ML20064C413

Response to 820420 First Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce & 820927 Third Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce.Related Correspondence

ML20064C413
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/31/1982
From:	Carr A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	PALMETTO ALLIANCE
References
NUDOCS 8301040394
Download: ML20064C413 (78)

Text

b D:cemb;r 31, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0KETED 09.y e r In the Matter of )

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. --

'63ckh Nhs.

~

h 413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) _- )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO " PALMETTO ALLIANCE FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE" AND

" PALMETTO ALLIANCE THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE" (REGARDING CONTENTION 44)

Duke Power Company, et al. ( Applicants),. pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740b(b),

hereby respond to " Palmetto Alliance First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" (" Interrogatories") filed April 20, 1982, and  !' Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce," (" Interrogatories")

filed September 27, 1982. Applicants' Response includes the following answers and objections, as well as. the accompanying Motion for Protective Order.

I.

Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories were filed on April, 20, 1982 and originally related to Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6, 7, 18, 40 and 43, as admitted by the Board's March 5 Order. 2/ On motion by the Applichnts, the Board suspended discovery on these contentions , among others.2/ In its 1/ " Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference)", March 5,1982 (" March 5 Order").

2/ " Memorandum and Order", May 25, 1982. Also see " Memorandum and Order (Overruling Objections Following Prehearing Conference, Denying Requests For Referral to the Appeal Board, and Addressing Certain Related Questions)". July 8,1982 (" July 8 Order").

8301040394 821231 3 PDR ADOCK 05000413 1

/_J G PDR

~

i 4

December 1 Order3 / the Board dismissed Palmetto Alliance's C6ntentions 18,-40 and 43, and authorized discovery to resume on Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6 and 7. 2 -

In its December 1 Order the Licensing Board reexamined Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6 and 7. The Board rewrote Palmetto Alliance's Contention 6 and admitted it, as rewritten, as an issue in the proceeding. Upon reconsideration of Palmetto Alliance Contention 7, the Board admitted'it as written. (December 1 Order, pp. 5-6).

Following the March 5 Order, and prior to the Board's issuance of a stay of discovery on Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6 and 7, Applicants on April 9, 1982 served Interrogatories and Requests tg Produce on Palmetto Alliance regarding, among other things, its Contentions 6 and 71/ On April 28, 1982 Palmetto Alliance served its responses 5

/ to Applicants' April 9. Interrogatories relating to Contentions 6 and 7. On April 20, 1982 Palmetto Alliance served its first round of discovery on Applicants.1/

In its July 8 Order, the Board also admitted Palmetto Alliance's Contention 44, which is identical to CESG Contention 18. However, in that same order the Board specifically authorized discovery only on Palmetto Alliance Contentions 8, 16 and 27 (July 8 Order at p 18). Accordingly, in 3/ "M emorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Prehearing Conference)", December 1,1982 (" December 1 Order").

f/ " Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories To Palmetto Allian e and Requests To Produce", April 9,1982 (" April 9 Interrogatories").

1

[/ " Palmetto Alliance Responses To Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce," April 28,1982 (" April 28 Responses").

2/ " Palmetto Alliance First Set of Interrogatories and Requests.. to Eroduce,"

April 20,1982 ( April 20 Discovery).

2

O their initial set of responses to " Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce," filed October 19, 1982, Applicants did not include responses to those Interrogatories dealing with Contention 44. However, in its December 1 Order the Board lifted the stay of discovery applicable to Contention 44. Applicants have therefore undertaken to respond to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories on its Contention 44.

~

II.

Applicants will at the outset take a moment to explain the approach which will be used in responding to these Interrogatories. On December 22, 1982 the Board issued an order which. among other things, laid down certain ground rules respecting discovery.7/ The Board has decided that, notwithstanding the fact that Palmetto Alliance has provided no substantive information as to its specific concerns, and the bases for those concerns, in response to ,

discovery by Applicants and Staff , Palmetto Alliance must be allowed to develop its case on its conten'tions through discovery. Thus, the Board, though recognizing that it departs from the usual practice, not only before the NRC but also before the courts of the land, has given Palmetto Alliance "a limited 'right of first discovery"' against Applicants and Staff. December 22 Order at 12.

As noted above, Contention 6 was admitted as rewritten , upon reconsideration, by the Board. Contention 6, as originally stated, read:

6. Substandard workmanship and poor quality control strongly suggest that actual plant construction is substantially below NRC standards in many safety related areas. Applicants have failed to provide a Quality Assurance program which meets the i

7/ " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Various Discovery Disputes),"

December 22,1982 (December 22 Order).

3

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, App. B, a'nd no -

reasonable assurance exists that the plant can operate without endangering the health and safety of the public.

The Commission has noted that "the regulated industry . .

. bears the primary responsibility for- the proper construction and safe operation of licensed nuclear facilities . " Federal Tort Claim of General Public Utilities Corp., et al, CLI 81-10, 13 NRC 773, 775-776 (1981).

The NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Review Group found the Catawba facility "Belo'w Average" among power reactor facilities under construction particularly "in the_.-areas of quality assurance including management and training. " NUREG 0834', NRC Licensee Assessments , August 1981, p. B - 1. A number of former Duke Power Company construction workers, including a certified Quality Control Inspector, have complained of systematic deficiencies in plant construction and company pressure to approve faulty workmanship.

The Board, on consideration of Contention 6 as originally submitted, stated:

~

"Much of Palmetto 6, which is concer'ned with substandard workmanship and poor quality control, lacks sufficient specificity . The last sentence, however, concerns alleged

' corner cutting' and does supply a sufficient basis.for a contention . We recast the contention that we now accept to read as follows:

'Because of systematic deficiencies in plant construction and company pressur.e, to approve faulty workmanship, no reasonable assurance exists that the plant can operate without endangerit.g the health and safety of the public.'

"The thrust of this contention is primarily toward alleged company attitudes and practices; proof of this contention, presumably involving specific instances of misfeasance,

! need not be adduced at this stage." December 1 Order at l

p. 5.

In Applicants' view, then, the Board has changed the original thrust of

the con tention , which appeared to focus in large . measure on Applicants' Quality Assurance Program . As rewritten , the contention is now concerned with the specific instances of faulty construction alleged by Palmetto Alliance, and whether those specific instances constitute " systematic deficiencies in plant construction" and/or are a manifestation of " company pressure .to_ approve faulty workmanship . " Consequently , the subject matter of this contention is 4

now limited directly to those purported instances of deficient construction which Palmetto Alliance alleges raised its concern in the first instance. j In its April 9 Responses, Palmetto Alliance explained the concerns which underlie its Contention No. 6. The "former Duke Power Company employees" who have complained of " systematic deficiencies in plant construction and company pressure to approve faulty workmanship" are identified as Nolan R.

Hoopingarner, II, and William R. McAfee. (April 9 Responses at pp 12-13.)

The " specific allegations" by these former Duke employees on which Palmetto Alliance intends to rely in support of its Contention 6, and the " systematic deficiencies in plant construction" which it alleges exists are as follows:

Nolan R. Hoopingarner, II observed substandard workmanship and poor quality control at the plant site.

IIe observed work performed by those under the influence of alcohol and drugs, hazards to worker safety limiting work quality, improper handling and storage of materials such as stainless steel and electrical cable, unrespon-siveness to worker complaints, pressures and retaliation against those complaining. Access to records in thb possession of Duke Power Company sought in discovery requests served Apri(20, 1982, is necessary in order to refresh his recollection; .

William R. McAfee observed substandard workmanship and poor quality control at the plant site. He observed portions of the concrete containment poured during heavy rainfall, blueprints changed to reflect construction errors, improper inspection of anchor bolt installation , rainfall leaking onto electrical equipment in the control room, inadequate testing training, supervision of quality control inspectors and pressure to approve faulty workmanship.

Access to records in the possession of Duke Power -

Company sought in discovery requests served April 20, 1982, is necessary in order to refresh his - recollection .

( AprU 9 Responses at pp 12-13, 15.) -

The " company pressure" Palmetto Alliance contends was brought to bear allegedly consisted of " Discouragement of worker compliants , anger and frustration by supervisors in response to complaints or negative. inspection; threats of retaliation" ( April 9 Responses at 16). However, when asked to

~

5

n

. l identify each instance of " company pressure" and the individual (s) by whom it was brought, Palmetto Alliance responded that:

Intervenor at present lacks sufficient knowledge to answer and is awaiting responses to its Interrogatories and Requests to Produce served April 20, 1982, with regard to this subject. For example William R. McAfee, . Electrical QC Inspector questioned the markings on several anchor bolt installations in Reactor Building No. 1. A- supervisor looked at the bolt and said it was of suitable length when McAfee could not distinguish the marking. The supervisor became angry when~McAfee said that the ' supervisor would have to approve the cable tray hanger, and said he would verify the bolt length himself by some other process.

McAfee does not know if such verification was ever performed . ( April 9 Responses at p.16.)

Notwithstanding its own lack of knowledge as to the bases for this contention , Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, on Contention 6 are essentially unlimited in scope. To cite a few examples , Palmetto Alliance has asked Applicants to identify each deficiency in design and constructi,on at defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e) and, as to each, provide detailed information in seven different categories ( April 20 Discovery at p. 6, Interrogatories 12 and 13 relating to Contention 6). 31oreover, Palmetto Alliance has also asked Applicants to identify all audits conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVIII which reflect cieficiencies and, with respect to each, provide detailed information in twelve different categories . ( April 20 i Discovery at p. 8, Interrogatory 14 relating to Contention 6.)

In light of the bases for Palmetto Alliance's Contention 6, Applicants believe that these Interrogatories are entirely too ' . broad and unjustified.

Nevertheless , in light of the Board's December 22 Order, Applicants believe that objection on such grounds would be fruitless. particularly in light of the l

l fact that the Board has foreclosed Applicants from filing any response to a Motion to Compel. December 22 Order at 18. Therefore, with r6s'pe'c't to these requests , Applicants, over their objection, will make those documents relating i 6

to construction at Catawba available for inspection, ev n though th;y b:li,ve a number are not relevant to the concerns which form the bases for the contention . , --

Contention 7 reads:

No reasonable assurance can be had that the facility can be operated without endangering the public health and safety because of Duke's consistent failure to adhere to required Commission operating and administrative procedures, provided for in Commission rules and regulations . "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the statutory responsibility for prescribing licensing standards to protect public health and safety and for inspecting the industry's activities against these standards. The Commission does not thereby certify to the industry that the industry's designs and procedures are adequate to protect its equipment or operations." Federal Tort Claim o_f General Public Utilities Corp. , et al, CLI-81-10,13 NRC 773, 775-776 (1981).

At both Oconee and Catawba facilities of Duke Power Company the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Review Group found

" weaknesses in personnel adherance to operating and administrative procedures" and " failure to follow procedures." NUREG 0834, Licensee Assessments, August 1981, pp. A-3, B-1. As long ago as 1977 Duke, Licensee for the Oconee facility, was assessed civil penalties of $21,500 where "the history of repetitive ahd chronic non-compliance , when considered in conjunction with failure to instit ute effective corrective action and management controls, demonstrates that management is apparently not conducting licensed activities with adequate concern for the health, safety or interest of its employees or the gendt al public." Ernst Volgennau, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, to Carl Horn, Jr. ,

President, Duke Power Company, March 29, 1977, Docket Nos.

50-269, 50-270, 50-287.

As noted above, Applicants on April 9 propounded interrogatories to Palmetto Alliance on its Contention 7. In its April '28 Responses, Palmetto Alliance provided no substantive information respecting its Contention No. 7.

Palmetto Alliance professes to be unable to respond to the most basic questions concerning its Contention No. 7. For example, Palmetto Alliance was asked by Applicants , among other things, what operating procedures and administrative procedures it contende are the subject of Contention 7, and what activities those operating and administrative procedures were intended to govern.

Palmetto Alliance responded "Intervenor at present lacks sufficient knowledge to answer and is awaiting responses to its Interrogatories and Requests to 7

Produce served April 20, 1982 with regard to this subject. " ( April 28 Responses at pp.17,19.) Such a response is surprising, particularly in light of Palmetto Alliance's assertion that Applicants' " consistent failure" to follow such procedures led to its Contention 7. Moreover, even when asked what it meant by such " consistent failure" on the part of Applicants, Palmetto Alliance again responded "Intervenor at present lacks sufficient knowledge to answer

~

and is awaiting responses to its Interrogatories and Requests to Produce served April 20, 1982, with reg.ard to this subject." Identical responses were provided to 22 of the 55 interrogatories Applicants addressed to Palmetto Alliance on its Contention 7. Moreover, when asked what it intended when it cited portions of NRC documents in i_ts t own contentions , Palmetto Alliance responded " meaning intended by author." (April 28 Responses at 20, 21).

On April 20, 1982, Palmetto Alliance filed discovery requests, essentially unlimited in scope, relating to its Contention 7. For example, Palmetto Alliance has asked Applicants to " Describe in detail each instance of Duke Power Company noncompliancu with NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in Commission rules and regulations ," then, with respect to each such instance, to " Describe in detail the corrective action and management controls" instituted by Duke. Then , Palmetto Alliance asks Applicants whether such corrective action and/or management controls "were.

effective" and if not, to explain why not. (April 20 Discovery at p. 12, Interrogatories 11-14 relating to Contention 7.)

l Because of Palmetto Alliance's unwillingness, or inability, to provide the information to Applicants relevant to their contentions, Applicants are in the 1

position of being required to respond to extremely broad discovery requests without any knowledge as to the concerns underlying Palmetto " Alliance's t

cont entions . Indeed, it appears, based upon its answers to Applicants' 8

I -

discovery , as though Palmetto Alliance itself has no idea wh t its cont:ntion means . Certainly, under any reasonable standard, such a contention could be considered, at the most, " vague." Therefore, it seems that, by pursuing this course of action , Palmetto Alliance seeks adequate information , through discovery , to provide information necessary to " flesh . out" its " vague" contention . It is beyond dispute that such a course of conduct is proscribed.

~

Duke Power Company, et aT. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-687, NRC (August 19, 1982), slip op. at 13.

Nevertheless , Applicants believe, in light of the Board's December 22 Order, that objections they could have made on those grounds have been foreclosed , especially in light of the fact that Applicants have been deprived of the right to respond to a motion to compel. Therefore, Applicants, over their objection, will make available to Palmetto Alliance more than 2700 documents in response to Interrogatory 11 alone. Such a response is particularly ironic in light of the Board's decision to allow Palmetto Alliance "a limited 'right of first discovery'" against Applicants and Staff.

On July 8, 1982 the Licensing Board admitted Palmetto Alliance Contention No. 44 (identical to CESG Contention No.18), which reads:sj The license should not issue because reactor degradation in the form of a much more rapid increase' in reference temperature than had been anticipated has occurred at a number of PWR's including Applicant's Oconee unit 1.

Until and unless the NRC and the industry can avoid .

reactor embrittlement, Catawba should not be permitted to operate.

l i

'~

I/This contention was modified by the Board in its July 8 Order:

9

In Applicants' view, Palmetto Alliance's concern in this contention is with the unanticipated rapid increase in reference temperature in the Catawba reactor vessels which could, lead to premature reactor vessel embrittlement.

Thus, in framing responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories on its Contention 44, Applicants have provided only that information which relates to ascertaining the reference temperature of the Catawba reactor vessels and the impacts of an increase in sucI temperature upon the Catawba reactor vessels.

In addition, Applicants have furnished information concerning the anticipation and avoidance of such impacts.

III.

Requests to Produce Applicants will make available for inspection and copying by Palmetto Alliance those documents, not subject to privileges or objections asserted by Applicants in the responses to individual Interrogatories, identified in the responses to " Palmetto Alliance' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" and to " Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce." Such documents will be available, on appropriate notice , to Palmetto Alliance on and, for a reasonable period of time, after, February 15, 1982 at Duke Power Company's offices at 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. .

t =

IV.

Responses to Palmetto Alliance Interrogatories l

A. General Interrogatories i

1. Please state the full name, address, occupation and emplope~r of each person answering the interrogatories and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof he or she answered.

l f

10 9-

v.-

.-.7 -

13 /, ; ,,.

l.. .l ,

s '

. ,\ i .

l~ ,

c. , i . , ,f .

The initials of the ,perso or persons providing the,informati n u' s;d

'- t , , a e /

?

in the answers to interrogatories 04i11 be . indies:.cdl[in

- parbtheses followingid y,;

, p' e each answer. ,

4

' ,1 3 r) ,

/

/, -

'g-l The business raddress.. occupat, ion and emp'leher et each, such pwso '

fs

will be provided in his affidaht Attached & these +es(onses.

1

~

i s,; ; , ,, e q

! 2. Please identify each and every persor.fwhom you'ard considering to call as #

a witness at the hearing. in this matter , on this contention, and with respect to each such peri ~on, plerrj -

a. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is <

! expected to testify; - 't p,1 , 4

b. Give a summary of the grounds for eht.hiopinion; and

c. Describe the witness' educational and proferponal background. T'

' / ' ' ~ ..

Applicante have not at this time ,selectpd witness,esjja testi

~

i r / y  ;

matters addressed in Palmtto Alliance Co;ntentions 6, 7, and 44.

je C' y ,

'r:

3. Is your pasition on the contention based.ria"one or : ore calculations? If so:

~~

[' s lj q '. ,;! ~

4 a. Describe each calculatjon and identif//'Any docur:ents setting forth, ,

such cale61ation.w' , -

%~ *

b. Who performed each calculation? /. "' V , /,

i ~

c. When was exh caleu!ation peri 9rmed? ,

,' '- G , ', ",

d. Describe each partrieter used nin such ,Mlculation and' e'sch value' .

assigned to the pafa'ndter, any describe,#the sotace of /M6f data./

l e. What are the results df each caleplation? - . i' g

f. Explain in detail how each calcuh. tion pr6vides a basis Mr the ishteb : - ,, +

9 4 This Interrogatory is not,a)plicable. Any calculation performed by ' *

- Applicants relevant to ar.y' position taken by Applicants .on P3 otto, p I ~

Alliance's Contentions 6. 7, and 44 is /;ither set' forth or referenc'ed i.

in y c 4 of  !

the appropriate section of Applicants' Application , Final Safety Anah sis ,

l 5 , . ./-

Report , Environmental Report, or, 'if applicable, in dottu.. ntrj referenced J ,, .'/  ! .

! in the individual response S%,uld , Palmetto [Allianc$ . ne,pd furthe. ' ,

1. < ,, s

,- . >, .i information with respect to any, quch ccalculation it may identify such ,

tnese I calculation and addww--specific',- ,

,interroga _ories to it. If interrogatoried are otherwise proper, Applicahts' will furnish the sought

/ "

information . ,

./, e

/

8

, y

\ J , , , l

' =

c. r

^f <, ~

r , 'y r

.i.'.__'.

4. Is your >. . -ition on tha contention brs d upon. , convtrsati:ns ,

consultations , correspondence or eny other type of communications with

. one or more individuals? If so:

, / a.

Identify by name and address each such individual.

b. State the educatior al and professional background of each individual, including occupatio'n and institutional affiliati5ns.

,, .c. Describe the nature of each communication with such individual, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals involved.

/,/ d. Describe the information received from such individuals and explain how it provides a basis for the issue. .

e. Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record related to each conversation , consultation , correspondence, or other communication with stich individual.

Applicants object to -this Interrogatory. In Applicantst view such

/

can only be directed either to the position which Applicants have taken e

7 with respect to Palmetto Alliance's contentions before the Licensing Board in this proceeding, or to the manner, discussed above, in which Applicants have interpreted Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories and furnis'hed responses thereto . In either event, any conversations ,

correspondence or any other type of communications are privileged, and thus not subject to Mscovery.

With respect to the" positions Applicants have taken on Palmetto Alliance's contentions before the Licensing Board at various stages of this proceeding, such are guided by legal strategy developed in anticipation of litigation after extensive consultation among counsel for Applicants, and ,

~

between and among Applicants' counsel and members of $pphcants' staff, to ascertain the factual matters necessary to formulate that . strategy.

The positions Applicants have taken with respect to answering Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories were formulated on the basis cf disw: ;tas among counsel for the Applicants. Such positions were then communicated by Applicants' counsel, during telephone conference calls and conferences, to members of Applicants' staff to guide an d "~ aid those 12

-.-. ~

_._y. y<- -- - -, -- ,

~

persons in preparing initial drafts of responses to Palmetto A11ianc2's Interrogatories. .

In short, these positions, and .thus the communications between and among Applicants' counsel and staff underlying those positions, are a direct result of Applicants' counsel, while preparing the case for litigation, "[ A]ssembl[ing) information, sift [ing) what [they] consider [ ]

to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepar[ing] [their] legal theories and plan [ning] f their] strategy. . . ." Such preparation includes " interviews , statements , memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible [ actions] ." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511-512 (1945).

Applicants' counsel are entitled to conduct this process "without undue and needless interference" and any communications and/or conversations conducted during that process are subject to protection under the attorney work-product privilege. Id. at 511; see Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant,' Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, NRC (September 9,1982) slip op. at 33-35.

Thus, Apolicanu, object to this Interrogatory in that it calls for information which is privileged under the attorney, work-product doctrine.

Applicants are aware of their obligation, under normal circumstances, to provide a list of the specific documents , correspondence, and communications as to which a claim of privilege is .being asserted, and an explanation of why the privdege applies to each. (We note that the Board addressed this point to Palmetto Alliance in its December 22, 1982 Order at p. 7). In this Interrogatory , however, Palmetto Alliance has asked Applicants to provide it with documents and recBrds" of other communications regarding Applicants' legal position on Contentions 6, 7 13

and 44. Because Applicants submit that all such documents and rrcorfis of communications (which reflect the mental impressions , views , legal theories and legal strategies of Applicants' legal counsel, developed solely in anticipation of, and during, litigation), fall under the attorney work-product doctrine, Applicants have not included herein an itemized

listing of documents with this objection reiterated for each document.

~

Moreover, it would not have been feasible for Applicants to provide a complete; list , with appropriate objections , in this pleading because communications and documents reflecting the bases for their positions on these contentions were ongoing until the time this Response was filed.

liowever, if the Board believes that an ,

itemized list is necessary, Applicants will undertake to prepare such a list and make it available by February 1, 1983. .

B. Specific Interrogatories Contention 6 ,

1. Do you agree that the Duke Power Company (DPC) Quality Assurance l

(QA) program must comply with each of the criteria of Appendix B to 10 i CRF Part 50 in order to establish Duke Power Company end tlement to the

- licenses sought in this proceeding?

Applicants object to this Interrogatory because it calls for a legal conclusion unrelated to the facts. The Interrogatory does not seek disclosure of factual matters within the knowledge and control of Applicants, nor does it seek the application of the facts of the case to applicable regulatory requirements . Rather, the Interrogatory appears to request a conclusion from Applicants as to whether, assuming Applicants' Quality Assurance Program is not in compliance with the Commission's regulatory requirements, Jhe Board should authorize issuance of an operating license for Catawba . Such a request . which involves purely a matter of law, has been found by licensing l

14

boards to be improper. See Boston Edison Company, et al. -(Pilgrim Nucler.r Generating Station , Unit 2), LB P-75-30, 1 NRC 579, .588 (1975) (a copy of which is attached to the Licensing Board's December 2_2, 1982 Memorandum and Order).

The law on this point is clear, as found in the Ad'visory Committee Notes to the 1970 Amendment to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

~

The Committee stated, " interrogatories may not extend to issues of ' pure law',

i.e., legal issues unrelated to the facts of the case." For cases supporting this proposition see O'Brien v. International Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 443 F. Supp.1182 (N.D. Ga.1977); Sargent-Welch Scientific Co. v.

Ventron Corp. , 59 F.R.D. 500 (D.Ill.1973); Joseph v. Norman's Health Club, 336 F. Supp. 307 (E.D. Mo. 1971). See also 4A Moore's Federal Practice Section 3317. ,

Applicants further object because no substantial purpose would be served by responding to this Interrogatory, in that it is the responsibility of the Licensing Board to decide the matters in controver.sy by weighing the evidence against regulatory requirements. 10 C . F . R . Part 2, Appendix A SVIII (b).

See Wisconsin Electric Power Co. , et al. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2),

ALAB-78, 5 AEC 319, 322 (1972). See also Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-124, 6 AEC 358, 362 (1973). Simply put, Applicants' view of whether compliance or lack of compliance with NRC quality assurance criteria is a prerequisite to or a bar to Board authorization of an operating license is irrelevant at this point.

2. If the answer to No. 1 is negative, describe in detail the respects in which such compliance is not required and explain fully the factual and legal basis for your position.

See response to Interrogatory 1.

15

3. Does the Duke Power Company Quality Assurance program comply with each of the criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 507 Yes. See FSAR Chapter 17; " Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program;" Duke A. (GHB)'

4. What are the bases for your responses to Nos. 1-3? Identify all documents, physical evidence, testimony or oral statements by any person and legal authority on which you rely in support of your position.

The bases for the r_esponses to Interrogatories 1-3 are set out in the responses to those Interrogatories. Applicants object to identifying any oral communication in response to this Interrogatory on the grounds given in response to General Interrogatory No. 4.

5. Do you agree that substandard workmanship in the actual design, fabrication , construction and testing _, of safety-related s truc *.ures ,

systems , and components can adversely affect the confidence that such structures, systems and components will perform satisfactorily in service?

Applicants object to responding to this Interrogatory. .

First, Applicants are unable to respond. The Interrogatory does not seek disclosure by Applicants of factual matters within their knowledge and control. Moreover, t3 respond would re. quire Applicants to perform an independent analysis to arrive at an answer. For Applicants to respond to this Interrogatory would require an identification of (1) the precise nature of the " substandard workmanship" . Palmetto Alliance has in mind, (2) whether, and how, Palmetto Alliance believes the " substandard workmanship" is related to the " actual design, fabrication, construction and testing" of safety-related structures, systems and components, and (3) which " safety-related structures , systems and components" Palmetto Alliance has in mind. Applicants at this juncture have absolutely no idea what Palmetto Alliance has in mind and are thus unable to respond.

Moreover, even if Applicants did have this information in harid, it would require an analysis incorporating all these factors for them to be able to 16

, _ _ _ _ _ g . _ _ . , , _ ,

detemine whether or not any such " substandard workmanship" might

" adversely affect the confidence that such structures, systems and components will perform, satisfactorily in service"._

Applicants are not required to answer Interrogatories which call for facts beyond their possession or knowledge, nor are they required to perform an extensive or elaborate analysis to answer such an

~

Interrogatory. As the ' Appeal Board has stated , "[i]n responding to discovery requests , a party is not required to engage in extensive independent research. It need only reveal information in its possession or control. . . " Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. , et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station , Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 334 (1980); also see Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC at 584.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Applicants object to responding to this Interrogatory.

6. Do you agree that the failure of safety-related structures, systems, and components to perform satisfactorily in service can adversely affect the ability to prevent or mitilate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and' safety of the public?

Applicants object to responding to this Interrogatory.

. First, Applicants , as in the case of Interrogatory 5, are unable to respond. The Interrogatory does not seek disclosure by Applicants of factual matters within their knowledge and control. Moreover, to respond would require Applicants to perform an independent analysir to arrive at an answer. For Applicants to respond to this Interrogatory would require an identification by Palmetto Alliance of which " safety-related structures, systems and components" it believes have failed, and how, "to perform satisfactorily in service ," during , or as a result ,,of , what

" postulated accidents" Palmetto Alliance has in mind. If Applicants had this information in hand, it would require an analysis incorporating all I

17 -

t

these factors to be able to determine whether such. failure could

" adversely affect" the ability of such " safety-related structures, systems, and components" to "pr: event or mitigate" the " consequences of postulated acciden ts . " Applicants at this juncture have absolutely no idea what Palmetto Alliance has in mind and thus are unable to respond. Moreover, even if Applicants did have this information in hand, it would require an analysis incorporating a[these factors for the'm to be able to determine whether such " failure" codld " adversely affect the ability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public." Applicants are not required to answer Interrogatories which call for _f. acts beyond their possession or knowledge, nor are they required to perform an extensive or elaborate analysis to answer such an Interrogatory. As the Ap. peal Board has stated, "[i]n responding to discovery requests, a party is not required to engage in extensive independent research. It need only reveal information in its possession or control." Susquehanna, supra; also see Pilgrim, supra.

Therefore , for the reasons set forth above, Applicants object to responding to this Interrogatory. .

7. If the answer to either Nos. 5 or 6 is negative, describe in detail the r espects in which you do not agree and explain fully the factual and legal basis for your position.

See responses to Interrogatories 5 and 6.

8. Does workmanship in the actual design , fabrication , construction and testing of safety-related structures , systems , and components meet or exceed all applicable standards?

Yes. (GIIB) 18

--,D

9. Identify and describe in detail all standards. applicabla to the actual j design, fabrication, construction .and testing of safety-related structures, i systems, and components.

The standards applicable to the actual design , fabrication ,

construction and testing of safety-related structures , systems, and components are identified in the FSAR sections relevant to such

! structures, systems, and components. (GHB; RWO)

~

10. If the answer to No. 8 is negative, describe in detail the respects in which such workmanship does not meet or exceed all applicable standards,

. and explain fully the factual and legal basis for your answer.

t I Not applicable.

11. What are the bases fcr " cur responses to Nos. 5-10? Identify all 2

documents , physical eviA r.ce , testimony , or oral statements by any l

person and legal authority c t which you rely in support of your position. ,

The bases for the rt.t <,ases to Interrogatories 5-10 are set out in the responses to those 1r n y 1 tories. Applicants object to identifying any oral communications in r se to this Interrogatory on the grounds

> set out in response to Gener M Int e) mgatory No. 4.

12. Identify each deficiency if d c,n m i construction as defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e) and for each in u mte: ' the classification of its significance (i.e. classified und" which sissectirns 50.55(e)(i)(i - iv);

the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A Cencrd Ucsign t.rmut: to which each relates and the respects in which it reflec's noncomphme; the report

- number, and date, if any; the names, titler, addmsses, and telephone numbers of each person responsible for the oeficiency, its discovery, its reporting , and its corrective action; a detailed description of the l

deficiency and its safety implications; a detailed description of its corrective action.

13. For each activity under license by NRC or AEC conducted by Duke Power l[ Company or its contractors and subcontractors , involving any nuclear i facility or operation, including but not limited to Catawba, identify each deficiency , as defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e), which represents a significant breakdown in any portion of the Quality Assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements, of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50; identify the Appendix B criteria to which it relates; describe in detail the respects in which the deficiency reflects a noncompliance with .

the requirements of Appendix B criteria; the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria to which each relates, if any, and the' Fespects in which it reflects noncompliance; the report number and date, if any; the person names. titles , addresses and telephone numbers of each responsible for the deficiency , its discovery , its reporting, and its i

19 -

corrective action; a detailed description of the deficiency and its safety implication; a detailed description of its corrective action.

Listed below are the Significant Deficiency Reports which list deficiencies , as defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e), 'for construction at the Catawba Nuclear Station . Applicants will make the identified Significant Deficiency Reports available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection in accordance with Part lit, above. ,

Each Significant Deficiency Report includes the Report Number and its date; the facility name; identification of the deficiency; an Initial Report; the component and/or its supplier (if applicable); a description of the deficiency; an analysis of safety implications of the deficiency; and

~~

the corrective actions taken (including immediate and long-term corrective actions) .

Report No. Date 77-01 6/21/77 77-02 9/2/77 77-03 , 10/7/77 77-04 1/20/.78 78-01 8/2/78 78-02 9/19/78 79-01 7/20/79 79-02 8/20/79 79-03 9/10/79 79-04 12/13/79 -

79-05 12/26/79 79-06 1/16/80 79-07 1/16/80 -

80-01 2/1/80 80-02 2/29/80 80-03 3/7/80 80-04 4/1/80 -

80-05 4/23/80 80-06 6/2/80 80-07 7/11/80 80-08 7/17/80 80-09 7/31/80 80-10 8/11/80 z.

80-11 8/29/80 80-12 9/26/80 80-13 9/26/80 20

-- .,. t. .- , , - - , , -k

\

Report No. Date . .

81-14 7/30/81 81-15 8/3/81 81-16 '

, .8/10/81 81-17 3/13/81 ~

81-18 S/il/81 81-19 9/11/81 81-20 9/21/81 81-21 10/23/81 .

81-22 10/23/81 81-23 .

10/30/81 81-24

~

11/5/81 81-25 11/13/81 81-26 - 11/23/81 81-27 12/4/81 81-28 12/16/01 81-29 12/15/81 81-30 12/30/81 81-31 1/6/82 81-32 1/20/82 81-33 T/21/82 82-01 2/18/82 82-02 2/23/82 82-03 3/2/82 -

82-04 3/5/82 82-05 3/12/82 82-06 4/15/82 82-07 4/2/82 82-08 4/8/82 82-09 ~

4/9/82 82-10 4/29/82 82-11 5/27/82 82-12 7/16/82 82-13 7/16/82 82-14 7/23/82 82-15 8/20/82 i 82-16 9/2/82 ' .

82-17 9/3/82 82-18 10/1/82  ;

82-19 10/8/82 . l 82-20 10/8/82  ;

82-21 10/20/82

82-22 11/12/82 .'

82-23 12/8/82 82-24 12/10/82 i

3.

21 ,

w - --- - y-.mw <w -- p.-,mr - - - , - , y, w w - -m--e- --- -

Applicants object to providing information bayond thqt which c1n _be obtained from the identified Significant Deficiency Reports on several groun ds . . _

First, Applicants object to providing for each Significant Deficiency Report the specific information sought in Interroga' tories 12 and 13 which can be ascertained by Palmetto Alliance simply from an inspection of the

~

report. The burden of deriving that information from the specific reports would be substantially the- same for Palmetto Alliance as for Applicants.

The identification of the relevant Significant Deficiency Reports, and their availability for inspection by Palmetto Alliance, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants , the information sought. In Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 588, the Board ruled on an objection to a similarly broad, interrogatory , which sought to require Applicants to search through thousands of pages of company records and to provide specific information gleaned from these numeroTis documents. The Board held that to provide "such a massive volume of information. . .would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden." 1 NRC at 588. Pointing out that the records were l

(as in this instance) as equally accessible to th,e intervenor as to the f

applica. t, the Board stated that One party cannot compel another party to undertake the .

burden of preparation of the former's own case. At the most , Applicani need only make available it's, files. . . for Intervenor's inspection and copying. Id. .

The principle that the party seeking discovery cannot compel the responding party to undertake the burden of preparing the former's own case is also recognized in Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rule,s, of Civil Procedu re . See 4 A Moore'c Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115. Because the Commission's regulations are based upon and drawn 22 9 _ _

generally from the Federal Rules governing discovery, guidance may _be had in NRC proceedings from the legal authorities and court decisions construing the Federal. Rules on discovery. Pilgrim , supra, 1 NRC at 581.

Second, Applicants object to providing the specific information called for in Palmetto Alliance Interrogatories 12 and 13 beyond that listed in the Significant Deficiency Reports themselves. Applicants do not compile that information on a routine basis, and to require them to collect such information , if indeed it could be done at all, would be to cause them undue burden. See Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 584, in which the Board stated: _,

In general, it seems to be the weight of the holdings that, in the sound discretion of the court, a party may be protected against interrogatories where the answers ,would require an excessive or oppressive amount of research or compilation of data and at a great expense, although mere general objections that the interrogatories are onerous and burdensome are not sufficient. While a party must furnish in his answer to interrogatories whatever information is available to it, ordinalily it will not be required "to make research and compilation of data not readily known to him . " (Footnote omitted.)

See also 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115.

Third, Applicants object to providing any information whatsoever in response to Interrogatory 13 for Duke facilities other than Catawba.

Palmetto Alliance has requested identification of Significant Deficiency Reports "[f]or each activity under license by NIiG or AEC conducted by Duke Power Company or its contractors and subcontractors involving any nuclear facility or operation, including but not limited to Catawba." Such a request goes far beyond the scope of this contention . The Commission's rules permit discovery only of information ..or documents

" relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding," and further 23

o limit the term " subject matter" to the contentions admitted by the presiding officer. 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1); Allied-General Nuclear Services ,

et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and 6torage Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489, 491-492 (1977). The Appeal Board and Licensing Boards have consistently applied the rules in this fashion in ruling on discovery matters . See, g, Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station , Units 1

~

and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 470-471 (1974);

• Boston Edison Company ,

et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station , Unit 2), LT P-75-42, 2 NRC 159, 166-171 (1975); Pacific Gas & Electric Company dtanislaus Nuclear Project , Unit 1), LB P-78-20, 7 NRC 1038, 1040-1041 (1978); Susquehanna, supra , 12 NRC at 330. In determining _ relevance for the purpose of discovery , it is necessary to examine the issues involved. Stanislaus ,

supra at 1040. If, on examination , all or a part of the discovery sought is not relevant , then it is improper, and an objection on those grounds will properly lie . An examination of Palmetto Alliance's Contention 6, as admitted and rewritten by tlie Board, clearly shows that its subject matter is limited to construction at Catawba. Indeed, the subject of this proceeding is an operating license for Catawba.

For the reasons set forth above, Applicants. submit that to provide information beyond that already furnished in response to these Interrogatories would be to cause them annoyance, oppression , undue burder and expense. (RWO) .

14. Identify all audits conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVill which reflected deficiencies; for each indicate: the nature of the deficiency, the Appendix B criteria to which it relates and the respects in which noncompliance is reflected ; the date and other identifying information of the audit documentation; the names, titles ,

addresses and telephone numbers of each person responsible for the deficiency , the performance of the audit, the management review of the result s , and its corrective action; a detailed description of the deficiency and its safety implications; a detailed description of its corrective action.

24

Below is a listing, by number, of those departmental audits pursuant

~

to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVIII of design and construction at Catawba , which reflected deficiencies. Apylicants will make the identified audit files available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection in accordance with Part III, above.

Each audit file will include information which explains the deficiency, the Appendix B criteria #to which it relates and the respects in which noncompliance is reflected,- the date and other identifying information for the audit, and a description of the corrective action taken.

C-77-1 Receiving, Storage, Housekeeping 1/24-28/77 C-77-3 ASME and Level III QA Items 6/27-7/15/77 C-78-1 Document Control -'

1/16-25/78 C-79-2 Document Control 1/29-2/12/79 C-79-5 Mechanical Activities 5/21-31/79 C-79-6 Housekeeping and Storage 6/18-7/2/79 C-80-2 Flushing / Hydro 2/11-15/80 C-80-3 Welding Program 479-15/80 C-80-7 Civil / Electrical 10/13-20/80 C-80-9 ASME Activities 11/10-18/80

, CD-81-5(CN) Welding 3/16-20/81 CD-81-7(CN) NDE Program 5/18-26/81 CD-81-10(CN) Civil an'd Electrical Activities '

8/17-21/81 CD-81-12(CN) Storage and Coatings 10/19-22/81 CD-82-1(CN) Welding Program 1/11-22/82 CD-82-3(CN) NDE Program 3/1-4/82 CD-82-6(CN) Document Control and Records 5/3-10/82

. Facility l *CD-82-10(CN) Flush and Hydro Activities '

7/21-27/82

• CD-82-13(CN) Civil and Electrical Activities 9/14-22/82

• CD 15( CN ) Welding Program 10/25-11/3/82 E-74-1 Mechanical / Nuclear 10/29-11/5/74 E-75-1 Civil 1/6-13/75 E-75-2 Electrical '

3/17-24/75 E-75-4 Mechanical / Nuclear 9/2-10/2/75 E-76-1 Electrical - 1/5-15/76 E-76-2 CivH 2/9-13/76 E-76-4 Mechanical / Nuclear 5/10-19/76 E-76-5 Civu 6/1-4/76 E-77-2 Electrical 2/21-3/11/77 E-77-3 Mechanical / Nuclear 3/14-22/77 E-77-4 Civil and Electrical 10/3-11,/77

• Still outstanding.

25 i

J E-78-2 Drawing Control 5/22-6/14/78 _

E-78-4 Civu 9/25-28/78 E-78-5 General Services 10/9-13/78 E-78-6 Electrical 10/23-27/78 E-78-7 Mechanical _ 11/27-12/4/78 E-79-3 Civu 4/17-30/79 E-75-8 General Services and Engineering 11/12-19/79 Services E-79-9 Mechanical 12/10-17/79 E-80-2 NRC IE Bulletins -

3/5-4/2/80 79-02/79-14 E-80-3 General. Services 4/28-6/4/80 E-80-5 Genera 1 Office - Variation Notices 8/4-28/80 and Nonconforming Item Reports E-80-6 General Services - Record Storage 10/27-11/19/80 Facility E-81-1 Mechanical / Nuclear - Drawing Control 1/26-2/18/81 DE-81-2(ED) Electrical - Instructions, Proce- 4/2-10/81 dures, and Drawings DE-81-3(CD) Civil / Environmental - Calculations / 5/18-26/81 Specifications / Drawings DE-81-4(GS) General Services /Projedt Management- 6/15-7/6/81 Document Control / Training DE-81-5(MD) Mechanical / Nuclear - Design Control / 7/20-8/4/81 Calculations / Records DE-81-7(DE) ALARA Program Implementation 16/14-19/81 DE-81-8(CD) Civil / Environmental - Fire 12/8/81-1/5/82 Protection

• DE-82-1(ED) Electrical - Training; QA Program; 1/18-2/9/82 Corrective Action; QA Records; Design' Control; Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings; and Document Control

• DE-82-2(MD) Mechanical / Nuclear - Training; QA 2/24-3/9/82 Program; Corrective Action; QA

- Records; Procurement Document Control; and Handling, Storag.e,

- and Shipping -

• DE-82-3(GS)(PM) General Services / Project Management- 3/30-4/22/82 QA Program; Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings; Document .

Control; Training; Correction Action; QA Records; and Control of QA Procedures and Manuals-

• DE-82-5(CE) Civil / Environmental - Training; QA Program; Corrective Action; QA Records; Design Control; Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings; Document Control; and DEQA Manuals . , ,

• Still outstanding.

I 26 i

l t

• DE-82-6(ED) Electrical - Fire Protection; 1/27-8/5/82 -

Training; QA Program; Corrective Action; QA Records; Procurement Document Control; NCI's; and Handling, Storage, and Shipping

• DE-82-7(MD) Mechanical / Nuclear - Training; QA 8/25-9/14/82 Program; Corrective Action; QA Records; Design Control; Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings; Document Control; and DEQA Manuals

• DE-82-8(GS) General-Services - Training; ,QA 9/27-10/1/82 Program; QA Records; Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings; and Document Control

• DE-82-9(PM) Project Management - Training; QA 10/21-27/82 Program; Corrective Action; QA Records; and Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings 0-79-6 General Office Activities / Steam 5/2-16/79 Production _.

O-80-10 Steam Production / General Office 7/7-21/80 SP-81-5(CN) Document Control / Control of 4/27-5/6/81 Materials, Parts and Components /

Personnel Training .

SP-81-10(GO) Steam Production / General Office 9/21-10/7/81

• SP-81-13 GO, Oconee, McGuire, Catawba - 12/7/81-1/5/82 Crisis Management and Station Emergency Plans

• SP-82-3(CN) Administrative and Maintenance 3/1-8/82 Activities .

1974 Level III Audit 12/9-11/74 1975 Level III Audit 11/10-11/75 1976 Level III Audit 11/15-19/76 1977 Level III Audit 10/24-29/77

~

1978 Corporate Audit 10/2-6/78 1979 Corporate Audit -

10/8-12/79 l 1980 Corporate Audit 10/6-10/80 1981 Corporate Audit 10/26-30/81

• 1982 Corporate Audit 10/18-22/82,

• Still outstanding. -

Applicants object to providing the individual specification of information called for with respect to each such audit called for in this Interrogatory . The mejor part of the information sought by Palmetto Alliance , outlined above, is available in each audit file. The > burden of deriving this information from the audit files would be substantially the same for Palmetto Alliance as for Applicants. The identification of the 27

relevant QA audits , and their availability for inspect' ion by Palmetto Alliance, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and identifyt as readily as can Applicants , the information sought.

In Pilgrim, supra , the Board ruled in regard, to a similarly broad interrogatory (which sought to require Applicants to search through thousands of pages of Co pany records and to compile specific information gleaned from these numerous documents) that to provide "such a massive volume of information . . . would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden." 1 NRC at 588. Pointing out that the records were (as in this instance) as equally accessible to the Intervenor as to the Applicant, the Board stated that:

one party cannot compel another party to undertake the burden of preparation of the former's own case. At the most , Applicant need only make available its files. . . for Intervenor's inspection and copying. I_d .

The principle that the party seeking discovery cannot compel the responding party to undertake the burden of preparing the former's own case is also recognized in Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil

~

Procedure . See 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115. Because the Commission's regulations are based upon and dr awn generally from the Federal Rules governing discovery, guidance may be ,

had in NRC proceedings from the legal authorities and court decisions construing the Federal Rules on discovery, Pilgrin(, supra,1 NRC at 581.

To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks information with respect to audits of the design and construction of Duke facilities other than Catawba, Applicants object on the same grounds as set. . forth in its objection to Interrogatory 13 above to providing any information whatsoever in response to this Interrogatory for Duke facilities other than 28

Catawba. An examination of Palmetto Alliance's Contentio'n 6, as admitted and rewritten by the Board, clearly shows that its subject matter deals with construction at Catawba. Indeed, the subject of this proceeding is an operating license for Catawba . Thus, audits conducted during construction of other Duke facilities are not relevant to the subject matter of the contention, nor would their disclosure be reasonably calculated to

~

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, in view of the large number of audits ~ at those other facilities , compilation and identification would impose on Applicants a substantial burden. For the reasons set forth above, for Applicants to supply such information would cause them annoyance, oppression , undue burden and expense. (GHB)

15. Describe in detail each review of Duke Power Company's and Westinghouse's Quality Assurance program by the AEC/NRC Regulatory Staff, including but not limited to, those reviews referred to at pp.17-1 through 17-13 of the " Safety Evaluation of the Catawba Nuclear Station Unit Nos. I and 2", Supplement No. 1: January 21, 1974; for each indicate the deficiencies found , the adjustments, modifications, and improvements resulting or otherwise made; the Duke Power Company and Westinghouse position and responses; the names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers of each person involved. and a description of the involvement of each.

Applicants believe that this Interrogatory is directed to the NRC Staff, as it is the AEC/NRC Staff which has conducted each such review.

Applicants will make available for inspection by Palmetto Alliar.ce

" Duke A ," Duke Power Company's Topical Report on its Quality Assurance Program.

Applicants object to providing any additional-information in response to this Interrogatory. Applicants have no discrete set of records relating to the numerous reviews of their QA Program by the NRC Staff and the numerous revisions to their program. Moreover, Applicants. do,not have, except perhaps by chance, any records relating to any review by the NRC Staff of Westinghouse's Quality Assurance Program. To require 29

Applicants to compile the information requested in th'is Interrogatory would be to cause them undue burden. As has been noted by the Board in Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC at 584: -

In general, it seems to be the weight of the holdings that, in the sound discretion of the court, a party may be protected against interrogatories where the answers would require an excessive or oppressive amount of research or compilation of data and at a great expense, although mere general objections that the interrogatories are onerous and burdensome are not sufficient. While a paity must furnish in his answer to interrogatories whatever information is available to it, ordina~rily it will not be required "to make research and compilation of data not readily known to him." (Footnote omitted.)

See also 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115.

In light of the guidance provided by Pilgrim, Applicants submit that to require them to locate and compile the specific data requested herein, which is not "readily known" to Applicants , would s.ubject them to annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense.

16. Describe in detail the selection, training, testing and evaluation program for Quality Control Inspectors at the Catawba Station from the commencement of construction until the present.

Applicants will make available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection in accordance with Part III, above, a copy of Duke Power Company's procedure , " Quality Control Inspector Training (QA-140)" together with copies of all its revisions . That procedure, with its revisions , will completely describe the training, testing and evaluation of the QC Inspectors at Catawba from commencement of construction until the present. Applicants submit that the identification of this procedure, and its availability for inspection and copying by Intervenor, provides l

sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and iden tify , as readily as can Applicants , the information souhht. See 30

Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 588, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(o).

(GHB)

17. Describe the job qualifications required of persons who are responsible for training, testing , certifying and supervising Quality Control Inspectors.

Position analyses for those persons responsible for training, testing, certifying and supervising Quality Control Inspectors will be made

~

available in accordance with Part III, above. Applicants submit that the identification of these pbsition analyses , and their availability for inspection and copying by Intervenor, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants , the information sought. See. Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 588, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c). (GHB)

18. Does Duke Power Company have a program which insures the integrity of the testing for Quality Control inspector certification? If'so, describe in detail.

The Duke Power Company program for the certification of Quality Control Inspectors includes' testing by the Level III Examiner. The Level III Examiner determines the type test used, and reviews and approves such tests. The testing is described in Duke's procedure, " Quality Control Inspector Training" identified in response to Interrogatory 16.

Applicants submit that the identification of this procedure, and its availability for inspection and copying by Intervenor, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants , the information sought. See Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 588, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c). (GHB)

19. What prior nuclear experience is required of Quality Control Field l Engincers , Supervisor Technicians , or other persons responsible for I supervising Quality Control Inspectors?

No prior nuclear experience is required. (GHB)

, 31 g _ _ - _,

20. Describe in detail the circumstances and procedures, if ahy, under which Quality Control inspection criteria may be waived.

Quality Control criteria are not waived. (GHB)

21. Identify in detail, incl ding date, number, subject, and results all NRC Regulatory Staff inspection reports regarding the facility and correspondence by and between the Regulatory Staff and Duke Power Company regarding such inspections and any corrective action.

Listed below are the Inspection Reports for the Catawba Nuclear Station . A copy of those Inspection Reports, 'as well as correspondence regarding any corrective" action, will be made available to Palmetto for inspection in accordance with Part III, above. The Alliance Inspection Reports, and related correspondence, contain the information sought in this Interrogatory. _.

Inspection Report No. Date 413-414/73-01 4/27/73 .

413/73-02 6/6/73 413/73-03 9/21/73 414/73-02 413/73-04 1/4/74 413/74,01 7/10/74 414/74-01 .8/12/74 413/74-02 413-414/75-01 3/5/75 413-414/75-02 8/22/75 413-414/75-03 8/25/75 413-414/75-04 10/20/75 413-414/75-05 11/10/75 -

413-414/75-0G 12/12/75 413-414/76-01 2/25/76 413-414/76-02 4/16/76 -

413-414/76-03 8/4/76 413-414/76-04 8/11/76 413-414/76-05 11/5/76 413-414/76-06 11/29/76 413-414/76-07 1/5/77 413-414/77-01 2/2/77 413-414/77-02 4/7/77 413-414/77-03 4/27/77 413-414/77-04 5/18/77 413-414/77-05 5/27/77 ,.

413-414/77-06 6/21/77 413-414/77-07 7/28/77 413-414/77-08 12/29/77 32

Inspection Report 'No. -

• Date -

, 413-414/77-09 9/21/77 10/4/77 413-414/77-10 413-414/77-11 -

11/17/77 413-414/77-12 11/17/77

' 413-414/77-13 1/9/78 413-414/77-14 1/18/78 413-414/77-15 1/12/78 413-414/78-01 2/24/78 413-414/78-02 4/3/78

413-414/7_8-03 4/10/78 413-414/78-04 6/9/78 413-414/78-05 7/21/78 413/78-D6 6/29/78 414/78-06 9/12/78 413/78-07 414/78-07 9/21/78 413/78-08 414/78-08 9/28/78 413/78-09 _.

1 414/78-09 9/29/78 413/78-10 414/78-10 11/30/78 413/78-11 .

414/78-11 12/1/78 413/78-12 -

, 413-414/79-01 2/15/79 413-414/79-02 5/7/79

413-414/79-03 5/8/79 413-414/79-04 5/22/79 413-414/79-05 4/13/79 413-414/79-06 5/2/79 413-414/79-07 5/10/79

! 413-414/79-08 5/17/79 413-414/79-09 5/24/79 413-414/79-10 7/3/79 413-414/79-11 7/6/79 -

413-414/79-12 10/16/79 413-414/79-13 7/20/79 413-414/79-14 8/16/79 -

413-414/79-15 9/4/79 413-414/79-16 8/23/.79 413-414/79-17 9/6/79 413-414/79-18 10/25/79 413-414/79-19 11/8/79 413-414/79-20 11/30/79 413-414/79-21 12/12/79 413-414/79-22 12/12/79 413-414/79-23 1/18/80 .

413-414/80-01 2/4/80 t

413-414/80-02 3/12/80 413-414/80-03 3/10/80 ,

33

Inspection Report No. Date , .

413-414/80-03 3/10/80 413-414/80-04 4/3/80 413-414/,80-05 . 5/5/80 413-414/80-06 4/2(/80 413-414/80-07 5/20/80 413-414/80-08 6/30/80 413-414/80-09 7/18/$0 413-414/80-10 6/23/80 413-414/80-11 7/15/80 413-414/80-12 6/25/80 413-414/80-13 7/23/80 413-414/80-14 8/1/80 413-414/80-15 7/25/80 413-414/80-16 8/15/80 4'3-414/80-17 8/29/80 413-414/80-18 9/4/80 413-414/80-19 9/10/80 413-414/80-20 8/25/80 l 413-414/80-21 -'

9/11/80 413-414/80-22 9/10/80 413-414/80-23 9/26/80 413-414/80-24 10/8/80 413-414/80-25 10/1/80 -

413-414/80-26 10/10/80 413-414/80-27 10/27/80 413-414/80-28 10/28/80 413-414/80-29 11/20/80 413-414/80-30 2/4/81 413-414/80-31 11/5/80 413-414/80-32 11/20/80 413-414/80-33 12/10/80 413-414/80-34 12/2/80 413-414/80-35 12/22/80

. 413-414/80-36 1/21/81 413-414/80-37 2/4/81

. 413-414/80-38 1/30/81 .

413-414/81-01 4/6/81 413-414/81-02 a/10/81 413-414/81-03 3/18/81 .

413-414/81-04 3/27/81

413-414/81-05 4/10/81 l 413-414/81-06 4/8/81 413-414/81-07 5/8/81 413-414/81-08 5/20/81 413-414/81-09 6/10/81 413-414/81-10 6/24/81 413-414/81-11 6/15/81 413-414/81-12 7/8/81 ~"

413-414/81-13 7/10/81 413-414/81-14 7/20/81 413-414/81-15 7/24/81 413-414/81-16 7/30/81 34

Inspection Report No. Date -

413-414/81-17 8/13/81 413-414/81-18 8/28/81 413-414/81-19 -

9/30/81 413-414/81-20 10/14/81 413-414/81-21 10/30/81 413-414/81-22 10/26/81 413-414/81-23 11/5/81 413-414/81-24 11/12/81 413-414/81-25 12/10/81 413-414/81-26 12/1/81 413-414/81-27 12/10/81 413-414/81-28 1/18/82 413-414/82-D1 3/18/82 413-414/82-02 2/3/82 413-414/82-03 2/19/82 l 413-414/82-05 3/18/82 413-414/82-06 3/19/82 413-414/82-07 4/13/82 ,

413/82-08 _. 4/22/82 413/82-09 5/6/82 413/82-10 5/1482 414/82-04 413/92-11 5/11/82 .

414/82-09 413/82-12 6/16/82

• 414/82-08 413/82-13 6/11/82 414/82,10 i

413/82-14 .7/8/82 414/82-11 413/82-15 7/8/82 414/82-12 413/82-16 7/12/82 414/82-14 413/82-17 7/22/B2 414/82-15 -

413/82-18 8/9/82 414/82-16 413/82-19 8/10/82 -

414/82-17 ,

413/82-20 8/26/82 414/82-18 -

413/82-21 9/30/82 414/82-19 413/82-22 9/13/82 414/82-20 413/82-23 10/19/82 414/82-21 ,.

413/82-24 9/29/82 414/82-22 413/82-25 10/15/82 414/82-83 35 i

Inspection Report No._ Date .

413/82-26 10/21/82 414/82-24 413/82-27 -

11/19/82 414/82-25 413/82-28 11/15/82 414/82-26 413/82-29 12/7/82-414/82-27 413/82-30 12/6/82 414/8.2-28 Applicants object to providing any additio6a1 information in response to this Interrogatory befond identifying the Inspection Reports and making them available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection. The specific information sought by Palmetto Alliance with respect to each Inspection Report can be ascertained by Palmetto. Alliance from the Inspection Reports themselves. The burden of deriving that information from each l

Inspection Report would be substantially the same for Pahoetto Alliance as for Applicants. The identification of the relevant Inspection Reports, and their availability for inspection by Palmetto Alliance, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it. tc locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants, the information sought.

In Pilgrim , supra , the Board ruled in regard to a similarly broad interrogatory (which sought to require Applicants to search through thousands of pages of Company records and to compile specific information gleaned from these numerous documents) that to provide "such a massive volume of information . would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden." 1 NRC at 588. Pointing out that the records were (as in this instance) as equally accessible to the Intervenor as to the Applicant, the Board stated that:

one party cannot compel another party to undertake th'e burden of preparation of the former's own case. At the most , Applicant need only make available its files . . . for Intervenor's inspection and copying. Id.

36 f

The principle that the party seeking discovery cdnnot compel the responding party to undertake the burden of preparing the former's own case is also recognized in Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115. Because the Commission's regulations are based upon and drawn gencrally from the Federal Rules governing discovery, guidance may be had in NRC proceedings from the legal autho'rities and court decisions construing the Federal Rtiles on discovery. Pilgrim, gupra, 1 NRC at 581. (RWO)

22. Provide the names, titles , addresses, phone numbers and date of employment for all persons employed at the facility in or responsible for, the Quality Assurance and Quality Cortt.rol programs. For each such person no longer employed in Quality Assurance / Quality Control, indicate the reason for termination. For ,each such person involuntarily terminated, describe in detail the circumstances of termination.

Applicants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds, first, that it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the ' contention, and second, that disclosurg of the information sought woul[1 violate Duke Power Company policy and subject employees, 'or former employees, of the Company to embarrassment as well as ~ harassment by Palmetto Alliance.

Moreover, disclosure of some of the information sought could have the

~

potential of subjecting Applicants to civil litigation. -

As noted above, pp. 23-24, , supra , Interrogatories must seek information relevant to the subject matter of the contention . An examination of Palmetto Alliance's Contention 6, as rewritten and admitted by the Licensing Board, shows that the Board has changed its original thrust. which appeared to focus in large measure on Applicants' QA program . As admitted , Contention 6 is now concerned with.the specific instances of faulty construction alleged by Palmetto Alliance, and whether those specific instances conpitute " systematic deficiencies in plant 37 e

't

j construction" and a manifestation of " company pressure tb. approve faulty j workmanship . " Consequently , the subject matter. of this contention is

] limited to such instances alleged by. Palmetto Alliance. An examination of 4

Intervenor's pleadings leads to the conclusion that the alleged experiences of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee serve as the basis for such concern.

, See pp. 4-5, supra. Accordingly , Applicants view the contention as

~

~

being limited to th'e concerns of such individuals".

i In this Interrogatory -Palmetto Alliance has made a general request for the " names, titles, addresses, telephone numbers, etc. of "all persons

, employed at the facility in or responsible for, the Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs . " In addition, Palmetto Alliance has also demanded for "each person so identified no longer employed in Quality Assurance / Quality Control" an explanation of the reason for termination of l

the employment and, for "each such person involuntarily terminated" a detailed description of the circumstances under which the employment was

~

terminated. .

j In Applicants' view , this request goes far ' beyond the scope of Contention 6, as admitted by the Board and expressed in the concerns of McAfee and Hoopingarner. Thus, Applicants object, on the grounds of relevance, to providing the sought information.

Moreover, even leaving aside the fact that such requests can only be construed as 'a classic " fishing expedition" (clearly prohibited by the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR Part 2, App. A, IV (a)) to disclose such information to Palmetto Alliance would be to invade the privacy of Applicants' employees and former employees , subject them to embarrassmen t , and expose them to the potential for liarks'sment by Palmetto Alliance. The only reason that Applicants can see that Palmetto Alliance would want such information is so that it can contact Applicants' 38 f

q

- , ., ,s s

\ .

f )'

u _. . . .& .n .. ]

r - .. g-w-

r

. 9a ,"

employees, &former, employee %' s. Certainly, Palmetta A.llishce ha.w aiade .no ,

'% 1,,

^

/ '

, 'h , 3., e n,1yneeds' showing',as to , why, 'to '

pursue

\ '^f jts litigation

! 's , in th,is;{proceedm.

/ /' '"s:

the inforreatiqn sought. .

. p. -

, a

,}g,,f-

,\q Therefore, in. addition ' to . ,their objection on ,the grounds of 't a "h -  % ,;4 .'/ -

, 4 ,,

'6 relevance. isyertea-63ove, Apcibsyts. object to . disclosing' the sought A ',;

. / 4 ./ w information' s. o3

,- thq gronrds

. - ~ c. the p iss t contrrry to Duk;. Power Comp,any

, , s J ~ ~ . .

policy ;to disclose ".to .bn. ;fone emplo!)eM', or former ehiployees', names, -

, . ,;, y e:L

• *~

• addresses andfor ;tlephone numbers., This is beca6se Duke believes that  :

4 ,

, ,?*.,n  : .-

it '!s f ncumfient i on ir to protect the privacy of such individuals . ' ,

, t . #

Sensitive application of this policy is particularly important in a situation,f sy' #

where the identity of weh  ;;

an irdiv(dual.is e . , -

sought in connection with 1y[',oe 7, -

tdtniination-'of emplo!3 tent, whether it

- '/g, a '

be from a particular depa;;tment ~.

I e r; # e o

.withm f/,he Company or from the Company itself. In that,situayon.i Duke d,<

s

.i . -st.e. -

Q - ,, , . s ,v, ..

believes "that th,GwettCIP ,s between the individual and the Company. n -

, li ,

r ,

t w Duke'q '

priniu'y,6tscern is that the privacy of the individual is pr;ctected7

, .f . / t >

so' th#luch 'p'erson will not be subjected to embarrassment. Moreover, ' "

.,s, 3; --

disclo'sure of s'ath info ati.o. n by. Ap'plicants could well subjeci' Duke Power. ..

Ccmp'a'rIn to civil lit 4ation from employees or former emQ.oyees j .-

whose privacy' has been invaded, or / whose '

existirg jobs havc been

. e 'A -

compromised @Csuch dpclosure'.

i Concerns ' such $s ' these have specifically been held 't'o .be valid -

grounds for objection '

. See Blinois Power Co. ,' et al. (Clinton Power

. . t

' r ,' .

Station , Unit 1), LB P-81-61, 14 NRC 1735, 1740 (1981), wn'erein- the , k

.. ., y "

I Licepsing, Board stated that: g.,[

.- n .

s Personnel files, , including,information as to the reasons for s l ter:mination , rd held in ecqfideuge by . employers. T h,e, , ,

, information i;sy sensitive , in thd e its., disclosure may. be f

. /' regarded as aX ' undue t.p d actionable invasion of the f ', privacy of;,thE'p'erson involv'ed The' information can be obrMned ,in t.5 proceeding unde.t a protective order if it

~

,/ ,

7 ,

/, , e'f N j

1 -

J .V ls.r '

i .

) .:

. is shown to be relevant to the contention.

This showing -

S

• has not been made. -Id.

s 7

Similar rulings have been made in the federal courts. See, i.e. , Allen v.

g .

Colg' ate-Palmolive Co. , 539 F. Supp. 57, 70-71 (S.D.N. Y. 1981) wherein

/ .

'the Court was faced with plaintiff's demand "for all appraisal reports and other personnel records concerning 57 of Colgate's former and present

' : employees specified by name . . .

Defendants claimed that:

4 : .' .

/~ "The request is unduly burdensome; is designed to help plaintiff recruit 'op t-in ' plaintiffs; would invade the privacy of the 57 individuals named; and is not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action

." I_d .

The Court ruled:

V

. " Relevance is self-evident with respict.to persons similarly situated to plaintiff, but with respect to the remaining persons, a balancing of interests requires that plaintiff make a greater showing of relevance and need before Colgate is required to produce all of the files requested."

-Id.

Therefore , Applicants request this Board to issue an order which protects Applicants against disclosure of the name, address , telephone number, date of employment, termination of employment (if applicable),

and description of the reason for such termination of employment (if

. applicable) for any "nerson employed at the facility in or responsible for, l

l l the Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs." In the alternative, should the Board determine that some or all of the information requested should be disclosed to Palmetto Alliance, then Applicants move this Board to issue an order which conditions such disclosure on an agreement, i

i reflected in an appropriate affidavit of nondisclosure, by Palmetto Alliance l that (1) the information released will not be disclosed to any person other than counsel for Palmetto Alliance and (2) Palmetto Alliance will not contact any identified employee or former employee.

40

Applicants maintain that the objections listed abovs are appropriate and should be upheld. To require Applicants to provide any information beyond the response. to the Interrogatory .would cause Applicants annoyance, embarrassment, oppression , and/or undue burden and expense.

23. Identify in detail all documents , including correspondence, reports ,

minutes of meetings _or notes of oral conversations , reflecting disagreements, disputes or differences of opinibn between Quality Control Inspectors and their supervisors or Duke Power Company management.

Include the subject, date, names of persons involved and resolution for each instance so reflected.

25. Identify any complaints or suggestions by workers known to Duke Power Company regarding substandard workmanship and significant deficiencies in plant design and construction or pressure to perform or approve faulty workmanship. Include the date, n a m e.,. title, address and telephone number of the source, subject and resolution or other action taken for each.

Listed below are documents in Applicants' posses;sion or control which are within the scope of Interrogatory 23; that is, these documents are NCI Reports , Technical Recourse Reports , or task force reports which may reflect a dispute between Quality . Control Inspectors and their supervisors or Duke management. In addition, certain documents within the scope of Interrogatory 25 are also listed . That is, they identify documents which may reflect complaints or suggestions by workers known to Duke regarding the matters listed in Interrogatory 25. Applicants will make the identified documents available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection in accordance with Part III abom.

Applicants do not now represent that this list is complete.

Applicants are continuing their search to determine whether there are l additional documents within the scope of Interrogatories 23 and 25. If l ~

so, these additional documents will be identified to Palmetto Alliance, and i

l I

41

will be made available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection in accordahce with Part III, above. -

Documents ' ~

NCI 13627 NCI 14075 NCI 14137 ~

NCI 14441 Technical Recourse Procedure relating to NCI 14816 Catawba Welding Inspector Task Force Report Exit Interview - 2/19/81 Exit Interview - 9/24/81 Exit Interview - 3/7/80 Applicants submit that the identification of these documents, and their availability for inspection by Palmetto Alliance, provides sufficient soecificity for the Intervenor to permit. it to locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants, the information sought herein. Accordingly, this satisfies Applicants' responsibilities pursuant to Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 588, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c).. See 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115. (GHB)

24. Does Duke Power Company have a policy - or program to encourage complaints or suggestions by workers regarding substandard workmanship and significant deficiencies in plant design and construction? If so, describe in detail.

Yes. Duke's procedure is entitled " Resolution of Technical Matters Involving Differences of Opinion." Applicants will make~ that procedure

available for inspection by Palmetto Alliance in accordance with Part III, above. Applicants submit that the identification of this procedure, and its availability for inspection by Palmetto Alliarice, provides sufficient specificity for the Intervenor to permit it to locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants , the information sought herein. Accordingly ,

this satisfies Applicants' responsibilities pursuant to Pilgrim , supra ,

1 NRC at 588 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c). See 4A Moore's Feoeral Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115. (GHB) l 42

26. Describe in detail the basis for the "below average" ra' ting for Catawba by the NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Review Group (SALP) for the evaluation period 9/1/79-8/31/80 as reflected in Nt %.u-0834. What specific evidence of " weaknesses in the areas of quality assurance, including management and training" was found, how, by whom, and what corrective action has been taken?

In Applicants' view , this Interrogatory is addressed to the NRC Staff. It is the NRC Staff that performed the -SALP evaluation and published NUREG-0834._ It is the NRC Staff that found what it considered to be " weaknesses in the areas of quality assurance, including management and training", that knows how and by whom such was found, and that can describe in detail its basis for the "below average" rating for Catawba. Moreover, the NRC Staff will know what corrective action has been taken by Applicants in response'to the SALP.

In addition , Applicants object to providing a response to this

~

Interrogatory on the grounds that the discrete information sought herein is not readily available to Applicants, and for them to attempt to locate such information would cause undue burden. (This is particularly the case in light of the fact that the Staff is the proper party to answer questions on this subject.) As has been noted in Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC

- at 584:

In general, it seems to be the weight of the holdings- that, in the sound discretion of the court, a party may be protected against interrogatories where the answers would require an excessive or oppressive amount of research or -

compilation of data and at a great expense,,although mere general objections that the interrogatories are onerous and burdensome are not sufficient. While a party must f'irnish in his answer to interrogatories whatever information is available to it, ordinarily it will not be required "to make research and compilation of data not readily known to him . " (Footnote omitted. )

See also 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp . 33 .99,.- 33-115.

27. What are the bases for your responses to Nos. 16-26? Identify all documen ts , physical evidence , testimony , or oral statements by any person and legal authority on which you rely in support of your position.

43

The bases for the responses to Interrogatories 16-26 are sat out _in the responses to those Interrogatories. Applicant.s object to identifying any oral communication in response .to this Interrogatory on the grounds given in response to General Interrogatory No. 4.

Contention 7

1. Do you agree that a consistent failure by Duke Power Company to adhere to required NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in Commission rules and regulations impugns the ass.urance that the facility can be operated without endangering the public health and safety and bars issuance of the licenses sought in this proceeding?

Applicants object on several grounds to responding to this Interrogatory . First, it does not seek disclosure by Applicants of factual matters within their knowledge and control. For Applicants to respond to this Interrogatory would require an identification of the precise "NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in Comraission regulations" to which Palmetto Alliance refers in this question; knowledge of the nature of Duke's " consistent failure" to' meet those procedures; and an analysis of the potential effects on the public health and safety of the This is so, specific failure to comply with the specific procedures.

because whether or not a particular failure 'to follow a particular procedure might have an adverse effect on the public health and safety requires an analysis of the precise procedure and of the failure to determine its effect. .'

f Applicants do not know which NRC " operating and administrative procedures" Palmetto Alliance has in mind . While the language of Contention 7 clearly suggests that certain procedures have not been has failed to specify one single NRC complied with , Intervenor Nor, as requirement which has allegedly been violated by Applicants.

44 1

noted above (pp. 7-8), do Palmetto Alliance's April 28 Responses- to Applicants' Interrogatories on Contention 7 mention any specific operating and administrative procedures to which Duke has failed to adhere. On the contrary, Palmetto Alliance stated in these Rcsponses that it " lacks sufficient knowledge" to answer any inquiries on such procedures. (See Palmetto Alliance's Answers to Applicants' interrogatories 1-20, April 28 Responses at pp.17-19)I Applicants have similarly been unable to determine exactly how or why Palmetto Alliance contends that Duke has " consistently failed" to adhere to these NRC procedures. Here again, while Contention 7 clearly allages that Applicants have " consistently failed" to comply with NRC requirements , and that they currently remain in non-compliance, Palmetto Alliance asserts in its April 28 Responses (the only 9ther source of information on this contention) that it " lacks sufficient knowledge" to specify which requirements have not been met or what activities have purportedly failed to satisfy such requirements. (See Palmetto Alliance's answers to Interrogatories 25 and 27; April 28 Responses at pp.19-20.)

Applicants accordingly submit that this Interrogatory attempts to elicit answers regarding facts which are not in Applicants'_ possession or knowledge. The Appeal Board has explicitly held that "[i]n responding to discovery requests, a party is not required to engage in extensive independent research. It need only reveal information in its possession or control. Susquehanna, supra, 12 NRC at 334.

Even if Applicants were in possession of the facts necessary to t respond to this Interrogatory , Applicants further object to so doing because to provide an answer would require them to analyze the potential effects upon public health and safety of each alleged failure to comply

~

45

with a particular NRC procedure. To perform such ah. analysis would 1 constitute an undue burden on Applicants. See Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC at 584, wherein the Board held that- while "a party must furnish in his answers to interrogatories whatever information is available to it, ordinarily it will not be required 'to make research and compilation of data not readily known to it.'"

Third , Applicants 75fect to that part of this Interrogatory which inquires whether the alleged " consistent failure" on the part of the Applicants " bars issuance" of operating licenses. In Applicants' view, this seeks only a legal conclusion from Applicants , rather than an application of the facts of the case to, applicable NRC requirements.

Thus, Applicants object on the same grounds set forth in its objection to Interrogatory 1 on Contention 6. (See pp. 14-15, supra. ).

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Applicants object to responding to this Interrogatory.

2. If your response to No. 1 is negative, explain in detail the respects in which you do not agree.

See response to Interrogatory 1.

. 3. Do you agree that Duke Power Company has consistently failed to adhere to required NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in Commission rules and regulations, and that, therefore, no reasonable assurance can be had that the facility can be operated without endangering the public health and safety?

\

No. Duke Power Company has not " consistently failed to adhere to

~

required NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in l

i Commission rules and regulations . " This is evidenced by the fact that the NRC rated operation at Oconee "above average" in its 1981 and 1982 SALP Reports and rated operation at McGuire "above averag.e" in its 1982 SALP Report. NUREG 0834, NRC Licensee Assessments, August 1981, p.

A-3; SALP Report For Duke Power Co. , October,1982 pp. 4, 5. (RWO) 46

(

4. If your response to No. 3 is negative, explain in detail the rcsp: cts _in which you do not agree.

See response to Interrogatory 3.

~

5. What are the bases for your responses to Nos. 1-4? Identify all documents , testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

The bases for the responses to Interrogatories 1-4 are set out in the responses to those Interrogatories. Applicants object to identifying any oral communication in response to this Interrogatory on the grounds given in response to General Interrogatory 4.

6. Describe in detail Duke Power Company policy, program and procedures, if any, for assuring adherence to NRC operating and administrative procedures, rules and regulations.

The policies , pt ograms and proceifures of Duke Power Company which are designed to assure adherence to NRC rules, regulations and guidelines are contained in several different documents. ' Duke's Nuclear Safety policy is contained in the Policy Statements manual, corporate Policy Number 104. The main documents outlining Duke's compliance with NRC rules and regulations are the FSAR and the ER. Compliance with Regulatory Guides , compliance with Cades and Code cases, Inservice

- Inspections, conformation with General Derign Criteria, ALARA policy and

( design considerations . the Health Physics program, Training Program ,

l l

Station Procedures, Emergency Planning, Industrial Security , the Test l

Program, Technical Specifications, the Q . A . program , the Environmental

(

p rogra.a , and the Monitoring program are all included or referenced in the FSAR and ER.

l Duke's " Administrative Policy Manual for Nuclear Stations" defines l

l fundamental administrative policies for the conduct of operation,s, at Duke Power Company nuclear stations . The purposes of these policies are:

i l

l 47 -

(a) To assure that operations are conducted in such .a minn::r so as not to endanger the health and safety of .the public.

(b) To assure that operations .are conducted _ in such a manner as to comply with all license and regulatory requirements.

(c) Te assure that operc* ions are conducted 'in such a manner that the str. tion is capable of fulfilling its intended function.

(d) To assure that operations at all nuclear stations are conducted

~

in a consistent manner in order that management may achieve proper and efficient quality assurance.

The contents of this manual are intended to outline the basic conditions necessary to assure quality in the operation of Duke Power Company nuclear stations . The objectives and methods as stated therein are in agreement with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B, " Quality Arsurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants . " The manual incorporates, directly or by reference, applicable provisions of various Nd' clear Regulatory , Commission doctments and industry codes and standards, and also incorporates by reference the provisions of other (satellite) Department documents. Appendi:: C to the manual identifies such source / reference documents.,

Each operating station has a " Station Directives Manual," which is the station implementation of the policies set out in the Administrative Policy Manual. Station Directives are statiori, approved policies or procedures which implement the requirements of the station operating license or other company, department and general requirements. (RWO)

7. Describe in detail any Duke Power Company personnel training, selection, performance evaluation or disciplinary procedures employed to assure adherence to NRC operating and administrative procedurss, Yules and regula tions .

48

The training program is as described in' FSAR Section 13.2. T-he selection of station personnel is as cuttined in FSAR Section 13.1.3.

A performance evaluation is given to each employee to " stimulate individual growth and maximum contribution. . " and is to be used "as a tool in determining an equitable compensation adjustment" (from DPC Management Procedures - Procedure Number 8906-0003). The evaluation program is set up in order to identify ' specific employee work responsibilities, goals and doncerns.

Disciplinary Procedures are as outlined in the DPC Management Procedures Manual - Procedure 8901-0016. (RWO)

8. What are the bases for your responses to Nos. 5-7? Identify all documents , testimony , or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

The bases for the responses to Interrogatories 5-7 ar_e set out in the responses to those Interrogatories. Applicants object to identifying any oral communication in response to this Interrogatory on the grounds given in response to General Interrogatory 4. .

9. Do you agree that Duke Power Company has been responsible for a history of repetitive and chronic non-compliance with NRC rules and regulations and a failure to institute effective corrective action and management controls with respect to such non-compliance?

~

No. Duke Power Company has not "been responsible-for a history of repetitive and chronic non-compliance with NRC rules and regulations and a failure to institute effective corrective action and management controls with respect to such non-compliance." Evidence of this is the fact that the NRC rated operation at Oconee "above average" in its 1981 and 1982 l SALP Reports and rated operation at McGuire "above average" in its 1982 SALP Report . NUREG - 834, NRC Licensee Assessments , .. Aug.ust 1981, A-3; SALP Report For Duke Power Co. , October , 1982, pp. 4, 5.

p.

(RWO) 49 l

10. If your response to No. 8 is negative, explain in detail' the respects -in which you do not agree.

See response to Interrogatory 9.

11. Describe in detail each instance of Duke Power Ccmpany non-compliance with NRC operating and adminirtrative procedures provided for in Commission rules and regulations.

12. Describe in detail the corrective actions and management controls instituted by Duke Power Company with respect to each instance of non-compliance referred to-in response to No.11.

13. Were the corrective actions and management controls referred to in response to No.12 effective?

14. If your response to No. 13 is negative, explain the respects in which they were not effective.

Any noncompliance "with NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in Commission Fules and regulations" and the

" corrective actions and management controls instituted . . . with respect to each instance of non-compliance" at a Duke op3 rating" plant would be reflected in at least one of four documents: an Incident Report, a Reportable Occurrence Rep.grt, a Quality Assurance audit, or an NRC IE Inspection Report.

Incident Reports normally include documentation of deviations from the requirements set out in the Technical Specifications for a particular station The licensee conducts a preliminary investigation- of the incident to determine (in accordance with applicable provisions in the Technical Specifications) whether the incident constitutes classification as a Reportable Occurrence, which must be reported to the NRC. Duke's Quality Assurance Program requires , amcng other th_ngs , a periodic review to verify that operation and administration are consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. Any noncompliance detected _would be set out in the applicable QA audit.

50

The NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement conducts periodic inspections of operating plants . The results . of such inspections, including noncompliance. vith applicable requirements, m are reported in the NRC'.s Inspection heports.

Since Oconee began operation, there have been 1203 Incident Reports and 610 Reportable Occurrences. There have been 27 QA Operation and Administration audits whIch identified deficiencies. There have been 336 NRC Inspection Reports, in which there were 324 violations identified.

The total number of documents for Oconee which identify deficiencies is in excess of 2100. Since McGuire 1 began operation, there have been 298 Incident Reports and 226 Reportable Oc_currences. There have been 15 QA Operation and Administration audits which identified deficiencies .

There have been 93 NRC Inspection Reports , in which, there were 41 violations identified. The total number of documents for McGuire 1 which identify deficiencies is in excess of 630. The total number for both stations is more than 2700.' .

Palmetto Alliance has asked Applicants to "[d]escribe in detail each instance" of Duke " noncompliance with NRC operating and administrative t -

procedures provided for in Commission rules and regulations" l (Interrogatory 11) and to "[d]escribe in detail the corrective actions and management controls instituted by Duke Power Company with respect to each instance of noncompliance referred to in . response to No. 11" (Interrogatory 12). Moreover , Palmetto Alliance has asked whether each of the " corrective ac tions and management controls" so identified were

" effective , " (Interrogatory 13) and, if the response as to the

~

effectiveness of any such " corrective action and management' ' control" is 51

" negative ," to explain the " resp: cts" in which they wers not effcctiva (Interrogatory 14).

Even though interrogatories designed to force production of g documents related to a particular subject are not favored (Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station , Units 1 and 2), AL'AB-340, 4 NRC 27, 34 (1975)), Applicants will make available in accordance with Part III,

~

above, for inspection didd copying by Palmetto Alliance the Incident Reports , Reportable Occurrence Reports, Quality Assurance audits, and NRC IE Inspection Reports for Oconee and for McGuire Unit I which reflect instances of noncompliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures. From these documents , Palmetto Alliance can obtain the descriptions of the " noncompliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures ," and the corresponding " corrective actions and management controls" instituted by Duke which it seeks. The corrective actions and management controls described in these documents were all undertaken on the assumption that they Would be effective., Should there have been a question whether any of these measures were effective, additional corrective measures or controls might have been necessary. The respects in which the original measures might have been deficient, and the fact that other corrective actions were later taken, will also be reflected in these documents. If Palmetto Alliance has further questions with regard to the information sought in Interrogatories 11-14 it should submit them af ter examining the documents provided.

Applicants object to providing for each Incident Report, Reportable Occurrence Report , QA audit , and IE Inspection Report the specific information and evaluations sought in Interrogatories 11, 12, 13 and 14.

This information can be ascertained by Palmetto Alliance simply from an 52

1 inspection of these documents, and the burden of d: riving it from these documents would be substantially the same for P.almetto Alliance as for Applicants . The iden,tification of all of these_ documents, and their availability for inspection by Palmetto Alliance, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and identify, as readily as can Applicants, the information sought herein.

In Pilgrim , supra, ~the Board ruled in regard to a similarly broad interrogatory (which sought to require the applicant to search through thousands of pages of company records and to compile specific information gleaned from these numerous documents) that to provide "such a massive volume of information. .would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden." 1 NRC at 588. Pointing out that the records were (as in this instance) as equally accessible to the intervenor as to the applicant, the Board stated that One party cannot compel another party to undertake the burden of preparation of the former's own case. At the most, Applicant need only diake available its files.

. .for Intervenor's inspection and copying. (Id.)

The principle that the party seeking discovery cannot compel the responding party to undertake the entire burden of preparing the

- former's own case is also recognized in Rule 33(c)'of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . See 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp.

33 33-115. Because the Commission's regulations are based upon and

{ drawn generally from the Federal Rules governing discovery, guidance may be had in NRC pr. 'eedings from the legal authorities and court decisions construing the Federal Rules on discovery . Pilgrim , supra ,

1 NRC at 581.

For the reasons set forth above, Applicants submit that to provide information beyond that already furnished in response to these i

I 53

Interrogatories would be to cause them annoyance, opprtssion, undus burden and expense.

15. What are the bases for your responses to Nos. 9-14? Identify all documents, testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

See Applicants' responses to Nos.11 and 12 above.

16. Have any Duke Power Company emplcyees or contractor or subcontractor employees been warnedu counseled, disciplined, transferred, demoted, penalized, suspended or terminated as a result of non-compliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures, rules or regulations at any licensed facility or for actions under any NRC license? Identify the name, titic, dates of employment, address and telephone number of each such employee; describe in detail the action taken, the reason for each such action, the procedures, rules or regulations not complied with, and the safety significance of such non-compliance.

Applicants object to responding to th,is Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for information as available to Palmetto Alliance as to Applicants, is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and call,s for Applicants to provide information not relevant to the subject matter of the contention , disclosure of which would violate Duke Power Company policy and subject employees of' the Company to , embarrassment as well as harassment by Palmetto Alliance. Moreover, disclosure of some of the information sought could have the potential of subjecting Applicants to j civil litigation. ,

First, Duke has in some instances taken disciplinary action , in accordance with Company disciplinary procedures , with respect to 4

Company employees. However, Duke does not have within its possession I and/or control records relevant to the subject-matter of Contention 7 !/

l 3/ Applicants do have in their possession and control records with respect to security guards, who are contract employees , at Oconee and McGuire.

':oweve r , the records of such personnel are not relevant 'to' Oie subject matter of Contention 7, which is concerned with operating and administrative procedures. Moreover, the Board has specifically ruled that the subject of security is not an issue in this proceeding. July 8 Order at pp.14-16.

54

with respect to contractor or subcontractor employees, and thus has no reliable way to determine whether such employees have ever been the subject of any disciplinary action by Duke. Therefore, for Duke to conduct a search of its files to determine whether it has any records with respect to any disciplinary action which may have 'been taken against an employee of a contractor or subcontractor would be to cause it undue burden.

As has been noted in Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC at 584:

In general, it seems to be the weight of the holdings that, in the sound discretion of the court, a party may be protected against interrogatories where the answers would require an excessive or oppressive amount of research or compilation of data and at a great expense, although mere general objections that the interrogatories are onerous and burdensome are not sufficient. While a party must furnish in his answer to interrogatories whatever information is available to it, ordinarily it will not be required "to,make research anc; compilation of data not readily known to him." (Footnote omitted.)

See also 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 ,33-115. ,

i Applicants further object to providing the information sought by Palmetto Alliance with respect to Duke employees wh' have been subjected 1 -

to disciplinary action on the grounds that the request c 07erly broad and would impose on Applicants an undue burden. To supply this information in the format requested by Palmetto Alliance, it would be necessary for

! Applicants first to examine each of the approximately 2700 documents being made available in response to Interrogatory 11 to determine which instances of noncompliance with NRC procedures , rules or regulations were the result of personnel error. A further search would then be i ~

required to ascertain which Duke employees were involve'd. (This information is not necessarily included in these records.) Next, a search 1

55 l

of each named employee's personnel file would have to be undertaken- to attempt to determine whether that individual had been " warned, counseled , disciplined,. transferred, demoted , penalized, suspended or terminated" as a result of an instance of noncompliance. (Applicants note in this regard that assuming there is a written record of such activities in the individual's personnel file, which is not always the case, such

~

written records are kept no longer than 3 years.)

A substantial part of the information sought by Palmetto Alliance in this Interrogatory, viz. , the procedures, etc. not complied with and the safety significance of such non-compliance, can be obtained by the Intervenor from a simple inspection of the documents identified in response to Interrogatory 11. Applicants accordingly submit that under applicable NRC precedent, as well as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c), the production of the relevant documents for inspection by Palmetto Alliance satisfies Applicants' obligation with respect to this particular information. Iii Pilgrim, supra, .1 NRC at 588, the Board stated in regard to a similarly broad interrogatory (which sought to require Applicants to search through thousands of pages of records and to compile specific information taken from hese numerous documents) that

[t]he seeking of such a massive volur e of information as is here requested, a good deal of which must, by its nature, be repetitive and duplicative, and only remotely relevant -

to the specific issues in the case would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden. .

As to the intervenor's requests for certain records, the Pilgrim Board pointed out that such records were, as in this case, equally available to the intervenor and stated that

~

I l

One party cannot compel another party to undertake tlie burden of preparation of the former's own case. At the most , Applicant need only make available its files. . for Intervenor's inspection and copying. Id.

56 l

[ _ _ _

The principle that the party seeking discovery cannot c:mp;l th responding party to undertake the burden of preparing the former's own case is also recognized in Rule .33(c) of the_ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33 33-115.

Thus, particularly in light of the Board's guidance in Pilgrim ,

Applicants submit that, ~a bsent a showing by Palmetto Alliance that the documents provided in response to Interrogatories 11-14 do not provide the information sought, the production of these various documents to the Intervenor constitutes an adequate response for the majority of the information sought in Interrogatory 16._, To require additional "research and compilation of data not readily known to [ Applicants]" would subject Applicants to annoyance, oppression , undue burden and expense and would not necessarily provide any corresponding benefit to Palmetto Alliance.

Palmetto Alliance has' also asked Applicants, for each instance in which disciplinary action has been taken against an employee, to identify the employee's "name, title, dates of employment, address and telephone number", as well as a description of the action t,aken and the reason for such action. Applicants object to providing this information as, in their view , such information is not relevant to the subject matter of this contention , which is concerned with violations of NRC Operating and administrative procedures Moreover, even leaving aside the fact that such a request can only be construed as a classic " fishing expedition" (clearly prohibited by the

~

Commission's regulations , see 10 CFR Part 2, App. A, IV (~a))'to disclose such information to Palmetto Alliance would be to invade the privacy of 57

Applicants' employees and former employees, subject them -to embarrassment, and expose them to the potential for harassment by Palmetto Alliance. Indeed, the only reason that. Applicants can see for Palmetto Alliance to request such information is so that Palmetto Alliance can make these names and information public and/or contact these individuals directly. In either case, for Palmetto Alliance to do so would

~

cause these individuals embarrassment and subject them to harassment by Palmetto Alliance. Certainty, Palmetto Alliance has made no showing as to why, to pursue its litigation of this issue, it needs to know the names, addresses , telephone numbers , titles , and dates of employment of any employee , or former employee, who may_.have been subjected, over the past seven years, to disciplinary action for an incident which resulted in "non-compliance with [any] NRC operating and administra.tive procedures provided for in Commission rules and regulations" together with a ,

description of the action taken and the reasons for each such action.

Therefore, in addition to their objection on the grounds of relevance , asserted above, Applicants object to disclosing the sought information on the grounds that it is contrary to Duke Power Company policy to disclose to anyone employees' , or former employees', names, addresses and/or telephone numbers. This is because Duke believes that it is incumbent on it to protect the privacy of such individuals .

Sensitive application of this policy is particulary important in a situation where the identity of such an individual is sought in connection with any disciplinary action or any termination of employment, whether it be from a particular department within the Company or from the Company itself. In that situation , Duke believes that the matter is between the individual and the Company Duke's primary concern is that the privacy of the 58

individual is protected , so that such person' will not 'be subjected-to embarrassment. Moreover, disclosure of such information by Applicants could well subject Duke Power Company to civil 4itigation from employees or former employees whose privacy has been invaded, or whose existing jobs have been compromised by such disclosure. ,

Concerns such as these have specifically been held to be valid grounds for objection . See Illinois Power Co. , et al. (Clinton Power

~

Station , Unit 1), LBP-81-61, 14 NRC 1735, 1740 (1981), wherein the Licensing Board stated that:

Personnel files, including information as to the reasons for termination , are held in confidence by employers. The information is sensitive in that its disclosure may be regarded as an undue and actionable invasion of the privacy of the person involved. The information can be obtained in this proceeding under a protective order if it is shown to be relevant to the contention. This showing has not been made. Id.

Similar rulings have been made in the federal courts. See, i.e. , Allen v.

Colgate-Palmolive Co. , 539 F. Supp. 57, 70-71 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) wherein the Court was faced with plaintiff's demand "for all appraisal reports and other personnel records concerning 57 of Colgate's former and present

~

employees specified by name .

Defendants claimed that:

"The request is unduly burdensome; is designed 16 help plaintiff recruit ' opt-in' plaintiffs; would invade the privacy of the 57 individuals named; and is not ' relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action -

.I d .

~

The Court ruled:

" Relevance is self-evident with respect to persons similarly situated to plaintiff , but with respect to the remaining persons, a balancing of interests requires that plaintiff make a greater showing of relevance and need before Colgate is required to produce all of the files requested.'t Ld -

59

Therefore, Applicants request this Board to issue 'an order which protects Applicants against disclosure of the name, title, address ,

telephone number, and/or date of- employment, for any employee, or former employee, of Duke Power Company who has been the subject of any disciplinary action "as a result of non-compliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures, rules or regulations at any licensed facility or for actions under any NRC license." 'In the alternative, should the Board determine that 'some or all of the information requested be disclosed to Palmetto Alliance, then Applicants move this Board to issue an order which conditions such disclosure on an agreement, reflected in an appropriate affidavit of nondisclosure,. by Palmetto Alliance that (1) the information released will not be disclosed to any person other than counsel for Palmetto Alliance and (2) Palmetto Alliance will not contact any identified employee or former employee.

Applicants maintain that the objections listed above are appropriate and should be upheld. To' require Applicants to provide any information beyond the response to the Interrogatory would cause Applicants annoyance, embarrassment, oppression , and/or undue burden and expense. .

17. Has Duke Power Company been the subject of requests for action, notices of proposed action, notices of violation, notices of proposed imposition of civil penalties, orders to show cause, proceedings to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to impose civil penalties pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, any other provisions of AEC or NRC statutes or regulations, i or any civil or criminal proceeding in the courts of the United States or l any State, before any agency of the United States or any State with respect to activities under AEC/NRC license? Describe in detail each such instance. the violation or claim alleged, its date and place, the Duke Power Company response including any evidence offered in answer, remission or mitigation, the proceedings had thereon and the outcome.

60

Any notice of violation will be identified in the IE In'spection Reports made available in response to Interrogatory 11. The Inspection Reports will include the informat-ion requested with respect- to those matters.

Duke has had two civil penalties imposed by the NRC. The first was imposed in 1977; the second in 1982. Documents with respect to those two civil penalties will be made available to Palmetto Alliance in accordance with Part II above. Those do'cuments will include the

~

information requested with respect to the civil penalties.

Duke has been the subject of one Order to Show Cause, issued by the NRC on January 2,1980. Documents relevant to this Order will be made available in accordance with Part III, above. These documents will include the information requested with respect to the Show Cause proceeding. .

Duke has been the subject of five Orders for Modifica '. ion of Licenses . Such Orders were issued in November, 1974, April, 1978, October , 1980, April, 19815 and December,1982. Documents relevant to these Orders will be made available in accordance with Part III, above.

These documents will include the information requested with respect to the Orders for Modification of License. .

Duke has not been the sui het of any civil or criminal proceeding which deals with any subject relevant to the subject matter of Palmetto Alliance Contention No. 7. ,

Applicants object to providing for each of the actions identified in response to Interrogatory 11, above, the specific information sought in this Interrogatory . Such information can be ascertained by Palmetto Alliance simply from an inspection of the relevant docume ts. The burden of deriving such information from those documents would be 61

substantially the same for Palmetto Alliance as for Applicants. The identification of the relevant material, and the availability to Palmetto Alliance of the documents containing the inform _ation sought, provides sufficient specificity for Palmetto Alliance to permit it to locate and identify , as readily as can Applicants , the information sought. In Pilgrim , supra , 1 NRC at 588, the Board ruled in regard to a similarly broad interrogatory (which would have required the applicant to search through thousands of pages of company records and to compile specific information obtained from these numerous documents), that:

[t]he seeking of such a massive volume of information as is here requested. .would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden. . . .Such interrogatories will not be allowed on the terms posed.

The Board further noted that (as is the case here) the company records sought by the intervenor were as accessible to it as to the applicant, and stated:

One party cannot compel another party to undertake the burden of preparation of the former's own case. At the most, Applicant need only make available its files. . .for Intervenor's inspection and copying. (Id.)

See also Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which incorporates this same principle. (RWO) .

For the reasons set forth above, Applicants submit that to provide information beyond that already furnished in response to these Interrogatories would be to cause them annoyance, oppression , undue burden and expense.

18. What are the bases for your responses to Nos. 16 and 17? Identify all documents , testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

See response to Interrogatories Nos.16 and 17.

.. )

1 62

Contention 44 (CESG 18) -

1. Identify all studies, documents, technical reports, . treatises and testimony dealing with the subject of reactor embrittlement.

The following list of documents are within the scope of Interrogatory 1; that is , those documents which may be relevant to the subject of reactor embrittlement as it relates to the Catawba plant are included.

WCAP-10019: Summary Report on Reactor Vessel Integrity for Westinghouse Operating Plants Westinghouse Report - (' day 28, 1982): Summary of Evaluations Related to Reactor Vessel Integrity Westinghouse Report (June 16, 1982): Fuel Management to Reduce Neutron Flux Westinghouse Report (June 22, _1982): Review of Emergency Response Guidelines Relative to Pressurized Thermal Shock Westinghouse Report (July 15, 1982): Assessment of Relationship Between Transient Event Sequence Results and The NRC Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis Westinghouse Report (September 2,1982): Plant Experien'ce NUREG-0744: Resolutjon of the Task A-11 Reactor Vessel Materials Toughness Safety Issue .

SECY-82-465: NRC Staff Report to Commissioners on Pressurized Thermal Shock Applicants will make the identified documents available to Palmetto l

Allicnce for inspection in accordance with Part III, above. -

Applicants object to identifying any documents , other than those listed above, in response to this Interrogatory. Palmetto Alliance has asked Applicants to identify " All studies , documents , technical reports, treatises and testimony dealing with the subject of reactor embrittlement."

Interrogatories which seek production of all documents related to a particular subject are not favored. Clinton , supra, 4. N.RC at 34.

Moreover , such a request goes far beyond the scope of this contention.

The Commission's rules permit discovery only of information or documents 63

" relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceedirig," and further limit the term " subject matter" to the contentions admitted by the presiding officer. ' 10. CFR 2.740(b)(1); Barnwell, supra, 5 NRC at 491-92. The Appeal Board and Licensing Boards have consistently applied the rules in this fashion in ruling on discovery matters. See, e . g . , Zion , supra, 7 AEC at 470-471, Pilgrim, supra, LBP-75-42, 2 NRC

~

at 168-171; Stanislaus, supra, 7 NRC at 1040-l'041; Susquehanna, supra, 12 NRC at 330. In determihing relevance for the purpose of discovery, it is necessary to examine the issues involved. Stanislaus, supra at 1040.

If, on examination, all or a part of the discovery sought is not relevant, then it is improper, and an objection on_.those grounds will properly lie.

An examination of Palmetto Alliance's Contention No. 44 shows that its basic concern is whether and to what extent an unanticipated rapid increase in reference temperature in the Catawba reactor vessels will result in premature reactor embrittlement. As explained above, Applicants have taken tha't to mean the ascertainment of the reference temperature of the Catawba reactor vessels and the impacts of an increase in such temperature upon the Catawba reactor vessels. In addition, anticipation and avoidance of such impacts is contemplated. _

Thus, for Palmetto Alliance to ask, without limitation, for Applicants to identify all documents regarding the issue of embrittlement is clearly beyond the scope of Contention No. 44. Tnerefore, Applicants object to providing any information in response to this interrogatory beyond that already furnished . Such information is not relevant to the subject matter of this con ten tion , nor would its disclosure be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Moreover, to comply literally with Palmetto Alliance's requests would be to require Applicants to identify myriad documents, including, but not 64

w x s .

, 8r.. e

~,..  %

s s N g .

~

limited to, textbooks, articles in[; technical lourn'als ,s magazine , articles .- _,

n -

etc. This would be beyond the scope %f the. contention and would--

- V '

constitute a substantial and unwarranted burden t

upon Applicants'.

a ,

Applicants are under ' Ito obligation 3to serve as a technical library' for -

q s s Palmetto Alliance. - For ' ' Applicants , to respond- f9rther to this ,

k.

Interrogatory would be to cause them annoyance, oppression , undue J  % ',__

s' burden, and expense:

s s(RF) h.

/

( s

2. Identify all studies , documents , technical reports, testimony and oral J.

communications las well as communication with the NRC on the subjber of Oconee reactor ' embrittlement. --

C \""

.,, s s~

Applicants object to this Interrogatory. Thea subject' of Oconee

w. ,_.5 '

reactor embrittlement, involving a reactor -- -

vessel of a different design from that at Catawba, is not relevant to this contention, which is { ram 6d 'j; in the context of the operating license prorgding for the Catawbh -

Nuclear Station. The concern expressed in Contention 44 is that Catawba should not be permitted to operate until it can be shown that Catawba can anticipate and avoid the consequences of the, embrittlement of its ,reactok .

l vessels . Given this concern, the information soughCin Interrogatory 2 is '

not relevant to the subject matter of this contentjon, nor would its

- q disclosure be reasonably calculated to lead to' the, discovery of adn.issible ,w i

s . -

evidence. Further, the Interrogatory is objectionable in that it is overly

( ,

See objection set forth in Response to Interrogatory 1. -\

broad.

(

3. Explain in detail why you think overcoeling trans.ents i and embrittlement

• problems that have occurred at Oconee will not occur at Cqtawbb, . ,

g Applicants object toithis Interrogatory for the reasons set forth in, i'

{

their Response to Interrogatory 2.

1. IIave you conferred with the owners of the H.B. Robinson,, plant on embrittlement problems?

a. If so, iJentify and describe in detail all such communications.

j - ,

l 65

• N

, f,

_ _ J

b. If' tot, why have you not done so sin ~ce Combus' tion Engineering manufactured the reactor vessel to be used at Catawba 2 and the one in use at the Robinson facility? Explain in detail.

Applicants object to this Intermgatory. The. subject of the Robinson s

reactor embrittlement is not relevant to this contention. See Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2. .

5. Identify all embrittlement problems that have occurred with reactor vessels manufactured by DeRotterdame Drodgdak Mattschappu N.V.

Specify all U.S. facilities that used vessels manufactured by this company . ,

Applicants are not aware of any embrittlement problems that have occurred with reactor vessels manufactured by DeRotterdame. The U.S.

,, nuclear power plants with a Westinghouse NSSS which have reactor

~'

vessels manufactured by thic company are:

.. A  ; Surr; 1 and 2

{- ~ North nana Units' 1 and 2 .

.s~ '

Sequoyah Units 1 and 2

[ ,

. ' Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 McGuire Unit 2 ,

x Catawba Unit 1 x (RF)

A6 Why were Combustion Engineering and. DeRotterdame Drodgdak

., Mattschappu N.W. chosen to supply the reactor vessels for Catawba. Be

'ypecific in your response. Where were they chosen?

' The' subject companies were evaluated and determined to be capable of manufactu' ring. reqctor vessels which would meet applicable reactor vessel reqyjrements. They were selected bNause of their ability to meet thebequired delivery schedule. DeRotterdame was selected on April 2, v

', 1970; Combuption Engineering was selected on September 21, 1971.

(RF)

- 7. Describe y detail all precautions taken that will reduce the likelihood of overcooung and overpressurization transients.

. _ v ,

w \ The June 22, 1982 Report referenced in the Response to i; T

, ' Interrogatory 1 discusses the topic of operating instructions and operator training for prevention and mitigation of potential overcooling and overpressurization transients . Duke is addressing the matter in its 6G

, w, ,, .

' f.. - 2 *s . ,

id {_

g} j reactor operator training program. The ' lesson out1!rie fe;;)such p rt of 7

, a . 1 st the program is: PQ .* c-la > .

~

./ . ,, .,

Introduction and BEckg'round f -9 -

r

' Mechanical P,roperties of Metals and Terminology . - . - ..

Failure Modes of-Ructor Vessel- Material

,t" ';

Pressure VesstPressure Temperature Limits ,

4 J

~

Pressurirpd Thermal Shock

< 'I

• l,**~

Key Paramet'ersWhich :.Caa Produlce Pressurized. ThermaljShock Events t

History of Pressurized Theraal Shock Events Minimizing'.lPressuridcd Thermal Shock .

~

• j) ' -

Procedural Consid'e rations Dealing With Limiting Pressuri, zed Thermal ' '

Shock

, I .

ii

?I In addition, Duke is in the process of developing emergency procedures, e concerning ithe appropriate response to an' imminent pressurized therrv/ '"

, ~!i ;

shock condition sn'd to an anticipated presturized thermal shock condition.

t ,

,Ir' ;{RWO) i

8. What is warm 'prestressinh? Wili,this process be used on the Catawba reactors? .

s Warm prestr essing is a phenomenco kno't. a process) in which a j ,

plastic zone forms at the tip of iJ flaw. decause the yield strength of the 's l - i.

i material decreases with increasing temperature, plasticity increases and l .

the plastic zone at the tip of a flaw becomes larger. When an increasing

~

load is applied, the plastic zone increases. The net result is that the

~

flaw tip blunts and the situs toughness increases in th~e region of the crack tip. Inasmuch as warm prestressing is a phenomenon and not a process, the second question asked by this Interrogatory is inapplicable.

(RF)

9. Describe in detail all training and procedures for reactor operators for l

handling overcooling and overpressurization transients.

i See Response to Interrogatory 7.

10. At what temperature will the water in the ECCS be maintained? Has any consideration been given to increasing this temperature? Explain your response in detail.

J 67

The Refueling Water Storage Tank wate'r will be ' maintained at a minimum temperature of 70 F. No consideration has been given to ,

increasing this temperature. -

-(RWO)

11. Describe in detail all action taken by the Applicant in response to early reactor embrittlement problems problems at other facilities. Include any and all changes in design, emergency and routine operating procedures,

~

as well as any other action taken at Catawba to prevent such problems.

With respect to ation taken at Ca,tawba regarding reactor embrittlement problems see Response to Interrogatory 7. Applicants object to the Interrogatory's inquiry into " reactor embrittlement problems at other facilities" for the reasons set foru in their Responses to ,

Interrogatories 1 and 2.

~'

12. Why were longitudinal welds used in Catawba Unit 2? Are longitudinal welds preferable to circumferential welds in maintaining reactor vessel integrity?

The cylindrical portion of the Unit 1 vessel is made up of forred rings , requiring circumfeential welds to join them together. The cylindrical portion of the Unit 2 vessel is made up of several shells, each consisting of formed plates joined by full penetration longitudinal weld seams in addition to circumferential welds. The use of forgcd rings

~

versus formed plates merely represents the application of two different production techniques , each of which meets the regtfirements of all applicable codes, standards, and specifications. No general statement can be made as to whether a longitudinal or scircumferential weld is p referable.

(RF)

13. Specify the chemical compositions of all weld material used in each reactor vessel.

See FSAR Tables 5.3.3-2 and -3. (RWO)

14. Describe in detail how the welds in Unit 2 are located away from peak neutron exposure. Specify where and why it is not possible to do so.

68

2 The core region shells of the Catawba

• Unit 2 re~ actor vessel are fabricated of plate material and have longitudinal welds which are angularly located as far away from the peak neutron exposure as geometrically possible. The location of the beltline region weld seams for the Catawba Unit 2 reactor vessel is shown in FSAR Figure 5.3.1-2. The peak neutron exposure is located at 45 in each 90 quadrant of the vessel shells. As noted in the Figure, nons of the longitudinal weld seams are located at 45 in any of the quadrants and therefore none will be exposed to the peak neutron exposure. (RF)

15. Provide the results of all ultrasonic, penetrant and magnetic particle examinations .

~

Applicants object to this Interrogato'ry for the reasons set forth in their Response to Interrogatory 1. Specifically, Palmetto Alliance has asked for "all" examinations, without any reference to a p" articular reactor vessel.

16. Why does Westinghouse ,not apply any of the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.50 to Class 2 and 3 components? Explain in detail.

The Catawba reactor vessels are Class 1 components. (RWO)

17. Describe in detail where the reactor vessel materials fail to meet the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR 50, App. G. Why do the materials fail to meet these requirements? .

The materials for the Catawba reactor vessels meet the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix G. (RF)-

l

18. Specify why the fracture toughness testing performed on vessel material from Units 1 and 2 did not include all of the tests necessary to determine

. RT i the manner described in NB-2300 of ASME III, Summer 1972 l Adhtba.n Describe in detail the tests not performed.

Beginning with the Summer 1972 Addenda, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, NB-2300, specifies that . pressure retaining materials for reactor vessels will have an RT NDT established as follows :

69

a. Determine a Transition temperature' (TNDT) by drop-weight tests,

b. Determine a temperature (TCV) at which the materials exhibit at least 35 mils lateral expansion and not less than 50 ft.-lbs.

absorbed energy by Charpy V-notch tests.,

c. RT NDT is then the higher of T NDT and T CV -60 F.

~

The Catawba 1 and 2 vessels were ' constructed pursuant to Section III of the 1971 ASME B and PV Code (plus addenda to Winter of 1971 and Winter of 1972 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. ) The NRC Staff, recognizing the fact that some reactor vessels had been constructed prior to the Summer 1972 Addenda, issued Branch Technical Position -

MTEB 5-2 which provided alternate means acceptable to the Staff of estimating RT NDT* -

For the Catawba Unit 1 vessel, Charpy V-notch tests on the beltline region base metal were performed on longitudinal specimens only, therefore the temperature'(TCV) determined. was increased by 20* as specified in MTEB 5-2. Drop weight tests were performed. For the beltline region weld metal the RT NDT f the root weld was estimated from Charpy V-notch tests pursuant to MTEB 5-2. No. drop weight tests were performed . For the main weld both drop weight and Charpy V-notch tests were performed. -

For the Catawba Unit 2 vessel both the drop weight and Charpy V-notch tests, specified in the Summer 1972 Addenda of the Code for determining RT NDT were performed on the beltline region materials.

(RF)

19. Explain in detail how the necessary properties were estimated.

70

The properties were estimated per th'e NRC B' ranch Technical Position - MTEB 5-2 described in NUREG-0800. -

(RF)

20. Explain in detail the "-transition temperature approach." FSAR 5.3.1.6.

The prevention of brittle fracture is centered around transition temperature approach . The transition temperature (RTNDT) represents the temperature below which failure occurs by brittle fracture rather than l by ductile failure. T NDT f materials is deterritined per ASME Section III and takes account of the~ fact that irradiation increases the transition temperature of the vessel shells. The transition temperature approach contemplates that heatup and cooldown and operation of reactor vessels will be controlled to assure that the reactor vessel temperature is well above the RT NDT during these operations. (RF)

21. Explain in detail the " fracture mechanics approach. " FS AR 5.3.1.6.

The fracture mechanics or " crack toughness" approach provides quantitative data to assess the potential of brittle failures and in developing a criteria for designing against . failure for the life of the vessel. This approach to the design against failure is basically a stress intensity factor consideration in which criteria are established for fracture instability in the presence of a crack. A basic assumption employed in fracture mechanics is that a crack or crack-like defect exists in the structure. The essence of the approach is to relate the stress field developed in the vicinity of the crack tip to the applied nominal stress on

{

the structure, material properties, and the size of the defect necessary to cause failure.

Additional information may be found in WCAP-10019 referred in Response to Interrogatory 1. (RF) .

22. Describe in detail and provide copies of all studies tests, and experiments on the thermal shock and reactor embrittlement in which the 71

Applicant and/or Westinghouse participated in the past 'and/or are nbw participating.

As the Interrogatory relates to the Catawba reactor vessels, see documents referenced in Response to Interrogatory 1. With respect to that aspect of the Interrogatory which relates to matters beyond the scope of the contention (i.e . , non-Catawba matters'), Applicants object.

See Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2. .

23. If completed provide the results of the fracture toughness program involving irradiation and testing of weld metal used in fabrication of operating prescure vessels of pre-1972 construction mentioned in Applicant's FSAR page 5.3-16.

In that this Interrogatory seeks information concerning reactor vessels other than those at Catawba, Applicants object to the Interrogatory for the reasons set forth in Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2. -

24. Has any consideration been given by the Applicant to placing dummy rods instead of fuel in the outer core? If so, describe in detail what consideration has been given and the decisions that resulted.

No. -

(RWO)

25. Do the Catawba reactors comply with the same ASME specifications as the Oconee reactore.? If not, what are the specific differences? What ferritic composition is used at Catawba? At Oconee?

The Catawba reactor vessels' :ompliance with- ASME , specifications is set forth in FSAR Section 5.0.1.5. With respect to the Interrogatory's inquiry as to Oconee, Applicants object for the reasons set 'forth in Responses to Interrogatories I and 2. As to the question concerning "ferritic composition," Applicants are unable to answer, in that Applicants are unable to ascertain the meaning of the question. (RWO) l 26. Provide all Charpy test data on coupons tested for Oconee reactor materials , plate, weld . and bolting , both prior and subsequent to operation identifying sample position and time of test. Specifically, copies of test results 10 CFR 50, App. H IV are requested.

72 l

l ,_ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - . .-_ _ _ _._

Applicants object to this Interrogatory, which seeks information regarding the Oconee reactor, for the reasons set forth in their Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2.. _

27. What RT values were anticipated over the life of the Oconee reactors, by year Tr Twhatever increment was used? What ,are the corresponding estimates for Catawba?

The RT NDT values estimates for Catawba are set forth in FSAR

~

Tables 5.3.1-2, -3, -4~ and -5. With respect to the Interrogatory's inquiry as to Oconee , Applicants object for the reasons set forth in Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2. (RWO)

28. Provide all ultrasonic test data for Oconee reactors, identifying positions of the scans, the time of the test, and the interpretation of the data.

Applicants object to this Interrogiatory, which seeks information regarding the Oconee reactor, for the reasons set forth in Responses to

~

Interrogatories 1 and 2.

29. What provisions have been made for annealing Oconee reactors, and Catawba reactors, in terms of facilty design? 10 CFR 50, APP. G IV C.

No provisions have fieen made for ann,ealing the Catawba reactor vessels . With respect to the Interrogatory's inquiry as to Oconee, Applicants object for the reasons set forth in Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2. (RWO) ,

30. Provide a copy of the annealing procedures for both Oconee reactors and Catawba reactors.

Not applicable. See Response to Interrogatory 29.

i 31. How much down time will be required fcr the annealing operation?

Not applicable. See Response to Interrogatory 29.

32. What incremental radiation dose is estimated for the workers involved in the annealing operation?

Not applicable. See Response to Interrogatory 29.

73

._ _ - . _ _ _ _ -- _ _-- __ - _ _ _ =

33. For each Oconce reactor, what is the present neutron fluence (E 1.0MeV) at beltline? What are the calculated fluences for Catawba reactor vessels at 10, 20, 30 and 40 years?

The calculated end of life fluence for the Catawba reactor vessels is set forth in FSAR Table 5.3.1-5. For the 10, 20 and 30 year fluences use 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the numbers on that table respectively. With respect to the Interrogatory's inquiry into Oconee, Applicants object for the reasons set forth in Iesponses to Interrogatories 1 and 2. (RWO)

34. For each Oconee reactor, provide all surveillance data obtained for compliance with 10 CFR 50, App. H.

Applicants object to this Interrogatory, which seeks information regarding the Oconee reactor, for the reasons set forth in Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2.

35. Was it initially assumed that the Oconee reactors would meet the conditions of 10 CFR 50, App. H II.C.3.a? Have the Oconee reactors met

~

these conditions?

Applicants object to this Interrogatory, which seeks information regarding the Oconee reactor, for the reasons set forth in Responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2.

l .

l .

O DD 74

36. What is assumed for the Catawba reactors in regard . to meeting t,he conditions of 10 CFR 50, App. H II.C.3.a?

See FSAR Volume 13, Response to question Q123.7. (RWO)

~

Respectfully submitted, 4

6ilfled WC&,$dNJ/

-~

Albert V. Carr, Jr.

DUKE POWER COMPANY

. Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 J. Michael McGarry, III Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Stree'., N:W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.

December 31, 1982 e

as e

{

I D.

\

75

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I

In the Matter of )

)

, DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) D6cket Nos. 50-413

) . 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

-AFFIDAVIT I, Glenn H. Bell, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as a Senior Quality Assurance Specialist, Quality Assurance Departn ent.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 6 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

\

~

Subscribed and sworn to before me .

this 30th day of December, 1982.

Y%wute 0 Onvu&x 4 (IA % >)

Notafy PubFicU .

My Commission expires: f- / - fr/

2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

. ~

In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, -et al. -

) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

~

" AFFIDAVIT I, Roger W. Ouellette, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Assistant Engineer-Licensing, Nuclear Production, Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic informa-tion used in responding to those Interrogatories on. Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6, 7 and 44 by which my initials appear.

Those responses are true and correct to the best of my

'~

knowledge and belief. .

21

,4 - -

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of December, 1982.

O. < bn u 4 2 [(Nrbited Ncutenuddl e Nota $ Publid 0 6 My Commission expires: ?- 1-%4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

' ~

In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

-- ) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, ) .

Units i and 2) )

-~

AFFIDAVIT I, Robert H. Faas, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation as an Engineer - RCS Components Licensing, Nuclear Safety Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 44 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~.

- 6' l G?Cih Subscribed and sworn to before me this 079 day of December, ,

1982. -

1 YahthAn1dLd Notary Public . , ,

My Commission expires:

PAutETTF StokSKA,407Agy PUBUC 80WEVILLE BORO. AllfGHfhY COUNTY WY C0Mkissl0N IIPIR[$ KARCH 10,19H WH"t". Panmhans Association of Netar es

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

4 DUKE FOWER COMPANY, et al. ) Ddcket Nos. 50-413

) . 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) , )

. AFFIDAVIT I, Glenn H. Bell, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as a Senior Quality Assurance Specialist, Quality Assurance Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance ,

Contention 6 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

\

Subscribed and sworn to before me -

this 30th day of December, 1982.

y4avante 0. Onvw& (/Mt;im)

~

Notaty PubFicU # .

My Commission expires: f- / - ?I 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

' ~

in the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) -~

Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, ) .

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT I, Robert H. Faas, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation as an Engineer - RCS Components Licensing, Nuclear Safety Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 44 by which my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belie f. ,

- 6' 0Cih Subscribed and sworn to before me this 89 day of December, ,

1982. .

1 L'hi)L O Notary Public ,,

My Commission expires:

PAUtETTF StohSM NOTARY PUBUC WO4MEYlllE BORD. Alt [GHENT COUNTY Wf 00WMIS$10N [IPIRIS tlARCH 10. 1986 Weeter. Pennsgivenh Assocsation of Netarws