ML20112G417

Applicant Objections to Intervenor 850107 Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents to Applicants & Motion for Protective Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20112G417
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/14/1985
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML20112G395	List: ML20112G392 ML20112G417
References
OL, NUDOCS 8501160334
Download: ML20112G417 (10)

Text

m R t.Lia L 6. . e . v. . - N ;-

r q

C0h,

.; {E:'

'85 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d'l 15 4/Olgp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m g.

'{>,- . ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board . ',

Public Service Electric and )

Gas Company )

) Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating )

Station) )

APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENOR'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANTS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ,

Introduction On January 7, 1985, Applicants received "Intervenor's Third. Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants" (" Third Set of Interrogatories").

Pursuant to Section 2.741(d) of the NRC's Rules of Practice, Applicants object to Interrogatories III.6, III.7, III.19, III.20, III.21, III.49, III.50, III.59, III.67, III.68, III.69, and- III.70 and Requests IV.16, IV.17, IV.20, and IV.24.1/ Interrogatories III.6, III.7, III.19 through 21, III.49, III.50, and III.59 and Requests IV.16 through 17, IV.20, and IV.24 request information that is beyond the scope of Contention 2. Provision of this information will not -lead to admissible evidence. Finally, Applicants object

~~

1/ Applicants object to only that part of Interrogatory III.49 which requests a description of all corrective actions taken.

O h4

~PDR

_=_

~,, -

-2_

.to t Interrogatories III.67 through 70 on the ground that

..w these questions are beyond the scope of the contention as

'they ' amount to retrying the Salem ATWS events. Applicants further move ~for a protective order that discovery as to the

objectional matter not be had.

eon January 9 and 10, 1985, Applicants discussed with

-counsel for Intervenor their objections to Intervenor's Third Set of Interrogatories. During those telephone conversations, Intervenor agreed that Requests II.1 and II.2 fare. limited to SWRI contracts and training materials related

.to - recirculation . piping. Intervenor agreed to withdraw

. Interrogatory I.29 and Request IV.12. Applicants and Intervenor also agreed that Applicants' response to Inter-rogatory 'III.35.- will await the Licensing Board's ruling on

",Intervenor's Motion to Compel -a Responsive Answer to

' Interrogatory ^~III.7 of the Intervenor's Second Set. of

. Interrogatories and Request for.. Production of : Documents,"

Idated January 7, 1985.2_/ Finally, agreement L was reached that- proprietary documents would _ be provided pursuant to.a suitableL order or with proprietary information deleted, as

. 2/l ;On January 11, . 1985, the- Board denied -Intervenor's

, , motion to compel ' responsive answers to . Interrogatory 1III.7'of its second set of interrogatories ~but directed Applicants to provide full 'and responsive answers . to Interrogatory. III.35 'of Intervenor's third set of

interrogatories. Public Service Electric and Gas Company -(Hope ~ Creek Generating Station), Docket No. -

4 . 50-354-OL, " Order".(January 11, 1985)..

,e 1

.__..__..____1____ ____.__.___._________o

appropriate. _ Applicants and Intervenor were not otherwise able to. reach agreement.

Section 2.740(c) provides that "[ulpon motion by a party or the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the presiding officer may make any order which justice - requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or ondue burden or expense, including . . . that the discovery not be had. . .

." Additionally, in its Special Prehearing Conference Order, the Board held that it did not intend to retry the Salem events.- Thus, Applicants move the Licensing Board

.to issue a protective order specifying that Applicants need not respond to the objected-to discovery requests.

Argument Contention 2 provides that "[p]rior to operation, PSE&G must demonstrate that it has fully resolved the management implications of the Salem events of February 22 and 25, 1983, which resulted in the NRC civil penalty, and that it has taken all steps necessary to achieve and maintain the technical qualifications' required for the safe operation of Hope Creek as a result 'of these incidents." Thus, Con-tantion 2 is clearly limited to implementation at Hope Creek i

}/ Public Service Electric' and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station), Docket No. 50-354-OL, "Special Prehearing Conference Order" (December 21,:1983) at~11.

of those management changes which arose out of the Salem events.

Interrogatory III.6 requests that Applicants

"[ildentify all documents in (their] possession relating to allegations or reports of records falsifications by Au-thorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANIS)." This interrogatory is clearly beyond the scope of Contention 2. Records falsi-fication was not an issue in the Salem ATWS events. Au-thorized Nuclear Inspectors are not even PSE&G employees.

Interrogatory III.7 requests that Applicants *

[ildentify all steps taken by PSE&G or Bechtel in response to the- allegation of records falsification by a soils testing technician employed by GEO Construction Testing, Inc. as referred to in [their} response to interrogatory 12 ( f) . " Again, as discussed above, this interrogatory is clearly beyond the scope of Contention 2. These two matters relate only to construction and not operation of the unit.

In Interrogatory III.19, Intervenor requests that Applicants "[i]dentify and describe each ' recurring deficienc(y]' identified by the formal trend analysis program established to monitor the construction of Hope Creek, as referred to in [ Applicants') response to Interrog-atory III.24. For eac'h such recurring deficiency so iden-tified, identify and describe all corrective action initi-ated as a result." Applicants object to this request as it relates to construction, not operation, of Hope Creek.

Intervenor. is attempting to use . Contention 2 as a e

m .

springboard into other substantive areas. The wording of this contention limits any inquiry to Hope Creek's manageri-al organization and to the process in place whereby management deals with issues that arise at the plant. The matters raised by the interrogatory are beyond the scope of E the contention.

Similarly, in Interrogatories III.20 and III.21, Intervenor requests that Applicants identify and describe each recurring problem identified by their Nonconformance Report trend analysis program performed by Bechtel Quality Assurance Engineers assigned to the Hope Creek job site and

[ by their periodic reviews of the trend analysis log of all E

validated NCRs. Additionally, Intervenor requests that r

r Applicants identify and describe all corrective actions

[ initiated as a result of these programs. Agaia these

?

matters relate solely to construction activities. De-scriptions of substantive responses to any deficiencies or w

E trends noted are much too remote to be relevant to Con-E O tention 2. These interrogatories request information beyond u

the scope of the contention.

E i Interrogatory III.49 also falls into this category as h it requests Applicants to describe all corrective actions u.

- taken as a result of their trend analysis of periodic preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance and surveil-t_ lance testing activities. Even more remote in its relation-r E- ship to contention 2 is Interrogatory III.50 which requests g that Applicants describe all industry operating experience b

c m.

that has been evaluated and found to be potentially applica-ble to Hope Creek. Essentially, this interrogatory asks what operating experience is relevant. Such an inquiry is clearly beyond the scope of the admitted contention. It seeks to delve into the technical question of unplanned reactor trips, rather than into manag'ement implications. It is broad and unfocussed and thus burdensome.

In Interrogatory III.59, Intervenor requests that Applicants describe all alleged problems identified by site personnel under the Safe Team Program. Again, this Inter-rogatory is unrelated to Contention 2 as it seeks informa-tion about the. construction of Hope Creek Generating Sta-f, tion.

Many of these items purport to be follow-up to previous

responses given by Applicants. Applicants purposely did not object to a number of the previo s interrogatories or requests for production of documents in the spirit of complying fully with the NRC's rules and the Board's orders although Applicants had determined that the relevance of some. of the discovery requests was marginal at best.

Applicants' decision to provide information, rather than to move for a protective order, should not be construed. as a determination that the requested information is relevant to Contention.2. It is clear from the direction taken in these follow-up interrogatories that the information requested is

=well beyond the scope of the management contention.

i m

+ @+ o

1. + > IMAGE EVAL.UATION gdb

((/jg/f f k//7p \f f>/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) jf0 *%'f#,4

/// //

&+ $// 's 1.0 l# 2 E E 9 Lia 1.I E!_.322 L -

ll);L l.25 1.4 1.6

< 150mm >

< 6" >

%,, / 'b 4:# y4 Q (O

$+7,&/,,,( y

<m a

Despite the fact that Intervenor has stated on several occasions that it does not intend to retry the Salem events, Interrogatory III.67 requests that Applicants "[ildentify each instance in which PSE&G has requested an extension of time from the NBC within which to complete its obligations under the May 6, 1983 NRC Confirmatory Order. " Interroga-tory III.68 requests that Applicants "[s] tate the total number of persons / days [ Applicants] have estimated were required to complete all Action Plan Items in the PSE&G Plan for the Improvement of Nuclear Department Operations.'"

Interrogatory III.69 requests that Applicants " [i] dentify all changes in expected completion dates for all Action Plan Items." Interrogatory III.70 requests that Applicants

"[ildentify by name and job title all persons assigned to complete tasks included in any Action Plan Item."

None of this information is relevant to the admitted contention related to Hope Creek. Moreover, such interroga-tories, evidence an intent to try to litigate the Salem events. Such . litigation would be improper not only. under the Board's Order, but under Bellotti v. NRC,'725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1983) -in which the court recognized that an Intervenor has no right to a hearing on the imposition of a civil penalty if a hearing is not requested by the licensee.

Applicants object to Requests IV.16,'IV.17, and IV.20

~ which requests copies of all corrective action requests and

~all documents related to the scram minimization program on the ground that this request and the requested documents are

~.

unrelated to Contention 2. Similarly, Request IV.24, which requests all documents relating to the task force on capaci-ty factor improvement, is clearly beyond the scope of the admitted contention. There is no defined relationship of these matters and the safe operation of the Hope Creek Station.

Conclusion

.In sum, Applicants object to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents noted above for the reasons there stated. These discovery requests clearly have gotten far afield from the admitted contentions. According-ly, Applicants move that the Board issue a protective order that authorizes Applicants not to answer these discovery requests.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

/ ,) ) -

Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Jessica H. Laverty Counsel for Applicants.

January 14, 1985 J

le

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service Electric and )

Gas Company )

) Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion for Sanctions" and " Applicants' Objections to Intervenor's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants and Motion for. Protective Order",

_ dated January 14, 1985 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail on this 14th day of January, 1985:

• • MarshallLE. Miller, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Chairman Licensing Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensina Board Panel

• • Dr. Peter.A. Morris U.S. Nucledr Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 Section

.,, Office of the Secretary Dr. David-R. Schink U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

' Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington,.D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-Washington, D.C. 20555 m

e Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.

Associate General Counsel Public Service Electric &

Gas Company P.O. Box 570 (TSE)

Newark, NJ 07101

• Richard E. Shapiro, Esq.

Susan C. Remis, Esq.

John P. Thurber, Esq.

State of New Jersey Department of the Public '

Advocate CN 850 Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, New' Jersey 08625 Carol Delaney, Esq.

. Deputy Attorney General

. Department of Justice State Office Building 8th Floor 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19810

• Delivered by Electronic Mail

• • Hand Delivered

//Mark J. Wetterhahn

__