ML19347D776
| ML19347D776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103270569 | |
| Download: ML19347D776 (8) | |
Text
.
s 3/26/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!! MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING C0ftPANY,
)
)
50-446 a M,jM m
)
v q
g; s
gD (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
N' l
Units 1 and 2)
)
pd 6 h'a-o 71991".$
g NRC STAFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES u,h @lf
)
'Q T0, AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF s
DOCU!!ENTS FROM, INTERVEN0R CASE The Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission (NRC) Staff hereby requests that Intervenor CASE, pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.740(b) and in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing "oard's (hereafter "the Board") " Order Subse-quent To The Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980", cated June 16, 1980, and itemorandum and Order of December 31,1980,1/ answer separately and II The Board's Memorandum and Order of December 31, 1980 contains the
-Board's rulings on 1) consolidation of the intervenors, 2) appoint-ments of lead intervenors and 3) miscellaneous notions and other matters. The Boari, consolidated the intervenors for certain conten-tions, with MSE '.seing appointed lead intervenor for consolidated Contentions 22 and 24 and, as the sole sponsor of individual Con-tention 25, for tha+. contention as well. The Board provided that the lead party-intervenor for a particular contention is lead for all purposes, which would include discovery. Accordingly, the Staff has directed interrogatories for Consolidated Contentions 22 and 24 to CASE only, as lead intervenor for those contentions.
It is the Staff's expectation that in responding to these interrogatories, CASE will consult with the consolidated intervenors.
CASE's responses should be the joint responses of the Intervenors consolidated for these contentions and should reflect the views and positions of all of the consolidated intervenors.
.. d.
B10827 0 h
n
.n
/
, ~
fully, in writing under oath or affirmation, the following interrogatories within fourteen (14) days after service hereof.
For each response to the interrogatories set forth below, identify the person or persons who prepared or substantially contributed to the prepara-tion of the response.
The NRC Staff further requests that Intervenor CASE, pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.741, provide copies of, or make available for Staff inspection and copying, the documents designated by Intervenor in response to certain of the accompanying interrogatories within thirty (30) days after service hereof.
INTERN 0 GAT 0 RIES RELATED TO SPECIFIC CONTENTIONS _/
2 Contention 24 C24-6.
In your answer to the Staff's Interrogatory C-24-1, you stated that the term " favorable" means "a cost / benefit balance in which the
! Interrogatories-in this section should be answered with respect to each contention.
The contentions referred to are those contentions raised by Intervenor as modified, renumbered and admitted by the Licensing Board in its 1) Order Subsequent to The Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980, dated June 16, 1980 and 2) Rulings on Objections to Board's Order of June 16, 1980 and on Miscellaneous Motions, dated October 31, 1980 In the Board's October 31, 1980 Order, the Board deleted Contention 11 and construed Contention 5 to i
cover the Inspection and Enforcement Report subjects which Intervenor ACORN specifically identified at Appendix A of its offer of proof served August 29, 1980.
Since the 'first set of interrogatories filed by the Staff on January 19, 1981 covered each contention for which CASE has been designated lead intervenor, the' numbering of the interrogatories in this second set will begin where the first set of interrogatories ended.
__ m n --
n,
i t.
benefits of CPSES clearly outweigh the costs, thereby allowing the operation of CPSES -- conditional upon all costs having been thoroughly and completely considered".
In your response to the Staff's Interrogatory C24-2, you
+
stated that the tern cost / benefit balance means "all costs and benefits of the operation of CPSES have been thoroughly and completely considered and weighed agairst one another."
In this regard, (a) Specifically identify the " costs" which you refer to in your responses to Staff Interrogatories C24-1 and C24-2.
(b) Specifically identify the " benefits" to which you refer in your responses to Staff Interrogatories C24-1 and C24-2.
(c)
Identify the regulatory requirements (including NRC regulations) which nandate that all " costs" associated with the operation of CPSES must be " thoroughly and canpletely considered".
(d) What do you contend the fiRC Staff cast do to demon-strate that all the " costs" associated with the operation of CPSES have been " thoroughly and adequately considered"?
(e)
L' hat do you contend would be required to denonstrate that the " benefits of CPSES clearly outweigh the costs"?
(f) State specifically the bases for your responses to Interrogatories (a) through (e) above.
C24-7 In year answer to' the Staff's Interrogatory C24-3 you stated (in pertinent part) that the term " adequately" means "sufficiently to assure that requirements of NRC regulations will be met... in order to make an accurate cost / benefit analysis, all costs associated with CPSES cust be nsidered".
In this regard,
(
e (a) Specifically identify the " requirements of NRC regu-lations' to which you refer in your response to Staff Inter-rogatory C24-3.
~
==
.4 b
a (b) What do you contend the NRC Staff must do to demon-strate that the " requirements of NRC regulations will be met?"
(c) Define the meaning of the tem " accurate" as it is employed in your response.
(d) Describe specifically "all costs associated with CPSES" to which you refer in your response to Staff Interrog-atory C24-3.
(e) State the bases for your responses to Interrog-atories (a) through (d) above.
C24-8.
In your response to Staff Interrogatory C24-4(f), you stated that " Applicants must identify and examine each and every cost associated with the safe decommissioning of CPSES in order to arrive at an accurate cost / benefit analysis".
(emphasis in original).
In this regard, (a) Describe specifically "each and every cost" asso-ciated with the safe deco nissioning of CPSES" to which you refer in your response to Staff Interrogatory C24-4(f).
(b) Define the tenn " safe" as it is employed in your response to Staff Interrogatory C24-4(f).
(c) State the bases for your responses to Interrog-atories (a) and (b) above.
C24-9.
In your response to the Staff's Interrogatory C24-5(k) you state (in pertinent part) that " consequences of accidents with regard to
-the onsite storage of spent fuel would cover a wide range, including but not linited to health effects to workers, radiation releases confined to the plant site, relatively minor to major radiation releases outside tne plant site...".
In.this regard, (a) Since you state that the " consequences of accidents with regard to the onsite storage of spent fuel" are not limited to the consequences referred to in your responses, what are the other " consequences" which you contend must be considered?
~
...C
~
4 b
w
a (b)
Identify the " workers" referred to in your resronse to Interrogatory C24-5(k).
(c) What do you contend would be the source of " radiation releases confined to the plant site"?
(d) Uhat are the "relatively minor" radiation releases to which you refer in your response to Interrogatory C24-5(k)?
(e) Uhat are the " major radiation releases" to which you refer in your response to Interrogatory C24-5(k)?
(f) What are the bases for your responses to Interrog-atories (a) through (e) above?
C24-10.
In your response to the Staff's Interrogatory C24-5(1), you describe certain costs you state are associated with accidents involving the onsite storage of spent fuel. What is your basis for contending that such costs must be considered by Applicants?
Contention 25 C25-8. Your response to the Staff's Interrogatory C25-2 is in quotations. Since your response did not give the source of the quotation, please specify the source of the quotation.
i C25-9.
In your response to the Staff's Interrogatory 025-3, you state, in part, that " financially qualified" means "able to adequately i
comply with the regulations referenced in C25-2 above..."
In this regard, (a) What do you contend Applicants must do to demon-strate that they " adequately comply" with the regulations?
(b) What do you contend the NRC Staff must do to demonstrate that Applicants " adequately comply" with the regulations?
e g,,* <!
~
b g
j
~-
i C25-10. The Staff's interrogatories C25-4 and C25-6 request that you state what you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C with respect to their financial qualifications and what you contend is necessary for the Comission to nake the finding, pursuant to 10 CFR f 50.57(a)(4), that Applicants are finan-cially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by an operating license.
In your response to the Staff's Interrogatories C25-4 and C25-6, you refer to your answer to C25-2 and state "sstisfactorily answer CASE's questions and prove that Applicants have financial integrity and are financially qualified to operate CPSES".
In this regard, (a) What regulatory requirements (including NRC Regu-lations) require that Applicants " satisfactorily" answer CASE's questions?
(b) b"nat do you nean by the tem " prove"?
(c) What do you contend Applicants nust do in order to
" prove" that they have " financial integrity and are financially qualified to operate CPSES"?
(d) State specifically the meaning of the tem " financial integrity".
(e) What regulatory requirements (include NRC Regulations) mandate that Applicants " prove they have financial intearity"?
(f) What are the bases for your responses to in+,errog-atories (a) through (e) above?
Respectfully submitted, kg bb(Mi*N Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, !!aryland this 26th day of l'. arch,1981
,, / d
~
b
..m..
mm.
- w Y
4 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the flatter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO, AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM, INTERVENOR CASE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 26th day of March, 1981:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Administrative Judge West Texas Legal Services Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Fort Worth, TX 76102 Washington, DC 20036 David J. Preister, Esq.
Forest J. Remick, Administrative Assistant Attorney General Judge Environmental Protection Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Austin, TX 78711 State College, PA 16801 Mr. Richard Fouke Richard Cole, Administrative Judge
- 1668-B Carter Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Arlington, TX 76010 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Arch C. McColl III, Esq.
701 Commerce Street Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Suite 302 Debevoise & Liberman Dallas, TX 75202 120017th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
4021 Prescott Avenue Mrs. Juanita Ellis Dallas, TX 75219 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, TX 75224 g,
C
~
~~
4 h
-n
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Panel
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)
U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 V
T.te qua Liam D[$)id cf 14arjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for I;RC Staff N
w