ML20215B283

Objections to Deposition Notices & Subpoenae Duces Tecum & Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20215B283
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/05/1986
From:	Gad R ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20215B286	List: ML20215B283 ML20215B324
References
CON-#486-1845 OL, NUDOCS 8612120101
Download: ML20215B283 (78)

Text

r Filed: Deceober S. 1966.

trM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED US!RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GFFEE 0~ " . ' A:

GOCM T o. h' :1 B R.h

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 - Ob TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446- dG-COMPANY et al. )

) (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION NOTICES AND SUBPOENAE DUCES TECUM AND MOTION TO QUASH Pursuant to 10 CFR sec. 2.720(f) and any other applicable provision of law, the Applicants, the witness, or both object to the notices of deposition served with respect to depositions, and to the requests for the production of documents contained therein, and to the subpoenae duces tecum issued and served (if served) upon j the witness, all as more specifically set forth herein. If and to the extent required under the Commission's Rules of Practice to preserve and enforce these objections, the Applicants move that the notices of deposition or subpoenae j duces tecum be quashed, or that a protective order be issued.

G bob l

L J

r r Michael D. Spence Documents; The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . ., " on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witneas on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii) describe the item (in the case of items consisting of 8All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the l possession of the witness by virtue of his employment by i the Applicants. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these l

documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

c ,

t r events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); fand! financial statements" on the ground that such documents h n n- no rational ennnection to the act equa c y of the CPRT Procenm Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, '98C.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, i f and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as.a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this objection have previously been made available for

I ,

inspection by CASE,gand calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of th" in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the gr .rul that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, a ,

indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the second enumerated class of documents to the extent that the phrase " adequacy of the CPRT" was intended to mean anything other than " adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan," on the grounds that, if more broadly intended, such a request would be beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986. In particular, the Applicants and the witness do not believe that the Board intended to consider pre-Program-Plan-implementation litigation of the training, education, experience or other aspects of the individuals involved in that implementation.

Applicants and the witness further object to the third enumerated class of documents on the ground that it e .-

fails to describe the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient-notice of what the witness is required to produce.

Deposition:

Insofar as CASE may propose or attempt to propound questions to the witness during the noticed deposition calling for disclosure or evaluation of uncompleted CPRT implementation, the Applicants object to such discovery and request a protective order precluding the same.

I f  !

I t

e .

William G. Counsil Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii) describe the item (in the case of items consisting of

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his employment by the Applicants. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

. 7 _

i .

events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The. Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as.a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this objection hcVe previously been made available for i

l l l i

l l

l

r .

inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request (including but not limited to so much of the ninth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought as is framed in terms of "[a]ny other matters with respect to . . . in plementation of the program") to I

the extent that it calls for the production of documents  ;

created during or as a result of the in-process

. implementation of the CPRT program, on the grounds that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes, i

l l

i ~_ _ _ ._ _ __ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ .

e .

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 198G, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the first enumerated class of documents as refers to "or his staff.' Mr. Counsil is the Executive Vice President - Nuclear of the lead applicant and its senior nuclear official. As a consequence, in the absence of any qualification, the term "his staff" read literally could include each and every employee of the lead applicant presently engaged in the construction, design, testing or support of CPSES.

The Applicants _and the witness'further object to'the third enumerated class of documents of which production is-sought on the ground that "[t]he process through which TUEC implements-10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, responsibilities" is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT_ Program Plan to accomplish its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August IP and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the fourth and fifth enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought insofar and to the extent that these requests call for information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that~ implementation is not relevant to plan adequacy and on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the sixth enumerated set of documents on the ground that "[t]he process by which the CPSE'S project tracks and trends all identified deficiencies, deviations, design observations of

'unsats'" has no relevance to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to achieve its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized oy the Board l

l

on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the seventh enumerated class of documents of which production is sought in that it. formation regarding internal CPRT personnel matters relates to the' ongoing, in-process implems."tation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that implementation and personnel matters are not relevant to plan adequacy and on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes. Applicants further object to this request on the ground that they have no intention of calling Mr. Wise to the witness stand, and the request therefore impermissibly seeks discovery relating to a "non-testifying" expert. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the eighth enumerated class of documents as is framed in terms of "the selection and evaluation process of ERC as the third-party reviewer," on the ground that the quoted phrase is not comprehensible and therefore fails to identify the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c). To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to refer to the process by which ERC was selected by CPRT, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the grounds that it relates to CPRT personnel matters and is therefore not relevant to plan adequacy. To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to be a blanket request for information regarding implemention by ERC of CPRT functions, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the ninth enumerated class of documents on the grounds that

"[a]ny other matters with respect to . . .," is overly vague and fails to identify the documents of which production is with the specificity required by the Rules of Practice.

Deposition:

Insofar as CASE may propose or attempt to propound questions to the witness during the noticed deposition calling for disclosure or evaluation of uncompleted CPRT implementation, the Applicants object to such discovery and

request a protective order precluding the same.

John W. Beck Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii) describe the item (in the case of items consisting of

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his employment by the Applicants. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state). .

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for'the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection '.o the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and.the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad

- requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this objection have previously been made available for l:

inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request (including but not limited to so much of the first request as calls for documents in respect of

"[h]is responsibilities as chairman of the Senior Review Team, including but not limited to the interface between himself and TUEC officials" and so much of the ninth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought as is framed in terms of "[a]ny other matters with respect to . . . implementation of the program") to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing,

J in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object,to the production of any documenta. prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the~ extent that'it.would call for the production s

of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the third enumerated class of documents of which production is sought on the ground that "[tihe process through which TUEC implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, responsibilities" is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to

. o accomplish its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the sixth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that the language of this request is intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation of the process, as opposed to the structure of the process as created and described in the CPRT Program Plan.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the eighth enumerated class of documents as is framed in terms of "the selection and evaluation process of ERC as the third-party reviewer," on the ground that the quoted phrase is not comprehensible and therefore fails to identify the documents of which production is sought with the spe<:ificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c).

The Applicants and the witness further object to the ninth enumerated class of documents on the grounds that

"[a]ny other matters with respect to . . .," is overly vague and fails to identify the documents of which production is with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c).

i7

~ Deposition:

Insofar as CASE may propose or attempt to propound questions to the witness during the noticed deposition

-calling for disclosure or evaluation of uncompleted CPRT.

implementation, the Applicants object to such discovery and request a protective order precluding the same.

John L. Hansel Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. -

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii)

• All of the documents soughu by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as a CPRT Review Team Leader. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

describe the item (in the case of items consisting of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion'about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this 22 -

objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request (including but not limited to so much of the first request as calls for documents in respect of

"[t]he responsibiJities and tasks Mr. Hansel has now and has had regarding the . . . implementation of the CPRT program" and so much of the fifteenth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought as is framed in terms of "[alny other matters with respect to . . .

implementation of the program") to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object

to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 198G, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the third enumerated class of documents of which production is sought on the ground that "[t]he process through which TUEC implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, responsibilities" is I

not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to accomplish its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the second enumerated class of documents of which production is sought on the grounds (i) that events that may have occurred or may be alleged to have occurred at the Braidwood facility, and any issue.of fact regarding the same, is irrelevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to achieve its purposes and therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986; (ii) that the matters referred to are wholly collateral to the issues that may properly be litigated under Contention 5 in this proceeding, and therefore not reasonably calculated to do another other than to burden these proceedings with a potentially endless litigation of the adequacy of the Braidwood facility; and (iii) that the request, framed in terms of alleged flaws identified by unknown persons or organizations fails to designate the documents requested with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c).

The Applicants and the witness further object to the fourth enumerated class of documents of which production is

sought. The formulation of " homogeneous work activities" and the development of hardware populations that would meet the criteria set forth in the CPRT Program Plan is a specific Program task, which is to be reported upon when completed and the documentation regarding which will be contained in the Working File for Action Plan VII.c and available for inspection and copying upon the completion of that Action Plan. This request is a blatant attempt to obtain in-process discovery of CPRT implementation, in contravention of the prior rulings of the Board and the principles previously articulated by the Applicants in opposition to in-process discovery. In addition, insofar as it calls for discovery of ongoing, in-process CPRT activities, this request impermissibly invades the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants further object to the fifth and sixth enumerated classes of documents of which discovery is sought, for the same reasons as are set forth above in respect of the fourth class of documents.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the ninth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought on the ground that "[t]he process through which TUEC implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, responsibilities" is l

l I

1

\

not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Protram Plan to accomplish its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the twelfth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that the language of this request is intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation of the process, as opposed to the structure of the process as created and described in the CPRT Program Plan.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the fourteenth enumerated class of documents as is framed in terms of "the selection and evaluation process of ERC as the third-party reviewer," on the ground that the quoted phrase is not comprehensible and therefore fails to identify the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c). To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to refer to the process by which ERC was selected by CPRT, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the grounds that it relates to CPRT personnel matters and is therefore not relevant to plan adequacy. To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to be a

blanket request for information regarding implemention'by ERC of CPRT functions, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the fifteenth enumerated class of documents on the grounds that

"[a]ny other matters with respect to . . .," is overly vague and falls to identify the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c).

Deposition:

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Hansel, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Hansel is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain

.of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Hansel is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.

o ,

Ilansel at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

i l

i.

i r

Terry G. Tyler Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii)

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as the CPRT Program Director. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

- 30 -

describe the item (in the case of items consistlng of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

tecounting(s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this

o .

objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request (including but not limited to so much of the first request as calls for documents in respect of

"[t]he day-to-day operation of the CPRT program" and so much of the ninth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought as is framed in terms of "[a]ny other matters with respect to . . . implementation of the program") to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the grounds that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program,

on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the third enumerated class of documents of which production is

, sought on the ground that "[t]he process through which TUEC implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, responsibilities" is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to accomplish its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope 4

1 1

_ -. - - . - , , .- - _ ~ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - , _ _ . - . _

of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and.

19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the eighth enumerated class of documents as is framed in terms of "the selection and evaluation process of ERC as the third-party reviewer," on the ground that the quoted phrase is not comprehensible and therefore fails to identify the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c). To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to refer to the process by which ERC was selected by CPRT, the Applicants an.! the witness further object to it on the grounds that it relates to CPRT personnel matters and i therefore not relevant to plan adequacy. To the exte r.t . if any, that this request was intended to be a blanket request for information regarding implemention by ERC of CPRT functions, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the ninth enumerated class of documents on the grounds that

"(a]ny other matters with respect to . . .," is overly vague and fails to identify the documents of which

production is with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c).

Deposition:

Insofar as CASE may propose or attempt to propound questions to the witness during the noticed deposition calling for disclosure or evaluation of uncompleted CPRT implementation, the Applicants further object to such discovery and request a protective order precluding the same.

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Tyler, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Tyler is the CPRT Program Director and is responsible for the implementation of certain actions under the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Tyler is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in

. anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program). Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr. Tyler at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

John P. Streeter Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness-is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii)

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as the Chairman of the CPRT OQT. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less stnnding to object to improper requests than doe = th?

witness.

- 3G -

describe the item fin the case of items consisting of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and ,

attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this

objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request (including but not limited to so much of the ninth enumerated class of documents of which production is sought as is framed in terms of "[a]ny other matters with respect to . . . implementation of the program") to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the grounds that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation

. e processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object the first and second enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that these enumerations are intended to refer to the implementation of the CPRT Program, including the OQT program.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the third enumerated class of documents of which production is sought on the ground that "[t]he process through which TUEC implements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, responsibilities" is not relevant to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan to accomplish its purposes and is therefore beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and.the witness further object to so much of the fourteenth enumerated class of documents as is framed in terms of "the selection and efaluation process of ERC as the third-party reviewer," on the ground that the quoted phrase is not comprehensible and therefore fails to identify the documents of which production is sought with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec. 2.720(a) and 2.741(c). To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to refer to the process by which ERC was selected by CPRT, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the grounds that it relates to CPRT personnel matters and is therefore not relevant to plan adequacy. To the extent, if any, that this request was intended to be a blanket request for information regarding implemention by ERC of CPRT functions, the Applicants and the witness further object to it on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the

. o ninth enumerated class of documents on the grounds that

"[a]ny other matters with respect to . . ., " is overly vague and fails to identify the documents of which production is with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c).

Deposition:

Insofar as CASE may propose or attempt to propound questions to the witness during the noticed deposition calling for disclosure or evaluation of uncompleted CPRT implementation, the Applicants object to such discovery and request a protective order barring the same.

h I

.s I

1

-- - ,, . . _ . - - . , , .,..n, , , - - , . . , . , - . , , - , , - - , . - - _ _ , . - --.. - --.--~ - . - . - , , . - - ,

o .

Ed orabazon (Head of the SSEG)

Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terus of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of

'All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as the Deputy Program Manager under the Quality of Construction Program with responsibility for the SSEG function under Action Plan VII.c. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

42 -

items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii) describe the item (in the case of items consisting of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object.to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; .. .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized oy the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or i

QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this objection have previously been made_available for inspection by CASE,fand calling for them again' is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition un' duly. burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each 4

and every request (including but not limited to so much of the first enumerated class of documents'of which production is sought as is framed in terms of "[t]he implementing procedures and process used for evaluating the safety significance of . . .") to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that implementation of the CPRT program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery author.ized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to-the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that such

- 44 -

,_ _-, __ , _--- __~. ,_, _ _ - _ . . ._

requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 198G, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object the second enumerated class of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that this enumeration is intended to refer to the implementation of the CPRT Program, including the OQT program.

Deposition:

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

_ _ ~

• e Brabazon, whether by deposi tkon or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Brabazon is responsible for the implementation of certain activities under the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Brabazon is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to. testify as a witness (which designation will' depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the, completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.'

Brabazon at this time and in this manner is therefore s

inappropriate.

4

+

s. .

James E. (" John") Rushwick*

Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and

'The subpoena and notice of deposition are styled as directed to " John Rushwick." Since we know of no " John Rushwick," we assume the intended reference was to James E.

Rushwick, though CASE's access to all of the Program Plan materials makes the assumption of a simple error a bit presumptuous.

• 'All of the documen.ts sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as a CPRT Review Team Leader. As a consequence, attempts to

( obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

I l

l

will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii) describe the item (in the case of items consisting of events), or (iii) cxplicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consis' ting of a character, quality or state).

The App,licants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this' witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

i i

s a The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the first, second and fifth enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that these requests are intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation of the CPRT Program Plan, including the Testing Action Plans contained in Appendix C thereof, on the ground that, for the reasons set forth, such requests would be beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19,

{

1986, and amounts to attempted in-process discovery of the CPRT Program implementation that the Board has previously declined to authorize. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Rushwick, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Rushwick is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Rushwick is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. lie has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program). Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr. Rushwick at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

l l Deposition:

l The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

l

Rushwick, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Rushwick is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Rushwick is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.

Rushwick at this time and in this ma.2ner is therefore inappropriate.

l l

l

John J. Ma11anda Documents:

The witness and the Applicants' object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . ., on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not'otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii)

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as a CPRT Review Team Leader. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

describe the item (in the case of items consisting of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially give.1 that tia balk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground tl t such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

l The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives I

(

(including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, ]

indemnitors or agents) in antic.pation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any  ;

request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with 1 l

i the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this l discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the first, second and fifth enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that these requests are intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation of the CPRT Program Plan, including any Action Plans contained in Appendix C thereof, on the ground that, for the reasons set forth, such requests would be beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and amounts to attempted in-process discovery of the CPRT Program implementation that the Board has previously declined to authorize. The Applicants and the witness l

l

further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the third and fourth enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought on the ground that the historical process by which action plans were developed is not rationally related to the issue of whether, as finally published, the action plans are adequate to accomplish their stated purpose.

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Mallanda, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Mallanda is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Mallanda is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program). Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held

by Mr. Ma11anda at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

Deposition:

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Mallanda, whether by depositirc. ce prodt.ction of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Ms11anda is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Mallanda is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.

Mallanda at this time and in this manner is therefore

• inappropriate.

I

Monty A. Wise Documents:

The Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all dociments . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . . , ' ' on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a -

request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

The Applicants further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of " deeds; . . .

appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . . accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no

• It is not believed that Mr. Wise, who was formerly a CPRT Review Team Leader but has since resigned that position, possesses any documents responsive to the language duces tecum tecum contained in the subpoera served or to be served upon him. Any responsive document he might possess, however, would be a document owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his former position as a CPRT Review Team Leader. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

i rational connection to the adequacy of t,he CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants further object to the production at a deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES QA/QC program. All of the documents referred to in this objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at a deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants further object to each and every request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the grounds that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants further object to so much of the first, second and fifth enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that these requests are intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation of the CPRT Program Plan, including the Testing Action Plans contained in Appendix C thereof, on the ground that, for the reasons set forth, such requests would be beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and amounts to attempted in-process discovery of the CPRT Program implementation that the Board has previously declined to authorize. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Wise, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Wise is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Wise is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He

~

has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.

Wise at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

Deposition:

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Wise, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Wise was formerly a CPRT Review Team Leader and was responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Wise is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness and will not be. Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr. Wise is therefore inappropriate.

Dr. John H. Buck Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . ., on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of

' items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii)

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his position as a member of the CPRT Senior Review Team. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

describe the item (in the case.of items consisting of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such documents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this

o .

objection have previously been made available for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and impractical.

The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that implementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in-process CPRT discovery. The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives

(including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or' agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the first and second enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that these requests are intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation'of the CPRT Program Plan, including the Testing Action Plans contained in Appendix C thereof, on the ground that, for the reasons set i

forth, such requests would be beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and amounts to attempted in-process discovery of the CPRT Program implementation that the Board has previously declined to authorize. The Applicants and the witness

,-- - _,, -- ---,,-.y-

1 o .

l 1

further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation i l

processes. i l

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Dr.  ;

I Buck, whether by deposition or production of documents, on I

the following grounds: Dr. Buck is a member of the CPRT Senior Review Team. Dr. Buck is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. lie has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program). Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Dr. Buck at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

Deposition:

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Dr.

Buck, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Dr. Buck is a member .of the CPRT Senior Review Team and is responsible for the implementation of the CPRT Program Plan. Dr. Buck is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation

- G8 -

l

of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated tr.

testify as a witness (which designation wili depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE. advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program). Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Dr. Buck at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

Dr. Buck further objects to any discovery of him, whether by deposition or otherwise, regarding any matter related to the Diabio Canyon decisions rendered by the Appeal Board in that matter, of which he was a member, or by the Licensing Board in that matter, of the Appeal Board exercising appellate jurisdiction over which he was a member. See Uni t ed Sta tes v. Norgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941).

I l

{

i

Howard A. Levin Documents:

The witness and the Applicants

• object to all document requests framed in terms of "all documents . . . that refer or relate in any way to . . .," on the ground that these terms are hopelessly vague and patently overbroad and result in a request that fails to designate the documents to be produced with the specificity required by 10 CFR sec.

2.720(a) and 2.741(c) or in a manner that puts the Applicants or the witness on sufficient notice of what the witness is required to produce.

In lieu of "that refer or relate in any way to" the subjects thereafter enumerated, the Applicants and the witness have interpreted these requests to call for, and will produce (to the extent not otherwise objected to),

documents that (i) constitute the item (in the case of

' items consisting of documents or documentary acts), (ii)

• All of the documents sought by the language duces tecum contained in the subpoena to the witness, and described in the notice of the witness's deposition, are documents owned by the Applicants and created or in the possession of the witness by virtue of his posit on as a CPRT Review Team Leader. As a consequence, attempts to obtain these documents nominally from the witness are in reality attempts to obtain them from the Applicants and from the CPRT. For this reason, the Applicants have no less standing to object to improper requests than does the witness.

e .

describe the item (in the case of items consisting of events), or (iii) explicitly constitute substantial expressions of opinion about the item (in the case of items .

1 consisting of a character, quality or state).

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of these requests as call for the production of

" deeds; . . . appointment calendars; telephone bills; telephone messages; receipts; vouchers; . . .

accounting (s); [and] financial statements" on the ground that such doct..nents have no rational connection to the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, the sole purpose for which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production at this witness's deposition of the following documents, if and to the extent that their production is called for the literal terms of these overly broad requests: CPSES design drawings, specification and instructions; CPSES Project procedures; the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan, including appendices and attachments; CPRT procedures (including PAGs, CPPs and DAPs); and documentation created during or as a result of the implementation of the CPSES design, construction or QA/QC programs. All of the documents referred to in this t

-__ i k.

objection *have-previously been made available.for inspection by CASE, and calling for them again,is needlessly duplicative, especially given that the bulk of the enumerated documents would make their production at this witness's deposition unduly burdensome and N

impractical.

• The Applicants and the witness further object to each and every request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents created during or as a result of the in-process implementation of the CPRT program, on the ground that inplementation of the CPRT Program Plan is beyon'd'the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board

~

on August 18 and 19, 1986,(and on the ground that such requests would be inconsistent with the rulings heretofore made and denied by the Board in respect of requests for discovery regarding in' process CPRT discovdry. The

~

Applicants and the witness further object to the production i

of information' relating to the ongoing, in-process s

implementation of the CPRT Program, on-the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial' preparation processes.

The Applicants and the witness further object to the production of any documents prepared by or for the Applicants or by or for the Applicants' representatives (including their attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors or agents) in anticipation of litigation or trial in these proceedings.

The Applicants and the witness further object to any request to the extent that it would call for the production of documents relating to the CPRT Design Adequacy Program, on the ground that, by agreement of the parties and with the concurrence of the Board, design issues have been excluded from the matters in support of which this discovery was authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and any such request would, therefore, be beyond the scope of the authorized discovery.

The Applicants and the witness further object to so much of the first and second enumerated classes of documents of which production is sought if and to the extent that these requests are intended or construed to refer to the actual implementation of the CPRT Program Plan, including the Testing Action Plans contained in Appendix C thereof, on the ground that, for the reasons set forth, such requests would be beyond the scope of the discovery authorized by the Board on August 18 and 19, 1986, and amounts to attempted in-process discovery of the CPRT Program implementation that the Board has previously declined to authorize. The Applicants and the witness f O further object to the production of information relating to the ongoing, in-process implementation of the CPRT Program, on the ground that such requests impermissibly invade the investigative, deliberative and trial preparation processes.

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Levin, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Lavin is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Levin is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipatidn of these proceedings. He has not yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.

Levin at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

Depre! mat Insofar as CASE may propose or attempt to propound questions to the witness during the noticed deposition calling for disclosure or evaluation of uncompleted CPRT implementation, the Applicants object to such discovery and

request a protective order precluding the same.

The Applicants further object to any discovery of Mr.

Levin, whether by deposition or production of documents, on the following grounds: Mr. Levin is a CPRT Review Team Leader and is responsible for the implementation of certain of the Action Plans contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Program Plan. Mr. Levin is an expert specially retained by the Applicants in anticipation of these proceedings. He has not.yet been designated to testify as a witness (which designation will depend, in part, upon the issues that CASE advises the Board and parties it wishes to litigate in respect of the completed portions of the CPRT Program).

Discovery regarding facts known or opinions held by Mr.

Levin at this time and in this manner is therefore inappropriate.

Re ully submit ed,

\ m

\

Thomas G. DignanV Jr.

R. K. Gad III William S. Eggeling Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 Robert A. Wooldridge Worsham, Forsythe, Samples

& Wooldridge Suite 3200 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 979-3000 Attorneys for the Applicants 1

00LKEIU sNV CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'26 00: 11 P1 :34 I, Robert K. Gad III, one of the attorneys fgy g}he Applicants herein, hereby certify that on December 5, 1986, GOCKEI I made NNservice A ' "W1 of the within " Objections to Deposition Notices and Subpoenae Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash", by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:

Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E. Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.

Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Nancy Williams Administrative Judge Cygna Energy Services, Inc.

881 W. Outer Drive 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 San Francisco, California 94111 Chairman Chairman

, Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cc.ami s sion Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

, a e Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin Executive Director Christic Institute Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1324 North Capitol Street 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Maryland National Bank Bldg.

Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms. Billie P. Garde Midwest Office 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

) ',

i ( .= _

Robert K. G ,d III