ML20032E488

Memorandum & Order Granting Applicant Motion for Sanctions, Dismissing Rockford League of Women Voters & Denying Rockford League of Women Voters Motion for Sanctions Against Applicant

ML20032E488
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	10/27/1981
From:	Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111200609
Download: ML20032E488 (13)

Text

,

b DOCKETED USNRC 00CMi

! :. ~ i D :, U. i L S U F

FRIG USN

,i.

f (

ilde; '.i

..(

i

'81 OCT 28 All:16 8I' @'J

~

,,.. ~.,,.,,

r., --. L.

,i.,,~

i t

.t u

..;m,-

3

,, c f r., * ',,,

,7,. 1

n...

0 Frt;E..c r..,S,EC.w.U T py.ggCc. or S$

RE

^

.3

...u a,

v -('. ' p '. I "r ?

i COCX ~IlflG &

" i 11 s:r, C!: : ii

.n

" 1 c. > l 1 F.

i ERANC

.r.

sich ud L Col; i' c Dixco Callihin EO l'i-DL i L i e e c i-

)

M' u o.;

a

)

50 - 4 x-f i f

II. R

'l:

,l l'.

/;Y

)

)

w

(:',, n

.c'

?

.c M itt i,

)

Ocu ie ?7, M1 bg u

sits 1

1. )

)

6

)

5 8C l[

t

.E, No yz 9198lb.9 e

u k

DdDM 2

J 0: 7

.,sT. 4. V N

l c-(.

1 j.. u) e, a -4

. :e /, Ic al,

al, c

n. a cc ;r ce

q t,

c

ir'j

t as 4 n

! L,

' J 1

c'1

(1

) ~, - i: :

.i.u; a ~.ilu4 or i.

t

..s ii,~1'

,j

I.l.

,O

. :'i I ;

's.

, fl 7 il., C

.i I

i 4

[ ;

A i,

?

. 1. )

e

.,J

1. 1 1*

J

,4

..l.

-s,..

i o'

L :

s'. - I*

s' i

,.s II I >

J t L 1,

+ ; 4 ',

a

'I,,,i i,..

,,2, t1 s

/1 a*

i.

'f' r

3

,l u

' ?

D, i;y}.

1,.i r

.8,,. l ). - -

7;..i ;

l :!,

}

6 1 5 4

_l.., "j i

.b li

)

i 1 iL iI.

(k g1 u

ne 4 L it 1

6 B

i J

,1 Cs i t ' 'a

) L I ' '.1

[UC 7

l'

S liil I _ 'j r?

ilDI, fl,1 'll

'. i 1 fI

~,

u J.'

3 slill b d i d i ii.

! [

I.

S i

i:, !

f i ! < --i i. c, / i -.' '. o di ra' S.

10, i:.0.

t ;,i s i : '.1 m.1 c,F 1:0,

d c nl ; '. i '

n c i i.h. c c c : A n L ; n -;

fra igm isly f f, im t. t.L e pl n.3 1 ales

re 1 Dxcally c,

c :.i ' y l'

/,pl );

ot

,1 ' ' a. :

1/

c. c

,_: by '.a te n i e 11; cc:..

u;

.s ye a u. a w ple m..og : su U"

nr 19, i :0,1

'm a la,12 UFC M3.

. n o.a d C: ze

,s

,1 9 @g 8111200609 811027 6

PDR ADOCK 05000454 I

G PDR

O

- 2 4

I

".r.er, it tas specifically statcd that "Of courte, all admitted ccntcatio:,s are subject to. oti ns for su~ Try dispositicn a fler t: 2 cc:- letion of dis-cavery, if 'there is no genuine issue to be heard.'"U And our Order furthcr cavi&d that "discc very shall c:. unce forth..'ith up^n all issees included in

+

tne - ^;i tted ccntent icos. "3

i 1,

The Aaplic a l sur.ad uritten intccrcnatories on tha Lea" sue en Juiv 1,

i l

1 ]l.

TLece iM m 7:itccies ir.gired into th f actual L+ces for the contentinns,

ny evi&ntiary su, art for tb-,,

,nd tha idcutitj of sitnasses and the n

s'. b: h r o 4 f their p.cted testi-ny.1j The use of interrogatories sucn as 2/

1

- Ibid., St 655.

') l ~,

• ~ c~

..n.,

au u m; ).

r

,a

.1 /

t-tion 2dvancM by the

a th rr,..ct to ech :

l' " '.en nicr' L: :j _

ich a L.

a ' _^ '. i t t e.i by the

,tt

. O f;ty : d Liccasirj Coard

-c.: p t i ed, ccecding, lis t the folicaino:

in the 3.

Ac 'cise d _ _ cat of the imcts luptcr t.ng e

,h Contv. tion l

' m t: 3r ith refe mes to t he s cific ' cur < is ;nd docu-cats a1 : -a coas thereof hich -se been or.' ill be relieu up n to esi c.Slish such facts;

'ho ir'eni f y of m ch 2rcca expected.3 F. o oilcd as a

.i :.. : f, m_..

t

_ E., c i n o,.,

m c

- 'bject it' ' cn hien the witr. sc i s r c : Led to

. ", r i G,, -

d.

the substa m of i':a... ness's ti.stin:ny.

2.

.-lith rcapct a ch uilnt :s i<!enti fin i in th-

1. v;ue's rmponse to Int:rragatory 1 c';

, i:S;tify xh d 'c" : en t a.:hich Ra wi tr, 5,s will rely an in hole ;r i, ;wt in E2 p. 4araticn of his t.sti: any or in the d

_I'

. ', t o f h i ', " 3 S i ' i O n.

1 in the t..gm's re' yne.c to S re 7.',. t +, e ' h w i t m ' s i r'. n t i f 4 s.

l1:

Ivis 1 fyt 4

s ' n., c) t.,

f,c.

2.,s: :,

t s,

+ i } l +*.,. ~l (.

i 'l, a, 1~s j 1

c...,+:,

L_i4uaiy

.. I u. '., c c.>>

i

,,yt c

is

_.I m

o s

a or '-he subj St

• l P 01.hich Y lillOSS Will LO S i. i fy.

4.

I0 St.ify 3lI p *:.ciiC

b. O [13 rti'. i p3 led in ihd dim 'Gr0 tiCn OI # hG

?, n '

SF5, Or any T urliUn theri If, t0 thOs2 IntGrrCgliJries."

.--=r.--mem.----..-...w.

.._....--,m.

_,m..,..--__.e__.,%~-3m.,,,,.

,m, w- - m m

.,-v-w.

,, 3

~... -

I i

o i

i g

I

. i these has been approved by the Appeal Board as a ccm.on and reasonable method of disccvering the evidentiary and factual bases for contentions.5/ This is l

especially true there intervenors have filed a very large nwnber of contentions.

I 4

I l

The Appeal Board in Su_squehanna held that "it is not proper for a party to ignore a discovery request,"N and quoted with appr oval the Licensing

]

Board's statenent that:

"The Applicants in particular carry an unrelieved burden of proof in Ccm ission proceedings. Unless they can effectively inquire

(

j irto the position of the intervenors, discharging that burden may i

he imossible.

To permit a party to inake skeletal contentions, I; cap the baces for them secret, then require its adversaries to i

met any conceivr.ble thrust at hearing /would be patently unfair, and inconsistcut with a sound record."7 Answers to the Applicant's interrogatories were due under our rules by i

i 8

l July 27, 1931 (10 CFR 52.740(b)). No ann ars tere filed by that (hte, so en I

July 30,'1931 the Applicant filed a motion to compel discover by the League, i

l On f : gust 5,1931, tha League by one of its attorneysU filed object ans to j

4 i

4 these interrogatories,..hich in substarce argued that they were " premature" j

L gave no ' actual or other bases for.he cententions.

1 Cn August 7s 1981, the Leagua's attorneys filed a response to the Applicant's rc,otion to cuapel discovery.

this response asserted that lead I

i gjPennsylvania Po..er and Light Cc pany and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

j l

(Susquchar.na Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Al.A3-613,12 flRC 317, a33-35, 340 (IMO).

'V

-- Ibid., a t 322.

/

- Ibid., at 333.

l'/ Peter Flynn, Esq., of the firm of Chrry and Flynn, Chicago, Illinois.

i h

i I

l l

1

~..

=,

t

. ccunsel fe i.f.e League (tiyron fi. Cherry, Esq.) was engagcd full-time, and his partner (Peter Flynn, Esq.) virtually full-time, in a discovery and pretrial schedule in connection with a preliminary injunctica hearing in a circuit court in Illinois. The League's attorncys also opined that "the great burden of tine and expense entailed in attempting to respond to those Interrogatories at this junctura is grossly disproportianate tc the minimal benefit (if any) 2 uhich might be gleaned from responses...."

(Response of League, p. 2).

It further-stated that counsel should hwe an opportunity for consultation with opposing counsel to resolve differences cancerning discovery (Id., p. 3).

f 4

t i

The Board considered the League's objections to these interrogatories, j

l l

and it entered an Order on August 18, 1931 that expressly overruled such l

l objections, and rejected c:;unsel's excuse; for fail'ng to file timely discovery respontes./ That Ort :r provided:

9 l

"It is sufficient for en interienor at the pleading stag)e merely j

to state his reascns (i_.g., the basis) for contentions, 9/ and l

he is not required to plead evidence or to establish that the l

<:ssertions ere v: ell-fcundcd in 'act.28 The Applicant is i

entitled to obtain discovery concerning the bases of these i

contenti ms, since a gocd deal of infornation is already i

available to the League frora the FSAR and other dacuments.

The Leque mu:t furnish such inforc.ation prcmptly, and it cannot i

f celay until the SER or othc.r documents are filed. The factual or evidentiary bases for such contentions nay in part reflect such later infon ation, but discovery may precede cuch filings, j

subject to later supplementation....

j "The original Order entered Daca.ber 19, 1930 directed thct i

discovery should cs cer.co inr.ediately upon all issues included in the attitted contentions. All par. ties are. directed to pro-cead egeditiously with discovery and other trial preparation."

(Footnctes c:aitted)

(Ibid., Slip Opinion at pp. 7 ')

I f

67 1 LBP-31-30-A, 14 URC _ (1931).

i i

k i

-5.

Our Order of R;ust 10 further stated:

'To clarify and expedite further discovery in this procceding, the Beard adapts the following iceasures:

1.

All parties are directed to ar directly with each other regsrding alleged m iciencies in dis-covery bafore resorting to motions involving the Ecard. To this and, voluntary discovery and dis-closure are highly enceuraged. All motions involving discovery contrcvetsies shall describe fully the dittet efforts of the parties to resolve such disputes the:selves."

(Ibid., Slip Opinion at pp. 10-11)

The League's precaturity argutnt and its excuses for ignoring interro-

atories because its attorneys, era busy, were dealt with as follows

"The Lewue's cbjecticr based laroely upon the argument that the four interregatories are pre Iture, are denied. While mye infonation may be available when the SER is file 1, there is presently availdle a large n-sunt cf documentary and other information. The :mvard is entitled to full and respcasive anmrs based upon th pretently kr.r'ia status of these matters;

.a to additicnal im w.utico.<Mn i t tocca is available.

I

"" e L 1Le's response to the r:otitn to ceg,el discc ery is i

l i F. ci r e e'e r.r rul ed.

The invols nnt of a par ty's la yers in l

li tif. tion cc athcr professicnal busir.ess dees not a7.cuse l

rocccwliance with rar extan] deadlincs for compliance with our rules of practice.

The M jue's re ponse is also a bit too casual W ;t the lungth of ti e available for trial prev raticns 1:.dir.g to the cc.. A c o ; n t-of cvidantiary hearings.

A sch Mule will im irsued soon by the Beat a.

Hou-ever, a large 3er of sc -. hat ccmplu contentions hive been filed by thr. L a gue, and the Appiicant is not required to delay discovery or trial prep: ration.

"The last point relied on by the League's response ccncerns the re; :-st for censul tatico en discovnry bel r:n ar amor.g the pcrties. This request is cavered by paragr!ph 1 of the discovery rules set forth supra. The parties will be allowed a reasonable p riod of tire

'.o confer Hwever, resp nsive ans>.ss shall be filed to these and other interrcptories prcrptly, and disconry shall be conicted expeditiously."

(Ibid., Slip Opinion at pp.13-14)

e It :is t!Rrefern or _ rcd thn:

"U : kplicant's r itic a to 21 ir_c nery !.y the icrue is a rc. 'W: a,

Lect uo a pcc t :c a,~e r nc e ba t ^ -n t:,0 parties."

(5 lip 0?inica, p. 15, par. 3)

Folle, ng entry of the Solrd's L:acific directives in its Orche of ut 1, tF: Lcaj. naitD :r rq :enCJ ror furnith ?d my discovt:ry in this

Oli

.J.

d j'TP, CG'1Djel fQr the 'f pliOlnl j'U rWMR LO UUr diFGCliVCS m,it:Ct'd ti ' Lc35UO's CCun50l by (Cl QAne Cn [U910t ?S, l' 11 CCI.utenin]

' f 2 n S'.. _ r s.

Si.:ila r CC3'c.'esaticas tcoh: p ! '.c c: on Sgtdaer 3,

^

~

in 10 md Sept 3r 15, l'M1. cut no res.~nsys to [gplicant's intarro-c.,., p q :. c. '.

_f 1

& T, 3 l. gag.n.

-*q m

1. .__i o

L, o...

e2_

_ = =

3 e

b.r I

%.'s I.J

.pt.

5, 19'l

. i

^'lt..,'L-dr IS, If i l, Tra i t tc C. 'l to this Ort'er a l i'.e d hibits.i <

3,

,.y O.tiva'y, n..

rt i

ar;;v ' ?d i'. ein by rei erence.

a'

' ' o c, a d U

$ tiar..cti ms b ic h they r. n cct Cl o rly est el:l ich + Sa t

'_ F

~

' y i l 5 C

'^ 2l h'S illfJlly [d iled' led i efu5 'l lo Chny f!i3 CPard's

l L.. a,

._,L

., I,,I

,s a.m a

,r-3

. r i

I 4.

,_,.i6L( tu.

, a i

3 %

Ill2d by !.hd b Ei.e on 0 :tc' t r 13, TI ' [

j C

' i d Lh ' ra$g ~

m 5 i

- g ty r ' i, ;1 Ull3Cn 2J

.i c X ill D l lS

')

_ :. il i ;'. d. Yli.

1,5

. i, i C G iGI I: C L 6.n S, LC S i' 3 d l i,

' hl5 LO

'CUSO Or COi $U00 LIld s-;

nd rOlh iW} in Dec

i'%

4 L-

,.2', to ta l fc. i l u re.o gec tia t cc;a.sivo w.ar, t.o inl ro;utories.

Ti.e di:

'S

-On i U n:Ol i c iriii,g 6_ -)S i t ii h 5 nii l o thif f diSCOVr"y, SS b'

^

', C nd U, t!O rd. reldlO LO t!i e i n LI 0 'It

?'O.I,

i f '

I.C r g '13 ' '

U. !i i!; i t S f

i

.j.

IS they l On 12i r i :C', I,I P/ i n '/ P l '.' O ER

'[

Ulir] I l l i r.V i S I

I l

n

1 i

1 f I

f i

t 1

- l.

I C ':

arce Cec n '. s i e n : cct M in !.

TLa Nard J s rot inten.1 to hect a i rwol. -d in sc J c :Il a b cal l i l i.;1 t i en.~h h n i s r.ot S..n to b e r M m r.t t o th i s p cc c c e d i r.g. As the rvhibits shcu, copics of tLa lcaers r2flecting T e I

dis N tes ceba a cca.el

..c re all.'lil ai to T.;..:Inda !.phius, taring

eard, r.d pen;2rly so.

c ". i ". u r. ', '::r.c.:as copied t; this r

~n n.

+,

e L 1..

d l +g, mal y

,,c

( I

i t, t 5 it LH i. i, J s.y

.m,1,

.s L

J j ( 1 ~3. -

c..., - ;

r, c,,

u !,,d us t

3 3

.t timnrF m i ta v..ca, as, ell as the nca ticn; en.! p 2rs"ul pr41< is of nam ca as2i's

?rtners. Our Order of "agust l3,1931 nde it clew that m v 2 '. d, a

im) n3 c+u.s4, 1 :. t. i.,> *. ". s 1 o r-i.

b. '

, '. e' t m ~a c..'

c

.j. v.

e o.m_

me..

s,..

m a.,

m l, a,, 3 a v, e,

5

,, 4. e 3,,. 1,.. - t 1..,,

., t, ;i s >,4 Va

+d,i s c

e i... * : t r.

~..I.

t,.;, 7a t, c>

m i m,

e

.s c.

.4 I -

j ig

,.. s. t, a..

n c

r i._

.2 s.

v,my s Ia p.1 i 4,, - c 9 *. 2 e, I o.. *L,..,.g t,-

f l

.Ag

.,.; Is.. i J 2..

. q r I

_..t,.,

• s.t I.

Ie,

.;y

,4-

'g i A. g, g p f, I y,

a gp

. =,,..

A p

• q 3sp s.

- s 3

3

?

.' 3 a

4 2

..L.

b.. s. C -..

) i ;,,

u 6

iv 6*p

], )..

.t M } } /*

.. p;. c 4 f g.

1 a

3

p. e ; 2

~ c

.i { u, v; p i 3

i m

Li 1

<.,l' 45 A E-

<[.

l.

3 q

=q,

2 t a i

'[

}

'I I

4 4

4

{-

p.,.

'1

' t i ; o.

?.j,,. t h 0 C o.n..% re ".C J.

. v

..-.,..]

3 ci-y, 0+.

.8 x

L}

. 1 } I,

• c,

.}

T.

. +.,

I,,

~,

za-

.z.

f *,

.-tsj a.. ]

gl.

} A u.4

<sv.

.p

{[ippj... y a,,j,, ' >

p, e.

+ -..

t,

-'afty L

:r safa as infut..ud th t a M s c :- c. '

.t r

si O2 ll G'ill N d O. A] D /T~

MS TlSO 'Vrrntly S

. GnfuSiG3 i. c t. ] i

..l 4.1,y., u.,..;.-,

t 3

c 4

? -.

.,(,1.}

1. -

. l -.

2

. J.

s, j_.. I,

-L 4,

a

, s a.I 60

..t-

. I,

i.. :

ii

'2 I 20 j Cb5

,;i il i 's it'$ 4 c 5 r't 00-CO' 3d i. J l.2 ill d si.:,U r

~ c s. ] ].f,/

?i r,

.o

, e go..a.

c g

%o. _ u.

] i. c, ",...

c i

l.ED c : y r;. n e; q 3f L ;

id y h i b i $

D ( ! _. '. + f c f r ey. '

('.h t ; ry t 0 ti,0 Chain TH Of u

3

..s,,e l. g1 s L,.. -i c. 4 i. 2

- w);u je 3

G s.ic. sl

.J 9 1

s.

a 11/ T S

A.G.<.

1 J

vn,----,,.----.

...-----,.-.--..n

---

n

--,~.-.n.,,---,,,.,,.e

-c.

v._,-,,-,.n,

,,-._v.r,-.

v,-.-,-

,-,y-,r-..-.-

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

d 3_

.r..

n cq e c.o..ca to the conference call is a ncoissue v.,u,cn,

. rn s U, o t e prol n.

in ne my exculpates the League or its counsel frca darelictions of duty concerning discovery.

Fortunately, the Board requested that the telephcne ccnference be covared by a court reporter, which was cenplied with. The trinscript of the conferance shoas that Applicant's cc 'nsel inforncd the Board t! it .r. Cherry h3J been contccted directly regarding i.he call (Ir. 5-6).

I: nrtheless, the Co'rd did not go -into the r.arits 0:

"e Appl ica nt's co~1-claints abcut t he League's failure to anruer interrogatories, but directed

_'at a writtcn : cation be filed per:.ptly bec.use the scheduled etes are i:.;crf : int in this pecceeding (Tr. 23).

1le add that I'c Cherry's nonpertici-pation in the conference does not renc'er it e/ p1 rte.

He apparently had so"u r 'tica i.

+zcnce of tne call.

One party c:nn't carcise a /eto lay absenting himel f frc :1 ccafc.ra.ccs ' tith the Nrd, w ther bacause he nd his office

, e F- 0 Susy or for n _ other reassn.

'!c unil? f eral <'afinition of g parte _

c-

,urses xch a resuit.

It is u

ce s2rj to ce nt ;pn t' e League's c'oprccc iory 10 nguage

. c; Pc w fule in this peccc ding.

Nch w or:.tiva cca :nts as urcy.? xd (R <pc me, p. 6), er criticizing tho :: ve:.';er 1, 1981 cuteff ite fcr cit nery (p. 4, n.

1), or filte insinuations of "the ins::.5ilit ' of u bit ary cuto. is applicable in ef fect only to the Intcrve: ors" (p. 5), du n n., vi t a ' ricus respcnce.

The dilatory c<:nduct cf tha Langue 2

ei i s c c':

21 is the i nue, ar.d nach " rcd Pering" tact:cs till r.ot obscure d at i n :e irr i cccc. i dera ticn.

t l

.m.

____-,.-.,,,_._.._.m,

,.m.-,

..,_r..,,,,,._,.r._.__,

m

.-..., m - -

i*

I

_9_

The f : cts discussed supra establish that the League and its counsel have daliberately 2 :d willfully refused to ceaply with the Board's Order of

,tgust 18, 'i31, a,d have not antuered interregatories or furnished crdered discovery for a long period of tir.e.

The nature of the pretexts and excuses oi fered fcr such mncrpliance dxenstrate that such conduct is not an isolatml incident, t,ut rath r is part of a pittern of behavice v.hich s:ricusly imped's cur procc: dings and impa irs the integrity of cur orders.

Sancticas are therefore appropriate both to give all parties due process in this adir.g, and to deter siailar conduc: Ly other parties in the future.

The Ce nission has indicated that the presidina cificer has the racesrary

- G "ity to ' wpose cppropriate 7ncticas cn all parties ',, 0 do not Lifill nponsibilities a s particQats."E!

In a rennt policy statement, their

-Cc ission his di: ussed the sprctre of anctions available to 1iccasing ca ns to issi:F in the maycent of prc.credirgs, ircluding t he dicaissal cf a pa rty.l'l Unjustif:el refusals or failures to conply.ith discovery 3

cr6rs h" r n ltad in the disniss31 of p -i.ics or contentions.lil/

f vi 2>0

,i s sion's S ta tra cn t of t en.a : ea t ico, 37 "ed. PM. 15127-23 (July 23, 1972).

j r'j"Stitc~ nt of, olicy on Cm duct of Licensing Pecceedings", May 20, 1931, CLI41-3, 13 GC E2.

l

)

b-/ ennsyi ania Pc ur end Light Cc.any r nd ill. 9eny Electric Cooperative, P

l In:. (S w anna St m Cicctric Statica, Units 1 and -?), /\\LA3-G13,12 7 317, 322, 339 (1970).

n i.etre olitin ;;ist n Cn any (Thrce liile Islard Staticn, Unit '!o. 1)~, U.P-30-17, 11 p.C 393 (ISdD); Northern Statcs Fc or Ccgany, et al.

(Tyt en Energy Pa rk, Un i t 1), LDJ-77-37, 5 : ::C 1293, 1301 (1977); Offshore Pc Syste ns (:'.ars facturing Licc.n:.e for Floating "uci m r Pc.mr Plants), 1 P-75-G7, 2 URC :13, 817 (1975); Public Service Electric & Cas Crc., m/ (/ D utic "ucle.c Cun? rating St!tico, Units 1 cnd 2), LEP-75-62, 2 :DC 702,~!US-6 (1975).

Sa also National !!cckcy Lc39ue

v. Petropol itan !!ndcy Club, 427 U.S. L39, ' ;0 (1976); :..rtens v. l'o rel,

107 F.2d 262 (7th Cir. 1970); Kelley v. United Sta te3, 338 F.2d 323 (1st Cir. 1M4).

4 t

1 <

4 Undc:r cil of the circu-.st.nces she ia in this pecceeding, tl>e ' card finds th.n t the Le m a should hcve a..

of its cc:.tenticas stric'.ca, and it should 1:e dismissed as an Inncvening jarty (10 CFR E2.707, 2.710, 2.740).

The ation for sancticns filed by the League on Octcher 13, 1981, is faid ;f, crit and bordcrs en the fr;volous.

Such r.ation will be dcnied.

1 i

0"0ER For all the form;oin:) reasons and based upon a consideratien of the r.ntit e l

rdccrd, it is this 27th day of Cct-ner, 1931 (w n :U C..rJ u.

-e (1)

Th 3 t tha '4plicc.nt's :'otion for sancticas it ']rentad, and the i

4 i;.ee.'/er.ar no;,;;c r.,.

,e ^ u 2 u,,

>n,J :ters is oitm sseJ Ts a party, i

2

!'O

' C b' EC ' !fl]U3 O [ '. ' ' ^ !I SCIfr'S I,0(i fln IO( hui,CIiCns a]Oinst

r i 1.

... -) j -7 e h w ia a.' i.

.l.c'~i.

t C

~

r s-I"!;qK l li!~.

i t i J. II V T I $ 7" f y . i e t p p

• f r--l-* f

$t'q

' " A l' L I t' i.)

j l.ICFFII. W,

f

/\\

l 0

>o g

A;1

%,3

- ),,.

I a.9 c.

/ r < u ),. A c e' t -

C,

/f 1 7

a.a D.czhall F Miller, Ch lir. en

/ L. s i,. 13 I lV i is r p, L.

UUUJ n..

.,-m

,,,, r. e si

.s i

i O

gem -,9,

,,y-,---.,g.-...,,,y+,

_w,,v.,

, - - - -. - -... - - - +... - - - - - -,.. - - - - ~ -., - - = -

ne. c ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE i

1

-f CCWELOf?S AT L AW w< t rm s s m enat rtAza r e n,. r.. o u o r t e en c mc a :.c. n w ois c e cto I l d P e C' u t 3 ' '

• s5 0 = 7 8 0 ')

1Ctta 2 5200 w s.m.ci c. c o,c t SeptG: dor 4, 1981 r 2 o cc m,r ci cu,

v c,,.

L e es t C h-a3 5 A 5 w '"G T O N, 0 C 2003G 2C2 033*9733

. J,c> w., 4G,n,,n

,, c-c c-e -.

~,

al n o t e_ m cy."..".,

I'.'.

-m Chcrry & Fl"] n n ps. n..

I...o.

u.

a.,

Suit < 4501 Chic jo, Illinois 60611 20:

In the r:atter of Coaanwealth Edinon Cc mo. any (liy ron ~.,tica, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nes,

c.m.l c.s u.m a a-O.n.

c., m. c: 9 - 0y a 1.1 c,,,

ou co Dcar P;. F ly n.. :

01 Auguct 25, we spake bricfly with rcgard to the Lics :ing P ard's order of Acquot 13 reouesting that the pc:. u e, d ic c.c s the Le c. gua 's rerponse to ccr=an ealth Edison C: p ny's incerrcghtoricu.

At U.e ' 2 :.se, you indicated that I:_V i" ' ding the Lu ague 's COntCnti.Ons for purpCoeG Of

+

y '/' u Jere Jcte :.ining in 'ehnt ti::e period you c:pcated to be in a position to n.a 3r the in'irrog: tories.

You also ntr.ted you vould advice ua before the end of the week, that is, befor:e 7 ugust At the time, 23, as to an expected date for your respcnces.

thc po:.,2 02 lity of so a2 conse.3ulnacien of. conten-7 se;9esg.ea t. a:'s, incarmch as the contentions no.7 admitted by the Ecard contain a c ic.> 1:i f i ce n t leval of dunlication and owrlap.,

,,ou inc3icateu y

2 e s t e r a, a y,

re s p o,. e a g a in to u, t s en n s cu s cov e ry.

1 atentlans ctill continues cr.d you t,

_ t.ue a t,m e your review etposition to state when carc.2rs to interroga-l

,re not yet in a cories can be ee.pect.'d.

You alco indicated that you agreed norr,e consolidation of issues might be possible.

r uith 'r.e that to resolve

[

are m:cting on Thursday, Septerr.ber 10, In: much as we di: ':o. o ry di U e re..ce-in a parollel ca :e now pending before the Il linois C..,ner<.

Cerai n c ion, it na agreed ue would raise to disccvery an the NRC licensing b

the qucation of re:pt a

l

'ase at the c, to t ue.

i I wouja hope that.by the Cepter:bcr 10 noting you will 3

have ra ade ccm p gra.ss toward rcapandin'J to our interroga-1981.

I enclose torien, as you have now had them nin ;c July 3, 1

I t

nl f~

s

• k 9 e- +n Al >

(

nI lil J

. *ry---. -

w-

%v-Meg--e-wr%e..wiw.i.-i-yp-m-*g w.

my gg-e

&w.ae-i.w+

e,%,,w-.aw-%e

.w.r.

,-e,---#--

,,*i..._,p 9

-e+-n

-*--e

,y-i-r-r---y-e p

'r-

r

/

Petcr F.lynn, E r. q.

Page Tuo Septe:Qer 4, 1931 herewith a proposed inethod of consolidating contentions.

I would ask that you revicu these to the c.': tent that tine por aits; end be prepareci, if possible, to discuss the enclosed prope: il

>t ou r "..c. ti n g o n S e p terc.be r 10.

Sincerely, P:-:1/j n

-Pa ul 11. ':urphy Enclo.:ure One of the litterneys for Co.rs.cm-2calth Edison Ccr.pany 1

cc: Steven C.

Goldberg, Esq.

4 l

a r

t I

1 f

t P1 4

1 t

w--e-----,-,-em

,-,--..,n,.3

,e

.m m.._,,--,

..c--,v.,-

.-,r--.

--,-,-,--e~,,,-,.,3 m=v-,.----,--

- -, -,, --wevr,

.-w,v.

I__

t i t

t

- i i

,'o O

e k

l i

?

6

~,l i

i Coptenbar 1G, 1981

/

4 l

12. Myron Cherry Cherry :. Flynn 1

Cnc 13M Pla::a a u 4,m.

s.e; v l Chicago, Illinois 50611 i

t l

T.o :

Comonvoalth Idicon Cer:pany l'

(nrycn Station, Un'.tc 1 end 2)

Locket Nos. 50--454 and 50--455 t

3

~

A i

Deer Mr. Cherrv:

This ic to confirm car convercation of yccterday j

cco rd!.ng panding dir-cry initiat ed by Corammicalth Edican i

Cc: ps:ty tnd directed o, the Rochfcrd Imagno of Ucmen Votern I

cnd at DATOE/UnFE.

Ac,Tu recall, on July 3, 1901, Edicon directed interrogatorian to Le ancuered by the Lnague and by-DAAP2/ SAFE.

On Auguct 18, 1931, the I,1cencing Beard entered l

y ;',,

cu Gudcr di: :cting Iu?.P.L/SAF1; to enswcr the interrogatories

~ forthwith, end directing I:dicon and the League to concult

{

regcrdir.g recpenceu to disccecry.

j I spche to your partner on Auguct 25 cnd Foptenbcr 3, end with you en Scotcubar ICth cnd yesterdev in en offort to e

obtcia a date cottain Sr c:mwere to our interrcgatcrica, an i

1 there did not cm.~aar to be an1" c W r catter to dincuca in view i

l cf th: Ecard' a o'ectruling yccr objectic::3 Yenter'dcy you' agreed l

to provido enruern en behalf of the Loegue and cn bahalf of l

,i DAlaE/SM U by October 1,1981.

This u.to is by-no :'cnna satic-p.

factory, given that the interro ptonica ucre cerved on you en

~

i

-Je July 8, 1901, cnd that the Licenainej Donrd overruled your

'I objectic::a to the interrogatoricq on T.uguct 18, 1901.

Ecwever, l'

in view of your repracer te. tion ice.da on 9aptunbor 10, 1981

(

that ca of that dato nc'.hing htd been done towcrdu ennvaring i

tho interrogatorica, it docu not now neen that u earlier date 1

l i

.t la schievchle.

We icok ferverd to receipt cf encworo on f

i

. bahalf of the Leaguo and DT.AIC/t.TU by Octcher 1,1981.

l I

2 1

(

z Sincorcly, 4

+

• . 8. c-g s *. f' '

j

.i t.

i c.

.+

i l

.k Pnul H. Murphy M

Itttorneyn for l

Ccar,cnuenith. Edicon Corapany i

I"m/ranb cc:

Enth Service List

(~

m um,_n '

.i

-