ML20039D734
| ML20039D734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Neuman R ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8201060073 | |
| Download: ML20039D734 (14) | |
Text
e-f nLUIED CORUFSONDENr}
Y
/
D00Kcma UNITED STATFe 0F AMERICA I?.:
NUCLEAR REGULATGRY COMMISSION I2 J
9
_ AN 41999 y 4.,
- 0!&nYtM sw:n, IN THE MATTER OF
)
.\\'
'0"k9 a b.5 ILL!N0IS POWER LOMPANY, 4
sin,,Ms '
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, 4/
INC. and WESTERN ILLIN0IS
'3 POWEX COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL (Operating License for
)
Clinton Power Station,
)
Unit 1) e
- p RECElVED
, \\,
41 ILLIN0IS' MOTION TO COMPEL g5 79826
-- 1 S
"'"a"me" l @'
ANSWERS TO ITS SECOND SET 0F INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F me q
DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANTS co w
The State of Illinois (Illinois), by its attorney, TYRONE C. FAHNER, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, moves the presiding officer, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740 (f),
for an order compelling applicants, Illinois Power Company, Soyland Power-Company, and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc. (IP), to answer interrogatories and produce documents.
In support of this motion Illinois states as follows:
I.
Procedural History
.7 On November 16, 1981 Illinois served IP~with Illinoi3' 1"
Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
Illinois did so pursuant to a Discovery Schidule s
l#
'i
- a2
>f O
!!!ASte88FMk.
6# (
f Iz G
(
t 3,
=.
N
)
set by a Board Order, filed.on October 29, 1981, which in. turn approved the parties' Joint Motion for Establishing Discovery Sch'edule, filed with the Board on October 13, 1981.
On December 15, 1981 IP~ served on Illinois by mail its response to' Illinois' discovery reques.ts.
On December 21, 1981 Illinois received IP's i
response.
4 In its response IP objected to-all the interrogatories.
propounded by Illinois, except for. Interrogatories Nos. 25-27, 52,.
So, 56Jand 58.
IP also objected to all of Illinois' document-pro-duction reques.ts, except for Request No.
1.
This motion. requests ~
an order compelling answers to all interrogatories and production requests to which IP objected, and certain others to which incom.
plete' answers were given.
II.
Illinois' Response To IP's General Objection's A.
The Scope of First Round Discovery y,
IP objected to many or most of Illinois' discovery requests on the assertion that Illinois is now foreclosed from~ receiving the V -information requested in second round discovery because IP'already a
inade it available to'11linois in response to more general -first.
round-discovery request,s.
IP believes that it satisfied its ob-
. s. s ligations;in. first round discovery because it allowed Illinois' attorneys.to ' search for, several days through-a file room. full of m,.
,cw.
g%_ j 4[ k.
b' f4 L/
\\
~-
V9,,
' 4' 7
~
.j-
,?
-r
~.
_g
'g j
{
. _ y.
t b.
-*+ -
i
documents, with only a. general index as a guide to where information might be.found.
The issue here is whether this general attempt at compliance with first-round discovery re-quests now forecloses Illinois from more specific. second round discovery requests.
Illinois' second round requests focus on and seek clarification of. matters raised by the Prairie Alliance Con-tentions and touched upon in the first round of discovery re-quests.
As IP acknowledges, the second round requests seek much more. specific information concerning events, positions and documents chan did previous requests.
Nevertheless, IP
-argues that much of the information sought in Illinois' second round requests has already been provided in the first round, such that further inquiry now should be barred.
That argu-ment, while having some superficial appeal, rests on a faulty premise.
Concerning the matters for which discovery is sought in'the second round, Ir in the first round chose to respond in vague terms by announcing that-the'" documents were available for inspection".
In its Memorandum and Order of. December 17, 1981 ruling upon Prairie Alliance's and Illinois' Motions to Compel, the Board properly chastised IP for failing to. comply with the specificity requirements 10 CFR S 2.740(b)(1) regarding discovery, and ordered IP to more fully respond to certain first round requests in accordance with that regulation.
IP's shotgun {
.]
i 4
approach to production, without identifying and specifying documents pertinent to a particular discovery request, has resulted in far less than full disclosure, as Illinois' attorneys have had to try to locate-and identif / the relevant documents.
Granted, IP has supplied Illinois with an index_to its files, ostensibly pertaining to matters raised by Contention 2.
However, this index was provided very late in the first round of discovery and only at the request of Illinois.
IP has yet to attempt to identify and correlate specific files with the requests made.
Thus, to the extent that IP has chosen an improper and un-duly burdensome approach to production in the first round and given that IP remains ordered by the Board to answer certain fi rs t round' requests, it cannot be said that the information in dispute has "already been provided".
For its part, Illinois in the second discovery round has formulated very narrow and specific requests in hopes'of both avoiding the avalanche-likr.
response IP has made previously and expediting discovery.
How-ever, IP has unreasonably withheld information on the basis of its insufficient f'rst round response.
B.
The Scope of Second Round Discovery IP's second general objection is that Illinois' discovery requests are beyond the scope of second round discovery because the information requestad is not necessary for clarification of z
e responses to first round discovery.. IP asserts thet-Illinois iscattempting_to broaden discovery in the second round, rather than clarify responses made in -the first round.. At_ issue here, is whether a'li of IP's responses in_the first round were
~
- first, hific enough so=that Illinois could ask for information that
.spe
' would clarify those respons'es.
If so, then the issue becomes whether Illinois's more specific second round discovery ~ requests do in fact clarify those matte;s.
Many of IP's responses to first round discovery requests, were so lacking in-specificity that no substantive matters were raised which could be clarified in-second round.
This is parti-cularly true for-IP's document production, which~, as. stated earlier, IP.cannot consisted of access to all possibly relevant documents.
now claim'that the second round of discovery is broader than the round, when IP's response to the first round was so un-first specified.
Some of the second round requests made by Illinois are clearly related to the few specific responses IP gave in the first round.
As can be seen below, Illinois has indeed asked for infor-mation_to explain or refine IP's previous answers.
I
~
In.any event, Illinois's second round discovery is l'
for clarification of matters raised in the Prairie
!~
l essential Alliance Contentions.
In contrast to the-more general requests l
of the first. round, Illinois has asked for more specific-informa- '
L.
tion in the second round on a range of issues related to the contentions.
The purpose here is to narrow the broad allegations found within the contentions.
Without the information requested the contentions s.'ill continue to consist of almost boundless allegations.
The need for the information requested in second round I
discovery is heightened by the lack of specificity in IP's re-sponses to first round discovery.
As the Board has pointed out in its Memorandum and Order of December 17, 1981, IP's answer does not comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.740(b)(1) as to specificity.
The lack of specificity in IP's first round responses was maanified by the burdensome nature of IP's docu-ment production.
Illinois' attorneys spent several days in IP's Decatur office, searching through a room full of documents, with a general index the only guide at hand as to where :the desirt information might be found.
Having discovered little of the information sought in first round, Illinois now pursues par-ticularized answers - including information on the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of documents -
to questions that are relevant to this proceeding.
IP misconstrues the agreement, reached by the partie.'
in the Joint Motion for Establishing a Discovery Schedule, that the scope of second round discovery is " limited to clarification of matters raised in the first round."
The purpose of that agree-ment is to narrow the exact nature of each contention by the use m
of more specific discovery requests.
The purpose of the agreement is not-to set arbitrary limits on discovery that is otherwise-permissibleLunder-the NRC Rules of Practice-and-Procedure.
IP's-objection frustrates the purpose of
' the discovery schedule 11n this proceeding, which'is to refine each contention in each round by the use of more specific discovery requests.
III.
Illinois' Response to IP's Specific Objections A.
Contention 2 1.
Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 8.
Illinois repeats it argument found in Section II-B.
In. addition, Illinois points out 4
'that the Board,-in its Memorandum and Order of December 16, 1981, has already ordered IP t'o make a categorial response to Interrogatory 13d in the first round.
2.
Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13.
' Illinois repeats it argument found in Section II-B.
In addition, the response to Interrogatory 9. C.
is incomplete in that reference is made to written complaints only.
il i
4
.IP is-obliged to supply information concerning_ complaints of any kind or form.
Interrogatories Nos. 11_and'12:,.14 -
3.
19.
IP states: that' the information re-questeu was provided in response to Interregatory No. 4 of the first1round.
IP's response in that instance was that relevant documents'are available for i
inspection at the IP-offices.
Illinois did not find the-information it sought.
In light of_this general response Il_li.nois now makes afspecific request for the infor-mation concerning Inspection Report 50-461/81-
'05.
These-requests are clearly meant to clarify matters discovered in first round, in that-Illinois is asking'IP to further explain what changes, if-any, it has made in re-sponse'to the findings of~that report.
L 4.
Interrogatories Nos. 20-24.
- Illinois repeats L
[
its argument found in Section II-B.
In l
addition, IP.h'as objected to these Interroga-L tories on gounds-of " vagueness".
Interroga-l l
l I
I l
(. ~,
a tory'20 simply seeks.information designed to identify factors contributing to over-runs, delays or other construction-related l problems.
Interrogatories 21-24 seek docu -
ments or other information' relating to specific criticisms of ~IP. management capabilities.
B.
Contention 3 1.
Interrogatories:25-27.
Contrary to the specification requirements 'of 10 CFR Section 2.740(b)(1) and to the instructions-preceding the Second Set of Interrogatories, IP has failed tol fully identify-the-documentation relied upon in making its responses.
2.
Interrogatories 28-34.
Illinois repeats its-argument found_ in Section II-B.
C.
Contention 10.
1.
Interrogatories Nos. 35-48,51.
Illinois repeats its-argument found in'Section II-B.
In. addi tion, Illinois states that these' interrogatories _ask for further explanation of statements IP has made in the FSAR and its
~
amendments,_ statements made by the NRC S taf f i n di s covery, -or s ta tements 'made by.IP in discovery.
i 2.
Interrogatories Nos. 49 and 50.
Illinois repeats its argument found in Section II-B.
Illinois also states that it would not find H
the answer in the documents IP purportedly produced in response to Interrogatory No.
t 46d of the first round.
l I
D.
Contention 12 1.
Interrogatory 52.
Contrary to the specification requirements of 10 CFR E 2.740(b)(1) and to-the Instructi'ns preceding the Second Set of Inter-rogatories, IP has failed to! fully identify the documentation relied upon in-making its responses.
2.
Interrogatories Nos. 53, 55, and-59.
Illinois repeats it argument found in Sc: tion II-B.
In addition, Illinois states that these interro-gatories ask for further explanation of IP statements made in the FSAR and its amend-ments.
3.
Interrogatory No. 57.
IP's answer is un-responsive.
Illinois asks IP what it will do if a spent fuel. load becomes stuck'in the
~
. e tube during transfer..IP's statement that it will! take the 'necessary steps-to correct.the malfunction ore remove the fuel is vague and-incomplete.
IV.
f IP's-Response to Request for-Production:of Documents 1.
Document _ Requests Nos. 2-8.
Illinois repeats its argument found in Section II-A.
2.
Document Request No. 9.
Illinois repeats its argument found in Sections II-A and B.
3.
Document Requests Hos. 10 and 11.
Illinois. repeats its argument found I
in Section II-A.
4.
Document Requests Nos. 12-17.
Illinois repeats.its argument found in Sections II-A and B~.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above Illinois asks I
the Board to order IP to answer the Interrogatories and produce documents in response to the Document ~ Requests listed above.
Respectfully submitted, TYRONE C. FAHNER ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ILLIN0IS BY:
kLEd d. d E cuo u 0F COUNSEL:
Reed W. Neuman l
l Reed-W. Neuman Assistant Attorney General Philip-L._ Willman Environmental Control Division Assistant. Attorneys General 500 South Second St.
Springfield, I L~
62706 DATED:
December 31, 1981
.(217) 782-9031
.s UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
IN THE MATTER OF
.-)
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY,.
)-
S0YLAND POWER COOPERATIVE,.
INC. and WESTERN-ILLIN0IS POWER COOPERATIVE,'INC.
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL (0perating License _for Clinton)
Power Station, Unit 1)-
-)
)
CERTIFICATE:0F SERVICE I hereby certify that :I _ served ~ copies of Illinois' Motion To. Compel Answers To Its Second Set Of Interrogatories and Second. Request for Production of Documents-to Illinois Power. Company on the persons listed.on the attached' Notice by causing same to be deposited.in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on' this 3-1st day of December,.
1981.
N.
Euwi(UA REED W.
NEUMAN
\\
+-
DOCKETED USf;RC
~ 02 b _4 gj j g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION y -> y c 7 r m ',
IN THE MATTER OF-
-)
!* ^ "". "
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY,
)
S0YLAND POWER COOPERATIVE,
)
INC.'and-WESTERN ILLIN0IS
)
POWER COOPERATIVE,.INC.
)
.DocketJNo. 50-461'0L1
)
(Operating License for Clinton)
Power Station, Unit 1)
)
N211CE T0:
Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chhirman P.O.
Box 127A Kennedyville, Maryland 21645-Dr. George A. Ferguson School ~of Engineering Howard Universi ty 2300 Sixth: Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20059 Dr. Oscar H.. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission p
' Wa s h i n g ton,1D. C.
20555 l
Richard J. Goddard Office of1the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission L.
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Peter V.
Fazio, Jr.
Schiff, Hardin, & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Prairie Alliance P.O.
Box 2424.
Station A Champaign, Illinois 61820 I
l l
s-e-
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today mailed for filing with the Secretary, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section, one original and two conformed copies of Illinois' Motion To Compel Answers To Its-Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents to Illinois ~ Power. Company.
A copy-of this document is attached and served upon you.
f
. A %Q ut REED-W. NEUMAN
\\
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 (217) 782-9031 DATED:
December 31, 1981