ML19254F130
| ML19254F130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1979 |
| From: | Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911070085 | |
| Download: ML19254F130 (83) | |
Text
- e i 1% ,
- N
' .- NRC PUBLIC DOCmiENT RO*M1 #/
~ ?.
Ig ocT 9 5S
- s')
~w y~ p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b 4 I O BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S Docket No. 50-466 COMPANY S S
(Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, Uni *. 1) S APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS BAKER, BISHOP, CARRICK, CONN, CUMINGS, DOGGETT, GRIFFITH, JOHNSTON, LEMMER, OTTO, PAVLOVIC,.PEREZ, SCHUESSLER, STREILEIN, VAN SLYKE, WARNER, WEAVER AND WILSON OF COUNSEL: J. Gregory Copeland C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS Charles G. Thrash, Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecitcut Avenue, N. W. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY October 5, 1979 1291 003 791107oogJ>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 5 9
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER $
COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 5
(Allens Creek Nuclear 5 Generating Station, Unit 1) 5 APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS BAKER, BISHOP, CARRICK, CONN, CUMINGS, DOGGETT, GRIFFITH, JOHNSTON, LEMMER, OTTO, PAVLOVIC, PEREZ, SCHUESSLER, STREILEIN, VAN SLYKE, WARNER, WEAVER AND WILSON Applicant files this response to the subject pleadings. Petitioners' contentions are dealt with seriatum, and attached to this Response is an Index to Petitioners and Contentions (Appendix B) showing where each contention is addressed.
Before addressing the contentions, however, there are two preliminary matters:
First, although none of the contentions addressad below is properly admissible, Applicant will not oppose certain contentions because they substantially repeat others '
previously admitted to this proceeding. Thus, if the sponsors of these contentions are otherwise found to have standing, Applicant would not oppose their participation, provided 1291 004
t 4 each is consolidated with the previously admitted party asserting essentially the same admitted contention. These Petitioners and Contentions are listed in Appendix A.
Second, we note that two Petitioners have advised that they intend to file additional contentions at some time up to fifteen (15) days before the prehearing conference in this matter. This Board, p'trsuant to its authority under 10 CFR 2.711(a) has established September 14, 1979, as the final date for submitting contentions as a matter of right.
The Board has been generous in providing notice to Petitioners, allowing more than five (5) weeks to file additional conten-tions. Any further filing by Petitioners would be non-timely and, if filed without good cause shown, should be rejected out of hand.
Bryan L. Baker BAKER CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner contends with respect to Applicant's financial qualifications that (1) the Board should " require that Applicant obtain secure funding from a private source to be repaid when the electricity is available for ACNGS,"
and (2) that the Applicant should be required to make a showing that there is "a clear commitment" by the Texas PUC and various local governments to provide Applicant with all the funds it may need to construct ACNGS.
1291 005
, i This contention must be rejected since it is nothing t,c2 than a series of conclusory statements based on the fact that Applicant, like any other public utility, must seek rate increase spproval before the cognizant state authority. In this regard, Petitioner admits that his prognostications are "somewhat speculative." Moreover, the remedy Petitioner suggests (i.e. to have in hand " secure funding") is not required by NRC regulations. These regula-tions do not require that Applicant obtain funding from any particular source, and certainly not " secure funding" from a private source, as alleged by Petitioner. The assertion that "a clear commitment" of the Texas EUC and other govern-ment entities must be provided is wrong. Under the NRC's regulations, an applicant does not have to establish to a certainty that such rate relief will be granted before being considered financially qualified. Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 18-20 (1978); affirmed, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v.
NRC 598 F.2d 1221 (1st Cir. 1979). Accordingly, Petitioner's contention, which is that the construction permit should be denied unless both of these goals are met, is without any basis as required by 52.714 and .ust therefore be denied.
B_AKER CONTENTICN 2:
Petitioner claims that the use of the 80% capacity factor in the Final supplement to the Final Environmental i291 006 Statement (FSFES) is inappropriate and seeks to have Applicant re-submit all data which has been based upon the use of the 80% capacity factor. This contention should be rejected.
First, Petitioner has failed to identify in what respects the evaluation which relies upon the 80% capacity factor should be cupplemented. For example, Petitioner states that the 80% capacity factor should be re-evaluated in terms of alternative sources, but fails to identify any specific alternative which would change with the use of a different capacity factor.
Moreover, pages SH-107 and SH-ll6 of the Supplement to the Environmental Report, and FSFES sections S.D.l.4.1 and S.D.l.4.2 (particularly Tables S.D.10, .11, .12, .13 &
.14) clearly demonstrate that the comparative analysis covers a range of capacity factors reaching as low as 50%.
Hence, Petitioner's suggested realistic figure of 50.4% has in fact been used: the results support the Staff's conclu-sion that " nuclear-generation costs are less than those of coal-fired plants, ranging from 5% less at e. 50% capacity factor to more than 20% less at a 80% capacity factor."
FSFES p. S.D.10. Since Petitioner's premise as to the use of a single assumed capacity factor is in error, his conten-tion should be dismissed.
I291 007
Moreover, Petitioner appears to be referring to economic costs, rather than environmental costs, and the Eoard has previously ruled that comparative economic costs of Allens Creek with alternative energy sources in the absence of assertions regarding environmental superiority is not an issue in this proceeding. " Order Ruling On Interven-tion Petitions", February 9, 1979, at 9 (hereinafter, "Feb. 9 Order"). Accord, Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 162-63 (1978). Petitioner has alleged no environmental superiority of any other alternative.
Therefore, Petitioner's contention must be rejected.
J. Morgan and Margaret Bishop BISHOP CONTENTION 1:
The contention alleges, without any supporting basis, that the population within 50 miles of ACNGS - and, particularly the Houston area - has been underestimated and that the facility "should not be sited so close to Houston which is the major population center in the south USA and the nation'c fastest growing city." Intensive demographic studies of populations within 50 miles of the ACNGS have been made by the NRC Staff and Applicant, and Petitioners furnisu no basis for challenging these studies. Moreover, the general matter sought to be raised by Petitioners was dealt with dispositively in the Partial Initial Decision 1291 008
(hereinafter "PID") (2 NRC 776, 181) where the Board deter-mined, as part of a finding that ACNGS complies with 10 CFR 100, that "' ince . . . Houston is sufficiently distant, no special cor.siderations contemplated by [10 CFR 100] need be given to di stance from that population center." This finding stands unchallenged by Petitioners so their contention raises no litigible issue.
BISHOP CONTENTION 2:
Cor. . tion 2 addresses the possibility of demographic changes within 2-3 miles of the site and the possibility of a Disneyworld-like development within 10 miles of the site.
As to the first part of the assertion, the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report has considered this possibility of increases in population in the area within 2-3 miles of the plant (an area within the designatet Low Population Zone) and concluded that the LPZ conforms to the requirements of 10 CFR 100. ACNGS Staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER),
Supplement No. 2, pp. 2-2 to 2-4.
As to the second part of the contention, the prospect of a Disneyworld-like development within 10 miles of ACNGS is totally speculative and without any basis in fact.
In surmary, nothing in the contention warrants re-examination of the demographic conclusions in the PID (1581-82) and the contention should be dismissed.
_e_
l291 009
BISHOP CONTENTION 3:
Petitioners assert that because the population within 50 miles of ACNGS is allegedly greater than the comparable populations within 50 miles of other nuclear plants, .ne plant should be re-sited. The NRC Staff has found the population in the area around ACNGS to be acceptable and that the site compared favorably with an assumed "moder-ately populated region of 500 people per square mile." SER, November 1974, pp. 2-4 to 2-6. That analysis was updated in March 1979 to reflect, inter alia, " population growth in Ft.
Bend and Harris Counties" and again it was determined that the population was substantially less than 500 people per square mile. SER, March 1979, pp. 2-2 to 2-4. Petitioners furnish no basis upon which to attack either of these conclu-sions. Finally, by failing to challenge the findings on this subject in the PID (TT81-82), the contention raises no litigable issue md should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTIONS 4 AND 5:
These contentions deal with the relor ition of a 24 inch natural gas pipeline, asserting that the relocation will increase the hazard to nearby populations. The NRC regulates construction of nucle.ar plants, not pipeline relocations. The relocation of this pipeline must be in acccrdance with the Cox Act, Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. Arts.
1291 010 6050-6066, which incorporates all the safety standards of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 1671 et seg.
and the federal regulations issued thereunder. It is these statutes and regulations, not the Atomic Energy Act, which control pipeline construction, alteration and maintenance, including specifications on placement, clearances and proximity to structures, rivers, streams, and harbors.
BISEOP CONTENTION 6:
Petitioners contend that Applicant's assumption regarding yield, poini of ignition, and volume of gas used in analyzing a hypothetical break in the LPG pipeline are conjectural. Petitioners, however, have failed to provide any specific criticism of Applicant's analysis. Further, Petitioners have not challenged the NRC Staff conclusion that if this conserv.itive ana', mis does not provide adequate assurance that a lack of no danger exists to the plant from a propane explosion, physical measures can be implemented prior to operation to solve this concern:
"The applicant has committed that no later than the submittal of the application for an operating license, it will provide for staff review and approval, physical measures to cope with the potential hazard. Specifically, the applicant has committed to relocation of the pipeline if it cannot demonstrate by analysis or other alternate physical measures, acceptable resolution of this matter.
We find this commitment acceptable and can recommend granting of a construction permit prior to ultimate resolution of this issue because construction of the plant can proceed independent of and not foreclose 1291 011 practicable resolution of this matter." (ACNGS SER Supplement 2, page 2-9)
In this regard, the NRC's regulations contemplate the deferral of certain issue to the operating license stage. See, 10 CFR $50.35(a), Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-232, 8 AEC 635 (1974).
In the absence of any justification for the premature litiga-tion of this issr , the contention should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTIONS 7, 8 AND 9:
In all of these contentions, Petitioners assert without any underlying factual support, that Applicant has misanalyzed the effects on the plant from a nearby ruptured natural gas line. This issue was specifically trought before the ASLB in the earlier proceedings in this matter, (see testimony of Gammill et al., p. 6, fol. Tr. 303), and the Board found that "these pipelines will pose no safety hazard to the plant" (PID 185). That analysis was updated in Supplement No. 2 to the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report and the Staff concluded that "the line does not pose a hacard to the safe operation of the plant." (p. 2-7)
Petitioners assert no contrary facts warranting further re-examination of this issue.
BISHOP CONTENTION 10:
Petitioners contend that the plant should be sited elsewhere owing to the possibility that pipelines " carrying 1291 012
a variety of potentially dangerous solutions across the Brazos" might break, releasing "large amounts of flammable and/or corrosive materials downstream. . . . Petitioner does not identify the pipeline in question or tne dangerous substance which is of concern. The contention is speculative and totally lacking in any basis. This Board did examine the possibility of in. lvertent oil and chemical releases upstream of the plant and concluded "that the effect of an industrial accident or an inadve.rtent chemical release need not be consideren in the design of the plant." (PID $87).
Petitieners suggest nothing of substance to warrant reliti-gation of this matter.
BISHOP CONTENTION ll:
Petitioners contend that cooling water from the Brazos may not be available owing to an alteration in the course of the Brazos River as a result of a change in the floodplain. The contention is not supported by any underlying basis and is wholly speculative. Accordingly, it fails to meet the specificity requirements of the 10 CFR 2.714. Even if the assertion is correct, it is, obviously, completely unrelated to any safety consideration since continuous river flow is not required for safe shutdown of the facility.
BISHOP CONTENTION 12:
This " contention" is a wholly unsubstantiated charge that radioactivity will seep from the cooling lake into drinking water supplies. The NRC Staff has explicitly examined discharges into drink:.ng water supplies and concluded as follows:
" Consumption of water represents a potentially signifi-cant exposure pathway to the population. However, there are no drinking water supplies within 58 miles of the plant that could be affected by the plant liquid effluents. Even though the cooling lake water is not to be used as a water supply, individual doses via this oathway are evaluated at the 40-year cooling lake equilibrium concentrations using standard dose models and an assumed daily consumption of 1.2 liters. Dilution was calculated using the models discussed in Ref. 20.
The potential dose from any other water supply would be less than that of cooling water as addition : dilution would occur. In addition, under normal operating conditions no potential exists for groundwater contamination."
FES, p. 5-15. Petitioners offer no basis for an assertion that this potential pathway for the ingestion of radioactive m&terials has not been considered adequately. Furthermore, Applicant is not required by statute or regulation to prove that "no radioactive material vill ever reach any area resident." Petitioners offer no facts suggesting that Applicant will fail to meet the NRC's regulations. The contention should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTION 13:
Petitioners state that Contention 13 "will be submitted later." For reasons set forth in the initial part of this response, Petitioners are foreclosed from furnishing a late contention as a matter of right.
I291 014 BISHOP CONTENTION 14:
This is a wholly unparticularized contention that the choice of generating alternatives (coal v. nuclear) is based on " inaccurate data." The coal alternative is exhaustively examined in FSFES 59.1.2.3 and Appendix S.D.
Petitioners do not identify in what respect this data is
" inaccurate." The contention must be dismissed for lack of specificity.
BISEOP CONTENTI'" 15:
Contention 15 asserts, without any supporting basis, that Applicant's analyses of the existence and effect of geologic faulting is insufficient. This matter was fully reviewed at the earlier proceedings in this matter, the Asr.3 concluding:
"The Staff has confirmed Applicant's determination that
[ faults underlying the ACNGS] are non-tectonic in nature and pose no threat of surface displacement."
"On the basis of Applicant's and the Staff's investiga-tions (which included mappings, ground reconnaissance, trenching, logging and supplemental seismic reflection profiling) it is established that the linears crossing the site are not related to subsurface faults or other geological anomalies nor to topographical features which imply a hazard of ground failure at the site or otherwise affects its suitability. (Testimony of Gammill, et al., p. 22 [fol. Tr. 303]) The Board so finds."
Partial Initial Decision, 2 NRC 786, 804-806. The contention suggests 4 othing to warrant re-litigation of this matter.
_12_
i291 015
BISHOP CONTENTION 16:
This contention asserts that Applicant has not considered in its flooding studies a Probable Maximum Flood combined with a Probable Maxinum Hurricane. The assertion is patently in error. As the Boarc noted in the Partial Initial Decision:
"The potential for flooding of the site from several sources has been investigated by the Applicant and independently by the Staff. The potential sources include the Brazos River, Allens Creek, inadequate land drainage, and the reservoir itself. The Applicant has concluded that Brazos River flooding, using Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) criteria for evaluation, would result in a still-water elevation 1.', feet below plant grade. The Staff has reviewed this subject and has concluded that flood conditions at the site can be acceptably taken into account in the design of the facility in a manner that assures the integrity of all safety-related structures, systems and components. . . . The Board concurs."
(emphasis added)
PID, 2 NRC 786, 800-801. The contention is based on an erroneous premise and should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTION 17:
Contenticn 17 states, again without any underlying assertion of fact, that the effects of railway accidents involving hazardous materials (e.g., TNT, chlorine) have not received adequate consideration. This matter has received exhaustive consideration by the NRC Staff (SER, November 1291 015 1974, pp. 2-8, 2-9);$/ was the subject of evidence at the earlier hearings in this matter (Report of the NRC Staff on the Suitability of the Allens Creek Site, p. 5, fol. Tr.
303); and the positive conclusion of the ASLB on the issue is reflected in its Partial Initial Decision (2 NRC 7 36, 799). Petitioners' vagr contention furnishes no basis for re-litigating this question.
BISHOP CONTENTION 18:
Contention 18 states that ACNGS uhould be moved to anchner location or be re-designed to accommodate an airplane accident. The Board determined that ACNGS need "not be designed nor operated with special provisior to protect the facility against the effects of an aircraft crash." PID 186. Petitioners would seek to re-litigate the issue solcly onthebasisofanassertiontnat"therkisahighlikely hood (sic) of a commercial airport being built in the near
- / "The nearest transportation facilities are State High-way 36 and the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railroci, both running parallel to one another and located about 4700 feet west of the proposed plant. Postulating explosions of probable maximum cargo of high explosives carried by either a truck or a railroad boxcar, located at their closest points of approach, we find that the resulting peak over-pressures are much lower than those produced by the design basis tornado. We conclude, therefore, that these potential hazard sources need not be considered in the design of the proposed facility."
l291 0l7
future in close proximity to the plant." Petitioners offer no support for the assertion that any airport will be so constructed "in the near future." Such speculation does not serve as a legal bat s for re-litigation of a closed issue.
The contention should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTION 19:
Contention 19 is a bald assertion that fogging from the cooling lake will be a hazard to highway and rail traffic and that Applicant's " calculations of fogging condi-tions" are "not correct. . . .
The subject matter of this contention has received close scrutiny by the NRC Staff. The Final Environmental Statement states:
"The total impact of the presence of the cooling lake as regards average temperature, relative humidity, and frequency of fogs is expected to be minimal. The applicant has estimated the largest changes in t.he average values to occur during July nighttime hcurs when they will be +2.7 F* and -1.5%."
FES $5.6.8. Petitioners fail to challenge in any specific manner the calculations of the Applicant and the evaluation of the NRC Staff. The contention is without any basis and should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTION 20:
This contention is based on the vague assertion that a " direct hit by a large lightning bolt could seriously i291 018
impair the ability of the plant to operate safely. . . .
Petitioners do not set forth how the plant right be affected nor the mechanism by which it would lose any safety function.
Section 2.2.3.8 of the ACNGS PSAR presents in detail the plant design for lightning protection. Petitioners do not even allege that these design provisions are inadequate.
The contention is vague and unsubstantiated and should be dismissed.
BISHOP CONTENTION 21:
Contention 21 asserts that the cooling lake will be a hazard to those who use it owing to the presence of radioactive contaminants. Beyond the generalized assertion, nothing of substance is alleged by Petitioners. Of particu-lar significance, Petitioners are either unaware of, or are unable to address, the NRC Staff's assessment of radiological doses resulting from lignid Ladioactive effluents which postulates for analytical purposes, an individual "who consumes fish harvested from the cooling lake, drinks water from the cooling lake, and uses the shoreline of the lake for recreation." That individual, by the St ff's reckoning, will receive a total annual body dose of 1.4 millirems. FES Supplement, p. S.5-26. Petitioners do noo set forth a basis for challenging this analysis. The contention, being without any basis, should be denied.
I291 0l9 BISHOP CONTENTION 22:
Petitioners contend chat the cooling lake is larger than necessary for one unit and should be reduced in size to minimize the withdrawal of land for the project.
The lake size has been optimized with respect to its recre-ational purpose and to maintain some degree of flexibility to locate additional capecity at the site. (dt- ""NGS ER Supplement, p. SH-52). It is well established in this proceeding that t' i land to be covered by the cooling lake is "a minute and insignificant percentage of similar land available for cultivation on national and state levels and a small percentage on a local level." (PID 173). The NRC Staff review of the lake as currently sized concludes that the " prime and unique farmland directly affected by construc-tion of the station and inundation of the cooling lake represents a very small percentage of the total prime and unique farmland in Texas. (FSFES, p. S.4.-4.) Petitioners do not dispute either conclusion and present no triable issue of fact. The contention should be denied.
BISHOP CONTENTION 23:
Contention 23 discusses alternative sites with special emphasis on the STP site. Other alternatives are mentioned but not with the degree of specificity directed tcward the STP site. Applicant would not object to the 0
admission of Contention 23 to the extent it deals w:.th the STP site alternative, provided that Petitioners are consoli-dated (if found to have standing) with TexPirg for these purposes.
Dorothy F. Carrick CARRICK CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner alleges that she and/or her family will be adversely affected by radioactive emissions from ACNGS due to the proximity of her home to ACNGS. It is unclear whether this reprosents Petitioner's statement of her interest in the proceeding, as required by 10 CFR 92.714(a)(2), or a contention.
If this statement is offered as a contention, it is unparticularized and speculative. If Petitioner contends that ACNGS will not meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, she supplies absolutely no underlying basis. If, on the other hand, this is a challenge to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, of the Commission's regulations, she makes no showing of "special circumstances" required by 10 CFR $2.758. This Board has previously rejected very similar contentions (Feb. 9 Order at 20-21), and this contention should also be rejected.
CARRICK CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner contends that the ACNGS cooling lake will increase the probability of flooding of the Brazos River. This potential environmental effect was considered in the Partial Initial Decision, and a finding made that construction of ACNGS would not have a significant effect on flood levels and frequency in the Brazos River floodplain.
PID 1126-33. In the absence of newly discovered evidence or a material change in circumstances, relitigation of issues thoroughly explored in the PID is prohibited. ALAB-535 at 15-16. Petitioner has alleged nei ther new evidence nor changed circumstances and her contention should be dismissed.
CARRICK CONTENTION 3: .
The first part of Petitioner's third contention relates to the generic issue of high level waste disposal.
As this Board has stated previously:
"[I]n Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. FRC, 582 F.2d 166 (1978), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Commission is NRDC, " Denial of 2etition for Rulemaking", Docket No. 50-18, 42 Rd. Reg. 34391 (July 5, 1977) in holding that the Commission is not required to withhold action on pending or future appli-cations for nuclear power reactor operating licenses until it makes a determination that high-level radioactive 1291 022
wastes can be permanently disposed of safely." Feb. 9 Order at 27.1/
The second part of this contention states Petitioner's objection to interim spent fuel storage at ACNGS. Petitioner fails to state an, objection to the design of ACNGS nor does Petitioner provide any allegation of potential conflict with Commission regulations. FSFES Table S.5.19 includes the environmental effects of spent fuel storage, and FSFES
$S.5.4.4 sets forth the Staff's conclusion that ACNGS may be operated within applicable limits for radiological impact on humans. Petitioner does not challenge this analysis. The contention should be dismissed for lack of specificity.
CARRICK CONTENTION 4:
Petitioner contends that the STP site would be preferable to Allens Creek for ACNGS, based on comparative 1/ On September 27, 1979, the Commission adopted SECY-79-379A, a Staff paper recommending procedures for its forthcoming generic proceeding with regard to high-level waste storage and dispos:.l. The " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" attached to SECY-79-379A, soon to be published in the Federal Register, states (at 5):
"The Commission has decided, however, that during this proceeding the issues being considered in the rulemaking should not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
These issues are most appropriately addressed in a generic proceeding of the character here envisaged."
Thus, the generic issue of high level waste disposal remains beyond the scope of this proceeding.
1291 023 population levels near each site and decreased water consump-tion. Petitioner's contention consists of vague and gener-alized statements witnout the required bases on specificity.
Findings of site suitability with respect to population were made in the PID (1181-82, 2 NRC at 798), and changes in demography since the FES (which was issued before the PID) are reflected in the FSFES (SS.2.1 and Tables S.2.1 through S.2.4). FSFES SS.9.2 at S.9-11 and S.9-14 considers the decreased water consumption and yet concludes the STP site is not obviously superior. Petitioner challenges neither the PID findings nor the FSFES analysis. In the absence of newly discovered circumstances or a material change in circumstances, neither of which are present here, relitigation of issues resolved by the PID is prohibited.
ALAB-535 at 15-16.
Applicant does not believe that Ms. Carrick has established standing.2/ However, if she is found to have standing, this contention should be consolidated with TexPirg Contention 1 (i.e., alleging that the STP site has not been adequately considered as an alternative to Allens treek).
g/ Ms. Carrick has never shown nor even alleged that she tailed to intervene before because of restrictions in the prior notices. Thus, her petition is untimely and without a showing of good cause.
1291 024 CARRICK CONTENTION 5:
Petitioner contends that a cooling tower of unspeci-fied type would be preferable to the proposed lake. This alternative was considered and rejected in the PID (1563-64),
and Petitioner has alleged no facts which would mandate relitigation of that decision.
Land subsidence resulting from gr.andwater with-drawal was cimilarly considered in the PID ,11114-116), as was the risk of flooding (1126-33). Petitioner's vague and unspecific allegations concerning radiation levels in the lake present no triable issues of fact. Of particular signifiance, Petitioner is either unaware of, or is unable to address, the NRC Staff's assessment of radiological doses resulting from liquid radioactive effluents which postulates, for analytical purposes, an individual "who consumes fish harvested from the cooling lake, drinks water from the cooling lake, and uses the shoreline of the lake for recrea-tion." That individual, by the Staff's reckonint, will receive a total annual body dose of 1.4 millirems. FSFES p.
S.5-26. Petitioner does not set forth a basis for challenging this analysis, and in fact, appears to be challenging the Commission's regulativus on radioactive emissions without the required showing of special circumstances (10 CFR 52.758).
The contention should be dismissed.
1291 075 Carolina Conn CONN CONTENTION 1:
Based on economic and feasibility arguments, Peti-tiener alleges that a coal plant would be preferable t a nuclear plant for the Allen's Creek site. Petitioner sup-plies no comparisons of the environmental effects of coal versus nuclear plants, nor even acknowledges that FSFES S S.9.1.2.3 and Appendix S.D. include such a comparison and conclude that a nuclear plant is preferable. Petitioner identifies no errors in this analysis.
Contentions based on purely economic comparisons, without allegations that coal is environmentally superior to nuclear, are not within the scope of this proceeding.
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 162-63 & nn. 23-25 (1978). Thus, Petitioner's contention is outside the scope of this proceeding. For this reason, and in the absence of a basis for her conten-tion set forth with reasonable specificity, this contention should be dismissed.
CONN CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner contends that the STP site would be preferable to Allens Creek for ACNGS, based on lo' er water consumption and comparative population levels ne=r each site. Petitioner's contention consists of vague and gener-alized statements without the required basis or specificity.
1291 026
FSFES S S.9.2. (at S.9-11 and S.9-14) considers the decreased water consumption and yet concludes the STP site is not obviously superior. Land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal was exhaustively considered in the Partial Initial Decision and found not to be significant.
(PID 11113-116). Find ngs of site suitability with respect to population were made in the PID (TT81-82) and changes in demography since the FES (which was issued before the PID) are reflected in the FSFES (55 S.2.1. and Tables S.2.1 through S.2.4). Petitioner challenges neither the PID findings nor the FSFES analysis. ,
In the absence of newly discovered circumstances or a material change in circumstances, neither of which are present here, relitigation of issues resolved by the FID is prohibited. ALAB-535 at 15-16. Accordingly, this conten-tion should be rejected.
However, because this Board has accepted TexPirg Contention 1, alleging that the STP site has not been ade-quately considered as an alterative to Allens Creek, Applicant would not oppose this contention provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing, would be consolidated with TexPirg for this issue.
CONN CONTENTION 3:
Petitioner alleges that highway transportation of radioactive material will be subject to accidents. Although
_24_ 1291 027
it is unclear whether Petitioner intends that " radioactive material" refer to fresh fuel, spent fuel, ur radioactive waste, the same regulatory considerations apply to each.
Radioactive emissions from tran;portation are descriDed in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20(g) and Summary Table S-4 and analyzed in FSFES 9 S .S .4.3.3 and Tabla- S.5.15 and S.5.18. Petitioner has alleged no "special circumstances," pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758, justifying an attack on these regulations, and has specified no errors in the Staff analysis. The contention further ignores that such transportation would be subject to Department of Transportation regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 170-179.
Since this Board has rejected nearly identical contentions involving fuel and waste transportation (Feb. 9 Order at 31 & 43) these contentions should also be rejected.
CONN CONTENTION 4:
Petitioner's final contention relates to the generic issue of high level waste disposal. This contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3, above.
Elinore P. Cumings CUMINGS CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner asserts that Applicant is not financi-ally qualified to construct ACNGS "as noted in recent hearings 1291 028 requesting a rate increase." No further information is provided. Without a basin set forth with reasonable specifi-city (10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b)), this contention presents no triable issue of fact and should be dismissed.
CUMINGS CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner alleges that the ACNGS need for power analysis is inaccurate by failing to account for four speci-fied items. Each alleged failure is described in a vague, conclusory statement and without the required bases or specificity.
Moreover, the premises behind the first three alleged failures are factually in error:
FSFES S S.8.3.1 and Table S.8.13 describe planned new genera-tion of Applicant; 5! S.8.2.3 and S.8.2.6 consider the potential effects of conservation; and 5 S.8.2.4 considers the effect of changes in rate structure. Petitioner has not identified any errors in these analyses. Petitioner's fourth and final alleged failure (" failure to provide for complete internalization of all significant external costs")
is too vague to present a litigable issue of fact. The contention should be dismissed.
CUMINGS CONTENTION 3:
Tc the extent one can discern a contention here, Petitioner appears to be challenging Applicant's analysis of 1291 029 liquid pathways for radiological impacts to individuals set out in the ER-Supplement. However, Applicant's Environmental Report and its Supplement comprehensively address all factors which Petitioner claims are not adequately covered. Domestic water usage is discussed and quantified in ER $ 2.2.3 and Figures 2.2-10 through 2.2-14. Liquid pathway mechanisms are described in ER 5 S.S.3.2.1, and radiological effects from food ingestion are quantified in ER Tables S.5.3-1 through S.5.3-3. Petitioner does not attack any of these
?
analyses.
More importantly, FSFES $ S.S.4 and Tables S.S.12 through S.S.14 present the Staff's review of these analyses and conclude that ACNGS will satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I. Without some specification as to the errors in this conclusion there is no litigable contention.
CUMINGS CONTENTION 4:
Petitioner contends that the STP site would be preferable to Allens Creek for ACNGS, based on decreased water consumption and comparative population levels near each site. Petitioner's contention consists of vague and generalized statements without the required bases or specificity.
FSFES 5 S.9.2 (at S.9-11 and S.9-14) in fact considers the decreased water consumption and concludes that 1291 030
the STP site is not obviously superior. Land subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal was exhaustively considered in the Partial Initial Decision and found not to be significant. Findings of site suitability with respect to population were made in the PID ($581-82) and changes in demography since the FES (which was irsued before the PID) are reflected in the FSFES (5 S.2.1 and Tables S.21 through S.2.4). Petitioner challenges neither the PID findings nor the SFES analysis.
In the absence of newly discovered circumstances of a material change in circumstances, neither of which are present here, relitigation of issues resolved by the PID is prohibited. ALAB-525 at 15-16. This contention should be rejected.
However, because this Board has accepted TexPirg contention 1, alleging that the STP site has not been ade-quately considered as an alternative to Allens Creek, Applicant would not oppose the cc ention provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing,1/ would be consolidated with TexPirg for this issue.
3/ Ms. Cumings has filed an untimely petition to intervene and has made no showing of good cause for the untimely filing. Ms. Cumings clearly cannot come within the provision of the most recent notice because she admits she did not previously attempt to intervene because she "did not know about the proposed facility nor about the earlier hearing."
I291 031
-2 8--
CUMINGS CONTENTION 5:
Petitioner contends that ACNGS will emit more radiation than other plants. This statement is totally lacking in basis. FSFES S s.5.4.4 concludes that ACNGS will comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I; Petitioner does not dispute this extensive analysis. The contention may be a challenge to the Commission's regulations, but the showing of "special circumstances" required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 is absent. This Board has previously rejected the same contentions (Feb. 9 Order at 20-21) and should also reject this reiteration.
CUMINGS CONTENTION 6:
Petitioner alleges that certain alternative energy sources have not been adequately considered. The contention is stated in general and conclusory terms, without support, and without the required bases and specificity. Furthermore, each of the energy sources cited by Petitioner (natural gas, solid waste, solar, hydro, and wind), as well as others, are evaluated in the FSFES 5 S.9.1.2. Petitioner has not chal-lenged these analyses with any reasonable specificity.
Thus, the contention raises no triable issue of fact and must be dismissed.
I29i 032 However, because this Board has accepted TexPirg Contention 5, alleging that solid waste combustion has not been adequately considered as an alternative to ACNGS, Applicant would not oppose this contention, limited to the solid waste combustion alternative, provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to b. ave standing, would be consolidated with TexPirg for this issue.
CUMINGS CONTENTION 7:
Petitioner appears to attack the conclusion of FSFES S S.9.1.2.3 and Appendix S.D that nuclear-powered generation is preferable to that fired by coal. Petitioner identifies no specific errors in this analysis, but rather offers only unsupported generalities, e.g., " failure to correctly evaluate TOTAL costs versus total benefit".
Without any bases set forth with reasonable specificity (10 C.F.R. E 2.714(b)), this contention raises no triable issue of fact and should be 'i? missed.
CUMINGS CONTENTIO*i 8:
Petitioner's eighth contention relates to the generic issue of high level waste disposal. This contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3, above.
CUMINGS CONTENTION 9:
Petitioner contends that further study needs to be made of the effects of low-level radiation. To the extent 1291 033 that this contention has any relevance to ACNGS, it is an attack on the Commission regulations and shares the same fatal infirmities as Cumings Contention 5. For the reasons stated there, this contention should also be dismissed.
Stennen A. Doggett DOGGETT CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner claims that there are various available alterndtive energy sources which would render construction of ACNGS unnecessary. Much of the contention is based on pure speculation. In particular, the contention fails to identify the time frame in which the various alternatives would be available. Petitioner refers to synfuels, gasohol, solar power and biomass as potential alternative sources to ACNGS, but never alleges that these sources will be avail-able within a time frame compatible with the demand require-ment which ACNGS will serve. As the NRC Staff has previously pointed out, this Board need not consider alternative energy sources which are based on pure speculation as to their availability within the time frame in which the proposed facility is needed. "NRC Staff Response to More Contentions submi'ted by F. H. Potthoff, III," dated June 18, 1979, pp. 2-4.
Moreover, the statements made by Petitioner under each of the identified alternative sources lack the specificity 1291 034 or particularity required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. For example, Petitioner states that there is a significant potential for hydroelectric power, but never identifies where in Texas (a State almost completely lacking in the requisite natural attributes) the hydroelectric power stations might be sited nor how much power could be produced from these stations.
Nor has Petitioner provided any basis to support his conclu-sory statements with respect to alternative sources of energy, other than broad references to popular newspapers and magazines which provide no supporting data as to the desirability, feasibility or availability of the various alternative sources. Accordingly, the contention fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and should be dismissed.
DOGGETT CONTENTION 2:
The contention asserts that the STP site is superior to the ACNGS site. Although the supporting bases are expressed in only general terms and do not meet NRC requirements regarding specificity, the substance of the contention appears to be consistent with TexPirg Contention 1 previously admitted by the Board. In these circumstances, Applicant would not oppose the contention provided that Petitioner, if 1291 035 I
otherwise found to have standing, is consolidated with TexPirg with respect to this matter.A/
DOGGETT CONTENTION 3:
Contention 3 states that a construction permit should not be granted for ACNGS because of a series of alleged quality assurance or quality control deficiencies at STP. The STP project incorporates a reactor of a different type from a different vendor; involves construction of almost twice the magnitude of the ACNGS project and is being built by a different engineer-constructor. Putting aside the question of whether the alleged deficiencies are at all untypical of construction projects of this type, Petitioner has failed to establish that the instances upon which he relies have any rclov2nca ar noris to the Allens Creek project at all. Without some attempt at establishing this relevance, the contention should be dismissed for lack of appropriate basis.
DOGGETT CONTENTION 4:
Contention 4 asserts that HL&P is not financially qualified to construct the ACNGS project. The assertion 4[ Mr. Doggett has filed an untimely petition to intervene without a showing of good cause for the untimeliness. Mr.
Doggett does not qualify under the most recent notice because he was not even aware of the prior notices.
!291 036 rests on vague speculation regarding the likely outcome of pending rate cases, the future price and availability of urani 2m and waste disposal costs, and possible design changes as a result of Three Mile Island studies. In all of this speculation there is not alleged a single underlying fact; the assertions are largely drawn from superficial press accounts, are entirely conclusory in nature and present no triable issue of fact.
To the extent the contenti1n rests on cost increases experienced at the South Texas Project, no attempt has been made to show why this experience--at a totally different type of facility of almost twice the magnitude of the ACNGS project and being built by a different engineer-constructor in a different time frame--is relevant to ACNGS. The conten-tion should be dismissed.
DOGGETT CONTENTION 5:
This contcation states that a construction permit should not be issued because, in the event of an accident "it would be impossible to evacuate major portions of the Greater Houston Area population." Current regulations do not require that protective measures (including evacuation)
Le taken beyond the LPZ. A recently proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E, would extend planning for evacuar: n i291 037 beyond the LPZ " based on the design features of the facility and the physical characteristics of the environs in the
" 43 Fed. Reg. 47978 (October 18, viciniuy t th Tite. . . .
197r ) . Pctitioner has .m". identified any special character-ist- . of the facility or its environs to warrant evacuation beyond the LPZ pursuant to the proposed amendment. As a consequence of Three Mile Island, the Commission has under consideratica modification of its rules on emergency planningE /
including possible implementation of the Joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report (NUREG-0396), but even that document does not contemplate evacuation beyond a 10-mile radius around a nuclear facility. The contention should be dismissed.
Robin Griffith GRIFFITH CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner's first contention relates to the effects of radioactive releases in normal operation. Peti-tiener acknowledges that " applicant will comply with the standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" but expresses concern with respect to the adequacy of these standards, stating that " radiation in any amount causes cell damage. . . .
1/ " Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Adequacy and Acceptance of Emergency Planning Around Nuclear Facilities,"
44 Fed. Reg. 41483, July 17, 1979.
1291 038 Clearly, Petitioner's quarrel is not with respect to com-pliance with applicable regulations but rather the adequacy of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I. The contention is thus a challenge to the regulations which fails to set forth a basis for the challenge as required by 10 C.F.R. 2.758.
GRIFFITH CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner's second contention relates to the generic issue of high level wasta disposal. The contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3.
GRIFFITH CONTENTION 3:
Finally, Petitioner contends that thermal pollution will endanger fish and acquatic organisms, rendering the cooling lake unfit for recreational uses. That matter was dealt with extensively in the PID (TT 39-43) and Petitioner specifies no new facts warranting a re-examinaticn of those findings. Likewise, the assertion with respect to excessive algae growth in the cooling lake due to chemical discharges from Wallis, Sealy and ACNGS have already been taken into account in the FES (pp. 4-6 to 4-9) and the FSFES (S.4-7 to S.4-8) and no new facts are suggested by Petitioner which would alter the conclusion that "the proposed cooling lake should provide a valuable recreational facility." (SFES,
- p. S.iv).
1291 039 However, because the Board has accepted TexPirg Contention 2 concerning the recreational value of the cooling lake, Applicant would not oppose this contention provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing, would be consolidated with TexPirg on this issue.
Leotis Johnston JOHNSTON CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner alleges that he and/or his family will be adversely affected by radioactive emissions from ACNGS due to the proximity of his home to ACNGS. It is unclear whether this represents Petitioner's statement of his interest in the proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2),
or a contention.
If Petitioner contends that ACNGS will not meet 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, he supplies no underlying basis. If, on the other hand, this is a challenge to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, of the Commission's regu-lations, he makes no showing of "special circumstances" required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758. This Board has previously rejected contentions of this exact same note (Feb. 9 Order at 20-21); no reason exists why this contention should not be similarly rejected.
JOENSTON CONTENTION 2:
In the first part of this contention, Petitioner alleges that transpartation of nuclear wastes will be subject 1291 040 to accidents. Radioactive emissions from transportation are described in 10 C.F.R. $ 51.20(g) and Summary Table S-4 and analyz ed in S FES $ $ 5 . 4. 3 . 3 and Table S . 5 .15 and S . S .18 .
Petitioner has alleged no "special circumstances" pursuant v.o 10 C.F.R. $ 2.758 supporting an attack on these regulations, and has specified no errors in the Staff analysis. This contention further ignores that such transportation would be subject to Department of Transportation regulations, 49 C.F.R.
Parts 170-179. Finally, this Board has rejected similar contentions involving waste transportation (Feb. 9 Order at 43) and this part of the contention should be similarly rejected.
In a second part of his contention, Petitioner alleges that occupants of vehicles on Interstate 10 create too great a population density for ACNGS. This allegation is too vague and speculative to present a triable issue of fact, and fails to state bases with the required specificity.
Furthermore, Petitioner fails to allege any violation of Commission regulation. It is clear that " population center distance > as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 100.3(c) contemplates a concentration of " residents", and thus, hi: 31iance on vehicular traffic is another attack on Commission regulations prohibited by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 in the absence of a showing of "special circumstances. " The contention should be dismissed.
I291 041 JOHNSTON CONTENTIONS 3, 4:
In these contentions, Petitioner asserts that the construction permit should be denied because of the limita-tions or liability in the Price-Anderson Act and an asserted non-availability of private insurance coverage on nuclear plants. The latter premise is in error, because nuclear liability insurance is in fact provided by pools of private insurers.
Moreover, these contentions are clear challenges to the Price-Anderson Act, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. See, Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 2620 (1978).
Consequently, these contentions are clearly improper and should be rejected. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Units 3 and 4), 4 AEC 787, 788 (1972) . Moreover, this Board has previously rajected identical contentions (Feb. 9 Order at 28 & 75), and these contentions should be rejected for the same reasons.
JCENSTON CONTENTION 5-1st:
Petitioner's first of two contentions numbered "V" (numbered for identification here as 5-1st) relates to the generic issue of high level waste disposal. The contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3, above.
I291 042 JOHNSTON COFTENTIONS 5-2nd, 6-1st:
Fetitioner contends that the STP site would be preferable to Allens Creek for ACNGS, based on comparative population levels near each site (Contention 5-2nd); and less significant environmental effects of various types (Contention 6-1st). Petitioner's support for these conten-tione, however, consists of vague and generalized statements without th: required factual bases.
Findings of site suitability with respect to popu-lation were made in the PID ($581-82) and changes in demography since the FES (which was issued before the PID) are reflected in the FSFES (5 S.2.1 and Tables S.2.1 through S.2.4).
FSFES S S.9.2 (pp. S.9-11 and S.9-14) considers the decreased water consumption from construction at STP and yet concludes the STP site is not obviously superior. In addition, the PID found that the ACNGS site is only of averagn productivity and constituted only a minute and insignificant percentage of similar land available for cultivation. (1165-78).
Finally, FSFES S S.9.2 (at S.9-13 and -14) considers the differing socioeconomic impacts of construction at STP and at the Allens Creek site. Petitioner in no way challenges either the PID findings or the FSFES analyses. This conten-tion should therefore be rejected.
1291 043 However, because this Board has accepted TexPirg Contention 1, alleging that the STP site has not been ade-quately considered as an alternative to Allens Creek, Applicant would not oppose the contention provided that Petitioner, if therwise found to have standing, would be consolidated with TexPirg for this issue.
JOHNSTON CONTENTION 6-2nd:
Petitioner alleges that " solid waste storage facility [ sic]" (presumably, a solid waste combustion facil-ity) has not been adequately considered as an alternative energy source. The contention is ctated in general and con-clusery terms, without support, and without the required bases. Furthermore, both solid and organic waste combustion are evaluated in FSFES S S.9.1.m. 2 (at S.9-5 through -7),
and neither were found to be a vianle alternative to ACNGS.
Petitioner has not challenged this analysis. Thus, the contention raises no triable issue of fact and must be rejected.
However, because this Board has accepted TexPirg Contention 5, alleging that solid waste combustion has not been considered as an alternative to ACNGS, Applicant would not oppose the contention, limited to the solid waste com-bustion alternative, provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing, would be consolidated with TexPirg for this issue.
I291 044
Rosentary N. Lemmer LEMMER CONTEN"' ION 1:
Petitioner alleges that the Allens Creek site is unsuitable for a nuclear pov 2r plant because of projected population concentrations. Findings of site suitability with respect to population were made in the PID (T181-82),
and changes in demography since the FES (which was issued before the PID) are reflected in the FSFES (5 S.2.1 and Tables S.2.1 through S .2.4 ) . Petitioner has challenged neither the PID findings nor the FSFES analysis, nor has she alleged any potential conflict with NRC regulations from this postulated shift in population. This Board has previously rejected a nearly identical contention concerning changes in population (Feb. J Order at 43-44) and should also reject this contention.
LEMMER CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner contends that the STP site would be preferable to Allens Creek for ACNGS, based on decreased water consumption and comparative population levels near each site. Petitioner has, however, ignored FSFES S S.9.2 (pp. S.9-ll and S.9-14) which considers the issue of decreased water consumption and yet affirmatively concludes the S'JT site is not obviously superior. The PID found that construc-tion of ACNGS would withdraw an insignificant amount of land 1291 045 of average productivity from potential cultivation. (1165-78).
As noted with respect to Lemmer Centention 1, both the PID and FSFES address the suitability of the site with respect to population. Petiti. er does not challenge either the PID findings or the FSFES analysis. In the absence of newly discovered circumstances or a material change in circumstances, neither of which are present here, relitigation of issues resolved by the PID is prohibited. ALAB-535 at 15-16. This contention should thus be rejected.
However, because this Board has accepted TexPirg Contention 1, alleging that the STP site has not been adequately considered as an alternative tJ Allens Creek, Applicant would not oppose the contention provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing, would be consolidated with TexPirg for this issue.
LEMMER CONTE 1CION 3:
Petitioner's third contention relates to the generic issue of high level waste disposal. The contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3, above.
LEMMER CONTE 1EION 4:
Petitioner contends that "more emphasis on conserva-tion" could eliminate the need for power from ACNGS. This conrention is a vague and speculative. Petitioner supplies 129i 046 no specifics as to the potential for reduction of electrical consumption and, therefore, there is no triable issue of fact in this contention.
Petitioner further seeks to have the NRC " promote tax breaks for consumer insulation, higher utility rates for commercial users ..., peak hour rates, inter-connected pipelines between H.L.&P., and other utilities and consumer education ...." The Staff has evaluated the potential impacts of conservation, including conservation measures mentioned by Petitioner, and concluded that any potential reduction in electric consumption resulting therefrom is speculative and does not reduce the desirability of ACNGS (FSFES 95 S.8.2.3, S.8.2.6). Petitioner does not specifically take issue with this analysis; on the contrary, Petitioner appears to have completely ignored it. Furthermore, the NRC has no jurisdiction to " promote" tax breaks nor higher utility rates. EL&P is not in the pipeline business and does promote consumer education. In the absence of proper bases for the contention set forth with reasonable specificity (10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b)), the contention should be dismissed.
LEMMER CONTENTION 5:
Petitioner favors a ban on nuclear power plant licensing until a consensus among experts is reached as to the effects of low-level radiation. To the extent that this i291 047 contention has any relevance to ACNGS, it is an attack on Commission regulations concerning radiological emissions without the showing of special circumstances required by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.758. Accordingly, this contention must be dismissed.
LEMMER CONTENTION 6:
Petitioner makes the assertion that " solar energy is much preferred and should be given full support." This is a statement of her beliefs without relevance to ACNGS or this proceeding. It raises no triable issue of fact and should be dismissed.
Kathryn Otto By her own statement, Petiticner has admitted that she did not fail to file a petition under the Board's May 31 and September 11, 1978 notices because of the restrictions in those notices, but, rather, because she was unaware that the proposed plant was a nuclear plant. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Board's Supplementary Notice of Intervention Procedures and accordingly, the petition should be dismissed as untimely without good cause shown.
OTTO CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner's one contention states that a coal fired plant should be built at ACNGS rather than a nuclear 1291 048 plant. This contention lacks a basis set forth with reason-able specificity. Besides a vague and unsupported comparison of pollution from coal plants and radiation from nuclear plants, Petitioner does not set forth in what specific aspects a coal plant would be environmentally preferable to a nuclear plant. Petitioner fails to acknowledge that such a comparison was performed and is reported in FSFES 5 5.9.1.2.3 and Appendix S.D. Petitioner does not allege any error in that evaluation. The contention should be rejected, and with it, the petition. ,
Frances Pavlovic PAVLOVIC CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner contends that, because the fifty-mile zones of ACNGS and the South Texas Project overlap, popula-tion in the overlap zone would be exposed to double dosages of radiation, thus distorting the evaluation of radiological effects upon individuals in the overlap area. This state-ment is based on a total misconception of the applicable Commission regulations and the analyses performed in com-pliance with those regulations.
The Commission's regulations concerning radiological releases focus on the postulated individual located at the point of maximum exposure on the site boundary, not on the periphery of a fifty-mile zone. See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, " Concluding Statement of Position of the 1291 049 4
Regulatory Staff (Docket-RM-50-2)"; 10 C.F.R. S 100.ll(a).
Obviously, an individual located forty or fifty miles from each reactor (if, indeed, the physical effects reach far enough to create such overlap zones) would, in compliance with the regulations, receive significantly less than the individual at the site boundary less than a mile away from the reactor. Moreover, it is clear that the Commission's regulations preclude consideration of the combined radio-logical effects of reactors located at geographically separate sites. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, n. 1 & 3 ("' Background' means the quantity of radioactive material in the effluent from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors at a site that did not originate in the reactors").
As the foregoing reveals, this contention repre-seats a challenge to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, of the Commission's regulations without the showing of "special circumstances" required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758. This Board has previously rejected similar contentions (Feb. 9 Order at 20-21), and should do the same here.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner contends that the appropriate center of population for ACNGS is the area around Sealy,10 miles from the ACNGS site with a stated population of 3,211, plus the occupants of vehicles on Interstate 10 and other identified i29i 050 roads within 10 miles of the site. It is clear that "popula-tion center distance" as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 100.3(c) contemplates a concentration of " residents" and thus Peti-tiener's reliance on vehicular traffic is an attack on Commission regulations prohibited by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 in the absence of "special circumstances" not present here.
Additionally, the PID considered and rejected Sealy as a center of population, and instead found that the city of Rosenberg was the proper center (181) . Moreover, as noted in Supplement 2 to the SER (at p. 2-4):
... even if Sealy or Katy were to grow so as to become the nearest population center, the distance from the site to the nearest population center would still be greater than one and one-third times the low population zone outer radius of 3.5 miles."
Thus, ACNGS would comply with the applicable Commission regulation, 10 C.F.R. $ 100.11(a)(3), even if the premise underlying this contention were established. . cordingly, the contention should be dismissed.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTION 3:
Petitioner contends that the ACNGS site could be better used for agricultural purposes. Petitioner states no basis and provides no specificity for her contention. This issue was considered and resolved in the PID, and a finding made that the ACNGS site is only of average productivity and constituted only a minute and insignificant percentage of similar land available for cultivation (1565-78). In the
_4,_
l29i 051
absence of newly discovered evidence or a material change in cirewnstances, relitigation of issues thoroughly explored in the PID is prohibited. ALAB-535 at 15-16. Petitioner has alleged neither, and, therefore, the contention should be dismissed.
PAVLOVIC CONTEN" ION 4:
Petitioner contends that a program of conservation
" sponsored," " encourage [d], and "suggest[ed]" by Applicant could eliminate the need for power from ACNGS. This conten-tion is impermissibly vague and speculative. For axample, Petitioner makes no attempt to quantify the potential reduc-tion of electric consumption attributable to conservation.
The Staff has evaluated the potential impacts of conservation, including conservation measures mentioned by Petitioner and concluded that any potential reduction in electric consump-tion resulting therefrom is speculative and does not reduce the desirability of ACNGS (FSFES 55S.8.2.3, S.8.2.6).
Petitioner does not challenge or even acknowledge this analysis. In the absence of proper bases for the contention set forth with reasonable specificity (10 CFR 52.714(b)),
the contention should be dismissed.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTION 5:
Petitioner contends that Applicant should be required to install an off-site radiological monitoring i29i 052 system with certain characteristics. Applicant has in fact proposed an operational radiological monitoring program to satisfy Commission requirements and the Staff has deferred review of that program until the operating license stage (FES 56.2, SFES 5S.6.0 at S.6-5). The Staff reasons that review of the proposed operational monitoring program, if deferred, would be able to draw on the results of the pre-operational monitoring program.
Petitioner alleges no fault in Applicant's proposed program nor specified any hardship that might result from deferral of consideration of the operational monitoring program until the operating license hearing, other than stating "I understand that operations [ sic] licenses are often pro forma. . . .
However, Commission regulations contemplate the deferral of certain issues in this fashion.
See, 10 CFR 550.35(a); Mississioni Power and Licht Co.
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-232, 8 AEC 635 (1974). In the absence of any justification for the premature litigation of this issue, the contention should be dismissed.
However, because this Board has accepted Hinderstein Contention 9, calling for monitoring stations to measure chemical air pollution and air radioactivity levels at certain locations downwind from the plant (April 11 Order at 6), Applicant would not oppose the contention provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing, would be consolidated with Intervenor Hinderstein on this issue.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTIONS 6, 7 & 8:
In these contentions, Petitioner asserts a series of claims about the postulated shipment of nuclear wastes.
All three contentions are speculative and lack basis, in that Petitioner assumes rail transportation of spent fuel to an unspecified reprocessing plant using unknown routes
" conceivably" passing through populated areas. This totally hypothetical scenario presents no triable issue of fact.
Furthermore, this Board has rejected this same contention involving waste transportation (Feb. 9 Order at 43), and should do so again here for the same reasons.
In Contention 6, Petitioner alleges that railroad transportation of nuclear wastes will be subject to accidents.
Radioactive emissions from transportation are described in 10 CFR 551.20(g) and Summary Tables S-4 and analy::ed in FS FES 5 S . 5 . 4. 3 . 3 and Tables S . S .15 and S . S .18 . Petitioner has alleged no "special circumstances" pursuant to 10 CFR 52.758 so that she might attack these regulations, and has specified no errors in the FSFES analysis. This contention further ignores that such transportation -- if it were to happen --would be subject to Department of Transportation regulations, 49 CFR Parts 170-179.
I291 054 In Contention 7, Petitioner postulates cumulative effects of waste shipments from ACNGS and other (unspecified) nuclear plants along unidentified rail routes. This conten-tion shares the same fatal infirmities as Contention 6.
In Contentiot. 8, Petitioner alleges that rail shipments of nuclear waste will create a danger to highway travelers at railroad crossings. Petitioner does not distin-guish the dangers from trains transporting nuclear waste from any other type of train, and in any event this Board cannot remedy the problem of unsafe railroad crossings.
In sum, none of Petitioner's allegations frame a litigable issue appropriate for consideration in this forum and all three contentions should be dismissed.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTION 9:
Petitioner here alleges that the Staff evaluation of alternative energy sources is in error because it
. . . consider [ed) each individual alternative source independently and not as part of a multi-source system.
"I further contend that a decentralized system utilizing alternative sources in conjunction with the existing system would be less wasteful of energy, especially electricity; use less non-renewable resources; be more economical to build, maintain and operate; and b1 safer to workers and populations now without posing any health threats to future generations."
Tc support this contention Petitioner states that Applicant could " supplement its present system with one or more alter-native sources in each locality [ served by Applicant.]"
i291 055 What constitutes an " alternative source" is, however, never specified; nor is any other facet of Petitioner's scheme described.
Petitioner cites a study discussing alternative energy sources for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, but there is not even a suggestion in the contention that the northarn California coast and southeast Texas ! 4ve comparable energy problems, resources, and environments. This study has no demonstrated relevance to ACNGS.
Petitioner's unsupported contention io total conjectural and should be rejected.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTION 10:
Petitioner conte.' is that the ACNGS construction permit should not be issued until after the Kemeny Commission has made its final report and recommendations concerning TMI-2. As this Board has previ.nsly ruled, this licensing proceeding need not be deferred pending completion of all the reports and studies of the Three Mile Island accident.
(Order, April 13, 1979, at 1). This contention does not raise a triable issue of fact, and should be rejected.
PAVLOVIC CONTENTIC;. 11:
Petitioner's final contention relates to the generic issue of high level waste disposal. The contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Centention 3, above.
129 056 Charles Andrew Perez PEREZ CONTENTION:
Petitioner's " contention" on drywell design is apparently contained in a statement that "a structural integrity test is insufficient because a loss of coolant accident in even the small or intermediate range can result in a temperature transient inside the containment of suca a magnitude that the thermal shock received by the concrete reactor pedestal could result in cracking of the foundation and drywell to the point where its strength would be seriously affected, particularly for future seismic or LOCA transients, thus jeopardizing future public safety." Petitioner's concern appears to be that the drywell pressure testE does not test the drywell for temperature effects.2/ There is no litigable issue here because Applicant does not rely on the drywell pressure test to justify the drywell design temperature.
The drywell design temperature is justified by conservative 6/ Applicant presumes the structural integrity test referred to by the Petitioner is the drywell pressure test described in section 3.8.3.7.1.1 of the Allens Creek PSAR.
2/ Petitioner's reference to the reactor pedestal is mis-conceived. The Allens Creek reactor pedestal is made of two concentric steel cylinders. Although the space between these steel cylinders is filled with concrete for seismic mass considerations, the concrete is not load bearing (PSAR,
- p. 3.8-21). Hence, Petitioner's contention can not apply to the reactor pedestal.
1291 057 analysis of a small break loss-of-coolant accident (PSAR, p.6.2-25).
Petitioner does not disagree with Applicant's design temperature for the drywell, but may be asserting that the drywell will fail at this temperature. Should this be Petitioner's contention, it must be rejected for lack of basis. The only statement which could serve as support for such a contention refers to an accidental pressurization of the drywell at the Commonwealth Edison, Dresden 2 and 3 plants in 1971. The event to which Petitioner alludes actually occurred in June, 1970 and was an event involving drywell isolation. In this incident safety-relief valves discharging into the Dresden Mark I drywell produced an over pressurization which resulted in damcge to power range monitoring cable. No structural damage to the drywell was reported.S/ No other incident of the variety postulated by g/ The Dresden incident is not applicable to the Mark III drywell of Allens Creek for two reasons. First, the safety-relief valves for Allens Creek discharge to the suppression pool, not the drywell. Second, any transient which pressurizes the drywell to 2 psig or greater results in a reactor scram that would limit the pressure and temperature effects of any incident which would pressurize the drywell, including a small break LOCA.
I291 058 Petitioner has occurred at Dresden or elsewhere. Hence, Petitioner has absolutely no factual basis to support a contention regarding drywell damage.E William J. Schuessler SCHUESSLER CONTENTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 8:
All of these vague contentions refer to possible injuries to health and property as a result of the release of radioactive material. This entire group of unsupported assertions may be accurately described as statements of dissatisfaction either with the Commission's regulations governing normal or accidental releases or with the Applicant's design and procedures for complying with those regulations.
If it is the former, it totally lacks the showing of special circumstances required by 10 C.F.R. 92.758. If it is the latter, there is not a shred of supporting bases accompanying the complaints. In either event, the contentions shuld be dismissed.
9/ Petitioner also mentions the General Electric pool swell tests and load effects of safety-relief valve discharge.
Applicant cannot discern a contention here nor is there any nexus between this discussion and Petitioner's contention on concrete cracking. Hence, this portion of Petitioner's petition should be disregarded.
1291 059 SCHUESSLER CONTENTIONS 6 & 14:
Contentions 6 and 14 are built upon two false premises. The first is that completed emergency plans of the Applicant, the State and local governments must be in place prior to issuance of a construction permit. The Commission's regulations (10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section III) require that the Final Safety Analysis Report submitted at the operating license state "contain plans for coping with emergencies," not the PSAR submitted with the construction permit.
Second, evacuation of the Houston area is not required by existing or proposed cuergency plan regulations.
Existing regulations contemplate evacuation only within the Low Population Zone (LPZ). 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. A recently proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, would extend planning for evacuation beyond the LPZ in special circumstances
" based on the design features of the facility and the physical characteristics of the environs in the vicinity of the site. . . . " 43 Fed. Reg. 47978, October 18, 1978. Petitioner has not identiried any special characteristics of the facility or its environs to warrant evacuation beyond the LPZ pursuant to the proposed snendment. As a consequence of Three Mile Island, the Commission has under consideration modification 1291 060 of its rules on emergency planning 10/, including possible implementation of the Joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report (NUREG-0396), but even that document does not contemplate evacuation beyond a 10-mile radius around a nuclear facility.
The contentions should be dismissed.
SCHUESSLER CONTENTION 7:
Contention 7 seeks to raise the question of disposal of high level radioactive waste. The contention should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3, above.
SCHUESSLER CONTENTION 9:
Contention 9 raises a question flowing from Peti-tioner's economic interest as a ratepayer of the Applicant, a matter not cognizable under NRC rules and precedent.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 (December 23, 1976).
SCHUESSLER CCNTENTION 10:
This contention suggests that if Applicant would make interstate interconnections it could forego construc-tion of Allens Creek and that construction of the intercon-nections would be an environmentally preferable alternative 10/ " Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Adequacy and Acceptance of Emergency Planning Around Nuclear Facilities,"
44 Fed. Reg. 41483, July 17, 1979.
I291 061 to " building a large nuclear plant." In support of this contention Petitioner cites hearings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which Applicant presumes to be the hearings on the application for interconnections filed by the Central and South West Corporation (CSW).
Petitioner is obviously unaware that the interconnections proposed by CSW are for the purpose of integrating the CSW operating companies so they can build new nuclear and coal plants on a joint basis. Thus, the proposed interconnections do not have the purpose of avoiding construction of new nuclear plants.
Additionally, no utility in that proceeding is offering to sell Applicant any power whatsoever. Nor does Petitioner identify any utility which has any excess capacity for sale, let alone enough power to eliminate the need for Allens Creek. Petitioner has not come forward with any support for the assertion that Applicant could avoid construc-tion of Allens Creek by interconnecting with more electric utilities than it is now interconnected with. The contention is founded on sheer speculation, apparent , concocted from a complete misconception of the proceedings before FERC, and should be dismissed.
1291 062 SCHUESSLER CONTENTION ll:
Petitioner attacks Applicant's comparison of nuclear and coal-fired power generation on the basis of a purporteu radical new design in coal furnace scrubbers.
What Petitioner has overlooked, however, is the crucial fact that Applicant's and Staff's comparative analysis assumet the use of Western low-sulfur coal and further assumes scrubbers are not installed on the coal plants used for purposes of comparison. Hence, the balance struck in favor of nuclear on health and direct economic costs (FSFES SS.9.1.2.3.) cannot be upset by any changes in scrubber performance, no matter how revolutionary. The contention should be dismissed for lack of basis.
SCHUESSLER CONTENTIONS 12 & 13:
Contentions 12 and 13 are premised on a series of speculative events, the primary event being the " expected financial losses related to pullout of STP . . . by Austin and by San Antonio." From this rambling speculation Peti-tiener concludes that EL&P will not need Allens Creek, and that nr.o will be " unable to give reasonable assurance that these conditions will not compromise the Applicar.c's clear self-interest in safety. "
. . . The simple fact is that neither Austin nor San Antonio have elected to sell their shares of the South Texac Project. Unless and until such sales take place the main factual premise for the contentions i291 063 9
remains in the realm of speculation, not fa::t. Without the essential premises being established as a fact the remainder of the contentions evaporate into irrelevancy. Contention 13 also fails for the reasons set forth in response to Doggett Contention 3 (i.e. there is no demonstrated relevance between STP and ACNGS). In summary, both contentions are based wholly on conjectural events and should be dismissed.
SCHUESSLER CONTENTION 15:
This contention asserts that ACNGS is a " bloated energy station . . ., a forbidding hulk . . ., [an] abominable structure . . . [which] will stand as a lamentable symbol of man's folly. "
. . . Beyond this hyperbole (which does not merit or require a response) Petitioner does not address the discussion of aesthetic impacts in FES 55.6.5, FSFES 55.5.6.1, and ER 553.1 and S3.1. Petitioner is thus plainly incorrect in asserting that the Applicant and NRC Staff have not considered the " aesthetic impact" of ACNGS. Petitioner has not challenged this analysis in any respect, and the conten-tion should be dismissed.
Patricia L. Streilein STREILEIN CONTENTICNS 1 and 3:
Relying on a series of vaguely related points, Petitioner appears to be making the single argument that the STP site is superior to the ACNGS site. Each of the supporting 1291 064 points is deficient, and, hence, the general argmment fails to establish a valid contention.
As to Petitioner's first point, the PID held that the ACNGS site is only of r.verage productivity and constituted a minute and insignificant percentage of similar land available for cultivation. (1165-78). FSFES 55.4.3.1 further states tha$ the effect of ACNGS construction upon local flora and fauna, including geese, will be minimized in terms of region-wide populations. Petitioner makes no showing to challenge these analyses. The PID further considered thermal effects .
of ACNGS operation on the Brazos River and found those effects insignificant (1139-43). Thus, none of Petitioner's bases supporting her STP alternative site contention present independent triable issues of fact.
Applicant's Environmental Report described in detail the radiological effects of ingestion of aquatic life from the Brazos River. Liquid pathway mechanisms are also described in 55.5.3.2.1, and radiological effects from food ingestion are quantified in Tables S.5.3-1 through S.S.3-3.
Petitioner does not specifically argue with any of these analyses.
More importantly, FSFES 55.5.4. and Tables S .5.12 through S.S.14 presents the Staff's review of these analyses and concludes that ACNGS will satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Petitioner does 1291 065
not note any exception to this conclusion, and thus her allegations, even if true, de not present a separate litigable contention.
Petitioner's third contention concerning the relative economics of construction of ACNGS versus STP, is subsumed in her basic STP alternative site contention.
Although Petitioner's points supporting these two contentions essentially all represent issues resolved by the PID, the substance of the contentions appears to be consistent with TexPirg Contention 1 previously admitted by,the Board.
In these circumstances, Applicant would not oppose the contentions provided that Petitioner, if otherwise found to have standing, is consolidated with TexPirg with respect to this matter.
STREILEIN CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner's second contention asserts that con-struction of the plant will either limit the current westward trend of Houston's development or the plant will end up in the middle of residential communities. The contention is clearly not litigable -- Applicant cannot be required to prove that both occurrences will not take place! Further, the contention is premised on unfounded challenges to popula-tion forecasts. Findings of site suitability with respect to population were made in the PID (TT81-82) and changes in 1291 066 9
demography since the FES (which was issued before the PID) are reflected in the FStrS (SS.2.1 and Tables S.2.1 through S.2.4). Petitioner has challenged neither the PID findings nor the FSFES analysis, nor has she alleged any potential conflict with NRC regulations from this postulated shift in population. This Board has previously rejected a contention concerning changes in population (Feb. 9 Order at 43-44) and should reject this contention on the same grounds.
Glen Van Slyke As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that Petitioner's further averments with respect to standing add little to Petitioner's prior " form" filing, other than to indicate that Petitioner lives within 45 miles of ACNGS and seeks to assert:
" ... his constitutionally protected rights to freedom of association, political assembly, and to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble with others for a redress of grievances, and particularly through public speaking, rallies, teach-ins, assemblies, meetings, pickets and marches, to continue to oppose the construc-tion of Allens Creek plant, and to encourage others to do so."
These assertions establish that Petitioner is marginally within the " geographic zone of interest" but leave a substan-tial question as to whether the interests sought to be protected -- defense of civil liberties -- are within the
"=one of inthrests" protected or regulated by the Atomic 1291 067 Energy Act of 1954 of NEPA. (See Feb. 9 Order, at 64-65).
There also remains the serious question of whether Petitioner, who executed a " form" petition to intervene, has satisfied the Board's requirements for a showing that his prior failure ta petition in response to the earlier notices was directly attributable to the restrictions on contentions.11/ These questions appear to be moot since Petitioner has not stated a single contenticn with the basis and specificity required by the Ccmmission's regulations. 10 CFR 2.714.
VAN SLYKE CONTENTIONS 1 & 2:
Contention 1 expresses the concern that in imple-menting 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1) Applicant may make a " violent and unjustified security response to peaceful protests." The concern is wholly spec:11ative and withcut any asserted basis in fact.
11/ In this regard, Applicant notes that Mr. Van Slyke has conveniently ignored disclosing to the Board the fact that he was a member of the National Lawyers Guild when the Guild attempted to intervene in this p Jceeding before. See
" Supplement to Petition to Intervene of Petitioner, Houston Chapter, National Lawyers Guild, Inc.", Nov. 17, 1978, Exhibit 7 (letter signed by Glen Van Slyke, FCIA Coordinator).
Applicant suggests that the similarity between contentions raised by the Guild and by Mr. Van Slyke is not a matter of mere coincidence.
I29I 068
Contention 2 cites many requirements of 10 CFR 73, Appendix B and, as in Contention 1, speculates that implementa-tion of these requirements will result in " illegal surveil-lance and harrassment . . . " directed against Petitioner.
This contention is likewise wholly speculative and does not identify a triable issue of fact on which the parties may present evidence.
VAN SLYKE CONTENTION 3:
Contention 3 complains of failures on the part of Applicant to specify how it will implement the requirements of 10 CFR 73, Appendix C which sets out the requirements for a " Safeguards Contingency Plan." To the extent the conten-tion is based on the premises that such a plan must be part of an application for a construction permit it is in error.
That requirement applies only to an application for an operating license. 10 CFR 50.34(d)
Petitioner has attempted to set out three conten-tions, all relating his civil liberties interests to the ACNGS security plan requirements. For the reasons set out above, none of the contentions are admissible. In a larger sense, however, the instant petition does not assert that Applicant will not comply with applicable security regula-tions, but that the regulations themselves are inadequate i29l 069 and subject to abuse. As the Board has previously noted, this type of issue does not come within the " zone of interests" to be protacted by the Atomic Energy Act. (February 9 Order at 64).
Marlene R. Warner WARNER CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner's sole contention is a direct attack on Commission regulations. In her own words (at 3e4):
"I contend that present regulations are inadequate to protect the public health and safety, and that n;rmal emission levels suould be examined and brought into conformance with the Delany Clause of the 1958 Food Additive and the 1960 Color Additive Amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act."
This contention is a direct challenge to the Commission's regulations concerning normal emissions, as set forth in 10 CFR 55.20.106, 50.34a and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Under the procedures provided in 10 CFR 52.758, a party may not challenge the validity of an NRC rule in a licensing proceeding witLout showing "special circumstances."
Petitioner has made no such showing, and therefore, the contention should be rejected.
In addition, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Commission's regulations which require that the " bases" for a contention be set forth with " reasonable specificity."
10 CFR 52.714(b). Petitioner states no basis for her conten-tion, and makes no attempt to relate her speculative contention i291 070 to the design of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Indeed, Petitioner fails to recognize that the ACNGS Final Environmental Statement specifically considers radiological effects of ACNGS operation upon man, including those resulting from food ingestion, and demonstrates compliance with applicable Commission regulations. (FSFES $ 5. 4 and Table S . S .14 )
Petitioner does not challange this analysis.
Finally, Petitioner appears to have miscomprehended the import of the Delaney Clause of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 5348.12/ This provision regulates FDA approval of food additives, including radiation sources intended for use in food processing, as defined in 21 USC 5321(s), and simply has no application to the operation of a nuclear power plant.
Petitioner's contention must be rejected for lack of basis.
Donald R. Weaver WEAVER CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner alleges that he and his family will be adversely affected (a) as to their health, and (b) as to the 12/ Referred to by Petitioner as the "Delany Clause of the 1958 Food Additive and 1960 Color Additive Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." There is no Delaney Clause in the Color Additive Amendments of 1960, Pub L.86-618, 74 Stat. 397 (July 12, 1960).
1291 07l
value of their home, by radioactive emissions from ACNGS.
It is unclear whether this represents Petitioner's statement of his interest in the proceeding, as required by 10 CFR 52.714(a)(2), or a contention.
If Petitioner contends that ACNGS will not meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, he supplies no underlying basis.
If, on the other hand, this is a challenge to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, of the Commission's regulations, he makes no showing of "special circumstances" required by 10 CFR 52.758.
This Board has previously rejected similar contentions (Feb. 9 Order at 20-21), and should follow the same course here.
WEAVER CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner contends that the ACNGS cooling lake will increase the probability of flooding of the Brazos River. This potential environmental effect was considered in the PID, and a finding made that construction of ACNGS would not have a significant effect on flood levels and frequency in the Brazos River floodplain. (1126-33). In the absence of newly discovered evidence or a material change in circumstances, relitigation of issues thoroughly explored in the PID is prohibited. ALAB-535 at 15-16.
Petitioner has alleged neither, and accordingly his conten-tion should be rejected.
I291 072 WEAVER CONTENTION 3:
Petitioner's unsupported and conclusory statement in the first part of this contention is that the alternative site analysis is inadequate in that it fails to take into account the reduction in size of the ACNGS facility. This conjecture plainly falls short of forming a contention with reasonable specificity.
In the second part of this contention, Petitioner alleges that the population center of metropolitan Houston is shifting westward toward the ACNGS site. Even assuming this to be true, no litigable contention is presented.
Findings of site suitability with respect to population were made in the PID (1181-82), and changes in demography since the FES (which was issued before the PID) are reflected in the FSFES (1S.2.1 and Tables S.2.1 through S.2.4). Petitioner has challenged neither the PID findings nor the FSFES analysis, nor has he alleged any potential conflict with NRC regulations from this postulated shift in population. This Board has previously rejected a very similar contention concerning changes in population (Feb. 9 Order at 43-44) and it should do the same here.
Connie Wilson WILSON CONTENTION 1:
Petitioner contends that since she lives between 30 and 33 miles from the proposed plant, she and her family 1291 0/3 may be affected by the " radioactive risk" of the construction of ACNGS. It appears that Contention 1 is a statement of the Petitioner's interest in this proceeding and, if so, it fails to identify the specific radioactive risk which may affect her interest. If construed as a contention, it should be dismissed. The contention is vague and has no supporting basis. For example, Petitioner fails to identify what " serious problem" at the proposed ACNGS concerns her.
Moreover, Petitioner seems to be challenging the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I with respect to low level radioactive releases from the plant without a showing of special circumstances as required under 10 CFR 92.758.
WILSON CONTENTION 2:
Petitioner states that the ACNGS should be constructed at Bay City, presumably at the STP site, because "this would free the west of Houston, to remain safe for the greater number of people." This contention is without even a suggestion of supporting basis as required by 10 CFR 52.714. Petitioner's statement concerning the demography surrounding the proposed ACNGS was covered by the Board in the PID (1181-82) and Petitioner provides no information to challenge these conclu-sions. Moreover, Petitioner's claim that the proposed plant should be built at the STP site is unsupported except by a vague reference that " Bay City is already contaminated i291 074 nuclear complex-wise...." Thus, the allegations set forth in Contention 2 are plainly not sufficient to establish a litigable contention on the issue of STP as an alternative site. However, to the extent Contention 2 overlaps TexPirg's Contention 1, Applicant has no objection to the admission of the contention provided that Petitioner is consolidated (if found to have standing) with TexPirg on this issue.
WILSON CONTENTION 3:
Petitioner contends that the license for ACNGS should be denied "because as of yet there is now [ sic]
solution for high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel-storage." This contention must be denied for the reasons set forth in response to Carrick Contention 3, above.
Petitioner also claims that she feels threatened by radioactive releases from possible transportation accidents.
This issue is also inadmissible since the Commission's regulations, set forth in 10 CFR 551.20(g) and Table S-4, consider the environmental impacts from the transportation of radioactive materials, including accidents. Apparently, Petitioner seeks to litigate these environmental impacts without a showing of special circumstances as required by 52.758. Accordingly, this aspect of Contention 3 should also be denied.
I291 075
WILSON CONTENTION 4:
Petitioner states that "a solid waste plant would be more suitable for this site." Petitioner provides abso-lutely no basis to support her statement that a solid waste plant should be built at the ACNGS site. The contention appears nothing more than a statement of general support for a solid waste plant. It is excessively vague with no supporting basis and, therefore, must be dismissed.
WILSON CONTENTION 5:
Petitioner contends that a "six month study period" should be allowed following the date of the release of the report of the President's Commission studying the accident at Three Mile Island oefore any further action is taken in this proceeding. As the Board has previously ruled, this licensing proceeding need not be deferred pending completion of all the reports and studies of the Three Mile Island accident. (ASLB Order, April 13, 1979, p. 1). Petitioner 1291 076 has set forth no basis to support this request and, accordingly, the contention should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: , #
J. G gory Cppe #
BAKER & BOTTS C. b mas BiWdl Jr.
3000 One Shell Plaza Ch r es G. Thra , Jr.
Houston, Texas 77002 30 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY TB:05:B 1291 077 APPENDIX A Petitioners and Contentions to be Consolidated To be Consolidated with Tex-Pirg (Contention 1 - South Texas Project as alternative site)
Petitioner: Bishop Contention: 23 Carrick 4 Conn 2 Cummings 4 Doggett 2 Johnston 5-2nd, 6-1st Lemmer 2 Streilein 1, 3 Wilson 2 To be Consolidated with Tex-Pirg (Contention 2 - recreational value of cooling lake)
Petitioner: Griffith Contention: 3 To be Consolidated with Tex-Pirg (Contention 6 - solid waste combustion as alternative enercy source)
Petitioner: Cummings Contention: 6 (limited to solid waste combustion)
Johnston 6-2nd Schuessler 12 (limited to solid waste combustion)
To be Connolidated with Intervenor Hinderstein (Contention 9 - specified types of offsite operational monitoring)
Petitioner: Pavlovic Contention: 5 1291 078
~ ,
APPENDIX B Page Bryan L. Baker Contention 1 .............................. 2 Contention 2 .............................. 3 J. Morgan and Margaret Bishop Contention 1 .............................. 5 Contention 2 .............................. 6 Contention 3 .............................. 7 Contentions 4 and 5 ....................... 7 Contention 6 .............................. 8 Contention 7, 8 and 9 ..................... 9 Contention 10 ............................. 9 Contention 11 ............................. 10 Contention 12 ............................. 10 Contention 13 ............................. 11 Contention 14 ............................. 12 Contention 15 ............................. 12 Contention 16 ............................. 13 Contention 17 ............................. 13 Contention 18 ............................. 14 Contention 19 ............................. 15 Contention 20 ............................. 15 Contention 21 ............................. 16 Lantention 22 ............................. 17 Contention 23 ............................. 17 Dorothy F. Carrick Contention 1 .............................. 18 Contention 2 .............................. 18 Contention 3 .............................. 19 Contention 4 .............................. 20 Contention 5 .............................. 22 CaroUina Conn Contention 1 .............................. 23 Contention 2 .............................. 23 Contention 3 .............................. 24 Contention 4 .............................. 25 L 0/ f 0J / i'G
Page Elinore P. Cumings Contention 1 .............................. 25 Centention 2 .............................. 26 Contention 3 .............................. 26 Contention 4 .............................. 27 Contention 5 .............................. 29 Contention 6 .............................. 29 Contention 7 .............................. 30 C o nt en tio n 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Contention 9 ... .......................... 30 Stephen A. Doggett Contention 1 .............................. 31 Contention 2 .............................. 32 Contention 3 .............................. 33 Contention 4 .............................. 33 Contention 5 .............................. 34 Robin Griffith Contention 1 .............................. 35 Contention 2 .............................. 36 Contention 3 .............................. 36 Leotis Johnston Contention 1 .............................. 37 Contention 2 .............................. 37 Contentions 3, 4 .......................... 39 Contention 5-1st .......................... 39 Contentions 5-2nd, 6-1st .................. 40 Contention 6-2nd .......................... 41 Rosemary N. Lemmer Contention 1 .............................. 42 Contention 2 .............................. 42 Contention 3 .............................. 43 Contention 4 .............................. 43 Contention 5 .............................. 44 Contention 6 .............................. 45 1291 080
~
Page Kathryn Otto Contention 1 .............................. 45 Frances Pavlovic Contention 1 .............................. 46 Contention 2 .............................. 47 Contention 3 .............................. 48 Contention 4 .............................. 49 Contention 5 .............................. 49 Contentions 6, 7 & 8 ...................... 51 Contention 9 .............................. 52 Contention 10 ............................. 53 Contention 11 ............................. 53 Charles Andrew Perez Contention ................................ 54 William J. Schuessler Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 8 ............ 56 Contentions 6 & 14 ........................ 57 Contention 7 .............................. 58 Contention 9 .............................. 58 Contention 10 ............................. 58 Contention 11 ............................. 60 Contentions 12 & 13 ....................... 60 Contention 15 ............................. 61 Patricia L. Streilein Contentions 1 & 3 ......................... 61 Contention 2 .............................. 63 Glen Van Slyke Contentions 1 & 2 ......................... 65 Contention 3 .............................. 66 Marlene R. Warner Contention 1 .............................. 67 1 !> O 1 pJ 1 iL / I l Page Donald R. Weaver Contention 1 .............................. 68 Contention 2 .............................. 69 Contention 3 .............................. 70 Connie Wilson Contention 1 .............................. 70 Contention 2 .............................. 71 Contention 3 .............................. 72 Contention 4 .............................. 73 Contention 5 .............................. 73 I291 082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Responses to Contentions of Petitioners Baker, Bishop, Carrick, Conn, Cumings, Doggett, Griffith, Johnston, Lemmer, Otto, Pavlovic, Perez, Schuessler, Streilein, Van Slyke, Warner, Weaver and Wilson in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, poc^ age prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 5th day of October, 1979.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger "allis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stepar:ns Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Co= mission Washington, D. C. 20555 l29l 083
~ .
Ste"3 Schinki, Esq. Dorothy F. Carrick Staff Counsel Box 409, Wagon Rd. Rfd. #1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77045 Washington, D. C. 20555 Carolina Conn Ju :n F. Doherty 1414 Scenic Ridge 4327 Alconbury Street Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77021 Elinore P. Cumings Madeline Bass Framson Route 1, Box 138V Robert S. Framson Rosenberg, Texas 77471 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Stephen A. Doggett P. O. Box 592 Carro Hinderstein Rosenberg, Texas 77471 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 Robin Griffith 1034 Sally Ann E. Marrack Rosenberg, Texas 77471 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Leotis Johnston 1407 Scenic Ridge Brenda McCorkle Houston, Texas 77043 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 Rosemary N. Lemmer 11413 Gak Spring F. H. Potthoff, III , Houston, Texas 77043 7200 Shady Villa, #110 Houston, Texas 77055 Kathryn Otto Route 2, "cx 62L Wayne E. Rentfro Richmond, Texas 77469 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Tcxas 77471 Frances Pavlovic 111 Datonia Jamas M. Scott, Jr. Bellaire, Texas 77101 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 Charles Perez 1014 Montrose Blvd.
Bryan L. Baker Houston, Texas 770'9 1118 Montrose Houston, Texas 77019 William Schuestler 5810 Darnell J. Morgan Bishop Houston, Texas 77018 Margaret rishop 11418 Oak Spring Ho.tston, Texas 77043
- 29i 084 Patricia L. Strelein Route 2, Box 395C Richmond, Texas Glen Van Slyke 1739 Marshall Houston, Texas 77098 Marlene R. Warner 6026 Beaudry Houston, Texas 77035 Donald D. Weaver P. O. Drawer V Simonton, Texas 77476 Connie Wilson 11427 Oak 3pring Houston, Texas 77043 h.
J regory/ o and /
(
1291 085