ML20214N380
| ML20214N380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1987 |
| From: | Fielder S FIELDER, S.L., JOINT INTERVENORS - HUMBOLDT BAY |
| To: | PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3570 86-536-07OLA, 86-536-7OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8706020156 | |
| Download: ML20214N380 (36) | |
Text
.
A w nDGOggtsy0NDENCN 6hh
}
SCOTT L. FIELDER Attorney at Law
.g gy 27 A9 52 2
517 Third Street, Suite 14 Eureka, California 95501 3
Telephone:
(707) 444-3031
_ Si g,., s GFFC ict DOCrij'gfhy 4
Attorney for the Intervenors Douglas H. Bosco, Wesley Chesbro, 5
Daniel E. Hauser, Barry Keene The Redwood Alliance, Ralph Kraus 6
and Nona Kraussand the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
10 In The Matter of: ) ) 4 ]2 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-133 --OL A ) 13 (Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant ) (Decommissioning) ) ]4 Unit 3) ) ASLBP NO. 86-536-07 LA ) ) 15 ) 16 17 1. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Licensee PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ]8 2. SET NUMBER: ONE 19 3. RESPONDING PARTY: JOINT INTERVENORS 20 Come now the;7;oint Intervenors and answer the Licensee's 21 First Set of Interrogatories as follows: 22 It should be noted that this responding party has not 23 fully completed its investigation of the facts relating to this has not fully completed its discovery in this action and 24
- case, l
25 has not completed its preparation for the trial. All of the 26 answers contained herein are based only upon such information 27 and documents which are presently available'to and specifically 28 known to this responding party and disclose only those }cth? 8706020156 870520 7 PDR ADOCK 05000133 ~1-G PDR Il 6
I contentions which presently occur to such responding party. It 2 is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, 3 legal research and analysis will supply additional facts, add 4 meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new 5 factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may 6 lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from 7 the contentions herein set forth. The following interrogatory 8 responses are given without prejudice to responding party's right 9 to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts 10 which this responding party may later recall. Responding party 11 accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers 12 herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, 13 legal research is completed, and contentions are made. The 14 answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to 15 supply as much factual information and as much specification of 16 legal contentions as is presently known but should in no way be 17 to the prejudice of' the Joint Intervenors in relation to further 18 discovery, research, or analysis. 19 20 RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 21 22 Interrogatory No. 1. Define the term ' local environment and 23 biota' as used in your contention. 24 Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 1 25 Local environment includes, at minimum, all land, coastal 26 areas, and bay areas within a 40 mile radius of the plant. Biota 27 refers to all life forms, including human, that live in this 28 area. i L _ j
} Interrogatory No. 2. State each and every fact upon which you base your contention that there is little or no discussion of 2 analysis of the impact on the local environment and biota of 3 the. proposed SAFSTOR activities for the Humboldt Bay Power 4 Plant (HBPP). 5 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 The lack of discussion of the local environment and biota 7 g is evident from reading Section 3 of the Draf t Environmental 0 Statement (DES) for decommissioning Humboldt Bay Power Plant, 10 Unit No. 3 (NUREG-ll66). 11 12 Interrogatory No. 3. State with specificity the type of analysis 13 that you contend would constitute adequate analysis of the impact 14 on the local environment and biota of the proposed activities. 15 Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 16 Objection, the question calls for a narrative and for an 17 answer that is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. 18 However, without waiving the above objections, the following 19 answer is provided. For instance, the DEIS fails to discuss 20 the impact on the local fishing and shellfish harvesting 21 industry of a large release of spent fuel pool water either 22 during an earthquake or over time as a result of spent fuel pool 23 leakage. The damage to these industries from such a leak went 24 totally unaddressed. The fact that such a leak may only " double" 25 the background radiation level ignores the impact on these 26 industries that would probably occur as the result of disclosure 27 of the release in the media. 28 An adequate analysis under N.E.P.A. must address all e 1 Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 (continued) 2 such impacts that may result from the activity, including such 3 an impact as illustrated above. 4 5 Interrogatory No. 4. State your understandir.g of the current 6 state of the local environment and biota. 7 Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 8 Objection. The question is vague, ambiguous, and unin-D telligible. The answer called for would fill books and, thus, 10 is burdensome and oppressive in scope. 11 12 Interrogatory No. 5. What do you consider to be a potential 13 significant environmental impact? 14 Answer to Interrogatory No. 5 15 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 above for examplec 16 of what intervenors would consider to be a potential significant 17 environmental impact. 18 19 Interrogatory No. 6. What potential significant environmental 20 impacts do you allege would occur on the coastal wetlands due to 21 long-term storage of nuclear materials at HBPP? 22 Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 23 Long-term storage of nuclear materials at the Humboldt 24 facility potentially can result in the release of radiation into 25 the coastal wetlands resulting in physical, genetic, and 26 psychological injury to all inhabitants of the coastal area, and 27 physical and genetic damage to all plant and animal life in the 28 coastal wetlands, contamination of all beach and wetland areas,
damage to the fisheries industry that utilizes the coastal waters } 2 and sea bottom, and damage to tourism industries that are based on use of coastal beaches and Hamboldt Bay. 3 4 5 Interrogatory No. 7. Identify any regulations that support your 6 allegation that potential significant environmental impacts are 7 required to be documented in the Draft Environmental Statement g (DES). g Answer to Interrogatory No. 7 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, section 101 10 }j and 102; 40 CFR 1502 et seq., and 10 CFR 51.70 and 51.71 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Interrogatory No. 8. Identify the provisions of the California 2} Coastal Act which you claim support your allegation that potential 22 significant environmental impacts are required to be documented 23 in the DES. 24 Answer to Interrogatory No. 8 25 See California Coastal Commission Letter dated June 9, 26 1986, pages 2, 89. 27 28 -
} Interrogatory No. 9. Provide the basis for your statement that "Humboldt Bay is the largest wetland and estuarine habitat in 2 the California coastal zone, containing approximately 23 percent 3 of the coastal wetlands in California". 4 5 Answer to Interrogatory No. 9 The Intervenors obtained the 23% figure from page 1 of 6 the comments of the California Coastal Commission, dated June 9, 7 1986, which comment letter was sent to the Resources Agency by g the California Coastal Commission. 9 10 }] Interrogatory No. 10. Define the term "long-term storage of nuclear materials" as used in your contention. ]2 13 Answer to Interrogatory No. 10 In the context of Contention 1, long-term storage }4 referred to PG&E's proposal to store fuel at the Humboldt Bay 15 16 facility for up to 30 years. 17 ]8 Interrogatory No. 11. What requirements do you claim are 19 mandated by NEPA or the California coastal Act with respect to documentation of impacts of long-term storage of nuclear materials 20 21 at HBPP? 22 Answer to Interrogatory No. 11 23 See NEPA of 1969, 40 CPR 1502 et. seq. and 10'CFR 51.70 24 and 51.71. These regulations clearly set forth the rigorous 25 inventory of the environmaatal impacts that is required. 26 27 28 1 Interrogatory No. 12. Stato each and every fact upon which you 2 base your contention that there is inadequate discussion and 3 analysis of the storage of spent fuel rods in the spent fuel 4 pool at I!BPP. 5 Answer to Interrogatory No. 12 6 Objection. The question calls for an answer that would 7 be burdensome and oppressive. Ilowever, without waiving the g objection, the following is provided: The DES failed to explore in detail the possibility of the emergency removal of the fuel 9 10 f rom ilumboldt Bay Power Plant. I;ac did the DES rigorously explore the cost / benefits of placing the fuel in dry storage if }] immediate removal of the fuel is a non-available option. }2 The option of sealing the leak in the spent fuel pool and 33 14 liner and its costs were never explored. 15 Simply put, the DES appeared to reason to the preordained desired result of using the present pool as the preferred option. 16 This is not the type of vigorous examination of options called 17 18 for under NEPA. 19 // 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 // 28 // 1 Interrogatory No. 13. Define the phrase " plagued by leakage" as 2 used in this contention. What do you contend constitutes such 3 leakage? 'I Answer to Interrogatory No. 13 5 Plagued by leakage refers to the fact that the pool has 6 been leaking since 1966 without the point (s) of Icakage being 7 scaled. 8 Dattelle's report, entitled " Extended Fuel Storage in O the Existing Onsite ilumboldt Bay Unit No. 3 Storage Pool", 10 prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric, p. 20, 22-22, indicates 11 that in 1966 a "small leak developed" (p. 20). That same 12 report indicates the leakage rate is.12 gallons per day into 13 the gap, and that soil samples taken in 1984 showed contamination Il of soil and groundwater well contamination (p. 23). (See also 15 california coastal commission Report to nesources Agency, June 9, 16 1986, p. 2, Pat. 7, p. 3, Par. 1; DEIS, p. 2-1,5.) 17 18 Interrogatory No. 14. State each and every fact upon which you IO base your allegation that the HBPP spent fuel pool is plagued by 20 leakage. 21 Answer to Interrogatory No. 14 22 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 13. 23 24 Interrogatory No. 15. State with specificity the type of analysis 25 that you contend would constitute adequate analysis of the storagc 26 of spent fuel rods in a fuel pool that could be subject to leakage. 27 Answer to Interrogatory No. 15 28 Objection. The question calls for an answer that is not ] Answer to Interrogatory No. 15 (continued) 2 calculated to lead to admissible evidence. 3 4 Interrogatory No. 16. Would your contention remain if there were 5 no pool leakage? 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 16 7 Yes-8 g Interrogatory No. 17. Upon what facts do you base your contention 10 that leakage from the pool could affect the safety of spent fuel )) storage at !!EPP? ]2 Answer to Interrogatory No. 17 13 Intervenors do not contend that pool leakage affects the 14 safety of spent fuel storage at !!DPP. It is our contention that 15 such leakage affects the safety of the surrounding environment. 16 17 Interrogatory No. 18. What do you allege are the effecto of 18 spent fuel storage in a pool " plagued by leakage"? 10 Answer to Interrogatory No. 18 20 Contamination of the surrounding environment, and poten-21 tial contamination of ilumboldt say. 22 23 Interrogatory No. 19. State each and every fact upon which you 24 base your contention that mechanical means of controlling pool 25 leakage are subject to malfunction. 26 Answer to Interrogatory No. 19 27 It is common knowledge that anything mechanical is 28 subject to failure due to wear over time. Malfunction could -9
=_ __ I Answer to Interrogatory No. 19 (continued) g 2 occur in the equpment that controls the pool leakage, and the gap 3 water monitoring systems. 4 i 5 Interrogatory No. 20. Specify the types of pump malfunction 6 that you believe could occur. 7 Answer to Interrogatory No. 20 8 objection. The question calls for speculation and is not 1 0 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. With-4 10 out waiving the above objections, the Intervenors provide the il following information relative to types of spent fuel pool pump 12 malfunctions that could occur 2 13 (a) Malfunction due to electrical failure; 14 (b) Malfunction due to bearing failure; i 15 (c) Malfunction due to oxidization as a result of the 16 use of imcompatible metals in the design of the pump; 17 (d) Malfunction due to inadequate or incompetent mainte-4 18 nance. i 19 i 20 Interrogatory No. 21. What do you believe would be the consequence 21 if a pump were to malfunction? l 22 Answer to Interrogatory No. 21 i j I 23 objection. Answer calls for speculation and is not I 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. How-i J 25 ever, without waiving that objection, the Intervenors provide the l 26 following answer ) 27 Consequences include, but are not limited to, gap water 28 escaping into surrounding environment with resulting contamination. ^ i i ] Interrrogatory No. 22. Define the term " increased contamination" 2 as used in your contention. 3 Answer to Interrogatory No. 22 Increased contamination simply means that any further 4 5 contanination will be added to the contamination that has l 6 already occurred since 1966. 7 g Interrogatory No. 23. State each and every fact upon which you i D base your contention that the potential impacts of increased 10 contamination have not been discussed. l )) Answer to Interrogatory No. 23 l There is no discussion in the DES relative to the cumula-l 12 l 13 tive impact of past radiological contamination, due to pool 14 leakage, in combination with future leakage of contaminated pool i 15 water. 16 The DES fails to fully discuss and analyze safeguards 17 and mitigating measures that licensco intends to utilize in l 18 order to lessen the impact of fuel pool water leakage. 19 The DES fails to fully discuss and analyze the potential 20 impact leakage throughout the period 2000-2015 might have on the 21 local economy due to possible contamination of the region's 22 agricultural farm land and contamination of the region's coastal 23 waters and the aquatic life that lives in the coastal waters. 24 25 Interrogatory No. 24. What do you contend would be the sources 26 of such an alleged " increased contamination"? Identify the 27 materials you allege would cause this increase. 28 // '
1 Answer to Interrogatory No. 24 2 The principle sources of increased contamination would be 3 the nuclear materials stored in the spent fuel pool, the resin 4 tanks, and radioactive waste system. 5 6 Interrogatory No. 25. Define the terms " elevated" and " trace" 7 levels of radionuclides as used in your contention. What level 8 of radionuclide do you consider to be acceptable? State which 9 regulations and requirements you contend regulate these levels. 10 Answer to Interrogatory No. 75 11 The term "clevated" is defined as " raised". The term 12 " trace" is defined as minute. Intervenors consider a zero level 13 of radionuclides acceptable. 14 15 Interrogatory No. 26. State cach and every fact upon which you 16 base your contention that the Environmental Report (ER) indicates 17 that there are elevated and trace levels of certain radionuclides 18 in the surface soils at the plant site. 19 Answer to Interrogatory No. 26 20 Objection. The ER speaks for itself. Further, the 21 question, as drafted, is not designed to lead to admissible 22 evidence. 23 // 21 25 26 27 // 28 // -
1 Interrogatory No. 27. Provide any information you have on what 2 the amount of bankground radioactivity is at the plant site. 3 Answer to Interrogatory No. 27 4 The Intervenors as yet have not been able to independently 5 establish what the background level of radioactivity at the 6 plant site is. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Interrogatory No. 28. State each and every fact upon which you 15 base your contention that leakage of the pool continues to this 16 day. Identify with specificity the amount of leakage you 17 believe continues to this day. 18 Answer to Interrogatory No. 28 19 The ER contains information which suggests the leakage 20 has been chronic. 21 ff 22 23 24 25 26 27 pj 28 pp 3 Interrogatory No. 29. Identify the specific locations in the ER where you allege "there is some information" to indicate there 2 are radionuclides in surface soils at the plant site. 3 Answer to Interrogatory No. 29 4 5 Page 4-64, ER. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Interrogatory No. 30. State each and every fact upon which you 12 base your conclusion that spent fuel could be shipped to Hanford, 13 Washington, or Idaho Falls, Idaho. 14 Answer to Interrogatory No. 30 15 spent fuel has been shipped from the non-DOE facility at 16 Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2 to the DOE facility at Idaho Falls, 17 Idaho, as a result of the emergency that occurred at the TMI-2 18 facility. The Intervenors contend that the extraordinary risk 19 of earthquake damage to the fuel and spent fuel pool at the 20 facility represents an emergency situation that can similarly 21 justify the removal of the fuel at the Humboldt facility to a 22 Federal interim storage facility such as exist at IIanford, 23 Washington, or the DOE facility at Idaho Falls, Idaho. 24 25 // 26 27 // 28 // } Interrogatory No. 31. State each and every fact that supports y ur contention that it is possible to build an interim storage 2 facility in a safer and more appropriate place. 3 ,} Answer to Interrogatory No. 31 The Intervenors contend that the present facility is 5 sited in the least earthquake-safe place to be found on the 6 7 California coast. Removing the fuel from the present earthquake zone that the Humboldt facility sits within would represent an g 9 improvement in safety margin so long as the new facility is sited in compliance with guidelines set forth in 10 CFR part 100.1.8 }g }j and 10 CFR part 100 Appendix A. See also Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, report 12 titled " Alternatives and Issues for Extended Storage of Spent }3 Nuclear Fuel From Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3", section }4 15 3 4-16 17 Interrogatory No. 32. What do you contend would constitute a safer and more appropriate place for fuel storage? }g }9 Answer to Interrogatory No. 32 Please refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 31. 20 21 22 Interrogatory No. 33. State each and every fact upon which you base your assertion that viable alternatives such as shipping 23 spent fuel to locations other than Diablo Canyon have not been 21 25 considered. 26 Answer to Interrogatory No. 33 The En and the DES make little and insignificant comment 27 23 as to such alternatives. } Interrogatory No. 34. What do you contend would constitute 2 adequate consideration of alternatives? What criteria do you 3 contend should be applied to evaluate alternatives? What do 4 you. contend the regulations require? 5 Answer to Interrogatory No. 34 The criterion for treatment of alternatives is set forth g 7 in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, section g 102 ( 2 ) (c), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502 et seg and 9 10 CFR 51.70 and 51.71. The above-quoted regulations require that the alternatives be developed in detail, that the treatment 10 f the alternatives be so complete that a person not participating 11 12 in the decisionmaking process can, on his own, evaluate the 13 alternatives. The DES fails to provide sufficient information }4 to compare the alternatives intelligently. 15 }g Interrogatory No. 35. What alternatives other than SAFSTOR do 17 you contend should have been considered? }g Answer to Interrogatory No. 35 19 Alternatives include, but are not limited to: 20 (a) Actively explored emergency removal of fuel and 21 storage of the fuel at Hanford, Washington, or Idaho 22 Falls, Idaho, and other DOE facilities; 23 (b) Actively explored the cost, feasibility, and benefits of building an interim storage facility away from 24 25 the seismically active coastal area of Humboldt County; 26 (c) Actively explored the cost, feasibility, and benefits 27 f dry fuel storage, either in the pool itself or in 28 dry storage containers; 3 (d) Actively explored the cost, feasibility, and benefits f reinf reing the spent fuel building and pool; 2 3 (e) Actively explored the cost, feasibility and benefits 4 of sealing the cracks in the spent fuel pool 5 6 Interrogatory No. 36. State each and every fact that supports 7 your contention that the spent fuel at Humboldt is similar to 8 the case with Three Mile Island, and could be shipped to other 9 locations. 10 Answer to Interrogatory No. 36 11 Objection. The question calls for an answer that is not 12 designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. How-13 ever, without waiving the objection, the Intervenors provide the 14 following information: First of all, it is the function of the 15 DES /FES process for the utility and agency to explore in detail 16 all relevant alternatives that are raised. The DES simply does 17 not explore in depth the possiblity of aceking to remove the 18 fuel to a FIS facility by entering into a memorandum of agreemant 19 with the DOE and NRC, as was done at Three Mile Island after 20 the accident at Unit 2. 21 22 Interrogatory No. 37. Describe the immediate dismantlement pro-23 posal as stated in your contention. 24 Answer to Interrogatory No. 37 25 Objection. The question is burdensome and cppressive, and 26 calls for an answer that is not calculated to lead to the discovery 27 of admissible evidence. liowever, without waiving the above 28 objection, the Intervenors provide the following information: 1 Answer to Interrogatory No. 37 (continued) 2 After the fuel and other high-level waste contained in the spent 3 fuel pool is removed to an interim DOE facility, the site would 4 be decommissioned as per the plan set forth in the Gibbs and 5 Hill Decommissioning Study. 4 6 7 Interrogatory No. 38. What is the basis for your statement that 8 the immediate dismantlement proposal is consistent with PG&E's 9 present proposal for decommissioning Diablo Canyon? 10 Answer to Interrogatory No. 38 The NRC has stated its preference for the immediate }} j2 dismantlement option. During the Diablo Canyon proceedings, PG&E's 13 decommissioning estimate, propounded by Thomas LaGuardia, noted that the immediate dismantlement approach is superior to delayed }4 15 Decon or Entombment. }6 Thus, the Intervenors agree with Mr. LaGuardia, that 17 immediate dismantlement is the preferred option, and should be ]g followed at HBPP if at all possible. 19 20 Interrogatory No. 39. What is the basis for your contention that 21 the immediate dismantlement proposal for decommissioning Diablo 22 Canyon would also be appropriate for decommissioning HBPP? 23 Answer to Interrogatory No. 39 24 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 38. 25 26 27 // 28 //,
1 Interrogatory No. 40. If a federal repository for spent fuel were 2 not in place by 1998, do you agree that SAFSTOR should continue? 3 When do you believe a federal repository will be available? 4 Answer to Interrogatory No. 40 5 No. At present, it is not clear when the ultimate high-6 level waste repository will be on line. However, it is the 7 Intervenors' position that the absence of a high-level waste g repository does not preclude interim storage at a FIS or at 9 a privately built repository. 10 }] Interrogatory No. 41. Do you agree SAFSTOR should be a viable 12 alternative at least until a federal repository is available? ]3 Answer to Interrogatory No. 41 14 While it is possible to store the fuel at HBPP, the 15 Intervenors contend that it is not the preferable option, due to 16 seismic and other risks. 17 ]8 Interrogatory No. 42. State why you contend that the license 19 should be discontinued at such time as a federal high-level 20 waste repository is available. 21 Answer to Interrogatory No. 42 22 The dangers of storage at HBPP, in an area of known 23 seismic, tsunami, and storm risk, necessitate transfer of the 21 spent fuel to a safer storage site at the earliest possible time. 25 Assuming, arguendo, that the NRC decides to allow storage of 26 the fuel at HBPP, it is the Intervenors' position that the 27 licensee's possession-only license should be conditioned on 28 fuel removal and decommissioning as soon after the high-level } Answer to Interrogatory No. 42 (continued) 2 facility becomes available as possible. 3 4 Interrogatory No. 43. State why you believe that the proposal 5 that SAFSTOR continue for 30 years is inappropriate. 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 43 7 The inherent dangers of storage of spent fuel at HBPP 8 require that a less dangerous alternative be utilized at the 9 earliest possible time. In addition, the federal repository 10 completion date is planned for less than 30 years. 11 12 Interrogatory No. 44. If dismantlement were to take place as 13 soon as a high-level waste repository is available, what do 14 you contend should be done with the spent fuel at that time? 15 Answer to Interrogatory No. 44 16 Assuming for the purposes of this question that the 17 fuel was not earlier removed to an FIS, MRS, or other interim 18 storage facility, the fuel should be packaged and removed to 19 the high-level waste facility as soon as is safely possible. 20 21 Interrogatory No. 45. State your understanding of the Department 22 of Energy's contractual arrangements and terms for taking spent 23 fuel from nuclear power plants. 24 Answer to Interrogatory No. 45 25 Objection. The question calls for information that 26 abridges the Intervenors' attorney work-product privilege. How-27 ever, without waiving the above stated objection, the Intervenors 28 state that the DOE's contractual agreement for fuel removal l
1 Answer to Interrogatory No. 45 (continued) 2 is unclear and is still to be explored by the Intervenors. 3 4 Interrogatory No. 46. State your understanding of the require-5 ments of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act on storage of spent fuel. 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 46 7 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 45. 8 9 Interrogatory No. 47. State each and every fact upon which you 10 base your contention that the DES failed to address the impact 11 of a major flood, tsunami, or fire at the plant alone, or in 12 conjunction with a major earthquake. 13 Answer to Interrogatory No. 47 14 The DES simply fails to discuss the risk of tsunami, 15 flood, or fire, either separately or together. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Interrogatory No. 48. State each and every fact upon which you 23 base your contention that a 50 or 100 year flood coupled with 24 high tides could possibly inundate the Ilumboldt plant, destroy 25' fuel storage tanks, and cause unknown damage to the containment 26 structures and associated buildings and equipment. 27 Answer to Interrogatory No. 48 28 The Intervenors are researching this issue, but have yet 1 Answer to Interrogatory No. 48 (continued) 2 to conclu&3 their investigation. This information will be provided 3 upon completion of the Intervenors' research. 4 In general, the Intervenors note that Humboldt County has 5 been the site of numerous massive floods that have destroyed 6 bridges, roadways, and homes. Based on this general information, 7 the Intervenors postulate that if a 50 to 100 year. flood occurred 8 during an unusually high tide, the flooding could inundate the 9 facility, causing the damag$s described in the contention. 10 11 Interrogatory No. 49. Provide the assumptions and methodology 12 used to support your allegation that a 50 or 100 year flood 13 coupled with high tides could possibly inundate the Humboldt 14 plant, destroy fuel storage tanks, and cause unknown damage to 15 the containment structures and associated buildings and equipment. 16 Answer to Interrogatory No. 49 17 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 48. 18 19 Interrogatory No. 50. State each and every fact upon which you 20 base your contention that a fire, particularly if caused by an 21 earthquake, could cause damage similar to that which you allege 22 could be caused by a 50 or 100 year flood, coupled with high tides 23 Answer to Interrogatory No. 50 24 A fire occurring in the fuel oil tanks, in the natural 25 gas lines and tanks, or in Unit 1 or 2, could lead to explosions 26 and a general conflagration that could compromise the nearby 27 spent fuel pool and the building it sits in, resulting in offsite 28 contamination. 1 Interrogatory No. 51. Provide the assumptions and methodology 2 used to support your allegation that a fire, particularly if 3 caused by an earthquake, could cause damage similar to that 4 which you allege could be caused by a 50 or 100 year flood, 5 coupled with high tides. 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 51 7 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 50. 8 g Interrogatory No. 52. What is the basis for your statement that 10 it was an " oversight" for the DES not to address the impacts as }} stated in your contention? 12 Answer to Interrogatory No. 52 13 The DES fails to adequately address the impacts of 14 potential flood, fire, tsunami, or earthquake, either separately 15 or cumulatively, as required by NEPA section 101 and 102, or 16 40 CFR 1500 through 1506. 17 18 Interrogatory No. 53. Identify any regulations that you contend 19 require the DES to document any impacts as stated in your 20 contention. I 21 Answer to Interrogatory No. 53 1 22 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 52. i 23 24 Interrogatory No. 54. Provide the basis for your statement that l 25 the alleged oversight is significant. I 26 Answer to Interrogatory No. 54 27 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 53, 28 // L
1 Interrogatory No. 55. Define the term " destroy" as used in your 2 . contention (e.g., destroy fuel storage tank, destroyed a portion j 3 of. crescent city). 4 Answer to Interrogatory No. 55 5 " Destroy" is defined as: to annihilate, demolish, 6 extirpate, ruin. 7 8 Interrogatory No. 56. State the basis for your contention that 9 a tsunami, which previously destroyed a portion of crescent city 10 is relevant to a determination of significant potential environ-1] mental impacts at the plant. 12 Answer to Interrogatory No. 56 13 HBPP is located near the Pacific Ocean Coast line and is 14 also located in close proximity to three capable geologic faults. 15 crescent city, a city only 80 miles away, was partly destroyed 16 by a tsunami in 1964, that was generated in the Gulf of Alaska. The Gulf of Alaska is an area of high seismic activity, and is 17 18 at an angle that threatens the Humboldt coastline.
- Indeed, 19 Highway 101, where it comes near HBPP, has been closed by the 20 authorities twice in the 1980's due to tsunami alerts.
21 If a tsunami were to strike the facility, it is likely to 22 destroy the facility, leading to a release of the radiological 23 inventory in the pool, the rad waste tanks, and may cause damage 24 to the fuel-rods or cause accidental criticality. The Intervenoro 25 submit these impacts are all significant potential environmental 26 impacts. 27 // 28 // 1 Interrogatory No. 57. Define the term "cause unknown damage" 2 as used in your contention. State each and every fact upon 3 which you base your contention that a flood with high tides 4 could "cause unknown damage" to containment structures. 5 Answer to Interrogatory No. 57 The term "cause unknown damage" refers to the fact that 6 7 neither the ER nor the DES discusses these risks in sufficient 8 detail to ascertain the potential impact. Therefore, these 9 impacts are of unknown proportions. Both NEPA section 101 and 10 102 and 40 CFR 1500 et seg require that the potential risks be 11 sufficiently analyzed so that the potential impacts they may either alone or cumulatively, can be assessed. 12
- cause, 13 14 Interrogatory No. 58.
Identify any regulations which you contend 15 require impacts be addressed of floods, tsunamis, or fires in 16 conjunction with a major earthquake. 17 Answer to Interrogatory No. 58 18 NEPA section 101 and 102, 40 CFR 1500 et seg, and 10 CFR 19 51.70 and 51.71. 20 21 Interrogatory No. 59. Define the term " falling debris" as used 22 in your contention. 23 Answer to Interrogatory No. 59 24 Falling debris means parts of facility structures that 25 fall on the spent fuel pool or rad waste tanks as the result of 26 earthquake, flood, tsunami, or explosion at the facility. 27 28 // 1 Interrogatory No. 60. State each and every fact upon which you 2 base your contention that the DES fails to address the impact 3 on the fuel rods stored in the spent fuel " pond" if the storage 4 pool were to be emptied of water by a major earthquake and/or 5 damaged by falling debris. 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 60 7 The des only discussed a very limited number of postu-8 lated types of damage to the fuel. As to the few accidents 9 addressed, insufficient detail is given to allow for a meaning-10 ful comparison of the relative environmental impacts. 11 Further, the DES does not address the possibility of 12 large numbers of the fuel rods being split open and the resulting 13 environmental impact caused by direct exposure of the uranium 14 oxide to the air. 15 // 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 // 28 // 9 1 Interrogatory No. 61. What do you contend would be the impact 2 on the fuel rods, if, as you allege, the pool were to be emptied 3 of water by a major earthquake and/or damaged by falling debris? 4 Identify the specific health effects that you allege would 5 result from this impact. 6 Answer to Interrogatory No. 61 7 The potential dangers include, but are not limited to: 3 (a) The added protection of the pool waters would be 9 eliminated; 10 (b) The potential danger of crushing the fuel rods }] changing their configurations, leading to accidental 12 criticality; 13 (c) The potential danger of breakage of the assembly 14 units exposing the fuel material to the atmosphere; 15 (d) The potential danger incident to leakage of the 16 pool water into the surrounding soil, bay, or 17 wetlands; 18 (e) Economic damage to the local economy. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Interrogatory No. 62. Define " fluctuate wildly" as used in your 25 contention. 26 Answer to Interrogatory No. 62 27 "Pluctuate wildly" is defined as movement up or down, in 28 or out, disorderly or irregularly. 1 Interrogatory No. 63. State each and every fact upon which you 2 base your contention that groundwater levels around the plant 3 could fluctuate wildly during an earthquake. 4 Answer to Interrogatory No. 63 5 It is the Intervenors' understanding that earthquakes can 6 include rapid changes in the water table and liquifaction in 7 low-lying beach areas in major earthquakes. 8 9 Interrogatory No. 64. State each and every fact upon which you 10 base your contention that leakage from the fuel pond would be }} transported out into the bay by fluctuations in the water table 12 due to earthquake-induced fluctuating groundwater levels. 13 Answer to Interrogatory No. 64 14 In a major seismic event, water sloshed out of the spent 15 fuel pool could escape through newly made tears in the building 16 wall and flow downhill into the bay. 17 conceivably, water released under the pool may be 18 hydrologically pumped through the water table into the bay. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Interrogatory No. 65. Describe the scenario by which you allege 25 leakage from the fuel pool would be transported into the bay 26 during an earthquake. 27 Answer to Interrogatory No. 65 28 See Answer to Interrogatory 64. 1
I Interrogatory No. 66. Identify any regulation which you contend 2 requires the DES to address impacts on stored fuel if the pool 3 were damaged or emptied of water. 'I Answer to Interrogatory No. 66 5 See Answer to Interrogatory No. 58. 6 7 Interrogatory No. 67. Provide the basis for your allegation that 8 the pool micht be emptied of water if it were damaged. U Answer to Interrogatory No. 67 10 Pool water could escape if the sides or the bottom of 11 the pool and liner were compromised. Pool water could also 12 escape by being sloshed or splashed out of the pool through 13 holes in the spent fuel building. 14 15 Interrogatory No. 68. State your understanding of the ground-30 water levels at the plant site. 17 Answer to Interrogatory No. 68 18 Please refer to DES 3-12, 3.2.3.6. 19 20 Interrogatory No. 69. State each and every fact upon which you 21 base your contention that license conditions requiring seismic 22 investigations and analyses should not be deleted irrespective 23 of how the license is modified with respect to decommissioning. 2I Answer to Interrogatory No. 69 25 Seismic conditions in the region where IIBPP is located 20 present potential hazards to the storage activities during all 27 times of storage. This hazard should continue to be monitored 28 into the future so as to gain knowledge relevant to the siting 1 Answer to Interrogatory No. 69 (continued) 2 of nuclear facilities and to be able to continue to assess the 3 potential seismic risk at HBPP. 4 5 Interrogatory No. 70. Describe the type of seismic investigations 6 and analyses that you believe should be performed during decom-7 missioning. 8 Answer to Interrogatory No. 70 9 A thorough investigation that fully and completely 10 addresses the distinct, rather than generic, seismic hazards 11 that the Humboldt Bay region presents. At minimum, the continued 12 operation of the seismic investigation equipment at the site. 13 14 Interrogatory No. 71. Identify the specific health effects that 15 you allege would result from discontinuing any such seismic 10 investigations and analyses. 17 Answer to Interrogatory No. 71 18 Human and environmental contamination and economic damage 10 caused by damage to the storage facilities from seismic activities. 20 21 Interrogatory No. 72. Identify the specific safety effects that 22 you allege would result from discontinuing any such seismic 23 investigations and analyses. 24 Answer to Interrogatory No. 72 25 Please refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 71. 26 27 77 28 // 1 Interrogatory No. 73. Define the term "an area of great and 2 ever changing seismic activity" as used in your contention. 3 Answer to Interrogatory No. 73 4 HBPP is located at the triple plate juncture, is located 5 near three capable earthquake faults, and is in an area that G has a history of frequent seismic activity. 7 8 Interrogatory No. 74. State each and every fact upon which you 9 base your contention that additional seismic investigations and 10 analyses should be performed for the SAFSTOR period. )) Answer to Interrogatory No. 74 12 See Answer to Interrogatories No. 69 and 73. 13 11 Interrogatory No. 75. Identify any regulation that you contend 15 requires a seismic investigation and analysis program for a 16 plant to be decommissioned. 17 Answer to Interrogatory No. 75 18 The Intervenors are aware of no such regulation. 10 20 Interrogatory No. 76. For each answer to these interrogatories, 21 and all subparts thereto, identify each person who participated 22 in the preparation of your answers pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740b(b). 23 Answer to Interrogatory No. 76 24 Scott L. Fielder 25 Larry Dick 26 27 // 28 // 1 Interrogatory No. 77. Provide the professional qualifications, 2 if any, of each such person identified. 3 Answer to Interrogatory No. 77 4 Scott II. Fielder, Attorney at Law 5 Larry Dick, Attorney at Law G 7 Interrogatory No. 78. Please identify each and every document 8 which you claim supports each fact set forth in your responses 9 to the preceding interrogatories and correlate each such document 10 as specifically as possible (page and paragraph number) with 11 each specific response. 12 Answer to Interrogatory No. 78 13 Objection. The question is vague, ambiguous, burdensome, 14 and oppressive. 15 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 '
1 ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 2 3 1. Request No. 1. You are requested to produce each document 4 identified in your answers to the preceding interrogatories. 5 Answer to Request No. 1: 6 The Intervenors relied on the following documents in 7 answering these questions, all of which documents are already 8 possessed by the Licensee. 9 (a) PG&E's Environmental Report 10 (b) The DES; 11 (c) PG&E's answers to the first and second sets of 12 interrogatories propounded by the Intervenors; 13 (d) Battelle Northwest Labs reports entitled: 14 (1) " Extended Fuel Storage in The Existing 15 Onsite ilumboldt Bay Unit No. 3 Storage Pool", 16 (2) " Alternatives and Issues for Extended Storage 17 of Spent Nuclear Fuel From Humboldt Bay Power 18 Dlant Unit No. 3". 19 (e) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 20 (f) 10 CFR 21 (g) 40 CFR 22 (h) Comments of the California Coastal Commission, 23 authored by B. Noah Tilghman, dated June 9, 1986; 24 (i) California Coastal Commission Act; 25 (j) Gibbs and 11111 Decommissioning Study 26 (k) Newspaper accounts of the 1964 tsunami that destroyed 27 part of Crescent City on March 29, 1964. 28 1 2. Request No. 2. You are reques'ed to produce all documents 2 you intend to use or rely upon in written testimony or oral 3 argument. 4 Answer to Request No. 2 5 The Intervenors have not yet decided which documents G they will rely upon in written testimony and oral argument. 7 8 3. Request No. 3. You are requested to produce all documents 9 you intend to have marked for identification at the hearing of 10 this matter or which you will attach to any written testimony. )) Answer to Request No. 3 12 See answer to Request No. 2. 13 Dated: May 20, 1987 14 Respectfully Submitted, 15 'y, r,/ 16
- f.
/'l.,,,/ 17 f' / SCOTT L. FIELDER 18 Attorney for the Joint Intervenors 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 COLKETFD ' #C PROOF OF SERVICE g g gg 53 I am a resident of the County of Humbol@ tit.::. I am. w over the age of eighteen years and not a party tg0%hM{Nith'in'CI action. My business address if 517 Third Street, Sui't4 "14, Eureka, California, 95501. I served the On May 20, 1987 within FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (RESPONSE) on the interested parties in said action by: (>C) placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Eureka, California, addressed as listed below; ( ) personally delivering a true copy thereof to the persons listed below. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Eureka, California, on May 20. 1on? )k(tu5 ^)vth CLAUDETTE C. SMITil DROOP OF SERVICE SEE ATTACilED LIST L.
PROOF OF SERVICE -- ATTACl! MENT Richard F. Locke !!onorable Wesley Chesbro PG&E Supervisor, Third District P. O. Box 7442 P. O. Box 4661 San Francisco, CA 94120 Arcata, CA 95521 Mitzi Young, Esq. lionorable Dan llauser Office of the Exec. Legal Director Assemblyman, 2nd District U.S. N. R. C. 1334 Fifth St. Washington, D C 20555 Eureka, CA 95501 Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman I!onorable Doug Bosco Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Congressman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 517 Seventh Street Eureka, CA 95501 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Document Room Redwood Alliance 1717 "11" Street NW P. O. Box 293 Washington, D C 20555 Arcata, CA 95521 Gay Barr Dr. James II. Carpenter, Member League of Women Voters Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1217 Scarles U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Eureka, CA 95501 Washington, D C 20555 Mr. Bruce Norton c/o Richard Locke PG&E P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C Attn Docketing & Service Section Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris, Member Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C 20555 Kathloon Maloney, Attorney at Law PUC Legal Division 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Ralph & Nona Kraus 2479 Wrigley Rd. Eureka, CA 95501 lionorable Barry Keene Second Senate District 533 G Street Eureka, CA 95501 w -}}