ML20098D183

Licensee Addl Response to Intervenor 830609 Second Set of Interrogatories,Per ASLB 830815 Memorandum & Order. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20098D183
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date:	09/06/1983
From:	Hartman S, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION
Shared Package
ML20093C821	List: GO2-76-563, Application for Ol.Environ Rept - OL Stage Also Encl. W/O Environ Rept ML20093C818 ML20096H672 ML20096H687 ML20096H696 ML20096H709 ML20098C636 ML20098C644 ML20098C647 ML20098C657 ML20098C670 ML20098C683 ML20098C691 ML20098C698 ML20098C708 ML20098C712 ML20098C722 ML20098C747 ML20098C749 ML20098C757 ML20098C759 ML20098C766 ML20098C771 ML20098C776 ML20098C807 ML20098C837 ML20098C852 ML20098C863 ML20098C876 ML20098C883 ML20098C885 ML20098C910 ML20098C933 ML20098C936 ML20098C944 ML20098C957 ML20098C966 ML20098C976 ML20098C981 ML20098C987 ML20098C998 ML20098D000 ML20098D009 ML20098D014 ML20098D028 ML20098D036 ML20098D047 ML20098D057 ML20098D068 ML20098D070 ... further results
References
CON-WPPSS-119, FOIA-84-603 CPA, NUDOCS 8409270397
Download: ML20098D183 (6)

Text

'3 83o958 '

// @/O

. 'i '

s.

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD cu

}h&

f9 In the Matter of )

-)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER )

SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460 CPA

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES On June 9, 1983, intervenor served the Washington Public Power Supply System (" Licensee") with a second set

( Licensee objected to interrogatories of inte rogatories.

19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31-35, 38, 42-45 and 47.

Intervenor subsequently moved to compel responses to interrogatories 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 38 and 42 and to cornpel a more complete response to interrogatories 26 and

50. On August 15, 1983, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order granting the motion to compel answers to interrogatories 25, 27, and 28 and to compel a more

~

complete response to interrogatory 26. Applicant hereby provides its responses in accordance with the August 15, 1983 Memorandum and Order.

INTERROGATORY 25: Explain the difference, if any, between deferral, mothball and preservation.

8409270397 840824 PDR FOIA CDHEN84-603 PDR

Ja. -

3 .- 2 .

Response: The Licensee does not as a matter of )

official policy distinguish between deferral, mothball and _

preservation. However,.as"a matter of common usage,

" deferral" means postponed, " mothballed" means protected against_the-elements and other environmental conditions,  !

and " preservation" means protecting against any peril or alteration.

INTERROGATORY 26: To what events is the restart of construction on WNP-1 tied. Explain fully your answer.

Response: The restart of construction on WNP-1 is tied to the ability of Licensee to finance construction

(

o f WNP-1. As soon as an acceptable means of financing becomes available, construction of WNP-1 will be resumed.

f A decision as to whether.such financing is available will be made by the Licensee based on sound business practice.

r INTERROGATORY 27: What would be the effect of I

P default on WNP-4 and 5 on the restart and completion of r

WNP-1, Provide all probability analyses, scenarios and f

[ time predictions.

Response At the present time it is impossible

. to predict, and License has not evaluated, what would be j

l the exact effect of default on WNP-4 and 5 on the restart j and completion of WNP-1. Licensee has not prepared any i.

I 9

i j k

• • * *****2* ** * '*

m... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ = + - * - = *~*e************* ** ** ** *

. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___._,__.....,-..--__..,...,---.__.y,-,_,. . . . _ , _ . . , . - _ , - ._.,.r,,.._y...____--_.._,#..., ,m.,__,--,-_m

.e

~

L'. - -

w _ 3_

analyses, stenarios and time predictions assessing the effects of default on WNP-4 and 5 on the restart and com-plation of WNP-1.

INTERROGATORY 28: What is the effect of deferral of construction on WNP-3 on the restart and completion of WNP-17 Give the basis of your response.

Response: The Licensee has not evaluated and therefore does not know what the effect of deferral of construction on WNP-3 would have on the restart and com-pletion of WNP-1.

1 Respec .f y submitted,

(

/A Nicho1Ws S/.I Reynolds Sanfori IL iartman DEBEVp'. SE{&

1 LIBERMAN

- 1200 Livelgeenth St., N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Licensee September 6, 1983 e

0 %

. - - . , ~. .. ,......,.....--....-n.---- v..-, ~ ~ . .

-..--.3.----. -w....-.==

L_ m

-l

(_ .- <

Telecopy Fcesimile .

l yq - ..

STAit F 1RSHINGT0ll

~

) l

. )

C0lNTf f BENT 0ll )

a A.G.Hosler,beingdulysworn,disposesandsays:

That he is Project Licensing Manager, WNP-1, for the Washington ..

Public Power Supply System, and knows the contents of the foregoing Licensee'sAdditionalResponsetoIntervenor'sSecondSetofinter-ragatories; that the same is true of his own knowledge except astomattersthereinstatedoninformation  ; belief, and as a

to that, he believes them to be true.

(

O .8 %,-

i Sworn to and subscribed fore se on this (, f day o 1983.

l .

l -

d.2W&

F ' Notary Public l

$N!!krf klA N8N

/4 l .

, . .I ! . ,' .,

.v 1 .

' .jj i

-e, .

............-..----...---...- - L----.-....-- - - - - - ~ -- -

g

..s I

• gL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

NASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing

" Licensee's Additional Response to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 6th day.of September, 1983:

(-

Herbert Grossman, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director .

Board .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Jerry Harbour Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 g

3

• Ete

. .. . . 3... . . . . . . . . . , , , , . . . .

..-,.,. . .. ...,.s ., . . . . . . . , . . .

p , .e- .

a

e

• - 7.

Mr. Gerald C. Sorensen Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Manager of Licensing Energy Facility Site Washington "Public Power Evaluation Council supply System State of Washington 3000 George Washington Way Mail Stop PY-ll Richland, Washington 99352 Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr.-Scott W. Stucky Mr. Eugene Rosolie Docketing & Service Branch Coalition for Safe Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 527 Commission 408 South West 2nd Washington, D. C. 20555 Portland, Oregon 97204 Js sW Sa'nfp d L. Hartmah

==

l .-

i l

l l

i

-s.

,7..........._..

\- ,

<$$) E37909

$. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,y

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEE9BE_IHg_6IQMIg_g6EEIY_6HQ_Liggg!!EQ_@g669 In the Matter of )

)

) Docket No. 50-460CPA WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER 'SUPPLY SYSTEM )

et. al.

E 'II ?

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) ) d

&,o;s'he TOsly Gew, INTERVENOR'S UPDATE RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S SECOND SET OF INIEBB996IQBIEg_6NQ_BEgyEgI_IQ_EBQQMgEt_6Mgy@I_12t_1292 Iotstt9seteEY_Z State what you believe are the functions of Bonneville Power Adminstration (BPA).

E!!P90!? .

Intervenor believes the functions of BPA is to -

distribute electrical energy in the Pacific Northwest and duties as contair d in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, enacted December 5, 1980.

ID$9EE99919EY_0 State what you believe are the functions of Licensee.

89999D99 Intervenor believes that Licensee's function is to construct, finance and operate electrical generating facilities.

l f ID19Erggaggry_2 l

' Provide the basus for your response to Interrogatories 7 and 8.

i l l 1

- 1

i

?) Bf!P90!! Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning &

1.

Conservation Act, A Summary, Bonneville Power Adminstration (BPA), undated.

2. Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning &

Conservation Act of 1980,,16 U.S.C. soc.839.

3. Net Billing Agreement', November 16, 1972.

4. WPPSS Inquiry, Washington State Senate Energy &

Utilities Committee, January 12, 1981.

IDitEE99919EY_2d Identify all documents in your possession obtained from BPA concerning the delay of WNP-1 and state when and from whom you obtained each of these documents.

89fE9Dft

1. Analysis of Alternatives Related to WNP-3, May 26, 1983, BPA. ,

2. Analysis of Resource Alternatives: Summary and Conclusions, May 26,. 1983, BPA.

Intervenor continues to object to the other part of this interrogatory.

IDistrese19ty_25 _

Identify all documents in your possession obtained from any source other that BPA concerning the delay of WNP-1 and state when and from whom you obtained each of these documents.

89fpggsg Intervenor has already idenified all documents in its possession in various filings in this proceeding. Except for the documents referred to interrogatory 24 all other documents have been obtained from other than the BPA.

Intervenor also now has in its possession documents received ,

from Licensee after requesting copies of certain e

unn

[ ._

.j documents Licent.ee made available in response to Intervenor interroastories. Intervenor assumes that Licensee knows what those documents are so sees no need to list those documents at this time. However if Licensee does not have that list Intervenor will supply a list upon request.

Intervonor also has in its possession the following documents:

1. Informal Opening Remarks, Peter T. Johnson, Bonneville Power Adminstrator, Before the Subcommittee on Mining, Forest Management and Bonneville Power Adminstratica of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Portland, Oregon, June 10, 1983.

2. Northwest Power Planning Council, Statement Before the Subcommittee on Mining, Forest Management, and the Bonneville Power Adminstration of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, June 10, 1983.

3. Letter with Attachment from D.W. Mazur, Managing Director. WPPSS, to Honorable Jim Weaver, Chairman, Subcommittee on Mining, Forest Management, and Bonneville Power Administration, dated June 8, 1983.

Respectfully submitted Eug e Roso11 , Director Con ition For Safe Power September 27 1983.

1 I

. . I

( . .

d STATE Or 04.iGON )

) ss.

County of +u tnoman )

I, Eugene Rosolie, having first been duly sworn, co depose anc say as follows:

1. Tnat I represent the Coalition for Safe Power in the Matter of WASWINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WNP-1),

Docket 50-460CPA; and

2. Tnat the responses to " LICENSEE' S SECOND SET OF INTERRCGATORIES AND REQUEST TO PROVIDE TO INTERVENOR, DATED AUGUUST 12, 1983," and those responses contained i.

"INTERVENOR' S UPDATE RESPONSE TO LICENSEE' S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND ret UEST TO PRODUCE, " wuere prepared under my direction and are true and correct to the best of roy knowiec;e except as to matters tnerein stated on inforraation and belief, and as to that I believe them to De true. -

Signed:

Euger Roso11 dk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before rne this s kJ ___ day of l '

l f6eG&eg_, 1983. ,

l L Not y Public for Oregon l

M ommission Expires //Ja/8pl .

1 O

e.

t

-m= e e me e e "M . e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEE 9BE_ Igg _6Ig51g_S6ggIy_gEQ_LIggNSIgg_BQ689 In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460CPA et. al. )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

GEBIIEIGAIE 9E EEEVI9E I hereby certify that copies of "INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION TO COMPEL," and "INTERVENOR'S UDATED RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST TO PRODUCE, AUGUST 12,1983," in the above captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 277H day of September, 1983:

Herbert Grossman, Chairman Nicholas Reynolds Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Debevoise & L2eberman .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 17th Street. N.W.

Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20036 Glen O. Bright Dr. Jerry Harbour Adminstrative Judge Adminstrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Bvord Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 Mitzi Young Gerald Sorenson, Manager Counsel for NRC Staff Licensing Program Office of Executive Legal Dir. WPPSS Nuclear 'agulatory Commission 300 G. Washington Way Washington D.C. 20555 Richland, WA 99352 State of Washington Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Energy Facility Site Evaluation Board Panel Council Mail Stop PY-11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555

---

Je- & -

Eug e Roso1 Con ition Mr Saf e Pc.wer

a 838371 1 ,* ..

f) ' ,,

h LBP-83-66 j,8 -

' ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

Before Administrative Judoes: 'a Aer oud Herbert Grossman, Chairman gav Glenn O. Bright Dr. Jerry Harbour [EF In the Matter of DocketNo.50-460h WASHINGTON PUB' _ IC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, 8.Lt al. (ASLBP No. 82-479-06 OL)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) October 14, 1983 1

\

l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l (AdmittingIntervenor,RulingonContentions, and Establishino a Further Schedule)

=

MEMORANDUM, On June 23, 1983, this Board issued a Memorandum detemining that Petitioner, the Coalition for Safe Power (CSP), had met the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. We did not rule on contentions and, ,

since we did not determine that Petitioner had raised at least one liti-gable contention, we could not rule on granting the petition to inter-vene. On that same date, we granted the motion of the State of Washing- .

ton to participate as an interested state and gave it until July 12,

, , . , i ,d i d u-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _

. i 1983 to respond to Petitioner's contentions. The State of Washington did not avail itself of the opportunity.

We now rule on contentions. Since we admit several of these con-tentions, we admit the Petitioner as an Intervenor in this proceeding.

For reasons discussed below, we also are suspending discovery.

~

I. RULING ON CONTENTIONS 1

Contention 1 Contention 1 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that there is no reasonable assur-ance that WNP-1 will be substantially completed, in a timely fashion as required by 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, Section VIII (b)(1) and 10 CFR 50.55(b)&(d) which provided that an applica-tion for an Operating License will be filed "at or about the time of completion of the construction ... of the facility" and that a license may be issued when there is "reasenable assurance that the construction of the facility will be sub-stantially completed, on a timely basis."

This contention questions whether the application for an operating license is ripe rather than raises a substantive issue to be litigated. '

\

It is, perhaps, an argument for the Board's not entertt.ining the operat-t ing license application at this time, but not a matter to be litigated in this proceeding. To the extent that it raises the issue of whether whether the facility is being completed on a timely basis, that issue

t can only properly be raised in the context of Applicant's application for an extension of its construction permit completion date. A Licens-ing Board has been convened and a proceeding is in progress with regard -

to that proposed construction permit extension in which CSP is also an Intervenor, a*

I The contention is denied.

Contention 2 Contention 2 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that Applicant has neither adequately -

nor correctly assessed the somatic, teratogenic and genetic effects of ionizing radiation which will be released by WNP-1 during normal, transient and accident conditions and thus underestimates the human cost of the project in the cost-benefit analysis required by 10 CFR 51.21, 51.20(b)&(c) and 51.23(c).

The contention itself would be too broad to litigate. However, l Petitioner has supplied approximately four pages of specifics with regard to Applicant's alleged underestimation of the human cost of the nuclear project. Supplement to Request for Hearing at 3-6. We would ,

limit any litigation on this contention to the matters specified in the basis.

e e-O.

~ .

Staff opposes this contention because, while-it questions the cost-benefit balance, it does not allege that the errors would tilt the cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license. We see lit-tie merit in Staff's objection. Given that Petitioner questions the cost-benefit an.alysis in the context of opposing the issuance of the operating license, we see it as implicit in the contention that Peti-tioner is alleging that a proper assessment of the cost would result in an unfavorable balance. See discussion at Tr. 129-132. There is no need to rewrite the contention to take cognizance of that allegation.

Applicant raises certain objections that have little relevance to the contention. Applicant challenges as impemissible any attack by Petitioner on the standards established by the Comission in Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 or applicable regulations. We agree. However, the contention does not question the values adopted by the Comission in Appendix 1. It questions only the health effects of radiological relea-ses from the facility -- an area not proscribed by Comission regula-tion.

Applicant also objects (Tr. 138) to Petitioner's assertion that Applicant has misstated the total and cumulative impact required for multi-reactor sites, on the ground that the regulations do not require combining the doses from multiple plants on the site. Applicant is .cor-rect with regard to Part 50 dose limitations unless Applicant has elec-ted not to comply with the requirements of 1 D of Appendix I, 5 II. See n

~ ~

second paragraph of ppendix I, i II.D. If Applicant has not so elec-ted, only the more liberal limitations of 10 C.F.R. I _100.11, rather than. .those of Part 50, need be met by combined doses from multi- -

reactors.

Finally, the Licensing Board will not entertain any matters covered in the basis to the contention that were published prior to the issuance of the notice for oppo'rtunity for hearing on the construction pemit or were actually considered at the construction pemit hearing.

Limited to the matters specified in the basis for the contention ~

and by our discussion of the contention, the contention is admitted.

Contention 3 Contention 3 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that Applicant should be required to conduct an evaluation of and provide protection from the potential problems posed by Electro-magnetic Pulse (EMP) to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.40(c). Licensing WNP-1 l without protection from EMP unreasonably jeopardizes the com- l mon defense and safety by 1) impairing defense responses which might release EMP over the State of Washington and thereby ,

cause a major release of radiation from WNP-1 and 2) acting as a potentially large source of lethal radioactivity which might be released by means of an EMP trigger which could be acti-vated by any power, friend or foe, able to deliver a nuclear device over the U.S., 3) placing the U.S. population hostage -

to threats of EMP attack against WNP-1 and 4) placing the people of Washington State at risk of major peacetime loss for which no compensation can be expected.

i ta .

l As Petitioner recognizes (Supplement to Request for Hearing at 6; Tr.140-141),10 C.F.R.. I 50.13 provides, inter alia, that an Applicant is n.ot required to provide design features for protection against the effects of " attacks and destructive acts *** directed against the facil-

- ity by an enemy ,of the United States.! This regulation has been held by other Licensing Boards to ' preclude the admission of similar contention involving electromagnetic pulse (EMP): Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company (Perry Nuclea'r Power ~ Plant, Unit 1 and 2), LBP-81-42,14 NRC 842,843-845(1981); Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-16, 15 NRC 566, 587-8 (1982); Consumers Power Co.

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-28,15 NRC 759 (1982), aff'd on othergrounds,ALAB-674,15NRC1101(1982).

Here, however, Petitioner provides scenarios under which a thermo-

~

nuclear device is detonated over the United States thereby creating EMP that adversely affects the facility, by accident, by friendly forces, or by the United States as a defense measure.

We view these scenarios as cosmetic devices to circumvent the pro--

hibition of 9 50.13 against hearing the subject matter of this conten-tion, and too speculative to achieve that result. We agree with the .

Board in Perry, supra, that the nature of the act itself of detonating a thermonuclear device over _ the, facility with an adverse impact on the ,

facility constitutes a, pricri, a destructive act directed against the l.

facility by an enemy of the united States.

• e

-ee p , v ~ ~, , . , ~ - .-..,-__r.--.y , v . - - - * -

L .' ' .

i  % ,

The contention is denied.

. Contention 4 -

Contention ,4 starts as follows:

Petitioner contends that Applicant has not provided suf-ficient information to show that WNP-1 can operate without hazard to the public health and safety in the event of an ash eruption of the Mount St. Helens, or other active, volcano as required by Appendix A of Part 50,10 CFR. l l

Applicant objects to the contention on the grounds that it ignores the discussions of potential ashiall in the WNp-1 FSAR and overlooks Applicant's comitment to assure compliance with Part 50, Appendix A. -

Applicant's Opposition to Supplement to Request for Hearing at 28-30; Tr. 146-152. As Applicant indicates, however, the thrust of the FSAR discussion is that Applicant has not yet complied with the regulatory requirements with regard to ashfall but merely' comits itself to do so before the issuance of the operating license. Where Applicant has a present regulatory requirement, albeit one that it has comitted to satisfy, Petitioner has every right to raise as a contention the failure to currently satisfy the requirement. The contention, involving only ,

the ash eruption from Mount St. Helens, is narrow enough to satisfy the specificity requirements.

e

n. _ .. , . .

~ .

~ .

8-This situation is unlike that passed on by the Commission in Duke-Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC

.(June 130,1983), involving contentions which lack specificity be-cause the information to be relied upon would be in future licensing related documents, to be submitted on Commission-established schedules.

Here, Applicant has a current obligation to demonstrate in the FSAR that it can operate WNP-1 without hazard to the public health and safety in the event of an ash eruption of Mount St. Helens, and Petitioner's con-tention does not lack specificity.

The contention is admitted.

Contention 5 As originally submitted in Petitioner's Supplement to Petition for Hearing (at 10), Contention 5 read as follows:

i Petitioner contends that Applicant will not, and, in -

fact, does not have the ability to, implement a QA/0C program which will function as required by 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, GDC 1,10 CFR 50.40 and Section VIII(2)&(3) of Appendix A to Part. 2 to assure public health and safety. Moreover, Appli-cant has repeatedly violated 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2)(1) in not reporting the numerous breakdowns in its QA/QC program. .

In order to accommodate certain objections by Staff and Applicant (see Tr. 164, 170-171), Petitioner reworded the contention (Tr. 279) to

f read " Petitioner contends that Applicant will not adequately implement a QA/QC program at the operating-license stage."

The purpose of the change was to clarify the thrust of the conten-tion as being directed toward the operating QA/QC, rather than the con-struction QA/QC. Notwithstanding the rewording of the contention, Staff and Applicant continued to oppose its admission, primarily on the grounds that it lack'ed specificity and basis, and for raising matters which are' not within the scope of this operating license proceeding.

Applicant's Response at 30-32; Staff Response at 10-11;- Tr. 170-171, 279-280.

The matters raised in Petitioner's basis relate to defective construction practices with regard to WNP-1 and WNP-2. Applicant and Staff insist that the problems encountered with regard to WNP-2 are -

unrelated to WNP-1, and that, in any event, whatever transpires during i

construction is unrelated to any quality assurance program implemented i for plant operation.

3

'e W do not agree. In Duouesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Sta-tion, Unit 2), ALAB-240, 8 AEC 829 (1974), relied upon by Petitioner, the Appeal Board reviewed an initial decision in which it found that the Licensing Beard had inadequately considered the quality assurance pro- ,

gram at the Applicant's nuclear unit 2 in light of quality assurance problems encountered at unit 1. The Appeal Board stated (at 833):

G

l

)l

~

Certainly, the applicant's and architect-engineer's .

actual performance at an ongoing construction program is a factor which must be taken into account in evaluating the likelihood that the established QA program for another project will be implemented. [ Footnote omitted.]

Nor did the Appeal Board limit its concern with the quality assur-ance programs during construction of one unit only to the construction of another unit, but acknowiedged the implication that faulty quality assurance at construc' tion might carry over to plant operation, as fol-lows (at840):

What we have said here involves construction activity.

It goes without saying, however, that the same concerns are applicable at the operating license stage. It is equally im-portant that the applicant be comitted to, and that properly qualified people be available to carry out adequately, the -

operational quality assurance program.

In addition to the quality assurance problems discussed in the i basis for Contention 5, Petitioner also disqussed quality assurance problems in the basis for Contention 20. Petitioner has requested that l

f the Board consider both bases for each of these contentions. Tr. 268-9.

Whether or not the basis for Contention 20 is included, we accept the

! examples given -in the basis for Contention 5, even to the extent that they relate to the construction of WNP-2, as being sufficient to support the questions raised by Petitioner concerning the implementation of the

~

l quality assurance program for th'e operation of the plant. ,

e e

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

e- ..

^

f. -

^

Centention 5, as restated, is admitted.

, Contention 6 .

Contention 6 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that Applicant has not demonstrated the ability to remove decay heat from WNP-1 using natural circulation in the event of an accident and thus violates GDC 34 &.35 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A.

In its written response to Petitioner's Supplement to Request for Hearing, Staff did not object to the admission of Contention 6 provided that the scope of the contention were limited to the issues stated in the basis supporting the contention. Staff Response at 11. At the pre-hearing conference, however, Staff conceded that the contention is nar-rowly worded. Tr. 173. The Board agrees that it is narrowly worded and would not further limit its scope.

Staff had approved the admission of this contention on the basis of i

the Appeal Board's consideration of this issue in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-708,16 NRC 1770 l

(1982), but offered that the resolution of these issues in the eyes of '

the Appeal Board and the NRC Staff would moot Petitioner's concern. Id.

at 12. Although the Appeal Board has now spoken on this issue in ALAS-729, issued on May 26,1983 (slip op. at 21-88), 17 NRC , , the

O

- 12 -

- decision - has not yet been -reviewed by the Comission. To the. extent that the final disposition of that proceeding is on a generic basis, this contention can . be resolved by appropriate motions for summary disposition.

Similarly, Applicant's objections (Applicant Response at 33-34; Tr.

172-3), that the FSAR demonstrates that the allegations in the conten-tion are in error, are arguments on the merits that are appropriate for sumary disposition, rather than for the pleading stage. We also do not agree with Applicant (Applicant's Response at 32-33) that Petitioner has

~

not stated a sufficient basis for the contention.

The contention is admitted.

4 Contention 7 4

Contention 7 states as follows:

J Petitioner contends that the improvements proposed by the Applicant to the Power Operated Relief Valve and Safety & Re-lief ' Valves will not meet the requirements of NUREG-0737 and

' 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A. GDC 14 and the defense-in-depth principle of the Commission. .

In the basis stated for its contention (Petitioner's Supplement to Request.for Hearing at 14-15), Petitioner failed to list any particulars in which the PORV failed to meet the requirements of NUREG-0737 and GDC ,

. m , . - ,-..,y - ~ . - -

- . , - , , c , . - , -----,,cw,-a c.,, ,.r. -a.,-.,-. -.%~_, -- -, , -,.,. --. - , ----- - , .,,

m .

7..

14. Although offered a further opportunity to state these particulars at the prehearing conference, Petitioner was unable to do so. Tr. 177-183.,. -

The contention does not meet the specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) and is denied.

Contention 8 Contention 8 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that methods proposed by Applicant to meet instrumentation for detection of inadequate core cooling, NUREG-0737, are inadequate. . -

Petitioner withdrew Contention 8 at the prehearing conference. Tr.

183-184.

n Contention 9 Contention 9 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that there are systems, equipment and components classified as non-safety related that were shown in the accident at THI-2 to have a safety function or an adverse effect on safety and that 'such systems should be required to -

meet safety-grade criteria. Moreover, Applicant should be required to perform an analysis to identify all such systems, equipment and components.

y e

w- -w

-_ . - =

'1 14 ..

With regard to the first sentence in the contention, Petitioner has not particularized any systems, ~ equipment or components that it. asserts are, classified as non-safety related but should be required to meet safety grade criteria. Therefore, that portion of the contention lacks the required specificity. .

-With regard to the second sentence of the contention, requiring Applicant to perform 'an analysis to identify all systems, equipment and components that have a safety function, there appears to be an estab-lished process by which those items are cateaorized as being required to meet safety grade criteria. Tr. 185-8. Petitioner has failed to iden-tify any deficiencies in the process or any example of a mischaracter-ization of any item.

• Consequently, the second sentence of the conten-tion fails to meet the specificity requirements of the regulations.

The contention is denied.

l 3 Contention 10 l

Contention 10 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that the B&W Once Through Steam Gen-erator (OTSG) design used for WNP-1 is overly sensitive to secondary side perturbations and has not been adequately ana-

• lyzed as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix A. .

l t

~ '

^

_ _ _ _~ _-- .,

l .

Staff does not oppose the admission of the contention provided that the scope is limited to the issues stated in the basis to the conten-tion. The basis gives a number of specifics with regard to the alleged '

over-sensitivity of that particular steam generator design. We would allow Petitioner to litigate all of the specifics mentioned in its basis. However, given what we view as a fairly narrow area of contro .

v'ersy, i.e., the alleged over-sensitivity of the steam generator, we do not see any utility to restricting further the scope of what is already limited by the wording of the contention itself.

Applicant's objection (Applicant's Response at 39-40) is a factual rebuttal, more appropriate to disposition at some later stage in the proceeding than an objection to admissibility. * -

The contention is admitted.

Contention 11 Contention 11 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that the Applicant has not shown that -

safety-related (electrical and mechanical) equipment and com-ponents are environmentally qualified to a degree that would provide adequate assurance that the requirements of GDC 1 and 4 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A a.re satisfied.

Y

~ ' '

y Staff and Applicant object to this contention, in part because a new environmental qualification rule was approved by the Comission on January 6,1983 which provides a deadline for meeting the requirements that has not yet passed. Staff Response at 16; Tr. 191-193. We do not consider that objection valid because the Commission amended its regu-lations to promulgate that new rule only to " clarify and strengthen the criteria for environmental . qualification" of the equipment. 48 Fed.

RE. 2729, 2730 (January 21, 1983). If Applicant has not met the old criteria, upon which the new rule was primarily based, it would not meet the " strengthened" criteria.

i However, th'e contention itself is so vague that it clearly cannot I meet the specificity requirements of the rules. Neither, for the most part, can the underlying basis. The allegations therein that Applicant has not met the criteria of Regulatory Guides 1.70 and 1.89, IE Bulletin t

79-01B, 00R guidelines, NUREG-0588, etc., are not supported by concrete and substantial instances to make them litigable issues.

Only one matter raised by Petitioner appears specific enough at this juncture in the proceeding to be litigable. Petitioner alleges that the present testing methods underestimate the long-tenn effects of .

radiation exposure on polymers found in cable insulation and jackets, seals, rings and gaskets, because they use high levels of radiation over short periods of time, rather than low levels over long periods of time.

, , _ . - . - . - - - . - - . - - . - . . , , - - , . . - . . . - - - - - -. . . . - , - , - - - - + . . - - - . . , . m. -. --- , ,

q Petitioner refers to certa'in NRC documents and articles to support its allegations.

l We admit as a contention only that portion of the basis relating to the testing of polymers.

Contention 12 Conte'ntion 12 states as follows:

m Petitioner contends that Applicant has not provided rea-sonable assurance that the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminiea) and other aquatic debris will not befoul the intake / discharge structure of WNP-1 in both normal and emergency operating con-ditions, thus endangering the public health and safety. .

Applicant opposes this contention purely on factual grounds. It attempts to demonstrate that even if the intake / discharge structure were clogged, there would be no adverse effect upon'the ability to shut down a plant safely and maintain it in that condition. Applicant's Response at 43-45; Tr. 198.

Staff appears to agree with Applicant's analysis, but believes that the contention should be disposed of by sumary dis-position. Tr. 199, 203.

From the discussion at prehearing conference (Tr. 197-204), it appears likely that Applicant could easily establish by reference to the FSAR and relevant safety criteria that the contention is factually 94 8 .

- - . - - - - ,,-,-,,-..,w- - -, . , . - . . ~ - - , - , , - - , -

invalid. Nevertheless, the Appeal Board has prohibited Licensing Boards from dismissing contentions on the merits at the pleading stage even if demonstrably ' insubstantial. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens -

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 550 (1980). .But, cf. dissenting opinion in that proceeding, at 553-558.

We cannot entertain . Applicant's challenge to the contention prior to a motion for sununary disposition.

The contention is admitted.

Contention 13 Contention 13 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that the Babcox and Wilcox Emergency Core Cooling System (B&W ECCS) Model relied upon by Applicant does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, Appendix K of Part 50 or GDC 35. ,

In its basis, Petitioner relies primarily upon the investigation into the adequacy of the B&W ECCS model in the TMI-2 Restart Proceeding and on Applicant's not yet having responded fully to the requirements of NUREG-0660 and NUREG-0737 with respect to the conferinance of the compu-ter model to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K.

e e

\ , ** .

19 Staff does not object to the admission of Contention 13, although.

it' would-limit the scope of the contention to the issues raised in the basis; but suggests that the resolution of the issue by the TMI Appeal '

Board will moot Petitioner's concerns. Staff Response at 18-19.

?

We do not agree with Staff (and Applicant). that the contention-is.

too vague and. general to be litigated without limiting it to the basis stated by Petitioner. In addition, we-have reviewed Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-729,17 NRC

, (May 26,1983), issued subsequent to Staff's response to the conten-tions, and do not discern a decision on this issue that would resolve Petitioner's contention in this proceeding. See slip op, at 56 eti seg.

If Applicant and Staff think otherwise, their recourse is to move for -

summary disposition when appropriate. We also-do not agree with Appli-cant (Applicant's Response at 47) that its failure to fully comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K because the regulatory review process has not yet been completed is grounds for not admitting the contention. For purposes of this operating license proceeding, Applicant is assumed to be obligated to fulfill all the regulatory requirements for the issuance of an operating license unless otherwise provided by the Commission.

Having satisfied the specificity requirements of the rules, Petitioner's .

4 contention is currently valid. If and when Applicant fully complies with the requirements, the issue can then be resolved.

The contention is admitted.

e s

_ . , ,, . - . - - -..-r-.m- - .r --..-r-

.,-.,.m . . _ _- s_.--_-.y,_._,--4 , . , - . .-.~.wr----- --o, . - - - .w,---

n .

Contention 14 (at 21),

Jn Petitioner's Supplement to Request for Hearing Contention 14 stated as follows:

Petitioner contends that the fire-protection measures at WNP-1 do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48, Appendix R to Part 50, and GDC 3 in that Applicant has not demonstrated that redundant systems, equipment and components necessary for safety will not be damaged in the event of a fire.

At the prehearing conference, Petitioner rewordee Contention 14, as follows (Tr. 278):

Petitioner contends that the fire-protection measures at WPPSS-1 do not neet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48, Appen-i dix R to Part 50, and GDC-3, in that applicant has not demon-strated that safety-related systems, equipment and components will not be damaged in the event of a fire, f

In its b: sis, Petitioner refers to only two fire protection items:

the requirement of separation of cables used to power redundant safety systems; and the seismic qualification of fire protection components such as fire pumps. Petitioner's Supplement at 21-22.

Staff does not object to admitting the contention to the extent of the issue of separation of cables stated in the basis, but it opposes admitting the issue of seismically qualifying the fire pumps because the regulations do not require them to be seismically qualified. It also O

MS

opposes admitting the contention for any broader litigation than the separation of cables. Ibid.

We agree with Staff that the contention is overly broad to be admitted withou,t limiting it to the .ba:is stated, and that litigating the question of whether the fire pumps should be seismically qualified would conflict with the regulatory requirements. l 1

Applicant's further point (Applicant's Response at 48) that its commitments to satisfy the requirements of cable separation should suf-fice cannot be entertained by the Board as a challenge to admissibility.

Contention 14 is admitted only insofar as it relates to the separa- '

tion of cables.

Contention 15 3

Contention 15 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that Applicant has not met the re-quirements of NUREG-0737 II.K.2.9 II.E.5.2(f) and I&E Bulle-tin 79-27 by not completing a plant-specific Failure Mode and .

Effects Analysis (FMEA) of the Integrated Control System for WNP-1.

Petitioner withdrew this contention. Tr. 212.

e*

- - - - - - ~ - - - - -

t .

~

~, .

Contention 16

. Contention 16 states as follows:

Petitioner contends that the Emergency Diesel Generators as designed and installed are unreliable as a -source of on-site emergency power necessary for safety. Failure of the diesel generators should be considered a design basis acci-dent.

Implicit in the second sentence of the contention is the Petition-

- er's position'that this Board should impose a more stringent requirement .

on Applicant's emergency diesel generators than the Comission has pro-vided in General Design Criterion 17 of Appendix A to Part 50 in which onsite electric power supplies need to perform their safety functions assuming only "a single failure." Petitioner relies upon Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-603,12 NRC 30 (1980) in which the Appeal Board considered a loss of all AC power onsite, at variance with GDC 17. However, in that proceeding the Appeal Board's justification for not following the GDC was the special circum-stance of the location of the St. Lucie plant in the Florida peninsula so that the applicant's electrical distribution system (grid) could be connected to only the grids of other utilities to the north, making the system less reliable than ones interconnected with multiple grids.

Here, Petitioner has offered no such weighty reason for not follow-ing the Comission's rule enunciated in GDC 17, as required by 10 C.F.R. 1

I2.758(a). The reason given (Supplement to Request for Hearing at 23) of emergency diesel generator unreliability, is a generic problem that the Comission has already considered and determined not to require -

designating a station blackout as a design b' asis event in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as. at St. Lucie. Florida Power and

~

Light Co. (St. ucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-81-12,13 NRC 838 (1981). The second sentence of Contention 16 must be denied.

1 Although the first sentence of the contention appears to be broad, l the supporting basis raises specific, litigable issues. To begin with, Petitioner alleges that three defects exist with regard to the emergency diesel generators at WNP-1 which the Applicant has admitted requires further corrective action. .

Furthermore, the last paragraph of the supporting basis states as follows (Supplement to Request for Hearing at 24):

Additionally the diesel generator medium and large mo-tors, and small motors lack necessary environmental and seis-mic qualification. FSAR Appendix 3.11B, Table 3.118-1 (Sheet 3 of 6). Also lacking qualification are the diesel genera-ter engine control panel and diesel generator control panel.

Supra. Given the above there is no reasonable assurance that the emergency diesel generators will operate as planned. .

Applicant objects to the admitsion of this paragraph as a conten-tion because of- alleged lack of specificity. Applicant's Response at -

51-52; Tr. 222-224. It submits that the simple statement that Applicant 6

W e

~

has not yet met the burden of demonstrating the environmental and seis-mic qualification of this equipment is overly broad in that there has been no suggestion, allegation, demonstration or other offer to the effect that Applicant will not meet that burden. Tr. 223.

Staff, on the other hand, does not consider this paragraph as overly broad and would admit the issue of seismic qualification but demurs to the environmental qualification because the environmental qualification rule that will govern this operating license is not yet

~

effective with regard to Applicant (see discussion on Contention 11, above). Tr. 224-5, 233-4.

We agree with Staff that this paragraph is specific enough in light of Applicant's not having met the requirements jn toto at this point in time. If it had attempted to meet the requirements and had failed in some particulars, Petitioner would be required to specify those particu-lars in greater detail. But under the circumstances, Petitioner's alle-gations are as specific as can be raised. As to Staff's argument with regard to the effective date of the new environmental qualification rule, we read Petitioner's allegation as requiring compliance with what-ever environmental qualification rules are appropriate for the issuance .

of this operating license (i.e., the current rules or whatever they may be superseded by before the license is issued). .

The first sentence of Contention 16 is admitted.

g .*

Contention 17 Contention 17 states as follows: "

l l

Petitioner contends that. WNP-1 Seismic Category I sys- '

tems, comp 6nents, and equipment, during a seismic event at the site, at or below the SSE, would fail in such a manner as to prevent safe shutdown of the plant. Such a failure violates GDC 2 and presents an undue risk to the public health and safety. Furthermore the Architect / Engineer's response spectra is wholly defective and can not be relied upon for a seismic analysis.

Clearly, this contention is extremely broad. In its basis, how- .

ever, Petitioner has raised a number of concrete issues. Supplement to Petition for Hearing at 24-26. Aoplicant objects to these issues pri-marily on the merits and, where applicable, to allegations that Appli-cant has not yet completed what it has comitted itself to do. We can-not entertain Applicant's objections on the merits at this juncture.

Nor, where Applicant has safety obligations it; has not yet satisfied, can we accept its comitment in resolution of the issues raised.

Because of the fragmented presentation of the issues underlying this contention in Petitioner's supplement to petition for hearing, we accept the Staff's reworded, comprehensive statement of ~ the issues (Staff's Response at 22-23) as follows:

e e

th

.. \

(1) wh' ether'the as-built seismic capability of the cable tray supports is substandard; (2) whether the Applicant has used Quality Class II equipment in place of Quality Class I as required' for seismic category I systems, components and  !

equipment with respect to pipe rupture restraints, cable trays "

.and the containment purge system; (3) whether the Applicant l has completed a program to assure snubber operability; (4) whether the Applicant has provided Reg. Guide 1.70 criti-cal damping values;- (5) whether. the Applicant has identified adequate se.ismic analysis methods to verify pipe support base-plate flexibility and the design of structural steel framing for .platfoms that support safety-related systems in the con-tainment; (6) whether the Applicant has provided adequate design and analysis procedure to verify the adequacy of the containment; (7). whether there are adequate soil. damping values for structures, systems and components in the nuclear steam -supply system (NSSS); (8) whether the electrical equip-ment listed in FSAR Appendix 3.11B has been seismically quali-fied; (9). whether the Architect / Engineer's amplified response spectra is reliable for HVAC equipment and modified structural l

steel framing; and (10) whether the Applicant has performed l

an adequate dynamic analysis of ASME class piping.

We admit as Contention 17 the basis given by Petitioner, as restated by Staff, above.

Contention 18 l

Contention 18 states as follows:

l

. Petitioner contends that Applicant has failed to conduct an adequate assessment of the interactivity of WNP-1 and sur-

! rounding nuclear / chemical facilities including the ability (of WNP-1 or the other facilities) to continue safe operation in the evert of an accident (at WNP-1 or the other facilities) and the consequences of loss of operability as required by 10

l. CFR 51.20 and 10 CFR 100.10. .

..v 1

Staff objects to the : admission of this -contention, first, on the

. grounds that it is very broad and ambiguous and, secondly, because the parentheticals used in the contention would place into controversy the -

ability of non-NRC. licensed facilities to operate safely in the event of anaccidentatyNP-17 Staff Response.at 23. Staff points out that the NRC does not have jurisdiction to consider, particularly in an operating l'icense proceeding, the ability of surrounding facilities to operate

,' safely in the event of an' accident at WNP-1. Ibid.

, p ,

We agree with Staff that the safe operation of the other facilities in the event of an~ accident at WNP-1 is outside the scope of what this Board can consider. Although we do not necessarily agree with Inter-venor's choice of regulatory basis (10 C.F.R. 9 51.20 and 10 C. F. R. -

6 100.10 relate to construction permits and . te evaluations), we agree with the parties ' (Tr. 244) that external hazards to the WNP-1 plant (including those from surrounding nuclear / chemical facilities) must be ganalyzed to ensure the continued safe operation'of the plant. We do not agree with Staff that the contention is too broad and ambiguous, consid-ering the few nuclear / chemical facilities in the surrounding area.

Nevertheless, Petitioner feels (Tr. 238) that it has identified all the facilities of concern to it in its basis and would not see any diffi- .

, culty in limiting the contention to those facilities. Staff has resta-tod the contention limited to the six items listed in the basis in a comprehensible manner (Staff's Response at 24), we would adopt as the -

contention, as follows:

t i

r l\i ,

= 'h ,

WNP-1 has not been designed to withstand the effects of:

(a) an explosion at the Department of Energy's Fast Flux Test Facility; (b) potential hazards from military overflights; (c) an aircraft collision into a power line tower; (d) an accident. at the N-reactor which is located approximately 18 -

miles away; (e)the PUREX facility which is scheduled to operate in 1984; and -(f) the transportation of potentially dangerous radioactive materials on a mainline railroad track within the exclusion area of WNP-1.

Applicant's objections to the contention go mostly to the merits of the adequacy of Applicant's analysis of the interaction of the facil-ities. We'cannot consider the merits in ruling on admissibility.

Petitioner had also raised in its basis the alleged inadequacy of Applicant's emergency plans in considering the nuclear and chemical facilities in the vicinity. Petitioner's Supplement at 27. At the pre- -

hearing conference, Petitioner deleted its reference to emergency plans in Contention 18, in order to include all of the emergency planning con-siderations in Contention 19. Tr. 243.

We admit Contention 18 as restated above to limit it to tne six enumerated items in Petitioner's basis.

Contention 19 .

Contention 19 states as foilows:

Petitioner contends that the emergency plans proposed by Applicant are insufficient to assure that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.33, 50.47, 50.54 and Appen-dix E to Part 50.

Although the contention is very broadly stated so as to challenge the entirety of Applicant's emergency plans, Petitioner has supported it

with six pages of specifics in its basis. Petitioner's Supplement at I

30-35. Since the facility is not expected to be operational until at least 1988, the emergency plans are necessarily in an incipient stage,

, notwithstanding that the WNP-2 plans are nearing completion. Conse-quently, Applicant and Staff challenge Petitioner's specific allegations with regard to insufficiencies in the plan as being premature. Staff l opines that Petitioner will have an opportunity to raise contentions .

j: at a later date after the state and local plans are filed. Staff's Q Response at 25. At the time of Staff's response, only the Appeal Board had spoken to the matter of filing late contentions, in Duke power Co.

=

(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB'-687,16 NRC 460 (1982).

f The Appeal Board held that Licensing Boarcs have no authority to admit s

a contention conditionally that falls short of meeting the specificity

[

1 requirements because of the unavailability of relevant documents that make it impossible to assert a sufficiently specific contention. But, ,

't when the documents are issued, a reworded contention containing the required specifics could be admitted by the Licensing Board without a f showing that the five-factor test had been satisfied. Since our pre- -

hearing conference, the Comm,ission has stated its disagreement with the i.

{. .

m L,,g_ m u ._ a i . . - - - - '

Appeal Board and asserted that any refiled contention would have to meet the five-factor test of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1), if not timely filed,

~

even if the specifics could not have been known earlier because the documents on which they were based had not yet been issued. Catawba, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC (June 30, 1983).

Viewing Contention 19 in the context of the Commission's ruling, we cannot dismiss it so lightly on the understanding that a revised con-tention would be accepted at some later date. We must examine the con-tention closely at this point to see whether it meets the specificity .

requirements even while we acknowledge that the specifics of Applicant's emergency plans will necessarily change before the issue is close to an evidentiary hearing. With that in mind, we find that the six pages of specifics raised by Petitioner as its basis (and the emergency planning matter raised in the basis to Contention 18) are certainly adequate to support the contention at this time. If the specifics change while the emergency plans evolve, Petitioner will be required during the prehear-ing stages of this proceeding to refocus its concerns.

In its basis, Petitioner has questioned, inter alia, the propriety of not including,the City of Richland, the nearest part of which is 12 miles away, in the 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) by using an exact 10-mile radius. Petitioner's Supplement at 32. Although Appli-cant (Applicant's Response at 60) and Staff (Staff's Response at 26) object to enlarging the EPZ as a challenge to the regulations (10 C.F.R.

e e '

m.-

-l 50.d(c)(2)), -Staff 'could' not rule out a variation in the zone's 10-mile radius to 12 miles at some location as being a challenge to the

. regulations.: See discussion at Tr. 247 56. Under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47 .

-(c)(2).the exact size and configuration of the EPZ (of "about 10 miles")

may be affected by conditions such as demography, topography, land char-acteristics, acc ss routes and jurisdictional boundaries. We would not hold the contention to be inadmissible at this juncture with regard to the 12 miles, but would require that Petitioner prove at the evidentiary hearing that special circumstances require varying the 10-mile zone to include the City of Richland.

l The contention is admitted.

Contention 20 As originally submitted in Petitioner's Supplement to Request for Hearing (at 35), Contention 20 is stated as follows:

Petitioner contends that there is no reasonable assurance that WNF-1 will be completed on a timely basis and that tSe l project has not been constructed "in confonnity with the con-struction permit and the application as amended, the provi-sions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commis-sion" as required by 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A. VIII(b)(1).

• Numerous deficiencies, both known and unknown, exist in the construction of WNP-1 such that its operation would cause an undue risk to the public health and safety. The halt in con-struction, in addition to the previously existing delays, will -

prevent completion of the project on a timely basis. Contin- .

ved confonnance with the construction permit by Applicant is .

i - _i .

~

unlikely due to inadequate measures at the present and into the future, taken to protect the portions of the plant that are already built and the systems that are already installed.

However, at the prehearing conference, Petitioner reworded the con-tention, as follows (Tr. 260-1):

Petitioner contends that there is no reasonable assurance that construction of WNP-1 has been substantially completed in conformity with the construction permit and the application, as amended, provisions of the Act and Rules and Regulations of the' Commission, as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.57, 1 1.

The discussion of Contention 20 (Tr. 260-276) indicated that it had been rewritten by Petitioner in consultation with the Staff and perhaps Applicant. Petitioner intended to separate more clearly the issues of ,

Contention 5 from Contention 20: Contention 5 was intended to question the adequacy of Applicant's quality assurance / quality control program in light of alleged deficiencies with the QA/QC program during construc-tion; Contention 20 was intended to question the safety of the plant because of construction defects, some of which may have arisen because of an inadequate QA/QC program during construction.

Even as rewritten, however, Staff and Applicant object to the con-tention, primarily upon the grounds that it is too broad and vague, that it would open for litigation every conceivable item of construction, and that Applicant would be unfairly put to the burden of demonstrating that it meets all of the requirements of the regulations without being on

3 l

notice as to what it must demonstrate in order to meet those require-ments. Staff has no objection to admitting the contention provided it is limited to the construction defects concerning. WNP-1 that were men- -

tiened in the underlying basis (and in the basis to Contention 5, which Petitioner cross-referenced to Conten. tion 20). In the basis to Conten-tion 20, there were questions raised with regard to welding, electrical cable installations, the use of unqualified personnel, and the use of f I

drugs among construc' tion workers. In the basis to Contention 5, an )

inspection report for WNP-1 was mentioned, covering the welding of skewed joints of piping support structural steel. In addition, in Con-tention 20 Petitioner questioned the adequacy and propriety of " moth-balling" or otherwise attempting to preserve the plant during the hiatus in construction, which Petitioner contended would result in additional -

construction defects.

Although Petitioner resisted limiting the contention to the spe- ,

cific matters covered in their bases to Con'tentions 5 and 20, and claimed to offer those items only as examples, we agree witt: Staff and Applicant that it would be inappropriate to perr.it Petitioner to expand its " shopping list" of construction defects under its broadly worded contention. We would therefore limit the contention to the specifics ,

mentioned, including unnamed construction defects that may result from Applicant's method of preserving the construction, a procedure which Petitioner contends should not be permitted in the first instance. -

That aspect of this contention will, of course, be litigated after

,me e

~

8 i construction resumes, at which time Petitioner will be required to spe-

-cify the complained of construction defects.

The contention is admitted as limited by the discussion above.

?

II. FURTHER SCHEDULING

~

At the special prehearing conference, the Board asked the parties to submit briefs on further scheduling in view of 'the fact that Appli-cant had announced a suspension of construction of the facility for up to five years. Tr. 225-32. Applicant's position was that there should be no deferral of this proceeding because the areas of concern raised by Petitioner are now ripe for resolution.. Applicant's Memorandum on Scheduling at 7-10.

Staff informed the Board that, due to the announced delays in con-struction, Staff was proceeding on a " manpower 'available" basis, pursu-ant to which it is reviewing only those portions of the WNP-1 operating license application which parallel other current applications of similar l design or with similar features. Staff's Position on Timetable at 3.

Under these circumstances, Staff continued, it would be premature and ,

unproductive to schedule any further proceedings until the Board satis-fies itself that certain issues are ripe for adjudication.

Staf f felt that proceeding witn discovery would be largely unproductive; might require substantial supplementation at later stages of tne proceeding; l

I l

- and would be burdensome to the Staff because Staff does not currently have extra manpower available to devote to the review of WNP-1. Jd_.at 3-4. - '

Staff suggested that, upon its informing the Board and the parties of its completion of review of certain contested issues, the Board could then set a schedule for discovery, sumary disposition and hearing on these limited issues. Litigation of the remaining contested issues would await the resumption of construction activities at WNP-1. Staff further proposed that the Board direct the Applicant to keep the Board and the parties informed, quarterly, as to the status of construction at the plant. Ibid.

l Petitioner's position generally paralleled that of Staff in requesting that the proceeding be deferred at this time. Among other things, Petitioner opposed having to comit its limited resources to litigating issues that might have to be relitigated, or to discovery that might have to be supplemented, to arrive at findings that are un-likely to retain their validity in light of expected advances in the technology of nuclear power engineering and associated scientific fields. See Petitioner's Fosition on Scheduling at 3-6. Petitioner -

went further than Staff in requesting that the entire proceeding be suspended until construction is restarted. .

g # 4 -

6

7-

~

All of the parties relied upon Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539

~

(1975) to support their respective positions on either deferring the In that case, the Appeal Board indi-proceeding or continuing with it.

cated (at 547) , that among the principal factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to hear the issues during suspension of con-struction are:

(1) the the issue (s)degree would of likelihood retain that any (early their validity; 2) thefindings on advantage,

- if any, to the public interest and to the litigants ir having

^

an early, if not necessarily conclusive, resolution of the issue (s); and (3) the extent to which the hearing of the issue (s) at an early stage would, particularly if the issue (s) were later reopened because of supervening developments, occasion prejudice to one or more of the litigants. .

In Douglas Point, the Licensing Board had denied in its entirety the Applicant's motion to proceed with evidentiary hearings on its con-struction permit application even though Applicant had postponed con-struction for some years. Considerable effort had already been expended in trial preparation on a number of issues and certain of the parties (including Staff) had expressed concern that part of the fruits of that effort might be lost were a hearing on those issues to be postponed for a substantial period. I,d. at 551. The Appeal Board suggested that, under the factors to be considered, certain of the site-related issues might appropriately be heard at that time, and directed the Licen' sing

- 1 Boa'rd to reconsider its deferral of the proceeding in light of the_ views expressed by the Appeal Board.

_In Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2), ALAB-570, 10 NRC 679 (1979), the Appeal Board applied the principles it had enunciated in Douglas Point to decide to continue with an eviden-tiary hearing after a catastrophic accident had occurred to the plant.

The hearing had been scheduled three weeks before the accident, to begin four weeks'later. In accordance with an established schedule, the par-ties served and filed written testimony and Staff caused the issuance of subpoenas. to prospective witnesses. After the accident occurred, the hearing was postponed indefinitely . In applying the Douglas Point principles, the Appeal Board decided to proceed with the evidentiary e hearing.

In the instant proceeding, we are not concerned with site suitabil-ity issues, as in Douglas Point, or in concluding the evidentiary pro-

ess with the culminating evidentiary hearing after all of the prehear-ing matters had been completed, as in Three Mile Island. The issues before us are, for the most part, ones that involve a nuclear technology that may advance rapidly during the hiatus in construction. Any discov- .

ery taken now would, in all likelihood, have to be supplemented at a later date. Moreover, Staff is not even prepared to participate in dis- ,

covery because of its decision to conduct the review of the licensing -

application only on a " manpower available" basis.

• • O 6

F Applying 'the Douglas Point factors in general to this proceeoing, it is doubtful that many early findings on any of the issues would re-tain their validity; there would be little benefit' to the public inter-est to having an early resolution on the issues; and, if the issues were later reopened because of supervening. developments, the parties with the most limited resources would find it extremely difficult to redo their litigation efforts.

It appears to us that the- wisest procedure is to defer discovery until,- at. least, Staff ~ indicates that it has completed its review of an issue encompassed by the contentions. At that point, we would ascertain the views of the parties on whether to proceed with disco"ering and litigating that issue, taking into account the factors discussed in Doualas Point. We wish to be informed, as Staff proposed (Staff Posi-l tion on Timetable at 4), of the status of construction at the plant by means of quarterly reports from Applicant to the Board and parties set-ting forth in summary fashion the progress, if' any, in construction at the plant and any anticipated near-term change in status of construction activity.

ORDER l

! For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this proceeding, it is this 14th day of October, 1983, *

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

~

[; ;,. .'

E. : .~

ORDERED (1) .That CSP's Contentions -4, 5, 6,10,12,13 and 19 are -

-admitted; (2) That CSP's Contentions 2, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 are admitted as limited above; (3) That CSP's Contentions 1, 3, 7 and 9 are denied; (4) That CSP is admitted as an Intervenor in the proceeding; (5) That the proceeding is held in abeyance; .

(6) That Staff notify the Board and the parties when it has completed its review of any issues covered by the admit-ted contention; '

(7) That the Applicant file quarterly reports, with the first one due by January 1,1984, regarding construction activ-ities at WNP-1 as discussed above; and ,

(8) That any party opposing the admission of CSP shall have until ten (10) days after service of this Order, pursuant -

to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714a, to appeal this order and any prior

C orders of the Board relating to standing which led to the admission of CSP.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d %_

Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

' Bethesda, Maryland, October 14, 1983. .

O f

i e,*

W. O

- -_w, - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,-- ~ . - . , - . - , ,. --,r - - - - , . . . - , - - , - - - , . - , . . . - - , . . . - - -

$l, .-

834903 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( - i ATOMIC

• SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: ,

do Af Herbert Grossman, Chairman Glenn 0. Bright gg Dr. Jerry Harbour

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, (ASLBP No. 83-485-02 CPA)

.e t_ _s l .

\

~,

(WPPSS Nucle,ar Project No. 1) July 11, 1983 ORDER (Establishing Further Schedule)

~

Upon consideration of the parties' status reports and proposed schedules, it is, this lith day of July, 1983, ORDERED,

- a e

That the following schedule is adopted:

L a s t d i s cove ry fi l e d . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Au gu s t 12 Objections and responses due ................................ August 31 ,

Motions to compel response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 16 Responses to motions to compel ........................... September 30 Compelled responses ................................... .... October 31 ,

Motions for sumary disposi tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 14 Responses to motions ...................................... Decsmber 12 Prefiled testimony ........................................ December 26 He a ri ng comence s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janua ry 10 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAAD

~

'"v .

~

~ Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland, July 11,1983.

9

. ..,,1,*.-

J 1

(.

M .

=?i;.iz.

i V. '

l !- 'l

• Ufi*TED STATES CF AfERICA.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCt'MISStCN - ,2 .,

!, * ,,,,7.]

9 :1C I' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Herbert Grossman, Chairma.'

Glenn 0. Bright  : i.i , c; ' "* -* ' ~ -

Dr. Jerry,farbour  !. 0 3

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50 46q

' WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ) (ASLBP No. 82-480-01 CPA) et al.

)

I (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) ) March 25, 1983

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

( Admittina Intervenor and Contention)

MEMORANDUM On February '22,1983, this Boarc issued a Memorandum anc Orcer Following the First Prehearing Conference in whien it determined that Petitioner, the Coalition for Safe Power (CSP), had standing to inter-vene. We did not rule on CSP's two contentions, advanced in CSP's Supolement to Request for Hearing dated January 10, 1983, because the Board had allowed CSP time to amand its contentions to take into account the adoitional 2-5 year period of extension of constructicn permit w r.-- gt_- ;;5

- PDR add 8K OI8004eo G. PDR g7

. 1

e- ,

c,,~* *

.Q 1

! 3-  !

l l

i I

recently -requested by Permittee, the Washington Public Pcwer Supply System (WPPSS). CSP se ved and filed an Amendment to Contention No. 2 on February _ 11, 1983. Staff responded on February 23, 1983 indicating that it does not oppose the admission of Amended Contention No. 2.

WPPSS responded en February 28, 1983 by opposing the amended contention.

The Board admits Amended Contertion No. 2. It denies Centention .

No. I because, to the extent that it is admissible, it is duolicated by Amended Contentien No. 2.

Contention No. 1 Petitioner contends that delays in the construction of WMP-1 arc 2 have been under the, full control of the WPPSS management.

The applicant was responsible for the celays and the delays were dilatory and thus applicant has not shown the " good cause" as required by 10 CFR 50.55(a).

On October 8, 1982, the Commission issued an Order in this proceed-ing, CLI-82-29, 16 NRC , concern,ing CSP's recuest fer hearing which provided Commission guidance on the scope of construction permit exten-sion' proceedings. Of critical importance was the Commission statement (slip op. at 16) that, "[t]o the extent that CSP is seeking to show that WPPSS was both responsible for the delays and the delays were dilatory and thus withcut ' good cause' (a] contention, if properly particularize'd and supported, would be litigable."

4 m_-_

r

. j l

N c The wording of this contention was tailored to meet the Commission stater.ent. However, under that statement the contentien must be prop-erly particularized and supported. In 'considering this identical con-tentien with regard to WPPSS 2, this same Board denied that conten-tion lon the ground that WPPSS was " dilatory." We had understood the Commissicn to have used the term " dilatory" in -he sense of intenoing to cause delay or being indifferent to the delay that might be caused. We found that CSP had particularized and supported only matters relating to alleged mismanagement that resulted in delays, but not any matter that would indicate an intention to cause delay or an indifference to ceiay that caused delay.

At the prehearing conference covering both WPPSS 1 and 2, CSP con-ceded (Tr. 58-9) that its position with regard to the WPPSS management's being dilatory was the same with regard to WPPSS 1.as it was with regard to WPPSS 2, with one important exception. That exception relates to the I Washincton Public Power Sucoly System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), OccKet No. 50-397-CPA, f1emorandum and Order (Dismissing Petition and Denying Hearing), February 22, 1983. While tech-nically these are two separate proceedings, Commission Order CLI-82-29, suora, considered both petitions for hearing filed by CSP, and this Board was established under the same orders gcvern-ing botn facilities. 47 Fed. Reg. 46922, Oct. 21, 1982; and Crder Reconstituting Board, 47 Fed. Reg. 49764, Nov. 2, 1982.

o

.e-FW g.* .

t.- .4 current decision of WPPSS management to cease construction for a'2-5

' year period, which CSP contencs is an intentional delay and, presumably, without good cause.

Consistent with'that reasoning with regard to UPPSS 2,2 we would i

deny. Contention No. 1 except to the extent that it relates to the WPPSS canagement's being responsible for the delays as a result of the conten-plated 2-5 year period of cessation of construction activities. How-ever, in view of the fact that Amended Contention No. 2 includes this allegation and we admit Contention No. 2 3 toto, we deny Conten'. ton No. 1.

Amerded Contention No. 2 Petitioner contends that the Permittee's decision in April 1982 to " defer" construction for two to five years, and subsecuent cessation of construction at WNP-1, was dilatory. Such action was without " good cause" as recuired by 10 CFR 50.55(b). Moreover, the modified request for extension of completion date to 1991 does not constitute a " reasonable period of time" provided for in 10 CFP, 50.55(b).

2 CSP has appealed the order dismissing the petition in Washincton Public Power Sucoly System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), Docxet No. 50-397-CPA. Inis Board, of course, will follow any Appeal Board or Commission guidance offered in deciding that apceal which affects the issues before the Scard in this proceeding.

an

E .. .

y .

5-From the fact of WPPSS' having requestec an extensien of the con-

~

struction completion,date for an additional 2-5 years during which it will cease construction activity, it appears that a crima facie shewing, even beyond mere particularization and support, has been made.for ccm-

~

pliance with the Commission tests of showing management being responsi -

ble for, and dilatory in, the delays in construction. Consequently, this contention is clearly acmissible. It appears that the hearing will devolve upon the questions of whether Pennittee has demonstrated " good cause" for the delay and whether the requested extension of completion date is for a reasonable period of time.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire recorc in this matter, it is, this 25th oay of March,1983, ORDERED

1. That Petitioner, the Coalition for Safe Power, is admitted as an Intervenor in this proceeding;

2. That Contention No. 1 is denied and Amended Ccntention No. 2 is admitted; y-- , . , _ . - - . - . , , _ , ,.m ,. ,,.,. . . , _ _ . ~ , _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , .

-w -

,e -.. ,. - . - .-

7 y

T 3. .That discovery is to comence imediately; s

t. . That, by June 1, 1983, each of the parties is to submit a status report to the Board indicating the further discovery needed; the estimated time for completion of discovery; all unresolved proce-dural matters; whether there is a necessi y for a further, inter-mediate prehearing conference; and recomended dates for fif f rg motions for sumary disposition (if any), holding a final prehear-ing conference, the filing of prefiled direct testimony, and the comencement of the hearing;

>S. That this Order shall control the subsequent course of this pro-ceeding unless modified by fuhher order of the Board; and

6. That, pursuant to 10 CFR i 2.714a(a) and (c), the parties other than Petitioner have 10 cays from date of service (see 10 CFR i 2.710) to appeal this Orcer (anc, to the extent relevant to the admission of Petitioner, the Memorandum and Order of February 22, 1983) to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.

t.

~

,e . . .

s

. a

~ '

7 By order of the Board.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD M- ; Yn- --

Je Wy Harcour ADMINISTRATIVE JUCGE

)] =- $. Jh f \

GlenE 0. Brignt f l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l Nd?M_

41sroert Grossman, Gnalrean ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE )

I Bethesda , Maryland, March 25, 1983.

.s 6 . .

~ -

1 E3 rJ '.0 T 31 Y 1.170444 TION 31STRI3JTIO9 SYSTE4 (1I35) 40CESSI3N N64:5305350332 J30.34TE: 53/05/04 N3TARIZE3: N3 3 3 0.< E T s FACIL:50-460 smaSS 49:.l e s e. = c o l e c t , Unit 1, nasminoton *uolic Powe )5000460 AUTH.N49E LJT139 LFFI*.t a T I ON cA31E4,1.E. Hearino 3ranen 4 WECID.NAAE 9E 121E9T 4 ILiaTI3N *

oalition.for Safe Power SJ3 JECT: First, set of literen,atories & document orocuction reauests.

Certificats n.f.$v: e,el.

3SJ7S 007tES RECEIVE 3:'.T4 __iENCL I I__ SIZE:--

DISTRISJT131.033E ______

TITLE: ELO Fill,os (Non-41titrust)

NOTES:

9ECl*IE4T  : dates 9E01*IENT. C3 PIES IO 033E/14 9E! .IT T R ENOL I) 03)E/va*E LTTR E NC L:

N R a t P1 4 t. 1 1 Naa L3a LA 1 1 dT94)a(T A3 1 1 ,

I N T ER 1 a ti: 30 1 1 34 1 1 93N5 1 1 SE:f/353 01 2 2 EXTER'4a.; .739 1 1 N;; 23a 1 1 NTIS 1 1 N k ( { dCL TOTAL NJd3ER 3 03IES 1EQ JI AE): LTTR 11 ENOL: 1 -1

. . . . . ..--....~:-.... ~.

F. ,

May 4, 1983 g

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

1 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Docket No. 50-460 CPA h)

(WPPSS Nuclear' Project No.1) )

NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST TO COALITION FOR SAFE POWER In accordance with 10 CFR Sections 2.740, 2.740b and 2.741, the NRC Staff hereby serves the Coalition for Safe Power (CFSP), as an intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding, with the following interrogatories and request for production of documents. These interrogatories and document request relate to CFSP Amended Contention No. 2, as admitted in

~

the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Admitting Intervenor and Contentions) dated March 25, 1983.

Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affimation, and shall include all pertinent infomation available to CFSP, its officers, directors, members, employees, advisors, or counsel, based upon the personal knowledge of the person answering. Answers to these interrogatories are required to be served upon all parties to the proceeding within 14 days after service of the interrogatories. By each request for production of documents, the NRC Staff seeks to inspect and copy pertinent documents Q

which are in the possession, custody or control of CFSP, its officers, directors, members, employees, advisors or counsel. .

j SO k sts\.

• M

As used herein, the term " documents" shall include any writings, ,

drawings, graphs, charts, and schedules, however produced; photographs .

or other pictorial representations; recordings and tapes, whether sound or visual; and data compilations of whatever form.

Each interrogatory should be answered in six parts as follows:

(1) Answer the direct question asked or provide the information requested.

(2) Identify fully any documents (a) used as the basis for the answer to the interrogatory or (b) related to the subject of the interrogatory upon which you intend to rely in '

establishing the contention.

(3) Give the name, address, occupation and employer of the person or persons (a) answering each interrogatory, or (b) who have served, presently serve, or it is anticipated will serve as consultants or advisors to CFSP on the subject matter of the interrogatory.

(4) Identify each pt:rson whom you expect to call as a witness to testify at the hearing as to the issue addressed in the pertinent interrogatory. As to each such person, please state (a) the subject matter of his or her testimony and (b) t'he substance of the testimony and (c)' the witness' professional or other qualifications to testify on the subject matter on which the witness expects to testify.

(5) Is the answer based on a calculation? If so, describe (a) the calculation, b) identify any documents setting forth such calculation, c) identify the person who calculation, d) when it was performed,e) (performed each each parameter used in such calculation, each value assigned to the parameters, and the source of your data, (f) the results of each calculation, and (g) how each calculation provides basis for the answers.

(6) Is the answer based on conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of comunications with one or more individuals? If so, (a) identify each such individual by name and address, (b) state the educational and professional -

background of each such individual, (c) describe the information received from such individual and its relation to your direct answer (d) identify each writing or record related to each such conversation, consultation, correspondence or other comunication with such individual.

i In addition, CFSP is requested, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.740(e), .

to supplement its responses as necessary with respect to the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at the hearing in this pro:eeding, the subject matter on which he or she is expected to ,

testify, and the substance of such testimony. Similarly, CFSP is requested to amend its responses if CFSP subsequently learns that any response made to the interrogatories herein was incorrect when made, or that the response though correct when made is no longer correct.

INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory 1 Explain fully the relationship between your statement that the decision to defer construction of WNP-1 for a two-to-five year period was "made upon reviewing the recommendations of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), reviewing alternative proposals and taking public comment" and your contention that Permittee's decision to defer construction was " dilatory" and without " good cause."

Interrogatory 2 (a) Is it your position that the Permittee was " dilatory" in not notifying the NRC on or about April 29, 1982 that it was nodifying its request for a completion date from 1986 to 19917

'(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 2(a) is in the affirmative, explain fully the basis for that statement.

Interrogatory 3 (a) Is it your position that BPA support is not necessary to the financing of WNP-17 (b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3(a) is in the affirmative, identify and give full details with respect to all information upon ,

which you base that statement.

~ , . . . . . * .-....e.e. ..

. ... ; = ,

4- .

,4,

. (c) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3(a) is in the affirmative, .

explain

• fully how the financing of WNP-1 could be accomplished if BPA were to disapprove any further fi,nancing of WNP-1 construction.

Interrogatory 4 Is it your contention that the financial support or lack of financial support by BPA for WNP-1 would have no effect on the financing costs of WNP-17 ,

Interrogatory 5 Is it your contention that the opinion of BPA on the PNVCC as to when WNP-1 should go into commercial operation,-would have no effect on the financing costs of WNP-17 Interrogatory 6 (a) Is it your statement that BPA does not have the authority to disapprove any further financing of WNP-1 construction?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 6(a) is in the affirmative, explain fully the factual basis for that statement.

Interrogat,ry 7 Is it your contention that there has not been a slowing in growth rate of electric power requirements in the Pacific Northwest? l Interrogatory 8 Is it your contention that the growth rate of electric power requirements in the Pacific Northwest has stopped or will stop completely before 19917 Interrogatory 9 Is it your contention that the growth rate of electrical power requirements has no business relationship as to when WNP-1 should go into comercial operation?

Interrogatory 10 (a) Is it your statement that the January 11, 1983 letter to H. Denton, Director, NRR, NRC, from G.D. Bouchey, WPPSS, does not support

," 5-P'ermittee's assertion that a deferred need for power constitutes " good cause" for deferring construction?

(b) If ycur answer to Interrogatory No.10(a) is in the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the factual basis or legal authority for your statement.

Interrogatory 11 (a) Do you contend that a deferred need for power cannot as a matter of law constitute " good cause" under 10 CFR I 50.55(b)?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 11(a) is in the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the factual basis or legal authority for this contention. -

Interrogatory 12 (a) Do you claim that the actual deferral in the need for power in the Northwest l!nited States does not justify deferring construction of WNP-1?

(b) Explain fully your answer to Interrogatory No.12(a).

(c) If your answer to Interrogatory No.12(a) is in the affinnative, state the relevance of your statement that " Petitioner ... does not believe the power from WNP-1 will ever be needed?" to your claim that need for power in the Northwest United States does not justify deferring construction of WNP-1.

Interrogato.y 13 I What is factual basis for your statement that " Petitioner ... does not believe the power from WNP-1 will ever be needed"?

Interrogatory M Is it your contention that if and when WNP-1 is completed and ready to operate, it will not be operated because there would be no need for the pcwer?

Interrogatory 15 What factors do you contend are relevant in assessing whether power from WN?-1 will ever be needed?

~

Interrogatory 16 Ex that "[ plains]ix tothe ninefactual years cannot basis and/or have beenlegalcontemplated authority forasyour statement a ' reasonable period of time' by the writers of 10 CFR 50.55(b)."

9 Interrogatory 17 -

What do you contend would be a reasonable period of time for

, extension of the construction completion date for WNP-17 Interrogatory 18 (a) Identify any and all " requirements of r.ny regulations" promulgated since the date of docketing of the WNP-1 operating license application from which WNP-1 would othemise be grandfathered by virtue of its date of docketing.

(b) Explain full how each of the requirements identified in response to Interrogatory No.18(y) a will delay completion of the plant beyond the requested completion date of 1991. Give full details as to the extent of delay attributabla to each such requirement.

RE00EST FOR DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.741, the HRC Staff requests you to make available for inspection and copying at a time and location to be designated any and all documents, of whatever description, identified in the responses to the above Staff interrogatories, including, but not limited to:

(1) any written record of any oral comunication between or among Intervenor, its advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys, and/or any other persons, including but not limited to the Permittee, and its advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys and/or any other persons; and (2) any documents, correspondence, letters, memoranda, notes, diagrams, reports, charts, photographs, or any other writing of whatsoever description, including but not limited to work papers, prior drafts, and notes of meetings.

If CFSP maintains that some documents should not be made available for in.cpection, it should specify the documents and explain why such are not ,

i

. 7 j

l' being made available. This request extends to any such document, .

described above, in the possession of CFSP, its advisors, consultants, .

agents, or attorneys.

Respectfully submitted,

) { -

v Mary Counse EfforWagner NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May, 1983 l

l

\

_ . . - + ,

._._y, ,. _ . _

~4

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  :

In the Matter of , )

)l ,

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Docket No. 50-460 CPA (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1)

))

)

CERTIFICATE CF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST'00CUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST TO COALITION FOR SAFE POWER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 4th day of May,1983:

• Herbert Grossman, Chairman Gerald C. Sorensen Administrative Judge Manager, Licensing Programs Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington Public Power Supply System U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 3000 George Washington Way Washington, DC 20555 Richland, Washington 99352

• Mr. Glenn 0. Bright

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

• Dr. Jerry Harbour Board Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555

• Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Nicholas S. Reynolds Washington, DC 20555 Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW Nicholas D. Lewis, Chaiman i

Washington, DC 20036 State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Eugene Rosolie Council Coalition for Safe Power Mail Stop PY-11 Suite 527 Olympia, Washington 98504 408 South West Second Street Portland, Oregon 97204 S .

Mary E Magner hh

/

Couns for NRC Staff l

l

- . . . . . - _ ..---n...--

. . _ _ m.L _.

W j 4 . .

txt.TED a~- - ,

co.p .: ,

83 ttAY -4 A8 52 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ,

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER )

SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

,. l LICENSEE'S FIRST SET OF. -

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE TO INTERVENOR Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $$2.740b and 2.741, the Washington Public Power Supply System (Licensee) hereby 9

serves Applicant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to produce upon the Coalition for Sa'fe Power (intervenor).

Each interrogatory shall bt answered fully in writ-ing, under oath or affirmation, and include all pertinent information known to intervenor, its officers, directors or members as well as any pertinent information known to its employees, advisors, representativas or counsel. Each request to produce applies to pertinent documents which are in the possession, custody or control of intervenor, its officers, directors or members as well as its em-ployees, advisors, representatives or counsel. In answer-ing each interrogatory-and in responding to each request, P

M A ' O N ~4 6PDR 0 \ -

G

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

- - , , . - - - - - - . . - - - , . - - ,-m-- - - . - , .------e

.. .= ,

y . .

4 t

1 recite the interrogatory or request preceding each answer or response. Also, identify the person providing each answer or response.

i These interrogatories and requests shall be continu-ing in nature. Thus, any time intervenor obtains informa-

.t.

i tion which renders any previous response incorrect or indicates that a response was incorrect when made, inter-venor should supplement its previous response to the ,

1 appropriate interrogatory ur request to produce. Inter-

. ;. venor should also supplement its response as necessary

-j with respect _to identification of each person expected to be called at the hearing as a witness, the subject matter of his or her testimony and the substance of that testi-l ,

mony. Licensee is particularly interested in the names

( l: and areas of expertise of intervenor witnesses, if any.

I i t Identification of such witnesses is necessary if Licensee i

is to be afforded adequate time to depose them. The term i

" documents" shall include any writings, drawings, graphs, j

! charts, photographs and other data compilations from which l

information can be obtained. Licensee requests that at a date or dates to be agreed upon, intervenor make available for inspection and copying all documents subject to the requests set forth below.

- .. . . . . . .- .:. i s _ .--. . _ . _ .. - - ...: .. . . . - .

,. .. .=

4

, REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS 1

l. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.741, Licensee req'ests u

a. . .

intervenor by and through its representative or attorney to make available for. inspection and copying at a time and location to be designated, any and all documents identi- .

fled in the responses to the Licensee's interrogatories f

below including, but not limited tos (1) any written record of any oral commu- -

s

.; nication between or among intervenor,

i. its advisors, consultants, representa-e tive, and/or any other persons, in-cluding but not limited to the NRC

Staff, the Licensee, and their advi-sors, consultants, agents, and/or any l- 1, other persons; and j (2) any documents, correspondence,

letters, memoranda, notes, diagrams, reports, charts, photographs, or any other writing,' including but not limited to work papers, prior drafts, and notes of meetings.

If intervenor maintains that some documents should 3

i not be made available for inspection, it should specify the documents and explain why such are not being made

, available. This requirement extends to any such docu- l ments, described above, in the possession of intervenor, its advisors, consultants, representatives, or attorney.

l 1

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

E' ' ' - '

~ ~

. . . .. . . _ . _ . . . ~ . - .....:... -....:......-...-...-.:. . . .

}

.. .. 1 v

[ INTERROGATORIES I

.I Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.740b, the Licensee requests i

I, intervenor by and through its representative or attorney

,to answer separately and fully in writing, under oath or affirmation, by persons having knowledge of the informa-tion requested, the following interrogatories.

l 1. State the full name, address, occupation and employer of each person answering the interrogatories and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof he or I she answered.

^

l .

l 2. Identify each and every person you are considering calling as a witness in the event a hearing is held in this proceeding and with respect to each of these witnesses:

l l 3 a. State the substance of the facts and opinions to

which the witness is expected to testify; ,

I

b. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion; and

c. Describe the witness's educational ant' profes- '

sional background.

3. Is your contention based upon conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or more individuals? If so, f

a. Identify by name and address each of these indi-

, viduals.

b. State the educational and professional background of each of these individuals, when each communi-cation occurred, and identify all other indivi-duals involved.

c. Describe the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals involved.

d. Describe the information received from such indi-viduals and explain how it provides a basis.for your contention.

-i .

k .. .. .. . .

~

_ ._._ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . ._ ._.. 5 .:... .'.. . ._.... . . . .~

c.

b i .i .

e. Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record-related to each conversation, consultation, correspondence or other communica-tion with such individual.

4. Please identify and provide a copy of the current charter, bylaws,' articles of incorporation and/or all

' other organic documents pursuant to which intervenor is organized.

5. Have the documents identified and provided in inter-rogatory 4 amended and/or superceded any earlier charters, bylaws, articles of incorporation and/or l organic documents pursuant to Whic.. Intervenor was i organized? If so: ,

a. Identify and provide each of these snanded and superceded douments,

b. Explain why these documents were amended and/or .

f; .

superceded.

l s

.l c. Identify and provide all documents in which the j

actions explained in interrogatory 5(b) are dis-g cussed.

t

, 6. Explain the organizational goals of intervenor.

7. What is the complete basis for your statement that

• Licansee's " decision in April, 1982 to ' defer' con-struction for two to five years, and subsequent ces-

! sation of construction at WNP-1 was dilatory."

I t 8. Please explain fully what you mean by the word

{ " defer" as used in your contention.

9. Please explain fully'What you mean by the word

" dilatory" as used in your contention.

l 10. What is the basis for your response to interroga-l tories 8 and 97 l 11. Why do you contend that Licensee has failed to estab-l 1 lish good cause for an extension of the WNP-1 con-struction permit?

l i

{

12. What are the reasons you believe Licensee offered to NRC in support of a showing of " good cause" as

1. ' r equir ed by 10 C . F . R. {50.55(b)?

I -

l' 'l.

I

_ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . ._  : 4

,' . . - .?

.g . .

< -l

13. What is the basis for your response to interrogatory 127

14. Do you contend that the reasons offered by Licensee to support a showing of good cause are factually .

incorrect?

15. What is the basis for your response to interrogatory 147

16. Do you contend that the reasons offered by Licensee to support a showing of good cause are not in fact the reasons why Licensee has requested an extension of its construction permit? ,

17. If your response to interrogaton 16 is yes, why do you believe that Licensee has (a) sought an extension of its construction permit and (b) deferred construc-tion at WNP-l?

18. What is the basis for your response to interroga-a tories 16 and 177

19. What is the basis for your statement that the

" modified request for extension of completion date to i 1991 does not constitute a ' reasonable period' of time provided for in 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b)?" i

20. Please explain fully Ohat you mean by a " reasonable period of time" as used in your contention.

21. What factors do you contend should be considered when determining if a requested construction permit ex-tension is for a " reasonable perica of time"?

'. 22. What do you contend would constitute a " reasonable l period of time" in the case of WNP-l?

t 3

6 4

l 1 l-a T

l 'i l- '!

l I

.- , - _ , - - . ..--_,_--__-m. _ - - _ - . _ . - . . _ . - - _ . -

.. . .. . .: . .. ..-.w . ~ . - . - . . - . . . . - - - .

' =

6 j'. 23. What is the basis for your response to interroga-tories, 20, 21 and 227

. Respect $u y submitted, 7

8 Nichol) S.' Reynolds Sanford! L. :Tartman

! DESEVQ'l E. & LIBERMAN 1200 Wiveptjeenth St., N. W.

WashingtoY, D. C. 20036 202/859-9817 .

Counsel for Licensee 3

May 3, 1983

.?

I t .

?

I i

e 1

i i

.i ..--. l- . . - - - - . . . . . - . . . '. . . .; . : .. . . . .. ...-... ~ ...: ..

<~ - , , ,

• l v l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC FOWER ) D6cket No. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

. )

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.! I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing

" Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to 4

1 Produce to Intervenor" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid this 3rd day of May,

, 1983:

Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory r%= mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

- Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j

j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1,

Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Jerry Harbour Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulctory Board ccmmission j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 e

l- .

i l

6

-. ~

.e- .w-. -.. - . . . . ..-w.u..-. . . .

__. e.

96 -e,w-- g.us j

._ . . - _ _ . m .s...__ _ . . _ . .

,. 7

- 2-i :-

Mr. Gerald C. Sorensen Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman

, Manager of Licensing Energy Facility Site 4

Washington Public Power . Evaluation Council j' Supply System State of Washington 3000 George Washington Way Mail Stop PY-ll Richland, Washington 99352 Olympia, Wauhington 98504 1

Mr. Scott W. Stucky Mr. Eugene Rosolie Docketing & Service Branch Coalition for Safe Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 527 Commission . 408 South West 2nd Washington, D. C. 99352 Portland, Oregon 97204 .

i j 4

f hfo y L. Hartman V 1

• l i

I

/

?

t i

l e e. m e g g , ,, q., ,,y _

4+W*W" p+^M '@W=m'86 . D -e en - M me,

• ipe

s. . .. .-

agu1ED ConnC3PONnENC3 1

h CUC.!!EJJC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "' ' ' 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. m2 r- ,5 p j .2a

'-~'

REEQBE IHE_AIQUIG_EAEEII_aHQ LIGEHEIHf_BQa N In.the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No.50-460CPA et. al. )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

IHIEBYEHQBiE_BEEEQUDE5_IQ_H5G_3I8EEiE_EIBEI_ DEI _QE IEIEBBQGAIQBIED The -following interrogatories were answered by Eugene Rosolle .and Nina Bell,' Director and Staff Intervonor of the Coalition for Safe Power respectively. The answers to these do not identify any new documents not already a part of the record. Intervenor has not yet consulted with any advisors nor identified any potential witnesses.

INTERROGATORY 1: Explain fully the relationship between your statement that the decision to defer construction of WNP-1 for a two-to-five year period was "made upon reviewing the recommendations of the Bonneville'Powsr Adminstration (BPA), reviewing alternative proposals and taking public comment" and your contention that Permittee's decision to defer construction was " dilatory" and without " good cause."

RESPONSE: " Dilatory", in thic instance .seens intentional. The statement referred to in the interrogatory shows that, in fact, the decision to defer construction was intentional.

INTERROGATORY 2: (a) Is it your position that the Permittee was " dilatory" in not notifying the NRC on or about April 29, 1982 that it was modifying its request for a completion date from 1986 to 1991?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 2(a) is in the affirmative, explain fully the basis for that statement.

RESPONSE: (a) Yes.

(b) Permittee's response to CFSP Interrogatory No. 10.

NO FOY"*"'M524 POR ADCCK 05000460 G PDR

._. 1

. 3 ,

/

4 INTERROGATORY 3: (a) Is it your position that BPA support is not necessary to the financing of WNP-17 (b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3(a) is in the affirmative, identify and give full details with respect to all information upon which you base that statement.

(c) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3(a) is in the affirmative, explain fully how the financing of WNP-1 could be accomplished if BPA were to disapprove any further financing of WNP-1 construction. -

RESPONSE: It is not clear what the Staff seans by "BPA support" in this interrogatory; upon clarification Intervenor will readily enswer.

INTERROGATORY 4: Is it your contention that the i financial support or lack of financial support by BPA for WNP-1 would have no effect on the financing costs of WNP-17 RESPONSE: Intervenor objects to this interrogatory.

The cost of financing is not an issue in this proceeding as it has not been raised by any party. At no time did the Intervenor contend or set forth as a basis the cost of financing for WNP-1.

l l

INTERROGATORY 5: Is it your contention that the opinion of BPA on the PNVCC (sic) as to when WNP-1 should go into commerical operation, would have no effect on the financing I coats of WNP-17 l RESPONSE: Intervenor does not understand this interrogatory but assusing an error in the wording, we object for the reasons outlined in the response to Interrogatory 4, above.

INTERROGATORY 6: (a) Is it your statement that BPA does not have the authority to disapprove any further financing of WNP-1 construction?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 6(a) is in the affirmative, explain fully the factual basis for that statement.

RESPONSE: (a) Yes.

i -~ - - --

Y (b) The BPA has no legal authority to approve or dispprove the sale of bonds for WNP-1. See page 2 of the basis for Intervenor's revised contention No. 2.

INTERROGATORY 7: Is it your contention that there has i not been a slowing in growth rate of electric power I requirements in the Pacific Northwest?

RESPONSE: Intervenor ob J ects to Interrogatory No. 7 because need for power is not an issue in this proceeding.

However, it is clear that the answer is No.

INTERROGATORY 8: Is it your contention that the growth rate of electric power requirements in the Pacific Northwest has stopped or will stop completely before 19917 RESPONSE: Intervernor ob J ects to this interrogatory:

see response to Interrogatory 7.

INTERROGATORY 9: Is it your contation that the growth rate of electric power requirements has no business relationship as to when WNP-1 should go into commercial operation?

RESPONSE: Intervenor objects to this interrogatory l l

because it relates to the cperation of WNP-1 not the completion of construction of the actual construction of the project.

INTERROGATORY 10: (a) Is it your statement that the January 11, 1983 letter to H. Denton, Director, NRR, NRC from G.D. Bouchy, WPPSS, does not support Permittee's assertion that a deferred need for power constitutes " good cause" for deferring construction?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 10(a) is in the affirmative, set forth end explain fully the factual basis or legal authority for your statement.

RESPCNSE: (a) Yes.

(b) The plant was determined to b e' needed in the construction permit proceeding: the NRC has recognized that

).

, "5 need for power is not to be relitigated after the construction permit is granted.

INTERROGATORY 11: (a) Do you contend that a deferred need for power cannot as a matter of law constitute " good cause" under 10 CFR 50.55(b)?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 11(a) is in the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the factual basis or legal authority for this contention.

RESPONSE: (a) Yes.

(b) See response to Interrogatory No. 10.

INTERROGATORY 12: (a) Do you claim that the actual deferral in the need for power in the Northwest United States does not Justify deferring construction of WNP-17 (b) Explain fully your answer to Interrogatory No.

12(a).

(c) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 12(a) is in the affirmative, state the relevance of your statement that

" Petitioner...does not believe the power from WNP-1 will ever be needed?" to your claim that need for power in the Northwest United States does not Justify deferring construction of WNP-1.

RESPONSE: Intervenor does not understand whost

" deferral in the need for power" means but will answer upon clarification.

INTERROGATORY 13: What is the factual basis for your I statement that " Petitioner...does not believe the power from WNP-1 will ever be needed"?

RESPONSE: Intervenor objects to this interrogatory for the reasons outlined in the response to interrogatories Nos.

7 and 10 above.

INTERROGATORY 14: Is it your contention that if and when the WNP-1 is completed and ready to operate, it will I

not be operated because there would be no need for the power?

RESPONSE: Intervenor objects to this interrogatry as the subject is not an issue in the proceeding.

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

. , l I

m INTERROGATORY 15: What factors do you contend are

, relevant in assessing whether power from WNP-1 will ever be needed?

RESPONSE: Intervenor objects to this interrogatory; see response to No. 7 above.

INTERROGATORY 1 6 :. Explain the factual basis and/or legal authority for your statement that "Es31x to nine years cannot have been contemplated as a ' reasonable period of time' by the writers of 10 CFR 50.55(b)."

RESPONSE: Intervenor has no factual or legal basis for this statement.

INTERROGATORY 17: What do you contend would be a reasonable period of time for extension of the construction completion date for WNP-17 RESPONSE: See response to Permittee's Interrogatory No.

20.

INTERROGATORY 18: (a) Identify any and all j

" requirements of any regulations" promulgated since the date of docketing of the WNP-1 operating license application from which WNP-1 would otherwise be grandfathered by virtue of its date of docketing.

l (b) Explain fully how each of the requirements identified in response to Interrogatory No. 18Ca) will delay completion of the plant beyond the requested completion date of 1991. Give full details as to the extend to delay attributable to each such requirement.

RESPONSE: ,Intervenor objects to this interrogatory. The information which is sought is beyond the scope of the admitted contention. The referenced quotation is part of a committment made by the Permittee to the NRC Staff; they are the parties who are in a position to identify the existence and impact of any future regulations promul, gated beween the date of docketing of the application for en operating license and the resumption of construction. Intervenor does

. g-not have access to the records necessary and the expertise required to make such a Judgement. Moreover, Intervenor cannot anticipate what regulations will be promulgated in the next five years.

. Respectfully submitted, Dated this day the 24th ina Bell of May, 1983. Coalition for Safe Power 6

0 t

e

--- ,-r = , . . , . - , _ ,-- , - - , _ , , _ _ , , , , . , -

. ,o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GNJ,E0 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY ColHISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 33 ai 31 P1:

In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PU8LIC POWER 3UPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460 CPA et. al.-

)

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

I hereby certify that copies of "INTERVENOR'S RESPONSES TO NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" in the above captioned proceeding have been served, by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid on this 24th day of May, 1983, on the following:

Herbert Grossman, Chairman Nicholas Reynolds Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Debevoise & Lieberman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1200 17th Street, NW Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20036 Glen O. Bright Dr. Jerry Harbour Adminstrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 Mitti 'ioung Gerald Sorenson, Manager Counsel for NRC Staff Licensing Program Office of Exec. Legal Director WPPSS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 300 G. Washington Way Washington D.C. 20555 Richland, WA 99352 State of Washington Atomic Safety & Licensing Energy Facility Site Evaluation Appeal Board Panel Council Mail Stop PY-ll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Olympia, WA 98504 Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l Washington D.C. 20555 Nina Staff Intervenor Coalition for Safe Power

- . -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . __.___._____J

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

s.1 <

,f) .

-rw

' = w .,

q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA //

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (4. ",$1 Ct. d ?h BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY j

-- 4I#D y _.

AND-LICENSING BOARD ~,~ ,r. .

• 7893 y '4 6 's., ';,f,.,

-4 In the Matter of ' 3

)

) ,,

0)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER )

SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460-CP

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO COALITION FOR SAFE POWER MOTION TO COMPEL I. Introduction On April 14, 1983 intervenor served the Washington

. Public Power Supply System (" Licensee") with its first set of interrogatories. Licensee responded to those inter-rogatories on May 3, 1983, in which it objected to inter-rogatories 6, 7, 8, 9, and, in part, interrogatory 10.

On May 18, 1983 intervenor filed a motion to compel Licensee to respond to interrogatories 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Pursuant to Section 2.730(c) of the NRC Rules of Practice, Licensee hereby responds to that motion.

II. Response to Motion Licensee submits that intervenor has fundamentally misunderstood the oljections raised to its interroga-tories. Clearly, these interrogatories seek information which simply has no bearing on the issues before this Board. Indeed, interrogatories 6, 7, 8 and 9 constit.ute

' C PDR

$3)SSC)2h i 1

,..t,--..... ...

{'.

1 i

M,. i

.l:

~l:

1 essentially Ibnitiess requests for documents involving all aspects of the construction deferral at WNP-1. As such, they are impermissibly broad.

Licensee submits that two elements of NRC practice and procedure warrant this conclusion. First, in Illinois Power' Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)1 the

. Licensing Board stated, as follows:

Where a contention is made up of a general allegation which, standing alone, would not be admissible under 10 CFR $2.714(b), plus one or more alleged bases for the contention set forth with reasonable specificity, the scope of the matters in contro-versy raised by such contention are r' i limited by the specific alleged basis or bases set forth in'the contention.

This rule is clearly applicable here because, when read in isolation from its supporting basis, petitioner's. proposed l

contention amounts to conclusory assertions with no factual grounding.2 1 LBP-81-61, 14 NRC 735, 737 (1981).

2 Petitioner's single contention is that the Licensee's

" decision in April 1982 to defer construction for two to five years, and subsequent cessation of construction at WNP-1 was dilatory. Such action was without good cause as required by 10 CFR 50.55(b). Moreover, the modified request for extension of completion date to 1991 does not constitute ' a reasonable

, period of time provided for in 10 CFR 50.55(b)." Washington ,

', ~

Public Power Supply ' System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1),

ASLBP No. 82-480-01 CPA, Memorandum and Order (Admitting I

)

Intervenor and Contention), March 25, 1983 (" March 25 Memorandum and Order") slip op. at 4.

-c ,. , , - ,-.-.r-.---,-.~,.-e,- 4 - - r i,, --..e-.- , . ~ ,- - - - - , . . , . , . . , .

.; . u.y.- .

v 7-Second, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. Section 2.740(b)(1), discovery is limited to matters " relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding," i.e.,

contentions admitted by the presiding officer in the pro-caeding.3 Accordingly, in this proceeding the scope of discovery is limited to matters which are relevant to the single admitted contention. That contention, in turn, is defined by the specific alleged basis or bases set forth by petitioner-in its support. As a result, discovery requests must be relevant to the bases set forth by peti-tiener in support of its contention.

When viewed in light of this basic and well-estab-lished precedent, the failure of intervenor's interroga-tories 6, 7, 8 and 9 to satisfy the NRC Rules of Practice is self-evident. As reflected in tha Board's March 25, 1983 Memorandum and Order, the issues in this proceading l

are whether the Licensee intended to delay construction of WNP-1; whether that delay was for good cause; and whether L

the requested extensio'. of completion date is for a reasonable period of time.4 Subsumed in these issues are l

3 See Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-77-13, S NRC 489, 492 (1977).

4 March 25 Memorandum and order slip op. at 5. Licensee notes that intervenor characterized the issues in this proceeding as "the deferral of WNP-1; was such deferral dilatory; and is the requested extenelon for a reasonable period of time."

Coalition for Safe Power Motion to Compell [ sic] Responses to First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant (" motion to (footnote continued)

.o c- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _

.. ._.9 , . - --

x _

P

' ' ~

_4_

a number of allegations made by intervenor which consti-tuted the basis.for its contention. These allegations are as follows:

1. Licensee intended to delay construction at WNP-1;

2. Licensee did not establish " good.cause" for the construction permit extension because it offered only a " vague, con-clusionary [ sic] and unsubstantiated statement that BPA support is essential to the WPPSS projects;"5 3.- Six to nine years could not have been contemplated as a "reascnable period of time" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R.

Section 50.55(b); and

4. The present completion dates will not r be adequate.6 The interrogatories to which Licensee objects are not confined to the issues set forth above, which have been raised by intervenor in the contention admitted in this proceeding. Rather, they go well beyond those issues. The hypothetical example provided by intervenor in its motion to compel. illustrates this deficiency. Intervenor stated, as follows:

(footnote continued-from previous page) compel"), May 18, 1983 at 2. This simply is inconsistent with the issues identified by the Board set forth above and should not, therefore, serve to delineate the scope of this proceeding or of discovery.

5 Coalition for Safe Power Amended Contention No. 2 - February 11, 1983 at 2.

- 6 g. at 2-4.

__- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ __ -______a

b

-t 5-

[ Licensee]'also expresses'the concern that it would have to supply documents concerning ramp-down actions which have been proposed or taken to prevent possible site or facility degradation during the deferral. 'While it may be true that such documents " bear on health and safety" they are also rele-vant.to the issues in this proceeding.

Issues do not have to be mutually exclusives a hypothetical example would be if a letter had been written stating-that because of questions about the geology of the site,

[ Licensee] was considering the defer-ral of WNP-1. The document requested

< could.shed'some light on whether or not [ Licensee's] actions were dilatory i and the extension dates reasonable. l For instance, [ Licensee] could have been planning a deferral of construc-tion prior to BPA's suggestion to do so. The only way intervenor could discover that fact would be to have an opportunity to view those documents.7 In this proceeding rus allegation has been made that questions regarding the geology at the WNP-1 site was the r .

real reason why WNP-1 was deferred. Nor has any allega-tion been made more generally that such deferral was needed for undisclosed health and safety reasons. How-

• ever, that is prweisely what intervenor now suggests in its hypothetical example, As such, this speculation may

} not provide justification for intervenor to examine with-out any restraints whatsoever every aspect of the WNP-1 i

l 7 Motion to compel at 3.

~ .- - -m, a -, -, ,,-,,-w--,w ---r -- -- - .- -a,--- -- --- - - - - , - , - , , - - - ,,ae------w-

L construction deferral, especially given the limited scope of this proceeding and the still narrower scope of inter-venors' single contention.

That intervenor misunderstands the nature of .

Licensee's objections to its interrogatories is also illustrated by its assertion that documents concerning employment levels and contractual obligations have a direct bearing on the completion date for WNP-1 and thus are relevant to this proceeding.8 First, documents in- ,

volving fuel enrichment contacts (for example) have no s

logical nexus to the issues raised by intervenor in this proceeding, yet they fall within the scope of these objec-tionable interrogatories. Similarly, materials involving past employment levels at WNP-1 have no bearing on future construction activities at WNP-1 and when plant construc-tion can be completed. Again, however, this information falls within the objectionable interrogatories. 9 l- 8 g. at 4.

9 In Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722, NRC (1983) ("WNP-2") the '

Appeal Board emphasized the narrow scope of inquiry in a construction permit extension proceeding. It held that

" dilatory conduct in the sense used by the Commission [in CLI-82-29] means the intentional delay of construction without a valid purpose." It added that the " ultimate ' good cause' determination called for by Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act is whether good cause exists to extend the construction completion date. The statutory focus is not so much (or a,t least not exclusively) on an applicant's past conduct, but rather on the future." WNP-2, supra, ALAB-722, slip op. at 9 and 13. The Commission declined to review ALAB-722, so it now

~

(footnote continued)

In-short, intervenor simply fails to recognize in its motion to compel the fact that its-interrogatories are not in fact limited to the scope of the issues raised in this proceeding but_rather seek all documents concerning all aspects of the WNP-1 construction deferral. Accordingly, '

Licensee urges that the Board deny intervenor's motion to compel.

Respect u y submitted, u

/

Nichol f.}Reynolds Sanfor L. Fartman DEBEVO Eig LIBERMAN 1200 SeveMeenth St. , N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 202/857-9817 f

( Counsel for Licensee ,

June 1, 1983

't .

I r

~

( footnote continued from previous page) constitutes final agency action. May 25, 1983 Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission to Board and Parties in the WPPSS Project 2 Proceeding. Clearly a broad inquiry into the WNP-1 construction deferral ignores'this teaching of WNP-2, supra.

i e

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ i

t

,r-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN3ING BOARD

t. .

In the Matter of )

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing

" Licensee's Response to Coalition for Safe Power Motion to Compel" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by express mail, postage prepaid, by hand delivery (*), or by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid (**) this 1st day of June, 1983:

,' *Herbsrt Grossman, Esq. ** Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

• Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Chairman, Atomic Safety and

• Dr. Jerry Harbour Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissicn Weshington, D.C. 20555 G

i

4 f' '

Mr. Gerald C. Sorensen Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Manager ~of Licensing Energy Facility Site Washington Public Power Evaluation Council j Supply System State of Washington 3000 George Washington way Mail Stop PY-ll Richland, Washington 99352 Olymp.ia , Washington 98504 l

• Mr. Scott W. Stucky Mr. Eugene Rosolie l

Docketing & Service Branch Coalition for Safe Power '

l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 527 Commission 408 Fouth West 2nd 97204 Portland, Oregon f

( Washington, D. C. 99352 l- San (Ard L. Hartmin

' .. [

/[' -

'{, '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 3I30 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOl BEEOBE_IHE_6IQUIQ_E6EEIY_8HQ_kIGEN$1HQ_SQ8BE l

In the , Matter of .- ) t]. g [uey V #mydyw WASHINGTON e t . . a l ."

UBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM

)

Docket No. 50-460CPA S'/Nk "')

,,, g /(R; (WPPSS Nuclear Pro 3ect No. 11 )

C96kIII9N.E98_3eEE_B9 WEB _EIBSI_3EI_gE_IMIEBBQQ6I9BIE3 ,

IP_HBG_5I8EEa_2MEE_24 1282: {

INTERROGATORY-1: State the full name, address, occupation and employer of,each person answering the interrogatories and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof he or she answered.

I INTERROGATORY 2* Identify each and every person you are considering calling as a witness in the event a hearing is l held in this proceeding and with respect to each of these ,

witnesses: I

a. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify; j

b. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion: and i

c. Describe the witnesses' educational and professional backgrcund.

(

INTERROGATORY 3: What is the complete basis for your position that Licensee's decision in April ,1982 to ' defer' construction for two to five years, and subsequent cessation of cor.struction at WNP-1 was not " dilatory."

INTERROGATORY 4: Please explain fully what you mean by the word " defer" .

[

!NTERROGATORY 5: Please explain fully what you mean by the word " dilatory" .

I

[ INTERROG# TORY 6: What is the basis for your response to interrogatories 4 and 5?

INTERROGATORY 7: Why do you contend that Licensee has

[ established good cause for an extension of the WNP-1 construction permit? Explain your answer fully.

INTERROGATORY 8: What are the reasons Licensee offered to NRC in support of a showing of " good cause" as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.55(h)?

INTERROGATORY 9: Is it your position that the reasons offered by Licensee to support a showing of good cause are L. ../ to2s M f

2.

i v; in fact the only reasons why Licensee had requested an 1 extension of its construction permit?

7 INTERROGATORY 10: If your response to Interrogatory 9 is no, state all other reasons. .

INTERROGATORY 15 : What is the basis for your response 1 to inteirogatories 9 and 107 INTERROGATORY 12: Please explain fully what you mean by i a " reasonable period of tixe" l INTERROGATORY 13: What factors do you contend should be condidered when determining if a requested construction permit extension is for a " reasonable period of time"?

INTERROGATORY 14: What do you contend would constitute a

" reasonable period of time" in the case of WNP-17 INTERROGATORY 15: (a) Is it your position that BPA support is necessary to the financing of WNP-17

'(b) if your answer to Interrogatory No. 15fa) is in the affirmative, identify and giv e full details with respect to all informacion upon which you base that statement.

INTEPROGATORY 16: Is it your position that the finanesel support or lack of financial support by BPA for WNP-1 would have an effect on tha financing costs of WNP-17 INTERROGATORY 17: Is it your position that the opinion of BPA as to when WNP-1 should go into commerical operation would have an effect on the financing costs of WNP-17 INTERROGATORY 18: (a) Is it your belief that BPA has the authority to disapprove any further financing of WNP-1 construction?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 18(a) is in the

, affirmative, explain fully the factual basis for that i statement.

! INTERROGATORY 19: Is it your position that the growth i rate of electric power requirements has a business

relationship as to when WNP-1 should go into commercial operation? l l '

INTERROGATORY 20: (a) Is it your position that the ,

January 11, 1983 letter to H. Denton,. Director, NRR, NRC l from G.D. Bouchy, WPPSS, supports Permittee's essertion that a deferred.need for power constitutes " good casue" for deferring construction?

i (b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 2O(a) is in the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the fac.tual basis

or legal authority for your position.

INTERROGATORY 21: (a) Is it your position that a lack of need for power can, as a matter of law, constitute " good l

l 3

i

JW , 'cause" under 10 CFR 50.55(b)?

+

em (b) if yelt answer to Interrrogatory No. 21(a) is in

.I the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the factual

, basis or legal authority for this position.

INTERROGATORY 22: (a) Does the lack of need for power in thesNorthwest Justify deferring construction of WNP-17 (b)r:Exp1'ain fully your answer to Interrogatory No.

, 22(a).

INTERROGATORY 23: Explain the factual basis and/or legal authority which supports the position that six to nine years is a ' reasonable period of time' under 10 CFR 50.55(b).

INTERROGATORY 24: What do you believe would be a (maximum) reasonable period of time for extension of the construction completion date for WNP-17 INTERROGATORY 25: (a) Identify any and all

" requirements of any regulations" promulgated since the date of docketing of the WNP-1 operating license application fros which WNP-1 would otherwise be grandfathered by virtue of its date of docketing.

(b) Explain fully how each of the requirements identified in response to Interrogatory No. 25(a) will delay completion of the plant beyond the requested completion date of 1991. Give full details as to the extend to delay attributable to each such requirement.

INTERROGATORY 26: . Explain the difference, if any, between deferral, mothball and preservation.

INTERROGATORY 27: To what events is the restart of construction on WNP-1 tied. Explain fully your answer.

INTERROGATORY 28: What would be the effect of default on WNP-4 and 5 on the restart and completion of WNP 1?

, Previde all probability analysen, scenarios and time predictions.

INTERROGATORY 29: What is the effect of deferral of construction on WNP-3 on the restart and completion of WNP-1? Give the basis for your response.

INTERROGATOR,Y 30: What is the effect of bond ratings

'on WPPSS ability to finance WNP-1. Explain fully and provide the basis for your response.

INTERROGATORY 31: If a bond rating servLee refused to rate WPPSS bonds would WPP55 be able to finance the construction of WNP-17 Explain your answer.

INTERROGATORY 32: Is it your pcsition that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) for the Construction Permit found that the

++ --w-v-eww-ev---ee.-eerwy re e-- wr e gw=-- =

+-a- - _ , . - . . , --,. ,.,----, ..- -. - - - ,,t---,r-- .--v---,.. -e--=-w--mes -y3,,,w,

. ~. .

4 .

.i

!! W ,

Bonneville Power Adminstration had the power to approve or j  % disapprove the issuance of bonds by WPPSS. If yes give the

/~J reasons in detail for approval and/or disapproval.

l l' INTERROGATORY 33: Is it-your position the ASLB Initial '.

Decision (LBP-75-72,.2 NRC 922) found that BPA could control the coMatruption of WNP-l? If yes, in what sanngr? Explain in dete;il the basis for your answer.

INTERROGATORY 34: Is it your position that the original finding by the ASLB in its Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) on WPPSS financing ability rossina valid? Explain the basis for your answer in detail.

INTERROGATORY 35: Is it your position that the original finding by the ASLB in its Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) on the need for WNP-1 remains valid? Explain the basis for your answer in detail.

INTERh0GATORY 36: Is it your position that the only reason the ASLB found WPPSS financially qualified is because of BPA financial backing? l (a) If yes, explain the basis in detail.

(b) ,If no , cite all the reasons you believe the finding of financial qualification.

INTERROGATORY 37: What constitutes " good business sense" in decisions on nuclear plant deferal?

INTERROGATORY 38: What constitutes "BPA support"?

INTERROGATORY 39: How is "BPA support" recognized in the Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) on the

. Construction Permit for WNP-17 INTERROGATORY 40: Is cost of financing an issue in this proceeding? If so, why?

INTERROGATORY 41: Is need for power an issue in this proceeding? If so, what are tho issues which should be litigated with regard to need for power ?

INTERROGATORY 42: What is the legal basis for your answer to Interrogatory 417 1

INTERROGATORY 43: What, besides the Applicant's  !

representation on the need for WNP-1, does the Staff rely upon for its position on the need for the plant?

INTERROGATORY 44: Was the construction of WNP-3 (Satsop) halted because of no need for its power?

(a) If so, how does this affect the five-year deferral of WNP-1?

(b) If not, what were the reasons and how will they affect the deferral of WNP-l?

l

. .g -S-

.c p '. ' _

INTERROGATORY 45: Is the ultimate cost of power from )

s

WNP-1 a factor in the need for the plant? Shogid it be a 1

• r.^

t factor in the business decisions affecting continued

{

construction? i l

i INTERROGATORY 46: What is the Staff's position on the i relationship between' time and the deterioration of partially

' Provide the basis for constructed-Yacilities and equipment?

this position.

INTERROGATORY 47: What is the difference between SPA withholding approval for financing and SPA disapproving of financing?

INTERROGATORY 48: What level of staffing is necessary at WNP-1 t o maintain the construction site and equipment without deterioration ?

INTERROGATORY 49: Is it your position that the only obstacle to financing of the WNP ~ was/is the BPA recommendation?

INTERROGATORY 50: Do you agree that the passage of Washington Initiative 395 affected the ability of WPPSS to issue bonds? Explain your answer fully giving the basia and identify all documents relied upon.

Respectfully submitted, 9 .

Dated this day, the 9th _ _ 4est, ____________

of June, 1983. Eu e e Roso.ie, Director Co ition/ tor Safe Power

=e

. in .

t . 0

. t. ., m

~

g EDCo p 0 M U g ', *

-[s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f j v4 k

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..$ t. <t i HEEQBE_IHE_AIQHIG_EAEEII_6HD_IIQEEEIEQ_RQaB In the Matter of ) . ., _ , . g/

) e WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-et. al. )

.)

~

! ) '~

.(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) ) '

i GEEE_ggSggggg_Ig_LIgggggg>g_ggI;gg_Ig_gggggk On May 3, 1983, the Washington Public Power Supply System .

s (Licenseen served the intervenor with Licensee's First set of i  ;

Interrogetories and Request to Produce. Intervenor responded to t

the discovery' request on May 23. Licensee filed a motion to -

l compol on June.7. Following is the response of Intervenor to ,

l I

. that motion. -

J.'

l f- ,l i Intervenor does not necessarily agree with Licensee's view l

as to the adequacy of its responses. However, Intervenor has supplied an updated response to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories. These updated responses have taken into account Licensee's views as stated in its June 7th motion to compel.

Therefore Licensee concerns have been addressed thus negating the necessity of the Board to rule on this matter.

Respectfully submitted dated this day the 22nd ____ _____

____3fh,__

of June, 198?. Eug ne Rosolie Coalition For Safe Power D

nfo

Tgp COM ,

p. .-

e a .

3

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ..

4 h,.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .. ? '

^

b'-

REEQBE_IHE_aIQHIG_EAEEII_aEQ_kIGEEEIEQ_aQaBQ O -

In the Matter of )

b .

% g 4'E-

., ) 2 f.

'l WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. ,6 /

. .t. a 1. . ) .

~

} ..

I (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) ) e i .

i GQakIIIQN FOR EAEE_EQWER_UPQaIEQ_Bg3PQHEE!_IQ_3PP61gggI*g

______EIBEI_EEI_QE_IEIEEE2EAIQRIEE_DaIEQ_5AI_at_I2f a_

i i INTERROGATORY 7: What-is the complete basis for your .

I statement that licensee's " decision.in April, 1982 to ' defer' 9

} coristruction for two to five years, and subsequent cessation of .

} construction at WNP-1 was dilatory."

i

': RESPONSE: " Analysis of Alternatives Related to WNP-3", May

! 26,1983, Bonneville Power Administration. "WPPSS studies j construction halt at plant No.3", March 24, 1982, Oregonian, ,.g[; ..

.s .

Portland, Oregon.

• INTERROGATORY 8: Please explain fu;ly what you mean by the" ..

word " defer" as used in your contention. '

3 RESPONSE: Intervenor has used defer ~in its contention to ..

!t mean "put off". When Intervenor stated that it believed it I

means "a permanent halt" Intervenor was referring to the

[i meaning as seen by Licensee and others. ,

l INTERROGATORY 11: Why do you contend that Licensee has

? failed to establish good cause for an extension of the WNP-1

. construction permit?

RESPONSE: See response to interrogatory 17 dated May 23, 1983 and the updated response cont'ained herein.

INTERROGATORY 13: What is the basis for your response to interrogatory 127 RESPONSE: Letter to Harold Denton, Office of NRR/NRC, from G.D. Bouchey. Deputy Director, WPPSS dated April 30, 1982.

_h_gg_ ;- ,

="-M W DOCK d

.- . e. c. o

. , 2.? .;

i -

We,%

Q; ' O *'

-W::E:.

.. .,; y

. , %* p .* 'a-

, INTERROGATORY 14: Do you contend that the reasons offered k.f

..y,ggr i

?%

by licensee to support c showing of good cause are factually * ?- # '

incorrect? -

? ?;3

. .% .$Q RESPONSE: Intervenor believes there is a difference between ~ ~~ M4' 2 ::q reasons offerred and the reasons why a deferral was/is being '"e. . :.

.e sought by Licensee. This interrogatory we feel Just speaks to c. ' ' " , '

the reasons offerred by Licensee to the NRC which to the best of' '"{ 4.

our knowledge are contained in the April 30, 1982 letter to ' ,. l

.c y Denton, NRC from Bouchey, WPPSS.

1. '

Intervenor has interrupted that letter as at sting that , , . ,

WNP-1 was deferred based on a recommendation by the BPA. As stated previously Intervenor does concede that BPA did make a , jl%

.. c ..wf.:

recommendation. However, se stated in response to Interrogatory ,'[53

• - 17 other reasons exist for the deferral of WNP-1. .

r-r.n

.,h d's e

-- -.2:: ~.. . ,li INTERROGATORY 15: What is the basis for your response to

• S.

interrogatory 147 .I RESPONSE: Filings made in the above capticned proceeding. \

, See response to interrogatory 18.

i a 4NTERRROGATORY 17: If your response to interrogatory 16 is .

yes, why do you believe that licensee has (a) sought an  ;,.

extension of its. construction permit and (b) deferred construction at WNP-17 .

8 l RESPONSE: As to why Licensee is seeking an extension of its I

i construction permit Intervenor does not know . . ,

i

Intervenor believes that Licensee deferred WNP-1 in part ,.

j due to the requirement of Washington State Energy Financing Voter Approval'Act which became law in July, 1982.

INTERROGATORY 18: What is the basis for your response to interrogatories 16 and 177

! RESPONSE: "Hanford plants should be finished", Jerry

.. . . . ~ ._

.;-bi?i" 8

, . :2

g. g ti '

- .c.c:-

hr ; ,* a .c.m

,4

.iEMM

) .f, Pavletich, President, Northwest Steelhead and Salmon Council, f, April 18, 1982, Tri-City Herald, Pasco, Washington. "No,1 should . . .

n.m -

jp i: I.. .;

be Ito.1", Editorial, April 18, 1982, Tri-City Herald, Pasco, 'j l.F~'

. j% ^

l- . Washington. "BPA defends N-plant decision", April 21, 1982, P ' .tfck .~ ~ . < ..

< - ,. h-M .4 l

Oregon Journal, Portland Oregon. " Washington State Energy ,g;sipg

?. .W**

j Financing Voter Approval Act: Cost Effectiveness Study of WNP-2 -

..;j; .

. m.a..w and WNP-3", Applied Economics Associates, Inc. "Information C *j:~g;.

.' 9l4dk'p' Bulletin: On Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness Study on Washington, ' 5'. ~D.p.

Y I; 4

. Pub'lic Power Supply Systes Plants", November 22, 1982, Secretary - AS

?!*M$5 i of Stiate, Washington. e. h v f.bh

' INTERROGATORY 19:'What is the basis for your statement theti, the " modified request for extension of completion date to 1991 does not constitute a ' reasonable period of time provided for iri Mh p,y" '".,,.

c.

~~

i 10 CFR SO.55;b)7" <

~

• ~ ~ '

[g. ?,5j'~ -

1  ;'1  ;.A RESPONSE: " Analysis Of Alternatives Related to WNP-3", May1 * -af 1,

26, 1983, SPA, p.40. [ :LL. $

f

' - -f/75*) :

i .

' z+:tw I

j INTERROGATORY 23: What is the basis for your response to . . 'e$

i interrogatories 20, 21, and 227 -

' - T/,l,7

( RESPONSE: Intervenor basis is contained in its basis for f r. .-' . :-

its contention and " Analysis of Alternatives Related to WNP-3", ..-

, e... ;;..

t'r-BPA. Intervenor is currently reseaching legal cases to provide ,

1egal support for its position and will again update its .*

l . -

! I response, c '.

• f-Respectfully submitted,

_ __ m_ __ __ __ __

4

Eug e Roso1 e l

, Coe ition For Safe Power g

1 4

1 dated this day the 22nd of June, 1983.

9

-e

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

. .-es . -

y. : pgg. Strw :st

. . , . 7 . J:t .a f.; A 'rhei ...

- - ,,;;;7% y f

.- ~. -

?' p -

L. r. . . . - - . f:.n 2 - ,;

7 .

Git . :- -F  :

, . :, a

.L-J

. 4 ^ *M.c[Q

~

4 h fg =\ .i 1 M w

,- @4 m@dsW 39?%m ! l wskn

^@ $' .kht9 l STATE OF. OREGON ) c, ,3y., .itigt.W

) 94 @*5 COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) } ..;iggg,

.#*h$v.Ih3

- !'g;M.R V

c. m Eugene Rosolie, being duly sworn, deposes and says: ~.k.;ti'rs That he is the Director, of the Coalition For Safe Power, ~.+:*07 and that h6 believes the contents of the foregoing Coalition -q.Rp For Safe Power. Updated Responses to Applicant's First Set of  ; : .2 M Interrogatories Dated May 3, 1983 are true and correct to ' ~J: M&n the best of his information, knowledge and belief. - ..c.Qj m

- .-4,

....u,

.,- c ...~

. .:.. n

_ f_ M _ __

E

_ +Q 1 .

,lm. .N$15a j  : - m- .m G:*

. . ElL*'inQw t

yf-iG Sworn to and subsegib,ad before me : ' rI.*A on'this M _ day of % _, 1983. ,-

jh

• / tA ; +P *

?

8** ,

e

.otary Public ~ .]

sty aammiss& ib n. O4s omires : t)30 tL 1

g ._ f-

"".S .w

['...' . .

. . . s,

, 4.

• * .,. i. j .L

.e e 9

e n; fr>..t .ty. ,,

.'i' I :.f.d t

. ... .c. -

' .' 3.g-1 i . s s.

I -

s

! 9.>,

~2 . u - "-. * - - - ' ~

~ ,~- ~ - * * -*'~

- .- s r-_--~- _ ___

Sit

~

!i

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

). ,

. , MUCLEAR REGULATORY ComISSION f Ag v i

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA

.e q [-

k In the Matter of ) . ph , . ~^,"

Docket No. 50-46'000L WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ~ SUPPLY SYSTEM 2 1 . 11.- )

)

7 --

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

, I hereby certify that copies at "u dy Mtdrundt au 1.1CENSEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL" and "C0ALITION FOR SAFE POWER UPDATED RESPONSES TO APPLICANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, DATED MAY 3,1983" in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid this 22nd day of June,1983:

-i Nerbert Grossman, Chairman Nicholas Reynolds Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Debevoise & Lieberman

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1200 17th Street, NW -

Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20036

. Glen O. Bright Dr. Jerry Harbour Adminstrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 Mitzi Young Gerald Sorenson, Manager Coun.%1 for NRC Staff Licensing Program Office of Exec. Legal Director WPPSS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 300 G. Washington Way Washin5 ton D.C. 20555 Richland, WA 99352 ,

. State of Washington Atomic Safety & Licensing Energy Facility Site Evaluation Appeal Board Panel Council Mail Stop PY-ll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Olympia, WA 98504 Washington D.C. 20555

• Docketing & Service U.S. Nuclear Ragulatory Comission Washington D.C. 20555 1

A '

i . Nina Bell, Staff Intervenor i Coalition for Safe Power l

- = .  ; - : y- - :. y  ; y a: t =.. z.

y t

. T. ._ ;. _ .

ir~- ,'t'-

• _ .__1.  %.- *

.'u..?> ..

- _ - - - .- . - . . - . . . - . -- - ? . _ . .- - . . . . . _ L .- - . - . - . . - . . . . - - . - - - - . - .

6 g

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

[ ACCESSION NbR:8306300127 FACIL:50-400 HPPSS Nuc) ear Project, Unit 1, washington Public Powe 00C.DATE: 83/06/26 NGTARIZED: f40 DOCKET s 05000460 AUTH.hAME AUTHuR AFFILIATION GHOSSHAN,H. Atomic datety and Licensing doaro Panel i NECIP.NAMC HECIPItNT AFFILIATION Cor11 tion for Safe Power

SUBJECT:

Memorandum & oroer granting Coalition for Safe Power 830523 motion to compel answers to Interrogatories 6,T,8 & 9. Info

' sought reasonably calculateo to leaa to discovery of

, aumissable evidence.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: 0304S COPIES RECEIVED LTR _[ ENCL JQ SIZE:__$_______

TITLE: Non - Antitrust Issuances NOTES:

RECIPIENT LOPIES RECIPIENT COPIES C"1^,. '"

LTTR ENCL ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL fI ' d '"" 20 3 1 d .NRR LB4 LA 1 l' THADANI,M 1 :I INTERNAL: ASLAP 5 s ASL8 01 1 ELO/PSb 1 L GC 1 ,

PA 1 L RGN5 1 EXTERNAL: LPOR 1 NRC POR 1 <

NTIS 1 ,

1 l

0 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES HEuu1RLD: LTTR 16 ENCL sdf

I k ; * ,. ,,

$j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMilSSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

,, f,' - m .

- gis "*

f. s  %. -

Before Administrative Judges:

t-j:e- l ., . .- ,-

. f: a Herbert Grossman, Chairman f'C Glenn O. Bright \/A c".* :' *)[$.

%$ls C'-

C Or. Jerry Harbour 'q;

. l,'

1

)

n . ; .- -

In the Matter of ) - Docket No. 50-466~CPA~ '" ~ ' 23 I

)

WA I ON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ) (ASLBP No. 83-485-02-CPA)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1) ) June 28, 1963

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Intervenor's Motion to Compel)

MEMORANDUM On April 14, 1983, Intervenor, the Coalition for Safe Power (CSP),

served its first set of interrogatories upon Applicant, containing ten interrogatories. Applicant objected to Interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9, and to a portion of Interrogatory No. 10. On May 23, 1983, CSP moved to compel answers to Interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9. Applicant responded to the motion to compel on June 1,1983.

We grant Intervenor's motion.

3)SO9-

s

2 ~

-Interrogatories 6, 7, and 8 request documents "concerning the delay of WNP-1" or minutes of meetings at which the " delay of WNP-1 was dis-cussed." Interrogatory 9 requests documents related to "all options considered by WPPSS for WNP-1 between April 23 and 29, 1983."

l.

WPPSS objects to these interrogatories on the ground that the dis-covery sought is not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pro-ceeding. Licensee's response, June 1,1983,- at 3. WPPSS appears to take the positton that the mere presence of matters beyond the scope of l the proceeding in the requested documents makes these documents non-discoverable. Jd, at 5-6.

We cannot accept this proposition. The focus of our inquiry into whether the material is discoverable is not on whether it contains mat-ters beyond the scope of the proceeding but on whether "the information sought [also] appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b)(1). If the documents were to fit that description but also contain privileged information not rea-sonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, per-haps the Board would consider limiting Intervenor's discovery on that basis. However, WPPSS has asserted no privilege.

Since Intervenor's interrogatories all relate directly to either the delay of kND-1 or to other options considered for WNP-1, the infor-mation sought appears to be not only reasonably calculated to lead to

r i

the discovery of admissible evidence but also necessary for Intervenor to prepare its case. Intervenor could hardly attempt to develop its

. contentions that WPPSS' actions and delaying construction were dilatory and without " good cause", and that the requested extension is not for a reasonable period of time, without fully understanding the reasons for the delay in construction. The possible presence of extraneous matters in these documents cannot influence our decision.

Nevertheless, the Board sees one area that should be excluded from this discovery if it had not already been so contemplated by the par-ties. As written, these interrogatories could be interpreted as cover-l ing documents concerning the originally-requested extension of construc-tion completion date. At the prehearing conference, Intervenor conceded that WPPSS had not intentionally delayed construction so as to necessi-tate the originally-requested extension of construction completion date (Tr. 58-9), and the Board denied the aspects of Intervenor's contentions that did not relate to the contemplated 2-5 year period of cessation of construction activities added on to the original requested period exten-sion (Memorandum and Order, March 25, 1983, at 3-4; see also Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722,17 NRC (April 11,1983).

In accordance with our March 25, 1983 Memorandum and Order and ALAB-722, we rule out from discovery those documents relating only to 9

i' .

E t

the originally requested extension and which have no relation to the subsequent request for the add'tionel 2-5 year extension.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 28th day of June,1983, ORDERED, That Intervenor's motion to compel responses to the "rst set of interrogatories to Applicant is granted and that Applicant may exclude from the documents sought only those documents relating exclusively to the originally-requested extension that are unrelated to the subse-quently requested 2-5 year additional extension.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ktf h A.L..n ,..-

Herbert GrcJsman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 6

I

ib- REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESCION NdR 8307050178 00C,0 ATE: 83/07/01 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET #

FACIL 50-460 nPPSS Nuclear Project, Unit 1, hashington Public Powe 05000460 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION GROSSMAN,H. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panet RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFPILIATION hashington Puelic Power Supp1r System SUSJECT: Memorandum & order denying util 830607 motion to compel further answers from Coalition for Safe Power to util 830503 first set of interrogatories. Motion moot since Coalition I filed response on 830622.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: 0802S COPIES RECEIVED LTR g. l ENCL J2 SIZE j - =__.

TITLE: Non = Antitrust Issuances l NOTES:

I RECIFIEMI COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES 10 enDE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL r N N ' a n'D 1 I NRR L84 LA 1  ; l f THADANI,M 1

' ASLS 01 1 INTERNAL: ASLAP 5 ELD /PSB 1 GC 1 PA 1 RGNS 1  :

EXTERNAL: LPDR 1 NRC POR 1 l NTIS 1 1 l

6 TOTAL NUM8ER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 16 ENCL $

i

E ' . .. . _ _

v . . .. . -

= .

e

, \a, .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

.f : ..

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '^% .

Before Administrative Judgesi' 4 c5A -

b

,.g iij

~

~

Herbert Grossman, Chaiman JUL J',

3 c

Glenn O. Bright eri $ ,ss.

Dr. Jerry Harbour .4

. t'ic'.n ,

I tio \ .

" ,y ,

)

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-460-CPA WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ) (ASLBP No. 83-485-02 CPA)

• t_al. J J

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1)

~

July 1, 1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Applicant's Motion to Compel) .

MEMORANDUM On May 3, 1983, Applicant, the Washington Public Power Supply Sys-tem (WPPSS), served a first set of interrogatories on Intervenor, the Coalition for Safe Power (CSP). CSP filed answers on May 23, 1983. On June 7,1983, Applicant filed a motion to compel further answers to In-terrogatories 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 23. On June 22, 1983, CSP filed a respon e to Applicant's motion to compel, which supplemented the disputed answers and comitted CSP to further updating its response.

m (9-t I

ki 2-Taking into account CSP's lack of first hand knowledge of the facts surrounding the decision to delay construction and the embryonic stage of discovery, CSP's supplementary answers and its conmitment to further update seem to be as full responses as can be expected. Applicant's mo-tion' appears to have been satisfied.

i ORDER For all of the foregoing reasons, it is this 1st day of July,1983 i

ORDERED, That Applicant's motion to compel is denied as moot.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'~

4a Ww_.--

Heroert Grossman, Chainnan ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE e

t 7

r m essomum eenn e va m --_ m

• 48 N . -e w e*

__ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..___.m _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ______. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _

5.. "

nEGULAfunr 1 4 F o.M 4 i l uu 015THIouT10.s 3f3TL- (r . sJ)

' ACCESSIUI. tana t o 3u /20012o UdC.0 ATE: o3/u//13 aurah1ZE0: .;0 LoCaci 8 FACIL:Su=460 eePPSS 14uclear Preiect, unit 1, ..asninuton Huolic Powe 4509u4eo A U T H . N 4.F E AuTHUk a F F IL I A T 10tv i BELL,ra. Coalition for Safe Power

• WECIP.oASE nECIPldieT AFFILIAIlON tasninoton Pol.lic Power succIv bvstem

SUBJECT:

Thico set of intercoomtories.deleteo corresponcence.

O LS TRIhu f f ur. CODE: US033 CuPIFS *ECEIvtD:LTh _f Ei4CL b S14E: __

, TITLE: Filinen ( tec t veio ov NWC) n0TES:

• MECIPIENT CUPIFS PECIPIEuT COPIES 10 CuuE/HpE LTT4 Ei4CL ID CouE /rJu ME LTTs EliCL i i.N W t h .a is c- 1 1 i4HH LBu LA i 1 I 1

? fad # FIT

. INTEHt4AL: 4 SLAP 5 5 ASLu 01 1 1 ,

ELu/PSd 1 1 uC 1 1

- PA i 1 kbias 1 1 Ex T Eh.44 L : t.P C W 1 1 aHC PDH 1 1

., TIS 1 1 TOT al tvuranF h 0F CUPIES REQUIRED: LTTR to EhCL 16

e e -. . . . . _ _ - . _ . _ - . _ . . . .- .

i

. n

. *'L ,

-= __

n- w . -

' ~ <

• ..,n :p NW*O .

.\ h, UNITED STATEn'OF" AMERICA s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,. .'." I 7..

~  %-

??E93g_IHg_6I951g_ Sag;II_agg_LIgguSIgg_agang JUL ,. - e t > -11 ---

) e . . . s -e tee. P./

n th+ Matter of '-

li,',.c . r ss. [s .r '

)

' *; ATM:::r0!: PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No.'SO'460CPA'- -

..',e e.

4.. ) .

/ ; g,

)

NPPS? :uclear Project No. 1) )

916kIII9E_E9E_S6Eg_ggggg_IgIgg_ggI_gE_INIgEB99aIQBIgg IQ_aEELIGaHIz_2MLI_12t_12H2_.

Pu suant to Commission rules, 10 C.F.R. 2.740b and 10 073 2.~41. intervenor Coalition for Safe Power hereby reques s that the Applicant answer each of the following in;4rrogatories seperately and fully in writing and under

~

ca h , and to produce the documents as requested. In s r.sw er :r.g - hosa interrogatories, applicants is requested to f u r r. i s h +1; information.available to applicant, however c s t a ;..+ d , including hearsay, and including information known by or r. the possession of applicant's employees, egents and at crneys or appearing in applicant's records.

If unable to answer the following interrogatories in full after exercising due diligence to do so, so state and answer .o the extent possible, kpecifying the inability i.o

• answer -he remainder, stating whatever informa' tion or kr.owledge is had concerning the unanswered portion and describing the efforts to secure the unknown information.

Ir.f ormation sought by these interrogatories obtained af er service of answers shall be disclosed to the .

i r.t e r v e n o r s by supplementary or amended answers within a  %

^

ressenoble time after such information is obtained, as Yb

e .

required by 10 CFR 2.740(e).

In each response, identify any documents used in i

answering the interrogatory. As used herein, the term "cocuments" mean's all writings of every kind, both originals  ;

and copies, including but not limited ibs, correspondence,

" letters, memoranda, ' notes, reports, papers, studies, analyses, surveys, test results, books, records, contracts l

or agreements, teleframs and other cJanunications sent or

~~'

received, transcripts of meetings, hearings or statementa, computer printouts, maps, charts, graphs, drawings, tables, .

, .., .7

'('

calculations and computations, and printed or publis'hed .c matter. The term " documents" also includes voice .

-A l

recordings, films, tapes, photographs and other data .

~ -

compilations from which information can be obtained, .l including materials used in data processing. .. .

e ..?

lNTERROGATORY 1: State the full name, address, occupation and employer of each person answering the . . . -

interrogatories and designate the interrogatory or the part ris 2 4.,

thereof he or she answered.

INTERROGATORY 2: Provide a list of and make available ,

all documents received by the Applicant from the Bonneville Power Adminstration (BPA) from January 1, 1981 to the present regarding the anticipated cessation and actual cessation of construction activity at WNp-1, including the placing of the pro 3ect in a mothballed, deferred or preserved state. s ..

O t N g $ eng a

....~. ..

l .- . -. .. - . .

-g . . .

3 - -

l INTERROGATORY 3: Provide a list of and make available for inspection and copying all documents provided by Applicant to the BPA from January 1, 1981 to the present l

regarding the anticipated cessation and actual cessation of construction activity at WNP-1,' including the placing of the ,

pro 3ect in a mothballed", deferred or preserved state. _ ,

,, -J

. ..e* . . .

- . '.;> !. .. ~e a INTERROGATORY 4: What are the " current conditions" 'u- T.~;.

u .. '.; .

referred to by Licensee in its response to Intervenor's . ' 5. :-. .

.:m..c ,e ' ~ ~ i is: \

Second Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 14 and 24, which affect * -

1

. the determination that an extension to 1991 is for a . .

" reasonable period of time"? Provide this information in a '['

list format, with the greatest specificity possible.and refer to all the documents which are relied upon as a basis 5 for each condition.

INTERROGATORY 5: Provide all materials and documents used by the 3PA to prepare the " Analysis of Alternatives Related to WNP-3, May '26, 1983" by the BPA (hereinafter refered to as the WNP-3 Decision Document) which bear in any way upon the deferral of construction on WNP-1. -

INTERROGATORY 6: Provide all materials and documents used by .he BPA to prepare the " Analysis of Resource' Alterna.'ves" dated April 19, 1982 by the BPA (hereinafter refered to as the WNP-1 Decision Document).

• r

, .;: .u. .::a 1;

-4 - - . -

. 4...-.llh,w$-ftm.m:

, . .,m d.ss.-

7 :;

'!NTERROGATORY 7: Explain why the Applicant believes '-

-t;'d .*: 9-%,

w..i.<  % ; w.l-need for power and financing are not issues to be considered v e . a,.

4.* y* .

in this proceeding taking into account item 6 on page 2 of 4.: , .y" c.. :%.

Applicant's letter dated January 11, 1983 requesting an . 42./.'- ..

. ,l extension for the completion date for WNP-1 Cand used .

. ~. ,.

- . .A d,9% '

subsequently as the basis for the NRC Staff SER and Order, , .,gW 6 t , . . xe dated June 16, 1983) wl'ich states: " recommendations of the ,. fu %

=l.

BPA to WPPSS that the construction ori WNP-1 be delayed for +l'".4.A~) L T

. r z .4 O.f an additional period of two to five years (beyond June 1,'h.2 y - h.4 1986) due to 192dlISSE9ERS hAISDES_ShSDSSS and gggggmig. . -i,MWi6,%.Wy l

, , ;; .v.n..;

factors identified in the BPA's report Analysis of Resource.iu,7'$.jfgl .- l

%: .w ; ,w :

Alter.stives* dated April 19, 1982." (emphasis added). , .., :' Q -

jj 3..'

. < : % $?w/ \

. . l

k:'. 7 . .l

!N ERROGATORY 8: Identify what obstacles exist to- 3 4,5.o W !

.kk$.q$$ \

financine for WNP-1 including any or all elements of the BPA $.  :

)r6.st. .

-.?5.nW..

recommendation, how such obstacles prevent financing, the 5 !'5j;t' .% '

anticipated tige for each obstacle to be overcome, and what r.w.

'5$ $ w$.; -e .~

%c,z%.:-

't%!D$s .,.

must occur for each obstacle to be overcome. Explain how .;&Ij$$

. ed.71* ~'

all obstacles will'be? overcome in a "two to five year" M;~I.w ' s.. -

h <9 o:-T@; '

- .N .. . . '

period following the date of cessation of construction...N 6d. -

M4- .- 4.3 W c:t sqaw w - . a.:w

, sv INTEtROGATORY 9: Which of the scenarios presented in 5- g.;, . .

S ,-: :. .M.f~y.*.

s .

v. .

..f2

+

. ' ' ' 9,7Nk?

Table :::.C. of the WNP-3 Decision Document was chosen, in' .4 -C.it,;h

• 983 by the WPPSS Executive Board / Participants fuly r. .

.I , .s? ,.r t'om: t- *.n/WFPSS Board of Directors? *

• - *r ; a.. . .

.- ~

=.. - :'?M.?:

• * ..:%.:.i "N ERROGATORY 10: Does the Applicant believe that the I h.$.pt. . 4f. .$, ; .,

rester . of construc-tion of WNP-1 is tied in any way t.o the f.J

.u ., i.e .:-

s . A **:, *

. * *t-$*ssg.

~

.e.-::vyf.y

~,7

.i. g g

~

. ++9 o

b,4 k* IMAGE EVALUATION /,,jg/j y

e te res11AaGer (ar.3)

/q, ,4 <,g+9, e'

q)ff;+g>

4y, l.0 l;m m u m gu m na j,j h ,30 bb g i.8 I.25 1.4 1.6 i.

150mm 4

6" >

, 4 k*%.

.,,gj' 3,,,,, , .

x

/4%-

4,*k*';

oh // L

IMI W J s

[

'4+fg+f IMAGE EVALUATION [77jp/ 4#

j(g$ #,4 b

q )ff g , f/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) [

'N"g/ '

y?  ;

//// //,,$

$$+Qy,W' +  :

1.0 Em E g m gg

- m m D b==N l,l

- 3 l.25 l.4 1.6 150mm >

4 6" >

4 8; p %v77777 ;h4%

s

/4%

bp,  ;

<g,f aW m - - - -

I h... IuJ -l

,. I

9 .

4 .

k, 'A

%$h,k:+ IMAGE EVALUATION ((/p "

g4#4-p'g7 %". 9 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 9 /{q,, ig?

ll gy,,,, ,,,

+ ,, s  : -

L 1

m

. .~

(:

l,0 l;En Du  !

=-

m en g "u E Eu 2 j,l h." bb h:

i LLts ,

l.25 1.4 y i.6

- ii }

4 4 150mm > I 5

. r 6" >

4 h t

h7f ////fh i

4 'hp 4% 4

/NNN k

df;'$pj,(

5,,,,,

4}3)[48

+y  ;

g . - r-. .,

• \

s

__. ...... _ __. . - m. , *~ . &. .%:.-,,. .m: .

-S* . .:.M  :- ; .*' --?.)?W'.'.Q. .

-$ e *? * .*

.?,E GT[ei-M, .-

net-billed projects?'7'9.??4 use,of BPA revenues for any of the .'TS*'vTH&:

Oces BPA belive that' the restart of construction of' WNP-18$s4 h ~r,%, ;d. d..,%g.,i .

d.im '"

tied in any way to. the use of BPA revenues for an'y of-the - . a . . ~-g.we; net-billed projects? 'If so, provide the legal basis for '-4N.:; . *

• j ;,TV.*/.s t,.

& 'E y sge.g.

/g ,

> use of such funds. 5.wf {E. <'-i

'li M.;.gp u q ~~,41%w~l::.G.i.

~ A. .r.. e, .% . . ,n..Lw ,i.p- 8 INTERROGATOftY 11: If the answer to Interrogatory"id'$,rui;.r. y . .g

,.s.,,

answer to Interogatory 9 abovie is sI'.

~

above is yes end the

~

c -M. = . ..

scenario 2a, 2e 'or 2f, what impact would Applicant $..h.3

, J 'j - 9 O

anticipate on the restart of construction of WNP-l'f.E..os'a.?.~ .

. e,

. - . . T.' ..r.Jg ru*ing that use of BPA revenues for construction or rampdown~mp

3. % :

was illegal, including the effects on the rampdown or!- f. z

, . . . , c.

m . < .s

..,s u_ .

r-:cW- ,.w.evO . .s-7 construction of WNP-3? ~ -: .

lu, m. W::.

~.d.

v~1ce= ? o .= d : ., a.

-m g.w-e._:- ,.,;

INTERROGATORY 12: BPA states in the WNP-3 Decis$bn N- N

.3.4'td.kfkd5 l J'?

Occument that the restart of const.ruction of WNP-1.-c.:eo g is

. v; tiedw.R"@;;- p to the restart of construction of WNP-3. Does Applicant ",rk.. .,.q: . ~ . -

~.m1 O k ~g%.2 agree or disagraa with this position? Explain ful.ly.. an.,d.W.

.4  :

%yj. .

.,. ffw.

f. . .; r . , " d. .j.

provide the basis for the response.

• W;$_.. :f% .A, M@

j'Q. * , '* . ;_

=

.. : j-, . %c5 . , . .

• .. ~.:.9. . g  %

y,. ,;. . ,. ,; '.i'4.';

,.%...... 4.

. ,:. w.g:

. . . ; . . ,7.*.:

What effect would there be;on the gvMQ n_C

~

n ra ,~ :. ..

h.g .. ~

INTERROGATORY 13: -

.- -  :. c.Wi  % g.

restart of construction of WNP-1 if it were determined'that.7:.'.-

... . n., ..

o there had been a misallocation of funds on.the WNP-1/4 7 -('.'2y 4,.;

..;t -: v.

projects such that such funds would have to be repaid :..'-~;.?;;l

• to the'. l

~

WNP-4/5. Participant.s by WPPSS? - .; . ;,.-J. ;

. . , ~ r~1.m INTERROGATORY 14: Taking into consideration thef ., . .G.^ij s,:

-i a atoents in the WNP '3 Decision Document that* deferral of.

I . --;.7 :: .

1 l

{ . sh]s 3 :

ih - $ .M..s. t2.'n. .

'. ,' .W5.:N;

. u ;2 *-.= . ? - .

- r ,:r v.. . 4.r.. :

=.,3<** .s s years will lead".'.' g... ' 'y, 3, esnatruction of WNP-3 for a minimum of three rr,g "e%.

- ir: variably to an additional deferral of WNP-1 for 2 to 7' ,~ yJ.y

a. total of 5 to 12 years) and the fact that WPPSSh.e.m . . .* ? .. .=< ?,, .-

ye'ers (for .

s.~ .s.,s.

deferred construction of WNP-3 for "three years" on July'*8 . 4 . g-Qyq';.

statements to the,NRC A ,/4'

• SS3 what is the. basis for Applicant's

~ ::.Lypy. g, p

. s. - WhatW,aeg].g ,f 4 that the deferral.of WNP-1 is for 2 to 5 years?

q. 2 to 5 years ,--79:. 'C 4: %-**.Q Applicant's basis for claiming that isa..h. ,'.. .c 4 e " 7

.  :. ? - iW

- .. x

" reasonable period of time"? 'Does Applicant contemplateg.a gn g,g,

.4%$+Wp ,

. J.;:. . Of '.o amendment to thali-l' current application for a const.ruc.tio

ws m ? ..=. .y, 2n t u

Provide all documents ., a q'

- ~ 4. . c - -

permit extension?JS . . < . rg. not, why not? .. p-Mid

~

-- .-i

-  ;" 1 u:,y, fr . in this interrogatory-incidding related to the responses 'Q"

.: . .n. ; . ,. . .. ,E- f,pp'T$D

$ rl. . -

@ r- internal memoranda, notes, minutes etc. '

' h.EI(%b4h2 E m;.

k* ):.

~

. ';c j,$

.V& &....u&.g.,w Qg G

-

• Applicant disagree withathe, %yg 3 INTERROGATORY 15: Does the .y w +

• R Q *2 WNP-3 Restart Sensitivity'M2.p -c< y'-M/g results of the "WNP-1 vs.

.- .,ws ..p;.s .

. . ;.. of the WNP-3 Deci.s..i.onkF4.i.l,+

Analysis" present.ed in Table IV.K.1 - 7*,

f- . . .%N T"

Document which.:^ concludes that a restart of WNP-3 ish a.c.f. .S,. ..b. x S

It . . (

..-,s..  %. .. f If so, what specific, considerations,{'d preferred to WNP 1-71 d.

,M M .

Di('; " and in what way??iE? , .

does Applicant" consider are wrong, 4, " . ,,.3: a*

T.

'"?

. . .?,-9.. ~

y:5.iIAkgg. .dQy- w ' ~

• f .

<sp%% rf ijE -

, ,a.: :

Upon what f actors does the rest'a'ri.Yo1@'-

~ .- 1 INTERROGATORY 16: ',' @ M 4f

. WhenI:end'.42!

'ccnstruction of WNP-3 rely? What obstacles exist? - vah

--,a.UM Y.M N

$. .,w ere these obstacles expected to be overcome? .1OfWb$

of all meetings'.

?$.h$h:. .

f.?.g2:

INTERRCGATORY 17: Provide the minutes . .. ' -d ;$'-M delay of WNP-1 k of the WPPSS Board of Dire:.: tors at which the dN .

, . 'MA.ritF Md'.'"

was discussed. -*:

].f y-t'.

c.9

. - 8

f. ' e s'

'O? .

W.Y-iv R ,'g s . ', ( k.h y'*

^5  : .D*t, .#?.

s. 4"Q"

~' ' . . . . . - $k 5e

%,g, , Qp ,,,f.; - - - -- -. ~ . -

e:t.p.;j.. . s..*st.v . . . .

..J,".4.-

. . , ,L.r: :t *_ . ;. r.

.',s .,i t -e .

....>.*u -

4'. e,* a

• ~~; - .*~' :,L t s: v;.'y

• .'.g1.

w 4? ? W . l ?r

.  ; .* . c. x. .

mk . ., , .." . 7 ~ . . ;.s .. 7, . y r.t- *-m:.w .

Y  :

?; ...i?..:' k k %. .W..m.8 5,A.

?.

,m.-W' w

.,.t;w

< . X:$ . ' .

F t INTE.RROGATORY 18i. Provide the minutes of all meetifis.s'e? E~: s

-'%*- * *:.? 7.: G-;~?fj'-p:

WNP-3 Participants -Committee at which the delay. of teje;.".2-$'!Eg)%

of the

- J- 't.;g*S[.i

. % @,.'Mwr v WNP ., was discussed.?.h{R* - . ,. .

,Y::

l'k.n. s ,f m, .

a, . w gr.

-r.:;.x....O

.u. .a.ss -.:.w Mf;;.ri@r::figf-

.- e

- %"s eD~~ .

INTERRCGATORY 1Sf..Does the Applicant agree or disagree":M.*-" * "  % *6 a-

.::.w?m.

<m +. .-  : - L. . +1 with the statement by}jthe NRC Staff in itsresponseto.'%.g,.;;j i ' . . . 3%

"?' .. w a % 5m r p  %#i Intervenor's First Set Iof Interregtatories, No. 41, thatp g h;.  ;

"Need for power has- some sigriificance in this proceeding.v.

3NWh dei' .'.

i

- M2r.T ._.

.. wee 4 s.eg ,

only because it has be'n e raised as among the reasons,forft.the"E h 7

• 3PA . recommendation to. defer construction. The Permitteed.yy.g.W~ %

.-i$N kh N.*

-~.. e w 6. .,. . { M offers the BPA recommendation as one of the factors lQMp w

gg%

.'::+: v :'t - -

. .T. :-y.

constituting " good cause" to extend the plant completion J.-Ri..T-

~

1.

$,. :s.Q,w, RU: m date."? Explain fully your response. _ ' ^ W{.D}

, 1.; .

a* s- ,

' 4 :2{lEgi=;s.s .- -

. v.

4. w: .rs. . m w ~2.a; .

- 4. .

- m , ,jg,r_ .a- s Respectfully submitted, .

. ;nmu .:5:w.

.' . s E.<N.,4.

j L

. k-ii.aW.p

'. = :r.hg QV Dated this day, the 13th -- -- --_ '.-' .'-$. 1.?D .

of Jely, 1983. .ina Bell - ..1.l.O 4 '9+ %. b.y.,D Coalition for Safe Power * -2 t .-.

,M* 4 @, .

s...c t. e

<. -- -m:.J. . . g.- te : a . .

.. . .- ._ - . , 4 m :w.)'

• ' '^

.'*;y~,8 M.,.P f.$:-.-- c,.r. ,g .. .,j dys .

y.$

.r;' w.T3 ,'7... 4a

. .. *> - .i.y:: a - *6..gy?s

, ~ ..

,1

- .- . .s.

'.g -

.ada...; aps.

_.p .

s..

e*;'#g,

. .- :. - gi ,

. 7f, -t(Y, .Cf 4. -Q~.

,,,, ,. , 4).. ! 6IN '

..w., .:..- --

• -O*

' a *.. . ....f. W . . s .

J M,

-$ hb .

r ~ *

. , f,.

?

. ..u.M .c.-p;

<-.a w

. . wq . s

-i" h 4 .TbM'j

• .; } QiR ys J2 :

-Q, . : I r

y 2 rk.

r .N.V

? $-'-? :~, . r. -

.

• i -:y ]

e .1 t.r * :. : - . p p=

.- R? . . . '

.t'.. ...

.' , r ,V_.):.:&

" r

.n. .

-:.;.u..y p gm, .. .!

.. .. _:--.-- _ . - . . . - . . . ..  : - . =. --- - -. .

[.9 . 1 'dipI'j'"Qi

- - e.o. _c.c c,... . :.s-onEscr.

.. .-y-g,;H M g ,9

. ,.i *i . .

• M,.:;g .

+ UNIT D STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,,,r . gggpt

' e

d. .;..+: 'f~.~

sa::e g .3 EEE9EE_IHE_6IQHIG_EaEEII_aE9_LIGENEIEE_R9aEE ng'gdUl;j.4,$NT wA-

) ~-

~ In the Matter of T .- . $.tyte.g. Y -).;. yi

)

50 46QCPAuc.c,g~-

) Docket No. y, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 7 >.

et. a. ) .%;' G' 76'** .

) ' q:N ;u '

J.';-

(WPPSS Nuclear Pro]ect No.*1) ) .,

.qga gN- -

. OyyYg.Q 99akIIIOE_ E98 26EE_EQWER MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWEBE_TO S[qQ_Ng",[ G .. ,'

OF ! NTER ROG ATO R I gg_IQ_ AEPLIg A EIt_,1U,6X_134_1983 . , .M,-M

.' . u,,.

- d.rJGg:p The Coalition for Safe Power, intervenor in the N'9N 'tr_W4 . m.

above-captioned proceed'ing served copies ofitssecondset!'sdb. .. .f,. . .

^

interrogatories on Applicant on June 9, 1983. Applicant spon e -

.9+;h.f

-, 4 on June OS, 1983 and objected to interrogatories 19, 21,"22,-25 .w.i. p. .

e 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 47. ,

- pU..e.m...,..  :

0-Intervenor hereby moves for an Order causing Applicant.ito -s 3 .. y respond to interrogatories 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 38, and 42 'm .

fjg =

to respond more fully to interrogatories 26 and 50 for whici,*. a...~

. wwN.;

y,,.

inadequate responses were provided. .4

. '..'... n.;. .,g

~

.h.

.'.."*^-W

1. Interrogatories 31, 2 , 35, and 38 refer to the"..ASLB, Initial Oecision (LBP 72, 2 NRC 922) upon which the ,'"' ..

E .p. .n ** .N .

6 construction perm.it for the WNP-1 was issued, the role lof.,.'t, hme PA i

.g and how it was established in the ASLB decision. Applicant.a..

O k" b .} u , M :'-

i relies upon the BPA recommendation as the basis for the v.M, +.k.4't

.. .M .J ..:

[ '

additional extension request at issue in this proceeding.4N.fTh ' y-w m.%r  %-

l j interrogatories as.they seek to establish the legal basis for ME z;w% j *

. . .j$.M . .

Applicant's reliance on the BPA recommendation concern issues,.?,. g

..d M-_ , ,

which are properly discoverable. . ;?*'J. * .,4.. .., s

.' 'N ~ q. ' g,fg

2. :nterrogatory 25 seeks to discover the difference between3% d

~

,# v b 4. Q ,y g three terns which have been used by Applicant and the BPA.to~ CU834.3d n e,aiz 01St-830713 .

e.?!Ty'E '

.n

?g5EPn.

. 4,M M

PDR ADOCK 05000460 * :;,cI' -F Q PDR 1

- .- . :.. _ . . . : .n u.:. :.:c.w -a

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

• I .,i 'fryt-

..- L. 2-

.. T.*J$E M ,ED$ -@

Mb

.2 QP 3E' * . 4S,*;:

.- - "W- D W ",g' V-describe the states in which the WNP-1 and WNP-3 plants'have been e

.a 3.i5'iMI 7i placed. Intervenor is..not attempting to raise health ancil. safe d'  :. 4. V . . .-- .

issues by this request.but only seeking to discover the.sean'ingh '

• 5$;

. i.:-56k of terms used by, the -parties and their agents in the news. pedia-it l~' f% , M.0$ ,;,.,. .,.:a*e and1public dociumentisMf :.L.-lii,. .'!?

',y i.

MMC LW.h v.

3. Applicant ob J ests to: interrogatories 27, 28 an'd*d2  % @

stating that the effect of

-f.7 _

other of Applicant's projects'on.fth

-7 1

I'M

• siWhd  ;

f 4 deferral of WNP-1 issirrelevant.- The WNP-3 Decision Document. '

?

~.& ~ L.':\.'b.i s M.7-

-C establishes that 2 -

the.restartofconstructionofWNP-1isj.g~u.85 "R4 ' + ?b.~ , ;@k .

inevitably and inconGovertably tied to the restart of , J.'C M= mA

.._.AlWM '

&. -;m-c; q.J..+ ,., . .. . . %Ysq.1L y m- ~

construction of WNP-3 & See e.g. pages 40, 75, 23. The WNP-3 3 . , .

Decision Document. ~ also%'fNM$i' '.

establishes that the potential ' default -

7Mk. -

1 .n ~:as. . 4,gn..::  ;

w WNP-4/5 and other evei'its surrounding'these terminated unfG M Tg' - %y c.g.,. y..,1,e

. .y. ..

contractors claims on#4 and Si'will affect the continuedW s$dtS y.

• construction of WNP-3 and WNP-1. See eg. pages 2, 3, 21.YYdfatA -

. ,:W . U. . . % M i4% .

material is -

properly discoverable as the basis for.a showing' 44 .. .'-

M ,

" good cause" which AL*3-722 defines as " encompass [ing3 a N. -- s es

' ,r. *".s,,,

, Q.*x .s. ,,,. ._.' f y. .

Judgement about why the plant should be complete and is not3 o,f . ,,, .

as to the applicants fault for YM- J,,y

rest soley upon a Judgement .;;g .

- -;r%r, ..

. delay." A1.AB 722 goes on to say "-A Judgement must still'be made u954 .s to whether continued construction should rionetheless.be- g ':.v..,m#.@

as . + c-n. . 'n .

7- '4fQsj- m@kW y U/*

allowed." .

• - ,- - 49> >..- ' t'-

i-  ;

4. Intervenor further moves that the Applicant be ' ordered: tch;g.<r.-.J-l ' ,

. 7

x

> respond fully to interrogatories 26 and 50 because the provided.

t . j .' .

respor.ses.were inadequate,and lacking in substance entirely. ,. g g ,9 ,

m. a ,

.wn<

Regard.ng interrogatory 26, Applicant should " explain fully the .. s.l

r .:.:r 1 answe ", showing how each factor identified effects therestart'N.

of cene.tr'uction of WNP-1 and how the decision will m a d e f o r ea ch .' ,". -

3~ ...

>4

.A

.' h&.' , , .

. .S

~

.. ! . *.d3Cil.* 2 l

l

-- . -- . ~ . . . _ _ . . , . . . . . _ . . _ . - . ~ _ _ , - . , _ . . _ _ . . - - . ..-.____.__.-.._.-,.-_.,..-_,.._..i

. . _ .- . . . . . -.. . :.u . .- -

y t .gn.4,,r,..g mp. ,c,"K

^

~ ';~

2" J:.11.Xf -

WM;hyp.,W

.- .. - . . .. At.c .t-

.ggy -

Interrogatory 50 addresses the ongoing question of the !"#,r3.W. ** 3 wa69@..:,*My

. . . i;.m. . y w'.M . kf it *he w ~-

.e t..

constitutionality of Washitigton State Intiative 394 which h .g.

~. W . :. C s- g serious implications according to the W N P - 3 . D e c i s i o n D o c u m e n t'; g ..;.) , 1,. - - w *g ,

. s _.n ?,,- .

. y; Applicant fails entirely to provide a basis for its response'am w.g.%p

• ~

..... r~. .

.s. n c.e>-a; e., .. ,

requested in the face of the interrogatory. . , ~*3TedY#d%e-f

...ggs. . M.. - .M. :ws, a.- e., Q.y . *.

s s

*.-~

.~

Roapeettully submitted, :7.? . . ' .24'{

' 33

. .4-%.x .

,.C 5.

.% .. g h_ .___ ~- .

y .

Dsted this day, the 33t .1. n a . Be l l ...-

.... '. n;7 .y h

.w of July, 1983. Coalition for Safo Power .W-

• 4 T'CM.

t- .

~ a G .

" Jim

1. i $ Ni M

~

.2:u.w

. .4Gflf.I f . . @N JWN:

M. d.E. {,M. A..-AN* . . - -

= 4 7,i'EM5 m e -s ..

-43 ;_i!Bii$1m hh W2'$r ....

. ,,.;g. .,;,,.h

. ._"1 M FJ N.y f**e6 1

' ..).

e. *.~$q'.!

.g, .^ .

- #fMg.lf

~

.~

' ' ~

.. C .y.,a

.m . -n .

'5, L't"3L% >,: ., s ,.;

. . ,R e . . ;.  ;

.' * ~~ # . (ab5 e

'.Q ... j% p,T g-'7

.s W  %

,.,,,e a- . n'Q.,.. ' - ..... .x

..r

.yar5.sEtns . 9

- . .n'.ks. .. *.

q

. lr' ydjb0 f}.;D51 T.,tdi

~~ P ' % < %*hD .

g1) ewns

w. m.w?,ev

.. . s

, .M

.e

}o

,.c' f'. Y. . .rh=

'k%9Yh.*p.;l

. s.M*, Q W f

, , L u.[.. p?4Q

.f

?flp &.y;-,

. ..,-...# -.3, .,

s

. . .Y, at $

. ,.s v Y

. .;;. . ...a

- T k.:r?'il*iih.$.$w-N m

a

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

s f,,

k M .i a,.c g E %.

. . .'iEE.:.'P. C9.:2.Eywc :ny.ym wcs

~

..@fy3FE

' .. ..r. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

l NUCLEAR REGliLATORY COMMISSION g/

g .f g--g {5 -

%j

{

M Wn, c

. ., . 2 aut iM,.-s BIE9EI_IEE_aIQUIG_EaEEII_aE2_LIGEEEIEE_R9aB2

c.  : ..

. .In the Matter of ,

)

3

\"'.

. .;,,~9.tc mesh m , . . .

.Qa; ;s WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTTM ) Docket No.f505460C3A g;.;g.,

et. al. )

)

' i.-%_ kf ' '

(WPPSS Nuclear Project..No.

1) ) .c w.Ik- g x"

v-

%A & g' IEIEEYIE25.'E_MEDAIEQ_EEEE9EEEE.'IQ_EBG.:.EIAEE'.E_EIBEI-.EET CE'M@W:

AEIEBBQGAIQBIEh_2ELI_1h_12fL  ;%

' ~M

~ ~ -

.7,. , '

l

.n.M...;~,i '

.

.- . :.y, .

{

j

.NTERROGATORY 7: ,, Is it your contention that therechangno

been a slowing in growth rate of electric power requirements! j

.the Pacific Northwest?.1. fr.( ' ' "'"  !

5  : +tg eq Ml th(R.

RESPONSE: No. 9.,Intervenor hereby retracts .res

- w)

../. . W @ '..p o n s e x .. . . gg.

j provided on May 24, 1983...

.. i. . ;f(;3.g.g_ ,

.,,..- y

, rs %.

• ;; & G : "$4.& .

2..,@44

1 ,

INTERROGATORY' 8: rIs.it your contention that the growthere i of electric power rkuirements in the Pacific Northwest 4h's 1

stopped or will stop completely before 19917 W13M5,

'2w qw. --

. .?i. .Y 5.

J s' ~.

RESPONSE: No.  : G;. y - & f @ Q =h ** seq ~= ,

~'

• %. , ^

..:.:.Vis.&$

4

c.

p4 e * .c.j+.",./p.o . w. .,.,

INTERROGATORY 10('): b If your answer'to Interrogatory}...~te?, No

is in the affirmative, 10(a) set forth and explain 7 fully:th's factual basis or legal! authority for your statement.-l =.Nyp

,jf$[, i ;a}.f N

~~

- RESPONSEf.f.-qIntervenor.. hereby retracts the responseiprov, y'

$6M,c .

WCWAW on May 24, 1983;.", .[f'. k$.- - y.9$[ p,g r -

J.:,b.-co?f,'-4 .

c rQM The factual'hasestidentiffed by the .:. . ,

intervenor at-this.'}de%Q,G;Q i.U -

are: the " Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan", ^ V oltim e/M.;M? 4

• ,4EI($h.

I, April 27, 1983 by the Northwest Power Planning Council,-TabfeW$$

. k. &a%*Nf,WW,N '

6-1, the " Analysis .of- Alternatives Related to WNP-3", May:26,fy.44',

1983 by the Bonneville Power Adminstration, the "Model Electric.:.M,%EC Th; ys '

1 <s.9*%...4. 5 Power and Conservation Plan for the Pacific Northwest", November Wi+ffW.g "

. i .::?-N J.QCiri 1982 by ,the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition ( pa,ge 28) .' and y.-[.$,7G

. ..y l. . . .:

conversations with Jim Lazar, energy economist (317 E. 17th'M l?Ti k ;~.

pg-g-C--. si maan713 o,

p

= -x

u . Y,v .vn 9 ~ NM.M4wame's 4.

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

,.:. . . .., y

. __ . . . _ . . _ . . . m .....

. , . .gm  ;

l 'A.GTY$M,W 1%.

44&ME,Q$

. . . ~ '

3:Q u.

n;.. ;3n . n%

Oly.pla, '

98501) on or about June 10, 1983. '1

.. * .j...

G.S.fs S

@ y&

The legal basis identified by the intervenor to date is ALAB .7.22.c4fd-y@

i

• i uQuiO{i

!NTERROGATORY 11(b)i If , your answer to Interrogatory No,rQ,Mid . q ., .p.?'

set forth and explain fully the).$;5*.9-l 11(a) is in the affirmative,'

factual banis or legal authority for this contention. j ;g;'g.g of . *M RESPCNSE: ALAB-722 establishes that the " ultimate ' ' good: Q

g., .

cause* determination is expected to encompass a Judgementiabout ,

.: 4M why the plant should,, be completed and is not to rest solely j upon*W '

. - @.i i, -2 a sudgement as the applicant's fault for delay", "whetherigoo

.y gg;Q cause exists to gggnd the construi:: tion completion date" anCthat. -

t "a judgement must- still be made as to whether 'Icon  ? $y ,un.k Y

.:-e:n m ,

construc. ion should nonetheless be allowed." The Appeals, Board? @,K ML. N 4 also discusses the temporary lackofneedforpowerand.2.lafE.fi .....s ck

%E'$

a.M.%.A.. t -Mt-#

. E financing as factors which cause delay with va'11d bu.si,nessi 'sy

. . , :* tt , , ,

-1 purposes. Intervenor sees a distinction between a " deferral".{ , j,

M;$?7 '

need and a t e m p o r a r y l a c k o f n e e d o r s ,,y&. l o w iwit ngofgr ihe former a more suitable description of the instant case c. i u '

. OR !.ma % e*

NM. w INTERROGATORY 12: . .C a ) Do you claim that the actual-~deferra the need for . power in the Northwest United States *ddeh.ish' in '

'J Justify deferring constructior, of WNp-17 .% q

. (b) Explafn fully,'your answer to Interrogatory No.312'C your ' answer Interrogatory No. 12 ( u ) -1's91 fr) If to affiraSt ive, stats "'the relevance of your statesientMthd

" petitioner...does hot *T belive the power from WNp-1 will ,everI '

needed" ,to your clais, t. hat need /cr power in the NorthwestMUnif.e States,does not Justify ~ deferring construction of WNp-1. jf%$,{.~d,h,,m,,

," -N2 't . , .g (a)

RESP 3NSE: Yes. (b) The " deferral of need". Justifies, cwi  ! 5U {

cancellation of the project not a deferral of constructi$ri'O.. 5 ,J

,m

.L' a for the plant, the plant should *,be'D 'i..'D; f there is never a need

' q. s. 22 m sth

- =* 6 ;m.a J.

cancelled, not deferred, because a . plant's principle purpose is'yck#W.

.... M- ',

needed electricity. The basis for the NRC's decision g..f .i to provide r

. .., . E, m . >-

. . .. v; p.~.9 to grant 'JNP-1

. a construction permi.t has proven to be totally 1'L.-M

. ..' iMi3.'t u.:,1:.t

"*~ g . *F- E s $

. ;gegy;W

..- $.Y

• Y

./ .. ... .. .. . ..n.. . . . . . . - .

..,.,4,,,g

..,,. ,..'.,..w....

s4: . ll;, -:j;.L

• 3-

• f.{]

......-{5jf.?-

• . . , . . ! +

.. ..; .;~..T,. s. .r. .

ie.~.....

without validity. Furthermore, continued construction of WNP-1 g J

~ .  : Nh$'S~S*>  ;

might. bankrupt the region. ggg..

-> ,.:.V ; e.9. -

• a y$in*  :-Y . ' i INTERROGATORY 13: What. is the factual basis for'.youc.kp W#. e>~

stater.ent that " Petitioner...does not believe the power from,@ g WNP-1 w i.11 ever be needed"? ,44.gij.g' 4

RESPONSE: The " Northwest Conservation kM.,. h,.ges.

and Electric Power 'f'.f y $N5 .

Plan", Volume I, April 27, 1983 by the Northwest PowerPlannin%g .....s.

5 s F;y-9 e ! w ra. .-

• Council, Table 6-1, and the "Model Electric Power.j and.g- *y((r. -

.; , .M. .

Conservrtion Plan for the Pacific Northwest",, Novemberfi982 e. -

e

.'  : 5. .ys~. -

the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition (page 28)

.g.g.g3. g

.'@.... O

. . . ..f &&g,G;X.5

j. g INTERROGATORY 14:"Is it your contention that if and.when.n.; .et.he- e

,.., .A '

WNP-1 is completed and ready to operate, it will not be' operated;.. 9*

, .sJp

• e.=.~.>.:.-

because there would be no need for the power? -h

• W. . . q..t*

^

.=*s a . s RESPONSE: Yes. ' . ..'.. '.t.-

ya n ..

...r t -:. .. . . A... ti. s...M,%,,

. A.J54 W INTERROGATORY 15: What f actors do you contend are rel.eY,.1ic, .a~'st'+ ;+ c D"SPW

'qp.

in assessing whether power from WNP-1 will ever be needed?-p,4.f-j -e,.4

' a.

. . . -- m . w .: t The factors listed in the " Northwest Conseriration .. d.+i

RESPONSE

.o. - .--q..e 3* 7,.r.r .e m .g p e.

and Electric Power Plan", Volume I, April 27, 1983'b'y[t.$nR.Od t

. T...a

• Gkq &Q Northwes: Power Planning Council, the " Analysis of A10.,rnativese,., %

=

%W. . + e'#.V* 4 Bonneville?APo.n.c& we b W Related to . WNP-3", . . May 26, 1983 by the "Mr.,%'f Electric Power and Conservatics'.P anM@i Adminstration, the "Model for the Pacific ' Northwest", ' November 1982 b y. - emmyyy theNorthwesth.y- -

.dj -

Conservation Act Coalition, and the " Analysis of Resoured?.$+M

.) .:, .p%t . .

Alternet ves" dated April 19, 1982 by BPA. S WAS:

.4i:

. ..: ; u L,h :, p-'

4 4.-?. .

%.. b,%. w bmitted, # - A '? '

Respectfully i . W. . * .i .

1

• 3 ?.dgf.

, MD * .

. .w...

to . m..

Oated t . . :, s day, the 13th Nina Bell -

' Q'c.' ' v.

l cf My, *98?. . Coalition for Safe Power, -

O g S.

• .f ..t J ..

E. .* *R*6 g

, g e .*

. .s.'.

t #2

n

-. .~. ~,'*g,.

. , . _ . y, Q4,,5,'-g"- Q:

a

..* , : * :;m ~

q' y >> ..c.,.,,.j,.; g.f. 2,- ,

. . c .ee; s

- GU!,$l:5

• dT:.- mif,$5&@

mr..: w.r.n;, .

. 5- * - ' '

% '. ] z qi gj u g' *

.- . v. -c ;. g,eg e

, .)e 'W!.i c , f,M .... W:]

, .Nl %. .a.

, I '.:Thw)Z;}t.

-f. ..,w%w - .

w.,

.*..~;

% Sl?.?. .*T5' 3,

..psc.3r

-Marf eip

- d"pd .% .

i,,

-,) * \ ~f

) < f.C 4 @;.i .

STATE OF OREGON

) aa. - ;p .

County cf L.1tnoaah ) [ y;,. ,

.:: ;. *.ac: w - g., e-

-~

. ....s ,.,,

.ecfL  :

..:.:t,4:

- ve .- .e. r Nina Bell, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

$$ 'g ^ h That she is the Staff Intervenor of the Coalition for Sa.fe.W. .;)- . . .

it Dower, and that the contents of "INTERVENOR'S UPDATED -p%y RESPONSES TO NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,*JUCYF4 .s N s ~

• 13, 198,3" and "INTERVENOR'S UPDATED RESPONSES TO APPLICANTf.S js ,

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, JULY 13, 1983" are true and; #

correct to the best of her information, knowledge and .:. M . , Mdi bellet. All responses therein were ridr$N#% g Eugene Rosolie prepared by herself%jf,Q

. .y "

. . rw ~w t .,p. .rr.

,, d .: 5_3 .- ,

Signed:

llh.w . .@ . .;#.yI 5 Y.Wi;T h,. . . .M u .- 3.w <-

, 9N g q d h$ M i M @ek

, Es+awmh .

u

--- m -__ _

-_ 7?.;{',T

" - T Nina Bell '

@J Y.. -1 .

'Qoalition for Sefe Power n-?? 'i4+ .

I l.

s *' QI}}_lh .

SUS" RIBE 0 AND SWORN to before me this /_-:__dayof .Nb

.,___, 1983. '$Fp*l :Pr

-',Ms~yJ'y* .-

.g)[ %

E

..s.

.. - 44

?.P q'-tg l b

, , L ~ ',".y . Of..&-Nf_

-- /._. - _- . - p.. .;< t .s &..

i..7ww Notary P alic for Oregon ,

My Commission EEpires: 4 -/[,-- ?. N

.N

+ In' Of k 1:h .

a( .

^

l l

$h[,i Nh.,.

4

.n

.f.} e ph c ..... #t.x.?

).khm .

J

, % lr. .@~p

~

2- ~ h e J{

~

., f. *

. 2,

~ ,1 -.:. . MW4

,i.Q. d ~SOh12:

-.m..  ;.- - -- - -

ry.e.-

-:- -- -- ; -.w.yn. . -

7 . . :.. a.j - 3 ;,

, .u y. .. ..rq

. N . i.. .  ;. A i. i,.- .  ?%, Q.

w. .a

• *~ + . -?'g -J . , .

b. .i...

t,. +- m

• . [%N.?Y'j;. Mu'.I2spown r.w.,

~

j UNITED:. STATES' OF AMERICA ,

8dk, kK.~ f ' '

- g&. f t NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION Q- ;r&J g c' . .

3 EEEQBE_IHE_AIQHI.GIEAEEII_aHQ_LIQEEEIEE_HQAEl(M~ C8t/Jh au -

u pgA  %^. rs.gs:-Q#

..c .

~e. r.-

NP  ? -

In the M a t t e r o's ' X ...',v ...-q 4 % ,+

- . . - :) s.' . : . ) .q* .'. 4.'- NF4+. .v'-

.- r 3

.-: . , s **r.=- * , .

WASHINGTON PUBLIC~ POWER' SUPPLY SYSTEM'. )

Docket No. SO - .Jd.y 9

.C

'. et. al. .

.O

'~

' W. . O.. N'O: ) M.fh r- W*'

, s c

$.. M ' ,+ a..s .

'.i & ,d)..~ M.r c.

r; M 2

> es j J'd: C:t . t.. 42.f.r 'l

_j 4 1 )'f..C - ;;..Q' (WPPSS Nuclear,Pr o rom. q

.f j . - . - n.?.W? : _ *jf A$7.&&:.:. . . -

&R ~

_j '

IEIgBVENOR

• S ,,g[QQNQ3EDAIgg_RggEQNggg_IQ_AEELIQANTf S FIRai rme.#2ur ..

.IEIEEEQQaIQBIEsi_:ZEI_12&_12822 'e.1 _Wg& --

. -;.si - ... #r a m*

. 'i. - - W . , , .. @s

- '- t INTERROGATORY

.2..

11T.^-Why do' you . contend that Licensee; .ha NM N failed to estabIlah ~ good ',

causa for an extension of_tN (1d , ~.

construction permit? - -

'f ,:4.3 f

tre. ,

y?

. . . . . .'W e.4-w Ta,.w - ^

.  !?k RESPONSE: There.. exists 'no good cause' to e xtsnd. .' -- g a- UN$h 'M*k construction permit for WNP-1 because the power from theTyrog'

. .'j .. f55  ;;hM &g will never be needed.Cin part due to its high cost),*..financ

, . .J, never be possible, BPA cannot beslega 41,-ygfQ?

.f fer the ' project 'will  ;- 6-

.. .~sk. - ~~

responsible for halting the project, and the period'of'tise ....a

. . . . Y,

, ; . .w. : ~

N?t . ,s.

requested for the extension is entirely t.nrealistic and wholly, y y@

,- ..-. .. ; ; ' . ~,8

.~ y impossible for WPPSS to meet.

, . ,y T. .<.' < #fL.

. .?.Y 7'**

1 n~. 1. . , -

.._.y, the basis for your reAko N :4 M.N INTERROGATORY '18: What is

h' in[

interrogatories 16 and 177 fj , l(.:,;;;7,

. >h >t :-

?

RESPONSE: " Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan"M.niXI /g('y

. S

. . Q< 4::.u c~.:te Volume I, April 27, 1983 by the Northwest Power Planning Council';;,u.:h .

, . . :.D-~ e.

l

2. 41lll.*, f

• l Table 6", the " Analysis.of Alternatives Related to WNP-3",]Mayf.g". l ,

k LM 26, 1983 by the Bonneville Power Adminstration, andpage28of.,4 .

v:a the "rodel Electric Power and Conservation Plan for the Pacifica.{'y e .?  %

Northwest", November 1982 by the . Northwest Conserva tion

• Act.F..T.?,'. . -

t

! ~

. .. . awag

--99~07200138'530713 .

@M PDR ADOCK 05000460 'ir We-1.Q T.Y +

.w.

G PDR

-* 1;$ k ".% % Td

~

,n....-

- ~; . . , . .. . -

~ T wp - *"%..%W*;l it

~% . *vLw;;.

-2. .d s.

~

~

. . 4F'%2.h@i.e'SW

N.w c PM

. ' 3 4JIe.

'n*fh- .~;:e s.n,w ee, *M l

i

rxht wm Coalit:on.. .

> q_gy 'y~g

.r.m~.y n . ..

$.N'.t. ' "4 . .. ..

s,;q-hr Reapeetfully aubmitted, .

Dated this day, the'13th .tna Bell

' '], . .'Q.

Qggj

.~

mE *.$

of July, 1983. ,

Coalition for Safe Power  ; ,g

.e**

-nN$Mi.

': '*d..?,' M

~

. . . .. .k,

. -;-fI E [

ecs '

.. p 'C . . L'

?

.s,,.. .,

s a .? ,.

.* *) 4 =.

, , ,. ' ll ,

Y t'f f .

n;:,.:i. . - . :-

' ' '* K '; .,.

'. :!:::Fe .

.,. ~ w '1

+.g. .b .

s. . . ed .

a gp*9. ,2

. y'W~Q

.w;

' ' R ~-7

.. . - ' J ';g M,md

. . .- Q

. . .2s*s. :n." .. ...

.- .. . ,2m ..

. swe@

w.- m.7 - -

f.

\ * *hN k .

.7$Mi?N

'eMMt@x.

$ q' ,

. :wg34-w .

t

. .. . ~ & % #51 .,

M Il: ,

4 .

t

• .Nn -

'*T Sy, .

\'

• nw 1

.Os '

s.q; i

. . .g.

4 '

4

]. pc-s g6%. ' m.

f

,,;- .'*.! % u.

,n C .,, = d r-

e. mgA.

p's

, c .

.,[a i

~.** ne - t. '

k ,

' ^ *.w *: ry'*??, W 1 ^u ' ^'

• 4T

.. < ~nQ ejj r

• , , k :.,*}.'=$ M-i ,

'.' &,.ut r.Rtd.i';>. R , +

l

[~  ; lJ':.

f- '" l

[j'k'li';BdN' '({

m. w$ i s o E,. ',,%.

qm.;,

. ..t,.), 1; m. ~ .

'.*g. p.,] .._ .g., -

A I(

, ar ,,* e ti.c.  ;*J . .- , p

• * * * ,4. ,k , M, y se . '.LA"~Y Y.

- - , - . . _ _ - _ . - . . - - . - _ . _ .._.._. -_ ~ _, , , , . _ - , . _ _ _ _ . . _ .,.-_,..,-.,,..m_. ,.-,y_-

u'. . . ....-- . ..- - . .-. .. m. ,.

• u .:.t;1%W _'W: Y .*.

t%

.l.t.Th

'. 'S$

m;;v 1Q,. .ct I

. . $:.:y=%e e..,a n.y.p?fIDM.-

• • .h(M

. sq.. - ;;gWf,

' ~

.s~ .g:.;

x.gg,

+

w

= . . . p~ H M

. .::<4

.. .t .

37

.,m.1L

~.s ..,,jWwsct

.. w .Ty;..

. P.wn.

((:) F id N@' N STATE OF OREGON -.f

) -:sa .- ' TI,i'h'5 .

m

. - Q.

..+:fik &' , M:

• County of Multnomah ) f-:,.>- -

.qgg g ,,

i.

i'

,y.t.2.,

4.

.g:*%g& *d.)

.. e Nina Bell, being ' duly sworn, deposes and says: . . . . . s . . .

I That she is the Staff Intervenor of the CoalitionforSafe'f?g;h -

• Power, and that-the contents,of "INTERVENOR'S UPDATED . %%Ci RESPONSES TO NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,-JULY.;l; ,, g 13, 1983" and "INTERVENOR'S UPDATED RESPONSES TO APPLICANT *S ...,,, ,

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, JULY 13, 1983" are true andf?!f.M. &'

correct to the bestfof'her information, knowledge and ~. NDh. M belief. All responses *.therein were prepared by herself' a'n[d'.id$hg*,,TN Eugene Rosolie

'. C . . " Alf 7 D D.*$ #-

M'.*:f;&ck;NM

.[.h5f.5k. i f'

5

- Signed:

.(.';!( .

$4.M 2 M G{

. .i_ylp.-29~;Lw,4 .

-hw?.

...: tw 4* c.5 1 G%W 6,.s w

.. w

_ -22:LiL_ _

' -: ., Q* s y W Nina Bell ... D..-. n.5'tM; D$Ic:

Coalition fo:- Safe Power

.f 4.# , ,

-. . . . . n e

"}.53 ..e e

S-n -

c e.:s, D NQ r

.,, e.

SU " RIBE 3 ANp SWORN to before me this / ~ ~ day of

'5

__ , 1983.

-* h';'$h?)phN k.m

,1-nL -. w

<twpJ

• t -

" ~- j ee 4. T %"..r s2.'.,-

4 ~

Notary P slic for Oregon l !' ?.. i.'.B

. My Commission Expires: $ -/f-((  ;

t . . . . ,, . s ..

~y.A, kl.E s c.

.a -.'.,.,L*,

. '.j? . .

1. .N k.$. ...

3 e g

• * .: i y,a%

"L*.-(

• s..'g

• '.*3.Lf'{'.

-7..,

.-t*

. b r . s . > ~ e d. .

_._._,..__..___~~,

, .~ .- . . _ . .

,% ".,;.,fy'Sii. , .

l / W3Ts.5-q,,, ;v.: . -~ . Mm...

y .D ' ..

l 6 . .f.1

[-.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r (.j,5'I 7.,.{%-. TM-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~~) o g* f Y, c-REEQBE_IHE_AIQH s.36EEII_aED_LIGENIIEE_RQAB tt %cL . @w- ,,,. .T In'.he Matter of )

0,/ -

• aJ.. ~U - ' O,ni.

)

N ,

%g . ,

h WASHIN", TON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50%swrA . '.!

'" A et. al. ;j,i: ) .

) .....

q.4,.,g.,,

. -rg '

~

(WPPSS Nuclear Pro]ecE No. 1) ) - -

Y e:vp ;n;[

4 si m us m _st_u n us e

. a ).,.-

A:hld$2 c := .

r.

s

- . ,.. . . tm

1 I hereby certify that'do. pies of "INTERVENOR'S UPDATED RESPONS. __ .

4 NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET.10F INTERROGATORIES", "INTERVENOR*S;UPDA M RESPONSES TO APPLICANT /S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES",7.2' COAL.ZT

! , FOR SAFE POWER MOTION iTOI' COMPEL ANSWERS TO SECOND FET"OF*k'dMi ~

INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT" and " COALITION FOR SAFEIPOWER Tit '

SET 07 INTERROGATORIESf.TO APPLICANT" in the above-caktioned.Ma^

t have been served on the following by deposit in the U.S..tMeiU" first class, postage prepaid on this 13th day of July,.1983:

. ,4  ;&Q - ~ . - .

Herbert Grossman, Chairman Nicholas Reynolds ..f-M.

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Debevoise & Liebersen M*

i Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 17th Street, N.W. ,

4 t

Washington D.C. 20555*.Sl. Washington D.C. 20036.3- .

f*.r9w ".'.d.i

.  ;- gte

,.;e -n *-

=

Glen C. Bright .N ~ ~ a.. Dr. Jerry Harbour Adminstrative Judge..,,,,. J.- Adminatiative Judge -g Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing '~

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commilest' Washington D.C. 20555 . Washington D.C. 20 55 Mitzi Young . .t . . Gerald Sorenson, .Nana'geFJ Counsel for NRC StaffM..* Licensing Program. 9.is.B Ell Office of Executive Legal Dir. 'WPPSS Mgg

Nucl.*ar Regulatory Commission '300 G. Washington Way Q (

• Wash.ington D.C. 20555 Richland, WA 99352 i '

S , , , , ,

Sta e of W.sshington Atomic Safety & LicensingfAppeal y Energy Facility Sit'e Evaluation Board Panel 1 4-fMgy; ,

Counct*. Mail Stop PY-11 NuclearRegulatoryCommisa'ionii*g,g Washington D.C. 20555 Olympia, Washington 98504 .,.

Dockenng .* Service -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• ; je*f.jFttg~ .t  ;

Washing en D.C. 20555 . . ,p" t .

j

. .. 5 .n ' ...,,

-p .

q v h,:. :m.w.. -

.u. -

. a Bell 2:q. ., ,

- Coalition for Safe Power 7 -A

. . '. .%, .Y v .

,o**

.I .

. . . . . . _ ".  :...d O* C,. A 1

y -r , , , , - - . . , , - . . . . ---,.---vm, .w.m.--,-..,,,_ ,-, - -.m._.,,___-..,-,-I

a

,.'~

REGULATURf INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

OUC.DATE: 83/0S/12 NCTARIZED: No 00CMET s ACCESSION N6R:8308160491 05000460

! FACIL 50-460 WPPSS Nuclear Project, Unit is washington Public Powe A UT d .N At1E AUTHUR AFFILIATION l

REYh0LDS,N.S. Washington Public Power Supply System

! REYh0LDS,N.S. Debevoise & Libermait RECIP.NA,*E RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Coalition for Safe Power

SUBJECT:

Second set of interrogatories & coquests to proouce.

Certificate of Jvc encl.Related corresponoence.

DISTRIBUTION CUOkt 03033 COPIES RECEIVED LTH _ EhCL _ SIZES...J..__

TITLE: Filings (Not Orig by .1RC)

NOTES:

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES 10 CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL 10 CODE /NAME LTTa ENCL NGd LB4 1 1 NRR Lb4 LA 1 1

OY.b ']t-

. INTERhAL: ASLAP b 4 ASLB 01 1 GC 1 ELO/PSB 1 PA 1 L RGN5 i ,

EXTERhAL: LPUR 1 i l NRC POR 1 L NTIS 1 l

l l

i

=m 16 ENCL to l TUTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REuulRED: LTTR 1 l

_ ____ _ ,_,,_-_ - _ ______ } _ ____ _

+-

- NEL47s.3 Ca n o n y y n ,, *

• 00CKETED USNRC 10 ALG 15 40:31 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISRWRE OF SECREL 00CMETING 4 SEPv!:

BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

In the Matter of )

)

• WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER )

< SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE TO INTERVENOR

' Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. (( 2.740b and 2.741, the Washington Public Power Supply System (" Licensee") hereby serves Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce upon' the Coalition for Safe Power

("intervenor").

Each interrogatory shall be answered fully in writ-ing, under oath, or affirmation, and include all pertinent information known to intervenor, its officers, directors or members as well as any pert}.nent information known to its employees, advisors, representatives or counsel. Each request to produce applies to pertinent documents which are in the# possession, custody or control of intervenor, its officers, directors or members as well as its employees, advisors, representatives or counsel. In answering each interrogatory and in responding to each 456812 Nvalec-v205000460 R ADCCK 0 PDR

~

. , , _ , , _ - _- - - - --w-._,-- - - - ..-- ~ , , y_,, -. -___..-,-.r,

-m..-y , - n-

a-

.o . .

t.

2-request, recite the interrogatory or request preceding i

each answer or response. Also identify the person pro-

+ viding each answer or response.

- These interrogatories and requests shall be continuing in nature. Thus, any time intervenor obtains information which renders any previous response incorrect or indicates that a response was incorrect when made, .

intervenor should supplement its previous response to the appropriate interrogatory or request to produce.

i Intervenor should also supplement its response as necessary with respect to identification of each person.

3 expe=ted to be called at the hearing as a witness, the .

! subject matter of his or,her testimony and the substance of that testimony. Licensee is particularly interested in 1

i the names ar.d areas of expertise of intervenor witnesses, i if any. Identification of such witnesses is necessary if l

Licensee is to be afforded adequate time to depose them.

i The term " documents" shall include any writings, drawings, ~

graphs, charts, photographs and other data compilations Licenses rcquests from which information can be obtained.

l intervenor make that at a ,date or dates to be agreed upon, available for inspection and copying all documents subject i

to the requests set forth below.

h

~ ..

v s %, -4me+---- + rt e , t r ww-ert-* -wr--w,et-e-* --e e r'e- w-- M e w * ** w + w w e+w--* -ge h M e N- M e*"+ ew .=t -- - --w wm-+-- w r- ** e-- ww-c' m tm-'w-

1. ,

3-REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.741, Licensee requests intervenor by and thrcugh its representative-or attorney to make available for inspection and copying at a time and location to be designated, any and all documents identi- .

fled in the responses to the Licensee's interrogatories below including, but not LLuited to:

(1) ainy written record of any oral commu-nication between or among intervenor, its advisors, consultants, representa-tive, and/or any other persons, in--

cluding but not limited to the NRC Staff, the Licensee, and their advi-sors, ' consultants, agents, and/or any other persons; and (2) any documents, correspondence, letters, memoranda, notes, diagrams, reports, charts, photographs, or any other writing, including but not limited to work papers, prior drafts, and notes of meetings.

If intervenor maintains that some documents should not be made available for inspection, it should specify the documents and explain why such are not being made available. This requirement extends to any such docu-ments, described above, in the possession of intervenor, its advisors, consultants, reposentatives, or attorney.

Licensee notes that in response to Interrhg: tories 7, 18, 19 and 23 of Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, intervenor identified several documents which, pursuant to Licensee's initial requests for documents, should have t 1 e

9 e.- .

y l :t  :

+,

been made available as set forth above. To date, inter- -

venor has failed to satisfy this obligation. Accordingly, Licensee hereby renews its request that such documents be provided.

- INTERROGATORIES ,

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.740b, Licensee requests t

intervenor by and through its representative or attorney

tv answer separately and fully in writing, under oath or

( affirmation, by persons having knowledge of the informa-4 tion requested, the following interrogatories.

1. State the full name, address, occupation and employer of each person answering the '

interrogatory and designate the interrog-atory or the part thereof he or she answered. -

2. Identify each and every person you are considering calling as a witness in the event a hearing is held in this proceed-ing and with respect to each of these witnesses:

a. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify. E i

, b. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion; and j c. Describe the witness's educational

, and professional backbround.

3. In response to Interrogatory 17 of Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, j you set forth a number of reasons Why you believe WNP-1 was deferred. Are they the i only reasons you contend that WNP-1 was '

I deferred?

i .

i .

I ,

. 7, _.__-,m.-_.__..-._____, . _ . . . . _

..__,_._.._.._.L....,m,j,.-__.r___-._-,.,,__v_.,.. _. n-,..

I t

s

. l

4. If your response to Interrogatory 3 is no, state all other reasons you contend that WNP-1 was deferred.

5. Of the reasons identified in Interroga-tory 4, state which (if any) of those reasons were the principle ressons why you contend *. hat WNP-1 was deferred.

6. What are the bases for your responses to Inter-rogatories 3, 4 and 57

7. State What you believe are the functions of the Bonneville Power Administration

("BPA").

8. State what you believe are the functions of the Licensee.

9. Provide the bases for your response to Interrogatories 7 and 8.

'10 . State what you believe is the extent, if any, to Which DPA oversees and/or .

approves development and implementation

' of Licensee's construction budget for

" WNP-1.

i '

11. State What you believe is the extent, if any, to which BPA oversees and/or approves development and implementation of Licensee's construction activities for UNP-1.

12. Do you contend that Licensee should have continued the construction of WNP-1, notwithstanding the BPA recommendation to defer its construction for an additional two to five years?

! 13 If the answer to Interrogatory 12 is yes,

• explain fully What sources of funding you believe were available to support continued construction.

14. If the answer to Interrogatory 12 is no, explain whether in your opinion Licensee

' had a valid business purpose in deferring construction.  ?

~- - ,. * **~~" - - , _ . _ _ . - - . . . ,, , _ - _ - - - - . . , _ . , , _ , , , _ , , . - . . - - - _ - -

.-n--,-.

l t

' -6,

15. Provide the complete basis for your responses to Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14.

In response to Interrogatories 20, 21

~

16.

and 22 of Licensee's First Set of Inter-rogatories you stated what you meant by the term " reasonable period of time," .

what factors sheuld be considered when  ;

determining if a requested construction permit is for a " reasonable period of time" and what would constitute a

" reasonable period of time" in the case of WNP-1. On June 22, 1983, you set forth in your Response to Licensee's Motion to Compel the basis for your responses to those interrogatories and stated that you would again update your response. Provide that updated response.

17. Identify what obstacles exist in your opinion to financing WNP-1, the time needed for each obstacle to be overcome,

~

and what must occur for each obstacle to be overcome.

18. Provide the complete basis for your response to Interrogatory 17.

19. Do you contend that Licensee must demon-strate that.WNP-1 will in fact be com-plated within the period provided for in the two to five year , extension of its construction? -

20. Provide the complete basis for your re-sponse to Interrogatory 19.

21. Do you contend there has been a misallo-dation of funds on the WNP-1 and 4 pro-jects such that funds will have to be repaid by the WNP-1 project to the WNP-4 project?

22. If the answer to Interrogatory 21 is yes, state the amount of the misallocation and

• identify the effect, if any, it would .

have on the construction of WNP-1.

r; --

e, s.

e

23. Provide the complete basis for your response to Interrogatories 21 and 22.

24. Identify all documents in your possession obtained from BPA concerning the delay of WNP-1 and state When and from Whom you obtained each of these documents.

25. Identify all documents in your possession .

obtained from any source other than BPA

. concerning the delay of WNP-1 and state When and from whom you obtained each of these documents. .

Respec f

$$'yabmitted, .

Nichol ' S Reynolds Sanfc L. tartman DEBEV SE LIBERMAN 1200 even eenth St., N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 202/857-9817 Counsel for Licensee August 12, 1983 h

[

4 I

4 t

~

00LMETET.

USNR0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gFFl:E 0 EE0hi*.-c hC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARM In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM ) .

' )

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) ) ,

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

. I s

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing

" Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests to i Produce to Intervenor" in the captioned matter were served upon the-following persons by deposit in the United States

mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 12th day of

}- August, 1983:

i Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and

! Licensing Appeal Board Chairman, Atomic Safety and i

Licensing Board *U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

! Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

l-l Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Executive i

Atomic Safety and Licensing

• Legal Director Board U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Jerry Harbour Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 i

6 a

- 2-Mr. Gerald C. Sorensen Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Manager of Licensing Energy Facility Site Washington Public Power Evaluation Council State of Washington Supply System Mail Stop PY-ll 3000 George Washington Way 98504 Richland, Washington 99352 Olympia, Washington

~

Mr. Scott W. Stucky Mr. Eugene Rosolie Docketing ti Service Branch Coalition for Safe Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory suite 527 .

Commission 408 South West 2nd 20555 Portland, Oregon 97204 Washington, D. C.

S Im b anfctd L. Y trtmhn s

i a

j -

O l

i .

.  ?

r-REGULATORf INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIGN SYSTEM (RIO3) i NUTARIZED: NO DOCKET e ACCESSION NdR:8308170031 Ouc.DATE: 83/08/15 05000460 FACIL 50-400 >PPSS Nuclear Project, Unit 1, Washington Public Powe Aufn.i.AME AUTHuR APFALIATION GROSSMAN,b. Atomic safety anc Licensing Board Panel HECIP.NA.vd RECIPItNT AFFILIATION Coalition for Safe Power SLbdEC1: Memoranoum b oruer gr_nting Coalition for Saf e Power 830713 motion to compel answers to interrogatories as to Interrogatories 2d = 28. Notion to compel cenied as to Interrogatories 4s e 50 DISThtDUTIGN C00E: C3045 LOPIES RECEIVED:LTR 1. ENCL (l? SIZES. . ....

TITLE: Non = Antitrust Issuances t.C TE S :

COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES hECIPIENT LTTR ENCL

CnBE/haPE siTR ENCL 10 C00E/hAFE hhTBk BV sc-unas,A 1

L

' NRR LB4 LA 1 i 01 1  :

INTERhAL: ASLAP b i ASLB GC 1 ELD /PSB 1 L t

PA 1 l RGNS NRC POR 1 )

EXTERhAL: LPOR 1 NTIS 1 I

i

(

to ,P(

i

! TOTAL NupdEn UF COPIES nEuu1 rcd LTTR Et.C L

-. ---- - . _ . . - _ . . - . - . .-. -- .__-_w. . - _ - - - - - - _ .

S .

E, f!.".E'

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY Co m ISSION U 3.'l

• i ;" :;;

' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.

s. .

p*,'

8efore Administrative Judoes:

Herbert Grossman, Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Jerry Harbour 3(EiED AUG

• 3 N2 In the Matter of h Docket No. 50-460-CPA l

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, h (ASL8PNo.83-485-02CPA)

SI. 3.1- J

)

(WPP55NuclearProjectNo.1) August 15, 1983

)J MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting In Part and Denying In Part Intervenor's Motion to Compel) '

MEMORANDUM .

On June 9,1983, Intervenor, the Coalitiori for Safe Power (CSP),

served its second set of interrogatories upon Applicant, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPP55). Applicant objected to Interroga-tories 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 31-35, 38, 42-45, and 47. On July 13. Inter.

venor moved to compel responses to Interrogatories 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 38 and 42, and to compel more complete responses to Interrogatories 26 and 50.

Oh b' PDA s

=

• a 4' ,

Applicant responded to CSP's motion to compel by answering Inter-1- rogatories 31, 32, 35 and 38 (without waiving its objections to those interrogatories), by continuing to object to Interrogatories 25, 27, 28 and 42, and by objecting to further responses to Interrogatories 26 and b 50.

)

} We grant Intervenor's motion with regard to Interrogatories 25-23  !

and deny it with regard to Interrogatories 42 and 50.

i j

Interconatory 25 i

In this interrogatory, CSP seeks to discover the differences in Applicant's usage' of the terms " deferral, mothball and preservation."

Applicant objects on the ground that the information sought relates only i to health and safety aspects of the construction deferral -- matters ,

outside the scope of this proceeding. These terws have apparently been used by Applicant in public statements and documents. Intervenor denies ,

(

that it is attempting to raise health and safety issues by its recuest.

~

lt appears to us that, although the differences in the projected j i

menner of treating the suspended facility may be motivated by health and l

i safety reasons, the terms themselves describe the possible treatment of l t

the facility rather than the motivating reasons for such treatment (even i

if the motivating reasons were health and safety considerations). ,

i

. t

. I l

i.,- +.

4 e

I Applicant's objection is not well founded, and it should answer the interrogatory..

Interroestory 26 Interrogatory 26 states: "To what events is the restart of con-Explain fully your answer." Appifcant re-struction on WNp-1 tied?  ;

sponded as follows:

1 i

' The restart of construction on WNP-1 is tied to those factors upon which the extension of the WNP-1 l

' construction permit until 1991 was based.

i t-Intervenor asserts that Applicant should " Explain fully [the] an-l .

i 8

swer" by showing how each factor identified affects the restart of con-

[

i struction of WNP-1 and how the decision will be made. Applicant con-tends that Intervenor is now attempting to rewrite its interrogatory and 1

that these are other questions that Intervenor should have asked but i

! didn't.

i l It appears to us that Applicant's answer to the interrogatory was l 2

J incomplete and circular. Rather than name the events and explain how l

I these events affect the restart of construction, it merely referenced the restart of construction to the unnamed construction pemit extension (

factors. That response is unsatisfactory and incomplete. The question  ;

posed by Intervenor in paraphrasing the original . interrogatory seemed to 1

i l

V us to be a legitimate reading of the original interrogatory. Applicant should furnish a complete answer to those questions.~

Interrogatories 27 and 28 These interrogatories ask what the effect would be on the restart and completion of WNP-1 of the possible default on WNP-4 and WNP-5, and the deferral of construction on WNP-3, respectively.

As we gather from Applicant's original objections to the interroga-tories and its response to the motion to compel, Applicant objects to answering on the grounds that the' interrogatories seek information with regard to projects other than WNP-1, namely, WNP-3, WNP-4 and WNP-5.

Applicant suggests that an inquiry into those projects 1s a " tangential question" that constitutes " unlimited inquiries into a construction per-mit holder's activities on other projects." Applicant's response to motion to compel at 7.

We do not view the interrogatories that way. It appears to us that, as a prima facie matter, a very direct connection has been demon-strated between the restart of WNP-1 and the fortunes of WNP-3, WNP-4 and WNP-5. Furthennere, the interrogatories themselves limit the in-quiry into WNP-3, WNP-4 and WNP-5 to their "effect *** on the restart and completion of WNP-1." These interrogatories, therefore, are neither l

" tangential" to the continued construction of WNP-1, nor do they con-I l

1 l

~

1,, _ . . . _ _ _ _ Z__ . _ _ _ _ _

li '

1.6 _ g_

stitute " unlimited inquir'ies" into Applicant's activ.ities on other proj-

' ects. Applicant should supply those answers.

Interrogatory 42 This interrogatory asks the reasons for halting construction of WNP-3, including the suggestion of there being no need for its power, As and questions how these reasons will affect the deferral of WNP-1.

with Interrogatories 27 and 28, Applicant objects to these inquiries into Applicant's activities on projects other than WNP-1.

We agree with Applicant that the reasons for Applicant's having taken actions on other projects are not sufficiently connected to its j

contemplated activities on WNP-1 to warrant discovery into those mat-ters. We do not consider that, because Applicant had certain reasons to take actions with regard to other projects, the existence of these rea-sons in Applicant's mind constitutes a basis for the Board to determine whether good cause exists for extending the construction permit for WNP-1. Intervenor seeks to discover matters that are not relevant and f

which do not appear to lead to relevant matters.

Interrogatory 50 ,

I l

This interrogatory questioned whether the passage of Washington Initiative 394 affected the ability of WPPSS to issue bonds. Appli-g,-e,, yww ,y- ,-v-,- y -yy.y- .m-,, , - , - , , , , - , p ,r,- - w-w- --w-w.,wy--.-.s- -m-- -m

~- .

s-cant's response indicated that any perceived impediment to the rapay-i ment of bonds would nake their sale more difficult; that Initiative 394 would clearly have constituted such a perceived impediment; and that the Supreme Court had declared Initiative 394 unconstitutional so as to re-move this impediment to net billing financing.

It appears to us that Applicant has completely answered that inter-rogatory. No further response is necessary.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 15th day of August,1983, ORDERED

1. That Intervenor's motion to ecmpel answers to Interrogatories 25, 27, and 28 is granted;

2. That Intervenor's motion to compel a more complete response to Interrogatory 26 is granted;

3. That Intervenor's motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory 42 is denied; and

3

)! . . - -

!: 3 .

4. That Intervenor's motion to compel a more complete answer to li Interrogatory 50 is denied.

l FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

' h herbert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, August 15, 1983.

J 4

• e e

Oe

r .

4 REGUL4 TURF ihr0Hb T104 UISTRIBUTIum SYSTEM (RIOS)

DOCKET s 4 ACCESSIuM "laR: 8306290221 04)C .0 a T E : 83/08/22 NcTARIZED: ho FACIL:50-4od arPSS Nuclear Proj ect , Unit 1, washinston Puelic Powe 05000360 suTH... As E AursuR ArFLLIATION BELL,0 Coalition for Safe Power 4ECIo.*4A'c nECIrltNf AFFILIATI0h Atomic oatety anc Licensing 3oaro Panet SudJECT: otion to compel util answers to Coalition for Safe power 430713 thiro set of interrogatories. Info souant on unit 3 relevent to Unit 1.Lectificate of Svc encl.Felateo corresponcence.

C0 RIES RECEIVE 0:LTR E14CL . SIZE:.

DISTRIbuTI'JN C00E: OS0as TITLE: Filinos (.iot urig or ..RC)

NOTES:

RECIPIEi-T COPIES nECIPIENT COPIES LT r4 ENCL It) CuoE/NArE LTTR ENCL IL CODE /NAME

.R n Lea oC 1 y 4HR Lou LA 1, I r , .. i . .., 1 S i ASto 91 1 i INTERNAL

AStaP l GC 1  ;

ELs/PSo i 1

d PA 1 i RGN5 NRC POR 1 tXTERNat: LPud 1 nTiS 1 t

b.

t l

i TUTal .lu nEn GF C JP L E S .s E .U A " t.0 : LTTH lo EaCL b)

l* .

SilATF.D COMMESPONDENCP I{ DOCMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , .

BEEQBE_IHE_AIQHI9_fAEEII_AH9_LI9EHEIHQ_B9ABD

'In the Matter of ) FF

• jj ,

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM Docket No. 5046bPA et. al. )

! )

(WPPS5 Nuclear Project No. 1) )

996LIIIQN E98_fAEE_E9 WEB _H9II9E_IQ_995 BEL _aHEWEBE_I9_IHIBE_fEI QF IEIERBgq&IggIgg_Ig_ggg61gggI,,ggggSI,ggg,Iggg The Coalition for Safe Power, Intervenor in the above-captioned proceed'ing, served copies of its third set of i interrogatories on Applicant on July 13, 1983. Applicant

responded on August 1, 1983.

Intervenor hereby moves for an Order causing Applicant to respond to interrogatories 5, 6, 9, and 16 and to respond more fully to interrogatories 2, 3, 13 and 14 for which inadequate responses were provided.

Applicant's objections to interrogatories 5, 9, 14 and 16 (or portions thereof) are based on its assertion that any information sought which is related to WNP-3 is outside the scope of this proc eding. In fact, these interrogatories seek information on the effect of the actions at WNP-3 on the delay of  !

, l WNP-1, at issue in this proceeding. The Board has ruled (Memo and Order, August 15, 1983 at 4) that a "very direct connection-E has been demonstrated between the restart of WNP-1 and the

' @$s WO 00 fortunes of WNP-3,-WNP-4 and WNP-5."

gg to Ug Interrogatory 5 specifically requests materials related to l 18 jg the BPA review of WNP-3 which bears on WNP-1. --- -

1 3 j $E Interrogatory 9 addresses decisions made by WPP55 on WNP :pmo l

1

r' l

which bear on the completion of WNP-1. Attachment 1 to this motion (excerpted from the WNP-3 Decision Document) shows clearly that the seven contingencies provided for " Alternative 2" affect

(" Reduce WNP-3 to Preservation State as Soon As Possible") ,

This interrogatory seeks to i the continued construction of WNP-1. '

l i

discover which scenario was chosen by WPPSS, in light of the BPA years.

recommendation to halt WNP-3 construction for three Interrogatory 14 seeks information regarding the effect of the construction helt on WNP-3 on the schedule for WNP-1.

I Applicant replies that the deferral of WNP-3 was not for three years but only uctil a source of funding is assured. Intervenor has not yet seen the July 8, 1983 resolution of the WPPSS Executive Board which Applicant refers to for this information.

However, Intervenor was present at a August 17, 1983 prehearing conference in the Matter of Washington Public Power Supply System, Operating License, application for WNP-3 where Applicant's counsel s,tated that WNP-3 is in a "one year winddown of construction" and that "the outside limit of deferral is three years." The BPA, in the " Analysis of Resource Alternatives, EMBESEY_shd_gggglysigns, May 26, 1983" states that it "would t

approve an action by the Executive Board to effect, as soon as possible, transition of WNP-3 to a preservation state for three years..." and that " financing alternatives are currently either unavailable or not prudent." This appears contrary to

-* Applicant's assertions at page 13 of its August 1, 1983_ Response to Intervenor's Third Set of Interrogatories, that "WNP-3 has been deferred until a source of funding for its completion is assured."

r-

=

- 3-Interrogatory 16 seeks information regarding the restart of

~

construction of WNP-3. The restart of WNP-3 has a direct bearing 1

on the restart of WNP-1. gee page 23 of the WNP-3 Decision Document and Memo and Order, EMEESA_ While Licensee has indicated to the NRC that construction deferral is for three to nine months .

t (See e.g. August 19 letter from G.W. Knighton, NRC to D.W.

Helton, WPPSS, Docket No. 50-508) BFA has stated it should be for three years. For the purposes of this proceeding all parties should be put on notice as to the expected restart of WNP-1 and all factors bearing on it (including the restart of WNP-3).

Applicant's response to Interrogatory 13, which concerns misallocation of funds on the WNP-1/4 projects, is half-hearted and vague. The BPA has considered this factor as a risk to .  ;

r.

financing the net-billed pro]ects and as one of 6 factors affecting its financinal* status and thus its ability to finance WPPSS (including WNP-1). gee page 19 of the WNP-3 Decision Document.

Interrogatories 5 and 6 seek material used by the BPA to prepare the WNP-1 and WNP-3 Decision Documents, both of which bear on the continued construction of WNP-1 and which are detailed andNumeful analyses. Applicant seeks to rely upon the BPA recommendation as the reason for its construction delay stating that BPA has the ultimate. authority over the plant. The criginal documents, studies and.so forth used to propere these

. analyses clearly form the basis for the ' case being made by the Applicant. However, Applicant is unable or unwilling to provide the a aterials which have been used by those it claims have ultimete authority thus shielding itself and the decisions from

. - _ _ _ _ - _ . . .__,_.-_-_..._______.,,..,_.-__...._._____m..._-..,..-m...,_, , _ _ , .

.q scrutiny. *WpPSS, as the holder of the construct' ion permit, should be required to ensure that there is a full and complete i

public record. In the alternative the Board should suspend the current hearings schedule to allow Intervenor to discover, through means of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, from Bonneville power Adminstration, a federal agency, the information which should clearly be a part of the record in this proceeding.

• Interrogatories 2 and 3 request that documents be made available for inspection and copying. These interrogatories also specifically request that a list be furnished of the documents which will be placed in the Applicant's Richland office.

Applicant has ignored this aspect of the interrogatory which is important to relieve Intervenor of travelling 400 possibly unnecessary miles. .

l Respectfully submitted, h

i

~* -- ------

Dated this day, the 22nd ina Bell of August 1989. Coalition for Safe power i

i e

N e

[

- -- - ----.+----+w-6 .,,y,wy,py,

-e-- g -- +.-cegww.-,w- g- g,, 59 e y,y,,,.,,--w-g-w w ,g n- ,pg, , g reei y,<w eg,,g e p- p g e--w w gw. c- p m y

f -- - _. . .

l O- l

~

(

. . j

!~

1 00CXETED

,t

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

anEgan_nE_azanIG_Satsn_ ann _ussuma_Mano:27 In the Matter of ) 0FF' .'E 0~ BUi -

) 00CKEiiNG & SERVib

) DoaMasC3io. 50-460CPA WASNINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) -

et. al.

) .

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Pro.1ect No. 1)

GEBIIEIGaIE_9t_EEB21GE I hereby certify that copies of " COALITION.FOR SAFE POWER MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT" l in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by l deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid on thi's 22nd day of August, 1983:

Norbert Grossman, Chairman Nicholas Reynolds Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Debevoise & Lieberman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20036 -

Dr. Jerry Harbour .

Glen O. Bright Adminstrative Judge Adminstrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 Mitzi Young Gerald Sorenson, Manager Licensing Program Counsel for NRC Staff WPPSS Office of Executive Legal Dir. '

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• 300 G. Washington Way Washington D.C. 20555 Richland, WA 99352 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Board Panel Council Mail Stop PY-11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service Nuclear Regulatory Commission <

Washington D.C. 20555 I .

Nina Bell Coalition for Safe Power

_ _ - . _ . . _ _ _ .- _ _ _ .____._. _ _ _ .___ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ . _ _