ML19340D217

Response in Opposition to Citizens Association for Sound Energy (Case) 801201 Motion for Protective Order.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19340D217
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/16/1980
From:	Horin W, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8012290338
Download: ML19340D217 (6)

Text

-

December 16, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~_ '

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ]32 i ' -

17 e

In the Matter of ) $

) - '/

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 -

COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446 j

) 3 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) c' Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ,-

1 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CASE'S ~, [ , [

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER C -' ' --

.\  !

1!

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.730(c), Texas Utilities Generating Company, et. al. (" Applicants") hereby submit their response to the motion for a protective order filed by Citizens Association

1. or Sound Energy (" CASE"). CASE included that motion in its December 1, 1980, supplement to its answers to Applicants' August 1, 1980, interrogatories to CASE. For the reasons set forth below, Applicants urge the Atomic Safety-and Licensing Board (" Board") in the captioned proceeding to deny CASE's motion.

CASE'S MOTION IS UNNECESSARY CASE moves for a protective order to prevent disclosure of the identity of the workers at Comanche Peak who have made allegations to CASE regarding construction of the facility.

However, Applicants have not sought at this time through discovery the names of workers who might have made allegations po$ .

go m oo'n g 68[I G

I to CASE regarding construction practices at Comanche Peak.

Thus, there is no need for a protective order to prevent dis-closure of the names of those persons. Accordingly, the Board should deny CASE's motion as being unnecessary.

4 CASE makes this motion in the context of its response to interrogatory number 2 in Applicants' first set of interrogator-ies to CASE. That interrogatory seeks the bases for CASE's claims in Contention 5. As Applicants stated in their September 19, 1980, motion to compel CASE, the purpose of that interrogatory is to obtain the information CASE intends to use to support its position with respect to Contention 5. In other words, Applicants are seeking the substantive bases for CASE's claims.

See Applicants' motion to compel CASE at 9-10. However, CASE j apparently has interpreted interrogatory 2 as seeking the names of workers who made allegations to CASE regarding construction practices at Comanche Peak. In that Applicants seek only the information CASE relies on to support its position, i.e., CASE's substantive basis, and not the identity of persons who have directed CASE to that information, CASE's motion is unnecessary.

Further, Applicants are not now seeking the names of persons CAGS does not intend to call as witnesses or who do not them-selves provide information1/ which CASE will use to support 1/ See, e.g., Interrogatories 5 through 8 in Applicants' August 1, 1980 interrogatories to CASE.

l 1- . - , . . _ _ _ ...-__..._ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ . . . . - , _ . . . . - - . _ - . _

its position on Contention 5 at the hearings until CASE has decided to use such persons as witnesses or those persons have, in fact, provided such information. Accordingly, Appli-cants do not intend that its discovery requests be interpreted to seek the information which is the subject of CASE's motion for a protective order. Again, therefore, the protective order is unnecessary.

Applicants note, however, that CASE indicates in its response to interrogatory 2 that it intends to obtain informa-tion through the discovery process to support its position on Contention 5 (but evidently has not as yet done so), and may later decide to use some of the workers as witnesses. Con-sequently, Applicants expect, and CASE has correctly recognized, that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. {2.740(e) CASE will supplement its answers to the subject discovery requests to include (1) informa-tion CASE obtains during discovery which will serve as the

, substantive bases for CASE's position on Contention 5, and (2) l the identity of any witnesses which CASE plans to call with respect to Contention 5.2/

t l 2/ Applicants note that CASE would not be required to supple-ment its answer to Applicants' interrogatories on Conten-tion 5 if it is not named as lead party on the contention.

The Board is presently considering the positions on con-solidation filed by all parties on November 20, 1980.

l

4-CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants urge the Board to deny CASE's motion for a protective order as being unnecessary.

Respectf ' y su mitted, ae Nichola- S Reynolds rd A L a. p William A. Horin Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants December 16, 1980

,- - ,.4 -.,,.- ,y--. . - , .-c -y ., 7 f, y -,:-r- y ,-...-,, y--,,em - e - --,m, , e--.s.-- .*

l i

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al.

- ) 50-446

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify Response that Motion to CASE's copies for of the foregoing a Protective " Applicants' Order , in the

-above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons I

by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 16th day of December, 1980:

Valentine B. Deale, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1001 Connecticui Avenue, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director 305 E. Hamilton Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Datid .7. Preister, Esq.

, Board Assistant Attorney General l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection l Commission Division l

Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 12548 Capitol' Station

! Chairman, Atomic Safety and Austin, Texas 78711 l Licensing Board Panel i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Richard L. Fouke Commission CFUR Washington, D.C. 20555 1668B Carter Drive Arlington, Texas 76010

- Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay 701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services

! Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)

i Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102

! Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 4021 Prescott Avenue ~- Docketing & Service Branch Dallas, Texas 75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. 20555 President, CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 William A. Horin l

cc: Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

i

_ , . - . _ . _ _ __ _ . , . . _ . _ . .._.___.. . _ . _ ._.