ML20027D612

Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicants Re Palmetto Alliance Contentions 16 & 44 of Alliance 820927 Third Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20027D612
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	11/03/1982
From:	Guild R GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8211080158
Download: ML20027D612 (8)

Text

._

RELATED CORRESPONDENCE b

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $3(({0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI @ BRARDi gj dj

~

In the Matter of ) Do "R

3bbhh413 H 50-414 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2 ) ) November 3, 1982 PALMETTO ALLIANCE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM APPLICANTS WITH RESPECT TO PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTIONS 16 AND 44 Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.740(f) , Palmetto Alliance hereby moves for an order compelling the Applicants, Duke Power Company, et al, to respond fully to " Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" filed September 27, 1982, which dealt with Palmetto Alliance's Contentions No. 16 and 44 on the subjects of spent fuel storage and reactor vessel embrittlement, respectively.

Applicant's Motion for Protective Order and Responses dated October 19, 1982, assert numerous unsubstantial and unwar-ranted objections to Palmetto Alliance's interrogatories and re-quests, and contain numerous evasive and incomplete answers and responses. Duke objected to answering 44 of 151 specific inter-rogatories on Palmetto Alliance's spent fuel storage contention g

No.16 and all of the 36 specific interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance's n-o 0

,31 reactor vessel embrittlement contention No. 44. Applicants assert wo

$8 that the information sought is not relevant to the subject matter o

fg of the contention as they choose to read it and not as written and oc

@@ admitted for litigation, and that responsive answers would cause them annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense. They assert 55 meo that all communications with respect to the contention are b

privileged and not subject to discovery or even identification as called for by General Interrogatory No. 4.

With respect to discovery on Palmetto. Alliance conten-tions No. 44 on reactor vessel embrittlement Applicants have chosen not to respond at all on the authority of the Board's stay of discovery with respect to conditionally admitted contentions subject to the then-pending interlocutory appeal. Palmetto Alliance contention No. 44 on embrittlement was admitted, as clarified, by the Board's Order of July 8, 1982 at pp. 12 and 13 and is now an appropriate subject for discovery. Applicants should be compelled to respond to Palmetto Alliance's interrog-atories and requests for production on this subject.

With respect to discovery regarding Palmetto Alliance's spent fuel storage Contention No. 16 Applicant's fundamental lack of responsiveness flows from their election to " respond in light of their own reading"of the contention, Applicant's Responses at p. 5, instead of responding to the interrogatory as posed by this Intervenor. No rule of practice authorizes Duke Power Com-pany to recast either Palmetto Alliance's discovery questions or Palmetto Alliance's contentions to their liking, and therefore responses to the discovery, as posed, should by compelled.

Palmetto Contention No. 16, as admitted, reads in full:

Applicar.ts have not demonstrated their ability safely to store irradiated fuel assemblies from other Duke nuclear facilities so as to provide reasonable assurance that those activities do not endanger the health and safety of the public.

See Applicant's Responses at p. 5. Without authority Duke has chosen to provide "only that information which rele.tes to the safety of the actual storage, within the Catawba spent fuel pool, of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel assemblies, and whether those

0 spent fuel pools can accomodate the physical differences, if any, in those assemblies. " Applicant's Responses at p.5 .Thus Duke characterizes Palmetto Alliance's ' concern' as relating Solel,y to the differences, if any, between the spent fuel assem-blies from Catawba and those from Oconee and McGuire and whether those differences, if any, can be accomodated in the Catawba spent fuel pool." Id. Duke's belief regarding the nature of Palmetto Alliance's " concern" is immaterial and provides no basis for re-casting an explicit contention or interrogatory. None of the restrictions imposed by Duke on the subject of Palmetto Alliance's contention or the terms of its discovery are a proper basis for its objections or its evasive and incomplete responses.

Discovery in NRC licensing proceedings is available to a party "regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding, whether if re-lates to a claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party... reasonably cal-culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 10 CFR Section 2.740 (b) (1) .

Duke asserts objections on relevance grounds to answer-ing numerous specific interrogatories on subjects such as water lcvel monitering instrumentation, Nos. 10 and 11, spent fuel area radiation monitering, Nos. 12 and 13, studies and technical sources underlying its criticality analysis, No. 17, past exper-ience with improper fuel element insertion, No. 19, and any pro-visions for storing control and burnable poison rods in the spent fuel pools, No. 23. Duke objects on relevance grounds to questions dealing with the selection and operation' corrosion and fission products removal components, No. 65 (i) , demineralizers and fil-

}

ters,.No. 54 (b) and (c), loss of on site and off site power to the fuel pools, No. 73, spent fuel pool instrumentation used by Duke at other facilities, No. 75, spent fuel cask specifications No. 121, the. job titles and requirements for workers responsible for fuel storage-related activities, Nos. 124 and 125, and the impact resistance of the Catawba spent fuel pool structure, No.

149. Each of the questions clearly focus on a discoverable' spent fuel ~ safety claim or defense. Duke asserts objections to answer-ing nearly all interrogatories dealing with the extensive modi-fications made to the original fuel pool design which are alleg-edly adequate to accomodate the proposed increases and altera-tions in inventory. Duke objects to furnishing information con-cerning the original design heat removal capacity, No. 140, changes in storage cell design and cooling system design and the costs of such changes , Nos. 81 and 91.

While Duke continues to maintain that it has no present intention to store Oconee and McGuire spent fuel at Catawba it continues to press this application for authority to do so.

Palmetto Alliance maintains that such authority is unnecessary and that such activity can not be safely conducted. If Duke chooses-not to withdraw this unnamessary application it must be open to Palmetto Alliance to proba the Applicant's intentions, plans, need for the license authority sought and the costs and avail-ability of alternatives to Duke's proposal. Duke objects to interrogatories regarding its " Cascade Plan", No. 38, spent fuel storage alternatives to use of Catawba, No. 39, capacity increases from re-racking, Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88, estimated time for pool capacity filling at Catawba, No. 92, the adequacy

. of Catawba capacity for its own' fuel as well as that from other

- plants, No. 94, and the. impact of the availability of other dis-positions of spent reactor fuel on the plan for Catawba, Nos.

< 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 147, and 148. Such discovery must be available to Palmetto Alliance if it is to be able to fairly formulate its defense to Duke's application and to anticipate and respond to the claims and defenses of the other parties to this proceeding. Most of Duke's incomplete and evasive answers can i

only be cured with a clear and general direction to respond to j the questions as asked regarding the contention as admitted.

Contention No. 1, however, is exemplary of an obviously incom-plete response. "Specify any changes from original design. Dis-cuss in detail the reasons for such changes." Duke's answer:

i Smaller spent fuel pools were originally planned.

However,.when a potential need for additional storage capacity was' identified, the length of the pools was

- increased.

Applicant's Responses at p. 9. Such an answer is less than help-ful and is certainly incomplete and evasive.

A further example:

45. How many assemblies from Oconee and McGuire does the Applicant contemplate storing at Catawba? Give the quan-tity from each facility.

There are no firm plans at this time to ship spent fuel i from Oconee or McGuire to Catawba.

46. When does the Applicant anticipate transporting assem-

blies from either facility to the Catawba facility?

! See response to Interrogatory 45 Applicants Responses at p. 24.

! In response to interrogatories No. 14 and 15 on the sub-

ject of " pool leakage rate" Duke baldly states, without explan-ation

the response to this Interrogatory will be provided at a later date.

[ Applicants Responses at pp. 14 and 15. Why and when one might i

• i 1

- ask, with the hope that some response may be compelled. l Additional incomplete or evasive responses appear in answer to Nos. 36, 44, 78, 90, 93, 106, 107, and 112. Palmetto Alliance respectfully urges the Board to compel Applicants to fully respond in order that it may " ascertain the facts" in this complex litigation, " refine the issues, and prepare adequately for a more expeditious hearing or trial." Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-G13, 12 NRC 317 at 322 (1980).

November 3, 1982 L . s RbbertGui.d '

P.O. Box 12 Charleston, SC 29412 (803)795-8708 4

a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the. Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) 50-414

)

(Catawba Nulcear Station, )

Units 1 and 2 ) ) November 3, 1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of PALMETTO ALLIANCE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM APPLICANTS WITH RESPECT TO PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTIONS 16 AND 44 in the above captioned matter, has been served upon the following by deposit in the United States Mail this 3rd day of November, 1982.

James L. Kelley, Chairman William L. Porter, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing -

Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq.

Board Panel Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Power Company Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 33189 l Charlotte, NC 28242 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation i P.O. Box Y Richard P. Wilson, Esq.  :

Assistant Attorney General l Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 State of South Carolina P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211 Dr. Richard R. Foster P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97701

! Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing l

' Appeal Board George E. Johnson, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Ixecutive Legal Commission Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

l

-e ,, ,.

Q -

QE;

~

Henry A. Presler Jesse L.-Riley Charlotte-Mecklenburg 854 Henley Place .

Environmental Coalition Charlotte, NC 28207 943 Henly Place Charlotte, NC 28207 Scott Stuckey Docketing and Service Station J. Michael McGarry, III Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Debevoise & Liberman Commission 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 DONE this 3rd Day of Rhhg t Guild November , 1982. Attorney for Palmetto Alliance I

- - - - , __ _ - _