ML19347D779
| ML19347D779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8103270579 | |
| Download: ML19347D779 (10) | |
Text
T 3/ [ 1
?
_s s.
f$$
I
\\
g$
E ts: D Ig N D :
E 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fg Sl
~
[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
Q-Cb In the Matter of
)
l Docket Nos. 50-329-0M & OL 50-330-0M & OL CONSUMERS POWER C0f1PANY
)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF t10 TION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERR0GATORIES Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(f) of the Commission's regulations, the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby respect-fully moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) in the above-captioned proceeding for an Order compelling answers to certain interrogatories on the ground that Consuiners Power Company (Applicant) has failed to answer interrogatories which are within the scope of discovery in this proceeding.
I.
3ACKGROUND On November 26, 1980, the Staff propounded 9 interrogatories, each having a number of subparts, and served them on the Applicant.
On March 11,1981, answers to some of these interrogatories were served upon the Staff. However, Applicant either gave incomplete answers to certain interrogatories or failed to answer them completely, thus necessitating the filing of this mo* lon.
610321 0 ( %
. II.
ARGUMENT 4
A.
Applicant has improperly failed to answer Interrogatories 1(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(h) through 2(s), 3(a) through '(e), 5(a),
5(c), and 9(c).
Interrogatory 1(a) asks the Applicant whether a structural re-analysis has been performed to verify and evaluate any changes in the design safety i
scargins for any Category I structures.
In its answer Applicant merely states that, with regard to the diesel generator building, a structural re-analysis has been, completed.
Applicant further states that uiin regard to the service water pump structure, the auxiliary building, and the borated water storage tanks seismic / structural analyses are in progress.
Applicant r.akes no reference to changes in design safety margins at all. The answer does not state whether any such changes were either verified or evaluated.
The Commission's rules of. practice specifically provide that, for the purposes of motions to compel answers to interrogatories, an evasive or incomplete response shall be treated as a failure.to answer or res pond.
10 C.F.R l.2.740(f)(1). Applicant's answer to interrogatory 1(a) is incomplete in that no reference is made to changes in the design safety margins available for each Category I structure. Applicant should be required to give a canplete answer to interrogatory 1(a).
' Interrogatory 2(b) ' asks whether Applicant had previously considered using a stable solid foundation support of the cantilevered portion of the service water pump structure down to the glacial till, rather than the concentrated support design originally chose, by the Applicant as a
.e.
. remedial action.
The response given is that both the present proposal (wall footings) and the previous piles proposal would give a stable foundation to the structure. This does not answer the interrogatory posed by the Staff. The Staff merely asked whether the stable footing idea was considered at the time the piles design was chosen.
Therefore, Applicant has given at best an incomplete answer to this interrogatory.
Applicant should be compelled to give e straightforward answer.
In interrogatory 2(c) the Staff requested infomation as O what structural analyser the Applicant perfomed for each of the alternative remedial actions it had considered. The Applicant in interrogatory 2(a) identified four such alternatives.
Interrogatory 2(c) only mentions two of those alternatives. Therefore, the answer to this interrogatory is inccnolete and should be required to be supplemented.
Applicant's objection to interrogatories 2(h) through 2(p) is invalid and the answers to interrogatories 2(q) through 2(s) are incomplete.
In interrogatories 2(h) through 2(s), the Staff requests details concerning the design advocated as a remedial action until very recently. The Applicant's response is that, since this design is no longer proposed, its details are not relevant to this proceeding. This objection ignores both the scope of discovery and the scope of this proceeding. This proceeding is not limited to the adequacy of proposed remedies at the Midland Plant.
One of the primary issues 'is whether the unresolved safety issues as of December 6,1979 were such as to warrant the issuance of the Decembcc 6,1979 Crder Modifying Construction Penni ts. The status of the proposed remedy at -the service water
.st'ructure prior to December 6,1979 is directly relevant to that issue.
. The scope of discovery is defined in 10 :.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(1) of the Coanission's regulations. According to this regulation:
" Parties may obtain discovery regarding e ey matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the sub ect matter involved in the proceeding..."
In addition, discovery raay be had of any infonaation reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
_I d.
Interrogatories designed to gain infonnation about the situation as it existed as of December 6, '1979, are relevant to matters in controversy in this proceed-ing, and might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning these matters. This applies to information concerning both the problem at the liidland facility, and the action proposed by the Applicant to remedy that problem. Therefore, interrogatories 2(h) through 2(p) fall both within the scope of discovery and the scope of this proceeding.
Applicant shculd be compelled to answer them.
In interrogatories 2(q) through 2(s), the Staff inquires concerning various analyses relating to the pile design.
Applicant's answer is that it is engaged in analyses of the aew design and will provide them when they are completed. This does not answer the interrogatories posed by the Staff.
Since the Staff's concern with the pile design is within the scope of discovery as set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b)(1), Applicant should be compelled to answer these interrogatories.
. Interrogatories 3(a) through 3(e) also refer to the design no longer proposed by.the Applicant. Applicant's answers refer back to interrogatory 2(h) through 2(p) where an objection is made ta those interrogatories as
~
4 irrelevant.
For the same reasons as stated above, these interrogatories are within the scope of discovery and of the proceeding. Applicant should be compelled to hespond to these interrogatories.
Interrogatory 5(a) asks whether Applicant has perfomed analyses which provide tension field data under design load combinations at any crack locations for each of the Category I structares at the 11'dland facility.
t Applicant's answer is unclear, in that it is difficult for the Staff to identify which structures have r.?ceived such analyses and which structures have not.
For example, the diesei generator building is not centioned at all in response to this interrogatory. Other structures are neitioned only to say that certain cracking is not a problem with regard
.o them.
There is no indication of whether this conclusion was reached by means of analysis which would provide tension field data or not.
Therefore, the answer to interrogatory 5(a) is-incomplete and Applicant should be required to supplement the answer.
Interrogatory 5(c) requests the reasons why analyses which provide tension field data were not performed, if in response to interrogatory 5(a) Applicant answered that such analyses were not perfomed. Applicant merely refers the Staff back to its response to interrogatory 5(a). As pointed out above, the answer to interrogatory 5(a) is unclear. The Staff is unable to detemine whether or not the analyses in interrogatory 5(a) were perfomed for each seismic Category I structure.
Therefore, reference back to interrogatory 5(a) does not allow the Staff to ascertain the reasons why such analyses were not perfomed.
Applicant should be required to supplenent its answer to interrogatory 5(c).
^
. Interrogatory 9(c) requests information concerning what changes, if any, occurred in the rattle space for the piping of the Category I valve pit adjacent to the diesel generator building.
The response provided seems to give such infonnation for the rattle space within the diesel generator building penetrations.
This was not the information requested.
Therefore, Applicant's answer to interrogatory 9(c) is incomplete, and Applicant should be required to supplement that answer.
B.
Applicant has either inadequately answered failed to answer Interrogatories or completely (b), 6(b), 6(f), and C, all of 1(b),1(f), 5 which request documentation of previausly illicited responses.
Interrogatory 1(b) requests the Applicant to provide the Staff with documentation of its response to interrogatory 1(a).
The Applicant in its response states that 'such information will be provided with regard to the diesel generator building "in the near future." No specific time is given when such documents will be provided.
In interrogatories 5(b),
6(b), 6(f), and 8, Applicant states that the documentation of its responses in those areas will be provided "along with the structural re-analysis package." The Staff is aware that an audit is to be con-ducted at Bechtel beginning on April 20, 1981.
From the answers given by Applicant it is unclear whether these documents will be provided at this particular audit or at some unspecified date in the future.
Therefore, the answers to these interrogatories are incomplete, and Applicant should be canpelled to supplement them with some definite time m
l r
l period within which the Staff can expect to be pemitted to inspect the requested documents.3I Applicant has objected to providing any documents relating to the seismic analysis of any total design cargins in excess of those stated in the PSAR, on the ground that the subject of whether certain seisnological input data was considered by the Applicant goes beyond the scope of this proceeding as set forth in the order dated December 6,1979.2] The Applicant in interrogatory 1(f) agrees to provide only those iocuments which relate to analyses perfomed for the service water pucp structure and the borated water storage tank and the auxiliary building. Applicant objects to providing documents relating to the total design margins for the diesel generator building and the analysis discussed in the October 14, 1979 letter froa Robert Tedesco.
Applicant's objection is not valid.
The scope of discovery is defined by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations.
Discovery is pemissible with regard to all matters in controversy in the proceeding, and of matters which might lead to adcissible evidence. J d_.
It is the Staff's position that the interrogatory about seismic design is properly within the scope of this proceeding.
On l' arch 18, 1981 1]
While these requests for documents were not made in a separate request for the production of documents, requests with regard to them should nevertheless be considered by this Board since the requests refer to the immediately preceding interrogatory, and represent a method of document discovery chosen for the convenience of the parties. See 4A Moore's Federal Practice,133.22.
2]
This objection is first set forth in the response to interrogatory 1(e). However, Applicant goes on to give an adequate answer to interrogatory 1(e).
Amended and Additional Responses to Certain NRC Staff Interrogator,ies Dated 11/26/80 (March 20, 1981).
E
. Applicant filed a flotion to Defer Consideration of Seismic Issues Until the Operating License Proceeding.
It is the Staff's position that these seismic interrogatories are relevant to matters in controversy in this proceeding and might lead to admissible evidence in this proceeding.
Therefore, the documents requested in 1(f) fall within the scope of discovery and Applicant should be r.aquired to provide them.
The Staff suggests the BoarC's ruling on this question be made at the same time as its ruling on Applicant's March 18, 1981 !!otion.
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff concludes that:
1)
Applicant should be compelled to give responses to interrogatories 1(a), 2(b), 2(h) through 2(s), 3(a) through 3(e), 5(a), 5(c) and 9(c);
2)
Appplicant should also be compelled to provide the docucnents a
requested in interrogatory 1(f); and 3)
Applicant should be compelled to give a date certain by which the Staff will be able to inspect the documents requested in Interrogatories 1(b), 5(b), 6(b), 6(f) and 8.
Res a fully sub.nitted, y
9e s
p tiilliam
. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day 'of March,1981.
-+-
.r
UNITED STATES OF A*' ERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:GISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEtlSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Gocket flos. 50-329-0M & OL 50-330-0M & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERR0GATORIES in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 26th day of March,1981.
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comraission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C.
20555 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Administrative Judge Ralph S. Decker Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Route !4, Box 1900 Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Cambridge, MD 21615 Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale i
One First National Plaza l
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 42nd Floor l
6152 N. Verde Trail Chicago, Illinois 60603 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Frank J. Kelley U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Attnrney General of the State Washington, D.C.
20555 of Michigan Steward H. Freeman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel Gregory T. Taylor U. S. fiuclear Regulatory Connission Assistant Attorncy General.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building
- Docketing and Service Section Lansing, Michigan 48913 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 606Il I_
2-James E. Brunner, Esq.
Jeann Linsley Consumers Power Company Bay City Times 212 West 141chigan Avenue 311 Fifth Street Jackson,!4fchigan 49201 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest Environmental Protection Associates RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Ja.nes R. Kates 203 S. Washington Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48605 N
t 09 r
o e
CS ff W
G