ML19241B509
| ML19241B509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1979 |
| From: | Axelrod M, Carr A, Rachel Johnson LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907180739 | |
| Download: ML19241B509 (16) | |
Text
.
c-a;,
9 COCKET13 NEC PUBLIC D000EVf RCW i
.g 2
JUN D 1973 > 2 o.
- =
.....LU D.d.0.0 Ur d.',.L.,..r c,
L...
wn y
W d3
/
. ; gc.
.s g n...e.G" '.'s~. r R*./
C C."'"...C ~C '. L ".
pg
^
v
~
v n ^ mn, r v -.. - +. e. a-
-n.TL y MD
- u v u.,
C----
^
u1Ln c.
---w-m u. O. t.
't. +1 v A
W D L f L..L In the ::atter of
)
Dccket ':o.
50-344
)
P. O.R ~. "u c'."m' C r ".. r RA 7 0 7 r " ~ o..* C C v....s' '.".' )
( C ^. n.t - ^ 1 Bu4.i A 4 ".c, N
m
.m m
)
Proceeding) et 21.
)
(T rc 4 2n 'uclear Olant)
,nrR r t re e.c e..eS i.O. n l
- r. O R
.m v..
v
.m
.w m
C< w..:,,
4 L-r GL.m x C o.'
- o ~ ' s'.' ' ' G ' '. . 'L' R'/"L'. ' C o..
o L.
1.
m
- n.. D c,, O e.- -. I C e.<
.e n R.e.,$.- r P C sr_. R
- m. O p e g P o u. v
-e
-r
,.; n 0-u.
v
'1.4". " Q. D..C u n' 'O Q.. I T o*
V P
er C r 'Oe. D C 'L. O *r rumt,.mO T.a' C .'.a _r
- S
-r.-
- u.
Portland General Electric Cor.pany (Licensee) moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard (Board) for an order ursuant e
to 10 CFR 5 2. 74 0 ( f) compelling Eugene Rosolie, actinc. c. ro _s_e_,
and the Coalition for Safe Power (hereinafter collecti'zely re-ferred to as ("CFSP") to respond fully to " Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories To Eugene Rosolie, Pro g, and Coalition for Safa Pcwer," da ted '!ay S, 1979, as set forth in T.cre detail belcw.
C ". r a b.' ". a.~; ' o', '. "./9, Crco. s "-.~.. 4 ~ ~ e
' c' c n-'. '-."..i
."o mo.
- "a A
~
second chase of this proceedj ac.
Cn P. arch 5, 1979 Licensee
- -."-- ~. ;
a '.. c e.s.
c r-o__mg,._v
.itm_
A. e e.2.s -..., A " _ -v v_
..i -
s aclr2ssad cc C=c=
i,g',4
- b,,
,3,.,
,,b7L e,3 b3 -
.)
p u,,
f
, J,
.,. b,, a y
, e,,., G,n, w 4 r,.,,,
, g o g y,, g, g w
w'.
m s. J,_n.-
aC
, n,7 3
3 7. 3_ *e - 7.*4 - +- %.. a g
gy
,g
,c v
--,un
~4as v-l'"-~*T"-"~
3.ec'ficity.
NCne Of L'cen3ee,s,"irSt Cet
~
,)
$e
]8Eb $_
. ~. T O O_
O_. _O.N
_ O, 7 e _
.8'.%
N..$
f 7]
O m
m_
4-
. - 3'$--
7 p
C y007 #
t
.)
. CrqP: nevertheless, on March 19, 1979 CFSP filed wholly in-adequate responses
_a Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, and on.urch 23, 1979 Licensee filed a Motion to Compel CFSP to furnish adequate responses.
At the prehearing conferenca on March 29, the Licensing Board admitted eight of CFSP's contentions as issues in this proceeding, and also granted Licensee's Motion to Compel responses to the interrogatories relevant to the admitted con-tentions.
Tr. 3.32.
In addition, because of its concerr that CFSP might not understand its obligations, the Board also took great pains to instruct CFSP with respect to hov to respond adequately to interrogatories.
Tr. 3123-3132.
On April 13, 1979 (one day late), CFSP served its responses to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories.
After reviewing CFSP's April 13 responses, and its April 17 responses to Staff's First Set of Interrogatories, Licensee on May 9 personally served on CFSP 6 additional interrogatories.
("Lacensee's Second Set of Interrogatories").
All of those interrogatories were based on CFEP's contentions and its responses to Licensee's and Staff's interrogatories.
Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories did nc Tore than to continue Licensee's attempt to discern the bases with reasonable specificity for some of CFSP's contentions which the Ecard has admitted as issues in this croceeding.
The interrogatories were not elaborate.
They attemoted 31.79 ; to ascertain further information which was readily available 1
to CFSP, and cn which, according to CFSP, it had relied in formulating its contenticns.
,5 n
4 b !)
$i4 On May 30, 1979 (cne week after the due date) CFSP served its responses on Licensee.
The majority of those responses, as Licensee will show belcw, are wholly inadequate.
In sum, then, the situation is that morn than three =cTths after CFSP filed its contentions, CFSP is still evading its Licensee adequate information with obligation to provide to respect to those contentions, information which CFSP presumably had in its possession when it first formulated its contentions.
For the convenience of the Board, we set forth below each
. ~. interrogatory and response thereto prior to providing our argument as to each response.
Interrocatory 14 This Interrogatory relates to your Contentions 12 and 14 and your responses to Licensee's Interrogatory 5 and Staff's Interrogatories Cl2 and ' 1:
(a) h'ith respect to yt ir response to Licensee's Interrogatory 5(d).
(i) Scecifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit which leads you to each of the conclusions you expressed in your responses to 5 (a), (b) and (c).
(ii) Identify the scurce of each item of information scecified in (i) abcze.
(b)
.w i th resrect to ycur Contenticn 12 and your respcnse to 5taff's Interrogatcry C12-3, identi#y each ::RC regulation which fcu contend has
.ct been met.
State the bases for ecur belief that each has not been met.
n - e taJ
[-
l (c)
With respect to your Contention 13 and your response to Staff's Interrogatory Cl3-1, identify each of the
- RC regulations which you contend cannot be met.
State the bases for your belief that each cannot be Tet.
Resconse (a)
(i)
Our site wisit (sic] was done some months ago and our notes are of a general nature.
However we do plan another site visit aithin a month and will supplement this interrogatory at that time.
(ii) The source of or information during the site visit was Lief Erickson.
(b)
CFR Part 50 Sections 50.40, 50.57 and 50.91.
As stated previcusly PGE 1020 and site visit.
(c)
Same as response to (b).
Interrogatory 14(a)
In its Interrogatory 5(d) Licensee sought information with respect to bases '/hich CFSP alleged existed for its Contentions 12 and 13.
Those cententions assert first that Licensee has not provided adequate information to demonstrate that the Plant can operate safely during the modification work and second, that irrespective of any shcwing by Licensee, the Plant cannot operate safely while the modification work is beino dcne.
CFSP had stated that, at it7
/
4uJ 9 ', O ci
n IUi
^3 h t '
rtiO JRuO0 tot t;Ouc OOptrO;r "e O ; c NOM 0
(
rT
)
3)
[ ' t O d. R ' P O J.
h 1
1 1t tt
'rop 0(
p ore t
r-rt 3
nrteO <&v) rta tO trO e e O J.pp mrpUr*
drOt0twO1C tpOODuOO 3t t
e P
Or ipF;:cG OD p
(
t*
t HM<Or110AOtOP1N H4.^pv trpt On(Ad ROOD er tN OpOr rt(OU
]
t w
s..
pL7OO-
& *3 t'tu t
(*
(
P f
r trO L.
OvO<r(OO LCCt1&UQ etu u&trO <rurt Cr&O;r 1
r; Ot
&DsnO1lpirOp O r t R & D0 f.
w ei t
tr I
(
tu*
t
- a t
t w)1 t
(
r tt DDc rpLOu t(#
rtu GODtD3tt*ODu L
?
- 1 eOt1Jpts&Cp C;Pf; "t P O C 1 u C G Pl Optrt'OO cO
- D P < O - -
- n I
e sF t
- 1 (OOO r ar 3
- a ir&L Pu t;
OOPcOpt POpu rt t
o o
vi Gdnd 0
eDtO1MptrtO3 ZrtT. tOOdOOt( tO tTO TpuOt tot 1
)
(
- n a
t*
(
('
r:
e t
s
- trOODlOO *
)
tO Ot1OaQtiO D (L0QCptIOHN rtW ODtO tOet t
o OaOOl srpH rtt a
tU f
L 3 t 1
n 3OtU&ttOO LP
)
)
A 0ODUO0 Pu Ptt rCtLeLO3 Ot OtOOe 3rCu-w n
- ta e*
t t L
t1&uH u);L Op*+1; 1
rt
' e t
UC tO rDD rro Et"N EPr;OOr H P*1 P t R t P 0;3 rO O'O D *U d
- tr t
t
(
r t t
- 1 0U
& D )U -
tO pGLtL1D)i rDQCPt e
)
t
(
N 1OO;t tO MR&lnO Vn riDGOL C'3F'Or O1DO Det n r1UQ (t*<OH n) 1 hi' e
t t
1 t
tr 0
r Crtr vOuOOOt tO rt0 r
s; O
1
- O1trr;Ot1P AtRtOU
'OCO8 f
C f t
1 F o O1 N
>r * *% 4 o f - - E'"
a t1OODOIL&DO-MU tr&u l
t t;
'l aF"-
MdO4 ' ~ IuJ U ZNQ
'V tae0 JJ 1
d 1T CpPt
~
( -
l'tUOt1ON
'pt OOilOp1; O(
pH*
.dNt1OlO t'
t 1
r o + (A O - a pot t O0,C & t1OO rO 13uOOpG tCFeN (O w -
t
)
1 t
Fwoo
.toJJ%~w*
- n 4
1 e
t r
t
(
Fr t
rt)tu m
1 1Ot7OOr (O trO T p u)Ou (rtr tot o1 t
t "trGO;uOO u OUiOO<c1N t0QCOu) n 1
t) 3 r*
(
t ru t
r; r
tPOOptOO Rre-dot tO d-o t
(O trRt T
t;Op trO OtwnDOt (rt r
1
(
O0ptrOpte P0 DL r;
t
(
r; e i
(
t& OrO Q.
t1rpH*
OD lOetr()0 pU tO C;pt
&tt et oCdUOUOO tO HPt r
- a i.
t 4
rt 3
1 t
c t
r 3TlPu iUHt OtGO rOODiCO iO pttOUd( rO d0O( O<O#1N OO;OQP<DtHO 1
t t
t
)
r h
n s
g t t
e t
&DrOHO1D(THO RD( ru & DO O *3 I L
1 O L C "t r ru t
tTlGut P(
ttrpH--
uCOr p
)
f v
t t
t tle re i
?
tr DO49 OO3ODtg Oa p UOCl( 1oOOt d<1ODO-v ZJO f;
t 1
b
)
1L iL r
t G
- O&ut<0D. C *t
- u c,. o 8 t wot
- d t
1Ou1OluO PU ul001 O;LutOa*
HUutiOp1 Gts p
1OU001 u P ', O 3
r 1
v Q1)'b'Ju t
t 1
Wt1*1u trpti rlO Urtr(D tr
+
(
i'
(
F O1AO Ot
('
pMuC0i tO PrOODuOO u >
v i
DfOstOeDtO1** -
(l i
I,
g1' cisit was some time in the cast and that its " notes" are of a general nature.
Presumably, then, we are asked to believe that CFSP has "fergotten" the information obtained in its site visit of Februar'; 1979 which provided the bases for its Contentions 12 and 13 filed February 26, 1979.
Such refusal to respond adequately to Licensee's interrogatory is particularly unacc2ptable in light of the pains which the Board took to to how to answer interrogatories properly.
instruct CFSP as
., l.,,. J, 3,..
The fact that CFSP mentions that it intends to make a site visit in the future and will " update" its response at that time does not relieve it of its obligation now to respond fully and adequately to this interrogatory.
CFSP misapprehends the purpose the cbligation to " update;" such cbligation does not relieve of CF3? of the responsibility to answer an interrogator"2 fully new on the basis of present knowledge.
What Licensee seeks and is entitled to obtain is an adec.uate resconse to its rec.uest for information with respect to the bases for CFSP's contention which existed when CFSP filed the contentions more than three months acc.
If CFSP does not presentiv. have anv. bases for its contenticns it should so state For tne reascas set forth abo a, Licensee requests t':. i t the Board order CFSP to submit specific,
- d. rect and responsive Answers to Licensee's Interrogator; 14 ( a ';
O c
l' _
i i s
\\ Y I
r a
v gt) J Interrocatories 14(b) and (c)
The Staff alco requested CFSP to provide the bases for its Contentiens 12 a-d 13, which, as noted, allege that Licensee his not provided information to show that the Plant can be operated safely luring modification work, and that in any operate safely during modification event the Plant cannot not work.
CFSP responded to the Staff that its bases for such allegations.ere " [T] he Commission's own regulations which have not been met."
Therefore, Licensee asked in Interrogatories 14(b) and (c) that Cr:P identify the Commission's regulations which it believes have ac: been met, and state the bases for its belief that each cannet be met.
As the bases for its belief that the Comrission's reg :lations have not been met, CFSP lists, once again, its site visit.
Rather than respond, CFSP says, in effect, that the bases for its belief that Commission regulations have not been met is information obtained frca its site visit, but that it has " forgotten" what that information is.
For all the reasons stated above, such a response is not adequate.
Therefore, Licensee requests that this Bea-d order CFSP to submit specific, direct and respcnsive answers to Licensee's Interrogatcries 14(b) and (c).
ff. -
n r,
L t
- 1 Interrccatories 15(c) and (d)
(c)
With respect to your response to Licensee's Interrogatory 7(c):
(i)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visir which leads you to each of the conclusions you expressed in your responses to 7(a) and (b).
(ii)
Identify the source of each item of information specified in (i) above.
(d)
With respect to your resconses to Staff's Interrogatories C15-2 and C16-3:
(i)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit which leads you to each of the conclusions expressed in your responses to 5 aff's Interrogatories C15-1, C16-1 and C16-2.
(ii)
Identify the source of each item of information scecified in (i) above.
Rastense (c) (i) (ii)
See respcnse to Interrogarcry 14.
(d) Same as (c).
n G ij t e, s c-c
_9 CFSP's Contentions ';os. 15 and 16 allece tbIt Licensee has not identified all cafety equipment that wculd be affected by the proposed.cdification and has not made adequate olans to crotect sa fe ty ec.uin. cent durins the modification work.
CFSP had stated, in response to Licensee's Interrogatory 7(c),
that the bases for its allegations were " Review cf PGE 1020 and site visit."
Thus, Licensee, in its Int errogator; 15(c) asked identify each item of information obtained during its CFSP to site visit whi h formed the bases for those contentions.
Rather than provide the information sou:
CFSP simply referenced its recpense to Licensee's Ir.terrogat-14.
CFSP also had stated, in response to a Staff interrogatory uith respect to its Contentions 15 and 16, that its bases were "a review of PGE 1020 and a site visit.
During that visit equip-ment was pointed out to us that was not mentioned in PGE 1020."
Thus, Licensee asked CFSP in Interrogatory 15 (d) to identify each item of information cbtained during the site visit which lead it to the conclusions e:cp re s s ed.
Rather than provide the information requested in either interrsgatory, CFEP's resconse was simply to refer Licensee to its respcnse to Interrogatcry 14.
As L;censee has chcwn, CFSP's response to Interrogater,- 14 with respect to the site risit is whcil; inadegaate.
Obs2ausly nn)
As.b, LL L 7 t:
-LO-a response to Interrogatories 15(c) it is equally inadeqcate as and (d) as well.
In effect, CFS? claims that it cannot now
" remember" what items of s1fety ec.uin. ment were c.ointed cut on its site visit which nrompted its Contentions 15 and 16.
This assertion is particularly surorising in light of the fact that at the Prehearing Conference of March 23, CFSP's reoresentative scoke to this precise coint, naming several specific items of equip-ment Nhich, he said, he had identified durin-his site visit but which were not mentioned in PGE-1020.
Tr.
3059 - 3062.
In fact,
'd r. Rosolte indicated that he could be more specific with respect to those items cf equipment after review of his notes.
Tr. 3Gdl.
';cw, hcwever, when asked to name those items, CFSP claims that it has " forgotten" those itens of equipment and that its notes are so " general" in nature that the specific equipment cannot be 1.'
ntified.
Such cehavior raises serious doubts as to whether CTSP is actinc_ in c.ood faith in resc.ondinc. to these i nterro9atcries.
For the reasons set forth above, chis Ecard should order CFSP to submit specific, direct and responsive answers to Licensee's Interrogatories 15(c) and (d).
Interrocatory 16 This Interrogatory relates to your Cantention 17 and four respcnses to Licensee's Interrogatory 3(e) and Staff's Interrogatory C17 <
Q p
<7 lL-V\\) ~y t
(a)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit which leads you to each of the conclusions you expressed in your responses to Licensee's Interrogatories 8(a), (b), (c) and (d).
(b)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit which leads you to each of the conclusions you expressed in your responses to Staff's Interrogatories C17-1, C17-2 and C17-3.
(c)
Identify the source of each item of information specified in (a) and (b) above.
Interrocatory 17
~~ccatory relates to your Contention 20 and your response This In:
to Licensu
- Interrogatory 10 (d) :
(a)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit which leads you to the conclusions you expressed in your respcases to Licensee's Interrogatories 10 ( a ), (b) anc; (c).
(b)
Identify the source of cach item of information specified in (a) above.
o7 n
([
(, t d
[t 0>
Interrocatory 13 This Interrogatory relates to your Contention 22 (as combined with Consolidated Intervenors' :o. 20) and your resconses to Licensee's Interrogatory 12:
(a)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit which leads you to each of the ccnclusions you expressed in response to Licensee's Interregatories 12(a),
(b) and (c).
(b)
Identify the source of each item of information specified n (a) above.
Restenses Interrocatory 16 "See reso. case to Interroc.'torv. 14" Interrccacory 17 response to Interrogatory 14" Interrocatory 13 "See response t-Interrogatory 14."
In each of the above interrogatories Licensee also scught from information with respect to the site 'usit which fermed 4
?
f' I 6r
/ 9
- f. L-N 9
=
. part of the bases fcr its allegations.
In each instance CFSP failed to furnish the information requested, and instead simply referred to its response to Interrogatory 14.
As Licensee has shown above, CFSP's response to Interrogatory 14 is inadequate; obviously it is inadequate as a response to Interrogatories 16, 17, and IS(a) and (b), as well.
Therefore, the Board should order CFSP to subnit specific, direct and responsive answers to these interrogatories.
Interrocatory IS (c)
Please identify, by witness and transcript page, "the testimony given at Phase I hearings" referred to in your response to Licensee's Interrogatory 12 (d).
Resconse None As support for its contention that Licensee has not completely analyted the effect of the steel plate on displacement in the Ccmclex, in responding to Licensee's Interrogatory 12(d), CFSP cited " testimony at Phase I hearings." Licensee therefore asked CFSF to identify that testimony by witness and transcript page.
CFSP did not answer the question.
Licensee is entitled to this information.
It is no more than a request to CFSP to i f e r.t i f'; the bases for its allegation.
Therefore, Licensee requests the Scard to issue an order to e
O u n
u b
h o s' CFSP compelling it to respond adequately and fully to Licensee's Interrogatory 18(c).
Conclusion For the reasons set forth abcVe, Licensee respectfully requests that the Board order CFSP to submit specific, direct and responsi.e answers to Licensee's Interrogatories 14, 15(c),(d), 16, 17, and 13.
Respectfully submitted, RCNALD W.
JOHNSON, C9Q.
Corporate Attornef Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.
Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
.ACRICE AXELPAD, ESQ.
ALBERT V.
- CARR, JR.,
ESQ.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
())' h{ g.....1
^
i
/ f gy Id a u r i c e A x e l r a d' Datec at Washington, D.C.
this lith day of June, 1979.
lh
(*
{,t c) '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
Docket No. 50-344 et~~
)
al.
)
(Control Building Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby _ertify that on June 11, 1979, I served a copy of the Licensee's Motion for Order Compelling Intervenor Eugene Rosolie, Pro Se and Coalition for Safe Power to Resoond Fully to Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories, dated June 'll, 1979,'by placing a true copy of said document in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Washington, D.C.
addressed as follows:
Marshall E.
Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A.
McCollom, Dean Docketing and Service Section Division of Engineering, Office of the Secretary Architecture & Technology U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Wachington, D.
C.
20555 Stillwater, OK 74074 (Original & 20 copies)
Er. Hugh C.
Paxton Columbia County Courthouse 1229 - 41st Street Law Library, Circuit Court Roca Los Alamos, NM E7544 St. Helens, OR 97051 r, f U
L
- h. (o s
Joseph R.
Gray, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Staff Appeal Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms. Nina Bell Ronald W.
Johnson, Esq.
728 S.
E.
26th Street Corporate Attorney Portland, OR 97214 Portland General Electric Co.
121 S.
W.
Salmon Street Mr. Eugene Rosolie Portland, OR 97204 Coalition for Safe Power 215 S.
E.
9th Avenue Richard M.
Sandvik, Esq.
Portland, CR 97214 Frank U.
Ostrander, Jr.
Counsel for Oregon Department Mr. David B.
McCoy of Energy 348 Hussey Lane 500 Pacific Building Grants Pass, OR 97526 520 S.
W.
Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Mr. John A.
Kullberg Route One William W.
Kinsey, Esq.
Box 2500 1002 N.
W.
Holladay Sauvie Island, OR 97231 Portland, OR 97232 Ms.
C.
Gail Parson Dr. Harold I.
Laursen 800 S.
W.
Green 46 1520 N.
W.
13th Portland, OR 97206 Corvallis, OR 97330 Robert M.
Johnson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 100 State Office Building Salem, OR 97310 Lcwenstein, Newman, P s,
Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, :M Washington, D.C.
20036 (202-862-8400) ni v
l i
Qb's