ML20154B847

Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20154B847
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/28/1986
From:	Sinkin L CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-271 OL, NUDOCS 8603040412
Download: ML20154B847 (7)

Text

27/

o

&f[QCORRESPONDyp

~.. ~ _ m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2/28/8@0 CME TEU NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U91R0 M4A BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T6 IBF 31 N0:45 In the Matter of

(

OFFICE f;r :.

3 00CXETmG.

UN A *1 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND

(

Docket Nos. 50-498 OL POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

)

50-499 OL (South Texas Project,

(

Units 1 and 2)

(

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, INC. (CCANP)

MQIlgN IQ CQMEEL On February 18,

1986, Applicants filed their Answers and Objections to CCANP Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants

(" Answers and Objections").

In said Answers and Objections, Applicants partially answered Interrogatories 12(a),

(b),

and (c).

Applicants objected to and declined to answer all other CCANP interrogatories.

In its accompanying CCANP Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order, CCANP presents its overall reply to Applicants on this issue.

CCANP incorporates herein said response.

In this motion to compel, CCANP responds to the objections to specific Instructions and Interrogatories found in Applicants' hoswers and Objections.

Insituction 2:

Applicants object to Instruction 2 as overly broad and burdensome.

Answers and Objections at 2 - 4.

CCANP is willing to limit Instruction 2 to HL&P, Bechtel, & Ebasco and any contractors or subcontractors who performed any element of the drug control program for these three companies or whose personnel were included in investigations conducted by these three companies.

Insttuctign 4:

Applicants object to Instruction 4 as going 8603040412 860228 PDR ADOCK 0500049s 303 G

PDR 1

beyond the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

Section 2.740(e).

CCANP accepts Applicants

position, except, of

course, for ar.y additional responsibility imposed by the McGuirg rule.

Regarding Applicants' objections to CCANP Interrogatories, CCANP has the following general responses:

J 1.

Applicants in general seem to ignore the availability of protective orders governing-another party receiving discovered information which Applicants contend should be held as confidential information. See 10 C.F.R.

2. 740 (c) (2).

2.

In its Interrogatories and Production Request, CCANP seeks to develop the history of Applicants' drug control programs I

from January 1, 1984 through the current program, including any i

procedural or substantive changes in said programs, the nature of tests used in said programs, which groups fell under such programs and which did not, the identities of the personnel administering the programs and of those tested pursuant to said

programs, how those tested were selected, the substantive nature of the

tests, the results of the

tests, how personnel were treated based on test

results, the identities of people identified during the testing process as possibly involved in the use and/or sale of illegal drugs, what follow up steps were taken regarding those so identified, the identities of personnel in the Operations Group implicated in the use and/or sale of illegal drugs, and how such Operations Group personnel were treated.

CCANP contends that this is a routine discovery pattern designed to pinpoint any examples of preferential treatment in the drug control program and when the Operations Group received such treatment, either by not being investigated when implicated, 2

not being disciplined when found to be involved in the use and/or sale of drugs, or otherwise receiving more lenient treatment than others on the Project alleged or discovered to be similarly involved with illegal drugs.

Since the allegation included the charge that non-members of the Operations Group were not fired because they would implicate the Operations Group, CCANP seeks to develop information on all individuals tested who implicated others in o-der to trace the path of such identifications and what was done in such instances.

All of CCANP's Interrogatories and production requests are propounded for these purposes and

are, therefore, not objectionable, if the overall allegation is considered a matter falling within Issue F.

CCANP addressed this question in its accompanying Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order.

CCANP addresses below Applicants' objections other than the objection that the matter is outside the bounds of Issue F.

lOtettggatqty digt:

Applicants object on the grounds that disclosure of the requested information would reveal confidential information.

Answers and Objections at 6.

Applicants claim by analogy to be a federal regulatory agency and entitled to the same protection from disclosure of information.

Id. Such a broad claim is nowhere supported by rule, case law, or statute.

More appropriately, Applicants can seek a protective order binding CCANP counsel to confidentiality regarding said information.

IOteCCggatgty 31hl:

Applicants object on grounds of confidentiality.

Again, the appropriate response is to seek a

protective order governing the release of said information to 3

o.

Intervenor.

Applicants also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that CCANP's request for the identities of all employees tested is overly broad and should be restricted to operations or operations OA personnel.

As Applicants are well

aware, Sge Applicants Motion for Protective Order dated February 18, 1986 at 8,

CCANF's allegation, in part, is that personnel other than Operations Group personnel were not fired because they would implicate Operations Group personnel.

The names of all employees tested is, therefore, discovery reasonably calculated to lead to l

discovery of admissible evidence.

lOteCCggatgty 6:

Applicants object to the disclosure of investigatory techniques which would impede future investigations.

Again, the appropriate response is to seek a

protective order permitting controlled release of this information to Intervenor.

Applicants again claim by analogy to be in the same position as a

federal regulatory agency, a contention CCANP argues is l

legally unsupportable.

I 1

l IQteCC99at9tY 1Q: Applicants object to CCANP's Interrogatory J

as too broad because it asks for people identified "as possibly l

involved in the use and/or sale of illegal drugs." In order to gain a

comprehensive view of how Applicants implemented their drug control program and identify where preferential treatment l

may have been given, the treatement of all those known to be possibly involved in the use and/or sale of illegal drugs is a

relevant matter for inquiry.

Applicants also argue that providing CCANP such identities 4

would be an invasion of privacy.

Again an appropriate protective order can be fashioned prior to permitting release of said information.

Intgttggatgty-121cl:

By the incomplete nature of Applicants

answer, Applicants apparently object to providing all the requested information.

As shown in Figure 1 attached to the Affidavit of Jerrold G.

Dewease on the Progress of HL&P's Preparations for Operation of STP Since 1982 dated February 14,

1986, the Manager Nuclear Training and Manager Nuclear Security report to the Vice President Nuclear Plant Operations

and, therefore, form part of the Operations Group.

Egg alsg Dewease Affidavit at 3, item 5.

In their

answer, Applicants provided "the names of individuals reporting to the Plant Manger (or his predecessor, the Plant Superintendent)." Answers and Objections at 10, Answer 12(e).

Said answer thus e:Icludes, personnel in the Nuclear Training and Nuclear "ecurity sections.

CCANP moves the Board to compel Applicants to answer Interrogatory 12(c) for these organizations and to supplement their answers to Interrogatories 12(a),

and (b)

Eand answer Interrogatory 12(d),

if the Board rules (d) must be answered]

with the requested information pertaining to these organizations.

5

I t

For.the above and foregoing' reasons, CCANP moves the Board to compel Applicants to answer completely all interrogatories propounded in CCANP's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants.

e 1'

Res ectfully submitted, d

Lanny Alan Sinkin Christic Institute l

1324 North Capitol Street i

Washington, D.C.

20002-j (202) 797-8106 1

1 j

Counsel for Intervenor, Citizens Concerned About i

Nuclear Power, Inc.

I Dated: February 28, 1986 Washington, D.C.

l i

l 6

1 i

i e.

i i'

i I-i i

l i

6-

... g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u__

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00(.KE T ED In the Matter of

(

USNRC-

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND

(

Docket Nos. 50-498 OL F90k.

POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

)

50-499 OL '86 S M 20 :45 (South Texas Project,

(

Units l'and 2)

(

FFICE OF 5 e %, -

METir4G A SEpw(1 GESI1ElG8IE DE SEBylGE BRANCH I

hereby certify that copies of CITIZEN 3 CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR

POWER, INC.

-(CCANP)

MOTION TO COMPEL were served by

-messenger (*)

or by deposit in the U.S.

Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entities on the 28th day of February 1986.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection Washington, D.C.

20555 P.

O.

Box 12548, Capitol Sta.

Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C.

Lamb, III Administrative Judge Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esquire 313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Frederick J.

Shan Administrative Judge Jack R.

Newman, Esquire U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20036 Melbert Schwar=, Esquire Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy Buchorn 300 One Shell Plaza Executive Director, C.E.U.

Houston, Texas 77002 Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Atomic Safety and Lic. Bd.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Diane Curran, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20555 Harmon, Weiss 84 Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W.,

Suite 430 Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington,HD.C.

20009 Appeal Board U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Pat Coy Washington, D.C.

20555 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 78233 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Ray Goldstein U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Gray and Becker Washington, D.C.

20555 901 Vaughn Bldg.

807 Brazos Austin, Texas 78701 L iny in