ML20212Q333

Memorandum & Order Directing Applicant to Respond to Discovery Requests in Case 860731 Motion to Compel.Served on 860903

ML20212Q333
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/02/1986
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#386-569 79-430-06-OL, 79-430-6-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8609040216
Download: ML20212Q333 (5)

Text

_ _-_

i

. $b9 DOCHETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W SEP -3 P1 43

~

Before Administrative Judges:

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 00CMithsN[$#

Enu!cy -

Dr. Walter H. Jordan y ED SEP ~31985 In the. Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-0L 50-446-0L TEXASUTILITIESELECTRICCOMPANY,~etal.)

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

Units 1 and 2) )

) September 2, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Management Issues Under Contention 5; CASE Request of July 2,1986)

CASE filed a Motion to Compel on July 31, 1986 and Applicants responded on August 18, 1986. These papers relate to Interrogatories initially filed on July 2 and to Applicants' response of July 16.

First, let us deal with an important matter -- whether management issues are properly before this Board -- that was hotly contested between Applicants and CASE during the prehearing conference of August 18 and 19 and that sets a context both for the dispute over these i interrogatories and over others. In this debate, Applicants have relied j on some of the language of our opinions and have formed a belief that we would not reopen previously closed issues nor embark on management issues unless we declared a sua sponte issue.

Our pos'ition on this issue has been evolving as we considered some of the questions being addressed by Applicants in their Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) plan. Now we are firmly of the position, which we

~

g h

/Jb L

7 6

Interrogatories July 2,1986: 2 declare to be the law of the case, that management issues are related to pending issues and are discoverable when they are directly or indirectly related to the context we are about to set forth.

The discovery of patterns of management behavior is relevant to CASE's theory that there may be a pattern of QA/QC deficiencies or breakdowns caused by management conduct. This theory is relevant to Contention 5. Depending on what CASE discovers, these alleged patterns of conduct could help us to determine whether to accept CPRT detennina-tions of root cause, made without consideration of overall management conduct, and the extent to which hardware deficiencies are isolated or part of a pattern.

Management conduct also is relevant to the extent to which QA/QC deficiencies in some parts of the plant give rise to doubts about the effectiveness of QA/QC in other parts of the plant. It also may be relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT's approach of using samples for assessing plant quality. Furthermore, management issues may be relevant to a determination of the proper remedy for QA/QC breakdowns that may be demonstrated.

We are particularly anxious to permit this discovery because of our concern that the CPRT has defined its scope so that some patterns of QA/QC failure will not be examined unless individual failures caused conditions of safety significance.

For all of the above reasons, management issues are litigable under Contention 5. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that Applicants will attempt to show that they can verify the adequacy of the Comanche N

\

l

\

Interrogatories July 2,1986: 3 Peak Nuclear Power Plant by independent means and without reference to previous management decisions. We'do not now rule for or against this allegation of the Applicants.

Interrogatory: 1. Good Cause Interrogatory This interrogatory requests documentation Applicants intend to use in the Construction Pennit Extension proceeding concerning I " good cause" for delay in the completion of Comanche Peak. Although the interrogato-ry relates to a question in the construction permit proceeding, it would be allowed if it were directly or indirectly relevant to the operating license procedure. However, the best CASE has been able to do is to state that the delay may have been caused by deliberate harassment and intimidation and discouragement of workers. We do not consider this rationale enough to demonstrate relevance. We do not allow this inter-rogatory.

1 We could consider this interrogatory moot because it is Applicantf position in the Construction Permit Amendment proceeding, which rests before the Commission, that this Board erred in the admission of parties and contentions. Thus, it is Applicants' intention not to use any documents to demonstrate good cause in that proceeding.

However, the parties and Board all understand this interrogatory to N. a request for documents that would be relied on if the Construction Permit Amendment case went to trial, and it is this meaning we give to the request.

y ....,,y -

~yy-_ - _ , _ _ .

_y..- , , _ _ . , _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ .y,_. ._.__,..__..-...,._~.._..,_m._..,--i

6

\

Interrogatories July 2, 1986: 4 Interrogatory: 2. Audits, Studies, about Plant Construction This interrogatory is moot because Applicants have already respond-ed to this request in the Construction Permit Amendment (CPA) docket.

To the extent that requested documents are directly or indirectly' related to the management issues outlined above or to other admitted issues, they shall be discoverable. However, CASE shall first make a good faith attempt to request' for production only those documents that have not yet been produced.

Interrogatories: 3-6. History of TRT and SSER Concerns In a prior Order, the Board has requested a portion of the informa-tion requested by CASE. We determined that it was relevant to inquire into the history of allegations sustained by the CPRT. To this extent, discovery is appropriate. Indeed, we consider such information neces-sary for an adequate record from which to ascertain the root cause of such sustained allegations.

For reasons stated by Applicants in their filing of July 16, 1986, at nge 9 and footnote 12, we conclude that CASE's interrogatories were too broadly drafted.for this docket and shall not be allowed beyond the scope defined in our prior questions to Applicants.

Interrogatory: 7. Position on Delay of Plant We consider CASE's interrogatory irrelevant to the Operating License proceeding ' because it deals with delay in plant completion, which is not an issue in this case.

i

Interrogatories July 2, 1986

5 0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 2nd day of September 1986 ORDERED:

That Applicants should respond to the discovery requests that are covered by CASE's July 31, 1986, motion to compel, as indicated in the accompanying Memorandum.

. FOR THE ATOMI SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

^

If i Pefer B. Bloch, Chairman ,

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland 1

-