ML19211C635

Answer in Opposition of Joint Intervenors 791221 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories Re Contention 22.Contrary to Contention Which Relates to Safety Issues,Questions Seek Info on Engineering & Design Adequacy.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19211C635
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	01/07/1980
From:	Trowbridge G LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8001140086
Download: ML19211C635 (7)

Text

January 7, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ') Docket No. 50-382

)

(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )

Unit 3) )

APPLICANT' S OPPOSITION TO JOINT INTERVENORS '

MOTION TO COMPEL On December 6, 1979, Applicant filed objections to certain of Joint Intervenors' Interrogatories related to Contention 22, including Interrogatories 22-4, 22-5, 22-7, and 22-8,l/ on the ground that the interrogatories were outside the scope of the 1/ The interrogatories read as follows:

Interrogatory 22-4 -- With respect to FSAR, page 3.8-2, against what specific external missiles is the concrete Shield Building designed to protect?

Interrogatory 22-5 -- With respect to FSAR, page 3.8-37, and with reference to Sec. 3.5.1.1 (Internally generated missiles -- outside containment) please advise:

(a) How many temperatures detectors could become in-ternal missiles and their weight; (b) How many valve stems could become internal missiles and the weight of each; (c) The restraints on valve stems so that they do not become missiles, how many such valve stems there are, and the weight of each; (Footnote continued on following page) 1743 230 8001140 c 2 6

g Contention. By motion dated December 21, 1979, the Joint Inter-venors moved to compel answers to these interrogatories, stat-ing, among other things, that "these Interrogatories are de-signed to provide Joint Intervenors with relevant and material information regarding the strength calculations for the concrete in the safety-related structures, and more particularly in the Containment Structure." Motion at p. 2. The information sought is described by the Joint Intervenors at page 3 of their Motion as " engineering and design criterion."

Contention 22 on its face -- as initially raised by Inter-venors and as reworded by the Licensing Board -- deals with the quality of concrete construction, not with the adequacy of design (Footnote continued from previous page)

(d) How many bolted bonnets there are which may become internal missiles; (e) How many main steam safety relief valves there are, the size of each, and the weight of each.

Interrogatory 22-7 -- Which formula was used to calcu-late the minimum concrete wall thickness necessary to prevent penetration by cylindrical missiles, i.e., was the Ballistic Research Lcboratory Formula (BLR) or the National Defense Re-search Council (NDRC) Formula. In your answer, please advise whether this calculation was made before or after the concrete was poured.

Interrogatory 22-8 -- With respect to FSAR page 3.5-13 the NDRC Formula predicts no missile penetration of the Shield Building Wall by Disc No. 3, which is described as the most penetrating missile. Please advise what prediction is made using the BLR Formula.

1743 231

criteria for construction. In its original form, 2/ Conten-tion 22 alleged defects in " materials, construction and work-manship" in connection with the pouring and setting of con-crete used in the construction of Waterford 3. As reworded by the Board in its September 12, 1979 Order (pages 7-8) 3/

following a prehearing conference, Contention 22 is limited to

" safety-related concrete construction" (emphasis added).

Neither wording of the contention can even liberally be read to question the adequacy of the " engineering and design" of the plant.

In its Order, the Board noted the acknowledgment of Joint Intervenors' counsel that "when drafted, there was no specific basis for this contention, and that it had been predicated upon reports by several members of the Joint Petitioners con-cerning conversations with various construction employees, who 2/ As originally submitted (see Save Our Wetlands, Inc.,

and Oystershell Alliance, Inc. Contentions, dated April 11, 1979), Contention 22 stated:

" Applicant has failed to discover, acknowledge, report or remedy defects in materials, construc-tion, and workmanship such as improperly poured and set concrete and concrete poured without required reinforcement during the fabrication of the containment vessel (reactor vessel) and/or related integral systems."

Id. at page 9.

3/ Contention 22 states:

" Applicant has failed to discover, acknowledge, report or remedy defects in safety-related con-crete construction."

l743 232

were unidentified and unknown to him." Order at page 7.

Applicant notes that, other than an equally unsubstantiated allegation in a newspaper article, no sound basis for the con-tention has yet been advanced. In these unusual circum-stances, Applicant believes that a close reading of the con-tention and proposed interrogatories is particularly appro-priate.

That Intervenors' concern lies not with design but with construction techniques is supported by the considerable dis-cussion of this issue which took place during the prehearing conference (see Special Prehearing Conference Transcript at pages 101-06), as well as by Joint Petitioners' Arguments Re-garding Contested Contentions (pp. 15-16), filed June 1, 1979.

At the prehearing, the discussion revolved around allegations by

" construction employees" and " cement workers" which were con-tained in a local newspaper article -- with no mention of issues related to the engineering or design of the plant. The news-paper article, which was later furnished as Exhibit "D" to Intervenors' June 1 filing, quotes three unidentified "construc-tion workers . . . employed as concrete masons at the plant" about "the concrete work at Waterford." - Intervenors' arguments in their June 1 filing focus on the article and on alleged failures by the NRC to " communicate [] sufficiently with workers at the sites in order to be able to evaluate deficiencies in construction which are otherwise undiscoverable . . . (p. , 16).

1743 233

A clear and distinct line can be drawn between the sub-ject matter of these interrogatories, and the remaining inter-rogatories for Contention 22 to which Applicant is supplying responses. See " Applicant's Responses to Joint Intervenors Interrogatories 22-1, 22-2, 22-3, 22-6," dated January 7, 1980, copies of which have been served on the Board. The latter seek information on the matter in controversy in Con-tention 22, i.e., the construction of safety-related struc-tures. In contrast, the contested interrogatories seek infor-mation beyond the scope of the Contention, and accordingly, fail to meet the Commission's basic requirement that discovery "shall relate only to matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing order . . .

10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.740 (b) (1) .

Therefore, the Board should deny Joint Intervenors' Motion to Compel Applicant to respond to Interrogatories 22-4, 22-5, 22-7 and 22-8.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PIT MAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE M

By: ),jp /j

'Gpfge F. Trowbridgd C6unsel for Applicant Dated: January 7, 1980 1743 234

January 7, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LOUT 3IANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382

)

(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )

Unit 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's opposi-tion to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Compel,' dated January 7, 1980, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this seventh day of January, 1980.

Wp Harr Ef. Glasspih(jil Dated: January 7, 1980 1743 235

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

)

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-382

)

(Waterford Steam Electric Station, )

Unit 3) ) .

~

SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Lyman L. Jones, Jr', Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Gillespie'&. Jones Licensing Board Suite 201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1420 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commission Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Washington, D.C. 20555

Stephen M. Irving, Esquire Dr. Harry Foreman Suite 1601 Director, Center for Popula- One American Plaza tien Studies Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

'Bo: 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Luke B. Fontana Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Henry J. McGurren, Esquire Commission Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C. 20555 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission \ppeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section (21) Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i743 236

.