ML20033B320
| ML20033B320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1981 |
| From: | Flynn P CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033B283 | List: |
| References | |
| 80-0760, 80-760, NUDOCS 8112010230 | |
| Download: ML20033B320 (10) | |
Text
6 v
EXHIBIT 21
,t,
- i' l
i WTA'IE T ILLINDIS l
ILLINDIS CDNEIG CXPNISSIM I
l
~
i nxmm IrxuE a m vans
)
l 80-0760 v.
)
I
)
CDH2EEAIlIH IDISCN CCHPANY
)
~
Application to Halt Construction of Byron Nuclear Power Staticm
)
~
i M7FICN 1
'Ihe Ibckford Imague of W: men vbters, by their ai.i sys, nove the Hearing Examiner to es&ah14=h a ocnference not later than the close y
of business, Novertber 5,1981, to resolve outs +MM discovery Iroblems.
1
'Ihe Ibckford Imague of Rnen Voters also noves that the Examiner issue such orders as are -== 7 to enforce discovery agreements earlier reached by counsel and to reset this matter to +,----->te the delay in hearing occasiemd as a result of the unrelenting refusal of Cumuc.=.lth 1
FAiam's counsel to assist in expediting or resolving discovery or abide by earlier agreements reached pursuant to ominaim direction.
i In support of this Moticm the Imague ai.imci Es Exhibit I hereto and its attached Exhibits A and B.
WHEREIGE, the Ibckford Imague of Rnen Voters requests the es+^h14ahing of a conference and the entry of orders as set forth above, i
such actica to take place at a time convenient to the Hearing M w,
(!
911201 30 11123 r'DR K 0 000454 8
PDR A
e=we
- +. - e m. e
...-,p,,,,,,,,
- w'M W
..+.,
,.,,y,.
.A-.
asc
-m
--w-m
we w,,-=g-.,n,
hit re 'zatar than the close of business, Novatber 5,1981.
mbue w wzes By:
i !
one K shair Attuusfi
/)
i i
Myron M. Cherry l
Peter Flynn CHERE & ITEN, P.c.
Che IBM Plata, Suite 4501 Osicago, Illirois 60611 l
(312) 565-1177 i
i 4
i
)
/
i a
l
)
l I
J 1
4 I
i i
f J
1
_6==,em*
.n
+,*w,.-
%w w
<.,..-s
.-s %e a
- -,.~,,,
e c-
y taw arrasco C H E R R Y & F LY N N one som naza CHICASO.lLLINots 80518 t
I saist ses.nrr i
C & L,er 29, 1981
_BY MESSEGER Ms. Wanda Kamphnis Hearing B =minar Illinois Coranerce th=3==irm 160 North Ia Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 Ibckford Imague of itznen vbters v. O - - -' ~-1th Re:
FAison Q:rnpany, Wket No. 80-0760
Dear Ms. Kamphuis:
i Scre time ago pursuant to your directions we at.tcuvi.od to set In fact, an up a disecvery schedule with Lwm1th Minnn's m=al.
reached which is depicted by my letter to Mr. Murpiy agreement was dated Septanber 16,1981 (Exhibit A hereto), and Mr. Mur#2y's letter to me dated September 17, 1981 (Exhibit B hereto).
For reasons which are not as yet clear to me, Isham, Lincoln &
'Jhus they have refused Beale simply walked away frcm the entire agresnent.
to produce Messrs. Bukovski, Deress and Lee for Aquitions; have refused to provide ordinary and necessary expenses for an expert with rergt to the depositions of nhrd and Minor (our experts); and have prozided no answers to interrogatories and e---*ially no h_=mt diswv=.y.
While there is apparently diup.=ur.at. ancre counsel as to wttr these agreenents have not been inplernentad, the 02 mission's interest in Accordingly, having this matter de+arminna should of course take precedence.
I am asking that you set a date convenient to yourself to have a conference with counsel to resolve these differences since it is clear that so long as Isham, Lincoln & Beale refuses to =-;-ste this case cannot go forward.
Indeed, their lack of wvi= ration allows G.- L:c.lth Miann simply to take advantage of an untoward delay since, of course, the plant is being built and the oztmission is presently ecmpensating Riison.
'there will obviously be mane delays in'the hearing and we need to set some new dates. I am getting married on Novenber 8, and I am taking EXHIBIT I
(.
....4
^
.a
Ms. Wanda' Kamphuis October 29, 1981 Page '[Wo f
a couple of weeks or so off after that, but I am available and deem it necessary to resolve the scheduling problan prior to Novunber 8th.
I am available for such a meeting any time beginning Luis, G.ider 30, i
I will call your office later today or through 'Ihursday, November 5.
Less to see if we can es&ahlimb a meeting to resolve this deadlock.
l 1
- ALiolly, l\\f
// A I
( fh NV ar/dn ec: Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
re I
i l
~
l GB O
8 tme - --.._ _.
,a-
law CFFI330 l
C H e n n y G F LY N N f
l Cc3 Ces FLARA eevnow m.cescany CHICAGO. ILLINOls SOSil tstrewoese paven FLveen tasal ses-esFF l~
f September 16, 1981 i
By Messenger Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale.
1 One First National Plaza Forty-Second Floor Chicago, R11nois 80603 Re:
Rockford League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth Edison Company
Dear Paul:
i
! ('
I am herewith summarizing our tentative agreements reached at our discovery conference and today (Wednesday) on the telephone. I am also listing the outstanding problems. If you have any difficulty with these matters, please let me know by Monday so that we can promptly get them resolved before Hearing Examiner Kamphuis.
For the convenience of the Hearing Examiner, I am sending her a copy of this letter.
L I indicated to you that I want to take the deposition of James' Maley. You have refused to produce him. You have requested that I serve a Notice of Deposition so that you may properly object before Ms. Kamphuis.
Fnclosed is a Notice of Deposition to take the deposition of James Maley on Monday, October 5.
2.
We have agreed that the selentists at MHB, Messrs. Hubbard and Minor, will be deposed at your offices September 25, and that you will endeavor to take their depositions simultaneously and conclude them within one day. You are agreeable to working into the evening or on Saturday if necessary to conclude their depositions.
You have agreed to pay their airfare and hotel accommodations, but you have not agreed 'to pay their expert witness fees even though the pertinent Federal, Blinois, and NRC precedents require that you do In fact your own firm, Isham, Lincoln & Beale, fought and lost this precise so.
issue in the NRC Black For ease with respect to the very same deponents.
()
EXHIBIT A
=
__.m._._.
($'
Y Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
September 16, 19 81 Page Two 1
The expenses of Messrs. Hubbard and Minor will, if the deposition concludes on Friday, total $2,200.00 in expert witness feu, two round trip air transportations from San Francisco and two nights lodging each at a hotel in Chicago. I do not understand why you object to paying the expert witness fees when you have lost exactly the same arguman; before as to exactly the same persons. Accordingly, unless you provide a written commitment to pay their expert witness' fees as well as their expenses, we will not produce Messrs. Hubbard and Minor. I would like this confirmation by Monday.
~
3.
I will take the deposition of Mr. John C. Bukovski at my offlees beginning 10:00 A.M. September 22, 1981.
Mr. Bukovski is directed to bring with him the documents which he relied upon in his Affidavit.
4.
You have told me that Mr. Daress' deposition cannot be taken the week of October 19th but are checking on the week of October 5th. You have not as yet given me a date ic-Mr. Leek deposition, although the week of October 5th or October 19th is agreeable to me (subject to my intervening schedule), and I would appreciate knowing by Monday.
5.
You have tentatively agreed to a postponement of the present schedule for filing papers before the Blinois Commerce Commission, with a i
(
tentative schedule of November 30th (instead o* October 16th) for submissions by both sides and December 15th for replies, if any.
You will of course have to clear this with Ms. Kamphuis and those dates will obviously depend upon how discovery goes and whether we each get what we need in advance of that date.
8.
You have also tentatively agreed to revise the discovery schedule so that the parties complete discove y by the last week in October,,
with the additional requirement that outsinding and unresolved discovery -
requests must be submitted to Ms. Kamphuis no later than the last week in October (and perhaps earlier). R is hoped that the Hearing Examiner can rule on such requests by November 2nd and the parties respond to her Orders by November 9th.
7.
We agreed to produce our documents to you by September 15th.
We were a day late, because we did not receive the documents until September 16th.
, e will answer your interrogatories by Monday, September f
8.
W 28th, although I will endeavor to get them to you earlier.
i
.-.,.-__.-o es**e-4w -%Myiwkm
,. +
.W Q
.e Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
September 16, 19 81 Page 'Ihree I
i
\\
You have agreed to answer our interrogatories and the due 9.
date currently is September 25, 1981.
I do not know whether or not you wish any additional time, although I have no objection if you file your answers on September 28th as well.
You have agreed to produce all documents which we have requested by October 5th, although you have agreed to provide documents to us from time to time as they are available and as deponents are deposed.
This means, among other things, that documents related to Mr. Bukovski will be available September 22nd or earlier.
10.
With respect to our Interrogatories to you I have agreed, without waning any rights, to permit you to identify documents by group as opposed to each document, and you have agreed to do so.
We will see what you provide before we determine whether we will press the point.
You have not objected, to my knowledge, to any Interrogatory, with the exception of 12b, e, f and g, and I request that you put the objection in writing and the reasons therefor so that I can take it up before the Hearing Examiner.
11.
With respect to our document request, you advised that you have no objection to any of the documents, apart from your tentative position with respect to request No. 7 concerning providing documents before 1978.
('.
Again I request that you place this in writing so that the Hearing Examiner can rule specifically.
12.
You asked what the document NUREG-0705 was.
It is a March 1981 USNRC publication, " Identification of New Unresolved Safety Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plants."
Sine ely,
(
f J mrw L Myron M. Cherry j
MMC /kal
~
[
.1 i
Enclosure ect Ms. Wanda Kamphuis, Hearing Examiner PS: Please find enclosed a copy of the October 12, 1979 letter from the ACRS to the NRC referenced in note 94 of the Hubbard-Minor Affidavit, which you requested.
(i W m ~.,..
N.
N u
D ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 4
COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE FIRST teATIOesAL PLAZA FORTY *SECOND FLOOR CMICAGO,ILUNOIS S0803 TELEPHONt Sta stis.7800 TELEX:2 5388 380 coassetCTICUT C ut, n.w.
September 17, 1981
...s T
308 833 9730 Mr. Myron Cherry Cherry & Flynn One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Re:
Docket 80-0760 - Rockford League of Women Voters
- v. Commonwealth Edison Company
Dear Mr. Cherry:
This letter is to summarize our conversation of Sep-as it relates to discovery in the above 15, 1981 With respect to discovery initiated by Commonwealth tember Edison Company you agreed to produce documents we have cause.
- However, requested before the end of Monday, September 15.later in th problems would delay their production,'but the documents were
('
You in fact produced, with some exceptions, late September 16.
also agreed to produce Messrs. Hubbard and Minor for their You depositions in our offices on September 24 and 25.
agreed to file any objections to our interrogatories notlater interrogatories not later than September 26.
~
With respect to discovery initiated by the Icague Edison and directed at Edison, the following was agreed.
has no objection to the taking of the depositions of John Mr. Bukovski's Bukovski, James Deress and Byron Lee, Jr.
22, 1981.
The documents deposition will be taken on Septemberrelied on by Mr. Bukovski i of the record (primarily the engineering economic studiesand publi 78-0646 performed), in Docketthe cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants an of spent nuclear fuel are available for your inspection now As was agreed with respect to all document in my office.
requests initiated by the League, Edison will not take the request to produce all documents.which relate to variousWe w items literally.
for inspection the significant documents relating to the subject matter as to which we have no objection and documents
~
h Em-,
~
8 1
7-PWMu'*M e agr9-e %atumsmwawa-g.,gg
Mr. Myron Cherry September 17, 1981 Page Two I
relied on in the preparation of affidavits or answers to Thus, with respect to your document requests interrogatories.
1 and 2, we will provida documents as indicated, and in 79-0214, addition, the Commission's Order in Docket No.
' Edison's 1979 Rate Case.
Mr. Byron Lee, Jr. is currently out of town and thus it is not possible now to confirm a date for his de.posi-However, if he has no conflicts, we will attempt to tion.
make him available un October 5,1981 pursuant to your With respect to Mr. James Deress, I have been request.
I will attempt to make unable to confirm a date with him.
him available on October 5 if Mr. Lee cannot be available on If he cannot that date and if Mr. Deress has no conflicts.
be made available on the 5th, I will attempt to make him available on october 19.
In any event, I will call you as soon as I have the information.
With respect to your document requests 3 through If you 6, this information is generally available now.
will give me a minimum of one day notice on precisely when you intend to arrive to inspect documents, I will attempt to We ensure that documents are available for your inspection.
request that you inspect the documents in the general area
(
of their location at Commonwealth Edison Company.
L With respect to your document request 7 which asks for Edison's entire construction budget as proposed and as adopted for each year 1979 through 1982 and all subsidiary documents, I indicated that we wculd be objecting to this First, the request,oces far beyond anticipated request.
Second, it goes construction or operating costs at Byron.
19, 1980.
- However, back in time to a period bafore October the documents we are prepared to produce in response to document request 6b will include Edison's current budget for the Byron Station as well as what the Company calls base line papers showing the current and pricr budget by item and We can also make available the the reasons for the change.
immediate prior budget for the Byron Station.
With respect to your document request 8, we are currently looking into thc existence of such documents and they may not be available on the same time frame as theHowever,-we document requests 1 through 6.
they will be available before you have had an opportunity to completely review the other documents made available.
i i
Le
____a___-.-.__..----.----
.s.
c M'r. Myrcn Ch2rry Pcgm Thrco P,
September 17, 1981 i
With respect to your document request 9, (11 4
design and budget information for Edison's steam generators at the Byron Station, which are currently fully installed, i
existed long before October 19, 1980 and therefore we do not believe this information is within the scope of discovery in this proceeding.
However, we would point out that documentation of the design of the steam generators is contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report for the Byron Station which you now i
have.
With respect to your document request 10, the plans to install high density racks in the spent fuel pool j
at Byron were completed before October 19, 1980 and therefore we do not believe this information is within the scope of discovery in this proceeding.
However, we can provide for J
i you the estimated date at which Edison expects the capacity of the spent fuel pool to be filled and actions planned by i
Commonwealth Edison Company in that event.
As I mentioned during our meeting of September 15, there will have to be some restrictions with respect to your inspection and copying of documents.
Unfortunately, both of us had an 11:00 meeting and were unable to discuss the l'-
details.
The base line budget information for the Byron f
Station which we will be producing in response to your document request 6b, contains information which if made generally available would have the potential of prejudicing Edison in connection with negotiations of claims arising out of the construction of the Byron Station.
On occasions where there has been a known delay to construction, Edison i
will budget an amount of money estimated to be the maximum exposure to Edison as a result of such delays.
In addition, l
on occasions Edison will have budgeted an amount of money estimated to be required to settle pending claims.
Therefore, we will insist on a protective agreement basically precluding you from disclosing the details of such budgeted amounts.
It will not be necessary, however, to preclude you from revealing through testimony or otherwise composite amounts i
which could not be traced to individual contracts or purchase orders.
In addition, if you desire to copy any documents which reflect this kind of information, we will instst that l
you sign a more detailed protective agreement, the details to depend upon the nature of the documents requested.
As we did not have an opportunity to discuss this in our meeting yesterday, I would be glad to discuss this further with you if you deem it necessary.
However, I will state that I am not at present authorized to permit inspection of the Byron budget documents without a protective agreement acceptable
, {],
to my client.
t-4-
__,,,__,,__r___.
g Mr. Myron Ch2rry September 17, 1981 Page Four 1
We have agreed to provide answers to your interroga-You indicated tories by October 1, 1981 except as follows.
that you did not need the degree of detail requested in y.our J
It will interrogatories on identification of dcicuments.
i l sufficient to identify documents by file er group classifi-Generally, we anticipate that the documents made l
cation.
available for your inspection pursuant to your document requests will be organized by catagory and will be easil'y identifiable to interrogatories.
We will be objecting to interrogatories 12b, e, f and g as beyond the scope of discovery in this proceeding.
These interrogatories relate to Edison's overall construction budget and financial capability.
We have agreed to seek a prompt ruling from the hearing examiner or the Commission, if necessary, on the question of the scope of initial discovery You indicated you would prepare a in this proceeding.
statement of your views on the relevance of Edison's financial capabilities to this proceeding and we would submit it or some amended version jointly to the hearing examiner for In any event, Edison will not voluntarily produce decision.
the documents requested nor voluntarily expand the proceeding in the direction you have indicated you wish to go.
{.
You indicated you would like to present to the hearing examiner an amended schedule for this proceeding setting October 26 as a target date for resolving all disputes as to discovery and November 30 for the filing of initial affi-Edison will, of course, attempt to abide by any davits.
reasonable dates acceptable to the hearing examiner.
~
~
I trust the above accurately reflects the nature of our discussions of September 15, 1981.
Please advise me if your recollection differs from mine.
Sincerely, ISHAM, LINCOLN BEALE
?
BY
-[
Paul M. Murphy /
Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company 1
Il ci i
PMM/msb cc:
Ms. Wanda Kamphuis f
I i
PPO T W SE w 1 1 1
I certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Motion was hand-delivered to counsel for Guw =lth Minnri cm, Airy, Isham,.
IIncoln & Beale, One First National Plaza, Suite 4200, 011cago, Illinois 60603, by messenger this 29th day of E Lier, 1981.
A 11& F D
~
V
[
e t
+
~'
- ~
...' ' - " ~ _ _
~~~_:_--.~__;_;=;*,__~~--
.