ML20072N608

Responses to Palmetto Alliance 830316 Followup Interrogatories & Requests to Produce Documents Re Contentions 6,7,8,16,27 & 44.List of Major Plant Differences,Affidavits & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20072N608
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/25/1983
From:	Carr A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	PALMETTO ALLIANCE
References
NUDOCS 8304010573
Download: ML20072N608 (52)

Text

e XT Applicants I

RELATED CORRESPONDENCB s

March 25,1983

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Nj[j/JO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

!!AR 29 p.;g;3; D

In the Matter

)

7

)

CCt.: r5 g %s./, -

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-413iaffejW3

)

50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

)

APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO " PALMETTO ALLIANCE FOLLOW-UP INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE" REGARDING CONTENTIONS 6, 7, 8,16, 27 and 44 Duke Power

Company, et al.

(" Applicants"),

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.740b(b),

hereby respond to

" Palmetto Alliance Follow-Up Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to Applicants," filed March 16, 1983.

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

I BACKGROUND The discovery schedule established by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Board") in this proceeding contemplated the filing of " follow-up" interrogatories by Palmetto Alliance, " limited to 20, single-part questions on each contention."

(December 22, 1982 Order at p.17).

Pursuant to this and subsequent Board orders (which modified the deadline for submittal of this I

discovery 1/), on March 16, 1983 Palmetto Alliance filed " Palmetto Alliance Follow-Up Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" on contentions 6, 7, 8, l

l

-1/

The Board's Order of January 14, 1983, Memorandum and Order of March 4, 1983 (pp. 3-4), and Memorandum and Order of March 10, 1983 (pp.

1-2) extended the schedule for filing these supplemental Interrogatories.

i 8304010573 830325

{DRADOCK05000pg

$h3 j

t

2-Applicants' Responses to th,ese follow-up Interrogatories are 16, 27 and 44.

set ~ forth below.

i Applicants note that several of the follow-up Interrogatories on Contention 6 and one on Contention 7 are virtually identical to Interrogatories Applicants have previously filed by Palmetto Alliance on these contentions. 2/

either answered these prhvious Interrogatories, 3/ providing the information requested or agreeing to'do so as it could be compiled, or have successfully objected to providing responses.1/

Accordingly, Applicants fail.to understand Palmetto Alliance's purpose in requesting the same information to those follow-up Interrogatories which essenti'111y again. 5/

With respect duplicate prior Interrogatories, Applicants object to providing additional information, and refer Palmetto Alliance to Applicants' earlier responses (designated below) or to those portions of the Board's February 9,1983 Order sustaining Applicants' objections to supplying the information requested.

,~

~2/

See." Palmetto Alliance First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to PT6 duce," April 20,1982 (" April 20,1982 Discovery").

Applicants' responses to previous Interrogatories on 3/

to Produce' and 'Palmettoj Alliance Set of Interrogatbries and Requests 31, 1982, Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce,'" Decemb 31, 1982 pp.14-62 (" December Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories 1983, pp.12-16,16-18 (" February 28, 1983 Responses").

1983,

(" February 9, 1983 1/

In its Memorandum and Order of February 9, Order") the Board sustained Applicants' objections to several Palmetto Alliance Interrogatories on Contention 6, including Interrogatories 1,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 (to the extent that the Interrogatory information on the reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, sought the termination of DPC employees), 26, and 27.

!f. " Palmetto Alliance's alleged inability to "obtain copies of/ docume by Applicants to contain answers to its earlier inter 3-4), may have led to material involved (Follow-Up Interrogatories, pp. overlooking the info Intervenor's made available.

O e

II. REQUESTS TO PRODUCE will make available for inspection and copying by Palmetto

- Applicants Alliance those documents, not subject to privileges or objections ass

~

Applicants in the responses to individual Interrogatories, identified in

" Applicants' Responses to ' Palmetto Alliance Follow-Up Interro 6, 7, 8, 16, 27, and 44."

Such Requests to Produce' Reg,arding Contentions for a reasonab'le Palmetto Alliance on and, documents will be ayailable to t 422 at Duke Power Company's offices a period of time after, March 30, 1983 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES III.

Responses to Interrogatories on Contention 6 Other than by documents or materials ' protected from disclosure

" work product" or attorney-client 1.

Intervenor under the attorney privileges, is the factual basis for your position on this con reflected in conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or more individuals?

I m

G1 9

tIf so:

Identify by name and address each such individual.

a.

b.

State.the educational and professional background of each individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations.

Describe the nature of each communicat c.

Describe the information received from such individu s.

d.

note or other r.ecord Identify each letter, memorandum, tape,related to eac v

e.

other communication with such individual.

l' the currently-developed factual basis for I

To the extent that Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Conte'ntion

./

dependent upon communications among or between in communications are subject to the attorney-client or attorney l

'See February 28, 1983 Responses at work-product privileges.

i 9

a p

• pp. 3-28.

Any other documents which applicants are aware of to

date, underlying the currently-developed factual basis for Applicants' position.on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No.

6, as expre'ssed in

- Applicants' Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories or pleadings filed in this matter,

have been to relevant Interrogatories and have been r$,sponse identified in made available f' r inspection and copying.

o Identify each deficiency in plant construction reflecting faulty 2.

workmanship or deficiency in plant design change control as defined

~

in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e) and for each indicate:

the classification of its significance (i.e.

classified under which subsections,

50.55(e) (i) (i - iv); the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria to which each relates and the respects in which it reflects noncompliance; the report number, and date, if any; the names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of each person responsible for the deficiency, its discovery, its reporting, and its corrective action; a detailed description of the deficiency and its safety implications; a detailed description of its corrective action.

This follow-up Interrogatory is almost identical to Interrogatory 12 on Contention 6 filed by Palmetto Alliance in its April 20, 1982

, Discovery.

Applicants acknowledge that Palmetto Alliance has 1

+

modified the language slightly; Intervenor's earlier Interrogatory 12 stated:

" Identify each deficiency in design and construction as 10 CFR Section 50.55(e) and for.each indicate...."

defined in These minor modifications have presumably been made in an att'empt l

i to bring this Interrogatory under the " umbrella" exception provided l

by the Board in its February 9 Order, wherein it stated (p. 3) in i

regard to Interrogatories 12-14 that "[s]hould Palmetto Alliance frame more specific follow-up questions in this area, the Applicants might be required to supply more specific answers."

However, Applicants submit that the slight changes in wording i

made in formulating this follow-up Interrogatory do not satisfy the Board's, direction to Palmetto Alliance in its February 9,1983 Order

-,r,-

,,w

+.

.-e.--,-

...en to frame specific supplemental interrogatories, rather than " pressing t

EE5 broad interrogatories that speak comprehensively to every problem gj N;p.Qg the Applicants have experienced in Quality Control at Catawba and rM M WF at their other facilities," which go "far beyond" Contention 6 as admitted.

(February 9,1983 Order at p. 3).

.v Morecher. the minor textual changes made to Palmetto Alliance's

~

original Interrogatory 12 to produce this follow-up Interrogatory are clearly insufficient to change the thrust of Applicants' objections to 52O providing the information sought.

Nor do these nonsubstantive changes in language affect the applicability of the Board's Order sustaining Applicants' objections to Interrogatory 12.

Rather, follow-up Interrogatory 2 reflects the Intervenor's continuing attempt to have Applicants prepare its case by not only researching and producing documents, but also searching through the voluminous materials requested by Palmetto Alliance to compile the specific data i..

which the Intervenor currently. believes may be relevant to its contention.

The issue here is not whether or not the documents requested by Palmetto Alliance should be produced.

Applicants have already made this material available.

Rather, the. issue is who i

should properly bear the burden of preparing Palmetto Alliance's case in this proceeding.

In their December 31, 1982 Response to Interrogatory 12,

[

Applicants listed the Significant Deficiency Reports indicating deficiencies (as defined in 10 CFR 650.55(e)) in construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station.

These Reports include the, Report Number, date, facility name, identification of the deficiency and an Initial Report on it; the component involved and/or its supplier (if applicable); a description 'of the deficiency; an analysis of the safety O

d implications of the deficiency; an,d the corrective actions taken All of (including both immediate and long-term corrective actions).

these Significant Deficiency Reports have been made available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection and copying.

Applicants objected on several grounds to providing information beyon'd that wl$ch can be obtained from these Reports themselves.

Applicants note'd,

first, that additional information sought by Palmetto Alliance could be obtained by the Intervenor by an inspection of the documents, that the burden of deriving diat information would be substantially the same for the Intervenor as for the Applicant, and that "one party cannot compel another party to In undertake the burden of preparation of the former's own case."

addition, Applicants objected to supplying specific information beyond that listed in the Significant Deficiency Reports on grounds that such data is not routinely compiled, and that to do so would constitute an unfair burden upon Applicants.

(December 31, 1982 4

.)

Responses at pp. 19-23).

These objections were upheld by the Board, which ruled that l

In the circumstances, the Applicants' response of making available their significant deficiency and audit reports for Catawba is appropriate.

Having chosen this dragnet approach, the burden of digesting those reports must fall on Palmetto, notwithstanding its limited resources.

(February 9,1983 Order at p. 3).

It is clear that the information sought by the present Interrogatory 2 has either already been made available to Palmetto Alliance via the production of Applicants' Significant' Deficiency The Reports, or has been protected from discovery by the Board.

issue, then, is who should be obligated to review documents already 9

4 a

_7-

~

m A

provided by Applicants and extricate the particular data requested.

34 A

NRC precedent makes clear that this burden should fall on the party W

N whose

" dragnet approach" resulted in the production of the O

In Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating c$

documents.

Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579 (1975), the Board 3

rul'ed in regiird to a similarly broad interrogatory (which sought to require the " applicant to search through thousands of pages of records and to compile specific information gleaned from company these numerous documents) that to provide "such a massive volume of information...would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden."

1NRC 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.

(Id. )

.-3 This principle is also recognized in the federal courts.

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

The precedent provided by Pilgrim is particularly ap ropriate in this instance, where Applicants do not know what Interve'nor means

~

by the terms used in.its Interrogatories or its contentions, such as

" faulty workmanship" or " deficiency in plant design change control" as used in Interrogatory 12.

To require Applicants to attempt to Palmetto Alliance has in mind, and, then, with that interpret what possible interpretation in mind, to sift through. documents to ferret out whatever information they think Palmetto Alliance might be interested in would b'e to turn the discovery process on its head.

but would also subject It would not only be extremely inefficient, I

Applicants to undue burden and exppnse far out of proportion to any

. benefit to Palmetto Alliance.

In fact, Palmetto Alliance has, since the outset of this proceeding, professed itself incapable of providing the most basic information about its own contentions until it has had an opportunity for discovery ffhm Applicants.

Accordingly, the Board granted.the Intervenor the 'Ifirst bite" at discovery.

(See December 22 Order).

Now, having obtained the discovery material which it sought, Palmetto Alliance is complaining because it must read this material in or$

to prepare its case.

For the reasons outlined above, Applicants object to providing any additional information in response to follow-up Interrogatory 2.

For each activity under license by NRC' or AEC conducted by Duke Power Company or its contractors and subcontractors inv 3.

nuclear facility, defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e), which reflects faulty workmanship in construction or deficiency in deficiency, as pf the Quality Assurance program conducted in accordance with

.,~

requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50; identify the which it relates; describe in detail the Appendix B criteria to deficiency reflects noncompliance with the respects in which the requirements of Appendix B criteria; the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix General Design Criteria to which each relates, respects in which it reflects noncompliance; the for the deficiency, its discovery, its l

each person responsible corrective action; a detailed description of the reporting, and its deficiency and its safety implication; a detailed description of its corrective action.

y This follow-up Interrogatory is almost identical to Interrogatory l.

20, 1982

~

13 on Contention 6 filed by Palmetto Alliance in its April Discovery.

Applicants acknowledge that Palmetto, Alliance has j

modified the language slightly; Intervenor's earlier Interrogatory 13

?

requested identification of "each deficiency, as defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e), which represents a significant breakdown in any l

I

=

- p:

portion of the Quality Assurance program conducted in accordance

• with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50....".

.g These minor modifications have presumably been made in an attempt to bring this Interrogatory under the " umbrella" exception provided T

,ML by the Board in its February 9 Order, wherein it stated (p. 3) in

"*; h reg'ard to Inthrrogatories 12-14 that "[s]hould Palmetto Alliance. frame more specific' follow-up questions in this area, the Applicants might be required to supply more specific answers."

However, Applicants submit that the slight changes in wording y;

made in formulating this follow-up Interrogatory do not satisfy the Board's direction to Palmetto Alliance in its February 9,1983 Order to frame specific supplemental interrogatories, rather than " pressing broad interrogatories that speak comprehensively to every problem the Applicants have experienced in Quality Control at Catawba and at their other facilities," which go "far beyond" Contention 6 as O

admitted.

(February 9,1983 Order at p. 3).

s t

Moreover, the minor textual changes made to Palmetto Alliance's original Interrogatory 13 to produce this follow-up Interrogatory are 4

clearly insufficient to change the thrust of Applicants' objections to providing the information sought.

Nor do these nons(ibstantive changes in language. affect the applicability of the Board's Order t'

sustaining Applicants' objections to Interrogatory 13.

Rather, follow-up Interrogatory 3 reflects the Intervenor's continuing attempt to have Applicants prepare its case by not only researching and producing documents, but also searching through the..- voluminous materials requested by Palmetto Alliance to compile the specific data which the Intervenorf currently believes may be relevant to its The issue here is not whether or not the documents contention.

e N

) -

requested by Palmetto Alliance should be produced.

Applicants have already made this material available.

Rather, the issue is who should properly bear the burden of preparing Palmetto Alliance's case in this proceeding.

In their December 31, 1982 Responses on Contention 6,

disciissed Interrogatory 13 along with Interrogatory 12 Applicants (referred to in' our response to follow-up Interrogatory 2, above).

The list of Significant Deficiency Reports referred to above served as Applicants' response to Interrogatory 13 as well as Interrogatory 12, and Applicants' objections to providing any specific information beyond that which could be obtained from the identified Reports also applied to Interrogatory 13.

In addition, Applicants also objected to providing any information in response to Interrogatory 13 relating to Duke facilities other than Catawba.

(December 31, 1982 Responses at pp. 19-23.)

The Board sustained Applicants' Objections in its February 9,1983 Order, stating (p. 4):

~

[W)e are not ruling out the possibility of considering properly focused evidence from other Duke facilities on this contention, if its probative value and relevancb are apparent.

But we will not sanction /

to Duke's other open-ended discovery with respect facilities.

As noted above, Applicants submit that this follow-up Interrogatory does not satisfy this criteria.

It is clear that the information sought by the present Interrogatory 3 has either already been made available to Palmetto Alliance. via the production of Applicants' Significant Deficiency Reports, or has been protected from discovery by"the B6ard.

The issue, then, is who should be obligated to review documents already provided by Applicants and extricate the particular data requested.

l g$

l

.c '

is u.

NRC precedent makes clear that this burden should fall on the party T

whose

" dragnet approach" resulted in the production of the

,j 2f4 documents.

In Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC 579, th'e u

Licensing Board ruled in regard to a similarly broad interrogatory y

(which sought to require the applicant to search through thousands of' pages off, company records and to compile specific information gleaned fron$ 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 (as in this instance) as equally accessible to the intervenor were 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. )

This principle is also recognized in the federal courts.

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

The precedent provided by Pilgrim is particularly appropriate in this instance, where Applicants do not know what Intervenor means by the terms used in its Interrogatories or its contentions, such as

" faulty workmanship in construction" or " deficiency in plht design change control" as used in Interrogatory 13. To require Applicants to attempt to interpret what Palmetto Alliance has in mind, and, then, with that possible interpretation in mind, to sift through documents to ferret out whatever information they think Palmetto Alliance might be interested in would be to turn the discovery process on its head.

It would not only be extremely inefficient, but would also subject' Applicants to undue burden and expense far out of proportion to any benefit to Palmetto Alliance.

e

~ -

In fact, Palmetto Alliance, has,

since the outset of this proceeding, professed itself incapable of providing the most basic information about its own contentions until it has had an opportunity Accordingly, the Board granted the for discovery from Applicants.

Intervenor the "first bite" at discovery.

(See December 22 Order).

the discovery materials which it sought, Now',

having rf.obtained Alliance is complaining because it must read this material

~

Palmetto in order to prepare.its case, For the reasons outlined above, Applicants object to providing i

any additional information in response to follow-up Interrogatory 3.

Identify all audits conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVIII which reflected systematic deficiencies in plant 4.

construction involving faulty workmanship or design change control reflected approval of faulty workmanship; for each or which the nature of the deficiency, the Appendix B criteria to and the respects in which noncompliance is indicate:

which it relatesdate and other identifying information of the audit reflected; the 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 results, and its corrective t

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

' implications; a detailed description of its corrective action.

This follow-up Interrogatory is virtually identical to Contention 6 filed by Palmetto Alliance in its Interrogatory 14 on acknowledge that Palmetto April 20, 1982 Discovery.

Applicants 1

Alliance has modified the language slightly; Intervenor's earlier Interrogatory 14 sought identification of "all audits conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVIII 'which reflected deficiencies...."

These minor modifications have presumably been made in an attempt to bring this Interrogatory under the " umbrella" exception provided by 'the Board in its February 9

Order, wherein it stated (p.

3) in regard to Interrogatories 12-14 that "[s]hould Palmetto Alliance frame more P

Mi -

p specific follow-up questions in this area, the Applicants might be 1

required to supply more specific answers."

0%

However, Applicants submit that the slight changes in wording -

pp made in formulating this follow-up Interrogatory do not satisfy the Q"1.

Board's direction to Palmetto Alliance in its February 9,1983 Order a

to frame sp'ecific supplemental interrogatories, rather than " pressing broad inter'rogatories that speak comprehensively to every problem the Applicants have experienced in Quality Control at Catawba and at their other facilities," which go "far beyond" Contention 6 as

.Je; admitted.

(February 9,1983 Order at p. 3).

Moreover, the minor textual changes made to Palmetto Alliance's original Interrogatory 14 to produce this follow-up Interrogatory are

~

clearly insufficient to change the thrust of Applicants' objections to providing the information sought.

Nor do these nonsubstantive changes in language affect the applicability of the Board's Order N

sustaining Applicants' objections to Interrogatory 14.

Rather, follow-up Interrogatory 4 reflects the Intervenor's continuing attempt to have Applicants prepare its case by not only researching and producing documents, but also searching through th voluminous materials requested by Palmetto Alliance to compile the s'pecific~ data which the Intervenor currently believes may be relevant to its contention.

The issue here is not whether or not the documents requested by Palmetto Alliance should be produced.

Applicants have already made this material available.

Rather, the issue is who should properly bear the burden of preparing Palm,etto Alliance's case in this proceeding.

Applicant's December 31, 1982 Response to Interrogatory 14 set forth a listing of departmental audits.(conducted pursuant to Part 50 e

'gyJu and construction Appendix B Criterion XVIII)' of, Catawba design i

These audits have been made available -

which reflected deficiencies.

Each audit file Palmetto Alliance for inspection and copying.

to includes information which explains the deficiency, the Appendix B criteria to which it relates and the respects in which noncompliance reflected, fthe date and other identifying information abou.t the is audit, and a description of the collective action taken.

As with Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories 12 and 13, Applicants p

objected to providing the specific information called fo'r in un-Interrogatory 14, on grounds that the burden of deriving this information from the audits would be substantially the same for Palmetto Alliance as for Applicants,

and that Applicants' QA audits and their availability for identification of the relevant inspection provided sufficient specificity to enable the Intervenor to To locate any additional information as readily as could Applicants.

b the extent that Interrogatory 14 sought information on audits of 3

Duke facilities other than Catawba, Applicants also objected on the grounds of relevance, noting that Contention 6, as admitted b The Boar $ sustained Board, focuses upon construction at Catawba.

Applicants' objections in its February 9, 1983 Order (>pp '. 3-4).

(See Board's language at p. 6, supra.)

It is clear that the information sought by the present Interrogatory 4 has either already been made available to Palmetto Alliance via the production of departmental audits or has been The iss'ue,,then, is who protected from discovery by the Board.

to review documents already provided by should be obligated Applicants and extricate the particular data requested.

NRC should ' fall on the party makes clear that. this burden precedent w

whose " dragnet approach" resulted in the production of the documents.

In Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC 579, the Licensing ruled in regard to a similarly broad interrogatory (which Board sought to require the applicant to search through thousands of pages of company records and to compile specific information gleaned from these' numerousf. documents) that to provide "such a massive volume o information...'would constitute an undue and unnecessary burden."

1NRC 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.

Applicant need only make available its At the most, files...for Intervenor's inspection and copying.

, (Id.)

See 4A This principle is also recognized in the federal courts.

Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp.33-115.

The precedent provided by Pilgrim is particularly appropriate in 3

this section, where Applicants do not know what Intervenor means by the terms used in its Interrogatories or its contentions, such as

" faulty workmanship in construction" or " deficiency in plant design To require Applicants change control" as used in Interrogatory 4.

Palmetto Alliance has in mind, and, o

to attempt to interpret what then, with that possible interpretation in mind, to sift through documents to ferret out whatever information they think Palmetto Alliance might be interested in would be to turn the discovery would not only be extreinely, inefficient, process on its head.

It but would also subject Applicants to undue burden and expense far out of proportion to any benefit to Palmetto Alliance.

l e

,4 1

In

fact, Palmetto Alliance has, since the outset of this proceeding, professed itself incapable of providing the most basic information about its own contentions until it has had an opportunity for discovery from Applicants.

Accordingly, the Board granted the Intervenor the "first bite" at discovery.

(See December 22 Order).

Now, having obt[ained the discovery material which it sought, Palmetto Alliance is comp'laining because it must read this material in order to prepare its case.

For the reasons outlined above, Applicants object to providing any additional information in response to follow-up Interrogatory 4.

5.

Identify each person formerly employed at the facility in or responsible for the Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs and involuntarily terminated for reasons related to deficiencies in the performance of their quality assurance or quality control duties.

For each such person provide the name, title, address, phone number, dates of employment and a detailed description of the circumstances of termination.

This follow-up Interrogatory appears to seek the same information previously requested in Interrogatory 22 on Contention 6 e

filed by Palmetto Alliance in its April 20, 1982 Discovery.

Interrogatory 22 states:

I Provide the names, titles, addresses, phane numbers and date of employment for all persons employed at the facility in or responsible for the Quality Assurance and Quality Control 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.

Pursuant to the Board's February 9, 1983 Order (pp. 4-5),

- Applicants indicated in their February 28, 1983 Resp.onses,that they would make available' to Palmetto Alliance a complete list of former Catawba QA employees to include, names, titles, date of employment 4

9

.c

m ebevi-

-.W ;

3%

f and date of termination of employment for all such former QA y

Edh.;

employees, and the last known addresses and telephone numbers gp?

et of sucli employees in Applicants' files.

That list was furnished to' Palmetto Alliance on March 14, 1983.

g.g Interrogatory 22 also sought information as to the " reasons for

~

.e t'erminationf for these employees and a detailed description of "the circumstances of termination."

The Board sustained Applicants'

~

objection to providing such information, stating that "[t]his is

-i very sensitive information that is normally kept confidential and which, as the question is phrased, might have had nothing to do L

with QA or QC matters."

(February 9,1983 Order at p. 5).

Applicants recognize that follow-up Interrogatory 5 is more narrowly focused than Interrogatory 22 in that it seeks details of the

" circumstances of termination" only for those former QA employees

" involuntarily terminated for reasons related to deficiencies in the i!)

performance of their quality assurance or quality control duties."

]'f:.. a

,)

Applicants nevertheless object to supplying this information on grounds that disclosure of this information would violate, Duke Power Company policy and subject these former employees to embarrassment

~

and harrassment by Palmetto Alliance.

Moreover, disclosure of 'some of the information sought could potentially subject Applicants to civil I

lawsuits.

Providing Palmetto Alliance with information as to the circumstances of termination of these former employees would invade the privacy of Applicants' former employees,

su,bject them to

\\

and expose them to the potential for harassment by embarrassment, Palmetto Alliance, since, in Applicants' view, the only reason that Palmetto Alliance would want such information is so that it can

~

w

• s

• s

contact these individuals.

Aceprdingly, Applicants object to disclosing the details surrounding the termination of these employees on the grounds that this is contrary to Duke Power Company policy.

This is because Duke believes that it is incumbent on it to protect the privacy of such individuals in this situation.

Duke's primary concer$. is that the privacy of the 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 litigation 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 constitute valid grounds for objection, both in NRC proceedings and in the federal courts. 6/

Applicants accordingly request that the Board issue an order protecting Applicants against disclosure of the reasons for termination of these former QA employees.

Should the 3

Board determine that some or all of the information requested should be disclosed to Palmetto Alliance, Applicants move in the alternative that this Board issue an order which conditions such disclosure on l

reflected in an appropriate affidavit of nondisciosure, an agreement, by Palmetto Alliance that (1) the information released will not be disclosed to any person other than counsel for Palmetto Alliance and

(

~6/

See Illinois Power Co., et al.

(Clinton Power Station,

Unit 1),

I 6P-81-61,14 NRC 1735,1740 (1981), wherein the Licensing Board stated that:

Personnel files, inchiding 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 (footnote continued on next page) l

,-.-,-r,.

--w e--

. ^

identified employee or (2) Palmetto Alliance will not contact any Applicants maintain that the objections listed above a former employee.

and should be upheld.

beyond the re'sponse to the Interrogatory would cause Applicants annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and/or undue burden and ex 6.

From the time of commencement of construction at Cat present. identify those persons employed by Duke Power Company for the development, management and i

principally responsibleCompany's Quality Assurance program related to and the implementation of such prograin implementhtion of the at const.ruction For each person please set forth his or her name, title, dates nuclear plant of employment in the subject position, present address and telepho Catawba.

number.

T6 From Title 2

Name (3

5/1/74 2/1/81 Corporate QA Mgr Wells, J R 2/1/81

'Present Corporate QA Mgr

~

Grier, G W The information can be privacy of the person involved.

obthined in this proceeding under a protective order if it This showing is shown to be relevant to the contention.

has not been made.

539 F Supp. 57, 70-71 Allen v. Colgate - Palmolive Co.,wherein the Court was fa

See, i.e.,

iQ@

~

"foi all appraisal reports and other personnel records concerning E D. E 1981),

};

Colgate's former and present employees specified by name....

Defendants claimed that:

is designed to help, "The reque'st is unduly burdensome; recruit

'op t-in' plaintiffs' would invade the plaintiff privacy of the 57 individuals named; and is not relevant to

~,

the subject matter involved in the pending action.

"i 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

~

and need greater showing of relevance plaintiff make before Colgate is required to produce all of the files a

requested." Id.

,. e e

I A

l a

. J

+

Name Title From To Alexander, C. N.

QA Mgr-Admin Ser 3/1/82 Present Barbour, J. O.

QA Mgr-Operations 5/1/74 Present B radley, W. H.

QA Mgr-Audits 2/1/74 6/1/76 QA Mgr-Eng & Ser 6/1/76 3/1/81 QA Staff 3/1/81 Present Curtis, J. M.

j'. QA Mgr-Vendors 1/1/73 Present

~

Davison, L. R.

SR QC Engineer 2/1/81 3/1/81 QA Mgr-Projects 3/1/81 Present Frye, J. M.

QA' Supervisor 5/1/74 6/1/76/

SR QA Supervisor 6/1/76 Present Henry, W. O.

QA Mgr-Construction 11/1/78 3/1/81 QA Mgr-Tech Ser 3/1/81 Present Barnes, L. R.

QA Mgr-Construction 3/29/76 12/30/78 Aycock, Charlie QA Mgr-Construction 5/1/74 7/31/76 Wardell, Furman-QA Mgr-Eng & Ser 6/1/74 7/1/76 Huggett, Howard QA Mgr-Eng & Ser 5/1/74 12/1/74 Beam, D. G.

Project Mgr-Catawba 1974 2/81 U Freeze, L.'A.

Project Engineer 1974 1/19/81 Dick, R. L.

Vice Pres-Construction 1971 2/81 With the exception of J. 'R. Wells, who can be reached through the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, in Atlanta, Georgia, the remainder of these f

individuals are assigned to Duke Power Company's General Offices, in Charlotte, NC.

Identify in detail any complaints known to Applicants made to the 7.

NRC regarding faulty workmanship in construction, design change control, or pressure to approve faulty workmanship at Catawba.

For each such complaint please set forth the name, address and telephone. number of the persons complaining or involved in the matter complained of and explain fully the manner i.n' which Applicants learned of.the complaint.

?

e

_ 21 -

as a matter of course, know which, if any, Applicants do not, I&E ' inspections and corresponding NRC Inspection Reports issued for the Catawba ^ Nuclear Station were prompted by complaints to the NRC regarding

" faulty workmanship in construction, design change approve faulty workmanship at Catawba."

control, or pressure to The NRC does >;not as a matter of course always inform Applicant, o s

Accordingly, while its reasons for' conducting on-site inspections.

Applicants have, as requested by Interrogatory 7, provided below the Inspection Reports they believe have been prompted by complaints made by workers, it is possible that other Inspection Reports (all of which have been made available to Palmetto Alliance for inspection and copying as explained in response to Interrogatory 21 on Contention 6 in Applicants' December 31, 1982 Pesponses (see pp.

Since Applicants 32-36)) were prompted by complaints to the NRC.

are not privy to the existence of any such complaints, we submit

,that this inquiry would be better directed to the NRC Staff.

y 3-

~

The complaints known to Applicants are as follows:

Applicants believe that Inspection Report Nos. SC 413/80-8; 50-414/80-8 and 50-413/80-19; 50-414/80-19 were prom'pted by complaints made to the NRC by Nolan F. Hoopingarner, III.

As noted above, those Inspection Report files have been made available (RWO) to Palmetto Alliance for inspection and copying.

With respect to the Catawba Welding Task Force Report and the underlying circumstances involved therein as referred to in answer 8.

to a previous interrogatory at pp. 33-34 of Applicants' February 28, 1983, Supplemental Responses please set forth the names, titles,

dates of employment,. current addresses and telephbne numbers of f

each of the subject Catawba QA Welding Inspectors, memb'ers of the all responsible consultant personnel Welding Inspector Task Force, participating in the investigation or in advising Applicants, and all persons interviewed in the course of the Task Force effort.

?

. m The names of the QA Welding, Inspectors involved in the Welding Inspector Task Force Report were made available as a key to the code used in the Task Force Report.

Applicants' records show that Palm'etto Alliance was furnished with a copy of that key on March 14, Applicants' records further show that the name, job title, 1983.

date' of empl6yment, address and telephone number of each QA employee at C'atawba, including the subject QA Welding Inspectors, was furnished to Palmetto Alliance on March 14, 1983. The members of the Welding Inspector Task Force are listed in Section 3, at pp.

6 2-6, of the Consultants' Report on the Welding Inspector's Task Force Report.

Applicants' Records show that Palmetto Alliance was furnished a copy of the Consultant's Report on March 14, 1983.

Each of these individuals is assigned to Duke's General Office in Charlotte, N.C.

The Consultant's Report also lists the persons involved as consultants, as well as their addresses, titles and

, telephone numbers. Finally, all persons interviewed in the course of the task force effort are listed in Appendix B of the Consultant's Report.

(G.A.B.)

l With respect to the Catawba Welding Task Force referred to above, 9.

identify any and all documents, tapes, notes or memo.randa please reflecting the circumstances and manner in which Applicants learned of the " dissatisfaction" among the welding inspectors, formulated the l

response to such

" dissatisfaction",

implemented the response planned, and followed up with corrective action, including any and all communications to and from management, to and from. the l

consultants, members of the Task Force, and the subject inspectors, including-but not limited to the records of all interviews by the consultants and Task Force members.

l Documents responsive to this Interrogatory will be identified i

and made available for inspection and copying bY MarcI 30, 1983.

~

w

A.

.s.

w 7

CONTENTION 7

-1 kk 1.

For each instance of noncompliance with NRC operating and h'

administrative procedures or violation of NRC rules or regulations by -

Applicants which became known to senior management of Duke Power 5

Company, identify in detail the circumstances involved including the r.y nature of the problem and its resolution, the actions taken by senior

', *7 the names, titles, dates of employment, addresses and management, 3'

telephone numbers of the senior management personnel involved, and any and all documents,

notes or memoranda reflecting such involvement',by senior management personnel.

This follow-up Interrogatory seeks essentially the same information reque'sted in Interrogatories 11, 12, 13 and 14. l/ on v

&#7 Contention 7 filed by Palmetto Alliance in its April 20, 1982 discovery.

Minor modifications have been made, presumably in an m

attempt to respond to the Board's comments on Interrogatories 11-14 in its February 9,1983 Order. 8/

l/

These Interrogatories read as follows:

11.

Describe in detail each instance of Duke Power non-compliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures provided for in s

i 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.

8/

The Board stated on p. 6:

[t]he details of individual instances of noncompliance are not the focus of { Contention 7].

Rather it is the attitudes and practices of the Applicants' management, as evidenced only in part by the ways in which they have, dealt w*ith problems, that are most germane to this contention.

l

that the slight changos in However, it is Applicants' ~ posi, tion if the wording reflected in this follow-up Interrogatory do not sat s y Board's direction to Palmetto Alliance to frame specific nterrogatories.

i Moreover, the minor textual changes made to Palmetto f

12-14 to produce this follow-up original Int [ rrogatories Interrogatory" are clearly insufficient to change the thrust of Nor do Applicants' objections to providing the information sought li bility of these nonsubstantive changes in language affect the app ca

)

the Board's Order sustaining Applicants' objections to follow-up Interrogatory I reflects Interrogatories 12-14.

Rather, Intervenor's continuing attempt to have Applicants prepa the In,tervenor's case by not only researching and produ but also searching and analyzing through the volumin hich requested by Palmetto A11iar :e to compile the specific its contention.

the Intervenor currently believes may be relevant to

,: r.,

The issue here is not whether or not the documents 2

1 Applicants have already made Palmetto Alliance should be produced:

Rather, the issu,e is, who should properly this material available.

have the burden of preparing Palmetto Alliance's ca 4

proceeding.

Responses to these Interrogatories, In their December 31, 1982 any noncompliance with NRC operating an Applicants noted that administrative procedures provided for in Commiss regulations and the corrective, actions and man

~

Duke insL:..ted with ' respect to such instances of noncomplia documents:

operating plant would be reflected in at least one of fou a Quality Reportable Occurrence Report, an. Incident Report, a e'

4 l

,y-

-w y

,..m y._--.-,w%

%.s__<em,-gy,~

-y-

,,,y y

y mwvry w-

-eq-

-==%

y

1s.

Assurance audit, or an NRC IE Inspection Report.

Applicants agreed in their Responses to make available for inspe ble copying (arid have since done so) the Incident Reports, Re Occurrence Reports, Quality Assurance audits and NRC

~

Reports for Oconee and McGuire Unit I which reflect d

'/

noncompliance fith NRC operating and administrative p though interrogatories designed to force production o even particular subject are not favored.

documents relating, to a

(Illinois Power Co.

(Clinton Power

Station, Units 1

and /. 2),

r ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 34 (1975)).

Applicants noted that Palmetto In supplying this information, documents details regarding each can obtain from these Alliance Inst,ance of noncompliance and the corresponding c The corrective and management controls implemented by Applicants.

e actions and management controls described in these docu ld be effective.

If

all undertaken on the assumption that they wou M

ffective, q

4 there was a question whether any of these measures were e controls might have been additional corrective measures or The respects in which the original measures sight hav C

necessary.

been deficient, and the fact that other corrective actions taken, will also be reflected in these documents.

y the providing for each such report, Applicants objected to 11, 12, specific'information and evaluations sought in Interrog i.

i d by 13 and 14, on grounds that this information can be ascerta Palmetto Alliance simply from an inspection of these docdhents would be the burden of deriving the information from these information on these various reports,

see background 31, 1982 Responses at pp. 50-52.

S/

For more Applicants' December 4

f, i

a

,/.

iY:4 substantially the same for Palmetto Alliance as for Applicants, and

%'i that the identification and production of all of these documents JG

'4J provides sufficient specificity to permit Intervenor to locate and

?]k jg identify, as readily as can A'pplicants, the information sought. The Board sustained Applicants' objections, stating:

Thesg; four (Interrogatories] are about as broad as,

r:eadily be conceived of in an NRC proceeding.

can Although they are arguably within the outer scope of Contention 7, which is itself quite broad, the burdens involved in preparing full responses to these questions would be out of all proportion to the potential benefits to Palmetto.

The bulk of the 4

information Palmetto seeks is in the reports the Applicants are making available.

Moreover, the details of individual instances of noncompliance are not the focus of this contention.

Rather it is the attitudes and practices of the Applicants' management, as evidenced only in part by the ways in which they have dealt with problems, that are most germane to this contention.

Depositions of cognizant senior management personnel would appear to be a much more efficient way to explore the most significant aspects of this matter.

(February 9,1983 Order at p. 6)

It is clear that the information Palmetto Alliance seeks in 3

follow-up Interrogatory 1 is contained in documents which have been available. to the Intervenors since February 15, 1983.,, By limiting its inquiry to only those instances of noncompliance "which became t

known to senior management," Palmetto Alliance is attempting to place the burden of' research and compilation upon Applicants. The issue, then, is which party should be obligated to review the documents Applicants have provided and extricate the particular data requested.

Both NRC precedent and federal cases make clear that 4

g

_g-

]

's this burden should fall on the party whose " dragnet cpproach" resulted in the production of the documents. sof The precedent provided by Pilgrim is particularly appropriat

~

this instance, where Applicants do not know what Intervenor means by the terms used in its Interrogatories or its contentions, (i.

y, To what is meant by " violations...known to senior management",).

require Applicants to attempt to interpret what Palmetto Allian in mind, and, then, with that possible interpretation in mind, to whatever information they think out through documents to ferret M

Palmetto Alliance might be interested in would be to turn the would not only be extremely It discovery process on its head.

but would also subject Applicants to undue burden and inefficient, to Palmetto Alliance.

expense far out of proportion to any benefit In fact, Palmetto Alliance has, since the outset of this professed itself incapable of providing the most basic proceeding, information about its own contentions until it has had an oppo

.p y

Accordingly, the Board granted the for discovery from Applicants.

w 1 NRC 579, wherein the Board 10/ See Boston Edison Co., Pilgrim,

supra, broad interrogatory (which sought to ruled in regard to a similarly require the applicant to search through thousa

~

documents) that to provide "such a

massive volume of constitute an undue and unnecessary burden."

information...wouldPointing out that the records were (as in this instanc the Board 1 NRC at 588.

to the intervenor as to the applicant, equally accessible as stated that One party cannot compel another party to undertake the At the burden of preparation of the former's own case. App (Id. )

most,

Intervenor's inspection and copying.

also 4A Moore's Federal Practice, Section 33.20, pp. 33-99 t 33-115; Rule 33(c) of the: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See

(.

l

.., " q ;s g a

Ti '

Intervenor the "first bite" at di,scovery.

(See December 22 Order).

Now, having obtained the discovery material which it sought, iQ Palmetto Alliance _is complaining because it must read this material.

j

.I in order to prepare its case.

For the reasons outlined above, Applicants object to providing an'y additiorikl information in response to follow-up Interrogatory 1.

Other than 'by documents or materials protected from disclosure to Intervenor under the attorney " work product" or attorney-client 2.

privileges, is the. factual basis for your position on this contention reflected in conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or more individuals?

.A If so:

Identify by name and address each such individual.

a.

b.

State the educationsl and professional background of each individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations.

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

c'.

Describe the information received from such individuals.

d.

Identify ' each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record related to each conversation, consultation, correspondence, or e.

a other communication with such individual.

the currently-developed factual basis for To the extent that l

Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No.

7 is dependent upon communications among or between individual's, t communications are subject to the attorney-client or attorney See February 28, 1983 Responses. at pp.

work-product privileges.

~ Any other documents which Applicants are aware of to date, 3-28.

underlying the currently-developed factual basis for Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No.,.7',

as,. expressed in Applicants' Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories or this matter, has been identified in response to pleadings filed in relevant interrogatories and has been made available for inspection and, copying.

T',

)

CONTENTION 8 Describe in detail the "significant differences between McGuire and Catawba control boards, system design, and operating procedures" 1.

referred to in the January 31, 1983, letter from Hal B. Tucker, Duke Power Company, to NRC, and the differences and similarities in the McGuire simulator and Catawba.

Please identify any documents reflecting these similarities and differences.

The confrol board of the McGuire simulator is a copy of the McGuire Unit 'One control board.

The major differences between the Catawba and McGuire control boards (see Attachment 1) are a follows:

IMC2 - Steam Generator meters are in different locations, along 1.

with several switches (i.e., PORV reset switches).

1MC10 - Catawba has a different type of switch for the Feed 2.

Water Pump Turbine control and some different instrument and i

switch locations for FWPT controls.

IMC10 - Catawba has a different type auxiliary feedwater valve 3.

controller.

t IMC10 - Catawba has a different Reactor Coolant Pump switch e

- ~

4.

Also, the general arrangements for

~

location and arrangement.

AT and Tave defeat switch, and the Pressurizer pr$ssure a

/

level control selector switches are different.

an automatic seal injection controller; 5.

IMC10 - Catawba. has McGuire does not.

6.

IMC11 - Catawba has two loop delay heat removal suction valves; McGuire has one.

Catawba has two bypass auto controllers (one for each train), two flos gauges and a pressurizer auxiliary spray manual loader that McGuire does not have.

e P.

I 1MC11 - Catawba has a mimic (diagram) layout of the NI System 7.

on the control board.

McGuire does not have this feature.

IMC11 - The Catawba meter locations for the Component Cooling 8.

System are generally different than at McGuire.

1MC3 - Main Steam System drain instrumentation is located on 9.

this panel jat Catawba.

At McGuire, this instrumentation is, on

~

1 MC13.

1MC14 - The bal.ance of plant ECCS Monitor Status Light Panel 10.

(1MC16 at McGuire) is slightly different and uses many computer points as inputs.

Significant system design differences are shown on Attachment 2.

(See also F.S. A.R. Section 1.3.1.)

Many of the Catawba Operating Procedures originated from the similar McGuire procedures. These served as a starting point in the development of Catawba-specific procedures.

Catawba procedures differ from McGuire procedures in that they take into account:

1.

Equipment / component identification difference (From Catawba FSAR).

2.

Equipment / component location differences (From

' physical I

verification).

3.

System / component design differences (From Catawba FSAR).

4.

Latest available Westinghouse Technical Guidelines (ERG's,

Vendor Bulletins, Letters, etc.).

Specific instructions for drafting / verifying / validating 5.

Catawba procedures (Catawba Station Directives).

Latest revision' of Westinghouse Standard Technical Specification 6.

(NUREG 0452 Rev 4).

(CLH) 4 M

or

1s.

Identify in detail each and every test used or to be used in qualifying reactor operator applicants at Catawba, including 2.

" validated testing program",

limited to the pre-employment

" interviews",

" physical examinations",

"Thurstone Temperament Test", "Minhesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory", "NRC Re and "NRC license physical examinations",

" pre-operational testing" referred to in answer to earlier Operator Examination",

at pp.

46 and 47 of Applicants' Supplemental Provide copies of each test and all test results, coded interrogatories Responses.

as appropriate to protect individual privacy.

The pre-eipployment tests are:

1.

A twenty Numerical Personnel Tests for Industry a.

minute timed test of thirty questions which evaluates the ability to model and solve mathematical problems which ar worded or graphically described.

A set of fifty Verbal Personnel Tests for Industry b.

word associations to be timed to five minutes w evaluates the applicant's verbal aptitude.,

A test of the applicant's ability Minnesota Clerical Test -

c.

3,,~

to perceive differences in numerical and alphabetical sequences with a seven and an eight minute timed parts c

a

~

The Numerical Ability Test - A thirty minute timed test of d.

fo'rty problems which evaluates the applicant's, ability to such as fractious handle various mathematical functions, i

and roots and exponents.

The total battery is given by professionally trained Tests and results 3

administrators in a controlled environment.

Test scores of candidate are controlled to prevent compromise.

RO's and SRO's, coded to protect individual privacy, will provided for inspection and copying.

f

+w a

+

^

.a I

2.

Psychological Testing:

The general standards for nuclear station security include the requirement for screening of all employees authorized unescorted access to the nuclear station on the basis of The Thurstone Temperament Schedule is a emotional stability.

sidely rebognized and adopted tool for evaluating.the psychologic'al profile of an applicant.

The Thurstone Temperament Schedule provides scores on the areas of activity, vitality, impulsiveness, dominance, stability,

sociability and reflectiveness.

The only score which has an established cut-off is the stability score which must be above eight.

Applicants who score eight or below may be given a more in-depth evaluation through the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).

3.

Interviews: Pre-employment and psychological testing are

,)

The interviewer uses conducted prior to the interview process.

the results of the pre-employment test battery, psychological testing and the applicant's resume as a basis-for expanding the profile of the job candidate.

An Applicant Appraisal Torm is completed on the. individual and is used as one input in completing the selection process.

4.

Once' selected, all job candidates must take a comprehensive physical examination to provide reasonable assurance that the individual will be able to perform the job ad'equatply.

The physician conducting the exam is provided information about the type of work which the selectee will be engaged in.

This information is used by the physician in evaluating the selectee's

ability to carry out job tasks.

Some of the areas covered by the phsyical examinations (besides what would be included in a routine' annual physical for anyone) include color blindness, depth perception, hearing and hand to eye coordinatior.

Examples of the physical examinations conducted will be provided foi inspection and copying.

A copy of the NRC licpnse physical examination also will be provided.

This examination is to be taken within six months of taking the Reactor Operator Catawba RO and SRO candidates have not yet t'aken examination.

1 this test.

There are no Reactor Operat'or tests 5.

Pre-Operational Testing:

This of the Pre-Operational Testing Program.

taken as part sequence of activities is fully described in Chapter 14 of the FSAR.

The pre-operational testing period is used to ensure that station systems will function as designed.

Operations E

personnel, including RO and SRO candidates, participate in these tests along with other station personnel.

Operations supervisors observe how their people perform during this period and use this information in evaluating overall hers i

performance.

6.

As additional information on testing Reactor Operator candidates, the full sequence of tests and test scores for Cold License Certification will be made available for inspection and copying.

This further supplements Applicants' response to Interrogatory 35-provided in Applicants' February 28, 1983, Responses.

(CLH) e m;

-M-CONTENTION _16 Describe in detail any and all measures to be employed at Catawba to prevent or mitigate damage to stored spent fuel from an acciden 1.'

Identify intentional spent fuel cask drop into the spent fuel pool.

any documents reflecting such measures.

in the event of a cask Applicants' analyses demonstrate that, drop accident,', the spent fuel cask would not enter the spent, f pool.

See FSAit Section 9.1.2.3.

(MLC)

Describe in detail any and all measures to 2.

N removal of a spent fuel cask lid.

such measures.

Procedures will be implemented to prevent premature removal o Those procedures are not yet completed.

a spent fuel cask lid.

(RWO)

How much time would transpire after total loss of-function of theu Catawba spent fuel pool heat removal system 3.

sufficient pool water to expose the tops of stored spent fuel Thereafter, until the initiation of fuel cladding / steam elements?

Please describe in detail the basis for your answer.

~

reaction?

As stated in FSAR, Section 9.1.3.3.1, there are at least 72 y

hours before the fuel assemblies would be uncovered, assuming l of both trains of the fuel pool heat removal system and no operator action to initiate makeup to the pool.

The fuel pool level is

.,3 I

When the level drops indicated and alarmed in the control room.

below the normal operation band, the operator has 'a choice of Normally, makeup will be provided from several sources for makeup.

either the reactor makeup water storage tank or the refueling water If, for some reason, neither of these, is available, the storage tank.

source of makeup watef is siihplied from safety-related, assured Since there wil either train of the Nuclear Service Water System.

always be a source of makeup to the fuel pool and the level d m.~.

d,

slowly enough to provide ample time for operator response, the fuel pool level will not drop to the top of the spent fuel racks.

(MLC) 4.

What if any measures are planned at Catawba to mitigate hydrogen gas generation and combustion in the spent fuel pool?

Please describe in detail.

There are no measures planned at Catawba to mitigate hydrogen gas generation a'nd combustion in the spent fuel pool.

See Response to Interrogatory

• 3 (page 34, supra.) wherein it is explained that the level of the cooling water in the spent fuel pool will not drop to the top of the racks.

(MLC) 5.

Describe in detail each and every instance in which boron concentrations have fallen below 2,000 parts per million at any Duke operating facilities.

Please set forth the date, facility name, cause and corrective action taken, if any, and identification of any document reflecting such occurrences.

Applicants are not aware of any ^ instance in which boron concentrations have fallen below 2,000 parts per million in the spent fuel pool cooling system at any Duke operating facility.

(RWO) if t

e f

9 O

e l

6 CONTENTION 27

1. ' Identify in detail each and every potential accidental release point for airborne radioactivity from Catawba.

Describe in detail the monitoring equipment and procedures for each such potential release point.

.The potential release points for airborne radioactivity from Cataw'ba Nucleah Station are identified in FSAR section The radiation monitoring instrumentation is identified in FSAR section Radiation monitor setpoint criteria are stated in the Technical 11.5.

Specifications, implementing methodologies are stated in th established. and maintained by Dose Calculation Manual, and are station procedures.

(MLB) features, if any, in the installed 2.

Describe system redundancy In the absence of redundant features, effluent monitoring systems.

what, measures are planned to assure timely protective action in event of an unmonitored accidental release of radiation?

Radiation monitoring redundancy requirements are stated in the Technical Specifications as well as measures to be taken when

~

' monitors are inoperable to provide manual samples to determine a

Timely protective actions, airborne concentrations of radioactivity.

are identified in the Station Emergency fPlan (in if required,'

conformance with NUREG 0654). (MLB) t Describe in detail the factual basis for conclu 3.

affected populations.

Please identify any and all

studies, communications or documents reflecting such factual basis.

~

5, 14. 15, 17 and See Applicants' Response to Interrogatories 18 as set forth in Applicants' Responses to " Palmetto Alliance

~

Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Pioduce" (dated September 22,1982).

(MLB)

Do Applicants plan to employ aircraft in post accident envir If so, please identify such plans in detail.

4.

monitoring?

The use of aircraft for post-accident environmental monitoring is described in the Crisis Management Plan.

(MLB)

Do Applicarits agree with the answers given by NRC Staff in 5.

response to earlier Interrogatories 18 and 22 on Contention 27, NRC Staff Responses, dated 10/19/82, at pp. 28, 29 and 30, respectively.

If not, please explain.

Yes.

(MLB.)

8

~

Other than by ', documents or materials protected from disclosure to 6.

under the attorney " work product" or attorney-client Intervenor is the factual basis for your position on this contention privileges, reflected in conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or more individuals?

Identify by name and address each such individual.

a.

b.

State the educational and professional background of each individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations.

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

c.

d.

Describe the information received from such individuals.

Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record e.

related to each conversation, consultation, correspondence, or other communication with such individual.

To the extent that the currently-developed factual basis for U

Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No. 27 is dependent up' n communications among or between individuals, those o

communications are subject to the attorney-client or attorney.

I work-product privileges.

See February 28, 1983 Responses at pp.

Any other document which Applicants are aware of to date, 3-28.

underlying the currently-developed factual basis for Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No. 27, as expressed in i

Applicants' Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories or in this matter, has been identified in rs'sponse to pleadings filed in

~

relevant Interrogatories and has been made available for inspection and copying.

r

CONTENTION 44 t-Please describe in detail the reference temperature, RT values,

1.*

by year, originally predicted to be experienced at OconeM.DT The RT values originally predicted for Oconee are contained NDT in B AW10056A, Radiation Embrittlement Sensitivity of Reactor Pressitre Vessd1 Steels,

by H. S.

Palme, August, 1973.

This material will be" made available for inspection and copying.

(CWH)

Please explain in detail why the actual RT values experienced'at 2.

Oconee deviated, if they did, from the ofthally predicted valu~es.

Identify any and all empirical data supporting your explanation and any documents reflecting such data.

The reasons that the actual RT values experienced at NDT Oconee have deviated, if they have, from the originally - predicted values is set forth in the documents listed below.

The only availgble comparisons of predicted and actual RT values for NDT Oconee Nuclear Station are for those materials included in the Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Program.'

These comparisons ire tabulated and discussed in Section 7 of the following documents:

Report No.

Title BAW 1421 Analysis of Capsule OCI-F From Duke' Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station' Unit 1.

i B AW 1437 Analysis of Capsule OCII-C from Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 2.

BAW 1438 Analysis of Capsule OCIII-A from Duke Power I

Company Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 3.

B AW 1436 Analysis of Capsule OCI-E from Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 1.

BAW 1697 Analysis of Capsule OCIII-B from Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station,. Unit 3,.. '

j BAW 1699 dnalysis of Capsule OCII-A from Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 2.

l 4-

M -

3g This material will be made available for inspection and C

copying.

(CWH)

'g h,

3.

Has Duks Power Company supported or participated in efforts, such '

C as those by EPRI, to evaluate possible remedial actions to be taken in response to premature reactor vessel embrittlement? ' Please z

explain.

Duke Power Company has fully supported and participated in

~:

e, industry effbrts conducted by EPRI and various reactor vessel vendor owner's groups aimed at evalution and development of vessel C

embrittlement remedial programs. Duke Power Company has provided 9di both financial support and personnel to work on various committees.

.. 'd (CWH) 4.

Has Duke reviewed such possible remedial actions for use at any of its facilities? If so, please explain the details of such review and its results.

Two primary remedial programs have been proposed:

A.

Fuel utilization schemes which lower the vessel fluence.

These programs were partially sponsored by Duke Power u;q Company and have been reviewed in detail.

They are 5

applicable to Oconee Reactor Vessels, if required

/

B.

Reactor Vessel Thermal Anneal This program was recently completed and has,not been reviewed in any detail such that applicability to Duke Power Company vessels could be determined.

At this time,

Duke does not consider it necessary to adopt either remedial action at Oconee.

(CWH) 5.

Other than by documents or material protected from disclosure to Intervenor under the attorney ' work product", or attorney-client privileges, is the factual basis for your positioh on this contention i

reflected in conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or more individuals?

\\

40 If so:

f a.

Identify by name and address each such individual.

b.

State the educational and professional background of each individual, including occupation and institutional affiliations.

c.

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

Describe thf, information received from such individuals.

d.

e.

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

To the extent that the currently-developed factual basis for Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No. 44 is dependent upon communications among or between individuals, those communications are subject to the attorney-client or attorney work-product privileges.

See February 28, 1983 Responses at pp.

3-28.

Any other document of which Applicants are aware to date which underlies the currently-developed factual basis for Applicants' position on Palmetto Alliance's Contention No. 44, as expressed in t

.,~

Applicants' Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories or pleadings filed in this matter, has been identified in response to relevant interrogatories and has been made available for inspection i

and copying.

0 g

6 0

e v

=- --

v 43 _

c; Respectfully submitted, Albert V. Carr, Jr.

/

Ronald L. Gibson

/

DUKE POWER COMPAN P. O. Box 33819 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-7910 J. Michael McGarry, III Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 (202) 857-9833 Attorneys for Duke Power Company; et ~al.

March 25,1983 l

I T

0 0

,8 l

4 I

-g-y

,p-h -

am.es tiesca i act arca inuct l, ascs -

l 1

l.

-f g

. s-

.r,

t.

u i.

4 r

_J

.s

~L.

I i._, _

CATAWBA amC4 i,

suc4-'

NUCLEAR f

E 8""

STAT. ION 3

.l:

3" l-3 r r.

-m I

l lo lt L.

3 m-

,e AMc7

~

C.4:

IMC7 g

+,

AMCS MCIS m

30C8 g

L..

y,#.'

ENCE leICS

!.. - l.lg ;~. _

,.1

. 4. <.;.v NCH

• • '.,4if..?

w eta inscis ri ancis sucit s_a s.

ia.

4 is 7!?)h4

>sjp<.

l 8

8 4

i E' - I

.I I

i 1

I g *lLO u

.tf 4., J.

g l

l

' ll L

.J

?

.y g

l j,' '.; :,

y

.J l

'l

'I' t

1 g,

g- -

q e*('s-b.

- 3.-

q l,0 g

t e

)

sel t

r,+. '

1 EI

' ENC l lMCD

'la l

' 'g+

!.,..' 9 O

^:.

y 7 I,! $+

McGUIRE s :

m_C.4 1

NUCLEAR

,. ;;*.r -

3 L,,_e

'.. 3

.I.

n

.y.

I g

g g

i i STATION 3

e

_ _.J

=

. g _.

y a.

g; n.z.. ;

g E

= = _j g

m m

f' l

+ '.?t.

9.

g s

w l

g I

E

--e I

a s

' f

't.

g f

e

.m.

l=

.i Q

y i,*

h U

I

' 2 3

..\\.'g

~~M 2

m m.1 m

u MCIS

= = -

g.

k g,4,j.gy pr..,

O g

1. g, '.

O NCl4 e'.,

~

'3

...'e.

EN,CH N n

a i-

>. s ha I

i~

I

[

4' L

i

!j

'} i

' :. ii

-@ig.j'l3

< a' i

r i

t 4

- 4.

43 s

I MCf6

'l ~'~.

t l'[ tacit

.I S..-$ -

telCIS NBC12[

p

, tWCIS W'.i

!!! Fl f: 'i r.-

, m,.

.m...

a 4

6

+

r.

A

'. l.

.ej l

.a

,,,. 4L g.

e t

l

.I.

...'r, 0

. ' t.

t,.

.*t'.

4

• ... -s.

-s

,'s

<~

s t

b

.p 1

(

1

, m9m

,,i si l

e n

i see,*.

!=

2.

r, m

8 e

w.

l-

, k-N jE

• g

.g.'

1" C

+

a' s

g I

i

,i.

L.,.

1 t1

,mm

.m

..a g'.

g

• to a

!, { e,, I J

r

c..~

.t r

- q a :.

f assu s n y. v.7I e

.L

.s

.., n

.,.3

.t Tsets! CAL tt&IBIBC Crtist stirstatet y,

.1 s s m.u,

w m

- = ~ - +

s

. sas o ase.o E : _le$,4:t:s'nl A 95 mat e..l. '

'.. *.B'Md 3 asu

• BNPW1D 800M 4 FMf T CPet.1

?,.

(. Ayass-Asem Eneestdian Asen Elbeestamon

'{

f.

. N,'

1 Comeset Essed 13st*1 SS

• cpesease's Omasete' 8

Cesard neard IMc2 M

Radation Maatser

• g.

3 Centret asaed 13sc3 at Mustaarlaserwunastassea

. q,,5 -

centret Emmad 1Mc448 at Sneese 3sete ===*= h 4

Ommeret Bense 1MCS.TM ~ M 2natreefer's saataan

.4 f'f:.

i,'

.8 Mentaar Ligia femel NQs 31 Tulsplane Tutde

+

e*

Centat Beast uses ss yemmer cassama M

Comesd Beard 1&IC14 M

. Pommer IRanalbuessa hun 11

.Comted Board 111CL1 35 W-%

shsaBased1&ICu[.

,1 3

=

e=,.i,* - luco

.If?

M Custeal W && C M

.6 t ',0 p *.*

.i

,n

,..{;

..,i 4,4, } -

i

..~s, j'

.1. : g t

.'O

)

t

.\\..':*

.*.,e,-

3 id 3.J '

t.5 U.

u! ? ;5 :

6 i

.+

f.,. r-

. yy' l..

< ~.s. s

'?*

^

...;v a l ~

g'j,-

t-1.,l< t.F.t;..

e

~ '

Attachmont 2

)

McGuire - Catawba Major Plant Differences 1

System McGuire Catawba 1.0 Turbine Westinghouse General Electric i'

1.1 Control D.E.H.

E.H.C.

2.0 Condenser 2.1 Cooling Dnce Through Cooling Tower 2.2 Pressure Uniform Pressure Three Different

' Pressure 3.0 Heater Drain 3.1 C Heaters 3 C Heater 2 C Heater Drain Drain Pumps Pumps 3.2 G Heaters 3 G Heater No G Heater Drain Pumps Drain Pumps 4.0 Condensate and Feedwater 4.1 Condensate Coolers Yes No 4.2 Heaters 3 Heaters per group 2 Heaters per group 5.0 Electrical Two per Unit Four'per Unit 5.1 Auxiliary Transformers f

5.2 Essential Power Common Essential Separate Blackout System

' Power Bus and Bus

. Blackout Bus

. 5.3 6.9 KV Buses Major difference in auto switching on Bus fault.

6'. 0 NSSS Westinghouse supplied equipment no major difference between McGuire - Catawba 49 e

,e

,a.

McGuire - Catawba Major Plant Differences Catawba 1.

G E turbine 2.

Cooling Towers 3.

Three different pressure condensors (High, Intermediate, Low) 4.

Only 2 C Heater Drain Pumps 5.

No G Heater Drain Pumps 6.

Only 2 A through 3 heaters 7.

Low Pressure Service Water System Completely Different 8.

No condensate coolers 9.

No seal injection pumps electric valve or cooler for Feedwater Pumps seals.

10.

No separate discharge flow control for hot well pumps

11. Blowdown water is pumped directly back into the condensate system.

12.

Recirculating Cooling Water Pump have auto start on low header pressure i

a-13. Auto / Manual control station on main.-steam.to auxiliary steam and auxiliary steam to. C Bleed.

Moisture-Separator Rehleater Contro1 System is different 14.

i 15.

Instrument air compressor can be cooled by the Nuclear Service Water

, System.

16 Instrument air compressors are powered from a blackout bus 17.

Controls for the Generator Load Rejection Bypass Valve is different l'8.

Five Polish Demineralizers per unit 19.

F. ire ' Protection Jockey Pumps suction is supplied by the.. Filter,.. Water System t

McGuire - Catawbg Major Plant Differences (continued)

Catawba 20.

Auxiliary Feedwater pumps suction supply automatically swaps to the Nuclear Service Water System on low suction pressure.

Possibility of 2 V.

separate storage tanks. being provided for auxiliary feedwater pumps normal suction supply

21. Filtered Water System filters ire different 22.

CNS will have a Hydrogen / Oxygen Generator

25. Nuclear Service Water System is of different design 26.

CNS has a separate control board section for the Refueling Water System and the Spent Fuel Cooling Water System.

4*

d 4

0 4

l 1

V 4

e W

S

,/

4 e

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

)

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, el al.

-)

Docket Nos. 50-413

)

50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

AFFIDAVIT I, Mary L. Birch, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as System Radwaste Engineer, Nuclear Production Department.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those follow-up Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention 27

.i t

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

l I

d Mary L. ' Birch

- -Subscribed and sworn to before me"this 25th day of March, 1983

$1<f Y

Notary Public l

.My Commission Expires: September 20, 1984 9

I

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

)

) p' DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.

)t Docket Nos. 50-413

)-

50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

AFFIDAVIT I, Roger W. Quellette, 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 information used in responding to those follow-up Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6.and 16 by whi$h my initials appear. Those responses are true and correct 3

to the best of my knowledge and belief.

j I

g Oy U0 Roger W. Quellette

~

f l

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of March, 1983 U2

.cA0 Notary Public My Co:: mission Expires:

September 20, 1984 l

i

o c '". ','. E T E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NGCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'83 mR 29 A10:31 BEFORE TkE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

, p,. C. h u. g,;,

r,c;uitNG& SEM u ERANCH In the Matter of

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY,'et al.

k;)

)

Docket Nos. 50-413

.)

50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

AFFIDAVIT I, C. W. Hendrix, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Maintenance Engineer, Nuclear Production Department.

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

l t

.><. t -

C. W. Hendrix Subscribed and sworn to before

• 'me.this 25th day of March, 1983

'(.

s' Notary Pdblic My Commission Expires:

September 20, 1984 i.

G l

e L

e 4

. p:

l

. UNITED STATES OF AMERI'CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.g3 g 29 N0:31 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

{yy,:hitN '$l I-EF MICH In the Matter of

)

)

DUKE P0h*ER COMPANY, et al.

.)

Docket Nos. 50-413 P. )

50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

')

Units 1 and 2)

~)

' AFFIDAVIT I, C. L. Hartzell, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Power Company as Licensing Engineer, Nuclear Production Department, Catawba Nuclear Station.

I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in responding to those Interrogatories on Palmetto Alliance Contention.8 by which my initials appear. Those reponses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

t n

i

/

v

/

t i

f

~

]

C. L. Hartzel1 Subscribed and sworn to before me'this 25th day of March, 1983.

Y9mavah_0.( m AulcD {W)

Sotah),PublicU li My Commission Expires: f-l-N l

s e

i 00ti'ETET-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'l T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOMD HAR 29 A10:32 In the Matter of

)

GCkdiItY[ YEN '

)

3f AICH DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-413

)

50-414 (Catawba Nu' clear Sthtion,

)

Units 1 and 2)

')

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l

I hIereby certify that copies of Applicants' Responses to Palmetto Alliance Follow-up Interrogatories and. Requests to Produce Regarding Contentions 6, 7, 8,

16, 27 and 44, Applicants' Motion for Protective Order, and Notice of Appearance of Ronald L. Gibson, in the above-captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 25th day of March, 1983:

James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C.

20555 Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. A..Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

P. O. Box Y Anne W. Cottingham Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Dr. Richard F. Foster Washington, D. C.

20036 P. O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Richard R. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Chairman State of South Carolina Atomic Safety and Lic%ining '

P. O. Box 11549 Board Panel Columbia, South Carolina. 29211 U. S. Nuclear Re".u' < e Commission Washington, D. C.

2 Sly!

Robert Guild, Esq.

P. O.

Box.12097 Chairman Charleston, South Carolina 29412

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Palmetto Allia,nce Q. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2135 1/2 Devine Street W&shington, D. C.

20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29205 d

sg

Jesse L. Riley 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Henry A. Presler 945 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carol'$na 28207 Scott Stucky Docketing and Service Section U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

/

f

ilh, Albert V.

Carr, Jr.

./

l

'~

~

0 9

a e

l e

op