ML20062K666

Suppl to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Answer to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce.Details Info Relied Upon for Contention 5 Re IE Insp Repts.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20062K666
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/01/1980
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8012290318
Download: ML20062K666 (28)

Text

. .. - .-

^

THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS [.\\151l g^ V

, ,- ..; r -e , n P00R QUAUTY PAGES e.

12/1/80 8;. 4.+.

~

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '4.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGe(ISSION 1, - . b),, hg EEFORE THE ATO(IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD \

In the Matter of l -

l APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES l Docket Nos. 50 M 5 7-GENERATING CG(PANY, ET AL. FOR AN l and 50 M6 OPERATING LICENSE FOR CCMANCHE l PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l ,

UNITS #1 AND #2 (CP3ES) l ~:

SUPPUMENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF s

IEfERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CGGS NOW CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), hereins'ter referred to as CASE, Intervenor herein, and files this, its Supplement to CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce.

In its November 17, 1980, Grant of Time Extension to CASE, the Board granted this Intervenor additional time "for CASE to acquire better understanding of discovery in NRC licensing proceedings and to afford CASE additional opportunity to prepare its requested supplement to its answer to Applicants' notion to ecupel CASE of September 18, 1980 and to overecuse serious deficiencies in its answer to Applicants' interrogatories and requests, which deficiencies may re-flect CASE's misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of discovery." CASE has now had an opportunity to review much of the material in the NRC Issuances and we believe we do indeed have a better understanding of the discovery process.

We eppreciate the Board's allowing this additional time to supplement our answers.

(We do not anticipate that we will also have time to supplement our 10/2/80 answer to Applicants' Motion to Compe1~; we feel that.this Supplement is more important, and we are devoting our time and energies to responding to it.) S l

8022290ng p / /'

l

3. CASE does not believe the Comanche Peak plant has been constructed in'accordance l vith regulations and. requirements of the NRC, the construction permits for )

CPSES Units 1 and 2, the commaitments made by the Applicant in the FSAR; we )

do not believe it will be safe to operate; and we believe that there is every possibility that if it is allowed to operate in the condition in which .it {

bas been built there vill at ease time during the plant's life be a catastrophic  ;

accident with devastating consequences not only to the immediately-surrounding l area, but to the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex area as well. In addition, we l have accepted the wording, as revised, of the Board as set forth in the wording  !

of the Contention (although we still maintain that the Board's wording un-necessarily limited the areas with. which we are concerned and we vill be  !

Pursuing this matter further). l

2. CASE relies on the following as the basis for Contention 5:

s. NRC Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Reports, including but' not limited  !

to the following, copies of which Applicants already have: l I

(1) Those discussed in CASE's previous pleadings in these proceedings. i As stated in CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions, page 54, item 7: l l

"There are numerous other problems with construction and procedures  !

which are indicated in the I&E reports, and CASE vould incorporate (

them all herewith by reference. It is our intention to pursue thes l

in detail during the hearings, and to present related testimony by l expert witnesses."

~

l l

(2) CASE is aware that the Applicants have recently revised their pro- f' cedures and responsibilities at CPSES. In addit. ion to earlier I&E Reports, we are attaching summary sheets of some of the most j recent I&E Reports, which indicate to CASE that the problems have l not been resolved by Applicants changes, but are. still continuing.  !

(See pages 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this pleading.) l I

(3) I&E Reports which we vill receive in the future. There is a delay l of about a month between the time Applicants are notified by the [

ERC of violations and the time CASE receives our copy of such noti- J fication. We anticipate that there have already been other I&E ,

reports issued to Applicant which we have not yet received, and that there vill be more in the future. j

?

l I

t P

l

- - . . . . . , + . - . . , - . - . . . . . . - - - - - - . , , .

ERC Im Otica & Enfarcement (I&B)' Reports, Re-rdina Comanch7 Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPSES).

50 k45 and 50 446/ Problem Involved I&E Report No. & Date Type of Violation Involved 80-02(3/20/80)' Allegations of lax Quality Investigation of allegations in regard to lax Quality Control Control, etc. ,. procedures, welding problems and weld defects attributed to

.three Authorized Nuclear Inspectors .(ANI) in J2/6/79 DALIAS

• TIMES HERALD article were detemined to have no merit.by BBC..

CASE is not satisfied that allegations have no merit since -

,~

E

- - this is similar to the kind of allegations which' Were made-g,5 at the,8outh Texas ' Pro,1ect.(STNP) which the NRC Region IV' f s ., - office 'also stated' had no merit; it was, not until an NRC

' ' investigation was made at the national level that allegaticus at STNP were proven to be true; see STNP investigation. -

( Class 1-to-Class 2 Transit 1'on Orifices; it was not clear from 80-01 (2/15/80) Unresolved ites the revised drawing or from the Component Modification Card how the oversize hole through the pipe wall would be reduced to achieve the configuration required.

Unresolved item Teetreportacceptance;itappearedthattheA/Ewasapproving the fomat of the report, not its contents...the stated phrase e ** does not mean what it says; it appeared to the RRI that site engineering staff had Provided an inappropriate instruction

< fot the attachment welding, that the vendor had " approved" the inappropriate design, and that site quality control had

.- ,, inspected the actual work and accepted the impossible.

violation, Infraction, Failure to provide instructions and procedures appropriate to 80-01'(1/23/80) the circumstances; instructions and procedtres provided for Construction Permits, securing Class IE Battery Chargers to the building structure 10 CFR 50, App..B, V are inappropriate to the circumstance in that 8 3/8" fillet welds were required; it is impossible to achieve the required fillet weld size for four of these weld locations because

' material thickneks is less than '.'200 inches; the k welds do not conform to required thickness for 3/8" fillet veld; weld-

.ing was accepted by site QC even though welds could no.t be

. made in the manner required.

P

~

NRC Inspectiea & Enfarcement (IAE) Reports, R aarding Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Flaat (,CPSES) ,.

~

50445and50-446[

Problem Involved I&E Report No. & De e Type of Violation Involved _

Unresolved item Clarification of Rockbestos electrical cable qualification; 80-08(4/18/80)' * 'tihere was no clear evidence.that'the three separate-type tests of cables had been accomplished nor was the,re evidence

,inithe report that ' individual conductor tests had been per-. , (.

[.fonnet as required. .

Unresolved item . Clarifloation.of elect,ricssl, cable repair procedures; review in ' ,.,.

dicates a' lack of clarity in requiremente ofprocedure. " r, "

Violation,' Deficiency, Failure to report a significant' construction deficiency; attempts,3.'

h 80-08.(4/2/80) '

to remove concrete " honeycomb" in certain interior ~ walls of

,g Construction Permit, the" Unit Two Contairament Building had developed' into an un-

'% 10 CFR 50.55(e) ' '

expect'edly difficult deficiency; Permit Holder performed exten-sive engineering evaluaMons for purpose of establishing methods of irepair or for evaluating adequacy of structure without repair',

not reported to NRC. .

e

' Unresolved item Aluminum-bronr.e discs for service water valves; failure to perforr.-  ;

h. y 80-03(3/20/80) heat treatment could result in stress corrosion cracking under i

unspecified corrosive envirosaments; since the water. in the Service Water System has a potential for being mildly brackish ,

l

~

and therefore corrosive, the RRI considered that a potential for ,

catastrophic failure of the disc does exist and that in the event

,,of such failure, the Service Water System might not be able to 1

perfone its safety function.

80-03(2/7/80) Violation, Infraction, Failure to, follow procedures,for cable pulling; installed cables Construction Permits, were not protected from abiasi,on or other damage in that a lare 10 CFR M , App. B,.V Hilti bolt was attached to the end of a pull rope to facilitate threading the rope through the conduit.snd when the rope was pulled through the conduit, ,the, sharp-edged blunt end of the bob

,, ~ ,

we's on the top thereby gener6tisid a condition for abrasion or other damage to the installed cable's; the cable was not lubri-'

j ..

i cated prior to pulling it through the ennduit.-

~

g. .

. T '

]q . . . ,

j '

m e9

?

)

l .

NRC Icep=etion & Enfrreement (IAE) Riport7, RTearding Ccmancha 1%sk Nuclear Power Plant (CPSES) 50-445 and 50-446/ '

I&E Report No. & Date Type of Violation Involved Problem Involved .

80-15 (6/23/80); Violation, Infraction, Failure to establish quality assurance program for Class 5 pipa .

Construction Permits, support systems as required; Class 5 piping systems are those 10 CFR, App. B,'II, in the non-nuclear safety category whose failure in a seismic event could result in a loss of capability of a safety-relat,ed

~

FSAR ,

function. . .

Violation, Infraction,- Failure to follow welding procedure; hth, 5th and 6th . weld. layers. '

. 8013(5/21/80)- ,(,

Construction Pemit, on a Safety Injection systein field weld had been deposited 10 CFR 50, AP p. B, V using &fAW process.instead of IMAW process. .g +

.[.

.. Violation, Infraction, Failure to follow electrical inspection procedures; @'i~n'apec' tor ,

h Construction Permit, did not check to see if the individual conductors had been ter-10 CFR 50, App. B, V minated to the proper place in the connect',or, nor 'that the pine

(

- had been properly inserted into the connector and locked in place; omission of detailed inspection of terisinations of multi-pin connectors is a casson practice.

80-12(4/30/80) Reporting of significant Meeting held with NRC arid TU prsonnel re: reportability and j

( construction deficiencies, documentation of significant construction deficiencies, and I ,. 10 CFR '50 55(e) reporting of other significant events of interest to NRC not ,

required by cut cent regulations.

I Failure to follow piping installation procedures; suction nozzle r 80-11(4/9/80) violation, Infraction,

. Construction Permit,, flange of Safety Injection Pump was being used as the temporary l 10 CFR 50, App. B, V (and only means of support) support for pipe spools.

, 80-09(4/7/80) Violation, Infraction, E$cessive rate of groundwater withdrawal during construction; I Construction Perinits exceeded 250 gpa on March 19, April 25, December 4, and December

. 7,1979.' -

Unresolved item Effectiveness of site inspection ~ program; trash and wood scrap in'

, 80-01/01(4/7/80) areas under venus transmission line towers; inspector stated that"'

this raises qu'estions as to the effectiYeness of the site in-spection program.

c; Violation, Infraction, Failure to follow procedures for reporting and repair of da"* Bed 80-08(4/18/80)

Construction Permits, electrical cable; the implications of., the incident have a poten -

, 10 CFR 50, App. B, Y tial impact on safety in that it is indicative of's.br' akdown. e j

- E' '

' in the Construction Quality Assurance. Progren, according '

to the '.

.NRC Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI).

Y h ..

?

( ,

NRC Inspectien & Enf rcement _(I&E) RMrt% Regarding Comancho Peak Nuclear Power Plvt -(CPIMB) ',

50 445 and 50 446/ -

I&E Report No. & Date Type of Violation Involved Problem Involved 80-20(10/21/80) Deviation, FSAR Incorrect design of pmesurizer spray control valve piping Unresolved item Spent Fuel storage racks identified with sign."NON-Q" (not  !

'within scope of licensee's Q/A program) and in lay-down .

.e . positions ,

Unresolved ites, FSAR Design.of thi AC Instement Distribution.Panals; safety andl -

nonsafety cables. tightly . tied. together contrary to FSAR' cca- ,

mitment' to maint' a in a 6" space.between safety 'and.n '7

• l cables 1sithin panells. . f ., .

~

f .

Unsuitable weld surface condition as required by magnetic , '

j 80-20 (9/24/60) Violation, Infraction,

• NRC Construction Permits particle test procedures; NRC Resident Reactor Inspector -

CPPR-126 & 127, 10 C D (RRI) and other inspectors noted discrepant conditions in 50, Appendix B, Criterion welds in ccaiponents V , ,

Failure to report a. significant construction . deficiency; nearly 80-18(9/19/80) Violation, Deficiency, Construction Pemits, 200 welds in safety-rElatedgiping systems reported as.being

{ uridersir.ed (and therefore presumably under-strength) were

. , 10 CFR 50 55(e)

- not reported to NRC Unresolved itesi Absence of Weld Returns; beam seat clips velded to the column

': flanges and web did not have weld returns Unresolved item Babedment of anchor bolts through floor topping; concrete anchor

. bolts embedded might.not develop design strength values due to

'having been embedded through an architectural concrete floor topping; bolt embedded length might not be adequate to develop the desilia loads required. -

80-17(7/31/80) Violation

• Infract $1on, Failure to follow drawing for weld prep details; reactor coolant -

loop piping weld preps for Unit 2 did not confom to drawing,

Construction Permit, '

counterbore transition taper was 30 and 0 330 instead of maximun ~ -

10 CFR 50, App. B, V angle of 10 8.  :

h -

g

, 80-15(7/23/80) Violation, Deficiency, Failure to follow construction procedures required by drawings; Construction Permits, drawings were not.available on CPSES site at time of fabrica-

! 10 CFR, App. B,'V tion of components and therefore coEld not hEve.been follove'd.

f -:

~

I

- e i

l i;

l

2. (continued) _

{

b. Regarding CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions, page 50, items 1, 2, and 3,

-discussions with present and former workers at the CPSES. In addition to the preceding, CASE has discussed certain construction problems and  :

guality assurance / quality control problems with former and present workers l st,T,he Cr=mehe Peak plant, and they here provided us with information [

which, we believe, will eenble us to obtain through the discovery process adequate information to support their allegations, without their having  !

to be called as witnesses. , .

i All of these contacts were with the strict understanding and agree- l

! ment between CASE and those workers that tacir names would be kept con- l fidential and would be revealed to no one vith the NRC or the utility, j because said workers are in fear of losing their jobs, being harassed,  ;

being physically abused, or even jeopardir.ing their lives and the lives  !

of their family mer:Ders. Discussion and public statements by Carl Seyfrit, l head of the Region IV RRC Office in Arlington, Texas, have made it clear

. that there is no way the NRC can assure adequate protection of such poten-  ;

tial witnesses. CASE therefore feels that we cannot re' veal the ahmes  !

of such workers. If we cannot obtain supportive evidence adequate to j stand without their having to testify, we will again approach them to j see if they will agree to testify; if not, we will then have to consider l whether or not to drop that portion of our contention which would have ,

to rely solely on their testimony. However, we do not believe this will be necessary.  !

We therefore move that the Board grant CASE a protective order regard-' l ing disclosure of such workers' names, with the understanding that should )

there be a change of circumstance such that the workers decide to testify, j all parties will be so advised in time to enable the parties to pursue discovery, depositions, etc., without placing i. hem ut undue disadvantage. i However, as previously stated, it is not anticipated at this time

• hat any I of these workers will have to testify, becau,se we believe we have enough ,

information to be able to document their allegations without their testimony. l l

c. Couaitments made by Applicants in their FSAR which, according to the I&E Reports, they haven't lived up to.

d. Commitments made by Applicants in their Construction Permits whLch they haven't lived up to,

e. Previous CASE pleadings in these proceedings regarding this Contention, including discussions during the pre-bearing conferences.

f. We expect to obtain further documentation for this Cont'ention through I discovery from the concrete pour records, Deficiency and Disposition I 7

. - . , y y-,-

2. f. (continued)

Reports, Non-Conformance Reports, Corrective Action Requests, and other items which we have already requested and will be requesting through the discovery process.

g. The rule of reason. We believe that there is no way the ERC can catch each and every construction error or deficiency with its limited man-power and staff. We are concernsd that there are, in addition to the numerous problems which the BBC has addressed. in its I&E Reports, many others which they have not yet discovered but which will show up later, perhaps after the plant has gone into operation. Further, we note that many of the problems which the NRC has discovered have been directly due to allegations which have beec made by workers or former workers at the pit >nt; we believe that there is the possibility that, as the plant nears easpletion and they realize that it will soon be loading nuclear fuel and going into operation, other workers may come forward and report other problem areas, deficiencies,etc. either to the IRC or to Intervenors.

3 No.

k. No records were kept of meeting or contacts with the other intervening parties. Most contact with other Intervenors has been with regard to pro-cedural . matters and involves disclosure of what CASE considers to be the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of representa-tives of the parties, which is precluded from discovery under 10 CFR 2.Th0(b)(2).

We have been in contact with the other Intervenors from t'ime to time re-garding see aspects of our contentions, primarily to see if there was the possibility and/or desire of working together on then. However, it was de-cided that this was neither feasible nor desirable, and we are not working on any of our contentions in a coordinated fashion.

• The contacts have not been of a substantive nature in that they are not expected to play a role in the presentation cr preparation of CASE'e position on its contentions, and CASE's participation in such contacts is not expected to play a role in tha presentation or preparation of the position of ACORN or CFUR on their contentions.

5 No records were kept of meetings or contacts wi'th other individuals or groups with respect to our contentions except as specifically noted elsewhere in this pleading. However, for the past seven years, CASE has been in contact and had numerous conversations and discussions, in person, by telephone, and through indirect contacts with numerous groups and individuals regarding

= ee w w

5 (continued) various aspects of the Comanche Peak plant which could be broadly considered  !

to be "with respect to these contentions." (See page 12 of CASE's 9/3/80 l Answers to Applicants' Pirst Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, [

hereinafter referred to as CASE's 9/3/80 Answers.) l We have spoken by telephone or in person with: Dr. John W. Gofman, Egan O'Conast, Richard Pollock, Sister (Dr.) Rosalie Berte11, Dr. David Nichols, Dr. George W. Crawford, Dr. Jeff Sutherland, Marvin Resnikoff, Richard E.

Webb, Ralph Eader, Dr. James Nelson, Dr. Thomas Nancuso, Dr. Barrie Kitto, Dr. Charles W. Euver, Dr. Irwin D. .J. Bross, Dr. . Philip Bierbaum, Carl Hocavar, Vince Taylor, Dr. Barry C'ommoner, Dr. Thomas Cochran, Charles Xmanoff, Robert Pollard, Dr. Carl Johnson, and ot ers; we have talked by l phone or in person to Intervenors in other Texas hearings, in Pennsylvania, j Michigan, New Mexico, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and California. We have talked j by phone or in person to manerous employees in varicius positions with the l Texas Utilities campanies. We have been in contact with numerous local, I state and national public interest groups.

Our contacts with these individuals and groups have helped to increase j our knowledge, broaden our understanding of issues and the regulatory process, j

~

and helped us to interpret the meaning of some of the documents we have  !

obtained through the years; therefore, all of these individuals and groups have, in 's very broad sense, contributed to all of CASE's contentions.

~

Rowever, insofar as sitting down with us and actively participating f in the actual presentation or preparation of CASE's position on specific [

contentions, they have not (except as specifically indicated elsewhere in this pleading). Indeed, those individuals and groups would probably be hard pressed to know themselves just how they may have contributed to our contentions in the broad sense; certainly CASE would be' hard proceed to (

try to rpress which individuals or groups said something or supplied ses  !

bit of infomation which later would help CASE to formulate its contentions. l At the present time, we do not know whether or not some of them may testify I for us; we will, of course, advise all parties as soon as this is determined. l i

With regard to past and present workers at the Comanche Peak plant, see {

response to Question 2.b., page 7, of this pleading. i

6. See answer on page 41, last paragraph, of CASE's 9/3/80 Answers. l 7 See answer on page 41, last paragraph, of CASE's 9/3/8o Answers.  !

i

8. Unknown at this time.  !

l I

l l i i

I i

- ______,,,_,_,,_,,n,.

~ ~~

-~ ~ ~ ~ ~

l l

l .

1

. 9 Yes. ,

a. (1) See pages 3, 4, 5, and 6, 2nd ' Column " Type of Violation Involved,"

of this pleading.

(2) Failure to Implement the Quality Assurance Program for Civil Construction - I&E Report 79-n [

Failure to Fonow Inspection Procedure for Inspection of Class IE Cable Tray Supports -- I&E Report 79-06 .

Failure to Fonow Equipent Maintenance Instructions -- I&E Report 79-0h Failure to Fonow Concrete Placement Procedure -- I&E Report 79-03 (

Failure to Fonow Welding Procedures -- I&E Report, MRC Inspections i on August 21-25,1978 l Failure to Fonow Wald Monitoring Procedures -- I&E Report, ERC  !

Inspections on August 21-25, 1978 -

(

Failure to Adeguately Control and Tag Nonconforming Items -- I&E l Report, NRC Inspections on August 21-25, 1978 i Failure to Achieve Adequate Radiographic Sensitivity -- IE Report (

78-20 Failure to Fonow Welding Procedures -- I&E Report 78-18 i Failure to Promptly Report a Significant Deficiency -- I&E Report 78-16 l Failure to Fonow Concrete Testing Procedures -- I&E Report 78-13 Failure to Follow Welding Procedure -- IEE Report 78-12 Failure to Adequately Control and Tag Nonconforming Items -- I&E  !

Report 78-12 Failure to Follow Piping Instan ation Procedures -- I&E Report 78-n i Failure to Maintain Proper Flow in lower Squaw Creek -- IG Report 78-08 . i Failure to Fonow Concrete Testing Procedures -- I&E Report 78-07 ,

Failure to Fon ow Pipe Fabrication Procedures -- I&E Report 78-05 i Failure to Remove Weld Surface Defect Prior to F,inal Acceptance -- l I&E Report 7(-10 l Failure to Provide Welding Procedures at the Location Where the i Prescribed Activity is Performed -- I&E Report 77-10 .

Failure to Follow Procedures for Certification / Documentation of-Inspectors -- I&E Report 77-02 Failure to Maintain Document Control - I&E Report 76-08 Failure to Follow Procedures for QA Documentation of Surveillance Activities -- I&E Report 76-08 Failure to Fonow Procedures for Welding of Safety Related Components

-- I&E Report 76-07 Failure of QA Supervisor to Exercise Delegated Stop-Work Authority Regarding Welding of Safety Related Components - I&E Report 76-07 Failure to Provide Prescribed Documented Instructions or Work Pro-cedurea Regarding Instanation.of Containment Building Seismic Category Class I Pipe Restraint Embeds -- I&E Report 76-01

l

9. a. .(2) (continued) _

Failure to Provide QC Surveillance Procedures Regarding Containment Building Seismic Category Class I Babeds Installations -- I&E Report  ;

l 76-ol ,

i Failure to Provide Prescribed Documented Instructions or Procedures For Conducting QC Surveillance of the Containment Building Steel Liner [

Installation' -- I&E Report 76-01 I Failure to In::orporate Approved Design Changes Into Applicable Design f Specification and Work Procedures -- I&E Report 76-01  ;

Failure to Provide Documented Instructions or Procedures As Prescribed  !

Regarding fremination and Repa'ir Activities on Seianic Category Class I Camponents -- I&E Report 76-01 #

Failure to Implement Prcmpt Corrective Action and Provide Adequate Measures to Preclude Repetition Regarding Concrete Aggregates -- I&E f Report 75-13 l Failure to Adhere to Procedure Requirements Regarding Concrete Place-ment -- IAE Report 75-10 i Failure to Adhere to Procedure Requirements Regarding Concrete Transit Mix -- I&E Report 75-10 ,

l Excessive Rate of Groundwater Withdrawal During Construction -- I&E l Report Regarding Inspection Conducted June 6 and lo, 1975 .

(3) other IEE Reports for the periods July through December, 1979, and  :

Prior to June,1975 (We had thought we had copies of the July through December,1979 I&E Reports; however, we discovered in the process of typing this Answer that we did not have these specific months. Also, we had not made copies of I&E Reports prior to June, 1975 However, i

Applicants have in their possession all the I&E Reports regarding CPSES; it is our intention to pursue problem areas identified in all of them.)

(4) .0ther Deficiencies and Deviations identified in I&E Reports. We {

have not attempted to detail all the other Deficiencies and Deviations contained in I&E Reports referenced in 9.a(2) and 9.a(3) of this (

pleading; however, these are also included in the provisions which we contend Applicants have not satisfied.

b. See answer 9.a. preceding. f l

l

c. Statements contained in the I&E Reports referenced in answer 9.a. Preceding.  ;

10. By " Applicants' failure to adhere," we mean that Applicants have fallen short of doing what they promised to do, that they have been defiedent in the con-struction of CPSES, that they have cuitted doing things that they were supposed  ;

1 -

l l  !

'. l i

r 10 (continued) ,

i to do, that they have not stuck to the terms and conditions of the construction  ;

permits for Ccananche Peak, Units 1 and 2, that they have not complied with l the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. l

11. Rectify all the deficiencies and problems identified in answers 2, 9, and 10 of f this pleading and any s4=41mv deficiencies and problems which have not yet l been identified or which win be occurring in the future, and establish and j maintain a consistent quality assurance-quality control program which does j comply with the requirements of the construction permits for CPSES and i

I 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and with the promises made in Applicants' FSAR.

2 and  :

12. Statements contained in the I&E Reports referenced in answerp.m. precedir;, [

requirements set forth in the construction permits for CPSES and in 10 CFR I

Part 50, Appendix B, and the commitments made in Applicants' FSAR.

13. Yes .

s. See answer 9.a. Preceding. j

b. See answer 9.a. preceding.  ;

c. See answer 9.c. preceding. j

14. See answer n preceding.

l

15. See answer 12 preceding.

16. An of them, in all probability; this is our present intention.  ;

17. See answers 2 and 9 of this pleading. See answer 12 preceding.

1 t

18. See answers 2 and 9 of this pleading.

19. See answer n preceding. See answer 12 preceding.

20. Probably.

21. This depends primarily on the information contained in scae of the documents which are to be made available for CASE to inspect, w :ich we have not yet had an opportunity to inspect. We will update oar answer to this question as soon as we know the answer.

22. See answers 2 and 9 of this pleading and answer 21 preceding. -

23. See answer n preceding.

24. See answer 12 preceding.

i

i I 25. By " substantial questions" in ' Contention 5, we mean uncertainties, due to l Applicants' failure to comply with regulations and to adhere to the QA/QC l prwisions required, of such magnitude and to such extent that CASE questions l N underlying strength, solidity, ability to withstand stress and pressures, i I

shility to contain radiosctivity either in routine operation or in the event of an accident at CPSES, and substance of the plant structures themselves, as well as whether or not CPSES can at.d win be operated in such a manner that  !

it vill not be inimical to h public health and safety. . l

26. By " adequacy" in Contention 5, CASE means sufficient for h requirements j to assure that h plant can be operated in such a manner that it will not l be inimical to the public health and safety; suya as is lawfuny and reasonably I

[

sufficient.

27 50 57(a)(1 through 6). j i

28. See answer 12 preceding. [

29. See answer n preceding.

r 30 through 54, inclusive. With regard to these questions, all of which ecacera Contention 23: "Neither the Applicants nor the Staff has adequately con-  !

sidered h health effects of low-level radiation on the population surround. j ing CPSES in as much that the CPSES design does not assure that radioactive l emissions win be as low as is reasonably achieveable," the Board ruled in i its10/31/80 Rulings on Objections to Board's Order of June 16, 1980 and on Miscenaneous Nations that Contention 23, "as presently worded, is semissible to the extent that it challenges Applicants' compliance with Commission regu-lations governing the release of radiation and/or radioactive materials."

Initiany, CASE had approached Dr. Rosalie Berte11 regarding the possi-bility that she sight testify regarding this contention. She indicated that .

she would prefer to avait the Board's decision (unde 10/31/80) regarding  !

exactly what would be allowed regarding this contention. CASE had been [

unable to contact Dr. Berten prior to filing its n/20/80 Motions to Grant l CASE Separate Intervenor Status and to Appoint CASE as Imad Party for Con- I solidated Contentions; we have now contacted her. Dr. Berten advises that she does not wish to testify regarding this contention in its accepted form. .

CASE had aoped that we would be able to go ' farther in this contention l than the wording as accepted by h Board win snow; however, the present wording, we believe, would snow us to look at only the tip of the iceberg. ,

We wish to register cur exception to the Board's ruling and plan to pursue  ;

this further on appeal. In the meanwhile, CASE regretfuny withdraws from  ;

this Contention 23 as worded. This, of course, makes moot the ecaments re- [

garding Contention 23 on page 2 of CASE's n/20/80 Motion to Appoint CASE j as Lead Party for ConsolidatedContentions. j i

I l

I

55. Those set forth in 10 CFR 51.20, including, but not limited to the following:  !

Eealth effects of the uranitas fuel cycle; health effects of low-level {

radiation fr a routine and un=1= = d emissions from the facility; health j effects of possib3,e accidents at the facility, from the least harmful to [

the worst possiale; models used to calculate low-level radiation doses; calculation of number of expected cancers from operat. ion of CPSES; uranium supply; water use; evacuation and emergency procedures; unresolved generic safety issues; decommissioning; transportation of low- and high level wastes; storage of low-level and high-level wastes; capacity factors; discharge of efnuents into water; transmission. lines; herbicide usage; selection of site; population concentrations; meteor 1'ogical considerations; hydrology - watershed; realistic assesasent of expected performance of plant compared to design ,

rating; endangered species; construction costs; total costs of plant; operst- (

ing costs; reliability; power generating ccets; external project costs; j aarine enviromental impacts; archeological aspects; sconmic effects of  ;

the uranium fuel cycle; econmic effects of health affects of low-level  !

radistics from routine and unpalaned emissions fra the facility; alternative  !

sources of energy ccaparisons between different possibilities; costs of j overcapacity; land use; taxation basis of the land after plant is shut down energy conservation; excess capscity; terrestrial ecology; aquatic ecology; l

- air pollution; regional historic, scenic, cultural, and natural features;  ;

right-of-way disruptions; visual impacts; chemical and biocide vaste; i sanitary and other waste; gaseous efnuents; noise pollution; surface water;  !

ground water; possibility of accidents from aircraft; thezzal effluent; enviromental effects of possible accidents at the facility, from the least i harmful to the worst possible; econmic effect of accidents on the surround- l ing area; econmic effect of accidents on ratepayers who are paying for the l plant; release of radioactive vaste to watershed; side ' effects of transports- {

tion of spent fuel; analysis of who will pay for the cost of nuclear waste j and nuclear fuel accidents in transit to or from the' plant; security costs; j effects of security as regards loss of civil liberties and loss of privacy; j cost and effects of external af.oding; need for power; risk comparison be- l tween operating CPSES and not operating it; adequacy of site geology; seismic (

considerations; effect on health of workers exposed to radiation; financial i cost of health effects to workers exposed to radiation; increased fuel costs; f

~ analysis of need for CPSES, by year, for its 40-year life as c a pared to j what alternatives will be avm11mble during that time; inflationary impacts  !

on costs of all aspects of CPSES; innationary impacts on the h1lan/ Fort j Worth metroplex area of the increase in costs of electricity due to the  !

construction and including of construction work in progress in the rate base j for CPSES, as well as such innationary impacts due to the cost over-runs  !

arperienced at CPSES; socioeconmic impact of the plant upon'16 cal camsuni-  !

ties, including large influx of workers and families on a temporary basis  ;

requiring building of more schools, increased police protect. ion, etc. and I effect of leaving remainingeresidents to continue to pay- for costs of such - )

increased facilities when transient workers move on; operating' costs of CPSES; power generating costs of CPSES. l

_ 14 -

I e

1

i l

55 (continued):

In addition, an items listed as costs in Applicants' cost / benefit i analysis not mentioned in the preceding list. -

I

56. 10 CFR 51 20. l

57. CASE believes the only benefit to be derived fren CPSES is that it will l produce electricity when it's in operation; even so, we do not believe [

that that electricity win be aseded, econcaical, or safe.  ;

CASE does not believe that it is proper to include as a benefit the l increased employment and tax revenues, as Applicants have done in the ER, page 11.0-3, Amendment 1, September 1980, section 11.1.2 INDIRECT BEHFITS: l

" Employment opportunities and the disposable income generated (both by (

temporary and by pernasent employees) constitute a significant indirect benefit of CPSES. Increases in the local tax base and tax revenues that  !

v211 be derived by Scaervell and Hood Counties are also recognised as an ,

important indirect benefits of the project." Increased employment and  !

tax revenues unnot be included on the benefit side in striking the ulti- l mate NEPA cost-benefit balance for a particular plant (Vemont Yankee l Nuclear Power Cory., Vermont Yankee Station, AIAB-179, 7 ABC 159,177 (lW4)).

Further, we believe that increased local employment and wage inecnes, in- ,

creased local business activity, increased tax revenues will be offset by l the loss of local employment and wage inecnes (t'hus creating unemployment {

with its attendant costs), decreased local business activity (scene businer.es, [

especia n y bars and taverns, may have to go out of business entirely with l resulting unemployment, possibly moving from the area of income-producing  :

and tax-producing businesses; other businesses will suffer decreases in  !

income), and increased tax revenues will be offset by increased costs for f building new schools for transient grhegs' families,policeprotectica,  !

increased jail facilities (present a!fl1@s were not even sufficient to contain those individuals who engaged in civil disobedience by going over j the fence in the past, and such activities may increase in the future), i increased fire protection, ete., when the transient workers leave the area. i CASE also does not believe it is proper at this time to include as a i benefit "er-ded ecumnunity services and public facilities (such as develop- f ment of Squaw Creek Reservoir)" unless and until Applicants finalize arrange-  ;

ments with the State of Texas regardin4; this matter. (See letter of June 10, 1980 from David J. Preister, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Pro- i teetion Division, Texas Attorney General's Office, letter of July 3,1980, from Biny R. Clements, Vice-President, TUGCO, and CASE's 7/14/80 Supplement f l

to Ites 1. (CASE Contention 1) of CASE Motion for Reconsideration of Certain CASE Contentionst..last paragraph of page 3 through page 5. ' At the present time, such arrangements have not been made and there is no indication as to l when they win be made.

' l

,n , . . -

l 15 - l u- m,-r - - , , -

w- ,v -m,,w-- ,,, -w , w y-,--,,-w,,--a--,,w. , - -w

57 (continued): ,

With regard to the ecological surveys which have been performed in the region of CPSES during the past several years regarding the ====m1, l

invertebrate, reptilian,, avian, and floral communities of the CPSES area, CASE believes ht the disruption of the daily lives of animals and birds, the removal of part of their natural habitat, the destruction of some floral areas forever, more than outweigh any alleged benefits of such ecological I

surveys. .

With regard to Applicants' statements in 8.1.2 5 Improvement to Area Facilities (page 8.1-18 of ER), CASE hardly sees how upgrading of Fara Ronds 201 and 51, which was necessitated by "an extensive voltase of vehicle traffic to and from the CPSES plant site""during the early phases of project construction" which "resulted in significant wear to local roadways," can

^

be counted as a " benefit" without recognining a corresponding and offsetting

" cost." Further, we do not see the creation of the Squaw Creet Reservoir as a great enhancement to the sport and recreational opportunities for area residents when admittedly "there are other recreational reseryoirs located within a short ccessuting distance frcza the CPSES;" recognition must also be given to the negative benefit of loss of privacy,' increased traffic, and increased air pollution to those on tne route to and from the Reservoir.

With regard to Applicants' statements in 8.1.2.6 Public. Education (page j

8.1-18 of the ER), CASE believes that the " local information office...

I established in Glen Rose to provide area residents with details pertaining to the CPSES project in particular, and to nuclear issues in general" is primarily a public relations effort to make the plant more acceptable to the residents, to promote the use of nuclear energy as a power source, and should more properly be called propaganda rather than public education.

There may be some value under the Public Education.sectica regarding the archeological survey of the CPSIS area which was conducted in 1972.

However, the statement by Applicants that "ite great majority of this his-torical data would have been lost beyond recovery had it not been for this detailed survey" is undocumented and perhaps undocumentable. Further, one of the ressoas for this survey was that Applicants uncovered dinosaur tracks which would have perhaps been lost forever due to actions by Applicants had they not cut out the track and moved it elsewhere to preserve it.

Applicants state in 8.13 Summary of Benefits (page 8.1-19, September 1980 Amendment to ER). that "A summary description of the benefits of the

- CPSES project is presented in Table 8.1-21, and in Section 11.1." However, although Amendment page 8-iv indicates that there are new tables added, Tables 8.1-21 and 8.1-22,. CASE did not receive these two Tshles. ,9 W had not noticed this oversight until we were preparing this pleading, and we ask that Applicants supply us with a copy,of these two Thbles. ,

9 l

l 58.10 CFR 51.20, Applicants' Environmental Report (ER), and the rule of reason. f

59. Yes. ~ We don't believe Applicants have adequately considered all the factors involved as required in 10 CFR 51.20. l t

6

60. 10 CFR 51.20. Based on that' regulation, CASE believes that'a realistic and I

in-depth assessment of the actual costs directly related to the CPSES must be considered in the cost / benefit analysis which Applicants are required '-

provide in the ER. j i

61. Whether or not all the costs and benefits are adequately considered, and '

whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. See answers 55 sad 57. ' l

62. All costs and benefits must be considered; thus, all are of significance  !

i and importance. CASE vould reccumnend that primary consideration be given to those items which have the greatest impact and the most long-lived impact.

l Thus, we would rank them:

(1) Costs in terms of health and da11mes of storage and/or disposal

(

of radioactive vastes; (2) Ccats in terms of health and dollars of a worst-case accident at l CPSES, especially with regards radioactivity released; ,

(3) Costs in iLerms of health and dollars of the nuclear fuel cycle;  ;

f (4) The manerous items which have or any have some bearing 'or relation to the above items (1) through (3), such as unresolved safety issues, j decmaissioning, transportation of spent fuel and low-level vastes,  !

discharge of effluents into water, population concentrations, meteor-  !

logical considerations, hydrology - watershed, groundwater, surface f water, air pollution, etc. l l

(5) All other costs. -

)

63 10 CFR 51.20, and the rule of reason; this seems to' CASE to be a logical l approach. .

6k. Whether or not, after all the costs and benefits have been adequately con-sidered, the benefits outweigh the costs. CASE doesn't believe that supplying power that isn't needed outweighs the possible envirotusental costs, health j effects and An11mr costs due to an accident at CPSES, or that supplying j electricity for 30 or 40 years outweighs the cost in terms of environmental, j health and dollars of having to store radicactive vaste for centuries.  !

i 65 10 CFR '51.20, and the rule of reason; this seems to CASE

. . ~ . .:

to. be a logical a ,

t

- - s

66. a. Wit,h regard to Contention 2k, we are not saying that the fact that Appli-

e. ants have failed to adequately consider 2ka, 24b, 24c, or 2kd alone would necessarily mean that a favorable cost / benefit h 1= nee cannot m m .- -

be made, but that these are factors which must all be considered, and 1

l L .. -- - - -

l a

1 4

i i

l 66, s. (continued): ,

that since they have not been adequately considered, a favorable cost /

]

benefit balance cannot be made; further, should all other factors be j equal in the cost / benefit analysis, a negative benefit finding regarding  ;

any one or more of these four sub-parts would mean that a favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made.

\

i b. In addition to 66.a. above, CASE does not believe Applicants have adequately j considered the costs of safely decommissioning CPSES, especially since

they have changed their choice.of deccennissioning to specify that they l are goin6 for immediate disman'tlement; if s4 equate consideration is

given j to such costs, CASE believes that a favorable cost / benefit balance cannot i be made when such costs are added to those others which must be considered.

l f 67 10 CFR 51.20; Applicants' Environmental Report (ER), Amendment 1, September l 1980, Section 5.8, and Section 8.2.13, NUREG/CR-0130 and Addendum > previous

! CASE pleadings. - -

! 68. No. -

i 69. No.

70. No.

I j 71. Yes.

i j.

72. See answer on page 41, last paragraph, of CASE's 9/3/80 Answers.

I

! 73. See answer on page kl, last paragraph, of CASE's 9/3/80 Answers.

i Th. See answer on page kl, last paragraph, of CASE's 9/3/80 Answers.

)

1

! 75. See answer on page 41, last paragraph, of CASE's 9/3/80 Answers.

i

76. CASE had previously been operating on the assumption that the information

! contained in Applicants

• ER (OLS), pages 5.8-1 through 5.8-3 (Section 5 8)

I was applicable; however, in their September 1960 Amendment 1 to the ER,

l. Applicants have changed their choice of decommiasioning to specify that they are going for immediate dismantlement,'rather'than a alower dismantling after a number of years, and the costs estimates have risen considerably.

CASE is still evaluating these changes and will be supplementing

• our~re-sponses later regarding this contention. -

. Oenerally, ve believe the costs estimated are too low,'that Applicants don't know what they're getting into with this method of dissantling, 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 thef're going to

76. (continued): .

l physically dismantle the plant, how they're going to protect their workers l from radiation while diamantling the plant, etc. l l

77. Applicants' ER (OLS), Section 5.8 and Section 8.2.13 ,

i 78.10 CFR 51.20; lo cra Part 50, Appendix C, I. B. l

)

79. No.

'. t

80. Not applicable. '

81. See Answer 76, paragraph 1. f l

82. Yes.  ;

T

a. Tes. -

l

b. See Answer 76. l

~

c. See Answer 67 and 76. .

d. See Answer 67 i

r

e. See Answer 67 i f

83. Prove that what CASE has stated in the 2nd paragraph of 4ttawer 76 is incor.cect; {

answer CASE's and the NRC Staff's interrogatories satisfactorily. l

84. See Answer 67 and 78. l i

85. Consider all the items in Answer 55 adequately and prove that the benefits j outweigh the costs.

86.10 CFR 51.30. -

t i

87. By " safely" in regard to decommissioning, we mean done in a manner so as  !

not to contaminate the workers at the plant with radioactivity with resultant [

cancers, genetic effects and injury, so as not to contaminate the surround- l ing areas with radioactivity which could render such areas uninhabitable l for years, so as not to subject workers or members of'the public to thd threat of danger; ham or loss, from radioactivity or from accidents; se as not -to I damage or ham the flora and fauna, animal life, birds, water, sir, or archeo- l t logical aspects of'the area e -c- s ,

l .

l l

w.

88. Webster's Dictionary; 10 CFR 50 57; the rule of reason. .;

89. Yes.

90. The mode of daccumissioning which Applicants plan to use for CPSES must be considered; 10 CFR 51.20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, I.B.

91. Whatever structures, facilities or equipent are involved in the decommission-ing mode chosen by Applicants must be considered; in the case of immediate dismantlement, which is now being proposed by Applicantu, this would include all structures, facilities and equipsent.

92. Applicants' ER (OIS), Section 5 8 and Section 8.2.1 3; 10 CFR 51.20.

93. Yes. Depends in part on which mode of decommissioning is used; also in part .

upon what ERC requirements are at the time of daccmanissioning; also in part upon how accurate Applicants' analysis of costs are (i.e., as more plants are decommissioned, more will be known about actual costs ' experienced) which in turn may be partly contingent upon when the plant.is decommissioned.

94. The rule of reason; Applicants' ER (OLS), Section 5.8, original and Septesoer i_ , .,_ 1980 Amendment, which shows a change in cost projections fr a $18.4 million in 1981 dallars to $100 million in 1980 dollars.,'

95. We have not yet arrived at a specifie dalla cost; generally, it should be the dollar snount arrived at when a complete and accurate analysis is made of all costs associated with decommissioning CPSES.

96. It should be considered along with all the other costs' See Answer 62.

97 10 CFR 51.20. See answer 63

98. See Answer 66.a. In addition, CASE does not believe that Applicants have l really considered the costs in terms of health, as well as the econmic costs of a possible accident in the on-site storage of spent fuel at all, certainly not to the extent that the possible consequences of such an acci-dent warrant. If adequate consideration is given to such costs, CARE be.

lieves that a favorable cost / benefit balance cannot be made when such costs are added to those others which must be considered.

99 10'CFR 51.20. see CASE 9/3/B0 Answers,' page 6, 'first' ' full ' paragraph an'd '

~1ast paragraph, and page' 41; Applicants' FSAR; previous CASE' jd.eadings.

i l

{

100. No.

101. No. I 102. CASE has spoken by telephone on several occasions with Richard E. Webb regarding this contention. Rovaver, at this time it has not been decided whether or not Mr. Webb will be testifying for CASE in these proceedings, l and we did not rely upon him or his work as the basis for this contention.

We don't have the dates of such conversations immediately available without having to make a detailed survey of records; however, they were during the }

time frene between about February 1979 until the present. SeeCASEk/10/80 l Position on Contentions, pages 26 through 32.  !

As previously stated, we vill advise all parties when and as decisions a:ut agreements are made regarding this contention, in accordance with 10 CFR 2740(e). (SeeCAsE9/3/80 Answers.) ~.  ;

i 103. Yes. .

104. See CASE 9/3/80 Answers, page kl.

105. Seu CASE 9/3/80 Answers, page kl.

106.SeeCASE9/3/80 Answers,page41. .

[

107. See CASE 9/3/80 Answers, page kl. l i

108. See Answer 98 preceding. Depending upon the magnitude of the accident, which could vary considerably, there would be health effects (including [

j cancers, deaths, genetic effects, etc.) which would affect the immediate area, possibly Fort Worth, the Metroplex area (the area surrounding Dallas /  !

Fort Worth), the h11as area, and even further, as well as the financial f costs to the people in those areas frcan radioactive contamination of their property, the possible loss of their land for years (cr perhaps, for all f practical purposes, forever as far as its usefulness to those people), costs {

of evacuation, medical treatment, housing, clothing, etc., coste to the [

utility and/or ratepayers for actual damage to the plant itself, to pay for [

replacement electricity (though, at the rete Applicants' projections are going, this might act be any problem at all foi them -- however, according l l

to their prejections, this would be a large cost factor), costs of court  !

suits, etc. '

109. '10 CFR 51.20;-the rule of' reason > see Anaver 99;

. )

. . . . l j .

l I

5 r

i

HO.10 CDR 51.20; the rule of Reason. ,

In. No.

112.'Not' applicable. ,

H3. Unknown at this time; probably not; it is impossible at this point to ten exactly what the true costs of CPSES are because Applicants have not adequately considered everything which they are required to under 10 CFR 51.20.

nk. Yes.

a. Yes.

b. Applicants have not included an data regarding possible accidents in.

volving the onsite storage of spent fuel,

c. Applicants'ER(OLS).

d. See Answer 108. -

~ ~~

e. See Answer 109 ,

115. Provide a detailed analysis of an costs associated with possible accidents in the onsite storage of spent fuel. Answer all CASE and IRC Staff interroga-tories regarding such analysis satisfactorily.

n6. lo CFR 51.20; the rule of reason.

n T. See Answer H 5 preceding. Prove that benefits outweigh the costs.

H 8. See Answer n6 preceding.

n9. See CASE 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, pages 26 through 32; it is expected that CASE's witness win go into more detail with regard to these possible accidents and an parties will be advised as soon as such detailed informa-tion is available.

. 120. An of them.

121. CASE has not analysed this yet; it is expected that our witness will answer this.

122. See Answer 121; and Answer H9 preceding.

I 123. See Answer 121 preceding, and Answer H9 preceding. -

124. See Answer 121 preceding, and Answer H9 preceding.

. i 125. See Answer 121 preceding, and Answer H9 preceding.

i 126. See Answer 121 preceding, and Answer n9 preceding. I 127. See Answer 121 preceding, and Answer H9 preceding. -

128. See Answer 121 preceding, and Answer n9 preceding.

129. CASE has not analyzed this yet; see Answer 121 preceding.

130.-See Answer 121 preceding.

131. See Answer 108 preceding.

132. Possibly; there could also be steen explosions, fires, etc.

133. Possibly su those contained in the spent fuel; see Answer 121.

134. See Answer 121 preceding. ,

135. See Answer 121 preceding.

136. See Answer 108 and 121 preceding.

137. See Answer 121 preceding.

• 138. See Answer 121 preceding.

139. See Answer 121 preceding.

140. See Answer 66.a. Preceding. See CASE h/10/80 Position on Contenticas, page 21, second paragraph, and CASE 5/7/79 Contentio,ne, pages 25 and 26, iten k.

In addition, CASE does not believe Applicants know what the costs of fuel for CPSES win be, that they win be higher than Applicants estimate, and

that Applicants have not adequately considered such costs; if adequate con-siderationisgiventosuchcosts,CASEbelievesthatafavorablecost/ benefit analysis cannot be made when such costs are added to those others which must be considered.

141. lo CFR 51.20; Applicants' ER (CIA) 8.2.1.2 (pages 8.2 2 and 8.2-3); Texas Utilities Ccuspany Prospectus 1/23/79throughthepresent(seeCASE'5/7/.79-Contentions, pages 25 and 26,,iten 4). -

- - -- --.---,,--m .-, _ , . _ _ _ - _ . ,my. ,--,-,

142. No. ,

143.- No.

10. 'No, although this has been the subject of discussion in DPlJ., rate hearings, and as set forth in Answer 5 preceding.

1k5. Yes.

1M. See CASE's 9/3/60 Answers, page 41.

147. Yes. SeeCASE's9/3/80 Answers,he41.

1k8. See CASE's 9/3/80 Answers, page 41.

l 1k9. See CASE's 9/3/80 Answers, page 41. -

\

150. See Answer '140 preceding.

151. See Answer ikO preceding. -

152.10 CFR 51.20. .

~

153. No.

154. See Answer lho preceding.

1 155. Yes.

a. Yes.

• l b. See CASE 5/7/79 Contentions, pages 25 and 26, item 4, and Answer 140 preceding.

c. See Answer 141 preceding.

d. See Answer ikO preceding. Applicants should base their estimate of costs, if possible, upon firm contracts; if firm contracts are not availahle or have not been entered into, Applicants should use other studies or analyses of costs which will be applicable in the time frame when they anticipate they will have to purchase the fuel, not based on the 1980 market values. Fuel cycle costs of CPSES fuel should be included.

e. See Answer 141 preceding; the rule of reason.

156. See Answer 155d above. Provide detailed analysis of costs; answer all CASE and IRC Staff questions regarding such analysis satisfactorily.

157. See Answer 141 preceding.

. :e- . .

=

158. Consider all the costs set forth in Answer 55 and prove that the beerits outweigh the costs. See also Answer 156 preceding.

159. 10 CFR 51.20. See Answer 141 preceding. l 160. No; however, a more accurate cost / benefit analysis could be made if this were the case.

I

~

161. See Answer 160'above. l l

162. See Answer 160 above. '

i i

163. No, but thers should be a ressountle assurance that enough fuel vill be  ;

discovered to fuel the Comanche Peak r.lant and that such fuel vill be available for use specifically at CPSES. l i

164. Yes. All costs should be considered which contribute in any way to the cost ,

of the fuel which will be used at CPSES, including fuel cycle costa. t l

165. See Answer 155d; in addition,10 CFR 51.20, and the rule of reason. l 166. See Answer 1554. -

167. See Answer 1554 and 117 preceding.  !

i 168. This question refers to Interrogatories 168 and 169; however, ve assume  !

Applicants intend to refer to Interrogatories 166 and 167 and are answering [

accordingly. See Answer 141 preceding; the rule of reason. l, 169. No. -

f 170. The rule of reason.  ;

i i

171. See Answer 66a preceding. Also, CASE does not believe that Applicants have adequately considered the costs of waste storage regarding the vaste l produced at CPSES; if adequate consideration is,given to such costs, CASE I

believes that a favorable cost / benefit balance emnnrt, be made when such l costs are added to those others which must be considered. l l 5 l 172. See CASE 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, page 21, last paragraph,. tihrough I page 25, and CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions, page 26, item 5, and page 27 The  !

Nouse Report " Nuclear Power Costs" will be made available for inspection and l copying; contact the writer for an appointment. 10 CFR 51.20. i 2f .

• l i

i

. i

. i 173. No. .

174. no.

175. No. See Answer 5 preceding.

176. Yes. .

177. See Answer on page kl of CASE's 9/3/80 Answers.

178. Seepage 41c; CASE's9/3/80 Answers. ,

179. See page Al of CASE 9/3/80 Answers.

180.'See page 41 of CASE 9/3/80 Answers.

181. See CASE 4/10/SO Position on Contentions, page 21, last paragraph, through page 25, and CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions, page 26 and 27, item 5 182.10 CFE 51.20; the rule of reason; see Answer 181 above.

I~ 183. No. -

~

184. Not applicable.

185. See Answer 171 maa 172.

186. Yes.

a. Yes. -

b. Applicants have not included all data regarding vaste storage which are required.

c. 10 CFR 51.20; Applicants' ER (OLS).

d. Applicants should include a, detailed, comple, t e analysis of all costs associated with weste storage due to CPSES. We expect that our witness will go into further detail regarding more specifica; however, CASE has not analyzed this further at this time.

e. See first sentence, Answer 172 preceding.

26 -

l l

l l

l i

187. Provide a detailed, complete' analysis of all costs associated with the storage of waste due to CPSES. Answer all CASE and EC Staff interrogatories regarding such analysis satisfactorily.

188.10 CFR 51.20; the rule of reason.

189. See Answer 187 preceding. Prove that benefits outweigh the costs.

190. See Answer 188 preceding. -

191. All wastes produced as the result of the fission reaction at CPSES (we expect that our witness will go into further detail regarding more. specifics; however, CASE has not analyzed this further at this time); any other vastes Produced as a result of the operstion of CPSES, including but not limited to low-level wastes. such as clothing, gloves, etc. (see preceding comment in parentheses).

192. Yes.

193. Yes.

194. With regard to the basis for our response, to Interrogatory 189, see Answer 190. Regarding Interrogatories 191 through 193,10 CFR 51. 20; see also CASE'sh/10/80PositiononContentions,pages21(lastparagraph)through 25 195. See Answer 191.

196. See Answer 191. .

197. Yes. .

198. See second sentence of Answer 194 above.

CASE has attasspted to answer each and every question posed by Applicants; if any were not answered, it was an roersight and se vill attempt to answer them if Applicant will point them out to us.

Respectfully submitted, Ass > A h/D gs. Juanita Ellis, President M )Citiziens'

(

Association for- Sound Energy) ' * .;

1h26 S. Polk Dallas, TX -75224

~

12/1/80 21k/9k6-9M 27 -

-- n ..=

. UNITED STATES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

In the Matter of 1-I APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN 1 and 50-446 .

OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE 1

, PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Bymysignaturebelow,IcertifythattrueandcorrectcopiesofShplementto CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interro6atories and Reque sts to Produce have been sent this day, the 1st day c'f. December,1980, to the names listed belov via First Class Mail (in the case of names marked *, with Certificate of Nailing):

• Valentine 3. Deale, Esq., Chairman David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General  ;

1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

' Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter' Drive 76010 State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~

Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 ,

o Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman . Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission  ;

Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section

, Counsel for NRC-Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch C.. McColl, III, Esii.

Wect Texas Legal Services 701 Ccamerce Street, suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, n 75202 7 ort' Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. bpb i 4021 Prescott Avenue W

s. ) Juanita Ellis , President Dallas, n 75219 ASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY). c.. ,

e

o.

1..

l ~

C A S E ==

~

(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) .

December 1, 1960 o .

Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D. C. 20555 l Atta: Chief, Docketing and Service Sektion i

Dear Sir:

j

Subject:

Docket Nos. 50-4 5 and 50-4 6 A}* plication of Texas Utilities Generating C.. .any, Et A1..for an Operating License-fo Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units fl and #2 (CPSES)

Pursuant to subject hearings, we are attaching,the criginal of the vertification attached to CASE's December 1,1960, Supplement to CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce'.

Sincerely, CASE (CITI2ZNS ASSOCIATICE FOR SOUED ENIBGY) hs.)'Juanita Ellis President Attachment ec: Service List .

6- eg, ,

eux, e e en- O

l l

l o

l i -

STME W TEKAS ) .

I

)

coum w nuus )

Juanita E11f.s, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That she is President of CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),

and knows the contents of the foregoing Supplement to CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Esquests to Produce; and that the same is true of her own knowledge and belief.

& 2

@ ta Ellis

~

SWGtN to ans subscribed -

before me on this let day ,

of December, 1960

/ e - "f Notary Public

~

9  %

My Ccumaission Expired: N/d///#

G \ -

(SEAL) M*s '$

8- 6.,n,

• f/ -2 '

y '

W:5 A b 0 [; 4 y ,)

- s C, -

The original of this page has been mailed under separate cover, First Class Mail, 'to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Begulatory Camaission, Washington, D. C.

20555, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, on this 1st day of Doctuber,1980.

l l

l s

l

_ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . , _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ . , . . _ . _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _