ML19350D211
| ML19350D211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104140244 | |
| Download: ML19350D211 (18) | |
Text
,
04/10/81 c
t\\
C UNITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA
,' //
p NilCLEAR REGULATORY COMt!ISSIO!!
9 9R13 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAPD Ay In the Matter of
)
p
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING C0"PANY,
)
Docket Hos. 50-445 4
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERR0GATORIES TO, AND REQllEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM, INTERVENOR CFUR The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff hereby requests that Intervenor CFUR, pursuant to 10 CFR @ 2.740(b) and in accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (hereafter "the Board") Order Subse-quent To The Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980", dated June 16, 1980, and the Board's Memorandun and Order of December 31,1980,1/ answer 1/ The Board's Memorandun and Order of December 31, 1980, contains the Board's rulings on 1) consolioation of the intervenors, 2) appoint-nent of lead intervenors and 3) miscellaneou; motions and other matters. The Board consolidated the intervenors for certain con-tentions, with CFUR being appointed lead intervenor for consolidated contention 4 and, as sole sponsor of contentions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9, for those contentions as well.
The Board provided that the lead party-intervenor for a particular contention is lead for all purposes, which would include discovery.
Accordingly, the Staff has directed interrogatories for consolidated contention 4 to CFUR only, as lead intervenor for that contention.
It is the Staff's expectation that in responding to those interrogatories, CFUR will consult with the other intervenors.
CFUR's responses should be the joint responses of the intervenors consolidated for these contentions and thould reflect the views and positions of all of the consolidated intervenors.
h 81g414o h %
f separately and fully, in writing under oath or affirmation, the following interrogatories within fourteen (14) days after service hereof.
For each response to the interrogatories set forth below, identify the person or persons who prepared or substantially contributed to the prepa-ration of the response.
The NRC Staff further requests that Ir tervenor CFUR, pursuant to 10 CFR l 2.741, provide copies of, or nake available for Staff inspection and copying, the documents designated by CFUR in response to certain of the accompanying interrogatories within thirty (30) days after service hereof.
INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO SPECIFIC CONTENTIONS I Contention 1 C1-10.
In your answer to the Staff's interrogatory Cl-4, you state that The principal purpose of the preapration and defense of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is to enable the Comnis-sion to detennine whether Comanche Peak can be operated with-out undue risk to the health and safety of the public...
U nterrogatories in this section should be answered with respect to I
each contention.
The contentions referred to are those contentions riised by Intervenor as modified, renumbered and admitted by the Licensing Board in its 1) Order Subsequent To The Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980, dated June 16, 1980 and 2) Rulings on Objections to Board's Order of June 16, 1980 and on riiscellaneous tiotions, dated October 31, 1980.
Since the first set of interrogatories filed by the Staff on January 15, 1981 covered each contention for which CFUR has been designated lead intervenor, the numbering of the interrogatories in this second set will begin where the first set cf interrogatories ended.
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... In view of the terns of the settlenent and the nanner in which the FSAR has been reviewed there has been no information supplied to assure the Co'nmission that the applicant is technically qualified to operate Comanche Peak (10 CFR Part (sic) 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.
In this regard, (a) State the basis for your statement (including statutes, NRC regulations or other requirements) regarding the " principal purpose" of the FSAR.
(b) What do you nean by "the manner and way the NRC has reviewed the FSAR to date"?
(c) Do you contend that any statutes, regulations or regulatory requirements mandate that the NRC Staff review the FSAR in a p3rticular
" manner and way"?
(d) Do you contend that any statutes, regulations or regulatory requirements have been violated because of the " manner and way the NRC Staff has reviewed the FSAR to date"?
If so, please specify the statutes.
NRC regulations or regulatory requirements which you contend have been violated ar.d the basis for your position in this regard.
(e) State specifically the statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirements which you contend have not been followed or which you contr.nd have been violated because of Applicants' alleged reliance on "a separate party to prepare the FSAR".
(
(f) State the basis for the assertion in your response to interrog-atory Cl-4 that "there has been no information supplied to assure the Commission that the applicant is technically qualified to operate Comanche Peak (10 CFR Part (sic) 50.57(a)(4)."
(g) What documents do you contend are to be considered by the Commis-sion, other than the Applicants' FSAR, in deternining whether Applicants are
technically qualified to operate CPSES? State the basis for your position in this regard.
(h)
Do you contend that " Westinghouse, Gibbs and Hill, Brown and Root and other subcontractors" nust be " licensed" by the NRC? If so, state the basis for your position.
(i)
State the basis for the assertion in your response to interrog-atory Cl-4 that since " Westinghouse, Gibbs and Hill, Brown and Root and other subcontractors have not been licensed... any portion of the FSAR relating to operation and maintenance prepared by such parties is improper".
(j)
Do you contend that any participation in the prepration of the FSAR by any organization other than the Applicants (TUGCO) violates any statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirements?
If so, state specifically and in detail the statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirenents which you contend have been violated.
(k)
State with specificity in what ways 10 CFR @ 50.57(a)(4) requires that Applicants demonstrate technical qualifications to operate CPSES.
State the basis for your position in this regard.
Cl-11.
In your response to interrogatory Cl-7, you state that
" applicants can only demonstrate their technical qualifications to operate CPSES by properly preparing and verifying the FSAR and by submitting to examination and de:nonstrating sufficient expertise at the licensing hearing".
In this regard, (a)
What do you nean by " properly preparing and verifying the FSAR"?
State the basis for your position in this regard.
(b)
What statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirements mandate that " applicants can only demonstrate their technical qualifications to operate CPSES by properly preparing and verifying tne FSAR"?
(c)
What do you mean by "subnitting to exanination and demonstrating sufficient expertise"?
(d) What statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirenents mandate that " applicants can only demonstrate their technical qualifications to operate CPSES by subnitting to examination and demonstrating sufficient expertise at the license hearing"?
l i
=.
Cl-12.
Interrogatory Cl-8 requests that you state what you contend is necessary in order for the Co,nission to be able to nake the finding required by 10 CFR 6 50.57(a)(4) that Applicants are technically qualified to operate CPSES.
In your response to this interrogatory, you state:
"To conduct extensive investigation into every aspect of the Applicants (sic) qualifications so that a full and fair presentation can be made to the Connission."
In this regard, (a)
Do you contend that the Conmission itself nust conduct an
" extensive investigation into every aspect of the Applicants (sic) tech-nical quali'ications"?
If your answer is in the negative, do you contend that the NRC Staff must conduct "an extensive investigation"? State the bases for your position in this regard.
(b) What is meant by "every aspect of the Applicants (sic) qualifi-cations"?
(c) What are the " qualifications" to which you refer?
(d) What statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirenents mandate that an " extensive investigation" be conducted into every aspect of the Applicants (sic) qualifications?
(e) What is neant by "a full and fair presentation... to the Commis-sion"?
(f) What statutes, NRC regulations or regulatory requirenents nandate, with respect to Applicants' " qualifications", that a " full and fair presen-tation" be made to "the Connission"?
C1-13.
Interrogatory Cl-9 requests whether you object to any of the infonnation, data or analysis contained or referenced in the FSAR with respect to Applicants' technical qualifications to operate CPSES.
You objected to this interrogat' ry, "due to the voluminous nature of the FEAR",
.s-but stated that you "would answer... any specific questions... regarding specific portions of the FSAR."
In this regard, (a) Have you reviewed Section 13.1 of the FSAR, which contains infonnation on the Applicants' technical qualifications? If so, please answer the following questions.
(i) Do you object to any of the information, data or analysis contained or referenced in Section 13.1 with respect to Applicants' technical qualifications to operate CPSES?
(ii)
If your response is in the affirmative, please specify your objections by ' identifying the portions of Section 13.1 to which you object and the substance of your objections.
(iii) What are the bases for your responses to (i) and Contention 2 C2-10.
In your response to interrogatory C2-2 you state that " suitably verified neans appropriately confirmed as to accuracy or truth by acceptable evidence". You also state that "fonnally accepted means approval nade or done in accordance with procedures that ensure validity" and that the basis for these definitions is " dictionary".
In this regard, (a) What does " appropriately confirmed" mean? State the basis for your response.
(b) What constitutes " acceptable evidence"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
(c) What kind of " approval" do you contend constitutes " approval nude or done in accordance with procedures that ensure validity"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
(d) What " procedures" do you contend " ensure validity"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
C2-- 11.
Interrogatory C2-5 requer,ts that you indicate the verification and acceptance of the reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR which you_ would consider to be adequate and the basis for your position in this regard.
In your respone to this interrogatory, you state:
C2-5.
Assure that each computer code and/or accident sequence is accurate over the reala (pressure, temperature, etc.) utilized and that the realm investigated represents the proper conditions which could be encountered in the event of all abnormal conditions.
Compare predicted results with all physical results available to determine acceptability with a high degree of confidence.
Ensure that variances fron known physical results are properly introduced while still producing accurate predictions of the system.
In short, prove that the physical realm of operation is replicable and predictable with what is stated in the report, computer code and/or accident sequence.
In this regard, (a) What is meant by " proper conditions"?
(b) Describe specifically "all abnormal conditions" referred to.
(c) Describe specifically "all physical results available".
(d) What constitutes a "high degree of confidence"?
(e) What is meant by " properly introduced"?
(f) What is the " system" referred to?
(g) Do you contend that the purpose of the " reports used in the construction of conputer codes for the CPSES/FSAR" is to " prove that the physical realm of operation is replicable and predictable with what is stated in the report, computer codt and/or accident sequence"?
If not, what do you contend is the purpose of such reports?
(h) How do you contend it can be proved that "the physical realm of operation is replicable and predictable with what is stated in the report, computer code and/or accident sequence"?
(i)- What are the bases for your responses to (a) through (h) above?
I
C2-12.
Interrogatory C2-8 requests that you state with specificity the NRC requirements (e.g., statutes, regulations) which you contend nandate that the reports used in the construction of computer codes for CPSES/FSAR be " suitably verified" and "fon. ally accepted".
In your response, you state "C2-8.
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.57 and 50.34, the Commission must make 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 fomally accepted.
See C2-3."
In this regard, (a) State in what ways 10 CFR 6 50.34 requires that the Commission make " positive findings previous to issuance of an operating license".
(b)
Since the regulations at 10 CFR S 50.57 do not require that a
" prerequisite for such findings is to insure that the reports have been suitably verif:ed and fomally accepted", other than your judgment as stated in your response and in " Report of CFUR's Position on Each Conten-tion", April 10, 1980, what is the basis for contending that a prerequisite for such findings is to insure that the reports have been suitably verified and formally accepted"?
C2-13.
In your response to interrogatory C2-9, you state (in part)
"... e.g. - failure to verify does not necessarily mean error in s report.
Nevertheless verification is necessary to make safety conclusions."
In this regard, (a) Do you contend that there are safety consequences as a result of the failure to " suitably verify and fomally accept" the " reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR"?
If so, state the basis for your response in this regard.
(b)
If your answer to (a) above is in the negative, what do you contend would be the consequences of the failure to " suitably verify and fomally accept" "one or more of the reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
. o.
(c) What is the basis for your statement that "... verification is necessary to nake safety conclusions?"
(d) What are the " safety conclusions" referred to in your response?
Contention 3 C3-33.
In your response to interrogatory C3-6, you state that the tem " parameters" as that term is used in Contention 3 means "one of the independent variables in a set of parametric equations" and that the basis for your responses " dictionary".
In this regard, (a) What are "the independent variables" referred to?
(b) State the meaning of the tem " parametric equations".
(c) What are the bases for your responses to (a) and (b) above?
C3-34.
In your response to interrogtory C3-12, you state, in your definition of the term " realistically predict plant behavior" The Applicant failed to submit the necessary analysis of a break the size of a PORV. The Applicant failed to subnit the necessary analysis of a PORV failing to close, even thou!h such a failure should have been assumed since the valve was designated as non-safety grade equipment. 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 been assured.
See C3-2.
In this regard, (a)
State what is meant by the tem "PORV".
(b) Specifically describe the " transient" referred to.
(c) What is meant by the tem " stable system"?
(d) What are the bases for your responses to (a) through (c) above?
10 -
C3-35.
In your response to interrogato y C3-23(b) you state that you object to the information, data and analyses contained or referenced in Section 15 with respect to computer codes.
In this regard, what is the substance of your objections?
C3-36.
Interrogatory C3-30, requests that you state what you believe is the precise purpose of each computer code which you contend must "he tested, and if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island to realistically predict plant behavior.
In your response you state, " attempt to satisfy 10 CFR Part (sic) 50.57".
In this regard, (a) with respect to each computer code which you contend nust be " tested, and if necessary, nodified..." state how the purpose of each such code relates to 10 CFR 6 50.57.
Contention 4 C4-33.
Interrogatory C4-1 requests that you state the basis for your assertion that each accident sequence referred to in Contention 4 should be evaluated as a " credible accident" for CPSES.
In response to this interrogatory, you state (in pertinent part) that "this wording is not contained in the contention".
In this regard, state the basis for your assertion in Contention 4 that "some accident sequences heretofore con-sidered to have probabilities so low as to be considered incredible, based in part, upon the findings of WASH-1400, are in fact more probable in light of additional findings, such as those of the Lewis Connittee and should be evaluated as credible accidents for CPSES".
l i
C4-34.
Interrogatory C4-4 requests whether you assert that NRC Staff should evaluate the " accident sequences" identified in your response to Interrogatory C4-1 as " credible accidents for CPSES" and that you state the basis for your position in this regard.
Your response states (in pertinent part):
"It is CFUR's understanding that it is the.iob of the NRC Staff to evaluate every significant factor prior to issuance of an operating license...
It is advisable that the Staff start taking into consideration the sequences CFUR is concerned with".
In this regard, (a) What is the basis for your " understanding", as stated in your response?
(b) What is meant by "every significant factor"?
(c) Other than the statements in your response as to your " understand-ing" and the statement as to what CFUR believes it is advisable for the Staff to consider, is there any basis for your assertion that the Staff should evaluate certain accident sequences as credible accidents for CPSES?
C4-35.
Interrogatory C4-5 requests whether you assert that the Applicants should evaluate "the accident sequences" identified in your response to interrogatory C4-1 as " credible accidents for CPSES" and that you state the basis for your position in this regard.
Your response states
-that:
"It is CFUR's understanding that the applicant should evaluate all credible factors. The accident sequences addressed should be evaluated in a conservative manner for safety purposes."
i In this regard, (a) What is the basis for your " understanding" as stated in your response?
(b) What are " credible factors"?
(c) What is meant by " evaluated in a conservative manner for safety pu rposes"?
(d) What is the basis for the statement that "the accident sequences addressed should be evaluated in a conservative manner for safety purposes"?
C4-36.
In response to interrogatory C4-14, you state that you assert that the requirements in 10 CFR S 50.44 regarding hydrogen generation would not be complied with regarding CPSES.
As the basis for your assertion, you state that:
"The requirements in 10 CFR Part (sic) 50.44 are theoretical. The happenings at TMI were real. The real happenings exceeded the theoretical requirements and CFUR would expect the regulatory process to recognize this."
In this regard, (a) State the basis for your assertion that the requirements in 10 CFR s 50.44 are " theoretical".
(b) State in what manner "the real happenings exceeded the theoretical requirements."
(c)
In what manner do you contend "the regulatory process" should
" recognize" that "the real happendings exceeded the theoretical requirements"?
(d) Do you contend that 10 CFR S 50.44 is no longer valid?
(e) What is the nexus between "the happenings at TMI" and compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 6 50.44 as regards CPSES?
C4-37.
Your response to interrogatory C4-16, does not, as is requested in subpart (b) of that interrogatory, state the basis for your assertion
- that " probabilities associated with such accident sequences should be the highest probabilities within the specified confidence band".
Accordingly, what is the basis for that assertion?
C4-38.
In response to interrogatory C4-21, you state that the evalu-ations of " accident sequences" which you contend the Board must review are "those in controversy." However, your response, does not, as that interrog-atory requests, state the basis for your response.
In this regard, (a) What evaluations of accident sequences are "those in controversy"?
(b) What is the basis for your response to (a) above?
C4-39.
Your' response to interrogaotry C4-22 indicates that CFUR does not understand this question.
Accordingly, please answer the following interrogatory which is a revision of interrogatory C4-22.
(a) What kind of review do you contend the Licensing Board must conduct of the evaluations of " accident sequences" referred to in your response to interrogatory C4-20? State the basis for your position in this regard.
C4-40.
In response to interrogatory C4-23, you state that the purpose of evaluations of " accident sequences" for CPSES is "to provide a basis for 10 CFR Part (sic) 50.57(a)".
In this regard, how do evaluations of "acci-dent sequences" for CPSES " provide a basis for 10 CFR Part (sic) 50.57(a)"?
)
1 14 -
Contention 7 C7-21.
In response to interrogatory C7-2, requesting that you describe the " subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout" referred to in Contention 7, you state to "See I.E. Inspection Report 75-05 and FSAR".
In this regard, please specify the relevant sections of the FSAR.
C7-22.
In response to interrogatory C7-12, requesting that you specify and explain the substance and nature of your objections to the specifications or procedures used in repairing rock overbreak, you state:
"CFUR has reason to believe that loose rock naterial was thrown into the over-excavation prior to the pouring of concrete.
Possibly others."
In this regard, what are CFUR's other objections to the specifications and procedures used in repairing rock overbreak?
C7-23.
In response to interrogatory C7-13, requesting that you state the bases for your responses to interrogatories C7-11 and C7-12, you state
" interview of workers".
In this regard, (a)
Please identify the " workers" referred to and their employer (s).
(b)
Please identify who conducted the " interview" and state the date of such " interview".
Contention 9 C9-15.
Interrogatory C9-2 requests, in pertinent part, that you specify the geographical area which corresponds to the area for which you
contend the Applicants must " determine the effect of radioactive releases" on the " general public".
In your response, you state in part:
... The criteria of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1 apply to operation which is the subject of this contention."
In this regard, (a) How do the " criteria of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1 apply to operation which is the subject of this contention"?
(b) Do you contend that "the criteria of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1" require that the Applicants must determine "the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary"?
C9-16.
Interrogatory C9-5 requests that you state the basis for your assertion that the Applicants "have failed to make any effort to determine the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary".
Your response states (in part) that FSAR Section 12.4.5
"... does not address the requirements of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1".
In this regard, what are "the requirements of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1" to which you refer?
'C9-17.
Interrogatories C9-10(a) and (b) are based on the Commission's regulations governing the release of radioactive materials during normal operations, which require, in 10 CFR 6 50.36a that such releases be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable" and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, which provides " numerical guidance" in this regard.
Your response to this interrogatory states:
"CFUR does not agree with assertion of NRC Staff in this question.
See C9-2.
Question is moot".
i l
~
In this regard, (a) What " assertion" of the NRC Staff do you disagree with?
(b) How is the " question moot"?
(c) Since your answer to this interrogatory refers to your answer to interrogatory C9-2, which appears to state that "the criteria of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1 apply to operation which is the subject of this contention",
(i) Do you assert that although Applicants might comply with the regulations in 10 CFR 5 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, they would not comply with "the criteria in 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1"?
(ii) Do you assert that "the criteria of 10 CFR Part (sic) 20.1" require, as you appear to assert in Contention 9, that the effects (impacts) of releases within the limits of the regulations should be considered?
(iii) What are the basis for your responses to (i) and (ii) above?
Respectfully submitted, Ik Q in-
& %,seu Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of f.pril,19P1
i 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50 445
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO, AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM, INTERVENOR CFUR" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission's internal mail system, this 10th day of April, 1981:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman
'ir. Geoffrey M. Gay Administrative Judge West Texas Legal Services Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Fort Worth, TX 76102 Washington, DC 20036 David J. Preister, Esq.
Forest J. Remick, Administrative Assistant Attorney General Judge Environmental Protection Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Austin, TX 78711 State College, PA 16801 Mr. Richard Fouke Richard Cole, Administrative Judge
- 1668-B Carter Drive Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Arlington, TX 76010 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Arch C. McColl III, Esq.
701 Commerce Street Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Suite 302 Debevoise & Liberman Dallas, TX 75202 1200 17th Street, N.W.
l Washington, DC 20036 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
4021 Prescott Avenue Mrs. Juanita Ellis Dallas, TX 75219 l
President, CASE l
1426 South Polk Street Dallas, TX 75224
-g-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Panel
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 hysva Nwu SNCMik Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff e
i l
+
l l
1 i
l
?
l l
e f
x--.
,--