ML20126A653
| ML20126A653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1992 |
| From: | Walker N CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. |
| To: | LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES |
| References | |
| CON-#492-13447 ML, NUDOCS 9212210162 | |
| Download: ML20126A653 (43) | |
Text
,
pM1 BELATED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA iC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'c7 prr -7 TP 30 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070 ' M b
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH REGARDING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S CONTENTIONS L
I, J,
K,_LJ_AJLQ_Q Intervonor, Citizen's Against Nuclear Trash
(" CANT"), hereby files these answers to " APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH REGARDING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S CONTENTIONS B, I,
J, K,
L, M AND Q."
i BEQ.UESTS FOR DOCyliENJE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. It Any written record of any oral communication between or among Intervenor, its advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys, and/or any other persons, including but not limited to the NRC Staff, the Applicant, and Applicant's advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys and/or any other persons.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
CANT objects to producing any written record of any oral communication between or among itself its consultants, agents, attorneys, and/or any other persons, including the NRC Staff, LES and LES's advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys and/or any other persons because any such documents are protected by the work product rule.
I b
0
- 2g22;gggg!$ggo g3 0
.)
Under llRC Rules of
- Practice, discovery of work product materials is not ordinarily permitted.
(2)
Trial preparation materials 2 A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing by_pr_for ano11ter party's reJresentative (including his attorney, consultant,... or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardchip to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means."
10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(b) (2) (1991) (emphasis added).
That section is taken f rom Rule 26(b) (3) of the Federal Rulec of Civil Procedure, and codifies the work product doctrine.
In order for material to fall within the work product doctrine incorporated in Rule 26(b) (3) and 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (b) (2), the material must be:
(1) documents and tangible things, (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial and (3) by or for another party or for that party's representative.
Bibljs_SetyLee Co. of flew HarpJb_ ire, LBP-83-17, 17 liRC 490, 495 (1983).
The purpose of the doctrine is to promote the adversary system by protecting information against opposing parties.
United States y.
American Telephone & Teleqtanh_Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C.
Cir. 1980).
I n lii ck ma n v. T_ay l gr, 329 U.S.
295 (1947), the leading case on the work product doctrine, the Court stated that "[p) roper preparation of a
client's caso demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference."
Id. at 510-511.
]
_2
r h
l w
Attorney work product is ordinarily given
" substantial f
deference" in shielding documents from discovery.
Texas Utilitiqs Electric Co. (Comar.che Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-84-50, 20 NRC 1464, 1473 (1984).
This doctrine f,rovides a
" zone of privacy," QQastal States Gas Corp.
v.
Department of Eneggy, 617 F.2d 854, 864 (D.C.. Cir. 1980), for material " gathered for the purpose of litigation,
^'
or prepared by an attorney either presently on-going or reasonably anticipated at a future i
time."
Texap Utilities, 20 NRC at 1473.
In addition, the work product doctrine protects not only documents written by the attorney, it extends to all materials i
" prepared.
by or for another party's representative.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (b) (2).
"While the ' work product' may be, and of ten is, that of an attorney, the concept of ' work product' is not confined to information or materials gathered or assembled by a lawyer.
Further, a communication may.be--immune from-discovery as work product even though it was not made-to or by a ' client' of an attorney.". Diversified Ind. Inc.
v.
l'eredith, 572 F.2d 596, 603 (8th Cir. 1977).
In short, the requested documents were prepared either by CANT, or for. CANT, or by-or for-CANT's representatives, and the documents were prepared in anticipation.of litigation.
Therefore they.are not discoverable.
CANT also objects to this request-because any such documents.
-are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Under the NRC Rules of Practice, parties may obtain. discovery only of those
--3
^
l v
matters which are "not privileged."
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 0 (b) (1)
(1991).
The NRC rule is taken from Rule 26(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The term "not privileged" in rule 2 6 (b) (1) refers to privilege as the term is understood in the law of evidence.
Matter of International Horizons; Ing_,_,
689 F.2d 996,
+
1002 (11th Cir. 1982).
The attorney-client privilege " protects communications from the client to the attorney made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice."
lig11 s v. Ru sh inct, 755 F.2d 376, 379 n.2 (5th Cir. 1985).
"Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice."
Unjohn Co. v. United State _g, 449 U.S.
383 (1981).
There are few requirements for a matter to be privileged:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought; (2) from a professional legal advisor in his capacity as-such; (3) the communications--
relating to that purpose; (4)-
made in confidence; (5) by the client are permanently protected unless the privilege is waived.
United States v. El-Paso Co.,
682 F.2d 530, 538 n.9 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing 8 J.
Wigmore, Evidence S 2292 at 554-(J. Mcnaughten rev. 1961)).
Where an' NRC rule-of practice is based on a federal rule--
8 -
of civil procedure judicial interpretations of that federal rule can serve as guidance for the. interpretation of the analogous NRC rule."
Public Service Co.
of New Hampshire (Seabrook - Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490, 494-95 (1983).
-4 s
e D.%'we?
-r e^w M
M
" Attorney-client communications ordinarily are privileged, and thus are protected from discovery by a party opponent under Fed. R.
Civ.
P.
26(b)."
In Re Subpoena Duces Teggm, 738 T.2d l'167, 1369 (D.C.Cir. 1984).
Indeed, at least one NFC case has required only a minimal showing to assert an attorney-client privilege.
In gonsumers Power Co. (Midland plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-53, 18 NRC 282 (1983),
Intervenors o'.;jected-to discovery based on attorney-client privilege. Counsel for Intervenors stated that the requested communications were for the purpose of receiving legal advice.
No further proof that the matters were privileged was required.
The hearing officers stated, "We will accept the representations of attorneys before us."
Id. at 285.
Written records of oral communications between or among Intervenor and its attorneys are communications made in confidence, relating to legal advice, and so are privileged.
Therefore, they are not discoverable. Furtherr ore, since "[c]ommunications between.
a party's attorneys also are covered by the attorney-client privilege," 4 Moore Federal Practice 5 26.60[2] at 26-197, any communication between or among Intervenor's attorneys is also privileged.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Any documents including but not limited to work papers,_ p. ior drafts, and notes of meetings.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
CANT objects to this request because it seeks to discover documents which are protected by -the work product _ rule.
-See response to Request for Production No. 1,-above. -,
M wu w-r-
w rri--w m
w ww y
w-i--
--7-'
w
i i
i i
GENERAL INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATLR.' NO. G-1:
State the full narco, address, occupation, resume and present employer of each person (s) answering the following interrogatories and requests, including the general interrogatories, and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof that such person (s) answered.
ANSWER TO Il{.TERROGATORY G-1:
Helen Hunt, an indepe %ent corsultant on nuclear safeguards issues, has provided the basic inform ulon used in the answers which pertain to nuclear safeguards ir m..
(Contentions L and M).
For further details, see attachment 2 to CANT's Contentions.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2 and G-2.1:
For each contention or basis for a contention listed below, identify the following:
the name, address, profession, employer and area of professional expertise of each person whom Intervenor expects to call as a witness, including any expert witness, at the hearing; M!SWER TO INTERROGATORY G-2 and G-2.1:
CANT has not yet selected witnesses to testify on the matters addressed in CANT's contentions.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2.2:
The subject matter on which each witness is expected to testify; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-2 1:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
C.
T has not yet selected witnesses to testify on the matters addressed in CANT's contentions, nor has the substance.of their testimony been identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2.3:-
The substance of the facts and opinions to which each witness is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds - for - each - -
t e
opinion, including the documents and all pertinent pages or parts thereof which each witness will rely upon or will otherwise use for her or.his testimony; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-2.3:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
CANT has not yet selected witnesses to testify on the matters addressed in CANT's contentions, nor has the suLutance of their testimony been identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2.4:
The educational and scientific experience of each witness; ANSWER TO INTuitkOGATORY G-2.4:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
CANT has not yet selected witnesses to testify on the matters addressed in CANT's contentions, nor has the substance c:
their testimony been identified.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3 and G-3.1:
If the answer to any interrogatory belew, or any contention or basis for a contention listed below relies upon one or more calculations:
describe each calculation and identify any documents setting forth such calculation; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-3 and G-3.1:
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3.2:
Provide the name and location of each person who performed the calculation nr.d the date the calculation was made; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-3.2:
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
-7
i.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3.3:
Describe each assumption made in each calculation, to include the value of and basis for each assumption; AlisjiER_TO INTERROGATORY G-3.3:
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3.4:
Describe each constant and variable in each calculation, to include the value and basis for each constant and the source of the data applied to each variable; AUSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-3. 4 :
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3.5:
V Provide the results of each calculation; ANSWER _T_O INTERROGATORY G-3.5:
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3.6:
6 Explain in detail how each calculation provides a basis for the contention.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-3.6:
(
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4 and G-4.1:
If the answer to any interrogatory or request below relies upon conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other t'2pe of communications with one or more individual:
Identify by name and address cact such individual for each contention; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-4.1:
See individual answers to interrogatories below.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4.2:
State the educational and prof essional background of each such individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations; !
h
t s
i AUb?EA TO INTERROGATORY G-4.2:
See ansisr to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4.3:
Describe the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals involved; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-4.3:
?
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
Further, CANT objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to discover matters which are protected by the attorney--
client privilege and the work product rule.
See response to Request for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4.4:
Describe the information received from such individuals and explain how it provides a basis.for the contention; ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-4.4:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
Further, CANT objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seekt. to discover matters which are protected by the-attorney-client privilege and the work product rule.
See response to Request for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4.5:
Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record related to each conversation, consultation, correspondence, _ or -
other communication with such-individuals.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY G-4.5:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
Fur -her, CANT objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to discover matters which are protected-by the attorney-
_g.
l client privilege and the work product rule.
See response to Request for Productioi No. 1 and No.
2, above.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-5:
In the answer to each interrogatory or request below, identify fully any documents used as the basis for the answer to tl' a interrogatory or related to the subject of the interrogatory, upon which Intervenor intends to rely in establishing the contentior. or the basis for the contention.
M&b1[LEl_lFIXfiBO._G NLOjiy_Q_-3 :
See the answers herein to each interrogatory.
SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES DecoJnmis_s_ionin_g Plan Contention B:
Contention:
The LES decommissioning plan does not provide reasonable assurance that the CEC site can be cleaned up and adequately restored upon cessation of operations.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19,
- 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- 15) that Contention D is litigable with (Doard) stated (pp. 6 regard to Dases 1,
4, and 5 to the extent described.
It should be noted that the Board specifically stated in the above referenced order that "we see no reason to believe that the depleted u:canium hexafluoride tails would be classified as mixed waste and would therefore be a material for which no disposal site is available.
IL, at 14.
(The Board further stated, at page 7 of its June 18, 1992, Memorandum and Order, ASLB No. 91-641-02-ML, that tails are a source material and not a mixed wasted (sic]
under RCRA.)
Accordingly, Applicant's interrogatories and requests related to Contention D tocus upon each Basis to the extent admitted by the Board.
InMryo.Lgatories and Requests:
Decommissioning Plan Contention D, Basis 1 INTERROGATORY NO. D.1-1; Please review Exhibit I to the License Application, amended as of July 31, 1992, Environmental Report ("ER"), section 4. 4, amended as of July 31, 1992, and Safety Analysis Report ("SAR"), section 11.8, amended as of July 31, 1992, and advise whether you are willing to withdraw Contention D, Pasis 1.
If you are not willing l l
1 l
1 to withdrav Contention B, Basis 1,
in light of Applicant's recent submittals, please answer interrogatory B.1-2 below.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY B.1-1:
CANT is not willing to withdraw Contention B, Basis 1.
INTERROGATORY NO.
B.1-2, B.1-2.1 and B.1-2.2:
In light of the above-referenced modifications to the Decommissioning Funding Plan as described in the License Application, SAR and ER, provide the basis for your assertion that the Applicant has not identified each of the following and indicate how the information submitted by Applicant fails to adequately account for:
the annual tails disposal costs estimated at $21.3 million per year (1996 dollars); a reasonable plan for offsite disposal of tails; Please include as part of your answer to interrogatories B.1-2.1 and B.1-2.2, specific information such as actual costs or requirements that would indicate that Applicant's costs or plans are in some way inadequate.
Also, note that depleted UF6 ("DUF6,"
or " tails") is not mixed waste and Applicant's cost estimates and plans do not rely on sale of DUF6 as a resource.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY B.1-2.
B.1-2.1.
and B.1-2.2:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the _ issues encompassed in Contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B.
Decommissioni_ng Plan Contention B, Basis 4:
INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-1:
Please review Exhibit I to the License Application, amended as of July 31, 1992, section 4.4 of the ER, amended as of July 31, 1992, and section 11.8 of the SAR, amended as of July 31, 1992, and advise whether you are willing to withdraw Contention B, Basis 4.
If you are not willing to withdraw Contention B, Basis 4,
please answer interrogatories and requests B.4-2 to B.4-6 below.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY'NO. B.4-1:
CANT is not willing to withdraw Contention B, Basis 4.
INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-2:
Ploase explain fully how the above-referenced provisions to the License Applications, SAR and ER fail to provide adequate details regarding the determination of decommissioning costs.
Include in your response the supporting basis for your explanation.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-2:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B.
INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-3:
Specifically explain why the evaluation of decommissioning costs as described in the Urenco paper
" Decommissioning. and Decontamination of a USJVC Plant," dated April 27, 1989, (License Application, Exhibit I at 3) fails to provide a rational basis for the LES decommissioning cost estimates.
Provide the supporting basis for your explanation.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-3:
See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B.
INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-4:
Explain why the information provided by the Applicant f ails to.
comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Section 70.2 5 (a) and (e)?
Provide specific examples, if any, of noncompliance as part.of the full basis for your explanation.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. B 4-4:
-See answer to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed. in contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B..
l
('
l
INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-5:
Pages A-20 through 25-of Applicant's April 10, 1992, letter responding to questions from NRC, explains why cost estimates in the form of Regulatory Guide 3.66, Appendix F, are not required.
Do you concur with LES' explanation that cost estimates in the form of Appendix F are not required?
ANSWER TO INTERFOGATORY_.FO. B.4-5:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grc unds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 0 (b) (2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions (and) legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party See generally responses to Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arquendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B.
INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-6:
If, in your answer to Interrogatory B.4-5, you do not concur with LES' explanation, what is the basis for your disagreement?
Provide reference to specific NRC guidance or requirements..
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. B.4-6:
L l
See answer to--interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues j
encompassed in Contention B.
i l
t l
l
- 13 l
l
Qe c o mmin gloMAg_P_l aJ1_,C ontElt i_o.JLL_Ra s_i s__h :
INTERROGATORY No. B.5-1:
Provide the basis in regulations or regulatory guidance to justify the statement in Contention D,
Basis 5,
that "[t]he application should be amended to include full details of decommissioning and dismantlement For
- example, decommissioning funding plans are required by regulation (10 C.F.R.
Subsection 70.22 (a) (9) and 70.25), but section 70.38 (c) (1) does not require a detailed plan for decommissioning until "on or before the expiration date specified in the license.
What, therefore, is your basis (in the regulations or guidance on the regulations) for alleging that a detailed plan is required prior to licensing?
ANSWEIL_TO It1TEILROG ATO_IlY NO. B.5-1:
i CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it s cele s to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(b)(2) protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions (and) legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party See generally responses to hequests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arquendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B.
Decommissioning Plan Contention I Lsici Contentiont The license application for the CEC is incomplete in many major respects.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19,
- 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-
- 32) that Contention I is limited to the (Board) stated (pp. 31 following eleven issues, the first seven of which relate to the ER, and the remaining four of which (8-11) relate to the SAR: I 1
~
l
)
1.
Environmental impacts of site preparation and construction:
2.
Monitoring data to support source term determinations for gaseous effluents; 3.
Evaluation of means of reducing liquid offluent concentrations; 4.
Assessment of radiological impacts of plant operation; 5.
Environmental effects of accidents; 6.
Dasoline data for pre-operational effluent and environmental monitoring program; 7.
Program to maintain releases as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA);
8.
Finalization of design features for earthquakes, tornadoes, and missiles; 9.
Quality assurance program for Clast I equipment; 10.
Program for surveillance and maintenance of cylinders containing tails in interim storage; and 11.
Management and control program.
z
.I_ Die rrogatorie sJAd_Re_que s ts :
INTERROGATORY NO. I.1 and I.1-a:
i In light of the information in ER, sections 4.0 and 4.1, as amended by Applicant on March 31, 1992, which provide additional information on the environmental impacts of site preparation and construction:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of-contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.1 and I.1-a:
CANT is unwilling to withdraw this aspect of contention I.
CANT continues to evaluate this aspect of contention I, and is also waiting for the NRC Staff's evaluation.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.1-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or
[ sic) information, related to the environmental impacts of site l
__J
i preparation and construction that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY-NO. I.2:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.2 and I.2-a:
In light of the May 22, 1992 change to section 6.1 of the ER, which provides. additional information on monitoring data to support source term determinations for gaseous effluents:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.2 and I.2-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I. 2 -b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or
[ sic] information, related to monitoring data to support source term determinations for gaseous effluents that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.2-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and 1.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.3 and I.3-a:
In light of the June 30, 1992, change to section 3.3 of the ER, which provides additional information on evaluation of means of reducing liquid effluent concentrations:-
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.3.a_pd I.3-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.3-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types of information, related to evaluation of the means of reducing liquid effluent concentrations, that-you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that. this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.3-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.4 and I.4-a:
In light of the May 22, 1992, change to section 4.2 of the ER, which provides additional information on assessment of radiological impacts of plant operation:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.4 and I.4-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.5 and I.5-a:
In light of the March 31, 1992, changes to sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the ER, which provide additional information on the environmental effects of accidents:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY I.5 and I.5-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.5-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw'this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or information, related to the environmental effects of accidents that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this inforuation be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.5-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.6 and I.6-a:
In light of the May 22, 1992, changes to sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the ER, which provide additional information on_ baseline data f or pre-operational-ef fluent and environmental monitoring program; Are you willing to withdraw-this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.6 and I.6-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.6-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or
[ sic] information, related to baseline data for a pre-operational effluent and environmental monitoring program that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring.or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.L_b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I 7 and I.7-a:
In light of the June 30, 1992, change to section 3.3 of the ER, which provides additional information on the program to maintain releases as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA):
kn yu willing to withdraw this aspect of Contantion I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATQRY NO. I.7 and 1.7-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.7-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or (sic] information, related to the ALARA program that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.7-b:
See answer'to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.8 and I.8-a:
In light of the June 30, 1992, change to section 5.2 of the SAR, and supplemental engineering report entitled, "The Earthquake' and Wind Analysis report," submitted to the NRC on June--26, 1991,-
which provide additional information on the finalization of design features for earthquakes, tornadoes, and_ missiles: Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGSTORY No. I.8 and I.8-a:
No.
4 e
INTERROGATORY NO. I.8-bt If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of-the information, or types or
[ sic) information, related to providing additional information on the finalization of design features for earthquakes, tornadoes, and missiles that you believe Applicant has omitted from the SAR.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.8-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.9 and I.9-a:
In light of the July 31, 1992, changes to Chapter 10 of the SAR, which provides additional information on the Quality Assurance program for class I equipment:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I9 and I.9-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.9-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or (sic) information, related to the Quality Assurance program for Class I equipment that you believe Applicant has omitted from the SAR.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I 9-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I~.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.10 and I.10-a:
In light of the' submittal of the proposed License Conditions, dated June 30, 1992, and specifically section 6A, which provides additional information on the program for surveillance and-maintenance of cylinders containing tails in interim storage:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of contention I?
bNSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.10 and I.10-a:
No.
case, "need for power" is "a shorthand expression for the
' benefit ' side of the cost-benefit balance which NEPA mandates.").
On the whole, the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits of the proposed action.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19,
- 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) stated (pp. 33 - 39) that Contention J Bases 1, 2,
5, 7 and 8
are denied, and that Bases 3,
4, 6 and 9 are admitted.
Accordingly, Applicant's interrogatories and requests related to Contention J focus upon each admitted Basis to the extent admitted by the Board.
Ln_terrogatories and Recuests:
Contention _J_,
B a s i s_;).
INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-1:
Does Basis 3 set forth any concerns that have not been voiced in Contention B, Bascs 1,
4 and 5?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, J,3-1:
Yes.
Contention J concerns NEPA's required benefit-cost analysis which must be performed with respect to the CEC facility in general, and basis 3 of Contention J concerns that NEPA analysis as it pertains to decommissioning costs in particular.
In contrast, bases 1, 4,
and 5 of Contention B concern safety issues and NRC requirements as they pertain to decommissioning.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-2:
If the answer to interrogatory j.3-1 is Yes, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or [ sic) information, related to the estimated cost of decommissioning (in addition to the Decommissioning Funding Plan (Exhibit I
to the License Application), submitted by Applicant on July 31, 1992, and the Urenco paper " Decommissioning and Decontamination of a USJVC Plant," dated April 27,
- 1989, (License Application, Revision 2,
Exhibit I at 3)) that you believe Applicant has omitted from the decommissioning cost estimate.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring ox recommending that this information be provided. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.10-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention-I, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or (sic) information, Telated to the program for surveillance and maintenance'of cylinders containing tails in interim storage that you believe Applicant has omitted from the proposed License Application.. Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I.10-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.11 and I.11-a:
In light of the July 31, 1992, changes to Chapter 11 of the SAR, which provide additional information on the management and control program:
Are you willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY I.11 and I.11-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. I.11-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw this aspect of Contention I,
provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or
[ sic) information, related to the program for surveillance and maintenance of cylinders containing tails in interim storage that you believe Applicant has omitted from the proposed ~ License Application. Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY I.11-b:
See answer to interrogatory I.1 and I.1-a.
Assessment of Costs Under NEPA, Contention J Contention:
The Environmental Report does not adequately describe or weigh the environmental, social, and economic impacts and costs of operating the CEC.
Moreover, the benefit-cost analysis fails to demonstrate that there=is a need for.
the facility.
- See, L_g2, Public Service Co.
of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),..ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 90 (1977) (in a power production plant licensing ANSWER TO INTFEROGATORY NO. J.3-2:
See answer to interrogatory J.3-1.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-3:
If the answer to Interrogatory J.3-1 is No, are you villing to merge basis J.3 with the admitted bases for Contention D and withdraw Dasis J.37 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J 3-3:
No.
See answer to interrogatory J.3-1.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-1:
In light of the information provided in ER, section 1.2, and Applicant's letter dated April 30, 1992, which provides additional information on the need for the facility, are you willing to withdraw Contention J, Dasis 4?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-1:
No.
CANT has not concluded its analysis of this issue.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2 and J.4-a:
If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 4,
answer the following questions.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or (sic] information, related to the need for the facility that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER.
Include reference to statutes, regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2 and J.4-2-a:
See answer to interrogatory no.
J.4-1.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-b:
You state in Basis 4 that LES does not provide information on the need for the facility and does not demonstrate that additional enriched uranium production capacity is needed.
Is it_ your position that enrichment capacity should be provided only'if there is a shortfall in the worldwide supply of enriched uranium? _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
__ __ _._ _. ~ -
MISEER TO INTERB9HATORY NQ.. J_,_4-L-J2:
No.
A shortfall in the worldwide supply of enriched uranium is one of many factors to be considered in the benefit-cost 9
analysis.
INTERROGATORY NO. J 4-2-c:
In Contention J you cito Publip Service Co. of New Itatnpshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977) as an authority that equates need for power to benefit for power plant __
cost-benefit purposes.
In Basis 4 you substitute "need for enrichment capacity" for "need for power" to allege that the CEC does not provide sufficient' benefit.
Do you rely on any authority (e.g.,
case law, regulations) to substitute "need for enrichment capacity" for "need for power," or is this done by analogy? Please cite any authority relied upon.
ANSWER TO IllTJ2JiO_q& TORY NO. J.4-2-c:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 0 (b) ( 2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions
[and) legal theories of an attorney or other See generally responses to representative of a party Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming.a_rsuandg that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and.G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
INTERROGATORY NO.-J.4-2-d:
Do you consider the need for enrichment capacity the only valid need to support a benefit in the cost-benefit analysis under NEPA?
If not, what other valid needs would-be a benefit in a NEPA cost-benefit analysis?. _ _.
l i
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-d:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 7 4 0 (b) (2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions
[and) legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party See generally responses to Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arquendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
The need for enrichment capacity is an important consideration but, as with any project, there are a variety of benefits with different values.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-e:
Do you consider reduced fuel prices through competition, reduced environmental impact through increased efficiency, and balance of trade payments through competitive domestic production of enriched uranium to be benefits that can be considered in the cost-benefit analysis?
If
- not, what is your _ authority for rejecting each of these benefits from the cost-benefit analysis?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-e:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 7 4 0 (b) (2) protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions (and] legal theories of an attorney or other See generally responses to.
representative of a party Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arcuendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-f:
In Contention J you state that "[o]n the whole, the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits of the proposed action."
What bases, facts and analyses were used to reach this conclusion?
Please address the specific costs you rely upon.
Also, please explain how these costs outweigh the benefits listed in ER sections 8.1 and 8.2, as amended on July 31, 1992, and the LES information letter on need for the facility sent to the NRC on April 30, 1992.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY No. J.4-2-f:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 0 (b) (2) protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions
[and) legal theories of an attorney or other See generally responses to representative of a party Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arquendq that this interrogatory is permissible,' see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in I
Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J, and continue to evaluate the costs and benefits as LES supplies additional information.
ConteAtion J, Basis 6 INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1 and J 6-1-a:
l In light of the July 31, 1992, changes to sections 3.4, 3.5, 4.4 and 6.4.14 of the SAR, and sections 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1 and 6.2 !
eA
j of the ER, which provide additional information on the effects of f acility construction and operation on the surface and _ underground drinking water supply:
Are you willing to withdraw Basis 6?
ANSWER TO INTEEROGATORY NO. J.6-1 and J.6-1-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 6 of Contention J, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or [ sic) information, related to the evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the ground and surface water, and the manner in which it will be kept free from contamination that you believe Applicant has omitted from the SAR and. ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
b_NSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1-b:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 0 (b) (2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions
[and] legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party See generally responses to Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arquendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Contention J, Basis __9 INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-1:
In light of the July 3.'.,
1992, changes to sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the S AR, and Applicant's additional information submitted March 30, 1992, on the economic and sociological impacts of the CEC _on Forest Grove and Center Springs, are you willing to withdraw Basis 9? __
ANSWER TO INJ_'ERROG ATORY NO. J.9-1:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-2 and J.9-3:
If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 9 of Contention J, answer to following questions for Basis 9.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or (sic] information, related to the economic and sociological impacts of the proposed project on the Forest Grove and Center Springs communities that you believe Applicant has omitted from the SAR and ER.
Include.
reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-2 an } J. 9-3 :
~
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
- 2. 74 0 (b) ( 2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions (and) legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party See generally responses to Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arctuendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
INTERROGATORY NO.
J.9-4, J.9-4-a and J.9-4-b:
Basis 9
states that "[t]he ER does. not demonstrate any attempts to avoid or mitigate the disparate impact of the proposed plant on this minority community."
To support this.
statement you cite a report relating toxic waste sites to -community socio-economic and racial characteristics (" Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States").
This report analyzes commercial hazardous waste facilities and uncontrolled toxic waste sites.
The report defines a commercial hazardous waste f acility as any _ f acility which accepts hazardous wastes (as defined by the EPA) from a third party for a fee or other remuneration; and defines uncontrolled toxic waste sites as closed and abandoned sites on the EPA's list of -
sites which pose a present and potential threat to human health and the environment.
Explain the relevance of the statistics in this report to the CEC, which is not a type of facility analyzed by the report; and Explain the basis for the statement that the facility has a disparate impact on the community, i.e.,
disparate with respect to what?
ANSWEB TO IEEERROGATORY NO.
J.9-4.
J.9-4-a and J.9-4-b:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 7 4 0 (b) (2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions
[and) legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party See generally responses to Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arquendo that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons-who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
N o _ A c t i o n _A l t e_r_n a t i_v enc _ontention K C_ontent_ ion:
The ER violates NEPA because it does not contain an adequate discussion of alternatives to the proposed action.
Interrogatories.and Requests:
INTERROGATORY NO. K-1:
In light of the July 23, 1992, LES letter providing additionsl information on the no action alternative, are you willing to withdraw Contention K?
4.
ANSWER TO I1GEERQGATORY fiO. K-1:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. K-2 and INTERROGATORY NO.
K-2-a_:_
If you are not willing to withdraw Contention K, answer the following.
The basis for Contention K alleges that the ER fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. Section 51.54 (which applies [ sic) nuclear power reactor manufacturers) because it does not satisfy the no-action alternative.
Assuming that 10 C.F.R. Section 51.45 is the intended reference, no requirement appears to exist for Applicant to submit j
information on a no action alternative, although the Commission is j
to provide a discussion of the no action alternative in-its j
Environmental Impact Statement under 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A.
In this regard, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or information, related to the no action alternative analysis that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER and its supplementary communications to the NRC (i.e.,
the July 23,
- 1992, letter).
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided by Applicant.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. K-2 and K-2_a:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 7 4 0 (b) ( 2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions
[and) legal theories of an attorney or other See generally responses to representative of a party Requests for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming arattensLQ that this interrogatory is permissible, see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention K have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention K.
=
-3
i DAcammij M onino Plan CoAtAntion L I sicl Contention:
In order to provide reasonable assurance that gas contrifuge equipment at the CEC is not unlawfully diverted to the production of highly enriched uranium (HEU),
the applicant's fundamental nuclear material control (FNMC) plan should require continuous or frequent online enrichment monitoring for all cascades. To ensure the effectiveness of such monitoring, the plan should stipulate minimum process pipe inner diamet2rs of 110 millimeters or greater at all potential measurement points.
The current design of the CEC does not meet these specifications.
[ Footnotes omitted.)
Interro_gatories and Requests:
INTERROGATORY NO. L-1:
In your opinion, can a batch sampling system provide the high assurance of detecting unauthorized enrichment required by 10 C.F.R. Section 7 4. 33 (c) (5) ?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. L-1:
At the CEC, a batch sampling system cannot be a principal means for detecting unauthorized enrichment with the high assurance required by 10 C.F.R.
S 74.33 (c) (5), unless the system features sufficiently high sampling frequency for all principal process streams of each cascade.
See answer to interrogatory L-2.
INTERROGATORY NO. L-2:
If the answer to Interrogatory L-1 is No, state the facts relied upon to reach this conclusion, for example, actual examples of diversion events, credible scenarios published in technical reports and
- journals, or other documents commenting on the effectiveness of batch sampling.
MISWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. L-2:
The answer to this interrogatory relies on the SAR and on the other indicated reference materials; specific equations from these reference materials are identified by number and/or page.
A l l
l
primary reference other than the SAR is Nuclear Chemical t
Enaineerinc,- hereaf ter abbreviated as "NCE".
Production of highly enriched uranium
("HEU")
by batch recycling with clandestine withdrawal of both product and tails is a credible scenario for unauthorized production at a gas centrifuge enrichment plant.
Short enrichment equilibrium times, small-in-process uranium inventories, and large numbers of cascades are principal factors that contribute to the risk that such a scenario might be enacted without detection unless effective detection implemented.)
In particular,_HEU (>20% enrichment) methods are could be produced in just one pass in a cascade designed for-low enriched uranium (" LEU") production, if normal LEU product is used as feed.
A CEC cascade has a separative capacity of approximately 40,000 SWU/ year or 110 SWU/ day (SAR table 4.3-2 specifies 280,000 SWU/ year per assay unit of seven cascades), and an equilibrium _ time of 10-30 minutes (see below).
Hence, HEU containing more than 1 kilogram of U-235 could be produced from LEU feed in a CEC cascade 2
M.
- Benedict, T.
H.
- Pigford, and H.
W.
Levi, Nuclear Chemical Encineerinc, at 644-684 (1981).
3 P.
Ting & B. W. Moran, " Material Control and Accounting:
Requirements for Uranium Enrichment Facilities," Proceedings of :the i
32nd Annual Meting of Nuclear Materials Management, New Orleans, LA, July 28-31 at _ 4 04-4 07 - (1991).
International Technology-Programs
- Division, Martin
'Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN, " Safeguards Training g
Course, Nuclear Material Safeguards for_ Enrichment Plants, Part 4.
Gas Centrifuge ~ Enrichment Plant:
Diversion Scenarios and IAEA Safeguards Activities," at 148-49, 178-79 (November 14-18, 1988),
l</ITP-156/P4/R1 (ISPO-284/R1).
i,
.~
- ~
Within' 8 = hours.
Guidance document NUREG/CR-5734,
" Recommendations to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Enrichment Facilities," section 9.2, specifies that the detection program should be capable of detecting unauthorized enrichment "before the quantity of U-235 contained'in such HEU amounts to 1 kilogram."
Therefore, it _is clear that the frequency of enrichment monitoring should be at least as often as once per eight hours.
Flexibility and efficiency characteristics of a CEC cascade might.
necessitate a higher frequency of enrichment monitoring.
In particular, product and tails take-off systems provide capability to rapidly evacuate a CEC cascade (SAR 6.3), and flexibility of CEC-4-
cascade configuration includes the capability to switch blocks of centrifuges into different stages (see below).
These features would facilitate concealment of HEU production to the extent that
~they could be clandestinely utilized to substitute LEU for HEU in the cascade header product pipe duling the time that the cascade is utilized for HEU production.
Evidence'of the-flexibil:ty of CEC cascade configuration is
- provided in SAR 6.3-15, which states that_the type of cascade in l
the_ CEC provides "a - significant flexibility in product U235 concentrations. At -the same time, maximum separative power must be realized by minimizing blending losses. in_ the UF6 cascade piping.."
Further, "the centrifuges are grouped into blocks This 1
w>
.-.n
+
a ~ ~. -
n
1 grouping of the centrifuges is not arbitrary, but depends on the efficiency losses with respect to separative power."
Such cascade flexibility, which must include the capability to reconfigure the cascade according to the number of
- stages, and numbers of centrifuges within stages, required for optimum efficiency to achieve specified product enrichment levels, is described in NCE.
Specifically, NCE (p. 669) states that separative capacity (i.e separative power) can be maximized under changed enrichment i
specifications if "the number of separating units in series and parallel are so rearranged that mixing of streams of different compositions is avoided."
At the CEC, enrichment equilibrium times are extremely short:
10-30 minutca, depending on product enrichment level.
Equilibrium times (as defined in NCE pp.
677-79) are calculated from CEC cascade inventory data and from CEC separative capacity data.
SAR 6.3-14 states that the UF6 cascade inventory is only about 20 lbs.
Some of this cascade inventory is contained in feed pipes, product pipes, and tails pipes.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the active in-process cascade inventory is not more than about-16 lbs, of UF6.
The separative capacity of a CEC cascade is-about 110 SWU/ day (see above).
Maximum equilibrium times are calculated by two dif ferent equations (which yield practically the same answers):
by exact equation 12.197 in NCE and by approximate equation 12.204 in NCE.
(In the latter case, active in-process inventory and i
cascade separative capacity are used, rather than stage holdup time l
l and stage separation factor.)
Minimum ' equilibrium times are i _
1 I'
I l
4
...... ~.. _, -. _........ -..,,.,,, _,,-
i estimated to be one-half the maximum equilibrium times *.
Actual equilibrium time is estimated as the average of the maximum and minimum equilibrium times.'
3 INTERROGATORY NO. L-3 In your opinion, what types of enrichment monitoring other than frequent continuous use of fixed detectors can be used to meet-the requirements oi 10 C.F.R. Section 74.337 ANSWER TO IljfERROGATORY NO. L-3:
l As explained
- 4. n the answer to interrogatory L-2, characteristics of CEC cascados indicate that-frequent monitoring _
of uranium enrichment 1( 91s of principal process streams for each cascade 'is necessary, in order to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S
- 74. 33 (c) (5).
Frequent or continuous use of fixed detectors is the only practical means known to accomplish sufficiently frequent enrichment monitoring of process streams.
i
- Thus, other known types of enrichment monitoring cannot be substituted for frequent or continuous monitoring-by -fixed detectors in order to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 74.33 (c) (5).
B. Brigoli,:" Cascade Theory" in Uranium Enrichment, at 44 (S. Villani ed. 1979).
International Technology. Programs
- Division, Martin 8
i Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.. Oak Ridge-TN,." Safeguards ~ Training-Course, Nuclear' Material Safeguards For Enrichment Plants, Part 2.
Cascade and Centrifuge Separation Theory:
at 124-5, (November-14-18, 1988) (K/ITP-156/P2/R1 (DE89 002377)).
- 34 4
~. -.
j l
l INTERROGATORY NO. L-4:
Is there a
- reason, other than to support using fixed detectors, to increase the planned inner pipe diameters (as discussed in your Dasis to Contention L) at the CEC 7 i
A!!S.WER TO IllERIiQGAI_QRY NO. L-4:
!!o.
The basis to Contention L states the reason why large pipe diameters are needed at online enrichment monitoring points; this reason is supported by technical papers which are cited in Contention L.
M9A.Ltoting_of Porh, Valves and F1_apges, Conten h nJ Cpnien.tign:
In order to preclude or detect produJtion of HEU by a batch recycling scheme involving misuse of sampling ports, process valves, and/or flanges, the applicant's FNHC plan should require ef fective monitoring by reliable technical means which accurately keep track of employee access to these process connection locations.
jet e rytg.g a t o r i e s _ a qd_Il o qu e s t s :
INTERROGATORY NO. M-1:
State the regulatory requirement or guidance that Applicant fails to meet in regard to effective monitoring, and the basis for your conclusion that Applicant fails to meet this requirement or guideline.
As part of your answer, provide reference to the facts relied upon to reach this conclusion, for example, actual examples l-of undetected tampering events, credible scenarios published in technical reports and journals, or other documents commentia.g on l
l the effectiveness of Applicant's methods and devices.
l bMSWER TO Il!H RROGATORY_NO. M-1:
l l
10 C.F.R.
S 74.33 (c) (5) requires applicant to 1Fplement a l
l detection program, independent of production, capable of detecting with high assurance any production of highly enriched uranium
("HEU").
Applicant has strenuously objected to CANT's Contention l
M which calls f or ef fective monitoring by reliable technical means; l
,.m---
__,_.__._.E,_,._
.-_-,-,._._w.-...,.,w.r.-,o_,_,.
.m.v._,m
..~.,..,--.en,--,,.e 1,.-c~
+ - -.. - - - - - -
_ -. ~
- ~,..
-_.---._n..
j.nnce, it is reasonable to assume that applicant's fundamental nuclear material control plan ("FNMC") does not include appropriate technical monitoring means as contemplated by Contention M.
In accordance with 10 C.P.R.
S 74.33, real-time technical monitoring means, to accurately keep track of employee access to sampling ports, process valves, and flanges, are needed in order to preclude or detect production of HEU by a batch recycling scheme that involves unauthorized feed and/or withdrawal operations.
It should M noted that the CEC's 7ascado flexibility and efficiency i
features, which are indicated in SAR 6.3, increase the case of implementing unauthorized production scenarios and of evading some i
types of detection means.
{
INTERROGATORY NO. M-2 Are the tamper-proof monitoring devices you advocato in the Basis to Contention M the only devices that will meet the requirements or guidelines set forth in your answer to Interrogatory M-17 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. M-2:
No.
Any reliable technical means to accurately keep track of employee access to sampling ports, process valves, and flanges.
could be used, provided implementation -of such means-would be independent of production, as required by 10 C.F.R. S 74.33 (c) (5).
INTERROGATORY NO. M-3:
l If your answer to Interrogatory H-2 is No, identify the i
devices by name and manufacturer or vendor.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. M-3:
The VACOSS-S seal, an. active fiber optic seal which is combined with a mechanism that records times of seal openings and' l' r
closings, is a suitable seal for real-time monitoring of access to valve ports and flangen.
VACOSS-S sesla, which can be readily incorporated into an integrated real-time monitoring network, have recently undergone extensive testing in the United States and are commercially available from a
U.S.
m'anufacturer, Aquila Technologies Group Inc.'
Velve monitoring devices capable of monitoring flow or valve position have been extensively tested at Oak Ridge 11ational Laboratory, and are commercially available from several U.S.
manufacturers.7 Telephone interview by llelen M. Hur t with Cecil Sonnier, 6
Sandia Lab, Albuquerque, NM (Se 15, 1991).
Telephone interview by llelen M.
Ilunt 'rith Steve Kadner, Aquila Tachnologies Group Inc., Albuquerque, NM 'F0pt. 15, 1992).
11.
D.
liaynes & W.
S.
Farmer, "Assessmen" of Diagnostic 7
Methods for Determining Degradation of Check Valves,"
paper presented at the NRC Aging Research Information Conference in Rockville, MD (March 24-27, 1992).
(See Table 2 for a list of
~
manufacturers and device names).
II.
D.
Ilaynes & W.
S.
Farmer, " Assessment of Diagnostic Methc3s for Determining Degradation of Motor-Operated Valves,"
paper presented at the NRC Aging Research Information Conference in Rockville, MD (March 24-27, 1992).
H.
D. llay ne s, " Aging and Service Wear of Check Valves Used in Engineered Saf ety-?cature Systems of Nuclear Power Plants:
Aging Assessments and Monitoring Method Evaluations, NUREG/CR-4302, ORNL-6193, Vol. 2 (April 1991).
(See pages 33-37 for a list of manufacturers and device names and descriptions.)
H. D. Haynes, " Aging and Service Wear of Electric Motor-Operated Valves Used in Engineered Safety-Feature Systems of Nuclear Power Plants:
Aging Assessments and Monitoring Method Evaluations, NUREG/CR-4234, ORNL-6170, Vol. 2 (August 1989).
- 37 mm_
INTERROGATORY NO. M-4:
Are the tamper-proof seals under derelopment by Sandia, and referenced in your Dasis to Contention M available for commercial use?
MARHElL LOditT.EBROGATORY llo.
M-4 :
Sandia han not completed work on valve monitoring applications for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.
Nevertheless, valve monitoring devices which are presently commercially available in the United States might be suitable for safeguards uses.
See Sonnier, supra, in footnote 6.
INTERROGATORY NO. M-5:
If the tamper-proof seals are not available for use and the answer to Interrogatory M-2 is Yes, is it your position that no means exist to comply with applicable regulations?
MLMX R._TO UREER9 FAT _ORL1LOmE-5 :
The answer to interrogatory M-2 is not Yes.
See answers to interrogatories M-3 and M-4.
Financial Qualification, Contention O
~
Con _teAtion:
LES has not demonstrated that it is financially qualified to build and operate the CEC.
InterIog.ator_ies aD _ Requests:
d INTERROGATORY NO. Q-1:
Please review the May 1,
1992, LES Letter to the NRC Staff regarding financial qualifications, and advise whether you are willing to withdraw Contention Q.
AtLSliEB_TO INTEBROGATORY MOu O-1:
No.
38 -
- u........
..~
-..~ -.-
~.n.
. ~. -. - - -
I l
l INTERROGATORY NO. Q-2:
If you are not willing to withdraw contention Q in light of Applicant's recent submittal, please provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or (sic) information, related to financial qualification that you believe Applicant has omitted from t
its financial _ disclosures.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. O-2:
CANT objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks to discover the legal theories of CANT's attorneys.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 74 0 (b) (2 )
protects from disclosure the
" mental impressions (and) legal theories of an attorney or other See generally responses to representative of-a party Requesta for Production No. 1 and No.
2, above.
Assuming gr_quendo that this interrogatory is permissible,.see generally answers to interrogatory G-2 and G-2.1.
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention Q have not yet completed their analysis-of the issues encompassed in Contention Q.
Respectfully submitted, NATHALIE M. WALKCR ROBERT B.
WIYGUL SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone:
(504) 522-1394 By:
t LD Nathalie M.
Walker December 1992 homer \\ansinter.L2
= -..
.--.,.:_.=-.-:.,,.--.-.a.
=
.m RELATED CORRESPONDENCE l
... ~
drilLD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Wikc i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'92 CEC -7 M1;10 D10.QRLlllE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIriG BOARD t.y *
{
n<;
' " Ni -
[
In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket tio. 70-3070
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
C_ERTlIJSATE OF pgRVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S IllTERROG ATORIES TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH REGARDItiG s
CITIZENS AGAINST liUCLEAR TRASH'S CONTENTIONS B, I,
J, K,
L, M AND-Q" have been served on this ha day of December, 1992, as follows:
Administrative Judge By.first class mail Morton B.
Margulies, Chairman 2 copies Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comuission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge By first class mail Richard F.
Cole 1 copy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative. Judge By first class mail Frederick J.
Shon
- 1 copy Atomic Safety and Li_ censing Board
- U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission a
Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission By first class mail-U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission original plus 2 copies
- Washington,-D.C.
20555
- Attention:
Chief,1-Docketing and Service Section 1
40 -
i eae-e-----.
Es +m m.r,-m-r-.r-e-
'.----e------e-
-+~,v*
w
- e
,vt, r, y w,
- wn, vve.--%,
r vr,,- w v wwg w w e
,m w we
<v'-
v---
7,,+,-=-,,--,--.
'.,rw-y-m
-r-g-<-
e va+,m--g T
t Yv'*
e,, ~
Office of Commission Appellate By first class mail Adjudication 1 copy U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C.
20555 Eugene Holler, Esq.
By first class mail Office of the General Counsel I copy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Joseph DiStefano By first class mail Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
1 copy 600 New liamps. tire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 404 Washington, D.C.
20037 Peter G.
LeRoy By first class mail Duke Engineering and Services, Inc.
1 copy 230' South Trycn Street Post Office Box 1004 Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Marcus A.
Rowden By first-class mail Fried, Frank, lia rris, Shriver 1 copy
& Jacobsen 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 900 South Washington, D.C.
20004 Diane Curran By first class mail-Harmon, Curran, Gallagher & Spielberg 1 copy 2001 S Street NW Suite 430 Washington DC 20009 Ronald Wascom, Deputy Anst. Secretary By_first class mail Louisiana Dept. of Envir. Quality 1 copy.
Office of Air Quality & Radiation Protection Post Office Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 J.-Michael McGarry,-III By first class mail Winston & Strawn 1 copy-1400 L Street N'W Washington, DC 20005
- Adjudicatory File By first class ! mail.
Atomic _ Safety and Licensing-Board Panel 1 copy U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory-Commissien Washington, D.C.-
20555 'I I
e.. -
Respectfully submitted, 11ATilALIE li. WALKER ROBERT B.
W1YGUL SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFEllSE FUl1D, IllC.
400 liagazino Street, Suito 401 11ew Oricano, Louisiana 70130 Telephone:
(504) 522-1394 k-By:
Ifathallo 14. Walker Attorneys for intervenor, Citizens Against liuclear Trash December u 1992 homer \\ansinter.L2
- 42
-o..,
UllITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION DILQEE TIIE ATOMIC-SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
I
)
LOUISIANA EN RGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Dnckat No. 70-3070
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
}
I hFFIDAVIT I, llelen M. Ilunt, being duly sworn, hereby state that I an an independent consultant on ne. lear safeguards issues.
I have been consulting with citizens Against Nuclear Trash regarding the Louisiana Energy Services uranium enrichment' plant-proposed for Claiborne Parish. Louisiana.
In response to
" APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES 'TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASil REGARDING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASti'S CONTENTIONS B, I, J, K,
L, M AND Q" dated August 11,-1992, I have provided the basic information used in the answers which pertain to nuclear safeguards issues (Contentions L and M).
My business address is P.O.
Box 530, Princeton,.New Jersey, I
[
08542-0510.
/
Z ;4't llIA IIelen M. Ilunt l
Subscribed and sworn to before me this //
day of September, 1992.
l p
2bA L
ND14W
/
' Nota"ry' Publfc -
~
p l' My ccmmission expires:/O,,/
ln I-l~
- ~...
... -