ML20009D592
| ML20009D592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1981 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107240202 | |
| Download: ML20009D592 (5) | |
Text
-
+
r to A
D sgN W:,y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L.,,~M.-
c, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ry g,,,
g 1 1981>
T Q, A9;fQg.$#N "2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD V
00'
/f Before Administrative Judges:
\\'u,~
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman j
4 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Dr. Richard F. Cole Docket Nos. 50-445 In the Matter of 50-446
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.
(Application for Operating License)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
July 20, 1981
)
SER'.::.
.. Ei MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Applicants filed a motion on April 24, 1981 to compel CFUR to respond to certain interrrogatories in the second set of interrogatories that the Applicants had filed March 2,1981. Supplementation by CFUR of certain responses was also requested. A response and opposition to this motion was filed by CFUR on May 11, 1981.
Interrogatory 1-2 asked for the meaning of Contention 1.
The response of CFUR that the words were intended to have their " plain meaning", and references to two answers it had given to Staff's interrogatories, is not adequate. The Applicants are entitled to have definitions of the terms used and explanations of their meaning in the context of Contention 1.
It is not
. sufficient to refer to other answers; each interrogatory should be given a fair, coniplete and responsive answer of its own. The answer of CFUR was not responsive, and it is directed to respond fully. \\',.?
ob
.O f $1 4'
C D(J j $\\
b\\
(C rY'hy D
g.N x i
c v
(
6-a u 8107240202 810720 63[s l-3
~
r gDRADOCK 05000445 C
- 7
/'
k,)fv s
PDR W
/
/7 w
-v
9 4 Interrogatories 2-2, 15-2, 22-2 and 39-2 sought the bases of CFUR's position on Contention 1,-or '.'or its answers to other interrogatories. The response referred to previous pleadings and statements made at a prehearing
' conference. That reply is not responsive, and full, complem answers should be given. CFUR states that it "will provide all bases" upon the completion of discovery from Applicants, but that is not an adequate reply. CFUR must first describe all requested bases it knows of at the time of the request.
l If the answer is none, it should be expressly so stated.
If the answer to be given is allegedly dependent upon pending discovery, such requested discovery most be described explicitly and its causal relationship to the instant interrogatory made clear.1/
Interrogatories 11-2 through 14-2 and 32-2 through 34-2 deal with the identification of those portions of the FSAR that it is contended the Applicants relied on Westinghouse to prepare, and the latter's role in the matter. CFUR again replied that it had not yet obtained sufficient discovery.
That reply is inadequate for lack of specificity as described above, and is tnerefore unresponsive.
Interrogatories 16-2 through 20-2 ask specification of NRC licensing requirements applicable to the Westinghouse matter and the like. CFUR's reply referred to other answers to other interrogatories, and its opposition to the motion again referred generally to other pending discovery. These answers are not responsive and must be completed.
1/ oston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, B
1 NRC 579, 585 (1975).
4
. Iaterrogatories 21-2, 37-2 and 38-2 request CFUR to identify the measures it contends Applicants must take to demonstrate that they possess the technical qualifications to operate Comanche Peak, and the particular NRC licensing requirements that require Applicants to take those measures. The Applicants are entitled to have the NRC licensing requirements pertaining to their technical operating qualifications identified, which CFUR has not adequately done by referring to other answers or to 10 CFR 550.57(a). However, Applicants are not entitled to require CFUR to develop an affirmative scenario of what "the Applicants must do to demonstrate that they have the technical qualifications or capabilities" to operate Comanche Peak (Contention 21-2).
CFUR should describe fully the respects in which it contends _ that the Applicants have not demonstrated technical operating qualifications, and the bases for and evidence supporting such conclusions. But describing alleged deficiencies does not-require CFUR to go further and tell the Applicants how to cure such deficiencies, or to make appropriate proof on such issues.
Interrogatories 27-2 through 30-2 also concern the Applicants' technical operating qualifications in Contention 1.
Interrogatory 27-2 asks whether it is contended that "the NRC Staff review of the FSAR is unable to determine" whether Applicants are technically qualified.
- nterrogatory 29-2 then asks what CFUR contends " Applicants must do to assure that the NRC Staff review of the FSAR will determine" whether the Applicants are qualified. These interrogatories are obscure and ambiguous, and would appear to involve the Staff more than CFUR.
It is not reasonable to expect CFUR to know what the
,3-
,-m.s
,7
-w--,
7-,
y
. Staff review "is unable to determine." The response of CFUR that it does not understand these questions is sustained, and no further responses are required.
Interrogatories 40-2 through 99-2 relate to Contention 6, which involves the ability of the spent fuel pool to withstand the effects of tornadoes.
CFUR stated that it is unable at this time to answer these questions. That is nc a responsive answer. The Commission's rules on intervention " presume tnat the parties had specific factual bases for their contentions,"2/ and inter-venors must answer interrogatories on the basis of all information then available. More complete information should be supplied when availaole, but each interrogatory must be answered separately and responsively, including an explicit statement of lack of information if that be the fact.
Applicants also moved for an order requiring CFUR t; supplement its responses to Interrogatories 7-2 through 10-2 upon obtaining the information requested. The Board will enter a general order in this regard, to be applicable to all parties and to cover all interrogatory responses both past and future. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.740(e)"(3), all interro-gatories shall be deemed to be continuing in nature, and the party to whom they are addressed shall be under a continuing duty to supplement the responses as necessary to keep them currently accuratc.
2_/ Pilgrim, supra,1 NRC at 585.
. ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this. matter, it is this 20th day of July,1981 ORDERED (1) That CFUR shall file fair, complete, and responsive answers to the Applicants' second set of interrogatories Nos. 1-2, 2-2, 11-2 through 14-2, 15-2, 16-2 through EU-2, 21-2 (as modified), 22-2, 32-2 through 34-2, 39-2 and 40-2 through 99-2.
(2) That no further response is required as i os. 27-2 through 30-2.
(3) Pu.asuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.740(e)(3), all interroga-tories filed by any party to this proceeding, past or future, shall be deemed to be continuing in nature, and the party to whom they are addressed snall he under a continuing duty to supplement the responses as_ necessary to keep them currently accurate.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
/
b, i
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman l
ADMINISTRATIVE J' DGE J
l i
l
- -..