ML20032C947
| ML20032C947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Murphy P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C935 | List: |
| References | |
| 80-0760, 80-760, NUDOCS 8111130231 | |
| Download: ML20032C947 (10) | |
Text
-.-. -
t 1 l g.,j e, 1
i 3
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
)
)
VS.
)
No. 80-0760
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
APPLICATION to halt construction
)
of Byron Nuclear Power Station.
)
-l COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION TO TERMINATE AND RESPONSE TO THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
MOTION TO ESTABLISH A PREHEARING CONFERENCE i
Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Edison"), by its attorneys, respectfully moves the Illinois Commerce Commission to terminate this docket or, in the alternative, to suspend all discovery and evidentiary presentations until such time a
as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has published the ml results of its safety evaluation of the Byron plant.
Inasmuch as the granting of the relief requested in this Motion would eliminate the necessity of holding a conference to resolve discovery disputes as requested by the League, Edison also requests that the Commission deny the League's Motion filed j
October 29, 1981 requesting such relief.
BACKGROUND l-On November 21, 1980, barely one month following
. the Commission's final order in Docket 78-0646, (the Commission's investigation into Edison's ongoing construction program) 8111130231 811106 DRADOCK05000g
the Rockford League of Women Voters
(" League") applied to the Commission for an order halting construction of Edison's Byron Nuclear Power Plant.
The League's application was based upon the claim that a number of significant modifications to the Byron Station would be required to permit Byroa to be operated safely, and that the cost of these modifications would make the station uneconomical.-
In addition, the League claimed that if construction of the Byron Station were completed before the required modifications were made, the cost of making the modifications would. double.
These allegations were contained in an affidavit of Messrs. Hubbard and Minor of M.H.B. Technical Associates.
Although the League had been admitted as a party in Docket 78-0646, it i
did not present these claims to the Commission during the pandency of that proceeding.
On December 22, 1980, Edison filed papers opposing the institution of this docket, the sole purpose of which would be to reconsider the determination reached by the Commission in Docket 78-0646 that "... Edison has a duty to its ratepayers to complete the generating plants under construction in as timely a manner as construction and licensing constraints allow."
(Commission order in 78-0646,
.i l'
October 19, 1980, at page 12.)
On July 22, 1981, the hearing examiner assigned by the Commission to this docket
' advised Edison and the League that the Commission had decided to permit the League to present evidence on whether there l
had been substantial changes to the projected capital costs, nuclear fuel disposal costs or to the anticipated capacity factor for the Byron Station caused by events since the Commission's final order in Docket 78-0646 sufficient to warrant reinvestigation of the economics of prompt completion of the Byron Station (Tr. pp. 50-52).
The hearing examiner set out a schedule for limited discovery by both parties on these issues.
The hearing examiner also asked that the parties address the question of the practicality of this Commission assessing the economic costs of potential NRC mandated plant modifications before the NRC itself had determined that any modifications would be required (Tr. 52-53).
ARG0 MENT Certain developments since the filing of the League's application, and others since the Commission's I
instructions on how this docket should proceed suggest that it would be appropriate for the Conmission to terminate or suspend this proceeding.
1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Will Shortly Obviate Any Need to Speculate Regarding NRC Required Safety Modification to Byron Station.
l The NRC is forbidden to grant Edison a license to operate the Byron Station unless the NRC finds that method I
of utilization of special nuclear material (in this case enriched uranium) at Byron "will provide adequate protection l
l i
to the health and safety of the Public."
'42 U. S. C.
SS 2133 (d) and 2232(a).
The design, manner Of construction, and proposed operating procedures for the Byron Station are currently undergoing a detailed safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory 4
Commission's technical staff.
The results of the NRC Staff's review will be published in.its " Safety Evaluation Report"
("SER") for the Byron Station.
Among those issues on which the NRC Staff will publish explicit findings in the SER are:
1)
Whether the station has been completed and will operate in conformity with the Atomic Energy Act and the rules'and Regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and 2)
Whether there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public.
In the event the NRC Staff concludes that an aspect of the Byron design is inadequate from a safety standpoint, it will document its position in the SER and, in all likelihood, recommend such modifications to the design which it believes are necessary to assure safe operation of the facility.
The NRC has recently announced an accelerated i
schedule for the issuance of the Staff's SER (Exhibit A hereto).b!
Currently, the NRC intends to issue a SER for the Byron Station on February 7, 1982.
This document will l
1/
Exhibit A consists of a letter from Steven C. Goldberg,
~
NRC Staff Counsel, to the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board assigned to the Byron proceeding, announcing the NRC Staff's most recent schedule for issuance of the primary licensing documents for the Byron Station.
The schedule advances the SER by approximately three months. _ _ _ _,, _ _. _. _ _. -. _ _. _.
i
,, /
(
~
provide a much more credible indication of the likelihood that prohibitively expensive safety modifications will'rs,g required for the Byron Station than would any affidavits-filed by MHB.
To engage, at this point, in time consuming i
and expensive discovery designed, in effect, to gather information concerning which modifications, if any, will be' required by the NRC prior to authorizing operation at Byron l
would simply not be productive.
Given the accelerated SER
/
/
issuance schedule, any findings by this Commission regarding the likelihood of costly modifications for Byron would almost certainly be made following the issuance of the SER, at which time speculation into the likelihood of NRC mandated modifications would obviously no longer be necessary.2/
Under these circumstances, Edison should not be required to engage in time-consuming discovery and this Commission should not have to expend its limited resources considering issues that promise to be moot by the time they are ripe for decision.
2.
Recent NRC Licensing Experience Indicates That Prohibitively Costly Modifications for Byron Will Not Be Required.
Termination, or at a minimum suspension until after the issuance of the SER, of this proceeding is warranted for yet another reason.
During the course of recent proceedings 2/
The fact that, as yet, discovery in this docket has not l
progressed, and the prehearing proceedings are at a l
virtual standstill reinforces the unlikelihood of resolving the merits of the League's claims prior to i
the scheduled SER issuance date.
See Section 3 of~this Motion infra. ---
l.
before the NRC wherein'the League petitioned the NRC to halt construction of Byron pending a hearing into many of the very samo' purported safety issues which the League has 3/
raised in the present docket,- Mr. Harold Denton, NRC Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, stated the following in a letter to Mr. Myron Cherry:
Furthermore, past experience indicates that many changes in the plant that may be required as a result of NRC review of the operating license application involve procedures, equipment qualification, and analyses rather than physical changes to the plant.
Most of the changes that may be required involve improvements in electrical wiring or, at most, limited adjustment of mechanical equipment, e.g., valves.
Experience indicates that it is highly unlikely that any major structural changes will be required.
No insurmountable problems to effecting necessary changes have been encountered in plants undergoing recent operating license i
reviews even though construction was much further advanced than for Byron when needed modifications ~
were identified, e.g.,
North Anna 2, Sequoyah i
Unit 1, Farley Unit 2 and Salem 2.
Consequently, I have reasonable assurance that any safety changes required at the Byron facility can be implemented prior to the completion of the operating license i
review.
The plain import of these statements is that it is highly unlikely that the NRC will require modifications to the e
Byron facility such as those which the League asserts will be required.
This is particularly true in light of the fact that since the filing of the League's application in this docket, four Westinghouse-designed nuclear power stations-i 3/
The NRC denied the League's request.
The denial is presently the subject of an appeal before the 7th
~
Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
'o i
ehe
~
(including three mentioned by Mr. Denton), whose basic design is similar to Byron, have been granted either full power or low power testing licenses by the NRC.
Had modifications of a magnitude such that their costs even approached tha costs which MHB assert will be expended at Byron been required for these facilities, such modifications could not have been completed in such'a short time frame and the
!~
licenses would obviously not. ave been issued.
There is no reason to believe that the NRC will require Edison to modify the Byron Station in a fashion not required at the stations listed by Mr. Denton.
In sum. given that the NRC Staff will uhortly issue an SER for the Byron facility and the unlikelihood, based on recent NRC licensing experience, that substantial modifications will be required for Byron, proceeding with the present docket, at this time, would be wasteful and wholly unproductive.
Of course, if after the issuance of the SER, it appears as though the League's claims might have l
sound factual bases, this Commission could then consider whether an investigation such as that requested by the League were appropriate.
I 3.
The Status Of Discovery And Other Prehearing Matters All But Insures That The SER Will Issue Prior To A Resolution l
Of The Morits Of This Proceeding.
Even if this proceeding had progressed in accordance I
with the Commission's instructions on discovery and other,_.
prehearing matters, it seems doubtful that the issues sought to be litigated by the League would have been ripe for decision prior to the accelerated SER issuance date.
In fact, because of the League's unreasonable posture regarding discovery, there has been essentially no progress on discovery or other preliminary matters.
As a result, it is a virtual certainty that the SER will be issued prior to any resolution of the matters raised in the League's application.
Limited discovery in this proceeding was opened by the hearing examiner on July 22, 1981, with a cut-off for initiating discovery set for August 28, 1981.
Edison served notices of the depositions and docuntent requests on July 23, 1981.
These discovery requests had not been honored.as of August 28, 1981.
Both Edison and the League initiated additional discovery on August 28, 1981.
The discovery initiated by the League was extremely broad, and if taken literally would have required the production of hundreds of thousands of documents.
Representatives of Edison and the League met on September 10, and again on September 15 to attempt to put reasonable limits on the League's document request, and to set a date certain for the taking of the long-delayed depositions of Messrs. Hubbard and Minor.
At the September 15, 1981 meeting, two weeks after discovery closed, counsel for the League asked if Edison would volu.-tarily expand discovery in this proceeding to encompass issues far beyond those raised in the League's _
O Application which initiated this proceeding, and far beyond the limited issues upon which the hearing examiner had opened discovery.
(See Exhibit B hereto, consisting of a letter dated September 17, 1981 from Paul M. Murphy to Myron Cherry). /
Shortly after Edison refused to acquiesce in the 4
League's attempt to voluntarily expand discovery, the League demanded to be phid, in advance, $2200.00 as a condition precedent to permitting the depositions of Messrs.
Hubbard and Minor..
Edison believed that the League's demand that Edison bear the cost both of responding to the League's discovery request and the League's responding to Edison's discovery request was unreasonable and refused to do so unless so ordered by the Commission.
(See Exhibit C hereto consisting of a letter dated September 18, 1981).
Consequently, no discovery has taken place since mid-September.
Quite obviously, the issues which nould have to be resolved by the hearing examiner prior to any possibility of meaningful progress in this proceeding are much broader than those mentioned in the League's Motion to the hearing examiner i
dated October 29, 1981.
Among the issues which would have to be resolved are a re-definition of the scope of discovery
~
- which the Commission intends to permit prior to a ruling on 4'/
The League in essence wanted to convert this proceeding into an inquiry into Edison's financial capability to absorb $10 billion in backfit costs at the seven operating nuclear units and the six under construction.
Discovery was sought regarding design details of all 13 nuclear units, and Edison's entire financial conditf>n.
(See generally Exhibit B hereto.)
l -
~
Edison's Motion to Dismiss, and a determination of whether the League may reasonably ask Edison to bear the total cost of litigating both sides of the issues raised in the League's Application.
Even if the hearing examiner were to promptly set a schedule for ruling on these issues, it is highly unlikely that discovery, much less the filing of any additional affidavits could be accomplished before the NRC issues its SER.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Edison respectfully requests that this Docket be terminated, or, at a minimum, suspended and that the League's October 29, 1981 Motion be denied.
Respectfully submitted, ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
'T
.r) x
'N l
27 1
7 1
By. !ko.!
- - l -
,hb~f]'W Attorneys f9r Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Paul M. Murphy Alan P.
Bielawski Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500
1 EXHIBIT B i
l 4
Septktmer 17, IP:1 T.I.
2*yron Cinerry C...erry Elynn O. A I b..
I l a e. a S :. ice ual C..ac.a.,o, Illinois bG611 Eu.
ICC Locket B o-07 tic Ruc.;.for.1 Leuque of Wemen Voters
- v. Cor. :ensualth 1:dison Co: pan /,,
06.2r !!r. Cherry:
."L. ring our tw.: ting of 5 eptem$.mr 15, 1901, you statud that in yvur view, tac recco lin:: c'iouL: lo<;i: ally li.cluuu consideracion of rdison's overall financiM ability tc aLao4% alic9.::uay unceasive backfittinc: costs a:: the L.nall.2, byron and raicstood Stations, as well a:; c.t all six o;.,ura ting :.s tat.iours.
In keeping with this vimi, ytr. ash.2d te if the Company would voluntarily make availal:le for depo:*i-tic.;a, 1.dimun' a Financial Vice Presidi-nt, anc Pr. Jams L.1%y, ihauer of I roj.-cts.
I navy -consulte d with r?.* client, a2.6 Loy are unwilling to acquiuscie in any unilateral effort oc. jour pars to expana ci:5covery in this prococding far bc.ycau the iusaes wgcitied by tnc linaring ida:niner on Julj M, 1%1.
On Suptemar Jo, 1981 you called latcr in tM day to ash if tne Lonpany would produce l'.r.
Maley *for his deposition on October 5, 1961.
Unen I informed ycu that the con;,any's willingness to do so voluntarily depended on the naturn of tP.o -.attern you wishec to raise vith F'r. !!aley, you asserted ar. abnoluto right to take aerositicns of any of the Corsany'a pe.ruunnel at any titee.
You then launched into a tirac'c,
liLoral.ly spiced with foul invectivos, regarcing : y intr.111<:ence and teruf cuulor..I conpeeter.ce.
You rotused to indicate the s,ub3t:ct se.atter of any ceposition of Mr. reley.
Meauce of your unprofussionsi onnuuct, it vill not :*2. occil:1c to roccive i
thrsagn negotiation tais oiscovery diss.ute letweer. t.h I
Cct.;.any Ar.d t.he Mague.
I woulci suggest that you ta}.c nuch stepu c you deu: appropriate to obtain a rulins on this
- natter from the Coca:ission.
t 1
{
l
O c
.sv:: ncr 17, 1931 rage nx:
k'ith respect. tc the depositiens of hiscrc. F.ubbard and Minor, you asked that t.!c:7 ta~<e lace beginning rapton-bcr 25, rather than Sc;te:.her 24 an earlier agreed.
I am certainly willing to attempt to accer: odate your vitnecans, and have agreed to the change, subject to cur underntandir.c that. t.hc descuiticn will go forward u::til completc, including,
if necc:inary, scscions during the evening on Friday, f.eptem-Ler 25 and cl1 day Saturday, Septed.tr 26 thereafter.
Sincerely, ISi!7E, L!t:COLI! & !!I2JE ny Paul i1. Murrahy 7.t terneys fer CO:nco:N.:alth F.'.i:!cn Ocnpany 1 ; :?/1:sb Cc:
P.S. I*and3 VDJ19 uiS h
j' L
l e
i
EXHIBIT C i
i Scytc~icr 15, l' ';l J
J'r. ?!yron Cherry Cherry & Plynn One IiO. Plaza Cuito 4501 Chicago, Illincis C0011 ac:
ICC Locket 60-0700
'Rockford League of 1cnon Voters
- v. Cc:.:nonVcalth
- licon Celapan1
Dear P.r. Cherry:
This lottor-is to confirr:. the fact, as cos unicated to your office late ycot,::: Gay, that the depositiot. of ::r.
Cohn 2uhevski will not so forward on 5spte:.:Ler 22 a2 previously scheduled.
On Septorier 10, at a necting in tho officos of Zuha:.., Lincoln f. Boalc, you asked if Edison would to willing to cor.pensate Pessrs. !!nbLard and :~inor for their tino during the taking cf their dcpositions.
I resucnded thau we would discuss th t ratter if, at'the cano ti:.:e, we Jiucussed the I. : ague cc: pensating Ccr.ncnwcalth r6ison Ccapany !!cr all tino and expensos acseciated with respcnding to discovery initiated by the League.
You did not carc to discuss it in thoso torn and stated you would produca :tasrs. liuiLard cnd r.iner withcut resolving the cuection of who would pay their irofessional foc and obtain a subsequent ruling from the Luaring examincr.
Yesterday, I ruccived a letter fron you asserting that you would not produce : essrs. I:ubbard and "inor unisse Idisca agreed in advance to pay then 02,200 to attend a one-day deposition.
Given that yea havo ::.ccided to withdraw frcn ycur i.revious agrocnont to produce the witnesses for the takir.g
,of thcir deponitions,.uiner h:.c detcr.inc.. that it is appropriate to. wiundraw from itn agre ::.u.nts on Jiacovery.
.v.
Ziyron Churry Sagtember 1S, 1981 Fago Wo We intend to file vita the Cocunission shortly the appropriate papors to obtain a ruling front the Connmission on how, if at all, this proceeding should go forward.
In the cuantire, you may take this lottar as notice that Edison will not voluntarily respond to any discovery originated by the League in this proceeding until such matters are resolved.
Sincerely, ISUAM, LIticoI2i t. BEALE Ey Paul M. Murphy Attorneys for Couronwealuh Edison Company Mu!/msb cc:
- is. Wanda namphuis ji e
e e
S 0
_.m,.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company, certifies that on this date he served a copy of the attached pleading by causing a copy to be hand delivered to each of the persons at the addresses shown.
DATED:
November 5, 1981 Ms. Wanda Kamphuis, Hearing Examiner Illinois Commerce Commis.t. ton 160 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 Myron Cherry, Esq.
Cherry & Flynn One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois j'
')
{
)
' i Alan P. Bielawski
t l
I k
i l
N-'v,,
'*-y "N~, _ _
~' +-
'"%q h
2~
r LAW OFFtcED CHERRY & F LY N N ONEimu PLAZA CHICAGO. ILI.lNOIS 6 0 Sil (3tal s es.es77 Septaus.+.r 22, 1981 Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Taham, Lincoln & h 1a One First Natimal Plaza Forty-Second Floor Chicago, 7114 mis 60603
'Re: Rockford Imagts of Wcroen Voters
- v. cWth Edison Ccricany Iktar Paul:
'Ihe aucu,3-en's with respect to Messrs. Minor and Ebbard cannot be equated with Canonwealth alison's esployees. Messrs. Minor and B+hard are not parties, but expert witnesses. You have no right to force an expert witness to testify for you in a deposition without payment. On the other hand, etployees of Canonwealth Edison nust resp xd to discovery requests because they are a party. Unless you arrange for payment up front, they (not I) refuse to at+M based on their experience with your law firm in the past (e.a., when you prmiaad to rai*rma them, tut h broke your wErtT until a Paring Examiner ordered you to pay them).
As for your series of self-serving misrepresentaticns in your recent lette- (which you had the curious elan to send to Ms.
Karmhn4=), I can only add that if you mntinue to display such conduct I shall singly inform Mr. Miller to assign another lawyer frcru your office to the case who has b=L^w nenners (and perhaps a better ability to represent Ccrtrtenwealth Mien in a profa==imal atmosphere).
Follcwing your lead, I am sending a copy of this letter to Ms. Kanphnis.
Since.
/
ll
- u. w i
i MC/dn Ms. Wanda Kanphuis, Hearing Examiner cc:
l Michael I. Miller, Esq.
$ TECHNICALAS$OCIATES #
Q & TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ON ENERGY & THEENWRONMENT 1
Hamiltc:' A<eme-Suga f U* **
October 12, 1981
'~
Richard B. Muttard San Jose Ca2::.m 25125 Gregory C. Minor Phone:( C3) :55-2 N 3 Mr. Peter Flynn, Esq.
CHERRY, FLYNN One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 Chicago, IL 60611
SUBJECT:
Subpoenas - Byron Nuclear Station NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 and.50-455
Dear Peter:
MHB was served with the attached three sub-poenas from Commonwealth Edison (Ishanr, Lincoln and Beale) on October 12.
Accompanying the sub-poenas were three (3) A d3 for $30 each.
As Greg' and you have discussed in the pas t, we should obtain ILSB's payment in advance for the deposition and documents in accordance with the standard MHB rates as set forth in the July 1, 1981 MHB rate schedule.
Let's also discuss the need per 10CFR 2.720(f) to submit a motion to quash.
Yours very truly, MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES M
Ih 4
Richard B. Hubbard RBH:ma Enclosures l
DGIIBIT B l
l i
o.
. o n W
G G
o ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEA LE COUNSELORS AT LAW Our rinST NAftONAL PLAZA FORTvaSCCONO FLOOR CMICAGO. 0LLINO8S 60603 TELcPMONC 312-558-7500 TELtz:2 5284 wasninotow orrict September 18, 1981 nao coaateticur aveauc a =-
wasnm u.
.acose aca 833 973o Mr. Myron Cherry-Cherry & Flynn One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611
'lte: 'ICC tocket B9-0760 Rockford League of Women Voters
- v. Commonwealth Edison Company
Dear Mr. Cherry:
This letter is to confirm the fact, as communicated to your office late yesterday, that the deposition of Mr.
John Bukovski will not go forward on September 22 as previously scheduled.
On September 10, at a meeting in the offices of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, you. asked if Edison would be willing to compensate Messrs. Hubbard and Minor for their time during the taking of their depositions.
I responded that we would discuss that matter if, at the same time, wc discussed the League compensating Commem malth. Edison. Company.for all time and expenses associated with responding to discovery initiated by the League.
You did not care to discuss it in those terms and stated you would produce Messrs. Hubbard and i
Minor without resolving the question of who would pay their professional fee and obtain a subsequent ruling from the hearing examiner.
Yesterday, I received a letter from you asserting that you would not produce Messrs. Hubbard and i
Minor unless Edison agreed in advance to pay them $2,200 to attend a one-day deposition.
Given that you have decided to withdraw from your previous agreement to produce the witnesses for the taking of their depositions, Edison has determined that it is appropriate to withdraw from its agreements on discovery.
O
~~--e
,,._,.,m r ___
,,,.+,m,
W 7
Mr. Myron Cherry September 18, 1981 Page Two We intend to file with the commission shortly the appropriate papers to obtain a ruling from the Commission on how, if at all, this proceeding should go forward.
In the meantime, you may take this letter as notice that Edison will not voluntarily respond to any discovery originated by the League in this proceeding until such matters are resolved.
Sincerely, ISHAM, LIN LN EALE l
/
BT Paul M. Murphy Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company PMM/msb cc:
Ms. Wanda Kamphuis I
l
~
l t
l
... ~
~. -. - -... -. - -
..f:4 J
. si LAvr C F FIC E")
CH E R RY & FLYN N
.=
ON E ISM PLAZA uvaon u.cMtany CHICAGO. lLLINOIS S O Sil yetz,woug Isaal ses.sist psica rtvMn August 7, 1981 Paul M. 51rphy, Esq.
Isham, rir min s m ala One First Naticnal Plara 42nd Floor j
Chicago, Illinois 60603 aar Fe 'dex.d n== of Wanert Voters
- v. T114mie rymmam re-wi== inn
Dear Mr. birphy:
I have spoken further with Messrs. F+hard ard Minor concern 2ng depositicns. You are aware frc:a previous correspondence of our uravaila-bility as counsel until approxirately August 24. Messrs. nNM ard Minor advice that one of then is unavailabla the week of August 24; the other is unavailable the week of Septercher 7; ard their availahility during the w ek of August 31 is limited by hearings in another matter en Septad.=r 1 ard a daughter's wedding cn Seh 5.
However, they would e
be available for depositicns in califnrnia en September 2nd or 3rd (with a strong preference fcr SepwLer 2nd), and would be willing to cane to Chicago for depositicns dt"-ing the week of SepwLer 14. If they are to a to Chicago, as has been done in prior situations whm you have deposed them, it is requested that Cummwealth Edison provide then in advance with travel #arn acd a. vaacmahla sm for chimm acca:rWima.
't Regarding documents, I renew my request that ycu advise me 1
which of tra dccuments referenced in tra Fnhhard-Mirer AffidavitFdicon does not aheady have in its possessicn. I can see no purpose h tever in providing Ediscn with doc:rnents it already has, particularly when the
@mmants themselms are specificn11y cited in the Affid nrit. I suggest that the same y4.cc.elure be fo11cwed regarding the other porti.cn of your dcement request, i.e., "Byren-=p -i #ic" dec=ents in MEB's possession not referenced in he H'+hard-Minor Affidavit. In the near future - I hope within ten days - I will provide a list of such dccuments. If you will then advise ne which of the doctrrents Edison does not already have in its pssession, I will expediticusly cbtain ecpies for you. Not aith-standing the exigencies of the ongoing injunction hearing of which you are aware (and to which I have referred in earlier correstendence), I will make every effort to get the dccu=ents to you at least ten days in
~
advarce of the de;csiticn.
q Ve j/
- uly
/
t bec: Richard B. PNM Gregory C. Minor (Q
Peter Flynn PF/dn
.l
~
law OFFICES C H E: R R Y & F t.Y N N OPet IBM PLAZA CHICAGO. lLLINOIS 6 0618 mai....nn August 14, 1981 Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plar Forty-Second Floor
- Ctdesgo, Illinois 40603 Re: Rockford League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth Edison Comoany, Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 81-0760
Dear Mr. Murphy:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of this morning, concerning the depositions of Messrs. Hubbard and Minor and your document request pertaining thereto.
You indicated that you wish to depose Messrs. Hubbard and Minor on September 15,198L 'Ihat date is acceptable to us, being one of the dates given me by Messrs. Hubbard and Minor as acceptable to them.
You indicated that you are willing to conduct the depositions either in Chicago or at MHB's offices in California, leaving the choice of plactr to ar and' Messiv. Hubbard and Minor.-
You further indicated that if the depositions take place in Chicago you will reimburse Messrs. Hubbard and Minor for coach air fare and reasonable hotel accommodations; but you are not prepared to pay either travel or accommodations in advance.
(As I understand it, the reimbursement would be made during or at the close of the depositions, rather than at any later date.)
I will consult with Messrs. Hubbard and Minor concerning the place of ' deposition and advise you shortly.
Regarding documents, you indicated that you are preparing and will shortly deliver a list of the documents cited in the Hubbard-Minor Affidavit of which Edison does not already have copies.
I stated that I have asked Messrs.
Hubbard and Minor to list the Dyron-specific documents in.MHB's possession, and trust that list will be forthcoming shortly.
Regarding the latter list, it has not yet been established how we will proceed. You indicated that if the depositior.s e
- 8. n....a.m
- e
,% pin ee ee
.# 9
/
\\
Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
August 14, 19 81 Page Two are held in Cslifornia you would be willing simply to have the documents produced for inspection at MHB's offices on September 14, 19 81.
If the depositions are held in Chicago, we will have to work out an arrangement concerning copies (or inspection) of documents on the Hubbard-Minor " Byron-specific" list which Edison does not already have.
k y'huler yo t
v w
Peter Flynn PF/kal i
i i
l; 0
L
I
-i
+
6 ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE
, COUNSELORS AT LAW ONC QST NATIONAL PLAZA FORTY-SECOND FLOOm CHICAGO, jLUNOIS 60603 TCLCPNONC 312 S58-7500 TELCA:2-5264 msneNGTON CFFICE 1120 CONNECTICUT AVCNUE, N.W.
SUITE 325 msNa NG70N. D. C. 2003 S 202 833 9730 August 7, 1981 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Cherry & Flynn One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Re:
Commonwealth Edison: Byron Station
Dear Mike:
As you know, the NRC licensing review of the 13yron Station has been proceeding and it is reasonable to expect the beginning of the operating license hearing process in the near future.
We have served interrogatories directed to your contentions and intend to follow up the interroga-tories with other discovery as appropriate.
Before beginning the litigation process it seems reasonable to determine whether or not there is any basis now for fully resolving the matters which will be at issue in the operating license hearing.
I assure you that Commonwealth Edison Company has always been prepared to take cognizance of legitimate concerns expressed by residents of the Rockford area, including, of course, those of your client.
There is a relatively limited period of time within which to determine whether any negoti-ations between our clients could be fruitful and to conduct such negotiations.
Please call me at your earliest convenience so we may discuss this matter further.
l Sincerely, s
MIM:es Michael I. Miller 1
I i
l
~
r
-~---c
.., _ u. _ _... m.
l e-l
,J A -
.m.
l g.
3 LAW CFFICES 9,
N/
CE C.R R Y & F t Y N N, p.c, c n e e s se 9' A Z A
.g..
-~El'CAC O, I t.t.1 N C I 3 6 C 6 81 tasas sess-sity Cc %. ?...'.,
.?
2 *
.n-
_BY MISSHEElt Mi.chael I. NEIle.,d
.N Isham, 7.4 - h.,-
One First Natn:x21. ? %i-Forty-Samnd Ilcc:
- ' Cticago,mH-wds Esti-3n: 7
- *Ta q.;a cf accim vc:crn u.,ii 11.. -,u -
w..-,
~,
.. w w..
Dear M.I.ke:
A 5lsern--e.c ycu m' ei. y effice wr..1:q tc disc.:ss depositicas in -fbe ::n :: nae,inid f cu t'.d'sc..edc.4 -decut 2.i consultaticn iett a, = 69.at.r.at-.>.: er/ cc.er :c:~;;y ta c.e :;PC pr___m %,.
'T +-P.,~, ~. ~_.,' w- -.cr m~.' y-s, _*. _'
~ i s. ~.~.'...v..'.m+
e h
in dia *m 'one-siiitihery tu wctdd ha acre.:..n r .- -c discuss the uvie-- %a.a.:: cu.;;:ar.d;.: g disc cri in
-.e ::yc case, as w.H ns tia' u. m m, W. ^. v.
as+~._'*~_.*-.._,_.:.,> "
once agreed 61:st ", *-e w.), e-e n-.. -
- .d
- da.~.
I am gn:::s % _i::cd -i:. e.c re.cr Of yer rc; rase.~.cr..ica, but I cannot.in gczab -- --- a ages 6 c-r-sii.ai hargaini.g.
w z, :n ?.c<~.*.'...c ~'~-.a %~.
u.-
~>
a p.
~. +3.y..
~.,u
.~
N, Y _dEd
=~e
.Y *M A
.b
- b N
$ 7 M' d Rules.
/
)lI l
D ? b:' M.$'!!
,4 l
.s.
is
., {
u i' lf Y
' W;.L...,,f
. y#
f u; v
3 a
-s,
,.,..- u -.
o
'a
,e
.Wdn
,/*
/
f f[
t
/
/
/
n
?-
e-law creacts O
')
C H E: R R Y & F t.Y N N y'
~
O ONr IBM PLAZA uvmon u.cHtmmy CHICAGO, ll.LIN CIS 60611 es t:Pweg t.
PETEm FLYNN OlI* S m O
- II U August 8, 1981 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza 3
U Forty-Second Floor-.
Chicago, Illinois 60603 1
Byron Statien Be: Osmenwealth Edison:
Dear Mr. Miller:
We are in receipt of your lette of August 7th.
Please be advised that Myron Cherry is curren-dy cn tr:.al in a major injunction case, in Fandall County. The trial ir acur ed ':3 hst fran two to three weeks longer. I will rake a point of atti21 g % Crrry of your letter as soon as he raturns to the office. I a-. ras y m.il'.
understand that he cannot ha=4hly give full attentien _c a ns: er +s emplex as the Byrcn prWings while ha is in the dM t of t:fi"4 3.
ompletely unrelated case.
Your letter refers to beginning the operating 'icele hear ~ W process "in the near future." Last week one of the D.' 5- " :: sal indicated that hearings were not expected to begin f : a ;wx-cr ::r2.
g Was he in error?
V
" y
- n:rs,
/a ky.<. w PeterFlynnj PF/dn m.
., - - - - - -. - -,,,