ML20050K290

First Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20050K290
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/09/1982
From:	Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP
Shared Package
ML20050K176	List: ML20050K151 ML20050K290
References
NUDOCS 8204140216
Download: ML20050K290 (15)

Text

-

4 ,

PPJ ATED CO.ldCnWDFAra UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~

~~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, m . 7, In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE Pursuant to 10 CFR $$2.740b and 2.741, Duke Power Com-pany, et al. ( " Applicants") hereby serve Applicants ' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce upon Inter-venor, Carolina Environmental Study Group (CESG). These interrogatories involve CESG Contentions 13 and 17.

Each interrogatory shall be answered fully in writing, under oath or affirmation, and include all pertinent infor-mation known to CESG, its officers, directors or members as well as any pertinent information known to its employees, advisors or counsel. Each request to produce applies to pertinent documents which are in the possession, custody or control of CESG, its officers, directors or members as well as its employees, advisors or counsel. In answering each interrogatory and in responding to each request, place recite the interrogatory or request preceeding each answer or response. Also, please identify the person providing each answer or response.

These interrogatories and requests shall be contin-uing in nature. Thus, any time CESG obtains information 8204140216 820409 PDR ADOCK 05000413 PDR C

a 4

which renders any previous response incorrect or indicates that a response was incorrect when made, CESG should supple-ment its previous response to the appropriate interrogatory or request to produce. CESG should also supplement its responses as necessary with respect to identification of each person expected to be called at the hearing as an expert witness, the subject matter of his or her testimony, and the substance of that testimony. Applicants are parti-cularly interested in the names and areas of expertise of CESG's witnesses, if any. Each identification of such witnesses is necessary if Applicants are to be afforded adequate time to depose them.

The term " documents" shall include any writings, draw-ings, graphs, charts, photographs, and other data compila-tions from which information can be obtained. We request that at a date or dates to be agreed upon, CESG make avail-able for inspection and copying, all documents subject to the requests set forth below.

REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 CFR $2.741, Applicants request CESG by and through their attorneys, to make available for inspection and copying at a time and location to be designated, any and all documents, of whatsoever description, identified in the responses to the Applicants' interrogatories, below; including, but not limited to:

2 (1) any written record of any oral communication between or among Intervenors, their advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys, and/or any other persons, including but not limited to the NRC Staff, the Applicants, and their advisors, consultants, agents, attorneys and/or any other persons; and (2) any documents, correspondence, letter, memorandum, notes, diagrams, reports, charts, photographs, or any other writing of whatsoever description, including but not limited to work papers, prior drafts, and notes of meetings.

If CESG maintains some documents should not be made available for inspection, it should specify the documents and explain why such are not being made available. This request extends to any such document, described above, in the possession of CESG, its advisors, consultants, agents, or attorneys.

GENERAL INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to 10 CFR $2.740b, the Applicants request CESG, by and through its attorneys, to answer separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation, by persons having knowledge of the information requested, the following interrogatories.

-s I e A. General Interrogatories The following interrogatories apply severally to each of the contentions admitted as issues in controversy in this proceeding.

1. Please state the full name, address, occupation and employer of each person answering the interro-gatories and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof he or she answered.

2. Please identify each and every person whom you are considering to call as a witness at the hearing in this matter on this contention, and with respect to each such person, please:

a. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify;

b. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion; and

c. Describe the witness' educational and professional j background.

3. Is the contention based on one or more calculations?

If so:

a. Describe each calculation and identify any documents setting forth such calculation.

b. Who performed each calculation?

c. When was each calculation performed?

g,

d. Describe each parameter used in such calcu-lation and each value assigned to the para-meter, and describe the source of your data.

e. What are the results of each calculation?

f. Explain in detail how each calculation provides a basis for the issue.

4. Is the contention based upon conversations, con-sultations, correspondence or any other type of communications with one or more individuals?

If so:

t

a. Identify by name and address each such individual.

b. State the educational and professional i background of each such individual, includ-ing occupation and institutional affiliations.

c. Describe the nature of each communication

! with such individual, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals involved,

d. Describe the information received from such s individuals and explain how it provides a i

basis for the issue.

e. Identify each letter, memorandum, tape, note or other record related to each conversation, consultation, correspondence, or other com-munication with such individual.

3

-G-B. Specific Interrogatories CESG - Contention 13

1. What do you mean by the term " irregularities"?

2. Identify each and every " irregularity" which is the subject of this question.

3. For each " irregularity" identified in your response to Interrogatory 2, please specify the location, time of occurrence and person or persons who were involved.

4. When do you contend such " irregularities" occurred?

5. What do you contend was the cause of such " irregularities"?

6. What are your bases for your responses to Interrogator-les 1-57 Identify all documents, testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

7. What " welding practices" are the subject of this Contention and what person or persons do you contend engaged in such " welding practices"?

8. Specify when such " welding practices" occurred.

9. Where are the proper " welding practices" established?

10. Are the welding practices which are the subject of this Contention set forth in particular procedures?

11. If your response to Interrogatory 10 is in the affirma-tive, please specify the particular procedures which govern the " welding practices" which are the subject of this Contention.

m.

12. For each of the procedures identified in your response to Interrogatory 11, set forth the specific problems which you contend occurred.

13. Do you contend that the " welding practices" which are the subject of this Contention fail to comply with certain standards?

14. If your response to Interrogatory 13 is in the affirma-tive, please identify the particular standards which are the subject of this Contention.

15. For each of the standards identified in your response to Interrogatory 14, please specify the particular concern which you have concerning " welding practices". ,

16. What are your bases for your responses to Interrogator-ies 7 through 15? Identify all documents, testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

17. Identify each specific " safety related system" which is the subject of this Contention.

18. Specify the particular " welding practices" which you contend were performed on each of the " safety related systems" identified in your response to Interrogatory 17.

19. Specify for each of the " welding practices" associated with the " safety related systems" identified in your response to Interrogatory 18 the particular concerns which you have regarding the adequacy of such practices.

I 1

I c==="*

20. For each of the concerns identified in your response to Interrogatory 19, specify the time at which such concerns (i.e., problem) occurred.

21. For each concern identified in your response to Interro-gatory 19, identify the person or persons who were involved and the situation giving rise to your concern.

22. For each concern identified in your response to Interro-gatory 19, specify the cause which you attribute to such concerns.

23. What are your bases for your responses to Interrogatories j 15 through 227 Identify all documents, testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

24. Do you contend that the Applicants have not identified all

" irregularities" in " welding practices" pursuant to their own inspection procedures?

25. If your response to Interrogatory 24 is in the affirmative, please specify the " irregularities" which you contend i

Applicants have not identified.

26. For each of the " irregularities" identified in your res-ponse to Interrogatory 25, answer each of the Interro-gatories 1-5 above if you have not already done so.

l I

l l

l

1

27. If your response to Interrogatory 24 is in the negative, please specify precisely what your concern is with respect to " welding practices".

28. Do you contend that the NRC Staff has not identified the particular " welding practices" with which this Contention is concerned?

29. If your response to Interrogatory 28 is in the affirma-tive, please identify those instances of " welding practices" which you contend the NRC Staff does not identify.

30. For each of those instances " welding practices" identi-fled in your response to Interrogatory 29, please i answer Interrogatories 7 through 15 if you have not already done so for those particular practices.

31. If your response to Interrogatory 28 is in the negative, please explain exactly what your concern is with respect to " welding practices".

32. Do you contend that Applicants have not corrected all

" irregularities" in welding practices"? If so, please explain, identifying the areas of the plant here such welds remain uncorrected.

l

33. What are your bases for your responses to Interrogator-ies 24 through 327 Identify all documents, testimony i

or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

j

34. What do you mean by the term " endanger"?

i l

l

35. Specify the consequences which you allege will follow from each " irregularity" in " welding practices" which are the subject of this Contention.

36. For each of the consequences identified in your response to Interrogatory 35, specify the particular

" safety related system" involved in such a scenario.

37. Do you contend that the procedures applicable to welding at the Catawba facility are not in compliance with applicable NRC regulations?

38. If your response to any of the Interrogatory 37 is in the affirmative, please specify for your particular concern and specify the particular NRC requirements which you contend have not been satisfied.

39. What are your bases for your responses to Interrogator-ies 34 through 387 Identify all documents, testimony or oral statements by an person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

1 i CESG - Contention 17

1. What is the basis for this contention?

2. Please identify all documer,ts, testimony or oral statements by any pr;Non and legal requirements on which you rely in rapy e of your response to Inter-rogatory 1.

3. What are the " effects" of Corbicula which you contend will occur?

4. What do you contend are the consequences of the " effects"?

5. How do you contend such " effects" will affect "perfor-mance of the cooling tower system"?

6. What do you contend are the components of the " cooling tower system" which will be affected by Corbicula?

7. For each of the components identified in your response to Interrogatory 6, specify the particular "effect" which you contend Corbicula will have.

8. What are your bases for your responses to Interrogator-ies 3 through 77 Identify all documents, testimony or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

9. Do you contend there are any " effects" which have an adverse impact on the environment?

10. If your response to Interrogatory 9 is in the affirma-tive, please specify all such " effects."

11. Do you contend that any " effects" identified in your response to Interrogatory 10 tip the cost-benefit balance against licensing?

12. If your response to Interrogatory 11, is in the affirma-tive, please specify precisely what the " costs" which you contend tip the environmental cost-benefit balance against operation.

13. What are your bases for your responses to Interroga-tories 8 through 127 Identify all documents, testimony

or oral statements by any person and legal requirements on which you rely in support of your position.

14. What is the extent of such infestation which you con-tend exists?

15. Do you contend such infestation is likely to extend to the Catawba site?

16. Do you contend that such " effects" will be detectable?

17. Do you contend that the " effects" of Corbicula are irreversible once they are detected?

18. If your response to Interrogatory 17 is in the affirma-tive, how do you explain that other facilities have adequately dealt with Corbicula?

19. If your response to Interrogatory 17 is in the nega-tive, what concerns can you have for "the performance of the cooling tower system."

20. What are your bases for your responses to Interroga-tories 13 through 187 Identify all documents, testimony

e or oral statements by any person and legal require-l ments on which you rely in support of your position.

Respectfully submitted,

/

/Y ~

1. EBEVOISE&LIBERMANMichael McGarrf, III g/

.1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 William L. Porter Albert V. Carr, Jr.

Ellen T. Ruff Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.

, April 9, 1982

i 4 EM DCOMNNMNS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b 12 AH :33 l

In the Matter of )

)  :

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.

) Docket No.40-413

)40-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to Palmetto Alliance and Requests to Produce" and " Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to Carolina Environ-mental Study Group and Requests to Produce" in the above captioned matters, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 9th day of April, 1982.

James L. Kelly, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan William L. Porter, Esq.

Union Carbide Corporation Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box Y Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Dr. Richard F. Foster Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 i P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Chairman State of South Carolina Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 11549 Board Panel Columbia, South Carolina 29211 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Guild, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Attorney-at-Law 314 Pall Mall

{ Chairman Columbia, South Carolina 29201 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Palmetto Alliance U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2135 1/2 Devine Street Commission Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

o 1

l Jesse L. Riley Scott Stucky 854 Henley Place Docketing and Service Station Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Henry A. Presler Washington, D.C. 20555 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition 943 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 J. Michael McGjit'rry, IgI 9

9

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