ML19344B318
| ML19344B318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8008260516 | |
| Download: ML19344B318 (6) | |
Text
..
l e*
UNITED SLUES OF AMERICA
\\
\\
NUCEAR REGG.ATORY CCtEISSIm
'g 6 p21%
- j gU v.
"JE A'IQ4IC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD oic e
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Chairmin N
4,,f,,0' Dr. E. Iaonard Cheattan, Member
\\
Br %
Gustave A. 73 - h q,er, Jr., Membe:
Q t
N In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSIm LITr2C AND POWER CDfANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear t' eating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
OEER (August 21, 1980)
TexPirg suhritted an undated Motion To Coupel Discovery upon HLSP and NRC Staff, which the Board asstunes was served on or about August 2,1980.
'Iberein, the Intervenor requested that we coupel Appliunt and the Staff to respond to certain interrogatories dated July 9, 1980. bd4 the prehearing i
conference on August 13, 1980, the Board heard Applicant's and Staff's ccure
_ments - at that time, TexPirg's counsal had not entered his appearance.
'Ihe Board proceeded to deny as noot the instant & tion insofar as it was directed to the Staff because Staff had served a Pad Response on July 29, 1
1980, and advised that the balance would be subcd.tted within the next few weeks (Tr. 1695-16 %, 1700).
We rule as follows upon the Motion To Cocpel as directed to the Appli-cant:
1.
98-la.b. Denied. Applicant was responsive in citing a statute which is available to and can be read by the Intervenor.
-Q S O S
- 12-2. Denied. 'Ihe documents referred to in Applicant's iofI l
respse are avniinhle in the Houston Public Ifibrary and/or in Applicant's l
8 0082605]g
s
. office. Fregtently de 3 card has suggested tha: the parties 1.femally confer to resolve -hair differences, and the Applice.: Fas advised previously that such doc:zac :s :may be reviewed at its office and Fas p.c-w 3*' *w so reWre various Etervecers, iv1 A4.g TexPirg, in the past. Tn e.mor does not asser, dat it infmlly sought de infc=nati.m frac Applicant nor 4
allege 122: hplice.: refused to allow i: to review de referenced d::cm:s.
Further, p=suant to Federal Rule cf Civil Precedure 33(c), it is a s ?"#rf e~
answ2r to an interroga: cry to specify em red fran,.hich tia answer ray be ddved er ascertaired, when, as here, the burden of ddving cr ascer =#+g the answer is subsm**=11y the same fcr the party serifng the in*gtory as for the party served. ~ Inter.mx:r offers no arg rw.: or s-y EW to evidence that its burden is greater than that of Appl 3< ant.
- 26-1. Denied for reasms discussed re: #12-2.
- 31-8. MtM - see = ling re: #12-2.
l
$31-9. Denied - ses #12-2.
- 28-1. Gran:ed. A; 211 cant was not respctsive in da: here de :aere refere.cing of the PFR.es inadega te since ex. trol room design differences and easir.ess of centrol be:veen ACNGS and 'DC.ere qmstixed.
p39-4 N ' M - see #12-2.
- 39-5. Denied - see #12-2.
641-1. Denied - see #12-2.
941-4 Denied - see #12-2.
p12-8. Denied. Earlier, in its Respx.se of roh 25, 1979 To Tex?irg's Fifd Set of Interroga: cries, Applican: had ide-##ied (in de L
t response to interrogatory 12) the studies and had made them available for inspection. See also #12-2, supra.
- 31-7. naniad - see #12-2.
2.
- 8-lh. Denied in part, granted in part. AppHennt shall re &A as to how present costs of electricity generated by natural gas coupare to those generated by nuclear. Applicant's answer to interrogatory 8-1(e) was responsive in couparing future costs of natural gas with nuclear.
- 8-2. Denied. 'Ihe response directly answers the interrogatory.
- 12-3. Denied. Applicant indicates ir. is unable to answer since it has not ccupleted its studies. However, pursuant to a 2.740(e)(3),
Applicant shall supplement its response when said studies have been completed.
- 12-5. nanlad. Applicant indicates that it does not have the information sought, but that it is available fron. FERC.
- 31-10. Granted. Applicant shall provide an answer.
- 41,5.
Denied with respect to the first question. Granted with respect to the second question.. Regarding the third question, Applicant shall either answer or explain why relief valve delay Hm longer than those considered in PSAR Section 5.2.2 need not be considered.
- 40-4. Denied. Applicant's answer is directly responsive.
- 40-5. Denied. Applicant has responsively answered tPat it has no information other than that provided in the Kemeny Report and tae Rogovin Report.
3.
- 12-1. Denied. Since the Intervenor did not specify the conclusions reached in the cited ak, the question is overly broad.
i
. #12-A. Denied. Applicant indicates it is unable to give a basis for the conclusion since, as indicated in its response to #12-3, it has not ccx:pleted its studies. Pursuant to 8 2.740(e)(3), Appifem shall supple:aent its resp:cse when said stw8f a< Fave been ca:pleted.
- 31-6. Granted. 'Ibe question is relevant to technical qualifications and is not overly broad. Applicant shall respond.
- 39-6. Granted in part. Applicant shall answer the fourth question posed in this interrogatory. Denied in part - viz. the first, second and third questions are too vague in F= fling to specify the measurements and values.
4.
- 8-le. Granted in part. Applicant shall provide the source or basis for its cited ccx:parisons.
- 12-6. Dmiad. Applicant's answer is responsive to the question as posed. 'Ihe interrogatory did not request that App 14cmit explain or give the basis for its answer.
- 31-2. Granted since Applicant failed to ansa r the question directly.
- 31-4. Denied. Applicant's ansar is responsive to the question as presented. 'Ihe interroSatory did not request that Applicant eplain or give the basis for its answer.
- 31-9. Denied. 'Ihe answer was cocolete.
- 31-11. Granted in part - Applicant s;ull respond to #31-lle.
1 i
Applicant has responsively answered #31-lla, and, with respect to #31-llb, has wg weilately responded that Intervenor has failed to specify the new regulations *ll"Aad to.
631-12. Denied. "Ihe interrogatory is not relevant to the issue of 1
technical qt'21i kCaCions.
l l
i
- 21-2. Denied. The preparation of an answer would be unduly burden-some, and, as reflected in the interrogatory, it would appear that the information sought is equally av=41ahle to the Intervenor.
- 21-4 Denied. The interrogatory is irrelevant - Appliemt is only required to cocply with NRC regn1= rims.
- 21-5. Denied for the same teascr.:: the ::otion to cocpel was denied as to #21-2, m.
- 21-6. Denied for the same reascns the ::otion to ecmpel was denied as to #21-2, m.
- 39-2,-3.
Denied. The information sought is within the NRC Staff's t
knowledge and the grastion should have been directed to it.
M1-3. Granted. Applient shall respond since it was asked to specify why it would be impossible to have a cr=rn mode failure.
l M1-4. Granted to the extent that Applicant shall explain the inplication that PSAR Figure 5.2-7 reflects -r4
= delay times that are conservative with respect to the overpressure protection analysis.
M1-6. Granted to the extent that Applicant sball explain:
(a) i I
where it is documented that the pertinent ASME code requirements will be met; i
l and (b) what is ApplicJat's basis for concludig that meeting said require-ments provides conservatism for the analysis in question.
l M1-7. Granted to the extent that Applicant shall explain:
(a) where it is Emanted that the ACCI vessel pressure will not exceed the ASME allowable code pressure of 1375 psig; and, (b) how it is decedad that i
safety factors inherent in the ASME code suffice for this application.
- 40-2. Granted to the extent that Applicant sball subc:i a respon-sive answer with respect to the ACES pressure vessel.
~ _ _.. _,
- 40-3. Granted to the extent that:
(a) Applicant shall explain its statement that a hydrogen explosion in the ACNGS pressure vessel need not be evaluated; and (b) Applicant shall answer the cone =4-t portion of the interrogatory.
f40-6. Granted. Applicant shall respond to the precise question.
At the conclusion of its Motion To Coupel, TexPf.rg requests that we order Applicant to provide it with a copy of the PSAR and -h s.
The t
request is dan 4ad because, in the first place, a notion to coupel is not avgivytiate since the Intervenor had not filed a request for production to which Applicant had objected. % = A, said documents are available for review in the Houston Public Library and in Applicant's office.
MR 'IHE A191IC SAFE 1Y AND LICENSING BOARD N$
Sheldon J@lfe,' Esquire Chai--
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland f
this 21st day of August,1980.
i l
l
. --- -.