ML19274G163
| ML19274G163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Axelrad M, Carr A, Rachel Johnson LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274G164 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908300302 | |
| Download: ML19274G163 (12) | |
Text
.1I' UNITED STATES OF AMERIC's NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In ti,e Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-344
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY )
(Control Building Proceeding) et al.
)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
)
LICENSEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING INTERVENOR EUGENE ROSOLIE, PRO SE AND COALITION FOR SAFE POUER TO RESPOND FULLY 50 LICEUSEE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Portland General Electric Company (Licensee) supplements its June 11, 1979 Motion to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) for an order pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740(f) coiapelling Eugene Rosolie, acting pro se, and the Coalition for Safe Power (hereinafter collectively referred to as "CFSP") to respond fully to "Licens~ee's Second Set of Interrogatories to Eugene Rosolie, Pro Se, and Coalition for Safe Power," dated May 8, 1979.
As set out in detail in Licensee's June 11 Motion, / CFSP's May 30, 1973 response failed to answer fully and adequately Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories.
CFSP, on June 30, 1979, filed a
" Supplemental Response" to its May 30 responses.
Notwithstanding that supplement, CFSP still ha.' not responded adequately and fully to a number of Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories.
jg2031001 II A copy of Licensee's June 11 Motion to Compel is attached for the convenience of the Board.
7908 3 00 3?o JL
4
. As explained in the June 11 Motion to Compel, the Second Set of Interrogatories continued Licensee's attempt to discern with reasonable specificity the bases for some of CFSP's con-tentions.
The interrogatories attempt simply to ascertain further information which was readily available to CFSP, and on which, according to CFSP, it had relied on formulating its contentions.
CFSP did not object to any of Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories and filed no response at all to Licensee's Motion to Compel dated June 11, 1979.
As Licensee will demonstra'_e, CFSP's June 30 Supplemental Response is defective with respect to Licensee's Interrogatories 14(b) and (c), 15(c), 16, 17, and 18 (a) and (b).
Thus, with respect to those responras and for the reasons set forth below, Licensee supplements its Motion to Compel dated June 11. /
For the convenience of the Board, we set forth, where appropriate, each interrogatory and response thereto prior to stating our argument.
Interrogatories 14 (b) and (c)
CFSP did not supplement its May 30 responses to Licensee's Interrogatories 14 (b) and (c).
Thus Licensee's June 11 Motion to Compel full and adequate responses from CFSP to its Interro-gatories 14(b) and (c) needs no supplementing.
- /
The Board has not yet ruled on Licensee's June 11 Motion to Compel.
2031 002 6
.I
. Interrogatory 15(c)
This Interrogatory relates to your Contentions 15 and 16 and your response to Licensee's Interrogatory 7 and Staff's Interrogatories C15 and C16:
(c)
With respect to your response to Licensee's Interrogatory 7 (c) :
(i)
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 7(a) and (b).
(ii)
Identify the source of each item of information specified in (i) above.
Supplemental Response
" (c) (i) (ii) See response to interrogatory 14.1/
In response to Licensee's interrogatory 7 the only conclusion was that certain in-formation was missing from PGE 1020 Our site visits showed that the information was still not available or had changed.
If the information is not supplied to us we can not share such information.
Since the Licensee has the information and the burden of proof in this case Licensee should provide that information."
- /
CFSP's response to Interrogatory 14 is as follows:
Interrogatory 14 2031 003 (a) (i) 1-process steam feedwater pipe at elevation 45 ft.
Bushnell (PGE) 2-fire protection piping at elevation 45 ft.
Bushnell (PGE) 3-PGE 1020 has a lot of detail missing.
Worth Edwards (Bechtel) 4-uncontrolled access by workers to safety related equipment areas.
This was obtained from a con-versation with NRC personnel and PGE.
5-embedded conduits for safety related equipment could be affected by falling plate.
No evalua-tion done.
Once again the source was a conver-sation between NRC and PGE.
6-Cables DPB-188 and DI-1015, safety related at elevation 93 ft. in the Nuclear Instrumentation Room, are in the line of drill.
This information was obtained by. personal observation.
7 supply transformer from RDMG to Rod Controls fixed to eastside of Control building wall at elevation 65 ft.
Once again this was personal observation.
8-safety related cables near east wall of control building at elevation 65 ft. Personal observation.
9-effects of drilling holes as to vibration, dusc and noise not known.
Edwards
o
- CFSP's supplemental response is incomplete, evasive, and argumentative.
CFSP's Contention Nos. 15 and 16 allege that Licensee has not identified all safety equipment that would be affected by the pr,oposed modification and has not made adequate plans to protect safety equipment during the modification work.
In its responses to Licensee's Interrogatories 7(a) and (b),
CFSP listed a number of statements in PGE 1020 with which it dis-agreed and identi.fied a number of areas in which it felt infor-mation was missing.
In its response to Licensee's Interrogatory 7(c), CFSP indicated that the bases for the conclusions it ex-pressed in 7(a) and (b) were, at least in part, items of infor-mation obtained during a " site visit" which took place early in 1979.
Therefore Licensee, in its Interrogatory 15 (c), asked CFSP to identify each item of information obtained on the site visit which led it to each of those conclusions.
As Licensee showed in its June 11 Motion, CFSP's May 30 response was wholly inadequate.
The supplemental response is equally inadequate.
The first part of CFSP's supplemental re-sponse is simply a reference to its supplemental response to Intarrogatory 14.
That response is directed to a different interrogatory and e different contention.
It is simply a listing of some equipment in the Plant and some matters discussed during a site virsit which took place subsequent to the one on which CFSP relied as bases for its contention.
In any event, the majority of the items listed appear to have little, if any, relevance to the 2031 004
conclusions which were expressed in CFSP's response to Licensee's Interrogatories 7(a) and (b).
Therefore, the reference to CFSP s supplemental response to Interrogatory 14 is inadequate as a response to Licensee's Interrogatory 15(c).
In addition, the remain @er of CFSP's response to Licensee's Interrogatory 15(c) is nonresponsive, evasive, and argumentative.
CFSP states that the only conclusion in its response to Licensee's Interrogatory 7 was that "certain information" was missing from PGE-1020.
CFSP volunteers that, if Licensee will supply infor-mation, CFSP will " share" it and argues that, since Licensee has the burden of proof in this matter, Licensee should provide the information.
CFSP fails to comprehend the. purpose of Licensee's Interrogatory 15(c).
As we have informed CFSP before, Licensee is aware of its burdens and obligations in this proceeding and did not request CFSP's views in this regard.
In addition, CFSP was not asked to review information submitted by Licensee and to
" share" with others the fruits of its review.
Instead, CFSP was asked to provide the information obtained on its site visit upon which it relied in formulating its contention.
CFSP's answer not only fails to do this, but is argumentative as well; it clearly is not an adequate response to Licensee's Interrogatory 15(c).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, CFSP should be ordered to provide a full, direct, and responsive answer to Licensee's Interrogatory 15 (c).
2031 005
. Interrogatory 16 This Interrogatory relates to your Contention 17 and your responses to Licensee's Interrogatory 8 (e) and Staff 's Interroga-tory C17-4:
(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.
Supplemental Response "See response to interrogatory 14 (a) (i) and 15 (c) (i) (ii). "
CFSP's Contention No. 17 alleges that performance of the modification work will hamper the ability of plant operators to respond to any emergency properly and thus will pose an undue risk to the public health and safety.
In response to Licensee's Interrogatory 8 and Staff's Interro-gatory C-17, CFSP expressed certain conclusions with respect to that contention, and stated that those conclusions were based, at least in part, on information obtained during its site visit.
Licensee, in Interrogatory 16, asked CFSP to identify each item of information obtained during the site visit which led CFSP to the conclusions expressed.
CFSP's supplemental response simply refers to its supple-mental responses to 14 (a) (i) and 15 (c) (i) (ii).
Such a response is wholly inadequate, evasive, non-responsive, and argumentative.
2031 006
.- As nearly as can be told, no part of CFSP's supplemental response to Licensee's Interrogatory 14 relates to the subject matter of CFSP's Contention No. 17 (the ability of plant operators.to respond to emergencies during modification work).
Therefore, CFSP's response to Licensee's Interrogatory 14(a) is not adequate to serve as a response to Licensee's Interrogatory 16.
CFSP's response to 15 (c) (i) (ii) is, on its face, not rele-vant to its Contention 17; it addresses different interrogatories directed to different contentions.
Thus, it is inadequate to serve as a response to Licensee's Interrogatory 16.
In any event,'
as shown above, CFSP's response to Licensee's Interrogatory 15 (c) (i) and (ii) is inadequate as a response to that interroga-tory because it is non-responsive, evasive, and argumentative.
Clearly it is also inadequate as a response to Licensee's Interro-gatory 16.
For the reasons set out above, this Board should order CFSP to submit specific, direct, and responsive answers to Licensee's Interrogatory 16.
Interrogatory 17 This Interrogatory relates to your Contention 20 and your response to Licensee's 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 responses to Licensee's Interrogatories 10(a), (b) and (c).
(b)
Identify the source of each item of information specified in (a) above.
2031 007
.. Supplemental Response "See response to Staff's Interrogatory C-20-4."
The response to Staff's Interrogatory C20-4 is:
"C20-4 Location at the 69 f t.
level eastside Control Building wall, 35 milimeters [ sic] wide depth approxi-mately 1 inch and 5 ft. long."
CFSP's Contention 20 alleges that Licensee has not adequately assessed the effects of drilling in Control Building walls during the modification work.
Licensee's Interrogatory 10 addressed questions to CFSP to determine the bases for that contention.
In response, CFSP expressed certain conclusions with respect to its allegation.
For example, CFSP's responses indicate that it is concerned with drill bits encountering reinforcing steel during drilling, and that drilling on existing cracks might weaken the walls.
CFSP stated that those conclusions were based, at least in part, on information obtained on its site visit.
- Licensee, in its Interrogatory 17, asked CFSP to identify each item of information obtained during the site visit which led to those conclusions.
In its supplemental response, CFSP referred to its response to Staff's Interrogatory C20-4. / That response simply identifies
-*/
Staff's Interrogatory C20-4 is:
7n response to Staff interrogatory C20-1, in which you were asked to describe the " existing cracks referred to in con-tention 20, you stated that " existing cracks are those cracks which can be seen in the Control Building wall where the holes are to be drilled and the plate is to be placed."
Did you actually observe the cracks referred to?
If so, indicate the size, depth and approximate location (ele-vation and location at that elevation) of the cracks which you observed. "
2031 008
_g_
a single crack in the wall of the Control Building.
It does not appear to relate in any manner to CFSP's expressed con-cern ::ith respect to reinforcing steel or tha effects of drilling on existing cracks.
Such a response is clearly inadequate to serve as a response to Licensee's Interrogatory 17.
Therefore CFSP's response to Licensee's Interrogatory 17 is unresponsive and inadequate.
For the reasons set forth above, this Board should order CFSP to submit specific, direct, and responsive answers to Licensee's Interrogatory 17.
Interrogatories 18(a) and (b)
This Interrogatory relates to your Contention 22 (as combined.with Consolidated Intervenors' No. 20) and your re-sponses to Licensee's Interrogatory 12:
(a)
Specifically identify each item of information obtained during your site visit whicit leads you to each of the conclusions you expressed in response to Licensee's Interrogatories 12 (a ), (b) and (c).
(b)
Identify the source of each item of information specified in (a) above.
Supplemental Response c031 009 (a)
"The information was no information."
CFSP's Contention No. 22 alleges that the effect of the steel plate on displacement in the Complex has not been completely analyzed.
Licensee's Interrogatory 12 sought information from CFSP with respect to that contention.
In its response, CFSP expressed certain conclusions with respect to its allegation and stated that those conclusions were based, at least in part, on information obtained during its site visit.
Licensee, in Interrogatories 8(a) and (b), asked CFSP to identify each item
10 -
of information obtained during its site visit which led to the conclusions expressed in response to Interrogatories 12(a),
(b), and (c), and to identify the source of that information.
What CFSP has done,.in effect, is to state that the bases for its contention are in part items of information obtained on a site visit.
Then, when asked what those items of information are, its reply is "The information was no information."
This response is evasive, unresponsive, and wholly inadequate.
Licensee therefore requests that the Board order CFSP to submit specific, direct and responsive ansvers to Licensee's Interroaatories 18(a) and (b).
Conclusion
- 1 For the reasons set forth above, Licensee respectfully requests that in accordance with its Motion to Compel of June 11, and this Supplemental Motion to Compel, the Board order CFSP to submit direct and responsive answers to Licensee's Interrogatories 14(b) and (c), 15(c), 16, 17, and 18(a) and (b).
Respectfully submitted, RONALD W. JOHNSON, ESQ.
Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W.
Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 MAURICE AXELRAD, ESQ.
ALBERT V. CARR, JR.,
ESQ.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticu
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 By Albert V.
Carr,' Jr Dated at Washington, D.C.
'n7 3
this 10th day of July, 1979 UJ O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-344
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTR1C COMPANY )
(Control Building ec al.
)
Proceeding)
)
(Troian Nuclear Planti
)
LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING INTERVENOR EUGENE ROSOLIE, PRO SE AND COALITION FOR SAFE POWER TO RESPOND FULLY TO LICENSEE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Portland General Electric Company (Licensee) moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) for an order pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740 (f) compelling Eugene Rosolie, acting pro se, and the Coalition fcr Safe Power (hereinafter collectively re-ferred to as ("CFSP") to respond fully to " Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories To Eugene Rosolie, Pro Se, and Coalition for Safe Power," dated May 8, 1979, as set forth in more detail below.
submitted 26 contentions for the On February 26, 1979, CFSP second phase of this proceeding.
On March 5, 1979 Licensee addressed to CFSP its First Set of Interrogatories designed to
- "" ~
""' "'i"*
"4'b ascertain the bases, if any, specificity.
None of Licen-DUPLICATE DOCUMENT recuired any extensive effo.
Entire document previously
}Q7} entered into syst m under: ANO [)L N o. of pages: [ jb, - r}}