ML20030B948
| ML20030B948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1981 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108250237 | |
| Download: ML20030B948 (64) | |
Text
(.
gra C0rreme 8/18/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TE ATO(IC SAFETY AND LICENSIR} BOARD
~
In the Matter of l[\\
chet Nos. 50 kk5 pl-I s
APPLICATION OF TEXAS ITTILITIES
,[
and 50-446 OENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AX l.
I--)l I'UC 2 d1981 b g
OPERATING LICENSE FOR C04AECHE i
g PEAK STEAM ELECI5 TIC STATION 31 ms.gf won 3
[J o,
UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)
\\D, W/
9 CASE'S SUPPLDENT\\ AL
([
fdiG 21 p d C.t,t [.y
~l (1) TO APPLICANTS REGARDING CONTENTION 22; (2) TO NRC STAFF REGARDING C0hTENTION 22; AND l.' d.#.i C
(3) TO NRC STAFF IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S 3/4/81 U
g MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CERTAIN f,
STAFF INTF.RROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR CASE OF JANUARY 19, 1981 (STAFF'S FIRST SET TO CASE)
INDEX:
(Note: We have included Me original questions and answers as well as our supplementary answers to facilitate the Board's being able to determine more easily the adequacy of our supnlementary ansvers.)
Page i
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION 22 (DERGENCY PLANNING )....................................
2 l,
SUPPLBENTARY ANSWERS IN RESPCNSE TO STAFF'S 3/4/81 MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING STAFF'S 1/19/81 FIRST' SET TO CASE.(GRANTED BY BOARD ORDER -
7/29/81,RECEIVEDBYCASE8/3/81 and (WHERE APPLICABLE), SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST OR SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TC CASE:.......................,.2......_...
19 CONTENTION 22 (DERGENCY PLANNING):
Staff's Question G-4(a) and Applicants' Question 2-2.................. 20 CASE ' s Su ppleme ntary Answe r s..................................... 20 Staff's Question G-5(a) and Applicants' Question 11-2................. 21 CASE ' s Suppleme ntary Answers..................................... 22 S taf f ' s Que stion C22-2 (c ) (i ).......................................... 22 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81............................ 22 Current
......t....................
23 g
8108250237 810818 h 4 pfI-PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
PDR v
L
.....v..
-___3__,-
j
INDEX (continued):
- page, CONTENTICN 22 (EKERGENCY PIANNIN3)(continued):
~ Staff's Question C22-5(c)(v).......................................... 23 CASE's Supplementary Answers: h/6/81............................ 23 Current........................... 2k Staff's Question C22-5(c)(vi)......................................... 24 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81............................ 2k Current........................... 2h Staff's Question C22-5(c)(vii)........................................ 24 CASE's Supple =entary Answers:
4/6/81andCurrent................
24 Staff's Question C22-5(c)(viii)....................................... 2k CASE's Supplementary Answers: h/6/81............................ 2h Current...................~........ 25 S taff ' s Que stion C22-5(c ) (ix)......................................... 26 CA3E's Supple =entary Answers: 4/6/81 and Current................ 26 Staff's Question C2P-5(c)(x).......................................... 26 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81 and Current................ 26 Staff 's Que stion C 22-5 (c ) (xi)......................................... 27 CASE's Supplementary Answers:
4/6/81 and Current................ 27 Staf f ' s Que stio n C22-6(c ) (ii)......................................... 28 CASE's Supplementary Answers: h/6/81............................ 28 Current........................... 33 Staff's Question C22-6(c)(iv)......................................... 33 CASE's Supplement iry Answers: 4/6/81 and Curre nt................ 34 Staff's Question C22-6(c)(vii)........................................ 34 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81' and Current................ 34 Staff's Question C22-6(c)(viii)....................................... 34 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81............................ 34 Current........................... 35 Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xvi) and Applicants' Question 72-2.......... 35 CASE's Supplementary Answers:
4/6/81andCurrent..............
35 Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xvii) and Applicants' Question 73-2......... 35 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81 and Curre nt................ 35 Staff's Question C22-7(c)( wi-t'. and Anplicants' Question 74-2........ 36 CASE's Supplementary Answers:
4/6/81 and Current..... C... 7...
36
~
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxi) and Applicants' Question 77-2........... 36
.m CASE's Supplementary Answers: h/6/81............................ 36 Current........................... 38 Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxix) and Applim nts' Question 85-2......... 39 CASE's Supplementary Answers:
h/6/81 and Current................ 39
~~
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxx) and Applicants' Question 86-2.......... k0 CASE's Supplementary Answers:
4/6/81 and Curre nt................ k0 Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxxi) and Applicants' Question 87-2......... 40 CASE's Supplementary Answers:
4/6/81andCurrent................
41 Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxxiv) and Applicants' Cuestion 90-2........ kl CASE's Supplementary Answersi ' ' 4/6/81 and Current.71............. kl i
11
~2*? ::.D
..L...:.: *'
u
..v.
INDEX (continued):
Page CONTEIEION 2ha (Decommissioning):
Staff's Question G-5(b)............................................... kl CASE's Supplementary Answers:
h/6/81 and Current................ h2 Staff's Question C24 h(d)............................................. h3 CASE's Supplementary Answers: h/6/81............................ 43 Current........................... hk Ste.f f ' s Que sti on C 24 h (e ).............,............................... kh CASE's Supplementary Ancvers: 4/6/81............................ 44 Current........................... 45 CONTENT' ION 2hb (Spent Fuel Accident):
S ta f f ' s Qu e s t io n G - 5 ( b )............................................... h5 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81............................ 45 Current........................... h6 Staff's Que stion C24-5 (a through j ) and (m through r)................ h6 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81............................ h7 Current............................h9 CONTEICION 2hc (fuel costs and supply):
Sta ff ' s Que stio n G - 5 (b )...............................................
50 CASE's Supplementary Answers: h/6/81............................ 50 Current........................... 51 CONTENTION 2hd (costs of vaste storage):
Staff's Questica G-5(b)............................................... 51 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81.............................
51 Current........................... 52 COIEEIEION 25 (FINANCIAL QUALIF'ICATIONS):
S ta f f ' s Que stion G - 5 ( c )............................................... 52 CASE's Supplementary Answers: 4/6/81............................ 52 Current.........................
57 Agreement betvben CASE and NRC Staff regarding supplementation of CASE ' s a n sv e r s................................. ~.................. 58 CASE ATTACHMEIE
-- Letters between CASE, FEMA, and State of Texas re: Eme rge ncy Planni ng..........................................
A.
CASE ATTACHMENT E - Latter from Harold R. Denton to TlGC0 re:
Schedule of Hearing and other dates..............................
B CASE ATTACEMENT C -- Letter from EPA re: Draft EIS (DES) Comments C
CASE ATTACHMENT D -- Map pnd Data re: Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex.....
D iii l
l
- ~
l
~... ~.
- =Z L-s.-
- 2 6.~-
8/18/81 UNITED STATES OF AM'JCA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
~~ '~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIfG BOARD In the Matter of l
l Docket Nos. 50 kh5 APPLICATION OF TEXAS trfILITIES l
and 50-446 GEIERATIMG COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN
.l OPERATI!C, LICENSE FOR C04ANCHE l
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATIr?
l UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) l CASE'S SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS:
(1) TO APPLICANTS REGARDIN3 C0!TTENTION 22; J
(2) TO NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION 22; AND (3) TO NRC STAFF IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S 3/4/81 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CERTAIN STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR CASE OF JANUARY 19, 1981 (STAFF'S FIRST SET TO CASE) s On July 23, 1981, the Board ordered all parties to comply with certain Discovery Directives in the future in these proceedint ; this was received by CASEtheafternoonof7/28/81. Among these directives-vere: that all inter-rogatories filed by any party to this proceeding, past or future, shall be deemed to be continuing in nature, and the party to whom they are addressed shall be under a continuing duty to supplement the responses as necessary to keep them currently accurate; and that all discovery shall be expedited to the
~
maximum extent' reasonably possible, to accccmodate an accelerated hearing schedule...
Pursuant.to,.the preceding, Intervenor CASE her,eby files its supplementary ansvers to Applicants and Staff regarding Contention 22 and to NRC Staff in Response to Staff's 3/4/81 Motion to Compel regarding Staff's First Set of Interrogatories to CASE., Although we realize that the for=at of this response is so=ewhat unusual, ve believe that it complies with the Board's Directives
.... -... m..
. L-
~
.w..-
1 s
- that it is in keeping with the purpose of discovery as outlined by the Board's7/23/81 order. We believe that this <i.i.'. get the necessary ir} formation into the hands of both Applicants and Staff faster than would the customary separate pleading, serve the same purpose, and cut down considerably on the amount of paperwork for all parties and the Board. Further, we believe that this is in the general spirit of' complying with the recent poster we received from the hRC's Division of Security "LESS IS MORE -- MINIMIZE REPRODUCTION OF i
(CIASSIFIED) DOClMENTS" -- we are unable to comply m-fully because we don't have any classified documents to begin with, but the copy machine with papers flying depicte'd in the poster did remind us of our copier and encouraged us to seek ways to cut down on the amount of paper generated in these proceedings.
1 In our supplementary answers, we have attempted to indicate at the end of each section which specific interrogatories are affected by our answers, for the benefit of Applicants and Staff. If there is any confusion as to
' precisely which ' interrogatories are being suppleme,nted, we ask that Applicants and/or Staff contact us at once and we will attempt to clarify the matter. This, too, is in keeping with the Board's Discovery Directives that.:- all.part.".es are
~
N.-
~
directed to confer directly with each other regarding alleged deficiencies in discovery before esorting co motions involving the Eoard.
We have also included an Index to assist everyone involved. '
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION 22 (EMERGENCY PIANNI!G)
,p e
- b 2..
1-
- * =..
t On 4/11/81 and h/13/81, CASE wrote the regional office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (see CASE Attachment A, Pages 1 and 2), requesting i
information regarding emergency planning. We were advised by the Acting Regional Director to contact Robert A. Lansford, Coordinator, Division of Disaster Emergency Services, Texas Department of Public Safety in Austin for information regarding the Texas Emergency Plan (see CASE Attachment A, Page 3); the Acting Regional Director did include some of the documents we had requested.
On 4/20/81, CASE contacted Mr. Iansford with the State agency indicated by FEMA, requesting (1) " Texas Disaster Act of 1975", (2) WPC-IL
" Current Executive Order " the Governor (Clements)"; and (3) a copy of any preliminary draft or work papers available currently on the still-in-process " Texas Emergency Plan" (especially anything regarding radiological emergencies). We also stated:
" CASE is an accepted Intervenor in the operating license hearings for the Comanche Peak nuclear plant at Glen Rose, Texas, and we need this infor-mation as soot, ss possible to assist us regarding one of our contentions regarding emergency planning. As you are perhaps already aware, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently proposing rule changes which would expedite the licensing process.
"Your immediate response would help us to assist in such expeditious efforts."
(See CASE Attachment A, Page 4.)
p On 5/8/81, Mr. Iansford-responded to our request, supplying the first two D'-
items we had reqested. However, regarding the third item we sought, he stated:
u
~'
" Work papers concerning response to radiological emergencies are in very preliminary form, and are likely to undergo extensive revision prior to submission to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for formal review.
"In addition to changes resulting frca evolving guidance provided by federal agencies, our working papers vill almost certainly be revised extensively
- L C~
.:.::: ~ T ^
u
because of actions taken by this session of the Texas Legislature. Even the Executive Order of the Governor which established the Disaster Emergency Services Council vill probably be superseded or amended before any formal submission of state plans can take place. For these reasons, working papers as they currently exist would be inappropriate for consideration in any assessment of emergency response capabilities likely to exist when the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Generating Station operating license request is considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Coc:=ission.
"I regrot that I cannot provide all of the items you requested; but, since Texas emergency plans are not currently under consideration in any licensing process, working papers which may lead to an eventual response plan appear to have little or no bearing on LnC licensing processes now in effect or #
proposed for the future."
(See CASE Attachment A, Page 5.)
on 7/28/81, CASE filed three motions, one of which was CASE's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Prehearing Conference. The Board struck these three CASEmotionson8/3/81. Based on the infor=ation we had received from the State and the fact that Applicants had previously indicated that they had not even apprised the responsible officials of Somervell and Hood Counties of the new NRC/ FEMA reouirements, this was one of the contentions which CASE believed should be discussed prior to scheduling evidentiary hearings.
Applicants statedintheir3/9/81AnswerstoCASE's2/17/81FourthSetofInterrogatories:
Question 16:
"On pages 17 and 18 of your Emergency Plan -under. Section r
4.31.1, Sheriff's Department, it is stated ' Agreements have been reached with the Somervell County and Hood County Sheriff's Departments to, support t
the CPSES Emergency Plan with a co=mitment of officers and vehicles to assist in evacuation efforts, traffic control, and security assistance.
'The Sheriff's office vill be used as the primary County Emergency -
Operations Center (EOC) in their respective counties.'
"In Appendix H page H-2 and H-3, the letters frcxn the Somervell g
County and Hood County Sheriffs' Departments only indicate that they will
' participate in the implementation of the Emergency Plan... coordinate our activities with other law enforcement agencies and. emergency personnel in j z'
- *...L~ ~
. ".. ~, ~*
~^
~~
training alerts and other training requirements as needed' and ' participate in the implementation of the CPSES Emergency Plan...we viu coordinate our
~~
activities with other law enforce =ent agencies with Cccanche Peak Station personnel and we vin participate in training exercises as required,'
respectively.
"Regarding the above, answer the following questions:
"(a) Have the Sheriffs' Departments of cach of the counties been apprised of the new information and requirements contained in NUPIG-0654, Rev.
1, November 1980, and otner pertinent NRC/ FEM documents which have been issued since they signed the letters of agreement in May 5,1977, and May 17,1977, respectively? Ansver for So=erven and Hood Countie,s:
"(1) Somervell County Sheriff's Department
"(2) Hood County Sheriff's Department
"(b) If the answer to (a) above is yes, what is there in the statements contained in their respective letters of agreement to indicate that they vill do what Applicants claim they win do in your Emergency Plan on pages 17 and 18, as referenced in question 16 above?
"(c) If the answer to (a) above is yes, where is the documentation that they have been apprised of such new infor=ation and that they agree to do what is stated by Applicants that they will do in your Emergency Plan on pages 17 and 18, as referenced in question 16 above?"
Applicants' Answer to Question 16:
"(a)(1) and (2) No. TUGC0 is in regular contact with all the-state and local planning autnorities, agencies, and service organizations frca vbich letters of agreement have been obtained, including the Hood and Sccervell Counties Sheriffs' Departments, and is in the process of, apprising them regard.
ing the 1esponsibilities of each in the Ccuanche Peak Emerge.ncy
~'" '
Plan'. - Prior to operation of Comanche Peak, these indi-viduals and organizations will be fully apprised of an appropriate regulations and criteria in effect at that time.
"(b) Not applicable.
"(c) Not applicable'."
_5_
f
- .*:~'^.',,....
~ ~ ~ ~
- "~
...... =
Question 17:
"On page 18, Emergen':y Plan (EP), under Section 4 3 1 3, Ambulance Service, it is stated ' Written agreements with the Sccervell County Ambulance Servi 7e and the Granbury Ambulance Service describe their' support in providing back-up assistance to the CPSES Emergency Vehicle to transport victims for medical assistance.'
"(a) Is t.be Somervell County Ambulance Service one and the same as the Glen Rose /Scnervell County Volunteer Fire, Rescue, and Ambulance Service?
"(b) If the answer to (a) above'is no, where is the documentation of the statement made on page 18 of the EP7
"(c) If the answer to (a) above is yes, has the City of Glen Rose been apprised of the new information and requirements contained in NUREG-0654, Rev.1, November 1980, and other pcrtinent NRC/FDM documents which have been issued since the letter from the City of Glen Rose contained in Appendix H was aigned on January 30, 19797
"(d) Is the ~;ranbury Ambulance Service one and the same as Hood Geneeal Hospital Ambulance Stervice?
"(e) If the answer to (d) above is no, where is the documentation of'the state-n.ent made on page 18 of the EP?
"(f) If the answer to (d) sbove is yes, has the Hood General Hospital Ambulance Service been apprised of the new irformation and requirements contained in NUREG-065k, Rev.1, November 1980, and other pertinent NRC/FD'.A docu-cents which heve been issued since the letter in Appendix H, frcan B. C.
Hamilton, Administrator of Hood General Hospital in Granbury, was signed on May 12,19777
"(g) If the answers to (a) and/or (d) preceding is no, provide copies of the doci: mentation referenced in (b) and (e) preceding.
" (h) If the answers to (c) and (f)'are yes, where is the documentation that -
the' City of Glen Ros'e and the Hood General Hospital Ambulance Se.vice have been apprised of the inforr.ation refe'renced in (c) and (f), that they fully understand the part their respective organizations are expected to fulfill in the event of an emergency situation.at ITES, ard that they agree to fulfill tauch requirements?
"(1) Provide copies of letters of agreement with the City of Glen Rose and the Hood General Hospital Ambulance Service which contain the informa-tion references in (h) preceding."
~_
~ ~: ~ ~ ~."..s <* * ~ ~
~ ' ' *
~' ' ~._
Applicants' Answer to Question 17-.
~~~
"(a) Yes.
"(b) Not applicable.
"(c) See response to Interrogatories 16 (a)(1) and (2).
"(d) Yes.
"(e) Not applicable.
"(f) See response to Interrogetories 16 (a)(1) and (2).
"(g) Not applicable.
"(h) Not applicable.
"(i) Not applicable."
S'milar responses were received from the Applicants in answer to Question 18 on Medical Support snd Treatment, and their responses regarding the role which Radiation Management Corporation vould play in the CPSES r.ergency Plan was e
also very enlightening about the status of emergency planning for CPSES:
Question 19:
"In the letter of agreement with Radiation Management Corporation, in Appendix H, Section 9 0 of the EP, it is stated:
'With regard to Comanche Peak, the EMAP (Emergency Medical Assistance Program) contains the follovihg provisions:
- 1. Semi-annual review of plant and hospital procedures,, equipment and supplies; one of these audits will be in conjunction with (6.) below.. 6. Annual train-ing for the plant, tsbulance and hospital personnel who may be directly or indirectly involved in the execution of the radiation medical emergency pro-4 gram; 7. Preparation of an ' accident' scenario for use as a training aid in a radiation medical emergency drill; 8. Coordination of a radiation medical emergency drill based on the scenprio; umpired, video-taped and critiqued by RMC; 9. Submission of two Drill Evaluation Reports one relating to the observations made at the station, and another relating to observations made at the hospital; ahd 10. Participation in en annual one-day seminar in Philadelphia on the management of radiation accidents for physicians. Each plant site may send one pe,rson, and each utility company may send one person.'
_7
=
Quution 19 (continu d):
" Regarding the above, provide the following information:
-- " (a) Has Radiation Management Corporation been apprised of the new informa-tion and requirements contained in NURm-0654, Rev.1, November 1980, and other pertinent NRC/ FEMA documents which have been issued since RMC's letter of agreement dated 16 December 1977?
" (b) If the answer to (a) above is yes, where is the documentation that RMC has been apprised of the information referenced in (a) above, that they fully understand the information, that they fully understand the part they and the personnel they will be training regarding CPSES ar'e expected to fulfill in the event of an emergency situation at CPSES, that they have incorpoiated the information referenced in (a) above into their training program, and that they agree to fulfill such re-quirements now and in the future?
" (c) Provide a copy of the letter of agreement with RMC which contains the information referenced in (b) above.
" (d) Regarding item 1 in RMC's letter of agreement:
"(1) Has any semi-annual review of plant and hospital procedures, equip-ment and supplies been done yet?
"(2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, provide a listing of all such reviews and/or audits showing the folioving:
date of review or audit; general su==ary of scope of review or audit; results of review or audit.
l
"(3) Provide for reviev and copying all reviews and/or audits referenced in your answer to (2) above.
"(4) Are the reviews and/or audits listed in your answer to (2) preceding l
each and every such review and/or audit which has been done to date? -
l g
~
"(e) Regarding item 6 'in RMC's letter of agreement:
"(1) Has any of the annual training referenced been done yit?
(
"(2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, provide a list of all such annual training which has been done showing the following: dates of each training program or activity; general summary of scope of training or activityi organizations, gover.1 mental agencies or entities, hospitals, ambulance, plant, and other participants which parti-l cipated in each training program or activi.ty; results of training l
program or activity..
t l
8-1
. u.
......-.2..
7 i
w.
s..
L*__
Ouestion 19 (continued):
"(3) Provide for review and copying all documents (an defined on page 2 of this pleading) referenced or relating to yot answer to (2) above.
"(4) Are the training Programs or activities listed in your answer to (2) preceding each and every such training program or activity which has been done to date?
"(f) Regarding item 7 in MC's letter of agreement:
"(1) Has the " accident" scenario for use as a training aid in a radiation medical emergency drill been developed yet?
"(2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, s.upply the basic details of sueb scenario.
"(3) Provide for review and copying a copy of the scenario and all documents (as defined on page 2 of this pleading) referenced or relating to your answerto(2)above.
"(g) Regarding item 8 in MC's letter of agreement:
"(1) Has the radiation medical emergency drill based on the scenario referenced in item 7 of RMC's letter of agreement been developed yet?
"(2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, supply the basic details of such drill.
"(3) Provide for review and copylug a copy of the drill pro ~cedures and all documents (as defined on page 2 of this pleading) referenced or relatics to your answer to (2) above.
~~'
"(4) Has the referenced drill been conducted yet?
"(5) If, the answer to (4) above is yes, supply the basic details of
. such drill, or each such drill if more than one has been conducted, including the following:
dates of each drill; general summary o.f scope of drill and general procedures covered; organizations, govern-mental agencies or entities, hospitals, ambulance, plant, and other participants which participated in each drill; results of drill (s).
"(6) specify which of the drills referenced in (5) above were video-taped.
9
."h'.
-.a.
~.
Question 19 (continued):
"(7) Specify which of the drills referenced in (5) above were critiqued
- by RMC.
"(8) Provids for review and copying a copy of each video-tape referenced in your answer to (6) above.
l
"(9) Provide for review and copying a copy of each critique by RMO ref renced in your answer to (6) above.
" (10)"If a transcript is available of any or all of the video-tapes referenced in your, answer to (6) above, provide copies of each such transcript for review and copying.
"(h) RegarM ng item 9 in RMC's letter of agreement:
"(1) Has RMC submitted any Drill Evaluation Reports relating to the observations made at the station?
"(2) If the answer to (1) above is y's, provide for review and copying a copy of each such Reporto.
"(3) If the answer to (1) above is yes, supply the basic details of each such Report, including the following:
dates of each Report; general su:nmary of content of each Report.
"(1) Regarding item 10 in RMC'c letter of agreement:
"(1) Has any annual one-day seminar in Philadelphia on the management of radiation accidents for physicians been held yet?
"(2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, supply the basic details of each such seminar, including the following: dates of each seminar; general governmental agencies or entities, bodpitals, a' i organizations, summary of scope of seminar and goals of seminar mbulancF, plant, and other participants which participated in each seminar; results of
' '3 - -
each seminar.
"(3) Provide for review and copying all band-out materials, planning. guides, training materials, and all other documents (as defined on page 2 of this pleading) used in each seminar and/or referenced in your answer to (2) above."
10 -
...a.
~
_....u
4 Applicants' Answer to Question 19:
"(a) Radiation Managerent Corporation is a consultant to Applicants for the furnishing of services involving the Energency Medical Assistance Program for Comanche Peak. As such, RMC is aware of the require-ments in NUREG-0654, Rev. 1 (November 1980). The E=ergency Medical Assistance Program is being reviewed to assure its compatibility with all current NRC regulations and criteria.
"(b) None.
"(c) None.
"(d) (1) No.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
"(e) (1) No.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
"(f) (1) No.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
"(g) (1) No.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) No.
(5) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
(10)-Notapplicable.
"(h) (1) Not applicable, refer to response to Interrogatory 19(g)(4).
~
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
~
"(1) (1) No.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable."
11 -
~~
~=. f.'
~
..I. -
._ e
Since Applicants are currently under the Board's directives contained in its July 20, 1981 Memorandum and Order:
"(3) Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2 7kO(e)(3), all interrogatories filed by any party to this proceeding, Past or future, shall be deemed to be continuing in nature, and the party to whom they are addressed shall be under a continuing duty to supplement the responses as necessary to keep them currently accurate."
. CASE assumes that Applicents will prcxtptly update tueir responses to the aforementioned and all other CASE interrogatories regarding emergency 3
planning. Should such updated response not be forthcoming, ve further assume that the answers already given by Applicants will be used by CASE in these proceedings as part of our proof that our Contention 22 is correct and that an operating license should not be granted.
Further, CASE believes that Applicants' complete and responsive answers resulting from the Board's 7/30/81 Order granting CASE's 3/17/61 Mo lon to Compel Applicants regarding CASE's 4th Set of Interrogatories, Questions 12 and 14, may also help substantiate CASE's Contention 22.
On 7/24/81, CASE received a copy of the July 20, 1931, letter from Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director-for Licensing, NRC, Washington, to Ti.GCO, re:
Frompt Notification in the Event of An Emergency. This letter stat: d:
"10 CFR 50, Appendix.E,Section IV.D.3 requires applicants for nuclear wwer reactor licenses for power operation to demonstrate that administra-tive and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure EPZ in the event of an emergency. As part of our review for an operating.'
- cense for Comanche Pesh pl' ease provide confirmation within 30 days after receipt of this lette:c that a pronpt.. notification system will be installed includ-ing a schedule for installation, a description of the system, and a 12 -
~. 2.i
~
'~
~.,
-.-. a.
description or listing of the problems that may hinder implementation.
Your verification that a public notification system meeting the regulations is in place is required prior to issuance of a license for power operation.
We expect that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will review the adequacy of the system by evaluating the results of an actual system test, probably during the joint exercise of your facility with offsite authorities..."
CASE has not received a copy of the Applicants' response to this letter (and indeed it is not clear whether or not we vill be provided 5 copy absent a specific request frcan us to Applicants -- we therefore h.reby request that Applicants send us a copy of their response to the NRC, in keeping with the Board's 7/23/81 Memorandum and order encouraging parties to engage in voluntary discovery and disclosure). We do not believe that the required notification system exists at the present time, and expect that Applicants' response vill
. further help substantiate CASE's Contention 22.
On the afternoon of 7/28/81 (after having filed CASE's three motions on the morning of 7/28/81 prior to going to work), CASE received the Board's 7/23/81 Scheduling Order wherein we learned for the first time that CASE's l
Contention 22 regarding eme gency planning has been scheduled for evidentiary
~
hearing beginning 12/2/81.
Prior to that time, CASE had been operating on the assu=ption that the schedule for the Comanche Peak hearings would be similar to '(or perhaps, consider-ing the delay in the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for CPSES, even later than) the schedule attached to the letter of March 13, 1981, from Harold R. Dentoo, Director,' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington,.......
-r..
~
~
s.. :
c
to Ferry Brittain, President of TUGC0 (see CASE Attachment B). This letter states, in part:
"Of course, if information concerning your application is not available when needed, the NRC staff will be unable to avoid changing your plant's priority consistentwith other scheduled work. Working under the very tight schedule indicated means that a slip will affect not only your SER issuance date but will also delay other scheduled dates in the licensing and hearing process related to your plant, including the decision date."-
The Schedule for CPSES indicated in the enclosure to Mr. Denton's letter showed:
IssueSER,6/11/81;ACRSmeeting,7/9/81;StartofHearing,3/82; NRCDecisionDate,2/83;ConstructionCcepletion--NRC,12/82; Applicant, 12/81.
On 7/29/81, CASE received the 7/23/81 letter from Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, '3C, Washington, to R. J. Gary, TUGCO, re: Review Cccments on Emergency Plan. This letter stated that the Licensing Division of NRC had co=pleted their review of t.,
CPSES Emergency Plan, and:
Our review has indicated'that substantial additional information and cocnitments are required before we can conclude that your onsite emergency.
preparedness program meets these criteria. Unless the plan is promptly modified to correct the many deficiencies identified with respect to the guidance of NUREG-0654, Rev.1, the licensing schedule for this facility may be affected. Enclosed are our coa:ments for which resolution is necessary.
l Your emergency plan should be revised to address these ccaments in accordance, T' I
with the provisions of tne revised 10 CFR 50. You are requested to provide your respoise within 30 days of receipt of this letter, noting the changes made in response to our ccaments.
"As stated in paragraph 50.47 (a)(2), the NRC will base its findings on a review of the FD/.A findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, and on the NRC assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are adequate and capable of be_ing implemented. In addition, an emergency response exercise with State and local goverr.=en't agencies designed to test I
the integrated capability of the emergency preparedness plans must be conducted as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E."
- w - - -
~
~~
- ~.~...$
Enclosed with Mr. Tedesco's letter were 18' pages of comments to be addressed by Applicants in a revision of their Emergency Plan for Cmanche Peak. Many of the concerns previcasly expressed by CASE are included in these ccc:ments, and we look forward to receiving Applicants revised E=ergency Plan; however, we assume that this will not be forthcoming before the first part of September at the earliest. Although we are unable to accurately estimate the full impact of such revised Emergency Plan, CASE believes that it, along with possible future interrogatories and responses regarding it, will further help to prove CASE's Contention 22.
on 8/8/81, CASE obtained a copy of the letter of 6/30/81 from Frances E.
Phillips, Acting Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, to Frank J. Miraglia, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, NRC, Washingten (see CASE's Atte.chment C). On pages 2 and 3, EPA discusses the Draft EIS, and states:
"...the Draft EIS refers to several otcer important areas which are still under NRC review. These include:
.. 3 E=ert.pncy preparedness. Facility emergency plans and State and local plans are reported to be in an advanced, bnt'not yet fully cmpleted stage.. NRC staff findings of adequacy and imple=enta-
~-
bility, for both the on-site and off-site plans, have not yet beeti' finalized. Also, the required upgrading of emergency planning has not been evaluated for its environmental imp' ct'.
a
"...In view of the above, the conclusioc stated in Section 516 3 regard-ing the station's acceptable environmental impact, would seem to be con-tingent on favorable recults from scue important ongoing staff reviews, and hence premature.' The Final EIS should be withheld until the above-mentioned reviews are ~ccepleted, or should specifically evaluate any of
~
the areas which are still undergoing review..."
- ~
..:J ~ ~ ~ "
-....m
l CASE believes that the NRC Staff's statement in the DES that facility emergency plans and State and local plans are in an advanced, but not yet fully enc:pleted stage, is very misleading and unsubstantiated by facts. We further believe that when the EPA is apprised of the actual condition of emergency I
l preparedness for Comanche Peak, it vill agree with us that hearings beginning 12/2/81arepre=ature. Further, CASE agrees with the Staff's statement in 1
the DES that "Although the presence of adequate and tested emergency plans I
cannot prevent the occurrence of an accident, it is the judgment of the staff that they can and vill substantially mitigate the consequences to the public should one occur." We therefore consider the e=ergency planning Contention 22 to be safety-related, and believe that they should be included in later hearings when other safety-related matters (such as Contention 5 on qualit; assurance /
quality control) are considered.
Following receipt of the Board's Scheduling Order on the afternoon of 7/28/81, CASE vas unavoidably unable to pursue our contentions in these proceedings for a while (due to the death of the writer's grandmother in East Texas on
~
7/30/81,andvisitingrelativesfromCaliforniafollowingthefuner11until 8/7/81).
On 8/7/81, CASE contacted the office of Robert lansford', Coordinator, Division of Disaster Emergency Services, Texas Department of Public Safety, Austin (se'e CASE Attachment A, and pages 3 and 4 of this pleading), to ascertain the progress of the Texas Emergency Plan. We were referred to Bob Free, Branch 16 -
- . ;:f ~ ~."
..u
Administrator of Emergency Response and Incident Investigation, Radiation Contr61 Board, Texas Department of Health, Austin, and on 8/7/81 ve contacted Mr. Free by phone. During that conversation, Mr. Free indicated that:
1.
His department and other State agencies are in the process of preparing major portions of the Texas Emergency Plan; 2.
There are several State agencies involved, all of which must prepare '
their portions of the plan and submit them for inclusion and incorpora-tion into the total Texas Plan; 3
The Texas Plan is not just for fixed nuclsar facilities but for all emergencies in the State of Texas; 4.
His deprtment is shooting for a January 1982 date for submission of the Plan to FDM for comment; 5
They hope to have comments by FEMA by March 1982; 6.
They are tentatively planning for an exercise sometime in August or September 1982, and possibly for a follow-up exercise before fuel loading at the Comanche Peak plant; and 7
Mr. Free agreed with CASE that consideration of CASE's contention regarding emergency planning for the Comanche Peak plant, presently scheduled by the Board for 12/2/81 evidentiary hearings, is premature considering the amount of work still remaining to be done on the Texas State E=ergency Plan.
On 8/10/81, CASE contacted by phone the FEMA Region VI office in Denton, Texas; we were referred to Helen Nixon in the Plans & Preparedness Office of FEMA,whomwe'talkedwithbyphoneon8/10/81and8/13/81. During those con-
~'
versations, Ms. Nixon _ indicated that:
1.
FEMA has received only a v m preliminary draft from the State, sort of along the line of "are we at least going in the right direction?";
2.
FEMA has made onl'y unofficial comments which would not be available
~
even under the Freedom of Information Act; l
l 17 -
... n '.
~,..
..l.-
e
3 She co=mented that it was anusual that the NRC hasn't contacted MA aboutthe12/2/81evidentiaryhearingsandthatshehadn'tevennoticed an announcement of the hearings in the FEDERAL REGISTER as is the usual practice; and 4.
She generally agreed with CASE that hearings on e=ergency planning at this time would be a vaste of everyone's time.
CASE, as previously indicated, had hoped to have our own expert witness to testify regarding meterological data concerning Contention 22 on emergency planning. However, based on the infomation outlined in the preceding pages of this pleading, we vill probably not have sufficient time for our expert to do an adequate study of air currents and other meterological data prior to the ccheduled 11/23/81 filing of written testimony. Furthermore, if hearings are held as scheduled beginning 12/2/81 on this contention, CASE can probably save our money for an expert witness and rely on the testimony of representatives of the State of Texas and FEMA, ansvers to interrogatories and testimony by Applicants, and possibly testimony of the NRC. We have not yet contacted teese possible witnesses regarding voluntarily testifying as opposed to being subpoenae.1; however, we believe these witnesses vill be available to testify
~
one way or another.
CASE believes more firmly than ever, based on the infomation we have received from FEMA and the State of Texas and the recent letter frcn the NRC,, '
to Applicants regarding the inadequate state of Applicants' onsite emergency preparedne'ss, that there vill be very litth to litigate regarding Contention 22by12/2/81 Under the present. conditions (or conditions which could possibly.
...:: ~ ~ ~."
exist by 12/2/81), hearings on emergency planning at that time would border on the ludicrous and be a vaste of time for everyone concerned. The early cut-off of discovery regarding emergency planning because of the scheduled 12/2/81 hearings vill only further damage CASE's rights and make it more diffi-ctlt for us to proceed in these hearings, since obviously additional discovery will be necessary when Applicants have supplied more information.
If, however, the hearings on emergency planning are held as scheduled on :
12/2/81, CASE believes that the Board will have no alternative but to find that CASE's Contention 22 is true, the Applicants' Emergency Plan is totally inadequate, and therefore the opi..ating license for Co=anche Peak must be denied.
The preceding supplements and bears on CASE's ansvers to the following interrogatories:
Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce, filed 1/12/81:
Questions 2-2, 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, 9-2, 10-2, 11-2.
NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories to, and Request for the Production of Documents From, intervenor CASE, filed 1/19/81:
QuestionsG-1(a),
G-2(a), G-3(a), G-W ), G-5(a), G-6(a), C22-2(c)(ii), C22-3(c)(vi),
C22-4(c)(ii),C22-5(c)(xv),C22-6(c)(ix).
CASE vill provide for inspection and copying any of the-documents referenced '
in the preceding information upon request.
.s SUPPLDiENTARY ANSWERS IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S 3/4/81 MOTION 'IO COMPEL REGARDING STAFF'S 1/19/81 FIRST SET TO CASE (GRANTED BY BOARD ORDER 7/29/81, RECEIVED BT CASE 8/3/81) and (WHERE APPLICABLE), SUPPL 9'ENTARY ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST OR SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CASE:
NOTE: Scne of the folloGing ansvers to NRC Staff's interrogatories also answer certain of Applicants' interrogatories, since many times Staff's interroga-
~
tories and Applicants interrogatories were exactly the same or very similar.
~
We therefore.have indicated'this where applicable..C..
COFFErrION 22: Applicants have failed to ecmply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasons:
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 drills 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 immediate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose; and f.
There is no provision for emergency planning for Glea Rose or the Dal.las/Ft. Worth metroplex.
(See also more detailed infomation on pages 3 through 19 of this pleading.)
The following Supplementary Answers are in addition to CASE's previous Answern Staff's Question G 4(a):
Identify by author, title, date of publication and publisher, all books, documents and papers that you intend to employ or rely upon in presenting your direct. case on: (a) Contention 22.
g plicants' Question 2-2: What is your basis for Contention 227 Please list all documents not elsewhere identified upon which you rely with respect to Contention 22.
Please provide copies of all such documents fcr inspection and copying.
~
>~
Answer: 5/8/81 letter to CASE from Robert A. Iansford, State Coordinator, Division of Disaster Emergency Services, Texas Department of Public Safety
,(CASE Attachment A, Page 5).
Applicants' 3/9/81 Answers to CASE's 2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interroga.
tories, Questions 16,17,18, and 19 -- see pages 4 through 11 of this pleading (unless such ansvers are indicated to be incorrect in Applicants' possible supplementary ansvers to these questions).
Probably Applicants' complete and responsive ansvers resulting from the Board's 7/30/81 Order granting CASE's 3/17/81 Motion to Campel Applicants regarding CASE's 4th Set of Interrogatories, Questions 12 and 14.,,...
- ?.'.
~..
Answer to Staff's G h(a) an1 Applicants' 2-2 (continued):
Probably Applicants' response to the 7/20/81 letter from Robert L.
Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, NRC, Washington, to TUGCO, re:
Prompt Notification in the Event of An Emergency -- see pages 12 and 13 er this pleading.
Possiblythe3/13/81letterfromHaroldR.Denton, Director, Office of Naclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, ' Washington, to TUGCO -- see pages 13 and 14 and Attachment B of this pleading.
The 7/23/81 letter from Robert L. h desco, Assistant Director for Licensing, NRC, Washington, to R. J. Gary, TUGCO, re: Review Comments on Emergency Plan -- see pages 14 *and 15 of this pleading.
...andApplicants'responsestoMr.Tedesco's7/23/81 letter.
The 6/30/81 letter from Frances E. Pnillips, Acting Regional Admini-strator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, to Frank J. Miraglia, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, NRC, Washington --me pages 15 and 16 and Attachment C of this pleading.
Documentation of CASE's 8/7/81 telephone conversation with Bob Free, Branch Administrator of Emergency Response and Incident Investigation, Radiation Control Board, Texas Department of Health, Austin, Texas. At this ti=e, it is not clear what the precise for=at of such docu=eatation vill be; we vill pro =ptly update our response as appropriate. See pages 16 and 17 of this pleading.
Documentation of CASE's 8/10/81 and 8/13/81 telephone conversations with the Plans & Preparedness Office of FEMA. At this time, it is not clear what the precise format of such docu=entation vill be; we vill pro =ptly update our response as appropriate. See pages 17 and 18 of this pleading.
Possibly documents relied on by a possible CASE expert witness. At this time, it is not clear whether or not CASE will have sufficient time to supply such witness with enough infomation to warrant the expense of hiring-such vitness. This is dependent upon a nu=ber of variables, not the least of which is whether or not hearings on Contention 22 are actually held beginning 12/2/81. See page 18 of this pleading. We vill promptly supplement our answer I
in this regard as appropriate.
~
l Staff's Question G-5(a):
If the representations made in (a) Contention 22 are based in whole'or in part on any documents prepared by the Applicants or NRC Staff which you. contend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the particular portions thereof you regard as deficient and explain why they
are deficient.
&pplicants' Question 11-2: Have you reviewed the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis report ("FSAR")? If not* please explain. If so, please answer the following:
...b. If (you object to any of the information, data or analyses contained or referenced therein with respect'to emergency planning), please identify those objections by. the section of the FSAR to which you object and the substance.. ".
- r. -
l Staff's Question G--5(a) and Applicants' 11-2 (continued):
f your objections.
What are the bases (legal and/or other) for your responses to...b.?
c.
Answer: Applicants' FSAR, Section 13 3A EEGENCY PIAN, page 13 3-1, whieu states "The CPSES Emergency Plan has been upgraded in order to ussure that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical e=ergency," and Applicants' Emergency Plan. Applicants' state =ent has not been documented, as demonstrated by the information contained in CASE's Answer to Staff's Question G-4(a) on pages 20 and 21 of this pleading, and on pages 3 through 19 of this pleading.
IUREG-O'iT5, Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, May 1981, page 5-43, Emergency Preparedness:
" Emergency preparedness plans includinF protective action measures for the Cccanche Peak facility and environs are in an advanced, but not yet fully completed stage." We believe that this statement by the NRC Staff is very misleading and unsubstantiated by facts detailed on pages 3 through 19 of this pleading. This statement was probably misleading to the Environmental Protection Agency, but possibly to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as well. We believe that this misleading statement may be in large part responsible for the Board's pre =ature scheduling of evidentiary hearings regarding Contention 22.
Staff's Question C22-2(c)(i): State specifically what is meant by the term
" regional" as it is used in the contention. What geographical area corresponds to the region for which you believe the authorities responsible for emergency planning should be identified? Please specify the area and provide the distance from the Co=an~he Peak site.
c Answer:
In our h/6/81 Supplementary Answers, we stated:
"Further, WRFG-0654 states:
'The concept of Emerlency-Planning Zones '
(EPZs) necessarily implies mutually supportive emergency planning and pre. - -
paredness arrangements by several levels of government: Federal, State and local governments, including counties, townships and even villages,...
The important point is that integrated emergency planning vill benefit all of the coc:munities within the Emergency Planning ZonesJ (page19)~.NRO and FEMA have deliberately consolidated in this document guidance intended for use by State and local governments and that intended to guide the emergency planning and ' preparedness activities of NRC licensees because of a shared belief that an integrated approach to the develop::ent of response plans to radiological hazards is most likely to provide the best protection of the health and safety of the public. NRC and FEMA recognize that plans -
\\
..--_m_..
f___ _l__ _ ___l 1 ' ~ ~
" ~~
~
~~
~
l Answer to Staff's C22-2(c)(1)(continued):
of licensees, State and local.ggvernments should not be developed in a vacuta or in isolation from one another. Should an accident occur, the public can be best protected when the response by all parties is fully integrated.
Each party involved must have a clear understanding of what the overall level of preparedness must be and what role it will play in the event of a nuclear accident. Thie un'derstanding can be achieved best if there is an integrated development and evaluation of planc. There must also be an acceptance by the parties and a clear recognition of the responsibility they share for safeguarding public health and safety.' etc. (pages 23 and 24). Additional guidance is contained in II. Planning Standards and Evalua-tion Criteria (pages 31 through 79) and scattered throughout NUREG-06 %.
d CASE has not at this time made an analysis which goes beyond the preceding as to the specific regional authorities responsible for emergency
' pJanning, in light of having only recently received the updated, and final version of NURT,-0654. At the present time, from the information we have so far reviewed, Applicants do not appear to have set up the fully integrated emergency response plan referenced in NUREG-0654. As soon as we have made further analyses in this regard, we vill prceptly update this answer."
As indicated above, CASE means by " regional authorities": authorities from all communities within the Emergency Planning Zones, including (but not limited to) local governments, townships, villages; this vould necessarily include Glen Rose, Granbury, Somervell County, Hood County, and portions of the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex area (see Supplementary Answer in this pleading to Question C22-7(c)(xxi) fordefinition.ofDallas/FortWorthMetroplexarea). These areas vary in distance frca the Comanche Peak plant, up to and including at least 50 miles and possibly further, depending upon air currents and vind directions. We have made no further analysis of " regional authorities" at this time, but will promptly update our answer if and when appropriate.
'. ~.
Staff's Question C22-5(c)(v): What particular role do you contend Applicants should have with respect to the implementation and carrying out of plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills?
Answer:
In our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers, we stated: "That set forth in NUREG-0654, II.N., pages 71 through 74. See also answer C22-1(a), page 14, paragraph' 2, of this pleading. CASE does not believe an anywhere near inte-grated emergency respons'e plan has been worked out for the Comanche Peak plant."
(Answer C22-1(a), page 14,' paragraph 2, of our h/6/81 Answers is quoted in this instant pleading, last paragraph'cd' page 22 continued at top of page 23.) i
-. 2,'
T...
Answer to Staff's C22-5(c)(v)(continued):
CASE at this time has made no more detailed analysis than that con-tained in NUREG-0654, II.N., pages 71 through 74, which has very specific items listed for the Licensee regarding Exercises and Drills. We frankly do not understand what else the Staff wants from us regarding this question, and if further information is sought we ask for clarification of precisely what else is required.
Staff's Question C22-5(c)(vi): What role do you contend State, local and regional officials should have with respect to developing adeq' tate plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills?
Answer: Our answer of 4/6/81 was the same as our answer for C22-5(c)(v):
"That set forth in NUREG-0654, II.N., page s 71 through 74. See also answer C22-1(a),
page 14, paragraph 2, of this pleading. CASE does not believe an anywhere near integrated emergency response plan has been worked out for the Cccanche ' Peak plant."
We have made no more detailed analysis other than that contained in NUREG-0654, and as with the previous question, we do not understand what else the Staff vants, and we as.. for specific clarification.
Staff's Question C2P-5(c)(vii): What role do you contend State, local and Sgional officials should have with respect to the implementation and carrying ouc of plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills?
Answer: Same as answer to C22-5(c)(vi) above.
Staff's Question C22-5(c)(viii): What role do you contend the NRC should have in developing adequate plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills?
Answer: In our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers, we stated: "That set forth~in
~
NUREG-0654, II.N., pages 71 through 74. See also answer C22-1(a), page-lk, paragraph 2, of-this pleading."
(Answer C22-1(a), page 14, paragraph 2, of our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers is quoted in this instant pleading, last paragraph of page 22 continued at top of page 23.) " CASE does not believe an' anywhere near integrated emergency response plan has been worked out for the Ccmanche Peak plant."
"...we have not made any analysis as to which specific Federal emergency response organizations should be involved (i.e., whether such organizations are specifically the NRC, FDfA, etc. insofar as what particular role the NRC should play, what particular role the FH4A should play, etc.)."
~
.a.-
.._--u-e.,
s.
~
Answer to Staff's C22-5(c)(viii)(continued):
We now have copies of: the FEDERAL REGISTER, 12/23/80,pages8h91othrough 84917, Federal E=ergency Management Agency National Radiological Emergency Preparedness / Response Plan for Cccmercial Nuclear Power Plant Accidents (Master Plan), which is the most recent Master Plan according to FEMA as of 8/13/81; andthe8/19/80FEDERALRECISTER,pages55402through55416,NuclearRegulatory Ccemission, Emergency Planning: Final Regulations. Information contained in these documents states:
"In order to... receive an operating license, an applicant / licensee vill be required to submit its emergency plans, as well as State and local goverrcental emergency response plans, to NRC. The NRC will then make a findin6 as r.o whether the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
The NRC will base its finding on a review of the FEMA findings and determinations as to whether S'. ate and local emergency plans are ade-quate and capable of beint, irwesented and on the NRC e. sessment as to whether the applicant's licensee's emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented. In any NRC licensing proceeding, a FEMA finding vill constitute a rebuttable presumption on the question of adequacy. Specifically:
a.
An operating license vill not be ise,ued unless a favorable NRC overall finding can be made.
.. 2. Emergency planning considerations must be extended to ' Emergency Planning Zones,' and
- 3. Detailed emergency planning implementing procedures of both licensees and applicants for operating licenses must be submitted to NRC for review."
-- NRC E=ergency Planning: Final Regulations t
l "The NRC...will be responsible for technical coordination of the Federal l
response. For the purposes of this Plan, ' technical' refers to all aspects of radiological monitoring, evaluation, asse,ssment,and report-ing, the application of sophisticated technology to control or predict the impact of radiological contamination, and the use of all available instrumentation to develop recommendations for protective measures for the affected population and the decontamination.of property. The i
NRC will prepare appropriate recommendations for protective measures.
for State and local officials, including the governors and local chief I
executives. Such recommendations will reflect all substantive dissent-1ng views from other Federal agencies and the licensee and vill be presented jointly with FD/.A.
Direct contact between the NRC and State / local officials is to be expected if imminent peril to the public health and safety exists,and time does not permit a coordinated reco=menda-I tion.
... r...
--e
1 l
Answer to Staff's C22-5(c)(viii)(continued):
" FEMA and the NRC have the primary roles in coordinating the Federal response to a co=mercial nuclear power plant accident and the DOE has a major technical support function...The NRC is responsible for coordi-nating the Federal technical response."
-- FEMA Emergency Preparedness / Response Master Plan In addition, policy and planning guidance is included which is to be used by each Federal agency in preparing its detailed implementation plan.
Other than the preceding, CASE has cade no further analysis of the role of the NRC in developing adequate plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills or for the implementation and carrying out of adequate plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills. If further information is required by the#
Staff in answer to this interrogatory, we request clarification of exactly what additional infomation is required.
Basically, CASE is not as concerned which particular Federal, state, local, regional, or Applicants' officials carry out which particular portions of the various aspects of emergency planning which is required, as we are that someone make sure that all applicable Federal requirements be co= plied with, and that Applicants not be granted an operating license until this is done.
Staff's Question C22-5(c)(ix): What role do you contend the NRC should have with respect to the implementation and carrying out of adequate plans for testing emergency plans by periodic drills?
Ancuer: Same as answer to C22-5(c)(viii) preceding.
Staff's Question C22-5(c)(x): What role do you contend the Federal E=ergency Management Agency (" FEMA") must have with respect to developing adequate plans for testing of emergency plans by periodic drills?
Answer: In our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers, we stated: "That set forth in NUREG-065h, II.N., pages 71 through 74. See also answer C22-1(a), page 14, paragraph 2, 'of this pleading."
(Answer C22-1(a), page 14,, paragraph 2, of our h/6/81 Supplementary Answers is quoted in this instant pleading, last paragraph of page 22 continued at top of page 23.) " CASE does not believe an anywhere near integrated emergency response plan has been vorked out for the Cccanche Peak plant."
"...we have not made any analysis as to which specific Federal einergency respottse organizations should be involved (i.e., whether such organizations are specifically the NRC, FEMA, etc. insofar as what particular role the NRC should play, what particular role the FD'A should play, etc.)."
We now have a copy of the FEDERAL ' REGISTER, 12/23/80,pages84910through.
....:~.
~ ~ ~ ~ *
- '~~
^~
A Ansver to Staff's C22-5(c)(x)(continued):
84917, Federal Emergency Management Agency Nat' onal Radiological Emergency i
Preparedness / Response Plan for Ccm:mercial Nuclear Power Plant Accidents (Master Plan), which states in part:
That FEMA has the responsibility for the development and promulgation of the Master Plan, will present jointly with NRC appropriate recom-mendations for protective measures for State and local officials, includ-ing the governors and local ' chief executives, and:
" FEMA vill coordinate all non-technical aspects of the Federal respon'se.
For the purposes of this Plan, 'non-technical' support refers to all types of assistance to Federal and Statc/ local < organizations, such as transportation, communications and housing, assistance to State / local agencies in implementing protective measures, and all other types of assistance not classified as technical...the NRC, DOE and FDM have co=plementary roles and, therefore, require a close working rele. tion-ship with each other during an emergency."
The Master Plan then sets forth other, more specific responsibilities for FDM, along with General Responsibili'ies which are applicable to all Federal agencies identified in this haster Plan. CASE assumes that the Staff also has a copy of this Master Plan.
Other than the preceding, CASE has made no further analysis of the role of the FEMA in developing adequate plans for testing of emergency plans by periodic drills or with respect to the implementation and carrying out of adequate plans for testing of emergency plans by periodic drills. If further information is required by the Staff in answer to this interrogatory, we request clarification of exactly what additional information is required.
l As previously stated, CASE is not as concerned which particular Federal, state, local, regional, or Applicants' officials carry out which particular portions of the various aspects of emergency planning which is required, as we are that scceone make sure that all applicable Federal requinments-be complied with, and that Applicants not be granted an operating license until this is done.
Staff's Question C22-5(c)(xi): What role do you contend FEg!A should have with respect to the implementaticn and carrying out of adequate plans for test ~-
ing of emergency plans by perPdic d.* ills?
Answer: Sa=easanswertoC22-5(c)(x) preceding.
_ g7 _
~>.2.'.'"..
'. T. -
~ "
Staff's Question C22-6(c)(ii): What particular role de you contend Applicants chould have with respect to " provision for medical facilities in the i= mediate vicinity of the site"? What is the basis for your position in this rege.zd?
Answer: Inour4/6/81SupplementaryAnswers,westated: " Local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, im_luding assurance that persons providing these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated individuals, shall be arranged for by Licensee, State and Local emergency response organizations -- according to NRC regulations, including especially II.L.1., page 69" (of NUREG-0654).
[
d NUREG-0654 speci.fies the State authorities responsible for emergency planning as: ' State... governments' involved 'in the development of radio-logical. emergency response plans and preparedness in support of nuclear Power plants' (page 1, I.A.1.); 'The guidance intended for use by Sthte and local governments has been drawn in large part from existing documents...F etc. (page 4, C., 2nd paragraph); etc., in a very general way. It further specifies that: 'Each plan shall identify the State... organizations...that are intended to be part of the overall response organization for E=ergency Planning Zones' (page 31, II.A.1.a.); 'Each organization and' auborganization having an operational role shall specify its concept of operations, and its relationship to the total effort.' (II.A.l.b.), 'Each plan shall illustrate these interrelationships in a block diagram.8 (II.A.l.c.),'Each organization shall identify a specific individual by title who shall be in charge of the emergency response.' (II.A.l.d.), 'Each organization shall provide for 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day mann!ng of ccumunications links.' (II.A.1.e.); 'Each organization shall specify the functions and responsibilities for ma,jor elements and key individuals by title, of emergency response, including...'etc. (page 32, A.2.a.); 'Each prineinal organization shall be, capable of continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period. The individual in the principal organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material) shall be specified by title.' (page 33, A.4.); further specific requirements regarding State authorities are contained. in II.C.l.a. (page 40), II.C.4 (page 41), II.F.1. (page 47),,
II.G. 4. (page 50),.II.P.2. (page 78), II.P.3. (WE'"78).- There are e
numerous references to organizations or suborganizations which should -
be identified, if not by name, at least to 'the extent necessary to aasure.
that -snfficient trained, capable personnel exisf, and.will be available to fulfill % heir required functions.n e'.
" Further, EUlGG-0654 states:
vThe concept of Emergency Planning lenes
.I,
(EPZs) necessarily implies mutually supportive emergency planning and pre-g
.;pdf paredness arrange =ents by several levels of government: Federal, State
[
. and local governments, including counties, townships and even villages...
_,__...-.... 2.'.
..a.
3.__g
l Answer to Staff's C22-6(c)(ii)(continued):
,G The important point is that integrated emergency planning vill benefit all J
vf the cmmunities within the Emergency Planning Zones.'
(page19). 'NRC and FEMA have deliberately consolidated in this document guidance intenued for use by State and local governments and that intended to cuide the emergency planning and preparedness activities of NRC licensees because
- I, of a shared belief that an integrated approach to the development of response plans to radiological hazards is most likely to provide the best protection
- f of the health and safety o'r the public. NRC and FEMA recognize that plans if of licensees, State and local governments should not be developed in a vacuu:
or in isolation from one another. Should an accident occur, the public can be best protected, when the response by all parties is fully integrated.
Each party involved must have a clear understanding of what the overall level of preparedness must be and what role it will play in the eventi of 1
a nuclear accident. This understanding can be achieved best if there is an integrated development and evaluation of plans. There must also be an acceptance by the parties and a clear recognition of the responsibility
- C "
they share for safeguarding public health and safety.' etc. (pages 23 and 24). Additional guidance is contained in II. Planning Standards and Evalug-tion Criteria (pages 31 through 79) and scattered throughout NUREG-0654."
s, 9-
"There should be sufficient trained, capable
(__,
personnel-in existence and available to fulfill each and every function specified. It is not sufficient to say these criteria vill be emplied with vithout ' knowing that there Will be real live people available to
,I accomplish them, and that! such real live people have been adequately trained to do their jobs, and that such real live people vill actually 3
.,i and in fact be available when needed."
"Further, since we have not yet l
reviewed the Hood County and Scxnervell County Emergency Operations Pla'a,
we cannot assess at this time any gaps there may be in the fully integrated emergency response plan in regard to the County and town coordination during an emergency. We vill update this answer promptly as soon as we have completed our reading of the County Plans should such updating in,
this regard be needed."
1"Although we have now re.ceived these two documents, we have not had an opportunity
. to review and analyze them yet becauce we have been busy supplementing our ansvers to Applicants' and the NRC Staff's interrogatories and filing Motion to Compel Applicants to supply complete ansvers to our interrogatories and to cupple=ent ansvers."
29 -
,.ed
- _:2;; - 7."
'n
.__.m
Answer t; caff's C22-6(c)(ii)(continuel):
Part of the basis for our position is:
%e following portions of Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50:
I.
'Esch applicant for an operating license is required by 50 3h(b) to include in its final safett. analysis report' plans for coping vi'... emergencies...This appe. dix establishes minimum require-ments for emergency plans.* These plans shall be described in the preliminary safety analysis ' report and submitted as c. part of the final safety analysis report.' -
III. 'The Final Safety Analysis Report shall contain plans for copi g with emergencies...the plans submitted must include a description of the elements set out in section IV to an extent sufficient to demonstrate that the plans provide reasonable ;
assurance that appropriate measures can and vill be taken in the event of an e:nergency to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to property.'
IV.
'The emergency plans shall contain, but not necessarily be limited to, the following elements:
'A. The organization for coping with radiation emergencies, in which specific authorities, responsibilities, and duties are defined and assigned, and the means of notification, in the event of an emergency, of: (1) Persons assigned to the licensee's emergency organization, and (2) appropriate State, and Federal agencies with responsibilities for coping with emergencies;
'B.
...Other persons with special qualifications who are not employees of the licensee e_al who may be called upon for assistance l
shall also be identified. (by written identification, by position or function). The special qualifications of these... persons l
shall be described; i
l
'C.
Means for determining the' magnitude of the release of radioactive materials, including criteria for determining the need for notification and participation of 1ccal and State agencies...and criteria for determining when protective measures '
should be considered within and cutside the ' site boundary to protect health and safety and prevent dange to property;
'D. Preedures for notifying,'and agreements reached with local, State, and Federal officials and agencies for the early varning of the public aci for public evacuation or other protective measures should such warning, evacuation, or other protective measures beccue necessary or desirable, including identification of the principal officials, by title and agencies;
'E.
- Provisions for maintaining up to date: 1. The organiza-tion for coping with emergencies, 2. the procedures for use in e:nergencies, and 3. the lists of persons with special qualifi-cations for coping with emergency conditions;....
~ ~ ** w..
- . ~'
J
Answer to Staff's CP2-6(c)(ii)(continued):
TF.
Emergency first aid and personnel decontamination facilities, including:... Arrangements for the services of a physician and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emnergencies; and Arrangements for transporta'fon of injured or contaminated individuals to treatment facilities outside the site bou.lary;
'G. Arrangements for treatment of individuals at treatment facilities outside the site bondary;
'H. Provisions for trainird of...other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency;
'I. Provisions for testing, by periodic drills, cff radiation emergency plans to assure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific duties, and provisions for par-ticipation in the drills by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency;'
(Emphases added.)
"The NRC and FEMA have now set forth ' guidance and upgraded acceptance
- criteria' which 'is to provide a basis for NRC licensees, State and local governments 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 FEMA and NRC on this subject. It vill be used by reviewers in determining the adequacy of State, local and nuclear power plant licensee emergency plans and preparedness.'
(FOREWORD, page 1, NUREG-0654, FEMA-RKP-1, Rev.1, November 1980, referred to herein as NUREG-0654).
See also answer to C22-1. (a): second paragraph, page 13, through page 15; of this pleading."
'Regarding the local officials and agencies: CASE does not believe that adequate documentation has been supplied by Apnlicants regarda i
ing the-authority of same local officials and agencies to speak on behalf of the agencies they purportedly represent; ve do not believe that Applicants have adequately documented precisely what functions local officials and agencies will actually be responsible
'for.
Generally, vrttten agreements should be obtsihed v'ith local
~
officials spelling out what specifically they vill do in the event
' '.r -
of an emergency regarding the early varning and evacuation of the
[
public; this should include procedures for alerting, notifying, 3
and mobilizing emergency response personnel and alerting and noti-fying the public regarding such emergency as quickly as possible,
as well as' making sdvance preparations to assure that in the event of an energency the public could be evacuated quickly and safely, in addition to all other specifica set forth in NUREG-0654. CASE
/
~
also does not believe Applicents have given any assurances that there vill be an integrated emergency plan which can actually
{
function in the event'of an emergency situation." 1 l
' 2
Answer to Staff's C22-6(c)(ii)(centinued):
" CASE is still in the process of checking out (in the form of interrogatories to Applicants) mucWof the specific information below, and it may well be that when we have an opportunity to continue with our questions of Applicants that we vill find that they have resolved our concerns in this regard. However, in the meantime:
e uOnly Hood General Hospital in Granbury is alleged by Applicants to have agreed to take care of radiation victims. To begin with, CASE does not believe that the only hospital available for such services should be located 16 miles frca the plant; further, we vant to be sure exactly where this hospital is located with regard to vind direction frcu CPSES in the event of an accident and plan to pursue this further v,ith Applicants f n interrogatories; further, we question the authenticity and adequacy of an agreement which the Applicants allege constitutes ' documentation' which was undated, not written on Hood General Hospital letterhead, signed without typed name of signator or sny indication of said signator's position of authority with the Hospital, typed on a different typewriter than the May 12, 1977, letter on Hospitti stationary, and signed by a different individual than the May 12, 1977, letter frena
- 3. C. Hamfiton, Administrator of Hood General Hospital (we plan to pursue this further with Applicants in interrogatories); further, CASE is not certain exactly what sarvices Hood General Hospital is qualified to administer or what services Hood General Hospital believes they will have to administer; further, Applicants have now confirmed that Hood General Hospital has not been apprised of the new information and requirements contained in NUREG-0654, Rev.1, November 1980, and other pertinent NRC/TEMA docuznents which have been issued since the May 12, 1977, letter of agree-ment was signed, so the Hospital cannot at this' time know exactly what will be expected of them, much less sign a letter of agreement
'which has any validity insofar as offering assurance' that they will provide as yet unknown services. SeeCASE's2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Reque sts To Produce, Applicants' 3/9/81 Answers to CASE's Fourth Bet of,Interrogatt.,eies,
, and CASE's 3/17/81 Motion to Ccuspel, and to Require Supplementation -
of Responses to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, s,
especially regarding questions 16 through 19 We vill be pursuing
~
these matters further with Applicants. As stated earlier, it may be that scue of cur concerns vill be ' alleviated by Applicants' responses. As th1.ngs stand now, it appears that Applicants' Emergency Plan is deficient in regard to ccupliance with NRC regulations, especially NUREG-0654, II.L., page 69 In addition, s.s stated previously in this pleading, we have not yet reviewed the Hood County and Scenervalyop> pa'ragraph, of this pleading);
ty Imergency Operations Flans (see answer 0-4.(a), page 2) lasL therefore, we do not presently know whether or not the County l -
.D..
L - -,-- - - --, -
n-
Answer to Staff's C22-6(c)(ii)(continued):
lP ans are s4 equate and answer concerns we may have about them; ve vill promptly update our response to this portion of this question at that time. Further, as previously indicated in
(
this pleading, the agreements reached with State offici%1s and agencies are unknown; according to the Applicants, the Texas State Plan has not even been completed yet and therefore is at the prer.ent time non-existent. There are other questions which CASE has re6arding this portion of t,his contention; we vill promptly update our response as soon as we know further ansvers ourselves."
"In addition to the questions which CASE vill be and is presently pursuing with Applicants, there are other areas which need to be explored: Since Hood General Hospital is alleged to be the ' local support hospital for contaminated victims, providing gross decon-tamination, life saving activites, and patient stabilization,'
(according to the Applicants' Emergency Plan, 6.6.4, page 64) what vill happen to the conta.ninated victims if the plu=e from an acci-dent is going towards that hospital? What docu=entation is there that Hood General Hospital has adequate facilities and personnel to provide the assurance referenced in (i) above?" (i) above is quoted in the first paragraph of CASE's answer in this instant pleading, page 26.
" CASE will also be exploring these areas of concern, and we vould hope that the NRC Staff would also be concerned with them."
As detailed on pages 4 through 12 of this pleading regarding Applicants' 3/9/81 Answers to CASE's 2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interrogatories, the current anevers wh;ch vc have from the Applicants still indicate that the concerns diacussed in CASE's 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers to Staff are still valid.
We assume that Applicants vill promptly update their responses to CASE's interrogatories and ths.t we vill soon receive frect Applicants their response totheBoard's7/30/81OrdergrantingCASE's3/17/81MotiontoCompelregarding CASE's 4th Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, Questions 12 and 14. We expect tnat Applicants' ansvers vill further substantiate CASE's Contention 22.
Since the Emergency Plan is prepared by the Applicants, it-is the re-sponsibility of the Applicants to include in it sufficient infor=ation to co= ply with all Federal regulations and guidances.
We have detailed in our previous anovers several specific areas in which Applicants' Emergency Plan is deficient regarding " provision for medical facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site" and these should be brought' into compliance with Federal regulations. We have stated the bases for our position in this regard. If Staff requires further information, we request clarification of precisely what infor=ation is desired.
Staff's Question C22-6(c)(iv): -What role do you ccntend state and local officials should,have with respect to " provision for medical facilities in the it::ediate,,..
d
Staff'sC22-6(c)(iv)(continued):
vicinity of the site" ? ht is toe basis for your position in this regard?
~Enswer: Our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers stated:
" Local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluaction of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that persons providing these services are ade-quately prepared to handle contaminated individuals, shall be arranged for by Licensee, State and Local emergency response organizations -- according to NRC regulations, including eyecially II.L.l., page 69" of NUREG-065k.
If the Staff requires additional information regarding this interrogatory, CASE requests clarification of precisely what additional information is desired.
Staff's Question C22-6(c)(vii): h t role do you contend the Federal Emergency Management A ency (" FEMA") should have with respecs to " provision for medical 5
facilities in the i.mmediate vicinity of the site"? ht is the basis for your position in this regard?
Answer: Our h/6/81 Supplex.entary Answers stated:
" CASE has made no specific analysis as to which specific Federal emergency response agencies or organizations should do which specific things. We do, however, expect the Applicants to comply fully with all NRC and FDIA guidance and requirements before an operating license is granted and before Applicants are allowed to load fuel, and we expect the NRC Staff to see that this is done."
Although CASE now has some additional information regardin6 the responsibilities of FEMA (see Answer to Staff's C22-5(c)(x), last sentence of page 26 through 27 of this pleading), our basic answer would still be the same at this time as it was in our h/6/81 Supplementary Answers. If the Staff requires further infomation re~ arding this interrogatory, we ask for clarification 'of precisely g
what information is desired.
Staff's Question C22-6 (c)(viii): h t is the geographical-area which corre-
~
sponds to the "immediate vicinity of the site, which includes Glen Rose"?
Specify that area and provide the distance of the area frce the Comanche Peak site. h t is the basis for your position in this regard?
Answer: In our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers, we stated:
"We have not made a-specific analysis which you request. Generally, we mean the 'immediate vicinity of the site' to include the town of Glen Rose, perhaps the town of Granbury, unincorporated areas which are adjacent to CPSES. The basis for our position as to what constitutes the 'imediate vicinity of the site' is based on the rule of reason."
+e
= - - - * - -, +,
ge,
Answer to Staff's C22-6(c)(viii)(contin 2ed):
Generally, the area involved vculd be cround 15 miles or so from the site.
We still have not made the specific analysis which the Staff requested. It is our understanding that we are not required to make specific special analyses in order to answer interrogatories, and we do not understand what other infor *
.mation the Staff requires. If further information is required regarding this interrogatory, we ask for clarification of precisely what inforr.ation is desired.
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xvi): What role do you contend the Federal E=ergency Management Agency (" FEMA") should have with respect to e=ergency planning for theGlenRoseandtheDallas/FortWorthmetroplex?
A_pplicants' Question 72-2: What responsibilities do you contend the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") must have with respect to emergency planning for the Glen Rose and the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex?
Answer: Inour4/6/81SupplementaryAnswerstoStaff,westated:
"That set forth in NUREG-0654, especially in II. Planning Standards and Enlustion Criteria.
(See also previous responses C22-2.(d), pages 17 through 19 of this pleading.)"
(C22-2.(d), pages 17 through 19 of our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers is quoted on page 30, page 31 except for last paragraph, of this instant pleading.)
"We have not at this time made a further specific analysis beyond this; ve vill promptly update this response if and when we do so."
In our 3/13/81 Answers to Applicants' Second Set, we stated: "Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially in II. Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria; see previous responses in this pleading. CASE does not have a clear understanding of precisely which federal agencies will be doing what, but we assu:re the FEMAvill be one of the federal agencies involved; we have made no further detailed analysis in this regard."
We now have a better understanding of the responsibilities of FEMA (see Answer to Staff's C22-5(c)(x), last sentence of pages 26 through 27 of this instant,
pleading). Our answer, in addition to that previously stated, would now be:
That set forth in the National Radiological Emergency Preparedness / Response Plan for Co==ercial Nuclear Power Plant Accidents (Master Plan), FEMA, FEDERAL REGISTER, 12/23/80, pages 84910 through 84917 We have made no further detailed analysis regarding this. If the staff requires further infor=ation regarding this interrog' tory, we ask for' clarification of precisely what infor=ation is a
desired.
Staff'.3 Question C22-7 (c)(xvii): What role do you contend FDIA should have.
with respect to the actuation of e=ergency plans?
Appliants' Question 73-2: What responsibilities do you contend FD4A should have with respect to the actuation of emergency plans?
~
Sa=e as answer to' Staff's C22-7(c)(xvi) and Applicants' 72-2 above.
Answer: *
~
..1
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xviii): What role do you contend FIMA should have with respect to carrying out emergency plan men =ures?
A_pplicants' Question 7k-2: What responsibilities do you contend FEMA should
'have with respect to carrying out emergency plan measures?
Answer: Same as answer to Staff's C22-7(c)(xvi) and Applicants' 72-2 preceding.
i i
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxi): What is tne geographical area which corresponds to the " Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex", for which you contend there should be emergency planning? Please specify that area and provide the distance of the.
area frce the Coma :he Peak site.
Applicants' Question 77-2: What is the geographical area which corresponds to the area you are concerned with when you speak of emergency planning for the " Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex"? Please specify that area and provide the distance of the area from the Cccanche Peak site.
Answer:
In our 4/ 781 Supple =entary Answers to Staff, we stated:
" CASE maintaina that all segments of the public must, Le considered vbo may be affected by accidenti at CPSES, including, in the event of
- r. vorst-case accident or a1 accident with larce releases of radiation or radioactive materials into the atmosphere, the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex area if there exists the possibility that the upper air currents may carry the radioactive materials to the metroplex area.
See ansvers to G-4. (a): paragraphs 3 and 4, Pa88 2; Paragraph 2, page 3; last paragraph of page 3, continued on top of page 4; of this pleading. Under certain meterological conditions and certain accident conditions, probably some type of emergency planning should be provided for the entire Dallas / Fort Vorth metroplex area; we have not yet mada detailed analyses of this at this time, but vill promiptly.
update our response as soon as we have done so. See also NUREG-o654, Appendix 4, II.D., page h-h, which states "Where meteorological conditions such as dominant vind directions, varrant special consideration, an addi-tional sub-area may/need to be defined and a sepaiate esticate made for
~
this case."
See.also NUREG-0654, especially I.D.2, pages 10 a'nd 11.
CASE believes that some portions of the Dallar/ Fort Worth metroplex areas shoul'd be included in the plume exposure pathvay even though they are outside the 10-mile area and that some should be included in' the ingestion exposure pathway even though they are outside the 50-mile area. We have n'o't yet made a more thorough analysis of the specific areas because we have not 9et made a more thorough analysis of the upper air currents from CPSES.
- 3o -
G Ge
....-.---.1...
Answer to Staff's J22-7(c)(xxi) and Applicants' 77-2 (continued):
However, we do_ know that there are often st.rong upper air currents, especially during thunderstorms, which blow from the.CPSES area toward the Dallas / Fort Worth area. At the presenttime, this is based on personal knowledge and past weather forecasts during storms; howeveY, we expect that meterological reports from the weather bureau will cenfim this fact.
As soon as we have made this more detailed analysis, we vill prmptly update our response to this question."
l Regarding Applicants' FSAR:
"3 l
Section llA-1. We don't believe applicants have adequately considered the possible contamination of water from accidents at CPSES. Paragraph 1 of 11A.1 CRITICAL PATHWAYS states:
' Pathways of hu=an exposure to; plant radioactive emissions likely to account for most of the exposure from plant operation and from accidents are discussed in this section.
These discussions are based upon a knowledge of the characteristics of'the site environment and on predicted effluent releases presented in Tables 11A-1 and llA-4.'* The discussions appear to be primarily regarding norcal or routine operation,.rather taan accidents, ascb Tables 11A-1.and llA-4.
(*E=phasis added.)
"It would therefore appear that adequate consideration has not been given to the ingestion exposure pathway, in light of the statement in NUREG-0654, Rev.1, November 1980 (hereinafter referred to as NUREG-0654) on page 9:
'D.b. Ingestion exposure pathway -- Tne principal exposure from this pathway would be from ingestion of contaminated water or foods such as milk, fresh vegetables or aquatic foodstuffs.'
'It should be noted that this ob,)ection may very well be taken care.
of if we are permitted tc ask scxne questions regarding it; however, until ve ask and receive ansvers to our questions, we object to this portion o,f Section 11A-1.
N l
Section 15B.2 ASSUMPTIONS regarding DOSE MODELS USED TO EVALUATE THE l
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ACCIDENTS:
'2. All radioactivity releases are treated as ground level releases regardless of-the point of discharge.'
And' Section 2 3 4.2,' Calculations of Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion s,
Estimates: 'It was assumed that the releases emanate frcan a point source ~
at ' ground level...' CASE believes that this may also have a bearing on the spread and carrying of radioactive releases b'y upper air currents which blow frcan the Comanche Peak area toward the Dallas / Fort Worth' metroplex area. "
m l
l
......?..
.+-
Answer to Staff's C22-7(c)(xxi) and Aprlicants' 77-2 (continued):
In reviewing our ansvers, we can well understand the confusion of non-Texans as to precisely what is meant by the " Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex area."
We have attempted to find out the precise boundaries involved. Tnis is a generally and videly-used tern which apparently was first introduced by someone in public relations, and the phrase caught on and has been absorbed into everyday usage since then.
We contacted the North Central Texas Council of Governments, and found that the closest definition to the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex area is apparently the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), which is cccposed of the following Texas counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kauttan, Parker, Rockvall, Tarrant, and Wise. We have attempteci to roughly outline this area in relation to the Comanche Peak Plant (see CASE Attachment D). As can be seen, this area is roughly 6 to 110 miles from the Comanche Peak site.
(However, as previously stated, CASE is not saying that the entire SMSA should be included in emergency planning for Cccanche Peak, but that part of the area should.) As indicated in CASE Attachment D, page 2, "According to the 1980 Census, the Dallas / Fort Worth SMSA (2,966,342) is the largest metropolitan area in the State. It grew frcm 1970-80 at an annual rate of 2 3 percent per year with a nu=erical change of 588,719 persons or 24.8 percent change for the decade. Our (the North Central Texas Council of Government's) esticates show that the SMSA has grown by 91,708 persons or a percent increase of 31 percent fro = April 1,1930 to January 1, 1981. Tae cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Garland and Irving all show population in excess of 114,000 persons, while the combined popr% tion of Dallas and Fort Worth represents h2.6 percent of the total SMSA population in 1981. The largest numerical increases were in the cities of Fort Worth (14,771), Plano (5,984), Arlington (5,777), Irving (4,891), Garlan:f (k,701),
Hurst (h,251), and Carrollton (4,C59) which represents 48.5 percent of the total numerical change for the SMSA from 1930-81. Several other cities, including Richardson, North Richland Hills, Denton, Addison, Grapevine, and Bedford, recorded an increase in excess of 2,500 each from 1980-81."
As stated in our h/6/81 ansvers, we have not yet made a more thorough analysis of the precise portion of the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex area for which we contend there should be emergency planning; this vill depend upon the analyses '
made by our expert witness regarding air currents frem the Comanche Peak site' toward the Metroplex area. However, as stated on page 18 of this pleading,
" based on the information outlined in the preceding pages of this pleading, we vill probably not have sufficient time for our expert to do an adequate study of air currents ana other meterological data prior to the scheduled 11/23/81 filing of written testimony. Furthermore, if hearings are held as scheduled beginning 12/2/81 on t,his contention, CASE can probably save our money for an expert witness and rely on the testimony of representatives of the State :. ". T ~."
'^
Answer to Staff's C22-7(c)(xxi) and Appl.icants' 77-2 (continued):
_of Texas and FD M, ansvers to interrogatories and testimony by Applicants, and possibly testimony of the NRC."
(See pages 18 and 19 of this pleading for more det. ailed information.) We believe that if the hearin6s are held as scheduled, the Bcard will have no alternative but to find that the Applicents' Emergency Plan is totally inadequate and the operating license must therefore be denied.
As soon as we have contracted with an expert witness to prepare an analysis of the air currents from CPSES, we will promptly supplement our answers.
In the meantime, our current response is the best we can do based on the information we presently have available.
Staff's Questien C22-7(c)(xxix): With respect to each of your responses to Interrogatories (xxvi) through (xxviii)(regarding dangers which CASE contends might require emergency action in the Glen Rose, Fort Worth, and Dallas arcas),
please specify precisely the initiating event, the sequence of events, and the exposure pathway for radiological dangers.
Applicants' Question 85-2: With respect to each of your responses to Interrogatories 82-2 through 84-2, please specify precisely the initiating event, the sequence of events, and the exposure pathway for radiological dangers.
Answer:
In our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers to Staff, we stated:
"We have not made this detailed analysis at this time; if and when we do, we vill promptly update our mse to this question."
Ir
'13/81 Supplementary Answer to Applicants, we stated:
"We have not made tu.0 detailed analysis at this ti=e."
We now are a little more faciliar with Federal regulations in this regard, su'ch as FE5'A's 12/23/80 Emergency Preparedness / Response Plan (Master Plan) as detailed in the FEDERAL REGISTER, which states:
l
" Prior to notifying the Federal Government of an ace,ident and pursuant to NRC regulations, the licensee has the respcnsibility for classifying the accident. The classification categories are based on the estimated severity of the accident.
"The four categories are:
l
. Unusual Event -- Events are in process or have occurred which,
indicate a potential degradation of the level of safety of the plant.
. Alert -- Events are in process or have occurred which involve an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plant.
. Site Area Emergency -- Events are in process or have occurred which involve actual or likely major failures of plant functions "
r.'
~....
Answer to Staff's C22-7(c)(xxix) and Applicants' 85-2:(continued):
needed for protection of the public.
. General E=ergency -- Events are in process or have occurred which involve actual or imminent substantial core degradation or melting with potential for loss of containment integrity."
NUREG-0654; Rev.1, November 1980, has further details regarding accidents which would initiate an emergency response in Appendix 1.
Obviously, at a minimu= the evento detailed in NUREG-065h would be included in the dangers which CASE contends might require emergency action in the Glen Rose, Fort Worth, and Dallas area. However, we have made no further detailed analysis than that detailed in NUREG-0654.
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxx): For each of ycur ansvers to Interrogatories (xxiv) through (xxix) please set forth the assu=ptions, analyses, o nclusions and any documents relied on for your ansvers.
Applicants' Question 86-2: For each of your ansvers to Interrogatories 80-2 through 85-2, please set forth the assumptions, analysis and conclusion and any documents relied on for your ansvers. What are the other bases (legal and/orother)foryourresponsestoInterrogstories80-2through85-27 Answer: In our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers to Staff, we stated:
"We have not made this detailed analysis at this time; if ac^ when we do, we vill promptly update our response to this question.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, and NUREG-0654."
In ou-3/13/81 Supple =entary Answers to Applicants, we stated:
"We have not made this detailed analysis; this information vill be supplied as soon as we have made such analysis and this ansver vill be promptly updated. NURH}-
0654."
Our snswer r ov vould be that we have included the infomation requested in I
our ansvers preceding to Questions (xxiv) through (xxix) and 80-2 through 85-2, and would only add to our b?ses FD!A's 12/23/80 EmergencyPreparedness/ Response Plan (MasterPlan),FEDERALREGISTER 12/23/80.
If the' Staff requires further information regarding this question, we ask that the specific information sought be identifie'd.
Staff'sQuestionC22-7(c)(xxxi_),: With respect to your cnswer to Interrogatories (xxvi) through (xxviii), please identify the specific emergency pitanning measures you contend should be provided for the dangers which you contend could exist.
Applicants' Question 87-2: With respect to your answer to Interrogatories 82-2 through 81.-2 please ident'ify the specific emergency planning measures you contend should be provided with respect to the dangers which you contend could exist...
- n..~ ~ ' ~ ~'
-~
t Answer to Staff's C22-7(c)(xxxi) and Arolicants' 87-2: Our h/6/81 /.nswers to l
Staff stated:
"See ansvers (xxvi) through (xxviii) above."
Our 3/13/81 Supplementary Answers to Staff stated:
"See preceding ansvers,
-especially 76-2 through 86-2; we have not r.ade this analysis at this time; vill f
update answer prcuptly when we do."
Our answer now would be: Those detailed in Appendix 1 of NURD3-0654. We have made no more detailed analysis beyond this. We vill promptly update our answer if and when a more detailed analysis is made.
Staff's Question C22-7(c)(xxxiv):
IfyourresponsetoInterrogatory(xxxiii)~is in the affimative (which it vas), please specify the precise capabilities and functions of the ccc:munications' system which you contend must be provided.
Applicant's Question 90-2: If your response to Interrogatory 89-2 is in the affirmative (which it was), please specify the precise capabilities and functions of the co=munications system which you contend must be provided.
Ansver: Our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers to Staff stated:
"Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.E., F., and G.
We have net made a detailed analysis which goes beyond the guidelines in NUREG-0654 If and vben we do make such analysis, we vill prc sptly update this answer."
Our 3/13/81 Supplementary Answers te Applicants stated:
"Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.E., F., and G.; we have not made a detailed analysis which goes beyond the guidelines in NUREG-c654. If and when we do make such analysis, we vill promptly update this answer."
Our answer today is exactly the same as it was then. If the Staff requires further infomation regarding this question, we ask that the specific infor=ation sought be identified.
Contention 2h: A favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made because Applicant has failed to adequately consider:
a.
The costs of safely decommissioning the facility-after. its useful l'ife.
b.
The costs in terms of health, as well as the economic costs of a l
pos.sible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel.
c.
The fuel costs and supply.
d.
The costs of vaste storage.
Re: Contention 2ha (decommissioning):
I Staff's Question G-5(b): If the representations made in (b) Contention 24 are based in whole or in part on any documents prepared by the Applicants or NRC Staff which you contend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the particular portions thereof you. regard as deficient and. explain why they are deficient. l
.o a t
.......--..c.'
~. V
Staff's Question G-5(b) re: Contention 2ha (decoe:nissionint-) (continued):
i In our h/6/81 Supplementary Answers, we stated:
Contention 2ka.
"(b) @ E had previously been operating oa the assumption that the information contained in Applicants' ER (OLS), pages 5.81 through 5 8-3 (section 5.8) was applicable; novever, in their September 1980 Amendment 1 to the ER, Applicants have changed their choice of decos:missioning to specify that they are going for immediate dismantlement, rather tnan a alover dismantling
~
after a ' number of years, and the cost estimates have risen considerably.
CASE is still evaluating these changes and will be filing further inter-rogatories to ascertain more information; we vill supplement our responses as soon as possible regarding this contention.
" Generally, we believe the costa estimated are too low, that Applicants don't kocv what they're getting into with this method of dissantlin6, that they don't know the costs involved, the potential legal problems, hcv this is going to be paid for and who's going to pay for it, how they're going to physically dismantle the plant, how they're going to protect their vorhers frcza radiation while dismantling the plant, etc., or the costs thereof. We anticipate that Applicants' responses to our inter-rogatories and requests for documents vill bear this out, but at the present time we do not know specifically which of Applicants' responses we vill rely on; we vill supplement our responses prceptly in this regard.~
We would now add to this that the DES is deficient in that the Staff has not adequately considered decocmissioning costs. In addition to CASE's own assess-ment,webasethisonthe6/30/81 Letter tc the Acting Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, U. S. NRC, Washington, from Frances E. Phillips, Acting Regione; Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, in which it is stated l
regarding Decocmissioning (see CASE Attachment C, pges 3 and h):
1 "The D: aft EIS states that planning for decccmissioning can nfrect health and safety as well as cost, and that financial assurance that funds, vill be available, when required, is a factor -to be considered.
We concur in this assessment, but were unable to find in the Draft m.
EIS arrangements for financing decccmissioning costs. Although de-commissioning costs are noted to be less tnan 10 percent of present worth co=missioning costs, this is still quite a large sum and vill mpresent a large cost burden when needed, if not accumulated out of j
revenues during the plant's operating lifetime. The Final EIS should explain what specific arrangements have becnmade, or are planned, to assure that funds will be available when required.
"In this connection, it is not clear at what point the licensee's financial responsibility-is to be terminated. Termination of the l
i l
h2 -
-. 2:
. us _.,.__._
Staff's Question G-5(b) re: Contention 2ha (deco==issioning) (continued):
nuclear license is required at the er# of facility life, and this requires decontamination of the fawty such that unrestricted use can be a u oved. Althou6h the applicant's present plans call for i==J.diate dismantle =ent at the end of the station's econct::ic operating life, one option to achieve such deconte=ination is SAFSTOR, which allows deferral of decontamination for up to 100 years. It is not clear, in such a case, whether license termination would occur prior to or at the end of such an extended storace period. If termination occurs at the beginning of the storage period, financial arrangements evidently will be necessary to pay for the deferred decontamination.
The Final EIS should clarify this point."
As recently as 3/13/81, CASE was under the assu=ption that hearings would not ccc=ence before 3/82 (see CASE Attachment B). We are not certain at this ti=e of the availability of possible expert witnesses for any of our contentions, including 2ha,undertheaccelerated12/81hearingschedule.
We therefore have nothing further to add at this time regarding this contention.
We till prc=ptly update our ansvers as soon as appropriate.
Staff's Question C2h h(d): What particular mode of decotr.=issioning do you contend must be evaluated in the Comanche Peak cost / benefit analysis? State the basis for your position in this regard.
Answer: Our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers stated:
u Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, Question 89, asked:
- Do you contend that any particular mode of deem-missioning must be evaluated in the Casanche Feak cost / benefit analysis?"
l CASE's answer was 'yes.'
" Applicants' First Sat, Question 90, assed: 'If your ansvar to Interrogatory 89isintheaffirmative,whatisyourbasis(legaland/
orother)forcontendingLhatsuchevaluationmust_bedoneinthecost/-.
benefit analysis fo'r Cmanche Peak?'
CASE's answer was: 'The mode of. >'
decanaissioning which Applicants plan t'o use for CPSES must be con-sidered; 10 CFR 51.20; lt; JFR Part 50, Appendix C, I.B.'
The Staff's First Set of Interrogatories, Question C24-4.(d) asked:
'What particular mode of decommissioning do you contend must be evaluated in the Cmanche Peak cost / benefit analysis?'
Our answer is: The mode of deccumissioning which Applicants plan to use for CPSES must be con-l sidered. Staff further asked: ' State the basis for your positi'on in this regard.'
Our answer is: 10 CFR 51.20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, I.B.
43 -
. - 2. '
. :..~
~
Answer to Staff's Question C2h-h(d); (continued):
" Staff's position that it should not be ' required to refer to the numerous responses cited by CASE to Applicants' interrogatories in an effort to glean which responses, if any, contain the information which is sought in interrogatories G-5(b) and (c),' as stated on page 8 of Staff's 3/4/81 Motion to Ccapel, is probably also valid in regard to other ansvers to interrogatories, and we vill attempt to ansver the questions specifically and without requiring Staff to refer to other than our present ansvers. However, we want to point out that although this point may be well taken, Staff's state:nent regarding Question C2k-4(d) on page 12 of Staff's Motion to Ccapel er_rcseously states:
' CASE responded to interrogatory 89 by stating 'yes' and with respect to interrogatory 90, by citing particular sections of 10 CFR.'
As quoted above, CASE's answer did indeed contain the exact answer which we presently give to this question. We want to go on record that we do not appreciate such inaccurate characterizations of CASE's statements.by the Staff. We vill not take the time to similarly analyze each of the rest of Staff's characterizations of our ansvers; however, we may wish to do so in the future if such inaccurate characterizations continue to the extent that such inaccuracies appear to be intentional. Future similar inaccuracies will only serve to delay these proceedings, because ve vill be forced to take additiorAl time to respond not only tn'the interrogatories but to the inaccuracies as well. "
Our present answer to this question is: The mode of deco =-issioning which Applicants plan to use for CPSES cust be considered. Lasis: 10 CFR 51.20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, I.B.
This is exactly the same answer which we gave in our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers. We do not know what other informa-tion the Staff seekt, rMarding this question; if there is additional informa-tion required, we ask that the Staff state precisely what it is.
l Staff's Question C2h h(e): What is the dollar cost of decor::=issioning which youcontendshouldbeconsideredinthecost/benefitanalysis? State how you arrived at this cost figure..
Aasver: Our 4/6/31 Supplementary Answers stated:
l l
Ne have not yet arrived at a specific dollar cost; generally, f.t should be the dollar amount arrived at knen a cceplete and accurate-l analysis is made of all costs associated with decommissioning CPSES.
1
(
VCASE had previously been operating cs the assumption that the informatico contained in Applicants' ER (013), ps.ges 5.81 through 5.8-3 (Section 5.8)
I I
was applicable; however, in their September 1980 Azendment 1 to the ER, l
44 -
l l
.. ~. ~, ' ' ' ~ "
~
~~
Ansver 9,o Staff'sQuestionC244(e}(continued):
Applicants have changed their choice of deccsamissioning to specify that they are going for im:nediate dismantlement, rather than a slower diamantling after a number of years, and the costs estimates have risen considerably.
CASE is still evaluating thene changes and will be supplementing our~re-sponses later regarding this contetion.
" Generally, we believe the costs edimated are too low,'that Applicants don't know what they're getting into with this method of dismantling, that they don't know the costs ' involved, the potential legal problems, how this is going to be paid for and who's going to pay for it, how they're. going to physically diamantle the plant, how they're going to protect their workars from radiation while diasantling the plant,'etc.
dOne of the reasons it has been necessary for us to reassess the costs involved is the fact that Applicants' have now changed their mode of deccennissioning. The Applicants' own figures for the costs of deccammissioning have now changed frcun $18.h million in 1981 dollars to $100 million in 1980 dollars. CASE has already asked the Appli-cants a few questions regarding how they arrived at certain costs and regarding scene costs which CASE believes Applicants do not know and have not dealt with adequately, and vc will be asking further questions in this regard, th'e ansvers to which we believe vill prove that CASE's contention is correct.
As previously stated on page h3 of this pleading, as recently as 3/13/81, CASE was under the assumption that hearings vould not co:::=ence before 3/82 (see CASE Attachment B). We are not certain at this time of the availability of possible expert witnesses for any of our contentions, including 2ka, under the accelerated 12/81 hearin6 schedule.
We therefore have nothing further.o add at this time regarding this contention.
We vill promptly update our ansvers as soon as appropriate.
Re:
Contention 2kb (spent fuel accident):
Staff's Question G-5(b):
If the representations made in (b-)Tontention 24 are based in whole or in part,on any documents prepared.by the Applicants or NRC s.
Staff which you contend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the particular portions thereof you regard as deficient and explain why they are deficient.
Ansver: Our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers stated:
~
" Contention Ekb. CASE does not believe t$at Applicants have really con-sidered the costs in terms of health, as well as the econcaic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel at all, certainly not to the extent that the possible conseqpences of such an accident varrant.
i If a.iequate consideration is given to such costs, CASE believes that a favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made when such costs are added to those others which must be considered. We suppose that we should say we
- h5 -
2.
Answer to Staff's G-5(b) ;ce: Spent Fue] Accident (continued):
and the ER (OLS)(including Section 71) rely on Applicants' FSAR (including Section 9)fand the fact that adequate documentation is not contained therein that Applicants have given adequate consideration in this regard.
$5We have previously referenced the Sandia Report, German Report No. 290, and MRC Translation 1P458 Ccasments on German Report No. 290, all of which the Staff already has.
"We have spoken t,y telephone on several occasions with Richard E. Webb' regarding this contenti,on. However, at this time we have not made a fizu contract with Mr. Webb and it has not yet been decided vbether or not he vill be testifying for CASE in these proceedings; we did net:
rely on him or his work as the basis for this contention (see CASE 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, pages 20 through 32). At this time, we do not know exactly who our witness (es) vill be regarding this contention or what documents they may rely on. We vill advise al.1 parties when and as such decisions and agreements are made regardits this contention, in accordance with 10 CFR 2 740(e). "
As previously stated on page 43 of this pleading, as recently as 3/13/81, CASE was under the assumption that hearings would not co=ence before 3/82 (see CASE Attachment B). We are not certain at this time of the availability of possible expert witnesses for any of our contentions, including 24b, under the accelerated 12/81 hearing schedule.
Since at this time we have made no further independent analysis regarding this contention but rather plan to rely on our expert witness (es), we have nothing further to add at this time regarding this contention. We vill prceptly upda,te our ansvers as'soon as appropriate.
Staff Question C24-5: With respect to Contention 24(b):
(a) Where do you conte,nd that such accidents could happen?..Please l
specify as to the precise location within the Cccanche Peak facility.
(b) What is the specific sequence of events which you postulate would lead to the type of accident you contend might happen with regard to the onsite storage of spent fuel?
(c) Do you contend that the accidents with which you are concerned would occur during the movement of spent fuel? If so, please specify.
(d) Do you contend that the accidents with which you are concerned would occur during the storage of spent fuel? If so, please specify.
(e) Do you contend that such accidents would occur at any particular time after the discharge of spent fuel from the reactor core? If so, please specify.
(f) Do you. contend that such accidents would be caused by mechanical h6 -
. l..
~....
Starf Question C2h-5 (continued):
failure ? If so, please specify.
(g) Do you contend that such accidents vould occur because of material failure ? If so, please specify.
(b) Do you contend that such accidents vould occur bechuse of hu=an error? If so, please specify.
(i) What is the probability of occurrence of the accidents which you contend must be considered?
(j) For interrogatories C24-5(a) through C24-5(1), please set forth the basis for yot..- response and set forth with particularity the ano. lysis which you have performed with respect to those interrogatories. Also, please provide for inspection and copying any documents on which you rely for your response toInterrogatoriesC24-5(a)throughC24-5(1).
(m) What is the total activity released to the environment by the accidents which you contend should be considered? Specify in Curies.
(n) What are the radioactive doses which you contend would be caused by such accidents? Please specify in terms of maximum exposure to an individual (specify in rems) and total exposure to the population (specify in man-rems).
(o) What is the population which you contend would receive the doses l
identified in your response to Interrogatory C24-5(n)?
l (p) What is the decay time prior to the accident for each r, ctive l
nuclide which you contend would be released in the environment in the ocident which you postulate should be considered?
(q) With respect to Interrogatories C2h-5(k) through C24-5(p), please specify the basis for your responses.
(r) Please identify any analyses, including the assumptions and con-clusions thereof, with respect to your response to Interrogatories C24-5(k) throughC24-5(p). Please provide any copies of those analyses for inspection and copying.
Answer to Staff's C2h-5(a through j) and (m through r).
Our 4/6/61 ' Supple =entary Answers stated:
"C2k-5. Contention 2k(b): (a through j)(m through r).
"The Staff's motion to cospel vould seem to indicate thkt CASE has no br.ais for this contention whatsoever because ve don't know exactly who
~
will be our witness at this time. As both Applicants and Staff are already aware, CASE has spoken by telephone on occasion with Richard E. Webb re-garding this contention. However, at this time it has not been decided whether or. not Mr. Webb vill be testifying for CASE in these proceedings, cad thus we did not rely upon him or his work as the inicial basis for this contention. As previously stated, we vill advise all parties when and as decisions and agreements are made regarding this contention, in accordance with 10 CFR 2 740(e).
/
- h7 -
~
- ..:~' ^-
' ~
-.=---:,
Ar.swer to Staff's C2L-5(a-j) and m-r)(continued):
"We expect that the witness on whom we decide to rely in these pro-ceedings vill support and expand on the contentions and bases contained in CASE's previous pleadings in these. hearings (as set forth specifically in answer G 4.(b) 2k(b), ca page 8 of this pleading).. For example, as indicated in CASE's 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, Contention No. 7, pages 26 through 32: The statements we made regarding Report 290 in Contention 7 on pages 28 and 29 of our 5/7/79 Contentions, item 1, has not been refuted by the so-called second Gertaan Report (" Critical Courments i
on Work Report AB-290"); we included some specifies in this regard on our 4/10/80 Position on Contentions...We similarly pointed out that the Staff's allegations regarding the Sandia Report were based on faulty assumptions; and we included some specifics in this regard. Perhaps the NRC Staff has already made its collective mind up regarding these two reports and does not intend to give any further consideration to then regardless of what facts may be presented by CASE's witness (es).
We would hope that this is not the case regaiding either the Staff or the Board.
"As stated on page 31 of CASE's k/10/80 Position on Contentions:
'" CASE could list other repcrts, such as those of Richard E. Webb (specifically his testiacny in Docket 50-272, Public Service Electric 8 Das Co., Sales Nucles.r Generating Unit fl, testimony of 2/27/79 and k/8/80 and 4/9/80)...' but we chose not to.
'The question at this point is not whether or not CASE will have an expert witness regarding this contention, but who that witness vill be and which documents such vitness vill rely on. At this point in, time, there are several ret. sons for our uncertainty as to who our expert witness (es) vill be; not the least of these is the fact that we do not at this time know precisely when the hearings themselves will be, or even if such details as having the hearings vill be necessary before granting Applicants an ' interim'/ operating licenaa._,
'3As to what documents CASE's vitness(es) vill rely en, it may or may not be '. hat such witness (es) vill rely on Mr. Webb's reports. If the' St*If or Applicants would like to conduct discovery upon Mr.
Webb, CASE vill' approach Mr. Webb and inquire what he would charge _
the Staff or Applicants to answer interrogatories, under Rule.26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure:
- (4)(B) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in adticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, h8 -
,.....-.E.~..
~
Answer to Staff's C24-5(a-j) and (m-r)(continued):
only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
'(C)Unlessmanifestinjusticewouldresult,(i)thecourt shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions (b)(4((A)(ii)'and (b)(4)(B) of this rule...'
(Emphasis
,added.)
"It is CASE's understanding that at this time we are not required to undertake substantial research and investigation or to develop our case in order to respond to interrogatories and requests for documents. We desire to cooperate as much as possible, but under the circumstances at this time, the specific information the Staff seeks is simply premature. We do not know at this time whether or not Mr. Webb will be our witness, we do not know whether or not he would even consider engaging in discovery on the terms ' indicated above, but we vill contact him in this regard should the Staff or Applicants so desire. CASE does not intend to pay for such discovery, until and unless we have made a firm contract with Mr. Webb to testify on behalf of CASE in these operating license proceedic6s.
"If we retain a witness other than Mr. Webb, it may well be,that such vitness will develop his own analyses and/or rely on documents other than those Mr. Webb might rely on.
"Further, CASE has not yet completed discovery with Applicant regard-ing this contention, which discovery may well chacge scmewhat or limit the amount of independent research and analyses our vitness ~
vill have to do; this could.also change our choice of a witness or vitnesses."
As previously stated in this pleading, as recently as 3/13/81, CASE was under the assumption that hearings vbuld not cocnence before 3/82 (see CASE Attachment B). It was not until the afternoon of 7/28/81 when ve received the Board's Scheduling Order of 7/23/81 that we were aware hearings would be held beginning 12/2/81,vith 'vr'itten testimony due to be filed in Washington 11/23/81. We are not certain at this time of the availability of possible expert witnesses for, any of our contentions, including 24b, under the accelerated 12/2/81 hearing schedule. Since so many of the interrogatories posed by Staff would necessarily have to be answered by such vitness, we have made a special effort (as recently as 8/16/81) to contact o,ne such potential witness regarding Contention 24b and have been unable to even make contact; however, we vill continue our efforts and supplement our responses regarding.this contention as soon as possible.
Since at this time we have made no further independent analysis regarding this contention but rather plan to rely on our expert witness (es), we have nothing,,,. -
~~
" 7 *~ '
,,,,a
Answer to Staff's C2k-5(a-j) and (m-r)(continued):
further to add at ttis time regarding this contention. We vin prcx:iptly update our answers as soon as appropriate.
Re: Contention 2hc (fuel costs and supply):
Staff's Question G-5(b):
If the representations made in (b) Contention 24 are based in whole or in part on any documents prepared by the Applicants or NRC Staff which you contend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the particular portions thereof you regard as deficient and explain why they are deficient.
Ansver: Our4/6/81SupplementaryAnswersstated:
- Contention 2ke. Applicants' ER (OLS) 8.2.1.2.; (see CASE 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, page 21, second paragraph, and CASE 5/7/79 Contentions, pa es 25 and 26, item 4); and Texas Utilities Company Prospectus,1/23/79 through the present (March,1981, which CASE has just received), which states:
"' Nuclear
'Two nuclear-fueled units of 1,150 megawatts each under construction at the Comanche Pen stauon will provide 1,970 megawatts to the System. The first of such units is scheduled for service in 1982 and the second in 1984 (see Construction Programs). Commitments have been obtained for anticipated uranium ore concentrate requirements and fabrication services for both ur.its for the first 17 years of operation.
Uranium hexafluoride conversion services have been contracted ^ for through 1987, and uranEm' enrichment contracts, having a duration of approximately 30 years. have been made with the Department of Energy. No arrangements have as yet been made for the reprocessing requirements for the Comanche Peak units and it is understood that at present there are no reprocessing plants in commercial operation in the United States. However, there will be on-site storage capacity for spent fuel sufficient to accommcxiste the operation of the units for approximately 17 years and this storage capacity can be increased. Additional
~
contracts for uranium ore concentrates and nucicar fuel cycle services will be required in the future; however, it is not possible to predict the ultimate availability or cost thereof.
"' General j
'The companies are not able to state what problems may be encountered in the future in obtaining the fuel they will require for use-in generating electnc energy to serve their customers, or predict the effect upon their operations of any difficulty they may experience in protecting their rights to fuel now under-contract or in acquinng fuel in the future, or th: cost thereUf, although the cost of fuel es recoverable under the fuel cost factors referred to under Regulanon and Rates.'
(Emphasesadded.)
- CASE does not believe Applicants know what the costs of fuel for CPSES vin be, that they will be higher than Applicants estimate, and that Applicants have not adequately considered such costs. Applicants should base their estimate of costs, if possible, upon firm contracts for the fuel itself; if firm contracts are not available or have not been entered into, Applicants should use other studies or analyses of costs which will be applie'.ble in the time frame when they anticipate they vill have to purch,tse the fuel, not based on 1930 market values. Fuel cycle costs of CPSES fuel should be included, as well as all other costs of the fuel. ".
s.~
m
Answer to Staff's G-5(b) re: Contention 2hc (fuel costs and sui, ply); (continued):
To the preceding we would now add:
the July 31', 1980 Prospectus of Texas Municipal Power Agency for the sale of $250,000,000 Revenue Bonds, Series 1930, which states:
" Comanche Peak Fuel
)
"TUST has contracted for adeouate uranium concentrates to sunnort the oneration of Unit #1 for the first eleven years and an ontion to estend the contract for another six years. For Unit *2 there is presently an unfilled uranium concentrate reouirement for a maior portion of the initial core and the 6rst reload. However, for the purpose of forecasting annual operating cost used herein an assumed expenditure schedule has been used for this unSiled uranium concentrate. There are -
contractual commitments for uranium concentrates required subsequent to the first reload to support operation for the balance of the first eleven years and an option to extend the contract for another six years. TUSI expects that these unfilled uranium requirements ruay be purchased on the open market as spot purchases. Therefore, it may be necesserv to ourchase a porticn of the uranium requirements for. Unit #2 at prices other than presently forecasted by TUSI.
"TUSI has also contracted for all other materials and senices for the initial core loading and
' reload to support the operation of Units #1 and #2 through' November,19S9 and anticipates no diffi-culty in obtaining the necessary additional materials and senices beyond that time.
"At the present time, no operating facilities are available for the reprocessing of spent fuel. In the absence of such facilities, TUSI is providing on-site spent fuel storage capacity for both Units adequate for about 17 years. By then. it is expected that. definitive guidelines will be available to determine whether fuel would be reprocessed, consigned to an off-site storage facility or disposed of in some other manner. " (E=phasesadded.)
Obviously the above raises additional questions regarding fuel cost and supply for CPSES, since it is not consistent with what the Texas Utilities co=panies have been saying for years. We are also aware that, the CPSES owners other than Texas Utilities companies are currently in the process of obtaining loans for their participation in CPSES from the Rural Electrification Agency (REA), and we will be looking into this further.
Othere than the preceding, we have nothing further at this time to add regarding this contention. We will pro =ptly update our answers as appropriate.
Re: Contention 2hd (costs of waste storage):
Staff's Question G-5(b): If.the representations made-in (b) Contention 24 are
~ ~ ': - -
based in whole or in part on any documents prepared by the Applicants or NRC Staff which yo~u Eontend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the perticular portions thereof you regard as deficient and explain why they are
~'
deficient.
Answer:
Our4/6/81SuppiementaryAnswersstated:
O
_ 51
.:.D. '.
- 3
~
~. - -.
Answer to Staff's G-5(b) re: Contention 2kd (costs of vaste storage); (continued):
- Contention 2kd. CASE does not believe that Applicants have adequately considered the costs of waste storage regarding the wastes produced at CPSIS (see CASE 4/10/80 Pc71 tion on Contention, page 21, last paragraph, throughpage25,andCASE's5/7/79 Contentions,pages26and'27, item 5; The House Report ' Nuclear Power Costs' will be made available for inspection and copyinst upon requet.) Applicants have not included all data regarding vaste storage which are required for an securate cost / benefit analysis.
Applicants should include a detailed, ccuplete analysis of all costs associated with vaste storage due to CPSES. We expect that our witness will go into further detail regarding more specifics; however, CASE has not analyzed this further at this time.
- Regarding Contentions 2ka, 24b, 24c, and 2kd, CASE relies, of course, upon Applicants' ER (OLS), Sections 8.2 and 11.2, regarding the cost /
benefit analysis."
As previously stated in this pleading, as recently as 3/13/81, CASE was under the assumption that hearings would not cocmence before 3/82 (see CASE Attachment B). It was not until the afternoon of 7/28/81 when we received the Board's SchedulingOrderof7/23/81thatwewereawarehearingswouldbeheldbeginning 12/2/81, with written testimony due to be filed in Washington 11/23/81. We are not certain at this time of the availability of possible expert witnesses for any of our contentions, including 2kd, under the accelerated 12/2/81 hearing schedule.
Since at this time we have made no further independent analysis regarding this contention but rather plan to rely on our expert vitness(es), ve have nothiDg further to add at this time regarding this contention. We vill promptly update
-our ansvers as soon as appropriate.
Contention 25: The requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as smended,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.
y.
Staff's Question G-5(c): If the representations made in (c) Contention '25 are based in whole or in part on any documents prepared by the Applicants or NRC based in whole or in part on any documents prepe. red by the Applicants or NRC,,
Staff which you contend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the particular portions thereof you regard as deficient and explain why they are deficient..
Answer: Our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers stated:
"(c) Sworn testimony of DP&L's, TP&L's, and TESCO's own witnesses in rate hearings; see answer G-4. (c), pages 9 and 10 of this pleading.
l,,.
Answer to Staff's G-5(c)(continued):
Answer to C25-9(a)(continued):
- - - *Fr m Applicants' answers to CASE's questions regarding this contention, it is obvious that they intend to respond only to the NRC Staff's questions and requests and to stonewall on any questions frm CASE. This-position by Applicants is clearly contrary to NRC regulations, specificdlly 2 740(b)(1) ausd 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C.
(See CASE's 3/17/81 Motion to Cmpel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, pages 2 through 13 for further details regarding this con-tention.) Applicants' self-proclaimed statement that they have provided the financial infomation to enable the NRC to make the findings required by 10 CFR 50 57(a)(4) regarding the Applicants' financial qualifications is,not sufficient to prove'that,ipplicants are financially healthy. Other pertinent evidence and infomation must also be considered (see particularly last paragraph of page 6 continued on page 7 of CASE's above-referenced p
3/17/81 Motion to Compel).
- 10 CFR Part So, Appendix C, only states that '...it will ordinarily be sufficient to show at the time of filing of the application, availability of resources *ufficient to cover estimated operating costs for each of the first 5 years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanent shut-down arid maintenance of the facility in safe condition.'
(Emphasisadded.)
Clearly, these operating license proceedings are not ordinary -- Applicants are being challen6ed, based on sworn testimony of three of the six Applicants themselves, regarding their financial qualifications, in additf on to being challenged- (in Contention 24(a)) regarding their cost estimhtes of deem-missioning CPSES. Applicants must go beyond the narrow boundarier they have attes:pted to impose in order to prove 'their financial qualifications to operate CPSES.
"It is impossible for CASE to reconcile the financially sound condition the Applicants claim in the operating license hearings with the deteriorating, unsound financial condition which lacks financial integrity claimed by the Texas Utilities companies in rate hearings.' Having heard the sad songs of impending doom and financial disaster of the Texas Utilities companies for the past seven years as an Intervenor in DP&L rate hearings, CASE believes it is absolutely essential to make the Applicants provea:occlusively that they are indeed financially healthy and can in fact do the things referenced..
I in paragraph one of this answer, ar"i that such proof be provided before Applicants are allowed to load fuel and before an operating license is issued.
'(b) See that those things referenced in (a) above are done. Respond fully and empletely to interro6atories and requests for documents fra CASE; pursue with vigor any problem areas or inadequacies indicated by Staff or Intervenor's questions and contention
- and see to it that such problems and inadequacies -are dealt with fully and remedied; make sure that adequate documentation-on the part of Applicants is required and pro-vided for _any and all allegations a.nade by said Applicants; see to it that such documentation is presented to the NRC, the Intervenors, sai
~
= ::.7 .~, ~
' ~~
.?:f - _
Answer to Staff's G-5(c)(continued):
Answer to C25-9(b)(continued):
l
~
the public through these operating license proceedings before Appli-cants are allowed to load fuel or are issued an operating license.
CASE expects the Applicants to be required to comply fully with all gfederal regulations and guidance before an operating license 18 granted and before Applicants are allowed to load fuel; and we believe that the NRC Staff has the responsibility to see that this is done and an overriding responsibility to assure that the public health and safety will be protected."
T Staf f's Question C25-10:
"The St$ff's interrogatories C25-h and C25-6 request that you state what you contend App.! (cants must do to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C with respect to their financial qualifications and what you contend is necessary for the Ccr: mission to make the finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 50 57(a)(h), that Applicants are financially qualified to engage in the activities authorit.ed by an operating license. In your responce to the Staff's Interrogstories C25 4 and C25-6, you refer to your answer to C25-2 and state ' satisfactorily answer CASE'o questions and prove that Applicants have financial integrity and are financially qualified to operate CPSES'. In this regard,
"(a) What regulatory requirements (including NRC Regulations) require that Applicants ' satisfactorily' answer CASE's questions?
"(b) What do you mean by the term ' prove' ?
"(c) What do you contend Applicants must do in order to ' prove' that they have ' financial integrity and are financially qualified to operate CPSES'?
"(d) State specifically the meaning of the term ' financial integrity',.
"(e) What regulatory requirements (include NRC Regulations) mandate that Applicants ' prove the'; have financial integrity' ?
"(f) What are the bases for your responses to interrogatories (a) through (e) above?"
Answer:
"C25-10 (a) 10 CFR 2 740, 2 7 hob and 2 7kl(d).
'Tb)' By pr$nre' we mean to establish or ascert'ain by argument, documenta-tion or other evidence, to demonstrate:or shov, to ascertain or establish the genuineness or. validity of, to veri'fy. See C25-9(a) preceding for more specifics as to how this applies to CPSES and this contention.
'TC) See answers C25-9(a) and C25-10(b) preceains..
y 4
e
- '9 l
l
- - ~ - - -
L _' ;______ --_-_ --
~
i Answer to Staff's G-5(c)(continued):
Answer to C25-lO (continued):
id) By ' financial integ.ity' we mean having the ability to pay one's obligations on a timely basis, to pay a reasonable return to one's investors, to borrow money at a reasonable rate, to maintain a good credit rating, and to maintain flexibility within one's dealings in the financial community and in obtaining capital) in the context of this contention, one 's' 'vould equal ' Applicants'.'
" CASE sought to ascertain this very, specific information regarding each of the Applicants in its Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Appli'-
cants, Questions 3, 4, 5, 6,,.7, and 8.
Applicants' apparent inability or refusal to anaver Question 3 with a simple 'yesor 'no' sud the evasive, inccanplete ansvers which were,given to Questions 3 through 8 vere a major reason for the necessity of filing CASE's 3/17/81. Motion to Ccampel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants. The manner in which these very specific, simple, and important questions were answered adds further credibility to CASE's contention. PleasereadCASE's3/17/81 Motion to Ccampel referenced above in its entirety, with particular attention to pages 5 through 8.
OIt concerns CASE very much to realize that we have not yet received the ansvers to our 2/17/81 Fourth Set of ' Interrogatories to Applicants; although we have now received an answer frca Applicants to our Motion to Compel which we filed on 3/17/81, we have not yet received any ruling from the Board on oar Motion to Compel; we assume that should the Board rule favorably on our Motion, it will still be some little time before Applicants supplement their ansvers. We are not bringing this up to ccusplain about the Board's being slow in answering. To the contrary, we believe that the time" taken with the' process has been very reasonable _and necessary and preserves'the rights of all parties.
We are concerned because this points up the totally inadequate, unreasonable procedures which have been suggested under the timetable proposed in the March 18, 1981 FEDERAL REGISTER, pages 17216 through 17218
' Proposed rule change: Expediting the NRC Hearing' Process.'
We would
~
hope that the NRC Staff would join CASE and other concerned organizations..
and individuals in opposing these proposed rule changes which throw all sembla~nce of fairness and due process ccupletely out the vindow and which, if enacted, would reduce this hearing process to an utter and ccamplete farce.
- (e) The Atar.ic Energy Act, as abended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(4),10 CFR 50, Appendix C,10 CIR 2 740, 2 7kOb and 2 7,hl(d), when taken cumulatively and, CASE believes, in the context in which they were intended. See CASE's 3/17/81 Motion to Compel and to' Require Supplementation of Responses to CASE's Fourth Set of' Interrogatories to Applicantr,,
especially pages 5 through 6 (questions 3 throagh 8) and pages 10,
.:...:: *~ ' ~.",,.
~~
~ *
=
- " * ~
Answer to Staffh G-5(c)(cont.inued):
Answer to C25-10 (continued):
t51 rough 13 (C aments regarding Contention 25). See also ansvers C25-9(a) and (b) Preceding.
"(f)(a) See C25-10(a) preceding.
"(b) Webster's dictionary; the rule of reason.
- (c) The Atcaic Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(4), and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C.
)
- (d) The Atomic EnerEy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(k), and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C, 10 CFB 2 740, 2 740b and 2 741(d).
"(e) See C25-10(e) above.*
We would now add to this that the DES is deficient in that the Staff has not
~
adequately considered deccumissioning costs. In addition to CASE's own assess-ment,webase'thisonthe6/p/81 Letter to the Acting Chief, Licensing Bmnch No. 3, U. S. NRC, Washington, frca Frances E. Phillips, Acting Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, in which it is stated regarding Decommissioning (see CASE Attschment C, pages 3 and 4):
"The Draft EIS states that planning for deccumissioning can affect health and safety as well as cost, and that financial assurance that funds will be available, when required, is a factor to be conside. red.
We concur in this asse.ssment, but were un&ble to find in the Draft EIS arrangements for financing deccanissioning costs. Although de-commissi.oning costs are noted to be less than 10 percent of present l
vorth ccanissioning costs, this is still igulte a large sum and vill present a inrge cost burden when needed, if not accumulated out of revenues during the plant's operating lifetime. The Ffoal EIS should explain what specific arrangements have besimade, or t.re planned, to assure-that funds vill be available when required.
"In this connection, it is not clear at what point the licensee's financial' responsibility is to be teminated. Termination of the nuclear license is required at the end o'f fa:ility life, and this requires decontamination of the facility.such that unrestricted use can be allowed. Although the applicant's present plans call for immediate dismantlement at the end of the station's econcaice operating life, one option to achieve such decontamination is SAFSTOR, which allows deferral of decontamination for up fo 100 years..'It is not clear, in such a case, whether license termination would occur prior to or at the end of such an~ extended storage period. If termination occurs at the.beginning of the storage period, financial arrangements evidently will be necessary to pay for the deferred decontamination.
The Final EIS should clarify this point.".
i
- ... :,~ " ~." ", ~.
l
Answer to Staff's G-5(c)(continued):
It is CASE'sintention to use some of the most recent testimony from Applicants' rate hearings; at this time we still have nc' decided precisely what testimony this will be.
However, we will make available to Staff testimony frce DP&L rate hearings (we still do not have transcripts from TESCO or TP&L ra'te hearings) which we may use, upon request, for copying. This would include testimony from the 1980 DP&L rate hearings, portions of which we probably will 'use in the hearings.
At this time we are still uncertain as to availa ility of possibb expert witness (es) regarding this contention, under the accelerated 17 ~.:/81 hearing schedule. We currently have nothing further to add in answer to this interrogatory; we v'11 promptly update our answers as soon as appropriate.
Decom=issiening costs are inexorably intertvined with financial qualifications under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C and 50 33(f), and decommissioning costs estimated by Applicants are also being challenged under Contention 2ha. Under the present circumstances, with the limited information available (especially regarding the financing of deccumissioning costs), CASE believes the operating license would have to be de.nied.
We still have not received supplementary answers to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants (which has now been ordered by the board);
we believe that complete and accurate answers by Applicants to questions in CASE's Fourth' Set will further help to prove CASE's Contention 25 We will promptly update our response following receipt of Applicants' answers should such supplementation be appropriate. However, we expect Applicants to do everytning possible to keep from having to supply direct and complete answers to CASE's questions, especially questions 3 and 4 of our 4th Set.
These answers are vital, since a negative answer to question 3 could prevent Applicants from receiving their operating license,.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CASE AND NRC STAFF REGARDIIU SUPPLEMENTATION OF CASE'S ANSWERS: On 8/10/81, CASE attempted to contact Marjorie Rothschild with the NRC Staff to discuss what the Staff required regarding supplbiientation of CASE's answersto Staff's 1/19/81 First Set to CASE (granted by Board Order 7/29/81, received by CASE 8/3/8.1). On S/11/81, Ms. Rothschild returned CASE's call and we brie' fly discussed such supplementation.. Due to the conflicting schedule the week cf 8/10/81 of the NRC Staff's and CASE's primary representa-
~
tives, it was mutually agreed that CASE vould supplement its answers and the Staff would advise what, if any, additionai information it required.
l In case we failed to so indicate anywhe're in our sypplementary ansvers, CASE will reake available for inspection and copying any and all documents referenced herein which CASE has in itis possession upon request frcm the Staff.
_ 58 _
. ~..
Nf there are still any inadequacies in CASE's responses, CASE req 2ests that the Staff notify us promptly of any such deficiencies. CASE was not aware that the Staff considered any of our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers to be inadequate (and indeed, most of the new supplementary information contained in this instant pleading has been developed sinee 4/6/81) until the Staff filed its 7/13/81 Motion to Modify Its March k Motion to Compel (whic6 the Board granted without allowing CASE an opportunity to answer). We had asked that the Staff advise us of any such deficiencies at the end of our 4/6/81 Supplementary Answers:
"We have tried hard to adequately and empletely answer the interrogatories the Staff has posed. If there are any which we haven't answered, it is an oversight and we will attempt to answer them if Staff will so advise."
We have tried to make this instant pleading as emplete as possible to assist the Staff ir determir.ing what information has previously been supplied and what infor=ation f a still desired, and for the Board's convenience.
Respectfully submitted, W
[ CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)
.rs.) Juanita Ellis, President 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224 214/946-9446 214/941-1211, work, usually Tuesdays and Fridays only 9
8 ee.
%s 4
9 D'
.+
59
' * $~.. - -.
l
~~
e
i CASE ATTACHMENT A Page 1 m-m_111111 u Mel b le M11Lud
- 9 = 1 2tirector, FFJL maginn TI P dr2ral Ca ter Danton, % 76201 April 11,1901 Dear Mr. Milford In using Ett2EC-0654, Aerision 1 (11/00) (which deals with anergmyy pinns for molecr power plents), wo direcrnd tlnt wo did not have oo:= of the dooments referrenced therein. I would vec:y much upprociata roceiving one (1) copy of mach of the doeueents listed bolms which wo do not yet havo (rnu:.bered by da t if avnilable; aromo-referenecd to the liURDG dwnent by pcco wherc no mm0x::=s vero 61ven):
/
"Jationni Endioloctea's Dsorgency Preparednous Plan" - any workpapero, initial reporto, oto. of this paper now being prepared by FEKi g;
/- Public Inv C1/)20 "Fodural Rivil Defunno lot of 1950"
!- iublic Inw 93-203 "ruleral Dicaster Lolief Amt of 1974" hmle yN far ymzr prmpt asciot.: ace.. If you have taly quaations, or if hae doeu:acnts will not be froce ricaan call at h mnbar given choro ao ht wo my ;ricaptly reit h required feo.
Sincerely.
(Mrs.) linnnita Ellis Prenidet, CASE
- (CiMzens Asoociation for Sound thargy) 5-l f r.:-
]#
I
'3 I
I i
9*
- 'O*
4.
'#e s3a
- 6.,%
,e=
e
CASE ATTACHMENT A Page 2 wuuuuuuuuuuuwammwwuuux Et, Dele Yd.1tuel heiesel hkr FIMA, Regf.cn TI Psdrewd Cente Dant a, TI. 7G201 i
April 13,1981
Dear Mr. Milford:
In af.ditie. to the three dooutcata I' requested copies of a few dayn ago, I would also 11he ono (1) 007/ of oost of the following Texas doomments:
- %ms Dianator Act of 1975"
- VPC-IL "Cerent E:oontivo orde of the Gommuor (Clamnts)"
- A copy of g proliuimry dre.ft or war'ospers available cuermitly on the still-in.-procons "?oxas Ilmgency Plan" (copecially artf#iing avr 4AAhlo un r3diologioul cut 3Gcnolo3).
If you do not hivo accoon to this infomtion, ploane lot saa know h oce. root parson aM I4;etr/ (cal dilrona).to dhx2 to direct y fuquiry. If any of h requootc1 info:.n:.tiart is als yet umva!.lano, pleano lot uo Lur.: ao souu as it will bo (i.e., if yaa can entirnto dian I usy c=poot t receivn it).
l Agnin, if thcro in cw quantion cogarding costo, plonne <mli ne at the uA givm ab:rve.
Sinsorely, (Mes.).7:smita Mn President, CASE T'
(Citizens hnx:ciction for Sound Energr)
N. '
.I
.l' Il f.
!) k I kl j
-... :. 2.
j
. CASE ATTACHMENT A FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Page 3
. REGION VI
- FEDERAL CENTER DENTON,, TEXAS 76201
- i...
e
' APR 16:1981
- t
.. I;
.i-Control No:
FEMA RVI 81-1 e!
i..
i I
I Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE f
~
1426 5. Polk Dallas. Texas 75224
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
t i
Enclosed per your request.of April 11, 1981 are:
Copy of Public Law 93-9. 88, Copy of Public Law 81-920, and.a copy of the National Radiological EmergencyPreparednessPlanl
.l Refer.nce,our letter' of April 13, 1981 requesting copies of:
Texas Disaster Act of 1975 VPC-ll
" Current Executive Order of the Governor (Clements)"
and a copy of " Texas Emergency Plan".
You should contact Mr. Robert A.
Lansford, Coordinator, Division of Disaster Emergency Services, Texas Department of Public Safety, Box 4087, North Austin Station, Austin, Texas 78773 for copies of these requested documents.
Sincerely, I
t l
.l' '
I Cs alg QphnDeLaGarza,Jr.
Acting Regional Ditector Enclosures
. ~..
1 g
s
.i :d : i. l :. -ri ~, t .l ,..,' I ' l' ? i, ~ 4R li. i ., i3; ; j @ ! eif i-li t 9'. 4 1
- GN Mi j t
t e o ,A. .f f g,p, i: .J ( Y.' . - !. ',7,' ~ ~
CASE ATTACHMENT A C A S E
~" (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) .' April 20,1981 l Mr. Robert A. Lansford, Coordinator Division of Disaster Faergency Services T.xas Department of Public Safety Box kO87, 59rth Austin Station f Austin, Texas 78773 f
Dear Mr. Innsford:
Subject:
Texas Emergency Planning Docu:nents ~~ In response to our request for.theLWollowing documents, Mr. John De Ia Garza, Jr., Acting Regional Director of FD4A in Denton, advises that we should contact you to obtain thers: (1) "Texes Disaster Act of 1975" (2) WPC-IL " Current Executive Order of the Governor (Cle:nents)" t (3) A copy of any preliminary draft or work papers available currently on the still-in-process " Texas Emergency Plan" (especially anything re-gn.rdingradiologicalemergencies) CASE is an accepted Interrenor in the operating license hearings for the Cmwho Peak nuclear plant at Glen Rose, Texas, and we need this information as soon as possible to assist us regarding one of our contentions regarding emergency planning. As you are perhaps already aware, the Nuclear Rogulatory Cccanission is currently, propo, sing rule changes which would expedite the licensing process. Your insediate response vould help us to assist in such expeditious efforts.. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ .i - CASE (CITIZENS AB80CIATION FOR BOUND ENERGY) ,'9I
- . I MU bllGu q; pj(.hi, g(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis i.'., ; ! : MPresident e:
) ' ' 's. ~,. h. c', 4 9 9 .. Q.. :.. c.. => - =
A/h . CASE ATTACHMENT A g,, Page 5 i g y} ax= Cw=ww== DIYlSION OF DISASTER EMERGENCY SERVICES TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ' 5205 N. t.amar Blvd. JAMES 8. ADAMS Director Box 4087 WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
- Austin,Tuas 78773 Governor Duty Hours 512/465 2138 ROBERT A. LANSFORD Nonduty Hours $121465-2000 Coordinator G
S May'8, 1981 / c, a-T AUG 211981 > w-i {' frs. Juanita Ellis, President ! g , o,,,,, y h, i.. W:'Z' C Citizens Association for Sound' Energy / "" h,-[ **/ 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 s/ p ~
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
In response to your request for emergency planning documents pertaining to radiological emergencies as enunerated in your letter of April 20, I am enclosing copies of Article.6889-7, Vernons Texas Civil Statutes, as amended, ar.d Executive Order of the Governor WPC-ll. Work papers concerning response to radiological emergencies are in very pre-liminary form, and are likely to undergo extensive revision prior to sub-mission to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for formal revicu. In addition to' changes resulti'ng f' rom evolving guidance provided by federal agencies, our working papers will almost certainly be revised extensively because of actions taken by this session.of the Texas Legislature. Even the Executive. order of the Governot which established the Disaster Emergency Services Council will probably be superseded or amended before anf~ formal i hubmission of state plans can take.placa. For these reasons, working papers as they currently exist would be inappropriate for consideration in any assessment of emergency response capabilities likely.to exist when thd Comanche Peak Steam E3ectric Generating Station operating license request ~ is considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ~ :- I regret that I cannot provide all of the items you requested; but,' since Texas emergency plans are not currently under consideration in any licensing process, working papers which may lead to an eventual response plan appear to have little or no bearing onlNRC. licensing processes now in effect or proposed for the future. ,i,P ,9 J Sincerely, , j [f hin a t, hl- !l[1 ? r c) (.. Ro ert A. L n iord i ' '
- j"N f
~ State Coordinato 'h / RAL:Bk
- .I e'
~~ ' ~~ ~.1 l...f', .. ~... ' i ~
'o UNITED STATES 8 ) - 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CASE AI'rACHMENT B o CASM NGTON. D. C. 20555 Paga 1 of k 0, - c ItELATED Colms 0.NDEscn %,..V... / ~ ~ ~ ~ MAR 131981 ~ p b9 21I98I
- C{ ' Cfs.,,
Q'/ v Mr. Perry Brittain, President Q. Texas Utilities Generating Company p g'/ s.. - 2001 Bryan Tower L Dallas, Texas 75201 g d ~
Dear Mr. Brittain:
A recent study of the additional time heeded to complete the operating license hearing process indicate's that a number of plants have the potential for being ready to inad fuel from a construction standpoint before the NRC decision on issusnce of an operating license is reached. In order to eliminate or minimize the impact of the licensing and hearing process on current operating license applications, revised NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) dates have been established to be used in work load scheduling by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reac. tor Regulation (NRR). A 11st of plants showing our current schedules for technical input to the NRR Division of Licensing (DL) for SER and SSERs is enclosed (Enclosure 1). I am also enclosing a more com-prehensive schedule showing the relationship of these schedules to other important dates in the licensing process (Enclosure 2). In genval, the changes from previous schedules accelerate the due da'.e for all technical input in order to allow time for a more extended hearing precess. The Commission currently i; examining the details of the hearing process seeking ways to eliminate unnecessary delays without jeopardizing any legitimate interests of the parties affected or the public health and safety. This examination is not yet complete. In order for the NRR technical staff to meet these accelerated schedules, all infonnation concerning your application identified as needed by 3 e NRR h staf f must be provided by you or your contr' actors' at let;, two weeks prior to the date indicated for staff technical input to DL. However, for SER's scheduled to be issued after June 1981, applicants should provide Equipment Qualification (EQ) information in accordance with IE Bulletin 79-01B at least four months prior to the SER issuance date. This request for EQ information j amends the previous guidance provided in a letter from R. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing dated November 25, 1980. Your personal attention and Ii I commitment is needed to make these accelerated schedules possible. l I also request that you Arrange to have people, who can represent you and who can resolve any last minute open items, in residence near NRR headquarters in. Bethesda during the two weeks immediately preceding the scheduled technical input deadlines. Your stoff is requested to contact the Licensing Project Manager for specific needs related to the review of your application. l 1-fr.). C 3 2 c v0 7 o
- :.... ~ ~ "~." ' =
=
CASE ATTACHMENT B Paga 2 of 4 s Mr.' Perry Brittain, President MAR 131981 Of course, if information concerning your applica' tion is not available ~ when needed, the NRC staff will be unable to avoid changing your plant's priority consistent with other scheduled work. Working under the very, tight schedule indicated means that a slip will affect not only your SER issuance date but will also delay other scheduled dates in'the licensing and hearing process related to your plant, including the decision date. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I will keep you advised of additional information concerning this request and of any further schedule revi sions. Sincerely, YYY w Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Encl osures: As stated l G e se. 9 .s = f
- 6 l
i e =.;.u: T-:- h' ' L ::' ' ' 5 ~~ - - - =.... - -- --
I CASE ATTACHMENT B Page 3 of 4 i i Due Dates for Technical Input to SER and SSER s Last Tech. Plant Action - Input to DL 1 Susquehanna 1/2 SER Summer 1 SS$R / Sequoyah 2 SSER / San Onofre 2/3 SSER LaSalle 1/2 SSER Zimmer 1 SSER Waterford 3 SER Comanche Peak SER Susquehanna 1/2 SSER S 1 fermi 2 SER Shoreham 1 SSER Waterford 3 SSER f j Comanche Peak SSER yfj7jgj Grand Gulf I SER 8/14/81 Fenni 2 SSER 8/14/81 Watts Bar 1/2 SER gfjjfgj Grand Gulf I SSt:R 10/25/81 Watts Bar 1/2 SSER 11/26/81 ~ e l i a b% e 1 I l I ~ ~~ ~
- ~
. L'.*.~~~." ~ ' ' ~ ' ^
- c ENCLO5URE 2 t
07 198T MTJTFLAN15-SSER Estimated SER Ttaff Start NBC Construction. lepact 5taff of Decision Completion (2) Plant E ArrL_ Technical issue ACR5 7echnical Issue .leearing (1) Date (l) NRL APPL (Months) Input to DL SER (1) Mtg input to DL 55ER (l) Sales 2 12 12' (C) (C) None (C) (C) Isone 4/81 4/18/80(C) 4/16/80(Cl LaSalle 1 8 2 'O O 2/18/81(C) 3/05/81(C) 4/09,/81 4/30/81 5/15/81 none 5/81 9/81 5/81 San Onofre 2 8 3 6 12 (C) 2/06,81(C) 3/12/81 2/19/81(TMll(C) 2/25/81(TMI)(C) 4/17/81 ,5/8/81 07/81 4/82 10/81 4/15/81 i Cleblo Canyon 1 & 2 Low Power il 13 (C) (C) None 2/20/81(C) 3/05/81(C) 05/81 2/82 3/81 1/81 Full Power 12 14 (C) (C) None 3/17/81 3/31/81 05/81 3/82 3/81 1/81 l McGuire 1 8 2 Low Power 0 0 Isone teone Isore (C) 1/81(C) 2/24/81(H ) 1/23/8I(1) 1/23/81(C) 1/23/81lC) 2 Full Power 13 13 (C) (C) Ilone 2/28/81 3/20/81 06/81 3/82 1/2R/81(C) 1/2R/8t(C) f None 10/23/80(l) 10/23/80(C) 10/22/R0(C) Farley 2 Low Pewer 0 0 (C) (C) None None None h Full Power 0 I None leone None 2/19/8)(C) 3/06/81(C) None 3/81 3/81 2/t41 1 5 3/10/81 3/31/81 5/07/81 6/10/81 2/3/81 Of/82 10/82 9/82 5/31/82 l' Shorehan 1
- Su==er 1 8
10 (C)" 2/06/81(C) 3/12/84 3/24/81 4/15/81 07/81 6/87 10/81 8/81 { *,' Suselvehanna 18 2 8 17 3/21/81 4/06/81 5/07/81 5/2b/8 6/15/81 10/81 11/82 3/82 6/81 N 1-0 (Cl-l N IC) None 4/01/8L, 4/15/86 Isone 4/30/81 6/81 4/15/81 t Segyyah2 l ZIss=4r 1 3 8 (C) (C) None 5/01/81 5/29/d1 10/81 7/82 4/82 II/R1 Waterford 3 3 3 5/08/81 5/30/81 7/09/81 1/16/81 N31/81 03/82 1/83 10/82 10/R7 l; Comanche Pea *. 2 14 5/22/81 6/11/81 7/09/81 7/17/81 8/12/81 03/82 2/23 12/82 12/81 Feral Z 0 0 6/10/81 6/30/81 8/09/81 8/14/81 8/31/81 02/82 11/82 18/82 - 11/82 '[. 0 0, 8/14/81 9/07/81 10/13/81 10/25/81 11/15/81 None 12/81 7/92 12/81 i I Grand Gulf I Watts Bar 1 & 2 0 1k 9/11/81 10/09/81 11/12/81 11/26/81 12/11/81 None 1/82 8/82 II/81 e WNP 2 0 0: 2/12/E2 3/12/82 4/09/82 4/10/82 5/28/82 leone 7/82 7/83 7/s2 e tg Based on January 30. 1981 Peport to Congress
- 10. 1931 etcept for Materford 3.
Q Based on draf t information f from Of fice of flanagement and Program Analysis (NPA) dated February (1) t r" l "- (2) ([. Enclosure to NRC letter of 3/13/81 to Perry Brittain, TtfGCO 4
' N- // Fj'f/ CASE ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 5 'i O 3 UNITED STATE 3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ,,,s REGION VI [ %, g. I2OI ELM STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75270 June 30,1981 '/; ,g ~ Mr. Frank J. Miraglia b i 5 Acting Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3 t A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4) G ~
Dear Mr. Miraglia:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to the operation of.the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Noi. 50-445 and 50-446), located on Squaw Creek Reservoir in Somervell County about 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth, Texas. The proposti action is to issue an operating license for the start up and operation of both units. These units are being built by the Texas Utilities Generating Company and are scheduled for commercial operation in 1982 and 1984. The following comments are provided for your.tonsideration when preparing the Final EIS: RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Generic Comments In our 'past reviews of Draf t EIS's celated to light-water nuclear power facilities, we have included generic comments which are app 71 cable to all such facilities. As a result of the Three Mile Island accident and other recent activities, we have decided that we must revise our generic comments to consider these events and activities. We will provide tar revised generic commbnts to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as soon as they are completed. ~ Generic areas undergoing review ar,e: Population dose commitments Reactor accidents Fuel cycle and long-term dose assessments High-level radioactive wasta management ~ ' Transportation impacts i Decommissioning l Radioactive-Waste Treatment Systems t ~ The Draft EIS does not contain detailed descriptions of the radio-active waste treatment systems or the NRC staff's detailed evalua-tions. Such matters are referenced to thi. Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which has not yet been issued. On request, however, we were supplied an advance copy of draft sectiong on the ventilation and radioactive waste treatment systems. We appreciate bein'g supplied this information. - O huPc oh &.L c '7 0 7 0 2. ._......r..~._ . 2- ' ~
h CASE ATTACEMENT C Page 2 of 5 The applicant has made extensive modifications to the liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste treatment systems since we last reviewed them. It appears that these systems are capable of controlling emissions to levels such that, when direct radiation is also considered, operations will be within EPA's Environmental Radiation Standards, 40 CFR 190. However, the pre-draft parts of the SER which we were provided indicate that the NRC staff judges the solid radioactive waste system to be unacceptable, and also the high level noble gas effluent provisions and analysis of liquid storage tank failure are still undergoing review. We believe the Final EIS should include an evaluation and full discussion of any ongoing review items which are not resolved by the time it is issued.,We also suggest the solid radraste treat-ment system be considered as an addition to the Summary list of outstanding issues on page iv. Reactor Accidents When discussing accident risk and impacts of design basis accidents, the Draft EIS addresses probabilities of occurrence qualitatively. Yet, when discussing more severe core melt accidents, the probabili-ties of occurrence are quantified (Table 5.19). For consistercy in the presentation of all environmental risks, we believe the proba-bilities of occurrence of infrequent accidents and limiting fault design basis accidents should also be provided. Timing of Supporting Documentation for the EIS The practice of issuing the Draft EIS in advance of the SER has prevented our performing a complete review of the environmental impacts of the Comanche Peak station. As discussed in our comments on radioactive waste treatment systems, we were provided advance copies of draft SER sections on those systems, so the problem was alleviated, although w'e do not consider this pre-draft information to be formal documentation. Also, the Draft EIS refers to several other important areas which are still under NRC review. These include: 1. Site features. The authority of the applicant to-contcol all l ' activities within' the exclusion area is still under NRC staff. review and will be addressed in the SER'or in a supplemeat. Off-site hazards, including those from nearby industrial and military ' facilities, pipelines, air transportation, waterways, and rail-ways are judged by the NRC staff to be acceptably low. A more detailed discussion of site features is referenced to the SER. l l 2. Facility safety features. Reference is r.ade to the forthcoming l SER for the NRC staff evaluation of safety features and l charactertstics of the facilities and description o.f some of t5e accident mitigation features. l . :. :: ~." O = [
^ 2 CASE ATTACE cit C 3 Fage 3 of 5 3. Emergency preparedness. Facility ' emergency plans and State and local plans are reported to be in an advanced, but not yet fully completed stage. NRC staff findings of adequacy and implementability, for both the on-site and off-site plans, have not yet been finalized. Also, the required upgrading of emergency planning has not been evaluated for its environ-mental impact. 4. Operational Radiological Monitoring. The applicant's proposed prograra is still being evaluated and the details of the required program will be incorporated in the license technical 5 specifications. In view of the above, the conclusion stated in Section 5.16.3 regarding the stations acceptable environmental impact, would seem to be contingent on favorable results from some important ongoing staff reviews, and hence premature. The Final EIS should be withheld until the above-mentioned reviews are completed, or should specifically evaluate any of the areas which are still undergoing review. We urge the NRC to ensure that, in the future the Safety Evaluation Report is available before issuing the Draf'. EIS. Material incor-porated into an EIS by reference should be reasonably available far inspection within the time allowed for comment (40 CFR 1502.21). We do not believe the citations of missing but forthcoming informa-tion 1,n the SER constitutes a " reference" in the common meaning of that word. Decommissioning The Draft EIS states that planning for decommissioning can affect health and safety as well as cost, and that financial assurance that funds will be available, when required, is a factor to be considered. We concur in this assessment, but were unable to find l in the Draft EIS arrangements for' financing decommissioning costs. Although decommissioning costs are noted to be less than 10 percent of present worth commissioning costs, this is still quite a large sum and will represent a large cost burden when needed, if not accumulated out of revenues during the plant's oper.ating 1.ifetime. The' Final EIS should' explain what specific arrangements have been made, or are planned, to assure that funds will be available when requi r,ed. In this connection, it is not clear at wh'at point the licensee's financial responsibility is to be terminated. Termination of the nuclear license is required at the end of facility life, and this requires decontamination of the facility such that unrestricted use f can be allowed. Although the applicant's present plans call for immediate cismantlement at the end of the station's economic I operating life, one option to achieve such decontaminatiion is l SAFSTOR, which allows deferral of decontamination for up to 100 S
- :. ".U ~ ' ~."
~ z.
CASE A7fACIDElff C Page h of 5 years. It is not clear, in such a case, whether license termination would occur prior to or at the end of such an extended storage period. If termination occurs at the beginning of the storage period, financial arrangements evidently will be necessarv to pay for the deferred decontamination. The Final EIS should clar,1fy this point. Economic Risks As the Three Mile Island accident demonstrated, the cost of reactor building decontamination and replacement power following an accident can be sizable. This underscores the need to develop standard methodologies for estimating the contribution of these costs to economic risks. Economic risks are addressed in considerable detail in Section 5.8.2.4 of. the Draft EIS under Statica Accidents and, based on low probability of occurrence, annualized risk is shown to be modest. Because of the potentially severe economic costs, however, we. believe'these risks should be mentioned explicitly in l the benefit-cost summary, Section 5.16. Additional Radiological Comments 1. The statement or, page 5-38 that a dose greater than about 25 rems over a short period of time is necessary before any physiological effects are clinically detectable, should be reviewed. Information contained in the World Health Organiza-tion technical report No.123 would seem to indicate that physiological changes can occur at exposures as !ow as 10 rems. 2. The calculated annual release of iodine-131 in gaseous effluents is given as 0.062 Ci/ unit in Table 5.11. In Table 5.6, however, it is listed as 0.0076. This discrepancy should be corrected in the Final EIS, or explained. NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Groundwater 1. As indicated in the Draft EIS, groundwater resources are being " mined" in the vicinity of the steam electric station. , Groundwater withdrawal to operate the facility-would contribute to lowering area groundwater levels. We therefore support w. the staff recommendation, on page 5-6, that a condition be included in the operating license to, restrict groundwater use. Groundwater should be used to supplement. surface water only for potable and sanitary purposes and only when produc-tion from the water treatment plant is insufficient. to meet demand. 2. If hazardous wastes will be discharg,ed to the evaporation pond, monitor wells should be drilled in agreement with Resource and Con:ervation and Recovery Act regulations to detect migration of contaminants into_ groundwater. O
- [:-. ~ ' ~." ~
~ ~.
- u
S o - CASE AITA MMENT C 5 Page 5 of 5 Water Intake Structure The makeup water intake structure in Lake Grandbury has been approved by EPA under the provisions of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The EIS would be strengthened if the EPA approval was included in Section 5.5.2.4 where the water intake is discussed. NPDES Pennit Reouirements On page 5-9 it is stated that the maximum total residual chlorine concentration of 0.5 mg/l in the discharge circulating wcter will satisfy the NPDES permit. The Final EIS should state th.t the Federal effluent limitations of the NPDES permit for chlorine are 0.2 mg/l daily average and 0.5 mg/1-daily maximum for free available chlorire. In view of the information provided and our comments on the Draft EIS, we classify the proposed project action as ER-2 (Environmental Reserva-tions, Insufficient Information). We ask that the Final EIS and support-ing documants be strengthened in the areas our preceding detailad comments have identified. Our rating is based on our evaluation of the EIS,, advance copies of pre-draft SER sections and other important areas which are still under-going NRC review as discussea earlier. We reserve the right to change our rating if published informatioa is substantially changed from what we have reviewed. Our classification will be published in the Federal Register according to our responsibility to inform the public of our siews on proposed Federal actions, under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Definitions of the categories are provided on the enclosure. Our precedure is to categorize the EIS on both the environmental conse-quences of the proposed action and on the adequacy of the EIS at the draft stage, whenever possible. We appreciated the opportunity to review the Draft EIS. Please send our office fise (5) copies of the Final EIS at the ssme time it is sent to the Office of Federal Activities, U.S. Environmental Frotection Agency, Wash'ngton, D.C. Sincerely,, ($p Frances E. Phillips Acting Regional Administrator ~ Enclosure ase .....-2.'. . ~.. .[ :..
CASE A'ITACEME!iT D Page 1 of 2 p t I.,-i, pr:, : -rg c;'nE2 'ONDENCE .: q - - p f.- Cl 1.. - \\gSt -,i. .%,k f, % l { I f-Cp c .a a s i$ >d e 5 ou e, f. "'",. 'N.. % Q p ; ( 3 e m 1,o; z k
- f...
s,
- t..
s ~ m)(. -gr. :c='","L"' y o. t ,,cp,h. s / o. ,, c , w m , m,, -},f h,,5, , p / Mm.. W gana. 6 a g h" 4.,h,' - J.,,.. ." m _. l* '.4., m 'g,'3 m ?,h h[e+ - ' Y ' s'" 9, d W. e . F, '.F:. &.pik, i kA, W :..?,",E u 9 a,p w,n.. f e a, rr J' *. 2 %....%, sw. st p ,ara D,,, y ..~. - {. - e.....u.., m s p em*F ,~ h.),,,,, ,_g""4,gy[,3 yi. e.' a x a74 C M e.8 zu ,,,a, W m g ;
- c. a t' e g, g e 7
..A g... sy ,o g
- hh j *~ k.
"2.
- Coc.anche Peak nuclear power plant TEXAS (E ASTERN SECTION) o *s ese
>=e n m ese BAYTOWN o e 4 ese R.ater u.=a"LAREDO I c'u1=o ' ". '. " ',, AUSTlN em ? ? " "~ ~ .i...
CUPAENT :- POPULATION '""" ESTIMATES 1981 The North Central Texas Council of (7,488), Dallas (27,803), and Tarrant Governments, in its continuing effort to (43,349) counties continued to show the provide planning and technical assistance largest numerical increases in population to its member governments, presents the from 1980-81, while Denton (5.6%) Collin (5.2%), Rockwal! (5.0%), and Tarrant (5.0%) eighth issue of " Current Population Estimates." Due to the availabi!ity of record the largest percent change from Census data, we have slightly revised our 1980-81. In 1970 Dallas and Tarrant counties method of estimating household size. In captured 81.5 percent of the regional the past we have utilized the Census population, however in 1981 they account estimate of national household size in order for 77.6 percent of the region. This decline to calculate a reduction factor. This factor reflects the national trend toward increased was then applied to each cities' 1970 growth in counties surrounding the centre! household size. With the availability of urban c, ore. preliminary Census figures, we were able to incorporate more accurate household size According to the 1980 Census, the Dallas / figures into our methodology. Therefore Fort Worth SMSA (2,966,342) is the largest when provided, we utilized the Census metropolitan area in the State. It grew from preliminary household size which was released 1970-80 at an annual rate of 2.3 percent per to the highest elected official of each city. year with a numerical change of 5E8,719 We do not recommend comparison between the Persons or 24.8 percent change for the 1980 and 1981 NCTCOG estimates due to the decade. Our estimates show that the SMSA above mentioned revisions. However, a has grown by 91,708 persons or a percent comparison between the 1980 Census and the increase of 3.1 percent from April 1,1980 to 1980 COG estimates is available upon request. January 1,1981. The cities of Dallas, Fort Worth,. Arlington, Garland and Irving all show population in excess of 114,000 persons, North Central Texas while the combined population of Dallas and Regional Population Trend Fort Worth represents 42.6 percent of the total SMSA population in 1981. The largest numerical increases.were in the cities of m 3 g,. 22 Fort Worth (14,771), Plano (5,984), jg 2 Arlington (5,777), Irving (4,891), Garland > - as (4,701), Hurst (4,251), and Carrollton I p[ ' (4,059) which represents 48.5 percent of a the total numerical change for the SMSA ero teso iset from 1980-81. Several other cities, including Richardson, North Richland Hills, Denton, Addison, Grapevine, and Bedford, recorded an increase in excess of 2,500 each from Overall, the NCT Region showed,a percent 1980-81., ~ change in population from 1970-80 of 24.0 'psrcent and 3.0 percent from 1980'1981, For additional copies of the estimates, contact which. reflects the general economic stability the librarian at (817) 640-3300. For of the region. The annual rate of growth technical questions or comments, contact
- withh. the regio'n from 80-81 (4.1%) compares Billie Villars or Deborah Findlay, P. O.
~ fsvorably with previous years. Collin Drawer COC, Arlington, Texas 76011. .v.
STATE OF TEXAS ) Juanita Ellis, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is President of CASE,(Citizens Association for Sound Energy), l and knows the contents of the foregoing CASE's Supplementa ry Answers : (1) To Applicants regarding Contenti.on 22; (2) To NRC Staff regarding Contention 22; and (3) to NRC Staff in response to Staff's 3/h/81 Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Certain Staff Interroga tories 1 to Intervenor CASE of January 10, 1081 (Staff's First Set to CASE) and that the same is true of her own knowledge and belief. /H /, _.,'. f'YF. Jph'itaEllis ~ SWORN TO and Subscribed before me on this 18th day of August ,1981. D A hnxu ^, Notary Public ~ My Commission Expires,: _ - /s /p./ f (SEAL) The original of tais page is being mailed under separate cover, First Class ' Mail, tothe Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, on this 18th day of Aur_u st 1981. ...r.
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
~ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. BOARD In the Matter of 1 APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, FOR AN l and 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) I _ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S SUPPIJMENTARY ANSWERS: (1) TO APPLICANTS REGARDIN3 CONTENTION 22; (2) TO NRC STAFF REGARDIN3 CONTENTION 22; AND (1) TO NRC STAFF IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S 3/4/81 MOTION TO COMSEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CERTAIN STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO CASE OF 1/19/81 (STAFF'S FIRST SET) have been sent to the names listed below by First Class Mail this 18th day of August , 198L
- = with Certificate of Mailing receipt
- Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller David J. Preister, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, TX 75711 Dr. Forres t J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and 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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 ~ i
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Office of Executive Legal Director Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D.-- C. - .20555 Mr. Dwight H. Moore, Esq. Arch C.~McColl, III, Esq. West Texas Legal Services 701 Commerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street - Lawyers Bldg. Dallas, TX 75202 Fort Worth, TX 76102 N Jeffery L. Hart Esq. O ~ 4021PrescottA'enue[C 44%d hA' ; Dallas, TX 75219 .% 211981 > [ _ CASE (Citizens Associa Qgr~s.) Juanita Ellis, President i h .,., q p,. 5.mt:1 -;g Sound Energy) b j,. - yd3 L:~ m /f 4 10 -}}