ML20003E129
| ML20003E129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104020291 | |
| Download: ML20003E129 (44) | |
Text
V-t 3/31/S1 U"ITED STATES OF AfiERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0 fit'ISSION BEFORE THE AT0!'IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the itatter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Docket tics. 50 423
)
50 a" 7!
b (Conanche Peak Stea, Electric Station,
)
/
/^ [p Uh7 Units 1 and 2)
)
d APg0
~
G "'A 2 Jg8 k',Ohg/g.8 NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO C0!!PEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CERTAIN STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR CFUR OF J ANU ARY 19, 1981 1)
N(
/D 6
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On January 19, 1981, the NRC Staff (Staff) filed "NRC Staff's First Set af Interrogatories To, and Request for the Production of Docuvents Fron Intervenor CFUR" (hereaf ter " Staff's Interrogatories"). These interrog-atories relate to the admitted consolidated contentions for which CFUR has been designated lead intervenor.
(Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 3, and 9).
On ifarch 11,19rl, CFUR filed " Answers to NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories To and Request To Produce From CFUR" (hereafter "CFUR's Answers").1/
Certain of the answers filed by CFUR to the Staff'. interrogatories are not responsive and do not comply with the Staf f's request that CFUR, 1 CFUR's answers to the Staff's interrogatories were due on February 9, However, in response to CFUR's request (to which the Staff did 1981.
not object), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereafter the Board) granted CFUR an extension of time, until ifarch 11, 1981, '
which to file its answers to the Staff's interrogatories.
@ 8104020Sql
. pursuant to 10 CF2 5 2.740b, answer separately and fully, each inter-rogatory. Accordingly, the Staff now seeks an order compelling responsive answers to certain interrogatories.2/ The specific interrogatories as t?
.t nich. the Staff seeks an order corpelling more responsive answers and the
- bases for the Staff's req;est are set forth below. The Staff has als
responded beloi to tne introductory portion of CFUR's ansvers,,;hich appears to qualify CFUD.'s answers.
.II.
STAFF'S REQUEST FOR ORDER COM ELLING RES;0NSIVE "f 5EERS A.
Responsive ;nswers to the. Staff's Interrogatories should no: 3e Dalayed Until~'CFUR-Has'Hai the Opportunity to Conduct significant Disccvery In -the second of the introductory paragraphs preceding CFUR's answers,
- CFUR states that-3ee. to the very early stage of-this licensing proceeding, CFUD. is ~ unable at this tire ~ to. provide complete responses to each' of said ~Interragatories from Staff. f CFUR has not.had ~ tne o;portunity to conduct any ~significant discovery en its behalf, which is a necessary prere uisite to preparing for the-
~
- upcoming licensing hearing and consequently _to responding fully-to.-Staff's Interrogatories regarding CFUR's 'partici-pation at that hearing.
Because of the foregoing factors,
. CFUR nakes.the' following. Answers without waiving its right to.
supplement -its Answers' or object to said' Interrogatories which nay be recuired by: subsequent developrents'.
CFUR's ~ Answers.
- at 1.
2/
In r.esponse to the request of Staff counsel 1for-an extension of-tire,
-~ from Marcn 25,i1931 until March 31,.1981- (to which neither CFUR nor -
the Applicants object), the. Board granted' the Staff-an extension of tine until March 31 - 1981,.in which.to file.a nation to co pel respon-sive~ answers.
s 4
- - - - ~. -. -. _ - _ _ - - - -. -. _ _ - - - _ _ - - -. _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. -. - -. -. - _ - -. - -... - - -... - - - -. _. -. _ - - -... _. _ _ - _.. - -_._.a.a_.a--
.a
.The Staff believes that the above statement nischaracterizes the Estatus of discovery in this proceeding and represents a nisunderstanding on CFUR's part as to the nature and purpose of discovery and CFUR's rights and responsibilities as a litigant in NRC proceedings.
First of all, the
]
parties in this proceeding have been engaged in infornal discovery since July 1979 and CFUR has in fact been an active participant in such informal
>very.5/ Since June 16, 1980, the date fornal discovery con,renced and J
. pre'sent. tire, CFUR has had anple opportunity to conduct any significant discovery cnoits own behalf. Prior to the Staff's January 19, 1981-interrogatories,.CFUR could have sought fornal discovery and worked on.its cdsa preparation. The fact that it did not do so, and now, as a result,
- must-both' respond to interrogatories and carry on its own fornal discovery does not relieve CFUR of its duty under the regulations to. provide-
- responsive answers to. interrogatories. The'NRC-Rules of Practice require.
that sit:overy not be delayed because. another party -is ' conducting
~
discovery, unless~ inter alia, justice so. requires.
See 10 CFR @ 2.740(d).
Manifestly, CFUR has; not shown_ thatl justice in ' fact: requires that 3.
responsive: answers to!the Staff's interrogatories.nust be delayed until
-such time:as : CFUR. has had. "the opportunity.to conduct any significant1
~
discovery on its own behalf." 'CFUR's-Answers,.at 1.
j[/ : ; For a chronology _ of the infonnal discoverycbetween the NRC Staff and
+
~ nCFUR, see "NRC Staff Answer to CFUR'and' CASE: Responses to NRC Staff's
- States Report on Proposed Stipulations and Their Requests-That The NRC Staff;Be Ordered;to. Provide Docunents and Conduct Further
' Negotiations", dated.i' arch 10,1980.
5 m mmEm.u
. mm m
m m
~ -.
.m.
m m.
. ~ -.
i
' If CFUR cannot answer a particular inquiry on the grounds that it is seeking the information by way of discovery requests, it shall specify what discovery requests are referred to and in what 'anner the responses to the discovery request have not yet been furnished or are insufficient at this point.
Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2),
L9P-75-30, 7 NRC 579, 587 (1975).
To the extent that CFUR is not in possession of the specific facts and information sought, it shall so state; a generalized response to the effect that "significant discovery on its behalf... is a necessary prereauisite to... responding fully to the Staf f's Interrogatories..." does not constitute a sufficient response by a party to a discovery request.
Iji.
Finally, contrary to the implication i
in the introductory portion of CFUR's answers quoted above that CFUR has a right to supplenent its answers, CFUR has a responsibility, in accordance with 10 CFR s 2.740(e), to suppleent its responses to discovery requests.
i B.
Specific Interrogatories As To Which The Staff Seeks an Order Compelling fiore Responsive Answers Interrogatory Cl-2 Cl-2.
State your understanding of the term " technical qualifications" Las that. term is used in Contention 1.
- Response to Interrogatory Cl-2
- Cl-2.
Seejl0 CFR Part 50.57(a)(4)
Interrogatory Cl-2 is directed to~ Contention 1, in which -it is
. asserted that-" Applicants have not demonstrated. technical qualifications i
to operate-CPSES in accordance with 10 CFR s 50.57(a)(4) in that.they ~
j d
m
.t u m
.m
.m m.
. am
l have relied upon Westinghouse to prepare a portion of the Final Safety l
. Analysis Report (FSAR)."
CFUR's answer is not responsive 'o the Staff's Interrogatory Cl-2.
l Since CFUR uses the tem "tecimical qualifications" in Contention 1, it is reasnnable for the Staff to request that CFUR states its unde, standing of
+
.that tem, as it is used in the contention.
Rather than providing the requested information, CFUR nerely refers to 10 CFR 5 50.57(a)(4), which
- contains the tem " technical qualifications." CFUR should be required to state its.un.derstanding of the tem.
If CFUR has no understanding of the
-term, it thould so state. Accordingly, CFUR should be ordered to provide a full and direct response to Interrogatory Cl-2.
Interroaatory Cl-3 Cl-3.
State the basis for your' assertion that Applicants have g
j relied upon Westinghouse to prepare a portion of the Final Safety 1
. Analysis Report (FSAR) and describe'specifically. that portion' of the FSAR which;you: assert was prepared by Westinghouse.
Resoonse'to'Interrocatory Cl-3 Cl-3.. Exhibi t :H of-t'he: December 27,- 1977-Texas
' Utilities-Westinghouse Settlement Agreement:specified that
' Westinghouse would -provide the-preparation and defense of-the
- Comanche Peak FSAR 'n accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2.
The portion of-the 'FSAR which' this represents will 'not be
- available:until the Applicant responds to CFUR's.First Set of 1
Interrogatories to Applicant.
(Although the.first part of-CFUR's' answer..is responsive to thic inter.
. rogatory,:it-istnot.pfficient for ~C' FUR merely to state, as it does in the secon'd paragraph of its answer, that the-infomation requested "will not be
'available. until -thelf?plicant responds to CFUR's First Set of Interroga-
'_~
? tories _to -Applicant." ~ CFUR should specify what discovery requests are x
-:....c,,
-,.. +..,..
4 N re' erred to and in what manner the responses to the discovery re vests ' ave not yet been furnished or are insufficient at this point.
Pilgrin, suora.
Interrogatory Cl-5 Cl-5.
State with specificity in what ways you contend the App'i-cants have failed to demonstrate compliance with NRC regulatiant and/or licensing requirements relating to their technical ouaii-fications to operate CPSES.
Specify the NRC regulations andice
. requirements which you contend Applicants must co, ply with in this i
- regard,
. Response to Interrogatory Cl-5
_ Cl-5.
This. question cannot be answered-at this time until CFUR receives answers to.its First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant.
i
~
Since CFUR has asserted in Contention 2'that Applicants have not demonstrated' technical ~ qualifications to operate CPSES, it is reasonable for the Staff to request.in interrogatory Cl-5 that 1) CFUR state with-n specificity in what ways CFu contends that Applicants have failed to demonstrate cs,pliance with URC Lregulations and/or licensing requ ire,ents and 2) specify the NRC regulations'and/or requirements which CFUR contends-
- Applicants must conply with:in this regard.
As such, this1 interrogatory
. seeks Linformation'and views: solely'within CFUR's knowledge.
To the extent that-a full response tu this interrogatory could in any way depend on Applicants' answers to CFUR interrogatories, CFUR should specify the.
particular; discovery requests referred -toLand state in what manner the responses to CFUR's. discovery requests have not yet been furnished or are -
insufficihnt at _ this. point.. Pilgrin, 'suora.
rInterrogatory-C2-7
' C2-7.; Identify'.with specificity the " conclusions" based _upon. the :
' computer codes referred to,in Contention'2 which you assert are-
=
1
. -invalid and state the basis for your ' assertion that such conclu-sions are invalid.
Resoonse to Interrogatory C2-7 C2-7.
Exanple is:
Results of analysis is sufficient to conclude that the requirenent of 10 CFR Part 50.57(a) is satisfied.
Interrogatory C2-7 is directed to. Contention 2, in which it is alleged that
~
"One or more of-the reports used in the construction of computer codes for-the CPSES/FSAR have not been suitably verified and formally accepted; thas-cocclusions based upon these computer codes are invalid."
Since CFUR has alleged that " conclusions" based on such codes are invalid, it _ is reasonable. sr the Staff'to request that.CFUR identify with speci-ficity the " conclusions" to which CFUR refers.
CFUS's answer does not identify such " conclusions".
-In' addition, CFUR does not, as Interroga-tory C2 requests,. state the' basis for'its assertion that such "conclu-sicos" are1 invalid.
As it has been noted, it.would _be patently unfair
- and inconsistent with a sound record to pennit a party to-make skeletal
_ contentions, keep the bases for then secret, then require the other parties to. meet any conceivable thrust at _ hearing.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.. (Susquehanna Steaa Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Menorandua and Order of August 24,
' 1979 (unpublished) at-6, citing Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park,' Unit 1), LBP-77-37, 5 NRC 1298, '1300-01 (1977). Accordingly, CFUR
'should be directed to provide a: full, direct and ' responsive answer Lto-i Interroga tory : C2-7..
w+
d.s w.
L '
.m.
A m.a-
.a..
1-.
a
- Interrogatories C3-1 and C3-2 C3-1.
What are the "comnuter codes" used in the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report (",75AR") which you contend have not been
" tested and, if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting.the sequence of events at Tb realistically predice plant behavior"?1yee Mile Island and then to C3-2.
What is the basis for your response to Interrogatory C3-1?
I Responses to Interrogatories C3-1 and C3-2 i
C3-1.
Those conputer codes used or referenced in Section 15 of the FSAR.
C3-2.
(a)
" Report of CFUR's Position on Each Contention", April 10, 1980.
(b)
"CFUR's... (4) Partial Substantive Objections to Applicants Statement of Objections...",.7/23/80.
(c) Transcript, Pre-Hearing, Docket 50-445/446, April 30,1980.
Interrogatory C3-2 is directed-to Conteition 3, which asserts that "The conputer codes used in CPSES/FSAR must be tested and, if necessary, nodified to. accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at
)
Three Mile ~ Island and 'then to realistically predict plant behavior."
i CFUR's answer is not responsive to the Staff's interrogatory C3-2..The E
14[
Interrogatory C3-1 and'CFUR's ar.swer thereto is not.part of the
~
Staff's Motion fto Coopel, but have been included here since Inter-
-rogatory C3-1 is ~so closely related to Interrogatory C3-2.
f
. ~ -. - - -
Staff is properly seeking the infomation and facts relied upon by CFUR in raising the issues in Contention 3 and the nature of the evidence which i
CFUR proposes to use at the hearing. The references by CFUR, in responsa to-Interrogatory C3-2, to a pleading it has filed and the transcript of the prehearing conference of April 30, 1980, in which are contained nuch argumentative and conclusory naterial, is not sufficient in tems of the purposes of the discovery process.EI Pilgrim suora.
The Co9nis-sion has stressed that an intervenor must co7e forward with evidence
" sufficient to require reasonable ninds to inquire further to insure that its contentions are explored at the hearing".
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam. Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613,12 NRC 317, 340 (1980).
Moreover, neither the Staff nor the Licensing Board and parties shoJld be required.to speculate as to which portions of the documents cited by CFUR contain tne information sought in interrogatory C3-1.
CFUR should at least identify the portions of those documents upon which it has relied in its
- answer - to Interrogatory C3-1.
It is conceivable that.all~ the infomation relating to Interroga-5/
-tory C3-2 is linited to the documents cited by CFUR in its response.
Intervenors should recognize that discovery requests in Commission proceedings apply to infomation and bases' to support a claim or contention in addition-to~.whatever infomation served as a basis for admitting.the contention.
Pilgrim, supra.- Nonetheless, "if no further infomation'is intended to be relied upon in support of a contention, the Intervenor should so respond."
_Id., at 587 Of course, CFUR cannot be' required to provide. bases or documents that do inot exist..If all the infomation relied upon' by CFUR in responding
_to Interrogatory C3-2 is as set.forth in the' documents cited by CFUR
.in its response, CFUR should so state.
I 10 -
Interrogatory C3-4 C3-4.
If your response to Interrogatory C3-3 is in the affinn-
- ative, please identify those codes and specify the nature and substance of each alleged inaccuracy.
Response to Interrogatory C3-4 C3-4 No allowance for operator and/or maintenance error.
Single failure criterion interpreted too restrictively.
Inability to predict snall break
' 0CA accurately.
Codes will be identified with direct testirony.
In the.first part of CFUR's answer to this interrogatory, CFUR has 2
provided sore of the infonmation requested by the Staff.
However, the second part of the answer, in which CFUR states that " codes will be identified with direct testimony", is not responsive to the Staff's interrogatory.. Since CFUR alleges in Contention 3 that certain compoter codes used in the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Final Safety
-Analysis Report (FSAR)'nust be " tested and modified", it is reasonable for the Staff to request whether CFUR cnntends-that any such codes are
- inaccurate (Interrogatory C3-3) and that.CFUR. identify the codes that CrVR co1tends-are inaccurate (Interrogatory 03-4).
In this recard, the Appeal Board has noted that
" Pleadings and " contentions" no longer.' describe in
~
4.
voluminous detail-everything the parties expect to prcve and i
how they plan to go about doing so.
Rather, they provide
. general notice of the issues.
It is'left to the parties to i
L narrow the issues through the use of various discovery devices..." Suscuehanna, supra.
In addition,' as a pa'rty to an NRC proceeding, CFUR has a responsi-bility to.specify the facts, i.e., the data,.information and docunents, I
upon which itl intends' to rely and upon which it has relied in riising the-issues contained'in Contention'3, so that the other parties may be advised I
y
,w q
m--y,
.4.n
, we -
m
-of
..e 4
p-
-- ww
--r ywyme,=--,,a,,
y_-n-.
,p.
a,,
y g
- p,
p.
. in advance with regard to the nature of its case.
Susouehanna, suora; Pa_cific Gas and Electric Co. (Stanislaus Naclear Project, Unit 1),
LBP-73-20, 7 4RC 1030, 1040 (1973); Northern Sta_tes Power Conpany, et al.
1 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), L3?-77-37, 5 4RC 1293,1300-01 (1977); Pilgrin supra.
Accordingly, CFUR should be reqai ed to provide a full, direct and respoqsive ansaar to Interrogatory C3-3.
Interrogatory C3-5 C3-5.
Unat is the basis for year response to Interrogatory 03-i?
Response to Interrogatory C3-5 C3-5.
See C3-2.
Ratner than provijild the infornation requested by the Staff in Interrogatory C3-5, CFUR nerely refers to its answer to Interrogatory C3-2.
As previously noted by the Staff, CFUR's answer to Interrogatory 03-2 is not sufficient since CFUR nerely lists as its b. asis, the pleadings it has fileJ and tqe prehearing conference transcript, which contain much conclusory and arguneqtative naterial. Accordingly, nere reference by CFUR to its answer to interrogatory C3-2 does not provide the infornatior sought by the Staff in Interrogatory C3-5.
Accordingly, CFUR should be req; ired to provide a fall, direct and responsive answer to Interrogatory 03-5.
Interrogatory C3-10 C3-10. 0[scribespecificallyandindetailthe"paraneters raflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island" referred to in the contention and state the basis for your assertion that the
r conputer codes used in the CPSES/FSAR must be " tested and if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three f1ile Island".
Response to Interroaatory C3-10 List of sone relevant parameters: (1) Operator Error, (2)fiain-tenance Error, (3) Hydrogen formation, and (4) Single Failuro Criterion Interpretation PORV plus previcus problems, nisleading 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 (Enphasis added).
Since CFUR has asserted in Contention 3 that the conputer codes used in the CPSES/FSAR oust be tested and if necessary, nodified, "to accept the paraneters reflecting the sequence of events at Three liile Island", the Staff's Interrogatory C3-10 requests CFUR to describe specifically and in detail such " parameters" and to provide the basis underlying CFUR's assertion that the conputer codes must " accept" such " parameters." As such, the Staff's interrogatories seek infomation and views solely within CFUR's knowledge and are proper.
Susouehanna, Stanislaus, Tyrone, Pilgrin, supra.
In the first part of CFUR's answer to this interrogatory, CFUR has provided some of the information requested by the Staff.
However, to the extent that CFUR's answer indicates that " direct testimony will list specifically those parameters which will be brought up in the hearing in
' conjunction with this contention," CFUR's answer is not responsive to
-interrogatory C3-10. The other parties.are entitled to be advised h advance with regard to the nature of CFUR's case. M.
In addition, r3ther
- than provide the basis underlying its assertions, CIUR merely refers to its
. responses to other interrogatories (C3-2, 4 and 12) which do not provide i
L t
t
!' the basis for its assertions.
Accordingly, CFUP should be required ta provide a full, direct and responsive answer to Interrogatory C3-10.
Interrogatory C3-11 C3-11.
For each of the " parameters" described in your response to l
Interrogatory C3-10, state in weit ways such "paraneters' are related to the safe operation of igmanche Peak.
State the basis for your position in this regard.
j P.esponse to Interrogatory C3-11 C3-11.
See C3-10.
CFUR's answer does not provide the infon,ation which the Staff se.
in Interrogatory. C3-11.
CFUR's answer to Interrogatory C3-10 nerely lists i
"some.rele/ ant parareters" but does not, as Interrogatory C3-11 requests, state in what ways such "paraneters" are related to the safe operation of
' Comanche Peak." Moreover, to the extent CFUR intends, as is stated in response to. interrogatory C3-10, that " direct testimony will list j
specifically 'those parameters which will be brought up in the hearing",
CFUR's answer is' not a proper responseL to a discovery request. oAs-the
~
' Staff Jstated above, regarding CFUR's answer to Interrogatory C3-10, the f
i parties are entitled to be advised in advance as to the nature of CFUR's j
c a se. - Pilgrin, supra.
Accordingly, CFUR should be required. to provide a
~
full, direct 'and. responsive answer to Interrogatory C3-11.
Interrogatory C3-12 JC3-12.. Define. the tenns " realistically predict plant behavior" as
. those tems are used in~ Contention 3.
Does.the tem " plant behavior" refer to CPSES? State the basis for'your assertion-that the conputer codes used in CPSES/FSAR must be tested and ifi 1
necessary, nodified to " realistically predict plant' behavior.".
4
- ~
. Response to Interrocatory C3-12 C3-12.
Realistically predict plant behavior reans forecast the action or reaction of CPSES with a high level of confidence.
The accident sequence analyses supplied by the Applicant at the tire this contention was written were clearly inadequate to provide a proper basis for plant design and for the developrent of operator training programs and operating procedures.
The Applicant failed to subnit the necessary analysis of a break the size of a PORV.
The Applicant failed to suc11t the necessary analysis of a PORV failing to close, even though such a failure should have been assured since the valve was designated as non-safety grade equi pren t.
The Applicant failed to analyze Fore than t6e initial ainutes of a transient, whereas such analyses should ha re covered a tire period until a stable systs' had been assured.
See C3-2.
The first part of CFUR's answer provides sore of the infor ation sought in Interrogatory C3-12.
Hosever, CFUR's reference to its answer to "C3-2" is not responsive to the request in Interrogatory C3-12 tnat CFUR state the basis, i.e., the data, infornation or docunents, if any, upon which it intends to rely and upon which has relied in asserting in Conten-tion 3 that the conputer codes used in the CPSES/FSAR nust be tested and if necessary, nodi #ied to " realistically predict plant behavior".
Tne reference in CFUR's answer to Interrogatory C3-2, in which CFUR rerely lists its two pleadings it has filed and the transcript of the prehearing conference of April 30, 1980, is not sufficient in terns of the purpose of O
. Ine discovery process.5/ The Conmission has stressed tnat an intervenor must core forward with evidence " sufficient to require reasonable ninds to inquire further to insure that its contentions are explored at the hearing".
Susquehanna, supra. Accordingly, CFUR should be required to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to Interrogatory C3-12.
Interrocatories C3-13 throuch C3-22 C3-13.
Precisely what do you contend the Applicants must do to have the con?ater codes identified above " tested and, if necessary, nodified to accept the parameters reflecting the secuence of events at Three Mile Island and then to realistically predict plant behavi or" ?
C3-14 Precisely what do you contend the NRC Staff mast do to hcve the conputer codes identified above " tested and if ne:essary, noJified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile Island and then to realistically predict plant behavior"?
C3-15. What are the bases for your responses to Interrogatories C3-13 and C3-14?
It is conceivable that all the information relating to Interrog-f/
atory C3-12 is limited to the documents cited by CFUR in its response.
Intervenors should recognize that discovery requests in Concission proceedings apply to infornation and bases ~ to support a claim or contention in addition to whatever information served as a basis for admitting the contention. Pilarin, supra.
Nonetheless, "if no further information is intended to be relied upon in support of a contention, the Intervenor should so respond."
Id., at 587.
Of course, CFUR cannot be.equired to provide bases or documents that do not exist.
If all the infornation intended to be relied upon by CFUR in support of Contention 3 is as set forth in the document cited by CFUR~in its response, CFUR should so state.
7 9
m
. C3-15. What do you contend the Applicants rust do to denonstrate that the computer codes identified above have been "testec an:, if necessary, rodified to accept the para eters reflecting the sequence of events at Three !!ile Island and then to realistically predict plant behaticr"?
C:-17.
What do vou contend the RC Staff r.ast do to deronstrate that the com,nater codes identified above have been "testec ant, necessary, rodi#ied to accept tne paraneters reflecting the sequence of events at Three "ile Island and then to realisticall;.
predict plant behavice"?
C3-13. What are yo;r bases for ye responses to Interrogatories C3-15 and C3-17?
C3-19. Do yca intend to challenge in the uo:ccin; hearings the accuracy of ary of the conp;ter codes identified above?
C3-20.
If your answer to Interrogatory C3-19 is in the affin ative, please specify those conputer codes which you intend ta challenge in the upcoming hearings.
C3-21.
If your response to Interrogatory C3-19 is in the af firna-tive, please set forth with specificity the nature and substance of your challenge (s).
C3-22. What is the basis for your response to Interrogatory C3-21?
Eesocnses to Interrogatorier C3-13 throuch C3-22 C3-13. Unkn:wn at this time. ilill te available witn direct testicenj.
C3-14 See C3-13.
C3-15. N/A.
C3-16.
See C3-13.
C3-17. See C3-13.
C3-18.
N/*.
C3-19.
See C3-4.
C3-20.
See C3-19.
C3-21. See C3-19.
C3-22. See C3-19.
. j In Interrogatories CC-13 through C3-22, CFUR is esked to provide i
information relating to the assertion in Contention 3 that "the computer
. codes used in CPSES/FSAR must be teste-f and, if necessary, modified to accept the parameters reflecting the sequence of events at Three Mile island..."
In general these.interrogato 'ies are designed to detemine
- 1) what CFUR contends the Applicants and Staff nust do to test and nodify such co,puter codes and to demonstrate that such computer codes have been tested and nodified, and 2)~ whether CF'JR intends to challenge in the upcoming hearings accuracy of such codes.
As such, the Staff's inter-rogatories seek infomation and views solely witn CFUR's knowledge and are proper.
Susoueharina, Stanislaus, Tyrone, Dilgrim, supra.
CFUR's answers to Interrogatories.C3-13 through C3-18, which indicate that the requested infomatim is " unknown at this time" and "will be available with direct testimony," are totally unresponsive to these inter-rogatories.
As.a party to an NRC proceeding, CFUR is not excused fron
- timely responding to discovery requests because of lac;: af knowledge or b
p.artial. knowledge.
Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC 583, fn. 10.
If CFUR has less.
than full -information at this time, CFUR should have answered by giving the 4
available-infomation and by stating that the answer reflects its limited infor1ation.
Id.. It is not sufficient in tems of the purposes of the
- discovery process, tha* the infomation sought "will be available with direct testimony." Th e other parties are entitled to be advised'in ac:<ance
~
with regaN :to the nature of CFUR's. case.
Suscuehanna, Stanislaus, Tyrone, Pilgrim, supra. Accordingly, CFUR should be required to provide full,
- direct and responsive answers to Interrogatories C3-13 through C3-18.
.. Rather than - iswering the questions posed in Interrogatories C3-19 through C3-22 a to whether CFUR intends to challenge in the upconing hearings the accuracy of any of the conputer codes, CFUR nerely refers to its answ.
tv Interrogatory C3-4, which requests only the identity of the codes.
CFUR's nere reference to its inadequate answer to another interrogatory clearly does not constitute a responsive answer to Inter-rogatories C3-19 through C3-22. Accordingly, CFUR snould be required ta provide full, direct and responsive answers to these interrogatories.
Interrogatories C4-6 through C4-9 C4-6.
Precisely what do you contend the NRC Staff nust do to
" evaluate the accident sequences" identified ir your response to Interrogatory C4-1 as " credible accidents for ?SES"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
C4-7.
Precisely what do you contend the Applicants must do to
" evaluate the accident sequences" identified in your response to Interrogatory C4-1 as " credible accidents for' CPSES"? State the basis for your position:in this regard.
C4-8.
What do you contend the NRC Staff nust do to denonstrate that the." accident sequences" identified in your response to Interrogatory C4-1 have been-evaluated as " credible accident sequences for CPSES"? State the basis for your position in this rega rd. -
C4-9. -- What do you contend the Applicants must do to demonstrate that the " accident sequences" identified in response to Interroga-tory C4-l'have been " evaluated as credible seau,ences for CPSES"?
State the basis for your position in~this regard.-
Responses to Interr?gatories C4-6 throue: C4-9
.C4-6.
Precisely what the"NRC Staff should do is not part of this-contention:
riowever, CFUR would anticipate that-the Staff would do what they nomally do when they consider something credible.
C4-7.
Precisely what the Applicant should do is not part of this contention.
i
. i C4-8.
See Contention 2.
- C4-9.
See Contentions 1 and ?.
Interrogatories C4-5 through C4-9 relate to Contention 4, in which 4
~ CFUR alleges that "some accident sequences heretofore considered" to be
" incredible" should be evaluated "as credible accidents for CPSES".
In general, the Staff's interrogatories seek to determine what CFUR contends the Stal and Applicants nust do to 1) " evaluate" such " accident sequences" as " credible accidents" and 2) demonstrate that such " accident sequences" have been evaluated as " credible accidents".
i CFUR's answers, stating that what the Staff and Applicants must do "is 1
not part of the contention", and referring to other ' contentions, are
- totally unresponsive 1to' the Staff's interrogatories.
Since CFUR alleges in Contention 4-that "some accident sequen
. nust be evaluated "as credible
- ac'cidents"~ for CPSES, the contention necessarily_ raises the issue of what rust be-done.to " evaluate" such accident sequences.
It is therefore reasonable to inquire, as does the Staff in interrogatories C4-6 through
- C4-9, as to what CFUR contends the _ Staff-and Applicants nust do to
" evaluate" such " accident sequences", and to.denonstrate that;such
" accident sequences" have Lsc "e'ealdated." !As such', the Staff's inter-
- rogatories seek inforrati-
'and views solely within CFUR's knowledge and are proper.- Susouehanna, Stanislaus, Tvrone, Pilorin, suora. Accordingly, CFUR should be required.t-o provide full, direct and responsive answers to theseint5rrogatories".
1 e
J L
-2C-Interro;atories C4-10 and C4-12 C4-10.
Identify the "findi,gs", in addition to those of W"5"-1 *:?,
referred to in the contention.
C4-12.
Identify the "additicral findings," cther than those of the Le<<is Corittee, referred to in tne Contention.
Fessenses to Interrogatories C4-10 and C4-12 C'-10.
See C4-1.
Additional findings ray be contained in direct testi cry.
C4-12.
See C4-10.
In Contention 3, CFUR asserts, in part, that "so e accident sea;ences heretofore considered to have probatilities so low as to be considered incredible, hased in part, upon the findings of tne WASH-14CO, are in f act ecce probable in light of additional findings, such as those of the Lewis Ccenittee".
4ccrdingly, in Interrogatories C"-10 and C4-12, the Sta'f requests that CFUR identify those " additional ' findings".
Cather than pro,'ide the infomation which the Staff seeks, in response to Interrogatory C4-10, CFUR rerely efers to its response to Interrogatory C4-1 and states that additional findings may be contained in its direct testirony.
Similarly in response to Intr:rrogatory C4-12, CFUR
~
rerely refers to its response to Interrogatory C'-10.
In response to !nterrogatory CA-1, CFUR state; that certain accident sequences are described in one of its pleadings end in the
" Transcript, Fre-Hearing.... April 30, 1920".
';either the Staf f, the Licensing ' Board nor other parties shnuld be reau red to refer to those i
. documents in an effort to glean where, if at all, "the additional firdings" are' identified.
Moreover, the other parties are entitled to be at*, sed _in advance as to the nature of CFUR's case, including the information sought in Interrogatories C4-10 and C4-12. jif.,Susouehanna,Stanislaus,Tyrone, Pilgrin, supra.
Accordingly, CFUR should be ordered to provide full, direct and responsive answers to these interrogatories.
Interrogatory C4-15 CA-13.
Do you assert in Contention 4 t7at there is a credible accident scenario which entails hydrogen gas generation or combustion leading to offsite radiation doses in excess of Part 101 guidelines?
If-so, state the basis for such assertion.
Response-to Interrogatory C4-15 CA-13. Most probably.
Detf als dill be provided in direct testinony.
CFRU's answer is totally unresponsive to this interrogatory.
Once again, CFUR bas attenpted to delay until' the presentation of direct testinony at the hearing its responsibility,'p'rior_to-the actual hearing, to " cone' forward with evidence sufficient to require reasonable minds to
~
ingaire further".
Susecuehanna,isuora. As ~part~ of the discovery process,
~
the NRC Staff-must be -able to inquire into the bases. for CFUR's assertions-and the information available to-CFUR to support its position.
Accord-ingly,- CFUR should be required.to provide. a fail, direct and responsive '
- answerf to _ Interrogatory C4-15.
= Interrogatory C4-17 C4-17.
Have you reviewed-the Applicants': Final Safety Analysis-Report _ ("FSAR")? ' If so, please answer. the following:
e v,
4
..s
=_ - _ -
. _ = _
. a.
Do you object to any of the information, data or analysis contair:ed or referenced therein with respect to " accident i
sequences" which have been evaluated for CPSES?
b.
If your answer to a. is in the affirmative, please identify those objections by the section of the FSAR to which you object and.the substance of each of your objections.
c.
What is the basis for your response to b.?
Response to Interrogatory C4-17 C4-17.
In part a)
Incompl ete, b)
See previous answers.
c)
See previous answers.
CFUR's ' answers" to Interrogatory C4-17 are evasive and completely hil to ' provide the infornation -which the Staff seeks in that interrog-a tory.
It is not apparent that any of the " previous answers" identify, as the iterrogatory requests, the sections of the FSAR relating to " accident sequences" to which CFUR objects.
Accordingly, CFUR should be required to provide a direct, full and responsive answer to this interrogatory, Interrogatories C6-2 through'C6-13 Interrogatories.C5-1 through C6-1 N are directed to Contention 6, in
~
i which it is alleged that "there is no assurance that:the Spent Fuel-Pool (SFP)'can withstand the effects of torn'ad_oes, as. required by 10.CFR l
Part 50,' Appendix A, Criterion 2," because of nunerc a deficiencies set
~
-7/-
These l interrogatories are found at pp. '20-27 of the Staff's Inter-
.rogatories, supra, and cover subparts (a) through (d) of Contention 6.
Rather than repeating 'ti.ose interrogatories here, the Staff has
. included pp. 20-27 ofitne Staff's interrogatories, supra, as. Attach-ment 1 of this motion. -
t
. ~..
4,
)
forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Contention 6 relating to the enalysis upon which the Design Basis Tornado (D3T) is based and "the DST parameters".
- n general, the Staff's interrogatorie' are designed to elicit a particularized statenent of the bases for w) assertions made in Contention 6 that "there is no assurance the SFP cannot withstand tne effects of tornadoes;" the reaning of certain words and phrases contained en the contention; the requirements (including statutes and/or regulations) which CFUR contends are not met because of the alleged deficiencies set forth in Contention 6; and what CFUR contends the Staff and Applicants nost do to demonstrate that the SFP can " withstand the effects of tornadoes".
With respect to Interrogatories C6-2 through C6-10, CFUR's answers are totally unresponsive to the Staff's interrogatories. CFUR, in essence, nerely refers to its " Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene",
May 7,1979 and states.that the requested information "will be supplied in direct testimony". However, as previously stated, CFUR's reference to its supplement to -its petition for. leave to intervene, in which is contained nuch argumentative and conclustory material, is not sufficient in tenns of
.the purpose of the discovery pro,ess.
Pilgrim, supra.
CFUR, as a party to an NRC proceeding, has a responsibility to specify in advance of the hearing, the facts, i.e., the data, inforcation and documents, if any, upon which it intends to rely and upon which it has relied, in raising the issues contained.in Contention 6, so that the other. parties may be advised Lin advanch as to 'the -natu're of its case. Jd.
-In addition to the foregoing def.iciencies in CFUR's answers to the
- interrogatories relating to' Contention 6, the Staff. finds CFUR's objection
_.. - =.
_~_
l
, to Interrogatories C6-11 through C6-13, on the grounds that such interroga-tories are " repetitive", to be without merit.
Those interrogatories relate to the four separate subparts of Contention 6, each of whic t contains different allegations of deficiencies regarding the ability of the SFP to
" withstand-the effects of tornadoes".
These interrogatories are no core
" repetitive" than the series of allegations CFUR nakes in Contention 6.
Accordingly, CFUR should be required to provide full, direct and responsive answers to Interroga tories C6-2 thvcugh C5-13.
Interrogatory C7-3 L
C7-3.
Define specifically and in detail the " seismic disturbances referred to in the contention.
Response to Interrogatory C7-3
- C7-3.
'ee 10 CFR Part 100.
CFUR's answer is not responsive to this interrogatory.
Since CFUR
?
uses the term "seisnic disturbances" in Contention 7, it is reasonable for the Staff to request that CFUR define that tern, as it is used in Contention 7 10 CFR'Part 100 does not define the term "seisnic
. disturbances", as CFUR that term is used in Contention 7.
It is essential that the-Staff: be. able to detenline the " seismic ' disturbances" which are the subject of CFUR's' concern, as stated in Contention 7.
Accordingly,
. CFUR should be required to provide a complete, full and responsive answer to Interrogatory C7-3.
Interrogatory'C7-5
- C7-5... Describe specifically 'the " Category I structures" referred to and: state the basis for your assertion that the " rock overbreak-and ' subsequent l fissure. repair usiqg concrete grout have impaired 4
5 re
..,,,-y.y-,-,
--ww.-
,-#.r.,.c>r-wv-r-+
v-r+m w---- - + * - +- - ~ - -- = *
- +-
. the ability of Category I structures to withstand seismic d i s tu rba nce s".
"esconse to Interrogatory C7-5 C7-5.
See 10 C;R Fart 50 and Part 100.
Basis is supplied in "Supplerent to Petition For Leave to Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Pegulation (CFUR)", 5/7/79.
CFUR has reascos to believe that loose rock raterial was thrown into tne over-excavation price to the pouring of concrete.
Interrogatory C7-5 seeks to cetenline 1) which " Category I stru;-
tures" are the subject of Contention 7 and 2) the basis, i.e., the facts, d3ta, infon ation, or docu ents upon which CFUR intends o reij upon wti:h it has relied in raising the issues contai'ed in Contention 7 C;U?
en3wers this interrogatory by referring to ta" regulations, which do rat, as is requested in this interrogato y, describe Joecifically the
" Category I structures" which are the subject of CF"R's concern in Cor,-
tention 7 The references to CFUR's supplenent to its petition for leave to intervene and its bald assertion that "it has reason to believe..." are not sJfficient in ion's of the discovery process, pilgrin, suora.
Accordin;1y, CFUR should be re;uired to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to Interrogatory C7-5.
Interrogatory C8-1 C8-1.
Describe specifically and in detail the ;" impacts of the drawdorin of groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plant operation" and provide the basis for your assertion that groundwater will be withdrawn under CPSES daring and as a result of plant ope ra tion, Response to Interrogatory CS-1 CB-1.
The detail of irpacts will be supplied in direct testinony.
It is the understanding of CFUR that the Applicant intends to withdras groundwater during plant operation.
- Interrogatory C8-1 is directed to Contention 8, in which it is alleged that " Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate the impacts of the drawdown of groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plan operation".
Having nade such an allegation, CFUR as a party to this proceeding, has a responsibility to soecify the facts, i.e., the data, infor.ution and docu ents, if any, upon which it intends to rely and upon
.mich it has relied in raising tne issues contained in Contention 3, so i
that the parties may be advised in advance with regard to the na.sre of its cases.
Dilcrin, suora.
CFUR's answer indicating that the informaticn will be " supplied in direct testimony" is not sufficient in ten!s of tre dis-co/ery process.
Id.
Accordingly, CFUR snould be required to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to Interrogatory'CS-1.
Interrocato y C8-3
-CS-3.
State the-basis' for your assertion that Applicants have Jfailed to adequately evaluate the impacts of.the drawdown of the groundwater under-CPSES during and as a' result of plant operation.
-Response to Interrocatory CS-3
--C8-3. ' See Transcript, Pre-Hearing, Docket 50-445/446, April 30,
~ 1980 and "Supplenent To Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For 'Fa ir. Util i ty. Regul ation. (CFUR)", 5/7/79.
CFUR's answer to this. interrogatory is insufficient.
References by.
CFUR to itsisupplement to its petition for. leave to intervene.and the transcript of.the prehearing conference,71n which are contained nuch argu-nentative and conclusory material. is:not sufficient in terms of the
-discovery process.. Pilcrin, supra. Accordingly, CFUR should be required
.to provide a full, direct and responsive answer'to this interrogatory.
i.'
. Interrogatory CS-7 CP-7.
Do you contend that Applicants nast perfom additional s'.edies or analysis with respect to the potential effects of groi.ndwater witndrawal dJring operaticn of Cnranche peak?
If so, piaat e specify the nature and substance of those reports or anal,ses v.tich you contend n;st be done and state the basis #cr j w position in this regard.
2esponse to Interrogatory C8-7 CE 7 Yes.
Pust conduct discovery to deternine.
As previously stated, the TF.C Rules of Practice re:pire that ti. e -
responses to discovery recuests not be delayed because another partj is anducting discovery, unless inter alia,,iustice so recuires.
See C Cro
@ 2.740(d). !'anifestly, CFUR has not shoc that justice, in fact, reonres that discovery regarding tnis aspect of Contention 8 be delayed.
'ccord-ingly, CFUR should be reoaired to provide a co plete, full ac.d responsive answer to Interrogatory C8-7.
Interrogatory C8-12 C8-12. What are the adverse effects on the Conanche Peak environs that you contend would occur if the groundwater level drops below the level specified in your response to Interrogatory C8-10? State the basis for your position.
ilesconse to Interrogatory C8-12 C8-12. See C8-3.
CFUR's answer is totally unresponsive to the Staff's interrogatory, The references in CFUR's answer to Interrogatory C8-3, its supple ent to its petitihn for leave to intervene and tne April 30, 1980 prehearing conference transcript, in which are contained cach argurentative and conclusory raterial, is not safficient in terns of the discovery process.
Pilgric, supra. fioreover, neither the Staff, the Licensing Board nor the
0 i
]
, 4
.other parties should be required to refe* to those documents in an effort i
to determine, where, if at all, CFUR discusses the information which the 4
L Staff seeks in Interrogatory C8-12.
Accordiag'y, CFUR should be directed to provide a. full, direct and responsive answer to this interrogatory.
1
.nterrogatory C8-16 s
CS-16.
Indicate the evaluation of the inpacts of the drawdown of groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plant operation that you would consider to be adequate and provide the basis for your position in this regard.
Response to Interrogatory C8-16 CS-16.
Vill be provided in direct testir.ony.
Since CFUR has alleged in Contention 8 that the Applicants have not adequately evaluated the impacts of the drawdown of groundwater under CPSES during and as a result of plant operation, Interrogatory CS-16 seeks to deten,ine what kind of evaluation CFUR believes to be adequate and why.
CFUR's answer. Once again indicates CFUR's mistaken belief that it.can await
" direct testimony" to reveal information which is the subject of a prope*
discovery request.
As previously stated, such a response is not sufficient in tenns of -the discovery. process.- Pilurin, suora. Accordingly,-CFUR should be directed to provide'a full, direct and responsive answer to
. Intsprogatory C8-16.
Interrogatory'C9-l' C9-1.
Describe specifically and in' detail the "effect of radio-active releases" referredLto-in-the contention.
i
. ]
Response to Interrogatory C9-1 C9-1.
Connon usage definition.
Example is that in 10 CFR Part 50, 1
Appendix I it is indicated that the NRC has deternined the effect of radioactive releases to justify the use of values of $1000 per total body man-ren and $1000 per nan-thyroid-ren in cost-benefit dnalyses in Conjunction with design objectives (tLARA).
Interrogatory C9-1 is directed to Contention 9 in which it is alleged that " Applicants have failed to nake any effort to detemine the e'fect of I
radioactive releases on the general p.nlic other than at the exclusion bounda ry".
In interrogatory C9-1 the Staff is seeking to detemine the "effect of radioactive releases" to CFUR refers in Contention 9.
Such infomation is solely within CFUk's knowledge.
Neither an " example" froc 1
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I nor CFUR's references to some " common usage l
definition" provide this infomation.
Accordingly, CFUR should be directed i
to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to Interrogatory C9-1.
- nterrogatory C9-3 C9-3.
Do you assert in Contention 9 that as a result of operation l
of Conanche Peak, there will be " radioactive re co.2s"?
If so,
- state the basis.for such assertion. Do you contend that such
" radioactive releases" will result from nomal operation or only as a result of an accident? State the basis for your position in this regard.-
Response to Interrogatory C9-3 C9-3.
a)
Yes.
FSAR Sections 12 and 15, Contention-4 basis and the series of NUREG-0521 reports, " Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants (Year)".
b),Yes.
Same as-(a).
t Although the first part of CFUR's answer to this interrogatory
- contains some.of. the information which the Staff seeks in. Interroga-
. tory-C9-3, CFUR's response ~ does not answer the second question posed in
- that interr)gatory.
By merely answering "Yes" to tut question, CFUR does f
p p-
- ~
y 4me
.c n
,s,,
e---------
,--pm-w v
n-v
-,~,-we.
,,--4
,--nc~
--m--
u-y,.-
4-w--+
..,y--
. not tate, as is requested, whether the radioactive releases with which it is concerned will result fro 1 nonnal operation of CPSES jp* only as a result of an~ accident.
Accordingly, CFUR should be directed to answer that question.
Jn,terrogatory C9-4 C9-4.
State the basis for your assertion that there will be
" effects of radioactive releases on the general public other than a t the exclusion boundary".
Response to Interrogatory C9-4 C9-4.
Tne BEIR reports,10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50 including references cited.
CFUR's' answer is not responsive to the Staff's interrogatory.
Neither the' Staff, the Licensing Board nor the parties should be required 'to speculate as to the portions of "the BEIR Reports,10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50 including references cited" which contain the basis for CFUR's assertion that there will be " effects of radioactive releases on the
- general tpublic other than at the exclusion -boundary." However,' speculation is all that is possible.in view of the response provided:by.CFUR here.
CFUR should at least specify.the' portions of "the BEIR Reports,10 CFR
'Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50 including references. cited" which contain the basis for CFUR's assertion that there will be " effects of radioactive releases on:the general public other than at the exclusion boundary."'
Accordingly, CFUR should be ordered to provide a full, direct and respon-sive' answer to Interrogatory C9-4.
w
n _v..
t o-31 -
Interrogatnries C9-6, C9-7 and C9-8 C9-6.
Identify the "various transport nechanisms" referred to in the contention.
C9-7.
Define what is meant by "certain cases" as that term is used
. in the contention.
C9-8.
Describe specifically and in detail the tenas " bulk of the health effects" and " sone distance". What distance fro 1 the exclu-sion boundary corresponds to "some distance
Responses to Interrogatories C9-6, C9-7 and C9-3 C9-6.
Sec C9-5.
Fore co1plete answer provided with direct testinony.
C9 7 See C9-6.
C9-8.
See C9-6 and C9-2.
These interrogatories are directed to the allegation in Contention 9 that "various transport mechanisms nay cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health-effects to. occur same distance fro 1 the exclusion boundary".
In these interrogatories-the Staff is-seeking an identification of the "various' transport nechanisns" referred to; a definition of "certain cases", and a description of the " bulk of the health effects" and "some distance".. CFUR's answers are totally unresponsive.
CFUR nerely refers to answers to previous interrogatories, which do not request this information.
'Since CFUR 'has used such vague terminology in this contention, it is
' incumbent 'on CFUR to state specifically what th,ese terns mean.. To.the extent that CFUR's answer indicates a belief that it can wait until direct testimony;15 presented-to' provide a "nore complete answer", CFUR is seeking to avoid Its responsibility, as a ' party to an flRC proceeding,'to advise the
- Pilgrim,
~ ther-parties in advance with regard to the nature of its case.
o
' Accordingly.. CFUR.should be directed to provide full, conplete and f
~ supra.
. responsive answersito these interrogatories.
~
6 s--
es*-,,
y 5
y
--g y-9 p
3,-.~m--
yy,-+
e w
,ry+w-,-
m
--+,-n,-#
.w--w,,y,-,-e
-y
,ww-w --*<w-,,
-e w er w
> Interrocatory C9-9 C9-9.
State the basis for your assertion that "various transport nechanisms may cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health effects to occur some distance from the exclusion boundary".
Response to Interrocatory C9-9 C9-9.
See C9-5.
This interrog3 tory is directed to the second allegation in Con-tention 9 discussed above with respect to interrogatory C9-6, 7 and 8.
CFUR's response refers to its answer to Interrogatory C9-5, which relates only to the first allegation in Contention 9 CFUR's answer to Inter-rogatory C9-5 cites as the basis for that allegation various pleadings filed by CFUR and the prehearing conference transcript.
The reference by CFUR to those documents, which contain nuch argumentative and conclusory material, is not sufficient in terns of the discovery process.
- Pilorin, supra.
Accordingly, CFUR should be directed to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to this interrogatory.
Interrocatory C9-11 C9-11. Have you reviewed Applicants' Environnental Report -
Operating License Stage ("ER-0L")?
If so, answer the following questions.
a)
Do you object to any of the infomation, data or analyses contained or referenced therein concernin9 "the effects of radioactive releases on the general public"?
b)
If your answer to a. is in the affirnative, please specify your objections by identifying the sections of the ER to which you object and the substance of your objection, c) What are the bases for your responses to a. and b.?
Response to Interroaatory C9-11 C9-11.
In.paet f
i 33 -
a)
Possibly, but this contention does not address the "ER-OL".
b) fy A.
c) N/A.
This interrogatory relates primarily to the first allegation in Contention 9, that " Applicants have fa led to nake any effort to deternine the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion Soundary".
Since Section 5 of the Applicants' Environnental Report - Operating License Stage (ER-OL) discusses the "Envirornental Effects of Plant Operation", including " Radiological Impact troc Ro; tine Uperation", thih interrogatory seeks to deten11ne CFUR's objections to that i
discussion.
It is not apparent to the Staff that the contention "does not i
address the ER-OL".
Accordingly, CFUR should be ordered to provide a full, complete and responsive answer to this interrogatory.
Interroaatory C9-14 C9-14
. Indicate the detenlination of "the effects of radioactive releases on the general 'public other than at the exclusion boundary" which ycg! would consider to,be adequate and provide.the basis for your assertion in this regard.
Responce to Interrogatory'C9-14
-C9-14._ Provided in direct testimony.
Since CFUR nas' asserted-in Contention 9 th'at Applicants have failed
~
to determine "the effects of radioactive releases on the general public other thag at the exclusion boundary",- Interrogatory. C9-14 seeks the determination of.such effects;w'.. :h CFUR would ' consider to 'be adequate.
~
CFUR's answer, that such:information will.be provided in direct testimony -
is not sufficient in terms of-the discovery process.
Pilgrim, supra.
f
[
r g e
y 4
e,&-
v 4
,+.-
sv+
y-w+w-r y
e
-,++ey,-
r. --
r-w e -
w-%~
. Accordingly, CFUR should be ordered to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to this interrogatory.
RELIEF SOUGHT For the reasons set forth above, the Staff respectfully requests an order co1pelling CFUR to provide full, direct and responsive answers to Interrogatories Cl-2, Cl-3, Cl-5, C2-7, C3-1, C3-2, C3-4, C3-5, C3-10, C3-11, C3-12, C3-13 through C3-22, C4-6 through C4-9, C4-10, C4-1?, C4-15, C1-17, C5-2 through C6-13, C7-3, C7-5, C3-1, C8-3, C8 7, C3-12, CE-16, C9-1, C9-3, C9-4, C9-6, C9-7, C9-3, C9-9, C9-11, and C9-14 Respectfully submitted, mQ Uk Ltuku fiarjorie tilran Rothschild Counsel for f;RC Staff Gated at Bethesda, Maryland this 31st day of i' arch,1981 m
O W
m
ATTACHMENT 1 4,
C6-1.
Describe specifically and in detail the area which corresponds to the " Spent Fuel Pool area" referred to in the contention.
l C6-2.
Describe specifically and in detail the " tornadoes' (including wind velocities, atmospheric pressure changes and rates of changes in i
1 atmospheric pressure) referred to in the contention. State the basis for 9
four response.
C6-3.
State what is reant by the terr " withstand" as it is used in the j
conte ticr.
I C6 4 Do you contend that terr.adoes could affect the Corancte Peak t
Spent Fuel Pool. area"? State the basis for your response.
C6-5.
Describe specifically and.in detail.the " effects of tornadoes'
-referred-te in Contention 6.
Do you assert in Contention 6.that specific sections of 1D CFR C6-6.
Part 50,' Appendix A, criterion 2,-are not met by the Comanche Peak " Spent Fuel Pool area"? If-so, state-the' basis for your assertion and identify the specific s'ections 'of 10 CFR Part 50,- Appendix A, of criterion 2, which you-assert are not met by the _ Comanche Peak " Spent Fuel-Pool area".
s f
l t
- a. -
,__..,.c.-
=~. _ -. -. -
4-a.
21 -
4 CE-7.
Have you reviewed the Applicants' F5AR? If so, : lease arswer
- ne following:
7 a.
30 you otject to any cf the information, data or analysis contained in the F5AR with respect to the ability of the '5;ent ruel 001 1
area' to.-ithstard the effects cf tornad es?
[
0.
If your answer t0 a is in the affirrative, lease sreci'y tn:se se:tices of the FS*E to which you object and state t*e sutstae:e of i
~
y0ur cb'jecti0ns.
c.
W"at is y0ur basis for your resecnses to a. and :.'
'd.
Please s e:ify what informatice, data and/ r analysis y ;
O st be in:lude'.in the FSAR to satisfy youe Otjectices un:er Cte-d contend tenti0r f.
e.
What is your basis for your response to d.?
Cf-E.
What do'you contend A:plicants must.do to demonstrate that tee Co anche Peak " Spent-Fuel.P0ol area" can withs,tand tne effects c# ternad0es?
State the basis for your position in this regard.
3 CE-;. xWhat do ~ you contend the NRC Staff cust do to demenstrate that
- the Coranche Peak ' Spent Fuel Pool ' area" can " withstand the effects o' tornadoes *?
State the basis for'your pcsition.
4 t
CE-10. As to~ Centention 6.a:
' Identify.thes" analyses" referred tc.in.-the contention.
-a.
b.
Describe specifically and in detailEyour understanding.cf the-phrase " Design Basis Tornado'(DST)"-as it is used in~the contenticn.
t 5
i
,e ra1%r w
t-w-,,
,--g
,w y y
- * + g.
g m, y e 9
gm g
~,.,y, gv'&,a---m,-"
f y
. c.
State what is meant by the phrase " perfunctory, outdated and unreliable" as it is used in the contention.
d.
State the basis for your assertion that the analyses are
" perfunctory, outdated and unreliable".
e.
Have you reviewed the Applicants' FSAR with respect to the discussion of the ability of the Comanche Peak " Spent Fuel Pool area" to "withstcr.d the effects of tornadoes"? If so, please answer the following cuestions:
1.
Do you object to any of the information, data or analysis contained or referenced.therein with respect to the discussion'of the " Design Basis Tornado"?
ii.
If your answer to i. is in the affirmative, please specify those objections by identifying the sections in the FSAR to which you object and the substance of your objections.
iii. What are your bases for your objections identified in-ii.?
iv.
If your answer to i. is in the affirmative, please identify with specificity the information, data and/or' analysis which_ you contend Applicants must consider with respect to the "DesignBasis-Tornado"'tosatisfyyourobjectionsin6(a).
v.
What is your basis for your. response to iv.?
- f. - What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that the analyses upon which the Comanche. Peak " Design Basis Tornado" is based are not " perfunctory, outdated and unreliable"?, State the basis for your position in this regard.
g.
What do you. contend the'NRC Staff must do to demonstrate that the analyses upon which theLComanche Peak " Design Basis Tornado' is.
n based are not " perfunctory, outdated and unreliable "? - State the basis for your position in this regard.
i l
. o
- h. h.
Specify the NRC requirements (e.g., statutes or regulations) which you contend are not met because "the analyses upon which the Design Basis Tornado (DST) is based are " perfunctory, outdated and unreliable".
State the basis for your position in this regard.
C6-11.
As to. Contention 6b:
a.
Identify the " loading analyses" referred to in the contention.
b.
Define what is meant by " loading analyses, based on the Design Sasis Tornado".
c.
Define what is meant by the term "inaccrecriate" as it is used in contention 6.b.
d.
Describe the " tornado-generated missile" referred to and state the basis for the assertion that such a missile could be generated bj a tornado and could strike the Comanche Peak " Spent Fuel Pool area".
e.
Have you reviewed the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Repcrt'("F5AR")? If so, please answer.the following questions.
i.
Do you object to any of the information, data or analysis contained or. referenced therein with respect to "the loading analyses based on _the Design Basis Tornado"?
ii.
If your response to i. is in the affirmative, please 1
specify your objections by identifying the sections of the FSAR to which you object and the substance of your objections.
'iii. -What are your bases for your responses to 1. and ii.?-
~
P
- f. -What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that the " loading analyses based on the _ Design Basis Tornado" accropriately con-
.~
sider "the potential _ loading combination of the DET and a tornado-generated
' missile"? State the basis lfor your position'in this regard.
..
- a.
mm.
.a.
a m-
.a-
a
't
.... g.
What do you contend the NRC Staff must do to demonstrate that the " loading analyses based on the Design Basis Tornado (DST) appropriately consider "the potential loading combination of the DET and a tornado-generated missile"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
h.
Specify the NRC requirements (such as statutes or regulations' which you contend are not met because the " loading analyses based on tr.e Design Basis Tornado (DBT)" are inappropriate because they fail to consider tne potential loading conbination of the DET and a tornado-generated rissile".
State the basis for your position in'this regard.
C6-12.
As to Contention 6.c:
1 a.
Define what is meant by " assignment of a loading fa: tor of 1.0." and " load combination ecuations incorporating tornado loadings".
b.
Describe specifically and in detail the " normal anc accident conditions" referred to in'the contention. Specify the " accident conditions" to which you refer.
How would " normal conditions" differ from "accidert conditions"?
c.
State what is meant by the term " unacceptable" as it is used in the-contention.
d.
State the basis for your assertion that "the assignmer.t of
~
a loading factor of 1.0 for load combination equations incorporating tornado loadings in combination'with ' normal and accident conditions' is unacceptable' e.
Have you reviewed Applicants' FSAR? If so, please answer the following_ questions.
- i. Do jou object to any of the information, data or analysis contained lor re'erenced therein with respect to "the assignment of a loading factor of'l.0 for load combination ecuations incorporat-l.ing' tornado loadings in combination with normal and accident conditions?
.... i i If your response to a. is in the affirmative, please specify your objections by identifying the sections of the FSAR to which you object and the substance of your objections, i i i. What are the bases for your responses to 1. and ii.?
f.
What do you contend the Applicants must do to demonstrate that "tne assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load combination equations incorporating tornado loadings in combination with normal and accident con-diti0ns" is " acceptable"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
g.
Wnat do you contend the NEC Staff must do to demonstrate.
that "the assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load combination eQJatiors incorocrating tornado loadings in combination with normal and accident con-ditiens" is " acceptable"? State the basis for your position in this regard.
h.
Specify the'NRC requirements which you contend are not satis-fied be:ause of "the assignment of a loading factor of 1.0 for load combi-
- nation equations. incorporating tornado loadings in combination with normal and accident conditions". State the basis for your position in this regard.
~
1 C6-13.
As to Contention 6.d:
a.
Define what is meant by the phrases "DBT parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1", "less conservative" and "the parameters found in NRC Regulatory' Guide 1.76.c.2.", as those phrases are used in the contention.
b.
State the basis for ycur assertion in Contention E.d. 'that "the DST parameters used in FSAR Section.3.3.2.1 are less conservative than the parampters -f ound in NRC-Regulatory Guide 1.76.c.2".
Have you reviewed Applicants' FSAR Section 3.3.2.l?
If so, c.
please answer the following interrogatories:
Do you object to any of the informatien, data or analyses-
~ i f
- contained or referenced therein-regarding "the DST 1 parameters"?
e r=_y e
r
.mu
-- +> sr
s,,.. ii.
If your response to i. is in the affirmative, please specify your objections by describing the aspects of Section 3.3.2.1 which you find objec'ionable.
iii. What are the bases for your responses to i. and ii?
d.
Do you contend that Applicants are required to adhere to the
" parameters found in NRC Guide 1.76.c.2? If so, state the basis for your onsition.
e.
Do you assert in Contention 6(d) that "the D5T parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1" are unsatisfactory because they are "less conservative than the parameters found in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76.c.2."?
If so, state the basis for your position.
f.
What do you contend Applicants must do to demonstrate that "the DST parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1" are not "less conservative than the parameters found in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76.c.2."?
State the basis for your position in -this regard.
g.
What do you contend the NRC Staff must do to demonstrate that "the DST parameters used in. O ?. Section 3.3.2.1" are not "less con-servative than the parameters found in NRC Reguistory Guide 1.76.c.2."?
. State the basis for your position in this regard.
h.
What do you contend the NRC Staff must do to demonstrate that "the DST. parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1."' are acceptable for the design
. of the Comanche Peak facility? State 'the b' asis for your position in this regard.
i.
. hat do-you contend the Applicants must do to demonstrate that W
i "the DBT parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1." are acccctable for the design
.of the Comanche Peak facility? State the basis fo;r your oosition in this
-regard.
t __
27 -
- j. Soecify those NRC requirements which you contend are not satisfied because "the DST parameters used in FSAR Section 3.3.2.1 are less conservative than the parameters found in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76.c.2."?
State the basis for your position in this regard.
Contention 7 Statement of Contention-Applicants have failed to adequately evaluate whether the rock
overbreak" and subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout have impaired the ability of Category 1 structures to withstand seismic cisturbances.
(CFUR 6)
C7-1.
Describe the rock "overbreak" referred to in the contertion ard state the basis for your assertion that such an overbreak has occurred.
C7-2.
Describe the " subsequent fissure repair using concrete grout" referred to in the contention.
C7-3.
Define specifically and in detail the " seismic disturbances"
-referred to-in the conte
- tion.
C7 4 Define ~ what is meant by the pnrase'" impaired the ability of Category.I' structures to withstand seismic disturbances", as it is used'in the contention.
4 C7-5. - Describe.specifically the " Category I structures" referred to and state the basis fer your assertion.that the " rock overbreak.and
o.. o 9
UN;TED STATES!0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,.ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50 345
)
50 446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CERTAIN STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR CFUR OF JANUARY 14, 1981" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk,.through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Cennission internal mail system, this 31st da.' of March,1931:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Administrative sudge West Texas Legal Services Atomic. :f;iy 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. Renick,' Administrative Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Judge.
Atonic' Safety and Licensing Board P 0. Box 12548, Capital Station 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Austin, TX-78711 6801 1
State College, PA n
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 5202' 7
Debevoise & Liberman Dallas,.TX 120017th Street, N.W.
~
. Washington, DC 20036 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq.
4021 Prescott Avenue Mrs. Juanita-Ellis Dallas, TX 75219
'. President ( CASE -
-1426-South-Polk Street-Dallas, TX 75224-8
o.. s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board D:cketing 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 I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. fiuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, DC 20555 I
%. a.. m. t L.u l.J n in.
(.'a.,; > y ;
Marjofie Ulnan Rothscniia Counsel for fRC Staff
.