ML20039E868
| ML20039E868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1982 |
| From: | Gutierrez J, Sells D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201110562 | |
| Download: ML20039E868 (13) | |
Text
.
01/08/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m-g\\M',z In the Matter of
)
lp
^#
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
)
50-499 4 c 4
/;~
/+
GD )y-d \\
(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) j NRC STAFF RESPONSE T0 "CEU AND CCANP JOINT INTERR0GATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NRC STAFF PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 1981" Pursuant to the Li, censing Board's Orders of December 16 and 21, 1981, 10 C.F.R. 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and 5 2.744, t > NRC Staff hereby responds, in writing and under oath, to the following interrogatories:
General Objections The Staff objects to the entire set of interrogatories propounded by the Intervenors since the procedures prescribed by 10 C.F.R.
i 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii) were not followed and the requisite showings of need for the information for a proper decision and the unavailability of the information from the sources was not made. That section provides that a party seeking the NRC Staff to respond to interrogatories must first file any proposed interrogatories with the presiding officer. Upon a finding by the presiding officer that answers to the propounded interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers are not reasonably obtainable from any other source, the presiding officer may require the Staff to answer interrogatories. Although discovery DESIGNATED ORIGINAR Cert 1ftel! Ti?
8201110562 820108 7
e PDR ADOCK 05000498 t
rules within NRC practice from parties other than the Staff are modelled af ter the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery against the Staff is on a different footing. See, Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-613,12 NRC 317, 322-23 (1980).
... With limited exceptions, Commission regulations make staff documents that are relevant to licensing proceedings routinely available in the NRC Public Document Room.
The contemplation is that these "should reasonably disclose the basis for the staff's position,"
thereby reducing any need for formal discovery.
Reflective of that policy, the Rules of Practice limit documentary discovery against the staff to items not reasonably obtainable from other sources, 10 L.F.R. 2.744; require a showing of " exceptional circumstances" to depose staff personnel, 10 C.F.R. 2.720(h) and 2.740a(j); and allow interrogatories addressed to the staff only "where the information is necessary to a proper decision in the case and not obtainable elsewhere." See 10 C.F.R. 2.720(h)(2)(fi).
In addition, the licensing board's advance permission is needed to depose staff members or to require the staff to answer written _ interrogatories.
Ibid.
Susquehanna, supra at 323, (footnotes omitted). See, Consumers Power Co.
(Palisades Nuclear Power Facility), ALJ-80-1, 12 NRC 117, 119, (1980).
See also, Statement of General Policy and Procedure:
Conduct of Proceedings for the issuance of... operating licenses...
10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. A, IV(d).
The Intervenors have not followed the above procedures in the instant case; and have not even attempted to show that the information
sought is necessary for a proper decision and that it is not otherwise II obtainable Those interrogatories seeking the identities of persons interviewed during the investigation which resulted in I&E Report 81-28 or infor-mation which led to the discovery of those persons are particularly objectionable in light of the recent Appeal Board decision in this very case holding, in part, that in the context of a discovery request, the government enjoys a privilege to withhold from disclosure the identities of persons who furnish information on potential violations of law to l
officers charged with enforcement of that law. Houston lighting and Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-639, 13 NRC 469, 473, (1981).
Notwithstanding the above cited authority, and in no way intending to waive any of its rights to object to formal discovery, the Staff, in an effort to expedite this proceeding, voluntarily offers the following responses:
Interrogatory No.1 What is the NRC Staff position on CCANP Contention #23? State all facts and opinions and identify and provide copies of all documents on which that opinion is based.
Response
See, I&E Report 81-28, pp. 2, 4-6.
Production of any further information relative to facts, opinions or documents not contained in the report itself is objected to for the reasons set forth in the General Objections.
1/
The Commission's concern that answers to unneeded interrogatories not be required of the Staff was emphasized in Commission's
" Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings" of May 20, 1981. 46 Fed. M. 28553 (May 27, 1981); 13 NRC 452, 455-456 (1981).
- Interrogatory No. 2 What is the NRC Staff position on CCANP Contention #24? State all facts and opinions and identify and provide copies of all documents considered in reaching that opinion.
1
Response
See, response to Interrogatory No. 1.
Interrogatory No. 3 Please explain in detail how the decision is made in assigning initials to individuals involved in I&E Report 81-28.
In addition N ease set out the physical location of each individual that was interviewed, giving the address of each.
Response
Initials are assigned randomly. The remainder of Interrogatory No. 3 is objected to pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.720(h)(2)(ii) in that the T
l Intervenors have made no showing that the information requested is i
i necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. See also, General Objections.
Interrogatory No. 4 l
Were any Brown & Root employees interviewed during the 81-28 investigation? If the answer is yes, please state which individuals and give the time and physical location of each at the time of the interview.
If the answer is not, please explain why not.
Response
Yes, for example, see, p. 8 of 81-28. The remainder of the infor-mation requested is objected to pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii) in that the Intervenors have not made a showing that the identities of the individuals and the physical location of each at the time they were interviewed is necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding.
See also, General Objections.
4
)
- Interrogatory No. 5
~
Please state all information supplied by each individual B&R employee in detail including but not limited to all documents, memos, notes and letters examined by the investigators / inspectors.
Response
All information relevant to the allegations investigated in I&E Report 81-28 is set forth in that Report.
The remainder of Interrogatory
]
No. 5 is objected to pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and 9 2.744(c) and (d) in that the Intervenors have not made the required showing that the requested documents are necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. See also, Ganeral Objections.
Interrogatory No. 6 What is the NRC Staff position on CCANP Contention #25? State all facts and opinions and identify and provide copies of all documents considered in reaching that position.
Response
See, I&E Report 81-28, pp. 2, 6-7 and answer to Interrogatory No.1.
Interrogatory No. 7 Please provide copies of the following documents:
Document 1 - HL&P office memo #Q-7050, dated June 5, 1981 Document 2 - HL&P office memo #Q-9000, dated June 11, 1981 Document 3 - B&R letter, SFN #Q-0100, dated June 30, 1981 Docunent 4 - HL&P office memo #Q-5000, dated July 24, 1981 Document 5 - HL&P letter, SFN #Q-3200, dated August 24, 1981
Response
This document request is objected to pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and 9 2.744(c) and (d) in that the Intervenors have made no showing that the requested document, or the information contained therein, is not reasonably obtainable from another source.
Specifically,
. ~.
f-,
~
HL&P documents are requested and there has been no. showing these documents cannot be obtained through the Houston Lighting and Power Co.
See also, General Objections.
Interrogatory No. 8 Please explain in detail how the NRC investigator / inspectors identified NCR ST-5A as the NCR referred to in the HL&P office memo dated June 5, 1981.
Response
i Objected to as there is no showing this information is necessary
- )
for a proper decision and for the other reasons set forth in the General Objections.
Interrogatory No. 9 Is the NRC aware of any actions after. August 22, 1981 taken by individual W regarding the resolution of NCR ST-5A? Please explain in detail providing copies of all documents relied on in formulating the answer to this interrogatory.
Response
No.
Interrogatory No. 10 Please provide copies of all documents, including but not limited to the notes taken by investigators / inspectors, regarding the investigation 4
leading to I&E Report 81-28.
Response
See response to Interrogatory No. 7 and for the reasons set forth in the General Objections.
Interrogatory No. 11 Please describe in detail all contacts between NRC investigators /
inspectors and HL&P Auditors subsequent to the response letter referred l
to as Attachment 5 in I&E Report 81-28.
I l
i
k
Response
See, I&E Report 81-28; p. 7, top paragraph.
In addition several auditors were interviewed. As to any further detail, see General l
Objections.
Interrogatory No. 12 l
Where was individual C located? Houston, Bayview or STP Site?
l
Response
Objected to as responding to this interrogatory would tend to identify individual C.
See, General Objections.
Interrogatory No.13 Where was individual X located at the time he supervised individual C?
Response
See response to Interrogatory No.12.
Interrogatory No. 14 Where was individual W located at the time he supervised individual C?
Response
See response to Interrogatory No.12.
Interrogatory No. 15 Pleasa state your impressions or belief regarding the reason that supervision of individual C was removed from individual X and given to individual W.
l
- Response, l
l The Staff expresses no " impressions or belief" regarding this l
personnel reassignment.
l Interrogatory No. 16 Given the fact that both individual X and individual W are 90 miles from individual C, is there reason to believe that the background, experience and expertise of individual W is superior to that of i
l
individual X? Please explain in detail whether the answer is yes or no and provide copies of all documents relied on in formulating the answer to this interrogatory.
Response
The inspector and investigator did not specifically check the background, experience and expertise of individuals X and W for purposes of this investigation, and therefore, express no position.
Interrogatory No. 17 To the best of your knowledge, has individual W clarified individual C's job function.
Please explain in detail and provide copies of all documents relied on in formulating the answer to this interrogatory.
Response
No. The Staff has no knowledge relative to any clarification.
Interrogatory No. 18 Please identify which three individuals stated that they had not four any discrepancies and therefore had not written an NCR in the 6 months prior to the investigation.
Response
See,, - oeral Objections.
Interrupatory No. 20 Please identify the one individual that discovered an NCR condition, took his concerns to individual C, and was told to "tell Brown & Root to write up the NCR."
Explain fully what the condition was and if the NRC investigator / inspector determined whether B&R personnel actually wrote up the NCR.
Response
See, objection to Interrogatory No.12 and General Objections.
Interrogatory No. 21 Did the individual believe it was within his power to determine whether or not B&R actually wrote up the NCR and did he state that it was resolved in a timely and effective manner?
Response
The individual did state he believed it was within his power to determine whether or not B&R actually wrote up an NCR.
The Staff has no knowledge whether it was resolved in a timely and effective manner.
Interrogatory No. 22 Please indicate which individual was absent during one of the training periods on HL&P procedures.
Response
See, objections to Interrogatory No.12 and the General Objections.
Interrogatory No. 23 Please state whether or not the NRC investigator / inspectors were given access to individual C's log of his departments NCR's.
4
Response
Yes.
Interrogatory No. 24 If the answer to interrogatory 23 is yes, please provide a copy of j
the log and any other documents provided by individual C.
If the answer is no, please explain.
}
Response
The NRC Staff was not provided a copy of the log nor did individual C provide any other documents.
Interrogatory No. 25 What is the NRC Staff position on CCANP Contention #26? State all facts and opinions and identify and provide copies of all documents considered in reaching that position.
i
)
l 10 -
Response
See, I&E Report 81-28, pp. 2, 8-9, as well as the General Objections.
wb i
l Donald E. Sells l
Project Manager, South Texas Project e.
K d. - o f-J i.
i Jay M. Gutfyrrez
/j tounsel for NRC Staff >
j l
l 1
l
---w~
STATE OF MARYLAND 9
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY 5
DONALD E. SELLS, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the Project Manager, South Texas Project, United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission; that the foregoing "NRC Staff Response To 'CEV And oroduction Of Documents To NRC CCANP Joint Interrogatories And Request For Staff Pursuant To Board Order Of December 16, 1981,'" dated January 8, 1982, has been prepared under his supervision and direction; that he knows the contents thereof; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief said responses and the facts contained therein are true and correct.
DATED this 8th day of January,1982.
SIGNED:
-DM Donald E. Sells SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 before me this d day of f0'm 0.
n
/fotary Public in and for thh County of Montgomery, State of Maryland My Commission Expires:
/, /[82
(/ d '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY,)
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2) )
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO 'CEU AND CCANP JnINT INTFRRDGATORIES AND RE0 VEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NRC STAFF PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 1981'" in the above-captioned pro-ceeding have been served on the following by express nail or by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal nail system, this 8th day of January,1982:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Brian Berwick, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel Environmental Protection Division U.S. Huclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 3
l Washington, DC 20555 Austin, TX 78711 Dr. Jares C. Lamb III Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esq.
313 Woodhaven Road Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Mr. Ernest E. Hill Washington, DC 20036 Administrative Judge Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California Mrs. Peggy Buchorn P.O. Box 808, L-46 Executive Director Livermore, CA 94550 Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
Route 1, Box 1684 Baker and Botts Brazoria, TX 77442 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 Mr. Lanny Sinkin Citizens Concerned About William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Nuclear Power i
Harmon & Weiss 2207 D. Nueces 1725 I Street, N.W.
Austin, TX 78705 Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20U06
Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Barbara A. Miller Panel
- Pat Coy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Washington, DC 20555 Power 5106 Casa Oro Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal San Antonio, TX 78233 Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section*
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 vl 0
1 Jay /P1. Gutie i
., Counsel for/rrsz NRC Staff l
,-