ML19350C835
| ML19350C835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1981 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104060790 | |
| Download: ML19350C835 (18) | |
Text
. . - _ _ .
~
, .q/. ~.P .l ,.
D RELATED C
. gs q 3/17/
S ,t- Arig r%
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C. 44 0 /Sg 7
% k7,,5,h* f5 A!
EEFORE THE ATQ4IC SAFETY AMD LICE 5SIE BOARD Q In the Matter of I /
l Docket Nos. 50-45 AFFLICATION OF TEKA8 UFII.ITIES l and 50-46 m GENERATIEG COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AM l O N OPERATIE LICEEE FOR CGGAECEE l
- g i
FEAK S W M II2C HIC STATICE # %0CD l
UNITS fl AED #2 (CPRES) {. ' # -
{~ MAR 241981 > j
~
CASE'S MOTION TO CCMPEL AND Office of the Sacratmy l TO REQUIRE SUPPLD4ENTATION OF RESPONSES g Mt & Senu l
TO CASE'S FOURTH SET OF g/TA-INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS
- g I
l COMES NOW CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), hereinafter referred to as CASE, Intervenor herein, and files this, its Motion to Compel and to Require j Supplementation of Responses to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants.
l I. BACKGROUND j On 2/17/81, CAPE filed its Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants.
l Applicants filed their Answers to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories on March 9, 1981 (which CASE received 3/13/81).
l
- II. MOTION TO CCMPEL Some of the ansvers filed by Applicants to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories are inecmplete, unresponsive, and tvasive and do not comply with CASE's request l
to answer fully and include all pertinent information. CASE's questions dealt l
l vith Contention 25 regardins financial qualifications and Contention 22 on Emergency Planning.
l .
l pSO 810 4og9779 g 9I
g., . .
Applicants' answers to CASE's Fourth Set of Interrogatories clearly demonstrate that Applicants have no intention of providing even minimal infor-mation in response to CASE's questions, especially regarding Contention 25 For this reason and the reasons set forth folicwing in regard to specific questions, CASE moves that this Board order Applicants to prcunptly answer completely the questions set forth below and to supplement its answer as soon as nek infoma-tion becomes available. .
III. SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES Contention 25 The requirements of the Atcznic Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(k) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C, have not been met in that the Applicant is not financially qualified to operate the proposed facility. .
question 1. CASE's question was very simple and very specific:
"Do the Applicants believe that they have done everything necessary and required to demonstrate that they have met the requirements of the Atomic j Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(h) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix CT' l
l Applicants' answer was only partially responsive:
l l " Applicants have provided the financial information, as required by 10 --
! C.F.R. Sc.33(f) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendix C, to enable the Ccumnission l to make the findings required by 10 C.F.R. 50 57(a)(h) *regarding the Appli-cants' financial qualifications. The NPO Staff may request additional in-formation as part of their review of the Applicants' financial qualifications.
~
See answer to Interrogatory 5, below."
^
l l
Applicants' answer to Question 5 states:
. " Appropriate information has been submitted to NRC which demonstrates that DP&L, TESCO and TP&L all have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover their share of the estimated costs of operation for each of the first five years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting down the facility and' maintaining it in a safe condition. As to BEPC, TMPA and Tex-La, Applicants also anticipate amending the operating license application to update financial information, particularly concerning i- 1MPA and BEPC, and to provide financial information regarding Tex-Ia.
Applicants also anticipate responding to NRC Staff questions on financial
- 2- .
i e - n * -
% i . .
III. Question 1 (continued):
matters. The above infor=ation vill be available when it is submitted to the NRC Staff."
Applicants empletely ignored that portion of our interrc6atory and our contention regarding the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, specifically h2 U. S.
CodeSection2232(a):
"Each application for a license hereunder shall be in writing ahd shall spe-cifically state such information as the Commission, by rule or regulation, may determine to be necessary to decide such of the technical and financial qualifications of the Applicants, the character of the Applicant, the citizen-ship of the Applicant, or any other qualifications of the Applicant as the Ccamission may deem appropriate for the license."
Applicants did not ob, ject to this portion of CASE's question; they simply ignored it empletely.
CASE moves that the Board ccupel Applicants to answer this portion of Question 1.
Question 2 requested certain very specific information:
"If the answer to Question 1 above is yes, answer the following questicas: ,
i "(a) What specific docu:nents have Applicants provided t'o the NRC to comply with thes.e regulations? (Providealistingby: date of docu:nent; date document 'was sent to the NRC; name and title of NRC representative to whom document was sent; hame, title, and cmpany affiliation of Applicants' representative who sent document; title of docu:nent; general content of l
l document in terms of what it purports to show with regard to this contention.)
l
"(b) Provide all documents listed in (a) above for inspection and copying.
"(c) Are the documents listed in (a) above all the documentation which Appli-
- cants have provided the NRC to demonstrate that they have met the require-
- ments referenced in Question 1 above?"
Applicants answer was:
~
"(a) The financial information required by 10 C.F.R. 50 33(f) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, APPeodix C was submitted to the NRC in the Cmanche Peak Steam Electric Station Application for' Operating License, April,21,1978.
"(b) Applicants will respond to thi~s request for production of documents pursuant to and on the schedule provided in 10 C.F.R. 2 714(d) .
I l "(c) The Applicants have provided and will provide as required annual j financial reports."
Applicantt response to this interrogatory was totally unresponsive. CASE asked this question in order to ascertain which specific documents Applicants l
l l may have provided the NRC to comply with regulations and to ascertain which documents CASE may not have so that we ,can obtain such documents. We cannot ,
I de this if we do not know what the documents are.
Applicants answer to 2(c) is also incceplete. Applicants state only that they have provided annual financial reports; they do not indicate whether these l- were annual financial reports of Dallas Power & Light, Texas Power & Light, l
Texas Electric Service Company, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Texas Municipal Power Agency, and/or TEX-IA Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. CASE is therefore unable to determine which, if any, of these documents we lack and therefore need to obtain. Further, althouch Applicants state that they have '
i Provided and will provide annual financial reports, they do*not specifically l .
answer the question which was asked; Applicants' answers to 2(a) and 2(c) could -
very well both be true and the answer to 2(c)'s specific question could still be " no . " It should be noted that Applicants did not object to any of Question 2.
CASE therefore moves that the Board compel Applicants to supply complete answers to Questions 2(a) and 2(c) and that the Board compel Applicants to answer 2(b) based on a ecuplete answer to question 2(a), rather than based on the incca-
~
plete answer provided by Applicants.
.k.
_. , - . - ,, e -
Questions 3 and k:
~
Question 3. asked +he following specific information:
" Answer the following question for each of the Applicants listed below:
Does the Applicant have the ability to pay its cbligations on a timely basis, to pay a reasonable return to its investors, to borrow money at a reasonable rate, to :naintain a good credit rating, and to maintain flexibility within its dealings in the financial ccanmunity and in obtain-ing capitalt
"(a) Dallas Power & Light Ccapany (DP&L)
"(b) Texas Electric Service Company (TESCO) -
"(c) Texas Power & Light Company (TP&L)
"(d) Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (EEPC)
"(e) Texas Municipal. Power Agency (7MPA)
"(f) TEX-IA Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (TEX _LA)"
Most of Applicants' response to this interrogatory sets forth the Applicants' interpretation of NRC regulctions:
"NRC regulations governing financial qualifications of an applicant for a power reactor operating license (10 C.F.R. 50 33(f) and lo C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix C) require that the licensee possess or have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover its share of the estimated costs of operation for each of the first five years of operation plus the estirAted costs of permanently shutting down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition. Each of the participants in the Cccanche Peak project has the financial qualiff cations to carry out, in accordance with these regulations, the activities for which the operating license for Comanche Peak is sought." ,
Question b was a follow-up question to Question 3:.,
"If the ansveb to at:y of the above is no, explain specifically in what -
regard it is not so, for each Applicant to which this is applicable."
. Appliants' answer to Question k was: "Not applicable."
Clearly, Question 3 and its follow-up Question h cou: ply with the provisicas of 10 CFR 2 7kO(b)(1),10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, t51e Atomic Energy Act (U. S.
Code Section 2232(a)), and 10 CFR 50 33(f), as cited on page 3 (under Question 1) and following in this pleading. Further, the infonnation requested is especially important in regard to BEPC,1MPA, and TEX-IA, since Applicants Answer 5 indicates 5 .
=
1 that the information regarding EEPC and TMPA is to be updated, and regarding )
TEX-LA has'yet to be provided (to the NRC -- it is not clear fr a Applicants' answer that it vill be provided to CASE). !
1 Applicants' response to these two interrogatories is. evasive and inadequate. 1 Applicants must answer discovery requests to the best of their ability based on the information presently availabic to them. Applicants did not object to these l l
two interrogatories; they simply did no,t answer the specific questions posed.
This is clearly contrary to NRC regulations, specifically 10 CFR 2 7kO(b)(1) which states in part:
" Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject : natter involved in the proceeding, whether it relates to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence,
, description, nature, custody, condition, and locatica of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter...It is not ground for objection that the infomation sought vill be inadmissible at the hearing if the infor:na-tion sought appeare reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ad-missible evidence."
CASE has specific evidence in the for:n of sworn testimony by one of the .,
Applicants, Dallas Power & Light Company (DP&L), and access to specific evidence in the form of. svorn testimony by two of the other Applicants, Texas Power & Light Capany (TP&L) and Texas Electric Service Capany (TESCO), which supports CASE's contention. At the a ment, the other three Applicants' finar.cial condition is still unkncvn to CASE. CASE's evidence must be considered and we must be allowed to pursue questions which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Clearly, should the Applicants answer to any.sub-part of Question 3 de "no," this would be admissible evidence supportive of CASE's contention i
or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence supportive of CASE's contention.
For these reasons, CASE moves the Board to compel Applicants to promptly supply complete answers to the specific questions asked by CASE in Questions 3 and 4, and to compel Applicants to promptly supplement their answers to these questions should there be a chan6e in' the future fran their present answers.
- Questions 5, 6, and 7:
Question 5 was:
"If the answer to any or all of (a through f) of Quen tion 3 above is yes, for each Applicant listed, answer the followin6 question: Has the Applicant supplied documentation (as set forth in your answer to 2(a) preceding) to prove your answer to question 3 preceding?"
Question 6:
"If the answer to any part of question 5 above is no, explain specifically and in detail exactly how the Applicant (s) in question have failed to provide such documentation."
Question 7: ,
"If the answer to any part of question 5 above is no, fa it the Applicant (s) position that ,it is not necessary for said Applicant (s) to provide this documentation?"
- Applicants ansvers were:
"5 Appropriate information has been submitted to NRC which demonstrates that DP&L, TESCO and TP&L all have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover their sbara of the estimated costs of opera-tion for each of the first five years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting down the facility and maintainin6 it in a safe condition. As to BEPC, 'IMPA and Tex-La, Applicants also antici-pate amending the operating license application to update financial information, particularly concerning 1MPA and BEPC, and to provide financial information regardio6 Tex-Ia. Applicants alsd anticipate responding to NRC Staff questions on financial matters. The above information will be available when it is submitted co the NRC Staff."
-7
~. . - .,_
"6. See response to Interrogatory 5."
"7. See response to Interrogatory 5."
Since Questions 5, 6, and 7 all refer.back to Questien 3 and Questien 3 has not been answered, Applicants' responses to questicas 5, 6, and 7 are also incomplete and inadequate and unresponsive to the specific questions asked.
(Applicants state that "the abos.r information" supplied in answer to-Questica 5 i
" vill be available when it is submitted to the NRC Staff." Even if Applicants' had submitted an appropriate re, muse to Question 5, which they did not, such response vould still have been unresponsive, sirr.:e Applicants must answer to the best of their ability based on the information presently available to them.)
CASE therefore moves that the Board ccupel Applicants to supply cceplete ansvers to the specific questions asked in Question 5, 6, and 7, and that the i
Board ccupel Applicants to prceptly update their ansvers should there be changes l
t in the future which would render Applicants ansvers incorrect or incomplete.
Question 8. "If the answer to any part of question 7 above is yes, explain exactly ,
what the Applicants believe they are required tb do to demonstrate f* that they are financially. qualified td opera,te CPSES. Include in
!- your answer specifically what you believe the requirements for each Applicant are, as well as what you believe the requirements are for '
the Applice.nts as a whole."
Applicante' answer vas: "Not applicable."
l Since Question 8 refers back to Questions 7, 5, 3, and 2(a) and those questions have not been answered ccupletely and adequately, Ap%1 cants' answer to Question 8 l
'is not necessarily correct; CASE suspects that if Applicants are required to f respond completely and adequately to Questions 7, 5, 3, and 2(a), their answer
- - to Question 8 would also need to be changed.
b_ 4 e w
Therefore, CASE moves that the Board compel Applicants to supply an updated answer to Question 8 after they have responded completely and adequately to r
Questions 7,5,3,and2(a).
question 9 "Have you prepared any report, study or other documents (as defined on page 2 of this pleading) with respect to this contention?"
Applicants' response was: "Cnly that listed in the response to Interrogatories 2(a) and 2(c)."
Since Applicants have not respond d adequately to Questicas 2(a) and 2(c),
their response to Question 9 was also inadequate; however, this will be taken care of if the Board courpels Applicants to supply ccmplete and accurate answers to Questions 2(a) and 2(c). This is another reason for the Board to require such supplementation of Questions 2(a) and 2(c).
In addition, CASE moves that the Beard compel Applicants to prcmptly supplement their response to Question 9 should any other report, study or other documents be prepared by Applicants with respect to this contention in the future.
. Question 10: "If the answer to question 9 above .is yes, identify each such docu-ment (if not identified in your answer to question 2(a) preceding) by subject and author, including the author's professional and educational background." -
Applicants' response was: "See response to Interrogatories 2(a) and 2(c)."
The response by Applicants to Interrogatories 2(a) and 2(c) do not answer the specific questions asked in 2(a) and 2(c) or, in'10.
CASE therefore moves that the Board empel Applicants to supply complete answers to Questions 2(a) and 2(c) and Question 10, and that the Board empel Applicants to praptly supplement their response to Question 10 should new in-fomation develop which would render Applicants' ansv : Ancorrect or inccmplete.
, -- - e
Question 11: "If the answer to questien 9 preceding is yes, provide for copying
, and inspection each such report, study or document referenced in your answer to quertion 10 above."
. ,~
Applicants' response vas: "See response to Interrogatory 2(b)."
Since Applicants' response to Questica 2(t)'vas " Applicants v411 respond to this request for producticn of docuaents pursuant to and on the schedule provided in 10 C.F.3. 2 7h0(d)" and since Question 2(b) referred bac'x to 2(a) and Applicants' response to Question 9. referred back to 2(a) and 2(c), this
.is another reason for the Board's compelling cceplete ansvers to Questions 2(a) and 2(c). Further, CASE moves that the Board cc=pel Applicants to answer Question 11 based on complete ansvers to questions 2(a) and 2(c), rather than based on the incomplete answers provided by Applicants.
Co=ments regarding Contention 25:
Fran Applicants' ansvers, it is obvicus that toe," intend to respond enly to the NRC Staff's questions and requests and to stonewall on any questions from l
1 .
CASE. . This position by Applicants is clearly centrary to NBC regulations, speci-
-fically 10 CFR 2 7h0(b)(1) (as discussed on page 6 of this pleading)-and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, which states in part:
"The kind and depth of information described in this guide is not intended to be a rigid and absolute requirement. In some instances, additional pertinent material may be needed. . In any case, the applicant should include information other than that specified if such information is pertinent to establishing the applicant's financial ability to construct and operate the proposed facility.
v- ~ --- r;- -
. a .
"The Commission reserves the right, however, to require additional financial infor: nation at the construction permit stage, at the operating license stage, and*during operation of the facility, particularly in cases in ubich the vro-posed power generating facility will be commonly owned by two or more exist-ing cr=ranies or in which financing depends upon long-ter n arrangements for the sharing of the power fran the facility by two or more electrical generating companies ."
"Section 50 33(f) requires that all applications for operating licenses show that the applicant possesses the funds necessary to cover estimated operat-ing costs, or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessaiy funds, or a canbination of the two. In addition, each application for a liceuse for a facility other than a medical ore research reactor is required to show that the applicant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds
- necessary to pay the estimated costs of operaticn for the period of the license or for 5 years, whichever is greater, plus the estimated' costs of permanently shutting down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition. For the purposes of the latter requirement, it vill ordinarily be sufficient to show at the time of filing of the application, availability of resources sufficient to conr estimated operating costs for each of the first 5 years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanent shutdown and maintenance of the facility in safe condition." (anphases added.)
Clearly, the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, as set forth above,
. are not as stated by Applicants in their answer to Question 3 (see page 5 of this .
l pleadin6), although Applicants apparently intend to answer CASE's questions only l insofar as such questions fall within the limitations the Applicants have decided upon.
Applicants, by their response to CASE's questions, have made the determina-tion themselves that " Applicants have provided the financial information...to L ' enable the Commission to make the findin6s required by 10 C.F.R. 50 57(a)(h) regarding the Applicants' financial qualifications." CASE submits that only i
'the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in these proceedings has the authority to make such a determination. Further, Applicants state that"the NRC Staff may-request additional information..." and " Applicants also anticipate responding
- 11 - .
-r, - -w,- , -- , - . . y - - -
I i
to NRC Staff questions on financial matters" and state that ":;he above infor=a- .
. tion wil'1 be available when it is submitted to the NRC Staff." (E= phases added.)
It is one thin 6 for the Applicants to believe thst they have done everything necessary and required to demonstrate 'that they have met the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended,10 CFR 50 57(a)(h) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix C; it is another thing for Applicants to =isinterpret these requirementh and to refuse to answer CASE's legitimate ques,tions because such questions do not fall within the narrow boundaries and limitations which Applicants would 1= pose.
If an individual oves $kOO a month rent, $100 a =onth electric bill, $50 a
=onth gas bill, and $150 month food bill, stating that the individual does have
$50 a month to pay the gas bill and ignoring the other bills is not sufficient evidence to prove that the individual is financially healthy. Similarly, Appli-cants' self-proclaimed statement that they have provided the financial infonna-tion to enable the NRC to make the findings required by 10 CFR 50 57(a)(h) regard-ing the Applicants' financial qualifications is not sufficient to prove that ,
Applicants are financially healthy. Other pertinent evidenc'e and infonnation
, must also be considered, including the specific evidence discussed in the last t
paragraph of page 6 of this pleading.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C, only states that "...it will ordinarily be sufficient to show at the time of filing of the application, availability of resources sufficient to cover estimated operating costs for each of the first 5 years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanent shutdown and unintenance of the facility in safe condition." (Bnphasisadded.) Clearly, these operating license p'roceedings are not ordinary -- Applicants are being challenged, based on sworn testimony of three of the six Applicants themselves, regarding their financial qualifications,
. s .
l i
in addition to being challenged (in Contention 2h(a)) regarding their cost esti=ates of deccimissionin6 CPSES. Applicants must go Leycnd tne narrev boundaries they have attempted to impose in order to prove their financial qualifications to operate CPSES.
It is imperative that the Board therefore ecmpel Applicants to supply ec=clete ansvers to CASE's interrogatories regarding this contention to assure that Applicants meet the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and NRC regulations.
COWEEIFfION 22: Applicants have failed to ecerply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, regarding emergency planning, for the following reasonst
- a. The FSAR does not identify state or regional authorities responsible for emergency planning or who have special qualifications for dealing with emergencies.
b.
No agreements have been reached with local and state officials and agencies for.the early warning and evacuation of the public, including the identi-fication of the principal officials by titles and agencies.
- c. There is no description of the arrangements for services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies and arrangements for the transportation of injured or contaminated individuals beyond the site boundary. "
- d. There are no adequate plans for testing,by periodic drills of emergency plans and provisions for part'icipation i'n the drills by persons.whose assistance may be needed, other than employees of the Applicants.
- e. There is no provision for medical facilities in the immediate vicinity of' the site, which includes Glen Rose; and -
- f. There !s no provision for energency planning for Glen Rose or the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex.
Questien 12. " State in your own words the meaning of ' emergency planning.'"
Applicants objected to this interro6atory as irrelevant and stated " Contention 22 is not the Applicants' contention. Applicants are not required to explain what Intervenors intend with respect to the language of Contention 22."
Applicants erroneously assumed that CASE was referring to " emergency planning"
, , _ , , ~ *
-o . .
in the context of CASE's wording of Contention 22. This is not what CASE's questich said or what we intended. We are concerned with the much broader concept of emergency planning, response, 'an'd preparedness. The reason for CASE's question is that we believes that Applica'nts do not clearly understand j the concept, reasons and intentions of emergency planning, and that Applicants' I
primary concern in regard to emergency planning is to comply to the' letter of the law and requirements of the NRC rather than the spirit of the law and require-
_ments. CASE believes that Applicants' answer to this interrogatory might well prove CASE's belief to be true.
Therefore, CASE moves that the Board ccupel Applicants to supply a complace answer to this interrogatory in light of the above explanation.
Question Ih. "Specifically, is it the Applicants' position that your Emergency Plan (as revised October 8, 1980)-includes everything necessary to meet every criteria referenced in this contention?"
Applicants' answer was "See response to Interrogatory 13."
Question 13 was: "Is it the Applicants' position that your Emergency Plan ,
(as revised) fulfills all the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E7" ,
Applicants' answer vas: " Applicants believe the Ccuanche Peak Emergency Plan meets applicable requirements established pursuant to the provisions of and the schedule for ccmpliance in 10 C.F.R. 50.47 and Part 50, Appendix E."
CASE's Questicas 13 and 14 were not the same. There are scue obvious dis-agreements between Applicants and CASE and ACORN, for instance, regarding the need for provisions for emergency planning for the Dallas /Ft. Worth metroplex area.
~
CASE's question 14 was an attempt to determine which specific port' ions of Con-tention-22 are in the category of not being done by Applicants because Applicants
l l
do not believe they are required to do them (rather than in the category of being iri dispute between Applicants and CASE as to whether or not they nave adequately complied with NRC regulations). An answer to Question 14 in conjunction with Question 13 would have provided f. hat information.
Therefore, CASE moves that the Board compel Applicants to supply an answer to the specific question asked in Question 14. -
IV. CASE'S MOTION TO REQUIRE SUPPIDESfATION OF RESPONSES On February 23, 1981, Applicants' filed their Motion to 'Ccapel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicant.s' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE.
In that pleading, Applicants raised a hitherto unthought-of question in CASE's mind regarding whether or not Applicants intended to supplement their answers to previously asked CASE questions when and as new infor=ation made the original answers different, inc mplete or inaccurate. As stated in CASE's 3/10/81 Answer to Applicants' Motion to Capel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatcries to CASE, it is and~always has been 1 '
l CASE's intention to supplement all answers prompt 'as soon as previous answers i
became different, incomplete or inaccurate. The fact that Applicants felt it l , necessary to pursue the matter of supplementation further, despite CASE's repeated assurances, raised the question in CASE's mind about wh' ether or not Applicants I
l would .similarly supplement their answers in light of the fact that we have no such written assurances that they plan to comply with CASE's requests in previous interrogatories to do so. (See CASE's 3/10/a1 Answer to Applicants' Motion to l
l Compel and to Require Supplementation cf . Responses to Applicants' Second Set of l- .
15 l.
- s s- .-g - - -- * + , ,r , w- s
. 's . .
interro6atories to CASE, pages 1 through 4, item I.)
CASE believes, as apparently Applicants also do, that a = ore efficient proceeding vill be assured if parties supplement their responses as soon as they obtain further information by eliminating the need for other parties to resubmit discovery requests. We also a6ree that it would be helpful for the Board to clarify the necessity for supplementation of ansvers as sood as parties obtain or develop responsive information.
However, CASE believes that this is true not only for CASE but for Applicants as well. We had assumed that Applicants intended to supplement their ansvers since we had specifically requested such supplementation in our previous inter-rogatories to them.
In light of Applicants' 2/23/81 Motion to Cc=pel and to Require Supplementation of Responses to Applicants' Second Set of Interrogatories to CASE and the fact that CASE is now unsure whether or not Applicants intend to supplenent any of their answers to CASE's interrogatories, CASE now moves that the Board issue an order pursuant to 10 CFR 2.7h0(e)(3) requiring Applicants' to supplement its responses to CASE's First, Second, Third, Fourth and future sets of interro6atories l as soon as information is developed or obtained with respect to any of those interrogatories.
l For the reasons set forth previously in this pleading, CASE hereby = oves that the Board ccampel the Applicants to:
(1) Supply at once complete answers to CASE's bestions 1, 2('s), 2(b), 2(c),
[ 3(a),3(b),3(c),3(d),3(e),3(f),k,5,6,7,8,9,lo,11,12,and14 l -
- i
- ~i ,
of CASE's 2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants; (2)' Respond to Question 2(b) based on a complete answer to Question 2(a) and respond to question 11 based'on a complete answer to Questions 2(a) and 2(c) of CASE's 2/17/81 Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce; and
- ' (3) Supplement its responses to CASE's First, Second, Third, Fottrth and I
future sets of interrogatories,4s soon as information is developed or obtained with respect to any of those interrogatories (including those interrogator.les to which Applicant has answered "not applicable" because the information or documents requested are not presently available but will be in the future).
WHEREFORE, PRDGSES CONSIDERED, CASE moves that the Board grant the motions ,
~
t requested herein. '
Respectfully submitted,
% -xm. M
@rs.) Juanita. Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1h26 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224 214/9h6-9hh6 21k/9k1-1211, work,part-time,usually Tuesdays and Fridays only e
17.-
e W q --wv c , % -- are- . . , . , . ~ m --. e =
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $
- 07 .
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
-?'"n l tiy' 2 41981 b BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Q t,% et the Secre'E -
In the, Matter of ^
I #[$ 'c3 APP;iCATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I s e 1, Docket Nos. 50-443 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l~ and'50-446 OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE 1 PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1 UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct capi s of CASE'S MOTION TO CCMPEL AND TO REQUIRE SUPPLE!ENTATION OF RESPONSES TO CASE'S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS have been sent to the names listed below by First Class Mail this 17th day
. of March , 198_1 *: with Certificate of Mailing receipt.
- Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board, Assistant Attorney General 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Environmental Protection Division Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station l Austin, Texas 78711 l Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Richard Fouke 305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive State College, PA 16801 Arlington, TX 76010 l Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555
- Nicholas'S. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Debevoise & Liberman Appeal Panel 1200 - 17th St., N. W. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 l
Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay Arch C. McColl, III, Esq.
West Texas Legal Services 701 Commerce Street, Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.) Dallas, TX 75202 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. s 4021 Prescott Avenue sh>d' E Dallas, TX Cftts.) Juanita Ellis, Presidenc 75219 6ASE . (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY):
O i
9 er +a .1 - w--- 4 g -v ~#