ML20069D595

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response in Opposition to Intervenor 820909 Motions to Strike & to Amend Applicant Exhibit 1 Testimony.Intervenors Ignore Limitations & Reargue Issues ASLB Already Decided. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20069D595
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 09/20/1982
From: Bergholz W, Edgar G
EDGAR, G.L., ENERGY, DEPT. OF, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORP.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8209210320
Download: ML20069D595 (14)
v • d • e


Text

..

, 9/20/82 00CHETED USNRC id SB' 20 P3:14 BEFORE THE C m' " er c r - - <

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYtCOMMIS,SION:.;

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

)

In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION )

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

)

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS'

MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO AMEND APPLICANTS' EXHIBIT 1 The United States Department of Energy and Project Management Corporation, acting for themselves and on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (the Applicants), hereby respond to the Intervenors' Motion to Strike and Motion to Amend Applicants' Exhibit 1, dated September 9, 1982.

In their Motions, the Intervenors are again raising the same arguments which this Board has already considered and rejected in its April 22, 1982 Order Following Conference With Parties (" Board Order") and in its ruling of August 23, 1982 at the CRBRP pre-hearing conference. Intervenors state that they " continue to believe that the Board's rulings on the scope of this proceeding are unworkable," Intervenors' Motion at 2, but nevertheless are " attempting to live with the Board's

' 820 9 210 32c) (3 3 3

rulings." Id. at 3. On the contrary, by continuing to reargue issues upon which the Board has clearly ruled, Intervenors are not living wi thin the Board's rulings but are stubbornly persisting in their efforts to make those rulings unworkable.

I. INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STRIKE Intervenors' motion to strike is based "on the grounds that they [ Applicants] present conclusions about the adequacy of CRBR safety systems that are based on detailed, design-specific data and analyses of CRBR." Intervenors'

Motion at 3. This argument stems from Intervenors' continued misreading of or refusal to accept the Board's rulings of April 22 and August 23, 1982, and from Intervenor's incorrect characterization of Applicants' Exhibit 1.

As the Board clearly noted in its April 22 Order, the findings which the Board must make in an LWA-1 proceed-ing are limited to the NEPA findings required by 10 C.F.R. 6 51.52(b) and (c) and "a preliminary safety determination

'that based on the available information and review to date there is reasonable assurance that the site is suitable for a reactor of the general size and type proposed from the standpoint of radiological health and safety considera-tions.'" Board Order at 4. The Board went on to explain that for an LWA-1 hearing:

i

- n w - - -w

I On its face, it is evident that 10 CFR 6 50.10(e)(2)(ii) does not require a complete safety review based on the com-pleted, detailed design of the specific reactor proposed. Instead, a preliminary safety finding is contemplated " based on the available information and review to date" and based on "a reactor of the gen-eral size and type proposed." Uith

respect to Contention 1(a) specifically, 4

there must be a showing of reasonable assurance that the implementation of a design which would reduce the likelihood ,

of CDAs so that they can be excluded or that the finding is to include CDAs.

In contrast to 10 CFR h 50.10(e)2, 10 CFR S 50.35(a) contemplates a specific dhalysis of the facility at the CP stage. Thus, although a full NEPA review is mandated for the LWA-1 hearing phase, the finality of this review must of necessity await the completion of the CP evidentiary hearing where full design details and supportive analyses of the facility will be critiqued.

Id-In conformance with the Board's Order, Applicants' Testimony Concerning NRDC Contentions 1, 2, and 3 (Exhibit 1), addressed the feasibility of designing a reactor of the general size and type as the CRBRP in regard to the subject matter of those contentions. The. testimony was not proferred to demonstrate the adequacy of specific CRBR safety systems for the purposes of "a complete safety review." CRBRP Evidentiary Hearing of August 23-27, 1982, Tr. 2096.

i Intervenors complain that Applicants' expert witnesses relied upon analyses regarding CRBRP systems in

t 1

1 1

l concluding that it is feasible to design such systems for a LMFBR of the general size and type of the CRBRP.

Intervenors' Motion at 3. Yet this is exactly the type of "available information and review to date" which can be presented to the Board to address the feasibility of such systems. As Chairman Miller noted at the August 23, 1982 pre-hearing conference, certain specific aspects must be presented in order to show feasibility, or the subject matter to be considered would remain in a hypothetical vacuum. Tr". 1349.

Curiously, Intervenors have conceded that the data and analyses contained in the Exhibit I testimony have been admitted for the " limited purpose of ' illustrating' design feasibility for a reactor of the general size and type and the state of technology" and that they "have not been admitted as evidence of the adequacy of specific CRBR

features, "(emphasis in the original) . Intervenors' Motion at 4. Indeed, the Board has stated that "the evidence and I

documents and exhibits proferred will be admitted, but will be admitted for the limited purpose of being illustrative of l the ' reactor of the general size and type'." Prehearing Conference, Tr. 1349. Intervenors, however, seem unable to differentiate between conclusions drtvn by Applicants' expert witnesses regarding feasibility for a reactor of the general size and type, which are appropriate for these

4 A

proceedings, and conclusions by the Board concerning

adequacy of specific systems to satisfy detailed safety criteria, which are not appropriate until the LWA-2 or Construction Permit proceedings. As the Board stated in its April 22 Order, " full design detail and supportive analyses 2

of the facility will be critiqued" at the CP stage. Board Order at 4.

Evidently, Intervenors fear that the Board will improperly use the evidence presented to go beyond the limited purpose foh which it was offered and admitted and make final findings as to the adequacy of specific safety-related systems at the LWA-1 stage of the proceeding. Not only is that fear unfounded, but also is not a legitimate basis for 4

striking Applicants' testimony.

Intervenors identify thirteen specific portions of Applicants' Exhibit I which they move to strike, along with i

their rationale supporting the deletion of each portion.

Intervenors' Motion at 4-5 For the reasons set forth

, below, Intervenors' Motion to Strike must he denied in its entirety.

A. Proposed Deletions 1-10 (Intervenors' Motion at 4-5) .

(Rationale for striking: Conclusions based on detailed, design-specific analyses in CRBRP-3).

CRBRP-3 was proferred and admitted for the limited purpose of " showing analyses which are illustrative of the

4 state of technology, and to show that it is feasible to design and analyze the features and system so described."

CRBRP Evidentiary Hearing, Tr. 2096, 2116. The testimony in question likewise was presented for the same limited purpose. For the reasons presented above, such testimony is within the scope of this LWA-1 proceeding, and Intervenors' proposed deletions 1-10 must be rejected. .

3. Proposed Deletion 11 (Intervenors' Motion at 5).

(Rationale:

Results based on CRBRP-3 and two columns in Table 5-2 are taken from WASH-1400, which was ruled beyond the scope of this proceeding).

Intervenors' reliance on the inadmissibility of CRBRP-3 is incorrect for the reasons presented above under Proposed Deletions 1-10. Furthermore, Intevenors' contention that WASH-1400 was raled beyond the scope of this proceeding is absolutely wrong. In its April 22, 1982 Order, the Board deferred NRDC Contention Ib, "which questions Applicants' design, reliability program, methodology, and data base," and Contention 3a, "which broadly questions the need for and adequacy of a probabilistic risk assessment of the CRBRP comparable to the Reactor Safety Study ('Rasmussen Report') ." (Emphasis added). Board Order of April 22, 1982 at 5 and 6. The ruling dealt with CRBRP programs and assessments and did not address whether WASH-1400 itself would be in issue.

i Information contained in WASH-1400 simply was not ruled

  • /

beyond the scope of this proceeding.- Therefore, Intervenors' proposed deletion 11 should be rejected.

C. Proposed Deletion 12 (Intervenors' Motion at 5).

l (Rationale: Testimony based on detailed, design-specific evaluations, analyses, and testing in Applicants' Exhibit 24, WARD-D-0185.)

4 WARD-D-0185 was proferred and admitted for the limited purpose of " showing analyses which are illustrative of the state of technology, and to show that it is feasible to design and analyze the features and system so described." CRBRP Evidentiary Hearing, Tr. 2096, 2116. The i testimony in question likewise was presented for the same limited purpose. Th ere fore , for the reasons presented

{

' above, such testimony is within the scope of this proceeding and Intervenors' proposed deletion 12 should be rejected, i

] D. Proposed Deletion 13 (Intervenors' Motion at 5).

(Rationale: Testimony based on PSAR Appendix C, which is beyond the scope of this proceeding.)

4 I

--*/ It should be noted that the values from WASH-1400 used i in Table 5-2 did not involve probabilistic risk assess-

] ments for the particular LWR accident scenarios i described. Rather, the data gave projected radio-nuclide releases for certain types of accidents without

any consideration of the probability of their occurrence.

i

Intervenors incorrectly state that the expert testimony regarding test results on the control rod drive mechanism at Tr. 2011 was based on Appendix C of the PSAR.

On the contrary, as Applicants' Witness Strawbridge stated

"[the test results] are documented in reports that the vendor prepared and submitted to Westinghouse Advanced Reactor Division," Tr. 1663. These are performance tests and are "not failure mode and effects tests," Tr. 1663-65.

The fact that the test program may have been described in AppendixChoesnot infer that Appendix C was a necessary basis for the experts' testimony. In fact, Appendix C was not offered as an exhibit in this proceeding nor was it relied upon in the preparation of Applicants' testimony.

CRBRP Evidentiary Hearing, Tr. 1341. Therefore, the rationale for the Intervenors' proposed deletion 13 is incorrect and the motion to strike should be rejected.

II. INTERVENORS' MOTION TO AMEND Intervenors present fourteen proposed amendments to Applicants' Exhibit 1 testimony. Their " rationale," how-ever, is the same for each amendment. This rationale may be summarized as follows:

1) Applicants' testimony cites sections of the PSAR (Proposed Amendments 1-9) or CRBRP-3 (Proposed Amendments 10-14) which contain detailed design features of

r 3

systems intended for use in CRBRP in order to support conclusions regarding the adequacy of those systems to accomplish their intended purpose.

2) System adequacy cannot be considered without also considering system reliability.
3) Reliability has been ruled outside the scope of the LWA-1 proceeding. ,
4) There fore , if design-specific data concerning the Reliability Program is beyond the scope of LWA-1, then no design-s'pecific data may be used in the proceeding.

Intervenors' Motion at 6-7.

The Intervenors' " rationale" for amending Appli-cants' testimony is palpably erroneous. Its first point is simply false. As discussed under Intervenors' Motion to Strike, supra, Applicants' testimony is not proferred to prove the adequacy of particular systems to accomplish their intended purpose in the CRBRP. Proof of this sort has not been offered and is not needed until the CP or even the OL stage of this proceeding. ,

Intervenors' second point - " system adequacy cannot be considered without considering system reliability"

- is advanced without any supporting citation. The only

  • /

known source of " authority" is Dr. Cochran's testimony- and

  • / CRBRP Evidentiary Hearing, Tr. 2851-2852.
  • /

his previous arguments before the Board.- The Board has previously ruled that consideration of the CRBRP reliability program (Contention Ib) can be deferred until the CP proceedings. Little purpose can be served by NRDC's attempt to rehash this point again.

Accordingly, since their underlying rationale has been previously considered and denied by this Board, Intervenors' Motion to Amend must he denied as to each of its forrteen specifications.

III. CONCLUSION At no time has the Board restricted the introduction of testimony at the LWA-1 stage of this proceeding simply because it may be based on analyses conducted as part of the CRBRP project. Rather, the Board has limited the purpose for which such testimony may be proferred at the LWA-1 stage and Applicants have limited their profer of evidence to the scope which the Board has allowed. Intervenors are simply ignoring there limitations and rearguing issues which the Board has already decided.

  • / April 20, 1982 Prehearing Lanference, Tr. 529-534.

11 -

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Applicants respectfully suggest that the Board deny Intervenors' Motion to Strike and Motion to Amend Applicants' Exhibit 1.

Respectfully submitted, M :=

eo gr L. Edgar 7 Attmrney for Project Management Corporation W f Warren E. Bergholz,/5

- Attorney for the V.S.% '

Department of Energy Dated: September 20, 1982

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

)

, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected on this date by personal delivery or first-class mail to the following:

  • Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies)

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory

University of California
P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923
  • Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
    • Daniel Swanson, Esquire Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies) l 1

l

)

l

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
      • Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary
  • U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (3 copies)

William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire James F. Burger, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire

  • Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (2 copies)

Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Washington, D. C. 20006

0 Lawson McGhee Putlic Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William E. Lantrip, Esq.

Attorney for the City of Oak Ridge Municipal Building P. O. Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Leon Silverstrom, Esq.

Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esq.

U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S. W.

Room 6-B-256, Forrestal Building Washington, D. C. 20585 (2 copies)

Eldon V. C. Greenberg Tuttle & Taylor -

1901 L Street, N. W., Suite 805 Washington, D. C. 20036 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 MY Deo W L. p gar ~f

. Attorney for Proj ect Management Corporation i DATED: September 20, 1982

  • Indicates hand delivery at 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
      • Indicates hand delivery to 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
        • Indicates hand delivery to 1725 Eye St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20069D595&oldid=2923487"