ML19256E632

Motion to Compel Discovery Request from Applicant Re Exploration of Deficiencies & Omissions in Bechtel Rept. Requests ASLB Overrule Applicant 790921 Objections:Filings Utimely & Questions Not within Scope of Proceeding

ML19256E632
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	10/03/1979
From:	Leed R LEED, R.M.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML19256E631	List: ML19256E630 ML19256E632
References
NUDOCS 7911080246
Download: ML19256E632 (3)

Text

'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOKY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PUGET SOUND POWER E LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COHPANY, et al., ) 50-523

)

)

, (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) October 3, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY On September 14, 1979, S.C.A.N.P. served on the appli-cant a discovery request intended to explore the deficien-cies and omissions in the three volume Bechtel report. On September 21, 1979, the applicant submitted its formal ob-f ections to these in errogatories and requests for produc-

t. ion. In accordance with 10 C.?.R. 52.740(f) this motion sets forth the reasons why disecvery should be compelled.

The Applicant first claims that the discovery was un-timel f , citinc a date of June 1, 1979 as the deadline for initial ciscovery requests. A review of the transcripts reveals that this eutof f date pertained only to those items "that will be heard at the July 17 hearing date. " T r.

11,946. The error of the Applicant's contention is illus-trated by the f act that the subject of this discovery request, the Bechtel Volumes, were not even received by S.C.A.N.P. prior to hhe proposed deadline of June 1, 1979.

1293 358 7 9110 80 2fC"

..J Second, the Applicant contends that these interroga-tories go beyond the proper scope of discovery. It is true that some, yet by no means all, of the interrogatories request the Applicant.to redraft maps to a scale which permits comparison of data or, in other cases, to supply a key to existing maps so that data may be evaluated in a meaningful manner. It is our belief that when dealing with scientific data of this nature, adequate responses to discovery requests may, by necessity, require graphic explanation. However, if the Applicant chooses to response to these questions with textual answers, we will accept such a substitution.

Third, the Applicant complains that responding to our request will detract f rom its preparation for the upcoming hearing session. S.C.A.N.P. agrees completely that the present schedule of hearings and deadlines for proposed findings of fact is much too condensed. Nonetheless, we cannot accept the contention that the regularity of the licensing process should suffer and be set asidc at the behest of Applicants, who have insisted upon this burdensome s ch edule. The Applicants should, to the contrary, accept the responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules of practice, and afford discovery, notwithstanding the abbrevia-ated scheduling arranged at the Applicants' behest.

1295 359

Finally , the Applicant contends that the unanswered questions can be pursued more effectively by means of cross examination. This suggestion shows an obvious disregard for the purpose of discovery, which is to allow a party access to data beyond its reach which will be of assistance in preparing its case, including crose examination. The information requested is relevant to the claim or defense of a party and rhus f alls clearl'y within the scope of discovery as defined in 10 CFR 52.740(b)(1).

Accordingly, the. Applicants ' objections should be overruled, and the Board should order Applicants to respond to SCANP's outstanding discovery requests.

DATED this lf day of October, 1979.

Respectfully submitted,

"/

< ROGER M. LEED '

..