ML20128P182

PG&E Preliminary Response to Discovery Request Filed Per 10CFR2.741(a)(2) & Motion for Protective Order.* Util Agrees to & Will Support Reasonable Discovery Into Issues within Scope of Contentions Admitted by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20128P182
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	02/12/1993
From:	Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#193-13627 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9302240174
Download: ML20128P182 (10)

Text

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

D0D E T ED February 12,U2993~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '93 FEB 16 ND:41 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ., ,

,y,-

m i In the Matter of: )

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA 50-323-OLA- 3

) (Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) Recovery)

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUEST FILED PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.741(a) (2)

AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On February 1, 1993, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace ("MFP") served on Pacific Gas and Electric Company - ("PG&E")

a discovery request (dated February 3, 1993) entitled: "Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace ("MFP"] Request to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Entry Upon the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.741 (a) (2) for the Purposes of Inspection, Measuring, and Photographing, for Observation of Interim Fire-Prctection Measures and Maintenance and Surveillance Activities, and for Other Activities as Authorized in the Provisions of 10 CFR 2.741(a) (2) , " (" Discovery Request"). PG&E herein files-an initial response to the Discovery Request. This preliminary response documents those areas in which PG&E hopes to work informally with MFP to respond to the Discovery Request. In D Abbc O! Oho!75 p}

O PDRu

addition, this response identifies and preserves objections to the Discovery Request, and requests the issuance of a protective order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(c), to the extent MFP's request exceeds the bounds of NRC discovery rules and the scope of admitted contentions in this proceeding.

PG&E notes that, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.741(d),

crdinarily it would have 30 days in which to respond to a discovery request of this type and/or state objections to the request.

However, in the present proceeding, in light of the schedule to be adopted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") as indicated during a scheduling conference call on February 3, 1993, nd to be documented shortly in a Licensing Board Order, responses to discovery will be due in April 1993. In the interest of facilitating discussions and informal agreement with MFP on the Discovery Request, PG&E offers this preliminary response. Consistent with the discussion herein, and in.

anticipation of the Licensing Board's forthcoming Order, PG&E believes a time can be scheduled in cooperation with MFP at which to begin some of the requested discovery.

II. DISCUSSION A. Contention I: (Maintenance and Surveillance)

PG&E agrees with and will support the approach suggested by MFP in connection with discovery of information relevant to Contention I; i.e. , to review the records and files associated with the maintenance of not more than three safety related or important

-2 -

- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __ _--- --_-_____.- - _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ _ . - - - - - ~

to safety items. Discovery Request, at 4. PG&E will await MFP's identification - of the equipment it wishes to focus on. To the extent MPP seeks specific documentation regarding the equipment, however, PG&E expects specific identification of the documents requested. In this regard, PG&E is willing-to work together with MFP a. 4 its consultants, on an informal basis, in order to expedite discovery relevant to Contention I.

As part of its Discovery Request pertinent to Contention I, however, MFP states that it "will also wish to interview one or more of the maintenance personnel who are responsible for the type of equipment being reviewed. These interviews will be informal and will not exceed 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for any one individual." Discovery Request, at 4-5. PG&E does not object to MFP's questioning of maintenance personnel. Nevertheless, such interviews must. be conducted in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.740a; i . e. . , by deposition and oral examination or written interrogatories. PG&E will make individuals available for deposition by MFP, but will not consent to informal, of f-the-record interviews. Such informal interviews would exceed the bounds of the NRC's rules regarding discovery.

B. Contention V: Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Interim Fire-Protection Measures In its Discovery Request, - MFP seeks discovery that, in some areas, would exceed the bounds of the limited aspect of Contention V admitted by the Licensing Board in its January 21, 1993, Prehearing Conference Order. Specifically, the scope of i

P t

Contention-V, as admitted-in the Prehearing Conference Order and confirmed ' by' the ' Licensing Board during the - February - 3, .1993',- -

conference call, is lim.i!^M to the imnlementation - of interim -

compensatory measures at Dfablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ("DCPP"), to address pctentially degraded Thermo-Lag. fire barriers. Prehearing Conference Order, a t. .38. At _ DCPP, and-elsewhere- in the nuclear industry, the interim -compensatory measures authorized by the operating license and ' accepted: '

generically by the NRC are fire watches a.2d detection devices. -(In _

some cases, credit is also taken for existing fire suppression capability). The basis for MFP's Contention V, as-admittedj:is- ,

limited to missed fire watches and certain open fire _ doors, . The.

admitted contention does not' include _. generic issues delving into-the generic adequacy of the NRC-accepted interim compensacory measures. Prehearing Conference Order,'at 37.

Accordingly, to the extent that.MFP's Discovery, Request goes to the investigation and discovery of--information germane-to the adequacy, :as opposed, _ to the~ implementation, ofL dnterim 4

compensatory fire protecti' 1 measures.at DCPP, PG&E1 objects and requests the issuance of a protective = order, pursuant' to -10 C.F.R. - -

S 2.740(c), limiting the scope of discovery in this proceeding. In:

this regard, -MFP's Discovery Request reflects a mistaken conception - 3 that it "could request to perform _ this discovery 'for.each'and every fire barrier containing -Thermo-Lag material at the plant."

Discovery -Request, at 2. Such a request would bear no relevance- to 4-

• Y *VwP ~

the interim compensatory measures which define the scope of Contention-V.

As proposed by MFP, PG&E is amenable to a meeting with MFP and its consultant to mutually agree upon a set of plant areas for inspection. PG&E reiterates, however, that such areas must be limited to the scope of the contention as admitted by the Licensing Board. These would include only the areas in which Thermo-Lag is presently installed and in which interim compensatory measures are implemented. On this basis, PG&E objects to MFP's list of five systems and plant areas (labeled (a) through (e) by MFP]-as being relevant only to long-term, as opposed to interim compensatory, fire protection measures at DCPP. Discovery Request, at 3.

Similarly, the areas subject to inspection may not be augmented "as a result of power, control, and/or instrumentation cabling," since such cabling is irrelevant to the interim compensatory measures identified by MFP as the basis for Contention V. Discovery Requesu, at 3. For this same reason, PG&E does not believe, as MFP contends, that the control room and other areas where fire alarms are annunciated and displayed, or combustible materials and fire-fighting media in adjacent areas, should be subject to examination.

Id. Such requests exceed-the scope of the contention and the stated basis. These requests, quite simply, have nothing to do with how well PG&E has implemented fire watches at DCPP.

Once the plant areas for discovery are mutually agreed upon in accordance with the requested protective order, PG&E does nct object to most of the discovery techniques proposed by MFP; i

l

-i R

i such as-_ inspection, properly controlled:still-photography, note- j

-I taking, and observing areas where roving fire watch patrols 1 are used. Nevertheless, PG&E objects to -discovery met. hods .which seek to inquire-into issues relevant only to the. generic resolution of -

Thermo Lag issues at- DCPP; e.g., "measur(ing] ' distances between equipment and/or cables and the fire barriers. " Discovery Request, _

at 3. PG&E _is prepared to arrange a site visit - for MFP and -its -

consultant consistent with these.groundrules.

Next, "MFP and its _ consultants propose -to ~ accompany personnel performing these roving fire watches to observe the conduct of the fire watches, and to ask questions of the' personnel

. performing the fire watches concerning.the conduct of-their: work (such questioning not to be done while the personnel are performing their work) . " Discovery Request at 4. While PG&E does not-object--

to questioning of PG&E personnel . regarding f i r e - w a t c h e s ,-- PG&E reiterates that it will not consent to casual, off-the _ record -

interviews during a site visit. Rather, questioning. of ' . PG&E personnel should be conducted in accordance' with 10 C.F.R.

S 2.740a. Accompanying fire watches ' and randomly interviewing licensee personnel (without benefit of a transcript) is not' a proper type of discovery recognized in'NRC's= Rules of Practice'.

Finally, to the extent MFP requests any: specific-documentation from PG&E regarding implementation of compensatory measures, we await a more specific identification of the documents requested.

6-l' l-

4

-III..' CONCLUSION In light ' of the foregoing, PG&E -' agrees t o .- a n d : w i l l .;

support - reasonable _ discovery int.o issues ~.within' the? scope of the

- contentions as~ admitted by_the Licensing-Board-in this proc'eeding.

PG&E will allow, consistent with the discussion above, 'a site visit'

'I at DCPP. In the appropriate context, namely; in accord i with 10  ;

C.F.R. S 2.740a, PG&E will also make its employees'or contractors:

available for deposition by MFP. Moreover, PG&E- ~ will1. work-informally with MFP and its consultant to - f acilitate - theE timely identification-of appropriate areas _for inquiry and corresponding _

NRC-sanctioned-discovery techniques. '-

As explained above, certain elements.of MFP's~ Discovery' Request seek. discovery into' issues and areas beyond the scope?of P

the contentions as admitted'by the Licensing Board and discussed during the conference call _on February 3,,1993. As a result, PG&E:

requests that the Licensing Board issue'a protective orderL to this M

w , u i

s

}9 -

ef fect pursuant-' to .10 C.F.R. S 2.740(c)._. PG&El believes thati

. issuance of . the requested protective order will --further f acilitate -

and expedite discovery in this proceeding.

. Respectfully submitted, 11 913NW-Joseph B. Knotts,.Ur.

David _A. Repka Kathryn M.-Kalowsky-WINSTON &'STRAWN 1400 L Street,.N.W.-

Washington, DC 20005-3502-(202) 371-5726 Christopher J. Warner Richard F. Locke PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -

77 Beale Street' San Francisco, CA 94106 Attorneys for-Pacific Gas and Electric Company _

-Dated in Washington, DC this /2 th ' day of February,1993-t

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' Mri:t D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MC REFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 93 FDB 16 NO M1 In the Matter of: ) offq., a igj w v

) Docket Nos. 50-27B&DhA ' WNJ Pacific Gas and Electric Company ) 50-323-OLAk"

) (Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Power ) Recapture)

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of " PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUEST FILED PURSUANT TO 10 CFR-

2. 741(a) (2 ) AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first clasa, or, as indicated by an asterisk ( * ) , - by Federal Express, this 12th day of February, 1993:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Administrative Judgc Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary Office of Commission Appellate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Adjudication Washington, DC- 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555 Section (original + two copies)

Adjudicatory File Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licencing Office of the General Counsel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Nancy Culver

• Peter Arth,.Jr.

President, Board of Directors Edward W. O'Neill San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Peter G. Fairchild 192 Luneta Street California Public Utilities San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Jerry R. Kline Truman Burns .

Administrative Judge California Public Utilities Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4103 Washington, DC 20555 San Francisco, CA 94102

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

l I-.

3 Robert R. Wellington, Esq. Christopher J. Warner,.Esq.

Diablo Canyon Independent Safety- Richard F. Locke,'Esq.

Committee Pacific Gas & Electric Company 857 Cass Street, Suito D 77 Beale Street Monterey, CA 93940 San Francisco, CA 94106 Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities

• Commission EOS Van Nese, Rm. 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102

-. . 4 _

David A. Repka T Counsel for Pacific Gas &

Electric Company

_ _m________ _ .