ML19350B760
| ML19350B760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1981 |
| From: | Fouke R CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103230647 | |
| Download: ML19350B760 (12) | |
Text
,- _
pm, - - - ~ _
tsHRC -
3/11/81 P MAR 161981 > Q ,
9.
. Mes of M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCMMISSION QW9RRESPOWENCh
% e BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD N
In the Matter of )
TEXAS UTILITIES GENEP.ATING CCMPANY, ET. hl. ) Docket Nos. 50 h45 50 h46 (Conanche Peak Steam Slectric Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ; ,
ANSWERS TO NRC STAFF"S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO AND REX 1UEST TO PRODUCE FRCM CFUR I CCHES NOW CFUR, one of the Intervenors in the above-styled and numbered proceeding, and files this, its Answers to Staff's First Set of Interrogatories to CFUR and Requests to Produce.
Due to the very early stage of this licensing proceeding, CFUR is unable at this time to provide complete responses to each of said Interrogatories from Staff. CFUR has not had the opportunity to conduct any significant discovery on its behalf, which is a necessary prerequisite to preparing for the upcoming licensing hearing and consequently to responing fully to Staff's Interrogatories regarding CFUR's participation at that hearing. Because of the foregoing factors, CFUR makes the following Answers wit' & ' jrg s
c right to supplenent its Answers or object to said Interr rMr h Yr~
q ,s be required by subsequent developments. \q\.
{1 ANSWERS - %//ARg0/gg l
G-1 (a) none ., ,
8 j
1 g j (b) undecided re (c) thru (h) while CFUR intends to present testinony, it l
unknown at this time.
G-2 thru G 4 Unknown at this time, see G-1 G-5 To the extent that CFUR can supply this answer at this time, the documents referred to are $dentified in the basis for each contention.
G-6 CFUR is unable to describe documents or pap'sr,(tos % 'used in cross-examination s . ..
o until the NRC Staff discloses its direct examination. - .
z-Cl-1 Explain, describe, establish and prove Cl-2 See 10CFR Part 50.57(a)(h)
Cl-3 Exhibit H of the December 27, 1977 Texas Utilities-Westinghouse 'Settisment Agreenent specified that Westinghouse would provide %e effort fog the, preparation and defense of the Comanche PeaTc ~FSAR in accordance withmg Regulatory Guide 1270, Revision 2 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
The portion of the FSAR which this represents.will.not be.available-until the Applicant responds to CFUR's First Set of Interrogatories to~fpdli p nt.
8103230647
)
S.
5 .
, l Cl 4 The principal purpose of the preparation and defense of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is to enable the Cennission to detemine whether Comanche Peak can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The FSAR 'is the principal document for the applicant to provide the basis for.the Commission. to decide whether the facility will operate in confomity with the Act and whether the applicant is technically qualified to engage in the activities to be authorized by the operating license.
The manner and way in which the NRC Staff has reviewed the FSAR to date does not preclude the possibility that the applicant has relied on a separate party to prepare the FSAR. Nor do the written requests for additional infomation preclude the possibility that the applicant has forwarded these requests to another party for defense. In view of the tems of the settlement and the manner in which the FSAR has bun reviewed, there has been no information supplied to assure the Cor:nission that the applicant is technically qualified to operate Comanche Peak (10CFR Part 50.57(a)(4).
Additionally, Westinghouse, Gibbs and Hill, Brown and Root, and other subcontractors have not been licensed. Therefore, any portion of the FSAR relating to operation and maintenance prepared by such parties is improper.
Cl-5 This question cannot be answered at this time until CFUR receives answers to its First Set of Interrogatories to Apolicant.
l Cl-6 There is no 10CFR Part50.57(c)(4)
. Cl-7 Applicants can only fully demonstrate their technical qualifications to operate CPSES by properly preparing and verifying the F3AR and by submitting to exanination and demonstrating sufficient expertise at the licensing
- hearing, j
C1-8 To conduct extensive investigation into every aspect of the Applicant,s
! qualifications so that a full and fair presentation can he made to the Commission.
C1-9 Portions (a) thru (c) Due to the voluminous nature of the ?3AR, CFUR objects to this Interrogatory as being unjustifiably burdensome. CFUR would answer to the best of its ability any specific questions the Staff may propound regarding specific portions of the FSAR.
. s.
y ,
- 3'- .
- C2-1 See pages 4, 5 and 6 of EneIosure (1) of "Recort of CFUR's Position on Each Contention", April 10,1980 (Ref 1), and "Supplenent To Petition For leave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR)",
May 7, 1980 (Ref 2). CFUR has not ruled out the possibility of including additional reports and/or deleting Sep_ orts.
C2-2 Suitably verified neans appropriately confimed as to accuracy or truth by acceptable evidence.
Fomally accepted means approval nade or done in accordance with procedures that ensure validity.
Basis is dictionary. .
C2-3 See pages 1.2 and 3 of (Ref 1).
C2 4 CFUR contends that the reports nust be suitably verified and fema 117 accepted. By whom is not the issue. One may assume that nomally the Applicant would suitably verify and the NRC Staff fomally accept. But exceptions are not rare - e.g. LOFT tests of large and small break IOCA's.
See C2-3.
C2-5 Assure that each computer code and/or accidsnt sequence is accurate over the realm (pressure, temnerature, etc.) utilized and that the realm investigated represents the proper conditions which could be encountered in the event of all abnomal conditions. Compare predicted results with allphysicalEesultsavailabletodetermineacceptabilitywithahigh degree of confidence. Ensure that variances from known physical results ar a properly introduced while still producing accurate predictions of the -
system. In short, prove that 2e physical realm of operation is replicable and' predictable with what is ' stated in the report, computer code and/or accident sequence.
C2-6 ~4ords in this pharse are given their ordinary meanings.
C2-7 Example is: Results of analysis is sufficient to conclude tha'. the requirement of 10CFR Part 50.57(a) is satisfied.
C2-8 In accordance with 10CFR Part 50.57 and 50.34, the Commission must make l
positive findings previous to issuance of an operating license. CFUR contends that a prerequisite for such findings is to insure that the reports have been suitably verified and femally accepted. See C2-3.
C2-9 CFUR is unabla to answer this Interrogatory because it is too general and disconnected to facilitate a meaningful resnonse. e.g. - failure to verify does not necessarily mean error in a report. Nevertheless, verification is necessary to make safety conclusions.
l
~
~'
4,.
~
4 C3-1 Those connuter codes used or referenced in Section 15 of the FSAR.
C3-2 (a) "Recort of CFUR's Position on Each Contention" April 10, 1980 (b) "CFUR's ...(h) Partial Substantive Objections to Applicants Statement ofObjections...",7/23/80 g (c) Transcript. Pre-Hearing, Oceket'50 445/446, April 30,1980 C3-3 The accident sequence analyses are. deficient to the point of providing
~
inaccurate answers.
C3 4 No allowance for operator and/or maintenance error. Single failure criterion interpreted too restrictively. Inability to predict small break LOCA accurately.
Codes will be identified with direct testinony.
C3-5 ses C3-2 C3-6 Test - trial of the quality of something .
Modify - to change somewhat the qualities of t alter eartially Accept - to regard as tnre or sound Parameters - one of the independent variables in a set of parametric equations Basis is dictionary C3-7 The NRC Staff should not accept the accident sequence analyses supplied unless the computer codes ara nodified to realistically predict plant behavior..
- C3-8 Computer Codes: CrUR is concerned with accident sequence analysies. There is considerable flexibility as to which conputer codes should be modified.
Precise Objections: See C3-2 and C3 4 and C3-12 -
C3-9 See C3-2 C3-10 List of some relevant parameters: (1) Operator Error (2) Maintenance Error (3) Hydrogen formation (4) Single Failure Criterion Interpretation -
PORV plus previous problems, misleading indications, non-condensable gases.
Direct testimony will list specifically those parameters which will be brought up in the hearing in conjunction with this contention.
Basis is C3-2, 4 and 12 l
C3-11 See C3 do C3-12 Realistically predict plant behavior means forecast the action or reaction of CPSES with a high level of confidence. The accident sequence analyses supplied by the Applicant at the time this contention was written were clearly inadequate to provide a proper basis for plant design and for the development of operator training programs and operating procedures. The Applicant failed to submit the necessary analysis of a break the size of a PORY. The Applicant failed to submit the necessary analysis of a PORY failing to close, even though such a failure should have been assumed since
r s.
the valve was designated as non-safety grade equipnent. The Applicant failed to analyze more than the initial minutes of a transient, whereas such analyses should have covered a time period until a stable system had
'i been assured.
\s See C3-2 ,
C3-13 Unknown at this tine. Will be ava'ilable-with direct < testinony.
C3-14 See C3-13 C3-15N/A C3-16 See C3-13 .
l 1 C3-17 See C3-13 C3-18N/A C3-19 See C3 4 '
C3-20 See C3-19 C3-21 See C3-19 '
C3-22 See C3-19 C3-23 In part a) Yes b) Section 15 c) See C3-2,4, and 12 C3-24 No C3 25 N/A C3-26 Posaibly. Not yet detemined.
C3-27 N/A C3-28 N/A C3-29N/A C3-30 Attemot to satisfy 10CFR Part 50,57 C3-31 Yes. See C3-2,4, and 12
~
C3-32 See 2,4 and 12 C4-1 The accident sequences that CFUR is most concerned with are described specifically and in some detail (and by reference) in " Report of CFUR's Position On Each Contention" April 10, 1980, Contentions 3A and 3B and Transcript, Pre-Hearing. Docket 50 445/446, April 30,1980.
The question asks CFUR to state the basis for. your assertion that each such " accident sequence" should be evaluated as a " credible accident" for CPSES. This wording is not contained in the contention.
C4-2 Common usage definition C4-3 Taken into consideration as a precondition for issuance of an operating license.
- Ch 4 It is CWR's understanding that it is the jsb cf tho NRC Stcff to cyclutto every significant factor prior to issuance of an operating license. The Staff has already taken the position that at least one Class 9 accident has taken place in less than 500 reactor years of operation (See Ch-1). It i,s advisable that the Staff start taking into consideration the sequences N
C NR is concerned with. ,
Ch-5 It is CWR's understanding that th's Applicant should' evaluate all credible factors. The accident sequences addressed should be evaluated in a conservative nanner for safety purposes.
Ch-6 Precisely what the NRC Staff should do is not part of this contention.
However, CWR would anticipate that the Staff would do what they normally do when they consider something credible.
CL-7 Precisely what the Applicant should do is not part of this contention.
Ch-8 See Contention 2 Ch-9 See Contention 1 and 2 Ch-10 See C4-1. Additional findings may be contained in direct testimony.
C4-11 Conmon usage definition.
Ch-12 See Ch-10 C4-13 See Ch-1 Ch-lh Yes. The requirements in 10CFR Part 50.hh are theoretical. The happenings at TMI were real. The real happenings exceeded the theoretical requirements i and C WR would expect the regulatory process to recognize this.
! C4-15 Most probably. Details will be contained in direct testinony.
Ch-16 a) The proper distribution function of the probability of occurrence should ,
i be determined. A suitable level of confidence should likewise be detemined (corresponding to desired safety criteria). The highest probability of occurrence within the confidence level should be considered to represent the probability of occurrence for safety purposes. This number (highest
~
probability) would represent I in the following relationships "95% confidence level that the probability of occurrence l
of a particular accident sequence is no less than I ".
l C4-17 In part l
a) Incomplete b) See previous answers c) See previous answers f Ch-18 No l
Ch-19N/A l
C4-20 Ies 1
! Ch-21 Those in controversy. Nomal process would be used'for presentation of evidence once evaluations have occurred.
l
, -7 Ch 22 C WR does not understand this question.
C4-23 To provide a basis fer 10CFR Part 50.57(a)
C4-24 CNR has not yet considered this possibility.
C4-25N/A \
C4-26N/A ',- , ,
C4-27 See Contention 2 C4-28 See Contention 2 C4-29 See Contention 2 C4-30 No C4-31 These considerations are not a part of this Contention
^
C4-32 As mandated in 10CFR Part 50.57(a), thcre must be a positive finding concerning the health and safety of the public. 10CFR Part 100.10 mandates that reactors will reflect ... an extremely low probability for accidents that could result .in release of significant quantities of radioactive products. The . . . engineered features . . . should insure a low risk of public exoosure. C NR contends that these findings cannot be made in the absence of reliabic evaluations of the accident sequences C NR is concerned with.
C6-1 All areas where spent fuel is stored or handled.
C6-2 The details of the naximum tornados will be supplied in direct testimony.
C6-3 Cceston usage definition.
C6 4 Yes. See " Supplement to Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For FairUtilityRegulation(CFUR)'.5/7/79.
C6-5 See C6 4 C6-6 See C6 4 C6-7 In part I
a) See C6 4 b) See C6 4 .
c) See C6 4 d) Will be supplied as direct testimony e) See answer to d)
C6-8 Correct the deficiences noted in C6 4 C6-9 Verify that the Applicant has corrected the deficiences noted in C6 4 Cl>-10 a) See C6 h b) See C6 4 c) Common usage definition d) See C M e) In part See C6 4
e.
- -B- .
C6-10 f) Correct the deficiencies noted in C6 4. Basis contained in C6 4 g) Verify that the Applicant has corrected the deficiences noted in C6 4 h) See C6 4 \
C6-11 thru 13 These questions are the sage type questions already asked -
essentia11 the same. The answers are essentially the same. CFUR objects to repetitive questions.
C7-1 See I.E. Inspection Report 75-05 as p oof that an overbreak has occurred.
C7-2 See I.E. Inspection Report 75-05 and FSAR.
C7-3 See 10CFR Part 100 ,
C7 4 Common usage definition C7-SSee 10CFR Prt 50 and Part 100. Basis is supplied in " Supplement to Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR)",
5/7/79. CFUR has reason to believe that loose rock material was thrown into the overexcavation prior to the pouring of concrete.
C7-6 Unknown at this time, not applicable.
C7-7 CFUR has not conducted a correlation of rock overbreaks at this tine to determine if there are any other instances of rock overbreak and subsequent fissure repair other than those identified in I.E. Inspection Report 75-05.
C7-8 Unknown at this time.
C7-9 N/A C7-10 N/A C7-11 Yes .,
C7-12 CFUR has reason to believe that loose rock material was thrown into overexcavation prior to the pouring of concrete. Possibly others.
C7-13 Interview of workers.
C7-14 Unknown at this time.
C7-15 Yes:
includes 10CFR Part 100. Appendix A, V(d)(1) but not conplete at this time. .
C7-16 Unknown at this time.
C7-17 Unknown at this time. N/A. N/A.
C7-18 Unknown at this time N/A C7-19 Unknown at this time C7-20 Not yet determined.
It is the CB-1 The detail of impacts will be supplied in direct testimony.
understanding of CFUR that the Applicant intends to withdraw groudwater during plant operation.
I
o ,.
'. 9 C8-2 Comnon usage definition l
C8-3 See Transcript Pre-Hearing, rocket 50 445/hh6, April 30,1980 and
" Supplement To Petition For I, eave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR)",5/7/79. .
C8 4 Not determined at this time.
.\ ' '
C8-5N/A C8-6N/A CB-7 Yes Must conduct discovery to detemine.
C8-8 Not determined at this time.
C8-9 Not detemined at this time.
C8-10 Not detemined at thi's time.
C b11 Not determined at this time.
C8-12 See CS-3 C3-13 Not detemined at this time. .
C8-14 Not detemined at this time.
C8-15 Yes. Not determined at this time.
l C8-16 Will be provided in direct testimony.
C9-1 Cem on usage definition. Example is that in 10CFR Part 50, Appendix I it is indicated that the NRC has detemined the effect of radioactive releases to ju'stify the use of values of $1000per total body man-ren and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem in cost-benefit analysas in conjunction with design objectives (AI)LRA).
f .,
C9-2 a) General Public means individual not employed by the Applicant l
b) Exclusion Boundary means that boundary described in FSAR Section 2.1.1.3, " Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Linits".
c) Geographical area is that area not within exclusion boundary, regard 1'ess of distance unless otherwise proscribed by regulations f
d) Individuals within the exclusion boundaries and employees (direct or l
otherwise) not in the exclusion boundary are not considered in this contention.
The AIARA criterio of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I limits tne distance considered to within 50 miles of the reactor but this criteria applies
(
to design objectives. The AIARA criteria of 10CFR Part 20.1(c) contains no such distance restriction. The criteria of 10CFR Part 20.1 apply to operation which is the subject of this contention.
O
s
- 10'-
C9-3 a) Yes. FSAR Sections 12 and 15, Contention 4 basis and the series er NUREG-0521 reports, " Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants (Year)".
b) Yes. Same as (a) \,
C9 4 The BEIR reports,10CFR Part 20 a 10CFR Part 50 including references cited t s ,
C9-5 " Report of CFUR's Position on Each Contention", April 10, 1980 Contention 8, "CFUR's ... (4) Partial Substantive Objections to Applicants Statement of Objections and ...", 7/23/80 Transcript, Pre-Hearing, Docket 50 h45/446, April 30,1980, "Motien To Add contention". 10/30/79 FSAR 12.4.5, " Estimated Annual Dos. AT The Exclusion Boundary and To The Population At Large" states only:
"At the, minimum exclusien boundary distance the estimated annual is exposure to an individua approximately3.25x103asaresultofcontainedsources mrems. The. total exposure to the cumulative population within'50 miles of the site (for censas yea 2000)as a result of contained sources is approximately 1.53 xman-rem" 10-3 This addresses only contained sources, makes no effort to detemine the effects and does not address the requiremedts of 10CFR Part 20.1 C9-6 See C9-5. More complete answer provided with direst testimony.
C9-7 See C9-6 C9-8 See C9-6 'and C9-2 C9-9 See C9-5 C9-10 CFUR does not agree with assertion of the NRC Staff in this question. -,
See C9-2 Question is moot.
C9-11 In' part a) Possibly, but this contention does not address the "ER-OL" b) N/A c) N/A _
! C9-12 The NRC should verify that the Applicant has done so.
C9-13 See C9-2 and 5 C9-14 Provided in direct testimony.
CERTIFICATE I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that ,
the preceding Answers to NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories To and Request to Produce From CFUR are true and correct.
Executed on this lith day of March,1981 2.o Richard L. Fouke !
- - - -. ~ . .- -- . _ . _. .
. s
- 11,-
These answers were prepared before CFUR had an opportunity to consult with ACORN. Answers herein are not to be construed as ACCRN's responses.
CWR requested, the NRC Staf f agreed and.,the ASG Chaiman approved a 30 day extension for CFUR's answer to March 11, 1981.
't Respectfully Subsitted, E
Richard L. Fouke i
CNR 16683 Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010 9
e i . .
I March 11, 1981 O
l I
l l
I l
l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "ANSWEP.S TO NP.C STAFF"S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO AND R%UEST TO PRODUCE ECH CNR" have been served of the following by deposit in the United States mail, first :lars,'this lith day of March,1981.
Valentine B. Deale Esq., Chairman Mrs. Juanita Ellis Atonic Safety and Licensing Board President, CASE 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1426 South Polk Street Washington, D.C. 20036 ,, Dallas,'II 75224 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member
- Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board West Texas Legal Services 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 107 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
State College, PA 16801 *, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Dr. Richard Cole, Monber David J. Preister, Esq.
Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Environnental Protection Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director Jeffrey 1. Hart, Esq.
U.S Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 4021 Prescott Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Dallas, TX 75219 Nicholas S. Reynolds Esq. Arch C. McColl III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 701 Comerce Street 1200 17th Street, N.W. Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dallas, TX 75202 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safsty and Licensing Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cenmission- ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Was hington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 1
DCC' ~ p.%-
Richard L. Fouke C C. C CFUR k M.AR1619815h 16683 Carter Drive Arlington, TX 76010 Office et the iet *t*9 F, DOCJatiDE & S'*f" Ih j w
.