ML20009H223
| ML20009H223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1981 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108070055 | |
| Download: ML20009H223 (7) | |
Text
k no m
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-2 (3 095 #
@f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
8
~
gf MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C
y g,G O 61981>
@efore Administrative Judges:
7 7
9 AUpusoToss 4 arshall E. Miller, Chairman co cp cosamS'i Dr. Forrest J. Remick Q
Dr. Richard F. Cole SERVED JUL 31198[
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. )
) (Application for Operating License)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
July 30, 1981
)
ORDER I.
CFUR's first set of interrogatories to the Applicants and reguests for the production of documents was filed on February 26, 1981. Appli-cants responded to those interrogatories on April 13, 1981. CFUR's motion to compel responsive answers to such interrogatories was filed April 28, 1981 and the Appiicants answered the motion on May 13, 1981.
The Applicants in their answers to CFUR's first s(t of interrogatories objected to large portions of the information requested, and failed to answer most of the questions. The disputes between the parties revolve around the interpretation of Contention 1 as asserted unilaterally by the Applicants. We hold. that such interpretation is too narrow for discovery purposes, and overrule the Applicants' objections.
dV 9108070055 81073d M $
DR ADOCK 05000 g
. Contention 1 reads as follows:
Applicants have not demonstrated technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with 10 CFR 550.57(a)(4) in that they have relied upon Westinghouse to prepare a portion of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
In admitting Contention 1, the Board did not intend to limit the issue of the Applicants' technical qualifications to operate CPSES, to their reliance on Westinghouse to prepare portions of the FSAR. That was regarded as a possible example of alleged deficiencies in technical pcesonnel available to Applicants for the operation of the plant.
It was also not intended to limit such issue solely to matters involving the FSAR.
The thrust of Contention 1 is the issue of whether or not Applicants' have personnel with sufficient expertise, training and experience to operate this nuclear power plant safely.
If poorly stated, this conten-tion could be refined by amendment after the conclusion of discovery.
As we stated in the Stanislaus antitrust proceeding, in " modern adminis-trative and legal practice, pretrial discovery is liberally granted to enable the parties to ascertain the facts in complex litigation, refine the issues, and prepare adequately for a more expeditious hearing or trial."1I The interpretation placed by the Applicants on admitted Contention 1 is too narrow and crabbed to permit libe'ral pretria'i discovery. The 1/ acific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1),
P LBP-78-20, 7 NRC 1038, 1040 (1978', c,uoted in Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980).
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _]
resulting disputes over the responsiveness of the answers are so inter-woven with this fundamental error of construction, that it would be a waste of time for the Board to attempt to unravel them. We decline to undertake this tedious task.
i l
Accordingly,' the Applicants are directed to reformulate their answers in order to give full, direct and responsive answers to CFUR's first set of interrogatories. All parties are also directed in the future to include both the interrogatories and the answers in any mot' ions or replies involving the adequacy of responses or the validity of objections.
II.
CFUR filed its second set of interrogatories to the Applicants on April 9, 1981. Answers were filed April 28 by f.pplicants, and CFUR filed ~
a motion to compel more responsive answers on May 12, 1981. This motion
. was answered by Applicants on May 27, 1981.
t The disputes over the second set of CFUR interrogatories are similar to thase discussed above with reference to the first set. We do' i
not agree with the standard of. relevancy set forth by CFUR in its motion, namely, whether interrogatories are " relevant to the ultimate issue in I
this proceeding of whether the Applicants should be issued an operating license" (Motion, p. 2). Rather, interrogatories must have at least 4
general relevancy, for discovery purposes, to the matters in controversy in the proceeding. ~ Matters may be put into controversy by the parties,2/
i 2/10 CFR 552.714, 2.740 and 2.751a.
. _~
. or under certain circumstances by the Board sua sponte.2/ Contentions i
constitute the method by which the parties frame issues under NRC
)
practice, similar to the'use of pleadings in their judicial counterparts.S/
Such contentions may be amended or refined as a result of additional.
information gained by discovery.
Contention 7,'which is the center of the dispute over the second set of interrogatories, reads as follows:
l Applicants have failed' to adequately evaluate whether rock "overbreak" and subsequent fi,ssure repair using concrete grout have impaired the ability of category I structures to withstand seismic disturbances.
Here again the Applicants seek to apply too narrow and legalistic an interpretation to Contention 7 and the interrogatories in question.
The issue of alleged rock "overbreak" and the seismic capabilities of CPSES is broad enough to encompass such related matters as the nature i
of concrete poured for its foundations, materials incorporated into the foundation itself or placed above the bedrock, as well as the use of I
loose rock materials. This contention should not be construed as being limited solely to the effects of " rock overbreak" and " fissure repair",
as the Applicants contend.
l Accordingly, the Applicants are directed to provide full, direct and 4
responsive answers to CFUR's second ret of interrogatories.
2/10 CFR 52.760a.
See also our Order entered July 24,1931, at pp. 3-13.
4 S/ usquehanna, supra,12 NRC at 331, 334.
S 1
5 J
..m
. III.
There remain a number of motions to compel by CFUR and replies by the Applicants which reflect a substantial and unnecessary amount of pointless bickering between these parties.
In part this is caused by too narrow and legalistic positions taken unilaterally by the Applicants, and an insistence on unduly limiting requested discovery. However, CFUR also ~
seeks to assert too expansive a scope of discovery by references to the
" ultimate issues" of granting an operating license. Our discussion above concerning the first and second sets of-interrogatories should provide guidance to those parties in resolving their discovery controversies.
The Board does not intend to take the time to go through all of the remaining motions and replies in. order to referee these unnecessary quarrel s. At one point, pages are spent arguing whether numerous-documents are merely required to be identified, or whether a general request for inspection and copying constitutes a technical request for production, which careful pra,ctice requires to be made prior to a motion to compel. This kind of interminable fencing coupled with occasional aji hominem arguments constitutes an unacceptable imposition upon the Board.
Accordingly, under its power and responsibility to " manage ~ and c
supervise all discovery,"E/ the Board issues the following directives:
i 1.
All.pending motions by CFUR to compel answers to its third and fourth sets of interrogatories (with motions to find Applicants 'in default), and all of the 5/ ommission's Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, C
May 20, 1981, pp. 5-6.
i
,,,,,-,,.--,,--,--,-...__,--n
L
.* 4 Applicants' responses to such moticns, are stricken.
CFUR's motion for protection and oral irgument (included in response to Applicants' motion to strike), and Applicants' response, are also stricken. - CFUR's motion to compel Applicants to hold design audit at Comanche Peak-is moot, and it is stricken.
2.
The Applicants' motion for protective order, filed together with their answers to CFUR's fifth set of interrogatories on July 20, 1981,.is stricken.
3.
CFUR and the Applicants are directed to meet and confer i
as soon as possible on the status of all interrogatories, responses, motions, and other discovery now pending between them. These parties shall negotiate in good-faith on all of their pending disputes, using as guide-i lines the discussion contained in this Order, all of our i
prior Orders, and the nine principles stated in our. Order entered July 23, 1981, at pages 9-12.
4.
A written report shall be submitted to the Board by these parties as soon as reasonably possible, setting forth the results of their discovery conference and any agreements reached by them concerning the completion of pending discovery.
5.
Any remaining disputes shall be fully described by each party,.and the bases for their respective positions
. shall be accompanied by points and authorities sufficient to enable the Board to rule on a71 matters in controversy. Copies cf each interrogatory or response remaining in disputc sha11 be set forth-verbatim in such statments of position.
6.
This conference and written reports by CFUR and the Applicants shall be given priority and expedited treatment by the parties, in view of.the accelerated schedule for the conclusion of' discovery and the commencement of evidentiary hearings.
It is so ORDERED.
.FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L
, Marshall E. Miller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of July, 1981.
.