ML20211L647

Lists Generic Issues & Questions Re Case Motion to Compel Responses to Certain Interrogatories Filed in Case Sets 1-7 of Discovery on Adequacy of Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan.Requests Conference Call to Discuss Procedure

ML20211L647
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/09/1986
From:	Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1865 OL, NUDOCS 8612160115
Download: ML20211L647 (3)

Text

TRIAL l.AWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.

g g r,i. {i[

6 COUN$tLLORS AT LAW SulTE 6tl 2000 P STREET, NORTHWEST DEC 12 P1 MP202)463 8600 ANTHoNYZ ROISMAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 j

(AtCUTM DIRECTOR ARTHUR BRYANT STAFF ATTORNEY r T"'~T C "7 g

situt caret

" 7.P. Cit."'0....

..,../-...-

NC-I DIRECTOR. DMRONMENTAL

> 9 !r y.

• "**'"'"**C' December 9, 1986 sARBARA PRAn of FICE MANAGER MATHLLEN CUM 8tRBATCH SECRETARY The Honorable Peter Bloch Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

?

Washington, D.C.

20555

!Re:

Pre-Hearing Conference M

on Discovery h-

Dear Judge Bloch,

As you know the Citizens Association for Sound Energy j

(CASE) has filed motion to compel responses to certain interrogatories filed in CASE's Sets 1 - 7 of the discovery f

on the adequacy of the Comanche Peak Response Team Program 3

Plan (CPRT).

Argument on the issue is currently scheduled

{.

for December 15-16, 1986.

3 l

CASE believes that the most efficient method to handle 5

the prehearing conference is to consider the generic arguments 4

which apply to multiple questions, and then individual j

questions which are not covered by one of the generic j

objections.

This would eliminate duplicative arguments and focus the conference on the issues of controversy.

I Board rulings on the generic questions would then be transferred <

to each specific question in a Board order, j

We have listed the generic issues below,'followed by y

the questions which we believe fall into those categories.

ti ISSUE 1:

Interrogatories -'thah seek relevant infor-I mation, but to which Applicants object on the grounds of a claim of privilege to protect " expert opinions."

Relevant questions: Set 6, Int. # 27 8612160115 861209 PDR ADOCK 05000445 C

PDR

.e E D go ?

t

3 il Pago two 4

ISSUE 2:

Interrogator that Applicant claims seek irrelevant information, beyond the scope of the issues i

now before the Board.

1 5

a.

Interrogator ies that Applicant claims are irrele-vant solely because the question seeks information about implementation of the CPRT.

Relevant questions: Set 1, Set 2, Set 3,

1. 4, 11, and 12, specifically, and others generally.

I b.

Interrogatorles that Applicant claims are irrele-f vant because the question probes the level of involvement h

and/or control of " project" personnel in the CPRT development and to the extent that the CPRT has been q

implemented.

l Relevant questions: Set 1, Set 2, Set 3,

1. 1,5,10; Set 6,

1. 39-40, 52-56,57-59 & 61, 63-64, 60, and 62.

c.

Interrogatories that Applicant claims are irrele-vant because the questions seek the insights of 1

project personne1' in the development of the CPRT.

Relevant questions: Set 1, Set 2, Set 3,

1. 2 and 9.

L ISSUE 3:

Interrogatories that Applicant has not provided i

adequate responses to.

t t

i) i r

a.

Interrogatories that Applicants provided a response which is circular, i.e.

it relies on the information which was the basis of the question.or otherwise inadequate.

I Relevant questions: Set'3, #16,50,52; Set 4,26-29,28; Set 7, L

1. 10.

f b.

Interrogator that are inadequate because CASE does not know to what extent Applicants ignored bq instructions or modified the instructions in a non-specific manner.

Relevant questions: All questions.

ISSUE 4:

Applicants failure to follow the specific instructions provided by CASE, without providing a rationale or basis for their refusal to do so specifically.

v 1

Relevant questions:

ALL QUESTIONS.

'l r

ISSUE 5:

The remedy to which CASE is entitled if the Board finds that intervenors are entitled to a response to the l

.i question.

I' Relevant questions:

ALL QUESTIONS

5.

I is Page three ISSUE 6:

Any miscellaneous questions which do not fit into the categories above.

1 This category may include those questions that are explained in extensive detail, by way of example in the

.p Motion To Compel, and raise the question of whether the ta motion seeks new information not sought in the original 3

4 interrogatories.

( It is CASE's view that a resolution of the issue of the instructions will eliminate this category, f

since if the instructions are valid the explanations that

'.y appear to go beyond the original question become unnecessary.)

If the Board or the parties have no objection to the proposed process CASE will prepare accordingly; however,

'3 we request that the Board set iup a brief conference call to j

discuss the procedure for the pre-hearing conference on

, ;g Friday afternoon.

i

. Respectfully submitted,

...?..

g.

Billie Pirner Garde lJIN Counsel for CASE cc:

Service List Express mail to R. Gad and Judge Bloch p

First class mail to all others on service list g

h

?

e 4

l-3 p

o 6's t

.I i

i fls

'i; t I

h u

h 1

I H

aed B l

, -