ML20234D317
| ML20234D317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1987 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4412 CPA, NUDOCS 8709220052 | |
| Download: ML20234D317 (18) | |
Text
__ ___ _ _ - _
_I
.qq,t a ,
l c .y, : , , i my.
9/15/87- !
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 SEP 18 P2 :22 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,p j DGCr.i .
In the Matter of }{ P" l
}{ ;
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et al. }{
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric. }{ (Application for a Station, Units 1 and 2) }{ Construction Permit) 6 CASE'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANTS TO SUPPLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO CONSOLIDATED INTERVENERS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANTS (6/19/87) /1/
On June 19, 1987, Consolidated Interveners filed discovery requests to each of the four owners ot Comanche Peak which constitute " Applicants" in these proceedings. We received responses dated August 14, 1987, from Texas Utilities Electric Company, Brazos Electric, and Texas Municipal Power Agency, and received something of a response (which CASE does not accept as being full or complete) from Tex-La attached to the August 31, 1987, Response of Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. to the Motion of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. for Declaratory Order.
11/ See: Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for j' Production of Documents to Applicant Brazos Electric Power Cooperative (6/19/87); Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicant Texas Municipal Power Authority (sic) (6/19/87); Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request j for Production of Documents to Applicant Texas Utilities Electric Company (6/19/87); and Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicant Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (6/19/87).
8709220052 870915 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR 1
s g3 G
y.
- i. I '
7 CASE now finds it necessary to file this motion'to compel pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f) /2,/. Applicants have failed to respond, or provided 1/.
incomplete and-sometimes evasive responses, to many of the interrogatories.
I Prior to filing their responses, Applicants made no attempt to contact CASE to clarify any of these interrogatories that they may have found objectionable, and have not provided any specific basis for the blanket objections which were utilized in some of the responses.
l CASE finds itself in the unusual situation of having to file motions to l compel against each of the four Applicants: Texas Utilities Electric I
Company (TUEC) (the primary owner); Brazos Electric; Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA); and Tex-La' Electric. However, it is not certain at this time .
how the Board will rule regarding the minority owners' requests for the Board to assist them in assuring that they can fulfill all of their i
obligations in these proceedings without being sued by Texas Utilities (see: j Brazos's 8/14/87 Motion for Declaratory Order; 8/14/67 Response of Texas Municipal Power gency to " Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicant Texas Municipal Power Authority (sic) (6/19/87)"'and Motion for Protective Order; 8/31/87-Response l of Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. to the Motion of Brazos Flectric Power Cooperative, Inc. for Declaratory Order; and other related filings). CASE is filing this Motion to Compel as though each of the minority owners were obiigated to respond (which CASE believes to be correct).
I I ~~'/2/
This motion is being filed today in accordance with the Board Chairman's ruling during an 8/31/87 telephone conference call with the parties. l 2 ,
i 1
m.._..-_ -..a n ,e m. sh .e m --,--2.*n.*-. _ __c.r.S
! 1 t
A Should the Board rule that Texas Utilities is responsible for supplying all responses, CASE requests that the Board treat all of the Motions to Compel filed against the minority owners as Motions to Compel against Texas Utilities, and that Texas Utilities be ordered to respond fully and completely on behalf of each of'the minority owners. CASE notes, however, that should the Board rule that Texas Utilities is responsible for supplying all responses, it appears that it would still be necessary for the Board to~
take additional steps (such as the minority owners' supplying CASE with certain documents under a protective order as has been ordered before; see Board's 11/28/86 Memorandum and Order (Discovery of Tex-La Documents),
upheld by ALAB-870, Appeal Board's 8/27/87 Memorandum and Order). Further.
CASE believes that it would be necessary in such an event for the Board to ensure that Texas Utilities supply all information and documents which each ,
of the minority owners believe are responsive to CASE's discovery requests.
This is especially crucial to the preparation of our case in light of TUEC's historically narrow and severely limited interpretation of CASE's admitted contention and our right to discovery, of NRC regulations, of the Board's Orders and guidance, as well as its refusal to comply with the Instructions stated in our discovery requests.
Regardless of the specific ruling which the Board makes, however, it is clear that CASE is entitled to the information requested, one way or another !
(as discussed herein and in the 9/8/87 CASE's Answer to 8/14/87 Motion for Declaratory Order by Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc- (OL and CPA) .
I and CASE's Answer to 8/14/87 Motion for Protective Order by Texas Municipal Power Agency (CPA)). Equally clear is that all Applicants have responsibilities which must be fulfilled. The Board, in its 5/4/87 ,
3
y '
'1
(
l U
fi. ,
l ,
Memorandum and Order ( Appointment of Legal Counsel; Clarification of Discovery) stated (pages 4 and 5): ,
l "We find that minurity members are responsible for assuring the Lg x completeness of our factual record and the adequacy of 'f actual responses to discovery. . We agree with Staff (with a'few wording' changes of our own) that Applicants must'either transmit to the Board the differing views of minority Applicants concerning factual matters or must pe,rmit, without~ threat of legal action, minority applicants to bring factual information to the parties <
and the Licensing Board. h "In this respect, we find that Texas Utilities Electric Company 1 has an obligation that goes beyond its representations to us. l Minority ownera have independent responsibilities to.this Board.
Texas Utilities must not interfere with them in any way in fulfillirs those responsibilities." (Footnotes omitted.)
RELEVANT LAW AND REGULATIONS REGARDING DISCOVERY The basic requirements under NRC regulations for responding to .
discovery requests are well known to all parties in this proceeding. For the record and because in the past three of the four Applicants have not l
been active participants in these proceedings, CASE points out some of the j l
specific basic discovery principles on which we rely: )
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Rules of Practice provide discovery of:
". . . any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in the proceeding, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." 10 CFR 2.740(B)(1).
In general, the discovery rules follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). However, the Federal Rules and court decision l interpreting those rules are not authoritative, but instead provide i
4
Ii >
J. . ; .'
. \
l L ') ,
guidelines and/or guidance for the interpretation of the NRC. discovery l l i rules. ' Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al., (Barnwell Fuel Receiving I f
1 and Storing Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489 (1977); Detroit Edison Co., et j i
al,.,
l (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power, Plant, Unit 2) L'BP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 581 1
(1978). I As with the Federal Rules, discovery is liberally granted and construed to enable the parties to determine facts and refine issues, and prepare adequately for more expeditious hearings. Texas Utilities Generating Company, (Comanche Peak Steam Electric: Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-25, 14 NRC.241-243 (1981), Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Stanislaus Nuclear Power Project, Unit 1) LBP-78-20, 7 NRC 1038, 1040~(1978); see, Illino_is i Power Company, (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1) LBP-81-61, 14 NRC 1735, 1742 (1981). Discovery in litigation before the courts, as well as in NRC licensing proceedings, is intended to insure that "the pacties have access to all relevant, unprivileged information prior t'o the hearing." (Boston Edison Company, (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1-NRC 579, 582 (1975)).
The scope of discovery permitted under the rules is very broad. It is well-settled that a party has the right to find out what the other perties know with respect to a particular contention, viz., the positions of adversary parties and the information available to those parties to support tneir position. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ASLB Memoranda and Orders, January 4, 1980, slip op at p. 6 and August 27, 1979, slip op. at pp. 5-6.
Discovery inquiries are limited only by the requirements that they be reasonably relevant to a sensible investigation, Pilgrim, LBP-75-30, supra l at 582, and the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the 5
l o,
)
i i
!' i L i l
L,e l discovery of admissible evidence, 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1). The test is one of
! I
' "- general relevance, and unless it is cle.ar that the evidence sought can have l no possible bearing on the issues the test will be satisfied. Commonwealth '
Edisen Co., (Zion Station Units'I and 2), ALAB-185, 7 AEC 240 (1974); see l l
also Allied-General, supra. at 489.
The~ Appeal Board in Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), 12 NRC 317 (1980) discussed the conduct of discovery in NRC proceedings. That decision confirms and reinforces the preceding.
Many of the arguments and objections advanced by Applicants in this proceeding-have been based on subject matter relevance. Previous Boards <
have determined that subject matter relevance is determined by an analysis of the issue involved. PG6E, supra., at 1040..
For those interrogatories that are not adequately answered on the basis of subject matter relevance, CASE has submitted a brief argument in support of its position that the sought-after information is relevant and within the scope of permissible discovery. This is sufficient because the burden of establishing relevancy of its propounded interrogatories is slight.
However, Applicants' burden of establishing the basis for any requested protective order is great. 10 CFR 2.740(c) provides that in order to obtain a protective order, the requesting party must demonstrate that:
(1) The information in question is of a type customarily held in i confidence by its originator; (2) There'is a rational basis for having customarily held it in confidence; (3) It has, in fact, been kept in confidence; and 6
. - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ -_ a
i t
L (4) It is not found in public sources.
Kansas Gas and Electric Company, (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408 (1976).
In some instances, Applicants have sought, without explanation, a protective order on all'of the information not provided in response to various interrogatories. There is no attempt by Applicants to meet the l
test. i i
A party to an NRC licensing proceeding is not excused from making timely responses to discovery requests because of a lack of complete knowledge or because the party has only partial knowledge of the answer.
See Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP l 30, 1 NRC 579, 583 n. 10 (1975). That party must answer discovery requests to the best of its ability, and if the party claims a lack of sufficient information to provide any response at the time answers are due, the party should answer by providing the information whensavailable. Id. Answers cust be responsive and complete to the extent information is now available.
See Pilgrim, supra 1 NRC at 583 n. 10, 586; see also 10 CFR 2.740(f).
With respect to objections to discovery requests, the burden of persuasion is on the objecting party to show that the interrogatory should not be answered. Pilgrim, LBP-75-30, supra at 583. General objections are not sufficient. I d,. Indeed, answers to discovery requests are important to !
a party's ability to prepare its case for trial. Claims that responses j I
-would be unduly burdensome, time-consuming and expensive are merely general, j unsupported assertions, and thus are insufficient to sustain the burden of )
i persuasion. Pilgrim, supra, 1 NRC at 583.
7
_.__.__. _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ __._m___..__-______m__ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - _
r See also NRC Rules of Practice, 10 CFR 2.740b(b) and 2.741(d). These regulations require that a party must timely respond or state its objections with respect to each interrogatory or request to produce.
We-also note that additional background regarding NRC regulations governing discovery was contained in CASE's 10/15/86 Motion to Compel regarding Applicants' 9/26/86 Answers to CASE CPRT Program Plan Interrogatories, Set 1 and 2, and CASE's 11/28/86 Motion to Compel Answers
, to Sets 3-7. We will not repeat it here.
MOTIONS TO COMPEL Throughout each of the three minority owners' filings /_3/, there is a common theme, concern, and request to the Board. This was discussed in some detail in CASE's 9/8/87 Answer to 8/14/87 Motion for Declaratory Order by o .. Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (OL and CPA) and CASE's Answer to 8/14/87 Motion for Prote tive Order by Texas Municipal Power Agency (CPA);
we will not repeat those arguments here, but incorporate them herein by reference. There appear to be at least five documents which the minority owners should now provide to CASE in response to our discovery requests (certainly the relevance test has been passed according to the minority owners themselves). CASE considers these (and any other similar documents i
l f,3,/ 8/14/87 Objections and Responses of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, {
Inc. to Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (6/19/87), 8/14/87 Response of Texas Municipal Power Agency to " Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicant Texas Municipal Power Authority (sic) (6/19/87)" and Motion for Protective Order, and 8/31/87 Response of Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. to the Motion of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. for Declaratory Order.
l 8
1, now or in the future) to be absolutely essential to the preparation of our case and to preserve _ CASE's due process rights. We move that the Board ;
order them supplied immediately.
In addition, CASE files the following Motions to Compel:
Motion to Compel Brazos:
In several instances throughout the Responses from Brazos, statements such as (or very similar to) the following are made:
- 1. "Brazos objects to this interrogatory, as it pertains solely to employees of TU Electric, and should properly be directed to TU Electric."
This applies to Interrogatory No. 4, which states:
"4. Identify each of the person (s) who are or were at supervisory ~1evel or above at the plant for any Applicant, contractor, subcontractor, or consultant after February 1985 who is/are listed in the answer to interrogatory 3 above, and list all positions held by such persons (s), by whom he/she was employed, and the dates of such employment since February 1985."
Brazos stated that it " objects to this interrogatory, as ir pertains solely to employees of TU Electric, and should properly be directed to TU Electric." However, in its response to Interrogatory 3 referenced in Interrogatory 4, Brazos stated, in part (page 9):
i
. . Brazos is conducting discovery in the state court litigation in order to determine more fully when, how, and by whom the policies underlying these actions were formulated and implemented, and expects to supplement 4 this answer as information becomes available."
If Brazos had given the same answer to Interrogatory 4 as it did to Interrogatory 3, that would have been an acceptable answer to CASE. Or if Brazos had answered that it does not know the answer to Interrogatory 4, j that too would have been a different matter. However, neither of those was
)
its response. As required by NRC regulations, Brazos must answer (if such 9
E_- _ _ ___________ _
I e
k answer is known by Brazos) to the best of its ability at this time and supplement its response if new information becomes available which indicates its answer is no longer accurate and complete. (See discussion at page 7 preceding.) CASE moves that th' Board order Brazos to answer. I
- 2. "As TU Electric is solely responsible for construction and licensine of Comanche Peak, the interrogatory does not and cannot refer to Brazos's actions. Brazos has no information on the subject of this interrogatory that is not in the possession of TU Electric, which is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert."
This applies to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. These interrogatories request info ;mation of which Brazos is aware. The fact that TU Electric is aware of such information does not necessarily ensure (as is obvious from the 8/14/87 filings of Brazos and TMPA, and the 8/31/87 filing of Tex-La which are now before the Board) that CASE will ever be aware of it. CASE does not expect Brazos (or any of the minority owners, for that matter) to repeat everything which has already been told to CASE by TUEC.
However, as required by NRC regulations, Brazos must answer (if such answer is known by Brazos) to the best of its ability at this time and supplement its response if new information becomes available which indicates its answer is no longer accurate and complete. (See discussion at page 7 preceding.)
CASE moves that the Board order Brazos to aaswer each of the interrogatories in question.
- 3. " Insofar as this interrogatory refers to criticisms directed to TU Electric, TU Electric is obliged under the Joint Ownership Agreement to respond fully and completely, on Brazos's behalf, f subject to any and all proper objections which it may assert.
"Brazos objects to this interrogatory insofar as it may request criticisms which have been communicated directly to Brazos, as distinguished from criticisms relayed to Brazos by TU Electric.
}
10 1
1 L___ _-________.mm. __ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___ _
l
- ~ .. ,
.?
l All such criticisms, with the exception of those generated in I connection with litigation initiated by TU Electric against Brazos on May 29, 1986, have been provided to TU Electric, which has sole l l . power to take appropriate actions thereupon. Criticisms contained I in reports prepared for.Brazos or its counsel in connection with said litigation are privileged and will not be provided absent the ;
entry of an appropriate protective order. Brazos intends to ]
. comply fully with all disclosure obligations imposed on it as a i '
permittee and license applicant.",
~
l This applies to Interrogatory No. 7. See CASE's comments regarding a items 1, 2, and 4 above and following. CASE moves that the Board order Brazos to answer each of the interrogatories in question.
- 4. "Since the initiation of' litigation against Brazos by TU Electric, Brazos, through its, counsel, has employed experts to evaluate TU
{'
Electric's performance of its duties to Brazos. Privileged materials generated in the course of preparation for this litigation include criticisms of. Comanche Peak QA/QC programs.
Brazos objects on grounds of privilege to interrogatories or document requests with respect to these matters absent the entry j.
of an appropriate protective order."
This applies to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, l 23, and regarding documents (page 30 of Brazos's Responses). CASE needs the information requested in order to do our work. It is not clear exactly what documents would be involved were Brazos to answer. CASE has no listing by which to even know what the documents might be, much less how vital they 1
might be to our case. Depending upon the Board's ruling regarding the status and responsibilities of the minority owners in these proceedings, as well as a better understanding of what materials are involved, CASE may well be willing to agree to a protective order similar to that which has been ordered previously.
CASE believes that Brazos's above-referenced responses are deficient and we move that the Board compel Brazos to supply complete answers.
l 11 ,
't understanding of what materials are involved, CASE might well be willing to agree to a protective order similar to that which has been ordered previously.
CASE believes that Brazcs's above-referenced responses are deficient and we move that the Board compel Brazos to supply complete answers.
i
' Motion to Compel TMPA:
TMPA " objects to each and every Interrogatory" and "to the Request for Production" on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, and that responsive information would not be_in TMPA's possession but,in TUEC's possession, and further that the interrogatories " inquire into matters which are protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege or consultant / attorney work product." These interrogatories request .s
~
information of which TMPA is aware. The fact that TU Electric is aware of suchinformationdoesnotnecessarilyensure(asisobviousfromthe8/14/8f 4 i filings of Brazos and TMPA, and the 8/31/87 filing of Tex-La which are now before the Board) that CASE will ever be aware of such information. CASE does not expect TMPA (or any of the minority owners, =for that matter) to repeat everything which has already been provided to CASE by TUEC in the operating license proceedings or the construction permit proceedings.
1 However, as required by NRC regulations, TMPA must answer (if such answer is known by TMPA) to the best of its ability at this time and supplement its 1
response if new information becomes available which indicates its answer is l
no longer accurate and complete. TMPA's objections on the grounds of undue l
.burdensomeness and oppressiveness fall far short of the requirements of NRC regulations, especially in light of CASE's clarification above of what we do 12
not' expect. (See also discussion at page 7 preceding.) With regard to the claim of attorney-client privilege or consultant / attorney work product, TMPA has not attempted to specify why the information CASE seeks should not be-provided (if necessary under a protective order). CASE has no listing of any documents involved, and it is not clear exactly what answers or documents would be involved were TMPA to answer. Depending upon the Board's ruling regarding the status and responsibilities of the minority owners in these proceedings, as well as a better understanding of what materials are involved, CASE might well be willing to agree to a protective order similar to that which has been ordered previously (although the only protective order requested by TMPA is against TU Electric's suing TMPA). CASE moves that the Board order TMPA to answer each of the interrogatories in question.
Motion to Compel Tex-La:
CASE notes first that those responses which were provided by Tex-La (attached to Exhibit C to the 8/31/87 Response of Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. to the Motion of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. for Declaratory Order) were not sworn notarized responses which meet NRC requirements of 10 CFR 2.740b(b). CASE would accept at face value Tex-La's properly prepared responses and its representation that, other than the five documents specifically referenced and already addressed on pages 8 and 9 herein, they currently have no information which has not already been made public record; we are assuming, however, that Tex-La means I
in the record of the operating license proceedings or the construction
! f permit proceedings, since CASE is not a party to the lawsuit between the
{
four owners of Comanche Peak. (If CASE is reading Tex-La's response incorrectly in this regard, we would expect and request that Tex-La so l l
l l
13
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _- -- _-_ _______--_-___- ___ - - O
a *.
inform us and that we would then ask the' Board to be allowed to file a Motion to Compel.) It also appears from Tex-La's responses that the state
.of Tex-La's knowledge will change following its extensive discovery effort in the pending lawsuit between the four Comanche Peak owners, in which case we would certainly. expect Tex-La to comply with NRC regulations regarding supplementing their responses (see discussion at pages 4 through 8 herein).
Depending upon the Board's ruling regarding the status and responsibilities of the minority owners in these proceedings, as well as a better understanding of what materials are involved, CASE might well be willing to agree to a protective order similar to that which has been ordered previously (although Tex-L2 has not yet specifically requested any protective order).
Motion to Compel TUEC:
CASE will not, with one exception, file a Motion to Compel TUEC to supply more complete answers to these specific interrogatories (although we may well have some additional and/or follow-up interrogatories, especially af ter we have reviewed some of the documents listed in TUEC's responses).
The one exception is Question No. 19, which states:
" List every warning of which you are aware by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the existence of policies or practices at Unit 1 which were not in compliance with NRC requirements or accepted practice."
TUEC declined to provide any answer, and objected to this Interrogatory "on the grounds that to the extent that if any such ' warnings' were ever issued (a proposition with which Applicants do not agree) they would be l
matters of public record and Interveners are as capable of identifying them j l
as are Applicants. The interrogatory is therefore overbroad, unduly l l
14 I
?
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." To the contrary, CASE believes this interrogatory would definitely lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (evidence i which Applicants would undoubtedly like to keep out of the record of these i proceedings, to be sure), because it goes to the very heart of one of the ;
I major parts of CASE's contention -- that Applicants have not discarded or i repudiated the corporate policies which led to the delay in construction of ;
Unit 1. The sworn answer to this interrogatory will provide CASE with l important evidence, not directly available from any othpr source, as to. ;
whether or not Applicants have even recognized the Board's warnings (much less heeded them) and as to whether or not they have discarded or repudiated such corporate policies. An important piece of information to be obtained i
from Applicants' answer to this particular question is not whether CASE !
recognizes the Board's warnings, but whether Applicants do and what (if anything) they have done about those warnings. Although the warnings may have been many (and CASE believes they have), this does not mean that the t
interrogatory is overbroad or unduly burdensome. CASE moves that the Board !
order Applicants'to provide full and complete answers to this important I
interrogatory.
At the end of Applicants' Answers, as they generally have in recent answers to CASE's interrogatories, Applicants included the following:
" Motion for Protective Order "To the extent required by the Commission's Rules of Practice, the )
Applicants move for the entry of a protective order in accordance l
with the foregoing objections and responses which are subject
! thereto."
Clearly Applicants' move for a protective order is so deficient that the Board should deny it. The burden of persuasion is on the objecting 15 i
party to show that the interrogatory should not be answered. General objections are not suf ficient. Further, 10 CFR 2.740b(b) and 2.741(d) require that a party must timely respond or state its objections with respect to each interrogatory or request to produce. See also further discussion at pages 6 and 7 of this pleading. CASE moves that the Board deny TUEC's Motion for Protective Order.
In
Conclusion:
For all of the foregoing reasons, CASE-moves that the Board order Applicants to provide complete and specific answers to the Interrogatories specified in the preceding. CASE also moves that the Board deny Applicants' Motion for Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted, i s n- J AL)
/) tis.J Juanita Ellis, President
' CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 l
I I
i 16 i
(
_ _ - - - - - - . . - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - J
3;, x .
)
g::
, l p )
.co w itb .I l
thWC -
1
'87' SEP 18 -P2 :22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- l l,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - Ff t -t - N "' ' 'l
- r,0cxt 1 w.. 'M1 !
L . .
. p,R a hi'e ]j l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD--
d In the Matter of. }{ i
}{ 'j TEXAS. UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 l ;
- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{ j
-Station, Units.1 and 2) }{
. CERTIFICATE'0F SERVICE .l
,. i
- By- my signature below, I hereby ' certify that true and correct copies.of CASE's Motion to Capel Applicants to Supply Cmplete Answers to Consolidated- y Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants (6/19/87)
'have been sent to the names listed below this ,15th- day of September ,198],-
by: Federal Express where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere. -1 i
Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 225 Franklin Street 1 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
^
Washington, D. C. 20555 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson J Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal l
,0ak Ridge , Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory i Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom'. Commission 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, D. C. 20555
.Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 ,
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee '37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1
( ,. .
Chairman .
Renes Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV 1401 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 600 U. S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20005 611 Ryan Plaza Dr. , Suit,e 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Herman Alderman Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer-Christic Institute Advisory Committee for Reactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)
Washington, D. C. 20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge,-Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil, Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid Docketing and Service Section 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
(3 copies) Washington, D. C. 20005-4798 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services Ms. Billie P. Garde 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Covernment Accountability Project Walnut Creek, California 94596 Midwest Office 104 E. Wisconsin - B Williau H. Burchette, Esq.
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-4897 Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,
Mr. Christopher I. Grimes, Suite 700 Director, Comanche Peak Washington, D. C. 20007 j Project Division, Office of Special Projects James R. Bailey Mail Stop EWW 302 P. O. Box 7000 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bryan, Texas 77805 Washington, D. C. 20555 UA N:) f]'/ b }
/)frs.) Juar ita Ellis,' President
(/ CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk l Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2
l w______._-_--. _ - _ - - . - _ . - _ .__ . . . - . . _ _ - ..--_....l