ML20070H160

Contentions of State of La.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20070H160
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford, River Bend
Issue date:	12/15/1982
From:	Lindsey I LOUISIANA, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8212230192
Download: ML20070H160 (8)

Text

e l

l 00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l"3NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQ#

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOM D DEC 22 A10 59

?.

r 7

IN THE MATTER OF Docket Nos. 504458 OL; A SEir.'h 50-459 OIldl'4 GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, et al (River Bend Station, Unit 1 and 2)

(ASLBP No. 82-468-01-OL)

CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA The State of Louisiana, appearing herein through William J.

Guste, Jr.

and other undersigned counsel, respectfully subiaits the following contentions:

CONTENTION 1 Applicants have

" failed to allow for proper consideration of the uncertainties concerning the long-term isolation of high-level and transuranic wastes, and

... failed [ed]

to allow for proper consideration of

the, health, socioeconomic and cumulative ef f ects of f uel-cycle activities."1 Basis Under the provisions of the National Environmental l

l I NRDC v. NRC, Civ. Action No. 74-1586 (D.C.

Cir., April 27, 1982), slip opinion, pp. 11-12.

8212230192 821215 PDR ADOCK 05000382 C

PDR 3

e s

\\

9, Pol-icy Act, (NEPA) 42 USC 4332 et,sig., i t las clearly required "that environmental conceras be integrated into the very

)

process of agency decisionmaking" and that " environmental values and consequences [must] have been considered during;the planning stage."

It is further clear under NEPA that the contribution of the fuel-cycle to the environmental costs of licensing an individual nuclear power reactor must be 3

considered.

Applicant has failed to consider, and has not shown, the environmental cost of the uranium fuel-cycle with respect to River Bend Station, Unit 1.

CONTENTION 2 Applicants emergency plans do not provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to property.

Basis 10 CPR Part 50, Appendix E - Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities, Part III "The Final Safety Analys'.J Report" provides:

"The Final Safety Analysis Report shall contain plans for coping with emergencies.

The details of these plans and the details of their implementation need not be included, but the plans submitted must include a description of the elements set out in section IV [ Content of Emergency Plans]

to an extent sufficient to demonstrate that the plans provide reason-able assurance that appropriate measures 3

can and will be taken in the event of an

, I s

}

)

V

- g M

a*

, q u~. ;

i

' ~.

' emergency to protect public hqgil th and safety and prevent damage to property."

In its FSAR, Sec.

13.' 3,

" Emergency Planning," applicant has

,'\\ %

A faiUid ' to atfeguately address the requirements of 10 CFR Part a

50, Appendix E,

III and I V, especially with respect to the evacuatibn of, personnel, with special reference to patients in

,is East L'ouisiana State Hospital, and prisoners in Pointe Coupee l

s fg g 9

Parish Jail, West Feliciana Parish Jail and Dixon Correctional l' ) 1 3, '

Institute.

.s CONTENTION 3 3.

Applicant has failed to adequately consider the

,\\

effect of a release of radioactive materials into surface and

(

ground drinking water supplies.

Basis 3

c River Bend Station, five (5) miles south of St.

Francisville, Louisiana, is situated geographically and geologically in such a manner that release of radioactive 4

materials would hava the potential to affect both surface drinking water supplies, namely the Mississippi River, and ground drinking water supplies, namely the Baton Rouge Regional Acquifer.

~, '

The Mississippi River serves as the sole source of 1

)

drink. ir.g water for approximately 1 1/2 - 2 million people (the h

fig'ure varies due to the seasonal influx of visitors, tourists a

and workers) and numerous commerical enterprises using this 6

'i wg'ter for food and beverage preparation and production, down s'

s f

/ '

l

, \\,N

'\\

t 7

)'

[

(,

m\\ ' f

e riv,er from St. Francisville, and additiopally is used by numerous industries which discharge varying quantities and types of effluents into the river.

River Bend Station is directly situated on top of a shallow acquifer known as the Shallow Upland Pleistocene Terrace Deposit which recharges directly into the Mississippi River.

Applicant has failed to adequately consider the effect of an accidental or planned release of radioactive materials on the health and welf are of those persons for whom the Mississippi River is the sole source of potable water, and has additionally failed to adequately consider the synergetic effect of such radioactive materials combining with industrial effluents discharged into the river.

Further, River Bend Station is situated in the recharge zone of the Baton Rouge Regional Acquifer, which is the sole source of drinking water for in excess of 400,000 1

persons and numerous commercial enterprises using this water l

for food and beverage preparation and production.

Applicant has failed to consider the effect of the contamination of the Baton Rouge Regional Acquifer by radioactivity on the health I

and welfare of those persons and commercial enterprises for 1

whom this acquifer is the sole source of potable water.

l CONTENTION 4 Applicants have not adequately considered the offect of a failure of the Old River Control Structure on the ___

4 safe operation of River Bend Station, Unit 4.

Basis l

It is common knowledge to residents of South l

Louisiana that the Mississippi River is attempting to divert its flow in the vicinity of Torras, Louisiana, and divert its l

course to and through the Atchafalaya River and onward to the Gulf of Mexico and is prevented from doing so only by an antiquated and structurally questionable barrier known as the Old River Control Structure.

Should this structure fail, the Mississippi River would naturally divert its course away from its present channel, seriously reducing the flow of water through its present channel.

Applicants have failed to adequately consider the consequences of such a failure on the safe operation of River Bend Station, Unit 1,

specifically, the effect of a reduced flow on the intake of cooling water, on the relative increase in thermal pollution resulting from the discharge of cooling water into a reduced volume of river water, and the effect of salt water intrusion into the cooling system.

CONTENTION 5 Applicant has failed to consider the effect of the resumption and continuation of construction activities on Unit 2 on the safe operation of Unit 1.

Basis T'

3 Section 1.1,

" Introduction," of the Applicant's FSAR, Vol. 1 reads in pertinent part on page 1.1 -1 that:

" Unit 1 is scheduled for completition in Octobe'r 1983, and commercial operation is expected to begin in April 1984.

Unit 2 is currently not scheduled and construction has been halted."

There is no indication has to whether or not construction has been permanently halted, or whether or not construction will resume again on Unit 2.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that applicant may resume construction on Unit 2.

10 CFR 50. 34 (b) (6) (vii) provides:

"On or after February 5,

1979, applicants who apply for operating licenses for nuclear powerplants to be operated on multiunit sites shall include an evaluation of the potential hazards to the structures,

systems, and components important to safety of operating units resulting f rom construction activities, as well as deceription of the managerial and administrative controls to be used to provide assurance that the limiting conditions for operation are not exceeded as a result of construction activities at the multiunit sites."

Applicant must therefore " include an evaluation of the potential hazards to the structures,

systems, and components important to the safety of operating units resulting f rom construction activities" on Unit 2 as they will affect operations of Unit 1.

L 1

Respectfully submitted,

, T. '

s STATE OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR.

Attorney General g

BY:

/

If DOUGL'ASgNDS$Y ff A3sistant Anorney GenerM Department of Justice Lands and Natural Resources Division 7434 Perkins Road, Suite C Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 (504) 766-8610 Dated at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 15th day of December, 1982 h

i I i

-..-.=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L

IN THE MATTER OF Docket Nos. 50-458 OL 50-459 OL GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, et al (River Bend Station, Unit 1 and 2)

( ASLBP No. 82-4 6 8 0 L)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have mailed, by first class mail, postage prepaid, the Contentions of the State of Louisiana to each Board member, all parties, and appropriate Commission' offices this 15th day of December, 1982.

\\

M TAN D00GLASg fNDSET Assistant.Rtorney Gener

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _