ML20148T320

Answer to Applicant'S & Staff'S Responses.Drops Contention 4 Re Floods.Reaffirms Contentions Re Possible Tornado Damage & Potential Earthquake Danger

ML20148T320
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/27/1978
From:	Potthoff F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812040362
Download: ML20148T320 (3)

Text

- -

Ag PUBLTO IIL the Matter of D Houston Lighting.& Power Company 007f3E47'IggOY Allens. Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 Docket,No.-50 466

• 4

• * *.*.* * * * * * * * *.* * * *

• p

\\

{ Tk,.oc ANSWER TO isPPLICnNT'S  ! 4 .

7 $7N $2 C

9," $0N isND -STAFF'S PESPONSEE c,.g "[,,, n 7

(

w .

On Nov1, 1978, I mailed in my " fully researched" contentionsror intervention on the..ACNGS... On Novv.17 & 18, I attended the pre-hearing conference, where. I was supposed to- reply to applicant's and NHC staff's responses. A$ the time I wasn't ready to reply (and frankly I don't believe I am as re.ady as I wish at this time) due to the short short short time allowed me to research my conten-tions. However Chairman Wolfe was kind enough to give me more time to reply, and this. is my responsa.

As I said at the conference, I shall drop contention 4 con-cerning floods & their effects on the ACHGS. I have also submit-ted a new contention fon approval. Now I shall reply to the objections to my contentiona:

contention 1.- Both tha applicant and staff object to this con--

tention because. they dsay it. is vagua and contains no new infor-nation. When I wrote the contenti.on I didn8t know the the Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant under conatruction is Mississippi was damaged by a tornado within the past two years. Supposedly NBC regulations would inanre an atom plant would withstand such damge., but sometimes people. build plants that aran t within the specificationa and some-e how gat.by. The plant mayhave been approved as conforming to NBC regulations; when it was not.. Tha MLR should investigate if this was what.. happened, and see_ what steps can be taken to insure e 781204o 367 6

o ', -

this does.'not~ happen at the ACHGS.

This. brings me.to.the second objecti.on of ataff and appli-cant They say my contentious are vague. They are just as vague asithe ACNG LPSAR. In discussing protecting the plant from tornado missiles, all it says in the plant will conform to NRC regulations. How? Will the. applicant usa a special type. of l

cement that can withstand a telephone. pole weighing 1490 lbs.

at a velocity of'266 ft./ sect Will it be reenforced with steel bars? Do they hava figures comparing the strength of concrate, reenforced concrete, brick, etc. to wi.thstand the. discussed missiles? Where_are.the. facts and figures? Will there be a special design of tha building. which will increase the. wall strength?

Until these. questions are. answered, I believe my contentions still stani.-

contention 2-- Both the. applicant and staff allege thia conten.-- l tion presents no new evidence.or information. However the ACNGS*  !

\

PSAR doesn't discussthe effect industrial developement encour-aged by the ACNGS will hava. on ground water use. and subsidence.

If the. plant is. built, it could encouraga industry to move. into the-area. Por example when I was. around the. South Texas Nuclear Project, a Mr. Paul pekers told me on Beto. 11, 1978, that Dow Chemical, arxl other industries, planned to erect several industrial parks. near the STP raactor,, to take advantage of the electricity.

This may not happen near Wq111s, but ther is a trend of industries moving' out into. the, countryside. looking for cheap land. If several industrial p1 >mts, se) up near AG!sGS, they would need groundwater

' fon' industrial operations., and thus increase the subsidence in ther areas.. Tha PSAR does not. discuss this so my contention standse contention h The applicant states;this contention is pura

~

apequlat, ion'+and' both

• +

the applicant and ataff atate. my contan.--

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

, , . . ' , tdon is based on no new information+. Romahow they have.missad a statement in my contention:. "

. .I was aurprised to read this year of an earthquaka, 2 3 on the: Rechtor scala, ocurring in West Texas . ." This.was in October of this year .which makes it definitely new information. The.PSAB tries to say there is no poskibility of earthquake on the Gul f' Coast, but they list several earthquakea ocurring. in Texas, a numbem close to the site.

As I understand geology, all land areas are active to.certain degrees, and no area is safe.from an earth quake. New york, West Germany, and the Ohio river Valley ara several ' safe' areas 18ve read of where earthquakes have ocurrede Earthquakes at.

the ACNGS are improbable but not impossibl.e, atal I believe it is wise to " err on the side. of caution." My contention stands.

Once. again I'd like to. thank Chairman Wolf e. for this extra time to reply. I hope. the. ASLB will accept my contentions.

An Americun citizen, P.L.Potthoff III 1814 Pine Village.Dr..

Houston taxas 77080 713 4654465 i

. . _ . _ . . . . . . . .-