ML20133E644
| ML20133E644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1985 |
| From: | Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | ROREM, B. |
| References | |
| CON-#385-127 OL, NUDOCS 8508070772 | |
| Download: ML20133E644 (16) | |
Text
99 July 30, 1985
, W% CORRESPONDE.Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
9[;EEI
~**
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) 85 AUS -7 A10:50
) l COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-4560L ;??;;E :r 3 -;i,00
) 50-457 CCCGi4 s 5! f'V"~
(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, )
BRANCH Units I and 2) )
NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On July 2, 1985, Bridget Little Rorem, et al. ("Intervenors") filed their "Rorem, et al., Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, First Set) ("Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce"), which requests that the NRC Staff (" Staff") and Applicant respond to interrogatories and requests to produce concerning Intervenor's quality assurance-contention. Also filed with Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce was "Intervenors' Motion to Require NRC Staff Answers to Interrogatories" (Intervenors' Motion"). Intervenors' Motion asks the Licensing Board to issue an order directing the Staff to respond to Intervenors' First Set of Interroga-tories and Requests to Produce if the Staff should refuse to respond voluntarily to that discovery request. Intervenors' Motion states that the grounds for the order are that answers "are necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding and that answers. . . in part, are not reasonably obtainable from any other source. Intervenors' Motion, p. I.
8508070772 850730 PDR ADOCK 05000456 Q PDR T)30]
However, no argument supporting these claims are presented in Inter-verors' Motion, nor are there any affidavits attached to Interven, ors' Motion which provide any factual basis for the claims regarding relevance 6nd obtainability. The Staff hereby responds to Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, and Intervenors' Motion.
II. RESPONSE Discovery against the Staff is not on the same footing as discovery against other parties. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., et al.
~
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980). Interrogatories to the Staff are governed by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.720(h)(2)(ii), which states in pertinent part:
... [a] party may file with the presiding officer written interrogctories to be answered by NRC personnel with knowledge of the facts designated by the Executive Director for Operations. Upon a finding by the presiding officer that answers to the interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source, the presiding officer may require that the staff answer the interrogatories.
Thus, the Commission's regulations do not require the Staff to respond to interrogatories unless the Licensing Board finds that ti,e answers are both "necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding," and are "not reasonably obtainable from any other source." Intervenors have requested such a finding from the Licensing Board in this proceeding.
Intervenors' Motion, p. 1. However, Intervenors' Motion fails to explain why the Staff answers to its interrogatories are "necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding." Nor does Intervenor explain why the requested information is "not reasonably obtainable from any other 1
1
source". Nevertheless, in order to expedite this proceeding and avoid time-consuming discovery disputes, the Staff will voluntarily provide, without the issuance of a Board order and without waiving any objection, responses to those interrogatories which it believes are necessary to a proper decision, and where the information sought is not reasonably obtainable from another source. As set out in Section III below, the Staff objects to certain interrogatories. Further, the Staff seeks a protective order in Section IV below to protect the Staff from further burdensome requests on the interrogatories objected to.
III. OBJECTIONS The Staff objects to the interrogatories set forth below primarily on the ground that the information sought pertains to Applicants organizations and activities. Therefore, the information requested should be readiiy known to Applicant. These interrogatories were directed to both the Staff and the Applicants, but it is the Applicant who would be the appropriate source for the information requested in most of the interrogatories set forth below. In sum, the information sought by most of the following interrogatories is reasonably available from sources other than the Staff, namely the Applicant or publicly available NRC inspection reports, and the Staff objects to them on that basis.
INTERROGATORY 9 Please identify each deficiency in design and construction as defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e) and for each indicate: the classification of its significance (i.e., classified under which subsections, 50.55(e)(i)(1-iv); the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criteria, to which each relates and the respects in which it
6 reflects. noncompliance; the report number, and date, if any; the names, titles, addresses, and telytone Tnbers of each person responsible for the deficiency, its discovery, its reporting, and its corrective action; a detailed description of the deficiency and its safety implications; a detailed description of its corrective action.
ANSWER The Staff objects to this interrogatory since it requests information which is either publicly known (as reported in NRC inspection reports for Braidwood), or is directly known by Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERR0GATORY 10 For each activity under license by NRC conducted by Comonwealth Edison, its contractors and subcontractors involving any nuclear facility or operation, including but not limited to Braidwood, please identify each deficiency, as defined in 10 CFR Section 50.55(e), which represents a significant breakdown in any portion of the Braidwood Quality Assurance Program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50; identify the Appendix B criteria to which it relates; describe in detail the respects in which the deficiency reflects a noncompliance with the requirements of Appendix B criteria; the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criteria, to which each relates, if any, and the respects in which it reflects noncompliance; the report number and date, if any; the names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers of each person responsible for the deficiency, its discovery, its reporting, and its corrective action; a detailed description of the deficiency and its safety implications; and a detailed description of its corrective action.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since it requests information beyond the scope of the issues raised in Intervenors' quality assurance contention, and therefore is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. The interrogatory requests information on Appli-cant's activities for "any nuclear facility or operation, including but not limited to Braidwood." Information about Applicant's activities
O on nuclear plants other than Braidwood simply is not relevant to this proceeding, which focuses solely on Braidwood. Accordingly, the Staff need not provide an answer to this interrogatory.
As has been noted in Boston Edison Company, et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2) LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 584 (1975).
In general, it seems to be the weight of the holdings that, in the sound discretion of the court, a party may be protected against inter-rogatories where the answers would require an excessive or oppressive amount of research or compilation of data and at a great expense, although mere general objections that the interrogatories are onerous and burdensome are not sufficient. While a party must furnish in h's answer to interrogatories whatever information is available to it, ordinarily it will not be required "to make research and compilation of data not readily known to him." (Footnote omitted). Further, the Staff objects to answering this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad and burdensome. Interrogatory 10 asks for identification of each deficiency, as defined in 10 CFR 5 50.55(e) for each activity under license by NRC conducted by Comonwealth Edison, its contractors and subcontractors involving any nuclear facility or operation, including but not limited to Braidwood. Inasmuch as no attempt is made to limit this interrogatory to the admitted contention, much less the Braidwood facility, the subject of this proceeding, there is no discernible limit on the scope of the request, making compliance with it extremely burdensome.
INTERROGATORY 11 Please identify all audits conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part-50 Appendix B Criterion XVIII or otherwise, including but not limited to the 1980 audit of Phillips-Getschow referred to in the June 29, 1984 letter from George Marcus of Commonwealth Edison to Mari Kaye Roth of Peterson &
Co., and any audits by or under the guidance of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operation (INPO). For each reported observation, discrepancy, deficiency or weakness, indicate: the nature of the deficiency; the Appendix B criteria, if any, to which it relates and the respects in which noncompliance is reflected; the date and other identifying information of the audit documentation; the names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers of each person responsible for the deficiency, the performance of the audit, the management review of the results and its corrective action; a detailed description of the deficiency and its safety implications; a detailed description of its corrective action.
ANSWER -
The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known to Applicants, who therefore are the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERR0GATORY 13 Please describe in detail the selection, training, testing and evaluation program for Quality Assurance personnel and Quality Control Inspectors for Edison and for each contractor responsible for any safety-related construction at Braidwood from the commencement of construction until the present.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 14 Please describe the job qualifications required of persons who are responsible for training, testing, certifying and supervising Quality Control Inspectors.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since the-requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for this information.
INTERROGATORY 16 What prior nuclear experience is required of persons responsible for supervising Quality Control Inspectors for (a) Edison, and (b) for each contractor at Braidwood?
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 17 Please describe in detail the circumstances and procedures, if any, under which Quality Control inspection criteria may be waived.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 19 Please provide the names, titles, addresses, telephone numbers and date of employment for all persons who have been employed in or responsible for the Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs of Edison and of each contractor, including but not limited to all quality control inspectors and supervisors. For each such person no longer employed in Quality Assurance / Quality Control, indicate the reason for termination. For each such person involuntarily terminated, describe in detail the circumstances of termination.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERR0GATORY 20 Please identify in detail all documents, including correspondence, reports, minutes of meetings or notes of oral conversations, reflecting disagreements, disputes or differences of opinion between Quality Control Inspectors and their supervisors or Commonwealth Edison or its contractors' management. Include the subject, date, names of persons involved and resolution for each instance so reflected.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 22 Please identify any complaints or suggestions by' workers known to Commonwealth Edison or its contractors regarding substandard workmanship, quality assurance deficiencies, deficiencies in plant design and construction, pressure to perform or approve faulty workmanship, or harassment and intimidation. Include the date, name, title, address and telephone number of the source, subject and resolution or other action taken for each.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 30 Did P'hillips-Getschow ever fail to implement effective corrective action to; verify past installations of large bore piping components? If so, please describe in detail the circumstances and explain why this problem occurred and further corrective action taken. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers.
ANSWER The Staff objects to this interroggatory on the ground that it requests information which is beyond the scope of the contention, and thus a response to the interrogatory is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. The contention as stated does not mention Phillips-Getschow large bore piping activities in regard to Criterion XVI
" corrective actions." Therefore, this subject is beyond the scope of the admitted Quality Assurance contention. As such, the information requested is not necessary to a proper decision.
INTERR0GATORY 32 Has Sargent and Lundy ever approved deficient contractor programs at Braidwood? If so, please describe in detail each instance and any and all corrective action taken with respect to such instance. Identify any and all corrective action taken with respect to such instance. Identify any and all documents which reflect such instances and such corrective action. Has the NRC ever identified such instances? If so, please describe in detail and identify any documents which reflect such instances and any corrective action taken.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering the first three questions in this interrogatory, since the requested information is directly known to Applicants, who therefore is the appropriate source for this information.
INTERROGATORY 33 Has Comonwealth Edison management ever approved deficient contractor programs at Braidwood? If so, please describe in detail each
O instance and any and all corrective action taken with respect to such instance. Identify any and all documents which reflect such instances and such corrective action. Has the NRC ever identified such instances?
If so, please describe in detail and identify any documents which reflect such instances and any corrective action taken.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering the first three questions in this interrogatory, since the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for this information.
INTERR0GATORY 34 Has Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance ever approved deficient contractor programs at Braidwood? If so, please describe in detail each instance and any and all corrective action taken with respect to such instance. Identify any and all documents which reflect such instances and such corrective action. Has the NRC ever identified such instances?
If so, please describe in detail and identify any documents which reflect such instances and all corrective action taken.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering the first three questions in this interrogatory since the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for this information.
INTERROGATORY 35 Has Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance ever failed to identify deficient contractor programs at Braidwood where such programs have been subject to Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance auditing? If so, please describe each instance in detail and any and all corrective action taken with respect to such instance. Identify any and all documents which reflect such instances and such corrective action. Has the NRC ever identified such instances? If so, please describe in detail and identify any documents which reflect such instances and any corrective action taken.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering the first three questions in this interrogatory, since the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for this information.
INTERROGATORY 40 In what manner, if any, did Commonwealth Edison apply lessons learned with regard to HVAC installation from its LaSalle nuclear plant to Braidwood? Please describe in detail. Has the NRC ever identified failure by Commonwealth Edison to apply such lessons learned? If so, describe such identification. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers. -
ANSWER The Staff objects to the first portion of Interrogatory 40 on the ground that the requested information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for this information.
INTERR0GATORY 56 What involvement, if any, has senior Commonwealth Edison management had in organizing and implementing the quality assurance program at Braidwood? Please describe in detail any such involvement including specific names, dates, circumstances and actions taken. Identify any documents reflecting this answer.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known to Applicants, who therefore are the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERR0GATORY 57 In what respects are NRC requirements understood to be either minimum or maximum requirements with regard to the design and construction of Braidwood? Please explain in detail and identify any documents which reflect this answer.
I
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding, it is irrelevant, and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory appears to be seeking a legal opinion on the scope of NRC requirements without any showing as to the relevance of such legal opinion to the admitted contention.
INTERROGATORY 58 For each quality assurance violation or unresolved or open item referred to by Intervenors in their amended quality assurance contention (served upon all parties May 24,1985), please describe in detail the ,
circumstances involved, including the name and address of each person I involved, the manner in which such deficiency was identified, the manner in which the deficiency was investigated and evaluated for significance, root cause and generic implications, the manner in which the deficiency was remedied and corrected, including any corrective action taken with regard to the existence of other related deficiencies. Set forth any facts upon which you rely to show that the deficiency and its root cause have been effectively corrected. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering thi.s interrogatory for two reasons.
First, information on each of the violations, unresolved or open items referred to in Intervenors' QA Contention, is set forth in the NRC Inspection Reports listed in Intervenors' QA contention. These inspection reports are available in the NRC's PDR. Second, much of the detailed information on the violations on open and unresolved items is
- \
directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for I I
that part of the requested information which is not reported in the NRC Inspection Reports.
~
INTERROGATORY 59 With respect to the deficiencies referred to in Interrogatory 58 above, identify in detail all documentation and hardware changes or rework undertaken in the course of remedial or corrective actions including numbers of items changed or reworked. Please identify any documents reflecting these answers.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERR0GATORY 61 Describe in detail the organization established to execute the quality assurance program at Braidwood, including any material changes made in such organization from the inception of construction until the
~
present. Please identify the numbers of persons performing each QA function for Comonwealth Edison and each contractor over the life of the project. For each person, include a description of the duties assigned, the pay grade and benefits for each position as compared to non-0A positions, the opportunities for advancement both within and without the QA program for QA personnel, the length in months of the person's prior nuclear QA or QC experience, and comparative data on the relative turnover rate for QA personnel as compared to non-QA personnel. Explain in detail the pay scale for Edison Braidwood QA personnel, including all QA managers, and all other pay scales within the Company. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 62 For all intra-Compcny transfers into or out of Edison QA at Braidwood, please identify, as applicable, the previous department, position and pay of the employee immediately prior to his or her transfer to Braidwood QA; his or her position, pay and length of tenure in
Braidwood QA; and the department, position and pay of the employee immediately following transfer out of Braidwood QA.
ANSWER The Staff objects to answering this interrogatory, since this information is directly known'to Applicant, who therefore is the appropriate source for the requested information.
IV. MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On the basis of the-above stated objections and for good cause shown, the Staff respectfully requests the Licensing Board to issue a protective order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(c) that further discovery on Interrogatories 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 32-35 (in part), 52, 53, 55-59, 61, and 62 of "Rorem, et al., Quality Assurance Interroga-tories and Requests To Produce, First Set," to which the Staff has objected, not be had.
Respectfully submitted, Qb3k. MN M)
Jr. nice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of July, 1985 O
~
l
@TED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0::gErEr U3NG In the Matter of
'85 AU3 -7 A10 :50 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456 50-457 .j m ;r 3 ;.i g .
(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, 00CKEi1 A SEPVIO Units 1 and 2) BRANCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, by)
( ,deposit in the Nuclear or by express Regulatory mail (**), this 30thComission's internal mail system day of July,1985:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman
- Comonwealth Edison Company Administrative Judge ATTN: Cordell Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box 767 Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60690 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
Administrative Judge Waller, Evans & Gordon 102 Oak Lane 2503 S. Neil Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Champaign, IL 61820 i Dr. Richard F. Cole Region III Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 799 Roosevelt Road Washington, DC 20555 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq. Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 840 Suite 5200 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, DC 20036 l
l
Ms. Bridget Little Rorem C. Allen Bock, Esq.
117 North Linden Street P.O. Box 342 Essex, IL 60935 Urbana, Il 61801 .
Douglass W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.** Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Timothy Wright, Esq. Panel
- 109 North Dearborn Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1300 Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60602 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Erie Jones, Director Board Panel
- Illinois Emergency Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Disaster Agency Washington, DC 20555 110 East Adams Springfield, IL 62705 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary Lorraine Creek U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 182 , Washington, DC 20555 Manteno. IL 60950 N
Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff
--