ML20083C590

Response to Eddleman 831205 Motion to Compel Discovery on Eddleman Contention 15AA.Objections to Motion Withdrawn. Answers to Interrogatories Filed on Limited Nature. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20083C590
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/20/1983
From:	Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20083C558	List: ML20083C555 ML20083C590
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312230194
Download: ML20083C590 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

1 .

_ _ - ~~ ) >

000KETED RElC C ~

USHFC , _ _ ~ ~

83 DEC 22 20:04 December 20, 1983

!,F l:E 0 SEUC I'

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

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF APPLICANTS ON EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 15-AA Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company ("CP&L") and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency hereby respond to Wells Eddleman's " Motion to Compel Discovery of Applicants on Eddleman Contention 15-AA," dated December 5, 1983. By his Motion, Mr. Eddleman seeks answers to his Interrogatories No.

15-AA-18(m)(iv), and part of (n), 15-AA-19(d), (e), and part of (h), filed on' October 21, 1983.1/ Applicants objected to 1/ " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Contentions 15AA, 8F1 and 8F2 to Applicants (Continued Next Page) 8312230194 831220 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR

answering each of the above mentioned interrogatories in their Response of November 17, 1983 and Supplemental Answers of November 23, 1983.2/

Contention 15AA alleges that the NRC Staff has overesti-mated the capacity factor for the Harris units in the prepara-tion of the cost-benefit balance in the environmental impact statement.3/ In responding to proposed Contention 15AA, Appli-cants argued, inter alia, that two of the principal issues advanced by Mri Eddleman as basis for Contention 15AA involve steam generator problems at McGuire Unit 1 and management capa-bility at Applicants' Brunswick Plant and that these two issues are the subject of other admitted contentions -- respectively, (Continued)

Carolina 1983.

Power & Light et al. (Sixth Set)," dated October 21, 2/ " Applicants' Response to Wells Eddleman's General Inter-rogatories and Interrogatories on Eddleman Contention 15AA (Sixth Set)," dated November 17, 1983; " Applicants' Supplemen-tal Answers to Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories on Eddleman Contention 15AA," dated November 23, 1983.

3f Contention 15AA:

The Staff has overestimated the operating capacity factor of the Harris nuclear plants in its draft environmental impact statement, thus exaggerating the benefits of this power being produced by nuclear en-ergy, and distorting the NEPA cost-benefit balance at the operating license stage.

The Staff also calculated the output at 55%

too high even for the design rating.

l

9 v

Applicants suggested Joint Interventor Contentions VII and I.these same issues in litigate that Mr. Eddleman was seeking to tention and that the result tha context of a capacity factor con While the without purpose.4/

would be a duplication of effort,in doing so it acknowledged Ap-Board admitted Contention 15AA, f effort that plicants' arguments directed to the duplicationbility o and steam f l

would be involved in litigating managementi ncapa 15AA on capacity ganerator design in the context of Content o"Our admission of! this' con  !

Thus, the Board ruled:

fsetors. i g discovery.on those tention is'not to be construed as reopen n related, but separate subjects."5/ d Mr.

Each interrogatory to which Applicants objected an l ith CP&L's man-i Eddleman now moves to compel a response deals w cgement of the Brunswick nuclear units:

Does CP&L Interrogatory 15-AA-18(m) believe there are reasons for lther poor unitsper-it

.formance co-owns and of the Brunswick operates thatnuc ea to relate

.?

(iv) management . .

If answer to any 15-AA-18(nl Interrogatoryabove is affirmative, please part of (m) state for each such part, each reasons .

(sic) about CP&L believes the matter linquiredin that part has co or poor performance in terms ofofcapacity the Brunswick factornuc over e-ar units, their operating lifetimes.

" Response to Eddleman Contention 15-AA," dated 4/. Applicants' July 20, 1983, at 5-6. '

Conten-Memorandum and Order (Rulingl Statement), on Wells Eddleman slip op. sat 5/ -

tions on the Staff Draft Environmenta 7 (August 13, 1983).

i s

~- - - - - - - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

e Does CP&L Interrogatory No. 15-AA-19(dl CP&L

' Commission in Docket E-2 th ofsub 444 thatdispute the rul management was at fault for the leng the Brunswick turbine outage?

Interrogatory No. 15-AA-19(el DoesDocket CP&L dispute the ruling of thekNCUC plant as inE-2 sub 461 that CP&L w the required failure by to NRC, testwhich the Brunswic failure led 982?

to an extended shutdown in the summer of 1 15-AA-19(hl Please give {

Interrogatory No. (e)  ;-

all basis for your answers to (d), stating which basis applies to e answer. these objection to providing responses to Applicants' d's ruling that interrogatories was simply based on the Boarcapability of C discovery on the management ion of Contention 15 i

Brunswick. Plant was not reopened by adm ss AA on capacity factors. a distinction In his Motion to Compel, Mr. Eddleman draws relates to safety and man-between management capability as it Thus, l tes to plant performance.

-agement capability as.it.re a just those he argues, Applicants should be required to' answer t capability that " address in a -

-interrogatories on managemen clear capacity limited way the influas;e of management on nu factor."

Applic ants' ccunse.

1 and Mr. Eddleman have had further dis-ding of the limited na*.ure of cussions regarding their understanto make regarding management the inquiry Mr. Eddleman wishes Applicants and Mr.

capability as it affects capacity factor.

V Eddleman have reached an informal agreement regarding the scope of the inquiry as it relates to both the interrogatory re-sponses and cross-examination of Applicants' witness or witnesses at the hearing in January. Applicants understand that Mr. Eddleman does not intend to attempt to litigate the management capability issues raised by Joint Intervenor Conten-tion I in the context of hearings on Contention 15AA. As a result of these discussions, Applicants have decided to withdraw their objections and answer the subject interrogatories. Applicants' answers to the interrogatories are filed contemporaneously with this Response.

Raspectfully sub,mitted, ,

E

/7/ ,

[ 'p . ) '

h, Thoma's A. Baxter, P.C. i John H. O'Neill, Jr. i SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TRQWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 Counsel for Applicants Dated: December 20, 1983

l1 fg"33 '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENSING BOAIS DEC 22 40 :04 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND

' 5h LIC Ohhly7],

g g f spfy/p

) "

In the Matter of )

• L )

)

CAROLIN POWER AGENCY A POWER )

)

& LIGHT Docket Nos. 50-400 OL 50-401 OL COMPANYAND

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _

' Further Interregatory Responses on I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Motion to Eddleman Contention 15AA," and " Applicants 15AA" were served th of Applicants on Eddleman Contention first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on 1983 by deposit in the United States mail, the attached Service List.

b. ~

~

Dale E. Hollar Associate GeneralCounsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

- (919) 836-6839 ,

December 20,1983 Dated:

~-- - - - - - - - -- _ _ _ _

j

F SERVICE LIST L. Kell:y, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire

. S-f ty cnd Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina Ec1:ar Regulatory Commission 307 Granville Road gton, D. C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 ann O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Shf;ty tnd Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne ucl ar Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 12643 gton, D. C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 nes H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson

S f:ty cad Liar. sing Board 729 Hunter Street iucl:ar Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502

gton, D. C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman

s A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Karm:n, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 cf Ex:cutive Legal Director iucl ar Regulatory Commission Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire gton, D. C. 20555 John H. O'Neill, Jr., Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ting cnd Service Section 1800 M Street, N.W. l

. cf th3 Secretary Washington, D. C. 20036 4uclear Regulatory Commission agton, D C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin 108 Bridle Run ani;l F. Read, President Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

1 Hill Anti-Nuclear ap Effort Bradley W. Jones, Esquire

)ffica Box 524 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tl Hill, North Carolina 27514 Region II 101 Marietta Street nda Little Atlanta, Georgia 30303 n r's Waste Management Board Ib:marls Building Robert P. Gruber Elisbury Street Executive Director sh, Ncrth Carolina 27611 Public Staff North Carolina Utilities Commission mne G. Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 991 ic S f ty and Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

.rd Pcnel Nucl:ar Regulatory Commission

,ngton, D. C. 20555