ML19330C557

Response in Opposition to D Marrack 800726 & 28 Motions to Compel Answers to 800611 & 0508 Interrogatories.Aslb 800627 Order Absolved Util of Response to 800508 Request.Other Info Nonexistent.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML19330C557
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/04/1980
From:	Copeland J, Newman J BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8008080495
Download: ML19330C557 (6)

Text

o e

REL\TED Col <hESMNDE'*CZ ,

',/

. .r1 ,

g- .

~ ;  %.. . . '

' ' V

~

UNITED STATF3 OF AMERICA c_ . - o s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

h., ;/ ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 5 ,

S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S

.;

^

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MARRACK'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Applicant has received two motions from Dr. Marrack seeking to compel further answers to interrogatories. The first is dated July 26 and relates to Marrack's interroga-tories of June 11, 1980. The second is dated July 28 and relates to Marrack's interrogatories of May 8, 1980.

With respect to the July 28 motion to compel, Dr.

Marrack argues that Applicant did not answer Interrogatory No. 1 or No. 3 of his May 8 interrogatories. The reason

(

( that Applicant did not respond to those interrogatories is because on June 27, 1980, the Board issued an order stating

! specifically " Applicant does not have to respond to para-graphs 1 and 3 of the May 8th discovery recuest since the paragraphs seek information which properly should have been sought from the NRC Staff." Dr. Marrack has not sought D503 S

/ 1 80080g9 .,fW 0

reconsideration of that Order.

• /

Accordignly, his motion to compel should be dismissed as moot.

Applicant submits that Dr. Marrack's July 26 motion to compel should also be dismissed. For the con-venience of the Board, a copy of Applicant's answers to Dr.

Marrack's interrogatories is enclosed herewith. As the Board can see from looking at the answers, Dr. Marrack simply fails to address the adequacy of these answers in his arguments. As an example, with respect to Interrogatory No.

1, he asked the Applicant to list all the studies that the Applicant was relying on for purposes of this contention.

Applicant listed ten studies that fit this category. Dr.

Marrack new argues in his motion that his interrogatory really meant that he wanted Applicant to list the studies that were relied upon in preparation of the FEIS and the FS-FEIS. Applicant has answered the original question as asked. With respect to Dr. Marrack's new question, the Applicant did not prepare the FEIS or the FS-FEIS.

1

• / Counsel for Applicant called Dr. Marrack in an effort to determine why the motion had been filed in light of the order. Dr. Marrack stated that he was not aware of l the order. A copy of the order is being provided to

( Dr. Marrack with this reply, i

(

-2

Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5 and 6 all related to a basic question as to whether the Applicant had ever con-ducted a study regarding the subject matter of his conten-tion. Applicant answered that it had never done such a study because it had never had any indication that this was a problem. Accordingly, Interroga:Ory Nos. 5 and 6 which ask for the names of the persons who did such studies and all of their working papers relating to such studies cannou be responded to since the studies do not exist. Simply stated, the study he has requested has not been done so there is no way. to identifv. the names of the cecc.le who have done such studies acr is it possible to provide their werk-in7 =. ac. ers .

In the final analysis, it appears that Dr. Marrack's motion is an argument on the merits with respect to Appli-cant's state =ent that it has never experienced any signif-icant bird losses along any of its transmission routes. Dr.

Marrack has apparently developed the mistaken notion that such a cenclusion could be reached only after a massive studv. desivned to creve a necative.

. v If, in the Ac.c.licant's experience, t.iere nave never ,_een any significant s. rn lesses along its transmission routes, Applicant would have no reason to undertake an expensive study to prove the non-existence of something which it believed had never happened.

That Dr. Marrack disagrees with this is a matter which goes to the merits of his contention, not the responsiveness of Applicant's answers to interrogatories. Applicant has fully answered the interrogatories and the motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, di) Dk OF COUNSEL: J. Gregory Copeland C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.

BAKER & SOTTS Darrell Hancock 3000 One Shell Plaza Charles G. Thrash, Jr.

Houston, Texas 77002 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, A GLRAD & TOLL Jack R. Newman 1025 Connecticut Ave.,N.W. Robert H. Culp Washington, D. C. 20036 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICA.VI HOUSTON LIGHTING & PCWER CCMPANY I

1

\\@I O 7f \

\

CCO*f "#

)h l

CN '

2 t e 7 :9 3) >

9-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' @: M 34 Er,te 6 34&T D D7 /c*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 1- ,-3 SEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD COI / % \

In the Matter of S S

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Potthoff Con-tention 6, Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of TexPirg Additional Contention 50, and Applicant's Response to Marrack's Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories in the above-captioned preceeding were served on the follow-ing by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 4th day of August, 1980.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Hon. Charles J. Dusek Atomic Safety and Licensing Mayor, City of Wallis Board Panel P. O. Box 312 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wallis, Texas 77485 Washington, D. C. 20555 .

Hon. Leroy H. Grebe Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum County Judge, Austin County Route 3, Box 350A P. O. Box 99 Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Bellville, Texas 77418 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board j Soard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=missic U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Chase R. Stephens Appeal Ecard l Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 of the Ccmmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Steve Schinki, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Richard Lcwerre, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas P. O. Box 12548 l

Capitol Station A S s t i n...,. T e x a s 7 8 7 1 1 . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ , _ . _ .

. .-* l Bryan L. Baker D. Marrack 1118 Montrose 420 Mulberry Lane Houston, Texas 77019 Bellaire, Texas 77401 J. Morgan Bishop Brenda McCorkle 11413 Oak Spring 6140 Darnell Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77074 Stephen A. Doggett W. Matthew Perrenad P. O. Box 592 4070 Merrick Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77025 John F. Doherty F. H. Potthoff ,

4327 Alconbury 7200 Shady villa, No. 110 Houston, Texas 77021- Houston, Texas 77055 Carro Hinderstein Wayne E. Rentfro 609 Fannin, Suite 521 P. O. Box 1335 Houston, Texas 77002 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 James M. Scott 13935 Ivy Mount Sugar Land, Texas 77478 William Schuessler 5810 Darnell Houston, Texas 77074 M .,

Darrell Hancock O D