ML20204C933

Supplement to Oral Defense of Contentions Which Incl the Issues of Low Level Radiat Doses,Waiver of Gaseous Radioactive Emissions Standards & Integrity of Applicant'S Proposed New Emergency Core Cooling Sys.W/Encl Cert of Svc

ML20204C933
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/21/1978
From:	Hooker K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812050294
Download: ML20204C933 (15)

Text

~

l

• ym j

+

s 4 o

\oj[

" d' '

U R O F U D LIC 1) D C U M i E M ,,  ;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c, O[A4 p f's c7/V p.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD q co N I

In the Matter of S S

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

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S

- - ~ ~

- ~ ~~ '

SUPPLEMENT TO ORL DEFENSE & CONTENTIONS by Kathryn Hooker The Safety and Licensing Board on November 18, at the prehearing conference, granted me the right to supplement in writing my oral defense of contentions, on or before November 22. This right was als given to several other petitioners. We had submitted timely petitions more than two weeks before the prehearing; but we-unlike other petitionera- had no chance to see the staff's comments before having to respond to them.

i Although 1 understood I was to have staff's written comments at least by this time (November 21), I do not. On the second day of the pro-hearing, Mr. Stephen Schinki, staff counsel, told as that they would not be ready before November 21 or 22. Thus there is no chance of str seeing them in writing before I must submit my written answer; I mat rely on my memory of Mr. Sakhk4 's remabks. (I uzzierstand that the written form he will send me will be simp 27 a summary of his i

original comments.) I hope the Boarti will bear this in mind in h

78120502 h

• e 2.

l evaluating the adequacy- of g defense of contentions.

This written response will attempt to clarify as well as supplement my original answers; the written and oral statements should be considered i

i together in evaluating the adeqaacy of contentions. I have followed Mr. Sohinkits statement that we may address his remarks ein any way we (petitioners) choose # in the written supplement.

As with the oral response,. . I beg the Board to be lenient in judging the adegiacy of g written defense of contentions. At tae prehearing (November 18), Mr. Schinki remarked (citing a Commission rule) that persons not familiar with regulatory proceedings should not be held to the same standaMs as those who are familiar with pacedure. I aise cite 10 C.F.R. Appendix A,Section V.b.6: eBoards have considerable discretion in the manner in which they accommodate their conduct of the hearing to local public interest and the desires of local citizens to be hea d .m In raising the following issues, I repnsent not only gself- a.

person who lives and works some 30 miles from the proposed plant site- but also two minar children, in the same sone of concern.

COITENTION I. This contention raises the issue of low-level radiation from the pmposed plant, and whether HI&P can pave that so called normal radiation from the plant would not cause cancer and genetic 1

1 defects in petitioner and her children. The burden of proof on safety issues as well as other issues of substance rests with the applicant, not de petitioner (10 C.F.R. 2 732; 10 C.F.R.Section V.o; passim _.).

In raising this contention, I am aware that the NRC has radioactive s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3.

emissions criteria. I do not intend in this document to challenge the adequacy of those criteria. Pether, I beg the Board to waive the criteria for *normala gaseous radior etive effluents set forth in 10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 50 (Appendix I). Wiver is requested on this sole issue, in this proceeding only, through the application of 10 C.F.R.2 758. Pursuant to that paragrppk , a rule or regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be waived through a showing of 'special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the parcicular proceeding. . . such that application of the rtle or regulation would not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted.s Although I do not know with certainty what the emissions rules' ori-ginal purposes were, I assume they related to attempts to regulate radioactive em!.ssions standards so as to ensure public safety. Irzieed, any other purpose at odds with public safety would, on its face, be I

contrary to the Commission's legal mandate to protect public health and safety. Therefon, aqr request for waiver of the starxiaM emissions criteria of 10 C.F.R. is based on the special circumstances surrounding this particular proposed site-. circumstances that would render appli- j cation of the criteria a public health hazad, thereby nullifying the original purpose (public health and safety) of the criteria.

I (Please see the Affidavit on Proposed Waiver of Criteria for Sseous t,% h a.a yi M d.u._!a RadioactiveEffluents,f i.) The special circumstances I cita are . the noncompliance of Houston- the major metropolitan area within the Commission's

• zone of concerne - with Federal air pollution criteria, coupled with consideration of new information on the dangerous synergistic effects on hu$nans of air pollutants and gaseous radioactive eKMons. The .odifACS#I Affhiavit states this issue with particularity.

- k.

I beg the Board to consider these special circumstances as follows: 1. As meriting, by themselves, waiver of the gaseous radioactive emissions stan-dams; and 2., as meriting waiver of the standards when weighed in con-junction ilth new evidence that low-level radiation does moze damage to humans than was previously supposed. (he new evidence on low-level radia-tion effects is cited with particularity in the N N.C #) Affidavit.)

Should the waiver be granted, I would argue, under Contention I, that HI&P has not mai, the

• burden of proofe requiied of applicants under 10 C.F.R. (cited re rding protection of the cer ,

kra)h the p(OpcSca,l*MtCpubli ox4 fgi rt. $E un @\

genetic darsgo and death frWlow-level radioactive gaseous effluents [

3ese arguments would be based on new information and evidence (see belowi).

With regazd to new evidance, I contend that it must not be excluded from ,

consideration because the general topic it relates to has been studied for many years; this is as mch as to say that all experiments after the first were useless. This assertion is absurd. Nor must a topic be ex-cluded from consideration in this proceeding because it g have been considered in the original proceedings, suspended in 1975. Nothing in the Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures (h3 F.R. h0326) indicates that this is a requirement. The notice states only that new irformation and changes in the plant proposal be addressed in petitions to intervene.

a .. .. . " . 1 This unenbstantiated assertion by both Mr. SchinM and applicantis-

• Some of the sources te be usedi Karl Morgan, " Cancer and Low Level Ionizing Radiation,n The_ Bulletin _ (mediosi publication), September 1978, p. 30.

" Cancer Cases Spark Concern About Radiation; Scientists Debate ' Safe' Limit. for U.S. Workers,* Wall Street Journsi, July 11, 1078.

I

5.

lawyers is based on a nisapplication of the doctrine of laches, in effect to hamper Houstonians in the exercise of their legitimate rights in these proceedings. Mr. Schinki states ( FNEC.' Staff ~ Response to Tex PIRG's motion for Modification,*'etc., November 16, 1978: "That doctrine (laches) has always prevented anyone who could have exercised his rights in a timely manner and didn't from seeking to litigate thoes natters at a much later time." I would like to bring to Mr. Schinki's attention the reality of the lives of petitioners such as myself, Ann Wharton, and other petitioners of our acquaintance. We do not read the Federal Register. We never will. Publication of notice in the Federal Register is ineffective in notifying people of nuclear power plant hearings.

There was insufficient play in local newspapers to adegiately notify people; I am basing this Assertion on the fact that Ann Warton and I and others of our acquaintance, who all read newspapers daily, learned of the project only through the phone call of a friend. A whole lot of people didn't know about the original hearing wither % the very hearing that is the underpinning of Mr. Sohinki's effort to exclude issues from this one. Only ths Texas Attorney General intervened. Probably someone l

j phoned him.

Air o with respect to new evidemo, such evidence may be cited touching issues considwred in the pal' .t1 initial decisi;n, p*nsuant to h3 F.R.

h0328 (Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures). The Notice states:

• The Appeal Boad's memorandum and order of December 9,1975, AIAB-302, 2NRC 853, in affirming the Licensing Board in its partial initial decision, stated that those firdings by the Licensing Boad in its partial initial decision are subject to later revision should further developments or

6.

l new information warrant.*

Sould waiver of 'he HRCes radioactive gaseous emissions criteria be denied, I would argue that it is doubtful that HI&P can meet the burden of proof required (3 J C.F.R. supra) in meeting those criteria. Indeed, I i would contend that it is highly unlikely & thatcan 1

W(CD meet ?*LI the criteria, because of new evidence (unavailable prior to 1976) of increased, accel-vrated and unexpected growth in population density in the site area southwest of Houston. Lack of time prevents me from detailing these ar-.

guments here, but I shall try to meet the Coratission's requirement of wreasonable specificitya by citing some of the stud %es I would use and the arguments I would draw from ther, related to th= new plant proposal.

Growth Options, published by the Rice Center for Community Design in May 1978 (under the direction of Charles R. Serino) is an intensive study of growth patterns in Houston and its environs. Among its findings:

the highest rat gro in the region studied was southwest of Houston, in the area of the proposed plant; population increases in the region as a whole are accelerating; the rate of increa e of vehicular traffic in Utbb )

the region as a whole is accelerating. I ,' show with charts, at the l

l l

l full hearing, the gross differences in population projections in the Rico Study and those taedworipally in approving the site for the pro-posed new plant. A showing of sufficient population density would alter HIAP's ability to meet the man-rem requirements of 10CFR for gaseous radioactive emissions (aitation supra) on its face. Accelsrated growth I in population density will be itismalated by roads- many of them planned since the original site approval-- to be built in the site area. The planning dates and proposed locatten of these roads, some of them undar j-construction now, are given in the Twenty Year Program published by the l ., ,

. . . , .- - - ~ - . . - .. - -__.-. - -- - . __

7.

State Department of Highways,1978, which I would cite in detail at the full hearings. Assuming a showing that HIAP is unable to meet the Commission 8s criteria for radioactive gaseous enissions, I would argue thart the recpested license must be denied.

CosTENTION 2. This contention raises the issue of problems in assudng the integrity of the applicant 8s proposed new Q10 Emergency Core C.F.R. citation Cooling),)g supra Systout. Assuming the burden of proof to be on the applican) D E whether HIAP can prowe, that the SCCS in the proposed new plant is virtually failure.9xcof. Because of the unimaginably terrible conse-quences of a core molt - the unavoidable outcome of failure of the 2003

- no expert in power plant operations has publicly stated that anything -

less than near-perfection is reg 11 red of the ECCS, The proposed sitors proximity to Houston, one of the five fastest -growing and moat densely populated cities in the United States, zwnders this issue of crucial importance. I therefore beg the Beard to admit this issue for full consideration in the hearing, under the Board's mandate to consider the health and safety of the public (10 C.F.R.2.10h.b.1.1v) and pursuant to its broad discretionary powers in the conduct of hearings (10 C.F.R. Appendir A,Section V.b.6)e Under this contention, my major argument will be that HI&P has not complied with NRC criteria with respect to proven safety and quality assurances of a major component. For example, the Commission's citerion 10 C.F.R.50.h5.a.1 is not adhered to. That regulation statea s *ECCS coolinE perforsmance shall be calcuk tad in accordance with an accept-able evaluation nedel, and shall be calculated for a number of pos-

l

' 8 tulated loss- d-coolant accidents of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the entire spectrum of loss-of-coolant accidents is covered _.* (Emphasis added.)

Tet HILP, seeking to demonstrate its qualifications for operating a nuclear power plant through the production of endless roams of material at ratepayerst expense, gives this . thoughtful answer to the issue of core melt (included under the NRC's"clasa 9* accident description):

• Not considered.* (Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement, S.7-1.)

The implications of HI& Pts response of *Not considered

• to pinstulated accidents that the NRC rates aclass 9* (most serious) Neone fully appanr.t when one considers the concern with Wick' Congress viewed such possibilities. It passed the */ rice-Anderson Act to insure nuclear power plant opentors against liability for property damage, loss of life and injury in the event of a major power plant accident, to a Inaximum of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Act was passed because private insurance companies, considering the risks of such accidents too great, refused to provide insurance against them. The NRC has incorporated the Price-Anderson Act into its regulations (10 C.F.R. Part LO).

Nor does the more volume of data provided by HI4P provide assurance of cop 11ance u!.th the NRC's regulation calling for testing of componentar.

Many of the con cooling system pomponents appear to be tested by the prime contractor for those co@onents- General Electric. .(See, for

1 9e example the Preliminary. Safety Analysis Report, 1.5.1.2.5.) Testing of safety components by the prine contractor for those components is prima facio a gross conflict of interest casting doubt both on the validity of test results taenselves and the qualifi-cations of HI4P to operate a nuclear power plant. HIAP's delegation of tests involving pressure-suppression containments to the manufacturer, GE (pgg. .1.5.1.2 5) easts the gravest doubt on the integrity of the system when considered in conjunction with controversy within the AEC as to its safety. (See the memo of September 20, 1972, from Dr. Stephen Hanauer, a senior member of the AEC regulatory staff, to other staff members. He stated his belief that the disadvantages of pressure-suppression containments over other containments were apreponderante and recommended discouraging their use. Joseph Hendrie, another staff member, wrote in response that to ban such containments acould well be the end of nuclear powere and *would create more turmoil than I can stand thinking about.* The Union of Concerned Scientists' press release of 9/18/78.) I might add that although 'this particular contmversy originated well before 1975, pressure-suppnssion containment problems have still

' not been satisfactorily resolved. New evidence in this regani has been published in the NRC(s Annual Report 1977pp.19-20 citing changes vsde and tests to be done on GE pressure-suppression containments. The Report notes that no Mark III containment (Allens Creek type) is yet operational, and seeks to assuage doubts as to its safety utth the vague and short comments

• Changes will be made in all containments-- whether of the Mark I, II or III type- if tests and analyses indicate their structural capability is deficient.* It is quite late in the day to make such an unspecific, unsubstantiated assertion with regard to the Allens Creek Project. Se lack of safety assurance for the containment system of the new model plant implied in the above quotation indicates the requested license

10.  !

should be denied, pursuant to the Bonni's mandate to consider issues of. public safety and health (10 C.F.R. citation supra ).

I would like also to argue that HIhhas not met the NRC's criteria for quality control, as set forth'in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B: *As used in this appendix, ' quality assurance' co@ rises all those planned and systemic actions necessant to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform satisfactorily in service.* This argument would be made in conjunction 9.th evidence cited supra that HI&P, in its components testing program, used as the tester to m:.nufacturer of the parta tested, a prima facio conflict of interest casting doubt on test results.

For this reason also the license request should be denied.

Nor does HIAP cogly wi.th the NRC's requirement that it present adequate plans to cope with emergencies.10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, states:

• The Preliminary Saf6ty Analysis Report shall contain sufficient infor-mation to assure the compatibility of proposed emergency plans with facility design features, s5.te layout, and site location with respect tto such considerations as access route, surrounding population distribu-

'her items to be de~

tions and land use.e me. esetion cites these ar6 scribed nas a minimum *: the organization for copsg with emergencies; l arrangements with local, state and Federal governmental agencies; arxi measures to be taken within and ettside the site boundary.w I was unable j to locate a discussion of such plans for dealing with the most serious postulated emergencies in HI&P's PSAR. Therefore, the license should be I l

denied. l CONTENTION 3 asks whether the applicant's new plant proposal contains

E 11.

a method of storing its radioactive wastes in the Houston area, free of leakage, for 500,000 years. Ecperts agree that this is th length of time that plutonium, one of the most poisonous substences on the planet, will remain lethal. Applicant intends either long-term or short- )

j tern (pending transportation elsewhere) storage of radioactive wastes I

/

stored ' -i at the site; in either situation, the site will ; c'ontain l wastes moet of the time, assuming it rerains operational. As noted above, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. the buztlen of proof on safety issues is on the applicant, not the petitioner. Absent such assurances fron applicant, license should at le ast be postponed pending resolution of certain safety issues involving reactor wastes by the NRC. The URC's Annual

- {% ,

Report,1977,/reYomendedthatr. . studies ;4 be undertalen to widentify and evaluate the relative safety and environmental impacts This would of alternative low-level waste-disposal methods. . . .e seem to be a shaky technical background for the undertaking of storage of radioactive wastes at a site for about 30 years (treseidoubts apply aise to changing batches of waste shipped elsewhere every three months, each batch replaced by another). It cannot be determined whether applicant would meet the NRC criteria for waste disposah until R ose criteria hays been for:ntlated to the satisfaction of the NRC.

CCNTDITION h raises the issue of transportation of radioactive vastes to another site for dirposal. Mr concerns are that the pt rticularly stringent record of safety required for transporting such wastes from the proposed site area could not be achieved.

• This contention was originally misnumbered 5.

12.

Under this contention, ~ would challenge the applicant to meet the burden-of-proof requirement of 10 2 R Section V.c in the area of safe transport of radioactive wastes) the requirement should be met in conjunction with new information, nonexistent before 1976, regarding additional highways to be built in the dte area, unexpected and accel-erating population density in the area with accompanying increased vehicular traffic, and increased projections for air traffic in the

,q.i m area. Petitioner is not required to show how thesej night pose hazards in applicantis transportation of radioactive wastes. Rather, the applicant, under burden-of proof requirements, must demonstrate that the additional hazaztis (in common sense) these new conditions pose will not kamper safe transportation along our Texas highways. Altacagh lack of time praaludes discussion of these arguments in greater detail here, I will cite some of the source raterials that would be used to substantiate this con-tentionsThesesourcesallcontainnewinformation,unavailablepriorto 1976, of vital relevance to the new plant proposal

1. Growth Options, Charles Sevino et al., Rice Center for Comnunity Design, Houston, Texas,1978. A study of growth patterns in Houston and its surrounding area. The study shows, among other things, the following:

the highest rate of population growth in the region studied was southwest l

of Houston, in the area of the proposed plant; population increases in the region as a whole an accelerating; the rate of increase of vehicular traffic in the regicn as a whole is accelerating.

2. Twenty Year Program, published by the ha3h I'N! AWN bN/ W/ '

1978. Shcws new hic,hways, many in pisnning only after 1975, to be built in the vicinity of the proposed site. The impetus for the upsurge in

M.

higbway construction plane was a large grant of money by the Texas State Iegislature to the State Department of Highways in 1977.

3. Houston-Galveston Regional Transportation Study, July 1918. The etudy presents new information in showing accelerating vehicular traffic over the h st three years, unscticipated before 1976. A startling findire of the study is that the increased vehicular udleage is fairly evenly divided between urban and rural areas- and there were nearly *2 2 billion vehicle trips in the area studied during 1977. Common sense indicates that this would pose an unanticipated burden on applicant ir the trancport of wastes; unanticip ted because original population projostions published by applicant both before and after 1975 are sharply at vsztance with these projections and those of the Houston Chamber of Conmerce (published yearly in bulletin form), as well as those of the aforementioned Twenty Year Program.

h. Population projectiens of the Houston Chamber of Commerce, 1978 iseuance, for the Houston /Galveston Standard Consolidated Statistical Area (projec-tions for this area to 1990), at variance with population projections ised by applicant. I regret that I am unable to give a detailed analysis of HI&Pt s original projections and how they are at fault, but the ex-treme17 rushed schedule of these hearings precludes anything otLer than a statement made *wlth reasonable specificity.e Further argument would come at the full hearing. I would wish, however, to cite as an exsmple of HI&P's fculty anticipation of growth in population density in the zone of eencern TaMr 2,1:inahe Final Environmental Statement: submitted by MI&E in support of approval of this particular site in 197h. The table projects

" cumulative populations = within 50 r.dles of the proposed site as being y ,- -- y- -n-

4 e

. . s 3.

'I C? Sit' '

7,710,000 by 1990 Sales and Marketing Wacazine,is a story printed in the Chronicle October 31, 1978, quoted a survey predictin;; growth..of Houston plene_. to a population of 2,887,0C0 t71989. The Ecucten ChsrJeer of Co=erce 8 s current projection of population for Earris County alone for 1985 is w>i.i QSLmet 3 ~ s e i: 2 .. y, ,

2,932,000.hobviously, when Fort Bend County, Austin County, Wharton, and other counties within the 50-mile zone of concern are added to the Chamber of Corcerce projections, the original demographic projections used in support of original site a,r oval are ;rossly inaccurats.

CONTDTTICM 5 reopens the issue of the suitability of the Allens Creek site. A reopening of this issue is countenanced by the NRC itself. The Partial Initial Decision (h3 F.R. h0328) states that the findinga have demnnstrated no reason why the site is not suitablem but that "the Appeal Bosni's undwrru memorandum and order of December 9,1975, in affirming the Licensing Board in its partial initial decision, stated that these findings by the licensing Board in its pt rtial initial decision are subject to later revision should further developments or new informaticn warrant." Thus even the Allons Creek site is not a res judicata.

Although I wish to retain site suitability as an issue separate from my pther contentions, so that possible rejection of other contenticus will l

not forecloss ny raising this issue, I will use sources cited above and others to show that population, transportation, distance from major population center, and other factors calculated in suppert of thel initial site appmval were inaccurate, The license should therefore be denied.

i l

• Mirnumbered Contenticn 6 in original submission.

v 15.

Again, I request the Board's leniency in its judgaent of these remarks ude in defense of my contentions, due to brevity of time, lack of effective access to many important materials, and p6titioner's unfamiliarity with Commission procedure.

Respectfully submitted, A' . j .s c .'i '

Eatkryn Hooker November 21, 1978 CERT 2"ICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of ::;y Supplement to Oral Defense of Contentions (Docket 50-h66) have been served on the following persons through deposit in the United St:tes :: mil, first class, this 21st day of November,1978.

Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Sheldon J, Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Asct. Attorney General Atomic Safety and licensing Board P.O. Eat 125h8 Panel Capitol Station U.S. Nuclerr Regulatory Co= mission Washington, Dw. 20555 Austin, Texas 76711 Robert Lowenstein, Esq. J. Gregory Gopeland, Esq. -

Lowenstein, Reis, Mewpam and Axelrad 3 der and Botts 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 1 Shell Plaza Houston, ;cxas 77002 W shington, D.C. 20037 Docketing and Services Eranch U.S. Nucles.r Regulatory Comission m ahington, D.C. 20555 Respectfully, xerox to: l Rep. Mickey Leland l

Bep. Ron Waters ,

J Harold Scar 3ett, Houston Fest 4 ;' v

"' ' 4 Chairman, House Commit,teeTInterior i s and Insular Affairs, Subce::neittee Kathryn Hooker i on Energy and the Epironment i I

l 4

l 1