ML20003J383

Motions for Order to Compel Responsive Answers to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation 810226 Interrogatories.Applicant Registered Blanket Objection to Certain Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20003J383
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/28/1981
From:	Hart J CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION, HART, J.L.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8105110342
Download: ML20003J383 (8)

Text

l

. */ , l

. DocnTED WN -

April 28,1911 6 WAY. 1 M ' $ i

1. g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICP og BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFE *Y AND LICENSING 90ARD l In the Matter of I I

TEXAS UTIIITIES GENEPATIT;G ] Docket Nos. 50-%5.and 50 L46 .-

CCMPAhl, et _a1

_ [ - ~ - . . - -

.k (Comanche Peak Stean Electric l (Applicatio r for ,

Station. Units 1 and 2) Operating License) , ' ,_4 i

i 1

.1t I CMR'S MCTION TO CCMP.7 RESPONSIVE T ANSIERS TO CNd IhTERRCGATCRIES O 3 p#q : h(!

TO APPIICANT OF FE3RUARY 26,1981 y pg.yj,llg " [ '

,: <0 On February 26, 1981, Citizens for ra ir Utility Regulation (CNR) filed -

"CFUR'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPI.ICANT AND RSCUESTS TO PRCL' U CNW (CFUR's Interrogatories). On April 13, 1981, the Apolieant filed "APPLICAhTS' ANSWERS TO CFUR'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" (Applicants' Answers)1, in accordance with our previous discussion.

Applicants have essentially registered a blankst objection to all et CMR's intermgatories v hich seek information concerning entities other than Westinghouse and matters other than the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

In addition, some of the answers supplied by the Apolicant are not resoonsive and do not comply with CPJR's request that the Applicant, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740b and 2.741, answer separately and fully each interrogatory. Accordingly, CFUR now seeks an order ecripe11$ng responsive answers concerning both situations as set forth below. I I.

Initially, Applicants seek to impese a blanket limitation on CFUR's Interrogatories in refusing to answer any interrogatory relating to any entity ether than Westinghouse. As stated in the " General Coments". and the. objection

s. Y 1

Applicants had been unintentionally emitted frcri the service list of the original mailing of CFUR's Interrogatories. A copy was mailed to the Applicant on March 24, 1981 and, therefore, the Apolieants' Answers were provided on a timely basis.

9 503 S l[

82 os ti o 349 w - , - -

e--- * ,-

e w n - 4 y ,w -----w m- -- w n n--,g w-

+

stated in the response No. I in Applicants' Answers, Aeplicants have unilaterally decided that they will answer only those portions of interrogatories which are raised by Contention 1. Further, Apolicants have unilaterally scught to olace .

an unreasonably narrow construction on Contention 1 by. asserting it is linited to natters relating to Westinghouse.

In cropounding interrogatories to the Applicants, CFU?. is _ entitled to ..

inquire about "any natter, not orivileged, which is relidfnt'to the subjeet

~~

natter involved in the proceeding." 10 CFR Part 50, caragraph 2.74c(b)(1). -

Applicants do not centend that the inquiries of CFUR'EInterrogatories, in ' E-so far as they relate to entities other than Westinghouse, are irrelevant _a to the subject natter of this proceeding, which is, the issuance of an operating license for CPSES. It must be conceded that the degree to which Aeolieants have relied on the sucoliers of CPSES conoonents for orecaration of safety anclysis is highly relevant to the issue of whether the Applieants are qualified to coerate CPSES safely. Therefore, on the basis of relevance, the Aeolicants' objection te inquiries regarding entities other than Westinghouse should he ove truled.

CFUR also discutes the Applicants' attenpt to place a strained and narrow construction on Contention 1. The operative cortion of that Contention concerns the Applicants' demonstration of " technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with IC CFR 50.57(a)(h)." The deoendent clause identifying Westinghouse is only one exanole of how CFUR centends Apolicants are deficient in denenstrating technical qualifications. It is CFUR's position that the Apolicants' blanket objection that under the wording of Contention 1, CFCR's Interrogatories should be linited to inquiries about Westinghouse, should be overruled.

One nust be :.indful of the overall objective in conducting discovery in this phase of the licensing orocess: that is, to insure full and fair disclosure of all relevant facts orior to the cenneneenent of the hearing. Sosten Edisen Conoany (Pilgrin Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LT.P-75-30,1 NRC 579, 582 i (1975). Discovery should be liberally granted "to enable the earties to ascertain the facts in conolex litigation, refine the issues, and orecare adequate'J" for the hearing. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project,

Unit 1),13P-78-20, 7 NRC 1038,10h0 (1978). The hypertechnical and erroneous constmetion Applicants seek to place on Contention 1, and thereby avoid pro-viding relevant discove:7, flies in the face of the enunciated discovery ob-jectives acclicable to this proceeding.

Moreover, the Aeolicants' attennt to 11 nit the scene of the discovery available under Contention I would defeat one of the main ourcosas of interrega- ..

tories, which is to further define the issues raised by Qon~tention. See. _,

Pacific Gas and Ilectric Conoany, suora: 9eston Eidson Cencany, suora.

" Pleadings" and " cont 3ntions" no longer describe En volunincus detail '-

everything the carties exoect to prove and how they olan te go abeut i [(

doing so. Rather they orovide general notice of the issues. It is _ , , ,

E left to the carties to narrow those issues througn use of various discovery devices . . . . Pennsylvania Power & Light Cor:cany and A11echeny

1. g l'lectric Coooerative. Inc. (Susquenanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1

{ and 2), AIA%61h NRC (September 23,1980), slim on. at 30.

"~

The Aeolicants should not be allowed to limit by unilateral action the scope

, of CFUR's discover /. Instead, CTUR's disener/ should be the vehicle by which the scope of the Contentions to be presented at the hearing is deternined. The Applicants' generel objections to CFUR's Interrogatories should be overruled.

Should the Board overrule the Applicantr' blanket objection to CFUR's Interrogatories (as CFUR respectfully subnits it shocid do), the Applicants should be ordered to provide full and cor plete answers to the following interrogatories: 1, 2a , 2b , 24, 2d , 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12a , 12b, 12c , 13, 15,

$ and 17.

"'he resoonses to the following interrogatories are, at preront, "not

. . - . - applicable" but may ent:.ge when the previous interrogatories are conoletely answered. Therefora, the Apolieants should be ordered to orovide full and

( conolete answers to the following interrogatories as well ha, 4b, he, 6a, 6b, 6e, 8a, 8b, 8c,8d, Se, loa,10b,10e,10d, lha, lhb, lhe,16a,16b,16e.

II.

In resoonse to CM's Interrogaterf 2b, the Applicants have failed to provide a neaningful answer. They have nerely restated the interrogatory and referenced the FSAR which contains approximately 10,000 pages. It is

, incassible for CFUR to derive any useful infomation from the Applicants' response.

The evasive and inconolete answer bv the Aeolicants should be treated as a failure to answer and the 9oard should order the Aeolicants to list secarately and with particularity all docunents, representations and other infomation upon which Applicants have relied in the context of Interrogatories 1 and 2 For the sane reasons as set out above, the Applicants, by merely referencing Response 2b, have failed to answer Interrogatory 2d. The Board should order '"

the Applicants to answer fully Interrogatozy 2d. . --

~~

The Board should also order the Aeolicants to provide "a neaningful re-

^

sponse to CTUR's interrogatory 2e. In its present forn,the Applicants' re-

~""

sponse is overly and unnecessarily broad. The Applicants should be ordered to provide senarately the tine of reliance for each docunent, representation and other infornation involved.

III.

CFUR is not able to fully concrehend the Aeplicants' resoonses to Interrogatories 4 through 8. The confusion arises with the Amplicants' failure to answer Interrogatories h, 6, and 8

, , Since Aeolicants have not answered Interrogatory 4, it appears that they are content with an unqualified "no" as their answer to Interrogatory 3.

Accordingly, CFUR prays that the Board order the Applicants either to amend l their answer to Interrogatory 3 to bo "no," or to provide full and complete answers to all parts cf Interrogatory 4 Sinilar problens arise with Applicants' responses to Interrogatories 5 and 6. The present answer to Interrogatory 5 egpears to be in the affirmative.

However, Interrogatory 6, which is credicated on an affirmative answer to Interrogatory 5, is unanswerad. Because of these conflicting and inconplete answers, CFUR prays thct the Board order the Apolicants either to anend their answer to Interrogatory 5 to be "no," or to provide full and conclete ' answers I to all parts of Interrogatory 6.

The Apolicants' answer to Interrogatory 7 is nenresconsive and evasive.

Again, however, it appears by their failure to answer InterrogStory 8, which is credicated on a negative answer to Interrogatory 7, Apolicants intend that their answer to Inte regatory 7 is "yes." CTUR prays that the Board order the l

l u.

I r

~

Applicants eithsr to amend their response to Interrogatory 7 to be "yes,"

or to orovide full and conolete answers to all carts of Interrogatory D.

IV.

Aeolicants again have orovided an evasive and dilatory :ssponse to Interrogatorj 9 in stating that the word " review" is vagutar.d 01thout "relevaney."C .

Certainly that tern is understood to the Aeolteants since i* is used by the. in -

sittilar contexts in their responses to Interrogatories,,) and 11. While CTUm, does not fully cenprehend the Apolicants' failure to provide any answer what- ,

coever based on the lack of relevancy, CFUR would respond by saying that the reliance of the Apolicants on other entities to review equip .ent, analysis, procedures and training is highly relevant as to whether the Applicants can safely operate CPSSS.

The Applicants have failed to answer Interrogatory 10 which is predicated on an affirnative response to Interrogatory 9. Again CFUR prays that the Board order the Applicants either to amend their answer to Interrogatory 9 to be "no,"

or to provide full and conplete answers to all carts of Interrogatory 10.

V.

The Aeolieants' response to Interrogatory 10 is not resconsive to the question asked. The Interrogatory is addressed to the Applicants' independent reviews and investigations relating to the safe operation of CPSES. The Applicants' answer is directed to the "aeolicability" of 'festinghouse analyses.

The 3 card should order the Applicants te provide a full and conplete resconse directly answering CFUR's Interrogator /11.

I. Interrogatory 12, which is predicated on Interrogatory 11, also is not answered by Applicants. As with Interrogatory 11, Applicants' response to Interrogatory 12 deals with "acolienbility" of Westinghouse internation when the Interrogatory is directed to review and investigation of analyses to insure safe coeration of CPSI.S. The Applicants should be concelled to answer Interrogatory 12 fully and directly.

While Applicants pretend not to understand the phrase " safety review or investigation" as used in Interregatory 12, they made no objection to sub-stantially the sane coneeot which was used in Interrogatory 11 and upon which

Interrogatory 12 is based. CFUR would also point out that such safety evaluations are basic concepts in this context. See 10 CFR Part 30, paragraph 50.%(b)(2). Interrogatory 12 should be answered.

VI.

The Aeolicants again have orovided incomplete ans evasive _ answers to . . ,

~

Interrogatories 13 through 16. With regard to the Aeo1iFa'nts' ec=claints , ]

about the inquiries relating to safety function, CFUR again contends the Aeolicants are playing ganes with well understood coniept.s. --

_, "Sach apoliention for a license to operate a facility shall include 1.,

. . . a final safety analysis report...shall include the fo11owings.. .(2) 7 ... evaluations required to show that safety functions will be acconplished." (10 CFR Part 50, caragraph 50.M(b))

With regard to the complete failure to answer Interrogatory 14, CFUR prays that the Board order the Applicants either to amend their response to Interrogatory 13 to be "no," or to provide full and certolete answers to all parts of Interrogatory 14 While Applicants' response to Intierrogator715 appears to be in th'e y affimative, Applicants have not answered Interrogatory 16 which is predicated on an affimative answer to Interrogatory 15. Again, CFUR prays that the Soard order the Apolicants either to a:nend their answer to Interrogatory 15 to be "no," or to provide full and complete . answers to all parts of Interrogatory 16 VII.

In their response to Interrogatory 17, Apolicants have identified Westing-house as the only entity which has prepared any portion of the FSAR. Do the Aeolicants state that they have orecared no cortien of the NR? In addition to the other vendors (which is addressed in Part I of this Motion to Commel), the Aeolicants should also be concelled to identify which nortions of the FSAR they have orapared, if any.

VIII.

With regard to Interrogatory 25, Applictnts shocid be comme 11ed to answer why they will not voluntarily attach to their answers the doeunents requested by Interrogatory ?.9.

The oath taken by Pr. Honer O. Schnidt in answering CWR's Interrogatories is deficient. As set out in 10 CFR Part 50 paragrach 2.740b(b). answers to interrogatories nust be "under oath er affir.mation." There is no prcvision for answering based on infomation and belief. Accordingly, the 9eard should order the Apolicants to provide answers to C7UR's,Interro J atories which are sworn to as being true and correct based on the personal knowledge of the affiant -

or affiants. In the alternative. C.Uh prays that the,, Applicants be ordered to identify each cerson (including enployer aa.d business address) who has provided

~

~

personal knowledge upon which' its answers are based.

Respectful y subnitted,/ /

. / -

- ,/ f g no * ,

je & d.rt. mi.

/ [1P cott Avenue

! Dalla . TX 75219 214/521 4852 l

0

s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~B ELATED CORRESPONDENCl-

! hereby certify that copies of "CFUR'S MOTICN TO COMPEL RESPONSI7E ANSWEP.S TO CFUR INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1981" have been served on the following by deoosit in the United Stater mail, firs +. class,this 28th day of April,1981.

Valentine 3. Eeale Esq. , Chairman Mrs. Juanita Ellis'

Atenic Safety and Licensing Board 1001 Connecticut Avenue N. W.

PresideritTCISE 1426 SoutFPolk Street _

Washington, D. C. 20036 Dallas, n ' 75224

~--

Dr. Forrest J. Renick, Member Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board West Texas legal Services -

305 E. Hamilton Avenu

• 100 Main Street (Lawyers 31dg.)

State College, PA 16601 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 U1 nan Rothschild, Esq.

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

U. S. Nuclear Retfulatory Comission 4021 Prescott Avenae Washington, D.C. 20555 Dallas, TX

. 75219 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Arch C. McColl III, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 701 Comerce Street i 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 Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 , cn 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel

( U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission De,g g ,,

Washington, D.C. 20555 9 L':-

W .

1 1981 ,

W .

l

$$$!;l&

e% y I

ha.I &v l

j Richard L. Fouke ichI11ic CFUR l 16683 Carter Drive l

Arlington, TX 76010 k

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

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