ML19262C073
| ML19262C073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1980 |
| From: | Irving S LOUISIANA CONSUMER'S LEAGUE, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001280244 | |
| Download: ML19262C073 (11) | |
Text
.i e
g m
a.
- n T' [+
UNITED STATES OF AME!
5 N.k 8
A NUCLFAR REGtrLATC% COMMIc
'M'C o
i yy.J',,'p Af BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l In The Matter Of 1
)
l LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
DOCKET NO. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station,
)
Unit 3)
)
LOUISIANA CONSUMERS' LEAGUE, INC. RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF INTERROCATr'AIES AND RECUEST FOR DOCUMENTS INTERROCATCRY 2-1.
a.
Upon wnat persen or persons do you rely to substantiate your case on Contention 27
RESPONSE
At the present time, the witness or witnesses who will testify in support of thi contention have not been determined.
The initial investigation to determine the existence of the con-e tention was done by the undersigned, counsel of record for LCL.
INTERROCATORY 2-1.
b.
Provide the adrresses and education and professional qualifications of ar.y persons named in your responses to a. above. Identify which of the above persons you intend to call as witnesses on this contertion.
RESPONSE
The undersigned, whose address is stated below, has a Juris Doctor degree from Louisiana State University, in May, 1974; post-graduate studies have included a course in rate setting and public utilities from the Center for Professional Advancement, and a course offered by the National College of Advocacy. The under-signed, as an undergraduate, took several undergraduate and graduate-level courses in physics and electronics, and has been a licensed Amateur Radio Cperator since 1961.
In addition he 1816 016 3 00128 0 E
holds an advanced radio operator license from the Federal Com-munic ations Commission (c.11 sign WASFKF).
The undersigned has constructed high voltage electrical equipment and has taught courses desling with the operation of radio equipment and with radic theory. The undersigned worked part-time for a number of years as an electrician.
INTERROCATORY 2-1.
c.
Identify which of the above persons you intend to call as witnesses on this contention.
RESFONSE See Response to 2-1.a.
above.
IrTTERROdATORY 2-2.
Provide summaries of the views, positions or proposed testimony on Contention No. 2 of all persons named ir, response to interrogatory 2-1, that you intend to present during this proceeding.
! REEFONSE 1
I' At the present time, the LCL is examining credentials in an l attempt to determine the best or mcst appropriate witr.ess or l
- witnesses to testify on this conter. tion.
When a decision is made, this interrogatory will be supplemented to provide the information f' to the NRC staff.
INTERROCATORY ?-1.
Identify all documentary or other material that you intend to use during this proceeding to support this contention and that you intend to offer as exhibits on this c,n-tention or refer to during your cross-examination of witnesses preser.ted by Applicant and/or the NRC staff.
RESPONSE
The LCL has a sLbstantial library of newspaper and newsle'.ter l clippings which describe acciderts which cculd have produced the damage described in the contention.
Further, the LCL 1s attempting to document what cargoes, in what quantities are carried on the rail lines rear the proposed facility. No documentation of this information is yet available.
In addition, numercus data requests have been rade on this issue to the applicant, LP&L.
This interre Atory will be supplemented as further information becomes available.
1 1()16 ()17
n INTERROCATORY 2-4 Identify all documentary or information which supports the foAlowing language in the second half of the sixth sentence of Contention 2: "...and commonly carries cargoes which are flammat.le and/or explosive."
RESPnTISE I
See Section 2.2 of the Waterford III GSAR.
Also see,
{
attached newspaper clippings.
I_NTERROCATORY 2-5.
Describe in detail (noting all assumptions and bases for any assumptions) the " impact (on) both proposed transmission lines" noted in the seventh sentence of Contention 2.
RESPONSE
Assume that the 1975 accident on the Missouri Pacific Rail-road lines occurred with Waterford III in operation at full power.
Assume that one of the railroad trains (out of the estim1ted 18 a day which pass the site) contains several pressurized-liquid tant cars of gasoline, propane, or other very flamma >1e, olatile sub-stance, and that these cars de-rail under the Waterford III trans-mission lines, and catch fire, with flames shooting into the air as high as 20 feet.
Further assume that the fire results in an explosien of at least one tank car and large sections of steel or jwhatevermaterial is used rocket as far as 500 feet into the air.
l INTERROGATOPY 2-6.
Provide all assumptions ard bases fer the
' following statement:
"...the applicants switching station is un-protected and Ic cated in an area which could easily be impacted by railroad accidents."
RESPONSE
The switching station is only about 500 hundred feet from the
! railroad according to personal observatiens. No protecticn of any kind was observed and none is stated in the FSAR.
INTERROGATORY 3-1.
a.
Upon what person or persons dc. you rely to l substantiate your case on Contention 37 l
l RESPONSE No witness or witnesses have been selected to testify on this l
l1ssue at this time.
The information will be pecduced as soon as it i
.becomes available. The contention was drafted by the undersigned sand was based on Louis.ana and federal laws.
I i
1[116i
()I fl
INTERROCATORY 3-1.
b.
Provide the addresses and education and professional qualifications of any per sons named in your response to a. above.
RESPONSF See 2-1. b. above.
INTERROCATORY 3.. i.
c.
Identify which of the above persons you intend to call as witnesses on this contention.
RESPfMSE See 3-1. a. above.
INTERROCATORY 3-2.
Provide summaries of the views, positions or proposed testimony on Contertion No. 3 of all persons named in response to Interrogatory 1-1, that you intend to present during this proceeding.
RESPONSE
See 3-1. a. above.
INTERRCGATORY 3-2; State the specific bases and references upon wr.lch the persons in Interrogatory 3-1 rely to substantiate their views regarding Contention 3.
RESPONSE
Articles 450, 452, 455, of the Louisiana Revt.eed Civil Code of 1870, as amended; Title 30, Sections 2, 3,
124, and 129, Louisiana Reviced Statutes of 1990, as amended.
Podesw Lumber i
l Company of Loui siana v.
Kendall, 161 La. 337, 108 So. 664 (1926);
i S, rate v.
Richardson, 140 La. 329, 7? So. 948 (1916).
INTERROCATORY 3-4.
Explain in detail the type and
,0 cation of oil and gas drilling activity in the Mississippi River which would prchibit the Applicant from making an appropriate demonstration that it can control activities in the exclusion area as is re-quired oy 10 CFR 100.3.
RESPONSE
To the best of the knowledge of the LCL there is no present 4
drilling activity in the part of the Mississippi River included in the exclusion area.
The point is that the applicant is power-less to prevent it.
INTERROGATORY 3-5.
Specifically detail how the activities set forta in interrogatory 3-4 above would prchibit the Applicant from demonstrating that it can control activities in the exclusion area as is required by 10 CFR 100.2 1
-J-a
RESPONSE
Besides the obvious safety questions, and the possibility of induced subsidence, the issue is who would have the authority to remove, by force if necessary, personnel from a drilling rig located on state-owned land in the exclusion area if there exists t
I a vslid mineral lease to an exploration ecmpany, individual, etc?
l INTERROGATORY 3-6.
With regard to Contention 38, what specific
" control of surface activities" are you referring to.
Identify the specific language in the agreement between the Applicant and the U.S. Coast Guard which causes you tc believe that the Applican' will not be able to demonstrate that it can control activities in the exclusion area as is required by 10 CFR 100.3.
RESPONSE
The surface and other water-reinted activities include t
swimming, diving, and/or fishing without use of any " vessel" can not be regulated by the U.G. Coast Guara.
These activities are I
part of the public use servitude which burden the LP&L property l and in which LP&L is prohibited from interfering by the Louisiana Civil Code article cited above.
LP&L's agreement with the U.C.
! Coast Guard is based on 33 U.S.C. 1221 (1)-(9) which is directed I
. only at hazards to vessels, i.e.,
a limited public risk of harm.
f l The term " vessel" has been broadly defined by Coast Guard regula-i tion.
See, 33 C.F.R. 160.11(b).
LCL contends that 160.11(b) is
! beyond, or exceeds, the Coast Guards' statutory authority and, therefore, is void.
See. Reberts v.
U.S.,
44 S.Ct. 411 (1909),
and Dabbs v.
Train, 409 F. Supp. 432 (D.C. Ca. 1975), affirmed, 559 F.
2d 946 (5th Cir. 19__).
LCL contends that the statutory authority extends the Coast
, Guard jurisdiction to " vessels-of the traditional type. e.g.,
! ocean-goirg ships, small craf t powered by sail and/or motors (in-i cluding canoes when motor-powered), but not to water vehicles
, powered by people or the current such as canoes, paddleboats and I
l inner tubes.
Even the broad interpretation of 33 C.F.R. 160.11(b) i dces not include swinmers or divers.
I l
l 1 [3 1 ti Cl i! ()
b Also, the May 5, 1978 letter from the Coast Guard to LP&L conveys no legal authority to the latter.
The Coast Guard retains e"le authority to act or not to act.
The precise language is:
"The U.S. Coast Guard, in its discretion, will dictate the type and degree of control consistent with the totality of the circum-stances which exist at the time of the request".
INTERROGATORY 3-7 Identify the specific authcrity (section(s) and language) you reference in Contention 3C.
Identify the specific authority (section(s) and language) of Louisiana las that you reference in Contention 3D.
l RESPONSE See the above responses for law and regulations relied upon by LCL in regard to Contention 3(c). The law on which Contention
- 3(d) is based is discussed above as well with specific citations.
l
- INTERROGATORY 3-8.
Identify all documentary or other material that you intenc to use durir.g this proceeding to support this contentior and that you intend to offer as exhibits on this contention or j refer to during your crcss-examination of witnesses presented by the Applic ant and/or NRC staff.
RESPONSE
All statutes, regulations, and decisions cited above may be
! introduced, along with copies of same, if necessary.
INTERRCCATCRY 4-1, a.
Upon what person or persons do you rely to auostantiate your case on Contention 4?
RESPnNSE l
Mr.
B. Jim Porter, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.
INTERROGATORY 4-1.
b.
Provide the addresses, educ ation and pro-fessional qualifications of any persons named in response to c.
above.
RESPONSE
Mr. Porter's office address is: 4845 J amestown Crive, Baton l Rouge, La. 70808. His educational qualifications are unknown; however, he is in charge of the state agency that is drafting the plan pursuant to Section 1062 (A), Title 51 Louisiana Re-vised Statutes of 1950, as amanded.
- c..
INTERROCATORY 4-1;_e.
Identify which of the above persons you intend to call as witnesses on this contention.
RESPONSE
No decision has been nade as to any witnesses who may be called to testify as a witness on this contention. Obviously much depends on what the final Emergency Plan includes or omits.
INTERROCATORY 4-2.
Provide summaries of the views, positions or proposed testimo'..y on Centention No. 4 of all persons named in response to Interrogatory 4-1, that you intend to present during this proceeding.
RESPONSE
See above.
! INTERROGATORY 4-3.
Indicate what provisions must be set forth in the State of Lot.siana's emergency plan to enable the Applicant to satisfy the Ccmmission's statutory and regulatory requirements with regard to emergency planning.
l RESPONSE l
l The LCL center ds that the plan must (1) set forth the area that nust be evacuated. (2) how the area must be evacuated, and (3) the risks which will automatically trigger an evacuation.
f The plan must be inplemented by an adequate staff and must be adequately funded to do the required job.
In other words, the plan must be reasonably calculated to work.
INTERROCATcRY 4-4.
Indicate the basis for ycur response to Interrogatory 4-J.
RESPONSE
The Federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
INTERROCATORY 4-5 Indicate the provisions of the State of Lcuistara's law that require the State of Louisiana's emergency plan to be ir final form prior to iscuance of an NRC operating license.
RECPONSE No specific Louisiana law is known.
INTERROCATORY 4 6 Indicate the emergency plan provisions that you belteve are necessary with aegard *o the es acuation of the low population zone particularly with regard to poor persons and the aged and/or ir. firm.
Indicate the bases (toth legal and technic al )
for your belief that each provinton is r equired.
RESPONSE
See above; there is no final plan.
The proposed f&cility must be able to operate without undue risk to the public. See 1816 022
i i
the retoonse to 4-5 above.
Persons who are poor, aged, or infirm, or any conbinatien thereof, are members of the public as much as anyone else, and are not necessarily able to evacuate themselves.
INTERROCATORY 4-7 Identify all documentary or other material that you inteno to use in this proceeding tc support this con-tention and that you intend to of fer as exhibits on this contentior or refer during you cross-examinttion of witnesses presented by the / pplicant and/or the NRC staff.
RESPONSE
The documentary or other material have not been determined at this time.
When a decision is made this interrogatory will be supplemented to provide the information to the NFC staff.
INTERROCATORY 6-1.
a.
On what persons do you rely to sobstantiate your case on Cotttantion No. 67 RESPnNSE This contention was derived frem the published information en the Three Mile Island Accident.
INTERROCATORY 6-1.
b.
Provide the addresres, education and pro-fessional quattrications of any persons narad in your response to I a.
above.
l l RESPONSE At the present time no witnesses have been selected. When a decision is rado, this interrogatory will be supplemented to
' provide '. ht Information Lo the fli t aff.
the perrons identified in INTERROCAinRY 6-1.
c.
Identify vehirb f
la. you intena to eati as wirnerses on his contention ir this
! p ro c ee ai n g.
l I RESPCNST l
Jee the response to 6-1.b.
INTERROCATORY 6-2.
Provide summarier the /lews, positions, or proposed testimony on enneention N-6 u: all porrons named in
'a present during response to Interre/,<*
6-1 that you in "nd t
l this proceeding.
t RESPnNSE See the responre to 6-1.
b.
INTFPROCATORY A7 State the pec i fic tmsis.md provide the
, analyses, assumptions and re ferences upon which the persons named in response to Interrogatory 6-1 rely to substantiate the'.c views regarding Contentien No. 6.
RESPnNSE See the response to 6-1.
b.
g a_
1[116i();?3i~
I TNTERROCATORY (-4 Identify all documentary or other raterial i you intend to use in this proceeding to support this contention j and that you intend to offer as exhibits on this contention or refer to during your cross-examination of witnesses presented by the Applicant and/or the fiRC staff.
RESPONSE
fio documents have yet been selected.
I Respectfully submitted, i
l I
k, l
GTEPHEN M.
I
?!C Counsel for OL, Inc.
l 1601 One American Place l
i Baton Rouge, LA 70825 i
(504) 383-9970 Dated: January 4, 1980 l
1 I
i I
i l
l I
I i
l i
I.
l AFFIDAVIT nF LARRY CAMUEL f
I STATE OF LOUISIANA l PARISH OF CRLEANS I
I Larry Samuel, being duly sworn to tell the truth, deposes
! that:
i 1.
He is President of the Louisiana Consumer's r
League, Inc.
f 2.
His business address is:
l l
144 Elk Place. Suite 12C2 l
New Orl eans, LA 70112 l
3.
He is aware of the centents of the Louisiana i
Consumer's League, Inc. Response to NRC Staff i
interrogatories and Request for Documents and l
attests that the information contained therein is true and correct to the best of his information and belief.
k l
b'ARR/' SAMUEL
- 7 'k G
l SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFCRE ME CN THIS DAY OF i
lJanuary, 1980.
+
/
/ '~
l UOTARY PUBLIC
,f l
i i
i
-to-
CERTfF!CATE OF SERVICE f
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing I
l document entitled " Louisiana Conrumar's League, Inc. Response to NRC Staff Interrogatories and Request for Documents" was mailed on this 9th day of January, 1980 postage pre-paid, first class in the United States Mail to the following:
l Sheldon J. Wolfe Henry J. McGurren Esq.
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- oard Panel Commission Washington, D.C.
2C555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Harry Foreman Lyman L. Jcnes, Jr., Esq.
Box 395, Mayo Gillespie & Jones University of Minnesota 910 Security Homestead Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Building 4900 Veterans Memorial Blvc.
Cr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Guter Drive Oak Ridge, Tenn.
37830 Luke B.
Fontana, Esq.
824 Esplanade Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70116 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory George Trowbridge, Esq.
Commission Harry Glasspiegel. Esq.
l Washington, D.C.
20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Chairman, Atomic Safety and 1800 M Street, N.W.
Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
200036 IU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M. Stevenson
! Washington, D.C.
20555 Monroe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building Docketing and Service New Orleans, LA 70130 Section
{ 0ffice of the Secretary U. S..
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, C.C.
70555 7
l STTP M I I fivING
/
f l
l i
h
{
.ti.
-