ML20008G119

Supplemental Answers to First Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce.Intervenor Reserves Right to Further Suppl Answers Due to Inability to Propound Necessary Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20008G119
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/08/1981
From:	Fouke R CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8107020291
Download: ML20008G119 (10)

Text

f s-f _

~'N y May 8,1981

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g o)

/

In the Matter of i j 'h Cocg

= l - -- , U '-

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING i Docket Nos. 50-445 t :44'/ J y%

gI > -11 COMPANY, et al~~ i 50-446 3 C' i \ ,h %etty y' (Comanche Peak Steam Electric i (Application for ' *1, ofge$eh)dgWee Ecc c

Station, Units 1 and 2)  ! Operating license) .p w

CFUR'S SUPPLEMENT TO ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRJT SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CFUR AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE COMES NOW CFUR, one of the Intervenors in this proceeding and files this Supplement to Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CFUR and Requests to Produce.

To a large extent, complete answers to many of Applicants' Interrogatories are dependent on CFUR receiving proper discovery from the Appliccnts. Since CFUR has not been aole to propound all necessary discovery to the Applicants and since the Applicants have been largely evasive in the discovery completed, CFUR reserves the right to further supplement its answers as may be required by subsecuent developments.

SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS Interrogatory 1.

The Applicants have chosen to include in the application for an operating license a number of computer codes to justify, in part, the requirements of 10 CFR 150.5~(a). The basis for the codes are most probably stated in a number cf reports referenced in the FSAR. The Staff has ostensibly looked at a number of the codes 0%

(with associated reports) and evidently put their stamp of approval on these. $

0I 81oy ou ogy G

e9;;- u,

. _ _ __  :==W* 'GT _

However, a number of the codes (with associated reports) are evidently new and have not been blessed with NRC Staff approval.

In order to verify a mathematical representation of the real world, it is necessary to establish the accuracy of the predictions of the math model as measured from some recognized standard. The most recognized standard is the results of a controlled experiment. The large break series of experiments conducted at the LOFT facility repres,ent one source of experimental data. The small break series conducted at the same site represent a second set of experimental data.

CFUR submits that these results should represent, at least in part, the recognized standard referred to above. Yet, CFUR has seen no reference to any such standard as of yet.

Instances of goofs in the use of computer codes have been experienced - e.g.

Surry-2. A large number of codes have not yet been reviewed by the Staff. A review for app!!cability is clearly inadequate to make the findings required in 10 CFR !50.57(a). Thirty-three codes have been listed as being in this status. Some codes have possibily since been reviewed, but certainly not all.

See Supplement to Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For Tair '

'~

- Utility Regulation (CFUR), May 7, 1979 (Contention 2-A); Report of CFUR's Position On Each Contention: April 10, 1980 (CFUR 2-A); and Transcript of Prehearing Conference April 30,1980 (CFUR 2-A).

CFUR reserves the right to modify this explanation of Contention 2 after the scope is further defined by the discovery process. See Pennsylvania Power & Light Comoany and Allegheny Electric Coooerative. Inc. (Suscuehanna Steam Electric Station. Units 1 and 2), (ALAB - 613, NRC (September 23. 1980), slip op.

at 30.

-2 I

l i

12. Section 1.6.of the CPSES/FSAR; Amendment 7.

15. Inadequate discovery at this time.

17. Section 1.6 of the CPSES/FSAR, Amendment 7.

20. . Inadequate discovery at this time.

23. Inadequate discovery at this time.

24. Demonstrate absolute accuracy of the prediction of the computer codes. Prove that the physical realm,of operation is replicable and predictable in accordance with what is stated in the report and/or computer code.

25. See response to Interrogatory 24 (as supplemented).

26. .In order to verify a mathematical representation of the real world, it is necessary to establish the accuracy of the predictions of the math model as -

measured from some recognized standard. The most recognized standard is the results of a controlled experiment. Both large and small break experiments have been conducted at the LOFT facility. CFUR contends that the results of these experiments should represent, in part, the recognized standard referred to above.

~

See answer: to Interrogatory 1; IEEE Std. 100-1977 and IEEE Std. 268-T979;-

i 10 CFR iS0.34(b).

27. Provide suitable verification to Staff with proof.

28. Check to insure that the absolute accuracy of the predictions of the computer codes are as claimed by Applicants. This would often entail independent verification.

. 2 9. The only way for the reports and codes to be used in the regulatory process is for the Applicants to prove suitable verification and the NRC Staff to evaluate the proof and independently verify the results.

i l

i

30. See responses to 24 and 27 (as supplemented). ,

31. See responses to 25 and 28 (as supplemented).

32. See' responses to 26 and 29 (as supplemented).

33. The' term '" conclusions" refers to final decisions,- reasoned deductions or reasoned inferences both prospective and retrospective in nature.

Taken in _ context with the statement "thus conclusions based upon these computer codes are invalid," the term " conclusions" refers in particular to prospective reasoned deductions er inferences reached from use of the computer codes which would lead to erecneous final decisions.

The et.aclusions CFUR is most concerned with are those to be made by the Hearings Examiner in regard to-compliance with 10 CFR {50.57(a).

However, CFUR does not acknowledge the . validity of any conclusion, retrospective or prospective, based on computer codes -incorporating reports not suitably verified and formally accepted - whether they are or have been mcdc by 'he Applicent::, St:ff or anycnc cIsc.

34. See response to interrogatory 33 (as supplemented).

^

r5. The conly way conclusions can be valid is if the premises upon which the conclusions are based are proper and verifiable.

i  ; 3 9.' Inadequate discovery at this time.

40c. See . response to Interrogatories 12 and 17.

46. - CFUR has had inadequate discovery to determine the Applicants' intended meaning of " review" in Interrogatory 43 and is therefore unable to answer that

' Interrogatory and Interrogatory 46, which is conditioned or. Interrogatory 43, at this time.

E -

h_.__~ -

_ 2 l49. Since CFUR'does not know Applicants' purpose as referenced in Interrogatories 47 and 48, CFUR has insufficient knowledge. to answer Interrogatory 49 which is conditioned on Interrogatories 47 and 48.

52.. . Inadequate discovery at this time. -

t

54. See response to Interrogatory 52 (as supplemented). .

56. See response to Interrogatory 52 (as supplemented).

' 61. Unknown at' this time.

i62. ' Inadequate' discovery at . this time.

~ 6 3. Is the absence of clarification by the Applicants, CFUR construes "NRC

-requirements" in the context of this Interrogatory to.mean Code vf Federal

~

Regulations. 10 -CFR {50.34;-10 CFR'i50.57 and 10 CFR. !50, Appendix A.

While there are prot, ably other sections which Applicants have not satisfied in this context, CFUR is not aware of them atithis time.

- Interrogatorv 93.

Based en the current s ctus . Of di cevery, CFUR providas the follo,cing f

" specification or retinement of the broadly identified issues" cf Contention 7:

Foreign materiat (including loose rock) thrown into the excavation prior to the

i. .

! pouring of concrete has jeopardized- the ability of CPSES to withstand seismic

distrubances as described elsewhere in the FSAR because air pockets may exist due

, to the presence of such . foreign material.

~

CFUR reserves the right to modify this explanation of Contention 7 after the scope is further defined by the discovery process. See Pennsylvania Power 'z Light

-Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Suscuehanna Steam Electric Station. Units 'I and 2), ALAB-613, NRC (September 23, 1980), slip op.

at 30.

r 6

5-

'n-l?ll2 ' -

g' i

H d

98. Members of CFUR and its attorneys have conducted meetings with respect to Contention 7. The purposes and the results of those meetings were to formulate the issues to be encoumpassed by that Contention; prepare discovery on that Contention, and 'to discuss the ramifications of any facts disclosed.

These meetings have taken place over a period of time beginning shortly before Contention 7 was submitted by CFUR. There are no records of those meetings to pinpoint the dates. Other than CFUR members, its attorneys, and other parties and their attorneys, the only persons present during such meetings were

' George. Clancy and C. A. Thetford.

104. Applicants must determine the amount 'and location of loose rock and other material incorporated into the foundation of CPSES, determine the location and size of any air pockets formed, determine how the above have altered the physical properties of 'the CPSES structure, modify and' verify all applicable computer codes to acce * ' the structural changes in the CPSES structures, and cor. duct further 3... ..ic analysis.

105. See response to Interrogatory 116 (as supolemented).

10S; Inadequate discovery at this - time and inadequate time to perform other necessary preparations of data to respond to the related Interrogatories.

111. Inadequate discovery at this time.

112c. Inadequate discovery at this time.

112e. Due to the overexcavation of the bedrock beneath the foundation of CPSES, CFUR suspects that to save money through the use of less concrete. Applicants incorporated loose rock and other material into the foundation of CPSES.

112f. -See response to Interrogatory 112e (as supplemented).

114. Inadequate discovery at this time.

j w.. +. ,

l l

J O l

115. Yes. As set out in t!.se responses to Interrogatories 104,112 and 116 (as l l

supplemented), incorporation of loose rock and other foreigr. material and the formation of air pockets in the CPSES foundation will affect the static, dynamic and engineering properties of the CPSES structurts.

116. Since loose rock, air pockets and other foreign material have different l structural properties than does solid concrete, their incoporation and format'on in the foundation of CPSES will affect the static, dynamic and engineering properties of the structure.

118. Loose rock, air pockets and other foreign material modify the determination of the static and dynamic engineering properties of the material underlying the site.

120. See responses to Interrogatories 104 and 112 (a' 'upplemented). .

121. Because there appears to be extraordinary fissure repair C SES, CFUR i 1

suspects that Applicants' computer codes do not adequately predict the behavior of the CPSES during an earthquake. Contention 7 is broader than I

fissure repatr. ,

1

~ ~

122. Yes. Should surface or subsurface subsidence, uplift or collapse occur beneath ~

CPSES, the presence of loose rock and aber material and the formation of air pockets in the foundation of CPSES will advarsely affect the static, dynamic and engineering properties of CPSES. I 123. See response to Interogatory 116 (as supplemerited). i 125. Inadequate discovery at this time.

127. Inadequate discovery at this time.

129. Inadequate discovery at this time.

1 132. Inadequate discovery at this time. I

?

.. . - . ~ ...

133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 143a , 143 c, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155,158,160,161,163,164,165, and 167.

CFUR is unable to proceed further at this time with responses to Applicants' If it becomes able to proceed, Interrogatories addressed to Contention 8.

CFUR will provide responses to Applicants' Interregatories addressed to Contentibn 8 as soon as practicable.

CERTIFICATE I declare (or certify, verify or state) under penalty of perjury that the preceding CFUR's _ SUPPLEMENT TO ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CFUR AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE are true' of my own

- knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to that, I be!!cve them to be trae.

. 6 %

RICH ARD L. FOUKE G

w It -

f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.In the Matter of {

l TEXAS ' UTILITIES GENERATING i Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et _al

( 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 4 (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) 1 Operating License)

CERTIFICATE OF SER\' ICE

. I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "CFUR's SUPPLEMENT TO ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS' FIkST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CFUR AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE" were served upon the following persons by deposit in the . United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 8th day of May,1981:

Valentine B. Dcale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety Chairman. Atomic' Safety and and Licensing Board Panel-Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 2'1036 Washingten, D.C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds,' Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and

' Debevoise & Liberman Licensing Appeal Panel - - - - - -

1200 - lith Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatery Commission Washington. D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. ' 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

i- Atomic Safety and Licensing rffice.of the' Executive Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 State College, Pennsylvania 16801

Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection Division

. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Bo:< 1254S

, . Commission . . Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711

i. -

~~ +. ? > -

j.*g. .

- _ x =W - W. _

Mr. Richard L. Fouke Mrs. Juanita Ellis ,.'

CFUR President, CASE 1668B Carter Drive 1426 South Polk Street Arlington, Texas 76010 Dallas, Texas 75224 Jcffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay .

4021 Prescott Aver.ue West Texas Legal Services Dallas, Texas 75219 100 Main Street (Lawyers Building)

Fert . Worth, Texas 76102 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Mr. Arch C. McColl, III Docketing & Service Branch The Katy Building, Suite 302 U.S. Nuclee- Regulatory 701 Commerce Street Commission Dallas, Texas 75202

Washington, D.C. 20555 y

RICHARD L. FOUKE

. .. . - . ~ . .. . .-

4