ML20197C248

Petitioner K Hooker Requests to Intervene as Full Participant in Hearings Re Subj Facil.Contends That Applicant Hlp Must Bear Burden of Proof in Showing That No Harm Will Result from Plant.Cert of Svc Encl

ML20197C248
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/01/1978
From:	Hooker K External Citizen/Individual/Media (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7811210030
Download: ML20197C248 (9)

Text

c N

', NRC PUBLIC DOCU3ENT ROOM T 9-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• g NUCLEAR REGULATORI COMMISSION

) >

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA cf/, jj

~

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-466 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

SUPPLEMENTARY PETITION TO INTERVENE by Kathryn Hooker petitioner requests permission to intervene as a full participant in the hearings. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.2.714(b), as amended, she is submitting this supplementary petition to intervene, describ1ng the issues she wishes to raise with " reasonable specificity."

In filing this supplementary petition to intervene, petitioner wishes to repeat her protest of the brief time allowed for doing so (five working days). (This protest, signed also by

. Ann Wharton, was sent to Mr. Wolfe by mailgram and letter within the five days the Board allows for protests of an order.) P_etitioner notes that other parties tocthese. .

proceedings (Mr. Jim Scott is one) were given 30 days from the time of receipt of the final environmental impact statement to submit supplementary petitions, by the Soard chairman Mr. Wolfe recently replaced. Thus a precedent has been set for a more reasonable time for petitioners to prepare contentions that meet the Board's recuirements

?811210O'SO y v v~v=  ? "

i

'. i for specificity. Petitioner notes tnat Part 2 of the Regula- l tory Commissionb Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings is being amended to provide petitioners with 30 i days' notice or more of " initial hearings." Although petitioner j received no answer to her protest, she has tried to submit adequate contentions in the very short time allotted. Under )

these circumstances, petitioner hopes that the Board will be j

lenient in judging the validity of - her contentions (10 C.F.R. 1 Appendix A, Section V.b.6: " Boards have considerable discre tion in the manner in which they accommodate their conduct of ,

the hearing to local public' interest and the desires of local citizens to be heard.").

Petitioner, the mother of two young children, lives and works about 30 miles from the proposed site of this contro-versial project. She. therefore wishes to' raise these issues:

1. Can the applicant prove that " normal" low-level radioactive emissions from the proposed plant (new model) will not con-tribute to cancer and genetic defects in petitioner and her l family? The burden of proof is on the applicant, not the petitioner (10 C.F.R.2.732; 10 C.F.R.Section V c; passim.).

Assuming that the proposed new model contains substantive changes from the old, petitioner submits that applicant must prove all saf ety assertions anew. Although the burden of proof is on the applicant, petitioner wishes to contend 1

in the hearings that even low levels of radiation can l

cause cancer, birth defects and death, and that the proposed l

new facility would unavoidably release radiacion in the Houston area. Petitioner asks applicant to show what changes have been made in the plant proposal since 1975 that would prevent " normal" radiation leakage. Petitioner asks that the Poard not exclude vital issues af fecting Houstonians' safety from the hearings, but treat this as any other hearing in which they are to consider, among other points,  !

"whether the issuance of a permit for the construction of the facility will be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public."

(10 C.F.R.2.104.b.1.iv. )

{

2. Can applicant prove that the emergency core cooling system )}

in the proposed new plant is virtually f ailure-proof? Although i

the burden of proof is on the applicant, petitioner wishes to contend in the hearings that safety of che cooling system i l

cannot be guaranteed. Failure of the cooling system would l l

cause overheating, melting and release of major radiation l 1

in the Houston area, causing cancer, birth defects and death. {

Can Houston Ligh ting & Power claim to have devised a fool- l I

proof system? Based on my experience as a customer of theirs, I will argue that they cannot. In 1977 the Union of Concerned j Scientists stated that there has been "only limited testing of the emergency core cooling system-- and what testing has f been conducted reveals design defects and indicates that ECCS might f ail if actually called upon. Sworn testimony of

_4_

experts'in the field reveals that the effectiveness of this critical reactor safety system has not been properly demon-strated." The UCS stated also in 1977 that "the basic safety system in nuclear plants has never been tested under real conditions-- and when tested on small-scale models, f i  !

consistently f ailed to function croperly." Since this is {

an issue of vital concern to Ecustonians, petitioner asks j

s

.y j that the Board not exclude discussion of it in these pro-  !

ceedings, based on the Board's broad discretionary powers l

in the conduct of hearings (10 C.F.R. Appendix A, Section t V,b.6.),

l

3. Does applicant's new plant proposal contain a method of  !

storing its radioactive wastes in the Houston area, free of

)

leakage, for 500,000 years? Experts agree that this is the ]

length of time that plutonium, one of the most poisonous substances on the planet, will remain lethal. Petitioner ,

wishes to argue that no system has been devised for permanently storing these unimanginably poisonous wastes, cnd that for l this reason alone applicant should not be issued a license.

Petitioner asks that proposals for storage pf wastes at the site of the new plant not be excluded from the hearings, based on the Board's aforementioned discretionary powers and based on a statement frca the Atomic Energy Commission's own Task' Force Recort: Study of'the Reactor Licensing Process (October 1973): "The ultimate determination of the acceptable level of public risk is actually a matter which should be i

debated and established in the public arena." Serious f

l .

i

_ 5_

accidents caused by faulty storage of wastes have already 1

occurred,. involving deaths and damage to the . environment. j

5. If. wastes are.not to be stored at.the site, can 'applic ant i

guarantee transportation -elsewhere along our Texas highways i j

without an accident, ever? For we are not talking about an )

ordinary cargo, but one which would contaminate areas of spillage for hundreds of thousands of years. Roads around applicant's proposed site will be increasingly heavily traveled; petitioner intends to show at the hearing how

~

population density is increasing in the area. This is an 1

issue which must beEdiscussed at any hearing on nuclear power l I

plants which purports to permit public participation, The fact that no one has been able to devise a foolpr,of trans-portation system is not a reason for excluding the topic )

from discussion; rather, it is a reason for lengthy discussion of risk. The physicist Hannes Alfven (winner of the Nobel prize in his field) has stated. that in all technologies one accepts l l

certain risks, but that with nuclear energy "we are facing l risks the nature of which we have never before experienced, The conseanences of nuclear catastrophies are so terrible that risks which are usually considered to be normal are unacceptable l

in this field."

l l

6. Applicant's proposed site is not only near the heart of l one of the nation's largest cities,. but in an area of rapidly 1

increasing population density. Houston itself is expanding in  !

l the direction of the site, as petitioner will show at the

-hearing. For this reason, applicant's license shculd be denieq , I st .

l ,

.. . . . .. __-____n

as *' inimical. to the' hehlth and safety o f the public" (10 C.F.R. 2.104.b.l.1v). For such a site to be acceptable, there must be no " acts of Gog" and human perfection in all aspects of plant parts manufacture, control and management-- conditions which do not exist in the real world.

Respectfully submitted, Y

November 1, 1978 Kathryn Ecoker

-7 UNITED STKrES OF M4 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO AHD In the iMatter of ) t

~

f )

l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANI )

i

)

Docket No. 50-466

( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that- copies of the foregoing supplementary petition j to intervene were served on the following individuals by deposit in the United States mail this 1st day of November,1978. .

1 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the State of Texas Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12540 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 35CA Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor s, Texas Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 77485 '

hk. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Gregory J. Kainer Board Panel 11118 Mickwood U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77024 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chase E. Stechens ,

Docketing and Service Section ntg**ic

^

• Sa#ety L *O*=0and Licensing

[c o the Secretary of the Og*]4,g 0,s',' Nuclear Regulatory US Commission

^

Commission Washington, D.C.

W$ shin" conDC 2 5 20555 j i

l l

l

- .. . _ - . .- . ~. - . _.

-e- ,

i R. Gordon.Gooch,.Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel ,

1701-Pennsylvania Avenue,'N.W.- -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ]

Washington,:D.C. 20006 Commission i Washington,_D.C. '20555 l

' Steve-Schinki, Esq. T. Paul Robbins Staff Counsol . c/o AFSC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 600 West 28th Street, #102 Commission' Austin, Texas 78705 Washington, D.C.- 20555 John F. .Dohertyl Wayne E. Rentfro

' Armadillo Coalition of Texas r.O. Box 1335 4438 1/2 Leeland Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas. 77023 James Scott,.Jr. Brenda A. McCorkle 8302 Albacore -614S Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 Houston', Texas 77074 Carro Hinderstein Emanuel Baskir )

87 3', Link Terrace 5711 Warm Springs Road Houston, Texas 77025 Houston, Texas 77035 Jean-Claude De Bremaecker Steven. Gilbert, Esq.

2128 Addison 122. Bluebonnet Houston, Texas '770 30 ~ . Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Edgar Crane- Brent. Miller 13507.Kingsride 4811 Tamarisk Lane, Houston, Texas 77079 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Patricia L'. Day John V. Anderson 2432 Nottingham 3626 Broadmead Houston, Texas 77005 Houston, Texas 77025 Lois H. Anderson John R. Shreffler 3626 Broadmead 5014 Braeburn Houston, Texas 77025 Bellaire, Texas 77401 David Marke Robert S. Framson-Solar Dynamics, Ltd. 4822 Waynesboro Drive 3904 Warehouse Row' Houston, Texas 77035 Suite C Austin, Texas 78704 Madeline Bass Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 I

o . . _ . _ _ - _ , _ . _ . . . _ . _ . . - - _ . . . . _ . ,

,. 9 o Shirley Caldwell~ Mrs. R. M. Bevis 14501 Lillja- 7706 Brykerwoods Houston, Texas .77060 Houston, Texas 77055-Ann Wharton 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 Houston, Texas 77006 D. Michael McCaughan Allen D. Clark j 3131 Timmons Ln. 5602 Rutherglenn l 77096 Apartment 254 ' Houston, Texas Houston, Texas 77027 D. Marrack l Lee Loe 420 Mulberry Lane j 184 4 -' Kipling Bellaire, Texas 77401 1 Houston, Texas 77098 George Broze Alan Vomacka, Esq. .

1823-A Marshall Street Houston. Chapter, National Lawyers Houston, Texas 77098 Guild 4803 Montrose Blvd. Charles:Michulka, Esq.

Guite 11 'P.O. Box 882 Houston,-Texas ,77006 Stafford, Texas 77477 l Hon. John R. Mikeska Austin County Judge P.O. Box 310 Bellville, Texas 77418

/

w ev %

I 1

l s l

I l

l 1

. _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________._______..m_.-_-__.____.u___-_. _