ML20082P929

Motion to Compel Discovery of Applicants on Eddleman Contention 15-AA Re Mgt

ML20082P929
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/05/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082P913	List: ML20082P908 ML20082P920 ML20082P929
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312090238
Download: ML20082P929 (2)

Text

--- . .. .

s

7 00tFTED UPE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ . ab BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD" Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. ft al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ~ Plant, ) s Units i and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-L68-01

) OL Motion to Comnel Discovery of Anolicants on Eddlenan Contention 15-AA CERTIFICATE OF NEGOTIATIONS Pursuant to notice in writing tothe Board, and by agreenent with Applicants, I negotiated the matters covered by the Motion below with Applicants ' counsel Dale Hollar and Samantha Flynn on 28 Novenber 1983; we weren't able to agree on anything exce t that fuwther negotiations would not be productive.

12-5-83 Wells Eddleman MOTION CP&L has not answered my interrogatories 15-AA-19 (d),(e), and part of (h) (11-17-83 discovery resnonses at 23-24), and 15-AA-18(m)(iv),

11-23-83 supplemental responses at 5-6), relying on the Board's y'wt d g, 8-18-83 Order which states that admission of contention 15-AA is not to be construed as reopening discovery on management capability.

As the above Certificate notes, negotiations on these questions were not successful.

Management canability is a safety issue. Joint Contention I, while pointing out the influence of plant performance on safety, is clearly about safety. As given by Auplicants 1-21-83, it reads :

8312090238 831205 PDR ADOCK 05000400 l- @ @J U

"The Applicants have not demonstrated the adequacy of their managing, engineering, operating and maintenance nersonnel to safely operate, maintain and manage the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as evidenced by their record of safety and performance at their other nuclear power facilities. A pattern of management inadecuacies is likely to be reproduced at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and result in health and safety problems." (emphasis added).

The disputed interrogatories have nothing to do with health and safety, but address in a limited way the influence of management on nuclear capacity factor, which is the subject of Contention 15-AA.

CP&L already admits, on interrogatory 15-AA-18(m), that the factors (construction, design, coeration, management, NDC regulations, and CP&L non-connliance with NRC regulations) "are interrelated. Thus, no single factor can be snecifically addressed indenendent of the other

. factors." (answer to 15-AA-18(n), 11-23-83 sunnlemental resnonse at 6).

With resnect to the rulings of the NC Utilities Conmission that CP&L management is at fault for two long outages (1982 -- Interrogatory 15-AA-19(e) and 1981, subnart (d) thereof), CP&L admits , in its resnonses to 15-AA-19 (f) and (g) (11-17-83 discovery responses at 23-2h) that each of these outages reduced the capacity factor of one of their nuclear plants. They further resnond (p.2h) that any outage will reduce the canacity factor. Implicitly, this includea outages caused by mismanagement, which the NCUC found in each of CP&L's last 2 rate cases.

Answers to these interrogatories are needed to litigate mv contention 15-AA since I contend that CP&L involvement i MNg l plants is a reason to exnect then to have lower capacity factors.

Information about mismanagement that reduces canacity factor (Ints 15-AA-li(h) and 1S(m)(iv) and 1%(n) re management) is thus vital to my case.

l I need information on mismanagement that reduces canacity factor (as l distinct from miananagement that harms safety or health) tc " challenge the accuracy of the basic benefit claimed in the NEPA balance" (Board 8-18-83 Order at 8, admitting contention 15-AA). The other disputed l interrogatories can be answered yes or no.and are vital to showing any disputes CP&L has with the NCUC decisions on its nismanagenent.

If I had filed detailed, extensive interrogatories on management l

canability on 15-AA, Apglicants' objections could be reasonable. But in what I believe is compliance with the Board's order admitting 15-AA, I limited my discovery on management as it affects canscity factor to bare basics, and few of them. I view Applicants' objections as obstructive and based on an overly narrow view of the Board's 8-18-83 Order (pp7 8).

For the above reasons I respectfully reauest that Anolicants be compelled to answer the above-listed interrogatories in L h/2L 12-5-83 W s Eddleman

- _ - _ - .- -- - - -