ML20010F499
| ML20010F499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1981 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109100292 | |
| Download: ML20010F499 (16) | |
Text
i Wb S g\\hF3 6
9goA 9/8/81 9
SN 9
]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISr, ION N4f p
A G
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the flatter of BOSTON EDIS0N C0f!PANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim fluclear Generating Station, Unit 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO COMl10NWEALTH'S FIRST SET OF INTERR0GATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF RELATIVE TO TMI ISSUES The Staff, reserving its right to Board rulings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii), voluntarily answers the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' First Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff Relative to TMI Issues (August 19,1981) to the extent that it has no objection on other grounds. The Staff does have one general objection to the Commonwealth's interrogatories:
to the extent that the Ccamonwealth requests the Staff to " identify each document... of which you are aware which supports your answer," preparation of a complete response would require Staff to review documents (perhaps extensive) beyond those relied upon in its answers.
The Staff has, therefore, confined itself to an identification of those documents upon which it relied in the preparation of its responses.
Interrogatory No. 1 For each and every recommendation and requirement contained in NUREG-0578, at pages 6-20 and Appendix A, list the requirement and indicate whether, in the Staff's opinion, the Applicants' construction permit application, including the PSAR and amendments thereto, satisfies d
8109100292 810908 I
DR ADOCK 05000471 h8 I h
PDR j
s.
said requirement. Whether your response for any given requirement is in the affimative or negative, explain in detail the reasons for your answer, identifying each fact upon which you rely and each document, and the particular parts thereof, of which you are aware which supports each fact so 1,dentified.
Objectiori The NRC Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the recommendations contained in NUREG-0572 do not represent the Ti1I-related requirements which the Commission has determined to apply to construction permit applications. By action taken on August 27, 1981, the Commission has approved a final rule for THI-related requirements for construction pemit (and manufacturing license) applications which adopts the recommendations of NUREG-0718, Rev.1 in the respects relevant to the Pilgrim application. The information sought in this interrogatory cannot, therefore, be relevant to any issue which may be admitted in this proceeding nor calculated to lead to the discovery of such information.
See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(1).
Interrogatory No. 2 For each Action Plan Item listed in NUREG-0660 and designated therein as applying to construction permit applications which does not appear in NUREG-0578 or NUREG-0718, Rev.1, Appendix B, please list each requirement set forth in NUREG-0660 under such item and indicate whether, in the Staff's opinion, the Applicants' construction pemit application, including the PSAR and amendments thereto, satisfies said requirement.
Whether your response for any given requirement is in the affimative or negative, explain in detail the reasons for your answer, identifying each fact upon which you rely and each document, and the particular parts thereof, of which you are aware which supports each fact so identified.
Objection See objection to Interrogatory 1.
NUREG-0660 is in the same position as NUREG-0578, with respect to the interrogatory posed.
Interrogatory No. 3
The Supplenentary Infonnation to the Commission's proposed Final Rulo on the application of lessons learned from the TMI accident to construction permit and manufacturing license applications, as set forth in Eisenhut's letter of July 14, 1981 to all such applicants, states that "some elements.[in the TMI Action Plan have not been acted upon and thus may be required, of construction permit applicants] at a future date." Please identify all such elements and describe in detail the Staff's and/or Comnission's plan and schedule for action thereon.
Identify all documents of which you are aware which support your answer.
Response
The recommendations of the THI Action Plan (NUREG-0660) not included as CP-stage requirements in the proposed rule attached to the July 14, 1981 Eisenhut letter, are among the iterns identified in Appendix A. to NUREG-0718 Revision 1.
Any additional requirements based upon recommendations of the TMI Action Plan which may be considered for application to CP applicants would have to be the subject of later Commission consideration.
Interrogatory No. 4 Applicants have committed in PSAR Amendment 43 to perfonaing a site / plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).
In the opinion of the Staff, will the PRA be scheduled so that it will be feasible to incorporate into the plant design any modification which might be indicated by the results thereof? If not, list all such modifications which might be precluded or rendered infeasible. Whether your answer is in the affinnative or negative, explain the reasons for your answer in detail, identifying each fact upon which you rely and each document, and the particular parts thereof, of which you are aware which supports your answer.
Response
Yes. As discussed in Amendment 43 to the Pilgrim Unit 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, a program schedule is being developed by the applicant which will use int.:nnediate PRA results to coor inate with the d
construction schedule. This schedule coordination ensures that the
~
benefits of the internediate PRA can be utilized in construction and that there will not be an cxcessive impact on project cost in the long run.
The,intermeo: ate PRA results will be available approximately one year after issuance of the construction permit and will be used to identify design modifications prior to the completion of PRA, which will be completed within two years after issuance of the construction permit.
Based on f.his timing, the NRC Staff believes that it will be feasible to incorporate into the plant design any modification identifed by the PRA '
resul ts.
As discussed in Supplement No. 6 to the Pilgrim 2 Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC Staff has cr.luded that the applicant's commitment to respond to Item II.B.8(1) of NUREG-0718, Revision 1 (which establishes the requirement to perform a PRA) is acceptable.
I'iterrogatory No.5 The transcript of the July 8,1981 meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Pilgrim 2 indicates, at p. 73, that in the Staff's opinion, Pilgrim 2's current two-pump EFW system i; " marginal" and that the Applicants will be examining a three-pump system as part of their PRA.
Please describe in detail the bases upon which the Staff will decide, following the Applicants' analysis, whether the three-pump system must be adopted.
Also indicate whether the current two-pump system meets the Staff's acceptance criteria as outlined in NUREG-0022, Supp. No. 6, at p. 30.
Respone The applicant has not yet submitted the auxiliary feedwater system (AFWS) design review and reliability analysis for Pilgrim Unit 2.
The l
NRC Staff will evaluate the applicant's submittal when it becomes available. The resulting AFWS design will be acceptable if it meets the requirements of Standard Review Plan Section 10.4.9 and Branch Technical Position ASB 10.1 and its referenced General Design Criteria.
In meeting I
a
these General Design Criteria, the AFWS must also meet the generic recommendations of NUREG-0635, " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transient,s and Snall-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accidents in Combustion Engineering-Designed Operating Plants."
In addition, the applicant must perform a reliability analysis as part of its reevaluation of the AFWS in accordance with Item II.E.1.1 of flVREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" in which has been carried over as a requirement in Item II.E.1.1 of NUREG-0718, Revision 1.
The applicant stated in Amendment 43 to the Pilgrim Unit 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report that the AFWS is being evaluated as part of the probabilistic risk assessment program required by Item II.B.8(1) of NUREG-0718, Revision 1.
The applicant also indicated in Amendment 43 that a three pump system will be included in the evaluation.
The results of the reliability analysis will be acceptable if the AFWS has an unreliabiliaty in the range of 10-4 to 10-5 per demand for the events of loss of main feedwater (LMFW), and LMFW with loss of offsite power. A reasonably low unreliability for the event of LMFW with loss of all AC power must also be shown. Either a two pump or three pump system will be acceptable provided that it can be demonstrated that the selec+ed system meets all the requirements stated above.
As disucssed in Supplement N;. 6 to the Pilgrim 2 Safety Evauation l
Report, the NRC Staff has concluded that the information and commitments provided by the applicant in Amendment 43 are acceptable in meeting the j
requirements of Item II.E.1.1 of NUREG-0718 Revision 1.
Interrogatory No. 6
.~
i I
e 6-The Applicants have committed in PSAR Amendment 43 to conducting a number of additional studies or evaluations and submitting additional or modified system designs on the basis thereof. With respect to each such study state the Staff's opinion as to whether it will be feasible to incorporate into the plant design any modification which might be indicated 'by the results thereof.
Identify any design modifications j
uhich might be indicated by said study but which, in the opinion of the Staff, might be precluded or rendered infeasible by the time the study is 3
completed.
Explain your answers in. detail, identifying each fact upon which you rely and each document, and the particular parts thereof, of i
which you are aware which supports your answer.
Response
Paragraph (a) of 10 C.F.R. 50.35 pr.ovides that the Commission may issue a construction permit if the Commission finds that (1) further technical or design information that may be required to complete the safety analysis and which can reasonably be left for later consideration will be supplied in the final safety analysis report and (2) safety features or components which require research and development have been described by the applicant and a research and developmes: program will be conducted to resolve any safety questions associated with such features
{
or components if there is reasonable assurance that such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved by the date the construction of the facility is to be completed.
The " requirement category assignments" of NUREG-0718, Revision 1, were established to reflect the aforementioned provisions of the Commission's regulations.
In addition, NUREG-0718, Revision 1 prescribes more restrictive time limits for the completion of certain studies to ensure that any design modifications that might be indicated by the results of these studies would not be precluded or rendered infeasible by the time the studies are completed.
1 i
w ----
g 4
,. -, +
rw--
..--a e
=
w
Tr.e flRC Staff has reviewed Amendment 43 to the Pilgrim Unit 2 Prelininary Safety Analysis Report to ensure compliance with the provisions of NUREG-0718. Revision 1 in this regard. As discussed in Supplement No. 6 to the Pilgrim 2 Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC Staff has concluded that the infonnation and commitments provided by Boston Edison Company are in compliance with the provisions of NUREG-0718, Revision 1.
Therefore, the NRC Staff believes that the results of the additional studies or evaluations and any additional or modified system designs resulting therefrom could be incoporated into the plant design.
This applies to all of the additional studies or evaluations to which the applicant has co: witted in PSAR Anendment 43. Our answer would be no different were we to address each study separately.
Interrogatory 7 Describe in detail all construction pennit conditions which the Staff believes should be imposed relative to the tining of any of the studies which the Applicants have committed to perform.
Response
The timing of studies which the Staff believes should be carried out prior to filing of the Final Safety Analysis Report to satisfy the requirements in NUREG-0718, Revision 1, is set forth in Supplement No. 6 to the Safety Evaluation Report at the point where each study is discussed. The submission requirement is either in terms of a period certain from the issuance of the CP (e.g., the 2 year period for preparation and submittal of the PRA) or in terms of submittal prior to procurement in question (e.g., equipment to monitor reactor vessel water level). The Staff proposes to impose these timing provisions as conditions on the construction permit for Pilgrim 2.
Interrogatory 8 Explain in detail the bases for all changes in " requirement category assignucats" between the original flVREG-0718 and flVREG-0718 Revision 1.
Identify pli documents of which you are aware which discuss or support changes t.o those assignments.
Response to Darrell G. Eisenhut's July 14, 1981 letter to all Applicants with pending construction permit and manufacturing license applications (a copy of which was sent to the Commonwealth as a party to this proceeding) explains the changes made between the original flVREG-0718, dated August 1980, and flUREG-0718, Revision 1.
This explanation includes the changes in requirement category assignments.
Please refer to Enclosure 1 for an explanation of such changes.
Interrogatory 9 In the opinion of the Staff, should the Applicants be required, prior to rece. ving a construction permit, to document all deviations from the Standud Review Plan? Explain the reasons for your answer in detail.
If your answer depends in any way on the timing or outcome of the current Commission rulemaking proceeding on this subject, explain the reasons for that perceived dependence.
In any event, provide any information available to the Staff and not evidenced by Federal Register notices as to the status of that rulemaking proceeding, the likely product thereof (especially, the manner in which the rule will apply pending construction applications), and the likely date of promulgation of a final rule.
Identify all documents of which you are aware which support your answer.
Response
The Staff's present position (" opinion") is that applicants in the position of Boston Edison Company should not be required to document deviations from the Standard Review Plan (SRP) prior to issuance of construction permits. That position was taken in a proposed final rule presented to Commission on January 8,1981 (SECY-81-13) in a rulemaking
~
proceeding on " Plan to Require Licensees and Applicants to Document Deviations From the Standard Review Plan." 45 Fed. Reg. 67099 (October 9,1980).
The Staff's position is based upon its proposal to the Commission that all such applicants will be required to provide complete documentation of deviations from the revised SRP (expected issuance September 1981), or later revision, as appropriate, prior to issuance of operating licenses.
The Commission has directed the Staff to focus on the applicability of SRP-related requirements to operating license applicants. Memorandum of June 22, 1981, from Commission's Secretary to Executive Director for Operations. The Staff expects to present a final proposed rule to the Cormaission in risponse to this Memorandum in September 1981, but cannot predict the likely outcome of this (the October 9,1980) rulemaking, nor the date for final promulgation of the rule.
The Staff is also unable to predict the likely outcome of the rulemaking noticed on October 2, 1980, as it bears upon SRP-related requirements for CP applicants.
Interrogatory 10 Identify all individuals whom the Staff intends to call as witnesses on TitI issues and provide their qualifications. Also provide for each such individual a list of all proceedings of any kind before any tribunal in which said individual has testified and describe the subject matter of his or her testimony on each such occasion. Also provide for each such individual a list of all reports, studies, papers, articles, and books, whether published or not, and whether a draft or not, relating in any way to the TMI accident, the lessons learned therefrom, or any of the requirements listed in your responses to interrogatories 1 or 2 above, prepared in part or in whole by said individual or by a corporation, partnership, or other organization [other than the NRC] of which said individual is an employee, officer, director, partner, or agent.
~
Response
The Staff is unable to identify the witnesses it intends to offer on TMI-related issues, since the Comonwealth has not yet fi!ed its proposed contentions on THI-related issues and the Staff has not yet completed its assessment of the proposed contentions on this subject filed by the Clectons. When decisions have been made on the witnesses who will be offered, we will update this response.
Interrogatory 11 PSAR Amendment 43 states, at p.1C-48, that the "present Pilgrim Unit 2 design includes much of the instrumentation that meets the requirements of Rev. 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.97."
List every instrument currently within +;ie Unit 2 design which, in the Staff's opinion, meets the requirements of R. G.1.97, Rev. 2, indicating in each case the particular requirement which it satisfies. Provide a separate list of all requirements of R. G.1.97, Rev. 2 which, in the Staff's opinion, are not satisfied by the current design.
Response
Paragraph (a)(3) of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.34 requires that an applicant for a construction permit include in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report a description of the preliminary design of the facility including the principal design criteria for the facility. Criteria ecceptable to the NRC Staff for instrumentation to monitor plant variables and systems during and following an accident in a light-water-cooled nuclear power plant are described in Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2
" Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident."
The NRC Stiff does not review the details of tne instrumentation that must meet tne recommendations of Regu'atory Guide 1.97, Revision 2,
at the construction permit utage of review since these details would necessarily be incomplete due to the status of the plant design and would be subject to change due to the maturation of the plant design and the evolutibn of the instrumentation.
However, the NRC Staff does review dt the construction pemit stage of review applicants' commitments to comply with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, and justifications for any exceptions taken thereto at that stage.
Boston Edison Company has stated in Amendment 43 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report that the Pilgrim Unit 2 instrumentation to monitor plant variables and systems during and following an accident either is designed or will be designed in accordance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, or suitable alternatives will be provided for those instruments that challenge the state of the art.
Further, the Applicant has committed to provide for NRC Staff review prior to procurement, conceptual design informaticn and justification of the adequacy of any alternative instrumentation.
O discussed in Supplement No. 6 to the Pilgrim 2 Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC Staff has concluded that the information and commitments provided by the Applicant meet the requirements of the Comission's regulations for the construction permit stage of review.
The Staff is not able at this time, therefore, to list every instrument within the Pilgrim 2 design which meets the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, nor to list any recommendations of that Regulatory Guide which are not satisifed by the current design. The Staff will review at the operating license stage the details of the i
instrumentation against the recomaendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2.
The Applicant has committed in Acendment 43 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report to provide that information in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
The objections stated above have been taken by the undersigned counsel for the NRC Staff.
The members of the Staff identified in the attached affidavits were responsible for the preparation of the responses, as indicated.
Respectfully submitted, 6
- . h s
Steph H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland this 8th day of September, 1981 l
9/08/81 UtilTED STATES OF AftERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!4t11SSION
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of BOSTON EDIS0N C0hPAtlY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2)
AFFIDAVIT OF DIN 0 SCALETTI I am the Project flanager in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's Division of Licensing with responsibility for the review of the construction permit application for Pilgrim Unit 2.
I was responsible for the preparation of the Staff's responses to interrogatories 3, 7, 9, and 10 of the " Commonwealth of Massachusetts' First Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff Relative to TMI Issues."
The responses given are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
~-
Dino Scaletti Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of ptember, 1981
'wd7zt.JM b
d Notar'f Public/
/
" j / NM 4 /
My Commission Expires/
9/08/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0!11C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the flatter of BOSTON EDISON C0!!PANY, FT AL.
)
Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF CECIL 0. THOMAS I have served as the Technical Coordinator for the NRC Staff's review of infomation submitted by "near-tem" construction pemit applicants (which includes Boston Edison Company for Pilgrim Unit 2) to show compliance with the requirements imposed on CP applicar.ts as a result of the TMI-2 accident.
I was responsible for the preparation of the Staff's responses to interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 of the " Commonwealth of Massachusetts' First Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff Relative to TMI Issues."
The responses given are true and accurate to the best of my knowle('
and belief.
l l
L2cWO YJWW Cecil 0. Thomas j
l Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of September, 1981
]ril V
Y 1
a N6taff Publ y y l
My commission Expires:h /, /f/ F yo
"4
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATGRY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the ita'tter of
)>
llI Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2)
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO C0'if10NWEALTH'S FIRST SET OF INTERR0GATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF RELATIVE TO TMI ISSUES",
"AFFI9AVIT,0F CECIL 0. THOMAS", and " AFFIDAVIT OF DINO SCALETTI" in the above-capt'icned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or as indicated by a double asterisk by express nail service or as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission internal mail systen, this 8th day of September,1981 :
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.
The Board of Selectmen Administrative Judge Town of Plymouth 3320 Estelle Terrace Plymouth, MA 02360 Wheaton, MD 20906 William S. Abbott, Esq.
Dr. A. Dixon Callihan 50 Congress Street, Suite 925 Administrative Judge
~ Boston, MA 02109 Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq. **
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Public Protection Bureau Administrative Judge One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Boston,MA 02108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Lester B. Smith Director of Conservation Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Massachusetts Wildlife Federation R. K. Gad III, Esq, P.O. Box 343 Ropes & Gray Natick, MA 01761 225 Franklin Street i
Boston, MA 02110 William S. Stowe, Esq.
l Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Henry Herrmann, Esq.
j 50 Congress Street, Room 1045 Boston, MA 02199 Boston, MA 02108 1
--.,,,y
I
~
2-Mr. and Mrs. Alan R. Clecton Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
22 N ckintosh Street Edward L. Selgrade, Esq.
Inaalin, MA 02038 Massachusetts Governor's Office of Energy Resources Francis S. Wright, Esq.
73 Tremont Street Berman & Lewenberg Boston,itA 02108 211 Congress Street Boston, HA 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel
- Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 D-Steph[nH. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff um O
O 9
y-m __.__
.=
s