ML20041E566
| ML20041E566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | Bradley Jones NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | National Resources Defense Council |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203110088 | |
| Download: ML20041E566 (8) | |
Text
9 03/09/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
c3 In the Matter of g
O A
NJ y I D :fr UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 8
~'
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Dociet No. 50-537 y
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY f
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) m NRC STAFF'S FIFTH SET OF INTERR0GATORIES TO NRDC Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b), the NRC Staff serves the following interrogatories on NRDC.
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1.
Info "ation sought in these Interrogatories shall include information within the knowledge, possession, control or access of any agents, employees and independent consultants of NRDC.
2.
As used herein, " documents" include, but are not limited to papers, photographs, criteria, standards of review, recordings, memoranda, books, records, writings, letters, telegrams, mailgrams, correspondence, notes and minutes of meetings or of conversations or of phone calls, interoffice, intra-agency or interagency menoranda or l
written communications of any nature, recordings of conversations either l
l in writing or upon any mechanical or electronic or electrical recording l
l devices, notes, exhibits, appraisals, work papers, reports, studies, opinions, surveys, evaluations, projections, hypotheses, formulas, designs, drawings, manuals, notebooks, worksheets, contracts, agreements, W re e,
G203110088 820309 I
PDR ADOCK 05000537 WhD
. O letter agreements, diaries, desk calendars, charts, schedules, appointment books, punchcards and computer printout sheets, computer data, telecopier transmissions, directives, proposals, and all drafts, revisions, and differing versions (whether fonnal or informal) of any of the foregoing, and also all copies of any of the foregoing which differ in any way (including handwritten notations or other written or printed matter of any nature) from the original.
The following questions relate to Contention 5, as revised.
1.
Does NRDC presently maintain that the Applicant's ER and/or NRC's EIS inadequately assesses the consequences of programs and measures to prevent acts of " sabotage, terrorism, or theft"?
a.)
If answer is yes, state each and every consequence of the programs and measures to prevent acts of sabotage, terrorism and theft, which NRDC maintains is not adequately considered, b.) With respect to each consequence identified in 1 a) above, give the basis (identifying both individual experts and documentation relied upon) for NRDC's position that the consequence is not adequately considered in either the NRC's EIS or Applicant's ER.
l R2. Does NRDC presently believe that a " design basis threat" must include a specific number of attackers as part of that threat?
a)
If answer is yes, does NRDC agree that this number must i
be kept classified in order to assure the maximum security for the CRBR facility?
i I
i i
3-b)
Does NRDC agree that the appropriate design basis threat for acts of sabotage is the ability to defend against several persons with the atributes described in 10 CFR 73.1(a)(1)?
c)
Does NRDC agree that the appropriate design basis threat for acts of theft against strategic nuclear material is a small group of persons with the atributes described in 10 CFR. 73.1(a)(2)?
d.)
If the answer to 2b or 2c above is no, explain fully the bases for NRDC's disagreement with the statements.
Identify any documents or individuals relied on as establishing the identified bases.
3.
In view of the fact that the NRC has designated a design basis threat, does NRDC agree that compliance with the Comission's present regulations on safeguards, using the design basis threat, adequately protects against the environmental effects of sabotage, terrorism and theft directed against the CRBR site?
a.)
If the answer is no, explain fully the basis for NRDC disagreement including the actions NRDC believes must be taken to adequately address the effects of sabotage, terrorism, and theft directed against the CRBR.
Identify any documentation of individuals relied upon for the identified basis.
4.
Caes NRDC agree that after irradiation the fuel for CRBR, due to its radioactivity, will be "self protecting" against theft, although meas-sures must still be taken to prevent sabotage of the irradiated material?
a.)
If the answer is no explain fully NRDC's basis for l
disagreeing with the statement.
Identify any documents or individuals relied upon for the identified basis.
5.
Does NRDC maintain that the effects of sabotage, terrorism, and theft for CRBR and the fuel cycle for CRBR cannot be adequately protected against under any circumstances involving operations of CRBR?
a.)
If answer is yes, explain fully NRDC's basis for believing adequate protective measures are not available or cannot be developed.
Identify both documentation and individuals relied opon for the identified basis.
The following questions relate to Contention 9, as revised.
6.
Contention 9, subsection (a) states that the analyses of the environmental impacts of the model LMFBR and fuel cycle in the Programatic Statement and Supplement are based on a series of faulty assumptions.
a.)
Identify each and every " faulty assumption" which Contention 9, subsection (a) is referring to.
b.) For each assumption identified give NRDC's view as to why the assumption is faulty.
c.)
If NRDC has a position as to what they believe the correct assumptions should be for the alleged faulty assumptions, state those correct assumptions.
7.
Contention 9, subsection (b) states that the impacts of the CRBR fuel cycle will differ from those analyzed in the Programatic Statement. That subsection then identifies a areas where NRDC believes the CRBR analyses are deficient. For each of those 4 identified areas give the following information:
a.)
Identify each and every fact concerning the identified area on which NRDC bases its statement that the Programatic Statement does not adequately cover the facilities planned to be used for the CRBR fuel cycle.
b.)
If the basis for your answer in Part (a) is that there are differences between the discussion in the Programatic Statement and the planned CRBR fuel cycle, explain specifically why those differences lead to environmental impacts beyond those already considered in the Programatic Statement.
c.) For each area identified as being inadequately assessed state specifically what environmental impacts NRDC believes must be considered to make the analysis adequate.
Respectfully submitted,
/
lb,
Bradley W. Jon s Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of March, 1982 I
l I
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Docket No. 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.713(a), the following information is provided:
Bradley W. Jones Name U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Address Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, DC 20555 Area Code 301 - 492-8671 Telephone Number New York Court of Appeals Admissions United States District Court, N.D.N.Y.
NRC Staff Name of Party U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Respectfully submitted.
Y Bradley W.
ones Counsel for NRC S aff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this A day of March, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of UNITED STATES DEPARTHENT OF ENERGY Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGER CORPORATION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Breeder Reactor
)
Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRDC" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" for Bradley W. Jones in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 9th day of March, 1982:
Marshall Hiller, Esq., Chairman William B. Hubbard, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atonic Safety and Licensing Board State of Tennessee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 450 Jares Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Oak Ridge Public Library Administrative Judge Civic Center Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William E. Lantrip, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- City Attorney Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Municipal Building Administrative Judge P.O. Box 1 Bodega Marine Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 i
University of California P.O. Box 247 Lawson McGhee Public Library Bodega Bay, California 94923 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Alan Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Warren E. Bergholz, Jr.
Board Panel Leon Silverstrom U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Rocm 6-B-256 Dr. John H. Buck Washington, DC 20585 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- George L. Edgar, Esq.
Mr. Joe H. Walker Frank K. Peterson, Esq.
401 Roane Street Gregg A. Day, Esq.
Harriman, Tennessee 37830 Thom6s A. Schmutz, Esq.
Irvin A. Shapell, Esq.
Morgen, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Project Management Corporation P.O. Box U Oak Ridse, Tennessee 37830 Ellyn R. Weiss Dr. Thomas B. Cochran Barbara A. Finamore S. Jacob Scherr Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Mr. Godwin Williams, Jr.
Manager of Power Tennessee Valley Authority 819 Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Mr. Lochlin W. Coffey, Director Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20585 Eldon V.C. Greenberg Tuttle & Taylor 1901 L Street, N.W., Suite 805 Washington, D.C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Sectior, Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear ReSalatory Cornission Washington, D.C.
20555
- l" w
1radleyy. Jones f/
Counsel for NRC S Wff