ML19332B120

Response to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Objects to Majority of Questions on Basis of Ambiguity.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19332B120
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/15/1980
From:	Fouke R, Hart J, Mccoll A, Mills T CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8009260005
Download: ML19332B120 (17)

Text

?qt'M r  ?

p g')

e  %

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S{p 80 2m g2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ff g A In the Matter of S ~.

S ,

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING V COMPANY, et al S Docket Nos. 50-445 C* .> g

+

S 50-446 S

(Comanche Peak S team E] =ctric S (Application for l S ta tion , Units 1 and 2) S Operating License) )

ANSWERS TO APPLICANTS ' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CFUR AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE COMES NOW CFUR, one of the Intervenors in the above-styled and numbered proceeding, and files this, its Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories To CFUR And Requests To Produce.

Due to the very early stage of this licens tg proceeding, CFUR is unable at this time to provide complete responses to each of said Interrogatories from Applicants.

CFUR has not had the oppor tunity to conduct any discovery on its behalf, which is a necessary prerequisite  ;

to preparing for the upcoming licensing hearing and consequentlyo t  !

responding fully to Applicants' Interrogatories regarding CFUR's par ticipation at that hearing. Because of the foregoing factors, CFUR makes the following Answers without waiving its right to supplement its Answers or object to said Interrogatories which may be required by subsequent developments.

CERTIFICATE I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the following Answer s to Applicants '

First Set of. Interroga-tories To CFUR And Requests To Produce are true and correct .

Executed on this 15th day of September, 1980.

8009260005 Richard L. Fouke go D$

II'

I i

ANSWERS

1. These are our own words as accepted by the ASLB.

2. Due to the early stage of this licensing proceeding and due to the absence of discovery from Applicants, CFUR is not able at this time to respond fully. A partial docu-ment list includes: Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR),

May 7, 1979; Report of CFUR's Position On Each Contention, April 10, 1980; and Transcript, Pre-Hearing Conference, April 30, 1980.

3. CFUR has prepared no repor t at this time other than CFUR's Posit!.c on Contention 4, A, May 12, 1980. Repor t of CFUR's Position On Each Contention which was a group e f for t.

4. No.

5. Persons associated with CFUR have met with persons asso-ciated with other intervening par ties, as well as with persons asscciated with Applicants and the Staff. While matters touching Contention 2 may have been discussed, none of these meetings was for the purpose of discussing Contention 2. Fur ther , since there is no relevancy to this

intorrogatory, CFUR contends that the overly broad inquiry I about these meetings constitutes an impermissible, undue burden on and harassment of CFUR.

6. None

7. Yes. The extent of CFUR's participation is unkncwn at this time.

8. Unknown at this time.

9. Unknown at'this time.

10. See response to 9.

11. Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), May 7, 1979 and Repor t of CFUR's Fosition On Each Contention, April 10, 1980.

CFUR has not ruled out the possibility of including ad-ditional reports and/or deleting reports.

12. Since Interrogatory 12 is ambiguous and confusing, CFUR is unable to understand it and is therefore unable to respond.

Should Applicants be inquring about legal tneo-ries of CFUR, such an inquiry is clearly improper under 10 CFR S2.740 (b) (2) .

13. Unknown at this time.

14. Not applicable.

15. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

16. Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), May 7, ~1980 and Repor t of CFUR's Position On Each Contention, April 10, 1980.

CFUR has not ruled out the possibility of including com-puter codes and/or deleting computer codes.

17. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

18. Unknown at this time.

19. Not applicable.

20. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

21. Unknown at this time.

22. No t applicable.

23. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

24. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.

Applicants must also prove that the physical realm of operation is replicable and predictable in accord-ance with what is stated in the repor t and/or computer code.

25. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and r egula tio ns .

Applicants must also prove that the physical realm of operation is replicable and predictable in accord-ance with what is stated in the repor t and/or computer code by independent means.

26. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

27. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.

Applicants must also prove suitable verifi-cation.

28. The Staff must comply with all applicable statutes and r egu3 a tions.

The Staff must also evaluate Applicant's proof and independently verify same.

, ,e y e

29. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

I l

30. See responses to 24 and 27.

l l 31. See responses to 25 and 28.

32. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

33. Sufficient to comply with responses to 24 and 27.

34. See response to 2.

35. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds statd in response to 12.

36. Yes.

37. See responses to 11 and 16,

38. The details of the nature and substance of CFUR's chal '

lenges are not complete and are contingent on CFUR's discover which has not begun.

39. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

40. Por tions of Applicants' FSAR have been reviewed.

a. Yes,

b. See responses to 11 and 16.

c. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12,

41. No.

4 2. Not applicable.

43. CFUR is unable to answer this Interrogatory because the word " review" is ambiguous in this context.

44. Not applicable.

l l

' p9t,' .444.. ~

( '

. .

k . h;

45. Not applicable.

7-f 46. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grou.7ds stated in response to 12.

47. CFUR does not know the Applicants' purpose.

48. Not applicable.

49. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

50. Unknown at.this time.

51. Unknown at this time.

52. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated l

in response to 12.

53. Not applicable.

54. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

55. Not applicable.

56. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

57. Unknown at this time.

58. Not applicable.

59. Not applicable.

60. No.

62. See responses to 11 and 16.

62. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

63. CFUR is unable to answer this Interrogatory because the words "NRC requirements" are ambiguous in this context.

Since the second part of Interrogatory 63 is ambiguous, l CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

5,' t'MPE  ;

(.,

V

64. The Applicants' failure to adhere to the QA/QC required I and the construction practices employed, including but not limited to concrete work, mortar blocks, steel, frac-ture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of

[

the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and

testing, materials used, craf t labor qualifications and l

' working conditions affecting QA/QC, and training and

organizing of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the f acili ty.

65. Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene by Citizens For Fair Utili ty Regulation (CFUR), May 7, 19'!9; Repor t

of CFUR's Position On Each Contention, April 10, 1980;

[

and Transcript, Pre-Hearing Conference, April 30, 1980.

?

66. CFUR is in the process of preparing, but has not com-

. pleted, a trend analysis on I & E reports.

67.

CFUR has met with other intervenors, as well as with the Staff and the Applicants, for the rarpose of discussing Contention 5.

Since there is no relevancy to this Inter- i rogatory, CFUR contends that  ;

the overly broad inquiry i about these meetings constitutes an impermissible, undue burden on and harassment of CFUR.

68. CFUR has had one or more contacts with one or more -

viduals with respect to Contentions 5, 7 and 8. Cer tain impressions and/or conclusions were reached as a result of these contacts which have contributed to the position that CFUR has taken.

CFUR intends to make available the

--om . _ _ _ _ _ _ -

i ncmas of individuals who first of all have been deter-

/

mined to have substantive information and second of all agree to present direct testimony.

The problem is that some disquieting events have taken place in the lives of individuals who have expressed opposition to CPSES. One such example happened in 1975 when Bob Pomeroy, the ex-president of CASE and an airline pilot, was written up in an official report as being subversive by a member of the Texas Depar tment of Public Safety with no substantiation presented when Mr. Pomeroy expressed opposition to CPSES in a speech to the Dallas City Council. Thi s r epor t , classifying Mr. Pomeroy as subversive, was subsequently forwarded by the Texas Depar t-ment of Public Safety to Mr. Pomeroy's employer ir.

California. The member of the Texas Department of Public Safety who wrote the report testified before the State of Texas Senate Jurisprudence Subcommittee that he felt justified in so doing because he feared Mr. Pomeroy might-crash his airplane into CPSES. Blanket disclosure of the names of persons who have met with CFUR not only would subject those persons to a potential unjustified invasion of their right of privacy, the names of such non-testifying per sons are not discoverable. For these reasons, CFUR will take all steps possible to avoid anything resembling a reoccurrance of the Pomeroy event and objects to supply-ing the Applicants any names of consultants at this time and/or until they agree to present direct tes timony.

~

-. _ _ _ .n -.

a

/ 69. Yes; witnesses Jndaterminsd at this time.

70. Yes; witriessec undetermined at this time.

71. Not applicable.

72. CFUR has read portions of the construction permits for CPSES.

a. Unknown at this time.

b. Not applicable.

c. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

73. Applicants have failed to adhere. l

74. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and l

regulations and the spirit and intent thereof.

75. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds state in response to 12.

76. Yes.

a. Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene.By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), May 7, 1979; CFUR's Position On Contention 4. A, Msy 12, 1980; additional provisions may be added later.

b. See response to Interrogatory 76a.

c. CFUR objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds stated in response to 12.

77. Cease violations and take necessary and proper corrective action.

78. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

79. CFUR must complete discovery in order ::o answer this Inter rogator y.

t

'[

80. CFUR obj;cto to this Intcrrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

) 81. CFUR must complete discovery in order to answer this Interrogatory. Since the second part of Interrogatory is ambiguous, CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

82. CFUR must complete discovery in order to answer this Interrogatory. Since the second part of Interrogatory 85 is ambiguous, CFUR objects to it on the grounds stated in response to 12.

83. Yes.

84. Unknown at this time.

85. Not applicable. Since the second part of Interrogatory 85 is ambiguous, CFUR objects to it on the grounds stated in r esponse to 12.

86. Not applicable.

87. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

88. These are the Board's words; CFUR is unsure of their meaning.

89. These a:e the Board's words; CFUR is unsure of their meaning.

90. al; a2; a3; a6; see also Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), May 7, 1979.

91. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

2. Unknown at this tima; CFUR must conduct discovery in

> order to answer this Interrogatory.

93. These are CFUR's own words.

94. Supplement To Petition For Leave To Intervene By Citizens I For Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR), May 7, 1979; Report of CFUR's Position On Each Contention, April 10, 1980; and Transcript, Pre-Hearing Conference, April 30, 1980.

95. None at this time.

96. None at this time.

97. Persons as?ociated with CFUR have met with persons asso-ciated with other intervening parties, as well as with persons associated with Applicants and the Staff. While matters touching Contention 7 may have been discussed, none of these meetings was for the purpose of discuss' ng i Contention 7. Further, since there is no relevancy to this Interrogatory, CFUR contends that the overly broad inquiry about these meetings constitutes an impermissible, undue burden on and harassment of CFUR.

98. See response to 68.

99. Yes; unknown at this time.

100. Unknown at this time.

101. Unknown at this time. 1 102. Unknown at this time.

103. Unknown at this time.

104. Conduct further seismic analysis.

l 105. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds states l l

in response to 12.

l

_ .. e : _ -- - ----

l i

106. Correlation of rock overbreaks has not been accomplished at this time.

107. Not applicable.

108. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

I 109. Unknown at this time.

l 110. Not applicable.

111. CFUR objects, to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

112. CFUR has reviewed portions of Applicants' FSAR.

a. Unknown at this time.

b. Not applicable.

c. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12. Should Applicants be inquring about legal theories of CFUR, such an inquiry is clearly improper under 10 CFR S2.112(c) .

d. Yes.

e. CFUR has reason to belies ? that loose rock material was thrown into the excavation prior to the pouring of concrete. -Possibly others.

f. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on he grounds stated in response to 12.

113. Unknown at this time.

114. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

115. Yes; see responses to 104 and 112.

116. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

"- . - % ar L .N #4 Mf fE7. , ,',' , , D$ == '* **

a. us v't

'

117.

Yes; includes IV(a) (4), but not complete at this time.

118. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated l in response to 12.

119. Unknown at this time.

120. Yes; see response to 104 and 112.

Parenthetically CFUR disputes that fissure repair is the only subject to Con-tention 7..

121. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12. .

t 122. Yes; see response to 112.

123. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response to 12.

124. Unknown at this time; 125. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stat e d

in response to 12.  !

126. Not applicable.

127. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds estat d in response to 12.

128. Unknown at this time.

129. CFUR objects to thic Interrogatory on the grounds st ated in responses to 12.

130. Unknown at this time.

131. Unknown at this time.

132. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stat e d

in response to 12.

133. These are our own words as accepted by the ASLB .

134. See response to 2.

1J5. Not Ot thiG tim 3.

, 136. No. -

137. Person

associated with CFUR have met with persons asso-  ;

- ciated with other intervening par ties, as well as with persons associated with Applicants and the Staff. While matters touching Contention 8 may have been discussed, none of these meetings was for the purpose of discussing Contention 8. Further, since there is no relevancy to this Interrogatory, CFUR contends that the overly broad inquiry about these meetings constitutes an impermissible, undue burden on and harassment of CFUR.

138. See response to 68.

139. Yes; unknown at this time.

~ 14 0. Unknown at this time.

141. Unknown at this time.

14 2. Not applicable.

143. CFUR has read por tions of Applicants' ER-OL.

a. Not determined at this time.

b. Not applicable.

c. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds

x. stated in response to 12.

144. Yes, Must conduct discovery to determine.

145. CFUR objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds stated in response 12.

146. Not determined at this time.

147. See response to 145.

14 8. Not determined at this time.

149. Mining, undesirable consequences on neighbors.

.:- M .,, , a

. .. -. ~g s :.. ;,:. x..-

- '.:;~3.~:,,;:u._, 7

. .; . wj:c,.;.g.i:.=;;;.s._.5,~,J,..

,w, . ,ha:g9g.:. y-

, ,.m -

120. Wannar and timing to ensure 'no infringemant on n51ghbor s

~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~

'l: accasa - now cnd in tha futuro.

151. See response to 145.

152. Obtain water from separate source.

153. Not determined at this time.

154. Not determined at this time.

15 5. S ee r es ponse to 14 5.

156. No.

157. Not applicable.

158. Not complete at this time.

159. Not applicable.

160. See response to 145.

161. Not determined at this time.

162. No.

163. See response to 145.

164. Yes. Not determined at this time.

165. See response to 145.

166. Not applicable.

167. See response to 145.

n.' ' . x u- y . . , _ _ .

'? Ub _Y 'h - < = a? N r

'..' ^~

=}

Respectfully submitted, 1

l Jeffery L. Hart I 4021 Prescott Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 Arch C. McColl 701 Commerce Street Suite 302 Dallas, Texas 75202 Tom Mills One Turtle Creek Village Dallas, Texas 75219 A l By: _. p sw , . s/

/ // / '

l l

l l

l

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cer tify that copies of the foregoing Answers to Appli-cants' First Set of Interrogatories to CFUR And Requests To Produce, in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by doposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 15th day of September,1980:

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety Chairman, Atomic Safety and and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commi ssion Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Mar jorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Board Office of the Executive Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, PA. 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection Com,ai ssion Division P. O. Box 12548 Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Capitol S tation Austin, Texas 78711 Mr s. Juanita Ellis Mr . Geof frey M. Gay President, CASE West Texas Legal Services 1426 South Polk S treet 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

Dallas, Texas 75224 For t Wor th, Texas 76102 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Mr . Chase R. S tephens l

Debevoise & Liberman Docketing & Service Branch 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1

I Washing ton, D.C. 20036 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 f_

g

,ype z. ,aa e] sEP 22 G53 * [2 /  !

om e e Sec*f L DocWitt &U" d e l CP

.J NI e3 p O*

• h 9 8 =

'