ML20050C421
| ML20050C421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1982 |
| From: | Raskin D HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | DOHERTY, J.F. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080485 | |
| Download: ML20050C421 (6) | |
Text
0.
m,. gym conRImGUS April 2, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY OMM S,S10Nqg BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
I!OUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket No. 50-466 a) g COMPANY
)
)
+
s (Allens Creek Nuclear
)
c
',2 ".
Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
[
gng q
IU
- 9) " ',iy em:,... 0?%
APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO DOHERTY'S
$$ k'# /
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 4
41 w
I.
Introduction.
Applicant objects to Mr. Doherty's requests for admissions dated March 23, 1982, on grounds that:
(1) they are untimely; (2) they are largely irrelevant to the issues before the Board and (3) they are extremely and unduly burdensome.
II.
Mr. Doherty's Discovery Is Untimely.
In its January 28, 1982, Order granting Mr. Doherty's request for additional hearings on TexPirg contention 31, the Board permitted the parties to undertake discovery in preparation for the additional hearings on April 12 through 16.
The Board directed that:
Any discovery shall be immediately initiated, and shall be timely com-pleted in order that the March 26th due date (for filing direct testi-mony] will be met.
(Board Order at 6).
In his March 10, 1982, Motion to postpone the upcoming hearings Mr. Doherty asserted that under the I
8204090485 820402 50 l PDR ADOCK 05000 G
t Board's Order he had until March 17 and 21, respectively, to file interrogatories and requests for-admissions.
This would give the parties only one week between the completion of all discovery and the beginning of evidentiary hearings.
In its March 18, 1982, Order denying Mr. Doherty's request for a postponement, the Board appeared to agree that, so long as he intended to use discovery solely in aid of his own cross-examination, Mr. Doherty could submit discovery under his own interpretation of the schedule.-*/
The Board denied Mr. Doherty's request for additional time to engage in discovery, on the grounds that the period already allowed, as Mr. Doherty himself reckoned it, was sufficient to complete this process.
Now, having failed in his attempt to obtain additional time, Mr. Doherty seeks to lengthen the discovery period by filing requests for admissions after the final date which he himself submitted to the Board.
Mr. Doherty should not be allowed, through this duplicity, to undermine the Board's March 12 Order.
The instant discovery is untimely by Mr.
Doherty's own admission.
III.
Mr. Doherty's Discovery Is Irrelevant.
The Licensing Board has reaffirmed and made clear that matters related to the design details of the South Texas Project
- /
Board Order, p.
2, n.
2.
l
k 9 are beyond the scope of the Board's upcoming consideration of
- /
~
Applicant's qualifications to build the ACNGS.
Almost all of Mr. Doherty's requests for admissions are devoted exclusively to 03 tails of Brown & Root's design of the STP and
- /
are therefore irrelevant to the ACNGS proceeding.--
- Moreover, approximately 60 of these requests ask whether the Applicant had prior knowledge of specific design problems cited by Quadrex.
As Applicant has already stated repeatedly, the Quadrex findings have not been verified and cannot be presumed to be correct.
Therefore, requests for admissions premised on the fact that these matters have been conclusively estab-lished, are not only irrelevant but also unanswerable.
Even if one assumes arguendo that Mr. Doherty's requests bear some relevance to this proceeding, answering them would be extremely burdensome (if not impossible) in the limited time remaining to prepare for trial.
In nearly every case which even colorably justifies a response, a definitive, sworn statement admitting or denying the truth of Mr. Doherty's request would require interviews with numerous employees of HL&P and its present and former contractors to ascertain the status of the STP design process over the pasc decade; a
- /
Conference Call dated March 31, 1982.
- /
Four of these requests seek admissions as to the authen-ticity of certain documents, and Applicant intends to respond to these as discussed below.
+
b
~
4_
task that would take months to complete.
In light of their lack of relevance, and their limited value to a consideration of the remaining issues, Applicant is not required to do the extensive and burdensome investigative work necessary to answer Mr. Doherty's requests.
(4A Moore's Federal Practice 133.20).
With respect to those 60 or so requests that seek an admission of knowledge about unverified design problems, Applicant's search for answers would, in any event, be unpro-ductive since the reviews of the Quadrex report are still ongoing.
IV.
Conclusion.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant objects to Mr. Doherty's requests for admissions numbered 1 through 159.
Despite their lateness and questionable relevance Applicant will, under separate cover, provide a timely response to requests numbered 160 through 163.
Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL:
Ad
/ A />#
Jack R.
Newman LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS &
David B.
Raskin AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20036 J. Gregory Copeland BAKER & BOTTS Scott Rozzell 3000 One Shell Plaza 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466,
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Objections to Doherty's Request for Admissions have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid or by hand delivery */ this 2d day of April, 1982.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Susan Plettman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David Preister, Esq.
Board Panel Texas Attorney General's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p.
O. Box 12548 Washington, DC 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Honorable Frank Petter Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, DC 20555 P.
O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Scott W.
Stucky Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Of fice of the Secretary of Board Panel the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
i James M. Scott, Jr.
Richard Black, Esq.
13935 Ivy Mount U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Commission Washington, DC 20555 William Schuessler 5810 Darnell John F. Doherty Houston, Texas 77074 4327 Alconbury Street Houston, Texas 77021 Stephen A.
Doggett, Esq.
P. O. Box 592 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 TexPirg Att Clarence Johnson Bryan L. Baker Executive Director 1923 Hawthorne Box 237 U.S.
Houston, Texas 77098 University of Houston Houston, Texas 77004 J. Morgan Bishop Margaret Bishop Carro Hinderstein 11418 Oak Spring 609 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77043 Suite 521 Houston, Texas 77002 W. Matthew Perrenod 4070 Merrick D. Marrack Houston, Texas 77024 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Wayne Pentfro P. O. Eox 1335 Brenda McCorkle Rosenberg, Texas 77471 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 V. O.
" Butch" Carden, Jr.
City Attorney City of Wallis P. O. Box A East Bernard, Texas 77435 b '73.kbdu' l
l l
[
l 1.