ML20076F064

Motion to Compel Discovery Re Second Round Interrogatories on Eddleman 64f,67 & 80.Certificate of Negotiations Encl

ML20076F064
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/19/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20076F014	List: ML20076F011 ML20076F041 ML20076F064
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308250223
Download: ML20076F064 (6)

Text

l 4

s  ;

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA August 19, 1993 NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carper.ter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of J Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units i and 2) )

)

Motion to Concel Discovery re 2d round Interrogatories on Eddlenan 64f, 67 and 80 Following the breakdown of negotiations' on the answers and objections Apolicants nade to interrogatories on these contentions (answer, 7-29-83), on August 8,1983, Applicants' attorney Baxter agreed not to onnose this filing being nade.on August 19 (one day late) so it can be nailed with other filings due the 19th.. See certificate of negotiations, attached. ,

My argunents filed 8/8 re general interrogatcries G8 and Q9 also apply to the inpasse reached re those interrogatories in this set.

I incornorate then by reference as if fully set out at this point.

Applicants' attorney Baxter advises ne I don't need his permission to do this, but he has no objection to such incornoration by reference

inhhisMotion. (7-29 resnonse covers G8 and G9 at pp 7-8)

Concerning 6h-10(c) and (d) (7-29 resnonse of Applicants, p.8).

The question (c) is relevant: The contention is a bout (inter alir )

i ,

overheating the valve in a fire, and the hypothetical of 3oss of ,

valve box integrity is a reasonable questien about this.

8308250223 830819 PDR ADOCK 05000400 N . - . _ -- - -. . _ _ _ _ __

• v I an not aware of any requirement to lay a foundation for a hypothetic o1 question. But if one is needed, Anulicants' dubious assunption (see CSAR, end-drop analysis, that all the fins line up perfectly straight (end-on) to the ground and hit the ground at the exact sane tine, is a urely silly one because the-e wculd alnost always be some horizontal conponent of cask notion before a fall, either through horizontal motion, or because the f all began by the cask rolling. In either case, the perfect lineup assuned is unlikely and the crush force against the valve box would not be distributed so that Applicants' analysis of its absorntion is valid. Fu=thernore, the perfectly plastic collision assumption used throughout the CSAR valve-box inpact analyses (sections 5.5.h, 5.6.2,5.7.2) is invalid.

Stainless steel is quite snringy and would in practice have nultiple inpacts with bending and shearing going on during then. Thus the fins won't have the effective rtrenth assuned in the innact studies.

Finally, the valve is still there on the cask, so d:e question should be answered. Apolicants' " intent" does not change the facts.

(d) depends on resnonse te (c). By phrasing an " answer" to (c )

l as an objection, Anplicants seek to avoid stating the detailed basis for an answea re heating of the valve, as incuired about in (c). They should not be pernitted to do this. Given that (c )

should be answered, then any non-affirnative answer requires an answer to (d) also.

Objections to 6h-12(a) (which avoids answer to 6h-12(b) by the sane device noted above), and all parts of 64-13 (respense. at 9-10):

This is the sane argument covered in the 8/8 notion to connel.

Applicants say their intent to remove the valve nem a they don't have to answer questions about the valve. I say the valve is there and it is clearly relevant to the contention, so they should answer ,

l All these parts clearly relate to the valve and the contention.

1 l

s

' p.1h Applicants' resronse to 67-5(d)(iii)(cc-e) apnears to be deficient.

The periodic table does not give nass nunbers for all isotones, just for the element, generally. This question is about radio-isotones.

Through oversight, this was net discussed with Annlicants 8 8 I contacted Attorney Baxter's office by phone on 8-12; he was out. He called back pronntly af ter lunch and said that Applicants would not supnlenent the answer as they do not feel that the informatien is uniquely in dr.eir possession or not availkble to I think if the" know the answer they should give it, or a reference.

me. Applicants ' att6rney O'Neill and,I are trying to resolve 67-5-d-jj thru oo infornally. That will continue Re 67-5-(e) thru (k)P lfIlApelicants object to answering first because they distinguish a low-level radioactive waste disrosal

" site" from a " landfill". I know of no LIM'1 disposal sites that used are in the US that are not landfills. EPA regulations ben ocean disposal and a contention on this possibility (by ne) was rejected as speculative.

If a landfill leaks, it nay be shut down. This has happened to LLRW 1andfills at M9xey Flats, KY and Sheffield IL. Leaks are one reascn the West Valley NY LLRW 1andfill is staying shut down so far.

Obviously, if the disposal site for Harris LLFW is a landfill (the only ontion now being used in the US), anything that can cause the landfill to be closed (e.g. leaks, violations at it) affects the availability of an " assured disposal site" for Harris LLRW.

Applicants may not rely on NRC regulations to avoid answering questions. If their answers include parts of 10 CFR 61,they abould say so in their answers. 10 CFR 61.k1 sets criteria such that leaks could force the closing of a landfill facility.

o-

-h- ,

Re 67-5(n) thru (r) (p.16) Applicants object that transport is irrelevant. But, as noted in 8/8 notion to comnel, violations by CF&L or others in transrort of waste to an LL9W site could result in CP&L's being denied disposal rights at that site. It has hanpened to other utilities, e.g. GPU re Hanford site. [TuSf(4Sf yak [d %10 a t<%% VDS SuspsJLed at Baw# uAca n+5 v>csies cay 4i Qe .

Thus, these questions can lead to adnis sible evidence re the assurance of CP&L having an LLRW disposal site for Harris wastes.

re 80-5(a) (7-29 resoonse at 20) I agree that it would be unduly burdensone to have Applicants' experts try to separate out all the facts they know that cane fron each cf these docunents.

However, specific answers to parts (i) through (iv) of (a) are needed for ne to evaluate Apnlicants' answers to cuestions re Eddlenan 80, and for expert analysis of these answers by others if I can get excerts to put the time into it. Annlicants stand on their objection. I think they should be compelled to answer, at minimun in the form of the answer to 80-5(b) that they gave, the parts of 80-5(a). The information is certainly relevant, and I need to know what facts Applicants are using in naking l their answers. It is well established that an answer that

( "the information you seek is somewhere in this (nass of docunents)"

l is no t satisfactory. Applicants nust know what facts they relied on.

I need to know that too.

Re 80-7 (pp 20-21 of response): Applicants should be rectired to answer 80-7 part by part. The answer given is not resnonsive to sone parts (e.g. it doesn't say how the validation is judged acceptable, r

! (part(c)), or the reasons this way of validating a nodel is (1) accurate and (ii) apnlicable (perts (1) and (ii) of 80-7(d)).

Apnlicants' answer to this interrogatory is also of the l

"you can find your answer somewhere in these docunents" type, which is not a satisfactory answer. However, Annlicants have

~

identified only a f ew documents, and have clarified their answer to nean that they rely on the entire contents of those few documents. However, they have not been willing to s6pplement their answer to that effect, so far.

80-10(a) is answered, but (b) is not. I think that (b) should be answered. This was not discussed 8/8 (another oversight), but on 8/12, attorney Baxter inforned me that Anplicants rely on the entire documents. However, the specific documents containing this informatior have not been identified and I think they should be.

I can't be asked to search through over 100 documents to find all the noints where Annlicants know there is info"mation about rainout (as defined in this interrogatory), without clairvoyance.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth and incornorated by reference above, Annlicants should be connelled to answer or supplenent their resnonses to the above-mentioned interrogatories to the extent that they do not do so voluntarily.

Wells Eddlenan

~>

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I 00yAhust V 19, 1983 NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION B3 AW 24 A10:23 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSTNGOBOARDu Glenn O. Bright ~ "~'j;i Mc [ O Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

ASLBP No. 82-468-01 0.L.

Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATES OF NEGOTIATIONS re 7-29 resnonse of Apnlicants re Eddlenan 6hf, 67 and 80 and re 8-5-63 resuonse of Applicants re Eddlenan 75 and 83/84 by Wells Eddlenan On August 1,1983, Applicants' attorney Baxter and I agreed to negotiate on August 8 over the objections and responses to my interrogatories, as contained in their 7-29-83 resconse re 6hf, 67 and 80 (Eddlenan contentions). On August 8, we and att6rney Panela Anderson for Applicants (re 80 only) did negotiate, covering all concerns. No progress was nade excent that I agree that a literal answer to 80-5 interrogatories would be burdensone. Attorney Baxter agreed to not onnose filing of a notion to compel re these on 8-19 l (one day extension) and I sent the Board a ca-d to tha't effect.

On August 5,1983, Applicants' attorney Hill Carrow and I agreed to negotiate August 9 re my concerns on their objections '

and resnonses to interrogatories (2d round) re Eddlenan 75 and 83/Sh.

l We did so and no progress was made. I so advised the Boa"d by card.

In both negotiations, Applicants' attorneys said it was OK to use my 8/8 arguments re interro6atories G8 and G9 by referenceI affirn the above is true in any notion to compel.

- .-