ML20205R955
| ML20205R955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1999 |
| From: | Gaukler P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205R960 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#299-20302 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9904260036 | |
| Download: ML20205R955 (66) | |
Text
P l
ZO30 RELATED COPorcommah 00CKETED USHPC
(
grig,399 j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$Q "i F ADJUD Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
dI PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-73242-ISFSI APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS AND NON-PROPRIETARY RESPONSES TO STATE'S FIRST REQUES IS FOR DISCOVERY I
Applicant Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (" Applicant" or "PFS") files this response to " State of Utah's First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to the Applicant (" State's First Discovery Requests"), an electronic copy of which was served on the Applicant on Friday, April 9,1999.' The State and the Applicant have agreed that the party responding to Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories, during the formal discovery period, may have eight working days in which to timely file a response.2
' The Applicant is filing a separate response with respect to those portions of the State's First Discovery Requests which contain proprietary information, specifically requests concerning Utah Contention H.
Attached to this response is an affidavit of John D. Parkyn, Chairman of PFS, verifying the truth of PFS's 2
answers to the State's interrogatories and requests for admission. Applicant will shortly file similar verifications from the various individuals that were responsible for preparing the answers to each of the requests for admissions and interrogatories that are responded to in this response.
990426C036 990421 PDR ADOCK 07200022 8
pop Jf'
F
]
i GENERAL OBJECTIONS j
1 These objections apply to the Applicant's responses to all of the State's First Discovery Requests.
1.
The Applicant objects to the State's instructions and definitions on the grounds and to the extent that they request or purport to impose upon the Applicant any obligation to respond in manner or scope beyond the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R.
Q$ 2.740,2.741 and 2.742.
2.
The Applicant objects to State's Request for Production of Documents to the extent that it requests discovery ofinformation or documents protected under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and limitations on discovery of trial preparation materials and experts' knowledge or opinions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.740 or other protection provided by law. The Applicant has provided the State with a Privilege Log which identifies documents subject to these privileges and protections, which the Applicant reserves the right to supplement.'
' While not formally objecting. Applicant notes that the State may be abusing the limitation on quantity of interrogatories by its use of unnumbered subpans. See, for example, Interrogatories 1,2,6,7 on Contention Utah O. In the interest of maintaining the hearing schedule, Applicant herein has sought to respond to all otherwise non-objectionable subparts of the State's Interrogatories, although we expect to object formally to any further use by the State of this subpart system subterfuge again in the proceeding.
2
1 I.
GENERAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS A.
GENERAL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST NO.1. Do you admit that all commitments, representations, and statements made by the Applicant in response to the NRC Staff s past and future Requests for Additional Information, have the same effect as commitments, representations and statements made by the Applicant in its ISFSI Part 72 License i
Application?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this request as being overly broad, calling for legal conclusions and speculation. Without waiving these objections, Applicant admits that commitments, representations, and statements made by the Applicant in response to the NRC Staff Requests for Additional Information have the same effect as commitments, representations and statements made by the Applicant in its l
ISFSI Part 72 License Application.
REQUEST NO. 2. Do you admit that all commitments, representations, and statements made by the Applicant in response to the NRC Staff s past and future Requests for Additional Information, effectively amend the commitments, representations and statements made by the Applicant in its ISFSI Part 72 License Application?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this request as being overly broad, calling foi legal conclusions and speculation. Without waiving these objections, Applicant admits that commitments, representations, and statements made by the Applicant in response to the NRC Staff Requests for Additional Information effectively amend the commitments, representations and statements made by the Applicant in its ISFSI Part 72 License Application.
REQUEST NO. 3. Do you admit that all commitments, representations, and statements made by the Applicant in response to the NRC Staffs past and future 3
iL J
I i
Requests for Additional Information, are provisional commitments, representations, aiid i
statements to which the Applicant has not committed itself until it amends its ISFSI Part 72 License Application?
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this request as being overly broad, calling for legal conclusions and speculation. Without waiving these objections, Applicant denies.
B.
GENERAL INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to agreement between the State and PFS, these general interrogatories apply to all Utah admitted contentions, are in addition to the ten interrogatories per contention allowed by the Board's Order dated April 22,1998 (LBP-98-7), and are continuing in accordance with 10 CFR } 2.740(e).
GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO.1. State the name, business address, and job title of each person who was consulted and/or who supplied information for responding to interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for the production of documents. Specifically note for which interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for productic 1 each such person was consulted and/or supplied information.
If the information or opinions of anyone who was consulted in connection with your response to an interrogatory or request for admission differs from your written j
answer to the discovery request, please describe in detail the differing information or opinions, and indicate why such differing information or opinions are not your official position as expressed in your written answer to the request.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: In addition to counsel for PFS, the following persons were consulted and/or supplied information m responding to the State's First
]
Discovery Requests:
John Donnell Project Director Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
l 7677 East Berry Ave l
Englewood, CO 80111-2137 I
General Requests for Admission and Utah Contentions B, L, O and DD 4
J
7 William Hennessy Assistant Project Manager and Lead Licensing Engineer Stone & Webster 7677 Berry Avenue Denver, CO 80111-2137 General Requests for Admission and Utah Contentions B, L, O and DD Jerry Cooper Project Engineer Stone & Webster 7677 Berry Avenue Denver, CO 80111-2137 Utah Contention O Jeffrey Johns Senior Licensing Engineer Stone & Webster 7677 Berry Avenue Denver, CO 80111-2137 Utah Contentions O Donald W. Lewis l
Lead Mechanical Engineer Stone & Webster 7677 Berry Avenue Denver, CO 80111-2137 Utah Contention B and O Barbara Mohrman Environmental Program Manager Stone & Webster 245 Summer Street Boston, Mass. 02210 Utah Contention DD Sue Davis Environmental Engineer Stone & Webster i
f 245 Summer Street i
Boston, Mass. 02210 Utah Contention DD 5
(
John Clark President l
Bay Geophysical 868 Robinwood Court Traverse City, MI 49686 Utah Contention L Kevin Coppersmith Vice-President Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Streat j
12th Floor 1
Oakland,CA 94612 Utah Contention L Bert Swan Principal Geologist Geomatrix Consultants 2101 Webster Street 12th Floor Oakland,CA 94612 Utah Contention L John Vincent Manager Nuclear Fuel Resources GPU Nuclear 1 Upper Pond Road Parsippany, NJ 0754 Utah Contention B in response to whether the information or opinions of anyone who was consulted in connection with PFS's response to an interrogatory or request for admission differs from the PFS's written answer to the discovery request, PFS is unaware of any such ditTerence among those consulted.
GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2. To the extent that PFS has not previously produced documents relevant to any Utah admitted contention, identify all such documents not previously produced. PFS may respond to this request by notifying 6
the State that PFS has updated its repository of documents relevant to admitted contentions at Parsons, Behle and Latimer.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Asjointly agreed to by the State and PFS, PFS will notify the State upon updating its repository of documents relevant to admitted Contentions maintained at Parsons, Behle and Latimer in Salt Lake City.
GENERAL INTERROG ATORY NO. 3. For each admitted Utah contention, give the name, address, profession, employer, area of professional expertise, and educational and scientific experience of each person whom PFS expects to call as a witness at the hearing. For purposes of answering this interrogatory, the educational and scientific experience of expected witnesses may be provided by a resume of the person attached to the response.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: To date, the Applicant has identified the following persons whom it expects to call as witnesses at the hearing with respect to the State's admitted contentions.
Utah C-Radiation Doses Name and Address:
William E. Kennedy, Jr.
)
1845 Terminal Drive, Suite 140
)
Richland, WA 99352 Profession:
Environmental Health Physicist Employer:
Dade Moeller & Associates Professional Expertise:
Environmental Health Physics Educational, Scientific Experience, and l
Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume l
l Publications in the last ten years:
See Attached Resume Testifying experience in last four years:
None.
7
r PFS's calculation o radiation doses from r
Subject matter of testimony:
hypothetical accident conditions. Mr. Kennedy will testify that PFS has properly analyzed radiation doses from the hypothetical design basis loss of confinement accident, including environmental pathways such as direct radiation and ingestion of food and soil, and has shown that the off-site dose from such hypothetical design basis loss of continement accident would remain far below regulatory limits.
Documents reviewed and/or relied upon:
Mr. Kennedy will rely upon applicable portions of the PFS License Application (including SAR), RAI
{
Response 7-1, and supporting calculations. In addition, Mr. Kennedy may review and rely upon responses to Requests for Additional Information, j
supporting calculations, documents produced by the State as wel! as any new information that may come j
into PFS's possession.
I Name and Address:
Dr. Richard Wilson (Witness on behalf of Skull Valley Band)
Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 Profession:
Physicist and Educator Employer:
liarvard University Professional Expertise:
Physics and Risk Assessments Educational. Scientific Experience, and Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume Publications in the last ten years:
See Attached List Testifying experience in last four years:
One case involving Bethlehem Steel, in San Francisco, concerning the attribution of mesothelioma (March 1999); one case involving the State of West Virginia, in Morgantown, West 8
l j
Virginia, concerning liability for asbestos-related harm (February 1995)
Subject matter of testimony:
The validity of PFS's calculation of radiation doses under hypothetical accident conditions.
Documents reviewed and/or relied upon:
Dr. Wilson will review and rely upon applicable portions of the PFS License Application (including SAR); PFS new dose calculation (submitted in RAI Response 7-1); the responses to contentions filed by the Scientists for Secure Waste Storage in February 1998 and all references therein; and other relevant documents and information as deemed appropriate.
Utah F and P -Training Name and Address:
Michael Ladd Northern States Power Company Prairie Island Training Center 1660 Wakonade Drive West Welch, MN 55089 Profession:
Nuclear Training Program Management Employer:
Northern States Power Company Professional Expertise:
Nuclear Training Programs Educational, Scientific
. Experience, and Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume Publications in the last ten years:
None Testifying experience in last four years:
None Subject matter of testimony:
The adequacy of PFS's training program. Mr. Ladd will testify that in his professional opinion the PFS training program meets applicable NRC requirements.
9
T
[
I 1
i Documents reviewed and l
relied /or upon:
Mr. Ladd will rely upon the relevant portions of the PFS License Application (including the SAR). Mr.
Ladd may review and rely upon responses to Requests for Additional Information, other training and education-related information as deemed appropriate, documents produced by the State as well as any new information that may come into PFS's possession.
Utah G -Quality Assurance Name and Address:
John Gregory Thorgersen Wisconsin Electric Power Company NES Building 6590 Nuclear Road Two Rivers. WI 54241 Profession:
Nuclear Engineer Employer:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company Professional Expertise:
Quality assurance; plant operations; nuclear licensing Educational and Scientific Experience, and Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume Publications in the last ten years:
None Testifying experience in last four years:
None Subject matter of testimony:
In his testimony regarding the adequacy of PFS's QA program, Mr. Thorgersen will testify that in his professional opinion the PFS QA program provides the requisite level of detail and demonstrates l
10
1 l
l l
l sufricient organizational independence to satisfy the NRC regulations.
Documents Reviewed and/or Relied Upon:
Mr. Thorgersen will rely upon the PFS License Application, PFSLLC Quality Assurance Program Description, PFSLLC Quality Assurance i
Procedures and the NRC Regulations. In addition, Mr. Thorgersen may review and rely upon responses to Requests for Additional Information, l
documents produced by the State as well as any new information that may come into PFS' possession.
Utah K-Credible Accidents i
Name and Address:
Dr. Carlton Britton 1
I l
Profession:
Professor, Department of Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management L
Employer:
Texas Tech University Professional Expertise:
Range improvement and management, fire ecology Educational. Scientific Experience, and Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume Publications in the last ten years:
See Attached List Testifying experience in last four years:
Lard Ranch v. Southwestern Public Service, deposition, Lubbock, Texas (1998); Federal Mediation 11 earing, Lubbock, Texas (1998); Dalton l
- v. Stuart, deposition, Lubbock, Texas (1996).
Subiect matter of testimony:
Susceptibility of the PFS ISFSI to wildlires. The l
facts and opinions to which Dr. Britton will testify i
are set forth in his report, attached to RAI Response l
8-3.
l 11 i
f l
Documents reviewed agj/or relied upon:
The documents reviewed and relied upon by Dr.
Britton include those specified and referred to in his report as well as: Wright, H.A. and Arthur W.
Bailey, Fire Ecology: The United States and Southern Canada, Wiley Interscience, New York, 1982; Forest Service Database, Fire Effects on Plants, www.fs. fed.us/ database /feis/: Sneva F.A.
and C.M. Britton, Adjusting and Forecasting IIerbage Yields in the Intermountain Big Sagebrush Region of the Steppe Province Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bull. No. 659,1983; Britton, C.M., R.G. Clark and F.A. Sneva, Will Your Sagebrush Burn?,
Rangelands,3:207-208,1981. I. addition, Dr.
Britton may review and rely upon responses to Requests for Additional Information, documents produced by the State as well as any new j
information that may come into PFS's possession
{
Name and Address:
James L. Cole Profession:
Consultant, retired Air Force Brigadier General Emplover:
National Air Traffic Controllers Association Burdeshaw Associates, Ltd.
Professional Expertise:
Aircraft operations, Air Force weapons testing, air traffic control Educational and Scientific Experience, and Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume Publications in the last ten years:
FAA General Aviation Forecast Conference Proceedings, " Opportunities and Challenges for the 21" Century," March 24-25,1998 Testifying experience in last four years:
None 1
12
Subject matter of testimony:
llazard posed to ISFSI by air operations and by weapon testing activities at Dugway Proving
{
Ground and the UTTR. Gen. Cole will testify that aircraft flights from 11111 Air Force Base, the UTTR, Dugway Proving Ground, and Salt Lake City International Airport will pose no significant hazard to the ISFSI. Ile will also testify that weapons tests, including tests of air-delivered weapons and missiles, on the UTTR and Dugway would also pose no significant hazard to the ISFSI.
Documents reviewed and/or relied upon:
Gen. Cole has reviewed the relevant portions of the j
PFS License Application (including the SAR) and '
pleadings concerning Utah Contention K. In addition, PFS is producing at its document repository at Parsons Behle and Latimer specific documents that Gen. Cole expects to rely upon in I
his testimony and has other documents that Gen Cole has reviewed available for the State to review in Washington, DC at its request.
Name and Address:
George Carruth Profession:
Consultant, retired Army Colonel Employer:
Retired Professional Expertise:
Chemical and biological agents and munitions, Army operations Educational. Scientific Experience, and i
Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume i
Publications in the last ten years:
None Testifying experience in last four years:
None 1
13
P l
Subject matter of testimony:
llazard posed to ISFSI by military operations on i
Dugway Proving Ground. Col. Carruth will testify to the insignificant hazard that activities on Dugway Proving Grounds, including activities involving chemical and biological agents and military training activities, will pose to the ISFSI.
Documents reviewed and/or relied upon:
Col. Carruth will rely upon relevant parts of the PFS License Application (SAR) and additional documents concerning Dugway Proving Ground, including those produced by the State.
i Name and Address:
Dr. Richard Wilson (Witness on behalf of Skull Valley Band)
See Contention Utah C for information Subject matter of testimony:
Potential risks to the PFS ISFSI of credible l
l accidents associated with activitier at Dugway i
Proving Ground, the Utah Test and Training Range, 11i11 Air Force Base, Salt Lake City International Airport, and/or the Tekoi Rocket Engine Test Facility.
Documents reviewed and/or relied upon:
. Dr. Wilson will rely upon the PFS License Application (SAR), documents concerning risk assessment generally, and those specifically related to the facilities relevant to Contention K, including documents produced by the State; the responses to
)
contentions filed by the Scientists for Secure Waste Storage in February 1998 and all references therein; i
and other documents and information as deemed appropriate.
Utah L - Geotechnical Name and Address:
Dr. Kevin Coppersmith I
Geomatrix Consulting, Inc.
2101 Webster Street,12th Floor Oakland, California 94612 14
E I
i Profession:
Geotechnical Consultant Employer:
Geomatrix Consulting, Inc.
I Professional Expertise:
See Attached Resume Educational and Scientific Experience. and Professional Qualifications:
See Attached Resume Publications in the last ten years:'
See Attached Resume Testifying experience in last four years:
None 4
Subject matter of testimony:
In his testimony concerning the geological 4
conditions of the PFS site, Dr. Coppersmith will testify about the seismic studies, the methodology to confirm the site's design criteria and the suitability of the site for the proposed ISFSI. The specific facts and conclusions to which Dr. Coppersmith will testify, and their underlying basis, are set forth in the Geomatrix Final Report - Fault Evaluation Study and Seismic Ilazard Assessment Documents reviewed and/or Relied Upon:
Dr. Coppersmith will rely upon the Geomatrix Final Report - Fault Evaluation Study and Seismic Hazard Assessment as well as other documents and data referenced therein. In addition, Dr.
Coppersmith may review and rely upon responses to Requests for Additional Information, studies performed by PFS or the State, and other documents produced by the State, as well as any new information that may come into the possession of PFS.
l 15 l.
1 l
l Utah M - Probable Maximum Flood Name and Address:
Dt. George 11. C. Liang 245 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210-2288 l
Profession:
Environmental Engineer l
Employer:
Stone & Webster l
l Professional Expertise:
See attached resume.
Educational and Scientific Experience, and Professional Qualifications:
See attached resume.
I Publications in the last ten years:
See attached resume.
Testifying experience in last four years:
None.
Subject matter of testimony:
In his testimony regarding the accuracy of PFS's estimation of the Probable Maximum Flood, Dr.
Liang will testify regarding the results and bases of the calculation of the flood volumes and levels that he has performed for the PFSF site.
)
. Documents reviewed and/or i
Relied Upon:
Dr. Liang will rely upon the PFS License Application, Responses to Requests for Additional Information as well as the flood design calculations and materials referenced therein. In addition, Dr.
Liang may rely upon materials produced by the State and any new information which comes into the possession of PFS.
l f'
l 16 i
l
i l
Utah R - Emergency Plan Name and Address:
Dr. Carlton Britton See Contention Utah K for information Subject matter of testimony:
Susceptibility of the PFS ISFSI to accidents caused by wildfires. See Contention Utah K above.
Documents reviewed and/or relied upon:
See Contention Utah K above.
I The Applicant is still in the process ofidentifying the witnesses that it expects to call at the hearings and will supplement this response in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
@ 2.740(e)
)
l i
GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4. For each admitted Utah contention, I
identify the qualifications of each expert witness whom PFS expects to call at the hearing, including but not limited to a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as j
an expert at a trial, hearing or by deposition within the preceding four years.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: See Response to General Interrogatory 3 above.
{
The Applicant is still in the process ofidentifying expert witnesses that it expects to call at the hearings and will supplement this response in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
@ 2.740(e).
GENERAL INTERROG ATORY NO. 5. For each admitted Utah contention, describe the subject matter on which each of the witnesses is expected to testify at the hearing, describe the facts and opinions to which each witness is expected to testify, including a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and identify the documents (including all pertinent pages or parts thereof), data or other information which each witness has reviewed and considered, or is expected to consider or to rely on for his or her testimony.
17
(.
i
\\
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE. See Applicant's Response to General Interrogatory No. 3 above. Applicant will supplement this response in accordance with 10 C.F.R. { 2.740(e) as it obtains further information.
1 C.
GENERAL DOCUMENT REQUESTS l
The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or mdirectly within its possession, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
REQUEST NO.1. All documents in your possession, custody or control that are identified, referred to or used in any way in responding to all of the above general interrogatories and the following interrogatories and requests for admissions relating to specific contentions.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: To the extent PFS has not previously produced
)
such documents, PFS will forward them this week to its repository of documents maintained at Parsons Behle and Latimer in Salt Lake City, except for certain documents that General Cole has reviewed which PFS will make available for review by the State in Washington, D.C at its request.
i REQUEST NO. 2. To the extent that PFS has not already produced documents to date, all documents in your possession. custody or control relevant to each Utah admitted contention, and to the extent possible, segregated by contention and separated from already produced documents.
J APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: PFS has produced to the State during informal discovery all relevant documents not privileged and w;11 continue to identify and produce all such documents not previously produced. Sg Response to General Interrogatory No. 2. Additional relevant documents identified in response to the specific document l
l 18
p
]
l r
requests herein are being forwarded this week to PFS's document repository at Parsons, Behle and Latimer.
REQUEST NO. 3. All documents (including experts' opinions, workpapers, affidavits, and other materials used to render such opinion) supporting or otherwise relating to testimony or evidence that you intend to use at the hearings on each Utah admitted contention.
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this request as being overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome. Applicant will produce such documents as agreed to by the State and PFS with respect to experts as provided for by General Interrogatory No. 5.
II.
UTAH CONTENTION B (License Needed for Intermodal Transfer Facility)
A.
INTERROGATORIF.S - Utah Contention B INTERROGATORY NO.1. Expand on your answer to the EIS RAI Response, question 1-2, by describing with specificity the actual design and specifications, including but not limited to, tuming radius of the heavy haul tractor / trailers PFS or its agents may acquire for use at the ITF: the minimum and maximum number of tractor / trailers PFS or
-its agent may acquire; where specifically maintenance of the tractor / trailers will be conducted at the ITF; and the amount of time heavy haul transfer operations will take, commencing with the unloading of a cask from a rail car at the ITF to receipt and inspection at the ISFSI.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The Applicant objects to this interrogatory based on the Board's ruling admitting Utah Contention B in part only. The Board rejected subparts 2 and 3 of the State's contention as originally submitted concerning, among other issues, the number and reliability of the heavy haul tractor trailers and the potential for queuing at the ITP. Private Fuel Storace. L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage 19
Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,184-85 (1998). Thus, the information sought in this interrogatory going to the reliability of the heavy haul tractor trailers (i.e. the trailers' l
design and specification) and the potential for queuing (number of tractor trailers to be acquired and length of time for heavy haul transfer operations) is beyond the scope of this Contention as admitted by the Board. Without waiving this objection, the Applicant responds as follows:
)
Actual design and specifications of the heavy haul tractor / trailers The actual design of the heavy haul tractor / trailers has not been performed at this time, nor have any design specifications been prepared or any contracts for a design been awarded. However, the actual design will be an "off-the-shelf" design readily available l
from a qualified vendor such as the three vendors, Aspen, Talbert, and Trail King, that l
have previously provided trailer infonnation. The procurement process of the trailers, which will lead to possession of the actual design of the trailer, will not occur until sometime around early 2001.
l As noted in the subject RAI response, information (catalog data showing the side view, overall dimensions, and turning capability) from the referenced trailer manufacturers that has been previously provided to the State was aquired to provide the project with guidance for the preliminary layout of the Intermodal Transfer Point and Canister Transfer Building. Because the specific design has not been procured at this l
l time, conservative assumptions (longest trailer length, widest turning radii, etc.) were used to ensure the design will accommodate the actual units.
20 l
As stated in the subject RAI response, the heavy haul trailers range from 150 ft to l80 R in length and are typically iI ft wide. The trailers will have about 100 tires to distribute the weight within typical highway limits. The trailers are articulated, that is they can pivot in several places and include steerable axles to accommodate tight radius turning. The turning radius ranges 75 ft to 150 n, depending on whether steerable dollies are used.
The maximum travel speed is usually determined by state permit requirements, which consider the road condition, load weight and size, etc. The trailers are typically designed to travel normal highway speeds.
Number of tractor / trailers PFS may acquire As stated in the subject RAI response, a minimum of 2 heavy haul tractor / trailer units we,ald be required in order to move 100 to 200 casks per year if the casks were transported by highway from the ITP to the PFSF.
Location where maintenance of the tractor / trailers will be conducted at the ITF The Intermodal Transfer Point is not designed to perform maintenance of the tractor / trailers. Rather, as noted in the subject RAI response, maintenance activities will be conducted at the PFSF Operation & Maintenance Building, except such maintenance duties that are complex enough in nature that they require off-site contracted major maintenance such as engine overhauls, etc.
21
~
1
l l
l Amount of time heavy haul transfer operations will take at the ITF As stated in the response to RAI ITP-1(a), the rail car will be positioned under the l
l ITP crane, which will lift the cask / transport cradle off the rail car, move over the heavy l
haul trailer, and lower the cask / transport cradle onto the trailer. Once road ready, the shipment will be transported, along Skull Wiley Road to the ISFSI where the receipt inspection process for storage will occur.
The cask / transport cradle will be moved as a unit, complete with the impact limiters as required to maintain 10 CFR 71 requirements. This will minimize the time for transfer from the rail car to the heavy haul trailer since the shipment will not be dismantled and reassembled. The amount of time for this transfer is estimated to be up to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
As stated in Section 4.3.7 of the Environmental Report the heavy haul tractor / trailers will travel at an estimated 20 mph when loaded with spent fuel. Since it is 26 miles from the ITP to the PFS, the trip will take approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> with consideration of start /stop time. Therefore, the total amount of time for transferring the transportation cask from rail car to the PFS will be approximately 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2. Expand on your answer to the EIS RAI Response, question 1-2, by describing with specificity the actual design and specifications, including but not limited to tuming radius and maximum travel speed, of the rail cars PFS or its agents may acquire for cross country cask transportation; the date on which PFS or its agents expect to make a decision on the final rail car design; the date(s) on which rail car orders will be placed; the minimum and maximum number of rail cars PFS or its agents will acquire; where specifically the rail cars will be parked at the ITF or nearby area:
22 i
i 1
l
'where specifically the rail cars and locomotives will be maintained at the ITF; and where l
diesel fuel will be stored.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The Applicant objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as set forth above with respect to Interrogatory No. I for Utah Contentions B, that is the Interrogatory requests information beyond the scope of Contention B as admitted by the Board. Without waiving this objection, Applicant answers as follows:
l Actual design and specific $tions of the rail cars l
The actual design of the rail cars has not been performed at this time, nor have any design specifications been prepared or any contracts for a design been awarded. As stated in the subject RAI response, the rail cars will be designed similar to a heavy duty 145 ton flatbed car with 3 axle-trucks or depressed center flatbed car with double bolsters (two sets of 2-axle trucks).
Since, the final design has not been performed on the rail car, the tuming radius of the cask car has not been determined. However, the car will be approximately 75 feet in length and will be capable of turning a fairly tight radius. The minimum radius that the l
rail car can negotiate is dependent on various factors such as car length. The radius that the rail car will actually travel is dependent on the track configuration. The rail line for l
the PFSF shown in Figures 4.5-3 (Intermodal Transfer Point) and 4.5.6 (Low Corridor Rail Line) of the PFS Safety Analysis Report are designed with 3000 ft radii curves, which are unrestrictive.
23
The maximum speed at which the rail cars will travel has not been finally determined, although PFS's current objective is to design the rail cars such that they could travel at speeds up to 55 miles per hour.
Date of final rail car design and rail car order i
The final rail car design will be determined when the PFS awards a contract for fabrication of the cars. The date for the award will be sometime in mid-2000.
Number of rail cars PFS will acquire As stated in the subject RAI response, a minimum of 2 ileets would be used to transport the casks to the PFSF in order to move 100 to 200 casks per year. Each fleet l
would consist of 3 to 6 rail cars. It has not been determined at this time whether any more fleets would be required or purchased.
Location where the rail cars will be parked at the ITF or nearby area As stated in the subject RAI response, if the intermodal transfer point is utilized,
, parking for the rail cars, when not in use, will either be provided on one of the intermodal transfer point siding tracks or at leased space.
Location where the rail cars and locomotives will be maintained at the ITF The Intermodal Transfer Point is not designed to provide maintenance for the rail 1
car and locomotive. As stated in the subject RAI response, overhauls and maintenance will be performed in a privately operated railroad equipment servicing shop.
24 L
r l
L I
l l-Location where diesel fuel will be stored As stated in the commitment resolution letter dated March 24,1999 response, f
there will be a diesel fuel storage tank located near the restricted area fence approximately 20011 northeast of the PFSF Canister Transfer Building. However, this tank will supply fuel oil only for the cask transporters, it has not been determined at this time whether to incorporate a second diesel storage tank nearer the rail tracks toward the west side of the facility or whether to utilize a mobile diesci tank truck that can use the perimeter road to access and refuel the locomotives from just outside the west side of the restricted area fences. There will be no diesel fuel stored at the ITP.
l INTERROG ATORY NO. 3.
Expand on your answer to the Second Round RAI Safety Response, question Intermodal Transfer Point (designated by PFS as "PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1") by describing with specificity the scope and coverage, i-including but not limited to inclusions and exclusions, of the proposed " transportation i
services agreement" PFS intends to enter into with utilities that may ship spent nuclear fuel to the proposed ISFSI for among other things rail car to heavy haul truck intermodal transfer operations; road transportation of casks from the ITF to the proposed ISFSI; rail services from the reactor site to the proposed ISFSI via the Low rail spur; continuous security and escort services of fuel shipments; communications with local emergency responders; and coordination with law enforcement.
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this interrogatory to the eatent that it requests information on rail services from the reactor site to the proposed ISFSI vis the rail line from Low to the site as being beyond the scope of this contention.
In response to the remainder of this interrogatory, Applicant states that it has not l
I developed information beyond that set forth in response to PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1 25 L
I t
as to the specific scope and coverage of a " transportation services agreement" under which it would provide transportation services to utility reactor licensees.
B.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS - Utah Contention B The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or indirectly within its possession, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
APPLICANT'S OBJECTION j
TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1 TO 7 Applicant objects to Document Requests I to 7 below on the same basis as its l
objection to Interrogatories No. I and 2 for Utah Contention B above, in that they request information beyond the scope of Utah Contention B as admitted by the Board.
l REQUEST NO.1. All designs, specifications, drawings, reports, correspondence, including e-mails and telephone and meeting notes, and other documents that relate to the heavy haul tractor / trailers PFS may use to transport spent nuclear fuel casks from the ITF ta the proposed ISFSI.
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objection, Applicant l
. states that it produced all relevant documents identified during informal discovery and i
that it has not currently identified any additional relevant documents to produce.
REQUEST NO. 2. All designs, specifications, drawings, reports, correspondence, including e-mails and telephone and meeting notes, and other documents, referring or relating to the present status and acquisition of the heavy haul tractor / trailers PFS may use to transport spent nuclear fuel casks from the ITF to the I
proposed ISFSt.
\\
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objection, Applicant states that no formal designs, specifications, drawings, reports, correspondence or l
26 l
I
i 1
1 documents referring or relating to the present status and acquisition of the heavy haul l
l tractor / trailers that PFS may use to transport spent nuclear fuel casks, have been prepared or produced as of this time.
l REQUEST NO. 3. Any document, including but not limited to designs, specifications, drawings, reports, correspondence, e-mails, telephone and meeting notes, and other documents referring or relating to the rail cars PFS may use to transport spent nuclear fuel casks from the reactor sites to the proposed ISFSI.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objections, Applicant states that the detailed design, procurement specifications and drawings have not been prepared at this point in the project. In addition to reports, correspondence and other documents provided during informal discovery, Applicant has identified recently generated documents responsive to the above request which it will forward this week to its document repository at Parsons Behle and Latimer.
REQUEST NO. 4. Any document, including but not limited to designs, specifications, drawings, reports, correspondence, e-mails, telephone and meeting notes, and other documents, referring or relating to the present status and acquisition of the rail cars PFS may use to transport spent nuclear fuel casks from the reactor sites to the
' proposed ISFSI.
]
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objection, Applicant states that the detailed design, procurement specifications and drawings have not been prepared at this point in the project. In eddition to reports, correspondence and other documents provided during informal discovery, Applicant has identified recently generated documents responsive to the above request which it will forward this week to l
l its document repository at Parsons Behle and Lt. timer.
27
l I
l I
REQUEST NO. 5. Any document, including but not limited to reports, correspondence, e-mails and telephone and meeting notes, between PFS and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (" DOT") or the American Association of Railroads 1
("AAR") referring or relating to any type of required approvals or recommendations from DOT or AAR for the design and operation of the rail cars PFS may use to transport spent nuclear fuel casks from the reactor sites to the proposed ISFSI.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objections, Applicant states that in addition to documents previously provided during informal discovery, Applicant has identified recently generated documents between PFS and TTCl which it will forwa"d this week to its document repository at Parsons Behle and Latimer.
REQUEST NO. 6. Any document, including but not limited to reports, correspondence, e-mails and telephone and meeting notes, referring or relating to l
regulatory approvals for and ownership, maintenance, and operation of the 32 miles rail line from the Union Pacific main line at Low to the proposed ISFSI.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objections, Applicant states that in addition to documents previously provided during informal discovery, Applicant has identified recently generated documents which it will forward this week to its document repository at Parsons Behle and Latimer.
REQUEST NO. 7. Any document, including but not limited to reports, correspondence, e-mails, telephone and meeting notes, or other documents referring or relating to Price-Anderson insurance coverage of shipments of spent fuel to the proposed ISFSI en route from: (a) for those reactor sites that do not have direct rail access, a reactor site to the main rail line; (b) the main rail line to the ITF; (c) the main line to the point at which the Low rail spur leaves the Union Pacific main line; and (d) the Low rail spur from the Union Pacific main line to the proposed ISFSI.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Without waiving the above objection, Applicant states that it has identified no such documents.
28
REQUEST NO. 8 and NO. 9. Document Requests No. 8 and No. 9 relate to PFS's response to the Intermodal Transler Point question in the Second Round Safety RAls (designated by PFS as "PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1). In its part (a) RAI response to the Intermodal Transfer question, PFS states it may perform intermodal transfer operations "as a common / contract carrier under a transportation services agreement with the utility customers or PFS may arrange for a third party to perform such services for the utility customers... [or PFS] may act as a broker."
REQUEST NO 8. Any draft proposed or final contract, arrangement, or agreement, or any other document, including correspondence, e-mails and telephone and meeting notes, referring or relating in any way to: (a) a transportation services agreement with any utility customer for intermodal transfer operations at the ITF; (b) a third party performing intermodal transfer operations at the ITF; and (c) brokerage by PFS to perform intermodal transfer operations at the ITF.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant has not identified any such documents.
REQUEST NO. 9. In part (b) ofits Second Round Safety RAls Response to the Intermodal Transfer question, PFS refers to a rail choice option. Produce all documents referring or relating to contractual, formal or other arrangements PFS will provide for the rail transportation of spent nuclear fuel casks to the proposed ISFSI site.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant has not identified any such documents.
IIL UTAH CONTENTION C (Failure to Denor. strate Compliance With NRC Dose Limits)
The following requests for admissions and interrogatories are based on revised accident dose calculations, included as an attachment, and submitted to NRC on February 11,1999 under separate cover, to the Second Round Safety RAI Response. The accident dose calculations were prepared by Dade Moeller and Associates for Stone and Webster, and are presented in two reports: UR-010. "RESRAD Pathway Analysis Following Depositior, of Radioactive Material From the Accident Plumes"(February 9,1999); and UR-009," Accident Dose Calculations at 500m and 3219m Downwind for Canister Leakage Under Hypothetical Accident Conditions for the IMtec MPC-68 and SNC TranStor Canisters"(February 9,1999). The revised calculations make a number of assumptions whose bases are unexplained.
29
i l
APPLICANT'S OBJECTION TO UTAII C DISCOVERY REQUESTS Objection No.1: The Applicant objects to this discovery request in its entirety on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the admitted contention. "[T]he NRC Rules of Practice limit discovery to the boundaries of admitted contentions." Moreover, the Appeal Board has emphasized that "the scope of a contention is determined by the ' literal terms' of the contention, coupled'with its stated bases."' IIere the boundaries and the stated bases of the Utah Contention C concern alleged deficiencies in the PFS's original accident dose calculation based on alleged selective and inappropriate use of data and information from NUREG-1536 and SAND 80-2124 and PFS's failure to consider other applicable dose pathways in addition to inhalation from the passing cloud. The Applicant, however, has subsequently done a revised analyses - referred to in the introduction to the State's requests for Utah C above -in which it no longer relies upon infomiation or assumptions from NUREG-1536 and SAND 80-2124 and further considers other applicable dose pathways in addition to inhalation from the passing cloud. Thus, the Acolicant is now consistent with the specific points raised by the State in Utah C and the claims raised by that contention are now moot. The Applicant is filing today a motion for summary disposition with respect to Utah C on that basis.
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-88-25,28 NRC 394,396 (1988)(citing Public Service Company of New flampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 (1988); 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1)).
5 Id.
30
I L
l The State's discovery requests that follow do not seek information related to the specific claims raised in Utah C as admitted by the Board. Thus, the requests seek l
material outside that " reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" relevant to the Utah C as admitted by the Board and are therefore i
objectionable. See 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1).
Objection No. 2. The Applicant also objects to Requests for Admissions 8-11 and Interrogatory 9 below because they relate to subject matter outside the scope of this proceeding. NRC rules "only permit [] discovery ofinformation or documents ' relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding." The Board has excluded from the proceeding the subject of nuclear sabotage, such as might be conducted with the anti-tank missiles that are the subject of the State's discovery request. See LBP-98-7, supra,47 NRC at 227-28 (excluding consideration of attacks on spent fuel casks with anti-tank weapons): Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
j LBP-98-29,48 NRC 286,304 & n.22 (1998)(excluding consideration of sabotage);
accord Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) LBP-98-13,47 NRC 360,372 (1998). Because Requests for Admissions 8-11 and Interrogatory 9 relate to sabotage, Applicant objects on this basis as well to responding to these requests.
l 1
' Allied-General Nuclear Services (Bamwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-77 13,5 NRC 489, 492 (1977)(quoting 10 C.F.R. # 2.740(b)(1)).
31
A.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - Utah Contention C REQUEST NO.1. Do you admit that in UR-010, PFS assumes a person stands f 00 meters away from a canister for 2,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> / year?
1 APPL ICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
REQUEST NO. 2. Do you admit that PFS assumes that the person standing 500 meters away from a canister for 2,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> is a worker?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
REQUEST NO. 3. Do you admit that PFS assumes that there will not be any full time residents at or near the fence post of the controlled area?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
REQUEST NO. 4. Do you admit that PFS assumes that it has control over the area beyond the fence post of the controlled area?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
REQUEST NO. 5. Do you admit that PFS assumes the leak rate for the Holtec Hi-Storm storage cask is derived from NUREG-16177 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
i 37 I
(
l l
REQUEST NO. 6. Do you admit that PFS assumes that the leak rate for the lloltec lii-Storm storage cask used at the PFS facility will be the same as is permitted by NRC regulations in 10 CFR 71.51 and Appendix A.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
REQUEST NO. 7. Do you admit that PFS has done no independent analysis to justify the assumptions described in Admissions I and 2 above?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I f
above.
I l
REQUEST NO. 8. Do you admit that a TOW-2 anti-tank missile can penetrate j
one meter of steel, and therefore could penetrate a lil-STAR 100 metal cask.?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection Nos.
)
i 1 and 2 above.
)
REQUEST NO. 9. Do you admit that a MILAN anti-tank missile can penetrate one meter of steel, and therefore could penetrate a HI-STAR 100 metal cask?
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection Nos.
I and 2 above.
REQUEST NO.10. Do you admit that the leak rate A2, specified in 10 CFR Part 71. Appendix A for a type B transportation ca4 could be exceedsd by a direct strike of a TOW-2 or MILAN anti-tank missile?
1 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection Nos.
i l
I and 2 above.
l 33 L
1 1
l l
l REQUEST NO. I1. Do you admit that the hole diameter calculated in NUREG/CR-6487 could be exceeded by a direct strike of a TOW-2 or MILAN anti-tank i
missile?
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection Nos.
j I and 2 above.
I B.
INTERROGATORIES -- Utah Contention C INTERROGATORY NO.1. Describe the basis for PFS's assumption in UR-009 and UR-010 of a 30-day exposure duration. Your answer should include a description of whether people at the fence post,500 meters from a canister, are assumed to remain in the area or to be notified and evacuated and why, what is expected to occur during the 30-day period and why, and what occurs at the expiration of the 30-day period and why.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No.1 above.
l i
INTERROGATORY NO. 2. Justify a 30-day exposure period for each of the ditTerent exposure pathways: direct gamma from deposited radionuclides; direct gamma from the passing cloud; inhalation of gases, particulates and volatiles; and ingestion of fomi ( for example, milk, vegetation, meat).
i APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No.1
)
above.
INTERROG ATORY No. 3. To the extent that you answer Requests for j
Admissions numbered 1 through 4 in the allirmative, please explain the basis for your answer.
To the extent that you answer Requests for Admission numbered I through 4 in the negative, please explain the basis for your answer.
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No.1 above.
34
INTERROG ATORY NO. 4. For a thyroid dose, PFS considers iodine-129, but ignores chlorine-36, which will also be present in irradiated fuel. Pleasejustify your failure to include chlorine-36 in the thyroid dose analysis.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5. In UR-010, the RESRAD pathway analysis, particulates are assumed to be deposited downwind. The deposited radioactive material is then assumed to be mixed within the top one centimeter of soil. The standard code RESRAD is then employed to calculate direct gamma, food ingestion and inhalation of resuspended particulates. Rather than artificially mix radioactive material with soil, Moeller & Associates could have directly calculated a direct gamma dose from the 2
surface density of deposited radionuclides (pCi/m ) using FGR #12 (EPA, " External Exposure To Radionuclides in Air, Water, And Soil," EPA 402-R-93-081, September 1993), an EPA report Moeller & Associates used in calculating an immersion dose.
Explain why FGR # 12 was not used in this case to calculate the direct gamma dose from the surface concentrations.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
INTERROGATORIES NO. 6 through 8. Interrogatories 6 through 8 are based 1
on the following information. In UR-009, Dade Moeller & Associates changes the methodology used in PFS's SAR for estimating the release of particulates, gases, and 4
volatiles from a storage cask. The methodology is now based on NUREG-1617,
" Standard Review Plan Transportation Packages for Spent Nuclear Fuel" (March 1998).
NUREG-1617 is in turn based on NUREG/CR-6487, a report by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories ("LLNL") entitled " Containment Analysis for Type B Packages Use to Transport Various Contents" (November 1996). Please answer Interrogatories 6 through 8 regarding this analysis.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 6. Justify the use of NUREG-1617, which relates to transportation casks, for an accident analysis involving storage casks. Your answer should include a discussion of the unique features of a storage cask compared to a i
transportation cask, such as the high temperature in a storage canister, the high pressure i
in a storage canister, the inability to apply ANSI standard N14.5 assumed in NUREG/CR-6487 (annual test ofleak rate).
35
1 j
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 7. To the extent that you answer Requests for Admissions 5 through 7 in the negative, please explain the basis for your answers.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 8. Describe how vibrations and heat during transport will affect the leak rate during storage. Your answer should include consideration of the effects of spalling of crud, degradation of fuel assemblies, and the efTect of transportation vibrations on weld integrity.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9. Please explain why a sabotage accident, such as an anti-tank missile into a HI-STAR 100 cask, should not be considered a bounding accident, rather than the slight leakage considered by the NRC in NUREG-1617. Your answer should include a discussion of the expected leak hole diameter following a direct strike by a TOW-2 or MILAN missile, and a comparison with the leak hole diameter calculated in NUREG/CR-6487.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection Nos. I and 2 above.
C.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS - Utah Contention C The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or indirectly within its possession, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
36
REQUEST NO.1. Any qualitative or quantitative information and documents that relate to assumptions, calculations, and methodologies for PFS's accident dose limits analyses, exposure duration, exposure pathways, and leak rate for the Holtec casks.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
IV.
UTAH CONTENTION H (Inadequate Thermal Design)
A.
INTERROGATORIES - Utah Contention H The following interrogatories are based on proprietary information prepared by Holtec for PFS and submitted to the NRC in "HI-STORM Thermal Analysis for PFS RAI," Holtec Report No. Hi-9921234 (February 9,1999)(" Thermal Analysis").
[ Proprietary Information Deleted.]
APPLICANT'S GENERAL OBJECTION TO UTAH H DISCOVERY REQUESTS Objection No.1:
The Applicant objects to the State's discovery requests for Utah H on the grounds that the information sought is outside the scope of the contention as admitted and is thus not " reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Sg 10 C.F.R. s 2.740(b)(1). The State seeks to impermissibly expand the scope of the contention by seeking information which is independent from any of the I
seven admitted subparts of Utah H.
l
(
37 1
l 1
l The State's apparent basis for its discovery requests is that the IIoltec proprietary repott' with respect to which it seeks discovery in Interrogatories Nos.1-3 analyzes the
]
conditions in Subparts 3,4 and 5 of Utah Contention 11 which the State contended therein that the Applicant should have considered, but did not, in its initial application. In making this request, as in Utah C above, the State fails to abide by the Appeal Board's admonition that "the scope of a contention is determined by the ' literal terms' of the contention, coupled with its stated bases."' The boundary of Subparts 3,4 and 5 is their 3
allegation that the Applicant " failed to take into account" certain design conditions.' In efTect, the State seeks to inquire into the results and basis of calculations that the State contends were never performed. Because the Applicant has evaluated the conditions set forth in Subparts 3,4 and 5 in Utah Contention II, the claims raised by those subparts are i
now moot. On this basis, Applicant intends to file a motion for partial summary disposition for Utah Contention 11 next week.
Objection No. 2:
To the extent that the State requests information that that pertains to the general thermal design of the cask, and not site specific temperature related issues, the Applicant objects on the grounds that the request is overbroad and seeks material not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The ill STORM Thermal Analysis for PFS RAI, llottec Report No.111-992134 (February 9,1999).
t 8 Vermont Yankee. 28 NRC at 396.
' Utah Contention 11 Subpart 3. See also Utah Contention H. Subpart 4 (" fails to take into consideration");
Utah Contention H. Subpart 5 (" fails to account for").
38
State's requests for documents concerning the general thermal design of the casks ignores this Panel's clear instruction that the scope of the contention is limited to site specific issues.'
INTERROGATORY NO.1. [ Proprietary Information Deleted.]
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I abov::
INTERROGATORY NO. 2. [ Proprietary Information Deleted.]
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No.1 above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3. [ Proprietary Information Deleted.]
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No. I above.
B.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS - Contention H The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or indirectly within its possession, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
1 f
i
Memurandum and Order of May 18,1998 Ruling on Motions for Reconsideration, Private Fuel Storage, j
L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-10,47 NRC at 288,295 (1998). See also LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 185-86 (" Commission's regulatory scheme.. establish [es] a separate cask design
[
approval process under rulemaking procedures"). It is obvious from the broad nature of the requests that the State is seeking information in this proceeding to use generally in the Holtec cask certification rulemakings before the Commission, in which at least one docket, the State has filed comments opposing certification on thermal design issues.
39
)
REQUEST NO.1. In addition to any documents that have been produced to date in discovery, please produce any and all documents referring or relating in any way to the thermal design of the proposed ISFSI and/or the Holtec Hi-Storm cask, including all calculations, analyses, and assumptions used to determine the design temperature of the proposed ISFSI and the Ili-Storm cask.
1 i
i APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection Nos.
I and 2 above. The Applicant notes that it has produced documents relevant to site specific temperature issues and will continue to do so as it identifies such documents.
REQUEST NO. 2. [ Proprietary Information Deleted.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicut objects on the basis of Objection Nos.
1 and 2 above.
l REQUEST NO. 3. [ Proprietary Information Deleted.]
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects on the basis of Objection No.
Iabove.
i CONTENTION L (Geotechnical)
A.
INTERROGATORIES - Utah Contention L 1
The following interrogatories refer to an attachment (submitted under separate cover to NRC on February 11,1999) to PFS's Response to the Safety RAls, dated February 10,1999 and relate to the diagrams for the four seismic lines accompanying l
Bay Geophysical Associates, Inc.'s Final Report entitled High Resolution Seismic Shear Wave Reflection Profilingfor the Identification ofFaults at the Private FuelStorage Facility Skull Valley, Utah, dated January 1999, specifically, Interpreted Time Sections PFSF-98-A (Fig. 20), PFSF-98-B (Fig. 21), PFSF-98-C (Fig. 22) and PFSF-98-D (Fig.
23). Interrogatories No. I through No. 3 relate to the following notations on the insert I
box for each figure:
40 I
f (a) Last notation in the insert box, common to Figures 20 through 23: " Colour Data Type: Traces (Smoothed)," and (b) Fourth notation in the insert box, common to:
i (i)
Figures 21 through 23: " Enhanced [ or Enh]... Trim Statics" (ii)
Figure 20: "RMS.. "
INTERROG ATORY NO.1. Describe the purpose of" smoothing" the data (see notation described in (a) above) and also describe what efTect " smoothing" had on processing the data used to develop Figures 20 through 23.
RESPONSE: The note " Traces (Smoothed)" that appears in the last notation in the insert box common to Figures 20 through 23 of the Bay Geophysical report simply I
reflects the blending of adjacent color pixels (ig., the color squares that compose a color plot) to reduce the grainy appearance of the plot. That was its purpose and it had no etrect on the processing and interpretation of the data.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 2. Describe how valid data were not eliminated in the
" trim" process; describe the purpose of using " statics," which flattens the data to a common horizon and de-emphasizes shallow faulting or near surface displacements; describe how PFS guarded against or compensated for such flattening or de-emphasis; and describe what processing applied to line 4, where the notation on Figure 20 refers to "RMS" as contrasted to the notation " enhanced trim statics" on Figures 21 through 23.
1 RESPONSE: Typically, statics compensate for elevation changes across the line, assuming that the propagation velocity in the near surface materials is constant. The purpose of the trim static application referenced in the fourth notation in the insert box to Figures 21 through 23 of the Bay Geophysical report is to enhance the amplitudes of the reflections in the zone ofinterest for the purpose of mitigating noise in order to facilitate the identification of significant geologic features, such as faulting. The trim statics 41
l r
compensate for trace-to-trace near surface velocity aberrations that create small travel time ditTerences at each source or receiver location. This is particularly true for shear waves, which can have exceedingly low near surface velocities (<400 feet /sec.). The slow propagation velocities exhibited by shear (S-) waves are precisely the reason that they were chosen for this survey: they provide much higher resolution than P-waves of equivalent frequencies (approximately % the wavelength of P-waves above the Qp). The trade offis dealing with more severe statics caused by station to station car surface (upper several feet) velocity variations. It is also Bay Geophysical's experience from previous high-resolution shear wave surveys that these near surface perturbations cannot be satisfactorily accounted for with refraction or datum statics alone.
The data acquisition and methodology employed at the PFS site yielded a stacked i
seismic trace every 1.5 ft. in the subsurface. Such a high spatial sampling density justifies lateral statistical enhancements such as the trim statics referenced. On this data set, the trim statics were calculated by averaging a set of stacked traces to form a pilot, or l
model. Each trace within a Common Depth Point (CDP) gather was cross correlated with the pilot trace to determine the amount of time shift to apply to each trace in within the CDP gather prior to stacking, in this case, a total of 61 traces were averaged to form the pilot. The implicit assumption in using this trim statics is that the stratigraphy, or relative l
stratigraphic column, is consistent over a lateral distance of approximately 45 feet (30 traces x 1.5 feet per trace) on either side of the CDP. This assumption was confirmed 42
{
L
I t
l l
l with Geomatrix Consultants based on their subsurface investigations, i.e., bore holes and test pits.
l The validity of the trim static process is confirmed by closely spaced bore holes.
Specifically, bore holes were drilled in the field to confirm the graben feature on Figure 20 between shotpoints 3100 and 3200 (faults F1 and F3) identified by Bay Geophysical's seismic data. This feature and the overall geometry of the faL*' set was confirmed in the field by boreholes C7 - C15. Additionally, the amount of displacement of the Qp horizon identified by the Bay Geophysical seismic data was calibrated to the fault displacements measured between the bore holes. (Geomatrix Consultants Report,1999, Section 5.2).
Geomatrix applied this calibration factor to the other faults interpreted from the seismic data. Based on comparison to these borings and other boring and trenching data, the static and enhancement methods used for final display and interpretation were chosen because the methods as applied to line A (figure 14 and 20, Bay Geophysical Associates report,1999) best fit the geology of the area. Similar methods were used for lines C and D which were acquired after processing was completed on lines A and B.
RMS scaling was applied to line A in addition to the trim static process described above because the seismic section exhibited amplitude banding (that is, attemating bright and dim vertical zones on the profile section). This scaling is applied by increasing or decreasing the amplitude of an entire trace by a fixed factor. This factor is calculated by f
finding the average RMS (root mean square) amplitude of that trace between 43
L l
approximately 100 and 200 milliseconds and dividing this average into the desired average amplitude. This type of scaling does not affect relative amplitudes within a specific trace nor does it flatten the data.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3. Describe how Bay Geophysical arrived at the placement of the Q, horizon (marked in yellow on Figure 20) and Q/T (Quaternaryffertiary) horizon (marked in blue on Figure 20); describe the supporting evidence, criteria and controls used to determine the placement of horizons Q, and Q/T on Figure 20; and describe where the top of Paleozoic or bedrock is located on Figure 20, including the rationale for determining its location.
RESPONSE: The identification and placement of the Qp and Qt horizons were based on geologic information provided by Geomatrix developed from borings and other l
aspects of Geomatrix's evaluation of the site geology described in their report. The specific geologic criteria used to identify and place the Qp and Qt horizons are described in section 6.1 entitled " Identification of reflections" on page 1.. of Bay Geophysical Associates report,1999.
This high resolution shear wave seismic survey was specifically designed to provide maximum resolution in the Quatemary and Tertiary near surface sediments. The top of Paleozoic or bedrock is not located or identifie.. a Figure 20. It is probably below the 500 millisecond line at which Figure 20 ends. Although the recording time of the l
data was I second, the data were not interpretable below about 500 milliseconds.
i 44 l
f
F B.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS - Utah Contention L The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or indirectly within its possession, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
REQUEST NO.1. Any documents, including but not limited to data, that were independently developed without " static" or " trim" processmg.
)
RESPONSE: The data without trim statics or AGC can be found on the CD ROM identified by bates number 32,692 as standard SEG-Y format files:
UTNOTRI.SGY, UTNOTR2.SGY, UTCl.SGY and UTDI.SGY for lines A, B, C, and D, respectively, which PFS is producing in response to this request.
REQUEST NO. 2. Any velocity profiles for any and all seismic lines.
RESPONSE: These can be found in standard SEG-Y format on the CD ROM identified by bates number 32,692, which PFS is producing in response to this request.
They are labeled VELLINEA.SGY, VELLINEB.SGY, VELLINEC.SGY, VELLINED.SGY, for lines A,B,C, and D, respectively.
REQUEST NO. 3. All documents relating to the rationale for the use and i
application of static and trim processing and smoothing the data.
RESPONSE: No such documents exist.
VI.
CONTENTION O (llydrology) l l
A.
INTERROGATORIES - Utah Contention O INTERROG ATORY NO.1. Describe the sanitary systems, drains, sumps and other waste generating facilities that will be connected to the septic tank (s) and drainfields at the ISFSI site; the layout and design basis for the septic system (s),
45 l
L 2
l including maximum daily flow rate in gallons per day for each system; and describe plans for how PFS will monitor and sample the septic tank sludge and effluent entering the drainfield system (s).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
Sanitary systems, drains, sumps and other waste generating facilities There are two sanitary systems at the PFSF. One will process wastes from the Canister Transfer and Security & Health Physics Buildings and the other will process wastes from the Administration and Operation & Maintenance Buildings. Wastes processed by the systems will originate only from the restrooms and lunchrooms. Each sanitary system is piped to a septic tank and onto a drain field.
Layout and design basis for the septic system (s)
PFS has sized the septic system in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) to consist of two 3500 gallon septic tanks each having a leach field of 1400 square feet. This is based on the number of restroom and lunchroom fixtures within the buildings.
The maximum daily flow rate of sewage produced in gallons per day is based on the daily number of personnel located in these various buildings at the site. From Table i
4.2-1 of the Environmental Report, there will be an estimated 42 workers at the site. In accordance with the UPC for a factory type work environment, the maximum daily flow rate in gallons per day is approximately 650 gpd for the Canister Transfer Building and i
46
I l
j Security & Health Physics Building septic system and approximately 400 gpd for the l
Administration and Operation & Maintenance Building septic system.
l Monitoring and sampling of septic tank sludge and ellluents l
PFS does not plan to monitor or test the septic system sludge and effluents. The design of the ISFSI and the spent fuel storage system and PFS administrative controls will preclude contaminants from entering the septic system. Sludge and effluents that l
will exist in the septic system will only be from normal restroom and lunchroom byproducts.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2. Describe the chemicals, by name, quantity and f
concentration, that may be stored at the proposed ISFSI site, including at the PFS l
laboratory; the chemicals that may be used and lab tests that may be performed at any location at the proposed ISFSI site; the waste characteristics of any liquid waste, including but not limited to effluent from washing equipment, trucks, and other vehicles, i
l and where and how PFS will dispose of such liquid waste.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Section 2.2 of the PFSF Emergency Plan states l
the following:
10 CFR 72.32(a)(13) refers to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, Title Ill, Pub. L.99-499 (EPCRA), with respect to hazardous materials at the PFSF. EPCRA stipulates that if a facility has an extremely hazardous substance in an amount greater than the l
appropriate threshold planning quantity, then the facility must designate a facility Emergency Coordinator to participate in the local planning process. The PFSF will not have extremely hazardous substances present in an amount equal to or greater than the threshold planning quantities of 40 CFR 355 Appendix A.
47 l-
n l
I L
i Since limited quantities of hazardous materials will be stored and used at the PFSF, spills or other accidents involving hazardous materials do not have the potential for posing a threat to onsite or offsite personnel and would not constitute an emergency condition. The requirements of f
EPCRA have therefore been met with respect to hazardous materials at the PFSF. The Emergency Plan implementing procedures will contain a list of all hazardous materials used at the PFSF, including quantities, locations, use and storage requirements.
1 It is premature at this time to provide a detailed list of the chemicals, along with their quantities and concentrations that may be stored at the PFSF. However, it is reasonable to assume that PFSF will have normal maintenance / cleaning related chemical l
substances, such as commercial cleaners and solvents.
In regards to potential radioactive liquid effluents, PFSF SAR Section 7.6.4 states the following:
There are no radioactive liquid effluents generated at the PFSF. As discussed in Section 7.5.2, any water collected in the Canister Transfer Building shipping cask load / unload bay drain sumps from potential moisture gathered on the outer surfaces of shipping casks during transport is sampled and analyzed to verify it is not radioactive prior to its j
release. In the event contaminated water is detected, it will
)
l be collected in a suitable container, solidified so that it qualifies as solid waste, staged in the LLW holding cell I
while awaiting shipment offsite, and transported to a LLW disposal facility, in accordance with Radiation Protection procedures.
)
Maintenance fluids, such as waste oil, will be transferred to an appropriate commercial facility for disposal. There are no vehicle wash down facilities at the PFSF, i
4g i
E L
l and it is not planned to wash down vehicles at the PFSF such as the heavy-haul trailers or rail cars that transport shipping casks, or the cask transporter that transfers storage casks.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3. Describe the effluents that could potentially be disposed of via any drain, to include the sump system in the Canister Transfer Building, from inter alla routine activities, such as equipment and cask handling operations, from spills, and by failure of emphyees to follow waste routing procedures; and how PFS will monitor effluents from the facitiLes at the ISFSI site to the septic tank system (s), such facilities to include the laboratory, the Canister Transfer Building, and locations at which maintenance operations occur.
APPLICANT's RESPONSE: The sumps in the cask load / unload bay of the Canister Transfer Building do not have a drain, but act as closed catch basins that collect liquid that could drip off of the rail car or heavy-haul vehicle used to transport shipping casks. There are no connections from the sumps to the sewage system. PFSF SAR Section 4.7.1 states as follows in this regard:
No floor drains are located in the Carister Transfer Building to preclude the possibility of c.,ntamination entering the septic system. Shallow floor sumps are located in the center of each shipping cask load / unload bay to collect water from rain and snow that may run off onto the floor from a spent fuel shipment. Collected water will be sampled to ensure no contamination is present prior to removal.
PFSF SAR Section 7.5.2 further d scribes the protections against radioactive contamination as follows:
Provisions for personnel decontamination are contained in the Security and llealth Physics Building. Contamination of equipment or personnel is not expected to occur under normal conditions of operation. In accordance with the j
i 49
p i
l l:
PFSLLC's policy of preventing generation of liquid radioactive waste, any necessary decontamination of
(
equipment and personnel.will be conducted using methods I
that produce only solid radioactive waste. Decontamination methods would typically include wiping the contaminated item with rags or paper wipes. Drain sumps are provided in the cask load / unload bay of the Canister Transfer Building L
which catch and collect water that drips from shipping casks (e.g. from melting snow) onto the floor. Water j
collected in the cask load / unload bay drain sumps is sampled and analyzed to verify it is not contaminated prior to its release. In the event contaminated water is detected, it will be collected in a suitable cont..iner, solidified by the addition of an agent such as cement or "Aquaset" so that it qualifies as solid waste, staged in the LLW holding cell while awaiting shipment offsite, and transported to a LLW disposal facility, in accordance with Radiation Protection
)
procedures.
Drains of sinks and toilets in the Canister Transfer and Security and llealth Physics Buildings are routed by sewage system piping to the septic tank located northeast of the Security and IIcalth Physics Building. Personnel using the sinks and toilets in these buildings will not have radioactive contamination, and radioactivity will not enter i
I the sewage system. Strict canister handling techniques, personnel training and health ph' sics oversight will be implemented to minimize the likelihood of any worker y
L l
contammation. Further, there will be step-off pads and frisking stations at the exit from each canister transfer cell to assure personnel leaving these areas are free of radioactive contamination. Facility procedures will not permit a contaminated person to enter the rest rooms in the Canister Transfer Building. Simi'larly, facility procedures will not permit a contaminated person to enter the restrooms in the security and health physics building, nor wash in the sinks of this building.
50 i
The laboratory in the Security and Health Physics Building will have the capability to handle liquid as well as dry sampies. An example of a liquid sample that could be brought to the laboratory for analysis is water from a sump in the cask load / unload bay of the Canister Transfer Building. If analysis determines that a liquid sample has radioactive contamination, the contaminated liquid will not be disposed ofin a sink or toilet that drains to the septic system. The contaminated liquid will be transferred to a suitable container, solidified by the addition of an agent so that it qualifies as solid waste, staged in the LLW holding cell while awaiting shipment offsite, and transponed to a LLW disposal facility, in accordance with Radiation Protection procedures. Facility procedures will not permit disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated liquids down drains into the septic system, and laboratory personnel will be trained and qualified on these procedures. In addition, the liquid sample analysis area in the laboratory will be physically removed from sinks to minimize the possibility of a technician mistakenly pouring a contaminated or potentially contaminated liquid sample down a drain.
PFS does not plan to monitor the sink and toilet drains ~of the Canister Transfer and Security and Health Physics Buildings given the protections described above.
j Likewise PFS does not plan to monitor drains in the Operations and Maintenance Building or the Administration Building, which are outside the restricted area and which are routed to a separate septic tank.
i i
51
1 l
Spills of hazardous substances such as diesel fuel will be contained, and countermeasures applied to mitigate the effects. Soil contaminated with diesel fuel or other hazardous substance will be removed and hauled to an appropriate commercial facility for disposal. There are no drains in the Canister Transfer Building that would route hazardous liquids, such as diesel fuel, spilled onto the floor of the building to the l
septic system.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 4. Describe how PFS will contain, treat and dispose of spills, storm water or any other ellluents from construction activities (including sanitary waste disposal) and operational activities, including but not limited to the years the concrete batch plant and asphalt plant are expected to be located and operated at the ISFSI site; from runoff from the storage pads; from activities associated with vehicle, train and equipment maintenance; and from any spills or leakage from underground or above ground petroleum, chemical or other storage unks.
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
Ellluents from construction activities and operational activities Sanitary waste will be collected in standard portable sanitary facilities that will be regularly pumped out by a contractor during construction and by the sanitary system that
' processes the waste through the septic tank and drain field during operation.
Although not defined at this time, measures will be implemented in accordance with EPA requirements to manage stormwater (NPDES) and to ensure p oper control of l
hazardous materials (SPCC) during construction and operation, as stated in Section 9.1.3 of the PFS Environmental Report.
52
p.
i g
i Runoff from the storage pads
[
Runoff from the storage pads will drain and collect in i stormwater detention basin located at the north side of the facility. As stated in Section 4.2.4 of the PFS Environmental Report, water that may collect in the detention basin will dissipate by evaporation and seepage into the subsoil.
Effluents from vehicle, train and equipment maintenance As noted in EIS RAI Response 1-2, maintenance of the heavy haul tractor / trailer, locomotives and rail cars will be typically performed at appropriate offsite locations.
l Maintenance of onsite vehicles and light maintenance of the heavy haul trailers will be performed in the Operations & Maintenance Building. Any. maintenance related effluents will be collected and disposed at an appropriate commercial facility for disposal. No l
maintenance effluents will be disposed into the sanitary system or in the environment.
l l
l Spills or leakage from underground or above ground petroleum, chemical or other storage tanks.
l l
The PFS will include liquid petroleum (propane) tanks for building heating, a
[
diesel tank to supply fuel for onsite vehicles, the emergency diesel generator fuel tank, and fire water storege tank.s. All of the tanks will be located above ground. Any liquid propane that leaks would turn into a gaseous state once it is at atmospheric pressure and would escape into the atmosphere. The emergency diesel generator day tank will be a double wall tank located on the same skid as the diesel generator. The double wall design 53
(
r ensures that any leakage through the inner wall is captured and detected so that no diesel l
' fuel escapes to the environment. PFSF will be implementing the National Fire Protection Association code, NFPA-30, governing above ground tanks which requires that the diesel fuel storage tank be surrounded by a diked area to contain the fuel should a leak occur.
t INTERROGATORY NO. 5. Describe any and all environmental barriers, including but not limited to synthetic and earthen liners, hydraulic pavements, and the foundation design for the hydraulic pavements, that will be emplaced under the storage pads, in the drainage areas at the edge of the concrete storage pads, and in any retention pond; and any and all monitoring systems, including monitoring parameters, for detecting l
seepage from the concrete storage pads, drainage areas at the edge of the pads, and the retention pond.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As stated in PFS Safety Analysis Report and the l
response to RAI 17-1, the canister vessels are fully welded and leak-tight under all conditions such that there is no release of radioactive material to the enviromnent and no need for environmental barriers or monitoring systems for the concrete storage pads, i
drainage areas at the edge of the pads, or the detention basin. In addition, the NRC has accepted that storage confinement casks of acceptable design and construction that are sealed by welding do not require monitoring for possible radiation release. Therefore, stonn water that passes over the pads, drains into the areas at the edge of the pads or into the detention basin, is not expected to be radiologically contaminated or require an environmental barrier.
Nevertheless, as also stated in the response to RAI 17-1, the PFS considers it prudent to obtain samples of water from the detention basin to verify that storm-water runoffis contamination-free.
54 i
1 4
T" l
l INTERROGATORY NO. 6. Describe the number of water wells PFS intends to l
drill on the Reservation; the formal arrangements between PFS and the Band to drill each j
well; approval from other water users who may be affected by PFS's water wells; the specific location, depth, and artesian pressure of each well; the safe annual yield of the l
aquifer beneath the proposed PFS wells; the projected drawdown of the aquifer from l
PFS's use and consumption of well water; and details of how the wells will be l
constructed, including the material to be used for the casing, the depth at which the casing j
will be perforated and how the well will be grouted.
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
l Number of water wells PFS intends to drill on the Reservation It is not known at this time the number of wells that will be drilled on the reservation. The exact number will depend on how much water is obtained from the reservation water supply.
Formal arrangements between PFS and the Band to drill each well There are no formal arrangements between PFS and the Band to drill wells at this time.
l Approvals from other water users who may be affected by PFS's water wells There have been no discussions with other water users regarding the use of water wells by the PFS at this time. PFS is not aware of any required approvals for wells on reservation land. As stated in EIS RAI 8-1 dated February 18,1999, it is not anticipated that other water users will be affected.
Specific location. depth, and artesian pressure of each well l
The specific location, depth, and pressure of each well have not been detemiined at this time.
55
~
Annual yield of the aquifer beneath the proposed PFS well(s);
As noted in the response to EIS RAI 8-1, dated February 18,1999:
The maximum anticipated withdrawal rate for the proposed PFSF water well will be approximately 8500 gal / day (6 gpm or 9.5 ac-ftlyr) during. the first nine m z hs of operation and will decrease thereafter. Over a D-year l
period (year 2002 through 2021), the average withdrawal rate from the well will be approximately 3850 gal / day (2.7 gpm or 4.3 ac-ft/yr). It should be noted that six existing wells within five miles of the site have water rights ranging from approximately 11 to 1600 ac-fVyr. This information j
and additional details on these wells are included in the response to the previous safety RAI No.1, SAR Question 2-3.
Based on anticipated PFS projected water consumption rate and the characteristics i
of the ground water under the site above, it has been determined that PFS's water usage I
I will not harm the aquifer or adversely affect the supplies of nearby water users.
Projected drawdown of the aquifer from PFS's use and consumption of well water As stated in the response to the EIS RAI 8-1, dated February 18,1999:
Past measurements of water levels in wells in Skull Valley indicate that, as a whole, the withdrawal of water from wells has not appreciably altered the natural balance.
Limited well records indicate that water levels fluctuated no more than five feet from an average mean. Only in the immediate vicinity of the Town of Dugway (16 miles from the PFSF), where water has been pumped for public supply, have water levels-declined appreciably in response to pumping, indicating changes in aquifer storage.
- EIS RAI 8-1 (cites omitted).
56
.1 Considering that the nearest well is approximately 9,500 feet away, operation of the PFSF water well will have no adverse impacts to private or Reservation groundwater users.
Details of how the wells will be constructed The wells construction, including the material to be used for the casing, the depth at which the casing will be perforated and how the well will be grouted, has not been determined at this time however, the actual construction will use local requirements for typical well construction as guidance.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7. At or before termination of PFS's NRC license or at or before transfer or relinquishment of the site and any buildings c: structures to the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, describe the PFS closure and disposal plan for the septic tank system, the retention pond, the storage pads and surrounding areas, and any contingency plans PFS has or remedial measures PFS will take for areas that may be impacted by fuel spills or other contaminants.
APPLICANT'S RUPONSE:
Septic System Under NRC regulations, termination of PFS's NRC license (decommissioning) pertains only to structures that are radiologically activated or contaminated. Thus, the ultimate removal of the PFSF septic system is not part of the decommissioning of the facility. Moreover, the disposition of the remaining structures on the site that are not decommissioned is up to the Skull Valley Band. Thus, it has not been decided if or how the PFSF septic system would be removed.
l l
57
Detention Basin The details of the removal of the detention basin have not yet been finalized, but it will probably be covered with soil, the surface of which will be revegetated, after the l
decommissioning of the facility. See ER { 4.6.4.
Storage Pads A Preliminary Decommissioning Plan is provided in Appendix B of the License Application. As discussed in this plan, the concrete storage pads will only be used to support the storage casks and it is not anticipated that they will become activated or contaminated. Although the possibility of such an occurrence is remote, it is addressed for decommissioning purposes by assuming up to 10 percent of the storage pad area will require surface decontamination. The maximum number of storage pads is 500, with each having an area of 64 ft by 30 ft, for a total area of 960,000 square feet. Ten percent of this area is 96,000 square feet, which takes no credit for the area protected by the bottom of each storage cask. As stated in the response to safety RAI No.1, question LA i
'l-6, the surface decontamination of 10 percent of the storage pad area would generate i
approximately 290 c.f. oflow level waste.
Section 4.6.4 of the ER discusses two alternatives for final disposition of the l'
storage pads; l) following characterization of the storage pads, any necessary i
decontamination, and release of the storage pads for unrestricted use, storage pads can be excavated, cut into smaller sections, and trucked off-site for disposal at a local landfill, or
- 2) the storage pads could be left in place and the storage area covered with soil and
)
i 58 i
L
l replanted with native vegetation. The preferred alternative for decommissioning of the concrete storage pads is to leave them in place and cover the cask storage area with soil and replant with native vegetation.
In the event the entire removal of the pads is performed, this would involve removal of 106,667 CY of material ((64-11 X 30-ft X 3-ft) X 500 pads = 106,667 CY).
Using a 20 CY truck and a factor of 0.9 to allow for void spaces, yields approximately
$, 26 truckloads [106,667/(20 X 0.9) = 5,926]. Since decommissioning will occur many years into the future, location of a suitable landfill cannot be determined at this time.
Surrounding Areas Since the philosophy of designing and operating the PFSF is " start clean, stay clean", it is not anticipated that any areas surrounding the cask storage pads will become activated or contaminated. The intention is to maintain the facility free of radiological contamination at all times, in the unlikely event contamination occurs during the operational phase of the facility, all radioactive contamination will be removed upon its discovery. As discussed in the Preliminary Decommissioning Plan, at the end of facility operations, a radiological survey of the entire PFSF site will be performed in order to verify the absence of contamination and to identify any areas requiring decontamination.
59 t
l l
i Fuel Spills or Other Contaminants The PFSF design as well as the procedures to be followed during operation will t
minimize the possibility of spills of fuel or other contaminants. In the unlikely event that l
I spills do occur they will be cleaned up upon discovery.
B.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS - Utah Contention O The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or l
indirectly within its pu::s:ssion, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
REQUEST NO.1.
All designs, drawings or other documents referring or relating to the sanitary. nd wastewater systems, drains, sumps and other waste generating facilities and all monitor;ng systems related thereto.
i APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: In addition to documents previously produced during informal discovery, Applicant will be forwarding additional documents this week to its document repository at Parsons, Behle and Latimer.
l REQUEST NO. 2. All designs, drawings or other documents referring or relating to the retention pond, the septic tank system (s) and the drain fields and all j
monitoring systems related thereto.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The general layout and location of the detention basin are shown in Figures 2.!-2 and 2.6-2 of the PFSF SAR and ER. There are no drawings of the septic tank systems in the SAR or ER. PFS has not yet developed detail designs or drawings of the detention basin or the septic tank systems and associated i
leaching fields but will be forwarding this week to its document repository at Parsons, j
I Behle and Latimer certain preliminary engineering drawings. PFS does not have plans for monitoring systems related to the detention basin or septic tank systems.
60
REQUEST NO.3. All designs, drawings or other documents referring or relating to equipment, truck or other vehicular washing facilities or systems, and documents, including plans and drawing, describing how PFS will handle efiluent from those activities.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: There are no vehicle washing facilities at the PFSF. In addition, PFS does not have designs or drawings for equipment washing facilities. There are no plans or drawings for handling effluents from equipment washing facilities.
REQUEST NO. 4. All documents referring or relating to spill prevention measures and effluent containment, treatment and disposal from construction, operation and maintenance activities at the proposed ISFSI site.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: All documents referring or relating to spill prevention measures and effluent containment, treatment and disposal from construction, operation and maintenance activities at the proposed ISFSI site, have already been provided to the State. There are no additional documents to provide at this time.
l i
l REQUEST NO. 5. All documents, including detailed design and construction drawinge, referring or relating to all environmental barriers for the storage pads, the drainage areas at the edge of the storage pads, and the retention pond, and all monitoring systems relating thereto.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: In addition to documents previously produced during informal discovery, Applicant will be forwarding additional documents this week to its document repository at Parsons, Behle and Latimer.
REQUEST NO. 6. All designs, drawings or other documents referring or relating to the construction of water wells, including but not limited to details about the materials that will be used in the construction and grouting of the well and the size and depth of the casing perforation.
61
F 4
i l
l APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: All documents referring or relating to the l
construction of water wells, including but not limited to details about the materials that will be used in the construction and grouting of the well and the size and depth of the casing perforatien, have already been provided to the State. There are no additional documents to provide at this time.
REQUEST NO. 7. All documents referring or relating to the closure of the proposed ISFSI site, including but not limited to closure and disposal of the septic tank system (s), retention pond, storage pads, and contaminated areas from spill or other pollutants.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: All documents referring or relating to the closure of the proposed ISFSI site, including but not limited to closure and disposal of the septic i
1 tank system (s), detention basin, storage pads, and contaminated areas from spill or other i
I polletants have already been provided to the State. There are no additional documents to provide at this time.
VII.
CONTENTION DD (Ecology and Species)
A.
INTERROGATORIES - Utah Contention DD INTERROGATORY NO.1. In its EIS RAI Response to Question 2-1.a (Electrical Systems, SAR Section 4.3.2), PFS states that a "new electrical line will be constructed parallel to the site access road to furnish 12.5 kV to a 480 volt site l
transformer located at the site." Describe the potential impact and mitigation measures that PFS will take during the construction, operation and use of the line on the following species: peregrine falcon, bald eagle, bobolink, burrowing owl, caspian tern, common l
yellowthroat, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, Swainson's hawk, l
Skull Valley pocket gopher, Pohl's milkvetch and spring parsley.
l 62
APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it requests information on species other than the peregrine falcon, pocket gopher, Pohl's milkvetch, and spring parsley, because such other species are beyond the scope of Contention DD as admitted by the Board, as was expressly clarified by the Board in its Memorandum and Order of May 18,1998 Ruling on Motions for Reconsideration. LBP-98-10,47 NRC at 296-97 (Board limited " paragraphs one and three simply to the specific species"). With respect to the peregrine falcon, pocket gopher, Pohl's milkvetch and spring parsley, Applicant answers as follows:
i Due to the lack of suitable habitat along the access road to the PFSF, the construction of a new electrical line parallel to the access road will have no impact on the peregrine falcon, Skull Valley pocket gopher, or spring parsley. Pohl's milkvetch has not been located within the project or access road areas. Furthermore, because there is very limited suitable habitat in the project area, there is no anticipated impact to Pohl's milkvetch. Notwithstanding this lack of suitable habitat or any anticipated impact, PFS will perform surveys prior to construction to confirm the absence of these species.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2. Estimate the total acreage of the Skull Valley pocket gopher's habitat which may potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of the proposed ISFSI; and describe PFS's intended efforts to minimize the area of potential disturbance and mitigate the potential impacts on the Skull Valley pocket gopher, a rare subspecies of the pocket gopher.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As discussed in Section 2.3.1.4.2 and Section 4.1.2 of the ER. no pocket gopher habitat has been located within the project area. As a 63
f result, no pocket gopher habitat will be disturbed. However, prior to construction, surveys will be conducted to confirm the continued absence of this species.
INTERROG ATORY NO. 3. Describe the frequency of traffic associated with PFS's operations, including but not limited to heavy haul truck transportation, construction vehicles, and other vehicular traffic, to and from the intermodal transfer facility at Rowley Junction to the Skull Valley ISFSI site, and the impact that the traffic frequency, and associated noise and human act.sy, may have on the nesting, mating, breeding and hunting activities of the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, bobolink, burrowing owl, caspian tem, common yellowthroat, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, and Swainson's hawk.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information on species other than peregrine falcon, in that such other j
species are beyond the scope of the contention as admitted by the Board. With respect to the peregrine falcon, Applicant responds as follows:
Section 4.1.7 of the ER discusses the frequency of traffic associated with the construction and operation of the project. Section 4.1.2 discusses potential impacts of this traffic and noise on the peregrine falcon. For reasons noted in Section 4.1.2,
'peregrine falcons are not expected to be impacted by increased traffic associated with the construction and operation of the PFSF.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4. Describe the potential impacts and effects that the construction and operation of the Low rail spur transportation corridor, including but not limited to the alteration of drainage areas, may have on the least chub ( a proposed endangered species since September 29,1995), Columbia spotted frog, milk snake, Townsend's big-eared bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat, ringtail, sage grouse, burrowing owl, and Lewis' woodpecker.
64 1
l
I APPLICANT'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this interrogatory because the Board has previously dismissed any and all contentions raised by the State with respect to the low rail line transportation corridor. LBP-98-29, supra, 48 NRC 286 (1998). Applicant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that l
none of the species for which information is requested falls within the scope as Contention DD as admitted by the Board.
B.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS - Utah Contention DD The State requests the Applicant to produce the following documents directly or indirectly within its possession, custody or control to the extent not previously produced by the Applicant during informal discovery:
REQUEST NO.1. All documents that evaluate the impact to species from the construction, operation and use of above ground electrical lines and transformers at and near the proposed ISFSI site and documents that describe the measures PFS will take to mitigate the effect of electric power lines and transformers, and associated construction and maintenance activities, on plants, animals and other species.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this request with respect to species other than the peregrine falcon, the pocket gopher, Pohl's milkvetch and spring parsley as being beyond the scope of the contention as admitted by the Board. With respect to these four species, Applicant states that the ER, documents referenced in the ER, and all other supporting dwumentation have already been provided to the State.
REQUEST NO. 2. All documents, including but not limited to reports and evaluations, of how construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed ISFSI and Low rail spur, and vehicular and train traffic to and from the proposed ISFSI, may l
impact the plants, animals and other species, including but not limited to the Skull Valley pocket gopher, and the ecological effects of such activities.
l l
}
65
f l
l l
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Applicant objects to this document request to the extent it seeks documents related to impacts of the low rail line or to species other than the peregrine falcon, the pocket gopher, Pohl's milkvetch and spring parsley as being beyond the scope of Contention DD. With respect to these four species, the Applicant states that all documents referenced in and used for the preparation of the ER have previously been provided and no additional documents have been identified evaluating the impacts with respect to these species.
l Respectfully submitted, j
k fl
_ Jay E. Silberg Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Paul A.Gaukler j
SHAW, PITfMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington,DC 20037 (202) 663-8000 Dated: April 21,1999 Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
1 66