ML20112D863

Response Opposing Intervenor 850107 Motion to Compel Responsive Answer to Interrogatory III.7 of Intervenor Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20112D863
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/10/1985
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#184-048, CON-#184-48 OL, NUDOCS 8501140528
Download: ML20112D863 (9)

Text

I q ret >TED CORiiESPONDENCE 4

m, ,-.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 13 < 4 14 A10 :13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicenbind-Board 5k" Public Service Electric and )

Gas Company )

} Docket No. 50-354-OL

~

(Hope Creek Generating )

Station) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO COMPEL A RESPONSIVE ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY III.7 OF THE INTERVENOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS On January 7, 1985, the Public Advocate, intervenor in the captioned proceeding, filed "Intervenor's Motion to Compel a Responsive Answer to Interrogatory III. 7 of-the Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents." The motion requests that Appli-cants be compelled to provide a response to an interrogatory calling for an identification of each instance in which PSE&G has been fined or cited for any deficiency by the NRC.

There are no subject matter or temporal limits in the request.- For the reasons stated below, the Public Advo-cate's motion to compel should be denied.

Applicants have already provided responsive information

~-

on the subject concerning the Hope Creek Generating Station

(" Hope Creek"), the subject of the instant hearing, discuss-ing the fact that no civil penalty for activities associated with Hope Creek has been levied. In conjunction with that 8501140528 850110 PDR ADOCK 05000354 -

Q PDR 2)S03

- 2-response, Applicants have made available to the Public Advocate documents describing NRC violations and the re-sponses. Taken together, Applicants submit that they have fully responded to the subject interrogatory as it relates to civil penalties and violations at Hope Creek.W Applicants submit that no response to this interroga-

-tory as it relates to Salem Nuclear Generating Station should be required. Contention 2 states:

Prior to operation, PSE&G must demon-strate that it has fully resolved the management implications of the Salem events of February 22 and 25, 1983, ,

which resulted in the NRC civil penalty, >

and that it has taken all steps neces-sary to achieve and maintain the techni-cal qualifications required for the safe operation of Hope Creek as a result of these incidents. (Emphasis supplied.)

This Board was careful to limit the contention to the implications of the Salem events of February 22 and 25, 1983 on the operation of Hope Creek. In its Special Prehearing P

Conference Order, dated December 21, 1983, the Licensing Board's analysis of this contention and its basis related-solely to the February 22 and 25, 1983 incidents._ The Public Advocate had itself also clearly limited the basis for this contention to the incidents which occurred at Salem on _ February 22 and 25, 1983. These were the sole matters

-raised by the Public Advocate in support of' its 1

4 1/ Documents havelbeen provided for the period January 1, 1982 to the present.

m ,

4 u--, ,w-ce .-v r - e. w e e- m m m, .+ . y L s-,n,- ,,,n,,en,, ,e, -v,--y--, w> n av r- - ,-~-.,y.neg

, d e~a ee r .-

contention.S! It was in this context that the Board stated it did not even intend to retry the Salem events as such.SI It noted that "if there were fines levied for certain conduct or reasons, there may be issues concerning manage-ment competence that are admissible in this proceeding."AI It is clear from the context that the Board was referring solely to the two Salem events of February 22 and 25 as the basis for an inquiry into management competence as it relates to Hope Creek and not to any other civil penalties which may have occurred previous or subsequent to that time, let alone every violation which occurred over the lifetime of the units.

It was for just this reason that during oral argument on this contention, Staff counsel, which agreed to its admission because he believed the contention had been limited, noted "by limiting the management implications to just (rebruary 23 and 25] incident, we have certainly limited this contention to a very great extent. Otherwise, it would have been an unlimited number of aspects.concerning 2/ See Memorandum of Law in Support of Intervenor's Contentions (November 7, 1983), Appendix I at 9.

3/ Special Prehearing Conference Order (December 2, 1983).

at 11.

4/ Id.

u.

u-every violation of I&E since the plant started construction."E!

Applicants have attempted to reach agreement with the Public Advocate concerning an acceptable response to this contention both before and after the submission of the motion to compel,5! but without success. Applicants bring to the attention of the Licensing Board Interrogatory 35 at page 19 of Intervenor's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants (January 4, 1985). Therein, the following interrogatory was pro-pounded:

List and describe all NRC violations at the Salem or Hope Creek Generating Stations in 1983 and 1984. For each, include the date of the violation, the level of severity, and any penalty imposed.

It was presumed that an attempt was being made by the Public Advocate to reach an acceptable compromise to limit the inquiry. In the interests of an amicable settlement without Board involvement, . Applicants were willing to provide the information requested .in Interrogatory 35 of the 5/ Tr. 178.

1/ Applicants had thought that an understanding had been reached with the Public Advocate that provision of the material regarding Hope Creek was to be considered a complete' reply. Thus, no protective order was necessary. Without attempting to get in a useless discussion, the ass vtion that Applicants refused to discuss this matter is simply incorrect.

Intervenor's Third Set of Interrogatories, and so informed counsel for the Public Advocate, notwithstanding any ob-jection they might have to the appropriateness of the latest interrogatory or the admissibility of any resulting evi-dence. However, notwithstanding that the Public Advocate had seemingly limited its interrogatory which is the subject of this motion, it refused to accept such offer. During that same discussion, counsel for the Public Advocate also indicated that all NRC violations prior to the two Salem incidents of February 22 and February 25, 1983 should be considered relevant to the Board's inquiry with regard to Contention 2.

The Public Advocate argues that "[t]he continued exis-tence of fines and deficiencies is clearly-relevant to test the effectiveness that P.S.E.&G. made in response to the ATWS events--changes in management policies, practices, and attitudes, and changes in operations, training, surveil-

-lance, maintenance, procurement, control of vendor- activ-ities.and information, and quality assurance. "2I However, as discussed previously, the sole focus of the Board's inquiry is the effect of the Salem February 22 and 25, 1983 incidents on the management qualifications to operate Hope

- Creek. The Public Advocate. seemingly recognizes this in.its motion-~when it states that "the very heart of the 7/ Intervenor's Motion at 4.

Intervenor's second contention lies in examination of the Salem events as they bear on P.S.E.&G.'s ability to safely operate the Hope Creek reactor." The reference is to the February 22 and 25, 1983 events.

The Public Advocate has made no attempt to limit this interrogatory to violations or civil penalties associated with deficiencies in the management that will be overseeing operation of Hope Creek. Despite his protestations to the contrary, the Public Advocate apparently wishes to retry the Salem ATWS events and their causes. If the Public Advo-cate's expansive interpretation of this contention is adopted, it, in effect, would reauire the examination of the totality of Salem operation, possibly even prior to 1983, because of some possible indirect and speculative effect on Hope Creek operation. Applicants submit that this interpre-tation is not warranted by the statement of the contention, its. stated basis, and the limitations imposed by the Board in admitting it.

8/ Id. at 5 ~ (emphasis supplied) .

Therefore, to the extent not already answered by Applicants, the instant interrogatory is objectionable and the motion to compel should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

J 1 Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants January 10, 1985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service Electric and )

Gas Company )

) Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Intervenor's Motion to Compel a Responsive Answer to Interrogatory III.7 of the Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents,"

dated January 10, 1985 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail on this 10th day of January, 1985:

• Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Atomic Safety and Chairman Licensing Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 2055E Commission Wanhington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

• Dr. Peter A. Morris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 Section Office of the Secretary

• Dr. David R. Schink U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• . Hand Delivery

t t

• Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.

Associate General Counsel Public Service Electric &

Gas Company P.O. Box 570 (TSE)

Newark, NJ 07101

• • Richard E. Shapiro, Esq.

Susan C. Remis, Esq.

John P. Thurber, Esq.

State of New Jersey  :

Department of the Public Advocate CN 850 Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Carol Delaney, Esq.

Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice State Office Building 8th Floor 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19810 MWrk J. We*.ter;tahn Hand Delivery

• • Federal Express

- . _ ._ _ _ _ . _. - --