ML20042B413
| ML20042B413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1982 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203250289 | |
| Download: ML20042B413 (3) | |
Text
'
w-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUALTORY COMi11SSION
'82 WR 24 A10:07 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judgss:
%" ' ^... w tiarshall E. iiiller, Chairman
' Wii Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Richard F. Cole
. SERvtu MAR 241982
)
In the flatter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446
) (Application for Operating License)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENEPATING COMPANY, et al.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
p
~ y Units 1 and 2) 1 March 23, 198 j
fs f
G~..s 3O P a o ^
O, E w N:*
PROTECTIVE ORDER c \\ w,;l:
L /
The Staff filed a mction for a protective order on liarch Id 1982, "
^ 9' y
regarding Interrogatories 3(b) and 3(d) of CASE's first set of interroga -
tories, and Interrogatory 2 of CASE's second set of interrogatories. This motion for a protective order was supported by the Applicants' answer filed liarch 12, 1982. No answer to the motion was filed by CASE within the pre-scribed time (10 CFR 62.730).
CASE has stated that each set of interrogatories " deal directly with matters in controversy in these proceedings under Contention 5."1/
Contention 5 as admitted by the Board reads as follows:
" Contention 5.
The Applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construc-tion permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the require-ments of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction
. practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, 1
YS 1/ etters from CASE to the Board dated February 10, 1982 and February 13, L
1982, pp. 1.
/0 8203250289 820323 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0
e
. mortar blocks, steel, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifi-cations and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC) and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary for isnance of an operating license for Comanche Peak."
The Staff's motion stated that although objections to these interroga-tories in their entirety would properlyfie under 10 CFR 52. 20(h)(2)(ii),2/
the Staff objected specifically only to the three described interrogatories.
The parties also complied with the Board's prior request to confer directly by a telephone conference call and they were able to resolve many of their discovery problems voluntarily. Such practice'is to be commended.
The Staff has voluntarily provided much of ~ the information requested in the three challenged'inte'rrogatories but it has also moved for a
~
protective order to preclude further discovery on these subjects. The motion will be granted.
Interrogatory 3(b) of CASE's first set of interrogatories inquires whether the Staff informed the Board "of the certification problems referenced in these documents." Interrogatory 3(d) requests, if the 2/- The 'Corrission's Rules of Practice specifically exempt the Staff from responding to interrogatories except as provided by 10 CFR 62.720(h)(2)
(ii). See 10 CFR 62.740b(a). The provisions of 10 CFR 52.720(h)(2)(ii) are as follows:
[A] party may file with the presiding officer written interroga-tories to be answered by NRC-personnel with knowledge of the facts designated by the Executive Director for Operations.
Upon a find-ing by the presiding officer that answers to interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source, the presiding officer may require that the staff answer the interrogatories.
See also Pennsylvania Pover and LNht Co., et al. (Susquehanna Steam Elec-tric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980).
3-answer is no, why such certification problems do not cone within the Board's order that it be kept advised of significant events in this proceeding.
These interrogatories are objectionable because they are not relevant, they are not necessary to a proper decision, and they tend to be argumenta-tive.
Interrogatory 2 to CASE's second set of interrogatories seeks to elicit a Staff comparison of " similarities" between the " problems" at Comanche Peak and another nuclear facility (South Texas fluclear Project). Such comparisons are not proper or necessary to a decision in this proceeding.
This interrogatory is also objectionable for the reasons set forth above.
We note that the Staff has voluntarily provided information on these subjects.
For the foregoing reasons, 'the Staff's motion for a protective order is granted as to said CASE interrogatories, and no further responses need be made.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD nll b.
Marshall E. Itiller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of 11 arch,1982.
e
.f
- - - -