ML19263E872

Objection by Util to Intervenor Miami Valley Power Project 790420 Third Set of Interrogatories.Seeks Protective Order Re Objectionable Discovery & Proprietary Info.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19263E872
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	05/14/1979
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER, MOORE & CORBER
To:
Shared Package
ML19263E871	List: ML19263E870 ML19263E872
References
NUDOCS 7906250411
Download: ML19263E872 (6)

Text

.

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of . )

)

Thr, Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. ' )

)

(William H. Zimmer Nuclear )

Power Station) -

)

APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN OF INTERVENOR MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On April 20, 1979, Miami Valley Powei- Project (" Project"),

intervenor in the captioned proceeding, filed its third set of interrogatories on the Applicants, The Cincinnati Gas &

Electric Company, et al. For tne reasons stated hereinafter, Applicants object to Interrogatories 8, 14, 15, 41, 43, 44, 45, 65, 66 and 76 inasmuch a< they concern matters beyond the scope of contentions admitted as issues in the proceeding and are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Applica.its are responding to the remainder of the Project's latest set of interrogatories. Applicants further move, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(c) for a protective order that the objectionable discovery not be had and that the proprietary information which is referenced in the responses not be revealed until a suitable protective agreement has been executed.

7000250 t/// , 22I

-

.

_2

.

In " Applicants' Objections to Certain of Intervenor Miami Valley Power Project's First Set of Interrogatories and Motion for a Protective Order," dated March 21, 1979, Applicants discussed the fact that this Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board, as well as other Commission tribunals, has

'

sustained objectiore to interrogatories which were beyond the scope! of contentions admitted as issues to the proceeding and are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. To avoid undue repetition, Applicants incorporate such discussion herein and will proceed directly to address the deficiencies of the specific interrogatories to which objection is taken.

Interrogatory 8 asks for a description of " Husky Products, Inc.'s incentive system for welding." This inquiry is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

.

The only matter at issue in this proceeding is the question of whether the welds on the cable trays used for the Zhumer plant meet all applicable requirements. Details of the supplier's internal organization and industrial prGetices are totally outside the issues in the proceeding. No answer should be required.

Interrogatory 14 asks for a description of "the location of back-up electrical system cable trays." Such inquiry is beyond the scope of any admitted contention in this proceeding and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evi-2214 19"

-

_

dence. The only admitted contention dealing with cable trays concerns the adequacy of welding done on the cable trays. No answer should be required.

'

In Interrogatory 15, MVPP asks "[w] hat precautions have

-been taken in order to avoid a situation similar to the

~ Brown's Ferry fire?" Again, there is no contention admitted in this proceeding related to the Brown's Ferry fire. No answer to this interrogatory should be required.

Interrogatory 41 asks for "the IEEE standard designation for cables used at ZLnmer." Interrogatories 43 and 44 seek information related to the type conductors used in cable trays, their temperature ratings and how their addition "will affect ambient tewperature." Similarly, Interrogatory 45 asks for a detailed description of "how the addition of fire insulation around the cable trays will affect ambient temperature." These interrogatories are clearly unrelated to the 4dequacy of welding on cable trays and are beyond the ,

scope of any other admitted contention in this proceeding.

Taken together, they are an improper attempt to expand the scope of the admitted contentions and no answer to these interrogatories should be required.

Interrogatories 65 and 66 ask for information relating to "the tolerance standard for foreign materials in the reactor vessel." Such questions are clearly beyond the.

scope of the contention relating to inspection and seals of 2214 199

~

.

the control rods or any other admitted contention in this proceeding and are not reasonably calculated to lead to

'

admissible evidence. No answer to these interrogatories

.

should be reduired.

"

.

Interrogatory 76 asks for a description of the " pro-cedures for clean up," in case of hypothetical " radioactive

-

leakage due to impregerly set seals." In the only admitted contention dealing with the subject of seals on the control rods, the Project contends that "[allmost all of the seals on the control rods . . . do not meet minimum specifications for smoothness." Clearly, Interrogatory 76 is beyond the scope of that contention, as well as any other admitted in this proceeding. Therefore, no answer should be required.

For the foregoing reasons, the stated Interrogatories are objectionable and Applicants' motion for a protective order should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MO & CORBER

,

Mark J. terhahn Counsel for the Applicants May 14, 1979

.

,

2214 200

.

~

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )

)

(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Objections to certain of Intervenor Miami Valley Power Project's Third Set of Interrogatories and Motion for a Protective Order,"

dated May 14, 1979, in the captioned matter, were served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 14th day of May, 1979:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member and Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, LicensingAtomic Safety'd Appeal Boar Panel Board . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Counsel for the NRC Staff Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Chairman, Atomic Safety and Director Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission

'

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William J. Moran, Esq.

Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Cincinnati Gas & Electric Appeal Board *

' - Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post Office Box 960 Commission Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Washington, D.C. 20555

.

.

229 2U

. . .

.

Mr. Chase R. Stephens Leah S. Kosik, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Attorney at Law Office of the Secretary 3454 Cornell Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John D. Woliver, Esq.

Clermont County Community William Peter Heile, Esq. Council Assihtant City Solicitor Box 181 City of Cincinnati Batavia, Ohio 45103 Box 214 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

.

f

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

rk J. Wetterhahn

.

0

$

2214 202