ML19350B815

Supplement to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Answers to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories Re Emergency Planning & Financial Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML19350B815
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/13/1981
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8103230735
Download: ML19350B815 (19)

Text

.. ,.

9 e

- p1,'m ,. .s 7,; , ,

,R,t a - ' c y ' i

+ ,

,. m S CORRESPONDENCB.

c) i S  %

/ .

3/13/81 g cccKg733 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .,,,,,. rWf ,,,,

/

NUCMAR .UGUIATORY COMMISSIOs f MAR 171981 >

Cffi:e cf the Se::stary

' BEFORE THE ATO(IC SAFETY AMD LICENSIX' ,BOARD cocheting & Service /

9 In the Matter of Bg l 4 j" E l Docket Nos.-50 M5 APFUCATION OF TEKAS UTIE TIES l and 50-M6

. GENERATIEG CMPANY, ET AL. roR AM l .

,W Q _

orERATIm uCrusE roR CWABCHE l c A PEAK STEAM EI2CTRIC STATION l g  ! Q b"N( )

{ ' j,f .,I

~

% 2 c h 0 581

' SUPPLDENT TO if CASE'S ANS'4ERS TO APPUCANTS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRCDUCE 4 /

/

ca to COMES N0',4 CASE (Citizens Association fc- Sound Energy), hereinafter . erred to as CASE, Intervenor herein, and files this, its Supplemeat to its Answers to

, Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce.

SUPPLDENTARY ANS*4E!iS CGNERIRION 22: Applicants have failed to casply with 10 CFR Phrt 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasonsa ^

a. The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emeTgency planning or who have" special qualifications for dealing j with emergencies. .*

j -

b.- No agreesents have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for.the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the identi-

}ficationoftheprincipalofficialsbytitlesand.. agencies.

~

c. There is no description of the arrangements for services of physicians l

',. and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangemaents for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary.

d. There are no. adequate plans for testing by periodic drills of emergency

~

plans and provisions for participation in the drills by persons.whose assistance may be needed, other than employees of the Applicants.

~

l e. There is no provision for medical facilities in the immediate vicinity i -

of the site, which includes Glen. Rose; and - -

i f. There is no provision for emergency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft.Worthmetroplex.

~

l ,

7-w ,

a

j. -  :

9$hs l .

l ,s B I =-

l Elo3M o 735 _ _ -

Cr - . - . . -

)

• - ~

e o 2-2. Also Applicants' October 8, 1980, Emergency Plan.

~~

11.2. Yes; we have now filed the most recent revisions and have generauy read them over for the most part although we vill continue to analyze the charges insofar as they may pertain to our contentions and insofar as their ccuplicce with NUREG-065k, Rev. 1, November 1980. .

r Yes.

a.

b. Section 2 3 We do not believe Applicants have given adequate con-sideration to the upper air currents toward the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex area, especially with regard to air currents during thunder-storms which blow frcza the Ccananche Peak area toward Dallas / Fort Worch.

Although we have now received the Hood County Emergency Operations Plan and the Scznervell County Emergency Operations Plan, we have not yet ccampleted our review of them. Therefore, there exists the possibility that we may have further objections as.well as the possi-bility that we may withdraw some of our current objections upon com-pletion of our review and analyses of them. Upon ccanpletion- o'f such rev'iew and analyses, we vill update our responses to these questions.

However, it is impossible at this time to state exactly when such update vill be done; it depends upon' a number of factors including:

how long it takes us to respond to Applicants' Motion to Cc:npel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE filed 2/23/81 (which carries, according to 10 CFR 2.710 and 2 73o(e), a deadline for filing of 3/10/81); how long it takes us to analyze the information contained therein; whether or not the two Plans are canplete (a very cursory examination of them ,

has already revealed that Annexes C, D, and E for each Plan were not included); the impact which Applicants' ansvers to our Fourth Set of Interrogatories filed 2/17/81 may have 'regarding possible objections (ansvers' due to be filed 3/9/81); how difficult it is to refer back and forth between Applicants' FSAR, Emergency Plan, and Scmervell and Hood Counties Emergency Operations Plans, and NUREG-0654, Rev.1; '

how long it takes us to obtain missing information such as Annexes C, D, and E of the Sanervell and Hood Counties Emergency Operations l

Plans; how long it takes to prepare our supplement to the NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories,which it is ,our intention to begin as soon as we complete this present pleading; and how long it takes to respond to any other motions which may be filed in the meantime. We can only say at this time that we vill be reading.as fast as we can and working as hard as we can to complete our review and analyses and vill be filing our supplementary responses as soon as we can.

In the meantime, we are attempting to respond to your interrogatories as best we can based on the partially complete information we currently have.

i '

l

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

e -

11.2. b. (continued):

Section llA-1. We don't believe applicants have adequately considered the possible contamination of water fra accidents at CPSES. Paragraph 1 of 11A.1 CRITICAL PATHWAYS states: " Pathways of human exposure to plant radioactive emissions likely to account for most of the exposure fra plant operation and frca accidents are discussed in this section.

These discussions are based upon a knowledge of the characteristi.:s of the l site environnent and on predicted effluent releases presented in Tables 11A-1 and 11A-4."' The discussions appear to be primarily regarding normal or routine operation rather than accidents, ash Tables 11A-1 and 11A-4.

(*Emphasisadded.)

Tt would therefore appear that adequate consideration has not been given to the ingestion exposure pathway, in light of the statement in NUREG-0654, Rev.1, November 1980 (hereinafter referred to as NURIn-0654) on page 9: "D.b. Ingestion expcsure pathway -- The principal exposure from this pathway would be frcan ingestion of contaminated water or foods such as milk, fresh vegetables er aquatic foodstuffs."

It should be noted that this objection may very well be taken care of if we are permitted to ask some questions regarding it; however, until we ask and receive ansvers to our questions, we object to this portion of Section 11A-1.

Section 153.2 ASSUMPTIONS regarding DOSE-MODEIS USED TO EVALUATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ACCIDENTS. "2. All radioactivity releases are treated as ground level releases regardless of the point of discharge."

I And Section 2 3.k.2, Calculations of Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates: "It was assumed that the releases emanate from a point source l ,

l at ground level. . ." CASE believes that this may also have a bearing on '

the spread and carrying of radioactive releases by upper air currents which blev fra the Cmanche Peak area toward the Dallas / Fort Worth .

metroplex area.

There are some other areas of concern contained in the FSAR and the Emergency Plan which we would not at this time object to; at this point ~

in time, .re only have questions about these, which we vill be asking .

as soon as possible after we emplete our responses to Applicants' 2/23/81 Motion to Capel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE and any other motions which may be filed in the meantime. It may be that Applicants' responses to our questions may lead to our objecting to certain portione of the FSAR; however, it may also be that such responses may satisfy our concerns and vill not lead to objections.

c. Section 2 3 NUREG-0654, D. Planning Basis, page 11: - " The choice of the size of the Emergency Planning Zones represents a judgment on the extent of detailed planning which must be performed to assure an 3-

" " W "

~ ^ '

---

- ..-  : ^ .J _ :L_._ . _ _; ;_ __ _ _ . _ __- _

11-2. c. (continued):

adequate response base. Inapabicularemergency,protectiveactions l might well be restricted to a small part of the planning zones. On the other hand, for the worst possible accidents, protective actions

- would need to be t' aken outside the planning zones."

i Section llA-1. NUEEG-0654, page 9 (See further explanation under ll.2.b. of this pleading.) .

Sections 15B.2 and 2 3 4.2 See answer for Section 2 3., answer to 11-2.c. of this pleading.

12-2. Those specified in NUREG-065k, bMA-REP-1, Rev.1, which states on pue 1:

"This document is consistent with NRC and FEMA regulations and supersedes other previous Buideance and criteria published by FEMA and NRC on this subject. It will be used by reviewers in determining the adequacy of State, local and nuclear power plant licensee emergency plans and pre-i . paredness."'...and states on page 2, "This guidance is classified as final guidance ." This is what we were referring to when we stated in our original 2/6/81' Answers when we said "Those specified in NRC final regulations (NUREG-065h and .telated documents and other regulations which are in the

~

process of being developed at the present time)."

.' The "related documents" to which we referred in our previous answer are those documents referenced throughout NUREG-065k, Rev.1 (which we are '

referring to in this pleading as NUREG-065k); there are numerous such docu-ments mentioned, such as: page 2, B. Background, "A separate document has been prepared by NRC and FINA which lists the comunents received and which indicates the NRC and FEMA response to these camments." and "The NRC Rule on ~ '

Emergency Pisaning (45 FR 55ko2) of August 19, 1980 has an effective date of November 3,1980."; page k, C. Scope, "The guidance intended for use by NRC licensees and operators of coussercial nuclear power reactors is based upon .

several existing documents familiar to such operators: first, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101 (March 1977); second, NRC's lettersof October-10,1979 and November 29, 1979 to its power reactor licensees; third, NRC's final rule including the revised Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and fourth, NRC's NUREG-0610, ' Draft Emergency Action Level Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants,'

September 1979, the revised version of which is Appendix 1 to this document.";

etc.

The "other regulations which are in the process of being developed at the present time" to which we referred in our previous answe are those documents referenced throughout NUREG-065k, such as: page 3, "This docu-ment (NUREG-0654) is also supportive of the proposed FEMA Rule concerning the review and approval of State and local radiological emergency plans and preparedness, which at this~ writing is in the process of revision as a result of comments received during the public comment period."; page 9, "The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is preparing guidance on the potassium iodide issue which will be considered by NRC and FEMA."; page 14, note 7, "An interagency Task Force on Ehergency 1 ds *- 4-ee-r- '+---1--e7 ve=* w7w F wee-t-we--%* ur-*-- -i+*- e w-mer * -rg"e- eM*w7e wse e-e w -ew

• ss w vw,e----mu+-mm--,4 et w vsrr-err w

• cer - r ime-w -y g-fw wgy-rw v - -w-9 V,m 0

• e w- e'ir w v-W iry

. z . . - .-.a = . -- . _ . . . . - . . -

12-2 (continued):

Instrumentation (offsite) is nov preparing guidance on offsite radiation

'nessurement systems, accident assessment techniques, ac,1 the type and quantity of instruments needed for the various exposure pathways."; etc.

NUREG-0654 specifies the State authorities respons.ible for emergency planning as: " State.. . governments" involved "in the development of radio-logical emergency response plans and preparedness in support of nuclear power plants" (page 1, I.A.1.); "The guidance intended for use by State and local goverranents has been drawn in large part from existing documents..."

etc. (page 4,.C., 2nd paragraph); etc., in a very general way*. It further specifies that:"Each plan shall identify the State... organizations...that ~

are intended to be part of the overall response organization for Energency Planning Zones" (page 31, II.A.1.a.); "Each o ganization and suborganization having an operational role shall specify its concept of operations, and its relationship to the total effort." (II.A.l.b.), "Each plan shall illustrate these interrelationships in a block diagram." (II.A.l.c.),"Each organization shall identify a specific individual by title who shall he in charge of the emergency response." (II.A.l.d.), "Each organization shan provide for 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of ccammunii:ations links." (II.A.l.e.); "Each organization shall specify the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by title, of emergency response, including. .."etc. (page 32, A.2.a.); "Each principal organization shan be capable of continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period. The individual in the principal organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material) shall be specified by title." (page 33, A.4.); further specific requirements regarding State authorities are contained iri II.C.l.a. (page 40}, II.C.4 (page kl), II.F.1. (page 47), ,

II.G. 4. (page 50), II.P.2. (page 78), II.P.3. (page 78) . There are numerous references to organizations or suborganizations which should be identified, if not by name, at least to the extent neces,sary to assure that sufficisnt trained, capable personnel exist and will be available to fulfill their required functions.

CASE has not at this time made an analysis which goes beyond the

, preceding as to the specific State authorities responsible for emergency planning which should be identified by the Applicants; according to the Applicants' February 12 letter to CASE, " Appendix M (of the Ccananche Peak Emergency Plan), ' Appendix 3 tio Annex L--Texas Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Fixed Nuclear Facilities': The Texas Plan has not yet been finalized, and therefore is not available at this time." Therefore, Applicants have not yet ccanplied with the requirements in NUREG-0654 l referenced above. At this time, we are not certain whether or not we vill make an ' analysis which goes beyond the preceding; if so, we vill, promptly update this answer. ,

l j -

l

-. . - - . -  : .:.- . w..-. .. .

13-2. Those specified in NUREG-0654: "The concept of Emergency Planning Zones (EP2a) necessarily implies mutually supportive emergency planntw. and pre-paredness arrangements by several levela ui' goverrcent: Federal, State and local governments, including counties, townships and even villm6es...

The important point is that integrated emergency planning vill benefit all of the commaunities within the Emergency Planning Zones." (page19). "NRC and FD4A have deliberately consolidated in this document guidance intended for ase by State and local governments and that intended to guide the emergency planning and preparedness activities of NRC licensees because of a shared belief that an integrated approach to the developent of response plans to radiological' bazards is most likely to provide the best protection of the health and safety of the public. NRC and FEMA recognize that plans of licensees, State and local goveranents should not be developed in a vacuum or in isolation from one another. Should an accident occur, the public can be best protected when the re ponse by all parties is fully integrated.

Each party involved must have a clear understandicg of what the overall level of preparedness must be and what role it vill play in the event of a nuclear accident. This understanding can be achieved best if there is an integrated develop ent and evaluation of plans. There must also be an acceptance by the parties and a clear recognition of the respen'sibility they share for safeguarding public health and safety." etc. (pages 23 and 24). Additional guidance is contained in II. Planning Standards and Evalua-tion Criteria (pages 31 through 79) and scattered throughou; NUREG-0654. .

See also answer to 12-2, this pleading.

CASE has not at this time made an analysis which goes beyond the preceding as to the specific regional authorities responsible for emergency planning, in light of having only recently received the updated and final version of NUREU-0654 At the present time, from the infor=ation we have so far reviewed, Applicants do not appear to have set up the fully integrated ,

emergency response plan referenced in NUREG-0654. As soca as we have made further analyses in this regard, we vill promptly update this answer.

, a 1h-2. Those apelled out in NUREU-065k; see also answer to 12-2 preceding. CASE is not at all convinced at this time that sufficient trainied, capable personnel exist at the State level who vill be available to fulfill their ~

, required functions; in fact, we believe very strongly that at this time the State of Texas is incapable of fulfilling the requirements of NUREG-065h.

(For exaurale, the State Health Deprtment at this time is understaffed to even handle eversight and regulatory enforcement regarding low-level nuclw w:. ate temporary stors ge facilities within the State.)

15-2. See answer to 13-2.

i 16-2. See answer to 12-2. Also, guidance is contained in NUREG-065h scattered throughout and more specifically in II. Planning Standards'and Evaluation Criteria, pages 31 through 79 There should be sufficient trained, capable personnel in existence and available to fulfill each and every function

- - - ~ - . _ - L.. 2- - - . .. - - - - . _ . - _ _ : r - -.- . . .- .- -

16-2 (continued):

s specified. It is not sufficient to say these criteria vill be canplied with vithout knowing that there will be real live people available to accomplish them, and that such real live people have been adequately trained to do their , jobs, and that such real live people will actually and in fact be available when needed. See especially our answer to 14-2 preceding. We assume that one of the primary State agencies which will need to be involved will be the State Health Department and've don't think they have sufficient money, manpcwer, and training to take on the additional duties required by NURm-0654 (see especially II.K. Radiological Exposure .

Control, and II.O. Radiological Emergency Response Training, pages 66-68 and 75-77, respectively). ,.

CASL contends that the State authorities which should be identified which have "special qualifications for dealing with emergencies" are those referenced above and throughout NUREG-0654, fr a the people who will be administratively involved to the people who will be actually carrying out each function. CASE believes that all of these people. need to be identified, if not by name, at least to the extent necessary that such people ,actually exist and will be available to fulfill their required functions. -

17-2. See answer to 13-2 preceding.

18-2. See answer to 16-2 and 13-2 preceding. Further, since we have not yet reviewed the Hood County and Smervell County Emergency Operations Plan, we cannot assess at this time any gaps there may be in the fully integrated emergency response plan in regard to the County and town coordination during an emergency. We will update t zis answer procptly as soon as we have empleted our reading of the Cou ey Plans should such updating in this . -

regard be needed.

! 19-2. First, thoroughly review NUREG-0654 and ana'yse l what specific procedures, agreements, authorities, services, equipment, and people will be needed to c mply with the guidance in NUREG-0654. Then find out'what State and regional authorities are available to accomplish such guidance, what equip- .

, ment, services, etc. are available, e,c. These State and regional authorities should be identified as specified in N; REG-0654 and'as stated in answers 12-2,13-2,16-2, and 17-2; generally, they should be' zdentified, if not

,- by name, at least to the extent necessary to assure that sufficient trained, capable personnel exist and will be available ,to fulfill their required

functions.

20-2. See CASE's 2/6/81 answer to this question. Further, Applicants seem to have misread' CASE's 2/6/81 answer "...NUREG-0654 and related documents and other regulations which are 'in the process of being developed at the present time." In Applicants' 2/23/81 Motion to Cmpel, pages 6 and 7, they state " CASE also answers by indicating that additional bases are.other 4

e

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

! 20-2 (continued):

' documents' and ' regulations' (bothNnspecified)thatareintheprocess of being developed...Also, CASE has not provided complete responses in that it fails to identify the 'related documents' and 'other reculations' which evidently are to serve as bases for CASE's position. CASE eust provide responses to those interrogatories by specifying those documents and e sgu- .

lations." The"related documents" and "other regulations" are not documents which CASE is preparing, as Applicants appear to believe; the"related docu-ments" are documents related to NUREG-0654; the "other regulations which 4 are in the process of being developed at the present time" are those regu-lations referenced in NUREG-0654 which are in the process of being developed by the NRC, FD4A, and other agengig. See answer to 12-2 preceding. At this time we do not know which[pecIIII documents we may rely on because we either don't have the documents themselves or the documents are not yet available) to a certain extent, of course, we are presently relying in a broad sense on the "related documents" referenced in NUREG-0654 since some of the information in NUREG-0654 was taken fromthem. Although the "other regulations which are in the process of being developed at the present time"are not yet available, CASE expects the Applicants.to comply with the guidelines and regulations contained in them. As stated in the i

Note on page 6 of CASE's 2/6/81 Answers, we will update our answer to this

, question as soon as possible; it is, however, impossible for us to say i' when the NRC, FEMA, and other agencies will have these documents canpleted, printed, and distributed, or how long it will take CASE to secure, review l and anaJyze the "related documents" referenced in NUREU-0654.

j 11.

21-2. Those specified in NUREG-0654, especiallyjE. , F. , G., N., and P, pages 43-51 and 71-74 and 78-79 Generany, written agreements should be obtained '

with local officials spelling out w' hat specifically they will do in the event of an emergency regarding the early . warning a&1 evacuation of the public; this should include procedures for' alerting, notifying, and mobilizing emergency response personnel and slerting and notifying the public regarding such emergency as quickly as possible, as well as making advance preparations to assure that in the event of an emergency the public could be evacuated quickly and safely, in addition to all other specifics set forth in NUREG-065k'.

22-2. See answer 21.2 above; this response would apply for State officials as l vell as local officis':.s.

23-2. Those specified in NUREG-065k, especiauy II.E., F., G., N., and P, pages 43-51, 71-74, and 78-79 We have not at this time made an analysis which goes beyond this as to the specific local officials andagencies.

l 24 2. See answer to 23-2 above.

I l

l

-- . -- : - : . -. ..- . . . - . =_- . _ _ . ..

24-2. (continued):

s The same applies to State officials and agencies. However, we assume that the State Health Department will be one of the logically-involved State agencies. In this regard, see our ccanments in this pleading, ansvers 12-2, last paragraph; 11+-2; 16-2; and 19-2.

I 25'2. See CASE's 3/6/61 answer to this question.

and 22-2 26-2.Seeanswer21-2/ preceding. We have not yet made a more detailed analysis; we vill pr mptly update our response if and when we do so.

27-2. As quickly as possible; we have not yet made a more detailed .:nalvns beyond that contained in NUREG-0654; we vill prceptly update our answer if and when we do so.

28-2. All those which may be affected by accidents at CPSES, including,in the event of a worst-case accident or an accident with large releases of radia-tion or radioactive materials into the atmosphere, the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex area it there exists the possibility that tne upper air currents may cariy the rat.ioactive materials to the metroplex area.

29-2. Those set f orth in NUREG-0654, especially II.A, C. , D. , E. , F. , G . , H. , I.,

J.,K.,L.,M.,N.,O.,P.

30-2. All vbc are in the path of or have the possibility of being in the path of any radation or radioactive meterial releases from CPSES.

31-2. The public should be notified immediately of any accidents at CPSES; we ,

have not evaluated whether this should be in five minutes, thirty minutes,

. or an exact number of minutes. We believe .the public'should be notified of any and all such accidents gt once; even'if they appear at first to be minor, so that those who r r e to do so may evacuate on their own.

This procedure vould cut down s

• She number of people to be evacuated later should the accident necessitate evacuation by the general public.

, Further, in the event of a serious accident, we believe evacuation should be recommended as a precautionary measure before it beccanes a major accident which would require evacuation. This procedure would allev another portion I

of the population to evacuate should they' desire f.o do so, and would cut down even more on the number of people to be evacuated later should the accident necessitate evacuation by the public. In any accident situation, there should be immediate notification of local, regional, State and federal emergency response organizations.

32-2. 10 CFR Appendix E to Part 50; NUREG-0654 and related docume'nts and other regulations which are in the process of being-developed at the present time by federal agencies; the rule of reasons a.

. o

2. The officials who win be in charge of each response organization; see answer to 23-2 preceding. s 34-2. The officials who win be in charge of each response organization; see answer to 24-2 preceding.

35-2, 10 CFR Appe,ndix E to Part 50; NUREG-0654 and related documents and other regulations which are in the process of being developed at the present

• time by federal agencies.

36-2. Those set forth in NUREG-065k, especially II.L. -

37-2. See 36-2 above. ,.

38-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.L..

39-2. NUREG-0654.

40-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.L.

k1-2. To hospitals or other emergency medical services facilities which are not downwind frca the accident site. As set feeth ir.11UREG-0654; we have t not made a more detailed analysis of the specific facility at this time; we have not yet reviewed the Hood and Somervell Counties Emergency Operations Plans. If and when we make a more detailed analysis in this regard, we will promptly update our response.

I h2-2. NUREG-065k.

l h3-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.N. And the public who will have to be evacuated in the event of a real, accident.'

kh-2.'See answer 43-2 above.

45-2. See answer 43-2 above. -

h6-2. See answer 43-2 above.

47-2. NUREG-0654.

h8-2. No; we accept the provisions of NUREG-0654 in'this regard.

49-2. See 48-2 above.

50-2. Not applicable.

51-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.L.

l

[

. _ . ~ . , .,,. y,__....- .- , _ . . __,

.~ =- -- .---.. - -. - . . z.. r -- - - - - - -

e 52-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especiauy II.L.

53-2. Those set forth in NUREG-o654, especially II.L. At sitea which are not downwind from the accident site. We have not yet reviewed the Hood and Smervell Co't.aty Ehrgency Operations Plans. We have not made a more detailed analysis of tbe specific locations at this time. If and when we make a more detailed enalysis in this regard, we vin prmptly update our response.

54-2. No, subject to our statement in 53-2 above. -

In the event of an accident at CPSES,

• 55-2./brimarily those persons who have been contaminated; presumably these same facilities would also have t,he capability to handle other types of injuries which might be connected with the accident which are not necessarily of the contaminated variety.

56-2. NUREG-0654 57-2. That set forth in NUREG-0654.

58-2. See answers to n.2.b. , 28-2, 30-2. See also NUREG-0654, especially Appendix 4, II.D., page 4-4, which states "Where' meteorological conditions such as dminant wind directions, warrant special consideration, an addi-tional sub-area may need to be defined and a separate estimate r.ade for this case." See also NUREG-0654, especially I.D.2, pages 10 and 11. CASE believes that s me portions of the Dan as/ Fort Worth metroplex areaa should be included in the plume exposure pathvay even though they are outside the 10-mile area and that some should be included in the ingestion exposure pathway even though they are outside the 50-mile area. We bave not yet ,

made a more thorough analysis of the specific areas because we have not

~

yet made a more thorough analysis of the upper air culrents from CPSES.

However, we g know that there are often strong upper air currents, especially during thunderstorms, which blow from the CPSES area toward the Dallas / Fort Worth area. At the presenttime, this is based on personal knowledge and past weather forecasts during storms; however, we expect

~

that meterological reports from the wenther bureau will confirm this fact.

l ' As soon as we have made this more detailed analysis, we will prmptly update our response to this question.

59-2. Yes.

60-2. Yes, under certain accident conditions and certain meterological conditions.

See answer 58-2 above.

61-2. Yes, with one exception: the public and local, regional, State, and federal emergency response organizations should be notified at once of an accidents at CPSES. See answer 31-2. othe measures should vary depending on the

-n-

• a: .,: . .- - . - -

- .. ~ ._- . ~ . .

61-2.(continued):

~~

type of accident which triggers their actuation, in accrudance with the guidelines and regulations set forth in NUREG454. ctsz has not made a more thorough analysis for "each event" which goes beyond the require-ments of NtREG-0654; if and when we have made such detailed analysis, we vill promptly update our response to this question.

62-2.NUREG-0654; the rule of reason.

63-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially in II. Planning St=*rds and Evaluation Criteria; see previous responses in this pleading.

6k-2. See answer 63-2 above.

65-2. See answer 63-2 Preceding.

66-2. See answer 63-2 preceding.

67-2. See answer 63-2 Prsceding.

68-2. See answer 63-2 preceding.

~

69-2. See answer 63-2 preceding; CASE does not have a clear understanding of precisely which federal agencies will be doing vbat, but we assume the NRC will be one of the federal agencies involved; we have made no further d .iailed analysis in this regard.

70-2. See answer 69-2 above.

71-2. See answer 69-2 preceding.

72-2. See answer 63-2 preceding; CASE does not liave a clear understanding of precisely viiich federal agencies will be doing what, but we assume the FEMA vill be one of the federal agencies involved; we have made no further detailed analysis in this regard. .

73-2. See answer 72-2 above.

74-2. See answer 72-2 preceding. ,

75-2. NUREG-0654; the rule of reason.

76-2. We have not made a precise analysis in this regard; if and when we make such detaile'd analysis, we will promptly update our response. At this time, we believe the entire tovil of Glen Rose should be covered by sane aspect of emergency planning, most if not all of which will be included

76-2.(continued):

intheplumeexposurepathway;wedo$ilowthatthespecificindividual >

who lives in Glen Rose whom CASE is representing in these proceedings lives within the plume exposure pathway.

77-2. See answer 58-2 preceding. j 78-2. Yes. We would assume that not all of the Dallas / Fort Worth,metroplex area would be included in the plume exposure pathway but that all of Glen Rose would be. -Also, we would assume that this would vary depending upon the accidents involved: locations closer to CPSES would possibly bs.ve more alerts that there were,. accidents which might affect them than would locations further away. See answer 58-2 preceding.

79-2. NUREG-0$jk; the rule of reason.

80-2. See answer 58-2 and 78-2 preceding.

81-2. See answers 58-2 and 78-2 preceding; under certain meterological conditions and ceitain accident conditions, probably some type of emergency planning should be provided for the entire Ds11as/ Fort Worth metroplex area; we have not made detailed analyses cf this at this time, but will prmptly update our response as soon as we .have done so.

82-2. We have not made a detailed analysis of this at this time; there could be a number of different typers of accidents including a core meltdown. We will prmptly update thir answer as soon as we have made such detailed analysis. ,

83-2. See answer to 82-2 above. ,

^

84-2. See answer to 82-2 above; we assume at this time that for most of the Dallas area the accidents involved would be of a more severe nature.

L -

! 85-2. We have not made this detailed analysis at this time.

86-2. We have not made this detailed. analysis; this information will be supplied as soon as we have made such analysis and this answer will be prmptly updated. NURB:i-0654.

87-2. See preceding answers, especially 76-2 through 86-2; we have not made this analysis at this time; vill update answer praptly when we do.

88-2. NUREG-0654; 'the rule of reason.

89-2. Yes.

c, F., and G.

l 90-2. Those set forth in NUREG-0654, especially II.Eg we have not made a detailed analysis which goes beyond the e;uidelines in NUREG-0654. If and when we do make such analysis, we vill prmptly update this answer.

91-2. NUREG-0654 l

92-2. Ey written agreements, as set forth in NUREG-0654,,-especially II.A.3.,

page 32; by answering all questions by Intervenors and NRC Staff satisfactorily regarding this contention; by incorporating all the guidance and requirements of NUREG-0654 and related documents and other regulations which are in the process of being developed at the present time by federal agencies into your emergency plans; by drills and exercises which demonstrate that adequate preplanning has been done so that an emgency condition could be handled quickly, efficiently and in a manner so that the least possible harm to the public would be incurred; by proving that State, local and regional emergency plans can be paid for, set up, maintained, and continued with real live people to carry them out; such documentation should be presented to the NRC, the Intervenors, and the public through these operating license proceedings and should be appr :ed before Applicants are issued*

an operating license or allowed to load fuel.

l 93-2.10 CFR Appendix E to Part 50; NUREG-065k and refated documents and other regulations which are in the process of being developed at the present

! time by federal agencies; the rule of rea son.

95-2. Applicants' 2/23/61 Motion to Compel states: " CASE responds by referring to its pleadings regarding admission of its contentions and by indicating that it relies on unspecified testimony in unidentifi'ed rate hearings as bases for its position. CASE also indicates it expects to obtain more ,

infomation in response to interrogatories."

What we actually said in response to Question 95 '2 was "In addition l

' to that set.forth in CASE's 5/7/79 Contentions (pages 43 through 47, old

~

Entention 16) and CASE's h/10/80 Contentions (pages 45 and h6, Old Con-l' tention 16), there have now been further rate hearings for the Texas Utilities companies. According to these companies' sworn testimony, the three operat- ,

, ing empanies of Texas Utilities are in constant jeopardy of having their bond ratings.lovered and starting down the road to financial disaster.

Also, CASE is currently looking into the financial integrity of the other Applicants in the hearings; we vill supplement, our answer as pertinent information is developed." (Emphases added.).

Regarding the " unspecified testimony in unidentified rate hearings"

've believe Applicants already have sufficient information fr a our 2/6/81 Answers to identify both the testimony and the rate hearings to which we referred. However, to be crystal clear about this, we offer the following information: The specific

• ate' hearings are the rate hearings for Texas Utilities' three operatirg companies, Dallas Power 8. Light Company (DPE),

( Texas Power as Light Ccupany (TPE), and Texas Electric Service Company u

_ _. _ _. . . _ . ___ ~. ... __

l o -

• 95-2.(continued):

(TESCO); these three operating ccmpanies of Texas Utilities are, as far as we' know, the only Texas Utilities empanies which even have rate hearings; they are the only three operating cmpanies which Texas Utilities has as far as we know; therefore, we believe our answer was responsive in this regard. Regarding the tnspecified testimony" we stated that we were referring to these conpanies' sworn testimony, referring to the previous sentence in which we had already identified the rate hearings for the Texas Utilities companies. To clarify this even further, we mcant the sworn testimony of DP&L's, TP&L'.s and TESCO's own witnesses; in the case of DPE'(in which CASE has been an Intervenor in each and every rate hearing since 1974),

usually each ani every DP&L witnpss makes it a point at sme time during his testimony in rate hearings to point out the danger of having their bond ratings lowered and the dire consequences the capany will face if it doesn't get the entire amount being asked for in the rate hearings.

I This has been the case in every rate hearing of DP&L since 1974 and similar I statements have been made in rate hearings since 1974 for TP&L and TESCO.

We do not presently have the testimony itself or the specific docket numbers of the rate hearings for TP&L and TESC0; however, this is on file Vith the Texas Public Utilities Co:mnission in Austin and, we presame, with the cities of Fort Worth and other towns served by TP&L and TESCO. We expect to have l

such testimony in hand by the time testimony is prepared for these proceedings l' and will update our answer in this regard as soon as we have it in hand.

We do have most of the testimony and all of the docket numbers in the DP&L

.ste hearings; they are Docket Nos. 3h60 (1980, the most recent), 2572(1979),

1526 (1978), there was no docket number for the 1975-76 hearings which were held only before the City of Dallas (before the Texas Public Utilities Cmmission began hearings). This testimony is also on file with the Texas Public Utilities Connaission in Austin and with the City of Dallas.

All of the testimony referenced above regarding tte rate hearings of DP&L, TP&L and TESCO is readily available to Applicants, since thor.c Appli-cants were fie ones which filed the rate requests to begin with and were directly involved in the rate hearings; they undoubtedly have such infor-mation on file right-at their fingertips. Although CASE does not have "

the testimony at this time in the TP&L and TESCO rate hearings, we do have copies of most of the testimony in the DP&L rate hearings and' vill make it available for inspection and copying should Applicants be unable l to find their copies.

With furthar reference to these rate hearings, a review of CASE's 5/7/79Contentonsand4/10/80 Contentions (asreferredtoinour2/6/81

j. ' Answers) shows that we set forth some specifics regarding rate hearings in those two pleadings.

I We are not certain at this time exactly which specific sworn testimony of DP&L's, TP&L's and TESCO's own witnesses we will cite in these hearings.

There has been so much testimony which supports CASE's contention that we vill obviously have to Jimit it considerably to avoid overburdening the record of these proceedings. We will, of course, advise all parties 'and l

'5-

95-2.(continued):

update this answer prmptly as sma a2 we have made this decision.

Regarding Applicants other than the Texas Utilities empanies, as ,

stated we are currently looking into the financial integrity of these companies (Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Texas Municipal Power Agency, and TEX-IA Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.). One ave;.ue we are pursuing in this regard is through Interrogatoiies to Applicants; see CASE's 2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce. (If it is as difficult to obtain the requested information i as it has been in tre rate hearings, we anticipate that we will have to file Motions to Cmpel in order to obtain it.) .

It is impossible for CASE to.recc,ncile the financially sound condition the Applicants claim in the oper'a ting lice tse hearings with the deteriorating, unsound financial condition which lacks financial integrity claimed by the Texas Utilities empanies in rate hearings. Having heard the sad songs of impending doom and finaneir.1 disaster of the Texas Utilities cmpanies for the past seven years, CAST, believes it is absolutely essential to me.ke the Applicants prove conclusively that they are indeed financially healthy and can emply with the regulations set forth in the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 10 CFR 50 57(a)(4) and 10 CFR 50, App dix C, before an operating license is granted.

100 2. Applicants' 2/23/81 Motion to Compel stated regarding question 100-2 and others: " Interrogatories 95-2, 100-2, 104-2, 106-2 through n 6-2, u 9-2, 120-2, 122-2 and 123-2 ask CASE to prcvide information regarding its posi-tion on Contention 25 CASE answers by indicating that it does not presently have the requested information, that it ' expects' to have further informa-tion, that it has not 'yet' reviewed the info?.mation necessary to provide "

responses or that the interrogatory is not applicable 'at this time.'"

Contrary to the above, Applicants' question 100-2 was "Do you plan to participate in the upccming hearing with re'spect to Contention 257 .7f so, what vin bs the extent of your participation?" CASE's 2/6/81 answer vas "Yes. Unknown at this tirte. We will supplement oar answer as appropriate."

This-is still our answer.

104-2. We don't know. We don't believe the Texas Utilities ccupanies do, but we don't know about BEPC, 24PA, or TEX-IA at this time. We viu answer l regarding these cmpanies as soon as we knew the answer.

t 106-2.Seeanswerto95-2precedingandour2/6/81answerto95-2.

107-2. This question was lumped in with others in Applicants' 2/23/81 Motion to C apel (see first paragraph of answer 100-2 preceding).

Applicants' question 107-2 was "Do you contend that any of the owners' annual financial statemert a contained in ' tir published annual reports do not demonstrate that they have or have reasonable assurance of obtain-

'107-2.(continued): .

ing the funds rucssary to cover thei3 share of the estt--t.ed operating costs of Comanch Peak." CASE's 2/6/81 answer was "None that we have seen so far would so indicate; however, we haven't seen an of them yet."

This is stin our response; we vin update our answer as soon as we know what the answer is. We can't answer question,s about anmmt reports we bsven't even seen yet. See also answer 95-2 preceding.

108-2. This question was also lu:nped in with othersin Applicants' 2/23/81 Motion to Campel (see firstl paragraph of answer 100-2 preceding).

• Applicants' question 108-2 was "If your answer to Interrogatory 107-2 is in the affirmative, please set forth with particularity the information which you contend demonstrates that the owners do not have or do not have reasonable l assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover their share of the esti-mated operating costs of Cananche Peak." CASE's 2/6/dl answer was "N.A.

(not applicable) . We believe that this was and is an appropriate answer since Applicants' question was predicated on our answer to 107-2 being in i

the affirmative; our answer to 107-2 was not in the affirmative. In any event, we win update this answer if and when our answe to lO7-2.is "yes."

109-2. See-answers 95-2, 107-2 preceding. -

, 110-2. This was another question which was lu:npd in with others in Applicants'

, 2/23/81 Motion to Ccapel (see first paragraph of answer 100-2 preceding).

~

We believe our answer of 2/6/81 was responsive to the question. Further, we believe this cost will continue to escalate in a similar manner to the construction costs for CPSES; therefore, the longer it is before the plant comes on line, the higher the annual operating costs will be.

l 111-2. We believe the response in our 2/6/81 answer was responsive to this question.

We tried to answer it to the best of our ab'ility at that time. We assuce that the Texas Utilities companies may be able to obtain sane part of the estimai,sd operating costs for CPSES; at this time, we simply don't know whether or not.the other three Applicants (BEPC, TMPA, and TEX-LA) vin be able to. See answers 95-2,10!*-2, and 107.-2 pr-mding 112-2. This was another of the questions which was lumped in with other in Appli-cants' 2/23/81 Motion to Compel (see first paragraph of answer 100-2 precedir.g).

Our 2/6/81 Answer to this vas "N.A. (not " applicable) at this time."

We believe our answer was responsive to the question as phrased. See

'also our answer 111-2 preceding.

H3-2. See answer 112-2 above.

11k-2. We have not yet made this analysis; we will update our resi inse when we know the answer to this question. )

l

n5-2. See anwer 95-2 precedics and in-2 preceding.

n6-2. The information referenced in ansver}5-2 preceding and our 2/6/81 answer to this que.stion.

H9-2. Yes.

120-2. See answer 95-2,104-2,107-2, ul-2, and nh~2 pbeceding. For one thing, the ansvers to CASE's 2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interrogatories. to Applicants have not been supplied. Further, Applicants have not proved to CASE that the sworn testimony of Texas Utilities' witnesses in rate bedrings (as referenced in answer 95-2 preceding) is not true. At this time, we have made no further analysis of the.soecific materials Applicants have not supplied; we only kncv that they have not supplied sufficient proof to convince CASE that our contention is not correct , We vill update this answer as soon as we have sufficient information to do so.

122-2. See answer 95-2, lok-2,107-2, ul-2, n4-2, and 120-2 pre 4:eding.

123-2. Your guestion 123-2 asked "Do you believe that any public or private utilities would have the financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak? If so, please identify those utilities." CASE's 2/6/81 answer l

l vas " Unknown; we have not made this analysis at this time."

CASE our 2/6/81 answer was responsive to the question as phrased.

has not analyzed whether or not am public or private utilities vould have the financial qualifications to operate Ccananche Peak; we don't know whetber they would have or not. At the scznent, we are not convinced that Applicants have such financial qualifications; unless Applicants are proposing to sell their portions of Comanche Peak to sczne other "

public or private utilities, this is a moot point at this time as far as ve can see. .

Respectfully submitted, CU, - /6 (f4rs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1h26 S. Polk Dallas, TX '75224 214/946-9hk6 214/9k1-1211, work,part-time,usually Tuesdays and Fridays 3/13/81 l

_. m . _-- ..._ _. . - .._.____.- - -

~.

c. .

. ., e

,7 .

.. occat*'

~.

emc.

.. .'Y. .

MAR 17ig81 > M

~

~ MmTED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES 0F AMERICA D otra of ee seedry.

t ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' )

Dc:ka:ing & Servics / i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B s

N so In the Matter of I U I ..

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN 1 and 50-4,46-OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1

~

UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _

By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS.TO PRODUCE have been sent this 13th day 'or March,1981, to the folleving persons.

• .ch Certificate "of Mailing Receipt

• valentine B. Deele, Esq., Cha'.rman David J. Preister, Esq.

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue -1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conar.issior.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 -

• Nicholas S. Repolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman -

Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St.', N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D.-C. 20555 Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section -

Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch'C. McColl, III, Esq.

West Texas Legal Services 701 Ccenneree Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, n 75202 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Est.

36021 Prescott Avenue s, n 75219 t(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR.

SOUND ?~NERGY)

~

I'1

• O *." 4.ConamPosogsce C A S E ==

~

(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)'

March 13, 1981 g 3c) /g

, ( g;,Cy CC i

~~

% ushE:

5 f.ta 171981 > l11 l Secretary # Cike cf the Secretary

' ~

• /

l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cannissica

! Washington, D. C. 20555 .

e lu Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section

Dear Sir:

l

Subject:

Declxt Nos. 50-M5 and 50-Wo Application of Texas Utilities Generating Cca::pany, Et. A1. for an Operating License

! for Ccnanche Peak Steam Electric Statica Units #1 an'd #2 (CPSES)

Ve are the original verification for CASE's 3/13/81 Supplement to CASE's Answers to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories. .

i I

l Sincerely,

! CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY) ,

l - # N.)

Mrs.) Juanita.Ellis '

President l

l cc: Service List i

i I

e e

e

.e

'C STATE OF TEXAS )

~

Juanita Ellis, being duly sworn, deposes and says:-

That she is President of CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)'

and knows the contents of the ' foregoing SUPPLDENT TO CASE'S ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' t

SECONDSETOFINTERROGATORIESANDREQUESTSTOPRODUCEdated3/13/81,

?

and that the some is true of her own knowledge and belief.

JJAsW fNOJ t

$nitaEllis .

SWORN TO and Subscribed before me on this l'ith day of March , 1981.

-~

~

y, ,

. Q ~

/ aw A" h sm

• Pa'ul G. Marco, ' Notary Public

. f4, , ~

j' *** '

I y-

• My Commission Expires: 12/'A1/8h -

> .L ;2, i .

.- r -(EAL)'i.:

i..,. .'.'*:,Yf i

. ,. 3: ;,,',(

The"ohkinal of this page is being mailed under separate cover, First Class Mail, tothe Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission, Washington,'D. C. 2053,

, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, on this 13th day of Ma ch

~

1981. ..

e .

s

. O9..

- ,,- , , . , -