ML20198C182
| ML20198C182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1985 |
| From: | Chan E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | ROREM, B. |
| References | |
| CON-#485-113 OL, NUDOCS 8511120007 | |
| Download: ML20198C182 (13) | |
Text
i 6
g gw ED ColtRfANNWD
\\
November 6, 985 i
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N OV - 8 9 -t
[Q In the Matter of
)
/
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )
NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I.
Introduction Dr. October 21, 1985, Bridget little Rorem, et al. ("Intervenors")
filed their "Rorem, et al. Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, Second Set" ("Rorem Interrogatories Second Set") which requests that the NRC Staff (" Staff") and Applicant respond to interroga-tories and requests to produce concerning Intervenor's quality assurance contention. The Staff objects to Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in their entirety and Interrogatories 1 and 6 in part on grounds that the answers are not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding and/or the requested information is reasonably obtainable from other sources.
The Staff seeks a protective order to protect the Staff from further burdensome requests on the interrogatories objected to. To expedite this proceeding and avoid discovery disputes, the Staff will voluntarily provide, without the issuance of a Board order and without waiving any objection, responses to Interrogatories 1 and 6 as limited in the discus-sion which follows.
8511120 00'?
D
. 0 II. Discussion A.
Standards for Discovery Against the Staff In general,10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b)(1) limits discovery to "those matters in controversy which have been identified by... the presiding officer in the prehearing order...." The regulations further require that "the information sough' appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible ev.dence." 10 C.F.R. Q 2.740(b)(1).
Where the Staff is cont !rned, " discovery against the Staff is on a different footing" than discovery against other parties. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980). Most Staff records and documents relevant to licensing proceedings are by regulation made available for inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.790(a). The Appeal Board in Susquehanna noting that Staff documents relevant to a proceeding are publicly available unless there is a compelling justification for their nondisclosure, observed that "[t]he contemplation is that these 'should reasonably disclose the basis for the Staff's position, thereby reducing any need for formal discovery."
Susquehanna, ALAB-613, supra, at 313, citing Commission policy and procedure set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Appendix A.IV.(d).
In furtherance of this policy, Commission regulations governing discovery against the Staff require 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" before the Staff is required to answer written interrogatories.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
B.
Objections The Staff objections generally fall into two major categories. The interrogatory is objectionable, in whole or in part, because the requested information:
(1)
Is not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and or (2)
Is reasonably obtainable from sources other than the i
Staff in that it is publicly available or it pertains to I
Applicant's organizations activities or earlier responses to interogatories and should be readily known to the Applicant.
l The Staff objection that an answer to the interrogatory is not necessary I
f to a proper decision in the proceeding, as specifically discussed below I
as to an opposed interrogatory, is based on the determination that the opposed interrogatory on its face is beyond the scope of the admitted contention and therefore does not seek information which (1) appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence (2) is relevant to the issues before the Board.
With regard to the second category, the Commission regulations concerning discovery against the Staff require a finding that "the answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source" before the Staff is required to answer the interrogatories.
(10 C.F.R. Q 2.720(h)(2)(ii)) As specifically discussed below as to an opposed interrogatory, Intervenor failed to demonstrate the need to obtain the information from the Staff.
In many instances, interrogatories request information regarding Applicaat's organization, activities or responses
r-to interrogatories. Hence, the information sought by Intervenors should be readily known to Applicant.
In addition, some of the requesteo informa-tion is publicly available in the form of NRC inspection reports, the CAT Inspection Report or in documents previously made available to the Inter-venor by Staff.
SPECIFIC INTERR0GATORIES INTERROGATORY 1 Please identify and describe in detail any and all corrective actions, remedial measures, or other responses which address the allega-tions, assertions, or other matters contained in intervenors' amended quality assurance contention.
For each subpart, or item, of the conten-tion (including the Quality Control (QC) Inspector Harassment Conten-tion), please describe in detail any actions, programs or facts upon which you rely to show that the matter asserted in the contention does not evidence a significant breakdown in quality assurance or a failure of safety related parts, components or systems to meet applicable regulatory requirements or to be capable of performing their intended function in service.
Please identify any documents which reflect this answer.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to the first part of Interrogatory I because the requested information is reasonably obtainable from other sources.
The information is publicly available in Applicant's response to Interro-gatory 58 and any details regarding that response should be readily known to the Applicant.
The Staff will respond to the second part of this interrogatory which requests a description of and related documents concerning actions, programs or facts upon which the Staff relied on in formu-lating its conclusions regarding quality assurance and the fulfillment of regulatory requirements.
D,
INTERROGATORY 2 With respect to the following subparts or items of intervenors' amended quality assurance contention 1.B, 1.C, 1.D, 1.E. 1.F. the Quality Control (QC) Inspector Harassment Contention, 4.A and 12.J. please describe in detail the circumstances involved, including the name and address and telephone number (work and home) of each person involved, the manner in which the deficiency, weakness, finding, or observation was identified, investigated, evaluated for sigr.!ficance, root cause and generic implications; and the manner in which it was remedied and corrected, including any corrective action taken with regard to the existence of other related deficiency, weakness, finding or observation.
Set forth any facts upon which you rely to show that tne matter and its root cause have been effectively corrected. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to this interrogatory because the requested information is reasonably obtainable from sources other than the Staff.
Some of the information is directly known by Applicant, who is therefore the appropriate source for the requested information. Other portions of the information are publicly available in the form of NRC inspection reports for Braidwood, in the February 20, 1985 CAT Iwpection Report, the May 20, 1985 deposition of Mr. Keppler, in earlier Staff responses to discovery, and in information previously providec to Rorem by Staff at the Board's behest.
(See Tr. at 260)
INTERROGATORY 3 i
With respect to your answers to Interrogatory 58 of Intervenors' First Set of Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, please provide updated and current information regardini, the identifi-cation, investigation and corrective action taken for each alleged deficiency and subpart or item.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to Interrogatory 3 because the requested informa-tion is reasonably obtainable from other sources. The information sought
by Intervenor is either publicly known (as reported in NRC inspection reports for Braidwood), or is directly known by Applicant, who is therefore the appropriate source for the requested information.
INTERROGATORY 4 Please describe in detail the corrective actions or programs with respect to the following subjects which relate, as dcscribed at page 4 of the introduction to Applicant's Response to Intervenors' Interroga-tory 58, to the identified items or subparts of the amended quality assurance contention:
1)
Mecnanical Equipment Installation (1.A,6.A,13.A) 2)
HVAC Welding (3.A,1, 3.A.2, 3.A.3) 3)
Pipe Support Installation and Welding (10.C,10.E) 4)
Nuclear Coating Applications (5.8) 5)
Small Bore Pipe Wall Thicknes: (6.F,11.C) 6)
Structural Steel Installation and Weloing (9.A,9.D,9.E) 7)
Steam Generator Bolting (10.A,11.A) 8)
Pipe Heat Number Reverification (MTV) (10.B)
As to each please detail the purpose and objectives, organization, methodology, procedures, staffing, implementation, results, conclusions and evaluation of effectiveness. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers, including program descriptions, procedures, organizational charts, data, observation, inspection or evaluation forms or documents, and interim or final reports.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to the requested information because it is reason-ably obtainable from sources other than the Staff. This interrogatory requests details concerning Appli; ant's response to Interrogatory 58 which information is either publicly known (as reported in NRC inspection
reports for Braidwood), or is directly known to the Applicant, who is the appropriate source of this information.
INTERR0GATORY 5 Please describe in detail the Unit Concept Inspection Program with respect to the following subjects which relate, as described at pages 8 and 9 of the introduction to Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Inter-rogatory 59, to the_following subjects, items, or subparts of the amended quality assurance contention:
1)
Electrical Penetration Terminations (11.B) 2)
Mechanical Equipment Installation (1.A. 6.A, 10.A, 13.A) 3)
Cable Routing (6.E) 4)
Reactor Coolant Pump Support Installation (9.B) 5)
Small Bore Pipe Routing (3.A.4.a 3.A.4.b)
As to each please detail the purpose and objectives, organization, methodology, procedures, staffing, implementation, results, conclusions and evaluation of effectivenet.
Please identify any documents which reflect these answers, including program descriptions, procedures, organizational charts, data, observation, inspection or evaluation forms or documents, and interim or final reports.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the answers are not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding.
The requested information is beyond the scope of the contention.
The interrogatory requests information concerning "the Unit Concept Inspection Program" which is not part of the admitted quality assurance contentien.
The Staff does not intend to rely on the results of the Unit Concept Inspection Program in formulating its conclusions concerning the issues raised in the QA contention and thus a response to the inter-rogatory is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. The Staff further objects on the ground that the information requested is L
r 3
s
~?
w 8-drawnfromApplicant'sresponsetoIntervehor'sinterrokatofes'and i
directlyknowntotheApplicant,whoisithhappropriatesourceforthis informaticr..
1 INTERROGATORY 6 Please describe in detail the corrective actions, programs or responses which are identified in Applicant's Response to Intervenors' Interrogatory 58, regarding items or subparts of the amended quality assurance contention:
Applicant Item Action, Program or Response Response Page General BCAP Introduction, 11 3.B.
Quality Control Structural Steel 3
Review Program Unjt Concept Inspections 3
Instrument Retrofit Verification Program 3
BCAP 3
3.C Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP) 1 Quality Control Inspection Reinspection Document B0006700 Program (OCIRP) attached to revised response of 10/15/85 4.B BCAP and other corrective action 3
programs 6.B.5 Comstock Document Review drawing review review of inspection checklists J
6.D INP0 2
8.E Mechanical equipment disassembly and inspection 2
10.D Cable tray separation walkdown 3
12.B.1 Piping Heat Number Material Traceability Verification Program (MTV) 3 Instrument-Retro Program (IRV) 3
As to each please detail the purpose and objectives, organization, methodology,' procedures, staffing, implementation, results conclusions and evaluation of effectiveness. Please identify any documents which reflect these answers, including program descriptions, procedures, organizational charts, data, observation, inspection or evaluation forms or documents, and interim or final reports.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the answers are not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. The requested information is beyond the scope of the contention. The interrogatory generally requests information concerning various review or inspection programs which are contained within the " General BCAP" found in Applicant's response to Interrogatory 58 and which are not within the scope of the admitted QA contention. The Staff does not plan to rely on the results of the BCAP in formulating its conclusions regarding the issues raised by the quality assurance contention. Therefore, a response to the interroga-tory is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. The Staff further objects on the ground that the information requested is drawn from Applicant's response to Intervenor's interrogatories and directly known to the Applicant, who is the appropriate source for this information.
The Staff however, does not object to providing its evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, programs or responses (1) which the Applicant has completed, made available for final inspection or submitted its final report and (2) which the Staff has inspected, reviewed and found adequate to close out the deficiency originally identified, or approved Applicant's final report.
INTERROGATORY 7
'Please describe in detail the following ccrrective actions, corrective action programs, or other actions with regard to quality assurance, construction or procedural deficiencies at Braidwood:
A.
Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP)
B.
The " top twenty" corrective action programs at Braidwood identified in the April 8, 1985 correspondence from David H. Smith to James G. Keppler.
C.
The " Ongoing Corrective Action Programs" identified in Appendix B to the BCAP June 1984 program description transmitted by James J. O'Connor to James G. Keppler by letter of June 22, 1984.
As to each please identify its relationship to the items or subparts of the amended quality assurance contention including the extent, if any, to which it is relied upon as evidencing the absence of a significant breakdown in quality assurance or the ability of safety-related parts, components or systems to meet regulatory requirements or perform their intended function in service. As to each please detail the purpose and objectives, organization, methodology, procedures, staffing,implemen-tation, results, conclusions and evaluation of effectiveness.
Please identify any documents which reflect these answers, including program descriptions, procedures, organizational charts, data, observation, inspection or evaluation forms or documents, and interim or final reports.
OBJECTION The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the answers are not necessary to a proper decision in this proceedirg and the requested information is reasonably obtainable from other sources. The requested information is beyond the scope of the contention. The inter-rogatory requests details regarding the BCAP, the "' top twenty' corrective action programs", and "0ngoing Corrective Action Programs" identified in Appendix B to the June 1984 BCAP program description, which programs are not within the scope of Intervenors' QA contention and thus a response to
- II -
the interrogatory is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding.
The Staff further objects on the ground that the interrogatory is drawn from the Applicants' program or documents and thus the requested informa-tion is directly known to Applicant who is the appropriate source for this information.
III. Motion for 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. 9 2.740(c) that further discovery on Interrogatories 1 (in part), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (in part) and 7 of "Rorem, et al., Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, Second Set," to which Staff has objected, not be had.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Staff objects to Interroga-torie:; 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 in their entirety and part of Interrogatories I and 6 with the exceptions noted above and requests the Licensing Board to issue a protective order regarding these interrogatories.
Respectfully submitted,
+
W Elaine I. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of November, 1985
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO INTERR0GATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail ::ystem this 6th day of November, 1985:
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman
- Comonwealth Edison Company Administrative Judge ATTN:
Cordell Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Vice Presicent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 767 Washington, DC 20555 Chicago, IL 60690 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Region III Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 102 Oak Lane Office of Inspection & Enforcement Oak Ridge, TN 37830 799 Roosevelt rom Glen Ellyn, IL 50137 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq.
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman
- Isham, Lincoln & Beale Administrative Judge Three First National Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 5200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, DC 20555 2
3
m Douglass W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Timothy Wright, Esq.
Panel
- 109 Ncrth 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. Nucleai Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 182 Washington, DC 20555 Manteno, IL 60950 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
117 North Linden Street Associate General Counsel Essex, IL 60935 FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, DC 20740 oss Elaine I. Chan Counsel for NRC Staff 4
1