ML20063A457
| ML20063A457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1982 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208240346 | |
| Download: ML20063A457 (10) | |
Text
- L hfb*
- i.r, ~.
[
> i.;3.,
~
%:J -,
8/17/82
- 9 d
w-DOCKETED r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
USNRC J~ ; -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
E BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BMDAG019 P3:04' Jiy v,
a
)[
.a I
CFF'CE CF 5ECRDav' In the Matter of I
' C0CKEil% & SERVICE I
Doc ke t ' No s'.
$h'44 5
'd!
U.. '.
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I
and 50.446 3
g~;
GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR t
I T
AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I
U COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I
L,,,,,,3
],;
7.
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2
_I (CPSES)
Ok
- bG -
f b.-[;.?M CASE'S MOTION TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL 2M3 4
1 k2Sk',
7: %$,,.
DISCOVERY ON CONTENTION 5
'9 g.D g.fR -
.d
~~
Purusant to 10 CFR 2.740(b), CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),
',.g 6
Intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Motion to Allow Additional Discovery 3.:
f
?.W,'y. qon Contention 5.
4 J
g O
We made reference to this in our 8/12/82 Motion for Protective Order by p
.T.,-. -- :.-
q) 6,Mf; CASE (page 3), but it was not set forth in the wording of the Motion's title.
-1 VO.
~
i~, We are"the?^ fore officially filing this instant motion.
pj W[U9 5
',; ' t.
We have made requests for documents pertaining to our witnesses and their.
-f t.
,f J L:'- ";
testimony and related matters in our Twelfth and Thirteenth Set of Interroga-t
. ~ 'j
- t... ';
$ ^^
tories to Applicants and Requests to" Produce dated August 9,1982. We believe
.]3 5.
y that these requests are reasonable and necessary for us to be able to properly
[
g prepare for the. September hearings and to use in taking depositions from Appli-h r
omm~
EE cants' employees or witnesses. Also, many of them will be used in questioning 1
m.
t blu
-Jack Doyle during his deposition scheduled for this coming Thursday, August 19.
ca 00 9
ntJ
. e did not receive the Board's August 6,1982, Scheduling Order until 8/9/82 F$
W O
$ N '
(thanks to the Post Office's chewing it up; see attached) and the transcripts
'I co.
e O CD.
g of the July hearings have not yet been received at the UTA Library. We had i
1
. x ai not understood that discovery on Contention 5 insofar as it might pertain to h
testimony or rebuttal testimony and issues to be covered at the September hearings
~
w are concerned until we read the Board's 8/6/82 Order.
e H. a m n.
v1 Cf BACKGROUND G
In the August 9,1982 cover letter to Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, attached to our Twelfth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce, j;
f1
~
we stated:
"We call your attention particularly to the note following the inter-N
~
rogatories, beginning on the bottom of page 5 and continuing on page 6.
l "Since, in these particular hearings, the deadline of August 23 applies
' [.
both for completion of depositions and completion of discovery, we ask 4
that you do everything possible to expedite the answer to our interroga-h, tories in order that we may make proper plans for depositions taken either -
E, from or by CASE.
j p
'.'Your assistance will be appreciated in this matter so that we can comply I{
with the Board's deadlines and still afford all parties ample opportunity
=
.to take depositions in the most efficient and fair manner."
n The note following the interrogatories and requests for documents in our
~
Twelfth Set to Applicants (pages 5 and. 6) stated:
r
.._". Depending upon the answer from Applicants as to who their rebuttal witnesses f
== are, we may wish to take depositions from some utility witnesses. Also,
_ if Applicants wish to take deposition (s) from any of our witnesses, we will.
2
~ need the preceding information' prior-to the taking of such depositions. -
We therefore ask that the preceding information be provided at least two 5
full days prior to the taking of such depositions, if any of the infor-mation contained in the documents requested will be referred to directly
[
or indirectly during such depositions if taken by the Applicants.
In l
regard to depositions taken by CASE, we will advise as soon as we have been provided the information in question 1 'the names of Applicants' o
.f witnesses from whom we may wish to"tak'e depositions and the documents
~
which we will need to use in such depositions."
-l.,
Having received no response from Applicants regarding our August 9 letter and interrogatories and requests to produce, the writer telephoned Mr. Reynolds' yesterday morning regarding these matters, and he stated that he would be send-ing by express mail the same day the names of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses; 6
he further indicated that he would telephone us later 8/16/82 with their names
~
so that we could make plans for depositions. We advised him of the Notice of
(
Deposition which we filed 8/16/82 (having received the requested subpoena on Saturday, August 14, from the Board) for Mr. Jack Doyle, to take place on Thursday, August 19. Mr. Reynolds also indicated that he would advise us
.v..
later 8/16/82 regarding which documents Applicants would be willing to supply which we will need in the deposition of Mr. Doyle and in depositions which we wish to take from Applicants' rebuttal witnesses.
Mr. Reynolds did telephone again at 5:05 P.M. (Central Daylight Time) on. 8/.16/82 with the names of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses on Contention 5 and witnesses who will be filing direct testimony on Contsbtion 22. We have not. definitely decided at this writing who of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses
- 1. '
we will want to depose; however, we anticipate that there will.be one or more, perhaps several.
(It.is our understanding from the Board's statements. in the July hearings that it will not be necessary for us to subpoena ~ Applicants' witnesses and that they will be supplied for depositions: voluntarily.)-
Mr. Reynolds also indicated that the only documents requested in our
~
?
Twelfth and Thirteenth Sets of Interrogatori-e to Applicants and Requests to Produce filed August 9,1982, which Apt
...vs are wi,lling to supply are:
From our Twelfth Set to Applicants:
' " Question 6.
The Cold Form Institute (CFI) Catalogue - 1971.
~
Question 11. The Richmond (Insert) Screw Anchor Catalogue.
Question 18. AWS D.l.1 - criteria for rejectable porosity and gas pockets in welds.
Mr. Reynolds indicated that at diat time he~ was unable to state exactly
. tw -
which other documents Appliants' witnesses might rely on in their testimony and that we would be advised of this at a later date as the information became available.
He also indicated that it was Applicants' belief that the other documents requested are beyond the scope of what the Board had stated Applicants should
' provide and that it would take a Board Order for us to get them.
e e
5
)
i 4-i f
i.
r REASONS SUPPORTING CASE'S_ REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS v
Applicants have now indicated that they plan to call rubuttol witnesses regarding the testimony of CASE witnesses Charles Atchison, Robert Hamilton, g,
Cordella Hamilton, Henry Stiner, Darlene Stiner, and Mark Walsh. This is consistent with what CASE had expected. The information and docurnents re-quested in our 8/9/82 Twelfth Set and Thirteenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce are essential in order for us to have suf-ficient. infonnation to be able to adequately prepare our case, to prevent
[r surprise (such as that experienced when Applicants introduced their exhibit I;
r
.~
rsgarding M'r. Atchison's college records in the July hearings),. to prepare b
for cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses, and to take depositions from
{.
u.
Applicants' witnesses or employees as well as to take the deposition of Jack Doyle on Thursday, August 19. The most pressing need is_ for_ the documents
- \\
necessary for the examination by CASE of Mr. D_oyle on Thursday. However, in i.'
an effort to save the time of all parties, we will also address.the.other docu-j n nt which.we have requested, since Mr. Reynolds has already indicated that w
Applicants do not intend to supply them absent a Board Order to do so. We request that the Board expedite its ruling so that we can receive the documents
~ :. n -
needed early enough to use them in taking the depositions of Mr. Doyle and 6,
Applicants' witnesses.
fj As far as CASE is aware, the documents requested in both sets of Interroga-tories and Requests f.or Documents are available nowhere but from the Applicants; certainly CASE is not aware of such availabDity elsewhere.
- ~ All of the documents requested pertain directly to CASE's witnesses, their testimony and related matters, and are pertinent to these proceedings.
~
All of the documents requerted will be needed in the examination of Jack 1
Doyle (whose testimony is expected both to support much of the testimony of a
i
=
p Q_
CASE witness Mark Walsh and to bring out additional crucial construction and QA/QC problems at Comanche Peak) and/or the examination of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses during depositions taken by CASE.
Time is of the essence, since Applicants have just supplied us with the names of their rabuttal witnesses and since they are refusing to provide us with:many of the necessary documents absent a Board OrdeF'for them to do so, and since the deposition of Jack Doyle is scheduled for this Thursday, August 19, and;the close of discovery and depositions is Monday, August 23. Applicants' delays may force CASE into having to request additional time for depositions of Applicants' witnesses. We are'trying to work within the time guidelines set up by the Board, but we must now ask for the Board's assistance to achieve this.
Specific Inter _rogatories:
From~ CASE's Twelfth Set to Applicants, 8/9/82:
Question.5. This requests the personnel records, including everything in their personnel files and jobsite personnel file from the timekeeping office, and documentation on the qualifications and certifications of each of the following CASE witnesses:
Charles A. Atchison Mark A. Walsh Henry A. Stiner
-=1' Darlene Stiner These witnesses have indicated that there is information in these files which they.would like to make available to CASE, however, they are not able to do so because they have been unable to obtain the information from Brown & Root or Texas Utilities. To avoid any possible problems with Applicants sending per-sonnel records to anyone other than the former employees, we specifically asked that the personnel records be sent direct to the former employees themselves rather than to CASE. The witnesses will then be in position to provide CASE with whatever information from those files which we may want to cross-examine
~
Applicants' witnesses about during their depositions.
This is very important since the integrity and credibility of our witnesses either has already been or will likely be challenged by the Applicants' witnesses or during our witnesses' cross-examination by Applicants' attorney. We should have the right to examine Applicants' witnesses on deposition regarding some of these matters which may help support our witnesses' credibility and integrity.
t f I i
We need these specific documents in order to properly prepare our case and bring out all the facts in these proceedings.
i 1
Question 7.
Requests back-up documents for the March 3,1982 meeting referred to in the 3/8/82 TUSI Office Memorandum (CASE Exhibit 659E) discussed in the direct testimony and cross-examination of CASE Witness Mark Walsh. The 3/8/82 Memorandum was the one where it was stated that LOCA would no longer be con-sidered except on a case-by-case basis in the STRUDL analysis of the pipe supports. This infomation is needed for the examination on deposition of Jack Doyle and Applicants' rebuttal witnesses regarding Mark Walsh's testimony.
Question 8.
Requests back-up documents which were referred to or"used as t'he k
~ -
~~
basis for conclusions contained in the 6/25/82 TUSI Office Memorandum (CASE Exhibit 659G) discussed in the direct testimony and cross-examination of CASE Witness Mark Walsh. We need this for the depositions of Jack Doyle and Appli-cants' rebuttal witnesses.
Question 9.
Requests the NPSI Design Criteria for pipe supports (the official one issued in May, 1981). The importance of this criteria is obviously very crucial to the entire issue of the NPSI pipe supports, which is one of the most important areas of Mark Walsh's testimony and is expected to be one of the most important areas on which we will examine Jack Doyle and Applicants' i
rebuttal witnesses on deposition.
{
Question 10. Requests all documents which were used to define the method used to detemine the tensile force in the Richmond Inserts. Applicants have agreed to supply the Richmond (Insert) Screw Anchor Catalogue; the documents requested in this request for documents is needed tu give the complete picture regarding the appropriateness of using Richmond Inserts at Comanche Peak. We will need them in the examination of Jack Doyle and Applicants' rebuttal witnesses on
(
1 deposition.
Question 12.
Reque;ts the current Grinnell Design Criteria for pipe supports at Comanche Peak. The importance of this criteria goes to the very heart of the issue regarding the design of the Grinnell pipe supports for use at CPSES.
We need this to examine Jack Doyle and Applicants' rebuttal witnesses on deposition.
i Questions 13, 14, 16, and 17.
Request a print-out of the criteria in the com-puter regarding STRUDL procedures, program guides, and any other infonnation relating to STRUDL; a print-out of the computer run in the file of the TUSI FAG (Frame Analysis Group); the Hilti allowables and the procedures for the analysis; and a copy of FUB II and the instructions of how to use the FUB II l
i nformation. All of. this infomation concerns computer analyses and procedures discussed in the testimony and cross-examination of CASE Witness Mark Walsh.
It is needed to examine Jack Doyle and Applicants' rebuttal witnesses when
, we take their depositions.
Question 15.
Requests the current PSE (Pipe Support Engineering) design criteria volume for pipe supports at Comanche Peak. This is needed for the examination of Jack Doyle and Applicants' rebuttal witnesses when we take their depositions.
L
,,, x
7 From CASE's Thirteenth Set to__ Applicants, 8/9/82:
Requests copies of all the NCR's written by CASE witnesses Charles Question 1.
A. Atchison, Mark Walsh, Robert Hamilton, Joseph Krolak, Darlene Stiner, and Henry Stiner. These are needed for cross-examination of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses when we take their depositions. We understand that Applicants have already pulled all the NCR's written by each of our witnesses, and assume that it will be a simple matter for us to inspect and make copies of any we do not already have.
Requests a copy of the American Welding Socidty Code. This will Question 2.
be needed for examination of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses during their depo-sitions we will take from them.
Question 3.
Requests copies of the forms used at Comanche Peak when welders weld support steel. This will be needed for examination of Applicants' rebuttal witnesses when we depose them.
We believe that the documents which we have requested in our Twelfth and Thirteenth Sets to Applicants are absolutely essential for use in deposing Jack Doyle on Thursday, August 19, and Applicants' rebuttal witnesses whom we will be deposing as soon as we can make arrangements to do so with Appli-
~can'ts and as soon as we can obtain the documents we have requested.
For~the reasons stated in the preceding, we hereby move that the Board grant our Motion to Allow Ad.ditional Discovery on Contention 5 to the extent indicated herein and that Applicants be ordered to pranptly supply CASE with the documents requested. We need these.-documents immediately in order to pre-pare our cross-examination questions of Jack Doyle which is scheduled for deposition Thursday, August 19, and so that we can provide him with copies of the portions of the documents the night before the deposition to avoid any unfair disadvantage l
to him during the deposition and to save the time and expense of all parties due to taking up time during the deposition for him to examine the documents.
We further wish to advise the Board and the other parties that, if Mr.
Doyle's testimony is as important as Mr. Walsh has indicated it will be during the deposition of Mr. Doyle, we will be asking the leave of the Board to file Mr. Doyle's deposition as his pre-filed testimony and have him testify at the
~
e
-m-m
e.
~
8-September 13 hearings, under subpoena if necessary. We will make the appro-priate motion at that time, but we wanted the Board and all parties to be aware of this possibility.
Respectfully submitted, 02u 24
/13 * >
jfjfs.) Juanita Ellis, President TASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 j
~' ~
~
g no 2
2.:3. -
2 ese
=e e-B
.L--- -
Q?.).f.' Rh.
L
^
7
' j'- - J f,gf na w
y Y'
=.
t N
E
.., Ag. g$$ <.
u.~:'
<;,?..p *3:$'
.$,L :;;,..w.
n.;:
~ n r..
> t;T:. )
i U.
k,.
,:. m,.,
- g...~; [.+d. 2$*:
9h
'wfg..,j 4*9
> i, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v.
hg.y,.,
,3-.
),*,
DALLAS. TEXAS 75260
,,.f.21 d.8
'o
~, 'ky
.M2 3* '.V Ref. MP
- .g i
$ c[.f :
? i{,
t Dear Postal Customer
~
3 p. y 'i Q j
7.gy ox r
E. Iw dO Q }. p, Q l The enclosed letter was damaged in handling in the Postal i
Service.
k t..
We realize that your mail is important to you and you have every right to expect it to be delivered intact and in good g q 3[ { g p,
[
M.nf n m P.
condition. The Postal Service makes every ctfort to properly
)
(
isf l
y%,j,h*D%
handle the mail entrusted to it, but, due to the large vol-ume, occasional damage does occur.
r.G g;p,g4y f.
q fit > o < >f.d 4
When a Post Office handles more thani tive million pieces nf E4 Ndk%
g mail daily, it is imperativa that mechanical methods be used
?dfS. % t
~
to maintain production and insure promot delivery of the mails. It is also an actuality thin rnocern production methods
[.'[ *.
L-
- J;I do not permit personal attention to individual pieces of mail.
.g Q Damage can occur if mail is insecurely enveeoped Crpulky fg~. %
j contents are enclosed. When this occurs and our machinery g
is jammed, it often causes damage to other mail that was
- {.-
"+ 4 properly prepared.
We are constantly striving to improve our processing methods
'y. r,,,.
'5 to assure that an occurrence such as the enclosed case be eliminated. We appreciate your concern over the handling of your mail and sincerely regret the inconvenience you have experienced.
~
B. L. Dudley Postmaster eat auto w
I
'N.*
s.
.. j..
L]EM
. )Y, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' ! hj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
. ny.$
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING.$0i2ARh gg p3 04 9%
,3 J. A[',
- 5%[....3 &.,E.gg 'M fB
. 14 L
L.. e d
00Ch4Ep gCB N '-
In the Matter of I
...'n^ d.
y f
M PLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50-445 "
D,$
' f.i,1 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN I
and 50-446
' ' 'h: M,jl OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
e UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)
I k.
M.h
- n
.#' ' t n
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'M i
cer.tif th.at true and correct copies of By my sianapurn below, I hereby CASE s Motion to Alfow Addition [1 Discovery on Contention 5 have been sent to the names listed below this 17th day of August
, 1982, by:
Express liail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
~.((3
- Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller David J. Preister, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Asnistant Attorney Geh ral Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Environmental Protection Division
,p
.. 'j%'
Wauhington, D. C.
2o555 P. O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 y
k
.;t
- Dr. Kenneth A.' McCollom, Dean Ms. Lucinda Minton
.k,
]h"h.9 Division of Engineering, Architecture, Panel Law Clerk and Technology Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel.
h."
Oklahoma State University U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d$'
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washingtoil, D. C.
20555
.y$
- Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atom'ic Safety and Ligensing A.h
'.h@
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f;Q.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
,y 3h
'd Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing g
Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St.,
N.
W.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a.g W shington, D.
C.
20o36 Washington, D.
C.
2o555 a
Marjcrie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section
" y%
/,J '
Office of Executive Legal Director Office of the Secretary U. G. Nuclcar Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, '.. Q :
',, y,M Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
,. g.c^v
.: :, m n
~ y..: ;g.
w5Oss Yd5 s.1 Juaniti Ellis, President
.;hl
.ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Ener T
_S
,?
..... M f
l?gs M
.