ML19250A703
| ML19250A703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1979 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910240278 | |
| Download: ML19250A703 (4) | |
Text
L...
w/
UNITED STATES OF AAIERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMAIISSION g
OCT 41973 p L3 1
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
th4.
In the Alatter of
)
N
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. 50-522 COAIPANY, et al.
)
50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power
)
Project Units 1 and 2)
)
Objection to SC ANP's Discovery Undertaking Sustained 1.
On September 14, 1979, SC ANP presented to Applicants interrogatories and requests for production. The interrogatories numbered 123, and many of these were subdivided into several parts; the interrogatories and the requests for production covered 88 pages.
The interrogatories were in regard to the three volumes entitled "Re-port of Geological Investige.tions in 1978-1979" prepared by Bechtel Incorporated for Puget Sound Power & Light Company.
2.
The three volumes had been distributed to the parties in this proceeding in two installments via letters dated Alay 10 and Alay 25, 1979 from Puget Sound Power & Light Company's representative, James E. Alecca. By letter of its counsel of Alay 31,1979, Puget 30und Power & Light Company committed the three volumes of the Bechtel Report to be offered in evidence at the then scheduled July 17 evidentiary session. The same letter identified witnesses planned to 1204 072 7 910 2 4 0 Z 7 E'
..) be called from Bechtel in support of the report among those who super-vised or performed many of the investigations and prepared the report.
3.
Applicants objected to SCANP's interrogatories and request for production by a pleading dated September 21, 1979. Applicants' objection consisted of four points: First, Applicants maintained that SCANP's discovery was untimely. Applicants also noted that SCANP had made timely discovery submissions to Applicants on Geology and Seismology dated May 24, 1979. Second, Applicants objected to many of the questions in SCANP's discovery undertaking of September 14, 1979 because they called for additional work or revised documents.
In effect, according to the Applicants, SCANP went beyond the proper scope of discovery and sought to have studies reperformed and data newly presented in a manner suitable to SCANP.
Third, Applicants ob-jected to the burdensome nature of SCANP's discovery, contending the interrogatories to be extremely lengthy and much of the details sought to be of questionable materiality. According to Applicants, preparation of answers would be by persons who are preparing themselves as w:tnesses for the upcoming hearing on the subject of Geology and Seismology and therefore, answering SCANP's untimely discovery would prejudice Applicants' preparation for the critical hearing.
Fourth, to the extent that its questions are relevant and material, SCANP can pursue them more efficiently by cross-examination.
1204 073
y
. 4.
At the conference among the parties and the Board on April 24, 1979, it was decided by the Board with concurrence of the parties that June 1 would be the cut-off date for discovery requests and that supplemental discovery requests based on unsatisfactory an-swers to initial discovery requests may not be made after ten days following receipt of the answer to the initial discovery request which occasioned the supplemental request (Tr. 11,945-949). No change in this cut-off arrangement for discovery about any subject scheduled for hearing beginning July 17, which included the subject of Geology and Seismology, was ever r ade. See Order for Evidentiary Hearing and Related Matters, June 2 9, 19 79, pp. 1 -5.
Nor can any change be in-ferred from the fact that the time for holding hearings on Geology and Seismology was eventually rescl.eduled to a hearing session beginning October 25, 1979.
5.
The Board upholds the cut-off day for discovery set as June 1,1979 and accordingly sustains Applicants' objections to SCANP's interrogatories and requests for production on the basis of their un-timeliness. The focus of SCANP's discovery undertaking was the Bechtel Report, which had been available prior to the cut-off date for discovery and which prior to that time had occasioned' interrogatories and requests for production by SCANP to the Applicants. If SCANP 1204 074
.a
.1 -
needed further time for the preparation of additional discovery SC ANP might have solicited the Board for the needed time in regular form. In -
stead, SCANP waited until some three and a half months after the Bechtel Report had been made available to it before SCANP presented its extensive interrogatories and request for production to the Appli-cants, and it was during a period when tight scheduling was known to be the order of the day.
6.
In sustaining Applicants' objection on the basis of the un-timeliness of SCANP's discovery, the Board refrains from ruling on the propriety or materiality of individual parts of SCANP's discovery undertaking.
Done this day of October,1979 at Washington, D. C.
ATOAIIC SAFETY & LICENSING EOARD
/
I.
$ i
..si,__
By &,'(/ is &
Valentine B. Deale, Chairman 1204 075