ML20033A879
| ML20033A879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Rothschild M, Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111300069 | |
| Download: ML20033A879 (19) | |
Text
11/24/81 h
~
%by o
f f" r N kb fl !J
'N Ds
. UNITED STATES OF NIERICA C
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
NOV2 71987 TO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ht v.3, %.
-/
x-m uu as Q
1
,G/
In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 h
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S 1 RIAL BRIEF REGARDING CONTENTIONS 9 AND 25 AND BOARD QUESTION NO. 2 INTRODUCTION In its " Scheduling Order" dated July 23, 1981, the Atomic Safety and '. icensing Board (hereafter "the Licensing Board") directed that
" Trial Briefs" (including " witness and exhibit lists and summaries")E for the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on December 2,1981, be filed by November 25,1981.E In accordance with the Scheduling Order, the NRC Staff (" Staff") hereby files this trial brief, which sets forth the Staff's witness and exhibit list and a summary of the Staff's testi-mony on Contentions 9 and 25) and Board Question No. 2.
3 y
See " Scheduling Order," at 2.
y Id., at 2.
y Contentions 9 and 25 are the subjects of motions for summary dis-position.
See " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of CFUR's Contention V dated October 28, 1981, and "NRC Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25 (Financial Qualifications),"
dated October 28, 1981. On November 20, 1981, the Staff filed a response supporting the Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Contention 9; no response was filed by Intervenor CFUR. On Novem-ber 20,1981, the Applicants filed a response supporting the Staff's i
(CONTINUED) ges%
!$$12000fo!$$$,Q, n 1 gyn c
95
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST The following Staff witnesses are scheduled to testify at the evi-dentiary hearing commencing on December 2,1981:
l' Contention 9 J. S. Boegli Earl H. Markee c
Dr. Walter J. Pasciak Contention 25 Jim C. Petersen Board Question No. 2 John G. Spraul Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.743(g), the Staff will offer the following documents into evidence, as exhibits:
1) the Staff's " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Opera-tion of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2" (NUREG-0775, September 1981); and 3/
(CONTINUED) motion for summary disposition of Contention 25; a response opposing the Staff's motion was filed by Intervenor CASE on November 18, 1981.
In addition, on November 20, 1981, Applicants reached a stipulation with CFUR on Contention 9.
In the " Stipulation" filed on that date, CFUR voluntarily withdrew Contention 9 "from litigation in,this pro-ceeding." The Staff has reviewed the Stipulation and has determined that it has no objection thereto.
Accordingly, the Staff has author-ized Applicants to represent in their Motion to Dismiss Contention 9 (to be filed today) that the Staff agrees with the Stipulation and ;
supports dismissal of Contention 9.
The Staff notes that if Contentions 9 and 25 are dismissed, they will not be considered at the evidentiary hearing scheduled to comdence on December 2,1981, and that only Board Question No. 2 will remain for consideration at that time.
e---r
+y y
u-
~
- ~
2) the Staff's " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation IohComanchePeak;SteamdiedtricStation, Units 1.and~2,"(NUREG-0797, July'1981), and Supplement No. I thereto (NUREG-0797, 7
Octdber1981).'
x
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY 2
i i
Contention 9
, Contention 9 asserts' as f'llows:
o "ApplicantsT6 ave failed to make any:ekfort to determine the effect of radioactive. releases on theLgeneral public 'other than s
at the exclusion boundary. ~'Various ' transport' mechanisms may cause, in certain cases, the balk cf the he'alth effects to occur some distance from the exclusion; boundary."
~
Although the contention on 1ts Lf a::e ralates to, whether.or not the effects of radioactl e releaset on the general)public beyond,the
/
~
exclusion boundary have been considered, CFlUF, has stated that:
t w
contention is to" ensure 'that planded
"[T]he object of th'e e-batch releases of
- tive gases willt be acccmplished Auci.
s,os wh cn m n m ze radiation exposure?
i iii meteorological ct y'
According to CFUR:
s.
~
y
" Action taken by the Applicant to Mke-planned batch releases ~
during meteorological conditions whicttnininile radioactive exposures (in addition to complying -with regulations stipu-lating permissable [ sic] levels of raaiation, radioactivity in effluents, design criteria, and limiting conditions for operation) complies with the requirements 'of;10 CFR G 20.1(c)."E CFUR has described the source of the gaseous " batch releases" s _
with which it is concerned as follows:
[
T "103-3,,Subseg:;ent to one or 'more' transients and/or containable accidents Which produce more radioactive gas than anticipated.
batch releases would' occur during normal operation to_ reduce s
_4/
"CFUR's'First and Second Set of Supplemental Answers to NRC Staff's s
First and(Second/ Set of Interrogatories,Sfiled September 1, 1981 (Response to In' errogatory 9-3, at 18).
t 5/
Id.
s e,
/
r
- wy "Y
-.u
's
4 the volume in the gas decay tanks so that subsequent transients and/orcontainableaccidentscanbecontained."6/
The Staff witnesses on Contention 9 will be J. S. Boegli Earl H.
Markee and Dr. Walter J. Pasciak, all of whose testimony has been prefiled in accordance with the Licensing Board's Scheduling Order. Mr. Bcegli's testimony will show that the gaseous waste processing systems for Comanche Peak are capable of maintaining releases of rauioactive materials in gaseous effluents during normal operation (including anticipated opera-tional occurrences) "as low as is reasonably achievable" within the requirements of 10 CFC Part 50, Appendix I and the Annex to Appendix I.
Mr. Markee's testimony will show that in detennining concentrations of radioactive effluents, the NRC Staff considered various atmospheric trensport mechanisms at and beyond the exclusion boundary and that in detennining relative concentrations of radioactive effluents from Comanche Peak, the Staff considered on-site meteorological data for the four-year period between May 1972 and May 1976.
Dr. Pascirk's testimony will show that the effects of radbactive releases on the general public beyond the exclusion boundary have been considered.
Contention 9 is founded in CFUR's belief that 10 CFR s 20.1(c) and 10 CFR Part 50 require that actions be taken by Applicants to " minimize the effects of gaseous batch releases from CPSES."
(emphasis added).E i
6/
"CFUR's Response to Applicants' Third Set of Interrogatories,"
ifled June 2, 1981 (Response to Interrogatory 103-3, at 11).
l l
7f See " Report of CFUR's Position on Each Contention," filed April 10, 1980, a~t Enclosure 1, p. 24 (" Report of CFUR's Position"), and "CFUR's Response to NRC Staff's Second Set of Interrogatories to and Request for the Production of Documents From Intervenor CFUR ar.d Supplement to Answers to NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories to and Request j
to Produce From CFUR," filed May 22, 1981 (Response to Staff's Inter-rogatory 9-15(b), at 14).
i l
. - ~ _
s In this regard, 10 CFR S 20.1 states the purpose of the regulations at 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation." The "ALARA" or "As low As Is Reasonably Achievable" requirements cited by CFUR are defined in 10 CFR 9 20.1(c).
However, 10 CFR Part 50, Appen-dix I provides numerical guidance on design objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable."
(FES 5 4.2.3; Testimony of J. S. Boegli, at5). As stated in Appendix I,Section I., design objectives and limiting conditions for operation conforming to the guidelines of Appen-dix I shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with the ALARA requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.34a and 50.36a.
The design objectives of Appendix I require that the Applicants provide adequate treatment or gas holdup equipment to reduce radio-active materials in effluents to ALARA levels in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.34a (Boegli, at 5). The Staff's source tem (presented in FES Table 5.6) includes an estimate of the releases from the gaseous radio-active waste management syst e via the decay tanks.
(Id.) The NRC Staff has shown in the SER 6 11.2.2.5 that the gaseous waste processing systems for Comanche Peak are capable of maintaining releases of radio-active materials in gaseous effluents during nomal operation (including anticipated operational occurrences) "as low as is reasonably achievable" within the requirements of Appendix I and the Annex to Appendix I.
(FES 9 4.2.3.; Boegli at 5). The 'ALARA" criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appen-dix I do not include planning batch releases from the decay tanks during meteorological conditions which " minimize radioactive exposures," since meteorological conditions do not reduce the levels of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents to "ALARA" levels, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
(Boegli at 6).
Although CFUR has asserted that "more sophisticated weather data is requried [ sic] to minimize tha effects of gaseous batch releases from CPSES in confomance with the ALARA requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,"E CFUR has never specified just what " sophisticated data" is necessary.
In this regard, in determining relative concentrations of radioactive effluents from Comanche Peak, the Staff considered on-site meteorological data for the four-year period between May 1972 to May 1976.
(Testimony of Earl H.
Markee, at 3-4, 5; FES 66 4.3.3.1; and SER 95 2.3.2 and 2.3.3).
Based on the Staff's evaluation of the on-site meteorological data anc the terrain dt and surrounding the site, the Staff concluded (1) that the " constant near wind-direction model (Gaussian straightline trajectory model) presented in Regulatory (Reg.) Guide 1.111, Rev. 1,E was appropriate for use in deter-mining transport and diffusion estimates for routine radioactive releases E
to the atmosphere, and (2) that the model presented in Reg. Guide 1.145 was appropriate for use in detemining transport and diffusion estimates for accidental radioactive releases to the atmosphere.
(M.,at3).
In detemining relative concentrations of radioactive effluents, the NRC Staff considered various atmospheric transport mechanisms at and beyond the exclusicn boundary, such as transport by wind flow, 8]
Report of CFUR's Position, supra, at 24.
9/
See Reg. Guide 1.111, Rev.1, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transpor't and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors" (July 1977).
M/ See Reg. Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments At Nuclear Power Plants" (August 1979).
and dilution and ground deposition by atmospheric turbulence.
(H.,
at4).
Further, the dilution factors calculated using on-site meteor-l ological data were conservative.
(M., a t 4-5 ).
Since the procedures specified in Reg. Guides 1.511 and 1.145 for t
this plant layout assume a ground level release of radionuclides with initial mixing due to turbulence generated by the plant structures, the maximum off-site concentration in the air at ground level is calculated to occur at the site boundary.
(M., a t 5).
Also, with this assumption, the calculated concentrations beyond the site boundary will t,e lower than those at the site boundary because the concentration from a ground level release dec eases with distance from the source.
(M.).
The as-sumption of a ground level release and building-caused mixing tends to produce higher ground level concentrations at all distances than for an elevated release.
(H.)
During the course of a long period of time, it is expected that elevated releases will occur at least part of the time.
( I d.. ). Therefore, the ground level release assumption provides a conserva-tive estimate of atmospheric radioactive effluent concentrations.
(M.).
CFUR has challenged the wind-rose pattern used by the Applicants to evaluate off-site releases, based on the predominant movement of storm-cloud formations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.b It is correct, as CFUR asserts, that the predominant movement of storm cloud formations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is from the southwest to the nortneast, (Markee,at6). However, the movement of storm-cloud formations was 11/ See "CFUR's Motion to Add Contention", dated October 31,1979, at 2.
. part of the assessment of transport mechanisms for radioactive releases from Comanche Peak.
(M., a t 6).
In addition, radioactive effluent releases from Comanche Peak are not expected to occur only during storm con,tions.
(Id.). Such releases are expected to occur randomly, during the plant lifetime and the on-site meteorological data for the four-year period of record analyzed by the Staff and the Applicants is expected to provide a reasonable representation of the frequency of the various meteorological conditions during this period, including storms.
(Id.).
Therefore, the short-tem and long-tem diffusion estimates based on this period of data record adequately account for the spectrum of meteorological conditions leading to transport and diffusion of radio-active releases.
( I_d. ).
Contrary to what is alleged in Contention 9, the effects of radio-active releases on the general public beyond the exclusion 50undary have been considered.
(Testimony of Dr. Walter S. Pasciak, at 2).
Both the Applicants in the Environmental Report-0perating License Stage (ER-OL) and the ~;aff in the "cinai Environmental Statement related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2" (NUREG-0775, September 1981) present results of dose calculations for the location where maximum exposure is likely to occur rnd for the entire human population residing within a fifty-mile radius of the plant.
(Pasciak,at2). The Applicants listed the results of their calcu-lations for the aeximum exposed individual in Tables 5.2-4 and 5.2-5 of the Environmental Report.
(M.,at2). The Staff presented the final results of its calculations for the maximum exposed individual in FES
=-
i j
i
. 5 5.8.1., " Radiological Impacts of Nonnal Operation," Table 5.9.
(M.,
l at 2).
The Applicants' population dose estimates are listed in i-4 Table 5.2-6 of the ER, and the Staff's population dose estimates are presented in Table 5.10 of the FES.
(M.).
4 j
The maximum exposed individual dose estimates by the Applicants j
and by the Staff were made fcr locations where they would be expected to be highest rather than for locations chosen arbitrarily, such as the exclusion j
area boundary locations.
(H., a t 3). The locations, for example, were chosen in the following manner:
For the cow milk pathway, or for the r
vegetable consumption pathway, the dose calculations were made for the actual fann or garden located when the highest doses would be expected to occur.
(Id.,at3).
For external exposures, dose estimates were made for i
the location outside the exclusion area where the highest dose from that pathway would be expected to occur.
(Id.).
For the ground shine pathway, dose estimates were made at the actual residence where estimates from
)
this pathway would be expected to be highest.
(Id.).
In both the maximum exposed individual calculation and the 50-mile population dose calculations, atmospheric transport from the point of release to the receptor point was taken into consideration by means of modeling techniques described in Reg. Guide 1.111, Rev. 1.
(M., a t 4).
l As previously stated, historical meteorological data were input to these models.
(M.)
In addition, radioactive' decay in transport within plants and milk animals and bioconcentration within plants and milk l
animals was taken into consideration.
(H.). These transport models j
are described in Reg. Guide 1.109, " Calculations of Annual Doses To i
......,-...,. - -.~.-.,-.,-.,.,,-. -.--,..._,_ - - -, - -,, - -, - -,, -
- - -,.. - ~., -., - -.. - -, -
tian From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents For The Purpose of Eval-uating Compliance With 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I," Revision 1 (July 1977). (M.).E As part of the Staff's evaluation of the environinental impacts of Comanche Peak operation, the Staff also estimated health effects for the population residing within a 50-mile radius of the plant.
(Id, at 4-5).
These estimates are presented in Section 5.8.1.5 of the FES.
(H.,at5).
In contrast, nowhere in CFUR's fil%gs to date or in its Answers to the Staff's Interrogatories has CFUR provided any factual basis for the allegations contained in Contention 9.
CFUR has not presented any evi-dence disputing that the effects of radioactive releases on the general public have been considered.
Contention 25 Contention 25 was admitted by the Licensing Board's Order of June 16, 1980.
It asserts as follows:
Contention 25.
The requirvents 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.
R/ As was noted recently by on Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in granting summary disposition of a contention challenging the models used to calculate individual and population radiation doses:
In September 1977, a group of experts, meeting to evaluate models used for the environmental assessment of radionuclide releases, concluded that the transport models given in Regu-latory Guide 1.109 are adequate for demonstrating compliance with Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50."
Pennsylvania Power &
Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
LBP, __ NRC (October 12,1981) (slip. op. at 3).
1 i
L
Contrary to the allegations of the contention, the Staff's review of the financial data submitted by the Applicants in accordance with applicable Commission regulations has led the Staff to conclude that the Applicants are financially qualified to operate and safely decommission the Comanche Peak facility.
10 CFR 9 50.57(a)(4) provides that an operating license may be issued by the Commission upon finding that "[t]he applicant is techni-cally and financially qualified to engage in the act.ivities authorized by the operating license in accordance with the regulations in this chapter."
10 CFR S 50.33(f) provides more specific requirements with respect to financial qualifications.
It specifies the information required to be contained in applications for licenses, and requires that information be provided which demonstrates that the applicant possesses or has "rea-sonable assurance" of obtaining the funds necessary to cover operating costs, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition. The Commission has determined that the " reasonable assurance" requirement is satisfied where an appli-cant has "a reasonable financing plan in the light of relevant circum-stances." Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 18 (1978).
Finally, Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50 provides guidance as to the general kinds of financial and other data which should be submitted by applicants, although it does not estab-lish absolute r2quirements for the submission of any particular information.
The NRC Staff witness on Contention 5 will be Jim C. Petersen, whose testimony has been prefiled in accordance with the Licensing board's Scheduling Order. Mr. Petersen's testimony will establish that l
l i
l
the Staff has reviewed the financial and other data submitted by the i
Applicants, and has referred to independent sources of financial informa-tion (Testimony of Jim C. Petersen, at 5). The Applicants plan to recover the costs of operation through revenues derived frcri customers in system-wide sales of electricity.
(M., a t 7). The rates for electricity charged by 5 of the 6 Applicants (all Applicants other than TMPA) are set by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which requires that revenues be set at a level which permits the recovery of allowable operating expenses together with a reasonable return on investment. TMPA has power sales contracts with its member cities that require the establishment of rates sufficient to cover all operating costs, including TMPA's share of Comanche Peak costs.
(H.).
The Applicants' long-term statements of operation (except for Tex-La, a new entity which has no historical operating results) demon-strate the consistent recovery of historical costs of operation. (M., at 8). Because the Applicants have demonstrated the ability historically to achieve consistent recovery of capital and operating costs for other facilities, their plan to finance the Comar.che Peak facility's operation through revenues derive.d from rates charged to customers for utility service represents a reasonable financing plan in light of relevant cir-cumstances.
(M.).
See, e.g. Seabrook, supra, 7 NRC at 20; Duke Power Co.
(William S. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489,525(1979); Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, l' nits 1 and 2), LBP-77-68, 6 NRC 1127,1162 (1977),
aff'd, ALAB-491, 8 NRC 245 (1978).
l
. While long-tem statements of operation are not available for Tex-La, a new entity which has no historical operating results, the
$180 million loan guarantee provided by the U.S. Rural Electrification Administration--an amount substantially in excess of 'ex-La's estimated T
$135 million capital contribution to the facility--demonstrates that Tex-La has satisfied the NRC's financial qualification requirements (Petersen, at 8).
The Applicants have estimated the costs to decommission the facility, assuming the use of the immediate dismantlement mode; these estimated costs of decommissioning are consistent with the estimated costs of decommissioning found in NUREG/CR-0130.
(H.). The Applicants have inc'icated that they believe they will be able to recover decommis-sioning costs in the rate process, and intend to build the collection of these funds into depreciation rates of the facility under the "nega-tive net salvage" approach.
(M.).
The Staff has detemined that the Applicants' plan to recover decommissioning costs provides reasonable assurance for financing the decommissioning of the facility upon the end of its serviceable life.
(Id., at 9). This conclusion is based on the nature of the Applicants' business, their present and historical financial strength, the fact that utilities customarily adjust their annual charges for negative net salvage amounts to compensate for changes in decommissioning estimates, and other considerations.
(M.). Also, because the NRC requires that any operating reactor be safely decommissioned when it is retired (for the protection of the public health and safety), it is reasonable to assume that those amounts will be allowed in customer rate charges as necessary
and reasonable expenses.
(H. ). Accordingly, the Applicants' plan to finance these expenses from customer revenues constitutes a reasonable financing plan in light of relevant circumstances.
(H.).
Based upon these determinations, the Staff has concluded that the Applicants have provided a reasonable financing plan in light of rele-vant circumstances to operate, shutdown (if necessary) and maintain the Comanche Peak facility in a safe condition.
(M., at 9). Accordingly, the Applicants have reasonable assurance under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.33(f) of obtaining the necessary funds to cover estimated operating costs to the extent of their respective ownership interests in the facility.
(M.).
As a consequence, the Applicants are financially qualified to operate and safely decommission the Comanche Peak facility, in accordance with applicable regulations and the Atomic Energy Act.
Board Question No. 2 Board Question No. 2 was framed in the Licensing Board's Order of June 16, 1980.
It reads as follows:
Applicant and Staff should describe in detail the operating quality assurance program for CPSES. A description of the pro-visions for conduct of QA audits should be provided, including a description of how reactor operations and reactor operator training will be audited.
Pursuant to the Licensing Board's direction, the Staff is prepared to provide testimony as to its review of the Applicants' operating quality assurance program.
The Staff's witness on Board Question No. 2 is John G. Spraul, whose testimony has been prefiled in accordance with the Licensing Board's Scheduling Order. E The Staff does not wish to H/ See "NRC Staff Testimony of John G. Spraul Regarding Operating Quality Assurance (Board Question No. 2)," filed November 20, 1981.
. recite that testimony here at length and notes only the following deter-minations contained therein.
The Applicants' quality assurance program is set forth in their-Corporate Quality Assurance Program Manual, which establishes the general quality assurance policies and requirements to be implemented at the facility (Spraul, at 3).
These policies and requirements are implemented by the CPSES Operations Administrative Control and Quality Assurance Plan.
(M.). The plan establishes the quality requirements and controls to be implemented during station operations and defines the responsibilities, authority, and measures for the control and accomplishment of activities affecting the quality and operation of safety-related structures, systems, and components.
(M.).
It is structured to be in accordance with Appen-dix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and with the provisions of the applicable NRC regulatory guidance.
(M.). The plan, coupled with the quality assurance program description in the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Repcrt (FSAR),
forms the foundation upon which the overall quality assurance program is fonnulated and describes how the requirements of Appendix E5 to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 are satisfied.
(M.). These documents control quality-related activities involving safety-related items to satisfy the requirements of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
(M.).
The CPSES Operations Administrative Control and Quality Assurance Plan establishes requirements for an audit program.
(Id., at 5). These require-ments are consistent with the provisions of Regulatory Guides 1.28 and 1.33 and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N45.2.12.
(Id.).
The quality assurance program establishes a comprehensive audit system to
ensure that the quality assurance program requirements and related sup-porting procedures are effective and properly implemented during opera-tions.
(M., a t 6).
The Applicant has committed to audit all aspects of the quality assurance program annually, in accordance with the provisions described above.
(Id., at 7). Details have not yet been made available for NRC review as to how any given portion of the CPSES quality assurance program (including reactor operations and reactor operator training) will be audited by the Applicants' quality assurance organization during the operations phase.
(Id., at 7-8).
As the design and construction phase nears completion, such ir. formation will be submitted to the NRC in the fonn of procedures which will then be reviewed by inspectors from the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
(H., a t 8).
Implementation of these procedures will be verified in the field on a sampling basis by NRC inspectors.
(H.).
In summary, audits of reactor operations and reactor operator train-ing are to be perfonned by qualified, independent personnel using check-lists or other guidelines in accordance with procedures to be approved by the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
(H.).
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff believes that no factual basis exists for the allegations contained in Contentions 9 and 25.
In addition, the Staff believes that the issues raised in Board Question
i 17 -
No. 2 have been addressed, and that those issues do not warrant further concern or consideration.
Respectfully submitted, M
A bbcMild Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff
)LbId Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of November,1981 l
}
e l
1 I
f
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:GISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL )
Docket Nos. 50-445
~ --
)
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S TRIAL BRIEF REGARDING CONTEN-TIONS 9 AND 25 AND BOARD QUESTION NO. 2" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United. States mail, first class, or through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system (*), or by hand delivery (**), or by express mail (***),
this 24th day of November, 1981:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman **
Mrs. Juanita Ellis ***
Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 David J. Preister, Esq. ***
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom ***
Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge Environmental Protection Division Dean, Division cf Engineering, P. O. Box 12548, Capital Station Architecture and Technology Austin, TX 78711 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74074 Mr. Richard Fouke ***
1668-B Carter Drive Dr. Richard Cole, Administrative Judge **
Arlington, TX 76010 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Debevoise & Liberman 1200,7th Street, N.W.
J. Marshall Gilm0*e, Esq. ***
Washington, DC 20036 1060 W. Pipeline. toad Hurst, TX 76053 i
l L
. i Ato.;ic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Section (1)*
Panel
- Uffice of the Secretary U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Coaaission U.S. Iluclear Regulatcry Connission
U.S. "uclear P,egulatory Comaission 1:ashington, DC 20555 4/!b1u)/d> l /anfh os Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff V