ML20138N249

Memorandum & Order LBP-85-41 Establishing That Discovery Requests in One Docket Be Deemed to Be Filed in Other Docket & Expressing Concern Re QA for Design of Active Valves. Served on 851101

ML20138N249
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/31/1985
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-#485-064, CON-#485-64 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, LBP-85-41, OL, OL-2, NUDOCS 8511050119
Download: ML20138N249 (6)

Text

.

. N LBP-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 4"-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q Q ll .

"~

Before Administrative Judges: c Peter B. Bloch, Chairman y NOV -# M ~

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom C cc p/

Dr. Walter H. Jordan C "d@y-nacdSIca i.;c Herbert Grossman, Esq. f

% if j;

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-0L & OL-2 50-446-0L & OL-2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

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

Units 1 and 2) )

) October 31, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SERB NOV -11985 MEMORANDUM (Procedural Rulings; Board Concern About QA for Design)

This Memorandum addresses issues raised in the course of the discovery process that is underway and it also raises a Board concern arising out of a Board notice of a meeting between Staff and the Appli-cants about pumps and valves.

I. Procedural Matters On October 25 to 28 the parties responded to discovery matters raised by the Board in an off-the-record telephone conference held on October 15, 1985. In that conference, the Boards asked the parties to respond to the following statement:

This is a single case: (a) in which CASE's representatives should make a good faith effort to coordinate their discovery activities; (b) in which Applicants should provide more specific responses to discovery, identifying they have been subjectprior to aresponses redundantwhenever they (believe request, and that c) in which I

8511050119 851031 gDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR 3 h

I L.

Procedural Rulings; Concern: 2 i

objections as to relevance may not be restricted to relevance to a particular docket. >

l Applicants disagree that this is a single case. To the extent that there are two separate Boards with separate jurisdiction, based on the Notice of Hearing for each case, Applicants are correct. However, as l

l other parties have pointed out, the cases are richly intertwined. As a 1

consequence there are matters occurring in one docket that may be relevant to the other docket. To that extent, the two Boards agree that )

discovery requests filed in one docket shall be deemed to be filed in the other docket as well. Hence it will not be necessary for either Board to make narrow procedural rulings whose only consequence would be refiling in the other docket. l With respect to evidence, it also is obvious that material in one docket may be relevant in the other. The Board has discussed this l question with respect to paint quality assurance, for example. To the extent that there may be a pervasive breakdown in paint quality assur-ance, this appears to be relevant to the question of whether paint J

quality assurance inspectors or Mr. Lipinski may have been subjected to harassment or intimidation. Thus, technical questions in docket 1 may bear on issues in docket 2.

Since the dockets are factually intertwined, a party may wish to rely on evidence from the other docket. We consider it preferable to permit such reliance rather than to require refiling the evidence in the second docket.

Procedural Rulings; Concern: 3 The extent to which a party in one docket relies on evidence in the other docket will be revealed when the party files proposed findings of fact.1 Hence, there will be no fair notice problem. Lawyers in both dockets must, therefore, be alert to implications for the other docket.

We will consider evidence relevant to one docket to be available for citation in the other docket, providing that it is relevant to the issues in the second docket.

We note that both parties have multiple representatives who should coordinate their discovery activities, including their responses to discovery. Similarly, both parties should identify particular prior responses when they respond to an interrogatory or document request by claiming to have responded to discovery in the other docket.

~

To the extent that Applicants have objected to discovery requests b'cause they refer to documents not yet in existence, we do not expect to honor that objection. If there are no documents of a requested type available, Applicants should say so. Then, given the gradually unfolding nature of this case, they should update their response periodically until the period of discovery is closed by Board order, pursuant to this Order of the Board and to 10 CFR 92.740(e)(3).

I Given the way in which the Boards have detennined that this case may be considered a single case for purposes of discovery, there is no need for us to clarify the scope of Docket 2, as Staff requests, Docket 2 deals with harassment and intimidation -- terms bearing a natural meaning. We also recall having commented on the meaning of these terms previously.

O Procedural Rulings; Concern: 4 We continue to encourage cooperation among the parties concerning the informal exchange of information. To the extent that any of the parties have objected to the participation of other parties in meetings to exchange information, we are hopeful that a more cooperative attitude

.a may prevail in the future. Each of - the parties has demonstrated the ability and willingness to participate in constructive dialogue. We are hopeful that each of the parties will keep this in mind and will not only encourage cooperation but will seek- to learn from and benefit from the contributions of the other parties.

In the interest of efficiency, we require parties faced by a discovery request considered to be overly broad to explain why the request is too broad and, if feasible, to interpret the request in a reasonable fashion and to supply documents (or answer interrogatories) within the realm of reason.

II. Stress Allowables for Active Valves The Board in the principal docket has discussed the Sumary of Meeting Held on September 17, 1985 - for NRC/TUGC0 to Discuss the Potential Deviation from FSAR Commitment on Stress Allowables for Active Valves (filed with us October 17, 1985). We are concerned that the problem discussed in that meeting should be pursued further with respect to the Board's findings on Quality Assurance for Design, set forth in LBP-83-81, 18 NRC 1410, 1428 (1983); LBP-84-10, 19 NRC 509, 513 ("There has been no recognition that errors in design documents are an indepen-dent concern, regardless of whether they may be corrected before the

t' y

Procedural Rulings; Concern: 5 plant is completed. . . . Although errors may be made, significant errors . . . should be promptly identified, ' documented,' and corrected with reasonable speed.")

In particular, we are concerned that there may not have been a procedure to document deficiencies in specifications detected by ven-dors, that there apparently was no documentation of or prompt follow-up of such deficiencies in this instance and that whatever system existed to control the quality of design documents did not detect that specifi-cations had deviated from FSAR commitments. We expect the Applicants or the Staff to investigate the implications of these problems for the adequacy of the system for controlling the quality of design documents.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the

' entire redord in this matter, it is this 31st day of October 1985 ORDERED:

1. Discovery requests filed in one docket shall be deemed to be filed in the other docket as well.

2. Evidence relevant to one docket is available for citation in the other docket.

3. Both parties have multiple representatives who should coordi- -

nate their discovery activities.

s l J

Procedural Rulings; Concern: 6

4. Both partie:, should ider.tify particular prior responses when they respond to an interrogatory or document request by claiming to have responded to discovery in the other docket.

5. Parties faced by a discovery request considered to be overly broad should explain why the request is too broad and, if feasible, should interpret the request in a reasonable fashion and supply docu-ments (or answer interrogatories) within the realm of reason.

6. To the extent that this Order affects the validity of discovery responses or objections that have already been filed, a party may promptly file an amended response.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

~

Peter B. Bloch', Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland

_ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . .