ML19340D563

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Answers to Citizens Association for Sound Energy 801204 Third Set of Interrogatories & Objection to Rewording of Contention 5.Only ASLB Can Determine Wording.Supportive Tables,Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19340D563
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 12/23/1980
From: Horin W, Reynolds N
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8012310290
Download: ML19340D563 (14)
v • d • e


Text

. - . - .

4 December 23, 1980

<TT~, . '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N ~

4' \

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6 - g 4 .r33 ) [cl b\

~

LTC 2 4

" ihli!%m ,a In the Matter of ) 'j[',l'i:e ,

) - s TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50- ' 9 /m ; #'

CCMPANY, _et _al. ) 50-44 (Coma: '; Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

~

APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO CASE'S -

THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES -

AND OBJECTION TO REWORDING OF CONTENTION 5 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.740b(b), Texas Utilities Gener- .)

~

d ating Co., et al. (" Applicants") hereby submit answers to '

" CASE's Third Set of Interrogatories to Applicants" (" Inter-

~

rogatories"), dated December 4, 1980. As indicated in the answers below, CASE's Raquests to Produce included in this Third Set of Interrogatories do not requ.se responses at this time.

Accordingly, Applicants will not submit a separate pleading responding to those requests pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d).

APPLICANTS' OBJECTION TO REWORDING OF CONTENTION 5 Applicants hereby object to CASE's' rewording of Contention 5 as set forth at page 2 of CASE's Interro;gatories. Only the Board FAr the authority to determine the wording of a contention.

See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. $2.714. The wording of Contention 5 was approved by the Board in the captioned proceeding in its Order 0 $

6 3 0l 8012310 290 h

of June 16, 1980. CASE has erroneously assumed that the Board revised the wording of that contention in the Board's October 31, 1980 Rulings on Objections. To the contrary, the Board only

" construe [d]" the contention to cover the Inspection and Enforce-ment Reports identified by ACORN in its Offer of Proof, served August 29, 1980. The Board did not change the wording of Contention 5. Accordingly, Applicants have determined the relevancy of the instant discovery requests in view of the wording of Contention 5 as accepted by the Board in its June 16, 1980 Order granting contentions, as clarified by the Board's October 31, 1980 Rulings.

ANSWERS TO CASE'S INTERROGATORIES Each answer is identified by the number of the corres-ponding interrogatory set forth in CASE's Third Set of Interrogatories. .

Contention 5 ,

1. a. No. CASE is directed to the description of the organi-zation in Chapters 1 and 17 of the Final Safety Analysis Report.
b. Not applicable.
c. Not applicable.
2. Applicants believe that their current practices and procedures will enable the Commission to make the findings necessary for issuance of an operating license to Comanche Peak. See e.c., 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a).

3 The Applicants' object to this interrogatory as irrelevant to this proceeding and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

i

4. The Applicants' object to this interrogatory as irrelevant to this proceeding and not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5. Applicants' object to this interrogatory as irrelevant to this proceeding.
6. Not applicable.
7. The answer to questions 2 through 6 were developed under

! the supervision of the signer of the attached affidavit.

8. A determination of the person or persons who may testify

- at the operating license hearings has not yet been made.

' 9. Applicants will permit depositions arranged and conducted pursuant to the NRC Rules of Practice. See 10 C.F.R. 2.740a.

10. Not applicable.
11. a. The worker was terminated for reasons "not related to his actual work," as was stated in the Inspection Report quoted. Accordingly, the matter is irrelevant to Contention 5.
b. (1) Yes. .

(2) Yes.

(3) Not applicable. -

(4) Visually and by tension testing as reqaired by '

Regulatory Guide 1.10.

(5) The inspections were accomplished by the Comanche Peak Quality Control organization.

i (6) As stated in NRC Inspection Report 78-17, page 3, Items ld and le.

(7) Some personnel are and some are not, t

(8) Some personnel are and some are not.

(9) Cadweld Inspector (s).

(10) Individuals still employed are involved in various CA/CC positions, or in other activities at CPSES.

I

_ 4 -

(11) Not applicable.

c. Yes. Although work platforms and safety belts are provided, it is common for work to be accomplished within the confines of the rebar without scaffolding.
d. Not applicable,
e. Not applicable,
f. Yes.
g. Yes. However, area lighting is normally supplemented by lighting mounted on a work platform at the surface of the concrete, which in the subject situation, was approximately 60 feet below the level of the cadwelds.

In a small percentage of the cadwelding activities (such as the subject situation) flashlights are also used to better light the work area.

h. Not applicable.
i. Not applicable.
j. Yes.
k. Yes, as explained above in response to interrogatory 11.g.
1. Not applicable.
m. Not applicable.

/

n. Yes.
o. Penlights are furnished to inspectors to aid inspection efforts in areas where supplemental lighting may be necessary.
p. Not applicable.
q. Not applicable.
r. Yes.
s. Complete, except for a construction opening.
t. Complete, except for a construction opening.
u. November 2, 1978.
v. August 31, 1979.
12. November 30, 1978 through January 19, 1979.

Contention 24

13. Copies of CPSES ER(OLS) Tables 8.1-21 and 8.1-22 are enclosed.
14. No. The Applicants are required to meet the requirement for a cost / benefit analysis in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 1.
15. See response to interrogatory 14.
16. See response to interrogatory 14.
17. See response to interrogatory 14.
18. See response to interrogatory 14.
19. See response to interrogatory 14.
20. See response to interrogatory 14.

1

21. See response to interrogatory 14.
22. Yes, see response to interrogatory 14.

Contention 24(a) i

23. No.
24. The Operating Licensing Application.

25..a. It has not yet been determined whether any person (s) will testify with respect to Contention 24(a).

b. Not applicable.
26. No, see answer to interrogatory 48.
27. Not applicable.
28. No.

l

29. Not applicable.

l l

l l ._ , _ _ _ . . _ __ _ __ _ . ~.,_. _ _ _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ .

30. Not applicable.
31. Not applicable.
32. Not applicable.
33. Not applicable.
34. No.
35. Not applicable.
36. A determination as to filing written testimony in this pro-ceeding concerning Contention 24(a) has not yet been made.
37. Not applic2ble.

. 38. Applicants object to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

Applicants did not raise Contention 24(a), CASE did.

Applicants are not required to explain what CASE intends with respect to its contentions.

39. Not applicable.
40. This information is contained in ER(OLS) Section 5.8 and NUREG/CR-0130.

, 41. See response to interrogatory 40.

42. No. The cost may vary to an insignificant degree with timing but the balance will still be favorable. See NUREG/CR-0130.

/

i 43. Not applicable.

l

44. See response to interrogatory 42.
45. The evaluation of the cost / benefit analysis is outlined by NUREG-0555 (May, 1979).

l 46. The Applicants will comply with applicable NRC requirements and regulations.

47. NUREG/CR-0130 was chosen for the Applicants' revised analysis because it was the latest and most authoritative study on decommissioning. The reason the study preferred immediate dismantlement is discussed in NUREG/CR-0130.
48. The applicability of NUREG/CR-0130 is discussed in ER(OLS)

Section 5.8. No other analysis other than that indicated therein was done for CPSES.

4

49. See response to interrogatory 48.
50. a. See response to interrogatory 48.
b. It is explained in NUREG/CR-0130 that 25.6% is the sum of the percentages of the total cost for all disposal except spent fuel,
c. See response to interrogatory 50.b.
d. Yes.
51. See response to interrog: tory 48.
52. Yes.
53. Not applicable.
54. Yes.
55. a. For a complete explanation of Table 10.1-1, CASE should refer to NUREG/CR-0130.
b. See response to interrogatory 55.a.
c. The Applicants did not investigate nor base their analysis on any decom.missioning history subsequent to NUREG/ CR-Ol30, which was issued in June, 1978 and supplemented in August, 1979.
56. CASE is referred to NUREG/CR-0130 for a complete explanation of the five general areas of effort with respect to dismantle-l ment.

Respect 'ly eubmitte'd, b! ,

Nichol p S; Reyaolds l L) 0. LL ~

William A. Horin'

, Debevoise & Liberman l 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants December 23, 1980 1

l

CPSIS/ER (OLS)

TA3LE S.1-21 (Sheet 1 of 2)

PRINCIPAL 3ENEFITS OF CCMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELE CRIC STATION (1983)

Direct Benet::s Expected average annual power generation (=1111on kwh) 9,300 Capacity of plant, kilevates (Unit 1) 2,300,000 Proportional distribution of electrical energy Excected Annual Deliverv (in millions of kwh)

Customer Grouc ,

TOTAL PERCENT Ind:s trial 1,120 32 Commercial 700 20 Residential 1,400 40 Public 105 3 Other 175 5 Total 3,500 100 Total Annual Revenues $211.036 million(a)

/

Indirect Benef:.ts i

l axes:

Average Annual ($000) l Local State

)reperty)(b) $ 628,651.56 19,743.17 Fedar.tl (C) 0.00 S648,394.73 i Regional Procuct:

! Value added in value of output of businesses in project area corresponding to direct annual wages of employees, plus inducei

, consumption and investment as result of multiplier effect.

(See Section 8.1.4) .

! t) October, 1978 I

t I

i I

L

CPSES/ER (CLS)

TABLE 8.1-21 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Environmental Enhancement:

Recreational uses of cortion of shoreline and waters of Squaw Creek Reservoir. Reduced air pollution due to decrease in dependence upon use of fossil fuels for power generation.

Emoloyment:

Estimated peak work force of 4,500 construction workers.

Nearly 200 permanent operating employees during life of plant.

(a)From Table 8.1-1.

(D) Based upon actual taxes paid in 1977 (see Section 8.1.2.3.1). These values wiil be renegotiated with local authorities annually fcr future

years.

(C)There is no -ignificant net benefit in the form of increased federal taxes directly attributable to tne CPSES project. CPSES is being constructed to replace a corresponding amount of oil and natural gas generation rather than to meet increased demand. Net income from energy sales and the resultant federal taxes, would not be signifi-cantly affected if such cemand were to be met by use of existing l generating capacity. See Section 1.3.1 for further discussion. -

l October, 1978 l

l I

CPSES/ER (CLS)

') TABLE 8.1-22 (Sheet 1 of 2)

ESTIMATED BASIC AND DERIVED EMPLOYMENT IN CPSES LOCAL IMPACT AREA (Based Upon 1970 Population Data)

CPSES Imcact Area Counties Total Somer- Park- John- Impact i ve'l Hood er son Bos o'ue Erath Area Basic Emoloyment Agriculture, Fores-try, Mining 164 337 1,012 847 711 1,069 4,140

, Manufacturing 137 462 2,303 4,470 771 591 8,734 Transportation, Commerce, Utilities 35 60 450 775 39 204 1,623 Wholesale, Retail Services 3 7 38 53 13 23 137 Others 38 439 517 629 165 318 2,106 Subtotal 377 1,305 4,330 6,774 1,749 2,205 16,740 October, 1978 i 

       .. = - . . . - - - - - ,,   - - ,                      _..    -m,    , -          - _ . - - , - - . , . - - - , _ - , - . . , - - _ , - -          - ~ , - < -

CPSES/ER (CLS) TABLE 8.1-22 (Sheet 2 of 2) 

  ]                                       ,

ESTIMATED BASIC AND DERIVED EMPLOYMENT IN CPSES LOCAL IMPACT AREA (Based Upon 1970 Population Data) CPSES Iccact Area Counties Total Scmer- Park- Jo;,n- Impact vell Hood er son Boscue Eratn Area Derived boloyment Agriculture, Fores-try, Mining 9 18 53 45 38 56 219 Manufacturing 19 64 314 609 105 81 1,192 Transportation, , Commerce, Utilities 53 89 691 1,163 133 305 2,434 Wholesale, Retail l Services 266 674 3,781 5,261 1,261 2,258 13,501 Others 243 2,141 3,046 3.700 1,048 1,808 11,986 ! Subtotal 590 2,986 7,885 10,778 2,585 4,508 29,332 . Total 967 4,291 12,215 17,552 4,334 6,713 46,072 Note: Allocation of employment between basic and derived industiies based on percentages developed in Section 8.1.4 Sources: U. S. Bureau of the' Census,1970 Census of Population, " Social and

Economic Character!stics, Texas".

l October, 1978 1

I STATE OF TEXAS ) 

                                  )

COUNTY'0F DALLAS ) homer C. Schmidt, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1 That he is Manager, Nuclear Services,' Texas Utilities Services, Inc., and knows the contents of the foregoing Applicants' Answers to CASE's Third Set of Interrogatories and Objection to Rewording of Contention 5; that the same is true of his own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to that, he believes them to be true. I __ 1 JVJ)"1/T l SWORN to and subscribed i before me on this 22nd day l of December,1980. l he- ,,- /.. Dn =0. Notary Public My Commission Expires: g_ 4/ f/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) 

                                          )

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et 

                      - al.               )                   50-446
                                          )

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric-) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Cperating License) 

                   -          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify     .at copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer te CASE's Third Set of Interrogatories and Objection to Rewording of Contention 5", in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid -his 23rd day of December, 1980:                ,

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive i Board Legal Director l 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.'. Nuclear Regulatory l State Cellege, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member l Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq. l Board Assistant httorney General l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection l Commission Division l Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Chairman, Atomic Safety *.nd Austin, Texas 78711 l Licensing Board Panel-7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke l Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010 i

A Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 

                                              \              .

O - William A. Horin l cc: Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq. l l}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19340D563&oldid=2482204"