ML20086U343

Response to Air & Water Pollution Patrol Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicant Denies That Answer to Interrogatory Evasive.Related Correspondence

ML20086U343
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	03/02/1984
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20086U346	List: ML20086U343 ML20086U351
References
NUDOCS 8403070236
Download: ML20086U343 (3)

Text

j r

i i

~$

EELATED CORRESPONDENCE O? ETEt; J m;:.

04 llAR ~5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A// ;7p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

e., _

' C.[7f,2....

Ek 1Ck Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AWPP'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY By letter dated February 10,

1984, Air Water Pollution Patrol, an intervenor in this procceding, moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to compel Applicant to answer interrogatories relating to Contention VI-1.

Applicant opposes the motion.I!

Initially, the request is late.

Applicant's response to AWPP's eighth set of interrogatories was dated January 25, 1984.

The Commission's rule covering motions to compel discovery, 10 C.F.R. S2.740 (f), requires that a party moving for such relief do so "within ten (10) days after the date 1/

This matter was discussed with Mr.

Romano, but no

~

resolution could be achieved.

8403070236 840302 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0

PDR

Thus, this portion of the motion of the response should be denied.E i

l In any event, the motion lacks merit.

Applicant denies l

that it answered any interrogatcry "with evasion."

As discussed below, its answers to the interrogatories were direct and responsive.

It appears that Mr.

Romano, representative of

AWPP, is taking the position that Applicant did not answer the question he may have wanted to asks however, from an objective point of view, the questions actually asked were answered fairly and completely.

For example, with regard to AWPP's eighth set of interrogatories, AWPP alleges that it asked in Interrogatory 1 where certain welds were.

Reference to that interrogatory clearly reveals that the question asked was "where are radiographs involved and submit same."

The answer described where the radiographs were located and offered to make them available to a qualified technical expert for review.

The answer is complete and responsive.

Review of the remainder of the challenged interrogatories in this set reveals that the answers are also complete.

Where numbers of welds were

-2/

The date of Applicant's response to AWPP's

tenth, eleventh and twelfth set of interrogatories is February 3,

1984.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Denying AWPP's Motions for Extension of Discovery Time and Appointment of Private Detective (February 28, 1984)

(slip op, at 4) notes that the instant motion was postmarked February 16, 1984.

AWPP is thus also late for the remainder of the discovery requests.

/

_3-I.

requested, Applicant either supplied the information directly or, where it would take significant work to compile the statistics, the basic information was made available to AWPP from which it could have extracted the information.

AWPP completely fails to state with specificity how the answers were " evasive."

With regard to AWPP's tenth set of interrogatories, the response to Interrogatory 2a does explain the difference in numbers and refers to further documents which provide additional information as to the reasons for differences.

Similarly, the response to Interrogatory 2b makes it clear that the report referred to was interim in nature and that the review was continuing.

With regard to Interrogatory 2c, intervenor has misinterpreted the response.

The associated affidavits which are mentioned in the response refer to two affidavits, both of which were prepared by Mr. Vincent S.

Boyer.

With regard to the twelfth set of interrogatories, intervenor states that the non-conformances reports provided do not provide the information on who signed off deficiencies.

Reference to those documents which have been made available to AWPP would reveal that they contain the signatures of the individuals who prepared, processed and accepted the non-conformance report.

Applicant is unaware of what information is lacking.

With regard to Interrogatory 7&, intervenor asserts that Applicant avoids

-the question requiring number values.

The answer stated

i 4-I that the NRC did not have " permissible limits" which is completely responsive to the question asked.

Similarly, with regard to responses to interrogatories Nos. 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d,-7e, 7g, 7h, Applicant has reviewed them and submits that they are responsive.

An objective reading indicates that a complete and fair response has been given.

In interrogatory 71, intervenor asks that an affidavit as to a statistical standard be supplied.

In the previous

response, the Applicant has stated that no specific statistical standard was utilized.

In any event, Applicant has provided an affidavit with regard to the truthfulness of its response to all interrogatories.

With regard to interrogatory 7k, the answer is inclusive and includes the specific inspector involved in Inspection Report 76-06-01.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel should be denied.

Respectfully submitted CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant March 2,.1984 ka_