ML19332A189

Response to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.Moves for 60-day Extension to Respond to Interrogatories 55-65 Re Cost/Benefit Balance.Objects to Remaining Questions

ML19332A189
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/03/1980
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19332A190	List: ML19332A189 ML19332A191
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8009110034
Download: ML19332A189 (42)

Text

. .

. ,s v ' /

I

w. . .: ' . . .. .. ~ . . .G ,

-~

9/3/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION _

BEFORE THE AIOMIC_ SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

In the Matter of l ., g ,

i '

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES l Docket Nos. 50-445 GENEMTING CCHPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l and 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE l PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATICif j UNITS #1 AND f2 (CPSES) l CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.Thob(b) and 2.Thl(d), CASE hereby submits answers to " Applicant's' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce."1 As requested by Applicants, in answering each interrogatory and in respond-e ing to each request, we have recited the interro6atory or request preceeding each answer or response.

Each interrogatory or request to produce is identified by item number, l

corresponding to the numbers of Applicants' August 1,1980 Interrogatories.

l l

l l

1 On August 20, 1980 CASE filed its Motion for Extension of Time in which to Respond to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce, requesting an extension of time until September 3,1980. In their

" Applicants'. Answer to CASE's Motion for Extension of Time" dated August 26, 1980 Applicants state that they have no objection to CASE's request for an extension of time.

i O@3

. ___ 'IY8 *f P . .

.. . . _ ___ _ . - - - . __- = - -. . - . . -

.s

• 8 "

4 Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness I testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and teating, materials

, daad, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza -

tion of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. 550.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. ,

1. Please state in your own words .the meaning of Contention 5.

10. What do you mean by " Applicants' failure to adhere"? - -

25. Please state in your own words what the term " substantial questions" means in contention 5.

26. Please indicate in your own wo'ds r what the term " adequacy" means in contention 5. ~

/

Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has t

adequately considered the health effects of low-level I

radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achieveable.

30. Please state in your own words the meaning of Contention 23.

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance 'cannot be made because Applic as has failed to adequately consider:

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility

, after its useful life.

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.

c. The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

2

Contention 24a:

66. Please explain the meaning of Contention 24a in your own words.

87. What do you mean by the term " safely" in Contention 24a7 .

Contention 24b:

98. Please state the meaning of Contention 24b in your own words. -

Contention 24c:

140. Please state the meaning of Contention 24c in your own words. -

Contention 24d:

1,71. Please set forth in your own words the meaning of Contention 24d. _.

1 l CASE objects to these questions. For the past eighteen months or so, CASE has been working to r.rrive at the specific wording of its contentions.

Applicants have received copies of all CASE's pleadings in these proceedings and have attended and participated in all pre-hearing conferences. As to the meaning of specific words, CASE's interpretation would be the same as that contained in Webster's Dictionary. At this time to ask CASE to further expound upon and reiterate such wording is unnecessary, unduly burdensome, time-consuming, expensive, readily obtatable frca previous pleadings and pre-hearing conferences in this proceeding, and is not necessary to the preparation of Applicants' case in these proceedings.

g Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the l quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construption permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and  ;

the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the i construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, e'xpansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel ,

for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza-tion of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility.

As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.

2. What is your basis for Contention 57 Please list all documents not elsewhere identified in these interroga-tories on which you rely for your position on Contention

5. Please provide these documents for inspectio'n and y

cop'ing.

. Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has i adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does no't assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achieveable.

(

31. What is your basis for Contention 23? Please list all a

documents not elsewhere identified on which you rely with respect to Contention 23. Please provide copies of all such documents for inspection and copying. _ ,

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility after its useful life.

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as'the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage ,

of spent fuel.

c ." The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

67. What is your basis for Contention 24a? Please identify all documents relied on with respect ta Contention 24a that are not elsewhere identified in your responses to these interrogatories. Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and copying. *

.b.

_ - - - _, _ . . _ _ _ _ __. , _ _ _ ___ _._. ~._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ . . - _ _ _ _ . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _

o, . ..

l i

I

99. What is your basis for Contention'24b? Please identify those documents on which you plan to rely with respect to Contention 24b that are not otherwise identified in your response to these interrogatories. Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and copying.

141. What is your basis for Contention 24c? Please specify any documents on which you rely with respect to your position on Contention 24c that are not otherw,ise specifically requested. Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and copying. .

172.- Please identify your basis (legal and/or other) for Contention 24d and , provide for inspection and copying any documents on which your rely with regard to contention 24d which are not otherwise specifically requested. .

CASE objects to that portion of these questions which asks "What is your basis for Contention 7" During these proceedings, CASE has come to understand the meaning of the wording " basis or bases for your contention" .ts used by the Board, the NRC Staff and the Applicants. The basis for CASE's contentions, in the meaning of that terminology as understood by CASE, 'rs been contained in previous plead-ings in these proceedings and discussed in pre-hearing conferences. Clearly the Board considers that CASE has presented adequate bases for these conten-tions or the contentions would never have been accepted by the Board for liti-i gation in these proceedings. To ask CASE to further expound upon and reiterate l

such wording is unnecessary, unduly burdensome, time-consuming, expensive, readily l

l l

l l _ - . _ _-._- - - ,_ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~: ,

obtainable frca previous pleadings and pre-hearing conferences in this proceed-ing, and is act necessary to the preparation of Applicants' case in these proceedings.

With regard to the other portions of these interrogatories, please refer l to previous CASE pleadings and pre-hearing conferences in these prciceedings.

In regard to Contention 2hb, the Sandia Report is readily available frm the NIC and Ger: nan Report No. 290 (NRC Translation 8161, " Studies Comparing the Greatest Possible Failure Sequences In a Processing Installation and in a Nuclear Power Plant" AB-290) and NRC Translation !k58, " Critical Ccements en Work Report AB-290" (GRS-A-59) were sent to Applicants fra NRC Staff Counsel on5/9/80. -

At the present time, CASE is not certain which other :naterials vill be relied upon by CASE witnesses. See response regarding CASE witnesses, beginning on page 41.

.. s.

Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construption permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness  ;

testing, e'xpansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza-

._,_ tion of QA/QC personner, have raised substantial que,stions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. {50.57(a) necess'ary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.

4. What are the dates of all meetings or contacts held with the other intervening parties with respect to Contention 57 Please specify the purpose of such meetings or contacts, and the results of such meetings

~

or contacts.

Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much

~

that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achieveable.

34. What are the dates of the meetings or contacts you have had with the cther intervening parties with respect to

Contention 23? Please specify the purpose of such meetings or contacts, and the results of such meetings or contacts.

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot l be made because Applicant has failed to adequately considers

a. The costs of safely decommissioning. the facility after its useful life.

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.

c.* The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

_7 l

l

--, - . , . - , ----,e

24a .

70. Have you met with or contacted any intervening party or any other person with respect to Contention 24a? If so, please give the dates of any such meetings or contacts. Also, please specify the persons involved, the purpose and the results_of those meetings or contacts.

i 24b.

102'. Have you met with or contacted any party to this proceeding or any other person with respect to Con-tantion 24b? If so, please provide the dates of any such meetings or contacts, the purpose of the meetings or contacts, and the results thereof.

2hc.

144. Have you met with or contacted any other party in this proceeding, or any other person, with respect to Contention 24c? If so, please provide the dates of s' those meetings or contacts, and the purpose and results thereof.

l 2hd.

175. Have you had any meetings or contacts with other parties to this proceeding or any other person with respect.to Contention 24d? If so, please specify the dates of those meetings and/or contacts, their purpose and the results thereof.

- 8-

.-.3--,--.- - ,-, ,y..,-,,m,- - , , . - . . , , , . - _ _ . . . . , . _ , . , . -,m,,,.w.w. - , . _ , , , , . ,, r y r..,,.,w,--_,.---..._,.#-_ .-__,r--. ,_ _...~.-.-r.._ - - _ _ , ,

. ,. d, CASE objects to those portions of the preceding questions concerning meetings or contacts held with the other intervening parties as being irrelevant, immaterial and unnecessary for the Applicants to prepare their case. Further, any such meetings or contacts, or the results of such meetings or contacts, would constitute work product and call for disclosure o't mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of representatives of parties concerning the proceedings, which is proscribed under 10 CFR 2 7kO(b)(2).

l 9-l

Contention 5. The Applicants' Yailure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the and construction permits for Comanche Peak, UnitsPart 1 and '2, 50, and the the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R.

construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, ateel, fracture toughness testing, e'xpansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, mate. rials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza-tion of QA/QC personnel', have raised substantial questionsAs as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility.

l a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. {50.57(a) neces.s'ary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. '.

5 Have you met with or contacted any otherIfindividual so, please or group with respect to contention 57 identify that individual or group and indicate the reason for those meetings or contacts, the dates of those meetings or contacts and the results of I those meetings or contacts. - _.

Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has

_ adequately considered the health effects of low-level in as much radiation on the population surrounding .CPSES that the CPSES design does no't assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is~ reasonably achieveable.

35. What are the dates c- the meetings or contacts you have had with persons other thanPlease the intervening identify parties ,

with respect to Contention 237 the reasons for those meetings or contacts, the other persons involved, and the results of such meetings or '

contacts. '

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider _

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility~

after its useful life.

b. The costs in terms of health, as w' ell as'the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.

c.

The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

1

- - - - - v ,- --y .>-,.3-,,---% y ,.

2ba .

, 70. Have 'you met with or contacted any intervening party or l any other. person with respect to Contention 24a? If l

so, please give the dates of any such meetings or contacts . Also, please specify the persons involved, ~

the purpose and the results,of those meetings or .

contacts.

24b.

5 .

102-. Have you met with or contacted any party to this l proceeding or any other person with respect to Con-tantion 24b? If so, please provide the dates of any such meetings or contacts, the purpose of the meetings or contacts, and the results thereof. ~

l 24c.

l i

144. Have you met with or contacted any other party in this proceeding, or any other person, with respect to Contention 24c? If so, please provide Ehe dates of those meetings or contacts, and the purpose and results thereof. ,

f 244.

175. Have you had any meetings or contacts with other parties to this proceeding or any other person with respect.to contention 24d? If so, please specify the i dates of those meetings and/or contacts, their purpose and the results thereof.

- - %AV4

CASE ob.jects to those portions of these interrogatories which concern l meetings or contacts with "any other individual or group," " persons other than the intervening parties," and "any other person" with respect to these conten-tions.

This Intervenor has been concerned about the Comanche Peak nucl~ ear power plant since the inception of our organization in January 1974. During the past six and 'a half years we have had numerous conversations and discussions, in person, by telephone, and through indirect contacts such as media exposure with numerous groups and individuals regarding various aspects of the Ccananche Peak plant which could be considered to be "with respect to these contentions."

We have participated in debates, seminars, radio and TV talk shows, and many other activities where people were seeking factual information. CASE has been an Intervenor in Dallas Power & Li6ht rate hearings. We have spoken by phone t

I and/or in person with experts in many fields and with Intervenors in other rate hearings and operating license hearings.

Such information is irrelevant, imnaterial and unnecessary for the Appli-cants to prepare their case. Further any such meetings or contacts, or the results of such meetings or contacts, would constitute work product and call for disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of reprerintatives of parties concerning the proceedings, which is proscribed under 10 CFR 2 740(b)(2).

. +.

Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and '

.[,"

the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.E. Part 50, and the -

construction. practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, e'xpansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel "

for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditipns I (as they.may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza- '

tion of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.

9. Have you , read the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 27 If not, why not? If so, please answer the following: .

a.

Which " provisions" do you contend Ehe Applicants have not satisfied?

b. In what way do you contend the Applicants have not satisfied those provision.s? .

~

13. Have you reviewed 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B7 If not, why not? If so, please answer the,following:

a. Which provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B do you contend Applicants have not satisfied?

b. In what way do you contend the Applicants have not satisfied those provisions?

Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff.has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does no't assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achieveable.

l 40. Have you reviewed the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)? If not, why not? If so, please answer l the following questions:

a. Do you object to any of the information, data or anlaysis contained ,or referenced therein with respect to the consideration of the health effects of low-level radiation? .

l

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please e specify those objections by identifying the sections -

of the FSAR to which you object and the substance of your objections. -

41. . Have you reviewed the Applicants' Environmental Report-Operating License Stage ("ER-OL")? If not, please [

explain. If so, please answer the following questions. ,,

a. Do you object to any of the information contained therein with respect to the consideration of low-level '

radiation? ,

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please specify those objections by identifying the.

sections of the ER-OL to which you object and the substance of your objections.

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be. made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider: .

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility after its useful li-fe. -

u

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as' the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage

/' of spent fuel. ,

c. The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

82. Have you raviewed the Applicants' Environmental Report- -

Operating License Stage ("ER-OL") swith respect to the discussion of decommissioning? If not, why not? If ^

so, please answer the following questions:

a. Do you object to any of the h1 formation, data or analysis contained or referenced therein with .

respect to the consideration of decommissioning in 2 the cost / benefit balance 7 If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please b.

specify those objections by identifying the sections -

in the ER-OL to which you object and the substance of your objections. ~

d. If your answer to a. is. in the affirmative, please identify with specificity the information, data and/or analysis which you contend Applicants must consider with respect to decommissioning to satisfy l

your objections in Contention 24a.

1

- lb -

24b.

114. Have you reviewed the Applicants' ER-OL? If not, please explain. If so, please answer the following:

l

a. Do you object to any of the information, data or analysis contained in the ER-OL with respect to possible accidents involving .the onsite storage of spent fuel?

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please specify those sections of the ER-OL to which you object and statee the substance of your objections.

d. Please specify what information, data and/or I analysis you contend must be included in the ER-OL to satisfy your objections under Contention 24b.

24c .

~

155. Have you reviewed the Applicants ER-OL? If not, please explain. If so, please answer the following:

l

• I

. a. Do you object to any of the d'ata, analysis or conclusions with respect to fuel cost set forth in the ER-OL?

! b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please l

identify with particularity those sections of the

~

ER-OL to which you object and identify with particularity your objections to specific data,

( an& lysis or conclusions.

d. If you answer to a. is in the affirmative, please identify the information, data or anlaysis which you contend Applicants must consider in the cost /

benefit analysis for Comanche Peak to with respect to satisfy your concerns with regard to fuel costs and supply in Contention 24c.

186. Have you reviewed the Applicants ER-OL7 If not, please explain. If yes, please answer the following:

a. Do you object to any of the data, analysis or conclusions in the ER-OL with respect to con-i sidering the cost of waste storage in the cost /

! benefit balance for Comanche Peak?

. r m

186 (continued) .

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please identify with particul'arity the section to which you object and the substance of your objection.

d. P? lase specify what information, data and/o,r -

analysis you believe must be included in the ER-OL with respect to waste storage to satisfy your objections under Contention 24d.

CASE objects to those portions of the preceding questions which ask "Have you read the construction permits for Ccananche Peak, Units 1 and 2... reviewed 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B... Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)... Environmental Report - Operating License Stage (ER-OL)? If not, why not? If so..." These questions are irrelevant, i:mnaterial and unnecessary for the Applicants to prepare their case.

With regard to the remaining portions of these questions, please refer to answers beginning on page 41.

I l

l

I l

contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the ,

construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and l the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness

~

testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza-tion of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facili-ty. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. -

9c, 12, 13c, 15, 24, and 28. What is/are your basis / bas-s (legal and/or other) for your ansver/ response to....

17, 18, 19, and 22. That portien which states "What is/areyour basis / bases (legal and/cr other) for your ansver/ response to. .. ."

Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff.has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive emissions will be as low as is reasonably achieveable.

40d, and 41c. What are your bases (legal and/or other) for your responses to....

43, 44, h5, h6, 47, 48, and 50. That portion which states "What is/are your basis / bases (legal and/or other) for ycur answer /for this pcsition?"

l 54 That portion which states " . . .please identify the bases for your answers."

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

a. The costs of safely deccmmissioning the facility l after its useful life.

I b. The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic l

costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage

• of spent fuel.

c. The fuel costs and supply. .

I d. The costs of waste storage.

1 m ,-> - - - w.e- ,p. , , - - , ,-

w - w - , , - ww

56, 58, 60, 63, and 65 What is your basis (legal and/or other) for your answer /responseto...

24a.

77, 82e, 84, 86, 88, 92, 94, 97 What is/are your basis / bases (legal and/or other)foryouranswer(s)/ response (s)to....

78, 90. That portion which states "What is/are your basis / bases (legal and/or other) for contending...."

82c. What are your bases (lesal and/or other) for your objections...

24b .

109, H 4c, n 4e, H 6, H 8. What is your basis (' legal and/or other) for your response to....

110. What is the basis (legal and/or other) for contending...

138. . .".please specify the bases for your responses.

24c.

141, 151, 155c , 155e , 157 , 159 , 168 , 170 . What.is your basis (legal and/or other) for your response to....

152. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for contending... .

24d.

186c, 186e, 188, 190, 194, 198. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for your response to....

182. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for contending.. . .

185 ... provide the basis (legal and/or other) for your answer.

l l

With regard to that portion of these interrogatories wherein Applicants ask "What are your bases (legal and/or other) for your responses..." CASE must ask for clarification. This wording is ambiguous and vague, and CASE requests Applicants to define what it is asking for specifically.

l l

Contention 5. The Applicants' -f ailure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, e'xpansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions

! (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza-tion of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a) necessary for issuance of an operating 1? cense for Comanche Peak.

11. What do you contend Applicants' must do to satisfy those provisions of the construction fermits identified in Interrogatory 9a. above?

14. What do you contend Ehe Applicants must do to satisfy the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B?

19. What do you believe Applicants must do to satisfy each of the NRC requirements applicable to the specific conetruction practices identified in your response to Interrogatory 16. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for your response to this interrogatory?

23. Whar_ do you believe the Applicants must do to satisfy those requirements set forth by you in your response to l

Interrogatory 827 i

CASE objects to question 23 as being vague and ambiguous.

29. Please state with specificity what you contend Applicants ,

must do which they have not already done to permit the findings identified in your response to Interrogatory 27 to be made?

- 1? -

l

• ' ' =- - e- _,

I

+

I Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has  !

adequately considered the health effects of low-level l radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive ,

amissions will be as low as is reasonably achieveable.

kO. c. Please identify those measures which you believe Applicants must take to satisfy applicable NRC regulations regarding the health effects of low-level radiation.

~

44. If your answer to Interrogatory 42 is in the negative, please specify your objections to the Applicants' treatment of low-level radiation with respect to the ALARA standard. What do you believe the Applicants must do to satisfy the ALARA requirement? What is your basis (legal and/or other) for this position?

46. What do you believe Applicants must do with respect to those design features identified "in your response to Interrogatory 45 to bring the Comanche Peak design into compliance with the ALARA standard? What is your basis (legal and/or other) for. this position? .

47. What do you contend Applicants must do that they have not already done to demonstrate that the Comanche Peak design meets the ALARA standard? Specifically, what are the health effec *.s which you believe Applicants have not adequately considered? Please identify those health effects with cpecificity. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for this position?

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility l

after its useful life.

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as the econcmic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.

c. The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

83. What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak has

-adequately considered the " costs" of decommissioning?

L

-/ *

85. What do you contend Applicants,must do to demonstrate that the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak favors operation of the facility once the considerations you contend'must be made with respect to decommissioning have been incorporated in the cost / benefit balance?

l 115. What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that the cost / benefit analysis for Comanche Peak has adequately considered the " costs" of possible accidents in the onsite storage of spent fuel?

117. What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak favors operation of the facility if the " costs" of possible accidents in the onsite storage of spent fuel are adequately considered 'as you contend? ,

156. Please set forth with particularity what you contend the Applicants must do to demonstrate that the cost /

( benefit analysis for Comanche Peak has adequately considered the costs of fuel and fuel supply.

158. Please set forth with particularity what you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that the cost / benefit-analysis for Comanche Peak favors operation of the facility even if the costs, you contend in Contention 24d must be considered are so considered.

187. What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate they have considered the " costs" with regard to waste storage which you contend must he considered in the l cost / benefit analysis for Comanche Peak?

l l 189. What do you contend the Applicants must do to demon-l strate that the cost / benefit analysis favors operation of the Comanche Peak facility if the costs of waste storage which you contend must be considered are

, included in the cost /b'enefit analysis.

1 1

CASE would answer that the regulations and rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Ccanaission and the statutes and laws enacted by the U. S. Congress tell the Applicant what it must do, not this humble Interrenor.

t 6

e es 4

h

~ .

Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot ,

be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility after its useful life, c

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as' the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.

c. The fuel costs and supply. .

d. The costs of waste storage.

55. What kind of " costs"~do" you believe should be. considered in the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak?

57.. Whatarethe"benefitb"whichyoubelieveshouldbeattributed to the Comanche Peak facility in making the cost / benefit analysis?

59. Do you contend a methodology other.than is currently used should be employed in making the cost / benefit

) balance for the Comanche Peak facility?

~

l Whs t are the criteria which you propose be used to deter-i 61.

mine whether the cost /benef'it balance for Comanche Peak is favcrable for licensing Comanche Peak?

62. List these criteria in order of importance in making a cost / benefit balance. .

64.- What standard do you contend should be applied to the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak to determine whether that balance is favorable for licensing the facility?

c l

CASE believes the costs and benefits 'which should be considered in the t

cost / benefit analysis for Comanche Peak are those set forth in the regulations and rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Consission and the statutes and laws enacted by the U. S. Congress.

l CASE requests that it be granted a further extension of ti=e to prepare 1

more detailed ansvers to the aforelisted interregatories in that these inter-rogatories propounded by Applicants demand scre analysis. CASE therefore moves ,

1 that the Board Brant it an extension of time fer 60 days, in order that CASE might prepare an answer to those specified interrogatories.

i

Contention 5. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, e'xpansion joints, placement of the reacto,r vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC), and training and organiza-tion of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cann.ot make the findings required by 10 C.F.?.. i50.57(a) necess'ary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak.

2. What is your basis for Contention 5? Please list all documents not elsewhere identified in these interroga-tories on which you rely for your position on Co,ntention

5. .Please provide these documents for inspection and copying.

Have you prepared, or have you caused to be prepared, 3 -

< any report, study or analysis on which you intend to rely for your position regarding Contention 5?

If so, please identify the report, study or analysis and the author thereof, including that person's profes-sional and educational background. Please provide for inspection and copying any such reports, studies or analyses.

~

6. Do you intend to file any testimonp in the upcoming hearings on contention 5? If so, who will be the sponsor (i.e., witness) 'of that testimony? Please specify the nature of such testimony and the profes-

.sional and educational background of the witness.

Please provide copies of that testimony. Please provide for inspection and copying, any documents relied upon in that testimony.

7. Do you intend to call any witness in the upcoming hearing with respect to Contention 5? If so, please identify the witness including a summary of his or her professional and educational background. Also, set forth any other infonnation bearing on that person's qualifications to testify with respect to contention 5.

- 2h .

e

-- =--.____m._---w.---.,m. -

_, , . - _ ,_r._ , _ , , , , _ , , , , ,

.: ~

i

8. If you plan to call any witness during the upcoming

. hearing with respect to contention 5, please specify the nature and scope of his or her testimony. Please list or identify any documents which that witness intends to rely on in giving their testimony. Also please state whether that witness has conducted any research or made any studies which such witness intends to rely upon. Please provide copies of such testimony. Also, please provide for inspection and copying any documents relied on in such testimony.

9. Have you read the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 27 If not, why not? If so, please answer the following:

a. Which " provisions" do you contend the Applicants have not satisfied?

b. In what way do you contend the~ Applicants have not satisfied those provisions?

13. Have you reviewed 10 C.F.R.*Part 50, Appendix B? If not, why not? If so, please answer the,following:

a. Which provisions of 10 C.F'.R. Part 50, Appendix B do you contend Applicants have not satisfied?

b. In what way do you contend the Applicants have not satisfied those provisions? __

16. Which of the specific " construction practices employed" listed in contention 5 do you intend to challeng,e with respect to comanche Peak?

17. With respect to each of those construction practices you intend to challenge, specify how you believe Applicants have not met applicable NRC' requirements.

What is your basis (legal and/or other) for your response to this interrogatory?

18. Specify those NRC requirements you. contend the construc-tion practices employed do not meet. What is your basis (legal and/or othe,r) for your response to this interrogatory?

e ,

20. Do you intend to challenge the adequacy of Applicants'

" training and. organization of QA/QC personnel"?

21. If your answer to Interrogatory 20 is in the affirmative, l please specify those aspects of Applicants' training and organization of QA/QC psrsonnel which you intend to challenge. -a

22. If your answer to Interrogatory 20 is in the affir-mative, please specify the NRC requirements which you contend Applicants have not satisfied with respect to l

' the training and organization of QA/QC personnel. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for your response to this interrogatory? *

27. Which findings reiuired by 10 C.F.R. {50.57(a) do you contend cannot be made with respect to Comanche Peak?

l l

I Contention 23. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately considered the health effects of low-level radiation on the population surrounding CPSES in as much

! that the CPSES design does no't assure that radioactive l amissions will be as low as is reasonably- achieveable.

I 31. What is your basis for Contention 237 Please list all documents not elsewhere identified on which you rely with respect to Contention 23. Please provide copies

, of all such documents for inspection and copying.

1 1

32. Have you prepared any report, study or analysis in l connection with Contention 237 If 'so, please identify l by subject and author, including the author's profes-sional and educational backgrouna. Please provide for inspection and copying any such report, study or analysis on which you intend to rely.

33. Have you caused others to prepare any report, study or analysis in connection with contention 237 If so, please identify each such report, study or analysis by subject and author, including the professional and educational background of the auth,or. Please provide for inspection and copying each such report, otudy or analysis on which you intend to rely.

36. Do you plan to participate in the upcoming hearing on Contention 23? If so, what will be the extent of your participation?

37. Do you plan to file testimony in the upcoming hearing  !

with respect to Contention 237 If so, who will be the sponsor (i.e. , witness) of that testimony? ylease specify the nature of such testimony and the profes- l sional and educational background of the witness.

Please provide copies of that testimony. Also, please identify and provide for inspection and copying any ,

documents relied on in ,that testimony. t 3 8. ' Do you plan to call any witnesses in the upcoming hearing with respect to Contention 237 If so, please provide a summary of his or her professional and educational background. Also, set forth any infor-mation which has a bearing on his or her qualifications to testify in this proceeding on contention 23.

39. If'you plan to call any witness in the upcoming hearing with respect to Contention 23, please specify the nature and scope of his or her testimony. Please provide copies of such testimony. Also, please identify by title, . subject matter and author, and provide for inspection and copying, any documents which that witness will rely upon in their testimony with regard to contention 23.

40. Have you reviewed the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis .

Report (FSAR)? If not, why not? If so, please answer l

the following questions: _

a. Do you object to any of the information, data or anlaysis contained or referenced therein with respect to the consideration of the health effects of low-level radiation?

b. If your maswer to a. is in the affirmative, please specify those objections by identifying the sections of the FSAR to which you object and the substance l

of your objections.

41' . Have you reviewed the Applicants' Environmental Report-l Operating License Stage ("ER-OL") ? If not, please explain. If so, please answer the following questions.

a. Do you object to any of the information contained therein with respect to the consideration of low-level -

radiation?

l t

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please specify those objections by identifying the.

sections of the ER-OL to which you object and the substance of your objections.

42. Do you contend that even if Applicants comply with the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) standard the

~

Applicants do not satisfy NRC regu1ations with respect to giving consideration to the health effects of low-level '

radiation?

43. If your answer to Interrogatory 42 is in the affirmative, please identify the applicable NRC requirements which j you believe Applicants have not satisfied with respect l to consideration of the health effe. cts of low-level l radiation. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for this position?

44. If your answer to Interrogatory 42 is in the negative, l please specify your objections to the Applicants'

! treatment of low-level radiation with respect to the ALARA standard. What do you believe the Applicants must do to satisfy the ALARA requirement? What is your basis (legal and/or other) for this position?

45. What aspects of the Comanche Peak design do you believe do not assure tha t radioactive ~ emissicns will be as low as is reasonably achievable? Please identify those aspects with specificity. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for this position?

47. What do you contend Applicants must do that they have not already done to demonstrate that the Comanche Peak design meets the ALARA standard? Specifically, what are the health effects which you believe Applicants have not adequately considered? Please identify those health effects with specificity. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for this position? -

48. What is your basis (legal and/or other) for your answer to Interrogatory 477 Please identify any documents on which you rely. In identifying those documents please specify the title, the subject matter and the author (including his or her professional and educational background). Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and copying.

l

49. What kinds of radiation do you believe Applicants have not adequately addressed with respect to the health effects thereof?

l l

l

50. What is your basis for your position with respect to Interrogatory 497 Please identify any documents on which you rely for your answer to Interrogatory 48.

Please identify those documents by title, subject, and author (including his or her educational and professional background) . Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and ' copying. ,

51. What are the sources of the radiation identified in Interrogatory 497 Please specify as to system and/or process, including equipment involved, which you contend provides the pathway for release of this radiation.

52. What radiation levels do you contend will be caused l

by the operation of Comanche Peak? ' Please specify

where you contend such levels will occur and the conditions'(e.g., operational, meteorological, etc.)

which you contend will be associatd with such levels.

53 What exposures do you contend will be caused by the radiation levels identified in you,r answer to Inter-rogatory 527 Please identify those exposures by population affected as well as specific exposure

- pathways. .

54. With respect to your answers to Interrogatories 51 to 53, please identify the bases for your answers.

Please identify any reports, studies or analyses on which you rely for those answers by subject, title and author (including his or her professional and educational background).

~

Please provide copies of those documents I for inspection and copying.

l Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit. balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:

a. The costs of safely decommissioning the facility after its useful life.

b. The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.

c.

The fuel costs and supply. .

d. 'The costs of waste storage.

\

2kn .

67. What is your basis for Contention 24a? Please identify all documents relied on with respect to contention i 24a that are not elsewhere identified in your responses to these interrogatories. Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and copying. ,

68. Have you prepared any report, study or analy' sis with respect to Contention 2'4a? If so, please specify the nature of that report, study or analysis and identify any documents on which you relied in i'ts preparation. Please provide for inspection and copying any such ' report, study or analysis as well as any documents relied on in' preparation thereof.

69. Have you caused to be prepared any report, study or analysis with respect to contention 24a? If so, please identify 'each such report, study or analysis by subject and author, including the author's professional and educational background. Please provide for inspec-tion and copying each such rep ~o rt, study or analysis, as well as any documents relied on.in preparation thereo f.

71. Do you intend to participate in the upcoming hearings with respect to Contention 24a?

72. If your answer to Interrogatory 71 is in the affirmative, please specify the nature of your intended participation in the upcoming hearings with respect to Contention 24a.

73. Do you intend to file written testimony in the upcoming hearings with respect to Contention 24a? If so, please identify the sponsor (i.e. , witness ) of that testimony and provide a summary of that person's professional and educational background. Please provide copies of such written testimony. Also, please identify and provide copies for inspection and copying any documents which such witness intends to rely on in their testimony.

74. Do you plan to call any witnesses in the upcoming hearing to testify with respect to Contention 24a? If so, please provide a summary of his or her professional and educational background. Also, set forth any other information which has a bearing on his or her qualifica-tions to testify in this proceeding on Contention 24a?

75. If you plan to call any witness in the upcoming hearing on Contention 24a, please specify the nature and scope of his or her testimony. Please provide copies of such testimony. Also, please list by author, title and subject matter, and proyide for inspection and copying, documents which any such witness will rely on in their testimony with regard to Contention 24a.

)

s . -

e

76. What " costs" do you contend have not been adequately con-sidered with respect to decommissioning in the Comanche Peak cost / benefit analysis?

79. Have you performed or caused to be performed a cost /

benefit analysis for Comanche Peak using the costs identified above with respect to Contention 24a?

80. If your response to Interroga+.ory 79 is in the offir-mative, please supply such eualysis for inspection and copying.

81. Do you contend that the cost /uenefit analysis for Comanche Peak would not favor operation of the facility even if the costs identified in your response to Interrogatory 76 were considered? If so, please explain and provide the basis for your answer. ,_,

82. Have you reviewed the Applicants' Environmental Report-Operating License Stage ("ER-OL") .with respect to the discussion of decommissioning? If not, why not? If so, please answer the following questions:

a. Do you object to any of the Laformation, data or analysis contained or referenced therein with respect to the consideration of decommissioning in j,. the cost / benefit balance ? _

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please specify those objections by identifying the sections in the ER-OL to which you object and the substance of your objections.

d. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please identify with specificity the information, data and/or analysis which you contend Applicants must consider with respect to decommissioning to satisfy your objections in contention 24a.

89. Do you contend that any particular mode of decem-missioning must be evaluated in the Comanche Peak cost / benefit analysis?

i

91. Do you contend that any particular structures, facilities or equipment must be the subject of the decommissioning

~

analysis for the cost / benefit anslysis at Comanche l

Peak? If so, please specify those strutures, facilities or equipment.

93. Do you contend that the timing of performing decommis-sioning after the useful life of Comanchs Peak will affect the cost / benefic analysis? If so, please specify how you believe the timing of decommissiong

- would affect the cost / benefit analysis.

95. What is the dollar cost of decommissioning which you contend should be considered in the cost / benefit analysis? Please specify how you arrived at this cost ,

figure? '

96. How do you contend this dollar cost should be factored into the cost / benefit analysis?

24b .

99. What is your basis for Contention ~24b? Please identify those documents on which you plan to rely with respect

'-" ~~

to contention 24b that are not. otherwise identified in your response to these interrogatccies. Please provide copies of those documents for inspection and copying. . ..

100. Have you prepared any report study or analysis with respect to contention 24b? If so, identify those reports, studies or analyses by title and subject matter, and identify any document relied on in pre-paration thereof. Please provide for inspection and copying any such reports, studies or analyses, and supporting documents, on which you plan to rely with respect to Contention 24b.

. _ _ , . . , , , . _ . ,r. ..--, , -. _ ,...,

101. Have you caused to be prepared any report, study or analysis with respect to contention 24b?

If so, please identify such report, study or analysis and the author thereof (including his or her educational and professional background). Please provide copies of such reports, studies, or analyses, including any documents relied on in preparation thereof, on which

- you plan to rely with respect to Contention 24b for inspection and copying.

103. Do you plan to participate in the upcoming hearings en %,

with respect to Contention 24b? .

104. If your response to Interrogatory 103 is in the affirmative, please specify the nature and scope of your intended participation.

105. Do you intend to file written testimony with respect to Contention 24b in this proceeding? If so, please identify the subject matter and the sponsor (i.e.,

witness) of such testimony and giv'e the professional educational background of that witness. Also,

,_ ease identify and provide for inspection and copying any documents which such witness intends to rely on in their testimony. Please orovide copies of that written testimony.

106. Do you plan to call any witnesses in the upcoming hearing to testify with respect to Contention 24b?

If so, please provide his or her professional or educational background. Also, set forth any infor-mation which has a bearing on his or her qualifi-cations to testify in this proceeding on Contention <

24b.

• 107. If you plan to call any witness.in the upcoming _

hearing with respect to Contention 24b, please specify',

the nature and scope of his or her testimony, Please

~

^

provide copies of that testimony. Also, please list and provide for inspection and copying any documents which any such witness will rely upon in their testi I mony with regard to Contention 24b.

108. What " costs" do you content have -not been adequately considered in the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak with respect to Contention 24b?

111. Have you prepared or h5ve you caused to be prepared a cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak utilizing the costs which you contend should be considered with respect to Contention 24b?

l

112. If your response to Interrogatory 111 is in the affirmative, please supply a copy of that analysis for inspection and copying.

113. Do you contend that the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak would not favor operation of the facility even if the " costs" identifed by you in our response to Interrogatory 117 are included 'in the cost / benefit balance for Comanche. Peak. If so, please l explain and provide the basis (legal and/or other) for

! your response.

114. Have you reviewed the Applicants' ER-OL? If not, please explain. If so, please answer the following:

a. Do you object to any of the information, data or analysis contained in the ER-OL with respect to possible accidents involving .the onsite storage of spent fuel?

b.. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please specify those sections of the ER-OL to which you object and state the substance of your objections.

d. Please specify wLjt information, data and/or analysis you contend must be included in the ER-OL to satisfy your objections under Contention 24b.

119. What kind of " accident" do you contend might happen with regard to the onsite storage of spent fuel?

120. Which of the " accidents" identified in your response to Interrogatory 119 do you contend has not been adequately considered in the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak?

121. Where do you contend that such accidents could happen?

Please specify as to the precise location within the Comanche Peak facility.

122. What is the specific sequence of events which you postulate would lead to the type of accident you contend might happen with regard to the onsite storage of spent fuel? ,

123. Do you contend that the accidents. with which you are concerned would occur during the movement of spent fuel? If so, please specify.

124. Do you contend that the accidents with which you are

. concerned would occur during the storage of spent fuel? If so, please specify. ,

- 3h -

. a. .

125. Do you contend that such accidents would occur at any particular time after the discharge of spent fuel from the reactor core? If so, please specify.

l 126. Do you contend that such accidents would be caused by mechanical failure? If so, please specify.

127. Do you contend that such accidents would occur because of material failure? If so, please specify.

128. Do you contend that such accidents would occur *because of human error? If so, please specify.

129.

What is ,the probabilit?' of occurance of the accidents which you contend must be considered?

130. For Interrogatories 120 through 129, please identify the basis for your response and set forth with particu-larity the analysis which you have performed with respect to those interrogatories. Also, please provide for inspection and copying any documents on which you rely for your response to Interrogatories 120 through 129. .

. 131. What are the consequences of the accide=ts with regard to the onsite storage of spent fuel which you contend must be considered?

132. Do you contend that any consequences with respect to such accidents are other than radiological in nature?

If so, please specify.

133. What are the radioactive nuclides which you contend

- would be released by such an accident?

134. What is the total activity released to the environmcat by the accidents which you contend should be considered?

Specify in Curies.

135. What are the radioactive doses which you contend would be caused by such accidents? Please specify in terms of maximum exposure to an individual (specify in rems) and total exposure to the population (specify in man-rems).

13'6. What is the population which you 'c ontend would receive the doses identified in your response to Interrogatory 1357 137. What is the decay time prior to the accident for each radioactive nuclide which you contend would be released in the environment in the accident which you postulate should be considered.

_ ,_ _ . . _ , - - . . , . _ . . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ - . _ . _ ._. _ - _ _ - _ . , . - . -- __A_ - _ _ _ _

l

\

\

l l

138. With respect to Interrogatories 131 through 137, please specify the bases for your responses.

139. Please identify any analyses, including the assumptions i

and conclusions thereof, with respect to your response to Interrogatories 131 through 137. Please supply any copies of those analyses for inspection and copying. ,

24c.

141. What is your basis for Contention 24c? Please specify any documents on which you rely with respect to your position on Contention 24c that are not otherwise specifically requested. Please provide ccpies of those documents for inspection and copying. .

l 142. Have you prepared any report, study or analysis with respect to Contention 24c? If so, please identify

, those reports, studies or analyses and provide copies thereof for inspection and copying. Also, please provide for inspection and copying any document relied on in preparing such reports, studies or analyses.

! 143. Have you caused to be prepared any report, study or  ;

analysis with respect to Contention 24c? If so, please

- identify those reports, studies or analyses. Also, identify the author thereof and provide his or her.

professional and educational background. Please provide copies of those reports, studies or analyses, as well as any documents relied. on in preparation

' thereof, for inspection and copyin,g.

145. Do you intend to pariticipate in the upcoming hearings with respect to Contention 24c? ,

146. If your response to Interrogatory 145 is in the affirmative, please specify the nature of your intended participation.

l 147. Do you intend to submit any written testimony in this proceeding with respect to C.ontention 24c? If so, please identify the sponsor (i.e. , witness) thereof and provide a summary of the educational and

'- professional background of that witness. Please provide copies of that testimony. Also, please identify and provide for inspection and copying any documents which that witness intends to rely on in their testimony.

36 - .

,n. - - , , - , . v. . . , . . , _ , + - . . - - , . . , . . , , , . -,.-_--,---c_,.-ym -w.. ,.~,.e....,.--,.----.,..-.,-.-,-.....,_--.m, . - - , - - _ . - - , - - ~ - -

148. Do you plan to call any witnesses at the hearing to testify with respect to Contention 24c? If so, please identify that witness and provide a detailed summary of his or her educational and professional background. Also, please provide any other informa-tion which has a bearing on his or her qualifications to testify with respect to Conte 4 tion 24c?

149. With respect to any witnesses identified in your response to-Interrogatory 148, please set forth the ies l

nature of his or her testimony thereof. Also, please list by author, title a and provide cop'nd subject matter, and provide for inspection and copying any documents which any such witness will rely on in their testimony with regard to Contention 24c.

150. Please identify with particularity'the " costs" which you contend have not been adequately considered in the cost / benefit analysis for Comanche Peak with respect -

to fuel and its supply.

153. Have you performed or have you caused to be performed an analysis of the costs and beneits of the Comanche Peak facility using the " costs" which you contend should be considered with respect to fuel and its supply? If so, please provid'e that analysis for bispection and copying. -

-- 154. Do you contend that the cost / bene' fit balance for Comanche Peak would not favor operation of the facility even if the costs you contend should be considered with respect to fuel and its supply are included in the cost / benefit analysis. If so, please explain and provide the basis for your response. ',

Have you reviewed the Applicants ER-OL7 If not, please 155.

explain. If so, please answer the following:

a. Do you object to any of the data, analysis or conclusions with respect to fuel cost set forth in the ER-OL?

b. If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please identify with particularity those sections of the ER-OL to which you object and identify with particularity your objections to specific data, analysis or conclusions.

d. If you answer to a. is in the affirmative, please identify the information, data or anlaysis which you contend Applicants must consider in the cost /

benefit analysis for Comanche Peak to with respect to satisfy your concerns with regard to fuel costs and supply in Contention 24c.

37 -

160. Do you contend that Applicants must have contracts

]

for fuel over the life of the plant before receiving j an operating license? Please set forth your position )

with particularity. l 161. Do you contend that Applicants must have available a  !

supply of fuel at a predetermined cost before receiving i an operating license for Comanche Peak?  !

l62. Do you contend that uranium supplies adequate to supply fuel for all operating reactors in the United States must have been discovered before Comanche Peak can receive an operating license?

163. If your response to Interrogatory 162 is in the negative, do you contend that any particular amount of uranium need be discovered before Comanche Peak can receive its operating license? Please specify with particularity your position with respect to whether any particular amount of uranium need be discovered before an operating license can be issued for Comanche Peak.

164. Do you contend any other costs besides the direct dollar cost of fuel need by considered in the cost /

benefit balance for Comanche Peak? If so, pidase specify. -

165,. If your response to any of Interrogatories 160 through 164 is in the affirmative, please specify the substance of your contentions and'the basis (legal and/or other) therefor.

166. If your response to Interrogatory 161 was in the negative, please specify whether, and if so, how, you contend Applicants should. estimate the cost of fuel over the life of the plant for use in the cost / benefit analysis. -

167. If your responses to any of I,nterrogatoriew 162 and 163 were in the negative, how do you contend that Appli-cants are to consider fuel supply-in the cost / benefit analysis?

169. Do you believe that there gust b'e any particular kind of commitment (other than a contract) for fuel for

. Comanche Peak at specified prices before issuance of the operating license?

1 .

l l

d*,

24d.

172. Please identify your basis (legal and/or other) for l Contention 24d and provide for inspection and copying j any documents on which your rely with regard to  !

Contention 24d which are not otherwise specifically 1

. requested. I l

173.

! Have you prepared any report, study or analysis on which you intend to rely with regard to Contention 24d?

If so, please identify such report, study or analysis and pro. vide copies thereof for inspection and copying.

174. Have you caused to be. prepared any report, study or analysis on which'you intend to rely with rtJard to Contention 24d? If so, please identify that report, study or analysis and the author thereof (including i his or her educational and porfessional background).

Please provide copies of such reports, studies or analyses, and any documents relied on therein, for Laspection and copying.

176. Ao you intend to participate in the upcoming hearings with respect to Contention 24d?

177.

If your answer to Interrogatory 176 is in the affir-mative, please specify the nature of your intended

! participation. -

l 178. Do you intend to submit any written testimony in the upcoming hearings on Contention 24d? If so, please identify the sponsor (i.e. , witness) thereof, including his or her educational and professional background. Please provide copies of such written testimony. Also, please identify and provide for- ,.

inspection and copying any docum.ents on which such witness intends to rely in their testimony. ,

179. Do ycu plan to call any witness to testify at the upcoming hearing with respect to Contention 24d? If so, please identify that witness and provide his or her educational and professional background. Also, please provide any other information with respect- to that person's qualifications to testiff with r,espect to Contention i 24d.

180. If your answer to Interrogatory 179 is in the affir-mative, please specify the nature of the testimony to be given. Please provide copies of that testimony.

Also, please identify and provide copies of any j

documents which such witness intends to rely on in I

their testimony.

l

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

l 181. Please identify with specificity the " costs" which i you believe hava not been adequately considered in the l cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak wit respect l to waste storage.

183. Have you prepared or have you caused to be prepared a l cost / benefit analysis for the Comanche Peak facility utilizing the " costs" which you contend must be~

considered with respect to waste storage?

184. If your response to In.terrogatory 183 is in the affirmative, please supply a copy of that analysis, and any documents on which you relied in performing that analysis, for inspection and copyi'ng.

185. Do you contend that the cost / benefit analysis for Comanche Peak would not favor operation of the facility even if the costs identified by you with respect to waste storage are considered therein. If so, please explain and provide the basis (legal and/or other) for your answer. .

186. Have you reviewed the Applicants ER-OL7 If not, please explain. If yes, please answer the followings

a. Do you object to any of the data, analysis or conclusions in the ER-OL with respect to con-sidering the cost of waste storage in the cost /

benefit balance for Comanche Peak?

b. If your answer to s. is in the affirmative, a

please identify with p'rticul'arity the section to which you object and the substance of your objection.

d. Please specify what in formation, data and/or analysis you believe must be included in the ER-OL with respect to waste storage to satisfy your objections under Contention 24d.

LO -

i

p, , * * , ,

What " waste" do you contend the " costs" of which must 191.

be considered in the Comanche Peak cost / benefit balance?

192. Do you contend storage of the waste identified in your response to Interrogatory 191 at a location other than on-site has not been adequately considered in the cost / benefit balance for Comanche Peak?

l 193. Do you contend the cost of waste storage beyond the operating license of the plant must be considered in the cost / benefit balance?

195. For each kind of waste ide'ntified in your response to Interrogatory 191, please identify with specificity the method of storage of those wastes with which you are concerned.

196. What are the " costs" with respect to each type of storage identified in Interrogatory 195 which you contend have not 'oeen adequately considsrsd in the cost / benefic analysis? .

197. Do you contend that " costs" cther than those specifi-cally attributable to storage of wastes at the Comanche Peak facility have not been adequately considered in the cost / benefit analysis for Comanche Peak?.

At this time, CASE has not prepared or caused to be prepared any report, study, or analysis on which we intend.to rely for its position regardin6 con-tentions 5, 23, or 24. our present plans are to file testimony, call witnesses, and cross-examine Applicants regarding each of these contentions, and to para ticipate as fully as possible in the hearings. Who CASE's specific witnesses will be is unknown at this time. When and as such agreements and decisions are made, the Board and all parties will be kept informed in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 2 7kO(e).

41 -

a .

g<. '

In conclusion, CASE would state that it desires to answer all legitimate, reasonably specific, relevant questions posed by Applicants. However, Applicants seek to require CASE to prove its entire cause of action in response to this first set of interrogatories, which proof is not required by the rules and regulations at this time. Furthermore, Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE in many instances are repetitive, would require an extraordinary amount of time to answer and be unduly hrdensone and expensive to answer at this time, are not in compliance with regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 2 740, and certain interrogatories would require answers calling for mental impressions, conclu-sions, or opinions of CASE's representatives. CASE submits that the number, type, and subjective nature of such questions clearly constitutes harassment of this Intervenor and that CASE should not be required to answer those questions to which we have specifically objected in the preceding respc':ses.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, CASE moves that the Board sustain its objections to Applicants' specified interrogatories and grant its motion regard-ing an extension of time to respond to questions 55 through 65 Respectfully submitted,

&s

.rs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk

• Dallas, TX 75224 214/946-9446 9/3/80 1

STATE OF TEXAS )

)

COUFr! OF DAILAS )

Juanita Ellis, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That she is President of CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),

and knows the contents of the foregoing CASE's Answers to Applicants' First

• l Set of Interrogatories and Requests to. Produce; and that the same is true of her own knowledge and belief.

1D& - Ahl M nita Ellis i

SWORN to and subscribed before me on this 3rd day of September,1980. .

w n A A ., ,, s n

(

Paul G. Marco,"Notiary Public l

My Ccanmission Expires: /s////s o (SEAL) l l

l l

This is a reproduction. The original has been mailed under separate cover, First Class Mail, to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccxnmission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, on this 3rd day of September, 1980.

~

'7' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL FOR AN J and 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 ,_ _,

' UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1  :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "CAS3's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, on this,3rd day of September, 1980s Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chaiman David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General 1001 connecticut Avenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washington D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010

~

Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo'ard Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 I

Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing i

Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch c. McCall, III, Esq.

West Texas Legal Services 701 commerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Danas, H 75202 Fort' Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Eart, Esq. .

M21 Prescott Avenue MJ A y,g ,,' g 7g9 gKrs.) Juanita Ellis, President l CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)

O l' . _ _ . _ . _ _ ._ _ af _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ' 'T_.__~__"_~_ _ _~