ML20081F938

Motion for Addl Discovery for Proper Response to Util 831028 Motion for Sanctions.Related Correspondence

ML20081F938
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	10/28/1983
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC., SINKIN, L.A.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20081F943	List: ML20081F938 ML20081F961
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311040040
Download: ML20081F938 (4)

Text

, _ _ - _

~

. ~

q _

g g.

i ' RII..urD CO2Erc--'e-x DOCKETED USN?C

' UNITED STATES 01 AMERICA NUCLElsR REGULATORY. COMMISSION -* g3 n-3 E M3 Incthe_ Natter 1of'

.(

L). ;T7".E 0 SEu - N

• HOUSTCH : LIGl! TING AND - POWER ( Docket Nos. 50-%08 %i, 9 COMPANY, ET J AL'. )' 50-499 bIf

(

.(Sotith Texas - Project , ).

' Units 1-and-2) (

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT' NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP)

MOTION FOIFADDITIONAL DISCOVERY-l1. INTRODUCTION In"the final days of the' hearings'in Phase I of this proceeding,.the parties' agreed to a ninety. day discovery period

.to[begin.after_thefMRC issued its final I&E evaluation of the Quadrex Report.lTr. 10664-10666, See also Memorandum, of June 24,

~1932.  !

~

-On. January 17, 1933,- the NRC Staff served he "Special

-Inspection' Report of the Quadrex' Corporation Report on Design

-Review ofl Brown and Ro'ot Engineering Work for the South Texas

! Project, Unit's 1;and 2," later bound as NUREG-0948.

~ Ba s ed' o n ?t he -Bo a r d's . M e m o ra nd u ra of-June 24, 1982 and allowing five-days for service of the report,: discovery began on January 2'4..and ended on April 25. During this discovery time, CCAMP.did n'otifile'any discovery requests.

Throughout: the discovery period, as has been the case for the past threc1 years,-CCANP was represented by a lau student. The

' " demands of law school substantially impeded preparation of

' discovery.1'-

8311040040'831028' '

PDR ADOCK 05000498 0 PDR

11. R.ecognizing - the 'importance of this proceeding, the CCANP

.r.cpresentative' did not ' carry a full load of courses, requiring

. attendance at' summer school and an . extra semester to finish.

e$ -

i' '_ -

,' m

.x c w

. brt.hermore, the; sheer volume.of the documents ' to -be examined -

~

' (the~ Quadrex5eportj the Brown' and' Root! response, the March 1982

~

Cechtei' Task Forcec2eport,':thelfinal Bechtel Report,.and the NBC,.

, :frepor t .-T with'out the aid of sta f f ' or experts' presented 'a major. '

Thousands of pages 'of highly technical

~

. 'ob's ta c l e: - t o ' CC ANP.

fdocumentsTtoibe evaluatedLfor potential interrogatories required

^

more than';theJ9.0-days of discovery. originally' requested from the

>EBoard'~atila time when the -Quadrex Report was the-only-published

' document.'

In DApri-1 '19 8 3, C C A N P s representative was nearing final

. examinations andJ saw no, point' in seeking additional discovery

time whichicould not be used productively. CCANP' decided that the

'A fintroduction of'the various' major documents-combine {dwithcross re:: amination".could have to do as. the means fo'r CCAN to make its fcase.-

CCANP 'now believes' that additional discovery time is both

- lwarranted.and necessary.

-II. DISCUSSION-s iThe Applicants have sought-sanctions against CCANP for what thelApplicants-contend'-is a failure by CCANP to adequately answer

, : Applicants' / interrogatories. See ' Applicants' Motion for Sanctions

' y Againc tiCC'ANP' da ted O'ctober 6, 1983 and Citizens Concerned About

Nuclear- Powern(CCANP) Response to Applicants Motion for Sanctions

-Against CCANP_ dated October 28, 1983.

1CC ANP Lcon tends it .has done its best to respond to l Applicants' Einterrogatories- absent .any discovery. But there is no g [ question tlia t 'Withi!discove ry time, would come a better

~

.understandinglof the. issues and evidence..

s,.

, y, y -

n .,: .

t shile rejecting both the -timin's :and substantive arguments 'of J

ltheJ Applicants'1 motion f or sanctions, the-motion did convince 5CCAtlP_.thatLfurther discovery time is'necessary.- ,

e 1 -Also,--ltherefappearsito be.a shared perception-on the part of ,

? the Board --and;the' Applicants that CCANP's cross examina tion in Phase E-I was ~" extended" and. unfocused." See L Applicants' -Response t'oiCCANP?-Motilon to Participate in State 'of: Texas 'Dep'osition of JeromelGoldberg date'd; September 15, 1983 at 5, fn.

• and V .. .

.' Memorandum and Order (Denying CCANP Request to Conduct Cross-

~

- Examination J ati Goldberg ' Deposition) dated September 16, 1983-at 3.4 ,= f n . 4.

~

1CCAliP rejects the characterization of its' cross-examination.

t With more resources and. time to apply to the Findingh of Fact and'-

1 TConclusions of Law, CCANP would have demonstrated hhat much of

'the? cross-examination viewed as non-productive did.'indeed have a

~

.pointfrelevant to the' decision to be made.

At : thei sa me Stime, CC ANP, f el t. hampered . sever'ely by the

-Board's~ ref usal 'to grant relief to- CCAMP. in. Phase I when CCANP requested more discovery time. See Third Prehearing Conference Orderi(Including Summaries of' Subsequent Telephone Conference

-Calls _) - da ted lipril 41^, 1981.

In?its facision at that time,'however, the Board took "into Laccounti pa'r ticula rly 'the. expedited he'aring anticipated by the-

-Commission ...." ~Id. a t'. 4. Since-Quadrex'was unknown to the

~

Commission and theiBoard when the decision was made to expedite

/ the - h. earing. process, 'the - concern f or expedition is no longer a reasons.to deny ' addit'ional' discovery. time. Nor are hearings n ..

LimminentTastthey wcreginL1981. .

3

p s w .

9 g 7_. ,f2; .' n+ 11 ,

N .

)

i

~ Tids orcie r to J.be .. be tterf prepa re 3: and avoid : undue f riction-

during;the7hearingscover;what: constitutes-legitimate: cross.-

ickamination,1'CCA'P:needs/an additional ninety'dhys discovery.

1 1

, , ~.. .,,

t CCA::P ihas discussed its' intention Jtof file ' this . motion with lthe - representative 2.-int this proceeding 3 of ~ the- Attorney General of Texas.cHe fasjagreed:to provide CCAUP' access'to all discovery

~

performe'd to date'by.the: State on both the Applicants and the NRC

'y- ,-1..

Staf f, so:.that, should-this motion be granted, CCAMP can try to 1

c.-  : avoid duplica ting -diccovery previously : conducted.

III'IConclusion-

~

-For) the above andltoregoing reasons, CCANP moves the Board tofgrantithis' notion for' additional discovery time.--

f

~

Respectfully pubmitted,

..].

7 Lanny inkin-Counsel for"Intervenor-

~

' ~ '

^

' Citizens Concerned About -

Nuclear'Powe,r, Inc.

114 W. 7 t h', Suite 220-

- (Austin, Texas 78701' IDat if ' :(Oct'ober '2 8, '19 8 3

== s l $

1 v -.

J 7* #

~

1  ;

L' 4-b'i .I,

+

. . - - .-. - _ .