed" --
especially in view of the discussion provided in the Final' Supplement (e.g., p. S.4-6) -- is so unspecific and lacking in basis that it cannot be considered an adequato specification of a litigable issue.
See 10 CFR S 2.714 (b) ; Corrected Notice, p.
4.
For this additional reason, the contention should not be accepted.
Hinderstein IX Thia contention pertains to air monitoring stations for the plant.
However, it is not even purportedly based on new information or evidence or changes in the plant and should, therefore, be rejected.
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
In addition, the basic assertion that monitors are neces-sary "at the per# meter of the plant site and about 5 miles away to ensure the safe operation of the proposed plant" is wholly without basis.
For this reason, too, the contention should be disallowed.
+
---r c+,
m
Hinderstein X This contention states, in pertinent part, that The final EIS lacks a soil surveyLand adequate information of the aquifer and water table.
-Infor-mation on the-porosity of the soil, the composition and extent of the. aquifer beneath the proposed site, and thefuses of the underground water is necessary' in order to' evaluate the possibility of radioactive contamination of the cooling leke water and ground water.
The contention, however, is not even allegedly based on plant changes or new information or evidence and, therefore, l
chould be rejected.
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
l l
In addition, an extensive amount of information is already available concerning exposure pathways, soils and ground water a
at the site.
- See, e.g.,
Final Supplement _, pp. S.5-22 to -28;
)
i ACUGS Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), pp. 2.4-43 to -50.
Within this context, more than just the unsupported assertion offered in the contention that certain additional information is necessary is required.
Since no more has been provided, however, the contention is lacking in basis and, for this reason too, should be rejected.
Loe 4 /
I This contention is, in fact, a statement of personal oppo-j l
sition to the use of nuclear power to generate electricity, rather than an expression of the desire to litigate a particular issue or issues in a licensing proceeding.
The short answer
-*/
This is the last contention on page two.
P
23 -
to such a contention has recently been supplied by the Supreme Court when it emphasized that the basic Congressional decision "to at least try nuclear energy" is not subject to reconsider-ation in adjudicatory proceedings.
Vermont Nuclear Power Corporation v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 98 S.
Ct. 1197, 1219 (1978).
Contentions which attempt such reconsideration should not be allowed.
McCorkle III and XII These contentions, regarding the recreational value of the cooling lake, could have been raised in the earlier pro-ceedings on this application.
Petitioner fails to identify a change in plant design or any new information or evidence and the contentions, therefore, fail under the standards established by the Board's Corrected Notice.
In addition, to the extent that McCorkle XII can be read as an attempt to challenge the limits on radiological releases to unrestricted areas permitted by 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I, it constitutes an impermiscible challenge to the regulations and, absent a showing of special circumstance, must be denied.
10 CFR S 2.758.
McCorkle VII This contention postulates that effluents from ACNGS might be reduced to the level of those released by a pressurized water
n i,
i
}
4 reactor (PWR) if certain additional radwaste facilities and control measures were added to the plant.
The underlying con-
.tention is that, in order to meet the Commission's as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) requirement, emissions may be "no more than that of a PWR."
However, no such requirement exists under NRC regulations and, therefore, the contention may only be construed as a challenge to 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 50, Appendix I which is unsupported by the requisite showing under 10 CFR S 2.758.
Accordingly, the contention should be rejected.
McCorkle VIII This contention alleges that the loose parts monitor for ACNGS will not be "sufficiently sensitive" to detect loose parts before "thaey [ sic] block the water flow" and cause a " core meltdown."
The contention should be rejected because:
(1) it does not identify any new information or evidence or change in plant design; (2) it offers no support for the assertion that the loose parts detection system "is not sufficiently sensitive" and is therefore impermissibly vague and without basis and; (3) to the extent it postulates a core meltdown, it constitutes a challenge to the Commission's policy not to consider -- absent a special showing -- class 9 accidents in individual licensing proceedings (see, e.g.,
Carolina Environmental Study Group v.
United States, 510 F.2d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 1975)) or A
A
_a 33..
t SectionL50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50 of the Commission's regulations.
McCorkle IX
.This contention asserte that applicant does not have'
" sufficient control" of the exclusion area "because it'has no control over the owners of oil and gas leases within the exclusion. area."
The question of applicant's control over possible miner'l extraction activities within the exclusion a
area was dealt with extensively in the 1974 Safety Evaluation Report of 'he ACNGS (SER), on pp.
2-1, 2-36,and the June, 1975 t
Supplement No. 1 to the SER (SER, Supp. 1),pp. 2-1 to 2-2.
The Staff concluded that "the potential for oil production beneath the site is extremely remote" (SER, p. 2-36) and that "appli-cant has provided reasonab)e assurance that it can control all activities within the proposed exclusion area" (SER, Supp.
1,
- p. 2-2).
This matter was.obviously the subject of intensive consideration as of November 1974; petitioner fails to identify any new information in this regard and thus the contention should be dismissed.
McCorkle X-This contention deals with the hazard associated with the discharge of chlorine gas stored on the site or released as a result of railroad accidents.
There ia absolutely no identifi-cation of.any new information to substantiate the contention.
26 -
v
.Thc problem associated'with the. carriage of hazardous materials on railroads was discussed in the November, 1974 SER (pp.
2-8, 2-9).
The potential.for accidental releases of chlorine gas at.the ACNGS site was identified and dealt with as early as December, 1973 (PSAR, p.
15.1-99a).
The contention is not supported:by neu information and should be rejected.
McCorkle XI Petitioner alleges that the proposed ACNGS containment "should be' built to withstand the impact of a 747 airplane."
Other than vague' references to "more routes" to Los Angeles and "recent attempts" to. steal a nuclear submarine, petitioner fails to identify specifically the new information or new evidence which would require, under NRC guidelines and prece-dent (e.g., Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2, NUREG-75/094; Standard Review Plan, S 3.5.1.6, NUREG-7 5/0 8 7. ), that the proposed-facility be designed to withstand the impact of a crash of a 747 airplane.
On this basis, the contention should be denied.
Moreover, to the extent'that petitioner seeks to raise i
the issue of a deliberate crash of a plane into the containment.
i l
structure, it is clearly a challenge to Part 73 of the Commis-I l
sion's regulations and thus cannot be considered in this pro-i i
coeding, absent a showing of special circumstances.
10 CPR l
5 2.758.
1 i
i i
L
l McCorkle XIII Petitioner alleges in this contention that the effect on the proposed plant of groundwater subsidence has not been adequately considered.
This contention should be dismissed since it is not based on new evidence or new information which has arisen since 1975.
The ques::..on of subsidence was thoroughly litigated at the earlier hearings in this proceeding and the Board made extensive findings in its Partial Initial Decision with respect r
to the issue 1of subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal.
These findings included a specific evaluation of future ground-water demands and the resulting effect on the proposed plant.
2 NRC 776, 806-09.
Moreover, a specific evaluation was made of potential stresses for ground cracking along the edges of a " subsidence bowl."
Id. 808.
Absent a showing that this contention is based on new information or new evider.ce, it should be denied.
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
McCorkle XIV Petitioner here alleges that the radwaste building will not withstand "to a sufficient degree" earthquake, tornado and turbine missiles.
The radwaste building has always been clas-sified as a category I structure (PSAR, Table 3.2-1) and has been evaluated by the NRC to withstand earthquakes, tornadoes and other natural phenomena.
Besides a reference to a
. ~.
o recent tornado in Mississippi, petitioner has failed to identify specifically the new information or new evidence relied upon to support this allegation.
Moreover, petitioner has made no attempt to relate the tornado in Mississippi.to the design basis tornado evaluated for ACNGS and as a consequence, the contention is vague and unspecific and should be denied.
10 CFR S 2.714 (b) ;
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
McCorkle XV and XX These contentions, concerning the AGNGS containment, are not even allegedly based en plant changes or new evidence or information and, therefore, chould be rejected.
Corrected l
Notice, p.
4.
In addition, to the extent McCorkle XV seeks to impose containment desica and testing requirements at variance with those specified in Appendices A and J to 10 CFR Part 50, the contention constitutes a challenge to the adequacy of NRC regulations and, absent a showing of special circumstances, should be denied.
10 CFR S 2.758.
l l
I
.=
For the reasons discussed above, these contentions should be rejected.
McCorkle XVII Petitioner claims in this contention that the fuel rods are not safe, but fails to describe with specificity in what respect they are not safe, and fails to provide any bases to support such a clahn. Moreover, Petitioner has made no attempt to relate this contention to new information or new evidence as required by.the Board's Corrected Notice.
Therefore, this contention should be denied.
10 CFR S 2.714(b); Corrected Notice, p.
4.
McCorkle XVIII Petitioner here claims that there will be cracking and breaking of pipes "before the life of the plant has expired" and, therefore, there is not enough safety protection for the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
Petitioner fails, however, to cite any new information or new evidence to support.this contention as required by the Board's Corrected Notice.
Stress corrosion cracking in BWR's has been the subject of considerable attention since before Decenber 9, 1975.
- See, e.g.,, Hearings on Nuclear Regulatory Commission Action Requiring Safety Inspections which Resulted in Shutdown of Certain Nuclear Powerplants Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Enercy and the P
9 y
-...--.-,w
~x.-,--
,_...y n
8 Senato Committee on Government Operations,'94th Cong., 1st Sess.
-(Feb.
5, 1975).
In addition, the matter was specifically dis-cussed in the 1974 SER (pp. 5-9, 10).
Moreover, the Commission's ECCS regulations, section 50.46, are designed to cope with the worst pipe rupture -- whether resulting'from stress corrosion cracking or any other cause --
while keeping the consequences well within the limits of 10 CFR Part 100.
Accordingly, this contention should be disallowed since it is not, in fact, based on new information and, even if it were, would constitute an impermissible challenge to NRC regu-laticns.
McCorkle XIX This contention is nothing more than a recitation of NRC Staff concerns regarding the RHR system as reflected in the 1974 SER (pp. 5-23, 5-24) and the June 1975 SER, Supp. 1 (p. 1-3).
The matter has since been resolved.
In any event, it was well known prior to December, 1975, and in no way constitutes "new infor-mation" as required by the Board's Corrected Notice.
It should, therefore, be dismissed.
Corrected Notice, p.
4.
Michulka 4 (part)
In part of this contention, petitioner states that, in connection with the EIS,
Neither has the increased flooding caused by the large levec.across from Valley Lodge subdivision been dis-cussed.
It will cause thousands of additional acres to be flooded and later placed in the regulatory flood-way designated by the Federal Flood Insurance.
That land then becomes useless for development purposes.
Uhat is meant by " increased flooding," however, is nowhere specified or explained; nor is the contention related to any change in the plant or new information or evidence.
Thus, the contention is unacceptably vague, without basis, and does not comply with'the requirements of the Board's Corrected Notice or 10 CFR 5 2.714(b).
Accordingly, it should be rejected.
Respectfully submitt'ed,
$bw l1 4& M '
/
Jack R.
Newman j
Robert H.
Culp i
/
1025 Connecticut Avenue, U.M.
Washington, D.C.
20036 J. Gregory.Copeland Charles G. Thrash 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OF COUNSEL:
LONEMSTEIM, NEWlUdi, REIS,
& AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, H.H.
Washington, D.C.
20036 BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza
'Ho' ston, To::ac 77902
APPEITDIX -
Contentions-
' Page At:Which Discussed
-.".nderson a
3 b
5 c
6 d
6
.e 6
Day
'5 Framson 1
7 2
7 3
.7 4
3 5
8 6
11 7
8 8
9 9
10 10 7
11 11 12 6
Gilbert 14 Hinderstein I
15 II 3
III 16 IV 16 V
17 VI 13 VII 18 VIII 21 IX 21 X
22 XI 11 s
-n..,.,.
y w-w-
-+-wr
-'w+-
--v,
r 1
Contentions Page At Which Discussed Hooker 1
'll 2
'13 3
3 5
7 J
6 13 i
Loe 1
11 2-13 3
3 4
22 1
McCorkle i
II 11 III 23 IV 18 V
3 VI 11 l
VII 23 VIII 24 l
IX 25 X
25 XI 26 XII 23 XIII 27 XIV 27 XV 28 1
XVI 13 l
XVII 29 XVIII 29 XIX 30' 7
XX 28 i
l Michulka 4
'11,16 & 30
.l 5
7 l
I Wharton 1
5 2
6 3
11
f
^
o UMITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of-
)
)
HOUSTCM LIGHTIMG & POWER CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Muclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 11
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing-Applicant's Response to Contentions Filed By Lois H.
Anderson, Patricia L.
Day, Robert Framson, Madeline Framson, Steven Gilbert, Carro Hinderstein, Kathryn Hooker, Lee Loe, Brenda A.
- McCorkle, Charles Michulka and Ann Wharton in the above-captioned pro-ceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 13th day of November, 1978 Sheldon J. Uolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 12548 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr.
E.
Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 City of Wallis, Texas 77485 Mr. Glenn O.
Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Gregory J.
Kainer Board Panel 11118 Wickwood U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77024 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Chase R.
Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board Office of the Secretary fo the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555
~
{
I.
R. Gordon Occch, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licansin' B a }: e r - L-B o t t a Board Panel i
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. h'.
U.S. :iuclear Regulater.-
h'a s hin g t o n, D. C.
20006 Commission
~
Uashington, D.C.
20555 S te'.*e Schirki, Esq.
T. Paul Robbins Staff Counsel c/o AFSC U.S.
Muclear Regulatcr.
600 Uest 28th Street, #102 Co =ission Austin, Texas 78705 UashingtOn, D.C.
20555 John F.
Doherty Wayne E.
Rentfro i
.o.
_4 4_ _,, o. -, 3 _4 _.: -. c
.s.., o-
,i.o.-
=0 1,,.a..
4433.1/2 Laeland, Rosenberg, Texas '77471
.. m_ o 7, u, >.
1 ps..
e
-o-1 r
James Scant, Jr.
Brenda A. McCorkle 8202 Albaccre 6140 Darnell Ecus:On, To::as 77074 Houston, Texas 77074 Carro-Hinderstein Emanuel Gaskir 8739 Linh Terraca 5711 Marm Springs' Road Ecuston, Texas 77025 Houston, Texas 77035 u., 2, _ m,. u-. ' d
&' o.P._..._o.'~'..
S " = ". c ". G.4.' % " ",
- o c,.
u-_
m
,, : :.u _o_.e. c.
1,
i,.n m,.,.,.
m.~s a
_~s...
Hous:On, Taxas 77030 Sugar Land, Texas 77473 Edgar Crane Brent. Miller 13507.Kingsride
- 4. 8 _' _' T a..,a.* _4s b.
_7. _n.r. a Houston, Te::aa 77079 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Patricia L.
Day John V.
Anderson.
2432 Motti: Bam 3626 Broadmaad Houston, Taxas 77005 Houston, Te xa s 7 7 0 5 Lois H. Anderson John R.
Shreffler 3626 Broadmaad 5014 Braeburn Houston, Tenas 77C23 Bellaire, Te::as 77401 Davi:1-Ilarko Robert S. Framson' Solar Dynanics, Ltd.
4322 ',7aynesboro Drive 3904'Warchcuse Ecw Houston,. Texas 77035 Suita C
- Austin, To:ns 73704 Madeline Bass Framson 4822-Waynesboro Drive Houston, Tcxas 77035-
\\ '
,.-4--
~.i.
4
=.
e v
e-..
e v,
,w
r
+
.- '3-f' S h i r l e y C a l d t-!e l';.
Mrs.
R.
M.
Bevis 14501 Lillja-7706.Brykerwoods Houston, Texas';77050
- Houston, Texas 77055
-Ann Uharton Kathryn Hooker 1424 Kipling 1424 Kipling
- Houston, Texas'77006 Houston, Texas 77006 Joe Y91darman, M.D.
John Renaud, Jr.
Box 303 4110 Yoakum Street Needville, Te::as 774G1' Apartment 15 Hou:: ton, Texas 77006-D. :lichael McCaughan Allen D.
Clark 3131 Ti==ons Ln.
5602 Rutherclenn Apartment 254 Houston,. Tei:as 7.7096' IIo us to n, Te::as 77027 D.
Marrack Lee ~ ace 420 Mulberry Lane 1344 Kipling.
Bellaire, Texas.7.7401'
!!ouston, Texas 77093 George Broze.
Alan Vomacha, Esq.
1823-A Marshall Street Houston Chapter, Mational Lawyers Houston, Texas 77098 Guild 4803 Mcntrose Blvd.
Charles Michulka, Esq.
Guita 11
P.O.
Box 362 Hou :cn, ' Ta::as,77006 Staf ford, Te::as 77477 Hon. John R. !!ikeska Austin County Judge P.O.
Box 313 Be llv:.lle, To::as 77413 a
l i
h
,f
/
l g'
,,5 ' y l
i 6
4 l
I i
e V
,s-
~
m e--
,--v,s es