ML19305E141

Response in Opposition to Intervenor Jf Doherty Second Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories. Clarifies Previous Objections & Urges ASLB to Deny Motion to Compel for Being Deficient.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19305E141
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/31/1980
From:	Biddle C, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8004230022
Download: ML19305E141 (10)

Text

.

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the itatter of S S

HOUSTON r.IGHTING & POWER S COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S l (Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, Unit S No. 1)  :

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO JOHN F. DOHERTY'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Applicant files this response to the motion of John F. Doherty (Intervenor) to compel Applicants to pro-vide further responses. Applicant provided full and responsive answers to all of Intervenor's 165 questions, l

and Intervenor's present objections are misplaced. Mr. ,

Panerty's Motion to Compel is deficient and shoul'd be denied in the aspects discussed below.

Part C [ Interrogatories Nos. 13-13-14, 13-13-15, 13-13-16 and 13-13-18.] In this part of the motion Mr.

Doherty complains that Applicant is being " evasive" by not answerihg questions about "drywell drains." Intervenor points out that Applicant did provide information about pumps in the drywell sumps, and therefore could have

" inferred" the identity of the other items inquired about. The difficulty with this line of argument, as 8 0 0 4 2 3 002F9F 1

d plainly set out in Applicant's answers, is that while Applicant can identify the pumps inquired about, it has no knowledge of any system component identified by the terms " main drywell drain," " single largest drywell ,

drain", or "drywell drains" either by inference or by analogy. Moreover, and most important, Applicant can i

make no connection between the items inquired about and r

any admitted contention, including the inquiry concerning "drywell drain (sump) pumps." In short, the problem here is not Applicant's alleged evasiveness--the difficulty rests with Intervenor's ability to construct an interrogatory i which elicits whatever Mr. Doherty is seeking. Even if, as Mr. Doherty argues, Applicant could have somehow devined that the inquiry was about the floor drains in the drywell (a subject matter totally remote from the admitted contentions) the response would have been that [

Applicant has none of the information requested by Mr. ,

Doherty.

Applicant, in fact, chose a more responsive course of signalling to Mr. Doherty that he was adopting terms and making hidden assumptions that were unintelligible.

Applicant made known these facts to Mr. Doherty when contacted informally to resolve all the items in this motion. Rather than taking Applicant's clarification offered in good faith, Mr. Doherty persists in burdening

this Board with a discovery dispute for which there is no resolution. Even if ordered by the Board to do so, Applicant cannot respond to the interrogatories asked because they are impervious to meaningful interpretation.

Therefore, this portion of the Motion to Compel must plainly be denied.

Item D [ Interrogatory No. 13-10-6.] In this inter-rogatory, Mr. Doherty has inquired about " changes" in the design of Applicant's diesel generators. All questions about " changes" necessarily involve a comparison between the ACMC5 design and all others. Therefore, the exact nature of the " changes" in Applicant's system could comprise an almost endless list, if the comparable elements of all other designs could be identified, ,

which, of course, is itself an impossibility. Applicant is obliged to identify to the extent it can'the details of its diesel generator design, and has done so when requested by Mr. Doherty. Applicant does not and cannot ,

be expected to have intimate knowledge of the comparable elements of design in all other manufactured diesel generators. To a great extent, Applicant's knowledge of other designs is limited to that reported in NUREG-0660, which contains the NRC Staff's summary of design aspects which have shown a direct bearing on generator reliability.

This document is the stated basis of Mr. Doherty's contention, and he is no doubt quite familiar with its -

contents.

Applicant gave Mr. Doherty the categories of improvement which Applicant felt were significant alterations in the design of its diesel generators to rectify the problems identified in NUREG-0660. With knowledge of the details in Applicant's design, Mr. Doherty could then make his own determination whether these design parameters were sufficiently different from the troublesome components identified in NUREG-0660. Applicant is under I no further obligation to reform Mr. Doherty's interrogatories or to interpret materials already made e.vailable to him.

Nevertheless, Applicant has attempted to refine its answers in a manner useful to Mr. Doherty and thereby end the present misunderstanding: l A. Air Start System l

1. Svo independent air starting systems. (

i

2. Two rotary van motors.

(

l 3. Engine will normal start with one bank of dual air start motors, but both banks of dual start motors used to crank engine.

4. Air supply system has two sets of two receivers.

5. One air compressor is electric motor driven, the other is diesel engine '

driven.

6. Air compressors automatically start when air pressure in receivers drops below 200 psig.

f 7, Air start system can start engine five ,

consecutive times without recharing.

B. Periodic Blowdown Requirements on the Air Receivers

1. To make sure receiver discharge free of moisture.

C. Periodic Testing i

1. During normal plant operation, DG is required i to be exercised by paralleling it with the normal power source and loading it. In addition, ACNGS meets or exceeds the intent .

of Regulatory Guide 1.108 Revision 1,

" Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units Used As Onsite Electric Power Systems at .

Nuclear Power Plants." The frequency of DG  !

testing will be described in the Technical Specifications.

D. Reliability Testing

1. Full system testing in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.108 and IEEE-352.

E. Preventative Maintenance _

1. Increased schedule maintenance will be. I conducted in accordance with the manu-facturer's recommendation. A condensed version of the maintenance schedule (25 pages) will be available for inspection at the Energy Development Complex.

F. Redundant Fuel Oil System  ;

l. Two mutually redundant fuel oil systems external to the engine fuel manifolds, either of which can supply fuel oil to the fuel manifolds, contains a fuel supply I line, a strainer, fuel oil pump, a duplex filter, a pressure gage, and relief and check valves. One of the fuel pumps is mechanically driven by the engine and the other by a 120-V de motor.

G. Status Monitoring ,

1. The diesel generator is instrumented to give readings of current, voltage, frequency, t

l l

and real and reactive power at both the local diesel-generator panel and control room panel.

. Transducers are employed for current and for real and reactive power indication in the -

control room. Mechanical status of the i diesel engine, such as pressure and tempera- l ture of fuel oil, lube oil, and cooling >

water, is displayed in the engine gage panel l mounted on the engine base. The starting air tank pressure gages are mounted on individual air tanks. The engine speed, ,

generator energy output, engine running time, field voltage, and field current are displayed in the diesel-generator panel. The HPCS pump motor current, voltage at the MCC, and voltage at the 125-Vdc bus are displayed in the control room. The i current for the HPCS pump motor, 480-volt '

transformer feeder, and incoming feeder, can be read at the switchgear.

2. Abnormal engine conditions are annunciated in the local diesel generator panel. The actuation of any annunciator in the diesel-generator panel gives " diesel engine trouble"  !

alarm in the main control room.

3. An " engine not ready for auto start"  !

annunciation is provided in the main control room whenever the diesel generator breaker or the HPCS pump motor breaker is in its lowered position. " Diesel engine running" annunciation is provided in the control room whenever the diesel engine is running.

Indication lights are provided to indicate the status of all breakers. Automatic ..

tripping of each breaker is annunciated in ,

the main control room. The red (breaker closed) indicating light is wired through '

the tripping circuit to monitor trip circuit  ;

condition. The loss of power in any control  ;

circuit is annunicated in the control room. ,

Item E [ Interrogatories Nos. 13-10-09 and 13 I 10.] See response to Item D above. ,

i

Item F [ Interrogatories Nos. 13-13-05 and 13 06.] See response to Item C above.

Item I [ Interrogatory No. 13-14-02.] In this objection, Intervenor insists that the question asked is s

a "yes or no" proposition. Applicant responded as it did because it felt that answering the question solely in the affirmative or the negative would be misleading.

Since Mr. Doherty persists in this course, Applicant will respond that the answer to the first question is "yes." The answer to part a of the interrogatory remains as originally stated: There are no princip>' differences between the ACNGS and Dresden-III MSLRM systems. Since there are no principal differences, item b of the interrogatory is not applicable.

Item N [ Interrogatory No. 13-20-06.] This interrogatory is a follow-on to the immediately preceding interrogatory (13-20-05) which requested the factors in fuel rod design which would differentiate " average burn-up" in General Electric fuel and Westinghouse fuel. Applicant responded that its unfamiarity with Westinghouse data prevented it from specifically identifying these factors; but, in an attempt to accommodate Intervenor as much as possible, Applicant did identify certain general categories  ;

or parameters which could account for differences.

Since these factors could not be specifically identified, it is obvious that Applicant cannot further state what

changes in these unidentified factors would proJuce the phenomena inquired about. Accordingly, Applicant referred Intervenor to its previous response in answering the follow-on request. Applicant did not fail to address the interrogatory asked, but quite plainly and unambiguously informed Mr. Doherty that it could not respond. Applicant again made known to Mr. Doherty its inability to respond when contacted by telephone to review Applicant's responses.

Mr. Doherty's persisting objection notwithstanding, Applicant has responded as fully as it can.

Applicant believes that it can resolve all

,ther o items in Mr. Dohertys motion but reserves the right to make all appropriate objections if Mr. Doherty rejects any of Applicant's clarific:ations.

Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: J.

C 1%u driM Gregory Copeland y/

C. Thomas Biddle , Jr.

BAKER & BOTTS Charles G. Thrash, Jr.

3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C.

ATTORNEYS FOR' APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER

. COMPANY r

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to John F. Doherty's Second Motion to Compel Discovery in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 3l WL day of March, 1980.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richarc Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station ,

Austin, Texas 78711 '

Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing

, Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Steve Sohinki, Esq. Carro Hinderstein Staff Counsel 8739 Link Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77025 Washington, D. C. 20555 '

Leotis Johnston Bryan L. Baker 1407 Scenic Ridge 1118 Montrose Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77019 Rosemary N. Lemmer J. Morgan Bishop 11423 Oak Spring 11418 Oak Spring Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77043 D. Marrack Carolina Conn 420 Mulberry Lane 1414 Scenic Ridge Bellaire, Texas 77401 Houston, Texas 77043 Brenda McCorkle Elinore P. Cumings 6140 Darnell Route 1, Box 138V Houston, Texas 77074 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 W. Matthew Perrenod Stephen A. Doggett, Esq. 4070 Merrick P. O. Box 592 Houston, Texas 77025 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Wayne E. Rentfro '

John F. Doherty P. O. Box 1335 4327'Alconbury Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77021 ,

James M. Scott Robert S. Framson 8302 Albacore Madeline Bass Framson Houston, Texas 77074 4822 Waynesboro Houston, Texas 77035 Robin Griffith 1034 Sally Ann Rosenberg, Texas 77471 C % n (5 & %

C. Thomas Biddle, Jr. C/

i

- _