ML19343D387
| ML19343D387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1981 |
| From: | Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105040395 | |
| Download: ML19343D387 (24) | |
Text
O O
c3 April 24, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g'
S 9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA cd. o e -
gr3
) C ,*g%
In the Matter of ) Y I
) Docket Nos. 50-44 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) 50-446 q, @
COMPANY, g al. ) /g -
) (Application for
\'f,
. 1anche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License)
.5 \ dO t;, " on , Units 1 and 2) ')
N,'?
iy1 fN Y 4 )
v-
/wU 8 uLl r Y0\1981* APPLICANTS' MOTIONS '20 (1) COMPEL c2 "'
pweg y CFUR TO RESPOND TO APPLICANTS'
, uihygmcn g/ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND (2) y _ REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSES kI Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740(e)(3) and 2.740(f), Texas Utilities Generating Co., et al. (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") in the captioned proceeding to issue an order (1) ccmpelling Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation ("CFUR") to respond to Applicants' second set of interrogatories and requests to l
produce, filed March 2, 1981, with respect to certain interrogatories, and (2) directing CFUR to supplement its responses to certain of Applicants' discovery requests.
l I. Backc_round On March 2, 1981, Applicants filed their "Second set l of Interrogatories to CFUR and Requests to Produce." On I
April 13, 1981, Applicants received from CFUR an undated response to Applicants' second set of interregatories.
l 81050dO W s - j$#l
I Applicants treat CFUR's response as having been served on April 9, 1981, within the time of an extension allowed by Applicants, since the response was included in an envelope with another CFUR pleading (CFUR's second set of interro-gatories to Applicants) for which a certificate of service dated April 9, 1981 was enclosed. 1/ Accordingly, Applicants consider the time for filing the instant motions to be April 24, 1981, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.740( f) .
II. Applicants' Motion to Compel Applicants hereby incorporate the discussion of law and NRC practice regarding discovery which was set forth in Applicants' September 30, 1980 motions to compel and to require supplementation of responses to Applicants' first set of interrogatories to CFUR. In addition, the recent decision by the Appeal Board in Pennsylvania Power and Licht Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-619, 12 NRC 317 (1980) discusses the principles of discovery in NRC proceedings and reinforces Applicants' summary of applicable principles in their September 30 motion. Copies of that decision were forwarded to the Intervenors on November 17, 1980 by the NRC Office of the Secretary at the request of the present Board Chairman.
Applicants submit that many of CFUR's answers to Applicants' discovery requests are inadequate responses under the NRC Rules of Practice governing discovery and 1/ Applicants urge CFUR to ccmply with the NRC regulations which require that all pleadings be dated and accompanied by proof of service. 10 C.F.R. 432.701 and 2.708.
~,n
l pertinent case law. Accordingly, Applicants move the Board I to issue an order ccmpelling CFUR to respond to the follow- l i
ing interrogatories.
A. Interrogatory 1-2.
This interrogatory asks CFUR to describe in its own words the meaning of Centention 1. CFUR responds that the words are intended to have their "piain meaning,"'and refers to answers it gave to two Staff interrogatories which requested CFUR to define the term " demonstrated" and to state its understanding of the term " technical qualifi-cations" as those terms are used in Contention 1. CFUR's answers to the Staff's interrogatories simply indicate CFUR means " explain, describe, establish and prove" by the term
" demonstrated", and refers to 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a)(4) for its understanding of the term " technical qualifications."
This latter response is a subject of the NRC Staff's March 31, 1981 motion to compel CFUR.
CFUR's answer is not responsive to Applicants' interro-gatory. Applicants are seeking from CFUR specification and refinement of the broadly identified issues in Contention 1, which was raised by CFUR and for which CFUR is lead party-intervenor. Applicants are entitled to such informa-tion. Suscuehanna, supra at 322. The Board recognized Applicants are entitled to such information in its ruling on similar interrogatories to CFUR in its Memorandum and Order of April 13, 1981 (see pp. 3-4) regarding
Applicants' previous motion to compel with respect to Applicants' first set of interrogatories to CFUR. Accord-ingly, Applicants move the Board to order CFUR to provide a responsive answer to Interrogatory 1-2.
B. Interrogatorier 2-2, 15-2, 22-2 and 39-2.
These interrogatories all seek the bases for CFUR's position on Contention 1 (Interrogatory 2-2) or for its answers to other interrogatories (Interrogatories 15-2, 22-2 and 39-2). CFUR responds to these interrogatories by referring to its previous pleadings and-its statements at the prehcaring conference regarding admission of its conten-tions, and to an answer it gave to Staff Interrogatory Cl-7 which answer merely gives CFUR's general position as to what Applicants must do to demonstrate their technical qualifi-cations, but does not give CFUR's bases for that position.
Applicants submit that CFUR's answers are not responsive.
Applicants are entitled to discover the substantive bases (if any) for CFUR's claims, which bases augment the bases set forth by CFUR regarding admission of its contentions under 10 C.F.R. $2.741(b) at the intervention stage.
Boston Edison Company, et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 586 (1975). CFUR does not provide any additional information that could be used to support its position at the hearings. If the information provided in those previous pleadings constitutes the sole bases for CFUR's position on Contention 1, CFUR i
1 L
should so indicate. Accordingly, Applir snts move the Board for an order compelling CFUR to supply the substantive bases, if any, it will use in support of its position at the hearings with respect to Contention 1.
C. Interrogatories 11-2 through 14-2 and 32-2 through 34-2.
These interrogatories request that CFUR identify the portion (s) of the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report
("FSAR") which it contends Applicants relied on Westinghouse-to prepare, and the information it contends was provided and the role played by Westinghcuse, and the bases for CFUR's responses (Interrogatories 11-2 through 14-2).
Also, the interrogatories ask CFUR to identify any informa-tion which it contends Applicants must submit to demonstrate their technical qualifications, how that information demonstrates such qualifications and the bases for CFUR's responses. (Interrogatories 32-2 through 34-2). CFUR responds by referring to its answer to Interrogatories Cl-3 and Cl-5, posed by the NRC Staff, which answers indicated CFUR could not respond until it had conducted discovery against the Applicants and that CFUR relied on a portion of an agreement between Applicants and Westinghouse concerning preparation of the FSAR as the basis for its answers (which agreement CFUR identified in its May 7, 1979 pleading regarding admission of its proposed contentions).
Applicants contend that CFUR's answers to these interrogatories are not responsive. A general objection to answering discovery requests because the party is awaiting further discovery is an insufficient response without specification of the facts and the specific pending discovery requests which would justify the refusal to answer. 2/
Pilgrim, supra at 585. Further, Applicants are entitled to learn the bases for CFUR's claims which are in addition to those presented in support of admission of its contentions.
Pilgrim, supra at 586. Accordingly, Applicants move the Board for an order compelling CFUR to supply complete and responsive answers so these interrogatories.
, D. Interrogatories 16-2 through 20-2.
These interrogatories ask CFUR to specify the NRC licensing requirements which it contends require the
- Applicants to pre ide the information or analyses CFUR contends Westinghouse provided, the particular technical f qualifications CFUR alleges Applicants do not possess, the reasons for those allegations and the bases for CFUR's responses. CFUR responds to Interrogatory 16-2 simply by
- stating "See CFUR's Answer to Applicant's [ sic] First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory 11-2," and its answers to Interrogatories 17-2 through 20-2, simply refer to its response to Interrogatory 16-2.
2/ In any event, Applicants responded to CFUR's first set of interrogatories on April 13, 1981 which dealt with Contention 1. Thus, CFUR's objection to responding to these interrogatories is no longer valid.
,w,- ,-w-s, - - - , - * * - > < ~ - - . , , , e- ~e - < , -,- , , - v.ww--we- g ww> - - - e - , - --m-m~,v ~-~w - , - - - - - -- er -
eeve~~ w- --=-
Applicants contend CFUR's answer is nonsensical and meaningless, and thus not responsive. First, as written, this response evidently refers to CFUR's answer to Interro-gatory-11-2 of Applicants' first set of interrogatories to CFUR. However, Applicants' first set of interrogatories did not involve Contention 1 and there is no Interrogatory 11-2 in that pleading. Thus, the response is worthless. Second, if CFUR means to refer generally to its answers to Applicants' first set of interrogatories and specifically to its answer to Interrogatory 11-2 of Applicants' second set of interro-gatories, tha answer is not responsive. As mentioned above, Applicants' first set of interrogatories did not
, involve Contention 1. In addition, CFUR does not specify any particular answer to those interrogatories. Also, as discussed above in Section II.B., CFUR's answer to Interrogatory 11-2 is not a responsive answer to that interrogatory, let alone being an adequate answer to these interrogatories which seek different information.
Thus, CFUR has not provided any meaningful answer to these interrogatories. Accordingly, Applicants move the Board i
l for an order compelling complete and responsive answers to the above interrogatories.
E. Interrocatory 21-2, 37-2 and 38-2.
These interrogatories request that CFUR identify the measures it contends Applicants must take to demonstrate l they possess the technical qualifications to operate l
e L ..
Comanche Peak and the particular NRC licensing requirements which require Applicants to take those measures. CFUR responds by referring to its answer to the NRC Staff's Interrogatory Cl-7, which states that Applicants must
" properly" prepare and certify the FSAR and submit to
" examination" and demonstrate " sufficient expertise" at the hearings, and by referring to 10.C.F.R. $ 50.57(a).
Applicants contend that CFUR's answer is not retponsive.
CFUR's answer provides only a general idea of what it contends Applicants must do to demonstrate their technical qualifications. CFUR alleged in Contention 1 that "Appli-i cants have not demonstrated technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(4)..."
(emphasis added), and vet CFUR has not specified the measures it contends Applicants must take, but have not taken, to make that demonstration. CFUR must specify the meaning of its own contentions, i.e., the nature of its claims, and identify the particular deficiencies claimed to exist, prior to the hearings. Pilgrim, supra at 582; Northern States Pcwer Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit- 1) ,
LBP-77-37, 5 NRC 1298, 1300-01 (1977). Further, CFUR should identify the specific NRC licensing requirements it contends Applicants must satisfy, but which they have not.
Id. CFUR's reference to 10 C.F.R. $ 50.57(a) which concerns only the general findings the Commission must make before issuing an operating license does not provide that informa-tion. It would be patently unfair to make Applicants wait
until the hearings to learn the substance of CFUR's claims.
Id. Accordingly, Applicants move the Board to order CFUR to provide a complete and responsive answer to these interrogatories.
F. Interrogatories 27-2 through 30-2.
Interrogatory 27-2 asks whether CFUR contends that the NRC Staff review is unable to determine whether the Applicants are technically qualified to operate Comanche Peak. CFUR responds that it is unable to uhderstand the question, and therefore cannot provide a " meaningful response." Interrogatories 28-2 through 30-2 are follow-up '
cuestions to Interrogatory 27-2, which interrogatories CFUR responds to as being "not applicable."
In an effort to determine the scope of CFUR's allega-tion that Applicants have not " demonstrated" technical qualifications, Applicants are seeking in Interrogatory 27-2 to determine if CFUR contends that the NRC Staff review of Applicants' techncial qualifications is somehow inadequate and thus might be relevant to Applicants' alleged inadequate " demonstration" of technical qualifica-tions. Applicants are suprised that CFUR would claim it does not understand the interrogatory since CFUR has previously stated (in its May 7, 1979 pleading regarding admission of its proposed contentions (p. 2) and again in i
l its March 11, 1981 answers to the NRC Staff's interroga-tories (p. 2)) that "in view of...the manner in which the FSAR has been reviewed there has been no information I
4
]
supplied to assure the Commission" that Applicants are technically qualified. Applicants believe these inter-rogatories are clear, and seek information relevant to Contention 1. Accordingly, Applicants move the Board for an order compelling CFUR to supply complete and responsive answers to these interrogatories.
G. Interrogatories 40-2 through 99-2.
These interrogatories seek information from CFUR regarding Contention 6, for which CFUR is lead party-intervenor.
CFUR responds, as follows:
"CFUR is unable to proceed at this time with responses to Applicant's [ sic] Interrogatories addressed to Contention 6."
CFUR's response obviously fails to satisfy the re-quirements governing discovery in NRC licensing proceedings.
CFUR is required to answer each interrogatory " separately and fully in writing...unless it is objected to," in which case the reasons for the objection must be stated. 10 l C.F.R. $2.740b. Further, CFUR should answer each inter-l l
i rogatory to the best of its ability, and if it claims lack of information to answer a particular interrogatory its answer should be to that effect, and if it does not have complete information at the time its answers are due, it should provide the information then available and state that fact in its response. Pilgrim, supra at 583 n.10.
Accordingly, the Applicants move the Board for an order compelling CFUR to respond to each of the above interrogatories.
L
III. Applicants' Motion to Require Supplementation Interrogatories 7-2 through 10-2 seek information concerning the scope of CFUR's participation in the hearings, including the witnesses and the testimony which CFUR plans to use in connection with its case on Contention 1.
Although CFUR-has a duty to supplement-its responses to these interrogatories pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $$2.740(e)(1)
I and (2), Applicants believe that in view of CFUR's apparent disregard for the NRC Rules of Practice and applicable case law governing discovery, it would be appropriate for the Board to order, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.740(e)(3), that CFUR supply complete responses to Interrogatories 7-2 through 10-2, immediately upon CFUR's obtaining any of the j information which these interrogatories seek. Accordingly, Applicants move the Board for an order requiring CFUR to supplement its responses to Interrogatories 7-2 through 10-2 upon obtaining or developing any of the information which is sought by those interrogatories.
IV. Proposed Form of Order A proposed " Memorandum and Order" is attached hereto for the convenience of the Board. Hopefully it will facilitate the Board's task in tracking what has beccme a e
. , , - . . . . , , , , -_.~,.-
, , ,, - - _ _ _ . , , , _ - ~ - . . - - - - -
rather cumbersome pleading record and in expediting a discovery process which has already dragged on for much too long.
Respect ul submitted, I Jk Nichgys[5 . Reynolds i
v aC William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
. (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants April 24, 1981 x 'N w
e
RELAIED CO'3?IS?0:70CO2
? .,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e A O R)
Before Administrative Judges:
~~
((] <
Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole ' APR 271981> '
Dr. Forrest J. Remick p$ [f[j gSj ay D OM ,
fifdach is 0
~. n
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445 TEXAS UTILITES GENERATING ) '0-446 COMPANY, et al. )
) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
) May __, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Applicants' Motions to Compel CFUR to Respond to and to Supplement Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CFUR and Requests to Produce)
- 1. On March 2, 1981, Applicants served " Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CFUR and Requests to Produce."
In a subsequent telephone conversation, Applicants allowed CFUR until April 10, 1981 to file its answers to Applicants' Interrog-l atories. In accordance with this extension of time, CFUR apparently mailed its answers to Applicants on April 9, 1981. 1/
- 2. On April 24, 1981, Applicants filed " Applicants' Motions to (1) Compel CFUR to Respond to Applicants' Second Set l
1/ CFUR's answers were undated and not accompanied by proof of service of that pleading. The Board reminds CFUR that all pleadings must comply with applicable filing requirements and urges CFUR to adhere to those requirements in the future.
l See 10 C.F.R. $$2.701 and 2.708. .
cf Interregatories and (2) Require supple =entatien of Responses." In the first =ction, Applicants =cve this Scard to enter an order cc=pelling CFUR to provide responsive answers to Applicants' Interrogatories 1-2, 2-2, 11-2 through 22-2, 27-2 through 30-2, 32-2 through 34-2, and 37-2 through 99-2. These interregateries dealt with Cententien 1 (Interregatories 1-2 through 39-2) regar. ding technical qualifications and Centention 6 (Interrogatories 40-2 thrcugh 99-2) concerning the effects of_tcrnadoes en the spent fuel pccl. The second =cticn seeks an crder requiring CFUR to supplement its respenses to Interroga-tories 7-2 thrcugh 10-2.
- 3. This Ecard issued en December 31, 1980, its Me=crandum and order consolidating party-intervencrs and designating lead party-intervencrs for each contention. In that Me=crandum and Order the Scard specified that CFUR was the lead party-intervence for Cententions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Accordingly, Applicants' interregatories which are the subject of the instant =ctions all bear en centen-l tiens for which CFUR is lead party-intervencr.
- 4. The Scard incorpcrates herein the discussiens recarding the requirements c.cverning discoverv. in NRC licensing proceedings set forth in its April 13, 1981 i
Me=cranca and orders granting Applicants' =ctions to cc=pel CFUR and ACORN to respcnd to Applicants first set of interrcgatories.
i e
i
- I L
- 5. Applicants' motion to compel is directed at the folicwing seven groups of Interrogatories (subparagraph (a) through subparagraph-(g)) and the Board's views-thereon are stated below:
(a) Interrogatory 1-2. By this interrogatory Applicants requested CFUR to describe in its own words the meaning of Contention 1. CFUR responded by stating the words were intended to have their " plain meaning," and referred to its answers to two NRC Staff interrogatories regarding the meaning of the terms "de=onstrated" and " technical qualifi-cations." None of these responses provides the information which Applicants requested. The Board agrees with Applicants that they are entitled to specification and refine =ent of the broadly identified issues of Contention 1.
(b) Interrogatories 2-2, 15-2, 22-2 and 39-2.
Applicants request in these interrogatories that CFUR set forth the bases for its position on Contention 1 (Interro-gatory 2-2) or for its answers to other interrogatories (Interrogatories 15-2, 22-2 and 39-2). CFUR's answers simply refer to (1) its previous pleadings, and statements made at the prehearing conference, regarding admission of its proposed contentions and (2) an answer to an interro-gatory posed by the NRC Staff which does not concern CFUR's bases for Contention 1 or its answers to the Applicants' interrogatories.
CFUR's answers to the above interrogatories are not responsive. As the Board stated in its April 13, 1981
Memorandum and Order compelling CFUR to respond to similar interrogatories in Applicants first set of interrogatories, Applicants are entitled to discover the substantive bases for CFUR's claims and the information available to CFUR to support its positions in addition to that set forth to support admission of its proposed contentions. Boston
. Edison Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 536 (1975). Such bases or information may be in the form of technicci information to support a particular technical position, or in the form of particular regulatory or statutory requirements which CFUR claims Applicants have not, but must, satisfy.
The Board agrees with Applicants that CFUR should provide complete and responsive answers to the above interrogatories.
(c) Interrogatories 11-2 through 14-2 and 32-2 through 34-2. These interrogatories request information I
concerning the portions of the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") which CFUR contends Applicants relied on Westinghouse to prepare, the information CFUR contends was provided by Westinghouse and the bases for CFUR's responses (Interrogatories 11-2 through 14-2).
Also, the interrogatories request that CFUR identify any information which it contends Applicants must submit to j demonstrate their technical qualifications, the manner in
( which CFUR contends that information demonstrates Applicants' technical qualifications and the bases for CFUR's responses.
(Interrogatories 32-2 through 34-2). CFUR responds by referring to answers it previously provided in response to the NRC Staff's interrogatories, which answers indicated that CFUR cannot answer the interrogatories until it has taken discovery from the Applicants, and by referring to a document which it already identified in its pleadings concerning admission of its proposed contentions.
The Board finds that CFUR's answers are not responsive.
CFUR's refusal to respond until it can take discovery against the Applicants is not an adequate reason for such refusal absent specification of the specific pending discovery requests and the facts sought therein which justify the refusal. Pilgrim, supra at 585. In addition, Applicants are entitled to learn the information which CFUR relies on as its basis for its positions in addition to the information presented in support of admission of its contentions. Id. at 586.
(d) Interrogatories 16-2 through 20-2. Applicants request in these interrogatories that CFUR specify the NRC licensing requirements which it believes require the Applicants to provide the information or analysis CFUR contends Westinghouse provided, to identify the particular technical qualifications CFUR alleges Applicants do not possess and the reasons and bases for those allegations.
CFUR responds to Interrogatory 16-2 by stating "See CFUR's Answer to Applicant's [ sic] First Set of Interrogatories, j Interrogatory 11-2," and to Interrogatories 17-2 through l
i 20-2 by referring to that response.
i I
As Applicants point out, this response is meaningless as written, since there is no Interrogatory 11-2 in Appli-cants first set of interrogatories to CFUR and, in any event, those interrogatories do not deal with Contention 1.
If, however, it is assumed CFUR means to refer generally to its answers to Applicants' first set of interrogatories and specifically to its response to Interrogatory 11-2 of Applicants' second set of interrogatories, the answer is comprehensible, but is not responsive. Again, Applicants first set of interrogatories did not deal with Contention 1, and also CFUR does not identify any particular answer to those interrogatories which would be necessary if the response is to be useful to Applicants. Also, as noted above, CFUR's answer to Interrogatory 11-2 is inadequate, and thus is not properly relied upon as an answer to that interrogatory or the instant interrogatory particularly since they seek different information. The Board finds that CFUR's answers to the above inte cgatories are not responsive.
(e) Interrocatories 21-2, 37-2 and 38-2. These interro-l gatories request that CFUR specify the measures it believes i
Applicants should take to demonstrate they possess the technical qualifications to operate Comanche Peak and the licensing require-ments CFUR contends require Applicants to take those measures.
l t CFUR responds by referring to its answer to the NRC Staff's Interrogatory Cl-7, which answer states, as follows:
l l Applicants can only fully demonstrate their technical
- qualifications to operate CPSES by properly preparing (text cont'd on next page) l
! ._. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . .~ _, . ,
(text cont'd from previous page) and verifying the FSAR and by submitting to examina-tion and demonstrating sufficient expertise at the licensing hearing.
As for the specification of licensing requirements which Applicants sought, CFUR only refers to 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a).
The Board agrees with the Applicants that CFUR's answers are not responsive to the above interrogatories.
CFUR's answers are void of any particularization of the measures CFUR would have Applicants take to demonstrate their ter' ical qualifications. Also, CFUR's referrence to 10 C.F.R. $50.57(a) totally fails to identify the specific licensing requirements that CFUR believes require the Applicants to take those measures in order to demonstrate their technical qualifications. That section concerns only the general requirement that the Commission must find the Applicants are technically qualified before issuing a license, and does not state the manner in which Applicants need demonstrate those technical qualifications.
(f) Interrogatories 27-2 through 30-2. Interrogatory 27-2 asks whether CFUR contends the NRC Staff review of Applicants' FSAR is unable to determine whether the Applicants are technically qualified to operate Comanche Peak. CFUR answers that it is unable to understand the question and thus cannot provide a " meaningful response." CFUR's answers to Interrogatories 28-2 through 30-2, which are follow-up questions to Interrogatory 27-2, merely refer to CFUR's answer to that interrogato ry .
Applicants point out in their motion to compel that CFUR has indicated in previous pleadings that it is concerned with the " manner in which the FSAR has been reviewed" with respect to determining whether the Applicants are technically qualified. The Board agrees with the Applicants that in view of that concern CFUR's inability to understand the interrogatories is surprising, that the interrogatories are sufficiently clear and seek information relevant to Contention 1.
The Board finds that CFUR should provide responsive answers to each of these interrogatories.
(g) Interrogatories 40-2 through 99-2. These interro-gatories all concern Contention 6 (effects of tornadoes on the spent fuel pool). CFUR responded only by stating, as follows:
"CFUR is unable to proceed at this time with responses to Applicant's [ sic] Interrogatories addressed to Contention 6."
The Board finds that CFUR's response indicates a complete disregard for the NRC Rules of Practice governing discovery. In responding to interrogatories, a party is j required to answer each interrogatory " separately and fully in writing... unless it is objected to," in which case the grounds for the objection must be stated. 10 C.F.R. $2.740b.
! CFUR must provide whatever information it has at the time its answers are due and indicate for each interrogatory whether its response is based on incomplete information or I
whether it does not have any information with which to respond. Pilgrim,' supra at 583 n.10.
- 6. Applicants have also moved that the Board order l
CFUR to supplement certain responses for which CFUR indi-cates it does not have information "at this time." The l
l
interrogatories subject to this motion (Interrogatories 7-2 through 10-2) seek information concerning the intended scope of CFUR's participation in the hearings, including the witnesses and the testimony which CFUR plans to use in connection with its case on Contention 1.
While CFUR is already under a duty to supplement its responses to these interrogatories upon obtaining the requested information, 10 C.F.R. 52.740(e)(1) and (2), the B6ard finds that CFUR's disregard thus far in the proceeding for the NRC Rules of Practice governing discovery makes it appropriate to enter an order, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.740(e)(3),
requiring CFUR to supplement its responses to these interro-gatories immediately upon obtaining any of the information requested in these interrogatories.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the record in this matter, it is on this __ day of May 1981.
ORDERED That Applicants' motions to compel and to require supplementation of responses with regard to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatcries to CFUR and Requests to Produce are hereby granted, as follcws:
(1) CFUR shall file complete responses by (two weeks following date of the Order) to the following interrogatories in " Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CEUR and Requests to Produce," namely, Interrogatory 1-2; Interroga-tories 2-2, 15-2, 22-2 and 39-2; Interrogatories 11-2 through
.g , _ _ - - --
14-2 and 32-2 through 34-2; Interrogatories 16-2 through 20-2; Interrogatories 21-2, 37-2 and 38-2; Interrogatories 27-2 through 30-2: Interrogatories 40-2 through 99-2; 2/
(2) CFUR shall supplement its responses to the follow-ing interrogatories in " Applicants' Second Set of Interro-gatories to CFUR and Requests to Produce" as soon as the infor-mation requested is developed er obtained, namely, Interro-gatories 7-2 through 10-2.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Valentine B. Deale Chairman
~2/ No extensions of time for compliance with this order will be granted by the Board.
l l
O
l 1
7 -
C E D,,3,
- \> D l J
g 3.- p C.." , p p ro og t: gea 27 WB " dp .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y d ef.sa y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q, gen g /
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR g @
In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
~ ) 50-446
)
(Ccmanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Motions to (1) Compel CFUR to Respond to Applicants' Second set of Interrogatories and (2) Require Supplementation of Responses" in the above captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 24th day of April, 1981.
Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
, Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Preister, Esq.
l Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection Ccmmission Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 l Capitol Station Chairman, Atomic Safety and Austin, Texas 78711
, Licensing Board Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission CFUR
, Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive l
Arlington, Texas 76010 l
m Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Ccmmerce Street West Texas Legal Services suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers 31dg.)~
Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas .75224 r
/#
William A. Horin cc: Ecmer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
a
.