ML20238A587
| ML20238A587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1987 |
| From: | Bailey J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4237 CPA, NUDOCS 8708210018 | |
| Download: ML20238A587 (8) | |
Text
. - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 00CKETE0 ewc umm SmTes & AMERICA 87 SG 17 P3 :06 NUCLEAR Ra;uumRY OCMISSION before the Ocr si j
A'ITNIC SAFEIY APO LICENSING BOARD i
i In the Matter of
)(
I
)(
)(
Docket No. 50-445-CPA TEXAS UTILITIES ELFCTRIC COfANY,
)(
t et al.,
)(
l
)(
~
(Cmanche Peak Steam Electric Station )(
Unit I)
RESPG4SE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
'IO " CONSOLIDATED INTERVENERS' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO4 OF DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANT TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AUTHORITY (sic)
(6/19/87)" AND MOTIG1 FOR PROIBCTIVE ORDER Applicant Texas Municipal Power Agency ("T@A")
hereby provides its responses to Consolidated Interveners' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to T@A, and also files its Motion for Protective Order.
I.
Response to Interrogatories Applicant T@A objects to each and every Interrogatory for the following (1) Interrogatories are unduly burdenscme and oppressive, since the reasons:
answers thereto would be contained in docuents and other information which is a matter of public record either in this construction pemit proceeding, the operating license proceedings for Ccmanche Peak Units I and II, and the ongoing litigation between TfA and Texas Utilities Electric Ccmpany, Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al, v. Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, I
Inc. et al., No. 86-6809 (Dist. Ct. of Dallas County, A-14th Judicial District of Texas, filed May 29, 1986), which is currently pending in Texas. Further, l
l hdDh
~h B70821001B B70B17
)
PDR ADOCK 05000445 i
v G
_y_
s i
)
4 I
information responsive to these would not be in 'IMPA's possession, but in the possession of the Texas Utilities Electric Cmpany ("TU Electric"). Requiring
'IMPA to research this material to answer the Interrogatories is unduly burdensome and oppressive, and Consolidated Interveners are at least as able to research this material as is 'IMPA.
(2) Applicant 'IMPA further objects in f
that the. Interrogatories inquire into matters which are protected frm disclosure by attorney-client privilege or consultant / attorney work product.
II. Response to Request for Production _
Applicant 'IMPA objects to the Request for Production in that the Request is unduly burdensme and oppressive, since the documents responsive thereto are contained in documents which are a matter of public record either in this construction permit. proceeding, the operating license proceedings for Cmanche' Peak Units I and II, and the ongoing litigation between 'IMPA and TU Electric, Texas Utilities Electric Cmpany, et al, v. Tex-La Clectric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. et al., No. 86-6809 (Dist. Ct. of Dallas County, A-14th Judicial District of Texas, filed May 29, 1986), which is currently pending in Texas.
Further, documens responsive would not be in 'IMPA's possession but in the possession of TU Electric.
Requiring 'IMPA to research this material to produce these docunents is unduly burdensme and oppressive, and Consolidated Interveners are at least as able to research this material as is 'IMPA.
Applicant 'IMPA further objects in that the Request for Production inquires into matters which are protected frm disclosure by attorney-client privilege or consultant / attorney work product. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
D III. Motion for Protective Order Notwithstanding the above, DIPA is in possession of a small number of documents which it obtained frcm Texas Utilities Electric Cmpany, which ?!PA believes to be responsive to the Interrogatories and the Request for i
)
Production, and which 9fPA believes are not protected frm disclosure.
l However, based on correspondence between TU Electric and another minority owner.tn Cmanche Peak (see attached letter dated July 7,1987 frm John W.
~ Deck of TU Electric to Robert A. Jablon of Spiegel & McDiarmid, counsel to Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.), 'IMPA believes there is a strong likelihood +nat should DIPA cmply with its legal duties before the NRC by providing the information and by disclosing the documents, TU Electric will sue SIPA.
DIPA therefore files this its Motion for Protective Order, requesting that the ASLB direct that TU Electric not sue TMPA when 'IMPA in good faith attempts to discharge its legal duties before the tRC and the ASLB.
Attached for your consideration is a proposed form of Order.
TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
.. G I
'/.
JamesR.Baily/
P.O. Box 7000 Bryan, Texas 77805 (409) 873-2013 General Counsel for Texas Municipal Power Agency l
Agent for Service of Process on Texas Municipal Power Agency i _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
l NUCLEAR REGULA2GE COMISSION before the AHMIC SAFE 3Y AIO LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)(
)(
f
)(
Docket No. 50-445-CPA TEXAS UTILITIES ELECI'RIC CQt@ANY,
)(
~et al.,
)(
)(
(Ccrnanche Peak Steam Electric Station )(
-Unit I)
I ORDER (Applicant 31PA'S Motion for Protective Order)
Applicant Texas Municipal Power Agency ("T@A") on August 14,1987 filed its Motion for Protective Order relating -responses to discovery made by 'IMPA, and other filings made by. T@A to this Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission. It is this day of
, 1987 ORDERED:
l Applicant T@A's Motion for Protective Order is granted, and Applicant Texas Utilities Electric Canpany is ordered not to institute in any forum legal action against Applicant EPA - as a result of T@A responding to discovery requests in the Cananche Peak construction permit or operating l
license proceedings, or as a result of U@A providing to this or any ASLB or the NRC information or documents which UfA in good faith believes it is legally obligated to disclose.
FOR THE AKMIC SAFEI'Y AND LICENSING BOARD PEI'ER B. BLOCH, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ---____-____-_a
, e-u-o. 2:2 m m a
---ous :s.rexas-n:ee:e:= 2 seu e,muqua
- <use:s 1
M
,= =,
=
=
TUELECTRIC i
- a. w. s.a July 7, 1987
\\
no wam Robert A. Jablon, Esquire
]
Spiegal & McDiarmid 1350 New York Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-4798
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STCAM ELECTRIC STATION
Dear Mr. Jablon:
We have been provided a copy of your letter of June 25, 1987, to our counsel Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., of Ropes & Gray.
As we understand your letter it suggests, on behalf of your client Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., that two documents referenced therein should be presented to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board currently hearing l
certain matters regarding the above-captioned project.
We have studied your request and are unable to perceive any reason why it should be accepted.
With regard to Mr. Dignan's letter to you of June 15, we have noted first that it is, as you know, merely confirmatory of information which has been i
consistently communicated to all the Owners of Comanche Peak and their i
counsel.
Included among the many examples of these communications would be I
Mr. Dignan's letter of September 16, 1986, which rather clearly established
{
the position of Ropes & Gray on these matters (and foretold the actions which your continued disregard of these communications has now necessitated).
We
{
are further satisfied that the facts regarding these matters have been j
expressed -- at least as clearly as the English language permits -- in the
{
recent submissions of Ropes & Gray in connection with CASE's motion to j
l
" appoint" counsel for the minority owners.
Further filings addressed to these matters are counterproductive to the licensing effort.
(We note additionally i
that we are unaware of any currently extant discovery request or Board i
directive which would capture Mr. Dignan's letter.
Thus, there does not i
appear te be any other basis for publishing it beyond the scope of its
)
original addressees.)
f With regard to your other submission, the memorandJm drafted by TV Electric's counsel, our tentative conclusion is the same but for different reasons.
First we note that verbatim disclosure of the communications set forth in the memorandum are -- as its caption reflects - clearly protected by the attorney / client privilege, and perhaps others as well.
We are at this point I
mmmm n mm m m wm
sENT SY:FULB,R*Ga7 - "OUSTON-S-14-27 : 2 23 Y ;F &.--40g$TCN, TEXAS
- 3303$1$;2 3
. July 7, 1987 Page 2'of 2 still exploring how you came to obtain this document and whether your employment of it to date is not already seriously violative of your obligations to TV Electric, as well as perhaps to the Texas state courts and/or others.
You should be assured that any further-publication of this
' document until these questions have been completely and satisfactorily resolved will be treated by TU Electric as a most serious breach of your duties.
Second, inasmuch as the document itself is for the foregoing reasons not required to be produced at this juncture,' we have gone on to analyze the substance of the information which our counsel encapsulated in this memorandum.
We discern nothing factual in the memorandum which could be considered substantively inconsistent with any statements TU Electric has made to the Licensing Board or the parties in the proceedings going on there..We are, therefore, unaware of any obligation which TU Electric might have to have disclosed the opinions of one of its attorneys as reflected therein.
If you believe there are any such specific inconsistencies, or any other sources of a hypothesized obligation to disclose, we would appreciate it-if you would promptly advise us of same -- being particular and specific as to their putative' source and scope.
When we have received any information you have on these points, we can further evaluate the rectitude of your alleged beliefs.
Until such time, however, we can do no more.
Your letter includes the somewhat shopworn threat that if TV Electric or its counsel do not accede to your views of the proper course for proceeding in the licensing hearings, Brazos will be " obliged" to act independently.
It seems redundant to observe to you again that if your construction of.the relationship between the Joint Owners were correct, there would be little point in~most of the Joint Ownership Agreement's provisions embodying TV Electric with sole authority and responsibility in the licensing arena. We shall therefore restrict ourselves to reminding you that your continued attempt to usurp prerogatives your client assigned to the Project Manager must be added to the calculations which will take the measure of Brazos compliance with its contractual undertakings.
Very truly yours, g _4. f$s*L-John W. Beck e - J. R. Riley W. R. Burchette B. Tartt
l l
90?.m&5, I
)
i, I
g, O p 3.06
.g CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE' I. y '
I, James R. Bailey, hereby certify that on August 14, 1987, I ma r
of the within documents by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
I l
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Chairman l
Chairman Atmic Safety and Licensing
)
Administrative Judge Board Panel I
' Atmic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washingto, D.C. 20555 l
Ccmnission i
. Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mrs. Juanita Ellis 1
Administrative Judge President, CASE f
J 881 W. Outer Drive 1426 S. Polk Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dallas, Texas 75224 Chaiman Renea Hicks, Esquire
' Atmic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Panel Environmental Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Ccmnission P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esquire Anthony.Roisman, Esquire Office of the Executive Suite 600 Legal Director 1401 New York Avenue, N. W.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20005 Ccmnission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollm Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge 1107 West Knapp Oak Ridge National Laboratory Stillwater, Oklahma 74075 P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mr. James E. Cumins Mr. Larry A. Sinkin Resident Inspector Christic Institute Cmanche Peak S.E.S.
1324 North Capitol Street j
c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20002 Commission 7
P.O. Box 38-Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Midwest Office 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, WI 54911 :1 6
'Mr. Robert D. Martin.
. Nancy Williams.
Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
Regional Administrator Region IV 101 California Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Suite 1000 Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive j
Board Panel Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccunission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccunission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 s
\\
,Q JamesR. Bailey /
l I
l i
3 l
4
!