ML20204D244

Suppl by Petitioner to Intervene K Hooker to Oral Defense of Contentions.Contentions Concern,Inter Alia:Low Level Radiat from Proposed Facil,Storage of Wastes & Transport of Such Wastes.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20204D244
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/21/1978
From:	Hooker K External Citizen/Individual/Media (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812110318
Download: ML20204D244 (15)

Text

• ' '

s

, e o NRC PUBMC D ::UMENT ROOM "  %

.-o t g&C h

'JNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ngo)D%7)

C

{. R$.Y'y.g,fj 7p BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j In the Matter of g S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & FOWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 5

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating 5 Station, Unit 1) 5 SUPPLEMENT TO OML DEP'DISE & CONTENTIONS by Kataryn Hooker The Safety and Licensing Board on November 18, at the prehearing conference, granted me the right to supplement in writing my oral defense of contentions, on or before November 22. This right was also given to several other petitioners. We had submitted timely j petitions more ths.n two weeks before the prehearing; but we-unlike other petitioners- had no chance to see the staff's comments before having to respond to them.

Although I understood I was to have staff's written comments at least by this_ time (November 21), I do not. On the second day of the pre hearing, Mr. Stephen Schinki, staff counsel, told me that they would ncrt be ready before November 21 or 72. Thus there is no chance of g seeing them in writing before I must submit my written answer; I mat rely on my memory of Mr. Sohinki's namus. (I understand that the written form he will send me will be simp.g a summary of his original comments.) I hope the Board will bear this is mind in

. .~

78121103/6

2. - -

)

, l evaluating the adequacy of my defense of contentions.

1 l

This written response will attempt to clarify as well as supplement my i original answers; the written and oral statements should be considered l

together in evaluating the adogiacy of contentions. I have followed l

Mr. 9444 's statement that we may address his remarks win any way we (petitioners) chooses in the written supplement.

As with the cral response,. . I beg the Board to be lenient in judging the adegtacy of g written defense of contentions. At the prehearing (November 18), Mr. 94 *4 remarked (citing a Commission rule) that persons not f==iliar with regulatory proceedings should not be held to the same standards as those who are fnwiliar with pmcodure. I aise cite 10 CJ.R. Appendix A,Section V.b.6: eBoards have considerable discretion in the manner in which they accommodate their conduct of the hearing to local public interest and the desires of local citizens to be heard.m In raising the following issues, I represent not only myself- a person who lives and works some 30 miles from the proposed plant site- but also two since children, in the same sone of concern. .

CCWTINTION I. This contention raises the issue of low-level radiation from the proposed plant, and whether HIAP can prove that so-lied normal radiation from the plant would not cause cancer and genetic defects in petitioner and her childrene The burden of proof on safety issues as well as other issues of substance rests with the applicant, not the petitioner (10 C.F.R. 2.732; 10 C.F.R.Section V.o; passim.).

In raising this contention, I am aware that the IUtc has radioactive '

. g 4.4 s- e i

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

3.

emissions criteria. I do not intend in this document to challenge the adequacy of those criteria. Rather, I beg the Board to waive the criteria for enormals gaseous radioactive effluents set forth in 10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 50 (Appendiz I). Waiver is requested on this sole issue, in this proceeding only, through the application of 10 C.F.R.2 758. Pursuant to that paragrppk , a rule or regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be waived through a showing of *special ciremstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceeding. . . such that application of the rule or regulation would not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted.e Although I do not know with certainty ukat the emissions miesf cri-ginal purposes were, I assume they related to attempts to regulate radioactive edssions standads so as to ensure public safety. Indeed, ag other purpose at odds with public safety would, on its face, be contrary to the Concaission's legal mandate to protect public health and safety. Therefon, y request for waiver of the standad emissions criteria of 10 CJ.R. is based on the special circumstances surrounding this particular proposed site- circumstances that would render appli.

cation of the criteria a public health hazard, thereby mm fying the original purpose (public haalth and safety) of the criteria.

(Please see the Affidavit on Proposed Waiver of Criteria for Gaseous (S e, L.,.e.A a M A -d. '. @ .e Radioactiveiffluents,j t.) The special circunstancee I cita are the ncncompliance of Houston- the major metropolitan ana within the Coaxission's

• sone of concerna.- with Federal air pollutien criteria, couploi with censideration of new information on the dangerous Synergistic effects on humans of air pollutants and gaseous radioactive edssions. The indthC#fk AffMavit states this issue with particularity.

h. ,

I beg the Board to consider these special circumstances as follows: 1. As meriting, by themselves, waiver of the gaseous radioactive omf.ssions stan-dards; and 2., as meriting waiver of the standards when weighed in con-junction fith new evidence that low-level radiation does more damage to humans than was previously supposed. (3e new evidence on icw-level radia-tion effects is cited with particularity in the N ~ ~. .. ".'I] Affidavit.)

Should the waiver be granted, I would argue, under Contention I, that HIAP has not met the

• burden of proof

• required of applicants under 10 C.F.R. (cited hra)frgr*regardin from a 1%g protection Prcycw W.datGe of the publi$

Jou. Wbc neer,e tc brm,6.0.$ '-

genetic damage and death frAlow-level radioact,17e gaseous effluents [

Mese arguments would be based on new information and evidence (see below?).

M.th regazti to new evidence, I contend that it must not be excluded from consideration because the general topic it relates to has been studial for many years; this is as much as to say that all experiments after the first were useless. This assertion is absu::ti. Nor must a topic be ex-cluded frem consideration in this proceeding because it g have been considered in the original proceedings, suspended in 1975. Nothing in the Corrected Notice of Intervention Procedures (h3 F.R. h0328) indicates that this is a requirement. "'he  :,tice ttates only that new infornation and changes in the plant precosal_ be addressed in petitions to intervene.

e

. .: . . . . . ' . *3 . , .. ..

This unsubstantiated assertion by both % SchirM and applicant's

~

• Sone of the sources te be usedi Karl Morgsn, " Cancer and icw Level Ionizing Radiation," The Bulletin (medical public.ation), September 1978, p. 30.

• Cancer Cases Spark Goncern About Radiation; Scientists Debate ' Safe' Li.mit.. for U.S. Workers,' Wa'1 Street Journsi, July 11, ic78.

6 So 1 I

lawyers is based on a nisapplication of the doctrine of laches, in effect to hamper Houstonians in the exercise of their legitimate rights in these proceedings. Mr. Schinki states ( FNRC.' Staff 'Respense to Tex PIRG's motion for Modification,e'etc., November 16,1978: *That doctdne (laches) has always prevented anyone who could have exercised his dghts in a thely manner and didn't from seeking to litigate those natters at a much later tine.9 I would like to bring to Mr. Schinki's attention the reality of the lives of petitioners such as myself, Ann Wharton, and other petitioners of our acquaintance. We do not read the Federal Register. 'Je never will. Publication of notice in the Federal Register is ineffective in notifying people of nuclear power plant hearings.

here was insuffielent play in local newspapers to adegtstaV notify people; I am basing this Assertion on the fact that Ann Wharton and I and others of our acquaintance, who all read newspapers daily, learned of the project only through the phone es11 of a friend. A whole lot of people didn't know about the original hearing withem the very hearing {

that is the underphn4ng of Mr. Schinki's effort to exclude issues from this one. Only the Texas Attorney General intervened. Probably someone phoned him.

Also with respect to new evidence, such evidence : ay be cited touching issues considered in the partial initial decision, pursuant to h3 F.R.

h0328 (Corrected Notice of Incervention Procedures). Se Notice states:

• The Appeal Board's memorandum azgi oztier of December 9,1975, AIAB-302, l 2NRc 853, in affir: sing the Iicensing Board in its partial initial decision, stated that those findings by the Licensing Board in its partial initial decision are subject to later revision shocid further develop:nents er  ;

6e .

new information warrant.*

Should waiver of the NRCf s radioactive gaseous emissiens criteria be denied, I would argue that it is doubtful that HIAP can meet the twden of proof required (10 C.F.R. suora) in meeting those cri' ria. Indeed, I M Ce,nlW tL/

would conteni that it is highly unlikely that Es'can meet the criteria, because of new evidence (unavailable prior to 1976) of increased, accel-ersted and unexpected growth in population density in the site area southwest of Houston. Lack of time prevents me from detailing these ar-guments here, but I shall try to meet the Corm:ission's requirement of

• reasonable specificitya by citing some of the stud $es I would use and the arguments I would draw from them, related to the new plant proposal.

Growth Options, published by the Rice Center for Conr:anity Design in thy 1978 (under the direction of Charles R. Sevino) is an intensive study of growth pttems in Ecuston and its environs. Aveng its findings ula the highest rate o growth in the region studied was southwest of Houston, in the area of the proposed plant; population increases in the region as a

• ole are accelerating; the rate of increase of vehicular traffic in

\ bus) the region as a whole is accelerating. I . show with charts, at the full hearing, the gross differences in population projections in the Rico Study and those Gaedrorig4 =117 in approving the site for the pro-posed new plant. A showing of sufficient population density would alter HIAPrs ability to neet the man-rem requirements of 10CFR for gaseous radioactive emissions (citation supra) on its face. Accelerated growth in population density will be irtiantiated by roads- many of them planned since the original site approval- to be built in the site area. The planning dates and proposed locat&on of these roads, some of them under construction now, are given in the Twenty Year Program published by the y ey - ~ , , . ~ ,

l 7e State Department of Highways,1978, which I would cite in detail at the full hearings. Assuming a showing that Fl&P is unable to meet the Commission's criteria for radioactive gaseous ordssions, I would argue that the recpested license must be denied.

CCNTENTION 2. This contention raises the issue of problems in assuring the integrity of the applicant's proposed nov 3:aergency Q10 Core suara C.F.R. citation Cooling),)g Systeet. Assuming the burden of proof to be on the applican)DD whether HI&P can pwre, that the ECCS in the proposed new plant is virtually failure proof. Because of the unimaginably terrible conse-quences of a core amit the unavoidable outcome of failure of the ECCS j

.- no expert in power plant operations has publicly stated that anything - l 1

less than near-perfection is reqaired of the ECCS, Se proposed sitors i

proximity to Houston, one of the five fastest-growing and moat densely l populated cities in the United States, renders this issue of crucial importance. I therefore beg the Board to admit this issue for full consideration in the hearing, under the Board's mandate to consider the health and safety of the public (10 C.F.R.2.10h.b.1.iv) and pursuant to its broad discretionary powers in the conduct cf hearings (10 C.F.R.- Appendix A, Section 7.b.6).

Under this contention, my major argument will be that EI&P has not complied with NRC criteria with respect to proven safety and quality assurances of a major component. For example, the Commission's citerion 10 C.F.R.50.h5.a.1 is not adhered to. That regulation states rECCS cooling performance shall be calcuk ted in accordance wLth an accept-abIs evaluation model, and shall be calculated for a number of pos-

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

8e tulated loss-of-coolant accidents of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the entire spectrum of loss-of-coolant accidents is covered _.m (Enphasis added.)

Ist HI/P, seeHng to demonstrate its qualificatiens for operating a ratelear power plant through the production of endless roams of material at ratepayers8 expense, gives this thoughtful answer to the issue of core melt (included unior the NR0ts class 9* accident description):

= Net considered.* (Firal Supplement to the Final Ecrironmental Statenent, s.7-1.)

he implications of HLkPts response of *Not considered

• to pbstulated accidents that the NRC rates ec lass 9* (most serious) becene fdliy apparent when one considers the concern with Wich' Congress viewed such possibilities. It passed the Price-Andenen Act to insure nuclear power plant opentors against liability for property damage, loss of life and injury in the event of a major power plant accident, to a d e of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Act was passed because private i

insurance companies, considering the risks of such accidents too great, refused to provide insurance against them. The NRC has incorporated the Price-Anderson Act into its regulations (10 C.F.R. Part h0).

Nor does the more volume of data provided by HIAF provide assurance of cot:cliance utth the NRC's regulation calling for testing of components.

Many of the con cooling system perconents appear to be tested L7 the prime contractor for those comocnents- General Electric, (See, for

9.

example the . Preliminary. Safety Analysis Report, 1.5.1.2.5.) Testing of safety components by the prime contractor for those components is prima facio a gross conflict of interest casting doubt both on the validity of test results themselves and the qualifi-cations of HI&P to operate a nuclear power plant. EL&P's delegation of tests involving pressure-suppression containments to the manufacturer, 03 (pgg. .1.5.1.2.5) easts the gravest doubt on the integrity of the system when considered in conjunction with controversy within the AEC as to its safety. (See the memo of September 20, 1972, from Dr. Stephen Hanauer, a senior member of the AEC regulatory staff, to other staff members. He stated his belief that the disadvantages of pressure-suppression containments over other containments were apreponderante and recommended discouraging their use. Joseph Hendrie, another staff member, wrote in response that to ban such containments scould well be the end of nuclear power

• and *would create more turmoil than I can stand thinking about.m The Union of Concerned Scientists' press release of 9/18/78.) I might add that although 'this particular contzeversy originated well before 1975, pressure-suppression containment problems have still not been satisfactorily resolved. New evidence in this regard has been published in the URCf s Annual Report 1977pp.19-20 citing changes :sde  !

! and tests to be done on GE pressure-suppression containments. The Report notes that no Mark III containment (Allons Creek type) is yet operational, and seeks to assuage doubts as to its safety wl.th the vague and short comments

• Changes will be made in all containments-- whether of the Mark I, II or III type- if tests and analyses indicate their structural capability is deficient.* It is quite late in the day to make such an unspecific,

' unsubstantiated assertion with regard to the Allens Creek Project. Ihe lack of safety assurance for the containment system of the new model plant implied in .the sbove quotation indicates the requested license

10.

should be denied, pursuant to the Board's mandate to consider issues of public safety and health (10 C.F.R. citation suers ).

I would like also to argue that HIhybas not met the NRC's criteria for "As used quality control, as set forth'in 10 CJ.R. Part .#0, Appendix B: '

in this appendir, ' quality assurance' cogrises all those planned and systemic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform satisfactoril$ in service.m This argument would be made in conjunction with evidence cited g that HI&P, in its components testing program, used as the tester to nanufacturer of the parts tested, a prima facio conflict of interest casting doubt on test results.

For this reason also the license request should be decied.

Nor does HIAF conply wi.th the NRCf s requirement that it present adequate plans to cope with emergencies.10 CJ.R. Part 50, Appendix E, states:

1rrhe Prebinary Saf6ty Analysis Report shall contain suffisient infor-l l

rnation to assure the cogatibility of p oposed emergency plans with with respect f acility design features, dLte layout, and site location tto such considerations as access route, surrounding population distribu-tions and land use,* Dne esetion cites these and other items to be de-scribed nas a minimum *: the organization for coping with emergencies; arrangements with local, state and Federal governmental agencies; and measures to be taken within and ottside the site boundary.w I was urable to locate a discussion of such plans fer dealing with the most serious postulated emergencies in HIAP's PSAR. ~herefore, the license should be denied.  :

s COUTENTION 3 asks .dtether the applicantis new plant proposal contains

11.

a ::;sthod of storing its radioactive vastes in the Houston area, free of leakage, for 500,000 years. Erperts agree that this is the length of time that plutonium, one of the most poisonous substances on the planet, vill remain lethal. Applicant intends either long-term or short-term (pending transportation elsewhere) storage of radioactive unstes at the site; in either situation, the site will , c'ontain stored '

i wastes moet of the time, assuming it rer. gins operational. As noted above, pursuant 'to 10 C.F.R. the burden of proof on safety issues is on the applicant, not the petitioner. Absent such assurances fron applicant, licenae should at least be postponed pending resolution of certain safety issues involving reactor wastes by the NRC. The NRC8s Annual

(% ~. studies ;# be unde:ta2en to Report,1977,/Fecomended that t.

widentify and evaluate the relative safety and envirormental inacts of alternative low-level waste-disposal methods. . . .* This wou2d seem to be a shaky technical background for the undertaking of storage of radioactive vaster at a site for about 30 years (treseidenbts apply aise to changi.ng batches of waste shipped elsewhere every three months, each batch replaced by another). It cannot be determined whether applicant would meet the !EC criteria for waste disposah until dose criterin haTo been formilated to the satisfaction of the 120.

CONTENTION h* raises the issue of transportation of radioactive wastes to another site for dieposal. My concerns are that the p rticularly stringent reccrd of safety reqaired for transpoding such wastes from the proposed site area could not be achieved.

• This contention was originally :::isnumbered 5.

12.

Under this centention, I would challenge the myylicant to =est the burden-of-proof requirenent of 10 GR Section 7.c in the area of safe transport of radioactive wastes) the requirement should be not in conjunction with new information, nonexistent before 1976, regarding additional highways to be built in the rite aren, unexpected and accel-ersting population density in the area with accompanying increased vehicular traffic, and increased projections for air traffic in the o' " } \ % .' )

area. Petitioner is not required to show how tbsof ::1ght pose hazards in applicant's transportation of radioactive wastes. Rather, the applicant, under burden-of 9 roof requirements, =ust demonstrate that the additional hazards (in conmon sense) these new conditions pose will not hamper safe transportation along our Texas highways. Altacagh lack of tine pr-olsdes discussica of these arguinents in Ersater detail here, I will cite sone of the source raterials that would be used to substantiate this con-tention5 'Ihese sources all contain new information, unavailable prior to 1976, of vital relevance to the new plant preposal

1. Growth Options, Charles Sevino et al., Rice Center for Com=un.ity Design, Houston, Texas,1978. A study of grcwth patterns in Houston and its surrounding area. ~he study shows, among other things, the fo11cwing:

the highest rate of population growth in the region studied was southwest of Houst,on, in the area of the proposed plant; population increases in the region as a whole ar- accelerating; the rate of ine:-ense of vehicular traffic in the regicn as a whole is accelerating.

2. Twenty Year Program, published by the hag- : h !LE'N  :' y W p I

1978. Shows new highways, rAny in planning only after 1975, to te built ,

in the vicinity of the proposed site. The inpetus for the upsurge in i

AT.

highway construction plans uns a large grant of money by the Texas State 14gislature to the State Department of Highways in 1977.

3. Hyouston-Galveston Regional Transportation Study. July 1978. The study presents new information in showing accelerating vehicular traffic over the i st three years, un:nticipated before 1976. A startling finding of the study is that the increased vehicular mileage is fairly evenly divided between urban and rural areas- and there were nearly *2 2 billion vehicle trips in the area studied durLng 1977. Common sense indicates that this would pose an unanticipated burden on applicant in the transport of wastes; unanticip ted because original population projections published by applicant both before and after 1975 are sharply at vsriance with these projections and those of the Houston Chamber of Concerce (published yearly in bulletin form), as well as those of the aforementioned Twenty har Program.

h. Population projectiens of the Houston Chamber of Commerce,1978 issuance, j for the Houston /Galveston Standani Consolidated Statistical Area (projec-tions for this area to 1990), at variance with population projections l ised by applicant. I regret that I an unable to give a detailed analysis of HIIS's original projections and how they are at fault, but the ex-tremely zushed schedule of these hearings precludes anything other than I a statement made- wwlth reasonable specificity.* Further arg/ar.ent woul:1 come at the full hearing. I would wish, however, to cite as an example of HI& Pts faulty anticipation of growth in population density in the zone of eencern 3!GP M2;.in 1,he Final Environmental Statement'..subad.tted by MIAF in support of approval of this particular site in 197h. The table projects

" cumulative populations

• within 50 m es of the proposed site as being l

l

ik.  !

. s

, .. _: 2 \

7,710,000 by 1990 Sales and Marketing Wagazine,:ts a story printed in the Chronic 1s October 31, 1978, quoted a survey predictin;; greuth..of Houston Flene., to a population of 2,SS7,0C0 t71982. Ihe Ecuston Ch:nber of C ::t.erce t s  ;

1 cu: rent projection of. population for Earris County alone for 1985 is

,< a;,

7 g - v . c..-

.c g_ ,

2,932,000.tObviously, when Fort Bend County, Austin County, Wharton, and other counties within the 50-mile zons of concern are addwi to the Chamber of Corcerce projections, the ori$nal demographic projections used in 1

support of original site approval are ;ressly inaccurats. l COICDCICM 5 reopens the issue of the suitability of the Allens Creek site. A reopening of this issue is countenanced by the NRC itself. The Partial Initial Decision (h3 F.R. h0328) states that the findinga have demonstrated no reason why the site is not suitablez bat that "the Appeal Boardts =reherru memoranium and order af December 9,1975, in affirming the Licensing Board in its partial initial decision, stated that these findings by the licensing Board in its p rtial initial decision are subject to later revision should further developments or new informatien warrant." Thus even the Allens Creek site is not a g judicata.

Although I wish to retain site suitability as an issue separate from my pther contentions, so thatt possible rejection of other contenticns will not forecloss :7 raising this issue, I will use sources cited above and others to show that population, transportation, distance from najor population cer' r, ani other factors calculated in suppert of tkg initial site app:m 2re inaccurate, Se license should therefore be denied.

41rnumbered Contenticn 6 in original submissione

15.

Again, I request the Board's leniency in its judgment of these rsmarks made i- defsnse of ::qr cententions, due to brevity of time, lack of effective access to many important natorials, and petitioner's unfamiliarity with Co= mission procedure.

Respectfully submitted, e,f

^, c, e-

- %N.' 7, Kathryn Hooker ( ..'a' O gf<J@%v o

U November 21, 1978 g ,,

i cQ.V y sp CERTFICATE OF SL'TTICE I hereby certify titt copies of ::7 Supplement to Oral Defense of Contentions (Docket 50-h66) have been served on the following perscus through deposit in the United States = ail, first classp l this 21st day of November, 1978.

Richard lowerre, Esq.

Sheldon J, Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Aset. Attorney General l Atomic Safety and licensing Board '

P.O. Eat 125h8 Panel Capitol Station U.S. thic1.. r Regulatory Comr.dssion Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D M . 20555 Robert lowenstein, Esq. J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.

Lowenstein, Reis, Mewpam and Axelrad 3:hcr and Botts 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.E 1 Shell Plaza Houston, .czas 77002

~,Ashington, D.C. 20037 Docketing and Services Eranch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission mahington,D.C.20555 Respectfully, j xerox to: l Rep. Mickey Leland l Rep. Ron Waters l Enrold Scarh tt, Housten Post _ 4 '

- 'e ' -

Chairman, Eeuse Commit.T,ee on Interior r

i s and Insular Affairs, Subco=nti,ttee Kathryn Hooker on Energy and the Environment