ML20211M810
| ML20211M810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1986 |
| From: | Selleck K ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1902 OL, NUDOCS 8612180056 | |
| Download: ML20211M810 (45) | |
Text
-_
6 M62-DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNPC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 DEC 16 R2 50 before the 7
n.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDY^edi,
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam
)
Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CASE's
" MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SETS 3-7" Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.730(c), Applicants submit this Memorandum in response to CASE's Motion to Compel Answers to Sets 3-7 (Nov. 28, 1986)
(" Memorandum").
INTRODUCTION Interrogatory Sets 3-7 contain 237 separate interrogatories appearing on 50 pages.
Applicants' responses to those interrogatories covered 157 pages.
In its motion to compel CASE takes issue with nineteen responses (affecting thirty-four interrogatories) in 8612180056 861212 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
PDR h S03
Applicants' answers to those five sets.1 Those interrogatcries, and now the Motion to Compel,2 display a profound misunderstanding of the discovery rules.a Whether 1
CASE takes issue with the following interrogatories (grouped in the manner found in CASE's Memorandum):
Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6 Set 7 l'
29 26-28 27 10 2
39-40 4
52-56 5
57-59 & 61 & 63-64 7
60 & 62 9
11-12 16 49 50 & 52 51 CASE also moves to compel an answer to set 3, Interrogatory 10 on the ground that it is easier for Applicants to gather the information, though CASE does not argue that the question posed is proper (CASE Memorandum at 17-18).
In addition, with respect to Set 3,
Interrogatory 31, CASE's " motion" is not one to compel but rather a request that the Board inquire about a matter raised by Applicants' response that is of apparent interest to CASE.
CASE Memorandum at 21.
2 CASE opines that Applicants' answers to " virtually every" interrogatory were " unacceptable."
Memorandum at 3.
However, CASE has not pressed in its motion to compel any supposed defect, other than with respect to the enumerated interrogatories.
2 The discovery rules, it bears note, do not require any communication with the other side before making objections to interrogatories.
CASE's complaint on this score, CASE Memorandum at 1, is therefore without foundation.
It is CASE's obligation to propound proper and intelligible interrogatories.
Where CASE has failed to apply the attention and comprehension requisite to doing this, the inevitable result can be blamed only on
t motivated by sloppiness or ulterior motive, the errant discovery must be denied.
Analysis of discovery requests must begin with relevance.
If discovery is sought of irrelevant matters, it is not al):wed to take place.
That is the end of discussion.
Only if a request passes the relevance test is it necessary (or permissible) to reach the further questions of whether the information sought enjoys a privilege from discovery, whether the discovery is timely and whether undue burden or other considerations warrant denying otherwise arguably or tangentially relevant discovery.
The only question on the table, and thus the only subject to which Interrogatory Sets 3-7 properly could be addressed, is whether the CPRT Program Plan has, "on its face," any defects so grave that it will inevitably fail in its mission even if carried out perfectly.
CASE recognizes that this is the issue, as it states that it wishes to litigate only "whether the plan, if implemented perfectly
." will function adequately.
Memorandum at 37 (emphasis added).*
CASE.
It is not the Applicants' job to do CASE's discovery for CASE.
This statement is consistent with CASE's previous concessions that the issue which the Board is considering for litigation concerns the theoretical adequacy of the Program Plan.
See Motion to Compel (Oct. 15, 1986) at 16.
See also Applicants' Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel" (Nov.
6, 1986) at n.2.
3
Applicants previously have provided CASE with-copies of the following documents, which contain virtually all of the information relevant to that question: (i) the Program Plan (and all prior revisions); (ii) the Action Plans (and all prior revisions); and (iii) Policies and Guidelines
' promulgated by the SRT.
In addition, Applicants have provided CASE with copies of the following documents, relating to Program Plan implementation efforts, including findings made in carrying out Program Plan tasks: (1) minutes of the SRT from its inception; (ii) implementing procedures for construction (CPP-) and design (DAP-) activities; (iii) implementing procedures for the Stone & Webster reanalysis efforts; (iv) interim outputs of the Stone & Webster effort; (v) all NCRs written as a result of CPRT " deviation reports;" and (vi) CPRT deviation reports as a result of which NCRs were written.5 The further discovery sought by CASE in Interrogatory Sets 3-7 is almost without exception unnecessary, irrelevant to Program Plan adequacy issues and otherwise improper as a matter of law.
Applicants nonetheless have responded substantively to the great bulk of these interrogatories.
Applicants generally have provided substantive responses s
For what it is worth, this material has been provided without the need for formal discovery and for the most part for free.
where it has been possible to do so without substantially disrupting the CPRT cffort.
Conversely, Applicants have not answered only where developing complete responses would entail masc;"e research efforts, would be subversive of carrying out Program Plan tasks or would tend to chill the ongoing intellectual effort of those implementing the Program Plan.
Common sense dictates that discovery net subvert the
)
CPRT effort.
For this reason, and because CASE's motion to compel has no sound analytic basis, that motion should be denied in its entirety.
ARGUMENT I.
Elements of Discovery Law A.
Relevance Standard The starting point for a discussion of what constitutes appropriate discovery is the NRC Rules of Practice.
Discovery is limited to non-privileged matters which are i
relevant to the subject matter involved in the particular proceeding.
10 CFR $2.740(b)(1).
The purpose of discovery l
is not to satisfy a party's roving curiosity but "to enable the parties to ascertain the facts in complex litigation, refine the issues, and prepare adequately for a more expeditious hearing or trial."
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980), quoting Pacific Cas &
5-
Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1) LBP-78-20, 7 NRC 1038, 1040 (1978).
Nor apparently does CASE dispute the point.
CASE Memorandum at 4-5.
CASE, however, claims that for discovery purposes: "unless it is clear that the evidence sought can l
have no possible bearing on the issues the test [of relevancy] will be satisfied."
CASE Memorandum at 5.
This
" standard" is one of CASE's own invention, for a reading of the two decisions cited by CASE as supposed authority I
contain no such holding.
Commonwealth Edison Company, (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-185, 7 AEC 240 (1974), ordered discovery with a view, however, to balancing legitimate discovery of relevant matters against the burden to the party to whom discovery is addressed:
l "The Board should, if it finds such a course of action to be warranted, take appropriate steps to limit the scope of authorized discovery to the extent it regards the discovery request to impose an ' undue burden' upon Westinghouse.
See 10 CFR $2.740(c).
In this regard, however, we view all of the categories of documents and information requested by the intervenors to be generally relevant to their contention on containment pressure and, accordingly, any limitation of scope must not have the effect of denying meaningful access to any of these categories."
Id.
at 243 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
In Allied-General Nuclear Services, (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station) LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489 (1977),
l the Licensing Board denied the intervenor's motion to compel discovery on the ground that the information sought by way 6-
of answers to interrogatories was not relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding,8 cautioning:
" practical consideration dictates that the parties should not be' permitted to roam in shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so."
5 NRC at 492, quoting Broadway & Ninety-Sixth St. Realty Co.
v.
Loew's, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 347, 352 (S.D.N.Y 1958).
Far from endorsing the nearly boundless test claimed by CASE, Commonwealth Edison Co. and Allied-General demonstrate that discovery is limited to provide meaningful (not endless) access to relevant matters and may be further limited to the extent it imposes an undue burden.
B.
Burden on This Motion CASE also argues that Applicants have failed to meet their " burden" of establishing the basis of a requested protective order.
CASE Memorandum at 5-6.
CASE then mysteriously cites to the requirements necessary to obtain a protective order on the grounds of confidentiality.
That test has nothing whatsoever to do with the relief sought by Applicants, who do not oppose CASE's discovery on confidentiality grounds.
6 The intervenors sought to discover information pertaining to contracts the Applicants may have had with companies providing for reprocessing of spent fuel.
The Board held that since the proceeding involved storage of spent fuel, the interrogatories were not relevant.
Applicants included in their responses a motion for a protective order pursuant to 10 CFR $2.740(f).
The language of that rule is capable of being read (erroneously, we believe) to require a protective order in order to pursue all objections (including those grounded on irrelevance or privilege).
The function of the motion for a protective order is to foreclose erroneous arguments such as those asserted by CASE in its prior Motion to Compel to the effect that Applicants have waived objections (Motion to Compel (Oct. 15, 1986) at 11; see Applicants' Response to CASE's
" Motion to Compel" (Nov.
6, 1986) at 16 n.9).
Applicants' motion for a protective order does not operate to relieve CASE of the' burden of demonstrating the propriety of its interrogatories.
See also Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322-23 (1980); Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Byron Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-81-30A, 14 NRC 364, 372 (1981).
II. " Instructions" Revisited Applicants have previously briefed the invalidity of CASE's Instructions.
Applicants' Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel" (Nov.
6, 1986) at 18-22.
While CASE's Memorandum 7
again complains of the " Applicants failure to follow the 7
See also Motion to Compel (Oct. 15, 1986) at 9-11.
8-
lawful and useful instructions CASE Memorandum at 3,
CASE continues to fail to provide any legal argument in support of those instructions, or to rebut Applicants' prior demonstration of their invalidity.
Any complaint about failure to follow the " instructions" is therefore waived.'
III. Objections Applicable to Multiple Interrogatories CASE's motion raises certain issues that affect more than one interrogatory.
For sake of brevity, Applicants discuss those recurring issues immediately below before addressing issues raised by individual interrogatories.
The recurring issues are relevance, "in process" discovery, discovery of experts and interrogatory answers incorporating portions of the Program Plan.
A.
Relevance CASE correctly points out (CASE Memorandum at 6) that the parties are in disagreement as to what issues are, and are not, relevant to assessing the theoretical adequacy of 8
CASE has also failed to point to any instance in which supposed failure to follow " Instructions" resulted in any less complete answer being provided; that is to say, insofar as appears, either the interrogatory was answered or an objection to it was interposed unrelated to, and completely transcending, any disagreement about instructions.
For ought that CASE demonstrates, therefore, any disagreement about instructions is, to date, a wholly academic debate.
Courts and Boards are not properly requested to become involved in academic debate.
the CPRT Program Plan.
As CASE further recognizes (CASE Memorandum at 3), the common thread linking most of the topics in dispute is that they concern development (mainly of superseded drafts) of the Program Plan or questions going to the implementation of the Program Plan.
Whatever utility there might be to the issues bifurcation preliminarily structured by the Board on August 18-19, 1986, its achievement must be premised on the concept that the Program Plan might be susceptible of evaluation in the abstract.'
If CASE's position now is that it is Applicants remain perplexed as to what the result could possibly be of a " finding" of a defect in the Program Plan.
Applicants are unaware of authority for the Board to order Applicants to respond in a particular manner to the allegations of an admitted contention or of authority for the Board to exclude otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that there are supposed defects in the way the evidence was developed.
As an unexecuted document, moreover, something like the Program Plan is relevant standing alone only if one is asking for something, like a license, based on a commitment to do things in the future.
There is no request now before the Board that the Operating License be issued solely on the strength of the unimplemented Program Plan.
Given the foregoing, three conclusions are ineluctable.
First, the hypothetical litigation of pre-implementation Program Plan adequacy is nearly boundless in scope and in the time it could take to be completed (given any desire by any party to stretch out the ligitation).
Second, it is fundamentally irrelevant.
Third, the only benefit that might have accrued to anyone from theoretical adequacy litigation is the benefit of expedition in licensing that might accrue to the Applicants, and therefore only the Applicants have 10 -
-impossible to litigate Program Plan adequacy in the abstract, the proper response is to abandon the August 18-19, 1986 issue bifurcation, not to attempt to fit Program Plan adequacy onto the procrustean bed of CASE's curiosity.
1.
Development of the Program Plan How and by whom the CPRT Program Plan was drafted are perhaps the subjects most clearly unrelated to the theoretical adequacy of the Program Plan, and thus outside the scope of the present discovery.
Whether The French Chef or the American League MVP drafted the Program Plan does not shed any light on the issue of whether that document, if executed perfectly, will. work.
A piece of work has an existence, and therefore attributes such as " adequacy",
beauty, or the like, wholly separate from its creator.
An excellent piece of work can be created by one of very little talent, and conversely one of genius can create an abomination.
William Shakespeare can write bad plays; an unknown novice can write great ones.to standing to press for pre-implementation Board review and approval.
18 of course, Shakespeare is more likely than a novice to create a work of genius.
If one were commissioning a drama or piece of sculpture it might well be sensible to employ an individual of great renown.
This observation means that the identity of those creating the Program Plan is relevant, if at all, only to Applicants (who are doing the hiring) and only at the stage when the issue is whom to hire.
That stage has passed.
People were hired to draw up a Program Plan, and have done so.
The I t
See also Applicants' Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel" (November 6, 1986) at pp. 30-33.
2.
Meaning of the Program Plan to Those Implementing It.
How the people assigned to implement the Program Plan interpret it simply is irrelevant to the issue of whether the plan, "if implemented perfectly," is adequate to perform its assigned tasks.
Their understanding has no capacity for affecting the soundness of the Program Plan itself.
Any error in misunderstanding (i.e.,
a discrepancy between the Program Plan's intended meaning and the subjective understanding of those implementing it) would not demonstrate a flaw in the Progam Plan even if a misunderstanding affected the results of the CPRT effort.
In addition, litigating now what implementors of the Program Plan think the plan means will waste judicial resources on " hypothetical" and academic questions that
}
later must be answered again in a real context.
See Village of Ilion, N.Y. v.
F.E.R.C., 790 F.2d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 1986)
(quoting Babbitt v.
Farm Workers, 442 U.S.
289, 298 (1979)); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-557, 10 NRC 153, 156 (1979);
purely historical question of whether Applicants hired those individuals most likely to design a good Program Plan is logically irrelevant to the question of whether the Program Plan in good.
12 -
F Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-419, 6 NRC 3, 6 (1977).
See also Applicants' Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel" (Nov.
6, 1986) pp. 23-26.
3.
Identity of Those Implementing the Program Plan It is clear that a question regarding who implements the Program Plan is an implementation question, a question which concerns the actual, in-process functioning of the CPRT.
Again, this type of question seeks information outside the bounds of relevant discovery.
Information pertaining to implementation is not pertinent to the issue of the theoretical adequacy of CPRT "if implemented perfectly"tt and litigating the identity and qualifications of the implementers of the Program Plan will waste time and resources.
Any other issue that conceivably may be raised by knowing who is implementing the Program Plan, e.g.,
the
" independence" of CPRT personnel from the CPSES project, CASE Memorandum at 4, is not ripe for inquiry in the context of CPRT Program Plan adequacy discovery.
Memorandum and Order (Oct. 2, 1986) (independence of CPRT "affects the weight of the evidence and not whether it would be received il See CASE Memorandum at 37.
13 -
h into evidence"); Memorandum and Order _(Oct. 29, 1985) at 5 l
(alleged lack of CPRT independence " relevant only to the credibility of [CPRT's] testimony").
See also Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1091 (1983); Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-772, 19 NRC 1193, 1210-11 (1984).
See also Applicants' Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel" (Nov.
6, 1986) at-pp. 27-30.
B.
"In-Process" Discovery Is Impermissible l
No discovery of how CPRT implements the Program Plan can take place while the implementation effort remains in process.
"In-process" discovery poses twin perils: (1) it will divert essential resources from carrying out the Program Plan effort, thereby delaying this entire proceeding; and (ii) it will chill CPRT's intellectual work, thereby crippling the entire CPRT effort.
"In-process" discovery would serve no useful purpose.
It has been denied b
in the rare instances where attempted.
It must be denied in this proceeding.
Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Consumer l
Product Safety Commission, 600 F.Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1984); In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Tex.
1981).
See also Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoenae (Dec.
5, 1986) at 8-13. -
C.
Rule 26(b)(4)(B), Fed. R.
Civ.
P.
Bars Discovery of Non-Testifying Experts Absent Showing of " Exceptional Circumstances" Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(B), which applies in NRC operating licensing proceedings, e.g.,
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490 (1983), decrees that absent
" exceptional circumstances," discovery may not be taken of experts retained in anticipation of litigation who are not expected to testify at trial.
All CPRT personnel are experts retained in anticipation of litigation --
i.e.,
this proceeding.
Because Applicants do not yet know (and have not been asked to designate) the identity of their expert trial witnesses, all experts retained by Applicants are treated as non-testifying experts.
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 105 F.R.D. 577, 580 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
" Exceptional circumstances" is a term equivalent to a
" basic lack of ability to discover the equivalent information" by other means, Delcastor, Inc. v. Vail Associates, Inc., 108 F.R.D. 405, 409 (D. Colo, 1985).
Because the data upon wlich any expert opinions on CPRT Program Plan adequacy is allable to experts whom CASE 15 -
could retain, there are no " exceptional circumstances" i
permitting discovery of non-testifying experts.ta See also Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoenae (Dec. 5, 1986) at 13-25.
D.
The Program Plan Provides the Best Explanation of Certain Terms or i
Concepts as to Which CASE Seeks Information CASE challenges Applicants' answers to a number of l
interrogatories on the ground that reference to sections of the Program Plan renders those answers " circular, evasive I
and nonsensical."
CASE Memorandum at 3.
It should hardly be surprising that the Program Plan contains the best description of concepts developed in that document.
If CASE's real complaint is that words alone do not adequately communicate Program Plan concepts, Applicants submit the problem lies not in Applicants' answers but in the project I
ta It is not a " wild idea", CASE Memorandum at 7, quoting Memorandum and Order (Feb.
6, 1986), that discovery of l
the CPRT effort should be taken in accordance with Rule 26(b)(4).
That rule extends to experts, like those employed in the CPRT effort, primarly retained for litigation purposes.
E.g., Hermsdorfer v.
American Motors Corp., 96 F.R.D.
13, 15 (W.D.N.Y. 1982).
Nor would the application of Rule 26(b)(4) make the CPRT effort " shielded by privilege," Memorandum and Order (Feb.
6, 1986), if that phrase means that no discovery could be taken at any time.
Rule 26(b)(4)(A) allows discovery of the identity and the nature of and bases for the opinions of testifying experts, as well as additional discovery of testifying experts in the court's discretion upon motion.
l 1
16 -
l
r i
(requested by CASE) of attempting to analyze the CPRT effort apart from the concrete results it produces.ts If, on the
)
other hand, CASE's complaint is simply that it does not understand the Program Plan, the proper remedy is for CASE to retain experts competent to analyze the document.
IV. Responses to Motion to Compel Specific Interrogatories
(
SET NO. 3 l
Interrogatory No. 1:
Identify by name, title, and organization the individuals who participated in the decision to develop the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT).
(Revision 3, Pg. 1 - of the section on Program Principles and Ojbectives).
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the l
adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and therefore is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Answer:
Without waiving the foreoging objection, but rather l
expressly relying upon the same, the Comanche Peak Response Team was established by Mr. Spence on September 22, 1984.
(See " Meeting Minutes - Senior Review Team Meeting on 9/22/84.
Please see also Mr. Spence's Memorandum of 9/24/84 on this subject.
Both of these documents are contained in the CPRT Central File, which has previously been made ta While complaining of difficulty in understanding the Program Plan in the abstract, CASE has chosen not to conduct discovery of the 20 Action Plans that have been completed.
See also Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoenae (Dec.
5, 1986) at 6 n.4.
l 17 -
t i
l l
l..-
available for inspection by CASE.)
Mr. Spence is the President of Texas Utilities Generating Company.
L This Interrogatory is addressed to the process of development of the CPRT Program Plan, a matter irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
The adequacy vel non of the steps to be taken as set forth in the Program Plan is not sensitive to (i.e.,
is not affected by) whether it was Mr. Spence or someone else who l
made the decision.
See Point III.A.1., above.
Interrogatory No. 2:
Identify all meetings, between July 1, 1984 and October, 1984 at which the response to the September 18, 1984 letter from the Technical Review Team (TRT) was discussed.
(pg. 1)
(a) For each meeting identified list all participants, whether or not they are employees of other owners, TUEC, Brown & Root, other site contractors, subcontractors or consultants.
(b) For each meeting identified produce all documents, (see instructions) in the possession of any of the participants.
I l
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and therefore is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Answer l
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, to the extent that the referenced subject was discussed at meetings of the SRT, the i
minutes of those meetings have previously been made available for inspection and copying by CASE.
l' This Interrogatory is addressed to the process of 7
development of the CPRT Program Plan, a matter irrelevant to 18 -
i
l the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
The adequacy of the written Program Plan is not affected by whether there were 1000 such meetings or none, or whether a list of these could be prepared or not.
See Point III.A.l., above.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Describe in detail the process (each step in the development, research, writing, editing and finalizing) used to develop the CPRT program approach (objectives,' scope, breath, methodology, details, etc.) taken in Rev. O.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and therefore is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
This Interrogatory expressly is addressed to the process of development of the CPRT Program Plan (" Describe in detail the process.
.used to develop the CPRT program approach.
."), a matter irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
The adequacy of the Program Plan depends upon the written document; it is not conceivable how the words could be held to be adequate under one set of researching-drafting-editing steps and the same words could be inadequate given some other research-drafting-editing scenario.
The proposition is a fortiori given that the subject of the question -- Rev. O of the plan -- is thricefold superceded.
See Point III.A.l.,
above.
19 -
l Interrogatory No. 5:
l Was any consideration given to the appropriateness of using then current site QA/QC personnel (e.g., Tony Vega, i
Ron Tolson) in the CPRT development process or the CPRT Plan itself?
l (a) If yes, what consideration was given and by whom.
i i
(b) If no, why not?
1 Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the l
adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and therefore is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on i
August 18 and 19, 1986.
l This Interrogatory is not about the content of the plan, 1
or its meaning, or what will be done, or even who will be doing it.
How the adequacy of the plan could be affected by whether " consideration" "was given" to something is a mystery to which there is no solution.
Interrogatory No. 7:
The CPRT states that the scope of the charter was expanded to " include quality of construction and construction QA/QC issues" raised by additional sources.
For each source listed identify the issues for review which were included beyond the original scope of the CPRT from the sources listed belows (Revision 3, pg. 1)
(a) NRC ASLB OL proceeding (which portion of which order):
(b) NRC Staff SSER's (which one and which portions):
(c) NRC CAT inspection (which one and which portions):
(d) NRC SIT inspection (which one and which portions):
(e) NRC Region IV Inspection Reports (which one and which portions):
I 0
(f) Cygna Independent Assessment Program (which findings or communications):
(g) For each of the issues identified in a-f characterize the issue as either a " quality of construction concern" or a " construction QA/QC concern."
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory.
As set forth in the program plan, development of a comprehensive list of issues raised by the External Sources is one of the CPRT Program Plan outputs.
As a consequence, this interrogatory calls for information regarding the implementation of the Program Plan and is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Further, the Applicants object to this interrogatory on the ground that it calls for information related to CPRT efforts that are still in process and not yet completed or published.
Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, one of the outputs of the completed CPRT program is expected to be a list of all external source issues addressed, the source of the issue and where it has been addressed.
Please also see
" Applicants' Response to Board Memorandum of 8/8/86 (Assistance to the Board)" filed 10/6/86.
This Interrogatory, plain and simple, calls for a piece of the reaults of implementing the CPRT Program Plan.
Those results will be available when the task at issue has been completed.
Discovery of uncompleted tasks is simply not available.
See Point III.B., above.
Interrogatory No. 9:
The CPRT states that "the charter was expanded to include a mandate of assuring TUEC management of the safety of the plant regardless of the extent to which issues might l
have been raised by external sources."
1 1
(a) In regards to that statement describe what individuals or group in "TUEC Management" must have the assurance of the plant's safety.
(b) For each person identified in response to question (a) include that individual's own description of what is considered proof that the plant is safe.
(c) For each person identified in response to (a) above identify any meetings or presentations in which the CPRT program plan was explained to them or any way in which the individual had input into the CPRT program plan.
Objection:
The CPRT Program Plan calls for the development of information, which the Applicants may in the future offer into evidence in this proceeding, for the purpose of establishing the requisite reasonable assurance regarding the CPSES facility.
Any additional function to be accomplished by the same program is not relevant to these proceedings, and any additional function is not relevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to establish that reasonable assurance.
The Applicants therefore object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and therefore is beyond the scope of the l
discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
l Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, the Applicants offer the following information:
(a) Michael D. Spence, President, William G. Counsil, Executive Vice President - Nuclear, and John W.
- Beck, Vice President.
(b) Insofar as it concerns matters possibly relevant to Contention 5: completion of the CPRT Program and completion of all corrective actions derived therefrom that are needed for operation.
(c) Each of the identified individuals has attended numerous meetings at which the CPRT Program Plan, or aspects i
l thereof, have been or may have been discussed.
No records exist that would permit an exhaustive catalog of such meetings. l l
I*
This Interrogatory asks for irrelevant material, in that it is addressed to aspects or goals of the CPRT Program Plan distinct from its task of determining the Applicants' i
responses in the Operating License litigation to the allegations of admitted Contention 5.
Relevance for discovery purposes is determined by the scope of the l
admitted contentions.
E.g., Allied-General Nuclear Services i
(Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489, 492 (1977).
The only conceivably-permissible rationale for allowing inquiry concerning the CPRT Program Plan in advance of hearing on the merits is rooted in the idea that the results generated by implementing the Program i
Plan may be a component of the evidence offered by Applicants to rebut Contention 5.
Questions, such as this Interrogatory, which on their face attempt to probe aspects of the CPRT Program Plan wholly unrelated to evidence that may be offered by Applicants plainly are beyond the bounds of issues raised by Contention 5.
CASE apparently (see CASE Memorandum at 16) disputes that CPRT has a litigation-related function.
That issue is easily put to rest by reviewing the relevant chronology.
Applicants filed their application for an operating license in 1978; CASE filed its petition for leave to intervene in 1979; hearings on CPSES construction issues began in 1981; CPRT came into existence late in 1984.
Although Applicants i
might well have been engaged in compliance efforts had there
- l
been no litigation, the CPRT organization as constituted was assembled expressly with a view toward this litigation.
Interrogatory No. 10:
Identify all CPSES project personnel involved in the CPRT, by category of work, responsibility, and when that responsibility started, ended, and/or was changed, removed or replaced:
Example:
Reason CPRT for Person Responsibility From To Change Ron Tolson Paint Coatings 10/8/84 - 3/3/85 resigned RTL This question includes site QC Inspectors and QA personnel.
Objection:
To the extent that this interrogatory calls for information about the identity of persons who have in the past, are presently or may in the future be engaged in providing support to CPRT, such information will be contained in the Working Files for each Action Plan, but, except for those Action Plans for which Results Reports have been published, is presently in process.
In addition, the information called for has no relevance to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, as written, to accomplish such of its objectives as might be relevant to these proceedings.
The Applicants therefore object to this interrogatory, 3'
on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and'therefore is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Answer Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, information regarding principal personnel involved in the CPRT from time to time i
is contained in prior and current revisions of the Program Plan, and its constituent parts, all of which are contained i.*
i ;, ):C,,
'lr g
+
r,'s (
in the CPRT' Central Files that have previously been made f
available for inspection by CASE t.
z CASE makes no artempt'to:artfia that this is a proper r
r c ':
Interrogatory.
The a'sicent advanced simply is that it is easier for Applicants to do the work of gathering the 7
informatiori.
See CASE Memorandum #at 17-18.t*
Ease of c
gathering infosmation is not the. is' sue.
The issue is
)
relevance.
,/r.)
a
/
rTh'is Interrogatory is acadressed to the question of which
/
individualr. have been, are or wil) be< implementing the CPRT
\\ {;
cf Program Plah, a' matter irrelevant toithe adequacy of the e,
Program Plah "if implemented perfectly."/ See Point y <
(
III.A.3.,-above.
/e '
c
+
,;1
('i Interrogatory Not' 11:
h entify,theAreason'e
/ /
4 Ur. reasons which the CPRT program chan6sd from "a projectleffort" to a "primar;ily third party effort."
.2 Objection:
t, y
.'The Applicantrebject to' this interrogatory, on the
) {s grou6d that therrdque'sted.nformation is net relevant to the adequacy of thejCPRT Progran Plan, and hherefore is beyond the scope lbf the' discovepy authorized by the Board on August 18'and 19 1986.
Answer:
/
9 Without waivifs tM foregoing objection, F ut rather expressly relying upor. the same, the referanc' l change was e
t l
?'
CASE aca,s for the Board to order depositiors on this f.
matter if "the Board finds thLt it is a relevant and pentissible question," CASE Memorandum at 18, but does nh*: make any argument as to its reler. tace, r.
I e.
i.
t 25 -
I I
y t l
4 f
1 e
effected in order to render moot certain comments e.xpressed by the NRC Staff at a meeting held in Bethesda on October 19 and 23, 1984.
See Program Plan, Attachment 1.
The subject was also discussed at the meetings of the SRT on November 2, 1984, and November 9, 1984, the minutes of which have already been made available for inspection by CASE.
This Interrogatory is addressed to the process of l
development of the CPRT Program Plan, a matter irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
See Point III.A.1., above.
Interrogatory No. 12:
Identify when the CPRT program changed from "a project effort" to a "primarily third party effort."
(a) Identify what work was completed or partially completed when the CPRT was primarily a CPSES project.
(b) For work partially completed identify the percentage completed.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, and therefore is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but r&ther expressly relying upon the same, the date of this change l
cannot be pinpointed.
However, the SRT approved the replacement of last of the non-third-party RTLs by a third-party RTL on 11/9/84.
All ISAPs prepared and work performed prior to that time were reviewed by the l
third-party RTL and any actions in the ISAP or work done prior to the RTL review that did not meet the new RTL's satisfaction was either rewritten (Action Plans) and l
approved by the SRT or the work was re-performed to the RTL's satisfaction.
Little, if any, of the work called for by the Action Plans had been completed by that time.
, I
)
t I
This Interrogatory is addressed to the process of development of the CPRT Program Plan, a matter irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan - in its present configuration - to perform its assigned tasks.
When it changed from something else has nothing to do with that l
question.
See Point III.A.I., above.ts Interrogatory No. 16:
Explain, by example and definition, when or under what circumstances it would not be possible to " investigate and determine" the root cause of found safety-significant deficiencies.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of information that the CPRT is presently in the process of formulating, on the ground that discovery regarding the in process formulation of opinions by expert is not proper discovery.
l Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying on the same, the SRT had, when the Program Plan was published, no particular scenario in mind.
Investigation will always be possible.
The Program Plan recognizes, however, that a determination of root cause may not be possible in all cases.
15 In addition, it is difficult to determine whether there is any dispute with respect to Applicants' answers to Interrogatories Nos. 11 and 12.
CASE moves to compel only if Applicants' answers are limited by Applicants "using their understanding of the issues in the proceeding."
C%SE Memorandum at 19.
Applicants confess to using that understanding in framing answers to CASE's interrogatories, and can think of no other way to respond to discovery or other issues raised in this proceeding.
A complete answer was given to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information regarding a concept contained in the Program Plan.
To the extent this Interrogatory may seek specific examples where it has not been possible to determine a " root cause of found safety-significant deficiencies," the Interrogatory is addressed to the question of implementation of the Program Plan, including the results generated to date.
These matters are irrelevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
See Points III.t. 2.
and III.A.3., above.
In addition, there is no precedent to take discovery of work that is still "in process," and such discovery is prohibited because it is disruptive of the implementation effort and would threaten to chill the creative intellectual work of the CPRT effort.
See Point III.B., above.
Interrogatory No. 31:
[
Have any situations arisen which made it appropriate to revise the conduct of the CPRT as identified on page 4?
(a) If the answer to the above question is yes, identify all the situations which have arisen and what changes resulted in the CPRT.
(b) If the answer is yes, identify all documents which describe or explain each situation and/or which were generated or used in making the decision.
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory, on the ground that the requested information constitutes the results of implementation of the Program and is neither 1
\\....
relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan nor within the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, the SRT is presently considering revisions to the Program Plan but has not yet made final decisions.
It is expected that Revision 4 of the Program Plan will be approved and oublished prior to the end of the calendar year.
CASE does not move to compel an answer to this Interrogatory.
It moves for the Board to " inquire immediately into the status of Revision 4," CASE Memorandum at 21.
This sort of " motion" is wholly alien to discovery
. procedure as authorized by NRC and federal rules.
Interrogatory No. 49:
Identify forms or documents or types of documents on which " initial root cause hypotheses" are recorded.
Answer:
If referring to preliminary assessments made prior to the publication of the Action Plan, to the extent made such assessments appear in the Action Plan.
If referring to preliminary assessment made during implementation of the Action Plan, no specific form has been prescribed by the SRT for the " recording" of " initial root cause hypotheses. "
On whatever form, any such records should be contained in the Working File for the Action Plan in question.
CASE's " argument" on this Interrogatory is that CASE's
" assumptions" lead it to conclude that Applicants' response is incomplete.
CASE Memorandum at 23-24.
Applicants provided a complete response.
To the extent the Interrogatory asks for preliminary assessments of rcot cause made prior to publication of Action Plans, that information (
is contained in the Program Plan; to the extent the question is what documents those implementing the CPRT Program Plan use to record " initial root cause hypotheses," the answer is that no specific form is used.
Whatever document contains such information would be found in the Working Files for the Action Plan in question.
In addition, this Interrogatory is improper to the extent, if any, that it may request Applicants to state
" initial root cause hypotheses" of those implementing the Program Plan (or specific Action Plans), in that results to date of the implementation effort are irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
See Points III.A.2. and III.A.3., above.
In addition, there is no precedent to take discovery of work that is still "in process," and such discovery is prohibited because it is disruptive of the implementation effort and would threaten to chill the creative intellectual work of the CPRT effort.
See Point III.B., above.
Interrogatories Nos. 50 & 52 What individual or group of individuals are responsible for making the initial root cause hypotheses on each ISAP?
Identify the person or persons responsible for performing each evaluation of potential generic implication as a result of a root cause determination.
Answer:
The Review Team Leader is responsible for the accomplishment of all of the tasks contained in an Action Plan.
The Review Team Leader has the discretion to delegate 30 -
tasks to others but retains the ultimate responsibility for their performance.
Applicants provided complete answers to the Interrogatories posed, notwithstanding CASE's suppositions to the contrary.
If CASE intended to ask a different question, that intent is not apparent from a fair reading of the interrogatories.
A party responding to interrogatories of course is not obligated to read the mind of the proponent, but obligated only to answer the question as framed.
See, Webster Motor Car Co.
v.
Packard Motor Car Co.,
16 F.R.D.
350, 351 (D.D.C. 1954) (".
.an interrogatory must be specific in order that it need not be necessary for the party that is being examined to exercise discretion or judgment in determining what is intended to be covered by the interrogatory.")
Interrogatory No. 51:
To what extent, if any, will root cause determinations be reached for specific deviations which do not become an adverse trend.
Answer:
The answer to this question is contained in Program Plan, Appendix E.
Applicants' answer to this Interrogatory refers to the Program Plan, which sets forth the most complete explanation of the matter which is the subject of the Interrogatory.
i _
That answer is complete and sufficient.
See Point III.D.,
above.1s SET NO. 4 Interrogatory No. 29:
Describe in detail the process by which the two collective evaluations will be merged to form the summary report on the Qoc.
Answer:
There is no " process."
The task described is analytical.
Applicants provided a complete answer to the Interrogatory posed, notwithstanding CASE's suppositions to the contrary.
If CASE intended to ask a different question, that intent is not apparent from a fair reading of the interrogatory.
A party responding to interrogatories of 16 CASE raises two further points purportedly in support of its motion to compel further answer to this Interrogatory.
CASE Memorandum at 26.
The first is that the portion of the Program Plan referred to in Applicants' answer does not " comport with the explanations given by Applicants' counsel and other.
[ Sic]
CASE cites no instances of such alleged inconsistency.
Applicants believe the quoted assertion to be false.
Second, CASE complains that the referral to the Program Plan does not constitute an explanation "by a member of the CPRT" Id. (emphasis in original).
Applicants are at a loss to understand this contention.
The Program Plan, prepared and published by the SRT, speaks collectively for the entire CPRT project.
To the extent CASE may be asking how portions of the Program Plan are understood by those with responsibility for its implementation, see Point III.A.2.,
above.
2,
,------,---.,-,.-n
-,.-.-n-,-
course is not obligated to read the mind of the proponent, but only to answer-the question as framed.
See, Webster Motor Car Co. v.
Packard Motor Car Co.,
16 F.R.D.
350, 351 (D.D.C. 1954) (".
.an interrogatory must be specific in order that it need not be necessary for the party that is being examined to exercise discretion or judgment in determining what is intended to be covered by the interrogatory.")
SET NO. 5 Interrogatory No. 26:
Explain in precise detail (see instructions) what would be a " substantive revision of the program" as used on page 4 of Appendix E in evaluating the inadequacy of a QA/QC program element.
Answer:
The quoted terms were not employed with any specialized meaning.
If a substantive revision would be required to bring the program into compliance, this is a measure of the extent to which it is, without the revision, out of compliance.
CASE objects to Applicants' answer to this Interrogatory purportedly on the ground that CASE " seeks to determine what the words used in the [Pirogram [P]lan mean to the people who wrote it and who must implement it."
CASE Memorandum at 28.
Such understandings are irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
See Point III.A.2., above.
In addition, the Interrogatory does not appear to ask for an understanding of those implementing the Program Plan,,
- ~ _
only for an explanation of a concept employed in the Program Plan.
A party responding to interrogatories of course is not obligated to read the mind of the proponent, but only to answer the question as framed.
See, Webster Motor Car Co.
v.
Packard Motor Car Co.,
16 F.R.D. 350, 351 (D.D.C. 1954)
(".
.an interrogatory must be specific in order that it need not be necessary for the party that is being examined to exercise discretion or judgment in determining what is intended to be covered by the interrogatory.")
Interrogatory No. 27:
Explain in precise detail (see instructions) what the term " extensive evaluation" means as used on page 4 of Appendix E.
Answer:
The quoted term was not used with any specialized meaning.
It is the same as the concept employed in 10 CFR
$50.55(e)(iii) & (iv).
CASE objects to Applicants' answer to this Interrogatory purportedly on the ground that CASE " seeks to determine what the words used in the [P]rogram [P]lan mean to the people who wrote it and who must implement it."
CASE Memorandum at 28.
Such understandings are irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
See Point III.A.2.,above.
In addition, the Interrogatory does not appear to ask for an understanding of those implementing the Program Plan, only for an explanation of a concept employed in the Program. -.
Plan.
A party responding to interrogatories of course is not obligated to read the mind of the proponent, but only to answer the question as framed.
See, webster Motor Car Co.
v.
Packard Motor Car Co., 16 F.R.D.
35'O, 351 (D.D.C. 1954)
(".
.an interrogatory must be specific in order that it need not be necessary for the party that is being examined to exercise discretion or judgment in determining what is intended to be covered by the interrogatory.")
Interrogatory No. 28:
Explain in precise detail (see instructions) what a " set of related QA/QC deviations" is as used on page 5 Appendix E.
Answer:
The quoted term was not used with any specialized meaning.
CASE objects to Applicants' answer to this Interrogatory purportedly on the ground that CASE " seeks to determine what the words used in the [P]rogram [P]lan mean to the people who wrote it and who must implement it."
CASE Memorandum at 28.
Such understandings are irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan to perform its assigned tasks.
See Point III.A.2., above.17 l
i 1
17 In addition, CASE improperly attempts to use this Motion to Compel to require the Applicants to supply information to new questions that have not yet been cast as interrogatories.
CASE Memorandum at 28.
Obviously, a Motion to Compel does not provide CASE with the.
In addition, the Interrogatory does not appear to ask for an understanding of those implementing the Program Plan, only for an explanation of a concept employed in the Program Plan.
A party responding to interrogatories of course is not obligated to read the mind of the proponent, but only to answer the question as framed.
See, Webster Motor Car Co.
v.
Packard Motor Car Co.,
16 F.R.D.
350, 351 (D.D.C. 1954)
(".
.an interrogatory must be specific in order that it need not be necessary for the party that is being examined to exercise discretion or judgment in determining what is intended to be covered by the interrogatory.")
SET NO. 6 Interrogatory No. 27:
Identify all persons who have been or are retained as
" experts" within a particular technical discipline, by areas of expertise (p. 5).
(a) For each person listed under a technical discipline, provide a copy of the person's resume.
(b) For each person listed under the specific technical discipline, describe the basis of the decision to retain that person.
(c) For each person listed under the specific technical discipline, identify what involvement he/she had in the development of the ISAPs/DSAPs for each revision.
(e) For each person listed, identify what involvement he/she had in the review of the results reports.
opportunity to ask questions it wishes it had thought of before., _.. _ _ _..
Objection:
The Applicants object to this interrogatory on the ground that the information called for, namely the identification of specific persons performing tasks described in the Program Plan, is not relevant to the issue of the adequacy of the Program Plan and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
The Applicants further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it pertains to experts retained in anticipation of litigation who have not been designated to testify, and therefore is improper.
See Fed.
R.
Civ.
P. 26(b)(4); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-7, 23 NRC 177 (1986);
Korr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), LBP-84-38, 22 NRC 604 (1985); Carolina Power &
Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-27A, 17 NRC 971 (1983); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490 (1983).
Answer:
Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, a partial list of the
" Advisers to the CPRT (to which the reference in Appendix F at 5 is made) are enumerated in Program Plan at 23.
In general, the advisers were not involved in the formulation of the Program Plan or the Action Plans.
However, where an advisor was used in such a capacity, it was subject to the review and approval of the RTL and ultimately the approval of the SRT.
Where an adviser participates in the formulation or implementation of an Action Plan, that fact will be noted in the Action Plan or in the Results Report for the Action Plan or in the Working File for the Action Plan.
The identities of individuals Applicants have retained as experts are irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan "if implemented perfectly."
See Point III.A.3., above.
In addition, discovery of these non-testifying experts is simply forbidden, at least at this time and in this posture.
See Point III.C., above.
Interrogatories Nos. 39 & 40:
Identify the management person (s) of the Project who are responsible for each of the items in the matrix on page 10.
(a) Document and information requests.
(b) Support services requests.
(c) Identified deviations and deficiencies (prepare NCR and review for 50.55(e) reportability).
(d) Corrective actions.
Identify all persons of the project who participate in or implement the project's actions for each of the following items on the matrix on page 10.
(a) Document and information requests.
(b) Support services requests.
(c) Identified deviations and deficiencies (prepare NCR and review for 50.55(e) reportability).
(d) Corrective actions.
Objection:
The Applicants object to these interrogatories on the ground that the information called for, namely the identification of specific persons performing tasks described in the Program Plan, is not relevant to the issue of the adequacy of the Program Plan and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
These Interrogatories are addressed to the question of which individuals have been, are or will be implementing the CPRT Program Plan, a matter irrelevant to the adequacy of the Program Plan "if implemented perfectly."
See Point III.A.3., above.. _ _ _
Interrogatories Nos. 52-56:
What action is taken by the CPSES project on the " action plans" (p. 20)?
What action work coordination, data requests, or corrective action is required by the CPSES project in response to the CPRT document information requests (p. 20)?
What action, work coordination, data requests, or corrective action is required by the CPSES project in response to support services requests (p. 20)?
What action, work coordination, data requests, or corrective action is required by the CPSES project in response to identified deviations or deficiencies (p. 20)?
What action, work coordination, data requests, or corrective action is required by the CPSES project in response to corrective action (p. 20)?
Answer:
The actions by the CPSES project that CPRT expects to be taken are specified in each Action Plan, as well as in Program Plan Appendices E and H.
Applicants' answers to these Interrogatories refer to the Program Plan, which sets forth the most complete explanation of the matters which are the subject of these Interrogatories.
Those are complete and sufficient answers.
See Point III.D., above.
Interrogatories Nos. 57-59 & 61 & 63-64:
Identify each person within the CPSES project with management responsibility for initiating, directing, deciding, evaluating, responding to, providing, deciding not to provide, or implementing any action in response to each of the following items:
(a) action plans; (b) document information requests; (c) support services requests; l
l l
I
= ',
e
?
(d); identified deviations or deficiencies; (e) corrective action.
Identify each person within~the CPSES Project with implementing responsibility for initiating,-directing, deciding,. evaluating, responding to, providing,_ deciding not to provide, or implementing any action in response to each of the'following items:
Identify each individual in the CPSES project who has any responsibility for implementing CPRT program requirements.
(a) Provide the personnel chart or list for the construction group dedicated to CPRT program requirements.
(b) Identify the person (s) from each of the three technical groups who.are responsible for interfacing directly with the third-party RTL.
(c) Identify each of the person (s) from all contractors who are responsible for performing review, evaluations, and analysis-that is overviewed by a third-party element.
Identify,each CPSES project person (s) assigned to each i
of the' technical groups who perform the review of the CPRT action plans, implementing procedures, and results reports 2
for the purpose of:
i (a) providing a historical perspective; (b) determining corrective action; (c) determining plan implementation.
Identify each person (s) on the CPSES project who evaluates, reviews, decides whether to take action in light of, or otherwise reacts to the findings of the CPRT inspectors, and describe in detail their duties and the criteria and/or procedures that govern their duties with respect to findings of the CPRT.
Objection:
The Applicants object to these interrogatories on the ground that.the information called for, namely the identification of specific persons performing tasks described in the Program Plan, is not relevant to the issue t-of the adequacy of the Program Plan and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986. >
4 i
l
'O These Interrogatories are addressed to the question of which individuals have been, are or will be implementing the CPRT ?rogram Plan, a matter irrelevant to the adequacy of tha Program Plan "if implemented perfectly."
See Point III.A.3., above.
Interrogatories Nos. 60 & 62:
Identify all of the CPSES project procedures used for coordinating CPRT activities and CPSES project activities.
If there are no procedures, describe the process in precise detail.
Describe in precise detail how the project personnel who are responsible for obtaining the required project information or access to the hardware will do so for each ISAP, DSAP, and QOC action plan.
Example: In ISAP I.a.4, project QC inspectors Jon Jones and Bill Smith accompanied the ERC inspectors during the actual hardware inspection.
Answer:
The methods for obtaining information or access to hardware is varied and will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Standard project procedures are utilized.
Applicants have responded fully to these Interrogatories.
No additional response can be given until completion of action contemplated by the Program Plan.
SET NO. 7 Interrogatory No. 10:
In regard to the confirmatory overviews of the CPRT of the implementation of the corrective actions, provide the methodology (i.e.,
procedures or description of the process):
(a) for each of the activities listed on pp. 5-6 of Appendix H.
! l
(..
(b) for each CPRT-identified design deficiency.
(c) that the design documentation properly reflects the implementation of the corrective action.
(d) that the site documentation properly reflects the as-built and revised design documentation.
(e) that the design documentation properly reflects the implementation of corrective action.
(f) that the documentation that demonstrates the as-built condition of the plant is in conformance-with the revised design documentation.
(g) that the corrective actions are adequate for any design deviations reportable under 50.55(e).
(h) that the CPSES project policies, programs, and implementing procedures or instructions relating to design activities have been changed to reflect the programmatic revisions.
Answer Insofar as this interrogatory addresses the Design Adequacy Program, please see the statement above under
" Design."
With respect to other Action Plans, such overview is defined in Program Plan, Appendix H.
Applicants' answer to this Interrogatory refers to the Program Plan, which sets forth the most complete explanation of the matters which are the subject of this Interrogatory.
This is a complete and sufficient answer.
See Point III.D.,
above.18 18 Applicants note that CASE erroneously states, twice, that Applicants' answer referred to Appendix B of the Program Plan.
CASE Memorandum at 36.
The reference provided by Applicants was to Appendix H.
CASE's\\
repeated mistake, the repetition of which suggests something other than a typo, may be the source of CASE's confusion.
r
. Q.
'O~
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, CASE's Motion to Compel Answers to Sets 3-7 should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R.
K. Gad III William S.
Eggeling Kathryn A.
Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 Robert A. Wooldridge Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels
& Wooldridge Suite 3200 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Attorneys for the Applicants Dated:
December 12, 1986 1 i 1
U5NRC i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE f
i I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the attorneys E r E MA h ib nts i
}
herein, hereby certify that on December 12, 198QrrJtmade service of DOCXLisin &
- W:i the within Applicants' Preponse to CASE's " Motion toBCdspel Answers to Sets 3-7", by mailing copius thereof, postage prepaid, to:
- Peter B.
Bloch, Esqui:e Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 38 I
Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway I
Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Nancy Williams Administrative Judge Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
I c/o Carib Terrace 101 California Street, Suite 1000
(
552 North Ocean Blvd.
San Francisco, California 94111 l
Pompano Beach, Fl.
33062 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire
- Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S.
Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10117 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 L
r e
t Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O.
Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555-
- Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20036
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A.
Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1107 West Knapp 1324 North Capitol Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C.
20002
- Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D.
Martin Midwest Office Regional Administrator, 3424 N. Marcos Lane Region IV Appleton, WI 54911 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B.
Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783C Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Y*
Kathryn A.
Selleck
- = Federal Express I