ML19310A020

Motion to Compel Further Answers from Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power to Applicants' 800125 Second Set of Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19310A020
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/15/1980
From:	Cowan F, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8005210040
Download: ML19310A020 (11)

Text

,

April 15, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL et al. ) 50-499 OL

)

(South Texas Nuclear Project )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS FROM CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, INC.

On March 31, 1980, Intervenor CCANP filed its answers to " Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" dated January 25, 1980. For the reasons discussed below, Houston Lighting & Power Company, Project Manager of the South Texas Project, acting on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, moves the Board under 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(f) for an order compelling Intervenor Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc. (CCANP), to provide more complete answers to these interrogatories.

Interrogatories No. 2 (b) , 3(b), 4 (a) , 4(b), 4(c), 6(b), & 6(c)

CCANP refr ses to answer each of the above identified interrogatories on the ground that it wishes to preserve the confidentiality of information and sources of information directly relevant to Contention 1. This Board has previously refused to sanction such a blanket refusal to identify sources of information based upon grounds of alleged "confiden-tiality." In a " Memorandum And Order Ruling Upon Motions To Compel CEU To Respond To Interrogatories" (March 7, 1980),

the Board ruled that:

8005,3gQ{p

O l

o Although there are some differences between the factual situations in Allens Creek and in this proceeding, th principle established by the Appeal Board there seems equally applicable here: where revealing the name of an informant or proposed witness or member, in response to discovery or other NRC requirements, would occasion harm to or reprisal against such person, a licensing board can and should take steps to protect that person, consistent with achieving to the extent possible the purposes of NRC's discovery rules or other requirements. For that reason, even though some revelation of names may be required, the board may well limit disclosure to an extent necessary to avoid the anticipated harm or reprisal.

Therefore, if CEU believes that, in answering interrogatories on Contentions 1 and 2 (as we have directed) or any other contentions, it will subject its informants or witnesses to harassment, it should request a protective order.

In doing so, it should outline the factual basis for its view that a pro-tective order is warranted. Any request for a protective order should deal with each interrogatory or related groups of interrogatories separately, setting forth the relevant facts applicable to each. 1/

This procedure, and its underlying rationale, are directly applicable to the objections now interposed by CCANP. In light of the Board's admonition, CCANP was obliged to request a protective order to avoid any difficulties it believed would be occasioned by disclosure of the information requested by Applicants. Applicants move the Board for an order directing CCANP to immediately provide the information sought in these interrogatories together with any request ,

it may wish to make for protective arrangements, consistent

with tl. Board's earlier ruling. 2/

Interrogatory No. 5(c)

In this interrogatory Applicants inquired as to the

" substance" of conversations CCANP had with its expert witness or other persons concerning " willful violations of 10 C.F.R., Part 50. In its first set of interrogatory answers, CCANP had asserted that " extensive, pervasive and willful violations of 10 C.F.R., Part 50" have been confirmed by "past NRC investigations of this plant." Applicants sought, in the second round of discovery, the substance of conversations from which CCANP had obtained the information forming the basis for this sweeping assertion. CCANP has refused to provide a full response under the objection that

"[r]ecounting of these conversations would be unduly burdensome."

Instead, it refers to "the contentions of CCANP" as providing the requested information. As the Board has previously stated, "[t]he purpose of discovery is to enable each party prior to hearing to become aware of the positions of each adversary party on the various issues in controversy, and the information available to adversary parties to support those positions." Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al.

(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), " Memorandum and Order,"

p. 3 (March 7,1980) . 3/ Applicants need to know the basis 2/ CCANP, in accordance with the Board's ruling discussed above, -

must provide the " factual basis" which it relies upon as l

warranting the issuance of a protective order. For example, with respect to the answer to interrogatory 6(c), CCANP should l

demonstrate at the outset that the persons whose confidentiality CCANP seeks to protect are current employees of the Applicants or their contractor.

' 3/ Quoting, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-31, 10 NRC ,

(October 30, 1979).

for CCANP's assertion that willful violations have taken place at STP and have inquired accordingly. CCANP's answers offer only vague statements regarding the opinions of Mr.

Swayze and do not provide any specific response to the subject of Applicants' inquiry. CCANP makes no showing to justify its objection that providing this information would be " burdensome."

Applicants move the board for an order requiring CCANP to respond to this interrogatory or to admit that it has no information substantiatiag allegations that Applicants or their contractor have willfully violated the Commission's regulations.

Interrogatory No. 40 In its first set of interrogatories, Applicants in-quired of CCANP whether it contends that design changes may be made only by personnel having "first-hand knowledge of the purpose of the original design." The quoted language was taken verbatim from Contention 1, Subpart 7.b. CCANP's response did not answer the question but, instead, referenced one of its previous answers which was only peripherally related to the interrogatory concerning this allegation in Contention 1.7.b. Accordingly, Applicants repeated, in their second set of interrogatories, a similTr but even more specific request, asking the identity of that portion of the .

i NRC regulations and/or South Texas Project quality assurance l procedures which CCANP asserts requires that the " original

designer" approve design changes. Again, CCANP has failed to answer. Instead, it makes reference to the first set of interrogatory answers which did not provide the requested information. Thus, Applicants have twice been unable to obtain a response to an interrogatory which refers to one of the specific contentions in this proceeding. Applicants move the Board for an order requiring CCANP to provide the information requested. 4/

Interrogatory No. 45(a) and (b)

In part (a) of this interrogatory, Applicants requested CCANP to identify "each and every instance of ' intimidation' or ' abuse' which CCANP had earlier asserted was ' endemic.'"

CCANP responded that it:

. . . should perhaps have said " epidemic."

Identification of the victims of any epidemic is most difficult. The documenta-tion provided in response to other interroga-tories about intimidation and abuse show the pattern which CCANP asserts.

The bald assertion that providing a full response to this interrogatory is " difficult" does not serve to justify CCANP's failure to do so. Reference by CCANP to "documen-tation" provided in response to other unspecified discovery requests also does not constitute an adequate response to this interrogatory. CCANP should have some information in 4/ If by its answers CCANP intends to admit that design changes need not be made by the person having "first-hand knowledge of the purpose of the original design," it should so state.

hand upon which it relied as support for the filing of the contention and the assertions made in its first answers. If CCANP knows of any instances substantiating its allegations of intimidation or abuse it should identify them; if it knows of no specific instance, it should so state. Applicants move the Board to order CCANP to provide this information.

In part (b), CCANP states that it is " impractical" to provide the names of individuals with whom it has discussed the alleged " intimidation" and " abuse" at the STP site. No reasors are provided to support this assertion of impracticability.

CCANP should, therefore, be required to provide the names of those individuals with whom it has discussed this allegation.

Interrogatory No. 46(c) and (e)

In interrogatory 46(c), Applicants requested that CCANP identify each instance in which it alleges that " pervasive construction errors" caused " tension between construction workers and inspectors." In response, CCANP states that it is not " prepared to provide lengthy detail" on each such instance, and states that its " Exhibit 4" contains sufficient information for purposes of responding to Applicants' request.

The referenced " Exhibit 4" contains information con-cerning one specific instance where a confrontation occurred at the STP site. If this one event forms the entire basis for CCANP's assertion that " pervasive" construction errors .

resulted in tension at the site, intervenor should so state.

If, on the other hand, CCANP has evidence of " pervasive" errors and can relate these to instances of " tension" it must provide this information to the Applicants as such information is directly relevant to contention 1. Further, if CCANP has documents to support such an assertion, they should be specifically identified as requested in interroga-tory 46(e). CCANP's answer that documents ha.ve been pro-duced with respect to another unidentified discovery re-quest, does not provide Applicants with the information they i

need to prepare to litigate this contention. Applicants move the Board to order CCANP to provide the information requested in this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 47 CCANP alleges in its Contention 2 that " South Texas Project construction records have been falsified by employees of Houston Lighting & Power Company and Brown & Root. . . .

Applicants requested that CCANP identify each of these con-struction records. Rather than providing the requested in-formation, CCANP responded that its contention refers to

"[e]ach and every construction record, including but not limited to cadweld records, signed by any inspector who played cards rather than inspecting." This response tells Applicants no more than that the falsified records are those records which have been falsified. The answer is deliberately evasive. If'CCANP cannot identify specific construction .

records which it alleges were falsified, then it should so state.  !

Applicants move the Board to order CCANP to provide the infor-l mation requested in this interrogatory.

i l

J

Interrogatory No. 49 In this interrogatory, Applicants requested information stemming directly from a previous answer provided by CCANP with regard to its Contention 3, wherein intervenor stated that it was concerned with the effects of pressure above "specified limits." Applicants sought, in this interrogatory, to determine the possible causes of such high pressure levels. CCANP has now refused to provide the requested information, explaining only that it was unable to reach a Mr. Bridenbaugh, presumably a potential witness, regarding this contention. Applicants' interrogatory was aimed at clarifying the content of CCANP's earlier discovery response, and CCANP's retort that answers "will have to wait for another day" is unacceptable. Applicants move the Board to

) order CCANP to provide answers to this interrogatorp to the extent of its knowledge, or to state that it has no knowledge, of the pressure transients which form the basis of its contention,

9 and the subject matter of Applicants' two sets of interroga-tories.

Respectfully submitted, j ack R. Newmanl, W

obert H. Culp I David B. Raskin 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW i Washington, DC 20036 Finis Cowan Thomas Hudson Melbert D. Schwarz 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING

& POWER COMPANY, Project Manager of the South Texas Project acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT and THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS OF COUNSEL:

LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 BAKER & BOTTS 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002

e f

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

)

HOE 8 TON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Dockets Nos. 50-498-OL ET AL. ) 50-499-OL

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants '

Motion to Compel Further Answers From Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc., were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, or by hand delivery this 15th day of April, 1980:

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Henry J. McGurren, Esq.

Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 -

Richard W. Lowerre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

e Honorable Burt O'Connell County Judge, Matagorda County Matagorda County Court House Bay City, Texas 77414 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.

Baker and Botts 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Ms. Peggy Buchorn, Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Utilities Route 1, Box 432 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Mr. Lanny Alan Sinkin Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 838 E. Magnolia San Antonio, Texas 78212 Steve Sinkin, Esq.

116 Villita San Antonio 78205 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safe".y and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 1

l

,h 1