ML19326D104: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_
{{#Wiki_filter:_
                                                                                  .
s
s
      .            -
: e.                  e.g                            ...,:.,...-
: e.                  e.g                            ...,:.,...-
[( M i ) Y b d b I .b                          s          "[                                            hEbb                  M'  '
[( M i ) Y b d b I .b                          s          "[                                            hEbb                  M'  '
Line 26: Line 24:
                                                                                                                             ~. . :
                                                                                                                             ~. . :
g                      ,      -
g                      ,      -
    '
     ,      .w. p. a,.eee                                a            U s . ,,.. ,
     ,      .w. p. a,.eee                                a            U s . ,,.. ,
en.,:b    ""        e                                  >  . ..
en.,:b    ""        e                                  >  . ..
Line 44: Line 41:
1
1
: 0. n. need            Columbia University School of Law                      University of Houston J . M. Smith          Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street
: 0. n. need            Columbia University School of Law                      University of Houston J . M. Smith          Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street
* 3801 Cullen Eculevard "it,o;nUy','''        New York, New York 10027                                Houston, Texas 77004 Dr. David B. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratorf P. O. Box 1663
* 3801 Cullen Eculevard "it,o;nUy','''        New York, New York 10027                                Houston, Texas 77004 Dr. David B. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratorf P. O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Gentlemen:
  ,
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Gentlemen:
We are filing herewith Applicant's responses to the interroga-tories filed by the Saginaw Intervenors on March 22, 1971.
We are filing herewith Applicant's responses to the interroga-tories filed by the Saginaw Intervenors on March 22, 1971.
The Applicant's responses llave been sworn to by the Project Manager, William E. Kessler. The individuals whom Applicant expects to call upon for testimony in support of the responses are named in Appli-cent's filing of December 14, 1970. Because of the complexity of the interro6atories and the responses, it is not feasible for Applicant to designate at this time specific individuals for specific responses. The individuals named in the December 14 filin6 ccnstitute at the present time the mmbership of Applicant's panel of vitnesses as provided for in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A.
The Applicant's responses llave been sworn to by the Project Manager, William E. Kessler. The individuals whom Applicant expects to call upon for testimony in support of the responses are named in Appli-cent's filing of December 14, 1970. Because of the complexity of the interro6atories and the responses, it is not feasible for Applicant to designate at this time specific individuals for specific responses. The individuals named in the December 14 filin6 ccnstitute at the present time the mmbership of Applicant's panel of vitnesses as provided for in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A.
At the conference between the Chairman and the parties to this proceeding on April 2 and 3, the Chair..an heard argument upon ob-
At the conference between the Chairman and the parties to this proceeding on April 2 and 3, the Chair..an heard argument upon ob-jections made by Applics.nt to designated interrogatories propounded to Applicant. At that time, and in Applicant's letter dated March 26, 1971, Applicant stated that it might have further objection to certain inter-regatories after there had been opportunity for more detailed review of the interrogatories. We have co=pleted further review and hereby move 8006060
                                                                                                .
jections made by Applics.nt to designated interrogatories propounded to Applicant. At that time, and in Applicant's letter dated March 26, 1971, Applicant stated that it might have further objection to certain inter-regatories after there had been opportunity for more detailed review of the interrogatories. We have co=pleted further review and hereby move
      .
          .
8006060
                                                                                                                                            ..:. .
                                                                &


    . .
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.                                                    2 Dr. David B. Hall r%  Dr. Clark Goodman April 13, 1971 for an order by the Board striking Interrogatories 12, 13, Paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Interrogatory 132,17h and 210.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.                                                    2 Dr. David B. Hall
  '
r%  Dr. Clark Goodman April 13, 1971 for an order by the Board striking Interrogatories 12, 13, Paragraphs
,
(a), (c) and (d) of Interrogatory 132,17h and 210.
Interrogatories 12 and 13 would require Applicant to assume multiple simultaneous failures of engineered safeguard systems (i.e. ,
Interrogatories 12 and 13 would require Applicant to assume multiple simultaneous failures of engineered safeguard systems (i.e. ,
         "icdine removal spray, depressurication and cooling systems"). For that reason Applicant objects to these interrogatories en the ground that they are irrelevant, inecusistent with AEC regulatory criteria and that no good cause exists for Applicant to respond to said interrogatories.
         "icdine removal spray, depressurication and cooling systems"). For that reason Applicant objects to these interrogatories en the ground that they are irrelevant, inecusistent with AEC regulatory criteria and that no good cause exists for Applicant to respond to said interrogatories.
Line 71: Line 54:
                             "The board's request for guidance raises a fur-ther questien with respect to possible sabotage di-rected against the facility. The notice of proposed rule m M ng, to which earlier reference was made, re-flects our present practice of excluding from con-sideratien ' destructive acts, including sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign gover:: ment or other persen, in any manner and by whatever means' . While the board's question is not explicit, it appears to address itself not only to enemy directed sabotage but to so-called ' industrial' sabotage as well. In                      ;
                             "The board's request for guidance raises a fur-ther questien with respect to possible sabotage di-rected against the facility. The notice of proposed rule m M ng, to which earlier reference was made, re-flects our present practice of excluding from con-sideratien ' destructive acts, including sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign gover:: ment or other persen, in any manner and by whatever means' . While the board's question is not explicit, it appears to address itself not only to enemy directed sabotage but to so-called ' industrial' sabotage as well. In                      ;
accordance with Cmmission practice, protection                          j against possible industrial sabotage is a matter to                      '
accordance with Cmmission practice, protection                          j against possible industrial sabotage is a matter to                      '
be dealt with at the operating license stage rather
be dealt with at the operating license stage rather than in the construction pemit proceeding. At such 4                      later stage we vould expect the staff, in accordance with its practice, to assure that appropriate in-dustrial security measures are provided for by the applicant."    (CCH Atomic Energy Service, Par. 11,259 01, p.17,497-2)
        -
than in the construction pemit proceeding. At such 4                      later stage we vould expect the staff, in accordance with its practice, to assure that appropriate in-dustrial security measures are provided for by the applicant."    (CCH Atomic Energy Service, Par. 11,259 01, p.17,497-2)
See also In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Ccmpany, Decket Nos.
See also In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Ccmpany, Decket Nos.
50-338 and 50-339 (Par.11,593 01, p.17,733-7; Par. 30 of the Findings ofFact).
50-338 and 50-339 (Par.11,593 01, p.17,733-7; Par. 30 of the Findings ofFact).
Line 84: Line 65:
                                               , .                          ,--      ,.-.y
                                               , .                          ,--      ,.-.y


  . -
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.                                                3 Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Goodman April 13, 1971 Applicant objects to Interrogatory 210 cn the -same grounds as stated for Applicant's objections to Interrogatories, 12, 13, 108 and lih(f) . A melting of 5% of the fuel vculd assume multiple failures of engineered safeguards and is not credible.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.                                                3 Dr. David B. Hall
  '
Dr. Clark Goodman April 13, 1971 Applicant objects to Interrogatory 210 cn the -same grounds as stated for Applicant's objections to Interrogatories, 12, 13, 108 and lih(f) . A melting of 5% of the fuel vculd assume multiple failures of engineered safeguards and is not credible.
The Saginav Intervenors ' interrogatories call upon Applicant to attach to the ansvers volumes of documents which, if literally re-spended to, would not be practically transportable. Applicant is at-taching to the responses those docu=ents forming the basis for these ansvers in cases where the documents would not otherwise be readily available to Intervenors. Applicant is not attaching such documents as published reports, treatises, professional society codes (e.g., ASME, ASTM,  T" and similar professialal standards), which Applicant believes are readily available at engineering school or other technical libraries, or docunents which Applicant has made available to the Saginav Interrenors in response to their motion for production of documents; this latter category includes topical reports referenced in the PSAR as emended or in the respcuses.
The Saginav Intervenors ' interrogatories call upon Applicant to attach to the ansvers volumes of documents which, if literally re-spended to, would not be practically transportable. Applicant is at-taching to the responses those docu=ents forming the basis for these ansvers in cases where the documents would not otherwise be readily available to Intervenors. Applicant is not attaching such documents as published reports, treatises, professional society codes (e.g., ASME, ASTM,  T" and similar professialal standards), which Applicant believes are readily available at engineering school or other technical libraries, or docunents which Applicant has made available to the Saginav Interrenors in response to their motion for production of documents; this latter category includes topical reports referenced in the PSAR as emended or in the respcuses.
It shculd be observed, although not specifically pointed out in the respenses to the interrogatories, that Applicant and its principal centractors, The Sabcock & 'Jilcox Company and Bechtel Corporation, in the course of their activities and experience in ccnnection with power plants other than the Midland units derive much infomation and experience which is not readily qualifiable and not readily includable in ansvers to in-terrogatories.
It shculd be observed, although not specifically pointed out in the respenses to the interrogatories, that Applicant and its principal centractors, The Sabcock & 'Jilcox Company and Bechtel Corporation, in the course of their activities and experience in ccnnection with power plants other than the Midland units derive much infomation and experience which is not readily qualifiable and not readily includable in ansvers to in-terrogatories.
Midland Units 1 and 2 incorporate a nuclear steam system which is essentially identical to nuclear steam systems being supplied for eight other B&'4 nuclear units which vill all precede initial operation of Unit 1. Thus approx 1=ately 25 to 30 reactor-years of operation and operational experience with units of similar design vill be available at the time of Unit 1 startup. Nuclear units incorporating the Midland de-      i sign (exclusive of fuel mana6ement features) include the following:          l l
Midland Units 1 and 2 incorporate a nuclear steam system which is essentially identical to nuclear steam systems being supplied for eight other B&'4 nuclear units which vill all precede initial operation of Unit 1. Thus approx 1=ately 25 to 30 reactor-years of operation and operational experience with units of similar design vill be available at the time of Unit 1 startup. Nuclear units incorporating the Midland de-      i sign (exclusive of fuel mana6ement features) include the following:          l l
Ocenee Unit 1 Oconee Unit 2 Occuee Unit 3 Three-Mile Island Unit 1 Three-Mile Island Unit 2 Crystal River Unit 3 Rancho Seco Arkansas nuclear One, Unit Cne                              j
Ocenee Unit 1 Oconee Unit 2 Occuee Unit 3 Three-Mile Island Unit 1 Three-Mile Island Unit 2 Crystal River Unit 3 Rancho Seco Arkansas nuclear One, Unit Cne                              j l
'
1 1
                                                    .
                                                                                    !
l 1
1
                                                                                  **
                                                                                   . I
                                                                                   . I


  . . -
                                                        .
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.                                                  E Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Good =an April 13, 1971 Similarly, Bechtel Corporation is deriving =uch experience and informntien frem their activities in the design and constracticn of other nuclear power plants, including plants for which the nuclear steam supply system is being supplied by The Babcock & Wilcox Compc:rf.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.                                                  E Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Good =an April 13, 1971 Similarly, Bechtel Corporation is deriving =uch experience and informntien frem their activities in the design and constracticn of other nuclear power plants, including plants for which the nuclear steam supply system is being supplied by The Babcock & Wilcox Compc:rf.
The experience and informatien gained in design, testing and operation of these earlier plants is taken into account as it beccmes available in the design of the Midland units.
The experience and informatien gained in design, testing and operation of these earlier plants is taken into account as it beccmes available in the design of the Midland units.
Yours very traly,
Yours very traly, JKR/pb D    ~          ,
                                                                                '
JKR/pb D    ~          ,
John K. Restrick CC: William J. Ginster, Esq.
John K. Restrick CC: William J. Ginster, Esq.
James A. Kendall, Esq.
James A. Kendall, Esq.
Line 116: Line 85:
Algie A. '< Tells, Esq.
Algie A. '< Tells, Esq.
Mr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.
Mr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.
  .
mg 9}}
mg 9}}

Latest revision as of 23:12, 31 January 2020

Forwards Responses to Saginaw Intervenors 710322 Interrogatories
ML19326D104
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 04/13/1971
From: Restrick J
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To: Goodman C, Hall D, Murphy A
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19326D105 List:
References
NUDOCS 8006060629
Download: ML19326D104 (4)
v • d • e


Text

_

s

e. e.g ...,:.,...-

[( M i ) Y b d b I .b s "[ hEbb M' '

aa re t,,ss,,, Apg 131971 * -. -N  ;...-.......a,

~. . :

g , -

, .w. p. a,.eee a U s . ,,.. ,

en.,:b "" e > . ..

Vice Presraent and su General Counsel / *)

A,

  • u$ ' l

- - ~

J. 5. Falakee ~s..._o...j General Attorney l (.l lg ' .. _/.

O. J . Byers H. E . clark Ger.oras Cffices: 212 West Macnegen Avenue. Jackson. Micnigen 49201. Area Coce S17 788-0550 c . a. u.enet G. K. petersen 0- " 'd *

w. "E . wi. ".,' April 13s 1971

$enoor A!!arneys J . L. Basen A. 5. Bass ,

L A E""d""

Q. F . Gedbent DOCKET NOS. 50-329 AND 50-330 D. E. Hagen W. A. Kirkby A. D. McCanum C " " "

)

J K Reetrick Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. , Chnh ::nn Dr. Clark Geor%n  !

J . E . Rice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Professor of Physics 1

1

0. n. need Columbia University School of Law University of Houston J . M. Smith Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street
  • 3801 Cullen Eculevard "it,o;nUy', New York, New York 10027 Houston, Texas 77004 Dr. David B. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratorf P. O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Gentlemen:

We are filing herewith Applicant's responses to the interroga-tories filed by the Saginaw Intervenors on March 22, 1971.

The Applicant's responses llave been sworn to by the Project Manager, William E. Kessler. The individuals whom Applicant expects to call upon for testimony in support of the responses are named in Appli-cent's filing of December 14, 1970. Because of the complexity of the interro6atories and the responses, it is not feasible for Applicant to designate at this time specific individuals for specific responses. The individuals named in the December 14 filin6 ccnstitute at the present time the mmbership of Applicant's panel of vitnesses as provided for in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A.

At the conference between the Chairman and the parties to this proceeding on April 2 and 3, the Chair..an heard argument upon ob-jections made by Applics.nt to designated interrogatories propounded to Applicant. At that time, and in Applicant's letter dated March 26, 1971, Applicant stated that it might have further objection to certain inter-regatories after there had been opportunity for more detailed review of the interrogatories. We have co=pleted further review and hereby move 8006060

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. 2 Dr. David B. Hall r% Dr. Clark Goodman April 13, 1971 for an order by the Board striking Interrogatories 12, 13, Paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Interrogatory 132,17h and 210.

Interrogatories 12 and 13 would require Applicant to assume multiple simultaneous failures of engineered safeguard systems (i.e. ,

"icdine removal spray, depressurication and cooling systems"). For that reason Applicant objects to these interrogatories en the ground that they are irrelevant, inecusistent with AEC regulatory criteria and that no good cause exists for Applicant to respond to said interrogatories.

This objection is essentially similar to the objection made by Applicant.

at the April 2-3 conference to the second sentence of Interrogatory 108 and to Interrogatory lih(f) (TR. pp 767-773).

Applicant objects to Paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Interroga-tory 132 on the ground that said interrogatories inqu.tre into matter i which is not relevant in a construction pemit proceeding. As stated by l the Atcnic Energy Coc:sission In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Ccapany, Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251:

"The board's request for guidance raises a fur-ther questien with respect to possible sabotage di-rected against the facility. The notice of proposed rule m M ng, to which earlier reference was made, re-flects our present practice of excluding from con-sideratien ' destructive acts, including sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign gover:: ment or other persen, in any manner and by whatever means' . While the board's question is not explicit, it appears to address itself not only to enemy directed sabotage but to so-called ' industrial' sabotage as well. In  ;

accordance with Cmmission practice, protection j against possible industrial sabotage is a matter to '

be dealt with at the operating license stage rather than in the construction pemit proceeding. At such 4 later stage we vould expect the staff, in accordance with its practice, to assure that appropriate in-dustrial security measures are provided for by the applicant." (CCH Atomic Energy Service, Par. 11,259 01, p.17,497-2)

See also In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Ccmpany, Decket Nos.

50-338 and 50-339 (Par.11,593 01, p.17,733-7; Par. 30 of the Findings ofFact).

Applicant objects to Interregatory 17h en the grcund that "the possibility of fossil fuel plants with appropriate pollution centrols in- l stead of the proposed Midland units" has no relevance to the issues as- )

signed to this Board for consideratien under the notice of hearing in this  !

proceeding dated October 27, 1970.

1 I

. f

-- , - y -

, . ,-- ,.-.y

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. 3 Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Goodman April 13, 1971 Applicant objects to Interrogatory 210 cn the -same grounds as stated for Applicant's objections to Interrogatories, 12, 13, 108 and lih(f) . A melting of 5% of the fuel vculd assume multiple failures of engineered safeguards and is not credible.

The Saginav Intervenors ' interrogatories call upon Applicant to attach to the ansvers volumes of documents which, if literally re-spended to, would not be practically transportable. Applicant is at-taching to the responses those docu=ents forming the basis for these ansvers in cases where the documents would not otherwise be readily available to Intervenors. Applicant is not attaching such documents as published reports, treatises, professional society codes (e.g., ASME, ASTM, T" and similar professialal standards), which Applicant believes are readily available at engineering school or other technical libraries, or docunents which Applicant has made available to the Saginav Interrenors in response to their motion for production of documents; this latter category includes topical reports referenced in the PSAR as emended or in the respcuses.

It shculd be observed, although not specifically pointed out in the respenses to the interrogatories, that Applicant and its principal centractors, The Sabcock & 'Jilcox Company and Bechtel Corporation, in the course of their activities and experience in ccnnection with power plants other than the Midland units derive much infomation and experience which is not readily qualifiable and not readily includable in ansvers to in-terrogatories.

Midland Units 1 and 2 incorporate a nuclear steam system which is essentially identical to nuclear steam systems being supplied for eight other B&'4 nuclear units which vill all precede initial operation of Unit 1. Thus approx 1=ately 25 to 30 reactor-years of operation and operational experience with units of similar design vill be available at the time of Unit 1 startup. Nuclear units incorporating the Midland de- i sign (exclusive of fuel mana6ement features) include the following: l l

Ocenee Unit 1 Oconee Unit 2 Occuee Unit 3 Three-Mile Island Unit 1 Three-Mile Island Unit 2 Crystal River Unit 3 Rancho Seco Arkansas nuclear One, Unit Cne j l

1 1

. I

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. E Dr. David B. Hall Dr. Clark Good =an April 13, 1971 Similarly, Bechtel Corporation is deriving =uch experience and informntien frem their activities in the design and constracticn of other nuclear power plants, including plants for which the nuclear steam supply system is being supplied by The Babcock & Wilcox Compc:rf.

The experience and informatien gained in design, testing and operation of these earlier plants is taken into account as it beccmes available in the design of the Midland units.

Yours very traly, JKR/pb D ~ ,

John K. Restrick CC: William J. Ginster, Esq.

James A. Kendall, Esq.

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.

Milton R. Wessel, Esq.

James N. O 'Connor, Esq.

Myren M. Cherry, Esq.

Algie A. '< Tells, Esq.

Mr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.

mg 9

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19326D104&oldid=2360869"