ML19323D202

Position on Intervenor Contentions.Urges Consideration of Class 9 Accident Re Contention 8 as Advised in Council on Environ Quality 800320 Communication

ML19323D202
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/10/1980
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19323D198	List: ML19323D197 ML19323D202 ML19323D215
References
NUDOCS 8005210254
Download: ML19323D202 (48)

Text

_ _ __

,\\~l  %

I

• yl e ~ 'G?

"' ; g. .

UNITED STATES OF R4 ERICA [,70.d'2 qQ ? ib' NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCMMISSION m e' f C. ..d.,CAYgg; g j: ; . -

g ,, ' - -

BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFEIY AND LICENSIIC BOARD 9'/ ,

N In the Matter of { ,

1 APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES l Docket Nos. 50- W5 GENERATING CCMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l and 50-4ko OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE l .

PEAK STEAM EIFCTRIC STATION ] .

UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) [ ,

POSITION ON CONTENTIONS

.BY CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND-ENERGY) s CCMES NOW Citizens Association for Sound Energy (hereinafter referred to as CASE), Intervenor herein, and fil'es this,its position on Contentions.

It is CASE's basic position that these contentions with their supporting bases are admissable and should be considered in these hearin6s.

Although CASE was unable to siE. the stipulations as prepared by the Staff and the Applicant due to the "all-or-nothing" requirement of the Staff (see details following), we nonetheless belie re that the process of discussion and the efforts to arrive at the stipulations has been vorth-while and helpful. Forthisreason,weareregrouph.ngourcontentionsof 5/7/79 ("SUFFLDGMT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND CONTENTIONS BY CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)") into a more logical ordar which we believe vill prove helpful to the Board and all parties. The 1

1 8005g3gQ

l i .

Contentions have not been substantively changed. We have, however, included the specific regulations affected by each contention in the contentions them-selves. We have also included imediately folicwing each' Contention number s

a very brief description of the contention to facilitate quick and easy reference; this description is not intended to fully cover everything contained in the contention, nor is it intended to limit the scope of the contention, but merely

/

to assist all parties and the Board in quickly identifying the contention's basic content. Immediately following this brief description is an itemization of the specific CASE Contentions in our 5/7/79. Con'terations which are covered by the contention. We have also used the first number only when contentions .

have been c abined to facilitate ease of reference; again, this is not intended to limit in any way the contents of the contention, which includes all of the contentions in parentheses following the Contentlon number and the brief descrip-tion. In the upper right-hand co$ner 5f each pge, we have included the con-tention number covered by that page.

As has been previously indicated in CASE's 2/25/80 "IFFERVENOR CASE'S RESPONSE TO NEC STAFF'S STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPULATIONS AND REQUEST TO i

SCHEDULE PREEEARING CONFERENCE (dated 1/25/80, received 2/1/80)", there have l

l been see problems regarding efforts to arrive at atipulations. We are in-cluding below a partial detailing of sczne of these problems so that the Board

, - . . . - - . - - - - , - - . . , - - _ - , . - , . , . _ _ , .,.. , .,,.,.e,-

f .

. ' .E 'e s

.- ,

may better understand why the stipulations were not signed.

CASE Contention No. 9 was the contention which first called to CASE's attention that we apparently had a real lack of ccannunication or a misunder-standingwiththeStaffregardingwhathasturnedouttobea$,jorproblem area insofar as CASE's signing the sti;ulations prepared by the Staff and the Applicant. The wording agreed upon in our 7/18/79 meeting between the Appli-

/

cant, t!!e Staff, and CASE for this contention was "Neithe.r the Applicants nor the Staff has adqquately considered the health effects of low-level radia-tion on the population surrounding CPSES." Further,'the Staff agreed with CASE that this was a valid contention which should be addressed in the operat- .

ing license hearings. CASE's first indication that there was a problem l

came in an 8/31/79 conference call between the Applicant, the Staff and CASE.

The Staff stated that they were now having secotid thoughts about this contention andthatitnowappearedtothenTromourbasesthatwhatwe'resayingmay be a challenge to Appendix I and that that is not allowed. No further details vere given at that time.

Then, the 10/4/79 Stipulations frem the Staff indicated a change of Staff position on this contention from agreeing that it was a good con-tention to agreeing with the Applicant that it was not a good contention.

In CASE's 10/30/79 letter to the Staff (see Attachment C, pa6e 1, item 1)',

s we reviewed what had transpired regarding this contention and stated:

" Frankly, we are at a loss to understand your change of stance at this point and would request an explanation."

We then proposed to revise the wording scanevhat for pjarposes of clarification only.

On 11/26/79, CASE received a telephone call from the Staff, in which the Staff's confusion regarding just dhat CASE intended to say was discusped.

After this telephone conversation, it was obvious to' CASB' that there was a much broader area of aisunderstanding than we had originally realized and that very probably there were similar problems vit our.other contentions as well.

It appeared that part of our contentions were being left cut. We were in the process of trying to analyze what the problem was exactly, and what was causing it/ when on 12/26/79, during a telephone cony'ersatido initiated by CASE regard-ing other matters, the Staff told,us that .thd question regarding radiation had been certified to the Ccanission for a decision on just what they meant to be considered regarding radiation effect.s, etc., in operating license hearings. The Staff promised to send CASE a copy of the Black Fox appeal board ruling involved. .

On 1/15/80, CASE received the 1/11/80 Board request for Status Report from the NRC Staff. On 1/23/80, the Staff attempted to contact the CASE repre-senta,tive; however, this was not possible, since for a period of four days

.k.

l l

l

_ , . ' '-  ?

~. .

CASE's primary representative was unable to talk on the telephone because ofdoctor'sorders(from1/22/80through1/25/80). The1/25/80 Stipulations from the Staff reflected a change of position by the Staff and the Applicant s

to wanting to defer ruling on the admissibility of this contention; the cc: stents contained in CASE's 10/30/79 letter were completely ignored. On1/31/80, j

having recovered her voice, this CASE, representative called the Sta'ff and 1

requested again that the Staff send the promised Black Fox Appeal Board  ;

ruling;itwasreceivedon2/8/80. .

On 2/18/80, CASE wrote to the NBCt S' aff stating our specific con-cerns about the apparent misunderstandings .between CASE and the Staff regard- .

. ing our contentions (see Attachment B of this pleading) . On 2/25/80 CASE filed "INTERVENOR CASE'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFhS STA'IUS REPORT ON PROPOSED STIPUIATIONS AND REQUEST TO SCHEDULE PREHEARING CONFERENCE (dated 1/25/80, received 2/1/80)." On 3/13/80, CASE received a call fra the Staff stating that they wanted to set up a conference ' call between the Staff, the Applicant andCASE;itwasagreedthatthecallvouldtakeplaceon3/19/80. During the course of the 3/13/80 conversation, the Staff advised that they had sent us an answer to CASE's answer to the Staff's Status. Report to the Board and that Staff was sure we would receive it before the conference call on 3/19/80; it was not received until 3/20/80 (because it was sent Third Class instead l

l t

t_... .,7+. ..

~. or,

. c- . , . ..

l -

l of First Class, although the Certificate of Service certified that it had

~

been sent First Class -- CASE feels compelled to point this out because in that very document, the Staff made such a big point about CFUR's pleading not being acccsipanied by a certificate of service and its not being served on the Staff). .

The 3/19/80 conference can seemed to go ven; we discussed the t -<

concern's contained in CASE's 2/18/80 lettei to the Staff. Specifically, regarding item (1) of that letter (Attachment B), CASE expressed its con-cerns and stated that we could probably sign the stipulations if we were allowed to include reference to all of the contentions from our' 5/7/79 Con- ,

tentions which applied to each of the revised contentions; we said we would send the Staff in writing exactly which conteI1tions we wished to reference.

Regardingitem(2)ofthe2/18/80 letter,althoughtheApplicantandtheStaff assured us that it was not neces'sary t'o specify in each contention exactly vt'!.ch regulations it pertained to, CASE- indicated that we would attempt to do so and would include that also with the information we sent the Staff about item (1). The Staff agreed to send us a statement of their positions on CASE's coateations. 1 However, on 3/20/80, the day after the conference call, we received the Staff's 3/10/80 response to CASE's answer to the' Staff's Status Report j 1

1

.c

~. 7, to the Board previously referred to and this occupied CASE's attention for sane time. On y 29/80, we received the Staff's statement of their positions on CASE's contention; this was the first time CASE had a ' clear understanding e

of the Staff's reasons for its positica on most of our contentions. It was again obvious that there were deeper and more far-reaching problems than we had previously been aware of. In the,3/29/80 letter, the Staff sta'ted that they would contact CASE on April 4 to further discuss the, stipulation.

On 4/3/80, CASE received a telephone call fran the Staff inquiring

, as to whether or not we vere going to sign the'stipGlation. Since we vere l

l expecting the es2.1 on 4/4/80 and had not completed discussion within CASE of all the contentions, we advised the Staff that we would have an answer on 4/4/80; ve also specifically stated that there were still problems with sane of the contention's but that we would like to,. preserve as many as possible of those we could stipulate to. On'4/4/80, CASE received a call from the Staff.

CASE explained that there were a couple'which we could sign with no problem at all, but that there were some where would still had sane problems; before we could explain that sane of these were minor problems which could probably be taken care of by inserting the reference to all .of the contentions covered l

by the revised contention, the Staff informed us that they wanted all or nothing, t

l and that what they wanted to know was if we were going to sign the stipulations or not. , CASE informed the Staff that there were sane which we could not sign; l

l l

l

1 .. ..-

![,;[ * , s-

o. .

_. L. ,

the Staff then stated that in that case they would go back to our 5/7/79 contentions, that they had hoped that after all these months we would have ironed all this out and that we had waited a long time to brin 6 these problems e

up. CASE stated that apparently some of these problems had been on-going.

The Staff stated that that was the purpose of the last conference call, to find out what our problems were with signing and that they thought ~that's

/

vhat we' promised to send them in writin6; CASE replied that had we had the Staff's 3/10/80 response to CASE's answer to the Staff's Status Report to the Board at the time of the conference call as the-Staff had indicated we

.s would, CASE would have knom more what to tell them in the conference call.

The Staff then reiterated that they sould go back to CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions.

CASE commented that we hoped the Staff would consider all of our 5/7/79 Con-tentions, since that had been one of the problens. *

. l I

.. . . , . .. .. .,.s .

W

. - ,, l;.. _; l :r '~ . . ,;. .; ; '. . ' *:

~

• %.. :. I'.; ... .f ' ;.' . ,:: , ~ .* Q Cy , . . . . ,* , .. .?, '.-~

~ , . :. .u ,

_y*a_ ,.* y

+ .

.;r , .. -

'f , ,

I. .

~ ~ "

COFIErfIONS i

l l

CONENTION NO. 1 APPLICANT WIII NOT CCMPLY WITH REGUIATIONS (Includes l l

CASE 5/7/79 Contentions: 1, and 19, items 18 and 19.) The past record of  !

the Applicant clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to voluntand.ly canply with procedures and regulations necessary to assure the health and safety of the public; therefore, the reNements of 10 CFR 50.k0 (a, C asi d),

50 57(a)(1,2,3 & 6), So.57(b), 51.20 and 51. 21 have not been met, and a -

favorablecost/ benefit.analysiscannotbe' struck. '

EXPIANATION: Weincorporateherewith'byreference5/7/79 CASE Contention No.1, pages 2 through 9, and Contentio'n 19, items 18 and 19, page 57 Atthetime6four5/7/79CASEContentions,thisInt,arvenorwasnot aware of the full extent of the Applicant's past. record in this regard; however, since that time we have,oetained co' p ies 'of sane of the actual law suits which have been filed against Texas Utilities by the Texas Attorney

General's office and we plan to submit thene'in evidence in the hearings, i

among other supporting evidence. These lawsuits state, in part:

"...since 1977 a reduction of 8k% of the-total number of fish (at Texas l Utilities Esrtin Lake lignite plant) has occurred. ..the State has suffered a loss of m.are than $1,136,761 because of Defendant's actions. ..As a result of these discharge, Martin Lake has become contaminated and polluted, 9-1 I

.a r. , * ' ' '

. % ' :.? ;Q . . . ,

c. .

de u

. I' %. '.

- #1 9

large numbers of fish have been killed, the lake has lost its recreational value, the State has lost a large investment in the development of a park at the Iake, and the health and the safety of the public is en-dangered...The actions of the Defendant, described herein, have consti-tuted and presently constitute a threat of real,1:mnediate, and irre-parable harm. Defendant's discharge of over 15 million gallons of untreated vaste containing high levels of selenium and other toxic sub-stances durin6 the days of May 12 and 13 shows a blatant disregard for the laws of this State and the public health." (Emphases added.)

--fr a 7/16/79 lawsuit '.

" . . .During the period fra Febriary 6, .1979 until February 28, 1979 particulate esaissions fra Unit No. 3 (of Martin Lake lignite plant) were as much as 6k,000 pounds per nour. If the ' gas' cleaning equipment to control parti,culate emissions had been in operation during this time, the emissions should not have exceeded 750 pounds per hour...In spite of Plaintiff's effort to ecoverste with Defendahts in the construction of their new facility, the Defendants have n N _ openly defied the Federal l and State laws apnlicable to this facility.,.. .

"... Defendants are prer,ently constructing Unit No. 4 at the Martin Lake Station... Representations made in the Construction Permit application  !

for Unit 4 regarding concurrent startup of the gas cleaning equipnent l with the associated steam generating facility are identical.as those l

made*by the Defend:dit for Unit No. 3. 'Unless Defendants are enjoined  !

fra violating the Act, they vill continue their established practice of starting up lignite fired steam generators without first completing construction of the gas cleaning equipment necessary to control the emission of air contaminants, thereby violating the Texas Clean Air Act, and creat-ing a risk of permanent and irreparable injury to the public and the envircunent of the State of Texas for which there is no adequate remedy at law." (Saphases added.)

--from7/11/79 lawsuit

" Plaintiff would further show that in addition .to violating the specific l emission limitations in Regulation I, Defendants have emitted particulate matter fra the operation of boilers No.1 and 2 at its Monticello Steam Electric Station in such quantities and for such durations as to adversely affect hu: nan health or welfare or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of the prcoerty of the residents in the area l

l l

, ..t _w ., 7,7 ;* ,.,'.~r

, [ :y n

. zt.nf.yg , , . .

s.,.:, . ,,

. #1 l

surrounding the plant."

(Emphases added.)

--fr a 3/5/76 lawsuit

" Defendants agree to pay to Plaintiff, the State of Texas, the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) . . ." 'although the De-fendants did not admit any violations. (Emphases added.) e

--fr a 9/30/76 Final Judgment and Order of Injunction in the above 3/5/76 lawsuit

" Defendants agree to pay the sum pf $50,000 to the State of Texas.. ."

--from 9/30/76 Final Judgement and .

Order of Injunction in a similm?

lavisuit regarding the Big Brown

. lignite plant filed 3/8/76 In a suit filed for violations of the Texas Clean Air Act, it was stated: ,

" ... Defendant is the only espany in the United States which is refusing to emply with the sulfur dioxide emission limitations established by .

the federal new source perfor:r.ance standards...the Defendant has now openly defied the federal and state law applicable..."

--On.n/16/76anOrderofdismissalwas filed after the Defendant' agreed to instalf and operate flue gas,disttifuri-zation, equipment The preceding and other additional evidence, including but not limited )

l to the actual record of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) reports regarding the ]

construction of the Cmanche Peak nuclear plant (as discussed in CASE Contention ,

19 fonowing), clearly demonstrates that the Applicant win continue its

" established practice" of violating laws E.nd regulations and will create the )

risk of permanent and irreparable injury to the public and the enviroment l

for which there is no adequate remedy. Therefore, the operating license 4

should be denied.

l

-n.

.,,, .. .. - ; . . . . ,

- ;'_. . .

. ,.. _ . < . , .- s .

..,~... , .

. ,n ,. .;. , .. .f. g.'

. . . . .* , . s. .

1. 1 An additional concern is that because this Applicant is unwilling to canply voluntarily with health and safety regulations now, at its lignite plants, the likelihood of a Class 9 accident occurrin6 at CPSES (as well as s

other less severe. accidents) is increased. If, as has been charged in the hwsuits, violations are "their established practice", it would also indicate th . they would also have problems with radiation monitoring of rou' tine and

/

unplanned releases and that they would violate the Clean Air Act. In addi-tion, such practicesi,would mean that if accidents did occur at CPSES, they might be more severit for that reason.

e e  % e a # .4 S.:

g .'  %

.se'" .

~

1 l

l l

l 5

- u-

' ~ ~

r*  :,. y.;*

. -'..q* '4 "'.;.*.>.'k: '.y

.; y'; **  :,.e '

, *c..y;';' .,

. ,, '_ ..* _ .;.. _ . .  :

' .:.. . ', , J. "* .

..e. . w - -. . ;. . . . .- ,o, , , -

- 3 . > *;  ; -

e CONTEFfION No. 2 - , Contention 2 fra CA3E's 5/7/79 Contentions has been incorporated into other CASE contentions contained herein to reflect a more

~

logical grouping and statement of our contentions.

s A change should be made on page 11 of . Contention 2 to correct two .

i typrgraphical errors: the lo CFR, references on items 2 and 3 should.de changed fr a 50.20 to 51.20. This was , simply a typographical error and a .

reading of what is referred to in the body.of these tv,o it, ems clearly indi- j cates that the sections actually referred to are,lo CFR 51.20(b) and lo Cra .. f 51.20(c). If any additional certification is .seedah that these were merely )

t typographical

• errors, CASE is prepared to take vliatever steps the Board deems

• j necessary to correct them. .

- I g . e 4 g

• . d g

• .;' : ;.

,I I $

L 6

e p

?

~

O e

T

.c. p ;- . s. , .a,fa ~. .

.

• i , .i w.

.,', ;n:t,f .s:, . .-- ;VN:f. . y( ,,g .r.. ~; , ,p. @ ..,~, , ,

.. . ,  ;.. . .j , ,

,r - . ;- : . . - -

, , .i,: , , . ., * ,) y, , ' ,; '

~'

,, ,.. ~r.'....

. s

. .'....  ;. - -

.* $3 ColfI5LVI' ION NO. 3 ER IS INCCMPI2TE AND INACCURATE; IF ACCURATE AND CCMPLETE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR CPSES. (Includes 5/7/79 CASE Contentions: 2, pages 10 and 11; 3, pages 12 through 14; 4, pages 15 and 16; 5, pages 17 through 19; e

and 6, item 2, parles 20 and 23.)

Raquiraments of the National Enviromental Policy Adt (NEPA) and 10 CFR 50 and 51 nave not been met and a, favorable cost / benefit analysis cannot be made', be.cause: ,

(a) The Enviromental Report (ER) is inaccurate in that actual and pro,jected figures for the Applicant's capabilities,lemands and reserves, are i

l I

h _: carate and incomple.te; . .

t (b)-The ER is incasplete in $ hat Applicant has failed to consider '

significantfactorswhichmustbeincludedinordertomakeanaccuratecost/

benefit analysis (as outlined in 5/7/79 CASE $oitention 3, page 13,' items

.- ~

3 through 8, pages 13 and'14; CoEention 4, pages 15 and 16; Contention 5, pages 17 through 19; and Contention 6, pages 20 and 23, item 2).

(c) If the changes indicated in (a) and (b) above are made, so that the ER is accurate an'l emplete, a cost / benefit analysis favorable to the opera-tion of Cmanche Peak nuclear plant cannot be made.-

I 14 .

. '. ) ij ;. W. ,?.~. ; ~ .

k.;.* ' * . ,.* * . < T> .w !WW '~. *,'=

' V,' W

~~*.

.i

' ' :,' .*>.T }..

_.;,,, .

y 'Y Q.

-e'*.* **e g ~: s w ~. -

. '? -'~"

. c. , . , ,

1. 3 EXPIANATION: Wa, incorporate by reference 5/7/T9 CASE Contentions 2, pages 10 and 11; 3, pages 12 through 14; h, pages 15 and 16; 5, pages 17 through 19; and 6, item 2, pages 20 and 23 Ou page 14, line 2 (Contention 3),

the words "quite probably" should be deleted.

• In addition, with regard to 5/7/79 CASE Contention No. 3,. Item 1, page 12, actual figures now available of /.

11,232,000 KW for 1978 and 10,880,000 EW for'1979 (per Texas Utilities) must now'be included and revisions made accordingly in order. that an accurate cost / benefit analysis can be made.

On page 12 of CASE 5/7/79 Contention. 3, itren 2, the words " dated October 1978" should be inserted following. the wo ds " Table 1.1-8a." This .

is necessary to distinguish between this revision (we assume, although it is not so marked) and the unmarked version which has no date (which we sasume is the original version').,  ;'.

Although a substantial margin' of une'ertainty may be permissable in projections of demand, the magnitude of the changes which have occurred between projections of demand and actual demand constitute significant new information which has developed after the construction permit review. Also l of significance is that the Applicant is continuik to ignore the very factors (CASE 5/7/79 Contention 3, items 3 through 8, pages 13 and 14) which led to these miscalculations. Prudent management practice requires that the Applicant learn frca past miscalculations and not continue to make the same miscalculations l

.J'* ,'

7, .'5. . ,,p) < . .j,$ e.,> T* , .r? Q f.,*:7:Jiyyty

~ ,

,,. s . . j'= ',

.. .- ..nm.

, ";~

4,

. ' f3 -

in the future. Further, evidence exists that the Applicant could have made a more reasonable forecast of demand based on what was ascertainable at the time (testimony in the 1974 hearings before the Dallas city council on whether or not to permit Dallas Power 8. Light to participate in the C che Peak nuclearplant).

There are now available three , possible alternatives wh ch were t-not considered at the construction pemit stage because they were not available at that time. At the time the CPSES was proposed, the Applicant stated that it would be needed to supply d===nd in 1980.82.- The desmand as projected at that time by.the Applicant has not materializedy and the utility experienced ,

a 1979 reserve capacity of almost 60% (59 3%); in -197k, in the construction )

~

stage ER, the Applicant projected a 1979 reserye capacity of caly 17 3%.

The difference of h2% reserve capacity clear constitutes a significant change, which should be consider N at the operating license stage. Because l of this significant difference, there are presently available three possible  !

alternatives which now must be addressed:

(a) One alternative is that the Applicant use the capacity they already have available, rather than bringing CPSES on line as scheduled.

(b)Anotheralternativeistobringenlinetheotherligniteplants currently on the drawing beard. Already same of thess plants have been 1

,' q^ ' ' '"? {;:i 'sa *Ufx y;

*** Q~ ~ ' c;f'- f , ;"*.'j, ' ;l .. .

,=

.; -

, , g, ? _.

- p ,*- '-

'.g delayed and an aborted attempt has been made to sell one of them to Houston Lighting & Power. In its initial consideration of whether to build a nuclear plant or a lignite plant, the Applicant indicated that the financial costs were about equal. However, construction costs of nuclear plants have been increasing at a faster rate tlian construction costs for lignite plants, accord-ing to studies such as " Trends in Lipt Water Reactor Capital Costs in the United' States: Causes and Consequences," b'y I. C. Eupp, ,J. Derian, M. Densimoni, R. Treitel, CPA 74-6, Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 18, 1974. According.to tiestimony in'recent rate hearings, the utility is planning to bring on 41ne lignite plants in 1985 .

at $h29 per IGT and in 1986 at $525 per W, as ccampared to CPSES cost of

$740 per W; cost of fuel is uncertain (see bSE Contention 6). Therefore, ,

consideration should now be given to this 'alteinative.

(c) A third alternative isio use the a5. ready built and paid for gas-fired plants which the utility already~ has. Testimony in the Del.3as Power

& Light rate hearings in 1979 stated that DP&L has renewed its contract for ,

natural gas supplies for five years with a five-year option. According to Pitts Energy Group, there is currently a glut of natural gas on the market.

(And see 5/7/79 CASE Contention 5, pages 17 through 19, in particular.)

Please see 5/7/79 CASE Contention 5, item 6, page 19 Projections L

> ~ r

. .;s. . .. :.s -

nn,;- -a,,.. ... 9 ::p;,y ,:. . . , ~.

~ -

• .- : s ,, . -

.. ,  ? * .

• ,,1f-'.

T. 53-of need by the Applicant in Table 1.1-8 of the ER address only the short-term situation through 1985 However, the operating license, if granted, will cover a period of approximately 40 years. Testimony in the Dallas Power 8. Light 1979 rate hearings stated that the utility is expecting a shorter econ $c life of 30 years to actually be experienced. There first should be a decision made by the utility and/or the NRC as to whether a 30-year or a ho-year life is to be used for the

/

CFSE3; .'this is necessary to strika an accuiate cost / benefit analysis. Then' projections of need.and ccerparisons with alternatives are necessary for the entire 30 or ho year period in order to assess what- the cost / benefit analysis would be inethe presently changed situation. -

Although sose of i;be issues raised in this contention alglit normally

~

have been better considered at the construction permit stage, the magnitude of the changes which haive occurred clearly constitute significant new informa-tion which has developed after tTe codstruction.pemit review. Therefore, it is required by lo CFR 51.21 that they be considered under lo CFR 51.2o 1

insofar ao such changes have occurred. This must include all affected portions l

of the cost / benefit analysis. l 1

l 1

l I

• 1 l

l l -

~ *'. . c . . . . , ., . . . '. .. x,*

• • . , , . s ,.

C. c'.. . ' ~ ,~

, , . . : , 3

• - ,.~ :' ,

.'...i . - *~, .

.u -

r .: -

. . .. h

• /

Thecost/benefitanalysis,ifthepossibilityofaClass9 accident is considered, will be changed because with decreased demand, it is not necessary to choose the riskier of the previously-mentioned alternatives (the nuclear r

plant) to get electricity to the public. Other available options do not have the risk of Class 9 accidents associated with them. Another consideration which must now be considered is the gurrent costs to the consumers' at 24I-2 as a result of the accident and possible sinilar costs should etailar accidents ,. .

I occur at CPSES. At.24I-2, the cost / benefit has been drastically altered --

the custaners are now getting the benefit oC.the raidiation effects and the cost of the electricity. .,

6 e

$ g M m

.

.'

~

vO

.n** . s .

O G

e 9

O e

, , 4. . .. .e , - .

. y , . ,m *. , , . . .

)

- ; ..

. , , , ,.. ,.. ,, , - , j s .

. ,. .. -.cy.,,*- .. ,- ,

I 2

CON 11!NZION NO. 6 DECCM4ISSIONIN3; SUPPLIER C00CDGNf; FUEL COST AND SLTFLY; WASTE STORAGE; TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE; AND SHORTENED LIFE OF PIEIT. (Includes 5/7/79CASEContentions: 1(b), page 9; 2, page 10 and n j 6, page 20-27; n ,

e page 39; 18, page h8 and kg; 19, itan 14, page 56.)

The requirements of 10,CFR 51.20, 51.21 and ib.57(a)(3 and 6) have

, not been aset, and a favorable cost /bepetit analysis cannot be struck because the following have not been adequately considered: (a) decanaissioning; (b) cannitment of suppliers to fulfill contracts; (c) fuel cost and supply; (d) waste storage; (e) transportation f vaste; pud ('f)' shorter useful life of s.

plant than (nticipated.

EXPLANATION: We incorporate.by reference herewith 5/7/79 CASZ Contentions 1(b),page9;2,page10'and11; , page 20-27; 11, page 39; 18, pages 48 and 49; and 19, item 14, page'56.' . .

Regarding the issue of supplier ecuinitment, CASE's position is set out in our 5/7/79 Contention No. 6, item 3 In addition, recently Metropolitan Edison has filed suit against Babcock and Wilcox because of the TMI-2 accident.

Should this suit be decided in favor of the utility, it would be a further in-ducement for reactor manufacturers and suppliers to get out of the business. ,

1 CASE's position regarding transportation of vaste is contained in ,

1 Contention 19, item ik.  !

20 -

l l

e

. , , , . - -'%.y }f.

.'"'.;s . .. *'n K 5y's n }:'R,'=.x.yj g:$4.,Q5;st&R.,,  ;

~.....s-

. , .. n ..g '.' ~ ,; ',.* *

,~ . , ' .

. . ;.  :-( i,, . : . ., . > ' f.+. ; -

., ~ pg . . . . . . *i

. _. e - , .

.s-

.i : .; , g.ky.* *; ;l , , $.

~

.,,..  ;.

m- -

With regard to the issue of the shortened life.ot.CPSES, CASE's position is set out in 5/7/79 Contention No.11, p. 39 In addition, an unfavorable r hange in any portion of the cost / benefit analysis, such as alleged in CASE's other contentions, vould have a correspondiyy negative

. impac.t on.the useful life of CPSES, as would changes in requirements.s.uch .

as a lowering of Peemissible radiation exposure to vorhers si51/or the public.

~

, With regard to,the issue of , fuel, it has never been CASE's intention l

to pursue the issue' of fuel for CPSES past the LJ-yea,.r life .'

.of the operating l license. The wording which had been discussed, and which had been agreed upon l l

by the Applicant, the. Staff and CASE vas "fnel ov the life of'the plant" l the Staff also agreed that this was a valid contention which sh'ould be considered in the hearings. However,on1/8/80, CASE.yasinformedbytheStaffthatthey ,

wan.ted t.o. change the wording to " fuel *for the.durati.on of the -license." CASE .

was not sure then (and in fact, is not surei nofr) what the differende in the two

.a.- .

proposed wordings is. However, ve were villitig to stipulate to a change in the wording to " fuel fcr the duration of the kO-year license being requested by the Applicant." '(However, we were precluded free so stipulating by the "all or nothing" requirement of the Staff and we never discussed our. proposed new wording with the Staff (see previous explanation).)

In regard to the issue of vaste, initially the Staff, the Applicant and CASE had agreed on the wording "long-tem vaste storage and/or disposal;"

1 the Staff also agreed that this was a valid contention which should be. considered l l

l l

1 1

1

. '. N C; J,*' 'N: /h 2.I. '/ .'.'[@ch? hYY a?i Ti ~

.- ' , ,y e. 7,%d,'[f,MN.S*

+

.a.

e ,, .:!{ 4;y;&,.yy Y

.  ;.<-~ . . .

. 7,,, . . '

4;

. .*n,

y' .

n .

. ;de .

4.. <r.

. ..  : , >; - );.. .r,.

. .. +. ' . U ,, ,. c e g ,s. M y * ..;.,.>,n,,.-g_ yz,; ,

.

., ..q.--

s

.% . , : Q.E * .' . g-

~

~;'*

.- k. ....,.[.<'-

..- . s .! <. . . us :r

. .  : ~.:.=,

1.*.. ,-

v. ; .

- -~

,.,;,r:*. 3. '. - . ~ .

.u . -

in these hearings. However, on 1/8/80, CASE was infdsed th 'the Siltaff that

.. v ..

they wanted to change the wording to "vaste storage on. site for the duration

.  ;.

of the license." Although the Staff's wording certalnly' includes a portion I of what CASE is concerned with,. it does not fully cover CASE's. concerns. ,

l l

The NRC Staff has consistenly supported the daccmaissioning portion

. . . l

, of this contention as ." raising an isage which is approproste for cohsiders.

tion in this proceeding'." Ye.t the Staff has. opposedu-th.e: portions of this .

contention regarding.vaste "beyond the requested tern:. of tihe license," on the -

?. .. .

. . . . . 1 grounds that-it " seeks to raise an issue which is 'beyond the ' scope of this l

s. > , , ;. ,. c- . -

proceeding..*.The CPSES operating , lice'nse application' seeks only a' license .

for a specified, period. Aceordingly, the cost / benefit analysis need only ,

- l con, sider ,those costs and . benefits ass 6ciated th.the proposed action, operation

,. . - ; ..- .,' .. ,

of the facility for a specified period." These"t,vo StafI posit' ions are not cczepatible, since deaasai'ssioning vill not even' begin until'after' the plant ceases to operate. Further, what vill be done with the vaste even for the full M years of the license is not known. ,

Also, there'are requiressents in place for' the handling of vastes frca lignite plants; the fact that there are no such requirements in place for nuclear plants means that in a cost / benefit analysis between a lignite plant and a nuclear plant, the analysis vould favor a lignite plant in this regard.

22 .

I l .

.~.....

..y- ~ .

. - . . ., , n. ,, g ..

. ! a W y% _6 .y g . y g.  ;...,:. , , . .. . y*,

,_ .. ,..y y ,;p.g. (- :.

~

. n.>.1c. : %:,. 5. ~' v .? .a .

- " ; V - .*~'

$',* ,$! ' ~'&; [.l.'

. * '.*.*?..Sf.Y. : k'Y,

• m

. .  ; .. .

Further, t'he Ccumaission has ruled in W FR, p'. k3363, .55365, footnote 7, 8/2/79, specifically that the premise that only the period..of the license need be addressed is no longer valid. In addition,10 CFR 51.20 clearly

-/ -

states that the ER is to discuss the impact of the facility -- nowhere does it specify that the ER should address itself only to the impact of,the facility for the tem of h,he license even though there vill. be 'an impact which continues past the term of the license. Therefore,gsince there *- vill be . .:

an impact from -

1 CPSES past the tem.of the license, the CPSES operating5license bearings must *

.i ' .

address the full impact of this particulgg,. ilit.y_.

. i-

{ ,

We are .svare of the Staff's argument .Yegarding tha Commission rule- -

. . co -

- , making2 , proceeding regarding " Storage and. Disposal' of. . , Nuclest Waste,"'W Fed.

4 -

.~. ,

. . .  ; -, -

. s R,etjg,:,- 61372

- (october- ' < - . ' . . 25i-

. . . 1979).. . i m .- '. However,

. . . _ . .: , .ves . :, yiph,.to, . e. . pa$nt .~ n >cet  ; . ,t'be i.mollowing:-  :-

.; . s*, , n- -~ ' *.. y 1 ,' y, ' , [ %. t "; '9 , f*

(1) The Federal Registe' r notice".specificallyfstates "DuringItds proceeding

..~- '

, .a . . _

the safety implications and envirormiental imphet.s .'of radio' active,vaste storage on-site for the duration of a license v'ill continue to be sh5ects- for adjudi cation in individual facility licensing proceedings." .(Emphasisadded.). I

- ~

berefore, it is appropriate that that portion, of'the issue be addressed in the operating license bearings. (2) The so-called "Rogofin Report" ("Three Mile Island, A Report to the Cannissionera and to the Public," MUREG/CR-1250, Vol.1, p.139) states:

l 6 i

l l i - - .. ._. .- !

l

[**/ '. D ,

5 I'.::'.- ,/ . .

[4f

, ,. .

' 3 ',

.

..'- a;. <

.y. f . . .f .

_;; ,?

,e -

.,"..- ';-

• ; - s ..

".. . consideration of ' generic safety issues,' ... generally is pot included .

i in the licensing proceedings. Theoretically, these issues are dealt with administratively by the NRC staff and, the ACRS, or by policy deci-sions implemented in rulemaking or elsewhere in the NRC. In practice, it appears that many of these issues do not' get meaningful attention anywhere."' ,

s It is CASE's position that the full impact of CPSES must be addressed sam;where; and to the extent that it is not addressed by the aforementioned

~

~ ~

rulemaking proceeding, it must be ad&essed (if necessary, after the rulemaking 1 proceeding is courpleted) in the operatin6 license hearin(s in order to ccamply s .

with the requirement',a of 10 CFR 50 57, %.2o, E.21, 51.22 and E.23, before

' ~ '

an operating license can be issued. d, "

l Should there be a Class 9 accident; ak' CPSES, this vould increase the cost of dec,ontamination, and later' o'n of deccumissioning as well. As sarply illustrated 4 'DE2', clean-up is a ver'7 costly and risky business

.a and is not a proven technology. CASE maintainh'that a Class 9 accident should e- .

be considered for CPSES (see Contention 8), and that when 'it is considered, the folicwing questicus should be answered (smong others)r What provisions if any are b'ing'made e for emergency transfer of,oneite stored waste? What happens if the plant is crippled by a Class 9 accident (perhaps simile to the one at 'IMI-2) and the clean-up or decanaission'ing is unresolved at the ,

time the license expires -- who vill take care of and pay for the clean-up or dpecumaissioning? What will be done with any vastes associated with a

.

- - 2h -

' '.,;'

.- __1.m

' ** ,j* -'wwp::,;,u  ;,'....: . ' ' ' .)

4-)y f,

' , T' . ..s.; . ,. y . .R}.,.!,

. , . . . S. . . . ; ). , , , . y., . . . f. .Q: .*,p)

, , , . ,~, e' := .?2,,. . . ..

v'.,,',... . ,.l* . . [.~~,L , ,.4 ~c..

, . . . .  ; .

3..

-. .. a: .  :: , .. ..  :, .;,,. " ~ . i a .+  ; .~ e .

R s . , ..s.y,s

, . . v. s ,. .,.3 s. g.a 4,y;y .; -u ,, e. ,,

+  % .g.. . , . .

r. s; . . .g:

r

. .  ; ~ .

.,.s ~t: y. -.  % 9 ;., ,

<-  ;. . > .

. . . . . . , , ...a .. .,.. .

r. .-

Class 9 accident at'CPSES -- who gets them, where are they goiN to go? (At

'LMI, the utility wants to dasp radioactive water into the Susg=h=-h River and vent radioactive gases' into the atmosphere -- if a~ s?milme accident occurred at CPSES,- would the utility want to dump radioactive valer int 6 Squaw Creek.or

. . . ~

the Brazos River and vent gases into the atmosphere of Glen Ifose? If Texas Utilities operates.CPSES in the-same mannar that the State has cha'ged r them j . c ~

with operating their

• lignite plants, would they dump and vent .first 'and ,ask later?)

E

, w .

q,...

, - o

• ~ .. ,

. r.

t. ' . .,..

9 d' ..= ,,

-

• E,. '. . b ' * '

v .s h

I b

O t

• , , . * . ,e .

4

. , ( .

.4 .- :

I

. i .. . .m

• 8

. . . *. 43 7 4

. - e . <-

e

.e

~ * -

t .

e 1

t . . _ . , . _ _ . . - _ , _.,,-..y ..-,.m

O fr CCITTENTION NO. 7 SPENT FUZL ACCIDENT. (Includes 5/7/79 CASE Contentions:

2; 6, item 5, paragraph 3; 7; '19, item n.)

Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has adequately considered the

/

costs in terms of health as ven as the econcaic costs of a possible accident in the on-site stcrage of spent fuel; therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.20 and 51.21 have not been met and,a favorable cost / benefit anaUysis cannot be made. ,. .

EXPIANATION: Weincorporatebyreferenceherewith5/7/79 CASE Contentions 2, pages 10 and n; 7, pages 28 through'30; 19, item n, p. 55 One of the criticians' of the Staff regarding this contention states:

"In fact, CASE does not even allege that a fuel pool meltdown could occur g CPSES." CASE, by even offering this conte,ntion for consideration,vas implicitly making such a statement. If there is-any doubt, we vill make it now, for the record: CASE bel evt.a there is a possibility that an accident could occur aj CPSES involvir.3 the on-site storage of spent fuel, and that such an accident could be of the magnitude and consequence of the accidents discussed in Report No. 290 and the Sandia Report referred to in our 5/7/79 CASE Contentica 7 With regard to scme of the other criticisas offered by the Staff on this Contention, what we have stated regarding Report 290 in Contention 4

.; .. .

1. 7 7 on p. 28 and 29 of our 5/7/79 Contentions, item 1, has not been refuted by the so-called second German Report (" Critical Comments on Work Report AS-290") .

The second report merely concludes that "a melt accident 'is out of the question

/

for the fuel element pool..." However, this statement is based on the assumption -

that the consequences of such an , accident (which consequences the second report does not even address) can be avoided,by certain factors which are considered to be very simple to accomplish. But these factors,,which are essential to prevent an accident from occurring under certain conditions, are not that l simple to acc mplish under certain circumstances.

~

\

The solution of the second German report was, simply stated, that i

you go out and get a water truck and you go by road to bring in water. In the j

~

event there were a tornado at CPSES (which is.not all that unlikely), the roads could be blocked and it could be difficult on i$possible to get uhe water truck in; in fact, all the water trucks might very v' ell be disabled by the tornado too.

9 The same problem could exist if there were an earthquake. Also, if you were able to get the water required over to where you need it, it would be necessary to open up the door and in so doing, you have created a radioactive release to l

the enviroment. So the " simple" ways to avert an accident fra happening are not necessarily all that simple to acc mplish. It ,is incumbent upon the Applicant to prove that their emergency planning regarding the spent fuel pool cooling 1 1

._7

.  : i 1

N i 1

i i

system is adequate, and to show that either permanent or portable cooling systems are adequate for emergency transit needs.

Another possible cause of an accident at a spent fuel pool is s

sabotage. In the CPSZS FSAR there is some discussion regarding the dam's breaking at the plant. This could be accmplished by sabotage, flooding, or other means. This in turn could lepd to a loss of coolant water in the spent fuel pool, and this in turn could lead to an accident.

There are other possibilities of internal or external sabotage which could precipitate a credible accident at'CPSE5. There have been in-stances alre'ady of such sabotage attempts: the" airplane where a hijacker was going to crash into the Oak Ridge enrichment plant in 1972; the workers who dropped sodium hydroxide on new fuel rods at the Surrey nuclear plant in 1979; the reporter who got a job at Three Mile-island as a security guard.

e Sabotage is one area the Applicant hasn't dis ~ cussed at all, even though there have been several incidents of credible sabotage avents and possibilities.

A spent fuel pool meltdown or partial meltdown could take place independent of a cmplete reactor meltdown. In this event, f would itself be a major contributor of radioactive releases. Or a spent fuel pool meltdown could occur in conjunction with a partial meltdown of the reactor and still ,

i I

be the major contributor.

. 1

' C:

' u ,

M Regarding the Sandia Report, the Staff alleges that the report assumes the loss -t _all coo 1? c vater. In fact, the Sandia Report also addresses the possibility of a partial loss of water in f,he spent fuel pool.

/

It also discusses the possibility of an inccanplete drainage which could block the flow of coolant water and reduce the effectiveness of natural corr <ective cooling, as well as discussing other possibilities such as 10% of the rods still being immersed or 20') still being IEEnersed. Another item discussed in the Sandia report regards the so-called " chimney effect." The Applicant hasindicatednoprocedurestoinsurethatit'voukd'attempttocreateachimney effect if ne'cessary as described in the Sandia Report; and in the event that the Applicant did attempt to do so, there is no assurance that they would be successful. If the Applicant were successful, a radiological hazard would l

have then been created since the gases in the s'pe,nt fuel pool area vould be

~

released to the atmosp. tere. The Sandia report discusses the accidents which are posetble at a spent fuel pool; it does not discuss the consequences of such accidents, as does the German Report No. 290.,

In the event of a Class 9 accident at CPSES, the consequences of l

the accident vodld be much vorse than has been considered when calculating i such accidents as are discussed in WASE-lh00, the , revised WASE-ThO or any other report of which CASE is aware; this is true because in thase reports, j only the releases from the reactor have been used in calculating consequences.

l l

\.

8 17 However, in this event you would also have the releases from the spent fuel pool, which would substantially increase the calculated consequences.

There are other possibilities which could be di'scussed regarding

. s what could cause a spent fuel pool accident at CPSES. For instance, if there were e. Class 9 accident, if it were of the magnitude that abandoment of the plant occurred, this could lead t9 a loss of coolant water to the spent fuel pool with a resultant accident there. s.

But the following covers the situation very well:

"Thus, NEPA requires Federal agencies to assess'more than simply the probable impacts of their proposed actions. Enviro mental impact stateme6ts required by Section lO2(2)(C) must, at a minimum, contain adequate information to alert the public and Congress 'to all know possible environmental ccusequences of proposed agency action.' Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers, 325 F., Supp. 749, 759 (E.D. Ark.

, 1971) (emphasis in the original)." (from, Attachment A of this pleading, page 5, Council on. Environmental Quality) *

"The Council's interpretation of this mandate under NEPA is codified in its regulations, which are binding on ali federal agencies. E. O. 11991 (May 24, 1977); 40 C.F.R. pare. graph 1500 3 The regulations contain a special provision for situations in which information is incceplete or unavailable: -

'When an agency is evaluating significant adverse effects on the human enviroament in an environmental impact statement and there are gaps in relevant infor=ation or scientific uncertainty, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking or that uncertainty exists.

(b) If (1) the information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternativet:

and is not kncv and the overall costs of obtainir4 it are exorbitant or l

' ~ . . - . .

U

(2) the information relevant to adverse impacts is important to the decision and the means to obtain it are not known (e.g., means for obtaining it are beyond the state of the art), the agency shall veigh the I l

need for the action against the risk and severity of possible avverse impacts were the 4ction to pro-ceed in the face of uncertainty. If the agency proceeds, it shall include a. worst case analysis and an inlication of the probability or improbability of its occurrence.' 40 C.F.R. paragraph 1502.22(1979)."

-- frcza Jttachment A of this pleading l page 6, Council on Environmental Quality . j CASE could list other reports, such as tho'se of Richard E. Webb (specifically his testimony in Docket 50-272, Public Service Electric & Gas Co.,SalenNuclearGeneratingUnit#1, testimony 6f2/27/79and4/8/80andh/9/80),

but it is CASE's contention that the burden of proof is upon the Applicant, not this Intervenor, and that we are not required at this time to show a full evi-dentiary basis at this time regarcing our contentions. This is based on the

. , ~

following: , .

l "Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer, the applicant or the proponent of an order has the burden of proof."

--10 CFR 2 732 Burden of Proof l

"From the standpoint. of basis, a detail 1Eg of the evidence which will be offered in support of the contention is unnecessary and an evidentiary foundation is not required. Philadelphis Electric Co.,

et alI (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3), AIAB-216, l 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974); Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).

~

~

. ,, -.,,'"; .,,. '; . . .,.  : .. r. . . .... .. ., *_ y.,. t_ . , . , , ,

e ,, ,-

,,e. ,

. * , ll/ . * , l

.i ..

. 1

- 1 4

"In examining contentions and the bases therefore to deter:nine admissibility, a licensing board is_not to reach the merits of 1 the contentions." Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Vaterials License l SNM-1773-Transportation of Spent Fuel fr a Oconee Nuclear Station j for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALA3-528 (February 26, l 1979); Peach Bott a , supra at 8 AEC 20; Grand Gulf, supra at 6 AEC 1 426. l 1

Likewise, we could present numerous other possible ways in which j an accident could occur at CPSES at t)e spent fuel pool -- operator error; drought which could possibly interfere with the cool, ant, water; etc. -- but CASE maintains that we have presented a sufficiently specific contention I l

without having to do so.

9

?

e e

• O e

e*

F

• e 6

O 32 -

.l ' -

,2 43..j-e 56 CONTENTION NO. 8 CLASS 9 ACCIDENT. (Includes 5/7/79 CASE Contentions: 8, and2.)

The ER fails to analyze the probability of the ' occurrence of a e

Class 9 accident and the potential costs in terms of health and dollars, which failure results in: (1) violation of the requirements of lo CFR 51.22 and 51.23, violation of the requiremepts of the National Energy Policy Act (NEPA) 5.n general and specifically the guidelines set down by the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and violation of the requirements of the At mic Energy Act; and (2) preventing.the coEpletion of a valid or accurate cost / benefit analysis as required by 10 CFR 51.20 and 51.21.

EIPIANATION: We incorporate .by refer.ence 5/7/79 CASE Contentions:

8, .pages .31 through 33;and Contention 2, page[lo and 11.

In addition, we incorporate by reference Attachment A hereto: the March 20,1980 letter and attacha uts bcm Gus Speth, Ch=4 man, President's Council on EnviccomentalQudity, to John Ahearne, Chairman, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission. In addition, we reference the attachment to the CEQ's original letter, "NRC's Enviromental Analysis of Nuclear Accidents:

Is It Adequate?"* dated February 4,1980; however, we do not have copies of this report for the parties or the Board and include it only for infor-

=ational purposes here.

Inour5[T/79ContentionNo.8,CASEreferredtothe

. ~ c, N

)

Three Mile Island accident with regards to its indicating that the possi.  !

bilities of a Class 9 accident are not nearly as low as had been previously thought, and that they are deserving of serious consideration as they relate tothecost/benefitanalysis. As stated in the CEQ ccanunication of March 20, this is also the CEQ's opinion; and they further state: ,

"The President's Commission on tpe accident at Three Mile Island made th,e further finding that

' . . . the probability of occurrence of ad accident like that at Three Mila Island was high enough, based on WASH 11400, that since there had been mors than 400 reactor ' years of nuclear power plant operation in the United States, such an accident should have been expected during that period.' Report'of the President's Cczamission on the Accident at Three Mile Island .32 (1979)(emphasis added by CEQ)'" ,

i l

In our 5/7/79 Contention No. 8, this Intervenor stated "Recent events includingtheThreeMileIslandaccidut...indicatethatbothcommonmode failures and common event failures involving successive failures of various systems due to a common incident or a ' failure conanon to all the systems involved are much more likely than had previously been believed." As reported in the March 20 CEQ ccumunication, "the NRC staff found that:

'the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 involved a sequence of successive failures (i.e., anall-break loss-of-coolant accident and failure of the emergency core cooling system) more severe than those postulated for the design basis of the plant. Therefore, we conclude that the accident at Three Mile Island was a Class 9 event.' Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), Docket 50-272,

'NRC staff response to question no. 4 of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' at 3 (emphasis added)."

1 I

l

- w-r--.

l

'e n .

~

l

-(j.

• • ._ . . 1

~

$ l l

l l

The authority of the Council on Environmental Quality is quite clear l and specifically spelled out: l "The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation...will prepare a draft environ-mental impact statement for facility licensing actions coyered by...(10 CFR) 51.21 as soon as practicable after receiIt of the Applican1;'s Environmental Report...

(d) In determining the contents of an environmental impact statement, I the Camission shall b'e guided by the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines on Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements..."

, --10 CFR 51.22 and 51.23 -

As stated in the March 20 CEQ cm municaton:

"'...one of NEPA's prominent features ~is the requirement that an agency ' acknowledge and consider 'respons'ible scientific opinion concerning Possible adverse enviromental affects even where slich opinion 'is contrary to the official agency position...'"

~~

"The Council's interpretation of this mandate under NEPA is codified in its regulations, which are binMng on all federal agencies. ..

'The Council was created by NEPA and charged with the responsibility l to review and appraise programs and activities of the. Federal Govern-ment and to make apprcpriate recmmendations in light of the policy set forth under the Agt...Accordingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Council's interpretations *of NEPA are ' entitled to substantial deference.'" (Emphasisadded.)

"Thus, under NEPA, interpretative cases, and the Council's inter-pretative NEPA regulations, one of the NRC's most important obliga-tions is to present 'to the fullest exte'nt possible' . . .the spectrum l of nuclear accidents that may result fra NRC actions and the details i of their potential consequences for the human envircrauent. .."

The CEQ ccammunication clearly specifies that a Class 9 accident should l l

l be considered for each individual plant site; therefore, a Class 9 accident and all its implications should be considered for the Cmanche Peak plant:

l l t l l

l l t

~ ~'

~

.*g. . . ~

y.; *~

,'c,. ^ -

• - + .'-

t j

]

i "We believe that the new policy should be based on the sensible approach of discussing the environmental and other consequences of the full range of accidsnts that might occur at nuclear reacters, including accidents now classified as Class 9 This should include core melt events. In addition, EISs should prasent the best esti: nates of the likelihood of such events. In order to comply with the disclosure requirements of NEPA, the NRC should include in the analyses the likely range of en-viroranental and other consequences fra severe and other accidents...

"We also urge the Caumission to broaden its range of variables: (e.g.,

radiation pathways) in determinha accident impacts, and expand its discussions in EISs of the impacts of nuclear accidents on human health, the natural environment and local econcmies. Site specific treatment of data should be substituted for 'boilerplate' assessment of accident in- )

itiating events and potential impacts, and EISs should be comprehensible l to non-technical members of the public.", (Esphasis added.)

"...The, Comunission at a minimum should apply the approach described here j to proceedings where impact statements have not yet been issued. We also l encourage the Cccanission to consider preparing supplemental accident analyses  !

for plants currently licensed for operation, particularly for those located

~

near high population centers arid higher risk." ' (Emphases added.), those with unique features suggesting l

l

.s ,

1 For the reasons stated-in the foregoing, a Class 9 accident should be considered, and it should be considered specifically for the Cananche Peak nuclear power plant.

• e e

6 1

...1

' % * .; . .

....-.y >

=

.- r, N r

N 4

• CONTENTION NO. 9 RADIATION EFFECTS. (Iacludes5/7/79CASEContentions:

1, item (a); 2; 9; 6, item 5; 17; 19, items 10, 13 and 16.)

Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has adequately considered the e

effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES; therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 50 34(b)4,2,5), 50 3k(s)(b)(2&3), 50 Appendix I, 51.20 and especially 51.20(c), 51.21,,50 57(a)(2,3,6) have not beed met and a favorable cost / benefit analysis cannot be struck.

EXPIANATION: We incorporate by reference 5/7/79 CASE Contentions:

1, item (a), page 9; 2, pages 10 and 11; 6, item 5, pages 20 and 26; 9, pages 34 through 37; 17, page k8; 19, items 10, 13 and.16, pages 50, 55 and 56.

Part of CASE's contention is,that even if the Applicant coczplied with the regulations of the NRC, the health effects are greater than have been evaluated and, if done properly, this in thrn would affect the cost /

benefit analysis. 10 CFR 51.20h req'uires that the ER discuss the radiological effects even though the facility may satisfy NRC standards and criteria per-taining to radiological effects, together with all effects of the facility and alternatives. 10 CFR 51.21 requires that the ER at the operating license stage discuss these same matters to the extent that they . differ frcza those discussed

)

or reflect new information in addition to that discussed in the final environ- i

. l mental impact statement (FEIS) at the construction permit stage. There has most certainly been an increase in knowledge regarding the health effects of

]

l 37 -

)

_ 1

. v . .yj...

^* -

l .1 u-,...

P 's <

v v. .

' , . .,y;,a s' ' * -

_7- ,

1, - . g p-

1. 9 radiation since the time the FEIS at the construction pemit stage was cc::rpleted, but the AppJ cant has not addressed the changes due to such increased knowledge.

One of the problems which we have encountered, 'as indicated at the

/

beginning of this pleading, has been with getting straight exactly which conten-

~

tions were being included. CASE',s10/30/79 letter to the Staff expressed our concern regarding Contention 2 (see A$tachment C of this pleading, huge 2, item 6). Our Contention 9 was one of the pri=ary rea.. sons. for our concern .

regarding the erroneous statement in the Staff's 8/21/79 restatement of CASE's Contentions that Contention 2 was " Withdrawn." As E advised the Staff in our 10/30/79 letter, *rhe verding regarding Contention 2 should more accurately read: ' Withdrawn; included in other contentions.' or simply ' Included in other coqtentions.'" This was especially 1:irportant,.With r,egards to our Contention 9, because of the vo'rding of Contention 2, ' item 31, page 11 of our 5/7/79 Contentions. We felt that it was vital to our Contention 9 that this portion of Contention 2 be included, since it pertained specifically to om of CASE's main concerns regarding radiation effects. ,

There have been numerous other reports since the filing of CASE's

~ 5/7/79 Contentions which indicate that the health effects' frca radiation are greater than had been previously believed. Ecvever, we vill not address then at this time, since the Applicant and the Staff are now asking that the Board 0

4"

.:', ;-4. g ;.

' ~ ~ - ~ -

[.* .-.~:4.;....r, { , ,

.. ,,.;.,. ...,y.,,,,,,

,7

r.,.,.g..

, 4 . ;r. . y _, ,

1. 9 defer rulin6 on the admissibility of this contention; but we reserve the right to present this new evidence at a later time in these hearings.

CASE has no ob,jection to deferring this. contention, with two condi-

/

tions: (1) That it be deferred pending resolution by the Ccamaission of the Rulemaking proceedin6 indicated in the March 20,1985 FEDERAL REGISTER, pages 18023 through 18026, "10 h Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radia-tion; dvance Notice of Proposed Rulemakin6; Request for,Public Ccamnent" (see ,

Attachment D of this pleading); and (2) That it is clearly understood that, as indicated previously regarding Contention,6, C/IE's position regardin6 Contention 9 is that the full impact of CPSES siust be addressed somewhere; and to the extent that it is not addressed by the aforementioned rulamakiog pr,oceediD6, it must be addressed (if'necessa y after the rulemaking proceeding is completed) in the operatic 6 license hearings-in order to comply with the e- .

requirements of 10 CFR 50 57, 51.20, 51.21, 51.22 and 51.23, before an operating license can be issued.

e e

a e

8 39 -

l e

...r,.

e

, s. ..

- - ~

< ,o c.-

1 v.-

a -

a f

,. s .

1. 10 I

CONTENTION NO 10, EFFECT OF ACCIDENTS IN FIMfS OF SIMIlAh DESIGN. I 1

(Includes 5/7/79CASEContentions: 2; 6; 10; and 19, item 15.)

i Neither the Applicant nor the Staff has adequately considered the l

econcanic effects of accidents occurring in light water reactors located else-where in the United States which.are similar in design to those of CPSES; ,

j therefore, the requiremsy:s of 10 CFRr 50 57(a)(2,3,6), 51.20, and 51.21 have not been met. , ,, ,'

EKPLANATION: We incorporate by refer.ence 5/7/79 CASE Contentions: )

l 2, pages 10 and 11; 6, item 3, pages 20 and 23 thro h 25; lo, page 38; and l

19, item 15,~ pages '50 and 56.

Inits3/28/80lettertoCASE,'theStaffstateditspositionregard-ing this contention: . .

. l

" ... CASE is mistaken in assuming that ".MI-2"is a Westinghouse reactor, f as is CPSES. In fact M -2 ts a Babcock and Wilcox reactor. No nexus is shown between accidents in reactors such-as M-2, acd socidents in Westinghouse reactors such as CPSES. Absent such a nexus, this' contention must be rejected.

"In addition, the contention is speculative ,because it assumes that the costs and consequences of accidents at Westinghouse reactors would be I the same as those resulting frca an accident at a Babcock and Wilcox l reactor such as M-2 or would be passed on in some . form to other l Westinghousi Reactors such as CPSES..." '

l CASE bas not mistakenly "assum(ed) that 'Q(I-2 is a Westinghouse 1 l

reactor, as is CPSES;" as condescendingly stated by the Staff; we are well aware l

l

. ho _

l 1

. G % + ;a.vv'. . -; ; r . _ .s s, , ~ w . - . . n .

= . . ;. ,

' .; ~ _; , -

,:Y ..

~

.- ... ~;

\ ,

Y. -

l I, ElO I

that 'D4I-2 is a Babcock and Wilcox reactor. Likewise,(:ASE has not "assum(ed) that the costs and consequences of accidents at Westinghouse reactors vould be the same as those resulting fra an accident at a Babcock and Wilcox reactor such as 'IMI-2;" CASE does not claim to know the exact costs and consequences l 1

of such accidents. The Staff is right in one regard -- CASE has "assum(ed) that the costs and consequences of ace). dents...at a Babcock and Wilcox reactor such as '24I-2...would be passed on in sczne form to other Westinghouse reactors  !

such as CPSES." We were not aware that a requirement for intervention in these operating license hearings was that we discar,d our reasoning ability or our ccannon sense!' Because changes are being required in other Westinghouse reactors, including CPSES, on an almcat daily basis. as a result of the 'INI-2 accident, -

CASE does indeed assume that there are also corresponding costs associated with such changes. And CASE contends that the Applic' ant must address and quantify

.,e- . .

these changes. l At this point, CASE would resp'ectfully call the attention of the Board and all parties to our Contention No. 7 in this pleading, page 31, botta two paragraphs and page 32, top paragraph. We vould again remind that the i .

burden of proof is on the Applicant, not on Intervenors.

CASE interprets this to mean that since the Applicant has applied for an operating license for CPSES, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to

- kl -

i

? -

[

~

~ '

. l. ,-if, . . -h; '.-l. ' .'+. N!*

... , (: g'

.; , ,

M;5hY,'{t'&,,#lr

s. g. ,' ~_ ' . .:e'Kl??,-fi;&O', ' .- . . ' , .'l% ' '

• i:A,. .' ~.

s .,- ,..s

_. % .,, 4

. 2. a 7 .'

.e

,,a..u .:. v -

.- ~.

, :'- . n .

. . ~

. . , #10 prove that the plant. has been built in accordance 'vith and vill operate accord-i ing to all requirements. set out in the Code of Federal Regulations. )

Additional confirmation of our contention, if it is needed, may be o

found og page 94 of the so-caued "Rogovin Report" (NUREG/CR-1250,Vol.1), ~

wherein it is pointed out that styilar accidents have occurred at several ,

plants, including a Westinghouse reactor. y Fe ,

e e

~,.

f O

.  % e e

e e

4 4

l? ;} f - : *

.. c ' ,

- ,

.  ; - -

E12 COna m CN NO. 12 DERGENCY PIANNING. (Includes 5/7/79 CASE Contentions:

12, 13, 14 and 15.)

Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,

/

regarding emergency planning, for the following reasons:

a. The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emergency planning or /who have special qualifications for dealing 1

vith emergencies. , i

b. No agreer.ents have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the identification of the principal officials by titles and agencies.

- -- c. There is no description of the. arrangements for services of physicians

~

and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiatier. emergencies and arrangements for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the$ite boundary.

d. There are no adequate plans for testing by periodic drills of emergency plans and provisions for participatien in the drills by persons whose assistance may be needed, other than employees of the Applicant.

e. There is no provision for medical facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose; and

f. There is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft.Worthmetroplex.

43 -

- ~ --

~ 7, .

.. . ,. 4 ~; g. : ;q ;,, - ry.i:.g . -

u c. ,j f c:;. f.]:

1 - -

1. 12 1

i EXPIANATION: Weincorporatebyreferenceherewith5/7/79CASEContentions: I 12, 13, 14 and 15, pages 160 through 42.

1 This was one of the stipulations which we could haw signed with no problem, e

and we have therefore adopted the wording as agreed upon by the Staff, the Applicant and CASE. . .

4

. I e ]

l r- . l l

- l 1

, . . ~ ,

4

• =

e 0

. I l

l g.

ap"""

e e

0 e

e 1

1

. W.

l l

. .-.s.

......a.. ..  ;

.g.

' .

"i -

(16 CONTENTION NO. 16 APPLICAlff NCff FINANCIALLY QUALIFIED (Includes 5/7/79 CASE Contention 16, pages 43 through 47): The requirements of the Atanic Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(4) and 10 Cra 50' Appendix C have not

/

been met in that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility. , ,

EXPIANATION: In CASE's 5/T/79 Contention No.16, page 43, we I

, 1 made a typographical error; the last word in the sec,ond line should be changed from " construct" to." operate." Obviously, CASE was aware that we were discuss- )

ing an operating and not a construction license, adi this was simply a typographi-cal error. This writer, by her signature at tlie end of this pleading, hereby

- affirma that this.was only a typographical error; she is ready to take any other necessary steps to affim that 'this was the case. .In addition, this l factwasalsoobvioust'otheNRCStaff;atthe#/.18/79meetingbetweenthe 7 .

1 k 1 Staff, the Applicant, and CASE, the Staff agreed with CASE that this was obviously simply a typographical error 'and the corrected vording was used in all communications after that date. However, the Applicant disagreed and sought to bind CASE to the original wording; this is the reason the Applicant disagreed both with wording and with substance of this contention.

We incorporate by reference 5/7/79 CASE Contention 16, pages 43 through 47 - - -- - - -

a

. k$ -

l

~ ' ~

i , , ~' .'

s .n

~-

.l.

~ - ;-

sy"._c.}..

o

, 'm-

~

1. 16 The halmnee of our 5/7/79 Contention remains the same, except that there have now been additional rate hearings where the utilities did not get all they requested, and the stock of Texas Utilities has dropped by approximately s

20-25% in the past year or so. In addition, Metropolitan Edison is suing Babcock 8 Wilcox because. of the M-2 accident; should the utility lose, it would raise the . question of g utflity's financial' ability to urvive if faced with an accident similar to M-2 or vorse.,, In.. addition, insurance rates for property insurance paid by nuclear power plants vill increase by I about 63% this year, and liability rates for,nelbar plants rose 10% on Jan.1,  ;

,s.

1980 (see Attachn=nt E of this plaarHntr) . . -:

1 Y $ g

.a , e c- .

e e

e

.r 9

l l

l 4

o , . . , .

. ... E19 CONTENTION NO. 19 , WOR 104ANSHIP (Includes CASE 5/7/79 Contention 2, pages 10 and 11, and 19, items 1 through 8.): The Applicant has failed to establish and execute a quality assurance / quality control program which adheres to tha

/

criteria in 10 CFR50, Appendix B.

EXPIANATION: We incorporation by reference CASE 5/7/79 Contention 2, pages 10 and 11, and 19, items 1 tprough 8.

CASE accepts the wording of the Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board in its 6/27/79 Order, which was the basis for CASE's acceptance as an Intervenor. ,'

Shoddy construction work increases the likelihood of a Class 9 accident occurring; in the event of a Class 9 or less severe accident, the result of shoddy construction would be more ing.

e e

e 9

e

1. e o

O E

4

!+7 -

v.tr. . ,T 9 ,... '~- . . -'. ,

. ~.

~,-

NRE, PRDESES CONSIDERED, CASE prays that this Board accept tad consider CASE's Position of Contentions.

Respectfully submitted, '

0 i> n 46, lNb -

( .) Juanita Ellis, President (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND' ENERGY) 1426. S . Pon ,, ,

Dallas, n 7S224 ~

h 214/96-9446 4/10/80

+

6 O

A

= e p %9 e

O p

i h

e e

e O

_ ha .