ML19347F800
| ML19347F800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1981 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105260366 | |
| Download: ML19347F800 (4) | |
Text
O o
k G
?h@
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
V NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C00MTE3 f
f 'f((\\\\
.w :- ~
D MAY 211981.
d g [
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9
Before Administrative Judges:
\\\\ j /
s
/
- i #-
4 Valentine B. Deale, Chairman W
Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Forrest J. Remick SERVED MAY 211997 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-445 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
50-446 COMPANY, et al.
)
)
Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
May 21, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denial of CASE's Motion for Postponement; dismissal of " conditional" motions; grant of Applicants' motion for CASE's supplementation) 1.
On January 12, 1981, Applicants filed " Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce."
On February 6, 1981, CASE submitted " CASE's Answers to Appli-cant's (sic] Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce."
On February 9, 1981, CASE filed " CASE's Motion for Postponement of Responses to Interrogatories regarding Conten-tion 22 pending Receipt of Certain Information from Applicants."
2.
On February 23, 1981, Applicants filed " Applicants' Motion to Compel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE."
On March 10, CASE filed " CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion to Compel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE."
p S'
- 1 810 5 2 603(olo '
g
I i
2-3.
Then on March 13, 1981, CASE filed its " Supplement'to CASE's Answers to Applicants' Second Set of Interrcgatories and Requests to Produce."
Thereafter, on March 31,1while making note of CASE's Supplement of March 13, Applicants filed "Appli-cants' Withdrawal of Motion to Compel CASE."
In withdrawing their motion to compel CASE to respond to their second set of interrogatories, Applicants specifically. held firm to their motion to require supplementation of responses-to designated interrogatories.
These interrogatories related to Contention 22 and Contention 25.
4.
In the meantime, on March 2,.1981, the NRC Staff filed "NRC Staff's Answer to CASE's Motion for Postponement of Responses to Interrogatories regarding Contention 22 pending Receipt of i
Information from Applicants."
By this filing, the NRC Staff directly opposed CASE's motion for postponement.
5.
CASE included conditional motions in its filings of February 9, 1981 and of March 10, 1981, respectively.
The condi-tional motion in these filings were not answered.
On page 3 of the earlier of the two referenced filings, CASE stated:
l "Therefore, if we have not received the requested l
information by March 9, we will so advise the Chairman and request that this pleading be con-p i
sidered a motion to compel Applicants to supply the requested information at-that time, should
..t become necessary."
On page 4 of the March 10 filing, CASE moved conditionally as 1
j follows:.
"Should the Board be persuaded that such an order (that is, one requiring supplementation ~
of responses by= CASE], CASE hereby moves that.
J
-,,,,,e._..
,-w-
,+-w
.m
,,-,-.,,,rn,,
,n-w.,...
,-.,,,,.,,-n
-,,,,, -, -. + - -,
.---,..,,,..,.,,mnw,.,,
-n-,--,.,-,n,a.e.,.--,
the Board also. issue an Order. requiring Appli-cants to similarly supplement their responses to CASE."
6.
The Board sees no justification for allowing CASE to postpone answering interrogatories pertaining to Contention 22 on the basis that CASE is seeking further information or is engaging in discovery regarding Contention 22.
Sue Commission's Rules of Practice at 52.470(d).
Also, as Applicants' second set of interrogatories to CASE are proper and as there are no objec-tions to the interrogatories themselves, efficiency of operation in the discovery procedure, especially when new information appears likely to be forthcoming, supports Applicants' motion calling for supplementation of responses to the designated inter-rogatories.
See Commission's Rules of Practice at S2.740 (e),
especially at (3).
7.
The Board is not disposed to deal with CASE's motions on a conditional, contingent or " iffy" basis.
There is too much on the Board's agenda which is firm and certain.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons and in consideration of the record in this matter, it is on this 21st day of May 1981:
ORDERED, That CASE's motion for postponement of responses l
l to interrogatories regarding Contention 22 pending re-l l
ceipt of certain information from Applicants is denied; That CASE's conditional motions in its filings of I
1 l
February 9 and March 19, 1981 are dismissed; an?
j
,.. That CASE is ordered to supplement its responscs to " Applicants' 5'econd Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Request to P:oduce* with respect to Contention 22 and Contention 25 when and as soon as further information becomes known or avcilable to CASE, said supplementation relating to responses to the following interrogatories of the referenced second set of interrogatories, namely, pertaining to Contention 22, Interrogatories 2-2, and 11-2 through 93-2, and pertaining to Contention 25, Interrogatories 95-2, 100-2, 104-2, 106-2 through 116-2, 119-2, 120-2, 122-2 and 123-2.
FOR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1
A Talentine B. UeaTe"
' ~ '
~
Chairman
,y c
-