ML20024J244
| ML20024J244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1994 |
| From: | Mcgarry J LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH |
| References | |
| CON-#494-15772 ML, NUDOCS 9410130052 | |
| Download: ML20024J244 (34) | |
Text
517 m AWD COPRFFADENCE DOCKETED T
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'94 DCT -4 P 4 :00 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
95i
.+
In the Matter of DClit iN LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No. 70-3070- SC (Claiborne Enrichment Center)
APPLICANT'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION DIRECTED TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH l
REGARDING CONTENTIONS I, J.
K.
AND W l
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
Sections 2.740, 2.740b and 2.741, l
Louisiana Energy Services (Applicant or LES) hereby serves the following interrogatories and requests for production upon Citizens Against Nuclear Trash, Intervenor in the captioned proceeding.
These interrogatories and requests are related to Intervenor's Contentions I (bases 1-7), J (bases 3, 4,
6 and 9),
K, and W.
Each interrogatory shall be answered fully in writing, under oath or affirmation.
Responses shall include all pertinent information known to Intervenor, its officers, directors, members, employees, advisors, representatives or legal counsel.
In answering each interrogatory and in responding to each l
request, it would be appreciated if the interrogatory or request could be recited immediately preceding each answer or response.
These interrogatories and requests shall be continuing in nature as required by 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(e).
Thus, any time Intervenor obtains information which renders any previous D
9410130052 941003 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
response incorrect or incomplete or which indicates that a
~
response was incorrect or incomplete when made, Intervenor should supplement its previous response to the appropriate interrogatory or request to produce.
Also, Intervenor should supplement its response with respect to any question addressing the identity and locations of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, and the identity of er person expected to be called as a witness at the hearing, including the subject matter and subject of the witness' testimony.
As required by 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(e),
supplements to Intervenor's response must be seasonably submitted, and in no case less than 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.
The term " documents" shall include information contained in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, articles, letters, memoranda, notes, graphs, charts, calculations, photographs, data stored on magnetic and optical digital and analog data storage devices, and any other writing of whatever description.
REOUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.741, Applicant requests Intervenor by and through its attorneys, to make available for inspection and copying at a time and location to be designated, any and all documents, of whatever description, identified in or relied upon by Intervenor in developing responses to Applicant's
)
Interrogatories below.
~
If Intervenor maintains that some documents should not be made available for inspection, it should specify the documents and explain why such are not being made available.
This request extends to any such document described above, in the possession or under the control of Intervenor, its advisors, consultants, i
agents, or attorneys.
GENERAL INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740b, Applicant requests Intervenor, by and through its attorney, to answer separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation, by persons having knowledge of the information requested, the following interrogatories.
Intervenor is requested to address in its answers Applicant's clarifications of and modifications, changes, and amendments to the CEC Decommissioning Plan, License Application, LES Safety Analysis Report ("SAR"), and LES Environmental Report
("ER"), and the NRC Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS")
and Safety Evaluation Report ("SER"), and other relevant reports which were received by Intervenor prior to these Interrogatories.
G-1 State the full name, address, occupation, resume and present employer of each person (s) answering the following interrogatories and requests, including the general interrogatories, and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof that such person (s) answered.
G-2 For each contention or basis for a contention listed below, identify the following:
G-2.1 The name, address, profession, employer and area of professional expertise of each person whom Intervenor expects to call as a witness, including any expert witness, at the hearing; l
l G-2.2 The subject matter on which each of the witnesses is expected to testify; G-2.3 The substance of the facts and opinions to which each witness is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, including the l
documents and all pertinent pages or parts thereof which each witness will rely upon or will
)
otherwise use for her or his testimony; and 1
l 1
i G-2.4 The educational and scientific experience of each witness.
l G-3 If the answer to any interrogatory below, or any contention or basis for a contention listed below relies upon one or
]
more calculations:
-4 l
i I
~
G-3.1 Describe each calculation and identify any documents setting forth such calculation; G-3.2 Provide tha name and location of each person who performed the calculation and the date the calculation was made; G-3.3 Describe each assumption made in each calculation, to include the value of and basis for each assumption; G-3.4 Describe each constant and variable in each calculation, to include the value and basis for each constant and the source of the data applied to each variable; G-3.5 Provide the results of each calculation; and G-3.6 Explain in detail how each calculation provides a basis for the contention.
G-4 If the answer to any interrogatory or request below relies upon conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or m: :e individuals:
l i
~
G-4.1 Identify by name and address each such individual for each contention; i
G-4.2 State the educational and professional background of each such individual, including occt:ation and institutional affiliations; G-4.3 Describe the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals involved; G-4.4 Describe the information received from such individuals and explain how it provides a basis i
for the contention; and G-4.5 Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record related to each conversation, consultation, correspondence, or other communication with such individuals.
G-5 For each interrogatory or request below, identify fully any documents used as the basis for, or consulted in connection with preparation of, the answer to the interrogatory, or related to the subject of the interrogatory, upon which Intervenor intends to rely in establishing the contention or the basis for the contention. -
i
~
SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES r
Incomplete License Application. Contention I Contention:
The license application for the CEC is incomplete in many major respects.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19, 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) stated (pp. 31 - 32) that Contention I was limited to eleven issues, the first seven of which related to the ER, and the remaining four of which (8-11) related to the SAR.
By Order dated May 11, 1994, the Board granted Intervenor's motion to withdraw bases 8-11 of Contention I.F Thus, Contention I is limited to the seven issues which relate to the completeness of the ER, as follows:
1.
Environmental impacts of site preparation and construction; 2.
Monitoring data to support source term determinations for gaseous effluents; 3.
Evaluation of means of reducing liquid effluent concentrations; 4.
Assessment of radiological impacts of plant operation; 5.
Environmental effects of accidents; 6.
Baseline data for pre-operational effluent and environmental monitoring program; l
1/
Order (Granting Motion to Withdraw Areas of Contention I and Dismissing, as Moot, Applicant's Summary Disposition Motion), May 11, 1994.
7.
Program to maintain releases as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
r Interrocatories and Reauests:
I.1-1 In light of the information in ER Sections 4.0 and 4.1, as amended by Applicant on July 30, 1993 (see Letter from LES to NRC dated April 10, 1992, at p. A-54),
October 12, 1993, and March 29, 1994, to provide additional information on the environmental impacts of CEC site preparation and construction:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
I.1-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, i
or types of information, related to the l
t environmental impacts of site preparation and construction that you believe are not included in the ER.
This request should be read as calling _
for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been included) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, do you agree that the ER contains information on erosion, generation rates of dust 4
and atmospheric contaminants, total suspended solids discharged, and a comparison of the estimated and acceptable airborne and liquid effluent concentrations associated with site preparation and construction?
c.
In your 2/11/94 Supplemental Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, in response to an interrogatory similar to Interrogatory I.1-2.a, above, you refer Applicant to " CANT's comments on the Draft EIS at pp. 8-24, and 32-36."
It is your position that these comments on the Draft EIS are equally applicable to the ER?
Identify any specific aspects of CANT's comments on the DEIS that address the absence of information on the environmental impacts of CEC site preparation and construction and that you believe have not been addressed in the ER.
1 I.1-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I.1-2, above:
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of Contention I and individuals who l
may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue;
_9_
i
b.
explain why your evaluation remains incomplete; c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I.
I.2-1 In your 12/2/92 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, you indicated that you were continuing to evaluate this aspect of Contention I and were " waiting for the NRC Staff's evaluation"; however, you have never supplemented that response.
In light of the information provided in ER Sections 3.3 and 6.1 (see, e.g.,
Reference 10 to ER Section 3.3.3), as amended by Applicant on May 22, 1992, June 30, 1992, October 12, 1993, March 29, 1994, and April 11, 1994, to provide additional information on monitoring data to support i
source term determinations for gaseous effluents, and Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2.1 of the Proposed Licensc Conditions for the CEC:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
l l
I.2-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:
~
l L
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, i
or types of information, related to monitoring
}
data to support source term determinations for gaseous effluents that you believe Applicant has
}
s omitted from the ER.
This request should be read i
as calling for factual information (i.e.,
descriptions of specific information that you j
i believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
l b.
In particular, do you agree that the ER contains determinations of source terms, for both i
radiological and non-radiological releases, which l
are supported by calculations based on effluent I
design parameters?
If not, explain why not.
j l
)
c.
Identify any regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that the information identified in response to 4
Interrogatory I.2-2.a be provided in the ER.
i 1
I.2-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I.2-2, above:
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of Contention I and individuals who. -
~
may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue; i
b.
explain why your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I remains incomplete; i
i c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I.
I.3-1 In your 12/2/92 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, you indicated that you were continuing to evaluate this aspect of Contention I and were " waiting for the NRC Staff's evaluation"; however, you have never supplemented that response.
In light of Section 3.3 of the ER, as amended by Applicant on June 30, 1992, July 30, 1993, and October 12, 1993, to provide information on evaluation of means of reducing liquid effluent concentrations:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
I.3-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:
L 1
i e
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to evaluation of the means of reducing liquid effluent concentrations, that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e.,
descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, do you agree that the ER contains (1) evaluations of the designs for liquid waste I
treatment systems and the action levels for release concentrations, and (2) a description of the proposed liquid waste. treatment system that allows evaluation of the proposed decontamination factors and estimation of releases from the i
system?
If not, explain why not.
l c.
Identify any regalations, regulatory guidance or l
other authorities requiring or recommending that the information identified in response to t
Interrogatory I.3-2.a be provided in the ER.
i I.3-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I.3-2, above:
i
)
- 13 t
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of Contention I and individuals who may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue; b.
explain why your evaluation is incomplete; c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I.
I I.4-1 In your 12/2/92 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, you indicated that you were continuing to evaluate this aspect of Contention I and were " waiting for the NRC Staff's evaluation"; however, you have never supplemented that response.
In light of ER Section 4.2, as amended by Applicant on March 13, 1992, May 22, 1992, January 11, 1993, and July 30, 1993, to provide additional information on assessment of radiological impacts of plant operation:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
I.4-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:.
~
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to assessment of the radiological impacts of plant operation that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, do you agree that the ER contains an assessment of radiological impacts of plant operation using site-specific information?
If not, explain why not.
Do you agree that the assessment demonstrates compliance with the standards specified in 40 C.F.R.
Part 190?
If not, explain why not, c.
Identify any regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that the information identified in response to Interrogatory I.4-2.a be provided in the ER.
I.4-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I.4-2, above: t
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of Contention I and individuals who may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue; b.
explain why your evaluatien is incomplete; c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I.
I.5-1 In your 12/2/92 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, yun indicated that you were continuing to evaluate this 1
aspect of Contention I and were " waiting for the NRC 1
Staff's evaluation"; however, you have never supplemented that response.
In light of the changes made to Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the ER on March 31, 1992, June 30, 1992, May 1993, and June 29, 1994, Section 11 of the SAR, and Section 11 of the SER, which provide information on the environmental effects of 1
accidents:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I? -
l
I.5-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to the environmental effects of accidents that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, do you agree that the ER contains an assessment of the radiological and non-radiological impacts of accidents, using site-specific information, credible event scenarios, and release quantities, all of which are supported by data or analysis?
If not, explain why not, c.
Identify any regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that the information identified in response to Interrogatory I.5-2.a be provided in the ER.
_ =. -
-~
I.5-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I
I.5-2, above:
j I
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of contention I and individuals who may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue; b.
explain why your evaluation is incomplete; i
c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and i
i d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of contention I.
j l
I.6-1 In your 12/2/92 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, l
you indicated that you were continuing to evaluate this j
aspect of Contention I and were " waiting for the NRC Staff's evaluation"; however, you have never
}
supplemented that response.
In light of the changes made to Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the ER on May 22, 1992, t
July 30, 1993, October 12, 1993, March 29, 1994, and April 11, 1994, to provide additional information on
(
baseline data for pre-operational effluent and I
i-
'I ]
environmental monitoring program:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
I.6-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to baseline data for a pre-operational effluent and environmental monitoring program that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e.,
descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, do you agree that the pre-operational effluent and environmental monitoring program, as described in Section 6.2 of the ER, is designed to provide baseline data on the isotopes of uranium and fluorine in the various environmental media?
If not, explain why not.
Do you agree that the ER addresses onsite surveys of biota, with comparisons to those expected in the region and with anomalies noted?
If not, explain why not.
c.
Identify any regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that I
the information identified in response to Interrogatory I.6-2.a be provided in the ER.
I.6-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I.6-2, above:
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of Contention I and individuals who may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue; b.
explain why your evaluation is incomplete; c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I.
I.7-1 In your 12/2/92 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories, you indicated that you were continuing to evaluate this aspect of Contention I and were " waiting for the NRC Staff's evaluation"; however, you have never supplemented that response.
In light of changes made to Section 3.3 of the ER on June 30, 1992, July 30, 1993, and October 12, 1993, to provide additional information on the program to maintain releases as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), as well as Sections 8.1 and 8.2.3.1.3 of the SAR and Proposed License Condition 5.1:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
I.7-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I:
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to the ALARA program that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e.,
descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, do you agree that the ER and SAR contain a description of the program and/or design features to maintain gaseous and liquid effluent releases as low as reasonably achievable?
If not, explain why not.
~
c.
Identify any regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that the information identified in response to Interrogatory I.7-2.a be provided in the ER.
I.7-3 If you are unable to respond fully to Interrogatory I.7-2, above:
a.
identify the individuals performing the evaluation of this aspect of Contention I and individuals who may be called as witnesses in connection with this issue; b.
explain why your evaluation is incomplete; c.
list any documents or other information whose availability you are awaiting; and d.
state when you expect to complete your evaluation of this aspect of Contention I.
Assessment of Costs Under NEPA. Contention J Contention:
The Environmental Report does not adequately describe or weigh the environmental, social, and economic impacts and costs of operating the CEC.
Moreover, the benefit-cost analysis fails to demonstrate that there is a need for the facility.
- See, e.a.,
Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
~
ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 90 (1977) (in a power production plant licensing case, "need for power" is "a shorthand expression for the ' benefit' side of the cost-benefit balance which NEPA mandates").
On the whole, the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits of the proposed action.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19, 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) stated (pp. 33 - 39) that Contention J Bases 1, 2,
5, 7
and 8 are denied, and that Bases 3, 4,
6 and 9 are admitted.
Accordingly, Applicant's interrogatories and requests related to Contention J focus upon each admitted Basis to the extent admitted by the Board.
Interroaatories and Reauests:
Contention J.
Basis 3 LES has not provided sufficient basis for its estimates of decommissioning costs.
J.3-1 In response to Applicant's August 11, 1992 Interrogatories (Interrogatory No. J.3-1), Intervenor explained that Basis 3 of Contention J concerns NEPA's required benefit-cost analysis as it pertains to CEC decommissioning costs in particular.
(Intervenor's 12/2/92 Answers to Interrogatories at 21.)
In light of the information provided in Sections 3.3, 4.4, and 8.1.1.6 of the ER, as amended by Applicant on July 30, 1993, and October 12, 1993 (note that tails disposal,
cost figures have been updated to reflect the $1.00/kg estimate and that, while the decommissioning cost estimate states that some aluminum and recovered fluorine from the CEC will be salvageable for resale, the cost estimate does not take credit for any such resale (see ER Section 4.4.2.6 and Table 4.4.2)), and the information provided in Sections 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 4.3, 4.5 and Volume 2, pp. ix - xii of.the FEIS:
Are you i
willing to withdraw Basis 3 of Contention J?
J.3-2 If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of
]
Content'Lon J:
D a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to the costs of decommissioning that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e.,
descriptions of specific decommissioning costs that you believe have not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to'the costs of decommissioning that you believe the NRC has omitted from the FEIS.
This request should be
- 24 1
read as calling for factual information (i.e.,
descriptions of specific decommissioning costs that you believe have not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
J.3-3 With respect to disposition of uranium tails, what is the basis for your position, expressed in your 3/19/93 Answers to Applicant's Interrogatories (at p.7), that "at this time, it would appear more reasonable to follow the recommendation of the DOE Uranium Enrichment Organization, which states that a ' prudent basis for current estimates of disposal costs' would be $1.00/kgU for DU308 disposal
"?
Contention J.
Basis 4 In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19, 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) found that Basis 4 involves the following legal question:
"What, if any, consideration must be given to the need for the facility in fulfilling NEPA responsibilities?"
34 NRC at 351.
The following interrogatories and requests focus upon Contention J,
Basis 4, to the extent admitted by the Board.
l i
J.4-1 In light of the information provided in Sections 1.4, 2.1, 4.4, 4.5, and Volume 2, pp. ix - xii of the FEIS, and the NRC's specific responses in Volume 2 of the FEIS (at pp. I-165 - I-212) to each of CANT's comments on the DEIS, are you willing to withdraw Contention J, Basis 4?
J.4-2 If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 4 of Contention J, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to the need for the facility that you believe the NRC has omitted from the FEIS.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
J.4-3 In view of the Board's statements during the November 1991 Prehearing conference (Transcript at 105) and CANT's comments on the DEIS (at 24), are you willing to consolidate Contentions J.4 and K?
If not, explain the i
differences between the two contentions.
Contention J.
Basis 6 The ER does not contain a complete or adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the facility on present and possible future surface and groundwater drinking water supply.
J.6-1 In light of Sections 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1, and 6.2 of the ER, Sections 3.3.,
4.1.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3,
4.2.6.2, 4.3.4, and 5.0 of the FEIS, and the NRC's specific responses in Volume 2 of the FEIS (at pp.
I-t 165 - I-212) to each of CANT's comments on the DEIS, which provide information on the effects of facility construction and operation on the surface and underground drinking water supply:
Are you willing to withdraw Basis 6 of Contention J?
J.6-2 If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 6 of contention J:
Provide specific descriptions of the information, a.
or types of information, related to the evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the ground and surface water, and the manner in which it will be kept free from contamination, that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or information, related to the evaluation i
of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the ground and surface water, and the manner in which it will be kept free from contamination, that you believe the NRC has omitted from the FEIS.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been i
considered) rather than mental impressions or.
legal theories.
Contention J.
Basis 9 The proposed plant will have negative economic and sociological impacts on the minority communities of Forest Grove and Cedar Springs and the ER does not adequately reflect consideration of these impacts.
The closing of Forest Grove Road, which joins the two communities, and the fact that the plant is to be place 'in the dead center of a rural black community consisting of over 150 families' are cited as sources of the impacts.
i J.9-1 In light of changes made to Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the ER on June 30, 1992, and October 12, 1993, and in light of Sections 2.3, 2.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and Volume 2, pp. ix - xii of the FEIS, I
which contain information on the economic and sociological impacts of the CEC on Forest Grove and Center Springs, as well as the NRC's specific responses in Volume 2 of the FEIS (at pp. I-165 - I-212) to each
)
of CANT's comments on the DEIS, are you willing to withdraw Basis 9? l i
1
l 1
J.9-2 If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 9 of Contention J:
a.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, e
or types or information, related to economic and sociological impacts on the communities in the vicinity of the CEC, that you believe the NRC i
Staff has omitted from the FEIS.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe have not been considered in the FEIS) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
b.
In particular, identify those of CANT's comments on the DEIS, concerning economic and sociological i
impacts on the communities in the vicinity of the CEC, that you believe the NRC has not addressed in the FEIS.
No Action Alternative, Contention K Contention:
The ER violates NEPA because it does not contain an adequate discussion of alternatives to the proposed I
action.
Interroaatories and Reauests:
I K-1 In light of the information provided in Sections 1.4, 2.1, 4.4, and Volume 2, pp. ix - xii of the FEIS, and the NRC's P
specific responses in Volume 2 of the FEIS (at pp. I-165 -
e I-212) to each of CANT's comments on the DEIS, are you willing to withdraw Contention K?
t K-2 If you are not willing to withdraw Contention K, provide j
i specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, concerning the no-action alternative and the need for the CEC facility, that you believe the NRC has omitted from the FEIS.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
Environmental Imoacts of Tails Disposition, Contention W i
contention:
The DEIS is inadequate because it fails to address the impacts, costs, and benefits of ultimate disposal of DUF tails, or the cumulative and generic impacts of DUF tails disposal.
6
?
e l
Interroaatories and Recuests:
W-1 In light of the information provided in Sections 2.3.4.5 and 4.2.2.8 and Appendix A of the FEIS, are you willing to withdraw Contention W?
W-2 If you are not willing to withdraw Contention W, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to the impacts, costs, or benefits of disposition of DUF tails that you believe the NRC Staff has 6
omitted from the FEIS.
This request should be read as calling for factual information (i.e., descriptions of specific information that you believe has not been considered in the FEIS) rather than mental impressions or legal theories.
W-3 In connection with your response to Interrogatory W-2, above, identify any regulations, regulatory guidance, or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided in the FEIS. ;
I
W-4 Does Contention W differ from Contentions B and J.3?
If so, please explain the differences.
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
l J. Mich'ael hcg'arry, III WINSTON & STRAWN, October 3, 1994 ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
1 1
00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFlif 0: ATUN
)
00CKEIINC 9 \\ 3.vlCt In the Matter of
)
BRahCH
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Directed to Citizens Against Nuclear Trash Regarding Contentions I, J,
K, and W" dated October 3, 1994 hava been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 3rd day of October, 1994:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Thomas S.
Moore, Chairman Richard F.
Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Sagety and Licensing Board Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 (2 copies)
)
1 Administrative Judge Secretary of the Commission
)
Frederick J.
Shon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Attention: Chief, Docketing and Commission Service Section Washington, D.C.
20555 (Original plus 2 copies)
Office of Conmission Appellate Eugene Holler, Esq.
Adjudication Office of the General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Q Ronald Wascom, Deputy Assistant Joseph DiStefano Secretary Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Office of Air Quality &
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Radiation Protection Suite 610 i
P.O.
Box 82135 Washington, D.C.
20037 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Peter G.
LeRoy Marcus A.
Rowden Duke Engineering and Services, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Inc.
Jacobsen 230 South Tryon Street 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P.O.
Box 1004 Suite 900 South Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Washington, D.C.
20004 I
Diane Curran Nathalie Walker i
Harmon, Curran, Gallagher &
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Spielberg 400 Magazine St.
{
C/O The Institute for Energy Suite 401 and Environmental Studies New Orleans, LA 70130
}
6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 204 Takoma Park, MD 20912 l
Adjudicatory File Dr.
W. Howard Arnold l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
l Board Panel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 608 Commission Washington D.C.
20037 Washington, D.C.
20555 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
TaWpke' Robert M. Drs.1xfr/
WINSTON & STRAWN, ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
y y
,