ML20040C036

Answer Opposing State of Il Motion to Compel Answers to Il Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Each Document Specifically Identified as Relevant to Particular Interrogatory.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20040C036
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	Fox C ILLINOIS POWER CO., SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8201270191
Download: ML20040C036 (14)

Text

,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF )

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, )

SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. )

and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER ) Docket No. 50-461 OL COOPERATIVE, INC. '

)

)

(Operating License for Clinton )

Power Station, Unit 1) )

)

ANSWER OF APPLICANTS IN OPPOSITION TO ILLINOIS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS Pursuant to Section 2.730(c) of the Rules of Practice of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Illinois Power Company (" Illinois Power"), on behalf of itself, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc. (" Applicants") , hereby answers the State of Illinois' ("the State's") Motion to Compel Answers to Its Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants of December 31, 1981 (" Motion" ) ,

and requests that the Motion be denied. In support of its answer, Illinois Power states as follows:

I. Interrogatory Answers A. The State's Response to Illinois Power's General Objections In its response of December 15, 1981 to the State's Second Set of Interrogatories, Illinois Power objected

() 8201270191 820115 PDR ADOCK 05000461 G

7{ r

. ~ . -

l to many of the State's interrogatories and requests for the production of documents on one or both of two grounds.

The first ground was that the information requested in a particular interrogatory had been previously furnished l 1

by Illinois Power in response to the State's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents of July 27, 1981. This foreclosed the State from requesting the information again. The second ground was that the information requested in many interrogatories was unnecessary for the clarification of any responses to first round discovery and was beyond the scope of second round discovery.

The State responded in Part II-A of its motion to the first objection, claiming that Illinois Power had

" unreasonably withheld information on the basis of its first round responses." This allegation would be a serious matter if it were not belied by the State's own admissions that it received "an avalanche-like response" and that it was allowed to "to search for several days through a file room full of documents." The scope of Illinois Power's response has precisely matched the scope of the State's discovery requests. The State is attempting to camouflage its own failure to formulate specific discovery requests, and to conduct discovery in the period allowed for the first round, by accusing Illinois power of failing to comply with the specificity requirements of the Commission's regula-tions. The State alleges that Illinois Power failed to correlate the documents it produced with each particular discovery request. This allegation is utterly and completely false. Each document produced was specifically identified as relevant to a particular idterrogatory or document request.

The State's problem lies with itr ~ shotgun" first round discovery requests, such as Interrogatory No. 5, in which it asked for all documents relating to the construction of safety-related systems. In response to this request, i Illinois Power opened its construction management and construction fabrication files to the State. Each document in these files was relevant to Interrogatory No. 5. The State was given the same index used by Illinois Power to identify and locate documents in its files. Illinois Power could not have taken a more open and cooperative approach to document production.

l The State was informed of the nature and quantity of documents relevent to its request before it scheduled document review sessions. Although it had more than four months for first round discovery, the State scheduled only three days of document review at the offices of Illinois Power. The real goal of the State's second round discovery is to circumvent the deadline for first round discovery.

The State responded in Part II-B of its motion to Illinois Power's objection that certain interrogatories and document requests exceeded the scope of second round discovery. The State argues that Illinois Power's responses to first round discovery were so broad that the State cannot "ask for information that wouid clarify its responses."

This makes no sense at all. If the responses were so broad, they should provide fertile ground for clarifying questions.

The State's problem is that it failed to spend the time necessary to review the mass of information it requested.

It now seeks to start again from scratch in the second round of discovery. The Board has ruled that the scope of second round discovery is " limited to clarification to matters raised in the first round." Ignoring the plain language of the parties' Joint Motion, the State now claims that the second round of discovery is open to clarification of all matters raised in the contentions. In effect, the State is asking for unlimited second round discovery.

This is not the purpose of later rounds of discovery.

There is a simple test for determining whether a particular interrogatory is a clarification or an expansion 1

of first round discovery: Did the State need information that it received in response to first round discovery in

_4 j

order to formulate its second round discovery requests?

For each request claimed by Illinois Power to exceed the scope of second round discovery, the answer to this question is no.

B. The State's Arguments on Objections to Specific Interrogatories

1. Contention 2 Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 8: These interrogatories are not in clarification of first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any information provided by Illinois Power in response to first round discovery requests. Moreover, Illinois Power fully answered both interrogatories.

Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13: These interrogatories are not in clarification of first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any information provided by Illinois Power in response to first round discovery requests.

The basis for Interrogatory No. 13 is a document to which the State had access before first round discovery

( commenced. Questions which the State had on this document could have been esked during first round discovery. Moreover, Illinois Power fully answered Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, l and 9.

l

Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, and 14-19: The State first claims that it did not find the information requested in these interrogatories when it reviewed documents in response to Interrogatory No. 4 of its First Set of Interroga-tories in first round discovery. Then, the State asserts that these second round interrogatories seek to clarify matters discovered in the first round. The State cannot seek to clarify information it does not have. Moreover, Illinois Power answered Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, 17, 18, and 19.

Interrogatory Nos. 20-24: These interrogatories are not in clarification of first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any information provided by Illinois Power in response to the State's first round discovery requests. These interrogatories are also too vague. Each of these interrogatories call for Illinois Power to exercise independent judgment to determine the meaning of many of the phrases used. As the interrogatories are presently written, many phrases have too broad a scope of possible definition to allow Illinois Power to make any response.

l

2. Contention 3 Interrogatory Nos. 25-27: Illinois Power fully l answered these interrogatories in its Response to the State's I Second Set of Interrogatories. Throughout first round

discovery, Illinois Power informed the State of the nature and quantity of documents relevant to particular interroga-tories and contentions in advance of production. Illinois Power will continue this practice in second round discovery.

Interrogatory Nos. 28-34: These interrogatories are not in clarification of first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any information provided by Illinois Power in response to the State's first round discovery requests. Moreover, Illinois Power fully answered Interrogatory Nos. 28-33.

3. Contention 10 Interrogatory Nos. 35-48 and 51: These interroga-tories are not in clarification of any first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any informa-tion provided by Illinois Power in response to first round discovery requests. Illinois Power fully answered Interroga-tory Nos. 45 and 46 in its response to Interrogatory No.

46d of the State's First Set of Interrogatories. Moreover, Illinois Power fully answered interrogatories No. 35-39 and 46-48.

The State also asserts that these interrogatories seek further explanation of statements made by Illinois Power and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Motion, i

pp. 9-10). With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 40-44, which Illinois Power did not answer, the State should identify l

such statements made by Illinois Power in any first round interrogatory answer or in any document produced during first round discovery. If the State can so identify such statements, Illinois Power will provide the answer.

Interrogatory Nos. 49 and 50: These interrogatories are not in clarification of first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any information provided by Illinois Power in response to first round discovery requests. The State claims that it would not find the answer to these interrogatories in materials provided in response to Interrogatory No. 46d of the State's First Set of Interrogatories. Since the State never reviewed any documents on Contention 10, although it had ample opportunity to do so, it lacks any knowledge as to whether the documents produced on Contention 10 contain the answers.

4. Contention 12 Interrogatory No. 52: To the best of its knowledge, Illinois Power has identified all documents used in answering this interrogatory.

Interrogatory Nos. 53, 55, and 59: These interroga-tories are not in clarification of first round discovery because they could have been asked regardless of any informa-tion provided by Illinois Power in response to first round discovery requests. Moreover, Illinois Power answered i

Interrogatories No. 55 and 59.

1 I

Interrogatory No. 57: Illinois Power answered this interrogatory as fully as possible given the nature of the interrogatory. The specific steps to correct a malfunction or remove fuel can only be described in the I

context of a particular occurrence. For example, the proce-dures employed may depend on the location of the fuel in l

the tube and causes of the malfunction.

l II. The State's Request for Production of Documents.

Document Request Nos. 2-8, 10, and 11: Illinois Power, as noted in its Response to the Second Request for Production of Documents, produced these documents in response to first round discovery requests.

Document Request Nos. 9 and 12-17: Illinois Power produced many of these documents in response to particu-lar interrogatories and document requests in the State's first round discovery request. To the extent that the documents were not produced during first round discovery they are beyond the scope of second round discovery. The further requests are not in clarification of any second round discovery because they could have been made regardless

(

of any information provided by Illinois Power in response l l

to first round discovery requests.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Illinois Power requests the Board to deny the Motion.

IRespectfully submitted,

b. dXT One of the Attorneys for Applicants Peter V. Fazio, Jr.

Sheldon A. Zabel William Van Susteren Charles D. Fox IV SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 Dated: January 15, 1982 l

l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that an original and two con-formed copies of the foregoing document were served upon the following:

Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch and that one copy of the foregoing document were served upon each of the following:

Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman P. O. Box 127A Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Philip L. Willman Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street ~~

Suite 2315

Chicago, Illinois 60610 1

Prairie Alliance P. O. Box 2424 Station A Champaign, Illinois 61820 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

i l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 in each case by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid on January 15, 1982.

C h en k o b . %c One of the Attorneys for Applicants Peter V. Fazio, Jr.

Sheldon A. Zabel William Van Susteren Charles D. Fox IV SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE ,

7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 t

[

?? FED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'd2 y '! 7 9 p,gp 7

. )

.7, IN THE MATTER OF )

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, )

SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. )

and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER ) Docket No. 50-461 OL COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Operating License for Clinton )

Power Station, Unit 1) )

NOTICE TO:

• A p

Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman b

P. O. Box 127A s IGCBurgy Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 '- -

sp AN2 g >

Dr. George A. Ferguson

1. ygu mm,iggg,'@'

School of Engineering Djgpan[,4 47 Howard University 1 2300 Sixth Street, N.W. /

9 Washington, D.C. 20059 Ri Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Philip L. Willman Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division _

188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 03 Chicago, Illinois 60610

$ Prairie Alliance P. O. Box 2424

{ Station A Champaign, Illinois 61820 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

O e Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have filed with the Secretary of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion ANSWER OF APPLICANTS IN OPPOSITION TO ILLINOIS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS in the.above-captioned matter.

A copy of this document is attached hereto and hereby served upon you, em&o D. % 9 One of the Attorneys for Applicants Peter V. Fazio, Jr.

Sheldon A. Zabel William Van Susteren Charles D. Fox IV SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 Dated: Janaury 15, 1982

-