|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196G4021999-06-18018 June 1999 Comment on FRN Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy NUREG-1600, Rev 1 & Amend of 10CFR55.49.Concurs with Need to Provide Examples That May Be Used as Guidance in Determining Appropriate Severity Level for Violations as Listed ML20206H1881999-05-0606 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App K Re ECCS Evaluation Models. Commission Grants Licensee Exemption ML20206M5111999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Recommends That Listed Approach Be Adopted for Changes to Documents Incorporated by Ref CY-99-007, Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-0071999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-007 TXX-9825, Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps ML20154C4101998-09-30030 September 1998 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Comanche Peak Electric Station Endorses NEI Comment Ltr & Agrees with NEI Recommendations & Rationale ML20216E1051998-04-0707 April 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1029 Titled Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic & Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-related Instrumentation & Control Sys ML20217H3611998-03-26026 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft GL 97-XX, Lab Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal, Issued on 980225.Advises That There Will Be Addl Implementation Costs ML20198Q4851998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane That Requests NRC Amend Regulations Re Emergency Planning to Require Consideration of Sheltering,Evacuation & Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public ML20211A4871997-09-12012 September 1997 Changes Submittal Date of Response to NRC RAI Re Proposed CPSES risk-informed Inservice Testing Program & Comments on NRC Draft PRA Documents ML20149L0311997-07-21021 July 1997 Comment on Draft Guides DG-1048,DG-1049 & DG-1050.Error Identified in Last Line of DG-1050,item 1.3 of Section Value/Impact Statement.Rev 30 Should Be Rev 11 ML20140A4871997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Safety Conscious Work Environ.Util Agrees W/Nuclear Energy Inst Comment Ltr ML20133G5411996-12-0505 December 1996 Transcript of 961205 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Comanche Peak Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers. Pp 1-111 ML20135B7881996-11-29029 November 1996 Order Approving Corporate Restructuring of TU to Facilitate Acquistion of Enserch Corp ML20128M8011996-10-0303 October 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20097D7321996-02-0909 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re CPSES Request for Amend to Its Regulations Dealing W/Emergency Planning to Include Requirement That Emergency Planning Protective Actions for General Public Include Listed Info ML20094Q6421995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for RM PRM-50-62 Re Amend to Regulation Re QAPs Permitting NPP Licensees to Change Quality Program Described in SAR W/O NRC Prior Approval If Changes Do Not Potentially Degrade Safety or Change TSs ML20094H4801995-11-0808 November 1995 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Inst Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste ML20091M6441995-08-25025 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Review of Revised NRC SALP Program.Believes That NRC Should Reconsider Need for Ipap or SALP in Light of Redundancy ML20086M7921995-07-0707 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Process for Changes to Security Plan Without Prior NRC Approval ML20084A0181995-05-19019 May 1995 Comment Suporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Containment Leakage Testing.Supports NEI Comments ML20077M7311994-12-30030 December 1994 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20077L8711994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,55 & 73 Re Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees ML20073B6731994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Re License Amend Request 94-015 ML20073B6951994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Authorizing Signing & Filing W/Nrc OL Amend Request 94-016 ML20058E0561993-11-10010 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule Re Staff Meetings Open to Public. Believes That NRC Has Done Well in Commitment to Provide Public W/Fullest Practical Access to Its Activities ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20045D8321993-06-11011 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54, FSAR Update Submittals. ML20044F3271993-05-21021 May 1993 Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp, Fr Vol 58,Number 52.NRC Should Use EPRI Definitions for Critical Characteristics ML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C1881993-03-17017 March 1993 Order.* Directs Util to Respond to Motion by COB 930319 & NRC to Respond by COB 930322.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930317 ML20128D9651993-02-0303 February 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Stay Request Filed by Petitioners Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930203 ML20128F6221993-02-0303 February 1993 Transcript of 930203 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-2.Related Info Encl ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3461993-01-29029 January 1993 NRC Staff Notification of Issuance of OL for Facility.* Low Power License May Be Issued by 930201.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D6321993-01-29029 January 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Citizens for Fair Util Regulation for Fr Notice Hearing on Proposed Issuance of OL for Facility.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930129 ML20127L9321993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Re Architzel Re Thermo-Lag Installation at Testing for Unit 2.* Statement of Prof Qualifications Encl ML20128D6111993-01-26026 January 1993 Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric ML20127L9181993-01-26026 January 1993 NRC Staff Reply to Cfur Request for Publication of Proposed Action Re Licensing of Unit 2.* Cfur Request That Notice Re Licensing of Unit 2 Be Published Permitting Parties to Request Hearings Should Be Denied ML20127L9661993-01-26026 January 1993 Affidavit of Rl Pettis Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Statement of Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L8891993-01-21021 January 1993 Order.* License Should File Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Ltr Requesting That Commission Issue Fr Notice Providing for Opportunity for Hearing Re Issuance of OL by 930125.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930122 ML20127G9191993-01-19019 January 1993 Order.* Grants Petitioners Extension of Time Until 930122 to File Brief.Replies to Petitioners Brief Shall Be Filed on or Before 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930119 ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G8041993-01-15015 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Appeal of Licensing Board Decision Denying Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Filed by Bi & Di Orr.* Board 921215 Decision Should Be Upheld.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A5931993-01-0808 January 1993 Brief in Support of Petitioner Notice of Appeal.Aslb Erred by Not Admitting Petitioner Contention & Action Should Be Reversed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6371993-01-0707 January 1993 Notice of Appeal.* Appeal Submitted Due to 921215 Memo Denying Petitioner Motion for Rehearing & Petition for Intervention & Request for Hearings.Proceedings Were Terminated by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-06-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6131993-01-0707 January 1993 Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* Petitioners Did Not Receive Order in Time to Appeal & Requests 15 Day Extension from Motion Filing Date to Respond.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7911992-12-31031 December 1992 Petitioner Amended Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Petitioners Requests Until C.O.B. on 930108 to File Appeal Brief.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7641992-12-30030 December 1992 Petitioner Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Counsel Requests That Petitioners Be Granted Until 930109 to File Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128C9751992-12-0303 December 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements & Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene by B Orr,D Orr, J Macktal & Hasan.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20128B8721992-11-27027 November 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow, Petitioner.* Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Explained in Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128A0271992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Util Requests That Petitioners 921118 Motion to Compel Be Denied in Entirety.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127P8181992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene.* Petitioners Notification Procedurally Improper & Substantively Improper & Should Be Rejected by Board.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4591992-11-19019 November 1992 TU Electric Opposition to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow.* RM Dow 921110 Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20127M4271992-11-15015 November 1992 Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Petitioners Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan Requests That Board Declare Null & Void Any & All Provisions in Settlement Agreements.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M3181992-11-10010 November 1992 Motion for Prehearing by RM Dow,Petitioner.* Requests Period of Ten Days to File Supplemental Pleading to Original Petition.Certificate of Svc & Statement Encl ML20106D8881992-10-0808 October 1992 Opposition of Util to Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposbale Workers of Plant & RM Dow.* Request for Extension of Time & to Become Party to Proceeding Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20106D2821992-10-0505 October 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* Petitioner Requests 30-day Extension.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101P5891992-06-30030 June 1992 Response of Texas Utils Electric to Comments of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc. Dispute Strictly Contractual Issue Involving Cap Rock Efforts to Annul Reasonable Notice Provisions of 1990 Power Supply Agreement ML20127K8141992-05-19019 May 1992 Request to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke License Held by Util for Unit 1 & for Cause Would Show Commission That Primary Place of Registration for Organization Is Fort Worth,Tarrant County,Tx ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095C4691992-04-17017 April 1992 TU Electric Answer to Application for Hearings & Oral Argument by M Dow & SL Dow.* Concludes That NRC Should Deny Application for Oral Argument & Hearings on Petition to Intervene & Motion to Reopen.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2561992-04-0606 April 1992 Application to Secretary for Hearings & Oral Argument in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene out-of-time & Motion to Reopen Record Submitted by SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* ML20094K4161992-03-16016 March 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Motion & Supplemental Motion to Reopen by M Dow & SL Dow & TU Electric Request for Admonition of Dows.* Concludes That Motion Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091A0461992-03-13013 March 1992 Suppl to Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend License Pending New Hearings on Issue. W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4241992-02-24024 February 1992 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend OL for Unit 1 & CP for Unit 2,pending Reopening & Final Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4431992-02-21021 February 1992 Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* Requests That Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time Be Granted for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3811991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Submits Responses to Motions to Reopen Record ML20086Q3121991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Motion for Leave to File Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Recognize J Ellis as Case Representative for Filing & Pleading Purposes.W/Limited Notice of Appearance ML20091G2511991-12-0202 December 1991 Licensee Answer to Motion to Reopen Record by M Dow & SL Dow.* Requests That Petitioners Motion Be Denied for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance ML20086G7381991-11-22022 November 1991 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That Licensing Board Reopen Record & Grant Leave to File Motion to Intervene. W/Certificate of Svc ML20006C4811990-02-0101 February 1990 Applicant Answer to Request for Stay by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur).* Cfur Failed to Satisfy Burden to Demonstrate Necessity for Stay & Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20006B1691990-01-27027 January 1990 Second Request for Stay Citizens for Fail Util Regulation.* Requests That NRC Stay Fuel Loading & Low Power Operation of Unit 1 Until 900209.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248J3601989-10-15015 October 1989 Request for Stay Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Requests That Commission Retain Authority to Order That Fuel Loading & Low Power License Not Be Immediately Effective,Per Util Intent to Request License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246B8671989-08-17017 August 1989 Motion for Reconsideration of NRC Memorandum & Order CLI-89-14.* NRC Should Excuse Itself from Consideration on Matters Re Jj Macktal & Should Refer All Issues on NRC Requested Subpoena to Independent Adjudicatory Body ML20248D6291989-08-0202 August 1989 Jj Macktal Statement Re Motion for Recusation.* Macktal Motion Considered Moot Due to Commission No Longer Having Jurisdiction to Consider Motion Since Macktal Not Party to Proceeding Before Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q3851989-07-26026 July 1989 Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record.* Withdraws 890714 Motion to Reopen Record.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J7331989-07-26026 July 1989 Request of Cap Rock for Reevaluation of Director'S Determination That No Significant Changes in Licensee Activity Warrant Antitrust Review at OL Stage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247B5901989-07-19019 July 1989 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests Board to Reopen Record & Grant Leave to Renew Earlier Motion for Intervention Status. W/Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc ML20248D5731989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Reconsideration.* Requests Reconsideration of NRC 890122 Order on Basis That NRC Subpoena Filed for Improper Purposes & NRC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Matters Presently Before Dept of Labor ML20248D5541989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Recusation.* Requests That NRC Recuse from Deciding on Macktal Cases on Basis That NRC Will Not Be Fair & Impartial Tribunal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J9411989-06-30030 June 1989 Response of Texas Utils Electric Co to Request of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc,For Order Enforcing & Modifying Antitrust License Conditions ML20248D4891989-06-13013 June 1989 Motion for Protective Order.* Requests That Jj Macktal Deposition Be Taken at Stated Address in Washington,Dc & That Testimony Remain Confidential.W/Certificate of Svc ML20011E8571989-02-10010 February 1989 Reply of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc to Comments of Texas Utils Electric Co.* Texas Utils Response Considered Irrelevant,Mainly Incorrect or Misleading.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155A8251988-10-0303 October 1988 NRC Staff Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation First Suppl to Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Petition & Requests for Hearings Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154Q2021988-09-28028 September 1988 Applicant Reply to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur) First Suppl to 880811 Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Cfur Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150E2131988-07-13013 July 1988 Citizens Audit Motion for Stay & Motion for Sua Sponte Relief.* Requests Time to Review Concerns of J Doe & for Relief for Listed Items in Order to Act as Intervenor in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151A6181988-07-12012 July 1988 Motion for Petitioners to Appear Pro Se.* Petitioners Request to Appear Before Board at 880713 Hearing in Order to Present Arguments in Support of Petitioners Motions & for Stay of Proceedings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150E1831988-07-12012 July 1988 Response of Applicant to Motions to Stay,To Intervene & for Sua Sponte Relief Filed by Various Petitioners.* Papers Filed by Petitioners Should Be Rejected & Denied & Dismissal of Proceedings Be Completed.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-03-19
[Table view] |
Text
.
,.d -
,\ DI '*,,
May 13, 198 79, 133m
.= (,:,
1 I"' '
' D3) > L~' l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[1 C5eu ne tee.
\/.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IEIF ' J"- ,[-
\
s'p BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD jla
)
In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO CFUR'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWEP.S TO CFUR'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.730(c), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (" Applicants" , hereby submit their answer to the motion to compel filed on April 28, 1981 by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation ("CFUR") regarding CFUR's first set of interrogatories to Applicants.-1/ Applicants responded to those interrogatories on April 13, 1981. For the reasons set forth below, Applicants urge the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") in the captioned proceeding to deny CFUR's motion.
CFUR raises several general objections regarding the Applicants' answers to its first set of interrogatories. Those
-1/ Although CFUR's interrogatories were dated February 25, 1981, they were not mailed to the Applicants until March 24, 1981. Applicants provided timely responses to the interrogatories based on the date the interrogatories were served.
S 9503 65 # /
81osygoggg
objections evidence an attempt to broaden improperly the issues raised in CFUR's Contention 1 and demonstrate CFUR's misconcep-tion of the proper scope of discovery in the instant proceeding.
Applicants discuss below CFUR's general objections.
2/
I. SCOPE OF CONTENTION 1 The Applicants have declined to answer interrogatories of CFUR which seek information concerning activities by entities other than Westinghouse and concerning matters other than the preparation of the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report
("FSAR"). Applicants contend that a proper interpretation of the scope of Contention 1 justifies their responses to the interrogatories, and CFUR's argument to the contrary is simply an attempt to broaden the scope of the contention impermissibly.
First, Contention 1 as admitted by the Board is directed solely at the sufficiency of Applicants' technical qualifica-tions in view of Westinghouse's contributions to the preparation of the FSAR. There is no suggestion in the contention or in the record that the Westinghouse contributions are merely an
" example" of the basis for the contention, as CFUR now claims.
2/ Contention 1 as admitted by the Board is as follows:
Applicants have not demonstrated technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accord-
, ance with 10 CFR $50.57(a)(4) in that they have relied upon Westinghouse to prepare a portion of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
1 l
l l
In fact, the wording of the contention is taken verbatim from the wording proposed by CFUR in its April 10, 1980, Position on Each Contention. Further, CFUR has never otherwise indicated that its intended scope of Contention 1 was to include activities other than Westinghouse's contributions to the preparation of the FSAR. At the second prehearing conference held on April 30 and May 1, 1980, CFUR described its proposed contention, as follows:
MR. FOUKE: Well, as you know, contention one talks about the requirement that the applicant [ sic] demonstrate their technical qualifications and that because Westinghouse has prepared part of the FSAR they have failed to make this demonstration
[ Transcript of Prehearing Conference
- at 155 (emphasis added)]. ,
Also, in CFUR'a May 7, 1979, petition to intervene CFUR described the topic with which it was concerned, as follows:
"I. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS NECESSARY DUE TO PREPARATION AND DEFENSE OF COMANCHE PEAK FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT BY '
WESTINGHOUSE IN LIEU OF PREPARATION AND DEFENSE BY THE APPLICANT [ sic]"
[CFUR's Supplement to Petition to intervene, May 7, 1979 at p.13 Accordingly, CFUR's attempt to broaden the scope of Conten-tion 1 must be rejected and the portion of its motion to compel which is based upon that broader scope should be denied.
II. PERMISSIBLF DISCOVERY CFUR argues that it is entitled to seek discovery on any matter which concerns the issuance of an operating license
for Comanche Fegk. Thus, CFUR would apparently have Applicants answer any interrogatories as long as they related to the t
issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak, whether or not they concerned a particular contention.
CFUR's interpretation is of course completely at odds with 10 C.F.R. {2.740(b)(1), which provides as follows:
In a proceeding on an applicantion for ...
an operating license for a production or utilization facility, discovery ... shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by ... the presiding officer in the prehearing order ...
[10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1) (emphasis added)].
. Thus, the " subject matter" involved in this proceeding is cir-cumscribed by the contentions admitted by the Board. Accord- .
ingly, the Board should disallow CFUR's attempt to discover matters outside the scope of the contentions admitted in this proceeding. CFUR should not be permitted through this devico "to roam in shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter 4
which does not presently appear germane [to the admitted con-tentions] on the theory that it might conceivably become so."
Broadway & Ninety-Sixth St. Realty Co. v. Loew's, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 347, 352 (S.D.N.Y. 1958); accord, Allied-General Nuclear 4
Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage
I i
l a ,,.e - -- .v_- , - . c ----. . - . - - - --, - ,.
III. OBJECTIONS TO PARTICULAR INTERROGATORIES Interrogatories 2.b and 2d: CFUR complains'that Applicants' i responses are evasive and incomplete. On the contrary, Appli-cants have referred CFUR to all " documents, representations and other information" which Westinghouse provided and upon which i Applicants have relied in the preparation of the FSAR. Appli-cants have identified the particular sections of the FSAR where such information is to be found or referenced (see response to [
Interrogatory 17). Applicants have identified the requested information with sufficient specificity for CFUR to derive easily such information from the FSAR, which CFUR has in its possession. Applicants' responses are complete and forthright.
Interrogatory 2.c: CFUR argues that Applicants should I provide the " approximate time of reliance" for each document, representation and other information. Applicants' answer is responsive to the question in that Westinghouse's involvement in the preparation of the FSAR began in approximately 1977.
Interrogatories 3 and 4: CFUR objects to Applicants providing other than an " unqualified" yes or no answer to Interrogatory 3. CFUR does not, however, refute Applicants' objections to portions of this interrogatory on grounds of l relevancy. Based upon the foregoing discussion, to the extent Applicants object to the interrogatory, CFUR's motion should be denied. With respect to the remainder of the interrogatory,
1 Applicants' answer is "no", although Applicants do provide additional (i.e.," unrequested) information to CFUR for clarifi-cation regarding Applicants' role in the use of Westinghouse topical reports in the FSAR. Applicants' answer to Interroga- ,
tory 3 is proper and responsive. As for the answer to Interroga-tory 4, since Applicants' answer to Interrogatory 3 is a "no",
further response is not required.
Interrogatories 5 and 6: With respect to Interrogatories 5 and 6, CFUR complains that' Applicants should answer Interroga-tory 6 since the response to Interrogatory 5 " appears to be in the affirmative." Again, CFUR does not refute Applicants' specific objections to Interrogatory 5 on grounds of relevancy, . ;
. and thus Applicants' objections should be sustained. Further, Applicants have clearly provided a negative answer to Interroga-tory 5, although they have again added additional informaticn for clarification. In view of that negative response, Applicants properly dad not provide any further answer to Interrogatory 6.
CFUR's argument is, therefore, without merit.
Interrogatories 7 and 8: As for Interrogatories 7 and '
8, Applicants have interpreted CFUR's use in Interrogatory ;
7 of the broad and undefined term " agree with" to mean " accept as appl! able and appropriate." If CFUR meant something else by that term it should have so stated in the subject motion. Thus, based on Applicants' reasonable interpretation of the interrogatory, the response to Interrogatory 7 is l
proper and so, therefore, is the answer to Interrogatory 8.
Also, CFUR fails' to refute Applicants' specific objection to Interrogatory 7 on grounds of relevancy, and thus, Applicants' objection should be sustained.
Interrogatories 9 and 10: CFUR disputes Applicants' objec-tion to Interrogatory 9 on grounds of relevancy. Applicants rely on the objection as stated in their answer and as discussed above in Parts I and II, supra, to demonstrate that CFUR's argu-ment is without merit. Applicants also objected on grounds of vagueness to a portion of interrogatory 9. Since CFUR does not clarify the issue in its motion to compel, Applicants rely on 3
their previously stated objection. Applicants' answer to Inter-
. rogatory 10 (which relies on a response to Interrogatory 9) is, therefore, also proper in view of the objection to Interroga-tory 9.
Interrogatories 11 and 12: CFUR complains that th3 Appli-cants did not respond to all aspects of these interrogatories.
However, CFUR again does not distinguish between Applicants' objections to portions of those interrogatories and Applicants' responses to the unoppoced portions. Since CFUR has not refuted Applicants' objections, those objections to Interrogatories 11 dnd 12 should be upheld. Applicants' answers are responsive to 3/ Applicants' use of the term "to review" is clear in the context of its answers to Interrogatories 3 and 11. Thus, contrary to CFUR's assertions, those instances have no bearing on the meaning of the term in Interrogatory 9.
the unobjected to portions of the interrogatories and CFUR's objections should be overruled.
Interrogatories 13 and 14: Applicants c bjected to interroga-tory 13 on two grounds. First, the interrogatory seeks informa-tion which is irrelevant to Contention 1, viz., a review of topical reports "to insure that safety function [s] will be accomplished." Since CFUR does not refute this objection, the Board should sustain it. Second, Applicants contend that the mea'.ing of the phrase "to review...to insure that safety func-tion [s] will be accomplished" is not apparent from the context of the interrogatory. CFUR argues that this is a "well under-stood concept," citing 10 C.F.R. $50.34 (b)(2). However, Appli-cants objection is with respect to the use of that terminology in the context of the interrogatory and Contention 1. Applicants maintain that the interrogatory is unduly vague, and the Board should sustain Applicants' objection.
Regarding interrogatory 14, that question depends o.. the response to interrogatory 13. In view of Applicants' objections to interrogatory 13, no response is required.
Interrogatories 15 and 16: CFUR's motion to compel with respect to interrogatory 15 is another example of CFUR's failure to distinguish between objections and information supplied in response to the unobjected to portions of the interrogatory.
CFUR does not respond to Applicants' objections, which should,
therefore, be sustained by the Board. Instead, CFUR seeks a simple "yes" or*"no" answer. To the extent Applicants did not object to the interrogatory, they responded in the negative, and CFUR's objection to the response should be overruled. Finally, since interrogatory 16 is answered on the basis of the negative response to interrogatory 15, no further answer is needed.
Accordingly, CFUR's objection thereto should be overruled.
Interrogatory 17: CFUR objects to Applicants' response to this interrogatory as not identifying any entity other than Westinghouse on whom Applicants relied for preparation of the FSAR. For the reasons discussed above in Parts I and II, and as set forth in Applicants' objection to the interrogatory, Applicants believe that the information sought with respect to (1) entities other than Westinghouse and (2) activities other than the preparation of the FSAR is irrelevant to Contention 1.
Accordingly, the Board should overrule CFUR's objection.
Interrogatory 20: CFUR wants to know why Applicants do not attach requested documents to the answer to interrogatories.
Applicants respond by quoting guidance on point from the Appeal Board:
The Commission's rules, like the correspond-ing Federal Rules, simply do not impose that requirement. A demand for documents is satisfied before the Commission as in court by producing them for inspection and copying.
[ Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317,338 (1980) (footnote omitted)].
l l
.. . . - . .. .1
IV. OATH QR AFFIRMATION The form of oath or affirmation to accompany responses to interrogatories is not prescribed by the NRC Rules of Practice.
The affidavit provided by Applicants with respect to their answers to CFUR's interrogatories is in the form typically used in NRC proceedings and is proper. In any event, CFUR itself has used the same language for its oath or affirmation in answering Applicants' interrogatories. See CFUR's Supplement to Answers to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories, May 8, 1981. Thus, CFUR cannot now be heard to complain that Appli-cants' affidavit is in any way inadequate.
Respectfu ly submitted, h
I A NicholqbS Reynolds VJ William A. Horin DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 May 13, 1981 Counsel for Applicants
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAHTY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) .
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.
) 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby c rtify that ccpies of the foregoing "Appli-cants' Answer to CFUR's Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to CFUR's First Set of Interrogatories" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 13th day of May, 1981:
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.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard 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 l Cce.imis sion CFUR l Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010
Arch C. McColl,*III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers 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 i Commissica Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 !
P'res ident, CASE 1426 South Folk Street Dallas, Texas 75224
)
h
- d. t William A. Horin cc: Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
l
. _ _ - .___ , _ _ . - - - . - , _