ML20077C091

Gsu Co Answer to Cajun Electric Power Cooperative 941107 Motion to Compel.* Requests Denial of Cajun Electric Power 941107 Motion for Reasons as Stated.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20077C091
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	11/17/1994
From:	Wetterhahn M GULF STATES UTILITIES CO., WINSTON & STRAWN
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#494-16007 93-680, OLA, NUDOCS 9411300320
Download: ML20077C091 (8)

Text

-. . - .-- . ,

8 00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UbhSC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LTQENB'ING BOARD 94 NDV 18 P3 :32 In the Matter of 0FFICE Of SECRE TARY

) 00CKEllNG & SERVICE

) BRANCH GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-458-OLA

) ASLBP No.93-680 (River Bend Station, Unit 1) )

GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY'S ANSWER TO CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE'S NOVEMBER 7, 1994 MOTION TO COMPEL Introduction On November 7, 1994, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (" Cajun") filed a motion to compel Gulf States Utilities Company ("GSU") to respond to certain followup discovery requests to Cajun Interrogatory 2 - 6 . I' GSU's position on such motion is contained in Gulf States Utilities Company's Objections to Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 's Folicwup Discovery Request dated October 24, 1994 and Motion for a Protective Order, dated October 28, 1994, which largely anticipated the arguments now advanced by Cajun. As discussed therein, such discovery requests are untimely, relate to matters outside the proper scope of followup discovery, are outside the scope of the one admitted contention and are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. GSU incorporates the arguments contained therein in response to the present Motion to Compel. GSU will therefore limit l' ' Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Follow-up Discovery Requests and Answer to Motion for Protective Order (" Motion to Compel").

g1300320941237 G ADOCK 05000458 PDR

[p)

l l

l l

l its response to correcting certain statements and responding to specific matters raised by Cajun.

1 Riscussion 1 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ruling with regard to followup discovery regarding Interrogatory 2.6 is set forth in the transcript of the October 4, 1994 '

prehearing conference at 34-35:

The ruling is that GSU is to give Cajun in ,

response to their interrogatory 2.6 the names '

and current affiliation of all Entergy, EOI, and EOI employees who attended meetings during i the period September 1993 through December 31, 1993, and to describe the aeneral subiect matter of those meetinas (emphasis supplied).

The Board also required GSU to identify "any meetings discussing I safety matters from January 1 to the present between concurrent EOI people operating the plant and GSU people . . . . " Prehearing Conference Tr. at 31-38.

Cajun complains at page 4 of its pleading that the River 1 I

Bend near and long-term performance improvement plans were not obtained by Cajun until October 21, 1994,2/ and implies that these

)

documents could not have been addressed by it earlier in the discovery process. Such an assertion is incorrect. Cajun, as co- 1 i

owner of the River Bend Station, has had copies of these two I

documents since their issuance. It has been given copies of every I l'

River Bend Nuclear Station Near-Term Performance Improvement Plan and River Bend Nuclear Station Long-Term Performance Improvement Plan.

I i

revision of these documents and has attended meetings concerning these reports. As co-owner, Cajun has had access to the information underlying these reports and the results achieved to date. Cajun should not be heard to complain that the subject matter of these programs involves information previously unavailable to it and is therefore proper followup discovery.

Cajun argues in its Motion to Compel at 5 that the 21 pages of single-spaced discovery requests!' are merely followup discovery. However, the Board's ruling, set forth above, indicates that the inquiry was limited in time, i.e., between September 1 and December 31, 1993 (and, thereafter, only as to l

meetings invo Lving GSU personnel) . The reference in GSU's response j I

to this inte;rogatory to the near and long-term programs was merely I to identify the general subject matter of such discussions between GSU and EOI personnel.l' The detailed followup proposed by Cajun is well beyond the scope of the original discovery contemplated by the Licensing Board's ruling.

Cajun cites the strategic goals of the near-term performance improvement program as indicating that this document is directly relevant to safety concerns.I' However, perusal of the three goals set forth in the Motion to Compel at 6 indicates that l'

Attachments B and C to its Motion to Compel.

E' GSU's response is set forth in Motion to Compel at 5.

l' Motion to Compel at 6.

-4 -

these are related to increasing performance beyond the levels that are necessary to comply with NRC regulations. These goals reflect EOI's reach for excellence in its operation of the River Bend Station, as opposed to achieving specific compliance with NRC regulations.

Cajun does not demonstrate in its Motion to Compel any relationship between this " followup" discovery and the admitted contention which relates to a decrease in the margin of safety because of operation by E01 rather than by GSU. Clearly, these programs demonstrate a quest for improvement in operation by EOI.

Cajun has not linked the new discovery requests with the admitted contention or its bases.

In its Motion to Compel at 9, Cajun appears to assert that GSU is reneging on promises to make plant documents available at the site. There is no basis for such an assertion. NRC inspection reports, one of the classes of documents to which reference is made, are not only available on site for Cajun representatives to review, but are also available at the NRC's Public Document Room in Washington, D.C. Cajun conveniently ignores the fact that it is sent a copy of all NRC inspection reports directly by the agency. Condition reports, the other type of document mentioned in the response, as well as other types of

records involving safe operation of the unit, are also routinely available to Cajun representatives at the site.s' Finally, while eschewing the fact that its motion was intender to require the production of thousands of documents ,2/

Cajun tacitly admits that responding to its discovery request would require the gathering and cataloging of a large number of documents and the provision of detailed information regarding each document.

This would be an undue burden on GSU, tantamount to requiring proditction of these documents at the station. Recponse to the discovery requests would require a significant expenditure of time and effort ar,d divert the very people tasked with implementing the improvemenic programs with no demonstrated relevance to the issue before the Licensing Board.

e' Counsel for GSU had forwarded a financial disclosure statement to the Licensing Board and parties on November 1, 1994 indicating that Cajun had ceased making payments to GSU related to the operating and maintenance costs for River Bend.

Despite such refusal, GSU bas continued to allow Cajun's representatives unescorted access to the site and access to all documents they have had previously available to them.

2#

Motion to Compel at 8-9.

l

ConclusiQD For the foregoing reasons, Cajun's November 7, 1994 Motion to compel should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, Mark J. etterhahn WINSTON & STRAWN 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-5700 Attorneys for Gulf States Utilities Company Dated at Washington, D.C.

this 17th day of November, 1994 l

l l

l l

DOCKETED  ;

USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'94 EW 18 P3 :32 In the Matter of )  ;

) Docket No. 50-45gf OLA.

flLt 0F GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY )  ;

) Re: License Ameggdthu, SECRETAR a RERVICE (River Bend Station, Unit 1) )- (Transfer of Ownership $P @NCnn

) Control)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

l I hereby certify that copies of " Gulf States Utilities l Company's Answer to Cajun Electric Power Cooperative's November 7, 1994 Motion to Compel" were served on the following, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 17th day of November, 1994:

B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Esq. Docketing and Services Chairman, Atomic Safety Branch-and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Marian L. Zobler ~

Dr. Richard F. Cole Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

Board Office of the General Counsel U.S Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Peter S. Lam James D. Pembroke, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Thomas L. Rudebusch Board Duncan, Weinberg, Miller &

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Pembroke, P.C.

Commission 1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 800  !

Washington, D.C. 20036

Victor J. Elmer Robert B. McGehee, Esq.

Vice President - Operations Wise Carter Child & Caraway Cajun Electric Power 600 Heritage Building Cooperative, Inc- . P. O. Box 651 10719 Airline Highway Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Baton Rouge, LA 70895 Office of the Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

idark J.(Metterhahn Winston & Strawn Counsel for Gulf States Utilities Company