ML20198Q781

Motion to Compel Responses to Intervenors 860515 Proposed Discovery Plan.Issuance of Order Compelling Applicants to Respond to Request for Interrogatories Urged.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20198Q781
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/02/1986
From:	Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#286-408 CPA, NUDOCS 8606090366
Download: ML20198Q781 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ - -

g op,o GCh#ove% Ar 7l, s-BEFORE THE i' l

UNITED STATES Q\h, ',

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\C $

h-Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Yf 9-h in the Matter of

)

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, )

_e t _a l . Dkt. Nos. 50-445-CPA

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unit 1)

)

MOTION TO COMPEL In their Respor.se to Intervenors' Proposed Discovery Plan, Applicants ma.Se

.ar that they do not intend to respond to the Consolidated Inc rvenors' discovery requests filed on May 15, 1

1986.

Applicants take one or all of the following indefensible positions in support of their refusal:

1)

Until this Board establishes a discovery schedule, no party is entitled to file and receive discovery responses from any other party.

Response

10 CFR y2.740 authorizes commencement of discovery after the 92.751a prehearing conference, which this Board held on April 22 and with respect to which it issued an order on May 2, 1986.

10 CFR yy2.7400 and 2.741 authorize 1

Responses to the interrogatories were due on May 29th, and responses to the request for document production will be due on June 16th.

0606090066 060602 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR

discovery by any party on any other party. See also 10 CFR v2.740(d). A discovery schedule (which focusses on ending dates) is not a prerequisite to discovery. See generally 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, para. IV.

2. Even if discovery is permissible, Applicants may refuse to comply with a discovery request if they believe answering discovery would be " unduly burdensome and potentially wasteful" (Response, p. 5).

Responses Commission regulations do not establish "self-help" as an acceptable defense to discovery. Refusal to respond i to discovery under v32.740b and 2.741 must be in the form of an answer with objections or a motion for a protective order under 10 CFR v2.740(c). Applicants have filed neither answers with l

objections nor a motion for a protective order.

3) Any time an appeal is filed from an order admitting a party and one or more contentions, discovery is automatically stayed because the appealing party might prevail and make the discovery unnecessary.

Response: As Applicants well know, the requirements that must be met to stay the effectiveness of any action by this Board are set forth in 10 CFR s2.788. See Opposition of Texas 1

Utilities Electric Company, et al. , to Request for Stay (2/13/86), pp. 4, et seg. Applicants do not purport to even 2

address those requirements, much less meet them.

l l 2 l

Since Applicants have disdained the Commission's procedures for objecting to discovery or seeking a stay of the effectiveness l

of the Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order, it should not Applicants' frivolous basis for refusing to respond to Consolidated Intervenocs' discovery is made all the more egregious by the unique facts of this case. Since Applicants already have the extension they seek and all efforts to stay its effectiveness have faiIed, a delay in responding to discovery by Applicants perpetuates their use of the improperly issued permit extension. Thus Applicants find it to their advantage to delay this proceeding. Such delay postpones the resolution of the issues involved here and allows Applicants to continue to

~

redesign, reinspect, and reconstruct this plant without regard to Consolidated intervenors' legitimate concerns about the propriety of the extension of time allowing such work to continue. This Board should, as it would were the parties' roles reversed, take swif t action to prevent Applicants from exploiting delay to their advantage.

We urge the issuance of an Order compelling Applicants to respond to the request for interrogatories within five (5) days of the order and the request for document production by June 16 or within five (5) days of the order, whichever is later.

De permitted to benefit from its deliberate conduct by now being allowed to file such documents. At this phase of the proceeding, Applicants' sole response should be limited to responding to this Motion to Compel.

l l

Respectfully submitted, ANTHONY Z. Sy BILLIE P. E Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, NW, #611 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 counsel for Meddie Gregory

/

ANITA ELLIS

y 426 S. Polk allas, TX 75224 (214) 946-9446 Representative for CASE Dated: Juae 2, 1986

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos. 50-445-CPA

-et.a l . )

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that intervenors' MOTION TO COMPEL were i

served today, June 2, 1986, by first class mail, or by hand where indicated by an asterisk, upon the following:

Administrative Judge Peter Bloch*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter h. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge. TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 ,

1 Nicholas Reynolds, Esq.*

Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 205S5 I

Stuart Treby, Esq.

Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.*

c/o Ropes & Gray 1001 22nd St., NW, #700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110

(

ANTHON Z R MAN

....