ML19350B476

Answer Opposing Applicants' 810223 Motion to Compel & Require Addl Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor.Sufficient Grounds for Order Not Provided.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML19350B476
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/10/1981
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8103200631
Download: ML19350B476 (6)

Text

.

F7" $TD C01U'CSPONDENCF 3/10/8 GN CiN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p f NUCIZAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATG(IC SAFETY AND LICENSIX} BOARD 8'[s j M.O p s n

(

E f ijl, In the Matter of l Y ....@a" a p'/

l Docket Nos. /@5

~

APPLICATION OF TEXA8 IffIIJTIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l

l and 50 2 IE@V OPERATING LICENSE FOR C3dANCEE l ~

PEAK STEAN EI2CTRIC STATION l UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSEB) [f x hf A n s

i,y ooc -

CASE'S ANS'4ER TO [Cl t C , g)

~ APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND 2 }lAE 13 ~'

TO REQUIRE SUPPLEMENIATION OF RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS' SECOND SET OF p#4... f.y [p,!

C g et  ; ,

INTERROCATORIES TO CASE g hI

Iyiii?

2 710 and Pursuant to 10 CFR 4 2 730(c), CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),

hereinafter referred to as CASE, Intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Answer to Applicants' Motion to Co=pel and to Require Supplementation of Re-l sponses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE, filed by Applicants

( February 23, 1961, and received by CASE February 07, 1981."

l I. Applicants' motion as set fortn on pages 8 through 10, item III. Applicants' l

• Motion to Require Supplementation of Responses,is based.on erroneous mis- i l- s t

interpretations of CASE's motives and statements and is designed, CASE believes, te prejudice the Scard against this Intervenor. CASE has already stated, not once, but several times, in its 2/6/31 Answers to Applicants Second Set of Interrogatories, that we fully plan to supplement our ansvers later, go3 g

And just to be certain that there was no misunderstanding about this, we / /

t.10320 D. W' l @

again reemphasized it at the end of our ansvers to the questions dealitig with Contention 22, on page 6 of our Answers:

" NOTE regarding Interregatories on Emergency Planning:

At this point in time, we nave not analyzed how the Applicants revised Emergency Plan may affect this contention; further, we are now in the process of analyzing NUREG-065h, Rev.1 and related docu=ents. We are not trying to evade snswering these interrcgatories; however, ve see no point in answering them based on outdated and possibly ,now erroneous information. We fully intend to update our responses to these interrogatories."

CASE has been attempting to vade througa the continuous updatings of the FSAR which we have received (the most recent being received only on February 28, 1981); and, as stated in CASE's 2/9/81 Motion for Postponement of Responses to Interrogatories Regarding Contention 22 Pending Receipt of Certain Infor-mation from Applicants, CASE was supplied with an incomplete copy of the Applicants' October 8,1980 Emergency Plan, which effectively precluded our responding to interrogatories regarding Contention 22 fully and accurately. (In fact, although we have now received Appendix N, "Smervell and Hood Counties Emergency Operations Plans," as referenced in Applicants' 2/12/81 letter to CASE, even that Appendix var, not complete in that in both the Smervell and Hood Counties Emergency Operations Plans Annexes C, D, and E for each Plan were not included. We vill be pursuing this further.)

Further, CASE objects most strenuously to Applicants' statement on page 6 of their Motion to Ccmpel:

"Further, in that Applicants' Emergency Response Plan was issued on October 8, 1980 and transmitted to CASE on October 13, 1980, it is inconceivable that since that time CASE has not developed any infor-mation or position with respect to 63 interrogatories." ,

To begin with, CASE has not had the "63 interrogatories" since October 13, 1980, so in any event we would not have been reviewing the Plan with an

4 eye to answerir4 the Applicants' specific interrogatories. And tne situation is exactly as stated in CASE's 2/6/01 Answers to A;411 car.ts' 3econc Set cf Interregatcries. Encving that the emergency planni g procedures and guide-lines were in tne process cf being updated and revised, and assuning snat Applicants vould te updating and revising their E=ergency Plan vten tne new regulations and guidelines were issued, we chcse to avait receipt of the EC's new regulations before turning our full attentica to this Contention and con-centrated on other contenticas instead; as the record in these proceedings vill shov, we have not been idle during this ti:ne period. As seca as we received h"3E%065k, FD'A-REP-1, P,ev.1, ve began to review it; hcwver, CASE apparently did not receive our copy until some time after Applicants hac their copy, and there was also scue two and a half weeks or so arcund that time vnen the writer and ner husband both vere sich with the flu and this delayed such review, and necessitated a brief delay in responding to Applicants' and tne 20 Staff's recent sets of interrogatories.

Regarding Contentica 25, CASE has already stated in its 2/6/51 Answers to Applicants Seccad Set of Interrc6ateries, again act cace cut several ti:nes, that we plan to supplement cur responses to these interrogatcries.

CASE intends, and has always intended, to comply with the state:nent ,

mde on page 2 of Applicants' Interregatcries:

"These interrogatories and requests shall be continuing in cature.

Tnus, any time CASE obtaina information vnich renders any previcus res; case incorrect or indicates that a response was incorrect when :nade, CASE should supplement its previcus nspcase to the appropriate interrega-tory or request to produce.. ."

It nad si= ply never occurred to CASE ::at we =ignt not Ocuply with Applicants' requests in tnis regard; furtner, ve had never even ceasidered the possibility that A;;110 ants =iget not intend to cc= ply with tue similar state =ent centained in CASE's Interrogatories to Applicants (rather tnan only vita One specific requirements of 10 CFR 2 7kO(e)). Applicants' Motica to Require Supple =entation of Responses has now raised this hitherto unthougnt-of questica and we nov feel impelled to pursue this matter further and we vill be doing so snortly.

For the reasons set forth precedir4, CASE contends test Applicants have not provided sufficient grounds to necessitate such an order by the Bor.rd, that to the contrary there is every indicatica that CASE intends and has always intended to emply with Applicants' request to continuously update our ansvers, that CASE has acted in good faith in this satter and vill continue to do so, and that it is unnecessary for the Board to issue *he Order =cved by Applicants.

CASE vrges the Board to deny Applicants Motion to Requira Supplementation of Responses by CASE.

Should the Board be persuaded ::at such an Order is necessary, CAEE hereby moves that the Scard also issue an Order requiring Applicante to simi' trly supple-t l =ent their respcases to CASE. ':'he same arguments set forth by Applicants in their Motion apply as well in the case of Applicants' responses to CASE. Indeed, by the very fact that Applicants have even raised this issue in light of the statement made on page 2 of Applicants' Interrogatories, CASE believes there is th= indication that Applicants do not intend to supplement their ansvers to CASE and therefore a sore ccacpelling reason to order such supplementation by Applicants.

.k-

b II. Regarding Applicants' Motion to Compel, CASE now realizes that a more proper approach would have been to request a longer delay in responding to Applicants' Second Set of h*;rrogatories to Give us sufficient time to adequately review Applicants' FSAR updates and NUREG-065k, Rey, 1, rather tnan responding with our February 6 an. vers. (Similarly, although this is not an issue at the moment, we should have requested a longer delay in responding to the NRC Staff's First Set of Interro6atories.)

We are presently working on a supplementary response to both Applicants' Second Set of Interrogetories and NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories.

• 'e a hope to have our supplementary response to Applicants Second Set of ready Interrogatorice in time to mail it at the same time we mail this pleading; if not, it vill be sent in the next few days. Therefore, the Order requested by the Applicants will not be necessary.

Respectfully submitted, l

-)//

. s. ~Ae C l' b )

! (Hrs.) Juanita Ellis, President l ,' CASE (CITIZZNS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENER",Y) l lh26 S. Folk l Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 .

214/941-1211, work, part-time, usually l

Tuesdays and Fridays l

l i

5-~~~ 4 .. w ..y

[f e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N Y e- ~~

MC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T

,is, , , '1 2 G 3g g, -

i BEFORE THE ATOMIC S/FETY AND LICENSING BOART). m .. .. n :.:'a .-

~

In the Matter of I W} - ; . - ur:t 4: [

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES 1 Docket Nos. 50 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, FOR AN I OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE and 50-4.46 1

PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 UNIT 3 #1 AND #2 (CPSES) I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO CLNPELJAND TO REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO CASE has been sent this 10th day of March, 1981, to the fo11ov1 W names by First Class Mail:

• = Certificate of Mailing Receipt

• Valentine Deale, Esq., Chairman Atomic Saxety and Licensing Board David J. Preister, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General 1001 Connecticut Arenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20o36 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atorzic Safecy and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. H ailton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 168G1 Arlington, TX 76010 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 washington, D. C. 20555

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safdty and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary

) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch C. McColl, III, Esq.

West Texas Legal Services 701 conserce Street, Suite 302 l 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, TX 75202 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. i 4021 Prescott Avenue '

'N M - ~3 b, '

(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis,' President n=11==, TX 75219 CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)