ML20033A872
| ML20033A872 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111300059 | |
| Download: ML20033A872 (31) | |
Text
--
Novsmbar 24, 1981 UNITED STATES OF A?! ERICA 00jETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD *81 NOV 25 A9:39 W
In the Matter of
)
- C? SECRETARY i"'G A SERVICE
)
??ANCH TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446 (Comanche P k Steam Electric (Application for
/fg eEll /[g 'N Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating Licenses) p\\
e r
APPLICANTS' TRIAL BRIEF ON N0'/ 9
~
CONTENTIONS 9, 25 p u,s, IO816 )
AND BOARD OUESTION 2 h
.cc4fgr%
4 i;
Pursuant to the Board's Scheduling Order of July 23, 1981, Texas Utilities Generating Co.,
et al.
(" Applicants"),
hereby submit their trial brief on Contentions 9 and 25 and Board Question 2.
l_/
These issues are scheduled to be addressed at a hearing commencing December 2, 1981.
Conten-tions 9 and 25 concern (1) the effect of potential radioactive gaseous releases on the public, and (2) the Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak, respectively.
Board Question 2 concerns the Applicants' operating quality assurance program.
i l
i
~1/
The Applicants and Intervenor Citizens for Fair Utility i
Regulation ("CFUR") entered into a Stipulation concerning Contention 9 on Ncvember 20, 1981, whereby CFUR agreed to withdraw the Cortention. If the Board accepts
'.h e Stipulation and per. nits withdrrwal of Contention 9 it will not be necessary to litigate it. In addition, motions are pending for summary disposition of Conten-
%O3 tions 9 and 25. Board approval of the Stipulation on 3
Contention 9 and/or summary disposition of that Conten-tion or Contention 25 will eliminate those matters at the hearing.
/
KO$o0NS PDR
+
_2-I.
APPLICANTS' CASE ON CONTENTION 9 A.
Contention 9 On June 16, 1980, the Board issued its Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980, in which it admitted Contention 9 (sponsored by CFUR), as follows:
Applicants have failed to make any effort to determine the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary.
Various transport mechan-isms may cause, in certain cases, the bulk of the health effects to occur some distance from the exclu-sion boundary.
On November 19, 1981, CFUR moved that Contention 9 be reworded as follows:
Applicants have failed to make any reasonable efforts to maintain radiation exposure to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable.
Applicants assume that Contention 9 will be dismissed pursuant to the Stipulation executed by.CFUR and Applicants on November 20.
If Contention 9 is not dismirsed, Applicants will demonstrate at the hearing that they have properly calculated, in accordance with applicable NRC regulations and guidance, the estimated doses to individuals and the population as a whole resulting from gaseous radioactive releases from Comanche Peak under both normal operating conditions and following anticipated transients or off-normal conditions.
Applicants' calculations of these estimated
4 4 doses will be shown to be based on appropriate atmospheric transport and diffusion models.
B.
Requirements Governing Gaseous Radioactive Effluents NRC requirements governing releases of gaseous radioactive effluents provide that in addition to complying with the specific limits set forth in 10 CFR 20.106 regarding the concentrations of radioactivity in effluents
~
tb unrestricted areas, the licensee should make every reasonable effort to_ maintain the level of radioactivty in those effluents as low as is reasonably achievable ("ALARA").
10 CFR 20.l(c), 50.34a and 50.36a.
Also, Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guides for radioactive effluent design objectives and limiting conditions for operation for light-water cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the ALARA standard.
Dose limits applicable to postulated releases following a hypothetical accident are set forth in 10 C.F.R. $100.11.
To implement Appendix I, the NRC Staff has developed a
' series of guides that set forth acceptable methods for calculating dispersion of gaseous releases and estimating the resultant doses to man.
Regulatory Guide 1.111 describes the atmospheric transport and dispersion models applicable to, determining effluent concentrations from routine releases.
Meteorological data to be used in these calculations is to be gathered in an onsite meteorological program as described in Regulatory Guide 1.23.
In addition, the models and
4-
~
_4_
assumptions for estimating doses from those calculated effluent concentrations are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
Also, Regulatory Guide 1.4-sets forth methods for estimating atmospheric dispersion of accidental or short-term releases of gaseous radioactive effluents and resulting doses.
C Applicants' Position Applicants intend to present a panel of witnesses on Contention 9.
Mr. Bobby T. Lancaster will be Applicants' lead witness.
His prefiled written testimony and a statement of hi's educational and professional qualifications were served on the parties on November 20, 1981.
In addition, Messrs. Fred W.
Madden, James R.
Stogner and J.
D.
- Edwards, Jr. may be called to testify with respect to particular aspects of Applicants' case on Contention 9.
A copy of their educational and professional qualifications is attached to this brief.
Mr-Lancaster will testify that Applicants have employed atmospheric transport and diffusion models approved by the NRC in calculating estimated individual and population doses from radioactive gaseous effluents.
Those models are applied, as appropriate, to routine gaseous effluent releases and releases from postulated accidents involving the gaseous radwaste system.
Specifically, Mr. Lancaster will testify that for estimating atmospheric transport and dispersion of routine 4
L
4
-4 9
5'-
radioactive gaseous effluents from Comanche Peak, Applicants have employed the Gaussian despersion model described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, assuming a ground-level release-mode.
This model is described in Section 6.1.3.2.2 of the Environmental Report-Operating License Stage for Comanche Peak (ER-OLS).
Mr. Lancaster will testify that additional factors which would affect the atmospheric transport of
~
gaseous radioactive effluents are included in Applicants' model, including a building wake correction factor and terrain factor as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
In addition, Mr. Lancaster will testify that the effluent diffusion estimates for routine gaseous radioactive made by Applicants are based on an on-site meteorological data record gathered from May 15, 1972 to May 14, 1976.
This meteorological program was designed in accordance with the guidance set forth'in Regulatory Guide 1.23, and is described in Section 6.1.3.1 of the Applicants' ER-OLS.
With respect to the diffusion models employed for calculating dispersion of gaseous radioactive effluents from postulated accidents, Mr. Lancaster will testify that the Applicants employ two separate atmospheric dispersion models, one for releases over periods of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or less and the second for releases over periods longer than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, in
n
' accordance with the criteria set forth in Regulatory Guide l.4.
Applicants assume under both conditions ground reflec-tion of radioactive effluents at all points, thus doubling the concentration of the effluents expected in the free i
atmosphere. In addition, both models assume a release point at ground level, thereby realizing no advantage for effluent emmissions from elevated release points.
~
With respect to Applicants' calculations of doses from routine radioactive gaseous effluents, Mr. Lancaster will testify that doses to individuals from gaseous pathways were obtained by using the GASPAR computer code which was developed by the NRC and is based on the computational techniques presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
- Further, he will testify that, using the GASPAR computer code, Applicants calculated maximum estimated doses to individuals from several pathways.
These pathways are cloud suomersion, ground contamination, inhalation, and vegetable, milk and meat ingestion pathways.
Each dose was estimated at the location off-site for which the highest dose from each pathway was calculated.
These results are discussed in ER-OLS 5.2.5.2.
The specific doses to and offsite locations of the individuals expected to receive the maximum dose from each of the exposure pathways analyzed are set forth in Table 1 of Mr. Lancaster's prepared testimony.
. Finally, Mr. Lancaster will testify that the resultant annual population doses from Comanche Peak will be only a small percentage of the 100 mrem /yr totel-body dose from 4
naturally occuring environmental background radiation anticipated for the population in the regions around the Comanche Peak site.
As Mr. Lancaster will testify, exposure of each of the 1.45 million people that are expected to reside within a 50-mile radius of the plant in the year 2000 due to naturally occuring background radiation would result in a population dose of 1.45 x 10 man-rem.
In contrast, the total-body man-rem dose from Comanche Peak to the same population in the year 2000 is expected to be 3.77 man-rem.
Accordingly, the contribution to the total population dose attributable to gaseous radioactive effluents from Comanche Peak will be a negligible fraction of the population dose resulting from naturally occuring background radiation.
In sum, Applicants will demonstrate that their atmos-pheric transport and diffusion models for routine releases w'ere developed in accordance with the guidance set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
In addition, Applicants will demonstrate that they employed the methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.109 for calculating annual doses to man from routine releases.
Accordingly, Applicants will demonstrate that the methodology employed by them in calculating dispersion of y
v.-
me-.c
,my 9.,9-%y, ~,
9.r
- F-+-*F--*m W
---WW*9 TT-""YT'*
7
- --"'t'N^+
F-'=
Tm' - " ' "-
r*-P-""P
^-*-T
- **"-*'8 et-**"
C'. ' *w T
'- "- ' ~-"
' radioactive effluents and resulting doses is satisfactory for demonstrating compliance with the ALARA standard of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and'10 CFR $$ 20.l(c), 50.34a and 50.36a.
II.
APPLICANTS' CASE ON CONTENTION 25 A.
Contention 25 The Board admitted Contention 25 in its June 16, 1980
~
Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980.
That contention was proposed by Intervenor Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE").
As accepted by the Board, Contention 25 alleges as follows:
Contention 25 The requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 10 CFR 50.57(a)(4) and 10 CFR 50 Appendix C have not been met in that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility.
Applicants will demonstrate at the hearing that each of the participants in Comanche Peak is qualified to finance their share of the facility operations, as required by the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations. 2/
-2/
At the prehearing conference on December 1, Applicants will ask the Board to confirm that the scope of Conten-tion 25, in accordance with its plain meaning, is limited to the issue of financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak, and does not involve financial qualifications to decommission.
If the Board so rules, then Applicants' witness Nye will delete the portion of his prepared testimony that relates to decommissioning before adopting it, so that the scope of Applicants' direct case will be confined to the issue of financial qualifications to operate.
t
. B.
Requirements Governing Financial Qualifications The Commission's regulations governing the financial qualifications of applicants for power reactor operating licenses were promulgated pursuant to Section 182 of the 4
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
i 2232, which provides, as follows:
Each application for a license hereunder.
shall specifically state such information as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may determine to be necessary to decide such of the technical and financial qualifications of the applicant as the Commission may deem appropriate for the license.
[42 U.S.C.
$2232(a), emphasis added.]
Pursuant to Section 182, the Commission promulgated 10 CFR $50.33(f) requiring the applicant to show that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of operation for the period of the license or for 5 years, whichever is greater, plus the estimated costs of perma-nently shutting the facility down and main-taining it in a safe condition.
[10 C.F.R.
$50.33(f).]
4 Further, the Commission has provided that in order to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR $50.33(f),
[It] will ordinarily be sufficient to show at the time of the filing of the applica-tion, availability of resources sufficient to cover estimated operating costs for each of the first 5 years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanent shut-down and maintenance of the facility in safe condi-tion.
It is also expected that, in most cases, the applicant's annual financial statements contained in its published annual reports will enable the Commission to evaluate the applicant's financial capa-bility to satisfy this requirement.
[10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C.]
In Public Service Company of.New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978), the Commission examined these financial qualifications require-ments and addressed the " reasonableness" standard of 10 CFR
$50.33(f).
The Commission explained that a ' reasonable assurance' does not mean
~
a demonstration of near certainty that an applicant will never be pressed for funds in the course of construction.
It
~
does mean that the applicant must have a reasonable financing plan in the light of relevant circumstances.
[Seabrook, supra, 7 NRC at 18.]
The Commission did not specify in Seabrook the " relevant circumstances" with which it was concerned.
Nevertheless, several factors have historically been examined based on the Commission's analysis in Seabrook and affirmance of Licensing and Appeal Board decisions on the issue of whether the applicants therein were financially qualified.
In par-ticular, Boards have reached decisions as to whether applicants financially qualified based upon evidence provided by were source of fund sheets, the prospect of future rate increases, the applicants' bond ratings, prospective interest rates, return on equity granted by the State public utilities commis-sion, and the applicants' general fund-raising history.
See Seabrook, 7 NRC at 20.
While thos, factors are generally as relevant in operating license proceedings as they are in construction permit proceedings such as Seabrook, at the operating license
. stage more emphasis should be placed on the applicant's ability to generate revenues throagh the sale of electricity, rather than the applicant's ability 'to raise capital for construction.
See Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489, 525 11979).
As to an applicant's ability to recover the costs of operation through rates, the state utility commission
~
charged with evaluating (and not the NRC) generally is and setting rates necessary for a utility to recover operat-ing and maintenance costs and to receive an adequate return or, its investment.
See, McGuire, supra, 9 NRC at 525.
The NRC has recognized the legal requirement 3/ that public utility commissions allow electric utilities to recover the costs of operation and maintenance through rates, Public Serv 1ce Co.
including a fair rate of return.
- See, e.g.,
of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 77-78 (1977), aff'd, CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978).
Accordingly, it is proper for Boards to assume that rational regulatory policies will prevail with respect to the estab-lishment of rates sufficient to recover operating costs.
~3/
The Supreme Court has long recognized that the Federal Constitution requires public utility commissions to establish rates at a level which guarantees the utility the opportunity to earn a fair return on the costs of conducting the business, including operating expenses and capital charges.
See FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Company, 320 U.S.
591, 603 (1944); Missouri ex. rel.
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
v.
Public Service Commission, 262 U.S.
276, 291 (1923) (Mr. Justice Brandeis concurring).
. See, e.g.,
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-68, 6 NRC 1127, 1162-3 (1977), aff'd, ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
LBP-77-74, 6 NRC 1314, 1330 (1977).
Finally, as to financial qualifications to decommission, the Commission has not prescribed any particular mode of decommissioning or method of financing decommissioning which applicants need follow.
Accordingly, applicants first should provide a reasonable cost estimate for decommissioning the facility using a selected mode of decommissioning.
- Second, based on that estimate, applicants should demonstrate a reasonable plan for financing decommissioning expenses, such as recovery through the ratemaking process.
See Duke Power Co.
(William B.
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489, 527-28 (1979); North Anna, supra, 6 NRC at 1162-3.
C.
Applicants' Demonstration of Financial Qualifications The Applicants will demonstrate through the testimony of Mr. Erle A. Nye, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Texas Utilities Company, and the submission of documentary evidence that they have fully met the standards established by the Commission for determining the financial qualifications of an applicant for a power reactor operating license.
Mr. Nye will be Applicants' lead witness on Contention 25 (his prefiled testimony was filed on November 20, 1981) on a panel with Mr. H.
Dan Farell,
~.
n 7
7, x,'
?
v c
, ~0 ',
f Controller of Texas Utilities Services,,Inc.
A copy of Mr.
Farell's educational and professional qualifications is,'
attached.
Mr. Nye and Mr. Farell will testify as to the, financing history of Applicants and the plans for financi'ng G
,/t 7
the operation of Comanche Peak.
,g 1
/j 1.
Future rates.
.f
~~
Mr. Nye will testify that of the six applicants, five are subject to the ratemaking authority of the Texas Public Utility Commission ("PUC"), viz., Texas Electric Service f
J Company ("TESCO"), Texas Powe'r & Light Company ("TP&L"-),
[
Dallas Power & Light ("DP&L"),_ Tex-La Elect /ic CoopeIra(ive
[
l l
f.
of Texas, Inc.
(" Tex-La"), and~3razos Elec'tric Power Coop' era-t
~
tive, Inc. ("Brazos"). 4_/
He will discuss.the authority,
<y t
rules and practices of the Texas PUC to regulate,the rates
+
I,,
of electric utilities (including cooperatives) as provided e
l' for'in the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act, Article E
1446c of Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes. 5/
i
/
4/
DP&L, TESCO and TP&L are the three operating subsidiaries 7e
' E of Texas Utilities Company, which is a utility holding
" j; company.
Collectively, these companies own 85-2/3% of
/
Comanche Peak.
Brazos Electric Power CooperatiMei Inc.
l
("Brazos") is an electric cooperative owne'd by 19 rural e
electric distribution cooperatives in' Texas.-
TexaLa is l
also an electric cooperative and is owned by seven rural electric distribution cooperatives.
Texas Munleipal Power Agency ("TMPA") is a joint power agency created in 1975 under Texas law by the cities of Bryan, Denton, Garland and Greenville.
5_/
The Board may take official notice of Tex'as State law and regulations.
10 CFR 2.743(i); see Public' Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-520, 9 NRC 43 (1979).
/
l l
s t [,
Q
~
/
h s
~ r
,' l, -
- h*,
w sa.
e N
.y n
oy, r
~Mr. hye will testify thht Applicants plan to recover p
(>
i al.1: costs of operation of Comanche Peak through revenues
/
/!, derived from customers in system-wide sales of electricity. 6/
f a
,/.
e u
'ukwilltestifht'aatsincethefacilitywillbeused
/ solely, to provide electric service to Applicants' customers, p
all,t$ecosts relate'd to the facility, including operation,
' maintenance, depreciation and capital costs, will be recovered
~
r//
i-in the Applica/
~
s<
nts' rates as required under the leading e'
I r'atemaking precedents in Texas.
Consequently, there is
?
,,i reasonable assurance'.that applicants will be able to recover
/
the costs of operating the facilit-for the first five years.,,1
,With respect to TMPA, Mr. Nye will testify that each musicil'pality in the State of Texas has original jurisdiction over the ' r'egtilation of electric rates and service within
'M its corporate l'imits.
TMPA and each of the four cities
,y Chich created TMPA exercise such original jurisdiction and therefo're/ set heir own rates.
2.
Historic' cost recovery through rates.
~
Mr. Nye will/ testify that the Texas PUC has historically
- /-
permit (ed Applicants DP&L,.TESCO and TP&L to maintain rates f -
6_/
EAtimates of the annual costs of operation for each unit of Comanche Peak are set forth in Table 20.1 in the
_ ~ NRd. Staff's Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0797.
(July 1981).
Applicants are in the process of updating these e'stimates in order to provide the most current information.
i
4 o.
15 -
intended to permit recovery of operating costs and a return on capital',. consistent with applicable State statutes and PUC regulations. A table reflecting the results of each rate case of DP&L, TESCO and TP&L before the PUC since it assumed rate jurisdiction, and rates >of return on rate base and common equity authorized by the PUC in each~ case, is included as Attachment D to Mr. Nye's testimony. 7/
~
As discussed above, the NRC's evaluation of the financial qualifications of an applicant for a power reactor operating license should emphasize the applicant's ability to generate revenues. through the sale of electricity, rather than the ability to-raise funds for construction.
McGuire, supra, 9 NRC at 525.
With' respect to electric utilities for which rates for the sale of electricity are established by regulatory bodies, the history of ratemaking and likelihood of future ratemaking adequate to~ recover costs can demonstrate the applicant's financial qualifications to operate the facility.
McGuire, supra, 9 NRC at 526-27.
Applicants submit that
' its direct case clearly demonstrates that there is reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated > costs of' operation for Comanche Peak.
~7/
Tex-La and Brazos have had no rate case decided by the PUC, Tex-La because it is a new entity and Brazos because its first rate case since the PUC assumed rate
' jurisdiction is now pending before the PUC.
b e-e,
=--n9.-.n,e 3
t
3.
Decommissioning.
Mr. Nye will testify that Applicants estimated a cost of $55 million (1981 dollars) per unit for decommissioning Comanche Peak at the end of the economic operating life using the immediate dismantlement mode. 8/ This estimate is based on the analyses presented in the report " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized
~Water 3eactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0130 (June 1978) and NUREG/ CR-Ol30, Addenuum ( August 19 79), the NRC's reference analysis for PWR decommissioning. Further, Mr. Nye will testify that decommissioning costs are included as a component
]
of depreciation expense to be recovered through rates.
Based on Applicants' estimate of the costs of decommis-sioning and their intention to recover the costs of decommis-sioning through the rates, Applicants submit there is reasonable assurance that Applicants will be able to obtain the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of decommis-sioning.
See McGuire, supra, 9 NRC at 527-28; North Anna, supra, 6 NRC at 1162-3.
-8/
As noted above, supra note 3, Applicants believe that the scope of Contention 25 for trial should be confined to the strict wording of the Contention, viz., financial qualifications to operate Comanche Peak.
If the Board rules otherwise and expands the scope to include decom-missioning, Applicants will add Mr. Richard A. Werner, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer for Texas Utilities Services, Inc., to the witness panel.
A copy of his educational and professional qualifications is attached hereto.
, s III.
APPLIgANTS' BRIEF ON BOARD OUESTION 2 A.
Board Question 2.
The Board posed the following question in its June 16, 1980 Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980:
Board Question No. 2 Applicant and Staff thould describe in detail the operating quality assurance program for CPSES.
A description of the provisions for conduct of QA audits should be provided, including a description of how reactor operations and reactor operator training will be audited.
Applicants will present a panel of witnesses, described below, t'o describe the operating OA program and to respond to inquiries by the Board.
B.
Requirements Governing Operating OA Programs NRC regulations governing QA programs are set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
Additional guidance is set forth in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assuranc.
Program Requirements (Operation)."
Also, certain aspects of the operating QA programs for nuclear power reactors are subject to the guidance established in other NRC Regulatory Guides.
These Regulatory Guides are identified in Table 17.2-2 of the Comanche Peak FSAR.
C.
Applicants' Position on Board Question 2 Applicants have submitted prefiled testimony of the following officer and employees of Texas Utilities Generating
. Company ("TUGCO"):
Messrs.
B.
R. Clements, Vice-President, Nuclear; David N. Chapman, Manager of Quality Assurance; Richard A. Jones, Manager of Plant Operations, and Antonio Vega, Quality Assurance Supervisor.
Mr. Clements will testify to the commitment of TUGCO management to an effective corporate OA Program and the Opera-tions OA Plan at Comanche Peak.
Mr. Chapman's testimony will dsscribe the role of the corporate Quality Assurance Division in the corporate OA Program and the Operations OA Plan.
Mr. Jones will testify to the implementation onsite of the Operations OA Plan.
Finally, Mr. Vega will discuss the conduct of audits during reactor operations, including audits of reactor operations and reactor operator training.
Mr. Clements' testimony will demonstrate that TUGCO management is firmly committed to a corporate OA program and an Operations OA Plan designed to discover and correct potential problems before they can affect the safe operation of Comanche Peak.
Mr. Clements will testify that as
{
Vice President, Nuclear, he has overall responsibility for l
the development and implementation of the corporate OA l
Program and for assuring that the Operations OA Plan is established and implemented with sufficient independence to i
fulfill each of its OA responsibilities.
Mr. Jones will testify that onsite management is similarly committed to an efficient and independent Operations OA Plan.
A copy of l
L
- that Plan, the Operation Administrative Control and Quality Assurance Plan, was transmitted to the parties with Mr.
Jones' prefiled testimony on November 20, 1981.
Mr. Jones will describe.the onsite OA organization in his testimony.
Mr. Chapman will testify to the function and responsibi-11 ties of the Quality Assurance Division located in corporate headquarters in Dallas, which he heads.
He will testify that while the Manager of Plant Operations, Mr. Jones, is
~
responsible for developing and implementing the Operations CA Plan, as Manager of Quality Assurance he is responsible for regularly assessing the adequacy of the Plan and reporting the results to the Vice President, Nuclear.
He will testify that he is responsible to and reports directly to the Vice President, Nuclear.
Such a reporting relationship provides for his total independence from the TUGCO staff responsible for operation of Comanche Peak, thus assuring that he has and will continue to have the authority, organiza-tional freedom, and independence from undue influence with
- r.egard to cost and schedule.
Mr. Vega will testify as to the provisions for conduct of audits on reactor operations and reactor operating training.
In particular, Mr. Vega will describe the procedures employed in the conduct of audits and the qualifications of personnel performing these audits.
Mr. Vega attached to
. his testimony a copy of the audit procedures to be used for audits of reactor operations and ' reactor operator training.
In sum, Applicants will demonstrate through their testimony and exhibits that the corporate QA Program and the Operations OA Plan for Comanche Peak satisfy NRC regulations applicable to operating OA programs and are consistent with applicable NRC guidance governing specific aspects of operating QA programs.
Applicants will demonotrate a firm commitment to an efficient and independent QA program designed to identify and correct potential problems before they arise.
IV.
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST Applicants intend that the following witnesses will testify at the evidentiary hearing commencing on December 2, 1981:
Contention 25 -
Erle A. Nye (prefiled testimony)
H.
Dan Farell Richard A. Werner (if decommissioning is included within the scope of Contention 25)
Contention 9 -
Bobby T. Lancaster (prefiled testimony)
Fred W. Madden J.
D.
Edwards James R.
Stogner
_ 21 -
Board Question 2 - B.
R.
Clements (prefiled testimony)
David N.
Chapman (prefiled testimony)
Richard A. Jones (prefiled testimony)
Antonio Vega (prefiled testimony)
David E.
Deviney In addition, Applicants intend that Homer C.
Schmidt will testify to the extent that he will sponsor the Application, F'inal Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Report -
Operating License Stage for Comanche Peak. 9/
Applicants intend to offer the following documents and material into evidence:
1.
Application for Comanche Peak Operating Licenses 2.
Final Safety Analysis Report l
l 3.
Environmental Report - Operating License Stage 4.
Rate Developments for TP&L, TESCO and DP&L l
(Contention 25) 5.
Financial statistics for TU, DP&L, TESCO and TP&L (Contention 25) 6.
Operations Administrative Control and Quality Assura. ace Plan (Board Question 2) 4 9/
Educational and professional qualifications for Messrs.
Madden, Werner, Edwards, Farell, Stogner, Deviney and Schmidt are attached hereto.-
. 7.
" Conduct of Internal, Prime, and Subcontractor Audits," TUGCO Procedure COI-CS-4.6 (Board Question 2)
Respec fu y submitted, f
hk0
[
t Sf Reynolds Nicho]
J l
William A. Horin DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9800 Counsel to Applicants November 24, 1981 l
I i
l
DAVID E. DEVINEY
~
STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL r
.AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS f
POSITION:
Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor
- FORMAIi -EDUCATION:-
One hundred-thirty-two college hours in-Mathe-matics, Science, Electrical'and Electronics
~
courses at the University of Texas at Arlington, Texarkana College, and Tarrant County Junior College.
Received Associate in Applied Science degree in Electronic technology from Tarrant County Junior College.
EXPERIENCE:
1980 - Present Promoted to present position of Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor at-CPSES.
1979 - 1980 Employed by TUGCO as Senior Maintenance Tech-
~
nician at CPSES.
Duties included writing pro-cedures for CPSES Maintenance Department, training quality control inspectors,.spara parts procurement, and machine shop inspec-tion.
(6 months) 1977
.1979 Employed by TUGCO as Product Assurance Specia-
' list at CPSES.
Duties included reviewing quality control procedures and instructions, writing procedures and instructions,.and veri-fying implementation of procedures and in-structions.
Also performed vendor release inspections, vendor audits and trouble shoot-ing of quality problems with various vendors.
Qualified as lead auditor.-
(2 years) 1976 - 1977 Employed by Texas Utilities Generating Company as Quality Assurance Technician at CPSES.
Duties included performing surveillance of all phases of construction work at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station to verify compliance with ap-plicable requirements.
Also performed vendor release inspections and vendor audits.
1970 - 1976 Employed by U.S. Navy.
Duties included main-tenance and repair of all' power plant electri-cal equipment and various supervisor responsi-bilities.
(6 years) 1968 - 1970 Employ'ed by Recognition Equipment, Inc. of Dallas c Texas as a Quality Control Inspector performing' machined parts inspection of. precision components.
for high speed data processing equipment. (2 years 1966 - 1968 Employed by Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Texas as a Quality Control Inspector performing inspection of all phases of manu-facturing.
(2 years)
J.
D. EDWARDS, JR.
STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION:
Health Physics Supervisor FORMAL EDUCATION:
BA - Math, Texas A&M University 1980, MS - Human Relations and Management, Abilene Christian University EXPERIENCE:
1980 - Present Health Physics Supervisor, Texas Utilities
~
Generating Company 1973 - 1980 Health Physicist, Texas Utilities Services Inc.
1966 - 1973 U.S. Army Engineer Reactor Group, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.
Health Physicist and Shif t Supervisor at Nuclear Power Plant (S M-1).
Health Physics duties for both routine operations and outages -
operating pressurized water reactor:
1.
Personnel dosimetry 2.
Area surveys, posting and access control.
3.
Air and water sampling and radiological analysis.
4.
Contamination control and decontamination.
5.
Respiratory protection.
6.
Radwaste packaging and shipment.
7.
Spent fuel packaging and shipment.
8.
Radiation protection instrument maintenance and calibration.
9.
Primary and secondary chemistry including radiochemistry.
H.
DAN FARELL STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION:
Controller, Texas Utilities Services Inc.
FORMAL EDUCATION:
1968-1972, BBA, Accounting and Finance, East Texas State University EXPERIENCE:
1980
_Present Te..as Utilities Services Inc.; Controller.
hesponsibilities include accounting, financial reporting, budgats and forecasts, financial and economic studies.
1980 Texas Power & Light Company; Administrative Assistant to Vice President - Special Projects.
Responsibilities included contract negotiations, expansion planning activities, corporate planning activities, etc.
1979 Texas Power & Light Company; Manager of General Accounting.
Responsible for general accounting function, budgets, general corporate taxes and income taxes.
1977 - 1979 Texas Power & Light Company; Manager of Audits and Financial Reports.
Responsible for internal audit functions, financial reporting, financing functions, etc.
1976 - 1977 Texas Power & Light Company; Administrative Assistant.
Responsible for coordinating regulatory activities involving the Company's relationship with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, including certification and rate case activities.
1972 - 1976 Texas Power & Light Company; experience in various aspects of the Financial and Accounting areas of the Company, including General Accounting, Financing, Plant Accounting, Construction Accounting, Financial Reporting, Taxes, Budgets, etc.
Other:
Certified Public Accountant in State of Texas, Member of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Member of Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants, Member of Accounting Principles Committee of Edison Electric Institute.
1
c FRED W. MADDEN STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION:
Lead Nuclear Engineer, Technical Support FORMAL EDUCATION:
1968-1972, B.S. Engineering Physics, Texas Tech University 1972-1974, M.S. Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University EXPERIENCE:
1981 - Present Texas Utilities Services, Inc., Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas, Lead Nuclear Engineer, Technical Support Group.
Activities include design and engineering of TMI-related plant modi-fications; engineering resolution of li-censing issues; and development of analyt-ical capabilities.
1980 - 1981 Texas Utilities Services Inc., Dallas, Texas, Licensing Engineer.
Activities included preparation of licensing infor-mation such as FSAR, responses'to NRC
. questions, and interrogatories; and review and interpretation of regulatory criteria.
1976 - 1980 Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, Senior
. Licensing Engineer.
Activities included preparation and coordination of licensing information such as SAR's, environmental reports and NRC questions; review and interpretation of regulatory criteria.
Coordinator of project design review team following TMI accident.
1974 - 1976 Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles, California, Engineer on Nuclear Analysis staff.
Activities include accident analysis calculations; nuclear fuel cycle.
analyses; radiation dose calculations; and shielding design and analysis.
Other project activities include system design; preparation of specifications and bid evaluation.
PROFESSIONAL:
Registered Professional Engineer (Texas and California), American Nuclear Society, Tau Beta Pi, Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Pi Sigma.
HOMER C.
SCHMIDT STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION:
Manager, Nuclear Services FORMAL EDUCATION:
1955, BSME, Southern Methodist University.
EXPERIENCE :-
1977 - Present Texas Utilities Services Inc., as Manager, Nuclear Services, responsible for licensing and fuel management.
~
1976 - 1977 Texas Utilities Services Inc., as Project Manager-Nuclear Plants, responsible for engineering, construction, procurement, licensing and fuel management for CPSES.
1971 - 1976 Texas Utilities Generating Co. as Manager, Quality Assurance, responsible for developing and managing the quality assurance program for design, procurement and_ construction of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
1968 - 1971 Dallas Power & Light'Co. as Plant Betterment Division Head, responsible for evaluating safety, reliability and production efficiency ~
of all DP&L generating units.
1962 - 1968 Dallas Power & Light Co. as Coordinating Engineer fer the Plant Department, respons-i ible for liaison and coordination with Engineering Department, and monitoring of field construction activities for these units.
1958 - 1962 Dallas Power & Light Co. as Plant Engineer
~
responsible for providing in-plant evaluation l
of safety, reliability and production efficiencies of generat4ng units; and maintenance of plant instrumenta'cion and automatic control systems'.
f 1956 - 1958 U.S.
Army
F
~
JAMES R.
STOGNER STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION:
Senior Meteorologist FORMAL EDUCATION:
1959-1963, B.S. Mathematics, Mississippi State University 1967-1970, M.S. Meteorology, Florida State University EXPERIENCE:
1970 - Present Dames & Moore, Atlanta, Georgia and Houston, Texas (1973-1976), Manager and Principal Investigator, Air Quality /
Meteorological Studies.
Activities include extensive experience in nuclear evaluations such as:
1)
Preparation of meteorological sections of Safety Analysis and Environmental-Reports for Texas Utility Generating Company, Houston Lighting & Power Company, South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, and others.
~
2)
Preparation of emergency assessment systems for Texas Utilities Gener-
~
ating Company, South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, and others.
3)
Preparation of semi-annual' meteorological summaries and dose assessments required by Regulatory Guide 1.21 for Baltimore Gas
&, Electric Company; 4)
Technical reviewer for the annual meteorological program being per-formed by Dames & Moore for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station; 5)
Miscellaneous site-specific studies such as diffusion studies, cooling pond / tower analyses, backup / supple-mental tower studies, ultimate heat sink analyses and others.
t RICHARD A.
WERNER STATEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS POSITION:
Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer FORMAL EDUCATION:
1968, BS Physics / Mathematics, East Texas State University 1975, MSNE, University of Missouri EXPERIENCE:
e Texas Utilities Se'rvices Inc. as a 1980 - Present Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer
~1977 - 1980 Texas Utilities Services Inc. as a Nuclear Engineer in the Nuclear Division.
Worked in preparation of OL application for CPSES, supervised the preparation of the ER(OLS) and various sections of the FSAR.
1976 - 1977 Texas Electric Service Co. as an Associate Nuclear Engineer in the Information Department.
Performed energy issue research with emphasis on nuclear issues.
1975 - 1976 Texas Electric Service Co. as an Associate Nuclear Engineer assigned to 7raham Power Plant.
1973 - 1975 University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility.
As a Reactor Engineer, responsible for the supervision of all maintenance and facility design changes for a 10 MWth research reactor.
Also received an AEC reactor operator license, Docket No. 55-4844.
1969 - 1973 U.S.
Navy Nuclear Power Program Engineering Division Officer, Nuclear Submarine USS Billfish SSN 676.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, _et _al.
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating Licenses)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Trial Brief on Contentions 9, 25 and Board Question 2,"
in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, overnight delivery (*),
this 24th day of November 1981:
- Marshall E.
Miller, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Office of the Executive Dean, Division of Engineering, Legal Director l
Architecture and Technology U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Oklahoma State University Commission Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J.
Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Division
(
Commission P.O.
Box 12548 Washington, D.C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Chairman, Atomic Safety and l
Licensing Board Panel J. Marshall Gilmore j
U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory 1060 W.
Pipeline Road l
Commission Hurst, Texas 76053 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l l
l l
l
[
P
-
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Preeident, CASE Docketing & Service Branch 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C.
20005 l
~
ff William A. Horiti-'
cc:
Homer C.
Schmidt Spencer C.
Relyea, Esq.
i