ML20081E048

Motion to Compel Discovery of NRC on Interrogatory 3 Re Contentions 8F1 & 15AA.Certificate of Negotiations Encl

ML20081E048
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/28/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20081E011	List: ML20081E009 ML20081E048 ML20081E064
References
83-468-01-OL, 83-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311010445
Download: ML20081E048 (2)

Text

-

3

?

2 )

00LdETEi viNRC l

UNITED STAIES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOB1' COMMISSION *Y["0Cbl $1b41 0FFtt Of sta IM 00CKETir4G & SErvl' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BM Glenn Dr. D. Bri James H.ghtCarpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Dockets 50-400 OL CAB 0 LINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unita 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-L68-01

} OL Motion to Compel Discovery of NRC Staff NRC Staff, in its October 12, 1983 response to 8/31/83 interroga-tories by Wells Edizeman, objects to Interrogatory 3 (asking the (AISI) results of any analysis, investigation, study or inouiry by Staff re certain contentions be provided) as " asked and answered. See

( p.3) answer to Interrogatory 2." However, the answers to interrogatory 2 (see pp. 8,20,28, and 42-43) in two cases do not give the requested information. Staff is unwilling as yet to produce that information, though they have done AISI (analysis, investigation, study or inquiry) on all 4 contentions inquired about 8/31: see 10/12 response at 8 & 28 There fore I request Staff be ordered to answer Interrogatory gem 853 concerning Contentions 8F1 and 15Ah.

gh Staff also "' answers" Interrogatory 17, asking a summary of each mn C

n er AISI, calculation or analysis for which the answer to ... interrogatory  ;

o$ 2 above is yes (pp 12, 21-22 (referencing a ncn-existent response to oE g, Interrogatory 11),31 and 44) by reference to interrogatory 3 re 8FL no  !

mao l (which was not answered in terms of calculations, analysis or I i

anything else for"each investigation", and by vague summaries

l l

of conclusions for Contentions 15AA and 132, see op 31 and hh respectively. Only for Contention 8F2, where documents summarizing the Staff AISI are cited, does the Staff even come close to answering this interrogatory. Negotiations having failed, I request the Board to order the Staff to answer fully Interrogatory 17 (to which Staff has not objected ) concerning Contentions 8F1,15AA and 132.

I note that the Staff has made a huge number of objections and vague or incomplete responses, and this motion addresses only two of this multitude. After the first set of such resnonses by 9

the Staff (6/2h/83), I tried informal negotiations and other means to informally resolve such problems. These were unifornly unsuccessful in my view. In this instance, informal negotiations have been likewise unsuccessful. I cannot effectively pursue contentions such as 8F1,15AA and 132, where the Staff holds most of the information about the content and adequacy of NEPA and safety analysis that apnlies, unless I can get answers describing that information in enough detail to be useful. I therefore request that the Board order the Staff to resnond fully to Interrogatories 3 and 17 as requested above.

28 October 1983 e Wells Eddleman CERTIFICATE of NEGOTIATIONS I hereby certify that I have negotiated over the Staff resnonses to Interrogatories 3 and 17 with NWC Staff Counsel Charles Barth on October 27, 1983 and earlier, without resolving anything except that Staff admits (and amends its response to Interrogatory 2(d) to state) that Staff found there was adeouate I

basis and specificity to admit Contention 15AA, and that the Staff may provide additional info re Contention 132.

Wel a ddleman 10-29-73 1