ML20033A842
| ML20033A842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | Murphy P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | CITIZENS ACTION FOR SAFE ENERGY, DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111300017 | |
| Download: ML20033A842 (30) | |
Text
-
RELATED CORRTTO. DENCE c
L 00CMETED 8
U.iNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'31 IDV 20 P2:07 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
)
In the Matter of
)
')
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
[
h r
'.Is [&
)
,n
/~r gL s
)
iJ COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO NOV2 719815 10 :
DAARE AND SAFE'S FIRST ROUND OF INTERROGATORIES, m,, m g 3
s COA 04ti$lott f
u, 4 11 Pursuant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commids
's y
Rules of Practice, and in accordance with the agreement 1/
between Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Edison") and DAARE/ SAFE,-
Edison hereby provides the following responses to "DAARE/ SAFE's First Round of Interrogatories to Be Answered by the Commonwealth Edison Compary", dated October 23, 1981.
Unless otherwise stated, documents which Edison has provided for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection are available to DAARE/ SAFE at the offices of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, One First National Plaza, Chicago,
- Illinois, i
lf Attachment A hereto is a letter from Paul M. Murphy, one of Edison's attorneys, to Diane Chavez, representative 4
for DAARE/ SAFE, setting forth the agreement between Edison and DAARE/ SAFE regarding DAARE/ SAFE's First g5o3 Round of Interrogatories.
s
,b 6
8111300017 ' Bi l l 17
~
PDR ADOCK 050004S4 G
4 AN3WERS TO INTERROGATORIES s
Interrogatory 1 I
Why did Commonwealth Edison seek permission from tP.e Illinois Commerce Commission to use a percentage of funds derived from ratepayers for " construction work in progress" on the Byron Nuclear Power Station rather than seeking permission to raise these capital investment funds from more traditional sources such as the sale of stock and bonds?
1 Answer Edison objects to Interrogatory 1 on the grounds that it requests information which is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following 4
response to Interrogatory 1:
Edison will provide for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection the documents identified below.
These documents set forth the bases for Edison's request in its most recent rate case before the. Illinois Commerce Commicsion (ICC Docket No. 80-0546) that a portion of construction work in progress be included in Edison's rate base.
l l
1.
Prepared testimony of Dr. James L. Papas-ICC Docket No. 80-0546.
2.
Prepared testimony of Gerald R.
Benson, " Plant Investment Data and Working Capital Requirements"-
ICC Docket No. 80-0546.
3.
Prepared testimony of Mark D.
Luftig, " Cost of Capital and Rate of Return"-ICC Docket No. 80-0546.
4.
Prepared testimony of Robert J. Schultz, " Background of Application, Financial Condition and Program of the Company"-ICC Docket No. 80-0546.
5.
Prepared testimony of Ralph L. Heumann, " Accounting and Financial Data"-ICC Docket No. 80-0546. -
~
Interrogatory 2 How does Commonwealth Edison plan to reimburse with interest the ratepayers who have contributed capital investment (CWIP) funds for Byron via payment of their electricity use invoices?
Answer In accordance with the agreement between the parties, Interrogatory 2 is rephrased as follows:
"Did Edison have a plan to reimburse the interim rates granted in its most recent rate case, and if so, what was the nature of that plan?"
Edison believes that the interrogatory as initially phrased and as rephrased requests information which is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 2:
In its most recent rate case (ICC Docket No. 80-0546),
Edison requested interim relief from the Illinois Commerce Commission in the form of authority to increase its rates subject to final adjudication of the issues raised in the rate case and, of course, subject to refund in the event the Commission ultimately refused to authorize the increase.
Edison's system of record keeping would have permitted it to trace the amounts paid by its customers pursuant to the Commission's inteiim decision.
In the event the Commission ordered Edison to refund its customers, it would have done so in the manner prescribed by the Commission.
In the absence of specific direction from the Commission, Edison would have probably refunded its existing customers by means of a credit on their bills, and, for customers t
who had moved from Edison's service territory, by means of direct payments in the form of checks.
Interrogatory 3 l
When is Commonwealth Edison going to issue common stock to its ratepayers in an amount equivalent to the expenditures the ratepayers have made on " construction work in progress" i
on the Byron and Braidwood Nuclear Power Stations? 1 u_ _. _
2
Answer Edison believes that the information requested in Interrogatory 3 is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, Edison submits the fol?owing response to Interrogatory 3:
(a)
As is clear from the Illinois Commerce Commission'a final decision in ICC 80-0546, none of the construction I
work in progress. ("CWIP") which the Illinois Commerce Commission authorized to be included in Edison's rate base was associated with the Byron and Braidwood projects.
(b)
Edison has no plans to issue common stock to its rate payers as a direct result of the inclusion of' CWIP in its rate base.
However, as a result of the Illinois Commerce Commission's decision to include CWIP in rate base currently, Edison's future rate base will be lower -than would otherwise be the case because Edison will not be accruing interest during construction associated with that CWIP during the period the CWIP is in rate base.
Interrogatory 4 Why did Commonwealth Edison petition the Illinois Comm0rce Commission in 1980 to relieve it of its obligation to encourage and stimulate energy conservation?
Answer Edison believes that the information requested in this interrogatory requests information that is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 4:
Edison has made available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection the petition and hearing transcript in ICC Docket No. 77-0114 wherein Edison sought to terminate its home insulation financing program, principally because of Edison's customers' demonstrated lack of interest in this program.,
w ww
-,w..
...-.-,--..--,,m,
,. + -
.4 w
.m-.,<--
Interrogatory 5 Should a partial core meltdown, such occurred at TMI in 1979, occur at the Byron Station, exactly how and where does Commonwealth Edison plan to obtain the funds necessary to allow decontamination?
Would Commonwealth Edison seek sources of funding different in nature than those sought by General Public Utilities, the owner of TMI?
If the answer to the latter is affirmative, how would the sources of funding differ from those pursued by GPU?
Answer Edison believes that Interrogatory 5 requests information which is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the follcwing response to Interrogatory 5:
(a)
Chapter 5 of the Byron Station Envirurmental Report, Operating Stage, and in particular, Section 5.8 (beginning a' page 5.8-1) discusses decomissioning and dismantling of the Byron facility.
(b)
Edison plans to perform any required decontamination necessary as a result of operating the Eyron Station.
However, Edison does not have any detailed plans for the specific method of decontamination of the Byron Statien in the event of any highly improbable series of events leading to a partial core melt.
Because of the significant differences between the Three Mile Island and Byron Station design and operating procedures, and due to the actions taken by Edison with respect to its nuclear facilities as a result of the TMI incident, we believe that the possibility of a TMI-type event at Byron is extremely remote.
However, in the unlikely event such an incident were to occur at Byron, we anticipate that the approximately $1 billion of property insurance covering the Byron facility will cover the financing of decontamination at Byron.
Interrogatory 6 In evaluating proposcls for design of the Byron plant reactors, i
cooling system, automated monitoring and control system, and l
A/E studies on construction work; what criteria were considered for possible inclusion in the selection process; of those criteria, which were selected and which were diccarded; and how were the selected criteria weighted?
i f
Answer l
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison ' submits the following response to Interrogatory 6:
Inasmuch as the information regarding the design of the Byron facility is provided in the Byron Station Final Safety Analysis Report, DAARE/ SAFE has agreed to i
review that document.
Although we believe that'DAARE/ SAFE has previously been provided a copy of the FSAR, we will make a copy available.for your inspection.
Interrogatory 7 Why did Commonwealth Edison begin site preparation and ground preparation work on the Byron Nuclear S+.ation before the EIS was completed and the Safety Evaluation Report was 1,
received-by the NRC?
If the answer to this question is that this was Cone because the NRC allowed this procedure, then wezc there any other reasons for this action, and if-so, what?
i Answer Edicon believes that the information requested in this interrogatory is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceading.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 7:
The. predicate to this question is inaccurate.
Site and ground preparation at Byron was performed only after appropriate authorization from the NRC.
Edison encloses herewith copies of the Partial Initial Decision, and a copy of the supplement to the Partial Initial Decision, authorizing the issuance of a limited work authorization for the Byron facility.
These decisions authorized certain site preparation activities prior to the issuance of a construction permit. -. -. -. -
o Interrogatory 8 Commonwealth Edison has been allowed to omit ground water studies from the EIS for the Byron Station on the basis that Commonwealth Edison claims no radioactivity will precipitate into the ground water.
What is the empirical basis for this claim?
Provide detailed evide; a on this point which concludes the impossibility of contaminat a of ground water from any source during normal and abnormal operation of the plant?
Provide also a long-term analysis of routine radioactive venting upon ground water.
Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 8:
Edison, in fact, performed studies of the ground water hydrology of the Byron site, the results of which are reported at PSAR ection 2.4.13.
The ground water monitoring programs for Byron Station are outlined in Chapter 6 of the Byron Station Environmental Report, Operating License Stage.
Section 6.1 covers the pre-operational monitoring programs, and Section 6.2 describes the postoperational monitoring programs.
In addition, FSAR Section 11.2 presents the estimated annual average doses due to liquid releases of radioactivity.
Section 0.2 of the Environmental Report describes the radiological environmental impact from routine operations of the Byron facility.
Section 15.0.12 of the Byron FSAR summarizes the doses associated with emergency releases of radioactive materials in the context of the guidelines contained in 10 CFR Part 100.
Interrogatory 9 Why did Commonwealth Edison fail to initiate a second EIS to submit to the NRC for a second safety evaluation in 1976 after the discovery of the Plum River Fault zone, considering that this major fault which runs 2.4 miles from the reactor site and interconnects with minor faults on the Byron plant L
site was not discovered until after the first and only safety evaluation was completed by the NRC?
If the answer to this question merely refers to an NRC mandate not to do so, provide evidence to counter an assertion that the exclusion from safety evaluation at that time of so major a fault line and its interconnections indicated a continuance of poor maintenance of safety standards, and overall safety oversights, as attested to by Commonwealth Edison's history of cumulative plant operations. i L
Antwer In accordance with the agreerent of the parties, Edison subrits the following response to Interrogatory 9:
The Plum River Fault zone, formerly known as the Savanna Fault and Savanna anticline was, in fact, discussed in PSAR at Section 2.5.1.6.4.2.
The seismology of the Byron site is discussed in general in Section 2.5 of the Byron FSA3.
In particular, the Plum River Fault is addressed in a discussion of minor faults in the vicinity of the Byron site in Section 2.5.1.1.4.2 of the Byron FSAR.
Interroga tory 10 During preconstruction evacuation on the Byron Station, minor faults were found on the plant site right under the reactor foundation.
This base of faults and fractured limestone was grouted with concrete to stablize the foundation.
What alternatives to grouting with cenerete were considered and what were the estimated costs of esch alternative?
Was the possibility of a more securely stable site co..;idered and if so, why was it, and why was it refected [ sic]?
Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Ediscn submits the following response to Interrogatory 10:
The seismology c' the Byron site is discussed generally in Section 2.5 or the Byron FSAR.
The minor displacement faults which were identified du ing excavation at the r
Byron site are discussed in detail in Attachment 2.5C to Chapter 2 of the Byron FSAR.
Interrogatory 11 Please provide a full and Catailed listing of all " licensee event reports" and summary of all " violations" which Commonwealth Edison has been cited for in its plant operations since 1964 by the NRC as being in noncompliance witn Commission regulations.
Include the nature of each citation or event, the remedial action taken for each (with costs included), and a summarization of each which could occur at the Byron plant..
O Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory ll:
1 Edison has ordered from the NRC a computer printout of all licensee event reports relating to all of Edison's operating plants (i.e., Zion, Dresden, and Quad Cities).
This printout is expected to be available by November 20, 1981.
Upon its receipt, Edison will make the printout available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection.
Edison has also made available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection its copies of NRC inspection reports and, where called for, Edison's responses thereto as these are contained in the files of Edison's Nuclear Licensing Office.
Edison has agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE with the total-amount of fines levied by the NRC against Edison.
This information is being gathered and will be made available to DAARE/ SAFE at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Interrogatcry 12 Provide all publicly available information and official comments related to the January, 1978 Federal Grand Jury investigation in criminal indiction [ sic] of Commonwealth Edison and certain of its employees on or about March 26, 1980.
Answer i
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, l
Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 12:
The court case to which the Interrogatory refers is entitled United States of America v. Commonwealth Edison Comaany, Criminal Case Docket No. 80-40002, and was tried.aefore the United States District Court, Central District, Rock Island Division.
A jury rendered a verdict of not guilty with respect to all counts i
filed by the plaintiff.
The court file can be found in i
the archives of the above-mentioned court located in Rock Island, Illinois. l 4
Interrogatory 13 Provide a complete record of official incidence of lax packaging or leakages of radioactive materials experienced by Commonwealth Edison in the transportation of low-level and high-level wastes to and from storage sites.
Indicate the nature of the materials, nature of accident or leakage, and extent of damage for each.
Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 13:
Edison has conducted a search of the files of Edison personnel responsible for supervising the packaging and transportation of waste to storage facilities and has located documents relating to incidents involving packaging and transportation.
These documents are available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection.
Other incidents, which are not discussed in these documents, may be discussed in the documents provided to DAARE/ SAFE in conjunction with Edison's response to Interrogatory 11.
Interrogatory 14 Provide the data base and sources used to determine the dose impacts of projected routine, and projected emergency releases of radioactive materials from the Byron plant.
What are the cumulative dosages of radiation to residents from all operating and projected Commonwealth Edison plants?
Answer In accordence with the agreemant of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 14:
Expected off-site individual doses associated with routine and emergency releases of radioactive material from Byron are tabulated in Chapters 11 and 15 of the Byron FSAR and Chapter 5 of the Byron Environmental Report, Operating License Stage.
FSAR Sections 11.2 and 11.3 present the estimated annual average doses due to liquid and gaseous releases, respectively.
A description of the radiological environmental impact from routine operation is provided in Section 5.2 of the Byron _
Environmental Report, Operating License Stage.
A summary of the doses atsociated with emergency releases in the context of the guidelines eaatained in 10 CPR Part 100 is provided in Section 15.0.12 of the Byron FSAR.
Interrogatory 15 What was the exact schedule of events involved in the practice emergency evacuation drill conducted in September for the Zion Station Nuclear Plant?
Provide, and include the actual events and the deviations from the original plan.
Explain.
Is a similar exercise to b conducted for the Byron plant?
If so, when, and please give as approximate a time table of the events as possible.
j Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 15:
A test of emergency preparedness plans for Zion Station was performed on July 29, 1981.
Federal, state, and local government agencies and Edison participated in this exercise which was observed and critiqued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A copy of the NRC's report regarding this exercise is available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection.
Edison will participate in an exercise involving the Byron Station and appropriate state and local emergency preparedness agencies sometime in late 1982 or in early 1983 but, in any event, prior to receiving an operating license for the facility.
We currently estimate that the exercise will take place sometime in October, 1982.
The exercise will be a full-scale exercise of similar magnitude as that which was conducted at the Zion Station.
Participating government agencies are expected to be the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency and the Department of Nuclear Safety and appropriate departments of local county and local communities.
Agencies from the state of Wisconsin will also likely participate.
Interrogatories 16 and 17 16.
If there is evacuation plan in preparation for Byron, to w.
- c degree will it be limited to the scale evidenced in th' practice evacuation?
Explain.
Is there anything significant to the Byron Plant evacuation planninc hich will differ from those of Commonwealth Edisol.
other plants?
17 Enich of the factors listed in Contention 3 have been considered for inclusion in the Byron evacuation plan, and by what method?
Answers In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatories 16 and 17:
The general requirements regarding emergency plans for nuclear facilities is contained in an NRC/ FEMA document--
NUREG-0654, and is available for your inspection.
With respect to whether the items listed in Contention 3 will be considered in the Byron emergency plan, Edison's response is as follows:
A.
Evacuation of students from Northern Illinois University in DeKalb--DeKalb is approximately 28 miles from the Byron Station, some 18 miles beyond the distance required for evacuation planning by NUREG-0654.
Hence it is quite unlikely that this specific issue will be addressed in the plan.
However, if evacuation or any other protective measures become necessary beyond 10 miles, they would be implemented as an extension of the measures planned for within the 10-mile area.
B.
Acute gasoline shortage--Transporting by means other than gasoline-powered vehicles will not be,
addressed in the Byron emergency plan.
The probability of an acute gasoline shortage of such a magnitude that persons in the evacuation areas could not be moved is considered at this point to be too remote a contingency for planning purposes.
C.
Interface of governmental agencies--There is assurance that the state and local agencies responsible for emergency planning will interface with one another because the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency is responsible for coordinating the drafting of such plans for both the state and local agencies involved.
In addition, NUREG-0654 sets forth requirements and criteria for federal, state, and local emergency plans.
D.
Nonevacuation planning--Evacuation is just one of a series of protective measures addressed in formulating emergency plans.
Other measures which will be addressed include sheltering in buildings, confiscation of food and water which may be contaminated, or directing that certain of these items not be consumed.
E.
Worse case planning--Evacuation is the protective measure designed to protect the public under worse case accident conditions.
Matters such as weather conditions, and the severity of potential radioactive releases are considered in determining the proper manner of effectuating an evacuation.
Interrogatory 18 Provide a summary of all personal injury claims pertaining to the construction work at the Byron Nuclear Power Station, and a summary of all litigation pending at Commonwealth Edison's operating plants.
Include the nature of each claim and resolution reached.
Answer Edison believes that the information requested in Interrogatory 18 is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 18:
To the extent that the information sought in Interrogatory 18 is documented in a Notice of Violation or Licensee Event Report, such information is being provided pursuant to Edison's response to Interrogatory ll.
Int rrogatory 19 Document all design changes and modifications made to the original design specifications for the Byron Nuclear Power Station, including why they were initiated and at what cost.
Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 19:
Edison has made available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection the engineering specifications for construction labor, materials, and equipment.
In addition, Edison has made available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report for the Byron facility the Construction Permit Stage Environmental Report, the Final Safety Analysis Report, and the Environmental Report for the Operating License Stage so as to permit DAARE/ SAFE to make comparisons between the Byron desigr.
as proposed during the construction permit proceedings and the design as presently proposed.
Interrogatory 20 Describe the layout of post tension wires in the containment building at the Byron Nuclear Station.
Document all breakages of the wires which have occurred, their removals, and/or replacements.
Answer Edison believes that the information requested in this Interrogatory is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 20:
Edison has made available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection communications between Edison and the NRC relating to post tension wire incidents at the Byron facility.
Interrogatory 21 What company (s) designed the electrical wiring of the control room for the Byron Nuclear Station, and which installed it?
Describe what connection exists between these companies, if any.
Answer Edison believes that this. Interrogatory requests information which is irrelevant to the issues admitted in this proceeding.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 21:
Sargent and Lundy and Westinghouse Company provided the electrical design of the Byron control room.
Hatfield I
Electric Company is providing the installation labor.
We know of no other connection between these companies.
Interrogatory 22 Concerning DAARE/ SAFE Contention 5, document the basis of the claim asserting that the generating capacity of the Byron Station will be needed within the foreseeable future along the time schedule advanced by Commonwealth Edison.
In light of the NRC's obligation under NEPA to determine if there exists an alternative, environmentally superior means to meet real power needs, describe the alternative means considered in place of the nuclear energy provided by the Byron plant.
Provide the cost estimates and criteria which led to their exclusion for further consideration by Commonwealth Edison.
DAARE/ SAFE has agreed to withdraw Interrogatory 22.
Interrogatory 23 In light of the recent rapid escalations in the costs of nuclear energy production and Commonwealth Edison's traditional assertion that power consumption is inversely related to energy price fluctuations, document Commonwealth Edison's claim that the generating capacity of the Byron plant in addition to current capacity will be economically competitive as opposed to alternative means discussed in above Interrogatory.
Describe how current and further rate hikes and utility costs will not further erode any basis for competitiveness.
Answer Interrogatory 23 requests information relating to the economic reasonableness of Edison's decision to construct and operate the Byron facility.
Considerations such as these have been expressly excluded from the proceeding by the Licensing Board in this case and are therefore not proper subjects for adjudication in this proceeding.
See:
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683 at 691-692 (1980).
Therefore, Edison objects to Interrogatory 23 and refuses to respond thereto absent an order by the Licensing Board requiring it to do so.
Interrogatory 24 Pertaining to Contention 6 (DAARE/ SAFE), has replacement of zirconium cladding material by another material been considered by Commonwealth Edison as a safety precaution?
If so, or if not, why or why not?
Summarize the considerations and cost analyses used to compute replacement.
Answer Because of their superior propertie3 and proven performance, zirconium base alloys are the only cladding materials currently being used in Edison's nuclear reactors.
No serious consideration has been given to the replacement of zirconium base alloys with other cladding materials, for the following reasons.
A prime requirement for light water reactor cladding is a low thermal neutron absorption cross section (less than 0.24 barns) and a reasonably high melting temperature.
Four metallic elements which have these properties are:
aluminum, beryllium, magnesium, and zirconium.
Of these elements zirconium has the highest melting point.
and the best overall corrosion resistance in light vater nuclear reactor operating conditions.
Aluminum and magnesium have relatively low creep strength (i.e.,
ability to withstand deformation at high temperatures) at reactor coolant temperatures, and makes these alloys generally unsuitable for use in light water reactors.
In contrast, zirconium has a high melting temperature (1850 C), outstanding corrosion resistance at reactor operating temperatures, and favorable high temperature mechanical properties.
Consequently, zirconium alloys, mainly zircoloy-2 and zircoloy-4, have been used extensively in nuclear reactors and are the exclusive choices as cladding materials for modern light water reactore.
It is well known that at very high temperatures zirconium reacts with steam to form a surface layer of zirconium oxide and hydrogen.
This reaction has been studied extensively; its temperature and time dependence is well defined, and is factored into the design of reactors and associated safety systems.
Another possible candidate material for light water reactor cladding is stainless steel.
However, stainless steel has lower thermal conductivity, poorer corrosion resistance than zirconium, a much larger thermal neutron absorption cross section, and swells in a fast neutron flux.
This latter phenomenon causes i..-core deformation i
of stainless steel components.
Edison has had limited l
experience with stainless steel cladding material, and because of poor fuel performance replaced stainless steel with zirconium cladding alloys.
Thus, on a technical basis considering the properties of the various possible alloys and based on actual operating j
fuel performance experience, zirconium alloys are the preferred choice as light water reactor cladding alloys.
Interrogatory 25 List and summarize which of the factors raised in DAARE/ SAFE Contention 9 will be addressed in the Safety Evaluaticn Report and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report to be issued in April and May of 1982; including the nature and scope with which each will deal.
l I
l l 1
l
Answer In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Edison submits the following response to Interrogatory 25:
Edison does not know for certain what information the NRC Staff will include in its Safety Evaluation Report or any supplements thereto.
The information which Edison has provided to the NRC Staff in conjunction with the Staff safety review of the Byron facility is contained in the NRC Public Document Room, and is thus available for DAARE/ SAFE's inspection.
Interrogatories 26 and 27 26.
With respect to each contention advanced by DAARE/ SAFE which has been admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, list the following:
A concise statement of the opposing facts for each a.
contention which will be submitted or relied upon at the hearing process, which is currently or will be in the possession of Commonwealth Edison or its agents, together with references to the specific sources and documents and portions thereof which have been relied upon to establish such facts; b.
The identity of each person expected to be called as a witness at the hearing; c.
The subject matter on which each witness is expected to testify; d.
The substance of the witness's testimony.
27.
With respect to each witness identified in Commonwealth Edison's response above, identify each document which a witness will rely upon in whole or in part in the preparation of this testimony or in the development of his position; identify also the witness's qualifications to testify on the subject matter on which the witness will testify.
- Finally, identify all persons who participate in the preparation of the answers, or any portion thereof, to these Interrogatories. __.
In view of Edison's lack of knowledge of the facts which DAARE/ SAFE will rely on to prove its contentions, and thus the facts Edison will have to oppose, Edison and DAARE/ SAFE have agreed that upon receipt of full and complete answers by DAARE/ SAFE to Edison's outstanding Interrogatories, Edison will provide full and complete answers to DAARE/ SAFE Interrogatories 26 and 27.
With respect to the request that Edison identify all persons who participated in the preparation of its responses to the Interrogatories, Edison submits the following response:
Paul M. Murphy and Alan P. Bielawski, Isham, Lincoln & Beale, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, attorneys for Edison, and John Gayley, an administrative assistant at Isham, Lincoln & Beale, were generally involved in the overall preparaticn and coordination of Edison's answers to these interrogatories.
In addition, certain individuals provided information regarding particular interrogatories.
They are as follows:
Interrogatory 2--David Schulz, Commonwealth Edison Company; Harlan Dellsy, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 5--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company; Harlan Dellsy, Commonwealth Edison Company; Cordell Reed, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 8--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 9--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 10--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 11--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison-Company Interrogatory 13--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 14--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 15--John Golden, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 16--John Golden--Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 17--John Golden--Commonwealth Edison Company l
Interrogatory 18--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company i
Interrogatory 19--Ken Ainger, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 20--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 21--Tom Tramm, Commonwealth Edison Company Interrogatory 24--Dennis O'Boyle, Commonwealth Edison Company; Henry Bliss, Commonwealth Edison Company.
COMMO EDISO CO ANY 7
I By
{
'OneofItsAttdrneysjf 4
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Michael I. Miller Paul M.
Murphy Alan P.
Bielawski Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 Dated:
November 17, 1981 Attachment A ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW ON E FIRST N ATIONAL PLAZ A FORTY SECOND FLOOR CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60603 TELEPHONE 312-558 7500 TELEX: 2-528 8 wa$MINGTON OFract November 10, 1981
" * * " " ',*'l,",";,"l * "" * " *-
o WA$ M4NGTON. D. C. 2OO 36 202 433 9730 Ms. Diane Chavez SAFE 602 Oak Rockford, Illinois 61104 Re:
In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-454 OL and 50-455 OL
Dear Ms. Chavez:
On November 5, 1981, representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company and of the Sinissippi Alliance for the Environment met to discuss matters relating to outstanding discovery requests filed by both parties in the above-referenced proceeding.
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the agreements reached by the parties with respect to the outstanding interrogatories directed at Edison which have been filed by DAARE and SAFE.
Prior to discussing the parties' positions on individual interrogatories, we will address some preliminary matters.
First, during the course of the meeting you represented that you are authorized to speak on behalf of both DAARE and SAFE.
This is consistent with the letter dated October 20, 1981 from Dr. Bruce Von Zellen to Judge Marshall E. Miller, chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for this proceeding.
Accordingly, it is our understanding that the agreements set forth below are binding upon these organizations.
Second, the discussion below represents our understanding of the agreements reached, and positions articulated, by the parties with respect to the interrogatories in question.
If your recollection differs from ours, please so inform us as early as possible.
Third, with respect to a number of interrogatories, it is Edison's position that the interrogatories request information which is irrelevant to the referenced proceeding, and thus Edison views the interrogatory as objectionable.
Nonetheless, in most circumstances, Edison has agreed to l
Ms. Chavez Page Two November 10, 1981 voluntarily provide information to DAARE/ SAFE, notwithstanding our objections to the interrogatories.
This should'not be perceived by.you as an admission by Edison that the information
-requested by such interrogatories is relevant, nor does it constitute an agreement to provide DAARE/ SAFE with any additional information regarding these interrogatories.. Of I
course, we understand that DAARE/ SAFE'does not. agree that-Edison's objections are well founded.
{
' Finally, both'DAARE/ SAFE and-Edison recognize that under the Licensing Board's order, there is a continuing
}
obligation to supplement answers to interrogatories.
Therefore,
~
the parties agree to' supplement their answers to the interrogatories in question, where appropriate.
~
2 With respect to the DAARE and SAFE interrogatories, i
the parties agreed as follows:
1.
With respect to Interrogatory 1, it is Edison's position that this Interrogatory asks for information which is irrelevant to the Byron operating license proceeding and is therefore objectionable.
Nonetheless,.
Edison is willing to provide the direct testimony 4
I which it presented in its most recent rate case j
before_the Illinois Commerce Commission relating to'the reasons underlying Edison's request for inclusion of CWIP in the rate base.
It is DAARE/ SAFE's-
{
position that Edison's objection is not well founded but that, in any event, Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 1.
r 2.
With respect to Interrogatory 2, the parties l
agreed that the Interrogatory should be clarified l
to read as follows:
"Did Edison have a plan.to reimburse the_ interim rates granted in its most-s recent rate case, and if so, what was the nature of that plan?"
It is Edison's position that the Interrogatory as initially phrased and as rephrased requests information which is irrelevant to this proceeding and is thus objectionable.
Nonetheless, Edison has agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE with a written response to the Interrogatory, as rephrased.
DAARE/ SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but agrees that Edison's proposed response fully satisfies its request.
I t-I i
M1 Chtvaz Pnga Thrca November 10, 19fil 3.
With respect to Interrogatory 3, it is Edison's position that this Interrogatory requests infor-mation that is irrelevant to this proceeding and is thus objectionable.
Edison will nonetheless provide DAARE/ SAFE with a written answer to Interrogatory 3 stating that none of the CWIP included in the rate base in Edison's most recent rate case before the Illinois Commerce Commission was associated with Byron and Braidwood, and it will provide DAARE/ SAFE with an answer to the question of whether Edison is going to issue common stock to its ratepayers in an amount equivalent to the CWIP.
DAARE/ SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 3.
4.
With respect to Interrogatory 4, it is Edison's position that this Interrogatory requests information that is irrelevant to this proceeding and is thus objectionable.
Nonetheless, Edison agreed to make available for inspection by DAARE and SAFE the file consisting of transcripts and the petition in a recent proceeding before the Illinois Commerce Commission in which Edison requested authority to terminate its home insulation program.
DAARE and SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but, in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 4.
5.
With respect to Interrogatory 5, it is Edison's position that the Interrogatory requests information which is irrelevant to this proceeding and is thus objectionable.
Nonetheless, Edison has agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE with a reference to that portion of the Environmental Report which addresses decommissioning of the Byron Station at the end of its useful life.
In addition, Edison has agreed to state whetaer it has a plan for decontaminating the Byron facility and financing that decontamination in the event of a Three Mile Island-type accident.
DAARZ/ SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but, in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 5.
M:2. Chnvez PagS Four November 10, 1981 6.
With respect to Interrogatory 6, it is Edison's position that the information requested therein is contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the Byron Station.
DAARE and SAFE agrees to review the information contained in the FSAR and reserves the right to submit further questions following its review.
Edison has not necessarily agreed to respond to any further questions.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 6.
7.
With respect to Interrogatory 7, it is Edison's position that the Interrogatory requests information irrelevant to this proceeding and is thus objectionable.
Nonetheless, Edison agrees to provide DAARE and SAFE with a copy of the Part'al Initial Decision authorizing the initiation cf limited work at the Byron site.
DAARE and SAFF,does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but, in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 7.
8.
With respect to Interrogatory 8, Edison agrees to provide DAARE/ SAFE with citations to those portions of the Environmental Report and FSAR that pertain to dose impacts and calculations thereof.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 8.
9.
With respect to Interrogatory 9, Edison agrees to provide DAARE/ SAFE with citations to the sections of the FSAR pertaining to the seismic analysis and design of the Byron Station.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 9.
10.
With respect to Interrogatory 10, Edison agrees to provide DAARE/ SAFE with citations to the sections of the FSAR pertaining to the seismic analysis and design for the Byron Station.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 10.
11.
With respect to Interrogatory Number 11, Edison agrees to provide for inspection by DAARE and SAFE a computer printout of all licensee event reports with respect to all of Edison's operating plants.
Edison stated that it has requested such a computer
M1. Chavaz Page Five November 10, 1981 printout from the NRC and will make it available to DAARE/ SAFE upon its receipt.
In addition, Edison has agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE access to the NRC inspection reports and, where called for, Edison's responses thereto as these are contained in the files of Edison's nuclear licensing office.
In the event that documents pertaining to NRC inspection reports are not located in the files of Edison's nuclear licensing office, and if at some future date DAARE/ SAFE requests access to such documents, Edison agrees to attempt to locate such documents and, if located, to provide DAARE/ SAFE access thereto.
In addition, Edison has agreed to provide DAARE SAFE with a written response to Interrogatory 11 which sets forth the total amount of fines levied by the NRC against Edison.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 11.
12.
With respect to Interrogatory 12, Edison has agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE with the court docket number of the case referred to in the Interrogatory.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 12.
13.
With respect to Interrogatory 13, Edison stated that it would attempt to determine whether Edison maintained a separate file on radioactive materials transportation and packaging incider.ts reported to the NRC and, if so, would provide DAARE/ SAFE access to the documentation of such incidents.
If Edison does not maintain a separate file, Edison stated that documents relating to packaging and transportation incidents reported to the NRC would be provided in conjunction with the information provided to DAARE and SAFE with respect to Inter-rogatory 11.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 13.
14.
With respect to Interrogatory 14, Edison stated that the information requested therein relates to the computation of compliance by Edison with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Edison agreed to provide citations to the appropriate portions of the FSAR and ER on anticipated dose to the maximum exposed individual.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrocatory 14.
w o
W Ms. Chavez Page Six November 10, 1981 15.
With respect to Interrogatory 15, Edison agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE access to a copy of the NRC report relating to the most recent evacuation drill for the Zion Station.
Edison also agreed to provide a written response to DAARE/ SAFE cetting forth the anticipated date for the evacuation drill of the Byron Station and, when it becomes available, a schedule of the events relating to the Byron Station evacuation drill.
Edison also agreed to provide in writing a list of the agencies which will be involved in the evacuation drill for the Byron Station to the extent that those agencies are known to Edison.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 15.
16.
With respect to Interrogatories 16 and 17, Edison agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE with a written response stating the extent to which the items listed in DAARE/ SAFE Contention 3 will be incorporated in the evacuation drill for Byron.
In addition, Edison agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE with a general description of the current requirements on evacuation drills, and stated that such a description may be provided by supplying DAARE/ SAFE with a copy of current regulations establishing such requirements.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatories 16 and 17.
17.
With respect to Interrogatory 18, it is Edison's position that this Interrogatory requests information which is irrelevant and is thus objectionable.
However, Edison stated that to the extent that the information sought in Interrogatory 18 is docmmented in a Notice of Violation or Licensee Event Report, such information would be provided pursuant to the agreement on Interrogatory 11.
DAARE/ SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but, in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 18.
18.
With respect to Interrogatory 19, Edison agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE access to the contract specifications used for bids for the Byron Station and any modifications thereto.
In addition, Edison agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE access to the Preliminary Safety Analysis
4 t
Ma. Chive Page Savon November 10, 1981 Report so that DAARE/ SAFE might make such comparisons with the FSAR as it sees fit.
DAARE/ SAFE agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 19.
19.
With respect to Interrogatory 20, it is Edison's position that the Interrogatory requests information which is irrelevant and is thus objectionable.
Nonetheless, to the extent that Edison has collected information with respect to post tension wire breakage, Edison agreed to provide DAARE/ SAFE access to communications between Edison and the NRC relating to such incidents.
DAARE/ SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but, in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 20.
i 20.
With respect to Interrogatory 21, Edison's position is that this Interrogatory requests information which is irrelevant to this proceeding and is thus objectionable.
Nonetheless, Edison has agreed to provide the information requested, to the extent such information is easily accessible.
DAARE/ SAFE does not agree that Edison's objection is well founded, but, in any event, agrees that Edison's proposed response constitutes an adequate response to Interrogatory 21.
21.
DAARE/ SAFE has agreed to withdraw Interrogatory 22.
22.
With respect to Interrogatory 23, Edison's position is that this Interrogatory requests information which is irrelevant to the proceeding and is thus 1
j objectionable.
Accordingly, Edison will not j
respond to the Interrogatory and will detail the basis for its objection in its formal response to DAARE and SAFE's Interrogatories.
23.
With respect to Interrogatory 24, Edison has agreed to respond in writing to the Interrogatory as phrased.
24.
With respect to Interrogatory 25, Edison stated l
that it does not know for certain what information the NRC Staff will include in its Safety Evaluation Report or any supplements thereto.
Edison also pointed out that the information which it has 4
i
s Ms. Chavez Page Eight November 10, 1931 1
provided to the' Staff in conjunction with its safety review of the Byron facility is contained in the NRC public document room.
DAARE/ SAFE will, if it chooses, review such documentation to gather the information requested in Interrogatory 25.
25.
With respect to interrogatories 26 and 27, the parties agreed that upon receipt of full and complete answers by DAARE and SAFE to Edison's o"tstanding Interrogatories, Ldison will provide tell and complete answers to DAARE and SAFE Interrogatories 26 and 27.
Edison agreed to begin to provide access to the documents identified above to DAARE and SAFE beginning on November 13.
These documents will be made available at Edison's offices or at the offices of Isham, Lincoln &
Beale.
In response to DAARE and SAFE's request, Edison also agrees to provide access to these documents on evenings and weekends to the extent supervising personnel.are available.
i Edison has requested that DAARE/ SAFE contact Edison at least two days prior to the date DAARE/ SAFE desires to inspect documents, but will attempt to accommodate DAARE/ SAFE even if such notice is not provided.
We expect to have the written responses to your interrogatories completed by November 13, 1981.
Sinceref9%
i
',,]
l
/
Paul M. Murphy One of the Attorneys for j~
Commonwealth Edison Company PMM/gi i
cc:
Service List l
l l
r 1
b
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company, certifies that on.this date he filed two copies-(plus the original) of the attached pleading with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served a copy of same on each of the persons at the addresses shown on the attached service list by first-class mail.
Date:
November 17, 1981 M
ij /T l
l
/
ku
/
Alan %4ielawski 1
r- -
mm-
-2
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY - Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 cnd 50-455 Marshall E. Miller, Es'q., Chairman Dr. A.
Dixon Callihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Union Carbide Corporation Panel P.
O.
Box Y U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. Mitzi A. Young Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms. Diane Chavez Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel SAFE U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 602 Oak Rockford, Illinois ~61104 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
, Secretary Panel Attn:
Chief, Docketing and U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Service Section Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C.
20555
' Chief Hearing Counsel Dr. Brace Von Zellen Office of the Executive Legal Department.of Biological Sciences Director Northern Illinois University U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DeKalb, Illinois 60115 Washington, D.
C.
20555
.