ML20059C534

Memorandum & Order (Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories,Set 3).* State of VT Need Not Answer Interrogatories 1,5,14 or 15 Presently But Obligated To,If Further Info Develops.Served on 900827.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20059C534
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	08/27/1990
From:	Kline J, Lazo R, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	VERMONT, STATE OF
References
CON-#390-10771 89-595-03-OLA, 89-595-3-OLA, OLA-4, NUDOCS 9009050121
Download: ML20059C534 (10)

Text

_ _ . . . . . . _ , . . . . .

- g '. .I , '

4 077/i 00CKETED USNitC -

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g pjj M*,

NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

t '

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. BOARD OT!cE OF NCpETAFY MCK!.imn a V i'VI!

• Before Administrative Judges:- N#

Robert M. Lazo, Chairman '

d Jerry R. Kline M kN 27 j Frederick J.,Shon.

In the Matter-of:- Docket No.~ 50-271-OLA-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ASLBP No. 89-595-03-OLA POWER CORPORATION-(Construction Period Vermont Yankee Nuclear Recapture)

Power Station August 27, 1990 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Comoel Answers to Interroaatories. Set No. 3)

Before us is the Licensee's Motion to comoel Answers to Interroaatories (VYNPC Set No. 3), filed June 1, 1990 a (Motion). 'The Motion concerns responses to five interrogatories, numbers 1, 5, 13, 14, and 15, contained in the Resoonses to Interroaatories bv' State of Vermont to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corooration (Set No. 3) filed ~

hay 17. The State of Vermont-(SOV) filed its State of

] Vermont Answer in Oooosition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corocration Third Motion to comoel and State of Vermont Acolication for a Protective Order on June 18 (Answer). For the reasons set forth below (largely reasons we have M

=

previously iterated in dealing with previous similar l

1 9009050121 900827 p gDR ADOCK0500gl.

3

, , + . ~ . . - . . _ ., - . . . . . _

= .- . ~. .- - - -

j

~

3. -  %

- 2 N ,

motions)Lwe deny the motion in the main-and grant only a limited part of it.

s i

GRDeral Princioles y

We have clearly set forth.the governing general principles concerning discovery and motions to compel in two. ,'

previous orders: In our MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Comoel Answers to Interrocatories. (Set No. 1) of May 24 l (Memo on 1) and our MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Comoel-Answers to Interroaatories. Set ,No. 2)- of July 20 (Memo on 2). There we said "(W]here the State has truthfully answered an interrogatory to the extent'it is able to do so 7

at a given stage of its case preparation on the-point in question, additional information acquired by it during later l stages of its case preparation will be considered by us to '

1 be a response falling within the category of responses described in 10 C.F.R. 2. 740 (e) (2 ) (ii) and subject to supplementation on that' basis" (Memo on 1 at 4). And we expanded upon that principle, saying "When information is in-the process of being developed, a party need provide only that information currently in its possession, subject to supplementation where appropriate...It will not be compelled to develop its case prematurely, to accommodate the desires of an opposing party" (Memo on 2 at 5, citation omitted).

. ... . - - . . . . , .,--.--.w. . . - - . . . . - - - - , - ~ -

3

, a We note that in'its Answer SOV flatly states " Vermont fully intends to comply with 10'C.F.R. 2.740(e)" (Answer at 3). We expect such-compliance, and our rulings herein are based upon that expectation.

We treat of the individual interrogatories in dispute.

infra.

l I Interrocatorv No. 1:

{:

This interrogatory and all'the others here at issue are of the nature of " follow-on" queries based upon answers to -

interrogatories in Vermont Yankee's Set No. 1. This one seeks to have SOV name SALP reports or "other enforcement actions" relating to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) where NRC placed importance on " clearly established A

management controls" to alleviate a shortage'of qualified maintenance personnel as Vermont-Yankee believes.SOV had asserted in-reply to Interrogatory 8 of Set 1 (Motion at-2).

. SOV answered that it did not say that SALP reports or i

enforcement actions related to VYNPS were examples of cases where NRC stressed the importance of such controls, and SOV cited only one VYNPS report where NRC attached importance to management and three general category definitions where NRC mentioned " licensee management attention. and involvement."

't - *6 o.

Licensee complains that this' answer is evasive since a h

proper answer should be "None" (Motion at 3).

In response, SOV says "Since the licensee seems to have understcod=our answer correctly as 'none' there is no reason '

to compel further response" (Answer at 4). Fe agree. No further response is needed.

j Interroaatory No. 5 1

! i i l This interrogatory sought further clarification of a-  !

1

- term, " correct controls," used by SOV in its response to -

Interrogatory 8 of Set No. 1 (Motion at 4). Vermont replied ,

that it had not yet determined what was-included within the j scope of the term (Id.). Licensee now complains that such a  !

response is " clearly dodging" (Id.). SOV pleads that the definition'it gave was really a complete response, but it {

acknowledges that at the time of writing it.was just i beginning to receive material that might bear on the point, i

- and it reiterates its willingness to supplement answers as appropriate (Answer at 5, note 5).

F We see no reason to compel further response at this t

time. SOV is aware of its responsibility.

i l

, , - - .w- , .%. . . - m

. - - - .~ _

' I S-Interroaatory No. 13 The dispute about this interrogatory further illustrates the onion-like layer-on-layer nature of most of i the disputes in this group. The licensee'wants additional j details on a series.of assertions responding to an original 1 multi-part question. In its Interrogatory 10 of Set 1, l

l licensee asked whether Sov contended that the availability of replacement personnel for maintenance purposes would be different in 2007 and in 2012. SOV replied, in effect, that obtaining such personnel would be more difficult in 2012 i because of the " continuing decline of nuclear power." - f Interrogatory 10b. of that same set then asked whether the-basic skills and aptitudes of such personnel would be different from those required for other large industrial installations such as fossil-fueled power plants or paper L

mills. While objecting to the comparison, SOV listed a +

total of six reasons why nuclear maintenance personnel would i-need greater skills, aptitude, and knowledge than personnel in coal- and oil-fired plants. Licensee then asked (Interrogatory 13 of Set 3) for e ch fact and all evidence in Sov's possession and for all technical expertise relied upon to back up each of the reasons SOV listed for believing ,

there is a difference in the skills and aptitudes required i for nuclear and fossil plant personnel. SOV objects that it has not yet decided to gather this information, and it

,~, - .

o zu

! -asserts that it is incumbent uponl licensee to propose a

~

source-of maintenance personnel (Answer at A-6). Licensee' '

complains that "All this interrogatory sought was the factual basis, possessed at that time by SOV, for a series of SOV's-own assertions."'(Motion at 5). '

We find the resolution of this conflict difficult, not because it is so weighty but because it seems so-trivial.

We have carefully examined the "six assertions" that l

allegedly set forth differences in the qualifications for i

maintenance personnel in nuclear and~ fossil plants. They mention such matters as complexity of the systems

-themselves, complexity of the regulations governing them, consequences of maintenance errors, stricter arug and i

alcohol abuse controls, and a willingness to suffer radiation exposure. A knowledge of why-SOV thinks these differences exist would,.on the one hand,-scarcely seem likely to lead the licensee to usable evidence. -on the ,

other hand, SOV must have some reasons for believing these-f things. Most likely SOV relies on what it trusts is common knowledge, or it relies on the word of one of its experts.

Surely it is no great burden to ask that Sov say that.

s

%ht hold for the licensee in this matter. Sov should state, for each of the six assertions, what it is that makes SOV believe the assertion is factual.

E.-

4

' i

-7 Interroaatory No. li 1

This interrogatory asks a detailed description of the

" level of awareness" that SOV contends personnel'in nuclear power plants must have-of the relationship between certain -

power plant systems (Motion at 6). The concept arises from the. same answer to a set 1 interrogat t,/ that occasioned the previous interrogatory. It refers, in fact, to the '

assertion in that response that nuclear maintenance personnel must have an awareness of.the complexity of nuclear plants and the complex interactions of the plants' systems. SOV replied that would be unduly burdensome to expect it to quantify specifically the awareness needed in nuclear maintenance personnel. Nonetheless, it cites an INPO document which it says "gives examples of knowledge and skills that maintenance craftspersons should have" (Answer at 6-7), and it identifies the SOV expert who supplied its information (14.). While Sov admits that the INPO document may not be a complete listing of 11 guidance" (Id.), we believe that such a reference is all that is needed at this time. If licensee is determined to wring the last drop of

-information on this detail, it could easily explore the matter by deposing the named witness.

,e

,<- . 'l J

J We will not compel.a further answer at this time.

.If -

SOV; develops ~further information it must supplement.its answer. '

Interroaatory No. 15 This interrogatory, like No. 14 above, asks details on the " awareness"'which nuclear plant maintenance personnel  !

must have of_ requirements, commitments, and regulations.

SOV objects again on grounds similar to those it alleged in response to_No. 14., and it offers the name of the same -

3 witness it mentioned in connection with No. 14. We do not think any further answer is necessary at this time. SOV will supplement if it develops further information.

Licensee can explore the matter during the witness's deposition.

ponclusion SOV need not answer interrogatories-1, 5, 14, or 15.

further at this time but is subject to an obligation to supplement its answers if it develops further information..

SOV shall answer interrogatory 13 specifically to disclose any facts in its possession that it believes

support the:six statements made'in response to-interrogatory 10b. of Set No. 1.

IT IS SO ORDERRn .

THE. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN NG' BOARD-

]$l -

Robert M. azo, Chairman ADMINIST TIVE JUDGE

,/

W Jgrry R. 3.line ApMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

,. (7) ,

d.( $ N H D'Y Fr#derick J. Shon ADMINISTRA VE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 27th day of August 1990.

P

.d 4 .. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

NUCLEAR REBULATORY COMMISSION 1:

In the Matter'of' ' .l VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER 1 Docket No.(s) 50-271-OLA-4' CORPORATION I (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i Station) i I

l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MnD (NOTION TO COMPEL ...)

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first' class, except as otherwise'noted and in accordance with the requirements of to CFR Sec. 2.712. ,

1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board Robert M. Lazo, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555' Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington,-DC 20555, ,

Ann P. Hodqdon R. K. Gad i Ill i. Esquire 0Hice of the General Counsel Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One International Place-Washincton, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02110 Anthony 2. Roissani Esquire James Volz, Esquire Cohen. Milstein & Hausfeld Interim Director for Pub. Advocacy 1401 New . York Avenue, Suite 600, NW Vermont Department of Public Service Washington, DC, 20005 120 State Street-Montpelier. VT 05602 Dated at Rockville, Md. this .

27 day of August 1990

. .. Assel.tA kth ........ ......

Offic of the Secretary of the Commission

. . _ _ ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . .