ML20010H271
| ML20010H271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1981 |
| From: | Blake E LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109240287 | |
| Download: ML20010H271 (13) | |
Text
C
,, g, coanssyONDENCS o Ye .- &
, N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doey NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6- Usyng )
SEP1 g gggy, , c
$ :f Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
%g?l*freby, 7
y
- 0) 3 In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50- D
) (? '/
1 diaterford Steam Electric ) x'- o' $
Station, Unit 3) ) b' eQ '.M M
~ p Og -i g
O
( 46 J: 9 APPLICANT'S REPORT ON AGREEMENTS ' 1p[s v ,,s[w d y-WITH JOINT INTERVENORS AND MOTION TO iN ,
(4'2 {f COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES '
BY JOINT INTERVENORS ' ..j 7... .-s CI In accordance with the terms of the September 25, 1979, Discovery Stipulation, Applicant filed, on June 10, 1981, inter-rogatories relating to new information contained in the NRC Staff's Draft Environmental Statement (" DES") bearing upon issues raised in Joint Intervenors' Contentions 1, 2 and 8/9 (Exhibit A attached hereto). Objections to these interrogatories would have been due on June 30, 1981; no objections were filed. Responses l to these interrogatories were originally due on July 15, 1981.
t l However, acting upon representations by Joint Intervenors' counsel l that additional time was needed in order to formulate substantive l
replies, counsel for Applicant agreed to several extensions of time for Joint Intervenors to respond to these interrogatories.
I j Joint Intervenors' answers to Applicant's second set of inter b 5 d 5
rogatories, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, l
were served on September 1, 1981, as ultimately agreed to by counsel for Applicant.
6 8109:40287 8 PDR ADOCK 050 - DR Q
t
'o '.
Since receiving and reviewing Joint Intervenors' responses, counsel for Applicant has discussed the responses with Joint Intervenors' counsel. Based on scae of the responses and the ensuing discussions between counsel, agreements have been reached on certain of Joint Intervenors' contentions which are reported in Section I immediately below. In Section II below, Applicant moves to compel answers to others of Joint Intervenors' responses to Applicant's interrogatories.
I. REPORT ON AGREEMENTS With respect to Joint Intervenors' Contention 1, which chal-
- lenges in some respects the need for power from Waterford 3, Joint Intervenors have agreed not to pursue this contention either with respect to the existing LP&L load forecasts or MSU's load fore-casts. Joint Intervenors' only remaining interest in this conten-tion would be to challenge the impact, if any, on present load i
forecasts due to the proposed consolidation of LP&L and NOPSI.
Joint Intervenors currently are reviewin,g information on the con-solidation. Within 30 days (by October 16, 1981), Joint Inter-venors will supplement their responses to Applicant's interroga-tories 1-1 through 1-13 by answering these interrogatories on the assumption that the consolidation will take place, or Joint Inter-venors at that time will withdraw their contention 1. Applicant I
has agreed to delay filing any motions to compel on Contention 1 interrogatories pending Joint Intervenors' supplemental responses I
or decision to withdraw cu October 16, 1981.
l l
1
With respect to Contention 2, Joint Intervenors have agreed to withdraw subparts c. and d. Joint Intervenors' Contention 2, .
as revised to reflect this agreement, reads: '
Applicant has failed to demonstrate the neces-sity in the public interest for operation of .he Waterford 3 Facility based upon its understatement of costs of generating power at the facility which understatement of costs results from improper con-sideration of the following factors:
- a. Applicant has overstated the production capacity factor (i.e., generating capability of the facility) because of design ineffi-ciencies and operating basis inefficiencies which are associated with the operation of pressurized water reactor (PWR) steam genera-tors as was recently noted in the Division of Operating Reactors recent March 2, 1979 communication to applicant enclosing NUREG-0523.
- b. Applicant has understated the costs of obtaining uranium fuels which will be used to operate the facility based upon its dis-regard for the escalation of the cocts of such fuel, which can be reasonably expected to rise in cost to at least three times present cost.
Counsel for Applicant has discussed this report with Joint Intervenors' counsel and is authorized to represent his concurrence as to its accuracy.
II. MOTION TO COMPEL Pursuant to Section 2.740 (f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(f), Louisiana Power & Light Company
(" Applicant") hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for an order compelling Joint Intervenors within ten days from
the date of such order to give complete, responsive answers to Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatories.
As set forth more particularly below, Joint Intervenors' answers to Applicant's interrogatories can hardly be deemed sub-stantive; rather, Joint Intervenors have provided incomplete and evasive answers and, in several instances, have failed to provide information which is in any way responsive to the question actually posed. Under the Commission's Rules of Practice with respect to motions to compel discovery, such " evasive or incomplete answer (s]
or response [s] shall be treated as a failure to answer or respond."
10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (f) (1) . Further, while the applicant in an operating license proceeding must carry the burden of proof as to the issues in controversy, the intervenors must come forward with evidence sufficient to require reasonable minds to inquire further.
See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRC, 435 U.S. 519, 553-54 l (1978). The Appeal Board, in recognition of the applicant's burden of proof and its need to obtain information through the discovery process, upheld a Licensing Board holding that:
Unless [the applicant] can effectively inquire
! into the position of the intervenors, discharg-f ing that burden may be impossible. To permit l a party to make skeletal contentions, keep the bases for them secret, then require its adver-saries to meet any conceivable thrust at hearing
! would be patently unfair, and inconsistent with a sound record.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric 1
Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 N.R.C. 317, 338 (1980).
l
(
- - - .w-.-
Therefors, Applicant requests that the Licensing Board issue'an order compelling Joint Intervenors to completely respond to those interrogatories discussed below.
Joint Intervenors' Contention 8/9 makes the following allsga-tion:
Applicant has failed to properly evaluate the cumulative and/or synergistic effects of low level radiation with environmental pollut-ants, known or suspected to be carcinogens.
The effects of low-level radiation is a subject covered by the DES, and Applicant therefore served a number of interrogatories dealing with statements in the DES that bear upon Contention 8/9. Joint Intervenors have failed to give complete, responsive answers to most of these interrogatories, and they should be compelled to give further answers to Interrogatories 8/9-7, 8/9-8, 8/9-9, 8/9-10(b)-
I (d), 8/9-12, 8/9-13, 8/9-14 and 8/9-15 (b)-(d) .
Interrogatory 8/9-6 asked whether Joint Intervenors disagree with the statement in the DES (p.5-45) that the risk of premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed individual from exposure to radioactive effluents from one year of normal reactor operation at Waterford 3 "is less than one chance in a million . . . over l the average lifetime." Joint Intervenors answered this question by stating that they disagreed with the risk estimate in the DES, but they failed to go on and answer related follow-up questions.
l l
The first follow-up question, Interrogatory 8/9-7, inquired into the factual basis for Joint Intervenors' position, and the following response was given:
i The combined or synergistic effect of radia-tion and other agents has been shcwn to exist in various cell studies, animal studies, and human studies. Some of these agents (benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.) exist in abundance in Southeastern Louisiana because of the thriving petrochemical industry.
This is an evasive and unresponsive answer. If Joint Intervenors have particular " studies" that support their position, the studies should be identified and their findings discussed in the context of l
Contention 8/9. Moreover, the answer lists only two supposed syner-gistic agents, but follows the listing with "etc.," which suggests that there are other, unnamed agents. All of the substances that Joint Intervenors claim to be synergistic agents must be listed, and for each such agent Joint Intervenors should explain in detail, with all supporting references, what causes the synergistic effect with low-level radiation. If Joint Intervenors wish to litigate this issue, they.have an obligacion to explain their contention l in complete and specific detail, not in partial responses and vague generalities.
Interrogatory 8/9-8 asked Joint Intervenors to identify all
! documents supporting f.neir assertion that the DES cancer risk esti-mate is inaccurate. 7he answer refers to a list of documents set forth in Joint Intervenors' answer to an earlier interrogatory by l
. _ _ , , _ _ . . ., ,- _m__ . ,
o the NRC Staff. The answer also states that new documents " include" two identified studies. Joint Intervenors' use of the word
" include" suggests that the list is not complete and that they are attempting to leave open the possibility of relying upon other unidentified studies or documents to support their contention.
Applicant is entitled to a complete list of all documents upon which Joint Intervenors rel ou that it can prepare its case at the hearing. As the Appeal Board has held, " interrogatories de-signed to discover what (if any) evidence underlies an intervenor's own contentions are not out of order." Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 N.R.C. 317, 340 (1980). Applicant's interrogatories here are likewise proper and should be answered fully.
Interrogatory 8/9-9 asked for the names of the witnesses who are expected to testify on behalf of Joint Intervenors concerning synergistic effects. The response again refers to Joint Inter-venors' answers to the Staff's earlier interrogatories and thel.
adds the following: "It is possible others may be called upon. '
Joint Intervenors are holding back again here. Applicant is entitled to know what witnesses will be called on this issue.
Joint Intervenors apparently wish to hold open the possibility of surprising their opponents by calling a previously unidentified witness at the hearing. Such surprise is precisely what the dis-covery rules were designed to prevent, and Joint Intervenors should be ordered to give a complete, unequivocal answer now. Moreover,
Joint Intervenors' earlier answer to the NRC Staff, upon which they now rely to respond to Applicant's interrogatory, was pro-vided over a year ago and listed some nine individuals. It is hard to believe with a year's additional time to prepare their case, and now just some few months from the hearing, that that
\
expansive field of potential witnesses has not been narrowed.
Joint Intervenors should be required to provide their present knowledge on this subject.
Interrogatory 8/9-10 (a) asked Joint Intervenors to give their own estimate of the cancer risk. They answered that because of the alleged synergistic effect, the actual cancer risk is "anywhere in the range from two times to twenty-five times" the risk set forth in the DES. This response is acceptable, but again Joint Inter-venors have failed to give adequate answers to the follow-up questions. / Interrogatory 8/9-10 (b) asked for a detailed descrip-tion of how Joint Intervenors calculated their risk estimate. The answer was as follows:
Joint Intervenors have extrapolated results from cell studies, animal studies, and human studies. Due to the nascent level of research, the range is very wide.
This is no answer at all. We are not told what " studies" Joint Intervenors used, what they mean by " extrapolate," or what calcula-tions they used to arrive at their risk estimate. The answer pro-vides no concrete, useful informat.on, and it prevents Applicant
- / Applicant's follow-up questions are clearly proper. See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., supra, 12 N.R.C. at 333 n.23.
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . . _ - . 1
- from preparing its case. An intervenor is required through dis-covery to explain the basis for its contentions so that the ,
applicant and the Staff can prepare for the hearing. As noted above, it is now well established that to permit an intervenor "to make skeletal contentions, keep the' bases for them secret, then require its adversaries to meet any conceivable thrust at hearing would be patently unfair, and inconsistent with a sound record." Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1)
LBP-77-37, 5 N.R.C. 1298, 1301 (1977), quoted with approval in Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., supra, 12 N.R.C. at 338. Accord-ingly, a nonevasive, informative answer must be given to Inter-rogatory 8/9-10 (b) .
. Interrogatory 8/9-10 (c) asked Joint Intervenors to identify
- all documents they used in making their own cancer risk estimate.
Their response simply referred back to their answer to Interroga-
- tory 8/9-8. For the reasons discussed above, the answer to l Interrogatory 8/9-8 in inadequate, and the answer to Interrogatory 8 / 9-10 (c) is therefore likewise inadequate. It is just not logical to assume that they used 30 documents to arrive at their estimate, even given the 2-25 range of that estimate. Joint Intervenors should be compelled to give a proper answer to Interrogatory 8/9-10 (c) .
Interrogatory 8/9-10(d) asked for the identities and qualifi-cations of all persons who assisted in making Joint Intervenors'
o cancer risk estimate. The answer merely referred back to the answer to Interrogatory 8/9-9, which, as noted above, is itself an inade-quate answer. Moreover, Interrogatory 8/9-9 deals with potential witnesses, not with the persons who made Joint Intervenors' risk estimate. Thus, the cross-reference to Interrogatory 8/9-9 is not responsive to the question actually asked by Interrogatory 8/9-10 (d) .
The point here is to get the names and qualifications of the persons who actually made or assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate that the cancer risk is 2-25 times greater than the risk set forth in the DES. This information has not been given, and a further answer to Interrogatory 8/9-10 (d) should therefore be compelled.
Applicant also asked a similar series of questions about the statement in the DES (p.5-46) that the risk of premature death from cancer to the average individual within 50 miles of Waterford 3 from exposure to radioactive effluents from normal operation of the reactor "is less than 1 percent of the risk to the maximally exposed individual." Joint Intervenors answered Interrogatory 8/9-11 by stating that they disagree with this risk estimate in the DES.
However, Joint Intervenors again failed to provide proper answers to the follow-up questions. In purporting to answer Interrogatories f
8/9-12, 8/9-13, 8/9-14 and 8 /9-15 (b)-(d) , Joint Intervenors merely l
referred hack to their answers to Interrogatories 8/9-7, 8/9-8, 8 /9-9 and 8/9-10 (b)-(d) , respectively. As shown above, Joint Intervenors' answers to Interrogatories 7-10 are inadequate. For
t!.e same reasons, the answers to Interrogatories 12-15 are also inadequate, and Joint Intervenors likewise should be compelled to give proper answers to these questions.
Wherefore, on the basis of the foregoing, Applicant hereby moves the Licensing Board for an order compelling Joint Intervenors to respond fully to Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatcries.
DATED: September 16, 1981.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 BY: I '[.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
James B. Hamlin Counsel for Applicant Louisiana Power & Light Company 1
I l
l i
, - - ,- -, - - . - . - .- - - - , - - . s- . ,- ., - , - - - . . . - -
t .
l EXHIBIT "AR June 10,1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric ) l Station, Unit 3) ) )
APPLICANT' S INTERROGATORIES l TO JOINT INTERVENORS (SECOND SET) l Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740b.- Louisiana Power & Light i Company (" Applicant") submits the following interrogatories to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation by Save our Wetlands, Inc. and Oystershell Alliance, I
Inc. (" Joint Intervenors") . In accordance with paragraph 3 of l the September 25, 1979 Discovery Stipulation, these interroga- ,
1 tories relate to new information in the NRC Staff's Draf t Environmental Statement (" DES " ) bearing on allowed contentions.
Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Discovery Stipulation, these interrogatories must be answered within 30 days, and any objections to the interroga tories must be made within 15 days. .
Answers and objections must ba served on all parties and the )
Licensing Board.
Par i> E O G -
S'1a701o399 _ _ . ._ __ . . ._, - - _ _ _ _. . _
l
INTERROnATORIES ON CONTENTION 1 1-1. State whether uoint Intervenors contend that the peak load responsibility forecasts for 1983-1986 for Applicant and the MSU System set forth in DES Table 2.1 are " higher than reasonable,"
as alleged in Joint Intervenors' Contention 1(a) .
1-2. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-l l tive, describe in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the load forecasts are unreasonably high.
1-3. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1-1 is affirmative, Identify by author, title .and date all documents upon which Joint
! N: Intervenors rely in contending that the load forecasts are unrea.-
sonably high. -
1-4. If the answer to Interrogatory no.1-1 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the reasonableness of the load forecasts and for each person state his or her address, employer, position and qualifications.
1-5. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1-1 is affirmative, i
state in detail:
( (a) The peak load responsibility that Joint Intervenors contend Applicant and the MSU System will encounter for the years 1983-1986; 1
,. . - . _ - - .., - - . .._ - , - - . ,.-- . -,- . . . . . - .. .- ~ .
(b) The method by which Joint Intervenors cal-culated their estimates of peak load responsibility; (c) The author, title and date of each document '
upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their peak load responsibility estimates; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted or contributed in making Joint Intervenors' peak load responsibility estimates.
1-6. State whether Joint Intervenors contend that the DES is incorrect in stating (S 2.4.1) that " adequate supplies of oil for generating electricity are uncertain."
- M.
l-7. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is af firma-tive, state the name and address of each oil supplier who will make a finn and certain commitment to meet Applicant's fuel oil require-ments for the period 1983-1986, and state the price per barrel at which each such supplier will soll the oil during that period.
l 1-8. State whether Joint Intervenors contend that the DES is incorrect in stating (S 2.4.1) that "[n]atural gas, as supplied under firm contracts, has been curtailed in the past" and that l
"such gas supplies may be further curtailed and that acceptable replacement fuels will be difficult to acquire."
l l
3-l
1-9. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state the name and address of each gas supplier who will guarantee to supply Applicant's natural gas requirements without curtailment for the period 1983-1986, and state the price per mcf at which each such supplier will supply the natural gas during that period.
1-20. The DES states (S 3.2) that "the only alternative available at the operating license stage is limited to denying the operation of the facility and thereby not permitting the constructed nuclear facility to be added to the applicant's generating system. "
State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this statement is incor' rec t.
1-11. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state in detail with respect to each alternative to operation of Waterford 3:
(a) The nature of the alternative; (b) All the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the alternative is reasonable; (c) The environmental and economic costs of the I
j alternative, and the method by which such costs were calculated; (d) The author, title and date of all documents upon which Joint Intervenors rely in proposing the alternative; and l
l
- (e) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person expected to testify on behalf of Joint Intervenors with respect to the 4
alternative.
1-12. The DES states (S 3.2) that "(t]he alternative of not
! operating the facility will involve incurring the environmental and economic costs of construction of Waterford 3 without receiving the benefit of the power Waterford 3 would produce." State whether Joint Intervenors contend that it would be reasonable to incur i
these economic and environmental costs without obtaining any coun-terbalancing benefit.
1-13. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-
=g.: Live, describe in detail the rationale for Joint Intervenors' contention.
! l-14. State separately for each answer to the preceding interro-gatories on Contention 1 the name, address, employer, position and qualifications of the person or persons draf ting the answer and, if different, of the person or persons supplying the information upon which the answer was based.
INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 2 2-1. The DES estimates (55 2.2, 5.10) the cost of safely decommissioning Waterford 3 to range from $21 million to $4 3 million (1978 dollars), based in part on NUREG-0586. State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this estimate is materially inaccurate.
- . - - . . _ - . _ - _ . _ - ~ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . - , _ - . _ . , -
a o 2-2. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the estimate is inaccurate.
2-3. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-1 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the estimate is inaccurate.
2-4. If .the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-1 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the estimate.
2-5. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-1 is a ffirmative, state.in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the cost, (in 1978 dollars) of decommissioning Waterford 3; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors calculated their estimate of decommissioning costs; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their
~
estimate of decommissioning costs; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Interver. .rs' estimate of decommissioning costs.
2-6. The DES assumes (S 2.2) that Waterford 3 will operate at a capacity factor of 60 percent in its first year of operation.
State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this a ssumption is inaccurate.
2-7. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the assumption is inaccura ce.
2-8. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-6 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the assumption is inaccurate.
2-9. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-6 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the assumption.
2-10. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-6 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the capacity factor of Waterford 3 in its first year of operation; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors calculated their estimate of the capacity factor; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their estimate of the capacity factor; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of the capacity factor.
2-11. The DES estimates (Table 6.2) that in the first year of operacion the cost of fuel and the costs of operating and maintenance for Waterford 3 will be 14.23 mills /kWh. State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this cost estimate is materially inaccurate.
2-12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the estimate is inaccurate.
2-13. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-11 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the cost estimate is inaccurate.
2-14. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-11 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the cost estimate.
2-15. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-11 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the first year's fuel, operating and maintenance costs for Waterford 3; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors cal-culated their estimate of fuel, operating and maintenance costs; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their estimate of fuel, operating and maintenance costs; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of fuel, operating and maintenance costs.
8-
2-16. The DES states (S 2.2) that its fuel cost estimate is based in part upon Table 11 of NUREG-0480. State whether Joint Intervenors contend that the estimates of spent fuel storage, transportation and disposal costs in Table 11 are materially inaccurate.
2-17. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the estimate is inaccurate.
2-18. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-16 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the spent fuel cost estimates are inaccurate.
2-19. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-16 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the spent fuel cost estimates.
2-20. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-16 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the spent fuel costs for Waterford 3; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors calculated their est'imate of spent fuel costs; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their estimate of spent fuel costs; and
(d) The name, address, employer, position and quali-fications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of spent fuel costs.
2-21. The DES estimates (SS 2.2, 6.6.2) that the fuel-cost savings during the first year of operation of Waterford 3 will be approximately $230 million. State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this estimate is materially inaccurate.
2-22. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirma-tive, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the estimate is inaccurate.
2-23. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-21 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the estimate 'is inaccurate.
2-24. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-21 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the estimate.
2-25. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 2-21 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a ) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the first year's fuel-cost savings; ,
(b) The method by which Joint Intervenors calculated their estimate of the first year's fuel-cost savings;
- 1C -
l (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in 2^aking their estimate of the first year's fuel-cost savings; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and quali-fications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of the first year's fuel-cost savings.
2-26. State separately for each answer to the preceding interro-gatories on Contention 2 the name, address, employer, position and qualifications of the person or persons drafting the answer and, if different, of the person or persons supplying the information upon which the answer was based.
INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 8/9 8/9-1. The DES states ( S 5. 9.1. 5. l (1) ) that the " occupational risk associated with the industrywide average radiation dose is about 11 potential premature deaths /10 5 man-years attributable to cancer." State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this statement i is materially inaccurate.
8/9-2. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is
! affirmative, statA in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the occupational risk , atimate is inaccurate.
8/9-3. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-1 is affirma-
, tive, identify by date, author and title all documents that support i
Joint Intervenors' contention that the occupational risk estimate is inaccurate.
8/9-4. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-1 is affirma-tive, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the occupational risk estimate.
- 8/9-5. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-1 is affirma-tive, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the occupational risk; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors cal-culated their estimate of the occupational risk; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their
=
estimate of the occupational risk; and (d) The name, address, employer, position end qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervonors' estimate of the occupational risk.
8/9-6. The DES estimates (S 5.9.1.5.2(3)) that the risk of potential premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed individual from exposure to radioactive effluents from one year of normal reactor operation at Waterford 3 "is less than one chance in a million . . . over the average lifetime." state whether Joint Intervenors contend that this estimate is materially inaccurate.
8/9-7. If the answer to the preceding uJerrogatory is affirmative, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the risk estimate is inaccurate.
~
l '. '.
8/9-8. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-6 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the risk estimate is inaccurate.
8/9-9. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-6 is a ffirmative , identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the risk estimate.
8/9-10. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-6 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the risk to the maximally exposed individual; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors cal-culated their estimate of the i-isk to the maximally exposed individual; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their estimate of the risk to the maximally exposed individual; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of the risk to the maximally exposed individual.
8/9-11. The DES estimates (S 5.9.1.5.2(3)) that the risk of potential premature death from cancer to the average individual within 50 miles of Waterford 3 from exposure to rad!.cactive effluents from normal operation of the reactor "is less than 1 percent of the risk to the maximally exposed individual." State whether Joint Intervenors contend that this estbnate is materially inaccurate.
8/9-12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, state in detail all the facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the risk estimate is inaccurate.
8/9-13. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-11 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contantion that the risk estimate
- =.:
5 is inaccurate.
8/9-14. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-11 is a f firmative , identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the risk estimate.
t 8/9-15. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-11 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the risk to the average individual within 50 miles of Waterford 3; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors cal-culated their estimate of the risk to the average individual within 50 miles of Waterford 3;
(c) 'he date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their estirt ts of the risk to the average individual within 50 miles of Waterford 3; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of the risk to the average individual within 50 miles of Waterford 3.
8/9-16. The DES estimates (S 5. 9.1. 5. 2 (4 ) ) that the risks to the general United States population from exposure to radio-active effluents and transportation of fuel and waste from each year of normal operation of Waterford 3 "are a very small fraction (less than 0.001 percent) of the risks to the U.S. population from each year of exposure to natural background radiation." state whether Joint Intervenors contend that this estimate is materially inaccurate.
8/9-17. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, state in detail all th2 facts that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the risk estimate is inaccurate.
8/9-18. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-16 is affirmative, identify by date, author and title all documents that support Joint Intervenors' contention that the risk estimate is inaccurate.
8/9-19. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-16 is affirmative, identify all persons whom Joint Intervenors expect to testify on their behalf concerning the accuracy of the risk estimate.
- 1A - _
. 'o 8/9-20. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8/9-16 is affirmative, state in detail:
(a) Joint Intervenors' estimate of the risk to the general population; (b) The method by which Joint Intervenors cal-culated their estimate of the risk to the general population; (c) The date, title and author of each document upon which Joint Intervenors relied in making their estimate of the risk to the general population; and (d) The name, address, employer, position and qualifications of each person who assisted in making Joint Intervenors' estimate of the risk to the general
=EE population.
8/9-21. State separately for each answer to the preceding interrogatories on Contention 8/9 the name, address, employer, posi-tion and qualifications of the person or persons drafting the answer and, if different, of the person or persons supplying the information upon which the answer was based.
DATED: June 10, 1981.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
~
(202) 822-1000
\
BY M j h James c6-M.B.Churchill Hamlin V
Counsel for Applicant 0 SLE e
June 10, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMIRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY)
)
Docket No. 50-382 (Waterford Steam Ele- cic )
Station, Unit 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Interrogatories To Joint Intervenors (Second Set) , dated June 10, 1981, were sarved upon those persons on the attached Service List, by deposit
! ' the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of
[
June, 1981.
e
/
l
- < A "
REr.t'ce W. Wrchill i
e s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Lyman L. Jones, Jr., Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Gillespie & Jones Licensing Board Suite 201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1420 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commission Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen M. Irving, Esquire
. Dr. Harry Foreman Louisiana Consumers League, Inc.
Director, Center for 535 No. 6tn Street Population Studies Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Box 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Luke B. Fontana Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana- 70116 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Joseph R. Gray, Esquire Commission Office of the Executive Washington, D.C. 20555 Legal Director-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section (3) Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
l *
. .', EXHIBIT "B" w
O A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S SEP - 41961
., S. P. P. & T. ..,
u
'e
- j .] [ (* ..
- r. w BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-382 (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3)
JOINT INTERVENORS ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS SECOND SET INTERROGATORIES Answers to Interrogatories of Contention I Interrogatory 1-1:
The DES has omitted calculations of load responsibilities if the proposed merger of applicant and New Orleans Public Service, Inc. takes place. Since the merger has been announced by the Applicant, New Orleara Public Service, Inc. and MSU, it is highly probable that the merger will take place pe-ding approval by the Securities and Exchange Commis-sion. This merger raises more questions than it answers. For instance, will the alleged " operating efficiencies" achieved result in a decreased load responsibility? How will the fuel procurement company, Systems Fuels Incorporated, be effected? Several governmental groups, including the Jefferson Parish Council, have requested this information be furnished.
Joint Intervenors await this information.
7f L O'l 3 0 0 2V)
l -
Interrogatory 1-2.
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-3:
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-4:
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-5.
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-6:
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-7:
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-8:
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-9:
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-10:
See 1- 1.
l Interrogatory 1-11: _
See 1-1.
Interrogatory 1-12:
The input of the ratepayers of NOPSI have never been sought in relation to the const;uction or payment schedule of Waterford Three. An
, analysis of risk / benefit which this question would elicit collapses with the propsect of an Applicant-NOPSI eleventh hour merger. More information must be forthcoming from appropriate corporate and governmental bodies l
before an intelligent answer can be given. Joint Intervenors await this information.
Interrogatory 1-13:
See 1-12.
Interrogatory 1-14:
See 1-12.
Answers to Inte rogatories on Contention 2 Interrogatory 2-1:
Joint Intervenors consider the cost estimates of decommissioning
($21-43 million) to be low by at least a facter of three. Since the cost of Waterford 3 (in 1978 dollars) was $900 million, site restoration (as opposed to entombment) costs could be nearly 15% of capital costs. However, the NRC and the LPSC do not require that decommissioning costs be included in the rate base for a particular facility. Therefore, pursuing this question h in this forum is futile. Joint Intervenors request that NRC change its rule to require decommissioning costs in the rate basee. Joint Intervenors will i
question this rule before the LPSC when Applicant seeks rate relief for i Waterford Three capital costs, s.ssuming Waterford Three is granted an operating license.
l Interrogatory 2-2:
l Moot.
l Interrogatory 2-3:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-4:
l Moot.
'. e Interrogatory 2-5:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-6:
Joint Intervenors believe the capacity factor for W3SES will be 55%.
The DES figure of 60% is acceptable. The LP&L figure of 80% is grossly high.
Interrogatory 2-7:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-8:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-9:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-10:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-11:
The DES figure of 14.23 mills /kwh for fuel and operating and maintenance is acceptable. It contrasts sharply to the Applicant's figure of 7.80 mills /kwh shown in Table 8.2-2 of the ER. Applicant erred by 82%.
Interrogatory 2-12:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-13:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-14:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-15:
Moot.
. w .
Interrogatory 2-16:
Joint Intervenors feel disposal costs are incalculable, considering the nascent level of technology. However, we will not address that question in this forum.
Interrogatory 2-17:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-18:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-19:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-20:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-21:
Joint Intervenors believe the figure of $230 million is not so much inaccurate as it is misleading. Conservation technologies could save that much fuel with a fraction of the capital costs. This was addressed by k
intervenors during the CP hearings. Their arguments were dismissed by the AEC licensing panel judge. Subsequent economic analysis (Harvard Business School, for instance) has shown the absolute correctness of the CP l intervenors. Joint Intervenors note that Applicant plans $6 billion in l
l capital expenditures during the 1980's.
Joint Intervenors will not question the number "$230 million" at this forum.
Interrogatory 2-22:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-23:
Moot.
l
[
g - - . , - m g -, - -- , y---+..- --,g ,.- r--g- -ga +- a,
---jn ,<,w - . , se m-, p
Interrogatory 2-24:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-25:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-25:
Moot.
Interrogatory 2-26:
Moot.
1 Answers to Interrogatories on Contention 8/9 Interrogatory 8/9-1:
Occupational risk is outside the scope of Contention 8/9 by agree-ment of NRC, Applicant, and Joint Intervenors. Therefore, Joint Interven-ors will not question this number before the ASLB.
Interrogatories 8/9-2 throuth 8/9-5:
Moot.
Interrogatory 8/9-6:
Joint Intervenors believe this number is materially inaccurate in this
. particular licensing because of the excess burden of pollution in Louisiana 9
and particularly in the environs of Waterford III.
Interrogatory 8/9-7.
, The combined or synergistic effect of radiation and other agents has been shown to exist in various cell studies, animal studies, and human studies. Some of these agents (benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.) exist in abundance in Southeastern Louisiana because of the thriving petrochemical industry.
l
. .'o Interrogatory 8/9-8:
See " Joint Intervenors Answers to NRC Staff Interrogtories, and Respense to Request for Documents", Section 8/9. Numerous references s S
are listed. New documents include: The Environment and Human Health in Louisiana, prepared for Office of Environmental Affairs, City of New Orleans, by Doctor Velma Campbell, January,1981; ano Combined Effect, Ionizing Radiation Plus Other Agent, issue paper prepared by M. M. Elkind, Division of Biological and Medical Research, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illin'ois, 60439,1980.
Inte.rrogatory 8/9-9:
See " Joint Intervenors Answers to NRC Staff Interrogatories and Response to Request for Documents", particularly 8/9-1 a. and b. It is x
possible others may be called upon.
Interrogatory 8/9-10 (a):
Joint Intervenors believe the risk to be anywhere in the range from two times to twenty-five times the listed risk.
Interr.gatory 8/9-10 (b):
Joint Intervenors have extrapolated results from cell studies, animal studies, and human studies. Due to the nascent level of research, the range is very wide.
Interrogatory 8/9 (c):
See 8/9-8.
Interrogatory 8/9 (d):
See 8/9-9.
interrogatory 8/9-11:
Joint Intervenors believe this is materiaHy inaccurate.
l -
Interrogatory 5/9-12.
See 8/9-7.
Interrogatory 8/9-13:
See 8/9-8.
Interrogatory 8/9-14:
See 8/9-9.
Interrogatory 8/9-15 (a):
See 8/9-10 (a).
Interrogatory 8/9-15 (b):
See 8/9-10 (b).
Interrogatory 8/9-15 (c):
See 8/9-10 (c).
! Interrogatory 8/9-15 (d):
See 8/9-10 (d).
Interrogatory 8/9-16.
Joint Intervenors believe this is materially inaccurate.
Interrogatory 8/9-17:
See 8/9-7.
Interrogatory 8/9-18:
See 8/9-8.
Interrogatory 8/9-19:
c See 8/9-9.
Interrogatory 8/9-20 (a):
See 8/9-10 (a).
Interrogatory 8/9-20 (b):
See 8/9-10 (b).
Interrogatory 8/9-20 (c):
See 8/9-10 (c).
Interrogatory 8/9-20 (d):
See 8/9-10 (d).
Interrogatory 8/9-21:
t Response to be prepared.
Respectfully submitted, GILLES ONES i
BY k / ,o ~
$1Ai' L. JOiKS, .
Attor y for Inter ' nors 114 idgelake Drp' e Metairie, Louisidha 7000 (504) 835-6458 f
a 1
1
-.. _ . . _ . - . . . . . - . _ . . - , _ . , . _ _ . - - $-. .. . - . . ~ , . _ . - _ . _ . . . . _ , _ . _ . . , - . . . _ - _ _ , _ . _ , _,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMAiISSION 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CCoiPANY Doci:et No. 50-382 (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 1,1981, I mailed copies of Save Our Wetlands, Inc. and Oystershell Alliance, Inc.'s, JOINT INTERVENORS ANSWERS TO NRC STAFF INTERROGATORIES, AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS to allindividuals or entities appearing on the attached Service List, postage p at first class in t e United States i Mail.
n D ffMAN . JOpS, I
r
., - __ _ . , _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . - _ - ,,_-,---_,.,-_..-,,.,___--m_,-,-_. . . . _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ . - . , . - - .
September 1,1981 STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF JEFFERSON BEFORE ME, the undersigned, did appear GARY L. GROESCH, a person of the full age of majority and a resident of the Parish of Orleans, who did declare on oath that the Answers provided herein to Applicant's First Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
l
- . I-.
' G k ft Y- OESCH /.'/ '
Sworn to and subscribed before me, Notary, this 1st av eptember .
n f. -
NOTA PUBk1C
SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atornie Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Harry Foreman Box 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Walter H. Jordan
. 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire and E. Blake, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esquire Monroe & Lemann Whitney Building 625 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
- - - - , - - - r -- - - .,, , --
7vr-- r+-- -
-=-
4 . . ' .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoina APPLICANT'S REPORT ON AGREEMENTS WITH~ JOINT INTERVENORS AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY JOINT INTERVENORS was served by deposit in United States mail, postage prepaid, this 16th day of September, 1981, upon those persons listed on the attached Service List.
&W, $ aft, Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
- , , -.-,,-,n, - , , - ,, , , n. -n. --, -. , - , - , . - - - . , - - , . .
~.
' s,' 'n , %
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 3) )
SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Lyman L. Jones, Jr., Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Gillespie & Jones Licensing Board Suite 201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1420 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commission Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen M. Irving, Esquire Dr. Harry Foreman Louisiana Consumers League, Inc.
Director, Center for 535 No. 6th Street Population Studies Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Box 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Luke B. Fontana Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Commission Office of the Executive Washington, D.C. 20555 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section (3) Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
\ , . .. ._ - , ._,-_e
. ,_ . __ - __ . . _ , - - . , _. . , , ,