ML20052E232
| ML20052E232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1982 |
| From: | Bradley Jones NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205100216 | |
| Download: ML20052E232 (18) | |
Text
E DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Cettified By
- w - M_
O NECpf tV ofS NAy y
- g EO i
- g-5 O]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
s I
BEFORE THE AT0t"C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Fo 7
3.
1 In the Matter of
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )
NRC STAFF'S ANSWERS TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB TWENTY-FOURTH SET OF INTERR0GATORIES TO STAFF The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) hereby responds to Intervenors' Natural Resources Defense Couhcil, Inc. and the Sierra Club Twenty-fourth set of Interrogatories to the Staff filed on April 15, 1982.
By agreement of the parties the Interrogatories will be answered j
orally with the exception of those questions addressing contentions 4 l
l and 6 (new numbers). Attached hereto are the Staff's written answers to NRDC's and the Sierra Club's interrogatories, together with the affidavits of those individuals who participated in answering the interrogatories.
Each answer to an interrogatory will be preceded by a copy of the par-ticular question to which the answer is responding.
Each question is I
instructed to be answered in six parts, as follows.
A)
Provide the direct answer to the question.
B)
Id'entify all documents and studies, and the particular parts thereof, relied upon by Staff, now or in the past, which serve as the basis for the answer.
In lieu thereof, at Staff's f
$$[kDO O
i e
t
-2 option, a copy of such document and study may be attached to the answer.
NC)
Identify principal documents and studies, and I
f the particular parts thereof, specifically 1-I examined but not cited in (b).
In lieu lL thereof, at Staff's option a copy of each such document and study may be attached to the answer.
D)
Identify by name, title and affiliation the primary Staff employee (s) or consultant (s) who provided the answer to the question.
E)
Explain whether Staff is presently engaged in or intend to engage in any further, on-going research program which may affect Staff's answer. This answer need be provided only in cases where Staff intends to rely upon ongoing research not included in Section 1.5 of the PSAR at the LWA or construction permit hearing on the CRBR. Failure to provide such an answer means that Staff does not intend to rely upon the existence of any such research at the LWA or construction permit hearing on the CRBR.
F)
Identify the expert (s), if any, which Staff intends to have testify on the subject matter questioned, and state the qualifications of each such expert. This answer may be provided for each separate question or for a group of related questions. This answer need not be provided until Staff has in fact identified the expert (s) in question or determined that no expert will testify, as long as such answer provides reasonable notice to Intervenors.
For all the responses to interrogatories in this set the following i
are the answers to the requested parts in the Protocol for Discovery.
B)
All documents and sttdies, and the particular parts thereof, relied upon by the Staff now or in the past which serve as the basis for the answer are mentioned in the direct answer to the question unless otherwise noted.
C)
ThEre were no principal documents and studies specifically examined but not cited in (b) unless otherwise noted.
J
D)
The name, title and affiliation of the Staff employee (s) or consultant (s) who provided the answer to the question are available in the f,E affidavits unless otherwise noted.
j; 2:
IE)
The Staff is not presently engaged in nor 1L intends to engage in any further, on-going research program which may affect Staff's answer unless otherwise noted.
F)
At this time, the Staff has not determined who will testify on the subject matter questioned.
Reasonable notice will be given to all parties after the Staff has made this determination.
At that time, a statement of professional qualifications will be provided for each witness.
Respectfully submitted, f.
,/'
Bradley W. Jones Counsel for NRC Staff s
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of May,1982 l
,.-e
' ~ ~
^
^ ^ ^
NRC STAFF'S WRITTEN ANSWERS TO u
8 NRDC'S TWENTY-F0URTH SET OF INTERR0GATORIES jl 1
'l Interrogatory:
IV-1 Since April 25, 1977, has the Staff prepared or received any documents which discuss:
i a.
the cost of safeguards and physical security at the CRBR and supporting fuel cycle facilities; b.
the risks and consequences of safeguards and/or physical security failure at the CRBR and supporting fuel cycle facilities; c.
the nature and scope of projected, future threats from terrorists, saboteurs, and thieves to the CRBR and supporting fuel cycle facilities?
If the the answer to any part of this interrogatory is yes, identify and produce such documents.
Response
A.
The only documents the Staff has received since April 25, 1977 that specifically relate to the CRBR or its supporting fuel cycle facilities are the Applicant's Environmental Report on the CRBR fuel cycle and the Applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report on the CRBRP.
The Staff is preparing an updated Environmental Statement on the CRBR fuel cycle as part nf this environmental review process.
B.
References:
1.
Amendment XIV to the Applicant's Environmental Report on the CRBRP, dated May 1982.
2-2.
Preliminary Safety Analysis Report on the Clinch River Reactor P,lant.
D.fStaffMembersResponding:
h 1
't^
R. Davis llurt, Safeguards Technical Analyst, Division of Safeguards Harvey B. Jones, Jr., Security Specialist, Division of Safeguards Interrogatory:
IV-2.
Since April 25, 1977, has the Staff prepared or received any documents which discuss the pos-sibility that an act of sabotage or terrorism could be a CDA initiator at the CRBR?
If the answer to this interrogatory is yes, identify and produce such documents.
Response
A.
The Staff has not prepared or received any documents that discuss the possibility of sabotage at the'CRBRP. As part of this environmental review, the Staff is assessing the reasonableness of the Applicant's proposed measures for protecting against sabotage at the CRBRP. The Applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report on the CRBRP discusses the physical security measures that will be employed at the CRBRP to protect against sabotage.
B.
References:
Preliminary Safety Analysis Report on the CRBRP.
D.
Staff Members Responding:
Harvey B. Jones, Jr., Security Specialist, Division of Safeguards Sarah A. Mullen, Security Specialist, Division of Safeguards
--m-
._._-e
,---,m
l
. Interrogatory:
. IV-3. a.
State what specific measures have been 3adoptedsinceApril 25, 1977, to improve safeguards t.
tand physical security at the CRBR and supporting ii sfuel cycle facilities; it b.
For ea.h such measure, specify (i) its cost, and (ii) the reason for its adoption.
Response
A.
The only currently existing facility that will handle special nuclear material in routine support of the CRBR is Building 308 on the Hanford Reservation.
Building 308 is a DOE facility and, while the Staff is reviewing the reasonableness of the Applicant's overall safeguards system for Building 308, the Staff does not have any information on how the safeguards system has been altered since April 25, 1977.
D.
Staff Members Responding:
s R. David Hurt, Safeguards Technical Analyst, Division of Safeguards Interrogatory:
IV-4. a.
State what alternatives to the planned safeguards and physical security system at the CRBP.
and supporting fuel cycle facilities are currencly under consideration.
b.
For each alternative stated, (i) its cost, and (ii) the reasons which would support its adoption.
Response
A.
Safeguards alternatives are not being considered as part of the CRBR fuel cycle environmental review.
D.
Staff Members Responding:
R. David Hurt, Safeguards Technical Analyst, Division of Safeguards
4 Interrogatory:
9 IV-5.
Specify the ways, if any, that the threat to c
i the CRBR and the supporting fuel cycle facilities 2e
~ has changed since April 25, 1977.
g
Response
A.
The Staff is not aware at this time of any specific threat to the CRBRP or its supporting fuel cycle facilities. The NRC's generic design basis threat is contained in 10 C.F.R. 73.1.
See the response to Interrogatory 20 of Set 23 for further details.
B.
References:
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10 (Energy).
D.
Staff Members Responding:
Harvey B. Jones, Jr., Security Specialist, Division of Safeguards Sarah A. Mullen, Security Specialist, Division of Safeguards Interrogatory:
VI-1.
Identify each fuel cycle facility (including fuel production, storage preparation, fabrication, reprocessing, spent fuel storage, and waste disposal facilities) that is likely to be used in the CRBR fuel cycle throughout its entire operating life.
Response
A.
DOE, Fuels and Materials Examination Facility - fuel production, fabrication and storage.
00E, Developmental Reprocessing Plant - spent fuel storage, reprocessing and U, Pu and waste storage.
.Commerical uranium fuel fabrication plant - blanket fuel production, fabrication and storage.
The waste disposal facilities that will be used in the CRBR fuel cycle (waste management segment only) will be a Federal waste repository
for high-level wastes and commercial and/or DOE burial sites for low-level, wastes. TRU wastes will be transported to an existing DOE g
.t transura6}c site on the Hanford reservation.
B.
Reference:
Amendment XIV to Environmental Review (May 1982)
D.
Staff members responding:
A. T. Clark, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety J. E. Ayer, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety R. R. Boyle, Division of Waste fianagement Interrogatory:
VI-2.
Indicate whether Staff takes the position that the following regulations apply to each of the facilities identified in response to Question 1 above:
a.
10 CFR 50.34 b.
Response
A.
The FMEF and DRP are operated by DOE and therefore do not fall under any NRC regulations.
10 C.F.R. Parts 20 and 40 or 70 would apply to the commercial uranium fuel fabrication plant.
The Federal repository mentioned in the response above will be subject to the requirements nf 10 C.F.R. Part 60 as well as 10 C.F.R. Part 20, ai; appropriate.
The provisinns of 10 C.F.R. Part 71 do not apply to facilities but apply to connercial transport of radioactive materials.
Relating to Safeguards, the Applicant has not identified any NRC licensed fuel cycle facilities that will handle SNM in support of the CRBRP; e of the regulations listed in this Interrogatory will apply to 1
r the DOE CRBR fuel cycle facilities which are unlicensed. The following regulations will apply to the CRBRP upon submission of an application for an operating license.
10 C.F.R. 50.34(c) 10 C.F.R. Part 70 10 C.F.R. Part 73 B.
Referenc,es:
10 C.F.R. Part 50 Section 50.34(c),10 C.F.R. Part 70 and 10 C.F.R. Part 73. Amendment XIV, May 1982.
D.
Staff itembers Responding:
Charles E. Gaskin, Plant Protection Analyst, Division of Safeguards R. Davis Hurt, Safeguards Technical Analyst, Division of Safeguards A. T. Clark, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety J. E. Ayer, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety R. R. Boyle, Division of Waste Management Interrogatory:
VI-3.
For each of the facilities and regulations identified in Questions 1 and 2 above, if Staff's response is that a specific regulation on a par-ticular subject does not apply to a facility, indicate which regulation 9s) on that subject do apply to such facility.
Response
A.
The commercial low-level burial sites mentioned in response to Interrogatory VI-1 will be subject to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 61, when promulgated.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the fuel cycle facilitieg that the Applicant owns and proposes to use in handling SNM in g
support h the CRBRP will not be subject to !!RC licensing requirenients.
h 1
1 Therefore no NRC regulations of any sort will apply to these facilities.
D.
Staff Members Responding:
R. R. Boyle, Division of Waste Management A. T. Clark, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety J. E. Ayer, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety D. Hurt. Division of Safeguards Interrogatory:
VI-4.
In updating the FES are you examining the environmental impact associated with the operation of each of the following DOE reprocessing plants r
j that (i) is likely to be used (ii) may be used to supply fuel for the CRBR or to reprocess CRBR fuel as compared with the model facility.
i a.
the Savannah River plant (H canyon);
b.
the Savannah River plant (F canyon);
l c.
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; d.
the Hanford PUREX plant
Response
A.
No.
D.
Staff Members Responding:
J. E. Ayer, Divisinn of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety A. T. Clark, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Interrogatory:
l VI-5.
How will the following materials be disposed I
of:
1 a.
CRBR spent fuel; l
b.
high-level waste from the reprocessing the i
CRBR fuel; i
i
c.
high-level waste from the reprocessing of y
LWR fuel to recover plutonium for the CRBR.
g
.t 3
Responseg[
A.
a.
The CRBR spent fuel will be stored and then reprocessed, b.
The high-level waste from the reprocessing of CRBR fuel will be stored prior to disposal in a Federal Repository.
c.
The final disposition of the high-level waste from the reprocessing of LWR fuel to recover plutonium, an alternative for start-up Pu supply, for the CRBR has not been made known to the Staff.
B.
Reference:
Amendment XIV May 1982 to Environmental Review D.
Staff Members Responding A. T. Clark, Division of Fuel Cy,cle and Material Saf-
R. R. Boyle, Division of Waste Management Interrogatory:
VI-6.
Does Staff take the position that Applicants must meet the provisions of 10 CFR Part 71 with respect to the transportation of materials in the CRBR fuel cycle?
Response
A.
The provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 71 apply to transportation of nuclear materials only when the shipper is a person authorized by a specific NRC license to receive, possess, use, or transfer the radio-active materials.
Radioactive materials poscessed and used by DOE and its contractors are exempt from NRC licensing and accordingly are not subject to the regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 71.
If it should be determined that radioactive materials at any facility in the CRBR fuel
cycle are subject to NRC license under 10 C.F.R. Parts 30, 40, or 70, the provisons,of Part 71 would apply to those materials when they are shipped g
4 s.
from thaf facility in quantities greater than an exempt quantity.
?
2.
1 Interrogatory:
VI-7.
Will the disposal of wastes generated from the CRBR spent fuel, including high-level wastes frc.n reprocessing, (a) be subject to:
1.
NRC jurisdiation?
ii.
EPA jurisdiction?
(b) be classified as defense waste?
(c) be classified as commercial waste?
Response
A.
VI-7.a.i.
The disposal of high-level wastes will be subject to NRC licensing authority.
The disposal of low-level wastes at commercial facilities will also be subject to NRC regulatons.
VI-7.a.ii.
The jurisdictional authority of EPA would best be explained by the EPA.
VI-7.b&c. The NRC does not have a classification system for defense and commercial wastes.
D.
Staff Members Responding:
R. R. Boyle, Division of Waste Management l
l Interrogatory:
X.
The Following Interrogatories Relate to the Contention Indicated in Parentheses Following Each Document, Event, or Program:
With regard to each of the following documents, l
events, or programs, indicate, by answering the following questions, the extent to which staff has considered or intends to consider such document, event, or program in determining whether a l
supplement to the 1977 Final Environmental i
Statement on the CRBRP (NUREG-0139) must be prepared:
Ea Has Staff considered the impact of this Ih
{)
document, event, or program?
3" 1.
b)
Does Staff consider this document, event, or program to represent significant new information or a significant change in circumstances?
- 38. New NRC regulations on physical security (10 CFR 73.55, " Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Sabotage" (Contention 4);
- 41. Recent GA0 reports concerning safeguards and physical security (Contention 4):
a.
" Security at Nuclear Power Plants -- At Best, Inadequate" (4/77);
d.
Unclassified summary of a classified report entitled, " Status of Physical Security Improvements to ERDA Special Nuclear Material Facilities (9/87/77);
Response
A.
- 38. The Staff has considered the impact of this regulation and will require the Applicant to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 73.55,
" Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Sabotage" for CRBRP.
The Staff does not consider this regulation to represent a significant change in cir-cumstances.
It will affect the 1977 FES on the CRBRP in that the FES must be revised to reflect compliance by the Applicant with 10 C.F.R.
i l
73.55.
l 41.a.
The Staff has not considered this document as part of l
l the CRBR fuel cycle environmental review.
Regulations on security at a
nuclear power plants have significantly changed since this GA0 report was
G.,
s 3
published.~ The CRBRP will have to meet the upgraded requirements containe(in 10 C.F.R. 73.55, as explained in the answer to g
+
interrogttory X-38 of this set.
- g-2 sm 41.d.
The Staff has not considered this document as part of the CRBR fuel cycle environmental review.
The Staff will review the
+
reasonableness of the Applicant's proposed physical security systems for -
the CRBRP and its supporting. fuel cycle facilities.
It is not nece'ssary for this purpose to perform a detailed assessment of the history of rhysical security improvements at DOE facilities.
\\
B.
References:
Staff Members Responding:
~. Charles E. Gaskin, Plant Protection Analyst, Division of Safeguards R. Davis Hurt, Safeguards Technical Analyst, Division of Safeguards
/
's
/
4 e
O 5
l 1
UNITED STATED OF AMERICS I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lmISSION U
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
3 g,
In the Mat 6er of 5,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Docket Nos. 50-537 i
ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPOR-l ATION TENNESSEE VALLjY AUTHCRITY i
(Clinch River Breeder ReactorPlant)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. DUBE I, Robert L. Dube, being duly sworn, state the following:
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission as Section l
Chief of Regulatory Activities and Analyses Section,Iuels Facilities Safeguards Licensing Branch, Division of Safeguards,.
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
2..
I am duly authorized to participate in answering Interrogatories in Section IV 1-5 and X 38, 41a, and 41d in the 24th Set and I hereby l
certify that the answers given are true to the best of my knowledge.
M ROBERT J. DUBE ll Subscribed and sworn to before me this s'" day of ApMh 1982.
Dm1 @
\\I u o a a d u abm a c __
NotopyPublic f
My Comission expires: pLd i9 ##'
_=
k
.~
UNITED STATED OF AMERICS NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LItENSING BOARD I
t.
In the Matter of
))
5 1
'r UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ll Docket Nos. 50-537
~'
)l ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPOR-l ATION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY I
(Clinch River Breeder ReactorPlant)
)l AFFIDAVIT OF HOMER LOWENBERG I. Homer Lowenberg, being duly sworn, state the following:
i 1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission as a Chief Engineer, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
2.
I am duly authorized to participate in' answering Interrogatory
+
VI 1-7 of the 24th Set and I hereby certify that the answers given i
are true to the best of mv knowledge.
HOMER LOWENBERG V
Subscribed and sworn to before me this P ' day of May, 1982.
~
W m.s %. Sonx NotarfPublic My Comission expires:
. s, e t ? x.
O
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
-i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L
In the MatteE of sig
)
~
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORIlf
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor
)
Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWERS TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND THE SIERRA CLUB TWENTY-FOURTH SET OF INTERR0GA-TORIES TO STAFF" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indi-cated by a double asterisk, by express mail, by an asterisk, either through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system or hand delisered, this 6th day of May,1982.
Marshall Miller, Esq., Chairman
' William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General Administrative Judge William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lee Breckenridge, Assistant Attorney Washington, D.C.
20555
- General l
Mr. Custave A. Linenberger 450 James Robertson Parkway **
Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director William E. Lantrip, Esq.,,
Administrative Judge City Attorney Bodega bbrine Laboratory Municipal Building University of California P.O. Box 1 P.O. Box 247 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Lawson McGhee Public Library Alan Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman 500 West Church Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Knoxville, 7nunessee 37902 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatofy Commission Warren E. Bergholz, Jr.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Leon Silverstrom U.S. Department of Energy Dr. John H. Buck 1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Room 6-B-256 Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20585 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C.
20555
George L. Edgar, Esq..
Mr. Joe H. Walker Frank K. Peterson, Esq.
401 Roane Street Gregg A. Say, Esq.
Harriman, Tennessee 37830
(
Thomas AssSchmutz, Esq.
ji Irvin A. $hapell, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 3a 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Project Management Corporation P.O. Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Barbara A. Finamore
- Ellyn R. Weiss Dr. Thomas B. Cochran St Jacob Scherr Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C.
20006 Manager of Power Tennessee Valley Authority 819 Power Buf1 ding s
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 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 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 P
Atomic Safety and Licensing' Appeal 4
s Board Panel Bradley,W'. Jonge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for NK Staff Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,' D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
i
~
^~
"