ML20211D552
| ML20211D552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1986 |
| From: | Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1167 OL, NUDOCS 8610220220 | |
| Download: ML20211D552 (25) | |
Text
'
HM UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00tXETED U 91P
Eie f o r e the Atomic Safety and Licensinq Fio a r d
'86 0CT 20 P1 :44 In the matter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.,
)
Dkt No. bO-44S/o-OL hg-;,,
et.a1.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 1 and 2)
)
MOTION TO COMPEL On September 11, 1986 the Citizen's Association for Sound Energy (CASE) filed the first discovery request on the issue of the adequacy of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan.
On Septem1;er 26, 1986 Applicant's filed answers to the first and second set of CASE's interrogatories. ( Applicants' Answers To CASE CPRT Program Plan Interrogatories, Set I and 2, September 26, 1986.)
The Applicant failed to respond, or provided incomplete and evasive responses to many of the Interrogatories. Prior to filing the responses the Applicant made no attempt to contact CASE to' clarify any of the interrogatories that they may have found o bj e c t io nable, and refused to provide any specific basis for the blanket o bj e c t io ns which were utill ed in the responses.'
1 This motion is being filed one day late per agreement of Counsel for Applicants.
8610220220 861015 PDR ADOCK 05000445 3
G PDR gC i
2 Unfortunately, CASE has no option but to file this motion to compel pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f)."
- 1. BACKGROUND In considering this motion to compel CASE believes that it is critical the Board review the purpose of the issue of the adequacy of the CPRT, the history of dicovery disputes since January 1985, and the posture of this case in general.
Only in the context of full consideration of this discovery and the background of this issue is it appropriate to scrutinize the requests and the responses of Applicant to determine if an order to compel is, as CASE believes, necessary.
I A.
THE POSTURE OF THE CURRENT CASE The posture of the case is that the Board has ruled that the issue now ripe for consideration and scheduled for hearing is the adequacy of the CPRT program plan, and that discovery is in i
order to enable the parties to prepare motions for summary judgement or for hearing.
Obviously, it is necessary that CASE i
have an accurate and detailed understanding of the CPRT.
Without this understanding the efforts which CASE is prepared to enpend 1
on this hearing are a waste of everyone's time.
The understanding of the CPRT which CASE needs is not obtainable by simply reading the program plan and assuming a r
i 2 10C.F.R. 2.740 (f) states that the party requesting discovery must file a motion to compel within 10 days of the response or failure to respond to the request.
3 common meaning of the words contained therein.
This became painfully obvious at the August 18-19, 1986 Pre-Hearing Conference when the Board and the parties spent several hours trying to understand how the CPRT categorizes and defines failures to meet commitments and then determines - or doesn't determine -the root cause and generic implications of identified failures to meet commitments.
(See, generally transcript of the August 18, 1986 Pre-Hearing c o r.i t r e n c e. )
i Therefore, CASE set forth instructions and wrote questions which were designed specifically to elicit precise and detailed information from Applicants about the CPRT.
We expected the an-swers to our int er rogatorries would enable us to understand the CPRT progrr..n fully enough to enable CASE to write a definitive motion tor summary j udgement on each of the generic flaws of the CPRT.
However, it is now apparent that it is not the Applicants intention to provide the type of detailed information and explanations which will fully respond to our questions and insure that CASE has an accurate and complete understanding of the CPRT, but rather to delay discovery and turn it into agoni:Ing, time-j consuming game of rhetoric and hypertechnical arguments.
it is CASE's belief that the board, in ruling on this j
motion, must exercise its authority to control this proceeding by insisting that Applicants comply with the spirit and the letter of the ruling setting forth the issue of the CPRT adequacy for hearing.
l J
i n,.--
--n-
.-n.-.,,
w.
. -. _, - -..,. - -. - ~., -.. -.,
'l 4
B.
APPLICAf4T'S HISTORICAL ATTITUDE TOWARD DISCOVERY Applicants responses to the initial interrogatories are not unique in this proceeding.
It is CASE's view that the responses and/or o bj e c t io ns advanced by Applicant is a continuation of the delay tactics employed in this proceeding since at least the be-ginning of 1985 when the Applicant requested a suspension of the hearings.
However, CASE understood that this practice was to be eliminated and that the parties were under an obligation to this Board to cooperate in discovery matters pursuant to certain procedures articulated by the Board on June 16, 1986 in a confer-ence call which culminated a year long dispute over CASE's dis-covery requests first filed in May 1985.3 We believe that this approach to discovery by Applicant, if allowed to continue, significantly pr ej udi c e s CASE and minimizes the value of thiu proceeding, as well as making the hearing on the CPRT almost totally unmanageable.
In shurt, CASE proposed a very condensed schedule for this hearing, as a compromise to its initial position, voluntarily limiting itself to one round of discovery on the CPRT to be filed within 30 days of the board's ruling.
based on the information provided in drucovery as well as the information already available on the CPRT, CASE had planned to prepare a motion for 3 The board instructed the parties to contact each other to dtscuss any confusions or misunderstandings of questions, or o bj e c t i o ns before filing motions to compel.
. aga 5
summary j udgement on what CASE believes are generic flaws with the CPRT.
However, without full disclosure and adequate responses to our discovery CASE's efforts will likely be an exercise in futility -
CASE piecing together bits and pieces of data squeezed out of the Applicant after lengthy, resource sapping motions to compel and discovery disputes and Applicants filing a cross motion which uses previously non-disclosed information or e:: p l a na t i o n s to demonstrate the errors i n CASE's understanding of the CPRT.
That is not the scenario CASE as an alternative, to our orginal proposal.
Nor do we think it is the type of enpenditure of time that the board intended.
To be very straightforward CASE wants to know, and is enti-tied to know, how the CPRT is intended to work, what the words in the CPRT program plan mean to the individuals who have to imple-meat it, and how the current plan prepares to c orn p e ns a t e for all the work done up to the issuance of SSER 13.
We have asked our queutions, we e :: p e c t full, complete, hon-est and detailed answers.
We have offered to e:: plain or discuss each and every question propounded (CAUL introduction, page 2),
we have demonstrated our ability to process and analize the information (See, CASE Preliminary Analysis of ISAP I.a.4.,
May 1986).
CASE helteves that the answer to each and every question in Set 1 and 2 is unacceptable in that tt is incomplete, evasive, ciruitous or nonsensical.
Nonethelea we have decided to move to compel responses on only those tsuues which we believe the Daard
6 must rule and pursue the remaining information in the course of depositions.
The remaining inadequate responses will stand as the responses provided by applicant and we trust that the Board will exclude any information later which was not provided in response to our interrogatories now.
If the Board is not prepared to ex-clude future information which should have been provided now we seek as an order from this Board establishing depositions at Applicants expen6+ in lieu of the written interrogatories, since that is the only method by which CASE can apparently get the information it seeks.
C.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PHASE OF THE LITIGATION CASE took the position in January 1985 that a definitive ruling was needed by the Daard on the proposed program plan. (See CASE's Motion for An Evidentiary Standard, February 4,
'198S )
The basis of our request was our awareness that the.NRC Staff did not intend to issue a definitive ruling on the CPRT until it was submitted in the final form, and that there was no mandatory or self-imposed Stop Work Order which would restrict the Applican't from proceeding with the reinspection program and rework prior to the NRC Staff making modificationu in the program.
Thus in Janu-ary 1985 the plant was in an indeterminate condition and at the threshold of a reinspection and rework program not based on 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendin D, managed by the Applicant with little or no verifiability, and virtually devoid of any requirements for the development of an auditable trail of work accomplished.
j 7
We argued then that if the Board did not issue a ruling at the front end of the program that, at the end, the Staff and the Ap-plicants would argue that the Board could not interfere with the work that had been already accomplished when, and if, the Board chose to rule on the adequacy of the program. The Board declined to rule on the plan at the time.
CASE also made this argument repeatedly to the Staff. (See, generally, letters from Billie P.
Garde to Vince Noonan, Aug.15, 1985, Mar cic 10, 1986, March 20,
~
1986, April 2, 1986) The Staff's reply remained constant that the Applicant was " proceeding on its own risk."
Now, as CASE feared, the primary argument against the deliberation of this issue is that it is essentially a fait a c c om r>11 (August 18, 1986, Tr.24590-93)
If CASE is not able to have complete and full discovery at this point the CPRT will be completed, and the Appliants will have achieved by obstinance what they could not achieve by persuasion.
The likely result will be a repeat of the December 1983 decision in which after CASE prevatled Applicant was able to have a second, (and now a third), chance to describe and explain j
their design OA program. (In the instant case, the adequacy of i
the CPRT)
We do not want that to happen as a result of a lack of Jue diligence in discovery or the failure to seek complete and l
i thorough information regarding the CPRT.
REQUEST FOR RULING DY lHE BOARD CASE has made more than a good faith attempt to avoid this pleading.
We called Counsel for Applicant and offered to meet
e with Applicant to insure that our interrogatories were understood where they were not clear.
Counsel for CASE (B. Garde) called Counsel for Applicant (R. Gad) on Friday, October 3, 1986 when it was obvious to us that the answers were just not adequate in an attempt to discuss the basis for Applicant's position.
- First, Counsel for Applicant, while at an airport telephone, wanted to be read each of his own obj e c t ions -no t having the documents with him - and then to engage in argument about why the response prejudiced CASE.
Since that would have been an obviously elaborate and non productive undertahing Counsel for Applicant agreed to call Counsel for CASE on the following Sunday afternoon, October S, 1986.
No call was received until Sunday evening, after Counsel for CASE had left, and that call was also from an airport.
A second promise was left to call the next day.
No call was received the following two days.
Finally Counsel for CASE again called Counsel for Applicant Wednesday, October 8, 1986. -This time Counsel for Applicant was non-responsive, refusing to provide any detailed or specific information as to which of the instructions were followed and which ignored andt why, refusing to discuss the issue of implementation, and mocking the question regarding the definitions.
After it was obvious that CASE's good faith attempts at cooperation had been abused, CASE began to prepare this motion.
No further contact has been received from Applicant regarding these issues.
CA3E (11ed this motten~h, compel on four issues which we believe the Duard must reuolse immediately, as they are positions
1 9
}
that the Applicant has taken regarding discovery in this hearing which bear directly on the inadequacy of Sets 1 and 2, and will likely be repeated in Sets 3 - 12.
Those ipsues, listed below, are:
(1)
Applicants' failure to follow the lawful and useful in-structions laid out in CASE's discovery requests for the purpose of ascertaining detailed information and an accurate understand-ing of the CPHT.
(2)
Applicant's refusal to answer questions which they claim are irrelevant, (i.e. beyond the scope) of the CPRT and deal with implementation.
l (3)
Applicants' refusal to provide a specific definition to a given term or phrase when requested and instead rely on a circular response which relies on the original term or phrase or a claim that a word or phrase has no particular meaning.
(4)
The Applicant's refusal to answer questions about the job responsibilities of individuals who work or worked for the CPH f proj ect when one of the generic flaws raised by CASE is the results of the implementation of toe CPRT by individuals who int-taally caused the problems (i.e.
Independence and incompetence l
I issues.)
Accordingly, in light of the circumstances described above CASE respectfully requests that the Daard issue an order i
5 "!P".l l i ng the Applicant to follow the instructions as written by CASE and produce all other information requested by CASE in this motion, or to order evidentiary depositions at the Applicant's I
10 expense to enable CASE to complete productive, valid discovery on tne issue of the CPRT adequacy.
- 11. ARGUMENT A.
Applicants Failu're To Follow Instructions CASE set forth instructions in CPRT Discovery Set 1 which were designed specifically to elicit precise and detailed information from Applicants about the CPRT.
Applicants have ig-nored those instructions, ( Applicants' Answer, Set 1,
Page 1),
but provided no further specificity of what instructions were ig-nored and which ones were followed, and what was the basis for the obj ection.
The only clue given as to what the obj ections may be based on was the statament that the instructions were ignored to the extent that they were deemed contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
CASE will not spend the Daard's time in hypothest.ing what the Applicant meant by that statement, which instructions were ignored and which were followed, or what the basis of an objection may be.
Instead CASE reiterates its argument advanced above that CASE has given up certain rights to further discovery to which it would be entitled to in order to move these issues to the Daard promptly and before the CPRT is finished.
Applicant should not be allowed to profit from that action by its refusal to disclose the basis for its obj ections and refusals, leaving CASE with no right to reply to whatever they now choose to disclose as the basis for their response to this motion.
I e
i 11 More importantly, the instructions listed below in their entirety are both lawful and permissible. The instructions were researched prior to their being used, and were based on a form book which was also carefully reviewed and researched."
If Applicant believed that it had a l e g i t i nia t e obj ection to following the instructions set forth by CASE the proper action under the NRC Rules of Practice would have been for Applicants to seek a protective order ( 10 C. F. R. 2.740 (f) (1)) which provides that " Failure to answer or respond shall not be e::cused on the ground that the discovery sought is o bj e c t i o nabl e unless the person or party falling to answer or respond has applied for a protective order pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this section."
Applicant sought no protective order, have provided no rea-sons why the instructions are o bj e c t i o nabl e, and should be ordered to comply with them for Sets I and 2 and all future sets of interrogatories.
Pursuant to the instructions of 10 C.F.R. 2.740(f) CAGE has set forth the instructions in their entirety below:
INGTHUCTIONS A.
This discovery request is deenied to be co nt i nui sig,
and any other additional information which is discov-ered and responsive to this request requires supplemen-tation to these answers up to and including the time of the hearing in this proceeding.
4 See, (1a t t h ew Dender a Co., loc., ini nd e r 's Fo r rr, p_f Discoverv, Copyright l'/ c.
12 B.
All interrogatories should be answered on the basis of Applicants' knowledge or information and belief, in-cluding that of Applicants' representatives, agents and unless privileged and specifically alleged with re-spect to specifically identified material and the basis for the claim attorneys.(sic)
The response should indicate when an answer is based upon information and belief.
C.
When an interrogatory has one or more subparts, the answer to each subpart should be set forth separately and completely.
D.
If Applicants believe that the answer to any inter-rogatory is privileged, in whole or in part, or other-wise obj e c t s to any part of the interrogatory.
Appli-cants must state the reason (s) for each obj ection, and identify each person having knowledge of the factual basis, if any, on which the privilege or obj ection is asserted and the precise scope of the claimed privilege or obj e c t ion.
E.
If an inferrogatoiy could, at one time, have been answered by consulting documents that are no longer in existence, the Applicants must in responding to the in-terrogatoryl (1) Identify what information was maintained in such documents; (ii) Identify all documents that contained such information; (iii) State the time period during which such documents were maintained; (iv) State the circumstances under which such documents ceased to entst; (v) Identify all persons having knowledge of the circumstances under which documents ceased to exist; and (vi) Identify all persons who have knowledge or had knowledge of the documents and their contents.
F.
If Applicants once had any document responsive to the request for production, but said document has been destroyed, lost, given or loaned to another or is otherwise unavailable for inspection, Applicants shall furnishi (1) The name and address of all other persons who have or may have said document; (11) A sumtriary of the contents of said document; and (iii) The date and reason why the do currient was destroyed, lost, loaned, given or othurwise be c arne unavailable.
13 B.
Applicant s Relevancy Obj ection as to Implementation CASE sought information in sets 1 regarding how the CPRT works, and who implements it.
The requests are set forth below, followed by the Applicants' responsen CASE Request: For each of the following questions iden-tify name, j ob description and employer of each person who has the authority to decide what each of these terms and phrases mean in practice and answer the ques-tion in light of the meaning given to the phrase or term in pratice.
Where there are different meanings or interpretations given by different persons provide each separate meaning or interpretation.(Set 1,
at 1)
Applicant's Resr.onse To the extent, if any, that this interrogatory calls for information regarding the implemenation of the CPRT Program Plan, the Applicants o bj e c t to it on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the CPRT discovery authorized by the Board in its rulings on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Applicant's did provide a partial answer to the question by stating that the Genior Review Team (SRT) "has the authority to interpret, in the event that interpretation is required, the terms contained in the CPHT."
( Appli cants. Response at 2)
However, the partial answer provided by Applicant is non-responsive to CASE's request for information.
The gravamen of the objection to the question above, presum-ably applied to each interrogatory, is that the Applicant's do not have to answer the question or comply with the instruction because the information sought by CASE is "beyond the r
I scope" of the board's August 1Y, lYd6 ruling which granted CAGE's i
l proposal to huld a hearing on the adequacy of the CPRT, and thus i
i irrelevant.
i i
However, Applicants muut be compelled to respond to the in-t i
turrogatories.
F'a rs t, Applicants did not seek a protective order i
14 as required by 10.CFR 2.40 (3)(f), as stated above. Second, the information is relevant and therefore properly discoverable in this hearing, and finally, even if the information sought was construed to be properly litigated in another phase of the Operating License hearing it is still properly discoverable.
The rules of evidence applicable here, both the federal rules and the NRC rules'of practice provide that information which has any tendency to prove or disprove a material issue, that is to render it more probably true or untrue, is relevant evidence.
For purposes of discovery, governed by 10 C. F. R. 2.740 (b)(1), any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the st.uect matter involved in the proceeding - whether to a claim or defense-15 dicoverable.
This spectftcally includes "...the identity and location of persons having hnowledge of any discoverable matter."
Such information is precisely what CASE now seeks through its request for the identify of each person who has the authority to interpret the terms and phrases of the CPRT in practate.
Since Appiacant's did not apply for a protective order they must be compelled to respond. However, even assuming areiuende that Applicant's had applied for a protective order under 2.740 (c) (4), which provides a mechanism which a parLy may attempt to show good cause for the it.suance of a protective order limiting the scope of discovery into certain matters, CASE believes that Applicant's request would fail.
This is simply be caut.e C ASE doe s not seek by this interrogatoroy to obtain information about the 4
'i 15 results of the implementation of CPRT, CASE only seeks a full understanding of how the CPRT is designed to work.
The question sought the names of individuals who are in positions to interpret the words of the CPRT in order to irn pl eme n t the plan.
Such information is clearly relevant to the adequacy of the plan, and therefore not beyond the scope of permissible discovery. For example CASE requested the CPRT defanitton of the term " root cause" (Interrogatory No. S), and to "(i)dentify the name, job description, and employer of each person who has the authority to decide what each of these terms and phrases means in practice..."
supra.
Gince the work processes might be implemented by people who have one definition and understanding in mind, and reviewed or overviewed by another group of people who have yet another rueantng in mind, and accepted by the NRC using a third meaning it is critical that CASE be able to identify how the CPRT plan is im p l erne n t e d, including by whom it tu t in p l eme n t e d.
If at some later time CASE seeks to argue that the implemenation was improper or inadequate we will male inquiries at that time as to who actually carried out the plan and according to what interpretation.
That information is not sought here..
However, the requested information is not beyond the scope of the issueu now before the Daard.
It goes directly to the validtty of the CPRT process and the credibility of its work or process.
CASE has a right to pr obe what that term means by the people who have to interpret the CPRT in its unecution.
Finally, Applicant's o bj e c t i o n tu Improper even to the
16 l
entent that proper responses would call for information already developed through the implementation of the Plan.
The Board was quite clear in its view that the scope of the issue of the adequacy of the CPRT would include as evidence some areas or is-cues already completed.
(See, Tr. of August 18, 1986 Pre-Hearing Conference ).
Thus even where a proper answer would require some peripheral discussion or disclosure of the completed portions of the CPRT such question would be 1..gitimate.
The logic of this approach is obvious.
Since there has been some implementation of the program plan the meaning or interpretation of particular CPRT words, pharses or procedures is not theoretical, but is instead already decided in the context of implememting the comtritment.
CASE does not wish here to liti-gate the results of the plan, or whether or not the Applicant's implementation of the plan meet its original commitment, only whether the plan, if implemented perfectly, will be able to ade-quately resolve the questions about the plants historical quality control / quality asssurance program.
CASE views this issue as very similar to the issue which de-veloped in the Dorket 1 and 2 discovery disputes, and we would expect the Applicants to respond in the same manner as the board instructed them an relevancy objections in that proceeding, i.e.,
if there is a relevancy obj e c tion f or information in one Dochet for information which would clearly be relevant in another docket produce the information in discovery anyway.
Applicant', il t d not provide the sought after information for
17 any of the twenty-one Interrogatories in Set 1.
For each of the i
" definition" interrogatories CASE reasserts the argument made above and asks the board to compel Applicants to provide the in-formation.
C.
Applicant's Refusal to Provide Specific Information CASE sets in Set 1 and 2 words and phrases used in the CPRT to describe or e:: plain the obj e ctives, purpose, or processes of the CPRT program plan.
The meaning of these terms is not clear on the face of the CPRT, nor after listening to the Applicants' various explanations from their lawyers. (See, generally, the transcript of the August 18-19, 1986 Pre-Hearing Conference.)
CASE seeks the working definition of the terms and phrases from those who have to use them, not a repeat of the definition given in the CPRT.
CASE finds inadequate the following numbered responses provided by Applicant in response to CASE's inquiries:
- 1. Difference between Quality of Construction and GA/GC Concerns.
2.
Thi rd party e::pe r t 4.
" Determine the nature of" 5.
" Root cause" 6.
" Adverse Trend of non-safety significant deviations or design observations."
7.
Describe the process analyzing the generic implications of each root cause.
8.
" single definitive root cause"
.. ~.. _
~
18 9.
Difference between root cause and single definitive root cause 10.
Difference between root cause and probable cause 11.
Explain term "to investigate on a proactive basis."
13.
" preliminary assessment" 14.
Explain the process of "thouroughly investigating" 15.
What criteria is used....
16.
Explain the - phrase " multiple, isolated or relatively minor discrepancies.
21.
Programmatic in nature.
A good example of the type of answer which CASE finds evasive and non-responsive is that provided for question number 16, which sought the precise meaning of the phrase " multiple, apparently isolated and relatively minor discrepancies."
The answer provided by Appplicant is that:
The quoted phrase, on page 9 of the Program Plan, was not employed by the SRT with any specialized meaning.
It refers to the potential that there would be encountered " multiple"-- that is, more than one--
apparently isolated"--that is, having no apparent commonality of cause or occurence rate- "and relatively minor"--that is, of no safety significance--might nevertheless upon further examination be reflective of a " common shortcoming in the programs and procedures (sic) applicable to the CPSES proj e c t. "
As is obvious from the answer used as an example above the responses to the interrogatories were word gamer and did not produce or provide any useful information.
CASE seeks a ruling from the Board that Applicant be required to provide full and complete responses,jor in the
19 alternative that CASE be permitted to take depositions -- at Applicants expense-in order to get the answers to the questions.
D.
Applicants refusal to provide information about the job responsibilities of individuals who worked for.the CPRT project.
CASE requested 10 categories of information for each of 39 individuals who have been actively involved in the development and execution of the CPRT from its inception to the present.
Applicants provided no information whatsoever, but instead responded with a blanket obj ection and evasive answer:
Obj e c t i o n :
The Applicants o bj e c t to this interrrogatory, on the ground that the involvement, if any, of specific individual in the draafting of the CPRT Program Plan is not relevant to the adequacy of the written document, as written, and on the ground that the balance of the information called for relates either to implementation of the Program Plan, not pre-implementation adequacy, or to involvement of individuals in project activities, v
which is wholly outside of the issue of CPRT Program adequacy.
Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing obj ection but rather enpressly relying upon the.same, the roles of all principal parties who participated in the development of Program Plans, ISAPs and DSAPs, and revisions thereof, are described in the particular documents.
See, for example, Program Plan, Rev.0, at S-9 (10/8/84).
None of the individuals listed in the question had any responsibility for (or decision-making authority regarding) the prepartion or publication of the current Program Plan (Rev. 3) other than Mr. Beck, who is the Chairman of the SRT, and none of the aforementioned individuals are Review Team Leaders or Issue Coordinators or (except for Mr. Beck) members of the SRT and, therefore, none has any responsibilty for.
(or decision-making authority regarding) the judgments and conclusions that the SRT may ultimately reach.
Applicants again rely on the argument that information being sought by' CASE in discovery is irrelevant to the proceeding
20 because it c' alls for implementation information.
We reassert the arguments made above that the information sought is discoverable f
and that the Board should compel Applicants to answer the questions and provide the information.
Here CASE seeks to discover the tasks and responsibilities of individuals involved in the development of the program plan, in order to determine whether or not they have relevant inmformation to the issue now before the Board, as well as what the involvement has been.
It is undeniable that the persons who now work for the proj ect, or who no longer work for the pr oj e ct, had some degree of involvement in the CPRT plan.
For e ::am p l e, attached to the motion CASE has included the original CPRT organization chart issued in October 1985.
Many of the people listed on the chart are allegedly no longer involved with the CPRT, or with the site, and many are.
One of t i.e key issues that CASE has oeen raising as a generic flaw with the CPRT is the lack of independence of the CPRT program plan from the proj e c t, throughout the various revisions.
Another issue is that CASE does not believe that the work done under Revision 0,1,and 2 is acceptable to be
" grandfathered in" to Revision 3.
The information sougt in Set 2 is directly relevant to those issues and, short of a protective order being issued by the Board, is discoverable.
CASE seeks an order compelling responses to our inquiries in Set-2, or in the alternative seeks depositions - at Applicants e:: pense - of each of the individuals listed in order to get the answers.
21 CONCLUSION CASE understands that the purpose of discovery is to facilitate the hearing process - eliminating by education many of' the questions which are now unknowns about the CPRT.
We are not interested in anything more than having a complete understanding of how the CPRT is designed to work, what the words in the document mean as they are used and understood by individuals at the site, and how the CPRT work which has been already accomplished will be found acceptable under the new program plan.
To the extent that the answers produce information which comes from the work already implemented CASE believes that such information is helpful and useful, but not definitive as to individual ISAPs or DSAPs.
We want to narrow the issues for I
hearing, perhaps even eliminating some or most of the issues for hearing on the basis of an understanding and acceptance of generic elements of the program plan.
We cannot do that if the Applicant is determined to engage in word games and hyperbolic arguments.
We recognize that the Board cannot compel cooperation between the parties, however the Board can compell answers which will enable CASE to proceed with this hearing.
We seek such an order, or the establishment of a procedure for depositions in which CASE can eliminate the legal manuevering permitted by the
22 interrogatory process and get relevant and reliable information from the individuals who have the information.*
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, BILLIE PIRNER GARDE Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 463-8600 October 15, 1986 Attorney for CASE 5 CASE remains willing to conduct evidentiary depositions in lieu of hearings if the Board so orders.
, y..4 e, -..
n s
t.,-
3...~.
p-u.
~-
'" ~ l i
w.
s COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM (C P RT)
TUGCO PRESIDENT
-si -G YENCE SENIOR R EVIE W TEAM L. F. FlK AR 8 R. CLEMENTS J BECK J B. GEORGE J C GUlBERT PROGRAM M ANAGER CPRT J T ME ftRIT T, Jr.
I I
I I
I I
ELECTRICAL /
CIVIL / STRUCT PROTECTIVE COATING ME CH ANIC AL OA/OC TESTING PROGRAMS INSTR. LE A D E R LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER L M POPPLEwE LL C R HOOTON R G TOLSON C K MOEHLM AN A.VEGA R E. CAMP I. e.,1. b.
I.c., I e,0. b-.
Ide.Ida M.o,M.b.15.c,N.d.
B.c., H. d., II. e.
' W I VOGELS ANG M R M BAY A VEGA S. FRANKS (t
C 38 I a.. I b 4 I c.,X.d Ide E.o E b
{
O OB. JONES M WARNER A LANCASTER Hc g
Id II c p
S P MARilNOVICH D PATANK AR et G6H
_ N. o. D e 1.b.t.I b 2,1 b 3 R E. CAMP md H.b ATTACHMENT I Revislon: O i
=_ -
/
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission CCQEiED g
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'26 m;T 20 P1 :44 In the Matter of
)
0FFin t Lw: 1d' 1
)
00CKE II!in ' 9 M-TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dkt. NoSN50-445/6-OL et al.
')
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MOTION TO COMPEL were served today, o 1 5, 17 %
by first class mail, upon the following:
Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H.
Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West'Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 Elizabeth B.
Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Nicholas Reynolds, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20036 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
t
/
Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road, 10th Floor Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas G.
Digan, Jr.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Robert Wooldridge 2001 Bryan Tower Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 I
Renea Hicks Assistant Attorney General
~
Environmental Proction Division Supreme Court Bldg.
Austin, TX 78711 Juanita Ellis CASE 1426 S.
Polk Street Dallas, TX 75224 William G. Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower, 25th Floor 400 North Olive Street Dallas, TX 75201 Roy P.
Lessy, Jr.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis 1800 M.
St.
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 h.0d (h h' ' " O Billie Pirner Garde
__