ML20207R767
| ML20207R767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1987 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2804 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8703180116 | |
| Download: ML20207R767 (7) | |
Text
y 2rd m%
00CMETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 87 MR 16 P2:58 Before Administrative Judges:
Peter 8. Bloch, Chairman OFFICE CT sittfiAFy Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 00CKETING t. WVICL WNG Dr. Walter H. Jordan SERVED MAR 161987 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445-0L 50-446-OL TEXAS' UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
March 16, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Motion to Compel: CASE'sSet12)
The purpose of this memorandum is to resolve issuu raised by Citizens' Association for Sound Energy (CASE) in its Motion to Compel Applicants to Provide Complete Answers to CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT [ Comanche PeakResponseTeam] Discovery--12 Sampling.I 1
Filed January 21, 1987.
See also Applicants' Response to Case Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, Set 12 (Applicants' Response), February 25, 1987; Applicants' Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum, Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling, January 31,1986 (Applicants' Memorandum); Applicants' Supplement to Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum, April 1, 1986 (Applicants' Supplement);
and Applicants'
Response
to Board Concerns December 1,1986.
U
'5 8703190116 870316 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
- )
e Sampling Discovery:
2 Interrogatory 1 We find that Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Applicants) did not answer this interrogatory in sufficient detail and that it should respond to each of the following points:
(1)
Answer Interrogatory la and ib separately, with a "yes" or "no" for each question and a clear explanation.
(2) Answer separately interrogatory Ic and Id.
In the course of the answers, explain clearly the methodological basis and reasoning for stating that "The SRT does believe it to be so, and demonstrable, that the level of reasonable assurance afforded by the CPRT Program, when completed, will be comparable to that that would be expected to result from the implementation of a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, program."
(3)
Discuss whether it is true that by inspecting the hardware Applicants will obtain information concerning the number of errors left in the plant after QA/QC and other events (such as testing? reconstruc-tion?) have occurred, prior to the implementation of the reinspection 2
program.
2 Applicants' Response to Board Concerns at G.
Sampling Discovery:
3 Interrogatory 3a and 3b We find that Applicants' original response of December 2,1986, adequatiely responds to these questions, particularly when one also refers to the CPRT plan, Appendix D. Rev.1, including attachment 4.3 Reworded Interrogatories Concerning Interrogatory 3a We have examined CASE's extraordinary request that interrogatories be considered in a reworded form. We do not find these reworded inter-rogatories especially helpful, so we will not accept CASE's suggestion about considering this new form of the questions.
Request for Documents: Interrogatory 3b(2)
Interrogatory 3.b.(2) is agreed by both parties to be a request for documents.
We believe a sympathetic interpretation of this question would require Applicants to furnish any documents which were in fact relied on by them in producing their answer to 3.b.(1).
Hence, if drafts of the answer were prepared by a witness or expert relying on particular technical sources, the 1 the documents relied on should be furnished.
If no documents were relied on, then Applicants should say so.
I 3
We also rule, below, that the bases for Appendix D shall be disclosed.
.{l Sampling Discovery:
4 Interrogatory 3(c)
CASE correctly points out that its inquiry concerns the ISAPs
[ Issue Specific Action Plans] and not the Results Reports.
Although Applicants may not have stated all the strata in the ISAP's, we consider the identification of strata to be a part of the CPRT plan and we find that it should be disclosed.
Applicants should explain to CASE where the requested information has already been provided and, to the extent it has not already been provided but does exist, they should provide it.
Interrogatory 4c, d & e The Board recognizes that there is no direct relationship between attributes and safety margins. We find that Applicants' answer, stating that they will assure compliance to codes and standards, is adequate.
Providing that Applicants comply with the applicable codes and stand-ards, there is no need, within the scope of the admitted contention, for them to document safety margins.
'here is no pending contention that the codes and standards do not provice an adequate safety margin.
Interrogatory 6 We sustain CASE's motion about interrogatory 69, concerning the production of documents that " support" Appendix D.
We interpret "sup-port" to include any document that was relied on in the course of I
developing Appendix D, whether or not the document may support the actual content of Appendix D.
We also consider (g)(iii) to be relevant
?
Sampling Discovery:
5 and entitled to an answer.
Documents used in the preparation of an answer to (g)(iii) should be supplied, With respect to items (h) and (1), we rely on our prior rulings at o
Tr. 24717-35 and require Applicants to inform CASE of who developed Appendix D of the CPRT plan.
Knowledge of who developed the plan could provide information useful to CASE in identifying possible areas of weakness to pursue further.
However, the portion of 1(iii), dealing with conflicts of interest, is burdensome.
Applicants may respond by stating what they have done to inform themselves about possible con-flicts of interest and by disclosing potential conflicts resulting from CPRT assignments.
Applicants should respond fully to other questions about the experts used in connection with Appendix D.
Applicants should respond to (1)(iv).
With respect to item (j), we note that the Staff apparently has supplied the notes of Charles M. Trammel, summarizing the meeting.
We consider that adequate, although we urge Staff to have future important meetings --such as this one-- stenographically transcribed.
We will not require Applicants to disclose the names of people who i
(
prepared the document cited in j(iii) but not in evidence.
Information 1
about experts preparing such a peripheral document need not be dis-closed.
I We have no reason to rule on subpart "1.", as Applicants said they h
I would cause those validly and timely served with subpoenas to appear in
- esponse,
v Sampling Discovery:
5 and entitled to an answer.
Documents used in the preparation of an answer to (g)(iii) should be supplied.
With respect to items (h) and (1), we rely on our prior rulings at i
Tr. 24717-35 and require Applicants to inform CASE of who developed Appendix D of the CPRT plan. Knowledge of who developed the plan could provide information useful to CASE in identifying possible areas of weakness to pursue further.
However, the portion of 1(iii), dealing with conflicts of interest, is burdensome.
Applicants may respond by stating what they have done to inform themselves about possible con-flicts of interest and by disclosing potential conflicts resulting from CPRT assignments.
Applicants should respond fully to other questions about the experts used in connection with Appendix D.
Applicants should respond to (i)(iv).
With respect to item (j), we note that the Staff apparently has supplied the notes of Charles M. Trammel, summarizing the meeting.
We consider that adequate, although we urge Staff to have future important meetings --such as this one-- stenographically transcribed.
We will not require Applicants to disclose the names of people who prepared the document cited in j(iii) but not in evidence.
Information about experts preparing such a peripheral document need not be dis-cle, sed.
We have no reason to rule on subpart "1.", as Applicants said they would cause those validly and timely served with subpoenas to appear in response.
J
-i Sampling Discovery:
6 Interrogatory 7 We find that Applicants did not adequately responded to the initial question, particularly with respect to the population that is being sampled.
Is the sample solely of work that was completed prior to the commencement of the CPRT? Prior to the Technical Review Team's (TRT's) work?
Does it include or exclude repairs made in response to TRT or CPRT findings? We also refer Applicants to the clarification provided by CASE in its motion to compel and we ask that Applicants respond fully.
Intet rogatory 8 We find the question and " clarification" confusing and Applicants' answer adequate.
Additional Dispute With respect to the dispute about whether nr not Applicants are in compliance with the 8/19/86 agreement with CASE, we do not think it necessary to rule unless CASE informs us that the agreement has been breached.
ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 16th day of March 1987
v f.
Sampling Discovery:
7 f
ORDERED:
That CASE's Motion to Compel Applicants to Provide Complete Answers to CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT Discovery -- 12 SAMPLING, filed January 21, 1987, is denied except to the extent indicated in the accompanying Memorandum.
Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. (Applicants) shall respond in a timely fashion to interrogatories and requests for discovery that we have found that they should respond to or that we have asked or directed that they respond to (in the accompanying Memorandum).
The interrogatories or requests shall be considered to have been served at the same time as th): Order is served.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
{.
.h Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland discsamp2/bloch5 r
l l
l l
l
, _. _ _ _. _ - _ _