ML19340D869

Response to Citizens Association for Sound Energy Second Set of Interrogatories.Discovery Request Relevancy Determined in View of Contention 5,worded as Accepted by ASLB in 800616 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML19340D869
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/22/1980
From:	Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
NUDOCS 8101050478
Download: ML19340D869 (11)

Text

,

P3.LEh.; i:.: w wz. u December 22, 1980 0

.- v

- A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .,, g CUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C Ug !@[D .P [

BEFORE TFE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARI . '? ;9 g&,. tk b

% U In the Matter of ) fo'e ce

/;

) s 4 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-4 ;G COMPANY, _e t _al. ) 50-446

)

(Cc=anche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License);

APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO CASE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND OBJECTION TO REWORDING OF CONTENTION 5 j

~1

. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.740b(b), Texas Utilitie's Gene'r- 2 ating Co., et al. (" Applicants") hereby submit answers to

" CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants" (" Inter-rogatories"), dated December 1, 1980. Applicants will respond to CASE's Requests to Produce included in its Second Set of i

Interrogatories pursuant to and on the schedule set forth in 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d).

• S I

l APPLICANTS' OBJECTION TO j f REWORDING OF CONTENTION 5 "..

"j ", ',' ."

l wa .

Applicants hereby object to CASE's rewording of' Contention 5 v;

as set forth at page 2 of CASE's Interrogatories. Only the Board has the authority to determine the wording of a contention.

See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. $2.714. The wording of Contentien 5 was v approved by the Board in the captioned proc'eeding in its Order ..

of June 16, 1980. CASE has erroneously assumed that the Board' '

~

j

~ . .

bAO30$0 h

revised the wording of that contention in the Board's October 31, 1980 Rulings on Objections. To the contrary, the Board only

" construe [d3" the contention to cover the Inspection and Enforce-ment Reports identified by ACORN in its Offer of Proof, served August 29, 1980. The Board did not change' the wording of Contention 5. Accordingly, Applicants have determined the l relevancy of the instant discovery requests in view of the wording of Contention 5 as accepted by the Board in its June 16, 1980 Order granting contentions, as clarified by the Board's

~

October 31, 1980 Rulings. -

ANSWERS TO CASE'S INTERROGATORIES Each answer is identified by the number of the corres-l ponding interrogatory set forth in CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories.

1. a. No. ,

b. Not applicable.

c. Applicants' responses to I&E Reports are public record and should be available in the Public Document Room at the NRC I&E Region IV office in Arlington, Texas and/or the public document rocm in Glen Rose, Texas.

2. The Applicants' responses to the NRC requests for additional information are contained in amendmenta to the FSAR. CASE receives copies of these amendments by virtue of a special arrangement with the NRC staff whereby the Applicants forward a copy of each, amendment directly to each intervenor in this proceeding.

3. a. Yes.

b. The Non-Conformance Report (NCR) System replaced DDR's.

c. The NCR System went into effect on April 1, 1977. The logs made available to CASE answer this question in that DDR and NCR numbers are sequential.

d. Not applicable.

e. Not applicable.

f. Not applicable.

g. Not applicable.

h. Not applicable.

4. a. Yes.

b. Log entries are made sequentially by NCR number and not by date. The date entry reflects the date of issue of the NCR. See response to interrogatory 4.f. ,

c. No.

d. Not applicable.

e. Not applicable.

f. Copies of the logs were made available for CASE's inspection as indicated in " Applicants' Response to CASE's Requests for Production of Documents," dated August 11, 1980. Since this is a working log the original is kept at the job site and entries are made as necessary on the original. The copies of the logs inspected by CASE on October 2, 1980.were current at the time of reproduction for Applicants' response to CASE's requests for production. Applicants will provide updated copies of the logs at the time it responds to l CASE's instant requests to produce.

l l S. a. Log entries are made sequentially by NCR number and

[

not by date. .The date entry reflects the date of issue of the NCR. See response to interrogatory 5.e.

b. No.

l l c. Not applicable.

l d. Not applicable.

l t

., . < . ~ ~ . , . _ , _ ._r.. _ _ _ _ , _ , - , . . _ . -. ., .

e. Copies of the logs were made available for CASE's inspection as indicated ih " Applicant.s' Response to CASE's Requests for Production of Documents," dated August 11, 1980. Since this is a working log the original is kept at the job site and entries are made as necessary on the original. The copies of the logs i inspected by CASE on October 2, 1980 were current at the l time of reproduction for Applicants' response to CASE's requests for production. Applicants will provide updated copies of the logs at the time it responds to CASE's instant requests to produce.

l l 6. a. Log entries are made sequentially by CAR number and i

not by date. The date entry reflects the date of issue of the CAR Report. See response to inter-rogatory 6.e.

b. No.

l c. Not applicable.

d. Not applicable.

, e. CAR 42 is the last in the sequential entries in the

. CAR log copy examined by CASE. It was in fact issued on June 10, 1980. CAA 40 (two entries earlier) was issued on June 28, 1980. Corrective Action Requests are

! issued infrequently and in fact no additional entries

! had been made as of October 2, 1980. Applicants will provide updated copies of the logs at the time it responds to C.*SE's instant requests to produce.

7. To the best of Applicants' knowledge anE belief, those audits are the only documents which fall within the scope of Item 9 of CASE's July 7, 1980 requests to produce, as clarified August 4, 1980. If other documents which fall within the scope of CASE's request are identified at a later time, Applicants will promptly aupplement their response, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.740(e).

i

8. Not applicable.

9 Not applicable.

10. Not applicable.

l 11. No.

12. See Applicants' letter to CASE, dated December 22, 1980.

- _ - - = .

13. See Applicants' letter to CASE, dated December 22, 1980.

14. See Applicants' letter to, CASE, dated December 22, 1980.

15. a. Yes.

b. Not applicable.

c. Not applicable.

l

d. Not applicable.

e. Not applicable. ,

f. Not applicable.

g. Not applicable. -

h. Not applicable.

i. (1) Yes. '

(2) The Applicant has determined that the concrete in question is satisfactory and has notified the NRC of this determination (See Applicants' letter to the NRC (TXX-3043), dated September 17, 1979).

(3) The concrete was evaluated nondestructively using the Pulse Echo Method of Concrete Evaluation. The tests were performed by Muenow and Associates and were monitored by TUGCO QA/QC representatives. TUGCO's determination of the tests is stated above. The NRC's stated position is included in Inspection -

i Report 50-445/79-24, dated November 27, 1979.

(4) The tests indicated that the concrete meets design requirements.

! (5) Applicants will respond to this request for produc-tion of documents pursuant to and on the schedule provided in 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d).

j. The responses to questions 15.a through 1. were gener-ate'd under supervision of D. N. Chapman, Manager, Quality Assurance.

k. No.

1. A determination of the person or persons who may testify at the operating license hearings has not yet been made.

m. Not applicable.

1

n. Applicants will permit depositions arranged and conducted '

pursuant to the NRC Rules of Practice. See 10 C.F.R. -

$2.740a.

o. Not applicable.

16. a. Yes,

b. Not applicable. .

c. Refer to NRC Inspection Report 50-445, 50-446/80-11 dated June 17, 1980. -

d. Applicants will respond to this request for production of documents pursuant to and on the schedule provided in 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d). '

17. a. Yes.

b. Not applicable.

c. No welding was required.

d. Applicants will respond to this request for production of dccuments pursuant to and on the schedule provided

in 10 C.F.R. 2.741(d).

l

18. a. Yes. -

l b. Not applicable.

c. A formal report was filed with the NRC. See Applicants' letter to the NRC (TXX-3124), dated April 21, 1980.

d. No.

e. Not applicable,

f. (1)' The purpose of the review was to evaluate the matter pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $50.55(e) and to determine the repair methods to be utilized.

(2) The conclusion of the review was to report the matter formally under 10 C.F.R. $50.55(e).

l

(3 ) Refer to Applicant's ' letter to the NRC (TXX-3124),

~

dated April 21, 1980.

(4) Refer to Ap'plicants' letter to the NRC (TXX-3124),

dated April 21, 1980.

(5) A determination of the person or persons who may testify at the operating license hearings has not yet been made.

(6) The answers to ques; ions f(1-4) were answered under the supervision of D. N. Chapma n, Manager,

. Quality Assurance.

(7) No.

(8) Refer to Applicants' letter to the NRC (TXX-3124),

dated April 21, 1980.

(9) Applicants will permit depositions arranged and c9nducted pursuant to the NRC Ru'les of Practice.

See 10 C.F.R. $2.740a.

(10) Not applicable.

(11) Not applicable.

19. This interrogatory seeks (1) information regarding a state-ment made by the Resident Reactor Inspector (not by Appli-cants) and (2) speculation as to the reason for the statement.

The Applicants reported their evaluation and resolution of the matter in their letter to the NRC (TXX-3124) dated April 21, 1980, as required under 10 C.F.R. $50.55(e). *

20. Applicants object to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

Contention 5 is not the Applicants' contention. Applicants l are not required to explain what Intervenors intend with respect to Contention 5.

21. A determination of the person or persons who may testify at the operating license hearings has not yet been made.

22. Not applicable.

23. Yes.

24. Not applicable.

l l

. . . _ ---. . .. -.. . . ~ .

i

25. Applicants object to interrogatory 25 as being wholly irrelevant and as requiring speculative answers which would serve no useful purpose in this proceeding.

Respectfu y su tted, l

Reynolds

-l Nichol.{S YW Q. W William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth' Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel [or Applicants l

l l

t l

December 22, 1980 I

l

STATE OF TEXAS }

COUNTY OF DALLAS Homer C. Schmidt, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he is Manager, Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Services, Inc., and knows the contents of the foregoing Applicants' Answers to CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories and Objection to Rewording of Contention 5; that the sa=e is true of his own knowledge except as to =atters therein stated on information and belief, and as to that, he believes them to,be true. -

I 3

SWORN to and subscribed -

before me on this 22nd day of December,1980.

bu

'N I

-k ~

Notary"Publ ic

~

My Commission Expires: 4/ - g- f/

2 Ofr E-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ ch. 3 7gA':P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN g ((,8/th , /p BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s C In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.

) 50-446

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to CASE's Second Set of Interrogatories and Objection to Rewording of Contention 5", in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 22nd day of December, 1980:

, Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and l Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission l

Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

I Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue _ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 1

Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atemic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq.

Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection l Commission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Chairman, Atomic Safety and Austin, Texas 78711 l Licensing Board Panel l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010

Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens '

4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Folk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 ,

William A. Herin I cc: Homer C. Schmidt -

l Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

, . ~ . _ . .-