ML20003C147
| ML20003C147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1981 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003C137 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102260707 | |
| Download: ML20003C147 (10) | |
Text
,, ,
... .1 ' ._
. ._ . ._ z.
ks. LATED CORRESPONDENCE 2/17/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR hEGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATO(IC SAFETY AED LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of l l Docket Nos. 50-kk5 APFLICATICE OF TEXA8 ITfILITIES l and 50-kk6 GERMATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l .
OPERATING LICEEBE FOR CGIANCHE l @
PEAK STEAM ELECTEIC STATION [
UNITS fl AID #2 (CPSES) [ 00CKETED g\
USNRC ,
FEB i g g 8f -
CASE'S' ANSWERS TO NRC STAFF'S ~
'IE 0
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES q I .N kretary '
AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION /
OF DOCLHENTS j g COMES NO CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), hereinafter referred -
to as CASE, Intervenor herein, and files this, its Answers to NRC Staff'e First 1
Set of Ir:,;errogatories and Request for Production of Documents , dated January 19, 1931.
ANSWERS I. GENERAL INTERROGATORIES ';
G-1. (a) Probably. Unknown at tnis time.
(b) Probably. Unkncvn at this time. Our present plans are to file testimony, call vitnesses, and cross-examine Applicants regarding 'each of CASE's contentions, and to participate as fully as possible in the hearings.
Nho CASE's specific witnesses vill be is unknown at this tine. When and as such agreements and decisions are made, the Board and all parties vill be kept informed in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 2 740(e).
See ansvers 7k,106, ik8,179 of 12/1/80 SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS 1
On February 3,1981, CASE contacted Marjorie Rothschild, Counsel for NRC Staff, to request a weeks delay in answering the Staff's First Set of Interrogatories, until February 17, 1981; NRC Staff Counsel had no objections. CASE then contacted Beard Chairman Valentine Deale, who granted the delay.- See CASE's February 9 confirming letter to Marjorie Rothschild. This delay was necessary because of illness of CASE's primary representative, which in turn necessitated a delay in responding to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories which was filed on February 6 and delayed CASE's response to the' Staff's Interrogatories.
!8102260707-
l l
l TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE.
(c) Probably. Unknown at this time.
G-2. Not applicable at this time. We will update later.
i G-3 See answer to G-2.
G k. (a) Applicants' Emergency Plan; Applicants' responses to interrogatories and other filings in these proceedings; NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 and related documents. NRC Staff already has all of these documents.
! See answer to G-1; we do not know what documents our witnesses win use.
(b) 2k(a): Applicants' Envirornnental Report (ER), Amendment 1; NURED/
CKe0130 and Addendum; previous CASE pleadings. NRC Staff already has all of these documents. We do not know what documents our witnesses win rely cn; see answer to G-1, 2h(b): Sandia Report'; Ger=an Report No. 290; NRC Tranalation #458,
" Critical Cduuments on Work Report AB-290"; Applicants' FSLR; previous CASE pleadings. We do not know Vhat documents our witnesses win rely on; see answer to G-1. Staff already has au these doeur. ants.
2h(c): Applicants' ER (OLS); Texas Utilities Company Prospectus, 1/23/79 through the present (see CASE 5/7/79 Contentions, pages 25 and 26, item 4). We do not know what documents our witnesses win rely on; see answer to G-1. Staff already has these documents, except perhaps for TU's Prospectus, which we vill make available for copying upon request (however, we assume it would be faster and simpler for Staff to obtain copies from Applicants).
l 2k(d): See CASE 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, page 21, last paragraph, through page 25, and CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions, page 26, item 5, and page 27 The House Report " Nuclear Power Costs" win be made available l for inspection and copying upon request. We do not know what docuinents
~
our. witnesses win rely on; see answer to G-1.
(c) See Answer 95-2, page 7, of CASE'S' 2/6/81 ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE. It is, unknown what documents our witnesses will rely on; see answer to G-1. Testimony from the DP&L, TP&L & TESCO rate hearings win be made available for I inspection and copying upon request (at this time CASE does not have copies of TP&L & TESCO testimony; however, it is available _fzom the
- Texas Public Utilities Commission).
G-5 (a) See CASE's 2/9/81 MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF RESPONSES TO INIERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTENPION 22 PENDING RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFOINATION FROM APPLICANTS.
(b)' See 12/1/80 SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE, answers to Questions 55, 57, l
59, 60, 62, 6k, 66, 76, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, l 98,108, H3, uh, n5, n7, n9,120, .121,122,123,124,125,126, j 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, l -
140, 150, 152, 15k , 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 16k , 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197.'
(c)SeeCASE's2/6/81ANSWERSTOAPPLICANT'SSECONDSETOFINTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE, answers to Questions 95-2, 104-2, 106.2, 107-2, 109-2,110-2, In-2, ne-2, n3-2, uk-2, n5-2, n6-2, n7-2, n8-2, n 9-2, 120-2, 121-2, 122-2, 123-2.
NOTE: In regard to the preceding, it should be noted that CASE has not yet analyzed Applicants' ER Amendment 3, FSAR Amendments 13 and ik, and it is unknown at this time what effect these documents may have on our contentions. We also have not thoroughly analyzed NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, which we recently received. We #are unable to answer many of the questions regarding the Applicants' Emergency Plan because we don't have much of the Plan itself; see CASE's 2/9/81 MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTENTION 22 PENDING RECEIPI 0F CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM APPLICANTS. Further, we do.not at this time kncw what documents our witnesses may rely ori regarding these contentions. However, we vin be updating our responses in the future.
G-6. Unknown at this time; we have not yet prepared our cross-examination questions. We vill update later.
II. INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO SPECIFIC CONTENTIONS COIR 51rrION 22: Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasons:.
1
- a. The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emergency planning or who have special ' qualifications for dealing with emergencies.
- b. No agreements have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the identi-fication of the principal officials by titles and agencies.
- c. There is no description of the arrangements for services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangements for the transportation of injured'or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary. -
- d. There are no adequate plans for testing by periodic drins of emergency plans and provisions for participation in the drills by persons whose assistance may be needed, other than employees of the Applicants.
- e. There is no provision for medical facilities in the i#' ate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose; and .
- f. There is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft.Worthmetroplex.
- C22-1. " Emergency planning" is the mental formulation and graphic representation of methods or schemes of action, procedures and arrangements required by 10 CM Part 50, Appendix E, and related NRC documents such as NUREG-065k, Rev.1, etc., for dealing with a sudden, unforeseen cmbination of circum-stances which calls for immediate action in order to avoid,' mitigate, relieve, and alleviate the results of an event, incident, or accident resulting from the operation or existence of the Cmanche Peak nuclear power plant which may be inimical to the health and safety of the public.
NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, November 1980, states "The purpose of this guidance and upgraded acceptance criteria is to provide a basis for NRC licensees, State and local goverments to develop radiological emergency plans and improve emergency preparedness." "This document is consistent with NRC and FEMA regulations and supersedes other previous guidance and criteria published by FD!A and NRC on this subject. It will be used by reviewers in determining the adequacy of State, local and nuclear power plant licensee emergency plans and preparedness." It also states that certain other documents are currently in the process of development.
(a) Although CASE is still in the process of reviewing NUREG-065k, we
[
believe that it addresses at sme lecgth the question posed by the Staff regarding 22(a), 22(d) and 22(f).
(d) See answer to (a) above, I
( (f) See answer to (a) above. See especially NUREG-0654, pages 10 and 11, D.2. Emergency Planning Zones.
C22-2. (a) Unknown. See NOTE on page 3 of this pleading.
~
(b) See answer to (a) above.
(c) See answer to (a) above.
~
(d) Footnote 1 to Appendix E states "The Ccancission has developed a docu-ment entitled " Guide to the Preparation of Emergency Plans for Pro-duction and Utilization Facilities" to help applicants. establish adequate plans required pursuant to paragraph 50 34 and this Appendix, for coping with emergencies." NUREG-0654 supersedes that guidance (see paragraph 2 of answer to C22-1 above) and deals at length with l this question.
C22-3 (a) See answer to C22-2(a). .
(b) See answer to C22-2(a). '
1
,.-w , w
(c) See answer to C22-2(a).
C22 k. (a) (We assume that the first (b) was supposed to be (a) and are answering accordingly.) See answer to C22-2(a).
(b) See answer to C22-2(a).
(c) See answer to C22-2(a).
C22-5 (a) See answer to C22-2(a). ,
(b) See answer to C22-2(a).
(c) See answer to C22-2(a).
C22-6. (a) See answer to C22-2(a).
(b) See answer to C22-2(a). -
(c) See answer to C22-2(a).
C22-7 (a) See answer to C22-2(a).
(b) See answer to C22-2(a).
l (c) See answer to C22-2(a).
Contention 24. A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:
l a. The costs of safely decommissioning the fa4111ty 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 vaste storage.
C2h-l. " Favorable" means a cost / benefit balance in which the benefits of CPSES clearly outweigh the costs, thereby allowing the operation of CPSES --
conditioned upon all costs hav'.ng been thoroughly and completely considered.
C2k-2. " Cost / benefit balance" means all costs and benefits of the operation of CPSES have been thoroughly and completely considered and weighed against
! one another.
l C24-3 " Adequately" means sufficiently to assure that requirements of NRC regu-lations will be met and that the plant can be operated in such a manner
~
that it will not be inimical to the public health and safety and that a favorable cost / benefit balance can be made. " Consider" means to look
at attentively, to examine, to think on with care, to ponder, to study, to fix one's mind on something so as to know it or to solve a problem involved in it; in the context of this contention, it further means that Applicants have not provided documentation that they have adequately j considered the items listed. Further, in order to make an accurate cost / benefit analysis, all costs associated with CPSES must be considered.
C2h 4. Contention 24(a): f (a) See CASE's 12/1/80 SUPPLD4ENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST l l SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE, page 19, answer to l l Question 87 ,
l
! (b) The Ccananche Peak nuclear power plant (CPSES), Units 1 and 2.
{
! (c) "Useful life" as used in this contention means the period of time the plant will be used and useful in providing electricity. Accord-ing to sworn testimony in DP&L rate hearings, this economic life i of CPSES will be 30 years.
(d)See12/1/80SUPPLEMENTTOCASE'SANSWERSTOAPPLICANTS'FIRSTSET l l '
' 0F INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE, page 20, answers to f questions 89 and 90. l (e)See12/1/80SUPPLEMENTreferencedin(d)above,page20, answers to question 95, which is almost word for word the same question j
as asked by Staff. ;
(f) 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. See also 12/1/80 SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE, answers to questions 66(a), 66(b), 67, 76, 77,'78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 9k, 95, 96, 97, pages 17, 18, 19, and 20. ,
l C2h-5 Contention 2h(b):
(a) The spent fuel pool or going to or from the spent fuel pool. We have not made a more detailed analysis of the precise location; we expect that our vitness on this contention will provide more specifica later. ,
l (b) See h/lO/80 CASE POSITION ON CONTENTIONS, page 27,1st full sentence, through page 32, and 5/7/79 SUPPL M ENT TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND CONTENTIONS BY CASE, pages 28 through 30. We have not made a more detailed analysis of the specific sequences of events except as referenced previously; we expect that our witness on this contention will provide more specifics later.
(c) Possibly; see answer to (b) above.
e (d) Possibly; see answer to (b) preceding.
(e) We have not made this analysis; see answer to (b) preceding.
(f) Possibly; see answer to (b) preceding.
(g) Possibly; see answer to (b) preceding.
(h) Possibly; see answer to (b) preceding.
~
(i) We have not made this analysis; see answer to (b) preceding.
(j) See answer to (b) preceding and answer to G-4(b) 2k(b) of this pleading.
(k) Consequences of accidents with regard to the onsite storage of spent fuel could cover a wide range, including but not limited to h uth effects to workers, radiation releases confined to the plant site, relatively minor to major radiation releases outside the plant site; we have not made a detailed analysis of such consequences. See answer to (b) preceding.
(1)Yes. In addition to the radiolcgical consequences resulting from such accidents, there is also a dollar enount associated with them such as health costs, cost of health care, possible shut _down of the plant (perhaps both units) with attendant costs of possibly purchasing replacement power, inability to secure loans, lawsuits, etc.
(m) We have not made this analysis. We vould expect that our witness will be able to provide more information ressrding this question.
(n) See answer to (m) above. ,
(o) See answer to (m) above.
(p) See answer to (m) above.
(q) (k) General knowledge; the rule of reason; Three Mile Island. We expect that our witness will be able to provide more information regarding this question. 3 (1) See answer to (q)(k) above.
(m through p) See answer to (m) above.
(r) See answer to (m) above.
_7_
. , . , . _ , - - . , , , - - - - - -g- ,.,m-
a' Contention 25 The requirements of the Atmic Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(h) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C, have not been met in that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility.
C25-1. h2 U. S. Code Section 2232(a): "Each application for a license hereunder shall be in writing and shall specifically state such information as the Cmmission, by rule or regulation, may determine to .be necessary to decide such of the technical and financial qualifications of the Appli-cants, the character of the Applicant, the citizenship of the Applicant, or any other qualifications of the Applicant as the Cmmission may deem appropriate for the license."
C25-2. "The kind and depth of informaf. ion described in this guide is not intended to be a rigid and absolute requirement. In some instancas, additional pertinent material may be needed. In any case, the applicant should in-clude information other than that specified if such information is perti-nent to establishing the applicant's financial ability to construct and operate the proposed facility." "The Ccamission reserves the right, however, to require additional financial information at the construction permit stage, at the operating license state, and during operation of the facility, particularly in cases in which the proposed power generating
. facility vill be commonly cwned by two or more existing companiet or in which financing depends upon long-term arrangements for the sharing of the power from the facility by two or more electrical generating companies."
"Section 50 33(f) requires that all applications for operating licenses show that the applicant possesses the funds necessary to cover estimated operating costs, or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funds, or a combination of the two. In addition, each application for a license for a facility other than a medical or research reactor is required to show that the applicant possesses or ha's reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to pay the estimated costs of operation for the period of the license or for 5 years, whichever is greater, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting down the facility and main-taining it in a safe condition. For purposes of the latter requirement, it will ordinarily be sufficient to shov it the time of filing of the application, availability of resources sufficient to cover estimated operating costs for each of the first 5 years of operation plus the esti-mated costs of permanent shutdown and maintenance of the facility in safe condition."
C25-3 " Financially qualified" in this contention means able to ade'quately comply with the regulations referenced in C25-2 above and the require-ments of the Atcmic Energy Act,.cs amended, 10 CFR 50 57(a)(4) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C.
C25 h. See answer to C25-2 above. Satisfactorily answer CASE's questions and prove that Applicants have financial integrity and are financially qualified to operate CPSES.
C25-5 The Atomic Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(4) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C.
C25-6. See answers to C25-2 preceding; make certain that the questions raised by CASE are accurately and completely answered satisfactorily; make the Applicants prove that they have financial integrity and are financially qualified to operate CPSES.
C25-7 See answer to C25-5 above.
Respectfully submitted, 2A a f J rs.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426.S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224 214/946-9446 214/941-1211, work, part-time, usually Tuesdays and Fridays t
I 1
l l
-,m--- , , - - v - w -,
~ " ' " - -'
._.--.._..-.m._... r- . .i
.,... _._ ._.- r-
-qg,;
7- - ;
,..e.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1 5
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, FOR AN 1 and 50-4,46 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I -
UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)
X CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .
By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and accurate copies of CASE's ,
ANS'n'ERS To NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR TEE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS has been sent this 17th day of February,1981, to the following by First Class Mail: ., i '
, * = with Certificate of Mailing Receipt
- Valentine B. Deale,-isq., Chainman 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 a.nd 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 Board' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. . 20555
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. , At'omic SeNty and Licensing j Debevoisc & Liberman - Appeal Panel l 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 l
- Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary l U. S. Nuclear Reguintory Commission U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch C. McColl, III, Esq.
West Texas Legal. Services 701 Cemeerce Street, Suite 302 100 Riain Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, TX 75202 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
4021 Prescott Avenue >M '
d'J Dallas, Tr 75219 s.) Juanica Ellis, President ASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY).
.=
-