ML20211F427

Permittee Response (& Motion for Protective Order) to Intervenor M Gregory Requests for Production (Set 6).* Permittees Object to Production of Documents on Grounds That Documents Irrelevent to Contention.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20211F427
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/18/1987
From:	Eggeling W ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2568 CPA, NUDOCS 8702250090
Download: ML20211F427 (6)

Text

.

pgg 1

Filed: Februacy.G%89 1987 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '87 FSB 24 R2 27 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD 6FFL.. , -

C OC p ':.. ' '

Y :, . ,

)

In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )

COMPANY, et al. ) Docket No. 50-445-CPA

)

(Comanche Peak Steam )

Electric Station, Unit 1) )

)

PERMITTEES' RESPONSES (AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER) TO INTERVENOR MEDDIE GREGORY REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (Set 6)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.741, the Permittees hereby respond to the Request for Production of Documents (Set 6) served by the Intervenor Meddie Gregory on January 16, 1987, l

RESPONSES Nos. 1-4. Permittees object to producing the documents described by Gregory Requests 1 through 4, on the grounds that those requests describe documents which have absolutely nothing j to do with the sole Contention in this docket, i.e., that the j " delay of construction of 'init 1 was caused by Applicants' intentional conduct which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate policies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants." The broad discovery demanded by the Requests in Gregory Set 6, (and their counterparts, Gregory Interrogatory No.

0732250090 870218 5 g PLR ADOCK 05000

\

s.

5 (Set 5) and Gregory Request No. 4 (Set 5)), is wholly outside the scope of these licensing proceedings and appear instead to constitute a fishing expedition for material related only to the Intervenors' participation in rate cases before the Texas Public Utility Commission. Same is, therefore, not a legitimate purpose for discovery pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b. To permit the Intervenor to engage in global discovery on such wholly unrelated matters is contrary to the purpose and intent of this Commission's rules and would operate to the prejudice of TU Electric and other parties who may be involved in rate cases before the Texas Public Utility Commission. It is therefore wholly unjustified and unnecessary and should not be permitted by this Board. The retrospective management audit referenced in the quoted portion of the " Views of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative

. . . " was not commissioned for the purpose of addressing the

type of issues comprised within the sole currently admitted

(

l Contention in this docket and none of the discovery requests relating thereto have been properly focused upon such Contention before this Board. Furthermore, this Board previously determined in Docket 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL that discovery requests of this type, and directed to the same audit, should not be permitted to be used as a fishing expedition for material relevant only to Public Utility Commission issues (sgg Board's Memorandum and Order of July 22, 1985, " Motions Related to the MAC Report").

Permittees have objected to Interrogatory Numbar 5, and Request 1

4, on the grounds that they are overly broad and unduly l

2 l

\

J burdensome (by seeking general and unparticularized discovery which exceeds the proper boundaries for discovery of matters related to this docket by interrogating into the preparation for the litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the jurisdiction of the NRC and this ASLB); they seek privileged information constituting the work product of TU Electric, its affiliates, and its attorneys (which work product has been prepared in anticipation and contemplation of the litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the jurisdiction of the ASLB and the NRC) ; and they seek privileged information concerning the identities, mental impressions, opinions and work product of consulting experts retained in anticipation and contemplation of the litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the jurisdiction of the ASLB and the NRC. Permittees hereby repeat and incorporate by reference herein their objections to such discovery -- which appears to be substantially identical to the requests advanced in Gregory Set 6.

l I

l 3

i l

i

~$

6 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER To the extent required by 10 CFR 5 2.740(f), the Permittees move for a protective order on the basis of the objections set forth hereinabove.

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY For the Owners of CPSES By its attorne s, Thomas G. Digng Jr.(

R.K. Gad III W j William S. Eggelingg Kathryn A. Selleck ROPES & GRAY 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100

/

4

b 4

00;KETE!

tl?lk CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William S. Eggeling, oneoftheattorneyskoNhMAhlNants herein, hereby certify that on February 18, 1987cjyI;.made service of C00ME L.1 & ~' o the within document by mailing copies thereof, postade^ 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 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge Midwest Office 881 W. Outer Drive 3424 N. Marcos Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appleton, WI 54911 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 I Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office 6f the Executive President, CASE l

Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

L

\

4 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 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.

101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 William S. Egg ng /

-