ML20140B604

Answers to Applicant Second Set of Interrogatories Re Contentions 1,2,8,9.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20140B604
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	09/01/1981
From:	Larry Jones JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD
To:	LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8109140259
Download: ML20140B604 (12)

Text

r

,, ,o 197*660. COGERONDENc8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION < Y/g ? I,

h.

• Y y 3 4f+";%y%

N

'm BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD -

g s'O - N ,

& ff p 0 \J$} A

('I In the Matter of p. , .. k

M 111981m g LOUISIANA POWER & LIGilT COMPANY Docket No. 50-382 E5 =ru recuuussu -  !

g cowssw j (Waterford Steam Electric Station \d . i Unit 3) ' d/j i

JOINT INTERVENORS ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS SECOND SET INTERROGATORIES  !

Answers to Interrogatories of Contention I i Interrogatory 1-1:

The DES has omitted calculat*ons of load responsibilities if the  !'

proposed merger of applicant and New Orleans Public Service, Inc. takes f';,

place. Since the merger has been announced by the Applicant, New i.

Orleans Public Service, Inc. and EISU, it is highly probable that the merger  ;

i will take place pending approval by the Securities and Exchange Commis-sion. This merger raises more questions than it answers. For instance, will the alleged " operating efficiencies" achieved result in a decreased load responsibility? Ilow will the fuel procurement company, Systems Fuels Incorporated, be effected? Several governmental groups, including the l

Jefferson Parish Council, have requested this information be furnished.

Joint Intervenors await this information.

D$

6# I l

l 810914o259 sto9o3 l gDRADOCK 05000382 PDR

1 Interrogatory 1-2.

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-3:

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-4:

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-5.

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-6:

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-7:

See 1-1. t

• l Interrogatory 1-8:  ;

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-9. l See 1-1. ,

i Interrogatory 1-10:

See 1-1.

Interrogatory 1-11:

See 1-1.  ;

Interrogatory 1-12: i I

The input of the ratepayers of NOPSI have never been sought in relation to the construction or payment schedule of Waterford Three. An i a

analysis of risk / benefit which this question would elicit collapses with the l i

propset of an Applicant-NOPSI eleventh hour merger. More information  !:

i must be forthcoming from appropriate corporate and governmental bodies l l

l l

before an intelligent answer can be given. Joint Intervenors await this information.

Interrogatory 1-13:

See 1-12. .

Interrogatory 1-14:

See 1-12.

Answers to Interrogatories on Contention 2 Interrogatory 2-1:

Joint Intervenort :onsider the cost estimates of decommissioning 7 i

($21-43 million) to be low by at least a factor of three. Since the cost of ,

Waterford 3 (in 1978 dollars) was $900 million, site restoration (as opposed '

to entombment) costs could be nearly 15% of capital costs. Ilowever, the NRC and the LPSC do not require that decommissioning costs be included in the rate base for a par bular facility. Therefore, pursuing this question in this fortm is futile. Joint Intervenors request that NRC change its rule [

to require decommissioning costs in the rate basee. Joint Intet cenors will [

question this rule before the LPSC when Applicant seeks rate relief for Waterford Three capital costs, assuming Waterford Three is granted an I operating license.

Interrogatory 2-2: ,

Moot, t

Interrogatory 2-3:  ;

L  :

l Moot.  !

l >

Inter _rogatory 2-4:

Moot. ll l II l F

(  !~

4 l

j  :<

I l

i Interrogatory 2-5:

Moot.

Interrogatory 2-6:

Joint Intervenors believe the capacity factor for W3SES will be 55%. ,

l The DES figure of 60% is acceptable. The LP&L figure of 80% is grossly ,

high.

Interrogatory 2-7:

Moot.

t Interrogatory 2-8: i Moot. [

l Interrogatory 2-3: i Moot.

Kerrogatory 2-10:

Moot. .

Interroga t i y 1-11:

The DES figure of 14.23 mills /kwh for fuel and operating and maintenance is acceptable. It contrasts sharply to the Applicant's figure of  ;

i 7.80 mills /kwh shown in Table 8.2-2 of the ER. Applicant erred by 82%. l Interrogatory 2-12: ,

Moot. j Interrogatory 2-13:

Moot. [I

\ .

l Interrogatory 2-1p l.

l l Moot.

Interrogatoiy 2-15: 6 Moot.

2 l

]

j ,, .

I Interrogatory 2-16:

Joint Intervenors feel disposal costs are incalculabic, considering the v

{ nascent level of technology. Ilowever, we will not address that question in j this forum. .

i i

) Interrogatory 2-17: ,

Moot.

Interrogatory 2-18: b h

l Moot. ,

I l Interrogatory 2-19:

{ Moot. f 1 Interrogatory 2-20:

j Moot.

l Interrogatory 2-21:

4

Joint Intervenors believe the figure of $230 million is not so much inaccurate as it is misleading. Conservation technologies could save that

[

f much fuel with a fraction of the capital costs. This was addressed by i

l Intervenors during the CP hearings. Their arguments were dismissed by the

AEC licensing panel judge. Subsequent economic analysis (llarvard I

j Business School, for instance) has shown the absolute correctness of the CP i

j; intervenors. Joint Intervenors note that Applicant plans $6 billion in i; l V.

l capital expenditures during the 1980's.

Joint Intervenors will not question the number "$230 million" at this -

forum.

l Interrogatory 2-22:

Moct.

t l Interrogatory 2-23:

i i Moot.

f

, i.

l'

,,-,y -ye 4 ,,.mer--wm,,-- -w y -,%__--- ~- - - - - , , , . , . . . , ,.%---,,,----,y-,-,...,.c . . . _.- - . , . _ _ . --ry- , , . - -, -..-.-

i Interrogatory 2-24:

Moot.

Interrogatory 2-25:

Moot. .

Interrogatory 2-25:

s M oot.

Interrogatory 2-26:

Moot.

Answers to Interrogatories on Contention 8/9 Interrogatory 8/9-1:  ;

Occupational risk is outside the scope of Contention 8/9 by agree-i ment of NRC, Applicant, and Joint Intervenors. Therefore, Joint Interven- l ors will not question this number before the ASLB.

.f i

Interrogatories 8/9-2 thrauth 8/9-5: 3 Moot. i Interrogatory 8/9-6: I Joint Intervenors believe this number is materially inaccurate in this particular licensing because of the excess burden of pollution in Louisiana l and particularly in the environs of Waterford III.

1 Interrogatory 8/9-7.

l The combined or synergistic effect of radiation and other agents has }

4 been shown to exist in various ecil studies, animal studies, and human  :

i  !

studies. Some of these agents (benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, l l ctc.) exist in abundance in Southeastern Louisiana because of the thriving i I l petrochemical industry. I i

i I  !

i

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

Interrogatory 8/9-8:

See " Joint Intervenors Answers to NRC Staff Interrogtories, and Response to Request for Documents", Section 8/9. Numerous references are listed. New documents include: The Environment and Iluman Health in .

Louisiana, prepared for Office of Environmental Affairs, City of New Orleans, by Doctor Velma Campbell, January,1981; and Combined Effect, Ionizing Radiation Plus Other Agent, issue paper prepared by M. M. Elkind, Division of Biological and Medical Research, Argonne National Laboratory, A rgonne, Illin'o is, 60439,1980. I Interrogatory 8/9-9: , ,

See " Joint Intervenors Answers to Nhc Staff Interrogator!es and Response to Request for Documents", particularly 8/9-1 a. and b. It is i

pmsible others may be called upon.

) Interrogatory 8/9-10 (a):

}

Joint Intervenors believe the risk to be anywhere in the range from i I

two times to twenty-five times the listed risk.

l Interrogatory 8/9-10 (b): l i

Joint Intervenors have extrapolated results from cell studies, animal studies, and human studies. Due to the nascent level of research, the range is very wide.

, Interrogatory 8/9 (c):

See 8/9-8. f i

Interrogatory 8/9 (d):  !

See 8/9-9. j i

interrogatory 8/9-11: I Joint Intervenors believe this is materially inaccurate.

I l:

i f

P

/

Interrogatory 8/9-12.

See 8/9-7.

Interrogatory 8/9-13:

Sec 8/9-8.

Interrogatory 8/9-14:

See 8/9-9.

Interrogatory 8/9-15 (a):

Sec 8/9-10 (a).

i.

Interrogatory 8/9-15 (b): b Sec 8/9-10 (b). ,

Interrogatory 8/9-15 (e):

l[

Sec 8/9-10 (e).

l Interrogatory 8/9-15 (d):

See 8/9-10 (d).

[

Interrogatory 8/9-16.

Joint Intervenors believe this is materially inaccurate. ,

Interrogatory 8/9-17: ll Sec 8/9-7. ,

I Interrogatory 8/9-18: l See 8/9-8.

Interrogatory 8/9-19: i Sec 8/9-9.

Interrogatory 8/9-20 (a):

See 8/9-10 (a).  !

Interrogatory 8/9-20 (b):

I See 8/9-10 (b).  ;

t l

i

.- __ - .. . _ . _. .. _ ~ . ..- -. . . .

Interrogatory 8/9-20 (e): ,

1 See 8/9-10 (e).

Interrogatory 8/9-20 (d):

See 8/9-10 (d).

Interrogatory 8/9-21:

Response to be prepared.

Respectfully submitted, GILLES ONES 1

2

\ ,

BY A n I '.1 A L. JOKS, .

Attor y for Inter nors l 114 idgelake Dr* e l Metairie, Louisi a 7000 4

(504) 835-6458 f

i 1

i:

e p

t-l; i

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

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of l' LOUISIANA POWER & LIGIIT COMPANY Docket No. 50-382 ,

(Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3)

I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby certify that on September 1,1981, I mailed copies of Save '

Our Wetlands, Inc. and Oystershell Alliance, Inc.'s, JOINT INTERVENORS l l

ANSWERS TO NRC STAFF INTERROGATORIES, AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS to all individuals or entities appearing on the attached Service List, postage p ai first class in t e United States Mail.

i i

M #v 'O s ip M AN '. JO p,S, J 1

l

_ _ . - .- . , _ . . - _ _ . - - . . m-~ _ _ _ . .. ._

i September 1,1981 i

I STATE OF LOUISTANA >-

PARISil OF JEFFERSON llEFORE ME, the undersigned, did appear GAltY L. GROESCH, a person of the full age of majority and a resident of the Parish of Orleans, who did declare on oath that the Answers provided herein to Applicant's First Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

1 G ftY I G OE C Sworn to and subscribed before me, Notary, this

1st lay eptember .

i 4

l n s -

TAI ' Pull C m w r'Mee-omr"-y_

SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atornie Safety and Licensing Board Panel -

Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. IIarry Foreman Box 395, niayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board Panel ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555  !

Docketing and Service Section '

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire and l E. Blake, Esquire j i Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge  ;

1800 M Street, N. W. i Washington, D. C. 20036 ~

i W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esquire Monroe & Lemann l Whitney Building 625 Gravier Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

?

l t

t t