ML20076M376
| ML20076M376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1983 |
| From: | Norton B NORTON, BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307200311 | |
| Download: ML20076M376 (24) | |
Text
-- , .
, N t ,. e
' '.5 Y 'w '
um ,- - ~c u zac m tscs 3 ,
n 3.-
ij.
vCL
?w#',. '
A : ,
if
\ ,3 Gysg.p.fQ 's 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA qj p rM
. 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 5
6 -
7 In the Matter of )
8 Docket No. 50-275 0.L.
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-323 0.L.
9
) )
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant ) (Reopened Hearing --
10 Units Nos. 1 and 2 ) Design Quality 11
) Assurance) 12 13 14 MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 15 TO JOINT INTERVENORS 16 17 18
- Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740(f)(1), Licensee moves ,
19 f_he presiding member of this board, and members thereof for 20 an order compelling Joint' Intervenors to answer kie 21 interrogatories' set forth below. The In'errogatories t to l 1
22 Joint Intervenors were served by Licensee on June 10, 1983
~ 23 and were responded to by Joint Intervenors by service by 24 mail on June 27, 1983.
2I' Without obtaining a protective order pursuant to 26 10 CFR 2.740(f)(1), Joint Intervenors objected to and failed 8307200311 830712 ,
PDR ADOCK 05000275
~ASD3
o l
1 to answer, or answered in an unresponsive manner, a majority
. 2 of the interrogatories propounded to them.
3 In Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and
! 4 Alleghany Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna . Steam 5 Electric Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317 6 (1980), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 7 discussed in great length the discovery responsibilities of 8 an intervenor in the regulatory process. As noted by the 9 Board, l 10 "
. . . Discovery is the descriptive term for procedures available to help liti-11 gants learn the nature of an adversary's case in advance of trial. . . . An 12
~
important reason .for allowing discovery is to eliminate, so far as possible, the 13 element of surprise in modern litiga-I- tion. The underlying concept is to 4' 14 shorten the actual trial, with its i attendant expense and inconvenience for
, 115 all concerned, while . increasing the parties' ability to develop a complete 16 record for decisional purposes." 12 NRC.
at 322.
17 18 As can be seen from'the responses to the interrogatories 19 propounded by the Licensee ,- the Joint Intervenors have 1
20 . totally disregarded their responsibilities in the discovery 21 process and have sought to undermine the preparation for and t
22 the conduct of an expeditious hearing in this matter.
23 INTERROGATORIES' 24 1. .. As to each person employed by PG&E, Bechtel, 25 the - PG&E/Bechtel " Project", or any of those entities' 26 ; subcontractors working on Diablo Canyon.that you have had e
9
+_
- _ - - - - - . . , - - , , . , . -. , , - . - - -,.n.,
l
.e i
1 communication with since November 21, 1981, regarding Diablo 2 Canyon, state:
3 (a) The name of each employee or representa-4 tive with whom you have communicated. (This interrogatory 5 is not intended to cover any administrative communications 6 regarding announced meetings between the NRC Staff and/or-7 the IDVP and/or PG&E).
8 (b) The name of each person involved on your 9 behalf in each communication.
10 (c) The date of each such communication.
11 (d) How the communication was made, i.e.,
12 whether by telephone, written instrument, personal meeting, 13 or otherwise.
14 (e) Who initiated each such communication.
15 (f) The substance .of information exchanged 16 during each such communication.
17 Response to Interrogatory No. 1:
18 Joint Intervenors object to this interrogatory on 19 the ground that it is overly broad, burdensome and 20 oppressive, and not reasonkbly calculated to lead t'o the
- 21 discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, and it calls 22 for privileged information (e.g., attorney work product; 23 informant). In addition, the information requested is fully 24 available to the Applicant at any time since the subject 25 employees are employed by the Applicant or its contractors.
26 777 l %
}.
1 Thus, the requested information can be obtained simply by 2 asking the employees themselves.
3 Argument 4 Other than the portion of the answer claiming 5 privileges this ~ objection is merely a general objection.
6 General objections of this nature are insufficient to 7 s support an objection to a discovery reque't.
8 As noted by the Board in Pennsylvania Power, 9 supra, 10 uIt is not proper for a party to ignore a discovery request. Interroga-11 tories, for example, must either be answered or objected to in the time 12 allowed. 10 CFR 2.740b(b). Objections may be accompanied by a motion for a 13 " protective . order" to modify or elimi-nate the obligation to respond, but the 14 movant must establish " good cause" for issuing such an order. 10 CFR 2.740(c).
15 And as in judicial practice, general objections do not provide that cause.
16 Challenges to interrogatories must be 17 ' specific enough' so that the
[ tribunal] can understand in 18 . what way the interrogatories are claimed to be objection-
- 19 able. General objections,
! .such as the objection that the.
20 interrogatories will require -
the party to conduct research
. 21 .and compile data, or that they are unreasonably burdensome, 22 oppressive, or vexatious, or that they seek information 23 that is as easily.available to the interrogating as to the 24 interrdgated party, or that
'they would cause annoyance, 25 expense, and oppression to the objecting party without serv-26 ing any purpose relevant to'
~
4
1 the action, or that they are duplicative of material al-
. 2 ready discovered through depo-sitions, or that they are ir-3 relevant and immaterial, or that they call for opinions 4 and conclusions, are insuffi-cient.' (Citing 4A Moore's 5 Federal Practice (1980 ed).
T 33.27 (at pp.33-151 and 6 33-152.)"
12 NRC-at 322-323.
7 Since the Intervenors have not articulated any specific 8 objection other than the alleged privileges the general 9 objections must be disregarded in a determination of the 10 necessity of their responding to this interrogatory.
11 The claims of privilege made by the Intervenors 12 have less basis than the general ' objections made above.
13 The work-product privilege applies only to the 14 discovery of documents and tangible things. 10 C.F.R. 15 6 2.740(b)(2); See, Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and 16 Procedure: Civil S 2024. It does not protect the identity 17 of individuals, the dates of communications, the manner of 18 contact or the substance of the communication such as sought 19 in this interrogatory. See, Lincoln Gateway Realty Co. v.
20 Carri-Craft, Inc. 53 F.R.D.'303 (1971). While the privilege 21 does protect against the disclosure of the mental l
' 22 impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an l
23 . attorney, nothing in Interrogatory No. 1 even remotely 24 requests such informat. ion. As a-result the claim of work 25 product privilege must fail.
26 /// %
e
-S-
l 1 Finally, the Joint Intervenors claim the shield of 2 the informants privilege to preclude responding to this ,
1 3 interrogatory. While it is true that protection of 4 informants has the full support of the Commission, by 5 definition, one can only be an informant if one provides 6 information to a governmental agency. See, Houston 7 Lighting & Power Company, ALAB-639, 13 NRC 469 (1981). The 8 Joint Intervenors are clearly not a governmental agency.
9 Therefore, the informant's privilege has no application to 10 the information requested in Interrogatory No. 1.
11 5. Identify each and every structure at Diablo 12 Canyon that you believe to be "important-to-safety",'but 13 which is not classified as design Class I. As to each such 14 structure identified, state:
15 (a) The bases for your opinion that the 16 structure should be considered "important-to-safety".
17 (b) Each regulation which, in your opinion, 18 requires each such structure to be classified as 19 uimportant-to-safety". .
20 (c) The date upon which each such recjulation
- 21 required each such structure to be so classified.
22 Response to Interrogatory No. 5:
23 To the extent that-this interrogatory requests 24 identification, of ea"ch individual structure that is 25 "important to safety" but not Class I, Joint Intervenors 26 object to this interrogatory as overly broad,' burdensome and
PPressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 1
2 discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without 3
waiving such objections, Joint Intervenors state that they 4 are unable to provide the information requested because the 5
Applicant's FSAR for Diablo Canyon fails to distinguish 6
between structures that are "important to safety" and 7
structures that are " safety-related." Those terms are 8
aPParently used interchangeably by the Applicant.
Argument 9
10 As noted above general objections of the type made
- 11 in the first sentence of the Joint Intervenors' response are 12 not a sufficient basis upon which to refuse to answer.
13 The remainder of the response is simply 14 unresponsive to the interrogatory. The interrogatory 15 clearly requests the Intervenors to state their belief 16 conceming structures at Diablo "important-to-safety" but not classified as design Class I . The characterization of 17 18 structures by the Licensee in its FSAR has absolutely no
- elevance to this interrogatory.
19 20 This interrogatory is designed to determine the 21 Intervenors' basis for the positions they have asserted 22 concerning structures "important-to-safety." In order to 23 Prepare for its case Licensee needs to know the structures 24 claimed by the Joint
- Intervenors to be "important-to-25 safety." Information necessary to the preparation of one's 26 case is discoverable. In re, Folding Carton Anti-Trust Case 1 83 F.R.D. 256 (N.D.Ill. 1979); Flour Mills g America v.
. 2 Pace 75 F.R.D. 676 (E.D.Okla. 1977); See, 4 Moore's Federal 3 Practice Section 33.14.
4 6. Identify specifically each and every system 5 at Diablo Canyon that you believe to be "important-to-6 safety", but which is not classified as design Class I. As 7 to each such system identified, state:
8 (a) The bases for your opinion that each 9 such system should be considered "important-to-safety".
10 (b) Each regulation which, in your opinion, 11 requires each such system to be classified as 12 "important-to-safety".
13 (c) The date upon which each such regulation 14 required each such system to be so classified.
15 Response to Interrogatory No. 6:
16 To the extent that this interrogatory requests 17 ' identification of each individual system that is "important 18 to safety'" but not Class I, Joint Intervenors object to this 19 interrogatory as overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, 20 and not reasonably calculat'ed to lead to the discovery of-21 relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving such 22 objections, Joint Intervenors state that they are unable to 23 provide the information requested because the Applicant's l
l 24 FSAR for Diablo Canyon fails to distinguish between systems 25 that are "important to safety" and systems that are 26 fff ,
1 " safety-grade." Those terms are apparently used 2 interchangeably by the Applicant.
3 Argument l
l 4 The arguments to compel discovery of the 5 information sought by Interrogatory No. 6 are the same as ,
6 those made in support of the argument to compel the answers 7 to No. 5 and are incorporated herein by reference.
8 7. Identify specifically each and every 9 component at Diablo Canyon that you believe to be 10 "important-to-safety", but which is not classified as design 11 Class I. As to each such component identified, state:
12 (a) The bases for -your opinion that each 13 such component should be considered "important-to-safety".
14 (b) Each regulation wh.fch, in your opinion, 15 requires each such component to be classified as 16 "important-to-safety".
. 17 (c) The date upon which each such regulation 18 required.each such component to be so classified.
19 Eesponse to Interrogatory No. 7:
20 To the extent that this interrogatory requesis
. 21 identification of each individual component that is 22 "important to safety" but not Class I, Joint Intervenors 23 object to this interrogatory as overly broad, burdensome and 24 oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
. 25 discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without 26 waiving such objections, Joint Intervenors state that they w
( ,
i
1 are unable to provide the information requested because the l l
2 Applicant's FSAR for Diablo Canyon fails to distinguir n '
3 between components that are "important to safety" and 4 components that are " safety-grade." Those terms are 5 apparently used~ interchangeably by the Applicant.
6 Argument .
7 The arguments to compel discovery of the 8 information sought by Interrogatory No. 7 are the same as 9 those made in support of the argument to compel the answers 10 to Nos. 5 and 6 and are incorporated herein by reference.
11 33. Mr. Hubbard, in his affidavits and/or his 12 declaration uses the following terms:
13 (a) " safety-significance" (b) " errors" 14 (c) " deficiencies" (d) " safety implications" 15 (e) - " design QA" (f) " safety hazard '
16 (g) " quality control" (h) " root cause" 17 (i) " basic cause" (j) "QA breakdown" 18 .
(k) " extreme likelihood" (1) " major errors" 19 (m) " rigorous and thorough design verification program" 20 (n) design. product" (o) " minor QA breakdown"
. 21 .(p ) uQA finding" (q) "QA observation" 22 23 As to each term, please:
24 (a) Give your definition of the term.
25 (b) Identify the regulation or other source 26 upon which you base your definition.
9
, - - r - ~ , -- - ,-,
1 (c) Give your explanation of the difference
. 2 between " safety-significance" and the terms 3 "important-to-safety" and " safety-related".
4 (d) Give your explanation of the difference 5 between " major errors" and " errors".
6 (e) Give your explanation of the differenc?
7 between " deficiencies" and " errors".
8 (f) Give your explanation of the difference 9 between a "QA breakdown" and a " major QA breakdown".
10 (g) Give your explanation of the difference 11 between a "QA breakdown" and a "QA finding".
12 (h) Give your explsnation of the difference 13 between a "QA breakdown" and a "QA observation".
14 Response to Interrogatory No. 13:
15 Joint Intervenors object to this interrogatory on 16 the ground that Mr. Hubbard is not employed by the Joint 17 Intervenors, and thus the request should be directed either 18 to Mr. Hubbard or to the Governor of California. To the 19 extent that this interrogatory calls for the Joint 20 Intervenors' definition of ' terms used by Mr. Hubbard', Joint 21 Intervenors object that such information is irrelevant and 22 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 23 relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving such 24 objections,' Jpint Intervenors supply the following 25 responses:
26 ///
s
~
1 (a), (b). The following definitions are based on
. 2 standard English usage as expressed in Webster's New 3 Collegiate Dictionary:
4 (1) " safety-significance": that which is materially 5 relevant to safety;-
6 (2) " errors": acts or bel-iefs which involve a 7 departure from accuracy; mistakes; discrepancies; 8 deficiencies; 9 (3) " deficiencies": acts or states of being which are 10 inadequate in scope or extent to comply with a specified 11 program or.to accomplish a specified objective; 12 (4) " safety implications": tilat which has import or 13 relevance with respect to a condition of safety; 14 (5) " design QA": see 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, 15 Introduction, as applied to the design process; 16 (6) " safety hazard": a condition or state of being 17 - which imposes or threatens to impose a danger of harm.
l 18 (7) " quality control": see 10 C.F.R. Part 50, 19 Appendix B,. Introduction;. -
20 (8) " root cause": an' occurrence or state of being 21 which accurately could be characterized a's having been the 22 precursor to a specific result or condition; 23 (9) " basic cause": an occurrence or state of being
)
24 which accurately could be characterized as having been. the i
25 necessary precursor to a specific result or condition; l 6 l
/// .
7 ..
I I.
. . _ __ J - ~---
_ _ _ __ r------------ , _ - -
t -
l s
1 (10) "QA breakdown": the ' failure of a program, action
. 2 or series of actions designed or intended to provide 3 adequate confidence that a structure, system; or component 4 will perform satisfactorily in service; ,
5 (11) " extreme . likelihood": a condition of being which 6 strongly militates towards a specified result.
1 7 (12) " major errors": mistakes of material significance' l 8 which are extreme in character.
9 (13) " rigorous and thorough design verification 10 program": a program as described in Response to 11 Interrogatory No. 21 infra; 12 (14) " design product": the ability of a program of 13 quality assurance to attain certain levels of performance 14 and safety.
15 (15) " minor QA breakdown": a potentially damaging but 16 relatively less significant failure to comply,with a program 17 as described in subparagraph (10) above; '
18 (16) "QA finding": an error, deficiency, discrepancy, 19 er other failure to comply with a prescribed QA program; 20 (17) "QA observation"i the gathering of data' or
^
21 conclusion of fact as a result of inquiry mandated by a 22 program or system designed to monitor and assure certain 23 levels of performance. '
24 (c) The , term "s'afety-significance" differs from the 25 term "important to. safety" and " safety-related" insofar as 26 /// _
4 2
7
i 1 the latter have specific meanings as outlined in Response to 2 Interrogatory No. 4, supra.
3 (d) See answers 13(a)(2) and 13(a)(12) above.
4 (e) See answers 13(a)(2) and 13(a)(3) above.
5 (f) The term . "maj or QA breakdown" refers to the 6 occurrence of a more serious failure to comply with 7 prescribed QA requirements or procedures'than does the ters 8 "QA breakdown."
9 (g) See answers 13(a)(10) and 13(a)(16).
10 (h) See answers 13(a)(10) and 13(a)(17).
11 Argument 12 The arguments as to geneial objections made 'above 13 are incorporated herein by reference.
14 While it may be true that Mr. Hubbard is no longer 15 employed by Joint Intervenors the original Motion to Reopen 16 filed by the Joint Intervenors on June 7, 1982 had attached 17 thereto a one hundred and one page affidavit with thirty 18 exhibits prepared by Mr. Hubbard. The Joint Intervenors 19 have continued to rely upon.this affidavit in the myriad of 20 other pleadings filed in this proceeding.
21 If the Joint Intervenors no longer intend.to rely 22 upon Mr. Hubbard and his definition of those terms then the 23 Licensee is entitled to know this. If on the other hand 24 these are definitions' the Joint Intervenors intend to rely 1
25 upon then the definitions are clearly discoverable to assist 26 in the preparation of the Licensee's case. Folding Carton, er 3 - -
4 1 supra. It is interesting to note that the Governor, in his
, 2 response to Licensee's interrogatories, claims no
! 3 responsibility for anything prior to January 3, 1983. Mr.
4 Hubbard's June 7, 1982 affidavit is apparently being r i
i 5 disavowed by both . Joint Intervenors and the Governor.
6 Unfortunately, Licensee is left with no answers to which it 7 can turn in preparation for hearing.
8 14. List each ITR, with revision number, that you j 9 have reviewed to date. As to each ITR, state specifically:
10 (a) Each fact stated therein with which you '
11 disagree.
12 (b) The specific paige(s) of each ITR where 13 the fact (s) set forth in your answer to 14(a) is located.
) 14 (c) Each conclusion or opinion stated 15 therein with which you disagree.
- 16 (d) The specific page(s) of each ITR where 17 the conclusion (s) or opinion (s) set forth in your answer to 18 14(c) is located.
3 19 .
(e) The specific bases for your disagreement 20 with each such fact, conclusion or opinion.
- 21 Response to Interrogatory No. 14: -
22 Joint Intervenors object to this interrogatory as 23 vague and ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, oppressive,
. 24 and not reason, ably calculated to lead to the discovery of 25 relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving such 26 . objections, Joint Intervenors state that given the e
- t I 1 significant number of ITRs, the cryptic manner in which they 2 are written, the complexity of the subjects being reviewed, 3 and the fact that Joint Intervenors' review of the ITRs is 4 continuing and not yet complete, they are unable to respond 5 to this interrogatory at this time.
6 Argument 7 The arguments as to general objections made above 8 are incorporated herein by reference.
9 While it may be true that the Joint Intervenors 10 have not totally completed their review of the ITRs at this 11 time, it is highly unlikely, if not outright fraudulent for 12 them to claim that they have not' reached opinions on 13 portions of some ITRs. This response clearly indicates an 14 attempt on the part of the Joint Intervenors to delay the 15 discovery process with the resultant effect of delaying the 16 hearing. If, at this late date, Joint Intervenors, or, for 17 .that matter, the Governor, are unable to identify even one 18 single conclusion or statement of fact from even one single 19 ITR with which they disagree, it is respectfully submitted 20 that a hearing is patently tnnecessary.
a 21 15. With respect to the PG&E Phase I Final 22 Report, identify:
23 (a) Each fact stated therein with which you 24 disagree. .
25 (b) The specific page(s) of the Report where 26 the fact (s) set forth in your answer to 15(a) is located.
4
'*9 1 (c) Each conclusion or opinion stated 2 therein with which you disagree.
3 (d) The specific page(s) of the Report where 4 the conclusion (s) or opinion (s) set forth in your answer to 5 15(c) is located. .
6 (e) The specific bases for your disagreement 7 with each such fact, conclusion or opinion.
8 Response to Interrogatory No. 15:
i 9 Joint Intervenors object to this interrogatory as 10 vague and ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, 11 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 12 relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving such 13 objections, Joint Intervenors state that given the size of 14 the Final Report, the complexity of the subjects reviewed, 15 and the fact that Joint Intervenors' review of the Phase I 16 Final Report is continuing and not yet complete, they are 17 unable to respond to this interrogatory at this time.
18 Argument -
19 - The arguments as to general objections made above 20 are incorporated herein by reference. '
o 21 While it may be true that the Joint Intervenors 22 have not completed their review of the PGandE Phase I Final 23 Report at this time, it is highly unlikely that they have 24 not completed reviews'of'some portions of the PGandE Phase I 25 Final Report which have been available for many months.
26 This response clearly indicates an attempt on the part of' s
P
1 the Joint Intervenors to delay the discovery process with 2 the natural effect being to delay the hearing date. As 3 stated in the preceding argument, it is inconceivable that 4 Joint Intervenors have no negative opinions regarding the 5 Final Report at this time.
6 16. specifically all direct personal S, tate 7 knowledge that you have regarding:
8 (a) The design of Diablo Canyon.
9 (b) The design quality assurance programs 10 for Diablo Canyon.
11 (c) How such direct personal knowledge was 12 acquired.
~
13 Response to Interrogatory No. 16:
14 Joint Intervenors have direct knowledge only of 15 items viewed during site tours of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear 16 Power Plant.
17 Argument 18 This interrogatory asks a foundational question 19 concerning direct personal. knowledge of the Joint 20 Intervenors. It goes dirbetly to the' competency
- of 21 potential witnesses of the Joint Interven' ors. Rather than 22 provide the information requested the response merely 23 alludes to items viewed during site tours.
24 The interrogatory is not difficult. If the Joint 25 Intervenors have direct personal knowlege of the design of l 26 Diablo Canyon and/or the design quality assurance programs, i
i-
+
i 1 then the Licensee is entitled to know it. If the Joint
. 2 Intervenors have no such knowledge, then the Licensee is 3 entitled to know.
4 18. In paragraph 9 of the Hubbard affidavit i 5 attached to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reopen of June 7, 0
6 1982, Mr. Hubbard lists . categories of items that he j 7 reviewed. Identify specifically:
8 (a) The industry QA/QC standards prior to l
9 1970 that Mr. Hubbard reviewed.
2 10 (b) The " regulatory developments" examined.
1 11 (c) All documents examined by Mr. Hubbard in
! 12 his examination of the NRC's implementation of QA/QC
, 13 regulations.
14 Response to Interrogatory No. 18:
15 See Response to Interrogatory No. 17(a).
16 Argument 17 The arguments made in support of the motion to i 18 compel the answer to Interrogatory No. 13 are incorporated 19 herein by reference.
20 23. Identify specifically each document ' upon 21 which you rely as support for your contentions or positions
! 22 as stated in your answers to these interrogatories. As to 23 .each such document, identify the precise portion relied upon l
i e
i- 24 as to'each such contention or position.
25 ///
~
i 26 ///
l s
- l. .
.e-1 Response to Interrogatory No. 23:
2 The documents relied upon include, but are not f
1 3 necessarily limited to, those documents referred to in or i
4 attached as exhibits to Joint Intervenors' June 7, 1982 5 Motion; Joint Intervenors' May 10, 1982 Motion; Joint 6 Intervenors' May 31, 1983 Response to Motion of Governor 7 Deukmejian to Keopen the Record on Construction Quality 8 Assurance; and the various affidavits of Richard B. Hubbard, 9 each of which has been filed in this proceeding. As Joint 10 Intervenors' review of the documents issued by the IDVP, 11 DCP, and NRC progresses, the foregoing list will obviously
~
12 increase.
13 Argument 14 The purpose of pretrial discovery in complex 15 litigation is to enable parties to ascertain facts, refine 16 the issues and prepare adequately for a more expeditious 17 - hearing. Pennsylvania Power, supra. As this Board is well 18 aware there are lit'erally thousands of documents which 19 contain information about the upcoming hearings.
20 This interrogatory is designed to focus in on 21 those documents which the Joint Intervenors specifically 22 intend to rely upon at the hearings. This will assist in 23 the preparation of the Licensee for the hearing by 24 eliminating unnecessary preparation and enable the Licensee 25 to concentrate on those areas upon which the Joint 26 fg ,
m _ _
i
,. 1 1 Intervenors rely. Clearly, this information is I
2 discoverable. l 3 CONCLUSION 4 In the absence of a motion for a protective order 5 the Board may not excuse failurer to respond to discovery 6 regardless of how objectionable , the discovery may be.
7 Illinois Power Company, LBP-81-61, 14 NRC 1735 (1981).
8 General objections such as those contained throughout the 9 responses of the Joint Intervenors are insufficient to 10 provide good cause not to respond. Pennsylvania Power, 11 supra. Finally, the obvious attempt by the Joint 12 Intervenors to avoid their discovery responsibilities by 13 making unfounded objections and failing to fully respond to 14 the interrogatories propounded by the Licensee leaves this 15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 -
19 .
20 .
o 21 22 l 23 24 ,
25 l 26 s
e
1 Board no alternative but to grant the Licensee's motion to
. 2 compel.
3
. 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
6 ..
RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 7 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 8 (415) 781-4211 9 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 10 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 11 (602) 257-7288 12 BRUCE NORiON Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
13 P.O. Box 10569 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 14 (632) 955-2446 15 . Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 17
~
18 By eo Bruce Torton 19 .
20 DATED: July 12, 1983.
22 23 24 .
25 26
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L N
3 U
w In the Matter of )
.) g'...
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-27.5 t 1e pd ' 4J
) Docket No.50-32S Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,-) \ @ ) ENW e
$.f,'Fr te.
I' Units 1 and 2 )
), s. n Ni is CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The -foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company hmo (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed: {
Mrs. Sandra A. Silver
~
Judge John F. Wolf Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.
Washington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest Judge Jerry R. Kline 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles CA 90064 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O. Box 1178 l Oklahoma City OK 73101 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg c/o Betsy Umhoffer 1493 Southwood Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Jcnice'E. Kerr, Esq. Phoenix AZ 85073 Public Utilities Commission State of California Bruce Norton, Esq.
5246 State Euilding Norton, Burke, Berry & Fre.nch, P.C.
350 McAllister Street P. O. Box 10569 Sen Francisco CA 94102 , Phoenix AZ 85064 .
Mrs. Raye Fleming Chairman 1920 Mattie Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Shell Beach CA 93449 Board Panel
~
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick Eissler Washington DC 20555 Scenic Shoreline Preservation *
- Conference, Inc.
- 4623 More Mesa Drive
' Santa Barbara CA 93105
@6 4
_ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -___-._m _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ . .
-. . . -...n. . . . .
~
Chairman Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Sacretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge W. Reed Johnson Washington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing
. Appeal Board Attn: Docketing and Service US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section ,,
Washington DC 20555 L2wrence J. Chandler, Esq. Judge John H. Buck Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing ,
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board LOffice of Executive Legal Director. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Michael J. Strumwasser MHB Technical Associates Susan L. Durbin 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Peter H. Kaufman San Jose CA 95125 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 Los Angeles CA 90010 Mr. Carl Neiberger Talegram Tribune P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo CA 93402 Date:. July 12,.1983 Pa(ific Gas' arid Electric _ Company.
0 8
l .
- - - . ..