ML20126H489

Suppl to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Answers to Applicants First & Second Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce Re Emergency Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20126H489
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/06/1981
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8104140419
Download: ML20126H489 (8)

Text

... _ _

m Q-200R BRIGINAI.*

/

sivirrED CORRESPONDE. CE N

< 4, A

y r-m 4/6/81 b

. C.\\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C

APR 9

7 NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSIOlt stdtrl THE ATC3(IC SAFETY AWE ( 6C5itS150 BOARD f

sw-

x. :n s

In

' of

'((l/pl.

%) y j 'Dociet noe. 50 kk$

/ll'R ) "o.

O and $0- M A?FLICATIOE OF TEKA8 trrIMTIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AM 34 n.

N7Jh.

OPERATIEG LICEEE FOR CG4ANCHE g

fdQurcer /7' PEAX STRAM ELEC1EIC STATION I/D g$'/2 ums #1 AuD #2 (CysEs) 1 77 SUPPLEMENT TO CA!!E'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST AND SECOND SETS OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE (WILL BE REFERRED 'TO BY CASE AS " CASE'S L/6/81 SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANTS")

CCHES NOW CASE (Citir. ens Association for Sound Energy), hereinafter referred to as CASE, Intervenor herein, and files this, its 4/6/81 Supplement to Applicants.

7,'

SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS Each answer is identified by the nu=ber of the corresponding interrogatory set forth in Applicants' Interrogatories.

APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES:

Questions 121 through 139 We expect that the witness on whca ve decide to rely in these pro-ceedings vill support and expand on the contentions -and bases' contained in CASE's previous pleadings in these hearings (as set forth specifically in answer G-k.(b) 24(b), on page 8 of this pleading). For example, as indicated in CASE's 4/10/80 Position on Contentions, Contention No. 7, i

pages 26 through 32: The statements we made regarding Report 290 in Contention 7 on pages 28 and 29 of our 5/7/79 Contentions, item 1, has not been refuted by the so-called second German Report (" Critical Comments on Work Report AB-290"); we included some specifics in this regard on our h/10/80 Position on Contentions...We simils.rly pointed out-that the Staff's allegations regarding the Sandia Report were based on faulty assumptions) and we included some specifics in this regard. Perhaps 810.41.409/9 pgaO '

e S /l

Questions 121 through 139 (continued):

the MRC Staff has already made its collective mind up regarding these two reports and does not intend to give any further consideration to them regardless of what facts may be presented by CASE's vitness(es).

We vould hope that this is not the case regarding either the Staff or i

the Board.

N@-

jf."

Asstatedonpage31ofCASE'sk/10/80PositiononContentions:

" CASE could list other reports, such as those of Richard"E. Webb (specifically his testimony in Docket 50-272, Public Service Electric aiGasCo.,SalemNuclearGeneratingUnit#1,testimonyof2/27/79 and 4/8/80 and h/9/80)..." but we cbose not to.

The question at this point is not vbetber or not CASE will have an expert vitness regarding this contention, but vbo that witness vill be and which docueents such witness vill rely on. At this point in time, there are several reassons for our uncertainty as to who our expert vitness(es) vill be; not the least of these is the fact that we do not at this time know precisely vben the hearings themselves j

vill be, or even if such details as having the hearings vill be necessary before granting Applicacts an " interim" operating license.

As to vbat documents CASE's witness (es) vill rely on, it may or may not be that such vitness(es) vill rely on Mr. Webb's reports. If the Staff or Applicants would like to conduct discovery upon Mr.

Webb, CASE vill approach Mr. Webb and inquire what he would charge

~

the Staff or Applicants to answer interrogatories, under Rule.26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure:

"(4)(B) A party may discover facts. known or bpinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness'at trial, only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional l

circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject l

by other means.

"(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (1) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under -

subdivisions (b)(h)(A)(ii) and (b)(h)(B) of this rule..."

(Emphasis added.)

2-v e s--+

n,,s+

-~,,--emen,..--,~~.-.,--n-

.-w,-w,.--m,--.n,v-.nu-,m,

,,w.a

--m..wrn,-,_n,,-,,.,aw.,

n

--m<

,me.,..,,w,,,wp

l l

J Questions 121 through 139 (continued):

It is CASE's understanding that at this time we are not required to undertake substantial research and investigation or to develop our case in order to respond to interrogatories and requests for documents. We desire to cooperate as much as possible, but under the circumstances at this time, tbs specific information the Staff seeks is simply premature. We do not know at this time whether or we do,not know whether or not he not Mr. Webb win be our witnesa r would even consider engaging in discovery on the terms indicated above, but we vin contact him in this re6ard should the Staff or

]

Applicants so desire. CASE does not intend to pay for such discovery, l

until and unless we have made a firm contract with Mr. Webb to testify on behalf of CASE in these operating license proceedings.

If we retain a witness other than Mr. Webb, it may well be that such witness vill develop his own analyses and/or rely on documents other than those Mr. Webb might rely on.

Further, CASE has not yet ccepleted discovery with Applicant regard-ing this contention, which discovery may well change scanewhat or limit the amount of independent research and analyses our witness win have to do; this could also change our choice of a witness or vitnesses.

, _ o, i

APPLICANTS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES:

l Questions 69-2, 70-2, and 71-2:

(

The NRC Staff has the responsibility to see that Applicants fulfin their responsibilities and that the Emergency Plan for CPSES has been proved to demonstrate that:

adequate preplanning has been done so that an emergency condition can be handled quickly, efficiently.and in a manner so that the least possible cars to the public would be incurred; State, local and regional emergency plans can be paid for, set up, maintained, and continued with real live people to carry them out; documentation which proves the preceding is presented to the NRC, the Intervenors, and the public through these operating license proceedings and that the emergency plan has been thorcughly analyzed and approved before Applicants are issued an operating license, an " interim" operating license, or aHoved to load fuel. The Staff should: see toit that the preceding is done and done suffi-ciently and adequately to in fact (as ven as on paper) assure that the public health and safety will be protected; respend fully and ccampletely to interro6atories and requests for documents by Intervenors; pursue with vigor any problem areas or inadequacies indicated by Staff or Intervanors' questions and contentions and see to it that such problems and inadequacies 3-

-,..n..

e

Questions 69-2, 70-2, and 71-2 (continued):

are dealt with fully and remedied; oppose. any and all efforts on the part of anyene (including Comunission Chairu.c Joseph Hendrie) to actively lobby without any semblance of due procest or regard for the duly-accepted Interevenors in affected licensing proceedings for the abandonnent of the NRC's final Energency Flanning Regulations (10 CFR 50, 50.47, August 19, 1980, kSFR162) requirement that:

"No operating license for a nuclear power reactor vill be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and,will be takaa in the event o'f a radiological emergency." This should obvicualy include an," interim" operating license.

CASE expects the Applicants to be compelled to comply fully with all guidance and requirements of NUREG-065h and other regulations which NRC t

and FD(A develop, before an operating license is granted (" interim" or otherwise) and before Applicants are allowed to load fuel, and we expect the NRC Staff to see that this is done.

Question 77-2:

CASE maintains that all segments of the public must be considered who may be affected by accidents at CPSES, including, in the event of.

a worst-case accident or an accident viih large releases 5f radiation

~~~

or radioactive materials into the atmosphere, the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex area if there exists the possibility that the upper air i

currents may carry the radioactive materials to the metroplex area.

Under certain meterological conditions and certain accident conditions, probably some. type of emergency planning should be provided for-the entire Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex area; we have not yet made detailed analyses of this at this time, but vill promptly update our response as soon as we have done so.

Question 82-2:

We have made no detailed analysis of this at this time other that that specified in NUREG-0654, including Appendix 1, pages 1-1 through 1-19; there could be a number of different types of accidents including a core meltdown. We vill promptly update this answer as soon as we have made such detailed analysis.

k-

b Question 88-2:

10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix E, and NURIXI-0654, including Appendix 1, pages 1-1 through 1-19; the rule of reason.

Respectfully submitted, a s E, b'/m~,

(pf.1 Jt.anita Ellis, President (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk hallas, TX 75224 214/9L6-94k6' 21k/941-1211, work, part-time, usually Tuesdays and Fridays only 4/6/81 e

e G

5-

~. -,

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1I 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 By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's h/6/81 Supplement to Applicants First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce have been sent to the names listed below by First Class Mail this 6th day of April

, 198_1_.

with Certificate of Mailing ' receipt.

+c

• Valentine B. 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 State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Washington, D. C.

20555

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Atomic Safet,y and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman

Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St.,

N. W.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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, Esq.

West Texas Legal Services 701 Ccamerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

Fort Worth, TX 76102 ms, H 75202 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.

k021 Prescott Avenue lu S

N - u, Dallas, u 75219

/Ulrs.) Juanita Ellis, President v6ASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY) e---=

V

" ~ * ~ ~ ' " " ~

- ' ', j..

~

. 'I-nv

• t

.t.

L **

STATE OF TEXAS )

P f

ll[,

Juanita Ellis, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

j:

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

and knows the contents of the foregoing Supplement to CASE's Answe'rs to Applicants'-

First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce (referred to by

['. ',

CASE as " CASE's 4/6/81 Supplement to Applicants")

'p

p k:.;

{3.j-1h.,

4 and that the same is' true of her own knowledge and belief.

gy,

~ y,,

N=

v,:..<

(

A..7,,,aO&!

f '. )

J4ainita Ellis P. < :.

y

?.jf.

.f h

SWORN TO and Subscribed

.I before me on this 6th day

[m of April

_, 1981.

K

.p Q..

r J'b kjJ fY.

' Notary Public Q

~

l-My Conmission Expires: /S /4 /p /

.r.

g.

~.

~

/

' (SEAL) f p 9 ) *-

n.

The osiginal of this page is being mailed under separate cover, First Class. Mail, tothe Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocnnission, Washington, D. C. 20555,

~

Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, on this 6th day of April 1981.

'Eh a

e*

.r r,...

,=..,.

w-'

=-We=sa e

seu.e r-r

.u=

... ~..

A

~ C A S E

= =RELATEDCORRES 21h/9h6-94h6 (CITIZENS ASSN FOR SOUND ENERGY)

,f %

April 6, 1981 O

j

. r -.,

({m

\\

APR 9193;, "1 CJi.

I j/ D*.in; ? N,}[

'9 Secretary U. S. clear Regulatory Ccusaission

\\

U$,

Vashine, ton, D. C.

20555 Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section 4

Subject:

Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, ET AL. for an Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)

Docket Nos. 50-4h5 and so kk6 Ve are attaching the original documentation re6arding the following two items in the above-referenced proceedings:

Supple =ent to CASE's Answers to Applicants'. First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce (referred to by CASE as l

" CASE's h/6/81 Supplement to Applicants")

CASE's Supplement to CASE's Ansvers to NRC Staff's First Set of Inter-l rogatories to, and Request for the Production of Documents from, Intervenor CASE Thank you.

Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citir. ens Association for Sound Energy)

.=5 (Mrs.) Juanita Ellis President ec: Service List y... -

,.m._

r

-