ML19345H539

Motion for Order to Compel Responsive Answers to Citizens Association for Fair Util Regulation Second Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce.W/Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence

ML19345H539
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/12/1981
From:	Fouke R CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8105210222
Download: ML19345H539 (4)

Text

1

.- .. \U?ijp L N RELEED CORRESPONDDCE D a ATlO i '1 5/12/81 c= .

B: "MY 20199y m V2 r~ e -.\

g m s b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

' C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t MAY 151981 * -2

• g i?

Office of the Secretary )

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t, Dochety & Service Brich d' In the Matter of I Docket Nos. 50 445 y

] and 50 446 <>'

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING I COMPANY,etal. ] (Application for 1 Coerating License)

(Comanche Peak Stean Electric I Station, Units 1 and 2) }

CWR'S MOTION TO COMPIL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CWR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f), Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CWR) files this Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to CWR's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce and moves the Atonic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to order the Applicants to provide the discovery as set out herein.

I.

As they did in their Answers to CFUR's First Set of Interrogatories (and as they do in their Answers to CWR's Third Set of Interrogatories),

the Aoplicants are unilaterally imoosing unjust and very broad restrictions on the scope of CFUR's Second Set of Interrogatorios. The Applicants' restrictions occur as the Aeolicants select one Contention with which they "assune" the Interrogatories are concerned. Secondly, the Apolicants i steroret their selected Contention as narrowly as possible and _blanketly ,,

refuse to answer any inquiry outside of that interoretation as not being relevant. This practice by the Apolicants should be strongly disapproved by the 9oard. Not only should the Aoplicants be ordered to answer all of CFUR's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants, but the Board should imoose sanctions on the Applicants for their purely dilatory and obstructionist practice of sinoly refusing to answer CFUR's interrogatnries.

As set out in Part I of CFUR's Motion to Comuel Responsive Answers to CWR's Interrogatories to Apolieant of February 26,1981 (hereinafter CFUR's First Motion to Concel),10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) entitles CNR to seek discovery about "any natter, not orivileged, which is relevant to the subject natter involved in the oroceeding." In their Answers to CWR's Second Set

~

9So9

8105210222 , S '/

- 2-of Interrogatories, Applicants do not object to any of the Interrogatories based on the proper standard of relevancy. Indeed, the Applicants cannot impose a proper relevancy objection since each of CPUR's Second Set of Interrogatories inquire about matters which relate to the constmetion of the CPSES structures and consequently are highly relevant to the ultimate issue in this proceeding of whether the Applicants should be issued an operating license.

Every objection contained in the Answer.s to CFUR's Second Set of Interrogatories (which total objections to 25 Interrogatories) is that the inquiry is broader than the Apolicants belive Contention 7 should be.

This form of objection is not valid since one of the goals of discovery is to define the issues to be raised in the proceeding. Pacific Gas and Electric Coneany (Stanislaus Nuclear Project Unit 1,LBP-78-20, 7 Nrc 1038,1040 (1978)).

Discovery is nof limited by the interpretation a party places on a contention.

Pennsylvania Power & Light Comoany and Allegheny Electric Coooerative. Inc.

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, AIAB-613, IEC (September 23, 1980). In support of its position on this point, CFUR adopts and refers the Board to the arguments and authorities set out in Part I of its First Motion to Compel.

It should be noted that many of the Interrogatories to which Applicants objected are addressed to precisely the same svbjects contained in the Applicants Interrogatories which CFUR was compelled to answer by the Board.

The Applicants now object to many of CFUR's Interrogatories which inquired about loose rock and the foreign material being introduced into CPSES structures.

(See Interrogatory 23 et seq). With regard to the Applicants' Interrogatories, the Board has already held that such inquiry is relevant. See Memorandum and Order of Auril 14,1981, uage 9. Fairness requires that the Applicants answer CtVR's Interrogatories.

All of the Apolicants' objections to CFUR's Second Set of Interrogatories should be overruled and the Apolicants should be ordered to orovide full, conclete and good faith aas fers to Interrogatories 12 through 17 and 23 through

31. The Aeplicants should also be ordered to cease their practice of refusing l

>-w-... _yw , , . m- y.- -- - . , ,

a .

to answer interrogatories because of their unreasonable interpretation of the Contentions involved. Phrther, the Board should at this time order the Applicants to answer each of CFUR's Third Set of Interrogatories to Applicants without the oractice of refusing to answer based on the unreasonable selection and intereretation of a Contention.

4 II.

The Applicants have failed to answer several of CFUR's Second Set of Interrogatories without objection.

A.

The Applicants have failed to tTovide any useful identification of any document or other tangible item inquired about in CrUR's Second Set of Interrogatories. The Applicants' resoonses to Interrogatories 2b, 7., 8, 9, 10,18,19, 21'and 22 are overly general and inconnlete by failing to identify with any particularity the documents and other items inquired about. The Board should order the Aoplicants to identify separately and with particularity each of the documents and other items which are the subject of Interrogatories 4

2b, 7, 8, 9,10,18,19, 21 and 22 P.

The Applicants have not procerly answered Interrogatories 2d, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by failing to identify the names of the persons who were cresent during or have knowledge of the activity inquired about. Clearly, the- identities and the location of these persons is discoverable. 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1).

See also, the Board's Menorandum and Order of April 14, 1981, page 7. The Applicants have posed no objection to identify the persons inquired about in the above Interrogatories. They have simoly failed to answer.

The Board should order the Applicants to answer fully and completely all parts of Interrogatories 2d, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Reseectfully submitted, WLa %&

Richard L. Touke l

l l

l

' . - , , _ . ,,m ,_ _ _ _ . __ ._.-__ . . _ . , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

s , .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

• I hereby certify that cooies of "CFUR'S MOTION TO COMPEI. RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CFUR'S SECOND SET 07 INTEP.ROGATOP.IES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUGTS TO PRODUCE" have been served on the following by deposit in the United States

, nail, first class, this 12th day of May,1981.

Valentine B. Deale Esq. , Chaiman Mrs. Juanita Ellis Atenic Safety and Licensing Board President. CASE 1001 Connecticut Avenue N. W. 1426 South Polk Street Washington, D. C. 20036 Dallas, TX 75224 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Mr. Dwight H. Moore, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board West Texas legal Services 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 100 Main Street (Lawyers 31dg.)

State College, PA 16801 Fort Worth TX 76102 Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Office of Executive legal Director Jeffrey L. Hart, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 4021 Prescott Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Dallas, TX 75219 Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esq. Arch C. McColl III Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 701 Comerce Street -

1200 17th Street, N.W. Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dallas, TX 75202 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 W' U ' rq c.

Ri rd L. Fouke

o. -- t 1668B Carter Drive

!g YAY 15198f

• q Arlington, TX 76010 cm x, U:nAtPg e., gg,%,

he San , y

0) -

cn

. .__ __ _ __ _ _ - - - - - _