ML20128C604

Advises That Best Efforts Made to Complete Replies to Case 850607 Request for Admissions Re Sser 10 in Timely Fashion. Complaint in That Reply Woefully Behind Schedule Misplaced.Related Correspondence

ML20128C604
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/29/1985
From:	Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
References
CON-#385-651 OL-2, NUDOCS 8507030630
Download: ML20128C604 (2)

Text

4 61 j#  %

'1 UNITED STATE 8 p'

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmwoToN, D. C. 20066 June 29, 1985 O'u'5NC Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. 'M JA. -2 N0 '42 Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice of s t ut.it<

Suite 611 hrndtoc ima a, savia 2000 P Street, N.W. BRANCH Washington, D.C. 20036 In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (ComanchePeakSteamElectricStation, Units 1and2)

Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2

Dear Mr. Roisman:

Our Second Reply to CASE's Request for Admissions was issued June 7, 1985, relating to matters covered SSER 10. An advance copy of SSER 10 was provided to your clinnt, the Applicants and to the Board on May 17, 1985 and SSER 10 was issued for general distribution during the week of May 20, 1985. Our Second Reply was filed within 20 days of May 17, 1985. The complaint in your letter of June 24, 1985 that Second Reply was " woefully behind schedule" is misplaced.

Our Third reply relates to matters covered by SSER 11. SSER 11 was issued for general distribution on June 7, 1985; your client, the Applicant and the Board were provided advance copies on June 4, 1985. This reply covers son.e 92 requests for admissions. When we recognized that we were not able to complete it on June 27, 1985, late in the afternoon Mr. Berry called you, as a courtesy to counsel, to infom you that we would complete all or all but five on June 20, 1985 and, if we were not able to complete all, the remaining five would be separately issued on July 1, 1985. You were not in your office at that time. Mr. Berry saw you today and indicated our probable need to extend until Monday, July 1, 1985 our Third Re]Iy and indicated to me that you were quite cooperative and agreed. I than( you. However, it will not be necessary to delay our response to 87 of the requests for admission until Monday. Accordingly, we have today filed our response to 07 of the requests relating to 0A matters.

$ 5 s

t

] '

l I consider our commitment to use our best efforts to complete our reply to l CASE's request for admissions within 20 days to be, at this stage, a matter among counsel. That does not detract from its importance. For this reason we attempted to inform you that despite our best efforts we would require an additional day. I do not consider this to be at odds with our commitment and I certainly do not consider an additional day " woefully behind schedule."

7- incerely, l

Joseph Pv '

to l Deputy Chief Hearing Counsel l

' Office of the Executive Legal Director cc Robert Woolridge, Esq.

l l

l l

l l

- -