ML040980188

Duke Energy Corporation'S First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

ML040980188
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/31/2004
From:	Repka D Duke Energy Corp, Winston & Strawn, LLP
To:	Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Byrdsong A T
References
50-413-OLA, 50-414-OLA, ASLBP 03-815-03-OLA, RAS 7561
Download: ML040980188 (16)

Text

R*As 756 /

RELATED GORRESPONDEN March 31, 2004 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AME] RICA LUSNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON OMISSION Aprl 6, 2004 (9:13AM)

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LI [CENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ) 50-414-OLA

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units I and 2) )

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE In accordance with the schedule established in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Licensing Board") Order dated March 30, 2004,1 Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke")

hereby requests that the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League ("BREDL" or "Intervenor")

(1) answer this set of interrogatories fully, in writing and under oath, and (2) produce the documents requested below. In accordance with the Order, these responses and documents should be provided by April 14, 2004, pursuant to the schedule set forth by the Licensing Board.

I. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. Scope of Discovery These interrogatories and document production requests cover all information in the possession, custody, and control of the Intervenor, including information in the possession of employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, consultants, or other persons directly or indirectly See Duke Energy Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), "Order (Confirming Matters Addressed at March 25 Telephone Conference)," Mar. 30, 2004 ("Order").

1

--l-eplate =SCC - 036-

employed, retained, or voluntarily working with the Intervenor, or anyone else acting on Intervenor's behalf or otherwise subject to its control. The discovery sought by this request encompasses material contained in, or that might be derived or ascertained from, the personal files of Intervenor's employees, agents, representatives, investigators, attorneys, consultants, or other persons directly or indirectly employed or retained by the Intervenor or voluntarily working with it, or anyone else acting on Intervenor's behalf or otherwise subject to its control.

B. Lack of Information If Intervenor currently lacks information to answer any interrogatory completely, please state:

1. the reasons for the lack of information;

2. the responsive information currently available;

3. the responsive information identified but currently unavailable; and

4. when Intervenor anticipates receiving such information currently unavailable.

Each of the following requests requires supplementation in accordance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.740(e)(1) - (2). Duke therefore requests that, in the event Intervenor obtains or discovers any additional information that is responsive to any discovery request, Intervenor will promptly supplement its responses to these requests.

C. Objections In the event that Intervenor objects to any interrogatory or document production request under claim of privilege, immunity, or for any other reason, indicate the basis for asserting the objection and the person on whose behalf the objection is asserted, and describe the 2

factual basis for asserting the objection in sufficient detail so as to permit Duke to consider, and the Licensing Board to adjudicate, the validity of such objection. All objections should be filed in accordance with the schedule established in the Order, and should not be deferred until the response to this request.

D. Privilege Log For any document covered by this request that is withheld under a claim of privilege, please furnish a privilege log identifying each document for which the privilege is asserted, together with the following information: the date, author and affiliation, recipient and affiliation, persons to whom copies were furnished and their affiliation, the subject matter of the document, and the basis for asserting the privilege.

E. Basis and Description When an interrogatory requires Intervenor to "state the basis" or give a "description" of a claim, contention, request for remedy, allegation or the like, provide a complete summary including the rationale for the position and all pertinent facts, including the identity of persons, dates, documents, and events.

F. Intervenors References to Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, BREDL, Intervenor, "you," and "your" include any branch, department, division, or other affiliate of the Intervenor, including its employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, consultants, or other persons directly or indirectly employed or retained by it or voluntarily working with it, or anyone else acting on Intervenor's behalf or otherwise subject to its control.

3

G. Documents References to "documents" mean the complete original or a true, correct, and complete copy and any non-identical copies, whether different by reason of any notation or otherwise, of any written or graphic matter of any kind, or any data compilation, no matter how produced, recorded, stored, or reproduced (including electronic or mechanical records or representation of any kind) including, but not limited to, any writing, letter, telegram, facsimile, meeting minutes, meeting notes, memorandum, statement, computer file, book, record, survey, map, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, tabulation, graph, tape, data sheet, database, data processing card, printout, microfilm or microfiche, interoffice and intraoffice communications, instructions, reports, demands, schedules, notices, recordings, analyses, sketches, manuals, brochures, telephone minutes, calendars, accounting ledgers, invoices, indices, notebooks, personal notes, diary entries, electronic mail, notes of interview, communication, contracts, any other agreements, data compilations, and all other writings and papers similar to any of the foregoing, however designated by you, including all drafts of all such documents.

H. Date "Date" means the specific day, month, and year, if ascertainable, or if not, the best approximation thereof (including by relationship to other events), and the basis for such approximation.

I. Discussion "Discussion" means communication of any kind, including, but not limited to, any spoken, written, or signed form of communication.

4

J. Person "Person" means any individual, association, gr6upi, corporation, partnership, joint venture, or any other business or legal entity.

K. Describe or Identify The words "describe" or "identify" shall have the following meanings:

1. In connection with a person, the words "describe" or "identify" mean to state the name, last known business address, last known business telephone number, and last known place of employment and job title;

2. In connection with a document, the words "describe" or "identify" mean to give a description of each document sufficient to uniquely identify it among all of the documents related to this matter, including, but not limited to, the name of the author of the document, the name of each person or entity signing or approving the document, the date on which the document was prepared, signed, and/or executed, and any other information necessary to adequately identify the document;

3. In connection with any activity, occurrence, or communication, the words "describe" or "identify" mean to describe the activity, occurrence, or communication, the date of its occurrence, the identity of each person alleged to have had any involvement with or knowledge of the activity, occurrence, or communication, and 5

the identity of any document recording, referencing or documenting such activity, occurrence, or communication; and

4. In connection with an entity other than a natural person (e.g.,

corporation, partnership, limited partnership, association, institution, etc.), the words "describe" or "identify" mean to state the full name, address, and telephone number of the principal place of business of such entity.

II. INTERROGATORIES A. General Interrogatorv1 Identify each person who supplied information for responding to these interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. Note the specific interrogatories for which each such person supplied information.

Interrogatorv2 Identify each person whom Intervenor expects to provide testimony or sworn affidavits in connection with Contentions I and II in this proceeding. For each person identified, describe that person's professional affiliation, area of professional expertise, qualifications, and educational and scientific experience. Also, describe the general subject matter on which each person identified is expected to provide testimony or sworn affidavits in this proceeding.

InterrogatorM3 Identify each document, book, periodical, magazine article, technical report, thesis, vebsite, computer output or correspondence that BREDL expects to submit, reference, 6

I cite, or otherwise rely uponi in connection with testimony or sworn affidavits in support of Contentions I and II.

B. Contention I Interrogatorv4 Identify all specific MOX fuel behaviors that BREDL asserts affect a Loss of Coolant Accident ("LOCA") scenario or analysis, or other Design Basis Accident ("DBA")

scenario or analysis, in a manner different than low enriched uranium ("LEU") fuel.

Interrogatory5 Identify all specific MOX fuel cladding (M5) behaviors that BREDL asserts affect a LOCA scenario or analysis, or other DBA scenario or analysis, in a manner different than LEU fuel cladding behavior (zircaloy or M5).

Interrogatorv6 Identify all underlying physical or chemical properties, or mechanisms, that BREDL asserts contribute to each specific fuel behavior difference identified in the responses to Interrogatories 4 and 5. Identify the specific behavior differences to which each mechanism contributes.

Interrogatorv7 Specifically identify each DBA scenario or analysis other than a LOCA that BREDL asserts is affected by fuel behavior differences between LEU and MOX fuel (including cladding).

Interrogator' 8 For each behavior difference identified in response to Interrogatories 4 and 5, provide a qualitative description of the effect of the behavior on fuel, cladding, core or other 7

I plant parameters (including, but not limited to, those parameters that relate to the integrity of fission product barriers and to dose to the public) following the LOCA or other DBA (identified in response to Interrogatory 7).

Interrogatorv9 For each behavior difference identified in response to Interrogatories 4 and 5, provide a quantitative description of the effect of the behavior on fuel, cladding, core or other plant parameters (including, but not limited to, those parameters that relate to the integrity of fission product barriers and to dose to the public) following the LOCA or other DBA (identified in response to Interrogatory 7). If no quantitative assessment is available, state that fact.

Interrogatory10 Identify any non-compliances with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K which BREDL asserts will exist in the LOCA analysis in the license amendment request due to introduction of four MOX fuel assemblies.

Interrogatorv1I Identify any non-compliances with regulatory requirements for any DBA analysis (other than a LOCA analysis) that BREDL asserts will exist due to introduction of four MOX fuel assemblies.

InterrogatorM12 Explain how, in BREDL's view, the phenomena of "fuel relocation" or "fuel slumping" under design basis LOCA or other DBA conditions will differ between MOX fuel and LEU fuel. Explain the basis for this view.

8

Interrogatorv13 Explain how, in BREDL's view, the differences between MOX fuel and LEU fuel with respect to "fuel relocation" or "fuel slumping" identified in response to Interrogatory 12 will impact compliance with the acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems in 10 C.F.R. § 50.46. Provide a quantitative assessment if available. If none is available, state that fact.

Interrogatorv14 Given that the Framatome ANP analysis of MOX fuel lead assembly LOCA evaluated cladding swelling and rupture using M5 properties at the worst-case (unirradiated) conditions, state what BREDL asserts is specifically inadequate about the analysis of the LOCA cladding response. Explain, quantitatively and qualitatively, how the presence of MOX fuel will adversely impact the cladding performance. If no quantitative assessment is available, state that fact.

Interrogatorv15 Confirm whether BREDL maintains that the MOX fuel lead assembly program at Catawba should not go forward until MOX fuel LOCA tests as proposed by French "safety authorities" are performed. If so, explain how such a requirement would be consistent with the fact that French "safety authorities" continue to permit many French reactors to operate with MOX fuel in the absence of such tests.

Interrogatorv16 State whether BREDL considers the information from the VERCORS tests to be germane to the performance of MOX fuel during a design basis LOCA. If so, explain specifically what the information is, and how it is germane.

9

C. Contention II Interrogatorv17 Define BREDL's understanding of the term "core disruptive accidents." Identify, with specificity, all "core disruptive accidents" of concern to BREDL under Contention II.

Interrocatorv18 Describe the sequence of events that BREDL asserts would result in a core disruptive accident at Catawba, as defined in response to Interrogatory 17, due to the introduction of four MOX fuel assemblies in a core (with one assembly located in each core quadrant).

Interrogatorv19 Identify all specific MOX fuel behaviors (including those associated with M5 cladding) that BREDL asserts affect core disruptive accidents (as defined in response to Interrogatory 17) in a manner different than LEU fuel.

Interrogatorv20 Identify all underlying physical or chemical properties, or mechanisms, that BREDL asserts contribute to each specific fuel behavior difference identified in response to Interrogatory 19. Identify the specific behavior difference to which each mechanism contributes.

Interrogatory21 For each behavior identified in response to Interrogatory 19, provide a qualitative and quantitative description of the effect of the behavior on fuel, cladding, core, and plant parameters (including, but not limited to, those parameters that relate to the integrity of fission product barriers and to dose to the public) following a core disruptive accident. If no quantitative assessment is available, state that fact.

10

InterrogatorM22 Provide a description of the physical mechanismn whereby a postulated local effect (in one MOX fuel assembly isolated in one quadrant of the core and surrounded by conventional low enriched uranium fuel) that results from a behavior as identified in response to Interrogatory 19 would propagate to other fuel assemblies, ultimately resulting in a core disruptive accident (as described in response to Interrogatory 17).

InterrogatorM23 Identify all environmental factors that BREDL asserts have not been properly addressed or quantified by Duke's environmental report ("ER") related to four MOX fuel assemblies. For each such factor, describe how it is affected by four MOX fuel lead assemblies and the potential impact that factor could have on the environment. Describe in detail the quantification that BREDL asserts is needed in the ER. Provide a quantitative estimate of the relative magnitude of impact the four MOX assemblies will have on these factors. If no quantitative assessment is available, state that fact.

Interrogatorv24 The paper "Public Health Risks of Substituting Mixed-Oxide for Uranium Fuel" by Dr. Edwin S. Lyman, Science and Global Security, 2000 was cited as a basis for contentions related to MOX fuel lead assembly use. Please provide the following information relative to that paper and the analyses discussed therein.

a. The version of the MACCS2 code used in the consequence analyses.

b. Details on the derivation of the simplified accident source terms and release fractions from the Sequoyah PRA (see Table 3 in the paper) that are sufficient to allow an independent derivation of the values from publicly available information.

11

c. The actual radionuclide release fractions used in the sensitivity studies (see Table 5 in the paper).

d. The ranges of the release fractions considered in developing the actual radionuclide release fractions in 12.c, and the basis for those ranges.

e. An assessment of the validity of the scaling technique used in Appendix A in the paper converting results for 40% MOX fuel cores to MOX fuel lead assembly cores, and the basis for that assessment.

Interrogatorv25 State whether it is BREDL's position that an ER must be based on a fully-developed probabilistic risk assessment ("PRA") whenever an applicant maintains a PRA.

Interrogatorg26 Explain BREDL's position on what constitutes a significant change in "risk."

Identify and explain any qualitative or quantitative thresholds that BREDL asserts should be applied in evaluating the acceptability of a license amendment. Explain the basis for those thresholds.

Interrogatorv27 Explain whether (and if so, how), in BREDL's view, the addition of four MOX fuel assemblies will impact core damage frequency ("CDF") at Catawba. Identify any specific accident sequences that will be impacted. Provide any quantitative assessment that BREDL has made or will rely on, and if none exists confirm that fact.

Interrogaton'28 Explain whether (and if so, how), in BREDL's view, the addition of four MOX fuel assemblies will impact large early release frequency ("LERF") at Catawba. Identify any specific accident sequences that will be impacted. Provide any quantitative assessment that BREDL has made or will rely on, and if none exists confirm that fact.

12

Interrogatorv29 Explain any other qualitative or quantitative basis that BREDL asserts for concluding that four MOX fuel lead assemblies will lead to a "significant change" in risk (as defined in response to Interrogatory 26) at Catawba.

Interrogatory30 Identify and explain any quantitative information that BREDL have that indicates that higher release rates and higher release fractions in four MOX fuel lead assemblies, if present, would lead to a "significant change" in the consequences of a severe accident.

D. Contention III In light of Duke's pending Motion to Dismiss Contention III, filed on March 15, 2004, Duke is not seeking discovery on Contention III at this time. Duke reserves the right to file discovery during the scheduled second round of discovery, if warranted at that time.

13

I .

III. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUESTS Request I All documents that are identified, or referred to, in responding to all of the above interrogatories.

Request 2 All documents that Intervenors intend to use, exhibit, or otherwise rely upon in this proceeding to support their position on Contentions I and II.

Respectfully submitted, David A. Repka WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 (202) 371-5726 Lisa F. Vaughn DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 422 South Church Street Mail Code: PB05E Charlotte, N.C. 28201-1244 ATTORNEYS FOR DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION Dated in Washington, District of Columbia This 315' day of March 2004 14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos. 50-413-OLA DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION ) 50-414-OLA

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units I and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE" in the captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 3 1 " day of March, 2004. Additional e-mail service, designated by **, has been made this same day, as shown below.

Ann Marshall Young, Chairman** Anthony J. Baratta**

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail: AMY@nrc.gov) (e-mail: AJB5@nrc.gov)

Dr. Thomas S. Elleman** Office of the Secretary**

Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27612 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff (e-mail: elleman~eos.ncsu.edu) (original + two copies)

(e-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(nrc.gov)

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudicatory File Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop 0-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1

Susan L. Uttal, Esq.** Mary Olson*

• Antonio Fernandez, Esq.** Director, Southeast Office Margaret J. Bupp, Esq.** Nuclear Information and Resource Office of the General Counsel, 0-15D21 Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 7586 Washington, DC 20555 Asheville, NC 28802 (e-mail: slugnrc.gov) (e-mail: nirs.se(mindspring.com)

(e-mail: axf2@nrc.gov)

(e-mail: mjbSnrc.gov)

Diane Curran" Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &

Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, N.W.

Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (e-mail: dcurraneharmoncurran.com)

\ 1 1I ---

David A. Repka Counsel for Duke Energy Corporation 2

DC:350237.1