ML20148T156
| ML20148T156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1978 |
| From: | Newman J LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812040333 | |
| Download: ML20148T156 (15) | |
Text
_ _ . . .
L ,
i.
4 NRC PURUC DOCIMENT ROW Y -
O h**
UNITED STATES 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6- \ gY 7 l BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOA@Y, s00 6'$ S ogg[hh. ;
l' b
In the Matter of ) os ,
) #
IIOUSTON ' LIGHTING & PONER COMPANY ) !
C " '
~
-(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )
Station, Unit 1) )
)
)
-APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO " STIPULATION BEfWEEN MRC STAFF AND TEXAS PIRG" l
Applicant files this response to the " Stipulation Between NRC Staf f 'and Texpirg " (Hereinaf ter " stipulation") filed in this proceeding on September 29, 1978. ;
I. Interest .(Standing) l The stipulation recites that "Texpirg" has identified several named members who live in the vicinity of the ACNGS site and that they would be adversely affected by radioactive emissions from the proposed plant. The NRC Staff indicates its agreement that these allegations are sufficient to comply with the interest requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice set forth in 10'CFR S2.714(a).
The NRC Staff response .(filed July 18, 1978) to the 1 initial petition for leave to intervene by Texpirg argued that Petitioner had' f ailed to state an interest which met the requirements of-10 CFR S2.714. The NRC Staff noted three i i
specific' interests asserted.by the. Petitioners. The first, l
l 3
o
- 781204.0.33 3 & 1
c '
an economic; interest in the nature of'a " ratepayer's interest",.was rejected by the NRC Staff on the basis of NRC precedent. The third, an undifferentiated allegation L with respect to the effect of accidents on members of the organization was rejected on grounds of vagueness. The second. interest asserted by Petitioner was based on a ,
general threat to'the life and property of its members arising out of the operation of the facility. The Staff noted a requirement that the Petitioner show which of its specific members were affected by the facility and the manner in which their specific interests were affected.
. The section on "lNTEREST (STANDING)" of' the stipulation fails to cure the infirmities noted in the Staff's earlier answer. The stipulation'neither recites the names of the
, members affected or specifically how they would be adversely affected by. radioactive emissions from the plant. Nor
{
does the stipulation. meet the defects noted in the Appli-cant's Response to the Second Amendment to Texprig's petition for leave to intervene filed on September 28, 1978 l (hereinaf ter Applicant's Response) , pp. 1-5. The petition should therefore be denied for failure to establish standing.
II. CONTENTIONS Contention 1, never before advanced by Texpirg in the three-month period since the initial pleadings'in this matter, raises the question why ACNGS should not be-sited at the South ITexas Project being developed by Houston Lighting and Power fand'other utilities. .The contention fails'in any way to specify the "new information" or "new evidence" or." changes in ACNGS" -
,which.underlieithe contention.
e :q ; <+ , 9 4 - , . - , . ;<+.,._ . - - + - ..-,,,-y ,,6~y ,,,,.,.--..,,--w.,,
,b ,,, ,w. n,ww., e
i 7L '. < .
- $ 3- i i
t The' plans'for the STP project were widely known before I December, 1975 and, indeed, had already been the subject of
-proceedings before the NRC at-the time of'the Appeal Board determination on the partial initial decision in the ACNGS pro-ceeding. To the extent consideration of STP as an alternate site is'a valid contention, it was equally so prior to December 1975. Each and every subpart of contention 1 could have been raised prior to that time based upon materials then in the J
- public record. Furthermore, the assertion in subcontention l 1(e) that the alternative site would require less land for transmission lines i.as ao basis in fact whatsoever I
and Petitioner has made no attempt to provide the slightest justification for'this assertion. Accordingly, the 4
contention is wholly without merit and fails under the Board's threshold test for the admission of contentions
'in this proceeding, i.e. identification of "new information",
"new evidence" or " changes in plans for ACNGS." ?
Contentions 2, 3 and 4 are reiterations of Petitioner's original contentions 13 thru 16. Petitioner has in no way cured 4 the discrepancies pointed out in Applicant Response, pp. 14-17.
This group. of contentions remains self contradictory. Conten-
. tion 2. lists certain alleged adverse effects which purportedly 4
will, render the lake " useless" as a recreational fishery. How-ever, Petitioner.again asserts in contention 4 that a redesign lof the' lake -could produce more~ of an environmental benefit with- >
out any explanation as to how this redesign, specifically the 3c
?
'Ib r 2,.. , . . - . , . . . , . - ;. A . .. : w,,~,+ -
~ - - - 4 r ,
F 7 4-northward'extention of the dam,'would solve the environmental s
' - burdens delineated in subcontentions 2a thru 2g. Contention 3, (like i~ts prececessor, contention 16) baldly asserts that a cooling tower is a preferred alternative, without any reference j t
to the impact on recreational benefits. Taking these contentions ..7 as a whole it is impossible for Applicant to discern'whether Petitioner is asserting that (1) the presently planned lake should.be built'if the problems identified in contention 2 are satisfactorily resolved, or'(2) the lake should be' redesigned to meet some unidentified specifications or (3) a cooling tower should be built in lieu of any lake. Petitioner simply has not sufficiently clarified the controversy to provide an issue suit-able.for litigation in this proceeding.
Moreover, Contention 2, upon close examination, is not baced on relevant new informatica and does not proceed from any specifically asserted relationship between the change in 4
design of the ACNGS cooling lake and'its value as a recre-ational facility. There is not, and never was, any question regarding the effluents that would be discharged into the lake. As in the case of the original proposal, however, all of these effects will be mitigated as necessary through a comprehensive lake management program, as reflected in section 7 of' the Summary and Conclusions of the original i FES and the Final Supplement. Some of the discharges will, in. fact, be less than originally contemplated. For example,
,s .. .-., _ . - . . _ . , . . . . . . - _ , . _, _
4 j
, . as noted in the FES (S 4.3.2.4) and the Supplement (p. S.5-14) chlorine releases to the. lake will be reduced from 2100 lbs.-
- per day to.1525 lbs. per day-and the ambient temperature of.the lake will be lower than in the original design, )
i since the heat. load has been reduced by 50% while th'e' cool- )
- 1 ing lake remains significantly more than half its original size. To sum up, it does not follow that a reduction in the size of the cooling lake impacts adversely on its fit- -
ness as a recreational facility and Petitioner has failed to allege facts which, if true, would establish such a causal relationship. In so failing, Petitioner's contentions regarding the cooling lake and the comparative analysis 1
of alternative cooling systems simply do not respond to the. Board's guidance on. admissible contentions as reflected in its Notice and Corrected Notice.
Content.on 5 deals with the combustion of solid waste as an alternative energy source. The stipulation refers to Staff statements in the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for-ACNGS, noting that Staff assumptions with regard R to the viability of this technology are wrong. At page 7 of the stipulation, the parties have attempted to justify inclusion of the contention on grounds of certain developments in solid waste' power generation since the time of the initial hearing in'this proceeding. In addition, the stipulation notes that this option-has'become more viable when compared to only one unit at ACMGS.
i
L .
6-L The. advantages of a solid waste combustion generating l-alternative could have been raised in 1975. Indeed, on its face, the stipulation shows that such is the case. At page 6, !
for example, it is noted that solid waste con 6ustion plants have .
l been operated successfully in Europe "for over forty years."
l For the reasons set forth in the Applicant's Response, pp. 7-8, the contention should be rejected since it is not based upon j "new evidence" or "new information," and is simply wrong on the facts in its arguments that a conversion plant will support 800-1000 Mw (e) production per day. In fact, it should be noted that the' Staff's assessment with respect to solid waste combus-tion as reflected in the original draft and final environmental i
statements in this proceeding has not changed in the Supplement a l
to the FES. Compare Sections 9.1.2.1 of the Draft and Final Environmental Statement with Section 5.9.1.1 of the Draft and Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement. I Contention 6 remains unacceptably vagae. For the reasons specified in the Applicant's Response, pp. 20-21, the contention should be rejected. The stipulation does not identify the loca-tion of the increased air traffic, the types of air traffic j involved, the basis for the bald assertion that air traffic has 1
increased at least 30 percent ," not the information which would '
establish under NRC guidelines and precedents that the I facility must be designed to accommodate aircraft impact. In short, the contention contains nothing but bare allegations l as to changed circumstances without any supporting information.
)
im )
.. . . . - . - _ - .. -,i
i
. . _ .7 - i 1
l For the' reasons stated separately in the Applicant's previously mentioned filing, the contention.should be completely rejected insofar as it purports to deal with 2 unintentional' plane crashes. If the contention seeks to address a deliberate crash, it is clearly a challenge to l l
Part 73 of the Commission's regulations and thus cannot 1 be considered absent a showing of special circumstance. 10 CFR 52.758.
Contention 7 alleges that conservation has not been l adequately considered as an alternative to ACNGS. Each of the suballegations (a-d) raise issues which clearly could i have been litigated in the earlier ACNGS proceeding. There is not,a single allegation in paragraphs a, b, or d to suggest that any of these suballegations are based upon "new information" or "new evidence". In subparagraph 1
c, the stipulation refers.to "recent testimony before the ;
1 Texas Public Utility Commission by Dr. Frederick Wells."
As indicated in Applicant's Response, pp. 8-10, Dr. Wells' testimony incorporates no "new evidence". He simply dis-cusses a theory of rate-making to encourage conservation which'has been the subject of study in the United States since at least 1974. Accordingly, the contention should be-dismissed.
4
. - -. .~ . . . . - .. - . . -. -
l
. . .c . 1
. H l
- Petitioner alleges in. Contention 8 that the ACNGS i
- design does' not provide' an adequate margin of safety in the event of an Anticipa'ted Transient Without Scram (ATWS) l because (1) there will be no. operators with experience in i
. responding to transients and (2) ' newer designs will have.
more frequent transients. . Petitioner has failed to identify
- any new information or new evidence to support this contention.
1 l- The' Staff correctly points out in-its opposition to this
- . contention filed-on September 29, 1978, that the question of the lack of experienced operators could have been raised by petitioners prior to December, 1975, and that neither the 4
l EPRI study on ATNS nor NUREG-0460 are necessary to recog- )
i nize the fact that newer designs will experience more problems i
l- than older designs.
j Moreover, ATWS is. not a new issue, but was identified i at least by 1973 when the Staff's report on ATWS (WASH-1270) i :
was first published. : This is clearly recognized in the ;
!' opening' paragraph of-the Staff's latest report on ATWS in !
I NUREG-0460 ("The Staff position on . . . ATNS has been a a
subject of. continuing controversy since its publication in i-
' 'The Technical Report'on ATWS for Water-Cooled Reactors' ;
WASH-1270 in 1973."). t Contention 8 should be dismissed since it is not based upon any "new information" or "new evidence".
J P
1
= - . - -- - 4 - ,es, - w e , , - + , - , +
,-,w ,.,r,.., .,,,4.,- .,y. ..s-,, -. , , , . . , m p
i '
. . 1
_Pe'itioner t alleges in contention 9 that a. coal-fired l
. plant is a preferable alternative to ACNGS for various economic reasons stated in subparagraphs (a) - (c). ,
l
'However, Petitioner makes no. allegation as to the supporting $
1 bases for this contention that a coal-fired plant is 1
environmentally preferable to ACNGS. The Appeal Board in the l Midland proceeding has made it clear that such an allegation of environmental preferability is required: 1 The passage of the National Environmental <
Policy Act increased our concern with the economics of nuclear power plants, but j
, only in a limited way. That Act requires '
us to consider whether there are environ- )
mentally preferable alternatives to the l proposal before us. If there are, we must !
take the steps we can to see that they are t implemented if that can be accomplished l at a reasonable cost, i.e., one not out I of proportion to the environmental advantages to be gained. But if there are 1 no preferable environmental alternatives, such cost-benefit balancing does not-take place. Manifestly, nothing in NEPA 1 calls upon us to sift through environmen- i tally inferior alternatives to find a l cheaper (but dirtier) way of handling l the matter at hand. Consumers Power i Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), 1 ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155, 162. (1978). I i
Without any allegation-that a coal-fired plant is l environmentally preferable to ACNGS with supporting bases, j this contention is not admissible and should be dismissed.
Petitioner claims in contention 10 that the Applicant "has not adequately demonstrated compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,' App. A,. criterion 31, with regard to intergranular stress,. corrosion and cracking." Petitioner cites.a Staff report:on the investigation of this which was released in
, December, 1975.
l a
~ .. . _ . . - _. . . . _ . . .___
- luL -
+ . .-
.As the Staff points out in its filing of September 29,-
'1978, the Staff report to which Petitioner refers (NUREG-7 5/
067)Lalthough issued in December, 1975, contains a bibliography of references discussing this issue. All of the documents referred to in the bibliography were available prior to ,
December, 1975. Moreover, in S5.2.4 of the ACNGS Safety Evaluation Report (1974), the Staff stated that it has
" reviewed the materials of construction for the RCPB
[ Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary] to ensure that serious t
corrosion or stress corrosion is minimized." Therefore, Petitioners'could have raised this issue prior to December, 1975. I Finally, at a recent public meeting held by the l
Commission to consider the issue, which has been raised in '
contention 10, the Chairman of the NRC observed that this issue has been recognized for some time:
"I would note that stress corrosion cracking has been observed in primary systems piping '
of the BWR 's for some time. I can recall in terms along this line in ACRS meetings in the'early '70's, in late '74 and in early '75 some small cracks were detected in recirculation. bypass. lines in several j facilities in this country, and in a larger l core spray line, I guess, in one plant.
These incidents lead to the Commission's --
one of the Commission's first actions after 1
, it became an independent regulatory agency, which at the end of January '75 was to shut down'some 23 boiling water reactors while there was a careful look taken at
. cracking phenomenon." Transcript of .
.public meeting held on August 31, 1978, .i
- p. 2.
Since this' contention is not based on'"new information" or "new' evidence" it should not be admitted. j i
~
I lT
, c _e , . - - ..%., , m.,,- ..u,~....,-- _m.-. - _ ~ . . . . . - - , - - , . .
A -i
- 'll.-
c
-In_ contention ll, Petitioner alleges that the Applicant I has n~ot adequately assessed the effect of flow-induced i;
vibration on jet pumps, spargers, fuel pins, core instrumen-tation, and fuel. rods. Petitioner cites as "new information" the. facts that feedwater spargers failed at 5 BWR units i
'from 1975 to 1976 .
Flow-induced vibration of certain equipment was
. recognized prior to December, 1975. In S3.9.1.3 of the ACNGS Safety Evaluation Report (1974) the Staff concluded that "The combination of tests, predictive
. analysis, and post-test inspection, provide reasonable assuranbe that the reactor inter-nals may be expected to withstand the flow-induced vibrations of reactor operations without loss of structural integrity during I their service lifetime." I J
Moreover, in testimony before a Congressional committee (March-1976), the Staff stated that incidents of feedwater sparger cracking has been observed "over the preceding year" clearly indicating that the problem arose prior to 1 December , 1975 See, Hearings on Investigation of Charges
, Relating to-Nuclear Safety Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy", 84th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. II-ll'to 17.
Therefore, Petitioner's contention should be dismissed since it is not based upon:any new information or new evidence ,
as required by the Board's order.
1 (
h 7 - --
r* 1 +q av2, og s, w+-a -- r- e1 m , w e-w--w- - s*w<*--c-e- '
-+=r-eie1w*+r* +*+I
. - . -~. .. . -
y III. CONCLUO!ON ,
For.the reasons stated above, the Petition for Leave to Intervene incorporating.the text of the Stipulation Between NRC Staff and Texprig should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted i
November 13, 1978 f( '246 %
1 Jack R. Newman Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. i Washington, D.C. 20036 J. Gregory Copeland Charles G. Thrash, Jr. I 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 777002 Attorneys for Applicant HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY i
OF COUNSEL:
LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, .
AXELRAD & TOLL 1025' Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
. Washington, D.C. 20036
, . BAKER &fBOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza'
. Houston, Texas 77002 i
I l'
3 , , 4 -
-*- m. ..r. , .,,.,.m.. . - . , , , , . - , - , - - - . . . . ....~ m.... m.~ ,.~,..,,,4 - - .r-
U:!ITED STATES OF-AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COCIISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) -
HOUSTON LIGHTI:!G & POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-466 ,
i
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating )
Station, Unit 1) )
)
h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4
'I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Response to
- " Stipulation between NRC Staff and Texas Pirg" were served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage l prepaid, or by hand delivery this 13th day of November 1978
1 1
h i
i i
Sheldon J. Uolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.
l 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 l Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Jerry Sliva, Mayor Wathinsville, Georgia 30677 City of Wallis, Texas 77485 4
l Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Gregory J. Kainer Board Panel 11113 Wickwood l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77024 1
Washington, D' C. 20555 t
Chase R. Stephens Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board Office of the Secretary fo the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- -Commission Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 ,
c:
l l
1 l
1 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 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Steve Schinki, Esq.
Staff Counsel T. Paul Robbins U.S. Nuclear Regulatory c/o AFSC Commission 600 West 28th Street, #102 Washington,~D. C. 20555 Auston, Texas 78705
. John F. Doherty Wayne E. Rentfro 4 1
Armadillo Coalition of Texas P.O. Box 1335 4438 1/2 Leeland Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77023 Brenda A. McCorkle James Scott, Jr. 6140 Darnell 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 Houston, Texas 77074 j Emanuel Baskir Carro Hinderstein 5711 Warm Sprinys Road 8739 Link. Terrace Houston, Texas 77035 Houston, Texas .77025 Steven Gilbert, Esq.
Jean-Claude De Bremaecker 122 Bluebonnet i 2128 Addison Sugar Land, Texas- 77478 )
Houston, Texas 77030 Brent' Miller Edgar Crane 4811 Tamarisk Lane 13507 Kingsride Bellaire, Texas 77401 j Houston, Texas 77079 .
l John V. Anderson 3626 Broadmead l Patricia L. Day Houston, Texas 77025 1 2432 Nottingham 1 Houston, Tex'as 77005
~
John R. Shreffler 5014 Braeburn Lois H. Anderson Bellaire, Texas 77401 3626 Broadmead Houston, Texas 77025 Robert S. Framson 4822 Waynesboro Drive David Marke Houston, Texas 77035 Solar Dynamics, Ltd.
3904 Warehouse Row Madeline Bass Framson- l Suite C 4822 Waynesboro Drive Austin, Texas 78704 Houston, Texas 77035 i
l V .
b 1 o . .
a 4 '
Shirley Caldwell Mrs. R. M. Bevis 14501 Lillja 7706 Brykerwoods Houston, Texas 77060 Houston, Texas 77055 Ann Wharton Aathryn Hooker 1424.Kipling -1424 Kipling Houston, Texas 77006 Houston, Texas 77006
~ Joe Yelderman, M.D. John Renaud, Jr.
Box 303 4110 Yoakum Street Needville, Texas 77461 Apartment 15 Houston, Texas. 77006 D.. Michael McCaughan 3131 Timmons Ln. Allen D. Clark Apartment 254 5602 Rutherglenn Houston, Texas 77027 Houston, Texas 77096 Lee Loe D. Marrack 1344 Kipling 420 Mulberry Lane t Houston, Texas 77098 Bellairt, Texas 77401 ,
Alan Vomacka, Esq. George Broze Houston Chapter, National Lawyers 1823-A Marshall Street
-Guild Houston, Texas 77098 4803 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 11 Charles Michulka, Esq.
Houston,-Texas 77006 P.O. Box 882 Stafford, Texas 77477 i Hon. John. R. Mikeska l Austin' County Judge l P.O. Box 310 i Bellville, Texas . 77418 j
. icf /b f/.LW
.f
, .- , , , , , , ,, - _. , - . . _ - _ - - -