ML20077H763
| ML20077H763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1983 |
| From: | Norton B NORTON, BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077H749 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308110282 | |
| Download: ML20077H763 (17) | |
Text
r e
- r ff hk h Nk[ < arctnto CO ~ j s D AUG s foqq 3 c.l 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
DocKr ./
e#
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ***ycy,Tisc a s CE c88* [/
3 Qb.j.l 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 5
6 7 In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-275 8 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-323
)
9 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant ) (Reopened Hearing --
Units Nos. 1 and 2 ) Design Quality 10 ) Assurance) 11 12 13 REPLY OF LICENSEE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 14 TO THE ANSWERS OF GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 15 AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 16 17 18 19 INTRODUCTION 20 ' Counsel for the Governor have repeatedly and 21 steadfastly maintained that it is the Governor's desire to 22 move this proceeding to a rapid conclusion. While that may '
23 indeed be the position of the Governor, his counsels' 24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
9308110282 830804 PDR ADOCK 05000275 O PDR
I
=
,. s' -
l 1 actions do not further that intent. 1/ Counsels' actions to 2 date have had a singular impact -- delay. They have refused 3 to particularize contentions, produce documents, answer 4 interrogatories or even identify what witnesses they intend i
5 to use in the upcoming hearing so that depositions might be 6 planned. Their answers to Licensee's Motions to Compel 7 Answers and Production are classic in their single minded
, 8 pursuit of obstructing discovery. Counsel for the Governor 9 have set themselves up as the litigant, judge, and jury as 10 respects their responsibili_ tier under the Commission's rules 11 governing discovery. In essence, they are telling Licensee 12 and this Board they they will tell us precisely what they 13 want to tell us and not until they want to. The sheer 14 arrogance of such an approach is most unsettling.
15 INTERROGATORIES 16 Contrary to the position of counsel for the 17 Governor, the law places a burden upon a party refusing to 18 answer an interrogatory on the ground that it is 19 objectionable or that the matter sought is privileged.
20 ///
21 22 If Counsel for the Governor maintains that " . . . the positions taken in this administration will not be the 23 same as those of its predecessor." (Answer to Motion to Compel Interrogatories, p. 5.) Frankly, it is not
! 24 the position of the " administration" which appears to l be the stumbling block to an orderly progression of the l 25 hearing process, but rather, the dilatory and obstruc-tionist tactics of counsel for the Governor which have, 26 to date, resulted in neaningless discovery.
l 1 Notwithstanding that burden and this Board's admonishment 2 that failure to comply with the agency's practice rules 3 would not be tolerated (Memorandum and Order, dated 4 April 21, 1983), counsel for the Governor have dismissed 5 their obligation to responsibly participate in these 6 discovery proceedings to the detriment and prejudice of 7 Licensee.
8 It is quite clear that the purpose of discovery is 9 to aide a court and the parties to narrow the issues, not 10 hide them. (See In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power and 11 Light company, et al. (Susquehanna Station Units 1 and 2) 12 ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 321-322 1980). As the U.S. Supreme 13 Court in Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 14 91 L.Ed. 451 pointed out:
15 The variods instruments of discovery now serve (1) as a device, along with the 16 pretrial hearing under Rule 16, to narrow and clarify the basic issues 17 between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts, or informa-18 tion as to the existence or whereabouts of facts, relative to those issues.
19 Thus civil trials in the federal courts no longer need be carried on in the 20 dark. The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the 21 parties to. obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before 22 trial. '
23 Counsel for the Governor have not provided any illumination 24 about their claims or contentions to date.
25 Licencee moved to have counsel further respond to 26 Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 14, and 16 of its First Set
1 of Interrogatories to Governor Deukmejian. As to such 2 interrogatories, counsel either objected on the grounds of 3 privilege or said that because their investigation was 4 incomplete, no answer would be forthcoming until completion 5 of review of the subject matter of the interrogatory.
6 Interrogatory No. 3 requested the identification 7 of all examinations, studies or reviews conducted or to be 8 conducted by representatives of the Governor along with the 9 names of individuals participating in such reviews and the 10 contribution of each person participating in such reviews.
11 In response, counsel for the Governor have stated that other 12 than the data received from PGandE and its contractors, the 13 documents in their possession are "the work product of 14 counsel" and have refused to identify such documents. 2/
15 Counsel for the Governor have in essence told Licensee, "All 16 the information we have in our files is privileged, simply 17 because we deem it so. Moreover, because such a dastardly 18 thing has been done as to inquire about items that we deem 19 to be privileged, we aren't even obligated to identify the 20 information." By fiat, counsel for the Governor has 21 22 2f Counsel for the Governor argues, in. essence, that 23 "because we say a document is privileged it necessarily must be so." With that rationale, any counsel could 24 magically shield all documents from discovery and not be subject to even court scrutiny. To guard against 25 such an abuse of discovery, the law at least provides for in camera review. In re Murphy 560 F.2d 326, 26 336-3M n. 20 (8th Cir. 19W ) I l _ ._
, 1 repealed the laws of discovery. While counsel may object on 1
2 the grounds of work product to resist the production of the l 3 documents, they may not do so when requested to provide 4 information simply identifying such documents.
5 Even where the work product doctrine applies, it protects only documents
.' obtained by or for the attorney, and his 6
mental impressions or conclusions. It 7 does not furnish any shield against discovery, by interrogatories or by 8 deposition, of the facts which the adverse party's lawyer has learned, or 9 the persons from whom he has learned such facts, or the existence or non-10 existence of documents, though the documents themselves may have a quali-11 fied immunity from discovery. United States v. Glaxo Group Limited 302 12 F.Supp. 1, 17, (1969) 4 13 The Rules of Practice expressly sanction discovery into the claims of an opposing 14 party and specifically allow questions concerning such things as "the exis-15 tence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, 16 documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons 17 having knowledge of any discoverable matter." 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(b)(1). In i 18 the Matter o f_ Pennsylvania Power aiid Light Company, et al. Susquehanna Sta-19 tion Units 1 ant 2T su(pra ALAS-613, 12 NRC 317, (1980) 20 21 Further, counsel are not entitled to protection of the 22 attorney work-product privilege until they make a showing 23 that the disputed material has in fact been prepared in 24 anticipation of litigation. S.E.C. v.- National Student 25 Marketing Corp. 18 F.R. Serv.2d 1302, 1305 (D.D.C. 1974).
26 When the factual showing in support of a claimed privilege,
1 including work-product, is insufficient, the claim is to be 2 rejected. United States v. American Telephone and l
l 3 Telegraph, et al. 86 F.R.D. 603, 604 (1980). That showing I 4 must be by affidavit and not merely representation of 5 counsel in its objection as is the case here.
6 A proper claim of privilege re-quires a specific designation and de-7 scription of the documents within its scope as well as precise and certain 8 reasons for preserving their confiden-tiality. Unless the affidavit is pre -
9 cise to bring the document within the
- rule, the Court has no basis on which to i 10 weigh the applicability ~of the claim of privilege. An improperly asserted claim 11 of privilege is no claim of privilege at all... . .
12 In short, a party resisting discov-13 ery-on the ground of the attorney-client privilege must by affidavit show suffi-14 cient facts as to bring the identified and described document within the narrow 15 confines of the privilege. Nor will submitting a batch of documents ' to the 16 Court in camera provide an adequate or suitable substitute because the Court is
~
17 often without information of what the document concerns or how it came into 18 being or other relevant information which would enable it to determine 19 whether the documents are privileged.
International Paper Co. v. Fibreboard 20 Corp. 63 F.R.D. 88, 94 (D. Del. 1974) 21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 25 26
1 Counsel, by the mere claim of privilege, cannot insulate 2 information in its files from discovery. 3f 3 Without citation, counsel for the Governor have 4 also asserted as a matter of law that they need not identify 5 the documents or provide the information sought if the 6 interrogatory, on its face, seeks what they consider 7 privileged materials. Licensee would respectfully point out 8 that the interrogatory is broad enough to include matters 9 within counsel's file which clearly are not work-prciduct or 10 which on review of court in camera would be determined not 11 to be work-product. Even if such were the law, which 12 Licensee does not concede, counsel for the Governor still 13 has an obligation to identify the documents for which the 14 privilege is claimed.
15 ///
16 17 3/ Counsel for the Governor claim in their Answer to Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories that the 18 documents Licensee asked to be identified were either
" performed by attorneys in preparation for trial" or by 19 " attorneys' consultants . . . exclusively for counsel to aid in trial preparation." In their Response to 20 Licensee's Motion to Compel Production, counsel reveal for the first time that the " meeting minutes, notes, 21 document summaries, studies and analyses [were] done by oral direction of counsel for litigation purposes."
22 Mr. Hubbard and Dr. Roesette have been attending meet-ings, reviewing pertinent documents, conducting analy-23 ses, etc. concerning design quality assurance at Diablo Canyon since late 1981. Clearly present counsel could 24 not have " directed" such activity as claimed prior to their entry into the case in January of 1983. It would 25 not surprise Licensee however, if counsel were to now seek the assistance of prior counsel to "me too" s'a h a 26 claim.
1 The defendant's interrogatories seek very complete information as to the 2 existence and whereabouts of reports, statements, and opinions obtained by 3 plaintiff in preparation for trial.
Defendant seeks information as to 4 whether such documents exist, and if they do exist, then defendant asks for 5 information as to who made them, when they were made, who currently has them 6 in his possession, etc.
7 ***
8 Statements, opinions, and reports of witnesses or of experts which are 9 gathered by an attorney in preparation for trial are free from discovery 10 (absent a showing of good cause) by an adverse party as far as the content of 11 such statements 7 opinions, or reports H concerned. The law is clear that inter-12 rogatories may not be used to obtain a summary or resume of the contents of 13 such documents. However, the defen-dant's interrogatories in the case at 14 bar do not ask for the contents, or a resume or summary of the contents, of 15 the documents obtained by plaintiff in preparation for trial. (Harvey v. EIMCO 16 Corporation 28 F.R.D. 381 (1961))
17 As to the Governor's responses to Interrogatory 18 Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 14, the information furnished is not a 19 full or adequate response. Counsel, in essense, said, 20 "we're not ready to answer because we haven't completed our 1
21 l
studies." Such a response does not meet their obligation 22 under the rules of discovery. Those interrogatories are proper and not objectionable.
24 An interregatory will not be held objec-25 tionable as calling for research if it relates to details alleged in the plead-26 ing of the interrogated party, about l
1 l
1 which it presumably has information, or if the interrogated party would gather 2 the information in the preparation of its own case. (Flour Mills of America, 3 Inc. v. Pace, supra, 75 F.R.D. 676 (E.D.
Okl. 1977))
4 5 Counsel, rather than delaying discovery, have an 6 affirmative duty to provide what information they presently 7 have and supplement such later. They cannot simply sit back 8 and, as they have here, imperiously announce that "we'll 9 tell you what we want to tell you when we decide we are 10 ready." Many of the documents which are the bulwark of the 11 subject matter of design quality assurance have been in the 12 hands of Governor Deukmejian's counsel for months and, in 13 the case of their consultants, in excess of a year.
14 Counsel cannot hide behind the assertion that "the 15 question is being investigated." As the court pointed out 16 in Barker v. Bledsoe 85 F.R.D. 454 (W.D. Okl. 1979):
17 All sanctions defined in Rule 37(b) are available for total failure to answer 18 interrogatories, even absent a motion to compel. Rule 37(d), Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure. . . . Counsel places great reliance on the fact that Dr.
20 Irvine's report was not final . . ..
Thus, he concludes, "still investiga-21 ting" was a proper answer. Counsel misperceives the function and purpose of 22 answers to interrogatories. Under - the Federal Rules, discovery is an on-going 23 process. Plaintiff must answer defen-dants' interrogatories to the best of 24 his ability within thirty days. Plain-tiff could have moved for a protective 25 rder, or other appropriate order as provided in Rule 33(b), to protect from 26 revealing expert opinion when it was not
_g_
ss
- l 1 fully formed. . . . Answers given at initial stages of discovery are not ex-2 pected to be final, and are not binding to the party giving them. . . . Thus, 3 the duty of supplementing answers. Rule 26(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 4
)
5 As to the Governor's response to Interrogatory 6 No. 16, which is clearly an evasive answer,' counsel have 7 said nothing in their answer to the motion to compel. In 8 Interrogatory 16, Licensee requested the Governor and his 9 representatives to state specifically facts regarding all 10 personal knowledge that each of them may have regarding the 11 design of Diablo Canyon, the design quality assurance
~
12 program, and how any such personal knowledge was acquired.
13 Counsel for the Governor responded as follows:
14 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
15 The Governor's attorneys, consul- i tants, and employees have varying de-16 grees of personal knowledge of the i
design and quality assurance of the 17 Diablo Canyon facility based on tours of the facility at which PG&E or Bechtel 18 employees were present, and on review of documents, meetings, and testimony 19 pertaining to such design and quality assurance. The degree of personal 20 knowledge of any person depends upon the number and completeness of tours taken 21 or meetings attended, and the volume of documents and testimony read by each 22 person.
23 The answer given to Interrogatory No.16 clearly is a 24 non-response under Commission Rules of Practice. As stated 25 in the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. 2.740(f),
26 ///
. .l .-
l 1 "an evasive or incomplete answer or response shall be 2 treated as a failure to answer or respond."4/
3 Parties, like witnesses are required to state the truth, the whole truth and 4 nothing but the truth in answering interrogatories. (Hunter v. Interna-5 tional Systems & Controls Corp., 56 F.R.D. 617 (W.D. Mo. 1972)).
6 7 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST 8 Counsel for the Governor have also responded to 9 Licensee's Motion to Compel Production by claiming by 10 unverified representation the work-product privilege. The 11 scope of the privilege is claimed to extend to the notes, 12 memorandum and writings, etc. of persons other than counsel 13 themselves on the grounds that they were all "done by oral 14 direction of counsel for litigation purposes." Again, 15 counsel have assumed that merely because they have made such 16 representation of fact, it must necessarily be accepted as 17 so by Licensee or this Board. As pointed out supra, counsel 18 have failed to establish the facts supporting such claim 19 under oath. Even the case of Upjohn Co. v. United States 20 449, U.S. 383, 973, (1981), which applied the substantive 21 rules of law regarding work-product, did so only upon the 22 sworn testimony of counsel. Counsel here have not made a 23 ///
24 4/ Counsel for the Governor apparently overlooked this 25 portion of 10 C.F.R. 2.740(f) which as a general provi-l sion governing discovery applies to 10 C.F.R. 26 2.740b(b).
l - - - -
1 proper claim under federal rules. International Paper l 2 Co. v. Fibreboard Corp., supra, 63 F.R.D. 88, 94 (D. Del.
3 1974).
4 Assuming arquendo that all documents, writings, 5 notes and calculations were made' by oral direction of 6 counsel before the fact, information contained in such 7 documents may nevertheless be discoverable where it 8 represents the work of consultants who are expected to be 9 called to testify as witnesses. Fed. Rules of Evidence Rule 10 26(b)(4)(i). While the thought process of counsel may not 11 be discoverable, the opinions and facts relied upon by 12 expert witnesses are discoverable. 5/
13 As a final - matter, counsel for the Governor have 14 dismissed any obligation to identify documents under their 15 control. The right to such identification discussed above, 16 has in fact been relied upon by counsel to the Governor in 17 their request for document production directed to Licensee. 6_/
18 19 5/ If counsel for the Governor is willing to stipulate 20 that none of the consultants who may have prepared doc-uments, notes, memoranda, or the like, will be called 21 as witnesses, then Licensee will withdraw its produc-tion request. If not, then Licensee should be entitled 22 to now know who will be called, sufficiently prior to the close of discovery so depositions can be uqeful.
23 6f Instruction D of the "First Document Production Request 24 Propounded by Governor Deukmejian and Joint Intervenors to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, dated May 6, 1983 25 Provided:
26 (Footnote continued next page.)
1 CONCLUSION 2 To the prejudice of Licensee, counsel for the 3 Governor are dragging their feet in meeting their discovery 4 obligations under the law. Their pattern of conduct in not 5 providing discoverable information to which Licensee is 6 clearly entitled, which, along with a failure to designate 7 ///
8 ///
9 ///
10 11 12 (Footnote 6 continued from previous page.)
i 13 D. If any documents called for herein are withheld from production by reason of any assertion of l 14 privilege, identify each such document, giving the following information about it:
15
- 1. its title, if any; 16 2. its nature (e.g., letter, memorandum, chart, computer printout, ledger);
17 3. the date, if any, stated on the document, and the dates on which it was 18 written, signed, or distributed;
- 4. the identity of its author or authors; 19 5. the identity of each person who signed it; 20 6. the identity of each person to whom it is addressed; 21 7. the identity of each person known to you or believed by you to have received a 22 copy;
- 8. the identity of the present custodian of
, 23 every copy known to you or believed by l you to exist; 24 9. each and every ground upon which you i base your claim of right to withhold the 25 document from production, including all facts necessary to evaluate the merits 26 of the claim.
l .- . .__ . -.
1 witnesses 7/, deprives Licensee of the ability to 2 investigate the merit of the claims of the Governor and its I
\
3 representatives before the limited time for discovery 4 passes. This is no time for games. Rather, the time has 5 come for the Governor and his representatives to responsibly 6 respond or to be dismiss'ed from the action, and, 7 ///
8 ///
9 ///
lo 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 7/ In answer to Interrogatory No. 2, requesting identifi-cation of witnesses, counsel for the Governor have said that no determination had been made as of that date.
22 It is hard to imagine that with the time remaining and the complexity of the issues involved, that such a 23 decision has not yet been made. As with other informa-tion requested, an eleventh-hour revelation will be 24 extremely prejudicial and burdensome to Licensee.
Frankly, we find it implausible that counsel for the 25 Governor have not yet decided to use Mr. Hubbard and Dr. Roesette as expert witnesses in the forthcoming 26 hearings.
1 accordingly, Licensee respectfully requests that such an 2 order be entered by this Board.
3 Respectfully submitted, 4 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
5 RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 6 P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 7 (415) 781-4211 8 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 9 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, AZ 85073 10 (602) 257-7288 11 BRUCE NORTON Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
12 P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix, AZ 85064 13 (602) 955-2446 14 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 15 16 17 By
\\
\\J Bruce Norton 18 19 DATED: August 4, 1983.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
u . . . .
UNITED STATES OF KMERICA
- j':' ' -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
$ *l4 /
)
< 3EmnEn '
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY \
) Docket No. 50-275 -
'\
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )
) Docket No. 50-323 t AUG 81983 > II' Units 1 and 2 )
$ 80 GTuc a
) -
BERYL 3 BRANcn /
srcy.nac g/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE d
hevo been served today:The foregoing documents of Pacific Gas and Electric Comp 1.
Motion of Licensee Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Leave to File Additional Pleadings 2.
Post-Hearing Brief of Licensee Pacific Gas and Electric Company Regarding Motions to Reopen the Record on Construction Quality Assurance ,
3.
Reply of Licensee Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Response to Motion to Compel Answers to* Interrogatories to Joint Intervenors .
4.
Reply of Licensee Pacific Gas and Electric Company to the j Answers of Governor Deukmejian to Motions to Compel Further Answers-to Interrogatories and Production of Documents following addressed: by deposit in the United States. mail, properly stampe i i
Judga John F. Wolf 4 Chairman Mrs. Sandra A. Silver ?
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1760 Alisal Street ?
3 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Mr. Gordon Silver jJudga Glenn O. Bright 1760 Alisal Street -
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John Phillips, Esq.
Joel Reynolds, Esq. [
g
'Judga Jerry R. Kline Center for Law in the Public Interes,t g Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 10951 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 300 E U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90064 E Uashington, D.C. 20555 %
David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
'4rs. Elizabeth Apfelberg P. O. Box 1178 h Oklahoma City, OK 73101 R
- /o Batsy Umhoffer E 0493 Southwood E 3an Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. !!
Snell & Wilner ML 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, AZ 85073 $[
EE
Ja'n'ico E..Korr, Ecq. Bruca-Norton, Ecq.
l Publig Utilitico Commiccion- '
4
.Nortonr Burks, Barry & French, P.C.
Stoto,of California P.- O. Box 10569 5246 State Building .
Phoenix, AZ 85064 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Chairman .
! Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Mro. Raye Fleming .jBoard Panel . -
1920 Mattie Road . U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission'~
Shall Beach, CA 93449 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman - " ' - - - - - -
- Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel ' Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~
'" ~ ~ ~
, .. Appeal Board .
Wachingt.on,,D.C. 20555 --U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20555 Washington, D.C.
Sscretary ,
O.S. Nuclear Regulatory " Chin~~miYs'sl6n'7-E'@u
.d@e.W.~.Rhed'Jbhhs6h Washington, D.C." 205'55 ""'" ' Ati6miE'Sifety and Licensing
~ _ . . , . . _ . . . . .. . . . . . . Appeal. Board. .
Attn: DocNittin' g. and'."SE'ryice' [." , fi.",5 U.'S. Nucl'hr e Regulatory. Commission
~ 3 Section .
..'.- . . E.:f C.; ",_
. . . .; 'i Washingt6h,' D.C.20555' -
--.J
- Lnwrence J, Chandler,.:Esq. ^'
...,
- Judge. John. H ._ Buck . .... . . .. _ _ .
Hsnry J. McGurren . . '*"C. .' ~~r: ' At6mid.' Safety' 'aha.. Licehsing . ..
U.S. Nuclear Regulat6rp.Cbmmisii'6n'~ -
' ' 2 Apji6'al~ Board ' ' ' ' "; - ~~ "
Office of Executiv'6 Legil Di're'ctor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.D.C.. . 20555... . . .. . , . . ..:. m .s.. W a. s. h.i n g t. o.n , D . C . . 20555
. . . . .. . . . . . - . .,...v Mr. Richard L. ..'ubba'd H r " l' ' Mi'ch'ael' J. Str0mwasser,'Esq. *' '
MHB Technical Associates ~ ~
Susan L.-Durbin, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite _K 4 . . . . Peter.H..Kaufman,_Esq. . ...
San Jose, CA 95125 ~ ? :l.
. . . . . . ,',..'.Tm. . t..
M..f '3580.
- 3. g ,.Wilsh'ite.31va., Suite 800 90010'
. C A-Mr. Carl Neiberger Telegram Tribune - .Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
P. O. Box 112 -Lowenstein, Newman,'Reis, and San Luis Obispo, CA 93402- ..
~ . . . 'Axelrad, P. C. ~ .
. .' .1.'I ? - -l'025 Connecticut 'Aven'u'e, N.W.
Mr. F ederick Eissler' ' ' c. ' ~ ~ ~ ' " " '
Washington, D.C.. 20036 Scenic Shoreline Preservation _
Conference, Inc. -
4623 Mora Mesa Drive. . m
~.. ..
i Santa Barbara, CA 9310'51 -
Dato: August 4, 1983 _
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
- Federal Express i