ML20211D001

Permittees Supplemental Responses to M Gregory Interrogatories (Set 5).* Suppls Responses to M Gregory Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20211D001
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/10/1987
From:	Eggeling W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Gregory M GREGORY, M.
References
CON-#187-2543 CPA, NUDOCS 8702200298
Download: ML20211D001 (10)

Text

./

+ ELATED CORRESPONDES

• ri s e or reoreary to, test DOCKETED UWC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 FEB 13 A10 :50 before the gg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1

In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING )

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

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

PERMITTEES' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO MEDDIE GREGORY INTERROGATORIES (SBT 5) s Pursuant to 10 CFR secs. 2.740, 2.740b and 2.741, and their agreements with the Intervenors' counsel, the Permittees hereby supplement their responses to "Meddie Gregory's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents-(Set 5)."

INTERROGATORY NO. S

- GENERAL RESPONSE -

OBJECTIONS:

TU Electric objects generally to Gregory Interrogatory No. 5 and each subpart thereof for the reason that each of said interrogatories inquire in detail as to matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the sole Contention admitted in this docket, f.e., that the " delay of construction of Unit I was caused by Applicants' intentional conduct which had no valid purpose and was the result of corporate 'icies which have not been discarded or repudiated by Applicants."

0702200290 B70210 PDH G

ADOCK 05000445 PDR j$d3

Such inquiries therefore range widely beyond the scope of these proceedings and instead constitute a fishing expedition for material related only to Intervenor's participation in rate cases before the Texas Public Utility Commission. Such expeditions are, of course, not legitimate purposes for discovery pursuant to 10 CFR sec. 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 or cases before the Texas Public Utility Commission. It is therefore wholly unjustified and unnecessary and should not be W p*

permitted by this Board. The retrospective management audit referenced in the attachment to the December 23, 1985 letter from Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq., to Foster DeReitzes, Esq.,

was not commissioned for the purpose of addressing the type of issue as specified in the 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 Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL that discovery requests of this type, and directed to the same audit, should not be permitted as a fishing expedition for material relevant only to Public Utility Commission issues (see Board's Memorandum and Order of July 22, 1985, " Motions Related to the MAC Report"). TU Electric further objects to Gregory Interrogatory No. 5 and each 1

1

,, Q

\ } subpal*t thereof on the grounds that they: (1) are overly broad

. '-and. general and exceed proper discovery of matters related to

' 'this docket; (2) seek privileged information concerning the.

work product of TU Electric, its affiliates and its attorneys which work product has been prepared in anticipation and contemplation of litigation of issues and remedies falling y-wholly outside the jurisdiction of the' NRC and this Licensing Board; and (3) seek privileged information concerning the n

identities, mental impr'essions, opinions, and work product of o consulting experts retained in anticipation =and contemplation s

of litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the 3

jurisdiction;of the NRC and this ASLB.

t t

dithbut waiving the foregoir$g general objections, but rather expressly relying thereon, TU Electric further responds to Gregory Interrogatory'No. 5 as follows:

INTERROGATOftY:

5. Wiihreferer.cetotneatta::enttotre '

istter ,f res Robert A. a::1:rtage to fr3ter DeRett:es

.3ats: tecetter 23, liSS, unten atta:32s t .as the .arn s:e:Af;catt:n en tre retras:e:t:ve ac:tt? ; tease ansaer tie 'alicwing cuesticas:

a. shat is the current natas at t at adait, t'd thy is it telfg ::c:'J: tic' NSWER:

$ The current status of the audit referred to in the letter described above is that it has been suspended. The l

ii audit has been conduct.ed ,at the direction of legal counsel in contemplation of litigation.

s t

i '

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

l INTERROGATORY:

b. To what extent aave the work :cectft:stt:ns caen cnanges; unat are the enar.;es; no cnan;es t,es; an: any' ANSWER:

The work specification for the retrospective management audit referred to in the letter described above has not been changed.

INTERROGATORY:

C. uten will t*e aa3tt te c:a:lete3?

ANSWER:

s The audit completion date is not scheduled at this time. It is anticipated that completion of such audit will coincide with the filing of TUEC's rate request before the Texas Public Utility Commission (hereafter "TPUC") when TUEC will request the inclusion of CPSES in rate base. ,

INTERROGATORY:

c. ~hy n was tne cespletten :f ta.e a.dtt ortgtnally tied to a cate snortly cefere antiet:ated fuel load of Unit L?

ANSWER:

It has been and is counsel for TUEC's intent that the retrospective audit provide a retrospective prudency review of CPSES from its inception to its completion. Furthermore, from early discussions with members of the TPUC staff counsel for

_ .4 _

TUEC concluded that it would be desirable for the audit to include activities up to fuel load. Therefore, it was decided at a very early date in preparing for the audit that it should include CPSES activities up to fuel load.

INTERROGATORY:

e. Is it s:111 :ted to a da:e s?crtly cefore fuel lead f Unit ; an:, if 50 any?

ANSWER:

Yes. See answers to e & d above, so INTERROGATORY:

f. What tyces f :::uaents nave teen generate: -

ta :ne ::urse cf :n:a: ting the au:tt? Olease in:1use at:ht'l 7:Jr antaer ranInrtt;!n P:tes,11terna! tes3s witain :ne :r; ant:2:t:nts ::n::::ta; :ne au:lt, progress re:crts I a::lteants :n tre Justt, sinutes of see:tn;s 2n: 3::es :y :artt:t:a n s in :eetings as:ng the aant:r cart:nnei er :et.een :ne austt:rs anc any otner

er::ns.

FURTHER SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS:

Inquiry into, or the disclosure of, information regarding the documents actually created during the auditing process, when they may have been created, who created them, their subject matter, their contents, or other similar information would directly expose the nature of the work and the work product of the experts retained by TU Electric to perform the audit. It would thus abridge the protections afforded TU Electric, and other litigants, by invading their right to consult freely with experts in the course of

s preparing for litigation and to utilize the skills and efforts of such experts in order to promote their position in such litigation. _Further inquiry into those subjects cannot be undertaken, however, without trampling TU Electric's privileges.

TU Electric therefore further specifically objects to Gregory Interrogatory No. 5(f) on the grounds described in each of the General Objections and that it (1) seeks privileged information constituting the work product of TU Electric, its affiliates, and its attorneys which may have been or may be prepared in anticipation and contemplation of the litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the sb-jurisdiction of the ASLB and the NRC; and (2) seeks privileged and confidential information concern'ing the ..lentities, mental impressions, opinions and work product of consulting experts retained in anticipation and contemplation of litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the jurisdiction of the ASLB.

l l

O INTERROGATORY:

g. Has tne a::it cr any :f tre suett ;ers:nnel reached any tentative Or f;nal conclastens on 3.1y

u:;ects? If s:, c at are tncse con:!asicas?

ANSWER AND FURTHER SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS:

The work specification for the audit does not contemplate the receipt or review by Applicants of any

" tentative conclusions" since only a final conclusion is relevant or material to the purposes of the audit. No final conclusions on any subject have been made or furnished to Applicants. As set forth in the response to Interrogatory ,

5.a., the process of developing such a final conclusion has been suspended. s TU Electric therefore further specifically objects to Gregory Interrogatory No. 5(g) on the grounds described in each of the General Objections and that it (ti seeks privileged information constituting the stork product of TU Electric, its affiliates, and its attorneys which may have been or may be prepared in anticipation und contemplation of the litigation of issues and remedies falling outside the jurisdiction of the ASLB and the NRC; and (2) seeks privileged and confidential information concerning the identities, mental f

impressions, opinions and work product of consulting experts retained in anticipation and contemplation of litigation of I issues and remedies falling outside the jurisdiction of the ASLB.

l l

1

1. 4 .-.. u. .u. m

'e

, .o

, INTERROGATORY:

h. Who is 00nheting :.9e J';31t, IP.: .'.3 a: I'dC is r.:eret:tr.; :ne ::dact of :ne 2;jtt.

The firm of Cresap, McCormick & Paget has been conducting the audit. All activities of such firm, as they I relate to Comanche Peak, are being performed under the 4

direction of TU Electric legal counsel, j-p 1

i t

1 I

l 4

4 4

i

_a_

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

s O

Eb M ?.c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William S. Eggeling, one of the attorneys fo tb A pl s herein, hereby certify that on February 10, 1987, IFmade COLm a, service,iu of thewithindocumentbymailingcopiesthereof,postagedrShNid, 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 r*

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 Stuart As Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Exocutive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S. Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

t o

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 o*

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 CDmmission 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 1600 San Francisco, California 94111 William S. Eg ing 4

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