ML19338D355

Motion to Compel Citizens Associatin for Sound Energy Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Opposes Motion for 60-day Extension Re Interrogatories 55,57,59,61,62 & 64. Responds to Request for Clarification.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19338D355
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/18/1980
From:	Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8009230005
Download: ML19338D355 (22)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- . -

     ?- j"      '                            g\itf/
                                      #     papanc          9
                                    ,          UniRC        -

D SEP t'9 E > 56 l September 18, 1980-

                                   ".q    0ffice of theWDociating &sernce /

Branch /

                                          %            ss UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-In the Matter of                           )
                                                          )
              - TEXAS UTILITIES GENLRaTING                )    Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et - al.                     )                50-446
                                                          )

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License) APPLICANTS' MOTION TO CO)*2EL AND ANSWERS TO CASE'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN INfERROGATORIES.AND TO CASE'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $$2.730(c) and 2.740(f), Texas Utilities Generating' Company, et al. (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") in the captioned proceeding for an order compelling Citizens Asso-ciation for Sound Energy (" CASE") to respond to the Applicants' interrogatories and produce for inspection the documents requested in Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Requests to Produce, filed August 1, 1980. Applicants'also oppose CASE's motion for an extension of time set forth in its September 3, 1980, Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce. 4p3 5

                                                                                    / O 8 00923 o oog

s- , gr-  ; e .1 y - "/ - .~- -2 J - ? 1p I. l Discovery-

*                                             ^

q: n ' CASE'afobjections to-Applicants'Einterrogatories and requests 1 to produce appear to be founded.im substantial part on'.a misconception..of the: purpose.and: scope of discovery in NRC licensing proceedings.t Accordingly,. Applicants. summarize below important: principles.applicableLtol the. discovery process. t which'should serve as guidance to:all. parties in conducting'

                        -discovery i        this; proceeding.
                                                                                              ~

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 p' rior . to the hearing. "

Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 582.(1975).. Indeed,' discovery in modern admini-strative 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). As to the-scope of permissible discovery, it is well-settled that' interrogatories seeking specification of the facts-upon whichia claim-or contention is based are' wholly ; prcper, 'and that the party may be required to answer questions which attempt'to ascertain the basis - for' his claim or, for example, , what! deficiencies.or defects were claimed to

                                     ' exist:with respect 1to a particular situation or'cause.                 '

[ Pilgrim,' supra, l-NRC at-582 (footnote omitted).] i 7 _

a ,.

                                                       .o
                             .-. . -                                                        ;_ 3 5 m
                                                                           ~E A party =has the                  right;to find out what thefother parties.

Know with respect-to a:particular. contention, 'viz.,lthe s positionsof' adversary-parties and the information available' Ito those :partieis to; support their. position.

                                                                           ~

Penneylvania  ;;

                                             - Power&' Light Company,-et~al. (Susquehanna SteamLElectric
,-                                           . Station, Units-1.and'2),.ASLB Memoranda and Orders, January L'

4,fl980,1 slip op.1at p.-6 and August 27, 1979, slip op. at pp._5-6.- Discovery; inquiries.are limited'only;by the

                                              -requirements that-they be reasonably relevant to a sensible investigation,. Pilgrim, LBP-75-30, supra at 582, and the informationLso'ught isLreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,- 10 C.F.R.-$2.740(b)(1).

l' With respect to' objections to discovery requests, I 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, particularly in the case of'an applicant's request for discovery because the applicant'has the burden of proof. As was observed by the Licensing Board in Tvrone, The Applicants-in particular carry an unrelieved burden:of proof in_ Commission proceedings. Unless they can effectively inquire into the positions of the-intervenors,

                                                                 ' discharging that burden may be impossible              .

To permit _a party to make' skeletal' contentions,

                                                                 . keep'the bases-for them secret, then-require 1
                 . ~

l

   ,,a, ..g,         . . . . . . . , , . . . . .          , , ,,         ,

N

'y- . ,

x

                         ~

1

                      ~~

4;.. TitsLadversaries to meet any conceivable . thrust at hearing-would;be patently unfair,

                                             .and. inconsistent with a sound record.
                                             -[ Northern States Pover-Company,-et'al.

(Tyrone: Energy Park, Unit 1), LBP-77-37, 5 NRC 1298,H1300-Oln(1977):--(footnote.omitted).]

                                                                    ~

In, addition, while there'is'no-requirement-that_a party to an NRCIlicensing; proceeding <be represented by counsel,

                                           ~
                               ~

all parties, whether with.'or'without counsel,'are required

                                                                           ~            ~

to ' comply with ' the NRC Rules ' of Practice. 1 This requirement . I extends.to supplying answers.to interrogatories and. requests. j to.produceLfiledibyl adverse-parties, in a diligent and timely fashion. Offshore ~ Power Systems-(Manufacturing License for l Floating-Nuclear Pcwer Plants), LEP-75-67, 2 NRC 813, 817 j (1975); see Tyrone, supra, 5 NRC at 1300-02.  ! Further, intervenors must'be mindful of the distinction between the basi's-requirement regarding admission of Conten-tions-(see 10.C.F.R. $2.741(b)), and the information necessary to' avoid the disposition of issues .on summary disposition (see 10 C.F.R.1$2.749), or to win on the merits at the hearing. j l A Contention'may be admitted in an NRC licensing proceeding i

                                                                                                            ~I even though it is'not supported by sufficient bases or informa-tion'(i.e., evidence) to' overcome a motion for summary
                     ' disposition or to succeed on the merits.                  See e.g., Houston Lighting & Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station,
                     -Unit 1), ALAB-590,'ll NRC 542, 549-51 '(1980). Therefore, in responding.tol interrogatories concerning the basis for a
                     ,particular contention,:intervenors should recognirm that

l 4 ,

                                         +
                                                -^                                               -.    -.

     - .   ,        , f'

/ -:5 -

               ' discovery-requests in Commission proceedings l apply to-informa-
               ' tion and bases to. support a claim or. Contention in addition to whatever.information: served as a basis-for admitting the
               ' Contention.. -of course, if no further information is
                                                    ~

intended.to be relied upon in support of a contention, the intervenors should so. respond. Finally, intervenors must-conduc.t their participation-in NRC licensing proceedings in a responsible manner. As' the Supreme Court has stated, in a nuclear licensing pro-ceeding:

                               . . . it is still incumbent upon inter-venors who wish to participate to structure their participation so that it is meaningful,-so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors' position and
                              . contentions.     [ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S.       519, 553 (1978)].'

Discovery is one of 'the principal means for achieving such meaningful participation. Susquehanna, ASLB Memorandum and order (January 4, 1980), supra, slip op. at 3. II. Applicants' Motion to Compel CASE specifically objects to 49 of Applicants' interroga-tories, dealing with three Contentions. Those specific objections basically focus on five different. types of interroga-tories.. CASE'has not specified any objections with respect to any other interrogatories 1/. Applicants move that the Board-1/ CASE did set'forth partial responses to some interrogatories and requested an extention of time to

respond.to others.. Applicants-deal with those responses and the request'for an extension of time below; see Sections.III and IV. _

m L:.

"^ b-e- , compel CASE to respond to all-interrogatories and requests to. produce discussed below. A . -- Interrogatories 1[ 10, 25, 26, 30, 66, 87,~98, 140 and 171. The~first set of interrogatories to which' CASE objects involve, in essence, the following questions: a.- Please1 explain in your own words the meaning of Contention . (Interrogatories 1, 30, 66, 98, 140 and 171.) ,

b. What do you mean by " "7 Or please explain in your own words what the term

                                  " means. '(Interrogatories 10, 25,            '

26, 87). CASE objects to these interrogatories as unnecessary.to

            ~t he preparation of Applicants' case and as unduly burdensome, time-consuming and expensive to answer.           CASE would have Applicants-refer to CASE's previous pleadings, the prehearing-conferences and Webster's Dictionary for the answers to these interrogatories.-

With respect to CASE's claim that responses to these

            -interrogatories are "not necessary", CASE obviously fails to recognize two of the paramount purposes of discovery in NRC licensing proceedings, viz, to refine the issues', Stanislaus, supra, 7 NRC'at'1040, and. determine exactly whatLdeficiencies or defects - are claimed to ' exist,' Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 582. -Each of-the above' interrogatories is clearly intended to discover-the precise issues which CASE'will raise at the
           -hearings with respect;to each particular Contention and to

determine the deficiencies.or defects which CASE claims to

   ~

A

~

                                                            ' exist.= Contrary.-to.CAdE's assertions, such inquiries are necessary1to the preparation _of Applicants' case and are properly-the subject:of interrogatories. Tyrone, supra, 5 NRC at~1300-01. CASE's objection is, therefore, without-merit.

Further, CASE confuses the requirements regarding specification of-the wording of Contentions for admission in this proceeding, with identification of the issues to be litigated at the hearing. While a Contention need only be set forth with reasonable specificity to be. admitted (see 10 CFR $2. 714 (b) ) , the precise-issues to be raised by CASE

                                                         ~

with respect to each contention must necessarily be further specified to enable the Applicants to preoare their case. Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 582. Referring Applicants to the information contained in CASE's previous pleadings or presented at the prehearing conference does not serve to l l specify the issues CASE intends to raise at the hearing. Nor are definitions in Webster's Dictionary adequate to identify, in such a highly technical regulatory context, the deficiencies or defects CASE claims to exist. Applicants l merely ' seek in these interrogatories to inquire into the l l positions of ClASE on each of its Contentions. To prevent  ! such inquiries would be patently unfair. Tyrone, supra, 5 NRC at 1300-01. j l I i- _ _ J

                                                                                      +. -  ,
                                                                         - In addition, CASE's objections that to answer these.
            ' interrogatories would.be unduly burdensome, time consuming.

and expensive are without merit. CASE fails to explain how

             .these- interrogatories, which are allT relevant to CASE's Contentions (a fact that~ CASE does not dispute), and which seek information properly' discoverable (viz., the-precise claims which CASE;will raise with respect to each Contention),
 *:         .are unduly burdensome, time consuming or expensive.             CASE has entered'this proceeding on its own volition and must be prepared to fashion its participation so that it is meaningful.

Vermont Yankee, supra, 435 U.S. at 553. CASE must assume the responsibilities it accepted when it was. admitted as a party to this proceeding, including responding to proper interroga-tories. Offshore Power Systems , supra, 2 NRC at 817. These objections must also,-therefore, fail.

                       . Finally, CASE has not sustained its burden of persuasion            ;

with respect to.any.of'its objections. CASE has only l provided gene'ral statements in support of its objections, l

                                                                                           ~l without specifying how the information called for is not the proper-subject of an interrogatory.           Such general             l 1

objections are insufficient in NRC licensing proceedings. Pilcrim, supra, 1 NRC at'583. For'the foregoing. reasons, Applicants move that the Board-issue an order' compelling' CASE-to promptly respond to

interrogatories 1, 10,-25, 26, 30, 66, 87, 98, 140 and

, .17 1. j

                    't

B. Interrogatories 2, 31, 67,'99, 141 and 172. This. group of' interrogatories that are the-subject of CASE s ob j ect i ons' involve, in essence, the following question: What is your basis for Contention  ? Please-list all documents not elsewhere identified on,which-you rely with respect to Contention' . Please. provide copies of all such documents for inspection and copying. CASE objects to these interrogatories as asking for information which CASE believes has already been provided, i.e., the bases for admission of its Contentions. CASE complains that to answer those interrogatories would te unduly burdensome, time-consuming and expensive, and that the. answers are readily obtainable from CASE's previous pleadings and the prehearing conferences and are not necessary to.the preparation of Applicants' case. CASE's objections to these interrogatories again demonstrate a lack of understanding as to the role of discovery with respect to admitted Contentions. The basis required for admitting a Contention in an NRC prcceeding (see 10 CFR-$2.714(b)) is distinct from the basis-or infor-mation required to overcome a motion for summary dispo-sition (see.10 CFR 5'2.'749), or to succeed on the merits. See e.g., Aliens' Creek ~,. supra, ALAB-590,-11 NRC at 549-51. In asking for CASE's basis for a particular Contention, Applicants are seeking the information CASE intends to use to. support its position with respect to that i _a

y n

                                                                              ._.-=-     -

_1 1

                                        -                                                    d M

JContention,-Susquehanna,~Jsupra, ASLB Memoranda and Orders,

August 27, 1979 an'd January 4; 1980. .In other words, Applicants arefattempting'to-ascertain the1 substantive bases-

                  'for CASE's claims. Pilgrim, supra, 1.NRC at 582.         Contrary

to CASE's-assertion,'suchtinformation'is properly the-subject of discoveryLin this proceeding and is essential for the preparation of Applicants': case. Tyrone, supra,-5-NRC at 1300-01. . Of. course, if CASE does not intend to rely at the hearings on any further information besides that submitted in:-support of its petition-for admission of its Contentions, it may so respond.

Iinally,. CASE's objections that to respond to these , interrogatories.would be unduly burdensome, time consuming

• and expensive are again without merit. While responsible participation in this proceeding may require substantial effort.on CASE'.s part, CASE must assume the duties and responsibilities it undertook when it was admitted in this fproceeding,' including thesduty to respond to relevant and wholly; proper interrogatories. Offshore Power Systems, supra, 2 NRC a t 817. . . In any event, _ CASE's - claim that. such responses would be unduly _ burdensome, time-consuming and expensive 'are merely general,: unsupported assertions, and-thus Eare insufficient to --sustain CASE's burden of persuasion.

Pilgrim,~ supra,cliNRCiat 583.

Forithe foregoing reasons, Applicants move that-the Boardoissue an> order compelling CASE to promptly respond to-JInterrogatories_2,.31, 67, 99, 141.and 172. e  % P ' 4

n.. .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - ja . . , C. Interrogatories'4,'5, 34, 35,'70, 102, 144 and 175.

                                       ~Theseiinterrogatories_ involve, in essence,--two-questions                 -

which' CASE objects to,:as'follows:

                                                    .a..-What'are-~the dates of the meetings-
                                                                      '                     ~

!~ or contacts;you have ' had 'with the

                                                              'otherfintervening. parties.with

respect lto; Contention:  ?-

Please specify the purpose of such meetings or contacts, and. the~re'sults of such. meetings or. contacts. _(Interrogatories 4,-34, 70, 102, 144 and 175).

b. What are the dates of the meetings or. contacts you have had with persons other than the intervening parties with respect to Conten-tion  ? -Please specify the purpose of-such meetings or contacts, and the results of such meetings or contacts. L(Interroga-tories 5, 35, 70, 102, 144 and - 17 5. )

CASE' objects to these interrogatories.as being irrelevant, immaterial and unnecessary for Applicants to prepare their j case. In~ addition, CASE claims that the interrogatories

                            ' seek disclosure of the mental-impressions, conclusions,

• opinions, or legal theories of. representatives of the  ;

parties, in conflict with the provisions of the NRC Rules of .

                            . Practice,'.:10 CFR $2.740(b)(2).

Co'ntrary'to CASE's assertions, each interrogatory is relevant to-thelsubject matter-. involved in this-proceeding. y Each interrogatory relates only to meetings or. contacts with 1

                            ; respect to,a specified Contention. The.information sought
                                                            ~

clearly will: lead to the discovery of-admissible evidence'  ! 1

             ^

a. '

w -- -~ m- = , tu - (see 10.CFR $2.740(b) (1) ) since it will enable Applicants to determine'whether2they should pursue' discovery against persons'or. groups (parties lor th'irdLparties) other than CASE with! respect'to CASE's_ Contentions. Discovery from persons other than parties i:s contemplated by_ Commission regulations.

                -See 10.CFR ${2.740(c), (f)(3) Land 2.720(f); see also, consumers
                - Power Company (Midland Plant, Units l'and 2), ALAB-118, 6 AEC 263; ALAB-122, 6 AEC 322.(1973).         CASE's generalized objections clearly fail to meet its burden of persuasion with respect to objecting to interrogatories.         Pilgrim,                     ;

i supra, 1 NRC at 583. l l Further, CASE's suggestion that responses to these -)

                 . interrogatories would require divulgence of mental impres-sions, conclusions,-opinions or legal theories of representa-tives of. parties in contravention of 10 CFR {2.740(b)(2) is erroneous.        Applict ts do not seek any privileged informa-tion . - Applicants ask only that CASE indicate whether such meetings have occulred with respect to a particular Contention                  R and.whether such meetings or contacts resulted in agree-ments or understandings that other parties or persons would aid CASE in preparing for the _ hearings, or provide informa-tion to l CASE regarding the particular Contention, and if so,c the extent' of such ' aid or the nature of such informa-tio n .-     In other vords,-- Applicants want to know if other
                                          ~

parties-or persons may play.some role in the presentation or preparation of CASE's position on its Contentio.is so that 4 s bL2 _,

                ~                                                             '
                  ,   . s .- _           m_.               .   ..
                                   ~

Applicants:can decide whether to pursue discovery against those personsaor other parties.- Supplying such information isinot proscribed by -10: CFR $2.740(b) (2 ) .

               'For.the foregoing reasons,-Applicants move that the Board-issue-an order compelling CASE to'prcmptly respond to Interrogatories 4,'5, 34, 35, 70, 102,.144 and 175.

D. _ Interrogatories'9, 13, 40, 41, 82, 114, 155'and 186. CASE. objects.to these interrogatories which involve,'in essence,--the following questions:-

1. Have you read'the construction permits _for comanche Peak or 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix B. If not, why not? If so, please answer the

-                              following:
                                                         ~

a.. What provisions thereof do you contend Applicants have not satisfied.

                        -b.          In-what way do you contend Appli-cants have not satisfied those               1 provisions.                                j
                                                                                .)

(Interrogatories 9 and 13). l

2. Have you read the Final Safety Analysis .' Report (FSAR) or the Environmental Report - Operating

                             ~ License Stage (ER-OL)?               If not,
                             -why n-:t.        If so, please answer the-
                        , *following -

a. Do you object to any of the-

                                    - information, data or analysis contained or referenced therein
                                   - with _. respect 'to .           ?-

j i

                               -x_.                          -

z.;- -.7 .

,_ .+,- . .-

m

                  ^

b. LIf your answer to a. is in the.

affirmative, please specify those objections by identifying-the sections of the FSAR-(or ER-OL) to which you object and the substance of your! objections.

                                        -(InterrogatoriesD40, 41, 82, 134,-155 and                          i
                                        ^ 18 6 ) . -

c. If your , answer ir o a. is in the affirmative, please identify; i with specificity-the information, data:or-analysis which you contend Applicants must consider tto satisfy.your objections in Contention .

s (Interrogatories 82, 114, 155 and 186). CASE objects to.the initial questions in these inter-rogatories (e.g., "Have you read  ? If not, why not? -I f so...") as being-irrelevant,. immaterial-and unnecessary-for Applicants to prepare their case. CASE refers to its response to another group of interrogatories'(CASE's response at p. 41 of its Answers) with regard to the remaining 1-portions of these interrogatories. That response, however,

                                  ~

does not appear Lto have any relation to the remaining - portions of these interrogatories. Applicants can only conclude that. CASE objects to all portions of these interro-gatories.

                             -Applicants believe the-information sought.in all portionsHof.the above interrogatories is relevant to the g

subjectimatter. involved in this proceeding or is reasonably calculated-to lead:to the discovery of admissible evidence.

                    ~ 10 CFR-{2.7.40(b)(1).

The Contentions to which these

                                                                                                         ;I

O e s. .,.g , s a.- fe . . . i

                    ' interrogatories apply question either' Applicants' compliance withkthe terms ~of the construction permits for Comanche Peak-or tthe requirements 'of110: CFR Part 50, Appendix B,-or they involve:a claim as to, or are; based on, alleged inadequacies
                    ~in the.FSAR.or ER-OL.          These_ interrogatories are. clearly designed to determine the particular claims or deficiencies to be-litigated-by CASE with respect to each Contention,
                                  ~

Pilgrim, ; supra, .1 NRC at 582, and to' refine the issues to be raised?by CASE,'Stanislaus, supra, 7 NRC at 1040. CASE's objections arei-therefore,-without merit. , Further, if. CASE intends to support its position regarding particular Contentions by some means other than as appears'enfthe face of the Contentions, or:other than'by challenging information included in the FSAR or ER-OL, the responses to these interrogatories _should so indicate to 1 die Applicants.- Applicants must be permitted to inquire into

                            ~

the positions.\of the intervenors to permit adequate prepara-tion of Applicants' case for the hearings. Tyrone, supra, 5

                           ~

NRC at 1300-01. Sustaining-CASE's objections to these interrogatories 1would be patently unfair and inconsistent with the goal of_ developing a sound record. Id. c For.- the foregoing -reasons, . Applicants move that the Board issue'an order compelling CASE to promptly respond to

                                ~

Interrogatories, 9,:13,:40, 41, 82, 114, 155 and 186. g . s "r:

_-. _ g -- ~j._._ - ~ E. LInterrogatories 11, 14,E19, 23, 29, 40(c),~44, 46, 47,183,-85; 115, 117, 156, 158, 187 and 189. Each ofEthese Interrogatories-to which CASE objects involves,.in essence, the following question:. What"do you contend Applicants must do'to comply.with, or to demonstrate compliance with,-[particular NRC licensing-requirements]? CASE responds-that applicable statutes and NRC Regulations ~ answer .these interrogatories - and that a " humble" intervenor is not required to.do so. . CASC has raised numerous general issues in this pro-ceeding in admitted Contentions which allege tha.t the

                     - Applicants have not complied 'with NRC regulations and applicable statutes. CASE seeks to have the application for:the Comanche-Peak operating license denied because of those alleged. instances of.non-compliance with NRC licensing requirements. -Applicants have submitted substantial and voluminous' materials in support of the application.        Those materials are intended to demonstrate that Comanche Peak does~ comply with all NRC: licensing requirements. If CASE
                     -believes Applicants have not satisfied applicable licensing requirements, then CASE must indicate' precisely in what
                     ? respects Applicants. fail'to satisfy such requirements.

These interrogatories are designed'to elicit identification 4 O st l."'

s

                                                                            ~

loffthe.' deficiencies or d'efects_which CASE claims exist in the application. Pilgrim, . supra, l.NRC at 582. Applicants

              -must-be; permitted.toJeffectively inquire-into the positions of.intervenorsLto determine precisely what their position is,' prior to the hearings. .Tyrone,.s.upra,.5 NRC at 1J00-01.
                                   ~

In'any. event, CASE' offers-no further support for its objections. Even " humble" intervenors are required to meet their burden of persuasion when objecting to interrogatories. See Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 582; see also Offshore Power Systems, supra, 2 NRC at 817. CASE has failed to carry its , burden.of persuasion. For the - foregoing reasons Applicants move that the l Board issue an order compelling CASE to promptly respond to Interrogatories 11, 14, 19, 23, 29, 40(c),,44, 46, 47, 83, 85,-115, 117, 156, 158, 187 and'189. F.- Remaining Interrogatories. CASE'does not object to-any interrogatories or requests to produce other than those identified above. As to most of the Jremaining interyogatories, 2/ CASE has responded affirmatively only to a ft2w which seek reports prepared or caused to be prepared by CASE and information concerning 2/ CASE. seeks clarification as to some interrogatories and

                       . request an' extension of time in which to respond to
                       - others. .Wezaddress those' aspects ~in Sections III and
                       . IV,-infra.

b- - $. L, _

       ,        ,                          ..       .,            y ..          .   .- ,

v the' extent to which~ CASE-intends to participate in the hearings.- Numerous other interrogatories'and requests ~to

               -- produce remain ~ unanswered. Applicants-assume that CASE does
               - not intend to respond to them.

CASE has patently. failed, with respect to the remaining

               , interrogatories and requestsLto produce, to carry its burden lof persuasion regarding objections'to discovery requests,
               - see Pilgrim,. supra, 1 NRC at 583, and has also failed to comply with the NRC Rules of Practice,'10 CFR $ 2.740b(b) and $ 2.741(d). Those regulations require that CASE must timely respond or state its objections with respect to.each interrogatory or request to produce.      CASE has not done so.

For the foregoing reasons, Applicants move that the Board issue an order compelling CASE to promptly. respond..to all of Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories to CASE and Request to Produce, except as discussed in Section IV, infra. III. Applicants Answer to CASE's Request for Clarification CASELrequests that Applicants clarify those interro-gatories which involve, in essence, the following question: What is your basis (legal and/or other)-for your response / answer / objections,..? 4 F

a.- ~.

                                                         ~ . _

r< ,

   ;r    --..     ,

CASE argues thatLthese. interrogatories are' ambiguous and vague. Applicants _are' requesting:in those interrogatories that

                . CASE identify the legal or technical support-for-its positions
                             ~
                - in this proceeding.       Applicants onl'y seek the legal or technical bases for CASE's claims, Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 582, and the information available. to CASE to support its positions, Susquehanna, supra,'ASLB Memoranda and Orders.

Such bases or information may be in the form of technical information to support- a particular technical position, or in the form of regulations or statutory requirements which l CASE claims Applicants have not, but must, satisfy. Appli-cants are entitled to such information to permit them fairly to prepare their case for the hearings. Tvrone, supra, at l 1300-01. CASE also sought clarification ~with respect to inter- i rogatory 23. That interrogatory contained a typographical error.- It.should refer to interrogatory 22, rather than 82. IV. . Applicants' Answer to CASE's-Motion for an Extension of Time l CASE requests an' extension'of time for 60. days to further respond tooInterrogatories-55, 57, 59, 61, 62 and

64. An " ext'ension of _. time may be granted upon a showing of

              ~
      ,k                '

5

p .

                         .s-                                        .

i. s ,

u." - q .,

                                                     ;    -2 0_ :
          . good.cause.    '10 CFR . $ ; 2. 711'. . CASE argues that the 60' day extension of timerisjnecessary to permit more. analysis of theseTinterrogatories!IWe ' submit that CASE ha's pot demon-                .
                                     ~

strated1 good; cause for. a ~ 60 day extension of time. Applicants note that CASE has already taken two weeks

          -beyond the-. time required ~to respond to these interrogatories (August. 20,.1980).          Nevertheless, since it appears that CASE Lintends'to:make an honest effort to respond substantively to these' interrogatories, Applicants would-not object to an extension of time until September '30, 1980, for CASE to a                                                               -

respond to these-interrogatories. Such an extension would afford CASE a s'ix-week extension beyond the date (August 20) onLwhich responses were due. For the foregoin'g reasons, Applicants request that the Board deny CASE's. motion for a sixty day' extension of time to respond-to Interrogatories 55, 57, 59, 61, 62 and 64, but allow-CASE until September.30, 1980.to espond.

                                       ,                     Respec         u ly submitted,
                                              .                                    /

I - Nicholhp-S. Reynolds

                                ;,                                       l,          -

William A.--Horin

f. "'

Debevoise &-Liberman 1200' Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. .20036 y (202)'857-9817 I I Counsel for Applicants 7 (September. 18,-1980

                               'Q'

(.:.

                                        ;y

w ~ w

                           .a           .-                        _a.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                          ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION BEFORE'THE ATOMIC ~ SAFETY-AND LICENSING BQARD In the' Matter of                                   )
                                                                                )-

TEXAS UTILITIES. GENERATING )' Docket Nos. 50-445' COMPANY, ET AL.3 ) 50-446 *

                                                                                )

(Comanche' Peak Steam-Electric ) '(Application-for Station, Units.-1 and 2)- ) Operating License) y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE < I hereby certify.that copies of the foregoing " Applicants'

Motion To compelLAnd Answers To CASE's Request For Clarification Of Certain

Interrogatories And To. CASE's Motion For An Exten-sion of Time,"~in the caption'ed matter were served upon the

. following persons by deposit in the United ~ States mail, first-class' postage prepaid this-18th day of September, 1980: Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman,-Atomic Safety and Chairman,. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel

                                 .- Licensing . Board                                    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-1001-Connecticut Avenue, N.W.                               . Commission Washington,:D.C. . 20036                                    Washington,'D.C.      20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick,. Member                             Marjorie Ulman Rothschild,. Esq.

4 -Atomic. Safety and Licensing Office o# the Executive. Board. . Legal Director 305--E.' Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

                           -State College,l Pennsylvania                      16801          Commission I                           -'Dr.LRichard Cole, Member
                           ' Atomic ' Safety 'and Licensing                              David'J. Preister, Esq.
                                 ' Board ~                                               Assistant Attorney General-
                           'U.S.            Nuclear-Regulatory
                                                       ~

Environmental Protection

                                  ~ Commission-                                               Division-
                           - Washington , - D.C.-- 20555                                 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Chairman,' Atomic Safety and.

Austin, Texas 78711

                                    . Licensing Board Panel'
                           'U.S.         .

Nuclear.. Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission- CFUR: 4 _ , Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B-Carter Drive

                                                                            .            Arlington, Texas 76010 C                                             ,

4 F .

                            ;. 4 RE _           t                    _-                 .         ..                         _                        _ - _

_2-Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M.--Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal' Services Suite 302 .100 Main Street (Lawyer 3' Bldg.) Dallas, Texas. 75202. Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase- R. - Stephens

               - 4021 Prescott Avenue                       Docketing & Service Branch Dallas,-Texas    75219                     U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis'                        Washington, D.C.      20555 President, CASE                 '

1426 South Polk Street Dallas,: Texas 75224-I

                                                            <hw     ..     ,7'vvv William A. Horin cc:    Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

i

                                                                                                )

1 l l l l i W&m- - b l-y}}