ML20134L727
| ML20134L727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1985 |
| From: | Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-390 OL-2, NUDOCS 8509030396 | |
| Download: ML20134L727 (7) | |
Text
370 e4'
" " M E D DJiin s s y n g7; n; 3
ll*
[)
DOCKETED p
August 28, 198S1Shac UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
%S AW 30 A10:35 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 000ii[T,iNGGFric
-j
= RANCH In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-2
)
50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CASE'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES (Re: READINESS REVIEW)
On July 29,'1985 CASE filed interrogatories, in the form of a three question request, about Applicant's communication with Georgia Power Company regarding the development of the CPRT.
On August 19, 1985 Applicant responded by denying any communication with Georgia Power Company.
Specifically, Applicant's counsel represented that, " based on interviews with members of the SRT and CPRT, to the Review Team Leader level, and v
CPSES project personnel there have been no communications with, site visits by or documentation received from Georgia Power Company concerning the development of the CPRT or CPRT Program Plan." (Applicants Response To The CASE Interrogatories Regarding the CPRT, p.2)
This was confirmed for the CPRT by Mr. Terry' Tyler in an accompaning affidavit.
8509030396 850828 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR 335a3
. I an affidavit detailing the depth and breadth of their search for i
the original answers.
If CASE must rely on the representations of Applicant's counsel we must be able to discover where misrep-l resentations originate.
There is an underlying problem illustrated by this current controversy that we also believe the Board should address.
It is not normally proper for counsel to respond to discovery request for their client.
If they do, they run the risk of becoming witnesses and thus being disqualified as counsel.
(DR-102, Code of Professional Responsibility)
In addition it appears that Applicant has many layers of knowledge which it uses to mask the whole truth -- e.g.
the explanation for the MAC Report non-disclosure was that it was not prepared for regulatory purposes.1/
To help assure that the full and truthful answer is given it is essential that responses to discovery come from-persons with direct personal knowledge and who fully disclose how i
they went about assembling the information to answer the questions.
It is true that Texas Utilities and its contractors and sub-contractors are a large organization, but that does not i
excuse incomplete answers, particularly by outside lawyers.
Rather it requires an even more careful search to assure the whole truth is revealed.
We request that the Board indicate in its order on this motion that Applicant must:
- 1) answer dis-covery with non-lawyer employees with personal knowledge of the 1/
CASE has never limited its discovery to only documents prepared for regulatory purposes and thus is an artificially created distinction which makes no difference.
It is merely another device to justify the failure to be tru'thful.
=..
matters; 2) disclose how, in detail, the data was gathered for the answer; and 3) assure that data is gathered directly from all knowledgeable people with all contractors, sub-contractors, con-sultants and others working on CPSES.
Applicants response, or lack of it, also states that CASE's requests are irrelevant, because such information would be ir-2 relevant to the issues in the proceeding.
Although we are unclear which issues Applicant is referring to, we assume that the Applicant has not withdrawn their request to have the Board hold a hearing and rule on the adequacy of the CPRT.
If the acceptability of the CPRT is before the Board, than it is clearly discoverable if Applicant has reviewed and considered the elements of the Readiness Review program in its quest for a path to an operating license.
Additionally, CASE is alarmed that Applicant may be oper-ating on less than good faith in its reply to interrogatories.
Our concern, as we have stated, is that Applicants may be con-tinuing to reply to CASE with only such information as they intend to rely upon for regulatory compliance. This attitude, articulated by several top management officials in their affi-davits regarding the nondisclosure of the MAC report, raises the question that there is an entire layer of audits, reviews, and consultant reports which have not been identified or produced in response to discovery.
Further, Applicant has insisted on an interative approach to the CPRT (modifying as they go along), and because this Board has now directed Applicant to produce responses to discovery during
4 the development of the CPRT (Board Order, August 16, 1985), it is appropriate for CASE to be told about efforts being made by Applicant to identify and possibly use short-cuts for attempting to meet regulatory requirements.
The readiness review is such a short-cut and if Applicant is considering its use that is so extremely relevant to this proceeding.
CASE believes that no such short-cut can substitute for the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B but needs to know as early as possible what, if any, consideration Applicant is giving to its use in order to properly prepare for future hearings.
This is particularly important in light of Applicant's habit of changing its approach to licensing when it gets close to receiving a negative response from the NRC and then pressing for a prompt repsonse to that new approach from CASE without the benefit of any discovery.
CONCLUSION For all these reasons we request that the Motion to Compel I
be granted.
l Respectfully submitted, O
k BILLIE PIRNER GARDE ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
(202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE 1
- A %cu hne.v% 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING
~'
Briefing on Operational Readiness Review Pilot Program Georgia Power (Vogtle)
(Public Meeting)
Docket No.
s Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Friday, July 26, 1985 Pages: 1 - 80 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters
(-
1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
M o
y 67 i
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Moro, Jim?
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Fred?
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I would just second what Jim 5
said.
There's an old sign that IBM made famous many years ago 6
that appeared on a lot of desks that said, "Think."
And it's 7
cle$r that you've given a good deal of thought to this idea, 8
and your presentation reflects that, and you're thinking about 9
what you're doing, and that's the way you find your pathway 10 through the licensing mase, one hopes relatively unscathed.
11 I have a couple of questions on whether there are 12 early results that have come out of this that might be of 13 general interest.
Have you compared notes much with other 14 utilities?
15 I'm sure you've talked to the INPO people a good 16 deal, but are there things that have come out of this already 17 that other utilities have found particularly interesting or 18 that are different?
19 MR. RICE:
I can address that question.
We are l
20 sharing all of the things in the process, procedures, and 21 results with any other utilities.
1 22 (Commissioner Roberts leaves the Commission 23 meeting.3 1
24 MR. RICE:
We've had two utilities -- WNP-3, which 25 was mentioned awhile ago, and one other utility, TVA -- well.
b 68 thoro's TVA, and also Ccmancho 1
thoro's roally throo than 2
Peak has visited us, looked at the process, and carried away 3
both our procedures, and at least in my exiting with those 4
folks, some idea of some things they may want to apply from 5
this.
They're in a different condition than we a r e',
but we 6
are sharing all of the lessons learned and the process in a.
7 very open manner with them.
m 8
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What's the general 9
attitude?
I'm not sure how candid you care to be.
Did they 10 consider it overkill?
Do they consider it overwhelming to 11 even think about initiating such a project, or are a lot of 12 them nodding their heads saying, " Sounds like it's a great 13 idea, which we have done or we intend to do?"
14 MR. MILLER:
I don't think I've had any 15 broadly-based feedback, enough to really give you a feel for 16 that I may get some at my NUMARC meeting in late August.
17 The only people I have talked to have been 18 supportive, but I haven't really spoken to very many of them.
19 I really can't tell you what the thrust of the industry might 20 be.
21 COMMISSIONER BERN7HAL:
Has this made visible 22 differences in construction itself, so if I were to'go down 23 there tomorrow, I would be able to tell somehow that you are 24 doing things differently in the plant than other utilities 25 might be?
Or is it mostly behind the scenes?