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

''.. .

*" *

3- -._ .

BELATED CORRESPONDENtm

' ^000KETED

'

MilRCUNITED STATES OF AMERICAd

NUCLEAR REGULATORV COMMISSION-

'83 M -6 All :36 ,

DEEDSE 105.61901C $6EEIY 6ND LICENSLUG B96BD.

*

'In.the Matters of-

'

HOUSTON' LIGHTING AND~ POWER ( Docket Nos. 50-498 OLCOMPANY, El ~ 6ti._ ) 50-499 OL

(

'(SouthLTexas Project. ) :

Units l'and 2)' - ( ;

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP)RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOT ION TO COMPEL - AN5WERS TO '

~IT5 CSICJ SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEETS-

EQB EBRDUCIICS gE DOCUdEGIS Ig LCeWe

'I._ INTRODUCTION >

.<On' March .28, -1983, Applicants served CCANP with -their

seventh set-of interrogatories..

c. On April 20, 1983, CCANP fi}ed a motion requenting ex tensi on.

of various deadlines. including response time on the Applicants'he

seventh set of interrogatories. .

Chi- 'Mey 11,. '1983, the'ASLB extended the time _for CCANP to ,

responti to Lthe Applicants' motion to compel . answers to- their

A

seventh set _of' interrogatories. .

CCANP herein files its answers to the..Apolicants' seventr,

set of interrogatories.

Were e disinterested human told'that someone had e. plan to

put the most dangerous machine ever invented by humans in the

path of the most. powerful. storm system ever created by God, the

disinterested human might well find such an idea f oolish and even:

unb el i evab l e.,

But in this proceeding, the. Board in being-asked to consider ,

swhether the South Texas Nuclear Project is adequately desicned

.

~

r306080159 830602,

PDR ADOCK 05000498 i'

: O PDRE

-.. - . .-

. _ .-

.

. .; .. . . >. . ,

.

,

~..

'

to. withstand 'a' hurricane. This inquiry is necessery because*

Houston 1 Li ghting - and'-Power J decided that STNP shoul d be l ocated in~1

cn areaffrecuently. struck =,by hurricanes.,

'CCANP's. position is that"the'inaudry itself is basi cal ly

meani ngl ess. - '"Due- tofits' sire, : intensity. 'and- duration,' t'he

' h'urri cane ' i s~ the.most destructive weether phenomenon known to

1.man." Thi s phenomenon 'is . not Well understood. dets a s availabl e .

only f or . e"rel atively short1 historical period.(1871'to. oresent's,

and . measurements have' come from d' li mi ted number of

~

" i nstal l ati ons '. - "IN one respect,Jhurricanes are like snowflakes'-2

noi two are exactly alike " Furthermore, " hurricane forecasting

- involves entensive monitoring- and complex modelling of a 'nstural3

phenomenon. which displays'significant random behavior.." Given,

.t he l p oder , m unique nature, and unpredictability of hurricanes. the

. existing data base -is too limited to permit prediction ~ of future

hurricane'- behavior . or - ' characteri sti cs' with any' degree of

certainty. See e gr Attachment?1.s

i'Thri conservative' approach to hurricane design would be -.to|

L essums nny probable limiting measurement is correct (even -if-

! .

esti mated) -and-add some percentage increase to that measurement:

i;_ -. .

. ..

if the estimated highest gust| ac'a margin of, safety.'For~exemple.~ -

of wind tot date is 1 8 0 m . p'. h .' . e conservative approach might well

be to assume the possibility of a 20% faster gust in some future

i'

storm (or the possibility that sc20% faster gust went unrecorded

'

in+a past storm). ~-

p|

Remarkably,. the -Apolicants have chosen precisely the

~ opposite' course -- of -action - eliminating estimated end even

|,recorded wind speeds on-technical grounds. The Applicants also

2

. . . - . _ - . . _ _ _. _.

f

-.. , . .

* .Q' *

4*,

.; .

_

.._

[ appear to[have--ionored or avoided available data in sel ecti ng the.

design wind _ velocities. Sinte the data comes f rom the' most likely~

. 4places ' to seek hurrican'e information. the 'f'ai l ur e of tnec ,

Applicants- to. use. this datas raises a larger ' question of;

-Applicants' commitment to' a truly safe design for STNP. The

. question'coec ultimate 19 to Applicants' character as the failure~

",

to' ' incorporate official data demonstrates-a careless disregerdm

'for the truth.. .

Hurricanes- are'. destructive'in'various ways. First of- all,,

within- a hurricane system-the " condensation heat energy release

b9' a ' hurricane in one day con be the equivalent of energy5'

.

_ released - by f usion of f our hundr ed 20-megaton hydrogen bomos."

This eneroy. release produces high winds, storm surge,

_; tornadoes;'and heavyrrains. Each'of these elements of a hurricane

a can prdduce devastat i ng ef f.ects. -

"Inifmost hurricanes. these winds Einner band fo-ming the

: s_ a-

wall" Tof the .evel' exceed 90 knots (50 meters per -second) [135'

: 'm.p.h.J - nearly twice that in extreme cases Etwice beina 2706

j- m.p.h.J." Winds :in 'this range can be very destructive.

|:In- desi gni ng buildings to wi thstand these winds, the

selection of a parti cul er wind speed. can make a- tremendous,

~ difference ~ in -the.. forces the deriqn must withstand and.;

i...

[- 'cher ef ore, in the cost of the construction. The wind force

i- applied' to 'any object increases with the square of the wind

7-speed. A =100 m.p.h. wind exerts a force of approximately 40

- ; pounds per square-foot. A 160 m.p.h.A wind exerts a force of

i

|:apprcnimately 100 pounds per square foot. A 200 m.p.h. wind

;.

{ y- O;

l'

'

9l.j,n. .

. . .. ., ,

.

exerts aTforce ofrapproximately 160 pounds per square foot. When.

6rain is- driven by the . wind, the force is'even greater.

LAsithe hurricane moves;toward. lend, the action of.the high'

-+ . .

; winds raises the mean water level. A storm surge is formed which

is- usually'the'moSt. destructive element of a hurricane. A storm9

surge ;can rise 201f eet or.-more above normal water l evel a. The

storm 's' urge. comes across the coastline "near the area where the

eye of the- hurricane makes landf all" and " acts like a giant10

bul l' doz er sweeping everything in.its path."

Adding to the destructive force of the storm surge, wind11

waves 5 to 10-feet high are " superimposed on the storm. tide."_

To truly appreciate the destructive potential of a storm

surge, -it'.is useful to consider ~the force of the surge. Water

weighs -1700 pounds p er, cubic yardE (1000 kilograms per cubic*' 12- 13

meter)- or 67 pounds,per cubic foot. .In Hurricane .Camille, tne

storm surge at Gul'fport, Mississippi ' was calculated to be 2 miles:

'eep, and 1 mile long (cut to sea), essentially "awi de. 12 feet d14-

batt'ering ram' weighing more than 20.million tons."

Addingistill further to the destructive ef f ect of the storm

' surge. is the return of the water'to tne sea with all of the

debri s - accumul ated in ~ the - surge. -

Besided high winds and storm surce, hurricanes also produce

tornadoes. These' tornadoes tend to be smaller in width and travel

a. shorter distance.on the ground than non-hurricane generated

-tornadoes.: But there can be dozens of them generated by one

hurricane; Beulah spawned 115 in Texas al one. Given their short

' duration ..and their unpredictable appearance in the midst of a

hu'ricane, studying.these tornadoes is a very difficult task. Inr

4

~~

. . je .

'

.

fact.' "EnJo . measurements 'of the wind speed in tornasoen-

15associated with hurricanes are known."

Finally, hurricane re,infall can produce very nesvy floodinc.

Typi c al l y, a hurricane brings e to 12 inches of rein to the eres16

it passes over. Los lying areas are flooded. rivers overflow.

cvacuation routes are cut off. e.nd massive damage of ten results.

The huhricane is all of these elsments at the same time. The

cui.ul at i ve and synergistic effects of high winds, storm suroc,

tornadoes, and flooding can be a disaster on the scale of a war.

In- the. ~ af termath, there can be a serious public heal th problem

caused by polluted water supplies. dead livestock, snakes criven

f rom t heir lairs. and damaged utilities - all addi ng to the storm

ceused crisis.

"" The South Texas Nuclear Froject is located in Matagorda

County near the Texas coast. As~of 1976, Matagorda County had

been t.h e landfall point for hurricanes entering Texas on six17

different occasions - 1921, 1941. 1942, 1945, 1949, and 1961.

In fact, based on an analysis co- past storms. Matacorda

Courty is the mcst likely plete in Texas f or hurricanes to make

landfall and for extreme hurricanes i. winds in excess of 13e18

m.p.h.) to make l andf all . Matagorda County is, therefore, the

; one spot in Texas most likelv to experience 200 m.p.h. Winds in

the wall of the eye. the highest storm surge, the most tornaccer,

and the greatest flooding. What a marvelous place to put a

nuclear power plant! Onl y hubris or gross incompetence can

adecuately explain the siting decision.4

As to the Applicants' interrogatories, CCANP will answer

5

,,

5

. .

,n; ...

9.

.them=having' registered its opinion that the inquiry posed f r.r the*

; Board is.,meaninaless.* By_giving answers. CCANP in no way wishes

%:.-

~

-tof; contribute .to the. f,coli sh - notion that this location i s-

possibly a saf e place to put a nuclear power plant... - w.

.The Applicants include ~ various requests for documents. Si nce 21

many; of Lthe' CCANP documents came from CEU and since the

. Applic nts have conducted pr ior discovery on this contention from

CEU. CCANP assumes Applicants al ready have most of the documents

CCANP relies -upon. All d cuments' listed in the f ootnotes ber ei n

are ..avai l ab l e for inspection- and copying at '2007 D Nueces.s.

Austin. Texas or, if'Applic$nts so desire, CCANP will respond to

' requests f or copying of particular documents.

II. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES- ,

1..Section 3.3.1.'1 ofEthe STP FSAR states that'I .;., -

As required:by Reg. Guidei l .'70, -a -desi gn wind vel oci ty basedon the-fastest mile wind speed, 30 ft above ground. 100 yearmean recurrence interval has'been selected. 'The design windEvel ocity' f or STP .is 125 mph at 30 ft.-above ground level.... --

Does .CCANP.icentend - that f or the South Texas -Project - si te thefastest ' mile wi nd. speed. 30 ft. above. ground.- l')G-year neanrecurrence interval is greater than 125 mph?. If so. stetc thebases -for such contention with every fact supporting such bases(including .a statement of the wind speed CCANP contends to be the'

_ fastest. mile wind speed,- 30 ft. above ground, JOO year meanrecurrence interval). identify and produce all studies or otnerdocuments upon which CCANP relies, and identify each expertwitness that _ CCANP expects to testif y on its behalf with respect

to such contention.

CCANP contends that the inf ormation available on hurricanen

generally assumes 200 m.p.h. winds or higher on the wall c4 the

eye. Since Matagorda County is a favorite entrance for-hurricanes

,into Texas, we can anticipate the possibility of a hurricane eye

coming--ashore at STNP and hesitating is one spot long enouch for

one mile-of wind to-pass by STNP at 200 m.p.h. at 30 ft. aboves

6

6 ...

. .

. . . ..- .

. .

,.

ground. Given that possibility and the neec tor great.

conservet'sm in designing e nuclear power plant which is goin0 to

put all of South Texas at risk. CCANF contends'that Applicente~

..

chould heve used 200 m.p.h. as the fastest mile speed in thei r

design._

CCANP further contends tnat the Applicants' oesl o' ' windn

velocitv reflects not only an avoidance of the general] y assumed

200 m,p.h. winds but also reflects a careless di sregsrd + or the

data available publi cly on known wind speeds of past hurricanes20

cntering the Gulf of Mexico. In support of this contention.

iCCANP of.fers the following storm wind data (f astest one mile21

unless otherwise noted):

1. 1947, Sept. 4-21 Hillsboro Li~ght, Fla. 121 m.c.h.(cne minute c,sx. speed'155 m.p.h. qust"

>

2. 1949, Sect. 27- Freeport, Tn. 135 m.p.h. (estimated)Oct. 6-

..

3. CARLA Port Levaca and 145 m.p.b. ': est i mat ed )191> 1. Sept. ~-15 Metegorda. Tx.

.

Port Lavace 153 m.p.h. cust(measuring eauiomant disabled)

175 m.r.h. (ostimated)

4. HILDA Frank)in. La. 135 n.p.h. ( est i rr e t e d )

1964, Sept. 28-Oct. 5

5. BETSY Port Sulphur. Le. 136 m r,.h.

1965, Aug. 27-Sept. 12

6. CAMILLE Gulfport, Miss. 100 m.p.h. ( e si i x.e t ed )

1969, Aug. 14-22 150-175 m.p. ousts,

..

(190 m.p.n.

7. CELIA Corpus Chrgisti. Ty. 130 m.p.h.

1970, July 24- 161 m.o.h. aunts

Aug. 5 (160-180 gusts) 3

7

_ _ _. ,

> :.3,. ..

. ;>.,.- .

.

.

E=' 24B..'ANITA- Northern Coast of Mex. 106 m.o.n.,,q .

.9'. : i 19 82, . Nov. "4'- ~ Freak wind at Port 140-145 m.p h.

4 Isabel, Tx.; no prior' -

-

' warning,

-

CCANP.has nofenpert witness.at"this time.~

- -'

_ 2. Questions 2 throught6 all deal with whetner STNP is adequatelyy s. .

. designed to withstandIthe_ effects _of.. tornadoes. CCANP contendsn

~

(that' the- information on hurricane generated tornadoes is too

'

' li mi ted td' e'sess the' reliability of- Applicants design basis~

s~

- :25 '

assumptions.. ' Applicants cannot,-therefore, sustain their burden"

" '4 _

'

of'' proof, in -supporting the adequecy of their: tornado related

designs..

7. In. addition to ' the. information provided in response tointerrogatories 1-6, supts., are there any other facts or reasonswhich,CCANP; contends support its: contention that the South TexasPr oj ec't~ -i s'!J n o t adequatel'y designed to provide reasonable

" :protectien" 'to the public health and. safety from the direct orindirect- effects on__ safety related structures and equipment of

hurricane ~ sinds- or/ni ssi l e propelled by hurricane winds(Contention 4)? I f, so, identify all such facts and reasons.

; i denti f y ; ' and produce. all studi es or other documentat i on upon a

which CCANP reli es f or such f acts or reasons, and identify each[ expert! witness that CC,ANP expects to testif y cx1 its benalf witn

,

respect'to;such' contention.

l " Hurricane. surge is the most destructive element on thei 27

~

20 feet or more above mean seaTexas Coast."- 'With'a tide of~

'

level ~ topped b'y waves 5 to'10 feet nigh. tremendous destructive~

,

:|

|. force-is brought to the land.

Hurricane Carla had a storc surge reaching 21 feet and2B

extending as f ar as 10 miles inland. Port Lavaca-had tides 18.529

'

-feet above normal. Hurricane Camille had a storm tide 24.2 feet30

,above sea level.

i|

| Conceivably' every building at STNC not 30 to 35 feet above

the normal high. tide level with be subject to battering from

8.

.

. .

. .

,

.

storm surg;- created by the hurricane windt.

There is also the problem of the combined effect of more

than one seriously adverse ~conditior- at the same-time. A buildinc

being pounded by a ten foot wave end by rain lacen winds of 200

m.p.h. is, under far more stress then it wou] c; he from e i t h c-r 04

the stress sources alone.

B. CCAi4P does not intend to call any expert wi tnesses at thle

time.

9. n/a

10. All enswers are by Lenny Alan Sinkin.s

Resnectfully submittet

f 6q

Lanny Alan Si n ki nb' Counsel for Intervenor

Citizens Concernec AboutNuclear Power2207 D Nueces.

Austin, Texas 78706(512) 478-3290

Dateo; May 31. 1983

..

W

G

9

*;

,[... -

h . . .,- -

.-

d,'. t,

s.., , ,

- .z ..- .- = , , . . . -

.

q- ,.

.

~. ,

._ , - .FOOTNOTE 5c.+

x ,.

.1'.s'; Henry, Dri scoll', . and 'McCormack, " Hurricanes on the lexesJ. ! . .. _ .

?

,.

.

? Coast ,' " i Tedas 'A&M University, July ~1975.,-7 AMU-96-75-504 at 3.. , _

' '. . $' ' - m..

2. Idz atLS'.- .,

* -

3; . Texas' ' Coast al - Marine Council. ""Pictoris1 Atlas of Tenas1 Coastal [ Ha:-ards, " January "1977 at' 18. .

~

m t - a e,

4-

4.:Primarily-the'U.S.'" Department of_-Commerce.tNUAA);,

-5. " Hurricane: The' Greatest Storr on-Earthi" U. S. Dept. of-

Commerce, NOAA/PA 76008 (1977) at 1 1 '.-, ,

6. Jd., at 10.-5ge gLsg Branley and Kessler. " Hurricane Warnino: A'

iBook3ety . f or Boys and Gi r1 s, '' , U. S. . Dept.. of Commerce. NOA4/PA i

J77001- ' a t' ~ 6'~(hurricetne winds-blow "as much an- 2'00 milec (322'"

ki1ometers) fan" hour")IHenry, pt . glb sucta,_ note.1 at '...

~ ' " * i7. Henry, et gLt. gynte. note 1 at 18

.

>

IB. Idz<

. t , .

4|

* -.,,

a

gugte,_ ngte 5 at li9. " Hurricane ".... z

IQz .319C0 N C9F rod WCC G000-SRf21Yr" U S DE21s ni C9002CETti t t-

F !!QeBZE9 Z8919 ,

>

11z'" WCticens.zz "1 supra. note 5.at 15.. .,

~

.,

12.-1d..

13. "The Homeport Story,," U.S. Dept. ci Commerce, NCAA/PA 70026'" .(1971)'at 3. .

%

;16 Id t

15.. . Harris, D..!_ee, "The Prediction of Hurricane Storm Surges: AState-of-the-Art-Survey," -Coastal and Oceanographic EngineeringLaboratory,- College-of-Engineering, University of' Florida (1900)-at 14.

.

16. " Hurricane ...", gyptas note 5 at 15. |

17. ' Mor t on ., Pieper, and McGowen, " Shoreline Cnanges in Matagorda ,

Peni nsul a (Brown Cedar Cut to Pass Cavallo): An Anal ysi s of

Historical Changes of the Texas Gulf Shoreline," Bureau of

Economic Geology,- University of Texas at Austin (1976) at 15.

10. Henry,.et a). note 1 at 13. See also Appencix II, Table 1 (21 ;

of.91' tropical storms or hurricanes oaking landfall in Texas came -|

ashore near Indianola, Victoria, or'Mgtagorda - all quite near |

STNP). ;

.

4

l:

10p

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

-

. . .

- =o . _._

19. . igg note 6 gygcat Sqe , algo "The Homeport Story" Luna.. note.. .

13 at 2.

20. Given the size of hurricanes end their unpredictability,CCANP assumes that the data from any hurricane entering the Gulfof Me::ico thould be consitiered an the STNP d esi cin . In fact, en -

argument could well be made that any North Atlantic hurricanedata is relet' ant since the storms form in the r,ame crea and thu

Otorm moving into the Gulf or up the Atlantic sea board seems 4

matter of pure chance,.

- 21'.1 Unl ess otherwi se f ootnoted. all wind speed data is from "SorneDEv'estating North Atlantic Hurricanes of the 20th Century." U.S.Dept. of Commerce. NOAA/FA 77019 (Rev. 1977).

22. "The Homeport Story " s92r a. note 13 at 2.

23. iHer.rV. et- al u segrat note i st' ~16; Teias Coastet h e-i nk |G~ ' ''

Council, gupra. note 3 at e. 45.3- , ,

_ ,, ;-- >: . ,, , ,

Re'easei. Texas Catastrophic Property Insurance242 Press' l

Associationf(TCPIA). August-Eeptember- ''19784 No. 1 of74..

25. __S_cD.Sgtggig. supt.esg, '.Novem6er'4,. 19s2 at.1; Dailv ..'[egan.

November 4. 1932 at s.'

,o ,1 , ...,

26. - See " tent " accompanying note 15 synta.., -

.

s

. .g

27. Norton',-gY_ali, sygth note 17 at 23. ' . .

N." Henry .ch e[z guntp. note I''at 29.-

29. .I cl ._ e t 10.

30. "Some Devastating ..." _sgates note 21. .

,

e d

4

e

11

,

,- z-.-- - , -y. .. ;-

_

"* :.1.

-', : .g '': ,

_ _. .

,

*e a ,

.-,

t . -.

-,

STATE OF TEXAS' - (

-). c.COUNTY OF TRAVIS ,(*

:.; ,.

~ BEFORE I1E ' the undersi gned author i ty, on thi_s day-personallyappeared LANNY ALAN SINKIN. . who upon.his oath stated that he heeanswered the f oregoing interrogatories in Apolicants' 5eventh Ser_of- . Interrogatories end Requests for Production of. Documents toCCANP -in hi s capacity es counsel for C2tirens Concerned AboutNuclear Pow.er,'Inc. and_that all staternents conta2 ned therein aretrue and correct to the best of his knowledge and belaef.

_ __ D.LANNY LAN SINiIN,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO PEFORE ME by the said LANNY ALAN SINKINon this 2nd day of June-1953. _

l

-. . --. %----.~..--* -

Nottry Pi 11c in and forTravis County. Texas

'

My Comtnission expires:,

5 $|o...- --'

.

m +

!

.

1

e

: s

.

12

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

' '' '

* *-

.. ..

. . as.

_x. . .

.

ATTACH!1ENT 1.

. _

,

.

- *.

. .'

A8 Austin American-Statesman -- Monday, May'30",1983 e-

.s . . . .

Eld. ...mo y ses cur,r.ent, threateo .

.

;, . ,.c ... ,. .

i Watni-sea phenomenon c% 'n pl' f!Iould. affect. hurricane:s.J 'easoir:,

i m ;f N w : e J '

.- - i

;.'

t. i., t % t, '' i : - Q 3, : ~ L ''' . ':) _ || ..>| .

--

* CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) . Warm of the sear the most severe temperature fluctuations.. Pacific. Ocean winds that caused a f g,'' pheno [nenkn'. adds unusual of tiie century, Qark said." drought in Australia and torrential rainsL a Peru may a ddle next with the sum g strength. to the upper atmosphere jet El Ninos have been blamed for |l| ;- droughtsthisyearin Australia and South ' '

t 2 ? [ stream and " blows.the tops off" storms| merhurricanes Jhe Atlande. before they can become hurricanes, Na- east Asia, the flooding that caused muds-,

, ,,

! ., / De. hurricane season, responsible ford tional Hurricane, Center forecaster Gil lidea in Ecuador. and Peru, less than.i

'I .flerce storms.with winds that can reach < Qark'said..,y [ gf. normal monsoon rains in India and the

ges ggNfv$j ' THE'bRAMATIC\,'e, duction in the,

''.* 150 mph ot * more,'s officially. starts heavy storms la Ca!!fornia and across the' r

| . ,,vednesday an(co southeastern trade winds that cause El southern United States... . . . . . . ..

. ... . "Ninos happens every 10 to 15 years. El.,. ( g ; _, , -,

.E . . . - Scientists are beginning to believe the '. I Forecasters at the. National'Hurricana ,tNino, Spanish for child, is named for the . .

'

Centersaythe big monsterstorms willbe ? Christ child because it usually comes in ' periodic warm currents are linked to a-'#huge shift in barometric pressure in the.

ylelayed until mid-August or September late December. Southern Hemisphere known as the 9.,because of the return ot what is known as El Ninos surprised meteorologists by' southern oscillation. The event usually +

j 'El Nino, the occasional unusual warming ' starting in september last year, bringing , lasts 12 to 18 months. j, .

i .- ,

1 EL NINOS form when the surfacet- winds over the ocean drop dramatically,gb. allowing the water to warm rapidly. Theh heet from the ocean rises, adding ~r strength to, the jet stream. "The jet:t- stream begins to increase and blows the

top off these developing tropical storms,"s7

Qark said. 2 .i.*-<

.

Ordinarily during hurficane season,;, the jet stream diminishes to almost =i

Ig nothing. . -..

.,

f If the pattern holds, El Ninos willlast al ., few more months and "by September,'

. things will be back to normal," Cark- ' said.i w f:: *

, , . _ . ,

L '-: , G; * e V . ..

r .- . e- a 1

|

|

|

%

- . - - . , - - - - - . - - - . . - - . . - - - . .. . , . . - - - - -

r.. .

.. ..s

00CKETEDUNITED STATES Or HMERICA y.rc.

NUCLEAR REGULATORv COMMI5510i1

MEOBE IHE GIOMIC 59EET1 GNp L.IGLLasitq POeRD '63 . jj -6 All 37.

CERTIEIG8TE O '- SEBMTCE

I hereby certify that copier 04 CITIZENS CONCERNED AEOUTNUCLEAR POWER (CCANP) RE5FONSE TO HFPLICANTS" MOTION TO COMP 5LANSWERS TO ITS ESIC) SEVENTH SET OF INTERRO5ATORIE5 ANL REC'UELTSFOR PRODUClION OF DOCUMEN15 T O L:CANP anc of CITIZEN 5 CONCEANErABOUT NLtCLET-.R POWER (C C4NP) SUPPLEMENT TO MARCH 18 1983 NOTIONFOR NEW CONTENTION were served by depos:t in the United St a t et;

hs:1. first cisnE postage prid or by E>: press Mall (*) to thr++c)1owing i ndi vi dual s and entities on the 2rio day of June 1983.

Ch e!-l es Bechhoefer, Esq. William 5. Jorcan. 1]1. E t. c .Chief Administrative Judge Hermon end WeissAtomi c Saf ety and Licensing Board 1725 I Street. NWU. 5. Nuclear Regul etory Comniission Washington. D.C. 20u06Weshington. D.C. 20555

J a c i- R. Newmsn. Esq.Dr.. James C. Lamb, II] Lowenstein. Newment Fei r *> AnolradAdministrative Judae 1025 Ccnnecticut +.enue. NW313 Woodheven Road W a s'ii n g t on , D. C. 20036Chcpel Hill, IC 27514

Robert G. PerlisErnest E. Hill Office of the Exocutive Legal Di r .Admini strative Judge U. S. Nuc3eer Regulatory Comm.Lawrence Li vermore Laborstory Wanhinoton, D.C. 20555University of CalifornisP. O. Box 808. L-123 At orni c Safety end Licensing DaardLivermore, CA 94550 U. 5. Nucleu- Regulatory Comm

Weshi nat on . D.C. 20555Mrs. Peggy BuchornExecutive Director Atomic Safoty and LicentinaCitizens for Equitable Appeal Board Pene)

Litilities U. 5. Nuc3 ear Regu) etor y Comm.- Route 1, Box 1664 Washington, D.C. 20555

Brazoria, Tenas 77411Docketing and Service Section

Bri an Berwick, Esq. Office of the Secret aryAsst. Atty. Gen. U. 5. N:_t c l ecr Reculetory Connierien

Environmental Protection Div. Washington, D.C. 20555P. O. Son 12548. Capitol Stat;onAustin, Tenau 7G711 ~ . ,

m

Tom Hudson, Esq. LANNr 5 c4i(INBaker and BottsOne Shell PlazaHouston. Tx. 77002

s