|
---|
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
l
. */ , l
. DocnTED WN -
April 28,1911 6 WAY. 1 M ' $ i
- g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICP og BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFE *Y AND LICENSING 90ARD l In the Matter of I I
TEXAS UTIIITIES GENEPATIT;G ] Docket Nos. 50-%5.and 50 L46 .-
CCMPAhl, et _a1
_ [ - ~ - . . - -
.k (Comanche Peak Stean Electric l (Applicatio r for ,
Station. Units 1 and 2) Operating License) , ' ,_4 i
i 1
.1t I CMR'S MCTION TO CCMP.7 RESPONSIVE T ANSIERS TO CNd IhTERRCGATCRIES O 3 p#q : h(!
TO APPIICANT OF FE3RUARY 26,1981 y pg.yj,llg " [ '
,: <0 On February 26, 1981, Citizens for ra ir Utility Regulation (CNR) filed -
"CFUR'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPI.ICANT AND RSCUESTS TO PRCL' U CNW (CFUR's Interrogatories). On April 13, 1981, the Apolieant filed "APPLICAhTS' ANSWERS TO CFUR'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" (Applicants' Answers)1, in accordance with our previous discussion.
Applicants have essentially registered a blankst objection to all et CMR's intermgatories v hich seek information concerning entities other than Westinghouse and matters other than the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
In addition, some of the answers supplied by the Apolicant are not resoonsive and do not comply with CPJR's request that the Applicant, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740b and 2.741, answer separately and fully each interrogatory. Accordingly, CFUR now seeks an order ecripe11$ng responsive answers concerning both situations as set forth below. I I.
Initially, Applicants seek to impese a blanket limitation on CFUR's Interrogatories in refusing to answer any interrogatory relating to any entity ether than Westinghouse. As stated in the " General Coments". and the. objection
- s. Y 1
Applicants had been unintentionally emitted frcri the service list of the original mailing of CFUR's Interrogatories. A copy was mailed to the Applicant on March 24, 1981 and, therefore, the Apolieants' Answers were provided on a timely basis.
9 503 S l[
82 os ti o 349 w - , - -
e--- * ,-
e w n - 4 y ,w -----w m- -- w n n--,g w-
+
stated in the response No. I in Applicants' Answers, Aeplicants have unilaterally decided that they will answer only those portions of interrogatories which are raised by Contention 1. Further, Apolicants have unilaterally scught to olace .
an unreasonably narrow construction on Contention 1 by. asserting it is linited to natters relating to Westinghouse.
In cropounding interrogatories to the Applicants, CFU?. is _ entitled to ..
inquire about "any natter, not orivileged, which is relidfnt'to the subjeet
~~
natter involved in the proceeding." 10 CFR Part 50, caragraph 2.74c(b)(1). -
Applicants do not centend that the inquiries of CFUR'EInterrogatories, in ' E-so far as they relate to entities other than Westinghouse, are irrelevant _a to the subject natter of this proceeding, which is, the issuance of an operating license for CPSES. It must be conceded that the degree to which Aeolieants have relied on the sucoliers of CPSES conoonents for orecaration of safety anclysis is highly relevant to the issue of whether the Applieants are qualified to coerate CPSES safely. Therefore, on the basis of relevance, the Aeolicants' objection te inquiries regarding entities other than Westinghouse should he ove truled.
CFUR also discutes the Applicants' attenpt to place a strained and narrow construction on Contention 1. The operative cortion of that Contention concerns the Applicants' demonstration of " technical qualifications to operate CPSES in accordance with IC CFR 50.57(a)(h)." The deoendent clause identifying Westinghouse is only one exanole of how CFUR centends Apolicants are deficient in denenstrating technical qualifications. It is CFUR's position that the Apolicants' blanket objection that under the wording of Contention 1, CFCR's Interrogatories should be linited to inquiries about Westinghouse, should be overruled.
One nust be :.indful of the overall objective in conducting discovery in this phase of the licensing orocess: that is, to insure full and fair disclosure of all relevant facts orior to the cenneneenent of the hearing. Sosten Edisen Conoany (Pilgrin Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LT.P-75-30,1 NRC 579, 582 i (1975). Discovery should be liberally granted "to enable the earties to ascertain the facts in conolex litigation, refine the issues, and orecare adequate'J" for the hearing. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
Unit 1),13P-78-20, 7 NRC 1038,10h0 (1978). The hypertechnical and erroneous constmetion Applicants seek to place on Contention 1, and thereby avoid pro-viding relevant discove:7, flies in the face of the enunciated discovery ob-jectives acclicable to this proceeding.
Moreover, the Aeolicants' attennt to 11 nit the scene of the discovery available under Contention I would defeat one of the main ourcosas of interrega- ..
tories, which is to further define the issues raised by Qon~tention. See. _,
Pacific Gas and Ilectric Conoany, suora: 9eston Eidson Cencany, suora.
- " Pleadings" and " cont 3ntions" no longer describe En volunincus detail '-
everything the carties exoect to prove and how they olan te go abeut i [(
doing so. Rather they orovide general notice of the issues. It is _ , , ,
E left to the carties to narrow those issues througn use of various discovery devices . . . . Pennsylvania Power & Light Cor:cany and A11echeny
- g l'lectric Coooerative. Inc. (Susquenanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
{ and 2), AIA%61h NRC (September 23,1980), slim on. at 30.
"~
The Aeolicants should not be allowed to limit by unilateral action the scope
, of CFUR's discover /. Instead, CTUR's disener/ should be the vehicle by which the scope of the Contentions to be presented at the hearing is deternined. The Applicants' generel objections to CFUR's Interrogatories should be overruled.
Should the Board overrule the Applicantr' blanket objection to CFUR's Interrogatories (as CFUR respectfully subnits it shocid do), the Applicants should be ordered to provide full and cor plete answers to the following interrogatories: 1, 2a , 2b , 24, 2d , 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12a , 12b, 12c , 13, 15,
$ and 17.
"'he resoonses to the following interrogatories are, at preront, "not
. . - . - applicable" but may ent:.ge when the previous interrogatories are conoletely answered. Therefora, the Apolieants should be ordered to orovide full and
( conolete answers to the following interrogatories as well ha, 4b, he, 6a, 6b, 6e, 8a, 8b, 8c,8d, Se, loa,10b,10e,10d, lha, lhb, lhe,16a,16b,16e.
II.
In resoonse to CM's Interrogaterf 2b, the Applicants have failed to provide a neaningful answer. They have nerely restated the interrogatory and referenced the FSAR which contains approximately 10,000 pages. It is
, incassible for CFUR to derive any useful infomation from the Applicants' response.
The evasive and inconolete answer bv the Aeolicants should be treated as a failure to answer and the 9oard should order the Aeolicants to list secarately and with particularity all docunents, representations and other infomation upon which Applicants have relied in the context of Interrogatories 1 and 2 For the sane reasons as set out above, the Applicants, by merely referencing Response 2b, have failed to answer Interrogatory 2d. The Board should order '"
the Applicants to answer fully Interrogatozy 2d. . --
~~
The Board should also order the Aeolicants to provide "a neaningful re-
^
sponse to CTUR's interrogatory 2e. In its present forn,the Applicants' re-
~""
sponse is overly and unnecessarily broad. The Applicants should be ordered to provide senarately the tine of reliance for each docunent, representation and other infornation involved.
III.
CFUR is not able to fully concrehend the Aeplicants' resoonses to Interrogatories 4 through 8. The confusion arises with the Amplicants' failure to answer Interrogatories h, 6, and 8
, , Since Aeolicants have not answered Interrogatory 4, it appears that they are content with an unqualified "no" as their answer to Interrogatory 3.
Accordingly, CFUR prays that the Board order the Applicants either to amend l their answer to Interrogatory 3 to bo "no," or to provide full and complete answers to all parts cf Interrogatory 4 Sinilar problens arise with Applicants' responses to Interrogatories 5 and 6. The present answer to Interrogatory 5 egpears to be in the affirmative.
However, Interrogatory 6, which is credicated on an affirmative answer to Interrogatory 5, is unanswerad. Because of these conflicting and inconplete answers, CFUR prays thct the Board order the Apolicants either to anend their answer to Interrogatory 5 to be "no," or to provide full and conclete ' answers I to all parts of Interrogatory 6.
The Apolicants' answer to Interrogatory 7 is nenresconsive and evasive.
Again, however, it appears by their failure to answer InterrogStory 8, which is credicated on a negative answer to Interrogatory 7, Apolicants intend that their answer to Inte regatory 7 is "yes." CTUR prays that the Board order the l
l u.
I r
~
Applicants eithsr to amend their response to Interrogatory 7 to be "yes,"
or to orovide full and conolete answers to all carts of Interrogatory D.
IV.
Aeolicants again have orovided an evasive and dilatory :ssponse to Interrogatorj 9 in stating that the word " review" is vagutar.d 01thout "relevaney."C .
Certainly that tern is understood to the Aeolteants since i* is used by the. in -
sittilar contexts in their responses to Interrogatories,,) and 11. While CTUm, does not fully cenprehend the Apolicants' failure to provide any answer what- ,
coever based on the lack of relevancy, CFUR would respond by saying that the reliance of the Apolicants on other entities to review equip .ent, analysis, procedures and training is highly relevant as to whether the Applicants can safely operate CPSSS.
The Applicants have failed to answer Interrogatory 10 which is predicated on an affirnative response to Interrogatory 9. Again CFUR prays that the Board order the Applicants either to amend their answer to Interrogatory 9 to be "no,"
or to provide full and conplete answers to all carts of Interrogatory 10.
V.
The Aeolieants' response to Interrogatory 10 is not resconsive to the question asked. The Interrogatory is addressed to the Applicants' independent reviews and investigations relating to the safe operation of CPSES. The Applicants' answer is directed to the "aeolicability" of 'festinghouse analyses.
The 3 card should order the Applicants te provide a full and conplete resconse directly answering CFUR's Interrogator /11.
I. Interrogatory 12, which is predicated on Interrogatory 11, also is not answered by Applicants. As with Interrogatory 11, Applicants' response to Interrogatory 12 deals with "acolienbility" of Westinghouse internation when the Interrogatory is directed to review and investigation of analyses to insure safe coeration of CPSI.S. The Applicants should be concelled to answer Interrogatory 12 fully and directly.
While Applicants pretend not to understand the phrase " safety review or investigation" as used in Interregatory 12, they made no objection to sub-stantially the sane coneeot which was used in Interrogatory 11 and upon which
Interrogatory 12 is based. CFUR would also point out that such safety evaluations are basic concepts in this context. See 10 CFR Part 30, paragraph 50.%(b)(2). Interrogatory 12 should be answered.
VI.
The Aeolicants again have orovided incomplete ans evasive _ answers to . . ,
~
Interrogatories 13 through 16. With regard to the Aeo1iFa'nts' ec=claints , ]
about the inquiries relating to safety function, CFUR again contends the Aeolicants are playing ganes with well understood coniept.s. --
_, "Sach apoliention for a license to operate a facility shall include 1.,
. . . a final safety analysis report...shall include the fo11owings.. .(2) 7 ... evaluations required to show that safety functions will be acconplished." (10 CFR Part 50, caragraph 50.M(b))
With regard to the complete failure to answer Interrogatory 14, CFUR prays that the Board order the Applicants either to amend their response to Interrogatory 13 to be "no," or to provide full and certolete answers to all parts of Interrogatory 14 While Applicants' response to Intierrogator715 appears to be in th'e y affimative, Applicants have not answered Interrogatory 16 which is predicated on an affimative answer to Interrogatory 15. Again, CFUR prays that the Soard order the Apolicants either to a:nend their answer to Interrogatory 15 to be "no," or to provide full and complete . answers to all parts of Interrogatory 16 VII.
In their response to Interrogatory 17, Apolicants have identified Westing-house as the only entity which has prepared any portion of the FSAR. Do the Aeolicants state that they have orecared no cortien of the NR? In addition to the other vendors (which is addressed in Part I of this Motion to Commel), the Aeolicants should also be concelled to identify which nortions of the FSAR they have orapared, if any.
VIII.
With regard to Interrogatory 25, Applictnts shocid be comme 11ed to answer why they will not voluntarily attach to their answers the doeunents requested by Interrogatory ?.9.
The oath taken by Pr. Honer O. Schnidt in answering CWR's Interrogatories is deficient. As set out in 10 CFR Part 50 paragrach 2.740b(b). answers to interrogatories nust be "under oath er affir.mation." There is no prcvision for answering based on infomation and belief. Accordingly, the 9eard should order the Apolicants to provide answers to C7UR's,Interro J atories which are sworn to as being true and correct based on the personal knowledge of the affiant -
or affiants. In the alternative. C.Uh prays that the,, Applicants be ordered to identify each cerson (including enployer aa.d business address) who has provided
~
~
personal knowledge upon which' its answers are based.
Respectful y subnitted,/ /
. / -
- ,/ f g no * ,
je & d.rt. mi.
/ [1P cott Avenue
! Dalla . TX 75219 214/521 4852 l
0
s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~B ELATED CORRESPONDENCl-
! hereby certify that copies of "CFUR'S MOTICN TO COMPEL RESPONSI7E ANSWEP.S TO CFUR INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1981" have been served on the following by deoosit in the United Stater mail, firs +. class,this 28th day of April,1981.
Valentine 3. Eeale Esq. , Chairman Mrs. Juanita Ellis'
Atenic Safety and Licensing Board 1001 Connecticut Avenue N. W.
PresideritTCISE 1426 SoutFPolk Street _
Washington, D. C. 20036 Dallas, n ' 75224
~--
Dr. Forrest J. Renick, Member Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board West Texas legal Services -
305 E. Hamilton Avenu
- 100 Main Street (Lawyers 31dg.)
State College, PA 16601 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Marjorie U1 nan Rothschild, Esq.
Office of Executive legal Director Jeffrey L. Hart, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Retfulatory Comission 4021 Prescott Avenae Washington, D.C. 20555 Dallas, TX
. 75219 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Arch C. McColl III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 701 Comerce Street i 1200 17th Street, N.W. Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dallas, TX 75202 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
, Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 , cn 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
( U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission De,g g ,,
Washington, D.C. 20555 9 L':-
- W .
1 1981 ,
W .
l
$$$!;l&
e% y I
ha.I &v l
j Richard L. Fouke ichI11ic CFUR l 16683 Carter Drive l
Arlington, TX 76010 k
l __ - . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
_.. - _ . _ _ __ _. _ _ . -_. _ - . - _