ML20081F961

Response to Util 831028 Motion for Sanctions Against Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power.Motion Substantively Deficient & Refuses to Recognize Previously Provided Info. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20081F961
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 8311040046
Download: ML20081F961 (9)

Text

.. - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ ._. . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - .

J  ;- ;,.

K-:

b FD TED CO2F.IS?0:2- :CE '00CKETED

, - - _-. USN ?.C -

' UNITED CTATES OF At!CHICis NUCLEAR REGULATORY:CO!! MISSION 33 . NOV -3 A10 :43

, in the- :!atteriof ( tq:r[ :.: SEcli. ,

) CChi!':'i & EL' - .

I!OUSTONf LIGilTING AND; POWER .( Docke t - Mos . ylfgCSL COMPANY, ET AL. ). 50-499 OL

-(

'(Scuth-TexasfProject, ).

LUnits 1 and 2)^ (

~CITIZEMS CONCERNEDLABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP)

RESPOMSC H APPLICAMTS' MOTION. FOR SA! CTIONS AGAINST CCANP I'.-IUTRODUCTION

.In the. final days' .o f the hearings in. Phase I of this-

procceding, the. parties agreed .to 'a -ninety day discovery. period

~

to beginLaf ter. the ERC i'ssued its final .I&E evalua tion of the

-Quadrex-Report. Tr. 10664-10666, See also Memorandum of June 24,

~1982. I i

LOn January 17, 1983,: the-NRC Staff served'the "Special Inspection Report of the Quadrex Corporation Report on Design .

Review of Brown and .: Root- Engineering: Nork f or the South Texas Project,' Units 1'and-2,"'later bound as.UUREG-0948.

. Based on the Board's- Memorandum of June 24, 1982 and allowingefive' days for' service of the report, discovery began on January 2.4'andLended on. April 25. During this discovery time, fCCASP did not file any discovery requests.

On' March- 11, . Applicants filed their Sixth Set of

) Interrogatories and-Requests for Production of Documents to CCANP;

.On? April 5, CCAMP filed its Response to Applicants' Sixth Seteof ' Interrogatories' and Requests for Production of Documents-

t o.' C C A M P .

- On L April 18, Applicants filed their Motion to Compel Answers 8311040046 831028 PDR ADOCK 05000498

.L A GEJ- _

,w - -

~

yo _;4y 4;

-5 l{

s -

t

.t .- .. i..,

ito MI ts W Sixth ? Se t r o f' 11 n t er rogc.to ri e s anci For Leave to Pile'

AdditionalMInterrogatories.to.CCANP.

A _.

'On < M a y. il.1',1 "the ' Board issued -its .homorandum and Order

[ granting CCANP3an~ extension ofstime_'in which :to' respond to 1

? Applicants'- motion - to compel.'

CCANP;did not respond. to Applicantsm' otion'.to compel but Echose;toirelyLon.the objections present.ed'in'its response to-the interrogatories. -

..On' June - 2 2, 7the Board granted- Applicants' motion to compel, -

? directing CC ANP . ' to " a. m p l i f y i its. prior- re sponses to ,

-interrogatories 1 bearing u po n . Ou ad r ex. Report issues ...."

llemorandum-and' Order (Granting Applicants' Motipn to Compel 8

Responses -to1.Certain? Discovery ' Reques ts,. De1ineatihg Procedural

~

s . l Format for: Resolving' Various Phase 'II Issues and ' Establishing

~

Briefing Schedules foryCertain Legal- Questions) da ted ' June - 2 2,

~

fl983-a'ti 3. The" Board.also granted Applicants leave to file an

, . additional . se t of c f ollo'w-upfinterroga tories - af ter receiving CC ANP's2 additional'-- r e s p o n s e s .. Id; at~ 3-4. The Board'gave spplicants 14Jdaysifrom-service.of the CCANP additional response

in which : to file"their follow-up' interrogatories. . Id.. at 5.

Ton? september?2, CCANP' filed i t.3 Supplemental. Answers to

/ Applicants' Sixth Set of ' Interrogatories and Requests for k- ' Production'of' Documents to CCANP.--

LOn(' October. 6, - without ~ filing 7 any follow-up. interrogatcrics, EAhplicants f' led their Motion for. Sanctions Against CCANP.

II DISCUSSION gA.: Absence.of! Discovery

. .:CCAMPfhas.had a' difficult time providing responses to the

---

.._---,------------.__---_-._----a4

~

- ~ . .

,F.

_.'t f$p;hlicants'~ interrogstoriesi vhich 4 atisfy the; Applicants. CCAMP:

5 categ'oricalllyg denics'that .such difficulties _ result- from any del'iberate' ef fort on CCANP's part tol hidef or otherwise preventg

theJApplihants.from_ learning about LCC AMP's. positions on the

~ Dissues.!CCAMPL believesjthat 'any such dif ficulties are ins tead a

result of, CCANp's: notabeing f able to' conduct discovery during the.

~

ninety~(90) day period'. originally setiforth by the Board.

2CCANP I didfattempt t0 prepare discovery requests.during that

period'but didTnoticomplete'such work prior to the deadline.

~

Throughout.1the discovery period, as has been the case for tihe past three. years, CCisNP was represented ' by a law student. The'

~

1. demands of f1aw o school substantially tin.peded. preparation Lof l

cdiscovery.1- p fFurthermore,; the sheer volume of the doc ments- to'be 4

j examined <- :the ' Quadrex ; Report, th_e Brown and Root response, . the.

" f March 19 82LBechtel-TasN Force Report, the final Bechtel Report,

~

LandL.: the NRC. report -?without the aid ofistaff or experts.

_ presentedf a major -obstacle to CCANP.1 Thousands of' pages of. highly

~

technical ~' documents'to be evaluated for potential interrogatories

. required :more .than' the 90 days of discovery originally requested if romithe Board a t a -time when the Cuadrex P.eport was the only

- i published document.

In__ part- for these reasons, CCANP is submitting a separate smotion?for additional discovery time. For purposes of responding

--to4 :the- Applicants' Motion for Sanction Against CCANP, CCANP "1. -RecognizingL 'the. importance of this proceeding, the CCANP

representative did not carry a. ful1 load of courses, requiring at tenda n.ce _ a t'! summer ' school andR an extra cemester to finish.

~-

- ' ' ' *-u - -- - - - - - _ . _ . _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ ,

jg. _

y. "

N .

~

1;@.

1 n ~

iargues that(; without such discovery,z CCANPlhas done its best to '

Srcsponn.to]thc 7 Applicants' -interrogatories.

LD. ' Answers Given

) As J noted above, the - Board l'emorandum and Order of June 22nd -

- :a tE3' directed DCC AMP! to. "a mplif y its. prior responses ...." The-B'oardifurtherldirectied "CCANPito?"take the lead" in identifying "particular 'saf e ty_ que's tions ~ which 'it~- claims arise from the~- -

^

.[ lQuadrex; Report."-

, CC A!1P" contends that.: its Supplemental . Answers m'e t -: the i

. dictates-tof Lthe- Board's LJune 22nd itemorandum and -Order. A reading -

of;;CCAMP's answers shows that CCAMP gave both additional specific

respon'ses

and generalized; issue responses to th) Applicants.'

iinterrogatories.

~

LIn sorie . cases, CCMIP did Enot ~ answer questions which the

~

'Doard has orderedibrief ed,- asserting that its right to wait was

, theasame right: claimed .by the- Applicants in responsie to similar Linterrogat'ories by the State;of Texas.

.CCANP also~ adopted Applicants' response to detailed 1,

-i~nterrogatories ifrom the State of Texas regarding .t h e

reportability - of specific findings. Prior to briefing the

notificationi-and reporting requirements,- such answers would be

premature.

CCisNP( responded to' the. Board's . direction to identify " safety

^ issues" fari~ sing f rom.LQuadrex at both the general and specific h 11evel.4See e.g.- CCAMP Supplemental Answers at 2-3, 4-5 [ Answer

?2(a)],i6jAnswer'5). . .

On1lthe whole, CCAMP did provide an amplification of its

_ _ foriginal.:an'swersfand did conform to the Board's- Memorandum and I

.I

b. .

r -Q , -

t & "t 47 _

~

.'n #

+ . . , ,

- MOrderH to the;: bestEof its, abili ty. -

C.yApplicants' Motion for Sanctions-s lIn" their 1mo tions; f or.. t sanctiont Applicants' characterize CCAMP's attempts stofanswer[Applicanta' interrogatories as lacking .

i'.'g o od ' J f a i t h", " - A p p l i c a n t s ' M o t i o n at.1, and as' constituting-a

^

. f launting Eof the? Doard's"' directives, f

'Id. : Applicants charge- CCANP 1.. -

Withsothernsins,-such as: "f lagrantly" refusing to answer

~

[ Applicants interrogatories, -Id. Jat 4. .The Applicants .want the

. Board ito / punish'.- CCAMP to . improve . CCANP's : performance, Id. at 6.2 CCAMP/ responds--that-the Applicants' motion should be dismissed or denied-on its merits.

Firs t' o'f*al1, Applicants' had _ the riglit under the Board's

~

? '

f.

!?- JJune"22nd Nemorandumf andlorder = to: file an addit [ional set of 3ollow--upfinterrogatories within fourteen .(14) days from-service

..of- CCAUP's-- supplemental answers. The Applicants f ailed to file-Esuch interrogatories drior to the expiration of"the'. fourteen

~ .. .

! days. Instead, thirty. (3 0) days after-service of CC ANP's Supplemental. Answers,; Applicants filed their motion for

= sanctions'.-

Havingif ailed to serve- follow-up interrogatories on time, Applicants.nowia t' tack CCAMP' vith a motion for --sanctions. Their t plairitive pleading :is no more.than a smokescreen for their

f ailureito' pursue the discovery given them by the Board. Such a

. )2. Applicants!have'u - proclivity for filing such motions hoping to iconvince'theiBoard.that CCANP is f.launting the Board and thereby -

deflect: the . Board ~ . f rom ' the fact that the evidence supports

' license --denial. lSee < e.g. " Applicants' Motion for Sanctions Against

. Citizens ~: Concerned About Nuclear Power for Failure to Comply with

~

Order ' Compelling ' Discovery dated April 9, 1981, an equally

.:: frivilous : motion..:.

g '

4 ifailure should?not'be? rewarded tyLsanctionc 'against another party. ;Instead,; it should be ~ viewed as 'a failure' to exhaust their remeciesiprior: to ' applying to the. Board- for further remedies. On-this basis ralone,: the -Applicants' motion for sanctions'should-be ,

- :diodissed.'

~

Second,:. the ' Applicants a ttempt to claim ~ they. do not- know what CCANP's position 'is on. the Quadrex issues is ridiculous. The LCCAMP- leadings 1. rela ted to- Quadrex include CCAMP's Motion to - Fil'e

~

g /Isdditional' Contentions. Based'on New Information and to Establish

.al Discovery andJHearing-Schedule with Respect to'New Contentions datediNovember. 2 3 ,.- 1 9 8 1 , CCAMP's Motion for Atomic Safety and

~ Lice'nsingLboard to Issue Recommenda tion to1 Nuclear Regula tory

.I

Commision da ted'uNovember 25, 1981 (which incfrporatesby ref erenceE major sections of Citizens for Equitabke Utilities' Petition xto Suspend Construction dated October-23, 1981), CC ANP's

~

Petition 'to -Suspend Construction da ted -- August 4, 1982, and' CCAlfP's'-initial 'and supplemental answers to Applicants' Sixth Set tof--_ Interroga tories and Reques ts for Production of Documents to 1 (CCANP which-are the subject of the Applicants' Motion for

~

Sanctions. The'se . pleadings clearly provide Applicants with sufficient information to prepare adequately _to address the 1Cuadrex. issues CCANP~ seeks-to litigate.'

3.JApplicants' Notion.for : Sanctions is an attempt to preempt the Board's; express wish to delineate-Quadrex issues following the completion of discovery. . Memorandum. and Order dated June '22, 1983

~

Eat 5. .I_n. this. regard, it is interesting'to note that Applicants'

.' do';not~ view.their answers to State of Texas interrogatories as l- involv'ing any' attempt "to identify issues to be heard in the PhaseyII proceeding -(as CCANP should be) ...." App. Motion at 1.2,

' fn. ':* *. tThe Board's ' June 22nd Memorandum and Order directed CCAMP tor"take- the lead" in. identifying Phase II issues, but did not

relieveithe otherfparties from joining in that' process.

x 6

e _

q h

-4 s 4 -

Third,7.. Applicant's' .say 'tha t ' thtliri interroga torie

; " generally inquiretinto the'positionsjCCANP intends t'o take on various-

Quadrex tissues and the basis for those positions." Id. - a t 5.

WCC ANP! s(pleadings' and ianswers s respond . tol tha t' inquiry .a t length.

Fourth, even though: the notification and reportability T,uestions .Lhave 7 not. > yeti 'been briefed, CCANP =did attempt to-(indica te : at.least some of its pos'ition on those.' issues.

( Applicants now seek to turn those- partial and. preliminary answers.

Lin toi ,groun'd's. ~for ,

excluding CCANP from litigating the

'repor tdability of other findings 1 or the entire mandate of : 10' C.F.R. 50;55 (e) , fId. a t 6-7.

K Asf: f ar L- as 2CCANP's position on the commissioni g. of Quadrex,

~

- lApplicantsfcontend_'CCANP'gives:no grounds for "dsserting the 1

Quadre:E review 'should.' have b e e n i n'i t i a t e d ; s o o n e'r ." 'Id. ;a t 9. .

ECC ANP 's'- - a ns we r s , 'CC At P's-- November 23, .1981 motion for new 19 81 ' motion- for ASLB

~

~

-contentions, and :CCANP's No've n b e r 25, recommenda tion ~alliclearly-'expres s CC ANP's ' position that Applicants'~ ' failure'to Commission'a third party-independent freview of- design .and engineering .until January '1981 constituted a

}

derelictionfof; duty land permitted a- chaotic design and 1 engineering" process'to continue unchecked for years.

2 c Applicants' objectionL to CCAMP's answers to interrogatories

~ L 5) 'a ndl-[6 f:ig n o r e s CC' AMP 's , a n s v e r s -i n a n a t t e m p t to avoid CCANP-Elitigatiingith'e crucia'l issue of the extent to which Quadrex shows

• '"  ; rampant ViolationsTof NRC requirements. Id. at 11. As CCANP Ls ta ted,: by' definition the'Most Serious-Findings and the Potential

- Prolslem I Findings either were or possibly were violations of NRC regulationsias of May.7, 1981.

m- _

6 g . (sa l ~.

L k

With similar a r g u:n e n t s ,-_ Applicants' urge the Board .to P , .

climinatelany: challenge from _CCANP to Jthe two key URC. reports _ on

. Quadres. CCANP - believes- its ; pleading's and aLns wers provide sufficient"information-to allow the Applicants to understand:

1CCAMP's ' position o'n: these1 two reports.

'III. CONCLUSION IGiven' the' limitat' ions on_its resources and staff time,

Cibizens Concerned;About Nuclear Power ~has done its best to-inf orm L Applicants. of CCAMP's positions _on the various Quadrex lissues. - CCANP fully intends - to responu to the Board's reques t for

~

~

.f u r the r--.d e'lin e a tion - o f the is' sues to be litigated at the I

appropriate . time.-- See . tiemorandum _ and Order dated Ju e 2 2, 1983 at (5 .

^

l L Th e" . Applicant s' Motion for Sa nctions .- Agains t. CCANP. is-

inappropriate ;p'rocedurally by re'ason of their failure to even-fattempt to serve f ollow-up . . in terroga tories purs'uant to the

- Board 's-? ruling. For said reason, the motion should be dismissed.

Alternatively, the. Applicants' Motion'for Sanction . Against

. -CCAUp 'i~s -substantively deficient and refuses to recognize the information' provided by CCANP on _CCANP's positions on the Quadrex Jissues. Por saidJreason, the motion.should be: denied.

For the .above 'and . foregoing reasons, the Board should Mismiss -' Applicants' tiotio'n for Sanc tions _. Agains t CCANP or, Lalternatively, deny said motion on its merits.-

-Citizens.' Concerned'About Respectfully submitted,

Nuclear? Power, - Inc. ' -

. , . . 114: W. 7th, Suite 220:

Austin,. Texas 787011

--(512)4478--7197 Lanny Sinkin Counsel for Intervenor Dated:cOctober 28', 1983 o

t-

~

+ '

_ i g ;U ' -@

L; .

n 3GiU

• WT

.~

V f b;;1TED STATES- OF AMERICA f' NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION '83 - NOV -3 N0:44

?

+

. BEFOREi T!!E ' ATO:'IC SAFETY . AND LICENSING ~ BOARD Oppw, ....n . .. ..

00ChElit4G & SUV!D (In : theJ-Matter fof . ( -BRANCH

) . -

Il0USTO::: LIGHTING AND PCMER ' -( Dochet Mos. 50-498 OL-1 COMPANY, ET'AL.- ) 50-499 OL

(

!.(South 1 Texas! Project , .)

~ Units;1:and.2)- (

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.Ilhereby certify that copiesTof.' CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CC AN P) RESPONSE ~TO. APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

' SANCTIONS-AGAINSTiCCANP'and. CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR

, POWER o(CCisNP) ~ NOTION i FOR . ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY have been - served on th'e f following-~ individuals . and entities by deposit in-the United

~ States mail,.first class,--on'thisT29th day of October 1983.

' Charles Bechhoefer' ' -Esquire- ,

Brian Berwich, Esq.

Chairman Asst. Atity .' !Ge n .

Atomic 1Safety .and : Licensing Board State of TeYas

~

~

.U.fS..yuclear Regulatory Commission EnvironmentdlProtection '

A Ma shington',.L D.C . . 120555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Sta.

Austin, Texas' 78711 tDr. James.C.-Lanb, III *

.; Administrative Judge l Robert ~G.:Perlis, Esq.

l3131Woodhaven .Ro.ad - Office'of the Exec. Lega1 Dir.

Chapel 'Ilill,. l North Carolina -27514 U.lS. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

- Washington, D.C. 20555

" Ernest-E. Hil1 Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esq.

1025 Connecticut' Avenue, N.W.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory m '_UniversityLofJCalifornia Washington, D.C. 20036 P.?O.: Box 808, L-46

.Livermcre,:Californic 94550- Melhert Schuarz, Esq.

Baker.and Ectts 2 .! irs . iPegcjy i Buchorn 3000 One Shel1 Plaza

~ Executive Directori Hounton, Texas- 77002

Citizens-forfEquitable Utilities Ro'u t e'.1, Cox;1684- -Atomic Safety and' Licensing Bd.

-Brazoria', Texas L77422L U. S.-M. R. C.

s

~

Washington,'D.C. 20555 ,

4 William'S : Jordan,'III, Esq.

'!!artnon 'a nd: Uciss Atomic ~ Safety.and Licensing t- 17 2 5 ' I '. S t r ee t , ' N . M . Appeal Board Washington, D.C.'20006- U.S.U.R.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 PatECoy' ~

~

5106LCas'a Oro .

Docketing and Service Section

San Antonio,; Texas-~78233 .U.S.N.R.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 p, .

-g - g r m . - _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ,