ML20206P875

Memorandum & Order Ordering Util to Respond to M Gregory 860515 Interrogatories as Directed.All Interrogatories Shall Be Answered by 860711.Served on 860627

ML20206P875
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/27/1986
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#386-788 86-528-02-CPA, 86-528-2-CPA, CPA, NUDOCS 8607020261
Download: ML20206P875 (5)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges: 0 0

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman .

Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan $ M 27 P3:57

~~

! aev In the Matter of ,

)

) Docket No.

TI$1cf%j#4C

-C ,~.,

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.) SW "HINN

-) ASLBP No. 86-528-02-CPA (ComanchePeakSteamElectricStation, )

Unit 1) )

) June 27, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Motion to Compel of June 26,1986)

We have considered Consolidated Intervenors (Intervenors) Motion to Compel l

and Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al.'s (Applicants') Motion for Protective Order.2 In light of the clarifications provided by Intervenors in the course of their argument, we have decided to adopt most of the position of Intervenors as the position of the Board.

Interrogatory 1 shall be treated as a request for documents on which Applicants currently intend to rely to demonstrate good cause for the delay in completion of construction. In light of the fact that the Staff and Connission have already granted a construction pennit amendment permitting continued construction, it is not too heavy a 1

Consolidated Intervenors' Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order of June 17, 1986, and Motion to Compel," May 27, 1986.

Response of Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. to Interrogatories and Requests for Documents Filed by MeddTe Gregory Under Date of May 15, 1986 and Motion for Protective Order, June 16, 1986.

8607020261 860627 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR

~bs6x

e Motion to Compel: 2 burden for Applicants to identify documents that are the basis for their belief about the cause for the delay that prevented Applicants from completing their plant, in a condition where an operating license could be issued, by August 1,1985. Applicants need not respond concerning their lawyers' litigation plans. This 9should be treated as an interrogatory to plant officials and not to'their lawyers.

With respect to In'terrogatory 3, Intervenors are completely correct. Extensions of time are granted by the Board; not by the parties.

Applicants shall complete this list and serve it on counsel for Meddie Gregory by July 3, at the same time mailing it to counsel for CASE.3 Interrogatories 4-7 are the crux of Intervenors' case. It will be time consuming for Applicants to respond, but they shall be required to do so. The Technical Review Team findings were complex. Many of the findings appear to relate to matters already known to Applicants through various sources of information that suggest either directly or indirectly that deficiencies in the plant or in QA/QC existed. We are not persuaded that the CPRT plans to look at this information concerning the dates that Applicants first learned of TRT deficiencies.

Appli!. ants suggest that the CPRT may be examining such information, but we do not believe that there will be a systematic attempt to look at l

that data by the CFRT. If we are wrong about that, we wish to be corrected. In any event, the CPRT schedule is too slow for the demands of this case, which relates to a license for ongoing construction work.

Unless Applicants respond to discovery promptly on this side of the 3

Requiring express mail over the July 4 weekend does not appear to make sense.

l t

1

8 Motion to Compel: 3 case, our only tool for preventing the case from becoming moot will be to suspend the construction license for failure to comply promptly with discovery needs. To avoid this consequence, which no person involved in this proceeding wants to see, we urge Applicants to place necessary resources on these tasks promptly and to pro, duce information efficiently

~

and on schedule.

Interrogatory 7 should be interpreted to require that Applicants arrange their answer to Interrogatory 4 in the chronological order of which Applicants learned about individual TRT findings. For ease of expression, let us call the document or occasion of Applicant first learning of a TRT finding the First Notice of that finding. For each

First Notice, Applicants should reference any document that referenced that First Notice and that they or their agents or consultants created in response to a First Notice. Thus, after each First Notice that is listed chronologically, Applicants might state, "Not referenced in documents related to this question." If references do occur, Applicants should provide the citation.

j Applicants shall adopt an efficient schedule for Interrogatories 4-7 and share that schedule with the Board. The last day of each working week, CASE should receive 1/4 of the answers, until Applicants complete this task. An extension may be granted only if Applicants fully disclose their prior application of resources, their work plan and a reasonable schedule for completion.

The importance of Interrogatories 4-7 to this case is apparent. A l complete and accurate answer by Applicants could resolve the entire

( question of their dilatory conduct either in their favor or against them. Given the multi-billion dollar investment of Applicants and the strong public interest in oversight of the activities of nuclear power plant licensees, the information asked is consistent with Applicants' responsibility to account to the public.

We agree with Intervenors regarding Interrogatory 8. The good cause that is the subject of this proceeding is good cause for not

9 Motion to Compel: 4 having completed construction, including correction of deficiencies prior to August 1,1985. This interrogatory should be interpreted to request, among other things, all information Applicants now have concerning how their actions or inactions were responsible for this delay. Applicants may also list all t,he factors causing delay, including factors they consider to be beyond their control. All sections of the interrogat'ory should be answered.

The answer to Interrogatory 8 should be received by July 11, 1986.

We also agree with Intervenors about the production of documents.

All documents that refer to a listed document by citing it, being produced in response to it, listing it as a reference, or quoting from it should be cited and made available. If there is some specific hardship produced by this request, Applicants should state their hardship. For example, we would not require a search of all NCRs to find references to all documents. However, NCRs referenced in the documents obviously are not hard to find and documents relating to specific plant equipment may require a search of NCRs on that particular equipment.

! These documents shall be produced on a schedule analogous to that required for Interrogatories 4-7.

ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 27th day of June 1986 t

i e

Motion to Compel: 5 ORDERED:

Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. shall respond to the May 15 interrogatories of Meddie Gregory as directed in the accompanying memorandum. The scheduled dates for respon e are contained in indented sentences or paragraphs in,the accompanying memorandum. Extensions of time may be granted only for good cause.

FOR THE ATOMI SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

0. .

PeFer E'. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland

.