ML20128M315

Order Granting Case 850624 Motion Re Circumstances Surrounding Improper Withholding of Util Mgt Study (Mac Rept).Hearings or Supervised Depositions Unnecessary. Served on 850723

ML20128M315
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/22/1985
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#385-936 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-06A-OL, 79-430-6-OL, 79-430-6A-OL, OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8507250287
Download: ML20128M315 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BOCKETED Before Administrative Judges: usNRC Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom '85 JUL 23 N0:55 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 0FFICE OF SECRt.TAF, 00CKEi g y EPVIL.

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445-0L

) 50-446-0L

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.)

--)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL

)

Units 1 and 2) )

) July 22, 1985 Before Administrative Judges:

SERVED JUL 231985 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Herbert Grossman, Esq.

Dr. Walter H. Jordan In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-445-OL2 50-446-OL2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. ASLBP No. 79-430-06A OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) ) July 22, 1985

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Motions Related to the MAC Report)

Following voluntary disclosure by Applicants that they had failed to produce a management study, the "MAC Report," in response to out-v standing discovery requests, CASE moved for hearings, supervised deposi-tions, depositions and interrogatories that would permit it to ascertain u I the circumstances surrounding the improper withholding of this informa-tion. Applicants resist the discovery completely, on the ground that 8507250287 850722 PDR ADOCK 05000445 DSw ;

E .

MAC Report Discovery: 2 L

the reasons for withholding the information are not relevant to the case as Applicants now see it. Applicants also argue that special proce-i dures, such as supervised depositions or expedited hearings, are not

(

necessary.

We agree with Applicants that there is no need for hearings or supervised depositions at this point. There is no particular rush

necessary in light of Applicants' management plan. There is no special showing that information would disappear or is not readily available.

There is no reason that the Board must conduct or supervise depositions at this point in the interest of an adequate record. We would consider conducting depositions if there were evidence of obstruction of the discovery process.

On the other hand, CASE's interrogatories and its request for j people to be made available for discovery are generally in order and should be answered, to the extent that they relate to the circumstances leading to the discovery of the MAC report, the extent to which Appli-cants' employees knew about that report, the root causes for failing to divulge the report, and the possible existence of other reports that may not have been revealed in response to discovery requests. This should not, however, be a fishing expedition for material relevant only to CASE's simultaneous appearance before the public utility commission.

Hence, discovery limited to these legitimate purposes shall be permitted pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.740(b).

• I Applicants may limit their response to Interrogatory 1 to matters f related to the particular prudence audit that uncovered the MAC Report.

l l

[ _ , , . _ __

w MAC Report Discovery: 3 The phrase " involved with" in 1 (c) and (d) shall be in'terpreted as

" involved in being audited." 1(g)(h)(1)(j)(1)(n)(o)(p)(q)(r)(t) and (u) need not be responded to.

The Board strikes:

e All of that portion of interrogatory 2(d) that appears on page 7 except for the 6th paragraph (dealing with minor owners, etc.) and the 12th paragraph (dealing with new consultants, etc.).

e Interrogatories 2f(12) and (13) to the extent that they might be-interpreted to cover material that is not responsive to outstanding discovery requests. To the extent that responsive material is intended, those interrogatories are allowed.

e Interrogatory 3(b). However, Applicants should state in appro-priate evidentiary form precisely the actions they will take to "reiter-ate Applicants' obligations in this regard."

e Interrogatory 5, in its entirety. However, the parties are encouraged to discuss whether CASE has legitimate needs for some class of information that CASE can define in a more precise manner. If CASE has such needs and cannot obtain agreement to those needs, it may file more precise interrogatories on this subject within fifteen days from the date of issuance of this order.

To the extent that privileges, other than relevance, are available, Applicants may assert them. Assertions of burdensomeness are not

• I

e e

MAC Report Discovery: 4 favored and should be accompanied by estimates of the amount of time that would be required to fulfill the request.

0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 22nd day of July 1985 ORDERED:

That the June 24, 1985 motion of the Citizens Association for Sound Energy is granted to the extent described in the accompanying Memoran-dum.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

/

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland We do not decide whether hearings on this subject will be requiredJ

,