ML20198A093

Intervenors M Gregory & Case Proposed Discovery Plan,In Response to ASLB 860502 Order Admitting Intervenors as Parties.Related Correspondence

ML20198A093
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/15/1986
From:	Ellis J, Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, GREGORY, M., TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:
Shared Package
ML20198A098	List: ML20198A093 ML20198A100
References
CON-#286-213 CPA, NUDOCS 8605200328
Download: ML20198A093 (5)

Text

., -

• ~*

gW t.D WW, uuM & -7.,4 TN f] ,

x'

\\

BEFORE THE

t UNITED STATES _\

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\\

g, py } Q ppio .i Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bokrd ^

v In the Matter of ) /

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. ) Dkt..No. 50-445-CPA

)

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2

)

INTERVENORS' PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Intervenors Meddie Gregory and the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE)

(" Joint Intervenors") submit the following discovery plan in response to the May 2, 1986, order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitting both intervenors as 1

parties and also admitting a sole contention.

1 The admitted contention was a combination of CASE No. 6 and Gregory No. I and reads:

Applicants have not met their burden of proving that the delay in completion of construction was not caused by their own dilatory conduct.

a.

Applicants have not given any reason for the existence of the delay. They only assert they need more time to complete a reinspection, redesign, and reconstruction program but they do not disicose the reason why such programs are needed or that the reason for delay was not intentional and without a valid purpose.

b.

The real reasons for the delay in construction completion were that:

i.

Applicants failed to correctly apply fundamental engineering principles, ii.

Applicants failed to properly identify unique designs in their PSAR, 8605200328 PDR 860515 O ADOCK 05000445 PDR ,

1S0$

The premise of Joint Intervenors' case is that Applicants have not demonstrated a valid business purpose, or good cause, for the delay in construction of Unit I which necessitated an 2

extension of the cc.npletion date.

Joint Intervenors can prevail here if they prove that iii. Applicants constructed much of their plan prior to its design having been completed, iv. Applicants have failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, including their failure to promptly identify and correct design deficiencies, and deliberately refused to take positive action to correct such deficiencies.

As a basis for this contention, CASE and Meddie Gregory state:

Applicants ignored consistent criticism of their QA/QC program over a period of at least ten years and of their design over a period of at least four years, in the face of warnings by independent auditors, the NRC, and even the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. As a result of these deliberate actions, Applicants built an unlicensable plant which must now be reinspected, redesigned, and reconstructed in the hope that it can be made licensable. There is no valid purpose given by Applicants for why, in the face of these criticisms, they refused to change their QA/QC implementation or address and correct design deficiencies. Thus Applicants have not established a good cause for the delay.

2 The Board here has adopted the definition of " good cause" as defined'by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board in the matter of Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722, 17 NRC 546, 552 n. 6 (1983). This two-pronged test for determining good cause is (1) whether the construction delays at issue are traceable to the Applicant, and (2) whether the delay is " dilatory," or, as de fined by the ASLAB, whether the delay is intentional and not for a valid business purpose. This test was explicitly endorsed by the Commission in the matter of Public Service Company ~of New Hampshire (Seabrook),

~

19 NRC 975 (1984).

Applicants were responsible for the delay and that the delay is without a good cause. Joint Intervenors also can prevail here if Applicants fail to prove that they were not responsible for the delay or that they had a valid business purpose for the delay.

In order to develop their case, Joint Intervenors propose a three-phase discovery process, motions for summary disposition, if necessary, and the hearings.

Phase I will consist of requests for documents and interrogatories, which will define everything that the Applicants intend to rely on to prove their case and produce all information in Applicants' possession regarding external and internal criticisms of Applicants' design, construction, and QA/QC programs. There will be two sets of interrogatories and requests i

for documents, one primarily for construction and QA/QC construction issues, which is attached to this plan, and another set to be filed on or before June 2, 1986.

Based on the history of discovery in other dockets involving Comanche Peak, joint intervenors anticipate that this phase of discovery will be fairly contentious, with numerous objections, delays, inadequate responses, etc. Upon receipt of all information that serves as a basis for their case, a time dictated by applicants' production of materials, Phase II will 3

commence.

Phase II will build on the data produced in Phase I and seek 3

To the extent it is possible for Joint Intervenors to move into Phase II of discovery in some areas before completing Phase

I, we intend to do so; therefore seriatim substantive replies will generate a floating schedule for completion of Phase II.

i .

to home in on areas where the disclosures made in Phase I indicate new-fruitful avenues for discovery. If or when information generated in Phase I leads to other relevant discovery, Joint Intervenors will file a second round of document requests which should produce the full basis of Applicants' case, including all information not disclosed in Phase I that would tend to rebut or clarify the Applicants' affirmative case. In effect, Phase II will consist of fine-tuned discovery. Upon receipt of all documents or information in this category, Phase II will be completed.

Phase III will consist of depositions of individuals who can shed light on facts and circumstances not fully explained in interrogatories or documents. Joint Intervenors do not plan to take depositions unless there is no other means to ascertain information. Therefore, Phase III may not be necessary at all.

Not later than 30 days after completion of discovery, all parties will file Requests for Admissions and Proposed Stipulations and identify all issues each party believes can be resolved by summary disposition and those issues each party believes must be resolved in a hearing. Actual summary disposition motions will be filed 30 days after final responses to requests for admissions or 30 days after the end of Phases I and II of discovery if no requests for admissions are filed.

The Board will then hold a pre-hearing conference, rule on summary disposition motions, and identify those issues to be resolved in the hearing.

l l

i

The hearing will be set by the Board for a reasonable time, approximately two weeks, following the pre-hearing conference.

The time schedule proposed here should apply equally to

. Staff and Applicants. The Staff should not be allowed to file papers after the other parties, but rather required to file at the.same time as the party whose position it supports. This will expedite the hearing process, and the Board's residual power under s2.718 should enable it to enforce this requirement on the Staff. However the Board ultimately resolves the discovery schedule, it should treat all parties equally.

Respectfully submitted,

3. h m b MD . (

ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN BILLIE P. GARD 8 Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, NW, #611 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for Meddie Gregory b Q- -

JUANITA ELLIS K

1426 South Polk Dallas, TX 75224 Representative for CASE Dated: May 15, 1986