ML20005C110

Motion to Compel Util to Answer Joint Intervenors 811007 Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20005C110
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/06/1981
From:	Reynolds J CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, JOINT INTERVENORS - DIABLO CANYON
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8111180402
Download: ML20005C110 (9)

Text

-

~

i INTED C01rac w;cg

. L- _..__

DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11 S0Y -9 Pl2:06 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGcBOARDF SECRETAP.'/

i:' ' ci;NG A SERV!CE MANCH

)

In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.

) 50-323 0.L.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) e Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) 6 I

liLL hJ) A[PIl/[

E_ NOV171981* N JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO ' ElsE" -

COMPELPACIFICGASANDELECTRICCOMPANkA .@

TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES N n /

The SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC., ECOLOGY ACTION CLUB, SANDRA SILVER, GORDON SILVER, ELIZABETH APFELBERG, and JOHN J. FORSTER

(" Joint Intervenors") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" licensing board") for an order compelling Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PGandE") to respond to certain interrogatories served upon it by Joint Intervenors on October 7, 1981.

Specifically, Joint Intervenors seek responsive answers to the following interrogatories:

42. List and describe in detail all analyses and tests conducted by you, your agents, or your consultants with respect to the pressurizer heaters and associated controls. Specify:

(c) the range of test conditions or ,

conditions assumed in the analyses; p 81111G040281110{

l PDR ADOCK OS

$\

DR o G __-__- - _ - _ _ - - - _ -

(e) the results of the. tests or analyses; (f) any other .ests or analyses planned to be condu' .e<d prior to full power operation.

61. Describe in detail the current status of the EPRI valve performance testing program. In your response, state:

(a) when the relief and safety valve testing will be completed; (b) Under what conditions (e .g . , transition flow, full water flow, saturated steam, etc.) have the relief and safety valves been tested to date; (c) whether any of the relief and safety valves tested have failed, suffered galling, or been in any way damaged during the testing, and, if so, describe in detail the circumstances of such occurrences; (d) why the relief and safety valve testing program completion date has been delayed and when the program is now scheduled to be completed; (e) whether an EPRI block valve testing program is planned and, if so, when it will be completed; (f) other than the block valve failures discussed at the Diablo Canyon low power test hearing in F'y, 1981, whether any of the block valves tested . ave failed, suffered galling, or been in any way damaged during the testing, and, if so, describe in detail the circumstances of such occurrences; (g) whether PGandE has submitted to the NRC a correlation or other evidence to substantiate that the valves tested in the EPRI program demonstrate the functionability of the relief and safety valves installed at Diablo Canyon, and, if so, describe that correlation or other evidence in detail; (h) to what excent, if at all, the control circuitry, piping, and supports associated with the Diablo Canyon relief and safety valves have been qualified, and, if so, describe precisely how they have been qualified and the results of any related tests or analyses; (i) when the " correlation" referred to in subpart (g) of this interrogatory will be submitted to the NRC.

J

w-A

62. On August 19, 1981, an emergency planning exercise for Diablo Canyon was held in San Luis Obispo. Based on your involvement in that exercise and your knowledge of the involvement of other persons, officials, agencies, or other entities, aescribe the exercise in detail and include in your response at least the following information:

(s) (1) the types and quantities of emergency response equipment (e.g., communications equipment, respiratory equipment, protective clothing, monitoring equipment, vehicles, helicopters, signs, placards, medical equipment, etc.) assumed or deemed to be available or to have been used during the course of the accident and (2) the types and quantities of such equipment actually available or used; . . . .

PGandE's refusal to respond to the above interrogatories is impermissible absent compliance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.'40 (f) of the Commission's regulations. That provision provides that

[f]ailure to answer or respond shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery sc ht is objectionable unless the person or part/ failing to answer or respond has applied for a protective order pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

10 C.F.R. S2.740 (f) . No application for a protective order has been filed by PGandE; accordingly, its failure to respond cannot be excused, and an order by this board compelling proper responses is required.

Although PGandE's noncompliance with the proper procedure for objecting to interrogatories is alone sufficient grounds for an order compelling response, the obvious insufficiency of the reasons assigned by PGandE for its refusal to answer the interrogatories in question provides still further basis for such an order. In its October 26, 1981 Answers to Joint Intervenors' I

Second Set of Interrogatories ("PGan'dE Answers"), PGandE simply chose not to respond to. Interrogatory 42, paragraphs (c), (e), and (f), assigning no reason whatsoever; its failure to answer this interrogatory is therefore wholly without legal justification.

In response to Interrogatory 61, PGandE interposed the following objection:

The Applicant objects to this interrogatory on the basis of relevancy. The EPRI valve performance cesting program is clearly outside the scope of this contention, which concerns the classification of power operated relief valves, block valves and associated circuitry, and compliance wth design criteria. The EPRI test program was litigated in the low power hearings which resulted in a license being issued.

PGandE Answers, supra at 36-37 (emphasis added). That objection is without merit. Contention 12, to which Interrogatory 61 relates, states as follows:

Proper operation of power operated relief valves, associated block valves and the instruments and controls for these valves is essential to mitigate the consequances of accidents. In addition, their failure can cause or aggravate a LOCA. Therefore, these valves must be classified as components important to safety and required to meet all safety-grade design criteria.

I Memo andum and Order of Atomic Safety Licensing Board (August 27, 198,l) (emphasis added) .

It is clear from the language of the contention itself, as well as from PGandE's own response, that the proper and reliable operation of PORV's and block valves, which is the focus of the EPRI testing program, is highly relevant to the resolution of contention 12. Indeed, the EPRI test results are the only source

-4_

i L

of such information available to the licensing board in its evaluation of whether the valves at Diablo Canyon meet safety-grade or any other design criteria. Moreover, in response to Interrogatory 46, which requests an explanation of PGandE's position on Contention 12, PGandE stated:

There has been a long history of successful operation of relief and block valves representative of DCPP valves under full power operation at other similar plants.

Therefore, these valves have been demon-strated to be capable of functioning under reauired operating conditions.

PGandE Answers, supra at 23 (emphasis added). The validity of this allegation, which constitutes PGandE's own stat'; ment of its position on Contention 12, may be adequately explored only if the EPRI test results are made available.1!

PGandE's objection to Interrogatory 62(s) is likewise untenable:

Applicant onjects to this question on the basis that it is (a) impossible to answer, (b) overly broad, (c) not fully within the kncaledge c' the answering party and (d) not designed to lead to admissible evidence.

PGandE Answers, supra at 48.

PGandE's own response indicates the importance of Interrogatory 62(s). It is apparent that PGandE has completely failed to calculate the types and quantities of such vital equipment as protective clothing, respiratory equipment, 1! PGandE's objection that the EPRI program was litigated in low power hearings is specious since EPRI results at that stage of the proceedings were of a highly preliminary nature.

communications equipment, etc., which would be needed and/or available in the event of an emergency. Despite the fact that an adequate inventory of such material is essential to proper emergency response, PGandE's position is apparently that the supply of protective clothing, respiratory equipment, etc. is irrelevant in the event of an emergency. Merely stating the proposition reveals its absurdity. In addition, the fact that in PGandE's view such information is impossible to obtain and overly burdensome reveals in and of itself PGandE's failure to consider carefully this aspect of emergency preparedness.3/

///

///

///

S/ Since PGandE is obligated to answer to the extent information is within its knowledge or available to it, its objection that the data requested is "not fully within the knowledge of the answering party. . . " is without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, Joint Intervenors move this board for an immediate order compelling.PGandE to respond to the Interrogatories cited herein. ,

DATED: Novemi 6, 1981 Respectfully submitted, JOEL R. REYNOLDS, ESQ.

JOHN R. PHILLIPS, ESQ.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 W. Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 (213)470-3000 DAVID S. FLEISCHAKER, ESQ.

P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 By -- W e-EL R. p YplOLDS Attorneys for Joint Inter-venors SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC.

ECOLOGY ACTION CLUB SANDRA SILT'ER ELIZABETH APFELBERG JOHN J. FORSTER I

l i

e l

l l

l 1

I'5ITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

I .1 the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.

) 50-323 0.L.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th day of November, 1981, I have served copies of the foregoing JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO COMPLE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO ANSWER INTERRO-

'GATORIES, mailing them through the U. S'. mails, first class, postage prepaid.

Admin. Judge John F. Wolf, Docket &. Service Branch Chairman Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William Olmstead, Esq.

Marc R. Staenberg, Esq.

Gle*nn O. Bright Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.

Atc.nic Safety & Licensing Of# ice of the Executive Legal Board Director - BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

O Dr. Jerry R. Kline Nancy Culver Atomic Safety & Licensing 192 Luneta Board . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Fredrick Eissler Malcolm H. Furbrush, Esq.

Scenic Shoreline Preservation Vice President and General Conference, Inc. Counsel 4623 More Mesa Drive Philip A. Crane, Esq.

Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Pacific Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 Sandra A. Silver San Francisco, CA 94106 Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center David S. Fleischaker, Esq. Phoenix, AZ 85073 P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 Carl Neiburger Telegram Tribune Bruce Norton, Esq. P. O. Box 112 3216 N. Third Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 Suite 202 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Byron Georgiou, Esq.

Legal Affairs Secretary to Janice E. Kerr, Esq. the Governor Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq. State Capitol Building J. Calvin Simpson, Esq. Sacramento, CA 95814 California Public Utilities Commission Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

5246 State Build!..g Hill, Christopher & Phillips 350 McAllister Street 1900 M. Street, N.W.

San Francisco, CA 94102 Washington, D.C. 20035 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, CA 95725 J R. REYNQ1/DS) ESQ.

t