ML20212R674
| ML20212R674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1987 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2348 OL, NUDOCS 8702030037 | |
| Download: ML20212R674 (35) | |
Text
'
2 3fr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1/21/87 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of I Docket Nos. 50-445 40 l and 50-446. DD TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ]
COMPANY, et al. l l (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) l h N CASE'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANTS $ ch TO PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS TO !.. g CASE'S 9/18/86 CPRT DISCOVERY -- 12
~
]w ; -*
SAMPLING '
y u
n\ N
(/ BACKGROUND On September 18, 1986, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) filed its 12th Discovery Request on the issue of the adequacy of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan, regarding sampling.
On December 2, 1986, Applicants filed tiheir Answers to CASE CPRT Program Plan Interrogatories (Set No. 12), hereinafter referred to as
" Applicants' Answers" d/. '
rr CASE now finds it necessary to file this motion to compel pursuant to (V) 10 CFR 2.740(f). Applicants have failed to respond, or provided incomplete and evasive responses, to many of the interrogatories. Prior to filing their responses, Applicants made no attempt to contact CASE to clarify any of these interrogatories that they may have found objectionable, and have not provided any specific basis for the blanket objections which were M/ This motion is being filed late per agreement of Applicants' Counsel and the Board Chairman to allow CASE to' review the transcript of the December 15, 1986 Prehearing Conference prior to filing this motion.
1 8702030037 870121 PDR MO3 ADOCK 05000445 #
b
- a. t utilized in the responses. In some instances, CASE has attempted herein to further clarify some of our interrogatories, in the hope that Applicants will supply responses to our discovery requests.
The basic requirements under NRC regulations for responding to discovery requests are well known to all parties in this proceeding. For the record, CASE points out the 'following specific basic discovery principles on which we rely as they relate to these particular discovery requests:
Discovery in litigation before the courts, as well as in NRC licensing proceedings, is intended to insure that "the parties have access to all relevant, unprivileged information prior to the hearing." (Boscon Edison Company, (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 582 (1975)). Indeed, discovery in modern administrative practice is to be liberally granted "to enable the parties to ascertain the facts in complex litigation, refine the issues, and prepare adequately" for the hearing.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), LBP-78-20, 7 NRC 1038, 1040 (1978).
I As to the scope of permissible discovery, it is well-settled that a party has the right to find out what the other parties know with respect to i a particular contention, viz., the positions of adversary parties and the information available to those parties to support their position.
Pennsylvania Power & Licht Company, et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ASLB Memoranda and Orders, January 4, 1980, slip t
op. at p. 6 and August 27, 1979, slip op, at pp. 5-6. Discovery inquiries l
i are limited only by the requirements that they be reasonably relevant to a i
2
r s g-sensible investigation, Pilgrim, LBP-75-30, supra at 582, and the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1).
The Appeal Board in Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), 12 NRC 317 (1980) discusFed the conduct of discovery in NRC proceedings. That decision reinforces the preceding.
A party to an NRC licensing proceeding is not excused from making timely responses to discovery requests because of a lack of complete
%J knowledge or because the party has only partial knowledge of the answer.
See Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP 30, 1 NRC 579, 583 n. 10 (1975). That party must answer discovery requests to the best of its ability, and if the party claims a lack of sufficient information to provide any response at the time answers are due, the party should answer by providing the information when available. Id. Answers must be responsive and complete to the extent information is now available.
See Pilgrim, supra 1 NRC at 583 n. 10, 586; see also 10 CFR 2.740(f).
With respect to objections to discovery requests, the burden of persuasion is on the objecting party to show that the interrogatory should not be answered. Pilgrim, LBP-75-30, supra at 583. General objections are not sufficient. Id. Indeed, answers to discovery requests are important to a party's ability to prepare its case for trial. Claims that responses would be unduly burdensome, time-consuming and expensive are merely general, unsupported assertions, and thus are insufficient to sustain the burden of l persuasion. Pilgrim, suora, 1 NRC at 583.
i 6
3 i
i
.r- c_.,_,_, , - _ _ . . ,
, _ _ . , . . , . ~ - . . , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . ,
- , _ , , _ _ . . _ _ _ , . _ - . _ , _ . , .,, .,,__-,,_,y .._,-...,_,m._ , _
c
- 1 See also NRC Rules of Practice, 10 CFR 2.740b(b) and 2.741(d). These regulations require that a party must timely respond or state its objections with respect to each interrogatory or request to produce.
We also note that background regarding NRC regulations ' governing discovery was contained in CASE's 10/15/86 Motion to Compel!regarding ,
Applicants' 9/26/86 Answers to CASE CPRT Program Plan Interrogatories, Set 1 and 2, and CASE's 11/28/86 Motion to Compel Answers to Sets 3-7. We will not repeat those arguments here, and note that many of the specific
['"'N arguments were addressed during the 12/15/86 Prehearing Conference.
s' )
The information contained in that transcript was helpful in preparing this motion to compel, and we have tried to be mindful of the Board's rulings and i
discussions in preparing this Motion. We note, however, that sampling is a
(
rather unique aspect of Applicants' CPRT Plan, and presents unique ,
difficulties in written discovery requests and answers. .i We believe that CASE's Motion is necessary at this time for efficiency of operation in the discovery procedure and to allow CASE to properly
, ,f-sss prepare for hearings. We are hopeful that we will be able to obtain
( )
\ s ,,/ sufficient information from Applicants' additional responses to our t
interrogatories, as clarified in some instances herein, to meet our needs.
However, failing this, it may be necessary to also engage in depositions, which were anticipated in CASES's original 9/18/86 discovery requests at question 6.1. (It should be noted that part of our current problem regarding depositions is that Applicants' 12/2/86 Answers have not provided us with the names of the individuals f rom whom we would have to take the depositions, although we are aware of one individual's name, Mr. Webster.)
i 4
- 1 MOTION TO COMPEL Interrogatorv No. 1 (see Applicants' answer beginning on page 2) states:
"1. a. Is it Applicants' position that they know of no way to quantify the level of detection of the reinspection program for random errors?
"b. Is it Applicants' position that they know of no way to quantify the level of detection of the original inspection program for random errors?
"c. Is is therefore Applicants' position that Applicants' know of no way to calibrate one program to the other program (e.g., the reinspection program to the original inspection program)?
"d. If Applicants' position is different from what is indicated in 1.a., 1.b., or 1.c., above, please explain in precise detail how Applicants' position differs."
( Applicants' Answer (at pages 2 and 3) stated:
"The Applicants' position on these propositions is as contained in ' Applicants' Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling)' filed January 31, 1986, from which the foregoing propositions have been lifted, as well as in the Senior Review Team's ' Response to Board Concerns' (publication pending) wherein the same matters are discussed. It should be understood, however, that ' quantify' as used in the former was employed in the sense of ' quantify with mathematical precision.' The SRT does believe it to be so, and demonstrable, that the level of reasonable assurance afforded by the CPRT Program, when completed, will be comparable to that that would be expected to result from the implementation of a 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, program."
g Applicants have referred CASE to two documents, both of which are
, voluminous. There is a total lack of specificity as to what portion of the i
documents state their position with regard to this interrogatory. CASE l needs to know the specific page, paragraph, and sentence upon which the l
Applicants intend to rely as their sworn response. We move that the Board compel Applicants to provide this specific information, as indicated in the
[ following paragraphs.
Applicants have changed a word (" quantify") in the documents without j specifying exactly where in each of the two documents referenced they l
l S
?
i i intended for the change to apply. We move that the Board compel Applicants to provide the specific pages, paragraphs, and lines upon which the Applicants intend to rely as their sworn response.
There appears to be no answer supplied to parts a., b., or c. of this interrogatory. Having read " Applicants' 1/31/86 Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling)" prior to formulating this interrogatory, considerable uncertainty existed as to the correctness of this interpretation, which is why we asked the questions.
(We note that CASE's interest in this aspect is long-standing; see CASE's n
First Critique of Applicants' Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Plan, sent (V) to Board under cover letter of 8/14/85, at: page 8, second paragraph; first paragraph of item 1, bottom of page 26 continued top of page 27; and last paragraph on page 30 continued top of page 31.) After consideration of the Applicants' supplied answer, the second document " Applicants' 12/1/86 Response to Board Concerns," was reviewed. We did not find precisely the same kind of statements in the two documents. Therefore, we still are not sure what the answers are which Applicants would consider to be their sworn (r~'N, response. We move that the Board order Applicants to provide specific "yes"
\'- -] or "no" answers to sub parts a., b., and c.
Regarding Applicants' answer to 1.d., we cannot tell whether or not anything in the Applicants' answer is intended to be responsive to that question. An answer is not required to sub part d. if the answers to sub-parts a., b., and c. are all "yes." However, in the event that one or more of those answers is "no," CASE moves that the Board order Applicants to identify specifically what portions of the two documents apply to each sub part answered "no." If the justification for answering "no" to any one of the first three sub parts is not completely contained in the two 6
a referenced documents, CASE moves that the Board order Applicants to provide complete and specific new answers.
Interrogatory No. 3 (see Applicants' Answer at pages 5-7 /2/) stated:
"3. a. (1) What measures have been, or are being, taken by the reinspection program to ensure that an adequate sample has been taken to ensure with a 95/95 confidence level that any potential deficiency or trend of deviations will have been identified for each possible stratum? (As one example: How are Applicants ensuring that a large enough sample of fs all the inspectors has been taken to establish with
/ a 95/95 confidence level that enough of a single,
\s_ ') inadequate inspector's or worker's product has been reviewed so that deficiencies or adverse trends of deviations will have been identified. As another example, what measures have been taken with regard to the possibility that there exists a possible whole separate level of middle management personnel who themselves may never sign anything but who tell others to sign off on work which the
, signer may believe to be inadequate, incorrect, etc., and to assure that this is not getting lost in the cracks?)
"(2) Explain in precise detail how the reinspection program ensures that an adequate sample has been taken to ensure with a 95/95 confidence level that any potential deficiency or trend of deviations g'~xs will have been identified for each of the following I
( ) possible strata:
'- ' "(1) an inadequate inspector;
"(ii) an inadequate worker;
"(iii) a bad batch of material;
"(iv) a bad design for even a small part;
"(v) a middle management person who is forcing people underneath him to sign off on i things (possibly inadequate or incorrect work) but whose name never appears on j anything.
i
/ 2,/ We note that there was an error in Applicants' quoting of CASE's
, Interrogatory, on the eleventh line from the top of page 7,
- Interrogatory 3.b.(1)
- "well-operated" was used instead of "well-ordered." It is not apparent to CASE whether or not this would have made any difference in Applicants' answers.
7 l
l
[
r
- 1
"(3) Explain in precise detail how the initial sample ensures with a 95/95 confidence level that each of the above five conditions enumerated above will have been detected when it is suspected that each condition exists.
"(4) Explain in precise detail how the initial sample ensures with a 95/95 confidence level that each of the above five conditions enumerated above will have been detected when it is not suspected that any of the conditions exist but when such condition does, in fact, exist.
"b. (1) Various population distributions have been assumed:
normal, log-normal, poisson, binomial, uniform, U-shaped /2/. Explain in precise detail the engineering basis for the assumption that any of these distributions are appropriate for use in a
/'~'N situation such as: one inspector out of 15 is a
( ) bad inspector and the others are good inspectors, and the one inspector has allowed a number of errors to go undetected in an unknown pattern. Or, to paraphrase the situation, a number of strata exist, none of which can be said to be a smooth, well-ordered set of data beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the example of the bad inspector). Please respond for the instance when the existence of such strata is suspected, and separately for the instance when it is not suspected that they exist, but they do in fact exist.
"(2) Provide documentation to support your response to (1) above.
"c. (1) For each ISAP, which possible strata have been identified by the Applicants?
"(2) Where is such identification contained in Applicants' documentation? Provide it if it has s not already been provided.
"(3) Provide documentation for all work that was found for each of the strata.
"f 2/ See document supplied on discovery, by F.A. Webster, ' Developing Sampling Plans for TRT Issues,' Civil / Structural / Mechanical CPRT, File No. 11.1-001, 3/12/85, Shown in CPRT Plan, Appendix D, Revision 1, Attachment 2, second reference (marked with **) listed on page 8 of 12, Table 2 of attachment to 1/31/86 letter to NRC Staff's Mr. Noonan and 1/31/86 letter to the Board. The 3/28/86 letter to CASE from Applicants' counsel Mr. Cad stated: 'It is transmitted in its current form, which includes revisions made since the document was first cited in CPRT Program Plan, Appendix D.'"
8
- \
Applicants stated regarding interrogatory a(1)-(3): "These questions are confusing and not susceptible of being answered as framed." /3/.
It is CASE's understanding that when a deviation has been discovered and confirmed, it is then reviewed for safety significance. If the answer is yes, it is deemed to be a deficiency; if the answer is no, it is processed as a trend. Our original questions were formulated based upon this understanding. CASE believes that our interrogatories as originally written
,s were clear (and, if not, Applicants should have so informed us informally as
/
1 we requested). Further clarification, to remove the possibility of any ambiguity in the original phrasing of the question, is as follows:
Change the first sentence of Interrogatory 3.a.(1) to the following two sentences (the remainder of the paragraph remains the same):
- 3. a. (1) What measures have been, or are being, taken by the l reinspection program to ensure that an adequate sample has been taken to ensure with a 95/5 confidence level that any potential deficiency will have been identified for each possible stratum? What measures have been, or are being, taken by the reinspection program to ensure that any trend of deviations will have been identified g for each possible stratum? . ..
~
\
s/ Change the first sentence of Interrogatory 3.a.(2) to the following two sentences (the remainder of the question remains the same):
! 3. a. (2) Explain in precise detail how the reinspection program ensures that an adequate sample has been taken to ensure with a 95/5 confidence level that any potential f3/ CASE specifically requested that Applicants contact us should they wish clarification of any of the discovery requests for the 12th Set (see i Footnote 1, page 1, of CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT Discovery -- 12, Sampling).
i However, Applicants made no attempt to do so, and in fact were not speaking to CASE's representative in Dallas for several weeks.
4 9
i
.- - - . . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ . . . , , . _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . - , _ _ , . _ _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ - - ~ . _ , - , , _ _ , . . - . . _ , _ . ~ . .
- I deficiency will have been identified for each of the following possible strata: . . . Explain in precise detail how the reinspection program ensures that any trend of deviations will have been identified for each of the following possible strata: . . .
If this fails to clarify the interrogatory sufficiently to remove Applicants' confusion and to render the interrogatory susceptible of being answered as framed, we again ask that Applicants contact CASE's representative in Dallas, Mrs. Ellis, informally for further clarification.
We do note that in Applicants' initial answers, the Applicants omitted any attempt to address the specific examples and/or strata enumerated in the fs)
'N ,,/ interrogatory (i.e.: an inadequate inspector; an inadequate worker; a bad batch of material; a bad design for even a small part; and a middle management person who is forcing people underneath him to sign off on things (possibly inadequate or incorrect work) but whose name never appears on anything)). The examples and strata enumerated in the interrogatory are meant by CASE to be synonymous with " root cause" in CPRT language. CASE's concern here is: Does the CPRT Program Plan ensure that the enumerated possible root causes will be identified? If so, CASE wants the complete bases for Applicants' position.
In addition, Applicants appear to be attempting to anticipate what l CASE's position will be when answering this inte.rrogatory. The resulting l
l response appears to be a rebuttal to CASE's anticipated position, rather
! than a direct answer to the questions. The consequence is that, although lengthy, the direct response to the interrogatory posed is either absent, incomplete, ambiguous, or tentative at best. CASE wishes to have the l
questions answered directly, specifically, and completely.
i 10 P
1 l
- 1 I
l l
CASE moves that the Board order Applicants to supply complete
! supplementary answers to CASE's clarified interrogatories 3.a.(1) and
- 3.a.(2), as well as 3.a.(3) and 3.a.(4), since any possible confusion on the part of the Applicants should be removed as a result of the reframing of the interrogatory. CASE further moves that the Board order Applicants to supply complete and specific answers to each of the enumerated strata (potential i
i root cause) as the interrogatory is posed (no anticipated position).
Specifically in regard to 3.b.(2), Applicants state (page 8):
- [ "The Applicants further object to sub part (b)(2) of this
} \s_s interrogatory (uhich is actually a request for the production of documents) on the ground that '[p]rovide documentation to support your response' fails to describe the documents requested with the
- specificity required by the Rules of Practice."
4 Applicants have not answered Interrogatory 3.b.(2), but (we assume) have instead objected. Applicants' objection is without basis; Applicants
- have responded to 3.b. (Applicants' Answer at pages 13-16), and CASE's t
Interrogatory 3.b.(2) merely asks for Applicants to provide documentation to support their response. This is clearly specific enough for Applicants to i
be able to identify and supply that documentation. CASE does note, however,
\
that in Applicants' response to Interrogatory 3.b., at the bottom of page 15 l
of Applicants' Answers, they reference two documents: one is a textbook in i
l the public domain; and the other is "A. Boissonnade, 'CPRT Sampling Plans -
Addendum,' CPRT File 11.1-005." If the only documentation in support of i
l Applicants' answer to 3.b. are the two documents named at the bottom of page i
- 15, they should so state. Otherwise, Applicants should identify and provide
- all other documentation in support of their answer. CASE moves that the
!~
Board order Applicants to do so.
l l
11 c
E
a 1
For the sake of clarification, CASE does have a document (sent to Mrs.
'111s under cover letter of 3/28/86 from Mr. Gad) which is marked " Job No.
11.1-05," and appears to be by A. Boissonnade; there are some pages which are dated 12/27/85, and there are also some pages which are dated 12/27/85 but also are marked "Chkd. by [cannot read name), Date 1/30/86." We ask that Applicants advise whether or not the documents we have already received are the same as the document referenced in their Answers, and whether or not there have been any later revisions. Please provide whatever documents are
['U } necesaary for CASE to have a complete set.
Regarding Interrogatory 3.c., Applicants did not supply an answer, but objected; we therefore assume that they are relying only upon their objection. Applicants stated (pages 7 and 8):
"The Applicants object to sub part{s] (c) . . . of this interrogatory on the ground that these sub parts call for the production of information relating to the implementation of the CPR7 Program Plan, as opposed to the adequacy of the Plan, and are therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986."
lloweser, it is CASE's understanding that an ISAP is an Issue Specific A
l j Action Plan -- not implementation -- and that the implementation of the Plan
- \s_ '
is contained in the Results Report for the ISAP. CASE is attempting to ascertain tie scope of the reinspection program plan as a necessary 1
ingredient for our being able to evaluate the adequacy of the plan. For these reasons, CASE maintains that Applicants' objection is without foundation, and we move that the Board order Applicants to answer 3.c.(1),
3.c.(2), and 3.c.(3) specifically and completely.
l 1
1 12
(
e i CASE's Interrogatorv No. 4 (see Applicants' Answer, page 16) stated:
"4. a. For each ISAP and DSAP, identify each attribute which was not included in the original inspection program.
Separately identify those attributes checked during the original inspection program which were not checked during the reinspection program for each ISAP and DSAP.
"b. Explain why fewer attributes were required for whichever program has the least attributes. Address each ISAP and DSAP separately.
"c. Provide documentation of the evaluation of safety margins established for that program with the least number of attributes. Address each ISAP and DSAP separately.
"d. If Applicants have not evaluated safety margins, do the Applicants agree with the statement that the safety
~'s margin cannot be quantified for this particular ISAP or DSAP? Address each ISAP and DSAP separately.
"e.
~
If the above cannot be provided because of a lack of any work in this area, provide all documents necessary in order to do this work."
Applicants response to Interrogatory No. 4 (pages 16-18) was:
" Objection:
"The Applicants cbject to this interrogatory on the ground that it calls for the production of information regarding the implementation of the CPRT Program Plan, not its adequacy, and therefore it is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
"The Applicants further object to sub parts (a) and (b) of this interrogatory on the ground that they are duplicative of the s questions posed in ' Memorandum; Proposed Memorandum and Order' issued April 14, 1986."
" Answer:
"Without waiving the foregoing objection, but rather expressly relying upon the same, the Applicants provide the following information.
"The CPRT inspections of hardware in Action Plan VII.c are to attributes and accept / reject criteria determined by CPRT to be relevant to the safety significance of the items in question, which are not necessarily the same as the attributes or accept / reject criteria that may have been employed in the original 13
- L i
l acceptance inspections. CPRT has not undertaken to make an attribute-by attribute comparison of the two. However, CASE has previously been provided with copies of the CPRT checklists, and has previously had the opportunity to inspect documentation relevant to the CPSES acceptance inspection program. The information called for by these sub parts may be derived or ascertained from these records or from an examination, audit or inspection of such records, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served.
- "In addition, we point out that sub parts (c) and (d) of this j interrogatory are founded on the premise that ' safety margins' are correlated to 'that program with the least number of attributes' and therefore these sub parts are not susceptible of an a.nswer as framed. If the purpose of the question was margins associated
s with CPRT safety significance evaluations, the margins enployed I are whatever margin is associated with the code or standard
- s applicable to the evaluation."
With regard to Applicants' answer to sub parts 4.c. and 4.d., the statement that "sub parts (c) and (d) of this interrogatory are founded on -
the premise that ' safety margins' are correlated to 'that program with the least number of attributes'" is a flawed interpretation of this '
interrogatory. CASE is of the opinion that safety margins exist for any and all of Applicants' actions and/or plans regarding CPSES. CASE restricted
! the requests for information in an effort to reduce the amount of paperwork o
( ,/ involved. If the Applicants cannot determine which of their two programs
- (the original inspection or the reinspection) have the least namber of I attributes, the proper response is to supply both.
With regard to that portion of Applicants statement that "the margins
! vaployed are whatever margin is associated with the code or standard I
applicable to the evaluation," the response lacks the specificity required by the NRC Rules of Practice.
1 i
l 14
- C CASE moves that the Board order Applicants to supply complete and specific responses to CASE's specific interrogatories contained in sub parts 4.c. and 4.d., including responses for each ISAP and identifying any code or standard applicable to the evaluation of the margins referred to by Applicants.
With regard to sub part 4.e., Applicants have totally failed to respond. CASE assumes therefore that Applicants are relying upon their 1
stated objections. Applicants first object because they claim that this interrogatory " calls for the production of information regarding the inplementation of the CPRT Program Plan" (emphasis in the original).
l However, it is CASE's understanding that an ISAP is an Issue Specific Action {
d Plan -- not implementation -- and that the implementation of that Plan is contained in the Results Report for that ISAP. CASE is attempting to ascertain the scope of the reinspection program plan as a necessary ingredient for our being able to evaluate the adequacy of the plan. For these reasons, CASE maintains that Applicants' objection is without foundation.
Applicants next object to sub parts 4.a. and 4.b., to which sub part 4.e. refers, on the ground that "they are duplicative of the questions posed in ' Memorandum; Proposed Memorandum and Order' issued April 14, 1986."
However, Applicants do not state that they are relying upon their answers to this Memorandum and Order as their responses to this sub part of the interrogatory, and furthermore they do not state even the date of any such responses or which portions of their answers apply to this specific request 15 l
- i by CASE. It is important for CASE to ascertain which specific answers Applicants are attempting to adopt as their sworn responses to our interrogatories.
CASE therefore moves that the Board order Applicants to respond to sub-part 4.e. by identifying and providing all documents necessary for CASE to do the work to accomplish the objectives requested in sub parts 4.a. and 4.b., and (depending upon Applicants' complete responses) to 4.c. and 4.d.
f%
( ,)
t \
CASE's Interrogatorv No. 6 (see Applicants' Answer, pages 20-25 /4,/) stated:
"6. Included in CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce, there were a few questions regarding statistical sampling (Questions F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4).
Questions F-3 and F-4 stated:
"'F-3. Please provide a complete copy of all other documents developed by F. A. Webster et al.,
in the process of developing sampling approaches, applications and/or guidelines for each and every issue area of the CPRT effort.
"'F-4. Please provide a complete copy of all other documents relied on by Applicant and/or 7g Applicant's CPRT response teams in developing
( ) and/or implementing the sampling approach, N,,,/ applications, and/or guidelines for each and every issue area of the CPRT effort.'
" Applicants initially partially objected to, and partially responded to these two interrogatories (see Applicants' 10/22/85 Responses to ' CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce' and Request for Protective Order, pages 61 and 62), and stated, in part:
/4/ CASE notes that in Applicants' Answers, they omitted the introductory material which was included in our original interrogatory. We have included this introductory material because we believe it is important l and so that the Board will have a complete picture of what is being discussed.
t i
16
- t
"'To the extent relevant to the assessments and conclusions of CPRT, such documents are or will be contained in the CPRT Central or Working Files, which will be produced in the manner and at the time set forth in the Objection and Response to Interrogatory / Request No. A-14, which is
-incorporated by reference herein.'
" CASE pursued these two questions during the 11/12/85 prehearing conference on discovery matters (Tr. 24301/16-
~24302/11), and Applicants' counsel Mr. Gad stated, in part (Tr. 24302/4-7):
"'This is all in procces CPRT materials except that some of the Webster materials are in the central
,- s files, those that underlie Appendix D, or should be.'
(
"Under, cover letter of 3/28/86, Mr. Gad provided CASE with 'a copy of the Fred Webster document that you requested' (which was specifically the document requested in Question F-1, as referenced in footnote 2, page 4, of this pleading). Mr. Gad further stated:
"'It is transmitted in its current form, which includes revisions made since the document was first cited in CPRT Program Plan, Appendix D. You will note that 'the document' actually consists of several documents, some of which are handwritten but all of which appear to be legible.'
"Please provide the following information:
"a. Has any change been made to the document provided in
('s- response to CASE's question F-1 since the time it was provided to CASE?
! "b. If the answer to a. above is yes, please explain in precise detail what the change or changes are, by whom i
such changes were made, when each such change was made, and the reason for each such change.
"c. If the answer to a. above is yes, please explain in 4 precise detail whether or not, and if so, specifically when and how such changes have been incorporated into Applicants' sampling program, what the effect of such changes has been, and what procedures or other steps have been put into place to assure that the sampling program has been uniformly carried out such that a 95/95 confidence level night be achieved.
{
i 17
- i "d. If the answer to a. above is yes, please provide any and all revised or added pages, including all drafts.
"e. Identify any and all documents regarding your responses to questions a. through d. above.
"f. Provide copies of any and all documents identified in e.
above.
"g. With regard'to Applicants' responses to questions F-3 and F-4, and specifically regarding the statement that
'some of the Webster materials are in the central files, those that underlie Appendix D, or should be,' it is CASE's present understanding that the only document in the central files for Appendix D is Appendix D itself.
) "(1) Identify specifically any and all documents d which support Appendix D, and identify the specific location of all such documents.
"(11) Provide copies of any and all documents identified in (1) above. If such documents are readily available in the public domain, please so state (as has already been done in response to CASE's interrogatory F-2).
"(111) If such documents are not available, please explain in precise detail the bases for Applicants' sampling program (s), including an y explanation of how such sampling program ensures s 95/95 confidence level.
. ll p "(iv) Provide copies of all supporting documents for your response to (iii) above. q
- "h. Identify any and all individuals, in addition to Mr. F.
! A. Webster, who had any involvement in the planning and i
formation stages of Appendix D of the CPRT Plan,
( including the original and all revisions, and in any
>es changes to Appendix D.
"i. For each individual listed in your response to question i h. above, answer the following questions (if any of these have already been covered under your response to
{' questions contained in CASE's CPRT Discovery-2, please so state):
h, '
"(i) Describe all involvements the individual had in the
( ,' planning and formation stages of Appendix D.
A Answer for the original and each revision.
l C
I q
4%
fh
\
N %
l
"(11) Identify all activities which the individual performed or participated in regarding Appendix D (the original and each revision).
"(iii) Identify all CPSES project activities and other CPRT activities which each of the individuals listed was assigned in the past or has been assigned to or involved in, in addition to those regarding Appendix D.
"(iv) Provide a resume for each individual. If not specifically included in such resume, provide details as to exactly what educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program. If any individual's
~ [_j resume has already been provided, please state when and
( ,, / in response to which question; if any individual's _
resume was previously provided some time ago (for instance, during hearings or as part of Applicants' 1984 Motions for Summary Disposition), please provide an {
updated resume, with particular emphasis on the individual's educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program.
"j . On March 18, 1986, a meeting was held in Bethesda, i Maryland, between Applicants and the NRC Staff to discuss statistical matters (see 4/1/86 Summary of Meeting Held on March 18, 1986 to Discuss Statistical Matters, by Charles M. Trammell, NRC Project Manager, f ~x PWR Project Directorate #$, Division of PWR Licensing-( ) A). This meeting, over CASE's strenuous objections, was
\_/
s not transcribed and none of the individuals within CASE who are working on sampling were able to attend /3,/.
"f3/ The tape recording which CASE was allowed to have made proved to be useless for the most part, since it was impossible to place the microphone in a location where each individual talking could be easily heard, the individuals did not usually identify themselves before speaking and it was therefore impossible to tell with certainty who was talking (and often it was impossible to even guess), etc.
19
- s' "Please provide the following information regarding that meeting:
"i. Were there any other attendees from Applicants or their agents, in addition to those shown on the list attached to Mr. Trammell's 4/1/86 summary (perhaps because they came in late, for instance)?
If'so, please identify each such individual.
"11. Identify any and all individuals who had any involvement in the planning and formation stages of Applicants' presentation at that meeting.
"lii. Identify any and all individuals who had any involvement in the planning and formation stages, and in the final version, of Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement to Memorandum in Response to Board's fs,,,)/ Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling).
"iv. For each individual listed in your response to questions 11. and 111. above, answer the following questions (if any of these have already been i covered under your response to previous questions, please so state and indicate where):
i "(a) Describe all involvements the individual had in the planning and formation stages, and in the final versions for the meeting and for Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement.
"(b) Identify all activities which the individual performed or participated in regarding the i
pg planning and formation stages, and in the r ,
)
, \s_ / final versions for the meeting and for Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement.
"(c) Identify all CPSES project activities and other CPRT activities which each of the l individuals listed was assigned in the past or has been assigned to or involved in, in addition to those regarding Appendix D. (If this information has already been provided, please state where and when.)
"(d) Provide a resume for each individual. If not
- specifically included in such resume, provide details as to exactly what educational and 4
professional background, training, and other l
f 20 l
l
qualifications such individual possesses for participation in the planning and formation of a sampling program. If any individual's resume has already been provided, please state when and in response to which question; if any individual's resume was previously provided some time ago (for instance, during hearings or as part of Applicants' 1984 Motions for Summary Disposition), please provide an updated resume, with particular emphasis on the individual's educational and professional background, training, and other qualifications such individual possesses for participation in
- the planning and formation of a sampling program.
"v. Identify any and all notes (handwritten, typed, etc.) which were made of the meeting by Applicants
- or any of their agents. If Applicants or their agents either tape recorded the meeting or obtained a copy of such tape recording, and if Applicants or their agents transcribed or made notes from such tape recording, please so state and identify any and all such documents. Also identify any follow-up memoranda or other internal communications between Applicants and/or any of their agents which flowed from the meeting or any follow-up discussions or meetings.
"vi. Provide copies of all items identified in v. above.
If it is not indicated clearly on the document, identify who made such notes, etc.
"k. Explain in precise detail the process which led to the development and implementation of Appendix D.
"1. Provide the following individuals for deposition (at a time to be mutually agreed upon by Applicants and CASE):
"(i) F. A. Webster
"(ii) Each of the other individuals listed in your responses to h., J.ii., and j.iii. above."
Applicants' answers were acceptable (and we therefore will not repeat
- those answers here) with the following exceptions (see Applicants' Answers, pages 26-30)
21
~ _
Applicants made no attempt to answer Interrogatory 6.g., 6.h., or 6.1.,
and (we assume) relied only on their objections:
Interrogatory 6.g. - Applicants stated (Applicants' Answers, page 26):
"The Applicants object to sub part (g) of this interrogatory (which is actually a request for the production of documents) on the ground that the phrase 'any and all documents which support Appendix D' fails to identify the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by the Rules of Practice."
Applicants' objection to 6.g. is, first of all, incorrectly characterized as being only "actually a request for the production of documents." Although production (and identification) of documents is requested, it is obvious from a simple reading of 6.g. in its entirety that what CASE is ultimately seeking in this interrogatory (and as was plainly stated) is an explanation in precise detail of the bases for Appendix D of .
the CPRT Program Plan and for Applicants' sampling program (s), including an explanation of how such sampling program ensures a 95/95 [or 95/5]
confidence level. The documents which we requested be identified and provided are clearly stated to apply specifically to those matters.
Applicants have entirely ignored and totally failed to respond to 6.g.(111) which asks not for documents, but for such an explanation.
Further, we note that Applicants have not even attempted to make the
- argument that Interrogatory 6.g. is not relevant to the issues at hand; obviously, they could not possibly do so, since sampling and Appendix D
("CPRT Sampling Approach, Applications, and Guidelines," developed by the CPRT5L5/) are an integral and basic part of Applicants' CPRT Program Plan.
Complete and specific responses to CASE's interrogatory 6 (including l 6.g.) are essential to CASE's attempts to ascertain the facts about the
- 15) See letter from Applicants' counsel Mr. Wooldridge to the Board dated January 31, 1986, attaching copies of Appendix D.
22
- I complex issue of sampling, to refine the issues, and to adequately prepare for hearing (or summary disposition, whatever the case may be). CASE moves
~
that the Board order Applicants to respond fully and specifically to Interrogatory 6.g. and each of its sub parts.
Applicants made no attempt to answer Interrogatory 6.h. or 6.1.,
and (we assume) relied only on their objections:
Interrogatory 6.h. and 6.1. -- Applicants stated (Applicants' Answers, page 26):
"The Applicants object to sub parts (h) and (i) of this i interrogatory on the ground that the identity of (and personal information regarding) persons who may have been involved in the formulation of the CPRT Program Plan, or constituent parts thereof, is not relevant to the adequacy of that which they formulated. The CPRT Program Plan is either adequate or it is not. These sub parts are therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986."
CASE strongly disagrees with Applicants' stated reasoning; we believe that the information requested regarding persons who were involved in the formulation of the CPRT Program Plan, or constituent parts thereof (in this instance, regarding sampling) is not only relevant, but vital to the preparation of our case. Whether or not the CPRT Program Plan in regard to sampling is adequate or not may well hinge, at least in part, upon this information. Applicants have stated, in effect, that it doesn't matter whether or not the individuals who were involved in the formulation of the CPRT Program Plan, or constituent parts thereof: (1) have been involved in past work at Comanche Peak and therefore might have a vested interest in seeing that the final result was favorable (and therefore their input into the formulation might be biased); or (2) have had any (and, if so, the extent of) training and background in sampling or the preparation of 23
e .
sampling programs, or are competent f6,/. Further, Applicants have said, in effect, that it doesn't matter that reliance upon such individuals (if they were relied upon) might have led to the omission of important issues, sampling populations or areas, etc., which are not being adequately covered by Applicants' sampling program). CASE submits that we hasa a need and the right to the information requested, and we move that the Board order Applicants to respond fully and specifically to Interrogatory 6.h. and 6.1.
Applicants made no attempt to answer Interrogatory 6.J. and (we assume) relied only on their objections:
/~'s Interrogatory 6 1. -- Applicants stated (Applicants' Answers, page 27):
(N-- >
"The Applicants object to sub part (j) of this interrogatory on the ground that the information requested therein is not relevant to the adequacy of that which they formulated. The CPRT Program Plan is either adequate or it is not. These sub parts are therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.
f6/ The matter of competence of individuals performing work at Comacche Peak has long been a concern in these proceedings. CASE's concern in this instance and our quest for information is similar, in part, to the
/N Board's concern stated in its 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), LBP-83-81, 18 NRC 1410 et seq., at page 30:
" Applicant and staff would have us decide that applicant's stability reassessment program will resolve the stability problem, but we are unable to accept this suggestion. The program's procedures have not been presented to the Board and the program is in the control of the ' highly qualified' engineers who were responsible for the review of others whose work has been characterized by applicant and staff as
'somewhat knowledgeable' and 'somewhat inexperienced.' /81/
Although these individuals are undoubtedly qualified, competent engineers, we are not content to rely entirely on their work to correct problems that have arisen under their supervision and control."
"/81/ Tr. 7167-69 ([ Applicants' Witnesses) Vega and Finneran); Tr. 4962-4965 (Mr. Finneran); Tr. 6406
([NRC Staff Senior Resident Inspector -
Construction) Mr. Taylor)."
24
u e . a "The Applicants further object to sub-sub part (iii) of sub-part (j), which calls for information regarding the deliberative process leading to the filing of a legal document, on the ground that this sub-sub part is an improper attempt to invade the attorney / client and attorney work product privileges."
With regard to Applicants' general argument about relevancy, CASE's response is the same as for 6.h. and 6.1. (see discussion at pages 23 and 24 preceding).
With regard to Applicants' further objection to 6.j.(iii), which they state " calls for information regarding the deliberative process leading to the filing of a legal document, on the ground that this sub-sub part is an improper attempt to invade the attorney / client and attorney work product
, 1
( ) privileges," CASE has several problems with the reasons given for Applicants' objection. First, we have not asked for anything in this sub-part other than the identification of "any and all individuals who had any involvement in the planning and formation stages, and in the final version, of Applicants' 4/1/86 Supplement to Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling)." We have not asked what transpired between those individuals and the attorneys for Applicants (we do note, however, that it is not clear at this time that there may not
/m)/ even be some question as to whether or not Applicants' attorneys are also (V attorneys for those individuals). Further, Applicants' Answers to CASE's 12th Set seek to rely, at least in part, on Applicants' 1/31/86 Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling) (see Applicants' Answers at pages 2, 5, and 13); and we assume that Applicants are not now disowning their 4/1/86 Supplement to Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum (Statistical Inferences from CPRT Sampling), which is clearly also relevant to the issue at hand.
We are not interested in talking to Applicants' attorneys about statistical sampling; we are interested in finding out who (besides the 25
attorneys) helped formulate and prepare Applicants' position and Plan regarding statistical sampling -- and we may also want to take depositions from some of those individuals, as was anticipated in our Interrogatory 1.(11).
We further note that, even if attorney work product were involved (which we do not believe is a correct interpretation considering the fact that we are only asking for names in this sub part), NRC regulations have provisions under 10 CFR 2.740(b)(2) which CASE might seek to invoke should it become necessary. However, we believe that Applicants' objection is defective as it stands, and ask that the Board rule first on whether or not Applicants' objection is valid. In the event the Board upholds Applicants' objection, we move that the Board invoke the provisions of 10 CFR 2.740(b)(2) and order Applicants to provide the requested names so that CASE can make the determination whether or not we need to take depositions from them in order to prepare for trial or summary disposition.
CASE submits that we have a need and the right to the information requested, and we move that the Board order Applicants to respond fully and specifically to Interrogatory 6.J. (including 6.j.(iii) specifically).
l l
Interrogatory 6.1. -- Applicants stated (Applicants' Answers, page 30):
"1. The Applicants will take such steps as are reasonably in their power to cause such individuals who have been timely and validly served with subpoenas for deposition to comply with the obligations imposed by those subpoenas."
Alth, ugh Applicants did answer Interrogatory 6.1., their answer to l 6.1.11 is almost meaningless, since they have objected to 6.h. and 6.j. and have refused to supply the names requested. A favorable ruling from the Board regarding 6.h, 6.j.ii., and 6.j.iii., as requested by CASE in the preceding, is needed; CASE then moves that the Board order Applicants to supply those individuals named for deposition.
l l
l 26 i
e . ;
Interrogatory No. 7 stated (see Applicants' Answers, page 30):
"7. a. Do Applicants agree that they are, or will be, making changes in construction due to design changes or other reasons?
"b. If the answer to a. is yes, please explain in precise detail how the sampling program will integrate such changes, and. more specifically, whether or not (and if so, explain in precise detail in what manner) the newly constructed items will be integrated into the sampling program."
Applicants' Answer was (pages 30-31):
"a. Yes.
(,/ "b. To the extent that the question infers CPRT oversight of corrective actions taken as a result of the CPRT Program, please see Program Plan, Appendix H. To the extent that the question infers that the results of CPRT oversight of corrective actions, as defined in appendix H, will be ' integrated into the sampling program,' the answer is that they will not be integrated on a population by population basis or an ISAP by ISAP basis. However, all CPRT finidings from whatever phase of the CPRT ef fort will be considered in the respective Collective Evaluation Reports."
Applicants have not responded in the precise detail which CASE is seeking. As further clarification, our concern in 7.b. is: As CASE understands it, Applicants are performing sampling of construction at the (h same time they are reanalyzing, redesigning, modifying, deleting, and/or performing new construction as a part of their design ef forts. We want to know just what is being sampled: Is it only what was originally constructed and in place; is it some sort of mixture of what was originally constructed, what has been modified or redesigned, and/or newly constructed; have some of the items which were included in the sampling now been deleted while others have been retained; etc.? It is not clear to CASE exactly how the changes which are being made in design and due to design changes fit into the 27
e ..
sampling program. When and how are the changes which have already been made and are being made due to design changes going to be sampled (if at all),
and is this to be handled separately from the sampling of originally constructed items (or items which were constructed and in place when the CPRT sampling program began)? When Applicants state that the sampling of a particular population, ISAP, or whatever yields such-and-such a result, at what stage was the work when it was included in the sample; and what does s Applicants' statement really represent insofar as data sources are
,_,/ concerned, what is it meant to prove, and what does it actually prove?
We believe that with this clarification, Applicants should be able to respond in the precise detail CASE has requested. CASE moves that the Board order Applicants to do so.
l Interrogatory No. 8 stated (see page 15 of CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT Discovery -- 12, Sampling, and Applicants' Answers at page 31):
"8. a. Do Applicants see any connection or possible causal relation between sampling (of either or both design and construction) and the breakdown in design and design i (f- g) QA/0C for pipe supports?
i \d "b. If the answer to a. above is yes, explain in precise detail what connection or possible causal relation i
Applicants perceive may exist.
l I
"c. If the answer to a. above is yes, explain in precise detail how this has been integrated into the sampling
- program for the reinspection effort and uhat measures i have been, or are being, taken by the reinspection program to ensure a 95/95 confidence level for items for which a 100% reinspection has not been, or will not be, performed.
l i
l 28 l
o- .
"d . Provide any and all documentation for your responses to
- a. through c. above."
Applicants' response to Interrogatory No. 8 (page 32) was:
" Answer:
"We do not understand what is meant by the expression ' causal relation between sampling (of either or both design and construction) and the breakdown in design and design OA/0C for pipe support,' and therefore we cannot respond td this interrogatory."
This is yet another instance where Applicants could have sought additional information very quickly and informally. CASE offers the 1 following further clarification of the intent of the interrogatory. The Q Licensing Board has determined that there appears to have been a breakdown of effective quality assurance with respect to the design of pipe supports f7/, which we doubt that even Applicants would challenge at this point in time. It would be reasonable to assume that the cause of this breakdown could be ascertained. It would also be reasonable to assume that this cause would then be an established root cause. What CASE is interested in is:
Have the Applicants plans for determining what this root cause is? Have x the Applicants plans for determining possible connections between this particular established root cause and similar discrepancies found in other systems? When Applicants have an established root cause, do they have any established methodology to determine possible connections and examine associated problems (even though they might only be discrepancies and not rise to more severe levels in other sub-systems)? Do Applicants have plans I
/7/ See Board's 6/26/86 Memorandum (Board Concerns) at bottom of page 2 continued top of page 3, and Footnote 2 on page 3.
29 y - , n -
--.y g - - - - - ,,
9, y gr 3 g-+- -----p---- ---m-y y 3-m----,mw-,-rypm --e+ ----t-
s .,
for determining possible connections between this established root cause in indications of problems which may not trigger an expanded sample (e.g.,
problems deemed to be discrepancies but which are possibly connected to the established root cause)? Has this root cause been factored into the sampling plan, and if so, specifically what do the Applicants intend to do to make these possible connections and/or possible causal relations, how do they plan to handle this, and where is such plan included in the CPRT Plan regarding sampling?
('~' ) CASE could have asked the interrogatory in a different manner, as
\
I indicated in the preceding discussion, but we realized that Applicants may have some kind of an alternative plan, and we are trying to elicit from them whether or not they have any plans to determine possible connections or causal relationships between their sampling and the aforementioned breakdown, and if so, what those plans are. If they have a way to handle it, they should so advise. Part of CASE's problem in wording this interrogatory initially was due to the fact that we do not understand how 7_ Applicants intend to handle this (if at all). CASE moves that the Board
( i
( )
,_, order Applicants to fully and specifically answer our Interrogatory 8.
Interrogatory 8.d.:
There is an additional problem regarding Interrogatory 8.d. because of an error in wording by Applicants. The following was a general request at the end of CASE's interrogatories, intended to apply to all responses, and was primarily for the guidance of Ms. Susan Palmer so that she would know how many copies were being requested and whether they should be sent to CASE 30
- ._ _ _ _ _ . - - .- ~ _. . . . - - ____
e . s' in Dallas or to Dallas and our other representatives in accordance with s
items 1, 2,10,13,15, and 18 of the 8/19/86 Agreement Between CASE and Applicants Regarding Discovery Matters Relating to Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant:
"Please provide CASE in Dallas with three copies of your responses to this set of discovery requests, including three copies of all documents requested, in accordance with the 8/19/86 agreement between CASE and Applicants."
However, in Applicants' quotation of CASE's Interrogatory No. 8 (page
,,, 31 of Applicants' Answers), Interrogatory 8.d. was erroneously stated to be:
k_,) "d. Provide any and all documentation for your responses to this set of discovery requests, including three copies of all documents requested, in accordance with the
, 8/19/86 agreement between CASE and Applicants."
. . . and the above general request was then erroneously quoted as though it were part of Interrogatory No. 8.
Applicants then responded regarding Interrogatory No. 8.d.:
" Objection:
i
! "The Applicants object to sub part (d) of this interrogatory (which is actually a request for the production of documents) on i the ground that the phrase 'any and all documentation for your responses to this set of discovery requests' fails to identify the
\ documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by the Rules of Practice."
However, since sub part (d) was incorrectly quoted by Applicants and the correct wording of sub part (d) was specifically limited to a request to " Provide any and all documentation for your responses to a.
through c. above," Applicants' objection is invalid and without merit. We ask that the Board order Applicants to respond anew to sub part (d), as i clarified herein.
31 l
- i /
At the end of Applicants' Answers, as they generally have in recent answers to CASE's interrogatories, Applicants included the following:
" Motion for Protective Order "To the extent required by the Rules of Practice, the Applicants move for a protective order on the objections interposed in the foregoing responses."
Clearly Applicants' move for a protective order is so deficient that the Board should deny it. The burden of persuasion is on the objecting
- party to show that the interrogatory should not be answered. General feN objections are not suf ficient. Further, 10 CFR 2.740b(b) and 2.741(d) require that a party must timely respond or state its objections with respect to each interrogatory or request to produce. See also further i discussion at pages 2 through 4 of this pleading.
l i In
Conclusion:
For all of the foregoing reasons, CASE moves that the Board order
- Applicants to provide complete and specific answers to the following Interrogatories from CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT Discovery -- 12, Sampling, so that CASE can get on with the work we need to do to prepare motions for summary disposition or for hearings
Interrogatory 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., and 1.d (see pages 5 through 7 preceding);
Interrogatory 3.a.(1), 3.a.(2), 3.a.(3), 3.a.(4), 3.b.(2), 3.c.(1),
3.c.(2), 3.c.(3) (see pages 7 through 12 preceding);
Interrogatory 4.a., 4.b., 4.c., 4.d., and 4.e. (see pages 13 through 16 preceding);
32 l
l
. - =. -- - - - _ - - . --. . - - - . - -
e s l Interrogatory 6.g., 6.h., 6.1., 6.J., 6.1. (see pages 16 through 26 preceding);
l Interrogatory 7.b. (see pages 27 through 28 preceding); and
- Interrogatory 8.a. , 8.b. , 8.c. , and 8.d. (see pages 28 through 31 i
preceding).
4 CASE further moves that the Board deny Applicants' Motion for Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted, ;
b/A~. hu ADJ ffirs.)JuanitaEllis, President vCASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 e
t i
i l
i 1
33
s n q $
UQLYt it UW' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cpg.
OCCni', m i .rlQ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i!RA Rw In the Matter of }{
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{
Station, Units 1 and 2) }{
I, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE d By my signature below, I hereby-certify that true and correct copies of f
CASE's Motion to Compel Applicants to Provide Complete Answers to CASE's 9/18/86 CPRT Discovery -- 12, Sampling
)
have been sent to the names listed below this 21st day of January ,1987 ,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mall elsewhere.
. Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell C Atomic Safety & Licensing Board & Reynolds Washington, D. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Carib Terrace Board Panel 552 North Ocean Boulevard U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pompano Beach, Flcrida 33062 Washington, D. C. 20555 i
1 i
A q$
Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N. W., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20035 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Herman Alderman Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer Christic Institute Advisory Committee for Reactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)
Washington, D. C. 20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. David H. Boltz
\s / 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil, Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Ropes & Gray Docketing and Service Section 225 Franklin Street (3 copies) Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services Ms. Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California fs) Government Accountability Project
(
's ' Midwest Office 94111-5894 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq. Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Wright & Talisman, P. C. 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
l 1050 Seventeenth St., N.W. Suite 700 l Washington, D. C. 20036-5566 Washington, D. C. 20007 l
/L/ - .b bN
/(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President
CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 l 2 l . -- -
.. .