ML20086G543

Motion to Compel Discovery on Licensee First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents to TMI Alert,Inc Re Listed Contentions

ML20086G543
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/09/1984
From:	Churchill B METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20086G531	List: ML20086G527 ML20086G543 ML20086G560
References
ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8401120269
Download: ML20086G543 (7)

Text

_. .

i

~,

N(-

January 9, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.) Docket No. 50-289-OLA

) (Steam Generator Repair)

.(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

. Station, Unit No. 1) )

LICENSEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ON LICENSEE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO INTERVENOR TMIA On December 15, 1983, Licensee served Intervenor TMIA with the first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents on TMIA Contentions 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 2.a. 2.b.1, 2.b.2, and 2.c. TMIA filed its response to Licensee's discov-ery request on January 4, 1983. Pursuant to'10 C.F.R.

$ 2.740(f), and for the reasone set forth below, Licensee Met-ropolitan Edison Company, et al., hereby moves the Atomic Safe-ty and Licensing Board to compel Intervenor Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., (TMIA) to respond in full to Interrogatories 1.a-4, 1.a-8, 1.a-11, 1.a-20, 1.b-4, 1.c-5, 1.c-11, 1.d-2, 1.d-5, 1.d-11, 1.d-15, 1.d-24, 1.d-25, 1.d-29, 2.a-7, 2.a-14, 2.a-19, 2.a-24, 2.b.1-8, 2.b.1-14, 2.b.2-11, 2.b.2-15, 2.c-9, 2.c-15, 2.c-21, 2.c-31, and 2.c-40, and to produce all 8401120269 840109

{DRADOCK 05000289 PDR

l l *: t kj .

requested documents (with references to page and paragraph numbers), all as requested of TMIA in " Licensee's First. Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to In-tervenor TMIA" dated December 15, 1983.

I. INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 1.d TMIA's answers to Interrogatories 1.d-24, 25, and'29.are not responsive to the questions propounded by Licensee therein, making it impossible for Licensee to fully comprehend or respond to'the issues presented by Contention 1.d which are the subject of these interrogatories. Interrogatory 1.d-24 asks TMIA to define what it means by "small cracks" and "large cracks",.and to identify the specific analyses to which it

~

refers with respect to the phrase " failure to differentiate in their analysis between-the effect of thermal stress on small versus.large cracks" as used in Contention 1.d. TMIA cursorily responded that the " terms 'large' and 'small' cracks refer to crack length" and that..the " analyses referred to are all those in the SER and TPR which refer to testing and analyses of the test tube repairs, and the likelihood of subsequent crack propogation." .TMIA has not indicated what it means by a "small" crack as opposed to a "large" crack, and has not iden-tified the particular analyses which it alleges to be improper.

Such a vague and general response is of little informative value, and is not responsive to the interrogatory. Licensee requests that TMIA be more concise in its definitions, and that

-1 54

'TMIA identify the analye a in question and provide specific references,. rather than general statements, to those portions of the SER and TPR which refer to such analyses. Licensee should not be required to research TMIA's response in order to obtain a complete answer. Commonwealth Edison Cc. (Byron Nu-clear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-678, 15 N.R.C. 1400, 1421 (1982).

TMIA's answer to Interrogatory 1.d-25 fails to adequately respond to Licensee's propounded question. Licensee requested that TMIA explain in detail the significance of a failure to differentiate between the effects of thermal stress on small versus large cracks with respect to the analyses identified in its answer to Interrogatory 1.d-24. TMIA simply responded that crack length is to be taken into account in predicting cracking, citing the chapters entitled "Specimer Dimensions--Crack Length" in Knott, J. F., The Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 1973. Aside from stating that crack length should be considered when predicting cracking, this response fails to address the alleged significance of failing to differentiate between the effects of thermal stress on small versus large cracks. TMIA further failed to indicate which pages and paragraphs of the cited material are relevant to the aforesaid issue. Absent any explanation of why a fail-ure to differentiate between crack sizes is important, with specific references to any supporting material, Licensee cannot formulate an adequate response to TMIA's allegations.

p d!

t'

%s JInterrogatory'1.d-29 reads as fol' lows: '" State in detail

.eachLand every fact'upon which you base your allegation that each failure to differentiate between the' effects of thermal stress on small1versus large cracks'~ identified in your answer

-to' Interrogatory 1.d-26 undermines or is-inconsistent with the evaluation of'the TPR and SER of 'the kinetic expansion repair technique, including leak. tightness and load carrying capabilities.'" TMIA summarily responded that crack length should be considered when predicting cracking,-again citing The Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics, without referring to specific pages-or paragraphs, and that there is "no discernable recognition of this criterion in either the SER or the TPR in any of tha reports." See response to Interrogatory 1.d-29, cross-referencing-the responses to 1.d-25 and 26 at 24. TMIA's response merely reflects its and J. F. Knott's opinion that crack length should be considered, yet it fails to provide any

. facts which tend to undermine.or that are inconsistent with the evaluations of the TPR and SER regarding the kinetic expansion repair technique, including leak tightness and load carrying capabilities, nor'does it provide any facts exemplifying the significance of the absence of the inclusion of the differenti-ation between the effects of thermal stress on small versus large cracks in those evaluations. Licensee cannot formulate its response to this issue absent that information. For the aforesaid reasons, Licensee requests that TMIA be compelled to immediately and fully respond to Interrogatories 1.d-24, 25 and 29.

l

f

\

4 II. REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Licensee also moves the Board to compel TMIA to properly identify and produce those documents requested in Interrogatories 1.a-4, 8,.11 and 20; 1.b-4; 1.c-5 and 11; 2.a-7, 14, 19, and 24; 2.b.1-8, and 14; 2.b.2-11 and 15; and 2.c-9, 15, 21, 31, and 40. Licensee's requests for the identi-fication, including page and paragraph number, and production of the documents TMIA purportedly relied upon to support its responses to Licensee's interrogatories were met with TMIA's blanket response that its answers to those interrogatories are based on Licensee and NRC documents which are already in the possession of the Licensee, or can be located in the public document room, and that it would appear to be unnecessary, bur-densome, and improper to require TMIA to attempt to describe these documents in writing. See, e.g., response to Interroga-tory 2.a-7. TMIA's attempt to shift its duty to identify the specific documents upon which its answers and obligations rest to Licensee is improper and must not be allowed. Duke Power Co., et al. ( Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. 1041, 1048 (1963); Commonwealth Edison Co.

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-678, 15 N.R.C. 1400, 1421 (1982). TMIA's suggestion that the proper identification of the documents in Licensee's possession or lo-cated in the public document room upon which its answers are purportedly based is too burdensome and unnecessary for TMIA to

\4 undertake is unfounded and incorrect. It, not Licensee, has a duty to specifically identify the documents upon which it relies to support its allegations and responses. Byron, supra.

' Licensee should not be forced to guess which sections of the voluminous material listed by TMIA it relies upon. It would be impossible for Licensee to identify the specific documents upon which TMIA has relied to formulate its responses to Licensee's interrogatories, as Licensee has no knowledge of the identity of those documents, or of the specific paragraphs and pages thereof relied-upon by TMIA. Therefore, Licensee moves the Board to compel TMIA to properly identify and produce those documents requested in Interrogatories 1.a-4, 8, 11 and 20; 1.b-4; 1.c-5, and 11; 2.a-7, 14, 19, and 24; 2.b.1-8 and 14; 2.b.2-11 and 15; and 2.c-9, 15, 21, 31, and 40 in accordance with their obligations as a party to this proceeding.

Furthermore, with regard to TMIA's responses to Interrogatories 1.d-2. 5, 11, and 15, Licensee requests that TMIA be compelled to properly identify the specific page and paragraph numbers relied upon in support of its responses to the aforementioned Interrogatories. TMIA refers Licensee to the SER, Attachments, and Appendices without referring to the specific sections of said documents it relies upon. Again, Li-censee should not be saddled with TMIA's duty to identify the specific portions of each document upon which it relies.

Byron, supra. Licensee has no way of knowing which portions of the listed documents TMIA relies upon, and thus cannot address 1

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

-a i

TMIA's response as answered. Therefore, Licensee moves the Board to compel TMIA to specifically identify those documents referred to in its responses to Interrogat'ories 1.d-2, 5, 11 and 15 by page and paragraph number in accordance with their duty to so perform, so that Licensee might adequately prepare its response to TMIA's contentions.

CONCLUSION For all the aforesaid reasons, Licensee rerpectfully re-quests that the Board compel TMIA to immediately and fully answer Licensee's aforementioned Interrogatories and to identi-fy and produce the requested documents.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & T OWBRIDGE t f s y Ge6Yge'E. TrYwbridge, P.C.

Bruce W. Churchill, P.C.

Diane E. Burkley Wilbert Washington, II Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-1000 Dated: January 9, 1984 a