ML20126K777

Response Opposing Applicants' Motions to Compel Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) to Respond to Applicant Second Set of Interrogatories & Require Supplementation of Responses.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20126K777
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/11/1981
From:	Hart J CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION, HART, J.L.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20126K781	List: ML20126K777 ML20126K784
References
NUDOCS 8105210317
Download: ML20126K777 (6)

Text

_ . . _ . ._ __

9\\ <

s e wsd

% Sill /P3 w# C , \ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (c- -

NUC1 EAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION p  ;

f,g i 3 $ @ ' {v ,

PJ"'

iigo UFJEEPO.ND%

'4

o. sec. 'ETCRE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND IICESSING " CARD

.{M y%,w L set.

N ~5

• 9 ,,ter of W )

/th I D' sTILITIES GENERATING CCMPANY, ET AL, ) Docket Nos, 30.M 5 (Conanche Peak Stean Electric Station, )

50- W -

Units 1 and 2)

CFUR'S RESPONSE TO APPL! CANTS' MOTIONS TO (1) CCMPEL CFUR TO PISPOND TO APPLICMTIS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND (2)

P2 QUIPS SUPPLEMENATION OF RESPONSES Comes now CFJR and files this Response to Apolicants' Motions to (1)

Conpel CFUR to Respond to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogateries and (2) Require Sucolenentation of Responses which was filed on April 24, 1981, regarding Apolicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to C8'JR and CTn,'s Answers thereto.

v. .

9y the following discussion C:'JR de.onstrates that it has fully satisfied its burden in responding to Aeolicants' Interregatories and ruhits that the Acclicants' Motiens to (1) Concel C UR to Respond to Aeolicants' Second Set i

of Interrocatories and (2) Require Succlenentation of Rescenses (hereinafter i Aeolicants' Motion to Compel) sno nd ce in all nings cenie::.

A.

With regard to Interrogatory 1-2, Aeolicants nisunderstand what that Interrogatory asks. They ask about the "neaning" of Centention 1. Such an inquiry has the natural construction of asking what definition the specific words have and their meaning in the syntax of the Contentien. As CPJR ans-wered, the words and syntax of Contention 1 have only their natural neaning; there are no tricks. Certainly, Acolicants can understand this. )

In their "otion to Concel, Aeolicants adeot the oretensien that Inter-  !

i regatery 1-2 is asking C7U2 to give "specificatien and refinement of the t l

hreadly identified issues in Centention 1." This contertion 'cy the Aeoli-  !

l cant is f alse, i Since C UR has answerad Interrecatery 1-2, Acolicar.ts are not entitled to an order concelline an answer. l DSC>3 n 4'T-'GW,,

l s

,i' y \ .

, y '-

C_ ,

~. .

I J j

, i ,p[ ~ .-. . . . . .

e u ,. 5 eQ p sp --

- . -. l 81052103I7- ^ K l

1 E ,

-- ,c,---v.,,,,-,--n.- ,.---,,,-n, -,w -- , .w-n.,,-.,,,,,,.nw.,,--,.y ,,.,~..-n,-n ,,-w.,-e.,.-mw,--,,w,w,,g-,,,~~w,.,--eo ym-n---n-,,,---g---.-...n.--. gg,-y,,mm- .-

B.

~

In its answers to Interrogatories 2-2,15-2, 22-2 and 49-2, CFUR has attempted to provide and will provide all " bases" it has upon the conole-tion of discovery from Applicants. Applicants' Motion to Compel on these Interrogatories should be denied.

C.

Interrogatories 11-2 through IL-2 and 32-2 through 3h-2 contain inquiries which CFUR can answer only after it obtains sufficient discovery from the Applicants. Since CFUR has to date received only incomplete and evasive discovery from the Applicants on the subjects involved here, along with ourely dilatory objections (See Applicants' Answers to CFUR's First Set of Interrogatories and CFUR's Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to CFUR's Interrogatories to Apolicants of February 26,1981), CFUR is unable to answer the above Interrogatories at this time.

Applicant's Motion to Conpel should be denied until they have fully and in good faith provided the discovery requested of then.

D.

Applicants' complain of CFUR's answeres to Interrogatories 16-2 through

, 20-2 Initially, Aeolieants nake an essential nisreoresentation of CFUR's position contained in Contentien 1, both in their Interrogatories and in their Motion to Cenpel. Se Contention 1 plainly states that " Applicants have not demonstrated technical qualifications..." Applicants J continually misrepresent that CFUR alleges that Apolicants "do not oossess" technical qualifications.

CFUR does not know the ourcose of this misrepresentation, but, because of its frequency, CFUR does not believe it is by accident.

Apolieants conclain of CFUR's reference te its answers to the Staff Interrogatories.

3ecause the Staff and the Aeolieants have submitted substan-tially the sane interrogatories, cross-referencing seems only proper. l Aeoliennts also complain that C7UR's resoonse to Interrogatory 16-2 is "nensensical" because it refers to nenexistent Interrogatory 12-2 of Aeoli-cants' First Set of Interrogatories. Ihere is an error in that answer in that

)

it should refer to CrUR's answer to Interrogatory 11-2 of Aeolicants' Second Set of Interrogatories. CFUR regrets the errer. In any event, it appears this error has caused no confusion to the Applicants.

i

1 l

. 1 As stated in CFUR's answer to the Staff Interrogatory referenced, CFUR is unable to answer the above Interrogatories until the Applicants fully and I in good faith answer CFUR's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants. To date, the Apolicants have not given adequate answers to those Interrogatories (See CFUR's Motion to Compel Resoonsive Answers to CFUR Interrogatories to Aeplicants of February 26,1981). Consequently, Apolicants' Motion to Compel should be denied.

E.

With regard to Interrogatories 21-2, 37-2 and 38-2, Applicants again ignore the clain meaning of their Interrogatories in the polemics of their Motion to Compel. Applicants complain that CFUR has given general answers to the above Interrogatories. If the Board will read Interrogatories 21-2 and 37-2, it can see that they are in thenselves highly (if not overly) general and call for general answers.

Interrogatory 38-2 is a convoluted inquiry which is also general and unclear in that it fails to ddentify what the Applicants mean by " requirements."

As the Beard can see by reviewing Interrogatory 38-2, it breaks down fron its

~

own weight when all the inherent ambiguities and generalities are considered.

The Apolieants' Motion to Concel should not be granted and the Apoliennts should be required to cubmit clear, direct and specific interrogatories.

?.

The Apelicants' Interrogatory 27-2 and those Interrogatories based the.reen _..

are ambiguous. The anbiguity of these Interrogatories is clearly shown by the incongruity between the wording of the Interrogatories and what the Applicants say they mean in their Motion to Concel. In their Motion to Conpel, Applicants claim Interrogatory 27-2 asks whether "the NRC Staff review of Applicants' tech-nical qualifications is sonehow inadecuate." However, the wording of Interre-gatory 27-2 poses the hypothetical and nebulous inquiry of whether the Staff is

" unable" to determine the Aeolicants' qualifications. CPUR is surprised at this nisreeresentation. i CFUR can Or.ly respond to interrogatories that are reasonably specific and uranbiguou s. 2efore Applicants can cerplain about CFUR's answers, they should first be required to procound clear, direct and specific interrogatories, n I

u. I I

With regard to Interrogatories LC-2 through 99-2, CFUR has insuffielent

-3

infornation and/or insufficient time and resources to proceed with the Interrogatories addressed to Contention 6. Applicants make nention that CFUR is lead party for Contention 6. Since CFUR is unable to eroceed with this Contention, it has no objection to Aeplicants' conducting discovery from other intervenors interested in the Contention.

II.

A. proposed Order is attached hereto for the convenience of the Board.

Its entry will expedite the discovery process by allowing CFUR to complete its discovery and then to 'oe in a position to supplement its answers to the Appli-cants' Interregatories. Its entry will also discourage the making of misrep-resentations such as those contained in Applicants' Motion to Compel.

l Respectfully subnitted. l l/

. f< $,

[ '. :.Rv/L. HART

!,1'- rescott Avenue i Dal1as, Texas 75219 (214) 521 h852 h-

, U4M COoJJ.spo,gg,y~

UNITT STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCM!ISSION ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCA?.D Before Administrative Judges:

Valentine B. Deale, Chaiman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Forrest J. Remick In the Matter of )

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50 2 5 CCMPANY, et al. 50 M 6 (Comanche Peak Steam Electrie )

Station, Units 1 and 2) May _, 1981 MEMORANITJM AND ORDER i

(Denying Applicants' Motions to Comeel CFUR to Respond to and to Supplement Responses to Aeplicants" Second Set of Interrogatories to CFUR and Requests.to Produce)

On this _ day of May,1981, it is ORDERED that Apelicants' Motions to (1) Comoel CRIP to Respond to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories and (2) Require Supplementation of Responses is hereby in all things denied'.

~~

For the Atomic Safety and licensing Board l

c

@t i m '

l

/e t:~n:

6.

- ./

7'o; b'Pg 3 Valentine B. Leale

--! . -.; Chaiman y * '-

.- l L) *,, C1

%t f t's se h: '

b^'j?'

c *? r^s !c- 4s o # t :1 l l G'o I

/fl3\\

l l

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE k73D.CoaagSFJ.TDENCE l

I hereby certify that copies of "CFUR*S RESPCNSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTIONS TO  !

(1). COMPEL CFUR 70 RESPOND TO APPLICANTS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND (2) REQUIRE SUPPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSES" have been served of the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, this lith day of May,1981.

Valentine 3. Deale, Esq. , Chairnan Mrs. Juanita Ellis Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board President. CASE 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1426 South Folk Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Dallas, TX 7522h Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board West Texas Legal Services i

305 E. Hamilten Avenue 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

State College, PA 16801 Fort Worth, TX 76102 -

Dr. P.ichard Cole, Menber David J. Preister, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Environmental Protection Division Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Marjorie U1 nan Rothschild, Esq. .

Cffice of Executive Legal Director Jeffrey 1. Hart, Esq.

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission h021 Prescott Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Dallas, TX 75219 Nicholas ~ S. Reynolds, Esq. Arch C. McColl I!!, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 701 Comerce Street 1200 17th Street, ::.W. Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20036 Callas, TX 75202 Docketing and Service Section Atenic Safety and licensing *doard Panel Office-of-the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Co :nission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atenic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 e S i l y/

C :keM o M.

(c.1 of uw f aj. -s wa /)u l L i 510m 3

~

& Richard L. Fouke h O'%e,,.

D:a se.

CFUR 1668 Carter Drive Mp Arlington, TX 76010

" iA\

i 1

_ _ _ . - _ . _ _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - -