ML19345B273
| ML19345B273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1980 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011280002 | |
| Download: ML19345B273 (6) | |
Text
O
\\\\51l im joy \\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
'l m
u
-a BEFOPS THE ATOMIC SAFETY ANL LICE'! SING 30ARDid
/ 2 ' '?,[ y h C'
,5
\\*1.!::: :!:n 'Ef, p
.w..
Valentine B.
Deale, Chairman
- .e$ ; ; ;
h: t-
^s Dr. Richard F. Cole N Ij g,a /
Dr. Forrest J. Remick 82'9 In the Matters of
)
O gg,
)
/..
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
)
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
DENIAL OF CASE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 1.
On October 2, 1980, CASE filed ' CASE's Response to Applicants' Motion To Compel and Motion for Protection."
The motion for a protective order pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740(c) sought an order which would provide as follows:
(1)
CASE be relieved of any responsibility to supplement its Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce with regard to Contentions 5 and 23 until such time as the Board has ruled on the f'inal wording of those contentions; and that CASE'be given adequate time following such ruling to prepare its answers to appli-cable interrogatories on those contentions;
~
( 2)
CASE be relieved of any responsibility to supplement its Answers to Applicants First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce with regard to all of CASE's Con-tentiens which are affected by Amendment 1 to the ER (OLS) for a period of ninety (90) days in order to allow CASE aeqquate time to review Amendment 1 and to prepare its response; (3)
CASE be given a pericd of cne hundred twenty (120) days in which to conduct discovery before being required to reply further ro discovery from Applicants; b
pS0 p p, g g QQ 2-G
w (4 )
Any future written discovery requests to CASE from Applicants be limited to not more than chirty (30) Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, including subparts, for any forty-five (45) day peried; and (5)
Applicants be enjoined from misquoting or misstating CASE's intent or statements, a practice which currently J placing an oppressive' extra burden on.ASE because it is forced to correct such misquotes and misstatements in addition to. responding to interrogatories in order to avoid Appli-cants' prejudicing th2 Board and the record in these proceedings against CASE.
2.
Applicants filed " Applicants' Answer to CASE's Motion 1
for. Protection," served October 17, 1980 and.NRC. Staff filed "NRC Staff Answer to CASE's Motion for Protection," served October 22, 1980.
Applicants opposed all five parts of CASE's motion except that. with respect to Part(1) thereof Applicants would not object to CASE not responding to Inter-i rogatories 42, 43, 47 and 48 (but responding to the first question of 47 and 48) until the Board ruled on the motions concerning_ Contention 23.
NRC Staff opposed the first four parts of CASE's motion with effectively the same qualificatioz.
with respect to Part (1) thereof as accepted by Applicants.
On the last part of CASE's motion, NRC Staff refrained from taking any position.
b 3.
The Board rules on the five parrs of CASE's motion as follows:
Part (1) : When Applicants filed their discovery l
requests'during the time the Board was review-ing various'cbjections by Applicants and
D 3-intervenors to contentions already defined by the Board, there was no cause for CASE to wirh-hold its response to Applicants' discovery requests which related to Contentions 5 and 23.
- Further, since the Board issued on October 31, 1980 its rulings on the objections to the Board's earlier statement of contenti ns, CASE's reasoning for delaying its response to Applicants' discovery requests bearing upon Contentions 5 and 23 no
~
longer applies.
CASE may respond to such dis-covery requests on or before December 1, 1980 under Board's earlier grant of additional time to CASE to respond to Applicants' interrogatories and requests to produce; otherwise, as CASE established no basis for further relief, Part (1) of its motion is denied.
Part (2) : This part of CASE's motion does not spe-cify the particular interrogatories for which CASE seeks a protective order.
The mere allusion by CASE that the Environmental Report-Operating License Stage, which CASE stated it received on October 1, 1980, " pertains to many of CASE's contentions, including Contention 23 and 24 and the cost /
benefit analysis," is not enough.
CASE did not make the required showing of " good cause" under 10 CFR 52.740 (c) to sustain Part (2) of its motion; CASE failed to meet its harden.of preof called for by 10 CFR 52.732.
See also 10 CFR 52.740 (e).
ym--
e
. Part (2) of CASE's motion is denied; however, under Board's~" Grant of Time Extension to CASE,"
served November 19, 1980, CASE may supplement on or before December 1, 1980 its answer to the
" Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests To Produce," served August 1, 1980.
Part (3): CASE made no shcwing of " good cause" pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740(c) to support this part of its motion for protection, and so Part (3) of CASE's motion is denied.
Part (4) :
Similarly, CASE made no showing of
" good cause" pursuant to 10 CFR $2.740 (c) to support Part (4) of its motion for protec-tion, and so Part (4) is denied.
Part (5) : CASE did not sustain its claim that Applicants misquoted and misstated CASE's intent or statements so as to warrant Applicants being enjoined as requested by CASE.
When read together with " CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce," served September 3, 1980, and " Applicants Motion To Compel," etc., served September 18, 1980, " CASE's Response to Applicants' Motion To Compel and Motion for Protection," served October 2,
- 1980, does not support CASE's position that "the effect
.[of Applicants' statements] is clearly to prejudice the Board ~against CASE A main point of CASE
. ~
was the difference between CASE's ccunt of its objections (19) to Applicants' interrogatories and. Applicants' higher count (49).
Obviously the two parties used a different basis fcr count-ing objections, and as the Board views the total
=atter, including the incompleteness of CASE's answers, Applicants' expla ation of their counting method was reasonable.
Part (5) of i
CASE's motion for protection is accordingly denied.
4.
In " CASE's Answers to Applicants' First Set of Inter-rogatories and Requests to Produce," served September 3, 1980, CASE moved for an extension of time for 60 days in order that CASE might prepare answers to the following interrogatories of Applicants, namely 55, 57, 59, 61, 62 and 64.
In " Applicants' Motion To Compel and Answers to CASE's Request for Clarification of Certain Interrogatories anu to CASE's Motion for an Extension of Time," served September 18, 1900, Applicants stated that CASE had.not demonstrated good cause for a 60-day extension of time but that Applicants would not object to an' extension of time until September 30, 1980 for' CASE to respond to the referenced interrogatories.
I 5.
The Board is of the opinion that CASE did not make a showing of good cause to warrant a 60 days extension of time i
. to respond to Applicants' interrogatories 55, 57, 59, 61, 62 and 64, and so CASE's motion is denied.
Nevertheless under T
4 the Board's earlier' grant of' additional time for CASE
. to respond to Applicants' interrogarories, CASE =ay respond to the referenced' interrogatories on or before December 1, 1980.
s Done on this',sl'.;lday of November 1980 ar Washington, 9
4
. D.C.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- k s
' / / b 7*: -
'/
/
l's // 1:
i Sy
-Va.tentine S.
Deale, Chairman'--
t I
1
)
I
..