ML20004B684

Motion for Order to Compel Responsive Answers to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Third Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce Directed to Applicants.Applicants Are Seeking to Thwart & Delay Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20004B684
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/19/1981
From:	Mccoll A CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION, MCCOLL, A.C.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8105290293
Download: ML20004B684 (8)

Text

. May 19,1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p \ s::

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 00:g g \

In the Matter of  ! 9 USYRO i 3 MAY 2 2198f . E TEXAS UTILITIES GENERAING s Docket Nos. 50-445 4 OT: : c.., Y COMPANY, et al i 50-446 @ 0 :l::E- Qg ~

%  ;;: w (Comanche Peak Steam Electric i (Application for Cb @ . s Station, Units 1 and 2) i Operating license) dr i l i>

CFUR'S MOTION. TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CFUR'S THIRD .

SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE Pursuant to 10 CFR s2.740(f), Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) files this Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to CFUR's Third Set of Inter-

~

rogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce and moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to order the Applicants to provide the discovery as set out herein.

L In the introduction paragraph of their Answers to CFUR's Third Set of Interrodatories, Applicants erroneously state that CFUR's Third Set of In-terrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce (hereinafter Third Set of Interrogatories), "does not request production of any documents." Consequently, the Applicants state that they will not produce any documeiits connected with CFUR's Third Set of Iriterrogatories.

On page two of CFUR's Third Set of Interrogatories, it is plainly stated that CFUR " request [s] that at a date er dates to be agreed upon, Applicant make available for inspection and copying all documents subject to the requests set forth below." Interrogatories 2, 3, 5

9,11,12,14,15,17,18,19 and 20 request

' Pt i:%"0 m m

af'9~ R [(( iLl)

IR?l- y;

,,,,, E d 1981

$6u'.S.~%a;m.x nj & .pst-]I rhe M a e 8105290 hh -

e that Applicants identify certain documents. The documents to be identified in answers to those Interrogatories are the documents that Applicants are requesti:d to produce.

The Board should order the Applicants to produce to CFUR copies of all documents that are and will be identified in the Applicants' answers to CFUR's Third Set of Interrogatories.

II.

As has become standard practice by the Applicants, they are seeking to thwart and delay discovery in this proceeding by arbitrarily selecting one of CFUR's Contentions and refusing to provide any discovery outside their narrow interpreta-tion of that Contention. This practice is so unreasonable that one must conclude that its only purpose is to prevent CFUR from obtaining any dis.covery through the normal discovery processes. Through their actions, Applica'its appear intent on causing delays in the licensing process. Should Applicants continue to deprive CFUR of the discovery to which it is entitled, CFUR will have no alternative but to seek postponement of the licensing hearing either through administrative or .

judicial channels.

CFUR's arguments against the Applicants' practice of refusing to answer Interrogatories based on their erroneous relevancy objections are set out in Part I of CFUR's Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to CFUR Interrogatories to Applicants of February 26, 1981, and in Part I of CFUR's Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to CFUR's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce. CFUR hereby incorporates those arguments and the authorities cited therein.

- '~v1 eev,P - ,,,-s..-.,...p # q .m,_ p.-. g ,m p.%_,

Not only do Applicants ignore the purpose of discovery to define the issues raised under a Contention, but they completely ignore some Contentions to which many of _CFUR's Third Set of Interrogatories apply. As the Applicants are surely aware, the Interrogatories have direct applicability to Contentions 2 and 4.

Additionally, the quality of the Applicants' answers have some bearing on Contention 1.

The standard of relevancy applicable to this proceeding is .;et out in the above-referenced previous Motions to Compel by CFUR. In refusing to answer Interrogatories 1 through 6 and 19, Applicants have failed to make a proper relevancy objection. Moreover, no such objection can be made since each of those Interrogatories inquire about matters relevant to this proceeding; to wit, whether Applicants are qualified to be issued an operating license. -

The Board should order the Applicants to provide full and complete answers to all portions of Interrogatories 1 through 6 and 19. Furthar, the Board should order the Applicants to cease and desist from refusing to answer Interrogatories based on their false and erroneous standard of relevancy.

III.

Applicants' responses to Interrogatories " through 12 are wholy inadequate.

Initially, their responses do not comply with 10 CFR 62.~406(b) which states that

"[e}ach Interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully . . . ." Not only do the i Applicants lump their answers to the six Interrogatories into one response, but in doing so they have failed to answer many of the inquiries of those Interrogatories.

The failure to answer portions of the Interrogatories is done without objection or justification.

l I -

Interrogatory 7 asks a simple yes or no question. In their response, the Applicants fail to indicate whether their answer is affirmative or negative (or whether the Applicants do not know the results of their accident sequence computer codes). The Board should order the Applicants to answer directly "yes" or "no" or to admit that they do not know the answer to Interrogatory 7, whichever response is accurate.

Interrogatories 8 and 9 are conditioned on the Applic, ats' positive or negative response to Interrogatory 7. The Applicants have used their nonresponse to Interrogatory 7 to avoid answering Interrogatories 8 or 9. The Board should order the Applicants to answer fully and completely either Interrogatory 8 or Interroga-tory 9, depending on whether their response to Interrogatory 7 is positive or negative. If the Applicants cannot answer Interrogatory 7. the 43 card should order the Applicants to answer all parts of Interrogatories 8 and 9 to the fullest extent possible.

With regard to Interrogatory 10, CFUR makes the same arguments as above to require the Applicants to answer Interrogatory 7. The Board should order the Applicants to answer directly "yes" or "no" or to admit that they do not know the answer to Interrogatory 10.

Again, Applicants use their nonresponse to Interrogatory 10 to avoid answering Interrogatories 11 and 12. CFUR adopts the above arguments made in connection with Interrogatories 8 and 9 as the bases for requiring answers to Interrogatories 11

(

and 12.

The Board should order the Applicants to answer fully and completely either Interrogatory 11 or Interrogatory 12, depending on whether their respcnse to

Interrogatory 10 is positive or negative. If the Applicants cannot answer Interrogatory 10, the Board should order them to answer all parts of Interrogatories 11 and 12 to the fullest extent possible.

IV.

As set out in Parts I and II above, the Board should order the Applicants to

identify (and produce) all documents inquired about in Interrogatories 19 and 20.

4 The objection set out in the Applicants' response to Interrogatory 19 should be overruled.

The App!icants' response to Interrogatory 19, insofar as it applies to Interrogatories 7,10,13 and 16, is that other than future "WOG reports," the

- 4 Applicants know of no documents or information which demonstrate the inquired-about consistency of their computer codes. CFUR submits that this response bears heavily on the Applicants' qualifications to receive an operating license for CPSES.

Applicants have failed without objection or justification to answer Interroga-tory 19 insofar as it inquires about documents pertinent to Interrogatories 2, 3, 5, .

6, 8, 9,11 and 12. The Board should order the Applicants to answer Interrogatory 19 "yes," "no," or " Applicants do not know" separately regarding the documentation and information applicable to the inquiries in Interrogatories 1 through 18.

The Applicants have failed, without objecticn or justification to answer

interrogatory 20. The Board should order the Applicants to answer fully and completely all parts of Interrogatory 20. Further, as set out in Part I above, the Board should order the Applicants to produce to CFUR a copy of all documents identified in their response to Interrogatory 20.

t

., Re tfu tr ' d .

/

U' [{.'

]

i, hRCH C. McCOLL, III The Katy- Building.. Suite 302 .

701 Commerce Street

, Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 744-5044 JEFFERY L. HART

4021 Prescott Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219 ,

i (214) 521-4852 f

?

)

. i 4

f I

l i

4 4

f t

i I

( . i .

b 4

w._.._.r. , _ , , . , , . _ . ,,,.w..,,,-y,, , ,,-,,,_.,.,,,.-. - _,,,,,,,.,._, ,,,. . ,,-,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.-www.m,..v,.,,m.,%-,,.m.-y.,w,,_,,,,,,.#,%

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY ' COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T~

7.. -

In the Matter of i 3 m g ,

-] .

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al i

i Docket Nos. 50-445 50-446

,.H.

j/U N n '- '. 'ggt rx-:-'

I (Application for L .

Cl (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)

! ' ,1 A

43/

i Operating License) d/W 7/d CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "CFUR'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CFUR'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE" were served upon the following peasons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 19th day of May,1981: -

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety Chairman, Atomic Safety and

~

and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticut. Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Debevoise & Liberman Licensing Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 V;ashington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555

! State College, Pennsylvania 16801

. Dr. Richard Cole, Merc aer David J. Preister. Esc.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 12543 1 Commission Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711

.. - - - + . . - . . . ,, ,-_ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ , ,

Mr. Richard L. Fouke Mrs. Juanita Ellis CFUR President, CASE 1668B Carter Drive 1426 South Polk Street Arlington, Texas 76010 Dallas, Texas 75224 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 4021 Prescott Avenue West Texas Legal Services Dallas, Texas 75219 100 Main Street (Lawyers Building) i Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Mr. Arch C. McColl. III Docketing i Service Branch The Katy Building. Suite 302 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 701 Commerce Street Commission Dallas. exas 75202 Washington, D.C. 20555 /

f J .w RCH C. McCOLL, III O

4 e

I i

L