ML20087N679

Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents Re Contention 41.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20087N679
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/02/1984
From:	Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	EDDLEMAN, W.
References
OL, NUDOCS 8404040176
Download: ML20087N679 (19)

Text

1 0

\h

' REUd ZC Lun.t_. v..CSiCE C0CKETED U5!;iiC April 2, 1984 74 f?R -3 TJ0 D3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

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

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

f APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES AND 3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO WELLS EDDLEMAN (CONTENTION 41)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS 2.740b and 2.741, Carolina Power

& Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency hereby request that intervenor Wells Eddleman answer in writing, and under oath or affirmation, each of the following interrogatories, and produce and permit inspection and copying of the original or best copy of all documents identified in the responses to the interrogatories below. Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, answers or objections to these interrogato-ries must be served within 14 days after service of the inter-rogatories; responses or objections to the request for P

8404040176 840402 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR v

production of documents must be served within 30 days after service of the request.

These interrogatories are intended to be continuing in na-ture, and the answers should promptly be supplemented or amended as appropriate, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740(e),

should Mr. Eddleman or any individual acting on his behalf ob-tain any new or differing information responsive to these in-terrogatories. The request for production of documents is also continuing in nature and Mr. Eddleman must produce immediately any additional documents he, or any individual acting on his btthalf, obtains which are responsive to the request, in accor-dance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(e).

t Where identification of a document is requested, briefly 8

describe the document (e.g., book, letter, memorandum, tran-script, report, handwritten notes, test data) and provide the following information as applicable: document name, title, number, author, date of publication and publisher, addressee, date written or approved, and the name and address of the per-son or persons having possession of the document. Also state the portion or portions of the document (whether section(s),

chapter (s), or page(s)) upon which Mr. Eddleman relies.

Definitions: As used hereinafter, the following defini-tions shall apply:

The "FSAR" is the Final Safety Analysis Report for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, as amended.

c

0 The "SER" is the Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1038 (Nov. 1983).

" Applicants" is intended to encompass Carolina Power &

Light Company, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency and their contractors for the Harris Plant.

" Document (s)" means all writings and records of every type in the possession, control or custody of Mr. Eddleman or any individual acting on his behalf, including, but not limited to, memoranda, correspondence, reports, surveys, tabulations, charts, books, pamphlets, photographs, maps, bulletins, minutes, notes, speeches, articles, transcripts, voice record-ings and all other writings or recordings of any kind; "docu- (.

s ment (s)" shall also mean copies of documents even though the originals thereof are not in the possession, custody, or con-trol of Mr. Eddleman; a document shall be deemed to be within the'" control" of Mr. Eddleman or any individual acting on his behalf if Mr. Eddleman or the individual acting on his behalf has ownership, possession or custody of the document or copy thereof, or has the right to secure the document or copy there-of, from any person or public or private entity having physical possession thereof.

r

4 General Interrogatories

1. Please provide supplemental answers to Applicants' General Interrogatories (First Set) on Contention 41, based upon any additional information obtained to date.

2(a). State the name, present or last known address, and present or last employer of each person, other than affiant, who provided information upon which you relied in answering each interrogatory herein, or who otherwise assisted you in an-swering each interrogatory herein.

(b). Identify all such information which was provided by each such person and the specific interrogatory response in which such information is contained.

(c). For each such person who provided you with informa- ,

tion upon which you relied in answering any interrogatory here-in or who assisted you in answering any interrogatory herein and who is an expert (i) provide that person's expertise and facts supporting his expertise, (ii) if that person has been

" retained or specially employed," state in detail the facts un-derlying any " retained or specially employed status," (iii) if that person's identity is being withheld, (A) explain the need to withhold such person's identity, and (B) state the protec-tion or privilege upon which you rely in withholding the per-son's identity (see Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of May 27, 1983).

O

(d). For each such person who provided you with informa-tion upon which you relied in answering any interrogatory here-in or who assisted you in answering any interrogatory herein and who is not.an expert, identify that person in accordance with the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of May 27, 1983.

3(a). Identify all documents in your possession, custody or control, including all relevant page citations, upon which you relied in answering each interrogatory herein.

(b). Identify the specific interrogatory response (s) to which each such document relates.

4(a). Identify any other source of information, not pre-i viously identified in response to Interrogatory 2 or 4, which i s

was used in answering the interrogatories set forth herein.

(b). Identify the specific interrogatory response (s) to which'each such source of information relates.

INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 41 41-6. Provide supplemental answers to Interrogatories 41-1(b), 41-2(b), 41-3(b), 41-4(b), 41-4(c) and 41-5(b) for which you indicated in your March 21, 1983 Response to Appli-cants' First Set of Interrogatories that you would pursue fur-ther discovery, implying that a more complete response would be available thereafter.

r

41-7(a). Do you contend that the disposition of pipe hanger weld deficiencies in the Permanent Waivers (PWs) and Field Change Requests (FCRs) which have been produced to you and/or which you have reviewed is inadequate to provide reason-able assurance that the hanger will perform its intended func-tion?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify each alleged inadequate disposition (with refer-ence to the hanger number and PW and/or FCR), state in detail the factual basis for your allegation that such dispositions are inadequate, and identify any relevant document which was not produced by Applicants.

~

I (c). For each such alleged inadequate disposition i 8

identified in (b) above, identify in detail the additional cor-rective actions which you contend are required and state in de-tail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such actions are required.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41, 41-8(a). Do you contend that, based on the documents which have been produced to you and/or other documents, Appli-cants have improperly reworked or repaired pipe hangers at the

' Harris Plant?

r

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify each alleged inadequate rework / repair (with ref-erence-to the hanger number and supporting documentation) and state in detail the factual basis for your allegation that such rework / repair is inadequate, and identify any relevant document which was not produced by Applicants.

(c). For each such alleged inadequate rework / repair identified in (b) above, identify in detail the additional cor-rective actions which you contend are required and state in de-tail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such actions are required.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-i mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with

• i the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

41-9. Identify in detail the " weld specification" in-spection errors referred to in your response to Interrogatory 41-4(b).

41-10(a). Do you contend that the discovery of weld deficiencies during the reinspection program, in and of itself, i constitutes a failure of Applicants' QA/QC programs?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-f tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with l

! the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

l l

l L' n

41-11. Explain how your " update re 41-1(b) and 41-2(b),"

at page 24 of your March 21, 1983 Response to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories, applies to the Harris Plant.

41-12(a). Do you contend that Applicants' training and qualification programs for weld inspectors (described in re-sponse to Eddleman Interrogatories 41-1(b) and (c)) are inade-quate?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify each alleged training or qualification inadequa-cy and state in detail the factual basis for your allegation that these programs are inadequate.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-

{

tive, identify the additional training or qualification 8 requirements you contend are required and state in detail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such requirements are required.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

41-13(a). Do you contend that the persons responsible for reviewing pipe hanger drawings / blueprints (see Applicants' re-sponse to Eddleman Interrogatories 41-1(d) and 41-4(h)) are not qualified to do so?

.(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

a

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify the additional qualifications you contend are required and state in detail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such additional qualifications are re-quired.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

41-14(a). Do you contend that the corrective actions taken upon discovery of pipe hanger blueprint / drawing errors, described in Applicants' response to Eddleman Interrogatories 41-1(e) and 41-5 (i) through (1), are inadequate?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega- ,

tive, state in detail the factual basis for your allegation that such actions are inadequate.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify the additional corrective actions which you con-tend are required and state in detail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such actions are required.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

41-15(a). Do you contend that the scope of Applicants' pipe hanger weld.reinspections, as outlined in the Weld Data Reports, is inadequate to identify discrepant welds?

_9

_ rt

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive,. state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify those additional inspections you contend are re-quired and state in detail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such additional inspections are re-quired.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

41-16(a). Do you contend that the review of pipe hanger drawings / blueprints by site Construction Engineering personnel (described in Applicants' response to Eddleman Interrogatories 41-4(e) and (1)) is inadequate to detect missing, unclear or incorrect weld symbols?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify the additional drawing reviews you contend are required and state in detail the factual basis for your conten-tion that such additional reviews are required.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

r

. (

41-17(a). Do you contend that the weld inspection retraining program (described in Applicants' response to 1

Eddleman Interrogatory 41-7) was inadequate?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

< (c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify the additional retraining you contend is re-quired and state in detail the factual basis upon which you J

rely in contending that such additional retraining is required.

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the' allegations set forth in Contention 41.

i f i

41-18(a). Do you contend that the welder retraining pro- a gram (described in Applicants' supplemental response to -

Eddleman Interrogatory 41-7) was inadequate?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

, (c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify the additional retraining you contend is re-quired and state in detail the factual basis upon which you s

! rely in contending that such additional retraining is required. _

l l (d). If-the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with l

the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

o L r

41-19(a). Do you contend that-the Craft 66 welders, whose qualifications are described in Applicants' supplemental re-

, ,. _sponse to Eddleman Interrogatory 41-1(m), are not qualified to weld pipe hangers?

, (b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, identify those additional qualifications you contend are

? required in order to weld pipe hangers and state in detail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such addi-I n. ,

. tional qualifications are required.

If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-(d).

i mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with *

#s - ,

the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

4 41-20(a). _

Do you contend that the post-employment training provided to welders (described in Applicants' supple-mental response to Eddleman Interrogatory 41-1(m)) is inade-quate to assure that Craft 66 welders are properly trained?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

. (c). If the anener to (a) above is other than nega-i tive, identify the additional training you contend is required and state in det' ail the factual basis upon which you rely in contending that such additional training is required.

l. ,

4h b t.-

r l'

- -- ._ a

(d). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth'in Contention 41.

41-21. Have you communicated with any of the Daniel Con-struction Co. Craft 66 personnel identified in Applicants' sup-plemental response to Interrogatory 41-1(1), dated March 14, 1984, or with any other present and/or former employees at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant regarding Contention 41?

Supplement this answer in the future to report new and/or changed information.

41-22. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is affirmative, provide the following information: I.

s (a) The' individual's name; (b) The date(s), time (s), and method (s) by which each communication was made; (c) The substance of any oral discussion with each such individual; (d) Identify any and all-documents (let-ters, notes of telephone conversa-tions, etc.) relating to each such communication; (e) Identify any and all documents per-taining to the Harris Plant provided to intervenor Eddleman by each such .

person contacted; n

(f) Do you intend to call any of the indi-

-viduals you have communicated with as a witness on Contention 41?

(g) Do you intend to call any of the indi-viduals you have communicated with as a witness on any other contention admitted in this proceeding?

,(h) If your answer to (f) or (g) above is other than an unequivocal negative, identify the substance of the testi-mony to be offered by each such per-son;.and I

(i) If your answer to (f) or (g) above is i a

other than an unequivocal negative, describe in detail the qualifications

> of each such person.

41-23(a). Do you contend that the reinspections conducted of the Harris Plant pipe hangers have failed to detect all potential safety'significant welding discrepancies associated with the pipe hangers?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegationsiset forth in Contention 41.

'(

.I

41-24(a). Do you contend that the rework, repair and analysis of the pipe hanger welds performed subsequent to the reinspection program has failed to assure the safety of the pipe hangers?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

(c). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how you:: response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

41-25(a). Do you contend that the pipe hangers presently installed and inspected prevent a finding of reasonable assur-ance that, as built, the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant can f e

and will be operated without endangering the public health and 8 safety?

(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than nega-tive, state in detail the factual basis for your answer.

r

1 (c). If the answer to (a) above is other than affir-mative, explain in detail how your response is consistent with the allegations set forth in Contention 41.

i Respectfully submitted,

i. .

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box.1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 y e

Counsel for Applicants 4 Dated: April 2, 1984 i

l-16-f l

,- , - - , ,n- ,, -,-. ,, , . . , - - ~ - . ,,v~ . - - - - , -e,

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of . )

)

CAROLINA POWER & 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) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Wells Eddleman (Con-tention 41)" were served this 2nd day of April,1984, by deposif in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the partiek on the attached Service List.

L A. &&,

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

n

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

)

CAROLINA POWER & 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) )

SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission 307 Granville Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 2751 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire ,

Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission P.O. Box 12607 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. . Wilson Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Apex, tbrth Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddlenan Charles A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Janice E. Moore, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Iegal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ommission Richard E. Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Canpany Docketing and Service Section P.O. Box 1551 Office of the Secretary Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Iotchin 108 Bridle Run Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Chapel Hill, tbrth Carolina 27514 CHANGE /ELP 5707 Waycross Street Dr. Linda W. Little Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Governor's Waste Management Board

! 513 Albenarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

e J

Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ozmission Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 i.

I n