ML20138B411
| ML20138B411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1985 |
| From: | Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-759 OL-2, NUDOCS 8510150355 | |
| Download: ML20138B411 (38) | |
Text
g1bf4
@lLD conhtdrutvumcg 4
October 9, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- (3 [( f "/ l c ' ]f In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
)
)
(Application of (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' (1) RESPONSE TO CASE'S 9/1/85 REQUEST TOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND (2) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.741, Applicants herein respond j
to " CASE's Request for Document Production" filed in Docket-
\\
2 on September 4, 1985
(" CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery").
The discovery consists of thirteen pages of detailed requests for documents related to Applicants' management qualifications and organization, the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT"), Applicants' internal assessments of plant and licensing status, the SATETEAM, Cygna Phase IV, Comanche Peak contractors, Applicants' scheduling forecasts for the CPRT, Applicants' relationship with Management Analysis Corporation ("MAC"), and several other specific iacidents and issues.
0510150355Sggj@R 45 PDR ADOCK O PD Q
sob
J rirst, Applicants generally object to the discovery l
5 requests as a) unnecessarily and cumulatively requesting l
information that has been or will be provided to CASE in the l
context of Docket-1, b) requesting information on matters of I
no relevance to Docket-2 or to Contention 5, and c) dupli-cating previous requests already responded to by Applicants.
Applicants move pursuant to 10 C.r.R. 52.740(c) for an order 1
1 precluding this. discovery and future similar Docket-2 i
L discovery on management and the CPRT, given that such l
information is irrelevant to Docket-2 and that much of such information is being made available to CASE in the context l
t i
of Docket-1 by more efficient means than formal discovery.
J 1
Second, Applicants respond to the specific questions r
posed by CASE with specific objections.
If the Board does not grant a protective order precluding the discovery in its entirety, Applicants' move in the alternative for a protective order with respect to the specific requests on l
grounds that the requests are' individually properly t.
l objectionable as discussed in more. detail below.
I
't II. BACKGROUND i
CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery is largely a reformulation of informal requests submitted by CASE on May 28, 1985.
Those l
f requests, by letter dated July 3, 1985, were converted b'y i
CASE into formal requests and are referred to here as
" CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery."
Subsequently, CASE's 7/3/85 f
Discovery was the subject of a motion to compel-filed by l
l
3_
CASE in Docket-2 on July 29, 1985.1 Applicants responded to the discovery requests and the motion to compel in a pleading dated August 13, 1985, pointing to information already available to CASE with which to address the then-pending mootness question, or otherwise noting objections to the requests consistent with the Rules of Practice.
On August 16, 1985, the Licensing Board issued Memorandum (Current Status of Discovery)
(" Memorandum (Discovery)") establishing general principles governing the future conduct of discovery related to the Staff's Technical Review Team ("TRT") or the Applicants' CPRT.
Essentially the Board ruled that discovery with respect to these matters, or based upon "new information derived from those findings or this discovery process," is now "in order" if it "directly or indirectly" relates to Contention 5 (emphasis added).
Memorandum (Discovery) at 2.
Additionally, the Board ruled that discovery "about the comparatively recent reorganization of Applicants' management team shall be in order."
Id.
CASE in Docket-1 filed a substantial discovery r
-1/ " Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories riled July 3, 1985" (July 29, 1985).
2/ " Applicants' Response to CASE's Motion to Compel July 3, 1985 Discovery" (August 13, 1985).
Q-0 request apparently intended to address these matters on August 27, 1985.3 With respect to discovery pending at the time of the Board's Memorandum, the Board ordered that "[olutstanding requests that have not been responded to because of Board orders issued in 1985, shall be considered to be filed today and responded to anew."
Id. at 3.4 As will be discussed below, this order does not appear to apply to CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery and Applicants' August 13, 1985 reply.
With respect to future discovery, the Board suggested that parties attempt to cooperate to avoid " unduly...-
burdening the project," and " unduly delaying legitimate i
requests," and avoid " unnecessary technical disputes."
As will be discussed below, Applicants are attempting to do 3/ See " CASE's 8/27/85 Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Prcduce" (August 27, 1985) (" CASE's 8/27/85
~
Requests").
The time for responding to these interrogatories has been informally enlarged by communications between CASE's representative in' Docket-1 i
and counsel for Applicants.
At the same time, Applicants are attemptinq to work out a program for providing CASE with access to all of the output of CPRT without the need for formal discovery and without causing interruption and delay in the CPRT effort.
4/ By its reference to objections based on Board orders issued in 1985, the Board was referring to Memorandum (Motion for Protective Order), dated February 15, 1985; Memorandum (Case Motion for Evidentiary Standard), dated March 12, 1985; Memorandum (Case Management Plan), dated May 24, 1985; and Memorandum (Clarification of LDP 16), dated May 30, 1985.
i L
0 I
O 't exactly this with respect to CPRT discovery in Docket-1.
CASE, however, has failed to meet the intent of this order in its 9/4/85 Discovery.
III.
APPLICANTS' GENERAL ODJECTIONS Applicants have three basic objections to CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery in Docket-2.
Each of these objections is explained below, and serves as a basis for Applicants' motion for a protective order preventing the discovery and precluding future similar discovery in Docket-2.
A.
Objection 1:
CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery is Cumulative and Redundant r
First, Applicants object to CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery as l
cumulative to CASE's discovery in Docket-1.
It would be unnecessary, inefficient, and overly burdensome to require responses from Applicants to similar sets of questions in 4
both dockets.
Docket-2 was created by the Licensing Board in this proceeding to preside over a very narrow aspect of contention 5:
"all allegations of intimidation and harassment."
49 Fed. Reg. 13613, at col. 1 (1984).
Given that Docket-2 is only a subset of Docket-1, there should be no duplication of effort between the two dockets.
All subjects which are relevant to contention 5 (a subject to be discussed below), not involving allegations of harassment
1 and intimidation, are properly in the province of Docket-1 rather than Docket-2.
This result is unaffected by CASE's, i
or any party's, use of multiple counsel or representatives in this proceeding.
CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery, however, is clearly outside the narrow focus of Docket-2 and is cumulative to Docket-1 discovery.
Most of the ground covered in CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery has already been ploughed (quite thoroughly) in CASE's I
8/27/85 Discovery filed in Docket-1.
Applicants will be responding to some of those requests formally, and, with 2
l respect to the CPRT inquiries and requests, &re discussing with CASE means to supply such information on a less formal basis.5 This procedure has the advantage of providing CASE with ready access to information and of relieving Applicants of the burdens of preparing and filing multiple fo'emal responses.
Docket-1 therefore will provide CASE with all of the information there is (or will be) on CPRT.
To the extent CASE in Docket-2 seeks information different from that available to it in Docket-1, the burden should be on CASE to file focused and tailored requests and to demonstrate relevance to Docket-2.
- See, e.g., Allied-General fluclear i
Services (Bornwell ruel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-5/ See n.3, supra, p. 4.
I j
. 77-13, 5 NRC 489, 492 (1977).
The two-docket approach was initiated to foster efficiency in this proceeding, not to foster redundancy.
Cumulative document requests should be disallowed regardless of the fact that they are filed on separate dockets.
Finally, it should be noted that the Docket-1 CPRT discovery procedure is in full compliance with the Board's August 16 Memorandum (Discovery).
The Board there l
encouraged the parties to pursue discovery on a cooperative basis.
In Docket-1 tb4 parties are trying to do this.
i Applicants have or will make available information in such a
manner as will hopefully avoid " unnecessary, technical j
disputes about discovery."
i 8.
Objection 2:
CASE's 9/4/85 Requests are Irrelevant Second, Applicants object to CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery as generally irrelevant to the issues of Docket-2.
Docket-2 is an issue-specific docket.
It (and the presiding L(consing Board) were created to hear the issue of whether pervasive incidents of harassment, intimidation, and threats of quality control inspectors occurred at Comanche Peak.
See 49 red. Reg. 13613 (1984).
CASE's current Docket-2 discovery requests seek information that is simply not relevant to this issue.
E a
O Most eggregiously, much of CASc's 9/4/85 Discovery concerns the CPRT and Applicants' recent management changes.
i However, the CPRT and present management are irrelevant to 2
the merits of the Docket-2 proceeding.
In its June l
Management Plan,0 Applicants argued that Docket-2 is moot because the CPRT will render any past incidents of harassment, intimidation, or threats irrelevant to the issue of whether reasonable assurance exists, following implementation of the CPRT, that the plant can be safely i
operated.
After filing its Management Plan and advancing l
this argument. Applicants acknowledged that CASE was entitled to available information with respect to the CPRT
~
and Applicants' management changes in order for CASE to i
intelligently address the mootness argument.7 Applicants provided that information to CASE in both dockets.
- However, in the Board's August 29, 1985 Memorandum (Proposal for Governance of this Case) (" Memorandum (Governance)"), the i
Board rejected Applicants' argument that Docket-2,is moot.
See Memorandum (Governance), at 9.
Consequently, the status
[
of Docket-2 is not altered by the existence of the CPRT or the recent management changes.
The issue for Docket-2 still I
6/ " Applicants' Current Management Views and Management Plan r
for Resolution of All !ssues" (June 28, 1985).
~/ See,
- e. duly 3, 1985 Discovery," at 4-5 (AugustComper i, " Applicants' R 7
r 13, 1985).
[
O
. remains only the past events at Comanche Peak the docket was originally created to address - alleged incidents of harassment and intimidation occurring prior to July 1, 1984.
The recent CPRT, management changes, and the competence of cutrent management are irrelevant to that issue.
The Board recently issued Memorandum (Applicants' Motion for Modification) (October 2, 1984), deciding over Applicants' objections that " management" is a matter as to which the Board views that further evidence should be presented.
Nevertheless, Applicants maintain that if t
management is an issue under Contention 5, it is an issue in
l L
Docket-1 rather than Docket-2.
Docket-2 was created to include only one discrete, easily severable issue under the contention.
Furthermore, deficiencies identified in Docket-2 are technical matters to be addressed in Docket-1.
Discovery on the CPRT and the Board's concerns regarding management, therefore, if pending at all, should be strictly l
limited to Docket-1.
rurther, many other of CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery requests are irrelevant to Docket-2 and therefore objectionable.
For example, CASE seeks management speeches; documents on the status of licensing provided to owners, investors, and financial institutions; information concerning the SAFETEAM; communications between Applicants and various governmental officials; documents on CYGNA Phase IV; and various
, scheduling forecasts and cost projections.
CASE has
~
demonstrated no relationship between these requests and issues properly before the Board in Docket-2.
None of these matters is relevant to the past events alleged by CASE which are the subject of Docket-2.
Specific relevance objections are discussed in Section !v below, and in many cases were f
previously noted in Applicants' August 13 response to CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery.
In sum, CASE's far-reaching and I
irrelevant requests are properly objectionable.
It should i
be incumbent upon CASE, not Applicants, to weed through the excessive and irrelevant requests and focus them only on matters relevant to Docket-2 (if any) and on information not available to CASE through Docket-1 discovery.8 Applicants, j
accordingly move for a protective order.
t Finally, CASE's discovery in Docket-2 appears to be
)
excessive and irrelevant given the status of these proceedings.
CASE has conducted evidentiary depositions and the Board has held hearings.
CASE's direct case ha,s been 7
8/ The Commission itself has recognized that any possible benefits of broad-brush, far-reaching, or unfocused
~
interrogatories are clearly outweighed by the burdens of responding to such requests.
In the commission's
" Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings," CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 453 (1981), the commission suggested that "the benefits now obtained by use of interrogatories could generally be obtained by using a smaller number of better focused interrogatories."
CASE should be required to comply with this policy in Docket-2.
l
9
_11 L
completed, leaving only rebuttal to be heard.9 In light of this status, CASE's Docket-2 discovery should be limited to the relevant, narrowly defined, issues remaining for rebuttal.
e i
e C.
Objection 3: CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery is Duplicative Third, Applicants object to CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery as duplicative of CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery.
Even a quick comparison between CASE's two sets of requests will reveal that the September set is merely a renewal of CASE's 7/3/85 1
Discovery, plus only a few new questions.
CASE ignores that.
1 f
Applicants responded to the July requests in a pleading 1
dated August 13, 1985.
Discovery requests that are objectionable when filed the first time, are doubly so when filed twice.
This suggests either a failure of co' ordination l
by' CASE or an attempt to harass the Applicants through duplicative discovery.
Applicants are entitled to protection.
To explain, in Applicants' August 13, 1985 response to CASE's 7/3/05 Discovery, Applicants directed CASE to previously available information or objected to the requests consistent with the Rules of Practice.
Applicants contend 9/ The only matter in addition to rebuttal that remains piending in Docket-2 is the Lipinsky matter, which is a
~
Board concern.
_12 that objections stated therein generally remain valid.10 For example, in August Applicants noted that substantial information of the type requested by CASE in its requests was already available through the CPRT Program Plan, the CPRT issue-specific action plans, Amendment 55 to the FSAR, and in the context of other discovery responses filed by l
Applicants, and that this information was sufficient to address the then-pending mootness question.11 Now, the mootness issue is no longer pending before the Board and substantial additional information will be made available to CASE in the context of Docket-1 discovery.
There is simply **-
no need for information or other demonstrated cause to justify CASE's duplication and refiling of its previous requests.
Moreover, as is discussed above, much of the l
information sought by CASE in the Docket-2 discovery requests (both the 7/3/85 and 9/4/85 requests) is irrelevant to the merits of Docket-2.
This only aggravates the fact that the current requests are overly burdensome in, light of the ongoing Docket-1 discovery.12 l
f l
10/ Similar specific objections are restated in Section IV below.
11/ See, e.g., " Applicants Second Partial Response to Ripe 6fscovery Requests" (July 3, 1985).
12/ see also n.13, infra, p. 15.
l l
t m
- Likewise, the Board's August 16 itemorandum (Discovery) does not warrant or authorize a refiling of the 7/3/85 Discovery.
The Board order did not reject Applicants' objections to CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery, and did not require that responses be filed anew.
The Board's discovery order did only '.wo things:
first, it commenced discovery on the CPRT and on recent changes in Applicants' nuclear management, and second, it ordered that pending requests i
objected to by reason of Board orders in 1985 should be i
deemed to be filed as of August 16 and should be responded to anew.
The first point does not apply to CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery because, in effect, CASE's requests prematurely addressed CPRT and management questions.
Applicants responded prior to the Board's Memorandum (Discovery).
The second point also does not apply to CASE's 7/3/85 ' Discovery or Applicants' August 13 responses, because Applicants' objections were based on more than 1905 Board orders.
Objections were also based upon the gecunds of relevance and
'l burdensomeness.
In sum, the Board's Memorandum (Discovery) does not give CASE leave to refile its July 3 requests, does 1
f not provide grounds for ignoring %pplicants' objections thereto, and does not require Applicants to re-respond to tnose same requests.
i t
0
. IV. APPLICANTS' SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS In addition to Applicants' General Objections, the following are Applicants' specific responses and objections to CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery.
By necessity these responses in many respects parallel Applicants' previous responses to CASE's 7/3/85 Discovery.
Based upon the specific objections noted, Applicants move for a protective order.
Request No. 1 Request 1.
Management and job responsibility changes
~~ ~
a.
All internal documents relating to the structure of key management changes at Comanche Peak beginning January 1, 1979 until present including minutes of all meetings, minutes of briefings of the Board of Directors, the CEO, and other owners of Comanche Peak.
b.
All internal documents reflecting the actual changes in management at Comanche Peak, the basis for those' changes, and the justification of those changes given to the individuals involved including minutes of all meetings, minutes of briefings of the Board of Directors, the CEO, other owners of Comanche Peaks all the written explanations provided to the individuals removed, transferred, demoted, reassigned, or in any other way affected by management changes.
c.
All notes of conversations or summaries or descriptions of conversations since January 1, 1979 between NRC officials recommending or suqgesting any management changes, or any dissatisfaction with specific individuals performance or the attitude of management in general.
Response
These requests seek "all internal documents" and notes or summaries of communications with the NRC concerning Applicants' thought processes leading up to various l
i
4
- management changes at Comanche Peak beginning January 1, 1979.
Applicants object to these requests.
First, as discussed in Section III.B above, these requests related to management changes at Comanche Peak are irrelevant to Docket-2,13 The specific items requested have no bearing on whether or not the quality assurance program at Comanche Peak has in the past been undermined by pervasive incidents of harassment of quality control inspectors.
Second, insofar as the requests call for "all documents" spanning a period of over five years, the requests are overly vague and insufficiently specific to permit a response to be made.
See Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 34 (1976).
Request d.
A complete, up-to-date list, including'An organizational chart for all contract and sub-contract personnel now doing work on design and/or construction of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant.
This should be comprehensive to first line supervisors in both construction and quality assurance / quality control, whether or hot the work will be relied upon to meet regulatory requirements.
e.
A complete, up-to-date list of the present job of any person who was a witness for Brown & Root or Texas Utilities company in NRC operating license hearings or Department of Labor wrongful termination proceedings if, at the time they testified, were deposed, or provided 13/ Without conceding that management is rightfully a subject before the Doard in either docket, the point here is that even if relevant to Docket-1, the matter of present management is absolutely irrelevant to the discrete issues to be addressed in Docket-2.
I
-.a
4'
/
O t i
affidavits, they worked for any of the Applicants (i.e.
owners or contractors) or with subcontractors or consultants at the plant.
r 4
Response
These discovery requests are related to Applicants' j
management and personnel decisions.
The tequests are unfocused and unrelated to any specific allegations before the Board in Docket-2.
Applicants therefore object to the i
j requests.
See Section III.B, supra.
In addition, insofar as the requests relate to the CPRT, Applicants object on 4
j grounds that they are cumulative to discovery being
^
. conducted in Docket-1.
CPRT documents will be made
}
available to CASE in the context of discovery ongoing in l
that docket.
See section III.A, supra.
1 I
Request f.
All documentation, including contracts between Texas Utilities and any other company, setting forth the agreements which govern or control the assignment parameters of.all individuals identified in items a through f.
Response
First, Applicants object to this request as inappropriate in. Docket-2.
Docket-2 was created to include only a very narrow issue carved out from contention 5.
l There is no relationship demonstrated by CASE between the broad class of contracts sought and the specific issue of f.
harassment' subject to litigation in Docket-2.
Second, the i-4 s
1 i
f
.---..a.--
d 1
1 discovery is-duplicative of and redundant to other CASE i
discovery.. CASE has been provided with information on the 1
organizations,' personnel, and contracts related to the CPRT program in accordance with Applicants' commitment in
" Applicants Second Partial Response to Ripe Discovery Requests" (July-3, 1985), at 23.
To the extent not already provided, contracts between. Applicants and third-party' organizations performing work constituting a part of the CPRT Program Plan will be available to CASE in the context of Docket-1 discovery..
Third, Applicants object to this request insofar as it calls for "all documentation," on the ground that, so framed, the request is. overly vague and insufficiently specific to permit a response.
- Clinton, ALAB-340, 4 NRC at 34.
Request g.
-The job evaluations, performance ratings, letters of recommendation or, if appropriate, lettersoof resignation, and any other documents relevant to all personnel _ changes
-identified in Items a and c.
Where no~such-document exists
_but the substance of an evaluation, or the basis for a resignation of termination (transfer,.etc.) was prbvided in the contextLof a meeting, provide all minutes cr notes of those meetings.
Response
Applicants object to discovery.of internal personnel assessments, evaluations, recommendations, performance ratings and other similar documents.
As stated'in
" Applicants' Second Partial. Response to Ripe Discovery-i l
l:
4,.
,~
w.
,-n,
~
1
,s 01
.t,
N
- 3. -.
1 go
~
\\
Requests,"-(July 3,'1985), at 18, such information is confidential and irrelevant:to.the! Issues of this 4
i s
y, proceeding.' CASE has demonstrated no compelling need for 2,
y, _ r.
the.~infekmation which.would outweigh the employees' priva'cy i
interests.
a Request
'h.
I'n dddition to Items a-g'for=any other Applicant witness who has.given testimony, d_epositions, or affidavits, in.the_ proceedings identified'in section e above, identify-any-job or responsibility. change and provide:all documents F
relevant.to.the reason,for'and nature of the change.
j i
I
.__ i.
For each personnel change identified in any of the l
~
~
above: responses provide-the-new job description, or -
- ,/
. Y memorandum of.-instructions, detailing-the scope,of responsibility andLauthority;to-each individual.
Also
]
included in.this item is any memorandum, notas', etc.
1 generated ~by the incoming officialfsetting forth his/her r
understanding of thejjob and any-instructions, comments,
[
overviews, etc. generated by the.new: manager to his/her D
' subordinates.
i.
c'
[
p-j.
'.Any other' document which-bears on the~overall-
. personnel.and management: changes from January 1, 1979 to present.
.j j
i
Response
f
~ Applicants object to these' discovery requests regarding E
i t
personnel changes as-irrelevant to-the-issue of Docket,-2.
i See Section.III.B,: supra,.and Responses ~to Request'Nos.-.
f r
- 1. a. '--c., / s up ra. - In addition',-Applicants. object'to open-ended ~, unfocusedtdiscovery requests such as Request No..l.j.
,v
- assoverly broad and therefore1 excessively burdensome.
.i
.i
, Finally, Applicants. object-to these requests as.
- [
r*
i unnecessarily impinging'.upon.its employees' privacy.- See:
i n
Responsei.to1 Request No.-1.g.,
supra.
c
.i 4
)
t I
- \\p
~
j-
.(;
- q A.
. w., -. :- -
..~.-. -., _,_. _.~.. ;-
a, a ;., t, - - -.-- J,
1
. Request No. 2 Request 2.
Contracting documents.
All contracting documents between any of the Comanche Peak owners, themselves and other auditing, consulting, construction, or any other type of company related to construction of Comanche Peak.
Response
See response to Request No.
1.f.,
supra.
Request No. 3 Request 3.
Speeches to work force regarding organization and management Provide copies or notes of all speeches given by a.
Texas Utilities or Brown and Root management personnel to the Comanche Peak work force (or any group thereof), since January 1, 1979, including quality assurance / quality control, regarding organizational or management changes at Comanche Peak, including but not limited to Mr. Sp.ence's March / April 1985 speeches to the QC inspectors about the problems and status of the plant.
b.
For each communication provide the written record of that communication, any transcripts or notices of speeches or meetings, and all written records of the results of those communications.
Response
These requests seek information regarding speeches given by Texas Utilities or Brown and Root management to the Comanche Peak work force regarding organizational or management changes at Comanche Peak and " problems (at] and status of the plant."
Applicants object to these requests as seeking information irrelevant to the issue before the Board in Docket-2.
l l
i I
i \\
First, the specific communications to which CASE refers are not in controversy in Docket-2.
Management speeches related to management changes, " problems" at the plant, and the status of the plant are generally irrelevant to the F
question of whether a pervasive atmosphere of harassment, intimidation, and threats ever existed at the. plant.
Second, as discussed in Section III.B above, the issue of management changes is itself-irrelevant to Docket-2.
Docket-2 concerns only allegations of past incidents of harassment or intimidation.
Finally, with regard to any substantive information on " problems" at the plant and the
" status" of the plant that might be contained in any such speeches, the discovery is at best duplicative of previously available information in the main (technical) docket.
CASE has access to the CPRT Program Plan, the issue-spe'cific action plans, and SSER's Nos. 7-11.
Request No. 4 Request.
4.
Documents provided to work force.
All documents and/or information provided to a.
employees at any time regarding plant safety (not worker safety), federal regulations, and procedures for reporting plant safety violations or deficiencies.
Response
Applicants object to this request as overly broad.
The request could be construed to' encompass practically any instructions from management-regarding the plant.-
~
.m-
. Request No. 5 Request 5.
Documents regarding status and licensing of plant.
- a.. All; documents provided to the owners or stockholders of the owners which detail the status of the plant, problems at the plant, the status of licensing, and the changes being made to address those problems.
b.
All documents provided at meetings and documents of meetings between owners, stockholders,-investors, investments advisors, bankers or similar persons who have money invested in CPSES or are being encouraged to invest in CPSES which provide explanations about the status of licensing, problems at the plant, status of the plant, or management changes.
1 c.
All documents regarding scheduling and projections
, ~ ~ ' '
for construction including completion dates for Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 or portions thereof provided to or developed for the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel,.the Board of Directors of each of the Comanche Peak Owners, 'the. Security Exchange Commission, Stockholders Meetings, outside consultants, or Public Utilities Commission of the' State of Texas.
d.
All documents relating to the cost of correcting deficiencies in safety, construction, or design at Comanche Peak as well as costs of CYGNA audits (all phases), the Lobbin Report, the MAC Reparts,-the EBASCO audit, the INPO Audit, Southern Engineering Audits, analyses, Evaluations or Reports, and damage studies, Stone and Webster redesign and analysis work, and any other audits, analysis, repopts, evaluations of safety, construction, or design at Comanche Peak.
Response
Applicants object to'these discovery requests as specifically irrelevant.to Docket-2 and generally irrelevant to this proceeding.
Scheduling. projections for the CPRT have been.provided to CASE in the CPRT Program Plan and
~
issue-specific action plans.
Any additional internal
( '
scheduling forecasts and assessments of licensing status prepared by Applicants for planning purposes have no bearing on the issue'in controversy in Docket-2, or indeed in controversy under the entire contention 5.
- Likewise, Applicants' communications with owners, investors, investment advisors,.or bankers have no bearing on the issue of harassment, intimidation, and threats of-quality control inspectors, or on any other-issues of contention 5.
Finally, documents related to the cost of the CPRT, outside audits, and other remedial efforts are irrelevant to Docket-2 and irrelevant to contention 5.
The Board has previously
' refused to permit discovery which may constitute "a fishing 4
expedition for material relevant only to CASE's simultaneous appearance before the public utility commission."
Memorandum (Motions Related to'the MAC Report) (July 23, 1985), at 2.
The_ requests for scheduling and cost information would appear to fall within the Board's previous' restriction.
l
.~.
- 'aeque s t No. 6 Request 6.
SAFETEAM documents.
a.
All documents which relate to the basis for the removal or elimination of the ombudsman position, and any documents which recommend, justify, announce and or explain the replacement of the ombudsman program with the SAFETEAM.
b.
The contracts and agreements about the scope of work between the SAFETEAM and Texas Utilities Company and/or Brown and Root, Inc.
c.
All written information regarding how the SAFETEAM implements its program; methodology, instructions, training materials, forms used in interviews, interview checklists, etc.
d.
All material developed by the SAFETEAM about allegations of harassment, intimidation, threats or influence from any workers including allegations classified as regarding undesirable work conditions, safety problems and employee pay issues.
Response
These requests concern Applicants' discontinua' tion of the ombudsman position and the formation of the SAFETEAM.
Applicants object to the requests as irrelevant.
Neither the transition from the ombudsman to the SAFETEAM, nor the SAFETEAM program itself, is at issue under Contention 5.
Unless and until properly raised as an issue, discovery is inappropriate.
- See, e.g.,
Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-817, slip op. at 11-13 (September 6, 1985) (Mr. Moore, dissenting).
. In addition, as previously stated in " Applicants' Response to CASE's Motion to Compel July 3, 1985 Discovery" (August 13, 1985), at 10-11, Applicants are mindful of our obligation to supplement responses to previous discovery i
requests pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(e).
Therefore, Applicants' counsel have and will continue to review allegations received by the SAFETEAM to ascertain whether any information received by SAFETEAM concerns incidents of i
harassment and intimidation of10C inspectors alleged to have j
occurred prior to the July 1, 1984 cut-off date established in Docket-2 for allegations subject to litigation.
Any such
~
information received is reviewed to ascertain whether there l
is an; obligation to supplement previous discovery responses, and, if so, to provide the information.
4 Request No. 7 1
Request 7.
Status of licensing and scheduling documents.
~
including all written a.
All documents provided to,
- records of personal or telephonic communication or meetings with, the Department of Energy Task Force on Nuclear Energy relevant to comanche-Peak including the status of licensing, the hearings,.and the status of the construction of Comanche Peak.
b.
All documents provided-to,: including all written records of personnel or telephonic communication or meetings with, any person working at or.for the White House, including the cabinet level committee on energy issues, relevant to comanche Peak including the status of licensing, the hearings, and the status of-the construction of Comanche Peak.
I
c.
All documents provided to, including all written records of personal or telephonic communication or meetings with, the Department of the Treasury's Task Force on Nuclear to Comanche Peak including the status of Energy relevant licensing, the hearings, and the status of the construction of Comanche Peak.
d.
All documents provided to, including all written records of personal or telephonic communication or meetings with, Senator Thomas Bevill, Congressman Morris Udall, 1
Congressman James Bryant, Congressman James Wright, and any other members of Congress or the Texas state legislature or their staff, about the status of licensing, the hearings, and the status of the construction of Comanche Peak.
i All documents provided to, including all written e.
records of personal or telephonic communication or meetings with, Victor Stello and/or Harold Denton about the status of licensing, the. hearings, and the status of the construction of Comanche Peak, f.
All documents provided to, including all written records of personal or telephonic communication or meetings i
with William Dircks about the status of licensing, the hearings, and the status of the construction of Comanche 4
Peak.
g.
All documents provided to, including all written records of personal or telephonic communications or meetings with, any of the NRC Commissioners or'any member of their staff about the status of licensing, the hearings, proposed site visitations, and the status of the construction of Comanche Peak.
Response
These requests relate to hypothetical communications between Applicants and various governmental officials regarding the status of Comanche Peak.
Applicants object to these requests.
Communications (if any) between-Applicants and public officials regarding the status of the plant are irrelevant to this docket and this proceeding.
See also-response to Request No. 5, supra..
~
i r
i
,s
, Request No. 8 Request 8.
-TRT' evaluations.
a.
All documentation prepared by, or for, or under the control.of the.CPRT or CPSES that relates to review of the TRT findings, beginning-with any such documents generated in response to the September, 1984 letter from the TRT to TUEC on electrical problems, and including the october, 1984, November, 1984 and January ll, 1985 letters, and the subsequently issued SSER Nos. 7, 8, 9,
10 and 11 this includes all documents prepared.for or as a result of any meetings with any representatives of the TRT).
b.
All CPRT documents which address the validity, significance, and ger.eric impact of all the TRT findings.
Response
Applicants object to these requests as irrelevant to Docket-2 and duplicative of and redundant to Docket-1 discovery.
CASE has not demonstrated the relevance of any of this material to the narrow issue of Docket-2.
.In addition, CPRT information will be made available to CASE-in the context of Docket-1.
See Sections III.A and III.B,
-supra.
Request No. 9 Request 9.
CYGNA' documents ret QA/QC program.
All documents (including CPRT) which evaluate, report, assess, analyze or detail the CYGNA Corporation's Phase IV findings with regard to QA/QC-issues (i.e.,
CYGNA's finding.
that the cause of the-design review problem was with the reviewers, not the procedures, but couldn't explain why the reviewers, weren't doing their job), or CYGNA's inability to determine why the design document control system broke down.
I l
l E
. Response Applicants object to this request as irrelevant to the issue to be decided by the Board in Docket-2.
- Moreover, CYGNA Phase IV will be the subject of discovery in the context of Docket-1, making this Docket-2 discovery duplicative and redundant.
Finally, to the extent this request seeks CPRT information, it is duplicative of ongoing Docket-1 discovery.
Request No. 10 Request 10.
Contractor information.
a.
All documentation, including contracts between Comanche Peak Owners or other subcontractors (such as EBASCO) which defines the scope of the assignments of contract personnel who have been retained by the owner or any one of them to provide assistance of any sort in resolving QA/QC or hardware concerns identified by.the NRC--
i.e.,
all contractors hired after March 19, 1984 up to and including the present.
b.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of Daniels International at Comanche
- Peak, c.
The contract and all other documents relatbd to the scope of responsibility of Stone and Webster at Comanche Peak.
d.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of TERA Corporation at Comanche
- Peak, e.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of Evaluation Research Corporation at Comanche Peak, f.
The contract and all other documents related to the scope of responsibility of Monty Wise, Inc. at Comanche Peak.
l
-9
~28-The contract and all other documents related to the g.
- scope of responsibility of any other independent contractor and/or consultant at Comanche Peak, h.
All documentation that explains the relationship.
between all of the subcontractors identified in response to any question above'and Comanche Peak Owners.
Response
See. response to Request No.
1.f.,
supra.
Request No. 11 Request 11.
Scheduling forecasts.
All documents which contain scheduling forecasts'for
, ' ~ ~
- implementation of any reinspection or corrective action the program which were provided to outside consultants, Securities Exchange Commission, the Department of~ Energy, and bond broker or other investors, potential investors or investment-advisers the Board of Directors, other owners of Comanche Peak, any other government agency, or any state.or local officials or employees.
Response
Applicants object to this request as duplicative of Request Nos. 5 and 7.
In addition, as stated in response to those requests, the information sought is irrelevant to this proceeding.
Request No. 12 Request 12.
MAC Report Copies of all-contracts between MAC and Applicant a.
or any of its subcontractors, beginning in 1976.
b.
Copies of all documents reports, audits, analysis, letters, correspondence, etc. provided by MAC to Applicant i
or any.of its contractors.beginning in 1976.
a f
-O
. These include copies of the MAC audits of Brown and.
Root QA Program referred to in BN 85-076, Aug. 16, 1976.
c.
.The notes, records, logs, memorandums of Mr. Andrew S.
Jones, senior auditor of TUSI.
d.
Produce and identify all other "outside perspectives", which TUGC0 or any of its managers received on Comanche. Peak, regardless of whether or not TUGCO intended to rely upon the review to meet NRC regulatory requirements.
Response
Applicants object to these requests on two grounds.
First, audits performed for Applicants by MAC, and requests apparently regarding discovery"of the MAC Report in Applicants' files (Request No. 12.c), are irrelevant to Docket-2.
Second, the discovery sought here by CASE is duplicative of discovery being conducted in the context of Docket-1 under supervision of the Licensing Board.
- See, Memorandum (Motions Related to the.MAC Report') (July e.g.,
22, 1985); " Applicants Responses to CASE's Interrogatories the MAC Report and Issues Raised by the MAC Report,"
re:
(August 12, 1985); Letter to Board from R. A. Wooldridge (September 16, 1985) (regarding reports prepared by MAC for Brown and Root).
The Board has acknowledged that there-are many issues to-be resolved in this proceeding, and.that Comanche Peak will as a result be delayed.
Memorandum (Governance), at 9.
In light of this fact, CASE should not ime. entitled to duplicate-efforts with respect.to this matter.
. Request No. 13 Request 13.
T-Shirt Incident / Electrical QA/QC Produce all documents developed since 1 July 1984 regarding the T-Shirt incident, or the Post Construction Verification Task Force, including any further investigations into destructive examinations, or an explanation for the lack thereof.
Include any review of the implications of this matter on the work force.
Response
Applicants have provided CASE with information related to this matter in response to discovery requests.
- See, e.g., " Applicants' Response to CASE's Seventeenth through Twentieth Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" (April 5, 1984), at 3-8.
CASE has conducted evidentiary depositions and the Board has conducted hearings addressing this matter.
Applicants have updated previous responses to Docket-2 discovery by providing supplemental documents and open investigation files related to alleged incidents of harassment and intimidation which occurred prior to July 1, 1984.
- See, e.g., " Applicants' Memorandum Regarding#
Supplemental Document Production" (May 29, 1985).
In sum, CASE has had more than ample opportunity to conduct discovery on the T-shirt incident, and discovery is, or should be, closed.
To the extent Applicants become aware of additional information which, pursuant to 10 C.F.a.
l
b l
5: 2.740(e), gives rise to an obligation to supplement prior 4
responses, Applicants will provide that ~information.14 Request No. 14 Request 14.
Liner Plate /QA/QC Produce the results and all bases of the'TUEC
~
i a.
investigation / inspection into the liner plate documentation breakdown announced in December 1984 during the testimony of C. Thomas Brandt.
b.
Produce all documents developed since 1 July 1984 regarding the liner plate.QA/QC breakdown.
i
Response
See Response to. Request No. 13, supra.
In addition, to the extent this-request seeks-information that may be generated by the CPRT as part of the' technical resolution of liner plate issues, Applicants object on the grounds that i
the discovery is irrelevant to Docket-2. LThe' Docket, as i
' defined in the FederalERegiste'r notice, covers only allegations of harassment and intimidation'..
See~Section 1
The technical liner plate issues should be 4
1 III.8, supra.
~
' addressed in Docket-1.
Moreover, this discovery is 4
i -
cumulative-to' Docket-1 CPRT' discovery.
CASE.has received information on the CPRT and will have access to CPRT-i 1-14/;In addition,::to thefextent this requestlis interpreted I
by CASE to seek attorney notes and similar documents,.
Applicants object on grounds of attorney-client and 4
attorney work-product privileges.
l-
)
~
documentation as that organization resolves specific technical matters such as liner plates.
See Section III.A, supra.
CASE does not need further liner plate discovery in Docket-2.
Request No. 15 Request j
15.
Paint Coatings /QA/QC Produce all documents' related to the analysis of a.
the paint coatings /QA/QC program, and the failure of the paint coatings QA/QC program to detect programmatic deficiencies.
b.
Produce all documents related to the analysis of the QA/QC management, including but not limited to the handling of the concerns of Messrs. Bill Dunham, Bob Hamilton, and Cory Allen.
Response
i Applicants object to these requests on three grounds.
First, to the extent the requests seek information on 4
technical paint / coatings issues, the requests are irrelevant
~
2 to Docket-2 (technical issues are outside the mandate of Docket-2) and are duplicative of Docket-1 CPRT discovery-(the CPRT.is the subject of discovery currently ongoing in
~
Docket-1).
Second, to the extent the requests-seek information related strictly to harassment, intimidation, and, threats, the discovery is untimely.
CASE had an opportunity over a year ago to pursue discovery and conduct 15/ See n.14, supra, p. 31.
=
depositions-related to the allegations involving coatings (Messrs. Dunham, Hamilton, Allen and Krolak), and the Board has conducted hearings on coatings.
The opportunity for discovery has long since concluded.
The Board's August 16, 1985 Memorandum'(Discovery) does not reopen discovery on matters related to quality assurance for paint.
- Third,
-Applicants object to discovery "related to the analysis of QA/QC management" (Request No. 15.b).
Applicants' management competence is not an issue before the Board in Docket-2,16 The discovery request therefore is irrelevant.
4-
.See Section III.B, supra.
i Recuest No. 16
-Request 16.
Harassment and Intimidation i
Produce all documents which detail the disposition a.
l of the allegations of harassment and intimidation of both craft and QC personnel.
i
.b.
Update all past discovery requests (re: harassment and intimidation) to include the same information Eor craft
-personnel'(including but not limited to documentation personnel).
c.
-Produce all documentation which analyzes the harassment and' intimidation concerns of any worker.for l
management (CPRT or CPSES).
I
-16/ Without conceding that management is. rightfully a subject before the Board in either docket,othe point l
here is that even if relevant to Docket-1, the matter of j
present management competence and the recent management changes is irrelevant to the discrete issue to be heard i
and decided in Docket-2.
L
Response
First, Applicants object to these requests for "all documents" as unduly broad and insufficiently specific to allow an appropriate response.
Second, Applicants object to these requests to the extent the requests seek information concerning allegatiens of harassment and intimidation of craft personnel.
Allegations with respect to craft personnel are not within the scope of the Docket-2 proceeding.
Tr. 13,919-20; 13,938 (June 14, 1984).
- Third, Applicants have previously updated discovery responses with respect to allegations of harar,sment, intimidation, and threats which may have occurred prior to July 1, 1984.
See Response to Request No. 13, supra.
To the extent Applicants become aware of information which, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(e), gives rise to any further obligation to supplement response: to discovery with respect to incidents prior to the cut-off date, Applicants will provide that information.
Fourth, Applicants object to Request No. 16.c as unintelligible.
Finally, Applicants object to Request No. 16.a to the extent it seeks attorney notes or other similar documents on grounds of privilege.
i i
V.
CONCLUSION i
For the reasons stated above, Applicants move for a l
protective order precluding CASE's 9/4/85 Discovery in its i
entirety.
In addition, Applicants seek an order prohibiting i
any future Docket-2 discovery on matters related to the CPRT j
and management changes at Comanche Peak.
These issues are l
outside the scope of Docket-2 and are in any event the subject of thorough CASE discovery in Docket-1.
Fina'lly,-in i
)
i I
U I
i 1
i 1
t I
l 1
s j
I 4
i 4
4 4
1, l
i 4
l
, _., _ _ ~ -, _, _., - _, - -.... ~,. _, _, _ - - _.. _ _. _ -. _, -
the alternative, Applicants individually object to the specific discovery requests and move for a protective order with respect to each request separately.
Respecff ly submitted, s
yklf/
t t.
Nicho.L$b S.\\ Reynolds WilliaW A.lforin David Repka BISHOP LIB,{RMAN, COOK, PURCELLM REYNOLDS Seventeenth Street, t'. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9817
~
Robert Wooldridge WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS
& WOOLDRIDGE
'2500 - 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Thomas G.'Dignan, Jr.
R.K. Gad III ROPES & GRAY 225 Franklin Street-Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 counsel for Applicants October 9, 1985
r 2.
ltE1ATED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
LICENSINGBOARh E ' 70 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND t
i In the Matter of
)
) Docket Nos. 50-445-2, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
)
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' (1) Response to CASE's 9/4/85 Request for Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Protective Order" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by express mail (*) or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on the 9th day of October, 1985, or by hand delivery (**)
on the 10th day of October, 1985.
- Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire chairman, Atomic Safety Chairman, Atomic Safety and and Licensing Appeal Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
29555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan William L. Clements 881 West Outer Drive Docketing and Service Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Branch U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission Dean, Division of Washington, D.C.
20555 Engineering, Architecture and Technology
- Stuart.A. Treby, Esquire Oklahoma State University Office of the Executive Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
I ler o Chairman, Atomic Safety Mr. James E.
Cummins and Licensing Board Resident Inspector / Comanche Panel Peak Steam Electric Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory c/o U.S.
NRC Commission P.O. Box 38 Washington, D.C.
20555 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Renea Hicks, Esquire
- Anthony Z.
Roisman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Trial Lawyers for Public Environmental Protection Justice Division 2000 P Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 12548 Suite 611 Capitol Station Washington, D.C.
20036 Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis Lanny A.
Sinkin President, CASE 3022 Porter Street 1426 South Polk Street Suite 304 Dallas, Texas 75224 Washington, D.C.
20008
- Ms.
Billie P. Garde Joseph Gallo, Esquire-Citizens Clinic Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Government Accountability Suite 840 Project 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Suite 202 Washington, D.C.
20036
- Herbert Grossman, Esquire
- Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Alternative Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
<dD L David A.
Repka 1
cc:
John W.
Beck Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
!